Let he or she who is without underaged drinking, particularly while at college, cast the first empty beer can.
Show me someone who didn’t, and I’ll show you a dork who I wouldn’t much want to hang around with. Who probably has a bit of a skewed worldview.
JonScribe you were probably using “he” as a gender-neutral pronoun, but needs2know is female.
I personally can remember back to Truman and people making fun of Margaret’s looks and her playing the piano. Today that doesn’t seem too bad, but in those days it was. If the twins behave themselves (which they probably will do now), there will be no harm done.
goboy not everyone can be as original as you are. It doesn’t seem so far that needs2know has taken up your challenge. Maybe she is just lurking.
Hey, hey, hey, Milossarian!
I resemble that remark. I’m 19. I don’t drink. Alcohol, anyway. No point in it that I can see. So I ain’t much of a party animal. I hardly consider myself that big of a dork because I choose to concentrate more on the academic side of college rather than the social side. Even when I turn 21, I doubt I’ll drink that much, if at all. I’ll gamble the hell out of Vegas, but be sober while doing it. And what exactly does a skewed worldview consist of? That I might have the opinion that alcohol is bad for you?
As for the OP, just because her father’s a twerp is no reason to jump on Jenna. 
I do see Milo’s point, it’s pretty natural for a college student to want to hang around and drink with friends, consumption laws be damned. I certainly don’t condemn my roommate for drinking, I just don’t choose to participate. All that makes Jenna different is that she’s the daughter of the President. Granted, that’s a pretty big difference, but still, she’s still a teenager.
Manhattan, are you aware that earlier this year John Derbyshire in The National Review said that America would be better off if Chelsea Clinton was dead? And could you explain how this ties in with your analysis the press and others left Chelsea alone?
Yeah, I agree with the opinion that there doesn’t need to be extra attention paid to the behavior of the daughters of politicians. Just don’t go around claiming that all right-wing wackos have displayed perfect behavior in this field.
Oh, yeah. I agree that the right has it’s share of whackos – hell, I’d even agree that the right has numerically more prominent whackos than the left!
Derbyshire is a first-class jerk (here’s a copy of the column in question), and part of the reason that the National Review hasn’t been important in years. For every thoughtful article they have and for every bit of reporting that they do, they seem to have about 10 “oh, aren’t we naughty” potshots. I refer to it as the Austin Powers syndrome, because I can imagine the editors sitting around the room saying exactly that with the Austin Powers accent as they approve the articles.
But it is inexcusable from either side, and I stand by my assertion that Chelsea-bashing became essentially non-existent among all civilized people (and Rush) early in the administration. Ignore the folks who still have a fixation on an administration that ended months ago or hate a family for hate’s own sake. They are worthless.
I guess I hadn’t read enough choice N2K posts to be prepared for the onslaught against GWB in that thread (I don’t believe it had anything to do with Jenna, BTW).
And while you’re at it, make sure you attack the guy for being an alcoholic, OK? It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference how long he’s been sober, or how he’s raised his girls without them having to see him shitfaced.
And of course, insinuate that she is just a little GWB in a dress, and is due the same abuse that you apparently dish out to GWB on a regular basis.
Did you get your feelings hurt by a sadistic alcoholic conservative during your formative years?
Whatever, honey. Manhattan said it, I believe it. Great rant, both here and in the original thread.
I don’t see a problem with name calling the President to your hearts desire. That’s been done so for centuries.
It’s unfortunate that the attention that circles around the President extends to his family, but that’s life. He took the job and there’s a load of crap that naturally goes with it. (Honestly, I can’t understand why anyone would want to be President these days.)
Anyway, out of courteous respect, I wouldn’t expect to see mudslinging/namecalling towards his family on this board. It shows low class and a dim disposition. Guess some folk manage to become too encapsulated in the opposition.
I don’t see a problem with name calling the President to your hearts desire. That’s been done so for centuries.
It’s unfortunate that the attention that circles around the President extends to his family, but that’s life. He took the job and there’s a load of crap that naturally goes with it. (Honestly, I can’t understand why anyone would want to be President these days.)
Anyway, out of courteous respect, I wouldn’t expect to see mudslinging/namecalling towards his family on this board. It shows low class and a dim disposition. Guess some folk manage to become to encapsulated in the opposition.
Aw, fuck! Why couldn’t my first double post be in “Comments on Staff Reports.”
I’ll bite. I was not an underaged drinker. Apart from an occasional glass of wine, I did not drink in college.
Now tell me I’m a dork with a skewed worldview.
Believe it or not, underage drinking is not an essential formative experience.
**
You had an occasional glass of wine? And you were under 21? Then you were an underaged drinker, Maeglin.
And my apologies if I offended you or Bayle or anyone else. I retract my “dork with a skewed worldview” comment. Perhaps I should have said anyone with a puritanical opposition to any and all underaged drinking, who practices scorn for those who do it, particularly at college, I would tend to view as falling into that category. As noted by Bayle:
Nothing wrong with that.
Maeglin:
**
And, believe it or not, choosing that experience prior to age 21 is a pretty damned common occurrence, and not particularly evil.
Milo…
I’ve yet to ingest any form of alcoholic beverage. Just thought you’d like to know.
(Then again, I’m not completely through with college, so… let’s just wait!)
Fair enough, but considering what you did say you drink in the TMI thread…
Oh, I’m sorry, Gary, I didn’t know you wanted some.
Spoofe, if it’s all the same with you, I’ll stick with my morning Lagavullin.
Hello:-) I haven’t yet had a drink here at college. Don’t plan to. I just don’t like the taste.
But yeah, my worldview is a bit skewed. Anyone’s who hangs around here would be, too!
This tidbit of “news” about JB was anything but, and hardly worthy of mention, let alone venom. Based on the posts in these threads, Needs2Know doesn’t mind people thinking she’s a cruel thoughtless bitch.
Not a crime, of course, but others might prefer a different reputation.
Needs2Know needs to change her nick to Needs 2 Get a Freakin’ Clue! She’s a master of the Scarlett O’Hara with a lobotomy school of logical debate: “Why, fiddle dee dee! I’m just a pore ol’ Southern girl who can’t be expected to marshall facts into a coherent argument.” She is a plague upon the face of GD, writing hysterical, error-prone posts, demonizing her opponents, and never letting go of her central thesis that George W. Bush is evil, Evil, EVIL! She’s under the curious delusion that if the facts and her opinions contradict each other, so much the worse for the facts.
What really gets me is that she says she’s against racism, but she is ALWAYS the first to start using racial slurs in an argument, put in quotation marks to project her unconscious racism on her opponents.
Well, I expect she actually revels in it.
Like a few of the other more annoying participants in GD, she does not equate her positions with efficiency, rationality, or merely “what I think would work best”; but rather with absolute morality. What she believes is right, and therefore anyone who opposes her is not merely wrong, but immoral and evil. After all, were they truly moral and good, they would believe what she does.
Therefore, insults and character assassination are fine, because she’s only going after people like George Bush, who are evil incarnate. His daughter? She hasn’t publicly repudiated her father’s stances upon issues; therefore, she must be evil.
Likewise, all of our shock and horror and disgust with her lack of tact, taste, or intelligence must secretly delight her; after all, because we oppose her, we must be evil, and if evil opposes her, she must truly be good and doing good works. A wonderful little fallacy too many people on both sides of the aisle here fall in to.
Of course, I may just be jaded with her because I spent two weeks trying to convince her that one did not necessarily have to be a racist in order to oppose affirmative action or believe that those whom we refer to as “black leaders” do not necessarily always have the best interests of African-Americans in mind when they propose their policies or make their speeches.
Needs2Know, the Jack Dean Tyler of George W. Bush!!
Sua