"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?

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.




"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...
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?

"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.

"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.