Is Rush Limbaugh getting high again? - Mercedes-Benz Forum

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 7 (permalink) Old 08-30-2005, 04:37 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Is Rush Limbaugh getting high again?

I heard this on his show yesterday, and just scratched my head, because he did not give any reason these were actually "anti-war leftists" who beat up these guys. Has the current loss of the support of the general population of the US caused these guys to go off their rockers? Is Rush shooting smack again? Is Hannitu bonging it with him? The whole talking head radio crowd of sniveling little fascists seems to be going nutso.

Limbaugh baselessly blamed Seattle violence on "anti-war left"

mediamatters.org

Responding to a report that two U.S. service members who had recently returned from Iraq were badly beaten in Seattle, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh baselessly blamed the violent incident on the "anti-war left." In fact, there is no evidence that the attack was politically motivated.

As Seattle TV station KOMO reported on August 25, police noted that the attack, which was caught on videotape, occurred after the three suspects allegedly "groped" the women who were accompanying the soldiers, and one of the women responded by "thr[owing] a hot dog at the suspects." From KOMO's report:

Two soldiers who just returned from a year in Iraq were badly beaten in an attack outside Pioneer Square. But believe it or not, someone caught the beating on videotape. Now, police are asking for your help identifying the suspects.

The brutality of it all was captured on tape outside of Larry's Nightclub on First and Yesler on July 31.

Police say the victims were with two women who'd been groped by the suspects. One of the women threw a hot dog at the suspects and walked away.

They didn't get very far. The three suspects ran after them and began attacking the two men -- two soldiers who'd come home from the war.

As the videotape indicates, the service members were dressed in civilian attire.

Other conservatives have highlighted the Seattle incident without suggesting that the suspects were motivated by opposition to the Iraq war. For example, conservative pundit Michelle Malkin wrote in an August 24 entry on her weblog that the "stomach-turning" incident resulted from "a reported dispute over their [the soldiers'] dates." Similarly, on the August 25 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity said: "Now allegedly, the three aggressors groped some female companions of the soldiers, so one of the women threw a hot dog at them. The suspects then chased after the soldiers and beat them."

From the August 26 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: One final story before we go to the break. For those of you who still have an open mind about the anti-war left in this country, this story is out of Seattle. "Two soldiers who just returned from a year in Iraq were badly beaten in an attack outside Pioneer Square in Seattle. But, believe it or not, someone caught the beating on videotape and now police are asking for help identifying the suspects. The brutality of it all was captured on tape outside of Larry's Nightclub on First and Yesler on July 31. Police say the victims were with two women who had been groped by the suspects. One of the women threw a hotdog at the suspects and walked away. But they didn't get very far. The three suspects ran after then, began attacking the two men -- two soldiers who'd come home from Iraq. The graphic videotape shows both victims getting beaten over and over again and then after one of the victims loses consciousness, a suspect starts stomping on his head. Now, the cops want your help in catching these guys. Seattle Police Officer Sean Whitcomb said, 'We consider them very dangerous.' After not getting any leads, the Seattle police have just released the video to the media, even though it happened over three weeks ago."

I think it's been on television starting last night, so the video's been seen. "But clubs and business that the Seattle newspaper spoke with" -- ah, actually -- yeah, KOMO-TV is what this is -- have just received -- "wonder why the police waited for almost a month before making the tape public. Both victims suffered broken jaws. One suffered a broken arm. Both had other broken bones and several bruises." And the [KOMO] website published some still shots of the suspects from the, from the video. So, ah, once again, ah, the anti-war left, claiming to be a peace movement, illustrates itself to be anything but.

— A.S.

Posted to the web on Tuesday August 30, 2005 at 4:20 PM EST

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 7 (permalink) Old 08-30-2005, 04:42 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Is Rush Limbaugh getting high again?

And how about this bizarre crap?

Limbaugh: "We created this whole concept of a testicle lockbox in connection with Mrs. Clinton"

Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh reminded his August 25 listeners that "we created this whole concept of a testicle lockbox in connection with Mrs. [Sen. Hillary Rodham] Clinton [D-NY]." Limbaugh added, "I mean, she has that kind of appeal to people." Limbaugh has repeatedly used the phrase "testicle lockbox" in discussing Clinton.

