Is it just me????

[ray8285]

I remember 8 years ago when John Ashcroft was going to be nominated as the AG. The dems wanted to block him because he had given a speech at a college they don't agree with. Fast forward to today and we have now had two of Obama's appointees acknowledge they violated federal law, but we should ignore that and confirm them anyway (I know Sec Tres already was). The media had a field day on Ashcroft but hardly a peep on these two.

Also, so far I have not been impressed. I have seen a whole bunch of image over substance from our new POTUS. This was the fear many on the conservative side had, image was more important than facts/getting things done.

[PB3021]

Remember the "Nannygate" issues? Prospective appointees didn't pay taxes for nannies and it was a major issue. Anyone remember Judge Bork? I don't remember all the details and may be confusing him with another judge but wasn't there an issue about the movies he rented?

[tony.o]

Yeah, its amazing that the people who want to raise the taxes of others don't pay theirs.

[Bearcat357]

Tommy just pulled his name out of the hat for HHS...... :D

[ray8285]

Remember the "Nannygate" issues? Prospective appointees didn't pay taxes for nannies and it was a major issue. Anyone remember Judge Bork? I don't remember all the details and may be confusing him with another judge but wasn't there an issue about the movies he rented?

Bork was for supposedly smoking MJ, Thomas was about the movies. Either way, minor issues compared to failing to pay over 100k in taxes.

[ray8285]

Breaking news, Daschle called it quits. However, I didn't know about the THIRD person he had nominated with tax issues. She pulled out as well.

[Bearcat357]

However, I didn't know about the THIRD person he had nominated with tax issues. She pulled out as well.

Nancy Killefer, nominated by Obama to be the government's first chief performance officer (whatever the f that is...?) has pulled out due to tax issues.

[ray8285]

Nancy Killefer, nominated by Obama to be the government's first chief performance officer (whatever the f that is...?) has pulled out due to tax issues.

That just makes it more ridiculous.....THREE have tax issues and hardly anyone (including the repubs in congress) say boo about it.

[lisah]

Actually, I've seen a lot about these people and their tax issues on sites like CNN and MSNBC.

[Oddball-Six]

Fairly common.

When clinton got elected the first time, there were some serious criminal issues with a couple of his fundraising partners, particularly from Indonesia and China. For a while in DC it was called indogate and actually went so far as to leading to DoJ investigation of Al Gore.

Anyone remember much in the way of news stories about it? Didn't think so.

We just elected a president that has messed with cocaine and has never run so much as a lemonade stand by himself and was a lawyer that sued banks for not making enough subprime loans to the highest office in the land from being a junior midwest senator.

I hope things go well, I really hope they do because this country needs more than speeches and socialist health care right now.

[Retired96]

Obama is a wothless chump, always has been and always will be. He will be a one term token chump in the White House.

[PS100]

I remember 8 years ago when John Ashcroft was going to be nominated as the AG. The dems wanted to block him because he had given a speech at a college they don't agree with. Fast forward to today and we have now had two of Obama's appointees acknowledge they violated federal law, but we should ignore that and confirm them anyway (I know Sec Tres already was). The media had a field day on Ashcroft but hardly a peep on these two.

Also, so far I have not been impressed. I have seen a whole bunch of image over substance from our new POTUS. This was the fear many on the conservative side had, image was more important than facts/getting things done.

Seems to me like media has been reporting the tax problems of these nominees pretty heavily. Hardly under the radar.

[1042 Trooper]

Obama is a wothless chump, always has been and always will be. He will be a one term token chump in the White House.
You are a racist. :D

[Retired96]

You are a racist. :D

Trooper, I am not a racist, I just don't like do nothing chumps that have never done anything being the leader of my country.

I have always liked the term "Chump' for people that I think are useless as boobs on a boar hog.

[mjhoyt27]

Trooper, I am not a racist, I just don't like do nothing chumps that have never done anything being the leader of my country.

I have always liked the term "Chump' for people that I think are useless as boobs on a boar hog.

He is the leader of the country right now, so you will have to get over it. You should just become a citizen of Canada or something.

[DaLAW]

Obama is a wothless chump, always has been and always will be. He will be a one term token chump in the White House.

So...if someone aspires to be President of the United States, they should check with you first? I don't understand the problem with someone having ambition to obtain a position they want. If the run a good campaign and get the majority of the votes, they are the clear winner. The clear, qualified winner thanks to the system we have always had in place...

And p.s., I think the majority of politicians, Bush, Gore, etc, were chumps considering they got everywhere they did due to family connections and hook-ups...

[mjhoyt27]

We just elected a president that has messed with cocaine

What is the point of this statement? I bet you didn't have concerns about substance abuse when Bush 43 was elected? After all, he had a severe alcohol problem until age 40 and admitted to trying weed in his youth.

Obama tried cocaine in his youth, so what. At least he was strong enough to not become addicted to the crap. Just like Bush smoking some weed as a kid, who cares?

[DaLAW]

Seems to me like media has been reporting the tax problems of these nominees pretty heavily. Hardly under the radar.

LOL! Yeah. Its been on every news channel, web-site and radio-station I've borne witness to recently. Unless someone's been hiding under a rock, or just wants to create fodder for their 'the world isn't fair!" theories, I don't think they can say the media is 'ignoring' or not reporting these stories...

[Oddball-Six]

What is the point of this statement? I bet you didn't have concerns about substance abuse when Bush 43 was elected? After all, he had a severe alcohol problem until age 40 and admitted to trying weed in his youth.

Actually I did. And do. I never have thought that he was a particularly good candidate just I wasnt willing to vote for the alternative, particularly when he was up against Kerry. I never voted so much for bush as I did against gore and kerry.

Obama tried cocaine in his youth, so what. At least he was strong enough to not become addicted to the crap. Just like Bush smoking some weed as a kid, who cares?

Some departments would DQ for that. I like the idea of having a president that didnt commit felonies and then talk about it later when he is being published and trying to get elected.

The drug issue doesn't play NEARLY as large as my concerns about his lack of administration experience at the time of his election. He has never run anything! Now he is the face and ultimately theoretically the primary decision maker of the highest executive office of our country in a time of economic difficulty. Recession now. The federal debt later.

I hope that he relies on the strength of the available experts in the various areas of BOTH parties and political persuasions. We need to give him time to see how this plays out but I wont downplay the concerns I had during the election and continue to have as we watch to see what he does.

[DaLAW]

Actually I did. And do. I never have thought that he was a particularly good candidate just I wasnt willing to vote for the alternative, particularly when he was up against Kerry. I never voted so much for bush as I did against gore and kerry.



Some departments would DQ for that. I like the idea of having a president that didnt commit felonies and then talk about it later when he is being published and trying to get elected.

The drug issue doesn't play NEARLY as large as my concerns about his lack of administration experience at the time of his election. He has never run anything! Now he is the face and ultimately theoretically the primary decision maker of the highest executive office of our country in a time of economic difficulty. Recession now. The federal debt later.

I hope that he relies on the strength of the available experts in the various areas of BOTH parties and political persuasions. We need to give him time to see how this plays out but I wont downplay the concerns I had during the election and continue to have as we watch to see what he does.

Who cares what a police department would DQ for? He didn't apply to be a police-officer. I don't understand this notion people have that every President BUT Obama has been a model-citizen and flawless human-being. Do some of you really think Obama is the first, and only, President to have participated in morally-questionable behavior? If your going to trash Obama, at least know your history...

[alpha1906]

I remember 8 years ago when John Ashcroft was going to be nominated as the AG. The dems wanted to block him because he had given a speech at a college they don't agree with. Fast forward to today and we have now had two of Obama's appointees acknowledge they violated federal law, but we should ignore that and confirm them anyway (I know Sec Tres already was). The media had a field day on Ashcroft but hardly a peep on these two.

Also, so far I have not been impressed. I have seen a whole bunch of image over substance from our new POTUS. This was the fear many on the conservative side had, image was more important than facts/getting things done.

You will NEVER be impressed with Obama because youalready have a biased opinion of him

[Flanker]

You will NEVER be impressed with Obama because youalready have a biased opinion of him

On the other hand, many liberals will never be disappointed with Obama because they already have a biased opinion of him.

[1042 Trooper]

Trooper, I am not a racist, I just don't like do nothing chumps that have never done anything being the leader of my country.

I have always liked the term "Chump' for people that I think are useless as boobs on a boar hog.
Chump is merciful my friend. You were too kind. And te hits keep coming as he once again surrounds himself with criminals. Today, he lost two more "friends" he had nominated for cabinet positions.

Chump? Way too kind. :D
But I say it again .... we must be racists. :) Just stand by and wait.....

[DaLAW]

Chump is merciful my friend. You were too kind. And te hits keep coming as he once again surrounds himself with criminals. Today, he lost two more "friends" he had nominated for cabinet positions.

Chump? Way too kind. :D
But I say it again .... we must be racists. :) Just stand by and wait.....

As much as you say this, who has ever called you a racist for not supporting Obama? I haven't heard ANYONE make such accusations. The only people I've seen called 'racist' are those extremist McCain supporters who said "Obama is a Muslim!", etc...

[1042 Trooper]

As much as you say this, who has ever called you a racist for not supporting Obama? I haven't heard ANYONE make such accusations. The only people I've seen called 'racist' are those extremist McCain supporters who said "Obama is a Muslim!", etc...
What - are you kidding? I've been called a racist more on this forum in the last two years than in the 50 before that in real life.

Of course, not one of them could quote a single racist comment, but that was apparently beside the point.

[DaLAW]

What - are you kidding? I've been called a racist more on this forum in the last two years than in the 50 before that in real life.

Of course, not one of them could quote a single racist comment, but that was apparently beside the point.

But I'm referring to Obama. I've seen you criticize Obama up and down...and none of the reasons have to do with race. So who has called you a racist for not supporting him?

[FNA209]

Who cares what a police department would DQ for? He didn't apply to be a police-officer.



One might use a bit of logic and suggest that if police officer candidates are held to a high standard then the man elected to be the chief executive officer of the nation's justice system should be held to the same standard. :(

The fact that isn't the case is just another indication of a broken system.

[PS100]

One might use a bit of logic and suggest that if police officer candidates are held to a high standard then the man elected to be the chief executive officer of the nation's justice system should be held to the same standard. :(

The fact that isn't the case is just another indication of a broken system.

I submit that police departments that DQ applicants for admitting to having tried drugs at some point in their lives are simply out of touch with reality. That's the broken, obsolete system right there, not the other way around.

[FNA209]

I submit that police departments that DQ applicants for admitting to having tried drugs at some point in their lives are simply out of touch with reality. That's the broken, obsolete system right there, not the other way around.



If people that do illegal drugs can truthfully say they didn't know they were breaking the law they are ignorant. If they say they knowingly broke the law they’re criminals.

I just as soon not have ignorant police officers working in my town. And I pretty much don’t want police officers who knowingly break the law working around my family either.

I apply those same standards to politicians. I know we have many who have engaged in criminal activity. The fact that the citizens of this country excuse that behavior is yet another reason we are where we are today.

[Bearcat357]

I submit that police departments that DQ applicants for admitting to having tried drugs at some point in their lives are simply out of touch with reality. That's the broken, obsolete system right there, not the other way around.

Errr....how about QUIT SMOKING DOPE!!!!!! :rolleyes:

[PS100]

Errr....how about QUIT SMOKING DOPE!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Well yeah, of course. That's the thing, if you are not a pothead now, then who cares if you tried pot sometime in the past?

Have you not ever tried it, or any other drug?

[Bearcat357]

Have you not ever tried it, or any other drug?

Posted not more than 20 mins or so ago.....

I actually was a good kid and listened to my parents.....I didn't drink (I was an athlete....not that great but none the less)....I didn't smoke dope....and I wasn't out driving around doing stupid stuff that would cause me to come onto Ask A Cop and see if the nice LEOs on here think I have what it takes to be a LEO.....because I vandalized and stole crap.....drove drunk....drink underage....smoked/sniffed/snorted/drank anything I could get my grimy little hands on that was ILLEGALLY....and I knew better....but did it anyway....

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Once I turned 18 and was out of the house awaiting to go into the Military....I worked and drank some....but that was it..... Hell, I haven't even smoked a cigeratte......

My only vices right now are fatty foods, beer, soft drinks, fast food, and more beer.....and I curse like a pizzed off retard because folks like you think that since you disobeyed the law when you were kids....you should get LEO jobs handed to you because....like man....that's how things are now man....know what I mean duuuuudddddeee....?

:rolleyes:

[PS100]

If people that do illegal drugs can truthfully say they didn't know they were breaking the law they are ignorant. If they say they knowingly broke the law they’re criminals.

I just as soon not have ignorant police officers working in my town. And I pretty much don’t want police officers who knowingly break the law working around my family either.

I apply those same standards to politicians. I know we have many who have engaged in criminal activity. The fact that the citizens of this country excuse that behavior is yet another reason we are where we are today.

Again, who is talking about ongoing drug use??? We are talking about past drug use. If you tried drugs in the past, does that mean that, according to your logic, you are either ignorant or criminal for the rest of your life?

Have you not ever broken the law in the past? Does that define who you are now?

[PS100]

Posted not more than 20 mins or so ago.....

I actually was a good kid and listened to my parents.....I didn't drink (I was an athlete....not that great but none the less)....I didn't smoke dope....and I wasn't out driving around doing stupid stuff that would cause me to come onto Ask A Cop and see if the nice LEOs on here think I have what it takes to be a LEO.....because I vandalized and stole crap.....drove drunk....drink underage....smoked/sniffed/snorted/drank anything I could get my grimy little hands on that was ILLEGALLY....and I knew better....but did it anyway....

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Once I turned 18 and was out of the house awaiting to go into the Military....I worked and drank some....but that was it..... Hell, I haven't even smoked a cigeratte......

My only vices right now are fatty foods, beer, soft drinks, fast food, and more beer.....and I curse like a pizzed off retard because folks like you think that since you disobeyed the law when you were kids....you should get LEO jobs handed to you because....like man....that's how things are now man....know what I mean duuuuudddddeee....?

:rolleyes:

LEO jobs handed to me??? What on earth are you talking about? Are you having a conversation with yourself or something?

[FNA209]

Again, who is talking about ongoing drug use??? We are talking about past drug use. If you tried drugs in the past, does that mean that, according to your logic, you are either ignorant or criminal for the rest of your life?



You don't see criminal activity in a negative light. Who am I to argue with you? You have tailored your opinions into a suit that obviously fits you well. I used a different tailor.

We'll have to disagree on certain ethical and moral issues.

[PS100]

You don't see criminal activity in a negative light. Who am I to argue with you? You have tailored your opinions into a suit that obviously fits you well. I used a different tailor.

We'll have to disagree on certain ethical and moral issues.

So you have never broken the law, that's what your'e saying?

[Bearcat357]

LEO jobs handed to me??? What on earth are you talking about? Are you having a conversation with yourself or something?

Just thinking what's going on in your mind....and the mind of a few others on here....

"Crap man....all I did was smoke some dope....do some X....and drink underage.....plus skip out on some school days.....and these bastards won't let me be the Po-Po with them.... Guess it's back to watching COPS, eating ho-ho's and light the bong up again......"

:rolleyes:

Your Airlne make you take a UA......? You have to go through a 10 year FAA/TSA background...? I bet there was something about past criminal activity......and smoking weed is criminal activity......

[PS100]

So now I'm a pot smoking, ecstacy taking, criminal...lol ...just because I have a different opinion than yours....you people are unbelievable.

[Bearcat357]

So now I'm a pot smoking, ecstacy taking, criminal...lol ...just because I have a different opinion than yours....you people are unbelievable.

Just calling it like I see it....

You've been on here (o.com) for how long....and still don't have a LEO job...??

Hmmm........

[PS100]

Just calling it like I see it....

You've been on here (o.com) for how long....and still don't have a LEO job...??

Hmmm........

God allmighty., here come the personal attacks...like clockwork!!! The others are right, you have issues, my friend....

[FNA209]

So you have never broken the law, that's what your'e saying?


Sorry- had to edit this.

There was this one time at band camp....

[Bearcat357]

There was this one time at band camp....

I never made it to band camp....some of us had to do farm work for a living during the summer..... which actually made us into more responsible people.....and not try blame others for us not getting into professions we want..... ;)

Unlike a few on here who think that illegal/suspect stuff they did 2-3/5-10 years ago shouldn't count.... and they should be handed LEO jobs.... :rolleyes:

[FNA209]

I never made it to band camp....some of us had to do farm work for a living during the summer..... which actually made us into more responsible people.....and not try blame others for us not getting into professions we want..... ;)

Unlike a few on here who think that illegal/suspect stuff they did 2-3/5-10 years ago shouldn't count.... and they should be handed LEO jobs.... :rolleyes:


Much like the criminal violations many of our politicians commit. Nevermind, those are excused. After all, they were "mistakes".

[Bearcat357]

Much like the criminal violations many of our politicians commit. Nevermind, those are excused. After all, they were "mistakes".

Yeah....like not paying taxes.....then when you get caught by investigators doing background checks on you for Cabinet Level positions..... pled stupidity and try to buy your way out of things.... :rolleyes:

[Swami]

My god, the democrats are acting like republicans, which is to say, they're all acting like politicians...

[FNA209]

My god, the democrats are acting like republicans, which is to say, they're all acting like politicians...


That is the problem. Neither party has any moral high ground. They are indeed all just politicians. And until we pass some law that doesn't allow them any wiggleroom and they have a mandated prison sentence for violating public trust, we won't attract all that many people with said moral virtues. Since the politicians craft the laws, I doubt we'll see anything like that enacted.

[Swami]

The more local the control, the more difficult corruption is... When the people who have the most control over my life are 3,000 miles away instead of 3 miles away... Out of sight out of mind, what sort of access do I have, does the local media have?

