Deja Vu - a Kerry Bimbo eruption

.

.

But if you don't, there is no discussion, only appearances.

"Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. Therefore it is called a "sober alcoholic". That is exactly what Bush is, since he is an alcoholic, but doesn?t drink according to himself. "

First, I've not seen any real claims he is an alcoholic. He had a DUI, many have. He quit drinking, reported on his own decision, on his own initiative, and on his effort at 40 (age according to what I found, any contradiction?) and said he hadn't had a drink since then.

"I know you understand what I mean, so don't even try to be "difficult" and come up with new questions regarding a single word or how I have phrased parts of it, because I will ignore you completely!"

I questioned what you meant because it appeared and still does as trying to slip in an ugly insult while stating it as something that wasn't. Why bring it up unless you meant it derogatory?

We all know what a big fan you are of Bush, so was it just poorly worded praise? (sarcasm, to be clear just for you)

I believe you intended it as an veiled insult. If I was wrong, well, is it all my inference or is some of it your choice of style and words (and history).

It still reads as a drive by shooting to me. That's just my opinion, not any pronoucement from on high BTW.

I think most of us took Charlies post as an attack on Bush! I think Charlie crafts his messages with built in deniability in case he is called on them! Just as he did with this one!

Glenda

The reason I posted what I posted was that many seem to find people who have had relationships outside their marriages less reliable than those who suffer from alcoholism. I think the progressive forces in this country have way more understanding for people with substance abuse than the neo-Cons can ever imagine. And I am not an exception, but find it stupid to even discuss whether a candidate has done what many, many Americans have done before and after them and will continue to do in the future too. So, my post was basically an attempt to show the stupidity of bringing up Kerry's "relationships" with other women or another woman.

"The reason I posted what I posted was that many seem to find people who have had relationships outside their marriages less reliable than those who suffer from alcoholism. "

So why nothing in your post other than the one-liner?

I will grant was in a thread about infidelity. But then, someone who cheats is doing it by willful choice to lie and break a trust aren't they? Is breaking trust and vows any less an indication of reliability than a substance abuse in the past? espcially one that was never documented as dependancy.

One other fact. The DUI was over 2 decades ago, and when Bush decided to quit drinking he did something to prevent any future problem. The alleged affair was in 2001, and an alleged coverup much more recently in that the girl was supposely encourage to leave to country to keep her from reporters.

"And I am not an exception, but find it stupid to even discuss whether a candidate has done what many, many Americans have done before and after them and will continue to do in the future too. "

And as most mothers have said before to their kids, if soandso jumped off a cliff are you going to do it too? We all make mistakes, and all fail to be out best sometime, no doubt about it. But if a candidate currently running for President very recently had an affair, you don't think that matters at all?

"So, my post was basically an attempt to show the stupidity of bringing up Kerry's "relationships" with other women or another woman."

BTW, not all of us have accepted this is real yet. Some expected it to be true, some are waiting to see.

And if it is proven, yes I would consider someone breaking their marriage vows 2 years ago and trying to cover it up during an election a very real and serious factor to consider.

After the Clinton/Monica fiasco, I would think anyone that had an affair going on would want to avoid the limelight. Actually that makes me suspicious of the allegations to a degree. However, some do think they are 'smart and clever' enough to get away with it.

We'll see in the next weeks what comes of it.

1: if you are so intent on ignoring someone, why not stay away...

2: the past has taught us that it is you who have problems reading what is said here...

3: the only person who understands your posts is you...

1. Anyone who has ever drank alot is not an alcoholic. This "permanently recovering" bunk actually applies to very few. I know lots of people who partied pretty hard in their youth, even up to age 40 (especially those single with no kids -- which is what got Bush to "grow up" in that respect!), that no longer drink or drink only rarely. Does anyone lay awake nights thinking Bush might fall off some wagon and go on a bender? Hardly!

2. It is sad when folks can't see the problem with infidelity in general, let alone for those who would be our leaders. First there is the issue of integrity and commitment. Infidelity necessarily involves lying and breaking of promises. How can we expect someone to be honest with the American people and uphold their oath of office when they can't honor their marriage vows? If someone doesn't want to be married then don't be. Kerry is still fairly recently married to his second wife, if he was fooling around on her with Presidential aspirations, then I for one thinks this disqualifies him to lead this country. IF this is true, it is a recent occurrence, not something from the past. That was part of the issue with Clinton. After the Hillary/Bill sapfest interview in 1992, I think most Americans felt his infidelity was a past issue, certainly not something the country expected to have to deal with during his time in office. That was the not-so-subtle message sent in that interview. He broke that trust and so much more.

3. Now run along and play with your neo-Commie friends. Just because people don't espouse your socialistic means of coddling those who choose to abuse their bodies (and all except those born with it in their system do indeed make the choice Charlie), doesn't mean we don't have compassion and our own means by which we seek to help those less fortunate than ourselves. What have you, PERSONALLY, done lately to help your fellow man?

Would you prefer neo-Commie or socialist liberal?

"No, that is mainly what your neo-Con friends are saying though when they bring up things like Kerry?s past relationships outside the marriage."

Sorry, 2001 isn't really past, it's present, therefore relating to his integrity now.

"And if you disagree with them, why don?t you tell them that?"

Pick that refrain up from Blake? Shrug, if you bother to read, I think you'll find I'm waiting to see what comes of it. I'm interested in further developments, but haven't leaped on any bandwagon yet.

