OT Bush propaganda against Kerry
 

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:JdG4d.245117$mD.123682@attbi_s02...
Doug,
I am glad you got a good education and have continued to learn. My point
to
Gould was the two surveys below showed that Republicans have a better
formal
education than Democrats.

See link: http://plsc.uark.edu/arkpoll/fall99/party/PAGE4.HTM

And the higher the education level the more informed the voters a

http://www.policyattitudes.org/emsappxb.htm

So the higher the education, the less they will be influenced by sound
bites, slogan's, rumors and insults.

So if Gould is going to make statements such as " " 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."

It is not supported by any facts. In fact, two independent surveys show
the
opposite to be true.

Gould believes most Republicans get their facts from Rush and Hannity. I
have not seen any surveys that show most Republicans listen to either one.

Well, then find a label for the enormous audience enjoyed by idiots like
Rush & Hannity. We know the audience is large because companies like Clear
Channel never EVER carry programming unless it turns a profit. Incidentally,
I suspect the audience is not primarily Dems.

Even if all of the audience is Republicans, they can have an extremely large
audience and still not come close to being the majority of Republicans.
Also, it has not been proven that those Republicans who do listen believe
any or all of what they hear on those shows.

So what Gould was guilty of is making generalization concerning the
Republicans based upon
"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

smile.


....
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:JdG4d.245117$mD.123682@attbi_s02...
Doug,
I am glad you got a good education and have continued to learn. My point
to
Gould was the two surveys below showed that Republicans have a better
formal
education than Democrats.

See link: http://plsc.uark.edu/arkpoll/fall99/party/PAGE4.HTM

And the higher the education level the more informed the voters a

http://www.policyattitudes.org/emsappxb.htm

So the higher the education, the less they will be influenced by sound
bites, slogan's, rumors and insults.

So if Gould is going to make statements such as " " 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."

It is not supported by any facts. In fact, two independent surveys show
the
opposite to be true.

Gould believes most Republicans get their facts from Rush and Hannity. I
have not seen any surveys that show most Republicans listen to either
one.

Well, then find a label for the enormous audience enjoyed by idiots like
Rush & Hannity. We know the audience is large because companies like Clear
Channel never EVER carry programming unless it turns a profit.
Incidentally,
I suspect the audience is not primarily Dems.

Doug,
I am glad you got a good education and have continued to learn. My point to
Gould was the two surveys below showed that Republicans have a better formal
education than Democrats.

And my point stands:

To what portion of the audience do the slandrous right wing attack ads attempt
to appeal?

The college educated? puh-leeeze

Gould 0738 wrote:
Doug,
I am glad you got a good education and have continued to learn. My point to
Gould was the two surveys below showed that Republicans have a better formal
education than Democrats.

And my point stands:

To what portion of the audience do the slandrous right wing attack ads attempt
to appeal?

The college educated? puh-leeeze



Anything you need to know about today's Repubicans is embodied in their
support for George W. Bush, the dumbest, least competent POTUS in
anyone's memory.



--
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?

Gould,

I thought you were smarter than that, my bad.

The attack ads and mud slinging from either the right or the left is not
targeted at democrats or republicans, they are targeted at the independents
and swing votes.

By the way, did you forget that independent study I referenced earlier, that
showed Kerry's team is more guilty of attack ads than Bush's team.

One needs to be careful of throwing stones if one lives in a glass house.

You are not upset about the slanderous slanderous attack ads, you are upset
because even though Kerry is using more negative advertising he is not as
effective as Bush's negative ads.






"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Doug,
I am glad you got a good education and have continued to learn. My point
to
Gould was the two surveys below showed that Republicans have a better
formal
education than Democrats.

And my point stands:

To what portion of the audience do the slandrous right wing attack ads
attempt
to appeal?

The college educated? puh-leeeze

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:WZG4d.101817$D%.8316@attbi_s51...
Even if all of the audience is Republicans, they can have an extremely
large
audience and still not come close to being the majority of Republicans.
Also, it has not been proven that those Republicans who do listen believe
any or all of what they hear on those shows.

