President Bush on tape admitting drug use

[BBond]

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.

 

[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: 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.

I'm always up for some good ol drug law reform. Those "little more human" offenders should be let out and make room for people who have actually done something, and yeah Bush is a hypocritical little fvck and I never said I liked him. Our countries drug policy is absolutely absurd, and I have a feeling something is gonna be done about it sooner rather than later.

I just find it ridiculous how you people jump up and down screaming and hollering because ol Bushy boy has got high before. Bush is a fvcking hypocrite, but that doesn't mean that we should be too just because he's a dirty ol neocon. Clinton toked it up, was that a problem? Was Clinton a "druggie"? And then you throw in the trollish "fair and religiously devout, forgiving, former drug abusing alcoholic president", but I shouldn't even lower myself to respond to it. If you are going to make a point and argue something, then do that. Trolling gets you nowhere (well on P&N it does, but everywhere else.... )

Also, jesus people educate yourself about drugs. You can do a line and not be a druggie! OMG, shocking isn't it!

 

[nergee]

<Otherwise Bush is what I've always known he is. A lying alcoholic druggie hypocrite. >

Finally...someone worth voting for......

 

[Tab]

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.

Whoa chill...

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.

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.

 

[SuperTool]

He had to have used something more than pot to get his brain this fvcked up.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
He had to have used something more than pot to get his brain this fvcked up.

Agreed. He must have read the bible. :laugh:

 

[imported_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!

 

[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.

 

[Tab]

I used to smoke pot and ciggerates. Not to mention I also drank and did some nitrious oxide.

That was 4 or almost 5 years ago...

I am still a druggie?

 

[UglyCasanova]

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.

Who said anything about crack?! I must have completely missed that. And yeah crack is a nasty drug, I would never fvck with it.

 

[Tab]

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.

Crap, my bad....

Well... crack and coke are basically the same thing right?

 

[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.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Crap, my bad....

Well... crack and coke are basically the same thing right?

Crack comes from coke, but is a hellavu lot nastier. Much more addictive.

 

[berserker]

Originally posted by: BBond

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.

[/quote]

You still have not pointed out where anyone besides your trolling self stated that he abused or was dependent on illegal drugs.

 

[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.

 

[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."

 

[imported_Condor]

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.

I drank like a fish from 19 to about 23 too. I was in the military and it was what everyone did. That was the university scene too. Just part of coming of age in the sixties. I was never dependent on booze and only used drugs once. Didn't know what those little orange diet pills that my date kept giving me were! She just said they would keep me awake during a three day party.

 

[umbrella39]

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."

Your assertion that the anonymity factor has anything to do with no spouting it to the masses is not accurate. Bill W and Dr. Bob both insisted back then as it is insisted today that you have to give it away to keep it. The anonymous part stems from the desire not to be branded or stigmatized when in recovery unless you so choose to share your last name. It is not a secret society Drugs like Antibuse, coupled with desire, attending 3 meetings a day for 6 months, and getting a sponsor are known working therapies. It is a disease that certainly can be treated but no, there is no quick fix. It takes hard work to reprogram sh!tty thinking, something all alcoholics and drug addicts have in common.

I would highly doubt George W Bush went through and lives his life by the 12 steps I think he did it on his own. I think the media and the religious right blows out of proportion just how "religious" GWB actually is. That is something that can simply not be proven or disproved. I personally don't think he is a very religious man at all with the exception of during the election season.

 

[imported_Condor]

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.

Clinton was Commander in Chief and his administration had put at least two military officers in prison for adultry just a year before his Lewinsky thing came out. He was subject to the same UCMJ that the troops were. I think the two faced and illegal part of it was what upset the military.

 

[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."

 

[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.

 

[imported_Condor]

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."

That would be true. There have been a lot of commercial prisons built in the last 20 years at the county, state, and federal level. I fear that a point will come when those have to be kept full to keep paying for them. We had that happen here in the Fall when the INS moved their office to New Orleans. They didn't want to keep prisoners here in this new, expensive prison because the drive was too far from NO. The county was no longer able to make the payments on the property. INS basically gave in and agreed to keep illegals here to allow the county to keep the payments up. Politicans own stock in the corporations that built them and the same politicans make the laws. Being a criminal in this country may become a matter of economics, not behavior in the near future.

 

[bamacre]

As someone who is sick of seeing this thread staying alive, I wold just like to say one thing. We have probably NEVER had a president who didn't get high at least once.

 

[daniel1113]

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.

Ding ding ding. Winner!

IMO, the clips from these tapes that are being played only help Bush. The guy who made and released the recordings is a douchebag, but this won't hurt Bush in any way.

 

[imported_Condor]

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.

Not being all that fresh on the UCMJ, I wouldn't be sure, but there was a lot of press about it at the time. The really low part was the enforcement of UCMJ articles against the officers that went to jail or got drummed out. Clinton could have interveaned under:

(a) If any commissioned officer, dismissed by order of the president, makes a written application for trial by court-martial setting forth under oath, that he has been wrongfully dismissed, the President, as soon as practicable, shall convene a general court-martial to try that officer on the charges on which he was dismissed. A court-martial so convened has jurisdiction to try the dismissed officer on those charges, and he shall be considered to have waived the right to plead any statute of limitations applicable to any offense with which he is charged. The court-martial may, as part of its sentence, adjudge the affirmance of the dismissal, but if the court-martial acquits the accused or if the sentence adjudged, as finally approved or affirmed, does not include dismissal or death, the Secretary concerned shall substitute for the dismissal ordered by the President a form of discharge authorized for administrative issue.
(b) If the President fails to convene a general court-martial within six months from the preparation of an application for trial under this article, the Secretary concerned shall substitute for the dismissal order by the President a form of discharge authorized for administrative issue.
(c) If a discharge is substituted for a dismissal under this article, the President alone may reappoint the officer to such commissioned grade and with such rank as, in the opinion of the President, that former officer would have attained had he not been dismissed. The reappointment of such a former officer shall be without regard to the existence of a vacancy and shall affect the promotion status of other officers only insofar as the President may direct. All time between the dismissal and the reappointment shall be considered as actual service for all purposes, including the right to pay and allowances.
(d) If an officer is discharged from any armed force by administrative action or is dropped from the rolls by order of the President, he has no right to trial under this article.

had he chosen to do so. He didn't! The cases that the officers were prosecuted under were weak and a presidential opinion would have been very effective in the disposition of the charges and the retention of very good officers. One that I remember was a female B-52 pilot. Millions of dollars of training wasted because she was going with a man who was in the process of a divorce. Hardly uncommon in our society!