Steve, you're kidding right? Please tell me you're joking that you're "pretty sure" and "could be wrong"? We've never crossed hairs before, and I refuse to flame you if you're being sarcastic.

Sorry, I typed my message before verifying my information. Hence the "pretty sure"

Poll results from various sources:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Um, in theory, Congressmen, also called representatives, are supposed to *represent* those who voted them in, so I do really think the opinions of us lesser common folk are important. That's why we elect these people, to do the job of running the country in our best interests. But the reality is, it is the elite running this country, and they'd sure like to keep it that way. Most of the time, they have their interests in mind, not the public's. They'd rather have us as uneducated as possible, so that we won't question or oppose.

My apologies

Thank you for posting that Steve. Those numbers are pretty close to being 50/50. Also, I don't remember anyone ever polling me, so does my opinion count? Did they poll you?

Yeah, I thought it was about 50/50 as well.

So then, in theory, why do people blame President Bush all of the time? Why not blame the people who voted the President and representatives into office in the first place? If people feel they aren't being represented properly, blame the representatives who vote against their wishes.

Actually if you browse the stats, a majority of the polls show a larger % in favor of the war, and in favor of the way the war has been handled.


Do I need to answer this question. I know that you understand how polls work, as you seem to be very intelligent. Of course it's impossible to get everyone's opinion.

I don't know why people blame President Bush, to tell the truth. I have not given my opinion about him or the war in this thread, but I feel I should say now that I have been supportive of him and his actions for awhile. There, now all the republicans can stop being defensive so that we can get down to the real issue at hand which is Naivety.

Well, the president does come up with some of the policies that our representatives vote on and he does have to sign off on them. He is the face of America that the rest of the world sees. The system, as it stands now, is stacked against people who don't have the power and money. Some poor idealistic candidate who wants to really make a difference won't get very far because of the machine that is politics. These people control the media as well and twist and turn the facts to squelch anyone who gets in their way and try to discredit them and make them seem like fringe lunatics. Our choices are pretty limited, so it's the lesser of several evils, in my mind. As an American, I'm pretty disgusted with the way our system has evolved. But's it's the best we've got at the moment. I'm at least thankful for free speech and the right to voice our opinions even when they clash with the ruling majority.

Sorry the post you replied to was directed towards Dogstar. :)

My bad. Those appeared to be rhetorical questions to me. I don't mind having him as the only Republican candidate. I don't feel there are any better Republicans at this point in time.
With regard to Saddam, I assumed (oops) that you were referring to the public's strong opinion against the war, as you allege. Regardless of the presence of the protestors, the majority of support was still in favor of the war. I hate to throw any other issues into the mix, so I won't say what I really want to. But, suffice to say, anti-war rallies and activities received an unfair amount of attention compared to those held by pro-war advocates. Here's a useful link for you:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ll-results.htm
As the statistics indicate, a majority--more than 3 to 1 on March 20, if my math is correct--supported the war when it began. And, when declaring a unilateral war (granted, with the support of Britain, Australia, and other nations), President Bush explicity need not consider the opinions of protesters in places like France and Germany, who, by then, had promised to not support the unilateral war. In fact, Bush needed not worry about the opinions of Londoners, either. That concern, of course, would be left up to Prime Minister Tony Blair and the British Parliament (House of Commons and House of Lords?).

Just as Bush had no reason to take into consideration the opinions of the UN? Touche!

This is why our country is in the mess it's in with regard to the rest of world.

Wow! This is crazy! I actually find myself agreeing with something you say, Dogstar! Ever seen "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"? It's a kitschy movie made about the same time as "It's a Wonderful Life" (in fact, it involves many of the same actors, and follows the basic plot-line). If anything, though, politics are less corrupt today than, say, during the later 1800s and until 30 or 40 years ago (I'm not exactly sure on those numbers). Political machines and bosses were very corrupt. They no longer exist today as we knew them. But what many people don't realize about these machines was that, in order to gain the great amounts of power they had, they often did great deals of good for the "common citizen", so as to garner their votes. And it worked.