Charlie Sheen: 4 for 4

[Serenity Now]

Yeah, and his kids are real winners. Maybe he should have payed a little more attention to his family and children. But if you are saying liberals have screwed up priorities then I agree with you 100%.

Are you Mr. Hand? What a dick.

[Serenity Now]

...never-met-a-liberal-cause-he-didn't-support Martin Sheen:

He's pro-life. That's a liberal cause, right?

[hawaii 5-0]

Oops !

A conundrum caught in an enigma. Can't have it both ways.

5-0

[FaninAma]

Oops !

A conundrum caught in an enigma. Can't have it both ways.

5-0

Kudos to Charlie's old man for being pro-life. I find it intersting that you think this makes him a good father.Now that's a real conundrum for a liberal and I am pretty sure he didn't instill that value in Charlie. . However, it doesn't change the fact that he was a very active activist in dozens of other liberal interest groups. Perhaps if he had been more active in the interest of his own kids they might have turned out not being so messed up. Do you want to talk about that issue or continue to deflect to the fact he supported one conservative value out of the dozens he invested his time and money in?

A parent's first obligation and priority is to his own kids, not to invest massive amounts of time in career and numerous other causes or interests that prevent him from being an involved parent.

[Serenity Now]

Kudos to Charlie's old man for being pro-life. I find it intersting that you think this makes him a good father.Now that's a real conundrum for a liberal and I am pretty sure he didn't instill that value in Charlie. . However, it doesn't change the fact that he was a very active activist in dozens of other liberal interest groups. Perhaps if he had been more active in the interest of his own kids they might have turned out not being so messed up. Do you want to talk about that issue or continue to deflect to the fact he supported one conservative value out of the dozens he invested his time and money in?

A parent's first obligation and priority is to his own kids, not to invest massive amounts of time in career and numerous other causes or interests that prevent him from being an involved parent.

Well played Mr. Hand. I'd think Charlie's issues arose out of living the life of a celebrity that MANY a good parent have failed at navigating kids into adulthood with no issues.

[Tear Down This Wall]

What he instilled in Charlie was acoholism, etc. He had the same problem in the 70s. The difference is, he handled it privately.

Also, as with most anti-war people, he'd be pro-war fast enough if anyone ever hit our shores with their military. It's what is always fake about "anti-war" people. You have to ignore them.

We are fortunate to live in a country that would be difficult to invade, much less overthrow and keep in check because of the oceans on both sides of the country, as well as the size of the country.

The "anti-war" element is utterly ignorant and self-serving. You can pretty much ignore the anti-war element the same way they ignore the terror and harm that occurs in countries where they "oppose" wars.

[Serenity Now]

What he instilled in Charlie was acoholism, etc. He had the same problem in the 70s. The difference is, he handled it privately.

Also, as with most anti-war people, he'd be pro-war fast enough if anyone ever hit our shores with their military. It's what is always fake about "anti-war" people. You have to ignore them.

We are fortunate to live in a country that would be difficult to invade, much less overthrow and keep in check because of the oceans on both sides of the country, as well as the size of the country.

The "anti-war" element is utterly ignorant and self-serving. You can pretty much ignore the anti-war element the same way they ignore the terror and harm that occurs in countries where they "oppose" wars.

There's a significant difference between being "anti-war" and "protect your country".

[BoulderSooner79]

Terrorism is not war in by any conventional definition. If it could be defeated by military means we would have done it long ago. We have shock and awe up the wazoo. Our knocking out Sadam helped start this fire, but there was plenty of gas and kindling laying around and it would have happened eventually. Our pissing match with Russia and their proping up the Syrian badass is killing Europe with the refugees and the inevitable poison of the extremist element riding along. There are no easy answer here. It's going to take all the grown ups in the room to put down their petty differences and work together. That includes Russia and China as well as the west - and some of the real governments in the middle east too (if there are any).

Sorry, a long way removed from he public spiral of Charlie Sheen.

[FaninAma]

Well played Mr. Hand. I'd think Charlie's issues arose out of living the life of a celebrity that MANY a parent has used as one of many excuses to deflect from their failures as parents .

FIFY. YWIA

[BoulderSooner79]

Many a celebrity kid has had their life spiral as they have grown up even if their parents are not from the business. I don't think a developing child brain is equipped to handle such attention. Throw in huge amount a money and it's a toxic brew. A parent can try instill humility all they want and it's hard to combat the world everyday telling a young person they are indeed better than everyone else. We see it in suddenly rich pro athletes as well as actors and singers. I'm sure some of them had great parents. I'm glad I didn't have those issues on top of the stack of other parenting challenges.

[Tear Down This Wall]

There's a significant difference between being "anti-war" and "protect your country".

Especially when you have big seas separating you from other world powers. You probably don't have many anti-war people in countries like Poland.

At any rate, it's all phony baloney. If some country were raping your wives and daughters and killing your sons, you wouldn't be running around saying, "Oh, I'm just against war. All war is bad."

