Do all republicans believe what they say?

I've got a few people I talk to who are republican and they believe everything the Bush camp puts out is true and will not for one second believe anything else indeed will not even entertain the idea that all those other reports like Bush allowing the Bin Laden family to leave the country before the no fly zone was lifted are true. They think everything is a lie because everyone hates Bush. No matter what proofs come out they refuse to see it. They say its the liberal press, their lying or twisting things to look bad on Bush. Whats wrong with these people? Are there any republicans who choose to see the truth, I'm not saying they are going to change their vote as a result but most of these people will not even fathom that Bush could do a few things wrong. I mean I for one don't like everything about Kerry he is not perfect but the people I have been talking to think Bush is. Do they have Bush-sideis, coining a new term, you know no matter what they are siding with him. I swear I believe if he went stark raving mad and shot a bunch of people while on camera they would still say its just them danged old liberal reporters at it again. LOL

What I find funny is they toos generalizations on anyone who is not conservative. If you're not conservative, you hav to Liberal, and you have to love Clinton and Michael Moore and Al Franken and all that crap. Yet, if you try to generalize them, they get all pissy.

I'm a radical moderate, as Dana Carvey once said, but I find I have more in common with Liberals than Conservatives.

We dont believe everything Bush and Co says...its just we get attacked for EVERYTHING he says...and the Liberal Media makes alot of decent democrats believe alot of half truths...so it makes our case even harder...Im not a huge Bush fan...but I do believe we've had worse...and that Kerry wouldnt be better (eventhough I do prefer Edwards to Cheney)...

The media is not designed to make decisions for you.. it is up to you to take the information from the media and make your own decisions. Liberal/conservative media... don't matter.. be able to make your own decisions about what you see.

It seems to me that politics has degraded into party/president bashing.. yet none of the issues affecting the most important aspect which is the lives of the people are not really focused upon... especially in the media.

Many people who have a deep respect for a particular party, be it Republican, Democrat etc refuse to believe that their leaders can possibly wrong. So they accept what they are told like good little party members. Others, with minds of their own, balance what they are told and make informed decisions.
So yes, some Republicans believe just what they are told, as do some Democrats. But not all.

Originally posted by goose
I've got a few people I talk to who are republican and they believe everything the Bush camp puts out is true and will not for one second believe anything else indeed will not even entertain the idea that all those other reports like Bush allowing the Bin Laden family to leave the country before the no fly zone was lifted are true.

Pisky said it all. And goose, before you judge people, do yourself a favor and make sure that you are asking these people to believe what is true, not just your version of it. Let's take your example about the Bin Laden family.

Would you believe it if I told you that the decision to allow the Bin Ladens' to leave was made by Richard Clarke, without GWB's knowledge or approval? Would you believe that Clarke admitted this, as well as admitting to making several other high level decisions without going any further up the chain of command?

Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush�s chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden�s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In an interview with The Hill yesterday, Clarke said, �I take responsibility for it. I don�t think it was a mistake, and I�d do it again.�

Most of the 26 passengers aboard one flight, which departed from the United States on Sept. 20, 2001, were relatives of Osama bin Laden, whom intelligence officials blamed for the attacks almost immediately after they happened.

Clarke�s claim of responsibility is likely to put an end to a brewing political controversy on Capitol Hill over who approved the controversial flights of members of the Saudi elite at a time when the administration was preparing to detain dozens of Muslim-Americans and people with Muslim backgrounds as material witnesses to the attacks.

Look here for "the rest of the story"
Clarke

I don't agree with everthing that Clarke has done in his long government career, but I do on this issue. He did his job as a senior government official, and made the right decision.

The point is, you are drawing conclusions from your own incorrect interpretation of the facts, and then complaining that people who disagree with you won't listen to the truth. Good grief, man, understand what you are doing.

Tell me, did you draw that conclusion after watching Michael Moore's latest documentary? That would explain it, but not excuse it.

Just my centrist .02.

Here's my problem with this goose:

First, the truth is not a subjective thing. The Bush-following people as well as some people on the opposite end of the spectrum, tend to bend the truth to support or further demonize Bush.

Seccond, I think you're generalizing a bit when you ask "Do all Republicans believe what Bush says?" There are many different factions within the Republican Party If you want to see a great answer to this question check out my thread on this board about what the Conservatives think of Bush. The answer shows that there are at least a few Republicans here on ATS that know the truth and think for themselves.

I've actually noticed that a growing number of Republicans are becoming very critical of Bush, lots of them aren't voting this year, and some are even voting for Kerry.

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral

Goose: maybe you're talking to the wrong republicans. First, what's wrong with being a republican. I feel like you have something wrong with these people based on their party affiliation. It also seems like those that you speak of are just as guilty as blind followers from other parties. As Astral said, the truth isn't subjective.

Did you just see Fahrenheit 9/11, or something? (is it the 'truth'?)

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by goose
I've got a few people I talk to who are republican and they believe everything the Bush camp puts out is true and will not for one second believe anything else indeed will not even entertain the idea that all those other reports like Bush allowing the Bin Laden family to leave the country before the no fly zone was lifted are true.

Pisky said it all. And goose, before you judge people, do yourself a favor and make sure that you are asking these people to believe what is true, not just your version of it. Let's take your example about the Bin Laden family.

Would you believe it if I told you that the decision to allow the Bin Ladens' to leave was made by Richard Clarke, without GWB's knowledge or approval? Would you believe that Clarke admitted this, as well as admitting to making several other high level decisions without going any further up the chain of command?

Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush�s chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden�s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In an interview with The Hill yesterday, Clarke said, �I take responsibility for it. I don�t think it was a mistake, and I�d do it again.�

Most of the 26 passengers aboard one flight, which departed from the United States on Sept. 20, 2001, were relatives of Osama bin Laden, whom intelligence officials blamed for the attacks almost immediately after they happened.

Clarke�s claim of responsibility is likely to put an end to a brewing political controversy on Capitol Hill over who approved the controversial flights of members of the Saudi elite at a time when the administration was preparing to detain dozens of Muslim-Americans and people with Muslim backgrounds as material witnesses to the attacks.

Look here for "the rest of the story"
Clarke

I don't agree with everthing that Clarke has done in his long government career, but I do on this issue. He did his job as a senior government official, and made the right decision.

The point is, you are drawing conclusions from your own incorrect interpretation of the facts, and then complaining that people who disagree with you won't listen to the truth. Good grief, man, understand what you are doing.

Tell me, did you draw that conclusion after watching Michael Moore's latest documentary? That would explain it, but not excuse it.

Just my centrist .02.

No I drew that conclusion from watching Prince Bandar on Larry King Live say that he had helped arrange it, the Bin ladens flight from America. He also dined with the President 2 days after the 911 bombings, so I would assume they discussed it then, but yes I am assuming, who knows maybe they talked about golf, coloring between the lines and not outside the lines, what crayons to use, maybe they had a belching contest, who knows? Or maybe they discussed the same things everyone else was discussing t that time, current events. On a matter like the one above I seriously doubt that the president did not know, yes I am aware that Clarke signed the paperwork for them to leave and he has taken full responsibility for it but I seriously doubt no matter what he says that he did it without the President's knowledge. I mean seriously this kind of thing could blow up in the President's face, it could also blow up in Clarke's face if the President did not know. Essentially Clarke was authorizing the flight of the relatives of a criminal who had just murdered over 3000 people and he was also allowing them to leave without being questioned by authorities. Thats a big step to take on your own especially when you know that the boss is going to catch hell for it if it comes out. I don't think it was the right thing to do at all, they should have been questioned, just like any american would have been if their relative was responsible for 911. I don't mean locked away or mistreated just questioned like anyone else here would have been, but no they got to leave without being questioned, given safe passage out of the country without even a, "Do you know where he might be hiding?" sounds like a reasonalbe question to me. Heres links to the flight info:
web.archive.org...://www.tampatrib.com/MGA3F78EFSC.html
www.saintpetersburgtimes.com...

As for generalizing republicans thats why I'm asking I can't believe that all of them believe the crap that we all are being fed right now. The ones I am talking to on the other website think he is a hero, the greatest President ever; I swear before long I think they are going to try and put him up for sainthood.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Clarke�s claim of responsibility is likely to put an end to a brewing political controversy on Capitol Hill over who approved the controversial flights of members of the Saudi elite at a time when the administration was preparing to detain dozens of Muslim-Americans and people with Muslim backgrounds as material witnesses to the attacks.

Look here for "the rest of the story"
Clarke

I

Did you read this whole story Jsobecky because it shows Clarke giving several different answers at different times to who actually authorised it, finally he says he did. did he not recall authorising something that important? Did he or didn't he why do I feel like I should find a daisy and pluck the petals for my answer?

goose

I don't understand what you're driving at. Clarke gave the order. He had some difficulty recalling the specific chain of events of those few days, but he did say it was cleared by the FBI, who had been surveilling the Bin Laden's for years. Members of Congress, including Lee Hamilton, had much more difficulty finding answers. Maybe this is what has you confused.

It is good that you realize that your conclusion about Bandar was based on an assumption only, though it wasn't necessary to go into the crayons/belching nonsense.

You seem to think the Bin Ladens were allowed to leave without being questioned. First of all, if they had inside knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen, it doesn't make sense that they would be in the US at that time. They would have left days or weeks earlier.

But most troubling is your assumption that the Bin Laden's were not questioned before they left. Aside from the fact that they had been watched by the FBI for years prior to 9/11, what If I provided you with FBI statements that proved they had been questioned before being allowed to leave?

Finally, think of this. Assume we had no knowledge of their involvement, if any. On what grounds could we detain them? People wail and moan about the Patriot Act (which came into existence later) , but want the Bin Ladens detained on no grounds whatsoever? I guarantee you, goose, guarantee you, these same people that wail about the evil wicked Patriot Act would complain if the Bin Laden's had been detained without cause. It's a lose-lose situation debating with those types. All they are driven by is an intense hatred of the President, and they will not let facts get in the way. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Why bother arguing with closed minds?

They did not have to detain the family, but why would they fly them out. The whole situation could have been avoided by just having the Bin Laden family abide by the same rules as everyone else and not fly anywhere.

Originally posted by jsobecky
goose

I don't understand what you're driving at. Clarke gave the order. He had some difficulty recalling the specific chain of events of those few days, but he did say it was cleared by the FBI, who had been surveilling the Bin Laden's for years. Members of Congress, including Lee Hamilton, had much more difficulty finding answers. Maybe this is what has you confused.

It is good that you realize that your conclusion about Bandar was based on an assumption only, though it wasn't necessary to go into the crayons/belching nonsense.

You seem to think the Bin Ladens were allowed to leave without being questioned. First of all, if they had inside knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen, it doesn't make sense that they would be in the US at that time. They would have left days or weeks earlier.

But most troubling is your assumption that the Bin Laden's were not questioned before they left. Aside from the fact that they had been watched by the FBI for years prior to 9/11, what If I provided you with FBI statements that proved they had been questioned before being allowed to leave?

Finally, think of this. Assume we had no knowledge of their involvement, if any. On what grounds could we detain them? People wail and moan about the Patriot Act (which came into existence later) , but want the Bin Ladens detained on no grounds whatsoever? I guarantee you, goose, guarantee you, these same people that wail about the evil wicked Patriot Act would complain if the Bin Laden's had been detained without cause. It's a lose-lose situation debating with those types. All they are driven by is an intense hatred of the President, and they will not let facts get in the way. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Why bother arguing with closed minds?

Well first of all why would you have a problem with them being questioned by the FBI, their family member had just murdered over 3000 people, no one said they had prior knowledge or did not have prior knowledge but then again they could have; they might know where he could be hiding. So what, they were under surveilance by the FBI, did that include all their private phone calls, conversations, mail, memos, knowledge they might have before the surveilance, what did this surveilance include? Tell me do you think that if your relative was responsible for over 3000 murders they the police, or FBI would not question you. I don't know where you have been but the police can take you in for questioning anytime long before the Patriot Act. You seem to imply that I'm wanting them to be treated any different than any average American. Any average American would have been held and questioned. From all reports I have seen they showed their passports and left the country. I don't care if you love Bush or don't love Bush the fact is these people got special treatment and left the country when they should have been questioned and then allowed to leave the country if they wished.

You ask, "do all republicans believe what they say?". I being conservative sit here and wonder the same exact thing about liberals. I think...."what is it that they don't understand?". I cite the fact often that the more educated you are the MORE LIKELY you are to be conservative. An enormous base of voters lies in people who are dependent on welfare and free housing. It lies in unskilled workers and organized unions. All of these people are looking for handouts in one way or another. So they are willing to allow basic rights to be taken away from them to get it.

I believe what I said there...yes. Is there anything that was inaccurate at all? No.

Here is a question for all you liberals out there. If the federal government was to reduce taxes for everyone INCLUDING the very wealthy, what would be the consequences?? Answer it truthfully if you are even able, which some of you probably are not. Im curious to see how misguided the liberal base of people who troll this board are.

Oh yeah, P.S. Can someone tell me why issues such as abortion and gay rights should have any bearing in your choice of a political party when far more important issues are prevelant?

Republicans will believe their stance just like liberals will, both will defend their politics till their blue in the face.

I notice my husband callng out liberal bs and their double standard agenda, it makes me crazy, there are some things both parties do like being hypocritical.
The bush awol issue for instance, he was bitching last night that this marie lady was talking about, there were papers found about him being absent.
Clinton dodged the draft ... That's his comeback..

He defends bush's wrongdoing to clinton's wrong doing, like it's supposed to make it right.

I don't get it... These are two men, if they weren't in politics they'd both be #ed, being a leader shouldn't hold special privelages or brainwash people to believe that one party person is ok but not the other..

And both sides are guilty of this... Defend either party to the death, till your blue in the face, it's ridiculous, and personally I get really pissed off when he starts trying to justify another mans actions just because he's a republican.
What bull#.

I have a good friend that is just as brainwashed by the Republicans. He literally takes everything Bill O'Rielly has to say as pure fact. He even has a degree in Political Science so its sad to see even someone educated on the system is that brainwashed. Republicans seem to have a wierd way in getting people to believe everything they say, and to criticise the Democratic party! Im not even a Democrat (or Republican) and I realize this!

Originally posted by Seapeople
I cite the fact often that the more educated you are the MORE LIKELY you are to be conservative. An enormous base of voters lies in people who are dependent on welfare and free housing. It lies in unskilled workers and organized unions. All of these people are looking for handouts in one way or another. So they are willing to allow basic rights to be taken away from them to get it.

I believe what I said there...yes. Is there anything that was inaccurate at all? No.


goose) So am I to understand that in your opinion this country would be a lot better off, if only the upper class were allowed to vote , only the more educated were allowed to vote because they have no special interests. They don't vote according to whats best for them? Are you kidding me or are you saying thats whats best for them is whats best for the country? And the poor and uneducated and unskilled workers should have no say so in our government and not be allowed to vote. Is that what you are saying? Am I understanding you correctly? A lot of elderly people are poor they worked and helped build this country, they lost family members to war fighting for your rights but you feel they should have no say and not allowed to vote, is that correct? In wars many of the poor are the ones on the frontlines in combat and now because they are poor due to disabilities caused by injuries from the war or just because they are not skilled in current labor market needs they have a low income or maybe no income, in your opinion they should not be allowed to vote. Is that what you are saying? Women overall (percentage wise) have a lower income than most men and are more than likely to be found living below the poverty level but because they are poor they should not have a vote, is that what you are saying? So basically if I understand you correctly only certain members of society should have a vote, the upper class. Is this really what you are saying?




Seapeople) Here is a question for all you liberals out there. If the federal government was to reduce taxes for everyone INCLUDING the very wealthy, what would be the consequences?? Answer it truthfully if you are even able, which some of you probably are not. Im curious to see how misguided the liberal base of people who troll this board are.

goose) First of all the rich don't pay the same percentage of taxes per dollar as the poor and middle class do, they pay less, they are able to pay someone to find loopholes to tuck the majority of their money in thus they are able to utilize more tax cuts and the tax cuts are there for them to utilize. The middle class and the working poor are the backbone of America they are the ones who pay the bulk of the taxes. If they cut taxes for everyone some programs that we know and are very familiar with would either be done away with or cut drastically, whats your point?




