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  
•       •       •

2855 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Feb 2014 at 9:11 AM (24 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
 
2014-02-09 07:07:57 PM

liam76: lordjupiter: Can you at least TRY? This is boring. You're boring. Stop boring people

If you think discussions about the ethics of Bill Clinton's actions are boring, why the fark are you posting in a thread about comments said about Bill Clinton?


cameroncrazy1984: If you can't find those specific rules, how can you say that Clinton tightened them? You don't even seem to know what they are

I have mentioned this multiple times.

No I can't find those specific rules, just as I can't find specific rules about shiatting on your desk or jerking off at your desk.

If you re dumb enough to think those things are A-ok without specific rules, you are just pain stupid


I cna say clinton tightened them because under his administration the EEOC doubled the number of resolutions, and more than doubled the amount of monetary benefits for sexual harrassment claims.


geek_mars: You said Clinton tightened/increased rules and regulations regarding sexual harassment while getting a blowjob from an intern in the Oval Office, and that doing so made him a hypocrite. Your post mentions the EEOC but it seems that you're being asked for a citation that reflects Clinton's involvement in the alleged tightening/restricting.

When a federal agency doubles the number actions they take for specific behavior that is clear evidence for me that the president in question incresed enforcement on that behavior. When the enforcement on those rules doubles it is clear the president is pushing for those rules to be enforced (unless you think sexual harassment doubles for some other reason).

geek_mars: I doubt you're being asked to provide a link to a rule that specifically says not to have sexy time fun at work

See the above.

cameroncrazy1984, and a number of other tards have asked for specific rules that prohibit getting BJ's from interns at the office.


Just because it's clear evidence to you doesn't mean it's clear evidence for everyone, which is why you've been hounded to provide a citation. A directive for increased enforcement could come from any number of sources (Congress, DOJ, White House, Cabinet responsible for that agency, etc.).
Being convinced doesn't mean you're correct.
 
2014-02-09 08:26:46 PM

geek_mars: Just because it's clear evidence to you doesn't mean it's clear evidence for everyone, which is why you've been hounded to provide a citation. A directive for increased enforcement could come from any number of sources (Congress, DOJ, White House, Cabinet responsible for that agency, etc.).


Everyone of those except for congress still fall under the Pres.

For congress to direct such action they need legislation, which would be traceable.

When a executive body doubles the enforcement of a particular policy under a president it seems silly to me to argue that the president wasn't behind "a lot of progress on" the policy (which was my initial claim).


None of the people who have hounded me have challenged his role with EEOC enforcement, except you. Most have pretended I didn't link it, or pretended since there was no direct text banning BJ's from interns at the office it is a moot point. Which makes this refreshing, I don't agree with you, but at least you aren't making moronic arguments.
 
2014-02-09 08:39:21 PM

liam76: whidbey: Dude you and Ken Starr should have coffee sometime. He'd be so pleased to hear that his turd in the punchbowl still gets so much traction these days


Yeah, a lot of traction.

All that being said he was a pretty good pres.


I love how he was a "pretty good pres" but no criticism whatsoever of the petty political vendetta that hounded him the past few years in office, the waste of resources, the utter irresponsibility of the Republican Party to continue pursuing Clinton after Whitewater proved to be a total failure. No mention of this. It's interesting to note that the same waste of resources in the present-day Republican Party "leadership" has little or no criticism from anyone right of Sam O' Donnell.
 
2014-02-09 10:19:32 PM

HighOnCraic: walktoanarcade: 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.

Oh, come on.  I'm mostly here to make jokes.


Oh! Jokes...oh. hahahaahahaha


Ahem: the leopard sees his spots, I say again, the leopard sees his spots and does not feel frisky. NOT FRISKY.

:)
 
2014-02-09 10:21:08 PM

Without Fail: DrPainMD: Descartes: Did he cheat on his wife?  Sure.  But he did a decent job as President.

Yeah. That housing bubble was AWESOME!!! And don't forget about squashing all attempts to regulate the derivatives market.

So, he failed to control capitalism enough?

Still far better than any other options available at that time.

Just as Obama is now.


The housing bubble and the derivatives market are not examples of capitalism; they were mandated by the federal government.
 
2014-02-09 10:21:11 PM
Why is this thread still going?   Did Rand Paul magically get a new non-retarded name or something?
 
2014-02-09 10:21:19 PM

walktoanarcade: Oh! Jokes...oh. hahahaahahaha


Hey, did you hear the one how Bill Clinton is REALLY going to run the country if we elect Hillary? I think it was on the Daily Show. With Gurn Blanston.
 
2014-02-09 10:22:57 PM

whidbey: walktoanarcade: Oh! Jokes...oh. hahahaahahaha

Hey, did you hear the one how Bill Clinton is REALLY going to run the country if we elect Hillary? I think it was on the Daily Show. With Gurn Blanston.


WOweee lemme CC every person on the planet? ;)
 
2014-02-09 10:31:51 PM
Sounds like a plan FW:FW:FW:alktoanarcade.
 
