HA! You've GOT to do this with a bush supporter or a fence sitter!

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

I debate with a few freepers on another forum where there are people of all different political points of view.

One of them posted a silly little photoshopped thing about Kerry arming the military with spitballs (a la Zell Miller's horrible speech at the RNC).

So I posted Kerry's official plans for the military from his website (guys, there are TONS of specifics over there, I mean TONS!) and then I posted bush's official plans for the military from HIS website. Compare:

Kerry's (and this doesn't even include a lot of stuff, like the Military Families Bill of Rights he has proposed):

A New Military To Meet New Threats
Today, our military is overextended and our troops are overburdened. John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions. To accomplish this, they will (1) expand our active duty forces, (2) double America's Special Forces capability and increase other specialized personnel, (3) complete the process of technological and educational transformation, (4) redirect the National Guard for homeland security, and (5) enact a Military Family Bill of Rights to relieve the burden on military families.


Expand America's Active Duty Forces
As president, John Kerry will ensure that our military has sufficient troop strength to protect our national security without placing an undue burden on the men and women of our armed forces. He will:

Add 40,000 Troops To The Active Duty Army To Prevent And Prepare For Other Possible Conflicts (not to increase the overall number of soldiers in Iraq). Currently, eight of the Army's ten active duty combat divisions are either in Iraq, preparing to go to Iraq, or recently returned from Iraq. While only a third of the Army would typically be deployed at any one time, under current deployment schedules 31 of our 33 active duty combat brigades will have been deployed by the summer of 2004. The Bush administration is relying on temporary solutions including "Stop Loss" orders, recalling the Individual Ready Reserve and extending tours to meet our commitments. These temporary measures have increased the burden on our troops and their families without addressing the underlying reality: we need more troops.

Streamline Various Large Weapons Programs, emphasizing electronics, advanced sensors and munitions in a "systems of systems" approach to transformation, reducing total expenditures on missile defense, and further reforming the acquisition process, this proposal can be made budget neutral.

Double America's Special Forces Capability and Increase Other Specialized Personnel
John Kerry and John Edwards recognize the critical role that the Special Forces and other specialized personnel play in America's military. Today we rely on these forces more and more to meet the new threats we face. As president, John Kerry's plan will strengthen our force structure. He will:

Double The Army's Special Forces Capability By The End Of His First Term. As part of the 40,000 new troops, John Kerry will double overall Special Forces capabilities in his first four years as president. His plan calls for adding 3,500 active duty and 1,400 reserve Special Forces personnel. This will effectively double the number of Special Forces available to perform overseas operations, including missions with foreign forces such as the anti-Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. The Special Forces units will also by be manned at 115 percent, enabling extended absences for individual long-term language and cultural training. This over-strength will also allow for surge-capacity in times of crisis.

Add A Special Operations Helicopter Squadron To The Air Force. As president, John Kerry will add a second special operations helicopter squadron to the Air Force, enabling Army forces to better complete their missions.

Increase Active-Duty and Reserve Civil Affairs Personnel. As president, John Kerry will increase by 1,200 the number of civil affairs personnel - 200 active-duty and 1,000 reserves. Today's missions are increasingly dependent on civil affairs personnel, including judges, physicians, bankers, health inspectors, fire chiefs, and so forth - the very skills that are needed in post-conflict situations. Active-duty civil affairs personnel provide "quick fix" support until the appropriate specialist teams from the reserves can be activated and deployed. John Kerry's plan represents a 50 percent increase in active-duty civil affairs personnel, and a 20 percent increase in reserve personnel.

Increase Active-Duty Psychological Operations Personnel. Today, 70 percent of our psychological operations (PSYOP) personnel are Reservists. As president, John Kerry will add 500 active duty personnel to the 4th PSYOP Group, the only PSYOP Group in the Army. This will round out regionally focused battalions, reduce the burden on Reservists, and provide increased opportunities for language training.

Complete The Process of Technological and Educational Transformation
John Kerry and John Edwards are committed to building an American military that leverages technology and military education across the spectrum of conflict, for every mission performed by the active duty, National Guard or Reserve. To advance this transformation, John Kerry will:

Invest In The Right Technologies. As president, John Kerry will focus defense investment in those capabilities vital to waging war successfully in the 21st Century. These include:

Advanced communications and information technologies, which will be vital to the full range of military capabilities
Sensing and control technologies that will provide the foundation for effective operation of unmanned, even robotic systems
Precision weapons, including directed energy weapons that can produce lethal and non-lethal effects
Data fusion technologies that will enable our military to act more decisively with enhanced situational awareness and greatly improved intelligence assessments

Focus On New And Existing Challenges. As president, John Kerry will create more digital divisions, harness the power of "network centric" warfare, and improve tactical communications crucial to future military success whether the next enemy is a terrorist, an outlaw regime or a would-be peer competitor. He will also invest in new, non-lethal technologies - like directed energy weapons that can incapacitate the enemy without risking the lives of innocent bystanders - for use in urban combat and stability operations so that America's forces are equipped to win the peace as well as the war.

Improve Counter-Proliferation Capabilities. As president, John Kerry will strengthen counter-proliferation capabilities to deter, defend and protect the United States and its allies against weapons of mass destruction. He will create new counter-proliferation units that specialize in finding and destroying the most dangerous weapons before they can be used against us. These special units will be trained, equipped and prepared to intercept and disable nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and secure any related facilities. With these capabilities, future presidents will have practical, usable military capabilities against weapons of mass destruction rather than depending on new nuclear weapons.

Educate And Train Our Forces For The 21st Century. As president, John Kerry will make sure our troops are prepared for the tasks required of them by ensuring that all aspects of education and training - including basic training, weapons training, combat simulations and professional military education - are fully supported.

Transform The National Guard for Homeland Security
As president, John Kerry will integrate the National Guard into our broader homeland security strategy. To accomplish this goal, he will:

Make Homeland Security a Primary Mission Of The National Guard. Today, more than 165,000 Guard and Reserve troops are on active duty. About forty percent of our forces in Iraq are from the Guard and Reserve. Some have been on the ground in Iraq for as many as 15 months - much longer than was expected or promised. Large deployments of Guard members to Iraq have actually weakened local defenses because so many members of the Guard are first responders in their communities - fire fighters, police officers, and emergency medical technicians.

Giving The Guard The Clear Mission Of Using These Critical Skills For Homeland Security. As president, John Kerry will assign National Guard units to a standing joint task force, commanded by a National Guard General. This task force will create and - if necessary - execute a coordinated strategy to protect our homeland, working with the states and the federal government to respond in times of crisis. Apportioned Guard forces would retain a valid combat capability, but would be rolled into missions that are needed to support homeland security, including intelligence, first responder security, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear missions.

Relieve The Burden On Our Military Families
John Kerry and John Edwards believe that the need to keep faith with our troops extends to their families. The Kerry-Edwards Military Family Bill of Rights will provide military families with competitive pay, good housing, decent health care, quality education for their children, first rate training and the best possible weaponry, armor and state-of-the-art equipment. The Military Family Bill of Rights will also provide assistance to families affected by extended deployments, or injury or death in the line of duty. And military families will receive the best possible information on deployments and responsive government support after their military service is completed.

_____________________________________________________________________

Bush's:
Transforming the Military

America's men and women in uniform serve all over the world to confront terrorists wherever they hide, wherever they plot, and wherever they receive aid and comfort. American soldiers deserve the best support America can offer. President Bush recognizes their dedication and has pursued bold plans to ensure that our military resources are used wisely and that our capabilities remain the best in the world. As part of this plan, President Bush has a bold vision for the future:

America Must Continue to Adapt to the Challenges of the 21st Century - President Bush will continue leading the transformation of our Nation's Armed Forces. America will develop a lighter, faster, more lethal force, with the best training for the new challenges of the new century.
American Forces Overseas Will Be Restructured to Use Existing Forces More Effectively and More Efficiently Support Servicemen, Servicewomen, and Their Families - After three years of extensive review and consultation with Congress and our allies around the world, President Bush has begun the most comprehensive restructuring of the U.S. military presence overseas since the end of the Korean War. His new initiative will bring home many Cold War-era forces while deploying more flexible and rapidly deployable capabilities in strategic locations around the world.

HUGE difference, isn't there? Anyone who reads through both of those immediately can see who has the better, more detailed plans, can't they?

Easy!

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Unless you are a wrong winger

nothing will convince you that Kerry is not dangerous

The problem, as one friend from a mailing list put it, there are now two truths in this country, the red state truth and the blue state truth... and by the way for the red states... if Bush killed a bunch of kids on live teevee, they would still defend him... they obviously deserved it.

Truth does not matter anymore it seems

[partygirl]

2. as a youngster with a

quite poor attention span, I would not (and did not) bother to read through all that. I am sure that it is very good and interesting stuff, but I just don't feel like concentrating on all that. Is there any way to summarize it? I know that I would not read all that verbage, and I would never expect anyone to read it if I sent it to them. I am sure that my friends and family would do just like I did--see that it is long and boring and scan down to the next message.

If someone could summarize this into a few good sentences, it might be more useful for me to use in debates with fence-sitters.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

4. Then go to Kerry's site

because there he has the subheadings bolded and each point is bulleted, making it easier to read.

The main point is, if you look at it, Kerry's plans are far more specfic, detailed, and he has MORE of a plan than bush does.

You could also bold certain phrases, such as Kerry's wanting to add 40,000 new troops. Make those parts stand out.

[AWhitneyBrown]

6. This poster shows...

Why the Bush "proposal" is so short.
This is part of why so many people support him. He doesn't make it too hard.
I read both. Bush is vague, cliche, says nothing really, but it's easy to read and is short and sort of makes sense in a general way.

Kerry's is real policy, and each sentence represents many hours of policy work.

Which one will most voters read? That's what the election is about. Whether we have become a country of intellectual sluggards, branded consumers, and tv retards, or whether we still care enough to do the work required to govern ourselves.

Yeah, it's work being free. Either accept that or the consequences.

[AWhitneyBrown]

9. To Partygirl...

Hope you didn't take that as a criticism. Here's the shorter version:

Bush's plan for our Military
Draft Your ASS and send you overseas!

Kerry's Plan for our Military
Don't Worry. You wouldn't understand it anyway, but it's way better.

Conclusion: Vote for the guy you know is smarter than you. I want someone smarter and more together than me flying any airplane I get on and running any country I live in!

Peace, Whit

[blondeatlast]

26. Bwahahahaha! Now that's short and sweet! nt

[partygirl]

10. my point is that if people

are interested in reading reams of material on political positions, they would not be undecided at this point in the race. People who are truly fence sitters need things to be explained simply and without much effort. You also have to do it without pissing them off--which is why I am not going to listen to some of the advice that has been given to me.

If you only shoot for the intellectuals and people who will put in hours of research over a single policy issue, well how many of the fence sitters in mid-September are those kind of people? If that is the plan, well then the Democrats will probably not win. My parents say it sounds like Dukakis all over again? I don't remember Dukakis very well--was he all wonky and intellectual and superior sounding (like Gore I guess)? Hey it is just my thoughts and you can flush it for all I care I am sure that you all know better. But I betcha that a lot more of the "fence sitters" are like me than like you guys.

[yardwork]

11. So you are saying you would rather vote for the easy-to-understand guy?

Foreign and domestic policies can't be reduced to simple ideas.

As American voters, we have to do one of two things. Either research the positions of each candidate and vote for the one who makes the most sense or.....research the positions of each candidate and vote for the one who makes the most sense.

What other option is there?

[partygirl]

12. not me.

I am saying in convincing others you cannot expect them to wade through reams of verbage about policy positions. It is the responsibility of the candidate to explain everything in a very simple concise manner and get it out there to the people. Hey I knew that much when I ran for student council in the second grade. Going for those intellectual people is an interesting strategy. What percentage of the American people are intellectual political junkies? I bet less than 1 percent. And I also bet that 99% of them (or more) have already made up their minds I doubt many of them are fence sitters. So in my opinion it would be smarter to go after the ordinary everyday non-intellectuals who do not follow politics every minute of their lives. But that is just an opinion, and you can gear your arguements to whomever you please. Like I said before, you guys probably know what you are doing. After all the Democrats have been doing this for years. And from my family it sounds like acting all "intellectual" has been a centerpiece for a long line of candidates--I don't know half of them but guys like Gore, Dukakis, McGovern.....anyhow go with what you know it is cool with me.

[underseasurveyor]

17. Well then Define "intellectuals" for me.........

For I am hardly an intellectual by any stretch of the imagination. Yet I am able to read and follow what's goin' on for myself. Not being too trusting when "explaining" in their "simple terms" that they're not just smoke up our asses. How may times has boosh said one thing, even in his easy to understand "average joe" language and then did the exact opposite?