Seapeople) Oh yeah, P.S. Can someone tell me why issues such as abortion and gay rights should have any bearing in your choice of a political party when far more important issues are prevelant?

goose) I vote according to economics and foriegn policy more than issues like the ones you mention above. The republicans currently led by Bush are the ones who keep making these issues a key part of the election. Personally I don't see anything wrong with two people of same sex getting married if they want to, who does it hurt? I also think that a woman should have the right to an abortion if she wants one, personally I would hope that she and her partner utilizes birth control before she gets pregnant, but those are my views on that, they do not dictate how I vote.

[edit on 27-7-2004 by goose]

I think this is where one of the problems lay. The fact that people of BOTH sides of the political spectrum get so defensive because they see it as an attack on themselves and their ideals and beliefs, which of course will get a reaction of belief of their course.
Personally I have to say that I have no problems with proper Republicans, most are good people with their hearts in the right place and when I attack their party it's not because I'm anti-Republican or anti-War, anti-Religion e.t.c. it's because I'm ANTI-BUSH, or more specificly ANTI-CORRUPTION which is something that is infested in all parties.

Bush is a nincompoop and we all know it, I'd be stunned if any Republican could honestly say with a straight face that that they look up to Bush and that they couldn't wish for a better leader. If you're honest you'd say you'd prefer a much better leader who is actually true to your original ideals.

If Republicans were to go something like "Yeah, we love our party and what we stand for, but unfortunately we've got that moron ruining things for us at the moment. He's not a true Republican, he doesn't really represent us and hopefully soon we can see to it that he's ousted" then I'd have have much respect for that and it would be very understandable. However, it's often taken the wrong way unfortunately.

People of all politcal persuasions like neat abstract pre-packaged ideas. It relieves them of having to do mind work thinking about them. I can see why people with busy overburdened lives would like that, trouble is, most things in reality are messy and complicated.

To win an election it helps to have quick easy grab sound bites. I think for public office it is more important though to elect someone who has a well balanced mind and good pragmatic sense. The future holds things we can't even guess about. Office holders have to be ready to deal with that. Officials should surround themselves with agile articulate outspoken minds, gather and examine their ideas, and select one of the best ones.

Election agendas should be seen more as giving insight into how and what a candidate thinks about then as something carved in stone.
.

Im a republican and a bush supporter. I agree wth most of bush's policies I do not agree with all. I disagree with his decision to focus the war on drugs on marijuana as I believ it is a waste of both money and effort which would be better spent getting crack, heroin and other hard drugs off of our streets. However I disagree less with bush than with kerry and in general with the republican platform that the democrat platform. As a result I am a republican. Do I beleve everything he says? No. I look at his position I look at the opoonents position and I make up my own mind. By the same token I don't beleve what Micheal Moore or hillary clinton says either, but I do give more credibiliity to a republican than an democrat source because I have seen too many instances of outright lies by liberals. (not saying the republicans don't lie too but the dems strike me as more fanatical)
Posters like goose who put words in peoples mouth reinforce this position.
Goose I did not see one instance where seapeople stated that only the upperclass should be allowed to vote. I did see her state that the better educated someone is the more likely they are to be conservative however there are multiple ways to interpert that.
for example
1) most of those who attain higher education come from middle class or upperclass family and thus are more likely to have conservative tendancies.
2) the republican platform is smarter and therfore the smarter you are the more likely you are to be republican.
3) most of those who attain higher education get high paying jobs and thus are more likely to want to reduce the size of the government and thus taxes.
4) most of those who obtain higher degrees are white and therfore more likely to be conservative.
And thats just off the top of my head. However you chose to interpert that as a staement endorsing the removal of voting rights from the underclass. I fail to see how you could come to that conclusion based on what was posted without a preexisting irattional hate of conservatives.