In article , wrote:

Ann wrote:

"Paul E. Lehmann" expounded:

You are right, it is the also the very wealthy who have partnered with the
very ignorant to vote him in for a second term.

And what I find extremely amusing is that it's perfectly ok to talk in
metaphores and stereotypes about anyone on the right, but boy oh boy
you'd better not try to stereotype a liberal.

Go ahead and stereotype the most famous LIBERAL of them all; JESUS CHRIST

Oh, I dunno, I thought hanging out with hookers was a habit of
conservative ministers, taking all their money for one's own projects the
habit of pimps, & dividing families with the sword as Jesus promulgated
the habit of dictators. People get out of their faith only what they would
get from their lives if they had no fate. It would be nice if faith were a
cure for bigotry, ignorance, & general vileness, but it instead heightens
what is most small-minded, criminal, & appalling about humankind.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
Larry Blanchard expounded:

The problem is that nobody is as "right" as a religious conservative.
After all, God has told him/her what to do.

The problem is not all Bush supporters are religious
conservatives/fanatics. It's a myth that everyone who voted for Bush
is a bible thumping christian.

You're right. It's just that they voted more for Bush than just about
any other group - with the possible exception of millionaires :-).

I get the feeling that most people vote a party ticket with no concern
for whoever is on it. It's a shame because neither party is what it
used to be. Anybody else remember the old saying "Democrats give us a
war, Republicans give us a depression."?

It's true. We had to choose the lesser of two blahs. While at the
Philadelphia airport last week, I spotted a magazine cover - might've been
The Economist. It had a picture of both candidates and the caption
"Incoherent or Incompetent?"

The weekend after the election, I was out with a bunch of friends. We (both
Dems and Repubs) were bemoaning the disaster. One guy went to the bar and
came back with 3 pencils and some clean napkins. He said "OK...if your party
said 'Send us $1000.00 and we'll guarantee the candidate of your choice is
nominated next time around' - write that person's name on your napkins".

There were 10 of us. Results:

1 vote for Bush (but the guy who wrote it was intensely drunk)
1 vote for Kerry (but the guy who chose him has no imagination)
1 vote for Reagan's son - what's his name.
1 vote for Rudolph Giuliani. Good choice.
5 votes for Mario Cuomo (Keep in mind, we're all from NY, so we don't mind
people who are brutally honest, use big words, and who don't talk down to
audiences).

Two of Mario's 5 votes came from Republicans. This country is longing for
something different. I doubt it'll ever get it.

In article , Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from (paghat) contains these words:

In article , wrote:

Ann wrote:

It's not just the redneck farmer from Kentucky,

The real problem with Ann's observation is she believes someone from
Kentucky has to be a redneck farmer.

When a person with your highly developed language skills misrepresents
what Ann said, one can only suppose it to be deliberate. Which instantly
undermines the credibility of everything else you say.

I'd say that's a real problem.

Janet

Get real. Ann said this:

"I've seen more fanaticism on the left lately. The inability to
realize that people from all walks of life voted in Bush is blinding
many liberals. It's not just the redneck farmer from Kentucky, it's
not just the religious right, it's not just the idiots"

No liberal ever said that; Ann said it. She imposed it on liberals but it
came out of HER view of the meaning of Left and Right. She constructed her
own straw dog & blamed her stereotyped view on liberals. Since she sure as
hell never got this from liberals, it's HER take on humanity. Every time
she speaks politically another dumbass stereotype pops out of her because
she believes in 'em. Defining liberals in such straw-dog terms REQUIRES a
mind that could think of Kentuckians as symbols of red-states in equally
stereotypical terms. Both stereotypes stem from a single mentality: Ann's.

Her further statement "The Democrats should have picked a better
candidate" has slightly more merit. I can only imagine the Democratic
mucklymucks figured that since a piece of shit alchoholic who can only
gibber when someone doesn't work him like a handpuppet is regarded
super-electable by the religious right, then a sober piece of spent
chewing gum would automatically be viewed as better than shit. But shit at
least has value as fertilizer, spent gum is just cheap latex.

-paggers

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

DLC president Bruce Reed opened the discussion by enjoining Democrats to....
focus on the party's fundamental problems. "The core of Democrats' problem is
the same as it was when the DLC was founded 20 years ago: the middle class
doesn't trust us enough to stand up for their security, their values, or their
economic interests

Al From, the DLC's CEO and founder:

"Accept the truth" that Republicans have achieved majority status, albeit a
narrow majority;

"Expand the map" by working on a Democratic revival in "red states";

Address three "trust gaps" that have become obstacles to acceptance of
Democratic candidates: a "security gap," a "culture gap" and a "reform gap";

Brownstein suggested that Bush might have won half of the white union vote, and
that the Democrats' "southwestern strategy" of focusing on states with large
Hispanic populations might have been a mistake."

Brownstein argued that one danger sign for Democrats is that they are not doing
as well in "red states" as the Republicans are doing in "blue states." "Red
America is becoming Fortress America," he observed, noting that over the last
two elections Democrats have lost 10 out of 10 open Senate seats in the South.

As the one successful Democratic Senate candidate in the South on November 2,
Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas offered three thoughts for Democrats in
communicating with voters they have been losing in "red states:"

"Trust the voters" to understand the issues that most affect their lives,
instead of trying to tell them what they should care about;

"Get rid of sacred cows" in talking about domestic issues, and stop defending
federal programs as ends in themselves;

"Get comfortable talking about your faith" as a way of instilling trust in the
values of Democratic elected officials.

Former Clinton White House political director Doug Sosnik argued that
"elections are often lagging indicators of political trends," and suggested
that the 2004 results reflected a long period of growth in Republican strength
rather than any clear advantage in the future. But he also agreed with all the
other panelists in urging Democrats to get better in touch not just with the
values, but with the day-to-day lives of voters. "The vast majority of people
in this country don't think of themselves as 'red people' or 'blue people,'" he
said. "They think of themselves as just normal people living their lives."

Democrats to abandon "liberal" agenda, hard shift to right:

Reid, who as Democratic whip was Daschle's top lieutenant as well as his loyal
friend for the past six years, had promises of support from a majority of next
year's 44 Senate Democrats two hours after Daschle publicly conceded his seat
to Republican John Thune. That enabled Reid to easily fend off a challenge from
Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, who was also interested in the job.
Reid, more conservative than Daschle and many other Democrats, is antiabortion
and has voted against an assault-weapons ban

Ouch!!!

By Michael Barone
The 51 percent nation

Love is stronger than hate. That is the lesson of the 2004 election results.
Millions of Democrats and leftists have been seething with hatred for George W.
Bush for years, and many of them lined up before the polls opened to cast their
votes against him--one reason, apparently, that the exit poll results turned
out to favor Democrats more than did the actual results. But Republicans full
of love, or at least affection, for George W. Bush turned out steadily later in
the day or sent in their ballots days before. They have watched the "old media"
--the New York Times, the broadcast networks CBS, ABC, and NBC--beat up on Bush
for the past year, and they have listened to the sneers and slurs directed at
him by coastal elites for a long time. Now they had their chance to speak. They
did so loudly and clearly, giving Bush the first popular-vote majority for
president in 16 years.

(paghat) expounded:

Get real. Ann said this:

Get real. Ann said whatever Paghat wants to believe she said. Only
Paghat has any literary license, and only Paghat can interpret what
others say as the truth.

Ya.

Misinterpreting what other people say is a liberal standard. Do carry
on!
--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

Larry Blanchard expounded:

I get the feeling that most people vote a party ticket with no concern
for whoever is on it. It's a shame because neither party is what it
used to be. Anybody else remember the old saying "Democrats give us a
war, Republicans give us a depression."?

Yep. As I've said many times, no one worth voting for ran this time.
Hopefully in four years we'll have a better selection.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

In article , Ann
wrote:

(paghat) expounded:

Get real. Ann said this:

Get real. Ann said whatever Paghat wants to believe she said. Only
Paghat has any literary license, and only Paghat can interpret what
others say as the truth.

Quoted you verbatim kiddo. Left out nothin'. If you don't like your own
words take more care when you reveal your wacky belief systems, BOTH about
redneck Kentuckians & all those yicky liberals. It's your dichotomized
world you projected on straw-dog liberals, but it came right out of you,
nowhere else.

-paggers

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:48:28 -0500, Ann wrote:

Misinterpreting what other people say is a liberal standard.


We must continue the work of education reform, to bring high standards
and accountability not just to our elementary and secondary schools,
but to our high schools, as well.
-- Ummm... high schools are secondary schools, Dubya. Washington,
D.C., Nov. 4, 2004

"Ann" wrote:
Yep. As I've said many times, no one worth voting for ran this
time. Hopefully in four years we'll have a better selection.

Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA

Next election...
Skull and Bones (R)
Skull and Bones (D)
Unknown Wildcard Independents

--
Jim Carlock
Post replies to newsgroup.

(paghat) expounded:

Quoted you verbatim kiddo. Left out nothin'. If you don't like your own
words take more care when you reveal your wacky belief systems, BOTH about
redneck Kentuckians & all those yicky liberals. It's your dichotomized
world you projected on straw-dog liberals, but it came right out of you,
nowhere else.

Ya'll got the last word, kiddo, wrong as it may be. Keep
going.....going....going.....

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:20:37 -0800, (paghat)
opined:

Get real. Ann said this:

"I've seen more fanaticism on the left lately. The inability to
realize that people from all walks of life voted in Bush is blinding
many liberals. It's not just the redneck farmer from Kentucky, it's
not just the religious right, it's not just the idiots"

No liberal ever said that; Ann said it. She imposed it on liberals but it
came out of HER view of the meaning of Left and Right. She constructed her
own straw dog & blamed her stereotyped view on liberals. Since she sure as
hell never got this from liberals, it's HER take on humanity. Every time
she speaks politically another dumbass stereotype pops out of her because
she believes in 'em. Defining liberals in such straw-dog terms REQUIRES a
mind that could think of Kentuckians as symbols of red-states in equally
stereotypical terms. Both stereotypes stem from a single mentality: Ann's.

Her further statement "The Democrats should have picked a better
candidate" has slightly more merit. I can only imagine the Democratic
mucklymucks figured that since a piece of shit alchoholic who can only
gibber when someone doesn't work him like a handpuppet is regarded
super-electable by the religious right, then a sober piece of spent
chewing gum would automatically be viewed as better than shit. But shit at
least has value as fertilizer, spent gum is just cheap latex.

-paggers

....and today I was in the truck and heard some of Hannity's show and he and the
former Bush campaign muckity muck was praising god and "the lord" with Hannity
that Bush won. Yay.





Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:48:28 -0500, Ann opined:

(paghat) expounded:

Get real. Ann said this:

Get real. Ann said whatever Paghat wants to believe she said. Only
Paghat has any literary license, and only Paghat can interpret what
others say as the truth.

Ya.

Misinterpreting what other people say is a liberal standard. Do carry
on!

She quoted every word you said. I'm not sure I know what you're driving at.
You mean, you didn't say what I saw you say? OR, you didn't mean what you said?
OR, you said it, but it was misunderstood? I'm a liberal democrat. I don't
misinterpret as a standard. I also don't put people into neat categories, as it
seems you feel comfortable doing. But that's okay, you must be very happy now.





Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

Not that anyone cares at this point in the thread, but it's clear that there
were 5 main groups voting strongly for Bush. People who earn more than
$200,000, people who believe that the only real business of government is
defense/(offence), people who think that sticking to one point of view (no
matter how discredited) is more indicative of leadership than flexibility
is, people who live in small towns with perhaps less access to a variety of
news sources, and people who are religious conservatives. There are some
overlaps between these groups, notably the religious conservatives and small
town groups.
What can be said unequivocably is that Bush could not have won this election
without the religious conservative vote. Just subtract their numbers
(20,000,000 or so) and you get a Kerry over Bush victory 56,000,000 to
39,000,000. So on issues which could be argued on a rational basis, you have
a significant, but smaller group of Republicans. Even though I disagree with
those voters, at least we could argue political philosophy, numbers,
motives, cost/benefit, etc. Once you get into the realm of which candidate
truly believes "Jesus Christ is my personal Savior", and how you would prove
that, you've lost the ability to have a rational political discussion.
But as I wrote to my Republican brother recently, the Democrats faced
internal disunity for over 100 years between the northern Democrats and the
southern Democrats. The northerns were anti-slavery, the southerns pro, the
northerns willing to assist the implementation of Amendments XIII and XIV,
the southerns to obstruct them, the northerns to pass civil rights
legislation in the 50's and 60's, the southerns to obstruct them, the
northerns to encourage scientific knowledge and debate, the southerns to
vote on public officials depending on their stand on evolution.
Now the Republicans have "inherited" the south, and with that
inheritance come a lot of problematical issues and potential divisions down
the road. Barry Goldwater spent the last years of his life warning his
fellow Republicans that there would be tremendous trouble in store for them
if they allowed the Christian right to become dominant in their party, and I
would say that we've arrived at that point.