Bush and Kerry Supporters Have Separate Realities 698
corngrower writes "A report by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland correlates voters' perceptions of world attitudes and events with their choice in candidates. It's an interesting read, and shows voters supporting Kerry as being more in tune with the events and world attitudes surrounding the war in Iraq."
Nice Story! (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, after reading it, I was quite happy that someone put out some evidence for what I've observed. If I had a dollar for every time I tried to tell someone that Iraq really didnt have nukes....
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Interesting)
Never mind the fact that Bush just got endorsed by Iran; the link is in my
I hope it is made so on the 2nd.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:4, Informative)
--trb
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)
'With less then three weeks until the U.S. presidential election, President George Bush has received endorsements from two world leaders, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Austraslian [sic] Prime Minister John Howard.'
So now we're equating heads of state with states themselves?
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Interesting)
Man, talk about hypocrisy...
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Insightful)
If your speaking of their respective goveremnts, it is may be different.
Not just Iran -- al Qaeda too! (Score:5, Informative)
It absolutely amazes me that the Kerry campaign is not using this to promote their candidate. Kerry has all but conceded major ground to Bush by not explaining that it is Bush who is the far more palatable candidate for terrorists, because it is the Bush Administration which has done more than any previous U.S. Administration to encourage and facilitate the spread of international terrorism. And the terrorists know it.
On a lighter note, here's another Bush endorsement [satanforbush.com] that we might want to be concerned with.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:2)
Funny thing, as (some) terrorists actually support the reelection of Dubya [amenusa.org]
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, the rest of the world understandably is distrustful of the US as the most powerful nation in the world. They want a weaker or less assertive superpower, or at least to have some control. Well tough. Our job is to look out for ourselves first, not to win some popularity contest. The world isn't a warm fuzzy place and countries take advantage of any weakness they can. Compare what happened in North Korea, during the Clinton administratio
Re:Nice Story! (Score:4, Interesting)
Not really. We want YOU to have some control. A loose cannon is dangerous to everyone in the world. I don't particularly mind the US playing world police as long as you obey some kind of ruleset and there are some checks and balances that prevent you from just raiding anyone you feel like. A deranged chief of police is a danger to all the law-abiding citizens and neighboring counties too, you know - not just the criminals in his 'hood. You're a superpower, start acting like one instead of a spoiled frat brat. Oh, wait...
Compare what happened in North Korea, during the Clinton administration to what has happend there during the Bush administration for perfect evidence of that
Nothing much compared to them flaunting their nuclear weapons program? Big step forward, there. I feel much safer already.
Clinton's policies of letting the rest of the world walk all over us.
Well, he bombed Iraq back into submission and bombed Ghadaffi all the way back to humankind. That's no mean feat, right there. I also seem to recall a lot of craters in Bosnia. Clinton picked his fights, figured out his goals and achieved them with minimal loss of life. Bush was caught unaware, paniced and attacked the wrong goddamn country for the wrong goddamn reasons. Twice. And then he's not even enough man to admit it. No fucking wonder you live in a fantasy world - your guy is a moron and what does that make you for supporting him?
Denial isn't a river in Egypt, it's SOP for the GOP.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, making things stable so you won't have to stay indefinitely is the right thing to do. Bush hasn't done squat to actually stabilize Iraq, he's just keeping the occupation at some kind of status quo with more or less daily insurgent attacks. If you want to call that stable, fine. It shouldn't have to take five+ years to overthrow a hated dictator and free his people. If it does, you're doing something very wrong. Just look at how fast eastern Europe adapted to not having the big red bear breathing down their backs.
I'm not saying Clinton was the best president ever (he would rank above average in my book for the last 50 years with FDR and Ike tied for first, Kennedy coming in on second place with Reagan and Clinton tied for third and the rest of the anonymous vision-less admins (Ford, Johnson, Carter and Poppy Bush) in a below-average pool) but Bush is currently sharing the bottom position in that league with Nixon. Carter is probably the best ex-president ever, though. :-)
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I'd like for no Americans to die at all. And no Iraqis, Somalians, Afghanis, Brits, Martians, Rwandans or Zimbabwean farmers either. I'm not really sure how you could have arrived at your conclusion there, but maybe it's part of that alternate reality field that Karl Rove is projecting?
I do understand that sometimes eggs need to be cracked to make omelets, but there are very good reasons for putting the UNSEC in charge of allowing forceful invasions of sovereign nations. It's to keep the Chinese out of Taiwan. It's to keep the Germans out of Poland and the Russians out of Latvia. And it's to keep the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
It should also be to keep the Americans out of Iraq and Israelis out of Palestine, but you seem to have your own little addendum to the rulebook that says "Applies to anyone that doesn't hear voices from God".
