"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
A highly profitable and successful business. Did you ever wonder why
liberal talk radio went over like a fart in a space suit (and they

vs conservative talk radio?
Same reason that the National Enquirer outsells the Harvard Review.

The funny thing, is the National Enquirer readers are more likely the
Democrat voters, that will accept cigarettes to vote for a specified
candidate.

The funny thing, is the National Enquirer readers are more likely the
Democrat voters, that will accept cigarettes to vote for a specified
candidate.



Nah. The stereotypical democrat is against smoking. :-)

But, it's easy to see how easy it is to fool some folks. If you stood outside
the polling place and said, "Here's a coupon for five gallons for free diesel,
pull the handle for Bush.........." I'd most likely take your five free gallons
and, in the privacy of the booth, vote as I darn well pleased.
Dishonest, sure.....but some acts are so
contemptuous they cannot command an honest response.

How do you vote in CA? The urban legends about the Democratic precinct
committee people going down to skid road and loading up minivans full of
transients to go and vote as instructed could *not* happen in my state. Not
unless the tansients were registered to vote in the precinct they were taken
to.

One could speculate that if the pollworkers are crooked they could allow the
transients to vote without checking registration, but if the pollworkers are
that crooked who needs transients? Just grab a stack of ballots and get to
work.

One of the safeguards we use to prevent just that sort of thing from happening
is that we enlist representatives from *both* parties to work at the polling
places. The R's can't cheat to beat hell, or vice versa, without the other side
catching on.

It would take a flawed process, as we recently observed elsewere, to completely
screw up the election.

Gould 0738 wrote:

One must be totally consumed by evil to
want, watch, or allow thousands of people to die merely to advance a political
agenda. There are such people in the world, but not (realistically) in
rec.boats.

That's krause. Too bad your ideology blinds you to it.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

That's krause. Too bad your ideology blinds you to it.

-- Charlie

Naw- I just look for a glimmer of hope in everybody, Charles. Even the short,
sweet, 2-line insult kings.

Sometimes that spark of human worthiness is fairly well obscured.

Gould 0738 wrote:

That's krause. Too bad your ideology blinds you to it.

-- Charlie

Naw- I just look for a glimmer of hope in everybody, Charles. Even the short,
sweet, 2-line insult kings.

Ya, I know liberals do. Some people, however, are just evil.


Sometimes that spark of human worthiness is fairly well obscured.


There's nothing of human worth in krause.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 09 Jan 2004 16:39:34 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

So it's your assertion then that people who agree with a certain
position, are somehow "hateful"?

Dave

You already know the answer, Dave.

I do, but I'm wondering if you REALLY do.....



It depends on the position.

Among other things.



Agreeing with: "I think the war in Iraq makes good strategic sense for the
United States because it will allow us to establish a base in the mid east and
improve the reliability of our oil supply" is conservative, but not hateful.

Ok.....



Agreeing with: "The liberals in this country wake up every morning hoping that
thousands of innocent Americans will be killed in a terrorist strike just to
make the Bush administration look bad" is hateful and divisive.

Why is that hateful? Especially if there is some truth in it. The left
have been going non-stop looking for any little tidbit of bad news to
exploit to make the Bush administration look bad. That some of those
same people would secretly hope for a huge downturn in the economy or
a huge uprising in Iraq, simply to gain political advantage is not
such a hard thing to believe.

Hateful is when you make personal attacks against someone for no other
reason than who they are.

Dave




Surely you can see the difference. Can't you?

On 09 Jan 2004 16:45:21 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

It is not hateful to draw conclusions. That you guys on the left try
to taint such conclusions by demonizing them as hate (and therefore
invalid) is the point.

Only extreme idiots ordinarily substitute stereotyping for individual
observation.

Only an idiot would disregard and catergorize a valid mode of
operation as "stereotyping", in order to demonize it and those who
attempt to call attention to it..


As you're not an extreme idiot, I'm genuinely surprised you would lump *all* of
any group into a single category.

I don't lump *all* of anyone into any category. I don't do absolutes.
That you would try to spin it as such in an effort to invalidate my
claims only furthers my point.




Sean Hannity put it best one day when he made the statement: "I don't
hate liberals. I have plenty of liberal friends. I play golf with
them, I go to dinner with them. I just don't want them in power."


Oh, puhleeeeeeeeeeeze. We could spend the next year listing hateful things SH
has said about liberals.

Such as?

Then again, with your extreme sensitivity toward what you think is
"hate", I could see how you would feel that way.

Dave

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

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:25:05 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


I guess you've never lived near rivers that were capable or catching
fire,
or bodies of water with glistening rainbows from a constant oil slick. Is
that what you want for your kids?

Nope, but I'm not cents wise and dollar foolish when it comes to the
environment. I'm not an alarmist who wants to redefine every power
enthusiast's lifestyle by claiming that these things are more
responsible for pollution than agricultural or industrial sources.

I'm not in favor of rules which unnecessarily burden those who can
least afford it. And I don't think the government (And by extension
the taxpayers) should be forced to "fix" that problem by subsidizing
the poor.

Dave



You're spewing again, Dave.

Doesn't make it wrong.


Because you said that you read so many different
information sources, surely you know that vast amounts of contamination can
be eliminated by people like us, for a buck or two a year. Or, by simply
doing something differently, something that costs absolutely zip.

I've read it, but I don't buy into it. It doesn't add up.


You're smart. You read all sorts of stuff. You know these things.

Which is why I don't buy into it. I can do my own calculations.


Dave

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:51:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
It's good to see that the Doug and Dave show is back on.

Bert

Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends.

If I didn't have a 14 year old son, I'd never have learned enough patience
to tutor poor Dave.


In order to tutor someone, you have to have a better understanding of
the subject, than the person you hope to "tutor". You have yet to
provide any evidence that you do.


Dave