Bush and herbs

[EricTheRed 0]

So now it comes out the Bush liked to give the weed a toke or two.

No big deal to me, and his reasons for denying it seem ok even if it didn't really work out so well.

Just seems like another case of Hipocracy with a big H tho since so damn many of his supporters APPEAR to be pretty anti-drug.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7682264

Make you wonder where the Coke tapes are tho...

illegible usually

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

So now it comes out the Bush liked to give the weed a toke or two.

No big deal to me, and his reasons for denying it seem ok even if it didn't really work out so well.

Just seems like another case of Hipocracy with a big H tho since so damn many of his supporters APPEAR to be pretty anti-drug.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7682264

Make you wonder where the Coke tapes are tho...

Oh, Lookee......(Yawn).....another Bush bash thread.

Who would you be more likely to believe that drugs can destroy your life, some straight dick who learned everything from books, or someone who's been there?

[CornishChris 5]

Absolutely GravityMaster. No one should be able to bring up any negative points about the US President.

Impressed you managed to turn taking drugs into a positive attribute for the leade of the free (!) world.

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Who would you be more likely to believe that drugs can destroy your life, some straight dick who learned everything from books, or someone who's been there?

Hmmm... Should we go look for the next head of DEA in a rehab clinic?
Now does the "been there, done that" apply to the Commander in Chief postion as well?

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Absolutely GravityMaster. No one should be able to bring up any negative points about the US President.

Impressed you managed to turn taking drugs into a positive attribute for the leade of the free (!) world.

So how would you answer the question? Please explain how this "startling revelation" changes anything.

Somebody grab the torches.. we're gonna have a lynching. Damn pothead.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Who would you be more likely to believe that drugs can destroy your life, some straight dick who learned everything from books, or someone who's been there?

Hmmm... Should we go look for the next head of DEA in a rehab clinic?
Now does the "been there, done that" apply to the Commander in Chief postion as well?

No, but you can find the best drug councilors at a rehab clinic. Would you have recommended we pick a white male to run the Civil Rights Commission too?

[CornishChris 5]

Quote

So how would you answer the question?

I'm not sure what question is it I am meant to be answering.

I thought that someone starting a thread on how the POTUS had been caught on tape declaring drug use was not "just another Bush bashing thread". This is a legitimate concern about the illegal activites of the President is it not? If someone had described Clinton's extra curricular activities with Lewinski as "just another Clinton bashing" it would be laughed off. . I really don't give a fuck one way or the other about George and his drug habits or lack of them, I do however find it annoying that people can't bring it up without someone calling Bush bashing.

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

So how would you answer the question?

I'm not sure what question is it I am meant to be answering.

I thought that someone starting a thread on how the POTUS had been caught on tape declaring drug use was not "just another Bush bashing thread". This is a legitimate concern about the illegal activites of the President is it not? If someone had described Clinton's extra curricular activities with Lewinski as "just another Clinton bashing" it would be laughed off. . I really don't give a fuck one way or the other about George and his drug habits or lack of them, I do however find it annoying that people can't bring it up without someone calling Bush bashing.

Interesting you bring up Lewinsky. Was your reaction to her being taped by Linda Tripp the same reaction you have now about McClellan secretly taping Bush? Think about it.

[CornishChris 5]

I honestly don't remember my reaction to Lewinsky.

My reaction on hearing Bush had smoked pot was one of almost total indifference, my opinion of him is so low that there is little that can make it lower but that really is not the point I am trying to make. My point is that by bringing up something that is heavily in the news the person who was starting this thread was not necessarily starting a 'bush bash' thread as you assumed. Simple as that.

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So now it comes out the Bush liked to give the weed a toke or two.

No big deal to me, and his reasons for denying it seem ok even if it didn't really work out so well.

Just seems like another case of Hipocracy with a big H tho since so damn many of his supporters APPEAR to be pretty anti-drug.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7682264

Make you wonder where the Coke tapes are tho...

So Clinton doing pot when he was younger was okay, since a lot of his supporters were potheads?

Same premise, different President...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"So now it comes out the Bush liked to give the weed a toke or two."

Okay, as y'all know I'm not a huge fan of Dubbya, but so what?

Something like 2/3 of todays youth have dabbled with recreational drugs, would it be prudent to exclude 2/3 of the population from ever holding office?

There are better things to bash Bush with than a spliff and a couple grammes of white powder.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[billvon 3,111]

1. Who cares?

2. I hope this puts to bed once and for all the "liberal media" myth. Conservatives like to cry that the "liberal media" is unfair, and is biased, and skews the news, and causes war, unrest, psoriasis, hedonism etc. They are a convenient whipping horse to blame all manner of evil on, and with all the problems in politics today, a whipping horse can be a mighty desirable animal indeed.

Now here we have two stories - 1. Bush smoked pot 2. a gay escort with a fake name was given special permission to enter the white house. What if either of these things had happened to a democratic president? With 1, we already know. "I did not inhale" is headline news. All AM talk radio stations go on 24 hour pot alert. FOX news does a ten-part expose' on "Drugs and dishonesty."

And can you imagine what would have happened if a democratic administration allowed a gay hooker who faked his ID into the white house? To interview the president even? "GANNONGATE" would be the top of every media website around. "It just goes to show ya, people, that a gay hooker has the ear - or perhaps some other body part - of our president, but can a legitimate reporter get the time of day? Not in the alternate lifestyle presidency!" Rush would crow.

What do we have in this case? CNN - stories appear 3rd and 6th from the top, respectively. No headlines. NY Times - neither story appears on their home pages. ABC - one story at 3rd from the top, the other one not appearing.

Of course we still have the liberal (and somewhat clueless) CBS with the pot story as a headline, and the Gannon story at #3.

So take your pick. Want a liberal rag? Tune to CBS. Want to hear the GOP's take on it? Listen to FOX. Want news organizations dedicated to money rather than any political organization? Listen to most any other source.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I honestly don't remember my reaction to Lewinsky.

Lame....

Most people were disgusted by the fact that Linda Tripp would record private conversations she had with a friend. The media completely disregarded the substance on the tapes and went on a tangent about how horrible "secretly recording" what a friend said in confidence was.

In this situation, the media has reversed their "morality" and has focused on the substance of the tapes, not how disgusting it is to secretly record a friend and then release them publicly. Hardly a word about taping. I see this as nothing more than a Bush bash which started before this thread was created.

Quote

My point is that by bringing up something that is heavily in the news the person who was starting this thread was not necessarily starting a 'bush bash' thread as you assumed. Simple as that.

Apparently you haven't spent much time in SC. Most of the time people who think they are smarter than the President of the US, look for anything they can post to bash him. And that's fine. I'm simply pointing out there's a double standard being used by the media and the Bush haters in this case and that double standard is being used for no other reason than to bash. So now tell me where the hypocracy lies? Still want to continue? Be my guest. Just wait till I get my popcorn.

[Ron 10]

Quote

So Clinton doing pot when he was younger was okay, since a lot of his supporters were potheads?

Same premise, different President...

My favorite part was how Clinton said he didn't inhale....So he could not smoke pot correctly?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[EricTheRed 0]

Maybe you misinterpreted my first post. I really don't care if he smoked pot.

The funny thing is that his comments about gays on the tapes seems to be getting more heat from the right than the fact that he used to party (which everyone already knew)

illegible usually

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Who would you be more likely to believe that drugs can destroy your life, some straight dick who learned everything from books, or someone who's been there?

If you're referring to Bush, I don't think he's going to be convincing anyone that drugs can destroy your life... You can smoke weed and be an alcoholic and still have a chance of one day being the President of the United States; his life doesn't look very "destroyed" to me.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Who would you be more likely to believe that drugs can destroy your life, some straight dick who learned everything from books, or someone who's been there?

If you're referring to Bush, I don't think he's going to be convincing anyone that drugs can destroy your life... You can smoke weed and be an alcoholic and still have a chance of one day being the President of the United States; his life doesn't look very "destroyed" to me.

It is well known that Bush was on a bad path through life until he changed his ways. I think his message to drug users is that there's always hope, it's never too late to change.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

1. Who cares?

2. I hope this puts to bed once and for all the "liberal media" myth. Conservatives like to cry that the "liberal media" is unfair, and is biased, and skews the news, and causes war, unrest, psoriasis, hedonism etc. They are a convenient whipping horse to blame all manner of evil on, and with all the problems in politics today, a whipping horse can be a mighty desirable animal indeed.

Now here we have two stories - 1. Bush smoked pot 2. a gay escort with a fake name was given special permission to enter the white house. What if either of these things had happened to a democratic president? With 1, we already know. "I did not inhale" is headline news. All AM talk radio stations go on 24 hour pot alert. FOX news does a ten-part expose' on "Drugs and dishonesty."

And can you imagine what would have happened if a democratic administration allowed a gay hooker who faked his ID into the white house? To interview the president even? "GANNONGATE" would be the top of every media website around. "It just goes to show ya, people, that a gay hooker has the ear - or perhaps some other body part - of our president, but can a legitimate reporter get the time of day? Not in the alternate lifestyle presidency!" Rush would crow.

What do we have in this case? CNN - stories appear 3rd and 6th from the top, respectively. No headlines. NY Times - neither story appears on their home pages. ABC - one story at 3rd from the top, the other one not appearing.

Of course we still have the liberal (and somewhat clueless) CBS with the pot story as a headline, and the Gannon story at #3.

So take your pick. Want a liberal rag? Tune to CBS. Want to hear the GOP's take on it? Listen to FOX. Want news organizations dedicated to money rather than any political organization? Listen to most any other source.

You are too funny. You try to absolve the press of their bias because they aren't running with this story as much as they did with Clinton? Suppose it was an election year. You would have Dan Rather and 60 Minutes in full liberal spin mode, interviewing anyone they could find who knew someone who heard Bush smoked pot. You would have Terry McAuliff saying Bush destroyed his mind on drugs. You would have wacko Professors and Drug Councilors doing pschological evaluations on Bush, even though they never met him.

Yep, too bad it isn't an election year.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I think his message to drug users is that there's always hope, it's never too late to change.

For him to give that message, he would first of all have to be honest about his drug use rather than lie about it.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I think his message to drug users is that there's always hope, it's never too late to change.

For him to give that message, he would first of all have to be honest about his drug use rather than lie about it.

Perhaps he will after his term is over. I don't think it's appropriate for the President to discuss his personal problems while in office. I also don't think anyone has the right to demand he do so. It's very personal and if he feels like talking about it, that's his choice.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Maybe you misinterpreted my first post. I really don't care if he smoked pot.

The funny thing is that his comments about gays on the tapes seems to be getting more heat from the right than the fact that he used to party (which everyone already knew)

My comments weren't directed at you. I understood what your position was. They were directed at the story.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Perhaps he will after his term is over.

Perhaps he will... but until then, you can't really claim that he's giving some great message of hope to drug users.

Quote

I don't think it's appropriate for the President to discuss his personal problems while in office. I also don't think anyone has the right to demand he do so.

I think when it involves breaking the law, which is what he did by smoking pot, it becomes a lot more than just a "personal problem"... and the public has every right to know about any laws that the POTUS has broken, even if it was in his past.

[kallend 2,146]

Why are you so defensive of a lying pot-head president? Are you on the White House payroll or something?

PS Clinton is no longer in office.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Why are you so defensive of a lying pot-head president? Are you on the White House payroll or something?

PS Clinton is no longer in office.

Aw come on Kallend. You can do better than that. Get a little rusty during your "vacation"?

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Most people were disgusted by the fact that Linda Tripp would record private conversations she had with a friend.

You're too kind. Linda Tripp was identified by the left as a horribly ugly evil pig for years. They drove her so far as to try and escape ugly status by getting cosmetic surgery, the poor thing.

Winder what the guy who made the Bush dope tapes looks like?

. . =(_8^(1)