When your political icons are making statements accusing "all liberals, all
Democrats, all this, all that........" of being
anti-American, (and worse), that has nothing to do with issues. It's a tool
to
polarize society.

Not when those statements are followed up with examples to back them
up.

You make my case. What example could possibly be given of any behavior engaged
in by *all* of any group?


Listen to your spokespeople. They don't defend issues or policies at
all.....they simply bad mouth anybody that might oppose a right wing agenda.

You mean in the same way that you demonize conservative radio by
calling it "hate"?

Back to my desktop dictionary.
Hate: To feel very strong dislike for.

Which conservative radio programs do you listen to that do not express "very
strong dislike" for liberals?

And that's what really bothers you guys on the left. The conservative
message is easier to understand, and breaks down easily into bite
sized bits that even the non-scholarly among us can understand

It's the same group of techniques that over the years have rallied the gullible
against "******s" "kikes" "spics" and what not.
The new buzzword is "lib". The rhetoric remains unchanged. The "non-scholarly"
are just as misled, just as angry, and just as manipulated.

In order to adopt, much less understand the liberal
mindset you have to be willing to accept some idealistic utopian
principles which are foreign to the natural order of most people.

Again, you make my case. Thanks for the assistance.

On 08 Jan 2004 23:52:14 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

When your political icons are making statements accusing "all liberals, all
Democrats, all this, all that........" of being
anti-American, (and worse), that has nothing to do with issues. It's a tool
to
polarize society.

Not when those statements are followed up with examples to back them
up.

You make my case. What example could possibly be given of any behavior engaged
in by *all* of any group?

I don't deal in absolutes. They are too easy to invalidate. It only
takes one example. But if you change the statement to read "many" or
"a majority" it becomes much easier to substantiate.




Listen to your spokespeople. They don't defend issues or policies at
all.....they simply bad mouth anybody that might oppose a right wing agenda.

You mean in the same way that you demonize conservative radio by
calling it "hate"?

Back to my desktop dictionary.
Hate: To feel very strong dislike for.

And who on the conservative circuit has expressed a personal dislike
for anyone? They may dislike their policies. But it's not personal.




Which conservative radio programs do you listen to that do not express "very
strong dislike" for liberals?

I listen to Hannity fairly regularly, as he's on during my afternoon
drive time. He strongly refutes liberal policies, but he have never
made a statement of a personal nature that could be construed as
"hate". He is also not always in lock step with Bush. He (as I am) is
totally against this whole illegal immigrant amnesty program.



And that's what really bothers you guys on the left. The conservative
message is easier to understand, and breaks down easily into bite
sized bits that even the non-scholarly among us can understand

It's the same group of techniques that over the years have rallied the gullible
against "******s" "kikes" "spics" and what not.


There you go again, attempting to demonize the messengers and the
message by comparing similar techniques that were used to promote
ideals in the past which are now generally regarded as "bad". Dope
addicts routinely use needles to inject their poison. Does that mean
we should ban all needles?

If the ideas are sound, they will stand on their own.


The new buzzword is "lib". The rhetoric remains unchanged. The "non-scholarly"
are just as misled, just as angry, and just as manipulated.

Where there is smoke there is fire. Even if the Non_scholarly" do not
completely understand the nuances of many liberal ideas, they do
understand the final outcome. Anything which takes away from their
choices, and their financial sovereignty is a bad thing.

When you have people wanting to take your money away from you so that
someone can feel good about "helping" slackers and therefore promoting
the concept of entitlement, it should be no surprise that most people
with common sense would oppose it.




In order to adopt, much less understand the liberal
mindset you have to be willing to accept some idealistic utopian
principles which are foreign to the natural order of most people.

Again, you make my case. Thanks for the assistance.

Which is?


Dave

I don't deal in absolutes.

You were defending those who do, "as long as they have evidence to back them
up"

I listen to Hannity fairly regularly, as he's on during my afternoon
drive time. He strongly refutes liberal policies, but he have never
made a statement of a personal nature that could be construed as
"hate".

Horse puckey. I have listened to him. I'll keep track of some of his next few
*zingers* and ask for your opinion soon.

I wrote:

It's the same group of techniques that over the years have rallied the
gullible
against "******s" "kikes" "spics" and what not.

Dave wrote:

There you go again, attempting to demonize the messengers and the
message by comparing similar techniques that were used to promote
ideals in the past which are now generally regarded as "bad".

Good grief. What prompted that moment of frank honesty? At least you do admit
the techniques are indeed (at least) "similar".

Where there is smoke there is fire. Even if the Non_scholarly" do not
completely understand the nuances of many liberal ideas, they do
understand the final outcome. Anything which takes away from their
choices, and their financial sovereignty is a bad thing.

Lot of choice these days in the average police state?

Lot of financial sovereignty when the government has a $25,000 mortgage on the
future earnings of every American, (*plus* future taxation for upcoming
expenses)?

On 09 Jan 2004 16:57:00 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

I don't deal in absolutes.

You were defending those who do, "as long as they have evidence to back them
up"

The evidence speaks for itself. But there are always exceptions. Which
is why I would never try to lump *all* of any roup into one category
or another.



I listen to Hannity fairly regularly, as he's on during my afternoon
drive time. He strongly refutes liberal policies, but he have never
made a statement of a personal nature that could be construed as
"hate".

Horse puckey. I have listened to him. I'll keep track of some of his next few
*zingers* and ask for your opinion soon.

Such as? Once again, you seem to confuse a personal ad-hominem
derogatory comment with strong political opposition. The first case
would be considered *hateful*, while the second is simply disagreeing
with their position, and why they feel the way they do.




I wrote:

It's the same group of techniques that over the years have rallied the
gullible
against "******s" "kikes" "spics" and what not.

Dave wrote:

There you go again, attempting to demonize the messengers and the
message by comparing similar techniques that were used to promote
ideals in the past which are now generally regarded as "bad".

Good grief. What prompted that moment of frank honesty? At least you do admit
the techniques are indeed (at least) "similar".


Of course they are similar. It's those similarities which allow you
leftists to paint such disparity with a broad brush. But it's the
differences which invalidate your premise.



Where there is smoke there is fire. Even if the Non_scholarly" do not
completely understand the nuances of many liberal ideas, they do
understand the final outcome. Anything which takes away from their
choices, and their financial sovereignty is a bad thing.

Lot of choice these days in the average police state?

Lot of financial sovereignty when the government has a $25,000 mortgage on the
future earnings of every American, (*plus* future taxation for upcoming
expenses)?

Unless the government increases our taxes, this will never become our
debt. And that debt can be eliminated with little more than the stroke
of a pen. You worry far too much about it.


Dave