Pronunciation: hip-o-krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

Paper: Bush Tapes Show Early Strategies

NEW YORK (AP) - Private conversations with George Bush secretly taped by an old friend before he was elected president foreshadow some of his political strategies and appear to reveal that he acknowledged using marijuana, The New York Times reported Saturday.

The conversations were recorded by Doug Wead, a former aide to George W. Bush's father, beginning in 1998, when Bush was weighing a presidential bid, until just before the Republican National Convention in 2000, the Times said in a story posted on its Web site.

The tapes show Bush crafting a strategy for navigating the tricky political waters between Christian conservative and secular voters, repeatedly worrying that evangelicals would be angered by a refusal to bash gays and that secular Americans would be turned off by meetings with evangelical leaders.

On one tape, Bush explains that he told one prominent evangelical that he would not ``kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?''

In early tapes, Bush dismisses the strength of John McCain for the nomination and expresses concern about rival Steve Forbes. He also praises John Ashcroft as a promising candidate for Supreme Court justice, attorney general or vice president.

Bush also criticizes then-Vice President Al Gore for admitting marijuana use and explains why he would not do the same.

``I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions,'' he said, according to the Times. ``You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried.''

According to the article, Wead played 12 of the tapes to a Times reporter. He said he recorded them because he viewed Bush as a historic figure. He is the author of a new book on presidential childhoods.

The White House did not deny the authenticity of the tapes.

``The governor was having casual conversations with someone he believed was his friend,'' White House spokesman Trent Duffy said, referring to Bush.



"WORST PRESIDENT EVER"

Get over it. Bush, for better or worse is the president and cannot run for the office again.

He is no bigger hypocrite than any other politician from the dawn of civilization to the end of time. Politicians are forced into being "two faced" because they must appeal to many different, illogical groups with unrealistic expectations. Most people who rail against Bush are the biggest hypocrites in the world. Where were they when Clinton, Carter, LBJ, and JFK were manipulating their world? Why do they try to rewrite history to make these people seem as messiahs? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones as my Mom would say.

Where's the hypocrisy? I'm sorry, I really don't see it.

Where's the hypocrisy? I'm sorry, I really don't see it.

Here's the glass house:

``I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions,'' he said, according to the Times. ``You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried.''

Here's the throwing stones:

Bush also criticizes then-Vice President Al Gore for admitting marijuana use and explains why he would not do the same.


There are others regarding gays.............. he says one thing then does the opposite.

If not hypocrite, can you spell panderer?

Main Entry: pander
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): pan·dered; pan·der·ing /-d(&-)ri[ng]/
: to act as a pander; especially : to provide gratification for others' desires

I think that anymore, being a hypocritical panderer is a job requirement for any politician. I get worried when I hear a politician who sounds like he's telling the honest truth. Things like truth and honesty could f*** up the whole system.

Get over it. Bush, for better or worse is the president and cannot run for the office again.

He is no bigger hypocrite than any other politician from the dawn of civilization to the end of time. Politicians are forced into being "two faced" because they must appeal to many different, illogical groups with unrealistic expectations. Most people who rail against Bush are the biggest hypocrites in the world. Where were they when Clinton, Carter, LBJ, and JFK were manipulating their world? Why do they try to rewrite history to make these people seem as messiahs? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones as my Mom would say.
:yourock:
also I see nothing worng with Somone smoking marijuana.

It affects their spelling!

To use a drug or to do any other action, then decide it is not in one's best interest to do these things is called learning from experience, and to not set your self up as a roll model for things you have found to be detremental is sound judgement.

Why not say, "I tried dope, but it was not pleasant, I didn't like it, etc." rather than "I'm not going to even address this." If he didn't like getting f***ed up, then he should tell the kids about his experience, and maybe he would influence them to think the same way. Instead he said, I'm leaving this question alone, because I could get trapped into a question i can't answer correctly. Its all about telling as much people as possible what they want to hear so they will vote for you, and it's BS.

It affects their spelling!
Spelling is something that I have never been very good at so I all was use spell check. But I did not think that this was something that formal that you all would mind a few slip ups so I’m sorry for that I will try harder next time,a$$hole. Why I say that pot is no big thing since the 1930’s government studies have recommended it be legalized.

Dertyclown,

Were you a child left behind?

