Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,920 Year: 4,177/9,624 Month: 1,048/974 Week: 7/368 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   GOP FRAUD
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1498 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 76 of 127 (155656)
11-03-2004 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by paisano
11-03-2004 9:57 PM


I suppose Powell, Rice, Clarence Thomas, Rod Paige, Michael Steele (lieutentant governor of Maryland), Larry D. Thompson (deputy attorney general - yes, Ashcroft's deputy) etc. aren't "real blacks" ?
Hell, dude, even the KKK had black members.
People occasionally join groups that demonstratably work against their best interests. If I knew why, I'd know why people vote Republican. But the existence of black Republicans has nothing to do with whether or not Republican policies are bad for black people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by paisano, posted 11-03-2004 9:57 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by paisano, posted 11-03-2004 11:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6453 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 77 of 127 (155660)
11-03-2004 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by crashfrog
11-03-2004 11:27 PM


Whether Republican policies are good or bad for blacks is a debatable point.
I argue they are good; black Americans need the same things other Americans do, namely wealth creation through small business, safe streets, real educational opportunity with schools that get their job done, etc...and the Democrats have largely failed to deliver.
It's difficult to charge "racism" when immigrant group afer immigrant group after immigrant group, now including Caribbean and West African blacks, shows indications of entrepenurial success...and the victims of the Sharptons, Rangels, and Jacksons don't.
But to assert (not even argue ) that the Republican party as of 2004 is a racist organization...delusional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2004 11:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2004 12:00 AM paisano has not replied
 Message 79 by nator, posted 11-04-2004 8:18 AM paisano has not replied
 Message 80 by nator, posted 11-04-2004 8:32 AM paisano has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1498 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 78 of 127 (155664)
11-04-2004 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by paisano
11-03-2004 11:39 PM


Whether Republican policies are good or bad for blacks is a debatable point.
Are most black people rich? No? Then Republican policies are not good for most black people.
There's no debate about that point, if you look at the economic numbers from that oh-so-biased source, the US Census.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by paisano, posted 11-03-2004 11:39 PM paisano has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 79 of 127 (155766)
11-04-2004 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by paisano
11-03-2004 11:39 PM


Are most white people as likely to go to prison for the same crimes as black people are, and for as long?
And let's not forget that it's poor black people that the republicans work the hardest to keep from voting.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-04-2004 08:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by paisano, posted 11-03-2004 11:39 PM paisano has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 80 of 127 (155773)
11-04-2004 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by paisano
11-03-2004 11:39 PM


Paesano, why are you avoiding my questions?
Paesano, I have been chasing you all over this board for monthstrying to get you to address some very simple, basic issues.
I am starting to think that you are avoiding answering because of some difficulty you have with admitting that the NeoCons and Buah might have done something wrong.
While it's nice that you have something in common with our president, I really think this looks kind of bad for you to do on a debate board.
Since I want to make replying to me as easy as possible, I will cut n paste both messages you have overlooked here, into this one.
Thank you in advance for finally, at long last, addressing the points.
From message #27:
quote:
Correct me If I am wrong, but is not voter registration avaliable at the motor vehicle department in most states?
See message #15 in this thread.
quote:
Do you have hard evidence...not allegations, but hard evidence...that any group is being barred from registering at these venues ?
People aren't exactly being barred, but...
Page not found | Veterans for Common Sense
What’s the Situation in Ohio?
There are two very serious problems in Ohio that may block tens of thousands of new voters from registering and voting. No one wants a repeat of Florida.
First, the Secretary of State of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell, is rejecting voter registration forms because the paper used by citizens was the incorrect thickness. Blackwell is insisting on 80 weight paper, even though thousands of voter registration forms were sent in using a pre-printed form in a local newspaper. Tens of thousands of new voters signed up in Ohio in the past few months.
Second, Blackwell also intends to reject provisional ballots designed to protect voting rights if the voter votes at the wrong precinct. Nearly 100,000 voters used provisional ballots in 2000, and these voters may be refused the right to vote on November 2nd.
Why is Ohio Wrong?
There are three reasons why Blackwell’s actions are wrong.
First, all voter registrations should be accepted if they contain the necessary information. Common sense says that the thickness of the paper shouldn’t matter. The law agrees: No government official shall deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election (Title 42 Chapter 20 Subchapter I Section 1971 of US Code).
Second, all voters are allowed to cast provisional ballots in the event there is a snafu at their precinct and they aren’t on the voter rolls. With tens of thousands of new voter registrations flooding Ohio’s government offices, the odds are that some will be incorrectly processed. As a result, the citizen should not be penalized and prevented from voting because the government made a mistake. The law agrees: The Help America Vote Act, enacted in 2002 in the wake of the Florida election crisis, requires states to adopt provisional ballots for voters who believe they are properly registered. A provisional ballot allows their votes to be counted if eligibility is confirmed later.
Third, Ohio is wrong to reject new voter registration forms and provisional ballots because it smacks of dirty partisan politics. Blackwell is a leading member of one of the political campaigns in Ohio. Partisan politics should never play a role in deciding who can or can’t vote.
Blackwell is a Republican.
From message #53:
quote:
Perhaps if you'd state your point, and arguments in favor of it, in your own words rather than cutting and pasting, I'd be more interested in responding to your posts.
I did do that, in the other thread that you abandoned over a month ago.
My point is that the Bush regime strongly implied, in speeches and press conferences and interviews given in the run up to the war, that Saddam Hussein and Iraq was connected to and greatly responsible for 9/11.
You say you don't think that he lied, and it is true that they never came right out and made a direct connection, but they mentioned "terrorism", "9/11", "WMD" "Iraq", and "Saddam Hussein" in the same breath over and over again.
There is, today, a vast chasm between what most Bush supporters believe abut the existence in Iraq of WMD and the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by paisano, posted 11-03-2004 11:39 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by paisano, posted 11-04-2004 10:16 AM nator has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6453 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 81 of 127 (155807)
11-04-2004 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by nator
11-04-2004 8:32 AM


