100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
Update 1: On 12/20 we received a reply from Mr. Holder: Enough folks. I hear you. So out of respect we stopped forwarding each signature individually and will instead give him the list in full before the Senate confirmation hearings.   Sign the petition!! Yawn and "Oh Please." Well, this will be interesting because not only will NOTHING come of this but in that nothing will come from this one will then have to conclude that President Obama recognizes that nothing can come of this. If I had the petition, I'd use it as bird-cage liner, and even that is probably giving it too high a place in grand scheme of things. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this is without a doubt, a topic for with heavy moral and ethical considerations. All of you are no doubt familiar with the old hypothetical that goes something like: "If your daughter was being held by a group of murderers and rapists and one of their co-conspirators was captured, would you be comfortable (relatively speaking) with the idea and practice of torture in order to obtain information about her location, possibly resulting in her life being saved?" It is a hypothetical and as such, there are issues with it. It is the perfect scenario and here again, we are talking about someone captured who we have strong reason to believe knows enough to possibly spare her life. What would you do? Would you, if this situation presented itself, allow for torture? If you are opposed to such treatment of people (on any and all grounds) would you be willing to run the risk of losing your daughter? Would you be able to handle looking in the mirror again, or looking at your wife, friends, family, etc...? This isn't a "trick" question and to be honest, the moral and ethical ramifications are severe, leading me to question how I would react. Still, I think it would be very hard for me to argue against any and all methods of information gathering, including torture. One could also argue a slightly different scenario: Let's say that my daughter (I don't have one but follow me here) was being held and YOU had to make the decision regarding how far to push the captured individual. You don't know me and you don't know my daughter. Would this change your mind or alter your willingness to apply such techniques? It is a fascinating topic. I know that the answers are not easy and that even the questions are tough but sometimes it's good to apply a practical (if unlikely) situation out there for people to debate. And to that end, I hope that all of you will engage in such a debate. Thanks for reading, Drew While you are at it, how about you telling us what this has to do with torturing POW's. Then follow your own hypothetical scenario. Suppose you torture the man and they give give you information about the where abouts of your daughter, only when you get there you find out he lied. Before you get back to practice your torture on him again he dies. Now you have no way to find your daughter and no hope of ever finding her. Also the guy you just killed turns out to be the brother of the one who has your daughter. Now he gets angry and revengefully kills your daughter. How do you feel now??? Ain't this ridiculous? First of all, I did not claim that my scenario had anything at all to do with the torture of POWs. What I was attempting to do and discuss was whether there was a scenario that you would feel comfortable allowing for torture? My hypothetical is not Hollywood nor is it without a point. The point here is only whether or not torture is EVER acceptable and judging by your rather defensive response, I'm gathering that you don't believe it is. That's fine and I'm not here to tell anyone how to self-dictate their own morals in regards to this issue. Still, I think the point is a fair one and so, thanks for reading. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa, wait a minute. President Obama wants to hire someone who worked with Raytheon?? I thought they were one of the big, evil, morally corrupt defense contractors that so many (who are oddly silent now) like to bi##h about on a regular basis??
Oh, and Mr. President, if you create a rule; follow it. If a waiver is needed after less than a week in office, for a rule you set up yourself, then perhaps you should have left the rule alone? Talk about politics as usual. Ahhh, this is going to be fun. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this is without a doubt, a topic for with heavy moral and ethical considerations. All of you are no doubt familiar with the old hypothetical that goes something like:
"If your daughter was being held by a group of murderers and rapists and one of their co-conspirators was captured, would you be comfortable (relatively speaking) with the idea and practice of torture in order to obtain information about her location, possibly resulting in her life being saved?" It is a hypothetical and as such, there are issues with it. It is the perfect scenario and here again, we are talking about someone captured who we have strong reason to believe knows enough to possibly spare her life. What would you do? Would you, if this situation presented itself, allow for torture? If you are opposed to such treatment of people (on any and all grounds) would you be willing to run the risk of losing your daughter? Would you be able to handle looking in the mirror again, or looking at your wife, friends, family, etc...? This isn't a "trick" question and to be honest, the moral and ethical ramifications are severe, leading me to question how I would react. Still, I think it would be very hard for me to argue against any and all methods of information gathering, including torture. One could also argue a slightly different scenario: Let's say that my daughter (I don't have one but follow me here) was being held and YOU had to make the decision regarding how far to push the captured individual. You don't know me and you don't know my daughter. Would this change your mind or alter your willingness to apply such techniques? It is a fascinating topic. I know that the answers are not easy and that even the questions are tough but sometimes it's good to apply a practical (if unlikely) situation out there for people to debate. And to that end, I hope that all of you will engage in such a debate. Thanks for reading, Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, I really enjoy posts like this one, the selective outrage over one nation using a certain weapon while others get a free pass. When Saddam used gas on the Kurds in Northern Iraq, a number of people yawned, shrugged and I suppose justified it on the grounds that it was a civil war of sorts. It wasn't, and any attempt to argue otherwise will cause me to pass out from laughter but again, selective outrage is always fun.
By the way, if Israel used a chemical weapon, and if in so doing they violated international law then they should be held accountable. I'm not justifying anything here, only making the point that people really can't have it both ways. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
WHO is still Active from WA?
|
|
Hello everyone,
I am still active, from WA (near Olympia) and am sick of winter. I know, I know, it's the way it goes, right? Still, it has been a fun one both on the East and West side of the Cascades. I hope everyone had a great holiday season and that you are all staying safe while driving (and at times, simply walking) around. Take it easy, Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
He Lied! The F*cker LIED!
|
|
I'm sorry but perhaps I've missed something here--Do we know yet whether or not he's lied? The card was found and it appears that he's not going to be confronted at this point, so where is the verification?
I'm also not sure I'd be all that crazy about someone thinking I'd lied to them with a community of people with no vested interest in the end-result, while not talking to me directly. As for the lie itself (if it turns out there was one) well, it's a stupid lie to tell in that it's one that is tough to cover. I mean, don't lie about the basics lest people assume you lie about the more complex things in life. Finally, we all lie. To those who want to make lying about "all men" oh please. I lied last week. I lied when I told a friend that the food he'd cooked was really very good. It wasn't and I almost yacked. Oh, and I lied when I told a family member that I really liked the sweater they got me for Christmas. Again, I didn't really like it at all (which is rare in that I'm not picky about clothes) but again, should I have told the truth?....and to what end? Every person here loves someone in their life who they have lied to and been lied to by--- The severity is often the point and to some extent it is a matter of degrees. Still, it is a bad idea to lie about basics like age, geographic location, job title, things like that because all it really does is cause people to wonder---and when people begin to wonder, it's generally not in hopes of discovering the best! -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
NETFLIX on MAC!
|
|
I was never able access Netflix "View Instantly" selection on my MAC because Windows Internet Explorer is not available on MAC OSX. I had also tried using Mozilla, which at the time required a windows IE plugin to work, so again no luck. Now Netflix is using a Microsoft Silverlight plugin for Mozilla, which I thought would still not work because it's Microsoft... BUT IT DOES!!!!!  SWEEEET, my friend. We had this discussion a while back--and it is now a reality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
opinion's needed......please
|
|
Ask her what, exactly? It sounds as though you already sent the "flirt" e-mail so I am not sure what you are asking us to give advice about. If you are afraid you offended her you might consider telling her you are sorry (if indeed you are) for getting cocky.
It does not sound like she has told you to G-T-He** so who knows, it might be all good. A good friendship can withstand a great deal. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice reply.. I don't think Shrub is drinking. I don't need to sling crap at him based on speculation when his real record is so compellingly bad. Yes, so very bad indeed. Boy, if those Democrats in Congress had just stopped funding Bush's war, all the troops would be home now and life would be so much better. But they didn't--they kept funding it. I don't care that people don't like President Bush--again, that is old-sport by now. What I find bothersome and intellectually dishonest is not holding the people who have been shoveling money at this war for years now to the same standard. I was recently accused (not here) of sounding like a broken record on this point. My response was: "Um, OK." Until someone can explain to me how President Bush is being held solely accountable for a war he cannot and has not funded, I'll keep being a broken record. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, another BS story written by a hack writer for a site that claims to uphold fair an unbiased news reporting. A visit to the site immediately dispelled that myth as they are a far-left leaning site, replete with a little online store you can visit where you can buy your own "Impeach Bush" shirt or bumper sticker.
I know my "wishes" here don't count but I would really enjoy things in this forum more if people would actually write articles instead of simply copying and pasting the work others have produced. It takes no talent whatsoever to copy and paste and even less to search out agenda based Websites and then attempt to pass them off as a reputable news outlet. In the small sample of work I read during my short visit to the Online Journal it does not appear that writing is anywhere near the top of their list of things to be good at as it pertains to reporting news. I think we'd all do ourselves a favor if we simply remember that just because a guy starts a Website, names it the Online Journal and posts dozens of "hate Bush" articles does not make it true. I don't care that they are a liberal site that hates Bush--I mean, these days, that's not exactly a new sport. What I don't like is that they are advertising that they are unbiased and fair minded while advertising Impeach Bush products. Give me a break. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another moronic article that is so partisan as to be almost laughable. Congress voted over and over to continue to fund this "illegal" war. Had they cut off funding, had they stood up to the "criminal" the war would have been over a long time ago.
Clinton did not ask Congress to declare anything before going in to Somalia and Kennedy and Johnson both went into Vietnam (which killed FAR more Americans) without a declaration of war. This type of article is almost funny now. The war is not but people who are so blinded by partisanship that they cannot see the sins of their own party are nothing more than hacks--and for that, they should be deeply ashamed to have wasted the ink that it takes to create such garbage. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hate hate! Hahaha--nice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
what would you have done?
|
|
I'm sorry, but some of the responses here make me sick. To those who would have done nothing I wonder, if it was your child, your brother, your spouse, if you would feel the same--if you would have been content knowing that I sat there and watched all of this like I was taking in a home improvement show? Perhaps you would (which is scary in its own right) but this is NOT about assisted suicide and there would have been nothing to indicate that this young man was near death from an unrelated disease or condition. I would have called 911 and done my best to stop it because a number of conditions are treatable or at least manageable. Since suicide is an irrational act (in most cases) it stands to reason that sane and rational thought is outside of the person's control. For that reason, a call to the police (no matter the outcome) is the responsible thing to do. It's also a moral imperative. It isn't about whether or not the police arrive in time or whether or not the young man really "meant" to kill himself. It is about recognizing putting out the fire that is burning your neighbor's house and it is about doing the right thing even when the outcome is not promised. This is not a religious issue for me nor is it a distorted view of the world that casts me or any of you in the role of savior. It is about seeing a human being in so much pain, in so much hopelessness that the ending of life seems the best way to proceed. To sit and watch that, not to be bothered by that enough to reach for a phone or e-mail a Webmaster? I don't get that. I really don't. -Drew THNX Drew, I'm with you on that, it is to me a moral obligation also no matter who or what or where. if nothing else it's my trying to see who would be a neighbor to me or i to them. it's nice to know who would help you or visa versa should something happen. though i do see others points on this, i don't personally agree with them, we all have our reasons why we do or don't do things. some may see it as being intrusive, i see it as being concerned. and not from a religious point at all. just a human point. Tribo---I understand your point. Thanks for allowing all to express their opinions. I just have a tough time with a lot of the people (not people here at Mingle) who were actually encouraging this guy to go through with it. That some people have nothing better to do with their time but encourage a person to OD on drugs is really quite sad. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Why I Hate Thanksgiving
|
|
I am half Native and I love Thanksgiving.It's about family,food and giving thanks for your blessings.What's done is done so let's move on.Human history is full of one race conquering another and taking lands.Get over it. Thank you for that!! I too love Thanksgiving. It is not always about what has happened (though we should never forget) but where we are today. Happy T-Day!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it is either right for all or wrong for all double standard is bull Perfectly stated. Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote a post a while back wherein I argued that people should be called by their proper names. I get sick of people calling former President Clinton--Billary, Slick Willy or any of that. Through the election cycle I called President-elect Obama by his name--even though there was no way I was going to vote for him. Now, I'm far from perfect on this and in the past I know I've said some hateful things--so I'm pointing a finger at myself before anyone else. It just has to change. It is up to us to raise the bar--those who profit from this garbage won't do it for us--ever. -Drew Excellent point. It would be interesting to see what happened if everyone focused on the facts and the mud-slinging and name calling just stopped. I feel strongly about this because if a person cannot even muster the little amount of respect it takes to call someone by their name then how are we going to actually discuss and debate issues in a rational way? If I read a post that starts out, "McSame is a moron," or a post that begins with "Billary is looking to be Sec. of State" it tells me immediately that what matters most to the person is immediately engaging in cheap-shots. I love to read and I read liberal posts as well as conservative posts but it strikes me as interesting when people spend a lot of time trying to create clever "names" while forgetting to focus on the issues that affect us all. I'm not for political purity and I'll throw leather with anyone as it relates to politics. I know things can get heated and I know that there are times when I have to walk away. But come on--everything by its proper name seems like a small step in the right direction. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
what would you have done?
