Mickey Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 Oh my God, you mean to tell me that a 21 year old man was arrested on Austin's Sixth Street for being drunk????? This is unheard of!!! This may be the first time in the history of the world that this has happened. It's definitely the first time it's happened here in Austin, TX, and especially on Sixth Street where most nights there is nothing but Bible Study and bake sales. This is a scandal. A SCANDAL. And the country - no, the world - needs to know about the President's Brother's son getting drunk at the tender age of 21 when, as far as I know, no one in America would even touch a glass. 443792[/snapback] He was also charged with resisting arrest. This is, unfortunately, a little more serious than your typical drunk and disorderly. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to live under that kind of a microscope and I hope he gets some help. I know I'd hate to be the judge on the case. No matter what you do someone is going to claim you were either too rough or not rough enough on him for political reasons. The best part of this story is that he wasn't driving and no one got hurt. Everything else can be fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 Oh my God, you mean to tell me that a 21 year old man was arrested on Austin's Sixth Street for being drunk????? This is unheard of!!! This may be the first time in the history of the world that this has happened. It's definitely the first time it's happened here in Austin, TX, and especially on Sixth Street where most nights there is nothing but Bible Study and bake sales. This is a scandal. A SCANDAL. And the country - no, the world - needs to know about the President's Brother's son getting drunk at the tender age of 21 when, as far as I know, no one in America would even touch a glass. 443792[/snapback] WAIT. SOMEONE GOT DRUNK ON 6th STREET? ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS? MAYBE I BETTER START GOING THERE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 I would like to know what happened to the careers of the poor cops that arrested the Bush kids. Especially the Presidents daughter. I don't mean this as a bash to Bush, because what ever happened to those cops I'm sure it is nothing compared to what Hillary would have done if Chelsea was arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billfan63 Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 Both Mrs. Bush and Clinton's sons were elected to public office and therefore are fair game, their offspring and parents (not counting Bush 41) should be off limits. But then again, anything to find yet another way to loudly proclaim BUSH BAD! is okay in the liberal playbook I guess. 443963[/snapback] I guess you slept through the Amy Carter and Chelsea Carter years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 I guess you slept through the Amy Carter and Chelsea Carter years. 446742[/snapback] Who's Chelsea Carter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billfan63 Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 Who's Chelsea Carter? 446746[/snapback] That would be chelsea clinton typed fast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 I guess you slept through the Amy Carter and Chelsea Carter years. 446742[/snapback] True, Carter and Clinton's children did get unwanted media attention, but not to the extent that the Bush Twins do. But that has nothing to do with BushBad!, its just the sad state of American Media and Celebrity Culture. If Bush were a Democrat, they Twins would still be under the same microscope. That, and people didn't really care about a little girl in a tree house and and a homely awkward girl as much as a pair of Hottie Twins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 Why wasn't Chelsea under the same microscope as the Bush twins when she would get s**tfaced at frat parties at Stanford. Underage drinking there too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 Why wasn't Chelsea under the same microscope as the Bush twins when she would get s**tfaced at frat parties at Stanford. Underage drinking there too. 447053[/snapback] Anyone who complains about 19 year olds drinking alcohol is lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 Why wasn't Chelsea under the same microscope as the Bush twins when she would get s**tfaced at frat parties at Stanford. Underage drinking there too. 447053[/snapback] Doesn't matter. Two wrongs don't make it right. The pols and if their spouses want to become political the way Hilary did, are fair game. You leave the children and the non-political spouses out of it. It is amateur and bullying of people who didn't ask for it, other then to support the pol. People like Babs, Laura, and Rosalynn Carter have played the roles of first lady, but have really minimized their political ideas and therefore are exept for harrassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 Why wasn't Chelsea under the same microscope as the Bush twins when she would get s**tfaced at frat parties at Stanford. Underage drinking there too. 447053[/snapback] The Clintons worked hard to shelter a younger Chelsea from the press, and (far more importantly) had a very good relationship with the press. The Bushes, on the other hand, have twins who are no longer minors as Chelsea was, and (far more importantly) the administration chose to pursue an antagonistic relationship with the press. Is it a double standard? Sure. But it's largely one of the families' own making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey 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] Because, like I said, the relationship Clinton had with the media is completely different than Bush's relationship with the media...mostly by choice. Double standard? Sure...but it's as much the administration's making as it is the media's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Because, like I said, the relationship Clinton had with the media is completely different than Bush's relationship with the media...mostly by choice. Double standard? Sure...but it's as much the administration's making as it is the media's. 447321[/snapback] Got to dissagree. The biased double standard of the press transends any personal relationship. I think some in the press grew to like Reagan personally, even though they couldn't stand him politically. They cut him no slack. Meanwhile Clinton could have murdered people and gotten away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Nice topic. Hedda Hopper would be proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Meanwhile Clinton could have murdered people and gotten away with it. 447891[/snapback] Waddaya mean "could have"!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Got to dissagree. The biased double standard of the press transends any personal relationship. I think some in the press grew to like Reagan personally, even though they couldn't stand him politically. They cut him no slack. Meanwhile Clinton could have murdered people and gotten away with it. 447891[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 I agree with CTM. How the press treats and portrays people is often a direct result of how that person treats the press. It plays out in sports all day long. Why not politics, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 I agree with CTM. How the press treats and portrays people is often a direct result of how that person treats the press. It plays out in sports all day long. Why not politics, too? 448061[/snapback] No, you disagree with me, because as I clarified it's not personal. It's not George W. Bush vs. the press, it's the Bush administration vs. the press. Christ, even when you agree with me you manage to be a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiew Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Everything else can be fixed And I'm sure it will be. We certainly wouldn't want our children to be held responsible for their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts