Dems Back Saddam Hussein in New Poll
People like Ron would like you to believe that the way liberals are portrayed on this blog and other outlets is a "cartoon" representation...
Well, this story proves that liberals really are crazy and their sense of reality and right/wrong is way out of wack...
It also goes along with the fact that so many people are so ignorant they do not understand what a huge success the war in Iraq is. I have listed it many times, and it is obvious that the lefties do not want to listen to facts or reason...so I will not mention it here...
But this poll shows how insane they really are:
Democrats have given Saddam Hussein a shocking vote of confidence in the latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics survey, with a solid plurality saying the world would be better off if the Butcher of Baghdad was still in power.
Forty-one percent of Democrats gave Saddam a thumbs up, while just 34 percent said Iraq is better served with the murderous dictator gone, reports the New York Post.
In stark contrast, 78 percent of Republicans said toppling the mass-murdering leader left
everyone better off. Just 10 percent said they wished Saddam still ruled Iraq.
On the question of whether President Bush lied to the American people about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, 72 percent of Democrats say he did.
They are clearly insane...and have NO proof that Bush LIED...
Friday, December 02, 2005
Proof that liberalism is a mental disorder
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Liberals are not crazy. Dogmatic, inflexible people are crazy, regardless of political persuasion.
Dude, you cant get all serious about a demographics statistic in one minute, and then discount a different one, the next.
Dammit. You beat me to it, Game. Want me to take the trash out (Wino) or would you like the pleasure?
You couldnt take me out with a crane, humanzee.
Oh, yes I can. Your big mouth may take a crane, though.
Wake up, humanzee. You're having a crazy dream...
man, we need to have a wrestlemania of the blog...
Not surprisingly, you misrepresent the question and the results.
The question was not whether Saddam is good or bad, whether he should be in power or not, or whether the world would be better off with or without Saddam. Democrats would have been nearly unanimous that Saddam is bad, he should not be in power, and the world would be better off without him.
The question was:
Do you think the world would be better off or worse off if the U.S. military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power?
This question has two conditions, and the first condition is key. A "better off" answer is clearly not an endorsement of Saddam. It is a legitimate opinion that the manner in which he was removed leaves the world worse off.
You are right, though, that without knowing what was in Bush's mind, there is no proof that he lied. By the same token, without looking into his mind, there is no proof that he didn't.
"They are clearly insane...and have NO proof that Bush LIED..."
Bush speaking at the Naval Academy:
"This year in Tal Afar, it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces - 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support."
TIME Magazine reporter Michael Ware, who is embedded with the U.S. troops in Iraq who participated in the Tal Afar battle, appeared on Anderson Cooper yesterday. He said Bush's description was completely untrue:
"I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them.
Republican Senator John Warner after hearing these words:
"I respect those journalists that embed themselves and I accept as a credible description what you’ve just put forward."
When you read the question on the poll, you have to focus on the part about saddam being in power or not...it makes it look like liberals would rather have him in power...
glad to see you understand the Left should not be saying Bush lied...I agree I really don't know for sure if he did or didn't, but there is no proof if he did or not, so the Left should not be using the "Bush LIED" as one of their talking points...
I think you are trying to use your last post as some sort of proof that Bush does lie, don't see how that is proof...and if it is not suposed to be proof, I have no idea why you posted that...
No, when you read the question on the poll you have to take the entire question into consideration. Every pollster knows how important the phrasing of the question is to the results. Many pollsters ask questions in a certain way in order to achieve certain results.
This question does not ask if the world is better off or worse off with Saddam in power. It asks if the world is better off or worse off because the military took action in Iraq. The addition of the phrase "and Saddam Hussein were still in power" frames the question with an entirely different meaning and practically begs the responder to say answer in a certain way.
Then it provides NewsMax and other right wing papers and organizations the opportunity to accuse Democrats of supporting Saddam.
Works for you, I guess.
Another trick is that it has been proved many times that Bush and others in the administration have said things that are shown to be untrue.
When people note examples of this, the Republic talking point is to cry out that they are claiming "Bush Lied" or "they are calling the President a liar." So the story becomes "Democrats call President a liar" instead of "Bush says something that is false."
It is difficult to PROVE that the President has lied. It is very easy to PROVE that he has said things which are not true, and that were known by people in the administration not to be true at the time. If he knows they are not true when he says them, then he is lying. If he doesn't know they are not true, then he is either incompetent or has chosen to accept anything his advisors tell him without curiousity or question.
Is it lying or incompetentce? What's the difference? The results are the same.
Jim
you have presented an argument that is thought out and not full of raw emotion and hate...it does fall apart at one point...
When Bush told the world Iraq had WMD's every intelligence agency agreed...England STILL believes they had weapons and either hid them or shipped them before we got there...
a thought not totally related...are you as mad at the media for making this war look much worse than it is? MOST soldiers are very pissed at the coverage
Well, I'm not mad so much as curious as to why there aren't more stories about how great things are going. I'm sure there ARE good things happening, but I watch FOX News as much as any news outlet, and I don't see much "good" news about the war there either, and you can't accuse Fox of a liberal bias, can you?
Part of the problem is very few of the press can get out of Baghdad without getting killed or kidnapped. Those that do get out are not reporting a lot of good things.
[humor alert] Are the olny reporters with the guts to get out of Baghdad , the liberal ones?
Greg Palkot did an one hour piece for Fox News just last night. Psst - we're winning.
That's great! Winning what? Seriously. Just want to know what that means exactly, because I'm all for winning.
Theres plenty of proof that Bush lied and I have pointed it out to you time and again and shown you where you could see it with your own eyes...you wish to ignore it ...ok..but you're fighting a battle YOU will lose on this one cuz the truth is out there. Not all intelligence agencies agreed and not all countries agreed..that is urban legend.
try the last line of links from here:
http://roswellrealamerica.blogspot.com/2005/12/reading-room.html
Jim, I'm all for winning too and when they pull the troops out next year we will have won..you just watch..all depends on semantics here. Actually I have blogged that we "won"..achevied our objectives(no wmd. saddam and boys gone) a long time ago..we just keep trying to turn it into a failure..
We win!!! Yipee!! No can we get to HOMELAND security and the REAL war on terror.
Post a Comment