Bush Did Not Win the Election?
Originally posted by Paul J. Lyon@Dec 28 2004, 02:35 PM
Isn't \"dry drunk\" what recovering alcoholics call themselves?
Here's what I've noticed that you do: you make a provocative statement, receive an amplified response, and then protest that too much is being made of what you said. If you make provocative statements, expect randy responses. If you make suggestions about profound experiences or connections, expect others to pick up the cue and run with it. Don't come back later and say that all you were doing was fooling around.
I mean, I wouldn't; of course you're free to say whatever you want. Now, to get back to Bush and Kerry...
Okay, so you're saying that I can say whatever I want (thanks, BTW
) but you don't like the manner in which I say them? My responses where directly to what you have said.
Perhaps some recovering alcoholics call themselves "dry drunks" but that only means they are not recovering, at least that is the common standard by which members of AA go by. To them, a dry drunk is someone that has simply stopped drinking, but not in mind and spirit and exhibits alcoholic behavour. Oh, I guess you're going to use the "alcoholic behavour" as ammunition against Bush, but you really should attend some AA for about a year interacting with others before you really make a judgement call on just what that is.
Basically, a dry drunk may not be drinking, but has not mended his problem, half of which is emotional, and by AA standards, spiritual. Generally, calling someone a dry drunk is derogatory, which is what you intended. My point was, that I know from personal experience that it takes alot of strength, will power, and character to overcome the disease and addiction; having not only seen just from myself, but from others I have known. It's no picnic.
Oh, and I haven't come back to just say I was fooling around when making provacative statements. What I have done, is come back and apologize for choice language and terms I've used that ruffled some feathers. That I have done.
What you are pointing out, unless I am mistaken, is what I said regarding the endorsements from the Heinze Corporation, and Busch Beer. And I said from the very start that I simply found that to be funny and ironic, nothing more. If you don't find that to be somewhat comedic, then we just have a different sense of humor. You are really giving me more credit than I deserve. I don't sit here and plot posts for only sake of stirring people up. I do however say what I think. If something does grab your attention, then that's you. If I get out of line, and I sometimes do, I will come back and apologize and/or clarify. I'm not sure why I'm having to defend it this time around, however, because there wasn't anything to the Heinze/Busch connection other than what was originally stated... and that it is that I find it funny. My post was about lobby money, and your response to that was about a bunch of bozos and drunks.
My observation regarding the irony of those two company endorsements was simple, unloaded, and hardly designed to draw "amplified response." But I guess you're apparently looking into what I say a little too much. Maybe I'm part of the conspiracy?!
Now, my experience with alcoholism is something alot more serious and personal to me, and that is NOT something I'd be joking about. Plus, I do consider the President's ability to overcome the bottle a strength, which was the main point of that reply.
I don't expect anyone to "pick up my cue" and run with anything. I'm giving my opinions, my experiences, and I don't see why I am having to defend that.
