American public dazed and confused

[jackschmittusa]

This just goes to show effective the Bush and co. BS can be, especially when helped by a media desparate for headlines.

WMD poll

 

[burnedout]

From your own link:

While Bush critics see an effort to mislead the public, some analysts say Bush has been following a long presidential history of framing a foreign crisis for maximum domestic benefit.

''I'm not going to defend the president, but a policy of preemptive attacks sure looks better after this country has been hit hard,'' said Sam Popkin, a polling expert at the University of California at San Diego who has advised Democratic candidates.

 

[Martin]

I've said this before and I'm saying it again. The American public is no match for the Bush PR department, which is why I am sure Bush will win next year.

 

[Zrom999]

The majority of the people who live in the US are just plain stupid. The few intelligent ones find ways to manipulate the ignorant hordes and some just don't care.

 

[Drift3r]

"Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001."

Me bows head in shame at the ignorance of my fellow Americans.

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

"Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001."

Me bows head in shame at the ignorance of my fellow Americans.

Jesus Christ, that's a damn shame.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: burnedout
From your own link:

While Bush critics see an effort to mislead the public, some analysts say Bush has been following a long presidential history of framing a foreign crisis for maximum domestic benefit.

''I'm not going to defend the president, but a policy of preemptive attacks sure looks better after this country has been hit hard,'' said Sam Popkin, a polling expert at the University of California at San Diego who has advised Democratic candidates.

Point? I haven't seen anyone suggest Bush was the first president to lie to America. In fact, I seem to remember that we impeached a president for "lying", and he didn't even kill anyone.

Anyway, they printed the same article in our local paper this morning. Mind-boggling. I'm sure it's due to a combination of many factors -- cognitive dissonance (a.k.a. denial), simple ignorance, slanted reporting, and the never-ending misinformation from the White House -- but it's a shameful commentary on the American people. The truth is out there for anyone who wants it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

edit- oops

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: burnedout
From your own link:

While Bush critics see an effort to mislead the public, some analysts say Bush has been following a long presidential history of framing a foreign crisis for maximum domestic benefit.

''I'm not going to defend the president, but a policy of preemptive attacks sure looks better after this country has been hit hard,'' said Sam Popkin, a polling expert at the University of California at San Diego who has advised Democratic candidates.

Point? I haven't seen anyone suggest Bush was the first president to lie to America. In fact, I seem to remember that we impeached a president for "lying", and he didn't even kill anyone.

Do you not recall what Clinton did several days before the Monica trial?

But either way, he didn't free some 22 million people from suffering and oppression either.

 

[Syringer]

This poll really isn't indicative of anything though. If I were ever asked these questions I'd be like "Yes Saddam did fly the two towers into the WTC right after he assassinated Kennedy during his 'I have a dream' speech.

Seriously though, I talk to people in real life, in my community college classes and such..which definitely doesn't represent the upper crust of the "knowledgable" in this world, and I can't think of more than a handful that would answer these questions as they are here.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: burnedout
From your own link:

While Bush critics see an effort to mislead the public, some analysts say Bush has been following a long presidential history of framing a foreign crisis for maximum domestic benefit.

''I'm not going to defend the president, but a policy of preemptive attacks sure looks better after this country has been hit hard,'' said Sam Popkin, a polling expert at the University of California at San Diego who has advised Democratic candidates.

Point? I haven't seen anyone suggest Bush was the first president to lie to America. In fact, I seem to remember that we impeached a president for "lying", and he didn't even kill anyone.

"Anyone"? Kosovo, Serbia, continuing overflights and bombing runs against Iraq during his term, Haiti, etc? Let us also leave out cruise missile strikes against Somalia and Afghanistan while we are at it.

Anyway, they printed the same article in our local paper this morning. Mind-boggling. I'm sure it's due to a combination of many factors -- cognitive dissonance (a.k.a. denial), simple ignorance, slanted reporting, and the never-ending misinformation from the White House -- but it's a shameful commentary on the American people. The truth is out there for anyone who wants it.

Always is. For those who care, anyway.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Zrom999
The majority of the people who live in the US are just plain stupid. The few intelligent ones find ways to manipulate the ignorant hordes and some just don't care.

It's not stupidity, it's ignorance

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: burnedout
"Anyone"? Kosovo, Serbia, continuing overflights and bombing runs against Iraq during his term, Haiti, etc? Let us also leave out cruise missile strikes against Somalia and Afghanistan while we are at it.

As I said in another thread, you seem to be suggesting a "two wrongs make a right" defense. Sorry, doesn't hold water. Not in the least. Wouldn't be prudent.

