A test on how politically savy you are.

[Hollis]

Interesting information is contained in the test.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/the_barack_obama_test.html

[Litti]

Picked two points though.



2. Despite the U.S. health care system often being described as a "free market", the U.S. spends more in public dollars per capita than almost all other countries, including Canada and the U.K. In fact, only Norway spends more (Table 1318). Note that these are public dollars, meaning government spending. Total public and private spending on health care in the U.S. is about double that, or about 16% of GDP.

Just goes to tell you how inefficient the privatized health care is in USA.


4. Between 1994 to 2004, carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. increased by 12.9%

That's a nice playact with the numbers, one should take into account how big the emissions are in the first place. A 54% increase for a person who earns 5€ / hour is less than a 12.9% increase for a person who earns 500€ / hour. p-)

[JJC]

I love how both left wing and right wing sites use stats, percentages to prove their point, and we all know how numbers can be played with both ways to support an agenda.

What did it for me was proving how Bush was more intelligent than 95% of Americans, even more so than most of college professors. OOOOKKKKK. So if my SAT score was slightly higher than Bush's should I be confident about by intelligence-whatever that is? I know the media does take cheap shots at Bush's intelligence and I'm sure he is not as dumb as we may think he is, but this "proof" is cynical.

[Mu-Meson]

Good article. It sums up why I ain't a liberal.

[Hollis]

Just goes to tell you how inefficient the privatized health care is in USA.





I think the CBC program I watched will disagree with you on effectiveness. Also how much is spent maybe has more to do with cost than effectiveness in the public sector. That would probably have been a better argument for you.

One might say, health care in the US is based on sort for Aristocracy, Doctors are aristocrats and nurse, techs are peons. There is a big gap between the to in regards to pay and "legal" power. It would be interesting to compare cost for a procedure in the UK and in the US. A simple office visit in the US can cost around $200, even if is a 5 min. visit.

[shocker1]

A simple office visit in the US can cost around $200, even if is a 5 min. visit.
A simple diagnostic fee at an automotive repair facility could range from $50-$100, kinda puts that into perspective. My visit to a doctor's office costs me $20 plus my monthly insurance payment. Which is around $500 per month for a family of three. The $1000 per year deductible is met pretty quick in this house.

[JJC]

True, cost is the biggest issue with our health care. I need to have surgery, (not urgent), and this type of surgery would cost me around $35,000 in the U.S. and $16-20,000 in Berlin.

[Zalmoxes]

I love how both left wing and right wing sites use stats, percentages to prove their point, and we all know how numbers can be played with both ways to support an agenda.

What did it for me was proving how Bush was more intelligent than 95% of Americans, even more so than most of college professors. OOOOKKKKK. So if my SAT score was slightly higher than Bush's should I be confident about by intelligence-whatever that is? I know the media does take cheap shots at Bush's intelligence and I'm sure he is not as dumb as we may think he is, but this "proof" is cynical.

I hate to point this out, but becoming the president of the USA requires a high degree of intelligence. Hanging in there once you're in the office and having two public wars and hundreds of mini wars to conduct, fighting your own congress, and trying not to do stupid things, among other things you must master, inherently takes a big load of brains. People call Kerry and Gore smarter, yet those two couldn't lie effectively to win the elections. Yes, being a "smart" lier is a sign of intelligence. As far as I can tell, the only big defect Bush has is that he can't speak in public, yet he still won two times.

I think Kerry would've won the election had he only known how to lie effectively. Once he started contradicting himself in the same sentence, people caught on and happily he lost. I want a good liar to lead me, even though I know he's bull****ting me constantly.

[Basillicus]

Heh, funny. There are some good points but also some dishonest or ignorant number twisting. If you play with numbers and leave some of the data out that might help putting them into context you can make compelling arguments, but they won't fool anyone in an intelligent debate.

[Litti]

I hate to point this out, but becoming the president of the USA requires a high degree of intelligence

I'd say achieving power requires more cunning than intelligence, atleast by my definition. I wouldn't call some of our leaders intelligent - far from it.

[shocker1]

IPeople call Kerry and Gore smarter, yet those two couldn't lie effectively to win the elections. Yes, being a "smart" lier is a sign of intelligence. .
Yep, the man even acknowledges this as posted in another thread.


“Oh, listen, if you're running for office, you can't run for office and not say, ‘I'm an agent of change,’" Bush told NBC News’ David Gregory. “That's just American politics. If I were running for office at this point I'd be saying, ‘Vote for me, I'm -- I'm gonna be an agent of change.’"
http://militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2978258&postcount=21

[Hollis]

One of the most capable leaders that I knew, was his ability to choose people who were really talented. He was no Einstein, but he could the right pick people.

