Etcetera

Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

port1080.

Posted to Etcetera on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 06:50:38 AM EST (promoted from Diaries by Acefantastik). RSS.

For those of us who aren't as scientifically literate, a chance to burnish your bragging rights.  I managed 33 of 33.  Sadly, the average for the US public elected officials who took the test was only 44% right (compared to 49% for the public as a whole, which is sad enough since most of the questions are dead simple).  Republicans did slightly better than Democrats, but self-identified liberals and self-identified conservatives had essentially the same scores, with self-identified moderates doing slightly better.  Almost every single demographic category you can think of averaged out to a failing grade on the exam, except for PhD holders, who got a just barely acceptable 72% right on average.  Monetary success, marital status, age group, religious affiliation, race, finishing a four year degree - none of them were indicators that a person was likely to pass the exam.

Tags: (all tags)

This story: 44 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

John Adams.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 12:47:04 PM EST

none

32 out of 33-- and I'm ashamed of the one I got wrong.  The Gettysburg Address is how long, and I couldn't remember one key phrase from it?

5

^ 1

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

joshv.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 01:58:40 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

I missed that one and "wall of separation between church and state".  I hang my head in shame.

18

^ 1

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

novy.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 04:46:05 PM EST

5.00 (red)

Also 32 out of 33, but I hurried through that last question and should have gotten it right.

I think being Canadian I should be excused for missing one.

42

^ 18

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Adipic Acid.

Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 04:06:22 PM EST

none

You made the same mistake I did, and I think for the same reason. I need to remember there are no time limits on these things.

21

^ 1

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

improper.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 08:11:01 PM EST

none

Same, missed the Gettysburg Address answer.

22

^ 1

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Screename2000.

Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 11:05:46 AM EST

none

I think my penis is slightly longer than all of yours.  Put together.

26

^ 22

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

keta.

Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 12:22:00 PM EST

none

Which is why it's always in your mouth, I suspect.

33

^ 26

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Screename2000.

Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 01:47:24 AM EST

none

I wish.

27

^ 22

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

John Adams.

Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 12:22:05 PM EST

none

But is it longer than the Gettysburg Address (in 12-point font, Times New Roman.  Or Wing Dings 'cause that would be funnier.)?

2

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

T Slothrop.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 12:57:42 PM EST

none

32 out of 33, and only because I hurried and misread a question.

If the figures you are quoting are truly correct, then we are absolutely fucked and will lose even the appearance of our present freedoms in no more than a generation.

But I guess if we are as a whole really that stupid then we deserve whatever happens.

[I'm not that guy.]

3

^ 2

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

port1080.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 01:02:54 PM EST

none

Once you complete the quiz it gives you links to the demographic data - it really is that horrifying.  Unless they seriously fucked up their survey methodology (and I don't have any reason to think they did), we really are pretty much doomed.  It's amazing we've done as well as we have for as long as we have, honestly - I don't see how a democracy can function with an electorate that ignorant about its own governance and history.  And people wonder why I'm an elitist...

Allons-y!

23

^ 3

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Screename2000.

Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 11:20:48 AM EST

3.00 (astute, boring)

You are "elitist" because you equate esoteric knowledge about politics and governance to a citizenry's worth beyond just their knowledge of politics and governance (this assumes the "really are pretty much doomed" is a reflection of more than just doomed to our collective ignorance of politics and governance).

Whether one can discern the Lincoln-Douglas debates were about slavery's expansion into new territories versus whether slavery was immoral or the confederacy could secede is hardly "obvious" as many are claiming, just as half the questions on the test.

For a person to live, work, raise a family and be mostly moral in her every day dealings is a reflection of her worth as a citizen.  For a society to allow its citizens to do so easily is a reflection of its worth.  Society's ability to spread knowledge of the historical, philosophical basis for such ranks much lower on the scale of measuring whether it is "doomed."

