You think George, bringing Amal at the White House, he has behaved properly or may have embarrassed Obama?

Ok, we've gone way off topic. Can we get back to embarrassing the white house (or not) with George's choice of girlfriends?

Thanks

Well then let's embarrass away! HA! But really what more is there to say?

She would have never walked in that door and been close to the President had she not been vetted.

Of course, if she wanted to take the White House tour like all the other tourists she would have just been screened, followed and watched the entire time.

Of course, that's probably what happened during the screening too! HA!

I've met some secret service men. We had a king of some country stay at a hotel I used to work at many years ago and we ALL had a bright light flashed up our asses by the secret service. So I'm sure I've got a "file" there and at the FBI! HA!

LornaDoone wrote:  So I'm sure I've got a "file" there and at the FBI!   HA!

The file is up your ass? Ouch!!!!

melbert wrote:

LornaDoone wrote:  So I'm sure I've got a "file" there and at the FBI!   HA!

The file is up your ass? Ouch!!!!

Oh okay I should have said a file with the secret service and the FBI instead of "a file there"


:-)

Meanwhile, back on topic . . .

theminis wrote:I don't see any embarrassment on the part of the George whatsoever.  I mean if George is going to have President Obama at his home and post for photos with Stacy, why on earth would he then be embarrassed to take Amal to the Whitehouse - somehow I don't think George embarrasses easily...

Maybe I have not explained, I was talking about Obama's embarrassed because of all the media appeared the news that the defense attorney for Assange (accused of espionage by the U.S.) was the White House. This was my one and only intention!

And you think the fact that she was Assange's attorney escaped the Secret Service, when they examined her entire life from birth to the last breathe she took, before stepping one foot into the White House? Guess again lela!

Lighterside wrote:And you think the fact that she was Assange's attorney escaped the Secret Service, when they examined her entire life from birth to the last breathe she took, before stepping one foot into the White House?  Guess again lela!  

Absolutely not, of course I knew! But do you think that the press is informed of all those entering the White House, at the bottom is also a private home of two people who can invite whomever they want in their home, I believe it is only mandatory to pass security checks. I just think that Obama has not done jumping for joy when she discovered that newspapers around the world intitolavano: "Assange's lawyer guest at the White House." That's it!

President Obama was at The Hague talking about more important things like Russia, that interest our national security and the world's security, this week.  I personally don't believe that Amal and her client are on his mind or the WH radar!

It may not have been on HIS mind but I'll bet it was on the mind of the NSA.

Perhaps the international press is making a big deal of this but frankly, I didn't see any "Assage's lawyer at the White House" finger wagging big media push here in the US. But then again, I don't watch Fox News so that may have been why! HA!

LMAO but... but... but... Lorna...we're ALL on the NSA radar! hahahahaha

I thought we were the NSA? Or am I the only one here still wearing her tin foil hat?

LOL do you mean..."paging Katie party of 1, your tin foil hat and latest conspiracy theory has arrived?"   

Ok I'll stop before I get myself into too much trouble...too early in the day for silliness...  

Post by LornaDoone on Mon Mar 24 2014, 17:16
+

 

Perhaps you thought you read that.  Maybe in a newspaper in your mind?

Someone going to the White House gets vetted and she would have to be on the guest list.  

Had she NOT been on the list and correctly vetted she would NOT have gotten that close to the President.  So please unless you've got a link to that info let's not start shit here as it's obvious from your comments you are NOT a fan and must have your own agenda for making a comment like that.


Katie, PAN, et al..
A wise guest knows when to leave the party.  You are a lively, vocal, witty group, and I have enjoyed the ride.  But now it's time to go.

All the best,
Mary Sunshine

marysunshine wrote:Thought I read somewhere that she wasn't actually on the guest list.  If true, the only reason she was cleared so quickly was because George threw that fundraiser at his home, and I think he did a fundraiser in Switzerland as well.  In any case, if it's true, yeah, our boy overstepped his bounds   .  One day he's going to be told he's not that important and to get back in line like everyone else.

Another one bites the dust.

Why do people get huffy when we ask them to prove their statment that they "read it somewhere"?  

If you read it there must be a link or a reference.  Geesh.

It's easy to come on here and spout theory and opinion as fact.  If there is a factual publication that noted your comment then all we ask is that you produce it and not vaguely reference something - especially when it's coupled with an attempt to belittle, defame, or incite innuendo about George or anyone he's dating.

So for example when I say I've seen Sarah's crotch on the internet then there is a link to it.

So to ask someone to produce this vague thing they profess to have read especially when the next sentence is a rebuke of George -- doesn't seem like such a difficult request.

Just sayin...

As they say in Yorkshire.....

"There's now't as strange as folk"

@Lorna - I don't post derogatory things about George, mostly because I don't believe most of them, but I am guilty of saying "I read somewhere..." or "I remember seeing..." -without citing sources because I really don't remember where I saw it. I just know that I did. Mea culpa if I offend anyone.

George is a very smart person and has been in the company of many top dignitaries, he knows enough to check with PBO if there was a problem with him bringing Amal. There is no way he would put either one of them on the spot. xxx

LizzyNY wrote:@Lorna - I don't post derogatory things about George, mostly because I don't believe most of them, but I am guilty of saying "I read somewhere..." or "I remember seeing..." -without citing sources because I really don't remember where I saw it. I just know that I did. Mea culpa if I offend anyone.

