Buster I think you have to admit that was one of the better pieces out there as it didnt attack either side (left of right) explained all its points, and backed up much of its sources etc.

Just for sheets and giggles I took in a few hours of talk radio during a trip earlier this week. One day I only listened to obvious right wing advocates (Russ and friends lol) and the next it was all left wing (Springer, and franken, theres two for your list also lol).

I have to say I can better understand why some were finding my previous comments somewhat confusing, or just not in line with either side of the whole debate(s). One thing I thought obvious (well besides I really prefer some less intense entertainment while driving, like maybe metallica or something lol) was that most all concerned were interested in supporting their own beliefs, and any opposing or different thoughts and ideas (even those not directly supporting the other side etc) were strictly refuted, and in the case of the second day only aired once and even then the caller was rushed off the air and a long rant followed.

I am not saying any of these shows were 100% anything (deffinately not completely correct in their thinking), and it was beyond obvious that all were promoting their thinking, and allowing various call ins and guests to help substanciate their way of thinking. Another act all were guilty of (to different degrees) was only providing one sided information while purposely ignoring or editing any opposing or negative info that may have been a part of the issue (the second day was 1000% more guilty of this than the first).

So I thought to myself what is the point. If your only going to allow similar thinking people to be a part of your show, and not offer any opposing or different insight etc like all the left wing personalities did, or even as the right wingers did in allowing opposing opinions that were of people who obviously were also on a mission and thefore not having more than 1/2% of anyone or any events changing their views then who is the intended audiance? I mean it was not like there was much give on either end (the left was like a rock) and the only potential purpose I could consider was those who are on the fence being brain washed by onesided thinking, or that these are little more than media outlets for similar thinking people to reinforce each others same thinking.

I cant tell you if the constant defending of the administration, or the constant barrage of attacks on it were more diffilcult to continue listening to, but I did find both amusing to a point, and then little more than annoying after that point.

The really funny thing is that even though I am not a type who makes calls into stations etc I found a couple times where I wanted to call the guest host for Russ's show, but a seriously stronger desire to contact the follow up to franken (it could have been the lead in show because I just dont remember lol) due to the absolutely insanity that was taking place. If you had the misfortune to be listening you surely know what I mean.

To sum it up lets say that even though neither side is totally wrong or correct the left has an obvious problem in how it is presenting itself, and in substanciating its claims, and then ultimately following up with any solid answers (no sorry hillary isnt an answer, just a larger issue of its own) therefore appearing obviously to be on the attack as that is all they have to offer today, and the right really needs to stop defending the president on every point, and accept that there are problems with or at min questions that need to be answered in reguard to some of the actions, and decisions made, and then openly offer what the real plan is, and how they intend to better represent middle class america.

Maybe because my only agenda is to protect what rights we have, and not to have to continue looking at properties in a foreign country with a "growing economy" so as to improve and not decline my quality of living, and ultimately to continue to maintain or improve an ability to live the "american dream" is why I cant fully agree with either side, or maybe its just because both sides are honestly so out of touch with the american citizen, and so infiltrated by big business, money and greed that they can not singurally reach the public in the way they need to.

 

I agree, with the feeling you dont want to aline with either side. They dont speak for me either...in fact there is NO opposition party left in america, or id belong to it. Ive said it before and i still beieve it...citizens are being played against each other, to keep us from focusing on the politicans.

The radio shows are entertainment, scripted and played like www wrestling. Both sides.

 

I have to say you can deff see the parts where the scripting comes into play.

One thing I left out of my previous post was that even though I find I may have some liberal ideas at times I find it seriously hard to even consider aligning myself in any way with those who are openly liberal. Maybe there is some misuse of the meaning, or due to various needs an accepting of anyone who is wiling to oppose completely any conservative thinking etc, but I just find the general attitude and close minded thinking (especially of the people who "entertained" me that day lol) just completely turns me off.