You are an elitist.  Just as every other dumbfuck who, like you, rushed to talk about how many questions they got right (some laughably couching it in the "shame" of getting one wrong) and how awful it is how many the average American didn't.

24

^ 23

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

port1080.

Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 11:38:22 AM EST

none

Yeah yeah, champion of the people Screename2000, get a new schtick, why don't you?  This isn't difficult to comprehend - self governance relies on the people doing the voting to understand something about the issues that they're voting on.  If they demonstrably don't have any idea how government even works, or how the economy works, then how can they make informed decisions when they're voting?  These are real world issues - someone that thinks the President has the unilateral right to declare war is going to be very confused when Congress gets upset about something like Libya.  Some of the historical questions aren't as important, but the fact is, on average people given the survey got half wrong, which is pathetic.  So riddle me this - do you think that it really doesn't matter that citizens are ignorant about how their government and economy works?  If so, then by what feedback mechanism do you think the government should be held accountable for its actions?  Do you think that the very simplistic feedback loop we have now, which basically amounts to "economy good, vote the incumbents in, economy bad, kick the incumbents out" is not just acceptable, but ideal?  Or are you a "dictatorship of the proletariat" kind of guy that thinks elections are all shams anyway, and we should just put the "people" in charge? (funny how in systems like that, though, a small elite has far more control than they have even in the flawed system we live under now)

Allons-y!

32

^ 24

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Screename2000.

Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 01:46:10 AM EST

none

Only a fool thinks any government, democracies included, are run by citizens.  They are run by institutions of power; successful governments are run by several competing institutions of power.  A healthy discussion would focus on those institutions.

Your continued discussion of how "pathetic" Americans score 50% on a test you scored a 100% on with a tortured analysis of how those questions test fundamental knowledge required to vote serves nothing more than feeding your ego further and unsuccessfully attempting to wipe a little of the egg off your face.  You unwittingly sound like the old Jim Crow county official, "You dumb niggers ain't educated enough to vote!"

P.S. Speaking of egg on your face, your facetious first sentence and a half is uncharacteristic and much more reflective of "pathetic" if you need a true example.

34

^ 32

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

port1080.

Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 09:57:57 AM EST

5.00 (cogent)

When, in my comment, did I ever say the citizens directly run the government in a democracy?  I laid out a fairly clear explanation of the notion of the feedback mechanisms through which voting does matter, and can matter even more if the citizenry is better informed.  I'll ask again - do you think voting doesn't matter?  If so, how do you square that with your anti-elitist rhetoric?  Your point about institutions of power is absolutely accurate, but voting makes a difference in terms of which institution is favored at a given time (or are you of the opinion that "Democrats, Republicans, doesn't matter, they're all the same? - if so, I'd say the only reason politicians get away with that as much as they do is because the voting public isn't aware enough to call them on it).  Articulate for me - exactly how do you see democracy working in America?  How do you think it should work, ideally?  Why do you think that it isn't important that citizens be aware of something of their country's history and the "rules of the game" when it comes to how government is run, when you reflect on the first two questions?  

I guess what I'm asking ultimately is - do you think that it doesn't matter if citizens are ignorant, or do you just think that the linked survey doesn't accurately test what citizens need to know to make an informed electoral decision?  If the latter, articulate to me why you think the are informed - because I'd hazard a guess that on almost any reasonable questionaire you'd develop, you'd get similarly poor results.  People don't care about politics, and many even remain deliberately ignorant of politics ("it stresses me out, I don't want to have to think about it!").  I just don't see how you can look at the state of the American public today - no matter what ideological bent you have - and think that they know enough about politics to really make any sort of informed voting decision.  If you care about the notion of democracy, that has to bother you, at least a little bit.

Allons-y!

35

^ 34

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Screename2000.

Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 05:34:05 PM EST

none

I don't have any interest in responding to your babbling, cliched, back-tracking, poor-face-saving drivel, port.  What I will do instead is point out yet again your uncharacteristically pathetic attempts at argument:

"[D]o you think voting doesn't matter?"  Pathetic rhetorical question.

