On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:56:43 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

Indeed, thank you for making my point for me. The irony is, you honestly
don't get this yourself; you are honestly convinced that the reason your
guy
didn't get elected is all about the stupidity of the voters,

As the saying goes, President Eisenhower was supposedly dismayed to
learn that half of Americans are of below average intelligence.

Think
about it for a minute before you respond.

But no, I'm not claiming
that the voters are stupid, just that there's a frightening percentage
that would prefer others to do their thinking for them.

That's true
across the globe, not just in the US. Demagoguery will always be an
effective tool of leading large amounts of people, and the Republicans
have mastered the art.

and nothing at
all about the message y'all were sending.

Which message; the one that was actually coming from the Kerry camp
about how America can do better, or the distorted version coming from
the right-wing pundits that Kerry would ban the Bible and legalize gay
marriage, even though he's a practicing Roman Catholic, and has come
out unambiguously against gay marriage?

Kerry spent the campaign appealing to people's intellect.

Oh, certainly; a campaign that consisted almost soley of accusing Bush of
being Hitleresque,

Lie. Neither Kerry nor his campaign ever did so.

wanting a draft,

Lie. Neither Kerry nor his campaign ever did so.

using forged documents that were 'true'
even when they were false,

Lie. Neither Kerry nor his campaign ever did so.

making last minute accusations...

Wow, that surprises you in any campaign by anyone?

.that's
appealing to intellect, yep. The fact is, in all the conversations I've
had
over the last months regarding this election, I have never ONCE had a
Kerry
supporter tell me what he liked about Kerry.

His record as a war hero (the "slime boat veterans for lies"
notwithstanding). His integrity to speak out against the injustice of
that same war once he returned home. His distinguished career in the
Senate, including leading the investigation into BCCI. For more info:

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/senate.html

As opposed to Dubya's record of running businesses into the ground,
and having leading the nation in executions as his primary achievement
as Texas Governor.

It was all about how they
didn't like Bush. In fact, this election was never about Kerry. It was a
vote of confidence for Bush, and he (sorry about that) won it. Had it gone
the other way, Bush will have lost the election, but in a very real sense,
Kerry still would not have won it: I never met a real KERRY supporter, not
one. All I had were conversations about Bush, and Kerry was just the
'other
guy'.

Considering how many valid reasons there were to vote against Bush,
that's hardly surprising, but please be assured that Kerry's
supporters were not few and far between.

Bush spent
it appealing to people's fears, and wrapping himself in the mantle of
a protector.

Very proper, considering everything.

Sheer demagoguery.

Which approach was more likely to reach the voters I'm
referring to above? When people make themselves into sheep, it's
hardly surprising that they'll allow themselves to be led by a
shepherd, especially when his dogs like ***** Cheney help keep the
flock in line by fear-mongering.

It's only fear mongering if there's nothing to fear, dear.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" - FDR, who at least knew who
our enemy was in WWII.

I realize that
the memory is the first thing to go as you get older, but surely you
remember that the terrorists hit us REALLY hard three years ago, and it
wasn't by any means the first time?

Hmm. Let's see. Yes, I think that as a resident of New York City, I
can recall such an incident. I also think that as a resident of NYC, I
would have pursued Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to the ends of the
Earth before I attacked a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and
was no threat to us. I also think that as a human being, I wouldn't be
going the ***** Cheney route, and suggesting that terrorists support my
political opponents, and that they'll strike if we elect them; that's
fear-mongering at its worst.

The problem for the sheep comes down
the line, because they don't realize that while the shepherd and dogs
may offer them a promise of safety from the wolves, the shepherd's
ultimate aim is to fleece them, and eventually to eat them.

But we are not sheep.

A good portion, if not the vast majority, of
Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians are, by the tenets of their own
religion, and it's an appropriate metaphor. Don't question; have
faith. Don't think; believe. That's Bush's base.

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:24:23 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:qkjko0hcej1658q14fr6m4a5io9bp5clfc@4ax.com...

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:22:28 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ctejo0lakeqq446hbm5v6h3491ajna8v93@4ax.com...

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 04:48:03 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

Have you seen one, even ONE, post from a courteous Democrat, Fred?

Certainly. For example, I'm cordially inviting you to go *****
yourself. Courteous enough for you?

Well, if that's courtesy, you are certainly being, well....usual.

I'm being no more or less courteous than ***** Cheney was to Pat Leahy
on the floor of the Senate.

Ah, but Pat Leahy was being personally and tactically insulting to Cheney

Oh my! How *dare* Leahy bring up Halliburton! The NERVE.