muddysmind.com

"So, I am not necessarily a wholehearted Bush supporter. But I am a pragmatist. If there were another pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-Christian-ethics candidate out there, I'd certainly study him closely as a possible replacement for Bush – especially if he were well-liked domestically and internationally. But then if he had all of those qualities, he would also be the target of a hostile media dedicated to his political defeat."

I couldnt agree more.

John McCain for pres!

haha bennyhill1978 you are about right. I'm thinking of writing in Oliver North for president.

John McCain? Eww, not a big fan of his. Oliver North however... I like him!

Ollie's cool. In a way, I would love to see Rumsfeld as pres. He cracks me up....and pretty much says what he thinks - to a degree.

Rumsfield would be a hoot to watch w/ the press haha!

i honestly dont know how people could support george w. bush. i also dont know why people shoot heroin, but its there choice to do so.

i hate to inform you all that george w. wont be reelected.

he has finally run into someone who is not afraid of telling the truth about him, and that is howard stern.

i know a guy that lives in south ohio who was pro bush, pro war and belived everything bush did was fine and he was getting a bad rap by "liberals".

i used to argue back and forth with him but he just couldnt see the light.

well, this guy was a stern fan. for the last month howard stern has been saying the things ive have for over the last year, now its just not some anti-american liberal cook on the internet. its a man with 20 million listeners.

howard stern is the turning point in this election. someone with more listeners than rush limbaugh and all the other idiots on am combined. someone who is not afraid to be called anti american or a liberal. unlike the cowardly democrats that are too afraid to tell the truth about bush and his record because of the right wing attack squad, howard is preaching to the newly converted.

Why support Bush? Simple really: a candidate who thinks terrorism is a law enforcement problem vs. one who thinks it is a military problem, a candidate who believes in punishing achievement to award non-achievement vs one who believes in rewarding achievement.

Why don't you have a look at Kerry's record? I've yet to hear Bush lie about his, but I hear Kerry do it quite frequently. I also see Kerry flip flop from day to day on issues. Sounds like a real leader to me. Sorry, but to think Howard Stern can single handedly influence an election is fairly naive.

Right wing attack squad? Hah! You might want to do some research. There is alot more evidence of liberal bias in the "un-biased" media han there is of a conservative bias. Talk radio btw, is not unbiased media, it's a medium that screams it bias at the top of its lungs, so don't even try that argument with me.

Well, I was going to respond here but, not only did Skywalker beat me to it but he said it better than how *I* was going to put it anyway - so I'll just echo what he said. However, there is one thing I *would* like to add....

"i know a guy that lives in south ohio..."

Ohio, huh? Well, now we know this guys FIRST problem :-)

Ok, ok, - cheap shot - I know I don't know this guy from Adam so I'll be fair. You said that he *was* a stern fan....is he still one? Does he think now that Bush is a "bad guy" now just because Stern "says so"?

If you answer yes to all of the above then all I can say about him - and all of the other 20million plus listeners - is that it's just so sad to see people continuing to believe something just because someone (and I'm not just talking about Stern here but *anyone* else like politicians, the media, religious leaders....) *tells* them to. Yeah, *that's* using your own brain power wisely - handing it off to the next guy so he can do your thinking for you. But, I guess that's partly America for you...always being led by the nose by their latest "hero".

anyone listening to stern has mental issues to begin with, let alone taking his squaking as the gospel truth. I have problems with Bush, no question about it. However Skywalker is right, Kerry is saying WHATEVER it takes to get people to believe him. I'd sooner vote for Clinton than Kerry, at least we knew what we were getting with that s.o.b.

"I'd sooner vote for Clinton than Kerry, at least we knew what we were getting with that s.o.b."

LOL! Wow....quite an interresting point there, babe:-D

what has kerry been saying to get people to belive him? isnt that what politics is about?

list the specifics. the trully funny thing about your statment is if you interchanged "bush" for "kerry" you would be here yapping about what a success bush is and how hes so honest and genuine.

i guess you belive the revolving door of excuses bush comes up with to justify iraq or his bad record on jobs [worst since hoover] .

[btw take a look at this paul krugman article]
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/8221824.htm?1c

i find it ironic you would say you dont like people taking things as truth from, "politicians, the media, religious leaders....) *tells* them to"

that could of fooled me since i read articles and opinion pieces on this site all the time from the right wing writers. many of you see those things from the heritage foundation and AEI as the new gospel from luke. or should i say the NEO gospel.

I can think of one fine example recently. A Boston Globe article quoted Kerry as saying he had the support of foreign leaders who he said told him they wanted him to beat Bush. When asked who these leaders were, his response was litterally "None of your business." The Boston Globe reporter later said he missed transcribed a tape of the comments and Kerry said nothing of the sort. This means either A) the reporter from a fairly liberal newspaper (which I read from time to time) is lying to make Kerry look bad or B)Kerry latched onto a reporter's mistake to make himself look good. When a foreign leader did come out and say he wanted to endorse and support Kerry, he ran like the wind saying how improper it was to accept a foreign endorsement. Why? Turns out the leader is an avowed anti-Semite.