What Clinton or poppa Bush or Reagan or Johnson or Roosevelt may or may not have done is irrelevant to Bush-lite's actions. To suggest otherwise is dishonest. If you have a gripe with Bush's predecessors, it's history now and it belongs in its own thread. What Bush did -- and continues to do -- was wrong. Defend him or damn him on his own merits instead of changing the subject.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: burnedout
"Anyone"? Kosovo, Serbia, continuing overflights and bombing runs against Iraq during his term, Haiti, etc? Let us also leave out cruise missile strikes against Somalia and Afghanistan while we are at it.

As I said in another thread, you seem to be suggesting a "two wrongs make a right" defense. Sorry, doesn't hold water. Not in the least. Wouldn't be prudent.

What Clinton or poppa Bush or Reagan or Johnson or Roosevelt may or may not have done is irrelevant to Bush-lite's actions. To suggest otherwise is dishonest. If you have a gripe with Bush's predecessors, it's history now and it belongs in its own thread. What Bush did -- and continues to do -- was wrong. Defend him or damn him on his own merits instead of changing the subject.

Negative. You flatly stated "In fact, I seem to remember that we impeached a president for "lying", and he didn't even kill anyone." when numerous combat operations were executed under his command.

 

[Phokus]

Good lord, are the warmongers really that retarded?

 

[KenGr]

A couple of issues about polls:

Today, people are overloaded with information and we shouldn't be surprised they can't catalog the nationality of the 9/11 hijackers. The human brain processes the necessary information and moves on. The hijackers were from the middle east and hated America. Therefore, Middle Easterners who hate the US are bad. Move on to next issue.

The way questions are asked are very important. How many of the people questioned consider the trailers and gas warheads as WMD? How many people thought they were being asked historically to Saddam's previous WMD use? When everyone accepts that Florida voters can't even understand a simple ballot, how many people really understand survey questions?

I'm pretty amazed that the "think tankers" found this amazing. Maybe we should do a poll to find out how many pollsters have any concept of how the public really operates in evaluating current events and news.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Negative. You flatly stated "In fact, I seem to remember that we impeached a president for "lying", and he didn't even kill anyone." when numerous combat operations were executed under his command.

Hmm. I think etech may be on to something when he complains about reading comprehesion.

The context of my comment was Bush lying about his reasons for invading Iraq, followed by your suggestion, supported by a quote from the article, that this was OK since other presidents had lied to push their agendas. While I think my reply should have been totally obvious to anyone, given its context, let me be more specific: I seem to remember that we impeached a president for "lying", and he didn't even kill anyone (within the context of the lie that led to the impeachment proceedings). My implication, of course, is that Bush-lite's lies are far more serious than Clinton's, with far greater consequence to this nation, and therefore Bush's punishment should be much more severe than Clinton's.

Is that more clear to you? Would you care to address the topic of the thread now?


Edit: never mind. I see Phokus said the same thing, only much more succinctly.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: burnedout

Negative. You flatly stated "In fact, I seem to remember that we impeached a president for "lying", and he didn't even kill anyone." when numerous combat operations were executed under his command.

Hmm. I think etech may be on to something when he complains about reading comprehesion.

First of all, don't even attempt to sell me the old "reading comprehension" diatribe. Such language not only detracts from the debate, one garners the damning label of arrogant self-servitude.

The context of my comment was Bush lying about his reasons for invading Iraq, followed by your suggestion, supported by a quote from the article, that this was OK since other presidents had lied to push their agendas. While I think my reply should have been totally obvious to anyone, given its context, let me be more specific: I seem to remember that we impeached a president for "lying", and he didn't even kill anyone (within the context of the lie that led to the impeachment proceedings). My implication, of course, is that Bush-lite's lies are far more serious than Clinton's, with far greater consequence to this nation, and therefore Bush's punishment should be much more severe than Clinton's.

Is that more clear to you? Would you care to address the topic of the thread now?

Whoooaaaaa. Hang on just a moment.

Who has officially charged Dubya with a crime? And may I ask when will Dubya's impeachment or trial begin? You make it sound as if the charges have already been filed. Have they?

And you were the one who brought Clinton into the debate in the first place immediately after my initial comment in this thread with the ambiguous comment of "impeached a president for "lying", and he didn't even kill anyone".

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Good lord, are the warmongers really that retarded?

Don't worry jokus. Your status as the most retarded person in the known universe is still intact. By a large margin.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Whoooaaaaa. Hang on just a moment.

Who has officially charged Dubya with a crime? And may I ask when will Dubya's impeachment or trial begin? You make it sound as if the charges have already been filed. Have they?

