19
   

The Circus in Chicago

 
 
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 01:55 pm
@oralloy,
The issues in question is as a result of a needless investigation into the sex life of a sitting president. Powerful leaders have had mistresses since the Stone Age. The Founding Fathers had mistresses. Everybody just looked the other way, but no, the Republicans in their lust for power had to start an investigation. The American people were far less worried about Clinton not being honest about his mistress than they were about the quality of people who would launch such an investigation in the first place. As a result, Clinton remained popular for weathering the needless storm the ruthless Republicans stirred up.

Now his wife is running for president, and Republicans are desperate to smear her as well. Yet the public, as a result of the Republicans' futility in the Lewinsky affair, simply stopped listening to accusation and smears against the Clintons.

It drives the Republicans crazy that they can't get any "scandal" to take hold. That's why people like you are so insistent.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 01:56 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

Again according to one of my posts to you 10 years ago:
Bill Clinton asked Betty Currie to confirm a series of untrue statements, in a way that could only imply that he wanted her to use the untrue version of events in her testimony.



So you say. What does Currie say? Nothing to that effect. You don't get to testify. Only Currie does.

But one other small problem is that Currie was not called to testify when Clinton spoke to her. She was not scheduled to be a witness. You can't tamper with someone that is NOT a witness. You can speculate she might be called and that you think Clinton thought she might be called but that doesn't meet the law at the time.
Blickers
 
  5  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 01:59 pm
@oralloy,
Besides, nothing is sleazy compared to Bush lying this country into the Iraq War. Only a Republican would worry about sex on the side when Bush had American soldiers in harm's way needlessly.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 01:59 pm
@parados,
oralloy has great imagination. Nothing much more, but heck, he has imagination. He should be a story teller. Big bucks.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 02:07 pm
@izzythepush,
made me laugh..
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 02:17 pm
@ossobuco,
It's true though. Roosevelt and Kennedy were right randy bastards. Reagan and Dubya were faithful to their wives.
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 02:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You're an idiot.


You're a dirty name caller, CI! If you want to yack about something, tell us how many millions of illegals exist in your State of California? I'm guessing the number in California is in the 5-10 million range and consists of human WARTS, who are living off the backs of tax-paying, hard working Americans . The WART patrol is on a daily pilgrimage stealing and selling the SS numbers and other IDs from the unsuspecting, while at the same time, sucking the life out of the WELFARE tit!

It's because of scum like your California WARTS, that so many voters want Trump to be the next President.
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 02:30 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I watched the "riot" and found to my surprise that there was still a significant number of BO-HUNKS still living in the Chicago area. Good for them! Maybe they can help Chicago reclaim some of it's past glory.

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 02:57 pm
@Miller,
I don't worry about illegals in California or any other state. That's none of my business.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 03:14 pm
@izzythepush,
I know it's true, at least a lot of the time.
I was amazed it got to the impeachment stage, criminy. More than that: sillyness.
Also, I remember articles re her telling pals back in Washington State, before she went to Washington, the city, about how she was going to nab him. No links; I save a lot of news items, but not at that level.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 03:17 pm
@ossobuco,
Over here it's usually the Tories who get involved in sex scandals. Labour politicians get criticised for joining the boards of investment banks when they leave politics.
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 03:24 pm
@izzythepush,
I vaguely remember reading about some of those in days of yore.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 03:42 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
So Lewinsky said, but Currie and Clinton testified to something else. If we assume the first, there is nothing in there to claim Clinton told her anything. If we believe Currie then Lewinsky called Currie. Lots of room for doubt there since there is no evidence to support Lewinsky's unclear memory.

Given the overall interest that Bill Clinton showed in hiding the affair, I find it far more credible that he was involved in the decision to hide the gifts. The claim that Lewinsky and Betty Currie decided to do it on their own with no input from him sounds to me like a cover story.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 03:43 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Again according to one of my posts to you 10 years ago:
Bill Clinton asked Betty Currie to confirm a series of untrue statements, in a way that could only imply that he wanted her to use the untrue version of events in her testimony.

So you say. What does Currie say? Nothing to that effect. You don't get to testify. Only Currie does.

I thought that she did testify about the series of odd questions.


parados wrote:
But one other small problem is that Currie was not called to testify when Clinton spoke to her. She was not scheduled to be a witness. You can't tamper with someone that is NOT a witness. You can speculate she might be called and that you think Clinton thought she might be called but that doesn't meet the law at the time.

That might be a problem. But how sure are you that the law is so specific? Note that there are actually two laws about this, one called "witness tampering" and one called "suborning perjury". I used to know the difference between the two but not anymore.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 03:49 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Besides, nothing is sleazy compared to Bush lying this country into the Iraq War. Only a Republican would worry about sex on the side when Bush had American soldiers in harm's way needlessly.

Only a Democrat would refer to a long string of felonies as a sexual act.

There were no lies on W's part. Authorization of torture was his only crime.

Interesting that when a Republican breaks the law, he is trying to save the lives of innocent Americans. When a Democrat breaks the law, he is trying to hide the tawdry details of his affairs.

Shows which party has what priorities.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 03:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
oralloy has great imagination.

Note the factual nature of all of my posts.


cicerone imposter wrote:
Nothing much more,

Little man, my IQ is a trillion times greater than yours.


cicerone imposter wrote:
but heck, he has imagination. He should be a story teller. Big bucks.

Again note the factual nature of all of my posts.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 03:57 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
The issues in question is as a result of a needless investigation into the sex life of a sitting president. Powerful leaders have had mistresses since the Stone Age. The Founding Fathers had mistresses. Everybody just looked the other way, but no, the Republicans in their lust for power had to start an investigation.

Needless? So now it is wrong for women to file sexual harassment lawsuits?

It is interesting the lengths that Democrats will go in their efforts to justify their commission of felonies.


Blickers wrote:
The American people were far less worried about Clinton not being honest about his mistress than they were about the quality of people who would launch such an investigation in the first place. As a result, Clinton remained popular for weathering the needless storm the ruthless Republicans stirred up.

Not all the American people.

Yes, the Democrats were in lockstep in their view that it is a good thing when a fellow Democrat commits a string of felonies, but not everyone shares this complete lack of ethics.

Incidentally I just glanced over Wikipedia's article on the case. Unfortunately it lacked the necessary detail for my purposes, but one thing it did clearly say is that this scandal cost Gore the election, just as I earlier explained to you.

You might want to review the section "Effect on 2000 presidential election" here -- the part on Clinton fatigue in particular:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal#Effect_on_2000_presidential_election


Blickers wrote:
Now his wife is running for president, and Republicans are desperate to smear her as well. Yet the public, as a result of the Republicans' futility in the Lewinsky affair, simply stopped listening to accusation and smears against the Clintons.

That's a strong negative against Hillary. We know that if she were to ever commit a horrible crime, the Democratic Party will ensure that she gets away with it.

Trump is the ethically superior choice.


Blickers wrote:
It drives the Republicans crazy that they can't get any "scandal" to take hold. That's why people like you are so insistent.

Insistent? Every time you say that it is OK for Democrats to commit felonies, you make the case that Republicans are the better party. I'm content to let you continue to demonstrate the Democrats' lack of ethics.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 04:07 pm
@oralloy,
Because you find it credible doesn't count as evidence. Nor does it remove reasonable doubt.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 04:09 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:


I thought that she did testify about the series of odd questions.



Yes, she did testify and it was nothing like you are attempting to characterize it. She certainly didn't draw the conclusion you are drawing.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 04:11 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Only a Democrat would refer to a long string of felonies as a sexual act.

You keep repeating they are felonies and you still have no evidence other than what you believe. Your beliefs don't make Clinton's acts crimes. The prosecutors beliefs don't make it crimes. The prosecutor didn't pursue it in a court of law. The Senate didn't find the evidence credible enough to convict.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/29/2024 at 04:03:39