"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It would be impossible to ascribe a single motivation to the entire group
of
people voting for Bush.

Ahhhhhh, I see we are in agreement. So it is very possible that the
opinions expressed on right wing radio are not representative of the the
majority of people who vote for a Republican candidate.

Thank you very much.

Gould,
I know you can measure the audience of right wing radio listeners, my point
is you are making statements not based upon any facts, just your gut feel.

What are the number of registered Republicans? What is the listening
audience of right wing radio and by that I mean what percent of registered
Republicans regularly listed to Rush, Hannity or Savage (whoever that is).
Where are you getting your information from. Where did you get your
estimate of 5-10% of the audience being liberals?

You keep pulling "facts" out of your ass, and then assuming them to be
correct and using this incorrect information to validate your theories about
the right.

I do not listen to Fox news. I prefer CNN TV for national news, and a local
station for local news. On the radio I prefer NPR on the Radio and MSNBC
and CNN on the internet. I do find all of them biased in their
presentation, but I found Fox to be the worse.

I have not listened to Rush in 3 or 4 years. I haven't listened to Hannity
in over 6 months, and then very infrequently.

Have you heard me repeating the same "talking points" within a day or two
of their broadcast? Or are you talking about other great minds?

You are not only guilty of what you are accusing the radio talking heads of
doing, but you are so blinded by your hatred of Bush, don't realize you are
doing it.




"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Ahhhhhh, I see we are in agreement. So it is very possible that the
opinions expressed on right wing radio are not representative of the the
majority of people who vote for a Republican candidate.

Thank you very much.


Not so fast. We can measure the audience of right wing radio listeners.
Discounting the 5-10% that are liberals like myself spying on the other
camp,
that leaves a number probably about equal to the number of registered
Republicans in the US. Not that they're always the same people, just a
similar
number.

And, not so fast again. The same "talking points" recommended by Limbaugh,
Hannity, and Savage always seem, just coincidentally, to appear within a
day or
two (often word for word) in communications of right wingers who swear up
and
down they *never* listen to hate radio.

Best defense you'd have is that "great minds think alike." Great minds,
indeed.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

And, not so fast again. The same "talking points" recommended by Limbaugh,
Hannity, and Savage always seem, just coincidentally, to appear within a
day or
two (often word for word) in communications of right wingers who swear up
and
down they *never* listen to hate radio.

The listeners can't even filter what they hear based on whether it's too
embarrassing to repeat. Hence, we have the "Kerry looks French" crowd. Gimme
a break.

You are not only guilty of what you are accusing the radio talking heads of
doing, but you are so blinded by your hatred of Bush, don't realize you are
doing it.

Not at all. I fully realize that I'm expressing an opinion. My opinion should
be clear.
The current administration is unethical, fiscally irresponsible, and careless
with the security of the United States. My opinion is that it is time for a
change.

Here's the difference between the R's "mud" and the D's "mud". The D's have the
advantage of being able to point to four floundering years of GWB, and they can
factually establish "Bush did this, Bush did that, Bush failed to do this and
that." Of course, as far as certain studies are concerned, those oberservations
of objective fact, based on historical record,
are "negative campaigning".

When the R's get wound up, they use their advantage: Nobody knows how Kerry
would behave as POTUS as he has never held the office. They use this lack of
information to arrive at all sorts of ridiculous and outrageous conclusions
that are Olympic broadjumps of convoluted logic away from any recorded fact.
Most of the time it's down to: "Kerry will do this and that (speculative
conjecture) based upon the fact that he has said or done (something that
doesn't exist outside Republican spin machines or is a total out of context
distortion).


Somebody else seems to be the party fixated on having his or her opinions
validated by some outside survey, report, study, or what not. Forgive me if I'm
not impressed- I can find a study, survey, or report to substantiate almost
*anything*

Gould,
When you express your opinion you are doing the exact same thing the
talking heads do when they express their opinion.