Spelling is not the most important thing but it does show that you took the time to present your ideas in a manner that most people can read. You have some decent ideas but they get lost in the translation.

Please cut back on the swearing as it lowers other's opinions of you.

"Here's the throwing stones:

Quote:
Bush also criticizes then-Vice President Al Gore for admitting marijuana use and explains why he would not do the same."

Bush criticized Gore for admitting to it. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. Bush is not hypocritical in this case because on the record he has always either ignored the question or not commented on it. You may not like his answer, but let's get it straight. Using a term (hypocritical) out of context is another good way to show a low intelligence level.

(STRONG HINT: We really should move beyond this childishness. Anyone can post here regardless of grammatical accuracy. To belittle someone for that reason is nothing but bullying. I'm not that old, but what I've learned in my lifetime is that there are two things that you do not criticize someone on unless you want to fight: their looks and their intelligence.)

As far as the pandering accusation, I'm not even going to waste my time on this one. Seems to me to be a skillful navigation of a political minefield. This is how coalitions are formed on both sides. If pandering is the best you can come up with against Bush, then he's as safe as every other president or presidential nominee that has ever existed.

100% Correct KBOB... Bush never admitted to using it in his comment.
That statement to me indicates he was critical on Gore's addressing the question.

100% Correct KBOB... Bush never admitted to using it in his comment.
That statement to me indicates he was critical on Gore's addressing the question.

I'd agree that "pandering" is a more accurate discription than "hypocrite" in this case. But GW DID admit to trying pot.........

``I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions,'' he said, according to the Times. ``You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried.''

Not that I have a problem w/ that. GW's avoidance of the "M" questions gives one the impression that he is either in denial, or has something to hide. Either way, it does not project "trustworthyness". But honestly, this is no worse than Clinton's "I didn't inhale" excuse. It is a sad fact that our soceity is so quick to crucify someone over trivial issues such as this that our politicians cannot be open and honest about these issues, and are forced to be "panderers". Cheney's gay daughter is another prime example. It is mighy sad that large segments of the US population put more value on pandering, denial and avoidance in the name of "moral values", than they do on up-front, open, honest confrontation of the issues. Now there's hypocracy.

I'd agree that "pandering" is a more accurate discription than "hypocrite" in this case. But GW DID admit to trying pot..........That was off the record. This sleaze-ball made his recordings public. Everyone knows he smoked it, that isn't in doubt with me.

I'd agree that "pandering" is a more accurate discription than "hypocrite" in this case. But GW DID admit to trying pot.........



Not that I have a problem w/ that. GW's avoidance of the "M" questions gives one the impression that he is either in denial, or has something to hide. Either way, it does not project "trustworthyness". But honestly, this is no worse than Clinton's "I didn't inhale" excuse. It is a sad fact that our soceity is so quick to crucify someone over trivial issues such as this that our politicians cannot be open and honest about these issues, and are forced to be "panderers". Cheney's gay daughter is another prime example. It is mighy sad that large segments of the US population put more value on pandering, denial and avoidance in the name of "moral values", than they do on up-front, open, honest confrontation of the issues. Now there's hypocracy.


Well said, it's supposed to be a government of the people, for the people, but we expect them to be something else. I've got nothing against someone who made mistakes in life. Just once I'd like to see a politician talk about the stupid things he's done, and how he (or she) learned from them. I slam politicians for their ways, but the fact is, it's the people of this country who made them this way.

Spelling is something that I have never been very good at so I all was use spell check. But I did not think that this was something that formal that you all would mind a few slip ups so I’m sorry for that I will try harder next time,a$$hole. Why I say that pot is no big thing since the 1930’s government studies have recommended it be legalized.

OHHHH, take life easier.

What's the big deal, smoking pot is not healthy, it has been shown in many studies to be worse than smoking cigarettes, aside from its' other properties. You can get the "medicinal" effects from pills without the detremental effects of smoking it.

So the only reason to smoke pot is to get a buzz, which in a free society one should be free to do provided one is a responsible individual. Unfortunately pot smoking has been championed by rather unresponsible people and scoff-laws, plus many benefit from its' illeagal status. Also many people dislike making it easier for, let's say, people rendered out of touch with their normal selves to be out and about.

Many who would like it decriminalized don't want to see it being used, they want to unclog the courts and jails, and find more effective means to inhibit its' use and to deal with the problems this creates.

