The U.S. is guilty of doing the same thing
Posted By: sm on 2009-01-06
In Reply to: Thanks for the info....(sm) - Just the big bad
Our government has played one country against another, supplying gun power to invade/overthrow governments or those in power the US government does not want there, and then when THAT power we put in there becomes too big for their britches and starts using those very weapons to invade/attack other countries or territories THEY don't like, we then go after them, the very ones we put there in the first place.
Ron Paul is correct; we need to stay OUT of everyone's business and let countries govern themselves. Sometimes all we do by interfering is make things worse for the citizens of those countries where things from bad to worse....
We've got to get out of our heads that we have to save the world......not only is that impossible but financially we are bankrupt from doing so.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Guilty?
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded and he was one of the key architects of the 9/11 attack. You don't think he is guilty? Are you kidding me?
This man plotted and planned an attack on American soil that killed thousands of Americans and you don't think he should have been waterboarded?
You tell me this.....how many detainees were actually subjected to waterboarding....other than Khalid Mohammed that is. Did we do it to every single detainee. Do you even realize that these detainees, a lot of them, were turned in by other people in their country or caught as a direct result of interrogating other detainees.
The last time I checked, Khalid Mohammed still has his head attached to his body....which is more than I can say for Jack Hensley, Nicholas Berg and any other American who had their head cut off. It wasn't a swift cutting off either. I don't know if anyone here has seen the video of one of the beheadings but I had the misfortune of seeing one on the internet and it is an image that haunts me to this day. They basically grabbed him by his head, took a big knife and cut all the way around his neck, and then literally had to start sawing at his neck to get his head the rest of the way off. It took quite a while to accomplish the whole thing. When it was done, they threw the guy's head on his body and started cheering.
I have no compassion for terrorists and I think it is sad that some of you people do. They are ruthless people whose only desire is to rid the world of infidels....that includes you, JTBB. Yes, you. They want you dead and you want them treated fairly. 
You need to look in the mirror sam, you are guilty of ...sm
exactly what you are accusing the Dems of. Can you not see it? Everything is black and white with you and it seems that you feel you will lose ground in the conflict if you admit anything but total agreement with the republican platform is wrong. Can you not see that? Nothing in life is ever just black or white, good or bad.
The problem is everyone's guilty,
he said, she said, dem said, pub said. What difference does it make? Fix the problem. I don't believe the dems are anymore at fault for this than the pubs. If anything, I blame Bush and not because he's a pub but because he was supposed to be our leader. If he thought this was an issue, why didn't he press it? Oh, because someone told him it wasn't. Since when does he listen to anyone, and especially the dems.
The ad isn't addressing whether or not he was guilty
but rather his poor judgment.
If everyone was guilty by association . . .
how many of us would be guilty? There are and have been plenty of Senators and congresssmen who have (or still do) links to the KKK -- if we knew the actual truth, we would be shocked. The point is, I don't have enough information to be able to make a judgment about Obama's choice of church? We all have at one time or another had a friend or loved one whose lifestyle or morals maybe we did not necessarily agree with, but maybe we knew another side of them that overshadowed the bad side. I don't respect or necessarily like my mother because she is a racist, but I still love her for doing the best she knew how.
If one is guilty by association, then let
any one of you who profess your own guiltlessness please step forward. I just wish you people would find something more constructive to do than continuously harp on a moot point. You're welcome to join your compadre who posted earlier about moving to Australia -- but then, I doubt you would have the funds to do that, since they require major $$ to be deposited into their banks in order to get a green card. And then you would find that they really do not care for Americans very much, and then YOU would be the one discriminated against. I would call that poetic justice.
am I know guilty of blasphemy?
s
And how would we know if they're guilty? (sm)
Most haven't even been charged with a crime much less prosecuted. You might want to start listening to the people who were actually there -- our military personell -- who acknowledge that they didn't know who was guilty and who wasn't. They basically just rounded up any and everybody. That's why so many prosecutors walked off the job. Get your facts straight. You're starting to sound like Cheney, and all he's doing right now is trying to save his own butt.
From looking on both boards, both sides are guilty.
,
That's *innocent* until proven guilty...sm
I don't know which way it will go, but when you tell the truth your story never changes - his did over and over and over.
Moral Treason: Who's guilty?
