Obama is less competent than George Bush, say a plurality of Americans

[enhanced_deficit]

Disgraced dronegangsta droneking is now viewed less competent than even Bush by most Americans:


Obama is less competent than George Bush, say a plurality of Americans


With President Obama's approval rating still deep underwater, a new survey from Fox News finds that Americans generally think George W. Bush ran a more "competent" administration. In the survey, a 48 percent plurality said Bush's White House was more competent, while 42 percent picked Obama's.

At the same time, fully two-thirds of Americans said Bill Clinton's administration was more competent than Obama's, versus only 18 percent who liked Obama's better.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/262706/speedreads-obama-is-less-competent-than-george-bush-say-a-plurality-of-americans

[kahless]

Regardless of how you view policies of either, it is not only that Obama is less competent, it is that his staff is also less competent. It seems like the White House and state department are like frat houses with a bunch of clueless kids making the decisions and Obama following their lead.

[Original_Intent]

I was thinking as I drove into work this morning, Obama has me actually missing W. And my next thought was "How scary is that?"

[Ender]

Disgraced dronegangsta droneking is now viewed less competent than even Bush by most Americans:


Obama is less competent than George Bush, say a plurality of Americans


With President Obama's approval rating still deep underwater, a new survey from Fox News finds that Americans generally think George W. Bush ran a more "competent" administration. In the survey, a 48 percent plurality said Bush's White House was more competent, while 42 percent picked Obama's.

At the same time, fully two-thirds of Americans said Bill Clinton's administration was more competent than Obama's, versus only 18 percent who liked Obama's better.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/262706/speedreads-obama-is-less-competent-than-george-bush-say-a-plurality-of-americans

Riiiiight.

What that really means is that O isn't quite as war crazy as W.

Makes the neocons crazy.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I don't know, there's no difference in Marionettes, only the chosen ones that pull the strings... All the rest is just acting abilities.

http://theblacksphere.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Obama-puppet-300x449.jpghttp://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6608/752/1600/marionette_bush_grenade.0.png

[JK/SEA]

I don't know, there's no difference in Marionettes, only the chosen ones that pull the strings... All the rest is just acting abilities.

http://theblacksphere.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Obama-puppet-300x449.jpghttp://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6608/752/1600/marionette_bush_grenade.0.png


this...be careful of falling for that idea the American President has any REAL power. We all know who actually controls this rock.

[amy31416]

I was thinking as I drove into work this morning, Obama has me actually missing W. And my next thought was "How scary is that?"

Obama doesn't have the Cheney factor, thank God. Watch out for his daughter Lizard though, the Cheneys will strike again.

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/zzmNtEh.jpg

[jkr]

TASTES GREAT

LESS FILLING

same shit

[rpfocus]

Two sides of the same coin. And neither side is getting my vote. And lol @ a Fox News survey. I'm sure an MSNBC survey would find the exact opposite. Dance, puppets, dance.

[DamianTV]

Purposeful Misinterpretation

Kind of off topic. But think about how your average Fox News viewer will interpret this statement. They will NOT read it as Plurality, meaning more than one American", they will read it as Plurality, for them meaning "Majority". The difference between the two subjective interpretations is staggering. We could technically and factually say that "the Plurality of Americans are Child Molestors and Rapists" and the statement would be true. There does exist a Plurality, meaning "more than one" Child Molestor or Rapist in this country. However, the actual Majority of Americans are not Child Molestors or Rapists, but only a very small percentage.

"Newspeak" uses the same words as normal people, but phrased in such a way as to Sensationalize or Purposefully Misrepresent a persons interpretation.

Lets examine "Plural" again from shit we were taught.

Cat - Singular, only one Cat.
Cats - Plural form of Cat. More than one Cat.

Plurality does not mean either Majority or Super Majority, which is where the Misinterpretation comes from. The perception is altered by the context, where the expectation of a more commonly used word is used. When you swap out one word with an expected context, an interpretation of the word based on the context is applied. Plurality is quickly thought of as "more than", thus, the word "Minority" is not interpreted, but "More than" as an interpreted definition is interpreted. What is not clearly defined in a glance at the application of the word is "more than" what? More than half? More than previously? NO. Plurality simply means "More than one", but is interpreted as "More than HALF".

