coming to a radio near you, the return of rush limbaugh.
for those of us missing our daily fix (opps, better not use that word anymore) of rush limbaugh, it was announced on his show thursday that he will be sober enough to return to the air on monday the 17th of november.
i'm buying my popcorn now and want to get a good seat.
Although I have said Rush isn't my personal favorite, please remember, he wasn't using illicit drugs for fun or escaping reality. That is what he was discussing in the quotes provided. He was using prescription medications for severe back pain. From there, his addiction grew.
You may not see a difference, but I sure do. If nothing else, maybe he will realize the dangers we all face when we decide to self medicate ourselves and spread that message to the nation.
coming to a radio near you, the return of rush limbaugh.
for those of us missing our daily fix (opps, better not use that word anymore) of rush limbaugh, it was announced on his show thursday that he will be sober enough to return to the air on monday the 17th of november.
i'm buying my popcorn now and want to get a good seat.
I still prefer Sean Hannity.
It will be good to see Rush back, I only hope his arrogance is gone and he can speak his message with a little more humility.
Badger,
dear son,.
today is your birthday.
it would mean so much to me to be able to tell you "happy birthday".. but i can't.
Swickley, it always saddens me to see a parent unable to even wish their child a simple Happy Birthday. I love seeing the smiles on my grandsons faces as they open their gifts.
I'm very sorry you have to endure this cruelty that no parent should feel.
Lew W
Who is feeding who lies? ABC and Yahoo are now reporting that the Iraqis were prepared to negotiate a peaceful resolution days before the war but was turned down.
This is news? Prior to the actual invasion, several attempts were made by Saddam to stay the enevitable. Bush stated all along that the time for negotiation was through and it was time for him to leave. It was all over the news prior to the war, so why is this any news now?
Saddam thought it was another bluff, as he had gotten used to hearing for so long. He found out different.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.
I read a book, many years ago, investigating what ?defence? really was, which came to the obvious conclusion that no such thing exists or has ever existed
Oh yes, books telling us what life is like. Sorry, I live in a real world not one some idealistic professor or author thinks should be. You may live anyway you choose. Your freedom to do that and read those books has been bought for you many times over by the blood of many.
A Prime Minister of the UK, Lloyd George once said that ? men will only stop warring when they have outlawed war in their own hearts?
Great thought. Now, when do you convince the Hitlers, Mussolinis, Khdafis, Khomenis, Husseins Stalins and Bin Ladens of the world this is good? Convince all of them and watch how we are able to disarm.
This comment infers and perhaps asserts that the violent retaliatory (probably nationalistic and politically loaded) behaviour you advocate, contains a satisfactory solution to the horrendous realities you mention, which, of course it doesn?t and never ever has done ? beginning with Cain
Your solution is what, give in to them and allow them to have tyrranical rule of everything? Are you prepared to live under a radical Islamic state? Idealism is great in the classroom, but in real life, it costs more lives than even battle does. You wish to make everything safer, force them to follow your thoughts. But, when you try, don't call on those violent probably nationalistic and politically loaded people to save your butt. Just give in and allow them free will over you. See how long you last.
Incidentally, you are converting war (or the threat of war, tyranny, oppression and/or despotism etc) into a personal attack on yourself, which it never ever is, although the real threat of damage and/or death is as real
Why not try to explain this to the survivors of the over 2600 people killed on Sept 11, 2001. After you've convinced all of them, go find survivors of the Shiites and Kurds in Iraq that are buried throughout the country in mass unmarked graves and convince them. You're preaching to the wrong people, convince all of them first. As for personal attack on me, yes it is. That you won't understand that is saddest of all. Whether I knew any of those people or not is immaterial. They didn't deserve to die like that. Incidentally, my son-in-law lost 18 college mates that day. Makes it a little closer to home for my family.
Don?t miss the point here please ? You can make this neutral choice ONLY for yourself, not for any group, and clearly in the knowledge that it is NOT going to solve any military, political and/or nationalistic problems (or any for yourself personally either)
Yes, you can make that choice for yourself, it's easy to do when others willfully go off and put their lives on the line and face death so you have the right to make the choice. They also have a choice and choose to fight for freedom. If so many hadn't over the years, my friend, you wouldn't be free today. The pacifism you seem to embrace sound fantastic, but it really doesn't work. Some estimated 6 million Jews tried that approach in the 1940s and it didn't serve them very well.
