Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Obvious, Rand Paul, Bill Clinton, Kentucky Senators, C-SPAN  
•       •       •

2867 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Feb 2014 at 9:11 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-02-08 04:27:04 AM  
Rand Paul keeps attacking Bill Clinton because Bill Clinton is a lying pile of poo.  Where do you want to start?  Vince Fosters suicide with the gun found in his right hand and he's left handed?  All the shady land deals made in Arkansas?  Benghazi?  The number of women Bill Clinton has had sex with that he was dishonest with- and this guy had the authority to start WW III?

Or how about the double standards where that REPUBLICAN senator in Oregon was forced to resign, but when Bill Clinton sexually harassed a young girl all you heard was the sound of,,,,,,silence,,,,,,,from the National Organization of Women?  Where was the outrage?  ***sounds of crickets, tumbleweeds and wind***

Chelsea Clinton's father is actually Janet Reno- you can tell just by looking at her, and I'd be a 6 pack of beer (I'll pay you back, Drew) that DNA would show the truth.

Rand Paul is a hero for doing what he can to keep that quasi-repetillian female from ruining the country.
 
2014-02-08 05:01:47 AM  
Which one is the asshole?
 
2014-02-08 05:04:39 AM  

Trailltrader: Rand Paul keeps attacking Bill Clinton because Bill Clinton is a lying pile of poo.  Where do you want to start?  Vince Fosters suicide with the gun found in his right hand and he's left handed?  All the shady land deals made in Arkansas?  Benghazi?  The number of women Bill Clinton has had sex with that he was dishonest with- and this guy had the authority to start WW III?

Or how about the double standards where that REPUBLICAN senator in Oregon was forced to resign, but when Bill Clinton sexually harassed a young girl all you heard was the sound of,,,,,,silence,,,,,,,from the National Organization of Women?  Where was the outrage?  ***sounds of crickets, tumbleweeds and wind***

Chelsea Clinton's father is actually Janet Reno- you can tell just by looking at her, and I'd be a 6 pack of beer (I'll pay you back, Drew) that DNA would show the truth.

Rand Paul is a hero for doing what he can to keep that quasi-repetillian female from ruining the country.


9/10

I like it!
 
2014-02-08 05:39:18 AM  
Did he cheat on his wife?  Sure.  But he did a decent job as President.  I think calling him an asshole is just silly.
 
2014-02-08 05:48:52 AM  
Let's not pretend his troubles weren't about "getting a hummer in the oval Office", but rather, committing perjury to a Grand Jury when testifying about it. A fact conveniently left out in discussions around here.

So, yes, Clinton IS an ass hole.
 
2014-02-08 05:54:28 AM  

Spad31: Let's not pretend his troubles weren't about "getting a hummer in the oval Office", but rather, committing perjury to a Grand Jury when testifying about it. A fact conveniently left out in discussions around here.

So, yes, Clinton IS an ass hole.


oh I never leave it out.

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.
 
2014-02-08 06:10:05 AM  
Because he's terrified of Hillary Clinton running for president. Next question.
 
2014-02-08 06:11:01 AM  
Meh. He farked up by lying to our faces about it on television and in court. Great traits in a guy with his responsibility. No credibility whatsoever. If he'd simply said from the start "My marriage and private life are between my wife and I, mind your own business, I'm not discussing it any further." he'd have gained a little respect from me (not that he'd give a shiat what I thought, of course). Instead, he chose to assume we're all morons at the altar of worship and continuously insulted our intelligence. You wouldn't tolerate that shiat from your family or friends, why from the guy with the nukes? Becasue you're in the same political party? farking lame. Clinton and his wife are opportunistic ass holes.
 
2014-02-08 06:23:30 AM  

Spad31: Meh. *talking points*


again...

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.
 
2014-02-08 06:35:30 AM  

Descartes: Did he cheat on his wife?  Sure.  But he did a decent job as President.  I think calling him an asshole is just silly.




/Tiny fist followed by golf clap.
 
2014-02-08 06:39:41 AM  
Hey trolls, aren't you going to be kinda sleepy-headed at tomorrow's talking points meeting?
 
2014-02-08 06:50:52 AM  

Trailltrader: Vince Foster

*spit take*

Oh this thread is going to be GOOD.
 
2014-02-08 07:08:49 AM  
Probably cause no semi cute semi crazy chubby interns have stalked him.
 
2014-02-08 07:21:47 AM  
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.
 
2014-02-08 07:22:36 AM  

Trailltrader: Rand Paul keeps attacking Bill Clinton because Bill Clinton is a lying pile of poo.  Where do you want to start?  Vince Fosters suicide with the gun found in his right hand and he's left handed?  All the shady land deals made in Arkansas?  Benghazi?  The number of women Bill Clinton has had sex with that he was dishonest with- and this guy had the authority to start WW III?

Or how about the double standards where that REPUBLICAN senator in Oregon was forced to resign, but when Bill Clinton sexually harassed a young girl all you heard was the sound of,,,,,,silence,,,,,,,from the National Organization of Women?  Where was the outrage?  ***sounds of crickets, tumbleweeds and wind***

Chelsea Clinton's father is actually Janet Reno- you can tell just by looking at her, and I'd be a 6 pack of beer (I'll pay you back, Drew) that DNA would show the truth.

Rand Paul is a hero for doing what he can to keep that quasi-repetillian female from ruining the country.


Benghazi?

The Clinton in question was uninvolved. Study it out.
 
2014-02-08 07:23:50 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-08 07:28:08 AM  

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.


so you think WHERE he got the BJ was the reason for the "investigation"???

wow.

How old are you?
 
2014-02-08 07:38:30 AM  

log_jammin: 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.

so you think WHERE he got the BJ was the reason for the "investigation"???

wow.

How old are you?


Oh, I have no doubt about the reasons behind political bullshiat that goes on.

I'm old enough to remember Carter, so...whatever you need to sleep tight.

And, yes, I DO think WHERE he got his BJ is relevant.

And, yes, I'm sure the number of BJs in the Oval Office is beyond counting. What does that have to do with lying publicly? Hell, if I got a blow job froma 20 year old a splooged her dress, I sure wouldn't try to destroy her for the fun, I'd celebrate it and besides, ain't like Hillary is up for any fun.

This is rapidly getting stupid.

Internet arguments, special Olympics, etc.
 
2014-02-08 07:48:53 AM  

Spad31: This is rapidly getting stupid.


it was stupid at  2014-02-08 05:48:52 AM
 
2014-02-08 07:52:15 AM  

bigpeeler: Which one is the asshole?


thatsthejoke.jpg
 
2014-02-08 07:58:52 AM  

log_jammin: Spad31: This is rapidly getting stupid.

it was stupid at  2014-02-08 05:48:52 AM


It was stupid when you defended adultery and dishonesty because of political orientation.
 
2014-02-08 09:01:44 AM  

Spad31: log_jammin: Spad31: This is rapidly getting stupid.

it was stupid at  2014-02-08 05:48:52 AM

It was stupid when you defended adultery and dishonesty because of political orientation.


Like Newt?
 
2014-02-08 09:19:12 AM  
This should go on the main page because Bill Clinton RAND PAUL a politician being an asshole is definitely not news.
 
2014-02-08 09:19:23 AM  

Descartes: Did he cheat on his wife?  Sure.  But he did a decent job as President.  I think calling him an asshole is just silly.


Damn straight. And remember, all you fainting couch grabbers. Yes, he was getting a blow job in the Oval Office. That means he was still working. That's called multi-tasking. He figured out a way to get in his infidelities AND keep his mind in the game. He didn't read three pages of a bill and then feel like he needed to jet off for a week at the ranch to decompress.

Ron W. Paul can shove it up his entitled daddy's boy ass.
 
2014-02-08 09:20:42 AM  

fusillade762: Because he's terrified of Hillary Clinton running for president. Next question.


Yep.
 
2014-02-08 09:22:25 AM  

Spad31: It was stupid when you defended adultery and dishonesty because of political orientation.


i did no such thing.
 
2014-02-08 09:23:48 AM  
Whoa...  Vince Foster'd in the boobies?!?

This thread is goin' places.
 
2014-02-08 09:25:26 AM  
because lieing about a bJ

is exactly the same as lieing to start a war

/at least 24% of the population thinks so anyway
 
2014-02-08 09:29:07 AM  
FTFA: Bill Clinton's popularity may be at record levels but he remains someone that Republicans don't love.  In a Gallup survey conducted in July 2012 that showed Clinton's favorable rating at 66 percent among the general public, a majority of Republicans  (50 percent) had an unfavorable opinion of him.

A 50 percent majority? Is this more of that math that they do as Republicans to make themselves feel better?
 
2014-02-08 09:32:24 AM  
I'm waiting for the GOP to return to relevancy. The GOP is focused on the 90s.

Sigh.
 
2014-02-08 09:33:37 AM  

Spad31: Meh. He farked up by lying to our faces about it on television and in court. Great traits in a guy with his responsibility. No credibility whatsoever. If he'd simply said from the start "My marriage and private life are between my wife and I, mind your own business, I'm not discussing it any further." he'd have gained a little respect from me (not that he'd give a shiat what I thought, of course). Instead, he chose to assume we're all morons at the altar of worship and continuously insulted our intelligence. You wouldn't tolerate that shiat from your family or friends, why from the guy with the nukes? Becasue you're in the same political party? farking lame. Clinton and his wife are opportunistic ass holes.


And yet, both are miles ahead of the best the GOP has to offer.
 
2014-02-08 09:36:13 AM  

fusillade762: Because he's terrified of Hillary Clinton running for president. Next question.


This.  They know Bill is a huge political force and want to pre-emptively try and whittle him down so Hillary and Bill in the WH again seems less attractive.  They know the formula:

Bill Clinton talking >>>>>>>>>> Bengharble
 
2014-02-08 09:37:13 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Whoa...  Vince Foster'd in the boobies?!?

This thread is goin' places.


Freeper Friday turned into Shiat Saturday.
 
2014-02-08 09:37:23 AM  
Spad31: ...
Internet arguments, special Olympics, etc.

You;re quite the special one this morning, aren't you?
 
2014-02-08 09:40:37 AM  

Spad31: And, yes, I DO think WHERE he got his BJ is relevant.


I'm sure it was, to him.

The most fun sex is in 'inappropriate', even dangerous, places.
Road head; Mile-High-Club; 'In-the-butt, Bob'.
Every monarch has probably ordered the throne room cleared and guarded so he or she can get some. I can picture even young Queen Elizabeth, with her legs hooked over the arms of the throne, while Prince Philip gnawed his way through the royal shrubbery.

It's not like Clinton got a lumpkin in the Oval Office...that would be trashy.
 
2014-02-08 09:41:09 AM  

Spad31: Meh. He farked up by lying to our faces about it on television and in court. Great traits in a guy with his responsibility. No credibility whatsoever. If he'd simply said from the start y

"M marriage and private life are between my wife and I, mind your own business, I'm not discussing it any further." he'd have gained a little respect from me (not that he'd give a shiat what I thought, of course). Instead, he chose to assume we're all morons at the altar of worship and continuously insulted our intelligence. You wouldn't tolerate that shiat from your family or friends, why from the guy with the nukes? Becasue you're in the same political party? farking lame. Clinton and his wife are opportunistic ass holes.

