PDA

View Full Version : Doug Wead: George W. Bush smoked weed


Michael Michigan
02-19-2005, 06:48 PM
The secret George W. Bush tapes revealed
Former evangelical adviser covertly recorded conversations

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42946

Posted: February 19, 2005
6:05 p.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Is it the revenge of Doug Wead? Or is it the self-immolation of Doug Wead.

Wead was an influential evangelical adviser to President George H.W. Bush until 1990 when he got the unceremonious heave-ho from Andrew Card, who told him to leave "sooner rather than later" for sending conservatives a letter faulting the White House for inviting homosexual activists to an event.

Beginning two years before George W. Bush took over the White House in 2000, Wead consulted with the candidate on ways he could attract evangelical voters. Wead secretly recorded those sessions and has now played some of them for the New York Times, which will publish an in-depth, front-page report in Sunday's editions.

In the tapes, Bush is prickly toward Sen. John McCain, a rival for the Republican nomination in 2000. He is very high on Sen. John Ashcroft, another rival who the future president suggests would make a good Supreme Court justice or even a vice president.

Bush also appears to acknowledge marijuana use in his youth.

But many are wondering what Wead was doing then and why he is releasing the tapes now.

Wead said he recorded the conversations because he viewed Bush as a historic figure. But he also acknowledges to the Times that the president might regard his actions as a betrayal.

"As the author of a new book about presidential childhoods, Mr. Wead could benefit from any publicity, but he said that was not a motive in disclosing the tapes," reports the Times.

In the transcripts included in the Times report, Bush appears clumsy about meeting with evangelical leaders back in 1998.

"As you said, there are some code words," said Bush. "There are some proper ways to say things, and some improper ways. I am going to say that I've accepted Christ into my life. And that's a true statement."

Bush does not appear entirely comfortable about these meetings largely because he did not share their political agenda.

He worried, for instance, that prominent Christian leaders would not like his refusal "to kick gays."

"At the same time, he was wary of unnerving secular voters by meeting publicly with evangelical leaders," reports the Times. "When he thought his aides had agreed to such a meeting, Mr. Bush complained to Karl Rove, his political strategist, 'What the hell is this about?'"

There appears to be no love lost between Bush and another Republican rival for the presidency in 2000 – Steve Forbes.

On the tapes, Bush threatens that if Forbes attacks him too hard during the campaign and wins, both Bush, then the Texas governor, and his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, would withhold their support.

"He can forget Texas," said Bush. "And he can forget Florida. And I will sit on my hands."

Wead first acknowledged the tapes to a reporter in December to defend the accuracy of a passage about Bush in his new book, "The Raising of a President." He claims he made the tapes in states where it was legal to do so with only one party's knowledge.

"I believe that, like him or not, he is going to be a huge historical figure," Wead told the Times. "If I was on the telephone with Churchill or Gandhi, I would tape record them too."

There's a boastful side of Bush evident in the tapes. In 1998, he was running for re-election as Texas governor. On the even of hi re-election in November, he tells Wead: "I believe tomorrow is going to change Texas politics forever," he told Mr. Wead. "The top three offices right below me will be the first time there has been a Republican in that slot since the Civil War. Isn't that amazing? And I hate to be a braggart, but they are going to win for one reason: me."

But Bush said he wouldn't be corrupted by power because, "I have got a great wife. And I read the Bible daily. The Bible is pretty good about keeping your ego in check."

Michael Michigan
02-19-2005, 07:16 PM
NY Times:

February 20, 2005
In Secretly Taped Conversations, Glimpses of the Future President
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/politics/20talk.html?ei=5065&en=3d3a7b4f99465096&ex=1109480400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&position=

As George W. Bush was first moving onto the national political stage, he often turned for advice to an old friend who secretly taped some of their private conversations, creating a rare record of the future president as a politician and a personality.

In the last several weeks, that friend, Doug Wead, an author and former aide to Mr. Bush's father, disclosed the tapes' existence to a reporter and played about a dozen of them.

Variously earnest, confident or prickly in those conversations, Mr. Bush weighs the political risks and benefits of his religious faith, discusses campaign strategy and comments on rivals. John McCain "will wear thin," he predicted. John Ashcroft, he confided, would be a "very good Supreme Court pick" or a "fabulous" vice president. And in exchanges about his handling of media questions about his past, Mr. Bush appears to have acknowledged trying marijuana.

Mr. Wead said he recorded the conversations because he viewed Mr. Bush as a historic figure, but he said he knew that the president might regard his actions as a betrayal. As the author of a new book about presidential childhoods, Mr. Wead could benefit from any publicity, but he said that was not a motive in disclosing the tapes.

The White House did not dispute the authenticity of the tapes or respond to their contents. Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said, "The governor was having casual conversations with someone he believed was his friend." Asked about drug use, Mr. Duffy said, "That has been asked and answered so many times there is nothing more to add."

The conversations Mr. Wead played offer insights into Mr. Bush's thinking from the time he was weighing a run for president in 1998 to shortly before he accepted the Republican nomination in 2000. Mr. Wead had been a liaison to evangelical Protestants for the president's father, and the intersection of religion and politics is a recurring theme in the talks.

Preparing to meet Christian leaders in September 1998, Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead: "As you said, there are some code words. There are some proper ways to say things, and some improper ways." He added, "I am going to say that I've accepted Christ into my life. And that's a true statement."

But Mr. Bush also repeatedly worried that prominent evangelical Christians would not like his refusal "to kick gays." At the same time, he was wary of unnerving secular voters by meeting publicly with evangelical leaders. When he thought his aides had agreed to such a meeting, Mr. Bush complained to Karl Rove, his political strategist, "What the hell is this about?"

Mr. Bush, who has acknowledged a drinking problem years ago, told Mr. Wead on the tapes that he could withstand scrutiny of his past. He said it involved nothing more than "just, you know, wild behavior." He worried, though, that allegations of cocaine use would surface in the campaign, and he blamed his opponents for stirring rumors. "If nobody shows up, there's no story," he told Mr. Wead, "and if somebody shows up, it is going to be made up." But when Mr. Wead said that Mr. Bush had in the past publicly denied using cocaine, Mr. Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything."

He refused to answer reporters' questions about his past behavior, he said, even though it might cost him the election. Defending his approach, Mr. Bush said: "I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."

He mocked Vice President Al Gore for acknowledging marijuana use. "Baby boomers have got to grow up and say, yeah, I may have done drugs, but instead of admitting it, say to kids, don't do them," he said.

Mr. Bush threatened that if his rival Steve Forbes attacked him too hard during the campaign and won, both Mr. Bush, then the Texas governor, and his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, would withhold their support. "He can forget Texas. And he can forget Florida. And I will sit on my hands," Mr. Bush said.

The private Mr. Bush sounds remarkably similar in many ways to the public President Bush. Many of the taped comments foreshadow aspects of his presidency, including his opposition to both antigay language and recognizing same-sex marriage, his skepticism about the United Nations, his sense of moral purpose and his focus on cultivating conservative Christian voters.

Mr. Wead said he withheld many tapes of conversations that were repetitive or of a purely personal nature. The dozen conversations he agreed to play ranged in length from five minutes to nearly half an hour. In them, the future president affectionately addresses Mr. Wead as "Weadie" or "Weadnik," asks if his children still believe in Santa Claus, and chides him for skipping a doctor's appointment. Mr. Bush also regularly gripes about the barbs of the press and his rivals. And he is cocky at times. "It's me versus the world," he told Mr. Wead. "The good news is, the world is on my side. Or more than half of it."

