« Endorsements | Main | Appeasement »
The Irreality-Based Community
Why do people support George W. Bush? According to PIPA it's because they think he supports stuff he doesn't actually support but which they do support, and because they think Iraq had actual WMD (they didn't), that Duelfer discovered evidence of major WMD programs (he didn't), that most experts believe Iraq gave substantial aid to al-Qaeda (they don't), that world opinion was either behind the Iraq War or closely divided (it wasn't), and that world opinion is either behind Bush or closely divided (it's for Kerry 2 to 1). Nothing could beat complete denial.
October 21, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1301545
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Irreality-Based Community:
Comments
Shorter MY:
"Why do people support George W. Bush? Because they have not yet joined the reality-based community."
Posted by: cmdicely | Oct 21, 2004 12:12:55 PM
Never mind, you'd think that I wouldn't use that joke given that it was already Matt's headline, but apparently I was attacked by headline blindness. Read the whole bit, but the headline never registered in my brain, hit the comment link, again, headline doesn't register.
I think I should go get some coffee.
Posted by: cmdicely | Oct 21, 2004 12:14:35 PM
Q. [From audience] What is reality?
A. [GWB] And we're not afraid of it, either!
[An obscure cultural reference from my youth . . . ]
Posted by: rea | Oct 21, 2004 12:15:21 PM
The worst part is there is almost no way to reach this community. There is no wedge issue to bring them to our side and no way to make them wake up and realize what is going on.
That is, unless the Democrats decide to take each of those voters into a small room with a cult deprogrammer.
Now that'd be grassroots activism.
Posted by: dstein | Oct 21, 2004 12:20:53 PM
Ah, this "poll" gives the game away in the very first question!
Has the economy improved as compared to a year ago? 1,700,000 more jobs? Unemployment rate down from 6.0 last October to 5.4 now?
Who exactly is not living in the "reality-based" world?
Posted by: Al | Oct 21, 2004 12:30:21 PM
The worst part is there is almost no way to reach this community.
Sure there is. Bush reached them, after all, so they are clearly reachable. But they are reachable only through those institutions in which their faith is placed. So its likely that fallings-out (like the Bush-Robertson spat over Iraq) within the various irreality-based communities to which they are attached and through which Bush appealed to them will have more effect than any direct appeal from the reality-based community.
Then again, saying that its easier to appeal to someone from within their own fundamental world-view or one closely aligned with it than from a radically different world-view probably isn't all that amazing of a revelation.
Posted by: cmdicely | Oct 21, 2004 12:30:49 PM
Not so obscure, Rea. Shoes for Industry!
Posted by: PeterG | Oct 21, 2004 12:32:17 PM
"Q2a-b. Based on what you know, do you think the U.S. DOES or DOES NOT participate in the
following treaties and agreements?"
What the hell does "participate" mean? In fact, we DO "participate" in those treaties -- we have signed each (although we "unsigned" the ICC). Turns out GOPers are again living in the "reality-based" world, and Dems are not.
Posted by: Al | Oct 21, 2004 12:32:42 PM
"And we're not afraid of it, either!"
Firesign Theater?
"The worst part is there is almost no way to reach this community."
I am thinking about this. Presuming we want them, and I do want them in order to create a dominating progressive majority, how do we approach them. There are arguments with facts(nope), arguments with bribes(interests, Thomas Frank, FDR and rural electrification)...and arguments with a rhetorical and emotional frame. Even as the coalition was dying(1955-65) due to civil rights and desegregation, strident anti-communist rhetoric on the part of Democrats held the South for a couple of elections.
Poor southern cracker gotta have someone to hate.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Oct 21, 2004 12:33:14 PM
Matt, I would say that this is a case of cognitive dissonance. People who already support the President would prefer to hold those false beliefs than to abandon their support of the President. The really interesting statistics to see would be among Bush leaners, or people who made up their mind recently -- I wonder how many of them hold these false impressions.
Posted by: Mithras | Oct 21, 2004 12:34:29 PM
"Q12a. Do you think a majority of people in the Islamic world favor or oppose US-led efforts to
fight terrorism?"
