29% of Obama supporters believe in constitution

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Hahahaha, oh man, this sums up Obamaites better than anything I have ever read in my life:

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

hahaha: "Waaa, it's not fair they have more money, give it to me! They didn't earn it! Waaaa!" hahahaha, Democrats kill me.

Full Article (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/supreme_court_ratings/supreme_court_update).

[bigshotprof]

First, and as I am sure Steve is aware, these answers have nothing to do with whether people "believe in the Constitution." They reflect how people feel about the circumstances under which the Constitution should be altered over time--which given the right's fawning insistence on "the framers' intent" was clearly what the framers intended.

Second, if we look back over the last eight years and the shredding of the document by the Neocons--checks and balances, Congressional oversight, disposition by impeachment for treason (making public the name of a covert agent during war time qualifies, Mr Vice President), etc. and if we count the Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution then the dismantling of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 10th shows clearly that it is the GOP who wipes its rear with the Constitution.

And by the way, if Clarence Thomas really supports strict constructionism, then he shouldn't have a full vote, since he is only 3/5th of a person.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

...if we count the Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution then the dismantling of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 10th shows clearly that it is the GOP who wipes its rear with the Constitution.lol, clearly. :rolleyes:

[tokenuser]

First, and as I am sure Steve is aware, these answers have nothing to do with whether people "believe in the Constitution." They reflect how people feel about the circumstances under which the Constitution should be altered over time--which given the right's fawning insistence on "the framers' intent" was clearly what the framers intended.I was going to make a similar post.

As an outsider, I'll also make a brief mention that the Bill of Rights as a lable is not all inclusive of the amendments, only covering the first ten, yet the constitution itself is inclusive of all amendments as being held to the same level as the original document.

Except I guess the ones that the current government finds "inconvenient" ;)

I'll also point out that while Rasmussen Reports are atually fairly neutral, they are conservative with Scott Rasmussen being a paid advisor to the RNC and GWB in 2004.

Take that how you will ... but I'd like to know the questions that were asked.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

... but I'd like to know the questions that were asked.Probably the usual... are you against handguns, are you for the fairness doctrine, do you feel that someone that worked harder than you deserves their money, etc...

[masherscf]

Dude! They had a poll and asked people if they were against "Woman's Suffrage." Like 80% of the people said "yes." You can get people to answer anything in a poll if you word it correctly.

[phatlip12]

Ok, I seriously don't understand this and it's bugged me for a while now.

Why is it Republicans main concern seems to be higher taxes? They seem to imply they stand for our rights more then any other party yet their main concern seems to be taxes and guns? I don't understand this.

Habeas corpus has been stripped from us. We're torturing people but you guys think higher taxes and being able to shoot deer with your guns is more of a civil rights violation then the right to habeas corpus?

It seems as though your intentions are pure but your priorities are seriously out of whack.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

You can get people to answer anything in a poll if you word it correctly.62% of all people know that!

Ok, I seriously don't understand this and it's bugged me for a while now.

Why is it Republicans main concern seems to be higher taxes? They seem to imply they stand for our rights more then any other party yet their main concern seems to be taxes and guns? I don't understand this.Those are just the main issues that Democrats take on. There are several other issues that are a little more low key. Like the SucknessDoctorine.

Also, I guess I'm technically not fully Republican. I dabble quite a bit into Libertarianism.

[phatlip12]

62% of all people know that!

Those are just the main issues that Democrats take on. There are several other issues that are a little more low key. Like the SucknessDoctorine.

Also, I guess I'm technically not fully Republican. I dabble quite a bit into Libertarianism.

I do as well but Im obviously more left and you right. In many ways we have more in common than we think. We all seem to be in favor of less government but have different definitions of less. I too don't favor higher taxes. However, I think we can still have specific government programs through smarter spending.

[tokenuser]

Those are just the main issues that Democrats take on.I've heard Dems talking more about education, health care, and the economy than gun control and taxes.

The higher taxes issue is the biggest furphy of the current election - after the GOP bitching about biased media coverage of Palin.

Fact - Taxpayers earning less than $250K will pay less tax.
Fact - Something like 54 days until the election. Stop hiding Palin ... and the "lipstick on a pig" comment has been used long before Palin mentioned that she was a pitbull.

[phatlip12]

Seriously though, aren't the issues I mentioned more important then a little more being taken out if your check?

[tokenuser]

It seems as though your intentions are pure but your priorities are seriously out of whack.Seems to be a common complaint about GOP. Their government keeps getting bigger, they are taxing all but the top constiuents higher, they talk about family values - but are not upholding them.

