Scary thought...

There's people out there who have no idea...and the majority of them intend to vote Republican....


Update: Misperceptions Still Plague American Public on Iraq

Bush's support tied to misinformation

College Park, MD: According to a new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll, a majority of Americans (57%) continue to believe that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, including 20% who believe that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11 attacks. Forty-five percent believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found. Sixty percent believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38%) or a major program for developing them (22%).

Despite statements by Richard Clarke, David Kay, Hans Blix and others, few Americans perceive most experts as saying the contrary. Only 15% said they are hearing “experts mostly agree Iraq was not providing substantial support to al Qaeda,” while 82% either said that “experts mostly agree Iraq was providing substantial support” (47%) or “experts are evenly divided on the question” (35%). Only 34% said they thought most experts believe Iraq did not have WMD, while 65% said most experts say Iraq did have them (30%) or that experts are divided on the question (35%).

Not surprisingly, perceptions of what experts are saying are highly correlated with beliefs about prewar Iraq, which in turn are highly correlated with support for the decision to go to war.

Perhaps most relevant politically, perceptions of what the experts are saying are also highly correlated with intentions to vote for the President in the upcoming election. Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had WMD, 72% said they would vote for Bush and 23% said they would vote for Kerry, while among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq did not have WMD, 23% said they would vote for Bush and 74% for Kerry.

Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had supported al Qaeda, 62% said they would vote for Bush and 36% said they would vote for Kerry. Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq was not supporting al Qaeda, just 13% said they would vote for Bush and 85% for Kerry.

What Does This Mean

This poll clearly indicates that George Bush's electoral success depends on the American public continuing to be wrong about the facts. Wrong about WMD's. Wrong about Iraq and 9/11. Wrong about Iraq and al Queda.

As stated above in bold text, George Bush's support is directly proportional to the public's misperceptions.

This report, taken with the one below, leaves no doubt that the US press, and particularly the television media, are not only failing to inform the public of the facts, but they are actually misinforming the public in matters of the utmost importance.

It is our contention that as long as the press fails to properly inform the public, the U.S.'s prospects for responsible, qualified government remains dire. It is simply unacceptable.

Thomas Jefferson said he would rather have a press with no government than a government with no press. He certainly was not referring to CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or any of the other television news outlets.

What we have now is a press industry that is worse than no press at all; an unaccountable enterprise for whom holding accountable the most powerful is often a conflict of interest.

The internet may one day offset this imbalance, but we don't have time.

Still voting republican!

Still voting republican!

Ditto!

Hundreds of millions or billions of dollars skimmed off the oil for food program? Hating the country that snuffed your dreams of ultimate glory, and having the money to support those who can hit back at them? All of that fits saddams profile.

Thomas Jefferson said he would rather have a press with no government than a government with no press. He certainly was not referring to CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or any of the other television news outlets.
I'm kind of confused by this statement and what exactly it means.

There sure are a lot of percentages in the article. Which leads me to believe that some of those numbers were taken out of thin air.

What about Iraq's good 'ol Oil for Food Program? France and Germany's involvement in that.

There sure are a lot of percentages in the article. Which leads me to believe that some of those numbers were taken out of thin air.



Standard argument that gets advanced when you don't like the numbers.The figures are fairly logical.....If you are dumb enough to believe that saddam was personally responsible for 9-11,and that he had the facilities to make doomsday weapons,then clearly you are going to support George Bush.

Ony trouble is,a stupid vote carries exactly the same value as an intelligent one.And the media isn't exactly doing everything that it could to promote the truth.Consequently,the ignorant stay ignorant,and Bush gets a whole heap of votes from people who have no idea of just how wrong and evil his foreign policy is.

Yup the stupid votes and the intelligent votes are counted the same.

Its to bad that the uneducated and lazy tend to vote for democrats.

Standard argument that gets advanced when you don't like the numbers.The figures are fairly logical.....If you are dumb enough to believe that saddam was personally responsible for 9-11,and that he had the facilities to make doomsday weapons,then clearly you are going to support George Bush.

Ony trouble is,a stupid vote carries exactly the same value as an intelligent one.And the media isn't exactly doing everything that it could to promote the truth.Consequently,the ignorant stay ignorant,and Bush gets a whole heap of votes from people who have no idea of just how wrong and evil his foreign policy is.

Have you seen US tv at all?!? the news is like thanks to bush being an ass its going to rain they take any and every shot at the guy.

Closest you get to any media support is his own ads.

Standard argument that gets advanced when you don't like the numbers.The figures are fairly logical.....If you are dumb enough to believe that saddam was personally responsible for 9-11,and that he had the facilities to make doomsday weapons,then clearly you are going to support George Bush.

Ony trouble is,a stupid vote carries exactly the same value as an intelligent one.And the media isn't exactly doing everything that it could to promote the truth.Consequently,the ignorant stay ignorant,and Bush gets a whole heap of votes from people who have no idea of just how wrong and evil his foreign policy is.
Now you mention ignorance. Calling those of us who believe that he had WMD's 'dumb' is pretty ignorant as well. It's our belief, if its true or not no one knows, but that's the way I feel. If I failed to take the time to read/listen to the other side then you could call me ignorant. I don't believe Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11, but I do feel he did have some contact with Bin Laden and praised what he was doing. And I agree the media isn't doing everything or anything to promote total truth. And as usual I agree with what Yogs said.

Have you seen US tv at all?!? the news is like thanks to bush being an ass its going to rain they take any and every shot at the guy.

Closest you get to any media support is his own ads.

All major US media outlets, even the ones that lean more towards the left heap praise on Bush, and portray him in a favourable light whenever possible. Try watching the BBC, or CBC, and you'll see what I mean. The very way the stories are pitched on US television is carefully crafted to make the president seem like he has a halo. They did it with Clinton, and now they're doing it with Bush.

You can bet if they didn't, they wouldn't get into White House press conferences.

It ranges from CNN, who simply tow the line on whatever BS the administration wants to foist off on the American( and Canadian, you should remember) public, to Fox News, where they practically fellate Bush all day long.

This is getting off topic, however. There was never any proof submitted to the public, the news agencies, or the UN of weapons of mass destruction, or links to terrorist organizations. The reason? There was no proof, it's pretty simple. If there was proof, which Bush and Rummy claimed they had for months, they would have presented it. This proves they were at least lying about having proof, and if they lied about that, it makes a clear cut case that they were false accusations to start with.

Seriously, some of you guys need to take a step back and look at this from a third persons perspective... It's getting ludicrous.

Now you mention ignorance. Calling those of us who believe that he had WMD's 'dumb' is pretty ignorant as well. It's our belief, if its true or not no one knows, but that's the way I feel. If I failed to take the time to read/listen to the other side then you could call me ignorant. I don't believe Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11, but I do feel he did have some contact with Bin Laden and praised what he was doing. And I agree the media isn't doing everything or anything to promote total truth. And as usual I agree with what Yogs said.

and just for Tex........

Calling those of us who believe that he had WMD's 'dumb' is pretty ignorant as well. It's our belief, if its true or not no one knows, but that's the way I feel.

Please,please,PLEASE.......just give it up.America has had a year to come up with tangible evidence of WMD's and has found.............nothing.Zero.Zip.Nada.

The WMD thing was the invention of some bunch of cowards in a bunker under the Pentagon,a "what if?" situation that has proved entirely groundless.Sure,you may comfort yourself with the idea that the truth is out there,it just hasn't been uncovered yet,but sooner or later,you are going too have to face it...there are no WMD's.The longer you insist on keeping up the cockeyed charade that Bush used to justify his private war,the dumber you look.

Bush came into power with an unpublished agenda against Iraq,one that a more honest man would have campaigned on.Sept 11 was a godsend for George ,he has used it shamelessly to promote and justify his preferred brand of terrorism.There has been no evidence put forward to connect Saddam and the WTC,but somehow the dumbest sector of the electorate has it firmly in their heads that what George says is the absolute truth,and he is a hero for trying to rid the world of terrorists.

