NationStates Jolt Archive

After reading this report, I was truly amazed how uninformed most Republicans are and/or choose to be?

http://www.pipa.org/

A new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll finds a consensus among the American public that if Iraq did not have WMD and was not providing substantial support to al Qaeda, the US should not have gone to war with Iraq. Seventy-four percent overall have this view, including 58% of Bush supporters, 92% of Kerry supporters and 77% of the uncommitted-those who have not made a definite commitment to vote for one or the other candidate.

A majority also rejects the argument that the US should have gone to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein had the intention to acquire WMD. Presented two arguments, only 35% endorsed the one that said, "Even if Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, the US still should have gone to war with Iraq, because Saddam Hussein had the intention to acquire such weapons at some point in the future." Rather, 60% said that if Saddam only had a desire for such weapons, "instead of invading Iraq, the US should have made sure he did not get the capability to make them."

Overall, support for the decision to go to war has eroded slightly, so that a bare majority of 51% now says that it was the wrong decision, and 46% say it was the right decision (as compared to August when 49% said it was the wrong decision and 46% the right decision).

Steven Kull comments, "It may seem contradictory that three quarters of Americans say that the US should not have gone to war if Iraq did not have WMD or was not providing support to al Qaeda, while nearly half still say the war was the right decision. However, support for the decision is sustained by persisting beliefs among half of Americans that Iraq provided substantial support to al Qaeda, and had WMD, or at least a major WMD program."

Despite the widely-publicized conclusions of the Duelfer report, 49% of Americans continue to believe Iraq had actual WMD (27%) or a major WMD program (22%), and 52% believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

Check out the following report:

The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

Either Bush supporters do not want to know the truth and/or live in denial, and/or don't really care?

George W. Bush is incapable of believing he has made any sort of mistake. After all, God chose him to be President, and God guides all his decisions - and God can't be wrong, right?

God has better things to do than meddle in American foreign policy. Frankly, if there is a God who actually watches Earth at close range, I don't think he would speak to George W. Bush.

George W. Bush is incapable of believing he has made any sort of mistake. After all, God chose him to be President, and God guides all his decisions - and God can't be wrong, right?

God has better things to do than meddle in American foreign policy. Frankly, if there is a God who actually watches Earth at close range, I don't think he would speak to George W. Bush.
Probably would not even allow him in the choir?

Damn, I can't wait till the Revelation. Then the atheists will "wakey wakey".

Damn what I want to know is why is George W. Bush still in office?

Damn, I can't wait till the Revelation. Then the atheists will "wakey wakey".
And that has what exactly to do with the topic at hand?

Damn, I can't wait till the Revelation. Then the atheists will "wakey wakey".
What does Revelation and atheism have to do with this thread?

And that has what exactly to do with the topic at hand?
You must have been posting this while I was typing the same thing!! :cool:

And that has what exactly to do with the topic at hand?

Just the fact that everyone on NS seems to be an atheist, which I'm fine with, but I just can't stand it when atheists generalize about christians.

Just the fact that everyone on NS seems to be an atheist, which I'm fine with, but I just can't stand it when atheists generalize about christians.


He's just feeling defensive about christianity, and moved into attack mode on anything that could be construed as anti-christian (like the second post on this thread could be), so he's decided to hijack the thread because someone spoke sarcastically about god?

i hate christian bashers, and i'm atheist. don't bash unless you're bashed!

He's just feeling defensive about christianity, and moved into attack mode on anything that could be construed as anti-christian (like the second post on this thread could be), so he's decided to hijack the thread because someone spoke sarcastically about god?

No, just feeling like you don't know jack shit about christianity, but yet you still bash it.

i hate christian bashers, and i'm atheist. don't bash unless you're bashed!

*Translation*

I'm feeling oversensitive and feel the urge to argue even though it was fairly obvious the dragging athiesm in was an artifact of someone elses oversensitivity. So i will choose to interpret the above post as bashing because that will enable me to chime in and come across as tolerant and accepting.

Just the fact that everyone on NS seems to be an atheist, which I'm fine with, but I just can't stand it when atheists generalize about christians.
Well if you are suggesting for one minute that I am an atheist than you should realize that you are dead wrong. Now if you would care to comment on the posted link or debate the thread topic than by all means go for it.

No, just feeling like you don't know jack shit about christianity, but yet you still bash it.


Actually I was raised protestant, have read the bible about three and a half times and have a thicker skin about my faith than to allow someone who really isnt even bashing it get under my skin.

*Translation*

I'm feeling oversensitive and feel the urge to argue even though it was fairly obvious the dragging athiesm in was an artifact of someone elses oversensitivity. So i will choose to interpret the above post as bashing because that will enable me to chime in and come across as tolerant and accepting.

thanks, i couldn't find the right words

thanks, i couldn't find the right words

Welcome, always try to be helpful whenever possible.