President Theodore Roosevelt, 1918: To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
Senator Robert A. Taft (also known as Mr. Republican), 1941 (after Pearl Harbor): I believe that there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government..... Too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think it will give some comfort to the enemy.... If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country more good than it will do the enemy, and it will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.
Law school 101. Not indicted does not mean not guilty.
I think everyone knows that he had prescriptions from more than a couple of docs.
No one on your side of the fence has answered my question posed above. If MJF had aired an ad against stem cell research, would you have had the same reaction? Would Rush have had the same reaction? I think not. I think you would have applauded him for his courage and his willingness to do such a thing especially in light of the seriousness of his disease. Another question, what do you think about Nancy Reagan and her son Ron being pro stem cell research openly?
Rush will forever be guilty. sm
The amount of hatred the left holds for Rush shows how very powerful he is. He tells it like it is and they can't stand it.
If Bush, etc were not guilty, why do they need a War Crimes Act protection? sm
Why would you need to seek protection if your not ALREADY sure you are guilty?
They must be scared. Could charges be just around the corner? I am going to assume it isn't just about authorizing humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, this also about 911/false-flag ops, Wanta's fund and many other charges they are soon to face.
Hmmm...innocent until proven guilty....
you certainly don't think that about George Bush and Dick Cheney, do you? I don't see you asking fellow liberals not to make judgments until they are proven guilty by a jury of their peers...? LOL. Ahem. Think the hippocracy is showing there a little bit. I certainly don't think Kam is considering them innocent until proven guilty, nor are any of the rest of you by your posts. I believe she considers them guilty and impeachment a formality. So please stop with the noble innocent until proven guilty and that is the best system. You don't believe it across the board, so don't speechify. It rings hollow.
And what makes you think I have always voted a Republican ticket? I can tell you right now, I have not, especially in congressional races where I think the most difference is made.
There is nothing to say that Ron Paul would not be a great President. I threw his name out there because he is so radically different than any other Republican running and any Democrat running. Would not surprise me if he lost the Repub nomination and ran as an Independent, which would give disgusted folks such as myself and Kam a real alternative. But Kam is not disgusted with politics. She hates George Bush and she would not vote for a Republican no matter WHAT he or she said, she said as much. And that is what is wrong with politics today, as you have stated so many times and accused me of not wanting change because I said I would never vote for a Democrat. I said I would not vote for a pro abortion Democrat if I have an alternate choice, you are right. But, there are pro life Democrats and I have voted for some for congressional seats. And would continue to do so if I felt they were the most qualified person on the ticket. That is the reason I threw his name out. The only thing that goes against him being able to make any meaningful change is that Congress would hamstring him. If we really want change, we need an independent prez AND an independent congress. That won't happen this election cycle. That kind of change will take years. It could start with this one, and I think that is exactly what Pelosi is trying to avoid by not letting an impeachment go forward right now...too much might come out.
I am not victimized. If anyone is victimized it is poor Kam with that virulent hatred for George Bush. It sounds like it consumes every waking moment. Good grief. I go on about my daily life just like anyone else does, and in the grand scheme of things, WHOever is elected President has his/her work cut out for him/her, we all know that. If it is a Democrat, all I know for absolutely sure is my taxes are going to go up and social programs won't be reined in, they will just get money thrown at them, and if that doesn't fix them, we will get more programs. It has happened every time. And if there is anything in this country that needs to be fixed, that's it. That is another priority for me, and yes, my congresspeople could attest to that from the sheaves of paper they have received from me.
If it is a Republican, what happens depends upon which one it is. If it is Guiliani, I don't see much difference in he and most Democrats and I would have to weigh him against whatever Dem gets the nomination. If it is Romney, I think the man can balance the budget and get runaway spending under control, because say what you want about the man, he is a financial genius and the government is the biggest business there is, and frankly it needs to be run like one. So, if he is the nominee, most likely he will get my vote, because I think it is HIGH time that someone starts to run the government like a business and gets runaway spending under control, starting with social programs. That is so broken it screams to be fixed.
If nominee is Thompson, he will get my vote. For many reasons, the most important of which is putting power back in the states that the feds have stolen over the years. States have demonstrated time and time again they administer their affairs much better than when the Feds get into it. And states may be able to put enough pressure on their reps that Congress might actually do something about that, even if there is a Dem majority. One can only hope. Ron Paul believes that too, and I am in agreement with him on that. We certainly don't need as much centralized power in DC as we have right now. I will vote for the man (or woman) I feel most qualified and most closely follows my vision for the country, just like I would hope everyone else does.
