Which John Kerry should Americans believe – the one who said, 33 years ago, that he tossed his medals or the one who has denied, at various times in the years since, that he ever did any such thing? Which one is running for president?

The problem isn't that Mr. Kerry may have performed a dramatic act in the name of principle more three decades ago. It's that his backtracking since then suggests he may not have the firmest grasp on the meaning of the word.
-The Dallas Morning News

Gonzalez for Bonds? Let's compare the stats here.

Gonzalez: .266 3HR 10RBI 6BB .333 OBP
Bonds: .512 9HR 20RBI 27BB .706 OBP

You must want Barry Bonds pretty badly if, to get him, you're willing to give up... a totally spare outfielder like Juan Gonzalez?!? Gimme a break. I wouldn't give up ANY of my current starters for Juan Gonzalez.

You want Bonds? Fine. You'll have to give up something along the lines of these to get him:
Vinny Castilla AND Miguel Tejada AND Esteban Loaiza AND Albert Pujols AND Andy Pettitte. And even if you offered me those five players for Bonds, I still probably wouldn't take it. You know why? Because all of those players would ride my bench (except Pujols). I don't need Castilla -- I have Scott Rolen. I don't need Tejada -- I have A-Rod. I have no use for any of those players, aside from Pujols and maybe Loaiza. And Pujols and Loaiza combined just aren't enough to justify trading away someone who leads the league in HRs, batting average, and on-base percentage.

Do you not understand how valuable Barry Bonds is and what ridiculous offers you've been making me in exchange for him?

I would conclude from your offers that you either take me for an idiot or understand nothing of baseball statistics.

But I'm leaning heavily towards the latter. I've made you some very fair offers (some of which I'm very glad that you rejected in retrospect), and you accuse me of wasting YOUR time! And then you turn around and offer me Juan Gonzalez in exchange for Barry Bonds!! Haha!!! Who do you think you are?

Author: [T (Jimmy)]
Editor: Kreliav
Presidential Inquiry

George W. Bush

The campaigning season has accelerated into high gear with the recent ascendancy of John Kerry as the likely Democratic candidate to run against George W. Bush. Television ads have begun airing especially early, with both candidates employing negative ad campaigns against the other. Notably, the ads do not provide any reason to vote for a particular candidate, but rather reasons not to vote for one of them. Yet, what the voting public needs, first and foremost, is a reason to vote for one of them. Which of the two would be the most ideal candidate to vote for and why? These are the primary questions on voters’ minds.

My group members and I have elected to research the background of the incumbent George W. Bush in order to determine whether or not the current president should be reelected. Our extensive research covers multiple facets of his life, from his high school days as a cheerleader to his present tenure as the president.

In evaluating the capability of President Bush to effectively serve as President a second time, it is helpful to know something of his background. He was born on July 6th, 1947, to George and Barbra Bush. He grew up with three brothers and two sisters, one of whom died of leukemia in 1953. He comes from a family with a highly prestigious political background. His brother, Jeb Bush, is the current governor of Florida, while his better-known father was the forty-first president of the United States.

He received some of the finest education the country has to offer. He earned his bachelor’s degree in history at Yale University. After graduating from Yale, he served in the Texas Air National Guard. He was quickly promoted to second lieutenant for his exceptional leadership skills. Following his service in the Guard, he returned to school to earn his MBA, again at an Ivy League school, Harvard. From this brief biographical sketch, we can conclude that President Bush is exceptionally educated and that his lifetime spent amidst such a politically prominent family has left him with an intricate knowledge of the inner workings of the political scene on both the local and federal levels of government.

Let us not forget, of course, that George W. Bush is the current president. Aside from his unfinished tenure as president, his experience comes primarily from his six years in which he served as governor of Texas.

It is my personal opinion that it is preferable for a president to have as much experience as possible before becoming president. Nevertheless, I believe President Bush’s experience leaves him very nicely qualified to serve another term.

The remainder of this essay will primarily consist of my personal opinions. I
have grown up in a very conservative family. My parents very often vote for republican candidates. Now that I am of age, I am registered to vote; however I am not registered as a republican. It must be conceded that I do many biases towards the conservative mindset. Yet, I still carry my own personal beliefs drawn from my own experience.