So, the assumption here is that the majority of people in the Islamic world SUPPORT TERRORISM? Well, that's patently false.
AGAIN, we see that Kerry supporters are not living in the "reality-based" world.
Posted by: Al | Oct 21, 2004 12:35:19 PM
"Q13. Is it your belief that, just before the war, Iraq. ... Had actual weapons of mass destruction?"
Well, he DID have actual WMD. He did not have STOCKPILES of WMD.
Once again, Kerry supporters are not living in the "reality-based" world.
Posted by: Al | Oct 21, 2004 12:36:53 PM
I had not read Peter G's before typing my post. I claim half the prize. Gimme my groatcake.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Oct 21, 2004 12:37:53 PM
how do we approach them
I have a theme.....God hates George Bush
If God were behind GWB would the stock market be lower than it was in 2000?
If God supported GWB would 1000 soldiers have died in Iraq?
If God wants GWB to win this election wouldn't there have been a net gain in jobs over Bush's first term?
You get the idea.
Posted by: Just Karl | Oct 21, 2004 12:39:33 PM
CNN was airing a weird Gallup poll today.
Apparently, 57% of Kerry voters would be very upset if Bush was elected, but only 50% of Bush voters would be upset if their guy lost.
Either Bush voters are more easy-going, as a whole, or...
If it drops below 50%, I'll take that as a binding referendum.
Posted by: Grumpy | Oct 21, 2004 12:39:43 PM
Just Karl:
Pat Robertson may be doing that for us.
Posted by: C.J.Colucci | Oct 21, 2004 12:47:26 PM
Al,
in Q13, what did Saddam have and what threat did it pose?
In your response to Q12a there is a difference between supporting terrorism and not supporting current US efforts to fight terrorism. They might think that those efforts are not very successful for example or they might think that they are poorly prioritised.
So despite the shouting I still don't get your point>
Posted by: Jack | Oct 21, 2004 12:47:32 PM
So, the assumption here is that the majority of people in the Islamic world SUPPORT TERRORISM?
No.
Its quite possible to oppose both terrorism and the US-led efforts to fight terrorism.
Just as it is possible to oppose drug abuse and the war on drugs, or abortion and its criminalization, people of the same sex getting married and prohibiting them the choice to do so, jaywalking and executing jaywalkers, etc.
So quit with the false dichotomy.
Posted by: cmdicely | Oct 21, 2004 12:48:58 PM
Amazing. You are not a philosopher Matt because you let your ideology influence your fact set. You people are what's known as truth haters.
Polish Army Buys Cyclosarin On Iraqi Blackmarket
U.S. Forces Attacked With Sarin
New Photos Prove Mobile Labs Were For WMD
Duelfer says nuclear program to be restarted as soon as sanctions lifted.
Saddam’s former nuclear chief, Mahdi Obeidi, wrote a piece for the New York Times saying that the
Iraqi nuclear weapons programs could have been reconstituted within months.
Saddam Hussein directly harbored Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and has connections to Al Qaeda going back a decade to Sudan. Saddam Hussein had Abu Nidal killed over an Al Qaeda argument. And of course Saddam Hussein was found guilty for 9/11 in a court of law. You might want to try and connect the dots.
Real Americans don't care what "world" opinion is because the "world" is evil. The "world" is genocidal. Anyone who supports the "world" is a terrorist.
Posted by: Modern Crusader | Oct 21, 2004 12:51:24 PM
In fact, we DO "participate" in those treaties -- we have signed each (although we "unsigned" the ICC).
Participating is more than signing. A treaty like the ICC, for example, creates a set of institutions. Also, there is a difference between whether we do -- present tense -- participate in a treaty and whether we did -- past tense -- participate in a treaty.
Under Clinton, the US was actively involved in pushing reforms to the Rome Statute as it was developed. It could be said, at that time, to participate in the ICC, in a sense.
Under Bush, the US has not participated in any way, and in fact as actively threatened countries to discourage any participation in or cooperation with the ICC.
Posted by: cmdicely | Oct 21, 2004 12:55:00 PM
Aha.
Modern Crusader, everyone's favorite new troll, illustrates the problem quite succinctly: the widening epistemological divide.
