Mikesgirl1

The problem is that no reason is good enough for you mikesgirl....someone said conservative judges, ill say that economically i agree with the republican party, whether you do or do not thats a good reason to vote for Bush, i agree with tax cuts whether or not you believe in their effectiveness, I like his hardline stance on terror (iraq included, even though they should not have gone in WHEN they did the world is now a better place). There is heightened security in the US and major reform in the federal govt in terms of security that did not exist pre9/11. No president is perfect and Bush has done well. Iraq is not a total blunder, it is NOT Vietnam, the alienated of european countries argument is nonsense, because they dont agree with the war b/c of the billions they lost in contracts with hussein. So thats why ill vote bush When did I say that no reason was good enough. All I asked for was a "positive" reason to vote Bush. I appreciate Cangelosis honesty and finally pointing out why he supports Bush, not why he hates the opponent. You might want to try this more often as it gets more results than attacking the opposition. Whether I agree with you or not is not the issue, because I have made clear I'm no fan of Bush; all I wanted with this thread was to find out why the country is so polarized and the people who support Bush support him no matter what. I wanted good reasons for that. You gave your reasons; it doesn't matter that I agree or not, that wasn't the point.

I still have yet to read one "positive" argument for Bush. All I hear is "Kerry is this and that" or "I'm a conservative"... I asked for specific, good reasons why BUSH is such a "good President" not why Kerry isn't the guy for the job. Now take a breath, think (if you can) and tell me why Bush is the man and should be re-elected. Hello!!!! Would anyone care to answer the question which this thread was started for?????? :mad :

I heard the Marlins are already looking for possibilities out there to replace Castro... Now it is not known if they are actually going to get "rid" of him or just get someone to be the main catcher and put Castro again as backup. Redmond is the backup Castro is worthless True... But the dude is a piece of "bleep" and I don't think any club in its right mind would want to trade for him, nor can he be sent to the minors... What do you do with him other than keep him as back up after Red... Put him as a towell boy? :confused

I heard the Marlins are already looking for possibilities out there to replace Castro... Now it is not known if they are actually going to get "rid" of him or just get someone to be the main catcher and put Castro again as backup.

I still have yet to read one "positive" argument for Bush. All I hear is "Kerry is this and that" or "I'm a conservative"... I asked for specific, good reasons why BUSH is such a "good President" not why Kerry isn't the guy for the job. Now take a breath, think (if you can) and tell me why Bush is the man and should be re-elected.

In the past few months I've heard a whole load of rethoric from both sides of the equation. I have a big pile of reasons why I'm not voting for him, but I want to hear what the Neocons thinking is. Why should anyone vote for Bush to be re-elected. Now don't give me crappy answers trashing the opponent, or stupid arguments like "a vote for Kerry is a vote for Osama"... Please use your intelligence for once and give me one positive reason (there has to be at least one positive thing about this man :blink: ) to vote for G.W Bush. P/S [6/1/04] I said do not trash the opponent. You must have one good reason to vote Bush. Not liking the opponent is not a good reason. Tell me why you think Bush is so great! :banghead

You don't negotiate with terrorists. You don't negotiate with Al-Qaeda. Now Iraq is a whole different can of worms. This war should have never happened. But Bush did not want to use diplomacy and chose to alianate our allies. Your question is somewhat vague. You should have asked: Should we negotiate with terrorists. There are instances in which for the purpose of national security it is better to use diplomacy rather than force. Now Bin Laden.... Nuke em'!