At least, that's my pet theory... As they say, before Lincoln it was the United States are, after Lincoln it became the United States is.

[FNA209]

The more local the control, the more difficult corruption is... When the people who have the most control over my life are 3,000 miles away instead of 3 miles away... Out of sight out of mind, what sort of access do I have, does the local media have?

At least, that's my pet theory... As they say, before Lincoln it was the United States are, after Lincoln it became the United States s.

You are preaching to the saved! :D A large centralized government is the worst form of government. I see no abatement of that trend and, in fact, it's going to get worse.

[Swami]

Yep, there's this modern whig party, it's not going to go anywhere, but I find their views align with mine much more than either of the two big parties...

http://modernwhig.org/

Who knows, perhaps it's pessimism like mine that allows the Republocrats to maintain their dominance...

[lisah]

On the other hand, many liberals will never be disappointed with Obama because they already have a biased opinion of him.

And that, IMHO, is one of the problems we have in the country right now. There are those who for 8 years said that we had to respect the office of president even if we didn't like the man. That questioning Bush was unpatriotic. Who now are activly hoping Obama fails, and spreading false stories.

Then there are those who for 8 years picked on everything Bush did, but act like Obama is our savior and should be above reproach.

I'd like to think that we look at actions before a person's political party when deciding what we think...

Note, I'm not directing this at any one person on this thread.

[Hoosier_Boy]

All politicians at that level are bought and paid for before they get there... It's a joke.

[PS100]

Just thinking what's going on in your mind....and the mind of a few others on here....

"Crap man....all I did was smoke some dope....do some X....and drink underage.....plus skip out on some school days.....and these bastards won't let me be the Po-Po with them.... Guess it's back to watching COPS, eating ho-ho's and light the bong up again......"

:rolleyes:

Your Airlne make you take a UA......? You have to go through a 10 year FAA/TSA background...? I bet there was something about past criminal activity......and smoking weed is criminal activity......

Now you can read minds too??? See, the reason you are incapable of having a rational discussion here is because as you sit there typing notions pop into your head of what the other people here are about, and then, you take those ideas and incorporate them as fact into the discussion and as a specilative basis of support for your argument.

For example, we were having a discussion here (quite pleasant until then, until you chimed in with your non-sequiturs) about people who have used drugs in the past that are DQ-d by police departments.

Your reply to this? "Quit smoking dope." Uh...ok, but that was not the topic of discussion, we were talking about past drug use.

Then, you jump in with something or other about people that want to have their LEO jobs handed to them. Um, okay, was this a reply to another thread or something? Cause again, not sure where this came from. Then you go into the Cheech and Chong routine (which I must admit did make me laugh, but mainly because it was childish.)

Then the kicker, you know "what's going on in my mind."! And not only that, but now you just know that I smoked pot, that I took E, skipped school, drank underage, etc. And if that wasn't enough then you throw in that I have been here for how long and don't have an LEO job yet. You just know why, don't you? Sure you do....and then you again close with the thread-irrelevant nonsense about people who want their jobs handed to them (once again going off in your little own conversation in your head).


Do you see the pattern? This, my friend, is a blurring of the line between reality and fantasty. It's clear you have personal issues with people that use or have used drugs (or maybe some other unresolved type of problems), but to use anyone here that dares debate you as a some kind of lightning rod for your hostility is just illogical. Cause then you go with the personal attacks. If I were you, and situation reversed, I would make fun of this, and say something like "you know, for someone that doesn't smoke dope, you are quite delusional." Or, "Well, that's what you get from having sex with farm animals, while the rest of the guys were out having normal fun." See the point? Make some assumption about your personal life and use that as basis for my argument.

But what it is clear is that you have no capability of entering into a rational, interesting debate about any subject, because with you, every argument degenerates into insults and hostility. You should definitely look into why that is....as in with a mental health professional.

There...calling it like I see it. Best of luck.

[ray8285]

Seems to me like media has been reporting the tax problems of these nominees pretty heavily. Hardly under the radar.

And what have they been saying? What has been the response of the dems? It has been laughable. Virtually none of the reports vilified these criminals in the way they did Ashcroft and others. Here lies the difference...Republican says/does something stupid-attacked by EVERYONE including own party....Democrat does something illegal-Republicans go after them and the dems yawn.

[ray8285]

You will NEVER be impressed with Obama because youalready have a biased opinion of him

Why should I need to be impressed with him? Try reading other things I have posted about him. I want him to succeed to the extent he does what is right for this country. So far he has done nothing but fluff and imagery.

Gitmo, equal pay, stimulus package....these are nothing but image builders. "I'm closing Gitmo within the year"...what are you doing with the prisoners (oops hadn't planned on that)...equal pay-doubed the time you can sue...if they were that concerned with pay then the could have sued as soon as they left stopping the 180 days in its tracks....stimulus package-not all his fault he didn't write it, but he supports it lock stock and pork barrel.

[Oddball-Six]

Have you not ever broken the law in the past? Does that define who you are now?

I have no problem being fully accountable (and even public) for my actions throughout my life and turning them into a positive tool for my community. The only time I have ever knowingly broken the law was when I was 19 and drank in a bar during an 18-and-over dart league. To my understanding this is a ticketable offense in the jurisdiction I was in at the time and would not be preventative to any LEO position being honest about it if I were to choose to follow the path to being a sworn officer. Other than that, I can truthfully state I have never knowingly broken a law.

I absolutely think that your past experiences, including possibly doing stupid things like that or using drugs, etc, impact the definition of the person that you will be later in life.

I think you also fail to make the distinction here. There is a difference between kids-will-be-kids stupidity which a department can talk about and choose to overlook and the intentional decision to commit a felony.

That felony, whether it is drugs or anything else, is part of your life experience and the psyche is a varied and complicated thing. Is it responsible of any public safety department to immediately feel comfortable making the assumption that it HAS NOT colored any of your tendencies or views on society in executing the duties of a police officer?

Crimes are felonies for a reason, usually based on the severity and impact of the crime being committed against a person, entity, or society as a whole.

The far more responsible path here is to realize that accepting the next candidate in the pool who might have scored 2 points lower than the 'tainted' candidate on the written test is far less of a risk than accepting the 'tainted' candidate on the assumption that there are zero present perceptions that are based in part on that experience.

[DaLAW]

One might use a bit of logic and suggest that if police officer candidates are held to a high standard then the man elected to be the chief executive officer of the nation's justice system should be held to the same standard. :(

The fact that isn't the case is just another indication of a broken system.

But politicians have NEVER been held to that standard. I don't see why the rules must change now that Obama has been elected. Obama won, get over it...

[DaLAW]

I never made it to band camp....some of us had to do farm work for a living during the summer..... which actually made us into more responsible people.....and not try blame others for us not getting into professions we want..... ;)

Unlike a few on here who think that illegal/suspect stuff they did 2-3/5-10 years ago shouldn't count.... and they should be handed LEO jobs.... :rolleyes:

Your engaged in a personal war with another member, but I'm responding anyway:

As soon as I was legally allowed to work, my parents made me get a job. It sucked but I'm glad they did it, looking back. For the very reasons you said, made me much more responsible and made me value hard-work and money. Drug-wise, I tried weed once or twice in high-school but that's it. I'm pretty-clean cut. However, not everyone else was. Including Obama. Who tried cocaine, apparently, in his youth as he stated in his autobiography. However, I truly don't understand why that should be used against him TODAY, as some members are suggesting when they personally attack him. Quite frankly, I'd rather have someone who experimented in their youth, realized their mistake and stopped as opposed to someone who was an alcoholic in their youth...and continued being an alcoholic well into their adulthood. Lets say, until age 40...as a certain beloved Politician and former President some of you on this forum are familiar with was...

But again, nobody who is criticizing Obama for what he did 20-30 years ago is saying the same things about Bush who had an addiction until the age of 40, because, as we know, different rules for different people...

[tony.o]

Damn. If a Republican farts on this website you can bet Dalaw is going to smell it.
Go surf some porn or something:rolleyes:

[DaLAW]

Damn. If a Republican farts on this website you can bet Dalaw is going to smell it.
Go surf some porn or something:rolleyes:

Go make some racist comments or make another avatar with the President of the country you live in dressed as a terrorist or something. Troll :rolleyes:

[tony.o]

Go make some racist comments or make another avatar with the President of the country you live in dressed as a terrorist or something. Troll :rolleyes:

Troll? :D:D:rolleyes:
I don't like the 'chump'. Get over it.

[Bearcat357]

As soon as I was legally allowed to work, my parents made me get a job. It sucked but I'm glad they did it, looking back.

Good for you....and I seriously mean that. It pizzes me off to know end watching some of the college kids I deal with suck off their parents and take no responsibity for their own well being....

Drug-wise, I tried weed once or twice in high-school but that's it.

Non-factor for LE.....


Including Obama. Who tried cocaine, apparently, in his youth as he stated in his autobiography.

You do realize there are a lot of LE agencies that won't touch folks for using "heavy drugs" such as coke....? If you admitted to doing coke at the agencies around here....you'd never be hired. We have tons of folks that haven't......