From the August 25 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: But a lot of Democrats are worried that, you know, she doesn't have what it takes. She doesn't connect on TV. We talked about this. She doesn't come across as friendly. She doesn't -- she, you know, she's like -- my favorite name for her is Nurse Ratched. I mean, we created this whole concept of a testicle lockbox in connection with Mrs. Clinton. I mean, she has that kind of appeal to people. She's -- you fill in the blanks here.

From the April 21, 2004, broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: If I were [Washington Post assistant managing editor] Bob Woodward, I would be on a lookout for Mrs. Clinton and her testicle lockbox, because she has just been snookered, like every other liberal, by believing what Woodward says is in his book in these interviews, as opposed to what's actually in these books, or this book, because it's exactly what she claims she needs in an administration.

From the April 15, 2004, broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Now if Hillary does become Kerry's VP, will she have to change her positions to be on the same page with Kerry or will Kerry have to change his? [laughter] Don't forget that testicle lockbox, folks. [laughter] Just 'cause we haven't talked about it in a while does not mean [laughter] that it's -- that it's been buried.

— J.S.

Posted to the web on Friday August 26, 2005 at 4:28 PM EST


Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #3 of 7 (permalink) Old 08-30-2005, 04:44 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Is Rush Limbaugh getting high again?

or this:

Limbaugh claimed Bush administration never said Iraq war would be quick or easy, ignored numerous statements by officials in lead-up to war

mediamatters.org

On the August 24 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that the Iraq war "has always been portrayed as something that's gonna be hard" and that "the ease with which all this was gonna happen was never stated." In fact, several Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, did predict a short and easy process of regime change in Iraq, ignoring warnings from the intelligence community that the aftermath to the initial battles in Iraq would pose numerous difficult challenges.

Responding to a sound bite from NBC's Today, in which MSNBC host Chris Matthews asserted that members of the Bush administration "were wrong" in their original estimation that the Iraq war would be quick and easy, Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: No, Chris. Again, you missed it, and nobody ever said that it's gonna be like walkin' in and playin' baseball the next day. That's in your dreams. This has always been portrayed as something that's gonna be hard; it's part of the war on terror and no end date was ever given, and the ease with which all this was gonna happen was never stated.

In a subsequent segment on his August 24 show, Limbaugh acknowledged the presence of "a contingent of people on the left who will never forget the fact that some in the Defense Department said the Iraqis will be cheering us in the streets as we arrive, and that it will be a cakewalk and that we don't need to plan for any aftermath," but he failed to address the claims of this "contingent."

In fact, despite Limbaugh's denials, several top Bush administration officials have made specific predictions about the duration and difficulty of achieving regime change in Iraq:

On the March 16, 2003, broadcast of CBS' Face the Nation, Cheney stated: "I think [the war will] go relatively quickly." When host Bob Schieffer pressed the vice president to offer a more precise estimate of how long the war would take, Cheney replied: "Weeks rather than months." On NBC's Meet the Press the same day, Cheney stated, "my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators [by the Iraqi people]."
In a February 7, 2003, appearance at Aviano Air Base in Italy, Rumsfeld projected that the Iraq war "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
In a February 13, 2002, Washington Post op-ed, Ken Adelman, at the time a member of the Defense Policy Board, stated: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps."
Moreover, as Media Matters for America previously noted, the Bush administration failed to foresee or plan for an extended U.S. occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, despite numerous warnings from the intelligence community before the war. Prior to the start of the Iraq war, the consensus among the intelligence community was that "winning the peace in Iraq could be much harder than winning a war," Knight Ridder reported on October 17, 2004. A February 7, 2003, memo from three State Department bureau chiefs warned that "a failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns could result in serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally." Yet evidence suggests these warnings were largely ignored. Then-deputy secretary of defense Paul D. Wolfowitz acknowledged these failures in a July 23 Washington Post article, stating that defense officials made several assumptions that "turned out to underestimate the problem."