You elect a president that listens to the congress and the rest of the world and the rest of the world will support the USA. Easy as that. Elect a president that won't listen to anyone except the voices in his head and the whole world has a problem.
The US is currently around 5% of the population of the world. Half of those vote and half again vote for Bush. Is it fair that a little over one percent of the population gets to decide one of the most important issues in the world today? Is it strange that we're watching the election, hoping it won't turn into a selection again? Is it strange that we want to live in stability and peace instead of living in fear, knowing there's a madman in the White House with his finger on the big red button?
Do the rest of the world a favor for once - vote against Bush.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's interesting how different we see these things... I see it as a way to rein in the comboys and add some other countries to do the bleeding. Since the US will go in for her own reasons, I'd like to add Swedes, Brits, Germans, Pakistanis or whoever do the peace-keeping force to a LARGER extent. Case in point: I'd have wanted the US to hold off the invasion of Iraq until MORE countries could ei
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Interesting)
If you'd checked the facts with Cheney's alternate reality shield turned off, you'd seen that Poppy Bush and Cheney were the ones that started the slide by letting NK off the hook and leaving the whole mess for the Chinese [gwu.edu] to sort out back in November 1991 after having decided to withdraw all US nukes from South Korea in October the same year. This in spite of persistent reports since 1985 that they were up to no good.
Clinton at least got the North to sign the treaty and dismantle their plutonium program by threatening to bomb their Pu reactor off [wordiq.com] the peninsula and together with the South Korean government made the North go with a more easily controlled uranium-based power generation program, delaying their bomb program by ten years. There were no indications at the time that they were breaking the deal until 2002 and last year when they openly admitted it. George W. Bush then took strong, resolute and decisive action by doing jack shit about it.
Neither Reagan, Bush or Bush has done anything except defer to the Chinese in this matter. Fact is, if it wasn't for Clinton and his credible threat of airstrikes, North Korea could have had plutonium bombs ready to go some time around 1995.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Interesting)
Clinton's agreement with the Nort Koreans resulted in us knowing where all their spent plutonium fuel rods were while we turned a blind to them building a bomb out of enriched uranium from other sources. North Korea thumbed their noses at the Clinton administration because they knew there would be no concequences to their blatent disregard of the negotiated terms. So under Clinton the North Koreans only managed to make two or three bombs inst
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think they're scared of talk.
George Bush speaks big and carries a soft stick.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Funny)
Man, they don't make them this funny anymore...
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part is that he's stupid enough to be both- the end result of his "can't wait to fire the guns and can't be bothered with talking" strategy is our army is being wasted on an enemy that hasn't invaded anybody within the last decade, and we've got nothing left for the real threats of terrorist countries who have already gained nukes. Speak Big and Carry a Soft Stick- or in the case of an army already stretched way too thin, no stick at all....
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Interesting)
But of course, Bush is also a very different 'real' cowboy, fucking up the middle east in a very real way, with real (and unpredictable) results. But of course, you can trust Bush's gut feeling: It will all be fine, and Iraq will be America's second best friend.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Insightful)
He was reckless in invading Iraq.
But the Iraq invasion was easy. That country was completely demoralized from 12 years of bombings, to say nothing of the Iran/Iraq war beforehand.
But he has no follow-through.
He had no plan about what to do with Iraq after the invasion, to say nothing of an exit strategy.
He really should have considered the words of his father. [snopes.com]
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting aside minor considerations like the insanity of anihilating ten time the number of people killed in the twins, SQUARED; the fact that almost all of them are innocent; ruining the world economy (all this oil gone); possibly causing nuclear winter; fallout carried into Russia, Europe and India; and various other such pesky issues.
And if that's not enough - *Israel*? Why would you want to nuke Israel after the twins? It would have made more sense if you listed France. They also have tons of Muslems in the country. Come on, just between the two of us - you are itching for an excuse to nuke France. Admit it.
In short: You, sir, are a terrorist. Yours is exactly the same mindset used by the terrorists who killed hundreds of school children because "their people have been wronged" and they wanted to "fight back" their "just war".
Then again, I suppose any American deluded enough to call himself a "marxist hacker" isn't expected to be rational...
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=fa cts [thenation.com]
100 Facts and 1 Opinion
by JUDD LEGUM
[from the November 8, 2004 issue]
Click here [thenation.com] to download, circulate and distribute a PDF version of this article.
IRAQ
1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.
Source: American Progress [americanprogress.org]
2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.
