PDA

View Full Version : George W. Bush: Spineless Party Animal From Hell



renots
10-30-2000, 08:24 PM
more good stuff (http://www.disinfo.com/disinfo?p=folder&title=George+W%2E+Bush%3A+Spineless+Party+Animal+From+Hell)


"I've told the American people all I'm going to tell them - is that I made mistakes - years ago. And I've learned from them," George Walker Bush, Republican candidate for President in 2000, and Governor of Texas told MSNBC journalist David Bloom in August 1999.

The question of whether Shrub had used illegal drugs in his past was then raging in the media, with Shrub steadily refusing to address the question. When he did finally give some sort of answer, it was a mere qualifier, one that went through at least three changes in two days. Now the question seems forgotten.

"The game of trying to force me to prove a negative and chase down ugly, unsubstantiated rumors has got to end, so I'm going to end it," Shrub told reporters. CNN News quotes him saying he wouldn’t answer the questions about his possible youthful drug use, as it may send a signal that "whatever I may have done is OK."

What? That is exactly the point. If Shrub can be a presidential candidate without one day of mandatory treatment or imprisonment, or even a day in court to answer for his bad habits, why should he have signed into law such extremely harsh anti-drug laws in the Longhorn State, Texas?

After repeating mantra-like, "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible," Shrub finally deigned to answer a Dallas Morning News question (August, 2000), about whether he could pass the FBI background check for federal employees. Saying he understood the current form asks if illegal drugs were taken in the last 7 years, he could answer a firm "No" to that. Then Bush changed it to say he could pass it when his Daddy, Thin-Lips, No-New-Taxes, friend-of-the-Drug-Traffickers, George Herbert Bush, was President. Shrub's staff rushed to get it clarified for the media both again by the next day, by asserting that not only could he pass it while his Daddy was President, he could pass it for the last twenty-five years, back to 1974. Which begs the question: what about the twenty-eight years before that? What "youthful indiscretions" was Shrub engaged in that he is too ashamed to admit today?

Shrub passed severe mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession and sales in Texas, in addition to federal mandatory sentences already in place. Teen drug use, according to the 1998 Texas School Survey of Substance Use Among Student, Grades 7-12, Texas Commission on Drugs and Alcohol Abuse, while dropping around the country for the most part, has risen thirty percent in Texas under Shrub, despite[Or most likely because of] the insanely repressive drug policies.

While it isn't possible to blame the son for the sins of his father, it is possible to point out that Bush Senior was partly responsible for propping up Manuel Noriega, Panama's drug-dealing dictator. Once Noriega began to chafe under his CIA-US yoke, Bush had him indicted in US court for drug trafficking, then told reporters that nothing Noriega might say could be believed, as he was an indicted drug criminal, and obviously not trustworthy. This is the kind of upbringing Shrub was influenced by and subjected to.

It is apparent that Shrub doesn’t hold traditional American values very highly.

Consider the case of Zack Exley and his GWBush.com Web site. Exley is one of the few to ask how in the hell Shrub can enforce laws that he himself apparently broke during his days of youthful indiscretion? Bush told reporters that "there ought to be limits to freedom," describing his attempts to shut down Exley's site.
To think Shrub wants to be the President of the Land of the Free.

Research by Preston Peet

renots
10-30-2000, 08:42 PM
"He's not a Crackhead Anymore (http://gwbush.bigstep.com/catalog.jhtml)!"

ShawnLee
10-30-2000, 11:36 PM
People, people...

if Clinton had done this, he would have been praised for his attempt to keep his provate life private.

Ah, well...

Vote Bush-Cheney...

Or Nader!

sbp
10-31-2000, 06:03 AM
There's no proof that Shrub took drugs. Dubya was trying to stop the news media from asking more questions with that cute answer he gave. If he answered that stupid question the nosey liberal news media would have asked even more invasive questions.

oblongmelon
10-31-2000, 06:16 AM
HEY! haven't we all indulged in our lives? VOTE GEORGE DUBBLE-YA..can you imagine 4 more years of AL GORE? ugh.

fakesurfers
10-31-2000, 06:52 AM
I think its odd that the "Shrubster" gave his answers the way he gave them. I could have passed the drug test that was given under the rules of my father's administration at that time. What kind of answer is that? Now, I have no problem with drugs (i can get them quite easily), but Renots is right. The penalties that W advocates are good for everyone else, just not him.