2014-02-09 10:36:11 PM

whidbey: Sounds like a plan FW:FW:FW:alktoanarcade.


*laughingfacepalm* Nice.
 
2014-02-09 10:39:48 PM

walktoanarcade: HighOnCraic: walktoanarcade: 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.

Oh, come on.  I'm mostly here to make jokes.

Oh! Jokes...oh. hahahaahahaha


Ahem: the leopard sees his spots, I say again, the leopard sees his spots and does not feel frisky. NOT FRISKY.

:)


Did you bring enough 'shrooms to share with the whole class?
 
2014-02-09 11:01:39 PM

whidbey: I love how he was a "pretty good pres" but no criticism whatsoever of the petty political vendetta that hounded him the past few years in office, the waste of resources, the utter irresponsibility of the Republican Party to continue pursuing Clinton after Whitewater proved to be a total failure. No mention of this. It's interesting to note that the same waste of resources in the present-day Republican Party "leadership" has little or no criticism from anyone right of Sam O' Donnell.


Because in their mind it wasn't a waste because it might have worked.

They'd rather spend tens of millions harrassing a person or group that they don't like or isn't part of "them" than spend the money in an useful manner or cut taxes by that amount.
 
2014-02-09 11:03:51 PM

liam76: geek_mars: Just because it's clear evidence to you doesn't mean it's clear evidence for everyone, which is why you've been hounded to provide a citation. A directive for increased enforcement could come from any number of sources (Congress, DOJ, White House, Cabinet responsible for that agency, etc.).

Everyone of those except for congress still fall under the Pres.

For congress to direct such action they need legislation, which would be traceable.

When a executive body doubles the enforcement of a particular policy under a president it seems silly to me to argue that the president wasn't behind "a lot of progress on" the policy (which was my initial claim).


None of the people who have hounded me have challenged his role with EEOC enforcement, except you. Most have pretended I didn't link it, or pretended since there was no direct text banning BJ's from interns at the office it is a moot point. Which makes this refreshing, I don't agree with you, but at least you aren't making moronic arguments.


I guess we just see things differently. Things done during an administration, while attributable to the sitting president, aren't necessarily attributable to said president. Any number of people at the director or assistant director level in the Dept. of Health and Human services, a Cabinet-level administration, could direct an increase in regulation/restriction and as long as they don't call for something outside their enforcement limits, they wouldn't need any particular approval. That's just one scenario where it wouldn't be the president himself calling for the increase.
Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying, and why. I just consider Clinton's guilt in the matter less specific than him giving specific orders about sexual conduct in the workplace while getting blown in the Oval Office.
 
2014-02-09 11:05:25 PM

geek_mars: liam76: geek_mars: Just because it's clear evidence to you doesn't mean it's clear evidence for everyone, which is why you've been hounded to provide a citation. A directive for increased enforcement could come from any number of sources (Congress, DOJ, White House, Cabinet responsible for that agency, etc.).

Everyone of those except for congress still fall under the Pres.

For congress to direct such action they need legislation, which would be traceable.

When a executive body doubles the enforcement of a particular policy under a president it seems silly to me to argue that the president wasn't behind "a lot of progress on" the policy (which was my initial claim).


None of the people who have hounded me have challenged his role with EEOC enforcement, except you. Most have pretended I didn't link it, or pretended since there was no direct text banning BJ's from interns at the office it is a moot point. Which makes this refreshing, I don't agree with you, but at least you aren't making moronic arguments.

I guess we just see things differently. Things done during an administration, while attributable to the sitting president, aren't necessarily attributable to said president. Any number of people at the director or assistant director level in the Dept. of Health and Human services, a Cabinet-level administration, could direct an increase in regulation/restriction and as long as they don't call for something outside their enforcement limits, they wouldn't need any particular approval. That's just one scenario where it wouldn't be the president himself calling for the increase.
Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying, and why. I just consider Clinton's guilt in the matter less specific than him giving specific orders about sexual conduct in the workplace while getting blown in the Oval Office.


*while attributable aren't necessarily performed by

FTFM
/fark I'm tired
 
2014-02-09 11:18:53 PM

log_jammin: it is 100% fact that he lied about a question that he never should have been asked in the first place, during a political witch hunt orchestrated by the GOP to find something, anything, they could pin on Clinton. all because they couldn't stand the fact that they lost an election to him, twice.


THIS. If some moran asked me if I had some woman who wasn't my wife suck my dick you're goddamn right I'm gonna say no. Not just no but hell no, and mind your own farking business on my way out of the room. That was his biggest mistake, not telling these republicans to eat an entire bucket of dicks straight up.

That's okay, the number of republicans who've been caught doing even worse sh*t every day just makes me smile. Karma is a cold, cold b*tch.
 
2014-02-09 11:51:18 PM

DrPainMD: The housing bubble and the derivatives market are not examples of capitalism; they were mandated by the federal government.


i131.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-09 11:52:18 PM

o5iiawah: saying 'No' doesn't make your argument.


hence, my second sentence.
 
Displayed 17 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