Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bush and Kerry Supporters Have Separate Realities

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the never-the-twain-shall-meet dept.

Democrats 698

corngrower writes "A report by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland correlates voters' perceptions of world attitudes and events with their choice in candidates. It's an interesting read, and shows voters supporting Kerry as being more in tune with the events and world attitudes surrounding the war in Iraq."

cancel ×

698 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nice Story! (4, Insightful)

Tyndmyr (811713) | more than 9 years ago | (#10599857)

We need an article to tell us this?

Seriously, after reading it, I was quite happy that someone put out some evidence for what I've observed. If I had a dollar for every time I tried to tell someone that Iraq really didnt have nukes....

Re:Nice Story! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10599916)

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. It is good to see research that proves Bush supporters are dimwitted lapdogs of Satan. Oh wait... I guess that Bush/Satan are the same person to much of the civilized world!

Re:Nice Story! (1, Troll)

Squinky86 (643604) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600005)

Though they didn't find WMD, there is proof that Saddam had WMD in 1993 and the summer of 2000 [cnsnews.com] with the intent to use them on Americans, and he surely has been trying to do such.

And Bush's IQ is higher than Kerry's [vdare.com] . It's hard for you to make the argument that Bush supporters are dimwitted.

I do admit there are many who don't understand the world's view of America. I don't see, however, how you can group all Bush supporters into a "stupid" group because of the attitudes of some.

Re: Nice Story! (2, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600101)


> I don't see, however, how you can group all Bush supporters into a "stupid" group because of the attitudes of some.

We don't. We categorize them as stupid because they support Bush.

Re: Nice Story! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10600208)

Zing! Good one! :)

Re:Nice Story! (1)

southmc (709803) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600103)

Especially considering the data was taken from internet polls. /me shivers.

Re:Nice Story! (1)

Squinky86 (643604) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600117)

not sure I understand your comment... what data was taken from what polls?

Re:Nice Story! (2, Informative)

southmc (709803) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600298)

"The polls were conducted October 12-18 and September 3-7 and 8-12 with samples of 968, 798 and 959 respondents, respectively. Margins of error were 3.2 to 4% in the first and third surveys and 3.5% on September 3-7. The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided internet access. For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp. Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund."(topic link)

Re:Nice Story! (2, Insightful)

Squinky86 (643604) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600417)

Haha, so true. Considering that it is Maryland which tends to vote democratic [electoral-vote.com] , what do you think their OPINION will be?

Re:Nice Story! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10600484)

Are you dumber than a box of rocks? Or do you just think we are?

That poll was conducted via the internet instead of telephone does not invalidate it. They randomly selected people and then had them contact them via the internet access which they provided. That seems far less biased than any of the major telephone polls which completely miss those without landlines.

Re:Nice Story! (1)

southmc (709803) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600663)

You're missing the bigger picture. Look at the source, do some google work on the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the people who funded these polls. Look at what state it was in. jesus man, check the source.

Re:Nice Story! (5, Interesting)

TAGmclaren (820485) | more than 9 years ago | (#10599928)

On the subject of partisan sniping, I particularly like Bush's new ads, the one's with all the wolves circling the camera, implying that the terrorists want Kerry to win [salon.com] .

Never mind the fact that Bush just got endorsed by Iran; the link is in my .sig. In fact, Iran and Russia [cnsnews.com] are the only countries that seem to be supporting Bush. The rest of the world loves America, but wants Bush out [kuro5hin.org] .

I hope it is made so on the 2nd.

Re:Nice Story! (1, Insightful)

southmc (709803) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600243)

This just in... Iran discovers new mind trick to fool stupid people.. However I doubt they really want someone that calls them the evil-doers in the White House. Please don't tell me you actually fell for this.

Re:Nice Story! (2, Insightful)

Karma Farmer (595141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600487)

However I doubt they really want someone that calls them the evil-doers in the White House. Please don't tell me you actually fell for this.

I don't think they're scared of talk.

George Bush speaks big and carries a soft stick.

Re:Nice Story! (1, Insightful)

b-baggins (610215) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601171)

---
George Bush speaks big and carries a soft stick.
---

Can you people please get your story straight? Which is it: Bush is all bluster and no action, or a reckless cowboy who can't wait to fire the guns and can't be bothered with talking?

Re:Nice Story! (3, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600509)

Here's a reason why Iran would want Bush to stay in the White House- it gives them four more years of our mistakes in Iraq before we can free up the troops to attack them, and in the meantime it gives their suicide squads plenty of new recruits to send into Iraq to keep us fighting Shi'ites forever.

Re:Nice Story! (3, Informative)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600319)

I think both Japan and Australia [japantoday.com] , as well as Poland have declared support for Bush as well. I'm sure we could find more.

--trb

Re:Nice Story! (3, Insightful)

Jason Ford (635431) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600750)

From the link:

'With less then three weeks until the U.S. presidential election, President George Bush has received endorsements from two world leaders, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Austraslian [sic] Prime Minister John Howard.'

So now we're equating heads of state with states themselves?

Re:Nice Story! (0, Troll)

Your_Mom (94238) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600880)

Yes, but North Korea has endorsed Kerry. Who would you rather vote for, a person who has endorsements from a bunch of evil democracies in Europe who are obviously in the vast right wing conspiracy, or a candidate who has the support of the Communist Paradise of the DPRK, and the Dear Leader, Kim Jon Il.

Down with the eeeviil capitalists! Kerry '04! /sarcasm

Re:Nice Story! (4, Interesting)

Kick the Donkey (681009) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601087)

Wait a minute. Didn't Bush and supporters bash Kerry for saying that other world leaders told him they wanted him to win? Now that Australia, Japan, and Iran are supporting Bush publicly, they want to brag about world support...

Man, talk about hypocrisy...

Re:Nice Story! (1)

gunpowder (614638) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600894)

On the subject of partisan sniping, I particularly like Bush's new ads, the one's with all the wolves circling the camera, implying that the terrorists want Kerry to win.

Funny thing, as (some) terrorists actually support the reelection of Dubya [amenusa.org]

Re:Nice Story! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10600018)

sshhh! The Bush supporters need this article to tell them this. Someone should email Bush and send him this article

Bush supporters should be Kerry supporters (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10599932)

According to the survey, based on the views of Bush supporters or at least what they believe Bush believes in, it seems like most of them should really be Kerry supporters.

Re:Bush supporters should be Kerry supporters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10599965)

And quite possibly they would be Kerry supporters if they were not blinded by the truth.

In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10599953)

In other news, 93% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Re:In other news (1)

fonetik (181656) | more than 9 years ago | (#10599966)

Actually, the figure is really 87.5% ;)

Re: In other news (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600031)


> In other news, 93% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Yeah, but Bush supporters think only 7% are.

Here we go again... (3, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 9 years ago | (#10599963)

If I were write an article that Bob Jones University published a report that conservatives are more in tune with the events and world attitudes surrounding the war in Iraq, then I could probably get it published at freerepublic.com.

The notion that liberals and conservatives perceive the world differently seems fairly obvious. The rest just seems like flamebait.

Seriously, given either political viewpoint, I'm sure I can find plenty of facts and "world attitudes" that would give strong support to that position. If the President announced that the facts on Iraq agree with his points and that polls show that a worldwide majority agree with him, would you accept his word? If not, why should the reverse be true?

Re:Here we go again... (4, Insightful)

amarodeeps (541829) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600137)

Umm...PIPA hardly compares to Bob Jones University. Please check out PIPA's about us page to see who they are funded by: http://www.pipa.org/about.html [pipa.org] . Yes, Ben and Jerry's is on there, but I hardly think of the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and etc. as bastions of liberal ideology. It's not really fair to compare PIPA to a Christian-oriented college. More importantly, by making this claim of bias, you are attempting to discount the conclusion of the report--that many Bush supporters in the U.S. are sadly out of touch not only with what the rest of the world thinks about their leadership but also what the solid conclusions of experts have been on the subject of WMDs and Iraq. Please don't load this with bias that doesn't exist.

Re:Here we go again... (3, Funny)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600288)

Yes, Ben and Jerry's is on there, but I hardly think of the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and etc. as bastions of liberal ideology.

Huh? Of course the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations or bastions of liberal ideology! What do you think they are?

Re:Here we go again... (1)

jgardn (539054) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600479)

Funny, the parent post got modded as funny, but it is absolutely true. The Ford and Rockefeller foundations are bastions of liberal ideology. Go read about them. While Ford and Rockefeller were extremely conservative, their foundations are not.

Re:Here we go again... (1)

fredrated (639554) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600872)

This is true by definition. Anything to the left of the right wing lunatic fringe is a bastion of liberal ideology and thought.

If 'conservative' actually had something to do with 'to conserve', conservatives would NOT be voting for bush-league, the most unconservative person on the planet.

Re:Here we go again... (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600925)

Yeah, I was a bit puzzled by the moderation there. I'd originally added that the groups funded by Ford are well to the left of those supported by Ben and Jerry's, which I'm pretty sure is true (Ford recently had a bunch of groups decline support after they'd implemented a requirement that grantees disavow terrorism) but don't have the time to research it conclusively right now.

But they're at least as far left as the Coors and Olin Foundations are right. No scandal, but it's an odd thing to deny, especially from someone singling out Ben and Jerry as extremists.

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10601090)

I'd originally added that the groups funded by Ford are well to the left of those supported by Ben and Jerry's, which I'm pretty sure is true (Ford recently had a bunch of groups decline support after they'd implemented a requirement that grantees disavow terrorism) but don't have the time to research it conclusively right now.

Does the Coors Foundation require its grantees to disavow terrorism?

Re:Here we go again... (2, Interesting)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600401)

Did they go over their polling methods? What questions they asked? You can slant results aplenty by just asking misleading or pointed questions. Lemme see the questions, then I'll believe their data.

--trb

Re:Here we go again... (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601017)

What questions they asked?

That's the crux of it, in both this and their anti-Fox News "study". One could just as easily go around asking "Has Bush banned stem cell research?" or "Did Saddam Hussein receive significant amounts of weaponry from the US?" and then engage in handwringing about how Kerry supporters have been misled by NPR and the New York Times.

Re:Here we go again... (4, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600648)

I hardly think of the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and etc. as bastions of liberal ideology.

Good grief! If the Ford Foundation isn't liberal in your opinion, then what is?

According to the recent grants list [fordfound.org] on their website, they've recently donated to:

  • The ACLU
  • Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Educational Fund
  • The Population Council, Inc
  • Feminist Majority Foundation
  • International Planned Parenthood Federation
  • etc., etc., etc.

Regardless of your opinions of those groups, you have to agree that no conservative foundation would ever be likely to donate money to them.

Re:Here we go again... (2, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601142)

Regardless of your opinions of those groups, you have to agree that no conservative foundation would ever be likely to donate money to them.

Well, I don't *have* to agree, but I'll coneede the point.

And in counter, a NON-BIASED foundation might donate to them.

Re:Here we go again... (1)

jlanthripp (244362) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601051)

Let's see here...

The Ford Foundation - Chairman of the Board of Trustees is also the CEO of the World Wildlife Fund. Other board members include the Director of the HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies at Columbia University and the Senior Consultant for Diversity and Excellence at the University of California at Riverside. The President of the Ford Foundation has stated, on the Ford Foundation website, "We share the same basic values as the ACLU."

The Rockefeller Foundation is pretty similar, with board members that include the President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the President and CEO of the California Community Foundation, and so forth.

The fact that you don't think of them as bastions of liberal ideology is more indicative of the amount of thinking (and research) you do, and less indicative of their (publicly stated) goals and positions.

Re:Here we go again... (1)

overunderunderdone (521462) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601181)

but I hardly think of the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and etc. as bastions of liberal ideology

What?!? And I thought conservatives were the ones that were supposed to be ignorant of the world. Admit it, you know nothing about either foundation, you simply hear the names of capitalists dead and gone nearly 100 years ago and assume that the charitable foundations set up by them must be conservative decades later. Both are considered politically liberal.

From Philanthropy Magazine:
When the time comes for a historian to write a definitive history of foundations in the 20th century, at least one chapter will have to be set aside for the activities of the Ford Foundation in the 1960s. If you want to see the legacy of Ford from that era, just look around you--public interest law firms, the modern environmental movement, the Public Broadcasting Service, and many black and Hispanic activist groups were all created by Ford program officers and showered with Ford grants...
Those Amazing Bundy Brothers McGeorge Bundy and the Ford Foundation years [philanthro...dtable.org] - Philanthropy Magazine, 1999
You can find similar articles about the Rockefeller foundation. In a backhanded way the Ford, Canegie, and Rockefeller foundations ARE responsible for the rise of the Neocons though. In the '60's and 70's the massive funding to left-wing causes by these dominant foundations was a source of great irritation to conservatives (especially the Carnagie foundation since Carnegie himself had been quite conservative). In response there was a conservative foundation movement which brought about so much of the conservative political infrastructure we have today and propelled neo-conservatives into prominence. It's interesting to note that a lot of these conservative foundations self-destruct after a set number of years beyond the death of their founders, or upon the retirement of their original board of trustees... They were afraid of their foundations being hijacked by future boards of trustees that didn't share their values as happened with the Carnagie (Rockefeller, and Ford) foundations.

Re:Here we go again... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10600249)

Did you read the article?

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10600431)

Did you read the article?

What do you think this is - Kuro5hin?

Re:Here we go again... (2, Insightful)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600467)

You say that the rest is all flamebait, as if knowing more about the issue is not useful, or as if it's not correct somehow.

The issue isn't what article you can get published. Obviously you can get both published. The point is that if you publish two articles that say the opposite thing, one of them has to be more correct than the other.

In this case, it's absolutely more correct that Kerry supporters have got more going on in the brain-use department than Bush supporters. You can complain all you want, hypothesize all sorts of things, but you can't argue with facts.

Re:Here we go again... (1)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600763)

>In this case, it's absolutely more correct that Kerry supporters have got more going on in the brain-use department than Bush supporters.

No it's not. The fact that you can publish two opposing views and have half the people agree with you does not imply that half of the people are informed while the other is not. Both sides might agree with you based on ideology, not on facts.

If I flip a coin, and hide the result, it's a fact that the coin is either heads or tails. If you polled a population and asked them to guess what side the coin landed on, half would get it right, and half would get it wrong. Neither side is more informed, even though one side happened to stumble on the right answer.

Just because the issue is politically charged and one side tends to answer one way and the other another way does not change the underlying logic.

Re:Here we go again... (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601050)

EXCEPT, in this case we're talking specifically about the Bush supporters who keep conflating problems with Al Quada and the problems with Iraq. It is absolutely more correct that denying the truth about that is more typical of a Bush supporter.

Argue with the facts, and they are going to bite you.

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600837)

In this case, it's absolutely more correct that Kerry supporters have got more going on in the brain-use department than Bush supporters. You can complain all you want, hypothesize all sorts of things, but you can't argue with facts.

Must... not... respond... to... troll...

Ah, hell with it.

I'm a church-going Republican who is also a member of Mensa, scored a near-perfect on my ACT, has a compsci degree with a physics minor, and is currently employed as a Senior Software Engineer. My most recent reading material has been Feynman's "Six Easy Pieces" and "Six Not-So Easy Pieces", Joyce's "Ulysses", and Hawking's "A Brief History Of Time".

Statistically speaking, I'm smarter than 99.8% of Kerry supporters (or Bush supporters, or apolitical couch potatoes), and I still plan to vote for Bush. Guess that blows your theory out of the water, huh?

Yes, you can point to idiot conservatives. I can also point to idiot liberals. There are plenty of stupid (and smart!) people on either end of the spectrum, and we'd all be well served to remember that.

Re:Here we go again... (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601024)

Call me a troll? Whatever.

You're smarter than most people? The fact that you think one person's intellegince (supposedly yours) means a damn when you're talking about statistics, makes me wonder if you're not that smart at all.

We're talking about large numbers of people here, your single counter-example doesn't mean a damn thing, and if you were so smart, you would know that.

Re:Here we go again... (1)

metalhed77 (250273) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601109)

If I were write an article that Bob Jones University published a report that conservatives are more in tune with the events and world attitudes surrounding the war in Iraq, then I could probably get it published at freerepublic.com.

True, but it would also be wrong. Seriously, you've at LEAST read the statistics about FOX news viewers being misinformed. Anyway, I thought the conservatives were the ones calling liberals overeducated northeastern snobs anyway.

Faith based politics (5, Insightful)

ankura (769374) | more than 9 years ago | (#10599969)

Sounds reasonable to me. As this nytimes piece [nytimes.com] goes in considerable detail in,
most of Bush's politics/decisions are about faith and not fact. Anybody who votes for him has
to share his worldview.

Re:Faith based politics (1, Troll)

jgardn (539054) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600674)

Yep. Bush is faith based. As are most Americans.

See, we have this strange faith in democracy. If we spread democracy to the Middle East, it will break up the madras and the religion of "peace" that is preached in the name of Islam. You know, the version wher 10 year old boys are taught that Allah wants them to strap explosives to their chests and blow themselves up in pizza parlors filled with young Jews?

We also believe that idealism - the idea that we should strive for perfection, rather than consign ourselves to imperfection - drives more people to achieve more than otherwise. Set expectations higher than they can possibly achieve, and they will achieve it. What do you think the Olympics and all sports are about?

We also believe in determiniation. That's why we know that even though bombs are going off in Baghdad, that as long as we keep our eye on the goal of democracy and peace, eventually we will get there. Eventually, we will bring peace to the Middle East because we are more determined than the terrorists.

We also believe in human ingenuity. That's why when we see global warming or oil shortages or any kind of incredible problem on the horizon, we don't worry about it too much. Someone somewhere is going to come up with a solution that will lead mankind through the next century. That is, as long as people are free to do as they wish and don't have to report to some bureacrat in DC.

We also believe in freedom. We believe that people are happiest when they are free. We fight for our freedom, antagonizing anyone who challenges. There is nothing more sacred to a republican than freedom. We are willing to kill to protect it, unlike other people. We will also fight to lower taxes, reduce regulations, and to help people start their small businesses or own their own piece of land. We fight for the right to freely speak, to bear arms, to worship God however they like.

We have a lot of things we have faith in. What do you believe in?

Re:Faith based politics (1)

fredrated (639554) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600958)

We also believe in human ingenuity. That's why when we see global warming or oil shortages or any kind of incredible problem on the horizon, we don't worry about it too much. Someone somewhere is going to come up with a solution

Works for me. There's nothing like waiting until your body is flying through the air, hurtling toward the ground, to decide what you are going to do if you fall off the scafold.

Re:Faith based politics (3, Insightful)

EnderWiggnz (39214) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601012)

i believe that you're full of shit.

freedom does not get imposed from the point of a gun, from an occupying army.

Re:Faith based politics (1)

southmc (709803) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601176)

ummm, what? I thought that was how history has shown us it has been imposed everytime.......

A very similar study regarding Fox News watchers (5, Informative)

quantax (12175) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600025)

This reminded me of another report done by the same group regarding misperceptions people had based upon their source of news, most notibly Fox News:

"The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals' primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely."

Source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/100403F.shtml [truthout.org]

The original source document (PDF):
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02 _03_Press.pdf [pipa.org]

While these reports should not be correlated without further study, its rather indicative of how the public is misinformed by certain parts of the media; though I will admit that it does swing both ways for both liberals and conservatives, but Fox takes it to another level when it comes to TV news.

Re:A very similar study regarding Fox News watcher (0)

jgardn (539054) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600423)

Yeah, I remember this one. It turns out, they were wrong on a lot of the questions and the Fox news watchers were right. I can't seem to find the questions and the "correct" answers at the moment... they seem to have cleverly hidden them.

Here's the one that sticks out like a sore thumb: "48% incorrectly believe that evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda have been found, [and] 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq."

If there is no evidence of a link between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, why did a federal judge (appointed by Clinton) award $100,000,000 to plaintiffs payable by Saddam?

If there is no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why was there an IED with sarin gas in it found, along with other warheads with various chemicals? Isn't sarin a WMD?

Anyway, it's just a liberal hit piece against conservatives, trying to pass it off as research. They label truth as "misperception".

Re:A very similar study regarding Fox News watcher (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10600747)

If there is no evidence of a link between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, why did a federal judge (appointed by Clinton) award $100,000,000 to plaintiffs payable by Saddam?
Because he was wrong. Name dropping Clinton proves nothing.

If there is no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why was there an IED with sarin gas in it found, along with other warheads with various chemicals? Isn't sarin a WMD?
Not when it's so old as to be completly non functional. Which it was.

They label truth as "misperception".
Or perhaps you label your misperceptions as truth.

And strangely... (2, Insightful)

keiferb (267153) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600028)

...in each of these alternate realities, there's a politician who's considered to be correct. =)

Re:And strangely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10601104)

Not in my reality. In my reality, I and I alone am correct. Everyone else is just plain wrong.

In general, we are dumb (2, Insightful)

Tom7 (102298) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600081)

More in tune with facts, too. But the Kerry supporters didn't do very well, either, which is scary.

But which reality? (1, Funny)

CXI (46706) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600173)

Which reality was the article written in? We can't trust the results because it could be the wrong one!

The facts are biased. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10600254)

Corddry: How does one report the facts in an unbiased way when the facts themselves are biased?

Stewart: I'm sorry, Rob, did you say the facts are biased?

Corddry: That's right Jon. From the names of our fallen soldiers to the gradual withdrawal of our allies to the growing insurgency, it's become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda.

Re:The facts are biased. (2, Insightful)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601146)

Or the problem could be that the facts really aren't facts, they're "facts". Half truths and deceptions, in some cases. While the facts don't favor a candidate, the "facts" certainly do. Go read a few sections of The Truth About Iraq [thetruthaboutiraq.org] , and see if any facts pop out at you as being in direct opposition to the "facts".

--trb

Knowing the truth would not change views (0)

nfdavenport (599530) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600328)

Even if all the Bush supporter understood the rest of the world position on things, I wouldn't change their support for Bush. The point being in their (and my) mind that whatever the rest of the world wants us to do is probably not in our best interest. Multi-lateral whining is the obvious position of weaker nations. I for one am glad that we have a president who isn't swayed by international opinion. If that makes the US a bully so be it. Better a bully than the geek with a bloody nose.

Re:Knowing the truth would not change views (1)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600507)

This propostion was actually tested [telegraph.co.uk] by a curious experiment conducted by the left-wing Guardian newspaper in the UK.

The Guardian selected Clark County, OH as a hotbed of undecided voters, and put together a letter-writing campaign to them. Some 14,000 letters were sent and the universal response from Clark County voters was, well, unprintable.

The sample letters I read were horribly condescending and quite frankly unpersuasive to anyone not already having anti-Bush views, but it's pretty clear that the American man on the street really doesn't want to be influenced by foreigners.

Which, come to think of it, might have doomed Kerry's multilateral candidacy from the start.

D

Re:Knowing the truth would not change views (1)

hopemafia (155867) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601162)

You have hit upon the basic principle of Americans...independence.

If somebody (especially somebody we don't know) tells us to do something, even if we wouldn't mind doing it, we say no. We like being different, and contrary...and we're damn stubborn about it. In this way America is a lot like a two year old...we can be convinced, but you have to be careful about it, because if you start sounding bossy we plug our ears and just yell, NO, NO, NO, NO!

The solution, for you fer'ners out there who would like us to listen to you a bit more, is simply don't act like you're right (even when you are). Present your opinion as an opinion, and don't imply in any way that your opinion should be ours as well. We'll listen to what you think, and then do what we want...and sometimes what you think will affect the outcome. And sometimes is better than never, which is what you get when you try to tell us what we should do.

OK (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10600335)

Having a difficult time with the assumption that these people are unbiased.

http://www.pipa.org/about.html

Incidentally, this is a public opinion research website. Once again "michael" and the /. liberals lean hard left.

Don't fall over folks.

A Bush supporter speaks (-1, Redundant)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600345)

There is highly controversial evidence that Iraq had a role in 9/11. For example, there is the infamous alleged meeting in Prague between an Al Queda operative and Mohammed Atta. There is also alleged Iraqi involvement in one of the major organizational meetings for 9/11. I believe there is strong evidence to support those propositions, but it is correct that they have not been proven; there are just too many gaps. Nonetheless, to say that it's known that there was no Iraqi involvement in 9/11 is certainly overstating the case; there's evidence to the contrary, even if it is not proof. So the correct stance is not to say that there is no link, or that there is a link, but that we simply don't know based on the evidence we presently have. If you go deep enough into the 9/11 report, that is in fact what it says: There is no proof of Iraqi involvement. Doesn't mean there's no involvement, just no proof.

The writer of the Duelfer report pleads, in the first few pages, for us to read the whole thing, and understand what he's saying in context. It seems rather churlish for us to ignore that part of the report and simply say there were no WMDs. The report tells us to dig deeper and understand what was really going on, and I feel we should instead of leaping to the glib conclusion that Kerry is right and we did go on a wild goose chase of a war.

After all, there is no question at all that Saddam has a long record of supporting terrorism, including Palastinian suicide bombers. He also was known to harbor terrorists. And if you dig deep into the Duelfer report, you will see that there is no question that Saddam was starting to suceed in getting sanctions lifted, and if they were, he was planning to restart his WMD programs.

There is good news in Iraq, and most of it is ignored by our press. Iraq has a free press. It has a new government with excellent support from the people. Its new police and military are starting to vigourously attack the Al Queda members in the country. The economy is booming. By a narrow majority, Iraqis support the presence of our troops until the new military gets up to speed.

Al Queda and factions of the old Iraqi government are attacking Iraqis and our soldiers. The image of the rebels has been badly damaged by their actions, including the infamous beheadings. Even in Fallujah, the natives are getting restless and opposition to the Al Queda foreigners is strong.

I'm not saying things are perfect in Iraq, and I'm not buying my plane ticket over there until Americans are no longer serious targets. But life's getting better for the man on the street, and although we have made plenty of mistakes, it's nothing like the horrors under Saddam.

In the end, I support President Bush not because he's always right - of course he's not - but because he is steadfast and resolute when confronting our enemies. John Kerry is not the kind of person who will take strong and decisive action when faced with a threat, and I think that's the wrong kind of leader for us during these difficult times.

D

Re:A Bush supporter speaks (1)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600547)

As another Bush supporter, I don't think we'll be "allowed" to see, by the MSM, anything good happening in Iraq until after the election. The MSM likes to cite casualties and car bombings, yet you read sites like Truth About Iraq [thetruthaboutiraq.org] and it's almost a bright future. Which one is correct? Probably both, they just list different factoids.

--trb

Re:A Bush supporter speaks (3, Insightful)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600651)

And that's what we're talking about. You still insist that Iraq was the story, despite the complete lack of evidence.

There were other countries in the world much more deserving of our attentions. Afghanistan, for example, should have about 200,000 more troops in it than it currently does. North Korea needs invading. Iran needs invading. Saudi Arabia needs invading.

You want perpetual war? I'm right with you. You have this liberal's support, if only you pick the right targets.

Re:A Bush supporter speaks (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10600697)

In saying that lack of proof that there's no Al Queda-Iraq link, means there might be one, you're using the same crazed logic that got us into the war in the first place. Just because Saddam couldn't prove that the weapons hadn't been destoyed, didn't mean they weren't destroyed.

God told me that you can't prove a negative. Now prove he didn't.

Re:A Bush supporter speaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10600990)

In the end, I support President Bush not because he's always right - of course he's not - but because he is steadfast and resolute when confronting our enemies. John Kerry is not the kind of person who will take strong and decisive action when faced with a threat, and I think that's the wrong kind of leader for us during these difficult times.

This sounds like something straight from the Republican talking points. Do you really believe it?

This is what I don't understand. First of all, "these difficult times" does that imply that terrorism is something *new*? Terrorism didn't start on 9/11. "The world" didn't change on 9/11.

9/11 happened on George Bush's watch. That means he dropped the ball (and Clinton too and everybody before to some extent). Why should I reward him with another term?

This is what freaks me out about the whole process of politics right now. Nobody seems to be questioning *actions*, just *attitude*. It doesn't matter if Bush is "steadfast and resolute" (which basically means his speeches are written a certain way). What matters is, do I feel safer today? No not really. I still fear terrorism. I know that we've attacked the middle east again, and that will make it easier to recruit new terrorists. And now I'm afraid of my own government. I'm afraid that they'll think I'm "suspicious" for one reason or another.

Don't get me wrong, I think Kerry will make a terrible president. I wish we could keep the big tax cuts, and not have a war to pay for. I can't get that with either guy because the mistake has already been made. But in my thinking Kerry's mistakes will likely be at a whole different moral level than George Bush's mistake, which is already made.

Re:A Bush supporter speaks (1)

fredrated (639554) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601080)

This country got all upset because of the mass murder of 9/11. What of Americas part in the mass murder in Iraq don't you understand?

Re:A Bush supporter speaks (1)

chitownIrish (769695) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601141)

Don't have a lot of time for this response, but here goes:

For example, there is the infamous alleged meeting in Prague between an Al Queda operative and Mohammed Atta.

Thorughly debunked. Atta is on video in the US at the time the meeting supposedly took place. Also, I think you mean Iraqi operative - it's pretty well established that Atta was part of Al-Queda

There is good news in Iraq, and most of it is ignored by our press. Iraq has a free press.

Right. Like al-Sadr's newspaper that Bremer shut down, igniting the madhi (sp?) army and inflaming the insurgency? True, he was preaching violence against the 'coalition', but I'd rather have someone talk about killing me than actually doing it.

It seems rather churlish for us to ignore that part of the report and simply say there were no WMDs.

Ok, so when Cheney to takes the part about Saddam's "desire" to "someday" start up his WMD programs again, and uses that cherry-picked morsel as vindication of the war, would you say he's being churlish?

But life's getting better for the man on the street, and although we have made plenty of mistakes, it's nothing like the horrors under Saddam.

Been talking to many iraqis on the street have you? I find it tragic that we're reduced to arguing that "at least we're better than Saddam".

In the end, I support President Bush not because he's always right - of course he's not - but because he is steadfast and resolute when confronting our enemies

Osama Bin Laden killed 3000 people on 9/11, and since the beginning of 2002, Bush has been steadfastly ignoring him. Depending on how much of a shitstorm the middle east becomes before we come back to our senses, this may be viewed as the worst period in American history since the Civil War. There is a kind of mass delusion going on here now, where at least half of the country is looking at the disastrous failures of the Bush administration (no WMD, failed planning, "where's Osama", etc), and is saying "Four more years of this, please."

John Kerry is not the kind of person who will take strong and decisive action when faced with a threat

There's a guy in vietnam with an RPG who would disagree with you, if he were still alive.

The survey (2, Insightful)

Thunderstruck (210399) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600411)

I find it amusing that the survey was conducted at all, as if the opinions of the "vast majority" of the people in the world are either relevant or legitimately discernable.

If we're going to assert, as does this survey by implication, that the opinions of other people matter, then anyone with a nose ring, an alternative lifestyle, or membership in a 3rd party had better straighten out - because the "vast majority" of people probably don't approve.

Better that the survey should ask whether the respondents believe that the war was legal, or supported by factual information, than whether someone in some other place likes it.

Moral Relativism and Tollerance (0, Troll)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600444)

If the fake neoliberals actually had the tollerance they claim to have, they'd admit that it's a possibility that Bush supporters are actually LIVING IN A DIFFERENT UNIVERSE where Iraq had WMDs and shipped them all out to Syria before the war started.

After all, we each live in our own little world where we are always correct, right?

Re:Moral Relativism and Tollerance (1)

BeannieBrewer (819998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600986)

I think you are on to something. I would like to see a study done that shows just what Bush/Kerry supporters think governments role is in our lives. There are fundamentally two different viewpoints on this.
One being that a governments sole purpose is to protect the rights of it's citizens. The other is that the government is to take on a much broader role in everyday life and govern it's citizens rights.
Those are two different universes.

This article is... (-1)

oldosadmin (759103) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600550)

very, very offensive.

I am a strong supporter of Bush, and I realize these things:
  • The war in Iraq isn't perfect, but according to a lot of interviews with soldiers and stuff, it's not as bad as NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN wants you to believe.
  • Even though Iraq doesn't have nukes, Saddam was an insane asshole who would've tried as hard as possible to get them -- several reports show that he was using the oil-for-food program to bypass UN sanctions
  • I know the job market isn't that great. Hell, I'm only working part time. But I ALSO know that Bush inherited a HORRIBLE economic situation and managed to turn it into the smallest recession in US history.
  • I know the world doesn't agree with us. People: THIS IS OKAY. The world looks out for the world. The US needs to look out for the US.


Now I'm waiting for some liberal to come refute my facts, lol. Seriously though guys: It's like people who link to that worldvoting site... it's 75%/25% in favor of kerry in the US. That shows a bias. I tend to think the same with this site -- I know that in my experience, the people who favor Kerry get their facts from Fareignheit 9-11 and the liberal news media. Do some independent research people.

Re:This article is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10600848)

So, you agree that

1- We now know that Sadam did not have WMD
2- The world does not agree with our invasion of Iraq.

Great! You are with us here in the real world.

The article merely points out that most of your fellow republicans believe that 1 and 2 are not true.

Why is that offensive to you? It is a fact.

Re:This article is... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10600982)

OH my FSCKING GOD!

There IS NO liberal MEDIA! Lets think back....2000 election - why would the media bash Gore for his 'compulsive lying', when they didn't even bother to attack hardly any of Bush's stances. Turn on the television, all you saw was something claiming 'Gore lies about creating the internet' or 'Gore lies about being half norwegin. He's only 45%!'. Let's apply more LOGIC to this. The reporters are 65% liberal. That means, 45% of reporters should be conservative swinging, or moderate. However, reporters don't edit the stories or choose what gets aired, or HOW it gets aired. Those are the editors, CEOs, other such higherups, and there is a DIRECT correlation with your political persuasion and your class in society. Also, considering reporters make 6 figure salaries usually, its not really liberal at all...

Now, Fox News, the Conservative Media, has an audience of 4.7 billion. And yet, the world still hates us. Let's use an analogy (we're on slashdot, of course). You're a kid on the playground. Skipping over what happens, you get every other kid to hate you, except that cute, yet not too bright girl Polandiana. How much fun is recess going to be? Not fun at all. In fact, other kids can make your life a living hell.

Oh, and Saddam had no nukes, all he had were aluminum tubes. Remember - the war was sold by saying that Iraq had WMDs, and ties to Al-Qaeda, both of which are completly untrue. Iraq's WMDs were proven to be destroyed years ago, and could not have been revitalised. If the real reason was to eliminate a brutal dictator, bring democracy, and not steal oil, why Iraq?

And Clinton gave us the best economy in US history. Bush's record tax cuts for the rich helped the depression move on. If it's the smallest recession ever, why is Bush the only president to lose jobs since the great Depression, other than HOOVER.

Re:This article is... (2, Informative)

Hassman (320786) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601045)

The war in Iraq isn't perfect, but according to a lot of interviews with soldiers and stuff, it's not as bad as NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN wants you to believe.

Even though Iraq doesn't have nukes, Saddam was an insane asshole who would've tried as hard as possible to get them -- several reports show that he was using the oil-for-food program to bypass UN sanctions


You're right. It isn't perfect, and it isn't as bad as NBC says...but that is irrelevant because it shouldn't have happened the way it did. The president was so sure about Iraq from day one. He knew what he and the VP wanted to do, and listened only to the facts to get them to that conclusion.

There is no doubt that Saddam was an insane asshole. But there are a lot of dictators who are insane assholes. But why Iraq? "They posed a threat to the US!" Yes, but so do a dozen other countries who actually HAVE nukes or other WMDs. So I ask again, why Iraq? "Because saddam committed genocide!" Yes, but so do a dozen of other countries...some much worse than Iraq. So I ask again, why Iraq?

The war was against terrorists, not Iraq. The more that I hear about this the more I hate the situation Bush put us in.

I know the job market isn't that great. Hell, I'm only working part time. But I ALSO know that Bush inherited a HORRIBLE economic situation and managed to turn it into the smallest recession in US history.

HE turned it into the smallest recession? Really? He did? Greenspan had nothing to do with it? If you think his tax cut saved this country, you don't know much about economics. The majority of people who got those cuts didn't spend the money. They put it in the bank. The reason IMO and from what I've read is that the recession was so short was because our economy was so strong at the start of it (since we're assuming the president controls this) thanks to Clinton.

Now then, the recession is technically over...but the state of the union is still questionable. The stock market is way down, jobs on average pay less now than they did, less people have health-care, the price of oil is going to kill the operating income of most companies, people (in general) have less money. If this is what you classify as "isn't that great" (implying average), then I'd hate to see your definition of a bad market.

I know the world doesn't agree with us. People: THIS IS OKAY. The world looks out for the world. The US needs to look out for the US.

I agree with you here. It is okay that the world doesn't agree with us. But it is NOT OK to have the world HATE us. Have people cringe when they hear the name of the United States in other countries.

You think this helps us beat terrorism? You think this will make us safer? Alienate our allies? Piss off other nations? This is in the United States interest?

The US does need to look out for the US, but somewhere in there Bush crossed the line and his actions are no longer in sync with what the US needs.

After 9/11 almost every nation was behind the US. As long as we carried out just actions with strong reasons, we would have had support the whole way. But Bush didn't lead that way. He decided to go unilaterally. Ignore the world, act as the US alone. I've never seen the world so close to together as it was right after 9/11...and that has been squandered away.

No thank you. I won't vote to re-elect George W. Bush. He had his chance, and he blew it.

This post is ... irrelevant (2, Insightful)

melquiades (314628) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601107)

Did you actually read the article?

Your post isn't really fact so much as assertions. That's OK! They might really be correct assertions -- I'm not saying they're wrong, because that's a separate debate! -- but they are debatable. What do NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN "want us" to believe? How do you quantify "not as bad"? What defines a "HORRIBLE" economic situation? Where do you draw the line between "depressed" and "HORRIBLE"? They're all subjective terms.

Let me emphasize before you flame me: I'm not saying your assertions are wrong, just that they're debatable.

If you somebody disagreed with you about Bush inheriting a "horrible" economy, what would you do? You'd pull up some economic data. You know, facts to back up your assertion.

This study, in addition to asking many subjective questions, asked some questions that were about specific, well-defined, falsifiable facts that are not really debatable. For example:

They asked what the conclusions of the Duelfer report were. Now you can argue about whether that report was wrong (that's an assertion), but you can't really argue about what it said. Duelfer said that there was no major weapons program. Maybe the report was wrong, but that was indeed what it said.

They asked what sort of evidence of a Saddam-Qaeda relationship the US had found. Again, you can argue that we should read between the lines, and presume less or more of a relationship than the evidence suggests -- but it's not really debatable what evidence has been presented to the public by intelligence agencies.

It is even on the factual information that Bush supporters seemed to get it wrong. Maybe you're better informed than most! So stay better informed, and read the article.

Re:This article is... (1)

theghost (156240) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601130)

I'm waiting for some liberal to come refute my facts

What facts? You presented a bunch of opinions and conjectures.

The world looks out for the world. The US needs to look out for the US.

Nonsense. If the world is looking out for the world, then it's looking out for the US too. Unless you'd like to claim that the US is no longer part of the world?

That go-it-alone attitude is precisely why so much of the world dislikes us. Yes, the US must look out for the interests of its citizens first, but that doesn't mean we should flip the bird to everyone else.

Re:This article is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10601133)

Sure, I'll refute.

According a lot of letters from the soldiers, the Iraq war is horribly mismanaged, and not as good as Fox/NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN would have you believe.

Based off of his interrogation, Saddam was a nuerotic egomaniac, who had no intentions of getting nukes, and simply defied America because he liked the idea of standing up to the west. There have been no major chemical labs since the first gulf war, and their rocket technology can barely reach past Israel. A criminal yes, but one wonders how many need to die to punish a murderer and bring freedom to a country that wasn't actively pursuing it.

Bush has spent so much money on the useless war, which could have been fed to the economy, I wouldn't be too optimistic. Things could be great now, but they're still crap.

It is not ok to ignore the world, because cooperating with the world makes things a hell of a lot easier, and prevents economic and far worse conflicts.

The whole War on Terror thing is inane.
We're not in danger. We weren't in danger. Better airport security would have avoided the whole 9/11 thing, but now we've just proved them right by taking security and war over freedom and peace.

You will die from cancer or a car crash, not terrorists. Of course, those aren't enemies we can bomb. /rantoff

Once again... (0)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600585)

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

Is it any surprise that the vast majority of people are uninformed and have a view of reality based on ideology rather than fact? NO!

Does this make one bit of difference when trying to decide who to vote for? NO!

Do you vote for Bush because some ignorant guy off the street was given cigarettes to vote for Kerry? Do you vote for Kerry because some gun nut has a Bush bumper sticker? You shouldn't.

This "research" into popular ignorance is what political science has sunk to. "Ignorant Bush supporters more ignorant than ignorant Kerry supporters." What does this contribute to political discussion? NOTHING. It's the best a group of professors and grad students who don't have one original idea of their own to contribute can do.

Do you honestly believe that every single one of Kerry's supporters is voracious news hound and super-informed political junkie, or do you think it's possible that their chosen ideology happens to jive with the facts this week? If we found WMD in Iraq tomorrow, I'm sure 50% of people polled, blinded by ideology, would still get it wrong. Then we could claim that Kerry supporters are vastly more ignorant than Bush. This proves NOTHING.

This is propaganda. Read what intelligent and informed people on both sides have to say, and then make a decision. Don't fall for this crap disguised as research.

Re:Once again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10600980)

This "research" into popular ignorance is what political science has sunk to.

No, this research is showing what politics has sunk to.

Do you honestly believe that every single one of Kerry's supporters is voracious news hound and super-informed political junkie

Nobody thinks that, but that is no excuse for FOX news and lying politicians.

or do you think it's possible that their chosen ideology happens to jive with the facts this week?

Kind of like how FOX was so "hard-hitting" when Clinton was in office, and now all they do is suck up to Bush?

If we found WMD in Iraq tomorrow, I'm sure 50% of people polled, blinded by ideology, would still get it wrong.

There would be a few nutcases who wouldn't accept reality, but 50% is just ridiculous.

Re:Once again... (1)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601071)

To cite a personal example, my buddy's wife is voting for Kerry because she insists that he's "for education" (she's a teacher). Citing NCLB numbers doesn't seem to mean anything to her.

My point is, plenty of people voting for their candidate are ill-informed. I have noticed that my liberal friends have an air of moral and cranial superiority, that I must be a redneck hick or a bigot in order to support my "moron candidate". It does, truly, amaze me.

--trb

Re:Once again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10601092)

Facts are facts. I see this report not as an indictment on a particular party but more as an indictment on the media.

Saddam had no WMD. Period. He was not a supporter of AlQeida. Period. These are the facts as we know them from bi-partisan after bi-partisan report.

The fact that many people do not know these facts is troubling.

The people need to be educated about the basic facts of the world and, I am afraid that the news shows and talk radio do exactly the opposite of that.

News shows seem to only want to present the controversy. He said, she said, type of stuff. They don't take the time to tell us "hey, it doesn't matter what the president and Cheney keep implying, we now know that Saddam was not a suporter of AlQeida" but they don't. They merely say "the president said xyz to which Kerry replied xyz". They don't have the cojones to say "these are the facts and what the president is implying is not true".

Also s/president/Kerry/g above and the same thing holds.

I never realized there was more than one "reality" (1)

ScottSwanson (526619) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600602)

Isn't the truth the truth?

Re:I never realized there was more than one "reali (1)

bizpile (758055) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600940)

Isn't the truth the truth?

You must not follow politics much.

Re:I never realized there was more than one "reali (1)

ScottSwanson (526619) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601082)

I follow too much for my own good ;-). The "multiple realities" of today's party politics is, frankly, more frightening to me than Saddam Hussein ever was.

One reality, many understandings. (1)

abb3w (696381) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600993)

"Understanding is a three edged sword-- your side, their side, and the truth." Yeah, quoting Babylon 5 is geeky, but SF has boiled down a lot of elegant philosophy into elegant aphorisms over the years.

Wow, wonder how that works? (1)

ezeri (513659) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600619)

"It's an interesting read, and shows voters supporting Kerry as being more in tune with the events and world attitudes surrounding the war in Iraq."

No, it shows that Kerry supporters are more in tune with the attitudes of the group doing the study, and with you. To what extent Iraq had a WMD program is still up for debate, it's clear he had intent, but not so clear exactly what he was acomplishing. I'm sure if I looked I could find a lot of conservative sources that would say the oposite, ie, "Bush supporters more in events and world attitudes surrounding war in Iraq." We all are seeing the same evidence, the same events, but with different world views its pretty obvious there are going to be differences in our perseptions.

The Submitter's Worldview (1, Troll)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600680)

Okay people, quiz time. How many of you can guess the world view of corngrower, the submitter of this article? To give you a hint, here's his a paraphrase of his submission.

"A study on the perceptual fantasy worlds that voters live in demonstrates that Kerry voters' fantasy worlds are more real than the Bush voters' fantasy worlds!"

Me! (1)

abb3w (696381) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601116)

How many of you can guess the world view of corngrower, the submitter of this article?

Assuming you're accurate in your identification, "Neither" seems likely. Casual research [slashdot.org] suggests he leans to Nader. The Kerry Supporter Worldview seems likely to be closer to his than the Bush, but I wouldn't put a lot of money on it. Your quote, however, can most readily be construed to be supporting evidence for my suggestion:

"A study on the perceptual fantasy worlds that voters live in demonstrates that Kerry voters' fantasy worlds are more real than the Bush voters' fantasy worlds!"

IE, he thinks both the big name candidates of full of it, and supporters of either are deluded.

Hindsight... (0)

jbarr (2233) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600869)

The reality is that though 20/20 hindsight can provide a clear future direction, it cannot erase the fact that many people in both parties and around the world made many mutual and consensual decisions based on the same intelligence.

A major defining difference between the two parties is that one is standing behind its decisions while the other is trying to dismiss its responsibility in its involvement in those decisions.

Whether the original decision was right or wrong is really not the issue--everyone agreed to it, and it is in the past. The real issue is how each party plans on addressing its responsibility for the future.

Give me a break (2, Interesting)

bwt (68845) | more than 9 years ago | (#10600901)

voters supporting Kerry as being more in tune with the events and world attitudes surrounding the war in Iraq.

Measuring being "in tune with the events" implies that there is an objective way to decide WHICH EVENTS are "the" events. There is not and suggesting otherwise is a bunch of crap. Give me a break. This was a study that measured people's correlation with the study makers views.

As a study in propaganda, I love the use of the term "world attitudes". I wasn't aware that planets had minds that were capable of forming attitudes. Who exactly defines what the "world attitude" is? It's awfully presumptious, to define any particular attitude as the "world attitude". There is also an implicit value judgement that the "world attitude", whatever this means, is the correct one, or is one that you should be "in tune with". The US couldn't possibly be in the right if it ignores the "world attitude" could it?

Kerry supporters love to conclude that because we know NOW that Iraq had no WMD's in hand that Bush "made incorrect judgments before the war" (quoting the study). That does not follow -- based on the information available AT THE TIME, he assessed the risk and was unwilling to gamble on the "No WMD" option. Kerry supported the authorization of force, so he too agreed the risk was unacceptable. Only Kerry now wants it both ways because we have better information. The only reason we got that better information was because we removed Saddam and put in 1500 inspectors for a year.

You cannot be intellectually honest and retroactively change your assessment of risk. Bush took the only course of action that guaranteed we would know Iraq would not provide WMD to terrorists.

If Kerry were in a situation where the risk was 50% that a rouge regime had WMD and the risk was 50% they would cooperate with Al Qaeda, what would Kerry do if France and Germany didn't agree? I'm not willing to risk giving the presidency to someone who wants for foreign powers to lead when uncertainty and risk are in play.

short version here: (0, Flamebait)

xutopia (469129) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601007)

voters who choose Bush are wackos. Voters who choose Kerry and less so.

In tune != grasp of reality? (-1, Troll)

Vile Slime (638816) | more than 9 years ago | (#10601020)

> shows voters supporting Kerry as being more in tune with the events and world attitudes surrounding the war in Iraq

Sure Kerry supporters can be in tune with the rest of world opinion. They probably are.

But, I really don't think world opinion has come to the point where the world realizes that if Islamic fascism isn't defeated then everyone will be living under a "Talibanesque" (spelling?) regime real quick.

Already, the people of Spain have allowed Islamic fascists to decide a major election in their country.

When will the world realize the pretext these fascists live by?

When will the world realize that the only solution that will be tolerated by Islamic facists is the death of every person of Jewish, Christian, Hindu, atheist, and/or any other religious bent other than islam?

This ultimately means that the world cannot see where these evil doers want to take the world's societies.

The Islamic terrorists do not hesitate to murder anyone in their way. And if they die achieving their goals then they are perfectly happy with that also.

I say that if they want to die for Islam then let them. But let them die at the end of my gun on my terms.

Rather than me being beheaded because I refuse to allow my wife to be forced to wear a head covering, or if I refuse to pray to their skewed excuse for a god, or because I refuse whatever other religious atrocity they desire to impose upon me.

It's wrong to couch supporters of Kerry in terms of what the remainder of the world thinks.

Kerry, Bush, Nader, Badnarik, name your candidate, etc., everyone must realize that if you aren't an Islamic facist then the facists have a fate you don't want waiting for you. By sticking your head in a hole and refusing to see the obvious you are failing your species badly.

scary times (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10601098)

I really believe the support for George Bush is almost religious in nature. In his latest speech, the unquestioning cheers from the audience were almost frightening. They sounded like "amens". You're not supposed to hear that kind of blind allegiance in America, you're supposed to have support but skepticism.

And of course the same is true for Kerry, in a different way. I believe the only reason he has any support is because he's Not George Bush.

When you turn on a talk show, it's just small sound bites repeated over and over again like mantras. I wish some of the interviewers would just cut the human-tape-player off and say "We've heard these talking points before. Don't you have anything new to say?". But if they did that, there'd be no way to fill up 24 hours of cable news.

It just makes me want to shake my head and hope for the future. Where are we headed??
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?