Other presidents, like Richard M. Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson, secretly recorded conversations from the White House without the knowledge of others. Some former associates of President Bill Clinton taped personal conversations in apparent efforts to embarrass or entrap him. But Mr. Wead's recordings are a rare example of a future president taped at length without his knowledge talking about matters of public interest like his political strategy and priorities.

Mr. Wead first acknowledged the tapes to a reporter in December to defend the accuracy of a passage about Mr. Bush in his new book, "The Raising of a President." He did not mention the tapes in the book or footnotes, saying he drew on them for only one page of the book. He said he never sought to sell or profit from them. He said he made the tapes in states where it was legal to do so with only one party's knowledge.

Mr. Wead eventually agreed to play a dozen tapes on the condition that the names of any private citizens be withheld. The New York Times hired Tom Owen, an expert on audio authentication, to examine samples from the tapes. He concluded the voice was that of the president.

A White House adviser to the first President Bush, Mr. Wead said in an interview in The Washington Post in 1990 that Andrew H. Card Jr., then deputy chief of staff, told him to leave the administration "sooner rather than later" after he sent conservatives a letter faulting the White House for inviting gay activists to an event. But Mr. Wead said he had no personal objection to the invitations and had left on good terms. He never had a formal role in the current president's campaign, though the tapes suggest he had angled for one.

Mr. Wead said he admired George W. Bush and stayed in touch with some members of his family. While he said he had not communicated with the president since early in his first term, he attributed that to Mr. Bush's busy schedule.

Mr. Wead said he recorded his conversations with the president in part because he thought he might be asked to write a book for the campaign. He also wanted a clear account of any requests Mr. Bush made of him. But he said his main motivation in making the tapes, which he originally intended to be released only after his own death, was to leave the nation a unique record of Mr. Bush.

"I believe that, like him or not, he is going to be a huge historical figure," Mr. Wead said. "If I was on the telephone with Churchill or Gandhi, I would tape record them, too."

Summer of 1998

The first of the taped conversations Mr. Wead disclosed took place in the summer of 1998, when Mr. Bush was running for his second term as Texas governor. At the time, Mr. Bush was considered a political moderate who worked well with Democrats and was widely admired by Texans of both parties. His family name made him a strong presidential contender, but he had not yet committed to run.

Still, in a conversation that November on the eve of Mr. Bush's re-election, his confidence was soaring. "I believe tomorrow is going to change Texas politics forever," he told Mr. Wead. "The top three offices right below me will be the first time there has been a Republican in that slot since the Civil War. Isn't that amazing? And I hate to be a braggart, but they are going to win for one reason: me."

Talking to Mr. Wead, a former Assemblies of God minister who was well connected in conservative evangelical circles, Mr. Bush's biggest concern about the Republican presidential primary was shoring up his right flank. Mr. Forbes was working hard to win the support of conservative Christians by emphasizing his opposition to abortion. "I view him as a problem, don't you?" Mr. Bush asked.

Mr. Bush knew that his own religious faith could be an asset with conservative Christian voters, and his personal devotion was often evident in the taped conversations. When Mr. Wead warned him that "power corrupts," for example, Mr. Bush told him not to worry: "I have got a great wife. And I read the Bible daily. The Bible is pretty good about keeping your ego in check."

In November 1999, he told his friend that he had been deeply moved by a memorial service for students who died in an accident when constructing a Thanksgiving weekend bonfire at Texas A & M University, especially by the prayers by friends of the students.

In another conversation, he described a "powerful moment" visiting the site of the Sermon on the Mount in Israel with a group of state governors, where he read "Amazing Grace" aloud. "I look forward to sharing this at some point in time," he told Mr. Wead about the event.

Preparing to meet with influential Christian conservatives, Mr. Bush tested his lines with Mr. Wead. "I'm going to tell them the five turning points in my life," he said. "Accepting Christ. Marrying my wife. Having children. Running for governor. And listening to my mother."

In September 1998, Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead that he was getting ready for his first meeting with James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, an evangelical self-help group. Dr. Dobson, probably the most influential evangelical conservative, wanted to examine the candidate's Christian credentials.

"He said he would like to meet me, you know, he had heard some nice things, you know, well, 'I don't know if he is a true believer' kind of attitude," Mr. Bush said.

Mr. Bush said he intended to reassure Dr. Dobson of his opposition to abortion. Mr. Bush said he was concerned about rumors that Dr. Dobson had been telling others that the "Bushes weren't going to be involved in abortion," meaning that the Bush family preferred to avoid the issue rather than fight over it.

"I just don't believe I said that. Why would I have said that?" Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead with annoyance.

By the end of the primary, Mr. Bush alluded to Dr. Dobson's strong views on abortion again, apparently ruling out potential vice presidents including Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania and Gen. Colin L. Powell, who favored abortion rights. Picking any of them could turn conservative Christians away from the ticket, Mr. Bush said.

"They are not going to like it anyway, boy," Mr. Bush said. "Dobson made it clear."

Signs of Concern

Early on, though, Mr. Bush appeared most worried that Christian conservatives would object to his determination not to criticize gays. "I think he wants me to attack homosexuals," Mr. Bush said after meeting James Robison, a prominent evangelical minister in Texas.

But Mr. Bush said he did not intend to change his position. He said he told Mr. Robison: "Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?"

Later, he read aloud an aide's report from a convention of the Christian Coalition, a conservative political group: "This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It's hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however."

"This is an issue I have been trying to downplay," Mr. Bush said. "I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays."

Told that one conservative supporter was saying Mr. Bush had pledged not to hire gays, Mr. Bush said sharply: "No, what I said was, I wouldn't fire gays."

As early as 1998, however, Mr. Bush had already identified one gay-rights issue where he found common ground with conservative Christians: same-sex marriage. "Gay marriage, I am against that. Special rights, I am against that," Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead, five years before a Massachusetts court brought the issue to national attention.

Mr. Bush took stock of conservative Christian views of foreign policy as well. Reading more of the report from the Christian Coalition meeting, Mr. Bush said to Mr. Wead: "Sovereignty. The issue is huge. The mere mention of Kofi Annan in the U.N. caused the crowd to go into a veritable fit. The coalition wants America strong and wants the American flag flying overseas, not the pale blue of the U.N."

As eager as Mr. Bush was to cultivate the support of Christian conservatives, he did not want to do it too publicly for fear of driving away more secular voters. When Mr. Wead warned Mr. Bush to avoid big meetings with evangelical leaders, Mr. Bush said, "I'm just going to have one," and, "This is not meant to be public."

Past Behavior

Many of the taped conversations revolve around Mr. Bush's handling of questions about his past behavior. In August 1998, he worried that the scandals of the Clinton administration had sharpened journalists' determination to investigate the private lives of candidates. He even expressed a hint of sympathy for his Democratic predecessor.

"I don't like it either," Mr. Bush said of the Clinton investigations. "But on the other hand, I think he has disgraced the nation."

When Mr. Wead warned that he had heard reporters talking about Mr. Bush's "immature" past, Mr. Bush said, "That's part of my shtick, which is, look, we have all made mistakes."

He said he learned "a couple of really good lines" from Mr. Robison, the Texas pastor: "What you need to say time and time again is not talk about the details of your transgressions but talk about what I have learned. I've sinned and I've learned."

"I said, 'James' - he stopped - I said, 'I did some things when I was young that were immature,' " Mr. Bush said. "He said, 'But have you learned?' I said, 'James, that's the difference between me and the president. I've learned. I am prepared to accept the responsibility of this office.' "By the summer of 1999, Mr. Bush was telling Mr. Wead his approach to such prying questions had evolved. "I think it is time for somebody to just draw the line and look people in the eye and say, I am not going to participate in ugly rumors about me, and blame my opponents, and hold the line, and stand up for a system that will not allow this kind of crap to go on."

Later, however, Mr. Bush worried that his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used illegal drugs in the past could prove costly, but he held out nonetheless. "I am just not going to answer those questions. And it might cost me the election," he told Mr. Wead.

He complained repeatedly about the press scrutiny, accusing the news media of a "campaign" against him. While he talked of certain reporters as "pro-Bush" and commented favorably on some publications (U.S. News & World Report is "halfway decent," but Time magazine is "awful"), he vented frequently to Mr. Wead about what he considered the liberal bias and invasiveness of the news media in general.

"It's unbelievable," Mr. Bush said, reciting various rumors about his past that his aides had picked up from reporters. "They just float sewer out there."

Mr. Bush bristled at even an implicit aspersion on his past behavior from Dan Quayle, the former vice president and a rival candidate.

"He's gone ugly on me, man," Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead. Mr. Bush quoted Mr. Quayle as saying, "I'm proud of what I did before 40."

"As if I am not!" Mr. Bush said.

Sizing Up Opponents

During the primary contest, Mr. Bush often sized up his dozen Republican rivals, assessing their appeal to conservative Christian voters, their treatment of him and their prospects of serving in a future Bush administration. He paid particular attention to Senator Ashcroft. "I like Ashcroft a lot," he told Mr. Wead in November 1998. "He is a competent man. He would be a good Supreme Court pick. He would be a good attorney general. He would be a good vice president."

When Mr. Wead predicted an uproar if Mr. Ashcroft were appointed to the court because of his conservative religious views, Mr. Bush replied, "Well, tough."

While Mr. Bush thought the conservative Christian candidates Gary L. Bauer and Alan Keyes would probably scare away moderates, he saw Mr. Ashcroft as an ally because he would draw evangelical voters into the race.

"I want Ashcroft to stay in there, and I want him to be very strong," Mr. Bush said. "I would love it to be a Bush-Ashcroft race. Only because I respect him. He wouldn't say ugly things about me. And I damn sure wouldn't say ugly things about him."

But Mr. Bush was sharply critical of Mr. Forbes, another son of privilege with a famous last name. Evangelicals were not going to like him, Mr. Bush said. "He's too preppy," Mr. Bush said, calling Mr. Forbes "mean spirited."

Recalling the bruising primary fight Mr. Forbes waged against Bob Dole in 1996, Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead: "Steve Forbes is going to hear this message from me. I will do nothing for him if he does to me what he did to Dole. Period. There is going to be a consequence. He is not dealing with the average, you know, 'Oh gosh, let's all get together after it's over.' I will promise you, I will not help him. I don't care."

Another time, Mr. Bush discussed offering Mr. Forbes a job as economic adviser or even secretary of commerce, if Mr. Forbes would approach him first.

Mr. Bush's political predictions were not always on the mark. Before the New Hampshire primary, Mr. Bush all but dismissed Senator John McCain, who turned out to be his strongest challenger.

"He's going to wear very thin when it is all said and done," he said.

When Mr. Wead suggested in June 2000 that Mr. McCain's popularity with Democrats and moderate voters might make him a strong vice presidential candidate, Mr. Bush almost laughed. "Oh, come on!" He added, "I don't know if he helps us win."

Mr. Bush could hardly contain his disdain for Mr. Gore, his Democratic opponent, at one point calling him "pathologically a liar."

His confidence in the moral purpose of his campaign to usher in "a responsibility era" never wavered, but he acknowledged that winning might require hard jabs. "I may have to get a little rough for a while," he told Mr. Wead, "but that is what the old man had to do with Dukakis, remember?"

For his part, Mr. Wead said what was most resonant about the conversations with Mr. Bush was his concern that his past behavior might come back to haunt him. Mr. Wead said he used the tapes for his book because Mr. Bush's life so clearly fit his thesis: that presidents often grow up overshadowed by another sibling.

"What I saw in George W. Bush is that he purposefully put himself in the shadows by his irresponsible behavior as a young person," Mr. Wead said. That enabled him to come into his own outside the glare of his parents' expectations, Mr. Wead said.

Why disclose the tapes? "I just felt that the historical point I was making trumped a personal relationship," Mr. Wead said. Asked about consequences, Mr. Wead said, "I'll always be friendly toward him."

2bikemike
02-19-2005, 07:19 PM
But did he inhale?

DanT
02-19-2005, 07:40 PM
The U.S. Conference of Bishops has a version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church online. The page for the 8th commandment is very interesting to me. Here are some of the entries that I believe shed light on the impropriety of publicly disseminating information gained from the tape-recording of a person without that person's consent:

(I won't post the entire page because the offenses against proper witnessing to the truth that regularly occur on this bulletin board are such that posting the entire page might cause some sort of explosion. ;) )

http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art8.htm

2468
Truth as uprightness in human action and speech is called truthfulness, sincerity, or candor. Truth or truthfulness is the virtue which consists in showing oneself true in deeds and truthful in words, and in guarding against duplicity, dissimulation, and hypocrisy.


2469
"Men could not live with one another if there were not mutual confidence that they were being truthful to one another."263 The virtue of truth gives another his just due. Truthfulness keeps to the just mean between what ought to be expressed and what ought to be kept secret: it entails honesty and discretion. In justice, "as a matter of honor, one man owes it to another to manifest the truth."264

2477
Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:


of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;


of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279




of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.


2478
To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:


Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

2479
Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

2488
The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.


2489
Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet LANGUAGE. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.283



2491
Professional secrets—for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers—or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.


2492
Everyone should observe an appropriate reserve concerning persons' private lives. Those in charge of communications should maintain a fair balance between the requirements of the common good and respect for individual rights. Interference by the media in the private lives of persons engaged in political or public activity is to be condemned to the extent that it infringes upon their privacy and freedom.

2493
Within modern society the communications media play a major role in information, cultural promotion, and formation. This role is increasing, as a result of technological progress, the extent and diversity of the news transmitted, and the influence exercised on public opinion.


2494
The information provided by the media is at the service of the common good.285 Society has a right to information based on truth, freedom, justice, and solidarity:


The proper exercise of this right demands that the content of the communication be true and—within the limits set by justice and charity—complete. Further, it should be communicated honestly and properly. This means that in the gathering and in the publication of news, the moral law and the legitimate rights and dignity of man should be upheld.286

2495
"It is necessary that all members of society meet the demands of justice and charity in this domain. They should help, through the means of social communication, in the formation and diffusion of sound public opinion."287 Solidarity is a consequence of genuine and right communication and the free circulation of ideas that further knowledge and respect for others.


2496
The means of social communication (especially the mass media) can give rise to a certain passivity among users, making them less than vigilant consumers of what is said or shown. Users should practice moderation and discipline in their approach to the mass media. They will want to form enlightened and correct consciences the more easily to resist unwholesome influences.


2497
By the very nature of their profession, journalists have an obligation to serve the truth and not offend against charity in disseminating information. They should strive to respect, with equal care, the nature of the facts and the limits of critical judgment concerning individuals. They should not stoop to defamation.


2498
"Civil authorities have particular responsibilities in this field because of the common good. . . . It is for the civil authority . . . to defend and safeguard a true and just freedom of information."288 By promulgating laws and overseeing their application, public authorities should ensure that "public morality and social progress are not gravely endangered" through misuse of the media.289 Civil authorities should punish any violation of the rights of individuals to their reputation and privacy. They should give timely and reliable reports concerning the general good or respond to the well-founded concerns of the people. Nothing can justify recourse to disinformation for manipulating public opinion through the media. Interventions by public authority should avoid injuring the freedom of individuals or groups.


2499
Moral judgment must condemn the plague of totalitarian states which systematically falsify the truth, exercise political control of opinion through the media, manipulate defendants and witnesses at public trials, and imagine that they secure their tyranny by strangling and repressing everything they consider "thought crimes."

Cochise
02-19-2005, 08:05 PM
Him and everyone else.

Rausch
02-19-2005, 08:53 PM
Kennedy was addicted to painkillers and muscle relaxers.

So?...

Amnorix
02-19-2005, 08:58 PM
Honestly, who cares, unless he's getting high in the Oval Office?

Cochise
02-19-2005, 09:00 PM
Honestly, who cares, unless he's getting high in the Oval Office?

Clinton tangent beginning in 3..2...1....

WilliamTheIrish
02-19-2005, 09:32 PM
Clinton tangent beginning in 3..2...1....

Ah, you just invoked Penchief's Law.


Penchief's Law: Whereby a person invokes the name Clinton into a debate or flame.

Ultra Peanut
02-20-2005, 12:03 AM
Heh... his name is "weed."

stumppy
02-20-2005, 12:39 AM
Heh... his name is "weed."

And THAT is the most interesting part of this thread.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:38 AM
Is being a hypocrite a requirement for being a Bush supporter?
(That is a rhetorical question....)

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 01:42 AM
Is being a hypocrite a requirement for being a Bush supporter?


Is being a loser a requirement for supporting democarts?

(Not a rhetorical question....)

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:59 AM
I guess you don't know what "rhetorical" means.

One more child left behind...

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 02:05 AM
I guess you don't know what "rhetorical" means.

One more child left behind...

Sure I do.

I asked a non-rhetorical question.

Afraid to answer?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:26 AM
Michael Michigan wrote:

Originally Posted by Lefty_the_Right
I guess you don't know what "rhetorical" means.

One more child left behind...
Sure I do.

I asked a non-rhetorical question.

Afraid to answer?

I know you are but what am I?

What kind of idiot would ask that question in the first place?
For that matter, what kind of moron that actually expects an answer?

memyselfI
02-20-2005, 07:39 AM
Kennedy was addicted to painkillers and muscle relaxers.

So?...


point taken, if DUHbya was abusing prescribed medical marijuana... :thumb:

trndobrd
02-20-2005, 08:24 AM
the sun rises in the East, rain is wet and GW Bush used drugs when he was young......

in other news....

StcChief
02-20-2005, 11:47 AM
So who didn't smoke weed in the '60-'70s at the age of
18-35ish at parties ???? Get real.

Clinton lying sack o $hit didn't inhale (like anyone believes that).

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:20 PM
Clinton ate brownies.

The clever response that he gave has gone right over the heads of so many "intelligent" conservatives for 13 years now....

WeBToysnStuff
02-20-2005, 02:29 PM
Is being a loser a requirement for supporting democarts?

(Not a rhetorical question....)

Yes, and it's demo-c-RATS!!!

WeBToysnStuff
02-20-2005, 02:30 PM
I know you are but what am I?

What kind of idiot would ask that question in the first place?
For that matter, what kind of moron that actually expects an answer?

Actually it was rhetorical, we all know the answer.

WeBToysnStuff
02-20-2005, 02:32 PM
point taken, if DUHbya was abusing prescribed medical marijuana... :thumb:

Which is more illegal? Abusing "pain-killers" that are not defined as to legitimate or weed?

Clinton says he didn't inhale - everyone that believes that take one step towards ignorance (but you don't have to dance with memyselfi when you take that step).

What are you doing that is illegal but you don't want the world to know about?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:33 PM
Actually, he stated quite clearly that it was NOT a rhetorical question.

Welcome aboard, Web, your reading comprehension is on a par with the rest of the conservatives on the board.

I know that they will accept you as one of their own.

WeBToysnStuff
02-20-2005, 02:33 PM
the sun rises in the East, rain is wet and GW Bush used drugs when he was young......

in other news....

If you are south of the equator does the sun still rise in the east?

WeBToysnStuff
02-20-2005, 02:34 PM
Actually, he stated quite clearly that it was NOT a rhetorical question.

Welcome aboard, Web, your reading comprehension is on a par with the rest of the conservatives on the board.

I know that they will accept you as one of their own.

I'm not really a conservative, I just think you are a jerk.

memyselfI
02-20-2005, 02:37 PM
Which is more illegal? Abusing "pain-killers" that are not defined as to legitimate or weed?

Clinton says he didn't inhale - everyone that believes that take one step towards ignorance (but you don't have to dance with memyselfi when you take that step).

What are you doing that is illegal but you don't want the world to know about?

Oh give me a break. Cocaine has never been legal and in order to use it you had to break the law. If you were busted doing it and the records no longer exist it's not because the law changed but because the records were changed...

as far as what *I've* done, the day I become a presidential candidate I'll have to make a choice to either fess up and take my chances on people accepting my truth or lie through my teeth and be a hypocrite like DUHbya has. Until then, the analogy of what I have done as compared to the POTUS is irrelevant.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:37 PM
Haven't any conservatives ever heard of pot brownies?

Speaking of illegal, how is Rush's court case going?
Or does paying your maid to pick up your prescription in a Denney's parking lot considered not as illeagal as say, selling bongs like Tommy Chong did?

I thought the liberals were supposed to be the "moral reletivists"?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:39 PM
webtoy wrote: If you are south of the equator does the sun still rise in the east?

Was this really a serious question?
Or were you just "trying" to be funny?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:41 PM
Oh give me a break. Cocaine has never been legal and in order to use it you had to break the law. If you were busted doing it and the records no longer exist it's not because the law changed but because the records were changed...

as far as what *I've* done, the day I become a presidential candidate I'll have to make a choice to either fess up and take my chances on people accepting my truth or lie through my teeth and be a hypocrite like DUHbya has. Until then, the analogy of what I have done as compared to the POTUS is irrelevant.
Not true, Cocaine was a legitimate drug and prescribed for years.

Secondly, there is no difference between illegal drug usage and abuse of power to force physicians to write illegitimate prescriptions.

Equivocation while crying about others and their equivocating - how trivial of you.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:42 PM
Haven't any conservatives ever heard of pot brownies?

Speaking of illegal, how is Rush's court case going?
Or does paying your maid to pick up your prescription in a Denney's parking lot considered not as illeagal as say, selling bongs like Tommy Chong did?

I thought the liberals were supposed to be the "moral reletivists"?
Oh great, yet another idiot who equates Rush Limbaugh with politicians.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:45 PM
When did I do that?

You would probably find it easier to discuss stuff with me if you weren't constantly ascribing comments to me that I haven't made...

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:46 PM
You might want to talk to your new buddy that's never heard of pot being baked into cookies or other food.

Baby Lee
02-20-2005, 03:04 PM
You would probably find it easier to discuss stuff with me if
But no one wants to talk with you.

memyselfI
02-20-2005, 03:08 PM
Not true, Cocaine was a legitimate drug and prescribed for years.

Secondly, there is no difference between illegal drug usage and abuse of power to force physicians to write illegitimate prescriptions.