Yes, I am sure that would have satisfied the GOP

That you think he continuously insulted your intelligence is the very reason your "none of your business" suggestion above wouldn't have worked. It is the same as an admission and would have been seen as equally as deceptive.
 
2014-02-08 09:42:27 AM  
Well, it isn't the first time Clinton has had trouble with a cum stain
 
2014-02-08 09:43:02 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-08 09:45:25 AM  
He keeps attacking Clinton because he and his have an obligation to do everything in their power to distract folks from realizing that Congress has done so damn little, save engage in petty obstructionism that has resulted in folks fiddling, while jobs and the economy burns. It is an exercise of running down the clock, to keep the Administration from doing anything else, and to keep advancing a narrative, rather than doing anything themselves, and to turn the attention away from their very inaction. All means to attract and distract. All means to attract and distract.
 
2014-02-08 09:46:37 AM  

fusillade762: Because he's terrified of Hillary Clinton running for president. Next question.


Well, this plus he wants to run for president.So it's like laying groundwork for the eventual campaign.

Of course, Hillary's presidential run is in doubt and Rand Paul has no chance at being president so you can really boil it down to "because he's a dumbshiat."
 
2014-02-08 09:46:57 AM  
The Democrats can't say, 'We're the great defenders of women's rights in the workplace and we will defend you against some kind of abusive boss that uses their position of authority to take advantage of a young women' when the leader of their party, the leading fundraiser in the country, is Bill Clinton, who was a perpetrator of that kind of sexual harassment. Anybody who wants to take money from Bill Clinton or have a fundraiser has a lot of explaining to do.

-- Shia Labeouf

-- Rand Paul
 
2014-02-08 09:46:57 AM  
Rand Paul keeps attacking Bill Clinton because he's jealous of him.  The wank couldn't get a hummer at work if he tried.
 
2014-02-08 09:46:59 AM  
I can't fathom waking up in the pre-dawn hours of a Saturday in 2014 to rant about Bill Clinton.
 
2014-02-08 09:47:32 AM  

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.


Actually, the seat of power would be the situation room - but I digress
No, nobody gave a shiat about a 50 y/o blah, blah - except when they did - for days on end, on TV 24/7 to the point other nations wondered what exactly was our puritan problem.

And, of course, you care so little you are spending saturday morning decades later bitterly judgmental over it
 
2014-02-08 09:50:18 AM  
I really hope other members of the GOP join Paul and keep beating this dead horse about the Clinton sex scandal. The political witch hunt was intensely unpopular at the time and has only become more so  as Clinton has become increasingly popular. Especially since Americans remember the "Clinton Era" as the last time the country was truly prosperous.
 
2014-02-08 09:51:48 AM  
until the GOP throws out David Vitter, Mark Sanford, and Newt Gingrich for their marital infidelities, 

Spad31: log_jammin: Spad31: This is rapidly getting stupid.

it was stupid at  2014-02-08 05:48:52 AM

It was stupid when you defended adultery and dishonesty because of political orientation.


a republican attempting to get moral high ground on adultery?

David Vitter, Mark Sanford, Ken Calvert and Newt Gingrich are still allowed to represent the GOP brand.
 
2014-02-08 09:55:35 AM  

Trailltrader: Vince Fosters ...Arkansas...Benghazi...quasi-repetillian female

i.imgur.com

 
2014-02-08 09:56:54 AM  
The Democrat War on Women continues unabated.
 
2014-02-08 09:58:17 AM  

ELKAY: I really hope other members of the GOP join Paul and keep beating this dead horse about the Clinton sex scandal. The political witch hunt was intensely unpopular at the time and has only become more so  as Clinton has become increasingly popular. Especially since Americans remember the "Clinton Era" as the last time the country was truly prosperous.


Me too - because what the country needs is a reminder of that time - when the GOP were slavering to impeach the president and shut down the government over a budget showdown

Makes it rather hard to dun the Democratic party for not enough "hope and change" when their own back-biting obstructionist witch-hunts are a consistent pattern.
 
2014-02-08 09:58:49 AM  

dumbobruni: Newt Gingrich


Ran for the Republican nominee last election cycle, coming very close to winning, and not a peep regarding his infidelities was heard. Amazing how that happens, huh?
 
2014-02-08 09:59:46 AM  
Anyone notice that republicans Libertarians go off on a rant so easily?  This is why I am no longer a Libertarian, the bat shiat crazies have taken over it too.
 
2014-02-08 10:02:15 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Whoa... Vince Foster'd in the boobies?!?


Sounds kinky.
 
2014-02-08 10:05:27 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: Anyone notice that republicans Libertarians go off on a rant so easily?  This is why I am no longer a Libertarian, the bat shiat crazies have taken over it too.


I used to get their newsletters in the 90s.  The craziness is not really new.
 
2014-02-08 10:05:30 AM  
He's attacking the Democratic Party for talking up the, "We're for women" line while continually protecting and defending that POS who's the exact opposite of what they supposedly stand for.
 
2014-02-08 10:05:33 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: Anyone notice that republicans Libertarians go off on a rant so easily?  This is why I am no longer a Libertarian, the bat shiat crazies have taken over it too.


I've found that Libertarians get terribly upset when you point out that they not enough of a man to own up to being Republicans.
 
2014-02-08 10:11:07 AM  
The irony here is that according to libertarian values Bill Clinton did nothing wrong in his sexual indiscretions. This was a free exchange of services between people, the women he was with got a story they could sell, while Bill received sexual pleasure. All parties willfully agreed to this fair exchange, and leverage did not exist until government regulations got in the way and attempted to impeach him for simply utilizing the free hands of the market.
 
2014-02-08 10:11:09 AM  

jjorsett: He's attacking the Democratic Party for talking up the, "We're for women" line while continually protecting and defending that POS who's the exact opposite of what they supposedly stand for.


Must have missed the part about where an extramarital affair was worse than treating women like possessions, telling them what they can or can't do with their own bodies, are sluts for wanting birth control, ect, ect.

Ones failure as a husband, ones failure as a man.
 
2014-02-08 10:12:04 AM  

jjorsett: He's attacking the Democratic Party for talking up the, "We're for women" line while continually protecting and defending that POS who's the exact opposite of what they supposedly stand for.


which POS would that be?
 
2014-02-08 10:14:22 AM  

pjbreeze: Rand Paul keeps attacking Bill Clinton because he's jealous of him.  The wank couldn't get a hummer at work if he tried.


Let's not be hyperbolic.  I'm sure Rand Paul is wealthy enough to afford a rent boy from any number of fine establishments.  And you know that (unlike some other Republicans I could mention) he'd buy American and help our economy.
 
2014-02-08 10:14:30 AM  

parasol: jjorsett: He's attacking the Democratic Party for talking up the, "We're for women" line while continually protecting and defending that POS who's the exact opposite of what they supposedly stand for.

which POS would that be?



Forget it. He's just upset that the whole impeachment fiasco backfired on the Pubs, driving three of the hardest-charging witch hunters out of the political game entirely.
 
2014-02-08 10:16:12 AM  
This man is screaming so hard he has something in his closet that he is afraid will get out.  I have seen it a lot.  Nobody is without some skeleton they want to keep buried, nobody.  He may have several.
 
2014-02-08 10:16:54 AM  

fusillade762: Because he's terrified of Hillary Clinton running for president. Next question.


And we're done here...
 
2014-02-08 10:17:49 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: This man is screaming so hard he has something in his closet that he is afraid will get out.  I have seen it a lot.  Nobody is without some skeleton they want to keep buried, nobody.  He may have several.


That's what happened to Hyde, Barr, and Gingrich.

Same reason eyebrows are raised when Santorum continuously rants about gays.
 
2014-02-08 10:22:45 AM  

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.


Plus, it was some degree of payback for the investigation/hearings into St. Ronnie's Iran-Contra Treason.
 
2014-02-08 10:26:11 AM  
I remember the Clinton administration very well.  Unemployment in my area was somewhere around 2%, taxes weren't as low as they are now, but they were reasonable, there was no deficit, the military was at home (except for some flare-ups in Eastern Europe), my college tuition for an entire year was the same as for only 3 credits today, and towards the end cell phones and internet were both becoming widely available and affordable.  The Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary were fiscally conservative/socially liberal, and most of the fringe on the left and the right were locked up tight in the basement where they belong.  I remember a Young Republicans meeting where we gleefully popped in a VHS tape and giggled and guffawed as Clinton squirmed his way through the definition of "is".  And most of all, I remember thinking, if the worst thing going on right now is that the President was getting blown by an intern who obviously enjoyed blowing him, then the country was doing a-okay. And I really wish we could have it all back, again, even if it meant that the President had an entire staff of young, hot interns whose entire job description was "Blow the President."  If we could get the economy back to where it was, I wouldn't even care if most of those interns were dudes.
 
2014-02-08 10:28:03 AM  
Clinton was an asshole who cheated on his wife and lied to the courts and the country about it. He's also the greatest president in my lifetime, and if I could constitutionally vote for him for a third term, I would. These are not mutually exclusive.
 
2014-02-08 10:28:55 AM  

RyogaM: dumbobruni: Newt Gingrich

Ran for the Republican nominee last election cycle, coming very close to winning, and not a peep regarding his infidelities was heard. Amazing how that happens, huh?


Hey, Newt just loves marriage so much that he just couldn't settle for one or two.
 
2014-02-08 10:32:10 AM  

NeverDrunk23: RyogaM: dumbobruni: Newt Gingrich

Ran for the Republican nominee last election cycle, coming very close to winning, and not a peep regarding his infidelities was heard. Amazing how that happens, huh?

Hey, Newt just loves marriage so much that he just couldn't settle for one or two.



Don't make her angry, you won't like it when she's angry

media.salon.com
 
2014-02-08 10:35:10 AM  
This thread reminds me of the time I was President of the United States and did everything perfectly the way everybody wanted.
 
2014-02-08 10:40:08 AM  

dangelder: This thread reminds me of the time I was President of the United States and did everything perfectly the way everybody wanted.


sure - and then they all pointed out how the office had aged you and wondered if you were using hair-color for men or not.......
 
2014-02-08 10:41:59 AM  
More like "Spaz31". amirite??


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! ! !!1111111ELEVENTY
 
2014-02-08 10:45:29 AM  
Occupational therapy?
 
2014-02-08 10:47:40 AM  

HooskerDoo: More like "Spaz31". amirite??


I was thinking Spud31.
 
2014-02-08 10:52:25 AM  

fusillade762: Because he's terrified of Hillary Clinton running for president. Next question.


Exactly. He's laying the foundation for the guilt-by-association mentality. He knows damn well that every time he says "Bill Clinton did a HORRIBLE THING, but you shouldn't blame Hillary", all his base hears is "...HORRIBLE THING...blame Hillary!"

There's quite likely also a faint hope mixed in there that if he continues with this line of attack he can somehow trick someone in the Democratic Party into saying something that can be spun as slut shaming Lewinsky, thereby "proving" that the Dems are the real misogynists.
 
2014-02-08 10:52:30 AM  

Trailltrader: Rand Paul keeps attacking Bill Clinton because Bill Clinton is a lying pile of poo.  Where do you want to start?  Vince Fosters suicide with the gun found in his right hand and he's left handed?  All the shady land deals made in Arkansas?  Benghazi?  The number of women Bill Clinton has had sex with that he was dishonest with- and this guy had the authority to start WW III?

