Tryin' to Find Brains among the Brainless ain't easy

MUFON.org
Much better attuned to the dim world of Moveon, however, Moveon is populated with the selfsame creatures MUFON is on the lookout for... Especially the pinks.

(More from the anal left where it is considered a function of hygiene to flush their brains at least once a day.

As a result, there are many starving braineaters out there. Tom Daschle. John Kerry. Billy Jeff. Hilly Jeff. Joe Wimpson. Terry McCauliflower. Dan Blather, et al. Richard Clark. Chris LeHeinous. And this is without the Islamofascists that don't want your brains, just your head.

Folks, we are in trouble.)

Beware, the ax falls for thee....

From an unnamed poster at dunderground

What we MUST realize in order to win - Americans are stupid and uninformed

(This from those who believe that an IQ of 70 is above average.)

This is very important because in order to win we must understand the way the average American thinks. I'm afraid WE have nothing in common with them.

I came to the two following conclusions when I saw the large number of people who voted for Bush back in 2000.

#1 - I would dare to assume that most of us here are in the upper 1%-20% of the population intelligence-wise. We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve. WE are not the norm. The Republicans understand that the average American is not very bright. They cater and pander to the masses. The Democratic Party tries to appeal to the population about "issues" that these people just don't understand.

(Are you gagging yet?)

I've heard it said that the reason that Clinton's sex scandal resonated so strongly among "the people" was because it was a scandal that the average American understood. The average person can't understand a financial scandal.

In addition, people of average or lower intelligence tend to not be as logical or reasoned as those of higher intelligence - they deal with emotion. Therefore they are more likely to get riled up about someone burning a flag rather than a illogical tax cut.

#2 - The majority of people do not read the newspaper OR listen to the news, CNN, etc. Therefore -they get their news from the Tonight Show, Letterman, Oprah and Saturday Night Live. Or, they get their news from talking to their co-workers at the water cooler.

Also, for the few people who DO listen to the news - who do they hear it from? Fox News and Bill O'Reilly are the most popular. Most newspapers and media outlets are owned by Republicans.

(Oh yeah. Like Viacom, Ted Turner, NYT, LAT, Chi. Tribune, Wash. Post, etc, etc.)

THIS is what we are fighting against people. In order to win we will need to start pandering to the masses.

Article from stupidity is dem.

By Timothy Karr MediaChannel.org

NEW YORK, July 22, 2004 -- The Kerry campaign's share of network news coverage has been on a steady slide since the Massachusetts senator all but clinched his party nomination after the March 2 "Super Tuesday" primaries. According to a survey of media election coverage during the first half of 2004, President George W. Bush's share of the nightly newscasts has risen steadily through the year, while Senator John Kerry's image and words faded from network screens.

The study, released today by Media for Democracy and Media Tenor, is based on daily monitoring of network evening newscasts from January 1 through June 30, 2004.

During an average evening newscast in June, the networks were nearly four times as likely to mention President Bush as the Democratic presidential candidate. By contrast, in March of this year, network mention of Senator Kerry (40 percent of all coverage of Kerry, Bush and Ralph Nader) nearly rivaled coverage of incumbent Bush (59 percent).

... Continuing analysis into July shows that Kerry enjoyed a jump in network coverage following his selection of Senator John Edwards as his running mate, but that this attention flattened to June levels during the last week surveyed -- July 12 through 16.

Imagine that. George Bush, according to this article, is the DEMOCRATIC presidential candidate.

Who knew?

Besides, the parasite dems mentioned George Bush so much, how could the media help it and not love it at the same time? Notice the article did not say that coverage of the president was favorable, simply that he was mentioned. Has anyone been keeping count of the 2-3 dem attacks against GW on any given day?

Stupidity with delusions of grandeur. Gahhhhhh!

Democrats' Favorite Chocolate Candy

Dem Survival Gear