Let's have a Hillary thread.

Just consider what you would say if someone who hated you said that about your wife.

0 Replies

How uncouth.
Poor taste and humor have a fine line, and I think you missed it by a mile.

0 Replies

Who are you addressing c1?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Remember the whole "wag the dog" thing?

you really didn't pay much attention to the run up to iraq and a lot of the stuff going on since then have ya ?

now interesting that in lieu of really coming up with anything tangible on hillary, you simply call her a "slut whore".

now, that, is the full on rove approach to politics.

even though i susupect ya threw it in just for a reaction, it's really not cool.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

If Ken Starr is so justified in going after Clinton because he lied under oath at a trial, then why didn't Ken Starr go after Paula Jones when she was found to be lying under oath at the same trial?

McGentrix wrote:

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

Paula Jones was not.

Hey, Starr went after all kinds of people in the Little Rock part of his investigation. The McDougals, Jim Guy Tucker, a whole host of people he got indictments on.

His supporters were congratulating him on it.

Remember, Starr was only supposed to investigate the Whitewater land deal. That was all he was originally supposed to do. And when Starr found wrongdoing by people other than Clinton there, he indicted them.

So then Starr came across evidence that Clinton denied an affair under oath in the Jones trial, which was not a matter he was charged to investigate, Starr suddenly decides that he has to investigate the matter because of it.

And when Starr says investigate, he means devote a whole office full of lawyers and prosecutors to it.

Starr hands down indictments against many people in the Whitewater aspect of the investigation, but when it comes to the Paula Jones part of his investigation, he doesn't look at Jones' lying. He only decides to investigate Clinton's lying.

How come? If lying under oath is so important that Starr has to investigate a trial he wasn't even supposed to be concerned with in the first place, why didn't Starr indict Jones when the judge found that she lied under oath at the same trial?

Got any answers?

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Except the judge ruled that Clinton didn't harass her [Jones}.

McGentrix wrote:

The point I was conveying is that simply because a judge decides something, doesn't neccesarily make it so.

So it doesn't matter what is decided at a trial!

McGentrix and his fellow conservatives spend seven years hollering and complaining about how their whole view of the world is thrown out of whack because Clinton lied under oath at a trial, then turn around and say the trial doesn't mean anything.

Clinton denies an affair he had under oath in a trial? That necessitates an investigation of several years with a whole building full of prosecutors.

Paula Jones lies at the same trial? No big deal.

The judge rules that Clinton didn't harass Jones at that trial? No big deal.

This goes to show how twisted McGentrix' and the other conservatives' view of the world is.

They live in a completely Clinton-based world. Things are important only if they can show Clinton did something wrong. After that, they don't matter at all.

They are so bound up in their hatred of Clinton, that they are willing to assign value to American institutions based solely on their usefulness for bringing down Bill Clinton.

As McGentrix illustrates here.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:
Except the judge ruled that Clinton didn't harass her [Jones}.

McGentrix wrote:
The point I was conveying is that simply because a judge decides something, doesn't neccesarily make it so.

So it doesn't matter what is decided at a trial!

They are so bound up in their hatred of Clinton, that they are willing to assign value to American institutions based solely on their usefulness for bringing down Bill Clinton.

As McGentrix illustrates here.

judicial disdain ? it's not just for clinton haters anymore, kw.

the shrieking began in earnest as the schiavo circus picked up steam.

so we can now add to selective interpretation of the constitution, the tasty new ingredient of selective regard for the judicial branch.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Clinton denies an affair he had under oath in a trial?

Paula Jones lies at the same trial?

The problem lies in the fact that you see these as equal when they are not.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:
Clinton denies an affair he had under oath in a trial?

Paula Jones lies at the same trial?

The problem lies in the fact that you see these as equal when they are not.

the problem lies in that you would rather complain about bill clinton than live in the present. Laughing

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

The problem lies in the fact that you see these as equal when they are not.

And in what way are they not?

When investigating the Whitewater land deal, Starr brought many indictments against people who were not president-to repeat, the McDougals, Jim Guy Tucker and many, many others.

Conservatives defending Starr cited these indictments and prosecutions as justification for his investigation.

Yet, Starr sees Clinton lying in a trial that has nothing to do with Starr's task-investigating a land deal-and he feels that is sufficient for him to leave his jurisdiction and pursue the matter.

But when he goes over to the Jones trial, he suddenly ignores all the wrongdoing EXCEPT that done by Clinton.

He investigated and indicted everybody in the Whitewater land deal.

Why didn't Starr indict Paula Jones for lying under oath when the judge pointed out that was what Jones did?

0 Replies

Yes, sir, that's all we hear from the conservatives for seven years.

"Clinton lied under oath". "Clinton lied under oath". "Starr had to go after him".

For seven years, we have been hearing these people tell us how they just can't get over it, it's the reason they hate Clinton, etc.

They are glad Starr went after Clinton about lying under oath in the Jones trial. They tell us how much they hate Clinton for lying under oath in the Jones trial.

Yet, Paula Jones lies under oath at the same trial, and they are flabbergasted that anyone suggests that Starr should have gone after her, too.

In fact, to conservatives, Paula Jones is a hero.

Clinton lies under oath, and that means Clinton is bad, bad, bad.

Paula Jones lies under oath at the same trial, but that means that Paula Jones is good, good, good.

Anyone care to explain how this works?

0 Replies

not to mention that tripp's recording of phone conversations without all parties knowledge is illegal in maryland.

now, before the usual suspects trot out the argument that the maryland law states "intercept" and has "no mention of the words tape or record", let's consider that several times a month, we are informed by the administration that they have "recordings" of "intercepted" terrorist chatter.

0 Replies

I was addressing anyone who has been unable to provide anything tangible about Hillary beyond unwarranted and typically chauvinistic statements.

0 Replies

Let's have a Hillary thread.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know