Or how about the double standards where that REPUBLICAN senator in Oregon was forced to resign, but when Bill Clinton sexually harassed a young girl all you heard was the sound of,,,,,,silence,,,,,,,from the National Organization of Women?  Where was the outrage?  ***sounds of crickets, tumbleweeds and wind***

Chelsea Clinton's father is actually Janet Reno- you can tell just by looking at her, and I'd be a 6 pack of beer (I'll pay you back, Drew) that DNA would show the truth.

Rand Paul is a hero for doing what he can to keep that quasi-repetillian female from ruining the country.


Definitely 9/10.   Almost got me.
 
2014-02-08 10:54:27 AM  

pjbreeze: Rand Paul keeps attacking Bill Clinton because he's jealous of him.  The wank couldn't get a hummer at work if he tried.


I'm sure there are many of his young staffers eager to hum him. Of course 99.9% are male, NTTAWWT.
 
2014-02-08 10:56:17 AM  
All right.  All right!  Fine Rand, I'll do what you want, if you'll just shut up and get back to actually doing you job.  You've won - in 2016 I won't for for Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.  Are you happy now?
 
2014-02-08 10:58:17 AM  
He is attacking Bill Clinton because someone on the right told him how stupid and counter-productive it would be trying to damage Hillary Clinton by painting her in the most sympathetic light possible, but the man is defined by his Contrarianism so he must call for full steam ahead when the iceberg is spotted.

The Pauls are so incredibly bad for the republican party I truly wonder if it goes further than sheer ignorance but that they are in reality democratic plants.
 
2014-02-08 11:03:25 AM  

Trailltrader: Rand Paul keeps attacking Bill Clinton because Bill Clinton is a lying pile of poo.  Where do you want to start?  Vince Fosters suicide with the gun found in his right hand and he's left handed?  All the shady land deals made in Arkansas?  Benghazi?  The number of women Bill Clinton has had sex with that he was dishonest with- and this guy had the authority to start WW III?

Or how about the double standards where that REPUBLICAN senator in Oregon was forced to resign, but when Bill Clinton sexually harassed a young girl all you heard was the sound of,,,,,,silence,,,,,,,from the National Organization of Women?  Where was the outrage?  ***sounds of crickets, tumbleweeds and wind***

Chelsea Clinton's father is actually Janet Reno- you can tell just by looking at her, and I'd be a 6 pack of beer (I'll pay you back, Drew) that DNA would show the truth.

Rand Paul is a hero for doing what he can to keep that quasi-repetillian female from ruining the country.


Yeah, they said nothing....well except:
http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/Aug98/081798a.htm
 
2014-02-08 11:07:00 AM  
Because Bill Clinton was an asshole, Hillary Clinton his enabler, and she wants to be president and so does Rand Paul.
 
2014-02-08 11:14:08 AM  
Same submitard as the "boarder" headline, right?

/Grammar, how werk it.
 
2014-02-08 11:23:01 AM  

log_jammin: Spad31: Let's not pretend his troubles weren't about "getting a hummer in the oval Office", but rather, committing perjury to a Grand Jury when testifying about it. A fact conveniently left out in discussions around here.

So, yes, Clinton IS an ass hole.

oh I never leave it out.

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.


And let's remember that lying about getting a beej from a chunky broad that affected nothing whatsoever is totally worse than lying about a foreign nation's non-existant WMDs and causing the complete was of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.  From now until the day I day, Republicans will *NEVER* have any integrity or authority about any topic higher than farking chickens.  Absolute filthy hypocrite scum that deserve to be lodged in the folds of Satan's flaming rectum for three eternities.
 
2014-02-08 11:24:47 AM  
 
2014-02-08 11:34:39 AM  

bindlestiff2600: /at least 24% of the population thinks so anyway


Ahem. I think you meant 27%
 
2014-02-08 11:35:44 AM  
Yeah, by all means, Republicans.  Turn your guns on the guy whose presidential term ended more than 14 years ago.  Way to stay current and relevant!
 
2014-02-08 11:57:12 AM  

jjorsett: He's attacking the Democratic Party for talking up the, "We're for women" line while continually protecting and defending that POS who's the exact opposite of what they supposedly stand for.


Hey look, another person who has completely forgotten Monica's "presidential knee pads" comments.


I really wish people would stop acting like Monica didn't know exactly what she was doing.
 
2014-02-08 12:01:50 PM  

oryx: Because Bill Clinton was an asshole, Hillary Clinton his enabler, and she wants to be president and so does Rand Paul.


Rand Paul wants Hillary to be president?
 
2014-02-08 12:08:46 PM  
Who Cares?

Does he really think attacking a candidates spouse is a good idea?

I dont see any way THAT could backfire on him...
 
2014-02-08 12:16:34 PM  

Heraclitus: Who Cares?

Does he really think attacking a candidates spouse is a good idea?

I dont see any way THAT could backfire on him...


At some point, someone will respond with "You'd (figuratively) hit a girl?"
 
2014-02-08 12:17:39 PM  
Of course some of us should love the Clintons! Afterall, Bill signed NAFTA and screwed over American manufacturing forever, and if they didn't do that, there would be a whole lot less coffee slingers to condescend to us while we get our brews in a desperate attempt to communicate that somehow they're not  failures.
 
2014-02-08 12:22:38 PM  

walktoanarcade: Of course some of us should love the Clintons! Afterall, Bill signed NAFTA and screwed over American manufacturing forever, and if they didn't do that, there would be a whole lot less coffee slingers to condescend to us while we get our brews in a desperate attempt to communicate that somehow they're not  failures.


NAFTA didn't cause manufacturing to move to China and India.
 
2014-02-08 12:24:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Of course some of us should love the Clintons! Afterall, Bill signed NAFTA and screwed over American manufacturing forever, and if they didn't do that, there would be a whole lot less coffee slingers to condescend to us while we get our brews in a desperate attempt to communicate that somehow they're not  failures.

NAFTA didn't cause manufacturing to move to China and India.


You're funny. OH YOU AGAIN! :) I love you! You make me laugh a lot and I appreciate it.

Tell us how old you were when NAFTA passed and sent the jobs to exactly where you think they didn't go?
 
2014-02-08 12:29:34 PM  
Because Bill Clinton was America's first black president.

Next question.
 
2014-02-08 12:33:47 PM  

walktoanarcade: Tell us how old you were when NAFTA passed and sent the jobs to exactly where you think they didn't go?


I have to be over the age of, what, 20 in order to comment on events that happened in the past? I certainly hope you never comment on the Civil War, then.
 
2014-02-08 12:34:48 PM  
Funny thing - I never much liked Bill Clinton. I thought he was the worst sort of opportunist, willing to sell out any principle in the service of his desire for power. Welfare "reform," the Clipper Chip, export restrictions on crypto, DADT - the list went on and on. Personally, I never voted for the man. I voted straight third-party any time Clinton was on the ballot. Couldn't stand the SOB.  Thanks to the teabaggers and the "llbertarians" and the Fark independents, though, I find myself growing fonder of Bill Clinton every day. Congratulations, derpers - mission accomplished!

Oh, and here's a protip for some of you - if you're going to go throwing around the word "perjury," learn its legal definition first. Even if Clinton did lie under oath (that depends on what the definition of "lie" is), that alone is insufficient to make out a prima facie case of perjury.
 
2014-02-08 12:41:09 PM  
Funny thread.
 
2014-02-08 12:42:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: Tell us how old you were when NAFTA passed and sent the jobs to exactly where you think they didn't go?

I have to be over the age of, what, 20 in order to comment on events that happened in the past? I certainly hope you never comment on the Civil War, then.


What I like about you (for real, and the laughs are real too) is that you calmly explain where you're coming from.  I am sure you will go far if you keep that up, and I do mean that.

OK, sorry to be an bastard to you, but c'mon...I was there. You're getting hung up on semantics, but that's the fault of politicians, NAFTA did indeed have more to do with just North America.

They play word games inside laws so that you and I misunderstand each other and never unite against the common enemy-corporations writing our nation's laws for their own benefit.

It's about spreading the pain around. NAFTA wasn't enough, so we now have CAFTA too. And others I cannot remember at the moment.

Like how "they" (I mean left and right politicians) use the word "freedom", yet they seem not to grasp its meaning.


You have been duly warned as to the Clinton's shenanigans, and I promise you they are on par with the Bush's; I play no favorites, man.
 
2014-02-08 12:49:22 PM  

walktoanarcade: OK, sorry to be an bastard to you, but c'mon...I was there. You're getting hung up on semantics, but that's the fault of politicians, NAFTA did indeed have more to do with just North America.


Oh no, you were there?! Wow! That's totally proof of your claim! I will totally bow to your authority beause iyou were there, man.
 
2014-02-08 12:52:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: OK, sorry to be an bastard to you, but c'mon...I was there. You're getting hung up on semantics, but that's the fault of politicians, NAFTA did indeed have more to do with just North America.

Oh no, you were there?! Wow! That's totally proof of your claim! I will totally bow to your authority beause iyou were there, man.


Now you're sounding like a young fool again. You must like me in crusty-bastard-mode.

OK.   While you jest, yes, it is something like that.
 
2014-02-08 12:55:14 PM  

BMulligan: Funny thing - I never much liked Bill Clinton. I thought he was the worst sort of opportunist, willing to sell out any principle in the service of his desire for power. Welfare "reform," the Clipper Chip, export restrictions on crypto, DADT - the list went on and on. Personally, I never voted for the man. I voted straight third-party any time Clinton was on the ballot. Couldn't stand the SOB.  Thanks to the teabaggers and the "llbertarians" and the Fark independents, though, I find myself growing fonder of Bill Clinton every day. Congratulations, derpers - mission accomplished!

Oh, and here's a protip for some of you - if you're going to go throwing around the word "perjury," learn its legal definition first. Even if Clinton did lie under oath (that depends on what the definition of "lie" is), that alone is insufficient to make out a prima facie case of perjury.


Protip, since you're referring to me:

per·ju·ry
[pur-juh-ree]
noun, plural per·ju·ries. Law.
The willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.

What's your farking question?

What does "lie" mean? Really?

Every child over 5 knows what "lie" means.

And "is".

*facepalm*
 
2014-02-08 01:07:37 PM  

Spad31: BMulligan: Funny thing - I never much liked Bill Clinton. I thought he was the worst sort of opportunist, willing to sell out any principle in the service of his desire for power. Welfare "reform," the Clipper Chip, export restrictions on crypto, DADT - the list went on and on. Personally, I never voted for the man. I voted straight third-party any time Clinton was on the ballot. Couldn't stand the SOB.  Thanks to the teabaggers and the "llbertarians" and the Fark independents, though, I find myself growing fonder of Bill Clinton every day. Congratulations, derpers - mission accomplished!

Oh, and here's a protip for some of you - if you're going to go throwing around the word "perjury," learn its legal definition first. Even if Clinton did lie under oath (that depends on what the definition of "lie" is), that alone is insufficient to make out a prima facie case of perjury.

Protip, since you're referring to me:

per·ju·ry
[pur-juh-ree]
noun, plural per·ju·ries. Law.
The willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.

What's your farking question?

What does "lie" mean? Really?

Every child over 5 knows what "lie" means.

And "is".

