One more thing, neocon
Posted By: GT on 2005-09-18
In Reply to: Why? - Reality check
Furthermore, no one is asking you conservatives to leave the board because of **my tender feelings**..I only know these people through their posts, why would they ask you to leave because of me..What I post and my beliefs, I DEFEND THEM AND DO NOT ASK ANYONE ELSE TO **GANG UP WITH ME** against conservatives which is not like your ilk, who always gang up with your conservative cohorts on the liberal board against the liberals. Whatever reason anyone on the liberal board asks you to leave is NOT BECAUSE OF GT..Maybe in your psyche it is easier to take, thinking..well, they only ask us to leave because of **GT's tender feelings**..Well, that is not the reason..I have never asked anyone on the liberal board to back me up or to ask you conservatives to leave..It is their opinions, beliefs and feelings and I have mine..When they ask you to leave they do so for their own reasons, NOT MINE.
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
Bye bye neocon
GET OFF THE LIBERAL BOARD, FOR PETE SAKE, GET OFF THE LIBERAL BOARD, WE DONT WANT YOU HERE.
Bye bye, neocon
Bye, bye, neocon..you have been told quite a few times to stay off the liberal board..IMHO save yourself from grief and angst..dont read this board, dont post on this board, dont come on this board..
Neocon.
I always thought neocon mean the **new and improved version** the *reenergized*, the uber-conservative.
We are the ones who think what is causing so much of the problem is the attitude of the American left.
The true conservative is not faint of heart, and we've still got a lot of fight left in us...for the the actual war and for the fight against the extreme leftists who have now unashamedly positioned themselves as a roadblock in the effort.
The above statements you made are what I was referring to about the maligning the left. These hawkiest of the hawks are backpeddaling which is a huge shock to me, but you think the problem is **the American left** who have **positioned themselves as a roadblock.**
I, on the other hand, think these guys mentioned in the article said they felt the administration was incompetent. Perleman said he still thought his own philosophy about spreading democracy and using a dominant military was the right way to go; he has just discovered that this administration can't do it. I believe he said, verbatim, it's a good idea but we have to throw it in the Can't Do drawer because it is over, at least for a generation. None of these guys mentioned the left as being part of the problem; they laid it squarely on the shoulders of this administration.
Yep, it's not hard to believe that the neocon
Limberger is a liar in the midst of all of his drama how can he keep a story straight?
He probably forgets half of it anyway, that's the drug effect.
Actually no, that isn't what Neocon means at all. sm
And I wasn't the one who wrote the things you are responding to, but here is a really good definition of Neocon and perhaps you can see why AG and I and others have stridently objected to being labeled Neocon in the past. Though I have some Neocon friends and I admire most of their beliefs, I am no Neocon. Neither, for that matter, is President Bush, who has been labeled a neocon ad nauseum on these boards.
From Chris Jones:
It would appear that you are unfamiliar with the history of the neo-conservative movement, a history which explains why some folks associate it with Jews and why the use of “neo-con” as a pejorative seems to some to smell of anti-Semitism.
The original “neo-conservatives” were a group of left-of-center intellectuals who became disillusioned with their liberal politics and became conservatives — mostly, but not exclusively, on foreign policy and national security issues. Many, but not all, of these intellectuals were Jewish, and the “center of gravity” of the nascent neo-conservative movement was Commentary magazine and its editors and writers. Prominent among the early neo-conservatives were Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz (who are Jewish) and Jeanne Kirkpatrick (who is (I think) a Gentile). Commentary magazine played the role in the neo-conservative movement that was played by National Review in the broader conservative intellectual movement of the 1960s and 1970s.
The contemporary conservative journalists Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz are the sons of the early neo-conservatives Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz.
The defining characteristic of neo-conservatism, properly so called, is a belief in a robustly activist foreign policy by people who were formerly left-of-center. The movement is associated with Jewish-ness because many of its early leading lights happened to be Jews; but Jewish-ness is accidental to the movement, not characteristic of it. To use “neo-con” as a sort of vaguely anti-Semitic slur is not only dishonorable, but a misuse of language. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen, though.