President Bush, because of his republican and conservative mindset, is pro-life and supports a constitutional ban on gay marriage. I support his position. It is my personal belief that it is wrong to kill an unborn child. I believe that life starts at conception. I would also contend that marriage is best left between one man and one woman. Many in society believe that this mindset of values stems from the Christian religion. I agree with that perception, but I believe that these values are, more generally, moral and ethical views that society should respect, religion aside. Few democrats, if any, support pro-life positions or a constitutional ban on gay marriage. For that reason, Bush’s positions on these issues are, in my view, assets that set him apart. I strongly support Bush's stance on these two contentious issues; and I believe that he is doing the right thing.

President Bush holds fast to conservative positions when it comes to guns and the death penalty. He supports the death penalty. Likewise, I am for the death penalty but only if
the punishment fits the crime. I believe it should be reserved for extreme cases of heinous crimes. Additionally, President Bush is for minimal gun control. I believe that gun control can be a positive restraint, but that too much of it would restrict our rights excessively. Similar and likeminded positions are held by few democrats; and so it is my opinion that President Bush’s stances on these issues render him the preferable candidate as far as these issues are concerned.

Bush is perhaps most criticized for his stance on the environment. Though he has many programs to lower emissions, create clear skies, preserve forests, and conserve farmland, many people believe these efforts are insufficient. I believe more can be done to help the
environment but that it would require more money that we do not currently have. The environment is something that is important and should not be overlooked. However, I believe that it ought not be a top priority. Rather, it is my opinion that we would do better to first insure our national security before we create an ideal environment.

After the tragic day of 9/11, Bush took forceful action. He developed a Homeland Security Department which strengthened security to prevent terrorist acts from happening
again. Security efforts have been intensified all across the country; from sporting events to our seaports. I believe he reacted very appropriately to the events of the most tragic day in our history. His instincts and leadership skills are the sorts of characteristics we need in a president at this time. Along with making America safer at home, he declared war on terrorism abroad. Since that time, American troops have liberated Iraq and Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein has been captured; and now they are now in the process of setting up a democracy at the heart of the Arab world; and all this without the support of the United Nations. President Bush’s actions have shown the world the great strength of America’s military and the great moral fiber and backbone of the American people. Under the leadership of President Bush, America stood alone at the side of the Iraqi people as the world tried to abandon them to the continued rule of a mass murderer. Though these actions were controversial, the American people supported them. I believe that Bush did the right thing in liberating Iraq.

Bush has also increased funding for U.S. intelligence agencies and defenses. He has proposed an extra two to three billion dollars be diverted to strengthen the FBI and other intelligence agencies. His budget also provides nine billion dollars to be spent on defense of long-range ballistic missiles. Additionally, he plans on deploying new missile interceptors within the next two years. Bush has been endlessly criticized for the amount of money he is spending on defense. Indeed, it seems that he will drag the democratic minority kicking and screaming to the defense of America. I find the criticism to be, if anything, hypocritical in the wake of all the bickering that Bush was not sufficiently strong on defense when he failed to stop the 9/11 attacks. I believe Bush's plans are money well spent and that our nation’s security is best left in the hands of someone like President Bush who will make it a top priority.

It is my opinion that President Bush's stance on the economy has its strengths and its weaknesses. I am in favor of his tax cuts. I am currently enrolled in Macroeconomics. One of the things we have learned is that cutting taxes helps the economy to grow. So it is pretty obvious to me that his tax cuts are good for our rebounding economy. Bush is also in favor of free trade. This is something on which I do not support him. I believe free trade hurts the economy and ultimately accomplishes little except to effectively ship American jobs to other nations.

President Bush recognizes the need for changes in Social Security because of the looming retirement of a highly populous baby boomer generation. He is planning to do several things to help Social Security. He intends to give 401k participants the choice of where they want to invest their retirement savings, and also to give individuals the choice of investing a portion of their Social Security taxes. Bush signed a law to allow for "catch up" contributions for women who have taken time off work to care for their families. In my opinion, this is an important issue to recognize now that the number of women in the work force has significantly increased, many of whom still need to take maternity leave.