No one can say what Kerry would have done in similar situations, no one can
say what the economic situation would be if Kerry was president for the last
4 years

Any opinion that Kerry would do better is pure speculation.

When I show long term studies by the University of Mich, that tracks voting
trends you want to scream I can find a survey that says anything I want.

Now find any survey or study, that shows democrats are better educated than
republicans. Find me one survey or study that shows those democrats are
better informed than republicans. Find one person who does not believe the
Univ. of Michigan study of voting trends in the US is a faulty study and is
biased. It is reviewed by 100's of college professors who use their raw
data in their research. If a respected university was gathering incorrect
raw data you would be able to easily find those who disagree with their
data.

You got your feathers all ruffled when I disputed your theory concerning
democrats being better informed and better educated than the republicans who
rely on talk radio to make their decisions.
Your theory was your opinion and I showed two very respected Universities
who disagreed with you.
Since when is unsubstantial opinion more valuable than high profile unbiased
studies?

I will be waiting on your validation your preposterous theory.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You are not only guilty of what you are accusing the radio talking heads
of
doing, but you are so blinded by your hatred of Bush, don't realize you
are
doing it.

Not at all. I fully realize that I'm expressing an opinion. My opinion
should
be clear.
The current administration is unethical, fiscally irresponsible, and
careless
with the security of the United States. My opinion is that it is time for
a
change.

Here's the difference between the R's "mud" and the D's "mud". The D's
have the
advantage of being able to point to four floundering years of GWB, and
they can
factually establish "Bush did this, Bush did that, Bush failed to do this
and
that." Of course, as far as certain studies are concerned, those
oberservations
of objective fact, based on historical record,
are "negative campaigning".

When the R's get wound up, they use their advantage: Nobody knows how
Kerry
would behave as POTUS as he has never held the office. They use this lack
of
information to arrive at all sorts of ridiculous and outrageous
conclusions
that are Olympic broadjumps of convoluted logic away from any recorded
fact.
Most of the time it's down to: "Kerry will do this and that (speculative
conjecture) based upon the fact that he has said or done (something that
doesn't exist outside Republican spin machines or is a total out of
context
distortion).


Somebody else seems to be the party fixated on having his or her opinions
validated by some outside survey, report, study, or what not. Forgive me
if I'm
not impressed- I can find a study, survey, or report to substantiate
almost
*anything*

I will be waiting on your validation your preposterous theory.

Dredging up a study to support your point works pretty well if you are
discussing something with a person who is easily intimidated or impressed by an
organization of fact. Of course, you don't mention that there have been,
literally, hundreds of studies done and that many of them disagree with one
another.

In fact, you get into hot water when you try to use as many as *two* studies to
support your point- as they usually disagree in some very significant details.

Example: Take your premise that Republicans are smarter than Democrats, (based
on the dubious assumption that one becomes progressively more intelligent with
additional time in school.
Is the guy who takes 15 years to graduate high school more intelligent than the
kids with whom he started kindergarten? Why not? He spent more time in school)

Your "R's are smarter than "D's" has a few studies to support the idea.

For instance: In the 1994-2002 General Social Survey, the results reflected
that the average Republican has 6/10ths of one year more education than the
average Democrat. This study showed that there was not really any statistically
significant difference in intellect between the most liberal democrats and the
most intelligent
rebublicans....what was interesting is that the working class democrats, who
tend to be more
centrist or conservative, were deemed to be less intelligent than the liberal
democrats or the
conservative republicans.

OK, all well and good, but wait! Oh no! Here's another study called the
"National Election Survey" of 2000. Not to rock your boat too badly, it also
claims that R's are smarter than D's......but oh, look. The "National Election
Survey" subjectively rates intelligence on a 31-point scale, places D's 3.3
points behind R's on that 31-point scale, and says the difference represents
"several years of formal education."

Well, crap. Seems your studiers and surveyors can't get their spin coordinated,
doesn't it?
One guy says the difference in education is 6/10th of a year (about one
semester in a 16-17 year education).......and the other guy says the difference
is "several years."

