Obama's Sex & Drugs Party

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]pat wrote:

Washington used to take laudanum for his dental issues, which is an alcoholic tincture of opium. This mixture contained 10 milligrams of morphine per milliliter. Translation, Washington was fucked up most of the time.
[/quote]
That’s certainly plausible given laudanum’s use amongst the wealthy of the era.

[quote]
I say let the president get fucked up. What is so virtuous about sobriety anyway?
The soberest nations in the world are also the most violent.[/quote]

Ain’t that the truth.

One last thing I’d like to point out about the cocaine is that it isn’t really a drug of abuse until it’s refined and its constituent alkaloids are concentrated.

The plants would grow fine in parts of the US but the neither the seeds nor plants can be shipped easily. Moreover, the economics of growing it-- not to mention difficulty in processing-- explain in large part why we don’t see entrepreneurial types growing it comercially in their garages.

42

[quote]Sifu wrote:
With Obama it is refreshing to have a politician who is honest about his previous drug use. When Obama was a teenager drug use amongst teens was quite common. What he did was the norm for a lot of teens.
[/quote]

Was quite common? You mean IS common. The 80’s have nothing on what happens these days in schools. My girlfriend is a school teacher for an elementry school and kids are drinking by the 6th grade, in school no less. Gatorade bottles are passed around with vodka in them at the lunch table.

Hell when I was in high school drugs were easier to find than alcohol.

For these reasons I would rather have a President who doesn’t have a drug use background. Otherwise kids are going to think “Hey look at so and so, they did drugs and became sucessful so what’s a little of ___ going to do to me?” The problem with this is that sucessful people are the expection not the rule.

This being said, I wouldn’t vote against a person just because they used drugs. There are far more important factors than if they smoked up in the past. As long as they aren’t doing it while in power that’s fine with me.

43

[quote]CrewPierce wrote:

For these reasons I would rather have a President who doesn’t have a drug use background. [/quote]

That point of view seems to ignore the fact that society was NEVER that pure. We simply live in a time of media excess so everything gets reported more. Does anyone really believe that JFK never cheated? I mean, of course we don’t have photos, but let’s not pretend.

I think that extremely puritanical stance is out of date. It would mean voting for a president who can’t relate to most of the people he is governing over.

Most of the people in this country are on drugs of some sort whether they be prescribed or not. It is a little ridiculous to frown so much on someone’s activities as a kid yet ignore that 80% of the people you have seen today are on something that changes their brain chemistry.

44

[quote]pat wrote:

Washington used to take laudanum for his dental issues, which is an alcoholic tincture of opium. This mixture contained 10 milligrams of morphine per milliliter. Translation, Washington was fucked up most of the time.

I say let the president get fucked up. What is so virtuous about sobriety anyway?
The soberest nations in the world are also the most violent.[/quote]

Is that a high dose of drug? I really don’t know.

If he took a low dose to ease pain, which is perfectly fine, I don’t see how he’d be fucked up. He seems pretty clear headed to me in his writings.

Given the personality of the man, I doubt he took enough or abused enough for enjoyment. Of course, we’ll never know for sure.

(Sidenote: if no one was harmed, then he should be free to do as he wished. Load up and have at it with some young hottie — he earned it, that’s for sure!)

45

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…Excuse me, but WHO is portraying him this way? If I can live my life barely hearing about the man or thinking of him, why do some of you act like his power is so great that you can’t escape?

…[/quote]

I thought all black people had his picture on the night stand. I need to get out more.

46

[quote]Professor X wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:

For these reasons I would rather have a President who doesn’t have a drug use background.

That point of view seems to ignore the fact that society was NEVER that pure. We simply live in a time of media excess so everything gets reported more. Does anyone really believe that JFK never cheated? I mean, of course we don’t have photos, but let’s not pretend.

I think that extremely puritanical stance is out of date. It would mean voting for a president who can’t relate to most of the people he is governing over.

Most of the people in this country are on drugs of some sort whether they be prescribed or not. It is a little ridiculous to frown so much on someone’s activities as a kid yet ignore that 80% of the people you have seen today are on something that changes their brain chemistry.[/quote]

So you don’t see it as a problem that so much of our country is on something? I would rather see a President change that than relate to them.

47

[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
Professor X wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:

For these reasons I would rather have a President who doesn’t have a drug use background.

That point of view seems to ignore the fact that society was NEVER that pure. We simply live in a time of media excess so everything gets reported more. Does anyone really believe that JFK never cheated? I mean, of course we don’t have photos, but let’s not pretend.

I think that extremely puritanical stance is out of date. It would mean voting for a president who can’t relate to most of the people he is governing over.

Most of the people in this country are on drugs of some sort whether they be prescribed or not. It is a little ridiculous to frown so much on someone’s activities as a kid yet ignore that 80% of the people you have seen today are on something that changes their brain chemistry.

So you don’t see it as a problem that so much of our country is on something? I would rather see a President change that than relate to them.
[/quote]

I do see it as a problem. Apparently, most kids now have ADHD or some other disorder and the majority of the people in this country are clinically depressed. How could someone with absolutely no personal background or experience with either the lifestyle or the community involved be the greatest force in that arena?

Completely devoid of any negative history probably would have been a major running platform for presidential hopefuls 40-50 years ago, but I doubt most of the people under 45 years of age today truly give a shit.

48

[quote]Professor X wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
Professor X wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:

For these reasons I would rather have a President who doesn’t have a drug use background.

That point of view seems to ignore the fact that society was NEVER that pure. We simply live in a time of media excess so everything gets reported more. Does anyone really believe that JFK never cheated? I mean, of course we don’t have photos, but let’s not pretend.

I think that extremely puritanical stance is out of date. It would mean voting for a president who can’t relate to most of the people he is governing over.

Most of the people in this country are on drugs of some sort whether they be prescribed or not. It is a little ridiculous to frown so much on someone’s activities as a kid yet ignore that 80% of the people you have seen today are on something that changes their brain chemistry.

So you don’t see it as a problem that so much of our country is on something? I would rather see a President change that than relate to them.

I do see it as a problem. Apparently, most kids now have ADHD or some other disorder and the majority of the people in this country are clinically depressed. How could someone with absolutely no personal background or experience with either the lifestyle or the community involved be the greatest force in that arena? [/quote]

Well I was actually talking about more of the party drugs than ADHD or depression although both of those are given out way too often. I also think it would help though if someone did not have experience in those drugs to help curb them. How could someone who takes Ritalin even though they may not need it be an active force to curbing the over prescription of the drug? It’s that like an alcoholic starting a campaign for prohibition?

[quote]
Completely devoid of any negative history probably would have been a major running platform for presidential hopefuls 40-50 years ago, but I doubt most of the people under 45 years of age today truly give a shit.[/quote]

Well I’m under 45 so clearly there are at least some out there, although we may not be the majority. Like I said though, I would not vote against someone solely on those issues.

I also did not say that I wanted someone that had zero negative history, we are all human and fuck up once in awhile so for anyone saying otherwise, they are liars. I do not want a habitual user of drugs in power though, we are voting for a President, not a rock star.

49

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf111/sf111p01.htm

“In January [1997] the Discovery Channel broadcast a program stating that cocaine and tobacco had been found in Egyptian mummies known to be at least 3,000 years old. Tests used modern forensic methods and were repeated many times under carefully controlled conditions. Since coca and tobacco are not known to have grown anywhere other than the Americas, the evidence points to trade routes across the Pacific or Atlantic in those remote times. The program seemed to favor a Pacific crossing and then delivery via the Silk Route. Watch for a rebroadcast.”

50

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
pat wrote:

Washington used to take laudanum for his dental issues, which is an alcoholic tincture of opium. This mixture contained 10 milligrams of morphine per milliliter. Translation, Washington was fucked up most of the time.

I say let the president get fucked up. What is so virtuous about sobriety anyway?
The soberest nations in the world are also the most violent.

Is that a high dose of drug? I really don’t know.

If he took a low dose to ease pain, which is perfectly fine, I don’t see how he’d be fucked up. He seems pretty clear headed to me in his writings.

Given the personality of the man, I doubt he took enough or abused enough for enjoyment. Of course, we’ll never know for sure.

(Sidenote: if no one was harmed, then he should be free to do as he wished. Load up and have at it with some young hottie — he earned it, that’s for sure!)

[/quote]

If you took ten milligrams of morphine you’d feel pretty damn excellent. The per milliliter part makes it 50 milligrams per teaspoon. A couple of teaspoons of laudanum and you really wouldn’t give a shit if you had teeth or not.
As highly addictive as morphine is, I doubt he kept it at low doses for long.

51

[quote]Professor X wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:

For these reasons I would rather have a President who doesn’t have a drug use background.

That point of view seems to ignore the fact that society was NEVER that pure. We simply live in a time of media excess so everything gets reported more. Does anyone really believe that JFK never cheated? I mean, of course we don’t have photos, but let’s not pretend.

I think that extremely puritanical stance is out of date. It would mean voting for a president who can’t relate to most of the people he is governing over.

Most of the people in this country are on drugs of some sort whether they be prescribed or not. It is a little ridiculous to frown so much on someone’s activities as a kid yet ignore that 80% of the people you have seen today are on something that changes their brain chemistry.[/quote]

Word up. Well said.

52

[quote]Sifu wrote:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf111/sf111p01.htm

“In January [1997] the Discovery Channel broadcast a program stating that cocaine and tobacco had been found in Egyptian mummies known to be at least 3,000 years old. Tests used modern forensic methods and were repeated many times under carefully controlled conditions. Since coca and tobacco are not known to have grown anywhere other than the Americas, the evidence points to trade routes across the Pacific or Atlantic in those remote times. The program seemed to favor a Pacific crossing and then delivery via the Silk Route. Watch for a rebroadcast.” [/quote]

That is wild if true.

53

[quote]CrewPierce wrote:

Well I was actually talking about more of the party drugs than ADHD or depression although both of those are given out way too often. I also think it would help though if someone did not have experience in those drugs to help curb them. How could someone who takes Ritalin even though they may not need it be an active force to curbing the over prescription of the drug? It’s that like an alcoholic starting a campaign for prohibition?

[/quote]

Could you please explain how someone who “did not have experience in those drugs” would be better prepared to deal with our nation’s drug problem than someone who had used them and participated in the drug culture?

Are you suggesting that having an elected leader who claimed to never use drugs would shame our chemically elated public into changing their drug saturated lifestyles? Or that someone who was never involved with drugs would be better educated, having more practical knowledge of the issue?

54

[quote]
smasher54 wrote:
Obama will be shot soon

Professor X wrote:
How can you say such a thing. I thought there was no relevant racism in America![/quote]

Um, I don’t follow? He hasn’t been shot, so unless smasher54 is threatening to do so himself this amounts to a projection based on… what?

55

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…
I don’t even know any black people who would claim this man is our spokesman which means you are just jumping to conclusions.

Does this say more about him, us, or you?

I don’t even know Sharpton’s stance on most issues.[/quote]

It says a lot about the TV media that continually turn to him to speak for the “black community” or pay attention when he claims to speak for the “black community” when protesting something or other.

56

BTW, leaving aside the OP, which I still haven’t read, does anyone really think it’s a big issue if Obama did drugs in college?

I suppose I would be concerned if he had long-term use and an addictive personality - and maybe if he had been using psychotropic substances that give flashbacks. But if we’re talking about the type of drug use engaged in by most of the people I knew in high school and college I’d classify it as a non-issue.

At any rate, I can’t imagine that this would be a tipping point fact for anyone - would anyone change his vote based on whether Obama did drugs in high school or college?

57

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, leaving aside the OP, which I still haven’t read, does anyone really think it’s a big issue if Obama did drugs in college?

[/quote]

If no one was harmed except him from his choice, then it doesn’t bother me.

Now, if he robbed convenience stores to support his habit, that’s a different matter.

I just hope he doesn’t turn into another Kwame Kilpatrick, mayor of Detroit (my former home) — coke, scandals, orgies, stripper parties where one was killed. He’s a real shitbag.

58

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…
I don’t even know any black people who would claim this man is our spokesman which means you are just jumping to conclusions.

Does this say more about him, us, or you?

I don’t even know Sharpton’s stance on most issues.

It says a lot about the TV media that continually turn to him to speak for the “black community” or pay attention when he claims to speak for the “black community” when protesting something or other.[/quote]

So.

Do lazy media tactics shine brightest to you only when pointed at Sharpton? If not, then how could he possibly stand out among the tons of other garbage they relay on tv?

59

Well, Sharpton’s ridiculous hair has a way of imprinting itself on your memory - kind of like Sinead O’Connor, but more comical.

Anyway though, that just happens to be the topic at hand. The media is lazy about all sorts of things - just look at how they report on steroids. Or look at how many NYT reporters seem to find “trends” by looking at what their friends are doing ( http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/02/beware_of_the_ecomoms.php ), rather than doing research.

Also, generally the media - and by that I mean the major cable news networks and the broadcase networks - only turn to a few people as spokesmen for the “black community” on “black issues.” And of those, they turn to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton the most, in my recollection. Generally people are smart enough to retain information presented over and over again. Plus there aren’t as many people to confuse with one another.

Finally, w/r/t Al and Jesse, they ran for President on the Democratic side - I think Jackson twice, and Al back in 2004. So they got a lot of exposure that way. I recall reading a profile about Al’s candidacy in GQ (or maybe Esquire?) - it was amusing.

60

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…
I don’t even know any black people who would claim this man is our spokesman which means you are just jumping to conclusions.

Does this say more about him, us, or you?

I don’t even know Sharpton’s stance on most issues.

It says a lot about the TV media that continually turn to him to speak for the “black community” or pay attention when he claims to speak for the “black community” when protesting something or other.

So.

Do lazy media tactics shine brightest to you only when pointed at Sharpton? If not, then how could he possibly stand out among the tons of other garbage they relay on tv?

[/quote]
I think implicit message is something like this.

Dear [ ],
Basically, white people have an underlying desire for a black pope-- that is to say, a pope of all black people. We want one person we can turn to to summarize your collective feelings on any issues which may affect black people differently (or not) than the population as a whole.

Sure we could use surveys and statistics to break down the variations of opinions amongst black people or anyone else, but that costs money and takes effort. It’s much easier to just ask a black guy, specifically a black guy who claims to speak for all black people. So in short, lazy white people kindly request that if you don’t like what your self-appointed black pope is saying, then please elect a new one who better represents your collective view.
Thanks for your understanding,
White Folk