Let's not forget Kerry's lovely little use of his 4 months in Vietnam (for which I am glad he served with valor.) But then when people attack his voting record in defense spending (which is HIDEOUS) he claims it to be an attack on his patriotism and his service record.

I've no problem with Bush' list of reasons for going into Iraq. I was mad when Clinton stopped at bombing Baghdad in 1998, I thought he should have gone in then. I have a list of reasons: rape, torture, murder, mass graves, a missing US pilot (who will unfortunately probably never be found) their firing on our aircraft almost daily, their violation of UN resolutions (this reasons' being ignored is more proof the worthlessness of the UN but that's another issue) their failure to abide by the cease fire agreement of 1991, the fact that al-quaeda WAS/IS in Iraq.)

Hey, if I could plainly see Bush lying daily and Kerry doing something right, I'd support Kerry. In fact, I would have voted for Lieberman if he had been nominated. I'm not a Republican. I'd make cwilli and muddy shake in their boots if I told them some of my politics. But right now I think national defense is the single most important issue we have. Personally, I never read anything from the Heritage Foundation, though I sometimes hear about their articles second hand. AEI, don't ever know what that is.

I'm frankly not worried about what politics is about. I'm worried about leadership. Kerry is not leader. He sounds like a coward to be honest. He can't even take an issue and stick to it. I liked that about Dean, he was HONEST. Scared the daylights out of me, but he was honest.

BTW, bad record on jobs? As an economics professor once told me "The economy can no more be controlled by the president than I can." Not to mention that we actually have had a net gain of jobs in the alst 4 years especially when you count ht enumber of people who've become self-employeed. Let's not forget that the recession, which caused the loss of so many jobs, started in 2001, when Bush had barely been in office. Sorry, to blame him for an economic cycle that had to happened eventually, which everyone but apparently every liberal in this country, saw coming before he'd even won the election, is stupid. The only thing the president can really do to help or hurt the economy is ask congress to raise or lower taxes.

I take nothing I read or hear but for a grain of salt uless I can verify it elsewhere or it is consistent with what I already know to be true. So think about that if you want to incenuate things with phrases like "NEO gospel," I got 2 less than nice words to respond to you for that piece of innuendo, but I'll keep it to myself.

"what has kerry been saying to get people to belive him?....list the specifics."

Well, once again, looks like Skywalker beat me to the punch (stop that! :-) )and basically covered it. But (once again) I will add my say because - well... I can:

One of the main ones that *really* gets me is the one where Kerry has accused Bush before of basically having a lack of intellegence for invading Iraq. Kerry was one of the ones who voted to pass the bill that cut the budget *on* our intellegence. So, *IF* we lacked anything in our intellegence....there's a good chance that budget cut was somewhat to blame. Yet Kerry blames someone else to make it look better for him.

"the trully funny thing about your statment is if you interchanged "bush" for "kerry" you would be here yapping about what a success bush is and how hes so honest and genuine."

You mean if Bush was the Democrate and Kerry the Republican? Wow! Try again. *That* show's how much you don't know me. That would only occurr in the case of someone being truely bias towards a specific party....and Muddy and I (for 2) are neither democrate *or* republican (though ironically, muddy has accused me of being somewhat liberal at times...LOL! Not likley - though it does always depend on who you talk to.)

"i guess you belive the revolving door of excuses bush comes up with to justify iraq or his bad record on jobs"

Actually, I don't listen much to his "excusses". However, *my* reasons for us to be there were/are to liberate the people from a horrible monster, to reveal his ties to terrorism, to find the WMD's (which hasn't been proven to exist one way or the other as of yet), and to put an end to Saddam's growing threat to not only his own people but to the rest of the world.

As far as his "job" record goes...thousands of people were laid off from Enron, World com. because of the crooked dealings of their CEO's. That had nothing to do with Bush. Not to mention all the other companies that were affected by those companies and had to let some of their *own* people go. Also, the effects of 9-11 couldn't have done much to help out in that aspect either. No, I do not have the "facts" for that one. I'm just going on my assumptions. Has Bush done much to help with job loss? Maybe, maybe not. I honest to God really don't know.

"i find it ironic you would say you dont like people taking things as truth from, "politicians, the media, religious leaders....) *tells* them to"

that could of fooled me since i read articles and opinion pieces on this site all the time from the right wing writers. many of you see those things from the heritage foundation and AEI as the new gospel from luke. or should i say the NEO gospel."

If someone's views, philosophies and politics just *happen* to fall under a certain person (including your precious Howard Stern), group, or organizations way of thinking...then that's ONE thing. But to just *believe* in something Just because they say "you must"...that's different AND *that's* what I was talking about.

Besides, I don't even know *who* the "AEI" is. If *I* personally agree with an article from these organizations then I'm just agreeing with the actual *article* itself. I do NOT (that I can remember) do research on the person that actually *wrote* the article (though their names may sound familiar to me) and therefore, it does NOT mean that I agree with EVERYTHING that a specific organization (or the person for that matter) fully stands for - as I do NOT do research on what that organization believes as a "whole" nor at this momment in time, is it important to me.

AND while we're on the subject....*I* do not take ANYTHING as "the *new* gospel from luke" unless it is from the *actual* gospel of Luke.