cheapest, best service have it on
wow gold .
so many wonderful things you can enjon it not only cheapest price,best distrubition,all from
wow leveling,
warcraft power leveling
warcraft gold promptly,best service only get it from
wow power leveling
FFXI Gil
Buy FFXI Gil
FFXI Gil Sale
Cheapest FFXI Gil
Buy Cheap FFXI Gil
final Fantasy XI Gil
Cheap FFXI Gil



cheapestwow gold
best distrubition,all fromus wow gold
euro wow gold
world of warcraft gold

http://www.growyourownshit.com/users/Chippyonetwo

Another conspiracy that Rush is involved in!

Edited by author 11-17-2003 05:39 PM
Russ should be in jail, look at all the other people that got put in jail for a lot minor offences than russ,even Jef Bush daughter was put in for a lot minor offence than russ. I will never buy anything that he sponsers or ever listen to the radio station he will be on. As far as I am concerned he is a low life SOB. Most of the people who will listen to him are complete idiots

Yes, conform or be cast out.

Conform or be cast out

Edited by author 02-01-2003 10:05 AM
Umm, Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville were liberals; a liberal doesn't necessarily has to be a socialist or communist.

 I wouldn't deny anyone their right to protest, however weak their grasp on the truth may be.

 In typical liberal fashion, you guys avoid arguing logically by making ridiculous, emotional, and un-related arguments. One offers to sell me the twin towers--what does that have to do with anything? And why the towers? See, you're trying to play on emotion by bringing the towers (which are unrelated) into the argument in an effort to accuse me of being a "sucker". Distraction may work for the lemming-like liberal mindset, but not for me.

 The liberal way has a very limited life-span as it feeds on the work of others to survive. Socialism and communism don't work--show me one country where it does, then do us all a favor and move there.

I hate Rush.

> Rush is popular because he does *in fact* represent the views
> of the majority of American citizens that have better things to
> do than organize protests and stage media circuses.

How does Rush feel about people who organize protests against abortion clinics? Should they have better things to do, also?

Yeah, and I myself own the two tallest structures in the city (identical 112-story towers right next to each other down by Wall Street) that I'd like to sell him for a bargain price as well, still in pristine condition.

Like W.C. Fields said, there's one born every minute.

iblis }()+

Rush is popular because he does *in fact* represent the views of the majority of American citizens that have better things to do than organize protests and stage media circuses.

Friend, I have some valuable real estate properties for sale that I think you'd be very interested in. I'll start with a classic -- a tall steel structure, connecting two sections of New York City, in a high-traffic area...

Edited by author 01-31-2003 09:59 AM
 Rush is popular because he does *in fact* represent the views of the majority of American citizens that have better things to do than organize protests and stage media circuses.
 A loud and obnoxious minority unfortunately gets a lot of attention because it makes for sensationalist news coverage. It's very entertaining to watch people running around with placards and getting all emotional for the cameras and such--in fact, I think it's cute. However, these people do not speak for me and do not represent me.
 Even I think Rush is overly self absorbed at times. But for the most part he is right. You know it, and that’s why you hate him.
 The real truth hurts some times so much that cowards will run from it, deny it at the top of their lungs and hope it goes away. Too bad for you...

Edited by author 01-31-2003 02:21 AM
Maybe you should get out more some guy, or listen to Pacifica radio if you're within their broadcast signal but there were protests of thousands over Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia, there were also protests over his bombing that pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan and many over many other incidents. Do you recall Clinton's own war plans against Iraq being derailed by protestors at a Town hall type meeting with Madeleine Not at Albright in '97? There was plenty of protest on the left over Clinton's policies, you have to look beyond the Democrats you know, and oh, we didn't care much where he put his cock.

You know, Clinton did get away with a lot of crap. Some people were calling him on it, and they weren't conservatives. I think those are the people I want to pay attention to now.

This only thing a campaign like this ever does is give its target publicity and ammo. People never learn.

