Kerry has conceded

Hey Green Dragon,(Grand Pa Bob),
Thank you so very much for giving me this perfect example for my statement,

Quote:

---

The USA, the PAST leader of liberal thought, education, & research technology, which is sadly fading into an isolated, non secular, intellectual Dark Age, ...

---

The vicious, angry reply that you made says so much more about these kind of people, than I could ever demonstrate.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~pempem/r...s%20coyote.jpg
... next?.... LOL!!! http://www.users.qwest.net/~pempem/1penguin5.gif

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BaM*BaM
[B]Hey Green Dragon,(Grand Pa Bob),

The vicious, angry reply that you made says so much more about these kind of people, than I could ever demonstrate.

QUOTE]

I accept your compliment on being " one of these kind of people"

Neither vicious or angry, just victorious. If I was vicious or angry I might have replied with " Never get in a pissing contest with a skunk" but I won't say that.

My last words on the matter.

Bob F

Funny how many in this thread automatically become your enemy because of your opinion. Lots of 'hating' going on when most have never spoken a word to each other.

Quote:

---

It appears that BAM*BAM might be a pseudonymous substitute for Michael Moore another loser.

---

Michael Moore is not a loser, and neither is Bam Bam. :mad:

Can any one actually say that securing oil reserves is NOT a major reason America is so interested in taking over Iraq?

Given this and our other interests there does any one actually think America will EVER agree to leave Iraq entirely?

Hasn't it become clear to everyone that we are not really welcome by the majority of people in Iraq? Hence to many of them we are hostile occupiers.

I am willing to admit that I don't know enough to really be sure whether our current foreign policy will work or backfire. But shouldn't any thinking, conscientious American be concerned about the direction our country has been heading lately?

Is being concerned and expressing it really 'hysterical political diatribe" or "far left"?

Geeez

And the thread lives on, like a monster in a 1950s japanese scifi movie. ;eeko;

Godzilla says:

http://www.bettybowers.com/nl_redorblue.html

Do you live in a red state or a blue state?

-- John

Hmmmmm, sounds like my next door neighbors actually belong in a red state. LOL

Good one Johnny

P.S. - It looks like this "Jesusland" thing is really sticking.

We need to really RENAME this thread "CHUCKY" , "JASON", or "ALEX" (Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction) because they wouldn't DIE. Let me give the dems a littlle friendly advice on how to win the next election....DUMP THE FRUMP, Just as I predicted earlier in this thread Michael Moore has announced today that the secquel to 911 is in the works... 911 & 1/2. I say GREAT because there's no doubt in my mind that it was the Democrat party EMBRACING this EXTREMEST hollywood looney leftest at their convention that TURNED OFF just enough of the MAINSTREAM swing voters to re-elect Bush, talk about POETIC JUSTICE. : I now PREDICT that there are enough MOORE-ONS to make 911 & 1/2 a HUGE sucess and the next Republican VICTORY MARGIN will be even greater.;)

Dallas, I think much of the very heavy emotional element of the right, comes from what the head Bush marketing designer, Frank Luntz, called creating complete "irrational loyalty" into it's party's constituents. Amazingly, he explains that this is done by identifying certain 'power' words thru group testing, and then promoting the usage of these words to constantly be used upon their target market, so that the target market ends up identifying with the words.. These 'power' words hit triggers deep inside the 'reptilian' part of our brains, and when keyed, these people will then act in 'irrational, and strongly emotional ways' on subjects concerning these 'Power' words.. He describes how their target 'Power' words such as 'terror', 'family', 'faith', 'liberal', 'death tax', 'patriotic' were methodically embedded into the republican constituency. They had many demonstrations of the actual use of such 'power' words within test groups, and the results were indeed amazing. It does help to have a target market with a "thems r fighttin' werds" type mentality... But we are all potential victims of this type of manipulation. They use commercial products such as 'Tide' soap, "Marlboro' and 'Camel' cigarretes, and 'Coca-Cola' as products that now have this "irrational loyalty" in many of its customers.

The origins of this 'Power' word control, came from a French consumer marketing specialist, Clotaire Rapaille, who lives in New York, and works closely the U.S.'s biggest corporations. It did NOT come from political studies. And it was employed very heavily by republicans,... or so states the story.

Quote:

---

Can marketers really get inside a consumer's head to influence the choice they will make? For market researcher Clotaire Rapaille, the answer is yes. He believes all purchasing decisions really lie beyond conscious thinking and emotion and reside at a primal core in human beings. As chairman of Archetype Discoveries Worldwide, he helps Fortune 500 companies discover the unconscious associations for their products - the simple "code" - that will help them sell to consumers: "When you learn a word, whatever it is, "coffee," "love," "mother," there is always a first time. There's a first time to learn everything. The first time you understand, you imprint the meaning of this word; you create a mental connection that you're going to keep using the rest of your life. …So actually every word has a mental highway. I call that a code, an unconscious code in the brain."

---

and on Frank Luntzl

Quote:

---

A corporate consultant, pollster and political consultant to Republicans, Luntz's specialty is testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate. In this interview, he tells FRONTLINE what it takes to communicate a message effectively, shares some of the advice that he gives clients, and explains why his testing and field research seeks words that move people to act on an emotional level or "irrational loyalty": "It's all emotion. But there's nothing wrong with emotion. When we are in love, we are not rational; we are emotional. When we are on vacation, we are not rational; we are emotional. When we are happy, we are not [rational]. In fact, in more cases than not, when we are rational, we're actually unhappy. Emotion is good; passion is good. Being into what we're into, provided that it's a healthy pursuit, it's a good thing."

---

ps.... Maybe the Pentagon should enlist the help of this FRENCHMAN, to show them how to actually win this war in Iraq!! LOL !

Jimbo, you know where you got that Falwell quote, and you know it's a complete fabrication, yet you post it as truth.

Why did you do that?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BaM*BaM
....Everyone in the world, except for a few fundamental, 'blinded by faith' republicans in the USA....

---

I can tell they really chap your *****, but have you ever considered that maybe there's a "blinded by lack of faith" democrat for every "blinded by faith" republican? That they exist to balance each other out in some sort of weird political yin/yang system...?

:D

This might be a record for the most posts on a thread :eek: Of course any topic on politics will bring out the debate.;)

Quote:

---

Jimbo, you know where you got that Falwell quote, and you know it's a complete fabrication, yet you post it as truth.

---

Sorry Slowpro-

I didn't know it was a fabrication. I was worried that it might be (I'll remove it), but the accuracy of the words is not as important as the fact that I've seen these guys (can't remember if it was Jerry or the 700 club) on TV call for people to pray against their political enemies (a few years back), and I remember the big to-do about the praying for death of the supreme court justices. It was in the news for several weeks.

You remember it too I'm sure. The point is I don't think Michael Moore is nearly as hateful, distortful or radical as many of the leaders of the christian right.

I think the second silly quote is accurate.

Anyways quit calling me on things damit!

I'm trying to argue a position here, you keep taking the ez middle ground. LOL

You're no fun.;Dp;

Take care

I swore off this thread a long time ago, but find that I cannot sit by and not respond any longer. There are some things I do not understand (actually, there a lot of things I don't understand - but let's stick to the point) :

1) I hear (read) a LOT more fervor and emotion in the liberal posts than the conservative posts, but it seems that the liberals are the ones talking about how wacko/radical/unbending/attacking the conservatives are - I don't understand, is my conservative viewpoint making me see their responses as very "hating", or are they that way?

2) The religion thing keeps rearing its head. It is made to sound as if EVERY Republican is Jerry Falwell (as a Republican, I'll tell you that Jerry Falwell is not ANYWHERE near who I identify with), and EVERY Democrat is Joe Atheist. There are many non-believing Republicans, and many believing Democrats. MANY, MANY on both sides. It's not about religion - it's about what we believe is right for this country. Let me repeat that in case you didn't get it - it is not, and never has been about religion, or the lack thereof. The role of government was designed by the forefathers of this country to be minimal intrusion. Minimal intrusion into the rights of the people, and to represent the majority of the people. The reason they came to this country was to escape the intrusive governments in England and the rest of Europe. If you take time to examine what the liberal perspective TRULY represents, you will see that it is counter to this philosophy. True liberals embrace socialist view points - things such as redistribution of wealth, government as "care-taker" of the population, and removal of free property rights. In case you are not aware, socialist view points are VERY intrusive - the government is Big Brother. I personally think that most so-called liberals are really only mis-informed, not truly liberals. I feel if they took time to research what their party stands for, and the repercussions of those beliefs, they would not want to label themselves as "liberals".

3) The other argument I'm not following is the whole "Bush is trying to build an empire in the Middle East, and it's all about the oil". Have we forgotten that W is on his last term in office. So with four years to go, how does he benefit? And that begs the question that when he got into this and had only a year to go, he had more to lose than gain politically by this action, so why would he go on an Alexander the Great mission. We do not have a king or dictator, we have an elected President with a four year term - he has nothing to gain by "growing his empire".

I would like to see more non-inflamatory discussion on this topic, and less of the senseless insulting comments. You will not agree with everything I have said here, hell you may not agree with any of it. But tell me why (with facts please) you feel the way you do. I am not close minded, but I am very sure of my beliefs - for those of you who think that is a contradiction - you are mistaken. I will listen to your arguments (if presented in a logical manner) and I will examine your facts, if presented - but I will not abandon my beliefs based on emotion.

Other than over night - this is the longest time between posts on this thread to date. It's OK though, liberals - take all the time you need to come up with the appropriate rebuttals.