So, how do we reconcile these two studies? Do we use the one study that claims
the average R has 6/10th of a year more education than the average D, that the
most liberal democrats are as smart as the most conservative republicans, and
that the dumbest bricks in the load are the
moderate or conservative democrats?

Or do we use the study that says the difference is "several years of formal
education."?

I would suppose it depends entirely on what you hope to "prove" by using the
study, doesn't it?

It's like a civil or criminal trial. One side brings in charts, graphs,
studies, and sworn experts to support its position- and then the other side
brings in charts, graphs, studies, an sworn experts to support the opposite
side of the question.

For anybody to say, "I've got this one survey that says what I want it to say
and you're an idiot for not blindly accepting it or for considering other data"
might indicate that the idiocy is not confined to the
party being called "idiot" in the discussion.

Gould,
Your memory must be fading. This conversation started when you said:
" Kerry's supporters publish well documented, thoroughly researched items
like the one
you posted-" "Meanwhile, the right wing relies on slogan, rumor, insult,
and easily
remembered but out-of-context sound bytes to attract that portion of the
electorate that is more numerous, but less mentally adept."

Since I did not agree with your theory (or opinion as you call it), and I
found it repugnant and elitist. I wanted to see if it held any water. I
could not find one report, or one study that agreed with your opinion. All
of the studies you found agreed that republicans have a higher level of
education than democrats.

I then looked for information concerning education and informed voters.
Wow, I found a reliable study that did say their is a correlation between
education and being informed about the issues and not relying on sound
bites.

I could not find any information that said democrats were more informed than
republicans.

Contrary to your assertion, I did not say someone becomes more intelligent
the longer they stay in school. I said on the average college graduates
have a higher IQ than high school graduates. On the average, those with
higher IQ stay in school longer than those with low IQ. Hence my theory
that the average college graduate has a higher IQ than the average high
school graduate.

I did say that nature and nurturing can have a drastic impact on ones
intelligence and IQ.

Finally, I did not say you had to accept my studies and survey's.

I said if you wanted your premise to have any validity you should see if you
can find any information that would support your thesis.

Obviously you can not.

Remember it was you who started slinging the mud concerning republicans lack
of intelligence, you should not be so upset when respected Universities
publish information that disagrees with your opinion.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I will be waiting on your validation your preposterous theory.

Dredging up a study to support your point works pretty well if you are
discussing something with a person who is easily intimidated or impressed
by an
organization of fact. Of course, you don't mention that there have been,
literally, hundreds of studies done and that many of them disagree with
one
another.

In fact, you get into hot water when you try to use as many as *two*
studies to
support your point- as they usually disagree in some very significant
details.

Example: Take your premise that Republicans are smarter than Democrats,
(based
on the dubious assumption that one becomes progressively more intelligent
with
additional time in school.
Is the guy who takes 15 years to graduate high school more intelligent
than the
kids with whom he started kindergarten? Why not? He spent more time in
school)

Your "R's are smarter than "D's" has a few studies to support the idea.

For instance: In the 1994-2002 General Social Survey, the results
reflected
that the average Republican has 6/10ths of one year more education than
the
average Democrat. This study showed that there was not really any
statistically
significant difference in intellect between the most liberal democrats and
the
most intelligent
rebublicans....what was interesting is that the working class democrats,
who
tend to be more
centrist or conservative, were deemed to be less intelligent than the
liberal
democrats or the
conservative republicans.

OK, all well and good, but wait! Oh no! Here's another study called the
"National Election Survey" of 2000. Not to rock your boat too badly, it
also
claims that R's are smarter than D's......but oh, look. The "National
Election
Survey" subjectively rates intelligence on a 31-point scale, places D's
3.3
points behind R's on that 31-point scale, and says the difference
represents
"several years of formal education."

