Addiction - whether its chemical, physical, emotional, psychological, or any other al, is still an addiction. Without getting too personal, the easiest addictions for me to overcome have been chemical. Obviously this is a personal issue where some would find chemical addictions the hardest to best, other may find emotional or psychological addictions the toughest. Think about the abused wife/girlfriend syndrome - the chances that these women will ever get out of a cycle of abusive relationships is incredibly low - thats psychological or emotional addiction, or both.
I argue that once the physical nature of chemical addictions is out of the body, the physical cravings stop, but the addiction remains because of emotional or psychological cravings - smoking tobacco is a prime example. Unfortunately for those with addictions other than chemical or physical, the reality is in most cases professional therapy is the only cure - and its a lot more time consuming, expensive, and mentally difficult than beating a chemical addiction.
I think that to say the only addiction that is substantial is chemical is wrong.
OBTW - I completely agree with those who think tort reform is a pressing issue that needs addressing in this country. The suit against McDonalds was staggering to me. Imagine blaming another person for something YOU ate. Just wow.
Last edited by Cornbread Maxwell on Fri May 21, 2004 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Transmogrifier wrote:Oh, Wkelly, you pulled me in. I debated whether to do this, as I don’t have much time. But I feel ignorance like this can’t be ignored and should be challenged. Maybe at least you’ll stop generalizing liberals like that. I’m a liberal, and I bet you couldn’t find one person who knows me to say that I’m unintelligent.
wkelly91 wrote:Liberals love those who agree with them. Liberals Hate those who dis-agree with them. This one the board liberals have already proven. They cannot come up with one good thing to say about any conservative, a hallmark of the close-minded.
What part of my statement says Liberals are unintelligent? You obviously are intellegent.
After 9/11 Bush did a masterful job of pulling the country together and being resolute. Unfortunately, he’s taken many wrong turns since then.
The war on terror I would say no. Raising the federal budget, yes.
wkelly91 wrote:Liberals love anyone but Bush Liberals Hate George W.Bush Liberals have this rabid fixation on GW and they would vote for Jerry Spinger if it meant GW would be gone. Some of the quotes I've read border on ludicrous such as moving to France if GW gets elected. I didn't agree with Bill Clintons view of America but I'm certainly not stupid enough to move to France. I do however encourage all you socialists who want to change America into a socialistic state...please feel free to leave.
I would vote for pretty much anyone over Bush. Does this mean I think Bush is a worse person than Hitler? Absolutely not. Or even consider him the worst president ever? No, but he’s close.
That's a mouthful and even helps to support what I stated.
wkelly91 wrote:Liberals love people to be reliant on their handouts. Liberals Hate the self-reliant. We have had 50+ years of Democratic domminance in American politics with numerous failed policies such as the war on poverty. An enourmous ammount of wealth has been transfered from the productive to the non-productive and we have more families under poverty than ever before. It doesn't work. Democrats claim the want to help these people yet they never rise above poverty, generation upon generation is perpetuated and will continue to vote for the politicians who send them a check.
I pay a lot of taxes. I’m ok with that. I recognize that. I keep voting for people that generally raise taxes. Why? Because I’m white, grew up in a good household, with two parents, and understand how lucky I was. Make me a minority and put me in Southeast DC, and no matter how smart I am, I still have trouble getting out of there. We really underestimate the impact of our environment.
I think that is an absurd comment. How many people emigrate of have emigrated to this country and have become millionaines when they arrived with nothing but the shirts on their backs? In the 70's many vietnamese arrived in this country with nothing and have taken advantage of the American Dream and are now highly succesful. Using the environment argument is a crutch. Read "Think Big" by Dr. Ben Carson the formost neuro-surgeon in the world and an African American. He started off in the slums of Detroit.
wkelly91 wrote:Liberals love taxes. Liberals hate tax cuts. The tax code is a mess. If you liberals want fair taxation impose a flat tax, or a national sales tax, but you won't do this...why? The dirty secret is that the top 5% already pay over 50% of all taxes. All the precious liberal tax programs would collapse if the top wage earners suddenly decided to stop pursuing wealth. This class warfare that liberals are constantly promoting is total hypocracy. Most of the liberals in Washington are multi millionaires and make every effort to use the tax code to their benefit as well. Several years ago Bill Clinton took tax deductions on USED underwear when he was in office! Liberals want taxes because they can use it as a tool to control peoples behavior. Can any of you educated liberals please tell me what an "Earned income tax credit" is? People who pay NO taxes get a refund????
I hate taxes, yet I understand the importance of them. I think Bush’s tax cuts are absurd, pushing us into an enormous deficit.
Calling it class warfare degrades the issue. You want a flat tax? You will continue to keep people in poverty. This can be avoided by creating a threshold before taxation begins. The progressive tax system allows those who are making little money get by while they build equity and move onto new jobs, then they pay back to the system.
So, liberals try to get everything out of the tax code yet are millionaires (A HUGE overstatement, by the way). So, what does that make of the rich conservatives that are cutting their own taxes? Or John Kerry, who is very wealthy through his wife—he’s raising his taxes. Your statements have no basis in fact.
What I am saying is that BOTH parties take advantage of the tax code, but the Democrats won't admit it. They only want to blame Republicans.
wkelly91 wrote:Liberals love to criticize the intelligence of conservatives. Liberals hate to admit americans can think for themselves. Reagen=senile, Quayle=stupid and immature(even though was older than Clinton), Dole=old, senile, GW Bush=stupid. You liberals love to call all conservatives narrow-minded and stupid, I challenge you to look into GW's education (You can't fly fighter planes worth millions of dollars if your an idiot)
I think it’s the conservatives here that are criticizing my intelligence. And, for the record, I think Bush is a lot smarter than people give him credit for. But the manner in which he got into the best schools in the country with bad grades and got into the National Guard in Texas without going through the standard waiting period is a problem endemic to elites in this country—both liberals and democrats. true
wkelly91 wrote:Liberals love all minorities that agree with them. Liberals hate those who don't use their status as a crutch. Just ask any conservative african-american (Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condi Rice) if they arn't called sellouts and uncle toms...sad.
I have enormous respect for all the people you mentioned. I disagree with most of them, although Powell and I agree a lot more than Bush and I do.
wkelly91 wrote:Liberals love all religions that conform to their world view. Liberals Hate conservative Christians. The ACLU will stand for all religious groups, but are strangely silent when Christians are getting their rights trampled. Why is that?
I’m not going to get into religion here, but Christians “rights” aren’t being trampled.
They are and if you want to read a link I will send it. There are instances such as kids being forbidden to have prayer clubs after school while all other groups are allowed to do so.I
wkelly91 wrote:Liberals love free speech as long as it is agreeable to them. Liberals hate free speech. Liberals want to shut down talk radio because it is the home of conservatives. They have tried to legislate this with little luck so far. They want to say that talkshow hosts like Rush Limbaugh incite Hate and that is why they must be shut down. Anyone who is willing to listen to Rush for a week or two would not be able to find one example of Hate speach unless taken out of context.
Trying to shut down talk radio? Sorry. That’s absurd.
wkelly91 wrote:Liberals love hypocracy. Liberals Hate the resolute. (See John Kerry) "I don't own an SUV" "My family owns it"
Politicians love hypocrisy, if you want to go there. True
If we want to talk about hypocrisy, how about conservatives who think Catholics who support pro-choice issues should not get communion? Well, then keeping with church doctrine, Catholics who support the death penalty and the war in Iraq also can get communion. The pews will be empty.
I am not a catholic so I can't comment on their religion, but I would disagree with your statement that all conservatives agree with that...I don't
wkelly91 wrote:Liberals love regulation. Liberals Hate freedom. I would venture to guess none of you liberals own businesses and have experienced the riduculous excessive government regulations that force many small business owners to shut their doors.
I don’t own a business, but I know many people who do. Many liberals believe that regulation is necessary when the market fails, and it does fail a lot (Adam Smith wasn’t perfect),
I stated in my follow-up "excessive regulation" which I should have put in the original. Just ask loggers out west who are out of jobs dur to the "spotted owl" which has been proven not to be endangered.
So, I tackled all your issues, absurd or not. Overall, I think you’re lumping all liberals together with the worst liberals. I don’t lump all conservatives with Anne Coulter. You shouldn’t lump all liberals with Michael Moore.
Let me clarify something, I do not equate all Democrats with Liberals or all Republicans with conservatives. Michael Moore is a fringe Liberal, he isn't even close to being mainstream. I would equate him to David Duke rather than Ann Coulter.
You are absolutely correct about Bush's spending and what appears to be the Repulican strategy to spend Democrats out of power. That is not consevative. If it wern't for our countries need to have a strong, resolute president to get us through the war on terror I would vote Liberitarian.
