posted on June 3, 2001 06:48:53 PM new
Hi twin...Long time
Well, I did not use to participate in the Round Table discussion. Since Ebay started making so many changes, which have just about killed my business, I suddenly found myself with a little time to spare.
I believe that because I might be in a different age bracket than many here, having been brought up in Europe and coming from a very traditional home, I do not much care for the behaviour of many young people.
As to Clinton, I never considered myself a "babe", and was able to close my eyes to many things that former Presidents have done, (both Republicans and Democrats) IF they had redeeming qualities, which obviously, this present one does not have...
I am not trying to convince anyone that bushytail is a jerk: the truth will eventually speak for itself. But I do find young people's manner and comportment deplorable.
I right now even have a bone to pick with my (step) grand children; so it is NOT just the bush "babes". I arrived in this country in the days of Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver..., "yes sir" and "yes m'am" Things have changed, and I have not.
******** Gosh Shosh!
posted on June 3, 2001 06:56:39 PM newIn fact, I saw a Sam Donaldson piece on this
How could anyone pay serious attention to Donaldson as long as he insists on wearing that goofy toupee is beyond me.
posted on June 3, 2001 09:37:02 PM new
KatyD, I never watch Donaldson, and the first thing I noticed was "so old" followed by "lousy rug." You are right on there.
Hi, Shoshi. I know what you mean. I am thinking about dropping eBay so I can do the AW Round Table thing full-time.
Anyway, you seem unusually upset about this, children disrepecting their elders. 'Just thought there might be something else behind it (HINT! HINT!) but I like you and I don't want to bug you about it. ("Lay down on zee couch and tell me vat you're dreaming." )
I thought Clinton was a great president, certainly better than yer average Nixon or Reagan. I remember Clint in the first debates, wow! On the other hand, he seems to have been always one jump ahead of the gun, what with the savings and loan scandal and his continual womanizing. For the first time, however, with Bush, I find myself completely distrusting and contemptuous of the U.S. governemt. These orchestrated energy crises like we're seeing in CA don't help much either.
My eBay sales are so slow and I'm so disheartened by eBay's policies that I'm going to go back to work part-time. I don't know what kind of job I'll find. Every company in town is laying off thousands, and I'm not kidding.
posted on June 3, 2001 09:55:05 PM new
I think he meant Whitewater, krs. It was a real estate deal, Twinsoft. The savings and loan scandals were Bush Sr's friends and family. Course this was before the energy scandal. Heh.
posted on June 3, 2001 10:08:56 PM new
I'm sorry, I thought Whitewater was a savings and loan. Well, whatever. Excuse me, I have KRS' posts blocked so if I'm missing something I apologize. Really, I'd rather gouge my eyes out than read his posts, though sometimes a morbid fascination gets the better of me.
posted on June 3, 2001 10:28:30 PM new
I don't know, but I think if I had been caught drinking underage, my father would have given me hell about it, and taken a punch at anyone who thought it was their business to comment on my actions. If that's Bush's approach, good for him.
posted on June 3, 2001 10:32:23 PM new
Donny, your father didn't enter into a contract with the devil i.e. enormous power in exchange for a total loss of privacy.
Bush knew the score when he decided he wanted to be president. Hopefully he discussed the implications of being such a public person with his family and hopefully they all agreed that it was the thing for him to do.
posted on June 3, 2001 10:52:50 PM new
The daughters knew, going in. There were news pieces about their reactions in which they both recognized that they, as well as their father, would be under scrutiny. He even went so far, as I remember, to say that his daughters didn't want him to run for that reason.
posted on June 3, 2001 11:21:45 PM new
"It's amazing that everyone is so quick to assume she was doing something wrong-what happened to 'until proven guilty'? It has not been established yet that she really did this, only that some anonymous caller said she did"
Well, let's see. She just plead guilty last week in court and received community service for doing the same thing. So it is not a stretch to think she was guilty again.
posted on June 4, 2001 03:57:31 AM new
You can't hold a parent responsible for what his or her 19 year old child does, and you can't hold a 19 year old child responsible for what his or her parents do. The way some people in this thread seem to see it is that not only are the sins of the parents visited on the sons, but then the sins of the sons (or daughters) are visited back on the parents. And what a paltry sin, to try to get a drink when you're underage. It's illegal, but I wouldn't call it immoral... or unpatriotic, or disrespectful.
However, this thread has cheered me up immensely! After seeing the flood of non-conservative compassion, the prospect of being exposed to 4 years of the conservative kind doesn't seem nearly as scary as it once did.
posted on June 4, 2001 05:05:01 AM new
Oh but donny, imagine the republican reaction were it Chelsea Clinton involved! This isn't democratic conservatism, it's payback time.
You evidently don't recall the call for the wrath of God by republican hatemongers, primarily Rush Limbaugh, over a report, a completely false report, that Chelsea Clinton had been observed smoking a cigarette in a restaurant near Stanford.
Not so bad, but "It's illegal, but I wouldn't call it immoral... or unpatriotic, or disrespectful" you say? You sound like a drinking person yourself in saying so. Illegal isn't immoral. Drunkenness isn't disrespectful of the position of regard which those two have assumed, unwillingly perhaps? Oh yes it is. They are, for better or worse, the American First Family. The world takes a cue to the character of Americans from what they see in that most visible entity. And in the largest portion of the world, children such as this, particularly girl children, are seen as indicators of the character of their father.
posted on June 4, 2001 09:30:48 AM new
Helen, my dad would have kicked my ass.
On another note, my 15 year old son and I are diametrically opposed politically. He is a self-styled "junior republican". Where does he get his ideas? He was raised in a strictly bleeding heart liberal environment. Where did I go wrong? Or is it teenage rebellion? And what will the neighbors say?
posted on June 4, 2001 01:12:04 PM new
"You evidently don't recall the call for the wrath of God by republican hatemongers, primarily Rush Limbaugh, over a report, a completely false report, that Chelsea Clinton had been observed smoking a cigarette in a restaurant near Stanford."
Sure I do. And if the other side rains down the same sort of rabid self-righteous claptrap when the shoe's on the other foot, what's the difference between them?
No, I'm not really a drinking person. Two glasses of wine with Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner (three makes me too sleepy), an after-dinner liquer with coffee those few times a year when we go to a nice restaurant, that's pretty much it for me, just never developed much of a taste for liquor.
posted on June 4, 2001 01:23:20 PM new
Perhaps I am wrong, but I am getting the impression, from the many replies here, that DEMOCRAT = NO MORALS...That ANYTHING GOES.
Having Morals and a deep sense of values is not a monopoly of the republican party
I suppose I might feel differently about this current issue, had I been born and brought up here, where it's ok to drink, carry guns, shoot your teachers. But I cannot apologize for being a foreigner.
posted on June 4, 2001 01:38:52 PM new
I hate to sound xenophobic (trust me, it's not meant that way), but weren't you born in France? I'm pretty sure people in France drink too and as I recall, there was some Nazi collaberation going on there as well. No country has a monopoly on imperfection.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Jun 4, 2001 01:39 PM ]
posted on June 4, 2001 02:09:31 PM new
Shall we start an alcoholic's justification thread?
Donny,
I didn't say that you ARE a drinking person, only that you sound like one. In minimalizing these behaviors by the first daughters your responses sounded very similar to me to those of a drunk's enablers.
As to "And if the other side rains down the same sort of rabid self-righteous claptrap when the shoe's on the other foot, what's the difference between them?"; the republican moralists chose their weapons and use them whenever possible without letup. To be able to feed some small amount back at them is really great fun.
"I didn't say that you ARE a drinking person, only that you sound like one. In minimalizing these behaviors by the first daughters your responses sounded very similar to me to those of a drunk's enablers"
Donny doesn't sound like an alcoholic to me. That is the most ridiculous comment that I have read in a long time.
posted on June 4, 2001 02:40:15 PM new
There are many posters who have agreed that this behavior is trivial and that the over reaction by media is politically motivated.
Has it been confirmed that the daughter of Bush is an alcoholic?
How can we be considered alcoholic enablers if we fail to see that drinking one beer in college is a serious matter?
posted on June 4, 2001 02:42:20 PM new
Well, Shosh, as you may recall, what brought on all this nonsense about Democrats being extreme libertines versus the Almighty God-Fearing Republican Party was that in the early 1980's, the Democraxtic Party opened up its doors to homosexuals. They decided to court the homosexual vote by becoming public about it. That was too much for the Religious Right, which up until thee, had been one of the voting pillars of the Democratic Party. The Religious Right could stand helping the poor, people of different races, even different religions. But when the DNC embraced homosexuals, that was just too much! it was after that, that the Religious Right split off and awayt from the Democractic Party. The GOP being the only other game in town, the Religious Right took their political agenda to the Republicans. We then had Ronald Reagan - twice. Bush, Sr. once. In 1994, they voted in a Republican majority in the House and in 1996, a Republican majority in the Senate. Now, in 2000, a Republican president.
Now we get people who think that the Religious Right was there all along with the Republicans. Because the Religious Right rejected the Democratic Party's embrace of homosexuals and took their political agenda to the Republicans, does not make the Republicans automatically right or more God-fearing, or more moral. All it means is that they prefer homophobic political parties is all.
Of that, I would not be proud of. But, that's just me.
posted on June 4, 2001 02:46:25 PM new
Reagan won 49 states in 1984 and he didn't do it through the votes of the religous right and he also didn't beat Jimmy Carter in 1980 because of homosexuals.
posted on June 4, 2001 03:06:52 PM new
James, in 1984, the Religious Right had settled in on the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan took the South, which is the home of the Religious Right. Without the South, Ronald Reagan's chances for re-election might have been iffy.
posted on June 4, 2001 03:47:13 PM new
Another mistake here is blaming parents for the faults of their children because that is not always the case. Children don't grow up in a vacuum only directed by parents. The village is large and outside influence can enhance character development or completely destroy any child from any family.
posted on June 4, 2001 03:49:51 PM new
Borillar? How could Reagan even be 'iffy' in 1984?
The statistics for 1984:
Ronald Wilson
REAGAN
George Herbert Walker Bush
Electoral Votes: 525
Pop. Vote: 54,451,521
Walter Frederick
MONDALE
Geraldine Anne Ferraro
Electoral Votes: 13
Pop. Vote: 37,565,334
Mondale won 2 states: D.C. and MN
Both the Pop. Vote and Electoral College look almost like a landslide to me.
And I remember that election, I went to the Pike Place Market, because I HAD to see Ferraro speak, a woman *might* have been our first Vice President. It was a big deal.
