she might.... but i wonder if its good stuff????

no that would require someone ****ing that *****.

EVERYONE LIKES TO CRY HOW BAD AMARICA IS BUT I JUST DONT UNDERSTAND WHY
ALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE STILL HERE. IF ITS SO BAD THEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT
IT DONT TRY TO MAKE A NAME FOR YOUR SELF COMEING TO A WEB SITE AND
SINGING THE BLUES. GET OUT THERE RUN FOR OFFICE, DO SOMETHING, WE DONT
WANT HERE ALL THAT CRUDE THAT AMARICA IS SO BAD. TRY STARTING YOUR OWN
COUNTRY, MOVE TO POLAND, IRAN LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE A STRONG LEADER YOU
MIGHT LIKE IT THERE, IN ANY EVENT AMARICA IS NOT BAD AND FOR ANYONE TO
SAY IT IS OUGHT TO BE THROWN OUT BY IMMIGRATION, YEP THATS WAT THEY
SHOULD DO.

I guess they were right that our educational system needed improvement
especially in the reading dept.

George Bush Jr.

anyone who thinks their opinion can define a "good" or "bad" american

'*****willow',

You're a 'diamond in the rough' !!!

"Sheep"
BAaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!

a bad american is someone who will vote to elect their president and
then turn on the president and refuse to obeyhis orders when given.

kooldude - RIGHT ON MAN! That ***** should be sentance to taking
lessons in being a faghag - ha! (sorry, just my personal opinion,) Hey,
I can get down too?

Shadow - way too awesome as usual. You can be so impressive, I actually
have to print some of your posts to read them. Love it.

Daniel, when I was in the Army, they taught us that if an Officer gave
an order that you knew was immoral and you carried it out then you were
just as quilty as the officer.
Isnt the president an Officer, giving that he is The Commander and
Chief?

Oh my.

Bad Americans, passive Americans, brain-washed Americans. These pages
are ripe with...well passionate Americans.

The brilliant thing about our country is that we ARE allowed to think
and say what we want, and asking others to keep their opinions is quite
frankly un-American.

Let's look at some logic here. If parents were driving you home when you
were younger, and they were about to drive off of a cliff, would you

A.) Assume that your parents wouldn't kill you?
B.) Jerk the steering wheel hard away from the cliff?
C.) Scream loudly and hope that your yelling would somehow alter the
course of the car?
D.) Ask the driver why they were driving towards the cliff?

Hehe, I'll withhold my answer on this till you come up with some
responses and reasons on your own...

For me i think it would depend on how far we are from the cliff.

From very far away it would be A, assume the best - my parents are
capable drivers, and they presumably don't want to die themselves.

Closer up it would be D, ask why - make sure that they are aware of the
cliff, and verify that my assumption in the desire for self-preservation
was an accurate assumption.

I think you should save B for the last because presumably letting the
driver correct course is safer than jerking the wheel as the non-driver.

(If think you present C in a loaded manner, as screaming *could* have a
place if it alerted/motivated the driver.)

Who is bad for America. How 'bout we start with the current president,
for one.

While I just may be a Canuk, I can't help but wonder, when reading tons
of posts, threads, articles, websites, etc. about how many americans
hate Bush...how the heck did he get into office if so many despise him
and how he is running the country? Someone voted for the guy.

An excerpt from the following link might help explain it a little bit:

http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm

The Actual Findings

While that was the tone of coverage in these leading news outlets, it is
still a bit jarring to go outside the articles and read the actual
results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots.

Full Review Favors Gore, the Washington Post said in a box on page 10,
showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out
on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.

Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA
Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed
ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots
punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards
and Gore under two standards.

The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard
was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in.
Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore
won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107
votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won
by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171
votes.

This core finding of Gore's Florida victory in the unofficial ballot
recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and
the top paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted
hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush.

Buried deeper in the stories or referenced in subheads was the fact that
the new recount determined that Gore was the winner statewide, even
ignoring the �butterfly ballot� and other irregularities that cost him
thousands of ballots.

The news organizations opted for the pro-Bush leads by focusing on two
partial recounts that were proposed but not completed in the chaotic,
often ugly environment of last November and December.

The new articles make much of Gore's decision to seek recounts in only
four counties and the Florida Supreme Court�s decision to examine only
"undervotes," those rejected by voting machines for supposedly lacking a
presidential vote. A recurring undercurrent in the articles is that Gore
was to blame for his defeat, even if he may have actually won the
election.

"Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a
course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to
'count all the votes,'" the New York Times wrote, with a clear
suggestion that Gore was hypocritical as well as foolish.

The Washington Post recalled that Gore "did at one point call on Bush to
join him in asking for a statewide recount" and accepting the results
without further legal challenge, but that Bush rejected the proposal as
"a public relations gesture."

