Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Bill Bennett


Henry

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Art

"If you didn't use cocaine, why not just say no, instead of not answering the question." If you want to say that, then knock yourself out.

Art, THAT is the entire jist of what I have posted. Are you saying that the New York Daily News never asked the 12 candidates? Are you saying that it's made up?

Excuse me, You got me on a technicality, I just went back an looked at my previous post, There IS NOT a quote from Bush represented that way. BUT, the fact remains, HE IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE THAT WOULDN'T ANSWER THE FREAKIN QUESTION. What does that tell you?

I can't believe that you avoid that issue entirely by calling me on a technicality... In the past, when ever I have quoted someone I have provided a link and so on, I put those words in quotes more or less to get the jist of the matter across. My Mistake, When I read your post, I wasn't even sure what you were talking about, I will be more careful in the future... But Bush is a crack head. YOUR guy won't say he's not. Bush is the MORAL choice...

:puke:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Code,

I got you on a technicality a couple of months ago when we FIRST had this conversation. Now that you've repeated your past idiocy, I've got you on more than a technicality. I've got you on a lie. You said the same thing before. You were engaged this way before. You then have said the same thing here again and when INITIALLY confronted, you said you gave gospel the quote by seeing reams of sites with it listed on Google.

Now, is it true the Times asked the question? Yes.

Do you know WHY the Times asked the question? Because a book by a felon that was pulled from the shelves in a week said Bush used drugs and they were fishing. Classic left wing bias. Creating of the news without any support. By even giving the rumor an answer Bush would have given it legitimacy. Personally, I think he was a coked out freak as a lad. But, that doesn't mean the origin of the story was worth comment. And Bush consistently said his past was his past and he regretted a number of things he did and hopes, through God, that he's found the strength to be a better person.

But, let's not ignore the root of this conversation. You can pretend you are upset by this conversation all you want, but you know that this is not the first time you've started this cr@p. You know this is a coversation we've had before. You believe Bush said what you've now repeatedly quoted him as saying. And now, realizing it doesn't exist, you want to dismiss your repeated characterizations as a technical knockout. Sorry there Code, but, it was that the first time. A couple of months ago when we had this conversation it was, possibly, a technicality. Now, it's willful deception. And you know it. Your act is cute, but, this exposes a lot of it for what it is.

However, Code, let me just ask you for the board's consumption, when did you stop beating your wife? No answer you can give to this question can completely answer it. My recommendation is you simply dismiss it as the insane question it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Art, you are wrong, plain and simple. When I brought this up in the past AND this time, I did not realize exactly what you were asking me. You, ESPECIALLY You know that I use " " in my posts alot and for nonconventional means. We've been over that before too. The SECOND I realized what you were taking about, I corrected it and rephrased my "question" in the correct manner. What more do you want? For you to say that I am lying on purpose is Bu!!$hit and you know it.

AND that does not change the jist of my post one bit.

And to answer your question: Code, let me just ask you for the board's consumption, when did you stop beating your wife?

I have never beat my wife. Boy, that was an easy question to answer. Your point is........ well, you have no point. Every account of the 12 candidates that I have read said 12 candidates were asked if they had ever used illegal drugs? What kind of a trick question is that? Your question to me was obviously slanted, but even then could be answered correctly. The question "in question" is a simple yes or no question that is simple.

Why didn't Bush just say "no, I've never used crack or any other illegal drugs?"... because if he said that and proof came out other wise, he would be screwed AND if he answered YES, the MORAL right would crucify him as well. I'm no Sherlock Holmes but that's simple enough. Me on the other hand, I have no reservations saying that I have never used an illegal drug, because I know there is nothing that could ever come up to prove other wise and I would submit to any test at any time to prove my self.

Simple enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Art, you've satisfied me that Bush probably never gave the 7 years quote. Code has proven that Bush has repeatedly been evasive and refused to answer the question outright. You of course are free to draw your own conclusions from that - personally, I think there's only one conclusion an honest person can draw. But to each his own there.

But I can't understand your "beating your wife" question. Code completely hung you out to dry there. Because, as he showed, and as the 11 other candidates showed, and as GWB showed in reverse, if you are completely clean on that question it is the simplest thing in the world to dispatch it with ease.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe ole Dubya didn't exactly say seven years but whatever exactly he said sure made a lot of people think he implied it.

THURSDAY'S COCAINE "CLARIFICATION" BY BUSH AND SPINNER IS JUST MORE WAFFLE-TALK.

According to an AP report today, Bush held another press conference and said that "he could have passed stringent background checks for illegal drug use when his father was president, from 1989-1993." ASSUMING Bush meant that he would have taken the background check in January of 1989, that would mean that he's saying he hasn't used cocaine in 11 years, since he said yesterday that he hasn't used cocaine in the last seven years. However, Bush added, "Not only could I have passed in today's White House, I could have passed the standards applied under the most stringent conditions when my dad was president, a 15-year period." Of course, Poppy was only President for 4 years, and 7 and 4 equal 11, not 15. " Since "the Bush White House asked staff members if they had used any illegal drugs in the last 15 years," reporters may have ASSUMED that Bush meant those 15 years, but that's not what he said. ASSUMING Bush meant that he could have passed the 15-year drug test at the beginning of his father's presidency, that would make the total non-coke time 26 years, which is how a Bush spinner seems to have interpreted Dubya's statement: "Bush spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said the Republican presidential front-runner was saying that he has not used illegal drugs at any time since 1974, when the 53-year-old Bush was 28." However, "Asked if Bush could have met the standard when his father was vice president, from 1981-1989, Tucker said, 'My understanding is he was answering questions regarding when his dad was president, not vice president,' leaving the actual non-coke span up in the air. What we're left with, then, is that we're sure Bush has not answered the question about cocaine use, one way or the other, prior to his 29th birthday. From age 29 on, we're in need of some clarification from Bush, not a spinner. A statement like "I didn't use hard drugs after age 29" would suffice. Until then, we're mired in waffle-talk. One way or the other, the question that has been asked for months remains unanswered, did Bush use hard drugs at any time in his life? Politex, 8/19/99

Here are some links:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/082199wh-gop-bush.html

http://slate.msn.com/id/33709/

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=67

http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/stories/082499/new_bushcrit.html

http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/dowd/082299dowd.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimbo,

I think I've stated clearly what I think of Bush's past. Did you miss it?

The wife-beater question is a simple "how do you disprove such a thing once it's asked." The Times went fishing with a felon's word in a book that was burned after being pulled from the shelves. The wife-beater question, once out there, now has life. Code has addressed it. Simply put, all I have to do is say, "The rumors persist about Code's brutality toward his wife despite his denials."

The difference is Code is a guy who may have the benefit of trust from much of the public. Of the 11 guys who did answer the question, my guess is 5 have done cocaine or crack or PCP or pot or whatever other type of drug you want to insert.

The key is very simple. The media had no evidence to ask the question. There was no one on record. They had no source. Yet they decided to ask the question knowing Bush's policy was not to speak about the activities of his past and knowing of the book that made these allegations.

Bush could have denied it, but to what end? The story was already being pursued without any evidence. It was a boondoggle in the first place. Bush's policy regarding his past was to acknowledge it was often irresponsible and that he made mistakes without comment on any of them specifically. My guess is that was a decision made because he'd made enough errors that he needed a coverall answer because he wasn't going to say yes to each thing and have that story in his words told over and over.

What conclusions you can draw from this campaign policy are reasonable to most any end. What's NOT reasonable is to continually say Bush was attributed a quote you KNOW isn't true. Code now says he does this sometimes without meaning it. But, in the posts he wrote before on this topic it was clear he was citing Bush saying he hadn't done cocaine in a certain time frame.

And here's the rub. Bush never said that and Code has faithfully parroted this false quote as something real. Imagine what he'd be doing today with actual quotes to go on. Nothing Bush was going to say mattered. But, let me offer this as a guess. Bush, as a lad, sold coke and other drugs. Probably to his friends and the like. Maybe he used it. Maybe he didn't. What he wasn't going to do is get into what the definition of use is.

