Obama FTW
What the fuck do you mean that they ,"are mearly dishonerable servants?"topal63 wrote:
Will you answer the simple question?(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
Topal are you a liberal? She is a Senator, post-First Lady. I expect her to act like a lady(ish). Patton was a General. Nuff said.
This is clearly "an illusrtation" of the double standard, I indicated... before.
What double standard? He can cuss and swear, but she cant? No this has nothing to do with a double standard. This is about her total disrespect for any law enforcement/ Secret Service agent/ or aid working for her.I'll say it again,(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
For Fucks Sake, she has no honor or respect for those men that protect her life, she is ... an abomination to the office. Do I mind cussing and swearing, no. However no amount of frustration, should be takien out because she has no manners. She has a standing rule that no Secret Service agent should ever look her in the eye. She is one twisted bitch!
It is not honorable to betray some-ones trust - especially when it is merely a conflict of personality appeal (as nothing real is at stake, nothing about national security at all, or the like). They as you said are supposed to serve... and with honor. I could care less about her possible (supposed; so-called) inability to appreciate their service, that is a matter of opinion on their part. They are not coming forward in honor and saying, the Nation has been compromised, they are not whistle blowers, there is no crisis of conscience here. They are merely dishonorable servants of politics.
The statement was: They are merely dishonorable servants of politics.
In the context of what I said - the meaning should be clear to you... if you consider coming forward over a personality conflict a matter of "honor" and betraying your service and the confidence therein - so that someone can write a political column, book, blog - for of course political purposes - you and I do not share the same definition of honor.
The double standard: "I expect her to act like a lady(ish)."
In the context of what I said - the meaning should be clear to you... if you consider coming forward over a personality conflict a matter of "honor" and betraying your service and the confidence therein - so that someone can write a political column, book, blog - for of course political purposes - you and I do not share the same definition of honor.
The double standard: "I expect her to act like a lady(ish)."
Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-29 12:07:08)
I'm really starting to like this woman.................
Everyone is entitled to a bad day once in a while, but come on........you really condone talking to people like that? She needs to be bitch-slapped and brought back to reality. Besides, aren't the libs supposed to be all about peace/respect for your fellow human beings/love/equality? What a crock of shit.Konfusion0 wrote:
Have you ever come home, stressed from work, and shouted at your family even though they really didn't deserve it?D6717C wrote:
Of course I do. I swear all the time. But I don't swear at and demean the people I work with, or those sworn to protect me. Those guys are charged with potentially having to give their lives to save hers, and she's going to treat them like that?Konfusion0 wrote:
I respect her for that - it makes her more human. Are you saying you don't swear? The amount of time she spends around bodyguards and shit must be really frustrating...
-konfusion
Same scenario...
Imagine this: they're in her face all day, they're always thinking about protection etc. - yes, they're doing their jobs, but sometimes enough is enough.
-konfusion
Are you saying she is a crappy polititian, but a good person deep down inside? I don't get it. Either way I still can't stand her.topal63 wrote:
The statement was: They are merely dishonorable servants of politics.
In the conext of what I said - the meaning should be clear to you...
The double standard: "I expect her to act like a lady(ish)."
Context, what context are you speaking about? We are talking about the behavior of Senator Hillery Clinton. Why is it acceptable, to any of you, the way she treats these honorable men serving? She treats them like sub-servant degenerates, that could do nothing better with their live other than swear to protect the President of the US, its Senators, Representatives, all of their direct families, Ambassadors, other Diplomats, Foreign Prime Ministers, etc. I blows my mind that her behavior is acceptable, to anyone.
I agree. Context does not matter. They may be a high ranking elected official, but that does not preclude them from acting with civility to the people that are required to protect them.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
Context, what context are you speaking about? We are talking about the behavior of Senator Hillery Clinton. Why is it acceptable, to any of you, the way she treats these honorable men serving? She treats them like sub-servant degenerates, that could do nothing better with their live other than swear to protect the President of the US, its Senators, Representatives, all of their direct families, Ambassadors, other Diplomats, Foreign Prime Ministers, etc. I blows my mind that her behavior is acceptable, to anyone.
Thank you Agent for havening a sound, sober, and moral thought process.
It's odd that you can't understand what I am saying...(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
Context, what context are you speaking about? We are talking about the behavior of Senator Hillery Clinton. Why is it acceptable, to any of you, the way she treats these honorable men serving? She treats them like sub-servant degenerates, that could do nothing better with their live other than swear to protect the President of the US, its Senators, Representatives, all of their direct families, Ambassadors, other Diplomats, Foreign Prime Ministers, etc. I blows my mind that her behavior is acceptable, to anyone.
Maybe your right, so what, maybe she is not honoring those you think deserve more respect, than what you asume has been given.
But, that (honor &) honorable service does not extend any further when they become tools of a political agenda and over a mundane personality conflict. They do - what I would not. Can I say it any clearer?
And anyway the "context" is in relation to my statements, OK:
Note:In the context of what I said - the meaning should be clear to you... if you consider coming forward over a personality conflict a matter of "honor" and betraying your service and the confidence therein - so that someone can write a political column, book, blog - for of course political purposes - you and I do not share the same definition of honor.
It is not honorable to betray some-ones trust - especially when it is merely a conflict of personality appeal (as nothing real is at stake, nothing about national security at all, or the like). They as you said are supposed to serve... and with honor. I could care less about her possible (supposed; so-called) inability to appreciate their service, that is a matter of opinion on their part. They are not coming forward in honor and saying, the Nation has been compromised, they are not whistle blowers, there is no crisis of conscience here. They are merely dishonorable servants of politics.
I am not defending her by the way... (As I said before, you understand this too - right?)
You don't see me Googling the Web, to find favorable quotes or opinions, which do exist...
Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-29 12:25:10)
No I do not shout at my family because some one else pissed me off. That is the point, self control. Just wait till she PMSs and pushes the red button to nuke China because someone looked at her funny.Konfusion0 wrote:
Have you ever come home, stressed from work, and shouted at your family even though they really didn't deserve it?D6717C wrote:
Of course I do. I swear all the time. But I don't swear at and demean the people I work with, or those sworn to protect me. Those guys are charged with potentially having to give their lives to save hers, and she's going to treat them like that?Konfusion0 wrote:
I respect her for that - it makes her more human. Are you saying you don't swear? The amount of time she spends around bodyguards and shit must be really frustrating...
-konfusion
Same scenario...
Imagine this: they're in her face all day, they're always thinking about protection etc. - yes, they're doing their jobs, but sometimes enough is enough.
-konfusion
lets face it its a double standard If a Bill talked like that people would think he had ballzD6717C wrote:
Really? Shit, I never had respect for her in the first place.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
In some way it makes me respect her a little more than I did before.
If I respect her more.. it still is not a lot of respect,. she's treating her elected post like a jumping off point for bigger and better things. she has not served me well at all so far.
I met both her and bill....
We aren't talking about President Bill Clinton, we're talking about Hillery. And if we were, I would say the same thing about ANY elected official, voted in by the people. That kind of behavior and attitude should have left with the Civil Rights Act. People deserve some sort of common decency, and in this case un-common decency.
And if I were a tailor, barber, shoe-shiner, butler, etc; honorably serving another (anyone) in any capacity. It would be dishonorable of me - to consider their personality/personal history (acts, words, personal behavior, etc) learned of in confidence; in service to (them); to be something I should betray so that such personal knowledge could be used as a tool against those I served.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
We aren't talking about President Bill Clinton, we're talking about Hillery. And if we were, I would say the same thing about ANY elected official, voted in by the people. That kind of behavior and attitude should have left with the Civil Rights Act. People deserve some sort of common decency, and in this case un-common decency.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-29 14:14:29)
What are you? A writer/ editor for Webster's Dictionary? Seriously I don't understand what you are trying to convey, at all. Is it just me?
What are you talking about? So because she treats the people around her like dogshit on the bottom of her shoe and we find out about it, those people betrayed her? How do you even know the source? If she is acting like an ass and someone is around to quote her, that's her fault. You are basically saying that it's ok for her to be a cunt, and it's not ok for us to find out about it.topal63 wrote:
And if were a tailor, barber, shoe-shiner, butler, etc; honorably serving another (anyone) in any capacity. It would be dishonorable of me - to consider their personality/personal history (acts, words, personal behavior, etc) learned of in confidence; in service to (them); to be something I should betray so that such personal knowledge could be used as a tool against those I served.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
We aren't talking about President Bill Clinton, we're talking about Hillery. And if we were, I would say the same thing about ANY elected official, voted in by the people. That kind of behavior and attitude should have left with the Civil Rights Act. People deserve some sort of common decency, and in this case un-common decency.
If you are referring to our secret service men as being "dishonorable" I think you are speaking out of stupidity. I don't believe that they have betrayed any ones trust either; what they have done might be the only way to put Hillary's nastiness in check so that she doesn't treat them like garbage in the future (I'm sure that they don't have the ability to just approach her head on...they would be fired for even speaking to her!)If she knows that what she is saying to those men is being published then perhaps she'll curb her tongue. Just because the secret service are required to look out for the well-being of the president and the first lady (or in the Clinton's case the former president and first lady) doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to some level of respect from their employers. It also doesn't mean that they don't have the right to discuss their frustrations with friends or even publishers. How would anyone like us ever truly know how horrible a potential running candidate like Hillary is if the people closest too her never opened their mouths?! As far as I'm concerned these people have done America a favor. If they were releasing secrets that were a threat to national security, then no, they don't have the right to speak of that. I think that quotes such as the ones released by the secret service are not only acceptable, I think they were a great insight to knowing the true personality of a woman who would like everyone in America to believe that she is "presidential material."topal63 wrote:
This is clearly "an illustration" of the double standard, I indicated... before.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
Topal are you a liberal? She is a Senator, post-First Lady. I expect her to act like a lady(ish). Patton was a General. Nuff said.I'll say it again,(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
For Fucks Sake, she has no honor or respect for those men that protect her life, she is ... an abomination to the office. Do I mind cussing and swearing, no. However no amount of frustration, should be takien out because she has no manners. She has a standing rule that no Secret Service agent should ever look her in the eye. She is one twisted bitch!
It is not honorable to betray some-ones trust - especially when it is merely a conflict of personality appeal (as nothing real is at stake, nothing about national security at all, or the like). They as you said are supposed to serve... and with honor. I could care less about her possible (supposed; so-called) inability to appreciate their service, that is a matter of opinion on their part. They are not coming forward in honor and saying, the Nation has been compromised, they are not whistle blowers, there is no crisis of conscience here. They are merely dishonorable servants of politics.
No I didn't, nor am I outraged by this trivial political crap...D6717C wrote:
What are you talking about? So because she treats the people around her like dogshit on the bottom of her shoe and we find out about it, those people betrayed her? How do you even know the source? If she is acting like an ass and someone is around to quote her, that's her fault. You are basically saying that it's ok for her to be a cunt, and it's not ok for us to find out about it.topal63 wrote:
And if were a tailor, barber, shoe-shiner, butler, etc; honorably serving another (anyone) in any capacity. It would be dishonorable of me - to consider their personality/personal history (acts, words, personal behavior, etc) learned of in confidence; in service to (them); to be something I should betray so that such personal knowledge could be used as a tool against those I served.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
We aren't talking about President Bill Clinton, we're talking about Hillery. And if we were, I would say the same thing about ANY elected official, voted in by the people. That kind of behavior and attitude should have left with the Civil Rights Act. People deserve some sort of common decency, and in this case un-common decency.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-29 13:31:39)
This has nothing to do with politics, nor is it trivial. It's simply about her bitchy self-centered attitude. You are the only one saying this has anything to do with politics which, I assume, means you are a supporter of her, justifying her actions as a responsible and well mannered Representative Senator.
Last edited by (T)eflon(S)hadow (2007-03-29 12:54:42)
LOL, blogging, writing political books about - trivial crap - is not a political thing!(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
This has nothing to do with politics, nor is it trivial. It's simply about her bitchy self-centered attitude. You are the only one saying this has anything to do with politics which, I assume, means you are a supporter of her, justifying her actions as a responsible and well mannered Representative Senator.
How some of the animosity, personal conflicts, might be explaned:
"Angry Hillary threw book at Secret Service agent"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic … E_ID=32956
Also, here is the likely web-source page of the Hillary quotes from page 1 - post 1.He said both Clintons viewed Secret Service personnel as "Republican spies," since many of them worked in the previous Republican administrations. And they were "very skeptical of us."
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php … get_fcked/
or
Maybe is was lifted from this bloogers website?
http://www.againsthillary.com/hillarys-words/
or
Maybe this one (Senator arrogant pottymouth the elitist in her own words, LOL)!
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/senato … own_words/
From this bloggers website: http://www.hillaryproject.com/
Of course that above is not a political thing to say, or opinion to have, and of course the quotes are not being used in a political manner (if even entirely true?). /sarcasmHillary Clinton is a criminal and an uncaring woman. Now she wants to be president. Her craving for power and wounds from failures on a monumental scale are driving her to put our country at risk again. Our mission is to educate the people of our country to what they're up against and just how dangerous the notion of her becoming president really is.
About the book "Unlimited Access"
As I said, I consider it a dishonorable thing to betray confidence, it is no-doubt interesting if true, but that does not excuse his lack of ethics; when he freely chose to be a tool.... As one of only two FBI agents posted at the White House, Gary Aldrich's job was to protect the President from danger and scandal...
... Aldrich made the list with the news or rumor or surmise that the president is wont to sneak from the White House in the small hours to check out the talent at the Marriott Hotel in downtown Washington. The smoking paragraphs are thick with warnings to the discerning reader: "I have been informed by a well-placed White House source" . . . "I have been informed" . . . "It appears" . . . "some information indicates" . . . "is believed to be."
The nocturnal-roaming story was soon admitted to be third- or fourth-hand gossip, the sort of stuff that FBI agents are supposed to keep to themselves.
An archived opinion, I more or less, agree with,
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p1299579
Tabloid frankness has its appeal, but nowadays peeking into the bedroom (or any personal issue) is defended even by the high-minded as an effort to reveal Character. Insofar as these examples of election-year literature have much to do with issues, it is the famous Character Issue.
H.L. Mencken lamented in 1914, "There has never been a large political or social question before the American people which did not quickly resolve itself into a moral question." The Character Issue is today's moral question. You don't have to know anything about, say, welfare or immigration or Bosnia to make a judgment about Character. All you need is to know what's right, and which of us doesn't know that?
Mencken noted that the moralizers "at least offer good sport to the populace here on earth. They keep the newspapers supplied with hot stuff." So it is with The Character Issue, that gift to pop politics from the virtual journalism industry.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-29 15:02:39)
no, he would be an asshole for treating those around him like that, as would anyone, male or femaleHunter/Jumper wrote:
lets face it its a double standard If a Bill talked like that people would think he had ballzD6717C wrote:
Really? Shit, I never had respect for her in the first place.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
In some way it makes me respect her a little more than I did before.
After reading post #39 I better understood Topal's point. I don't agree, but I understand where he's coming from since I work in an industry where confidentiality is mandatory.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
What are you? A writer/ editor for Webster's Dictionary? Seriously I don't understand what you are trying to convey, at all. Is it just me?
I would think that many of the people that heard and quoted her were not directly on her staff. Reporters, other politicians, who knows. Even if it all came directly from her staff, who cares? Those are her true colors, and do you think its ok for her to act like such an ass? That isn't the mark of a true leader. That's the behavior of a person that has no respect for the common man/woman, who are the same people she is supposed to serve.Stingray24 wrote:
After reading post #39 I better understood Topal's point. I don't agree, but I understand where he's coming from since I work in an industry where confidentiality is mandatory.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
What are you? A writer/ editor for Webster's Dictionary? Seriously I don't understand what you are trying to convey, at all. Is it just me?
A friend of mine was one of the jarheads who rode in Marine One with the Pres and his family. This sounds exactly like how he described Hillary.
I haven't heard of anyone that had any kind of personal contact with her say she was anything but a raging cunt.usmarine2007 wrote:
A friend of mine was one of the jarheads who rode in Marine One with the Pres and his family. This sounds exactly like how he described Hillary.