Well, crap. Seems your studiers and surveyors can't get their spin
coordinated,
doesn't it?
One guy says the difference in education is 6/10th of a year (about one
semester in a 16-17 year education).......and the other guy says the
difference
is "several years."

So, how do we reconcile these two studies? Do we use the one study that
claims
the average R has 6/10th of a year more education than the average D, that
the
most liberal democrats are as smart as the most conservative republicans,
and
that the dumbest bricks in the load are the
moderate or conservative democrats?

Or do we use the study that says the difference is "several years of
formal
education."?

I would suppose it depends entirely on what you hope to "prove" by using
the
study, doesn't it?

It's like a civil or criminal trial. One side brings in charts, graphs,
studies, and sworn experts to support its position- and then the other
side
brings in charts, graphs, studies, an sworn experts to support the
opposite
side of the question.

For anybody to say, "I've got this one survey that says what I want it to
say
and you're an idiot for not blindly accepting it or for considering other
data"
might indicate that the idiocy is not confined to the
party being called "idiot" in the discussion.

Gould,
Your memory must be fading. This conversation started when you said:
" Kerry's supporters publish well documented, thoroughly researched items
like the one
you posted-" "Meanwhile, the right wing relies on slogan, rumor, insult,
and easily
remembered but out-of-context sound bytes to attract that portion of the
electorate that is more numerous, but less mentally adept."

And that's true.

The Republicans are trolling for votes among the least educated, most easily
confused, least circumspect portions of the population. I don't see where I
said these mental midgets were Republicans, only that the Republican campaign
attempts to appeal to that element.

Example:

Take the claim that Kerry voted to increase taxes 350 times, or whatever. You
will hear
the sheeple repeating that as if it had a shred of truth. In fact, the
republican spin machine counted a large number of Kerry's
votes to *decrease* taxes in the "voted to increase" category! The pseudo logic
was that although Kerry was voting to decrease taxes, some Republican
introduced a bill to decrease them even more- so if the bill Kerry voted for
had passed the tax bill wouldn't be lowered as much as it was when the more
aggressive tax cut passed- therefore "increasing" (?!) taxes.

Maybe that's how college graduates think in your neck of the woods. We hold
them to a higher standard out west.

A campaign tactic such as that outlined above won't appeal to people unless
those folks are inclined to rely on slogan, rumor, insult, and easily
remembered out-of-context sound bytes.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould,
Your memory must be fading. This conversation started when you said:
" Kerry's supporters publish well documented, thoroughly researched items
like the one
you posted-" "Meanwhile, the right wing relies on slogan, rumor, insult,
and easily
remembered but out-of-context sound bytes to attract that portion of the
electorate that is more numerous, but less mentally adept."

And that's true.

The Republicans are trolling for votes among the least educated, most
easily
confused, least circumspect portions of the population. I don't see where
I
said these mental midgets were Republicans, only that the Republican
campaign
attempts to appeal to that element.

Example:

Take the claim that Kerry voted to increase taxes 350 times, or whatever.
You
will hear
the sheeple repeating that as if it had a shred of truth. In fact, the
republican spin machine counted a large number of Kerry's
votes to *decrease* taxes in the "voted to increase" category! The pseudo
logic
was that although Kerry was voting to decrease taxes, some Republican
introduced a bill to decrease them even more- so if the bill Kerry voted
for
had passed the tax bill wouldn't be lowered as much as it was when the
more
aggressive tax cut passed- therefore "increasing" (?!) taxes.

Maybe that's how college graduates think in your neck of the woods. We
hold
them to a higher standard out west.

A campaign tactic such as that outlined above won't appeal to people
unless
those folks are inclined to rely on slogan, rumor, insult, and easily
remembered out-of-context sound bytes.



LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Both sides are doing it. But I recall the Gore team
was handing out cartons of cigarettes to and driving bums to the polls 4
years ago.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
news:20040925100551.04530.00001330@mb-

The Republicans are trolling for votes among the least educated

Not true. Taco Heaven already showed you where Republican voters typically
have achieved a higher level of education.