Jeb Bush Use to Smoke Marijuana and Sell Hash at Boarding School

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Hillary scares the hell out of me ...to me, she comes off as a bizarre screeching meemee(sp?) - raises her eyebrows too often and protesteth too much in defense of foreign policy indecisions and public faux pas (e.g., "What difference does it make?!!!)! I just don't know exactly what character attributes and political savvy to hitch my wagon to, but Hillary seems to me to be a wild bucking bronco with nuts tied too tight! JMO!
That is how she is caricatured, but what policies does she favor? What policies do her opponents favor?

As for the Benghazi thing, it is unworthy of discussion, a bunch of moronic house Republican hacks and Fox news stumbling around in search of a non-existent scandal. If you were facing criticism as idiotic as the Benghazi teapot tempest you'd raise your eyebrows too. Even the repubs are beginning to be embarrassed by the antics of these Benghazi witch hunters.
 

Snappo

Caveat Emptor - "A Billion People Can Be Wrong!"
Accessory Maker
That is how she is caricatured, ...
I hear ya loud and clear, but that is my first-hand gut impression when seeing the clip. When personality takes precedence over reason, good sense, and awareness of one's audience, I question judgement, stability, and mental acuity. Agreed ...Fox news is expert in applying make-up to any face in the news, but I have watched Hillary since her last presidential bid fizzled into obscurity. My best friend, now deceased, met her personally many years ago and found her to be a genuinely warm & brilliant individual, but I fear that the intervening years immersed in the political bog have clogged her pores to the point of whole-body/mind asphyxiation, hence her frequent desperate gasps for air. I guess I'm hoping for a cool brilliant experienced head with huge balls to lead at the White House...
 
Last edited:

Silver420Surfer

Downward spiral
Text wall, sorry. But here is an excerpt from this Article link. Which I think ties in with our discourse here.

"It’s attitudes like this that keep white Southerners from understanding that year after year, decade after decade, they support policies that don’t help them. “Rank-and-file southern voters—who have lower average incomes than other Americans—resoundingly defeated Barack Obama in 2008; the eventual president carried just 10, 11, and 14 percent of the white vote in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana respectively,” Thompson writes. “An influential percentage of poor, uneducated, underserved, insurance-less white southerners continue to cast votes for candidates whose agendas clearly conflict with their own self interest.” What Thompson doesn’t do—what I’ve never seen anyone do—is offer a valid explanation for why white Southerners ally themselves with the party that treats them contemptuously.



Whites in the South overwhelmingly support right-to-work laws, which Thompson defines, correctly, as “the Orwellian euphemism for ‘the right for companies to disregard the welfare of their workers.’ ” According to a 2009 survey by Grand Valley State University, annual salaries for autoworkers in Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina averaged about $55,400, while their counterparts in Michigan averaged $74,500. Thompson notes that Southern blue-collar workers also have “inferior health and pension plans, less job security, higher risk of being fired for trivial reasons, and diminished safety precautions. … ”

Not only are Southern workers hurt by their anti-union attitudes, the whole nation suffers. “Southern economic success,” writes Thompson, “comes at the expenseof the rest of the country.” By luring foreign manufacturers to Southern states with promises of cheap labor, “The South is bad for the American economy in the same way that China and Mexico are bad for the American economy. By keeping corporate taxes low, public schools underfunded, and workers’ rights to organize negligible, it’s southern politicians who make it so. … [The South] is an in-house parasite that bleeds the country far more than it contributes to its collective health.”

That leads to what is for me the single most baffling 21st century paradox about the South. The region, home to nine of the nation’s 10 poorest states, is rabidly against government spending, yet all of its states get far more in government subsidies than they give back in taxes, as pointed out by Sara Robinson in a 2012 piece for AlterNet, "Blue States Are the Providers, Red States Are the Parasites."

I live in a blue state, New Jersey, where we get about 70 cents back for every dollar in taxes we send to Washington. I work several days out of my year to support Southern states as well as Western red states like New Mexico and Arizona, which can’t support themselves. Is Kentucky a Southern state? Well, it’s red, and it receives $1.57 from the feds for every buck it pays. How does its senator, Rand Paul, justify this?

“The hard fact,” writes Thompson, “is that the South simply does not pull its own weight.”

I wish I didn’t have to come back to Thompson’s football argument, but he’s completely and obviously wrong, and unfortunately this chapter has been the most quoted from “Better Off Without ’Em.”