However, I truly don't understand why that should be used against him TODAY, as some members are suggesting when they personally attack him.

See above....a lot of us on here think in LE terms when it comes to hiring folks. We (the US) hired Barry to run this place..... He couldn't pass a background check with a LE agency.....so yeah, I have issues that the POTUS can't pass a LE background....



and continued being an alcoholic well into their adulthood. Lets say, until age 40...as a certain beloved Politician and former President some of you on this forum are familiar with was...

This has been delt with Lord only knows how many times.... We (the US public) have no idea what Bush did or didn't do. He has publicly stated he had issues....found God...and he's done with those issues.

How many folks have came out to say W. did coke...? At the most, we know he drank to much because of his DUI way back in the day..... But unless a bunch of eyewitnesses come out to say W. was doing line after line of coke....I'm not buying it. Though, I am sure folks that went and saw that ridiculas movie that Ollie Stone made will think other wise.... :rolleyes:


different rules for different people....

Yeap....just look how the media has treated W. and how they have treated Barry...... :rolleyes:

[DaLAW]

Troll? :D:D:rolleyes:
I don't like the 'chump'. Get over it.

According to you, Black people don't even know how to act except at Basketball games and rap concerts. Lol, so why would I want your opinion on the "First Black President"?

[DaLAW]

Good for you....and I seriously mean that. It pizzes me off to know end watching some of the college kids I deal with suck off their parents and take no responsibity for their own well being....



Non-factor for LE.....



You do realize there are a lot of LE agencies that won't touch folks for using "heavy drugs" such as coke....? If you admitted to doing coke at the agencies around here....you'd never be hired. We have tons of folks that haven't......



See above....a lot of us on here think in LE terms when it comes to hiring folks. We (the US) hired Barry to run this place..... He couldn't pass a background check with a LE agency.....so yeah, I have issues that the POTUS can't pass a LE background....




This has been delt with Lord only knows how many times.... We (the US public) have no idea what Bush did or didn't do. He has publicly stated he had issues....found God...and he's done with those issues.

How many folks have came out to say W. did coke...? At the most, we know he drank to much because of his DUI way back in the day..... But unless a bunch of eyewitnesses come out to say W. was doing line after line of coke....I'm not buying it. Though, I am sure folks that went and saw that ridiculas movie that Ollie Stone made will think other wise.... :rolleyes:




Yeap....just look how the media has treated W. and how they have treated Barry...... :rolleyes:

My only thing with the Obama cocaine thing is...I think it looks bad on his past and his judgement as a youth. That, and a few other things. But as stated, I don't think his mindstate as a youth should be used to come and bite him in the a** now. If he said, "Yeah, I was smoking crack until I was 38 years old", then yeah, we've got problems. Anybody would. (Except Marion Barry, who still holds political office in DC and is wildly popular with his constituents)...

But, because he did a hard-drug so-many-years ago, in the context of the setting he's in (politics), I don't think that precludes him from serving in office. Thats why I brought Bush up. I'm just starting my first police-hiring process so I don't know how everything works, but if a 40 year old applicant came in and said, "I'm an alcoholic", I doubt they'd be on the top of the 'to-hire' list. Nor do I think the legally blind Governor of NY would make it far in the process. And almost assuredly, neither would Ted Kennedy, had he applied a few years after his 'accident'. As you can see, my point is, Obama very well may not get pass a LE screening...but neither would many of his peers. Different criteria for different jobs...

And p.s., Bush and Obama 'found' God after their addictions and they openly mention their past problems. So I don't see the issue with either man or why it should matter...

[Swami]

Most people in the U.S have tried an illegal substance at some point, that Obama experimented in college doesn't really mean much to me... Especially if it's just pot, it's not illegal for any purpose other than to protect certain industries.

[FNA209]

Ahhh... the new mantra of the apologists.



Obama won, get over it...



A mere moral posts a generalized statement mentioning what character they believe politicians should have and it’s all about Obama.



Obama won, get over it...



How dare I infer, even indirectly, the Chosen One may be flawed?



Obama won, get over it...



I may just have to make that my new signature line. :D



Obama won, get over it...



If I include it in all of my posts, the Obama cheering section can stop having to type it. But if there is a need for them to keep inserting it in every post it's not all bad. I hear professional cheerleaders can make a lot of money, so keep practicing. Maybe if you get real good, and if you have the legs for it, the Dallas Cowboys may hire you.



Obama won, get over it...



It made me laugh again. :D



Obama won, get over it...



I can always count on at least one Obama supporter to scream from the rooftops about the injustice of it all anytime anyone says anything negative about Obama. Is there an echo? :D



Obama won, get over it...



I’m thinking that it’s not me who has to get over it. When (notice I don’t say “if”) Obama screws up, I will mention it. So all of the cheerleaders can stop waving their pom-poms and develop a tougher skin or they are in for a rough four years.

That is, if the guy doesn’t step on it so badly he gets impeached or something. But don’t worry, even if that happens, he’ll still make the history books and then people can claim he was a martyr or some other equally important label so they can improve whatever part of their self-esteem they were obviously lacking before Obama got elected.

[DaLAW]

Ahhh... the new mantra of the apologists.



A mere moral posts a generalized statement mentioning what character they believe politicians should have and it’s all about Obama.



How dare I infer, even indirectly, the Chosen One may be flawed?



I may just have to make that my new signature line. :D



If I include it in all of my posts, the Obama cheering section can stop having to type it. But if there is a need for them to keep inserting it in every post it's not all bad. I hear professional cheerleaders can make a lot of money, so keep practicing. Maybe if you get real good, and if you have the legs for it, the Dallas Cowboys may hire you.



It made me laugh again. :D



I can always count on at least one Obama supporter to scream from the rooftops about the injustice of it all anytime anyone says anything negative about Obama. Is there an echo? :D



I’m thinking that it’s not me who has to get over it. When (notice I don’t say “if”) Obama screws up, I will mention it. So all of the cheerleaders can stop waving their pom-poms and develop a tougher skin or they are in for a rough four years.

That is, if the guy doesn’t step on it so badly he gets impeached or something. But don’t worry, even if that happens, he’ll still make the history books and then people can claim he was a martyr or some other equally important label so they can improve whatever part of their self-esteem they were obviously lacking before Obama got elected.

See, unlike some simple-minds, I don't put all my stock in any politician. Many of the people on this forum still believe George W Bush was a GREAT President. If you want to talk about disallusioned, start with those people. Obama obviously has his flaws. But to me, its just so humorous that you can try to call Obama supporters 'apologist', or 'sheep' or whatever, but at the same time...everyday on this forum, people are fawning over Bush and saying how great s job he did. Either you share that same sentiment, which proves your inherent bias OR you are too cowardly to stand-up and voice the same criticism to the majority opinion...

[Taylor13]

I left my school dance because of drama. I come on here and I find drama. Where do I go?!

[DaLAW]

I left my school dance because of drama. I come on here and I find drama. Where do I go?!

To bed...

Just kidding. Life is full of drama. The important thing is, not to take any of it seriously. You can't let little things in life get you riled up. Especially this type of stuff. Differences are what makes the world great. Learn to love life and you'll be alright...

[FNA209]

See, unlike some simple-minds, I don't put all my stock in any politician. Many of the people on this forum still believe George W Bush was a GREAT President. If you want to talk about disallusioned, start with those people.

Unlike you, I liked Bush. I also think that as far as Presidents go, he was a good one. His policies were more in line with my way of thinking. Of course it goes without saying that I didn't like everything he did. The US isn't FNA209's utopia where everything goes his way. But the fact of the matter remains- the anti-Bush folks bashed him for everything and anything for 8 years.

In their minds, he could do no good- they considered everything he did as a mistake. It was a liberal's example of "El Deguelo". They did a pretty good job of it too. They played an excellent game of "take no prisoners and give no quarter".

But, much like Santa Anna didn't understand, I think the liberals didn't see that they merely inflamed a lot of people and those passions, once ignited, are not easy to douse. They should have remembered some examples of the backlash which occur when using those tactics. But liberals don't seem to view history as a learning tool.

Now it's the conservatives time to behave the same- and they're going to give large doses of the same thing back. They will continue to criticize Obama and all of his like-minded folks. They're going to marshall their forces and when the time is right, they're going to hit him hard. And they'll probably win- there's a good chance the liberals are going to have their version of the Battle of San Jacinto. For his sake, I hope Obama doesn't find it necessary to sneak away in the dead of night dressed as a woman.


Obama obviously has his flaws. But to me, its just so humorous that you can try to call Obama supporters 'apologist', or 'sheep' or whatever, but at the same time...

Obama does indeed have flaws. I can't agree with his views on many subjects and I believe he's only going to do things which will harm this country. One is bailing out the very people who are draining the country to begin with. I understand that its fashionable in some circles to give my tax dollars which I earned through hard work to the people who make no contribution to the welfare of the country.

Note I'm using welfare in a different way than most of them would even understand to begin with because the only definition they know is that welfare is the size of the check they get each month. So no, I would not support Obama just based on that issue alone. Add in other policies and it should be clear, Obama will not have my support.

Much like the Bush supporters were denigrated, now it's the liberals turn in the trash heap. I can already see they don't like it. They're already starting to cry and gnash their teeth at the injustice of it all.


Either you share that same sentiment, which proves your inherent bias OR you are too cowardly to stand-up and voice the same criticism to the majority opinion...


I'm glad you find humor in it. I likewise see the humor. I find it humorous liberals who displayed an "inherent bias" for eight years now want criticism stifed.

"Too cowardly?" "Inherent Bias?" Man, I'll say one thing. You are always right there posting things that make me chuckle. I do believe I've found yet another form of stress relief. They say laughter is the best message. You give me large doses of it.

[DaLAW]

Unlike you, I liked Bush. I also think that as far as Presidents go, he was a good one. His policies were more in line with my way of thinking. Of course it goes without saying that I didn't like everything he did. The US isn't FNA209's utopia where everything goes his way. But the fact of the matter remains- the anti-Bush folks bashed him for everything and anything for 8 years.

In their minds, he could do no good- they considered everything he did as a mistake. It was a liberal's example of "El Deguelo". They did a pretty good job of it too. They played an excellent game of "take no prisoners and give no quarter".

But, much like Santa Anna didn't understand, I think the liberals didn't see that they merely inflamed a lot of people and those passions, once ignited, are not easy to douse. They should have remembered some examples of the backlash which occur when using those tactics. But liberals don't seem to view history as a learning tool.

Now it's the conservatives time to behave the same- and they're going to give large doses of the same thing back. They will continue to criticize Obama and all of his like-minded folks. They're going to marshall their forces and when the time is right, they're going to hit him hard. And they'll probably win- there's a good chance the liberals are going to have their version of the Battle of San Jacinto. For his sake, I hope Obama doesn't find it necessary to sneak away in the dead of night dressed as a woman.



Obama does indeed have flaws. I can't agree with his views on many subjects and I believe he's only going to do things which will harm this country. One is bailing out the very people who are draining the country to begin with. I understand that its fashionable in some circles to give my tax dollars which I earned through hard work to the people who make no contribution to the welfare of the country.

Note I'm using welfare in a different way than most of them would even understand to begin with because the only definition they know is that welfare is the size of the check they get each month. So no, I would not support Obama just based on that issue alone. Add in other policies and it should be clear, Obama will not have my support.

Much like the Bush supporters were denigrated, now it's the liberals turn in the trash heap. I can already see they don't like it. They're already starting to cry and gnash their teeth at the injustice of it all.



I'm glad you find humor in it. I likewise see the humor. I find it humorous liberals who displayed an "inherent bias" for eight years now want criticism stifed.

"Too cowardly?" "Inherent Bias?" Man, I'll say one thing. You are always right there posting things that make me chuckle. I do believe I've found yet another form of stress relief. They say laughter is the best message. You give me large doses of it.

1) Life Lesson: Stop stereotyping and making generalizations...

- "Liberals do this...". "Liberals think that...". "Liberals are this...". Just stop. When you make blanket statements about a certain group of people, your critical-thinking skills and logic has to be examined. You can't define an entire group, especially an ideological group, by a given selection. Hence, I can't say, "All Muslims are terrorist". Some are. Many aren't. The point is, you can't box people in and stereotype them to fit whatever ideas fit into your mind. You can't minimize the world but you can open your mind. Which you obviously need to do...

2) Maturity Lesson: Grow up...

- If you're a grown man, doesn't it sound...pathetic...childish...petty...to say, "Well, since they did it, so can I!". That's essentially the argument you're using to rag on Obama. "Since Liberals did it, Conservatives can do it now too!". How juvenile. If you thought the behavior was negative when it was done to Bush, wouldn't it make sense to be ABOVE such counter-productive behavior now that the roles are reversed? An eye-for-an-eye may work on the playground, but, we're not on the playground...

And to connect this lesson into the previous one: Not all Liberals nitpicked and looked to criticize Bush on everything he did. So when you do it to Obama, the rationale-minds will look down upon you for the person you have let yourself become...

3) Political Lesson: Obama won, get over it

- That should really be your signature line so maybe, one day, you'll wake up, stop your double-standards and incomprehensible bias, and realize...Obama won...I need to get over it and stop whining. Your previous post about how "Obama should be held to standards of a LE officer to get hired", I mean, why? You admittedly liked Bush. Did you say the same thing when he was elected, knowing that he was an admitted alcoholic until age 40? Or did it not matter then...because you liked Bush? Essentially, and correct me if I'm wrong, the rules are different for different people, i.e. the people that you like...

So, at this point, I know you stereotype and generalize people (Liberals), I know that you hold grudges and believe in an eye-for-an-eye ("Its Conservatives turn now!), and that you believe different rules should apply to people you like (Bush's alcoholism until age 40 vs Obama's cocaine dabblings in college). Well, at least we have a mutual relationship. You find humor in my post and I think your an equally entertaining joke...

[FNA209]

1) Life Lesson: Stop stereotyping and making generalizations...



It'd be a generalization if I said ALL Liberals. I don't think I said that. Using the term liberal to identify the folks who Bush-bashed for eight years is simply the easiest way to identify the majority of the people how fall into that group. It wasn't conservatives doing it. :p

Sounds like you want to be identified as a liberal, but it hurts your feelings if they get picked on.



An eye-for-an-eye may work on the playground, but, we're not on the playground...

...

I don’t believe a president who could do the damage Obama may do is the stuff of playground fun and games. The reservations I have concerning him go much farther than what I consider playground pranks.



"Obama should be held to standards of a LE officer to get hired", I mean, why? You admittedly liked Bush. Did you say the same thing when he was elected, knowing that he was an admitted alcoholic until age 40? Or did it not matter then...because you liked Bush? Essentially, and correct me if I'm wrong, the rules are different for different people, i.e. the people that you like...

...

That’s actually a pretty weak argument. A person with a drinking who has that problem under control could become a police officer. Drinking is legal- using cocaine is a crime. I personally know of police officers who are given a second chance when it’s determined they have an alcohol problem. We even have an assistance program around these parts to assist the officer. I don’t know of too many police officers who use cocaine and have kept their job.

1) Life Lesson: Stop stereotyping and making generalizations...

Well, at least we have a mutual relationship. You find humor in my post and I think your an equally entertaining joke…



Cool. We’ll both lead healthier lives. I’ll laugh at your posts and you can laugh at mine. See- there is always a chance to compromise.

[kc12]

DaLaw--The biggest difference between using cocaine and being an alcoholic is one is illegal and one isn't. Even being an alcoholic isn't disqualifying for a job. Your actions as a result of drinking too much are disqualifying. The mere possession of cocaine even without any intent of using it is illegal. I have a hard time seeing how you can say doing something illegal (and is a felony in most jurisdictions) is no different than doing something that isn't illegal. Neither say good things about the persons judgment, but buying alcohol is clearly legal, for most people, and it is very easy to become addicted to it, especially in college. If you can't see the difference between the two, I would imagine you have, or will have, a hard time interpreting and applying the subtle nuances of the law.

[DaLAW]

It'd be a generalization if I said ALL Liberals. I don't think I said that. Using the term liberal to identify the folks who Bush-bashed for eight years is simply the easiest way to identify the majority of the people how fall into that group. It wasn't conservatives doing it. :p

Sounds like you want to be identified as a liberal, but it hurts your feelings if they get picked on.



I don’t believe a president who could do the damage Obama may do is the stuff of playground fun and games. The reservations I have concerning him go much farther than what I consider playground pranks.



That’s actually a pretty weak argument. A person with a drinking who has that problem under control could become a police officer. Drinking is legal- using cocaine is a crime. I personally know of police officers who are given a second chance when it’s determined they have an alcohol problem. We even have an assistance program around these parts to assist the officer. I don’t know of too many police officers who use cocaine and have kept their job.



Cool. We’ll both lead healthier lives. I’ll laugh at your posts and you can laugh at mine. See- there is always a chance to compromise.

1) When you say "Liberals", and you and others here constantly do it, you don't seem to being discriminate in 'which' liberals you refer to. So, to me, at least, its taken as an attack on all Liberals. Being a Liberal myself, one who never nitpicked over every minute Bush decision and action, I defend myself and the other "liberals" who didn't. As stated, the Liberal ideology is too large and expansive a group to simply try to pin down one trait or belief to the entire group. If I said, "Muslims are terrorist and not to be trusted", it would be in the full right of a Muslim person to question, critique and challenge that opinion. Now, if someone said, "Some Muslim extremist are terrorist", there's nothing really to have a fuss over...

2) Weak argument? Obama dabbled in cocaine during his college years. Bush was an alcoholic until he was 40 years old. Are you saying someone trying to get hired as a police-officer can be an alcoholic and still be a 'prime' candidate? Yikes. Its one thing to be "on-the-job" and develop a problem but if your going through the hiring process (with integrity) and mention you have a drinking problem, I doubt one would get hired...

3) My life is already healthy and I think debate can help keep the mind sharp. Especially when we're both having a good laugh about it...

[Southflaguy]

http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/party/party0051.gif

[DaLAW]

DaLaw--The biggest difference between using cocaine and being an alcoholic is one is illegal and one isn't. Even being an alcoholic isn't disqualifying for a job. Your actions as a result of drinking too much are disqualifying. The mere possession of cocaine even without any intent of using it is illegal. I have a hard time seeing how you can say doing something illegal (and is a felony in most jurisdictions) is no different than doing something that isn't illegal. Neither say good things about the persons judgment, but buying alcohol is clearly legal, for most people, and it is very easy to become addicted to it, especially in college. If you can't see the difference between the two, I would imagine you have, or will have, a hard time interpreting and applying the subtle nuances of the law.

See, here's the thing...

I'm not justifying cocaine or being a crackhead. BUT, when people are using Obama's experimentation with cocaine in his college years to condemn and criticize him...I don't see how they can so easily ignore the fact that Bush had a substance abuse problem until he was 40 years old and was already holding office. Yes, I'd say cocaine is harder than alcohol, obviously, but when you have a substance abuse problem, I think that puts the questioning judgment on you and your abilities to be a leader, ESPECIALLY if your a public servant of any sort...

[1042 Trooper]

See, here's the thing...

BUT, when people are using Obama's experimentation with cocaine in his college years to condemn and criticize him...I don't see how they can so easily ignore the fact that Bush had a substance abuse problem until he was 40 years old and was already holding office.

I think it must be that Bush actually expressed shame in it...while Barry, boasted of it as though it was perfectly alright.

[Swami]

He boasted about it? I'd like to see the video/quote/etc of that, please...

[Jellybean400]

I think it's more like Bush just kept on trying to hide it all... never admitting to his own cocaine use... when asked over and over again about it, his most famous quote regarding the question being: "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible." George W. Bush

[kc12]

...when people are using Obama's experimentation with cocaine in his college years to condemn and criticize him...I don't see how they can so easily ignore the fact that Bush had a substance abuse problem until he was 40 years old and was already holding office. Yes, I'd say cocaine is harder than alcohol, obviously, but when you have a substance abuse problem, I think that puts the questioning judgment on you and your abilities to be a leader, ESPECIALLY if your a public servant of any sort...

Because one is a felony and the other is not.

[DaLAW]

I think it must be that Bush actually expressed shame in it...while Barry, boasted of it as though it was perfectly alright.

Nope. Obama never boasted about it. Unless...by 'boast', you mean the fact that he admitted he used it earlier in his life and regretted it...

[1042 Trooper]

He boasted about it? I'd like to see the video/quote/etc of that, please...
Read his book. He wears it like a badge.

[1042 Trooper]

I think it's more like Bush just kept on trying to hide it all... never admitting to his own cocaine use... when asked over and over again about it, his most famous quote regarding the question being: "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible." George W. Bush
And Obama (not Osama) still won't humble himself to say the same thing - instead - he blames it on the rest of us.

Please.

[Swami]

Read his book. He wears it like a badge.

I did read his book, could you provide some quotes that illustrate your assertion that he is proud of his past drug usage?

[inveich]

What is the point of this statement? I bet you didn't have concerns about substance abuse when Bush 43 was elected? After all, he had a severe alcohol problem until age 40 and admitted to trying weed in his youth.

Obama tried cocaine in his youth, so what. At least he was strong enough to not become addicted to the crap. Just like Bush smoking some weed as a kid, who cares?

Thing is, you can't get a security clearance after you have used Cocaine. If you have one, they will take it. That includes a one time use. Marihuana is generally not that big a factor in your security clearance if it has only been an experimental thing, and is really the only blemish on your PHQ.

Guys, look at it this way, can you be a cop after using Cocaine? Pretty much, thats a no. So why should he have access to classified information when other people that do the same thing can't? Kind of hypocritical.

[Swami]

He's not a cop, he was chosen by the people... enough people don't have a problem with expiremental drug use that occurred 20+ years ago.

[inveich]

Did you miss the rest of my post? You don't get a security clearance if you have cocaine use in your past. Its a cut and dry thing.

[Swami]

Did you miss the rest of my post? You don't get a security clearance if you have cocaine use in your past. Its a cut and dry thing.

So Obama doesn't have security clearance?..

[inveich]

Thats where I'm saying double standards....

[Swami]

How is it a double standard? I mean, is there in fact a law that says if the President of the United States used an illegal narcotic in the past he won't be given top secret security clearance?

The government may have a policy against giving people top secret clearance if they discover he/she used an illegal drug in the past, but that's a policy, not a law, and if the citizens of the U.S want a president who may have experimented in college, there's not much anyone can do about that.

[DaLAW]

Thats where I'm saying double standards....

So, you truly believe Obama is the first, and only, politician with a security-clearance who has used cocaine or other drugs? Yikes. I've got a few bridges to sell you...

[Bearcat357]

So, you truly believe Obama is the first, and only, politician with a security-clearance who has used cocaine or other drugs? Yikes. I've got a few bridges to sell you...

I forgot....you were right there next to them and saw them do it..... :rolleyes:

[DaLAW]

And Obama (not Osama) still won't humble himself to say the same thing - instead - he blames it on the rest of us.

Please.

Blames it on the rest of us? Lol, did you read his book? He does nothing of the sort. Your bitterness is blinding your better judgment about Obama (not Osama) yet again...

[DaLAW]

I forgot....you were right there next to them and saw them do it..... :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Because you have to personally witness something to believe it happened, right. Do you believe the Civil War happened? I mean, were you right there watching it? Do you believe Clinton got that BJ in the White House? You WERE right there next to him at the time, correct? Once again, impeccable judgment by Bearcat...

[Bearcat357]

Do you believe the Civil War happened?

Yeap....plenty of pics/biography's/physical evidence/1st hand sources that said it occured don't you think...?? :rolleyes:

Do you believe Clinton got that BJ in the White House?

Last time I checked....Willie and Monica said it happened or at least something did....and there was some physical evidence on a blue dress......

Try again Slick.....

:rolleyes:

[Bearcat357]

How is it a double standard? I mean, is there in fact a law that says if the President of the United States used an illegal narcotic in the past he won't be given top secret security clearance?

The government may have a policy against giving people top secret clearance if they discover he/she used an illegal drug in the past, but that's a policy, not a law, and if the citizens of the U.S want a president who may have experimented in college, there's not much anyone can do about that.

Are you that dense......? :rolleyes:

A. One can not get a US Gov Clearance if they have been found to do a few things in their lifetimes.....Snorting coke is one of those....

B. Since he's the POTUS....HE HAS TO BE GIVEN A CLEARANCE....no matter if he doesn't quailify for one.....because of the position he was elected into....and he has to read classifed info to do his job.....

Do you not get the double standard there....????

[DaLAW]

Yeap....plenty of pics/biography's/physical evidence/1st hand sources that said it occured don't you think...?? :rolleyes:



Last time I checked....Willie and Monica said it happened or at least something did....and there was some physical evidence on a blue dress......

Try again Slick.....

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: There's nothing to try again, with. Only an idiot would truly believe Obama is the first, and only, politician to have used cocaine or other hard-drugs. Lol, especially when the beloved former President steadfastly refuses to even discuss his past drug-usage:

"He continued: "Two decades ago I made some mistakes, when I was younger. I have learnt from those mistakes. Should I become the President, my pledge ... is that I will uphold the honour and dignity of the office."

Gee, what 'mistakes' might those be? We know about the drinking problem until he was 40 years old, but there's something worse?? Dun-dun-dun...But, as we know, when it comes to Conservatives, the rules are just a bit different :rolleyes:

[inveich]

Wow DaLaw, you reading a bit much into my post? I disagree with any politicians being given security clearances and executing an office if they have any things that would disqualify the average american from gaining that same security clearance. Just as I disagree with a Tax evador being put in charge of treasury.........

"The only position higher than president, is citizen."

Chew on that.

Swami, theres other security clearances out there, not just TS. You can't even get a Secret (most of the military has them) after you admit to past drug use. Go back to your studies.

[Bearcat357]

Only an idiot would truly believe Obama is the first, and only, politician to have used cocaine or other hard-drugs.

Last I checked....he's the only chucklehead to admit it..... All the posts POTUS's haven't......

Big difference as you can speculate all day of W. did it or not....but until witness come out.....or he says it himself.....all anyone has said about him was that he had drinking issues and that was it.

The only person that has said W. did coke was Oliver Stone and his bunch of retards.... :rolleyes:

Actually, the rules are different to the Dims....since Barry shouldn't even be cleared to read what he's reading National Security wise since he has admitted using Coke....

If you don't believe that.....I emplore you to apply for a Federal job that requires a clearance......then write on your SF-86 (background clearance form) that you did coke...and make sure your friends tell your background investigator that you did coke....and see if you get the job..... ;)

[DaLAW]

Last I checked....he's the only chucklehead to admit it..... All the posts POTUS's haven't......

Big difference as you can speculate all day of W. did it or not....but until witness come out.....or he says it himself.....all anyone has said about him was that he had drinking issues and that was it.

The only person that has said W. did coke was Oliver Stone and his bunch of retards.... :rolleyes:

Actually, the rules are different to the Dims....since Barry shouldn't even be cleared to read what he's reading National Security wise since he has admitted using Coke....

If you don't believe that.....I emplore you to apply for a Federal job that requires a clearance......then write on your SF-86 (background clearance form) that you did coke...and make sure your friends tell your background investigator that you did coke....and see if you get the job..... ;)

Oh, I know he admitted it. I think thats a GOOD thing because he's only being honest and admitting to what most politicians wouldn't dare touch. If Obama is good for anything, I think its not avoiding personal issues. Drugs, 'racism' claims, terrorist friends. Even if you hate what he says, he seems to be willing to at least talk about certain 'taboo's'. I can respect that...

I also know Bush has never admitted to doing any drugs. That's a good thing, politically. I guess. At least he said he 'regrets' whatever activities he refuses to mention. However, to 'speculate', I def. believe he, and many politicians, have done their share of hard-drugs. Judging by the many 'youthful indiscretions' our crop of politicians are responsible for, added to the wealthy background of the majority, I don't think hard drug-usage is out of the picture at all. As much as you may not want to admit it, the majority of politicians - including Conservatives - come from very wealthy, privilidged backgrounds. If one was to participate in occasional cocaine usage, per say, the stigma would be a lot less than someone out and out buying and smoking crack on the street. And I assume...to 'forget' such periods in time would be much easier...

And I'm not arguing about the Security Clearance. You would know much better than I would on the subject of who gets cleared and who doesn't and for what. But all I know is, if the rules applied to Joe-Blow were granted to the Presidents, our past few probably wouldn't have been cleared. If having integrity is something that counts...

[inveich]

Theoretically having integrity counts. However, if it does not show up in a single scope bacground investigation, the government will never know. So basically, if you put your referances as people that will say you never did any drugs or other unlawful acts, and you say it, your good in that department. Unlike civilian police agencies, the US Government does not routinely conduct polygraph examinations on potential employees.

[Chit2001]

Regarding his security clearance..... yea, it scares me. However, what REALLY scares me is what his wife has access to....or what she's demanding to have access to....

[Swami]

Are you that dense......? :rolleyes:

A. One can not get a US Gov Clearance if they have been found to do a few things in their lifetimes.....Snorting coke is one of those....

B. Since he's the POTUS....HE HAS TO BE GIVEN A CLEARANCE....no matter if he doesn't quailify for one.....because of the position he was elected into....and he has to read classifed info to do his job.....

Do you not get the double standard there....????

Listen, idiot (Well, that is a nice way to start off a post, thanks for the lesson in civility, bearcat!), it's a stupid policy to begin with, so I don't really care, however...

He's the president, not some life long bureaucrat, he was selected by the people, and therefore, so long as he hasn't violated any laws to prevent someone from becoming president, there's nothing hypocritical about it.

It's not our (the voters) fault that there's some petty rule in place that prevents a life long bureaucrat from attaining his dream of top secret clearance.

[Bearcat357]

Blah, blah, blah...

You just don't get it because you're that dense. The laws/regulations are in place for a reason.....

The biggest one is so folks like you .....that do illlegal drugs....won't be working for the USG.....which is a good thing.....

I'm done....tried of arguing with someone that either doesn't get it...or actually does but just keeps acting like they don't to irrate people.... :rolleyes:

[Swami]

I get it perfectly, you have an opinion on the subject, and the majority of Americans just don't care what you think (thank god).

It's a stupid rule, and most Americans apparently agree with me that it's a stupid rule.

The double standard doesn't exist because we (the majority voters) are not the ones who decide to deny top secret clearance to persons who have used illegal drugs. Not my fault if you got burned over a stupid rule and are a bit sore about it.

[PS100]

Big difference as you can speculate all day of W. did it or not....but until witness come out.....or he says it himself.....all anyone has said about him was that he had drinking issues and that was it.


Woooow...you're actually admitting that speculation is wrong???? You, the master of speculation???? Like when you tell Swami: "....folks like you that do illlegal drugs." That's not speculation??

[Swami]

Good catch... I'm beginning to realize that bearcat is a person best ignored...

[Bearcat357]

Woooow...you're actually admitting that speculation is wrong???? You, the master of speculation???? Like when you tell Swami: "....folks like you that do illlegal drugs." That's not speculation?? lol....

Anyone that argues with the drug policy is doing so for a reason slick......

I've been around the block long enough to know that.....

Don't you have an aircraft to load...? :rolleyes:

[PS100]

Anyone that argues with the drug policy is doing so for a reason slick......

I've been around the block long enough to know that.....

Don't you have an aircraft to load...? :rolleyes:

Don't you have some sheep to attend to??? lol

[Bearcat357]

Not my fault if you got burned over a stupid rule and are a bit sore about it.

One final.....

Burned on what...? I've got my Top Secrect plus some other stuff.....because I've been a a good boy all my life and didn't go snort coke like Barry did....

As stated...most folks that have issues with the drug policy concerning clearances....have so for a reason......;)

[Bearcat357]

Don't you have some sheep to attend to??? lol

Actually....no....

In about 20 mins or so I am going to go out and do some real cop work.....once I go on shift....

And you're going to be doing what...? Oh yeah...loading aircraft.....and cleaning crappers.... :rolleyes:

[PS100]

Um , I thought you said speculation was wrong??? What gives???

[Swami]

One final.....

Burned on what...? I've got my Top Secrect plus some other stuff.....because I've been a a good boy all my life and didn't go snort coke like Barry did....

As stated...most folks that have issues with the drug policy concerning clearances....have so for a reason......;)

And he's president while you are whatever it is you are.

[Oddball-Six]

Theoretically having integrity counts. However, if it does not show up in a single scope bacground investigation, the government will never know. So basically, if you put your referances as people that will say you never did any drugs or other unlawful acts, and you say it, your good in that department. Unlike civilian police agencies, the US Government does not routinely conduct polygraph examinations on potential employees.

What the hell are you smoking?

Thats just an SSBI.
There is also the SSBI with poly and a bunch of other add ons.

And those are just the entry levels. Oh, and if you really think that even an SSBI investigator wont look for anomalies against your references, you are incorrect.

There is also some advanced checking which gets done based on the sensitivity of a position or compartment that a person is being recommended for access to.

1) The president currently has something in his background which would disqualify him from a United States clearance under normal circumstances.

2) By virtue of his position as both the executive owner of the lettered agencies AND his position as commander in chief, he is granted a clearance anyway. The president also "owns" certain clearances related to the white house and the office of the president.

Remember, the clearance system is a "Mandatory Access Control" system and under the MAC, the clearance descriptor is only granted by an owner or someone delegated by the owner to bestow such label, ultimately subject to the review of the owner.

For some clearance categories, this normally-unclearable president will be that owner.

3) This is far from the first time that such a situation has occurred. It is usually managed by the folks providing intelligence to the president in terms of what level of detail they are willing to expose to that office. This is a normal process anyway used on a daily basis to protect sources, methods, and capabilities. There is ample precedent in the past for simply being more stringent in applying the "filtering" process, if you will, based on the history and political bent of the occupier of the office of the president. Jimmy Carter, anyone?

[mjhoyt27]

Swami, theres other security clearances out there, not just TS. You can't even get a Secret (most of the military has them) after you admit to past drug use. Go back to your studies.


Try again

[mjhoyt27]

Theoretically having integrity counts. However, if it does not show up in a singUnlike civilian police agencies, the US Government does not routinely conduct polygraph examinations on potential employees.

Try again. Look at FBI, DEA, SS, CIA, and NSA websites and they will all say they conduct polygraph examinations on job applicants.

[kc12]

Oddball--SBI is industry jargon for SSBI, which is the granddaddy of investigations. There isn't anything higher. There are add-ons like the poly, or financial statements, or LE specific question for those wanting to be a LEO, or Yankee White stuff for Presidential access, but the SSBI is the top dog investigation.

[Oddball-Six]

Oddball--SBI is industry jargon for SSBI, which is the granddaddy of investigations. There isn't anything higher. There are add-ons like the poly, or financial statements, or LE specific question for those wanting to be a LEO, or Yankee White stuff for Presidential access, but the SSBI is the top dog investigation.

You are correct. Edited.

[kc12]

Try again. Look at FBI, DEA, SS, CIA, and NSA websites and they will all say they conduct polygraph examinations on job applicants.

Those agencies comprise a relatively very small number of federal employees. I think inveich's generalization concerning the poly is still valid. Even those agencies do not poly all of their employees, only those who are involved with or expected to be involved with higher level or deep stuff.

[Bearcat357]

while you are whatever it is you are.

Was suspecting I am (along with all the other LEOs on here) is something you want to be....a LEO....

But going back and looking at your posts....and not a one of them asks any questions about LE work...and most are in the political area....one can only suspect you are trolling at best......or at the least some bored kid who thinks you knows it all.......and should just go away.... :rolleyes:

[Bearcat357]

Try again

What...? You smoked dope or snorted coke and got into the AF is what you are trying say.....? :rolleyes:

[Bearcat357]

FBI, DEA, SS, CIA, and NSA

A. Do you know how small those agencies (even added up together) are compaired to the rest of the Fed Gov...? Not even close in size....

B. CIA and NSA are not LE agencies.....

C. Lots of folks have TS and all the add-ons....without a poly.... Probably more so than the ones that do have a poly.......

[mjhoyt27]

What...? You smoked dope or snorted coke and got into the AF is what you are trying say.....? :rolleyes:

God, you're a fool. I never tried weed or any other drug, and I don't drink either btw. Out of the 24 people I work, all but 6 have at least tried weed. Guess what, we all work at NSA together. That is why I said try again.

[Bearcat357]

God, you're a fool. I never tried weed or any other drug, and I don't drink either btw. Out of the 24 people I work, all but 6 have at least tried weed. Guess what, we all work at NSA together. That is why I said try again.

:rolleyes:

You need to pay attention more....

We were talking about Coke that Barry did....NOT weed.....

Good Lord..... :rolleyes:

[mjhoyt27]

A. Do you know how small those agencies (even added up together) are compaired to the rest of the Fed Gov...? Not even close in size....

B. CIA and NSA are not LE agencies.....

C. Lots of folks have TS and all the add-ons....without a poly.... Probably more so than the ones that do have a poly.......

The statement was made that "The federal government does not usually polygraph potential employees." All I did was list 5 agencies that do.

Yes, CIA and NSA are not LE but they do fall under the federal government, which is what I was saying.

[Bearcat357]

All I did was list 5 agencies that do.

Make that 4...because the DEA doesn't poly....


http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/job/agent/joa.pdf

[mjhoyt27]

:rolleyes:

You need to pay attention more....

We were talking about Coke that Barry did....NOT weed.....

Good Lord..... :rolleyes:

A drug is a drug, and if you only tried it once 25 years ago and are honest about it, it won't always be a problem. The problem when it comes to clearances is either lying about it, or it being a habit and not a one time thing.

Back to the original point I made on page one of this thread. People who are whining about Obama trying coke in college, but have no issue with someone who has admits to trying drugs but won't go into detail, or had a severe drinking problem for over 20 years makes ZERO sense. The only type of person who would have any right to say anything about Obama is me. I never brought up Bush's substance abuse, so I wouldn't bring it up about Obama. That makes me not a hypocrite.

[Chit2001]

Good catch... I'm beginning to realize that bearcat is a person best ignored...


Yep. Most libs here tend to put him on their ignore lists..... typically because they can't handle being handed to them the way it is..... and a bit brunt at times, but nonetheless.

Put him on ignore. Pretty sure he won't give a hoot. I sure as hell wouldn't.

[mjhoyt27]

Make that 4...because the DEA doesn't poly....


http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/job/agent/joa.pdf

Fine, let's drop DEA and add DIA, NGA.

[Bearcat357]

Bush's substance abuse

As stated...Barry has admited using Coke.....and wrote about it in a book....

W. has stated he had some issues when he was younger, got over them, and is driving on..... No one (other than Ollie Stone) has came forward to say that they say him do this or that....other than drinking....It's pure speculation on the Dims part that he was doing all kinds of wild things.... And the Dims keep harping on it....even though their Messiah is in office....and isn't doing the best in the world thus far....like they said he would be doing....:rolleyes:

It is what it is.....

[Bearcat357]

Fine, let's drop DEA and add DIA, NGA.

Pffttt...I am sure I can find others as well....and it is a moot point.....

Once again, in the scheme of things, there are more folks in the USG without poly's than there are with them.....

[Bearcat357]

Pretty sure he won't give a hoot. I sure as hell wouldn't.

Nope...just two less liberal trolls on here to deal with.....

Notice all the Libs/Dims that don't like me tend to be the ones that never ever post questions about wanting to become LEOs or ask about what it is to be a LEO or anything LEO related (unless it's something derogatory about them)....they just come here to argue politics.....?? :rolleyes:

Hmmm.....

[mjhoyt27]

As stated...Barry has admited using Coke.....and wrote about it in a book....

W. has stated he had some issues when he was younger, got over them, and is driving on..... No one (other than Ollie Stone) has came forward to say that they say him do this or that....other than drinking....It's pure speculation on the Dims part that he was doing all kinds of wild things.... And the Dims keep harping on it....even though their Messiah is in office....and isn't doing the best in the world thus far....like they said he would be doing....:rolleyes:

It is what it is.....

President Obama did admit to using coke. President Bush admitted to using drugs, by saying he did somethings while younger and didn't want to talk about them. He said he wouldn't answer any questions about specific drugs. Since he has been 100% open about his boozing, then it means he did drugs but doesn't want to man up (like President Obama did). If he never tried drugs, all he would have to say is "I have never done drugs" Just like if someone asks me (like when my polygraph examiner) P.E. "Have you ever experimented with drugs" Me "No." When you aren't hidding something, there is no need to say "I did some things in my past". It is a simple yes or no.

Substance abuse is substance abuse, no matter if it is weed, meth, coke, booze, cigs. You can develop a problem with any of them, that is why you should stay away from all.

[mjhoyt27]

Pffttt...I am sure I can find others as well....and it is a moot point.....

Once again, in the scheme of things, there are more folks in the USG without poly's than there are with them.....

True enough

[mjhoyt27]

Nope...just two less liberal trolls on here to deal with.....

Notice all the Libs/Dims that don't like me tend to be the ones that never ever post questions about wanting to become LEOs or ask about what it is to be a LEO or anything LEO related (unless it's something derogatory about them)....they just come here to argue politics.....?? :rolleyes:

Hmmm.....


I would guess being on this site is enough to indicate an interest in law enforcement.

Since I'm not getting out anymore, I still post on the site ever so often because it is interesting to discuss issues with people who don't agree with you. What would be the point on going to a democratic leaning forum? That being said, I'm sure some people like to only be around people who feel the exact same way as them. It is a sign of weakness if you ask me.

[Swami]

Yep. Most libs here tend to put him on their ignore lists..... typically because they can't handle being handed to them the way it is..... and a bit brunt at times, but nonetheless.

Put him on ignore. Pretty sure he won't give a hoot. I sure as hell wouldn't.

Haha, the only thing he hands out is B.S.

EDIT: Is there an ignore function?.. Where is it?..

[Bearcat357]

Haha, the only thing he hands out is B.S.

Nope....you are doing a nice job of TRYING to hand out your liberal/West Coast nonsense.....

Someday you will grow up and realize how foolish you were....

Till then....stick to either studying or playing wii in your mommy's basement.....

79 posts in less than 9 days.... Hmmmm.....

[Swami]

Nope....you are doing a nice job of TRYING to hand out your liberal/West Coast nonsense.....

Someday you will grow up and realize how foolish you were....

Till then....stick to either studying or playing wii in your mommy's basement.....

79 posts in less than 9 days.... Hmmmm.....

Which is still less posts per day than you... HMMMMMMM...

Indeed, one day I'll realize how foolish I was to try and have an intelligent conversation with you... :D

[Bearcat357]

Which is still less posts per day than you... HMMMMMMM...

Perhaps...but at least I am....

A. A real LEO...not some wannabe kid....

B. Giving helpful info out...or at least pointing folks in the right direction...

C. Not sitting in the political threads ONLY......and not really talking about LE issues.....

D. Going no where in this arguement......

Next....

[scratched13]

So...if someone aspires to be President of the United States, they should check with you first? I don't understand the problem with someone having ambition to obtain a position they want. If the run a good campaign and get the majority of the votes, they are the clear winner. The clear, qualified winner thanks to the system we have always had in place...

And p.s., I think the majority of politicians, Bush, Gore, etc, were chumps considering they got everywhere they did due to family connections and hook-ups...

:rolleyes:

Yeah, try and slip that BS in there.

[scratched13]

As much as you say this, who has ever called you a racist for not supporting Obama? I haven't heard ANYONE make such accusations. The only people I've seen called 'racist' are those extremist McCain supporters who said "Obama is a Muslim!", etc...

Uggg ...... whatever.:rolleyes:

[DaLAW]

:rolleyes:

Yeah, try and slip that BS in there.

Obama isn't qualified to be President of the United States? How so? Which official qualifications does he not meet?

[DaLAW]

Uggg ...... whatever.:rolleyes:

No, please. Cite examples.

[DaLAW]

Yep. Most libs here tend to put him on their ignore lists..... typically because they can't handle being handed to them the way it is..... and a bit brunt at times, but nonetheless.

Put him on ignore. Pretty sure he won't give a hoot. I sure as hell wouldn't.

I wouldn't say "most libs". I've been put on ignore a few times. No big deal. As long as you remember your just talking politics and everyone has the right to an opinion, its all good. Even if it gets a bit 'rough' sometimes, its still interesting to see why someone thinks a certain way or not...

[1042 Trooper]

I like potatoes. :D