Bush a former stoner????

[Prof. Chaos]

hmmmm, check it out, thoughts. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aqiX6aiSN7UQ&refer=us)


edit: for the record, I could care less what drugs he did or didn't take.

[fimbulwinter]

last week called, they want their headline back.

fim

[Prof. Chaos]

[ QUOTE ]
last week called, they want their headline back.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]20 years ago called, they would like their joke back.

[bholdr]

OF COURSE! he admitted as much on one of those taped phone conversations that were released last week. I'd be willing to bet he's done a few others too, coke, definitly, who knows what else? He is an alcoholic, too, though he no longer drinks.

I don't really have any problem with it, everyone is young once, and as far as weed goes, i have no problem with anyone smoking it, although it does have some negitive effects.

i may have a problem with a prez that had done LSD (and other psychs, including mescaline, X, and maybe shrooms, as those drugs can have permanant psycological effects, but only if taken many times or in a large dose.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
...I'd be willing to bet he's done a few others too, coke, definitly, who knows what else? He is an alcoholic, too, though he no longer drinks....I'd be willing to bet he's done a few others too, coke, definitly, who knows what else? He is an alcoholic, too, though he no longer drinks.

[/ QUOTE ]

please show me the proof of this lible.

[MelchyBeau]

Jax, he openly admits to being a recovering alcoholic. Can't say about the rest of the stuff.

Melch

[BCPVP]

I would hope that his recovering from alcoholism would be praised, not used against him.

[wacki]

Man jaxmike you really are suffering from tunnelvision.

Bush corrects people that say he denies doing coke.

http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2963

But when Mr. Wead said that Mr. Bush had in the past publicly denied using cocaine, Mr. Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything."

I for one am very glad we have a president that hasn't locked himself in the library his whole life. As long as he isn't doing that [censored] now, I say good for him.

[bholdr]

OPEN YOUR EYES!!!! (or at least open a newspaper)

geez.

and go look up the definition of libel. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif you're misusing it terribly. read wacki's post for the 'proof' you asked for.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I would hope that his recovering from alcoholism would be praised, not used against him.

[/ QUOTE ]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=dry+drunk+bush&btnG=Se arch

[wacki]

you read too much dailykos.

[Matty]

It's on my daily 'browse' list. Apparently yours too. =]

Edit: But thanks, I was trying to remember where I first heard of that.

[TransientR]

I wish he was stoned now. His religion infused sobriety is more dangerous than an inebriated Nixon.

Frank

[Prof. Chaos]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish he was stoned now. His religion infused sobriety is more dangerous than an inebriated Nixon.

Frank

[/ QUOTE ]

LBJ drank constantly during his term, especially during late nights when he was deciding which targets to bomb in North Vietnam.

[jaxmike]

i posted the whole quote, but thats just about the only thing in the quote that isnt either a lie, or an unsubstantiated accusation.

[jaxmike]

yet he hasnt admitted to it...

[Il_Mostro]

Correcting someone who says he stated he did not use it does very much seem like admitting it. Otherwise, why not just repeat that he did not use it?
If he indeed never did coke, what is your explanation for him not saying so?

[jaxmike]

non defense is not and has never been admitting.

[jaxmike]

libel is writing lies about others. saying that he used coke is a lie at least so far as you cannot prove that he did.

[Voltorb]

I thought a lie was not a lie if you believed the lie to be true. I do know that in libel suits, one must prove that the defendant deliberately and knowingly lied and that the lie resulted in a defamation of one's character. If you do not know that you are lying (you believe what you write to be true), then you are not guilty of libel. For this reason, many prosecutors believe libel suits to be extremely difficult to win, since the defendant can always claim that he thought he was writing the truth.

I also have heard many Bush supporters claim that Bush was not lying when he made statements regarding Saddam's WMD capabilities, because the statements were based on faulty intelligence which Bush thought to be true. We now know this faulty intelligence could not have amounted to proof, since we have not discovered WMD in Iraq as expected. Therefore, according to your statement, Bush was lying. If Bush truly believed the statements he made regarding Saddam's WMD capabilities, then I believe he was not lying. Lying implies intent to deceive, and this action does not contain that intent. Do you agree?

[jaxmike]

oh but here is where the problem lies. you have absolutely NO evidence that Bush used coke. KNOWING that you have no evidence you still CHOOSE to believe and accuse, thats what makes it a lie. (not you per se, but the collective you)

[ QUOTE ]
I do know that in libel suits, one must prove that the defendant deliberately and knowingly lied and that the lie resulted in a defamation of one's character.

[/ QUOTE ]

and how exactly is what those who accuse bush of using coke different from this definition??? its not.

[ QUOTE ]
If you do not know that you are lying (you believe what you write to be true), then you are not guilty of libel.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is NOT true. you must be able to support your thinking and opinions with some evidence if you are claiming something about someone. you are not given carte blanche to say what you want ABOUT other people and not be held responsible for it.

[ QUOTE ]
I also have heard many Bush supporters claim that Bush was not lying when he made statements regarding Saddam's WMD capabilities, because the statements were based on faulty intelligence which Bush thought to be true. We now know this faulty intelligence could not have amounted to proof, since we have not discovered WMD in Iraq as expected.

[/ QUOTE ]

given the fact that saddam has proven he had WMDs your argument does not fly. the reason it does not is because there is not only suspicion, but also precedent for the suspicion. again, we have found some WMDs Iraq, sarin counts....

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, according to your statement, Bush was lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally and completely wrong if only because we DID FIND WMDs in Iraq! further, not wrong, because the intelligence that he was acting on was a basically consensus of the international community. furthermore still, it was agreed upon with the benefit of precedent which provides you with leeway.

[ QUOTE ]
If Bush truly believed the statements he made regarding Saddam's WMD capabilities, then I believe he was not lying. Lying implies intent to deceive, and this action does not contain that intent. Do you agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

to a significant degree i do think that lying implies intent. however, not only did bush believe what he was being told, but he had a precedent to believe it. this is totally and utterly lacking when the biggoted bush haters make unsubstantiated allegations such as "he used coke".

[Voltorb]

I do not believe accusations that Bush used cocaine in the past are pulled out of thin air, as you seem to imply. First, we have the precedent that Bush was willing to use illegal drugs, since he admits to trying marijuana. Second, we have a disputed claim made by Kitty Kelly in her book that Sharon Bush, former wife of the president's brother Neil, confirmed that George W. Bush indulged in cocaine at Camp David. The veracity of this claim is not in question, and I do not wish to argue this point. What I would like to stress is that, based on who you choose to believe, you can make the statement that George Bush used cocaine and not be lying, in the sense that you had no intention to deceive. Making this statement is in every way identical to what the Bush administration did regarding Saddam's WMD capabilities, when they chose to believe their own intelligence over statements made by U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix.

You cannot be successfuly sued for libel unless the prosecution shows that you deliberately printed what you knew to be a lie. Legally, you do have carte blanche to say and write whatever you want, so long as you are willing to lie under oath and it is impossible to prove that you knew you were lying.

I aniticipated you would bring up the point that we did find some WMD. This is why I used the qualification that we did not find WMD as expected. Please try to read more carefully.

The intelligence that the Bush administration used did not agree with U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix' assessment.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not believe accusations that Bush used cocaine in the past are pulled out of thin air, as you seem to imply. First, we have the precedent that Bush was willing to use illegal drugs, since he admits to trying marijuana. Second, we have a disputed claim made by Kitty Kelly in her book that Sharon Bush, former wife of the president's brother Neil, confirmed that George W. Bush indulged in cocaine at Camp David. The veracity of this claim is not in question, and I do not wish to argue this point. What I would like to stress is that, based on who you choose to believe, you can make the statement that George Bush used cocaine and not be lying, in the sense that you had no intention to deceive.[\quote]


Good, at some points here you were making correct statements and assumptions. However, there are cases where you did not. First, by making the statement you may not have had the intention to decieve, however based on Kitty Kelly's past and her credibility (read total and complete lack thereof) the thought that the information you are relaying could be false should be held accountable. Second, in relaying such information from such a notoriously ignorant and irresponsible source I can draw no other conclusion than that you are doing so to harm GWB's reputation. To argue against the fact that this is the motivation would be interesting and I doubt you could convince me that your intentions are, at least at the crux of the matter, otherwise. Finally, using Kitty Kelly as a source should be considered pulling something out of thin air.

[ QUOTE ]

Making this statement is in every way identical to what the Bush administration did regarding Saddam's WMD capabilities, when they chose to believe their own intelligence over statements made by U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true at all. Because Hans Blix had no credibility either. His charge was unfulfilled not only due to his incompetence and mismanagement but also because the target of the investigation was elusive and obstructive at just about every step of the proceedure. There was more reliable information that was relied on than someone who was basically hoodwinked by Saddam and his cronies. There is no evidence to suggest that the WMDs that we KNOW were posessed by Saddam have been destroyed. Their existance is far more likely than their destruction, thus the question still remains, where are the stockpiles of weapons.

[ QUOTE ]
...Legally, you do have carte blanche to say and write whatever you want, so long as you are willing to lie under oath and it is impossible to prove that you knew you were lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally incorrect. This is an ignorant and dangerous point of view. Due to the fact that lying under oath is a criminal offense (one which Clinton was surely guilty of and disbarred for) you cannot base a legal argument on the assumption of an illegal act. The courts have repeatedly rejected the idea that free speech extends to people defaming others. In the end you are saying that you are allowed to libel or slander someone just so long as you are willing to committ perjury. At no point did you make a rational or coherent statement here that is consistent with the rule of law. This is utter nonsense and everyone who read it is now dumber for having done so. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

[ QUOTE ]

I aniticipated you would bring up the point that we did find some WMD. This is why I used the qualification that we did not find WMD as expected. Please try to read more carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you base your argument that Bush lied on things that are not true. We did find weapons. Thus, Bush did not lie even if he meant to, which I am sure he did not.

[ QUOTE ]

The intelligence that the Bush administration used did not agree with U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix' assessment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't blame them for not listening or not believing his assessment. It seems like half the UN and half the nations who opposed our continuation of hostilities with Iraq were benefitting from Saddam. This does not lead to credibility. Especially when you are illegalling benefiting from it while the people that are supposed to be helped are dying. I don't trust the UN one bit. I wish they would leave my country.

[Il_Mostro]

No, he is not admitting. But the reasonable way to understand him is as if he was admitting. Thus, why does he express himself in a way that will be understood as admitting to using coke?

[tolbiny]

"I for one am very glad we have a president that hasn't locked himself in the library his whole life. As long as he isn't doing that [censored] now, I say good for him."

I agree with the sentiments that our president should have a good deal of real experience. I do object to a party who has a history of arguing for strong anti drug laws, mandatory minimums for drug users, and multiple attacks on opposing politicians for their drug use- suddenly turning a blind eye when the most prominent member of their party has what is at best an ambiguous history of drug use.

[Voltorb]

The credibility of one's sources has no bearing on this argument. My point was, that if I believe Kitty Kelley's statements regarding Bush's former sister-in-law's confirmation of him doing cocaine at Camp David, then I am not attempting to deceive anyone by relaying this information, and am therefore not committing libel. Similarly, the credibility of the Bush administration's sources versus the credibility of Hans Blix has no bearing on the argument that the Bush administration was not lying regarding Saddam's WMD capabilities, if the Bush administration truly believed their sources.

In the end, I am saying that you can easily get away with libel and slander as long as you are willing to commit perjury, and no one can prove that you knew you were lying. You are not allowed to commit perjury, therefore you are not allowed to use perjury to defend yourself against a libel or slander suit. I was merely trying to point out the ease with which one could commit these acts with impunity. By the way, in 1964 the Supreme Court ruled that free speech does extend to those defaming public figures as long as those committing the defamation truly believed their statements and were not acting in "reckless disregard for the truth." Today it is exceptionally difficult for anyone to be successfuly sued for libel and slander. Perhaps most everyone is dumber for having read that particular statement, but I doubt you are.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was arguing that Bush lied.

I don't blame others for not believing the Bush administration's assessment. It seems like the Bush administration and half the nations who support their continuation of hostilities with Iraq are benefiting from it. This does not lead to credibility. Especially when you are benefiting from the continuation of hostilities while the people that are supposed to be helped are dying. I don't trust the Bush administration one bit. I wish they would leave my country.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
The credibility of one's sources has no bearing on this argument. My point was, that if I believe Kitty Kelley's statements regarding Bush's former sister-in-law's confirmation of him doing cocaine at Camp David, then I am not attempting to deceive anyone by relaying this information, and am therefore not committing libel. Similarly, the credibility of the Bush administration's sources versus the credibility of Hans Blix has no bearing on the argument that the Bush administration was not lying regarding Saddam's WMD capabilities, if the Bush administration truly believed their sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I am saying that you are wrong. Here is why. Because Kitty Kelly does not have a reputation for being correct. At the same time, neither did Hans Blix. The intelligence community was at a consensus more of less, thus, to believe them would be the most rational and reasonable result. That is why so many supported the war. The reason so many opposed it should be clear by now, they were profiting from Saddam illegally.



[/ QUOTE ]
In the end, I am saying that you can easily get away with libel and slander as long as you are willing to commit perjury, and no one can prove that you knew you were lying. You are not allowed to commit perjury, therefore you are not allowed to use perjury to defend yourself against a libel or slander suit. I was merely trying to point out the ease with which one could commit these acts with impunity. By the way, in 1964 the Supreme Court ruled that free speech does extend to those defaming public figures as long as those committing the defamation truly believed their statements and were not acting in "reckless disregard for the truth." Today it is exceptionally difficult for anyone to be successfuly sued for libel and slander.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you said that (paraphrasing) "legally you carte blanche to say what you want". I clearly showed that you do not have that right. Today its not exceptionally dificult for "anyone" to be sued for libel/slander, but it IS exceptionally difficult for a public figure to sue for lible and slander.

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps most everyone is dumber for having read that particular statement, but I doubt you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I would love to go IQ for IQ against just about anyone. I am sure some people will beat me, but I am sure that I will beat the VAST majority of you.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was arguing that Bush lied.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you weren't I believe you were defending someone who was.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't blame others for not believing the Bush administration's assessment. It seems like the Bush administration and half the nations who support their continuation of hostilities with Iraq are benefiting from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Legally. As opposed to those who opposed who were benefitting illegally.

[ QUOTE ]

This does not lead to credibility. Especially when you are benefiting from the continuation of hostilities while the people that are supposed to be helped are dying.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people who were supposed to be helped with Oil for Food were being raped and murdered. While the French and Saddam rolled in the money.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't trust the Bush administration one bit. I wish they would leave my country.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. But you support an un American view. Bush and his administration support a pro American view. Move to France with the rest of the [censored].

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
Move to France with the rest of the [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

My, my, that is real mature.

And what would [censored] be? S---?

I'm staying right here in America, buddy. I like exercising my constitutional right to free speech.

[Voltorb]

The fact that you place so much emphasis on IQ as a measure of one's intelligence, and the fact that you have repeatedly shown me you haven't the slightest inkling of what point I'm trying to make, suggests to me that you are not as smart as you think you are. Your non sequitur arguments attest to this fact. For example:

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The credibility of one's sources has no bearing on this argument. My point was, that if I believe Kitty Kelley's statements regarding Bush's former sister-in-law's confirmation of him doing cocaine at Camp David, then I am not attempting to deceive anyone by relaying this information, and am therefore not committing libel. Similarly, the credibility of the Bush administration's sources versus the credibility of Hans Blix has no bearing on the argument that the Bush administration was not lying regarding Saddam's WMD capabilities, if the Bush administration truly believed their sources.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And I am saying that you are wrong. Here is why. Because Kitty Kelly does not have a reputation for being correct. At the same time, neither did Hans Blix. The intelligence community was at a consensus more of less, thus, to believe them would be the most rational and reasonable result. That is why so many supported the war. The reason so many opposed it should be clear by now, they were profiting from Saddam illegally.



[/ QUOTE ]
In my argument, I state that if I believe Kitty Kelley's statement(whether correct or not correct), then I am not committing libel. You say I am wrong because Kitty Kelley has a reputation for being not correct. Do you see why this argument is illogical? If you wanted to destroy my argument, you could've simply got out your Funk & Wagnsll's, looked up the definition of libel, and showed me that the definition you were using said nothing about intent to deceive. You could have furthur pointed out that I was incorrectly generalizing a legal definition from public figures to private citizens, and from legal definition to everyday usage. Furthermore, you could have done this after my first post, eliminating our ridiculous exchanges altogether. The fact that you lacked the motivation and/or intelligence to do just this tells me that you might be less intelligent than you think you are.

[Dead]

Anyone who says that they would like to go "IQ for IQ" against someone is certainly not as intelligent as they think they are. You can also infer this conclusion from looking at JaxMike's posts.

But that's irrelevant.

Criticizing someone's intelligence in a political argument is simply ridiculous. By doing this, Jaxmike admits that he has no cogent arguments to give us, so he resorts to petty "my cerebrum is bigger" arguments.

[jaxmike]

personally responding to an attack on my cognative capabilities. thats all. i believe that your opinions and his are ignorant, but that you are not unintelligent. clearly you can present an opinion, however misguided, and defend it.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
personally responding to an attack on my cognative capabilities. thats all. i believe that your opinions and his are ignorant, but that you are not unintelligent. clearly you can present an opinion, however misguided, and defend it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just screwed up again. Look up ignorant in the dictionary.

Or I can do it for you:
Dictionary definition of ignorant (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ignorant&x=0&y=0)

"1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence"

Calling someone's opinions ignorant is the same as calling them stupid.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing specified is the key. I believe that your views are ignorant. However, the ability to defend them clearly shows that overall you are not. Again, no contradiction.

[TransientR]

And who said I was a fan of LBJ?

Frank

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing specified is the key. I believe that your views are ignorant. However, the ability to defend them clearly shows that overall you are not. Again, no contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. I don't really want to argue about semantics anymore. I'm going to eat dinner. I guess I'll respond to the rest of your posts later.

I am glad that we are debating in a more civil manner.

-Dead