That evil glint in grinning mimby’s too close together eyes scares the bejesus out of me. He has been high on money for so long I can’t imagine why he ever needed drugs.
You are being ostentatious with your remarks such as “we all know” and “there’s no point wasting time”. This is a forum where you can spend time discussing relevant details. One relevant detail is the meaning of “hypocrite”. According to bible dictionaries, a hypocrite is one who puts on a mask and feigns himself to be what he is not. “Our Lord severely rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy” (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16)
We aren’t saying that Bush’s quotes in this news story illustrate that his religious behavior make him a hypocrite. Bush said it is best to put on a mask about narcotics. Bush was saying that he thought it best to put on a mask and feign oneself to be drug-free because it would be best for the kids. Bush says it’s best to be a hypocrite on the basis of statements like, “It doesn’t matter. Cocaine, it’d be the same with marijuana. I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question.”
The issue is not dead just because it happened a few years ago or more. Hypocrites are mentioned in the Bible. People have been talking about hypocrites for thousands of years. In Jer. 23:11, they are men polluted with crimes.
When Mr. Wead said that Mr. Bush had in the past publicly denied using cocaine, Mr. Bush replied, “I haven’t denied anything.”
The worst part of the trait that bababa says “I admire” is that it is also a trait that will keep someone on a jury. If you say you never read newspapers, that you just glance at the headlines from time to time, then the jury selection panel will, on the basis of your hypocracy, keep you on the panel. Thus the jury “of your peers” will be made up of the people who are willing to lie during the jury selection process about how much they read the paper.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m all in favour of wasting time discussing things on forumosa. I am not in favour, however, of the serious press in the States wasting time, newspaper space, and investigative resources on this issue.
I also think criticizing Bush for his stance here is ridiculous. Are you seriously in favour of telling children (yours, or anyone’s) that you used illegal drugs? Once they’re adults, fine, but not when they are still impressionable and working out their own limits and beliefs.
[quote=“bababa”]twocs wrote:
You are being ostentatious with your remarks such as “we all know” and “there’s no point wasting time”. This is a forum where you can spend time discussing relevant details.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m all in favour of wasting time discussing things on forumosa. I am not in favour, however, of the serious press in the States wasting time, newspaper space, and investigative resources on this issue.
I also think criticizing Bush for his stance here is ridiculous. Are you seriously in favour of telling children (yours, or anyone’s) that you used illegal drugs? Once they’re adults, fine, but not when they are still impressionable and working out their own limits and beliefs.[/quote]
You said, “Bush isn’t being a hypocrite, in this instance.” That is a statement that does not have a basis in fact. It’s just being ostentatious. Now you are letting us know about some opinions of your own about what newspapers should consider serious, and also on what drug policies are going to be successful.
If you really want to curb drug use, it’s better to research and follow the best scientific methods. Just Say No might have been founded on the best of ideals, but in practice it fell flat. Just because you, Nancy Reagan or George W. has a gut feeling that a certain behavior is going to curb drug use does not mean that it will change anything.
Now illegal drug use is to become like Santa Claus, where everyone knows but nobody says the truth? Santa Claus isn’t a serious character, but isn’t Mr. Cocaine serious? It seems like the new Just Say No campaign, that the supporters are so adamant that it’s the best thing to do, but that will see an increase in drug abuse.
Sorry, but why was the issue the press’s business in Clinton’s case, but not in Bush’s? Because Clinton was a draft-dodging hippy? (Actually, since Clinton’s political stance would’ve put him in opposition to the Vietnam War, whereas Bush’s would’ve put him in favor of it, Clinton’s draft-dodging should be seen as FAR LESS hypocritical than Bush’s, but I digress!)
Moreover, I don’t see you responding in any way to Two Dog’s well brought-up point about the Bush administration’s opposition to medical marijuana use and the persecution of such users. Back before he was president, Bush claimed he thought that this issue should be left up to the individual states (like many Republicans, he uses a ‘faux-Libertarian’ stance when it serves him!) Now that he’s in power, not even Canada seems to have the right to self-determine on this issue, far as BUSH is concerned!
Do you know how much pot enters the US each year through the BC border to Washington??? I can see why they are concerned.
For what it is worth a lot of the pot that leaves Canada is traded for cocaine and heroin which is then peddled on the streets of the big cities like popcorn. This dynamic has created tens of thousands of drug addicts in Canada over the last decade or two.
You will be better advised to watch what we do instead of what we say.
-Nixon’s (yes?) atty general, 1969
Bush (or Clinton) will talk straight about marijuana the day after the Pope admits that Mary wasn’t a virgin. This isn’t strictly hypocrisy (to a real leader of men that term doesn’t even have a meaning: it is like accusing you or me of breathing oxygen). There is no Republican making real decisions who actually supposes that a person was ever harmed by pot. That is beside the point - what got them this far was hatred and paranoia of the hazardous liberal agenda, which makes them hiss like vampires caught out at sunrise, and they are not about to change horses now. (What they worry about is elusive, though… after 8 years of Clinton drug policy was… well anyway.) No Republican worth his salt would take half a step towards reasonable drug policy, for fear of being perceived as moving towards the liberal who may or may not be standing on reason’s far side. That is the undying principle of Republican drug policy and it will never be betrayed… until they can pretend that legalization was always their idea, and on that day they will legalize marijuana, quickly and without fanfare, and with a politely amused smile, they will flatly deny ever having believed differently. For Bush it’s all about “the children,” though probably in a vague kind of way. He isn’t the callow sort of loser who questions his own hero costume once it’s been put on. Or who would confuse himself trying to follow the rules he ordains for others. As others have pointed out, marijuana pales in comparison to cocaine, and the White House is probably very, very happy to associate it with the president - which they did by not denying the charge.