Ron Paul had a "Plurality" of states in the last election. Purposeful Misinterpretation there was not used as it was typically a means to discredit the good Doctor. MSM often repeated the definition, then distorted it. "Ron Paul has won the Primaries in a Plurality of States, but not enough to qualify him to be considered at the Republican National Convention", which was bullshit, but most people do not check their facts at all. The requirement at the time was a Plurality, defined in RNC rules as 5 States, which has since then been bumped up. Ron had won an estimated 11 States, which more than qualified him, and that is what was misrepresented in their claims to invalidate Ron Paul. And of course, for many people in the country who cant be bothered with taking the time to think, this invalidated Ron Paul as the Republican Presidential Nominee because the Propoganda / Newspeak was effective at altering their perception. Its no different than Frank Lutz asking his Loaded Questions.

An expressed opinion of "which dumb predisent is stupider" makes no difference in the actual outcome of the survival of this country. Both men are highly intelligent, corrupt, and manipulative warmongers. There are some differences between the two, none the less, the resulting consequences of the actions of both are identical for all practical purposes. So what is the point of a headline like this? I actually think this probably a distraction tactic where something much more important is happening. Not much different than "look at Justin Beibers new girlfriend, who is younger and has more value than your girlfriend" types of reporting. It also plays on Hegalian Dialect where the expected response is to first draw focus from something else, then provoke an emotional response. The conclusion is that the author of the article is a Republican Party supporter and this is his effort to discredit Democrats, while simultaneously pulling focus away from how the US is currently making efforts to destablize the Ukraine as much as possible, which affects Russia, China, and Iran. What specifically the article can pull focus away from can vary. You were NOT supposed to hear anything about the last weeks Bilderberg Meeting, so MSM distracted the issue with everything except Bilderberg Meeting. MSM will talk about meetings all the time. Press Conference with so and so, between these people, etc, but will NEVER talk about the most powerful men in the world getting together to decide their course of actions? How is that not newsworthy?

So does anyone disagree with any part of my post?

[CPUd]

Purposeful Misinterpretation

Kind of off topic. But think about how your average Fox News viewer will interpret this statement. They will NOT read it as Plurality, meaning more than one American", they will read it as Plurality, for them meaning "Majority". The difference between the two subjective interpretations is staggering. We could technically and factually say that "the Plurality of Americans are Child Molestors and Rapists" and the statement would be true. There does exist a Plurality, meaning "more than one" Child Molestor or Rapist in this country. However, the actual Majority of Americans are not Child Molestors or Rapists, but only a very small percentage.

"Newspeak" uses the same words as normal people, but phrased in such a way as to Sensationalize or Purposefully Misrepresent a persons interpretation.

Lets examine "Plural" again from shit we were taught.

Cat - Singular, only one Cat.
Cats - Plural form of Cat. More than one Cat.

Plurality does not mean either Majority or Super Majority, which is where the Misinterpretation comes from. The perception is altered by the context, where the expectation of a more commonly used word is used. When you swap out one word with an expected context, an interpretation of the word based on the context is applied. Plurality is quickly thought of as "more than", thus, the word "Minority" is not interpreted, but "More than" as an interpreted definition is interpreted. What is not clearly defined in a glance at the application of the word is "more than" what? More than half? More than previously? NO. Plurality simply means "More than one", but is interpreted as "More than HALF".

Ron Paul had a "Plurality" of states in the last election. Purposeful Misinterpretation there was not used as it was typically a means to discredit the good Doctor. MSM often repeated the definition, then distorted it. "Ron Paul has won the Primaries in a Plurality of States, but not enough to qualify him to be considered at the Republican National Convention", which was bullshit, but most people do not check their facts at all. The requirement at the time was a Plurality, defined in RNC rules as 5 States, which has since then been bumped up. Ron had won an estimated 11 States, which more than qualified him, and that is what was misrepresented in their claims to invalidate Ron Paul. And of course, for many people in the country who cant be bothered with taking the time to think, this invalidated Ron Paul as the Republican Presidential Nominee because the Propoganda / Newspeak was effective at altering their perception. Its no different than Frank Lutz asking his Loaded Questions.

