a hall of ideological mirrors . . .

[huKSer]

Or, rather, it is living in an alternative reality. 63 percent of Republicans in a new poll believe that Saddam Hussein had WMDs when we invaded in 2003, despite even George W. Bush's acknowledgment that he didn't. 64 percent also believe that Barack Obama was born in a foreign country, even though we have the long-form birth certificate from Hawaii. This alternate reality is sustained by a 24 hour propaganda network, and hermetically sealed off from any external intervention.

 

We are reaching a democratic crisis of some sorts. One major political party refuses to accept empirical truths. It has become a hall of ideological mirrors.

http://andrewsulliva...s-unhinged.html

 

And there, in the last two sentences, is the most eloquent summation of why I switched my voter registration to independent.

 

Is it just me or does anyone else find it hilarious that Andrew Sullivan, the first and the last of the "Trig Truthers" is lecturing anyone about the acceptance of empirical truths?

ONE major political party????

 

Bush stole the election - audits show that even if all of the questionable ballots went in favor of Gore he still would have won

 

Bush lied about WMD's - bad intelligence, yes, lied no. At the time he believed there were, so stating so is not lying.

 

Obama birth certificate - born to an American citizen, now shut up

 

Both parties tend to believe incredibly stupid things. Deal with it

[carlfense]

Stranger than starting a thread titled 'a hall of idealogical mirrors' and then posting that you left the Republican party because of the results of a single poll? Those two sentences that you seem to be so enamored with are an example of the exact thing you are claiming to be turning away from.

False. Read it carefully.

 

It would be no different if someone had stated they were handing in their Democratic party card because the President, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder & Diane Feinstein are incapable of basic math when they state that 90% of the firearms in Mexico come from the US.

Again . . . false. Read it again.

 

It's not a complicated point but I'll happily try to explain it further if it will help you understand.

[carlfense]

Bush lied about WMD's - bad intelligence, yes, lied no. At the time he believed there were, so stating so is not lying.

Incompetence or actively lying . . . either way a lot of our troops died as a result. That's one vote that I'd like back.

 

Both parties tend to believe incredibly stupid things.

No arguments there.

[JJ Husker]

Carl- you are correct. It was evidence, however it was not proof.

 

I would equate believing Bush lied about wmd's being in Iraq to those who believe Obama is not a US citizen. Both positions are the result of too much Koolaid, be it cherry flavored or blue raspberry. And I don't think incompetence is the only other option. Well sourced but subsequently unproven intelligence does not mean Bush lied or was incompetent. It only means that they didn't find them or that the intel was bad. Assuming more would indicate a bias against reality.

[carlfense]

Carl- you are correct. It was evidence, however it was not proof.

Blind squirrel and a nut.

 

I would equate believing Bush lied about wmd's being in Iraq to those who believe Obama is not a US citizen. Both positions are the result of too much Koolaid, be it cherry flavored or blue raspberry. And I don't think incompetence is the only other option. Well sourced but subsequently unproven intelligence does not mean Bush lied or was incompetent. It only means that they didn't find them or that the intel was bad. Assuming more would indicate a bias against reality.

I think there can be little doubt that the intel was bad. The weapons inspectors on scene disagreed with Bush's WMD statements. Also, I didn't mean to imply that the intelligence choices/failure were indicative of Bush's incompetence.

[Ziggy]

Come on Carl, like Bush was the only one saying Saddam had WMD's, so did every congress person who voted to give Bush the go ahead. Anyone who tries to say that Saddam had or did not have WMD's at the time we invaded is fooling themselves. Not finding something is never proof of anything, it goes along with if a tree falls in a forest with no one around did it make a sound. Just because no WMD's were found doesn’t mean they couldn’t have possibly been there.

 

I could make a poll that says that 94% of democrats believe 9/11 was an inside job, and make a piss poor generalization that one political party is full of crazy conspiracy theorists who are blind to the reality of life.

[carlfense]

I could make a poll that says that 94% of democrats believe 9/11 was an inside job, and make a piss poor generalization that one political party is full of crazy conspiracy theorists who are blind to the reality of life.

Is there a poll that says that?

 

Actually . . . I think you've also done a decent job of describing a certain part of the GOP base. Not quite as eloquent as Sullivan's . . . but not bad at all.

[zoogs]

I don't know, it just doesn't seem to make sense to make a broad indictment of an entire political party - of which many here are members, and may not have responded the same way to the poll - based on the data of a single poll.

 

39% of Americans believe in evolution (2009), a pathetic 80% of Americans believe the earth revolves around the sun (1999), and for a partisan example, 35% of democrats to only 22% of the general populace believed that President Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (2007). For something even more absurd, the percentage of Americans (as well as the splits among demographics) who either believe Obama is a Muslim, or don't know, is staggering.

 

All of these, like the poll result you provided in the original post, are shameful (and stunning) numbers. The partisan-slanted conclusion provided by the OP is incomplete and insufficient. Indeed, if anything, it seems that political affiliation (bias) is a huge factor in general as far as believing in convenient falsehoods go. I hope that as a result of such findings we'll all be mindful of our disposition to bias and be able to hold ourselves to a level of rationality, fairness, and skepticism that transcends it.

[strigori]

What is the disturbing part is just about all the media will lean one way or another to court TV ratings and advertising money. We live in the world of infotainment.

 

Two statements I have always loved.

 

The Offspring - "The more cynical you become, the better off you'll be"

 

From Wizards First Rule "Wizard's First Rule: people are stupid. People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."

[huKSer]

[Muck]

Again . . . false. Read it again.

 

It's not a complicated point but I'll happily try to explain it further if it will help you understand.

 

Sorry read it multiple times. Going by what you actually stated I'll stand by what I wrote with one small change based on 'two polls'.

 

You may have meant to say something different in which case you should have done a better job of communicating what you wanted to say.

 

Now as to why Republicans believed that the Hussein regime had WMD? Perhaps it's because Saddam Hussein wanted the world to believe he still had them them as a bluff towards Iran or maybe it's because the US continued to find them for years. Of course that doesn't mean that Saddam's weapon program was still in full swing by 2003 (it wasn't) but that isn't what the poll asked now is it?

 

Is there a poll that says that?

 

Actually . . . I think you've also done a decent job of describing a certain part of the GOP base. Not quite as eloquent as Sullivan's . . . but not bad at all.

 

No. The 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University Poll only showed that 50.8% of Democrats believed it was either somewhat or very likely that "people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?”

[knapplc]

You can tell it's the offseason.

[carlfense]

Sorry read it multiple times. Going by what you actually stated I'll stand by what I wrote with one small change based on 'two polls'.

 

You may have meant to say something different in which case you should have done a better job of communicating what you wanted to say.

No problem. I'll explain it so that more carefully for you so that you don't miss the intent. Please let me know if you're still confused.

 

I said this:

And there, in the last two sentences, is the most eloquent summation of why I switched my voter registration to independent.

 

Then you said this:

 

Stranger than starting a thread titled 'a hall of idealogical mirrors' and then posting that you left the Republican party because of the results of a single poll?

 

The missing link is that I never said that I left the Republican Party because of the results of a single poll. (Or two polls, in your amended post.)

 

You either imagined or invented that particular argument. Either way . . . creative . . . but not factual.

 

Again, let me know if you require further assistance.