newbie

How long have you actually listened to this man - seriously. link I have and don't bother linking to hand picked selections that have been poured over by people that hate him and would love to see him impeached or assassinated or both. Another one bites the dust.

How long have you actually listened to this man - seriously. link

Yeah, you're right on August. My Norwegian grandparents had no choice but to learn the language as best they could and put their past behind them and merge totally into society. What a difference 100 years make.

You forget the patience these folks have. And and all scenarios are open game in the imagination of a jihadist.

Here's a portion of Larry King with Bill Maher who, IMO, was right on the money. KING: Are we better off with Saddam gone? MAHER: We are not better off. We were never better off because Saddam was actually a bulwark against terrorism. He would never have allowed al Qaeda in Iraq. And I know people say oh, yes, there was al Qaeda. Yes, there was a few al Qaeda in the northern part of the country, which he did not control. KING: He didn't like bin Laden, right? MAHER: He hated bin Laden. So the world certainly is not better off without Saddam. And I don't know if even Iraq is better off without Saddam. You ask the people in Iraq now. Because you know, we're running out of things that Saddam did that we don't do like torture, rape. About the only one left is mass graves. So in a lot of ways we are Saddam except for one thing, he at least had control of his country.

I certainly don't. And I'll bet the granny at the airport who had to undergo a search and have her homemade jelly confiscasted doesn't either. And how about these gems: * Security under Bush and GOP? * Not Enough Troops...Body Armor...or armed Humvees in Iraq. * Four times as many terror attacks in 2005. * Two billion cut from law enforcement. * Iran developing nuclear weapons. Just 6% of containers inspected. * Millions more illegal immigrants. * North Korea has quadrupled its nuclear arsenal. link I think the following essay from Rosa Brooks sums up the situation nicely. link

So nice of you to provide the relevant part. By the way, was this from Rush Limbaugh's blog or Ann Coulter's?

As of 2003 Afghanistan didn't produce *ANY* oil. (source) Couldn't find any more up to date information, but come on how much could have changed in 2 1/2 years? When people make arguments that have *zero* foundation in reality it's tough to take them seriously. It's actually about Unocal's proposed pipeline across Afghanistan that's in question, but that's old news now.

Hmm, now if he could only lecture his bishops and priests on pedophilia.

I think I'd be more concerned about the millions we pay for abortions every year vs. a national television network. Just trying to keep things in perspective here.

Right on man.

Some people will never change their mind in the face of insurmountable evidence, but if you're tempted google "proof of global warming". The facts are the facts. http://www.lesstaxonfuel.co.uk/warming.htm You facts lost credibility when they tried to dispute CO2 as a non-pollutant (even the U.S. Clean Air act defines it so, or do we have different air - link). Strange how MOST climatologist will disagree with your so-called facts. You're clearly in the minority of world and science opinion on global warming. I suppose you think the depletion of the ozone layer is a natural phenomenon as well.

Some people will never change their mind in the face of insurmountable evidence, but if you're tempted google "proof of global warming".

Now what was it Bush said, something like "either yer with us or agin us" 15 Saudis on board? link

CBC Viciously Attacks Bush: What a ridiculous statement. I saw the program in question and it was well worth my $.30 contribution that day. Albert Nerenberg's premise, from what I derived is despite our culture's extensive access to knowledge and information, humans continue to choose stupidity. Enter Geroge Bush. Now you can't tell me he isn't the U.S.'s d-----t President. I applaud the CBC for showing this independent film. For your 9 bucks or so a month, you'd be hard pressed to find anything else this entertaining.

So is a diabetic and a person with epilepsy. And if they don't take their medication they may die. My point is that everyone has a choice. But addicts and alcoholics need a support system, gov't funded or otherwise or they won't make it. And yes, if they refuse, then consequences take over. Again my point is that addiction is an illness and must be treated as such, and not related to only the decision of the addict. They require, in the most case, advocates to make sure things are taken care initially. Most have little social skills, especially coming out of prison. Most of this is volunteerism, but may be funded by such programs as Streets Alive and other organizations related to "soup kitchen" and interfaith food banks. Again, we try Geoffrey, that's all we can do. If the person refuse help, there is little we can do. But I'm stubborn and I keep trying.

What you fail to see here newbie is the incentive effect of such government funding of rehab programmes or other payments to those addicted to drugs.It is a general rule of life that if we lower the price of foolishness, there will be more foolishness. Moreover, I suspect that government is entirely the wrong institution to use to help these people. But I dunno. It's called being human August. And believe it or not, there are a lot of people helping such folks without Gov't funds, out of the goodness of their hearts. Sure, let's write them off August. Let 'em die in the street. There just a useless goddam drunk to you anyway. What do you know of incentive? I have helped many of these people capture something they can contribute. They need understanding, a few good meals, and a discovery of their skills. I've helped people re-integrate from the prison system where they're released with less than they came in with. No housing, no money, no nothing. What do you know about these so called bums August. Ever bought one a meal? Of course not, what woudl the incentive be to that. The funding should be centered at the root, the educational system where kids with severe learning disabilites can't fall through the cracks. Teachers must report abuses seen on students. We all need to do our part or we're going to see more of August's rejects.

Of course I'm not implying handing out loads of money to someone who has gone thru rehab a number of times and who absolutley refuses help. But I don't think they comprise the majority of so called street bums. Many, like I said, suffer from other undiagnosed mental illnessess.

Addiction problems are a disease in the sense that they have a biological component and are not simply a life style choice - however, these diseases can only be treated if the sufferer is willing to ask for help. If an alcoholic/addict refuses treatment or fails to stay clean and sober after receiving treatment then that alcoholic/addict is a 'bum' in every sense of the word. Giving welfare to such people only encourages them to continue in their addiction. I guess you've never heard of relaspes. A chronic alcoholic may take years to find sobriety. It's not a matter of choice or willpower. If you've never been addicted to anything then you don't understand. edit: of course the idea is to keep them in treatment, I'm just reminding you that it can be extremely difficult for the more serious addict. Remember Robert Downy Jr. ?

Just a quick point. Not everyone on welfare can recieve AISH benefits even if they are applicable. Doctors fill out forms and most do not consider Alcholism and addictions as diseases (which they are; ]http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/Publications/AlcoholResearch/default.htm. Many of the so called "street people" have disorders as schizophrenia, bipolar and other disorders of the brain but can not recieve approrpriate "labeling" to enable them to access government disability funding. Lack of address doesn't help. Bottom line I object to your comment saying "the vast majority of welfare receipients are indeed bums" without further proof that these individiuals have serious physological and neuological disorders that remain untreated. Is it the Conservative way to sweep these folks under the rug as Ralph would say," You don't look disabled."

No DNA match? Now what is the media going to do??

Tell that to the kids getting blown up playing in tobacco crops.