First of all, I don't think the Democrats could be compared to that monster, but it is true that the terrorists would prefer to see a weaker president (ie Kerry) in office than a strong president in Bush. Bush has a policy against terrorism: It is going down. Kerry's policy is not the one of a leader, but of a follower. (His policy is uses the UN) Now the UN had Cuba on it's human rights council. The UN is a joke Cape.... Just a simple question JUST WHAT THE HELL HAS BUSH DONE FOR THE PEOPLE OF CUBA? I really don't understand why Cubans stick to this "I'm a Republican to death" shtick. When the Republican party by all means and standards could give a crap what happens to Cuba. You are like a little dog at the end of the table waiting to get some scraps from the masters... :mad : Kerry is "weak"? How is that? I guess going AWOL makes you a stronger, powerfull leader... :whistle

Much of this has resulted from the Bush administration's steadfast refusal to define terrorism. In the Bush lexicon, terrorism is a catch-all term for interpreting diverse conflicts, from separatist movements to paramilitary activity to arms and narcotics trafficking. The failure to define terrorism has enabled the White House to label almost anybody opposed to its policies as a terrorist organization. Groups as diverse in structure and objectives as Peru's Shining Path, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Basque Fatherland and Liberty, the Communist Party of the Philippines and Hamas are on the State Department's list of designated foreign terrorist organizations. I am a little ticked about this excerpt. First and foremost, if you haven't yet realized this by my previous posts, I am totally opposed to Bush's policies and ideology. However, I do not like to generalize the terrorist threat and downplay it. These groups mentioned, are not legitimate groups fighting for freedom. Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso), the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Basque Fatherland and Liberty, the Communist Party of the Philippines and Hamas ARE terrorist organizations. While they do not threaten Americans in any direct way, just as Al-Qaeda, these groups do threaten American interests overseas and the peace in these regions. Some people may think that is not in the interest of America to help other countries fight against their own terrorist threats, but how then do we expect them to help us in our own pursuit against terrorists who want to destroy us? Nevertheless, I must clarify that the way we are fighting this "war" on terror has been the biggest failure in the history of humanity. We've created a million more terrorists by the careless and thoughtless actions of this administration.

Change your course now This is the transcript of an actual radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations on November 10, 1995. Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision. Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision. Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course. Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course. Americans: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES' ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS, AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH, THAT'S ONE FIVE DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTER-MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP. Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call. This didn't actually happen, of course. It's just an old joke, maybe 30 or 40 years old that's been updated to 1995. The version I heard didn't even involve the Canadians. Here's the link to where it's debunked ... The Obstinate Lighthouse If you read the disclaimer in the title... It says "A Joke". Thanks for the insight though. :mischief

If anything AL Qaida would keep inactive through the elections. It's not like Kerry is captain foreign policy or Mr. Anti-terrorism. Of course he is not Mr. Anti-terrorism, that is Bush's job right now... :blink: isn't it? I love how blanket statements are thrown around about a candidate the half of you don't even now. And as for foreign policy... Please! Kerry can teach a thing or two about foreign policy to this administration. I reiterate my statement. Al-Qaeda could give a rat's ass whether John Kerry or Bush are elected. He will continue to want to kill Americans regardless of who is in power, do not make that mistake. I just happen to think that Bush can't handle the job. He is actually the best Al-Qaeda recruiting and PR agent Osama could have ever dreamed of. :thumbdown

Bin Laden, Democrat? John Ashcroft hints that Osama wants Kerry in the White House. By Timothy Noah Posted Wednesday, May 26, 2004, at 4:28 PM PT Chatterbox has no quarrel with Attorney General John Ashcroft's assertion, conveyed in a May 26 press conference, that al-Qaida would like to attack the United States sometime "this summer or fall." Al-Qaida has demonstrated a keen interest in slaughtering Americans, and according to Ashcroft, "credible intelligence from multiple sources indicates that Al Qaida plans to attempt an attack on the United States in the next few months." This administration may have a poor record interpreting data from its spy agencies, but it would be reckless in the extreme to ignore Ashcroft's analysis. (An ounce of prevention, etc.) Chatterbox further agrees with Ashcroft that the upcoming G-8 Summit in Sea Island, Ga, (June 8-10), Democratic convention in Boston (July 26-29), and Republican convention in New York (Aug. 30-Sept. 2) are all potential targets. But Chatterbox does have a wee problem with Ashcroft's not-so-subtle insinuation about what al-Qaida would hope to achieve by attacking the United States "this summer or fall," by which Ashcroft apparently means "sometime before election day." Here is what he said: The Madrid railway bombings were perceived by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida to have advanced their cause. Al Qaida may perceive that a large-scale attack in the United States this summer or fall would lead to similar consequences. It's plausible that al-Qaida was pleased (though hardly satisfied) by its apparent influence on the Spanish election three days after the bombings. Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and his Popular Party lost; Jos? Luis Rodr?guez Zapatero and his Socialist Party won; and Zapatero promptly made good on his campaign promise to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq. Anything that weakens, even symbolically, the coalition effort in Iraq, or smacks of appeasement by America's allies, is obviously bad for the United States, and anything bad for the United States is clearly good for al-Qaida. Ashcroft's supposition is that Bin Laden would like to influence our elections in the same way he influenced Spain's. What would "similar consequences" mean for the United States? Defeat for the hawkish incumbent at the polls, and an Iraq policy gone soft. Ashcroft all but said, "Osama Bin Laden wants you to vote for John Kerry." Chatterbox thought Ashcroft would show a greater aptitude for imagining the thought processes of an insane religious fanatic. Back here in the real world, it's highly doubtful that Bin Laden cares a fig about whether the American infidels elect a Democrat or a Republican as their next president. Although Kerry has been critical of Bush's Iraq policies, it's far from clear that Kerry would pull American troops out of Iraq any faster than Bush would. Both men can be counted on to maintain a keen interest in destroying al-Qaida; to paraphrase Ed Harris in the movie Apollo 13, appeasement is not an option. If Bin Laden has paid any attention at all to the Great Satan's presidential race, he has surely concluded, like George Wallace in 1968, that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the major-party candidates. But let's assume, for argument's sake, that Bin Laden really does want to influence the American election, if only to demonstrate that he can. (If you're a terrorist, maybe the number of civilians you kill eventually becomes a tedious metric, and you start looking for other ways to measure success.) If Bin Laden were truly interested in American politics, then surely he would know?or someone would tell him?that the overwhelmingly likely political result of an attack against the United States in the months leading up to Election Day would be a landslide victory for Bush. Anyone who's ever seen an American western knows that when the Commanche attack, the settlers circle the wagons and take orders from John Wayne. Hell, even Chatterbox would have to consider giving the commander-in-chief four more years in office, on the theory that you shouldn't change horses in midstream. If Bin Laden wants you to vote for anyone, it's Bush. Ashcroft obviously didn't mean to suggest that. The truth is that Bin Laden doesn't want to influence Americans. If he did, he'd hire Hill & Knowlton. Bin Laden wants to kill Americans. That's what Sept. 11 was all about. And that's why, no matter who gets elected, we will continue to hunt Bin Laden down and, in all likelihood, kill him. Bin Laden could care less about our elections. He is not even alive at this point anyway (who knows). Ashcroft really gets on my nerves! :angry:

Did anyone see that Phelps has braces???? :lol He looks like a 14 year old kid! Awesome performance, let's hope he keeps it up.

Beasty Boys?? WHere? What? who? :blink: I've got to see this!

nope...grades are at stake.... I definitely would have walked out...in fact I wish I had that class for the sole intention of walking out of that class.... It isn't that funny. Mocking one's religion is abso-f*cking-lutely hilarious IMO too. And mature too....man, this guy is mature. Have fun in America, Jr Douglass. If you walked out then you'd give him the last word. I would have said something, f*** sucking up to a teacher. I would have told him to show respect for people's beliefs, even if he disagrees with them. I would have gone into mocking him for being an atheist... "yeah professor, thank God your atheist! *rolls eyes*"

Dr. Douglas (an English professor here) is leaving Furman to go back to Canada. Apparently, the last day of classes (yesterday) all he talked about was how America sucked, and how couldn't wait to get back to Canada where it's actually a decent country. He's an atheist btw. He then decided to lead the class in a mock prayer (beginning with "Sweet Baby Jesus...") and then decided to "thank God" that he was leaving the U.S. to go back to a decent country, Canada. What a bastard. I woulda walked out. :lol That is funny though. Did any of his students protest?

i had it with those canadians that ciruclate this around like we're arrogant bastards and they're not. :lol Yeah, Canadian Bastards! Let's bomb their country too! :mischief Canadians are not cool, they're awesome. No really, this whole idea that Canadians hate Americans is absolutely not true. They actually look up to America (althought I don't know about now). French canadians are not even that bad either, although sometimes they're annoying with the whole "let's be a separate country" thing.

Change your course now This is the transcript of an actual radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations on November 10, 1995. Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision. Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision. Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course. Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course. Americans: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES' ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS, AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH, THAT'S ONE FIVE DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTER-MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP. Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

No, they put a bag on his head and put electrical wires to his fingers and genitals No, they piled them naked and introduced chemical lights on their butts. No, they have dropped bombs on civilian homes, claiming it a "collateral damage". Yes. They have been raping woman at Abu Ghraib prison and God knows where else... they tortured a child to get information out of his father. It is possible that many of the women they've raped were virgin as well. Do you know how many civilian casualties since the "war" started? We are probably competing to fill as many mass graves. We've amputated so many legs that they'll probably not be able to have a soccer team in years. hmmm... Hello! Do you think the "collateral damage" we've caused is not genocide? Oh Brother! the Republican party line... Anyone who criticizes the administration and its horrible atrocities is "Unpatriotic" or "putting our troops in danger". How about you just shut up! Mr. Daniels. Simple... None of it would have happened if Mr. Bush didn't invent this stupid war to begin with... So I blame Bush and his buddies and no one else. How about no! We do it now and expose this atrocities now before we kill, rape and torture more people. Republicans can cry all they want... Dissent is patriotism and we will never ever shut up in the face of unjustices and lies... Cry foul. Keep crying while your "War" president keeps sliding in the polls. God Bless America!

I just wonder... Why any discussion on Bush turns into a religious discussion?

Good for Him! a string of crappy movies to follow! He was funny but not as funny as Will Ferrell... SNL hasn't recovered from losing Will. They need a strong figure in there.

Hal Crowther - "With Trembling Fingers" Excerpt of Article: One problem with this referendum is that the case against George Bush is much too strong. Just to spell it out is to sound like a bitter partisan. I sit here on the 67th birthday of Saddam Hussein facing a haystack of incriminating evidence that comes almost to my armpit. What matters most, what signifies? Journalists used to look for the smoking gun, but this time we have the cannons of Waterloo, we have Gettysburg and Sevastopol, we have enough gun smoke to cause asthma in heaven. I'm overwhelmed. Maybe I should light a match to this mountain of paper and immolate myself. On the near side of my haystack, among hundreds of quotes circled and statistics underlined, just one thing leaped out at me. A quote I had underlined was from the testimony of Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials, not long before Hitler's vice-fuhrer poisoned himself in his jail cell: "It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." The last qoute is so true it gave me goosebumps... Scary.

I have wanted to read this book even before it became famous... I just never have the time. I have about a dozen books on my shelf that I bought last year and haven't read or finished yet. I like the story and it intrigued me enough to read about 40 pages while seating on a couch at Barnes & Noble. I should have bought it and add it to my pile to read. I found amusing that the Catholic church took it to heart and almost "prohibited" any catholic to read it. Is not like it is a historical representation. For God's sake it is a fiction book! But the church has nothing else to do this days than to try and deflect attention from the scandal within. Read the book... I had a hard time putting it back on the shelves... It's a grabber.

How many Bush admin member does it take..., ...to replace a light bulb? How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to replace a light bulb? The answer: SEVEN... (1) One to deny that a lightbulb needs to be replaced. (2) One to attack and question the patriotism of anyone who asks questions about the lightbulb. (3) One to blame the previous administration for the need of a new lightbulb. (4) One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of lightbulbs. (5) One to get together with Vice President Cheney and award a $1 million no-bid contract to Halliburton Industries for supplying a lightbulb. (6) One to arrange a photo-op session showing Dubya changing the lightbulb while dressed in a flight suit and wrapped in an American flag. (7) And finally one to explain to Dubya the difference between screwing a lightbulb and screwing the country.