Let's have a Hillary thread.

And don't try to dodge by asking about my "motivations". You've been crying about this for seven years. Now give a straight answer for once. For once.

0 Replies

*sigh*
Is there a punch line to this question KW?

I give up... why, why didn't Ken Starr go after Paula Jones when she was found to be lying under oath?

0 Replies

Hey, you should be telling me!

For seven years you people have telling us how your mental and emotional equilibrium has been all thrown out of kilter because Clinton lied under oath at the Paula Jones trial.

Now the person you have been defending is found to be lying at the same trial.

But suddenly, that doesn't matter.

0 Replies

You've been defending the Starr investigation, telling us that the allegations of Paula Jones necessitated him to get involved in all aspects of Clinton's personal and sex life.

A prosecutor with a whole staff of assistants whose full time job it is to investigate the president's sex life,past and present. Bizarre.

Now, defend Starr's going after one liar under oath, but NOT another liar under oath at the same trial. The trial which supposedly made it necessary for Starr to investigate all aspects of Clinton's sex life.

0 Replies

I'm going to have to go with the idea the Clinton was the FREAKING PRESIDENT!!!

Paula Jones was not.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Who was the last President of the US that had an affair while in Office?

I wonder how far down the chain you have to be before it's "unacceptable" to have an affair. Do Democratic Senators and Congressmen also get to have illicit affairs in office? I suppose the Chandra Levy incident was also ok, as that's another thing "men of power" do, right? Have people whacked?

man, you are so out of line with the whole whacked thing.

by the way, no moral outrage over newt gingrich's affair (while his wife had cancer, to boot) and bob packwood's dilly dallying with a congressional page, a young one?

have never heard a peep from you about those two.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

A judge also ruled that OJ didn't kill Nicole, do you believe that?

"when all else fails, blame the judiciary."

the new battle hymn of the republic(ans).

0 Replies

Which grand jury did they lie too about their affairs? If they, like Clinton did, purjured themselves then their wives should divirce them and take them for everything they have. Why If I had my way Newt would be out of office today! Oh, wait...

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
A judge also ruled that OJ didn't kill Nicole, do you believe that?

"when all else fails, blame the judiciary."

the new battle hymn of the republic(ans).

You're kidding with this, right? Confused

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

A judge also ruled that OJ didn't kill Nicole, do you believe that?

No, I don't believe that, because it's not true. The jury found that OJ not guilty of the charges against him, not the judge.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
A judge also ruled that OJ didn't kill Nicole, do you believe that?

No, I don't believe that, because it's not true. The jury found that OJ not guilty of the charges against him, not the judge.

Hmmmm... You are absolutely correct. Let me come up with a better example...

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
A judge also ruled that OJ didn't kill Nicole, do you believe that?

"when all else fails, blame the judiciary."

the new battle hymn of the republic(ans).

You're kidding with this, right?

dunno. the right wing has been making an awful lot of noise lately about judges and activist judges etc.

i'm pretty sure that it's a shaping operation for the upcoming battle for the supreme court. still, ya can't praise scalia for backing the bush presidency during the recount and then turn around denounce kennedy over shiavo. it's double standard.

not that i'm saying that you personally have done that. but many republicans have.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Which grand jury did they lie too about their affairs?

isn't it interesting that nobody asked them anything about it, officially. point is, as ann coulter admitted, that the whole point of pushing clinton re; jones & lewinsky etc, was to bring him down.

but if newt or packwood go skirt chasing ? "well they didn't lie about it."

duh ?!?! because nobody felt it was important to ask them. there was a lethargic half attempt to roust packwood, but newt ? nada...

0 Replies

The point I was conveying is that simply because a judge decides something, doesn't neccesarily make it so. In my rush to post, I included OJ as it was the first thing to pop into my head. I got Joe'd on that, As I should have been, but the point stands.

Surely if, as KW is pointing out, judges are always infallible, the Dem's should not been complaining about the 2000 elections. 5 judges decided that case.

0 Replies

McG
Is all you can say, he was an adulterer, he was an adulterer. That is no one other than his wife's business. The question is did he do the job he was elected to do? If you have complaints in that area state them and cut out the moralizing. If he wanted to screw every women in Washington I couldn't care less as long as he fulfilled his obligation as president.

0 Replies

Some people believe he put our service men and women's lives at risk to get out of the spot light. Remember the whole "wag the dog" thing? I do not recall getting blowjobs in the oval office being in his campaign. It's a distraction. Does the POTUS really need to be distracted like that? Didn't he have enough on his mind?

Obviously, it became a national concern, else he would not have had impeachment proceedings against him.

Now, this thread is about his slut-whore of a wife, so that's why we are discussing it.

p.s. I can also say he is a confirmed liar, as well as adulterer.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

.

Now, this thread is about his slut-whore of a wife, so that's why we are discussing it.

Thanks for the eloquent redirection McG....

0 Replies

Mcg wrote

Quote:

Now, this thread is about his slut-whore of a wife, so that's why we are discussing it.

You are way out of line. There was no call to make that statement. Nor is there any evidence to support it. Shame

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Mcg wrote

Quote:
Now, this thread is about his slut-whore of a wife, so that's why we are discussing it.

You are way out of line. There was no call to make that statement. Nor is there any evidence to support it. Shame

That was my next point.

Bill may be a slut-whore, but there are no facts backing your assertion against Hillary.

0 Replies

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols2/hillary.open.mouth.jpg

Bend over! This will be good for you! I promise!

0 Replies

Let's have a Hillary thread.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know