Check out this video from Missouri — Obama “Truth Squads,” which are utilizing law enforcement to “crack down” on campaign ads which are “misleading” or are “lying.” Are you freakin’ kidding me? Law enforcement?? One wonders if there is a……

Obama admitted to spending almost two years of his life in a perpetual drug and alcohol induced stupor while he was “finding himself” as an adolescent. By that strain of logic it should make him worse than Bush.

Well said, GK! I guess BHO was preparing for his “community organizing” work by disorganing a few of his brain cells first.

A wasteful job and a wasted mind, I guess.

He must be very smart.

He’s pretty smart. He wanted Yale but it was too expensive. He went to Tulane for free too.

On September 26th, 2008 at 11:13 am, chapoutier said:
And for what its worth, I find Bush’s reason as to why he did not want to admit or discuss such use, i.e., for the children imminently believable. I am not sure he is right about the effect such an admission would have, but its not an unreasonable position.

Once things like that get legitimized by politicians, tv, and the MSM, kids think their parents are just old fogies that “don’t get it.” Taking parenting away from parents is just another problem with creeping Socialism.

U of C gave him a free ride or close to one.

He must be very smart.

You’re seeing his lack of denial as proof that he did. If that’s true, then doesn’t that make him an honest man? Otherwise, he simply would have lied about it. In either case, I’d rather have someone who represents integrity than someone who openly admits that their other career path was as a junkie.

I never said he lied about it. And in the political realm, when if you did not actually do something that could be deemed scandalous, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose with denying it, non-denials and evasions are evidence.

He very carefully avoided answering the questions directly. For example when he said that he would have qualified in 1989 for being an employee of his father’s White House, which asked only that you affirm you haven’t used drugs in the past 15 years. I mean why answer the question is such a strange, contorted, not-really-on-point way?

And the ellipses I put in the quote was only to get rid of the break up of the quote provided in the original article. Not sure if those sentences were said absolutely concurrently or not, but I really don’t see how it makes a difference.

As far as whether or not the lack of admission shows integrity as opposed to one who just admits it, I believe Bush’s reasons for doing so are at least partly sincere, if not misguided. But I find it hard to believe that you believe that a politician airing out any sort of his own dirty laundry shows a lack of integrity.

I hope he’s independently wealthy because its no fun once those student loans come due.

U of C gave him a free ride or close to one.

On September 26th, 2008 at 10:59 am, chapoutier said:
And come on…common sense tells you that someone who says this:

“I don’t want any kid doing what I tried to do 30 years ago…And I mean that. It doesn’t matter if it’s LSD, cocaine, pot, any of those things, because if I answer one, then there will be another one. And I just am not going to answer those questions. And it may cost me the election.”

…did those things.

First, note the ellipses. Context is everything.

I’m not saying he didn’t. I don’t know that any more than you know he did.

You’re seeing his lack of denial as proof that he did. If that’s true, then doesn’t that make him an honest man? Otherwise, he simply would have lied about it. In either case, I’d rather have someone who represents integrity than someone who openly admits that their other career path was as a junkie.

Yeh my cousin goes to University of Chicago the law firm he’s interning at offered him $180,000 to start before he graduated but he turned it down to work at the White House.

I hope he’s independently wealthy because its no fun once those student loans come due.