1
   

The "Overeducated" and Barack Obama

 
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 10:41 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;124321 wrote:
Bush was in office for just 10 months before the 9/11 attack. I was Clinton who was in authority when something could have been done, and Clinton did nothing against the terrorists. He never even heard of Al Quaeda. And as for Obama, he still "extends his hand" to Arab militants who laugh at him. It was Bush who finally eliminated Al Quaeda, and who kept America safe for 7 years, until Barack took office, Then the terrorists understood that with Barack in office, it was safe to attack again.
I understand your mind set , Bush cant be blamed for anything. Its either what his predecessor did not do or his successor has done. My o my and I am stupid enough to try and have a reasoned debate with you.
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 01:56 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;124321 wrote:
it was safe to attack again.
It is always safe to attack, a country cannot defend itself from infiltrators except, maybe, shutting down its borders. And even if countries could defend thenselves from terrorists properly, they would still be on the loss, since they would be spending an enormous amount of resources to defend thenselves against a tiny force, and all this tiny force needs to do is throw up a treat ever so often. Terrorists dont need to attack if they mere existence is enough to hurt the country.

Khethil;124356 wrote:

I've been following multiple news sources closely and have (thus far, anyway) concluded that most of the poll-slipping is due to US Citizens desire that our problems be fixed now. We don't have much patience - which is certainly our right. In any case, as Obama was touted as the Savior of All (which was neither good for him nor our country), folks want to know "Where's the beef?", and they want everything fixed now! And of course... blame *must* be laid (yes, we are a nation of blame-layers).
I would say humanity itself is a race of blame-layers. What is a bad thing, since we only get anywhere then we put the blame on ourselves. It might have been your friend who crashed your car, but it was you who gave him the key =)

Khethil;124356 wrote:

It's such a farce; this whole notion that The President is the end-all-be-all damner and savior of all things that happen. Congress plays a HUGE part - folks seem to forget this. Take the economic collapse of late; market dynamics, spurious economic interests, over-speculation and poor credit management over millions of people caused this. But we must lay that "sin" (as if it was a single sin) on someone; we can't very well crucify the millions of players actually responsible, so we turn to politics and frown heartily. Ugh...
Well its the government's job to organize and regulate these players as to prevent the system from crashing. If these players are to receive blame, I dont think the blame should be "you did wrong things with your money", but "you let the government fail you" =)

Khethil;124356 wrote:

ough I can't see how or why Unfortunately, the point of the story (this stereotype) further perpetuates political polarization and plays to the "My Team!" mindset; bad, bad. There needs to come a time where party-affiliation is de-emphasized. I find it such a shame just how much party-loyalties hamstring our efforts to progress.
I agree, but I think that the problem is not that parties do not realize that their radical opposition against the others is bad to the country, but that what they want is power, not the good of the country. If you want power, you will oppose everything the current administration does in order to make it look as bad a possible and thus increase your chances of getting the power next time.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 03:45 pm
@manored,
manored;124411 wrote:
It is always safe to attack, a country cannot defend itself from infiltrators except, maybe, shutting down its borders. And even if countries could defend thenselves from terrorists properly, they would still be on the loss, since they would be spending an enormous amount of resources to defend thenselves against a tiny force, and all this tiny force needs to do is throw up a treat ever so often. Terrorists dont need to attack if they mere existence is enough to hurt the country.

.


You are right. I should have written, "much easier", and "without much fear of retaliation". Then I would have been right.
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 09:27 am
@manored,
manored;124411 wrote:
Well its the government's job to organize and regulate these players as to prevent the system from crashing...


Nice Post, Manored,

I would like to add something to the quote above (which was concerning one of the main reasons for the economic woes we're all wallowing in).[INDENT]At the risk of playing Captiain Obvious, the government's "job" is what those people decree it to be.

There was, in place, controls to curb the poisonous financial instruments which helped contribute to the magnitude of the collapse, but the mindset that says "let the market take care of itself!" spawned a policy that basically told regulators to just leave it alone when they came across such risky instruments. Leaving it alone - when we're talking about regulating/curbing fraud on such a large scale - is never a good policy.
[/INDENT]Fine points, thank you.
0 Replies
 
melonkali
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 04:14 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;123466 wrote:
A fascinating report tells us that President Obama has heavy support from those with graduate degrees, called, "the overeducated"; interesting description in itself. I don't know how to interpret it. Has anyone any ideas? Here is the report from AP.

Obama Still Loved By The Over-Educated






Sam Stein Sam Stein - Thu Jan 28, 5:29 pm ET
President Obama's popularity has slipped among a wide swath of the population. Among the nation's over-educated, however, he continues to do just fine.
Gallup surveyed more than 25,000 voters over the past calendar year and found that the president remains well-liked among those with multiple degrees.
Fifty-eight percent of respondents with a postgraduate degree approve of the job Obama is doing, according to the study, compared to 49 percent of college graduates, 46 percent of those with some college education and 50 percent with high school education or less.
Indeed, while Obama's standing has fallen among each of these four groups since taking office, it is the postgraduate bunch who has stayed most closely committed, even giving the president a slight uptick in approval ratings over the last month.
The findings feed into the stereotypical political narrative that those with an advanced education are decidedly liberal and that those who are decidedly liberal are committed to Democratic politicians. Gallup, in fact, makes such a conclusion itself.
Since he has become president, postgraduates have been among his more reliable supporters, backing him at higher levels than do those in other educational groups.
But the relationship between "educational attainment and support for Obama" is nuanced. For instance, black voters, regardless of their educational achievements, back Obama at roughly a 90 percent clip. But with non-Hispanic white voters, the gap is quite large when delineating by education level.
Fifty-four percent of non-Hispanic whites with a postgraduate degree favor the job Obama is doing. Just 38 percent of non-Hispanic whites with a high school education or less say the same thing.


Whoa! I just read this thread for the first time tonight. Forgive my naivety, but I have to ask, in all seriousness -- not trying to intrude or spoil anyone's fun or, as I so often do, kill the thread -- you are intentionally playing "the devil's advocate" in this thread, aren't you? Is that how this kind of thread works? A kind of Clarence Darrow v. William Jennings Bryan thread? I love reading Darrow's rhetoric.

Well, my browser didn't show a link to the first article you cited, however, I did find the surveys at the Gallup site interesting. Did you read some of the related surveys listed on the right hand side? That Obama's first year 57% approval rating was on the low end of the continuum -- just like Reagan's 57% at the end of his first year?

No, I'm not answering the "call to debate" -- coming into the thread this late, it reads a little too vitriolic for me. By this point, in my neck of the woods, somebody would have taken a roundhouse swing at somebody else (intentionally missing, of course), then they both would have started the slow boxing-circling ritual, shouting to their friends, "Hold me back! Hold me back!" And then everyone would end up at the local bar laughing about the whole thing.

Don't get me wrong, I take the problems of our country and our world very, very seriously. Sometimes I, too, intentionally play the zealous provocateur when I feel that people are being too dry or passionless about something I feel very passionate about. If it were not the wee hours of the morning where I live, I'd probably jump right into this one, too. Maybe later. If I haven't killed yet another thread...

Anyway, interesting thread -- some good posts and colorful arguments from both sides.

rebecca
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/10/2022 at 11:29:44