"...advocate free detox and rehab, paid by the taxpayers in order to make our society more secure."

Would you like to discuss substance dependancy treatment and punishment for crime in support of it? Then why not start a thread with a reference to some recent study or news story of it. Their may be many here on both sides that have long and carefully thought out suggestions and opinions.

Or maybe trying to be sure I'm casted as unsympathetic to others? Shrug, think what you want.

You claim it was all to point out how irrelvaent Kerry's allege affair was. So you're maintaining that Bush's DUI and any alleged alcoholism (which I don't recall anyone but you mentioning before) is irrelvant?

And what happened 30+ years ago with military service of Bush and antiwar protests of Kerry totally irrelevant? "Enquiring minds want to know", whacha think Charlie?

involved in that activity? I guess that would be commendable if Kerry admits his affliction, and says it was wrong and something he is committed to stopping. However, Kerry hasn't done that, and I think the suspicion is that he's still doing it. There were reports about a woman leaving the country to avoid the media.

"Don't mention these things as it upsets the forum pinkos."?

How well do you know your Pinko friends here Charlie and how well do they know you?

Whether or not he is a bona fide alcoholic is not an issue. If he is, he is in recovery, and that takes guts, and deserves admiration. . If he is not, he went the way of many young men (and women) who overindulged and did foolish things in their youth.

Regardless, he IS the President of the United States, and thus commands our respect for the office in which he serves.

You used "alcoholic" as a condemnation. Ir was not an opinion, but an insult. You have no facts to back up such an unfair, mean-spirited, slanderous accusation.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Angeline read what you actually wrote and commented, no interpretation was necessary and you have no business slandering her for her post. Your little bitty whatever gives you no such right. Comprende?

Sanctimonious......

DE

Hi Angeline:

I once spoke with some friends who are in recovery and their opinion was that IF Bush is an alcoholic, that the stresses of the Presidency (especially his Presidency with 9/11 and all that's followed) make seeking or serving in high office unadvisable. The likelihood of relapse increases with such pressures.

I don't know whether he's an alcoholic or not. Some of the comments he's made and some of his life events suggest that he is (e.g. remembering the exact date he stopped drinking, the fact that he seems to have found religion at around that same time, etc.). But they call the group Alcoholics Anonymous for a reason. Ultimately it's nobody's business but his unless there is evidence that he's drinking again, which I have not seen.

That is, that doesn't necessarily have the danger of one drink relapse that the standard view of an alcoholic includes.

There are some that drink way too much until they realize it's not healthy for them, or sometimes they have a religious experince, or an almost have a fatal accident and makes them realize the dangers. Sometimes it can be when someone they know have a terrible accident while drinking that triggers the decision.

For whatever reason, they decide that they just don't want to take the risks or bad health of drink and leave it. Some do it without outside help, some join AA perhaps.

I've known a few people who quit just for the calorie and physical fitness angle, and rarely if ever touched alcohol again as far as I know.

Of course, as you point out, the name is Alchoholics Anonymous. As long as there is no evidence of of drinking, actually as long as no evidence of excessive drinking since we don't know he was an alcoholic or not, whose business is it.

An alcoholic who admits that he is, and hasn't had a drink for years, can't be trusted? Now there's a liberal point of view!

.

My praises:

1. He kept the country calm and together after 9/11.

2. I support our involvement in Afghanistan.

3. I support our involvement in Iraq.

4. I believe his intentions are good.

(An aside- I wish Cheney good health, but I think he is a liability to the ticket.)

I do not believe that he or the next or the next, or maybe even the next President will be able to rid the world of terrorists. Their numbers have been growing for decades.

And NO administration can accomplish much while our country is as polarized as it is now. Nor as long as one party thinks their guys wear halos and their opponents have horns.

There are no easy answeres to complex problems.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

rather than constantly fighting over mud.

One point. State and local taxes would probably be up even without President Bush's tax cut. If his cut expires, we will pay more federal tax while state and local taxes will, at best, stay where they are. It will be a tax increase.

Actually Cheney is one thing I really don't like about this administration.

Interestig enough, wish I could remember where, a financial forecaster was predicting Bush would win but Cheney wouldn't be running mate. Perhaps decline on health. No real reason given, that was just the guys prediction.

A nightmare I had was Bush and Cheney winning this time, then in 2008 and election with Cheney vs Dean. Shudder.

Polarization and unwilling to consider the other side may be as big a threat to this country's future as terrorist, pollution, or economic problems.

Hi, Roger.

>>Polarization and unwilling to consider the other side may be as big a threat to this country's future as terrorist, pollution, or economic problems.<<
I agree. But Bush is part of the problem, IMCO, not part of the solution. He ran as a "uniter not a divider," who would seek bipartisan input. Furthermore, you'd think someone elected by a minority of the popular vote and selected by an unprecedented partisan action of the SCOTUS would try to take a middle-of-the-road approach on most issues. Instead, he has presided over one of the most partisan Administrations in recent memory -- his approach domestically is the same as internationally: "you're either for us or against us." Be it the environment, judicial appointments, tax cuts, or sex education he's taken a far-right extremist stance. I wonder, however, how many Americans have long enough memories to remeber his middle-of-the road campaign positions and hold him to aacount as having been deceitful from the get-go?

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

.