Again, it's why anti-war people are full of sh*t. There is no negotiating with groups or countries hell bent on raping and pillaging. These so-called "anti-war" as*sholes really believe they are doing something when they march around in a safe part of the world holding up signs and yelling into bullhorns.

Well, go out and prove your stripes, "anti-war" dipsh*ts. Go march around in Syria these days and tell them you are "anti-war."

It's bullsh*t. As long as it's other peoples' wife, daughters, and sons being raped and slaughtered, the "anti-war" fakes are running off with the mouth for no good reason...

...and Sheen is a longtime master of bullsh*t in that scene. Once I see him and and Sean Penn over in Aleppo or Damascus, I'll take them seriously. Buttsniffs.

[TAFBSooner]

Especially when you have big seas separating you from other world powers. You probably don't have many anti-war people in countries like Poland.

You also have to factor in all the guns in the hands of the citizenry. That makes CONUS even more unlikely to be invaded.

At any rate, it's all phony baloney. If some country were raping your wives and daughters and killing your sons, you wouldn't be running around saying, "Oh, I'm just against war. All war is bad."

Again, it's why anti-war people are full of sh*t. There is no negotiating with groups or countries hell bent on raping and pillaging. These so-called "anti-war" as*sholes really believe they are doing something when they march around in a safe part of the world holding up signs and yelling into bullhorns.

Well, go out and prove your stripes, "anti-war" dipsh*ts. Go march around in Syria these days and tell them you are "anti-war."

It's bullsh*t. As long as it's other peoples' wife, daughters, and sons being raped and slaughtered, the "anti-war" fakes are running off with the mouth for no good reason...

...and Sheen is a longtime master of bullsh*t in that scene. Once I see him and and Sean Penn over in Aleppo or Damascus, I'll take them seriously. Buttsniffs.

There are some people that are against all war. They are called pacifists. They're relatively few in number and they're not very realistic. In fact your comments apply to them, but you imply the straw man argument that people who are against stupid wars are against all wars.

People who argued and/or protested against the Vietnam war did so because the war made no sense; and the so-called reasons (domino theory) made no sense. Supposedly if South Vietnam fell to the Communists, then Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, etc. would fall too. Well, South Vietnam did fall to the Communists. Notice the dearth of Communist governments in SE Asia today other than Vietnam. All Ho Chi Minh did was re-unify their country and free it from colonial powers - which was all that he asked Woodrow Wilson for in 1919!

People who were against the 2003 Iraq invasion likewise knew that that war made no sense. I was certainly one of them.

Cheney said Saddam Hussein had or would give WMDs to al Qaeda. In fact, al Qaeda was a blood enemy of Saddam. One of al Qaeda's goals was to get rid of the secular rulers of Muslim lands, like Saddam.

I, for one, never said that Saddam didn't have WMDs. By 2003, it was pretty sure that he didn't have any effective chemical weapons, because the US sold him the precursors for his war against Iran. Chem weapons have a limited shelf life. What we pointed out was that he probably didn't have any effective weapons, and if he did the last thing he would do would be give them to religious fanatics who wanted to kill him.

Cheney didn't address how Iraq was made up of three major cultures that were incompatible, and that lopping off the head would split the country in three. Those against the war made that point over and over, and warned that no one could predict what would happen once the (admittedly brutal) Baathist party was removed. We were right about that, too, although the results have been far, far worse than we predicted at the time.

In the present mess brought to us by IS, I am not calling for us to stay out. For one thing, we broke it, and we have some responsibility to fix it. More importantly, if we don't end IS, they will continue to attack civilized nations that are actually excited by the 21st century instead of the 7th. The trouble is, I don't think Obama knows how to do this, I'm sure the Republicans don't know how to do this, and there is every possibility of getting it wrong.

Point being, you are wrong to say the majority of those who were against the Vietnam or 2003 Iraq wars are pacifists. Those were stupid wars that the US should never have gotten into. Some wars are necessary, even virtuous, although I can probably count that sort in US history on one hand, with the middle finger left over for people who start wars for no good reason.

[FaninAma]

Are you Mr. Hand? What a dick.

Is this topic a sore subject with you? You sure seem to be taking it personally.

[Serenity Now]

Is this topic a sore subject with you? You sure seem to be taking it personally.

You're just very dismissive and judgy. And factually wrong but not willing to admit it.

[FaninAma]

You're just very dismissive and judgy. And factually wrong but not willing to admit it.

Your opinion does not equate into fact. I know you liberals like to think that's not the case but reality just doesn't support that line of thinking.

You're right. We should just dismiss poor parenting out of hand because that has served the country so well over the past 40 years. Society has no clue about the tidal wave headed its way composed of dysfunctional children from dysfunctional families that are growing up into dysfunctional adults. We should just bury our heads in the sand because there is no way it will affect us.

Are you really involved some way in our educational system? The problem is that too many people are like you...... unwilling to make comments about bad , irresponsible, immature parents. Society has been cowed into not calling out bad behavior but society is supposed to pay for the consequences of that bad behavior. That is the progressive gift to all of us.

And again, why do you seem to be taking the discussion of this issue so personally?

[yermom]

so is it that Martin Sheen is a bad parent because he was too busy as an actor to be a good father? or because he spends too much time in activism? because he's a liberal and not a real Christian?

or is it because Charlie is addicted to sex and alcohol and ended up with HIV?

none of those sound judgy or presumptuous at all.

[FaninAma]

Yeah, I'm sure every bad person ever is their parents' fault

I'm not some fan of the Sheen family, but you are just being a moron.

Liberal causes now make you a bad parent? Not a Christian?

No, liberal causes do not make you a bad parent. Making other activities higher priorities than your children makes you a bad parent.

[olevetonahill]

I think it all boils down to the Fact Charlie put his dick somewhere it ort not a been!

[FaninAma]

so is it that Martin Sheen is a bad parent because he was too busy as an actor to be a good father? or because he spends too much time in activism? because he's a liberal and not a real Christian?

or is it because Charlie is addicted to sex and alcohol and ended up with HIV?

none of those sound judgy or presumptuous at all.

Then read this and get back to me. Sounds like Emelio's and Charlie's parents are Parent of The Year candidates.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=13347481

'My father and mother, neither of them cared if Larry Fishburne [Martin Sheen's teenage co-star] and I jumped in a jitney and went to Manila for the weekend," he said. "President Marcos was in power, martial law was in effect, and you were shot on sight if you were seen on the street after 1am. What were they thinking?'"Estevez said he recently asked his parents that question: "Their reply was, 'We had four of you. If we had to lose one, we would. We were just trying to survive.'"

Go ahead and make excuses for them. After all, that's what you liberals do.

[Tear Down This Wall]

You also have to factor in all the guns in the hands of the citizenry. That makes CONUS even more unlikely to be invaded.



There are some people that are against all war. They are called pacifists. They're relatively few in number and they're not very realistic. In fact your comments apply to them, but you imply the straw man argument that people who are against stupid wars are against all wars.

People who argued and/or protested against the Vietnam war did so because the war made no sense; and the so-called reasons (domino theory) made no sense. Supposedly if South Vietnam fell to the Communists, then Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, etc. would fall too. Well, South Vietnam did fall to the Communists. Notice the dearth of Communist governments in SE Asia today other than Vietnam. All Ho Chi Minh did was re-unify their country and free it from colonial powers - which was all that he asked Woodrow Wilson for in 1919!

People who were against the 2003 Iraq invasion likewise knew that that war made no sense. I was certainly one of them.

Cheney said Saddam Hussein had or would give WMDs to al Qaeda. In fact, al Qaeda was a blood enemy of Saddam. One of al Qaeda's goals was to get rid of the secular rulers of Muslim lands, like Saddam.

I, for one, never said that Saddam didn't have WMDs. By 2003, it was pretty sure that he didn't have any effective chemical weapons, because the US sold him the precursors for his war against Iran. Chem weapons have a limited shelf life. What we pointed out was that he probably didn't have any effective weapons, and if he did the last thing he would do would be give them to religious fanatics who wanted to kill him.

Cheney didn't address how Iraq was made up of three major cultures that were incompatible, and that lopping off the head would split the country in three. Those against the war made that point over and over, and warned that no one could predict what would happen once the (admittedly brutal) Baathist party was removed. We were right about that, too, although the results have been far, far worse than we predicted at the time.

In the present mess brought to us by IS, I am not calling for us to stay out. For one thing, we broke it, and we have some responsibility to fix it. More importantly, if we don't end IS, they will continue to attack civilized nations that are actually excited by the 21st century instead of the 7th. The trouble is, I don't think Obama knows how to do this, I'm sure the Republicans don't know how to do this, and there is every possibility of getting it wrong.

Point being, you are wrong to say the majority of those who were against the Vietnam or 2003 Iraq wars are pacifists. Those were stupid wars that the US should never have gotten into. Some wars are necessary, even virtuous, although I can probably count that sort in US history on one hand, with the middle finger left over for people who start wars for no good reason.

Are you lost? Whether a dictatorship calls itself communist or not is pointless. Millions were killed in Cambodia. Laos, and Thailand.

Ask the South Koreans whether or not it mattered that we intervened.

Stupid to the end. Vietnam or part of it could be as free as South Korea is we hadn't had such weak leadership in our president and Congress during the mid- and late-60s.

I have yet to meet a Vietnamese refugee - and, there are thousands in the area of Dallas where I grew up, Richardson - that was happy that its country fell to the communist.

Utterly stupid to say Vietnam was pointless. Ask a Vietnamese refugee if they want to go back and live under communist rule now.

Get real.