On-Topic Obama will not disclose college records ... what is he hiding?

[palbert]

Heavens, have I been misusing the saddle horns on my Appaloosas? No wonder the ride doesn't satisfy.

 

[chance1]

Right Jack by his own admission. Now if Romney will simply write a book (himself) and admit to his felonies then he will be near to the same level of clarity, truthfulness and character as our current commander 'n' chief

pretty sure u have a couple threads working already about that Jay

why don't u go post there

oh that's right

u already did

 

[Centexfarmer]

Does it work like a dick? Do you sit on it for support?

Yes to the first question, and no to the second.

You do use it as "support."

I'm still waiting for your points. Preferably not your weak legal knowledge in claiming that Obama is a felon (when he is not, and never has been indicted or convicted of such).

Read the sign and tell me what it says, then come back and share whether or not you've been reading the past several posts.

 

[hungkee]

The Supreme Court addressed the sodomy issue in Texas and other places. I respectfully take issue with the comparison between sleeping with whom you like and drug use. There is no societal cost to sucking somebody's dick. There is to drug abuse. It's not relevant whether or not he's been convicted of anything. He's freely admitted to using a substance that was felonious. There's no dispute on the facts.

Do I agree with our drug laws? No, I really could care less what you put into your own body. Drugs should be legal not because they rise to the level of a civil right, but it just isn't any of the governments business. There's a difference.

And the point about hypocrisy stands. Obama is a felon by his own admission. No one is calling him to task for using drugs. But allowing this ridiculous "he may have committed a felony" nonsense to go on is below the dignity of Obama's office. If he thinks a crimes been committed, investigate and make a charge. Outside of that, he should instruct his people to refrain from repeating an innuendo.

With all due respect. that does sound like the argument or position of a cocksucker.

I would have to remind you that while what you say may be factual in the larger scheme of things, MANY people would not agree with you when you say that societal cost to (males) sucking dick.

Right now in the USA and many other places, a lot of people continue to think or believe that there IS indeed huge societal costs to such behavior. Societal cost as it might affect definition of marriage to the moral decay of young people to a weakening of marriage to an imbalance and hostility between the sexes to all of the health and medical "costs" associated with it.

Those perceptions and prejudices continue to exist among A LOT of people.

Are they correct or based in anything genuine? Probably not. But to those who BELIEVE they do, they do. To those who disagree with homosexual behavior, they sure do.

Same as YOU personally might feel or think about drug use.

While illicit drugs remain just that, and homosexuality is protected and not "outlaw" NOW, we've got to remember that a lot of POLITICS is perception.

Many people don't think that smoking some weed or even trying cocaine is that big a deal.

Of course, its ILLEGAL. But try to explain that to the millions of people (voters) who have been in those shoes and simply don't think its that big a whoop.

Same with homosexual behavior. Many people know that its protected by federal laws.

But many people don't know that.

And still more people DON'T CARE whether it is legal behavior or not. They just don't LIKE IT.

And as such, a cocksucking male - to many - is off the charts worse than anyone who has admitted to smoking weed or trying coke (NOT COCK) in his lifetime.

Is any of it fair or even make any genuine sense? Maybe not. Does any of it jive with what is legal or not? No. Does anyone care that one might be felonious behavior while the other isn't? No.

Because some things - especially when applied to POLITICS - is about perception, what people believe and simply what people will vote based on their own personal views.

So Obama or even Geo. W. Bush's drug use or sampling or whatever else simply has proven not to be that big a deal to most people (voters). WHY that is most likely is because people (voters) have their own personal experience with such.

Cocksucking among males? That, while legal, still remains taboo and a difficult thing for many to, er, swallow or get behind publicly.

And one's politics become very public.

So while you regard one to carry with it no societal cost, many people do. Whether its stupid or not, they do.

 

[Centexfarmer]

While illicit drugs remain just that, and homosexuality is protected and not "outlaw" NOW, we've got to remember that a lot of POLITICS is perception.

Hence my statement in post #79 of this here thread:

Now the "court of public opinion" is a whole other turd.

Thus my acknowledgement that a lot of the source material that the right wingers are using to make hay out of this was available to the masses back during the 2007/2008 POTUS campaign.

Why are they just now getting their panties in a twist is my question?

 

[jackoroe]

With all due respect. that does sound like the argument or position of a cocksucker.

