AOL content children holds subscribers in total suspense, biting their nails, See Who She Wants to Resign

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. first lady Laura Bush -- in a rare foray into foreign policy -- called on Myanmar's military junta to "step aside," give up the "terror campaigns" against its people and allow for a democratic Myanmar in a commentary published in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal.

"Gen. Than Shwe and his deputies are a friendless regime," Bush said. "They should step aside to make way for a unified Burma [Myanmar] governed by legitimate leaders."

"The rest of the armed forces should not fear this transition -- there is room for a professional military in a democratic Burma," Bush said, in keeping with the U.S. policy of still using Myanmar's former name.

In Wednesday's commentary, Bush called on Myanmar's military leaders to release Suu Kyi and other opposition leaders so they can meet with and plan for a transition to democracy.

"Meanwhile, the world watches -- and waits," Bush warns.

"We know that Gen. Than Shwe and his deputies have the advantage of violent force. But Ms. Aun Sung Suu Kyi and other opposition leaders have moral legitimacy, the support of the Burmese people and the support of the world."

"The regime's position grows weaker by the day. The generals' choice is clear: The time for a free Burma is now."

The humanitarian rights situation in Myanmar has been a cause for the first lady in the past few months as the crisis there worsened.

Myanmar state media has reported that 2,000 people were detained during the demonstrations and the crackdown against them -- under an emergency law imposed on September 25 banning assembly of more than five people -- and that 700 of those people have been released.

This is one of AOL's lead-in stories on October 10, 2007. The question they asked about the First Lady on their homepage as shown above was, "See Who She Wants to Resign."

_______________

AOL Source: CNN News 10/10/07

The AOL content children ask if AOL members agree with the First Lady's comment, asking for the violence to stop and to allow a free Burma.

You should know that she was talking about Myanmar's leaders murdering over 1,000 of their own people, who had been demonstrating for freedom and protected by hundreds of monks. In response Myanmar chopped up and murdered monks, leaving their bodies for others to see.

Obviously AOL wants to be politically correct, so if you believe using hatchets on human beings, AOL is delighted to give you a voice in the approval of this method of persuasion. So if you are fighting for freedom, AOL wants you to know they really aren't for you or against you, seeing you as if they had come from Mars.

AOL asks the question only the investigating vet can know, Did Ground Zero Smoke Kill Jake?

(July 26, AP) - A black Labrador who became a national canine hero after burrowing through white-hot, smoking debris in search of survivors at the World Trade Center site died Wednesday after a battle with cancer.

Owner Mary Flood had Jake put to sleep Wednesday after a last stroll through the fields and a dip in the creek near their home in Oakley, Utah. He was in too much pain at the end, shaking with a 105-degree fever as he lay on the lawn.

No one can say whether the dog would have gotten sick if he hadn't been exposed to the smoky air at ground zero, but cancer in dogs Jake's age - he was 12 - is quite common.

Some rescue dog owners who worked at the World Trade Center site claim their animals have died because of their work at ground zero. But scientists who have spent years studying the health of Sept. 11 search-and-rescue have found no sign of major illness in the animals.

The results of an autopsy on Jake's cancer-riddled body will be part of a University of Pennsylvania medical study of Sept. 11 search-and-rescue dogs.

Flood had adopted Jake as a 10-month-old disabled puppy - abandoned on a street with a broken leg and a dislocated hip.

"But against all odds he became a world-class rescue dog ," said Flood, a member of Utah Task Force 1, one of eight federal search-and-rescue teams that desperately looked for human remains at ground zero.

This is one of AOL's lead-in stories on July 26, 2007. The question they asked on their homepage AS shown above was, "Did Ground Zero Smoke Kill Jake?"

_______________

 

AOL Source: AP News 7/26/07

 

AOL asks mind-blowing question on Pizza Hut waitress getting $10,000 tip, How will she use the money?

(July 13) — It was just a typical day on the job at the Pizza Hut in Angola, Ind., for 20-year-old Jessica Osborne when out of the blue, she received a gift that would change her life: a $10,000 tip from one of her customers.

"When I opened it up, I just — I thought maybe I read too many zeros and I lost my breath," Osborne said on "Good Morning America." "It was amazing."

The tip of a lifetime came from a family of regular customers. Every Friday, Becky and her family, who asked that their last name not be used, come in and order the same thing: a Meatlovers pizza, half pepperoni, half black olives and mushrooms. Becky said Osborne always came to the table with a smile on her face.

