Bush on fascists

From Yahoo news:

>Bush compared al Qaeda to the fascists and totalitarians of the past
>half century. ``We see the same intolerance of dissent, the same mad
>global ambitions, the same brutal determination to control every life,
>and all of life,'' Bush said.

While it's fair to say that Bush is not as big a thug as al Qaeda's
leaders, does he ever look in the mirror? After snorting coke
throughout his youth, he turned into a sanctimonious drug warrior. Are
you sick with cancer and wanting the relief pot brings? Bush will
squint those ugly eyes of his and say "The Federal government says no."
Or are you dying of a terminal illness and have reached the point where
the constant pain is no longer worth it, and want a doctor to provide
the drugs you need to cross the veil with dignity, at a time of your own
choosing? Attorney General Ashcroft, Bush's hand-picked thug, says no:
he's going to personally see to it that your doctor loses his or her
license. Just lie there and suffer, because the government says so.
The Government giveth and the Government taketh away; blessed be the
name of the Government.

To my eyes, Bush has little standing to lecture someone else of having
"a brutal determination to control every life, and all of life."

JdL

[Regarding Pres. Bush, John stated as a fact:

> After snorting coke throughout his youth ...

Documentation please.

- J

[Regarding Pres. Bush, John stated as a fact:
[JdL:]
>>After snorting coke throughout his youth ...

[Jeff Scott wrote:]
>Documentation please.

Let's put it this way: there is no hard proof that W used coke. Lots
of testimony from friends from his youth, but any of them might have
axes to grind. Let's say that he never used coke in his life, for the
sake of argument.

Here's my beef: when asked about coke use, W acted sanctimonious in his
right to have had "youthful indiscretions" or phrases to that effect.
He hid behind the right to privacy, a right which I strongly support.
But when it came to the laws that he pushed as governor of Texas, it
was another whole story: if you use coke, you're locked up for years.
Privacy for him, jail for anyone else.

Hence, W is a hypocrite, whether or not he actually used coke.

JdL

--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_996.html#1005

> [Regarding Pres. Bush, John stated as a fact:
> [JdL:]
> >>After snorting coke throughout his youth ...
>
> [Jeff Scott wrote:]
> >Documentation please.
>
> Let's put it this way: there is no hard proof that W used coke.
Lots of testimony from friends from his youth, but any of them might
have axes to grind. Let's say that he never used coke in his life,
for the sake of argument.
>
> Here's my beef: when asked about coke use, W acted sanctimonious in
his right to have had "youthful indiscretions" or phrases to that
effect.
> He hid behind the right to privacy, a right which I strongly
support.
> But when it came to the laws that he pushed as governor of Texas, it
> was another whole story: if you use coke, you're locked up for
years.
> Privacy for him, jail for anyone else.
>
> Hence, W is a hypocrite, whether or not he actually used coke.
>
> JdL

John, yes, I have to agree with you in this hypocrisy issue.

However, after reading Monz' post it seems pretty clear that the
reason that Bush didn't come right out and disclaim drug use to the
larger public was the fact that it would be a lie.

So, it seems that Bush finds it considerably more difficult to lie
than Clinton did. For Clinton, it was second nature. He had no
problem lying on national television.

Personally, I would pick Clinton over Bush *any* day, both for his
overall viewpoints, social message and intellect, but in the "lying"
issue, it seems that Bush has the edge.

JP

never trust anyone under 20 who is not doing drugs, or anyone over 40 who is
still doing drugs.

:-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jpehrson@... [mailto:jpehrson@...]
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 9:04 PM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] liar, liar
>
>
> --- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
>
> /metatuning/topicId_996.html#1005
>
> > [Regarding Pres. Bush, John stated as a fact:
> > [JdL:]
> > >>After snorting coke throughout his youth ...
> >
> > [Jeff Scott wrote:]
> > >Documentation please.
> >
> > Let's put it this way: there is no hard proof that W used coke.
> Lots of testimony from friends from his youth, but any of them might
> have axes to grind. Let's say that he never used coke in his life,
> for the sake of argument.
> >
> > Here's my beef: when asked about coke use, W acted sanctimonious in
> his right to have had "youthful indiscretions" or phrases to that
> effect.
> > He hid behind the right to privacy, a right which I strongly
> support.
> > But when it came to the laws that he pushed as governor of Texas, it
> > was another whole story: if you use coke, you're locked up for
> years.
> > Privacy for him, jail for anyone else.
> >
> > Hence, W is a hypocrite, whether or not he actually used coke.
> >
> > JdL
>
>
> John, yes, I have to agree with you in this hypocrisy issue.
>
> However, after reading Monz' post it seems pretty clear that the
> reason that Bush didn't come right out and disclaim drug use to the
> larger public was the fact that it would be a lie.
>
> So, it seems that Bush finds it considerably more difficult to lie
> than Clinton did. For Clinton, it was second nature. He had no
> problem lying on national television.
>
> Personally, I would pick Clinton over Bush *any* day, both for his
> overall viewpoints, social message and intellect, but in the "lying"
> issue, it seems that Bush has the edge.
>
> JP
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_unknown.html#1011

>
> [JP:]
> > However, after reading Monz' post it seems pretty clear that
> > the reason that Bush didn't come right out and disclaim drug
> > use to the larger public was the fact that it would be a lie.
>
> Joe,
>
> Were you really convicted after reading
> JM's post?? What about it did you find compelling?
>
> - J

Hi Jeff...

Well, fortunately, I wasn't "convicted" (not yet anyway)... but I was
moderately suspicious... Anyway, frankly, it doesn't matter much to
me one way or the other. If it's true that the "evasion" was Bush's
trouble telling an easy lie, than I think that's a good thing, in
contradistinction to Clinton. I'm basically a Clinton supporter, but
I *do* have to admit that there were certain "character" issues...

That's all...

JP

Joseph, get your butt over to the tuning list . . . NOW!

--- In metatuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Joseph, get your butt over to the tuning list . . . NOW!

Actually, I just did that, as you will see... probably as you wrote
this very message!!!

JP