Ultimately, though I do not support Bush on his free trade policies I believe he is doing many positive things for the economy. I believe his tax cuts will significantly strengthen our economy and that his Social Security changes will make possible financially secure retirements for the coming generation.

No Child Left Behind is a plan primarily intended to increase overall student performance and close the gap between rich and poor children. This is a plan developed by the Bush administration to improve our public education system. No Child Left Behind was signed into law on January 8, 2001. I believe this is a good program. The plan promotes the improvement of our public schools and looks to better the achievement prospects for poor and rich children.

There are five principal objectives to this plan. The first objective is to provide for early learning so that young children have the necessary resources to begin learning math and to read. The second objective is to measure and closely track each student's performance with tests. Every student will be required to take a test each year between third and eighth grade and once in high school. The third focus is to better inform parents on their child's performance. It calls for detailed report cards detailing the reasons for their child’s current performance, regardless of whether that performance is good or bad. The fourth objective is to provide other alternatives to simply allowing a student to fail. Instead of failing a student, the No Child Left Behind plan will provide free tutoring and various after-school activities to improve student education. Finally, President Bush wants to provide more resources. He has increased federal funding for schools by 59.8% from 2000 to 2003. President Bush's education law is the first of its kind. I think it is a very good law and is a law that promotes long needed changes in our public education system. I believe our public schools have left much to be desired in performance and in quality. Providing education is a very essential of our society, and I believe President Bush is doing the right thing by raising the quality of our children's education.

I believe Bush's health care plan is one his main assets that set him apart from his democratic challenger. The democrats are very concerned with making health care and prescription drugs extremely inexpensive or even free. That is something that is very easy to support, but the economic consequences would outweigh the benefits. Drugs will not become free just because we want them to be. There are many countries, such as Canada and multiple European countries that have such health care plans that are very cheap or require no payment at all. It sounds wonderful and many believe it is the solution
but it is really not what it seems. There are too many adverse economic effects that result from that kind of health care plan. Presently, American companies are the only pharmaceutical companies that can afford to develop new drugs. If America were to switch to free health care, American medicine would not be able to stay on the cutting edge of technology. Medical research to discover new cures would become economically unfeasible and it would disappear. The pharmaceutical industry would not be the only one to suffer as a result. Doctor's salaries would become minimal and the cost of tuition for medical school would not decrease proportionally. When the two are added together, it is easy to see that this would render all the hard work necessary to become a doctor very undesirable. The medical profession would become an exceedingly unrewarding one. Today, many European countries have waiting lists for surgery up to two years long. A health care system that forces its patients to wait two years to receive surgery they urgently need is nothing less than an unmitigated fiasco.

Contrast this with President Bush's health care plan, which does not take the money out of the medical industry; but instead helps patients to pay for the costs to make health care more affordable. His plan promotes the development of new treatments and technologies to keep patients healthy while still making health care more affordable. I believe it vital that President Bush's plan be implemented so that the medical industry continues to advance and still remains efficient.

In conclusion, President Bush is solid republican candidate with principled conservative positions on such issues as abortion, gay marriage, gun control and the death penalty. I believe his views are strong and that he supports the right causes. His leadership skills and instinctive ability to take forceful action to protect the security of the United States are admirable attributes that any nation would be lucky to have in a commander in chief. There are many other good reasons to vote for Bush, including his tax cuts that continue to strengthen our rebounding economy, his dramatic improvements in public education, and his health care plan that encourages the development of new treatments.

Everyone should vote based on the principles they hold and the candidate that best reflects their values. If citizens want this nation to continue to be the great nation that it always been – the last, best hope of the world – they need not look past the current incumbent in the White House to lead America down that path. I believe Bush is doing the right things to make our country great and that he will continue to do so if he is reelected.

Mr. Sharon suspends all elections and plans a decade of unquestioned rule.

[when] Mr. Sharon suspends all investigation about fiscal impropriety as his family members spend millions of Israeli aid money in Paris.

All Israeli television and newspapers are censored by the Likud party.
Israeli hit teams enter the West Bank with the precise intention of targeting and blowing up Arab women and children.

Preteen Israeli children are apprehended with bombs under their shirts on their way to the West Bank to murder Palestinian families.

Israeli crowds rush into the street to dip their hands into the blood of their dead and march en masse chanting mass murder to the Palestinians.

Rabbis give public sermons in which they characterize Palestinians as the children of pigs and monkeys.

Israeli school textbooks state that Arabs engage in blood sacrifice and ritual murders.

Mainstream Israeli politicians, without public rebuke, call for the destruction of Palestinians on the West Bank and the end to Arab society there.

Likud party members routinely lynch and execute their opponents without trial.

Jewish fundamentalists execute with impunity women found guilty of adultery on grounds that they are impugning the “honor” of the family.

Israeli mobs with impunity tear apart Palestinian policemen held in detention.

Israeli television broadcasts—to the tune of patriotic music—the last taped messages of Jewish suicide bombers who have slaughtered dozens of Arabs.

Jewish marchers parade in the streets with their children dressed up as suicide bombers, replete with plastic suicide-bombing vests.

New Yorkers post $25,000 bounties for every Palestinian blown up by Israeli murderers.

Israeli militants murder a Jew by accident and then apologize on grounds that they though he was an Arab—to the silence of Israeli society.

Jews enter Arab villages in Israel to machine gun women and children.

Israeli public figures routinely threaten the United States with terror attacks.

Bin Laden is a folk hero in Tel Aviv.

Jewish assassins murder American diplomats and are given de facto sanctuary by Israeli society.

Israeli citizens celebrate on news that 3,000 Americans have been murdered.

Israeli citizens express support for Saddam Hussein’s supporters in Iraq in their efforts to kill Americans.

Our other great weakness — remember we are looking at ourselves through the eyes of the terror masters, not passing judgment — is respect for individual human beings, and a great reluctance to take military action that will likely kill innocent civilians, especially women and children. A couple of weeks ago, an Italian general who commands the national peacekeeping force in Nassiriyah told journalists about the enemy's method of fighting. First they launch a surprise attack. The Italians take some initial casualties and fight back, gradually gaining the upper hand. At that point, small children start walking toward the Italian positions, followed by women draped in black. The Italians stop shooting. The terrorists regroup. The women and children go away. The terrorists start shooting again.

Marine sharpshooters are reporting that when enemy fighters move through the streets of Fallujah, they drag women and children in front of them, so that if the Marines shoot, they will likely kill the innocents.

This tactic goes back a long way. Once the terrorists realized that we (and the Israelis) would balk at attacking targets that contained innocent civilians, they took care to locate themselves in such areas. In the Eighties, for example, most every time Hezbollah attacked us, its leaders quickly repaired to villages and neighborhoods with lots of hospitals, churches, mosques, and schools. That was an effective deterrent. Both we and the Israelis made the painful decision to accept higher casualties on our side, in order to prevent killing women, children, nurses, priests, and other noncombatants.

The terrorists hate that, and they do everything in their power to make the world believe that we are like them, that we lie, that we kill indiscriminately, that we do not care about innocent lives. Thus, in recent weeks, reports attributed to sources in Fallujah hospitals have spoken of huge numbers of women and children shot in the head by U.S. Marines (one particularly imaginative version had it that Fallujah doctors were digging out bullets from the brains of the victims in order to prove our criminal acts. That one was racing around the web for a while, until some militarily unchallenged bloggers noted that our ammunition would go right through the heads, and wouldn't be stopped by brain tissue).