Could we please say things like "I hate Rush Limbaugh" instead so I don't mistakenly think everyone is dissing my favorite Canadian power rock trio?

I think it's fine for people to try to convince companies to stop advertising on Rush's show, even if he ends up being kicked off the air. I would be alarmed if the government shut down his show, though. That would be bad.

I hate Rush.

As a rebellious teenager, I was subjeced to hours of Mr. Limbaugh's demagoguery: my father *loved* his show. Every day, Dad usedto listen to Rush. I even read with one of Rush's books that was laying around the house, just to find out who this guy was.

I hate Rush.

But, let's not forget the big picture, if you really are pro-democracy: Rush has First Amendment rights, too.

I hate Rush.

What Rush says, I find to be repulsive and dangerous speech. But he has the right to say it.

I love that Rush has Freedom of Speech.

Of course, all these brave peace activists were protesting their assess off with Bill Clinton was President, right?

When he bombed Kosovo, they were in the street by the thousands, fightin' the power, right?

When we bombed Iraq, quite a number of times, activists across the globe rose up to urge our President to seek another way, right?

When he blew up that aspirin factory in Sudan, he had the permission of the UN, the EU, and the approval of Congress, and yet our valient warriors for peace were in the streets fighting once again for justice and global harmony, right?

Oh wait. Clinton was a Democrat. Never mind.

What? When was I President?

Why's anyone even care about Rush Fatpiggh anymore, much less bother throwing feces in yet another flame war commenting about it?

That overpacked dipshit was already old news about 15 minutes after Clitman became president.

iblis }()+

CowLord, the U.S. is only able to attack one country at a time. A few years ago it was the Balkans. Last year it was Afghanistan. This year Iraq. Next year someone else (or maybe still Iraq).

You should not ask, why Iraq and no others, you should ask, why is Iraq first in line? Why Iraq before the others? And maybe this question is easier to answer.

If you want to discuss the war with a group of very well-informed posters from the right and left, register at

cancom forums:

http://207.44.170.192/forums/index.php

"Letting Iraq know what WE know simply gives them an opportunity to kill the leak and hide the evidence."

In the words of Church Lady, how conveeeeenient.

The inspectors are there, now, and they're not amenable to playing games this time. They given notice that they will take steps to specifically designed to prevent last-minute relocation of stockpiles of schmutz.

Given this, *why not* provide specific locations of specific projects?

Again: *One verified instance* of an actual great pile of deployable chemical warheads would give the U.S. the moral high ground to call for a multilateral strike.

"1) This is a war for internationnal security
2) this is a war against an oppressive government

Which one is it? Will it stop after Iraq? I don't know politics or the world, but I'm ready to bet that there are a lot more countries that fit 1) and 2). "

This is a war to protect US interests AND international security AND oust an oppressive government. I don't know why you assume it must only have a single goal.

North Korea is in the box. They simply don't pose the credible threat that Iraq poses. N Korea simply spoke out and said "We're gonna break our Nuclear treaties" simply as a bargaining chip to get the US to relax the embargo. China will keep them under control, as China isn't in great shape to fund another war in Korea, and N Korea certainly cannot afford it either. It's a political move meant to press buttons and make people ask EXACTLY the question you asked. In reality, the just want Bush to lift the embargo and they will stop nuclear development.

Why don't we go after other oppressive regimes? Because we don't have any interests there. Does that make us BAD people? no. We are allowed to protect our national interests, especially when they coincide with other more "humanitarian" interests.

If you look at it, this war CANNOT be about oil. After all, it would be CHEAPER and FASTER to just lift the embargo and resume trade with Iraq. It's not ONLY about terrorism either. It's not only about the way Saddam kills whole towns of Kurds. It's about ALL of those things. Saddam won't think twice about giving a nuke to a terrorist. After all, Saddam has already offered $20K to any family that has a child give their life in a suicide attack against the US. He's very open about his hatred for the US, and he's also very open with his support of terrorists.