"She was sweet and bright and cheerful and never complained," Becky said. "She was just a sweet waitress."

But Osborne had recently been let down by financial troubles that were keeping her ambitions at bay. She had enrolled in a local college but was forced to withdraw because of a lack of financial aid. She told Becky's family about the textbooks she had bought and kept in the trunk of her car and her dreams to become a photographer.

"I thought, 'This is a very generous person,'" Becky said, "and we enjoyed just talking to her, finding out about her life."

Osborne got to know Becky and her family through their weekly pizza dinners, but she didn't realize that they had recently suffered a great tragedy. Becky's husband and eldest daughter were killed in a car accident, and she had been left with a large settlement.

Once Becky heard about Osborne's broken dreams, she decided to use some of the money from the settlement to make them come true.

"We decided we needed to help Jessica and she was there, we were there, and it just seemed like the right thing to do," Becky said.

This is one of AOL's lead-in stories on July 13, 2007. The question they asked on their homepage AS shown above was, "How will she use the money?"

_______________

 

AOL Source: ABC News 7/13/07

 

Critical question for those who pay $24.95, Do you believe the Amazon monster exists?

RIO BRANCO, Brazil (July 8) -- Perhaps it is nothing more than a legend, as skeptics say. Or maybe it is real, as those who claim to have seen it avow. But the mere mention of the mapinguary, the giant slothlike monster of the Amazon, is enough to send shivers down the spines of almost all who dwell in the world’s largest rain forest.

The folklore here is full of tales of encounters with the creature, and nearly every Indian tribe in the Amazon, including those that have had no contact with one another, have a word for the mapinguary (pronounced ma-ping-wahr-EE). The name is usually translated as “the roaring animal” or “the fetid beast.”

So widespread and so consistent are such accounts that in recent years a few scientists have organized expeditions to try to find the creature. They have not succeeded, but at least one says he can explain the beast and its origins.

“It is quite clear to me that the legend of the mapinguary is based on human contact with the last of the ground sloths,” thousands of years ago, said David Oren, a former director of research at the Goeldi Institute in Belém, at the mouth of the Amazon River. “We know that extinct species can survive as legends for hundreds of years. But whether such an animal still exists or not is another question, one we can’t answer yet.”

Dr. Oren said he had talked to “a couple of hundred people” who had said they had seen the mapinguary in the most remote parts of the Amazon and a handful who had said they had had direct contact.

In some areas, the creature is said to have two eyes, while in other accounts it has only one, like the Cyclops of Greek mythology. Some tell of a gaping, stinking mouth in the monster’s belly through which it consumes humans unfortunate enough to cross its path.

But all accounts agree that the creature is tall, seven feet or more when it stands on two legs, that it emits a strong, extremely disagreeable odor, and that it has thick, matted fur, which covers a carapace that makes it all but impervious to bullets and arrows.

“The only way you can kill a mapinguary is by shooting at its head,” said Domingos Parintintin, a tribal leader in Amazonas State. “But that is hard to do because it has the power to make you dizzy and turn day into night. So the best thing to do if you see one is climb a tree and hide.”

Geovaldo Karitiana, 27, a member of the Karitiana tribe, claims to have seen one about three years ago, as he was hunting in the jungle near an area that his tribe calls “the cave of the mapinguary.”

“It was coming toward the village and was making a big noise,” he said in a recent interview on the tribe’s reservation in the western Amazon. “It stopped when it got near me, and that’s when the bad smell made me dizzy and tired. I fainted, and when I came to, the mapinguary was gone.”

Mr. Karitiana’s father, Lucas, confirmed his son’s account. He said that when his son took him back to the site of the encounter, he saw a cleared pathway where the creature had departed, “as if a boulder had rolled through and knocked down all the trees and vines.”

This is one of AOL's lead-in stories on July 8, 2007. See the question they asked. Do you believe the Amazon monster exists?

_______________

 

AOL Source: By Larry Rohter, The New York Times, Posted: 2007-07-08 13:22:40, Filed Under: Science, World

 

AOL asks, Do you think a second grader could have done better?

MEYERS, Calif. (June 25) - A raging wildfire  near Lake Tahoe on Monday forced hundreds of residents to flee towering flames that destroyed more than 200 buildings, turned the sky orange and fouled the lake's famously clear waters with falling ash.

Many hotels offered free rooms as families clung to one bit of good news: Despite the destruction, there were no reports of injuries.