"[T]he difference between American power... and Arab-Muslim power today is what we've each been doing for these past eighty years. We and others have been trying to answer many questions: How do we best educate our kids? How do we increase our trade? How do we build an industrial base? How do we increase political participation? And we judged our leaders on how well they answered those questions. But people like [bin Laden] want all Arabs and Muslims to ask only one question of their leaders: How well did you fight the infidels and Israelis?"
--Thomas Friedman

Owens' story is one of a high-profile sports star making a statement that transcended athletics, spilling over into the world of global politics. Berlin, on the verge of World War II, was bristling with Nazism, red-and-black swastikas flying everywhere. Brown-shirted Storm Troopers goose-stepped while Adolf Hitler postured, harangued, threatened. A montage of evil was played over the chillingly familiar Nazi anthem: "Deutschland Uber Alles."

This was the background for the 1936 Olympics. When Owens finished competing, the African-American son of a sharecropper and the grandson of slaves had single-handedly crushed Hitler's myth of Aryan supremacy.

He gave four virtuoso performances, winning gold medals in the 100- and 200- meter dashes, the long jump and on America's 4x100 relay team. Score it: Owens 4, Hitler 0.

As the orchestra played "The Games Are Ended," the crowd joined in the emotional farewell of the athletes, who rocked in time to the music. There were isolated shouts of "Sieg Heil!" for Hitler, who had been given no role at all in the final exercises. Others took up the cry and soon the whole stadium reverberated with the chant, "Sieg Heil! Unser Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, Sieg Heil!"

The games had been an almost unqualified Nazi triumph. Germans had won the most gold medals (33), as well as the most silver and bronze... More important, many of the visitors left Germany pleased by their hosts' cordiality and impressed by what they had seen of Hitler's Reich.

A college professor, an avowed atheist, was teaching his class. He shocked several of his students when he flatly stated he was going to prove that there was no God. Addressing the ceiling he shouted, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you fifteen minutes!"

The lecture room fell silent. You could have heard a pin fall. Ten minutes went by. Again he taunted God, saying, "Here I am, God. I'm still waiting."

His countdown drew down to the last couple of minutes when a marine - just released from active duty and newly registered in the class - walked up to the professor, hit him full force in the face, and sent him tumbling from his lofty platform. The professor was out cold!

At first, the students were shocked and babbled in confusion. The young marine took a seat in the front row and sat silently. The class fell silent... waiting. Eventually, the professor came to, shaken. He looked at the young marine in the front row. When the professor regained his senses and could speak, he asked, "What's the matter with you? Why did you do that?"

"God was busy. He sent me."

For a year or so now, I've woken up to a ton of e-mails each morning with the subject marked BUSH LIED! -- or, to be more precise, BUSH LIED!!!!!!! I'm not one who thinks it helpful to characterize a policy difference as a ''lie.'' So, when John Kerry says he supports the Kyoto Treaty even though he voted for a bill that declared the United States would never ever ratify it, that doesn't mean he's a ''liar,'' it just means that, well, to be honest, I haven't a clue what it means, you better to take it up with him, now he's out of the hospital after his elective surgery. ''Elective surgery" means you vote to have the operation, and then spend the next year insisting you've always been strongly opposed to the operation.

"First of all, it [Catholicism] is an unchristian religion! And the second thing is that Roman Catholicism is even worse than out-and-out atheism, that's how I see it! Yes, that's how I see it! Atheism just preaches negation, but Catholicism goes further than that: it preaches a distorted Christ, traduced and abused by itself, the opposite of Christ! It preaches the Antichrist, I swear it, I can assure you of that. It is my own long-held conviction and it has indeed tormented me... Roman Catholicism believes that without universal temporal dominion, the Church cannot survive on earth... In my opinion, Roman Catholicism is not even a faith, it's a continuation of the Western Roman Empire, and everything in it is subordinate to that idea beginning with their faith. The pope seized the earth, an earthly throne, and took up the sword; since that time everything has gone the same way, except that to the sword they've added lies, intrigue, deceit, fanaticism, superstition, and evil-doing. They have trifled with the most sacred, truthful, innocent, and ardent emotions of the people and bartered them all, all of them, for money and paltry temporal power. Is not this the teaching of Antichrist? Atheism was bound to come from them! Atheism did come from them, from Roman Catholicism itself! Atheism first came into being through them: could they believe in themselves?"
--From The Idiot, Fyodor Dostoevsky