Equivocation while crying about others and their equivocating - how trivial of you.


Really, I'd like to know what years cocaine was legal and prescribed. Also are you maintaining the DUHbya is trying to hide LEGAL cocaine use? ROFL

unlurking
02-20-2005, 03:15 PM
The only thing that bothers me from his quotes (and I only read the first post and the first half of the second), was where he said people shouldn't admit to things and simply tell kids no. I really don't like that approach and is very hypocritical. I don't like lying to my kids about things that are important and could affect their lives.

I don't care if he smoked weed, and I don't care if he lies to me about it. Kids or people dealing with the concern should be treated with respect however.

Other than that, nothing else struck a nerve with me?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 03:17 PM
Really, I'd like to know what years cocaine was legal and prescribed. Also are you maintaining the DUHbya is trying to hide LEGAL cocaine use? ROFL
No, that was not said at all. You made a false statement and I clarified that you were wrong again.

You also deliberately ignored the fact that abuse of prescribed drugs breaks more felonies than usage of an illegal drug. However, both are illegal and don't get any quarter from me.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 03:19 PM
Really, baby lee?

Then why did you address me?
Conflicted much?

stevieray
02-20-2005, 03:24 PM
But no one wants to talk with you.

ROFL

WeBToysnStuff
02-20-2005, 03:29 PM
Oh give me a break. Cocaine has never been legal and in order to use it you had to break the law. If you were busted doing it and the records no longer exist it's not because the law changed but because the records were changed...

as far as what *I've* done, the day I become a presidential candidate I'll have to make a choice to either fess up and take my chances on people accepting my truth or lie through my teeth and be a hypocrite like DUHbya has. Until then, the analogy of what I have done as compared to the POTUS is irrelevant.

I don't remember saying anything about cocaine. Re-check who you are talking to.

unlurking
02-20-2005, 03:30 PM
Really, I'd like to know what years cocaine was legal and prescribed. Also are you maintaining the DUHbya is trying to hide LEGAL cocaine use? ROFL
Who the hell cares?

Anyone that has ever puffed a doob would be a hypocrite to complain about the pres havin' a little fun. Anyone that has never tried drugs and wants to condemn the man is a self-righteous arrogant prick that is willing to judge someone on a topic they know nothing about.

Reminds me of that Chris Rock movie...
(not an exact quote)

"How can you make drug policies when you've never smoked the chronic?! Not even a nickel bag?!"

:D

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 03:30 PM
You crack yourself up, stevie...

stevieray
02-20-2005, 03:32 PM
You crack yourself up, stevie...

:deevee:

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 03:33 PM
The problem is the hypocrisy...

George W. Bush sent a lot of people to prison for using MJ, and so did Clinton.

Both of them were wrong to do so.
But when you say that it doesn't matter if he lies about his use, I have to question your desire for honesty, accountability and the rule of law.

You know, the three things that the right said Clinton should be impeached for?

After all, when pressed, they said it wasn't about sex.....

unlurking
02-20-2005, 03:41 PM
The problem is the hypocrisy...

George W. Bush sent a lot of people to prison for using MJ, and so did Clinton.

Both of them were wrong to do so.
But when you say that it doesn't matter if he lies about his use, I have to question your desire for honesty, accountability and the rule of law.

You know, the three things that the right said Clinton should be impeached for?

After all, when pressed, they said it wasn't about sex.....
When we get a politician who can stand up and not lie about anything, I may vote for him. If I don't agree with what he believes in, I won't.

Let me put it this way, do you feel comfortable answering questions about your personal life to strangers? Or more importantly, do you believe you SHOULD HAVE TO? Or is the right to privacy only granted to some people in this country?

As far as putting people in jail for drug use, that currently is the law. Whether I agree with it or not, it is one of the societal rules we abide by. I may disagree with it, I may fight against it, and I may break. I will expect to pay the consequences for my actions if I do.

And as far as impeaching Clinton and the reasons, isn't it rather hypocritical to be going after Bush for similar crap that the right went against Clinton for?

Cochise
02-20-2005, 03:44 PM
George W. Bush sent a lot of people to prison for using MJ, and so did Clinton.


I wasn't aware that either of these men were sentencing drug offendors.

mlyonsd
02-20-2005, 03:45 PM
The problem is the hypocrisy...

George W. Bush sent a lot of people to prison for using MJ, and so did Clinton.

Both of them were wrong to do so.
But when you say that it doesn't matter if he lies about his use, I have to question your desire for honesty, accountability and the rule of law.

You know, the three things that the right said Clinton should be impeached for?

After all, when pressed, they said it wasn't about sex.....

I heard the excerpt of the tape where W talked about his drug use. He indicated he wasn't going to talk about it because of the impact it could cause on young people. He said it would send the wrong signal that the President had tried pot. I don't consider that lying. In my book that's being a responsible role model.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 03:48 PM
Wow, that is a stretch.
When did I say that they were responsible for sentencing?

Do I really have to spell out exactly what I am saying in order for people to get what I said?

Are you guys really so feeble, or is this just a debate technique?

stevieray
02-20-2005, 03:50 PM
[QUOTE=Lefty_the_Right]Wow, that is a stretch.
When did I say that they were responsible for sentencing?

Do I really have to spell out exactly what I am saying in order for people to get what I said?

Are you guys really so feeble, or is this just a debate technique?[/QUOTE


Three quarters of your posts are semantic BS.

Now quick, get the last word in, as evidenced in the thread listings.

Cochise
02-20-2005, 03:51 PM
Wow, that is a stretch.
When did I say that they were responsible for sentencing?

Do I really have to spell out exactly what I am saying in order for people to get what I said?

Are you guys really so feeble, or is this just a debate technique?

I quoted it. You said that Bush and Clinton were sending tons of people to prison for drugs.

Let me ask you this way. There was an individual here in Kansas City that got 10 years for drug trafficing just a week or two ago. What did Bush or Clinton have to do with how the legal process was meted out for him?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 03:52 PM
George W. Bush was asked direct questions about past drug use.

When you say that he was only trying to protect the children, I have to ask..

Did you buy that excuse from Clinton about Monica and BJ's?

Cochise
02-20-2005, 03:54 PM
I'm not sure what your post means except to dodge the question of what Bush or Clinton had to do with that person's drug conviction.

unlurking
02-20-2005, 03:56 PM
I quoted it. You said that Bush and Clinton were sending tons of people to prison for drugs.

Let me ask you this way. There was an individual here in Kansas City that got 10 years for drug trafficing just a week or two ago. What did Bush or Clinton have to do with how the legal process was meted out for him?
Because Bush and Clinton didn't change the law to support the trafficer obviously! ;)

And since I like to drive 95 MPH if I don't change the law when I gain office I'm a hypocrite, despite the fact that I have always excepted my tickets and payed the fines knowing the fact that it was MY decision to break the law.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 03:58 PM
Are you saying that the legal standing of recreation drugs is in the hands of the Congress?

That would be news to just about anyone that knows anything about Nixon and the classification of them.

Not to mention Ron and Nancy...


If you don't think that it is up to the president, why is it that John Ashcroft shutdown the Cali buyers clubs, without consulting Congress, OR the people of California?

Cochise
02-20-2005, 03:59 PM
Because Bush and Clinton didn't change the law to support the trafficer obviously! ;)

And since I like to drive 95 MPH if I don't change the law when I gain office I'm a hypocrite, despite the fact that I have always excepted my tickets and payed the fines knowing the fact that it was MY decision to break the law.

Yeah, damn Bush and Clinton for "putting all those people in prison".

I guess this means that SEC Chief William Donaldson "put Martha Stewart in prison" since he didn't change the insider trading laws upon taking the post to make what she was doing legal.

unlurking
02-20-2005, 04:01 PM
Yeah, damn Bush and Clinton for "putting all those people in prison".

I guess this means that SEC Chief William Donaldson "put Martha Stewart in prison" since he didn't change the insider trading laws upon taking the post to make what she was doing legal.
I guess that's the bastard I have to thank for reailty "prison cell makeover shows"?

:D

mlyonsd
02-20-2005, 04:02 PM
George W. Bush was asked direct questions about past drug use.

When you say that he was only trying to protect the children, I have to ask..

Did you have buy that excuse from Clinton about Monica and BJ's?

First, I don't give a rats ass if W or Clinton used drugs. We all did back then.

Second, I wouldn't have given a rats ass if Clinton had gotten a bj outside of the WH because it's really none of my business. But when he's doing it in the WH while conducting official government business in conjuction with a sexual harrassment lawsuit, yea I draw the line there. But the last straw was him lying under oath. If he was willing to do that he loses all trust. In my book at that point he's not a man anymore, he's a pussy that doesn't respect anyone and doesn't deserve the country's highest office.

Cochise
02-20-2005, 04:04 PM
First, I don't give a rats ass if W or Clinton used drugs. We all did back then.

Second, I wouldn't have given a rats ass if Clinton had gotten a bj outside of the WH because it's really none of my business. But when he's doing it in the WH while conducting official government business in conjuction with a sexual harrassment lawsuit, yea I draw the line there. But the last straw was him lying under oath. If he was willing to do that he loses all trust. In my book at that point he's not a man anymore, he's a pussy that doesn't respect anyone and doesn't deserve the country's highest office.

Perjury would put you or I in jail, that was the main thing that pissed me off about it.

So if Clinton would have gone to jail, would he really have put himself in jail by not changing the perjury laws when he took office to make what he would later do legal?

unlurking
02-20-2005, 04:08 PM
Are you saying that the legal standing of recreation drugs is in the hands of the Congress?

That would be news to just about anyone that knows anything about Nixon and the classification of them.

Not to mention Ron and Nancy...


If you don't think that it is up to the president, why is it that John Ashcroft shutdown the Cali buyers clubs, without consulting Congress, OR the people of California?
Yes you idiot. Congress could initiate legislation that would change the FEDERAL regulations on drug classifications if the MAJORITY of the FEDERAL populace wanted it.

The California laws are in direct conflict with FEDERAL laws.

In other words, just because your big sister tells you it's OK to jack off on the school bus doesn't mean that HIGHER levels of authority such as your parents and school bus driver cannot over ride your big sisters assertion.

I agree with California's decision on medical marijuana, and I would like to see it accepted at a federal level, but we have RULES in place to guarantee that states cannot make decisions that conflict with federal statutes independently. California's decision is a good starting point in this process of change, but is not the final move that needs to be made.

Try writing your congressman! :D

Boyceofsummer
02-20-2005, 04:09 PM
So who didn't smoke weed in the '60-'70s at the age of
18-35ish at parties ???? Get real.

Clinton lying sack o $hit didn't inhale (like anyone believes that).

I'll take a blowjob instead of a kick in the teeth any day.


Medicaid cuts could carry a political cost, too

By KEVIN MURPHY

The Kansas City Star


GERSTER, Mo. — Gary Ruckel, like most rural Missourians, backed Matt Blunt for governor last fall and voted other Republicans into legislative seats.

Ruckel agreed with Blunt on issues such as gun control and gay marriage, but he was not considering a subject that hit much closer to home: medical care.

So when Blunt proposed cuts in Medicaid last month that could cost Ruckel and his wife, Vivian Ruckel, some services, the couple had second thoughts about backing Republicans.

“It kind of jumps back and kicks you in the teeth, is what it does, because I wasn't planning on this,” said Ruckel, who lives about 50 miles north of Springfield. “If they cut back on Medicaid, it's going to crucify us, because we don't make that much.”

Ruckel's story is familiar in rural Missouri. More than half of Medicaid recipients in Missouri live outside the Kansas City and the St. Louis areas.

Those rural areas voted heavily for Blunt, who carried 100 of 107 counties outside the state's two largest metropolitan areas.

Those counties, most relatively poor, also elected primarily Republicans to state House and Senate seats. In fact, 10 of the 12 House districts with the lowest median household incomes in Missouri are represented by Republicans.

Now, Blunt is asking those Republicans in the Missouri House and the Senate to back Medicaid cuts that would affect many of their constituents. Roughly 20 percent of those rural Missouri residents are getting Medicaid help.

Rural Republican lawmakers could feel on the spot.

“The governor will pull them one way, and the constituents will pull them another,” said David Webber, political science professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia. “Sooner or later that will become a matter of some tension in the state legislature.”

Reining in costs

Republicans said something must be done to contain state spending on medical care.

Blunt points to a study by the National Association of State Budget Officers showing 30.7 percent of state spending in Missouri in 2003 went for Medicaid and related services, the second-highest percentage in the nation.

“The question is, ‘What can we afford to do?' ” said Rep. Bob Behnen, a Kirksville Republican whose district is among the 12 poorest rural districts in the state. “Are we doing someone a favor by raising their eligibility as we have over the years and basically subjecting them to something they will be dependent on?”

The proposed cuts should not be a surprise, said Rep. Doug Ervin, a Holt Republican. “We've been out there saying we support a smaller government, and I've campaigned on the notion of limited government and less taxes,” Ervin said. “Saying that, we've also made it very clear we need to take care of people who really need the help the most.”

Ruckel and his wife, both 64, said they were among those in need. Ruckel, a former police officer and prison guard, has emphysema, arthritis, a spinal defect and other ailments. His wife is in worse shape, suffering heart and lung ailments, and kidney disease. She tires quickly and cannot do much outside the home. Ruckel is on nine medications; his wife is on 21.

With a combined income of $1,357 a month, mostly from Social Security, they qualify for full payment of medical and pharmacy bills through Medicaid. Both are classified as workers with disabilities because Ruckel works on lawn mowers and his wife does sewing, making about $60 a month combined, he said.

In addition to full coverage of medical bills, the Ruckels get state-paid home care services. Someone from the organization On My Own Inc. is at their home seven days a week for six hours a day to do housework, cooking and personal care.

The Medical Assistance for Workers With Disabilities program the Ruckels and 9,500 other Missouri residents are on would be eliminated under the Blunt plan.

Because of their age and disabilities, the Ruckels could apply for services under another program. But they would get a cut in home care services and at worst would have to pay $382 a month toward medical and pharmacy bills under program changes, said Denise Cross, a division director in the Department of Social Services.

The Ruckels live modestly, staying in a house Ruckel is buying from his mother.

“I have worked hard all my life, and we got to a point where we are having a hard time, and they are talking about cutting back on us,” Ruckel said.

Legislators' dilemma

Ruckel's state representative, Republican Larry Wilson of nearby Flemington, said he was sensitive to the couple's plight. Wilson, 56, said he grew up on a farm in a family challenged to make ends meet.

“We had no running water until I was a senior in high school,” Wilson said. “I know how it is; I really do.”

Wilson said he knew some of his constituents were in need, and balancing their interests with the state's budget was not easy.

“It's difficult; it really is,” Wilson said. “It's a problem we have in state government that we only have so many dollars to work with.”