I am surprised more people aren't disenchanted with the party than it appears.

To be honest, the best thing that could happen to the GOP is for them to lose the election - and force them to really re-evaluate their party values. McCain talks about change ("huh? isn't that the other guy?"), but if there is a GOP president, the entrenched Reps in Washington will continue on with more of the same - inertia is hard to overcome.

Clean out Washington. Bring in new faces, new ideas. Let the GOP lick its wounds and rebuild itself, and come back stronger in 2012.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

I do as well but Im obviously more left and you right. In many ways we have more in common than we think. We all seem to be in favor of less government but have different definitions of less. I too don't favor higher taxes. However, I think we can still have specific government programs through smarter spending.I'm all for smarter spending. Both parties spend out the ass.

Fact - Taxpayers earning less than $250K will pay less tax."Fact" 40% of people under 250k already don't pay ANY tax.

Fact - Something like 54 days until the election. Stop hiding Palin ... and the "lipstick on a pig" comment has been used long before Palin mentioned that she was a pitbull.Oh, relax, your "politic's of change" leader has sent 30+ people to Alaska to get some dirt on her. I'm sure they'll find something. Glad he's playing the "bigger man" as he said! Change!

Clean out Washington. Bring in new faces, new ideas. Let the GOP lick its wounds and rebuild itself, and come back stronger in 2012.The problem is by then your Democrats will have such a strangle hold on the American people no one will want to do anything at that point.

"Wait, what? That President electee wants me to take care of myself? Fuck that, I'm voting for the other guy now!"

...and the "lipstick on a pig" comment has been used long before Palin mentioned that she was a pitbull.OK, your point? That doesn't mean he wasn't specifically calling her a pig. Watch the video. The crowd OBVIOUSLY gets his correlation, and he obviously picks up on it. He even pauses, and then finishes anyway saying "It's still a pig."

utHZ7zYytLk

The best part is there was an AP article that even said the correlation was obvious, but the article was taken down and rewritten! LOL, go media!

[kahunablair]

"Fact" 40% of people under 250k already don't pay ANY tax.


Wait... What?

[phatlip12]

Wait... What?

If such a statement is true that just shows a large % of the population is in poverty which would justify those "liberal government programs". :)

[bigshotprof]

I'm all for smarter spending. Both parties spend out the ass.

"Fact" 40% of people under 250k already don't pay ANY tax.

Oh, relax, your "politic's of change" leader has sent 30+ people to Alaska to get some dirt on her. I'm sure they'll find something. Glad he's playing the "bigger man" as he said! Change!

The problem is by then your Democrats will have such a strangle hold on the American people no one will want to do anything at that point.

"Wait, what? That President electee wants me to take care of myself? Fuck that, I'm voting for the other guy now!"

OK, your point? That doesn't mean he wasn't specifically calling her a pig. Watch the video. The crowd OBVIOUSLY gets his correlation, and he obviously picks up on it. He even pauses, and then finishes anyway saying "It's still a pig."

utHZ7zYytLk

The best part is there was an AP article that even said the correlation was obvious, but the article was taken down and rewritten! LOL, go media!

Soooo. The Dems should let the GOP beat up on them and just sit back and take it, because they want to change the way things are done? McCain used the pig line, PALIN used the pig line, but it's not okay for Obama? Is her allowed to mention hockey? or Mothers? What else is off limits?

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Soooo. The Dems should let the GOP beat up on them and just sit back and take it, because they want to change the way things are done? McCain used the pig line, PALIN used the pig line, but it's not okay for Obama? Is her allowed to mention hockey? or Mothers? What else is off limits?Oh hell no, Obama better keep it up. I think it's doing wonders for his ratings.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Wait... What?When you look at the top 50% of taxpayers you will see they will account for 97% of all federal income taxes.

When it comes to the bottom 50%, the people Barack wants to give money too because it's "fair," they only paid 3%. When you get to the bottom 45% of income earners you reach the magic number of 0.0%.

The Democrats still try to convince the American people that the "evil rich" are still not paying their fair share. In 1970 the highest tax rate was 70%. At that time, the top 1% of income earners shouldered 16.7% of the income tax burden. Now that the rate is at 35%, they shoulder about 40% of the burden.

But you Barack Obama supporters .... "Yeah, I am voting for Barack because he is going to tax the evil rich. They need to pay their fair share."

The fact is that his Robin Hood scheme has proven that it won't work. But it sounds really good on the campaign trail, and the masses believe it. Hell, they chant it.

