0
   

Snow Job or Blow Job?

 
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 06:39 am
escvelocity wrote:
But really, it was more than just a lie...if anyone else would have done that, they would be behind bars.
Its criminal to lie under oath.


Ever been to divorce court? People lie under oath and get caught, particularly in matters of fidelity, ALL THE TIME. No one goes to jail for it.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 07:07 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
escvelocity wrote:
You guys are silly....clinton did some good things though...but i hate it when people sugar coat what clinton did to get impeached, to just a blow job.


i understand what you're saying.

so you can understand why i hate it when people reduce his presidency to "he lied. he did! he did! he did! "


You're right; he did a good deal more than that. Best description or short rundown of it I've seen on the net might be this:


Quote:


You're a serious, died-in-the-wool gangster, and you succeed beyond your wildest dreams; you take over the United States and assume the office of president. What are your first moves going to be? Basically, you will want to seal off every possible avenue of political and legal redress against gangsterism which you might have committed in the past, and against further gangsterism which you might hope to perpetrate in the future.

You might start by expropriating 1100 raw FBI files on every conceivable political opponent, and making a database out of them.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/12/16/135337

That would pretty much seal off most avenues of political redress. A next step or several steps might consist of replacing with your own people as many as possible of the little people, whitehouse career employees and what not, with whom a president and his entourage must interact, to eliminate to the extent possible any possibilities of one
of these employees seeing something and then telling reporters about it.

The episode called Travelgate is one example of this approach.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york061303.asp

Next, you will want to neutralize the US Justice Department. To this end, you might want to hire an attorney general who is politically ambitious and, at the same time, has so ungodly an assortment of skeletons in her closet, that she can be absolutely controlled and prevented from ever allowing any of the justice departments myriad flashlights from shining in on anything rsembling whitehouse gangsterism.

Jack Thompson ran against Janet Reno in a Dade County election once, and has been publically daring Reno, the Florida Bar, and the Democrat party to sue him for the last ten years. He describes Reno, occasionally on high-profile radio programs, as a predatory lesbian who has been stopped with female prostitutes in the back seat of cars in mall parking lots, who has been pulled over DWI numerous times, and hwo has major kinds of mob ties.

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/stonewall_renostarr.html


But the major part of Janet Reno's skeleton collection involves something totally different. In the 1980's, a new variation on the medieval theme of witchcraft trials arose in America, the so-called "ritual abuse" trial, using recovered memories as evidence. This began with the celebrated McMartin case at Manhatten Beach and quickly spread over the land, every unscrupulous DA in the country trying to add one such case to his/her resume in much the same manner in which professional hunters like to have one elephant or one rhino on their resumes. All except Janet Reno, that is. She made a cottage industry
out of sending people to prison for long periods of time for things which, not only had they not done, but which in fact had never happened at all.

Her most famous case, that of decorated Florida policeman Grant Snowden, has been overturned by a federal appeals court after Snowden spent 13 years in prison.

http://www.ags.uci.edu/~dehill/witchhunt/cases/snowden.htm

In the case of Bobby Fijnje, an innocent 14-year-old boy was held without bond for 18 months and tried as an adult for more crimes which never happened. The family was told that unless they copped a plea, Bobby would be in an adult prison population and would be dead from AIDS within two years. A jury found Bobby innocent on seven of seven charges. One of Reno's henchmen, asked what had gone wrong with the
prosecution on which 3 million dollars of the Dade County taxpayers' money had been spent, replied that they hadn't spent enough money; new charges were being drawn up the same night and the Fijnje family fled to Holland.


Fijnje's Father sent an incindiary letter to The NY Times upon learning of Reno's appointment to AG.

http://www.ags.uci.edu/~dehill/witchhunt/ccla/pages/fijnje.htm

But the worst case of all was that of the Fusters.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/4/25/93805


This activity was in fact Reno's major claim to fame.

Her concern for children is undoubtedly what caused her to sign off on the Waco deal, in which a number of children were rescued from more imaginary sexual abuse by being firebombed (the firebombing was real and not imaginary).

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/WACO/waco.html

Check the before and after pictures, near the bottom of the www page. The technique IS effective; I don't think those kids had to worry about being abused again after Reno finished with them...

Other than that, the use of recovered memories for anything has since been declared to be a criminal activity in England.