And you were the one who brought Clinton into the debate in the first place immediately after my initial comment in this thread with the ambiguous comment of "impeached a president for "lying", and he didn't even kill anyone".

Oh, give me a break. You shouldn't work so hard to misunderstand my posts, you'll strain something.

I've made my point for those who care to read it. You can either respond to it or continue to dodge the subject as you see fit. I don't think you're fooling anyone, but then again, the poll shows that a lot of Americans are unbelievably ignorant. Maybe you'll get lucky and find one or two of them here.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: burnedout
Whoooaaaaa. Hang on just a moment.

Who has officially charged Dubya with a crime? And may I ask when will Dubya's impeachment or trial begin? You make it sound as if the charges have already been filed. Have they?

And you were the one who brought Clinton into the debate in the first place immediately after my initial comment in this thread with the ambiguous comment of "impeached a president for "lying", and he didn't even kill anyone".

Oh, give me a break. You shouldn't work so hard to misunderstand my posts, you'll strain something.

I've made my point for those who care to read it. You can either respond to it or continue to dodge the subject as you see fit. I don't think you're fooling anyone, but then again, the poll shows that a lot of Americans are unbelievably ignorant. Maybe you'll get lucky and find one or two of them here.

Who in the hell is misunderstanding posts? Are you implying that I'm ignorant? You are the one who originally injected Clinton into the damn debate, not me.

At anyrate, IF Dubya's supposed "lies" are proven as such, then logically he should be given due process like Clinton received. However the main word here is 'IF'. Historically speaking, I doubt it. Clinton burned far too many bridges with the Washington crowd during his first term in office. I've not seen that yet from Dubya. However, time will tell.

 

[LeadMagnet]

I just know that when I wake up and look east over the atlantic i can almost see california

 

[freakflag]

Originally posted by: Zrom999
The majority of the people who live in the US are just plain stupid. The few intelligent ones find ways to manipulate the ignorant hordes and some just don't care.

The majority of people on the whole stinkin' planet are stupid. Don't single out the U.S.
I know it's popular to blame all the world's ills on the United States, but, take a good long look around.
You think people are smarter in Europe? Scandinavia? The Middle East? Asia?
Please. If you believe that, you are the stupidest one of all.


EDIT: BTW, I'm pretty sure you could get 20% of the population to believe that Mickey Mouse is real and time-shares a condo in Miami with the right PR firm.

 

[Zrom999]

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: Zrom999
The majority of the people who live in the US are just plain stupid. The few intelligent ones find ways to manipulate the ignorant hordes and some just don't care.

The majority of people on the whole stinkin' planet are stupid. Don't single out the U.S.
I know it's popular to blame all the world's ills on the United States, but, take a good long look around.
You think people are smarter in Europe? Scandinavia? The Middle East? Asia?
Please. If you believe that, you are the stupidest one of all.


EDIT: BTW, I'm pretty sure you could get 20% of the population to believe that Mickey Mouse is real and time-shares a condo in Miami with the right PR firm.

If you think that the low intelligence levels, and poor education systems of some third world or developing nation should diminish the faults of the US, then you, my freaky friend, are the most ignorant of all. It isn't wrong to expect a lot better from an industrialized nation claiming to be a "super power".

 

[freakflag]

Originally posted by: Zrom999

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: Zrom999
The majority of the people who live in the US are just plain stupid. The few intelligent ones find ways to manipulate the ignorant hordes and some just don't care.

The majority of people on the whole stinkin' planet are stupid. Don't single out the U.S.
I know it's popular to blame all the world's ills on the United States, but, take a good long look around.
You think people are smarter in Europe? Scandinavia? The Middle East? Asia?
Please. If you believe that, you are the stupidest one of all.


EDIT: BTW, I'm pretty sure you could get 20% of the population to believe that Mickey Mouse is real and time-shares a condo in Miami with the right PR firm.

If you think that the low intelligence levels, and poor education systems of some third world or developing nation should diminish the faults of the US, then you, my freaky friend, are the most ignorant of all. It isn't wrong to expect a lot better from an industrialized nation claiming to be a "super power".

Ok, I'm not your friend, because you are an Anti-American bigot. Let's get that straight.
The only real ignorance is in the purpetuation of class envy of which you are guilty. What the hell does a nation being industrialized have to do with the average intelligence of people? Why should our status as a super power mean that the average citizen in the U.S. be any different from the average citizen anywhere? What you're essentially saying is that the U.S. citizen is superior to the rest of the world and any failings, which may be acceptable elsewhere due to thier inherent inferiority, are totally inexcusable. That logic is really quite crazy.