"All the memories are gone," said Matt Laster, a legal assistant forced to flee his rented home of five years with his wife, two young children and cat. He showed up at a recreation center looking for clothes and a sleeping bag.

The blaze had scorched almost 2,500 acres -- nearly 4 square miles -- but by early Monday evening fire officials said the blaze was about 40 percent contained. The U.S. Forest Service expects full containment of the fire by Thursday, said Ken Pimlott, assistant deputy director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

About 1,000 people had evacuated from the path of the flames, and authorities feared up to 500 other houses could be threatened in this resort area along the California-Nevada state line.

More than 700 firefighters  were on hand, but plans to send up airborne tankers and helicopters to drop water and retardant over the heavily wooded, parched terrain were scrapped because of low visibility from the thick smoke.

This is one of AOL's lead-in stories on June 25, 2007. See the question they asked. Do you think a second grader could have done better?

_______________

 

California officials declared a state of emergency, meaning the state would cover all firefighting costs. The National Weather Service issued a dense smoke advisory warning people from South Lake Tahoe to Carson City, Nev., that heavy ash was making it difficult to see and breathe.

Oh no, AOL reports Sea water rising

You may have to kiss that summer trip to the beach goodbye later this century, thanks to rising sea levels and more intense tropical storms, scientists predict.

A new study of the potential sand losses to North Carolina beaches reports that a 1-foot rise in sea level in the next 25 to 75 years (which is at the lower end of the range predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) would cause the coast to move inland by 2,000 to 10,000 feet and could cost an estimated $223 million in lost recreational value by 2080 to beach-goers in that state alone.

Predicting exactly how much beaches will shrink is impossible because beach erosion rates are highly variable, even between points that are only a few miles apart. The make-up of each beach's sand, the absence or presence of jetties and other man-made structures meant to retain sand, and offshore topography (which influences wave formation), all affect erosion rates.

But even with all the uncertainty, scientists say the future of our beloved sandy havens doesn’t look good.

“We have no way of predicting what sea level rise will do to erosion rates, except to say that they will increase,” said Duke University geologist Orrin Pilkey, who was not involved in the new study.

Whitehead found that people prefer wider beaches, which provide more room for throwing Frisbees and eating sandy sandwiches. By determining how far people will drive to these roomier beaches and calculating the cost of those drives, Whitehead estimated the millions of dollars that would be lost to vacationers. And for those for whom the allure of a vacation at the beach is simply irresistible, few options will be left, as the only beaches to survive would likely be the ones that are undeveloped now.

“People would have more limited beach options,” sociologist Maureen Harrington of Griffith University in Australia said in an email interview. “[They] would have to go to beaches that are able to migrate, that are not urbanized ... so these beaches would be more crowded.

This is one of AOL's lead-in stories on June 22, 2007, treating a scientist saying sea water was rising as if he was "God."

_______________

 

With beaches slowly vanishing from the coasts, vacationers might have to find some other way to entertain themselves and soak up the sun in the summer in the coming decades. “I’m predicting that they [will take] fewer beach trips,” said lead author of the North Carolina study John Whitehead of Appalachian State University in North Carolina. The report was funded by the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan, non-profit group of energy experts.

AOL asks, Tribute fitting or exploitive, as if it was any of their business

This is not just content children at work, these are employees paid by your monthly fee trying to manipulate the news on your dime. Read the poll again positioned by the content providers of AOL:

"Should Irwin's final show have been aired?"

Then they not only ask Yes or No, but they go a step further:

"Yes, it's a fitting tribute." "No, it's exploitive."

"Exploitive!" Really, exploitive?!

AOL is basically asking you, in their words, is Steve Irwin's wife, who controls what is produced in the name of her husband, purposely exploiting his death to further her future or her earnings.

Exploitive is a loaded word. There is no licensing, there is no quid pro quo here," Sweeney said. "There's no financial incentive to them or to us."

Did you forget that Google is the company with the mission statement, "Do no harm?" Yet we ourselves have experienced our URL suddenly being sucked from Google's search engine immediately after we had written a letter of complain through "Grassfire." The next day ironically our URL titled "Freedom is Knowledge" disappeared off of Google's radar.

Of course if you are not dumb, blind, and have not lost your hearing, you know Google has already helped the Chinese government to censor Web pages from its own people, Google knowing exactly what it was doing.