Anyhoo, i think frankly this comes from the fact that in this day and age...when people can just use the phrase "That source is biased" to dismiss anything bringing in a viewpoint or facts that conflict with their own belief system they will. Its more comfortable to ignore everything else as biased and only pay attention to information sources that closely mirror your own beliefs.

Now....trying to get back on track....

Here is one clear indication of the difference between Kerry supporters and Bush supporters:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

Despite the report of the 9/11 Commission saying there is no evidence Iraq was providing significant support to al Qaeda, 75% of Bush supporters believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda (30% of Kerry supporters), with 20% believing that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. Sixty-three percent of Bush supporters even believe that clear evidence of this support has been found, while 85% of Kerry supporters believe the opposite.

How can this be? Is it denial, misinformation or lack of caring?

I think part of it is cognitive dissonance--the desire to believe something in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But I think a large part of it comes from the way in which people get their news today. So many people have as their primary news source an "analyst" like Limbaugh or Savage, and if that's where you get your news, then no wonder you've got it all wrong. Those people work the same way fundamentalist groups do--they get you to trust them as the only true source of information, and then discourage you from checking them against any other source, or try to discredit other sources. This isn't a bashing of Christianity in general--it's a description of any exclusionary group. I should know--I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, and that's their M.O.

I think part of it is cognitive dissonance--the desire to believe something in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But I think a large part of it comes from the way in which people get their news today. So many people have as their primary news source an "analyst" like Limbaugh or Savage, and if that's where you get your news, then no wonder you've got it all wrong. Those people work the same way fundamentalist groups do--they get you to trust them as the only true source of information, and then discourage you from checking them against any other source, or try to discredit other sources. This isn't a bashing of Christianity in general--it's a description of any exclusionary group. I should know--I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, and that's their M.O.

Christianity isn't exclusionary, though. Anyone can be a Christian, andyone can accept Jesus Christ. If you choose not to, then that's fine.

I think part of it is cognitive dissonance--the desire to believe something in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But I think a large part of it comes from the way in which people get their news today. So many people have as their primary news source an "analyst" like Limbaugh or Savage, and if that's where you get your news, then no wonder you've got it all wrong. Those people work the same way fundamentalist groups do--they get you to trust them as the only true source of information, and then discourage you from checking them against any other source, or try to discredit other sources. This isn't a bashing of Christianity in general--it's a description of any exclusionary group. I should know--I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, and that's their M.O.
Well I am sure this does not bode well for the world, when you consider that the US controls the most lethal military arsenal in the world? Perhaps freedom of speech has backfired by allowing too many untruths or outright lies to be disseminated as gospel?

More wakey....wakey stuff:

In recent months the American public has been presented reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the heads of the Iraq survey group David Kay and Charles Duelfer (chosen by the president), concluding that before the war Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor even a significant program for developing them. Nonetheless, 72% of Bush supporters continued to hold to the view that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Only 26% of Kerry supporters hold such beliefs.

That to me is an amazing disparity?

Christianity isn't exclusionary, though. Anyone can be a Christian, andyone can accept Jesus Christ. If you choose not to, then that's fine.Christianity as a whole isn't, but individual sects of Christianity are, especially the more fundamentalist and evangelical groups, and that's where Bush draws most of his support from.

George W. Bush is incapable of believing he has made any sort of mistake. After all, God chose him to be President, and God guides all his decisions - and God can't be wrong, right? :eek: Dick Cheney's God?!? :eek:

He's just feeling defensive about christianity, and moved into attack mode on anything that could be construed as anti-christian (like the second post on this thread could be), so he's decided to hijack the thread because someone spoke sarcastically about god?
But isn't hijacking a thread to bash on the religious people the same sin? It's all hijacking.

Damn, I can't wait till the Revelation. Then the atheists will "wakey wakey".

haha i cant wait till you die and theres nothing there!

:eek: Dick Cheney's God?!? :eek:

Karl Rove, actually, but yeah, you get the idea.

:eek: Dick Cheney's God?!? :eek:

hahahaha that made me laugh :)

I'm curious. Is saying things like "Bush Supporters Wakey Wakey" and implying they are morons a sincere attempt to persuade them to your viewpoint?

Or do you genuinely believe that they are idiots, and they deserve the abuse?

I'm curious. Is saying things like "Bush Supporters Wakey Wakey" and implying they are morons a sincere attempt to persuade them to your viewpoint?

Or do you genuinely believe that they are idiots, and they deserve the abuse?

I believe its an expression of undying frustration that people keep themselves so woefully locked up from points of view other than their own that they continue to believe things, even the people they support have said outright arent true.

I believe its an expression of undying frustration that people keep themselves so woefully locked up from points of view other than their own that they continue to believe things, even the people they support have said outright arent true.

Ah, so it's the second option then.

All politicians lie, it's their job. During elections doubly so. There are many Bush supporters that feel the same way about Kerry, and they feel equally justified. Also there is little competent evidence that militates supporting either candidate. I think the Economist summed up the candidates the best - with the caveat that as a UK magazine they do not quite understand some of the domestic issues well enough.

Frankly I would invite neither Bush nor Kerry to dinner, nor trust them with my wallet.

I just wish for once a party would actually pick a decent candidate -for anything. Then people could actually support them, instead of pretending that the appointed turdbag was the best thing since sliced bread.

I really don't think many Bush supporters care about real issues. They care about non-issues like Bush's faith in God or that he makes them feel all warm and fuzzy. It's basically a matter of faith-based support. This sort of support leads people into wilful ignorance - that is self-suppression of the facts that could cause the support to be comprimised.

No, just feeling like you don't know jack shit about christianity, but yet you still bash it.
OK, let's have a Politically Correct thread people. ;)

I really don't think many Bush supporters care about real issues. They care about non-issues like Bush's faith in God or that he makes them feel all warm and fuzzy. It's basically a matter of faith-based support. This sort of support leads people into wilful ignorance - that is self-suppression of the facts that could cause the support to be comprimised.


OK, let's have a Politically Correct thread people. ;)


You could say the same for kerry voters. And what if your pro-life or anti gun control, those are real issues, and if you feel that way then Bush is definitely your candidate.

Bush-Monkey should have been impeached and incarcerated a long time ago. He's a dangerous criminal madman, even more dangerous than Hussein. If Clinton had to face impeachment due to Republican pressure, then Bush should have been impeached by the Democrats and the Republicans alike who dislike his policies and criminal activities. That the Americans still support their inept clown of a president shows just how ignorant they are to their own failures and that they rush head first into their demise, knowingly and fully aware of it approaching, but unwilling or too lazy to act! It's a shame that the supposedly best democracy in the world (hahaha) would allow it's unelected leader to act like Bush did. I spit on the American government and on all Americans who support Bush despite his criminal conduct.

After reading this report, I was truly amazed how uninformed most Republicans are and/or choose to be?

http://www.pipa.org/

A new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll finds a consensus among the American public that if Iraq did not have WMD and was not providing substantial support to al Qaeda, the US should not have gone to war with Iraq. Seventy-four percent overall have this view, including 58% of Bush supporters, 92% of Kerry supporters and 77% of the uncommitted-those who have not made a definite commitment to vote for one or the other candidate.

A majority also rejects the argument that the US should have gone to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein had the intention to acquire WMD. Presented two arguments, only 35% endorsed the one that said, "Even if Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, the US still should have gone to war with Iraq, because Saddam Hussein had the intention to acquire such weapons at some point in the future." Rather, 60% said that if Saddam only had a desire for such weapons, "instead of invading Iraq, the US should have made sure he did not get the capability to make them."

Overall, support for the decision to go to war has eroded slightly, so that a bare majority of 51% now says that it was the wrong decision, and 46% say it was the right decision (as compared to August when 49% said it was the wrong decision and 46% the right decision).

Steven Kull comments, "It may seem contradictory that three quarters of Americans say that the US should not have gone to war if Iraq did not have WMD or was not providing support to al Qaeda, while nearly half still say the war was the right decision. However, support for the decision is sustained by persisting beliefs among half of Americans that Iraq provided substantial support to al Qaeda, and had WMD, or at least a major WMD program."

Despite the widely-publicized conclusions of the Duelfer report, 49% of Americans continue to believe Iraq had actual WMD (27%) or a major WMD program (22%), and 52% believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

Check out the following report:

The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

Either Bush supporters do not want to know the truth and/or live in denial, and/or don't really care?

Only Bush supporters care about three things.

50%: I like him because he likes god and the bible. Status: Stupid
49.99%: I like him cause hes Texas tough! Status: More stupid
0.01%: I think he has good policies in healthcare, econemy and the war on "terror" Status: Most stupid

Bush-Monkey should have been impeached and incarcerated a long time ago. He's a dangerous criminal madman, even more dangerous than Hussein. If Clinton had to face impeachment due to Republican pressure, then Bush should have been impeached by the Democrats and the Republicans alike who dislike his policies and criminal activities. That the Americans still support their inept clown of a president shows just how ignorant they are to their own failures and that they rush head first into their demise, knowingly and fully aware of it approaching, but unwilling or too lazy to act! It's a shame that the supposedly best democracy in the world (hahaha) would allow it's unelected leader to act like Bush did. I spit on the American government and on all Americans who support Bush despite his criminal conduct.

I would like to thank you for NOT generalizing, saying that you would spit on all Americans, maybe you Euros arent so bad. We both share an extreme hate for Bush, If Bush wins, try to "liberate" us as Bush said he would do to the Iraqis, than see what he does.

In reference to the issues:

I am anti-gun control, but to vote for Bush would be stupid of me since I disagree with every other policy he has, especially the one about doing everything God tells him.

Ironic that hi supporters tried to play off the old Kerry will obey the Pope nonsense since he is ruling in a way that destroys America just to make God happy.