True, but the audience seems to be extremely vocal about their beliefs,
which happen to match the bull**** spewed on those programs. This may seem
harmless, but those people repeat things like "Kerry voted against increased
intelligence funding", without knowing if the legislation in question had
riders for the building of a useless dam in North Dakota. They tell these
things to everyone who will listen, including their children. Therefore,
they are like a virus.


So what Gould was guilty of is making generalization concerning the
Republicans based upon
"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

Gould's generalization seems to be true, since your president was, in fact,
elected (if you choose to ignore the Florida debacle and continue to use the
word "elected").

But, let's assume you're correct, and the majority of Republicans are
smarter than the morons who shape their views around scum like Rush. How do
you explain the FACT that this enlightened and educated majority voted for a
boy who can barely get through a press conference without repeatedly
stumbling over his native language.

Is it possible (and think carefully here) that they wanted a president who
would leave things as they are because his supporters are comfortable?

"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?

By the way, did you forget that independent study I referenced earlier, that
showed Kerry's team is more guilty of attack ads than Bush's team.



I can probably find an "indenpendent study" that proves Hillary Clinton is the
Virgin Mary. An intelligent conservative would be ablr to organize a body of
evidence that surpasses a singel survey.

Give it up. Kerry's a loser. Being from MA and seeing his work ethic and
lack of any moral convictions in the past, is he going to change. I think
not.
He's just playing the game like the rest but to the nth degree.
Any moron today can get up and say he's for health care, social security,
world peace, save to poor and get votes.
Let's smarten up.
We'll never have world peace, social security is fine and if everyone would
stop abusing the present health care systems, they won't be so expensive.
I remember a time when you went to the doctor's office and paid for the
visit. We're not talking a lot of money here. But now, someone gets a wood
splinter and they run to the doctors.
The demos had a president who obsouletly dodge the draft during the Vietnam
war, but that was okay.
I must say that one's not much better than the other.

You know what, do what you want to do, but keep your hands out of my
pockets. I work hard for my money and do not appreciate handing it over to
people who want to abuse the system, sit home and watch the boob tube while
I'm working.



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
By the way, did you forget that independent study I referenced earlier,
that
showed Kerry's team is more guilty of attack ads than Bush's team.



I can probably find an "indenpendent study" that proves Hillary Clinton is
the
Virgin Mary. An intelligent conservative would be ablr to organize a body
of
evidence that surpasses a singel survey.

"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.

Can you find one independent survey that proves Bush is more guilty of
slinging mud than Kerry?


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
By the way, did you forget that independent study I referenced earlier,
that
showed Kerry's team is more guilty of attack ads than Bush's team.



I can probably find an "indenpendent study" that proves Hillary Clinton is
the
Virgin Mary. An intelligent conservative would be ablr to organize a body
of
evidence that surpasses a singel survey.

Can you find one independent survey that proves Bush is more guilty of
slinging mud than Kerry?



I'm not inclined to look for one. Only those blind to the obvious, contrasting,
tone of the campaigns would need a survey to begin with.

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

You mean the Republicans all like Bush's small government and fiscal
accountability?

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?

Gould 0738 wrote:
My guess is the only reason anyone would vote for Bush or Kerry is because
they support the principals of their respective parties.



You mean the Republicans all like Bush's small government and fiscal
accountability?



Perhaps the poster whose name got lost in your repost thinks that
Republican principals have nicer teats.

Vote for Bush? Sure...if you're into reality denial, as he is.






--
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?

"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?

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.



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Can you find one independent survey that proves Bush is more guilty of
slinging mud than Kerry?



I'm not inclined to look for one. Only those blind to the obvious,
contrasting,
tone of the campaigns would need a survey to begin with.

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 ...............


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
My guess is the only reason anyone would vote for Bush or Kerry is
because
they support the principals of their respective parties.

You mean the Republicans all like Bush's small government and fiscal
accountability?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Can you find one independent survey that proves Bush is more guilty of
slinging mud than Kerry?



I'm not inclined to look for one. Only those blind to the obvious,
contrasting,
tone of the campaigns would need a survey to begin with.

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.

"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."?

"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.