"I'd say the only reason politicians get away with that as much as they do..."  No they don't.  And what they do get away with has nothing to do with whether the average American knows who wrote the Star Spangled Banner, you fool.

"Why do you think that it isn't important that citizens be aware of something of their country's history and... how government is run."  More pathetic rhetorical questioning.  When did you stop molesting boys, port?

"...articulate to me why you think the[y] are informed..."  More of the same.  You've really debased yourself.  Rebutting a person's valid criticism (you're an elitist prick for so ardently claiming the fact that most Americans missed half of the questions of an esoteric civics exam means the doom of society while grandly proclaiming your own perfect performance) with nothing more than irrelevant and idiotic questions.

"I just don't see how you can look at the state of the American public... and think that they know enough about politics to really make any sort of informed voting decision."  Wow, you're like a massively elitist prick.

"If you care about the notion of democracy, that has to bother you, at least a little bit."  You and the over-educated, self-congratulatory buffoons of your ilk are what bother me, for the reasons I've already stated multiple times, which you're too "informed" to grasp.

36

^ 35

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

port1080.

Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 07:24:05 PM EST

none

So...in other words, you have no coherent response to my arguments.  Instead, you try to change the subject and scream ad hominem insults to cover up your basic inability to address any of the points that I raised.  I'll accept that as an acknowledgement that you don't have anything intelligent to say and move on, unless you'd like to try again.

Allons-y!

38

^ 36

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Screename2000.

Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 01:26:54 AM EST

none

I believe that's exactly what I just previously pointed out (with quotes) as what you did.  "Get a new schtick..."  "Call us sexists..."  I say you're pathetic and elitist based on your posts.  You're making the ad hominem attacks, port.  And yes, it's pathetic.

In all of this exchange, you have hardly to address the original argument I raised: only an elitist more interested in proving his false superiority over the masses could make the absurd argument that the average American's inability to discern "simple" questions, e.g., whether the Lincoln-Douglas debates were about emancipation, stopping slavery in new territories, the South seceding, etc. means the doom of society.

The only relevant point you've made is when you said, "These are real world issues - someone that thinks the President has the unilateral right to declare war is going to be very confused when Congress gets upset about something like Libya.  Some of the historical questions aren't as important, but the fact is, on average people given the survey got half wrong, which is pathetic."  Wrong, about half the questions are unimportant, if not most.  Your saying it's "pathetic" is what makes you an egomaniacal, pathetic elitist.

And no, the average American need not know Presidential vs. Congressional powers of war/engagement.  If this is a pivotal issue during an election, the American public will become educated about it.  Only an elitist can't see that a voting public's awareness of esoteric principles is only necessary when those principles are at play.  American democracy does a great job of putting those principles in play and expounding upon them through campaigns and media analysis when relevant during an election.

It tortures me to have to respond to such an absolutely weak and worthless rebuttal, especially when I have to search it out from the drivel, face-saving rhetorical questions, cliches that you've drowned out the  only two relevant sentences of your several posts.  I'd have responded to your rebuttal earlier, Port, if you'd actually shown you cared to make one.  You didn't.  Rather you chose to just puke irrelevant, cliched truisms and pathetic rhetorical questions to save face.  That's point number 2 I've made that you also haven't rebutted except with the above's, "I know you are, but what am I."  You just get more and more pathetic.

39

^ 38

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

port1080.

Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 07:04:27 AM EST

none

And no, the average American need not know Presidential vs. Congressional powers of war/engagement.  If this is a pivotal issue during an election, the American public will become educated about it.  Only an elitist can't see that a voting public's awareness of esoteric principles is only necessary when those principles are at play.  American democracy does a great job of putting those principles in play and expounding upon them through campaigns and media analysis when relevant during an election.