I think I really should put in a little more time trying to better understand all of that position etc before going off with any more opinions, but that could be more about my wanting to be sure, or just not enjoying being wrong [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

 

I had no idea who General Chong is or the source of these thoughts... so when I received them, I almost deleted them - as well-written as they are. But then I did a "Google search" on the General and found him to be a retired Air Force Surgeon of all things and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio . So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs, and these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about (the same Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.)

If you would like information on General Chong, go to Google and type i n his name (Major General Vernon Chong). All of the following is something that everyone should read.
====================================
This WAR is for REAL!

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United State s is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairbi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the ***** for political reasons (incuding 7,000 Polish priests). (see< B>http://www.*****.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the *****, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the *****, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infid els." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the wor ld. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter wheher it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bomb ed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims..

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

< STRONG>The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we reognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil right during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are dislo yal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these sam e type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpse through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terroris ts have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.
We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect.. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries thrughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. (NEVER THOUGHT OF THE INFILTRATION SCHEME, PROBABLY WORKING HERE RIGHT NOW. BET THEY INTEND ON INHERITING THE FRENCH'S NUKES, THEN WHAT?)The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the" peaceful Muslims??

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. < STRONG>It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or libera l, and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too.

There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must

 

For those that have not figured out the last word it is UNITE

 

I agree with much of this post. I will take exception to the generalization of Muslims wanting to defeat us. I think Muslims that are perverted by OBL and his kind would be clearer. I also take exception to the point that if we are not 100% united, we cannot win. I believe if we are just over 50% united, we can win. We just need to not lose the political battle on the home front with people who simply don't comprehend the danger we are all in and I am referring to the danger the terrorists pose, NOT THE ADMINISTRATION!

I believe we should be profiling due to the seriousness of the threat and I am not a fan of Political Correctness unless it aligns with my core values in a given situation. If it does not, my core values win.

The description of the threat in this piece is very good and I am soooooooo thankful that if nothing else, Bush understands this. Since I believe in this threat, you can see why some of the wiretapping doesn't really bother me. It seems quite superfluous, really.

Ron

 

This from another staunch republican of the past.


Reagan’s Campaign Manager: Team Bush Is ‘Incompetent’
Posted by Jon Ponder | Mar. 4, 2006, 8:27 am

Ed Rollins, campaign manager for Ronald Reagan’s election team in 1980 and 1984, joined the bandwagon of Republicans who are openly criticizing the Bush Administration yesterday on CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight:

“You know, the reality is, they’ve lost their touch … [Every] week it’s something that just reinforces the message that these guys don’t know what they’re doing. They’re incompetent. I mean, we’re almost to the point, where we’re going to look fondly back on Jimmy Carter’s administration. And I say that with great sadness as a Republican. But it’s week after week after week that they just can’t seem to find their way. Normally a foreign trip gives you something. You go there, but if we’re walking back with mangoes, and they’re getting nuclear rods, that’s not a very good swap.”

Here are Rollins’ bona fides:

He directed the most successful Presidential campaign in the history of the United States, serving as Ronald Reagan’s 1984 National Campaign Director… Mr. Rollins served in the administrations of Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, joining the Reagan administration as one of the President’s top advisors in the role of Assistant to the President for Political and Governmental Affairs.

Remember the GOP Rule: Critizing Bush = Hating America

 

More republicans who are tired of the koolaid.

The McCain (et al.) Mutiny
A President who prizes loyalty suddenly finds the knives are out.

Jack Hitt
January/February 2006 Issue

ATTEMPTS TO GIVE George Bush's administration a nickname had been circling around this one: "The Tinkerbell Presidency." Like Ronald Reagan's "Teflon," recognizing his gift for sidling past criticism, or Bill Clinton's "Comeback Kid," honoring his talent for turning around any scandal, the epithet captures Bush's quality of surrounding himself with an amen chorus that claps every doomed policy back to life. But the name won't catch on. The Bush drama has moved into the final act, and Tink's dust isn't working.

This time the fairy will die.

