Cheney cancels speech in Canada due to safety concerns ‎

[cybercoma]

Which post has the difference again?

So many posts!

Her argument is, to quote the old joke, "alcoholics go to meetings."

[Guest American Woman]

Her argument is, to quote the old joke, "alcoholics go to meetings."

I find your ignorance unbearable when you're speaking for yourself, so please don't speak for me; I'm quite capable of stating my "argument" myself, and as in this case, your comprehension of it is rarely the reality of it.

Thank you.

[cybercoma]

I find your ignorance unbearable when you're speaking for yourself, so please don't speak for me; I'm quite capable of stating my "argument" myself, and as in this case, your comprehension of it is rarely the reality of it.

Thank you.

You know, your only rebuttal to anything I've said is to call me ignorant.

But since you say this is not your argument let's go back to post #330 where you claim to provide your argument for the distinction between 'problem drinker' and 'alcoholic.' Bold is your original highlighting:

Sure. One involves a dependency - chemical or psychological - while the other does not.

This was the claim that I denied and explained that problem drinking does involve dependency. If you're not dependent on alcohol then you would have enough control that it would not affect your life, as per my definition earlier that you said was wrong and think you're arguing against here.

Many people go through a stage in their lives where they drink too much - where their drinking is a problem - but they are not all alcoholics. link

"Well, I don't think I had an addiction," Bush told the Washington Post for a July 1999 profile. "You know it's hard for me to say. I've had friends who were, you know, very addicted. . .and

they required hitting bottom [to start] going to AA. I don't think that was my case.

"

Here is the evidence you provide to say Bush was not an alcoholic. The argument is exactly what I said in the previous post: "I'm not an alcoholic. Alcoholics go to meetings." That is the essence of Bush's argument. Since he didn't go to AA, then he can't be an alcoholic. I shouldn't have to tell you how stupid and wrong this is, but apparently I do. You can be an alcoholic and not go to AA. You can be an alcoholic and quit on your own. You can be an alcoholic and still be functional even.

Speculation in the national press, which went into a media frenzy over the report that Bush was arrested 24 years ago for drunk driving, ranged from the suggestion that if he never went to A.A. he is not really recovered, to the opinion that

if he quit on his own, it was not a big problem in the first place.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between. Alcohol abuse can be a very serious problem in itself, but if it progresses into alcohol dependence, the solution can become much more complicated.

Again, abuse and dependence are two just two different symptoms of alcoholism. You seem to think that the difference between abuse and dependence shows that someone who abuses alcohol is not an alcoholic. That's not true at all.

And regarding Bush (emphasis mine):

The highly publicized case brings to the public's attention the difference between alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence, or alcoholism.

Most people who abused alcohol, even to a dangerous extent at some point in their lives, never fit the criteria as alcoholics, or alcohol dependent.

I repeat: there is a difference, and it is not a "fact," "well known" or otherwise, that Bush is an alcoholic.

Same as above. You're trying to make an argument that someone can abuse alcohol, have it affect their personal and professional life, yet still not be an alcoholic. That kind of narrow definition of alcoholism is not only wrong, but stupid and dangerous, I don't care who made the uncited claim you posted above.

Your claim, as is evident from post #330 that I've quoted above is that you're not an alcoholic until you're so dependent that you can only quit by going to meetings. It's that claim and the claim that you can abuse alcohol and not be an alcoholic that are wrong.

Imagine the same thinking with drugs. No one in their right mind would say you could abuse drugs without saying you're a drug addict: "I was never a drug addict. I just used a lot of heroin and it was becoming a problem."

[DogOnPorch]

How many beers can dance on the head of a pin?

[Guest American Woman]

Here is the evidence you provide to say Bush was not an alcoholic.

Ummm. No. That was the evidence I provided to refute the claim that Bush admitted he was an alcoholic. As I said before, please don't speak for me; you rarely comprehend what I'm saying correctly.

[DogOnPorch]

Ummm. No. That was the evidence I provided to refute the claim that Bush admitted he was an alcoholic. As I said before, please don't speak for me; you rarely comprehend what I'm saying correctly.

It's pointless, AW. I'd stop counting angels.

[Guest American Woman]

How many beers can dance on the head of a pin?

Depends how how big the pinhead is.

[dre]

If there is no "dependency" on the alcohol, if the person is not drinking to satisfy a "craving," that statement defines a problem drinker, not an alcoholic.

People who drink ever day ARE satisfying a craving. Otherwise they wouldnt do it.

[dre]

It's pointless, AW. I'd stop counting angels.

NOBODY comprehends what youre saying including yourself. Thats why you every post you participates degenerates into the same futile hair splitting.

[Guest American Woman]

NOBODY comprehends what youre saying including yourself. Thats why you every post you participates degenerates into the same futile hair splitting.

Now you're speaking for everybody, are you? But of course you once again jump in and ignore all of the responses that my posts generate - the "splitting hair" responses that I then respond to. But yeah, once again criticize me. I swear that you are obsessed with me. Seriously.

Fact is, there is a difference between a problem drinker and an alcoholic, which has been clearly stated, and I repeat, your inability to comprehend it changes nothing.

Fact is, it's not a "known fact that Bush is an alcoholic."

Fact is, when people make claims that aren't true, I will respond - so I suggest you try really hard to get over it.

[cybercoma]

He certainly was an alcoholic and you're an enabler.

[Guest Manny]

NOBODY comprehends what youre saying including yourself. Thats why you every post you participates degenerates into the same futile hair splitting.

Huh??

[Guest American Woman]

He certainly was an alcoholic and you're an enabler.

Nope. Your ignorance only speaks for you. You have you no idea what Bush "certainly was," and as for your accusation about me, I can't decide if it's more ignorant or LOL funny.*

*Cue dre to post yet another response about me....

[Guest Manny]

Well I'm no expert in these matters, but after having read a few things it seems to me there is no absolute definition for "alcoholic". The preferred word is alcoholism. This is divided into two categories, alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence.

Although in Wikipedia it says-

Alcoholism (Redirected from Alcoholic)

In medicine several other terms are used, specifically "alcohol abuse" and "alcohol dependence," which have more specific definitions. In 1979 an expert World Health Organization committee discouraged the use of "alcoholism" in medicine, preferring the category of "alcohol dependence syndrome". People suffering from alcoholism are often called "alcoholics".

What was the point of this argument again?

Anyway, regardless of the specific word, George Bush drank too much. He had some kind of alcohol "problem". Then he got over it!

[cybercoma]

Nope. Your ignorance only speaks for you. You have you no idea what Bush "certainly was," and as for your accusation about me, I can't decide if it's more ignorant or LOL funny.*

*Cue dre to post yet another response about me....

Your hypocrisy speaks for itself. You whine and complain when people "disrespect" you and you go running to the moderating team when anyone tell you how painfully stupid your posts are, but you've told me how "ignorant" I am about half a dozen times in this thread. Keep up the good work.

[cybercoma]

What was the point of this argument again?

Anyway, regardless of the specific word, George Bush drank too much. He had some kind of alcohol "problem". Then he got over it!

Whether Bush was or was not an alcoholic, which devolved into American Woman trying to say that alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence are different things and you can only be an alcoholic if you're dependent, but not if you have a drinking "problem" and not if you "abuse" alcohol.

[Guest American Woman]

In medicine several other terms are used, specifically "alcohol abuse" and "alcohol dependence," which have more specific definitions.

Alcohol dependence is alcoholism - and it involves different symptoms, specifically addiction that results in withdrawal symptoms. Many university students abuse alcohol, but they don't all become alcoholics - most don't. Their body doesn't crave it, and they can control it.

What was the point of this argument again?

To point out that one can be a problem drinker, one can abuse alcohol, and not be an alcoholic.

Anyway, regardless of the specific word, George Bush drank too much. He had some kind of alcohol "problem". Then he got over it!

No argument that he had a problem with alcohol - the argument stems from the claim that "it's a well known fact that he is an alcoholic," which is not true. They are different things, and the difference can be, and usually is, an important factor.

[Guest American Woman]

Your hypocrisy speaks for itself. You whine and complain when people "disrespect" you and you go running to the moderating team when anyone tell you how painfully stupid your posts are, but you've told me how "ignorant" I am about half a dozen times in this thread. Keep up the good work.

If that's what you believe I do, then report me.

[Guest American Woman]

“Having deemed Canada - Canada? - too dangerous, Dick Cheney has cancelled an April speaking appearance in Toronto because he's worried a bunch of mouthy ruffians who oppose torture and support elemental human rights might bother him like they did last year in Vancouver. May the circle around him tighten till he stays in his cave.”

CTV News

Mark Steyn will be speaking on the day Cheney was scheduled to speak (excerpt):

Were it not for the courage of Mark Steyn, April 24, 2012 would come and go without note. Mark, who has been strongly condemned by the state censors at the Ontario Human Rights Commission, is a fearless warrior for free speech. There is no one more suited to address the intimidation tactics that are used to silence free debate in Canada.

While we are disheartened that the Cheneys do not feel comfortable coming to Canada, we are gratified that our own Mark Steyn will not be intimidated either by protestors or government censors. On April 24th, Mark will exercise his freedom of expression at the Metro Convention Centre with bestselling author Michael Coren.

So it sounds as if the topic is going to be free speech and the attempts by some to prevent those they don't agree with from having their say in Canada. I'm not a Mark Steyn fan, but I would attend this event.

Oops! Forgot the link: Press Release: Cheney Toronto Cancellation

Edited April 7, 2012 by American Woman

[The_Squid]

It's good that he's scared. Too bad GW Bush wasn't scared. Our country is better off with them staying away.

[bleeding heart]

It's good that he's scared. Too bad GW Bush wasn't scared. Our country is better off with them staying away.

That's just silly.

And I resent your forcing me to side with Mark Steyn on the issue.

[Guest American Woman]

It's good that he's scared. Too bad GW Bush wasn't scared. Our country is better off with them staying away.

Your country sure didn't feel that way when Bush didn't make Canada his first Presidential visit.

At any rate, feel what you will about him - I'm no Cheney fan - but I sure would love the opportunity to hear him speak about his decisions and have the opportunity to question his policies. I'm curious. Would you have been among the Americans protesting President Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University? Do you think the U.S. would have been better off if he hadn't been allowed to speak - but had been, in effect, forced to stay away?

[Shady]

Whether Bush was or was not an alcoholic, which devolved into American Woman trying to say that alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence are different things and you can only be an alcoholic if you're dependent, but not if you have a drinking "problem" and not if you "abuse" alcohol.

They are different things. You still haven't figured that out yet? People abuse alcohol all the time, but aren't alcoholics. Are you pretending to be obtuse, or are you serious?

[TwoDucks]

Good thing they did in Europe or it would have all been red.

Tunnel vision is the only way some see their little anti-American world.

It's been 71 years since the US joined in with World War 2. A mere 76 years before that they just finished fighting one of the bloodiest civil wars amongst themselves over reasons not limited to, but strongly influenced by a large portion of the population wanting to hold slaves. My point is that its stupid to bring it's stupid to try and prove the US is such a great entity based on something they did before most of their population was born, let alone old enough to hold any responsibilities for the actions of the time.

[msj]

Your country sure didn't feel that way when Bush didn't make Canada his first Presidential visit.

Hmmmm, so you will whine about kimmy speaking for an entire church but you can speak for an entire country?

As you would say: times infinity (or some other such nonsense).