Re: Paesano, why are you avoiding my questions?
I'll have to be more blunt than I'd like.
I'm uninterested in responding to your posts because I find them uninteresting, poorly reasoned, and quite frankly, largely the parroting of other's opinions, right down to the cutting and pasting.
Sorry. Mybe I'll change my mind if you elevate your game to the level
of those participants I do regularly engage.
As to 9/11 and Iraq. I regard the idea that they may not be directly connectd as largely irrelevant. The first major offensive of World War 2 by US troops in the European theater was against Vichy France, although it was Japan that attacked at Pearl Harbor.
I do not accept the idea that the war on terror is limited to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, for reasons I've stated in other posts. Start a thread to argue this point if you'd like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 11-04-2004 8:32 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by nator, posted 11-04-2004 3:35 PM paisano has replied
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 11-05-2004 9:03 AM paisano has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 82 of 127 (155910)
11-04-2004 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by paisano
11-04-2004 10:16 AM


Re: Paesano, why are you avoiding my questions?
quote:
I'll have to be more blunt than I'd like.
Please, be more blunt. I appreciate ctual responses to simple questions.
quote:
I'm uninterested in responding to your posts because I find them uninteresting, poorly reasoned, and quite frankly, largely the parroting of other's opinions, right down to the cutting and pasting.
Bullshit.
I cut n paste actual evidence. You know, those things called facts.
Anyway, you actually did tend to respond to my posts quite regularly, but also tend to ignore me when you get backed into a corner.
All of your bluster is just a smokescreen. If you find my posts so "poorly reasoned" then why don't you easily demolish my reasoning in replies? Isn't that what one does to the replies of one's opponent on a debate board?
No, I believe that my initial assesment is correct.
quote:
Sorry. Mybe I'll change my mind if you elevate your game to the level
of those participants I do regularly engage.
Look, why not be an example for me? Show me how incredibly poorly-reasoned my arguments are. Show me how the cutting and pasting I do are all just opinions and not contributing evidence and facts to the debate.
quote:
As to 9/11 and Iraq. I regard the idea that they may not be directly connectd as largely irrelevant.
That wasn't my question.
The Bush regime repeatedly mentioned Iraq, Saddam Hussein, 9/11, and terrorism in the same breath in speeches, interviews, and press conferences in the run up to the war.
The reason the American people went along with the invasion of Iraq is because they somehow came to believe that Saddam Hussein was deeply connected to 9/11.
My question is, how did the American people come to believe that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were deeply connected to 9/11 if it wasn't those speeches that made the misleading implications over and over again?
Furthermore, do you think it was OK for Bush and the rest to make that connection, even if only implied?
quote:
The first major offensive of World War 2 by US troops in the European theater was against Vichy France, although it was Japan that attacked at Pearl Harbor.
There was little to no Al Qaida activity in Iraq before the war according to the .
There is plenty now.
quote:
I do not accept the idea that the war on terror is limited to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, for reasons I've stated in other posts. Start a thread to argue this point if you'd like.
Neither do I.
Please answer the question above.
Why did the American people connect Iraq with 9/11 when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by paisano, posted 11-04-2004 10:16 AM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by paisano, posted 11-04-2004 8:04 PM nator has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3958 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 83 of 127 (156032)
11-04-2004 6:12 PM


i live in a republican county. i sent in my voter registration card to change my address. i never received a replacement. fortunately they got dumb and actually sent me my absentee ballot. i still got to vote.

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6453 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 84 of 127 (156066)
11-04-2004 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by nator
11-04-2004 3:35 PM


Re: Paesano, why are you avoiding my questions?
I don't speak for "the American people", nor do I presume to know what their rationale for holding the views they hold is.
What is the point of your question ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by nator, posted 11-04-2004 3:35 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by nator, posted 11-05-2004 8:24 AM paisano has replied
 Message 87 by nator, posted 11-05-2004 8:40 AM paisano has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 85 of 127 (156097)
11-05-2004 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by paisano
11-03-2004 9:57 PM


paisano responds to me:
quote:
quote:
The Republicans are a racist organization.
That's why you're affirming the consequent.
Incorrect.
Affirming the consequent would be:
The Republicans are a racist organization.
So-and-so is a racist organization. Therefore, so-and-so are Republicans.
This is a simple error on your part. You like the phrase, but you apparently do not know what it means. Affirming the consequent is a very specific logical error:
A -> B. B, therefore A.
All squares are rectangles. This object is a rectangle, therefore it is a square. That is affirming the consequent and as you can see, it is logically invalid.
I am not saying that a racist organization is filled with Republicans. I am saying that Republicans engage in racist actions. This is borne out by simple observation.
quote:
I suppose Powell, Rice, Clarence Thomas, Rod Paige, Michael Steele (lieutentant governor of Maryland), Larry D. Thompson (deputy attorney general - yes, Ashcroft's deputy) etc. aren't "real blacks" ?
Logical error: You're assuming that the aggregate is equivalent to the individual.
The fact that there are black Republicans does not indicate that Republicans are not racists. After all, people act against their own self-interest all the time (Log Cabin Republicans, for example).
quote:
David Duke is unwelcome in the Republican Party.
Only because he was obvious about it. And he's still a Republican.
quote:
Trent Lott was kicked out of his Senate leadership post.
Again, because he was obvious about it. And he's still a Republican.
quote:
Pat Buchanan is gone.
By his own power, not the Republicans.
quote:
Meanwhile, the Democrats had Al Sharpton, a man easily as racist as David Duke, as a Presidential nominee.
Where did I ever say that Democrats weren't also racist?
Logical error: Binary thinking. You seem to think that if Republicans are one thing, then Democrats must be the opposite. It is possible that both Republicans and Democrats share traits. After all, both parties are controlled by rich, white men.
quote:
It's hard to take you seriously after this.
I don't take it personally when fools laugh.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by paisano, posted 11-03-2004 9:57 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by paisano, posted 11-05-2004 11:33 PM Rrhain has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 86 of 127 (156141)
11-05-2004 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by paisano
11-04-2004 8:04 PM


Re: Paesano, why are you avoiding my questions?
quote:
I don't speak for "the American people", nor do I presume to know what their rationale for holding the views they hold is.
Gee, it's a good thing we have people to conduct studies, then, isn't it?
If you go to the thread "divide in voter knowledge" you will see a stark difference in the perception of reality between Bush supporters and Kerry supporters WRT the reasons for going to war with Iraq.
The facts are these, Paesano:
1) Surveys show that immediately after 9/11, Americans thought that Bin Laden and Al Qaida was responsible.
2) After a token invasion of Afghanistan, Bush, Cheney, and the rest began making many speeches, press conferences, and interviews in which they mentioned "Iraq", "9/11", "Saddam Hussein", and "terrorism" all jumbled up together.
3) New surveys showed that the American people had "somehow" begun to believe that Saddam Hussein was deeply connected to 9/11.
The point of my question is to get you to admit that Bush, Cheney and the rest misled the American people into believing that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were strongly connected to the specific incident of 9/11.
Now, your job is to refute my facts or admit that they are correct.
Please let me know if you want any documentation for what I have claimed, I will be happy to provide.
Now, this has got to be the fifth time you have tried to give me the runaround, even though my question and point has remained the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by paisano, posted 11-04-2004 8:04 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by paisano, posted 11-05-2004 8:46 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 87 of 127 (156145)
11-05-2004 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by paisano
11-04-2004 8:04 PM


Re: Paesano, why are you avoiding my questions?
I couldn't find the thread to link to it, so here is the text of the study for you:
(bold added by me)
Three of Four Bush Supporters Still Believe in Iraqi WMD, al Qaeda Ties
Fri Oct 22, 7:35 AM ET
Jim Lobe, OneWorld US
WASHINGTON, D.C. Oct 21 (OneWorld) — Three out of four self-described supporters of President George W. Bush still believe that pre-war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or active programs to produce them and that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provided substantial support to al Qaeda, according to a new survey released here Thursday.
Moreover, as many or more Bush supporters hold those beliefs today than they did several months ago, before the publication of a series of well-publicized official government reports that debunked both notions.
Those are among the most striking findings of the survey, which was conducted in mid-October by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm.
The survey, which polled the views of nearly 900 randomly chosen respondents equally divided between Bush supporters and those intending to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), found a yawning gap in the world views, particularly as regards pre-war Iraq, between the two groups.
It is normal during elections for supporters of presidential candidates to have fundamental disagreements about values or strategies, according to an analysis produced by PIPA. The current election is unique in that Bush supporters and Kerry supporters have profoundly different perceptions of reality. In the face of a stream of high-level assessments about pre-war Iraq, Bush supporters cling to the refuted beliefs that Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda.
Indeed, the only issue on which the survey found broad agreement between the two sets of voters was on the question of whether the Bush administration itself has been actively propagating the misconceptions about Iraq’s WMD and connections to al Qaeda
One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these (erroneous) beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them, noted Steven Kull, PIPA’s director. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree. .
The survey also found a major gap between Bush’s stated positions on a number of international issues and what his supporters believe Bush’s position to be. A strong majority of Bush supporters believe, for example that the president supports a range of international treaties and institutions which is actually on record as opposing.
On pre-war Iraq, the survey asked each respondent questions about WMD and links to al Qaeda on three levels: 1) what the respondents themselves believed about the two issues; (2) what they believed that most experts had concluded about them; and 3) what they believed the Bush administration was saying about them.
The survey found that 72 percent of Bush supporters believe either that Iraq had actual WMD (47 percent) or a major program for producing them (25 percent), despite the widespread media coverage in early October of the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) (CIA (news - web sites)’s) Duelfer Report, the final word on the subject by the one billion dollar, 15-month investigation by the Iraq Survey Group.
It found that that Hussein had dismantled all of his WMD programs shortly after the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites) and had never tried to reconstitute them.
Nonetheless, 56 percent of Bush supporters said they believed that most experts currently believe that Iraq had actual WMD, and 57 percent said they thought that the Duelfer Report had itself concluded that Iraq either had WMD (19 percent) or a major WMD program (38 percent).
Only 26 percent of Kerry supporters, by contrast, said they believed that pre-war Iraq had either actual WMD or a WMD program, and only 18 percent said they believed that most experts agreed.
Similar results were found with respect to Hussein’s alleged support for al Qaeda, a theory that has been most persistently asserted by Vice president Dick Cheney (news - web sites), but that was thoroughly debunked by the final report of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission earlier this summer.
Seventy-five percent of Bush supporters said they believed that Iraq was providing substantial support to Al Qaeda, with 20 percent asserting that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon (news - web sites). Sixty-three percent of Bush supporters even believed that the clear evidence of such support has actually been found, and 60 percent believe that most experts have reached the same conclusion.
By contrast, only 30 percent of Kerry supporters said they believe that such a link existed and that most experts agree.
But large majorities of both Bush and Kerry supporters agree that the administration is saying that Iraq had WMD and was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. In regard to WMD, those majorities have actually grown since last summer, according to PIPA.
On WMD, 82 percent of Bush supporters and 84 percent of Kerry supporters believed that the administration is saying that Iraq either had WMD or major WMD programs. On ties with al Qaeda, 75 percent of Bush supporters and 74 percent of Kerry supporters believe that the administration is saying that Iraq provided substantial support to the terrorist group.
Remarkably, asked whether the U.S. should have gone to war with Iraq if U.S. intelligence had concluded that Baghdad did not have a WMD program and was not providing support to al Qaeda, 58 percent of Bush supporters said no, and 61 percent said they assumed that Bush would also not have gone to war under those circumstances.
To support the president and to accept that he took the U.S. to war based on mistaken assumptions, said Kull, likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about pre-war Iraq.
Kull added that this cognitive dissonance could also help explain other remarkable findings in the survey, particularly with respect to Bush supporters’ misperceptions about the president’s own positions.
In particular, majorities or Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that he supports multilateral approaches to various international issues, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) (69 percent), the land mine treaty (72 percent), and the Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites) to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming (51 percent).
In August, two thirds of Bush supporters also said they believed that Bush supported the International Criminal Court (ICC), although in the latest poll, that figure dropped to a 53 percent majority, even though Bush explicitly denounced the ICC in the most widely watched nationally televised debate of the campaign in late September.
In all of these cases, majorities of Bush supporters said they favored the positions that they imputed, incorrectly, to Bush.
Large majorities of Kerry supporters, on the other hand, showed they knew both their candidate’s and Bush’s positions on the same issues.
Bush supporters were also found to hold misperceptions regarding international support for the president and his policies.
Despite a steady flow over the past year of official statements by foreign governments and public-opinion polls showing strong opposition to the Iraq war, less than one third of Bush supporters believed that most people in foreign countries opposed the U.S. having gone to war.
Two thirds said they believed that foreign views were either evenly divided on the war (42 percent) or that the majority of foreigners actually favored the war (26 percent).
Three of every four Kerry supporters, on the other hand, said it was their understanding that the most of the rest of the world opposed the war.
Similarly, polls conducted during the summer in 35 major countries around the world found that majorities or pluralities in 30 of them favored Kerry for president over Bush by an average of margin of greater than two to one.
Yet 57 percent of Bush supporters said they believed a majority of people outside the U.S. favored Bush re-election, and 33 percent said foreign opinion was evenly divided.
Two thirds of Kerry supporters said they though their candidate was favored overseas; only one percent said they though most people abroad preferred Bush.
Kull, who has been analyzing U.S. public opinion on foreign-policy issues for two decades, said misperceptions of Bush supporters showed, if anything, that hold that the president has over his loyalists.
The roots of the Bush supporters’ resistance to information very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally into the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush (news - web sites) showed in its immediate wake, he said.
This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters — and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion would be critical of his policies or that the president could hold foreign-policy positions that are at odds with his supporters.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-05-2004 08:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by paisano, posted 11-04-2004 8:04 PM paisano has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6453 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 88 of 127 (156147)
11-05-2004 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by nator
11-05-2004 8:24 AM


Re: Paesano, why are you avoiding my questions?
Gee, it's a good thing we have people to conduct studies, then, isn't it?
Yeah, except the standards of quality vary widely by field. Studies in political science and sociology often have methodolgical flaws that would cause instant rejection by any journal editor or referee in the physical sciences or engineering.
But this is perhaps a digression.
The point of my question is to get you to admit that Bush, Cheney and the rest misled the American people into believing that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were strongly connected to the specific incident of 9/11.
I don't see it that way. I think Bush & co. saw 9/11 as a precipitating incident signalling a need to initiate a wider war on terror, and saw removing the Hussein regime as a front in that wider war.
As I said, I do not presume to know how others perceived it, or why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by nator, posted 11-05-2004 8:24 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by nator, posted 11-05-2004 8:56 AM paisano has not replied
 Message 90 by nator, posted 11-05-2004 9:00 AM paisano has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 89 of 127 (156148)
11-05-2004 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by paisano
11-05-2004 8:46 AM


Re: Paesano, why are you avoiding my questions?
quote:
Yeah, except the standards of quality vary widely by field. Studies in political science and sociology often have methodolgical flaws that would cause instant rejection by any journal editor or referee in the physical sciences or engineering.
More wiggling and weasling.
Even before you look at the study you have already decided it is false or of low quality.
No bias there, eh?
You sound like a creationist.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-05-2004 08:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by paisano, posted 11-05-2004 8:46 AM paisano has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 90 of 127 (156151)
11-05-2004 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by paisano
11-05-2004 8:46 AM


Re: Paesano, why are you avoiding my questions?
Paesano, are any of these facts wrong?:
1) Surveys show that immediately after 9/11, Americans thought that Bin Laden and Al Qaida was responsible.
2) After a token invasion of Afghanistan, Bush, Cheney, and the rest began making many speeches, press conferences, and interviews in which they mentioned "Iraq", "9/11", "Saddam Hussein", and "terrorism" all jumbled up together.
3) New surveys showed that the American people had "somehow" begun to believe that Saddam Hussein was deeply connected to 9/11.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by paisano, posted 11-05-2004 8:46 AM paisano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024