If you know someone extremely well, I feel that it is very reasonable to be able to freely ?speak for them?
Funny, radical Muslims also claim to know God extremely well. So well, they can convince children to strap on explosives and detonate themselves in crowded areas. Many white supremacists groups over the years also made claims of just doing as God oredered them to do and lynched others for no other reason than to be born different. Should they all be allowed to freely perform these heinous acts because they also know God "extremely well?"
The nature of your wondering about God?s views infers that you feel your concept of justice is superior to His
Superior? No, just following his example since he seems to allow both sides to exist.
There is not the slightest indication that God is on ANYBODY?S side at this time
Sorry, I don't claim God on my side, just cite the example he left me. Seems to me, it's you claiming to have him on your side, along with the radical Muslims that are slaughtering innocent victims worldwide.
Surely this is something different ? this is being ready to kill for a friend isn?t it?
Different? I see it no different then helping defend a young lady being brutaliuzed by a lowlife scumbag rapist. What is your solution, to walk by and allow an innocent person harm when you can do something to prevent or stop it? What kind of God wishes innocent people harmed and no one to come to their aid? Not any God I wish to have anything to do with.
You really surely aren?t now going to attempt to convince me that the latest supposedly significant piece of horrendous violence (to the recipient, all violence is significant, whenever and wherever it is committed) in the history of the world - 9 / 11 - justifies your seeing Jesus in a retaliatory role and advocating this approach to anyone who cares to listen ? are you ?
What Jesus did or didn't do or may have or may not have done is immaterial. Nor is what you believe, that is your privilege. To me, to stand by and allow others to suffer needlessly and be maimed and slaughtered by the thousands is equal to doing it to them yourself. He is but one man, purportedly perfect, but a man nonetheless. Supposedly, he is the grand priest, but even military chaplains do not take up arms. However, they do realize that at times, others have to so even he may be free to practice what he believes. It is also stated, "live by the sword and die by the sword." Does that only apply to our side and leave the others free to slaughter and maim at will?
Are you really trying to advance the ludicrously facile argument that all or any of the retaliation which has ever happened in the entire pitiful history of mankind has actually ?stopped? oppression, tyranny, murderous exploitation etc ?
You're not marching down mainstreet USA goose-stepping and saying Seig Heil, are you? Where was your God during all that?
What then will you be singing in yours and historically so many others, already failed attempt to wrestle the world into peaceful co-existence ? onwards christian?????? soldiers ?
Not hardly. I was thinking more along the lines of the Ballad of the Green Beret.
You may have difficulty in grasping this, but we do believe in and practice peaceful co-existence here. However, when others don't and are hell bent on harming innocents, there can be no peace. You are preaching to the chorus. May I suggest, again, that you take your message to the Middle East and deliver it to those radicals that are looking forward to receiving their 72 virgins as their reward from God for killing innocent people. They need it much more than the rest of us. Convince them first, then come back and see whether we need to hear it.
sunday 2 november 2003. years ago, i was asked to write a speech for president nixon.
i didn't do that, but i wish president bush would ask me to write a speech for him now.
here's what i'd write if he asked me to - which is unlikely: .
Now, if only poor old Andy could make his mind;
Muslims and Democracy
17 April, 2003
Things are good. We?ve won. Saddam Hussein has been toppled off his pedestal ? literally and figuratively.
I?m a born optimist. I always think things are going to come out OK, but even with the success we?ve had in Iraq, it?s hard to see the bright side of anything when you look at our whole world now. There are so many bad spots that if it were an apple, you?d throw it away.
So many people on earth aren?t civilized by our standards and don?t enjoy the comforts of a real home or any kind of cultural life that separates human beings from the lesser animals. Here it is 2003 and even civilized nations spend more money on ways to kill people than they spend educating their young.
The military budgets for many countries are a disgrace to mankind. The expenditures are all listed under "defense" even though there?s no likelihood whatsoever that most of the countries will ever be attacked and have to defend themselves. If they were attacked, their armies wouldn?t be able to do anything about it anyway; they?re probably big enough to keep the citizens poor but not big enough to protect them from an enemy.
Take Zambia. I?ve picked Zambia at random. There are 10 million people in Zambia. They have horrible AIDS and famine problems but spend $65 million annually on what they call "defense." Wouldn?t you think Zambia would abandon its military budget and spend that $65 million on trying to correct those problems?
