Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 And I'm sure it will be. We certainly wouldn't want our children to be held responsible for their actions. 448176[/snapback] I though the government's responsible for everything? Specifically, the president. Even more specifically, Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 I'm talking about when Chelsea was an adult (>18) but not legally allowed to drink (before she turned 21), the same age as the Bush twins were. I got my info from a frat member who saw it firsthand. He was a real lefty, so I don't think he was making it up. If I knew it, the press certainly did too. Double standard by them, pure and simple. 447303[/snapback] Was she arrested? I think the Bush girls were actually arrested for underage drinking or using a fake ID or something like that. I think that would make it a little harder for the press to keep quiet about it given that it would be a public record, a published police blotter reference and even court appearances which are also public. How would the press deal with that? Would they delete their names from the blotter while at the same time publishing the names of others in the same boat but who are not Presidential off-spring? I can't say I have followed the Bush twins much so I'm going on vague recollections here. Ditto Chelsea. Here it is: Bush Twins Arrested in Austin One was drinking underage and the other was using someone elses ID to buy alcohol. It was Jenna's second conviction for an alcohol violation so all told you have three "arrests" (probably just citations?) between the two of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 even when you agree with me you manage to be a moron. 448173[/snapback] gotta be a moron to agree with a dung chucking simian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 gotta be a moron to agree with a dung chucking simian 448409[/snapback] That's Mr. Dung Chucking Simian to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 That's Mr. Dung Chucking Simian to you. 448549[/snapback] Any relation to the former leader of Communist China Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Little hint for everyone: when I refer to "Bush" or "Clinton", I'm almost universally referring to their administrations, not them personally. Ergo, I was not referring to any personal relationships (not that you could have known that...I'm not criticizing, just clarifying). The press claims to represent the people as the "Fourth Estate"; previous administrations have accepted their own definition of their role in the process. The current administration, however, has told the press "We don't think you represent the people" (which I happen to agree with, btw. The media nowadays represents their own interests, not ours). They established early on a completely different relationship with the press than previous administrations have had. Thus, I will continue to contend that the Bush administration has a fundamentally different relationship with the press than Clinton or any previous, that makes the press more apt to attack/smear/report on in an unfavorable light/malign/whatever-you-want-to-call-it his family than they would have Amy Carter or Chelsea Clinton. 447963[/snapback] Point taken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 It's one thing to rip on a politician, but leave the family members out of it. 443838[/snapback] Like this? And yes, considering the source it should be taken with more than a grain of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts