Posted on 02/24/2006 7:40:34 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
I'm aboard as long as the people that have the problems are as open, and accepting of their problem (and its solution) as Rush has been. Meth mouths and crackheads IMHO do not fit into that category.
LLS
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I expect to see you on a FR WoD thread arguing that people who smoke pot are perfectly able to add value to society?
I can't ignore this one, you are just to ignorant for words to describe. I am not the guy you aimed your post at but have to jump in here. 1.) Rush wasn't smoking pot, he was addicted to prescription drugs, this is usually as much the fault of the Drs. ivolved as the person taking them. 2.) There are many pot smokers in America today who add to society, there are also some who don't, just as there are many people who drink and add to society, and some drinkers who don't.
In the future try to keep you comments to facts instead of ansinine remarks that prove nothing and add nothing to the debate, but simply show your self righteous, holier than thou attitude for the world to see.
Well, since I was the one who wrote the USNA thing about Ollie, I'll explain:
There's a semester-long class at USNA called Leadership and Law in which you examine a whole bunch of case profiles about what to do and what not to do in morally sketchy situations. The goal here, of course, is to help young officers figure out how to "do the right thing" throughout their careers. Ollie was originally the class of '67, but he got messed up in a car accident. In essence, they held him back a year and he graduated with the class of '68. The injuries he sustained made him NPQ for the Corps. In order to get into the Marines, he got ahold of his medical record and ripped out any and all reference to his injuries, thereby enabling him to qualify for the Corps.
Here's the moral pickle: you can respect Ollie for doing what he did in order to serve in the Corps (and I do---I wish I had the balls to do something like that myself, I could've flown), but was it okay to tamper with his medical records like that?
For what it's worth. But I guess there was a reason why USNA didn't hang Ollie's picture among the "Distinguished Graduates" portaits off the Rotunda.
No sh*t, Sherlock.And in the grand scheme of things, being addicted to painkillers is much worse than being "addicted" to pot. Celebrities with money don't smoke grass, they pop pills.
2.) There are many pot smokers in America today who add to society, there are also some who don't, just as there are many people who drink and add to society, and some drinkers who don't.
Agreed: check out any one of my posts on any given FR WoD thread.
In the future try to keep you comments to facts instead of ansinine remarks that prove nothing and add nothing to the debate, but simply show your self righteous, holier than thou attitude for the world to see.
I suggest you read a bit before popping off half-cocked.
Now I've seen it all. The Globe sides with Bush. Freepers fighting everywhere. I'm going on FR Vacation starting now. This is crazy. CRAZY!
Bush is right....again!!!
Yes, some Great Americans have had to forgo fame and honor to do what was needed to be done for the good of our country. Ollie serving was definitely a good thing for our country.
LLS
I'm sure his Marines would say the same thing. Plus, he kicked James Webb's ass in boxing.
It has been a pleasure to calmly discuss these points with you guys. True Freepers in every way!
LLS
Somwehat, but then there's also all the people out and about in town who aren't as guarded.
and (2) I think Joe Terrorist would much prefer to attack a domestic civilian port than a military port. As a rule, I'd say terrorists aren't interested in attacking millitary assets---military assets fight back.
You mean like the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut? Or the Cole?
I understand your point on this, but here's a couple of things to consider. First, we were using that port long before 9/11. It was there as a target if someone wanted to hit it, and certainly it would be easier to hit something in your own backyard rather than traveling to the States. Yet in all those years, not a single attack, despite the relative ease of hitting a target (consider all the U.S. service people and buidings, not just the ships). And to a large extent, they provide the security because its their country and their port.
The UAE has taken some crap from other Arabs about letting the infidels in. Yet they've not only let us in, but let us use their country as a staging area to attack Iraq. Saying "you're good enough to service our military people for more than decade perfectly, but can't manage some terminals here in the U.S." just seems really odd. If they're truly that unreliable, shouldn't we pull our port facilities out to remain consistent?
The Wall Street Journal editorial staff, Rush Limbaugh, and the Heritage Foundation also think that this is a non-issue and that the ports' sale amounts to nothing more than an engagement in commerce and the seeds of capitalism taking root. When Conservatives scoff at commerce and allow their emotions to get in the way, I start wondering myself.
Understood. Personally I think those incidents both were acts of war, and should've been treated as such. But it took an incident of greater magnitude---granted---and on a civilian target to rouse that sort of sentiment in this admittedly sleepy country.
I understand your point on this, but here's a couple of things to consider. First, we were using that port long before 9/11. It was there as a target if someone wanted to hit it, and certainly it would be easier to hit something in your own backyard rather than traveling to the States. Yet in all those years, not a single attack, despite the relative ease of hitting a target (consider all the U.S. service people and buidings, not just the ships). And to a large extent, they provide the security because its their country and their port.
I hope you're right, XJar, and this is a big sh*tstorm over nothing. But I'm going to quote the guy from Platoon nonetheless: "I got a bad feeling about this one, Bob."
noob is a relative thing. ;-)
LLS
Let me answer that for you, you mentioned it because you are closer to a liberal than a conservative, anything to try to promote your agenda. If I am wrong, I apologize, if I am not, well, enough said.
Bush's defense of the port deal is to say that "those who are questioning it" need to "step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."
First of all, it's not "all of a sudden." The phrase you're searching for, Mr. President, is "ever since the murderous attacks of Sept. 11." The Bush administration's obstinate refusal to profile Middle Easterners has been the one massive gaping hole in national security since the 9/11 attacks — attacks that received indirect support from the United Arab Emirates.
There are at least 3,000 reasons why a company controlled by a Middle Eastern Muslim emirate should be held to a different standard than a British company. Many of these reasons are now buried under a gaping hole that isn't metaphorical in lower Manhattan.
Even four years after 9/11, I note that we don't hear Tony Blair condemning some cartoons in a Danish newspaper as "a cultural extremism," or saying their publication represents a "dreadful clash of civilizations."
That was U.A.E. Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs Mohammed Al Dhaheri's recent comment on the great Danish cartoon caper.
So maybe Bush could defend his port deal without insulting our intelligence by asking why anyone might imagine there's any conceivable difference between a British company and a United Arab Emirates company.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.