Shouldn't being a recovering alcoholic disqualify someone from being president?

[NNN0LHI]

No one in their sane mind would ever allow a recovering alcoholic to be skipper of one of our Boomers. And for good reason too. So why do we allow a recovering alcoholic to have access to the Nuclear Football 24/7? This doesn't make any sense if you stop and think about it. For all we know this current knucklehead in the White House may be making all of his major decisions while inebriated. How would we know any different?

Don

[Iris]

1. ummm. That would elminate A LOT of people.

I'd rather see a recovering alcoholic than one who has never acknowledge he had a problem.

Besides, GWB isn't recovering - he never went through a recovery program.

[michreject]

111. ******he never went through a recovery program.*****

Neither did I. Been sober for 15 years. There is no "ONE" right way.

[ret5hd]

2. Maybe by common sense, but not constitutionally

[file83]

95. Considering how many times he's fallen off his bicycle, I wonder how many times he's

fallen off the wagon. I'm joking of course - but whether or not Bush is an alcoholic/recovering/dry drunk/whatever, nothing changes the fact that Bush is a complete idiot.

That should be more than enough to disqualify him from holding the position.

[speedoo]

3. He's not recovering.

Ask anyone in AA or any other 12 step program.

He's either a dry drunk or he's still drinking.

He's a complete phony. His "recovery" is as phony as his "born again" status.

[Beaverhausen]

20. and that is a huge part of his "problem"

If he actually was in recovery he might not be such an incompetent, dangerous president.

[terrya]

4. But....he's not an alcoholic!!!

He said so!! He just went through a really bad time in his life and...he just quit drinking! And Billy Graham helped him find religion and the rest is history. A stone cold sober man who hasn't touched a drop of alcohol since.

And if you buy that crock of shit, there's a really big building in downtown Chicago I'd like to sell...

[Warpy]

5. Being a recovering alcoholic shouldn't eliminate you from anything

It's the ones who claim they stopped drinking on their own or because they love Jesus that you have to disqualify. That's not recovery.

[Sanity Claws]

6. NO

Having a person who knows he has a problem with alcohol and has stopped sure beats having someone who has a problem with alcohol and doesn't stop using it.
I know you're talking about the current dimwit but I don't think being in recovery is the problem. The problem is that he is plain stupid and ignorant yet thinks he knows everything.

[Quantess]

7. How about cocaine abuse, while we're at it?

At least alcohol is legal.

[porphyrian]

8. If you can't drive, it makes a lot of sense that you shouldn't have access to "The Button," either.

Personally, I don't give a shit whether someone's a drunk or not, but let's not put them in charge of the entire fucking country.

[BurtWorm]

9. Shouldn't having the middle name "Walker" disqualify you?

:think:

[NNN0LHI]

11. I never thought of that. Thanks for the excellent suggestion n/t

[China_cat]

10. I don't think a recovered addict of any kind should be

disqualified for any position (s)he is otherwise eligible to hold.

I can, however, accept and approve regular testing of a recovered addict to make sure that they aren't backsliding from the stress of the position. And a clause taking the position away for even one questionable test.

[DrDan]

12. only if your last name is bush

[survivor999]

13. I'd say so.

Especially when many people cannot do certain jobs due to minor infractions.

[dazzlerazzle]

14. disqualified for office

Even if you allow that alcoholics can function, there is a possibility that this particular former alcoholic is also a sociopath...

[sandnsea]

15. Excuse me?

And where did you get the idea that there aren't worse faults than alcoholism? There are some drinking alcoholics I'd choose over George Bush sober. Ted Kennedy comes to mind, in his day.

[NNN0LHI]

19. You are excused

Where did you get the idea that I thought there were not worse faults than alcoholism? Good imagination perhaps?

Ted Kennedy was never in charge of any nukes so I am not sure what your reason for bringing him up was for? I know some other peeps who do that a lot though.

Don

[onenote]

26. so if Teddy had run for President you'd have voted against him

No, he never was in charge of nukes. But he wanted to be....and I had no problem with that.

[NNN0LHI]

54. Yes I would have n/t

[sandnsea]

62. Teddy ran in 1980

So there's no 'if's' about it. I was excited to support him.

He's done more for social causes in the last 40 years than anybody in the country.

[Bitwit1234]

16. About VP's also

Cheney was an alcoholic also. He had DWI's and his license was suspended at one time for that. You don't hear as much about him as bushy.

[AZBlue]

17. WHAT??!! I've seen small-minded prejudiced posts here, but this takes the cake.

eom

[survivor999]

18. No, this post makes PERFECT sense.

I don't want a recovering alcoholic in charge of anything. How many recovering alcoholics are piloting 757s?

[onenote]

27. so what would allow recovering alcholics to do?

You say you wouldn't want them "in charge of anything". I'll be kind and assume that's hyperbole on your part. Or do you really believe that?

[Duncan Grant]

35. A person in recovery would never troll so blantantly.

Add that to the list of reasons why I respect them more than you.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Probably quite a few.

The problem isn't the ones who have stopped drinking, it's the ones who still drink.

Ann Richards, a fine politician by any standard, was also a "recovering alcoholic". I would have trusted HER in the White House.

Bush is just a shitty president.

[AZBlue]

69. It must be hard to be so perfect, never having made a mistake or have any imperfection whatsoever.

How do you manage??

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Dora]

83. Think before you post.

It's the practicing alcoholics that shouldn't be piloting your damn plane.

[conscious evolution]

99. More than you think

Also there are more practicing alky pilots than you could imagine.
It sort of goes with the ethos of being a pilot;"Tonite we eat,drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die"

[smirkymonkey]

21. So you think active alcoholics would be better?

Because we have a lot of them running the world right now.

[survivor999]

25. Of course no. Recovering is better than Current and

Not Alcoholic at all is better then Recovering. Everything else being equal.

[Wiley50]

22. Not Fair. Lifetime pentance is a 12 steppers trick

And the 12 step movement is just a cult of wacko Christianity.

I used to drink too much.
It was before my back problems were diagnosed
and I was in a whole lot of pain.
It was the only medicine I had that sort of worked at all.

So my wife wanted me to quit drinking
and put me to a whole lot of emotional headache about it.
She just couldn't believe I could hurt so much
"cause she had never hurt like that
and back then was before I had MRI's to prove
how bad it was.

So I got browbeeat into 12 step treatment a couple of times
They almost had me believing all of their garbage
except that I'm an atheist and therefore, have no "Higher Power"
Actually had the bastards telling me that if I was in pain
it was because I wasn't praying hard enough.
While I'm Lying, fucking writhing in pain, on the floor.

So, guess what?
My back problems got fully diagnosed.
I got put on effective pain management.
Poof! My desire to drink went almost totally away.
I drink a beer or two when and if I want
But no more 12 pack or case a day bullshit.

The whole 12 step scam is catching someone when they are down
and converting them, usually to wacko Christianity

Bullshit!
There's a whole fucking lot wrong with Bush
but, holding his old drinking habits against him
is unfair, a strawman and just total Bullshit.

[Wiley50]

37. A Lot Of People in this Thread are making the Common Mistake

of accepting Alcoholics Anon as the end all
and be all authority on what is commonly referred to as Alcoholism.

There are several Non-Religeous orgs that help folks
who think they can't stop drinking
such as LifeRing and Rational Recovery

The 12 step thing just gets all the funding because it supports
organized religeon and, therefore, the status quo

I think a lot of you folks have never had problems with
substances and found your way out.

There's always something that's not working in folks
who use substances too much and IT ISN'T ALWAYS THEIR SPIRITUALITY.

Once you find out why you drink and fix that
it's real easy not to drink to the point it's a problem.

Ever wonder why most 12 step recovering folks are Republicans?

[Duncan Grant]

42. "Ever wonder why most 12 step recovering folks are Republicans?"

Got any evidence to back up that analysis?

[Wiley50]

46. I admit that is subjective analysis

from my exp with AA.

In fact, most seem not to care about politics
one way or another
Getting all concerned over stuff they can't control
might get them drunk again
or so the common wisdom goes

[conscious evolution]

72. AA is self supporting through the members own contributions

This done to keep outsiders from influencing AA.

[Wiley50]

74. I know this. I was AA once

What I meant is that AA has brand name recognition
Therefore it attracts the most members
and gets the most member contributions

Many of these members are very well off
and they contribute more
than just a dollar in the hat

They also sell a whole lot of Big Books and other literature
than other, less known, but just as effective orgs.

What ever helps to get someones life
to something more comfortable to live
is OK with me.

I just think many are never told
that they can do it themselves

[Marnieworld]

84. Glad to see you Wiley

I occassionally pipe up in threads like this to make this very point. 12-step groups help people but it's not the only way to get and stay sober. They are fundamentally flawed in many ways but too often they are accepted as Gospel for those suffering from a compulsive behavior like drinking, and for those not suffering.

The whole religious, mainly Christian bent to it can make it completely ineffective for non-believers but unfortunately most people don't know about the other methods to manage behavior and achieve sobriety. They can call it "Higher Power" and say it could be anything like "The Group" or your family or whatever support system, but that's just bullshit. Leaving aside all of the references to "HIM" in the steps and literature, if your brain has to go through so many gymnastics at every moment of trying to practice "The Program" then it won't work. Eventually it is just impossible to constantly try and make it fit you. The whole "disease" concept I disagree with as well. I think it's too often used as a cop-out for not ever being sober. I can't help it I have a disease. No you don't. Cancer is a disease. You are just self-medicating.

Which leads me to my main point. If anyone has compulsive behavior, eating, shopping, drinking, snorting, smoking, or even working too much it is not the problem but a manifestation of a problem. It is a coping mechanism for a problem. It is the medication of a problem. The medication may lead to other problems (bad credit from shopping, obesity, losing your license etc.) but it all spawns from a bigger, deeper problem. 12-steps define the big problem as a spritual problem. All that needs to be done is just to surrender to all of the dogma and be sober. Fix your spiritual problem by practicing that spirituality. As many people are unaware of the success rate are very low for this as it does nothing to really address the underlying psychological pain that motivates the behavior. They are just addressing the behavior.

If you don't address the individual psychological pain a person has that they medicate with destructive behavior, they will continue to manifest this with other behavior until this pain is addressed or exorcized. That is my understanding from my own observations and experiences. 12-step programs have many believers but we shouldn't legislate based on their theories and beliefs.

As far as the original post's concept- well that's just absurd. It's just as silly to say former smokers can't be elected. That substance is more addictive than cocaine or heroin yet we are perfectly comfortable with non-smokers in power. If we didn't elect flawed people, with challenges in their past, who would be left to elect? If alcoholism is just an expression of an underlying pain then how could we determine that someone doesn't have pain? It's absurd and impractical to maintain as a concept. George Bush is the worst president this country has ever had. If he has or had in office an active drinking problem then there are already constitutional protections in place to remove him from office. But without any evidence to prove that we can only know that he is a Bad inarticulate President. He could have been just as incompetent, narcissitic, bullying, and inarticulate if he never had a drink in his life. To say otherwise is just a theory.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. If you can drink "a beer or two when and if you want", I would argue that you

were never an alcoholic. Not by my standard, at least. Not to the extent that I've seen the PHYSICAL addiction of alcoholism grip some people. Most real alcoholics, at least once it has progressed fairly far along, can't drink "a beer or two". It doesn't work that way.

It sounds to me like you just weren't getting the pain management you needed, and were medicating it in the only logical available way. That's really good that you solved it, but I don't think you can extrapolate your experience onto everyone who has ever had a drinking problem.

I'm also an atheist, and I agree with much of what you say about 12 step programs- they're not right for everyone. But for some people they do work.

That said, It's important for atheists and others to who do have serious addiction issues and need support to know that there ARE secular alternatives to AA that work, too


(edit: like you mentioned upthread, LSR and RR :patriot:)

--- without telling them "there's no such thing as alcoholism, you're just not trying hard enough to control your drinking."

[Wiley50]

53. I used LifeRing and it did help

But, I think, only to free me from the tyranny of AA

I think that there is a Gestalt one reaches
if one is really trying to find it
and it's different for everyone.

But when you find it and get through it
You are free again

The reason I say that there is no such thing as alcoholism
is that there really isn't as AA defines it
There is a problem, but AA isn't science
although it loves to masquerade as such
and it's up to the individual
to decipher his own problem
and get through it

[conscious evolution]

73. as AA defines it

A physical allergy combined with a mental obsession

When AA was founded,the medical community did not understand the mechanics behind the allergy part.Fortunately medicine knows what it is now.Unfortunately,AA will not update the big book to reflect the new knowledge.
Abstinance is still the only way to keep the 'allergy' from kicking in for a true alcoholic.
And that is where the mental obsession comes in.AA is about ending the mental obsession that leads us to pick up that first drink.That obsession can manifest in a lot of ways.
look at georgy boy.He fits just about every obsession scenario the big book describes to a T.