Kam is disgusted, but it is more about her healthy hatred for the MAN George Bush, and the MAN Cheney which has nothing to do with politics and one need only read her posts about them to see that. Which is all well and good, and that is her right and I would argue for her right to say so. Her crusade is to punish George Bush and I don't really think that is going to cure what is wrong with politics in this country. If she thinks Obama is the answer, then I would think her time and energy would be better spent trying to get him the nomination and the election rather than crusading to punish someone on his way out anyway. But that is just me.
Yes, a lot of things about politics and about the way this country is going is disheartening. I do the best I can with my vote and working for whatever candidate I choose to support. Since I am not a rich person I sure can't throw much money at campaigns, but I do what I can.
As to the law is the law and innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers...fine. Does that mean if Bush is impeached and not convicted all would be forgiven on the basis of the law is the law? All of you who are calling for his head would go quietly away because he was judged innocent by his "peers?" ROFL. I don't THINK so.
I would agree with you that we the people of America need to change the way politics are played. But before THAT can happen, the minds of Americans have to change. And the way to do that is stop the bitterly partisan way of thinking (ANY party) and if these political boards, and all the political boards and blogs and sites on the internet are ANY indication, that is not going to happen anytime soon.
Does not mean I am not a happy person, does not mean I am going to slink into a closet and into a depression if Clinton or Obama become President or Paul or WHOEVER becomes President. Life will go on, the chips will fall, and we shall see what happens. Same thing if Guiliani or Romney or Thompson or whoever is elected. It is what it is. Noble ideas and good intentions are wonderful things. But if our Congress cannot drop partisanship long enough to do what is best for the country (if they even know what that is anymore, or care), then it doesn't matter who is President. And I don't know how we can really expect them to if we as rank and file Americans are unwilling to...what goes around comes around, and around, and around, and around....until someone gets off the merry-go-round and pulls the plug. Someone a lot more important, sadly, than kam, than me, or you, piglet. And for the right reasons. And therein lies the rub.
Remember that song, I Need A Hero? Well...America needs one right about now. :)
TARP, both sides are guilty, but O acts like he had nothing to do with it! nm
Then if Obama is not guilty by association, I guess McCain definitely isn't either sm
Racism goes both ways and you know that!
Conyers wife pleads guilty to bribery
Isn't surprising...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7938249&page=1
5 top Gitmo detainees plead guilty, seek martyrdom
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/08/Gitmo_911_suspects_to_plead_guilty/UPI-68631228752620/
But valuing over the price of a dollar is a right thing wing thing, so you are on the wrong board. n
x
I never said it's a bad thing, it is a good thing....nm
nm
one other thing though....
Agree with everything you stated, but I am profoundly disgusted also with Rove being able to expose a CIA agent, and nothing is going to be done about it in that I feel he committed treason, as Reagan did with Iran-Contra... Treasonous acts that are let to slide...no big deal huh? Who knows if someone is getting hurt because of his mouth, and yet, nothing... The silence is very annoying...as our country drops into a stinking sea of muck.
One more thing, gt. sm
Of all the people on these boards, YOUR opinion of me is the one I value the least.
Oh, and one more thing, gt. sm
Clnton signed Kyoto in 1997, only because he knew that the Senate would not ratify it. He was right. They voted 95-0 AGAINST Kyoto. Why? Because it would have required signatory nations to significantly cut greenhouse gases resulting from the burning of fosil fuels. Because ratifying the treaty would have required a large reduction in the use of fossil fuels that we use to our our economy. Until there is an alternative fuel source that is better than gold old fashioned coal and oil, restricting our economy's ability to burn these fuels would CRIPPLE US AS A NATION. You are not seeing the total picture here, you simply cannot be seeing it. I know the left's hatred for capitalism has blinded them to the fact that without our economy, we collapse. It really is that simple. We would be reduced to a third world nation in a very short period of time and you and I would not be sitting here writing on our computers because our world as we know it would change. Yes, it really is all about oil. But not the way you think.
and another thing
we aren't controlling anybody. There are several countries in this world where you are controlled, but this ain't one of them.
