Carlene

Like I would post anything from Michael Savage... Somebody really is smoking something stronger than a Marlboro....LOL

The problem with this idea is that a safe dosage for one person would be a lethal dosage for another, so without a doctor to monitor usage, I think we'd end up killing a lot of people. And the addicts would never be satisfied with limited quantities. They would either go back to illegal sources, or just get someone else to buy the drugs for them, from the pharmacy. The pharmacies have to keep the Sudafed under lock and key now, and limit the number of packages you can buy at one time. The hardware store has to lock up spray paint and even model glue/paint. Kids are sniffing everything from octane booster to household cleaners. How sad is that?

I had a Scottish friend years ago (pre-kids) when I lived in a downtown, Yuppie apartment complex. We had parties every Sunday out by the pool and one afternoon Isabel said to one of the neighbors, "Brock, would you come around about seven in the morning and knock me up?" We were all laughing too hard to really hear the rest..."Me alarm clock's on the blink." There was a TV commercial about that same time that featured the line "little Annie's fanny". It absolutely scandalized Isabel. She couldn't believe they would use such a dirty word on TV! I was clueless until she told me what "fanny" meant on the other side of the pond. In America, it's acutally a nice word for butt.

It was a response to the posts that stated US soldiers think we are winning the war in Iraq. And if polls are so worthless, why do the Republicans conduct as many as anyone else?

You think drugs - both pharmaceutical and street drugs - should be sold over the counter, in unlimited quantities? Somehow that doesn't sound like a very good idea to me.

Unfortunately, no....it's very true, and very scary. I googled "candy flavored meth" and came up with a lot of unrelated hits. And USA Today is a highly respected publication, not Mad Magazine. I seriously doubt they would ever publish such a "joke".

I thought it was obviously a tongue-in-cheek reference. But maybe not.... Have you checked your cigarettes to make sure they have writing on them?

Good for you! Better you should come to your senses late, than never!

I have NO idea what you are talking about. The article was written by Donna Leinwand and published in USA Today. It says nothing about cigarettes or tobacco companies. The whole point is that people who produce/sell methamphetamine (an ILLEGAL, addictive substance) have begun to add candy flavorings to their product, in order to make it more appealing to children.

By Robert Hodierne, Military Times WASHINGTON — The American military, once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war, has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory. For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll. When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83% of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50%. Only 35% of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way Bush is handling the war, and 42% said they disapprove. While approval of the president's war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military. Just as telling, in this year's poll only 41% of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65% in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population — 45% agreed in a recent USA TODAY-Gallup poll. Source: USA Today

I'm a native Texan, too and have seen one tornado up close in all that time, and it did some damage to property but no one was injured. Most Texans do not have storm shelters. Maybe we are just tougher than those sissies from OK and KS....LOL. I know one family with a concrete "safe room". No one I know has an underground shelter, although both my grandmothers had something called a root cellar that doubled as a storm shelter. The traffic in downtown Dallas scares me a whole lot more than any old twister ever could.

The Associated Press PHOENIX -- Actor Alec Bladwin was so moved by the story of an 18-year-old Army soldier who is scheduled to serve in Iraq, he's going to help pay for her college education after she leaves the military. Baldwin was so moved by a March 4 New York Times story about Pvt. Resha Kane's last day with family and friends before going for training to prepare for serving in Iraq that he — not his people — tracked down Kane's mother at a discount store where she works to offer his assistance, his spokesman said. "I didn't know what to say," Kane said. "And then I asked him if he could send me his autograph. I've never met a star, let alone talked to one on the phone." Baldwin's spokesman, Matthew Hiltzik, said when Baldwin read the Times article, it made him think of his own daughter, 11-year-old Ireland. Hiltzik said the actor would meet the Kane family in Mohave Valley and give them a check, which will be in addition to the $37,000 the Army will give Kane for college. A date for the meeting will be decided next week, he said. Although Baldwin, 48, has been a vocal critic against the war in Iraq, Hiltzik said supporting the troops who are fighting there is important to the actor. "He himself tried to find the family, and he was very happy he was able to connect with them," Hiltzik said. "It's a great example that people of different backgrounds can agree on the importance of supporting our troops." Patricia Kane said when she heard Baldwin's voice on the other line, she didn't know what to think. "I said, 'No way. You're lying.' I was just blown away," she said. "I am totally shocked and awed this has happened." Resha Kane said she was just as dumbfounded when her mother told her the news. "It's very generous," she said from Fort Hood in Texas, where she is undergoing further training before her unit is deployed to Iraq in September.