Another cut and paste from a neocon rag
Boy, you are a slow learner. You complain to another poster that the NY Times is liberal slanted yet you cut and paste from you right-wing neocon rags (I know you don't like the neocon label but too bad). You make it appear this is your original thinking. You post this stuff like it's your original writing and thinking but it's all cut and paste or right-wing propanda. I think you get 1 star on this one but you get high marks for crazed and annoying persistence and perserveration.
You evidently don't know what a NeoCon is.
She is not one of them. Why do you think Bush & Cheney and other NeoCons are upset by this pick.
Is this what the democrat party has turned into...hateful, mean-spirited, sour, and jealous. Your comments are about the lowest I have seen in a long time.
The only thing I can think of is that you thought because Bush was such a horrible president and everyone hates him that Barack and Joe would just be able to waltz in and take over. Now the republicans have a good VP candidate and there is more and more discussions about how JM has just elevated his chances of winning. The more people are learning about her the more they are like her and all reports for both conservative and liberals are in agreement with one thing...this is an amazing lady and definitely qualified to become the first woman president in history.
You are just grasping at straws trying to invent things that are not true and just stir up trouble.
Your comments are so juvenile. I just say thank goodnes at least I'm not in grammar school anymore.
Neocon human shield
You are the one who is so PRO WAR, why dont you become a human shield and go to Iraq and help the unfortunate people we have destroyed and stop spouting your hate and baloney here. Im anti war, 100% and anti Bush for sure..I hope Bush rots in hell along with his family because they could have talked some sense into him. They all should go to Iraq if they believe so much in the *noble mission*..Oh, wait a minute, what is the mission? WMD?, Nah, liberating Iraq and creating a Demcracy, nah, never gonna happen.
Typical NeoCon spincrud
NOBODY KNOWS for a FACT what is causing climate change on earth. It's just as much propaganda to hear one side as the other on the matter. Not surprising however that NeoCons would find outrageous the fact that anyone might want to take some action to lessen the human impact on the planet in hopes of preserving some part of it for future generations. Oh, how EVIL! Oh, the dark awful motivations of people who want to CLEAN THE AIR and restore some balance to our atmosphere.
Besides that the article is ridiculously stupid. It harps on KILLER hurricanes. Oooh killer hurricanes are DECREASING DECREASING.
Interesting fact ANYONE can figure out for themselves: Hurricane ANDREW (note the first letter) struck on an August 29. First hurricane of the season that year. On August 29.
Note Katrina's first letter: K. That makes her the 11TH hurricane of this year. On August 29.
While the category 4's and 5's are rare, the instance for having them at all is VASTLY INCREASED WHEN THE NUMBER OF HURRICANES THAT COULD BECOME ONE ARE VASTLY INCREASED. Last year and this year both have shown an astonishing upsurge in the NUMBER of hurricanes were are experiencing per season. Since hurricanes are born in the hot air over the African desert, the fact that the desert is expanding by leaps and bounds due to an upward trend in temperatures in that region virtually guarantees we will be having more and more hurricanes that have a chance to develop into killers under just the right conditions.
Nobody knows if global warming is responsible for the expansion of the Sahara or the melting of the polar glaciers, or if the worldwide phenomenon is due to mankind's effects or is just a natural cycle we can't avert. WHO CARES. If some educated people believe they know a way we can HELP the situation why do NeoCons want to thwart them? Oh, right, because corporations might lose money. Our oil economy might burp. So, let's just pooh the world away why don't we. Let's make it a political game and let our arrogant pride hold out for the sake of nothing but holding out. That's the NeoCon game!
Another neocon lie. GT has repeatedly tried to debate
in an intelligent non-bashing manner, but you people can't stand that.
Just go to page #11 and see the posts on 7/20 and 7/21 where she took MT's abuse, let it roll off her back and tried to debate with her, watched as MT was close to having a seizure and then told her to chill.
Reading the archives is interesting. LOL. Even see one where MT denies being a conservative and then says she'll never post here again. 
another ignorant post from a neocon
Your accusation that because Im liberal/democrat/anti war and so I smoke reefer shows your ignorance..PERIOD..I dont post in broad generalizations and I ask you to show me where I have..PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE POSTED IN BROAD GENERALIZATIONS OR LIES. And, I once again ask you to show me the news reports of where there was a stench in the DC mall because of the anti war people or the anti war people in your town do not bathe and stink..Show me the stories..Waiting for the proof..sure hope you can post it, otherwise guess you are discredited and proven to be a liar (so what else is new, conservative=liar)..Guess you need to find another handle to post under the liberal board, LOL.
Have you seen the neocon think tank's web page?sm
This is who supplies Bush with most of his ideas. Take a look at the PNAC's members list.
www.newamericancentury.org
Also, take a look at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Their plan is for super power and extensive wars. Lebanon is simply a pretext to invading Iran,just like they used 911 to invade Afghanistan (but really wanted to attack Iraq not for WMD but for their energy resources). Doing a little more research you will also find the USA Patriot Act was written before 9-11.
And you demonstrate neocon policies.
Lying and attacking and personal insults. You can't defend the issues because your theory is indefensible.
Again, this is the liberal board. We're not here to please you.
You are still misusing the term Neocon. sm
Not that you will stop, but it is irritating.
From one post you figure someone is a neocon...
geez. Post a clip, so people can see the whole context of what was said. Then let them decide. After all the ripping of Sarah Palin, you seize on this? Walls shattering in your glass house there, friend.
Neocon, I think you are posting on the wrong board
GET OFF THE LIBERAL BOARD, FOOL..we dont want you here.
Coulter - Acerbic Neocon Banshee.sm
This woman has nerve calling anyone Godless when she supports an administration commiting genocide throughout the world. The 911 truth movement is getting stronger every day, so it does not surprise me she is attacking 911 widows. Her most priceless statement was, they ought to just take the money and shut up on MSNBC last night.
Most on the left misuse the term neocon. sm
I think they just like the sound of it, especially the *con* part.
Pay close attention. The question was about pub/NeoCon
Do the conservatives have any clue about how to address these issues, other than run from them. This is a yes or no question.
Nice 2 C fascism is alive and well in NeoCon USA.
Keep this up and the only thing Obama will have to do to win the election is keep breathing.
Williams confronts neocon pundit Kristol.sm
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/16/kristol-williams/
NeoCon cult vision promotes more fear.
nm
Yeah, right. Creating a NeoCon parallel universe
nm
Careful! Some neocon troll might twist your post into a threat!!!
More delusions of grandeur from the NCFC (Neocon/femocon) fringe.
su
Luckily, your foul tricks won't work this time. Begone, NeoCon.
You guys have tried this before and the only reason it worked was because a) you had a fresh crop of victims every few months or so as the liberals you didn't like got banned from the board, and b) you know the ins and outs because you yourselves were posting under multiple names repeatedly for a very long time. Your favorite trick was always to accuse others of doing what you yourselves were constantly doing, and you vicously accused a lot of innocent people who had no idea what you were talking about. I believe the Bible calls this false witness. Not that you'd care.
The liberals don't have to resort to such deceit. They actually say something in their posts and they believe in what they say. They stand by their words.
It's the one-line slimers who post and run anonymously and try to pump themselves up to look like more than they are by posting under multiple names, agreeing with themselves - they have nothing better to do, no real thoughts to offer, and no real desire to communicate. Hence the anonymous posts they don't want to own. All they are about is tearing down and creating conflict - kind of like the administration they revere.
So don't try it, NeoCons - your habit of blaming others for the deceit you practice yourselves isn't going to fly anymore. You're busted.
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
get on back, neocon, get on back
Tell ya what, sweetheart, last I checked this is the LIBERAL BOARD and I havent been banned, as I dont break the rules, so I can stay as long as I want..Seems to me, conservative, you are the one who should mosey on by and get back to drink more Kook-Aid.
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.
|