The Bush Strategy

Instead of supporting a full and fair recount, Bush chose to cling to
his official lead of 537 votes out of some 6 million cast, Bush counted
on his brother Jeb's state officials to ensure the Bush family's return
to national power.

To add some muscle to the legal maneuvering, the Bush campaign
dispatched thugs to Florida to intimidate vote counters and jacked up
the decibel level in the powerful conservative media, which accused Gore
of trying to steal the election and labeled him "Sore Loserman."

With Bush rejecting a full recount and media pundits calling for Gore to
concede, Gore opted for recounts in four southern Florida counties where
irregularities seemed greatest. Those recounts were opposed by Bush's
supporters, both inside Gov. Jeb Bush's administration and in the
streets by Republican hooligans flown in from Washington. [For more
details, see stories from Nov. 24, 2000 and Nov. 27, 2000]

Stymied on that recount front, Gore carried the fight to the state
courts, where pro-Bush forces engaged in more delaying tactics, leaving
the Florida Supreme Court only days to fashion a recount remedy.

Finally, on Dec. 8, facing an imminent deadline for submitting the
presidential election returns, the state Supreme Court ordered a
statewide recount of �undervotes.� This tally would have excluded
so-called "overvotes," which were kicked out for supposedly indicating
two choices for president.

Bush fought this court-ordered recount, too, sending his lawyers to the
U.S. Supreme Court. There, five Republican justices stopped the recount
on Dec. 9 and gave a sympathetic hearing to Bush's claim that the
varying ballot standards in Florida violated constitutional
equal-protection requirements.

At 10 p.m. on Dec. 12, two hours before a deadline to submit voting
results, the Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court instructed the
state courts to devise a recount method that would apply equal
standards, a move that would have included all ballots where the intent
of the voter was clear. The hitch was that the U.S. Supreme Court gave
the state only two hours to complete this assignment, effectively
handing Florida�s 25 electoral votes and the White House to Republican
George W. Bush.

A Third Hypothetical

The articles about the new recount tallies make much of the two
hypothetical cases in which Bush supposedly would have prevailed: the
limited recounts of the four southern Florida counties by 225 votes and
the state Supreme Court's order by 430 votes. Those hypothetical cases
dominated the news stories, while Gore's statewide-recount victory was
played down.

Yet, the newspapers made little or nothing of the fact that the U.S.
Supreme Court�s decision represented a third hypothetical. Assuming that
a brief extension were granted to permit a full-and-fair Florida
recount, the U.S. Supreme Court decision might well have resulted in the
same result that the news organizations discovered: a Gore victory.

The U.S. Supreme Court�s proposed standards mirrored the standards
applied in the new recount of the disputed ballots. The Post buries this
important fact in the 22nd paragraph of its story.

�Ironically, it was Bush's lawyers who argued that recounting only the
undervotes violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
And the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Dec. 12 ruling that ended the
dispute, also questioned whether the Florida court should have limited a
statewide recount only to undervotes, the Post wrote. Had the high court
acted on that, and had there been enough time left for the Florida
Supreme Court to require yet another statewide recount, Gore's chances
would have been dramatically improved.

In other words, if the U.S. Supreme Court had given the state enough
time to fashion a comprehensive remedy or if Bush had agreed to a
full-and-fair recount earlier, the popular will of the American voters,
both nationally and in Florida, might well have been respected. Al Gore
might well have been inaugurated president of the United States.

Favored Outcome

But this outcome was not the favored hypothetical of the news
organizations, which apparently wanted to avoid questions about their
patriotism. If they had simply given the American people the unvarnished
facts, the reality that the voters of Florida favored Al Gore might have
bolstered the belief that Bush indeed did steal the White House. That,
in turn, could have undermined his legitimacy during the current crisis
over terrorism.

In its coverage of the latest recount numbers, the national news media
also showed little regard for the fundamental principle of democracy:
that leaders derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,
not from legalistic tricks, physical intimidation and public-relations
maneuvers.

It is that understanding that is most missing in the news accounts of
the latest recount figures.

Presumably, the American people are supposed to accept that everything
just turned out right the Bush dynasty was restored to power, the proper
order was back in place. Anyone who begs to differ is a "conspiracy
theorist" or a "Gore partisan."

no such thing as a bad american....we've got damba$$ americans...angry
americans....lazy americans....clueless americans...and so on.

oh i beg to differ. We have plenty of bad ones, too.

Very insightful and informative jean, however it is a mute point now. I
am encouraged to see the intelligent and informed women on JSH, women
who actually walk around with their eyes and minds open. Women who take
the time to look past the tabloids and talk shows, and investigate the
facts for them selfs and make their decisions based on these facts.

thanks, fanta...i realize it is a moot point now, but I was trying to
answer jane bond's question for her as best I could and in a short
amount of time, too.