*facepalm*


"Upon a point material to a legal inquiry." Questions regarding Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky were immaterial to the action in which he was being deposed. This is why I actually attended law school and practiced for a couple of decades, rather than just get a GED in law. Helps me avoid making a fool of myself sometimes.
 
2014-02-08 01:13:22 PM  

BMulligan: Spad31: BMulligan: Funny thing - I never much liked Bill Clinton. I thought he was the worst sort of opportunist, willing to sell out any principle in the service of his desire for power. Welfare "reform," the Clipper Chip, export restrictions on crypto, DADT - the list went on and on. Personally, I never voted for the man. I voted straight third-party any time Clinton was on the ballot. Couldn't stand the SOB.  Thanks to the teabaggers and the "llbertarians" and the Fark independents, though, I find myself growing fonder of Bill Clinton every day. Congratulations, derpers - mission accomplished!

Oh, and here's a protip for some of you - if you're going to go throwing around the word "perjury," learn its legal definition first. Even if Clinton did lie under oath (that depends on what the definition of "lie" is), that alone is insufficient to make out a prima facie case of perjury.

Protip, since you're referring to me:

per·ju·ry
[pur-juh-ree]
noun, plural per·ju·ries. Law.
The willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.

What's your farking question?

What does "lie" mean? Really?

Every child over 5 knows what "lie" means.

And "is".

*facepalm*

"Upon a point material to a legal inquiry." Questions regarding Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky were immaterial to the action in which he was being deposed. This is why I actually attended law school and practiced for a couple of decades, rather than just get a GED in law. Helps me avoid making a fool of myself


Yippy for you. He lied. Publicly. Period. Get to your point.
 
2014-02-08 01:15:52 PM  
Paul's just mad. There's nothing a pretty woman wouldn't do for a nice smile and southern drawl from a man.
 
2014-02-08 01:19:38 PM  

Spad31: Let's not pretend his troubles weren't about "getting a hummer in the oval Office", but rather, committing perjury to a Grand Jury when testifying about it. A fact conveniently left out in discussions around here.


I suspect a goodly number of the folks on the left cut Clinton some slack on the lying due to the nature of how it occurred, a blatant fishing expedition by a hostile House looking for damning Whitewater evidence that wildly veered into asking questions about Clinton's personal life.  I don't like that he lied about it either but at the same time that line of questioning never should have been asked in the first place.  An impartial judge would never have allowed this to appear within their courtroom.
 
2014-02-08 01:20:31 PM  
Special message to the 20-something with the pic showing he looks just as he posts:

You made some pathetic quip about you not wanting me to post in a Civil War thread or something(not bothering to re-check), is that because you assume I hold some odious position?  As in, wishing the South won or something?  Uh, no, child, no. I am glad the North won because slavery is wrong.

This is the problem with your generation: You read one damn thing you dislike, then it paints your entire perception of a person-right or wrong-then you attack them based on your fear and ignorance.

It makes as much sense as me hating you for disliking Reece's Pieces, then assuming you're a furry.
 
2014-02-08 01:29:02 PM  

Spad31:  Let's not pretend his troubles weren't about "getting a hummer in the oval Office", but rather, committing perjury to a Grand Jury when testifying about it.

BMulligan: "Upon a point material to a legal inquiry." Questions regarding Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky were immaterial to the action in which he was being deposed.

Spad31: Yippy for you. He lied. Publicly. Period. Get to your point.


His point is clear.  As for yours:

1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2014-02-08 01:32:51 PM  

Spad31: Yippy for you. He lied. Publicly. Period. Get to your point.


You're upset that Clinton lied about a blowjob?  He was the best damned President in the last 50 years.  Get over it.
 
2014-02-08 01:37:09 PM  

walktoanarcade: Special message to the 20-something with the pic showing he looks just as he posts:

You made some pathetic quip about you not wanting me to post in a Civil War thread or something(not bothering to re-check), is that because you assume I hold some odious position?  As in, wishing the South won or something?  Uh, no, child, no. I am glad the North won because slavery is wrong.

This is the problem with your generation: You read one damn thing you dislike, then it paints your entire perception of a person-right or wrong-then you attack them based on your fear and ignorance.

It makes as much sense as me hating you for disliking Reece's Pieces, then assuming you're a furry.


I wouldn't normally inject myself into an argument, but you are really being very dense

It is obvious he was making the point that he can comment on the Clinton era, even though he was very young or possibly not born yet, just as much as you can comment on the Civil War, even though you were not alive during that period (I'm assuming). He is saying you don't have authority just because you are old, not implying you are a racist, although it's interesting you took it there.
 
2014-02-08 01:39:01 PM  
Because people really care about an issue that happened over sixteen years ago.
 
2014-02-08 01:44:00 PM  

Spad31: Let's not pretend his troubles weren't about "getting a hummer in the oval Office", but rather, committing perjury to a Grand Jury when testifying about it. A fact conveniently left out in discussions around here.

So, yes, Clinton IS an ass hole.


Area Man Passionate Critic Of What He Imagines Perjury To Be
 
2014-02-08 01:44:16 PM  

Spad31: Yippy for you. He lied. Publicly. Period. Get to your point.


Lied?  Oh, probably.  At best he worded his statement in a way that was meant to deceive.  But purgery?  Not even close.

And honestly, I'll take it in exchange for the most competent president of the last 40 years.
 
2014-02-08 01:44:42 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-08 01:52:24 PM  

jjorsett: He's attacking the Democratic Party for talking up the, "We're for women" line while continually protecting and defending that POS who's the exact opposite of what they supposedly stand for.


1) Which policy of his administration was anti-women?

2) How is getting a blow job somehow against women? Is giving a woman head anti-man?
 
2014-02-08 01:52:49 PM  

log_jammin: 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.

so you think WHERE he got the BJ was the reason for the "investigation"???

wow.

How old are you?


I think where is a huge issue. Vice President Biden would whip it out on the White House lawn if he knows that's a safe zone.

/And I'd vote to give him a medal
 
2014-02-08 01:57:46 PM  
Yippy for you. He lied. Publicly. Period. Get to your point.

I'm going to give him a pass on lying about his sex life.

I am not going to give Bush a pass for lying to enact disastrous policies. If you think that is unfair, well boo-hoo.
 
2014-02-08 02:01:08 PM  
 young Queen Elizabeth, with her legs hooked over the arms of the throne, while Prince Philip gnawed his way through the royal shrubbery.

Now that's the kind of comment that keeps me coming back for more.
+1
 
2014-02-08 02:03:40 PM  

walktoanarcade: What I like about you (for real, and the laughs are real too) is that you calmly explain where you're coming from.  I am sure you will go far if you keep that up, and I do mean that.


I like how you make this point, while claiming NAFTA shipped our jobs over seas without explaining where you're coming from.
 
2014-02-08 02:05:48 PM  
I'm jealous of the dope you guys are smoking.
 
2014-02-08 02:06:37 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: log_jammin: 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.

so you think WHERE he got the BJ was the reason for the "investigation"???

wow.

How old are you?

I think where is a huge issue. Vice President Biden would whip it out on the White House lawn if he knows that's a safe zone.

/And I'd vote to give him a medal


Maybe Clinton was multi-tasking; getting a quick beej while working on a proposal for a piece of ass legislation he wanted.
 
2014-02-08 02:07:13 PM  
Sorry, I've forgotten--what does Hilary have to do with her husband's actions again? Since presumably she didn't condone them and it's  been over a farking decade, who the f*ck cares?
 
2014-02-08 02:07:45 PM  
[because people from the Civil War are still alive]


Are you getting my point?  I doubt it.
 
2014-02-08 02:09:29 PM  

walktoanarcade: [because people from the Civil War are still alive]


Are you getting my point?  I doubt it.


Do you have a point? I mean other than the fact that nobody can know the effects of NAFTA without being at least 18 years of age at the time it was signed.
 
2014-02-08 02:10:37 PM  

PsiChick: Sorry, I've forgotten--what does Hilary have to do with her husband's actions again? Since presumably she didn't condone them and it's  been over a farking decade, who the f*ck cares?


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

Besides, his wife was already heavily involved in being a co-president at the time, so yes, having her in the WH is outrageous and stunningly naive.
 
2014-02-08 02:14:48 PM  

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!
 
2014-02-08 02:18:45 PM  

PsiChick: Sorry, I've forgotten--what does Hilary have to do with her husband's actions again? Since presumably she didn't condone them and it's  been over a farking decade, who the f*ck cares?


Oh, you just know when she runs there are going to be assholes out there making "it takes 2 to tango" arguments about how Bill's cheating is her fault.....
 
2014-02-08 02:20:38 PM  

udhq: PsiChick: Sorry, I've forgotten--what does Hilary have to do with her husband's actions again? Since presumably she didn't condone them and it's  been over a farking decade, who the f*ck cares?

Oh, you just know when she runs there are going to be assholes out there making "it takes 2 to tango" arguments about how Bill's cheating is her fault.....


"If she had put as much work into her family as her career ambitions, maybe her marriage wouldn't have fallen apart" is the wording I'm expecting from my crazy right wing family members.
 
2014-02-08 02:20:41 PM  

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? ;)
 
2014-02-08 02:21:38 PM  

Spad31: BMulligan: Spad31: BMulligan: Funny thing - I never much liked Bill Clinton. I thought he was the worst sort of opportunist, willing to sell out any principle in the service of his desire for power. Welfare "reform," the Clipper Chip, export restrictions on crypto, DADT - the list went on and on. Personally, I never voted for the man. I voted straight third-party any time Clinton was on the ballot. Couldn't stand the SOB.  Thanks to the teabaggers and the "llbertarians" and the Fark independents, though, I find myself growing fonder of Bill Clinton every day. Congratulations, derpers - mission accomplished!

Oh, and here's a protip for some of you - if you're going to go throwing around the word "perjury," learn its legal definition first. Even if Clinton did lie under oath (that depends on what the definition of "lie" is), that alone is insufficient to make out a prima facie case of perjury.

Protip, since you're referring to me:

per·ju·ry
[pur-juh-ree]
noun, plural per·ju·ries. Law.
The willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.

What's your farking question?

What does "lie" mean? Really?

Every child over 5 knows what "lie" means.

And "is".

*facepalm*

"Upon a point material to a legal inquiry." Questions regarding Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky were immaterial to the action in which he was being deposed. This is why I actually attended law school and practiced for a couple of decades, rather than just get a GED in law. Helps me avoid making a fool of myself

Yippy for you. He lied. Publicly. Period. Get to your point.


Yes, everyone agrees he lied.  When are *you* gonna get a true morality that causes you to be as upset over Bush's lies?  Until scumbag Republicans accept how truly filthy the Bush Administration was, YOU HAVE NO GODDAMN MORAL AUTHORITY OVER A GODDAMN THING IN THE GODDAMN UNIVERSE, EVER.
 
2014-02-08 02:23:06 PM  

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? ;)


Given the current crop of Republicans, she would do less damage than the rest of them.
 
2014-02-08 02:23:59 PM  

walktoanarcade: [because people from the Civil War are still alive]


Are you getting my point?  I doubt it.


You should take a bit of a break from this thread. For your own good.
 
2014-02-08 02:24:54 PM  
"What's your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother's electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we'd go to Paris and I'd be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains."

-Rand Paul
 
2014-02-08 02:24:54 PM  

coyo: 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? ;)

Given the current crop of Republicans, she would do less damage than the rest of them.


