Please Bathe Yourself in My Douche-Tastic Poetry - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-17-2002, 04:14 PM   #151
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
Lemonite's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 01:51 AM

Isn't this happening a lot around Europe... Germany.. Denmark to name a few.. ?.. It seems they're all doing the 'right' thing.. Hahah.. A Good interference joke eh?..

Today: June 17, 2002 at 13:20:15 PDT

France Sees Power Shift to Right

PARIS- France's right has won across-the-board control of national politics with its crushing victory in legislative elections. Still, life probably won't change radically.

President Jacques Chirac has promised not to do away with the main legacy of the Socialist-led left, the 35-hour work week. Popular with employees, it was a sore point with small business.

Sweeping free-market reform is also unlikely. The French cherish their social safety net, and Chirac's attempts to streamline the state led to paralyzing union strikes in 1995, his first year in office.

Even the faces will remain much the same. The caretaker government that Chirac installed after his re-election in May will largely remain in place, with Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin at the helm.

One group that may soon feel a change, however, is the nation's illegal immigrant community, especially the many Afghans, Kurds and Iraqis headed for Britain, where asylum laws are comparatively looser.

Chirac's government has said it hopes to close a Red Cross center that serves as a base for illegal immigrants trying to slip into Britain through the Channel Tunnel - an idea the left has resisted. On Monday, Britain's home secretary expressed confidence that the French conservatives will crack down.

"We can do business with this government," David Blunkett said, adding that he had invited France's new interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, to London next week to talk about the problem.

Chirac, 69, was re-elected on May 5 for a second term, crushing his far-right, anti-immigration challenger, Jean-Marie Le Pen, a surprise candidate in the runoff.

On Sunday, when France elected a vast majority of Chirac's allies to the National Assembly, the president won the backing he needed to carry out his plans.

Chirac has pledged to crack down on crime, voters' No. 1 concern, by increasing funding, strengthening police forces and speeding up the justice system.

Those changes, already under way, are expected to pick up speed when the new National Assembly convenes in July. Chirac also has promised to lower taxes, requiring budget spending that will probably put France at odds with the European Union's tough standards.

Suddenly, Chirac has found himself with more influence than at any time during the past five years. During his first term, the conservative president shared power with Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin - a tense arrangement known as "cohabitation."

Chirac was forced to watch, powerless, as the left pushed through major reforms, such as shortening the work week from 39 to 35 hours. Chirac has said he won't overhaul the program but merely tweak it to ease the ire of business leaders, who say it hurts profits and flexibility.

Now that cohabitation is over, Chirac and his conservative prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, face other challenges.

"The French are very contradictory in their demands," said Dominique Moisi, deputy head of the French Institute for International Relations. "They want less state in terms of taxation and control of the economy, and at the same time they want more state - to be protected from insecurity, which usually means more taxes to fund more police forces."

Another challenge will be dialogue with unions. The post-election government got a taste of social unrest Monday when pediatricians went on strike to press the state to raise the fees they can charge for an office visit.

Chirac's centrist and rightist allies, grouped in the recently formed Union for a Presidential Majority, won 399 of the National Assembly's 577 seats in Sunday's election. Turnout was at a record low - 61 percent - taking some of the shine off their victory.

The left, from Communists to Socialists to Greens, won only 178 seats, down from 318 in the outgoing parliament.


This isn't the article i was looking for.. but I guess it'll work a bit..

Today: June 17, 2002 at 10:50:17 PDT

Kohl Rallies German Conservatives

FRANKFURT, Germany- Former Chancellor Helmut Kohl surfaced from the disgrace of a slush fund scandal Monday to bless his party's election campaign, showing how confident the resurgent conservatives are about returning to power in September.

Kohl's half-hour convention speech was a carefully scripted attempt by new party leaders to heal the wounds of the financing scandal, which hurt the party in a string of local elections since 2000 and tainted the former chancellor who reunited Germany 12 years ago.

Christian Democratic delegates clapped repeatedly as Kohl, 72, waxed nostalgic about reunification and gave his blessing to conservative challenger Edmund Stoiber, who wants to unseat Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in Sept. 22 parliamentary elections.

Stoiber will speak at the convention Tuesday. Delegates are also due to pass a campaign platform calling for lower taxes, deregulation and a tighter immigration policy.

"We must fight for every vote," Kohl urged delegates. "Let's get to work!"

He avoided mentioning the scandal in his first convention speech since the affair broke in 1999. Received with scattered shouts of "Helmut, Helmut," he appeared drawn, no longer radiating the force with which he once led the party.

By inviting Kohl, the party signaled its desire to make peace with him, look to the future and rally behind Stoiber. It also was a farewell to Kohl, who in September will give up the parliamentary seat he has held since 1958.

Andreas Schmidt, a national lawmaker attending the congress, insisted that the Kohl scandal "pales in comparison to his life achievements."

"We've dealt with the damage," Schmidt said. "We consider the issue closed."

Kohl touched off the scandal by admitting he accepted illegal, undeclared donations while chancellor in the 1990s. His stubborn refusal to identify the donors helped trigger a parliamentary inquiry and was condemned by many in his own party.

The scandal also cost Kohl the post of honorary party chairman bestowed on him after a 1998 election defeat ended his 16-year run as chancellor and a quarter-century as party chief.

But the conservatives have moved ahead in the polls over the past year as economic problems and stubbornly high unemployment put Schroeder increasingly on the defensive.

Kohl urged a future conservative government to remain committed to adding new members to the European Union, notably Germany's neighbors in formerly communist eastern Europe.

"The countries of central, eastern and southeastern Europe are part of our culture," Kohl said.

Also addressing delegates Monday was Angela Merkel, a former East German who heads the Christian Democratic party. Merkel stepped aside this year and handed the nomination to Stoiber, who heads the smaller, Bavaria-only Christian Social Union. Both parties campaign together in national elections.

Merkel warned delegates against euphoria. "Success is not at hand yet," she said, but added: "We can make it."

With less than three months until election day, some surveys indicate Schroeder's Social Democrats are reducing the gap in the polls. And the breezy Schroeder remains personally more popular than Stoiber, who has governed Bavaria since 1993.

A ZDF television poll Friday found the Christian Democrats at 39 percent, compared to 40 percent last month, and the Social Democrats unchanged at 35 percent. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.


Lemonite is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 06:59 PM   #152
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
Lemonite's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 01:51 AM

Distributed nationally on the Knight-Ridder Tribune wire

A Second Look at Social Security's "Trust Fund"

By David John

"When it comes to waging war on terrorism, the president has our total support," says Rep. John Spratt Jr., D-S.C., a member of the House Budget Committee. "But national security and homeland security need not come at the expense of Social Security."

Rep. Spratt isn't the only one using this approach to criticize President Bush's proposed budget. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and various news organizations have issued similar warnings. The president's proposed budget "jeopardizes the future of Social Security," The New York Times said, because its trust fund "would be siphoned away."

Actually, it would do nothing of the sort. Congress could go out tomorrow and spend every dime of the Social Security surplus, and it wouldn't affect the program's future security one bit. Or they could wall it off -- put every penny in the proverbial "lockbox," for that matter --and the program's future would still be about as financially sound as an Enron profit report.

The reason is as simple as it is startling: There is no Social Security "trust fund" -- at least, not in any conventional sense of the phrase. The taxes that come out of your paycheck on a regular basis aren't deposited into an account with your name on it, as many people believe. The money is immediately paid out as benefits to current retirees, and whatever is left over is mixed together with other tax funds and used to finance other government programs.

The same thing will happen when you retire: People who are working at the time will be paying your Social Security benefits.

For the past 20 years, Social Security has collected more in taxes than it has paid in benefits. But the extra money hasn't been set aside for your retirement -- it's been spent. When the government ran deficits, as it did for most of these years, the Social Security "surplus" was spent on other government programs. When the overall budget began running surpluses in 1998, these funds went toward paying down the national debt.

So what's in the Social Security "trust fund"? Special government bonds that function, basically, as IOUs. When Social Security starts running deficits, as it's projected to do beginning in 2016, it will have to start redeeming those IOUs.

By 2021, according to current projections, the government will have to redeem some $100 billion a year in IOUs (in today's dollars without inflation) to pay promised benefits. By 2026, the price tag will reach more than $200 billion a year. By 2031, it will exceed $300 billion annually. And by 2038, the "trust fund" will run out of "money" completely.

Of course, federal lawmakers won't allow that to happen. But to keep paying current retirees, they'll have no choice but to hike taxes, slash benefits or legislate another delay in the retirement age.