[Wiley50]

77. Two Notes ( with all respect to your personal program)

(1) "A physical allergy combined with a mental obsession"

I remember that one.

I have Hayfever.
It has never made me crave pollen.

(2)a mental obsession

My mother had Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
She never had a drink in her life

If AA has Scientific Medical support for it's program
it should put it up for objective peer study.
The numbers I have seen, AA has far fewer success rates
than it claims.

Creationism also claims to be supported by science

Evolution has the overwhelming scientific support
It is not a theory

[conscious evolution]

80. some answers

(1) "A physical allergy combined with a mental obsession"

Physical allergy
http://www.happinessonline.org/BeTemperate/p13.htm
http://www.the101program.com/end_alcohol_abuse.html
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2003/02/11/0001170747-03-000006/Section2.asp
Hay fever doesn't make me crave pollen but it sure makes me crave sinus medicine.

Mental obsession
See the links above.The mechanics help give rise to the obsession.Also,many people have become so used to using alcohol as an answer to life problems that it becomes a habitual behavior used to deal with problems.A Pavlovian response in a way.
I know a OCD who counts power poles along roads.He doesn't drink either.OCD can have many different manifestations.

'If AA has Scientific Medical support for it's program
it should put it up for objective peer study.
The numbers I have seen, AA has far fewer success rates
than it claims.'

I would like to see AA recognize/publish the current science myself,It does a grave disservice to alcoholics by not doing so.
As for success rates you are right.The success rate is pretty low these days.But so is the success rate for most other treatment options also.
Personally,I think that it depends on how badly the alkie wants to stop.I see people in meetings all the time that are there only because of outside pressures((family,work legal,etc).Such people seldom actually want to quit.They are just trying to buy time to keep some kind of anvil from dropping on their head,so to speak.


Creationism also claims to be supported by science

Evolution has the overwhelming scientific support
It is not a theory

See my screen name.
One of the reasons I chose it:Conscious-Having to do with the mind.
Evolution-Adapt or die.

In other words Change your mind or die!

[Marnieworld]

87. an allergy? Please!

As someone who suffers from allergies I laugh at the attempt to make AA theories scientific.

What is an allergy?

"Allergic reactions are sensitivities to a specific substance, called an allergen, that is contacted through the skin, inhaled into the lungs, swallowed, or injected."

Ok alcohol is swallowed so it could still cause an allergy right? It depends on how the body reacts to a substance that it is allergic to.

"While first-time exposure may only produce a mild reaction, repeated exposures may lead to more serious reactions. Once a person is sensitized (has had a previous sensitivity reaction), even a very limited exposure to a very small amount of allergen can trigger a severe reaction.

Allergic reactions vary. They can be mild or serious. They can be confined to a small area of the body or may affect the entire body.

Most occur within seconds or minutes after exposure to the allergen, but some can occur after several hours, particularly if the allergen causes a reaction after it is partially digested. In very rare cases, reactions develop after 24 hours.

Anaphylaxis is a sudden and severe allergic reaction that occurs within minutes of exposure. Immediate medical attention is needed for this condition. It can get worse very, very fast and lead to death within 15 minutes if treatment is not received. "

As a child of two alcoholics I can testify that neither ever experienced these symptoms. Anaphylactic shock would be induced by long term exposure to an allergen if it truly is an "allergen."


"Common allergens include:

Plants
Pollens
Animal dander
Bee stings or stings from other insects
Insect bites
Medications
Foods, especially nuts and shellfish"

Alcohol not mentioned though "medicine knows what it is now."

"Common symptoms of mild allergic reactions include:

Rashes
Hives (especially over the neck and face)
Itching
Nasal congestion
Watery, red eyes

Symptoms that may indicate a moderate or severe reaction include:

Swelling of the face, eyes, or tongue
Difficulty swallowing
Wheezing
Fear or feeling of apprehension or anxiety
Abdominal cramps or abdominal pain
Nausea and vomiting
Weakness
Dizziness or light-headedness
Chest discomfort or tightness
Difficulty breathing
Unconsciousness"

Notice wanting to repeatedly ingest allergen is not mentioned.

All of this info as well as suggestions for emergency treatment are list here:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000005.htm

And of course 12-steps groups aren't listed as treatment. Silly NIH guess they aren't up to date on AA medicine. :rofl:

[conscious evolution]

97. This is what the AA Big Book says about the allergy

http://www.recovery.org/aa/bigbook/ww/doctors_opinion.html

"But we are sure that our bodies were sickened as well. In our belief, any picture of the alcoholic which leaves out this physical factor is incomplete.

The doctor's theory that we have an allergy to alcohol interests us. As laymen, our opinion as to its soundness may, of course, mean little. But as ex-problem drinkers, we can say that his explanation makes good sense. It explains many things for which we cannot otherwise account.'


'We believe, and so suggested a few years ago, that the action of alcohol on these chronic alcoholics is a manifestation of an allergy; that the phenomenon of craving is limited to this class and never occurs in the average temperate drinker.'


When AA was formed,in the thirties,the medical community knew next to nothing about the mechanics of alcoholism.Due to modern science more is known about it.If you want to know more about it read my earlier post up thread.

[Marnieworld]

98. I did read your post

And I was trying to counter it. Not with Big Book quotes where it's just theories but with quotes from actual medical doctors and scientists that refute this theory.

[conscious evolution]

100. Did you actually read the links provided?

Or should I dig up some more for you?

[Marnieworld]

103. links

One led me to this:

"The root cause of alcoholism can now be identified, measured and healed with TNT (targeted nutritional therapy) and neurotransmitter replenishment."

So it's not about surrendering and a spiritual crisis cured by lifetime meetings and chanting of steps? Wow. Good news. Once the medication is developed I guess AA will just close up shop and admit that they have been wrong all along about causes and treatments. Or maybe people can get together to talk about their lives before on the medication but there is no animosoty or condemnation when this is no longer needed.

I searched for the word allergy on all three pages linked and found not one instance of that word.

I never said that the brain is not affected by alcohol and is not altered by extended use of alcohol. I just objected to the very specific medical term allergy to describe something which is definitely not an allergy. I also reject the arguement that just because this brain activity can be detected now it is not support of a disease concept or proof that it is an entirely physical phenomenon that just can't be altered or overcome.

Just because there be a genetic marker for alcoholism, just because the brain is affected during use or with long-term use does not mean that it is a behavior that is innate and impossible to overcome. I'm all for science researching and treating any form of addiction or compulsie behavior. I just think that AA is not science and has yet to prove its validity with the tools of science. It's a support group that helps some people. It is not a be all end all solution that should be foisted on people through the court system and membership in it should not be a requirement of elected officials the original point of this thread, or of any person who can be legitimately sober and psychological healed through other means.

Here are some links for you: Would you read them and take a chance that they may change your POV?

Why We Should Reject The Disease Concept of Alcoholism
http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/cbook/chap6.html


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1545723&dopt=Abstract

"The specific disease concept, associated mainly with the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous, is contradicted by empirical evidence and unhelpful for preventive and treatment responses to problem drinking, ..."

http://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Drinking-Myth-Alcoholism-Disease/dp/0520067541
Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease

http://www.soberforever.net/
http://www.rational.org/?gclid=CMrItOie24gCFQQRQQodKQhvjQ
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-powerless.html

[conscious evolution]

105. OK

Why We Should Reject The Disease Concept of Alcoholism
I can see where disease is probably a poor choice of words to describe physical addiction mechanics.It is still,however,a medical condition.

http://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Drinking-Myth-Alcoholism-Di...
Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease
This is only a listing for a book.Without reading it I can't really comment on what it says.

http://www.soberforever.net /
http://www.rational.org/?gclid=CMrItOie24gCFQQRQQodKQhv...
Have you ever heard of a business saying good things about their competition?Granted,it happens,but not often.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-powerless.html

Sorry but this guy sounds like he is either in deep denial or he is seriously batshit crazy.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. Here's my take on "powerlessness":

Because, frankly, I disagree both with AA dogmatists and those who would say "alcoholism doesn't exist, it's all in your head, you're just not trying hard enough to control your drinking" (I'm familiar with Fingarette) ... Look, I *know* with me, there was a physiological situation regarding alcohol, and it was present from the very first time I took a drink in my early teens. And my family has ample, glaring evidence to prove that -whatever you want to call it- it sure as shit is genetic.

Maybe not everyone who has problems drinking or is a "problem drinker" has this physiological relationship to alcohol, but my issues were certainly not, as Fingarette puts it, part of a series of "choices" making drinking the center of my life. From the very first drink I ever took, I had a physical reaction to the stuff that was not what "normal" drinkers experience.

But like I said, I disagree with AA dogma on most things, at least pertaining to my own sobriety. I always did much better staying sober away from AA than I ever did while trying to sit through repeated subjections to the Lord's Prayer. So my take on "powerlessness" is this: AA works for many, many people. I'm not qualified to say whether they're "powerless" over the first drink, or not. If believing anything helps them avoid the nightmare of active alcoholism, who am I to judge?

But -for ME- I know, from years of sober and not sober experience, that the power to choose or refuse that first drink resides with me. The powerlessness, as such, comes in after the first drink. That's where I don't have "power" --- to stop after the first one. (And you can say that's just because I never tried hard enough. And you would be wrong.)

I think some AA 'dogma' is about control, clearly some of it is derived from AA's religious and "moral re-armament" background, but some of it also is designed to remind those of us with the problem that, yeah, it never goes away, and really, despite fantasies to the contrary, most of us are never going to be able to drink 'moderately'. The fantasy of one day being able to have "just a few" is pretty prevalent among alcoholics, and in my experience it's one of the biggest hurdles to get past for happy, long-term sobriety.

Lastly, I agree with you: I don't think AA should be court-mandated (at the very least without allowing alternatives like LSR), particularly because no matter how much semantic juggling you may be allowed to do, telling people they need to 'turn their lives over to god' to get sober should not be the purview of the government.

[Marnieworld]

85. I never heard of Lifering

Is it like Rational Recovery?

[Wiley50]

106. Yes Marnie. The full name is Lifering Secular Recovery

Although they have their own dogmas, they offer relief and healing
to those who have been brain-beaten by all of the AA situations.
they served as a transition for me

But, ultimately, my pain proved to be almost totally physical.
In that I was lucky, as there are quite a few effective treatments
for pain, at least once you prove to doctors that you have a legitamate
reason to be in pain.
Of course,being someone who was once diagnosed as alcoholic
and now being on strong narcotic pain relievers
there are many 12 step true believers who say
I've simply replaced one addiction with another.

Of course, these are the same people afraid to even take
an aspirin when they have a headache.
And they never had to deal with the pain I am now free from.

And, of course, suffering is considered one of the main
virtues of Christianity.

Thanks for coming to help
I felt a little like Custer trying to fight off
all the offended true believers all alone.

Wish I had that kind of support
when the pro-Israel faction comes after me.

[Marnieworld]

107. "Wish I had that kind of support"

We rebels need to stick together. :) As far as the other issue of the "Pro-Israel" faction if I ever come across it I'll jump into that too. Another Sacred can't criticize or condemn concept that too often clouds judgement. If you bash AA you are in denial and if you criticize the gov't's actions of Israel well then you must be anti-semitic- even if you are Jewish. :eyes:

I'm glad you found treatment for your pain that is a better medication. I imagine it has no calories too. And you are a drug addict as much as a diabetic is addicted to insulin. Or someone with arthritis taking anti-inflammatories. I just hope there is a day when alternatives are part of the every day discourse about addictions. It's this rigidity that I think prevents many from healing.

Peace
:hug:

[conscious evolution]

60. As an athiest in AA

I am really offended by the remark that AA is just about converting people to christianity.While there are plenty of wach-a-doos in AA,most don't care what your spiritual beliefs are.AA's Big Book even says you don't have to be a christian.All it asks is that you have an open mind to what others did to get sober.

[Wiley50]

66. Sorry. Didn't mean to Offend You

I live in the Tennessee part
of the Bible Belt ( the buckle)

This is the atmosphere that I encountered here.

Perhaps, in more enlightened areas
it is different

Still.
I found the rigid forms of
the organization
unnecessary.

But then
I am me

[Marnieworld]

88. I guess it depends on how lucky you are

Some atheists can find a group that isn't overtly religious and feel able to make it work for them. In my experience in NJ (not exactly the bible belt) it was just so overt, with a lot of prayers and hand holding etc. Also I just couldn't wrap my head around the steps because of all of the "Him" references. There are a number of books that illustrate this point about those meetings so it's not like he or I just thought it all by ourselves.