Google obviously from the Chinese experience alone is not to be trusted at all, as it could justify in its mind doing the same for any other government. For instance, we know it has been reported that Google's employees only donate as a group to the Democrat Party. So what is to stop Google from saying one day, "We need to sensor information that would not be beneficial to the image of OUR Democrat Party?"

Google has already proven that it would be capable of doing just that to its users. Yet only 2% of 29,228 taking the poll saw Google as a negative force. That's absolutely frightening, since people aren't protecting their democracy instead simply accepting that Google will never do them any harm . . . as if Google was this big soft, stuffed teddy bear. Wow! That is amazing.

In other words, if the AOL users who took this poll was a young boys and Google was a NAMBLA member that lived next door or was e-mailing him on the Web, how long would it be before this young boy would have already been raped having a trust factor of the NAMBLA member 98%? You should think about that. If not, ask Barbara Curley what she thinks about that.

This is one of AOL's lead-in stories on January 21, 2007, asking if it is a fitting tribute or exploitive.

_______________

 

"If you love your freedom, you should never trust anyone with a 98% rating, be it governments or private corporations like Google. That means you've become an easy target for corruption, abuse, and manipulation. Should you then lose your freedom? You bet, because you never protected it in the first place.

Wake up or die!"

Webmaster:

 

This is the stuff AOL should be doing for its users, teaching them to never absolutely trust the information they are receiving from outside sources. But sadly this was never the intent of the posting.

An interesting quote at the end of story that we bet was missed by nearly all who took the poll read:

"There is no licensing, there is no quid pro quo here," Sweeney said. "There's no financial incentive to them or to us."

Did you forget that Google is the company with the mission statement, "Do no harm?" Yet we ourselves have experienced our URL suddenly being sucked from Google's search engine immediately after we had written a letter of complain through "Grassfire." The next day ironically our URL titled "Freedom is Knowledge" disappeared off of Google's radar.

Of course if you are not dumb, blind, and have not lost your hearing, you know Google has already helped the Chinese government to censor Web pages from its own people, Google knowing exactly what it was doing.

Google obviously from the Chinese experience alone is not to be trusted at all, as it could justify in its mind doing the same for any other government. For instance, we know it has been reported that Google's employees only donate as a group to the Democrat Party. So what is to stop Google from saying one day, "We need to sensor information that would not be beneficial to the image of OUR Democrat Party?"

Google has already proven that it would be capable of doing just that to its users. Yet only 2% of 29,228 taking the poll saw Google as a negative force. That's absolutely frightening, since people aren't protecting their democracy instead simply accepting that Google will never do them any harm . . . as if Google was this big soft, stuffed teddy bear. Wow! That is amazing.

In other words, if the AOL users who took this poll was a young boys and Google was a NAMBLA member that lived next door or was e-mailing him on the Web, how long would it be before this young boy would have already been raped having a trust factor of the NAMBLA member 98%? You should think about that. If not, ask Barbara Curley what she thinks about that.

This is one of AOL's lead-in stories on January 7, 2007, asking your opinion of Google, which if you think about it can also be looked at as a trust issue. Note: Link to this story on AOL may have timed out on their server.

_______________

 

"If you love your freedom, you should never trust anyone with a 98% rating, be it governments or private corporations like Google. That means you've become an easy target for corruption, abuse, and manipulation. Should you then lose your freedom? You bet, because you never protected it in the first place.

Wake up or die!"

Webmaster

As if subscribers all live in the same town, the AOL content children ask, How do you think the mayor died?

I can't believe this. AOL's content children are at it again, asking if AOL subscribers,"How do you think the mayor died?"

How the hell are they supposed to know, sitting in their shorts on a computer five miles away or on the other side of the world.

But here are some suggestions if the content children at AOL really don't know, since they are looking for an answer.

- He was cleaning his gun in the parking lot when a wasp landed on his chest, his using whatever was in his hand to swat the thing off.

- There was a loud "bang" from a nearby flat tire, the mayor thinking his gun went off. So he pulled the trigger to see if that was the sound he heard.

- He wanted to cause harm to his town, so he shot himself to give it a bad name.

- He was robbed, saying to the individual, "Go ahead and shoot. I don't care."

- Some white people hated him, so they shot him right in the open where they could be seen by a passing individual or nearby security cameras.

- Hell, I don't know. Give it to CSI. They solve everything. We just hate it when anyone has to bite the dust this way. But remember just like in the music industry with Gangsta-Rap artists, the violence of the street rides with them up the ladder of success.