Hooray, a legitimate argument (and one that I've made myself on occasion).  I think it has some merit, and is why democracy works as well as it does, but it lends itself to crisis governance - major issues aren't dealt with until they come to such a head that they are obvious to the public and require an immediate response.  Everything else just gets pushed to the back burner.  Healthcare reform, SOPA, the entire response to the recent economic crisis - all of these debates would have been better served by a more informed electorate and more informed Congressmen (this is something we haven't discussed - government officials who took the test actually scored worse on the exam than average citizens), in that we could have gotten a faster response and quicker action (or in SOPA's case...the bill would never have come that close to consideration).  Maybe that is the only way that governance can work, and if it is, so be it, but I'd rather people be more engaged.  Even during election cycles people don't always have a strong grasp of campaign issues - political scientists have done a lot of research on this.  Most people vote mainly based on party affiliation (irrespective of issues) and how the economy's doing - that'll explain 90% of what goes on in most elections.  If that's the best we can do, that's the best we can do, but do you really think we can't do any better?

Allons-y!

40

^ 39

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Screename2000.

Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 01:59:08 PM EST

none

And your response now is why I didn't provide it earlier.  I don't want to have this discussion with you; it's kind of boring, but especially so with a self-admitted elitist.

The discussion I was raising is how your elitism is reprehensible and leads you down a completely hyperbolic path that has no basis in reality.  We've always been this ignorant, if not more so, and improved our lot rather than be "doomed."  But as I suspected, you will avoid that discussion with these inane, boring diversions because you know you have no rebuttal whatsoever to my point.

The further point I made about your ad hominem attacks and truly pathetic, infantile rhetorical flourishes in an attempt to avoid the previous point is also ignored.  I'm not surprised why one would do this; I'm just surprised it's you doing it and why I made the point rather than ignore it like I usually do.

41

^ 40

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

port1080.

Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 02:20:36 PM EST

none

The discussion I was raising is how your elitism is reprehensible and leads you down a completely hyperbolic path that has no basis in reality.  We've always been this ignorant, if not more so, and improved our lot rather than be "doomed."  But as I suspected, you will avoid that discussion with these inane, boring diversions because you know you have no rebuttal whatsoever to my point.

The US political system is both much more complex and much more directly impacted by vote tallies than it used to be - the situation was quite different when you had behind-closed-doors selection of candidates in party caucuses, indirect election of Senators (if you go back far enough), and so on.  In the past parties and party hierarchies were much stronger than they are now, for better or worse.  Now we have a system dominated on the one hand by well organized and well funded pressure groups (corporations, unions, interest groups like the NRA, pro-life and pro-choice groups, etc.), and on the other by party activists.  They winnow down the acceptable candidates (the former, by giving or not giving campaign funds, the latter through voting in primaries and doing grassroots work).  This has made our current system significantly different than in the past - and a lot more directly democratic, arguably, since candidates aren't picked in "smoke filled rooms" anymore.  This is generally a good thing, but I think it puts more systematic pressure on the voters to pick quality candidates than we saw in the past, when the candidates had already been winnowed down by the time it came around to vote.  This is why I think it's more important now than ever to have a well informed electorate.  

The further point I made about your ad hominem attacks and truly pathetic, infantile rhetorical flourishes in an attempt to avoid the previous point is also ignored.  I'm not surprised why one would do this; I'm just surprised it's you doing it and why I made the point rather than ignore it like I usually do.

Umm, you began all this by calling me a "dumbfuck" in your initial post, and you're accusing me of being the one to drag this debate into the gutter?  Pot, kettle, black, etc.

Allons-y!

43

^ 41

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Screename2000.

Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 04:19:10 PM EST

none

Nothing in your entire first paragraph relates to how the average American's exam performance means we're "doomed."  Your postulate that modern government is "more directly democratic" and thus "puts more systematic pressure on the voters to pick quality candidates" says nothing about how we're doomed.  In fact, in and of itself, it's a bit laughable.  I'm sick and tired of your high-school level history and government lessons to the world that do nothing but attempt to make you look smart.