Here in our wonderful United States, we?re spending something like $455 billion on the destructive weapons and armies of war this year, and $53 billion on education. Does that seem good to everyone but me?
I watched the victory celebrations in Baghdad and have seldom in my life been so pleased to find I was wrong. I did not think we should attack Iraq without the approval of the United Nations. The UN was wrong, I was wrong and George W. Bush was right. Fortunately, he?s President and I am not. There?s a lot of the world left that needs straightening out, however, and I hope he doesn?t set out single-handed to do it with military force.
For some reason I don?t understand, we have made our prosperous civilization the envy of many people in the world but, while they like our standard of living, our cars, our music, our food, our technology and Coca-Cola, we have not always made our case for the democratic system that enables us to have those things. Democracy has been so good for us and seems so incontrovertibly the best system of government that we don?t understand why the people of every country on earth have not insisted on democracy.
We?ve had a most notable lack of success exporting democracy to Muslims. About three quarters of the 145 non-Muslim nations in the world are democracies, or call themselves that, but of the 47 Muslim nations, 36 are not democratic. From the President on down, we are religiously correct enough to publicly respect Islam. In private, however, we question what it is about the religion that so often leads its followers to reject the system where the people choose for themselves how they will be governed. One of the unfathomable mysteries of history has been why so many people, given free choice, choose not to be free.
I am optimistic about life in general but specifically pessimistic about the long-term potential for peace on earth.
http://www.canarsiecourier.com/News/2003/0417/Arts_Entertainment/004.html
sunday 2 november 2003. years ago, i was asked to write a speech for president nixon.
i didn't do that, but i wish president bush would ask me to write a speech for him now.
here's what i'd write if he asked me to - which is unlikely: .
You should have heard his view of the French he gave on February 16, 2003;
ANDY ROONEY ON THE FRENCH
If you missed Andy Rooney on Sunday night, read on. Most that heard him couldn't believe their ears. They kept expecting CBS TV network to cut him off. Here's what he had to say:
You can't beat the French when it comes to food, fashion, wine or perfume, but they lost their license to have an opinion on world affairs years ago. They may even be selling stuff to Iraq and don't want to hurt business.
The French are simply not reliable partners in a world where the good people in it ought to be working together. Americans may come off as international jerks sometimes but we're usually trying to do the right thing.
The French lost WWII to the Germans in about 20 minutes. Along with the British, we got into the war and had about 150,000 guys killed getting their country back for them. We fought all across France, and the Germans finally surrendered in a French schoolhouse.
You'd think that school building in Reims would be a great tourist attraction but it isn't. The French seem embarrassed by it. They don't want to call attention to the fact that we freed them from German occupation.
I heard Steven Spielberg say the French wouldn't even let him film the D-Day scenes in "Saving Private Ryan" on the Normandy beaches. They want people to forget the price we paid getting their country back for them.
Americans have a right to protest going to war with Iraq. The French do not. They owe us the independence they flaunt in our face at the U.N.
I went into Paris with American troops the day we liberated it, Aug. 25, 1944. It was one of the great days in the history of the world.
French women showered American soldiers with kisses, at the very least. The next day, the pompous Charles de Gaulle marched down the mile long Champs Elysee to the Place de la Concorde as if he had liberated France himself. I was there, squeezed in among a hundred tanks we'd given the Free French Army that we brought in with us.
Suddenly there were sniper shots from the top of a building. Thousands of Frenchmen who had come to see de Gaulle scrambled to get under something. I got under an Army truck myself. The tank gunners opened fire on the building where the shots had come from, firing mindlessly at nothing. It was a wild scene that lasted, maybe, 10 minutes.
When we go to Paris every couple of years now, I rent a car. I drive around the Place de la Concorde and when some French driver blows his horn for me to get out of his way, I just smile and say to myself, "Go ahead, Pierre. Be my guest. I know something about this very place you'll never know."
The French have not earned their right to oppose President Bush's plans to attack Iraq.
On the other hand, I have.
Instead of crying about no WMDs or proof, try reading the links to David Kays entire speech about their efforts in seeking them in Iraq, not just the tid bits fed us by the media.
i've mentioned it a few times, but between the ages of 5-7 i had my two female cousins living with me.
my parents were doing them a favor by letting them live there, but what they didn't know was the prior sexual abuse and molestation by members of their/our family...well, it is in my opinion the trickle down theory of abuse and i also know and remember doing some of the same things with my own siblings even a couple years after they weren't there any more.. i often ask myself.
am i responsible for that?
Valis, as you know from long ago, I too was molested at a young age, although older than yours. In my opinion, it does not mark you to be a pedophile, although it does screw with your head. Child abuse is a passed down matter, but the cycle can and has been broken. I broke it in my own family.
Without knowing more details (admittedly, I haven't read the entire thread yet), it sounds to me that you are dealing with bad experiences and they frighten you. The fright you may feel, to me, is good. It tells me you do not have those tendencies. Otherwise, you would be doing something you shouldn't. Turn your experiences positive by ensuring that what was done to you isn't passed on to your own children.
What you may or may not have done towards your own siblings, although not proper, is also from what you thought was normal at an early age, it's all part of the cycle. Maybe contact them now and apologize to them explaining what was being done to you. It may shock you to find out they may have experienced it from someone else too.
Hang in there bud and break the cycle. You can do it.
I am amazed that so many responses here indicate partisan feelings, which amazement is probably the result of my coming to the realisation some considerable time ago that mankind as a whole has never EVER dealt satisfactorily with its sad tendency to violence, and I believe will never The ability demonstrably is absent
Sadly, this is true. There are those throughout history that just want more than they are entitled too and they force others to fight to keep what they have. With tyrants, you surrender or fight them, no other choices. Convince them to stop building weapons and attacking others, you may solve the problem.
expressed the usual anxiety and fear that the army is ok for a career and the hope that he would never be involved in any action, and didn?t relish him doing harm to others ? whoever they were
That is pretty much a normal anxiety for parents about their children. Police also don?t want to do harm to others, but many are forced into it, aren?t they? Entering the military believing it is a good career and that you will never be called upon to fight is foolhardy. There is no other need for military than to defend against others.
If you are prepared to kill another human being (for whatever reason ? there CANNOT be a justifiable one) your victim, inescapably, must be viewed as terminally less valuable than your self
What would the alternative be, to just surrender to terror? Do you relish your female loved ones wearing burkhas and facing beheading publicly for wearing makeup? Not be allowed an education or contributing to society in any manner other than having babies to be handed over to dictators for their use? When someone is coming at you shooting and wanting you dead, do you just stand up and give him an easier target? Or, do you shoot back and try to kill him first?
If you place yourself nationalistically in this scenario, don?t you have to accept the reality of the possible cessation of your own life?
Realistically, yes. Everyone entering military service and not knowing this is only fooling themselves.
If you get in a boxing ring you are liable to get punched on the nose, and you DO have the choice
Modern military is also voluntary. You do have a choice there too.
It?s my belief that God views everyone (apart from JC) living or dead, as being PRECISELY equal and equally valuable, and so certainly cannot approve of either someone shooting down a helicopter or those within the military helicopterConsidering the scope of his history, mankind is certainly not EVER going to stop this sad activity
Neither of us can speak for God, but I wonder if he views that one bent on destroying others for their own personal gain and so equal? Didn?t he have the ancient Israelites time and again fight and kill many who weren?t peaceful and would not worship him, but worshipped false gods? If he truly wants mankind to actually get along, he could make believe closer to the same and wouldn?t have set the example on how to deal with enemies. Jesus taught peace and love, but wouldn?t coming to the aid of oppressed friends and fighting to free them be an act of love also? Didn?t Jesus state at John 15:13 that no one had a greater love than to lay down his life for a friend? We can?t all be crucified for mankind like he was, but those of us who have the will, can fight for their freedom.
The trick is to choose not become a part of it ? even by speech
Idealistically, this would be true. But, in reality, it doesn?t work. What part did over 2600 people play on September 11, 2001? What part did possibly millions of Shiites and Kurds play over many years in Iraq? Throughout history, innocent people have been needlessly slaughtered and it was only stopped by men and women standing up to and fighting, to the death, if need be, of those doing the slaughtering. Is it perfect or preferential? I don?t think so. But is it loving? Ask those that were saved and given their lives back and freed from tyranny.
Singing KumBaya and Give Peace a Chance are nice, but they don?t stop tyrants bent on dominating and harming others.
