Jump to content

Change Mode

Why doesnt Bush open his ranch


OSalcido
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Why doesnt Bush open his ranch, to New Orleans Refugees?

Well the people of Ney Wor...ahh Lithuan...ummmm you know the place are recieving ...well they and umm The National Guard is.....FEMA was......Iraq, thats it Saddam is uhhh, and terrorists, progress, looking up. Glad I could answer your questions tonight. Our resolve will not waiver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i remember before the last election bush was handing out ice bags to the victims in Florida and every 1 thought he was SO great for doin it..it IS tough handin out ice bags?

 

thing is these ppl actually NEED the icebags...why isnt he handing them the icebags now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted the Vietnam Vets to know that I have great respect for everything you have done. For putting your lives on the line for our country. You have seen many horrid things and fought for your lives only to come home to people spitting on you. You saw the worst human beings can do but yet you stood up to it with courage and love for your fellow soldiers. You will never be forgotten :tup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i remember before the last election bush was handing out ice bags to the victims in Florida and every 1 thought he was SO great for doin it...

It was a photo opportunity, nothing more. -kd5-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a photo opportunity, nothing more. -kd5-

Precisely.

 

Just like the celebrities that have popped up outside the Bush ranch and in the aftermath of the hurricane. Face time.

 

No big deal. It's the media that perpetuates that and the public that eats it up. Ultimately they are feeding the public what the public is hungry for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the media that perpetuates that and the public that eats it up. Ultimately they are feeding the public what the public is hungry for.

if the public was 'eating this up' i doubt this thread would have been started....

 

i'd prefer to think that the public isn't hungry for any of the media blitz n' are wanting some very real answers n' some very real action taken instead of looking at faces....

 

though remember, some of those faces are donating a ton of money n' if so, then face time is okay by me....

 

but IMHO, the public is hungry for lots more....me included

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I see. They can buy themselves legitimacy and credibility with money and celebrity.

 

I prefer not to accept that, but I know that isn't popular.

no, that isn't what i meant....those folks already have celebrity n' their money is just as green as the next guys....

 

my point was, contra to your earlier post, that the public is NOT getting what they want n' faces aren't going to appease anybody at this stage n' that's all i have to about that* B)

 

 

*sure nuff watched Gump a few nights ago :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, that isn't what i meant....those folks already have celebrity n' their money is just as green  as the next guys....

 

my point was, contra to your earlier post,   that the public is NOT getting what they want n' faces aren't going to appease anybody at this stage n' that's all i have to about that*  B)

 

 

*sure nuff watched Gump a few nights ago  :P

I do wish I could believe that. I know that you do, but with commercialism so rampant and people so willing to give some people credibility for no other reason than they have celebrity, I see it happening all the time. I understand that is not what you are doing, but I see many doing it and not just about this incident of course but as a cultural norm. Edited by Chopdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

for some reason, i think we're talkin' apples n' oranges here because i'm truly not following :blink:

 

at the great risk of being redundant....

 

1. i frankly don't care who donates money n' if someone of celebrity donates....don't care if they get face time. as in, got better things to focus on

 

2. i do not believe, contra to your previous statement, that the people are getting what they're so hungry for....they want real answers and real action taken. if folks were satisfied by the media blitz, then this thread wouldn't have been started

 

3. it doesn't matter to me why anyone is doing what they are doing as long as it gets done....whether celebrity or by someone like me whose merely infamous :P

 

but as a cultural norm.

 

personally, i'm delighted that it's become the norm for celebs to become involved by either donating money and/or their time to whatever causes will benefit from their actions and/or their money....

 

i'm just finding it difficult to understand your objections about celebs helping :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't object to them helping, I think I percieve what their help might be differently. If they wish to donate or volunteer then fine. But the only reason they get to say anything and people listen is because of their celebrity. Their opinion is not representastive of any group nor is it any more valid than any other person, yet they get the floor on a very large scale because they are simply popular and/or rich. The credibility they are givenon that basis is undeserved and in some cases a serious error. An extreme example that comes to mind is Tom Cruise on certain matters.

 

It matters not whether I agree with what they say as I sometimes do of course. They have a right to say as they like and express their opinions. I think society is committing a great disservice to itself by automatically giving them credibility and a large forum that others don't get though.

 

 

A career as an entertainer or celebrity, a good plastic surgeon, and successful rehab are not things that I would like to consider qualifications for guiding our society....but in all too many ways they actually do.

 

 

That is where the face time bothers me, it's not the fact that they donate money, that is fine of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the only reason they get to say anything and people listen is because of their celebrity. Their opinion is not representastive of any group nor is it any more valid than any other person, yet they get the floor on a very large scale because they are simply popular and/or rich. The credibility they are givenon that basis is undeserved and in some cases a serious error. An extreme example that comes to mind is Tom Cruise on certain matters.

 

 

hhmmmm, i never thought folks gave celebs as much credence as you think they do. as for tommy boy, he was basically laughed at from all angles...

 

perhaps you have such a dim view of the public that you don't give the public enuff credit to be able to separate the garbage from what's "ok" .

 

further, i didn't realize that what a celeb may say was taken as representative of any group....it's just what they say on their own, unless they're someone like michael j. fox who heads up the parkinsons fund raising n' such. n' again, i've got no problem with that either....

 

i guess the difference in our respective perceptions is that i'm willing to give the public a bit more credit than you..... n' i'm also willing to give the celeb more credit as well.

 

basically, i perceive your attitude as quite negative all the way around which, IMO, does nobody any good in either the long or the short run....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hhmmmm, i never thought folks gave celebs as much credence as you think they do. as for tommy boy, he was basically laughed at from all angles...

 

perhaps you have such a dim view of the public that you don't give the public enuff credit to be able to separate the garbage from what's "ok" .

 

further, i didn't realize that what a celeb may say was taken as representative of any group....it's just what they say on their own, unless they're someone like michael j. fox who heads up the parkinsons fund raising n' such. n' again, i've got no problem with that either....

 

i guess the difference in our respective perceptions is that i'm willing to give the public a bit more credit than you..... n' i'm also willing to give the celeb more credit as well.

 

basically, i perceive your attitude as quite negative all the way around which, IMO, does nobody any good in either the long or the short run....

I believe it does a great bit of good. I believe it is realistic. Many wish to think that Tom Cruise was laughed at from all angles...but he wasn't...not from all. There are a fair number of people who take even that extreme example serious. I know a couple of them, they work in my office.

 

As far as being negative, I disagree. I may have overstated my case and the magnitude of the problem.

 

Simply look at the fact that politicians seek celebrity endorsements. They are taking advantage of exactly what I am talking about; the fact that the public will follow a popular face. This is well known otherwise it would not be a part of political campaigning and I feel it is wrong.

 

Our childrens lives are permeated with celebrity flash through the media and they follow the trends and value celebrity as if it had some substance.

 

Simply put I don't like it and I speak out against it when I see it. In the long run and short run that does a great good. It allows me to remain true to myself, it gets the word out which is very difficult when the ones committing these wrongs have a greater stage. One day people may begin to understand that they often measure themselves against something of no substance. Anytime even one person understands even in a small way what that means then anything I have said on the matter is successful. Even if they claim to have known it I would claim success in my endeavor because I would have reminded them and compelled them to verbalize what they otherwise probably most often ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as being negative, I disagree.  I may have overstated my case and the magnitude of the problem. 

 

 

"may have", IMO, is an understatement though i was to glad to see even a tiny consession....

 

Our childrens lives are permeated with celebrity flash through the media and they follow the trends and value celebrity as if it had some substance. 

"as if they had substance" meaning celebs have no substance :huh: that they are all shallow :huh: what are you referring to here? or who? forget tommy boy n' let's take a look at the tom hanks of this world, the steven spielbergs n' others of that ilk. no substance there either or should there be a list of those with n' those without.

 

even the tv celebs are involved in campaigns against drug abuse, becoming involved with your children, reading with your children, spending time together as a family, warning kids of the dangers of drinking....these are aired virtually 24/7 n' can seen on any tv channel instead of commercials. oh, almost forgot a new i saw the other night about helping people devastated by by Katrina....

 

One day people may begin to understand that they often measure themselves against something of no substance.

perhaps if this thread were about the notion that being thin is necessary to be liked/loved than maybe i'd be able to take that statement a bit more seriously. in fact, there's a new celeb blurb that karen from Will & Grace does expressing the idea that 'it isn't how you look that's important but what's on the inside that makes you so special'

 

Anytime even one person understands even in a small way what that means then anything I have said on the matter is successful.

sounds so very close to what i posted in a different thread - - personal issues i believe was the title - - about if what i said prompted at least one person to read about yadda yadda n' more then......

 

Even if they claim to have known it I would claim success in my endeavor because I would have reminded them and compelled them to verbalize what they otherwise probably most often ignore.

what is the "it" "they" may "claim to have known" what exactly are you claiming success about? i get the sense that you see yourself as David with all the substanceless celebs being Goliath....

 

i would have hoped your reply to my post might have addressed whether in fact you give the public much credit in being to separate the wheat from the chafe but apparently you don't....give the public much credit, that is

 

anywhoooo, i've pretty much said how i felt about Katrina n' bush not opening his ranch n' other issues mentioned relevant to this thread soooooo, i'm outta this'n Posted Image

Edited by firekracker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...