To add the completely irrelevant fact that you scored perfect on the civics exam makes you a dumbfuck (as well as all those lauding their own performances).  That's an argument that's relevant to, in fact the heart of, my point.  It's not an irrelevant attack on your personage in order to misdirect the discussion from the argument (which is what the term of art ad hominem attack means).  Ad hominem doesn't mean using foul language like you morons keep intimating. Your reference to me calling everyone a sexist and the sarcastic remark about me always being a champion of the people is meant to misdirect the discussion from an argument that ripped you a new one.  There's the difference since you can't or purposely don't see it.

Your responses are not really worthy of my time, Port.  Next time I engage you, step it up a bit.

44

^ 43

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

port1080.

Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 04:33:32 PM EST

none

"says nothing about how we're doomed.  In fact, in and of itself, it's a bit laughable.  "

Okay, two things.  First...you've heard of hyperbole?  Second, argument by assertion...brilliant!  You're an arrogant asshole (I derive this directly from your writing style!), so if you want to keep on proving what a twat you are, feel free, but I'm done here.

Allons-y!

25

^ 23

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

port1080.

Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 11:40:15 AM EST

none

oh, and you forgot to call us all sexists - slipping a bit, are we?

Allons-y!

4

^ 2

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

John Adams.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 01:20:24 PM EST

none

The worst part, to me, was that on almost every single question, politicians did worse than the electorate.

6

^ 4

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

port1080.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 02:37:16 PM EST

none

The thing is, politicians aren't stupid.  They are very, very knowledgeable about the primary things that politicians do - what it takes to get elected, how to manage lobbyists, how to write bills and get them through Congress.  These are all very difficult tasks that require at least an average, and probably an above average, intelligence to master.  The problem is, none of this guarantees that a politician is actually writing good legislation, has any knowledge about the matters he or she is legislating on, etc, etc.  If we're viewing the US as more of an indirect democracy - Congressmen at simply there to carry out the will of their constituents - that's not a big deal.  If we're taking the view of the founders, and seeing Congressmen as being delegated to make decisions that sometimes go against their constituents wishes, for the good of the country, and the goal of elections to be to elect the best and most intelligent people, rather than the people who agree with us the most, then we're doing an awful job and should be terrified.  

Allons-y!

9

^ 6

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Ephraim Gadsby.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 02:59:29 PM EST

none

"none of this guarantees that a politician is actually writing good legislation"

Do you think the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was actually written by them?

"and the goal of elections to be to elect the best and most intelligent people"

So you will be voting for Romney over Obama?

Most politicians seem smarter than they are, because they are charismatic and socially adept.

11

^ 9

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

port1080.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 03:13:02 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

Do you think the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was actually written by them?"

Well, when we're talking about politicians writing legislation, it's just assumed that they actually didn't write it.  "Write it" is shorthand for "choose what legislation they'll bring to the floor," these days, and that's what I meant by it.  If they actually had to write the legislation, they wouldn't just be bad at it, they'd be disastrous.

So you will be voting for Romney over Obama?

I don't think Romney is much more intelligent than Obama - when things are more or less equal, then it comes down to policy.  If I could guarantee that the house and Senate would flip Democratic, though, I'd consider voting for Romney - I just worry about what would happen if Republicans controlled all three branches of government.  I'd vote for Romney over Biden in an instant, though, and damn the consequences, on exactly the grounds I laid out - Biden's too mentally deficient to hold that office.  Intelligence isn't everything, though - I don't doubt that Gingrich is more intelligent than anyone else in the Republican field, or any recent president (including Obama), other than perhaps Clinton, but he'd make an awful president.  Woodrow Wilson may have been the most intelligent US President (certainly the most well educated and academically accomplished), but he clearly wasn't the best, and probably even belongs in the bottom ten or so (without question, in the bottom half).