The thing is to read enough so you know what you're talking about when you do talk to these fence sitters and frame your own easy for them to understand talking points. That's how you convince folks.


In today's "world" though, it would be nice if people turned off their damn tv's, play stations and x-boxes and god knows what else, and did read more of what's being said at face value is one reason I research for myself. So I know. It sounds like you're saying only "intellectuals" have the interest, the ability or the drive to read and understand politics.

It is also the responsibility of The People to make sure what the candidate says is the same as what they are doing.

[partygirl]

18. no--I am saying that

the best way to explain things to the mass of people is to follow the KISS rule. Keep It Simple Stupid.

Anyhow, I am out of this thread. As I have said before, use the techniques that you feel comfortable with. No skin off my nose.

[Chili]

23. I snarfed my Coke...

...at the second pic on your sigline. You owe me a keyboard.

[yardwork]

43. OMG!

Make that two keyboards you owe!!! ROTFL!!!

[underseasurveyor]

53. heh

:evilgrin: LMAO

[underseasurveyor]

14. Ya know my momma dun told me 35 years ago

That she firmly believed the government was and is slowly working toward making the populace lazy, uncaring and ignorant. To wipe out the middle class and create more poor to serve the rich, yep, she always said that all right.

Momma still is a pretty smart cookie. But oh how I wish she had been wrong.

[partygirl]

15. do we want to wallow in our

superiority or do we want to reach out to the people who are lazy, uncaring and ignorant so that we can win the election?

The 50% that doesn't even bother to vote---what group do you think they fit in? But do we win them over when we talk over their heads and lecture like a bunch of college professors? Anyhow it sounds like we don't care if we lose as long as we can feel superior to others. I just didn't understand the program before. Glad people have explained it to me. Guess I will just sit back and let those of you that are with the program go after those fence sitters.

[underseasurveyor]

16. I'm not the one who asked

if some one else could "do it for me." :eyes: Then give some excuse that, I have a short attention span. Just because someone told you that at some point you just believe it and aren't willing to try and change it? Oh I can't do that because so`n`so said.

Besides if it's not your shoe to put on why are you trying to stuff your foot in it? If you decided to take personally what I said then maybe it's time for you to ask yourself, why, as you sit on that pitypot.

[partygirl]

20. not sure what you mean about me sitting on the pitypot

actually, I am a very lucky girl and I know it. I don't need your pity, I have not asked for it and if you knew me and my situation, I doubt anyone here would give me any. I do like your cute colloquial expressions though.

Of course I want others to do the work for me. Why should I something if I can get someone else will do it for me? But from the beginning my point was not really to get someone to do the work, it was just to draw attention to the need for a more simplistic approach. Oh well guess that did not go over very well. Like I said, I am sure that you all know much better than me how to appeal to people and convince them. That attitude has won us lots of elections in the past 25 years. 25 years is MY life time. In my lifetime the Democrats lost the house in 1994 and we lost the Senate in 2002, sure we did win the presidency twice (but only with a plurality of the vote both times) but the Republicans have won it four times during my lifetime. So we must be doing something right. You know what I have noticed? Popular presidents communicate SIMPLY to the people. That is what I think we need to do. I believe that we need to simply, clearly, and effectively get OUR democratic message out.

Jeez I don't know why any reasonable person would be all upset over me having this opinion. You would think that I had suggested that the Democrats worship Satan or something. Anyway, like I have said over and over again do it your way.

[Chili]

22. Partygirl...

...I don't want you to take this to mean I'm talking down to you, it's not my intention. But this begs an answer:

People who are truly fence sitters need things to be explained simply and without much effort."

Those are the very people who need to be reading the long versions. I didn't read it, either, but I don't have to, I'm not on the fence, my feet are so firmly in the Kerry camp they've grown roots 20 feet down, and I've heard him say many of those things in townhall meetings on the net and CSPAN already. Anybody still questioning their own stance, seriously, can't afford to be that unconcerned with details.

You said you are young... it's not an age issue, there are people twice your age (whatever that is) who have the same mindset, and frankly, it's kinda scary to think that there are people out there who will decide MY future who won't even take the time to read the candidates policies.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

30. Sorry, PartyGirl, but you can't do "Democracy Lite"

in this election. That is what got us in this mess to begin with. Bush has the depth of a mud puddle - and has skated on sound bites and crib sheets his entire life - we cannot sink to his level.

It is the DUTY of every American to make the time and effort to know the issues and not expect a cheat sheet of answers for them. America is in a too tenuous of a position to rely on inking the answers to the cuff of your shirt for the big exam. If you cannot truly understand the issues and argue them effectively then you are just a Kerry "groupie." You could just as easily be a Bush "groupie" using the same criteria. You can look at it like you are getting someone else to do the hard work for you - I say you are just avoiding your responsibility as a citizen.

Sometimes the easy way is not the best way. We aren't zapping this election in the microwave - we are slow roasting it in the oven. Both will give you cooked meat, one if fast, the other takes more time and work - but which one is better?

[Redneck Socialist]

33. Best get prepared to be real scared

"it's kinda scary to think that there are people out there who will decide MY future who won't even take the time to read the candidates policies."

Yes it is scary, but those are precisely the people who do decide elections. Very few folks do any serious research into the candidates positions. Sure that's troubling, but it is also why partygirl's larger point is so important. It is incumbent upon the candidate and campaign to keep their message short and simple and hammer away at it again and again.

On edit: Reply to KY for Kerry

[partygirl]

35. Thank you!

someone who gets it!

[Chili]

38. "who gets it?"

It's a sad day when brains are a disadvantage.

[lastliberalintexas]

39. But they are in America today

You can't discuss politics with a right winger, because they are uninformed, can't think logically, and can't defend their positions on the issues. Robert Reich has written an entire book on this phenom.


I'm glad that so many posters on this thread seem to live in an educated town full of people willing to actually listen to them and read position papers. But that's not what I, and apparently many others, see at all. :shrug:

[Chili]

40. wait a minute...

you said: "You can't discuss politics with a right winger, because they are uninformed, can't think logically, and can't defend their positions on the issues."

This is what's annoying. We're not necessarily talking about the inability to understand, are we? We're talking about willful ignorance. There's a big difference. George Bush not only appeals to those who can't think, but to those who won't. Partygirl strikes me as a person who could understand it if she read it. But it's so much easier to listen to the candidate who says nothing at all - NOTHING! - because you don't have to think about it - than the candidate who says something of substance. It's just like the difference between reading a novel and reading the cliff notes. Or a comic book and a newspaper. Come on - it's classic dumbing down, and Bush's attitude, if you see it for what it is, is an insult to anyone's intelligence.

So we've finally come to the day when a man with intellect is considered the lesser candidate. If that's true, and we continue to enable this attitude within our own ranks, then the Republicans have won.

[partygirl]

42. Thanks for not insulting

my intelligence as much as some people have done.

I have to assert--I WILL BE VOTING FOR KERRY. But, I freely admit I am lazy. I am a lazy democratic voter (and I can assure you that there are plenty of us out there).

And some voters are not lazy--some of them actually ARE stupid. Does that mean that you don't want their vote? I know, I know we all want to believe that all Democrats are brilliant, well-informed, and have perfect teeth. If we want to win, we cannot gear our arguments to the segment of the population who are college professors.

Anyhow, I will be out of here for a few days.

[Chili]

48. thank you, yes, I do have perfect teeth

LOL! I'm glad you didn't take offense, it's not my intention to put you down. But when a smart person like you displays a laziness of mind - you even admit it - it's twice as frustrating.

Please take this in the spirit it's intended: reading anything that seems too long or complicated is exactly how people learn how to understand politics. I don't know of any better way of putting that, without sounding condescending. When I was your age, in college, I was eagerly reading the Congressional Record every day. I wish to God I still had the sharp mind I did then. I just hate when potential is wasted, that's all. And George Bush is a master at encouraging that. Don't let him.

[lastliberalintexas]

49. Yes, and it's punishable in the law

Willful blindness/ignorance is a sufficient mens rea for some crimes, even.

I have a very good friend who is pretty intelligent and somewhat aware of world events. Yet I can't get him to discuss, explain, defend, or debate a single belief of his. He just believes that way because God/Fox News/the repubs said it was so. And there are more of those kind of people out there than some posters here seem willing to admit.

I'm not saying that we should pander to those people. I don't think they are stupid, any more than I think that partygirl is stupid. But they are a reality, and we have to get their attention before we can teach them.


And for the cynical among us (of which I am one), the repubs *have* already won, thanks to the last 30 years of the American public school system.

[Redneck Socialist]

46. Brains aren't a disadvantage

It takes a bit of brain power to craft an effective messages. Especially one that can be delivered in 30 second bites. If it is crafted particularly well that message will get picked up and repeated ad nauseum until it hits 100% of the audience.

It isn't about people being too dumb to understand Kerry's positions or even about them being too lazy to find out about them for themselves. It is about a campaign being effective at delivering their message to those people in bite size, easily digested chunks and doing so until they're full.

On edit: Typo

[crispini]

44. I agree

Unfortunatly the overwhelming interest in politics & policy found on this board is a BIG TURN OFF to the undecided, uncommitted, unknowledgeable voter.

These people will NOT get it if you immediately start off with absolute REAMS of information.

Analogy: You are a professional bicyclist. Your friend, who knows nothing whatsoever about cycling, wants to know something about it, and possibly purchase a bike to get started. If you immediately leap into the fine points of carbon fibre frame vs. aluminum, the proper size of the deraillures, cork vs. synthentic wrap tape, etc, this person's eyes are going to glaze over and this person is going to get BORED, think you are a BIG CYCLING NERD (which is true), and not be interested in cycling any more.

When addressing a beginner it is necessary to give them the high points. Tell them stories that are funny and easy to remember. Answer their questions WITHOUT too much detail.

Note: I see orig. post referred to debate, not introduction to newbies. Still I would think it would depend on the general level of the debate. They wanna talk details? Fine. But I agree that's it's probably better to start off with high points, simple, etc. and then get into detail if the situation warrants it.

[Redneck Socialist]

34. You're right

"...if people are interested in reading reams of material on political positions, they would not be undecided at this point in the race. People who are truly fence sitters need things to be explained simply and without much effort."

Very true.

[delete_bush]

7. Since you're oh so young, sexy,

and interested in partying down with single guys, let me summarize the Bush plan for you:

Trot on down to your local recruiting station and sign up. Get some forms for your fence-sitting friends too, much easier than learning to debate. Learn the definition of cannon fodder in case they ask you what they'll be doing there.

Good Luck!

[partygirl]

13. you are not funny.

my brother is a fighter pilot in the military. you do not seem like a very nice person.

[delete_bush]

19. And you have a very funny way of

changing writing styles.

You posted elsewhere, where you estimated Kerry would receive 90% of the military vote (after stating he would be rewarded with the Asian votes due to their support for his being against military action "over there") that you didn't know anyone who had served in the military.

Seems odd, coming from such great parents and all, that they failed to introduce you to your brother.

[partygirl]

21. he is not that kind of brother.

edited to add: and in the other thread I was just careless in my writing, I meant that I don't personally know how anyone in the military will vote. I was just assuming that lots of them will be for Kerry. The last part of the sentence was cut off in my cutting and pasting giving the wrong impression. Sorry if that distressed you. I really am leaving this thread now--you people are like attack dogs! I don't understand the dig about my writing style either. I reiterate not very nice at all.

[Bridget Burke]

25. You seem a bit of a chameleon....

Either you don't know any veterans, or your brother is a fighter pilot.

You refuse to read "complicated" position statements, yet your writing style doesn't indicate any learning disability. Yes, things need to be simplified for some people. So those of us with the time & some cognitive ability ought to study that complicated stuff & communicate what we have learned.

[blondeatlast]

28. Her brother could also be GWB... nt

[partygirl]

36. no--the sentence in the other thread was cut off.

It was supposed to reflect that I did not personally know how any veterans are voting, I was just hopeful that Kerry would do well with veterans because of his background in the military. I did some cut and past work and did not realize that part of the sentence was lost. By the time it was pointed out to me, it was too late to edit it to reflect what I meant. I am sorry if this confused some of you.

Yes I have a brother who is a fighter pilot, he is NOT however in Iraq or anyplace like that. And I do not know him very well, I only found out about him about 10 months ago, so I don't know his political views at all. My father had several children out of wedlock (not that it matters or is anyone's business). I have been trying to get to know this brother, but we are not close. He is actually in the South somewhere right now. We do e-mail occasionally, but no heart to hearts yet. Someday I will get to meet him in person and I will find out a lot more about him.

I am not "learning disabled" although it is kind of you to refer to me that way (I am being sarcastic--I am getting sick of the personal attacks). I am not stupid, just a little lazy. So I totally understand and sympathize with the 90% of Americans who are also lazy whether they are honest enough to admit it or not. Calling these people stupid will definitely win them over to your side (NOT). The attacks, picking for nits, and putting an honest person down---well all I can say is this is how you treat someone who is on your side (WOW) imagine how you treat someone who disagrees with you! I have found that it is a true saying that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I hope that when the DUers are out there woo'ing the undecided voters that they display a little more tact, grace, and kindness than they do here on the DU. The type of attitude I have seen displayed by a few people here would be enough to turn off lifelong Democrats. Or at very least keep them home on election day. But that is just my opinion. I do things very differently and I am sure that most of the people here are older and wiser than I am and perhaps their methods are better than me as well.

I am generally tactful and respectful with all people (in person--this web thing is HARD). I like to explain things simply, clearly and in a way that is interesting. But it appears that "Democratic Activists" use a different approach. Perhaps this approach is much better. I will learn what I can from the people here but I am only going to use what feels right for me.

[yardwork]

47. sniff sniff.......

I seem to detect a whiff of something.....

[delete_bush]

50. Does it smell like something you

might have stepped in while doing some yard work, yardwork?

[Chomskyite]

8. He's going to focus on fighting terrorists not tinhorn dictators with oil

. . . is what it looks like to me.

[HootieMcBoob]

27. sadly you're right

and that in a nutshell is why we're in the mess we are in today. we are a country of dumbasses.

[lastliberalintexas]

37. How about this?

http://www.dior.whs.mil/forms/DD0004.pdf

Print it out and hand it to any Shrub supporters you see/know under the age of 35. Short, simple and to the point. If they don't understand that, then they deserve to be repubs.

BTW- You can also put it under the wipers of parked cars with repub stickers.

[KelleyKramer]

41. Please summarize your post, its too long

I know there are thousands of US lives that hang in the balance on this issue, but I'm just too lazy to read through all the words in your post. Also, a lot of those are 'big' words too.

Please summarize your post into three words.

[partygirl]

45. Already done---one word

"KISS."

[mahina]

3. Nice job!

Good apples to apples comparison. Kind of looks like even *'s writers don't know what the hell they are talking about....

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

5. I know

his whole website is so amateur as to be embarrassing. Then you read Kerry's plans and it's like an actual grown up wrote them.

They are FAR more detailed and specific and his plans cover more territory than bushs do.

THAT'S something you can drive home with people.

[kid a]

24. kickin

[Lefta Dissenter]

29. Hey, do you realize that

like, wow, that Kerry thing is almost fourteen hundred words long??? (1,397, to be exact). I mean, like how am I supposed to read all of that?????

Jeez, to think I missed out on this thread last night... :eyes:

This is the same problem that Clark faced in the primaries. No matter HOW many pages of specific policy he had clearly laid out on his website, people kept claiming that he wouldn't provide specifics! It's the same crap. LAZY-ASS, whiny people!!!!!!!

If you can't devote enough time to read one thousand three hundred and ninety seven words in order to make a more informed decision about your own future and that of your country, perhaps you should avoid the voting booth altogether. You probably read ten times that many words in the DULounge every day!!!

edited to add that in this thread alone, PartyGirl posted over 1,100 words! WOW, in that time, perhaps she could have read Kerry's policy.

[underseasurveyor]

52. In defense of PG, she did say she was voting for Kerry

It was the undecideds she was concerned about trying to convince with too much knowledge. I didn't and won't "bother" to read "all that" because it's "boring" and besides *insert lazy excuse* :eyes:

I thought the same thing. She is obviously capable and smart and read all the other replies and responded to them just fine. Just don't provide real information and specifics that is long and boring, she simply can not be bothered with it ya know.

Kerry = GOOD. Like people. Save people lives.
Boosh = VERY BAD. No like people. Kill people.

I hope that is KISS enough:evilfrown:

[andino]

31. TAG for use

[Czolgosz]

32. You posted this on

"another forum where there are people of all different political points of view." What forum? I would also appreciate anyone else who can suggest other forums where there are people of all different political points of view (I like to post where there are still undecided voters -- I know there are few people who remain decided about who they would vote for but there are plenty of potently voters who have not decided whether they will vote -- and that's why I spend less time on this forum).

[B. P. R. D.]

51. Hipforums.com.

Many third party wannabes there.