If Muslim women want to drive in the state of Florida, they should have their photos taken like everyone else. I was responding to Jack's post that implied something more sinister than religion in their motives. Since when are judges able to ascertain the truth by looking at someone's face?

Nobody likes abortion. Enough said.

Yes, Jack, we do have a different perspective regarding the war in Iraq. Maybe I'm older than you, but this is very much like a movie I've seen before. When I was a child, the government had us scared to death of the "Red Menace" (Russia). We had atomic bomb drills (file out into the hallway, sit down on the floor, put your head between your knees, and kiss your ass goodbye), and air raid shelters and people were encouraged to have a "meet up" point, in case the invasion came while Mom was at home, Dad was at work, and the kids were in school. We believed that every day was potentially the end of the world as we knew it. Then came Vietnam, and the whole "liberation" argument.....and talk similar to today's about victory and honor, etc. Sixteen years of American blood running thru the streets of Hanoi, and now there's a KFC there. My brother served three tours in Vietnam. He was not the same person when he came home. He was a machine - a cold, self-serving machine. And what did we gain? NOTHING. The same thing we will gain if we stay in Iraq for another 10 or 12 years. Next, it was the Chinese. We have to watch out for Communist China. And now, George Bush wants us to believe that the Muslims might take over the world, if we don't put them in their place. The Muslim women who refused to remove their burkas for DL photos in Florida were not terrorists. They were simply honoring their religious beliefs. To forcibly rip off their veils and reveal their faces would be comparable to forcing a Catholic woman to undergo an abortion. It's a HUGE issue to them....terribly invasive. The US is very cozy with certain Muslims, like the Saudis. And no country is more religiously militant than Saudi Arabia. Our service women stationed in Saudi are forbidden to drive or show their arms off base, per the US government. So as not to offend the locals. Why do we put up with this crap? From the US State Dept web site... Women considering relocating to Saudi Arabia should be keenly aware that women and children residing in Saudi Arabia as members of a Saudi household (including adult American-citizen women married to Saudi men, adult American-citizen women who are the unmarried daughters of Saudi fathers, and American-citizen boys under the age of 21 who are the sons of Saudi fathers) are considered household property and require the permission of the Saudi male head of their household to leave the country. From the American Forces Press Services... WASHINGTON, Jan. 23, 2002 -- U.S. Central Command has relaxed the requirement that female service members wear the Muslim abaya when off-base in civilian clothes. About 1,000 American service women are affected by the change. The command still "strongly advises" female service members to wear the abaya, a black cloak that Muslim women are required to wear by the Koran. Central Command officials said the requirement was put in place as a force protection measure. Saudi Arabia is a conservative Islamic country and the home of Mecca and Medina, two of the holiest sites in Islam. The officials said the country adheres to a strict interpretation of Islamic religious law as put down in the Koran, the Muslim holy book. The abaya in Saudi Arabia is a long black robe that covers the head and body. In other areas of the world, the abaya is a simple headscarf. Officials said that wearing the abaya allows American women to blend in with the population better and shows American cultural sensitivity. It also helps women avoid the attention of the Saudi "religious police."

Machele.....I respect your opinion and your brother's. Especially your brother's. Because my son was in Iraq too, and may soon deploy to Afghanistan for a year. Some soldiers believe the war is winnable, and some don't. Just like the rest of us. But I salute every American who has spent even one day in that awful place, regardliess of his/her political views. We can agree to disagree on the war, but we are united, I'm sure, in our hopes and prayers for the safe return of all Americans and an end to this awful war.

The pharmaceuticals ARE legal. Or did you mean to say that they should be unregulated? Crystal meth is made from Acetone (paint thinner), Muratic Acid, Lye, Iodine, and Sudafed (cold meds). No way can this be a good thing!

It's comments like this that make Muslims think the "war on terror" is actually a war against Muslims. A Jihad, by the way, is not necessarily an armed conflict. It can also mean spreading Islam by word of mouth and by example, much the same way Christians spread Christianity. Most Muslims support the reign of a Caliphate in Muslim countries. There is no cohesive, executable plan for Muslims to take over the world. What makes me so sure? Mostly the fact that Muslims cannot stop fighting among themselves long enough to plan a global takeover.

I never bothered to get a license for a handgun, as I never liked them. My brother used to own a shooting range, so I shot skeet and targets. I was Annie Oakley! Whoo Hoo! I figure all I need to deter a burglar is my shotgun. Don't even need shells. There's not a man alive who doesn't know the sound of a shotgun racking! It would be a pretty brave burglar who stayed around after that.

"High on the hog" is literally where the best cuts of meat come from.

Your mom was trying to tell you not to discount the value of experience. Eggs (younger people) have not yet hatched....chickens (older people) have. So the chickens know what they're talking about, but the eggs don't.

Faith.... You are correct, in that nothing posted here is likely to change anyone's mind. But you are mistaken about Hawaii. From the State of Hawaii's official web site... In 1893, with Queen Liliuokalani on the throne, the Americans formed a Committee of Safety and declared the monarchy ended. In 1894, the Republic of Hawaii was established. On August 12, 1898, the government of the Republic transferred sovereignty to the United States. Hawaii became a territory of the United States in 1900.

First of all, I did not say I supported Saddam Hussein. I said he kept the country stable while he was in power, and that is a fact. And, while I have never personally "supported" Saddam Hussein, the United States government, in the person of Ronald Reagan, certainly did. The following is from the George Washington University's web site. U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support; U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies; Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983). The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats. The documents include: A U.S. cable recording the December 20, 1983 conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz. National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns. National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War," focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places "equal stress" on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics." The directive orders preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse." U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests. The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims." Edited to add....

I think it's great that you have such tender feelings for ANS. My heart breaks for her little girl, too. In a way, it's a blessing that she's only six months old. She was spared the grief of losing one's mom. I'm sure her father, once it's determined who that is, will eventually marry and hopefully God will bless her with a wonderful, loving stepmother. "The old man" may have been in his right mind when he married Anna Nicole, but he also left her nothing in his will. That says a lot about his intentions. I think she deserves something, but by no means his entire estate, or even half (which is what she was suing for). Anna's own will is just as iffy. She specifically disinherited any children born to her after Daniel. I am still amazed by that. What mother would sign something like that? Sorry, but I see Howard K Stern's fingerprints all over that. Custody of the baby will undoubtedly be awarded to the natural father, once the DNA results are back and the smoke clears. And I would bet money that it ain't Howard.

The war will not "come with them". Iraq is not going to invade the United States (although, who could blame them?). Sadam Hussein was what kept the country stable. It was removing him that de-stabilized Iraq. And please don't play the 9/11 card. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. No, he didn't. He told his advisers what he wanted to hear, and that's the "information" they gave him. There is absolutely no reason to believe this to be true. It's just more Bush propaganda. Not so. There are quite a few people who remember Pearl Harbor. It won't stop even if we DON'T leave, so what's your point? And besides that, we are not the world's police force. It is not our responsibility to protect every nation from themselves. We can't...nor should we keep trying. The Iraqis did not start beheading Americans until Americans showed up in Iraq. If we bring our people home, the Iraqis may continue to fight with one another, but they are going to do that anyway, no matter what. We can't stay in Iraq forever. Would you have us re-enact Vietnam? Sixteen years and we still lost. Iraq has all the makings of another Vietnam. Prozac wouldn't hurt, but I have a better idea....give Bush a machoectomy.