It goes back it is not how intelligent you, it is how you use what you have. A 200 IQ person could possibly make the worlds worse leader.


Clinton is a very intelligent man, but he did not have enough common sense to leave Monica alone.

[Briggs]

Nice, had them all except the last one... Thought Bush would be around 70..not 95.

[shocker1]

Bush is a genius, he has managed to implement nearly all of the neoconservative think tank establishment's policy recommendations. Even at times against the advice of his cabinet. Hell he made many think he was a Conservative for a bit, but just like ole dad he is a globalist. Which at times is considered liberal thinking.

[Hollis]

Bush is a genius, he has managed to implement nearly all of the neoconservative think tank establishment's policy recommendations. Even at times against the advice of his cabinet. Hell he made many think he was a Conservative for a bit, but just like ole dad he is a globalist. Which at times is considered liberal thinking.


I have heard that too, I try to remember to keep that bit of tid bit in the back of mind. If it is true, he sure has lot of highly intelligent people fooled and it may be true.

[Rictor]

The U.S. federal government spent $474 billion on Defense-Military in 2005, well less than either Health and Human Services or Social Security (Table 461). In fact, it was less than 20% of all federal outlays and just 3.8% of GDP. These are historically low numbers and unprecedented for wartime.

1. This does not include the huge extra-budgetary supplements that finance Iraq and Afghanistan, which totaled $82b in 2005. Also not included in money for development and maintainence of nuclear weapons ($23b in 2007) and Veterans Affairs ($33b in 2007)

2. The overall global military expenditures for 2005 were an estimated $1,118 billion, which means that the US made up roughly half of that. Taking into account that the US has 4.5% of the population and 6.5% of the territory, this is disproportionately high by any sane standard.

[Invisigoth]

All I read was "bla bla bla you're an evil liberal, vote republican"; about as exciting as moveon.org's "bla bla bla you're an evil neocon, vote liberal". :(

[budgie]

You might be a liberal if you think:

What is this guy, Jeff Foxworthy?


We spend more on defense than we do on health care and other human services.

Actually the correct word would be uninformed, not liberal. A lot of people on both sides think that.


Our health care system is worse than other developed countries because the free market has failed and our government doesn't spend enough on health.

The US healthcare system is worse than some other developed countries for a whole host of other reasons besides free market policies. Don't worry, because a lot of us are not happy with our systems either.


The rich pay less in taxes than the poor.

I think it's misleading to accuse liberals of thinking such a thing, even though a lot of people may complain that the rich should pay more than they already do or that the poor should pay less. The misunderstanding here comes from the perception that despite paying higher rates on income tax, the rich miss it a lot less.

On the other hand it is true that many among the righ find ways to avoid paying taxes, through off shore banking, front companies and charities, expenses and dodgy accounting. This is true in many countries.


The U.S. is one of the worst offenders in producing global warming gases, and keeps on polluting while other countries are cutting back.

the US is one of the biggest polluters, but even liberals know that others like China are going to eclipse US emissions. This looks like an extension of teh 'liberals hate America' argument that is brought up as a last resort on most issues of foreign relations.


The biggest problem with Islamic terrorism is the resulting backlash against Muslims.

No, but I am sure liberals identify it as a minor problem. This looks like another version of 'liberals hate America'.


AIDS affects everyone equally, gay and straight.

Nobody believes that. Everyone knows AIDS affects poor countries in Africa and drug users more than any American, and that there are higher rates among gays than straights. Everyone has seen the stats.


We have high rates of rapes and ****** assault because of the availability of guns.

I believe the argument is that there are high rates of gun crimes and gun deaths in general because of the availability.


There was no good reason to invade Iraq in 2003, certainly not the threat of WMD.

This one has been done to death. There was no reason good enough as far as I can see. This might actually be the only genuine liberal 'misconception' here.


More lives would be saved by making helmets mandatory for motorcycle riders than would be saved by making them mandatory for pedestrians or car drivers and passengers.

This must be a pet cause for the authors. I doubt seriously that helmet safety is a left/right issue. I also doubt that more liberals than conservatives believe helmets save lives. The only reason for this being here is probably that the author owns a bike and doesn't like wearing his helmet.


President Bush is stupid.

President Bush has done some very, very stupid things.

This little list of popular liberal thinking is baloney. It's another example of some right-wing shill making up an 'argument' from the 'left' just so he can refute it. These misconceptions exist in the author's head alone.