CLOSED!!Political Discussion - A Place to "duke it out" (7400+)
- Fred2000
- Kirk
- Fred2000
- Fred2000
- Kirk
- Fred2000
- Fred2000
- litab16
- Fred2000
- SteveT
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Next »
» Kirk - Re: Re: Meet the New Sheriff, Same as the Old Sheriff
In response to message posted by Fred2000:Fred. First you say you are ignorant about AA then you find fault with them. I guess all you really did was prove you are ignorant.
How the hell do you help someone who has not admitted they have a problem and asked for help? That is when they hit bottom. I've seen some hit bottom when they felt the two glasses of wine a night was out of control. Another I met said he hit bottom when he told a friend that at least he had a bridge to sleep under and didn't have to live in a cardboard box. Everyone is different.
You liberals think the answer is throw money at problems but this has been proven to be a bad thing yet so many of you profit from it like the homeless advocates in SF who get money from the city to help the homeless.
Read this http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/defa...
and this
http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/defa...
-- posted by Kirk
» Fred2000 - A question of credibility
.Intelligence dispute warrants an independent commission investigation
7/28/2003
Republicans rallied around President Bush to defeat efforts to establish a bipartisan commission to investigate the administration's use of secret intelligence to justify war in Iraq. That was the wrong move for the party, the wrong move for the president and, ultimately, the wrong move for the nation.
American credibility already has suffered a huge blow in this controversy. There are only two paths to restoring that credibility: Either corroborating evidence emerges and Iraqi possession and pursuit of nuclear weaponry turns out to be provable, or the nation conducts a full-blown independent probe that determines whether this administration acted in good faith in using bad information.
The Senate's party-line vote last week rejected the Democrats' proposal for such a commission, leaving separate investigations in the hands of the intelligence committees of the Republican-controlled House and Senate. A similar path was followed in Great Britain - source of the disputed intelligence - where Prime Minister Tony Blair turned back calls by Parliament for an independent judicial inquiry, and kept his nation's probe in two committees dominated by his Labor Party.
An Iraqi nuclear weapons program was not the only reasons put forth as a cause for war. Chemical and biological weaponry and the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime also figured in that debate. But the Bush administration used Iraq's possession of nuclear weapons as its most forceful image in building a case for war, with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice declaring that the White House didn't "want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
An honest look into the administration's use of intelligence would likely reach one of three conclusions:
Iraq did seek uranium in Africa - the claim based on what now are acknowledged as forged documents - or, by extension, at least had an illicit nuclear weapons program. Public evidence is so far lacking, although the British insist their intelligence is still true and backed by other secret sources.
The claim was false but the Bush administration didn't know that and used it in good faith.
The claim was known to be at least questionable - if not outright wrong - and the administration used it anyway simply to bolster its push toward a war it wanted for other reasons.
It doesn't matter how valid those other reasons were. Americans relied on the validity of the presidential argument in deciding whether to support the attack. Deceit, in those circumstances, is unconscionable.
America needs to know what went wrong with U.S. intelligence or whether the intelligence was simply misused. Given the sensitive nature of intelligence gathering and intelligence sources, no probe can be fully transparent. But a separate bipartisan commission focused solely on this issue would be a confidence-inspiring step, and one that eventually could restore some of the administration's - and America's - lost credibility.
-- posted by Fred2000
» Fred2000 - Re: Meet the New Sheriff, Same as the Old Sheriff
In response to message posted by Kirk:"First you say you are ignorant about AA then you find fault with them. I guess all you really did was prove you are ignorant."
Kirk... On the contrary. I recognized the extent of their success and praised them for the good work that they do. I think your unfair outburst, accusation and name calling shows who the ignorant one is.
"You liberals think the answer is throw money at problems but this has been proven to be a bad thing yet so many of you profit from it like the homeless advocates in SF who get money from the city to help the homeless."
Easy, easy. You conservatives think the answer is to throw money at people like Ken Lay and that they will trickle down on the poor and the homeless.
-- posted by Fred2000
» Kirk - Re: Re: Meet the New Sheriff, Same as the Old Sheriff
In response to message posted by Fred2000:I am sorry. I misread your post. I thought you were faulting AA for being an incomplete solution.
My point is: substance abusers, those who cheat on their spouse, those that can't read etc. can't be helped until they reach the conclusion that they need help AND they are willing to do some work.
Ken Lay should be in Jail and I am pissed that Citigroup shareholders bribe the government to not throw the top executives in the slammer. It sucks... "do a crime, have your shareholders pay the fine!"
-- posted by Kirk
» Fred2000 - Re: Meet the New Sheriff, Same as the Old Sheriff
In response to message posted by Kirk:" am sorry. I misread your post. I thought you were faulting AA for being an incomplete solution."
Kirk... No appology required. Never-the-less, it's clear that the AA does no basic research in developments that might be found to assist an alcoholic. While such attempts are removed from the alcoholics themselves, it seems like a worthy cause.
No one is saying that much of the money spent by the government, on various projects, is not wasted but the fact that our government and many developed western nations as well, do take steps in that direction, is another difference between them and the banana republics out there.
Just as it would have been unfair to fault the AA for being an incomplete solution, it seems unfair to fault the government for not doing a perfect job. It's our job to see to it that we elect informed and well intentioned representatives.
-- posted by Fred2000
» litab16 - Pentagon Building a Terrors Futures Market
The Pentagon is asking for $8 million dollars to build a futures market that will trade on accurately predicting terror attacks. Participants can buy futures and make money on whether they accurately predict the next terror attack. This seems like a huge waste of American tax dollars that could be used more appropriately for accurate intelligence. Here's the story in today's New York Times.
Here are a few quotes from the story:
"Traders bullish on a biological attack on Israel or bearish on the chances of a North Korean missile strike would have the opportunity to bet on the likelihood of such events on a new Internet site established by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
"The Pentagon called its latest idea a new way of predicting events and part of its search for the "broadest possible set of new ways to prevent terrorist attacks." Two Democratic senators who reported the plan called it morally repugnant and grotesque. The senators said the program fell under the control of Adm. John M. Poindexter, President Ronald Reagan's national security adviser.
"One of the two senators, Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, said the idea seemed so preposterous that he had trouble persuading people it was not a hoax. "Can you imagine," Mr. Dorgan asked, "if another country set up a betting parlor so that people could go in — and is sponsored by the government itself — people could go in and bet on the assassination of an American political figure?"
*****
You can check out the Pentagon site at:
-- posted by litab16
» Fred2000 - Bill and Hill to thwartt recall
.CLINTONS TO CAMPAIGN IN CALIFORNIA TO THWART RECALL
Bill and Hillary Clinton will inject themselves in to the historic California recall battle, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, as Democrats vow to fight to the finish to retain the state's governorship!
The former president and his senator wife will trek to the golden state for campaign appearances with Gray Davis, top sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
The Clintons and Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe plan to reinforce a theme of Republicans undoing and undermining election results, "like they did in Florida," a well-placed source said from Washington.
Still up in the air: if both Hillary and Bill Clinton will appear with Davis at the same time.
"It's simply a scheduling issue at this point," a source explains. "Hillary will definitely be making a trip to offer support to Davis and California senator Barbara Boxer... Bill and Hillary are quietly planning to make frequent trips as the election nears."
-- posted by Fred2000
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.