Sources: Fox News [foxnews.com], The Boston Globe [boston.com]
3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.
Source: PBS [pbs.org]
4. Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.
Source: The Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]
5. During the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, more than 1,000 US troops have lost their lives and more than 7,000 have been injured.
Source: globalsecurity.org [globalsecurity.org]
6. In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.
Source: Yahoo News [yahoo.com]
7. Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda.
Source: MSNBC [msn.com] , 9-11 Commission [9-11commission.gov]
8. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that high-strength aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," warning "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The government's top nuclear scientists had told the Administration the tubes were "too narrow, too heavy, too long" to be of use in developing nuclear weapons and could be used for other purposes.
Source: New York Times [nytimes.com]
9. The Bush Administration has spent just $1.1 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction.
Source: USA Today [usatoday.com]
10. According to the Administration's handpicked weapon's inspector, Charles Duelfer, there is "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so." After the release of the report, Bush continued to insist, "There was a risk--a real risk--that Sa
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)
Kerry isn't advocating an immediate withdrawal from Iraq for two reasons:
1) He knows that he'll never get elected if he advocates such a position (he'll lose the moderate voters; he's got to win some of the states in the middle of the country) a
Too Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
The Good:
What Bush has done that is inarguably good for the US is basically destroyed all terrorist safe havens. That is not to say that there are not places where terrorist can tr
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)
Please. Him and what army? Literally: which military is he going to use? The US is busy with Afghanistan and has its hands full in Iraq. It's hard for us to do anything, and they know it: this is why Iran has announced a new foreign policy doctrine called "Screw you guys, we'll develop nukes if we want to". Of course, if we had more ALLIES, we might be able to spare some people. Even so, you've got to look at the logistics.
Re: Nice Story! (Score:2, Insightful)
> I don't see, however, how you can group all Bush supporters into a "stupid" group because of the attitudes of some.
We don't. We categorize them as stupid because they support Bush.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nice Story! (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush supporters should be Kerry supporters (Score:5, Insightful)
Here we go again... (Score:3, Insightful)
The notion that liberals and conservatives perceive the world differently seems fairly obvious. The rest just seems like flamebait.
Seriously, given either political viewpoint, I'm sure I can find plenty of facts and "world attitudes" that would give strong support to that position. If the President announced that the facts on Iraq agree with his points and that polls show that a worldwide majority agree with him, would you accept his word? If not, why should the reverse be true?
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm...PIPA hardly compares to Bob Jones University. Please check out PIPA's about us page to see who they are funded by: http://www.pipa.org/about.html [pipa.org]. Yes, Ben and Jerry's is on there, but I hardly think of the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and etc. as bastions of liberal ideology. It's not really fair to compare PIPA to a Christian-oriented college. More importantly, by making this claim of bias, you are attempting to discount the conclusion of the report--that many Bush supporters in the U.S. are sadly out of touch not only with what the rest of the world thinks about their leadership but also what the solid conclusions of experts have been on the subject of WMDs and Iraq. Please don't load this with bias that doesn't exist.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:4, Funny)
Huh? Of course the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations or bastions of liberal ideology! What do you think they are?
Re:Here we go again... (Score:2)
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Interesting)
--trb
the topic at hand (Score:2)
Re:Here we go again... (Score:2)
That's the crux of it, in both this and their anti-Fox News "study". One could just as easily go around asking "Has Bush banned stem cell research?" or "Did Saddam Hussein receive significant amounts of weaponry from the US?" and then engage in handwringing about how Kerry supporters have been misled by NPR and the New York Times.
Re:Don't listen to NPR much, do ya'? (Score:3, Insightful)
While this is true, you could engineer the questions, I think it would be hard to craft a set of questions that would cause the NPR/PBS crowd to underperform the FOX/CNN/MSNBC crowds, unless you ask about Robert Blake, Scott Peterson, and Britney Spears. Actually, I would love it if someone tried...
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Informative)
Good grief! If the Ford Foundation isn't liberal in your opinion, then what is?
According to the recent grants list [fordfound.org] on their website, they've recently donated to:
Regardless of your opinions of those groups, you have to agree that no conservative foundation would ever be likely to donate money to them.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I don't *have* to agree, but I'll coneede the point.
And in counter, a NON-BIASED foundation might donate to them.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Insightful)
The ACLU is as conservative an organization as you can find. All they want to do is maintain the freedoms put forth in the consititution. They don't care if you are on the right or on the left - if you a being denied your rights as a citizen they are one your side.
Reproductive choice? Since when did deciding if you want to have children or not become liberal?
Planned Parenthood
ACLU (Score:3, Insightful)
I love when people say that the ACLU is a liberal only organization. It's the American Civil Liberties Union!
Regardless of what you think about a few of their cases and clients these are the same people who defended the American Nazi Party! You don't get any more conservative than that.
We are talking about a group which defends the Constitution of the United States
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're wrong about that. You're confusing conservatives with neocons which is what you are.
A real conservative believes in fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets, believes that the truth will set you free, and that intelligence thrives in the midst of discussion and dissent. I could very easily see a conservative institution giving grants to those organization
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue isn't what article you can get published. Obviously you can get both published. The point is that if you publish two articles that say the opposite thing, one of them has to be more correct than the other.
In this case, it's absolutely more correct that Kerry supporters have got more going on in the brain-use department than Bush supporters. You can complain all you want, hy
Re:Here we go again... (Score:2)
No it's not. The fact that you can publish two opposing views and have half the people agree with you does not imply that half of the people are informed while the other is not. Both sides might agree with you based on ideology, not on facts.
If I flip a coin, and hide the result, it's a fact that the coin is either heads or tails. If you polled a population and as
Re:Here we go again... (Score:2)
You're smarter than most people? The fact that you think one person's intellegince (supposedly yours) means a damn when you're talking about statistics, makes me wonder if you're not that smart at all.
We're talking about large numbers of people here, your single counter-example doesn't mean a damn thing, and if you were so smart, you would know that.
Faith based politics (Score:5, Insightful)
most of Bush's politics/decisions are about faith and not fact. Anybody who votes for him has
to share his worldview.
Re:Faith based politics (Score:3, Insightful)
freedom does not get imposed from the point of a gun, from an occupying army.
Re:Faith based politics (Score:3, Insightful)
Japan and Germany were the aggressors.
Bush has made the US the aggressors in Iraq.
And before you say that the 9/11 terrorists were the aggressors, there's no proven link between Iraq and Bin Laden.
Re:Japan and Germany (Score:3, Informative)
Hitler came into power by democratic elections, that's true. He was initially the head of a coaltion government. In the last free elections in March 1933 his party won 288 of the 647 seats in the parlament, which made them the strongest party. One of the main steps to gain full power was the so called enabling act [wikipedia.org]. In order to ensure that this law was passed by the parliament, more than 100 MP from opposing parties (social democrats
Re:Faith based politics (Score:5, Insightful)
> We have a lot of things we have faith in. What do you believe in?
Faith != belief. Faith is belief without evidence.
Re:Faith based politics (Score:3, Interesting)
Truth = Reality
Knowledge = true belief backed by evidence
faith = belief beyond reasonable doubt
faith,knowledge ==> conviction
So the real question is What do you believe in? For any belief to be useful, it must correspond to reality, held beyond reasonable doubt, and the holder must be aware that it is true. This is conviction.
It is not sufficient that you are certain it is true. It must actually be true to count.
Re:Faith based politics (Score:3, Insightful)
You know without those people actually thinking about things and figuring out how to solve problems, you know, those people "somewhere" that are "going to come up with a solution". Those people. They think about things, they look at problems and figure out how to solve them.
Having blind faith just makes you a sheep. Looking at reality and using your brain is what makes you a human being.
I believe in critical thinking, using ideals as gui
Time for a Reality Check (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the same faith that sees no problem with overthrowing governments, and bringing people like Saddam Hussein into power, when it's convinient.
The same faith that sees no problem with using a 500 pound "precision bomb" to take out a single person by dropping it into an apartment building. Then being surpised, but unworried when "collateral damange" happens, and 15 others are killed.
The same faith that supplies Weapons of Mass Destruction to our temporary allies. Faith that doesn't flinch when they get used.
The same faith that supports a man who lied to justify an invasion, while having no plan for the aftermath of that invasion.
The same faith in a leader who has made the world less safe, and made the US weaker.
oh... I wish I had your faith, then I'd be able to sleep at night, instead of worrying about death from a Korean or Iranian, or loose Russian nuke.
oh... to have the faith and naivety of a 4 year old again...
A very similar study regarding Fox News watchers (Score:5, Informative)
"The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals' primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely."
Source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/100403F.shtml [truthout.org]
The original source document (PDF):
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_0
While these reports should not be correlated without further study, its rather indicative of how the public is misinformed by certain parts of the media; though I will admit that it does swing both ways for both liberals and conservatives, but Fox takes it to another level when it comes to TV news.
Re:A very similar study regarding Fox News watcher (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the same line of thinking they highlight in the article. "Somebody who agrees with me can't be wrong!" I'm sure it is totally IMPOSSIBLE that a judge could award money to plaintiffs without it implying IRREFUTABLY that there was a connection! Are we too make policy decisions based on what judges do after the fact? Maybe instead of assuming we should actually, maybe, ask the judge why he did or what evidence he did it on? Policy should be based on facts, not non-causally related actions by others.
"why was there an IED with sarin gas in it found, along with other warheads with various chemicals? Isn't sarin a WMD?"
As far as the IED:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.
Consult the link on all the myriad details about how to tell whether it was a "dud" or not.
But the question remains...this is your evidence? One lousy old shell of questionable utility constitutes weapons of mass destruction (note that both the words "weapons" and "mass" imply plurality)? We went to war for one fucking shell?! Is this the evidence you think the liberals are trying to "spin" away? Again here goes your reasoning: because of my assumptions, the premises must be true! Could it be possible that the presence of this IED shell would not imply irrefutably that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? No, impossible...it's a scrap of evidence that could possibly indicate that, so therefore it MUST indicate that. What if they had, oh, a thimble full of sarin? Is that WMD? What if they had some mustard plants...that's obviously WMD right?
Re:A very similar study regarding Fox News watcher (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose a Libertarian might say that it would be a lot less expensive to just not support fascist dictator
Re:A very similar study regarding Fox News watcher (Score:3, Insightful)
And strangely... (Score:3, Insightful)
In general, we are dumb (Score:3, Insightful)
But which reality? (Score:2, Funny)
The facts are biased. (Score:5, Funny)
Stewart: I'm sorry, Rob, did you say the facts are biased?
Corddry: That's right Jon. From the names of our fallen soldiers to the gradual withdrawal of our allies to the growing insurgency, it's become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda.
Re:The facts are biased. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you say you pick and choose facts to support your beliefs, then there's a pretty good chance that you're not qualified to judge your own self awareness. (That comment, by the way, is a filter that I will overlay over any facts that you present that contradict my assertion.)
Just because two sets of facts can support two different conclusions doesn't mean either set of facts wrong. It means the world is a hell of a lot more complex than a couple of bullet points on a web page.
One can select a set of utterly truthful and verif (Score:3, Insightful)
It's rather how many facts you have to throw out, in order to retain your belief.
Best is being able to accept new facts, and change your belief, when warranted. (Oops, I guess that isn't "resolute.")
Re:The facts are biased. (Score:3, Insightful)
Polls show 75% of Iraqis want a democracy.
Wow!
That's quite a shocking statistic!
I thought that everyone in the middle east hated Democracy just like they hate Freedom.
It is really great that they want democracy.
Too bad that instead they are going to get another puppet dictator just like Saddam Hussein.
(Insert Maniacal Laughter Here)
The survey (Score:3, Insightful)
If we're going to assert, as does this survey by implication, that the opinions of other people matter, then anyone with a nose ring, an alternative lifestyle, or membership in a 3rd party had better straighten out - because the "vast majority" of people probably don't approve.
Better that the survey should ask whether the respondents believe that the war was legal, or supported by factual information, than whether someone in some other place likes it.
The Submitter's Worldview (Score:2, Troll)
"A study on the perceptual fantasy worlds that voters live in demonstrates that Kerry voters' fantasy worlds are more real than the Bush voters' fantasy worlds!"
Give me a break (Score:2, Interesting)
Measuring being "in tune with the events" implies that there is an objective way to decide WHICH EVENTS are "the" events. There is not and suggesting otherwise is a bunch of crap. Give me a break. This was a study that measured people's correlation with the study makers views.
As a study in propaganda, I love the use of the term "world attitudes". I wasn't aware that planets had minds that were ca
Re:Give me a break (Score:3, Informative)
I suggest you browse some of the questions. Many of them are quite objective. Did the 9/11 Commission find a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein? Does Bush support participation in the Kyoto agreement or the world court? These don't depend on the study makers' views.
Rubbish (Score:3, Insightful)
The peice is heavily biased, and if you can't see that, you're not living in this reality. It goes to lengths to be fair and scientific in gathering the facts about the beliefs of the Bush and Kerry backers, but then just "assumes" with no evidence shown that the worldview of the Kerry side is correct, and the worldview of the Bush side is incorrect. If it were that simple, it wouldn't be such a big deal. There are a lot of very intelligent people both here and abroad, who have a firm understanding of and a lot of experience with geopolitical issues, who believe that Bush is holding a more "correct" worldview than Kerry is.
Re:Rubbish (Score:3, Insightful)
This poll has nothing to do with "worldview," (aka "opinions")- this has to do with knowledge of "facts" (aka "evidence.)