This is one of AOL's lead-in stories on January 6, 2007, asking how do you think this Louisiana Mayor died. Note: Link to this story on AOL not longer was available. The link above is from Yahoo!.

AOL asks its more experienced African hunter subscribers, Did hunters shoot the right elephant?

I still can't believe this. AOL's content children are at it again, asking if AOL subscribers know if hunters shot the right elephant. Since AOL seems to not know the answer, here are some potential clues we thought of:

1. The elephant didn't provide the proper ID upon being approached by the hunter.

2. The elephant got scared, ran when a hunter screamed, "This is the law. You're under arrest. Stop or I'll shoot."

3. The elephant's family is going to court, accusing the hunter of profiling.

4. The hunter got the wrong elephant, then was sued by Chief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg for gender-speech violation when it was reported by one of AP's political correct journalist he had said, "If you've seen one elephant, you seen them all."

5. The elephant isn't dead, having watched Ice Age II at a local outdoor theater a free weeks ago and is still playing possum. If they're not sure, we suggest they look for large, warm bowling-ball type structures near the rear of the elephant.

This lead-in story ran on December 17, 2006, asking users if the hunters of the elephant got the right animal. We have some suggestions to your left, since AOL is asking for our assistance again. Note: Link provided to this story on AOL may have timed out on their server.

AOL asks nail biting $24.95 question, Why was the solo flight cut short?

AOL's content children are at it again, asking if AOL subscribers can tell them why the solo flight was cut short. Since AOL admits it doesn't know the answer, here are some potential clues we thought of:

1. The pilot has a prostate problem and forgot to take his medication, needing a quick rest stop.

2. The plane's fuel tank showed empty.

3. A wheel fell off.

4. The engine slipped out the back end.

5. A teeny-tiny light was not working.

Hell, I don't know why and I also don't know why we have to go through this "See Dick Run" routine with the content children at AOL.

However, AOL actually did know the answer, reporting a date sensor was not working. "Wow, now I needed to know that!" See what you get for $24.95 a month at AOL. Do you think PeoplePC asks dumb questions like this? For $9.95 a month, no one would care.

Finally, while Iran is making ready to attack Israel, saying they faked the Holocaust in WWII, AOL wants us to know that Angelina is to remain a single mom, calling it, (tears), a "Love Story." Do you want the real story the content children missed here? 1/3 of all children born today in the U.S. are now born to single mothers. You can go back now to playing your XBox.

These are two AOL lead-in stories on December 15, 2006, one asking its users why a $265 Billion fighter jet's solo flight was cut short. We have some suggestions to your left, since AOL is asking for the assistance. Note: Link provided to this story on AOL may have timed out on their server.

AOL asks subscribers racist question, Are you ready to vote for a black for president? AOL content children ignored the more important question, Who would you want to see as the first black president?

AOL's content children are at it again, asking if AOL subscribers are ready to vote for a female or black [African American, dudes] for president.

Wasn't it AOL that just put up a recent poll where people wrote in the most likable candidates they would like see run for president. And, uh, wasn't John Kerry last on that list and Condi Rice up near the top, a woman and an African American?

I think the question AOL's content providers asked, as usual, don't speak well for their view of the intelligence of AOL users. I would think better and more intelligent questions to ask, and that didn't look like race baiting, might be the following:

"Would Obama's lack of experience concern you if he were to run for president?"

And for Hillary, maybe the following question would be more appropriate:

"Do you think the America people are tired of hearing about the Clinton's and instead want new blood in the White House in 2008?"

Finally, how about asking, "Do you want to see Obama or Hillary as president in 2008 or someone else?"

This is one of AOL's lead-in stories on December 12, 2006, asking if America was ready for a female and a "black" president. Talk about race baiting. Note: Link to this story on AOL may have timed out on their server.

AOL asks, Does the Ebola Virus worry you? Yet AOL ignores the more important question right under their noses, Does the spread of the AIDS virus by sexually-active infected gay men and drug users worry you?

Oh my God, the content children at AOL did it again on December 10, 2006, with their poll question on the lead-in story, "Ebola Has Killed 5,000 Gorillas, Study Suggests."

This story on AOL from Reuters reported that thousands of gorillas have been killed by the Ebola Virus running rampant through its population.

I was shocked (but shouldn't have been) at the way AOL's content providers handled the poll question to AOL users on this very serious story, users whose dimes are used to pay content providers to hopefully not offend their intelligence.

