I am so Angry

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #421
bulletgirl2002 said:
Where did that even come from????
I was quoting her comment about drunken Bush twins. Helloooo.

ETA, oops, I think I misunderstood your point. Sorry.
 
  • #422
tybee204 said:
It would be unusual for any member of the Secret Service assigned to the First Family in any Administration to discuss or gossip about them. They are trained professionals that have passed the highest level of Security to be assigned to the White House. The gossip speaks to the charactor of the Agent gossiping more so then to anyone else.

Not really. They can talk in generalities, and oftentimes way after the fact. Reality. Certainly nothing of security operations.

I should have said it happens, but it's not a day to day occurrence. I don't doubt that there was talk of Chelsea. Just as talk in after every administration.
 
  • #423
tybee204 said:
It would be unusual for any member of the Secret Service assigned to the First Family in any Administration to discuss or gossip about them. They are trained professionals that have passed the highest level of Security to be assigned to the White House. The gossip speaks to the charactor of the Agent gossiping more so then to anyone else.
People do gossip...I guess he is a real jerk for doing so. And I am one too for repeating it.
 
  • #424
DEPUTYDAWG said:
Not really. They can talk in generalities, and oftentimes way after the fact. Reality. Certainly nothing of security operations.

I should have said it happens, but it's not a day to day occurrence. I don't doubt that there was talk of Chelsea. Just as talk in after every administration.
Thank you...I can assure you, I am not lying as is being implied.
 
  • #425
bulletgirl2002 said:
Where did that even come from????

I think it is really nice that Bush and Clinton are coming together in all of this. There should be more of this type of behavior rather than people just being totally looking for ways to bash Bush (or Clinton). I remember standing in the cold rain one day with a 2 year old in my arms to catch a glimpse of Clinton. When he came out he went into the crowd to shake hands and I told my daughter "Rachel, the President of the United States", He heard me and stopped and said "hello little child". Democrat or not I was proud and have and had respect for him, his accomplishments and his great office. I just don't understand why people are so rabid in their hatred. Is this necessary? I think Clinton rises above it and is gracious about the differences. Why can't other people be non-partisan? It is like they are unreasonable and blinded.
If we can dispense with the assumption that any criticisms of either side are partisan I think it would help a lot. I'm most concerned with Bush because he's the boss. In a disaster like this, sometimes you get a Giuliani at the local level, great. Sometimes you get someone who ends up cowering under a desk. Sometimes you get something in the middle. But no matter who is doing what at the state and local level, you should be able to count on the guy at the top. I mean, that's basic. So, if I were to believe the worst of Blanco and Nagin is true, right now, that's not of huge concern to me because the feds are there running the show (Ok, that's not reassuring but it should be). But if Bush and FEMA and Homeland Security can't handle an emergency like this, it is of huge and immediate concern because a terrorist attack or tornado or other disaster could happen tomorrow. I don't know how effective the local government of that area will be, but I should be able to have confidence that no matter what, the federal government will be there.

I don't. They weren't.
 
  • #426
bulletgirl2002 said:
Thank you...I can assure you, I am not lying as is being implied.

You're welcome.
 
  • #427
Dara, how could you possibly think we would think YOU were being partisan???
 
  • #428
bulletgirl2002 said:
Dara, how could you possible think we would think YOU were being partisan???
Because certain posters keep saying so?

Maybe they're projecting. Maybe it's that they buy into what the White House via McClellan started spouting Wednesday morning--that criticism was partisanship. Maybe they just can't handle believing someone would criticize their precious Bush (well, that sounds wrong) with reason because may be they've been wrong in supporting him. Maybe they're just really, really threatened and can't think for themselves. I dunno.
 
  • #429
Dara said:
Because certain posters keep saying so?

Maybe they just can't handle believing someone would criticize their precious Bush (well, that sounds wrong) with reason because may be they've been wrong in supporting him. Maybe they're just really, really threatened and can't think for themselves. I dunno.
Now that doesn't sound partisan does it?
 
  • #430
bulletgirl2002 said:
Thank you...I can assure you, I am not lying as is being implied.

I did not imply that you were lying. My statement was regarding the charactor of a Secret Service Agent that had been assigned to any First Family spreading gossip.
 
  • #431
Dara said:
Because certain posters keep saying so?

Maybe they're projecting. Maybe it's that they buy into what the White House via McClellan started spouting Wednesday morning--that criticism was partisanship. Maybe they just can't handle believing someone would criticize their precious Bush (well, that sounds wrong) with reason because may be they've been wrong in supporting him. Maybe they're just really, really threatened and can't think for themselves. I dunno.

Laughing my azz off! How *very* non-partisan of a comment to make!! This must be what they mean when they say some cannot see the forest for the trees....
 
  • #432
Reading all the posts has been extremely interesting. I still have the stumbling block: Why would a political party "drop the ball" when such an opportune time arises to move into a more popular arena? I am anxious to see how this plays out.
 
  • #433
bulletgirl2002 said:
Dara, how could you possibly think we would think YOU were being partisan???
What Dara has posted I agree with 100% because it's common sense.

I know I am not being partisan. I don't have a CLUE about politics and don't care to. You will NEVER see me on the politics board.
 
  • #434
tybee204 said:
I did not imply that you were lying. My statement was regarding the charactor of a Secret Service Agent that had been assigned to any First Family spreading gossip.
I took it that was since you said "it would be unusual" as if it were not so. It is not unusual. It is human nature to gossip and it wasn't as if it were something said to the media or a sensitive issue. It was about the personalities of famous people that we were curious about. How is Clinton in real life kinda thing...."he is a really nice guy but Gore is not". What about Chelsie?.......probably happens all the time and I really don't think it speaks to character. Rather harmless....imo
 
  • #435
Beyond Belief said:
Reading all the posts has been extremely interesting. I still have the stumbling block: Why would a political party "drop the ball" when such an opportune time arises to move into a more popular arena? I am anxious to see how this plays out.


If a Republican president usurped the power of a Democratic governor, you can bet your booty that you'd hear the same amount of accusations, but the words would be different. Bush would be vilified for stepping in before Blanco wanted him. He'd be strong arming in his own country now. He'd be a dictator. He'd be squashing state rights.
 
  • #436
kgeaux said:
If a Republican president usurped the power of a Democratic governor, you can bet your booty that you'd hear the same amount of accusations, but the words would be different. Bush would be vilified for stepping in before Blanco wanted him. He'd be strong arming in his own country now. He'd be a dictator. He'd be squashing state rights.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
 
  • #437
kgeaux said:
If a Republican president usurped the power of a Democratic governor, you can bet your booty that you'd hear the same amount of accusations, but the words would be different. Bush would be vilified for stepping in before Blanco wanted him. He'd be strong arming in his own country now. He'd be a dictator. He'd be squashing state rights.

And the people that died or were raped and murdered would still be blamed on the President because he took over and the Governor would have done it so much better. (very heavy sarcasm there).
 
  • #438
I dont understand the Partisan Politics either. The State Government is Democratic, the Administration is Republican. Everyone appears to have dropped the ball both State and Federal.
 
  • #439
tybee204 said:
I dont understand the Partisan Politics either. The State Government is Democratic, the Administration is Republican. Everyone appears to have dropped the ball both State and Federal.
That's what some of us have been saying. There's plenty of blame to go around.
 
  • #440
tybee204 said:
I dont understand the Partisan Politics either. The State Government is Democratic, the Administration is Republican. Everyone appears to have dropped the ball both State and Federal.

I finally agree with you on something! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
145
Guests online
2,887
Total visitors
3,032

Forum statistics

Threads
632,929
Messages
18,633,769
Members
243,347
Latest member
maplesmom
Back
Top