Free Republic

I have no evidence Jones was behind the death of Muscone and Milk, but it is known that Milk was a shill for Jones. It’s really an Obama nation that the “girly man” Governor is giving this pedophile undeserved recognition.

Pedophilia is precisely what is being honored with this recognition of Harvey Milk considering Milk had a sexual adoration for boys in their teens and had a live-in relationship with a sixteen year old.

I agree. She has been wrongly attacked. I just posed the question to clear up my concerns.

If we are to believe from the general media that this resignation is not genuine, but a way for her to capitalize on a Hollywood talk show akin to Oprah, that's not fair. I don't see the general media critizing Mike Huckabee for become a television host and radio commentator based on his run for the President.

Whatever occurs, I would be delighted if Sarah Palin campaigns for conservatives in 2010. She sparks the energy the general media fears, and if it turns congress, it will be the best way to stop Obama’s power grab.

I probably need more education on the ethics laws she championed. This only highlights some of the changes:

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=393&type=1

I agree it would have been difficult for her to actively alter these changes based on the frivilous ethics charges she has faced, and that when she signed these into law, she had no idea they would be used to disrupt her and the state of Alaska when she became a leading conservative voice.

Still, it rubs me the wrong way to see frivilous law suits based on a law she championed. I hope the new Governor can clear up such frivolity.

I like Governor Sarah Palin, but I cannot help but think that this resignation raises concerns about her executive ability. She cites the frivolous ethics charges as the reason to step down, but she also reminds us that she championed these ethics laws that have hurt her and the state of Alaska. Is it not the responsibility of a voter to evaluate the record, and given the problems these ethics laws have caused, have not these ethics laws championed by Sarah herself demonstrate that they should have not been so hastily enacted?

Nice illustration, but unfortunately it’s urban legend.

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

In a real socialist school, they let the students grade
themselves, and they really love that.

Creepy, and unethical.

So, the future of health care is to force your wife to have an abortion to produce embryonic stems cells to someone with a dilapidating disease who will in turn die of massive tumors due to the instability of such cells. If this is not the promotion of the death of innocents, what is?

Is there an official recall effort against Schwarzenegger? The few I’ve found are not well funded and don’t look promising. I don’t like Schwarzenegger, but all the Democrats on the left are against Proposition 8 as well, and surely a recall would lead to a far left leaning Democrat Governor. We’re stuck with these bad leaders, but this was one proposition that gives me some hope for the future of California.

Excellent idea. I was thinking about removing the flags, but now you gave me a way to protest this terrible violation of our liberties!

The USA has officially become the USSA (United Social States of America) and when the Democrats and their Marxist leader implement the tools to suppress free speech, the USA will be no more. The Constitution will become toilet paper after it's ratified by these anti American marxists. I have no hope. None. There will be no negotiation. No dispute. I'm not even sure this web site can be based in the United States.

The USA is dead.

May I quote scripture from the King James Bible?

Matthew 7:6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

It is not surprising to me that few responses were given by the members of Free Republic to this post. Howard Stern's presence is no longer freely available, and those who do listen to Howard Stern pay for his radio show and most likely have adopted much of the beliefs that Howard Stern has proclaimed. They are accepted with little question, much like what Howard Stern proclaimed about Christianity in his interview with Bill Keller. It is a fruitless cause to argue otherwise with such a manipulator like Howard Stern.

Furthermore, it appears to me that Bill Keller has become an object of ridicule on The Howard Stern Show, and for Bill to think otherwise is delusional. How can anyone who made a choice to pay for Howard Stern be accepting to the views that Bill Keller makes?

Also, keep in mind that to state that a homosexual act is a sin is precisely what the homosexual movement points out in their agenda. The pronouncement that homosexuality is a sin just confirms their suspicions of bigotry. Christianity gets a wrongful wrap when such proclamations are made. It serves no one to give such amplification to such a single sin.

As an example, Bill Keller faithfully stated that he has not masturbated since reclaiming his Faith in Jesus, but what of his dreams? Should we pry into Bill Keller's dreams to ensure he did not even imagine having a sexual act with a woman not his wife? Such scrutiny is wrong, and I don't even think Jesus would condone it. Granted, such dreams could be determined to be sinful, but it's sin within oneself, and not sin against outside the realm of oneself. Isn't that very similiar to masturbation, albeit it requires physical manipulation, sight unseen?

I think the lack of responses speak volumes to the cause of Bill Keller. It was a fruitless exercise.

He's good enough, charming enough and has the right look. You mark my words, this is what happened.

I thought Vasquez was okay, and if he really was guaranteed to win, he may have signed himself to 19 Entertainment. But, then I had second thoughts after reading the following article:

http://www.aiken4u.com/news/2004/idolcontractkeepswinnersonleash.shtml

I think its possible that Vasquez declined the contract because he wasn't prepared to have 19 Entertainment reveal (or control) personal information about himself. I don't think the contract was declined due to the financial terms unless he worried about becoming another Justin Guarini.

I think the Donovan McNabb comments were overblown, and it gave the people opposed to Rush a cause celebre to call Rush a racist. It's strange to me that Rush's stint at football commentary got him into trouble though. Football is not why I listen to Rush, and he's acknowledged that it's not what his fans enjoy. I personally am not a Steeler fan. As for Rush not being fully forthcoming on his comments regarding Donovan McNabb, I don't think he'll ever admit the comments were racist, because he does not believe that the comments were racist. Is that the gall of arrogance? Certainly it's up to his listeners and not the politically correct police to make that determination. I gather the sports world is not all that tolerant.

My initial post was to disagree with the view that Stern was more intellectually honest than Rush, and not to defend Rush. The fact that I could be something akin to a Rushbot doesn't offend me. Rush isn't the only source of news and information for me.

As for Stern, he still is no match to Rush. There is a reason why Stern is so disliked in the radio industry. Stern thinks he's got the trademark on farts. On the other hand, Rush is honored and credited in the industry because he supports his fellow conservative talk show hosts, and that, IMO, is not arrogant.

I am not a Stern fan--although I would prefer listening to him over Rush because he is at least intellectually honest and less of a blow hard.

I don't police grammar, but calling Stern more intellectually honest than Rush is incomprehensible! What does this mean? How intellectual is it for Stern to reveal his personal behavior when it just reveals his proclivity for sex and bowel movements? And if Stern's show was about honesty, how many listeners were fooled when he pledged his love to his former wife Alison?

As for Stern, the blow hard, he may attempt to present himself as self effacing, but he has undermined those who wish to compete with him behind the scenes. He certainly wasn't forth coming on how he clamped down on Opie and Anthony before they left the public airwaves. Furthermore, Stern has stated how much he hates lawyers, yet he is the first to use lawyers to go after former employees who he thinks "ripped" him off. In fact, I recall in the mid 90s, Stern used his lawyers to shutdown fan web sites because they were rebroadcasting material from his show. I know. Rush has his own cadre of lawyers as well.

But IMO, Rush's program is not really about Rush. It's about ideas I support, and about promoting those ideas in contrast to what is reported by liberals. Rush has certainly made more of an impact on US politics than Stern could ever imagine, and therefore, he'll be long remembered after a tool like Stern.

Radio was variety, talk mixed with music for example...

The change in talk radio occurred due to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Talk radio was required to air contracting points of view concerning matters of "public interest" prior to the repeal so there could never be a Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh. Instead, such personalities would have to team up with someone with a contrasting view.

He was sacked after pulling some stunt where he blocked traffic over the Golden Gate Bridge while he was getting a haircut...

It was on the Bay Bridge, and the stunt was just after Clinton had held up air traffic at LAX because Clinton had to get a famous hair stylist to cut his hair on Air Force One.

There is a huge difference between addiction and recreational drug use.

I don't think the difference is as huge as purported. Both addiction and recreational drug use reference a psychological need for something that takes a mind off reality. It's the amount of use that makes it problematic.

I've personally had to endure sessions of Alcoholics Anonymous for having been caught driving over a 0.08% BAC, and many of the speakers exaggerated their use of alcohol to gain acceptance among the group. It was almost laughable how some thought their intake was worthy of being considered an alcoholic, but I thought the program was better than a session with a psychiatrist. I just don't think it's a bad idea for a person who thinks themselves as a drunk to go to fellow drunks who've stopped, and believe in a "higher" power such as God.

In any case, I truly believe any mind altering activity or "drug" can be considered "addictive". The problems arise when the compulsive or excessive activity results in real life problems. Such things may be resolved by psychiatrists, but ultimately, they need to be addressed by the individual.

Ultimately, I do not think those who support the legalization of drugs (even those requiring a prescription from a doctor) are not taking into account the increased social costs of allowing everyone from our truck drivers to our physicians to freely take drugs that could result in very dire circumstances.

Does a responsible society think it acceptable for a surgeon to take a tab of LSD before surgery? Does a responsible society think it acceptable for a truck driver to get blasted drunk before driving? Granted, such drug intake could be deferred before such important tasks, but wouldn't the legalization of "drugs" result in even more limitations based on professions?

...I will have a dream in which I dose.

So, was the dream any better?

I'm no biochemist, but doesn't the ability to hallucinate remain well after the repetitive use of LSD? I think psychiatrists call it schizophrenia.