Blunt's plan would reduce or eliminate Medicaid services for 122,557 persons in Missouri, or about 12 percent of all people now covered, according to the Department of Social Services. It would save $626 million.

Blunt spokesman Spence Jackson said that the governor did not take the proposed cuts lightly but that they were overdue.

“People in rural Missouri as well as people in Kansas City and other parts of the state want to see a government that lives within its means,” Jackson said.

Jackson said the governor had the support of rural Republican lawmakers on the proposed Medicaid cuts, though several said they wanted to look at the plans.

“Everybody has to remember that the governor's proposed budget is just that — proposed,” said Rep. Shannon Cooper, a Clinton Republican.

Cooper said about 20 percent of his constituents were receiving Medicaid, but he noted they were not the only people he represented. “I have to look out for the concerns of the other 80 percent who make it quite clear they do not want to pay any more taxes,” Cooper said.

Two persons who have received Medicaid services in Cooper's district said they believed the proposed cuts were misguided.

“We are helping people worldwide, and we are supposed to be the richest country in the world, yet we keep cutting back,” said LuCinder Coke, 46, a Clinton resident who suffers severe depression and would lose some Medicaid-paid counseling under the Blunt plan. “We ought to help our own before we help others.”

Coke and Joshua Kelley, 26, get help through Pathways Community Behavioral Healthcare in Clinton, which gets reimbursed by the state for Medicaid patients.

Neither voted for Blunt.

Kelley, of Springfield, is spending a month at a Pathways residential treatment center for a drug problem. That type of program would be eliminated under the Blunt plan, said Pathways treatment center supervisor Sylvan Ward.

Kelley said that Pathways was the most effective treatment he had received and that eliminating the program could keep people like him from getting better — to the detriment of the state, should he get back into drugs.

“I believe it's worth the government's investment,” he said of his treatment.

Effects on employers

The proposed Medicaid cuts would affect budgets and staffs of organizations, clinics, doctors and other health professionals who now provide Medicaid services, Democratic lawmakers said.

“My hospitals and clinics and businesses are going to suffer,” said Rep. J.C. Kuessner, an Eminence Democrat whose district in southeast Missouri is one of the state's poorest. “A lot of businesses in my area, because of the high (Medicaid patient) numbers, are staffed accordingly.” At one hospital, 75 percent of patients are on Medicaid, he said.

People can qualify for Medicaid for various reasons, with income being the basic determining factor.

About half the people who would be affected by the proposed Medicaid cuts would qualify because their incomes are at or below 75 percent of federal poverty thresholds. For a family of two that would mean income of no more than $781 a month. The qualifying percentage would drop to 30 percent of poverty under the Blunt plan. A family of two could have a monthly income of no more than $312.

Democrats say cutting Medicaid would only shift costs.

“Sooner or later a hospital has to get paid,” said Sen. Patrick Dougherty, a St. Louis Democrat. “And a lot of them make it up on the people who have insurance.”

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 04:09 PM
And what about the people that played sealed grad jury testimony to the American public?

After all, shouldn't you be just as pissed at Starr for breaking the law?

Or would that be too consistant for you?

unlurking
02-20-2005, 04:09 PM
First, I don't give a rats ass if W or Clinton used drugs. We all did back then.

Second, I wouldn't have given a rats ass if Clinton had gotten a bj outside of the WH because it's really none of my business. But when he's doing it in the WH while conducting official government business in conjuction with a sexual harrassment lawsuit, yea I draw the line there. But the last straw was him lying under oath. If he was willing to do that he loses all trust. In my book at that point he's not a man anymore, he's a pussy that doesn't respect anyone and doesn't deserve the country's highest office.
Oh come on. Are you telling me you've never had sex at work?!

Man, you are missing out!!

;)

Baby Lee
02-20-2005, 04:11 PM
If you don't think that it is up to the president, why is it that John Ashcroft shutdown the Cali buyers clubs, without consulting Congress, OR the people of California?
Because he's EXECUTING laws ENACTED by Congress, idjit.

Cochise
02-20-2005, 04:12 PM
Because he's EXECUTING laws ENACTED by Congress, idjit.

He doesn't seem to understand the difference between the executive and judicial branches.

I thought they were still teaching that in schools but :shrug: maybe not?

WilliamTheIrish
02-20-2005, 04:14 PM
Boyce,

Sorry about you losing your medicaid.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 04:16 PM
I don't think you guys have a clue as to how the Controlled Substances Act came about.

And you are still missing the point.

Seeing as how both Bill and George used recreational drugs in their past, they are both hypocrites for not trying to reduce mandatory sentacing, among other changes they could have made.

Bill Clinton sent more people for pot than any other president.

The difference between you and me is that I can be honest about it and criticize him for it.

You will keep making excuses for Bush.

unlurking
02-20-2005, 04:23 PM
I don't think you guys have a clue as to how the Controlled Substances Act came about.

And you are still missing the point.

Seeing as how both Bill and George used recreational drugs in their past, they are both hypocrites for not trying to reduce mandatory sentacing, among other changes they could have made.

Bill Clinton sent more people for pot than any other president.

The difference between you and me is that I can be honest about it and criticize him for it.

You will keep making excuses for Bush.
ROFL
ROFL

Ya know what, I smoked pot, dipped acid, ate tons of PB&M (peanut butter and mushrooms), drank like a fish, and snorted and free-based the good stuff, often all at the same time! I'm telling ya, sno-caps and crystal dreams are a wonderful way to party!

Yeah, I look back at that now and would love to have my children follow in my footsteps. Shit, it would be hypocritical of me NOT TO right?

:D

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 04:34 PM
It is one thing to say that you did something wrong and why, and a whole other to say that you never did them in the first place.

I understand your point, but you can't call it honesty.

I understand your point though.

How can you tell your kids not to smoke pot, snort cocaine, deal in insider trading, get multiple DWI's etc., saying that it will ruin their lives.

Cause you KNOW they are going to say: "Yeah, but I could still be president".

And we have George W. Bush and the republican party to thank, don't we?

WilliamTheIrish
02-20-2005, 04:51 PM
Is being a hypocrite a requirement for being a Bush supporter?
(That is a rhetorical question....)

Dude, grow the f*ck up. If you wanted to be taken seriously you wouldn't marginalize yourself with quotes like the one above.

There can be some great debate here, but since your arrival that's not what you've been looking for. You've spat in the eye of just every poster on this board and they've taken aim and loogeyed right back. There's plenty of that to go 'round.

How about you, as the new guy, try a different tact?

memyselfI
02-20-2005, 05:08 PM
I heard the excerpt of the tape where W talked about his drug use. He indicated he wasn't going to talk about it because of the impact it could cause on young people. He said it would send the wrong signal that the President had tried pot. I don't consider that lying. In my book that's being a responsible role model.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

http://www.hi-beam.net/announce/images/155.jpg

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 05:10 PM
I'll take a blowjob instead of a kick in the teeth any day.


Medicaid cuts could carry a political cost, too



Already done. Medicaid Story (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110406)

And it doesn't relate to the current topic in the least.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 05:12 PM
I don't think you guys have a clue as to how the Controlled Substances Act came about.

And you are still missing the point.

Seeing as how both Bill and George used recreational drugs in their past, they are both hypocrites for not trying to reduce mandatory sentacing, among other changes they could have made.

Bill Clinton sent more people for pot than any other president.

The difference between you and me is that I can be honest about it and criticize him for it.

You will keep making excuses for Bush.
A POTUS can reduce mandatory sentencing?


Why in the hell do we even have a congress? The POTUS can change laws and enact budgets all on his own. Why waste time with the silly legislative branch?

Baby Lee
02-20-2005, 05:26 PM
I don't think you guys have a clue as to how the Controlled Substances Act came about.
It came before Congress for a vote. 'Nuff said.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 05:34 PM
And what was the scientific panels finding on marijuana?

And what did Nixon do with the report?

Like I said...

Baby Lee
02-20-2005, 05:43 PM
And what was the scientific panels finding on marijuana?

And what did Nixon do with the report?

Like I said...
yet you keep babbling. . .

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 06:08 PM
What did Nixon do with the report?

After all, he was the one that made the final recomendations to Congress based on them.

If you know so much, you shouldn't have a problem answering the question.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 06:10 PM
What did Nixon do with the report?

After all, he was the one that made the final recomendations to Congress based on them.

If you know so much, you shouldn't have a problem answering the question.
And over here is a shiny piece of metal with the color blue on the back, isn't it nice?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 06:17 PM
I guess that is a dodge, KC?

I thought you might actually know its here again.
But I guess I was overestimationing your ability again.

Here's a another mistypedl phrase so you can use against me later.

You suck cook.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 06:18 PM
I guess that is a dodge, KC?

I thought you might actually know its here again.
But I guess I was overestimationing your ability again.

Here's a another mistypedl phrase so you can use against me later.

You suck cook.
What is overestimationing?

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 06:20 PM
What is overestimationing?

It's a really big word.

You wouldn't understand it.

;)

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 06:22 PM
It's a really big word.

You wouldn't understand it.

;)
I know it is more than seven letters.

I guess he is miles above us intellectually. He is probably a senator or a congressman or a professor or a Nobel winner or something like that.

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 06:25 PM
I guess he is miles above us intellectually. He is probably a senator or a congressman or a professor or a Nobel winner or something like that.

Perhaps you are overestimationing him.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 06:25 PM
Perhaps you are overestimationing him.

Perhaps

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 06:26 PM
Perhaps

Dammitt, that's another seven letter word.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 06:27 PM
I'll give you guys that one.

I'm late, I've wasted way too much time on you loosers for one day.

Later.

Baby Lee
02-20-2005, 06:28 PM
You suck cook.
Do something productive. Kill yourself.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 06:28 PM
I'll give you guys that one.

I'm late, I've wasted way too much time on you loosers for one day.

Later.
Wow, he already has the CP venacular down. Loosers? Nice

beavis
02-20-2005, 06:59 PM
Wow, he already has the CP venacular down. Loosers? Nice
Hey, don't you know it isn't nice to make fun of the slow kid? ROFL

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 07:04 PM
Hey, don't you know it isn't nice to make fun of the slow kid? ROFL
Obviously you haven't read everything from our new local pervert yet.

Originally Posted by Lefty_the_Right


It's as good thing that you're little soldier is so small.
Otherwise they would have realized what you were doing and taken it from you with our own hands!

Every Lefty Needs a Soldier to Hold on to (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110136&page=1)

His momma must be proud.

Cochise
02-20-2005, 07:10 PM
He must have caught the next turnip truck out of town.

beavis
02-20-2005, 07:16 PM
Obviously you haven't read everything from our new local pervert yet.



Every Lefty Needs a Soldier to Hold on to (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110136&page=1)

His momma must be proud.
Disturbing. :shake:

the Talking Can
02-20-2005, 08:35 PM
funny as hell

I won't even bore people with the obvious postings of Republican outrage to Clinton's weed smoking, no one actually believes that was based on principle...can we please get rid of the "drug war" now??? PLEASE!

Obviously, if our presidents smoke it, it can't be that bad.

Ultra Peanut
02-21-2005, 03:38 AM
You know... after hearing the tapes and reading the article, this is actually pretty interesting, if only to get a more candid look at the guy behind the caricature.

But then, I guess political mudslinging between zealots is more intriguing than any of that.

jettio
02-21-2005, 07:04 AM
You know... after hearing the tapes and reading the article, this is actually pretty interesting, if only to get a more candid look at the guy behind the caricature.

But then, I guess political mudslinging between zealots is more intriguing than any of that.


I agree.

I think it is a betrayal for the preacher man to record conversations and then discose them to a reporter, but the content does not make GWB look bad at all.

As to the crying about drug use, as far as I recall, GWB has always avoided the question while implying that he has made some choices in the past that he would not make now regarding alcohol and drugs, that is not a dishonest answer to the question.

You can count on B*sh being full of sh*t and talking out of his azz sideways when he is advocating policy, but when he is pimping himself, he is not so dishonest about that.

Rausch
02-21-2005, 08:10 AM
Obviously, if our presidents smoke it, it can't be that bad.

Horrible argument...

Baby Lee
02-21-2005, 08:25 AM
I won't even bore people with the obvious postings of Republican outrage to Clinton's weed smoking, . . .
Because you can't.
The closest you'll come is some putting 'dope smoking' a long list of adjectives describing him.
The beef wasn't whether or not he lit up, of course he did, it was another example of his crapweaseling "Ahh tried, but ahh couldn't inhale."

the Talking Can
02-21-2005, 08:30 AM
Because you can't.
The closest you'll come is some putting 'dope smoking' a long list of adjectives describing him.
The beef wasn't whether or not he lit up, of course he did, it was another example of his crapweaseling "Ahh tried, but ahh couldn't inhale."

ok

the Talking Can
02-21-2005, 08:44 AM
Because you can't.
The closest you'll come is some putting 'dope smoking' a long list of adjectives describing him.
The beef wasn't whether or not he lit up, of course he did, it was another example of his crapweaseling "Ahh tried, but ahh couldn't inhale."

I only found 99 trillionty examples when I googled that subject, which, I'm forced to admit, proves you right...almost no one cared that he smoked pot.

This was the best one I found, I suggest everyone check this link and tell me you don't think wolfman wrote it:



talon news (http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1219.cfm)

"BACK TO THE SUBJECT OF WITCHCRAFT IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Now, let us return to our premise that Bill and Hillary Clinton are powerful practicing witches. As I stated before, drug usage is absolutely essential for anyone participating in the occult; thus, if you suspect anyone of being an occultist, you must be able to see a strong drug link. We see such a strong drug link to Bill Clinton as to defy believability. If any other person in America today had such a strong and unbroken link to drug smuggling as does Bill Clinton, that person would be arrested, tried, found guilty, and sent to jail a long time ago. The fact that this fate has not happened to Bill Clinton is yet another strong indication that he is surrounded by a very powerful aura."

Baby Lee
02-21-2005, 09:11 AM
I only found 99 trillionty examples when I googled that subject, which, I'm forced to admit, proves you right...almost no one cared that he smoked pot.
You caught me. I've blithely ignoring the ever powerful 'Democrats are practicing witches' plank of the Republican platform.
I suppose Ward Churchill is the face of the mainstream DNC, too.

The Pedestrian
02-21-2005, 10:30 AM
Who cares? Everyone has known for five years that he used to do illegal stuff, and ya know what? Everyone else has done illegal stuff, too! I'm not gonna expect you to admit it because the statute of limitations may not have run out yet on whatever all y'all have done, but just keep that in mind.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 10:54 AM
When you have an administration that shuts down medical marijuana clinics in Cali, and arrests Tommy Chong for selling bongs for political hay, the hypocrisy stinks.

Why is it ok for Bush to have smoked it in the past, but not for terminaly ill patients that have had it prescribed?


It's about the hypocrisy, not the lie.