You're probably right as I would more likely for for a pile of dog doo before any of them(or her).
 
2014-02-08 02:25:41 PM  
*vote for

*facepalm on the whole political scene*
 
2014-02-08 02:28:46 PM  

olderbudnoweiser: "What's your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother's electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we'd go to Paris and I'd be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains."

-Rand Paul


.....need...someone...to administer...Heimlich......
 
2014-02-08 02:28:50 PM  

Biological Ali: walktoanarcade: [because people from the Civil War are still alive]


Are you getting my point?  I doubt it.

You should take a bit of a break from this thread. For your own good.


Don't worry about me, thanks.
 
2014-02-08 02:30:05 PM  

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
 
2014-02-08 02:31:27 PM  

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! ;)
 
2014-02-08 02:32:38 PM  

olderbudnoweiser: "What's your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother's electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we'd go to Paris and I'd be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains."

-Rand Paul


stream1.gifsoup.com
 
2014-02-08 02:35:00 PM  

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?
 
2014-02-08 02:35:51 PM  

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. :)
 
2014-02-08 02:36:45 PM  

Spad31: Meh. He farked up by lying to our faces about it on television and in court. Great traits in a guy with his responsibility. No credibility whatsoever. If he'd simply said from the start "My marriage and private life are between my wife and I, mind your own business, I'm not discussing it any further." he'd have gained a little respect from me (not that he'd give a shiat what I thought, of course). Instead, he chose to assume we're all morons at the altar of worship and continuously insulted our intelligence. You wouldn't tolerate that shiat from your family or friends, why from the guy with the nukes? Becasue you're in the same political party? farking lame. Clinton and his wife are opportunistic ass holes.


Personally, I'd have lost much more respect for him if he said this.

But that's probably just me.
 
2014-02-08 02:42:10 PM  

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?
 
2014-02-08 02:42:16 PM  

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. :)
 
2014-02-08 02:43:56 PM  

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


How would electing Hillary Clinton (a competent person and coincidentally a completely separate person from her husband) go against the 22nd amendment? Can you cite the specific provision or is this going to be like your NAFTA "argument" that I had to be alive in the 1940s in order to "get" it?
 
2014-02-08 02:45:09 PM  

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! ;)


Please point out exactly how Hilary being president violates the 22nd amendment.

Difficulty: "But Bill will be calling the shots!" doesn't count.
 
2014-02-08 02:45:31 PM  

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


You just don't understand cause you're under the age of 30. Duh.
 
2014-02-08 02:45:39 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-08 02:46:11 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-08 02:46:30 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Fart_Machine: So you're a moron who believes women can't think for themselves.  Good to know!  Thanks. :)

You just don't understand cause you're under the age of 30. Duh.


Sadly I'm not.  I'll be 45 in a few months.  :P
 
2014-02-08 02:47:32 PM  

walktoanarcade: 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.


My irony meter just exploded.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2014-02-08 04:46:28 PM  

whidbey: HighOnCraic: Evacuate?  In your moment of triumph?

[img209.imageshack.us image 437x425]

We will deal with your rebel friends soon enough!


Chewbacca really left himself go there, and why is the Emperor without his shawl and robe? He's gonna catch himself a cold.
 
2014-02-08 04:48:17 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-08 04:48:44 PM  

walktoanarcade: whidbey: HighOnCraic: Evacuate?  In your moment of triumph?

[img209.imageshack.us image 437x425]

We will deal with your rebel friends soon enough!

Chewbacca really left himself go there, and why is the Emperor without his shawl and robe? He's gonna catch himself a cold.


It's OK, he smoked a marijuana rolled with a copy of the Constitution beforehand so he was pretty far out.
 
2014-02-08 04:49:21 PM  

whidbey: HighOnCraic: Evacuate?  In your moment of triumph?

[img209.imageshack.us image 437x425]

We will deal with your rebel friends soon enough!


Will someone get this big walking carpet out of my way?
 
2014-02-08 04:51:32 PM  

walktoanarcade: whidbey: HighOnCraic: Evacuate?  In your moment of triumph?

[img209.imageshack.us image 437x425]

We will deal with your rebel friends soon enough!

Chewbacca really left himself go there, and why is the Emperor without his shawl and robe? He's gonna catch himself a cold.


I don't know.

Maybe you should seek an audience and ask them if this is how liberty dies...with thundering applause.


s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-02-08 04:54:15 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.


Is this offer open to anyone, because I'll own up to that crazy shiat for a basket of crawdads.
 
2014-02-08 04:55:36 PM  

HighOnCraic: Re-certify yourself


That's copyright infringement, innit? Someone call the Police! :>D
 
2014-02-08 04:58:18 PM  

capn' fun: I remember the Clinton administration very well.  Unemployment in my area was somewhere around 2%, taxes weren't as low as they are now, but they were reasonable, there was no deficit, the military was at home (except for some flare-ups in Eastern Europe), my college tuition for an entire year was the same as for only 3 credits today, and towards the end cell phones and internet were both becoming widely available and affordable.  The Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary were fiscally conservative/socially liberal, and most of the fringe on the left and the right were locked up tight in the basement where they belong.  I remember a Young Republicans meeting where we gleefully popped in a VHS tape and giggled and guffawed as Clinton squirmed his way through the definition of "is".  And most of all, I remember thinking, if the worst thing going on right now is that the President was getting blown by an intern who obviously enjoyed blowing him, then the country was doing a-okay. And I really wish we could have it all back, again, even if it meant that the President had an entire staff of young, hot interns whose entire job description was "Blow the President."  If we could get the economy back to where it was, I wouldn't even care if most of those interns were dudes.



I was in the Virgin Islands once. I met a girl. We ate lobster, drank Piña Coladas. At sunset we made love like sea otters.  Thatwas a pretty good day. Why couldn't I get  that day over and over and over?
 
2014-02-08 04:58:56 PM  

quatchi: HighOnCraic: Re-certify yourself

That's copyright infringement, innit? Someone call the Police! :>D


RAND PAUL wrote it so that means RAND PAUL gave permission.
 
2014-02-08 05:11:10 PM  

HighOnCraic: capn' fun: I remember the Clinton administration very well.  Unemployment in my area was somewhere around 2%, taxes weren't as low as they are now, but they were reasonable, there was no deficit, the military was at home (except for some flare-ups in Eastern Europe), my college tuition for an entire year was the same as for only 3 credits today, and towards the end cell phones and internet were both becoming widely available and affordable.  The Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary were fiscally conservative/socially liberal, and most of the fringe on the left and the right were locked up tight in the basement where they belong.  I remember a Young Republicans meeting where we gleefully popped in a VHS tape and giggled and guffawed as Clinton squirmed his way through the definition of "is".  And most of all, I remember thinking, if the worst thing going on right now is that the President was getting blown by an intern who obviously enjoyed blowing him, then the country was doing a-okay. And I really wish we could have it all back, again, even if it meant that the President had an entire staff of young, hot interns whose entire job description was "Blow the President."  If we could get the economy back to where it was, I wouldn't even care if most of those interns were dudes.


I was in the Virgin Islands once. I met a girl. We ate lobster, drank Piña Coladas. At sunset we made love like sea otters.  Thatwas a pretty good day. Why couldn't I get  that day over and over and over?


What about making love at midnight in the dunes on the cape?
 
2014-02-08 05:30:38 PM  
You know the Republicans are floundering when they start talking about Clinton.
 
2014-02-08 05:37:07 PM  
This is just another symptom to the big problem faced by the GOP.  That problem is:

The GOP has NOTHING new to offer America.

The must keep rehashing the same old crap of Tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, unlimited military spending, anti-regulation, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-poor, anti-labor, anti-science and lastly being the moral majority chosen by God.

In short, the GOP has got nothing.
 
2014-02-08 06:04:38 PM  

log_jammin: Spad31: Let's not pretend his troubles weren't about "getting a hummer in the oval Office", but rather, committing perjury to a Grand Jury when testifying about it. A fact conveniently left out in discussions around here.

So, yes, Clinton IS an ass hole.

oh I never leave it out.

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.


He oversaw a lot of progress on sexual harassment int he workplace. His actions by someone else in the executive branch under his watch woudl have gotten you fired.

He should have been asked about it.

It makes him a hypocrite for doing it.

But I will agree with the rest of what you said, and that he shouldn't have been asked in those circumstances.

/All that being said he was a pretty good pres. Glass-Steagall, aside.
 
2014-02-08 06:06:51 PM  
I came here looking for derp and boy howdy did Fark deliver.  One of the most entertaining reads in this tab in a while.
 
2014-02-08 06:09:39 PM  

liam76: He oversaw a lot of progress on sexual harassment int he workplace. His actions by someone else in the executive branch under his watch woudl have gotten you fired.


Why wasn't Newt Gingrich fired?
 
2014-02-08 06:12:22 PM  

liam76: He should have been asked about it.


He should've been asked about it during an investigation for possible sexual harassment. Not during a fishing expedition. Not to mention the fact that a consensual affair is not sexual harassment.
 
2014-02-08 06:21:50 PM  

rnld: liam76: He oversaw a lot of progress on sexual harassment int he workplace. His actions by someone else in the executive branch under his watch woudl have gotten you fired.

Why wasn't Newt Gingrich fired?


Did Calista work for him?

Don't get me wrong. Newt is a Giant bag of hypocritical shiat for him being part of the "family values" party and pulling the shiat he did. But he wasn't n charge fo a group pushing sexual harassment reform.

cameroncrazy1984: liam76: He should have been asked about it.

He should've been asked about it during an investigation for possible sexual harassment. Not during a fishing expedition.


What do you think I meant by, "he shouldn't have been asked in those circumstances"?


cameroncrazy1984: Not to mention the fact that a consensual affair is not sexual harassment


If a senior member of the executing branch hooks up with an intern in the office, yes the federal govt sees it as sexual harassment, and you will be fired.
 
2014-02-08 06:23:13 PM  

liam76: If a senior member of the executing branch hooks up with an intern in the office, yes the federal govt sees it as sexual harassment, and you will be fired.


Apparently not.
 
2014-02-08 06:23:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: liam76: If a senior member of the executing branch hooks up with an intern in the office, yes the federal govt sees it as sexual harassment, and you will be fired.

Apparently not.


And by that, I mean the Senate doesn't care if a senior member of the executive branch gets a beej in the oval office.
 
2014-02-08 06:42:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: liam76: If a senior member of the executing branch hooks up with an intern in the office, yes the federal govt sees it as sexual harassment, and you will be fired.

Apparently not.


He pushed for rules that would make it so people who worked for him would get fired for what he did.

If you don't see that as hypocritical, I can't help you.


/as I said above, all in all a good pres, and leagues better than anybody he was running against, but yeah a big hypoctire on that front
 
2014-02-08 06:45:04 PM  

liam76: Did Calista work for him?


No. She worked for Congressman Gunderson.  Newt was speaker of the house.
 
2014-02-08 06:45:46 PM  

liam76: He pushed for rules that would make it so people who worked for him would get fired for what he did.

If you don't see that as hypocritical, I can't help you.


Go ahead and show me those rules, please. Section and paragraph. Or, heck, even a quote from him.
 
2014-02-08 06:46:53 PM  

liam76: f a senior member of the executing branch hooks up with an intern in the office, yes the federal govt sees it as sexual harassment, and you will be fired.


Source?
 