The poll question was based on an estimated 5,000 gorillas that have died from a horrible virus, one which could wipe the entire species off the face of the planet. Remember that this is not happening to the Polar Bears, but with an assumed global warming everyone is suddenly worried about the bears. And we have the far-left telling us that taking oil from Alaska will hurt the Caribou, when in reality those animals just love the warmth of the pipe lines, which has actually increased their population.

So what poll question did the AOL content provider's create concerning this story? You can see for yourself on the right. They asked, "Does the Ebola virus worry you?"

This is one of AOL's lead-in stories from Reuters on December 10, 2006, and the potential extinction of the Gorilla off the face of the earth., titled "Ebola Has Killed 5,000 Gorillas, Study Suggests." Note: Link to this story on AOL may have timed out on their server.

AOL content providers keep reminding me of my first second grade reading book on the adventures of Jack and Jill. "Look at Jack run." the little book had read. "He is fast. Do you think you could run as fast as Jack?"

At noon on December 10, 2006, 86% of 35,000 AOL users answered "Yes" to the poll question. (Duh!)

An example of a better question for AOL users could have been, "With STD's running rampant in the world, should humans become smarter about controlling how diseases are spread among them after seeing what is happening to the gorilla?"

AOL should be helping its 13,000 users to better think about the quality of their own lives, and how stories like these can impact a change in the way they conduct themselves. The recent spread of a dangerous strain of E.coli on lettuce, and more recently on green onions via Taco Bell, should make people more aware of their basic everyday habits of what they do to or put into their bodies, ensuring a longer and more fruitful life . . . one that seems to be currently taken so lightly in a world of renewed terrorism around the world to bring permanent harm to the Western world.

The above image is from AOL on November 14, 2006

AOL ignores the West's Achilles' Heel relying on only satellites for communications

Finally, an excellent stat for AOL members that ran on November 14, 2006, from AOL. The story was lead by the following line:

"Web search leader Google Inc.'s chief executive, Eric Schmidt, sees a future where mobile phones are free to consumers who accept watching targeted forms of advertising." . . . read more *

AOL then surveyed their members with more than 56-thousand responding before noon on this day. Note the interesting figure, that 19% have already dropped their land line.

While you say, "Oh, good, we don't need a phone at home anymore," you might be wrong. One of the West's Achilles' Heel is its sophisticated communications for everyday needs. China has already aimed a laser beam at one of our military satellites, one they actually know about. If America becomes dependent on cell phones for all communications including emergencies, and then finds itself in a cold or hot war, satellites could go down in an instant and an entire society would have no idea what was going on or what to do. Organized chaos would be the order of the day.

Of course you know satellite feeds are already sent to cable providers and used 100% by satellite (duh) television providers. That makes America extremely vulnerable to not getting any news or directives without a physical gun or missile being fired. Of course radio would be very helpful, except it relies on feeds, too, for their updates. But you could at least enjoy the music while you watched your country fall into a black hole.

But what do I know, coming from the 1950s when America was one country and everyone understood what it meant to be safe. Of course, with Google in China, you never will really know who the enemy is or who is running the enemy, as a few American executives are now being hired to run Chinese companies. No, not companies in China. I said Chinese companies.

And you must already know that as of 2002 China was substantially ahead of the U.S. in technology graduates. Of course, America's college graduates lead in diversity, tolerance, and homophobia, effective brain tools you can use in a good fight to defend the country.

But what do I know, just an old fart whose father fought on Okinawa in WWII. By the way, did you know that was the last war America won, with thanks to yuppies like John Kerry and his Hollywood friends? Seen any movies lately. Those ticket sales are translated into anti-war dollars for Hollywood keeping us safe.

* - link may be down. AOL usually doesn't keep URL news links active very long.

The above image is from AOL on October 31, 2006

Nearly Half of Americans Uncertain God Exists - 2,010 polled

AOL content children ask another really stupid question, Should Wicca be a Major Religion, when a major religion is based on membership numbers, not a name.

On October 31, 2006, 43,717 AOL respondents (43%) by 10 a.m. in the morning had already said in private that they believed in witchcraft. Gee, according to that, America is only 8% away from becoming like the Incas (See Mel Gibson's new movie to get a feel of that exciting world.) AOL did not spin for an answer on this story, even providing a logical question, so we have to applaud them.