If he wants to rid the world of its biggerst terrorist,he should do the decent thing and put a round through his own skull.Or better yet,get someone else to do it for him.Fuckwit deserter that he is,he'd probably miss.Never more in the grand and honorable history of the United States has there ever been a greater need for the next Lee Harvey Oswald.

Yup the stupid votes and the intelligent votes are counted the same.

Its to bad that the uneducated and lazy tend to vote for democrats.

Nice try,Yogs..do you have any stats to support that conjecture?Because I just happened across a set of figures that makes a fool of that argument.


http://americanassembler.com/features/iq_state_averages.htm

This poll clearly indicates that George Bush's electoral success depends on the American public continuing to be wrong about the facts. Wrong about WMD's. Wrong about Iraq and 9/11. Wrong about Iraq and al Queda.

As stated above in bold text, George Bush's support is directly proportional to the public's misperceptions.



THIS has been my contention in this forum all along. Check out my history in here.

As for the IQ thing, not touting myself or anything, but my official, measured IQ (not some internet test) was at 147 when I was 12, although most of it has probaly eroded by now (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/uhoh.gif). I have tended to vote Republican in the past, mostly due to my family's history and influence. As of now, I know I am at least smart enough to vote for the one that's least harmful to my country, and has a chance of winning at the same time...and that's not Bush (on the first count).

I guess that last poll you posted does count, 'naki...I am looking at this election as logically as I can, and I have yet to find a reason to vote for Bush over Kerry. I've displayed my logic about this several times on this forum, and have yet to hear any relevant counter-logic at all. All I'm hearing from the "other side" is emotional rhetoric...

and just for Tex........

Calling those of us who believe that he had WMD's 'dumb' is pretty ignorant as well. It's our belief, if its true or not no one knows, but that's the way I feel.

Please,please,PLEASE.......just give it up.America has had a year to come up with tangible evidence of WMD's and has found.............nothing.Zero.Zip.Nada.

The WMD thing was the invention of some bunch of cowards in a bunker under the Pentagon,a "what if?" situation that has proved entirely groundless.Sure,you may comfort yourself with the idea that the truth is out there,it just hasn't been uncovered yet,but sooner or later,you are going too have to face it...there are no WMD's.The longer you insist on keeping up the cockeyed charade that Bush used to justify his private war,the dumber you look.
I wasn't trying to bring back the whole WMD thing again. All I was trying to say is I don't think you should be calling Bush supporters dumb. If I said something that was ignorant then by all means call me dumb, but I haven't said anything ignorant.

And please call me Jason thats why i put it in my sig so everyone would quite calling me Tex. I hate being called Tex. I believe your name is Dave, although I can't remember. I would rather go by first names in here with everyone b/c I feel its more formal and less disrepectful.

Stupid people are just as likely to vote republican, as they are to vote democrat. It has nothing to do with parties. Ill informed people might vote for Bush, this is not because the republican party is made up of stupid people, it is because stupid people don't know enough about what's going on to make a good choice. If you don't know any better, how can you know any better? That GWB was ill informed, (and maybe even stupid) when it came to his choice to attack Iraq, is not because he is republican - it's because he was ill informed, and made a stupid mistake*, wasting lives, money, and time. It has nothing to do with his party, and it has all to do with him!

*or made no mistake, and just blatantly lied to his own country, and the world.

There's people out there who have no idea...and the majority of them intend to vote Republican.....
Typical of many of the party of the president who couldn't keep his pants zipped and could speak without lying. Typical of many who support the liar who is currently running against Bush.

Still PROUDLY voting Republican as well. Still in possession of common sense too.

Still in possession of common sense too.

Speaking of liars... :lol:

You honestly think baby Bush has never told a lie? How old are you? Do you know what a politician is? :icon16: Thank goodness for the comic relief, or this thread would have been way too serious.

Common sense: Iraq doesn't have WMD's, "honest" George says they do. So how is he not lying?
Apparently your "common sense" tells you that only Clinton, and other democrats can lie. However, your take on "common sense" clearly demonstrates that those devoted to the right, are fairly well capable of bending the truth, if not out right lying. What a hoot! :)

Typical of many of the party of the president who couldn't keep his pants zipped and could speak without lying. Typical of many who support the liar who is currently running against Bush.

Still PROUDLY voting Republican as well. Still in possession of common sense too.

Same old crap from gladhatter,ignore the faults of his own man,while making unsubstantiated claims against others...Just out of interest,is Bill Clinton standing for prez again this year?Because if not,bagging him really doesn't achieve anything except show lack of balance on your part....

Vote republican if you must,it is a free country..........for now.But don't send me any more abusive PM's or Iwill ban you from AF.Have a nice day.

Common sense: Iraq doesn't have WMD's, "honest" George says they do. So how is he not lying?
Just because they have NOT been found doesn't mean GB lied.
Apparently your "common sense" tells you that only Clinton, and other democrats can lie.
"I never had sex with that woman." One of MANY!!
Kerry has been caught in MANY as well.
However, your take on "common sense" clearly demonstrates that those devoted to the right, are fairly well capable of bending the truth, if not out right lying. What a hoot! :)
What truth has been bent by the right?
Nixon screwed up.......but he had the best interests of the NATION in mind.
Reagan made mistakes......but he had the best interests of the NATION in mind.
GHWB made mistakes.......but he had the best interests of the NATION in mind.
Clinton made whoopie........but he had the best interests of not getting caught with his pants around his ankles in mind.
GWB is still in the game AND he has the best interests of the NATION in mind.

EVERYBODY makes mistakes.....lying is a totally different matter.

.....for now.But don't send me any more abusive PM's or Iwill ban you from AF.Have a nice day.
I was in no way abusive. I was merely taking my discussion to pm to prevent this from detracting from the topic. If anyone has been abusive it has been YOU. I will refrain from further discussion on the topic unless you want to continue.

You really have no idea how offensive I find you,do you?Please....just stop.I have been nowhere near abusive to you.Your insistence on targeting me is becoming tiresome.Please desist,or I will ban you.Final warning,understood?

EVERYBODY makes mistakes.....lying is a totally different matter.

So you're saying that Clinton's adultery wasn't a mistake, just that he lied about it was what was wrong? One way or another, Clinton's lie didn't end up killing hundreds of people... :p
GWB has had plenty of time to find the non existant WMDs, with every day that passes it's looking less and less like a mistake, and more and more like a lie. :uhoh: I don't see how sending our troops on a wild goose chase after imaginary weapons, and wasting our tax dollars doing so is in the best interests of our nation :2cents:

Why do the extreme right insist on bringing Clinton up every time their argument is looking shaky?Clinton is not in this election.Kerry is.If you can't find enough high moral ground around him,don't keep dragging Clinton in to make Bush look better...because you can't.Bush has far looser morals than Clinton,and hopefully Kerry will cream him at the election.Not suggesting that Kerry is any less corrupt than the other two,but Lord only knows how much further over the line Bush will go if he is allowed a second term.

Just because they have NOT been found doesn't mean GB lied.

"I never had sex with that woman." One of MANY!!
Kerry has been caught in MANY as well.

What truth has been bent by the right?
Nixon screwed up.......but he had the best interests of the NATION in mind.
Reagan made mistakes......but he had the best interests of the NATION in mind.
GHWB made mistakes.......but he had the best interests of the NATION in mind.
Clinton made whoopie........but he had the best interests of not getting caught with his pants around his ankles in mind.
GWB is still in the game AND he has the best interests of the NATION in mind.

EVERYBODY makes mistakes.....lying is a totally different matter.

Wasn't it in another recent thread that I said that you had "a fanaticism normally reserved for cult members"?

I rest my case.

Wasn't it in another recent thread that I said that you had "a fanaticism normally reserved for cult members"?

I rest my case.

Like you aren't equally as fanatic in the opposite direction? I think it's a pot calling the kettle black again... That's one major reason I thought his line of 'we're not so different after all' was so kick ass. It's just so damned true...

Like you aren't equally as fanatic in the opposite direction? I think it's a pot calling the kettle black again... That's one major reason I thought his line of 'we're not so different after all' was so kick ass. It's just so damned true...

:thumbsup: :ylsuper:

I don't think Carrrnuttt could be truly considered a fanatic. He's anti-Bush, but he's not even moderately pro-Kerry.

Thegladhatter is both fanatically pro-republican, and fanatically anti-democrat. I'm amazed he can even sleep at night, given his fervor for political rhetoric. :lol:

Like you aren't equally as fanatic in the opposite direction? I think it's a pot calling the kettle black again... That's one major reason I thought his line of 'we're not so different after all' was so kick ass. It's just so damned true...

LOL

How often do you actually read my posts?

If you had read into most of my posts, you'd know that it is actually my faith in the Republican Congress keeping a narrow eye on a Kerry administration that gives me breathing room to vote for him.

My faith in Congress keeping a rein on Bush? 0%

See, a government of absolute, such as Bush has, is dangerous. It's easier to influence and sway one man, than a large group, such as Congress is. I am not looking at this emotionally such as you "Bushists" are, but in a calculated manner, designed to figure out which man is less dangerous for the country. Even if Bush himself is good-hearted, Cheney and Rumsfeld have proven themselves as cold-blooded time and again, since even before Reagan. They are simply glad to ride the coattails of the Bush family influence over the Republican-controlled Congress. Hell, I won't be surprised if they cultivated it themselves.

I will repeat this for the umpteenth time. I have spewed what I feel is my straight logic about these two candidates. I have yet to hear an unemotional, equally logical response from any of you.

I am especially disappointed in you, Yogs, sitting there in the corner, snickering, like my two main detractors in these Political forums are actually helping your cause. I am also disappointed, as you, being a Programmer like me, with even more experience, hasn't even attempted to kill my logic. Please do. I look forward to it.

Here's a quote of one of my recent posts:



Please.

I highly doubt that I, at any point, have sounded as fanatic as you in here. I never said Kerry doesn't lie.

As a matter of fact, I'll openly say that he sickens me EXACTLY as much as GWB does. I just prefer him, as his Liberal policies will be kept in check by a Republican Congress, as opposed to Bush's liberal spending, which the same Republican Congress just rubber-stamps on their way out. With Bush, Congress is nothing more than a tool, a pen he uses to sign whatever flight of fancy him, and his cabinet (especially Cheney) decides to embark on.

I defend Kerry in here, but only as far as the items I have found and read about him carry, like about his "questionable" service or his "ketchup money". I am hoping to counter the propaganda that Bush robots like you are propagating, so that people may think for themselves, instead of being taken by the emotional response you guys are hoping for when you post slanderous shit like that mass e-mail that my link refutes.

If you feel the same way about what people have said, or posted about Bush, and feel that he is being slandered also, post some proof, or even maybe a link, purporting to proof. Not some op-ed piece...

Oh, and as for my logic, here:


My logic is simple. I contend that Bush and Kerry are as equally corrupt as politicians go, except that one of them has the power to make a scared Congress do whatever he wants, like paying Iraq's interim government 3.5 million a year, as US jobs go overseas...or go to war, sacrificing young Americans for a lie.

I doubt if Kerry will have that kind of "pull" in a Republican Congress, which makes me feel better.

I'm not hedging on either one to make it "better", just counting on the one that won't make it worse.

Destroy that logic, and you can win my vote for Bush -- again. Simple, right?

Thegladhatter is both fanatically pro-republican, and fanatically anti-democrat. I'm amazed he can even sleep at night, given his fervor for political rhetoric. :lol:
As long as there isn't a Dem in the Whitehouse I sleep quite well thank you very much. :)

wow...yet another kerry/clinton VS W thread, who would have thought?

lets look at the original topic, that the uneducated tend to vote republican. from what ive researched, 2strokebloke is actually right on this account...just as many ignorant fools vote democrat as republican. (given statisically negligable differences)

now, that those who believe in our rationals for war were legit, yeah, they tend to be one sided, and ignorant. either way you look at it, bush was wrong to go to war, and he knew he was wrong.

no WMD have been produced, and the fact that the closest thing the government has to proof is a few sketches in a notebook owned by a man who was clinically insane, is sad. given the amount of "evidence" that was touted pre-war, you think we'd have found something by now.

Saddam hussien was a rogue leader who has commited crimes against humanity. yes, he is. but this is one of those times we must strive to look in the mirror. by acting unilaterally we became a rogue nation, and our leaders have their own hands to clean of crimes against humanity before they start being all holier than thou on another nation.

saddam hussien has not been shown to have ties with bin laden. granted, they are both residents of the same geographical region, but the proof actually points in the other direction. our government has actually come into contact with binladen, and funded him, more than hussien ever may have. lets keep in mind how buddy buddy we were witht he taliban when they were fighting those damn reds. in fact, bin laden is a muslim extremist who viewed the actions of saddam in as wrong a light as we do. in fact, im sure ousting hussien just checked off one more thing on bin laden's to-do list.

now: onto kerry v bush. niether one fo them will act with the best interest on the nation in mind. they will act with the best interest of themselves and their campaign contributors in mind. plato said it best when he said (ill paraphrase because i dont know the exact quote) the best rulers are those who do not wish to rule, for they will act for the state, not for themselves. the populace must be wary of those seeking to rule, as they are only forwarding their position.

Just because they have NOT been found doesn't mean GB lied.

"I never had sex with that woman." One of MANY!!
Kerry has been caught in MANY as well.

What truth has been bent by the right?
Nixon screwed up.......but he had the best interests of the NATION in mind.
Reagan made mistakes......but he had the best interests of the NATION in mind.
GHWB made mistakes.......but he had the best interests of the NATION in mind.
Clinton made whoopie........but he had the best interests of not getting caught with his pants around his ankles in mind.
GWB is still in the game AND he has the best interests of the NATION in mind.

EVERYBODY makes mistakes.....lying is a totally different matter.
Dubya has the interests of the nation in mind??


Then why is he trying to get half the nation killed?

Never mind, you probably are one of those stupid fuckers that think Saddam Hussein was an Islamic radical who was Osama bin Laden's best mate. :rolleyes:

I really don't know enough about Kerry to comment on him, I couldn't give any less of a shit about US politics, I'm not the one who has to live there hence it doesn't affect me- unless George thinks it's time Europe ha a wee-regime change.

I also don't see the big deal about Clinton's sex scandals, I mean so what? Audultery is hadly the biggest deal

Dubya has the interests of the nation in mind??
Then why is he trying to get half the nation killed?
What the hell arte you talking about?? Half the nation?????
This war in Iraq has been NOTHING compared to the multitudes who died at the whims of the Democrats??

WWI? Woody Wilson's war...MANY dead! DEMOCRAT
WWII? Roosevelt's war...MANY dead! DEMOCRAT
Korea?? Truman's war...MANY dead! DEMOCRAT
Vietnam? Kennedy's war...MANY dead!! DEMOCRAT
Gulf War I? GHWB's war...Very few dead! REPUBLICAN
Gulf war II? GWB's war...STILL very few! REPUBLICAN

....see the pattern?
....I really don't know enough about Kerry to comment on him, ....
Apparently that's not all you don't know enough about to comment on....

What the hell? World War I and World War II were entered by the US on the account that they were attacked (The sinking of the US cruise ship (Name escapes me at this minute) by Germans in 1917 and Pearl harbour)- so scratch those. Korea was a war with a legitimate cause (North invading the South, US allied with the South) scratch that.

Vietnam was a mistake, an absolute tactical blunder on the US militaries part.

However George Jr. comes along and starts a war based on lies and conspiray, leads thousands of servicemen on a wild goose chase for weapons that don't exist and gets more and more of them blown up by the day along with a huge number of Iraqi civillians, the people he was supposed to be "liberating"


Oh and any more snide remarks, especially from a bigot like yourself and it's a week-long AF holiday, got that?

You would ban him because of snide remarks? If that's the case then I would suggest banning half of the moderators along with a good portion of the contributors to this forum.

You would ban him because of snide remarks? If that's the case then I would suggest banning half of the moderators along with a good portion of the contributors to this forum.

From time to time, I'm reminded you guys don't know the official policies of the moderators. Too bad for you guys :lol:

Its important to remember that snide remarks and creative name calling is the private venue of the moderators.

This thread has outlived its usefulness.