Jeblackstar,

You don't have to believe me, but if you know a "shrink" who teaches Anger Management, ask him. Since you are with academia there must be a "shrink", the PhD type near you. Then let me know what he says.

Studies have shown that man, unless he is mentally unbalance has complete control of himself. I haven't tried yet but maybe there is such a thing in WebMD or some health urls.

It's really hard to believe because of what happened to tobacco suits, but I am sold on it. I'll research this and let's compare notes.

aconservative

I fail to see your point. You're over simplifying. Of course who your vote for is your decision, and people have reasons for their decisions. It would be more accurate to say "I voted for because I hate Bush and I think would do a better job." This doesn't just apply to Kerry. I don't like Bush's job performance, but I also didn't vote for Kerry.

As for your rant about making choices based on emotion, that's a two way street. Depending on your beliefs a President's decisions will either make you happy, or they will anger you. It seems to me that you're trying to say that the only valid emotional response is a positive one. People have a right to get angry OR happy. Maybe the husband actually DID something supid or assinine that's worthy of the wife's anger. Is the wife just supposed to smile and take it all the time? If he's abusing her, is she supposed smile and shrug it off? Are democrats/liberals just supposed to say "I think Bush has been a horrible President, but I'm just going to happy anyway"? I DON'T think so.

And I don't believe that bull about people being poor or homeless SOLELY because of irresponsability. People become poor/homeless for many many reasons, and to say that it's all because they were irresponsable is oversimplification again. Yes, SOME of it is bad choices and irresponsability (which I would NEVER defend...bad choices are bad choice)...but not ALL of it.

BTW.... how the hell do you quote on this thing? Somebody enlighten me please.

No kidding, have you watched the democratic debates? Kerry and Edwards were the most comprehensible men at the table, but Kerry was clear, consise, and somthing Bush has a problem with, comprehensible.

The jokes you see about Bush on the Tonight Show and SNL might be funny, but they are rarely based in fact.

Conservatives in the 20th century are routinely portrayed as stupid, uneducated, bumbling fools. Reagan was supposedly an idiot, but after clobbering democrats at the polls, he was somehow able to push a congress that was against him a majority of the time to pass his legislative ideas on a routine basis.

Bush has taken just about every debate away from the democrats in Congress; so much so that they only things they have had left to complain about is WMDs and gay marriage. Yet they make him out to be a dumb Texan who can't add or subtract. All this, and Bush's approval numbers have routinely run MUCH higher than the last democrat in the oval office who's poll numbers were enhanced by sex appeal.

After all of this, it must hurt A LOT MORE for democratic party supporters to continue to take a beating in debate and at the polls by some one as "stupid" as Bush. I guess that is a good enough reason as any to quickly jump on board the boat of the first person who comes along that can get Bush out of office, no matter what the believe.

Disliking George Bush is a very good reason to vote for anybody else. The real question is why do you dislike bush so mush? Is it because he has no real domestic policy. maybe because he has weakened virtually every evironmental law on the books. Or it could be because his poor international policy had angered virually everyone of our allies except England. Maybe its because the people really resposible for 911 go unpunished. I mean yes we went to war but we picked the wrong people. Does everyone forget the BinLaden is a Saudi citizen and that all of the Hijackers were Saudi Citizens. Yet nothing has been done to Saudi Arabia. I could go on but I wont.

The jokes you see about Bush on the Tonight Show and SNL might be funny, but they are rarely based in fact.

http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/

Conservatives in the 20th century are routinely portrayed as stupid, uneducated, bumbling fools.

Uneducated, no. Their fathers get them into good colleges.

Bush has taken just about every debate away from the democrats in Congress

Not difficult when your party controls the House and sometimes the Senate.

All this, and Bush's approval numbers have routinely run MUCH higher than the last democrat in the oval office who's poll numbers were enhanced by sex appeal.

Misleading. They were sky-high immediately after September 11 and immediately upon the dawn of war in Iraq. In between those two events, and since the second one, they decline steadily. Clinton had no problem getting reelected; Bush has a contest on his hands.

After all of this, it must hurt A LOT MORE for democratic party supporters to continue to take a beating in debate and at the polls by some one as "stupid" as Bush.

In polls, yes. In debate, no. Bush speaking off the cuff is a joy for Democrats to behold. Bush winning polls weakens my already shaky faith that the average person knows the right thing to do.

I guess that is a good enough reason as any to quickly jump on board the boat of the first person who comes along that can get Bush out of office, no matter what the believe.

I agree. Bush must go.

Again, I'm glad bulbous beat me to the punch. Everything he says is right on.

Cheers

Alright guys on Kerry Side!

I have not seen one comment that explains how Kerry will be a better President than Bush. Let's take Homeland Security or Iraq or select your subject. Explain to us how Kerry would be better in action rather than - he said so. Remember you are hiring this guy to be the President. You are a member of the board of governors who choose. Give some facts that had convince you to vote for him.

If you have access to the New York Times (March 6, 2004), the number one (numero uno) liberal newspaper in the country, they have an article titled "Kerry's Shifts: Nuanced Ideas or Flip-Flops?" by By DAVID M. HALBFINGER.

I used the term "flip flop" in my original article. Perhaps you should write to Kerry and ask him what this is all about. And if they wouldn't tell you, write to the Republican National Committee and they will send examples of how Kerry "flipfloped" 30 times. They called the report "Kerry vs Kerry".

Chao!

aconservative

First off, it's spelled Ciao, I think your little diatribes ares some of the best examples of uneducated conservative ranting that I have ever had the privelige to read on this or any other political website.

But to your point. What would Kerry do better? If you haven't seen things we "liberals" have written then clearly you haven't been reading are responses in this and other blogs. If you had, you would know what we think Kerry would do better. He would eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy, therefore allowing funding to occur for a democratic transition in Iraq and continuing the national defense against terror, he would eliinate those sections of the Patriot act which limit certain American Civil Liberties, he would cut out corporate loopholes allowing them to dodge taxes and destroy smaller competition.

Oh, and he wouldn't propose some lame ass amendment on "protecting the sanctity of marriage." The last thing I need is the US government sticking it's nose into something like that. The best way I can protect the sanctity of my marriage is to love my wife and be faithful to her. If you conservatives are so threatened by a group of people who love their partner more than you love yours, then perhaps you deserve to have your marriage "destroyed".

Cheers

I voted for Kerry because it turns out that I'm still a Democrat. I should fix that soon.

jeblackstart

Promises and "I think will" are not the same as accomplishments. In simple terms "what kerry did" and not "what kerry will do." Would you hire a man because "you think" that he is good and prmised that he can do the job?

Every thinking person would hire a man because of his accomplishments.

Tell me what your man did to benefit you personally when he came back from Vietnam and his years in the Senate?

And you believed a "flip-flopping" senator?

aconservative

Actually, yes, I would fire someone who was demostratively incompetent, and I would hire someone new because I thought they would do a better job, that's exactly how you hire people.

As for what he did to benefit me, I think the more important thing is what he did to benefit America. And, since what I see benefiting America is different than what you see as benefiting America, there's really no point in continuing this conversation.

Cheers

Hiring another person because you think he would do a better job is the a core belief when you hate somebody applying for the job. Could it be that Bush is against the principles of the Democratic Party? Principles like obey the law if it is for you and disobey the law if it is against you. Use your basic rights to circumvent the law. You want examples?

Of course you see something else that Kerry did benefiting all Americans that no one else can see because there is "NONE". Don't give up get your friends to help you. There must be at least one - like testifying before the congress in 1971? Or did he say something - then next time contradicts what he said?

That's why any sane American should vote for him!

Am I wrong?

aconservative

Yes

Cheers

I like Kerry because of his policies for energy, the environment, education, and national service. I also like his record of service to his country.

I do not think the arguments that Kerry has flip-flopped during his 19 year voting record are valid. I think it reflects the fact that the world is a complicated and dynamic technicolor place. Bush's record seems to show that he sees the world in black and white, and quite frankly, that's dangerous.

Hi Robert!

Welcome.

You used the word "policies". Are you referring to "what he had done" or "what he is thinking" or "what he is telling the people to get elected"? Or you like Kerry because somebody convinced you that he is a likable candidate.

If the world is complicated, would you say things that you contradict when the weather is fine? People, especially those seeking for power, must show that they can be trusted. I don't think you can trust anybody who can not trust what he tells you? Do you?

I think every sane person thinks that there is always the good and there is always the bad. But a person says something today and contradicts himself the next day, don't you not think that this person has two or more personalities?

When we elect a President, we are electing a decision maker - one that adheres to his convictions. If he does something, he believes that - that something is for the good of all Americans. Not all may agree - liberal won't agree, but in his conviction he made the right decision. That's the trait of a decision maker - especially if he wants to be a Commander-in-Chief.

aconservative