Thompson argues that “Between 1950 and 1997 only nine southern teams were crowned as undisputed national champions.” He seems unaware that until the Bowl Championship Series started in 1998, just about every year more than one team was chosen No. 1 by various polls. Having family ties to Notre Dame, Thompson resents that in 1973 the Alabama Crimson Tide was voted the national champions by UPI, despite the fact that the Fighting Irish beat Alabama 24-23 in the Sugar Bowl. I guess he isn’t old enough to remember 1966, when defending champion Alabama finished 11-0 and was still outvoted in the AP and UPI polls by a 9-0-1 Notre Dame.

He insists that the SEC has been regarded as the nation’s top football conference for so long because “It’s better than other conferences at media manipulation.” I wonder what Thompson thought this past January when Alabama manipulated the media into thinking it had crushed Notre Dame 42-14 in the BCS title game.

Thompson is right that we are two separate countries with irreconcilable differences on health care, gun control, abortion laws, gay marriage, voter registration, subsidies for education, the role of religion in society, the definition of patriotism and the importance of unions. It could be an amicable divorce where everyone gets what they want: Southerners want the federal government to stop spending so much money and get out of their lives, and we in the Northeast would pay lower taxes because we would no longer have to support the poorest states in the country. All the crackpots and phonies who vied for the Republican nomination for president last year—Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Ron Paul and for good measure I’ll toss in Sarah Palin—were taken seriously only because the potential nominee would have all the Southern states on their side of the ledger. (When someone reminds Thompson that Palin is not from the South, he responds, “Hitler wasn’t from Germany, either. Palin wouldn’t exist if not for the South.”)

Let all the other states decide which country they want to be part of, and if Texas really believes it can be self-sufficient, let it declare itself an independent republic.

To Thompson’s credit, Southerners are allowed their comments. “I think,” one of them tells him, “you all would be dull as shit without us.” That guy is right. So much of American culture comes from the South: writers Edgar Allan Poe, Faulkner, Tennessee Williams and Flannery O’Connor, to say nothing of our music—blues, jazz, country, rock ‘n’ roll. But if we did split into two countries, we’d still get to enjoy all that culture. Being separated by a 3,000-mile ocean didn’t keep the Brits from loving rock ‘n’ roll.

One of Thompson’s interviewees tells him, “The most fundamental flaw I see in your scenario is the South has come to really embody the real patriotic America. If we secede, the USA would become Canada South. We are the real USA.” I might agree if I saw Southerners expressing their patriotism on any subject other than war. In any event, it’s of no concern to me who gets to be the real USA—maybe the competition would do us both good. And right now, to be frank, Canada South sounds pretty good."
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
I don't think the country is being served as well as it could be with dynasty administrations. There is no shortage of intelligent people ready willing and able to serve in the position but they are never heard from because they aren’t part of the club and don't have the elliptical connections as the party regulars do. What the country needs are people who get the job done not playing for their family re-emergence back into power.
 

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
I believe most, if not all politicians are only in if for themselves. Special Interest Groups own them all.

I don't believe you can rise far as a politician without being beholden to interest groups. Why do we have expensive prescription drugs or why can't we use Canadian Drug Stores? The Industry has provided dollars to both Dem and Repub parties to vote against it.
 

Silver420Surfer

Downward spiral
"So just how far will $50,000 go for a middle class American family of four today? Well, $50,000 breaks down to about $4,000 a month. So how far will $4,000 a month stretch for a family of four in today’s economy?….

First of all, the family of four needs some place to live. Even though house prices have come down a bit recently, they are still quite expensive compared to a decade ago. Let’s assume that our family of four has found a great deal and is only spending $1000 a month on rent or on a mortgage payment. In many of the larger U.S. cities this is a completely unrealistic number, but let’s go with it for now.

Next, our family of four has to pay for power and water for their home. This amount can vary dramatically depending on the climate, but let’s assume that the average utility bill is somewhere around $300 a month.

Our family is also going to need phone and Internet service. Cell phone bills for a family of four can balloon to ridiculous proportions, but let’s assume that our family of four is extremely budget conscious and has found a package where they can get basic phone service, Internet and cable for $100 a month. Most middle class American families spend far more than that.

Both parents are also going to need cars to get to work. Let’s assume that both cars were purchased used, so the car payments will only total about $400 a month. If the vehicles were purchased new this number could potentially be much higher.