But this cannot be good news for those unique secular Jews that have crossed the line and joined the ACLU, or for atheists either, all by their actions have no tolerance or diversity for people of religion. However, for the ACLU there is always a twist for an organization that was started by a socialist, and here it is.

Have you already forgotten the intolerance of witches, one several years ago suing a town in Missouri for it to take a tiny cross off its city flag, which had been there to show the diversity of its citizens. The ACLU used its neo-fascists tactics out of Washington, D.C., and forced the other 99.9% of the town's citizens to have to remove their tiny cross, the witch saying it offended her.

And you think you live in a country where the majority rules? Fool! Today it's who has the power that rules the country, the ACLU planning back in the 1980s to use ACLU member-advocating judges to override the people's Constitutional rights. And if the people riot over the loss of their rights, the ACLU will be sure those insurrectionists are dumped in jail using the same judges. Now you understand how the Third Reich was able to take over an entire country, pitting citizen against citizen. It's called divisiveness. And which political party in this country uses that tactic as its mission statement?

Remember the joke about the Get Smarter Pills? See, you're getting smarter already.

Remember AOl is not an independent news service. It looks as if AOL's PC content providers are spinning an agenda while drawing a salary on the backs of AOL's member's nickels and dimes. AOL has become too much like the mainstream press, shoving an agenda down the throats of those it's suppose to represent. These "communication specialists" have left their duty of informing AOL users, instead realizing with a little glee they can control the images and sounds their members receive every day, seeming to treat them as if cattle on the ranch instead of intelligent Americans that have a Constitutional right to know. This is a dangerous game you are playing with our rights, AOL.

AOL asks, Is it unpatriotic to watch this film, rather than asking should an American president be shown in a faux documentary of an attack on his life? Of course in the coming Obama world, AOL's content children would be shocked if a similar film had been made!

AOL's content providers are asking a question in the graphic on the left, posted October 26, 2006, concerning a new movie made on the assassination of a sitting U.S. President.

AOL writes in response, "Is it unpatriotic to watch this film."

Duh, talk about teaching to the test.

Let's look at another very timely event of our time. Would AOL ask if it would be also unpatriotic to watch a terrorist film on the shooting of a U.S. soldier, one that was actually posted on CNN News, the terrorist actually saying on the audio before shooting a young American, 'Wait until civilians are out of the way?"

Mature adult Americans are able to smell a rat on their own, so should the question here then be, "Do you think CNN knew what it was doing with a voice-over saying the terrorists were worried about hitting civilians?" Now ask "Yes" or "No," AOL.

So in that light, how about this one, AOL, for the one you posted today?

"Should a film be distributed showing the murder of an actual sitting president while his country is at war?" I bet your "Yes" and "No" count changes, now asking an intelligent question that affects the country's citizens and their country's safety.

Michael J. Fox now said, (as of October 26th), he was actually over-medicated. But if he was, why did he then proceed with the ad? He wouldn't have continued a scene in a sit-com where he was drawing a salary, so why this ad?

AOL asks, as if subscribers were present at the event, if the actor was acting in the ad, rather than waiting for the correct answer that later came from Michael J. Fox himself (see bottom left.)

Rush made the point on his radio show on October 25th, using actual sound bites from Michael J. Fox, that when Michael wants to show the effects of his disease he simply does not take his medication, which he knows will then make his body shake, as he had done when speaking to Congress.

But in the case of these recent ads run against Republican candidates, Michael J. Fox was no longer before Congress. Instead, he had now entered the political arena, his body looking in the ad as if he had again not taken his medication. This time, however, his purpose was not for assistance with his affliction but to try to swing on election, while at the same time not telling the entire truth about who had and who hadn't voted on stem cell research and why, making Democrats look like the good guys (or gals) and the Republican not caring about those with Fox's disease.

And this is why Rush got into the fray on his October 25th radio program and would not back off his statements of the previous day, that Fox had before purposely not taken his medication for the effect of getting the best reaction (Hollywood style), which Rush did not fault him for as long as it wasn't being used for political purposes.

Now it becomes really interesting if Michael J. Fox is really using his affliction as a political stunt, which to us is sad. I mean, if you feel you're going to throw up, you don't just sit there and let the cameras roll while the stuff comes flying out of your mouth. You run to the bathroom, and then later get your crap together or film another day.

On Tape: Rep Won't Let Customer Quit AOL

(Source NBC10.com)

An incredible video from CNBC shows an AOL customer trying to cancel his account, but a phone rep won't let him do it. What customer Vincent Ferrari got when he tried to cancel his account was a lot of frustration. Read the transcript now. or listen.

AOL Spits on its Conservative Users (From 2005 and 2006)

We had written two letters to AOL, one in the summer of 2005 and one in the fall of 2006, complaining about AOL's content that looked more like propaganda than assistance for its users to make real decisions on today's events.

In the section ran today by AOL News, as seen by its users and shown below, AOL puts up a picture of Ben Laden, questioning if a conservative ad run by a desperate Republican Party will hurt their election efforts, AOL then asks its users to vote. But what is interesting is that when you click on the hot link to watch the ad, there is no ad.

Instead the link goes to a negative spin on the ad from whom else, CNN, the ones who purposely put an X over Cheney's face while he was giving a live speech last year. CNN was so sorry back then and blamed it all on a fired technician. But it was the CNN culture that had encouraged it in the first place, which the very liberal suits over at CNN never took responsibility for.

Most conservatives already understand that when they watch CNN News, it almost looks like it had been first approved by the DNC. Today AOL's yuppies, who control the news content over at AOL, seem to have decided to follow virtually the same path.

Here is how it looked on AOL today:

This is what AOL showed on the screen on October 21, 2006, the link we picked up running about 2:30 p.m. We have made an actual hot link for you on the graphic words above "Watch Video: New GOP Campaign Ad" as we had seen it today. You can also click below for the same link. However, be aware AOL may have taken it down. Notice the vote we captured, AOL asking people what they thought about the ad. That's funny, because the ad never ran. Isn't this sort of how the Third Reich ran things when it was controlling opinion through the media in pre-war Germany?

In the hot link to the AOL piece that ran today, the content providers for AOL News asked AOL users to vote on the ad. Notice (if the link is still up) that they were never actually able to watch the real ad promised, but instead a report from CNN talking about former ads that had been run on a similar theme, the report being a negative spin, one the secular progressive CNN is so very capable of doing today without even having to blink an eye.

Yet over 44,000 AOL voters clicked on Yes or No on the radio buttons for an ad they never saw. Huh!?

Remember, it was CNN that made a pack with the devil, Saddam Hussein, before the Gulf War, which said if they could keep their news bureau in Baghdad they would not report on any of his atrocities on the people of Iraq. CNN stayed and every other American news agency was kicked out. Why would any American today, unless associated with the acid far-left part of the Democrat Party, ever trust CNN News for anything, never knowing where the news ended and the spin began.

Are you surprised at this so-called vote based on non-information AOL had provided to its users? Talk about propaganda from AOL, its content providers having no problem spitting on its conservative users. What percent do you think they are of AOL's estimated 11-million users? AOL should think about that, but they won't.

And we would hope Ted Turner would want his former CNN baby not to lie and actually show the ad in its piece picked up by AOL. But could we expect that from a suit, who recently said he hadn't made his mind up on which side to be on in the terror war?

Be aware that in the first sentence on this page, we have put up hot links to two letters we had written to the CEO of AOL. The first one was sent registered mail, and one he responded to by having some young content provider call us to say that AOL was going to do a better job with its user feedback. "Ha," we knew that would never happen, the little darling thinking he had spun us into the world of AOL joy.

The second letter was sent the following year normal postal mail. We never heard back.

So maybe you would like to write AOL's CEO yourself and ask why his content providers put up a hot link to watch an ad, but instead provided propaganda from CNN why the ad was thought to be naughty, never showing the ad so you could make a decision for yourself.

But on the other side of the coin, you may also want to write to the the CEO of AOL and thank him for the propaganda, and that he was a good secular progressive.

The address is below.

Oh, and if you are an AOL user, have you ever noticed that AOL's news, in its constant questions to its users, looks more like those days in elementary school when you had to read about the adventures of Dick and Jane? We thought AOL news was also representative of the new math, the one which asks the students questions like, "If Sally has five cents, and David has seven cents, should Sally be angry?"

Again, read the letters we sent to AOL's CEO via the hot links in the first sentence (formatted in Word 2000) and then decide for yourself if we were fair in our own content.

Unlike AOL, we show you the real thing . . . or did we get that confused with Coke?

(Note: This address is from 2007. Please check for any changes to CEO.)

AOL
Mr. Jonathan F. Miller
CEO
22000 AOL Way
Dulles, VA 20166
"Remember, if you want a chance for a reply, send it registered mail through the U.S. Postal Service."