White House coke

posted by queencitybuckeye

Many do, but stay loyal to your narrative in spite of the actual facts.

No narrative here ........drugs are harmful, any way you look at it, and often completely ruinous (to include the innocent).

posted by QuakerOats

No narrative here ........drugs are harmful, any way you look at it, and often completely ruinous (to include the innocent).

posted by queencitybuckeye

Thank you for the confirmation that I'm correct.

Your premise on its face is utterly stupid and incorrect.  You are stating that the laws around drug use are far worse to the family structure and drug user then the drug.  So with your logic, someone that is killed by a drunk driver or under the influence of drugs does so because we haev laws that say you cant do that.  THe fact that they were drunk was just a part of the larger evil of laws against that behavior.

lol

Welcome back!

posted by queencitybuckeye
Not ruinous in a direct way to others to justify the absurd laws currently in force. Not remotely.

Ok; thanks.

Shut down the investigation without identifying a suspect.  Hilarious, on one hand, as we knew they would never tell the truth; rather scary on the other hand, that they continue to hoodwink so many people.  No shame with these mofo's.

posted by QuakerOats

Shut down the investigation without identifying a suspect.  Hilarious, on one hand, as we knew they would never tell the truth; rather scary on the other hand, that they continue to hoodwink so many people.  No shame with these mofo's.

As everyone expected.

"Your premise on its face is utterly stupid and incorrect."

No, that would be you.

"You are stating that the laws around drug use are far worse to the family structure and drug user then the drug."

Gee, daddy is addicted to coke, is it better for the family to get him some help or just throw him in prison?

 "So with your logic, someone that is killed by a drunk driver or under the influence of drugs does so because we haev laws that say you cant do that."

It's "have" and "can't". More important is your inability to distinguish someone doing a drug which physically harms no one but himself versus attempting to operate a multi-thousand pound piece of machinery under the influence of said drug which should of course be illegal.

posted by iclfan2

As everyone expected.

It's hard to believe they don't know.  But I'm not sure they can keep that info from a House committee.

If it's anyone but about 20 people, this is probably the correct course of action.  But pretending like they don't know is bound to prompt inquiries concerned with a cover-up.

And on a related note, it's interesting because if it was Hunter's that would supposedly void his plea deal.

If they cannot tell us what happened in the most secure building in the world, they should all be fired.

If they won't tell us what happened; they should all be fired and charged for a cover up.

As for it being Hunter, which would void his plea deal; hadn't heard that.  If true, then it all makes perfect sense. 

They make Nixon look like a two-bit amateur. 

posted by QuakerOats

If they cannot tell us what happened in the most secure building in the world, they should all be fired.

If they won't tell us what happened; they should all be fired and charged for a cover up.

As for it being Hunter, which would void his plea deal; hadn't heard that.  If true, then it all makes perfect sense. 

They make Nixon look like a two-bit amateur. 

posted by QuakerOats

If they cannot tell us what happened in the most secure building in the world, they should all be fired.