If our family has two cars that means that they will also be paying for automobile insurance. Let’s assume that they both have exemplary driving records and so they are only spending about $100 a month on car insurance.

Our hypothetical family of four is also going to need health insurance. In the past, families could choose to go without health insurance (at least for a while), but now thanks to Barack Obama all American families will essentially be forced to purchase health insurance. Health insurance premiums are absolutely skyrocketing, but let’s assume that our family has somehow been able to find an amazing deal where they only pay $500 a month for health insurance.

Our hypothetical family is also going to have to eat. Let’s assume that our family clips coupons and cuts corners any way that it can and only spends about $50 for each member of the family on food and toiletries each week. That works out to a total of $800 a month for the entire family.

Lastly, the parents are also going to need to buy gas to get to and from work each week. Let’s assume that they don’t live too far from work and only need to fill up both cars about once per week. That would give them a gasoline bill of about $50 a week or $200 a month. Of course if either of them lived a good distance from work or if a lot of extra driving was required for other reasons this expense could be far, far higher.

So far our family has spent $3400 out of a total of $4000 for the month. Not bad, eh?

Wrong.

We haven’t taken federal, state and local taxes out of the paycheck yet. Depending on where our family lives, this will be at least $1000 a month.

So now we are $400 in the hole.

But to this point we have assumed that our family does not have any credit card debt or student loan debt at all. If they do, those payments will have to be made as well.

In addition, the budget above includes no money for clothing, no money for dining out, no money for additional entertainment, no money for medications, no money for pets, no money for hobbies, no money for life insurance, no money for vacations, no money for car repairs and maintenance, no money for child care, no money for birthday or holiday gifts and no money for retirement.

On top of all that, if our family of four has a catastrophic health expense that their health insurance won’t pay for (and health insurance companies try to weasel out of as many claims as they can), then our family of four is not just broke – they are totally bankrupt."

Are you starting to get the picture?
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Health insurance premiums are not skyrocketing. Another Fox news lie. Health care costs are growing much slower now than before Obamacare. Stop assuming every time someone says their premiums went up it's because of Obama. They were going up much faster before Obama. The family of four making 50K would very likely get federal subsidies for their healthcare and their premiums would be reduced from what they formerly might have been (also the insurers aren't allowed to jack up their rates, apply arbitrary caps, cancel their insurance when they get sick, etc). Also, instead of opting to take considerable risks by foregoing any insurance, the family would get health care when they need it instead of throwing themselves on the taxpayers mercy by going to an emergency room when their untreated illness became too severe to ignore.
 
Last edited:

Silver420Surfer

Downward spiral
@Gunky---I don't see anyone blaming Obama for skyrocketing insurance. But since it was mentioned in my post, have you read any of my other posts? I am DEM thru and thru. Fox news cannot brainwash THIS free thinker, that, you can bank on. But MANY people's rates did go up quite a bit after the 1st year for health insurance they chose under Obamacare. Not that i blame him, or even mentioned blaming anyone.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
"So just how far will $50,000 go for a middle class American family of four today? Well, $50,000 breaks down to about $4,000 a month. So how far will $4,000 a month stretch for a family of four in today’s economy?….

[snip]
Our hypothetical family of four is also going to need health insurance. In the past, families could choose to go without health insurance (at least for a while), but now thanks to Barack Obama all American families will essentially be forced to purchase health insurance. Health insurance premiums are absolutely skyrocketing, but let’s assume that our family has somehow been able to find an amazing deal where they only pay $500 a month for health insurance.

[snip]

You may be a democrat but that little rap about healthcare above is just wrong.
 
Gunky,

Silver420Surfer

Downward spiral
Other than a dig at being "forced" to purchase(i don't have to like every facet of something to still support it do I?) I don't know anything that was incorrect in the segment you pointed out. Nor do I see anywhere where I claimed high healthcare costs are remotely attributed to anyone, let alone Obama.

If anyone reads that post and feels I am dissing the Dems or Obama, I truly am sorry. And while I may have issues here and there with both groups I just mentioned, I wasn't trying to imply anything negative related to Obamacare and rising costs.

Jeez, when I'm pissing off the people who I feel I side with, maybe I need to see-my-way outta this thread. That was certainly not my intent.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Other than a dig at being "forced" to purchase(i don't have to like every facet of something to still support it do I?) I don't know anything that was incorrect in the segment you pointed out. Nor do I see anywhere where I claimed high healthcare costs are remotely attributed to anyone, let alone Obama.

If anyone reads that post and feels I am dissing the Dems or Obama, I truly am sorry. And while I may have issues here and there with both groups I just mentioned, I wasn't trying to imply anything negative related to Obamacare and rising costs.

Jeez, when I'm pissing off the people who I feel I side with, maybe I need to see-my-way outta this thread. That was certainly not my intent.

OK, well sorry about that. I am so tired of people misrepresenting the Affordable Care Act that I tend to be a bit brutal in countering misinformation about it. Despite a lot of lying from the right, our health care situation is now better, fairer and cheaper than it was before the ACA. The system uses a Republican idea (everybody gets insured by private health insurers) which they were in favor of until Obama was, and didn't use the better approach of single payer because the repubs were so adamantly against it. Keep in mind that for every upper middle class republican whining that his premiums went up, there are a dozen people like me who now have insurance who could not afford it before and went without. You keep saying your quote wasn't wrong, but it leaves the impression that Obamacare left a family of four making 50K worse off than before, when it has actually made them better off - mom doesn't have to keep some job where the boss is sexually harassing her because to lose it means they lose their health care - that's what's wrong!
 
Last edited:

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I also feel very protective about the Obama's Affordable Care Act. Folks have to have car insurance why wouldn't they need to have medical insurance? It will go down in history as a major accomplishment for Obama and for America.

I have seen middle class folks finally be able to insure their families. It's true the system isn't perfect, but it's better than it was.
 

Chill Dude

Well-Known Member
Okay, in my view, Stema gets it right. Obamacare is good and has helped a lot of people obtain health insurance that otherwise would not be able to, like the poor and uninsured middle class people as well as those with preexisting conditions. Moreover, I have no problem that the act calls for forcing everyone to have health insurance or pay a penalty. That's what helps ultimately bring rates down for everyone! As carolking stated.."If folks have to have car insurance why wouldn't they need to have medical insurance?" Makes sense to me.

As Stema stated," Government mandated healthcare has a compatibility issue with the private health insurance companies". This is true! Insurance companies are motivated by profit and the higher the premiums and the more claims they deny the richer they get. Your best interest is not their interest. A single payer system would be much better, but, as you know, the republicans would never cave in to that. So basically, Obama had to compromise or get nothing passed on healthcare reform. He chose to compromise and it was the right thing to do!

Anyway, that's my two cents. However, I have no idea what any of this has to do with Jeb Bush smoking weed LOL...
 
Last edited:

Silver420Surfer

Downward spiral
OK, well sorry about that. I am so tired of people misrepresenting the Affordable Care Act that I tend to be a bit brutal in countering misinformation about it. Despite a lot of lying from the right, our health care situation is now better, fairer and cheaper than it was before the ACA. The system uses a Republican idea (everybody gets insured by private health insurers) which they were in favor of until Obama was, and didn't use the better approach of single payer because the repubs were so adamantly against it. Keep in mind that for every upper middle class republican whining that his premiums went up, there are a dozen people like me who now have insurance who could not afford it before and went without. You keep saying your quote wasn't wrong, but it leaves the impression that Obamacare left a family of four making 50K worse off than before, when it has actually made them better off - mom doesn't have to keep some job where the boss is sexually harassing her because to lose it means they lose their health care - that's what's wrong!
No problem. I appreciate your explanation. The point the quote was trying to make, in the whole long diatribe(sorry it was so long also)was that 50k, for a family of 4, barely covers "normal" living expenses.
 

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Anyway, that's my two cents. However, I have no idea what any of this has to do with Jeb Bush smoking weed LOL...

Is the answer....Jeb Bush smoking weed is the reason my medical insurance went up, the middle class has been losing ground, unions have been systematically weakened and we are to be subjected to a Clinton/Bush presidential campaign? Just kidding....

Seriously...My medical insurance rate went up about a $110 a month this year and that's after a apples to apples detail comparison between my cobra choice and my ACA choice. I chose cobra because it was still less than the equivalent ACA price by about $75 a month. I believe the cost would have been worse if the ACA hadn't set the tone and that future costs would have been worse as well. I enjoyed the ACA because it allowed me to cover my adult children under the family plan when they were in college and allowed me to obtain coverage without my family's prior medical history affecting the coverage. I benefited and feel that those who may be less fortunate did as well even if the less fortunate may have been subsidized by us/we/me.

