[rockrr]

Well, to start with, I can't say what marajade or an amused spectator may have said to Jim, but it likely wouldn't be a recrimination, because I don't see where Jim made "this same charge".

I read some conditional statements, and I am sure that there might be a contextural basis for them, but he doesn't claim anything about Mr. Bush's alleged drug use. (More of a "if, then" statement)

What the other guy, what was his name? Something BS.... is stating is: "I said I heard the statements directly from the staff member and then W."

All I asked was attribution or verification. What I & others got was BS.

So I'll go at it another way: bigsigh is a liar. He claims things he cannot support. That he does so about the President is repugnant.

[grahm_crackers]

because I don't see where Jim made "this same charge".

No offense rockrr but are you blind, or do you have a reading comprehension problem. Read again:

"Well, by God, if you people insist on electing another cokehead as President, you damned well better throw open all the prison cell doors and free every man, woman, and child you're holding on drug charges. And if you're gonna elect another drug felon as President, you'd better rescind each and every one of your unconstitutional drug laws now on the books, including all of your unconstitutional search and seizure laws, and your asset forfeiture laws, and your laws that enable your unconstitutional snooping into our bank accounts and cash transactions."

Jim was talking about W.

[bigsigh]

I'm a liar and your ignorant, but I could stop.

Your absence of belief is not proof the other person lied. Sorry, but nice try.