I think this stinks...

[chobie]

Sorry, you are correct. You don't start threads.

Neither do I.

 

[dcentity2000]

Sorry, you are correct. You don't start threads.

Bob, you just earned muchos kudos in my eyes for admitting that you were wrong - that doesn't happen all that often on the DIS!



Rich::

 

[Bob Slydell]

I'll rephrase then. It certainly would have been started by someone and certain individuals would be among the first to jump all over it.

Better?

 

[shortbun]

It doesn't. Just another cheap shot.

You don't get how the president dressing up his appearances with firefighters wanting to help and instead being flown around to "appear" behind the president reeks of 'entitlement?" I see.

 

[peachgirl]

I'll rephrase then. It certainly would have been started by someone and certain individuals would be among the first to jump all over it.

Better?

Without a doubt, and perhaps I wasn't clear in my post, but I meant that the OP of this thread would have never started it. It wasn't the horror of what that politician did, but his political affiliation that made it post worthy.

My point being, that one should not get all high and mighty about other people taking cheap shots when one is doing it themselves.

What you can also count on is that when a Dem started the thread, a Republican would have jumped quicker than you can blink with the ever popular..."yeah, but Clinton" excuse.

 

[chobie]

I'll rephrase then. It certainly would have been started by someone and certain individuals would be among the first to jump all over it.

Better?

You mean like the indiviudal who started this thread?

 

[shortbun]

We know how you feel about the President.

Maybe you could spare a few words of condemnation for the Congressman.

I don't like what either one of them did. One used his influence for political gain and the other used his influence to protect his property. I guess the property protection is more understandable but both were wrong.

 

[froglady]

=

Or perhaps some of the victims themselves? I'm sure many of them could be trained to pass out pamphlets and help others to fill out paperwork, once they've completed their own.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

You don't get how the president dressing up his appearances with firefighters wanting to help and instead being flown around to "appear" behind the president reeks of 'entitlement?" I see.

What I don't get is why these individuals volunteered to pass out pamphlets and help push paper. That's what firefighters do these days? Their skills were not being utilitized by FEMA or in a photo op. Bottom line: these men volunteered to come based on FEMA's request for paper-pushers, not firefighters. The fact that their time/skills were wasted on a photo op is not entitlement; it's just a waste of their time and skills.

And whining about it on this thread is nothing more than a cheap shot/diversionary tactic.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Without a doubt, and perhaps I wasn't clear in my post, but I meant that the OP of this thread would have never started it. It wasn't the horror of what that politician did, but his political affiliation that made it post worthy.

Not true. I would be as outraged as I am now had this individual been Republican, Libertarian, Independent, whatever... race, gender, political affiliation doesn't matter. What this person did was unconscionable.

My point being, that one should not get all high and mighty about other people taking cheap shots when one is doing it themselves.

Some people just call 'em as they see 'em. Others think it's ok to try to divert attention from the misdeeds of those they would support.

What you can also count on is that when a Dem started the thread, a Republican would have jumped quicker than you can blink with the ever popular..."yeah, but Clinton" excuse.

Ding, ding, ding... you win the prize for the first "but Clinton" reference on this thread. And to see it came from PG!

 

[BuckNaked]

Not true. I would be as outraged as I am now had this individual been Republican, Libertarian, Independent, whatever... race, gender, political affiliation doesn't matter. What this person did was unconscionable.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Without a doubt, and perhaps I wasn't clear in my post, but I meant that the OP of this thread would have never started it. It wasn't the horror of what that politician did, but his political affiliation that made it post worthy.

My point being, that one should not get all high and mighty about other people taking cheap shots when one is doing it themselves.

What you can also count on is that when a Dem started the thread, a Republican would have jumped quicker than you can blink with the ever popular..."yeah, but Clinton" excuse.

ITA with this whole statement, BTW.

I just wish there were more people who read these types of articles and not looking for the political party of the person involved (on both sides).

 

[andromedaslove]

It wasn't the horror of what that politician did, but his political affiliation that made it post worthy.

That is completely ridiculous. When I read this story I didn't even look to see what his political affiliation was. I was outraged that ANYONE would take advantage of the people sent their to help rescue others, just to find out if his belongings were ok. What he did was a disgusting abuse of power and is completely inexcusable. PERIOD. I am glad that someone posted this story, because otherwise I probably wouldn't have seen it. THAT is what makes this story POST WORTHY.

 

[peachgirl]

That is completely ridiculous. When I read this story I didn't even look to see what his political affiliation was.

Not true. I would be as outraged as I am now had this individual been Republican, Libertarian, Independent, whatever... race, gender, political affiliation doesn't matter. What this person did was unconscionable.

Were either of you the OP?

Ding, ding, ding... you win the prize for the first "but Clinton" reference on this thread. And to see it came from PG!

Apparently you don't know the rules of the game.

 

[andromedaslove]

Were either of you the OP?

Did I need to be to point out that the statement you made was inaccurate? I simply stated the fact that I saw it as post worthy regardless of the political affiliation. If you have become the post dictator please let me know and I'll promise to ask next time I decide to contradict something you have written.

 

[What the Heck]

I think putting firefighters, who volunteered to help the victims, on a chartered flight to make the President look good at a rally exemplifies the entitilement mentality.

And the race card remarks are cheap shots regardless of the context.

So, when did the President move to New Orleans? I'm shocked that he would go visit his home with firefighters following him and helping him move items out of his home.

The comparison from those on the left in this case is way off the mark.

Getting back on topic, I saw this guy in an interview on Tucker Carlson last night. I felt sorry for him. The way he put it, and it was very believable that it could have happened that way, he was caught up in circumstances. The National Guard didn't want him going around unescorted because of snipers and gangs, and he agreed to let them escort him. According to him, he did also go to the SuperDome and the Convention Center, as well as tour his home district. Up to that point he did nothing wrong in my opinion. Where he possibly showed poor judgement (aint 20/20 hindsight grand?) was when he went to his house and the National Guard helped him move some stuff out. After hearing his side, I really can't say he did anything wrong, in my opinion, at least I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[peachgirl]

Did I need to be to point out that the statement you made was inaccurate? I simply stated the fact that I saw it as post worthy regardless of the political affiliation. If you have become the post dictator please let me know and I'll promise to ask next time I decide to contradict something you have written.

Before you go getting all sarcastic....you misunderstood what I meant by the question.

No one was saying you had to be the OP to comment.

Here's what I said:

Without a doubt, and perhaps I wasn't clear in my post, but I meant that the OP of this thread would have never started it. It wasn't the horror of what that politician did, but his political affiliation that made it post worthy.

So, when you say that's ridiculous that you found it to be whatever you found it to be regardless of the party affiliation...great! But my point was that the OP would have never posted the thread and what made the story post worthy to the OP. I wasn't speaking about everyone in the world, just the OP.

 

[andromedaslove]

Before you go getting all sarcastic....you misunderstood what I meant by the question.

No one was saying you had to be the OP to comment.

Here's what I said:




So, when you say that's ridiculous that you found it to be whatever you found it to be regardless of the party affiliation...great! But my point was that the OP would have never posted the thread and what made the story post worthy to the OP. I wasn't speaking about everyone in the world, just the OP.

Well, then you have my apologies for the sarcasm. I don't usually get into political discussions on this site or any others, cause well.... I don't quite fit into the Democrat or Republican parties. I just called it as I saw it. It had nothing to do with what you were saying about the OP or his/her political affiliation. I found it to be post worthy because of the subject, and if I can find it as post worthy regardless of political affiliation I am sure that there are others who do too. I for one am glad, regardless of the reasons behind it, that the OP posted this.

 

[peachgirl]

I found it to be post worthy because of the subject, and if I can find it as post worthy regardless of political affiliation I am sure that there are others who do too.

I'm sure there are, without a doubt. No problem with the misunderstanding, sometimes it's difficult to catch the meaning with just the written word.

 

[snappy]

So, when did the President move to New Orleans? I'm shocked that he would go visit his home with firefighters following him and helping him move items out of his home.

The comparison from those on the left in this case is way off the mark.

Getting back on topic, I saw this guy in an interview on Tucker Carlson last night. I felt sorry for him. The way he put it, and it was very believable that it could have happened that way, he was caught up in circumstances. The National Guard didn't want him going around unescorted because of snipers and gangs, and he agreed to let them escort him. According to him, he did also go to the SuperDome and the Convention Center, as well as tour his home district. Up to that point he did nothing wrong in my opinion. Where he possibly showed poor judgement (aint 20/20 hindsight grand?) was when he went to his house and the National Guard helped him move some stuff out. After hearing his side, I really can't say he did anything wrong, in my opinion, at least I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I don't care who went with him and why. NO ONE was supposed to go back to their houses. It is a safety issue, if he shouldn't be going around unescorted, why does the escort make it ok. The guards were also put in an unnecessarily unsafe position by going in with him. If my loved one was one of those guards who escorted him on an unnecessary trip, and he was hurt by looters, an accident or whatever, I would not feel like he was "just caught up in circumstances."

I am sorry but I believe Jefferson was taking advantage of his position, and I think he should take a page out of Bush's and Blanco's book and apologise publicly instead of making feeble excuses.

I hope he is not involved with the fed funds that will be pouring into N.O.