There is one theme that I haven't seen enough of in this thread.....for all the things that are wrong with our country and political system....This is still the country I would choose to live in and the country I would want my children to live in. My opinion is based on my stint in the Navy (I traveled all over the world and continued to travel afterwards). I have seen immigrants come to this country and work their butt's off and watched them buy homes as a cooperative and take advantage of the 'free' education for their children for those who are at a financial disadvantage. I myself sacrificed and worked hard once I was mature enough to 'get-it', put myself through college on the Navy GI bill and worked two jobs at the same time. I know it may not seem as easy as it used to be 'back in the day' but I still see the success stories of those who are willing to sacrifice and work hard who didn't come from the middle or upper class who aspire to a better life for themselves and their kids. I also see the alternate side where people take advantage of the system and not in a good way but the point for me is.....this is still the place where you can make it happen for you and yours if you're willing to invest your own sweat to do it.
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
OK, so back on the subject. Does it really matter to anyone that Jeb Bush smoked pot in school? I mean we ARE talking decades ago (I assume). Does even the right care? Now that it is legal in several places I would think the general negativity and the stigma pointed at a user (particularly a past user) is in decline. Of course for me (and likely many of you) it would literally be difficult for me to be trusting of someone who so lacked the curiosity and the fealty with the community of the 60's, 70's, and 80's to not even TRY MJ in any form. So not having even tried would be an indication to me of a lack of involvement or acknowledgement of their surroundings. I'm not suggesting that everyone needed to worship "Aqua Buddha" or anything like that, but curiosity was built in to those decades and a lack of it doesn't endear people to their tribe. Maybe that's just me. I guess I don't always represent mainstream thought.
 

grokit

well-worn member
Back off-topic, the supreme court is weighing in soon:

"But the new Affordable Care Act case, King v. Burwell, to be argued four weeks from now, is different, a case of statutory, not constitutional, interpretation. The court has permitted itself to be recruited into the front lines of a partisan war. Not only the Affordable Care Act but the court itself is in peril as a result."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/o...of-the-supreme-court.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
Some folks see this as a L versus R struggle some folks see this as class warfare judging by the fact that the moneyed class regardless of party is eating the middle class to pay for a generational war that the moneyed class isn't fighting in but profiting from regardless of being R or L make me want to go with class warfare.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Back off-topic, the supreme court is weighing in soon:

"But the new Affordable Care Act case, King v. Burwell, to be argued four weeks from now, is different, a case of statutory, not constitutional, interpretation.
Yeah, but that is the most ridiculous case imaginable. Even THIS supreme court won't be convinced to take a single line out of context and use it to take away insurance from (literally) millions just to satisfy a disingenuous political position. I don't think even Scalia will go for it, even with his obvious hate for the law. These guys DO understand legacy.
That being said, I would have thought those concerns (legacy) would have kept them from going ahead with their Citizen's United decision, so you never know...
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
jeb-big.jpg

ANDOVER YEARBOOK

Jeb Bush and his grandfather, Prescott Bush, at Jeb’s graduation from Andover in June 1971.

By Michael KranishGLOBE STAFF FEBRUARY 01, 2015


In the fall of 1967, when a 14-year-old Texan named John Ellis Bush arrived on the bucolic campus of Phillips Academy in Andover, great expectations preceded him.

Jeb, as he was known, should have been an easy fit in that elite and ivied world. His much-accomplished father and his older brother had both gone to Andover; no one was surprised that Jeb had followed suit.

But this Bush almost ran aground in those first, formative prep school days. He bore little resemblance to his father, a star on many fronts at Andover, and might have been an even worse student than brother George. Classmates said he smoked a notable amount of pot — as many did — and sometimes bullied smaller students.

Resolutely apolitical despite his lineage, he refused to join the Progressive Andover Republicans club and often declined even to participate in informal bull sessions with classmates. In a tumultuous season in American life, he seemed to his peers strangely detached and indifferent.

“He was just in a bit of a different world,” said Phil Sylvester, who said he was a Bush roommate. While other students “were constantly arguing about politics and particularly Vietnam, he just wasn’t interested, he didn’t participate, he didn’t care.”


I don't really care that he smoked pot when he was younger. It just makes him appear more normal IMO. But for him to be against it now seems hypocritical.
CK
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom