More Koolaid, Please

i dont get it, whats wrong with tom cruise?
 

He has spoken out against Brooke Shields because she used antidepressants to help with her postpartum depression. Basically, he thinks that every type of problem can be cured with vitamins and exercise, and that things such as depression and Attention Deficit Disorder are just made up in ones imagination. He has also now brainwashed Katie Holmes into not even speaking with friends that don't support Scientology, and a "guide" has to follow her around everywhere she goes in order to protect her from making bad decisions (ones that go against Scientology). It's pure madness, and really upsets me. I don't believe Tom Cruise has ever suffered from postpartum depression or been diagnosed with ADD. He's also talked publicly about how he has reasearched it all, and knows the truth about all the drugs and therapies available. Thankfully, medical professionals are denying that validity of many things he has said. Too bad it's still getting him the attention that he wants.
 

Tom Cruise is a total babe
 

Ok, I agree with you to a certain point about Tom Cruise...he is a good-looking guy who acts like a complete ass! (and the whole Katie Holmes thing is ridiculous! It will never last!) However, I do think that with ADD and ADHD, it is getting to a point where people just use it as an excuse for their inability to exercise self discipline and self control. Granted, there are many people who really do suffer from one of these disorders, but I think it is just diagnosed way too often. I also think that depression is heading down a similar path. I know that I am extremely blessed and that I can't even begin to imagine some of the horrors that some people go through, but for the life of me, I can't understand how so many people can feel that bad all the time. There is so much good out in the world. I just wish that some people weren't so wrapped up in their own little problems that they miss all of these beautiful things. Watch a baby, or a butterfly. Listen to music, smell a flower, play with your dog. See a rainbow after a storm...Why be depressed? (And take it from someone who exercises alot, exercise can do wonders for your mental health!)
 

I agree that it is diagnosed too often, and medicated when maybe it could be handled other ways. However, I also think that both disorders ARE real problems, and that people such as Cruise, with no medical background, have no right to criticize those with no other options but medication. I also feel that even if it is overly diagnosed, and one is just wrapped up in his/her own problems, that medication is a better option than suicide or other negative actions. Some people (namely Tom Cruise, the famous gorgeous movie star) don't face struggle or discrimination or abuse on a daily basis. A lot of people also don't have the financial ability to recieve the counseling they need or the lawyer that would help them get out of their situation. I believe that regardless of all the beautiful things in the world, some people still lives live full of solid pain, and until that is experienced first hand, very few people have the right to criticize the lives of others and the methods they use to cope.
 

go cry a river. you must be one of those treat everybody fairly, and "no child left behind" people. let other people live their own lives
 

Everybody, for the most part, SHOULD be treated fairly. And NCLB is a very different subject, unless you mean something general,like not forgetting your children at the grocery store.
 

I am an American who is proud that my President embraces a belief in God; proud of a President who understands, as "politically incorrect" as it may be, there is evil in this world and for the security and safety of all freedom loving people everywhere, it must be confronted... and it must be defeated.
 

Good for you.

It will never be defeated.
 

That seemed sarcastic, but it wasn't. It IS good that you are proud to be an American. Just clarifying.
 

That's what they said about the Third Reich...
 

I, too, greatly dislike Tom Cruise, but not for his views on life and medicine... to each his own I say. No, I greatly dislike Tom Cruise because, in general, he's just a really, really bad actor. He ruined The Last Samauri, and other movies, like War of the Worlds and Minority Report would have been much with a different actor in the lead, Matt Damon anyone (he was actually considered for Minority Report.) Really though, besides his (semi) good looks, Tom's got nothing as far as acting goes. I hope he drinks the kool-aid soon...
 

Allison, you can be such a pessimist sometimes, it's annoying.
"We are not victims of the world we see, we are victims of the way we see the world." -Shirley McLaine
I'm sorry about the way you see the world. Good CAN triumph over evil, it's just people like you who give up when things don't go your way and bitch on a stupid blog, that allow evil to go as far as it does.

PS-If you hate American so much, get the hell out of here and find someplace better. I dare you.
 

Yeah. You know it all. When did I say that I hate America? I hate our president because he MISREPRESENTS so badly the country that we live in. That's all. Good can sometimes triumph over evil, I agree. But there will always be terrorists in the world. There will always be terrorists in AMERICA, no less. No matter how many the US or anyone else captures and destroys, twice as many will be created. Can you deny that? I really don't think you can. Using violence and agression towards people that we obviously don't know nearly enough about has and will continue to get us absolutely nowhere. It's good to be positive and think, well, there IS good in the world and those bad guys will soon be done for. But that isn't true, and I'd like to know what makes you think so surely otherwise.
 

"Matt Damon! Matt Damon! Matt Damon!"
--Team America (Fuck yeah)

Matt Damon is a worse actor than Tom Cruise. See "Born on the Fourth of July". That ones a classic and is still good. Don't worry about it
 

Oh, and September 11th wasn't violent? They killed 3000 innocent peolple on our soil!! That's not a good enough reason for you? Jesus Christ! You should talk to someone sometime who had a loved one killed on September 11th. You might take back some of the things you've said about this war. And please, I'm dying to hear why Bush doesn't represent our country. He did win the election, after all. I have no problems with him. I think he represents the average American very well, actually. He's a nice guy who loves his family, loves God, and cares about people. So what if his speech skills are lacking? He can get his point across just fine without using huge words that most people wouldn't understand anyway.
 

Oh yeah, and I think it's better to try to eliminate terrorism and fail, then to ignore it and have it get worse. But how do you know it can't be eliminated? No one knows. Bush never promised that it would be easy.
 

September 11th WAS violent. I DO know someone who lost a loved one on that day. There is NO connection between this war and the terrorism on 9/11. It has even been stated by the government that, oops, sorry, there is no connection. What happended to Afghanistan? When was the last time you heard about bin Laden, the mastermind behind 9/11? Too many of our troops are now in Iraq to even continue an accurate search in Afghanistan. To justify this war using 9/11 just doesn't make any sense. Bush doesn't represent this country because he's a frickin' idiot who has bought his way into education and continued that into his political career. Is that how YOU live? Is that how the average American lives? He won the election with only 51% of the vote. That means that half the country still agrees that he is not suitable tobe president, and the polls continue to show a decline in the percent of the country and the percent of government officials even that support both his job as president and his job as commander in chief during this war in Iraq. Also, just because he believes in God does not mean he represents the average American. I think it is a big mistake to assume that Christianity binds people together, when it has recently started to tear so many people apart. It has become an excuse to treat other people unfairly and that, my friends, is un-American.
 

I would just like to add the fact that I do have respect for this country and for the government it runs under. Usually I feel safe and secure and lucky to live here, in comparison to some of the other places I could be living. Our consititution is allows us the rights and freedoms we take for granted everyday. I respect all that. But since this administration has taken control, that consititution has been violated on more than one occasion. I'm just glad that I still have the RIGHT to think what I do and speak about it, but who knows, maybe they will attempt to change that, too. You all have your right too, but this is MY blog (and one in which I haven't even written anything negative about the government or the president in quite some time...) and I will continue to speak and defend my thoughts and opinions.
 

Few things about Bush though... He did NOT win the popular vote in 2000... That was electoral college issues. As well, Bush has entirely misrepresented facts with the whole war in Iraq (http://gnn.tv/forum/thread.php?id=5022). Frankly, he should be impeached, but the problem with that is the present political situation in the US. Gay marriage... Well... Yeah, I'll just leave that since I don't even think the government should offer marriages, only civil unions, but still I don't think the "average" American would agree with a Constitutional ban on it.

I'd carry on, but I think everyone who knows me, or at least sees me can figure out my ideals simply enough, then again this too is probably enough.
 

No matter which way you look at it, 51% is STILL the majority, which means, even if it is by a narrow margin, that the majority of the people in this country do support Bush. Also, we are still in Afghanistan looking for bin Laden, and in fact, I just watched the news tonight, and they talked about how bin Laden and Al Qaida are losing support. (Fox news with Bill O'Reilly...watch it sometime) And, I'll admit that Bush screwed up with the WMDs. However, there is SUBSTANTIAL proof that Saddam Hussein was not only allowing known terrorist groups, including al qaida, to live and train in his country, but he was supplying and protecting them. Not to mention the millions of his own people who he had no problem killing.
And as far as Bush "buying his way into college" well, I think it would pretty hard to find a politician today who DIDN'T buy his or her way. The incredible John Kerry certainly can't relate to what it is like to live in minimal condtions. His wife's family is rolling in money. But, whatever.
 

Fox News. Hmm. Let's watch something thats not extremely biased. No, I do not watch Bill O'Reilly. I prefer some good REAL facts, but maybe that's just me. WMDs were the entire reason for this war. Even if things are arising now to attepmt to justify reasons for being there, I do not trust the man or the administration that lied to the country and to the world to make something like WAR the only possible plan of action. Oh, and BUYING as in paying off officials and professors. Not really down with that. As for J.K., his WIFE comes from money. I'm PRETTY sure he hasn't been a part of the Heinz family his whole life. He grew up in an upper-middle class military family. Even if you think THAT was too "well off," look at John Edwards, who we could very likely see on the presidential ticket in 2008. He was the first person in his family to even attend college--complete self-made man. Compare that, or really either of those, to the history of G.W.B. Extremely different, and one is definitely more admirable.
 

Umm... If 51% of the people vote for Bush, that doesn't necessarily mean that they support Bush. That may just mean they support his party, but may even disagree with some or all of his stances, as well as the people that just looked at it as the "lesser of two evils," which I still think is a load of BS...

Another fun thing to look at is the idea of the best defense being a good offense, well that works well in theory, but the thing is when you deliberately invade a country using false information, injure or kill large numbers of civilians, don't move quickly enough to help protect the innocents within the country, fail to maintain an army that prevents things like Abu Ghraib, through this we should come to the conclusion that what we need to look at more is strictly preventative, non-invasive measures that can be deployed in the US, or in other countries requesting our assistance. I think that if the government began to fund science towards more advanced explosive, identification, and biological detectors, we could easily help to reduce the exposure of the US to terrorism. Another thing to look at would be to consider that we have suffered how many major or minor terrorist attacks in the US over the course of its existence. As well, from an international viewpoint, one of the more controversial shirts I have says it all, Bush is basically the largest international terrorist, or at least the largest supporter of terrorism within a single nation, basically since the great empires of the past. He purposfully set up the US to invade Iraq, and over a million people have perished in Iraq, the majority children (http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2001/10/00_knelman_many-faces.htm). There is no other way to justify an act like this except as terrorism. We had no reason to enter Iraq, there was no evidence of a direct threat presented that was credible. As everyone knows the evidence of WMDs was falsified, meaning that all of the reasons the public was given to "liberate", and I do use the term loosely, Iraq were false. Alright, I'll grant that Hussein wasn't a very nice person, he gassed civilians among other things, but still, we can look at actions all across the world and say they were just as bad or worse. Looking to WWII, yes, we do have the systematic exterminations as organized by the Nazis, but look at some of the Allied responses, they bombed cities, some of which had little or no strategic value, the bombings were meant as an attempt to make the Axis powers shirk from furthering the wars. This backlashed, and the result of Iraq is only going to be worse. We have basically screwed ourselves in Iraq, and I believe we're almost to the point where we'll never be able to escape, especially since we've ostracized the international community. If we had supported the UN in bringing in peacekeepers and phasing out the US troops we'd most likely be in a much better situation. Of course it's this precise lack of action in this area that has us quite screwed right now. There's no real way for the US to withdraw from Iraq now, since Bush repeatedly ignored or tried to block UN access to Iraq. Since the US is the main (read: virtually only) country with many troops left, we are left in the dubious position of having to save face and not pull out. If we removed our troops the carefully constructed facade that is presently shown to us of Iraq would collapse even further. There would most likely be immense civil war, with the emergence of another dictatorship, or perhaps an oligarchy. The US is most likely going to be stuck in Iraq for... I don't know, maybe the next 10-20 years. Isn't that a great time to grow up in? We'll be feeding the fires of a rebellion against the US troops as well as allowing the resentment against the US continue to grow, which will most likely increase the chances of further terrorist attacks in the future.

On Iraq in general, you know how they're supposed to have those nice free and unfettered elections, well unfortunately it doesn't appear to be entirely true, thanks once again to our "great" president (http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/3803/Hersh_WH_gave_covert_aid_to_pro_American_candidates_in_Iraqi_elections).

It's my opinion that Iraq has become a sinkhole for money, with the US stuck funding the troops that are there and most likely having to provide some substantial monetary support for years afterward. Perhaps I'm wrong and we won't be stuck there for as long as I think, and maybe other facts have been misrepresented and all of the ideas and evidence I've presented will be proven wrong, and we really do *now* have a reason to be there, and we're not being caught in the middle of a mad scramble to save a little face in the international/domestic communities. Regardless I still think that to compare Bush to a rock would be insulting to all rocks.

Wow, this got really really long... I doubt anyone is going to read the whole thing, but I'm just going to call it a night and go to sleep now.