A prime example of George W Bush's stupidity

James Van Hammet · #81

I realize that hundreds of politicians have committed adultry, but Clintons the only one to lie about it several times.

Nobody has solid proof that Bush was a "pothead", and even if he was, that's his past.
You used to be a fetus, so what's your point?

AJ Middleton · #82

Originally posted by DBZM is James Van Hammet:
I realize that hundreds of politicians have committed adultry, but Clintons the only one to lie about it several times.

Nobody has solid proof that Bush was a "pothead", and even if he was, that's his past.
You used to be a fetus, so what's your point?

No, I HIGHLY doubt that. Many affairs of past presidents weren't even exposed until way after their terms.

Who cares if he WAS a pothead? You can't use what someone did 30 years ago as evidence against them today, especially if they are totally different now. (That's why I wish the stupid Democrats would SHUT UP about Arnold's actions in the past. HELLO. That's when he was a fiery youth! Give me a break!)

[ October 07, 2003, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: BoltDragoon ]

Lurch1982 · #83

L47, you have decended to even lower levels of douchebaggery. No more responses to you. Oh, and learn to read and pick different points apart.

Character matters (or so they say). If you say one thing, did another, and then deny it even though there is glaring evidence to the contrary, then pretend it never happened and hope it goes away, your credibility is damaged. Why is it you never heard much about Newt smoking up, or Gore, or even Clinton? They admitted it and wrote it off as youthful experimentation. Hiding something in your skeleton closet is just begging for people to blow it out of proportion.

Cokehead, not pothead.

Taft's scandal was current, press and politicians knew about most of the others (FDR, Kennedy, etc). Everyone had mistresses from the beginning till the Industrial age.

James Van Hammet · #84

Lurch you're confusing me.
So Bush is in the wrong because he didn't want to admit to his wrong ways as a teenager but because Gore and Clinton admitted it with no remorse, they're ok?

I look at that as shame of his past, not as lieing.
ASSUMING it's true.

Lurch1982 · #85

I have a problem when some sort of figure decides that it is a better policy to hide his entire past. If someone is to run the entire country, I think their character issues and past issues do play some part in voter decisions. It isn't what he did, it is that he attempts to cover it up and hide it, thus making it a larger issue than it really is. Try reading. Why is it that Newt, Guliani, Clinton, Gore, etc etc etc do not catch crap about affairs, drugs, or other crimes? They're open with it and brush it off as youthful experimentation...not pretend to be some false high and mighty demigod on some higher plain than the rest of the country.

Lurch1982 · #86

See, you people are missing the damn point. I'm talking about drug use, not extra-martial affairs.

Lurch1982 · #87

Spin is irrelivant. The issue died in the campaign and was only brought up by late-night talk-show hosts and FoxNews. Allegation about Bush's past have not died because he has refused to acknowledge it.

Lurch1982 · #88

Everything that's political that is released is basically some form of spin.

Lurch1982 · #89

No, there's generally only two parties in power (hence a two party system). Alternative parties have no shot in hell under current election rules barring a massive grass-roots campaign (ala Jesse Ventura).