Yet there is another choice. President Bush's Social Security commission, chaired by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., recommended personal retirement accounts that would let workers build up true nest eggs for themselves. Unlike Social Security, these accounts would really exist, with each worker's name affixed to genuine assets that could be passed on to his or her heirs.

We'll no doubt be hearing a lot in the future about the prospect of setting up such accounts, and reasonable people can disagree about how they should be structured. But before we get to that stage, we have to jettison this fiction that Social Security has a real-world trust fund that must be protected if the program is to survive.

Indeed, it is that misperception, and not the president's budget, that "undermines the security of the nation's social safety net," as The New York Times puts it. For it allows Congress to think that reform efforts can be safely postponed. They can't. And the sooner we recognize the "trust fund" for what it is, the sooner we can start having an honest debate.


David John is a senior policy analyst for Social Security at The Heritage Foundation (, a Washington-based public policy research institute.


Lemonite is offline  
Old 06-18-2002, 09:35 PM   #153
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
Lemonite's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 01:51 AM

Anyone notice this?... It's like night and day when I travel to other countries (Not the USA).. I guess there are just that many more people that are big boned or genetically doomed in America.

I especially like this statement, "In an editorial that accompanies the study, Robert C. Whitaker, MD, MPH, of the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, says future studies should explore other factors that might affect a person's risk of becoming obese, beyond race and ethnicity. "

Hahah.. how about laziness and Carbs.


Americans Becoming Fatter, Faster

Black Women, Hispanic Men Have Highest Risk of Obesity
By Jennifer Warner

June 17, 2002 -- American's aren't just piling on the extra pounds, they're piling them on faster and younger than ever before. A new report shows twice as many people were obese in 1999 than in the early 1960s, and people born in 1964 became obese up to 28% faster than those born only seven years earlier.

It's one of the first studies to take a long-term look at what makes some people more likely to become overweight than others and highlights major differences between ethnic groups, age groups, and the sexes.

"Our study clarifies who is at risk for obesity, identifies an age when this risk is particularly high, and looks at how excess weight develops over time," says study author Kathleen M. McTigue, MD, MPH, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a news release.

For nearly two decades, McTigue and colleagues followed more than 9,000 men and women who were born between 1957 and 1964. Their findings are published in the June 18 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

They found 27% of the people were obese by 1999, and 61% weighed more than is considered healthy. That's more than double the number of people who were obese in 1960-1962, and a 20% increase in the number of overweight Americans compared with nearly 40 years ago.

The study also found obesity developed most quickly in black women, moderately quickly in Hispanic women, and most slowly in white women. Black and Hispanic women also became overweight faster than white women, reaching overweight status in their mid to late 20s compared with mid-30s among white women.

"We could predict who would be obese at 35 to 37, based on sex, race/ethnicity, and body mass index at [age] 20 to 22," says McTigue. "This was especially striking in women. A 21-year-old woman with just a few extra pounds was quite likely to be obese by the time she was in her mid-30s."

Among men, the pattern was a little different. Hispanic men became obese most quickly compared with other groups.

The researchers say their study shows that young people who are overweight are most at risk of becoming obese as they grow older and prevention efforts should be targeted at this age group to avoid future health problems. Obesity increases a person's risk of four out of the six top causes of death in the U.S. -- heart disease, certain cancers, stroke, and diabetes.

In an editorial that accompanies the study, Robert C. Whitaker, MD, MPH, of the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, says future studies should explore other factors that might affect a person's risk of becoming obese, beyond race and ethnicity.

We must try to understand how other factors, such as neighborhood setting and family customs, influence diet and activity patterns, according to Whitaker.

"In our culture, all adults and children are at risk for obesity and must act to avoid it," Whitaker concludes. "Moderation is not a virtue that we easily apply to such activities as feeding and eating -- activities that give us and our loved ones so much joy."

2002 WebMD Inc. All rights reserved.
Lemonite is offline  
Old 06-18-2002, 09:44 PM   #154
Rock n' Roll Doggie
U2Bama's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 07:51 PM

Is it just me, or have your douchetasms increased since you finished college?
U2Bama is offline  
Old 06-19-2002, 11:36 AM   #155
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
Lemonite's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 01:51 AM

Have I not been Saying this is coming for a long time...


June 19, 2002

Southwest will charge large fliers extra fare
By Marie Beaudette

Southwest Airlines will start charging larger passengers for two seats on its 2,800 daily flights starting June 26.

The airline, which operates out of 58 U.S. cities and is the largest carrier at Baltimore-Washington International Airport, will begin charging "persons of size" for two seats if they think they may not fit comfortably in one.
Ticket agents will not have weight and height requirements to follow when determining who can comfortably fit into one seat or who needs to purchase another ticket, said Southwest spokeswoman Christine Turneabe-Connelly.
"It is, unfortunately, a judgment call," she said.
Miriam Berg, president of the Council on Size and Weight Discrimination, questioned agents' ability to make the correct assessment.
"Do they have scales to weigh people? Do they have tape measures to measure a person's girth?" she asked.
Southwest has always asked large passengers to purchase two tickets if they would have difficulty fitting into one seat, and ticket agents used to have some flexibility when accommodating these passengers, Mrs. Turneabe-Connelly said.
But as of June 26, the airline will ask large passengers "whether the flight is full or not, to purchase an additional seat," she said.
If the flight isn't full, the passenger may request a refund after the flight, Mrs. Turneabe-Connelly said.
"For an airline to charge people double based on the person's size is pure discrimination," Miss Berg said. "Do they discriminate the same way against basketball players who are 6 foot 5 inches and don't fit in their seats?"
All people who are too large to fit in one seat, not just the obese, are included in the Southwest policy, Mrs. Turneabe-Connelly said.
The industry does not have a general policy on airlines' accommodation of large passengers, said Diana Cronan, a spokeswoman for the Air Transport Association, which represents the major carriers. However, some carriers charge large passengers extra.
Chicago-based United Airlines, for example, charges larger passengers double if they cannot comfortably fit in one seat, said United spokesman Joe Hopkins.
Miss Berg said she has had more complaints from large travelers about Southwest, which is the fourth-largest domestic airline based on passenger numbers, than any other airline.
"They think they can get away with it because they think discriminating against people on the basis of weight will be acceptable to most of the population," she said.
She blames the airlines for making seats too small to accommodate larger Americans.
"The fact is that Americans are getting larger," she said. "This is what the population looks like, and an airline has an obligation to make its seat fit the population."
The actual trend in size is hard to pin down. In 1998, the government's body-mass index was changed, resulting in 30 million Americans going from government-approved to overweight or obese overnight.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that, under the new standards, 61 percent of Americans were overweight or obese in 1999. The percentage of obese Americans nearly doubled from about 15 percent in 1980 to 27 percent in 1999.
The policy change at Southwest was prompted by studies of its service, the company says. The airline found that many large passengers did not purchase two tickets and that other customers often complained when their space was encroached upon.
"We learned some important lessons from that," Mrs. Turneabe-Connelly said.
Advocacy organizations such as Miss Berg's have long opposed airlines charging large passengers extra.
The National Association for the Advancement of Fat Acceptance offers large passengers tips on its Web site for dealing with airlines but acknowledges that passengers often encounter stumbling blocks.
"Your needs deserve to be met, but it may be up to you to remind them of this simple fact," the site reads. "Remember that you have a right to accessible transportation."
Mrs. Turneabe-Connelly said Southwest ticket agents are trained not only to make good judgment calls on who needs to pay for an extra seat but also to be discreet when confronting passengers.
"We don't want the customer to be embarrassed or offended in any way," she said.
But it's important that all passengers be comfortable on Southwest flights, she said. "If we have a full flight and there's somebody sitting next to [a larger passenger], the other customer becomes upset."
Lemonite is offline  
Old 06-19-2002, 09:44 PM   #156
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
Lemonite's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 01:51 AM

You Think That Needs a Brawny Napkin... Hahah.. That's Funny.

Almost makes watching State v. worth it.

Lemonite is offline  
Old 06-20-2002, 11:01 AM   #157
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,619
Local Time: 08:51 PM
i usually just lurk in this thread, but that one about people being charged for two airline seats cracked me up.

nothing is more annoying than watching some 500 pound fatass next to you trying to squeeze their stomach rolls into a tiny seat. then they spill over and almost knock you out of your seat. and this is when i'm sitting like at a restaurant waiting to be seated, or anywhere where i sit for like 20 minutes tops. i've never been seated next to any of these people on a plane, but i couldn't begin to imagine how uncomfortable that would be. i paid more than enough for my airline ticket, i wouldn't want someone hogging all of their seat and some of mine.

all these people who are whining, fat people, tall people, anyone, should look and see just how uncomfortable and annoying it is to pay $200 to fly and be stuck next to someone for four hours who can't seem to stay in their own seat.
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 06-20-2002, 02:01 PM   #158
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
Lemonite's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 01:51 AM

Yes.. K... Try going to a concert and looking for your number seat on those bleachers and not being able to find it...

Here is something else.. I just got in my email.. Change of topic,

Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:29 AM
Subject: Long...but...worth reading

Subject: Worth Reading

The Salute. Have you noticed a difference in the salute given
by our military men and women as President Bush walks by?
Most folks would not notice anything, but military people see it
right away. Watch: When President Bush leaves his helicopter
or Air Force One, the honor guards salute and face him as he
disembarks, then turn their faces towards him as he passes by.

They continue to salute his back as he walks away. This kind of
salute has not been seen in the previous eight years, though it
is customary courtesy to the Commander-in-Chief. You see,
soldiers aren't required to turn and face the President as they
salute. They are not required to salute his back. They are only
required to salute. They can remain face-forward the entire

And that is what they did during Bill Clinton's entire
Presidency. Our soldiers were forced to obey Clinton's
orders, but they were not forced to respect him. From their
salutes, we can surmise that they did not. Why is such respect
afforded to President Bush? He doesn't even know how to
bite his lower lip and not get teary-eyed whenever he speaks!

The following incident from Major General Van Antwerp may
give us an insight.

Gen. Antwerp is president of the Officers' Christian
Fellowship. He lost nearly all his staff when the Pentagon was
attacked Sept. 11. His executive officer LTC Brian Birdwell
was badly burned and in the hospital when President Bush
visited him. Our President spent time and prayed with Brian.

As he was getting ready to leave, he went to the foot of
Brian's bed and saluted. He held his salute until Brian was able
to raise his burned and bandaged arm, ever so slowly, in
return. The Commander-in-Chief never initiates a salute,
except in the case of a Congressional Medal of Honor winner.
The injured soldier did not have to return the salute.

But he did, out of respect to his President --a Soldiers'

Congressman JC Watts (R. Oklahoma) said, "Character is
doing the right thing when nobody is looking." The nation and
world learned some of what our last President did when
nobody was looking. That President has been disbarred this
week, the worst disgrace (other than imprisonment) to a
lawyer. CNN will have a difficult time shining his or his wife's
tarnished images. In this time of war and danger, I am so
grateful to have a President whom the soldiers salute-fully.

On Special Report with Brit Hume, (hosted by Jim Angle), at
the close of the show when they normally have a funny video
clip, they showed President Bush and the First Lady on their
way to Marine One to leave for Camp David for the weekend.
As the video starts, the First Lady is leading the way into the
helicopter with the spaniel dog on the leash, and the President
is right behind her with the Scotty on the leash. As the First
Lady entered the chopper, the Marine at the gangway saluted
and held his salute.
The Scottie the president was walking decided it wanted to
squat right when he got to steps. The President pulled on its'
leash, but the stubborn Scottie persisted in squatting. The
president bent down and scooped up the pooch and entered
Marine One. After he entered, the Marine cut his salute and
returned to the position of attention. Moments later the
President reemerged from the helicopter and out onto the
steps. The Marine was standing at attention, head and eyes
straight ahead. The President leaned over and tapped him on
the left arm. The startled marine turned his body toward the
President and received his returned salute! This was a true
act of respect for our military people by our President! He
really does get it. Most any other person of his stature would
have just continued his journey, disregarding the neglected
return salute. Not George W. Bush. He is earning the respect
of the military community, not expecting it-as most have and

Subj: Our President George W. Bush The man who admitted to
having a drinking problem in younger years, and whose
happy-go-lucky lifestyle led him to mediocre grades in college
and an ill-fated oil venture. Whose mangled syntax, and
speaking mis-steps became known as "Bushisms." He came
within a hair's breadth of losing the election in November.
While votes were counted and re-counted, Bush quietly but
confidently waited at his ranch.

Make no mistake, his orders were carried out, but he stayed in
the background, faithful and confident. Bush named Jesus
Christ as Lord of his life on public TV. Not an oblique
reference to being "born-again" or having a "life change."

He actually said the un-PC-like phrase, "Jesus Christ!" On
September 11, he was thrust into a position only known by
Roosevelt, Churchill, Lincoln, and Washington. The weight of
the world was on his shoulders, and the responsibility of a
generation was on his soul.

So President George W. Bush walked to his seat at the front
of the National Cathedral just three days after two of the
most impressive symbols of American capitalism and
prosperity virtually evaporated. When the history of this time
is written, it will be acknowledged by friend and foe alike that
President George W. Bush came of age in that cathedral and
lifted a nation off its knees. In what was one of the most
impressive exhibitions of self-control in presidential history,
President George W. Bush was able to deliver his remarks
without losing his resolve, focus, or confidence. God's hand,
which guided him through that sliver-thin election, now rested
fully on him.

As he walked back to his seat, the camera angle was
appropriate. He was virtually alone in the scene, alone in that
massive place with God, just him and the Lord. Back at his
seat, George H. Bush reached over and took his son's hand. In
that gesture his father seemed to say, "I wish I could do this
for you, son, but I can't. You have to do this on your own."
President George W. Bush squeezed back and gave him a look
of peace that said, "I don't have to do it alone, Dad. I've got

What a blessing to have a professing Christian as President.
Please take a moment after you read this to pray for him. He
truly does have the weight of the world on his shoulders. Pray
that God will sustain him and give him wisdom and discernment
in his decisions. Pray for his protection and that of his family.
After you have prayed, share this with others.

Our President needs Christians around the world praying for
him. As this makes the e-mail rounds, eventually there could
literally be millions of people praying for him .

"Golf is a day spent in a round
of strenuous idleness."
--William Wordsworth
Lemonite is offline  
Old 06-20-2002, 07:51 PM   #159
I serve MacPhisto
z edge's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 07:51 PM
Thanks for posting that Lemonite. Most people take the salute for granted, or don't understand the heritage that goes along with. It was very obvious by your post and his actions that Mr. Bush does get it, like you posted. These gestures won't go unnoticed by our military for sure, and many in this country have noticed that too as approval ratings indicate.

I can't imagine a harder job than to be the leader of this country at a time when a shock wave went from coast to coast, not just felt in NY and DC, but in Oklahoma and Mississippi and North Dakota and California too. Every eye was on him, and he has certainly stepped up to the plate.

The task at hand a difficult and lengthy one, as he told us all up front, and we will suffer many losses. Amazingly, we have a significant rise in the number of 18 year old recruits into the military. Were I 18 again, I would have joined the military on sept 12th.

As a young troop I always looked at our officers and admired the respect and prestige they had. Arrogant and cocky they may have been, yet they had a lot of lives dependant upon them. I always wanted to feel that burden. Seven years later, I was amongst them. I went to Korea as a civilian and befrinded the leaders of different units and became immersed in their culture. I had finally made it, though down a different path. I made many friends some of whom I still talk with today.

One friend in particular, a rather young LTC (Lieutenant Colonel) used to mess with me and ask me if my "right arm was broke" when I approached them outdoors. This was of course because I never saluted them. I replied "no", to which he would say "come here then so I can break it for you". As a civilian of course I didn't have to salute them, but i was initiated into their world just the same. ANd what a time we all had, those mad nights on the town night after night. One rule they had was you never go out alone "always have your wing-man" and another was you "never leave anyone behind." Their rules did not apply to me, yet I was their "wing man" as many times as they were mine. Perhaps they were telling my future.

Excuse my ramblings though please.

Yes our leader President Bush gets a snappier salute now than others. They love him and he is a very sincere guy. I have believed this even before 911. I have said before that he may well go on to be one of our greatest ever Presidents, to those of us that aren't blinded by darkness that is. I bet he prays for us too.
z edge is offline  
Old 06-20-2002, 08:35 PM   #160
Rock n' Roll Doggie
U2Bama's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Lemonite
Have I not been Saying this is coming for a long time...

I must admit: I have neither seen nor heard you saying, for a long time, that Southwest Airlines would start charging large people for 2 seats. And I am surprised, knowing your usual topic of discussion, that you did not even mention the claustrophobic toilets in airplanes.

But I did enjoy your salute article posting.

U2Bama is offline  
Old 06-20-2002, 10:15 PM   #161
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
Lemonite's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 01:51 AM

Originally posted by U2Bama

I must admit: I have neither seen nor heard you saying, for a long time, that Southwest Airlines would start charging large people for 2 seats. And I am surprised, knowing your usual topic of discussion, that you did not even mention the claustrophobic toilets in airplanes.

Ah.. Not specifically the 'Southwest Airline' issue, just the obesity issue and it's burden on society. And yes, those toilets.. Then i'd be competing with Seinfeld... and well.. we can go from there... starting with the fact that he's jewish.. then that he wore 'Nike Force' hi tops in his show.. hahaha.. Just kidding.. No one get enraged.

And.. Z.. Much agreed.. It's nice to hear those thoughts every once in a while.. It's a shame they don't get put into words outside of just 'poll numbers', which is all we're allowed apparently.

Lemonite is offline  
Old 06-20-2002, 10:55 PM   #162
Rock n' Roll Doggie
U2Bama's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 07:51 PM

Originally posted by KhanadaRhodes
how uncomfortable and annoying it is to pay $200 to fly and be stuck next to someone for four hours who can't seem to stay in their own seat.
Southwest is flying me to San Diego for $99!
U2Bama is offline  
Old 06-21-2002, 07:32 AM   #163
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
Lemonite's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 01:51 AM

I love Southwest.. Good thing too my dad is one of those 3 Hour Early flight people.. I'm flying to Chicago for $130 on Southwest.

Lemonite is offline  
Old 06-21-2002, 01:34 PM   #164
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
Lemonite's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 01:51 AM

Hahaha.. It seems the supposed 'Offended' group has spoken up.. in what I assume mirrors many many of these other supposedly Offended groups that these 'Bleeding Heart Sensitivity Liberals' feel bad about...

These people have too much time on their hands.. It's a shame that these people don't have to work sun up to sun down so that they wouldn't have the time to attempt to decrease our IQ each and every day.


Speedy Gonzales eludes PC patrol
By Shelley Emling

NEW YORK He foiled Sylvester the Cat. Now the cunning Mexican mouse known as Speedy Gonzales apparently has outwitted the forces of political correctness.
The Atlanta-based Cartoon Network is returning Speedy Gonzales to its programming later this month after an outcry from fans.
The Cartoon Network yanked Speedy from the air in the late 1990s. Some fans say owner Ted Turner ordered the move because he believed the cartoons, which included the likes of Speedy's lazy cousin, Slowpoke Rodriguez, perpetuated an offensive Mexican stereotype.
Cartoon Network spokeswoman Laurie Goldberg said in March that the Speedy cartoons simply weren't that popular compared to other selections in an archive of some 8,500 cartoons. That has changed, she said yesterday.
"We never had a demand for it before. Now there's this vocal group that wants it back. If it does well, it will stay, and if it doesn't, it won't. After all, we are a business."
In recent months, thousands of fans many of them Hispanic created a brouhaha by lobbying hard to get the fastest mouse in all of Mexico back on the network.
Radio personality Rush Limbaugh decried Speedy's demise as political correctness gone too far. The League of United Latin American Citizens, the nation's oldest Hispanic-American rights organization, called Speedy a "cultural icon" who displayed plenty of admirable pluck.
One die-hard fan, Matthew Hunter, started an online petition in April to get Speedy back on the air and gathered more than 2,500 signatures.
"It's been silly not to have Speedy on the air because people watch him in Latin America, and they love him," said Virginia Cueto, associate editor of, an English-language Web site based in Florida. "It will be good to have him back."
Thousands of Hispanics and others have logged onto HispanicOnline's message board to voice their support for Speedy's return.
Said one fan: "Speedy is more of a positive symbol. He always brings down that loco Daffy Duck to the point that the latter finally started respecting Speedy. People like Speedy."
Speedy starred in more than 47 Looney Tunes shorts and won an Academy Award in 1955. The Cartoon Network, owned by AOL Time Warner Inc., has exclusive rights to show the cartoons in the United States.
It took control of the Warner Bros. collection of animated movies in 1999.
The Cartoon Network's Web site says Speedy cartoons will air throughout late June and July.
Lemonite is offline  
Old 06-21-2002, 05:10 PM   #165
I serve MacPhisto
z edge's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 07:51 PM
crys what the fuck

WHat in the hell is douche-Tastic poetry anyway?

Is this your little diary?

I just wondered man.

I do like that post from yesterday, but i was wondering what is this thread all about really?

And NO, I really don't have time to read it all.

z edge is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ©