• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State Rep. Kip Smith charged with DUI in Buckhead

I dont care about Gingrichs affairs. I dont care about Clintons affairs. I care that he lied under oath, I care that he sexually harassed and assaulted people. I care that he lied about it and dragged the country through the mud. I care that he and his wife looked right square into the cameras and lied and blamed his idiotic behaviors on the 'vast right wing conspiuracy' and that idiots lik you still claim it. having an affair? Dont give a damn...make it consensual and I dont care...just do your job as president. Ive said the same thing numerous times here. Hell...Id lead the charge to have him back as president tomorrow. He was a good president but total scumbag as a human being. Dont care...I dont have to sleep with him (and neither does his wife).

So after all this...your accusatiuon of hypocirsy just another example of your blatant mindless partisan garbage. Pathetic.

You are a hypocrite. It was Republicans who blasted the Lewisnsky affair into the national consciousness. They hammered Clinton over it 24/7 and then, like you, whined that their poor children were forced to hear all about it. :lol:

Clinton admitted that he had an affair with Lewinsky -- a consenting adult who admits that she came on to him. All the rest of it is unproven mudslinging.
 
You are a hypocrite. It was Republicans who blasted the Lewisnsky affair into the national consciousness. They hammered Clinton over it 24/7 and then, like you, whined that their poor children were forced to hear all about it. :lol:

Clinton admitted that he had an affair with Lewinsky -- a consenting adult who admits that she came on to him. All the rest of it is unproven mudslinging.
Of COURSE republicans blasted him about his lies regarding the Lewinsky affair. Thats what political opponents DO. Good lord son...look at YOURSELF. EVERY CHANCE YOU GET you attack a republican for something. HYPOCRITE? By your own standard you are the ****ing crown prince. :lamo:lamo:lamo

and OMG...you just blamed the whole thing on the evil Lewinsky for 'coming on to him'!!!!! That may be the most pathetic thing I have EVER seen here!!!
 
Last edited:
Of COURSE republicans blasted him about his lies regarding the Lewinsky affair. Thats what political opponents DO. Good lord son...look at YOURSELF. EVERY CHANCE YOU GET you attack a republican for something. HYPOCRITE? By your own standard you are the ****ing crown prince. :lamo:lamo:lamo

and OMG...you just blamed the whole thing on the evil Lewinsky for 'coming on to him'!!!!! That may be the most pathetic thing I have EVER seen here!!!

So the attack on Clinton was was pure politics. No kidding.
 
So the attack on Clinton was was pure politics. No kidding.
As is your very existence and presence in any and every thread...whats your point? You EMBODY that very thing.
 
So the attack on Clinton was was pure politics. No kidding.

Why don't we leave Clinton out of this? This thread isn't about Clinton.

As far as Kipp being a hypocrite, that he definitely is. It is no different than Ted Haggard telling gays that they are going to hell while he is doing meth and having sex with a gay prostitute, or Larry Craig legislating against gays while having a dick in his own mouth.
 
Last edited:
Why don't we leave Clinton out of this? This thread isn't about Clinton.

As far as Kipp being a hypocrite, that he definitely is. It is no different than Ted Haggard telling gays that they are going to hell while he is doing meth and having sex with a gay prostitute, or Larry Craig legislating against gays while having a dick in his own mouth.
Except Kipps DUI has nothing to do with drug testing. Unless you can show where HB464 has something...ANYTHING to do with DUIs or for that matter the recipients of assistance in Georgia being denied assistance because of alcohol and/or DUIs you are simply doing what you always do...labelling him a hypocrite over one thing because he made a mistake (one which he can and should be punished for) in an entirely different arena. On the plus side...you are in 'good' company.
 
Except Kipps DUI has nothing to do with drug testing. Unless you can show where HB464 has something...ANYTHING to do with DUIs or for that matter the recipients of assistance in Georgia being denied assistance because of alcohol and/or DUIs you are simply doing what you always do...labelling him a hypocrite over one thing because he made a mistake (one which he can and should be punished for) in an entirely different arena. On the plus side...you are in 'good' company.

Drunk driving is a substance abuse issue. Drug testing is a substance abuse issue. It's really not that hard to connect the dots.
 
Drunk driving is a substance abuse issue. Drug testing is a substance abuse issue. It's really not that hard to connect the dots.
Hell you can connect the dots to ANYTHING when properly motivated. EASY when your only motivation is to dig through **** to find obscure articles about state representatives from the other side of the country that happen to be members of the party you hate. Dood supports drug testing of welfare recipients. Dood got popped on a DUI. YOU make the idiotic leap from too much to drink to hypocrite. Where does he say he SHOULDNT be expected to be tested for DUI, or shouldnt have to follow the rules and laws of the state of Georgia? Where does he suggest people that test posaitive for DUI or have received a DUI shouldnt recieve state and fed assistance? Where in HB 464 does it even MENTION DUIs or denying people benefits for a failed DUI? Have you even READ HB 464?
 
Drunk driving is a substance abuse issue. Drug testing is a substance abuse issue. It's really not that hard to connect the dots.

Thank you for connecting the dots. There is a law against drunk driving so by your logic there should be a law against receiving gov't assistance if tested positive for substance abuse.
 
Thank you for connecting the dots. There is a law against drunk driving so by your logic there should be a law against receiving gov't assistance if tested positive for substance abuse.
No no...there is a law against drunk driving so there SHOULDNT be a law against testing welfare recipients. On Tuesdays. After 7. IF there is a republican involved in any way shape or form.
 
Except Kipps DUI has nothing to do with drug testing. Unless you can show where HB464 has something...ANYTHING to do with DUIs or for that matter the recipients of assistance in Georgia being denied assistance because of alcohol and/or DUIs you are simply doing what you always do...labelling him a hypocrite over one thing because he made a mistake (one which he can and should be punished for) in an entirely different arena. On the plus side...you are in 'good' company.

Yes it does. Kipp sponsored a bill dealing with substance abuse with people on welfare, and here he is, abusing substances himself.
 
Of course they have something to do with each other. A substance abuser who wants to test the down-and-out for substance abuse is a hypocrite. End of story.

He was tested for drug abuse and so should anyone who is receiving taxpayer money be tested for drug abuse. Because he was tested it only underscores the idea that all are equal under the law. What difference does it make if a drug abuser is "down-and-out"? Does that give the license to spend taxpayers dollars on drugs?

As far as testing those applying for public assistance, there is no basis that I'm aware to think that they are any more likely to use drugs than anyone else.

In fact it is easy to identify if they have a history of drug abuse and, of course, there are visual aids.
So why should people who are obviously strapped for cash have to pay to have themselves tested for drugs (as the Kipper would require)?

Perhaps it might discourage those who are thought to be using drugs? Just a guess.

Do you suppose the Kipper will reimburse the state for his multiple tests?

If he is fined, as well he might, the State will be reimbursed.

Having admitted that he was over the limit and that he lied to police, will he henceforth refuse to take his salary, which is after all paid for by taxpayers?

Just how do you expect me to know that???
 
Why don't we leave Clinton out of this? This thread isn't about Clinton.


Quite right. This isn't about Bill Clinton, his lies to the American people or the Grand Jury or his eventual impeachment.

As far as Kipp being a hypocrite, that he definitely is. It is no different than Ted Haggard telling gays that they are going to hell while he is doing meth and having sex with a gay prostitute, or Larry Craig legislating against gays while having a dick in his own mouth.

What?? Now, speaking of hypocrisy, in the next paragraph you are bringing in Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, two people who are also not connected to this thread. Why not mention Barney Frank running a Gay prostitution ring out of his apartment if you're going to scatter names around?
 
Yes it does. Kipp sponsored a bill dealing with substance abuse with people on welfare, and here he is, abusing substances himself.

In fact there is no evidence that he was abusing substances. If you have it let's see it.
 
Yes it does. Kipp sponsored a bill dealing with substance abuse with people on welfare, and here he is, abusing substances himself.
Kips proposed legislation does not deny anyone benefits for using alcohol, nor does it apply to individuals with DUIs. Kips legislation doesnt exclude him from having to submit to DUI testing while driving. Kip made a mistake...a legal violation which he will have to atone for. Nothing more and nothing less. But hey...its OK...I get it...I know where you are coming from.
 
In fact there is no evidence that he was abusing substances. If you have it let's see it.

Alcohol isn't a substance?
 
Cut her some slack.... she is dealing with the fact that the Republican presidential field is a mess. They are forced to go with Romney and, despite having a ton of money to spend, he is going down in flames in November. That's enough to make any Republican have two or three too many.

Here's your chance to make some big bucks come next November. Rather than just talk the talk you can actually put some money on your favorite candidate.

You may as well bet the farm because BHO has made sure it isn't worth as much now anyway.
 
Did you notice that the word 'substance' was followed by the word 'abuse'?

Clarify this for yourself and then respond if you choose.

Drinking beyond the legal limit and driving a car does not equal abuse for you?
 
Alcohol isn't a substance?
Driving while impaired is a legal matter...something he will and should have to face. It is not in and of itself substance 'abuse'. Alcohol use is not illegal, nor is inebriation 'abuse'. As a mental health issue there are multiple categories...alcohol intoxication, alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence. Dood made a mistake...do you have some sort of evidence or at least ANYTHING that meets criteria for dependence or abuse? Again...have you ever even bothered to READ HB464? Both of you continue to engage in entirely idiotic and partisan driven rhetoric. Pretty pathetic, and yet...so very typical.
 
Drinking beyond the legal limit and driving a car does not equal abuse for you?
Not by any definition, legal, medical, or otherwise. It equates to a very serious legal matter and one he should be held accountable for. Nothing less...but only more in the eyes of a partisan driven mindless hack.
 
Not by any definition, legal, medical, or otherwise. It equates to a very serious legal matter and one he should be held accountable for. Nothing less...but only more in the eyes of a partisan driven mindless hack.

It equals abuse by any common sense definition. I can see how you missed it.
 
Drinking beyond the legal limit and driving a car does not equal abuse for you?

It doesn't matter what it means to you or me.

No one is ever charged with 'substance abuse' when driving over the legal limit. Nunca!
 
It equals abuse by any common sense definition. I can see how you missed it.
It equals simple intoxication to anyone other than a partisan driven hack. .02 above the legal limit is not a big deal. Drving while intoxicated is. Id be willing to bet that within the last month a good number of people on this site alone have topped that BAC. But then...the great majority of people dont follow liberal websites looking for any and everything they can find and then post hack threads about them.
 
It equals abuse by any common sense definition. I can see how you missed it.

Drinking three beers is not substance abuse, yet that might still cost you your drivers license if you get behind the wheel of a car.

Drinking and driving is another matter entirely. It would be fair to say he could have been abusing the privileges that allow him to drive a vehicle on public roads.
 
Back
Top Bottom