" jim--" wrote in message
...

"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.

And *still* barely won Wisconsin. Wisconsin and maybe even Minnesota will
go for Bush this time. The coup de grace would be NJ going to Bush...all
because McGreevy wouldn't relinquish his office for fear that Republicans
might win the Governor's mansion in a special election.

Gould,

What was Kerry doing when he said "W stands for wrong", in reference to
Bush? Is it possible he was relying on a sound bite to swing the undecided
voters?

When Kerry said "He's cut the VA (Veterans Administration) budget and not
kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first
definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform
of our country." The truth is Bush voted for a 25% increase in those who
are eligible for veterans health care and in the first three years of his
presidency, funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. When you
include Bush's 2005 recommended budget, funding for his full four-year term
will amount to an increase of 37.6%. Kerry came up with the "sound bite"
because Bush did not vote for as large of an increase and the democrats
proposed. So is it possible that Kerry is guilty of the exact same thing
that gets your panties in a wad? Is Kerry using 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."

When Kerry's supporters said that "George Bush wants to eliminate overtime
pay for 8 million workers," referring to new overtime rules that the
Department of Labor has proposed. The 8-million figure comes from a study by
the labor-funded Economic Policy Institute. The same EPI concedes that many
low-income workers would be gaining the right to overtime pay. Under the
proposed rules any employee making less than $425 per week would be eligible
for overtime benefits, up from the present level of $155, a figure that
hasn't been changed since 1975. In its study , published in June 2003, EPI
said that change "is sorely needed."

The ad misquotes the study, however. What the study actually says is that an
estimated 8 million would lose the legal right to premium overtime rates
should they work more than 40 hours per week. It does not say they would
actually lose pay as the ad says. In fact, the 8-million figure is inflated
by many part-time workers who never get overtime work, or overtime pay, even
though they now have the right to it.

The proposal would change the rules for determining when white-collar
workers can be classified by their employers as exempt from overtime pay for
extra hours. The proposed rule changes are extensive, covering executive
employees who can hire and fire others, administrative employees in a
"position of responsibility", so-called "Learned Professional Employees" who
have "knowledge of an advanced type," creative professionals, outside sales
workers and certain computer workers such as systems analysts or software
engineers. (None of these groups look very much like the blue-collar factory
hand in the Moveon.org ad, by the way.)

Is it possible that the Kerry supporters used the ad of a blue collar worker
punching a time card to appeal to an unfounded fear of blue collar workers,
who are too lazy to look up the facts?

Is it possible that this ad below "...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."

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/2472_large.shtml

Is it possible that you are blinded when Kerry supporters are doing the
exact same thing you accuse Bush supporters of doing? Or are you distorting
the truth and relying on slogans, rumors insults and easily remembers sound
bytes to attract that portion of the electorate that are less mentally
adept?











"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.

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

Taco Belle cited a study that said "registered Republicans" are suppsoedly more
educated.

You would imagine that those brilliant, registered Republicans might be bright
enough to realize that the smear campaign isn't aimed at "registered
Republicans", who would vote for almost anybody annointed by the party, but
aimed at the
"undecided", or "independent" voters. Perhaps even at the "moderate or
conservative Democrats", that some surveys seem to feel are the dullest stars
in the firmament.

Gould 0738 wrote:
Not true. Taco Heaven already showed you where Republican voters typically
have achieved a higher level of education.

Taco Belle cited a study that said "registered Republicans" are suppsoedly more
educated.

You would imagine that those brilliant, registered Republicans might be bright
enough to realize that the smear campaign isn't aimed at "registered
Republicans", who would vote for almost anybody annointed by the party, but
aimed at the
"undecided", or "independent" voters. Perhaps even at the "moderate or
conservative Democrats", that some surveys seem to feel are the dullest stars
in the firmament.


You couldn't possibly mean the slimeball Republicans who are
mass-mailing into West Virginia their claim that John Kerry is trying to
do away with the bible?


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

What was Kerry doing when he said "W stands for wrong", in reference to
Bush? Is it possible he was relying on a sound bite to swing the undecided
voters?

Diversion.

I stand by my statement that the Republicans are running their campaign in the
manner I described. Expressing an opinion about how some other party is running
a campaign does not refute my statement about the Republican campaign tactics.

Do you agree that Kerry is using the exact same tactics that upsets you when
it is used by a Bush supporter?

Do you agree that when Krause said Bush "is what falls out of a scumbag"
shows that there are just as many Kerry supporters who stoop to the lowest
levels to degrade their opponents?

Do you agree that it is hard to take the high road when those who support
your candidate are guilty of the exact same thing you are complaining about
in reference to the Bush supporters?




"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
What was Kerry doing when he said "W stands for wrong", in reference to
Bush? Is it possible he was relying on a sound bite to swing the
undecided
voters?

Diversion.

I stand by my statement that the Republicans are running their campaign in
the
manner I described. Expressing an opinion about how some other party is
running
a campaign does not refute my statement about the Republican campaign
tactics.

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:bSk5d.51755$wV.35637@attbi_s54...
Do you agree that Kerry is using the exact same tactics that upsets you
when it is used by a Bush supporter?

Do you agree that when Krause said Bush "is what falls out of a scumbag"
shows that there are just as many Kerry supporters who stoop to the lowest
levels to degrade their opponents?

Do you agree that it is hard to take the high road when those who support
your candidate are guilty of the exact same thing you are complaining
about in reference to the Bush supporters?





Chuckie is about close to the edge as he was when he had a NG breakdown last
year, promising to take a break from the NG and never again post political
stuff.

Based on the fact that Kerry does not stand a chance, I give old Chuckie 3
more weeks before he goes over the edge again.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
What was Kerry doing when he said "W stands for wrong", in reference to
Bush? Is it possible he was relying on a sound bite to swing the
undecided
voters?

Diversion.

I stand by my statement that the Republicans are running their campaign in
the
manner I described. Expressing an opinion about how some other party is
running
a campaign does not refute my statement about the Republican campaign
tactics.

Why don't you go home and cry into your mother's apron.

Do you agree that Kerry is using the exact same tactics that upsets you when
it is used by a Bush supporter?

No. Kerry is pointing our deficiencies in the performance of GWB as POTUS. Bush
is
fantasizing about possible disasters that might befall the country if Kerry is
elected.
It's a lot tougher for Kerry to make up outrageous falsehoods about Bush's
tenure as president. We can all refer to recent events to check his facts.

It's much easier for Bush to make up outrageous falsehoods about Kerry, as his
history is not as publicly known.

Do you agree that when Krause said Bush "is what falls out of a scumbag"
shows that there are just as many Kerry supporters who stoop to the lowest
levels to degrade their opponents?

I agree that when Harry Krause makes a statement there is no way to tell how
many people he represents. Let's see; there were 250 guys serving with John
Kerry on his 10-man boat, and they told tales that contradicted one another and
the official records. Let's put that over on the right, and Harry Krause
lobbing an insult over on the left. How can you use Harry Krause to justify a
wild statement that there are "just as many" Kerry supporters who stoop to the
lowest levels?
Looks like 250 to 1. :-)



Do you agree that it is hard to take the high road when those who support
your candidate are guilty of the exact same thing you are complaining about
in reference to the Bush supporters?


I can take any darn road I want to. High, low, or what not. Makes no difference
what somebody else does. Kerry is not "my candidate". I don't even like the guy
all that much. He is the brightest prospect for change, Because I see a need
for change that surpasses any perceived *risk* of putting Kerry in office- and
recognize that the risk of leaving GWB and the New American Century band on
stage for another four years trumps all other dangers to the US, I'm voting for
change. When your house is burning down, you don't care if the fire department
hooks up to a hydrant where the water may be slightly polluted.

A lot of guys are so filled with partisan zeal, they don't realize that our
country, and the constitution, is currently on fire.

Why don't you go home and cry into your mother's apron.

Another "more intelligent, more highly educated, more issues-oriented"
Republican weighs in.

Taco heavin' would be proud.