[phatlip12]

When you look at the top 50% of taxpayers you will see they will account for 97% of all federal income taxes.

When it comes to the bottom 50%, the people Barack wants to give money too because it's "fair," they only paid 3%. When you get to the bottom 45% of income earners you reach the magic number of 0.0%.

The Democrats still try to convince the American people that the "evil rich" are still not paying their fair share. In 1970 the highest tax rate was 70%. At that time, the top 1% of income earners shouldered 16.7% of the income tax burden. Now that the rate is at 35%, they shoulder about 40% of the burden.

But you Barack Obama supporters .... "Yeah, I am voting for Barack because he is going to tax the evil rich. They need to pay their fair share."

The fact is that his Robin Hood scheme has proven that it won't work. But it sounds really good on the campaign trail, and the masses believe it. Hell, they chant it.

How and why do you tax the poor?

[esophagus]

How and why do you tax the poor?Because they need to pull their own weight. No breaks, no matter what you make.


At least, I'm guessing thats what he'll say.

[phatlip12]

Because they need to pull their own weight. No breaks, no matter what you make.


At least, I'm guessing thats what he'll say.

If so I whole heartily disagree.

[bigshotprof]

When you get to the bottom 45% of income earners you reach the magic number of 0.0%.
.

Could you source this one for me, please?

[kahunablair]

Wait... What?


I don't know if that's a typo, but is this what you are trying to say?
50% pay 97%
50% pay 3%
45% pay 0.0%

I'm guessing I misread it and you are trying to say that it's:
50% pay 97%
5% pay 3%
45% pay 0.0%

So... what you are saying is that the people that aren't making a lot of money aren't giving the same amount of money as the "rich" people? So the people with less are giving... less?

So if we took 3 people and asked them all to give 25% of what they make.
Person 1 makes $1,000,000 so he gives $250,000
Person 2 makes $40,000 so he gives $10,000
Person 3 makes $10,000 so he gives $3,333
So our fake government's budget would be $263,333.

So that would mean that Person 3 would only be giving 1%, Person 2 would be giving about 4%, and Person 1 would be giving 95%.

Person 1 makes more money, so he get's taxed for more of it. I don't see the problem here. Obviously you do.

What option would you propose to fix this?
Take all of Person 3's money?
Become a communist society in which we make it so all 3 people get $350,000 and pay $87,500 each?

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Person 1 makes more money, so he get's taxed for more of it. I don't see the problem here. Obviously you do.You must be a successful business owner then. The problem with that is it teaches people to rely on the government. Don't work hard and create jobs for America. Otherwise America will punish you.

What option would you propose to fix this?FairTax. Done and done. Removes bullshit government power. From BOTH parties. No more buying votes from the poor.

[phatlip12]

Wait... What?


I don't know if that's a typo, but is this what you are trying to say?
50% pay 97%
50% pay 3%
45% pay 0.0%

I'm guessing I misread it and you are trying to say that it's:
50% pay 97%
5% pay 3%
45% pay 0.0%

So... what you are saying is that the people that aren't making a lot of money aren't giving the same amount of money as the "rich" people? So the people with less are giving... less?

So if we took 3 people and asked them all to give 25% of what they make.
Person 1 makes $1,000,000 so he gives $250,000
Person 2 makes $40,000 so he gives $10,000
Person 3 makes $10,000 so he gives $3,333
So our fake government's budget would be $263,333.

So that would mean that Person 3 would only be giving 1%, Person 2 would be giving about 4%, and Person 1 would be giving 95%.

Person 1 makes more money, so he get's taxed for more of it. I don't see the problem here. Obviously you do.

What option would you propose to fix this?
Take all of Person 3's money?
Become a communist society in which we make it so all 3 people get $350,000 and pay $87,500 each?

If they're all giving 25% where applicable its an equal blow based upon what they make.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Could you source this one for me, please?Do a forum search of my name. You'll find a conversation between rabidbadger and I where I lay out the source, and the numbers.

How and why do you tax the poor?
The FairTax is the most fair tax of all of them towards the poor.

Hell, I'd even vote for Obama if he promised to "change" to the FairTax. Hell, I might even go with Universal Health Care too.

[tokenuser]

Oh, relax, your "politic's of change" leader has sent 30+ people to Alaska to get some dirt on her.And your Maverick sent his crack team of ex-lobbiests to Alaska to run interference - before Goose was announced as the VP nominee.

[tokenuser]

When you look at the top 50% of taxpayers you will see they will account for 97% of all federal income taxes.

When it comes to the bottom 50%, the people Barack wants to give money too because it's "fair," they only paid 3%. When you get to the bottom 45% of income earners you reach the magic number of 0.0%.

The Democrats still try to convince the American people that the "evil rich" are still not paying their fair share. In 1970 the highest tax rate was 70%. At that time, the top 1% of income earners shouldered 16.7% of the income tax burden. Now that the rate is at 35%, they shoulder about 40% of the burden.

But you Barack Obama supporters .... "Yeah, I am voting for Barack because he is going to tax the evil rich. They need to pay their fair share."

The fact is that his Robin Hood scheme has proven that it won't work. But it sounds really good on the campaign trail, and the masses believe it. Hell, they chant it.Some linkage for you (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031678,obamamccaintaxplans.article) ... as a page it sucks (at least in Opera - keep scrolling), but pay attention to the table at the bottom of the page.

I found it via this article here (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031678,obamamccaintaxplans.article).

[secret-steve-crumbles]

And your Maverick sent his crack team of ex-lobbiests to Alaska to run interference - before Goose was announced as the VP nominee.
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff99/Bojangles888/tg.jpg

[tokenuser]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3171/2846480541_4ecb2706b2_o.jpg

[yssman]

Hey, here is something interesting right from the top of the article:

Thirty-two percent (32%) of likely voters say the Supreme Court is doing a good or excellent job.

That does not speak well to those who think the Supreme Court should be packed with more conservative judges...

===

On the issue of how to view the Constitution, I tend to be one who views it as a living document (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution) more than a strict constitutionalist may. Its a difference of opinion, really. More Democrats (and moderate Republicans) are going to share this view, which partially explains the numbers.

[skyz]

What else is off limits?

FISA

*constitutional lawyer* votes for FISA

[comhcinc]

you know i just took the time to look at this and this poll and it's numbers are totally bogus.
National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted September 2, 2008
By Rasmussen Reportslink (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/pt_survey_toplines/september_2008/toplines_supreme_court_ratings_september_2_2008)

a thousand people? that is suppose to represent the views a majority of people in this county. bull.

this poll is an EPIC FAIL.

[masherscf]

this poll is an EPIC FAIL.

I guess you don't believe in sampling. A small sample doesn't lead to complete invalidity. However, if your trying to test a hypothesis, it does introduce a margin for error. As Crumbles doesn't admit a margin of error, the hypothesis is invalid.

BTW, I just took a quick poll of sitting Republican presidents and 0% of them believe in the constitution.

[comhcinc]

I guess you don't believe in sampling. A small sample doesn't lead to complete invalidity. However, if your trying to test a hypothesis, it does introduce a margin for error. As Crumbles doesn't admit a margin of error, the hypothesis is invalid.

BTW, I just took a quick poll of sitting Republican presidents and 0% of them believe in the constitution.

you are the numbers guy not me, but i think that number is way to small to be any way near accurate. the poll claims Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

how can that be right?

[tokenuser]

you are the numbers guy not me, but i think that number is way to small to be any way near accurate. the poll claims

how can that be right?Statistically, it could be correct, meaning that the required number of questions were validly answered.

What it doesn't say is the methodolgy used for picking or excluding the sample set. My sense of this is second hand via my wife who continualy complains about the lack of details on the selection and exclusion criteria for subjects in studies (surveys) - because in her world it directly impacts her research.

A poll of 1000 people taken on a street corner in Denver 2 weeks ago would have been different to a random poll taken nationally.

I don't mind answering polls on the phone. I get them fairly regularly, but now I ask up front. Is this an election poll which requires that I be eligible to vote in the USA. That generally cuts the conversation short.

[masherscf]

The real problem with polls is self selection. The result of a poll where a person can opt-in or opt-out is pretty much bogus. This kills all sorts of online polls.

[skyz]

The real problem with polls is self selection. The result of a poll where a person can opt-in or opt-out is pretty much bogus. This kills all sorts of online polls.

i watched a multi hour bbc program based on a machivallian fictional male prime minister

and he has an affair with a famous pollster and in one of the best lines in the hours and hours long program was this:

'you can get people to say anything but you cannot get people to do anything'

that is the limitation with polls: 'what people are willing to say is not necessarily what they will do in the voting booth or if those saying will even go to vote''

[darknessgp]

Since this is related to the Constitution... Here's a quote of what 1 guy I heard say about how he takes the constitution.

When the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law" I take it to mean "Congress shall make no law"