Historians may want to mark the last attempt at arousing audience participation, and here it is: Just after the fall of Harriet Miers, the soprano section at the National Review Online sent out this hallelujah: "You know what the relief is this morning? A return to the feeling that this president gets the big things right. There was a detour, but I'm confident we're going to have good news shortly...."

Really? Bush may yet snag an occasional friendly headline ("Nominee Confirmed"), but his presidency is effectively over. A man who built his entire administration upon demanding unctuous loyalty from his allies now finds himself wounded by their shabby betrayal. You'd have to go back to one of Spain's humpbacked Hapsburgs to find court perfidy of the variety that is currently depleting the president's power.

Bush's allies in Congress began to turn away right after the election of 2004. John McCain repeatedly mocks Condi Rice or any other official who dares to come before him with honey-tongued news from Iraq. Chuck Hagel says of Iraq: "It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous." A senator as conservative as Jim DeMint of South Carolina has broken with Bush on the budget, and it was Republicans who knifed Bush's grand Social Security reform.

Worse, roughing up the president has practically become the new Republican way to announce a presidential campaign for 2008. Only a few months ago, Bill Frist was happy to violate his Hippocratic oath by giving the media a bogus diagnosis of Terry Schiavo to help Bush (and himself) court the pro-life fringe. Now Frist has come out in favor of stem-cell research and let it be known he told the White House to pull the plug on Harriet Miers. This is not merely about fleeing a sinking ship. Bush long ago showed that nothing should stand in the way of getting into power; so Frist, along with co-betrayers George Allen and Sam Brownback, are practicing what they have learned at the feet of the master. Now, it's Bush and his legacy that are in the way.

Outside the corridors of Congress are other kinds of betrayal, insidious ones that can't be easily restrained by threats or mau-mauing. Take television. Hurricane Katrina revealed a Homeland Security operation that looked like the Keystone Cops, and television producers saw, for the first time, mass outrage at the Bush cronies. Here's the bad news for Bush: There's only one thing the broadcast media will pursue more obediently than the approval of an intimidating government: audience share. Now that his approval numbers are in a tailspin, TV bookers are dusting off that long neglected Rolodex of administration critics.

Once, Bush's Iraq gamble had backing from moderate pundits like Peter Beinart, Andrew Sullivan, and George Packer. But each has slunk away cursing Bush's name with angry magazine covers, withering blogs, or brutal books. For conservative pundits, the turning point came with the Miers nomination. John Fund whacked it as "a political blunder of the first order." George Will and his thesaurus called her nomination the "perfect perversity." Robert Bork called it a "disaster on every level." Embodying what David Brooks, pop neologist, has already coined the "Post-Bush Conservative," they no longer see Bush as a prince to be obeyed but as political carrion upon which to feast.

Then there is the staff. It's memoir-shopping time, and what every official departing the Old Executive Office Building is about to learn is that if you don't have a fresh story of Bush confusing Sweden for Switzerland or bonking himself in the face by stepping on a rake, then don't come to Sixth Avenue looking for a $250,000 advance.

Such books will start rolling out soon enough, and here's why: Only a few years ago, Bush officials such as John DiIulio, Paul O'Neill, and Richard Clarke all came out to bash Bush as a "Mayberry Machiavelli" or "a blind man in a roomful of deaf people" or a national-security goof who ignored the "urgency" of destroying Al Qaeda. Bush's response was not to answer their arguments. Instead, each man was immediately Swiftboated with a ferocious attack on his character. DiIulio issued a cringe-inducing Stalinesque apology. O'Neill stammered on TV that he might have made a mistake. Clarke just took it.

That was then.

When the Plamegate indictments were about to come down, the Rove squad sent out an unnamed "White House ally" to say that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was "a vile, detestable, moralistic person with no heart and no conscience who believes he's been tapped by God to do very important things." For some reason, it didn't work. Maybe Fitzgerald's Sunday-school repute broke the slander machine, or maybe the mass audience just got fed up with the same old mudslinging. Even more shocking, though, was the machine's failure to Swiftboat Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, who, in a speech and op-ed clearly aimed at finding a publisher, said foreign policy had been taken over by "a secretive, little-known cabal." He pinned the responsibility for torture not on a few bad apples among the grunts but square on Dick Cheney. Once upon a time, there would have been no mercy for the teller of such tales or the author of such sentences as: "At least once a week, it seemed, Powell trooped over to the Oval Office and cleaned all the dog poop off the carpet. He held a youthful, inexperienced president's hand."

From the beginning, Bush avoided the flaccid compromises that come from bipartisan agreements. Instead, he used the easy bullying of Democrats to solidify his base and entertain the Beltway media. Reagan worked privately with Tip O'Neill, Clinton with Trent Lott, but Bush could never call up Harry Reid for a friendly back-channel talk. Once famous in Texas as a "uniter, not a divider," Bush let the tenor of his presidency get defined by Cheney and dozens of other Ford administration refugees such as Donald Rumsfeld and John Snow. They were men who survived the fires of Watergate, got bounced from office in 1976, and then seethed for a quarter of a century before Bush v. Gore permitted them to take their revenge against the despised Democrats.

Couple that fury with Rove's tactics and you have an administration that has ruled largely by fear. Swiftboating their enemies at home and torturing them abroad, terror was not so much a war to be fought as a grammar in which to conjugate all their actions. The problem for Bush now is that all his enforcers—DeLay, Libby, Rove, and Cheney himself—are crippled. As more and more Wilkersons go unpunished, more and more will emerge. You can't rule by fear if people aren't afraid.

Perhaps Bush chose his governing philosophy from the early pages of The Prince, where Machiavelli advises young leaders that: "It is far safer to be feared than loved." Later on, though, Machiavelli writes more about the need for a kind heart. He warns young princes that those who rely too much upon "words" and not "nobility of soul" would earn only friendships that "are not real, and cannot be depended upon in time of adversity."

It's what we all expect of a C– student: Skim the first couple of chapters and hope to bullsh@t the rest.

 

Honda,

I can't help but notice that you are ignoring the comments from the other side of the aisle and everything you post is bashing the current administration. The fact that you are stepping up your propaganda indicates to me that the couple of pieces that show the other side of the coin are making you nervous.

I don't think you understand that you and people who think like you really have gotten your message out already. We get it. You don't like Bush. That is fine. You are entitled to your opinion. Most of the country has heard the things you are saying already from the Democratic party, the media and Michael Moore.

If you want to stay as a minority idea holder, keep doing exactly what you are doing. As long as you guys that hate the Bush administration's policies keep approaching this the way you are, you will only make the idea's that I and many others hold sound more attractive all the time. 440EX026 is an exception because I have found him to be completely intellectually honest about his reservations.

Please, don't change a thing. Keep the anti-Bush propaganda coming. Btw, wasen't even the beloved Ronald Reagan (who I deeply respect) at around 35% approval rating in the middle of his last term as President? Until the Liberals come up with some ideas besides taking shots at what the President is doing, The President could have 0% approval rating and the Liberals still wouldn't be able to advance their agenda.

 

I think that we need a little humor.

