BUSH HIDES DRUG USE?

>Can't speak for Rick,

You may want to start, since Rick - once he spits out his moveon.org opinion of the day and then gets asked questions about it - is unable and/or unwilling to speak for himself.

but to my knowledge, the governor of any

>state has the right to pardon any criminal and to stop the

>execution of any criminal on death row, up until the the last

>moment prior to execution.

There's a pretty significant difference - fundamental, even - between (a) "failing to stop someone's death who has been convicted of heinous murders by a jury and sentenced to death by a judge" and (b) "putting someone to death," wouldn't you say?

If not, I guess that makes you responsible for all the murders in your town that have occurred this year that you didn't stop. Why did you "put those people to death," VaHawk?

>During Bush's term of governorship in the state of Texas, did

>he pardon/stop the execution of anyone?

Why would the Governor of a state override the decisions of a jury and a judge who sat and listened to all of the evidence and then reached a deliberative conclusion about the proper punishment for a murderer? Why should a Governor think he's in a better position to know what's best for that defendant and for the society and for the victim's family than the judge and jury who heard the evidence?

Did he stop: the

>execution of mentally incapcitated (i.e. retarded) people,

>leading to a Supreme Court ruling on such executions; the

>execution of innocent people by denying modern day DNA

>techniques that would cast doubt on the guiltiness of the

>person being executed solely on the basis of "antiquated

>procedures"; the execution of the first woman in over 100

>years despite her stellar moral and personal reformation?

The duly enacted State legislature of the State of Texas has concluded that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment under these circumstances where the judge and/or jury decide it is. I know a lot of you hate democracy becasue the majority of people often see things differently than you, but that's just the price you have to pay for living in a democracy.

You could always move to North Korea, or Russia, where the will of the majority is frequently overriden or ignored. Since so many of you seem to want that here, why not just move there - it's a lot easier than trying to get democracy here overturned.

>During his governorship, did he make Texas the biggest

>executioner of prisoners in the entire history of America, at

>a time when many Americans question the right of the state to

>execute someone, and despite the condemnation of capital

>punishment by the rest of the world?

Uh . . . no . . . . the people who made Texas the "biggest executioner of prisoners" are the people who committed brutal, disgusting murders and ended the lives of innocent people who were slaughtered - remember them?

If you don't want to blame the criminals for their crime and their punishment - and I know that doing so is so very unfair - then at least blame the evil judge and Satanic jury who - unlike you compassionate liberal souls - were so evil that they actually thought that vicious, animalistic murderers should be punished severely.

But even if you're really desperate to blame someone other than the criminals for the executions of CONVICTED MURDERERS SENTENCED TO DEATH BY A COURT, it's pretty stupid to blame the Governor of Texas, from whom no action whatsoever is required in order for a convict to be executed.

>The hell with either of their actions of 40 years ago . . .

Someone needs to tell this to the Kerry campaign and to other Democrats . . and quick!

I mean, I can see running on issues from 35 years ago if your opponent's record is sterling and you can't talk about it. But here, Bush's record on almost every front is disastrous or can be made to seem disastrous. Who the fuck told Kerry that making the election about events occurring between 1967 and 1973 would be a better campaign strategy than talking about events occurring between 2000 and 2004????

The reason why this plays so much into Bush's hand is because the public doesn't really know Kerry, so hearing that he did bad things 30 years ago influences how they think about him.

But the public knows Bush. They've seen him as Presdient for the last 4 years. They don't care about what he did 30 years ago because they already have a judgment about him based on the last 4 years. That's why the Democrats need to make Bush look bad based on what he did in the last 4 years, not 40 years ago!

Isn't this so obvious? Are there any Democrat strategists who aren't complete imbeciles? Can you libreals admit that, political views to the side, the Kerry campaign has, at least thus far, been painfully inept and impotent in expressing anything?

>It sure would be if the evidence showed what you claim. But

>like the other Republican shitmongers on this board you keep

>ignoring all the evidence on the other side of the issue

>because of your tremendous desire to kiss Bush's ass.

When Dan Rather resigns and CBS admits that the documents were forged - an event which came quite close to happening tonight, and is only a matter of time - I'll watch you worm your way out of admitting error, the thing that you would rather die than do.

Until then, you'll just keep insisting that the documents are real because you are blinded by your socialistic pipe dreams, and will keep screaming insults at anyone who actually looks at the evidence because you are so bitter and angry that the majority of people who have a say think that your viewpoints are stupid and wrong.

So rather than wrangle with those woodlawn viruses, I'm happy to wait and see what the conclusion is of this saga.

>Try to follow this. We have just been through a period of

>weeks in which Kerry was attacked by a group of veterans who

>claimed he did not earn his medals. Virtually all of their

>claims have by now been proved lies by official records and by

>the uncovering of discrepancies in their accounts that they

>can't explain. Where was the outrage among the Republican

>posters on this board during that time? They were silent

>about that, but are full of outrage over what CBS has done.

>Such disgusting, dishonest hypocrisy deserves severe censure.

If you can't understand the difference between a group of random citizens speaking falsehoods versus one of the three major television news anchormen using fabricated documents to report the "news," then I genuinely feel sorry for you. I can't even imagine the level of partisan blindness and rage necessary to make one incapable of understanding that gaping distinction.

>Of course it does. None of the people who are slamming CBS

>here gives two shits about journalistic integrity or

>objectivity. If they cared about that sort of thing, they

>would be posting daily on this board about the whoppers told

>on Faux News (thank you, Bucky). Thus, their only possible

>motive for attacking CBS is their desire to distract from the

>real story.

The only incident on Fox regarding fabricated documents of which I'm aware was the one where they, along with many other news outlets, displayed the doctored photograph showing Kerry next to Jane Fonda - and that wasn't on a news show, but on an opinion show. I remember you lecturing me once on the vast difference between news and opinion journalism. Have you forgotten that?

I also recall quite an uproar over that incident with the Jane Fonda-Kerry picture. Nobody ignored it. Are there other times when Fox used fabricated documents to report the news?

>>>It is undisputed that Bush failed to take a required

>medical

>>>exam and lost his flight certification as a result.

>>>

>>>The question is, why?

>

>>Who the fuck knows why?

>

>He does, obviously. So why won't he answer the question?

Since I tend to focus more on what is happening in the Now rather than what happened 40 years ago, and since I'm not desperate to destroy George Bush using any uncorroborated filth I can get my hands on, so I'm not as familiar as you are with regard to the details of his flight experience in the early 1970s.

But as I recall, the White House DID explain Bush's letting his certification lapse by pointing out that it would be useless in Alabama, where he was going, because the Alabama National Guard didn't use the same planes which he was certified to fly. Do you have information that this contention is false?

>> His

>>conduct from 30 years ago didn't stop him from getting

>elected

>>in 2000

>

>Actually, it did. Many pollsters who have analyzed the 2000

>vote theorize that Gore pulled ahead in the last few days

>before the election and won the popular vote because of the

>revelation of Bush's DUI arrest.

Maybe you haven't heard. Popular vote doesn't determine who wins a Presidential election; the electoral college does. You should have put down your crack pipe and paid more attention in Civics class.

So, as I said, George Bush's conduct from 30 years ago didn't stop him from getting elected when he was a challenger in 2000; it certainly isn't going to stop him from getting re-elected now that Americans have seen him as President for 4 years. They're going to base their view of him on that recent conduct, not the old, tired rumors in which the likes of you and Kitty Kelly wallow.

>Unlike you, I have not repeatedly advocated on this board the

>use of mind-altering substances that were never intended for

>human consumption and whose effects on the nervous system are

>thus completely unpredictable.

At the risk of sounding like you - something I'd like about as much as you like admitting error - you're just lying. I have not "repeatedly advocated" that people use meth or any other illegal drug. I have expressed my opinion that the use of such drugs ought to be legal. And I have stated that escorts can profit greatly from going on calls where their clients are tweaking. But I have not recommended to anyone, let alone "repeatedly" done so, that people use that drug or any other.

Typically I would be inclined to lambast someone for spreading such false accusations. But I am as sincere as can be when I say that I have no such inclination in your case. You strike me as being on the verge of a nervous breakdown as you watch Bush's re-election become more and more likely by the day, and seeing the poisonous fruits of that panic and rage genuinely induces pity in me for you.

If there's anything I can do, do let me know.

>It seems that "tarring" a public figure of an unsubstantiated

>charge is the political norm in this country. But the atempt

>to allege that President Bush used or even uses drugs is a new

>bottom. He is a very Christian man with a loving family, not

>to mention the responsibiity of his job. I feel comfortable to

>say that President Bush does not use drugs.

What, pray tell, was Dubya using that caused him to be arrested for "driving under the influence"? Do you not consider alcohol a drug? There is little doubt that alcohol is the most abused drug in the nation.

One of the few things I have in common with Dubya & Cheney is that we happen to be members of the United Methodist Church. I don't know much about Cheney's church involvement, but I do know Dubya uses his when it suits his purposes to do so. Our extra chromosome Republican types here never miss an opportunity to point out how utterly heinous any candidate is who is pro-choice (like Kerry) and how their position is incongruous with their religious affiliation (Roman Catholic). Well, since Bush & Cheney are United Methodists, shouldn't their policies be examined in light of the positions taken by their own denomination?

I'm providing a link for the interested, if you would like to see the United Methodist position on a host of social issues. Unless you lack reading and comprehension skills, it should be blatantly apparent that Dubya and Cheney are sure out of step with their own church. If John Wesley, the founder of Methodism were alive today, I have little doubt that he would have kicked their hypocritical asses right out of the church door.

Here's the link:

http://www.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1686

>SoBch Btm, Bush has not done a single one of the things you

>listed. Most of them are based upon your very unChristianlike

>attributing bad motives for which you have no evidence. These

>have been debated over and over. The Mediare increase was not

>a law which Bush signed or had any power to effect. The

>Medicare law was adopted years ago and provides a formula for

>the premium which Bush had no power to change. He did not vote

>for the law, BUT KERRY VOTED FOR IT. Telling lies as you do is

>also not Christian.

Here's one of those prime examples of Merlin's extra-chromosome Republican thinking: "Bush didn't vote for it BUT KERRY DID!"

Bush couldn't have voted for it, because he never served in Congress. Of course, Merlin won't remind you who controls Congress these days, because it's so much easier to blame a democrat like Kerry for everything. Next Merlin will tell us that Bush has no influence over a Republican dominated Congress. And next he'll tell us he believes in flying saucers and the tooth fairy.

Lying seems to be a genetic trait for modern day Republicans. If you don't believe me, then believe Tucker Carlson. He was once interviewing then Gov. George W. Bush, and his press secretary, Karen Hughes was present at the interview. Bush repeatedly used the word fuck and other profanities, and Tucker reported this in an article. Karen Hughes denied that she had ever heard George W. Bush use a profanity. Now who do you believe? Why would Carlson, a conservative, make up such a thing? We know Dubya and Dick can be potty mouths.......remember Bush's remarks about NYTimes staffer Adam Clymer, and of course Dick's "Go fuck yourself" in the Senate chambers?

Merlin, want to see me act like a Republican? Okay, here goes:

Go fuck yourself!

>>So what? Bush has admitted that he's a recovered alcoholic

>>who did things in his past that he wasn't proud of.

>

>Please don't lie. I don't believe Bush has ever termed

>himself "a recovered alcoholic." If you can find anyplace

>where he has said that, let's see it. In fact, he has done

>everything possible to downplay and minimize whatever excesses

>he committed in his past.

Woodlawn, as usual, you are correct. Technically, there's no such thing as a "recovered alcoholic", only recovering alcoholics. Bush had said as little as possible about his out of control drinking days, merely referring to them as his "wild days". Today, he's just a dry drunk, which means he's never really addressed his issues at all, and hence, remains dangerous.

>Isn't this so obvious? Are there any Democrat strategists who

>aren't complete imbeciles? Can you libreals admit that,

>political views to the side, the Kerry campaign has, at least

>thus far, been painfully inept and impotent in expressing

>anything?

Hey Doug, you've said you don't want Bush to get re-elected. What are you personally doing to make sure that doesn't happen, other than bickering and complaining on an escort message board? If you have such great ideas about how to run a campaign, why aren't you being more productive with them?

>>Can't speak for Rick,

>

>You may want to start, since Rick - once he spits out his

>moveon.org opinion of the day and then gets asked questions

>about it - is unable and/or unwilling to speak for himself.

The things I have chosen to reprint from moveon.org never contain opinions -- the Daily Mis-Lead is a factual accounting of the constant examples of Bush's lies, distortions and bad decisions, and all of it is documented with footnotes. As for whether I'm "unable or unwilling" to reply, the answer is "unwilling," when it comes to responding to your nasty pomposity. In the time it would take to bicker with you, I can be getting people registered to vote or having good sex.

merlin, you really should get your head out of Sean Hannity's ass once in a while. The Swift Boat Vets have been proven to have lied in almost 95% of what they have said. They have no credibility whatsoever. John ONeill is just continuing a personal vendetta against John kerry that has no basis in reality, except it was given weight by Karl Rove's backing and the unwavering support of Faux News.

I don't think George W. hides his drug use at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlC01CcHhF4

I thought the story was that Bush admitted to drug use, then he found Jesus. His "I'm a new man through Jesus Christ" certainly did much to get him elected Governor of Texas. After that the Republican machine and the Bush dynasty took over, and that was that.

I think he has been out in the sun clearing brush too long. He looked really terrible. The remarks he gave were OK, but his dancing to the Battle Hymn was bizarre. He seemed totally out of it. Love how Michelle was trying so hard not to react. Poor Laura.

When Bush was first running for President, someone remarked that his achievement in life was that he was no longer an obnoxious drunk.

I don't think George W. hides his drug use at all.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlC01CcHhF4

Leave it up to Gloats to resurrect ancient history threads from 12 years ago.

File this under "Don't give a shit nor do I understand why you do."

Thank you ISC, at least others here have enjoyed.

Dubya couldn't even sing or mouth the words Glory Hallelujah, big Christian that he purports.

A man with no self-awareness or interior life.

James Baker III, who had little use for W., once was asked if W. had any core beliefs.

His answer: "God and exercise."

I think he has been out in the sun clearing brush too long. He looked really terrible. The remarks he gave were OK, but his dancing to the Battle Hymn was bizarre. He seemed totally out of it. Love how Michelle was trying so hard not to react. Poor Laura.

I noticed that the President looked at Bush and then almost immediately looked away. Thanks for posting @dutchmuch.

In other words, Bush is getting older and making a fool of himself in public.

He replaced Reagan as my pick for worst president during my lifetime, but I think he's a fundamentally well-meaning, decent man who, as @AdamSmith says, has no interior life or self-awareness. At least he did not play into the xenophobia and Islamophobia the GOP is currently beholden to and made an effort to name a cabinet more representative of the US than the usual suspects.

I agree with ISC, though: is it really worth it to resurrect an old thread for this? Or is it petty and unkindness masquerading as humor?

someone remarked that his achievement in life was that he was no longer an obnoxious drunk.

I hate to give Bush credit for anything, but that' s a big achievement.

When Bush was first running for President, someone remarked that his achievement in life was that he was no longer an obnoxious drunk.

that' s a big achievement.

Indeed. Turns out he can be perfectly obnoxious without drinking.

I agree with ISC, though: is it really worth it to resurrect an old thread for this? Or is it petty and unkindness masquerading as humor?

It is neither petty nor unkind to be reminded of the mass death of innocents caused by the actions of a thoroughly incompetent president. We are in the thick of a presidential campaign in which one candidate is little different on the competence meter.

Old folks like me may remember CBS warning Judy Garland not to sing "Battle Hymn" in honor of President Kennedy in late 1963. CBS thought it was too "political." I forget the exact circumstances/negotiations, but Garland did sing the song anyway on her weekly TV show.

Knowing how hard Garland fought to sing the song to her friend, Pres. Kennedy, make Pres. Bush looks slightly worse to me. But, it really is not a big, big deal, compared to the possibility of a Trump presidency.

Leave it up to Gloats to resurrect ancient history threads from 12 years ago.

Did I touch a nerve Eye Es See?

Did I touch a nerve Eye Es See?

 

Bush voters are embarrassed.

It is neither petty nor unkind to be reminded of the mass death of innocents caused by the actions of a thoroughly incompetent president. We are in the thick of a presidential campaign in which one candidate is little different on the competence meter.

Why? He's not president anymore, and the video (which I didn't watch) isn't about those policies, unless I really missed something important when reading in between the lines of everyone else's comments.

I think everyone who comments here has a good enough memory of GWB's presidency for a mere verbal reference to be enough. Or else embed clips from that time. Making fun of him as a person now that he's older is a petty, bush league move (pun intended).

No, I don't believe the ends justifies the means.

Did I touch a nerve Eye Es See?

 

 

 

Are we sure he hasn't fallen off the wagon? That's another possible explanation.