If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Why does Rand Paul keep attacking Bill Clinton? Because he's an asshole, that's why   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 417
    More: Obvious, Rand Paul, Bill Clinton, Kentucky Senators, C-SPAN  
•       •       •

2858 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Feb 2014 at 9:11 AM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



417 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-08 02:47:49 PM  

walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: You're probably right as I would more likely for for a pile of dog doo before any of them(or her).

So you're a Ron Paul voter?

No, but I knew you'd assume that because, as I said, your generation hears or reads one thing they dislike, then they allow that to paint their perceptions of others and it's stupid and wrong.

The Pauls are some of the worst Congress has to offer; I didn't fall for their brand of bullshiat(and looks like most of American didn't either).

People are not just left-wing or right-wing; people are far more complicated than a sound bite pejoratives.


And some people (you) are far simpler than that.
 
2014-02-08 02:48:52 PM  

Fart_Machine: walktoanarcade: Fart_Machine: walktoanarcade: Fart_Machine: walktoanarcade: Fart_Machine: walktoanarcade: Do you honestly believe that Bill would stand by and not exercise some power and authority over which he no longer has a right?

He already has some power being an ex-President with a lot of pull within the Democratic Party.  But yeah, let's focus on something that happened 16 years ago.  That's a winner!

That's how you refer to the possibility of the Clinton's making a mockery of the 22 Amendment?  Wow.

You would be all right with Laura Bush becoming president with "Dubya" inside the WH again, then, right? Right? ;)

Yup, because wimmen must do what their men-folk say!

/roll-eyes

You twist my being against anyone going against the 22nd amendment as misogyny? You're a card! ;)

Not much of a twist really.  It's exactly what you said.  Don't you have PUA site to go to?

So you're an immature liar? Good to know! Thanks. :)

So you're a moron who believes women can't think for themselves.  Good to know!  Thanks. :)


You know I never said anything even approaching that, much less saying that at all, but you are a liar with extremely, extremely weak sauce, so it is not surprising.

I feel sorry for you because you have to fall back towards lies and word-twisting owing to your lack of critical thinking skills.
 
2014-02-08 02:50:39 PM  

walktoanarcade: You know I never said anything even approaching that


If you didn't, then why did you say they would be "going against the 22nd Amendment"? By implication that would mean that Bill would be the de facto President with Hillary putting no input into any of the decisions.
 
2014-02-08 02:52:13 PM  

Fart_Machine: cameroncrazy1984: How would electing Hillary Clinton (a competent person and coincidentally a completely separate person from her husband) go against the 22nd amendment?

Because electing the wife means you're really getting the husband making the decisions.  You really do have to have been alive in the 1940's to believe this argument.


One would have to be a super-deluxe damned fool idiot with severe mental deficiencies to believe that Bill Clinton would not abuse his position as "first gentleman."

And I never said he would make all the decisions in that case, you reading-impaired sweetheart, you.
 
2014-02-08 02:55:49 PM  

walktoanarcade: One would have to be a super-deluxe damned fool idiot with severe mental deficiencies to believe that Bill Clinton would not abuse his position as "first gentleman."

And I never said he would make all the decisions in that case, you reading-impaired sweetheart, you.


What would you consider "abuse" of the position of presidential spouse?
 
2014-02-08 02:57:25 PM  

walktoanarcade: Fart_Machine: walktoanarcade: Fart_Machine: walktoanarcade: Fart_Machine: walktoanarcade: Fart_Machine: walktoanarcade: Do you honestly believe that Bill would stand by and not exercise some power and authority over which he no longer has a right?

He already has some power being an ex-President with a lot of pull within the Democratic Party.  But yeah, let's focus on something that happened 16 years ago.  That's a winner!

That's how you refer to the possibility of the Clinton's making a mockery of the 22 Amendment?  Wow.

You would be all right with Laura Bush becoming president with "Dubya" inside the WH again, then, right? Right? ;)

Yup, because wimmen must do what their men-folk say!

/roll-eyes

You twist my being against anyone going against the 22nd amendment as misogyny? You're a card! ;)

Not much of a twist really.  It's exactly what you said.  Don't you have PUA site to go to?

So you're an immature liar? Good to know! Thanks. :)

So you're a moron who believes women can't think for themselves.  Good to know!  Thanks. :)

You know I never said anything even approaching that, much less saying that at all, but you are a liar with extremely, extremely weak sauce, so it is not surprising.

I feel sorry for you because you have to fall back towards lies and word-twisting owing to your lack of critical thinking skills.


And you made this comment again why?  Because you make the assumption that electing Laura Bush would be like electing W again by virtue of being her husband.  So the two options are either than you're an idiot with a very feeble grasp of the English language or a troll.

walktoanarcade: And I never said he would make all the decisions in that case, you reading-impaired sweetheart, you.


You cited a violation of the 22 Amendment which would equate electing Hillary as giving Bill Clinton another term in office.   Did you not understand what you were typing?
 
2014-02-08 02:57:36 PM  

walktoanarcade: One would have to be a super-deluxe damned fool idiot with severe mental deficiencies to believe that Bill Clinton would not abuse his position as "first gentleman."


Aaaand there it is. Bare assertion, no proof. And no proof that it would "go against" the 22nd Amendment.

What would he be doing? Signing bills? Appointing diplomat? What would be the abuse of power specifically?
 
2014-02-08 02:59:55 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: You know I never said anything even approaching that

If you didn't, then why did you say they would be "going against the 22nd Amendment"? By implication that would mean that Bill would be the de facto President with Hillary putting no input into any of the decisions.


That's not quite it. The amendment was to prevent this very instance. Use your brains, it's to keep out the dynasties you want so badly, and yes, it would mean Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

You want to enable political dynasties for when it's your "team."  I don't have a horse in this race, but I know you do.

Not you nor I would be peachy-keen with George W. Bush back in the WH in any shape or form. You cannot trust them.
 
2014-02-08 03:00:46 PM  

walktoanarcade: Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"


What's the "inevitable" abuse of power? Advising his wife? How can one abuse power by advising the President?
 
2014-02-08 03:01:36 PM  

udhq: walktoanarcade: One would have to be a super-deluxe damned fool idiot with severe mental deficiencies to believe that Bill Clinton would not abuse his position as "first gentleman."

And I never said he would make all the decisions in that case, you reading-impaired sweetheart, you.

What would you consider "abuse" of the position of presidential spouse?


Do anything but farking the president and smiling for fundraisers-gentleman and ladies alike.

The President is the President, not his or her spouse.
 
2014-02-08 03:02:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: One would have to be a super-deluxe damned fool idiot with severe mental deficiencies to believe that Bill Clinton would not abuse his position as "first gentleman."

Aaaand there it is. Bare assertion, no proof. And no proof that it would "go against" the 22nd Amendment.

What would he be doing? Signing bills? Appointing diplomat? What would be the abuse of power specifically?


I don't know if I'd call it an abuse, per se, but I can see Bill luring a few interns into joining the "First Gentlemen's Club"

/rimshot
 
2014-02-08 03:03:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

What's the "inevitable" abuse of power? Advising his wife? How can one abuse power by advising the President?


Get it through your thick skull: Bill Clinton has lost his legal right to be influential inside the WH to that degree.

End of story.
 
2014-02-08 03:04:43 PM  
Rand Paul is at the top of his trajectory. The time when anyone cares what he thinks is rapidly slipping away.
He may as well blather on while a few rejects are still listening.
 
2014-02-08 03:04:55 PM  

walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

What's the "inevitable" abuse of power? Advising his wife? How can one abuse power by advising the President?

Get it through your thick skull: Bill Clinton has lost his legal right to be influential inside the WH to that degree.

End of story.


You sound....concerned.
 
2014-02-08 03:05:32 PM  

walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: You know I never said anything even approaching that

If you didn't, then why did you say they would be "going against the 22nd Amendment"? By implication that would mean that Bill would be the de facto President with Hillary putting no input into any of the decisions.

That's not quite it. The amendment was to prevent this very instance. Use your brains, it's to keep out the dynasties you want so badly, and yes, it would mean Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

You want to enable political dynasties for when it's your "team."  I don't have a horse in this race, but I know you do.

Not you nor I would be peachy-keen with George W. Bush back in the WH in any shape or form. You cannot trust them.


The amendment was put in place by Republicans who were afraid of another populist President such as FDR achieving three or more terms.  It has nothing to do with spouses getting elected.  But thanks for contributing to this thread Mr. Fark Independent.
 
2014-02-08 03:05:37 PM  

walktoanarcade: You twist my being against anyone going against the 22nd amendment as misogyny? You're a card! ;)


I believe he is rejecting the premise of your claim that Bill Clinton in the White House as husband to the president would go against the constitutional amendment saying he can't actually *be* president any additional terms.  That is a legal argument I would not envy trying to make unless I welcome Orly-levels of derision.

Look, nobody ever called for a vow of chastity to hold the Oval Office and in fact a non-married person would face considerably greater difficulty securing the position. The spouse to the president has and always had significant influence upon the office holder, depending on how much influence over them the president has allowed them to hold.  I don't get how the far-right who sees Hillary as a total ball-buster and only suffers Bill for political motivation can do a 180 here and claim she'll allow him to have much say at all.  Surely nowhere near the influence like Nancy pretty much running things for the second Reagan term.  If you weren't protesting presidential spouses in the past then you need to simmer down now.
 
2014-02-08 03:05:41 PM  

walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

What's the "inevitable" abuse of power? Advising his wife? How can one abuse power by advising the President?

Get it through your thick skull: Bill Clinton has lost his legal right to be influential inside the WH to that degree.

End of story.


You could just as easily say that Bush I got undo influence by having his son in the WH.
 
2014-02-08 03:06:18 PM  

EvilEgg: Spad31: Really? Asking a sitting President about his conduct in the Oval Office is inappropriate? Of course it's not. Get your dick sucked somewhere other than the room that represents the seat of power. No one gives a shiat if a 50 year old guy can get a 20-ish year old intern to blow him. Good on him. Wrong place. What the fark kind of chowder head are you? There aren't "talking points", there are legitimate assessments of professional conduct. Hell, if I were President, and had a buffet of women, I'd be tempted too. Why the fark would you lie about it? If you can't own your actions, don't do them. *facepalm* Simple, really, he was a coward and an ass hole.

I'm sure the number of bjs in the Oval Office is almost beyond counting.


Given that John Kennedy was President, yeah
 
2014-02-08 03:07:08 PM  

lordjupiter: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

What's the "inevitable" abuse of power? Advising his wife? How can one abuse power by advising the President?

Get it through your thick skull: Bill Clinton has lost his legal right to be influential inside the WH to that degree.

End of story.

You sound....concerned.


That she may get in? Yes and no, more that Americans may allow it. I am not a person that believes the world would end with her in office, but it won't help.

It's too early to say by far.
 
2014-02-08 03:07:34 PM  

walktoanarcade: Do anything but farking the president and smiling for fundraisers-gentleman and ladies alike.

The President is the President, not his or her spouse.


So, do you believe Michelle is abusing her position by promoting childhood nutrition?  Or Laura Bush by promoting literacy?  Or...Hillary by promoting healthcare reform?

You seem to be operating under the assumption that people lose their 1st amendment rights when their significant other is elected to office.  This is clearly not the case.
 
2014-02-08 03:09:14 PM  

Fart_Machine: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: You know I never said anything even approaching that

If you didn't, then why did you say they would be "going against the 22nd Amendment"? By implication that would mean that Bill would be the de facto President with Hillary putting no input into any of the decisions.

That's not quite it. The amendment was to prevent this very instance. Use your brains, it's to keep out the dynasties you want so badly, and yes, it would mean Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

You want to enable political dynasties for when it's your "team."  I don't have a horse in this race, but I know you do.

Not you nor I would be peachy-keen with George W. Bush back in the WH in any shape or form. You cannot trust them.

The amendment was put in place by Republicans who were afraid of another populist President such as FDR achieving three or more terms.  It has nothing to do with spouses getting elected.



Whoo-ah thanks a  million for the full belly laugh! :)

Oh yes, it was just the eeeevil republicans against the saint-like democrats...right. It had nothing to do with the nation as a whole. Sure. ;)
 
2014-02-08 03:10:07 PM  

walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

What's the "inevitable" abuse of power? Advising his wife? How can one abuse power by advising the President?

Get it through your thick skull: Bill Clinton has lost his legal right to be influential inside the WH to that degree.

End of story.


Ah.  Sorry, my sarcasm detector seems to be on the fritz today.
 
2014-02-08 03:11:42 PM  

udhq: walktoanarcade: Do anything but farking the president and smiling for fundraisers-gentleman and ladies alike.

The President is the President, not his or her spouse.

So, do you believe Michelle is abusing her position by promoting childhood nutrition?  Or Laura Bush by promoting literacy?  Or...Hillary by promoting healthcare reform?

You seem to be operating under the assumption that people lose their 1st amendment rights when their significant other is elected to office.  This is clearly not the case.


It's a bully pulpit, which as you showcased, and can be used for good.  I can't ignore the good they can do, but that's another argument.
 
2014-02-08 03:14:15 PM  

walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

What's the "inevitable" abuse of power? Advising his wife? How can one abuse power by advising the President?

Get it through your thick skull: Bill Clinton has lost his legal right to be influential inside the WH to that degree.

End of story.


No he hasn't. He's lost his legal right  to be President of the United States.

No part of the 22nd Amendment precludes him from not being elected President of the United States, but living in the White House.
 
2014-02-08 03:14:20 PM  

coyo: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

What's the "inevitable" abuse of power? Advising his wife? How can one abuse power by advising the President?

Get it through your thick skull: Bill Clinton has lost his legal right to be influential inside the WH to that degree.

End of story.

You could just as easily say that Bush I got undo influence by having his son in the WH.


Retroactively?  Unless you have proof his son time-traveled back to his dad's term and instead of being elsewhere at the time (as it is documented) was inside the WH helping to shape policy, no.
 
2014-02-08 03:15:42 PM  

walktoanarcade: udhq: walktoanarcade: Do anything but farking the president and smiling for fundraisers-gentleman and ladies alike.

The President is the President, not his or her spouse.

So, do you believe Michelle is abusing her position by promoting childhood nutrition?  Or Laura Bush by promoting literacy?  Or...Hillary by promoting healthcare reform?

You seem to be operating under the assumption that people lose their 1st amendment rights when their significant other is elected to office.  This is clearly not the case.

It's a bully pulpit, which as you showcased, and can be used for good.  I can't ignore the good they can do, but that's another argument.


So, just out of curiousity, does your argument extend to Hilary being elected violating the 22nd because she spent 8 years as her husband's advisor?
 
2014-02-08 03:15:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

What's the "inevitable" abuse of power? Advising his wife? How can one abuse power by advising the President?

Get it through your thick skull: Bill Clinton has lost his legal right to be influential inside the WH to that degree.

End of story.

No he hasn't. He's lost his legal right  to be President of the United States.

No part of the 22nd Amendment precludes him from not being elected President of the United States, but living in the White House.


It's time for you to re-examine what you think you believe, young dude.  Stop being so naive!
 
2014-02-08 03:17:03 PM  

grumpfuff: walktoanarcade: udhq: walktoanarcade: Do anything but farking the president and smiling for fundraisers-gentleman and ladies alike.

The President is the President, not his or her spouse.

So, do you believe Michelle is abusing her position by promoting childhood nutrition?  Or Laura Bush by promoting literacy?  Or...Hillary by promoting healthcare reform?

You seem to be operating under the assumption that people lose their 1st amendment rights when their significant other is elected to office.  This is clearly not the case.

It's a bully pulpit, which as you showcased, and can be used for good.  I can't ignore the good they can do, but that's another argument.

So, just out of curiousity, does your argument extend to Hilary being elected violating the 22nd because she spent 8 years as her husband's advisor?


Absolutely. It completely violates the intentions of the 22nd. The American people elected Bill, not her.
 
2014-02-08 03:18:48 PM  

lordjupiter: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

What's the "inevitable" abuse of power? Advising his wife? How can one abuse power by advising the President?

Get it through your thick skull: Bill Clinton has lost his legal right to be influential inside the WH to that degree.

End of story.

You sound....concerned.


He sounds like a troll is more like it. For a while I figured him to be just a regular moron, but even an extremely stupid person would have eventually slunk off once it became clear what an embarrassing spectacle he was making out of himself.
 
2014-02-08 03:18:58 PM  

walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

What's the "inevitable" abuse of power? Advising his wife? How can one abuse power by advising the President?

Get it through your thick skull: Bill Clinton has lost his legal right to be influential inside the WH to that degree.

End of story.


I understand the point you're trying to make, but there are a few obvious problems with it.
1) You can't use the qualifier "to that degree" without defining (and, I'm sorry, you haven't) the degree of influence you feel he'll have.
2) Bill Clinton would be very unlikely to put aside his work with The Clinton Foundation to dedicate time to trying to influence White House policy, and he would have to do so or there would be potential for accusations of conflict of interest.
3) It may be arguable that such an arrangement would violate the spirit of the 22nd Amendment, but it doesn't violate the letter of it, and, assuming Hillary is elected, Republicans would be in a poor position to mount a challenge on somewhat flimsy grounds right after a national election loss.
4) As a former president, Bill would be highly scrutinized for the very reasons you're concerned about. He would have to take extra care to avoid even a hint of impropriety, which would essentially nullify any benefit of proximity to his president wife.

I understand why some folks might be concerned, but I think the danger is overblown and that such concerns would become unwarranted.
 
2014-02-08 03:19:27 PM  

walktoanarcade: grumpfuff: walktoanarcade: udhq: walktoanarcade: Do anything but farking the president and smiling for fundraisers-gentleman and ladies alike.

The President is the President, not his or her spouse.

So, do you believe Michelle is abusing her position by promoting childhood nutrition?  Or Laura Bush by promoting literacy?  Or...Hillary by promoting healthcare reform?

You seem to be operating under the assumption that people lose their 1st amendment rights when their significant other is elected to office.  This is clearly not the case.

It's a bully pulpit, which as you showcased, and can be used for good.  I can't ignore the good they can do, but that's another argument.

So, just out of curiousity, does your argument extend to Hilary being elected violating the 22nd because she spent 8 years as her husband's advisor?

Absolutely. It completely violates the intentions of the 22nd. The American people elected Bill, not her.


So then you would have to advocate for no spouse or family member or close friend or anyone who could have had any possible influence on a president to be unable to run.

Because anything short of that is pure hypocrisy.
 
2014-02-08 03:20:15 PM  

walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

What's the "inevitable" abuse of power? Advising his wife? How can one abuse power by advising the President?

Get it through your thick skull: Bill Clinton has lost his legal right to be influential inside the WH to that degree.

End of story.

No he hasn't. He's lost his legal right  to be President of the United States.

No part of the 22nd Amendment precludes him from not being elected President of the United States, but living in the White House.

It's time for you to re-examine what you think you believe, young dude.  Stop being so naive!


It's time for you to re-examine the 22nd Amendment if you think it precludes anyone from living in a certain area.
 
2014-02-08 03:21:00 PM  

grumpfuff: So then you would have to advocate for no spouse or family member or close friend or anyone who could have had any possible influence on a president to be unable to run.

Because anything short of that is pure hypocrisy


I guess Jeb Bush is out, because that would make W violate the 22nd Amendment!
 
2014-02-08 03:22:38 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: grumpfuff: So then you would have to advocate for no spouse or family member or close friend or anyone who could have had any possible influence on a president to be unable to run.

Because anything short of that is pure hypocrisy

I guess Jeb Bush is out, because that would make W violate the 22nd Amendment!


You're supposed to let him agree with it first, then make that point. :P

/you ruined my set up
//shakes tiny fist
 
2014-02-08 03:24:18 PM  

Biological Ali: lordjupiter: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

What's the "inevitable" abuse of power? Advising his wife? How can one abuse power by advising the President?

Get it through your thick skull: Bill Clinton has lost his legal right to be influential inside the WH to that degree.

End of story.

You sound....concerned.

He sounds like a troll is more like it. For a while I figured him to be just a regular moron, but even an extremely stupid person would have eventually slunk off once it became clear what an embarrassing spectacle he was making out of himself.


Yeah I was hinting at concern trolling.   Anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between a typical first lady and a career politician like Hillary.
 
2014-02-08 03:25:41 PM  

grumpfuff: cameroncrazy1984: grumpfuff: So then you would have to advocate for no spouse or family member or close friend or anyone who could have had any possible influence on a president to be unable to run.

Because anything short of that is pure hypocrisy

I guess Jeb Bush is out, because that would make W violate the 22nd Amendment!

You're supposed to let him agree with it first, then make that point. :P

/you ruined my set up
//shakes tiny fist


Dammit! I'm sorry.
 
2014-02-08 03:29:37 PM  

coyo: Spad31: Really? Asking a sitting President about his conduct in the Oval Office is inappropriate? Of course it's not. Get your dick sucked somewhere other than the room that represents the seat of power. No one gives a shiat if a 50 year old guy can get a 20-ish year old intern to blow him. Good on him. Wrong place. What the fark kind of chowder head are you? There aren't "talking points", there are legitimate assessments of professional conduct. Hell, if I were President, and had a buffet of women, I'd be tempted too. Why the fark would you lie about it? If you can't own your actions, don't do them. *facepalm* Simple, really, he was a coward and an ass hole.

Are you a troll, or just dick focused? I don't care about his sex life but it sort of points out how silly it is to think monogamy is for everyone.


He's a troll.  He's previously argued that it should be legal for businesses to discriminate based on race, among other trollpinions.
 
2014-02-08 03:40:47 PM  
I seem to recall a guy named Gandy Baugh being on the "Clinton Death List" in the 90s, and then he somehow came back from the dead only to be killed a second time and added to the "Obama Death List."  If Hillary gets the nomination in '16, will Gandy Baugh be brought back to life just so he can be killed again and go back on the "Clinton Death List"?  'Cause that's just mean!
 
2014-02-08 03:43:17 PM  
Because Rand Paul™ wants to be the savior of the Empire.
 
2014-02-08 03:43:43 PM  
Once asked how living in the White House is illegal according to the 22nd Amendment, the troll vanishes. Imagine that.
 
2014-02-08 03:44:17 PM  

walktoanarcade: Fart_Machine: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: You know I never said anything even approaching that

If you didn't, then why did you say they would be "going against the 22nd Amendment"? By implication that would mean that Bill would be the de facto President with Hillary putting no input into any of the decisions.

That's not quite it. The amendment was to prevent this very instance. Use your brains, it's to keep out the dynasties you want so badly, and yes, it would mean Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

You want to enable political dynasties for when it's your "team."  I don't have a horse in this race, but I know you do.

Not you nor I would be peachy-keen with George W. Bush back in the WH in any shape or form. You cannot trust them.

The amendment was put in place by Republicans who were afraid of another populist President such as FDR achieving three or more terms.  It has nothing to do with spouses getting elected.


Whoo-ah thanks a  million for the full belly laugh! :)

Oh yes, it was just the eeeevil republicans against the saint-like democrats...right. It had nothing to do with the nation as a whole. Sure. ;)


Nobody said anything about good or evil however that was what prompted it to be proposed. But I see you were too busy kicking the stuffing out of that straw man to admit it had nothing to do with spouses.
 
2014-02-08 03:46:42 PM  

geek_mars: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

What's the "inevitable" abuse of power? Advising his wife? How can one abuse power by advising the President?

Get it through your thick skull: Bill Clinton has lost his legal right to be influential inside the WH to that degree.

End of story.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but there are a few obvious problems with it.
1) You can't use the qualifier "to that degree" without defining (and, I'm sorry, you haven't) the degree of influence you feel he'll have.
2) Bill Clinton would be very unlikely to put aside his work with The Clinton Foundation to dedicate time to trying to influence White House policy, and he would have to do so or there would be potential for accusations of conflict of interest.
3) It may be arguable that such an arrangement would violate the spirit of the 22nd Amendment, but it doesn't violate the letter of it, and, assuming Hillary is elected, Republicans would be in a poor position to mount a challenge on somewhat flimsy grounds right after a national election loss.
4) As a former president, Bill would be highly scrutinized for the very reasons you're concerned about. He would have to take extra care to avoid even a hint of impropriety, which would essentially nullify any benefit of proximity to his president wife.

I understand why some folks might be concerned, but I think the danger is overblown and that such concerns would become unwarranted.


1: You're right.
2: I disagree.
3: You're probably correct regarding the letter of the law.
4: I would certainly hope so in that case, although it would sicken me to see him back in there in any shape or form.
 
2014-02-08 03:48:17 PM  
2013-11-26 10:57:57 (10 weeks ago)

Wow someone was so butthurt they finally couldn't stand it and had to make an account.
 
2014-02-08 03:49:54 PM  

walktoanarcade: 1: You're right.
2: I disagree.
3: You're probably correct regarding the letter of the law.
4: I would certainly hope so in that case, although it would sicken me to see him back in there in any shape or form


And now we come to the real point of the conversation; you made the argument simply because you dislike Bill Clinton, not because of any other reason, and you grasped at any available straw to attempt to make your point regardless of whether or not it was valid.
 
2014-02-08 03:50:38 PM  

Biological Ali: lordjupiter: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

What's the "inevitable" abuse of power? Advising his wife? How can one abuse power by advising the President?

Get it through your thick skull: Bill Clinton has lost his legal right to be influential inside the WH to that degree.

End of story.

You sound....concerned.

He sounds like a troll is more like it. For a while I figured him to be just a regular moron, but even an extremely stupid person would have eventually slunk off once it became clear what an embarrassing spectacle he was making out of himself.


You underestimate the power of obstinate stupidity.
 
2014-02-08 03:53:24 PM  

walktoanarcade: geek_mars: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Bill would be acting as President with the inevitable abuse of power he would achieve in small abuses, but Hillary would of course be President with all the final say. This is not the same as "Bill would be president because wimmin hayte derrrrrp"

What's the "inevitable" abuse of power? Advising his wife? How can one abuse power by advising the President?

Get it through your thick skull: Bill Clinton has lost his legal right to be influential inside the WH to that degree.

End of story.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but there are a few obvious problems with it.
1) You can't use the qualifier "to that degree" without defining (and, I'm sorry, you haven't) the degree of influence you feel he'll have.
2) Bill Clinton would be very unlikely to put aside his work with The Clinton Foundation to dedicate time to trying to influence White House policy, and he would have to do so or there would be potential for accusations of conflict of interest.
3) It may be arguable that such an arrangement would violate the spirit of the 22nd Amendment, but it doesn't violate the letter of it, and, assuming Hillary is elected, Republicans would be in a poor position to mount a challenge on somewhat flimsy grounds right after a national election loss.
4) As a former president, Bill would be highly scrutinized for the very reasons you're concerned about. He would have to take extra care to avoid even a hint of impropriety, which would essentially nullify any benefit of proximity to his president wife.

I understand why some folks might be concerned, but I think the danger is overblown and that such concerns would become unwarranted.

1: You're right.
2: I disagree.
3: You're probably correct regarding the letter of the law.
4: I would certainly hope so in that case, although it would sicken me to see him back in there in any shape or form.


Maybe this will cheer you up...

I'd imagine it's highly likely that after all she's done to advance her career if Hillary becomes the first woman elected to the presidency and Bill tries to have a say in running the White House she's probably going to tell him to STFU and GTFO.
Also, Bill's got enough ego to probably find his pride somewhat wounded by going from the most powerful man in the world to the "First Gentleman". He might just avoid Washington altogether. He can always use his foundation as a reason to be away from the political scene.
 
2014-02-08 03:54:04 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: 1: You're right.
2: I disagree.
3: You're probably correct regarding the letter of the law.
4: I would certainly hope so in that case, although it would sicken me to see him back in there in any shape or form

And now we come to the real point of the conversation; you made the argument simply because you dislike Bill Clinton, not because of any other reason, and you grasped at any available straw to attempt to make your point regardless of whether or not it was valid.


Wow. No, lad!  Let me tell you again: I am not for repubs or democrats. I am against the spouse of a sitting or ex-president wielding any political power. Advice, as Monty Python would say is "RIGHT OUT!"
 
2014-02-08 03:56:48 PM  

walktoanarcade: Wow. No, lad!  Let me tell you again: I am not for repubs or democrats. I am against the spouse of a sitting or ex-president wielding any political power. Advice, as Monty Python would say is "RIGHT OUT!"


The spouse of any sitting or ex-president always has and always will wield political power. Heck, Michelle Obama does right now. Eleanor Roosevelt was enormously powerful. So was Abigail Adams, for that matter. What you disapprove of is Bill Clinton.
 
2014-02-08 03:56:48 PM  

walktoanarcade: I am against the spouse of a sitting or ex-president wielding any political power


hahahahahahaha

wut
 
2014-02-08 03:56:54 PM  

walktoanarcade: You want to enable political dynasties for when it's your "team."  I don't have a horse in this race, but I know you do.

Not you nor I would be peachy-keen with George W. Bush back in the WH in any shape or form. You cannot trust them.


The Bush family's involvement in national politics goes back to the Hoover Administration (1929-1933).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Bush#Political_prominence

 Hillary was married to Bill Clinton when he was president in the 90s.  Both things are exactly the same.
 
Displayed 50 of 417 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report