which one indicates better parenting?

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Answers

You're learning how to troll Doc. Given Chelsea's obvious prompting I think her future might be politically bleak. For her personally I hope so.

Jenna? No idea. Did Dubya do a idealogical brainwash with further dynasty thoughts? I doubt it.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Mr. Paulie, from a clinical standpoint, I am far more interested in your parenting background.

BTW, have you taken the name of the well-known movie bird with the big mouth? How appropriate.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Answer the freaking question dumbass or get lost back at Unk's dump with the rest of your moronic pals.

Which young lady indicates to you they grew-up in a better parental environment?

See the problem is this does not compute into or out of your mind which only knows---garbage-in garbage-out. How is it conceivable two "scumballs" like Bill and Hillary Clinton could raise such a wonderful daughter? Could it be that what you think you know is pretty much WRONG? That you have been filled with utter baloney about not only the Clinton's, but a ton of shit?

Well duh!

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

My, my aren't we testy?

Forced to pick I'd pick a Bush kid. Less imbued, less trained, less likely to get lost living in their parents shadow. I worry about Chelsea.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

If Jenna Bush is a pothead, is it news?

The media has been silent about the National Enquirer's recent allegation that the first daughter is a marijuana user. Is the press giving the drug war's commander in chief a break?

- - - - - - - - - - - - By James Pinkerton

March 23, 2001

Should Jenna Bush, the 19-year-old daughter of the president, be in jail? Or at least be arrested? That's a conclusion to be drawn from a recent report in the National Enquirer that asserts she smokes marijuana. After all, some 600,000 Americans are arrested every year for marijuana possession -- including about 13,000 teenage girls. Some would say, of course, that Jenna Bush shouldn't be hassled for allegedly smoking pot, but then maybe nobody else should either.

The charge that Jenna smokes marijuana is found in the Enquirer's March 20 issue; the tabloid quotes two unidentified fellow students, one of whom says, "Jenna came over one night and we all did some doobies together. I wouldn't say she's a major pothead but she likes to toke up when it's around." Can unnamed sources be trusted? The answer to that question usually depends on the reputation of the publication.

Starting from a low base, the Enquirer's rep has been rising in recent years. It had so many scoops on the O.J. Simpson case that even the New York Times had to acknowledge its journalism; in the Ennis Cosby murder, the reward it offered broke the case. And just in the past few weeks, it scooped the establishment media on Jesse Jackson's "love child" and Hugh Rodham's receipt of $400,000 to influence his brother-in-law on presidential pardons.

One reason the Enquirer gets scoops like these is that it hunts for them, while other publications are leery of "scandal-mongering." But as media critic William Powers observed recently in the distinctly unsensationalistic National Journal, sometimes the real news is scandal: "Despite their well-known flaws, the tabs are now serious players because they know that great journalism isn't just about bloodless policy and issue debates. It's about ethical foibles and hypocrisies of the powerful."

Speaking of the powerful, George W. Bush, who refused to answer questions about his own drug use during the campaign, now finds himself as commander in chief of the worldwide drug war, being fought all over the Third World as well as on Mean Streets, USA. But if the Enquirer's pot-puffing allegation is to be believed, Bush's own daughter is nevertheless safe and sound, actively protected by the U.S. Secret Service -- this in the Lone Star State, where conviction on possession of 2 ounces or less of marijuana leads to a jail sentence of up to 180 days.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

“How is it conceivable two "scumballs" like Bill and Hillary Clinton could raise such a wonderful daughter?”

That is the first good question I’ve seen from you Mr. Paulie. My answer would be; “Who says she is such a wonderful daughter?”

You certainly have no inner knowledge to properly address this issue so where does one go for the truth? On the surface, Chelsea’s parents don’t seem to be the ideal couple to instill moral roadmaps for children but who knows?

And Mr. Paulie, I do enjoy spreading a little seed over here and watching you gobble it up. BTW, I'm guessing that you have no children and no parenting skills....am I correct?

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Stick a *soc*rates in it...

he _probably_ did father a child. But that doesn't mean he raised it.

He is a poor skinny white dufus. Who cares what he thinks? (cept patty patty 2X4 couldn't get through the bathroom door)

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

DP--

Jenna is better looking. Can you enlighten us on the character or intelligence of either one? Does anyone give a shit?

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Lars:

I'd never thought you to be so shallow as to comment on the "better- looking" of the two.

I feel semi-qualifed to answer this one, since my daughter lives with the son of Christian Conservatives and their house was raided recently because HE allegedly sold marijuana to someone. It's the age-old rebellion story, I suppose. We're talking about a guy here who is ONE semester short of a degree, but refuses to go further.

This reminds me of the spouse of a girl I knew in high-school. HIS father was a minister. He got his kid into medical school [albeit not the typical kind] by throwing around his title of Dr. He was a doctor of divinity. It didn't bother HIM that he lied, and it didn't bother his son when he brought home HERPES, although he tried like hell to convince his wife that he'd acquired it from treating kids with chicken-pox. Uh-huh.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

One could ask a question other than the one Doc asked. Which of the two young ladies is prouder of her father?

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

I think it's a tie. And no thanks to either father.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

That is the first good question I’ve seen from you Mr. Paulie. My answer would be; “Who says she is such a wonderful daughter?”

I do

You certainly have no inner knowledge to properly address this issue so where does one go for the truth?

Sure I do. I draw from personal experience and observation, and you SlowCraps? Where does your insight flow? From ancient intolerants?

On the surface, Chelsea’s parents don’t seem to be the ideal couple to instill moral roadmaps for children but who knows?

Maybe you need to dig below the two inches of your intellectual morass sometime. BTW SlowCraps ain't about instilling, about bringing forth. No force needed, just an open ear from one sincere. How's that for parenting skill?

And Mr. Paulie, I do enjoy spreading a little seed over here and watching you gobble it up. BTW, I'm guessing that you have no children and no parenting skills....am I correct?

If it isn't a problem, use Doc por favor. As to seed, I would suggest you do less smoking of it and maybe start a thread here yourself sometime. Set yourself up as THE target. Live a little SlowCraps!

I love you wacko philosophy creeps. Socrates? gesh finally at least one of you picked the right Facist "dead guy" to emmulate.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

“BTW, I'm guessing that you have no children and no parenting skills....am I correct?”

Answer the freaking question dumbass.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

no I do not

now what dickhead? Where does your road lead now?

BTW SlowCraps ain't about instilling, about bringing forth course you know this being the So-crates nut and all. So the issue before this court is when you yourself plan to walk the talk?

well?

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

BTW Slowcraps a FYI.

Jenna Bush was raised by Materialism and Churchanity in an environment of Priviledge. She was "protected" from the lessons of life. Thus, predictably she is destine to fuck-up, it is how she will learn about real life values(longshot for these types but a possibility). She got little at home worth more than a plugged nickle.

Having parents as morally bankrupt as she had makes it terribly difficult and many bad incidents are ahead for Jenna I predict. Like her father before, Jenna is running from the awful truth she is a cliche. Dubya found his bottle. What will Jenna use to stuff out the burn of the truth?

Difference between a Jenna and Chelsea involves truth. What answers, understandings came forth when these two young women asked their parents about their experiences? about their own issues they were facing? In their moment of Socratic inquiry, Jenna drew glazed over stares my guess. Plain to see who had the goods to share and the love to give.

Course what do I know right?

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

Mr. Paulie, did you make the following statement?

“Having parents as morally bankrupt as she had makes it terribly difficult and many bad incidents are ahead for Jenna I predict. Like her father before, Jenna is running from the awful truth she is a cliche. Dubya found his bottle. What will Jenna use to stuff out the burn of the truth?”

If so, I owe the parrot an immediate apology.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

Anita--

Yes, I have seen one pic of Jenna and thought she was pretty. So are the Gore daughters. Chelsea is much more attracive now than she was in 1992 when SNL ridiculed her.

I have zero impression of the character of any of these gals except I am sure they have all used pot.

Why are we even discussing this matter?

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

"Buddy" Clinton [chocolate Labrador] -or- "Spot" Bush [English Springer Spaniel]

Which one indicates better "pet-parenting"?

Spot Bush was raised by Materialism and Churchanity in an environment of Priviledge. (Daughter of former President George Bush's dog, "Millie", she was born in the White House on March 17, 1989.) She was "protected" from the lessons of life. Thus, predictably she is destined to fuck-up. It is how she will learn about real life values (longshot for these types but a possibility). Other than a rawhide chewbone and a rubber squeak-toy, she got little at home worth more than a plugged nickle.

Having owners as morally bankrupt as she had makes it terribly difficult and many bad incidents are ahead for Spot I predict. Like her master before, Spot is running from the awful truth she is a cliche. Dubya found his bottle. What will Spot use to stuff out the burn of the truth?

Difference between Spot and Buddy involves truth. What answers, understandings came forth when these two young puppies tilted their heads in way of asking their owners about their experiences? About their own issues they were facing? In their moment of Socratic tail- wagging, Spot drew glazed over stares my guess. Plain to see who had the goods to share and the love to give.

Course what do I know right?

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

And let's not forget Socks, the poor kitty that the Clintons dumped on one of their flunkies even as they were making the Great Furniture Escape. Think of the psychic stress on loyal, trusting Socks from this callous abandonment. I have heard from a Mr Deepthroat that Socks is under psychiatric care (funded by HEW).

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Socks is a major candidate for a school shooting.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Doc, why do you bother? The inherent disconnect in the Shrub "supporters" is painfully evident on this thread.

Remember, they all know what they know, facts be damned. They hate All Things Clinton and never once has any of them produced a valid reason for the hatred. Lots of suppositions, lots of Rush-like allegations, never once correcting the lies that have been spread for over eight years now. Wasn't it obvious during the impeachment when the ones screaming the loudest for Clinton's c@ck were, themselves, bonking their own mistresses at the very same time? Did you hear any of these people address that? Neither did I. Like I said, it's only a Bad Thing if it's done by a Democrat (especially if it's a Clinton). And it doesn't even have to be true! Oh to live in such a world!

It doesn't seem to matter that the Shrub is running this country into the ground. These are the same people who are so concerned about privacy and individual freedoms, and yet they've remained strangely silent on the "mandates" that have come out of the current administration.

These are the same people who STILL deride the Clintons as "trailer-trash", yet not one of them has addressed what you've asked. Did we ever hear stories about Chelsea and a drunken boyfriend being bailed out of jail by the secret service? Did we ever have pictures of Chelsea in a bar, so drunk she fell on top of another woman?

These are the same people who voted for the Shrub because they hated Clinton; didn't seem to matter that he wasn't running. (And, BTW, have you seen any one of these people address Shrub's lies? His broken campaign promises? His AWOL? His DUIs? His "community service"? His bilking of the taxpayers? ANYTHING? Me neither. Remember, these are the same people who see NO IRONY in the exact same lawyers who argued **AGAINST** "dimpled chads" because one couldn't "divine" voter intent and are now arguing in Florida **FOR** the counting of "dimpled chads" because they clearly show voter intent. There's your answer.)

Nope, these people see what they want to see and if it's not there, well DAMMIT, they'll make it be there. How many times has a debunked Clinton "scandal" been repeated ad nauseum by these people DESPITE the allegations being proven untrue? The actual Truth and Facts aren't required in their little world; they make up their own.

Don't waste your time on them. They aren't worth it. Let them wallow in their delusional little world and when the idiot gets us into a major war because of one of his "misunderestimations", maybe they'll wake up then.

Somehow, I doubt it. They'll find a way to blame it on Clinton.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Patricia, They couldn't see it, the don't have the perception to add all of the signs together and see the potential results.

But then they chose not to believe what had happened in the past with Bush, the clues to his personality, the way he was pandered to, the way everything he was handed went downhill from his basic lack of ability to reason beyond the superficial, his ineptitude, his tendency to not reason out what the results of the actions he took would be. His "instant gratification" answers to every situation. Also the fact that there were people around him who would do whatever he wanted no matter how stupid it was.

It was almost impossible for the democrats to convince anyone about the potential outcome of his actions, unfortunatly preventitive measures were not going to be taken, so they have to let him have as much rope as possible to let him hang himself, he has to do the damage before people will rise up in shock and stop him. They were good with their propaganda, they said it was sour grapes over Gore loosing that was driving democrats to try to stop the Bush before he started. That left little choice but to allow him to run hole hog, do everything he wanted to the extremes he wanted so people's eyes could be opened to what he is. We can only hope he does not do too much damage before he is stopped.

Remember where he comes from, his daddy proclaimed he was president and did not want to eat broccali, he did not say I don't like it, he had to emphisize his "position" in the world to justify his choices. Trust me, Bush jr is very aware of the fact that he is leader of the free world and that has a big impact on his ego, on his belief that he has the power to do what he wants, and the ability of anyone from preventing him from doing whatever he wants, on his control. He has little or no self discipline, and few if any can control him. That is the biggest danger from him. He lacks the ability to see outside of himself. His desires rule him, not a desire to do what is best for the country overall. His biggest danger is that he is used to dictating, as apposed to leading. We are subject to his whims. He cannot put his ego and his own individual desires aside to give leadership to the wishes of the country. His controllers are probably sweating in their socks over the faith based issue, they know he is a bomb waiting to go off. That is why they surround him and insulate him from anyone who could light the fuse. We have to light the fuse to show him for what he actually is.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

I personally think Bush is AWOL NOW.

This from just yesterday..EPA Chief Lobbied on Warming Before Bush's Emissions Switch

Apparently now Bush is dicking his own Cabinet and even the Globalist's. That cannot be good to one's long term health.

One thing to say to the majority of Americans your vote matters little. It is one thing to tell Californians to stop whining, but this? I know Bushie pissed he could not just "up and leave" the Balkans, but does he understand how this whole Global thing works? Coup? Maybe more true than even the mere whiners thought.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

I am still trying to figure out why he stood behind the other airline company but refuses to be involved in the new ComAir BS.

BTW, Doc, I like your posts. You are funny and imho, usually right on.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Patricia--

Whats your point? Doc's original question was silly. Silly questions produce silly threads.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Not silly Lars. In case you been away, we have some MORALIST types attempting to dictate their brand of morality upon us Americans. They claim they are virtuous. They are God-fearing souls who must save all us sinners from ourselves. Well not save, but send us all to hell is the drift. So Christian of these folks!

I have posted at least 2 threads on this very board pointing out the REAL intent of this administration agenda. Cept for one soul who "got it" on the Gambling thread, I don't see much else. Maybe the lack of responses indicates many here like being Dictated to by the garyNorth school of Morals. I don't and know for a fact most don't, so where is the outrage? Hidden nicely behind Hypocrisy I venture.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

BTW Lars, as it seems you have been asleep I offer this.

We have a guy in the WH now who felt it not only "prudent" he not tell his 19 year-old "kids" he was a drunk and a DUI, but also the country. A guy who figures someone like him qualified to lead the Free World.

And we trust this guy with National Security secrets?

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Lars, if you really look at the question, you'll notice it isn't "silly" at all, despite some of the responses.

The "right" has been pounding, for more than eight years and counting, what "trailer-trash" and "low-life pond scum" the Clintons are, yet somehow these "criminals" seemed to manage to raise a pretty damn upstanding young lady.

In light of recent press, can the same be said about the Moral Upstanding Christian pResident? I don't think so.

Feel free to think the question is "silly"; but I'm pretty sure, judging by the (non-)responses, the point wasn't lost on the "right". As is their custom, however, they simply don't address the issue at hand, instead choosing to attack the messenger because they don't like the message.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Have SlowCraps on this thread even debating Chelsea Clinton's character..."how do I know if she is a good daughter?". Ah eight years of public history maybe?

Forget Jenna, how is it possible two "clear" scumballs like the Clinton's could even hope to raise a Chelsea? Wouldn't we expect their daughter to be Courtney Love? Assuming of course the allegations and the assumption on proper parenting even close to reality.

This hits DIRECTLY at the Rhetoric of the WhiteWingers. It turns their argument inside out and exposes it for what it is --BULLSHIT.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Patricia--

Well, to me it is silly because I know absolutely nothing about either young woman and I don't see how Doc would know anything more. If he does, he didn't say so, even after I asked him. The best I can say about Chelsea is that I have heard nothing bad about her. Since there are undoubtedly people skulking about, going thru her garbage looking for embarrassing tidbits, I guess it is a positive thing to say that I have heard nothing negative about her. I have heard nothing negative about Bush or Gore progeny either. So what?

Here is Doc's original question---

Subject: Chelsea Clinton-Jenna Bush

which one indicates better parenting?

-- Doc Paulie (doc_paulie@hotmail.com)

This question is not only silly, it is disingenuous. It is asked with in a confrontational tone. It is asked with an attitude. It is an anthill kicking question and Doc got what he wanted.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Well Doc, one of your readers did a long, slow, appreciative grin this morning after reading your question.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

I'm sorry, Patricia, but I have to agree with what Lars has said here. In my opinion, it IS a silly question. (Ergo my silly response.)

To be asked to formulate an informed opinion based on the miniscule amount of information available to the public about these two women is ludicrous.

Which one "indicates" better parenting??? Just how do you gauge this anyway? I'm sure we can all recognize the failings of those we would agree are "bad" parents, but what exactly makes one set of parents "better" than another? Who decides this, and by what authority? Even if you had a list of criteria a mile long, without being in their inner circle how would you know which items you can check-off for these people? Does the fact that a college kid gets drunk or smokes pot automatically condemn her parents to the "less- better" list? Does the fact that another college kid never got drunk or smoked pot automatically relegate her parents to the "more-better" list?

It's my guess that you know at least as much about Anita and Cherri's kids as you know about Bush and Clinton's. I ask you, Patricia, based soley on what little you know of these kids, which one "indicates" better parenting? Silly question isn't it?

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

As I know neither Chelsea or Jenna personally I cannot give an honest answer.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

8 Years----4 Months 8 Years----4 Months 8 Years----4 Months

is that any clearer? Oh btw, you can use your noodle here boys, helps.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

CD,

Cherri's and Anita's last names are not Bush, does that make it any clearer? Do try and stay on topic please.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

I ask you, Patricia, based soley on what little you know of these kids, which one "indicates" better parenting? Silly question isn't it?

It's not a silly question at all, IMO. The better parent is DEFINITELY Cherri. *I* need a manual to do anything, and my three [who just happened to turn out okay] would line up and say, "I didn't come with a manual."

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Tori Spelling or Emilio Estevez

which one indicates better parenting?

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Let's look at this, CD. You and so many others have come to GIANT conclusions about the Clintons, Bill and Hillary, based on ..... what ..... supposition? Allegations flung about (despite being proven untrue) are continuously repeated ad nauseum. You, too (IIRC) picked up on the "Al Gore is a liar" thing and parrotted that beyond belief. Again ..... based on supposition and "sources" ("sources" being the republican fax sheet; which, it would seem, is "GOSPEL" in some eyes).

In our scenario here we have Chelsea Clinton: Not once in eight years did we see ANYTHING derogatory about her in the news. Her boyfriend wasn't arrested for drunk and disorderly and then bailed out by the Secret Service; no pictures of her falling all over a friend while stinking drunk. Nothing. She conducted herself (as she continues to do) with class and decorum; apparently, a rather upstanding young woman.

In less than four months, we've already seen those two stories about Jenna Bush. "Class and decorum" would seemingly not be in this woman's vocabulary. But then, what can you expect from her? Her father claimed "youthful indiscretions" about stuff he did when he was ***FORTY YEARS OLD***. Do tell me how many "regular Joes" could get away with that.

I'd ask you if you still think it's a silly question, but I'm pretty sure I already know the answer. Just as I stated in my last posting.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Lars, you say it's a silly question "... because [you] know absolutely nothing about either young woman and [you] don't see how Doc would know anything more...".

That's kind of the point here. How much do you know about the Clintons in general, except what you've seen? Well, this question is based on **what you've seen**. I'm not going to bother repeating for the third time what we've all seen. That's what you should be addressing.

The only ones being disingenuous on this thread are the ones who are skirting the issue. You did finally answer the question, Lars. You said you'd heard nothing about Chelsea. But then you added you'd heard nothing about Jenna either -- did you miss the "boyfriend bailed out by the Secret Service" story? Did you miss the "I'm so drunk I'm laying on top of my friend" story?

There's your answer.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Sorry, it seems I did repeat it.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

What's so great about Chelsea? I think she is pretty much a dud. Maybe if she DID get drunk she's loosen up a little.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

But that's just it, Buddy; according to the "moral majority" here, THAT'S what makes for a "good person". (I happen to agree with you on her appearing to be a "dud", BTW.)

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

There's a funny movie that comes on once in a while on the Disney channel. I'm a real sucker for Disney movies. Anyway, the name of the movie is, "My date with the President's daughter." The girl in the movie was "drop dead" gorgeous, but she was truly tired of attending fund-raisers, etc. with her parents and all the contributors. She REALLY wanted to attend the school dance at her high school, but her parents had a fund-raiser scheduled for that night.

One day, she seized an opportunity to sneak away from an outside audience with her family while the secret service agents were occupied with something else. She'd spotted a mall across the street and had never been to one.

Meanwhile, a boy who's led a normal life has decided that HE'S going to get a date for the prom. He's never had a date before, and a few of his friends bet him $50.00 that he won't show up with a date.

He spotted the girl in the mall trying on hats. Desperate, he finally asked if she'd like to go to a school dance. She said, "You mean with people my AGE?" He said, "Um...yeah", and she said, "Yes! Pick me up at 7pm. I live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It's a big white house. You can't miss it."

One thing lead to another [as is usually the case in Disney films], and these kids managed to dodge the secret service agents, missed his dance, and went off to explore Washington, spending the whole night in so doing. Of course the secret service hauled in his whole family and the President and the father of the boy ended up in jail. The father of the boy was an avid supporter of the "other guy" until they ended up in jail together. The president said, "Where could they possibly be?" The boy's father went through a list of where his son hung out. He then asked the President where his daughter hung out. The President said, "I don't know. I haven't really even had time to talk to my daughter. It's been one fund-raising event after another." The boy's father shot back with "You're running on a 'family value' campaign and you never even talk with your daughter?"

Check it out sometime if you get the Disney channel. It's pretty damn hard to be a teen at all, but it's even harder when you're the daughter of the president.

I got the impression that Bill and Chelsea are pretty close. In fact, I remember her saying something about, "If you need to call my parents, call my dad. My mom's always too busy." Kids overlook a lot of parental faults if the parents just sit down and listen to them.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Anita! How can you say that? Parenting come naturally to me, yes, I have the ability to remember how I felt at different ages, literally remember the thought processes I used, which helps a lot. Pluse parenting was a priority for me since I was very young. I learned from taking care of other children as well as recognising the mistakes my parents made and reasoning out why they were ore were not good examples. Not to mention I researched and took courses in child developement and psychology while growing up. These things helped, but sure the hell didn't prepare me for the real thing. You as a paren have done what you reasoned was the best thing for your children and gave them soo much that others would never have even thought od doing. I think YOU are the better parent, with allowing your children to make their own mistakes (best learning experience for them) where I prevented mine from going throught those steps by knowing what the results would be and using preventitive measures so it could not happen. At least with my oldset, the younger one (9 years younger then the first) is given more freedom to push the limit and learn the consequences. Personally I think we are both good mothers because we take parenting seriously, not as an after thought, or burden as so many others do. Each child is an individual and each needs to be parented in their own way. I always percieved you as a better parent then myself. Although I consider myself a good parent in my own way.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

"Let's look at this, CD. You and so many others have come to GIANT conclusions about the Clintons, Bill and Hillary, based on ..... what ..... supposition?" "You, too (IIRC) picked up on the "Al Gore is a liar" thing and parrotted that beyond belief."

Patricia- I'd be interested in learning why you would include me in such sweeping statements. I'm fairly sure I had made you aware of my policy of avoiding discussions of politics or religion. You'd be hard- pressed to find ANY statement from me which could even remotely justify your accusations. (Quick question - What is the meaning behind the abbreviation IIRC?)

I'd ask you if you still think it's a silly question, but I'm pretty sure I already know the answer.

I would suggest that you and Doc are too close to this question and cannot see it through the eyes of someone like Lars or me. In other words, unlike many in the audience, you/Doc knew exactly what you were driving at when the original question was posted. As a result, you cannot see how others might perceive the question as "silly" and you view their statements as an affront to your reasoning abilities. Perhaps if the original question had been worded differently or expanded upon, this entire issue could have been avoided. As it stands, it's a bit too cryptic for those of us who took it at face value. (I would hope that in retrospect Doc would see that a different approach would have been more effective in getting his point across.)

Getting back to that parenting issue... Regardless of the fact that you avoided answering any of the questions in my previous post, I cannot believe you honestly feel a parent's entire history of "parenting" can be judged based soley on one or two instances of their kid doing (or not doing) what the vast majority of their peers do. The idea that such a judgement could hold any validity is ludicrous to me. And THAT JUDGEMENT is precisely what the original question was asking from the reader.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Well, CD, if I'm wrong, I apologize, but it seems to me that you have taken quite the "anti-Clinton" stance whenever Cherri posts something on Unk's. If I read too much into it, again, I apologize.

I do LOVE the way you've done the "you/Doc" thing as if we were one and the same. If you look back, it was Doc who posted the original question, not me. I happen to understand and agree with the point he's making.

As I said earlier, the whole "anti-Clinton" thing is based solely on an irrational hatred of a man who DARED to defeat a Republican in an actual election. Since that first time he has been subjected to a fabricated Scandal Per Week. The ONLY thing that came out of all those wasted taxpayer dollars was a lie about a BJ. The Republicans cling to that and have demonized Clinton into a "sleazeball"; a "scumball"; "trailer-trash", while they are doing the same and worse.

King George II, OTOH, is worshipped as a god despite his moral failings.

I can only surmise they are only "moral failings" if committed by a Democrat, especially one named Clinton.

This really bothers me, CD; you are being nothing short of disingenuous.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

This really bothers me, CD; you are being nothing short of disingenuous.

Ouch! Where'd that come from, Patricia? I assure you I have been totally honest and straightfoward with you here. And yes, I think you ARE reading too much into what I have said.

I do LOVE the way you've done the "you/Doc" thing as if we were one and the same. If you look back, it was Doc who posted the original question, not me. I happen to understand and agree with the point he's making.

Yes, Patricia, I realize Doc posted the original question and I did not mean to imply I look at you two as one in the same. If you will review my usage of the you/Doc thing in the context under which it was written you will see it was merely my way of pointing out that you AND/OR Doc already had a prior understanding of the purpose behind the original question. I realize the meanings behind written words are often misinterpreted but aren't you being a bit overly sensitive?

As for the rest of what you had written in your last post... You're talking POLITICS Patricia! Remember what I said before? I DON'T DO POLITICS!

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

As I said earlier, the whole "anti-Clinton" thing is based solely on an irrational hatred of a man who DARED to defeat a Republican in an actual election. Since that first time he has been subjected to a fabricated Scandal Per Week. The ONLY thing that came out of all those wasted taxpayer dollars was a lie about a BJ. The Republicans cling to that and have demonized Clinton into a "sleazeball"; a "scumball"; "trailer-trash", while they are doing the same and worse.

Not true. I don't take my clues from the Republicans. I've disliked Clinton, Hillary, and their whole political following from day one. I would have voted Democrat again if they'd put up somebody better than Clinton. And Al Gore ain't it. Gore has no vision and not enough get-up-and-go to be Pres. in my eyes.

I don't like Bush that much either, but I did agree with what happened in the Florida election from a non-partisan point of view.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Cherri:

NONE of those books or classes helped me, and I'd thought I could research and know how to do ANYTHING before I had kids. I think it was in Children The Challenge where the author stated, "Don't chase your children around when you go to the store. Let THEM worry where YOU are." Heh. Experiment #1: I took my oldest daughter to a mall. I didn't worry about where she went, instead lurking behind posts and corners like one of those private eyes you see in the movies. She was probably 2 or 3 at the time, and she never worried ONCE about where I was. We probably weren't 10 minutes into this experiment before I saw a man [with his fly undone] approach her saying, "Little girl...little girl...would you like some candy?" I flew from behind that pillar at the speed of sound. "She does NOT want some candy." "Can I give her a nickel? "She doesn't want your money either." Did any of this scare HER? No. I threw THAT book away as soon as we got home.

Of course there was the book that said, "If your child is never introduced to candy, he/she will never develop a taste for it." THAT sounded good in theory. So the oldest went off to a birthday party for the little boy down the street. His mother called soon thereafter asking, "Has she ever had candy before?" I said, "No." The mom had placed those little paper cups of m&m's behind everyone's plate and she went around the table eating ALL of them. Toss ANOTHER book.

I experimented with ALL the theories, but [as you noticed], there's no "one size fits all" solution. By the time they were old enough to reason, I started hearing things like, "Mom...you're not like any of the other mothers." I said, "Well, you didn't come with a manual." As the years went by and we found ourselves doing things like programming a VCR, telephone, T.V., etc., the kids realized that I had no skills in ANYTHING without a manual. THEY figured out how to do stuff [much like you] before "Where is the manual?" escaped my lips.

Yeah...I gave them a lot of license to make mistakes, starting at a young age. They each got one towel, one glass, one plate, one set of silverware, etc., and I didn't give a hoot about whether or not they kept them clean. I just knew that once they got a certain age, this was no longer MY responsibility. These practices meant that I never had to nag and had time to talk, and talk we did. We talked together, and we talked privately. We STILL do. We talked about what I would do if they were arrested. We talked about what I would do if they got pregnant. We talked about EVERYTHING. The bottom- line was always, "If you do the crime, you do the time."

As luck would have it, the girls WERE arrested for shoplifting when they were maybe 8 and 10, along with two of their friends about the same age. When the police called, I said, "Would you mind holding them there for a few hours?" They said, "No problem." The situation didn't require any lectures on my part. When I picked them up, they were full of excuses. I just listened with my already perfected poker face. The parents of their "friends" refused to allow them to see their girls, as those girls had convinced their parents that my girls were the bad influence. It didn't matter TO ME. I didn't give a damn whose idea it was. If you steal, you pay the price of both time in the police station and condemnation by society.

A few years later that same family had a son convicted of burglary. One of my daughters really "felt" for them as they tried to gather bail money. I said, "Why are they trying to bail him out? He did the crime and does the time." Both daughters in that same family had babies that the mother ended up raising. I don't know about YOU, Cherri, but three kids were enough for me. I have absolutely NO interest in raising someone else's kids, including the kids of MY kids. I told them everything I knew about birth control, AIDS, and everything else they needed to know regarding human sexuality when they were about 10. They were on their own after that.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

I think we're talking past each other, CD. I honestly thought you knew the "reasoning" behind the question. That is where "disingenuous" came from. Once again, if I'm wrong, I apologize.

And I DID think you were just looking at "me/Doc" as one; again, if I misread it, sorry.

*I* don't think I'm being overly-sensitive, but hey, I've been wrong before.

Now you've said you "don't do politics" a number of times, CD, but I do see your responses to Cherri on Unk's ..... and they reek of partisan politics. There is NO WAY I misread those.

I'm curious, Buddy; what DOES your "Clinton dislike" stem from if it is, as you said, "from day one"?

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Patricia, you write that someone's "anti-Clinton" feeling "is based on an irrational hatred of a man who DARED defeat a Republican."

I voted for Clinton the first time. Within a year I came to despise him, for lying about everything under the sun.

Former Senator Bob Kerry (Democrat from Nebraska) is a damn good man. When he was still Senator, but had ceased to care about political proprieties, he gave an interview to Esquire magazine, in which he described Clinton as a man who "would rather climb a tree and lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth."

The Clintons have indeeed been on the receiving end of fabrications (for example, the story that Vince Foster was murdered in a secret apartment owned by Hillary and then moved to that park). Bill Clinton has been on the receiving end of charges that have been presented as serious and have been absolute nothings (before Monica, House member Bob Barr and a couple of fellow idiots were talking about possible impeachment proceedings for violation of the Pendleton Act, which boils down to supposedly using the wrong telephone for fund-raising).

But other charges are true. My wireless modem is beeping at me, that its battery is running out of gas, so I will just mention some phrases: Bosnia 93-95, Ruanda, National Security (My God in Heaven), and willful breaking of campaign finance laws in 96.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Here I am agreeing with Buddy (Butty in the old days) Whoda thunk?

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

The Top 16 Chelsea Clinton Pet Peeves About College

16.Every time she cuts her 8am class, CNN switches to a live feed from the lecture hall.

15.PoliSci textbook only contains pictures from her "dumpy" years. 14.Social life hampered by mandatory Secret Service body cavity search of potential dates.

13.No room in dorm for all those boxes of missing Whitewater documents.

12.Daddy won't sign the Cafeteria Food Reform Bill. 11.No one wants to waste good pot on a Clinton.

10.Steamy makeout sessions usually end with the guy getting his ass kicked by the Secret Service.

9.Tipper no longer around to clean up after her and Socks. 8.Every boy who hits on you winds up on a "peacekeeping force" in Bosnia within 48 hours.

7.Constant comparisons to notable Stanford alum Ted Koppel usually refer to physical resemblance.

6.Bourbon shots not free like the ones "Uncle Ted" serves back home.

5.Drunken frat boys always confusing her with Amy Carter. 4.Football coach keeps begging her to get Janet Reno to enroll.

3.RA's write you up if the Chinese Delegates stay past midnight. 2.Anatomy lab cadaver none other than Al Gore.

and the Number 1 Chelsea Clinton Pet Peeve About College...

1.The man makes 200 grand a year-you'd think he could bring his own weed when he visits.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Bush is on record as telling the Press to lay-off the Twins or else. Mister "There ought be limits to Freedom". Why?

What exactly is he afraid of? And when did he sprout the Concern? Is this attention a surprise to this Bush? Did he think the DC Press would give him the same freepass the Texas stiffs had since the Twins were 12? Thing is laughable. Nice message he is sending to Jenna and Barbara! I DO NOT TRUST YOU TWO(you are just babies). And before you blame the Press, think it through, put it in context please. The Press is what it is. Dubya had choices. Again, if this is news to him, what does this indicate to you? That he is bright? or so arrogant that he thinks he can just TELL the Press to go to hell or else?

He is also telling the American public that you people are too stupid to see a Frat Party for what it is, and I will not allow you people to gossip bout my twins behind my back. Man if that does not indicate stupidity I don't know what does. Lack of coverage alone DRAWS the exact attention this dimwit thinks he can end, hello! (psychic law there for any wondering)

This Father felt it bad to tell his Twins about his DUI. Hell he was just a kid of 30 anyhow. Simple childhood bo-bo is all. He did not feel it any business of the American Voter as well. Thus thru his childish immature actions the dirty laundry came-out in Public. Again a nice message to send your kids, nice trust there.

Now one could claim Bill exposed Chelsea to similar, and worse risks, and you would be correct. However I doubt you will find a statement telling the press to get lost. I think the big difference is in trust and understanding. I doubt Bill's infidelity a secret to either of Bill's "girls" before Monica appeared. I would bet Hillary and Chelsea have had long talks about it many times. I bet Bill had talks with both, and each, over the years. You can claim Hillary hates Bill and she probably does at a level, but there is a deeper love at work there which is stronger than 8 years of constant investigations that is for sure(spiritual). Can we say the same honesty, openess, and thus trust exists in the Bush household?

If this trust exists in Dubya's world, why is he worried? If two twits (as he believes)Bill and Hillary can live to see another day, his ride should be a walk in the park in comparison. Hell he is SAVED, he is Righteous, God is on his side, so why is he worried? Because he is not saved, period. If he was, he would have turned the details over long ago.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

I'm curious, Buddy; what DOES your "Clinton dislike" stem from if it is, as you said, "from day one"?

Oh, let's see... - Bleeding heart liberal political base - Clinton looks like a used car salesman to me - Hillary shouts when she is supposed to be speaking in public - "Vast right wing conspiracy" - The movie about Hope, Arkansas - Clinton staffers in DC area are arrogant - The closing of Pennsylvania Ave. in front of the White House - Too much power/press given to Hillary - Other probably irrational reasons that can be summed up by "They rub me the wrong way"

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Silly me. I honestly thought you had a valid reason.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Lars, I agree with you. But can any one here imagine what Chelsea went through finding out about her father on the internet? Thinking back to when I was 18, if I heard anything even remotely similar to the cigar story, I would have died. Hell, I cringed just thinking of my parents having sex. She puts on a good front but out of the public eye what is she really like? I can only wonder.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Actually....that's quite unfair; sorry. To you, those ARE valid reasons.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

It's very difficult to be the child of a celebrity, any celebrity. Let's cut some slack for all these kids. Here is Camille's 2/98 take on Chelsea and her dysfunctional nuclear family.