I would have to remind you that while what you say may be factual in the larger scheme of things, MANY people would not agree with you when you say that societal cost to (males) sucking dick.

Right now in the USA and many other places, a lot of people continue to think or believe that there IS indeed huge societal costs to such behavior. Societal cost as it might affect definition of marriage to the moral decay of young people to a weakening of marriage to an imbalance and hostility between the sexes to all of the health and medical "costs" associated with it.

Those perceptions and prejudices continue to exist among A LOT of people.

Are they correct or based in anything genuine? Probably not. But to those who BELIEVE they do, they do. To those who disagree with homosexual behavior, they sure do.

Same as YOU personally might feel or think about drug use.

While illicit drugs remain just that, and homosexuality is protected and not "outlaw" NOW, we've got to remember that a lot of POLITICS is perception.

Many people don't think that smoking some weed or even trying cocaine is that big a deal.

Of course, its ILLEGAL. But try to explain that to the millions of people (voters) who have been in those shoes and simply don't think its that big a whoop.

Same with homosexual behavior. Many people know that its protected by federal laws.

But many people don't know that.

And still more people DON'T CARE whether it is legal behavior or not. They just don't LIKE IT.

And as such, a cocksucking male - to many - is off the charts worse than anyone who has admitted to smoking weed or trying coke (NOT COCK) in his lifetime.

Is any of it fair or even make any genuine sense? Maybe not. Does any of it jive with what is legal or not? No. Does anyone care that one might be felonious behavior while the other isn't? No.

Because some things - especially when applied to POLITICS - is about perception, what people believe and simply what people will vote based on their own personal views.

So Obama or even Geo. W. Bush's drug use or sampling or whatever else simply has proven not to be that big a deal to most people (voters). WHY that is most likely is because people (voters) have their own personal experience with such.

Cocksucking among males? That, while legal, still remains taboo and a difficult thing for many to, er, swallow or get behind publicly.

And one's politics become very public.

So while you regard one to carry with it no societal cost, many people do. Whether its stupid or not, they do.

Guilty as charged, sir! In terms of societal costs, that would be a misinterpretation of the term. Loss of income, paying for rehab, family issues are what I had in mind when I used the term. If you want to take drugs and probably destroy yourself, that's your right. We've taken huge amounts of resources from out of our economy for a war on drugs that has failed abysmally. We've made people, including Obama, felons who really shouldn't be. We incarcerate tens of thousands of people for getting high. To what end?

Take what you like when you like and as much as you like. No driving or violence and we'll have fewer problems with crime and save tens of billions putting people in jail and fighting a war we've never had a shot at winning.

Personally, I don't use drugs. I know their bad for you, but I've no right to keep you from making that choice for yourself.

 

[hungkee]

Hence my statement in post #79 of this here thread:



Thus my acknowledgement that a lot of the source material that the right wingers are using to make hay out of this was available to the masses back during the 2007/2008 POTUS campaign.

Why are they just now getting their panties in a twist is my question?

Tapping into voters' ignorance and fear has proven itself to be a highly effective and simple campaign tactic. The GOP in the 80s "discovered" that and haven't been able to let go of its simple, direct marketing of such to what tend to be their particular constituency (who appear to be extremely susceptible to such tactics).

Some people are guided by their principles. Others are guided by their intelligence. But a lot of people remain those guided by their fears and inability to separate out what is truth vs what is exploitation of those fears (which lead, of course, to prejudices).

 

[jackoroe]

Tapping into voters' ignorance and fear has proven itself to be a highly effective and simple campaign tactic. The GOP in the 80s "discovered" that and haven't been able to let go of its simple, direct marketing of such to what tend to be their particular constituency (who appear to be extremely susceptible to such tactics).

Some people are guided by their principles. Others are guided by their intelligence. But a lot of people remain those guided by their fears and inability to separate out what is truth vs what is exploitation of those fears (which lead, of course, to prejudices).

My fellow Mod used the phrase Low Information Voters. That's actually most people. As much as people complain about CE&P, everybody here save one or two, is actually quite well informed. Most people in the 3D world aren't. Hence the success of fear mongering, negative ads and outright lies. And that's by both sides for the record.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Tapping into voters' ignorance and fear has proven itself to be a highly effective and simple campaign tactic. The GOP in the 80s "discovered" that and haven't been able to let go of its simple, direct marketing of such to what tend to be their particular constituency (who appear to be extremely susceptible to such tactics).

Some people are guided by their principles. Others are guided by their intelligence. But a lot of people remain those guided by their fears and inability to separate out what is truth vs what is exploitation of those fears (which lead, of course, to prejudices).

And the political capitalization of those prejudices, which IMO is happening now, and the sole reason for this thread topic.

 

[hungkee]

Personally, I don't use drugs. I know their bad for you, but I've no right to keep you from making that choice for yourself.

I'm not nor have I ever been a drug user. But I do know that I live in a society full of drugs and their users. I agree that drugs have drained this society on many levels - from the social to the financial to the criminal.

I don't think its cool to be someone who admits to trying drugs. But I do think that, like an Obama, in the year 2012 (or even 2007/8), such a confession is considered reasonable and "honest" among many voters (who have had such experience themselves).

In a real way, there would be a bigger witch hunt of a politician today - maybe particularly a Democrat - who claims to have never tried any drug ever in his/her lifetime.

And that is rather sad, as well. Because there are many people - even Democrats - who have lived (even through high school years) without ever sampling drugs.

But again, we'd be back to what are the voters' perceptions and not always what is the reality of the matter. Lots of people simply wouldn't believe such (whether it be the reality or not).

 

[Kulindahr]

I respectfully take issue with the comparison between sleeping with whom you like and drug use.

Guy gets sent to drug rehabilitation program. Counselor asks, "What's your drug of choice?" Guy answers, "My boyfriend".

 

[mikey3000]

Sadly, even if he isn't qualified for the top job, he's still the best you got.

 

[Kulindahr]

We generally use English saddles around these parts. They don't have saddle horns.

They have saddle flutes instead.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm still waiting for your points. Preferably not your weak legal knowledge in claiming that Obama is a felon (when he is not, and never has been indicted or convicted of such).

I see you subscribe to the Aladdin school of morality: you're only in trouble if you get caught.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

I see you subscribe to the Aladdin school of morality: you're only in trouble if you get caught.

I can't believe I'm even putting a toe in this one, but you can't, by definition, be called a felon unless you have been convicted of a felony.

And Kuli, I think you meant to write "it's only WRONG if you get caught" because saying "you're only in trouble if you get caught" is not Aladdin's morality, it's sort of a universal truth (Just sayin')

 

[Kulindahr]

I can't believe I'm even putting a toe in this one, but you can't, by definition, be called a felon unless you have been convicted of a felony.

And Kuli, I think you meant to write "it's only WRONG if you get caught" because saying "you're only in trouble if you get caught" is not Aladdin's morality, it's sort of a universal truth (Just sayin')

Hey -- I was quoting Aladdin!

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Hey -- I was quoting Aladdin!

Well he's RIGHT! (but that's true for everybody, not just him)

 

[hungkee]

The people in an uproar didn't answer my question. If a drug addict leaves their addiction and goes on a productive life... like my friend... should they still be arrested for prior bad acts (being drug usage)? Some people are way in over their head with this argument. They have no argument.

Maybe your question isn't being answered or addressed because it doesn't really make any sense.

Should a person be arrested because he may have taken illegals drugs in his past (whether once or for years)?

That isn't typically how the law or law enforcement works.

Unless one's crime is perhaps murder or one is still enjoying the Ferrari he once stole, most of the time no one is much arrested for past drug usage.

Drug use in the past tense (and as long as it is or remains in the past tense) unlike a lot of other crimes, just isn't all that prosecutable. Therefore, arrest would make no sense. I suppose its not all that prosecutable because its not anything one can truly prove or currently demonstrate. Unless some other crime happened in connection to the drug use - or harm was caused a 3rd party - then what is there in an admission of past usage that law enforcement would be enforcing?

Possession and all that is 9/10ths of the law. And drugs ingested ten years ago are no longer in one's possession anyway.

 

[rareboy]

Interesting that the drug use thing is one of the FOX and Fiends talking points.

 

[FuryOfFirestorm]

Interesting that the drug use thing is one of the FOX and Fiends talking points.

Ironically, Rush Gasbag's Oxy addiction was easily forgiven and forgotten by his listeners....yet they still parrot his "drug users should be thrown in jail" claptrap.