LizzyNY you've been posting a long time.  So if you say you may have read it somewhere I'm more likely to believe you.  

But when someone new comes in (interestingly at the same time George starts dating someone new) and starts posting negative stuff with vague references to something published my "radar for bullshit with an agenda" gets perked up and I'm going to say something.

There are people on this site who have multiple names and post responses to themselves to bolster their point of view.  This may or may not have been this latest newbie's MO but I'd rather err on the side of caution and say something than let them really get going.

The last thing we want here is people who don't like George coming on and posting crap just to be annoying.  We do not always agree with what George does, says, etc. and we make our comments but for the most part, those posting here have an interest in George, his film work, his humanitarian work, who he's dating or a combination of all of those reasons.

To me, this new poster sounded like her only reason for posting her comment was based on some agenda against George and there's enough of that on IMDB. I'd hate to see that stuff getting started here.

OK, let's take it easy on the newbie.

I think it may well have been on this site where it was mentioned that Amal wasn't on the official guest list (and AFAIR neither were any of the other wives/girlfriends).

The rest of Marysunshine's statement, about George getting Amal in because of the fundraiser, was her personal opinion. At least, that's how I read it.

Well if the newbie had no issue with her making her derogatory opinion comment then she should have no issue with someone calling her on it.

See my opinion if you can dish it out then you should be able to take it too.

First comment was that George was afforded some special treatment cause he "bought" his favor by having a fundraiser at his home. That implies bribery.

Second comment was that he needed to step to the back of the line as if he was some underling who had overstepped his bounds by getting that special favor again by buying it.

Her comment when you dissect it is pretty damn nasty.

Yes, but she's entitled to share her opinion about George, derogatory or not, and you're entitled to question it. All I'm asking is if it could be done in a more gentle manner.

Katie read what I added to my post.

Yes, but she's allowed to be nasty. Look, if George does something we see as wrong, we call him out on it too, don't we? I know you agree with me that being a fan doesn't mean blind adoration of everything George says and does.

Marysunshine thought that because Amal's name wasn't on the guest list that George had overstepped his bounds and called in a favour. That was her interpretation of the situation.

Personally, I think she's wrong: none of the partners were on the official guest list and no one just turns up at the White House unannounced and that's what I replied to her upthread a while ago.

@Lorna - Thanks for your vote of confidence to a poster who has more than her share of senior moments. Never had a very good memory, but it sure ain't gettin' any better!

Thinking it over, one of the main reasons I love this site is because Katie insists on fairness and common courtesy. So many other sites seem to exist just for angry, nasty people looking for a fight. This site is an oasis in a sea of crap. It's making me a better person.

LizzyNY wrote:@Lorna - Thanks for your vote of confidence to a poster who has more than her share of senior moments. Never had a very good memory, but it sure ain't gettin' any better!

Thinking it over, one of the main reasons I love this site is because Katie insists on fairness and common courtesy. So many other sites seem to exist just for angry, nasty people looking for a fight. This site is an oasis in a sea of crap. It's making me a better person.

Well right there with you on senior moments! And it's not getting any better. :-)

LornaDoone wrote:

LizzyNY wrote:@Lorna - I don't post derogatory things about George, mostly because I don't believe most of them, but I am guilty of saying "I read somewhere..." or "I remember seeing..." -without citing sources because I really don't remember where I saw it. I just know that I did. Mea culpa if I offend anyone.

LizzyNY you've been posting a long time.  So if you say you may have read it somewhere I'm more likely to believe you.  

But when someone new comes in (interestingly at the same time George starts dating someone new) and starts posting negative stuff with vague references to something published my "radar for bullshit with an agenda" gets perked up and I'm going to say something.

There are people on this site who have multiple names and post responses to themselves to bolster their point of view.  This may or may not have been this latest newbie's MO but I'd rather err on the side of caution and say something than let them really get going.

The last thing we want here is people who don't like George coming on and posting crap just to be annoying.  We do not always agree with what George does, says, etc. and we make our comments but for the most part, those posting here have an interest in George, his film work, his humanitarian work, who he's dating or a combination of all of those reasons.

To me, this new poster sounded like her only reason for posting her comment was based on some agenda against George and there's enough of that on IMDB.   I'd hate to see that stuff getting started here.

As I am also a newbie, I'd like to express my opinion. I fully understand what you are saying about dishonest posters, if any. I had been reading the posts in this forum for a certain time before I subscribed. And believe me, that is the first and only internet forum I am a member. Honestly, I do not like the social media such as facebook, twitter, Instagram, ... But I found many interesting discussions and point of views in COH. That's why I subscribed. I like to get to know new point of views, even if I can not agree to them.

Lighterside wrote:LMAO but... but... but... Lorna...we're ALL on the NSA radar! hahahahaha

Hehehee yes, it´s the only branch of the government (NSA) that actually listens to people   

Carla97 wrote:

Lighterside wrote:LMAO but... but... but... Lorna...we're ALL on the NSA radar! hahahahaha

Hehehee yes, it´s the only branch of the government (NSA) that actually listens to people   

LMAO Carla....that's just too funny! PERFECT response!