American Idle

It's kinda like American Idol, but only if you sing my posts out loud.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Hamilton Square, New Jersey, United States

Tax guy, host & producer of the Consumerism Commentary Podcast, former co-host of the Wall Street Journal E-Report

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

62% of people apparently back Ahmadinejad's world views

Although there are probably a good chunk on international voters on CNN.com, it’s still disconcerting to think that the majority of people (at least those voting in this poll) think that Ahmadinejad…the man stating that Israel should be wiped off the map…could beat Bush in a debate on world issues.

Are the voters in this poll (presumably angry-lefters) *that* off the wall that they think a man who supports groups who aim to destroy the foundations of society can make a better case for his cause than George Bush can for spreading Democracy?

What exactly does this mean? Do the people who voted "yes" actually subscribe to Ahmadinejad's world views, or are they so jaundiced by their opinions on Bush that they'll stop at any chance to insult him whenever possible? It's gotten to the point where Bush could race into a burning orphanage, save 18 children on his own and the things that people would be talking about would be how "Bush let two other kids die" or how "Bush neglected safety advice of Secret Servicemen and jeopardized this country".

Disgusting.




4 Comments:

Anonymous Darren R. Sussman said...

Well, now, wait a minute. I think it depends on how you look at that question. The question is, do you think that Ahmadinejad is more capable of making his argument than Bush, and I think that the answer to that question probably IS "yes". Of course I don't agree with him and wouldn't back him over Bush, but the truth is that if the two were put head to head in a debate where the outcome didn't mean anything more than it did during a meeting of the debate team, then it'd be hard to argue that Bush could hold his own. He's pretty much proven that. And Ahmadinejad has proven that he is obviously quite persuasive, or why would his people support him in his lunatic views?

8/30/2006 12:18 AM  
Blogger Doobie said...

But look at the merit of the cases on each side (or at least what I assume they would be in such a debate). Spreading democracy vs. eliminate-Israel. Those two cases can stand on their own without anyone arguing in their favor. What this poll is saying is that people think that Ahmadinejad would make a better case for wiping out Israel than Bush could for spreading Democracy.

Now step back and think about that for a second. Is the Iranian world view *really* what most Americans (the majority of people on CNN.com) agree with, or believe they could be persuaded towards if they heard Ahamadinejad argue his point? They're saying that Bush is *so bad* that he could make democracy sound like a bad idea in a debate.

That's just wrong. To me, that doesn't even sound like rational thinking. It just sounds like a people taking another half thought out, gratuitous swipe at Bush.

8/30/2006 5:59 AM  
Anonymous Darren R. Sussman said...

I see what you're saying. Again, I think it all depends on how you look at the question. I guess I'm taking it on a purely debate skill level versus the actual issue itself.

8/30/2006 10:23 AM  
Anonymous Spike said...

I find it really hard to take any sort of web poll seriously. They are incredibly easy to stuff, and about as far away from "scientifically accurate" as... well... a book of stories compiled by religious people many centuries ago. :>

9/01/2006 6:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares