Do many Republicans believe anything that agrees with them?

Question

An Iraqi general (obviously very trustworthy) says that Iraq has WMD... and they believe it...

A Sudanese official (again, really trustworthy) says they offered Clinton bin Laden...and they believe it...

and this happens time and time again...

if bin Laden said he worked for Clinton... I'm pretty sure they would believe it...

that's why they seem to love Fox News... it agrees with them...

and they also call anything that disagrees with them "liberal"... regarudless of facts or statistics...

seems like an odd way of doing things...

dablaze: what if your beliefs are "what you can prove or have evidence for"?

Sunshine: I agree... but it seems like all of them believe that Iraq has WMD and Clinton turned down bin Laden as INDISPUTABLE FACT...

and the more I look into both issues... the weaker they get...

and granted there are some kooky liberals, but they seem to make up a small percentage of "all liberals"

maybe it's that they are just the loudest on both sides so it seems like there are more of them?

BassCatcher: thanks again for not citing anything...

PROVE IT TO ME... I've looked into it and you copying and pasting a story from who knows where isn't the evidence I'm looking for...

it's like you're proving my point... just because Martin or you say something... I'm not going to believe it unless you can back it up...

I WANT SOMETHING THAT HAS MORE THAN ONE SOURCE THAT IS CLEARLY HORRIBLY BIAS...

Answer 1

There are members of every group who just follow the party line, and there are members of every group who just create/spout the party line without rational thought.

Some people only like to hear news or discussions that reinforce what they already believe. The technical term for them is "sheep", and unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) it's not limited to any one political party.

There might be a slightly greater tendency towards group-think among conservatives, but only because some of their core values are conformity and tradition and consistency. So, in the interests of preserving the status quo (the original meaning of being conservative), there might be a slightly higher tendency to follow the party line.

What would be nice is if more people researched the important issues themself, and formed the own opinions, rather than aligning with a group and assuming what that group tells them is correct.

Sadly, that would require more effort than most people (in all areas of politics) are apparently willing to expend.

Answer 2

Members of Clinton's administration have said that there were opportunities to take out Bin La din, but that Clinton didn't want to do it because he thought it might look like he was trying to distract from the Monica thing. If he had kept his zipper shut...perhaps the WTC would still be standing.

As for do Republicans believe anything that agrees with them...yes, just as much as Democrats believe things that agree with them. Stop being so closed minded.

Answer 3

I believed that Iraq had WMD's when US intelligence reports said they did....and Congress believed it too, along with the rest of America. I still think that Hussein did something to get rid of them...our inspections were quite lax. Regardless, I rely on information provided by US officials..

Answer 4

I know liberals who act the same way. I have a lot of very liberal friends who buy into every anti-Bush thing they hear with very little truth. I myself am a liberal but I only believe in things that are PROVEN. Not those crappy consperacy (sp) theories. So many of us hate Bush, it's wrong tho to make things up. That's just unfair.

Answer 5

I have the proof on the WMD and who made the deal, it was Rumsfeld in 1983...Bush senior wiped out Iraq in the first war and only left them with some tanks, and a few helicopters to protect themselves from Iran.

http://stream.paranode.com/imc/portland/images/2003/12/276084.jpg
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276083.shtml
http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm
http://64.239.13.64/images/090705_BBC_Map.jpg
http://judicial-inc.biz/Operat23.jpg
http://judicial-inc.biz/pics/Phot0_68.jpg

So you and I and the World knows that the Republicans are telling lies..This is all on google and public knowledge..

Answer 6

enable me supply the readers the completed tale on your first 2 factors that you very actual left out: a million) The slamming of his previous develop into in accordance with a pair democrats putting forward Teddy develop right into a variety for the way Republicans ought to act (i.e. assaults on your combatants ought to under no circumstances be own or vicious). They were taking area in soundclips of Ted getting own and cruel in the route of Bork and Clarence Thomas. 2) The dems blasted Rush previously in the 12 months for predicting the dems ought to attempt to take advantage Ted's lack of existence to bypass their well-being Care invoice. at present the dems are thinking naming the invoice after Ted.

Answer 7

That's why america is a republic,that's why bush is a republican,and that is why republicans support bush. Never mind the truth, never mind the facts,what's matters most is that a republican is able to have fun in the oval office, what's a better wet dream than that for republican?

Answer 8

They are just being used for a dollar.. I need to write a book about Clintons secret cult where they worshipped the devil and sacrificed republicans to Lucifer.. They'd eat it up and make me a millionare..

Answer 9

Regardless of what you believe, once you subscribe to an ideology, any actual facts are secondary to your chosen beliefs.

Answer 10

The UN said Iraq had WMDS, Syria, not Sudan offered Bin Laden to Clinton and he did turn them down! Check your facts before you make ridiculous accusations.
© June 18, 2004, Rod D. Martin

In a report which might alternately be termed “stunning” or “terrifying”, United Nations weapons inspectors confirmed last week not merely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that he smuggled them out of his country, before, during and after the war.

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items - with UN inspection tags still on them -- as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.

Notably absent from that list is Iraq's western neighbor Syria, ruled by its own Baath Party just like Saddam's and closed to even the thought of an UNMOVIC inspection. Israeli intelligence has been reporting the large-scale smuggling of Saddam's WMD program across the Syrian border since at least two months before the war. Syria has long been the world's foremost state-sponsor of terrorism.

Perricos highlighted the proliferation danger to the Security Council, as well he should: UNMOVIC has no idea where most of the WMD material is today, just that it exists and it's gone; and anything in Syria is likely to be in Jerusalem or New York tomorrow.

This is the biggest news story of 2004 so far. Yet you haven't heard about it, have you?

You probably haven't heard about Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin either -- a socialist and no friend of America. Addressing a group of 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal last month, Martin stated bluntly that terrorists have acquired WMDs from Saddam. “The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Huseein had, we don't know where they are…. [T]errorists have access to all of them,” the Canadian premier warned.

The tip of this terrorist sword was scarcely deflected on April 26th, when Jordanian intelligence broke up an al Qaeda conspiracy to detonate a large chemical device in the capital city of Amman. Directed by al Qaeda terrorist leader Abu al-Zarqawi -- the same man who personally beheaded American Nicholas Berg in Iraq last month -- the plotters sought to use a massive explosion to spread a “toxic cloud”, meant to wipe out the U.S. embassy, the Jordanian prime minister's office, the Jordanian intelligence headquarters, and at least 20,000 civilians (by contrast, only 3,000 died on 9/11). Over twenty tons of chemical weapons were seized from the conspirators, who were just days away from carrying out their plot.

One wonders where CNN and USA Today think twenty tons of nerve gas and sarin came from: Chemical Weapons-Mart? Yet their coverage, like most major media outlets, mentioned not a word about Saddam's smuggled WMDs, which -- according to liberal dogma -- “don't exist.”

Even though the UN says they do exist, now spread around the world.

It's not just the UN. Bill Clinton says they exist, even after the war: in a July 2003 interview with Larry King, the ex-president uncharacteristically defended George Bush, saying “it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there [was]…a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for” in Iraq. Every intelligence agency in the world -- French, British, German, Russian, Czech, you name it -- agreed before the war; Jordanian intelligence can certainly confirm their opinion today.

So what's the deal? Why the relentless pretence that “Bush lied” when even the UN and Bill Clinton say he didn't? Why the absolute silence about “inconvenient” parts of various UN reports, such as the discovery of chemical and biological weapons plans, recipes and equipment; of bio-weapons agents in an Iraqi scientist's house; of a prison lab for testing bio weapons on humans; of complexes for manufacturing fuel for prohibited long-range missiles; of artillery rounds containing enough sarin to kill thousands of people, of similar shells containing mustard gas, two (but far from the only) of which were used in a terrorist attack against U.S. forces just weeks ago?

America cannot afford the answer to this “why”: that many on the left consider George W. Bush's defeat more urgent than al Qaeda's, his political death more essential than the possible physical death of millions of Americans.

The character of our foreign enemies has never been in doubt. The character of the enemy within -- from Dan Rather to Michael Moore -- has never been clearer. And the stakes are the highest they've ever been.