One more thing:
I apologize for the length of my post, but so far, I still have freedom of speech.
Guess I just feel the need to get it all out before that freedom suddenly disappears, as well. The majority of Americans don't agree with Bush, and we all know how he/his thugs handle people who dare to disagree with him. If you don't believe me, just ask John McCain and/or Valerie Plame.
I'd like to add one more thing.
If these alleged WMDs are so widespread and so easily accessible in Iraq, why aren't any of them being used on our soldiers?
Honestly, that's one of the very first fears I had when I heard we were going to war with Iraq (when I still believed the reasons given by the president and supported the invasion based on those reasons). I had visions of massive troop deaths at the hands of Iraqis and these WMDs.
Did that happen? 
OK. Here's the thing...sm
Because we've been through this before and I feel a repeat coming on. I'm respectful and nice to everyone on these boards 99% of the time. People come over to the liberal board and pretend they are moderates or just want to *debate.* When all the time they are anti-everything liberal and have no intention of seeing the liberal point of view. In the end, they end up *insulted* off of the board and run to the other board and have a sling fest. Yawn. They have revelations over there contrary to the beliefs they portrayed on this board. So really I'm skeptical about debating with the like. You may be 100% different worldfan, but from your posts on the Conservative and News boards it would appear you would be more at home on the conservative board giving them a high five about what's going on over here. Just my observation.
I used to post on the conservative board but I left because they were getting too extreme for my liking. It's that simple. There are some topics over there that I would reply too, but I don't b/c of past comments made over there, which have made me stick to the liberal page. However, on quite a few issues I am far from liberal like abortion and fiscal spending.
I hope you get my points. If not, we don't have anything more to discuss.
Sorry. Here's the whole thing.
I was trying to avoid this but the link is not working for some reason.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Tuesday, July 04, 2006 |
|
|
Headlines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Britons Tire of Cruel, Vulgar US: Poll |
|
|
People in Britain view the United States as a vulgar, crime-ridden society obsessed with money and led by an incompetent president whose Iraq policy is failing, according to a newspaper poll.
The United States is no longer a symbol of hope to Britain and the British no longer have confidence in their transatlantic cousins to lead global affairs, according to the poll published in The Daily Telegraph.
...a majority of the Britons described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business. ![src=http://www.commondreams.org/images/endquote.gif]()
|
|
The YouGov poll found that 77 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement that the US is a beacon of hope for the world.
As Americans prepared to celebrate the 230th anniversary of their independence on Tuesday, the poll found that only 12 percent of Britons trust them to act wisely on the global stage. This is half the number who had faith in the Vietnam-scarred White House of 1975.
A massive 83 percent of those questioned said that the United States doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.
With much of the worst criticism aimed at the US adminstration, the poll showed that 70 percent of Britons like Americans a lot or a little.
US President George W. Bush fared significantly worse, with just one percent rating him a great leader against 77 percent who deemed him a pretty poor or terrible leader.
More than two-thirds who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power seeking world domination. And 81 per cent of those who took a view said President George W Bush hypocritically championed democracy as a cover for the pursuit of American self-interests.
US policy in Iraq was similarly derided, with only 24 percent saying they felt that the US military action there was helping to bring democracy to the country.
A spokesman for the American embassy said that the poll's findings were contradicted by its own surveys.
We question the judgment of anyone who asserts the world would be a better place with Saddam still terrorizing his own nation and threatening people well beyond Iraq's borders, the paper quoted the unnamed spokesman as saying.
With respect to the poll's assertions about American society, we bear some of the blame for not successfully communicating America's extraordinary dynamism.
But frankly, so do you (the British press).
In answer to other questions, a majority of the Britons questions described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse
### |
 Printer Friendly Version  E-Mail This Article |
|
|
|
FAIR USE NOTICE |
|
|
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to know the same thing.nm
12
The thing that got me was this...sm
This totally counts out everyday Joes. And those with a couple million to run. A half a billion dollars is a lot of money.
One last thing.....
Your argument might hold more water if I thought for one minute liberals understood that it was Michael Moore's OPINION and not the truth (but why should they, because he frames as the truth). I think, if you truly understand that, you are in the minority.
One more thing...
I asked the last poster to bring me one example of a Democrat who, when caught in wrongdoing, has resigned. Just one. She has not come back with one, even though I named several who should have. As I stated, the only Democrat I know of who resigned from anything resigned because he was coming out of the closet, and I find that ludicrous. The man should not have resigned because he was gay. For felony perjury, yes. For obstruction of justice, yes. Remember please the congressman who actually had a homosexual affair with an underage page (male). No Democratic outrage. He stood right up and said he was an adult and it was consensual and that had nothing to do with his job as a Congressman. No Democratic outrage. In fact, he was re-elected. Yes, that was several years ago, but all that proves is that the Democratic moral compass went wonky several years ago. It is not a recent thing, it is just getting worse and worse and worse. Stop please dancing around the subject, and please to bring forth one or two Democrats who have actually resigned and admitted wrongdoing? And while you are at it, Republicans who were caught and still hold office? I would be very willing to read and re-assess. Try for one minute to take off the liberal hat and look at it objectively. It is case after case after case...Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Alcee Hastings, William Jefferson, and on and on the list goes....in fact, Alcee Hastings was removed as a Federal Judge for bribery and perjury..see below.
In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Voters to impeach included Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming only the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.
Ain't that special?? And just proves the point.
How did I get into this thing..
I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time. My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war.
How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate.
I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again.
How did I get in this thing....
I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time.
My point was that it is not only *this* administration. Clinton felt strongly enough about Iraq and regime change, as did the Congress at that time, to enact a LAW calling for regime change. So Iraq was on the table then. The articles posted would lead you to believe that liberals/Democrats never called for regime change. They are the instigating part of the *some* you speak of. And if you will read Clinton's speech at the time, if you did not know he gave it, you would think Bush might have, because the content is eerily similar. It is just odd to me that liberals were on board for WMD, on board for regime change, on board for force, on board for ALL of it when Clinton was calling for it. How do liberals manage that massive flip flop? I remember Clinton's speech well. It was one of the few times that I agreed with what he was doing and saying.
My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war. Okay. I get it. 3000 people dying here was not enough to make liberals willing to go to war. What, in the name of the Almighty, is, I am wondering.
How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. I was being facetious...he seems to be the posterboy for liberals. I apologize. I will not refer to him as YOUR favorite President anymore. Glad though that you validated what I have said on numerous occasions, that liberals are about what is good for them individually...I am glad you personally were doing better when he was President.
In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate. Maybe it has gone downhill for you since watergate. Personally I think it started downhill then, and made a huge massive slide with Monicagate and a sitting President committing felony perjury. However, I do not hold the country responsible for that as you seem to. I hold the individuals...Nixon and Clinton...responsible. At least Nixon had a modicum of grace to say he was wrong and resign when caught. Clinton has done neither and his party has not expected him to and has in fact defended him. You will never hear me defend either of them.
I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again. I believe it was one on the liberal board who started the *spew* and *ooze* and the only time I have used those words was again, being facetious, in reply to the ones who used them. I personally did not start the use of those. In fact, I think her words were *spew venom* (ick). As to cease and desist, go ahead with the regime change rhetoric if you like. We know it did not originate with Bush, not opinion, matter of law. No spin, hard fact.
Have a good day.
The right thing to do is...
allow everyone to vote. No one needs to step down. And I do not support either of them. I supported Ron Paul when he was in the race.
One more thing
He keeps flashing a pic of himself when he was a young guy in the military. Almost every commercial of him shows him when he was younger, and in fact one of his ads on this website shows him a young guy in the military. He's now old and he should have a current picture. What's next, Barack putting up adds with his high school senior pic? How about Hillary running with a picture of her in grade school. The guy is old and if he's so confident in himself he should have a current pic of him. He's no longer younger and he doesn't have the mind of someone younger.
You did no such thing since he never said that.
I did do my research and so did the author of "comparative drug use." above. FYI: Crack/free-base cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride are not the same. One is pure, the other a compound. The addition of hydrochloride gives the intranasal compound a completely different chemical make-up that does not have the same effect. It is slower on the uptake and clears the system much faster than the cocaine base (giving it less of an addictive potential) . The pure free base/crack cocaine DOES NOT WORK when it is snorted, since the absorption is obstructed when it is attacked by enzymes via the nasal route. Method of delivery does matter, in terms of drug effect, absorption, drug life and addiction potential. If you are an MT, you know where to go to verify this information.