Assertion: Bush et al said Iraq had serious stores of WMD, lots of nasty gas, biological agents, etc.
Fact: The non-partisan (e.g. equal representation of Dems and Repubs) 9/11 committee found that there was no WMD
Breaking News!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Film at 11!
What i find really amazing is . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
The results from the survey, broken out by question. [pipa.org]
Just in case you don't feel like rtfa, a couple examples:
53% of Bush supporters think Bush wants us to participate in the International Criminal Court. We do not participate in the ICC and Bush does not think we should.
51% of Bush supporters think Bush wants us to participate in the Kyoto agreement. We do not participate in the Kyoto agreement and Bush does not think we should.
20% of Bush supporters think that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 and 19% of Bush supporters think that Bush is telling them that.
But hey, the Republicans aren't the only uninformed people out there: 31% of Kerry supporters (36% for Bushies) think we actually do participate in the Kyoto agreement and 34% of them think that Bush supports it.
39% of Kerry supporters (45% for Bushies) think we actually do participate in the ICC and 45% of them think that Bush supports it.
What we can learn from this: one-third to one-half of the people out there don't know what the fuck they're talking about regardless of party affiliation, but Bush supporters are wrong slightly more often.
Political Bias Metadata (Score:3, Interesting)
I am interested in some idea as to how much a persons bias effects there posts. I think peoples beliefs in a specific item can add some karma or weight to a specific article. If they respond one way to a article about a candidate, then they may be saying it just because they are a Democrat or a Republican supporter. If an opposing opinon says something against the opposed, there may be less credibility because they are saying it just because they support the opposition.
Maybe you could have some issue criteria (how do you feel about death penalty, how do you feel about abortion, how do you feel about certain types of drug use, etc) which can help establish your polticial bias settings. I could see this almost like a Ok Cupid [okcupid.com] or related matching site type of meta data.
Fanatics versus scientists versus the world (Score:5, Interesting)
From outside of the US, I think the scientific view is clearly dominant in most countries, and they are basically befuddled by what is going on on in America, and alarmed by the force behind the befuddlement. There are a few crazy and fanatical countries out there, but the US is clearly the strongest and most dangerous one.
I think that explains how a lot of our friends see the Iraq situation. They agree that it is a mess and that it needs to be cleaned up, and they would even be willing to help. However, on the other hand, it is keeping the suddenly belligerent US busy, and it is also clearly BushCo's own deliberate mistake. From that perspective, it's just as well to let the US keep playing with the tar baby for now, and their biggest fear is probably that BushCo might unilaterally withdraw and thereby force the rest of the world to clean it up. Fortunately (from their perspective), the oil aspect makes that unfeasible and unlikely.
The ugly facts are that Saddam was only a nuisance and not worth an entire war. Dubya believed otherwise, and to heck with those facts. What other crazy things does Dubya believe?
I believe I don't want to find out, and I hope Dubya is out of there very soon. Fortunately, fanatical birds of a feather tend to flock together in their little red states, so it increasingly looks like the swing states are going to swing the other way.
Re: In other news (Score:3, Funny)
> In other news, 93% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Yeah, but Bush supporters think only 7% are.
Re:Knowing the truth would not change views (Score:2)
The Guardian selected Clark County, OH as a hotbed of undecided voters, and put together a letter-writing campaign to them. Some 14,000 letters were sent and the universal response from Clark County voters was, well, unprintable.
The sample letters I read were horribly condescending and quite frankly unpersuasive to anyone not already having anti-Bush views, but it's pretty clear that the Am
Re:A Bush supporter speaks (Score:2)
--trb
Re:A Bush supporter speaks (Score:4, Insightful)
There were other countries in the world much more deserving of our attentions. Afghanistan, for example, should have about 200,000 more troops in it than it currently does. North Korea needs invading. Iran needs invading. Saudi Arabia needs invading.
You want perpetual war? I'm right with you. You have this liberal's support, if only you pick the right targets.
Re:A Bush supporter speaks (Score:3, Insightful)
God told me that you can't prove a negative. Now prove he didn't.
Re:A Bush supporter speaks (Score:5, Insightful)
Is an unsupported allegation justification for going to war? Would you condemn an individual to death over an unsupported allegation? What about an entire army of humans?
There's no proof that you or I were involved in the 9/11 attacks. That doesn't mean that we were not involed, it just means that there was no proof. Blindly assuming that we have involvement without a shred of real evidence would not only be a meaningless thing to say, but it would also be a reckless assumption. If there is no proof, there is no proof and we should just accept that. If an investigation uncovers some solid evidence, sobeit...but until then, we can't justify war based on a useless suspicion based on the idea that two enemies MUST have colluded. That theory just doesn't make any sense.
Interesting that you should say this, I recently heard an interview with a Canadian journalist who was released after a long and frightening kidnapping in Iraq. He said that the American-paid Iraqi police were supporting the insurgents. (Clearly, this can't be the case with all of the Iraqi police, but these new cops don't sound like all they're cracked up to be). This is just part of the rosy picture that the Bush administration paints of our occupation. The intel that told us to go to Iraq is now telling us that the best case scenario is a status quo in the insurgency, and the worst case is a full civil war. A civil war means another Vietnam, or the possibility of pulling out and accepting an Islamic dictatorship. Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't that why we supported Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the 70's and 80's? To stop the Islamic dictatorship in Iran? Didn't we topple the Taliban for similar reasons (Islamic Fundamentalist dictatorship sponsoring terrorism)? Is there a chance that we could have mitigated the threat that Saddam posed without a war? I'm not suggesting that they were nice guys and I'm not suggesting that there weren't any atrocities going on there, but this war is not about liberation or Saddam's atrocities against his people.
I have a few issues with this. Is steadfast and resolute a good thing when you're just wrong? The fact that this president does not seem to have the capability to analyze a situation and realize that it's not working...or come up with a plan B -- just in case (for example) his cabinet was wrong and they won't throw roses at our soldier's feet. He seems unable to plan for reality. When reality happens, he spins it into good news -- like everyhting is peachy in Iraq (except for the hard work that our soldiers have to do). Reality happened and our reasons for going into Iraq magically changed from WMD to terror. When they failed to provide a link, it changed to liberating the Iraqi people. When people disagreed with his reasons for going to war, Bush spun it into suggesting the naysayers they were pro-Saddam. His only admitted failure in Iraq was winning too fast. This does not seem like a critical thinker. This seems like a stubborn man, who people are willing to stand behind because they're afraid of not doing enough. I call this "dosomethingism". A paranoia where people want
Re:A Bush supporter speaks (Score:4, Informative)
Re: A Bush supporter speaks (Score:3, Insightful)
> There is good news in Iraq, and most of it is ignored by our press. Iraq has a free press.
Tell that to the newspapers and television stations that have been shut down on account of their content.
> It has a new government with excellent support from the people.
Except for the ones that are trying to blow it up...
> Its new police and military are starting to vigourously attack the Al Queda members in the country.
Except for the ones that desert or defect...
> The economy is booming.
Most
Re:A Bush supporter speaks (Score:4, Insightful)
So what do you base that statement on? Do you base it on the time when, as his force travelled up the Dong Chung River, "all units came under intense automatic weapons and small arms fire from an entrenched enemy force less that fifty-feet away. Unhesitatingly, Lt. Kerry ordered his boat to attack as all units opened fire and beached directly in front of the enemy ambushers. This daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers."? Or shortly after than, when "the boats were again taken under fire from a heavily foliated area" and "with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only 10 feet from the Viet Cong rocket position and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy."? That's from his Silver Star citation, which adds, "The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lt. Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission." No, wait. That would totally go against your statement. Hmm.
Maybe you base the statement on the time when, after being wounded in the arm by an exploding mine, and while "receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the riverbanks" he realized that a man had gone overboard. In response, he turned his boat around and "returned upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both banks. Lt. Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain, and with disregard for his personal safety he pulled the man aboard. Lt. Kerry then directed his boat to return and assist the other damaged boat to safety." That's from his Bronze Star citation, which ends with "Lt. Kerry's calmness, professionalism, and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." Oh, crap. That also totally contradicts your statement.
What do you base your statements on, anyway? Seriously, have you ever come across evidence of this that was not in the form of an absurd claim made by the Bush campaign? Just because Bush says John Kerry is weak and indecisive doesn't make it true. As Karl Rove always says, "Attack your opponent's strength, not his weakness.". So no wonder they want to paint Kerry this way: they know the opposite is true, and that it is one of this strengths. And in succeeding in convincing the public otherwise, they have greatly hurt his chances of being elected.
And please don't cite SBVT because we all know they're full of shit. (And again, right in line with Rove's strategy. And their funding came from Rove's good buddy Bob Perry. Hrm.)
And I'm really sorry to use Vietnam war references in my argument, because I really think this race has focused way too much on things that happened 30 years ago when they should have been focusing on today's issues. But, obviously, the above quotes are the ideal counter-argument to your ridiculous claim. He's been resolute and such in the senate too, but hearing about how he boldly broke with his party to support a balanced budget just doesn't have the same effect.
Re:I never realized there was more than one "reali (Score:2)
You must not follow politics much.
One reality, many understandings. (Score:2)
This post is ... irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
Your post isn't really fact so much as assertions. That's OK! They might really be correct assertions -- I'm not saying they're wrong, because that's a separate debate! -- but they are debatable. What do NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN "want us" to believe? How do you quantify "not as bad"? What defines a "HORRIBLE" economic situation? Where do you draw the line between "depressed" and "HORRIBLE"? They're all subjective terms.
Let me emphasize before you flame me: I'm not saying y
Re:This post is ... *not* irrelevant (Score:3, Interesting)
What planet are you from? Where I grew up, Democrats were lucky to be called "stupid." Usually what we get were vulgar sexual epithets.
No party is without its assholes.
An example: did Kerry call terrorists a "nuisance"? Yep. Sure did. Undeniable fact. Never mind that I've taken this out of context in order to intentionally bias the question.
Did you read the questionnaire the test subjects were given? Here, I'll copy and paste an e
Re:This article is... (Score:3, Interesting)
The question now is, could it have been handled better, and is it reasonable to expect that it should have been? Much to Bush's embarassment, a sizeable chunk of the population thinks so. There was no imminent threat from Iraq, the WMD situation was much less clear than the administration claimed (especially its clai
Re:Once again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. But it is surprising and interesting (to me) how the Bush supporters don't perceive Bush's positions accurately. For examples, look at the numbers of people who think Bush supports participation in the Kyoto agreement or the world court. If it were all about ideology, I wouldn't expect these discrepancies.
What world do you live in? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you missed the massive protests? I know I didn't. I was one of those protesting.
Re: Did Iraq have WMDs? (Score:4, Insightful)
> I think it's funny that we can capture scientists known to their fellows as "Dr. Germ" and "Chemical Ali" and somehow the "correct" story is that there not only were no WMDs in Iraq, but that they were never pursuing them to begin with.
The Bush Administration's greatest accomplishment has been convincing people like you that Iraq was an imminent threat to due to stuff they did back when they were our buddies.
Re: Kerry--Worse than Carter (Score:3, Insightful)
> CORRECTION. It shows Kerry voters are "more in tune" with the lies that the elite media is telling us about Iraq. Bush supporters include some 3/4 of those in the military, and they certainly understand what's happening on the ground in Iraq better than news reporters who cower in Bagdad hotels.
Guess that explains why some of that military feels like a simple fuel delivery job is a suicide mission, and why a whole stream of generals retiring after a tour in Iraq have been telling us that the whole t
No, it was not. (Score:4, Informative)
No, they did not.
Remember the missiles they destroyed? Those were classified as WMD.
No, they were not. "WMD" means nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Those missles were "banned" because of their range. They were not "WMD's".
That anyone thinks Iraq did NOT have WMD is odd. Of course, there is no reason to think Iraq had a "major" WMD program, but they did have actual WMD.
You're channelling MoJo JoJo.
As to support for al Qaeda from Iraq, it is true that the 9/11 Commission did not conclude there was such support, but it is also true the Commission said there was evidence of a connection.
No, they did not. They said that there were reports of contacts between the two, but not connections.
As if you ask some woman for a date and she turns you down. You had contact, but no connection.
But both sides are absolutely wrong when they say Bush said Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. It never happened. That both sides think this shows that neither side is particularly bright.
Check out what Bush actually said to Congress.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03
Look for the bit involving the WTC attack.
They are at best peripherally related to the primary justification and reasons we went to war: violation of UN resolutions (which is the actual basis for the Congressional approval of the use of force, and which is not in dispute whatsoever) and the stabilization and transformation of the region in the long run.
No. Again, look at what they actually said.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/0
Lots about nuclear programs and aluminum tubes and Iraqi nuclear scientists.
Now we know that it was all lies.
Also, it would be interesting to see what the Kerry supporters thought about what KERRY'S views are. I presume the reason they didn't ask is because the pollsters could not agree on what Kerry's positions are.
This isn't about views. This is about facts. Not whether Kerry thinks such and such, but whether such and such happened or did not happen.
It seems that your post supports the findings of that article.
Re:No, it was not. (Score:3)
To whom? There is no one definition of WMD. That's the point. If the question had asked about NBC weapons, that would be different. For example, Clinton's FBI Director, Louis Freeh, said in May 1997:
Here's the real definition. (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather, accourding to Title 18 of the United States Code, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2332 the definition is:
Re:In tune != grasp of reality? (Score:3, Insightful)
This observation, shared by most of those critical of Bush and his supporters, is the reason we believe that Bush supporters have lost touch with reality. What we see is a