One more thing, I edited out some of the areas where I did not dis agree with your statements. I was not trying to censore your statements.
Transmogrifier wrote:I would vote for pretty much anyone over Bush. Does this mean I think Bush is a worse person than Hitler? Absolutely not. Or even consider him the worst president ever? No, but he’s close.
That's a mouthful and even helps to support what I stated.
I'm not sure how this further's your point. Yes, I'd vote for near anyone but Bush. But it's a rational argument. It's not something like--Bush is Hitler and anyone can do better than him. It's simply that most of the people that could be president, I believe would do a better job. There's tons of Republicans I'd vote in instead of Bush. Starting with McCain, then Chafee, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, etc.
Anyway, seems we agree on a lot; the things we don't agree on--taxes and government programs--aren't going to be changed in this forum. You can present all the studies you want, and I can throw them all back at you. The brightest minds in the country argue over this, and there are plenty of arguments.
As long as you don't argue for no social programs, and a return to a Machiavellian state with Darwinian survival principles, then there's really no truth to argue.
But, can you at least admit you initial premise is absolutely bogus? For every liberal that you find fits into your love/hate ideas, I can find you an equally worrisome conservative.
Hating or even insulting a group of people because of their beliefs is ignorance. Disputing their arguments is another--if they have them.
I'd much rather discuss politics with an intelligent conservative than a brainwashed liberal. And there are plenty of each category on both sides. A little respect goes a long way.
Transmogrifier wrote:I see a difference between endorphins and drugs. Would you make the claim that addiction--whether crack, nicotine or stealing cars--is the same? I don't.
I don't buy the "addicted" argument to begin with. As to the difference of the so called "addictions" then yes, there are different things that supposedly cause it, but I don't feel that any type of so called "addiction" is anyone's fault except for the person who allowed it to happen to them.
Hence somone who intentionally starts a fire and proceeds to knowingly inhale the fumes over a long period of time should not win a lawsuit against anyone concerning the choice that they made. They did it to themselves and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that it's most likely not healthy to continually put searing hot smoke in your lungs.
"But, but, your honor........They made me addicted! It's big tobacco's fault for producing a product that I couldn't control myself around! Pay me and I'll feel better!"
What a steamy load of cow flop. The bottom line is that the smoker in question enjoyed it, continued to do it, and didn't have the intestional fortitude to stop doing it when it became a health issue.
It's no different to me that the "temporary insanity" defense for murder. A guy comes home, finds his wife in bed with another guy, gets mad and kills them both. What happens?
"Your honor, my client was not able to think clearly and therefore did not understand the consequences of his actions. My client pleads not guilty by reason of temporary insanity."
What a crock of crap! I don't buy it for one second. Temporary insanity would be if he shaved one leg, put on a tu-tu and started rollerblading down the street. Not losing his temper and killing two people because they made him mad.
Same thing goes for the so called "Video games made me do it" excuse. Video games do not make kids violent. It's a myth, but still something that parents, lawyers, judges, citizens, etc. have invented to keep children from being held responsible for their own actions.
It's an EXCUSE! Bottom line. People should be held responsible for the choices that they make. We (the government, the citizens, and the judicial system) should not be helping them make excuses or finding new ways to get them off the hook. We should be slapping these people in the face with a rusty rake to wake them up to the fact that at some point they have to be responsible for their own actions instead of blaming it on "addiction" or any of the other BS that they come up with.
This has actually been quite fun.
Out of curiosity, are you going to support the weak people when the beer lawsuits come out "I'm addicted and now have cirosis (sp?) of the liver and it's all the beer company's fault for producing a product that I couldn't control myself around. Pay me!"? It's enivetible with the way big tobacco went and I'm quite surprised that it hasn't happened already since it's the exact same scenario.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
As im not a liberal but do follow politics more than baseball, i can safely say that although some of ur stereotypes are true for some liberals, but not for the majority. In ur poem, u describe the extremist liberal group, which is not the majority. Taxes are fine with me, i want my gov to excell, but do i want unneccessary taxes..of course not.
But if u look back into ur poem, u did say some things about liberals that are not true, and i really dont like that because some of my views are liberal.
Calvin rules. "Pronouns are nouns that have lost their amateur status" ----LOL =D
"I am free of ALL prejudices, I hate everyone equally." -WC Fields