I was surprised when Gould told me he did not want to discuss facts, but
wanted to discuss my opinion on who was less educated and who was using more
negative ads in getting out their message. I was surprised when Gould
wanted to argue the fact that just because Republicans have more formal
educated it does not prove they are more intelligent, because if they were
more intelligent they would be voting for Kerry. He wanted to dispute the
fact that those with more formal education were more inclined to become
informed voters, vs voting based upon 30 sec ads and quick sound bites and
strictly based upon party affiliation.

It shows that Gould has allowed the fact that it appears that Kerry will
lose to get the better of him and he is putting the blinder on very tight.


" jim--" wrote in message
...
They know they are going to lose. They are desperate. It is actually
quite funny to read their posts.


"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:dl_4d.149088$3l3.45521@attbi_s03...
Do you have any proof that " .. it's the republicans who automatically
follow whatever their leader tells them, and NEVER, EVER question the
party."

Do you have any proof that republicans follow their party line anymore
than the average democrats?
The facts show democrats on the average have less education than
republicans, are less successful financially than republicans, and are
less informed and educated on the current political issues than the
republicans. I have documented this proof with unbiased studies conducted
by colleges in an effort to understand US politics, not as an endorsement
of any party or candidate.

Like Gould, you are pulling crap out of your ass, and presenting it as
fact.

As far as my top posting, I do that because I use OE for a newsreader.
It is also very common for those affiliated with either party to top
post. Talk about someone grasping at straws.




"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:XzW4d.16060$He1.8160@attbi_s01...
That is such a loaded question.

The democrats of course.


Nah, it'd be top posting republicans. After all, it's the republicans
who automatically follow whatever their leader tells them, and NEVER,
EVER question the party. That right there tells me that they, for the
most part, can't think for themselves.

I was surprised when Gould
wanted to argue the fact that just because Republicans have more formal
educated it does not prove they are more intelligent, because if they were
more intelligent they would be voting for Kerry.

You really are a first class Republican, aren't you?

I never said, "if they were more intelligent they would be voting for Kerry."

But lack of factual base hasn't stopped anybody subscribing to your philosophy
from making phony charges, lately, has it?

If you have to make up crap to support one part of your argument, all the point
that depend on that one are crap as well.

He wanted to dispute the
fact that those with more formal education were more inclined to become
informed voters, vs voting based upon 30 sec ads and quick sound bites and
strictly based upon party affiliation.

That is your *opinion*, not a fact.

Another right wing trick: Anything you believe is a "fact", all that those who
disagree can claim is an "opinion".

It was not my opinion it was a the result of a completely unbiased survey
that was not looking at the voting patterns of anyone they interviewed.
They really did not care if they voted for a democrat or a republican.

They asked them for their education level and than asked them questions to
determine how knowledgeable they were concerning the issues. They did not
care who they voted for and did not ask that question. I know you did not
read the survey because it disagreed with your preconceived ideas.

This survey which seems very logical showed that people with more formal
education were better informed than those who were not.

Now tell us how you determined that the Democrats were better educated and
relied less on slogans and sound bites.

You say that it is easy to find a survey that says anything you want. Find
one from a respected university that would agree with your outrageous
assumption. Hell, find any survey that would agree with your outrageous
assumptions.

You are upset because you made a comment that was incorrect and did not want
to see an independent survey that proved you wrong.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I was surprised when Gould
wanted to argue the fact that just because Republicans have more formal
educated it does not prove they are more intelligent, because if they were
more intelligent they would be voting for Kerry.

You really are a first class Republican, aren't you?

I never said, "if they were more intelligent they would be voting for
Kerry."

But lack of factual base hasn't stopped anybody subscribing to your
philosophy
from making phony charges, lately, has it?

If you have to make up crap to support one part of your argument, all the
point
that depend on that one are crap as well.

He wanted to dispute the
fact that those with more formal education were more inclined to become
informed voters, vs voting based upon 30 sec ads and quick sound bites and
strictly based upon party affiliation.

That is your *opinion*, not a fact.

Another right wing trick: Anything you believe is a "fact", all that those
who
disagree can claim is an "opinion".

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:9d65d.105627$MQ5.20916@attbi_s52...
It was not my opinion it was a the result of a completely unbiased survey
that was not looking at the voting patterns of anyone they interviewed.
They really did not care if they voted for a democrat or a republican.

They asked them for their education level and than asked them questions to
determine how knowledgeable they were concerning the issues. They did not
care who they voted for and did not ask that question. I know you did not
read the survey because it disagreed with your preconceived ideas.

This survey which seems very logical showed that people with more formal
education were better informed than those who were not.

Now tell us how you determined that the Democrats were better educated and
relied less on slogans and sound bites.

You say that it is easy to find a survey that says anything you want.
Find one from a respected university that would agree with your outrageous
assumption. Hell, find any survey that would agree with your outrageous
assumptions.

You are upset because you made a comment that was incorrect and did not
want to see an independent survey that proved you wrong.



That seems to be happening quite often with Chuck lately. And he seems to
have taken on a nastiness that he did not carry before. The last time this
happened he ended up taking a break from the NG for several months. Once he
returned he vowed to stay away from political discussions. That promise was
quickly broken.

He seems to be on the verge of another breakdown and I would suspect he will
make yet another break after Bush wins the election, returning some months
later with yet another promise to stay away from political discussions.

He has become as predictable as Krause.