From the August 24 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: [Today host] Matt Lauer says, "Is the insurgency that's wearing on people -- is it the insurgency that's starting to wear people down about this, Chris?"

MATTHEWS [clip]: It's this insurgency, which we didn't expect, obviously, and this sense of murkiness; when's it ever going to end? Now, in all fairness too, the administration people and the hawks who supported the war from Day 1 said, "Oh, this is going to be like World War II. We're going to win. It's going to be a clear victory. We're going to march into Tokyo and into Berlin, and they're going to be practicing democracy the next day and playing baseball, and everything's going to be great." They were wrong. It isn't World War II; it doesn't have that clarity. I think it's the murkiness.

LIMBAUGH: No, Chris. Again, you missed it, and nobody ever said that it's gonna be like walkin' in and playin' baseball the next day. That's in your dreams. This has always been portrayed as something that's gonna be hard; it's part of the war on terror and no end date was ever given, and the ease with which all this was gonna happen was never stated. A lot of this has been assumed, but I think the thing that's wearing on people, and I want to ask the pollsters to do something. The next time you pollsters go out there and take a poll on the mood of the American people when it comes to the war in Iraq, don't just give us two groups of people -- those opposed and those for -- and then tell us that the numbers supporting the president of the war are plummeting. Ask a third question: Do you think we oughtta be doing more militarily? Could the murkiness be that people are frustrated that we are this superpower, and we are not mowing 'em down, like people think that we can? Could it be that some people oppose this or feel murky or have the heebie-jeebies simply because they don't understand why we are pussyfooting around, in their view, rather than going in there and kicking butt? And I will bet you, Chris, that if you do that third question on a poll, you and your buddies, insulated inside the walls of the beltway, will be stunned to find out how many Americans are fed up with the pace because we are not kicking butt. It's not that they don't want us to win, and it's not that they want us to come home because they think we're gonna lose. It's because they don't understand why we aren't pouring it on. You ask that third question, and I'll bet you would be stunned.

[...]

CALLER: Rush, thank you for taking my call. I calmed down a little bit. Chris Matthews is absolutely lying. In fact, President Bush said the opposite. This is like no other war; it's going to take a long time; we're in there for the long haul; we have to keep a strong will, and I'm tired of hearing propaganda; they're lying.

LIMBAUGH: Well, in Matthews's defense, I think what Matthews is saying, and I'm not saying he's right, but there's a contingent of people on the left who will never forget the fact that some in the Defense Department said the Iraqis will be cheering us in the streets as we arrive, and that it will be a cakewalk and that we don't need to plan for any aftermath. This is what they think they heard Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld say. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz did not say precisely that. The left has had this mantra -- and I mean, it's still mouthed and uttered frequently, "We mismanaged the peace. We didn't plan for the peace. We didn't plan for the aftermath." Once they get going on their mantras, there's no amount of facts that'll penetrate them and change their minds. It's also partly due to the fact that the left distinguishes Iraq from the war on terror. They don't think they're linked at all; they have nothing to do with one another, so while Bush did say what he said about the way on terror, overall, as you just cited and quoted, the left doesn't think he ever said that and meant that about Iraq. But look, my point is let them live in their fantasyland. [Caller], let them live -- you know, the facts of the matter are that they're not persuading anybody, and they're only tearing themselves apart. Anybody that will pointedly, purposely ignore the truth so that their own agenda and definition of events triumphs cannot possibly succeed, not in the climate that exists today. Thirty years ago, yeah; 20 years ago, they could write their own history every day; they could write the agenda every day; there was nobody to counter it. There was nobody to challenge it; nobody to present an alternative point of view anywhere else in the media. It doesn't exist today. Another thing, they haven't come to grips with, so don't lose any sleep over it, and certainly, you know, don't get angry -- well, I mean, you're gonna get angry about it, but at the end, laugh at it.

— J.B.

Posted to the web on Friday August 26, 2005 at 3:55 PM EST

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #4 of 7 (permalink) Old 08-30-2005, 04:58 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jillian80's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2004
Vehicle: DeLorean DMC-12
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 5,180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
RE: Is Rush Limbaugh getting high again?

