"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:u%W4d.250712$mD.91703@attbi_s02...
Doug, Your premise is so weak I almost didn't respond.

Have you ever heard of newspapers and the internet?

As far as why someone who has extremely poor verbal skills and someone who
looks like a stiff zombie becomes their parties candidate for presidency,
it
is the rabid fringe element of both parties that
support and select the candidate. To win their primary a candidate has to
cater to the very liberal or very conservative in their party. Once they
have won the primaries, they suddenly have to become a moderate.

I read a survey that showed the vast majority of democrats when asked
their
position on issues, would not have voted for Kerry, but would have
selected
Edwards as their presidential candidate.


Once again the arrogance of the socialist liebrals shows through.......that
'they' know better than the 'uneduacated masses'............the 'idiot'
label and the assessment that 'nothing but damage' once again proves the
point

I hope they continue thinking that way.....it will doom them to a forever
shrinking minority.




"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:KFL4d.246623$Fg5.198184@attbi_s53...

You need to stop believing every left wing nut case that tells you that
the
majority of Republicans base their decisions upon what Rush or Hannity
or
any other talking head you want to reference.

Uh oh. Something's wrong here.

1) If the majority of Repubs do NOT base their decisions on what the
radio
slimeballs say, then the majority must base their decisions on something
else, right?

2) What is the something else? Their own insights? Their own research?

3) This enlightened majority you describe voted an idiot into office.
What
possible reasons could they have had for doing that?

4) Since the idiot and his sitters have done nothing but damage to this
country, shouldn't the words "traitor" or "treason" be reserved for
them,
not for his opponents?

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:u%W4d.250712$mD.91703@attbi_s02...

I read a survey that showed the vast majority of democrats when asked
their
position on issues, would not have voted for Kerry, but would have
selected
Edwards as their presidential candidate.

Great - the choice of Edwards, but it's beside the point. Neither Kerry or
Edwards are examples of an extreme - a person who is so totally incompetent
that he should be kept in the basement of the White House, lest any foreign
dignitaries speak with him and get the wrong idea.

I see P.Fritz has a message following yours. I haven't read it yet, but I'll
guess: Kerry's bad because he:

1) Looks French
2) Is from Massachusetts
3) Voted against certain pieces of legislation, the details of which are
totally unknown to P.Fritz.

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:u%W4d.250712$mD.91703@attbi_s02...
Doug, Your premise is so weak I almost didn't respond.

Have you ever heard of newspapers and the internet?

As far as why someone who has extremely poor verbal skills and someone
who
looks like a stiff zombie becomes their parties candidate for
presidency,
it
is the rabid fringe element of both parties that
support and select the candidate. To win their primary a candidate has
to
cater to the very liberal or very conservative in their party. Once
they
have won the primaries, they suddenly have to become a moderate.

I read a survey that showed the vast majority of democrats when asked
their
position on issues, would not have voted for Kerry, but would have
selected
Edwards as their presidential candidate.


Once again the arrogance of the socialist liebrals shows
through.......that
'they' know better than the 'uneduacated masses'............the 'idiot'
label and the assessment that 'nothing but damage' once again proves the
point

Ah....so you finally ADMIT that the uneducated masses were Bush's primary
supporters. Good. You're learning.


I hope they continue thinking that way.....it will doom them to a forever
shrinking minority.

With your president in power, there's every chance that you might not live
long enough to see the doom you predict.

Yes.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:sNW4d.16134$He1.4381@attbi_s01...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Is it possible (and think carefully here) that they wanted a president
who
would leave things as they are because his supporters are comfortable?

My guess is the only reason anyone would vote for Bush or Kerry is
because
they support the principals of their respective parties.

I am not sure what you mean they are comfortable.



This is vague, but I mean comfortable in more than one way. Perhaps
they're
financially comfortable and have the mistaken belief that one candidate or
the other is going to take something away from them. After all, that's the
usual campaign spew. Or, they're ideologically comfortable and believe the
spew about how a candidate's going to turn control of the country over to
the United Nations. Remember that crap?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
There may be a perfectly valid reason for the difference. Have you ever
watched an experienced teacher interacting with a kid with special needs?
She'll make a V with her fingers and point to her eyes to make sure the
kid
is truly focused on the teacher's face. It works. The next step is simple:
Anyone who either plans to vote for Bush or is undecided has a clear need
to
be brought to a more focused state. More to the point, they need to be
taken
by the lapels and shaken severely. That's the goal of Kerry's ads.

Doug,
I agree with your premise, and that is unfortunately why negative ads are
effective and are used by both parties.

Gould, you said Kerry would never be your choice for president, but
considering the alternative it is the best option for you. Is it just
possible ...............

I'm voting for change.
The most realistic chance to get the New American Century crew out of the WH is
to elect John Kerry.
Even if Kerry proved to be a *miserable* president for four years, (as I
believe he well might), it will put a stop to the malicious damage wrought so
far by the current brigands and the additional malicious damage planned for
their next term.

I could never support an administration that
ponders which freedoms and principles can or should be compromised next to
create an illusion of security in the country.

Is it just possible that those voting for Bush believe that Kerry is a worse
alternative to Bush?


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould, you said Kerry would never be your choice for president, but
considering the alternative it is the best option for you. Is it just
possible ...............

I'm voting for change.
The most realistic chance to get the New American Century crew out of the
WH is
to elect John Kerry.
Even if Kerry proved to be a *miserable* president for four years, (as I
believe he well might), it will put a stop to the malicious damage wrought
so
far by the current brigands and the additional malicious damage planned
for
their next term.

I could never support an administration that
ponders which freedoms and principles can or should be compromised next to
create an illusion of security in the country.

Ok, since the survey didn't agree with your theory, it must be wrong. Since
I don't agree with you, I must be blind.

There is not much I can say.

Sure there is. Say you don't agree with me, and explain why.

Don't rely on a survey to do your thinking for you. If I wanted to debate the
survey, I'd find out who put it together and communicate with them. Do you
speak for the survey group? If not, why would I bother to discuss it with you?

For every survey "proving" one side of a political issue, there is an equally
biased survey proving the other side. Surely this isn't news to a member of the
"more intelligent, but can't dance, GOP."?

Is it just possible that those voting for Bush believe that Kerry is a worse
alternative to Bush?

It would be impossible to ascribe a single motivation to the entire group of
people voting for Bush.

Some may feel that he would be better than Kerry.

Others have expressed specific opinions that he is an outstanding, heroic,
blah, blah, blah, father figure of his country, leader.

Gould,

In disputing your position that the Bush Campaign is based upon lies, mud
and slander I can either say, "NO YOU ARE WRONG, it is Kerry's whose
campaign is based upon lies, mud and slander". Or I can show an independent
survey, that showed both parties are using negative campaigning as a way to
sway the middle 20%.

The survey that was done, did not a support either party, it was a very
legitimate attempt done by a college professor ( I think he was from
Stanford) to determine how much of the message by either candidates was
negative. It showed Kerry ahead by a slim margin.

You are guilty of using the same tactics that Rush and company are guilty
of. Repeat your message over and over again, hoping some of it will stick.
You say the majority of Republicans listen to Rush and Co.

How many registered Republicans are their in the US. How many of those
registered voters listen to Rush? How many of those who consider themselves
independents listen to the talk show? How many of those who consider
themselves liberal listen to the shows so they can say "... damn those dudes
are dumb". How large is the audience for right wing radio and TV shows?

Without any of this information to support your premise, you are guilty of
the exact same thing you accuse right wing talk shows of doing.

As far as your comment concerning more intelligent, it is consistently shown
that Republicans are better educated than the democrats, and that those with
more education read more and keep up with issues
My comment about dancing was a feeble attempt at humor.

You like to make statements and then think since you said it, it must be
true. In trying to prove you incorrect it is not fair to use information
provided by college professors to support my theory.

OK. I AM RIGHT AND YOUR ARE WRONG. The Kerry campaign is based upon lies,
mud and slander. The hate shown in the majority of Krause's posts (i.e. I
hope they bomb Crawford TX) is typical of those who vote for Kerry.

Is this better?





"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Ok, since the survey didn't agree with your theory, it must be wrong.
Since
I don't agree with you, I must be blind.

There is not much I can say.

Sure there is. Say you don't agree with me, and explain why.

Don't rely on a survey to do your thinking for you. If I wanted to debate
the
survey, I'd find out who put it together and communicate with them. Do you
speak for the survey group? If not, why would I bother to discuss it with
you?

For every survey "proving" one side of a political issue, there is an
equally
biased survey proving the other side. Surely this isn't news to a member
of the
"more intelligent, but can't dance, GOP."?