In any case, it's meaningless. The media has no business asking questions in which they have NO sources available to build the questions from. Knowing this the Times sent out a generic form knowing Bush doesn't answer those questions and used his unwillingness to answer to keep asking. While I have long believed Bush was probably a drug user, I think whether he was or wasn't, he was right the way he handled it.

But, I think that from a personal position. I've never done drugs of any sort. I'm also not a convicted felon. And when people, or employers, ask those questions, I don't answer. It's not because I did anything wrong. It's because they don't deserve an answer to questions asked of that nature without a basis for asking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack,

Please demonstrate in the links provided the quotes Bush made that support even the implication you reference. Now, these quotes do exist. But, since I didn't see any such in the first link, my guess is you are trying to win by simply putting up links that don't actually support your position.

Please find the quotes actually uttered by Bush that give any sort of time frame. Unlike Code, you'll be successful, perhaps, if you look carefully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Art......

"According to an AP report today, Bush held another press conference and said that "he could have passed stringent background checks for illegal drug use when his father was president, from 1989-1993."

What part of that don't you understand?

They have in quotes that Bush said this based on an AP report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"But, I think that from a personal position. I've never done drugs of any sort. I'm also not a convicted felon. And when people, or employers, ask those questions, I don't answer. It's not because I did anything wrong. It's because they don't deserve an answer to questions asked of that nature without a basis for asking."

1. I don't believe that you refuse to answer.

2. You obviously work in the private sector because If I didn't answer, I wouldn't have a job. I am subject to random drug tests at any given time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Code, are you telling me that Bush said that "he" could have done anything. You mean he spoke on a podium and said HE? Not I?

For the record, since you boys are going to go nuts on me, here's the actual Bush seven year quote.

The Texas paper asked Bush whether he would insist that appointees in a future Bush administration answer questions about drug use that are part of the normal FBI background check.

"As I understand it, the current form asks the question, 'Did somebody use drugs within the last seven years?' and I will be glad to answer that question, and the answer is, 'No.' " Bush said.

Look here for the full story.

The question was asked how he would answer the federal background check question which asks if the person has used illegal drugs in seven years. He said no. He added he would have answered no to the same question when his father was the President as well.

The bottom line is, not a single link by Jack has this quote. Not one. Not a single link either of you have provided actually has the quote by Bush that times the statement, or puts it in context. I understand Jack is a liberal who'll swallow up what they are feeding, but, Code, you pretend you're not. And now this type of thing has to happen to you. Sad my friend. Sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by codeorama

"But, I think that from a personal position. I've never done drugs of any sort. I'm also not a convicted felon. And when people, or employers, ask those questions, I don't answer. It's not because I did anything wrong. It's because they don't deserve an answer to questions asked of that nature without a basis for asking."

1. I don't believe that you refuse to answer.

2. You obviously work in the private sector because If I didn't answer, I wouldn't have a job. I am subject to random drug tests at any given time.

Code,

I don't believe you've never beaten your wife. I think you have. I don't care what you think about me anymore than I assume you care about my belief of you. I've not answered, and will never answer that type of question. You're right though. I do work in the private sector, and, I'd submit to random drug tests anytime they want. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://slate.msn.com/id/33709/

"4. What's wrong with his answers? Journalists who admit to judging Bush's answers generally accuse him of "shifting," "backpedaling," "altering," and "reversing." And what exactly did he reverse? He "reversed his stance of not going beyond acknowledging youthful 'mistakes,' " complained the Times' Maureen Dowd. "First it was seven years, then it was 15 years, then it was 25 years." The complaint is not that Bush reversed his story--there is no contradiction in being drug-free for seven, 15, and 25 years--but that he reversed his spin, obliging his advisers to "defend the change of strategy." Why concede a politician's substantive consistency, when you can attack his tactical vacillation?"

The author is actually stinking up for W here, but he does bring up the seven year business.

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=67

"Over the past week, controversy has escalated over Bush's persistent sidestepping of the "did-he-or-didn't-he?" question about alleged cocaine use. While first refusing to answer the question, Bush later claimed he hadn't used any illegal drugs in seven, then 15, then 25 years. "

Ditto

http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/stories/082499/new_bushcrit.html

"What concerns them most is that, at a time when every other Republican candidate has answered the question of past drug use with a definitive no, Bush spent much of last week revising his coy responses -- no drugs for the last seven years, then 25 years -- before refusing to say anything more. And that sounded like a certain candidate in 1992 who at first declared that he had never broken the drug laws of his own country, before conceding that, yes, he had sampled marijuana -- without inhaling -- in a different country."

more of the same.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/dowd/082299dowd.html

"His reaction to the kerfuffle shows that he is still green in many ways. He clumsily reversed his stance of not going beyond acknowledging youthful "mistakes," boxing himself in by defining time periods when he did not do illegal drugs. The coyness was unbearable. First it was seven years, then it was 15 years, then it was 25 years. He grew ever more ill at ease and peeved. "

and again.

Art,

The first link is where I got the body of my earliar post. I've provided the pieces from each other link I think pertain to the question at hand.

The point I'm making is that he may not have actually said "not in seven years" but he did clearly make statements that implied to a lot of people he hadn't done it in a certain number of years.

If I was a betting man (note my attempt to get back to Slick Willy Bennett!) I would say that W has done coke. So what, you ask? Personally I don't care. But you and I both know it's pretty likely the man did coke!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Art, the article YOU posted clearly says :

Bush's answer to a Dallas Morning News reporter marked the first time the Republican presidential candidate has responded to a question about drug use. He had vigorously declined to do so, saying he would not play the "Washington game" of responding to rumors.

The entire jist of ALL of my posts has been that he didn't answer a simple question that is important to a bunch of people. Forget about semantics, I have already admitted that I put my posts together hastily and "should" have done a better job.

Again, I will totally agree with you that what I first posted didn't "come out" right. The bottom line is, my links have shown, your links have shown and Jack's links have shown that Bush wouldn't answer the question. The rest is moot.

I understand the "not playing the Washington Game of responding to rumors" part totally, but lets face it, if my boss or your boss comes in and says: "Art, I have reason to believe that you may have used drugs, have you?" Don't tell me that you you are going to say "I refuse to answer". That's BS and you know it. Just like when Bush says that, It's BS, the people are his boss and the people have a right to know the answer if that was asked of him.

I don't care that a book was written about a rumor, it's besides the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Jack, when I asked you for his quote, you couldn't provide it, is that the gist of what you're saying?

Instead you provided what someone else said? Is this supposed to move me?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Art

So, Jack, when I asked you for his quote, you couldn't provide it, is that the gist of what you're saying?

Instead you provided what someone else said? Is this supposed to move me?

What quote are you talking about my friend? I never said W said or didn't say anything. I said a whole lot of people sure thought he either said it or implied it. I believe I provided ample support of my ascertain.

As for moving you? I believe that is impossible. You are one stubborn person.

BTW Code provided a quote where the seven year thing came from didn't he?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Code didn't. Code provided me a quote out of an AP article. Only I have provided an actual quote by Bush. I asked you to provide me the actual Bush quotes that allowed the paraphrased statement that HE said he hadn't done drugs in seven years. I recognize you said he hasn't said it. I'm just making sure you've got it completely out there.

Bush never said it. All these articles contain not a single Bush directly quoted nugget. Guess where I'm going with this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack,

My motives are simple. Simply showing you just how completely daft anyone is who says Bush said he hadn't used drugs in seven years actually is. What Bush said was if presented with the question on a government form he'd answer no to it. And, he would have answered no to it for at least as long as his father was in the White House.