An expressed opinion of "which dumb predisent is stupider" makes no difference in the actual outcome of the survival of this country. Both men are highly intelligent, corrupt, and manipulative warmongers. There are some differences between the two, none the less, the resulting consequences of the actions of both are identical for all practical purposes. So what is the point of a headline like this? I actually think this probably a distraction tactic where something much more important is happening. Not much different than "look at Justin Beibers new girlfriend, who is younger and has more value than your girlfriend" types of reporting. It also plays on Hegalian Dialect where the expected response is to first draw focus from something else, then provoke an emotional response. The conclusion is that the author of the article is a Republican Party supporter and this is his effort to discredit Democrats, while simultaneously pulling focus away from how the US is currently making efforts to destablize the Ukraine as much as possible, which affects Russia, China, and Iran. What specifically the article can pull focus away from can vary. You were NOT supposed to hear anything about the last weeks Bilderberg Meeting, so MSM distracted the issue with everything except Bilderberg Meeting. MSM will talk about meetings all the time. Press Conference with so and so, between these people, etc, but will NEVER talk about the most powerful men in the world getting together to decide their course of actions? How is that not newsworthy?

So does anyone disagree with any part of my post?

I always thought plurality meant more than any other group, like a primary that is split 40-30-30.

Your post is right on target though.

[mad cow]

plurality |plo͝oˈralitē| noun (pl. pluralities)
1 the fact or state of being plural: some languages add an extra syllable to mark plurality.
• [ in sing. ] a large number of people or things: a plurality of critical approaches.
2 the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority: his winning plurality came from creating a reform coalition.

Definition #2 is usually what people are talking about when referring to an election or poll. It means the largest chunk.

[56ktarget]

Half the country thinks Obama was responsible for Hurricane Katrina. Polls measuring subjective matters mean nothing (unless about elections for obv reasons).

Next.

[Spikender]

Half the country thinks Obama was responsible for Hurricane Katrina. Polls measuring subjective matters mean nothing (unless about elections for obv reasons).

Next.

That's some good BS you're huffing, buddy.

Your posts never cease to entertain and tickle my funny bone.

[AngryCanadian]

I was thinking as I drove into work this morning, Obama has me actually missing W. And my next thought was "How scary is that?"

there's no difference between the two, but i am starting to believe whats occurring everything is made to make Obama look bad and as if its everything is in his control but obama is just an pawn.

[AngryCanadian]

Two sides of the same coin. And neither side is getting my vote. And lol @ a Fox News survey. I'm sure an MSNBC survey would find the exact opposite. Dance, puppets, dance.

pretty much, the majority of the viewers of FOX are older people whom have an NeoCon POV of the world.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I was thinking as I drove into work this morning, Obama has me actually missing W. And my next thought was "How scary is that?"

I feel like Clinton will have us missing Obama.

[Christian Liberty]

That's some good BS you're huffing, buddy.

Your posts never cease to entertain and tickle my funny bone.

I don't know if the Katrina stat is right, but I actually agree with him. Who cares what the majority thinks about anything? Most people either don't pay attention, are downright stupid, or maliciously evil.

The problem is that this liberal doesn't realize that he is in one of the above categories (I'll assume the best and that its one of the first two.)

Its an interesting twist on something I've noticed amongst a lot of conservatives. They're smart enough to think liberals are stupid, but they don't realize they're stupid to. I remember when I was a conservative I'd be like "Why don't liberals understand the word ILLEGAL" (WRT illegal immigration) and thinking I was actually making an intelligent argument:rolleyes:


I feel like Clinton will have us missing Obama.

Probably. The next president, no matter who it is (Rand Paul a probable exception) will probably have us missing Obama. After all, they'll have even more opportunities for tyranny, paved by Obama.

[AuH20]

They are not incompetent. They are doing exactly what they are told.

[amy31416]

Half the country thinks Obama was responsible for Hurricane Katrina. Polls measuring subjective matters mean nothing (unless about elections for obv reasons).

Next.

Link?

[enhanced_deficit]

I don't know, there's no difference in Marionettes, only the chosen ones that pull the strings... All the rest is just acting abilities.

http://theblacksphere.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Obama-puppet-300x449.jpghttp://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6608/752/1600/marionette_bush_grenade.0.png



This.