Your next step, as gangster president, might be to have this well-chosen new attorney general summarily fire and replace all 93 federal attorneys.

http://www.tocquevillian.com/articles/0099.html

Having thus sealed all avenues of political and legal redress and reasonably assured your own security from external forces, your next step, as America's first gangster president, might be to try to achieve some measure of security from INTERNAL forces, i.e. to commission some sort of a serious psychiatric profile/assessment of yourself so as to know in which areas your personna might could stand improvement. Slick, of course, did not do this.

Had he, what would have turned up might have been the following.

http://www.reason.com/9411/fe.efron.9411.html

Your next step, after all of this, would be to turn again to one of your favorite hobbies and most major skills in life, fundraising, not only for the purpose of further political campaigns, but also to insure a ready supply of cash for buying the silence of people who know too much but who for whatever reason, it would appear clumsy or mean-spirited to simply kill. Jerome Zeifman, the chief council for the house judiciary committee at the time of Watergate and the man most responsible for getting rid of Nixon, noted that he would impeach Clinton for three obvious cases of bribery, i.e.

Quote:

"In his conduct of the office of the president of the United States, William J. Clinton has given or received bribes with respect to one or more of the following:

"(1) Approving, condoning or acquiescing in the surreptitious payment of bribes for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of Webster Hubbell as a witness or potential witness in criminal proceedings.

"(2) Approving, condoning or acquiescing in the use of political influence by Vernon Jordan in obtaining employment for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of Monica Lewinsky as a witness or potential witness in civil or criminal proceedings; and

"(3) Approving, condoning or acquiescing in the receipt of bribes in connection with the issuance of an executive order which had the effect of giving Indonesia a monopoly on the sale of certain types of coal."


Item three, in fact, clearly shows the worst aspects of democrat gangsterism. The real problem here is that the democrats no longer truly represent anybody who could support a political party either in terms of money or in terms of votes, and so they are seen raising cash in every country on earth other than the United States in which they
supposedly live, and trying to forge voting majorities out of collections of little imaginary victim groups.

The fundraising activities, in particular, are highly leveraged in that very large items of national treasure and assets are being sold off for relatively miniscule sums of campaign cash. In the case of Utahgate which Zeifman mentions as item 3, something like a trillion
dollars was pulled out of the American economy for the benefit of Clinton's Lippo buddies in Indonesia, whose donations to the various slick slush funds could not have amounted to more than a few tens of millions at most.

The costs to the country of Slicks Chinese deals are similarly massive, including a large and growing trade imbalance along with the illegal technology transfers we've read about. Slick taking money from the chicom army is no different in principle from the idea of FDR
taking campaign donations from Hitler or Stalin. Ask yourself why FDR never did that; try to imagine how happy it would have made old uncle Adolph to be able to control Washington D.C. for a few measly million here and there to the democratic campaign funds.

Having thus taken care of every mundane problem and care associated with running the vast and complex machinery of the United States government, your next concern as gangster president would probably be to get in on the most major perk which the job entails:

PUSSY[/color]

One rather unfortunate aspect of life as a gangster is that it does not teach one the virtue of moderation. One of the Tripp tapes, according to internet sources, has Monica asking Slick why he doesn't simply pay Paula Jones off and have done with it. Slick answers that they'd all come up and want money if he did that; Monica replies "All of them?? How many could there be??" and Slick replies "Hundreds..."

There are several inherent problems with trying to set the numeric records ala Don Giovanni and make it with literally hundreds of different women over a course of a
few years. One is that the first thing which goes straight out the window is any notion of quality; you'll see these guys come home with Marilyn Monroe one night, and then either Phyllis Diller or Aunt Jemima the next, with the same stupid ****-eating grin on their faces, since it's all really just the same to them.

Another problem in the case of politicians is that they make prime targets for blackmail and manipulation of themselves by conducting themselves like that. Slick couldn't get the simplest kind of security clearance which you'd need to be a janitor or a guard at the gate at any military base in America, and he's supposed to be commander in chief of our armed forces. That's insane.

Another problem in the case of liberals particularly, is that it appears to be a vanishingly small step from believing oneself above man's laws to believing oneself above things like the laws of physics and the law of averages. For instance, thinking "I'm a Kennedy; there's no reason on Earth why I shouldn't be able to ski downhill, operate a camcorder, and play football all at the same time, the trees will get out of the way!" Or, in the case of Slick, thinking he could put the make on 50 different women in one day, and that all 50 would be happy about it.

Something like that could lead to a psychic problem with taking "no" for an answer and, if we're to believe even a small fraction of what we read, it has. The claim which you read around the net is that the Paula Jones testimony includes something like a dozen different allegations of sexual assault and rape, that Slick has been out of control for a long time, and that a professional organization has been in place to keep a lid on this by means of bribery, intimidation, and whatever else gets the job done, and that this has invariably worked because, in each individual case, you had some poor woman on her own without any real resources up against an organization with the resources of one of the fifty states.

Documentation for these claims is not difficult to find on the net.

http://chblue.com/Feb1999/022599/clintonwomen022599.htm

In particular, it is not possible that Hillary Clinton has not known about all of this very nearly from day one.

Given this lack of moderation, it will sometimes happen that, despite all precautions and despite the workings of a spin machine which puts the Nazi German propaganda organ of Joseph Goebbels to shame, some sort of an unflattering story about rape, porking teenage interns, lying about rape or porking teenage interns, or some particularly
flagrant act of fundraising daring-do will begin to take up an uncomfortable amount of space in the headlines of the nation's newspapers. What does the gangster president do then?

The answer is obvious. The president of the United States, in these days and times, has the power to start wars, and nothing can compete for front page newspaper space with a good war. We thus have witnessed three of these dog-wagging episodes within one year.

The first case involved blowing up an aspirin factory in Sudan, apparently with the approval of no more than one of the joint chiefs (the rotten apple in that particular barrel).

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/khartoumbomb.html

The second dog-wagging episode involved bombing Iraq the day before Slick was to be impeached...

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1247.cfm

The standard definition of "chutzvah" in Yiddish dictionaries involved the example of the kid who murdered his parents and then demanded leniency because he was an orphan. That will change. The new definition will use the example of the president who starts a war the day before he's impeached and then has some flunky like Dick Gephardt try to keep his face straight while claiming that it's unpatriotic to start an impeachment with a war in progress.

But the prize of them all was dog-wagging episode III (to take the Broaddrick story off the front pages) , in which a totally innocent slavic orthodox Christian nation was bombed into the stone age for the benefit of white trash, narco-terrorists, and barbarians. I mention
the fact that Serbia is a slavic orthodox Christian nation because Russia is also a slavic orthodox Christian nation, i.e. because this third dog-wagging episode involved the risk of a thermonuclear war.

Any serious research into this one will reveal that the Western public was fed an unadulterated diet of BS from the NATO propaganda organ, the Clinton spin machine, and a shiftless Western establishment media which simply included the propaganda on its pages and called it news rather than doing any real reporting. Moreover, the entire picture of the situation in the Balkans which the West has seen in its media over the last decade is rendered hugely suspect since it arises from the same kinds of sources.

Any sort of a thorough research will turn up the reality that the whole problem in Kosovo was always the Albanian Kosovars and not the Serbs. The present problems seemingly began with Miloshevich rescinding the autonomy of the region in 1989.


The truth is that he had no options, and that all other ethnic groups in Kosovo were being
brutalized by the Albanian Kosovars.

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/ddj/Kosovo/articles/Binder87NYT.htm


Further readings and articles from the 80's tell much the same story:

http://members.tripod.com/~sarant_2/ksm.html


What about before that? The truth is that, despite the endless villification and demonization which they come in for from the Clinton spin machine and the NATO propaganda arm, the Serbs are the closest thing there is to normal, rational, decent people in the balkans. They fought with the allies in WW-II and in fact held Hitler for seven months and sent him into Russia in the dead of winter rather than on schedule, but for which the whole world might be sporting swastikas now.


They in fact saved 500 allied airmen who were shot down on raids over Ploesti and other targets in the region.

http://www.mfa.gov.yu/Statement/110904_e.html

Needless to say, any allied airman who was ever shot down over one of the states surrounding Serbia was killed. The states surrounding Serbia all sided with Hitler.

http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/thompson/rootsof.htm

The Serbs paid a horrific price for all of this. Hundreds of thousands of them were murdered, many in Nazi-style death camps set up in the surrounding states.

Nonetheless, history does not count for much amongst gangsters. Clinton and his NWO pals had numerous reasons for wishing to dismantle Yugoslavia, not the least of which was the 5 - 20 trillion in mineral wealth of the Trepca mines. Check out:

http://www.tenc.net

for background materials on that sort of topic.

The "Racak massacre" which Clinton and Albright used as a pretext for the NATO action turns out to be more propaganda BS.

http://www.tenc.net/analysis/meetmr.htm

and the Rambouillet ultimatum, particularly Appendix B, section 8, which the Serbs refused to sign, turns out to look like something which King George might have written.

No nation on Earth would ever sign off on such a thing.

http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/ksvo_rambouillet_text.html">

It turns out that the entire case against Serbia was never anything but a bunch of bullshit.


There was never any "ethnic cleansing" going on,

http://www.iraqwar.org/germanreport.htm

and

there was never anything remotely like genocide going on.

http://www.counterpunch.org/biglie.html

nothing but a bunch of fabricated bullshit and a bunch of poor sorry people (Serbs) having to defend themselves against an armed insurrection supported and supplied by outside powers.

The laws of war have changed substantially since the end of WW-II. The kinds of things we were doing to the Japanese and Germans, legal then, would be war crimes now. In the Kosovo operation, American forces knew that they had a tough and dangerous adversary to deal with and they knew that they also were doing this for an utterly base and ignoble cause which they could not possibly ask any NATO pilot to die for, and that dog-wagging was again involved. They therefore limited all operations to 15,000 feet or higher. When they discovered that they could not harm the Serbian military from that height, they embarked upon an entire series of war crimes, such as bombing out bridges in the middle of little towns like Varvarin in the middle of the day when, guaranteed, nothing was going to be on them other than people like Sanja Milenkovic running errands. It thus comes as no surprise that even Amnesty International is accusing NATO of war crimes now. Aside from that, they began to bomb out the entire civilian infrastructure of Serbia, including factories, water plants, electrical grids, and basically everything the civilian population of Serbia needs to stay alive. That's all criminal activity.


Walter Rockler, a surviving American prosecutor from the Nuremberg trubunal, claims that NATO is every bit as guilty of war crimes as the nazis were.

http://suc.org/kosovo_crisis/html/0523_ct.html

So much for William J. (Slick) Clinton, our first gangster president. Everybody who reads pretty much knows what Clinton is about by now. Many are still deluded inasmuch as they like to believe that it's possible for a guy like Slick to end up in charge of a good cause by some perverse quirk of fate. That doesn't happen in the real world; a guy like Slick being in charge of a cause invariably means the cause is messed up.

The Chicago mob was not a charitable organization which ended up under Al Capone via a stroke of bad luck; The German nazi party was not a religious order which ended up under Hitler due to a chance misfortune. The Kommunisticheskaya partiya in Russia did not fall under the sway of Stalin due to an isolated fluke or unlikely event, and the democratic party in America is not under the Clintons due to any quirk of fate.



0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 07:10 am
I couldn't care less what they do in their own home (or the local motel) so long as it doesn't trickle over into anything that affects my life. If they uphold good policy (as in good for the vast majority of American; like making a new healthcare system) and follow through with what they say they will do, I don't care if someone is under their desk 24/7 suckin' away.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 07:15 am
Clintopn's sexual assault and rape allegations
http://chblue.com/Feb1999/022599/clintonwomen022599.htm


Juanita isn't the only one: Bill Clinton's long history of sexual violence against women dates back some 30 years
[/size]

(Editor's Note: The following story is an update of previously-published information and contains some new material.)

By Daniel J. Harris
& Teresa Hampton
Capitol Hill Blue

Women have been charging Bill Clinton with sexual assault since his days as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford 30 years ago.

A continuing investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''

Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas nursing home operator, told NBC's Lisa Myers five weeks ago she was raped by Clinton. NBC shelved the interview, saying they were confirming all parts of the story, but finally aired it Wednesday night.

Broaddrick finally took her story to The Wall Street Journal, which published her account of the brutal rape at the hands of the future President, followed by The Washington Post and some other publications.

But Capitol Hill Blue has confirmed that Broaddrick's story is only one account of many attempted and actual sexual assaults by Clinton that go back 30 years. Among the other incidents:

* Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;

* In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue last week, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name;

* In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;

* Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape;

* From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;

* Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."

* Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.

* Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with an $850,000 cash payment.

* Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.

* Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.

* Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.

In an interview with Capitol Hill Blue, the retired State Department employee said he believed the story Miss Wellstone, the young English woman who said Clinton raped her in 1969.

''There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma,'' he said. ''But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I heard of it.''

Miss Wellstone, who is now married and lives near London, confirmed the incident when contacted this week, but refused to discuss the matter further. She said she would not go public with further details of the attack. Afterwards, she changed her phone number and hired a barrister who warned a reporter to stay away from his client.

In his book, Unlimited Access, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich reported that Clinton left Oxford University for a "European Tour" in 1969 and was told by University officials that he was no longer welcome there. Aldrich said Clinton's academic record at Oxford was lackluster. Clinton later accepted a scholarship for Yale Law School and did not complete his studies at Oxford.

The State Department official who investigated the incident said Clinton's interests appeared to be drinking, drugs and sex, not studies.

"I came away from the incident with the clear impression that this was a young man who was there to party, not study," he said.

Oxford officials refused comment. The State Department also refused to comment on the incident. A Freedom of Information request filed by Capitol Hill Blue failed to turn up any records of the incident.

Capitol Hill Blue also spoke with the former Miss James, the Washington fundraiser who confirmed the encounter with Clinton at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, but first said she would not appear publicly because anyone who does so is destroyed by the Clinton White House.

''My husband and children deserve better than that,'' she said when first contacted two weeks ago. After reading the Broaddrick story Friday, however, she called back and gave permission to use her maiden name, but said she had no intention of pursuing the matter.

"I wasn't raped, but I was trapped in a hotel room for a brief moment by a boorish man," she said. "I got away. He tried calling me several times after that, but I didn't take his phone calls. Then he stopped. I guess he moved on."

But Miss James also retreated from public view this week after other news organizations contacted her.

The former Miss Moffet, the legal secretary who says Clinton tried to force her into oral sex in 1979, has since married and left the state. She says that when she told her boyfriend, who was a lawyer and supporter of Clinton, about the incident, he told her to keep her mouth shut.

"He said that people who crossed the governor usually regretted it and that if I knew what was good for me I'd forget that it ever happened," she said. "I haven't forgotten it. You don't forget crude men like that."

Like two other women, the former Miss Moffet declined further interviews. A neighbor said she had received threatening phone calls.

The other encounters were confirmed with more than 30 interviews with retired Arkansas state employees, former state troopers and former Yale and University of Arkansas students. Like others, they refused to go public because of fears of retaliation from the Clinton White House.

Likewise, the mainstream media has shied away from the Broaddrick story. Initially, only The Drudge Report and other Internet news sites have actively pursued it. Since initial publication of this story, a few mainstream media outlets have expressed interest in interviewing the women.

The White House did not return calls for comment. White House attorney David Kendall has issued a public denial of the Broaddrick rape.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 07:18 am
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 07:26 am
Intrepid wrote:
Rolling Eyes


That's right: Stephen King, Hugh Hefner, and Edgar Alen Poe if they put all three of their minds together couldn't make this kind of stuff up.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 07:33 am
People who criticize Clinton for blow jobs are like rock critics in my opinion.

Can't play themselves, can't get a blow job of their own, so they obsess and criticize.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 08:16 am
Speaking the truth in order to gain power is a fool's errand. Say instead what you want the people to believe, say it over and over, soon, they seem to remember that they do believe it.

Joe(They have stolen your Republic) Nation
0 Replies
 
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 09:06 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
People who criticize Clinton for blow jobs are like rock critics in my opinion.

Can't play themselves, can't get a blow job of their own, so they obsess and criticize.


Very well said BVT. Every time I hear Ann Coulter speak I think, If someone would just longdick her one time, she'd be alright.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 09:51 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
People who criticize Clinton for blow jobs are like rock critics in my opinion.

Can't play themselves, can't get a blow job of their own, so they obsess and criticize.


Laughing

rock critics ? who do ya think is giving th.... ooopppss.

sorry. nevermind. carry on...
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 10:39 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
People who criticize Clinton for blow jobs are like rock critics in my opinion.

Can't play themselves, can't get a blow job of their own, so they obsess and criticize.


I know demokerrats all view Slick as some sort of a super alpha stud or something like that but, near as I can tell, the one member of the fair sex he seems to have gotten other than via rape or sexual assault is Monica Lewinski, and Monica Lewinski is a pig. I wouldn't let Monica suck my dog's ****, much less mine.

That's even assuming that oral sex is a reasonable way to do sex which, in my view, it isn't.

The most major port of entry for germs in the human body is our mouths. Germs that we EAT that way normally get neutralized by stomach acid and what not but, obvoiusly, human genital organs do not have that capacity for neutralizing germs.

In 1957 when Ike was still in charge of things, there was no such thing as genital herpes.

Want safe sex? Do what Mojo Nixon would do and buy yourself a 220 volt vibrator or (same thing) an English motorcycle.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 10:51 am
Double post (software snafuu) deleted.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 05:36 pm
Quote:
In 1957 when Ike was still in charge of things, there was no such thing as genital herpes.


Which is a good thing since Ike was porking that 2nd Lt driver of his at every stoplight in Europe.

Joe(Thanks for the memories)Nation
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 06:51 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
Look, here's what we got for our money, our 60 million dollars the Republicans got us to spend investigating William Jefferson Clinton, (Oh, and apparently they didn't have any idea that such a thing was true before endeavoring forward on their mission.) :Here it is, you heard it here first:

a man will lie about sex.

Yep. I know. I wasn't all that surprised about it myself, being a man and all, but I sure was surprised at how exercised the Republicans got about it.

A man will lie about sex.

I thought everybody knew the one, but no, no they did not know and I thought they were embarrassed about it and that's why they got so weirded out about it, but then I remembered that they weren't looking for the truth, they were trying to anything and everything to get the Democrats out of office. That lie sure helped.

It didn't help the country to spend all that time and effort looking at Whitewater and Filegate and Travelgate but their motives in all those investigations was not to help the country, it was to help the right wing of the Republican Party.

The effort is not about the truth, it's about power.

And so we learn the second lesson.

We have been well-schooled by Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist, Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich.

Speaking the truth in order to gain power is a fool's errand. Say instead what you want the people to believe, say it over and over, soon, they seem to remember that they do believe it.

Joe(They have stolen your Republic) Nation


Hubby,

Check this out!! And its really cheep Surprised)

http://www.athomewithbullocks.com/detail.jsp?id=1jrgaft7pg77fwwnjtbhoew8h

http://www.athomewithbullocks.com/detail.jsp?id=atnrx0bftzoahjegw1egoraes

http://www.athomewithbullocks.com/detail.jsp?id=3wpim7h6umfwxaz8r4l5a8lyz

heres 3 I thought would look real good..

But here is the whole website that you can check out.

http://www.athomewithbullocks.com/wpcollection.jsp?key=wpl_kinkade&name=Thomas%20Kinkade%20Wallpaper%20and%20Border%20Free%20Shipping


Joe(insert something here)Nation you know darn well if it was a Conservative that had done those things you would have been all over their backside. Does the name Tom Delay ring a bell, how about Newt.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 04:29 am
Thank you for the uh, art suggestions. They do remind of Republican ideas, very pretty to the eye, but manufactured and paper-thin.

Whitewater and Filegate and Travelgate et al, don't forget there was the accusations about drug running Hondurans in Mena, Arkansas and, of course, Rush's favorite, the murder in the park were an attempt to seize power. Three Special Prosecutors had already examined the cases and found nothing before a Republican Congress re-installed the Independent Consul's Office and a panel of right-wing judges under the influence of financier Richard Scaife appointed Kenneth Starr.

Now you say:
Quote:
you know darn well if it was a Conservative that had done those things you would have been all over their backside.


Had done what things? That's the point. At least in Travelgate and Filegate we had an accusation of abuse of power, but what was the accusation in Whitewater? What was the supposed crime? That was the beautiful thing about it, nobody knew for sure, but they would keep looking.

The liberal media which conservatives love to bawl loudly about was complict in the rumor mill pumping of "Golly, I wonder ifs" coming onto our tvs and newspapers on a daily basis. The reporters were hoping, yes, hoping for a Pulitzer and a chance to bring down a President.

That's when we get to the sex.

I don't know how Conservative procreate because they seem to get so flustered about sex. Not flustered enough not to use rumors to get a sitting President to face a civil suit over a supposed request for oral sex, but hey, anything to gain power. Then, Starr who has labored mightily for three years of nothing, steps in to examine the is-is lie.

Stop the presses. We can knock him out of office on the is-is lie.

Luckily for the Republic we still had a Senate then, today I'm sure they would have impeached William Jefferson Clinton for the is-is lie. The future of this nation rests in hands like those of Bill Frist. Sleep, if you can tonight, remembering that.

Meanwhile, you ask about Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich, two men who know something about gaining power, but for whom the term ethical is difficult to define. I admire Newt, one of the finest users of propaganda since 1939, and his mistake was needing money a little too much to keep his politics moving. Tom, on the other hand, seems to suffer from occasional megalomania. His brethren in the House have already admonished him three times, his fourth is forthcoming. Oh, and yesterday, things did not go well for his cohorts in Texas, but the accusations against both of them had to do with the seizure of power, not personal failure.

And that is what this thread is about:
When asked why he did what he did, Clinton replied, "Because I could."
If we asked Tom DeLay the same question, he would say "Because you can't stop me."
The first answer is about the lack of personal morality, the second is about the unrestrained grasping for power.

Joe(Do whatever they tell you to do. It will be safer)Nation
0 Replies
 
 

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 05/10/2024 at 04:59:40