I am aware of what he said and did not say in his book. I have nothing to add to the "comparative drug use" post in that regard. Furthermore, there is nothing inaccurate in my original post. There is a pervert on a right-wing fringe blog who made these unsubstantiated claims about his witnessed account of "sharing" cocaine with Obama and having homosexual sex with him. He has also been discredited and has a wrap sheet a mile long. Does not seem like a credible observation from a credible source. That's all I said. I did not deny, nor did I acknowledge whether or not Obama used cocaine. My comments referred to how information is extracted from legitimate sources (in this case, straight from the horse's mouth), twisted and manipulated by perverts and right-wing blogsters in desperate efforts to smear somebody's character when they are unable to engage themselves directly in legitimate policy issues. The "character" card, whether played by one party or the other, is really a lame strategy that prevents productive, progressive approaches to issues and solutions to problems of dire importance to us AS A NATION, not as party affiliates.
That is the best thing you
can come up with? Let us forget Obama's association with Ayers or his 20-year membership to a church that preached hate messages......let's just focus on McCain calling his wife a C unt shall we. Sheesh......If he thought so little of women, he would never have chose one to run as his VP.
In all seriousness though, why is c unt such an offensive word? Who dictates words and which ones are bad? Who decided that the F bomb was bad? Who determined what words were considered swear words? If I called someone a poop head and then called someone a c unt, they are both supposed to insult...are they not.....so why is one worse than the other and who determined that?
At least she is doing the right thing
She is going to have the baby and not kill it
well, the one thing that the VP has is...
the deciding vote if there is a tie in Congress, and with a majority dem congress that is not a bad thing.. :)
Yep, I agree with the "gimme" attitude. I call it being all about me, me, me. Don't get me wrong, I believe some social programs are necessary because there are people who, through no fault of their own whether mental disability or physical disability, cannot work. And I think we should take care of our fellow man to that extent. However, those who are fully capable of working and choose not to, and we have to subsidize their housing, their groceries, and give them a check every month...that needs to stop.
Have a wonderful day!
yes, SP did the right thing!!
x
One more thing....sm
McCain isn't "my hero" per se.... -- my first choice was Romney, and we all know where that went....lol....
But John McCain is this country's hero, whether you agree or admit it. He simply is, and was. Period. You can't take that away from him.
And I'll tell you who "sat around and watch a city drown." I think that pretty much covers what the entire nation did, as the nonstop coverage of that event was depicted...actually, I think the whole world watched, not just us. One of our tragedies, but you can't lay that completely at McCain or Bush's feet. It's been covered before her ad nauseum, and I think most agree, if the dem gov and dem mayor would have acted preemptively, as happened this weekend in both LA and TX, a lot of that would have been averted. No need to cover this ground again, really. I get your point of view though, so no need to expound.
Bummer....now I betcha won't answer my other question on SNL....rats, I really wanted to know too....lol....I used to love SNL with the first crew was on there with Chevy, Belushi, Gilda Radner, and all those first not ready for prime time players.
LOL! I can add one more thing to that -
To paraphrase the Beach Boys:
'and she had fun, fun, fun,
'til her mommy took her condom a-wayyyyyy!!!'
Is that a bad thing?
Should he have just attacked, attacked, attacked? Doesn't matter what he does, it is wrong, I guess. I would rather have somebody who can say Yeah, we disagree on some things, but here is where we agree. Isn't that what bipartisanship is about?
Whatever they do there is one thing for sure
It will not benefit "we the people." This bail-out is absurd. Our local bank president is a personal friend. Talking to her the other day she said there are no problems there and it's business as usual, loans being made just the same. Now that doesn't add up to the scare tactics we hear from the jerk-off politicians. JMO but I think this is G.W.'s last great assist to his Wall Street buddies. One party is as bad as the other and they all benefit from what goes on on Wall Street. They'll pass some kind of bail-out and this country will be bankrupted. No money, no jobs. Their bail-out is not going to help the situation any more than the rebates did. Just borrow more money and throw it away. I hope eventually enough people will get totally disgusted and then maybe we can take back our government. Everyone wants "help." Well, those who bit off mortgages they couldn't afford, tough toenails, suffer the consequences. We may as well start learning to spell GREATER DEPRESSION, worse than the 30s because, folks, that is what is coming. The Republicans will keep on blaming the Democrats and the Democrats will keep on blaming the Republicans. ALL of our elected politicians ought to be tried and hung for treason!! The best I know to do is vote against EVERY incumbent. I am far from excited about Obama but I will vote for him because he is not a Republican. Any Democrat running for anything I will vote for the Republican. That's the best I can think of at the moment to try to change. We all need to quit bickering about "Republican" and "Democrat" and start thinking as AMERICANS! If someone can build a better mousetrap than what I plan to do I'll be first in line to buy it. Something HAS to be done and we don't need to start in arguing about who should get a free handout. The truth is NO ONE should get a free handout, other than the aged and infirm!
