The Army Responds To John Kerry

Forgotten Field · **Posted:** Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:54 pm

If he wanted to say something, he should have said how he really felt. Below is the story of a TRUE American...

Quote:

Fired Over Finger, Driver Wants Job Back
By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
3 hours ago

SEATTLE - A school bus driver fired after she reportedly made an obscene gesture at President Bush has filed a union grievance in an attempt to get her job back.

The 43-year-old driver, whose name was not released, was driving middle school children back to school after a zoo visit on June 16 when the president and Republican Rep. Dave Reichert drove slowly by in a motorcade.

From the bus, the children waved; with the windows down in their car, Bush and Reichert waved back.

That's when the driver gave the president the finger, according to Reichert and Issaquah superintendent Janet Barry.

"The congressman hadn't seen it, but the president turned to him and said, 'That one's not a fan,'" said Reichert spokeswoman Kimberly Cadena.

Reichert later called Barry to tell her about the incident, but the bus driver had already been fired. District officials learned about the incident after the driver boasted to colleagues about it, Cadena said.

District spokeswoman Sara Niegowski said the driver has filed a wrongful termination grievance through the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The union did not return calls seeking comment.

Niegowski said the firing was not politically motivated.

"The bus driver was not terminated for making an obscene gesture at the president. The bus driver was terminated for making an obscene gesture in view of the students," Niegowski said. "That's not the role modeling we need for our students."

Flashonyrsix · **Posted:** Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:16 pm

One nice thing here in the Sovit of Washington (FDR's words) The bus driver will get her 5 votes on Tuesday. :lol:

Norm

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11324

jpeters wrote:

So much for the urban myth that Republicans support the troops more than the Dems.

Does your definition of "supporting the troops" mean supporting those currently serving or does it include those who have served in the past? I may need to revise my own definition.

Of course the Democrats are the party of entitlements so they are more likely to vote for the funding of any kind of social program than is a Republican, although recently I'm not so sure. We have some "big government" Republicans in office now.

Former Member · **Joined:** Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:40 pm **Posts:** 1493

bdk wrote:

jpeters wrote:

So much for the urban myth that Republicans support the troops more than the Dems.

Does your definition of "supporting the troops" mean supporting those currently serving or does it include those who have served in the past? I may need to revise my own definition.

Of course the Democrats are the party of entitlements so they are more likely to vote for the funding of any kind of social program than is a Republican, although recently I'm not so sure. We have some "big government" Republicans in office now.

That's a good question bdk, I guess my definition of supporting the troops would be both current and former...especially when it comes to the disabled vets.

You're absolutely right though...things have changed in Washington with the big government. It used to be a tag for the Democratic party but over the past several years it looks as though the party lines are getting a bit blurred. What worries me most at the present time are the huge deficits the U.S. is racking up with no end in sight. The politicians remind me of a 19 year old kid with a couple of brand new credit cards..."charge it" (and worry about paying it back later). :roll:

The idea of my 12 & 14 year old boys (or my grandkids) having to pay back these deficits some day really concerns me about their futures.

For the record though, I would like to echo the sentiments of one of the previous posters and say it's a treat to be able to have a civil discussion on this forum. The same cannot be said with other forums like Flypast, etc. Whether you're Democrat, Republican, or Independent I think all of us here respect one another's views.

John

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:09 pm

John wrote Rep,Dem, or Ind. Hellfire, man have you forgotten about the Vegans, Am Nazi, Anti-florides, Flat Earth Believers or those always fun bunch the Man-Boy party.

RickH · **Posted:** Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:16 pm

Actually, because of the tax cuts, the govt is bringing in more revenue than expected. While they are still running a deficit, it is considerably smaller than forecast. The trend is supposed to continue.

I think that you should look at the budget as it relates to troops currently in the field. That is where the money is. I don't agree with short changing the old vets either, but a good part of what comes their way does so in the annual Defense Authorization Bill. There's a lot wrapped up in there. It counts as one vote as to their performance.

People often look at a bills title and automatically think that because it deals with a certain topic that it should be a lock. Those opposing are often painted with an uncaring brush. Many times the language written is simply a bad bill simply because of the way it is crafted. Does that mean it should get an automatic pass ? Of course not ! Unfortunately too many bills that should be sent back for rewrite get passed.

Ultimately the US citizen pays the price for that legislation better left in committee.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11324

I think the pendulum on this post has now started to center itself! We are finding some common ground.

There is so much horsetrading going on in these bills you never quite know what you are getting. Your representative may vote for a bill that they like 75% of, but they may have to buy into 25% pork for the other side. Otherwise the bill dies and nobody gets anything. Then you get branded as an obstructionist. You start piling up all the 25 percenters and you end up with a lot of bad laws and waste. After regime change the other side gets what they want and messes it up further.

More and more laws get created and more and more spending bills pass, yet bad laws and obligations never get rescinded. I think that all these laws and obligations need to have sunset clauses. The ones that have negative unintended consequences can then just fade away.

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:54 am

I moved this post to the Off Topic forum and will keep it open for now, but if it turns nasty it will go away.

Stephanie · **Posted:** Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:18 pm

All I have to say is that this provided a great distraction at work this morning - even a good laugh or two. I think everyone is entitled to their opinions, I just don't think WIX is the best forum for it.

And who is this broad you might ask? This is my first time posting, but I read often. I enjoy this site and I'd hate to see it divided by political agenda or discrepancies in viewpoints.

Our soldiers are what's important here, first and foremost.

:drinkers:

Warhawk · **Posted:** Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:27 pm

It has been discussed in the past whether or not it would be a good idea to have a politcal discussion board here. The general consensus is that it would be a very bad idea as politics tends to lead to very large fights.
Seeing that this had gone to four pages last night I just had to start reading what was being said. I'll admit that for awhile it looked like it was going to turn quite nasty. However as I continued to wade through the posts I could see something interesting happening. People seemed to be taking a step back and catching their breath. I think everyone is actually showing some maturity here. Something usually in short supply on message boards.

Take a measure of pride in that and don't spoil my rose colored view of this fine board by getting out the flamethrowers please. :lol:

Stephanie, welcome to WIX. Glad to have you on board. :drink3:

Oh, and by the way, my vote is still for no politics board. Does that constitute an oxymoron or simply a Vermont mo ron?

Stephanie · **Posted:** Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:34 pm

Thanks Warhawk! That's very sweet of you! A friend introduced me to the site, I think it's pretty great - I mean really, what a resource!!! It's invaluable to those that are intersted in historical aviation.

Cheers to you too! :drink3:

Elroy13 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:43 pm

Its about time you made it on Steph!!! You had to pic this particular thread for your grand entrance!?? :twisted:

WELCOME ABOARD! :partyman:

Stephanie · **Posted:** Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:48 pm

Elroy13 wrote:

You had to pic this particular thread for your grand entrance!??

You bet I did, I don't do things half-a**ed! :twisted:

If I am considering a move to your state I've gotta be fearless!

Glad to be here, amongst friends, so thank you.

Dan K · **Posted:** Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:39 pm

Ditto on the welcome to WIX, Steph!

Grab a barstool and pass the pretzels! :wink:

Stephanie · **Posted:** Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:46 pm

Thanks Dan! Glad to be here! Pretzels and beer, sign me up! This girl is beat from a long week!

Warbird Information Exchange

The Army Responds To John Kerry

Who is online