Does a fat baby fart? [:D]
Jillian80 is offline  
post #5 of 7 (permalink) Old 09-01-2005, 10:00 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Is Rush Limbaugh getting high again?

Now Hannity is getting in on the act. Has things gotten so bad for these guys that they now have to resort to outright shameless lies to do their propaganda schtick?

Hannity blamed "anti-war left" for protest at soldier's funeral actually organized by anti-gay church
http://mediamatters.org


On the August 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity falsely blamed "the anti-war left" for a protest at the August 28 funeral of Sgt. Jeremy Doyle of Indianapolis, who was killed while serving in Iraq. Hannity read excerpts of an article on the website of Indianapolis TV station WISH describing the protest, adding, "I guess this is just another example of how the anti-war left supports our brave troops." In fact, as The Indianapolis Star reported , the protesters were not anti-war liberals but, rather, members of Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) in Topeka, Kansas, who claim that the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq are inflicted by God to punish the United States for its acceptance of gays and lesbians.

One of the church's websites claims that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the space shuttle Columbia disaster, and the improvised explosive device (IED) attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq are examples of divine retribution visited upon the United States, allegedly as a punishment for the "sin" of homosexuality. A statement on the website reads: "Thank God for IEDs killing American soldiers in strange lands every day. WBC rejoices every time the Lord God in His vengeance kills or maims an American soldier with an Improvised Explosive Device (IED)."

Led by Rev. Fred W. Phelps Sr., the anti-gay church also picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a gay man beaten to death in Laramie, Wyoming, in 1998.

Although Hannity read from a section of the WISH article explaining that the protesters see the deaths of American troops as "punishment for social misdeeds," he went on to blame "the anti-war left" for the protest.

From the August 30 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:

HANNITY: Let me read to you from Indianapolis. Headline: "Funeral for fallen Hoosier soldier brought some unwanted guests." Let me read this. Now, put this in the context of the story we did for you last week about Code Pink and about how Code Pink was protesting in front of Walter Reed Medical Center. Remember, they had their "Maimed for Lies" signs and "Enlist Here and Die for Halliburton" signs? And this is where these soldiers come back to try and get their lives together after receiving these awful, often life-threatening wounds. And yet, these people with political agendas are outside Walter Reed Medical Center protesting. And my point to them was, "Hey, look, if you want to protest, let's leave the injured soldiers alone, they need time to recuperate. Take it to the White House. Take it to some other area."

So anyway, the story in Indianapolis goes like this, quote: "Emotions ran high for an Army soldier's funeral in Martinsville on Sunday. Sgt. Jeremy Doyle's sacrifice brought many out to honor him, but also sparked a standoff on a city street. People arriving to say goodbye to a hometown hero met an altogether different scene in Martinsville, as demonstrators dragging American flags on the ground and holding signs opposing U.S. troops. 'The thing that got us here is that Sergeant Doyle died for us to give us our freedom, and then you have people like this come. It's absurd,' one funeral attendee told News 8 in Indianapolis. Tensions grew before demonstrations [sic: demonstrators] finally left their location right across the street from Army Sgt. Jeremy Doyle's funeral service. According to the group's website, it sees America's -- Americans' deaths in Iraq as a kind of punishment for social misdeeds. Martinsville residents said that the protesters picked the wrong time in the wrong town to express their views. Which rightfully -- so they have their freedom of expression. Nobody's going to take that away from them, but there is a time and a place for this kind of thing, and it's certainly not here today."

Now, who's Jeremy Doyle? Well, he died along with three other soldiers on August the 18th, when their Humvee hit a landmine on an Iraqi highway. This guy died for all of us. His final journey was a procession down Main Street, past the courthouse square. "'If I had to lose a son, if I had to lose one, I'd -- I'd rather it be serving our country,' his father explained. The protesters were headquartered in Kansas. They traveled across the country to demonstrate against a soldier." And you know something? I guess this is just another example of how the anti-war left supports our brave troops. 'Cause isn't that what they always say? They're disrupting the funeral, tormenting a grieving family. Can you believe I even have to bring this story to the airwaves? And creating an incredible spectacle in the middle of an occasion to honor a guy who died serving his country? But of course, they're supporting our troops. They're not supporting them; they're targeting our troops!

What's the difference between this or protesting outside the entrance to Walter Reed, where our wounded soldiers go to recover? I mean, these sol -- just can't believe that our soldiers and our -- and their families have to endure this pathetic atta -- these pathetic attacks, these chants, these posters as they enter and leave a hospital.

— J.B.

Posted to the web on Wednesday August 31, 2005 at 7:10 PM

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #6 of 7 (permalink) Old 09-01-2005, 10:08 AM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1763 Post(s)
RE: Is Rush Limbaugh getting high again?

Quote:
BusyBenz - 8/30/2005 10:52 PM

BAH! Ha! Ha! Ha! [:D]
Shane is offline  
post #7 of 7 (permalink) Old 09-01-2005, 10:09 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Is Rush Limbaugh getting high again?

And now look at this one - is the far right responding to the incredible drop in the GOP's poll numbers by initiating a deliberate campaign of lying? What is up with these guys?

Undeterred by facts, Limbaugh again relied on inaccurate Army recruitment numbers from NY Post op-ed

http://mediamatters.org

On August 26, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh again wrongly claimed that the Army is surpassing its yearly recruiting goals. Limbaugh previously made this claim based on inaccurate military recruitment numbers from an August 23 New York Post op-ed . Limbaugh presumably referred to this same op-ed on his August 26 broadcast, asking his listeners: "Did you hear the story earlier this week?" -- even though the New York Post issued a correction to the op-ed days earlier.

On the August 26 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh attacked The Washington Post for "lying through their teeth" in reporting on August 26 that the Army will fail to meet its recruitment goal for fiscal 2005, which ends September 30. On the August 24 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh had referred to New York Post columnist Ralph Peters's August 23 op-ed, saying, "Recruitment levels are way above what expectations are in every branch, including the reserves. This is a big myth that the media has put out there that people aren't signing up." Limbaugh apparently referred to the op-ed's erroneous statistics again on August 26, stating, "Recruitment goals in all branches of the service are in excess of projections."

But as Media Matters for America noted , Peters used inaccurate first-time recruitment numbers to erroneously claim that "the U.S. Army is exceeding its re-enlistment and first-time enlistment goals." After widespread recognition of his error, Peters drafted a correction that was printed in the August 24 edition of the Post and appears at the bottom of the online version of the op-ed. In his correction, Peters acknowledged his "substantial error" and wrote: "The new-enlistment rates I cited were wrong. The Army is still falling short on new enlistments."

From the August 26 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Washington Post again. Boy, they're loaded for bear, lying through their teeth today. Did you hear the story earlier this week? Recruitment goals in all branches of the service are in excess of projections, including the reserves. Have you heard this? The media's been lying about this for as long as they can. They've been trying to say that recruitment levels are down. They are in excess of projection. They are over 100 percent of what they need. Headline, Washington Post today: "Army Likely to Meet August's, But Not Year's, Recruiting Goal: Expanding Force in Coming Months Expected to be Difficult. The Army's expected to meet or exceed its monthly recruiting goal for August but is likely to miss its annual goal for the fiscal year that ends next month amid one of the most difficult recruiting environments since it became all-volunteer, the Army's chief of staff said yesterday." How do they get -- how do they create this? How do they create this? They ignore the re-enlistments. The recruitment and the re-enlistments combine to put them above recruitment levels. The Washington Post ignores the re-enlistments. They totally -- they don't ignore it, but they bury it way back in the story. The story is written by Josh White. "By the end of July, the Army was on pace to miss its annual goal by more than 10 percent. It raised the target in fiscal 2005 as part of a long-term effort to expand the force by 30,000 troops to a total of 512,000." Washington Post once again craps all over the United States military.

— S.S.M.

Posted to the web on Wednesday August 31, 2005 at 2:55 PM EST

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may 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 On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome