|
Letter to the Editor...
To the editor:
I don't understand why the White House is so upset about the two party crashers at Barack Obama's steak dinner the other night. Is it really appropriate and politically correct to call them party crashers just because they trespassed on Mr. Obama? Does that make them criminals? Isn't that discrimination? Shouldn't they be rewarded for such bold and brave behavior? Maybe they were just trying to feed their family? I would suggest that it's more appropriate to call them "undocumented guests." Just because they weren't officially invited doesn't mean they should be treated like criminals. Maybe they should get free health care, free housing, free legal services and free White House green cards so next time they can enter legally. And they should be able to bring all of their relatives and family members, too. How can Mr. Obama be mad at them just because they crossed over some arbitrary man-made border? They were there only to do the things that regularly invited guests didn't want to do. (Like hang out with Joe Biden.) How can the White House punish these poor oppressed undocumented visitors? Brian K. Shoemaker -- John H |
Letter to the Editor...
"John H" wrote in message ... To the editor: I don't understand why the White House is so upset about the two party crashers at Barack Obama's steak dinner the other night. Is it really appropriate and politically correct to call them party crashers just because they trespassed on Mr. Obama? snip rest of crap.... John H I'd like to see your reaction if someone popped into your house univited looking for a free meal............ lets say a couple of those latinos who lived down the street................... |
Letter to the Editor...
On Dec 13, 8:55*am, John H wrote:
To the editor: I don't understand why the White House is so upset about the two party crashers at Barack Obama's steak dinner the other night. Is it really appropriate and politically correct to call them party crashers just because they trespassed on Mr. Obama? Does that make them criminals? Isn't that discrimination? Shouldn't they be rewarded for such bold and brave behavior? Maybe they were just trying to feed their family? I would suggest that it's more appropriate to call them "undocumented guests." Just because they weren't officially invited doesn't mean they should be treated like criminals. Maybe they should get free health care, free housing, free legal services and free White House green cards so next time they can enter legally. And they should be able to bring all of their relatives and family members, too. How can Mr. Obama be mad at them just because they crossed over some arbitrary man-made border? They were there only to do the things that regularly invited guests didn't want to do. (Like hang out with Joe Biden.) How can the White House punish these poor oppressed undocumented visitors? Brian K. Shoemaker -- John H Pure reverse Harry. |
Letter to the Editor...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:55:12 -0500, John H
wrote: To the editor: I don't understand why the White House is so upset about the two party crashers at Barack Obama's steak dinner the other night. Is it really appropriate and politically correct to call them party crashers just because they trespassed on Mr. Obama? of course, under bush, they would have been tortured, thrown in prision and denied habeas corpus unless they were rich in which case they would have been coddled and schmoozed. |
Letter to the Editor...
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:55:12 -0500, John H wrote: To the editor: I don't understand why the White House is so upset about the two party crashers at Barack Obama's steak dinner the other night. Is it really appropriate and politically correct to call them party crashers just because they trespassed on Mr. Obama? of course, under bush, they would have been tortured, thrown in prision and denied habeas corpus unless they were rich in which case they would have been coddled and schmoozed. .......and smooched if oil-Arabs. |
Letter to the Editor...
"John H" wrote in message ... To the editor: I don't understand why the White House is so upset about the two party crashers at Barack Obama's steak dinner the other night. Is it really appropriate and politically correct to call them party crashers just because they trespassed on Mr. Obama? Does that make them criminals? Isn't that discrimination? Shouldn't they be rewarded for such bold and brave behavior? Maybe they were just trying to feed their family? I would suggest that it's more appropriate to call them "undocumented guests." Just because they weren't officially invited doesn't mean they should be treated like criminals. Maybe they should get free health care, free housing, free legal services and free White House green cards so next time they can enter legally. And they should be able to bring all of their relatives and family members, too. How can Mr. Obama be mad at them just because they crossed over some arbitrary man-made border? They were there only to do the things that regularly invited guests didn't want to do. (Like hang out with Joe Biden.) How can the White House punish these poor oppressed undocumented visitors? Brian K. Shoemaker -- John H Well, at least they didn't need a translator. |
Letter to the Editor...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:46:37 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . To the editor: I don't understand why the White House is so upset about the two party crashers at Barack Obama's steak dinner the other night. Is it really appropriate and politically correct to call them party crashers just because they trespassed on Mr. Obama? Does that make them criminals? Isn't that discrimination? Shouldn't they be rewarded for such bold and brave behavior? Maybe they were just trying to feed their family? I would suggest that it's more appropriate to call them "undocumented guests." Just because they weren't officially invited doesn't mean they should be treated like criminals. Maybe they should get free health care, free housing, free legal services and free White House green cards so next time they can enter legally. And they should be able to bring all of their relatives and family members, too. How can Mr. Obama be mad at them just because they crossed over some arbitrary man-made border? They were there only to do the things that regularly invited guests didn't want to do. (Like hang out with Joe Biden.) How can the White House punish these poor oppressed undocumented visitors? Brian K. Shoemaker -- John H Well, at least they didn't need a translator. LOL! -- John H |
Letter to the Editor...
|
Letter to the Editor...
|
Letter to the Editor...
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:46:37 -0800, "Steve B" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. To the editor: I don't understand why the White House is so upset about the two party crashers at Barack Obama's steak dinner the other night. Is it really appropriate and politically correct to call them party crashers just because they trespassed on Mr. Obama? Does that make them criminals? Isn't that discrimination? Shouldn't they be rewarded for such bold and brave behavior? Maybe they were just trying to feed their family? I would suggest that it's more appropriate to call them "undocumented guests." Just because they weren't officially invited doesn't mean they should be treated like criminals. Maybe they should get free health care, free housing, free legal services and free White House green cards so next time they can enter legally. And they should be able to bring all of their relatives and family members, too. How can Mr. Obama be mad at them just because they crossed over some arbitrary man-made border? They were there only to do the things that regularly invited guests didn't want to do. (Like hang out with Joe Biden.) How can the White House punish these poor oppressed undocumented visitors? Brian K. Shoemaker -- John H Well, at least they didn't need a translator. LOL! -- John H And if they had needed a translator, they'd be working for ACORN, SEIU, or be a GS-7 by now. Steve |
Letter to the Editor...
"I am Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:55:12 -0500, John H wrote: To the editor: I don't understand why the White House is so upset about the two party crashers at Barack Obama's steak dinner the other night. Is it really appropriate and politically correct to call them party crashers just because they trespassed on Mr. Obama? of course, under bush, they would have been tortured, thrown in prision and denied habeas corpus unless they were rich in which case they would have been coddled and schmoozed. Yeah, and when Clinton was in, they would have gotten the Lincoln bedroom, a blow job, and access to all of our defense plans for China and the middle east handed to them on a Hard Drive, what's your point? Yeah, the difference is this happened recently, is a major breach in presidential security, and Clinton was so last century. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Letter to the Editor...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:04:11 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:55:12 -0500, John H wrote: To the editor: I don't understand why the White House is so upset about the two party crashers at Barack Obama's steak dinner the other night. Is it really appropriate and politically correct to call them party crashers just because they trespassed on Mr. Obama? of course, under bush, they would have been tortured, thrown in prision and denied habeas corpus unless they were rich in which case they would have been coddled and schmoozed. Yeah, and when Clinton was in, they would have gotten the Lincoln bedroom, a blow job, and access to all of our defense plans for China and the middle east handed to them on a Hard Drive, what's your point? clinton sold out hilary bush sold out 100,000,000 hard working americans. that's the point |
Letter to the Editor...
On Dec 13, 7:41*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"I am Tosk" wrote in ... In article , says... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:55:12 -0500, John H wrote: To the editor: I don't understand why the White House is so upset about the two party crashers at Barack Obama's steak dinner the other night. Is it really appropriate and politically correct to call them party crashers just because they trespassed on Mr. Obama? of course, under bush, they would have been tortured, thrown in prision and denied habeas corpus unless they were rich in which case they would have been coddled and schmoozed. Yeah, and when Clinton was in, they would have gotten the Lincoln bedroom, a blow job, and access to all of our defense plans for China and the middle east handed to them on a Hard Drive, what's your point? Yeah, the difference is this happened recently, is a major breach in presidential security, and Clinton was so last century. -- Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Damn it you just don't get it EVERYTHING bad is the fault of some liberal politician. Notice if you will, not one word mentioned about Bush's gaffes, just went right to Clinton! |
Letter to the Editor...
"Loogypicker" wrote in message
... On Dec 13, 7:41 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "I am Tosk" wrote in ... In article , says... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:55:12 -0500, John H wrote: To the editor: I don't understand why the White House is so upset about the two party crashers at Barack Obama's steak dinner the other night. Is it really appropriate and politically correct to call them party crashers just because they trespassed on Mr. Obama? of course, under bush, they would have been tortured, thrown in prision and denied habeas corpus unless they were rich in which case they would have been coddled and schmoozed. Yeah, and when Clinton was in, they would have gotten the Lincoln bedroom, a blow job, and access to all of our defense plans for China and the middle east handed to them on a Hard Drive, what's your point? Yeah, the difference is this happened recently, is a major breach in presidential security, and Clinton was so last century. -- Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Damn it you just don't get it EVERYTHING bad is the fault of some liberal politician. Notice if you will, not one word mentioned about Bush's gaffes, just went right to Clinton! Bush, apparently, doesn't actually exist any more. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Letter to the Editor...
On Dec 14, 10:10*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Loogypicker" wrote in message ... On Dec 13, 7:41 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "I am Tosk" wrote in ... In article , says... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:55:12 -0500, John H wrote: To the editor: I don't understand why the White House is so upset about the two party crashers at Barack Obama's steak dinner the other night. Is it really appropriate and politically correct to call them party crashers just because they trespassed on Mr. Obama? of course, under bush, they would have been tortured, thrown in prision and denied habeas corpus unless they were rich in which case they would have been coddled and schmoozed. Yeah, and when Clinton was in, they would have gotten the Lincoln bedroom, a blow job, and access to all of our defense plans for China and the middle east handed to them on a Hard Drive, what's your point? Yeah, the difference is this happened recently, is a major breach in presidential security, and Clinton was so last century. -- Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Damn it you just don't get it EVERYTHING bad is the fault of some liberal politician. Notice if you will, not one word mentioned about Bush's gaffes, just went right to Clinton! Bush, apparently, doesn't actually exist any more. -- Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He exists, it's just that some here can't believe that anyone on the right ever done anything wrong..... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com