Most politicians seem smarter than they are, because they are charismatic and socially adept.

Agreed.

Allons-y!

12

^ 11

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Ephraim Gadsby.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 03:22:28 PM EST

none

Romney is significantly smarter than everyone else in the field.

13

^ 12

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

port1080.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 03:31:31 PM EST

none

Business success == smarts, at least not necessarily - or at least, it doesn't guarantee you're going to score high on that civic literacy test, to put it another way.  I don't doubt Romney's intelligent, but other than his business acumen, what makes you think he blows the rest of the field away?

Allons-y!

15

^ 13

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Ephraim Gadsby.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 03:53:08 PM EST

none

The type of business success he had demonstrates high intelligence.

14

^ 11

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

keta.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 03:52:52 PM EST

none

Who was it that said, "if you think Gingrich is the smartest man in the room, leave the room."?

16

^ 14

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

port1080.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 04:02:22 PM EST

none

He has a PhD from Tulane, not a complete joke of a school.  His dissertation was on Belgian education policy in the Congo, which he researched by spending a few years in Belgium, so presumably he can at least read French, even if he mocks Romney for speaking it.  Believe me, I know plenty of exceptionally smart people in academia who would make awful politicians and horrendous presidents - the skill sets don't really cross over.  It actually kind of shocks me that Newt has done as well as he has.

Allons-y!

17

^ 16

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

keta.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 04:40:17 PM EST

5.00 (agreed)

Yeah.  I work in academia so I know all about egg heads.

I think all four of the remaining GOP primary candidates are intelligent, to a degree.  Where they (and politicians generally) get into trouble is when they start pandering.

And pandering to the really-out-there faction of the right wing means you have to express belief in some crazy fucking notions.

7

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Ephraim Gadsby.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 02:46:21 PM EST

5.00 (informative)

ISI publishes interesting books and journals that you should read.

8

^ 7

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

port1080.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 02:54:37 PM EST

none

Interestingly, the ISI headquarters is only about 15 minutes away from where I currently live.

Allons-y!

10

^ 8

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Ephraim Gadsby.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 03:08:42 PM EST

none

They do good work. Modern Age has a right wing perspective, in contrast to National Review and the Weekly Standard, which are Republican/neocon propaganda.  I've bought a number of books from them, this is one I remember off the top of my head.

19

^ 7

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

thefadd.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 06:09:32 PM EST

none

That 5-informative was because I automatically assumed that by ISI you meant the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence. I was soooo disapointed when I tabbed over...

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

20

^ 19

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Ephraim Gadsby.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 06:35:51 PM EST

none

I know a guy who wrote a book that's classified Top Secret.

30

^ 20

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

thefadd.

Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 04:12:29 PM EST

none

His name isn't Val is it?

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

31

^ 30

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Ephraim Gadsby.

Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 04:24:40 PM EST

none

28

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Gaius Petronius.

Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 12:38:55 PM EST

none

100%-- I'm filing my papers to run for Congress on Monday.

It was an interesting collection of questions, but I have a few quibbles. Why the Sputnik question, or the one about the Cuban Missle crises? I don't quite see what they have to do with an American civics lesson. I also think the one about the Lincoln/ Douglas debates is more for a history quiz than a civics test. How many of the college students who did so poorly hung up on those questions?

29

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

Bryan Bytehead.

Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 01:10:48 PM EST

none

Missed 2.  Gettysburg and the debates.  Too long ago for me reading about the debates to remember.

37

Re: Test your (U.S.) Civic Literacy

WMK.

Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 03:35:48 AM EST

none

You answered 32 out of 33 correctly -- 96.97 %

Question: If taxes equal government spending, then:
Your Answer: government debt is zero
Correct Answer: tax per person equals government spending per person on average

fucknuts!

"...when theft and high crime becomes obscenely obvious to even the blindest beer sucking idiot, it is always the Republicans who are in office." -- Joe Bageant

This story: 44 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment