<p>Do people think this will hurt him? Haven’t read his book, but evidently he admits to youthful marijuana and cocaine use. Admittedly there are many reports of our current President’s longtime alcohol and cocaine abuse, but things have a way of sticking to Democrats when they just bounce off Republicans. </p>
<p>"but things have a way of sticking to Democrats when they just bounce off Republicans. "</p>
<p>I think that was when the Demos controlled things, now with the recent past in reversed roles the opposite has happened. </p>
<p>Someone will always be “outraged” by something. Today with so many means to put opinion out there Somebody somewhere will be totally outraged. In the past, they could only express their outrage to their immediate family, now the world. Sometimes technology sucks.</p>
<p>Like I said before and said it again, I trust someone more who has somewhat of a criminal record, than someone who has been squeaky clean their whole life. This helps Obama with street cred and “realness” but hurts him with the grayhairs.</p>
<p>Things “stick” to democrats because they are (traditionally) liberal, and to be an adult AND be liberal indicates a failing in the neuro-processes. Therefore, when an adult democrat admits to using mind altering substances it is then used against him in order to illustrate the less than sound foundations of his liberal stance.</p>
<p>As Winston Churchill (no, not the writer) said (paraphrase): If one is not liberal in one’s youth, one has no heart – and if one is not conservative in when older, one has no brain.</p>
<p>Personally, I’ve never cared about someone’s youthful indiscretions… it’s when they pretend they were always judicious and never made mistakes that I think they’re self-righteous prigs with little likelihood of empathy for the rest of us.</p>
<p>Mmmm…I don’t know. Cocaine is on another level, if you ask me. I think that could hurt him–and his chances will be easily hurt as a strong AFAm candidate.</p>
<p>Unlike Winston Churchill, I’ve kept both my heart and my brain. Conservatism has been tried for the past eight years and it’s been a spectacular failure on almost every level - unless, of course, you are in the top 1% income group, in which case, bully for you, you already had everything and now you’re getting more of it, while we pass the bills on to the kids and grandkids, etc. If, in fact, our future generations even survive, because there is increased pollution in the air, mercury in our water, and decreased science eduction to teach the children of today how to solve the problems that we are handing them.</p>
<p>Nope, there is no neuro-processing failure that causes one to be liberal - unless of course, you believe that liberals are whatever Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity tell you they are. But that would be a neuro-processing failure on the part of any sane adult, so we can assume that is not the case.</p>
[quote]
A</a> definitive answer arose in the wonderful book
“Nice Guys Finish Seventh: False Phrases, Spurious Sayings,
and Familiar Misquotations” by Ralph Keyes, 1992. He writes:</p>
<p>"An orphan quote [unattributed quote in search of a home] sometimes
attributed to Georges Clemenceau is:
Any man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart.
Any man who is still a socialist at age 40 has no head.
The most likely reason is that Bennet Cerf once reported Clemenceau’s
response to a visitor’s alarm about his son being a communist:
If he had not become a Communist at 22, I would have disowned him.
If he is still a Communist at 30, I will do it then.
George Seldes later quoted Lloyd George as having said:
A young man who isn’t a socialist hasn’t got a heart;
an old man who is a socialist hasn’t got a head.
The earliest known version of this observation is attributed to
mid-nineteenth century historian and statesman Fran</p>
<p>To slightly digress -the conservatives (use the term however you wish) pride themselves on itellectual honesty and consistency in thought. (Justifiably or not, 'tis your decision.) For example, many of them have no issues caring about the environment, but do have issues with putting the welfare of a purple-tongued vole ahead of say, a factory that will provide jobs for people. Or, to reference the thread that disappeared, conservatives object when liberals do not work to mitigate the obvious effects of their policies; for example, if we allow gay marriage, do we allow polygamy? Or will polygamy be next? I think many conservatives (I know that I do!) object when liberals put forth an idea like gay marriage but do not concurrently argue against polygamy and argue for strong marriages, children born into wedlock, etc. When you argue for (or against) something but seem to miss the expected effects, it looks intellectually empty. Then y’all harrumph at the fuddy-duddies talking about the laws of unintended consequences. The bastion of Ivory Tower professors doesn’t help much, either.</p>
<p>Just my take on the reasons why conservatives say things like that.Feel free to disagree. :)</p>
<p>That all said, I personally don’t care what many people in your generation did in their youths. I care what they did when they graduated college. My standard is simple: did you have the sense to have your fun after you’ve done your work, and, when it was time to be an adult, did you act like one?</p>
<p>Things slide more easily off people who are very clearly not doing them again (i.e. Bush does not drink anymore); the exception to that rule being, of course, unless “them” is White House interns. (So sorry, but I could not resist.)</p>
<p><quote>To slightly digress -the conservatives (use the term however you wish) pride themselves on itellectual honesty and consistency in thought. (Justifiably or not, 'tis your decision.) For example, many of them have no issues caring about the environment, but do have issues with putting the welfare of a purple-tongued vole ahead of say, a factory that will provide jobs for people. Or, to reference the thread that disappeared, conservatives object when liberals do not work to mitigate the obvious effects of their policies; for example, if we allow gay marriage, do we allow polygamy? Or will polygamy be next? I think many conservatives (I know that I do!) object when liberals put forth an idea like gay marriage but do not concurrently argue against polygamy and argue for strong marriages, children born into wedlock, etc. When you argue for (or against) something but seem to miss the expected effects, it looks intellectually empty. Then y’all harrumph at the fuddy-duddies talking about the laws of unintended consequences. The bastion of Ivory Tower professors doesn’t help much, either.</quote></p>
<p>I don’t understand why an intellectual would immediately go to a slippery slide argument, as happens in the case of gay marriage. No one is advocating polygamy (except fundmentalist LDS types, and I’m pretty sure they don’t vote for Democrats), and I fail to understand how asking for couples of any gender distribution to marry is not strengthening marriage by acknowledging marriage as the foundation of society. </p>
<p>I do have to grant that conservatives (as a movement) are extremely consistent. All the arguments currently in use against gay marriage were trotted out in Loving vs. Virginia. It would be delicious if Winston Churchill said “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”, but Emerson was no slouch, either.</p>
<p>I think you will find that most liberals are not in favor of promoting the purple tongued vole ahead of jobs (although we would want that factory to be regulated so it doesn’t cause extensive damage to the environment). </p>
<p>But I find many conservative folks get their ideas of liberalism from the truly wacky fringe (I would wager more conservatives know of Ward Churchill than liberals do, for example) and from people who have a vested interest in keeping the feud between Americans going. </p>
<p>Back on-topic: Bush was a cokehead, and I tend to think the only people who will find it objectionable that Obama inhaled would be people who forgave Bush the same offense.</p>
<p>Replace <> with and you have your quote function.</p>
<p>Not saying that an intellectual will immediately go to a slippery slope argument, but it is disheartening to see people not acknowledge its existence because the “slippery slope” label can be put on it. I’m also saying that ANYONE who makes a political argument has to be aware of unintended consequences; the nobilty of the idea doesn’t stop the fact that it can cause a lot of other problems. </p>
<p>As for intellectual consistency: I do think it is a fun exercise to see how people think about three topics: death penalty, vegetarianism, and abortion (obviously, pro-issue, pro-choice, anti-issue are the three basic places you can land). It is also interesting to see the underlying rationale - sometimes people don’t even notice how inconsistent they are.</p>
<p>ariesathena, you are starting with the assumption that consistency is in and of itself a virtue. I would argue that is only true if you remove all context and look at an issue purely intellectually. There is certainly value in that, but applying that intellectual thought to a real world situation is where the context comes in, and can lead your intellectual train right off the tracks. </p>
<p>But off-topic, so…</p>
<p>-AllMusic-: hee! I would say that would be worse for Obama than the cocaine story - people might keep interpreting his name as Osama, and no one wants to vote for Osama.</p>
The bastion of Ivory Tower professors doesn’t help much, either.</p>