What really scares me about these hardcore republican Bush fanatics is how they completely reject the option of maybe checking if the things they say are actually true. They simply find sources to defend and prove the point of view of the republican party and their "talking points". I never see them trying to find multiple sources and trying to evaluate which one would be more trustworthy for a specific issue, what motivations there are behind certain sources, or even better, working out an average representation from multiple, varying sources. They mostly just blindly accept the republican line and never consider that maybe it's not completely true and perfect.
"What, Kerry is a flip-flopper? understood sir, everytime I hear the name "Kerry" I will incesantly repeat "flip-flopper", and completely ignore verifiable examples of republican administration members doing the same things." Repeat ad nauseam.
This is why you usually see most people who are voting for Kerry, like myself, have a grayer (as opposed to black-and-white), more ambiguous and realistic image of the man. Most of us know he's not perfect, he surely has made some mistakes, because we try to understand data from all sources to get a more adjusted, better picture of reality. I gather that is what a hardcore republican would call "flip-flopping". By the same rationale of analysis of multiple sources and facts, Bush and his administration look decidedly incompetent, underhanded, antiethical and unsuccessful, especially when it comes to world policy and economy (they are collectively filthy rich and getting richer, I meant every other american's economy). Bush fanatics completely ignore this process and start from the fact that he, his administration (ok, Cheney's administration) and republicans are perfect, and then proceed to fight to the bitter end to prove their starting argument: Bush is perfect and not only that, he IS SAVING THE WORLD. Nothing else matters, and nothing ever changes that perception, not even established, proven facts. To them facts are just things to be argued, muddled and fought against, not things to be incorporated into reasoning. They tend to execute the same tactics all the time to protect their thesis.
This is my typical experience trying to discuss things with hardcore republican conservatives:
You want to explain why you are voting for Kerry by explaining how you feel Bush the Administration should be voted out by talking results, they answer by attacking Kerry the man. If you attack Bush the Man in response, they say you are low, call you a mudslinger and ask you to talk results. You point out the you started by talking results and they call you a liar and then proceed to dispute your results with arguments manufactured by the same sources that protect Bush The Administration while waving an american flag and calling you and Kerry unpatriotic. When you point out the fact that their sources are not credible or have been proven factualy wrong in the past, they call you a left-wing hippie nutcase, attack Kerry the man again, blame Clinton, quote 3 more talking points, tell you that their results don't lie, Bush is awesome and don't believe the "liberal media" unless it's Fox news.
If you keep arguing eventually they will either quitely back down from debunked republican lies and concentrate on attacking Kerry the Man (as if that makes Bush better somehow), or finally say something like "we agree to disagree" on an incontrovertibly established fact.
A month later you see them on another board (or another barbeque) arguing with Bush critics with the same original facts you clearly pointed out to them as being not true, like it never happened.