#1 2010-09-20 14:54:57

Sweet Brucey wrote:

By: rsauvageau on 9/19/10


Hello everyone, just dropping in. The only way I would ever run for selcetman again is if Cruz ran without opposition. Singularily the most unprincipaled man I have ever served with. That man will not serve this community again.

Sweet Brucey saying someone else "will not serve this community again."  Brucey, you know alot about not serving this community, don't you?  You know...from when you had your ass handed to you on a silver platter in the last election?

Good thing you're a columnist for Ragserver Multi-Mega Media because other papers would expect you to know how to spell.

Offline

 

#2 2010-09-20 15:00:29

I hope Mr. Cruz reads what he said and takes him on.
He'll kick his ass one on one worse than the Chairman got humiliated before...I think I'd pay to see that!!

Offline

 

#3 2010-09-20 16:29:40

i like cruz,bruce on the hand is an ass hole .

Offline

 

#4 2010-09-20 16:58:47

Has there eveer been a bigger windbag than Brucey??..Ironically, it's his fellow TFHChatters  who worked so hard to get this "unprincipaled" man elected!..seems like only yesterday Bobo was gushing over the Cape Verdean businessman!

Bottom line is that Savageau is as unelectable as the ex-Moderator..Cruz would trounce the man who couldn't even beat a dirt thief!!

Offline

 

#5 2010-09-20 18:46:14

Im hope I can beat Nora to point out that "there ain't no such word" as "singularily"!

Offline

 

#6 2010-09-20 19:55:00

Mr. Wheeler, 

I wouldn't waste too much time pointing out his (their) spelling mistakes.  It could consume you.  I would advise Ms. Bicki the same.  Consider the "writers".  They have no talent other than wanting to create more negativity while pretending to "MWF".

Mr. Cruz has more credibility than Mr. Sauvageau will EVER earn.  Just like respect; that too has to be earned.
 
It would be funny if it weren't so...oh, you know.

Last edited by witchunter (2010-09-20 21:14:54)

Offline

 

#7 2010-09-20 20:32:57

Speaking of the writers, what do you think about people who "out" members of the U. S. Military?
What do you think about people who announce that a member of the U. S. Military is married to another member of the U.S. Military, and then announce that he is deployed?
Safety issues? At least. Probably more JAG issues.
What do you think about people who accuse a member of the U.S. Military, who has spent most of her adult life protecting and serving our Country, of a crime?
What do you think about people who accuse a member of the U.S. Military, who has spent most of his adult life serving and protecting our Country, who is in fact deployed, of a crime?

Let's see. I think I recall in the Marine Corps we called them scumbags.

Offline

 

#8 2010-09-20 21:40:29

danoconnell wrote:

Let's see. I think I recall in the Marine Corps we called them scumbags.

Forgive the correction, Biff, but I believe the correct jarhead terminology is either shitbird or chickenhawk.

Offline

 

#9 2010-09-20 21:49:07

Semper Fi, Bill...

Offline

 

#10 2010-09-20 21:55:47

I always try to look at the positive side of things, but it's a real challenge when you come up with clowns like Slager and Sauvageau. Neither one is good enough to be chopped up and used as lobster bait because lobsters, like pigs, have standards.  That unique commonality leads me to saying this: isn't  it wonderful that these two despicable people have found each other!

Offline

 

#11 2010-09-21 07:49:40

Love is grand, Dick...

Offline

 

#12 2010-09-21 14:12:43

I think if Bruce runs again and actually wins it's time to move out of town, Good Lord Bruce we had enough of you and to be honest I have had enough of Brenda and Jane too!!!

Offline

 

#13 2010-09-21 14:42:48

Here is an interesting report for the ignorant people who are violating the privacy and rights of certain citizens of Wareham that are serving in the U.S. Military...


Military Deployment Services TF Report
9
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS OF U.S. MILITARY SERVICE
MEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES:
A PRELIMINARY REPORT
Introduction
In response to concerns raised by members of the military community, the American
Psychological Association (APA) President, Dr. Gerald Koocher, established the Task Force on
Military Deployment Services for Youth, Families and Service Members in July of 2006. This
Task Force was charged with: identifying the psychological needs of military members and their
families during and after deployment(s); developing a strategic plan for working with the
military and other organizations to meet those needs; and constructing a list of current APA
resources available for military members and families, as well as additional resources that APA
might develop or facilitate in order to meet the needs of this population. This Task Force builds
upon longstanding APA initiatives to address the psychological needs of U.S. military service
members and their families, which include federal advocacy for increased services, research, and
training programs.
Since September 11, 2001, American military service personnel and their families have endured
challenges and stressful conditions that are unprecedented in recent history, including
unrelenting operational demands and recurring deployments in combat zones. Approximately 1.5
million American troops have been deployed in support of the war effort; one-third of them have
served at least two tours in a combat zone, 70,000 have been deployed three times, and 20,000
have been deployed at least 5 times. Moreover, even as this report is being prepared, President
Bush has begun the process to significantly increase the number of troops serving in Iraq.
At present, 700,000 children in America have at least one parent deployed. Having a primary
caretaker deployed to a war zone for an indeterminate period is among the more stressful events
a child can experience. Adults in the midst of their own distress are often anxious and uncertain
about how to respond to their children’s emotional needs. The strain of separation can weigh
heavily on both the deployed parent and the caretakers left behind. Further, reintegration of an
absent parent back into the family often leads to complicated emotions for everyone involved.
Life within many military families is forever changed when a service member deploys to a
combat zone. To date, more than 3,240 Americans deployed in support of the GWOT have been
killed and over 23,000 have returned from a combat zone with physical wounds and a range of
permanent disabilities (e.g., traumatic brain injury). In addition to these physical wounds, as
many as one-fourth of all returning service members are struggling with less visible
psychological injuries. A majority of those deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan report exposure to
multiple life-changing stressors, and their wartime experiences often challenge their ability to
easily reintegrate following deployment. Survival strategies, which are highly adaptive in a
combat environment, are often disruptive to civilian life; interpersonal and family functioning is
inevitably affected by combat exposure. It was out of a deep concern for the psychological wellbeing
of returning service members and their families that this Task Force was established.


I suggest you scumbags leave them alone!

Offline

 

#14 2010-09-22 10:50:36

Sweet Brucey, feel free to run for "selcetman" it's a "selectman" that we don't want you to be.  I don't think there's any competition to be a "selcetman."  Weren't you a "selcetman" for 7 years?  And you don't know how to spell selectman?

Can't wait for Sweet Brucey's lawn signs - "Sweet Brucey for Selcetman"

Offline

 

Board footer

warehamwater.cruelery.com