One other thing to think about . . .
Also need to think about the what if . . .? What happens if Obama is elected and all these crazy radicals/extremists/racists in this country take him out, or GOD FORBID, if McCain is elected, (and I don't think an 80-year-old man is going to make it through 4 years), then that thing he picked as runny mate would step in as president? Let's see, Palin or Biden? There's a no brainer!!! Mark my words, Palin beliefs would regress his country 30-50 years. We don't need a self-righteous religious fanatic in the White House. What ever happened to separation of church and state??
they run the whole thing
It's the old line "you get what you pay for" here. Imagine it changes to SM tomorrow. You wouldn't have the option to stay with the physicians you now have (unless a pure accident or coincidence). Gone would be the choices you now have, which are pitiful as the system is now. I still long for the days when we purchased our ins. the same as we do our car ins., cable co., etc. In the ྌs and beyond I had BCBS. I selected the doctors I wanted, and didn't worry about looking for who was on my (my list? ha!) list closest to my home, etc.
A friend of mine lived in Canada for awhile and while there her daughter got DXd with cancer and ended up with an amputated leg. She said it was a horrible system, and would never again do it...and she didn't. She had no control over her choices up there. No doubt you've heard of the many people who come here for surgery, etc. for the same reasons. Again, everyone's trying to get IN to the US, not out...
Does that help? Please don't be swayed by the spin. Anytime the gov't controls something, whether it be your healthcare to your home, you're no longer in control of it.
My thing is
that God gives life, not us. We are merely the vessels. Therefore what he gives we cannot take away. Well, excuse me, should not.
I think that if someone doesn't believe in God they are still very much bound by his laws, they just break them left and right.
I have quite a few reasons for not voting for Obama, but on the instance of abortion, I don't believe it is our right to put away what God has brought into being.
What really bothers me though is that Obama supports the "just born abortions" (I can't remember what they are called). To me, if your going to carry the child for 9 months, why kill it at the end? If you've gone through all that, at least give it up for adoption and give it a chance!
I completely agree, Mccain is not much better. I'm sure for the most part it will end up being politics as usual. I think he would like to make changes, but to me the President has become nothing more than a mouthpiece. He will fall in line with the majority. Obama, on the other hand, bothers me because for one, he rose to the top way to quickly. Two, he is not very patriotic and neither is his wife. Three, I think in his pursuit of getting "the people" to cheer him on he is going to do some very stupid things (like sitting down with terrorists. So what, then they can kidnap him and hold him ransom?) Four, there is no way he got to the top that quickly on his own. Therefore, he owes people. It bothers me to think of which ones he owes.
There are others but I'll stop there since a lot of them have already been beaten to death on this board.
To bad we as Americans couldn't all band together and put "one of our own" in there. Write in a middle aged lower-middle class construction worker from Tennessee, or an old cowboy from Texas (not related to Bush of course!) Someone without money, or a background in politics, or a personal agenda. Then we would really see change!
And another thing
What is he going to do about exporting jobs out of our country? Have you checked the job seekers board lately? Over 2000 hits on some of the ads. Read the company board? Seems no one has any work. And McCain promises to be the biggest free trader of all times. Yup, that's very good for the economy.
The thing is....sm
she is trying to show everyone that Obama has terrorist links. Bottom line is no matter what he SAYS he is going to do, if he is a terrorist, you should not believe him. Of course a terrorist would say what you want to hear. Of course they would send someone with the appropriate appearance and eloquence of speech. At this point it does not even matter if McCaine does anything he says at all...because ANYTHING beats having a terrorist as our president.
|
