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 (41 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 03:57:13 PM  
Wow - after fifteen years, they are still getting the Clinton sand out of their vaginas.
No hate like conservative hate.
 
2014-02-08 03:58:30 PM  

geek_mars: 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.


Yes, that does bring me some comfort, but I really am OK on this side of the Internet. I get a lot of laughs from some of the posters..some of the things they say.

Your second point makes sense too, but I think Bill would somehow manage to couch his ego for the "greater good" of screwing over the middle class, as is his specialty.
 
2014-02-08 04:00:22 PM  

HighOnCraic: Hillary was married to Bill Clinton when he was president in the 90s.  Both things are exactly the same.


They both belong to the Family. That means they have a special Satanic Lizard People Connection. You heard about it first at Fark.
 
2014-02-08 04:01:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: 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.


Oh you're so close. I do disapprove of him-and anything that will put him back into the WH; and I disapprove of Laura Bush becoming president as well for the same reasons.
 
2014-02-08 04:01:24 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.


Ah, there it is.

The thread figured out early that RAND PAUL has been talking smack about Bill Clinton in order to pre-emptively hit at Hillary in advance of 2016 when he thinks he has a shot at running.

The "OMG Dems say they are so in support of women's rights but they still support Bill "Got a hummer on a slow day when the GOP had shut government down" Clinton. U hypocrites!!11!!" has some traction among derpier types.

Bu the thing that really slays me here is the notion that 2016 will come down to Rand v. Hillary and that one of his talking points will inevitably be "no moar political dynasties".

Just think about that.

RAND PAUL running on the "no moar political dynasties" ticket.

That's just nuts.

That would be like taking the guy responsible for implementing the ACA on a statewide basis and making him the "Repeal Obamacare" candidate or something.

*blink*
 
2014-02-08 04:03:52 PM  

quatchi: 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.

Ah, there it is.

The thread figured out early that RAND PAUL has been talking smack about Bill Clinton in order to pre-emptively hit at Hillary in advance of 2016 when he thinks he has a shot at running.

The "OMG Dems say they are so in support of women's rights but they still support Bill "Got a hummer on a slow day when the GOP had shut government down" Clinton. U hypocrites!!11!!" has some traction among derpier types.

Bu the thing that really slays me here is the notion that 2016 will come down to Rand v. Hillary and that one of his talking points will inevitably be "no moar political dynasties".

Just think about that.

RAND PAUL running on the "no moar political dynasties" ticket.

That's just nuts.

That would be like taking the guy responsible for implementing the ACA on a statewide basis and making him the "Repeal Obamacare" candidate or something.

*blink*


It is nuts and so is he and his father. I wish I was exaggerating, but it looks as though that's the case.
 
2014-02-08 04:06:01 PM  
Oh, and it will not be between Rand and Hillary, I am sure. Not unless the repubs want to lose. Badly.
 
2014-02-08 04:06:03 PM  

walktoanarcade: Oh you're so close. I do disapprove of him-and anything that will put him back into the WH; and I disapprove of Laura Bush becoming president as well for the same reasons.


Way to gloss over my point that first spouses have and always will wield political power. You're basically saying you're against the president being married to anyone with political connections whatsoever. You must have been against FDR being married to the politically-active and connected Eleanor Roosevelt then.
 
2014-02-08 04:06:55 PM  

walktoanarcade: Oh, and it will not be between Rand and Hillary, I am sure. Not unless the repubs want to lose. Badly.


If they put up literally anyone else, they'll still lose, just by a lesser margin.
 
2014-02-08 04:07:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Oh you're so close. I do disapprove of him-and anything that will put him back into the WH; and I disapprove of Laura Bush becoming president as well for the same reasons.

Way to gloss over my point


How does it feel? Stingy? Yeah, I hate it when people do that to me.
 
2014-02-08 04:07:42 PM  

quatchi: RAND PAUL running on the "no moar political dynasties" ticket.


It's not as crazy as his "ban fake certification boards" plan.
 
2014-02-08 04:08:59 PM  

walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Oh you're so close. I do disapprove of him-and anything that will put him back into the WH; and I disapprove of Laura Bush becoming president as well for the same reasons.

Way to gloss over my point

How does it feel? Stingy? Yeah, I hate it when people do that to me.


You still haven't explained why you're so against Bill Clinton or George Bush being first husband because they would wield political power, but are apparently OK with Eleanor Roosevelt wielding similar power.
 
2014-02-08 04:09:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Oh, and it will not be between Rand and Hillary, I am sure. Not unless the repubs want to lose. Badly.

If they put up literally anyone else, they'll still lose, just by a lesser margin.


Literally, huh?  You can't think of one single person of which the media has been giving undo time?
 
2014-02-08 04:11:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Oh you're so close. I do disapprove of him-and anything that will put him back into the WH; and I disapprove of Laura Bush becoming president as well for the same reasons.

Way to gloss over my point

How does it feel? Stingy? Yeah, I hate it when people do that to me.

You still haven't explained why you're so against Bill Clinton or George Bush being first husband because they would wield political power, but are apparently OK with Eleanor Roosevelt wielding similar power.


I didn't explain that NAFTA was negative for the American people and it was Bill Clinton's fault? I could have sworn that's what summoned you like freakin Batman to his signal, so you could white knight for him, even though he freaking hates you. Just like Bush.
 
2014-02-08 04:11:37 PM  
walktoanarcade:

You can't think of one single person

I don't see you telling us who the GOP's secret weapon is.
 
2014-02-08 04:11:58 PM  

walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Oh, and it will not be between Rand and Hillary, I am sure. Not unless the repubs want to lose. Badly.

If they put up literally anyone else, they'll still lose, just by a lesser margin.

Literally, huh?  You can't think of one single person of which the media has been giving undo time?


No, but mostly because the phrase is "undue time." The GOP has nobody that can win in 2016.
 
2014-02-08 04:12:24 PM  

whidbey: walktoanarcade:

You can't think of one single person

I don't see you telling us who the GOP's secret weapon is.


What am I, governor Tarkin now? ;)
 
2014-02-08 04:13:13 PM  

walktoanarcade: I didn't explain that NAFTA was negative for the American people and it was Bill Clinton's fault?


You did, but you didn't provide evidence as to how, you just said I wasn't old enough to understand. Great argument, by the way. Really helped prove your point that you're smarter than everyone in the room.
 
2014-02-08 04:13:51 PM  

whidbey: walktoanarcade:

You can't think of one single person

I don't see you telling us who the GOP's secret weapon is.


Maybe he thinks Rand gives them the best chance?
 
2014-02-08 04:14:54 PM  

walktoanarcade: whidbey: walktoanarcade:

You can't think of one single person

I don't see you telling us who the GOP's secret weapon is.

What am I, governor Tarkin now? ;)


Maybe that little robot Chewy yells at.

So who's going to trounce the Democrats in 2016? Serious inquiry.
 
2014-02-08 04:15:11 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Oh, and it will not be between Rand and Hillary, I am sure. Not unless the repubs want to lose. Badly.

If they put up literally anyone else, they'll still lose, just by a lesser margin.

Literally, huh?  You can't think of one single person of which the media has been giving undo time?

No, but mostly because the phrase is "undue time." The GOP has nobody that can win in 2016.


I think we should end on some agreement; you may be right about 2016, but something tells me you're mistaken. Not that I'm saying there's anyone worth voting for on that side of the aisle, if you want to be partisan.

A lot can happen in two years.
 
2014-02-08 04:16:38 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: whidbey: walktoanarcade:

You can't think of one single person

I don't see you telling us who the GOP's secret weapon is.

Maybe he thinks Rand gives them the best chance?


No. Not even for a split second.
 
2014-02-08 04:17:41 PM  

walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Oh you're so close. I do disapprove of him-and anything that will put him back into the WH; and I disapprove of Laura Bush becoming president as well for the same reasons.

Way to gloss over my point

How does it feel? Stingy? Yeah, I hate it when people do that to me.

You still haven't explained why you're so against Bill Clinton or George Bush being first husband because they would wield political power, but are apparently OK with Eleanor Roosevelt wielding similar power.

I didn't explain that NAFTA was negative for the American people and it was Bill Clinton's fault? I could have sworn that's what summoned you like freakin Batman to his signal, so you could white knight for him, even though he freaking hates you. Just like Bush.


Um. . .

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.


With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
 
2014-02-08 04:18:06 PM  

HighOnCraic: quatchi: RAND PAUL running on the "no moar political dynasties" ticket.

It's not as crazy as his "ban fake certification boards" plan.


Lawls.

You. You I like.

/RAND PAUL. Not just certifiable. He's self-certifiable!
 
2014-02-08 04:20:03 PM  

whidbey: walktoanarcade: whidbey: walktoanarcade:

You can't think of one single person

I don't see you telling us who the GOP's secret weapon is.

What am I, governor Tarkin now? ;)

Maybe that little robot Chewy yells at.

So who's going to trounce the Democrats in 2016? Serious inquiry.


Ah..it's too early, I don't want to give him any more gas than he will have all by itself.


/dropped a few hints
 
2014-02-08 04:20:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: whidbey: walktoanarcade:

You can't think of one single person

I don't see you telling us who the GOP's secret weapon is.

Maybe he thinks Rand gives them the best chance?


Rand Paul would recall our armies, legalize weed and return this country back to a stricter Constitutional interpretation.

*tries to keep a straight face*
 
2014-02-08 04:23:08 PM  

quatchi: HighOnCraic: quatchi: RAND PAUL running on the "no moar political dynasties" ticket.

It's not as crazy as his "ban fake certification boards" plan.

Lawls.

You. You I like.

/RAND PAUL. Not just certifiable. He's self-certifiable!


He goes out at night with his big boots on
None of his friends know right from wrong
They kick a boy to death 'cause he don't belong
You've got to certify yourself

A policeman put on his uniform
He'd like to have a gun just to keep him warm
Because violence here is a social norm
You've got to certify yourself

Re-certify yourself
Re-certify yourself
Re-certify yourself
Re-certify yourself

I work all day at the factory
I'm building a machine that's not for me
There must be a reason that I can't see
You've got to certify  yourself

Billy's joined the National Front
He always was (just) a little runt
He's got his hand in the air with the other coonts
You've got to certify yourself
Re-certify yourself
Re-certify yourself
Re-certify yourself
Re-certify yourself
 
2014-02-08 04:23:26 PM  

HighOnCraic: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Oh you're so close. I do disapprove of him-and anything that will put him back into the WH; and I disapprove of Laura Bush becoming president as well for the same reasons.

Way to gloss over my point

How does it feel? Stingy? Yeah, I hate it when people do that to me.

You still haven't explained why you're so against Bill Clinton or George Bush being first husband because they would wield political power, but are apparently OK with Eleanor Roosevelt wielding similar power.

I didn't explain that NAFTA was negative for the American people and it was Bill Clinton's fault? I could have sworn that's what summoned you like freakin Batman to his signal, so you could white knight for him, even though he freaking hates you. Just like Bush.

Um. . .

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.


With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.


Clinton signed NAFTA: http://historycentral.com/documents/Clinton/SigningNaFTA.html

What you are talking about it the ceremonial crap Clinton could have stopped, but instead made law.

Clinton did sign it.
 
2014-02-08 04:25:26 PM  

walktoanarcade: What you are talking about it the ceremonial crap Clinton could have stopped, but instead made law.

Clinton did sign it.


Dude, we all have our criticisms against Clinton. Heck, I voted against him his second term.

But the whole "Bill Clinton is going to "really" run the country if Hillary is elected is a pretty sad troll.

You should own up to it. Maybe someone'll buy you a basket of crawdads or something.
 
2014-02-08 04:26:11 PM  

walktoanarcade: HighOnCraic: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Oh you're so close. I do disapprove of him-and anything that will put him back into the WH; and I disapprove of Laura Bush becoming president as well for the same reasons.

Way to gloss over my point

How does it feel? Stingy? Yeah, I hate it when people do that to me.

You still haven't explained why you're so against Bill Clinton or George Bush being first husband because they would wield political power, but are apparently OK with Eleanor Roosevelt wielding similar power.

I didn't explain that NAFTA was negative for the American people and it was Bill Clinton's fault? I could have sworn that's what summoned you like freakin Batman to his signal, so you could white knight for him, even though he freaking hates you. Just like Bush.

Um. . .

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.


With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.

Clinton signed NAFTA: http://historycentral.com/documents/Clinton/SigningNaFTA.html

What you are talking about it the ceremonial crap Clinton could have stopped, but instead made law.

Clinton did sign it.


Did Clinton borrow Obama's time machine to start the negotiations?
 
2014-02-08 04:27:04 PM  

whidbey: walktoanarcade: What you are talking about it the ceremonial crap Clinton could have stopped, but instead made law.

Clinton did sign it.

Dude, we all have our criticisms against Clinton. Heck, I voted against him his second term.

But the whole "Bill Clinton is going to "really" run the country if Hillary is elected is a pretty sad troll.

You should own up to it. Maybe someone'll buy you a basket of crawdads or something.


It is not a troll, and you misunderstand me; it would mean co-presidents, or at least, someone who is not the president wielding presidential authority.
 
2014-02-08 04:27:39 PM  

whidbey: walktoanarcade: What you are talking about it the ceremonial crap Clinton could have stopped, but instead made law.

Clinton did sign it.

Dude, we all have our criticisms against Clinton. Heck, I voted against him his second term.

But the whole "Bill Clinton is going to "really" run the country if Hillary is elected is a pretty sad troll.

You should own up to it. Maybe someone'll buy you a basket of crawdads or something.


It's only fair--the old and busted complaint was that Hillary was really running the country when Bill was president. . . :-)
 
2014-02-08 04:28:33 PM  
HighOnCraic:
Did Clinton borrow Obama's time machine to start the negotiations?

Are you going to ignore the fact that I proved you wrong? Are you going to also ignore the fact that President Bill Clinton did indeed sign NAFTA into law?
 
2014-02-08 04:29:22 PM  

walktoanarcade: whidbey: walktoanarcade: What you are talking about it the ceremonial crap Clinton could have stopped, but instead made law.

Clinton did sign it.

Dude, we all have our criticisms against Clinton. Heck, I voted against him his second term.

But the whole "Bill Clinton is going to "really" run the country if Hillary is elected is a pretty sad troll.

You should own up to it. Maybe someone'll buy you a basket of crawdads or something.

It is not a troll, and you misunderstand me; it would mean co-presidents, or at least, someone who is not the president wielding presidential authority.


This goes back to my earlier question: Is Bill Clinton going to be signing bills? How about appointing justices? No? Then how will he wield presidential authority?
 
2014-02-08 04:30:19 PM  

walktoanarcade: HighOnCraic:
Did Clinton borrow Obama's time machine to start the negotiations?

Are you going to ignore the fact that I proved you wrong? Are you going to also ignore the fact that President Bill Clinton did indeed sign NAFTA into law?


You pretended it NAFTA was all on Clinton. It obviously was not. You have also not demonstrated how NAFTA moved manufacturing jobs to India and China.
 
2014-02-08 04:30:23 PM  

walktoanarcade: It is not a troll


lol no

of course it isn't
 
2014-02-08 04:32:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: whidbey: walktoanarcade: What you are talking about it the ceremonial crap Clinton could have stopped, but instead made law.

Clinton did sign it.

Dude, we all have our criticisms against Clinton. Heck, I voted against him his second term.

But the whole "Bill Clinton is going to "really" run the country if Hillary is elected is a pretty sad troll.

You should own up to it. Maybe someone'll buy you a basket of crawdads or something.

It is not a troll, and you misunderstand me; it would mean co-presidents, or at least, someone who is not the president wielding presidential authority.

This goes back to my earlier question: Is Bill Clinton going to be signing bills? How about appointing justices? No? Then how will he wield presidential authority?


Bully pulpit, and it's crazy that he could be allowed to shape policy at all though advice whether it's solicited or not.
 
2014-02-08 04:33:31 PM  

walktoanarcade: Bully pulpit, and it's crazy that he could be allowed to shape policy at all though advice whether it's solicited or not.


That's not wielding presidential power at all. Hell, he's doing that NOW. Did you see some of his speeches during the 2012 campaign? How would that be different? Of course it wouldn't.
 
2014-02-08 04:34:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: HighOnCraic:
Did Clinton borrow Obama's time machine to start the negotiations?

Are you going to ignore the fact that I proved you wrong? Are you going to also ignore the fact that President Bill Clinton did indeed sign NAFTA into law?

You pretended it NAFTA was all on Clinton. It obviously was not. You have also not demonstrated how NAFTA moved manufacturing jobs to India and China.


I never said it was all on him; I said Clinton signed it. They're all guilty as I have been saying all along, but you keep on ignoring, all along. ;)

I'm going to g'bye to you for now.
 
2014-02-08 04:34:15 PM  
also:

walktoanarcade: it would mean co-presidents,


d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net
 
2014-02-08 04:35:06 PM  

walktoanarcade: HighOnCraic:
Did Clinton borrow Obama's time machine to start the negotiations?

Are you going to ignore the fact that I proved you wrong? Are you going to also ignore the fact that President Bill Clinton did indeed sign NAFTA into law?


I agree that he signed it; I disagree with your assertion that its development was all his fault.
 
2014-02-08 04:35:56 PM  

walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: HighOnCraic:
Did Clinton borrow Obama's time machine to start the negotiations?

Are you going to ignore the fact that I proved you wrong? Are you going to also ignore the fact that President Bill Clinton did indeed sign NAFTA into law?

You pretended it NAFTA was all on Clinton. It obviously was not. You have also not demonstrated how NAFTA moved manufacturing jobs to India and China.

I never said it was all on him; I said Clinton signed it. They're all guilty as I have been saying all along, but you keep on ignoring, all along. ;)

I'm going to g'bye to you for now.


Evacuate?  In your moment of triumph?
 
2014-02-08 04:37:26 PM  

HighOnCraic: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: HighOnCraic:
Did Clinton borrow Obama's time machine to start the negotiations?

Are you going to ignore the fact that I proved you wrong? Are you going to also ignore the fact that President Bill Clinton did indeed sign NAFTA into law?

You pretended it NAFTA was all on Clinton. It obviously was not. You have also not demonstrated how NAFTA moved manufacturing jobs to India and China.

I never said it was all on him; I said Clinton signed it. They're all guilty as I have been saying all along, but you keep on ignoring, all along. ;)

I'm going to g'bye to you for now.

Evacuate?  In your moment of triumph?


No, no...;) I want a break from his brand of stupidity.

You may disagree, but you're not as thick.  (and no I did not "block him")
 
2014-02-08 04:39:06 PM  

walktoanarcade: No, no...;) I want a break from his brand of stupidity.


Because paranoid fantasies about Bill Clinton "co-presiding" over the country illegally is the hallmark of intellectualism.
 
2014-02-08 04:39:20 PM  

walktoanarcade: HighOnCraic: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: HighOnCraic:
Did Clinton borrow Obama's time machine to start the negotiations?

Are you going to ignore the fact that I proved you wrong? Are you going to also ignore the fact that President Bill Clinton did indeed sign NAFTA into law?

You pretended it NAFTA was all on Clinton. It obviously was not. You have also not demonstrated how NAFTA moved manufacturing jobs to India and China.

I never said it was all on him; I said Clinton signed it. They're all guilty as I have been saying all along, but you keep on ignoring, all along. ;)

I'm going to g'bye to you for now.

Evacuate?  In your moment of triumph?

No, no...;) I want a break from his brand of stupidity.

You may disagree, but you're not as thick.  (and no I did not "block him")


Sorry, that was a joke about:   What am I, governor Tarkin now?
 
2014-02-08 04:40:27 PM  

HighOnCraic: walktoanarcade: HighOnCraic: walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: HighOnCraic:
Did Clinton borrow Obama's time machine to start the negotiations?

Are you going to ignore the fact that I proved you wrong? Are you going to also ignore the fact that President Bill Clinton did indeed sign NAFTA into law?

You pretended it NAFTA was all on Clinton. It obviously was not. You have also not demonstrated how NAFTA moved manufacturing jobs to India and China.

I never said it was all on him; I said Clinton signed it. They're all guilty as I have been saying all along, but you keep on ignoring, all along. ;)

I'm going to g'bye to you for now.

Evacuate?  In your moment of triumph?

No, no...;) I want a break from his brand of stupidity.

You may disagree, but you're not as thick.  (and no I did not "block him")

Sorry, that was a joke about:   What am I, governor Tarkin now?


I know, I know! :)  I thought your response was funny.
 
2014-02-08 04:41:52 PM  

walktoanarcade: OK, sorry to be an bastard to you, but c'mon...I was there.


i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2014-02-08 04:42:11 PM  

walktoanarcade: whidbey: walktoanarcade: What you are talking about it the ceremonial crap Clinton could have stopped, but instead made law.

Clinton did sign it.

Dude, we all have our criticisms against Clinton. Heck, I voted against him his second term.

But the whole "Bill Clinton is going to "really" run the country if Hillary is elected is a pretty sad troll.

You should own up to it. Maybe someone'll buy you a basket of crawdads or something.

It is not a troll, and you misunderstand me; it would mean co-presidents, or at least, someone who is not the president wielding presidential authority.


Was this a Problem when Cheney was doing it?

If this REALLY is your fear, what's to stop former Presidents from putting up dummy candidates and then running the country from the sidelines, even without marriage of any kind?  NOTHING.  There is nothing stopping a former President from running the country through a puppet President.  Bill Clinton could be running the country through Obama right now.  Maybe you should be concerned about that instead.  There's as much evidence for that as there is Bill running the country through Hillary.

But do you know why this scenario of yours won't work?  It's because as screwed up as the system is, people would still recognize a blatant scam like a spouse of a President running JUST to get that former President back in office.  Everyone would see through a non-politician like Laura Bush trying to gain a nomination.  There is an ENORMOUS difference between a shill candidate like that and a LEGITIMATE politician, lawyer and diplomat like Hillary Clinton taking the next logical step in her career toward the Presidency.

Your fake concern is about as ignorant as it gets, and is an insult to working couples everywhere.
 
2014-02-08 04:44:21 PM  

HighOnCraic: Evacuate?  In your moment of triumph?


img209.imageshack.us

We will deal with your rebel friends soon enough!
 
2014-02-08 04:44:57 PM  

HighOnCraic: walktoanarcade: OK, sorry to be an bastard to you, but c'mon...I was there.


That's me because I accidentally corrected "an asshole" to "an bastard" owing to a typo?

I see. The classic, if you make one error, you've erred in everything.
 
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 »






Report