In any case I still am sincerely happy for you that you have found something that works for you. I even admire that you can make it work for you. I think I just post stuff about 12 step groups only because it drives me crazy that people act like it is definitively the best and only way to be sober.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

67. Bullshit.

There are all kinds of people in AA, I have been to countless meetings and rarely have encountered hard-core Christians, and have NEVER encountered anyone trying to convert me to Christianity.

Your higher power can be whatever you want it to be.

But maybe, as you said downthread, this is a reflection of where you live vs. where I live. Where I live there are very few hard core Christians, and just as few in AA.

[Wiley50]

71. Thankyou. Distinction Noted. n/t

[Ilsa]

75. "Your higher power can be whatever you want it to be." Thank you!

I'm in a very religious south Texas, and even my family member that attends AA says this and for the first time, it has kept her sober, versus trying to do a "Christian" thing she isn't prepared to accept.

As for W, I don't think he's a recovering alcoholic. I don't think he's ever been treated for alcoholism. I think he is just a dry alcoholic.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. It's also important to know that there ARE wholly secular alternatives to AA.

They work for many people, too.

http://unhooked.com

[Warren DeMontague]

110. I live in Liberal Blue-State land, and I've sat in meetings with people frothing about

"Jesus" and "Sin".

Sure, there are some open-minded people in AA. There are also some hard-core dogmatists. I'd be really surprised if no one in AA ever told you that you won't stay sober without, quote, "God". If I had ten bucks for every time I heard that, I'd have a big wad o cash.

And although the thing about "your higher power can be anything you want it to be" is technically true, it's also true that in an organization which tends to end meetings with the Lord's Prayer, there are plenty of people who see that "anything you want it to be" line as a mere foot-in-the-door for the conversion of heathens and newbies. At least, that was my experience.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

128. Everyone's experience is different...I've never felt pressured

in AA, never heard anyone "frothing", and if I did, I would ignore them. People who really helped me in early sobriety never told me that I had to find God. I also happen to believe in the spiritual intervention involved in my sobriety, so maybe that's the difference, for me.

There are so many different kinds of people in AA. Where I live I would guess it's many more Dems than Repubs, matching the general population here. Also more young people. I hardly notice any politics, people are mostly concerned about staying clean and sober.

I never sensed any sort of "conversion," either, just a lot of people trying to get some peace in their lives.

Saved my life, anyway. :shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

130. Hey- Right on.

I know a lot of people whose lives were saved by AA. I'm very much a Your Mileage May Vary kind of person. For me, finding secular alternatives to AA was crucial, because I couldn't get around the religious-spiritual-doorknob-higher power aspect of the whole thing. It was too religious- for me.

Works for lots of people, doesn't work for others. Just like other approaches.

I respect that different paths work for different people. :patriot: I just think it's important to know that AA isn't the ONLY road. Peace.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

132. I'm glad there are other programs

because I CAN imagine people being uncomfortable in AA. It probably helped me that I was raised Catholic (hippy-liberal Catholic, but Catholic nonetheless), so the references to "Him" in the lingo and the Lord's Prayer at the end never bothered me. I'm not terribly religious, but I'm comfortable there, know what I mean?

I know people who came to AA and couldn't relate, for the reasons you described. They need a support program, and it's great that there are secular alternatives.

[Lilith Velkor]

82. The 12 step movement is a religion in itself

The only difference between being a "recovering alcoholic" and a "dry drunk" is that the former practices the religion and the latter does not.

This religion shares many traits with Christianity (insiders are good and blessed, outsiders are bad evil people who deserve to suffer). Its members have thoroughly infiltrated the court system and the mental health field. They destroy lives willy-nilly, with Good Intentions.

You may have heard of this website, which helped me immensely in healing.

www.orange-papers.org

Peace

[Marnieworld]

89. You brought up the courts

another pet peeve of mine is that Judges regularly order people to enter these programs. They aren't science and have enough religion in them to be violations of the separation of church and state. Yet this happens all of the time. It's ordering someone to believe something as a punishment.

[conscious evolution]

101. another pet peeve of mine

People being sentenced to AA is a pet peeve of mine also.And others in AA also.Many of us will not sign the courts paperwork because it violates several of the traditions of AA.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

129. Wow

Whoever made that website sure spends a lot of time tearing down an organization that has helped so many people recover.

I totally agree that AA is not the only way -- lots of people recover using other programs or methods -- but it certainly is not some evil cult. In my family alone, I give AA/NA credit for saving 3 lives.

You can always find people to discredit anything successful, I guess.

[Pharaoh]

23. NO, but being stupid should

[Kali]

24. oooo

:popcorn:

[XOKCowboy]

28. NO!

Being a recovering alcoholic should NOT disqualify someone from being president. I think that you're throwing a little too wide a loop on this one. Everyone is different. Bush is an idiot and shows signs of being a "dry drunk" but don't paint all recovering alcoholics with that brush.

Remember that Ann Richards was a recovering alcoholic and I damn sure would have trusted her to lead the country.

[Cleita]

29. To me a recovering alcoholic is someone who is getting

ongoing treatment for his addiction so that he remains sober for the rest of his life.

* is not recovering, he is an alcoholic and even when he's sober, he is still an alcoholic. He should be removed from office because he is not able to discharge his duties. There is a provision in the Constitution for this.

I think our present Congress has shown extreme partisanship and dereliction of duty by not investigating this President and asking that he have a physical exam from an outside of the White House medical team, like maybe at John Hopkins University for a second opinion that will lay the rumors to rest or verify what most of us think is going on.

Yes, he should not have access to the boomers if he is an alcoholic, and Congress should be investigated also for not showing oversight in this matter.

[slackmaster]

30. No, and there never will be such a disqualification

It would require and amendment to the Constitution, and far too many members of Congress and state legislatures fall into that category for it to have any hope of passing.

As obnoxious as some reformed drunks are, I don't have a problem with people who have recognized and dealt with their problems BTW.

[Greyhound]

31. Not so much as being a member of the ruling elite should, and I don't

care which party they claim allegiance to.

[bananas]

32. NO

There are safeguards to prevent a president from launching nukes because he's drunk or medicated. And if his alcoholism is a serious problem, there are procedures for removing him quickly.
It should've been used with Reagan; instead they just used him as a figurehead and continued their policies, that may happen with Bush.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

33. Being one of those um, err......

'recovering alcoholics' I'd say why not? This assumes, of course, the recovering alcoholic you have in mind is really practicing the program. The one in the White House can't possibly be........

[irislake]

34. There are a lot of heavy drinkers

who are politicians who would deny they have a drinking problem. Dick Cheney being one. And was Nixon heavily into booze before the going got rough? If he wasn't an alcoholic I gather his drinking was very worrisome in the end.

[H2O Man]

36. I respectfully disagree.

Under some circumstances, a person's history of substance abuse might be worthy of consideration. But I do not think that a person who is in recovery is by definition at higher risk for being irresponsible than others who want to be president.

[zreosumgame]

38. Read the Constitution

If you keep on drawing lines in a reactionary way then who will be left outside them? Just you?

[Redstone]

39. So, by the same token, a woman shouldn't be President because of PMS.

Right?

Redstone

[The Stranger]

40. He is a DRY DRUNK and he never went through recovery.

http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html

First, in this essay, we will look at the characteristics of the so-called "dry drunk;" then we will see if they apply to this individual, our president; and then we will review his drinking history for the record. What is the dry drunk syndrome? "Dry drunk" traits consist of:

Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity
Grandiose behavior
A rigid, judgmental outlook
Impatience
Childish behavior
Irresponsible behavior
Irrational rationalization
Projection
Overreaction

Clearly, George W. Bush has all these traits except exaggerated self importance. He may be pompous, especially with regard to international dealings, but his actual importance hardly can be exaggerated. His power, in fact, is such that if he collapses into paranoia, a large part of the world will collapse with him. Unfortunately, there are some indications of paranoia in statements such as the following: "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends." The trait of projection is evidenced here as well, projection of the fact that we are ready to attack onto another nation which may not be so inclined.

[Zensea]

41. Not in a democracy or only by choice

Such ideas constitute a dictatorship of the prudes or a ramification of technocracy.
Codifying such a restriction is ridiculous and smacks of right wing action.

If people don't want to vote for a recovering alcoholic, that's another matter -- that's by choice and nothing wrong with it at all.

[MazeRat7]

43. Sure as long as other diseases disqualify presidents as well....

like polio, diabetes, heart disease, etc, etc...

Alcoholism is a disease, just like those I mentioned and many I didn't.

The risk is the same if untreated...

I suspect there are few people willing to run for president that are completely disease free... oh and what if they are diagnosed while in office...
should they resign ?

MZr7

[William769]

44. No.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. I dunno. Do you think Ann Richards would have made a good President?

I do.

[comsymp]

56. That was my first thought

nt

[XOKCowboy]

61. I'd have loved an Ann Richards presidency...

Ann was an openly recovering alcoholic. She also was a real populist and champion of people's rights. I'd have voted for her in a heartbeat.

[LeftCoast]

49. No. Absolutely not!

Good grief!

[LeftishBrit]

50. No; I think general competence should be a qualification

and if you're spending all day every day getting as nished as a pewt, then you probably aren't going to be very competent. But former alcoholics or even well-controlled ones could be fine. British Prime Ministers William Pitt, Herbert Asquith and Winston Churchill were all known for being rather fond of the bottle, and all were very distinguished Prime Ministers (whether one agrees with all their policies or not).

I think that anyone who took delight in confirming 150 death sentences as governor should be automatically disqualified for president.

[Wiley50]

55. "Nished As A Pewt" I Love It!

I'll have to remember that one.

And while we are interacting, may I take a moment
to tell you how much I appreciate you caring
to be a part of our community,
and also for the flavour you add.

That goes for all you other non-US DU'ers

[NoSheep]

113. I'll drink to that!

[LeftishBrit]

116. Ahh, thank you both - and thank you ALL (from us all)...

for hobbling the Mad King, and making the world a bit safer.

Now that's something to drink to!

[jannyk]

51. No, but there should be an exam

testing their knowledge of geography, history, world events, current affairs, the constitution etc., etc..

You have to take an exam for everything else you do in life - college entry, driving a car, selling real estate, cutting hair - yet the fucking president can be a complete moron.

Bush is not a 'recovering alcoholic' he's in denial and has never started recovery.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

52. Bush has never officially claimed the title of recovering alcoholic. His official myth spinners

simply imply that he "had a problem" with it in the past and this was all solved, in large part, due to him discovering/rediscovering Jesus.

But they'll never actually use the term alcoholic.

They want to play the Bible thumping sympathy/redemption card, but not claim any possible negative baggage associated with it.

[GymGeekAus]

57. Shouldn't any life experience that broadens one's understanding disqualify....

Of course not.

It's all about what you learned from your experience.

[rzemanfl]

58. Nixon, who to my knowledge no one has ever claimed was an

alcoholic, was heavily in his cups toward the end of Watergate. As a recovering alcoholic, if I were President and started drinking again I'd be removed for a medical condition. So I'd be less dangerous than Nixon was, hell, even when I was drunk, I was less dangerous than Nixon was...

[Nikia]

59. No, recovery can be a character building experience

It takes a great deal of courage to overcome alcohol and other addictions as well as persistence, self persistence, perserverence, and a lot of other positive character traits. Sometimes people who have experienced personal hardships (like addiction or problems that were contributing factors to addiction) can also relate better to others who might be experiencing other hardships as well. A person who is truly in recovery might end up as a better president.
As for Bush, I suppose that all people recovering are different and as others pointed out, he might not be in recovery.

[KoKo]

63. I know ...it's why we knew he shouldn't have become "P-Resident."

Who knows why this happened. Maybe Kharma for what we all did in our past letting the "Crimes of the Past" go buy without "taking to the streets." We had lives...we had to take care of our own.

Who knows......? Who knows?

[Maddy McCall]

64. Huge difference in a recovering alcoholic and a dry drunk...

Bush being the latter. He's not in recovery...he's never been treated.

[RB TexLa]

65. Please take a look at this if you get a chance sometime

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html


No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

68. Nope

But then, I highly doubt Bush is a recovering alcoholic. My guess he's a white-knuckler/dry drunk or he still drinks.

I would argue that someone who is truly practicing the 12 steps (or another recovery program) would make a fine leader, as the program encourages rigorous honesty and compassion.

[ShaneGR]

70. No, dumb argument.... nt

[Lilith Velkor]

76. Should being a Scientologist disqualify someone from being President?

I gotta say, this has been a banner week for stupid questions.

:hurts:

[jmowreader]

115. Wellll.....yeah. Yes it should.

Scientology likes to blackmail the people who were once in its program but have backslid.

No one who belongs to a group that blackmails people is suitable for high office.

I think that describes Skull and Bones, too.

[Bluerthanblue]

78. 'recovering alcoholic' shouldn't disqualify one for anything-

that isn't the problem with *-

I'd far sooner be suffering under the leadership of a "recovering alcoholic"- than someone with a severe personality disorder, and 'connections' that provide the person with access to power that they are not qualified to possess.

People who are dealing with their problems are far healthier (imo) than those who delude themselves into thinking they don't have any problems-

:crazy:


you can be inebriated, or high, or plastered, and NOT be an 'alcoholic'-
You can be stone sober, and be a terrible threat to humankind.
In other words, a person could have their hand on the switch, who has never struggled with previous substance abuse problems- which could be a disaster-
Or a person who isn't compromised by drugs/alcohol can be a very real disaster without any 'outside' help.

* might very well be a double disaster-

[flying_monkeys]

79. No. We all have our foibles, skeletons, imperfections.

I am not happy with the idea of considering anyone "below the bar", because that encompassing net of BELOW could get mighty wide if we included everyone's "hit" list.


I trust the Voter (well, not Diebold...)

[deminks]

81. No, but the key word is "recovering". Smirky is a dry drunk.

IIRC, he never sought treatment, goodness no. That would necessitate records, which the BFEE will not tolerate. He supposedly just quit. (I don't believe that for a second.) There has to be some kind of support with the quitting. The chances of recovering are greater with the support, like AA or maybe some other program. Plus, I think there were some other substances involved here, which would make support an even greater need. I am not currently sure that any of the substances are not still involved.

For myself, I would be much less likely to vote for someone who had a history of substance abuse based on my experience with the Chimp.

[Marnieworld]

93. not necessarily

There doesn't always have to be some kind of support, and certainly group support isn't required.


Harvard University estimates that those that quit without AA have a success rate of between 77-82%.
http://www.amazon.com/Overcoming-Your-Alcohol-Recovery-Habits/dp/1884365299

http://www.amazon.com/When-AA-Doesnt-Work-You/dp/0942637534

AS far as success rates go for AA
http://www.bettyfordcenter.org/news/askdrwest/sdarticle.php?id=67
"In 1992, a random survey of 6,500 A.A. members in both the United States and Canada revealed that 35 percent were sober for more than five years; 34 percent were sober from between one and five years; and 31 percent were sober for less than one year. "

[Crim_n al]

86. Why would anyone believe that idiot who trips over his own feet,

slurs his words, tangles his sentences into meaningless garble
and keeps dropping his own dog has ever stopped drinking?

Because he said so?

[EstimatedProphet]

90. Shouldn't being a lazy spoiled brat disqualify someone too?

Just sayin'

[Mountainman]

91. Shouldn't people who are perfect be disqualified too. You know they are bound to screw up sometime!

The OP just did.

[Fire Walk With Me]

92. Depends upon the depth of recovery.

They say it takes five years to return to reality.

And they can't be Republican. That much should be obvious. ;-)

[wicket]

94. I'd rather have an alcoholic than someone with Alzheimers in charge

Sorry Ronnie.

[JVS]

96. We need active alcoholics like FDR! Quitters need not apply!

[dean_dem]

102. Yeah, and disqualify fat people too! And depressives!

And other people who have problems that I can mock! Because I'm perfect!

Strawman argument of the week. Alcoholics can recover and lead normal lives. Insensitive pricks on the other hand may have a little more difficulty...

[NNN0LHI]

114. Yes I have had some first hand experience with some insensitive pricks too

Had a neighbor when I was a kid who was on and off the wagon all the time. While off the wagon once he tried to kill a moth with a .38 caliber revolver one night when I was a kid while we were sleeping. He fired at and through a wall in his house in the direction of our house to kill the moth. They never did find the bullet. Ever since I haven't been able to trust alcoholics with guns. Alcoholics with nukes either.

With any luck you will have a similar experience someday.

Cheers.

Don

[Warren DeMontague]

118. Someone who is "on and off the wagon all the time" is not a "recovering alcoholic"

They're an active alcoholic.

Look, there are a million and one reasons why Bush is a crappy president- and for the record, I'm not entirely convinced he's still sober- but disqualifying anyone who has ever had a problem with alcohol and addressed it to the extent of successful long-term sobriety (there's the kicker) is not a rational approach.

As I said upthread, the same criteria could be used to disqualify good people like the late Ann Richards.

[NNN0LHI]

119. Save the "look" stuff for someone else

He was on the wagon for years before the moth incident. I am not going to get into a game of verbal gymnastics with you over the semantics about what is a recovering alcoholic and what is an active alcoholic.

You have your opinion and I have mine. Lets agree on that and forget it.

Don

[Warren DeMontague]

127. Okay. Whatever. Fair enough.

Despite the fact that you're using one experience to disqualify the entire percentage of the population that may be sober alcoholics, including some extremely talented, smart, and qualified people, I do know firsthand how ugly encountering alcoholics in action can be. So- Peace.

I'm not really sure what the problem is with the word "look", though.

[AZBlue]

120. Your story is about someone drinking. It has nothing to do with a recovering alcoholic.

And the fact that you so freely wish bad luck and circumstances to another DU'er says way more about you than even the OP does. Sad.

[NNN0LHI]

122. No the sad thing is that after one DUer defends himself after being...

...publically insulted for no good reason, some other DUer interjects themselves into the exchange by defending the person who did the insulting to begin with.

I have noticed a lot of that lately.

Don

[Zomby Woof]

104. Illnesses and the presidency

Alcoholism, as an accepted illness and health issue, should not automatically disqualify one from being president, and not just on the legal constitutional level, where the requirements for obtaining the office are simple and straightforward. Making exceptions for illnesses and health issues is a slippery slope, and must bear the burden of the ballot box, not the document. Some saw FDR unfit for office because of his polio. Others may have disqualified Lincoln because he was likely, as ample evidence suggests, a major sufferer of depression. Fortunately for the survival of the republic, both literally gave their lives to the country as president, illnesses notwithstanding.

Bush's problem isn't because he is probably an alcoholic, it's because he is a venal, crass, shallow, arrogant, narcissist. Does his probable alcoholism make those qualities worse or more apparent? Maybe. There are scores of problems a president could have unrelated to, or in addition to alcoholism that make them unfit for the office; but being unfit on a pragmatic level isn't the same as being unfit on a legal level. I do not think it wise to amend the Constitution based on what is not always readily provable and can often be easily concealed. Singling out illnesses, no matter what stigma is associated with them, opens up too many trap doors.

I also must add, that there are checks to a president's command chain. Even his.

Statistically, it's likely many other presidents were alcoholics, and served ably - others, not so much. But it was their comprehensive character and philosophies which governed how they governed, with the illness being A factor, but not THE factor. A person is more than the sum total of their afflictions. Bush's afflictions transcend alcoholism, even if alcohol influences those factors. I would think his multitude of problems would exist without the factor of alcohol.

Getting beyond our mutually understandable concerns with any possible problems he may have, or have had, with alcohol, he is unfit for office for reasons well documented on this site and others - none of them being necessarily alcohol-related problems. There will likely be a day we have an alcoholic president again, recovering or not, who can lead far better than Bush, under more trying circumstances. But the voters, not the Constitution, shall decide.

[NoSheep]

112. No, but being in cahoots with murderers and thieves should.

edited because I can't see straight I'm so fucking drunk.

[jmowreader]

117. We're talking Bush, correct? Prove he ever stopped drinking.

And I personally don't care if a man drinks.

What I care about is that George W. Bush is a psychopath who loves killing and is the private property of people whose interests clash with those of the commonweal, and his owners' interests are favored over the commonweal's.

Bush's psychopathy may be connected to his decades of hard drinking; it may not be. But it, rather than his current drinking status, is the disqualifier for Mr. Bush's presidential service.

[rude boy]

121. You can't join the military if you are a drunk,

but you can be Commander in Chief, only in America. I've been sober 17 years and gone to many an AA meeting and I've looked into it. I've come to the determination that alcoholism is an imaginary disease. There are some people who shouldn't drink for sure, but there's not any science behind any such disease as alcoholism, except, maybe, in the same sense that "heart disease" is said to be a disease as a way to describe any number of afflictions affecting the heart. The problem with alcoholism is people go to AA (which doesn't employ any doctors) and then make a self diagnosis as having a disease. The chimp may or may not have a disease but that's not why he shouldn't be President. The reason he shouldn't be President is because he's an idot.

[Atman]

123. Alcoholism isn't a disease. It is a fund raising for friends of Bill.

And don't jump all over my shit for saying that. I've been sober for nine years, and I did it not BECAUSE of AA, rather IN SPITE OF AA.

Do some research. ANY method of quitting drinking -- any method at all -- is equally effective. All methods, be they AA, SOS, cold turkey, hypnosis, doesn't matter...any method of quitting has the same recidivism rate. But AA is about RELIGION, which is why they give you the "if you deny you need us, it only proves you need us!" crap. How convenient. Just like a church.

Combine this with the fact that AA gets lots of government funding via all the mandatory "sentencing" judges hand out, then hell, it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out why they want to declare everyone a friend of Bill's. Cha-ching.

I quit years ago, on my own, and refused to attend court ordered AA meetings. I had already quit over a year before, but due to a bizarre court situation, I wasn't "sentenced" until a year later. But I had long since quit by then. AA didn't care. I went to one meeting, and they told me I was full of shit, that I hadn't quit yet, that I was just WAITING to fail. I felt they were practically ENCOURAGING me to fail, just so they could prove I'd fail and therefore needed them. It is a total crock of shit. I apologize to all those who've "worked the program," and feel it benefited them, but understand -- IF AA HELPS YOU STAY SOBER, GREAT! That is what it's for. But why is AA the ONLY program states will accept as "treatment" when there are so many alternatives? And when the statistics simply don't bear out any cause and effect regarding AA and sobriety?

I went to a shrink a couple of times instead of going to AA, and then I paid one visit to an SOS meeting. I sent the court a nearly blank card with just ONE signature from the SOS meeting, instead of the twelve AA meetings I was ordered to complete. You know what? They accepted it, no questions asked.

Anyway, confession time is over.

I think it is highly insulting to ANYONE who has suffered with any kind of addiction to assume that they cannot function in society ever again. That is total bullshit. George Bush is a liar, a fuck head, an arrogant silver-spoon toy of the corporate elite. And he might even still be drinking. But the only reason GWB doesn't deserve to be president is because he is TERRIBLE at it, and he cheated to get the job. His personal peccadilloes are irrelevant, and I'm surprised any DUer would buy into such a notion.

Oh, and thanks for the tip about being drunk and the military. If they come for me, I'll gladly chug a bottle of Popov and puke on their shoes.

.

[rude boy]

125. AA has it's problems for sure.

It's a religious, (or in AA code, it's not religious, it's "spiritual") faith healing cult. There are loads of Republicans in AA , although, you may be surprised that there are lot's of card carrying liberal Democrats as well. I agree that court ordering drunk drivers is a violation if not a loophole away from trampling over separation of church and state issues, but the people in the AA meetings themselves don't care about the money drunk drivers bring in a whole lot. People stick their dollar in the basket and anything after group expenses for coffee and cake, etc. is distributed to the organization, which, primarily serves as a non profit self help publishing outfit as well as overseeing day to day affairs of AA. The people in the AA groups come from all stripes and there are likable people and some not so likable people as well. I like to think of it as a union hall for ne're-do-wells and no-good-nicks, some of which, are among my best friends. I'm into lots of things I hate, though.

[ljm2002]

124. No.

Makes no sense to me.

Let's just be clear: a recovered alcoholic will not be making all of his or her major decisions while inebriated. And also, many of the worst drinkers never admit to anything so loaded as being an "alcoholic", and their friends and family also make sure not to use the term. So labeling someone as a recovering alcoholic does not eliminate the possibility that others, not so labeled, may have an even worse problem.

Now, if you want to suggest that being a relative within, say, 5 degrees of separation, of any of the Bush family, should disqualify someone from being president, then absolutely I could go for that. Say for the next 7 generations or so.

[Rabrrrrrr]

126. Of course it shouldn't. That's one of the dumbest goddamned things I've heard

in a long time.

[smalll]

131. And smokers! And smokers! Obama should be banned from Iowa!

There oughta be a law I tell ya!

[Left Is Write]

133. No.