Edited by
Drew07_2
on
Sun 11/23/08 01:09 PM
|
|
I'm sorry, but some of the responses here make me sick. To those who would have done nothing I wonder, if it was your child, your brother, your spouse, if you would feel the same--if you would have been content knowing that I sat there and watched all of this like I was taking in a home improvement show? Perhaps you would (which is scary in its own right) but this is NOT about assisted suicide and there would have been nothing to indicate that this young man was near death from an unrelated disease or condition.
I would have called 911 and done my best to stop it because a number of conditions are treatable or at least manageable. Since suicide is an irrational act (in most cases) it stands to reason that sane and rational thought is outside of the person's control. For that reason, a call to the police (no matter the outcome) is the responsible thing to do. It's also a moral imperative. It isn't about whether or not the police arrive in time or whether or not the young man really "meant" to kill himself. It is about recognizing putting out the fire that is burning your neighbor's house and it is about doing the right thing even when the outcome is not promised. This is not a religious issue for me nor is it a distorted view of the world that casts me or any of you in the role of savior. It is about seeing a human being in so much pain, in so much hopelessness that the ending of life seems the best way to proceed. To sit and watch that, not to be bothered by that enough to reach for a phone or e-mail a Webmaster? I don't get that. I really don't. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohhhh, the outrage--the evil and conspiratorial right-wing hate mongers. Some are sickened, some are just mortified that such venom is even allowed to be heard. But in all of twenty seconds on Google I found the following: "Julianne Malveaux, a radio host and USA Today columnist, caught no flak when she prayed aloud for the death of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. "I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease," she snarled on PBS." Ummm, yeah, how loving. There are soooo many of these--I picked only one. My point here is that both sides of this could fire up hundreds of hateful comments made by prominent people to the masses. So, why don't we all agree that BOTH sides need to grow up and knock it the hell off? -Drew Oohhh, Drew, somebody said that about Clarence Thomas and black men?!   Drew, in all honesty, I've never heard somebody that wasn't right-wing talk like that. She said it! And she she's a radio host as well. My point here is that this thread could go on for days as people pick out stupid and hateful comments by both sides. We do that and wonder why things don't work, why we are in trouble. I can't help but think that there is an element of "I'll say something outrageous so that it improves my ratings" going on but it does not really matter. Some people (again, on both sides) are going to spew this garbage and it is incumbent upon all of us (that so desire) to tell both sides: Enough. I don't agree with conservatives when they open their mouths and say stupid and hateful crap. And I don't agree with liberals when they do, but that does not mean that people cannot disagree. I wrote a post a while back wherein I argued that people should be called by their proper names. I get sick of people calling former President Clinton--Billary, Slick Willy or any of that. Through the election cycle I called President-elect Obama by his name--even though there was no way I was going to vote for him. Now, I'm far from perfect on this and in the past I know I've said some hateful things--so I'm pointing a finger at myself before anyone else. It just has to change. It is up to us to raise the bar--those who profit from this garbage won't do it for us--ever. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohhhh, the outrage--the evil and conspiratorial right-wing hate mongers. Some are sickened, some are just mortified that such venom is even allowed to be heard.
But in all of twenty seconds on Google I found the following: "Julianne Malveaux, a radio host and USA Today columnist, caught no flak when she prayed aloud for the death of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. "I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease," she snarled on PBS." Ummm, yeah, how loving. There are soooo many of these--I picked only one. My point here is that both sides of this could fire up hundreds of hateful comments made by prominent people to the masses. So, why don't we all agree that BOTH sides need to grow up and knock it the hell off? -Drew |
|
|
|
|
Previous
