Obama admits to drug, booze and even cocaine use

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
This is a very new development. Hasn't he been denying this drug use for several years?

No.

 

[daveymark]

although the left tries to spin Bush as a cokehead, drug use isn't a big deal to voters anymore, so the fact that Obama is a cokehead too(based on leftwing logic) won't really detract too many votes either. a non-issue.

Conservatives don't need to sink as low as the left with this kind of attack. Obama has plenty of more realistic/justifyable reasons not to be voted for

that said, no real reason to go after obama anyway, hillary will win the dem nom. these kinds of attacks will effect her margin, but not her standings.

 

[gururu2]

obama is good at exaggerating his experiences. so he had a few drinks and took a few hits. he makes it sound as though he is an alcoholic and drug addict that later became 'enlightened'. some rough childhood... high school basketball star, private colleges. as 'real' as he is trying to position himself, he doesn't have the edge IMO to do great things.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I wonder if all the people who attacked Bush for his problems, dug up the 20 year old DUI, and chased down every allegation of drug use will now do the same thing to Obama.

Or will they magically pretend that none of this ever happened?

Well Clinton made it OK to "smoke but not inhale" and make a mess on interns.

Your buddy made it OK to do everything else.

Well thats not true. Clinton didnt catch much heat for smoking, Bush took a shitloade of heat, and still is. It's still often said, occasionally by a few on this board, you really cant trust a coke addicted prez.

But it'll be fine for Obama because he's a Dem.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well thats not true. Clinton didnt catch much heat for smoking, Bush took a shitloade of heat, and still is. It's still often said, occasionally by a few on this board, you really cant trust a coke addicted prez.

But it'll be fine for Obama because he's a Dem.

QFT. It's been a real riot watching the left-wing nutjobs making excuses for Clinton and Obama all the while berating Bush, and then attempting to qualify what constitutes a "threat" to "more" people. "Coke is fine, at least they aren't driving drunk!" :roll:

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well thats not true. Clinton didnt catch much heat for smoking, Bush took a shitloade of heat, and still is. It's still often said, occasionally by a few on this board, you really cant trust a coke addicted prez.

But it'll be fine for Obama because he's a Dem.

QFT. It's been a real riot watching the left-wing nutjobs making excuses for Clinton and Obama all the while berating Bush, and then attempting to qualify what constitutes a "threat" to "more" people. "Coke is fine, at least they aren't driving drunk!" :roll:

And don't forget, Coke is fine as long as you tell me about it, but if you lie, shame, shame, shame.

lieing > DUI > Coke use :roll:

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well thats not true. Clinton didnt catch much heat for smoking, Bush took a shitloade of heat, and still is. It's still often said, occasionally by a few on this board, you really cant trust a coke addicted prez.

But it'll be fine for Obama because he's a Dem.

QFT. It's been a real riot watching the left-wing nutjobs making excuses for Clinton and Obama all the while berating Bush, and then attempting to qualify what constitutes a "threat" to "more" people. "Coke is fine, at least they aren't driving drunk!" :roll:

And don't forget, Coke is fine as long as you tell me about it, but if you lie, shame, shame, shame.

lieing > DUI > Coke use :roll:

Unless you lie about a blow job

Not sure the formula for that one...

 

[manowar821]

No shit. These "warmongering-pig" apologists absolutely mind boggling. Apparently if you do coke when you're younger, you're automatically a bad man however many years later.. Of course, if you lie to have thousands of people killed for no reason, that's cool, salute that man! He's the president, I support him even though he's a worthless sack of crap that should be hung! But FUCK that guy who's running, he did coke and TOLD us about it!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: manowar821
No shit. These "warmongering-pig" apologists absolutely mind boggling. Apparently if you do coke when you're younger, you're automatically a bad man however many years later.. Of course, if you lie to have thousands of people killed for no reason, that's cool, salute that man! He's the president, I support him even though he's a worthless sack of crap that should be hung! But FUCK that guy who's running, he did coke and TOLD us about it!

I haven't really read that thread that carefully, but I didn't think that I saw anyone saying that Obama is a bad man because he did coke when he was younger.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Yeah, because "doing drugs" and a DUI are completely the same thing :roll:

There is a difference between doing something stupid that risks your own life vs doing something stupid that risks the lives of others. I honestly don't care if you drink or do (some) drugs., but getting loaded and driving around is a completely different thing. I don't buy into the idea that the President needs to behave like he's the pope, or that he needed to have behaved that way for his whole life. But there are certain things that can't be dismissed as youthful indiscretion or a charming everyman failing. Screwing around on your wife is pretty close to the line, and risking the lives of other people because you have no personal responsibility is way over it.

Why does that matter?

Because some drugs do enough damage that I don't feel comfortable dismissing it as a personal choice...especially when it's drugs that are extremely addictive.

Enough damage? How much damage is required? Not to de-rail the thread but I don't see how what you're saying is any different than someone against the use of tobacco or alcohol. It's that you don't draw the line at those drugs for whatever reason you just draw somewhere else.

The cost of keeping drugs illegal is much worse trade-off.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well thats not true. Clinton didnt catch much heat for smoking, Bush took a shitloade of heat, and still is. It's still often said, occasionally by a few on this board, you really cant trust a coke addicted prez.

But it'll be fine for Obama because he's a Dem.

QFT. It's been a real riot watching the left-wing nutjobs making excuses for Clinton and Obama all the while berating Bush, and then attempting to qualify what constitutes a "threat" to "more" people. "Coke is fine, at least they aren't driving drunk!" :roll:

And don't forget, Coke is fine as long as you tell me about it, but if you lie, shame, shame, shame.

lieing > DUI > Coke use :roll:

Unless you lie about a blow job

Not sure the formula for that one...

Should we perhaps have a list of exempted topics one can lie about under oath to avoid the hassle? I mean, lying under oath isnt necessary a bad thing right? And I presume it should be for ALL courts and for ALL people? It's either against the law or its not. There is no grey area.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well thats not true. Clinton didnt catch much heat for smoking, Bush took a shitloade of heat, and still is. It's still often said, occasionally by a few on this board, you really cant trust a coke addicted prez.

But it'll be fine for Obama because he's a Dem.

QFT. It's been a real riot watching the left-wing nutjobs making excuses for Clinton and Obama all the while berating Bush, and then attempting to qualify what constitutes a "threat" to "more" people. "Coke is fine, at least they aren't driving drunk!" :roll:

And don't forget, Coke is fine as long as you tell me about it, but if you lie, shame, shame, shame.

lieing > DUI > Coke use :roll:

Unless you lie about a blow job

Not sure the formula for that one...

Should we perhaps have a list of exempted topics one can lie about under oath to avoid the hassle? I mean, lying under oath isnt necessary a bad thing right? And I presume it should be for ALL courts and for ALL people? It's either against the law or its not. There is no grey area.

Steriods and Blow Jobs.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well thats not true. Clinton didnt catch much heat for smoking, Bush took a shitloade of heat, and still is. It's still often said, occasionally by a few on this board, you really cant trust a coke addicted prez.

But it'll be fine for Obama because he's a Dem.

QFT. It's been a real riot watching the left-wing nutjobs making excuses for Clinton and Obama all the while berating Bush, and then attempting to qualify what constitutes a "threat" to "more" people. "Coke is fine, at least they aren't driving drunk!" :roll:

And don't forget, Coke is fine as long as you tell me about it, but if you lie, shame, shame, shame.

lieing > DUI > Coke use :roll:

Unless you lie about a blow job

Not sure the formula for that one...

Should we perhaps have a list of exempted topics one can lie about under oath to avoid the hassle? I mean, lying under oath isnt necessary a bad thing right? And I presume it should be for ALL courts and for ALL people? It's either against the law or its not. There is no grey area.

Steriods and Blow Jobs.

:laugh: