-=> TIM RICHARDSON wrote to ALL <=-

 DD>* A pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism
 DD>* has infected the Republican Party. Here's new data to prove it:

 TR> Since when does verbally and strongly disagreeing with a president,
 TR> become `pathological hatred'?

It doesn't - and no one in the article quoted said it did. However, the
Stalinist wing of the Repugs certainly accused those who verbally and strongly
disagreed with the puppet president, George III of having a "pathological
hatred" of not only that administration, but America itself. 

 DD>* 67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall)
 DD>believe that Obama is a socialist.

 TR> Much of the healthcare bill foisted on America by this president is for
 TR> the `have nots' at the expense ofthe `haves'. Thats socialism.

That's compassion, more like. And healthcare is, IMO, a legitimate function of
gummint. 

 DD>* 57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama
 DD>is a Muslim

 TR> This president's religion has nothing to do with leading the country
 TR> down to ruin.

I agree. Why, then, do the wing-nuts make such a big deal of it? ... as they
did in past with Jack Kennedy's Catholicism. 

 DD>* 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the
 DD>Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United
 DD>States and so is not eligible to be president"

 TR> There has never been a `bonified' birth cedrtificate produced, showing
 TR> that this president was born in the place it is claimed he was born.

Nor has there needed to be. Don't you think that if someone had even a shred of
evidence that the current occupant of the oval office was NOT able to claim
native-born status that they would have come forward, long since. Of course
they would have. And Lardbutt, Beck & Call, and Tiny Willy O'Reilly would have
been trumpeting it from the rooftops and all over Faux "News".

 DD>* 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama
 DD>is "doing many of the things that Hitler did"

 TR> Hitler lead the people along with vast promises of `hope and change' as
 TR> well.

Well, he certainly got change. And the overall outcome was (eventually) good
for the German people.
Although, the process was painful. Much more painful than anything that Obama
has done - so far. 

 DD>* Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall)
 DD>say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."

 TR> I doubt it.

I didn't pay much attention to that not being a religious-nut any more than I
am a wing-nut.
 
 DD>These numbers all come from a brand-new Harris poll, inspired in part by a
 DD>new book Wingnuts. It demonstrates the cost of the campaign of fear and
 DD>hate that has been pumped up in the service of hyper-partisanship over the
 DD>past 15 months. We are playing with dynamite by demonizing our president
 DD>and dividing the United States in the process. What might be good for
 DD>ratings is bad for the country.

 DD>The poll, which surveyed 2,230 people right at the height of the
 DD>health-care reform debate, also clearly shows that education is a barrier
 DD>to extremism.

 TR> Many of those polls are done among people who typically sign up to take
 TR> polls in exchange for cash or gifts. How accurate could such a poll be,
 TR> anyway?

As accurate as any other poll if designed/written properly. 
 
I am a participant in Harris Poll. I was not asked to participate in this poll.
However, I answer the questions asked in the polls in which I do participate as
honestly as possible.
 
 TR> Phrasing of a question will bias the answer as well. Again, influencing
 TR> the response.

Absolutely - we all know about the phenomenon of "push polling". 

 TR> With the phrasing of the question, the pollster eliminates many
 TR> alternative answers, and subtly guides the respondent toward the
 TR> desired answer, thereby skewing the result.

Absolutely - we all know about the phenomenon of "push polling". 

 TR> By throwing in `religion', the poll hardly qualifies as anything
 TR> serious. Of course, it will resonate well with democrats. It serves to
 TR> demonize those who object to this president's policies, even further.

As I said above - I don't pay much attention to that not being a religious-nut
any more than I am a wing-nut.

 DD>Respondents without a college education are vastly more likely to believe
 DD>such claims, while Americans with college degrees or better are less
 DD>easily duped. It's a reminder of what the 19th-century educator Horace
 DD>Mann once too-loftily said: "Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the
 DD>vacancies  of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge."

 TR> One does not, of course, need a `college' education to be qualified to
 TR> like or dislike a president and their policies. Those who did not
 TR> attend colleges as they are now in America, are far less likely to have
 TR> a left-leaning bias to their thinking. They are far less likely to have
 TR> the `revisionist' slant that seems to be taught in our colleges and
 TR> universities, now-a-days.

Even those who go to Bob Jones University? Or Oral Roberts University? Or any
of the service academies - they are colleges/universities, you know.
 
 TR> In an America where violent radicals such as Bill Aires and Bernadine
 TR> Dohrn, instead of inhabiting prison cells for the domestic terrorism
 TR> they engaged in and encouraged, are esconced in teaching positions in
 TR> one of our universities, what is the exact value of a `college'
 TR> education? Just how complete, and wide -viewed an education could be
 TR> expected?

Bill Ayers (correct spelling) and Bernadine Dohrn and even Angela Davis are
hardly the mainstream of American Higher Education.

ENJOY!!!

From Uncle Dirty Dave's Kitchen
Home of YAHOOOOAHHHH Hot Sauce & Hardin Cider 

 

... Defining and analysing humour is a pastime of humourless people. - Benchley
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49