Posted by: praktike | Oct 21, 2004 12:58:37 PM
The modern crusader, in bugs bunny's immortal words, is a "morooooon," but Al, though generally wrong, at least has some intelligence, so it's fun to pick at al, whereas picking at the modern crusader is a waste of time.
so al, others have covered some of your points, but no one hit you on the economy, so i will. A year ago, you may recall, was Q3, 2003: the one blow-out quarter of the entire Bush administration, the one with 8.6% GDP growth.
So yes, compared to a year ago, the economy isn't doing as well, since we'll be damn lucky to hit 3.0% GDP growth this quarter.
nice try, though: at least you summoned some facts, indicated that you are trying to be part of the reality-based community.
Posted by: howard | Oct 21, 2004 1:31:05 PM
Saddam Hussein was found guilty for 9/11 in a court of law.
well, that settles it.
Posted by: cleek | Oct 21, 2004 1:32:19 PM
Posted by: Modern Crusader | Oct 21, 2004 1:33:35 PM
My problem with Modern Crusader problem isn't just that he's a troll-- he's a blogwhore.
Posted by: Constantine | Oct 21, 2004 1:33:58 PM
Speaking of GDP, try this reality.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200405050850.asp
Posted by: cash27 | Oct 21, 2004 1:46:49 PM
Modern Crusading Kook writes: "New Photos Prove Mobile Labs Were For WMD"
Except they prove no such thing. And they again point out what should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell: Canvas-sided, open-air trucks would not be used for WMD work, even in Iraq. Even Saddam would not want an accidental release of a bioweapon.
But open trailers *would* be used for a trailer used to generate hydrogen for artillery balloons, since the gas is mostly harmless, but a closed trailer would risk trapping any leaked hydrogen, which would increase the risk of fire or explosion. An open-air trailer would be well ventilated, and would keep this from happening.
Posted by: Jon H | Oct 21, 2004 1:50:57 PM
That's a nice try, howard, but as we all know from the Kerry campaign, the word economy has only one meaning: jobs. And we undoubtedly have more jobs today that a year ago, and a lower unemplyment rate than a year ago.
Posted by: Al | Oct 21, 2004 2:01:45 PM
in Q13, what did Saddam have and what threat did it pose?
Well, he had, among other things, some sarin. As you point out, the existing WMD turned out to pose little threat (although the capacity and intent that Duelfer pointed out posed a threat that more than justify the war). But, of course, the question DIDN'T ASK about the threat, just whether there were existing WMD.
Posted by: Al | Oct 21, 2004 2:04:04 PM
Posted by: cleek | Oct 21, 2004 2:08:53 PM
...although the capacity and intent that Duelfer pointed out posed a threat that more than justify the war...
Intent to do what? This sounds bizarre. But perhaps that was the intent - intent of the comment.
Posted by: abb1 | Oct 21, 2004 2:11:54 PM
Its quite possible to oppose both terrorism and the US-led efforts to fight terrorism.
Really? Depends on how you interpret "US-led", I suppose. I interpret it to mean "all efforts to fight terrorism, which efforts are led by the US but not solely comprised of what the US and its allies are doing." For example, when Jordan, or Libya, or Algeria arrests suspected terrorists, are those arrests part of the "US-led efforts to fight terrorism"? Jordan, Libya, and Algeria aren't exactly the most friendly countries in the world toward us... nonetheless, I'd bet that in excess of 50% in the Islamic world support those efforts.
Posted by: Al | Oct 21, 2004 2:12:50 PM
Participating is more than signing.
That's an interpretation I wouldn't necessarily agree with.
Posted by: Al | Oct 21, 2004 2:14:30 PM
Al, you ignborant slut: how many of those erroneous conclusions do YOU, personally, believe? Are you agreeing that these are false beliefs, and denying that most Bush voters think they're true? Or do you actually believe these things?
Do you even know what you believe? Most of your posts seem to be simply contradiction and not argument at all. (Cue Monty Python). So what you "believe" at any given point is simply the opposite of what some liberal is saying.
Posted by: Zizka | Oct 21, 2004 2:28:45 PM
Matt, if you place any value in your comments section, delete at least the worst trolls, or deputize someone to do it. Al and Crusader Rabbit have brought nothing to this argument but determination, and they succeeded in hijacking the thread.
Deep down in their little fascist hearts, those guys will respect you more if you delete them the way a decisive, can-do, non-weenie conservative would. For them, weenieness and tolerance, as represented in your failure to delete, are the main things wrong with liberalism. You're making the Dukakis rape error.
If you don't delete the moron brownshirt fucks, the terrorists win.
Posted by: Zizka | Oct 21, 2004 2:38:20 PM
The boobery are insatiable gluttons for punishment. The more G.W. is exposed as a fraud, the more they believe in him. At this point, I think it would be a good idea if Bush won, since only if the disasters now pending come crashing down will they be disenthralled.
If Kerry wins, he will be faced with cleaning an Augean stable full of bush-shit. with Republicans attacking his every move. Better to let George bury his own dead horse.
Posted by: Ambrose Bierce | Oct 21, 2004 2:44:11 PM
Zizka, freedom of speech is a bitch isn't it? Don't let anyone share divergent and dissident viewpoints because that might be democratic, and we all know what you really stand for.
Posted by: Modern Crusader | Oct 21, 2004 2:49:53 PM
I should just listen to zizka here, but al, ol' buddy, no.
The question was the state of the economy.
The answer in the reality-based community is that the economy isn't doing as well as it was one year ago.
The Kerry campaign takes note of the fact that we have fewer jobs today than we had when bush took office as a proxy for the incompetence of bush's leadership on the economy, which is perfectly valid, but let's not play pretend games.
The question was answered correctly by the realtiy-baed kerry supporters, and answered incorrectly by the fantasy-based bush supporters.
as for the cause of the war, my guess is, you haven't read the duelfur report, you've merely read the official talking points memo from right-wing enablers that says could have become a threat to Iran in the future is exactly equivalent to is a threat to america today.
but really, i should have just listened to zizka.
Posted by: howard | Oct 21, 2004 2:54:10 PM
modern crusader, none of us is obligated to listen to an idiot babble, least of all matt's servers. you can spout drivel into the night at your own blog, where, as i noted the other day, in the tradition of jon stewart, you're just as big a dick as you are here. playing pretend games about freedom of speech is just about typical of your quality of argument.
Posted by: howard | Oct 21, 2004 2:55:48 PM
Is "Modern Crusader" sincere, or an elaborate joke?
... oh, please say "joke."
Posted by: Jon | Oct 21, 2004 3:17:47 PM
I think it's now official: blog comment sections have become the lair of choice for internet cranks and trolls.
Maybe usenet will get a little more tolerable as a result.
...... probably not.
Posted by: skippy | Oct 21, 2004 3:51:03 PM
Rabbit, guess what? I've heard that bullshit before. You have no right to be here, and Matt has no obligation to allow you here. Freedom of speech is an entirely different concept, which I won't try to explain to you.
Trolls on liberal sites are almost all private-property absolutists, but they have this sense of entitlement which causes them to whine piteously when it is suggested that they be banned from soemone else's site.
I have no idea why Matt tolerates the little moron shits. He doesn't always like my stuff either, but I'd be willing to make the supreme sacrifice and stay away forever as long as those jerks were no longer allowed to keep on stinking the place up.
On this thread Rabbit and Al have about 11 posts between them, and there are probably at least that many responding specifically to their chaff. The thread has effectively become theirs.
Posted by: Zizka | Oct 21, 2004 3:52:40 PM
I find it galling that an Al is allowed to share space on the same thread with an erudite like Bob McManus. Or a Modern Crusader with a brilliant analyst like Dan Kervick. And I have to imagine it's galling to them.
The disparity is like the difference between T-ball and the Major Leagues. There's a reason we stratify people according to ability; it's so my nephew Mikey doesn't end up pitching to Jose Conseco. In the real world of adults, eight-year olds don't wander onto the field during the World Series and demand to play. If only similar discretion were exercised here.
And MC, there is nooooo one more ardently favor of radical free speech than me -- surely not you -- and few people more in favor of it than those who frequent these boards. I think it's just stupid speech and childish inflammatory rhetoric that people find tasteless and would prefer to hear less of. Is everybody you disagree with really a Nazi? You break Godwin's Law in the flippin' header of your own blog! It would be really great if you toned down the rhetoric and ratcheted up the discourse.
As long as I'm making a wish list, another thing I'd like is to see some Taoist or Confucian perspectives on current issues from Zizka now and then, to broaden my horizons. Although, I think we all appreciate his singular efforts at fact-checking Al and if no such posts are forthcoming we understand that he is currently and importantly occupied.
Posted by: Windhorse | Oct 21, 2004 3:53:05 PM
Zizka,
Now, easy up on Modern Crusader. Although I tend to be conservative, people like Crusader are the reason I have looked to a much more liberal outlet. I don't want to hear that everything Bush does is great and that Kerry is the anti-Christ. I wanted to see what is it that Kerry is bringing to the table, and what is it that those who support him are really looking for. I am tiered of trying to get any answers from the debates, and the rhetoric.
Now, there are several on here who are just as bad about supporting Kerry simply because they hate Bush and they have no answers to anything, just pick at media induced wounds. The only difference is, they are just kind of glossed over because they receive little resistance. Somebody like Al however mounts some great discussion points, although he never really has the ability to see the other side of an issue. Abb1 for instance is simply the Liberal Al.
And so you don't have to say it, a fair assessment would be that I am a conservative, toe-the-line, military asshole, with hawkish tunnel vision. (or at least that’s what my wife says).
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 21, 2004 4:04:19 PM
There's a good summary of what the Duelfer Report actually says -- as opposed to Bush's TV hallucinations about what it says -- at http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041025&s=editorial102504 .
Note particularly the fact that the Report concluded that Saddam had no interest at all in trying to re-acquire any WMDs except chemical ones -- by far the least dangerous of the nuclear-biological-chemical triad -- and that he apparently wanted those only to deter a possible attack by Iran. (Iran, of course, DOES clearly want the Bomb -- a fact we are now in no position to interfere with, thanks to the fact that we've exhausted our strength fucking around stupidly in Iraq.)
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Oct 21, 2004 4:16:34 PM
What is Kerry's position on Kyota and ICC? Has he stated he would send those to the Senate for approval?
Posted by: Chad | Oct 21, 2004 4:59:18 PM
Now, there are several on here who are just as bad about supporting Kerry simply because they hate Bush and they have no answers to anything, just pick at media induced wounds.
That might be true. The thing is that I don't really know who they are because unlike jokers like "Modern Crusader," or even Al, abb1 does not randomly, in threads that have nothing to do with the topic, start posting "Bush stole the election and is totally evil and is engaged in a conspiracy to control Iraq's oil and Afghanistan's natural gas!" On the other hand, Al and Modern Crusader take potshots at random... Al to the point where he attracted "stalkers" who would post ridiculous things while at the same time making it impossible for readers to figure out who was real and who was not, because the "Real Al" was so ridiculous on his own.
Posted by: Constantine | Oct 21, 2004 5:05:57 PM
Al:
You say that the weapons Saddam had justified war. So, since N. Korea and Iran have more, then war is justified there, too?
And if Saddam had WMD's just before this war, then you admit the following statement is true:
President Bush allowed terrorists to kill Americans on American soil after 9/11.
Anthrax. A WMD? Right?
Posted by: epistemology | Oct 21, 2004 5:10:25 PM
Sorry, I don't really find Al or Rabbit offensive.
Posted by: epistemology | Oct 21, 2004 5:14:39 PM
Rabbit is offensive. Al is annoying. The hijacking of threads with peripheral or OT points is annoying. The flooding of threads with multiple mostly-OT posts is annoying. The stupid contradiction posts are annoying. The effect is to preclude debate rather than foster it.
If Al limited himself to the best 20% of his posts, he'd actually occasionally be interesting.
Posted by: Zizka | Oct 21, 2004 6:08:35 PM
Modern Crusader: your handle rather gives the game away.
However, I could "reconstitute" my nuclear weapons program tomorrow. It does not mean I pose the slightest threat to you, the US or anyone who comes too close to the radium in my Grandfathers watch.
Moreover, how do you respond to those in Bush's administration who now concur with those statements concerning the absence of WMDs or WMD programmes (Powell, Rumsfeld etc.) ?
Fox might not be reporting it, but the administration itself has moved on from defending those positions.
-FB
Posted by: foobar | Oct 21, 2004 7:39:35 PM
Cognitive Dissonance:
* if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
* if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are not likely to admit that the content of what has been learned is not valuable. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".
From http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/dissonance.htm
In other words, Al and Crusader probably feel that little internal itch that something in their make-believe world doesn't add up. The more they itch, the more posturing they do, the nastier and more outrageous they become. Debate is futile... never get in a pissing contest with a skunk.
Posted by: TheNag | Oct 21, 2004 8:28:22 PM
I'm surprised no one called Al out on the whole job creation mumbo-jumbo. In actuality, over the four years he has been president 1.6 million private-sector jobs have been lost. The total net loss is a little less (pending BLS revisions in February, the total net loss will end up being around 600,000.) But for an economy growing at an annual rate of around 3%, two million jobs should be created. And 300,000 shy is not in the neighborhood.
Regardless, Bush, in fact, may be the first president to net job losses in 72 years. With job growth undershooting the benchmark by a considerable margin each month, it doesn't appear he'll make up the lost ground.
Posted by: Chris | Oct 21, 2004 10:08:18 PM
Regarding WMD, I'll refer you to my original post above.
WMD is really just a red-herring however, because Wolfowitz said, "there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two." So, Saddam Hussein harbored Zarqawi and that is all that matters.
Posted by: Modern Crusader | Oct 21, 2004 10:33:15 PM
Troll feeding time is now over. (They should create a feature equivalent to those petting zoo feed dispensers, where for only a quarter a child can get a handful of kibble for the animals . . . press a button, and a automatic response is generated . . . )
What worries me - even more than the prospect of a Bush win - is, as the PIPA report puts it, "" . . . the cohesion of society can be damaged by a persisting and fundamental division in the perception of what is real, undermining pathways to consensus and mutual sacrifice, and making the country increasingly difficult to govern."
To say the least. Let's hope we don't develop a full-blown home-grown 'Stab in the Back' legend of our own . . .
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=83795
Posted by: Dan S. | Oct 21, 2004 10:37:23 PM
Chris, no, Al was correct. You see, he wasn't talking about Bush's entire term; he was talking about job creation since last August (2003, that is).
Of course, he didn't mention that Bush claimed that if we only passed his 2003 tax cuts, we'd created 5.5M new jobs between july 1, 2003 and december 31, 2004, but why would he? it only embarasses his side.
Even with the job creation over the past 13 months, we are, of course, still net negative on jobs, as you note....
meanwhile, we've seen some horse's asses over time appearing in the comments section, but i think modern crusader, in just a few brief days, has grabbed for himself the crown of the biggest horse's ass ever to post here. And the most ill-informed to boot. what a joke....
Posted by: howard | Oct 21, 2004 11:54:54 PM
When you consider the PIPA poll results and the fact that Bush supporters tend to be devoutly religious, it's hard to avoid the suspicion that their beliefs determine what facts they acknowledge.
This is exactly the medieval mindset.
Posted by: bad Jim | Oct 22, 2004 12:14:02 AM
Ignore the trolls! There is no possible meeting of the minds, and it is a complete waste of time 12 days out from the election. Let's spend time on more important voters...
Posted by: Paul | Oct 22, 2004 12:48:02 AM
Mr. Crusader,
I seem to remember virtually all of those pre-modern crusades (none of which I approved of incidentally) ending rather badly for the "Christian" west. Being a rather omnipotent and omniscent fellow (as much as I like to stay out of human affairs - you people are mostly rather loathsome to each other) I have to tell you that this little imperial project will end no better for America than all those crusades (after the first, that is) ended for the Europeans. In a decade or two (time is relative, you know) America will be bankrupt (you people can't even afford what you're doing now, at home or abroad, let alone more of these little crusades, and the 100 trillion dollar liabilities for aging baby boomers), hated around the world (even more than today, if that's even possible), and so divided amongst yourselves you'll nearly be on the verge of another civil war. It's not a pretty picture. And I haven't even mentioned the coming end of oil and global warming.
Affectionately,
God
Posted by: God | Oct 22, 2004 3:07:11 AM
I agree the trolls should be booted but Matt Y is too sweet and civilized to do it. The job calls for somebody brutally incisive like Zizka. I love a brute like that. Especially in leather chaps or Mongol armor.
Posted by: QUEER EYE FOR STRAIGHT Y | Oct 22, 2004 6:43:17 AM
Many conservatives believe in complex, Cartesian-style metaphysics, with God, moral reality, afterlife, souls, etc. Most liberals do too (though personally, I'm a believer in rather simple metaphysics), but not with as much intensity, I think.
Posted by: Julian Elson | Oct 22, 2004 6:46:17 AM
Gawd...what a bunch of dough-heads you people are. I love coming to this site every few weeks just to get laugh out of how out of touch you are. After all this time, you still don't get it. What a crystal clear example of liberal arrogance - gee, our vision of the world is flawless, so it must be that Republicans just don't understand the issues. Yeah, that’s it. If they did, they would be Democrats. Got news for ya. We know exactly what Bush stands for and - horror of horrors - we actually agree with him!!!
Newsflash 1: you're wasting your time with the WMD issue...Republicans don't care whether Saddam had WMDs. He chose a "strategy" to appear that he was more dangerous than he was. What a shrew guy - got him deposed by someone who doesn't mess around with "nuance". Was not only the best decision at the time, but the only decision available to the President - the entire world including the democratic leadership in this country believed it was true – you can’t run from that fact. And by the way, he did have WMDs and used them. So let's get this straight: he had them, used them, attacked his neighbors, then kicked out inspectors, then sent them on wild goose chases, all the while appearing like he was hiding WMD programs...but in the liberal mind, Bush, and only Bush should have seen thru all of this with his all powerful sixth sense and realized it was all a lie. How lazy, pitiful, and purely political to just sit back and pound on this administration for believing what every intelligence group in the world believed, and including your own democratic leadership, because in hindsight it turned out we were fooled by a tyrant’s sick mind. You have zero credibility on this issue and can whine about it all you want – nobody cares. The “Bush lied” load of crap doesn’t fly anymore. Besides the fact that Saddam was killing and torturing hundreds of thousands of his own people – but the party of humanity and global community doesn’t like to talk about how you’ve completely ignored that aspect of it, because it exhibits your true heartless colors.
Newsflash 2: Don’t even try to BS people on the Saddam link to al Qaeda, OBL, 9/11 etc. You’re just mixing facts up to support your position. Saddam had no link to 9/11 and NO ONE ever claimed he did, including the President. Shut up about it. But every reputable report ever published clearly shows links on many levels between al Qaeda and Saddam and his support for them. Of course a signed contract between the two would be oh so convincing – is that what you’re looking for? Just spend 10 minutes researching the issue and you’ll find the truth. But ya’ll know the truth, you’re just spinning it to your advantage. Sick partisan stuff.
Newsflash 3: We don't give a hoot what world opinion is. In fact, we love the fact that we're pissing off most of Europe. They've proven their level of integrity with the oil for food scandal and under the table arms dealings with Iraq.
The American people got yer number folks, momentum has firmly moved into Bush’s camp. You can look forward to 4 more years of total Republican control – house, senate, white house – and probably 3-4 Supreme Court Justice appointments. Make’s yer thin liberal skin crawl doesn’t it?
Posted by: Steve | Oct 22, 2004 1:38:42 PM
culos follando |:| foto de novias |:| mujeres buscando sexo |:| galeria fotos gratis |:| cali es calida com |:| zorras mamando |:| tetonas gigantes |:| cojiendose |:| solo culitos |:| follado |:| erotismo lesbico |:| putas en sinaloa |:|
Posted by: holoala | Jun 16, 2006 9:31:40 AM