Bryan is back from Florida tomorrow -- hee hee -- He's gonna go nuts!

When smoked at the same rate as tobacco it is just as bad as any unfiltered cigarette on the market today. The big thing is that people don’t smoke 20+ joints a day that would be an OZ a day for 7 days so you would be looking at about $1700 a weak(gov. street price). There have been studies done but they are by the U.S. Gov. so they wanted to find something and the monkeys were exposed to the amount of smoke equal to 2 packs of unfiltered cigarettes a day and sure over time some did have lung cancer. The US study had less cases of lung cancer than that that found in a study on cigarettes done by the world health organization. There study was done with the same smoke concentration as the US study. But the difference was that there was no physical dependence on pot there are no additive chemicals in it. If you need more info there are many links off this site to find any thing you want to know about marijuana and the laws. www.norml.org

yeah, but over time you build a tolorance. With legalization, the price would come down and consumption would go up.

yeah, but over time you build a tolorance. With legalization, the price would come down and consumption would go up.
The same with tobacco, but if it were legalized in the same way that it was in other countries then it would be taxed but not regulated so it would still be sold on the street this helps drive down the use of harder drugs. Also the price with a tax will go up. Since it is on the street then not every one will pay the tax right. They tried a tax in on it here in the stats in a few cities it coasted about $800,000 to enforce the tax on controlled substances, but generated about 1.3 million dollars per city. :L
Also simpler to other countries the money saved was used to better educate the public and use went down.
im telling you check out that site.
www.NORML.org

I agree that on the surface, its financially better upfront from a tax/enforcement perspective - but what would the long term costs be?

to much to list just check out that site..........

Ok

I really don't care if it is or isn't going to do you in, turn you into a drug addict, or just blow your money for kicks.

I do care if I have to take up the slack at work, or be extra alert I don't get killed or injured because some one is stoned, drunk, etc. or is operating equipment around others stoned, drunk, etc.

I do care if I need to worry about my kids getting stoned, drunk, etc.. Ask anyone aware of the current drug market and they can tell you it's much easier to push hard drugs on stoned kids than straight kids.

I do care my tax money is wasted on health care for drug addicts, alchoholics, and political retirement schemes.

I do care the public must help support families and children left adrift because of drugs, alcohol, and gambling.

If keeping these things illegal, hard to get, etc. can reduce the number of people adversely affected by these things I think that's great.

hard to get that is a joke weather you live in the city or a small town drugs are there small towns tend to push more meth than pot but look at it like this If I was 9 years old I could wank up to some one and say yo were the weed at, and it might take 10 or 15 min. but you will get it. you can find out were to get any thing in 30 min. or less(pot, guns, meth, any thing at all) in even the small cities or towns. it is easer to get pot at 9 than beer. ya I did smoke pot do I now no, but when I did it was neaver ME "hey can I get some pot?" Dealer "ya, but I got some coke, and LSD you should try it its so much better!!" that does not happen. if you care just talk to your kids do not tell lies and BS them. tell them the facts and that you do not aprove. the same goes for eating right and taking care of your self.

Many things are available if one looks for them anywhere. That does not mean it's a good thing or that one should give up on limiting it. The question is why are people seeking this out? Is because of their own desires to escape from their reality, or is it because someone is out to make any money any way they can. There are few people more despicable than those who glorify drugs, war, and ends justifying means.

It's true you should not BS your kids or keep them ignorant, but the judgement of youth is historically not the best and when you are the one responsible for their actions sometime your judgement is not the best either.

We're stuck with the laws we have but something happened locally that I don't understand. Why does it seem to be a more serious crime to smoke it than it is to distribute pot.

Locally, a group of guys were renting big expensive houses and turned them into pot farms. One of the guys got 3 years probation and a year of community service. WTF! There are guys in prison for 15 years for posession. Guess who could afford the better lawyer?

We're stuck with the laws we have but something happened locally that I don't understand. Why does it seem to be a more serious crime to smoke it than it is to distribute pot.

Locally, a group of guys were renting big expensive houses and turned them into pot farms. One of the guys got 3 years probation and a year of community service. WTF! There are guys in prison for 15 years for posession. Guess who could afford the better lawyer?As the saying goes...If you got it, smoke it!

Guess who could afford the better lawyer?That's true of any crime, not just for drugs.