Daddy Dearest

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Maria you don't "wonder", you hope. You HOPE Chelsea fucks up BIG TIME. You hope we find out Chelsea is a dike, a druggy, a slut. You hope all your beliefs are confirmed.

Contray to opinion, I LIKE Jenna Bush, I do. Hell I even LIKE GW if he weren't the damn president. I think both share the same personality traits. Both have/had a wonderful naivete about them I think. Sadly instead of honoring this, understanding the beauty of that, GW at least decided at some point to dishonor self and try and be something he is not.

His religious deal is about trying to be "better" without facing the issue. Going thru the motions doesn't cut it. Even getting one's self elected President to "show everybody" how saved one is, doesn't cut it. If he really was true to what I see, he would know like many of us know, we ain't Political Timber. GW is a party guy. He is a free spirit who needs a regular gig, a good solid woman, and to understand he doesn't have to prove shit to anyone but God.

I hope Jenna does not give-up self to look good.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

That is funny Doc, you telling me what I hope for. LOL I could give a shit how she turns out. And further, I don't believe that being a slut, dike or druggy makes you a "bad" person. I was more referring to her inner struggles when she wakes up to find out her Dad lied to her.

BTW I believe that Jenna will also have her problems, maybe not as deep as Chelsea's since she's older, more mature, before getting into the fish bowl. But being in the fish bowl has its disadvantages as well as advantages.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

That's some ugly shit Doc. Maria doesn't deserve that. Your mulitgenerational focus on the Clinton's borders on worship.

Only Clinton could have got NAFTA through. Screwed the unions but they didn't care. Only Clinton could have gotten welfare reform through. Screwed the Black Caucus but they didn't care. Only Clinton could have gotten Don't Ask Don't Tell. Screwed (well sorta) the gays but they didn't care. The guy done some good but you want beautification? Naw. (someone translate for Doc)

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

I just LOVE the way these people who have so ASSUREDLY labeled Doc a "commie pinko liberal" (in all its forms) have completely overlooked what he just wrote.

Can you say d-i-s-c-o-n-n-e-c-t? And you genuinely wonder why he launches?

Wasn't it Peter who just started a brand-spanking new thread to announce to Doc that one can bash GWB without glorifying Clinton? Well, wouldn't it then stand to reason (there's a nasty word in this circle) that one can think GWB **unfit for the White House** yet still like the guy?

Apparently not if you've been LABELED a "commie pinko liberal".

Will you people ever get a clue? Perhaps YOUR world is strictly black and white, but EVERYONE'S isn't.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Well, first, I think we should point out that Chelsea partially grew up in the White House, while Jenna and Barbara grew up more in the Texas governor's mansion. That alone ought to account for differences in how they think and what they do. Furthermore, Jenna and Barb can reject some of their dad's privacy requests if they want to, because they're now legal adults and thus have a right to... so, this is going to be very interesting, indeed.

By the way, I wonder if Jenna has gone up the tower on U.Texas's campus yet. Very famous tower in Texas, that is. Some guy named Charles Whitman is said to have gunned down a ton of folks from that very tower in 1966.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2001

which one indicates better parenting?

More like which one indicates better intelligence. Chelsea seems very bright compared to these children who have an ex-drunk as a father.

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2001

Better parenting, Chelsea Clinton of course.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005T0e

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001

And yet, twice in about a month this dingbat does exactly the same thing.

Guess the ol' apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

It's a scream watching you try to defend this, Charlie. Just a scream.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001

Anita mentions children not developing a taste for candy if not exposed to it. While she says that this doesnt hold true for a child when they are then given candy, keep in mind that child wasn't kept away from candy until they were mature enough to not be overly influence by their peer's opinions.

I suspect that attraction to cigarettes or alcohol (before actual use and any resulting physical addiction occurs) is a matter of social pressure, and has much more effect on juveniles. If you stay away from that stuff until you are a mature adult (which even our current and past presidents may achieve one day) it's a lot easier to judge the value of such drugs.

The same could probably be said for sex, except that hormones kick in after 15 years, and though many cultures proclaim us mature at 13, we now extend the juvenile period considerably longer. Having a 40 or 50 year immature stage seems to be desirable in world leaders these days.

Andrew

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001

Doesn't seem to be confined to "world leaders", Mr. Lundberg. I guess we just notice it more in those who are in the spotlight. We also hold them to higher standards. But I've seen some so- called "adults" outside of the political arena who could give these guys a run for their money. I also see it far more than you would think in the business world. It's always someone ELSE's fault.

I think it goes to personal responsibility, which many people just aren't being taught these days. So many kids are being taught that, "Oh, it's OK; Mommy and Daddy will take care of it for you" and the end result is the "leaders" you see now.

I used to babysit for these kids back in the 1970s. Their parents were the "forerunners" of Yuppiedom. I shudder at what these kids have become today. They never had an ounce of responsibility; never had household chores to do, were never reprimanded for anything they had done wrong. "Mommy and Daddy" took care of everything and got them out of every mess into which they got themselves.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001