Faith Based Believers vs. Reality Based Folks

cloasters · #1 (**permalink**) 22nd October, 2004, 06:41 PM

These numbers don't flatter disinformed citizens.

75% believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

74% believe Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in agreements on trade.

72% believe Iraq had WMD or a program to develop them.

72% believe Bush supports the treaty banning land mines.

69% believe Bush supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

61% believe if Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq he would have not gone to war.

60% believe most experts believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

58% believe the Duelfer Report concluded that Iraq had either WMD or a major program to develop them.

57% believe that the majority of the people in the world would prefer to see Bush elected.

56% believe most experts think Iraq had WMD.

55% believe that the 9/11 report concluded that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

51% believe that Bush supports the Kyoto Treaty.

robbie · #2 (**permalink**) 22nd October, 2004, 07:24 PM

I agree with Kerry 50% of the time.

Rob

GrahamGarside · #3 (**permalink**) 22nd October, 2004, 09:02 PM

I take it they are real majoritys and not the kind it takes to win the election as well

cloasters · #4 (**permalink**) 22nd October, 2004, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrahamGarside

I take it they are real majoritys and not the kind it takes to win the election as well

The numbers represent the political beliefs of the "true believers" in what Bush and company as well as the Regime Media choose to tell us.

The regime sees what it wants to, because it defines its own reality. We have the option of following along, yet the light of day reveals an ongoing tragedy for the world and us.

alexkerhead · #5 (**permalink**) 22nd October, 2004, 11:03 PM

This election stink, I want more good candidates.
well, I will just vote whoever I feel like when the time comes, but personally, this is the first time for me to vote, and I am disqusted at each candidate.

robbie · #6 (**permalink**) 23rd October, 2004, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexkerhead

This election stink, I want more good candidates.
well, I will just vote whoever I feel like when the time comes, but personally, this is the first time for me to vote, and I am disqusted at each candidate.

I do agree with you there, I am TRUELY surprized that the DNC picked Kerry. My thinking is they want Bush to have it for another 4 years so they can show just how much of a mess things are and we need them to fix it. (mark my words on this)

And as I said before, it WILL BE Clinton in 08!!!!
Rob

danrok · #7 (**permalink**) 23rd October, 2004, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexkerhead

This election stink, I want more good candidates.
well, I will just vote whoever I feel like when the time comes, but personally, this is the first time for me to vote, and I am disqusted at each candidate.

If you don't like either then consider not voting. If enough people don't vote they will get the message!

I think the real root of the problem in the US is that one person, i.e. Bush, has too much power and control both in the US and world wide. That would be OK if the perfect President existed, but it would seem that he/she does not exsist. Perhaps, each state could have a leader and those leaders would make the big decisions collectively, less oportunity for abuse and misuse of power.

cloasters · #8 (**permalink**) 23rd October, 2004, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbie

I do agree with you there, I am TRUELY surprized that the DNC picked Kerry. My thinking is they want Bush to have it for another 4 years so they can show just how much of a mess things are and we need them to fix it. (mark my words on this)

And as I said before, it WILL BE Clinton in 08!!!!
Rob

Call me Henny Penny. I think the USA that we want will be a distant memory if Bush is elected. While Kerry isn't the "people person" that Dems would like to have as a candidate, his record as a Senator is admirable.

When Mr Cheney was the Secretary of Defense, Kerry voted according to Cheney's wish to cut a weapons system--nearly every time.
Cheney has the nerve to omit this fact and spins a tale accusing Kerry of being "soft on defense."

GrahamGarside · #9 (**permalink**) 23rd October, 2004, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danrok

If you don't like either then consider not voting. If enough people don't vote they will get the message!

Maybe, or maybe not, enough people in both countrys were opposed to the war but did they give a toss? do you think any kind of protest phases these people?

alexkerhead · #10 (**permalink**) 23rd October, 2004, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbie

I do agree with you there, I am TRUELY surprized that the DNC picked Kerry. My thinking is they want Bush to have it for another 4 years so they can show just how much of a mess things are and we need them to fix it. (mark my words on this)

And as I said before, it WILL BE Clinton in 08!!!!
Rob

first danrok, I have to vote, I just have to, dont ask, but I feel a strong need to..it will be Kerry, just for a couple of things....ask if you want to know.

rob, I hope it will be Clinton in 08...LOL......we need a real man in office.

brian770 · #11 (**permalink**) 24th October, 2004, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexkerhead

first danrok, I have to vote, I just have to, dont ask, but I feel a strong need to..it will be Kerry, just for a couple of things....ask if you want to know.

rob, I hope it will be Clinton in 08...LOL......we need a real man in office.

hi all!!!

i realy shouldnt say this, i mean realy realy shouldnt say this , but i am not against a woman in the highest office, but considering that a woman can get off a murder charge because of "severly unstable hormone levels" and my wife( god i hope she dont read this!!!) turns into a raving lunatic for one week a month. and many women get it worse after menapause, i dont think i would trust that kinda power to someone that needs to have thier hormone levels regulated with drugs. i can see it now," i dont know why i passed that, i was having a bad day?"or " its just a hot flash?"
i know it sounds bad, and i realy do respect women but its just my twisted view of it. so go ahead and blast me for it.

Logan · #12 (**permalink**) 24th October, 2004, 03:37 AM

I wouldn't vote for Hilary even if she were MY wife.

cw823 · #13 (**permalink**) 27th October, 2004, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danrok

If you don't like either then consider not voting. If enough people don't vote they will get the message!

That's the worst advice you could possibly give. Every vote counts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by danrok

I think the real root of the problem in the US is that one person, i.e. Bush, has too much power and control both in the US and world wide. That would be OK if the perfect President existed, but it would seem that he/she does not exsist. Perhaps, each state could have a leader and those leaders would make the big decisions collectively, less oportunity for abuse and misuse of power.

Daniel ~ · #14 (**permalink**) 27th October, 2004, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cw823

That's the worst advice you could possibly give. Every vote counts.

Unless your Black and live in Florida...

robbie · #15 (**permalink**) 27th October, 2004, 01:08 PM

Quote:

rob, I hope it will be Clinton in 08...LOL......we need a real man in office.

This gave me a laugh!!! Thanks,
I think I'll have a bigger laugh when she is elected. (errr when she sue's to get her way)
Rob

GrahamGarside · #16 (**permalink**) 28th October, 2004, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

Unless your Black and live in Florida...

every vote still counts, they just don't get one or the support to register a complaint about it

Kaitain · #17 (**permalink**) 28th October, 2004, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danrok

I think the real root of the problem in the US is that one person, i.e. Bush, has too much power and control both in the US and world wide.

Not entirely true, the U.S. President (in general) has less power than they like us to think.

The issue with Bush is that he is backed by a predominantly Republican Congress and House of Representitives. This means that legislation for political ends can breeze through the houses without any opposition, common sense or real discussion delaying it.

It's bad news when Congress and the President agree - try not to let it happen again

(We can talk - what bunch of morons elected the largest Commons majority in history, given that the British system gives stupid amounts of power to the PM?)

GrahamGarside · #18 (**permalink**) 28th October, 2004, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaitain

We can talk - what bunch of morons elected the largest Commons majority in history, given that the British system gives stupid amounts of power to the PM?

ooh ooh I know this one, hmm, don't help me I'll get it. It was us wasn't it?

I personally have never voted "labour" and never will after the way they've acted in recent years