So, oil + terrorism + genocide of the Kurds + regional stability = war in Iraq.

No other country presents us with so many good reasons to invade them...

"If the specifics of the crap that is going on over there is really that awful, why not reveal them, sources be-damned?

Are the safety of these sources more important than our national reputation and the lives of our soldiers?"

Um, the safety of our sources might DEPEND on these folks.

So, we blow the cover of two operatives within Saddam's government. From that point forward we are flying blind, getting no inside info on what's going on over there.

When fighting a war, knowing more about what's going on in your enemy's camp is everything. Look at WWII. It's been 50 years and we are STILL finding out stuff that the government kept hidden.

Furthermore, since Saddam was aided by the CIA back when Iran was the bully on the block, a lot of the info we'd provide would fuel a lot of ugly fires. For example, if the world was to find out that we KNOW Saddam has a sample of Smallpox because we gave it to him as part of a "technology exchange" so he can "use it for research", how well do you think that would sit?

Saying "We should tell the American People EVERYTHING the Intelligence community knows" is simply a bad idea. Letting Iraq know what WE know simply gives them an opportunity to kill the leak and hide the evidence.

You could always ring up and ask him about his anal cysts - see http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html.

I guess a decent right-wing warmonger and firefight live a good country mile apart.

Smug Canadian is too smug.

Don't stand beside anyone on the bus who may have jaywalked in their life because that makes you a criminal everybody.

This is a little off topic, but, why is the US gov. only targeting Iraq with such determination? Why aren't they doing the same to other oppressive countries if they are such do-gooders? From my point of view (I know, I have zero credibility, but still), it looks as though the US as an hidden agenda in attacking Iraq. Did anyone else notice the all too smooth transition from 9/11 -> Al Quaeda [?] -> Iraq ? All in the name of preserving internationnal security ?

When the war will be over, what then? Will the mighty US army go after the next country that oppresses its people with the same determination?

People seem to mix two things :

1) This is a war for internationnal security
2) this is a war against an oppressive government

Which one is it? Will it stop after Iraq? I don't know politics or the world, but I'm ready to bet that there are a lot more countries that fit 1) and 2).

Sorry about the rant, but it feels like the US is only trying to preserve its own interest... not 1) or 2) but rather 3) : power and oil.

"I cannot tell you any specifics, but if you knew all the crap that is going on over there, you'd grab a gun and off him yourself".

If the specifics of the crap that is going on over there is really that awful, why not reveal them, sources be-damned?

Are the safety of these sources more important than our national reputation and the lives of our soldiers?

Specific, _credible_ evidence of actual caverns full of actual ready-for-use VX gas shells and actual pez dispensers full of Smallpox Pills and an actual assembly line for suitcase nukes would instantly galvanize the world community There'd be _no problem_ recruiting a multinational coalition to pull the Ba'athist regime apart at its seams.

'Don't take his comments to mean "All war protesters since the dawn of time" since that's not the spirit of the comment.'

Of course. Rush is reknowned for his sense of fair play, tolerance, and getting his facts straight. A man of his intellectual stature and erudition is wasted on radio, anyway; if the boycott works, he should welcome its as an opportunity to persue a career more suited to his talents, such as walking down the streets of chilly northern hamlets, melting accumulations of ice and snow with great blasts of hot air.

I’m Canadian, and have been following Canadian opinion verrry closely for the past year and a half. Smug Canadian certainly sounds smug, but he doesn’t smell Canadian. More like old red herring on a hook.

This is just going to be like NOW's failed protest. Protest *any* show and initially you will get a few advertisers to drop out if you can bring to bear a sizable number of complaints. But over the long haul, unless Limbaugh does something truly outrageous (and calling ANSWER a bunch of commies is not it), Rush ain't going anywhere due to his ratings and the ways that radio advertising is sold (as the article noted, most advertising is sold by time slot and region, *not* by program).

Edited by author 01-30-2003 04:03 PM
Rush was speaking about the protestesters mentioned below.

Don't take his comments to mean "All war protesters since the dawn of time" since that's not the spirit of the comment.

Much of the Anti-War movement is actually an Anti-Bush movement using the war as a tool to damage him. Other protesting groups are isolationists, who are in favor of the US staying out of the affairs of the world, as well as cutting off trade with other countries.

People have the FREEDOM to protest the war. I don't see Rush going out and trying to STOP the protesters from speaking, but I do see the protestors trying to stop Rush from voicing his opinion. Kinda ironic.

If you had all of the evidence that the goverment has against Iraq, you would be behind the war too. We, the citizens of the US, do NOT have all of the evidence and NEVER will since releasing that evidence will expose and endanger our methods of collecting it. One of my employees has a relative in the Intelligence community and he said "I cannot tell you any specifics, but if you knew all the crap that is going on over there, you'd grab a gun and off him yourself".

We elect our leaders, and sometimes we have to have some faith in them. Not blind faith, mind you, but enough faith to believe them when they say "He had 10,000 chemical weapons, now they are all gone and they have no explanation of where they went". They declared and admitted to having TONS of chem and bio weapons after the Gulf War, it was part of the cease-fire agreement. Now they have records showing that something like 10% of them were destroyed with NO record of where the rest went.

Also I hear that we never ENDED the gulf war. It was a conditional cease fire based on conditions set forth by the UN. Since the war was never over, no new declaration is needed. All we have to do is find them in violation of the cease fire agreement and war can resume without a new declaration from Congress. Can anyone confirm or refute this?

I didn't hear Rush's radio broadcast, but if he said something like "Anti-american, anti-capitalist, communists who are against a war in Iraq are anti-american, anti-capitalist communists," then he's right.

If he said something like, "War protestors are anti-american, anti-capitalist communists," then he's wrong.

Nice to see them fight against free speech by pressuring advertisers into boycotting him in an attempt to force him off the air...

Anyone else see the irony in this?

Like I said, the organizers of the war protests, in particular A.N.S.W.E.R., are proudly anti-american, anti-capitalist, communist, and of course jew-haters once you look closely. But at least they aren't "unrational, hateful elitists".

I've seen this point made elsewhere, and it's a good comparsion: if the KKK organized a rally for the Humane Society to get people to adopt puppies, what would say about the people in that rally? You'd call them racists, even though most of them would be marching for the puppies.

Lots of anti-war protesters were marching for peace, but they were by and large marching in events organized by people that are hideously similar in mindset to people like the KKK. This is why Rush said what he did, and while it's a hardball position it's the kind he usually takes and it's certainly not an unrational statement.

Rush does a great service to the liberal cause by making moderates think conservatives are unrational hateful patrician elitists. I imagine a lot of more-grounded conservatives are rooting for Rush's show to end.

Rush's ratings haven't been magic lately, and the gasbag may have done the thing that breaks his show.

Yes, it is great that we're using the same tatics of his namby-pamby cohorts, who focus their shrill whiney outrage to scare sponsors, ultimately resulting in financial intimidation that silences speech.

Remember that flap over Bill Maher?

Is that true, Smug Canadian? Have all of the thousands of anti-war organizers around the country described themselves as anti-American, anti-capitalist, communists? If you can provide a cite, I'd be interested in reading it.

Umm, but the protesters (or at the least the organizers) *are* anti-American, anti-capitalist, and communist. They are proud of those traits. So what's wrong with Rush stating facts?

Freedom of speech sucks, hey gorgar?

<troll>Who's Russ Limbaugh?</troll>

Wow, I haven't listened to that gasbag in years, but I know that Bose was a sponsor at least 10 years ago. That they would dump him after a few days of complaints is encouraging, and shows that we could have done something about Rush a long time ago.