And that all of the articles you cite that say Bush said he changed his story, the ACTUAL quote, in context, in fact shows he never did. You now have the quote by Bush. Enjoy it. I hope to be available to educate you for many moons :).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Art,

Are we to believe that you read through every Bush speech and quote during the election or even the couple of weeks that this G W Bush faced this issue? The fact that you isolated one quote does not mean that he did in fact say or not say anything. To prove this, you would have to include the totality of every word he ever uttered on the subject or at least those copied in second source forms since I doubt any of us really have unlimited access to the tapes, and unedited sound. Moreover, to prove he never lied you'd have to be able to prove that he never uttered anything contradictory in a social or private situation. That is quite impossible since you lack the power to subpoena all the players.

The argument that the government has more information which they do not release for safety issues was used by those who were pro-war. I would suggest that some of these reporters who have considerable access to the President or back then the nominee may have heard more or knew more and thus their implications may have weight. Then again, it might not. And on my third hand, all of their writings could be part of an insidious liberal agenda posited by a united liberal media determined to thwart George W. Bush.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Burgold,

I seriously hope you are kidding.

But, in general, the quote you see there is THE quote the seven year comment came from. The AP saw that quote and asked him if he could answer the same way when his father was President. He said he could.

From these comments, both made on the same day, you've seen the multitude of liberal spin that came from them. It's just astounding to continue to see you people simply not say, "Sheesh, that's pretty bad." Instead you are going out of your way to prop up this media-created idiocy. Look at Code as an example. I confront him on his seven-year quote. He supports his position. I then hammer him, and he realizes there is no quote he can find, so he comes off his position and says that each time he's used that quote it's just hypothetical and not really something Bush said.

Then, Jack comes in and provides FIVE FULL LINKS that have NOT ONE QUOTE on the issue from Bush as support that people were led to believe something from the way he spoke, and Code, feeling the tide turning, says, "There are your quotes." Meaning, Code really wants to believe they are true. Then after seeing the actual quote in the original form, Code retreats back to how he never meant it was an actual quote he was using. Sad.

The ONLY person here who's actually bothered to provide what Bush said in the first article it appeared in was me. This was on Day 2 of the questions being asked of him. The first day he declined to answer saying the past was the past. The second day someone asked him if he would council his appointees to answer the federal background check question, which asks, whether the applicant or appointee has used drugs in the past seven years.

Bush answered, sure, if the form reads that way, as described in the question, he'd happily answer no to it. The AP then saw this and asked him if he could have answered the same background question the same way when his father was President and he said sure.

In fact, I'm the ONLY one here who's actually using Bush's words. Each other person here is using paraphrased media fiction. You have the gall to suggest to me that I am responsible for knowing each word Bush spoke during this time period? Burgold, if you think Bush said what the media created, then show it. It's up to you. I have shown the actual quote. When any of you guys actually shows the FIRST Bush quote it'll appear you may be educating yourself.

Until then, you're making a mockery of yourself by not taking the responsibility upon yourself to support your position. The lengths the left will go is amazing. Now, in order to disprove the fiction you believe I have to give you each spoken word by Bush both in public or private?

How about you just point to ONE person who has said Bush used drugs. An actual person and an actual quote from a person who was there? How about you support your misbegotten belief rather than embarrassing yourself by setting a burden of evidence to disprove fiction that can't be met.

But, given your stance, I must say, it can't be proven that Frodo isn't still alive. I mean really alive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Art,

The guy used coke and you know it. That's the point. All the rest of this is a GOP spin to change the topic. I sometimes wonder if I will ever be able to show you the light.

Oh well I will try again another day! :)

HTTR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack,

Neither you, nor I, know that Bush used cocaine. I suspect that may be true. You may suspect that to be true. But, given the fact that not only do WE not know this, but NO ONE IN THE WORLD is on the record as saying THEY know this, the spin here isn't coming from me. Clearly the spin is coming from people who have no basis for believing as they do, and yet demand a person answer charges they've decided to make that have no support to have been made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Art,

I don't have a reason to spin this one because I don't care if he used coke in the past or not. I will continue to oppose him for reasons unrelated to coke. I believe his policies are bad for America.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...