TELL ME THIS WON'T HAPPEN TO US !!!
>>
>>An elderly Floridian called 911 on her cell phone to report that her
>>car has been broken into. She is hysterical as she explains her
>>situation to the dispatcher: "They've stolen the stereo, the steering
>>wheel, the brake pedal and even the accelerator!" she cried. The
>>dispatcher said, "Stay calm. An officer is on the way." A few minutes
>>later, the officer radios in. "Disregard." He says. "She got in the back-seat by mistake."
>>_______________________________________
>>FAMILY
>>
>>Three sisters ages 92, 94 and 96 live in a house together. One night
>>the
>>96 year old draws a bath. She puts her foot in and pauses. She yells
>>to the other sisters, "Was I getting in or out of the bath?" The
>>94-year old yells back, "I don't know. I'll come up and see." She
>>starts up the stairs and pauses "Was I going up the stairs or down?"
>>The 92 year old is sitting at the kitchen table having tea listening
>>to her sisters. She shakes her head and says, "I sure hope I never get
>>that forgetful, knock on wood." She then yells, "I'll come up and help
>>both of you as soon as I see who's at the door."
>>______________________________________
>>"I CAN HEAR JUST FINE!"
>>
>>Three retirees, each with a hearing loss, were playing golf one fine
>>March day. One remarked to the other, "Windy, isn't it?" "No," the
>>second man replied, "it's Thursday." And the third man chimed in, "So am I.
>>Let's have a beer."
>>_______________________________________
>>
>>SUPERSEX
>>
>>A little old lady was running up and down the halls in a nursing home.
>>As she walked, she would flip up the hem of her nightgown and say
>>"Supersex.." She walked up to an elderly man in a wheelchair. Flipping
>>her gown at him, she said, "Supersex." He sat silently for a moment or
>>two and finally answered, "I'll take the soup."
>>_______________________________________
>>ROMANCE
>>
>>An older couple were lying in bed one night. The husband was falling
>>asleep but the wife was in a romantic mood and wanted to talk. She said:
>>"You used to hold my hand when we were courting." Wearily he reached
>>across, held her hand for a second and tried to get back to sleep. A
>>few moments later she said: "Then you used to kiss me. "Mildly
>>irritated, he reached across, gave her a peck on the cheek and settled down to sleep.
>>Thirty seconds later she said: "Then you used to bite my neck."
>>Angrily, he threw back the bedclothes and got out of bed. "Where are you going?"
>>she asked. "To get my teeth!"
>>_______________________________________
>>DOWN AT THE RETIREMENT CENTER
>>
>>80-year old Bessie bursts into the rec room at the retirement home.
>>She holds her clenched fist in the air and announces, "Anyone who can
>>guess what's in my hand can have sex with me tonight!!" An elderly
>>gentleman in the rear shouts out, "An elephant?" Bessie thinks a
>>minute and says, "Close enough."
>>_______________________________________
>>OLD FRIENDS
>>
>>Two elderly ladies had been friends for many decades. Over the years,
>>they had shared all kinds of activities and adventures. Lately, their
>>activities had been limited to meeting a few times a week to play cards.
>>One day, they were playing cards when one looked at the other and
>>said, "Now don't get mad at me. I know we've been friends for a long
>>time but I just can't think of your name! I've thought and thought,
>>but I can't remember it. Please tell me what your name is." Her friend glared at her.
>>For at least three minutes she just stared and glared at her. Finally
>>she said, "How soon do you need to know?"
>>_______________________________________
>>SENIOR DRIVING
>>
>>As a senior citizen was driving down the freeway, his car phone rang.
>>Answering, he heard his wife's voice urgently warning him, "Herman, I
>>just heard on the news that there's a car going the wrong way on
>>Interstate 77. Please be careful!" "Hell," said Herman, "It's not just
>>one car. It's hundreds of them!"
>>_______________________________________
>>DRIVING
>>
>>Two elderly women were out driving in a large car - both could barely
>>see over the dashboard. As they were cruising along, they came to an
>>intersection. The stoplight was red, but they just went on through.
>>The woman in the passenger seat thought to herself "I must be losing
>>it. I could have sworn we just went through a red light." After a few
>>more minutes, they came to another intersection and the light was red again.
>>Again, they went right through. The woman in the passenger seat was
>>almost sure that the light had been red but was really concerned that
>>she was losing it. She was getting nervous At the next intersection,
>>sure enough, the light was red and they went on through. So, she
>>turned to the other woman and said, "Mildred, did you know that we
>>just ran through three red lights in a row? You could have killed us
>>both!" Mildred turned to her and said, "Oh! Am I driving?"
>>
>>TELL ME THIS WON'T HAPPEN TO US !!!