The truth is, he did get busted for drugs in Houston in the 70's. He spent a summer doing community service in the Fifth Ward in Houston.

Its not a question of whether he indulged (they both did), but a question of trust. This is the guy that says, 'trust me', Im different. But when push comes to shove, he's just like any other politician. He'll say whatever it takes to get around his hypocrisy.

Oblong- How can you be for George Bush Jr.? Arent you on disability? Doesnt sound like a Republican program to me. I believe the official Republican platform is to either be rich, work every day of your life, or starve.

oblongmelon
10-31-2000, 07:11 AM
I go back to work the 3rd..Phew..finally-I am voting for GW..simply because GORE IS A HORSES ASS..'nuff said. trust me..torn ligaments in the hip are not fun..but I didnt ask to be out of work..I CANT WAIT to go back.

MaggieOK
10-31-2000, 09:38 AM
I'm voting for Bush.

pennypinch
10-31-2000, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by ShawnLee105
People, people...

if Clinton had done this, he would have been praised for his attempt to keep his provate life private.

Ah, well...

Vote Bush-Cheney...

Or Nader!

What? I seem to remember an election a little while ago where his pot use was a pretty big issue...don't, however, remember him getting praised for it.

I don't know whether Bush used blow, or what. What I want to know is, why in the hell is he so oblique about his answers? If he didn't, say so! If he did, why not lie? Jesus, it's like he's TRYING to spur the questions on.

pennypinch
10-31-2000, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by sbp
There's no proof that Shrub took drugs. Dubya was trying to stop the news media from asking more questions with that cute answer he gave. If he answered that stupid question the nosey liberal news media would have asked even more invasive questions.

I fail to see the logic of this. By saying "no, I didn't use drugs", you're saying he opens himself up to more questions? More invasive questions? Like what? :confused:

oblongmelon
10-31-2000, 10:45 AM
Why is his personal life anyone's business anyway? I mean...If people started dragging up crap I did in college..well lets put it this way...It would NOT be good...Unfortunately-times change and MOST people mature..but there are those few who seem to want to keep trudging up the little black clouds in order to discredit someone..SO if BUSH did crack/heroin/pot whatever...but he is NOT using it now..that is his business..he admitted he used 'SOMETHING'....but is NOT now..unlike GOOD OL BILL who claimed 'HE NEVER HAD SEX WITH THAT WOMAN"..(moo)...I mean..HEY..at least GW had the courage to admit he DID have some issues. Unlike CLINTON who cant admit he has any kind of shady doings in his past..or like GORE who friggin thinks he invented the internet.OYE vey.
vote GW.
man u guys need to get off these issues and look at what the future is..I MEAN..ONE of them is going to be elected..either way..they are NOT FDR. (this country is the laughing stock of the U.N. because of CLINTON and his 'grass roots' government...and I dont know about you--but thats pretty damn embarrassing. Can you REALLY stand ANOTHER 4 years with ANYONE who had anything to do with it?

[Edited by oblongmelon on 10-31-2000 at 10:48 AM]

pennypinch
10-31-2000, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by oblongmelon
Why is his personal life anyone's business anyway? I mean...If people started dragging up crap I did in college..well lets put it this way...It would NOT be good...Unfortunately-times change and MOST people mature..but there are those few who seem to want to keep trudging up the little black clouds in order to discredit someone..SO if BUSH did crack/heroin/pot whatever...but he is NOT using it now..that is his business..he admitted he used 'SOMETHING'....but is NOT now..unlike GOOD OL BILL who claimed 'HE NEVER HAD SEX WITH THAT WOMAN"..(moo)...I mean..HEY..at least GW had the courage to admit he DID have some issues. Unlike CLINTON who cant admit he has any kind of shady doings in his past..or like GORE who friggin thinks he invented the internet.OYE vey.
vote GW.
man u guys need to get off these issues and look at what the future is..I MEAN..ONE of them is going to be elected..either way..they are NOT FDR. (this country is the laughing stock of the U.N. because of CLINTON and his 'grass roots' government...and I dont know about you--but thats pretty damn embarrassing. Can you REALLY stand ANOTHER 4 years with ANYONE who had anything to do with it?


Well, there are two answers, and you mention them both, contradicting yourself! To wit:

-One's personal life is one's business, and no-one else's: One I particularly subscribe to. If so, why are Clinton's indescretions (re:philandering) anyone's business? Why the big scandal if it's no-one's business? Similarly, Bush's drug use is irrelevant.

One's personal life is important: And I'm just thinkin' out loud here, but one's personal integrity is on display in one's personal life. Weakness equals addiction; deceit leads to legal problems. If Clinton should be judged by his personal life (i.e., pot use, soft spot for cigars), then Bush's drug use is indicative that he's a man who's putting criminals away for something he himself is/was doing. Moreover, it would be a sign that he is a deceitful, weak man.

Incidently, I don't think Shrubs ever admitted to anything, but we sort of accept it that he has (I mean, really...c'mon!).

The truth is, we expect our Presidents to be more than us, a person that is as vice-free as possible. That's why they should have lead a relatively clean life, unlike your or my college years :)

The Happy Squirrel
10-31-2000, 11:22 AM
OKay Gore is just like Clinton but stupider
i would not be able to stomach four years of him running the country
He would probally be resting his crakck pipe on that big red button and acciadetly set of a nuclear halocaust taht destroys everything and say "oops" for his defense

Being from MN <we all know who was elected as Gov here>
i am democrat and all but i cannot vote for that incrediable medevil dickweed
and bush?
OMG tahts all i need to say bout thta

heres an idea
everybody write in Oblongmelon

oblongmelon
10-31-2000, 11:36 AM
Actually-clinton's personal life is no ones business EITHER..but..when asked certain specifics..he didnt just DENY the allegations like most experienced politicians...he LIED.and hitlary lied as well..like that email scandal,the whitewater crap, the shady land dealings....now had they just ignored the questions. OR possibly admit to the situations..then they wouldnt be looked upon as so unfavorabley..maybe he wouldnt have hung himself with a very short rope..George W didnt knot that rope when asked about his 'past doings'...and he did admit he had a drinking problem at one time but that now he is TRYING to stay sober..key worD TRYING....now had the clintons NOT behaved in manor unbecoming to someone who's political aspirations were to be prez and first lady..then maybe the majority of the US wouldnt balk at his PLETHURA of 'exaggerations and lies"..Now the future only holds what ELSE can be dug up on BOTH canditates..and we all know it will be who can find the 'BEST' scandals. NO WAY are you going to find someone who can survive the political world without hiding SOMETHING..unless of course that person is forest gump. EVEN me myself and I would have to worry about all those 'experimental' issues from college and I am a pretty straight laced adult these days...HEY! LOOK AT JIMMY SWAGGART.LOL..he was 'THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD' or so he called himself once..until they found him in that hotel room with that conventional southern baptist hooker...

renots
10-31-2000, 01:45 PM
The point is Bush had better not continue his hypocrisy on this issue once he gets in office; you can't punish people severely for the same thing that you got slapped on the wrist for; it just Not right

Now in the name of cost~cuttin' I better hear GW on Inaugaration day giving an unconditioal pardon to all non-violent prisoners of the drug war, all the mothers there on BS conspiracy chages whose children federal government has turned into orphans and wards of the state "for their own good"

If there was one reason fer kickin out those third way "I never found an issue I could flip-flop on" 'liberal'[!?!?] democrats, this would be it

renots
10-31-2000, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by The Happy Squirrel
OKay Gore is just like Clinton but stupider
i would not be able to stomach four years of him running the country
He would probably be resting his crack pipe on that big red button and accidently set off a nuclear holocaust that destroys everything ...

almost too scarily possible...