Originally posted by: her209
Haha... and they claim they are the party that's about personal responsibility. :laugh:
As long as it's another person's responsibility, Her209.
They're exempt, as all royalty are.
Originally posted by: her209
Haha... and they claim they are the party that's about personal responsibility. :laugh:
Originally posted by: Tabb
Pot, yes.
Crack, HELL NO.
Originally posted by: BBond
So why not petition your fair and religiously devout, forgiving, former drug abusing alcoholic president to pardon all those "little more human" offenders?
Bush has certainly been given a get out of jail free card for his past abuse. Don't they deserve the same? And if MJ is no big deal perhaps he should be petitioned to take it off the list of controlled dangerous substances as well, instead of sending his goons to arrest people IN WHEELCHAIRS USING MEDICAL MJ IN STATES, LIKE CALIFORNIA, WHICH ALLOW ITS USE.
Otherwise Bush is what I've always known he is. A lying alcoholic druggie hypocrite.
Originally posted by: UglyCasanova
Originally posted by: Tabb
Pot, yes.
Crack, HELL NO.
Who said anything about crack? I suggest you do some research on drugs before you slam Bush for sh!t you obviously do not know anything about.
Originally posted by: UglyCasanova
Yes I do think. There is no reason for those people to be locked up, at all. And smoking pot and dabbling in coke does not constitute a druggie, so I guess you got it straight. I've been around numerous druggies, I'm assuming you haven't. Just because you've done drugs does not make you a junkie.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
He had to have used something more than pot to get his brain this fvcked up.
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: UglyCasanova
Originally posted by: BBond
This nation used to have standards for its highest office. Drug abusers and alcoholics need not apply.
Those standards have been forever rescinded with the arrival of George W. Bush.
Where was all of this forgiveness and understanding from 1992 through 2000, you festering abyssmal hypocrites?
But those standards were still in place with Clinton, even though he smoked? You people are making a mountain out of a molehill. The man smoked pot and possibly snorted coke. I'm sorry but that does not make someone a druggie, perhaps a little more human but not a fvcking druggie.
So let me get this straight. Using drugs no longer constitutes a druggie???
How times have changed.
We should really release all the thousands of "a little more human" folks doing hard time in federal pens on minor drug charges then, don't you think?
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: UglyCasanova
Originally posted by: BBond
This nation used to have standards for its highest office. Drug abusers and alcoholics need not apply.
Those standards have been forever rescinded with the arrival of George W. Bush.
Where was all of this forgiveness and understanding from 1992 through 2000, you festering abyssmal hypocrites?
But those standards were still in place with Clinton, even though he smoked? You people are making a mountain out of a molehill. The man smoked pot and possibly snorted coke. I'm sorry but that does not make someone a druggie, perhaps a little more human but not a fvcking druggie.
So let me get this straight. Using drugs no longer constitutes a druggie???
How times have changed.
We should really release all the thousands of "a little more human" folks doing hard time in federal pens on minor drug charges then, don't you think?
A druggie is someone who is dependent on drugs!
Originally posted by: Tabb
I agree with you, to a point. We shouldn't be throwing stoners in jail. It's not like that drug is going to make them hurt anyone or if they continue to do it keep them in jail. We should have fines are other privilides revoked... not jailtime. Crack on the other hand does infact make people do crazy stuff, these people need to be in a place where they can get over their addiction and not go nuts.
Is GWB a druggie? He was a alcholic or at least a heavy drinker. He doesn't strike me as a "druggie", I don't think he is. Was he? I wouldn't doubt it.
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: UglyCasanova
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: UglyCasanova
This nation used to have standards for its highest office. Drug abusers and alcoholics need not apply.
Those standards have been forever rescinded with the arrival of George W. Bush.
Where was all of this forgiveness and understanding from 1992 through 2000, you festering abyssmal hypocrites?
But those standards were still in place with Clinton, even though he smoked? You people are making a mountain out of a molehill. The man smoked pot and possibly snorted coke. I'm sorry but that does not make someone a druggie, perhaps a little more human but not a fvcking druggie.
So let me get this straight. Using drugs no longer constitutes a druggie???
How times have changed.
We should really release all the thousands of "a little more human" folks doing hard time in federal pens on minor drug charges then, don't you think?
Yes I do think. There is no reason for those people to be locked up, at all. And smoking pot and dabbling in coke does not constitute a druggie, so I guess you got it straight. I've been around numerous druggies, I'm assuming you haven't. Just because you've done drugs does not make you a junkie.
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Last time I checked having an affair was illegal too. Adultury or some such.
Are we now changing the interrpretation of laws, such that some are "not bad" whereas some ar e"bad" depending on the situation?
Funny, and here all this time I thought it was fairly black and white. Break the law, your a criminal........
Well, you got it partly right. It is called Adultery. But it is not illegal. It is grounds for divorce, yes, but you cannot go to jail for it. Maybe they figure your spouse taking you to civil court for divorce and taking the kids and everything you own punishment enough?
Originally posted by: Tabb
Crap, my bad....
Well... crack and coke are basically the same thing right?
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: BBond
And Bush is, after drinking until he was 40 and without any known therapy, the classic example of a dry drunk.
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: UglyCasanova
Originally posted by: BBond
This nation used to have standards for its highest office. Drug abusers and alcoholics need not apply.
Those standards have been forever rescinded with the arrival of George W. Bush.
Where was all of this forgiveness and understanding from 1992 through 2000, you festering abyssmal hypocrites?
But those standards were still in place with Clinton, even though he smoked? You people are making a mountain out of a molehill. The man smoked pot and possibly snorted coke. I'm sorry but that does not make someone a druggie, perhaps a little more human but not a fvcking druggie.
So let me get this straight. Using drugs no longer constitutes a druggie???
How times have changed.
We should really release all the thousands of "a little more human" folks doing hard time in federal pens on minor drug charges then, don't you think?
A druggie is someone who is dependent on drugs!
No, a druggie is someone who is or has been dependent on drugs. Someone who was and could possibly again get hooked on drugs or alcohol.
And Bush is, after drinking until he was 40 and without any known therapy, the classic example of a dry drunk.
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Originally posted by: BBond
And Bush is, after drinking until he was 40 and without any known therapy, the classic example of a dry drunk.
There is no known working therapy for alcoholism. The desire to quit has to come from within. There are support groups like AA if you want to call that therapy but people who participate in such groups are not supposed to go around spouting it. The second A stands for "Anonymous." That's probably also where he "found God."
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Last time I checked having an affair was illegal too. Adultury or some such.
Are we now changing the interrpretation of laws, such that some are "not bad" whereas some ar e"bad" depending on the situation?
Funny, and here all this time I thought it was fairly black and white. Break the law, your a criminal........
Well, you got it partly right. It is called Adultery. But it is not illegal. It is grounds for divorce, yes, but you cannot go to jail for it. Maybe they figure your spouse taking you to civil court for divorce and taking the kids and everything you own punishment enough?
I think it depends on State laws. I believe in some States you can in fact be jailed for adultery.
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Yeah, well, maybe in the case of the military it is illegal I don't know. The military has its own laws and codes of conduct that do not apply to Joe public. But I agree, that is pretty heinous and hypocritical. But this country is full of hypocrasies so it comes as no surprise. I have said it before, we are only free as long as we do what we are told when we are told to do it here. Just pray that you stay under the radar and don't go making waves or asking questions, grease the right palms and you will enjoy a happy life of freedom. Its all about "do as I say, not as I do."
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You'd be hard pressed to find many of the Dub's generation who didn't experiment with drugs recreationally, especially those who lived a life of privilege. IMO it was just a youthful indiscretion.
Originally posted by: berserker
The President is not a uniformed officer and is not subject to the UCMJ, I believe. Why would he be? He's not in the military.