2014-02-08 06:48:59 PM  

liam76: Don't get me wrong. Newt is a Giant bag of hypocritical shiat for him being part of the "family values" party and pulling the shiat he did. But he wasn't n charge fo a group pushing sexual harassment reform.


What was his vote on this?  The Republicans had the majority.
 
2014-02-08 07:10:37 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.


Y'know, Congressmen of the past were much more capable at their jobs, and more concerned with actually doing their jobs; than today's Republicans.  They were capable of writing exactly what they wanted into the 22nd.  If they had wanted it to extend to spouses, WHY DIDN'T THEY EXPLICITELY STATE THAT?
Your entire spewing of bullshiat in this thread amounts to 'Internet Man Passionately Defends What He Wishes The Constitution Actually Said'.  You have concerns that Bill would unduly influence Hillary, but don't have any problem with her unduly influencing him back then, or Laura unduly influencing Bush?  And then you end up with the absolutely dumbest comment about how the will of the People should stand, with absolutely no self-reflection about how that comment destroys every last damned thing you've said so far.
 
2014-02-08 07:10:40 PM  

Spad31: Every child over 5 knows what "lie" means.

And "is".


is /ɪz/ verb
   1.3rd person singular present indicative of be.

be [bee; unstressed bee, bi]
verb (used without object), present singular 1st person am, 2nd are or ( Archaic ) art, 3rd is, present plural are; past singular 1st person was, 2nd were or ( Archaic ) wast or wert, 3rd was, past plural were; present subjunctive be; past subjunctive singular 1st person were, 2nd were or ( Archaic ) wert, 3rd were; past subjunctive plural were; past participle been; present participle be·ing.
1. to exist or live: Shakespeare's "To be or not to be" is the ultimate question.
2. to take place; happen; occur: The wedding was last week.
3. to occupy a place or position: The book is on the table.
4. to continue or remain as before: Let things be.
5. to belong; attend; befall: May good fortune be with you.
6. (used as a copula to connect the subject with its predicate adjective, or predicate nominative, in order to describe, identify, or amplify the subject): Martha is tall. John is president. This is she.
7. (used as a copula to introduce or form interrogative or imperative sentences): Is that right? Be quiet! Don't be facetious.
auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person am, 2nd are or ( Archaic ) art, 3rd is, present plural are; past singular 1st person was, 2nd were or ( Archaic ) wast or wert, 3rd was, past plural were; present subjunctive be; past subjunctive singular 1st person were, 2nd were or ( Archaic ) wert, 3rd were; past subjunctive plural were; past participle been; present participle be·ing.
8. (used with the present participle of another verb to form the progressive tense): I am waiting.
9. (used with the present participle or infinitive of the principal verb to indicate future action): She is visiting there next week. He is to see me today.
10. (used with the past participle of another verb to form the passive voice): The date was fixed. It must be done.
11. (used in archaic or literary constructions with some intransitive verbs to form the perfect tense): He is come. Agamemnon to the wars is gone.


/Why it's all so simple  How could there be any ambiguity?
 
2014-02-08 07:11:38 PM  

rnld: liam76: f a senior member of the executing branch hooks up with an intern in the office, yes the federal govt sees it as sexual harassment, and you will be fired.

Source?


cameroncrazy1984: liam76: He pushed for rules that would make it so people who worked for him would get fired for what he did.

If you don't see that as hypocritical, I can't help you.

Go ahead and show me those rules, please. Section and paragraph. Or, heck, even a quote from him.


I am sorry to get in the way of your Lewinisking of Bill.

Because if you are dumb enough to think that in a federal workplace you can get BJ's at work from interns with out being fired, that is exactly what is going on.

rnld: liam76: Don't get me wrong. Newt is a Giant bag of hypocritical shiat for him being part of the "family values" party and pulling the shiat he did. But he wasn't n charge fo a group pushing sexual harassment reform.

What was his vote on this?  The Republicans had the majority.


You don't need a vote to change the employment rules for the executive branch.

"Zero tolerance" for sexual harassment in the military and for federal offices was rolled out under Clinton.
 
2014-02-08 07:16:25 PM  

liam76: Because if you are dumb enough to think that in a federal workplace you can get BJ's at work from interns with out being fired, that is exactly what is going on.


In other words, you have nothing.
 
2014-02-08 07:17:24 PM  

liam76: I am sorry to get in the way of your Lewinisking of Bill.

Because if you are dumb enough to think that in a federal workplace you can get BJ's at work from interns with out being fired, that is exactly what is going on.


So nope, no citation. No quote of Bill's, just "believe me."

Basically what you're saying is you got caught and you hope I'll go away because you insult me.
 
2014-02-08 07:18:48 PM  

liam76: "Zero tolerance" for sexual harassment in the military and for federal offices was rolled out under Clinton


Okay, great. What did they define sexual harassment as?
 
2014-02-08 07:19:26 PM  

rnld: liam76: Did Calista work for him?

No. She worked for Congressman Gunderson.  Newt was speaker of the house.


Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?
 
2014-02-08 07:22:22 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?


Is the Speaker the boss?
 
2014-02-08 07:26:49 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: So nope, no citation. No quote of Bill's, just "believe me."

Basically what you're saying is you got caught and you hope I'll go away because you insult me


You really caught me bud.

You are arguing that you won't get fired from a job with the federal govt for getting a BJ from an intern that works for you at the office.

You really think that is a good argument?

You really think you "caught" me with that?

I had you favorited as stupid/dishonest enough to compare Israel to the holocaust, I think "federal employees won't get fired for getting BJ's from an intern in the office" may trump that level of stupid, bu tI think "never had a real job" may be more appropriate if you are pulling George costanza level of stupid claims about the workplace.
 
2014-02-08 07:27:39 PM  

rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?

Is the Speaker the boss?



Of the House of Representatives, yes.
 
2014-02-08 07:28:51 PM  

liam76: You really caught me bud.

You are arguing that you won't get fired from a job with the federal govt for getting a BJ from an intern that works for you at the office.

You really think that is a good argument?

You really think you "caught" me with that?


Well considering every time I ask for evidence you answer with a sneering question like that instead of addressing the question, yes. Because   you have no proof to back up your claim.
 
2014-02-08 07:29:32 PM  

jso2897: Wow - after fifteen years, they are still getting the Clinton sand out of their vaginas.
No hate like conservative hate.



They've still got sand in their vaginas from FDR. No surprise Clinton's is still in there.
 
2014-02-08 07:32:19 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?


Did Lewinsky intern for Clinton or a different department?
 
2014-02-08 07:35:57 PM  

rnld: liam76: Because if you are dumb enough to think that in a federal workplace you can get BJ's at work from interns with out being fired, that is exactly what is going on.

In other words, you have nothing.


Another person who has never worke din a professional environtment.

No you can't get BJ's from interns in the office.

Even if the intern is totally into it (nevermind how ought it is to prove there is no fear of retribution if they don't go along, or desire for special treatment if they do), there is a little thing called "hostile work environment. When the boss is getting a BJ's from the person next to you at work in their office, do you really think you are going to feel as if you are treated the same?
 
2014-02-08 07:35:57 PM  
liam76:

If a senior member of the executing branch hooks up with an intern in the office, yes the federal govt sees it as sexual harassment, and you will be fired.

Citation?

Where is this policy written and show us how it applies to an elected official, specifically the Presidency, and not just lower appointed or hired positions.  We'll wait, Mr. Starr.
 
2014-02-08 07:36:42 PM  

liam76: rnld: liam76: Because if you are dumb enough to think that in a federal workplace you can get BJ's at work from interns with out being fired, that is exactly what is going on.

In other words, you have nothing.

Another person who has never worke din a professional environtment.

No you can't get BJ's from interns in the office.

Even if the intern is totally into it (nevermind how ought it is to prove there is no fear of retribution if they don't go along, or desire for special treatment if they do), there is a little thing called "hostile work environment. When the boss is getting a BJ's from the person next to you at work in their office, do you really think you are going to feel as if you are treated the same?


You keep saying this, and yet you have provided no proof. Apparently we're just suppsoed to take your word for it because you feel you're above reproach for some reason.
 
2014-02-08 07:36:54 PM  
Why does Rand Paul keep attacking Bill Clinton? Because he's an asshole, that's why

Oh, come on. A horn-dog, yes, but an asshole? Have some respect for a former President, subby!
 
2014-02-08 07:37:07 PM  

rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?

Is the Speaker the boss?


He was Minority Whip at the time they started getting busy.
 
2014-02-08 07:38:31 PM  
liam76: No you can't get BJ's from interns in the office.


Maybe you can't,
 
2014-02-08 07:39:26 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?

Is the Speaker the boss?

He was Minority Whip at the time they started getting busy.


Sounds to me like he was higher on the Congressional chain of command at the time, yes?
 
2014-02-08 07:40:46 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?

Is the Speaker the boss?

He was Minority Whip at the time they started getting busy.


The 6 year affair that continued when Newt was Speaker?
 
2014-02-08 07:43:39 PM  

lordjupiter: Where is this policy written and show us how it applies to an elected official, specifically the Presidency, and not just lower appointed or hired positions.


I didn't say it did. I said he was hypocritical because he pushed for stricter rule on sexual harrassment, when he was pulling this.


cameroncrazy1984: Well considering every time I ask for evidence you answer with a sneering question like that instead of addressing the question, yes.


I also can't find an exact federal statute saying employees can't rub one out at their desk, do you think that is allowed too, Costanza?

I really want to know the answer to this, it will greatly help me identify your brand of stupidity correctly.
 
2014-02-08 07:46:26 PM  

liam76: I also can't find an exact federal statute saying employees can't rub one out at their desk, do you think that is allowed too, Costanza?

I really want to know the answer to this, it will greatly help me identify your brand of stupidity correctly.


You unequivocally stated that these rules WERE SPECIFICALLY enacted under Clinton. If you know this to be a fact, why can't you find the rule?
 
2014-02-08 07:50:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: liam76: I also can't find an exact federal statute saying employees can't rub one out at their desk, do you think that is allowed too, Costanza?

I really want to know the answer to this, it will greatly help me identify your brand of stupidity correctly.

You unequivocally stated that these rules WERE SPECIFICALLY enacted under Clinton. If you know this to be a fact, why can't you find the rule?


No, i stated he made sexual harassment rules stricter (which I agree with).


Now please answer the bolded question.

rnld: The 6 year affair that continued when Newt was Speaker


I don't get this line of questioning?

Does anybody think Newt isn't a bigger scumbag than clinton?

If you are just highlighting how supremely hypocritical he was for going after clinton on this, ok, but I think everybody who does't have their head in the san acknowledges that.
 
2014-02-08 07:52:14 PM  

liam76: lordjupiter: Where is this policy written and show us how it applies to an elected official, specifically the Presidency, and not just lower appointed or hired positions.

I didn't say it did. I said he was hypocritical because he pushed for stricter rule on sexual harrassment, when he was pulling this.



Prove it or STFU
 
2014-02-08 07:52:22 PM  

liam76: No, i stated he made sexual harassment rules stricter (which I agree with).


Okay, which rules? Stricter how? If you know this unequivocally to be true, show us the rules prior and the rules after. What section of code did he strengthen? What was the executive order? Memo? Do you have ANY evidence to back up this claim?
 
2014-02-08 07:52:27 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?

Is the Speaker the boss?

He was Minority Whip at the time they started getting busy.

Sounds to me like he was higher on the Congressional chain of command at the time, yes?


Not exactly sure where you are going with this.  The members themselves technically are independent, with job titles like Whip having more to do with procedure than subordination.  Certainly there would be influence, but I suspect that hiring/firing decisions of congressional staff is mostly up to the congressperson whose staff it is.

That said, there is more to office fraternization than hiring/firing decisions.
 
2014-02-08 07:53:09 PM  

lordjupiter: liam76: lordjupiter: Where is this policy written and show us how it applies to an elected official, specifically the Presidency, and not just lower appointed or hired positions.

I didn't say it did. I said he was hypocritical because he pushed for stricter rule on sexual harrassment, when he was pulling this.


Prove it or STFU


My favorite thing is that he says there's no specific rule, but he just KNOWS that Clinton made it stricter! It's just so obvious, like a rule about public masturbation, you just know it's there!
 
2014-02-08 07:54:51 PM  

liam76: I had you favorited as stupid/dishonest enough to compare Israel to the holocaust, I think "federal employees won't get fired for getting BJ's from an intern in the office" may trump that level of stupid, bu tI think "never had a real job" may be more appropriate if you are pulling George costanza level of stupid claims about the workplace.

(favorite: Weird idiot/troll. Talks crazy circles around people, derails threads. Wannabe Tatsuma)

 
2014-02-08 07:55:29 PM  

rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?

Is the Speaker the boss?

He was Minority Whip at the time they started getting busy.

The 6 year affair that continued when Newt was Speaker?


It makes a difference how?
 
2014-02-08 07:59:43 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: The members themselves technically are independent, with job titles like Whip having more to do with procedure than subordination.  Certainly there would be influence, but I suspect that hiring/firing decisions of congressional staff is mostly up to the congressperson whose staff it is.


Who did Lewinsky work for?
 
2014-02-08 08:02:46 PM  

whidbey: 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.


Yeah, I just noticed that.

Wonder whose dear sweet little alt he is?
 
2014-02-08 08:02:53 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?

Is the Speaker the boss?

He was Minority Whip at the time they started getting busy.

The 6 year affair that continued when Newt was Speaker?

It makes a difference how?


Other than the fact that Calista was a subordinate to Newt?
 
2014-02-08 08:06:13 PM  
Maybe he's off to find the actual rule. One can dream.
 
2014-02-08 08:07:57 PM  

rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: The members themselves technically are independent, with job titles like Whip having more to do with procedure than subordination.  Certainly there would be influence, but I suspect that hiring/firing decisions of congressional staff is mostly up to the congressperson whose staff it is.

Who did Lewinsky work for?


The Federal Government.  Civil Service.  Ask the Federal Office of Personnel for details. She was assigned to the White House.

So, were you thinking someone was arguing it wasn't office fraternization?
 
2014-02-08 08:09:19 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Maybe he's off to find the actual rule. One can dream.


More likely logging in to some other account and prowling some other thread for a bit.
 
2014-02-08 08:11:52 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: The members themselves technically are independent, with job titles like Whip having more to do with procedure than subordination.  Certainly there would be influence, but I suspect that hiring/firing decisions of congressional staff is mostly up to the congressperson whose staff it is.

Who did Lewinsky work for?

The Federal Government.  Civil Service.  Ask the Federal Office of Personnel for details. She was assigned to the White House.

So, were you thinking someone was arguing it wasn't office fraternization?


That sums up Newt and Calista.  The difference was that nobody spent $40 million investigating everything Newt did and then got in the middle of his divorce to save face.
 
2014-02-08 08:14:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: lordjupiter: liam76: lordjupiter: Where is this policy written and show us how it applies to an elected official, specifically the Presidency, and not just lower appointed or hired positions.

I didn't say it did. I said he was hypocritical because he pushed for stricter rule on sexual harrassment, when he was pulling this.


Prove it or STFU

My favorite thing is that he says there's no specific rule, but he just KNOWS that Clinton made it stricter! It's just so obvious, like a rule about public masturbation, you just know it's there!


So jerking off at your desk falls under public masturbation, but BJ's at your desk is perfectly ok?
Is this your final answer on jerking at the office for federal employees?
 
2014-02-08 08:17:07 PM  

Satanic_Hamster:
(favorite: Weird idiot/troll.


That is funny, I have you tagged, as "idiot, cries trool when confused.

I guess this means, once again, you are confused. Normally I owuld say, read the thread, but hey look at what we are dealing with.

Sorry I don't have crayons to break it down for you buddy. You are going ot have to sort this out on your own, or most likely cry "troll".
 
2014-02-08 08:21:57 PM  

rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?

The 6 year affair that continued when Newt was Speaker?

It makes a difference how?

Other than the fact that Calista was a subordinate to Newt?


Gee, you sure have some strange ideas.  Congress is not an Army, where the ranking officers have technical command of subordinate ranks.  Her job was first working for Gunderson, doing what he said to do, and later working for the House Committee on Agriculture, which as far as I know never included Gingrich.

Do you really thing that the Speaker of the House can do things like fire all the Minority Leaders staff if he wants to be a dick?  That he can countermand the orders directly given by their boss by virtue of his office?

/'open the safe, i want to snoop on your boss'  Yeah that'll fly.
 
2014-02-08 08:23:58 PM  

liam76: That is funny, I have you tagged, as "idiot, cries trool when confused.


Trool?
 
2014-02-08 08:28:52 PM  

liam76: So jerking off at your desk falls under public masturbation, but BJ's at your desk is perfectly ok?
Is this your final answer on jerking at the office for federal employees?


Sure, why not. You have yet to come up with any rule for either one.
 
2014-02-08 08:32:38 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?

The 6 year affair that continued when Newt was Speaker?

It makes a difference how?

Other than the fact that Calista was a subordinate to Newt?

Gee, you sure have some strange ideas.  Congress is not an Army, where the ranking officers have technical command of subordinate ranks.  Her job was first working for Gunderson, doing what he said to do, and later working for the House Committee on Agriculture, which as far as I know never included Gingrich.

Do you really thing that the Speaker of the House can do things like fire all the Minority Leaders staff if he wants to be a dick?  That he can countermand the orders directly given by their boss by virtue of his office?

/'open the safe, i want to snoop on your boss'  Yeah that'll fly.


You are talking in circles.
 
2014-02-08 08:33:58 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Gee, you sure have some strange ideas.  Congress is not an Army, where the ranking officers have technical command of subordinate ranks.  Her job was first working for Gunderson, doing what he said to do, and later working for the House Committee on Agriculture, which as far as I know never included Gingrich.

Do you really thing that the Speaker of the House can do things like fire all the Minority Leaders staff if he wants to be a dick?  That he can countermand the orders directly given by their boss by virtue of his office?


Uh, yep. That's the nature of being the boss.
 
2014-02-08 08:35:35 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: liam76: So jerking off at your desk falls under public masturbation, but BJ's at your desk is perfectly ok?
Is this your final answer on jerking at the office for federal employees?

Sure, why not. You have yet to come up with any rule for either one.


So, to make sure we are on the same page, since I can't "come up with a rule" you are arguing, the only "rule" against jerking off at the office for federal employees is "public masturbation" and that BJ's from interns in the office is not a fireable offense for federal employees.

Satanic_Hamster: liam76: That is funny, I have you tagged, as "idiot, cries trool when confused.

Trool?


I type like a tard, I don't have the reading comprehension of one.
 
2014-02-08 08:36:42 PM  

liam76: So, to make sure we are on the same page, since I can't "come up with a rule" you are arguing, the only "rule" against jerking off at the office for federal employees is "public masturbation" and that BJ's from interns in the office is not a fireable offense for federal employees.


Nope, I am not even arguing there's a rule. I'm arguing that you can't come up with a citation for your claim that Bill Clinton tightened such rules that apparently you say just exist in the ether.
 
2014-02-08 08:37:18 PM  

rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?

The 6 year affair that continued when Newt was Speaker?

It makes a difference how?

Other than the fact that Calista was a subordinate to Newt?

Gee, you sure have some strange ideas.  Congress is not an Army, where the ranking officers have technical command of subordinate ranks.  Her job was first working for Gunderson, doing what he said to do, and later working for the House Committee on Agriculture, which as far as I know never included Gingrich.

Do you really thing that the Speaker of the House can do things like fire all the Minority Leaders staff if he wants to be a dick?  That he can countermand the orders directly given by their boss by virtue of his office?

/'open the safe, i want to snoop on your boss'  Yeah that'll fly.

You are talking in circles.


Trying to paraphrase the same idea different ways looking for a way to get it through to you is not the same as 'circles'
 
2014-02-08 08:40:03 PM  
Look, my point is,  liam76, that you can't just claim that rules "just exist and aren't written down specifically" and then try to claim specifically that Clinton "tightened up" said rules.
 
2014-02-08 08:44:15 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: liam76: So, to make sure we are on the same page, since I can't "come up with a rule" you are arguing, the only "rule" against jerking off at the office for federal employees is "public masturbation" and that BJ's from interns in the office is not a fireable offense for federal employees.

Nope, I am not even arguing there's a rule.
I'm arguing that you can't come up with a citation for your claim that Bill Clinton tightened such rules that apparently you say just exist in the ether.


Then why were you asking for the rule?

Go ahead and show me those rules, please. Section and paragraph. :
 
2014-02-08 08:46:10 PM  

liam76: Then why were you asking for the rule?

Go ahead and show me those rules, please. Section and paragraph. :


I'm not the one making the claim that there is a rule. YOU are. Did you forget that? I'm saying show me the rule to back up the claim that YOU made.

This is a lot of fun. You get to continue avoiding backing up your claim while trying to get me to change the subject. Are you going to show us the rule that Clinton supposedly advocated for and tightened up, making him thus a "hypocrite" according to you? Or not?
 
2014-02-08 08:47:06 PM  
Wow, I initially thought it'd be a good discussion based on the relative lack of highlights in this thread.

Nope, just needed to highlight the newbies/alts.
 
2014-02-08 08:47:31 PM  

liam76: cameroncrazy1984: liam76: So, to make sure we are on the same page, since I can't "come up with a rule" you are arguing, the only "rule" against jerking off at the office for federal employees is "public masturbation" and that BJ's from interns in the office is not a fireable offense for federal employees.

Nope, I am not even arguing there's a rule. I'm arguing that you can't come up with a citation for your claim that Bill Clinton tightened such rules that apparently you say just exist in the ether.

Then why were you asking for the rule?

Go ahead and show me those rules, please. Section and paragraph. :


www.troll.me
 
2014-02-08 08:47:58 PM  

lordjupiter: liam76: cameroncrazy1984: liam76: So, to make sure we are on the same page, since I can't "come up with a rule" you are arguing, the only "rule" against jerking off at the office for federal employees is "public masturbation" and that BJ's from interns in the office is not a fireable offense for federal employees.

Nope, I am not even arguing there's a rule. I'm arguing that you can't come up with a citation for your claim that Bill Clinton tightened such rules that apparently you say just exist in the ether.

Then why were you asking for the rule?

Go ahead and show me those rules, please. Section and paragraph. :

[www.troll.me image 304x304]


He literally forgot which side of the argument he was on. That was funny.
 
2014-02-08 08:48:37 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Trying to paraphrase the same idea different ways looking for a way to get it through to you is not the same as 'circles'


Talking in circles is exactly what you are doing. Your problem is that you just throw stuff in the thread that is either you making things up or using the exact same argument against one person and supporting another.
 
2014-02-08 08:52:19 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: He literally forgot which side of the argument he was on. That was funny.


That or he forgot which alt he was logging in on.
 
2014-02-08 08:54:08 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: cameroncrazy1984: He literally forgot which side of the argument he was on. That was funny.

That or he forgot which alt he was logging in on.


A definite possibility.
 
2014-02-08 08:55:23 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Satanic_Hamster: cameroncrazy1984: He literally forgot which side of the argument he was on. That was funny.

That or he forgot which alt he was logging in on.

A definite possibility.



Feels like a 10poundsofcheese kind of thing.  When was the last time that plodding, thick true believer was around?
 
2014-02-08 08:55:52 PM  

lordjupiter: cameroncrazy1984: Satanic_Hamster: cameroncrazy1984: He literally forgot which side of the argument he was on. That was funny.

That or he forgot which alt he was logging in on.

A definite possibility.


Feels like a 10poundsofcheese kind of thing.  When was the last time that plodding, thick true believer was around?


Night of the Long Knives I think.
 
2014-02-08 08:58:12 PM  

rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: Trying to paraphrase the same idea different ways looking for a way to get it through to you is not the same as 'circles'

Talking in circles is exactly what you are doing. Your problem is that you just throw stuff in the thread that is either you making things up or using the exact same argument against one person and supporting another.


Actually I was just adding facts about what Newt and Callista's professional relationship was.  It's not my fault multiple people have funny ideas how personal congressional staff works. What you see as two sides are both arguing from a false model.
 
2014-02-08 08:59:22 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Actually I was just adding facts about what Newt and Callista's professional relationship was.


No, you were trying to obfuscate the remarkable similarities between that relationship and the Clinton/Lewinsky affair.
 
2014-02-08 09:05:20 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Vlad_the_Inaner: Actually I was just adding facts about what Newt and Callista's professional relationship was.

No, you were trying to obfuscate the remarkable similarities between that relationship and the Clinton/Lewinsky affair.


By saying they were both office fraternization.  You've seen through my cunning scheme.
 
2014-02-08 09:06:41 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: cameroncrazy1984: Vlad_the_Inaner: Actually I was just adding facts about what Newt and Callista's professional relationship was.

No, you were trying to obfuscate the remarkable similarities between that relationship and the Clinton/Lewinsky affair.

By saying they were both office fraternization.  You've seen through my cunning scheme.


And yet, only one of them was against it. Can you guess which one?
 
2014-02-08 09:08:10 PM  

lordjupiter:

[www.troll.me image 304x304]


Try and follow along.

I say regular fed employees would be fired for this.

He asked for a rule.

I call him stupid for asking fro a rule.

He then claims he isn;t weighing in on a rule, then I link to him asking for th erule.

How does that make me a troll?

Or are you one of those dumb farks that federal employees can get BJ's in the office from interns they are in charge of and keep their job?
 
2014-02-08 09:08:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Look, my point is,  liam76, that you can't just claim that rules "just exist and aren't written down specifically"


The fact that you are being so dick in the toaster stupid, so blatantly dishonest, or so fundamentally ignorant how the federal govt or any big govt works is a laughable.

The fact that you were given a clear example of how stupid your claim about needing specific rule, after the jerking off claim, and still pretend you need a rule "written down specifically" shows you aren't interested in an honest conversation.

cameroncrazy1984: and then try to claim specifically that Clinton "tightened up" said rules


This makes it very clear.

I never said "tightened up".


My first statement. -

He oversaw a lot of progress on sexual harassment int he workplace.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment-a.c f m

In his first term the EEOC doubled the number of resolutions, and more than doubled the amount of monetary benefits (and that was before they resorted to lawsuits).


cameroncrazy1984: Are you going to show us the rule that Clinton supposedly advocated for and tightened up, making him thus a "hypocrite" according to you? Or not


No, stupid, I can't find a rule that specifically says don't get oral sex from interns in the office.

Just like I can't find a rule that specifically says, don't jerk off in the office, or don't shiat in the office.
 
2014-02-08 09:10:19 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Vlad_the_Inaner: cameroncrazy1984: Vlad_the_Inaner: Actually I was just adding facts about what Newt and Callista's professional relationship was.

No, you were trying to obfuscate the remarkable similarities between that relationship and the Clinton/Lewinsky affair.

By saying they were both office fraternization.  You've seen through my cunning scheme.

And yet, only one of them was against it. Can you guess which one?


This is a trick question because Congress always excepts itself from the regulations it creates.
 
2014-02-08 09:15:06 PM  

liam76: lordjupiter:

Or are you one of those dumb farks that thinks federal employees can get BJ's in the office from interns they are in charge of and keep their job?


DOH!
 
2014-02-08 09:16:51 PM  

liam76: lordjupiter:

[www.troll.me image 304x304]

Try and follow along.

I say regular fed employees would be fired for this.

He asked for a rule.

I call him stupid for asking fro a rule.

He then claims he isn;t weighing in on a rule, then I link to him asking for th erule.

How does that make me a troll?

Or are you one of those dumb farks that federal employees can get BJ's in the office from interns they are in charge of and keep their job?


liam76: liam76: lordjupiter:

Or are you one of those dumb farks that thinks federal employees can get BJ's in the office from interns they are in charge of and keep their job?

DOH!


0-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2014-02-08 09:22:50 PM  

lordjupiter:

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 446x357]


So the clever picture means you don't want to weigh in on regular federal employees being able to get BJ's from interns in the office without fear of being fired, but to pretend that you are superior to anyone who points out you have to be stupid to think otherwise?
 
2014-02-08 09:28:36 PM  

liam76: lordjupiter:

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 446x357]

So the clever picture means you don't want to weigh in on regular federal employees being able to get BJ's from interns in the office without fear of being fired, but to pretend that you are superior to anyone who points out you have to be stupid to think otherwise?


Can you at least TRY?   This is boring.  You're boring.  Stop boring people.
 
2014-02-08 09:36:05 PM  

walktoanarcade: [because people from the Civil War are still alive]


Are you getting my point?  I doubt it.


I don't have a dog in this fight, but holy shiat you are consistently a moron.
 
2014-02-08 10:03:41 PM  
Now my question is this:

How is an event which happened to a man who was president TWO ADMINISTRATIONS ago, which he was actually impeached (though not tried) for,  and which stopped being newsworthy when the Starr Report failed to unearth any other evidence of wrongdoing by said former president suddenly newsworthy again?

WHO CARES anymore, really? Why does this matter in the slightest? That was sixteen years ago...the statute of limitations ought to have run on "minor annoyances to the American public" by now. Someone needs to tell Rand Paul to STFU for gods sake and find a current scandal to flog.
 
2014-02-08 10:10:24 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Now my question is this:

How is an event which happened to a man who was president TWO ADMINISTRATIONS ago, which he was actually impeached (though not tried) for,  and which stopped being newsworthy when the Starr Report failed to unearth any other evidence of wrongdoing by said former president suddenly newsworthy again?

WHO CARES anymore, really? Why does this matter in the slightest? That was sixteen years ago...the statute of limitations ought to have run on "minor annoyances to the American public" by now. Someone needs to tell Rand Paul to STFU for gods sake and find a current scandal to flog.


Because the Right is convinced (again) that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, and they have nothing but guilt-by-association bullshiat, since the public isn't buying the 'Benghazi is WORSE THAN IF HITLER CRASHED AN AIRPLANE INTO THE STATUE OF LIBERTY ON 9/11!' crap anymore.
 
2014-02-08 10:10:50 PM  

liam76: He then claims he isn;t weighing in on a rule, then I link to him asking for th erule.


Here's where you went wrong. I never said I wasn't "weighing in" on a rule. I said I wasn't arguing for the rule.

And you still have YET to show ANY proof that Clinton tightened up these rules as proof of his hypocrisy. Is that gonna happen anytime soon or are you gonna keep trying avoid answering this very easy question - if you're correct.
 
2014-02-08 10:11:17 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Now my question is this:

How is an event which happened to a man who was president TWO ADMINISTRATIONS ago, which he was actually impeached (though not tried) for,  and which stopped being newsworthy when the Starr Report failed to unearth any other evidence of wrongdoing by said former president suddenly newsworthy again?

WHO CARES anymore, really? Why does this matter in the slightest? That was sixteen years ago...the statute of limitations ought to have run on "minor annoyances to the American public" by now. Someone needs to tell Rand Paul to STFU for gods sake and find a current scandal to flog.



I think the press should ask RP about plagiarism every day for the next 16 years.  How soon do you think he'd get tired of that?
 
2014-02-08 10:13:10 PM  

LordJiro: Gyrfalcon: Now my question is this:

How is an event which happened to a man who was president TWO ADMINISTRATIONS ago, which he was actually impeached (though not tried) for,  and which stopped being newsworthy when the Starr Report failed to unearth any other evidence of wrongdoing by said former president suddenly newsworthy again?

WHO CARES anymore, really? Why does this matter in the slightest? That was sixteen years ago...the statute of limitations ought to have run on "minor annoyances to the American public" by now. Someone needs to tell Rand Paul to STFU for gods sake and find a current scandal to flog.

Because the Right is convinced (again) that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, and they have nothing but guilt-by-association bullshiat, since the public isn't buying the 'Benghazi is WORSE THAN IF HITLER CRASHED AN AIRPLANE INTO THE STATUE OF LIBERTY ON 9/11!' crap anymore.


Well, thank god there's a logical explanation.
 
2014-02-08 10:41:50 PM  

bigpeeler: Which one is the asshole?


And I didn't need to read the rest of the thread. You can't treat women as equals unless you treat them with respect.If all women were clones of Janet Reno, Clinton would have been the most respectful pres in history....
 
2014-02-08 10:51:17 PM  

Animatronik: bigpeeler: Which one is the asshole?

And I didn't need to read the rest of the thread. You can't treat women as equals unless you treat them with respect.If all women were clones of Janet Reno, Clinton would have been the most respectful pres in history....


www.ada.gov
you don't think she has kind of a more matured Rachel Maddow vibe going?
 
2014-02-08 10:53:16 PM  

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? ;)


This is the most stupid line of reasoning I've read all week.  And as much time as I spend in the comments on the Poliitcs tab, that is saying something. You, sir, are a piece of work.
 
2014-02-08 11:28:49 PM  

liam76: cameroncrazy1984: Look, my point is,  liam76, that you can't just claim that rules "just exist and aren't written down specifically"

The fact that you are being so dick in the toaster stupid, so blatantly dishonest, or so fundamentally ignorant how the federal govt or any big govt works is a laughable.

The fact that you were given a clear example of how stupid your claim about needing specific rule, after the jerking off claim, and still pretend you need a rule "written down specifically" shows you aren't interested in an honest conversation.

cameroncrazy1984: and then try to claim specifically that Clinton "tightened up" said rules

This makes it very clear.

I never said "tightened up".


My first statement. -He oversaw a lot of progress on sexual harassment int he workplace.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment-a.c f m

In his first term the EEOC doubled the number of resolutions, and more than doubled the amount of monetary benefits (and that was before they resorted to lawsuits).


cameroncrazy1984: Are you going to show us the rule that Clinton supposedly advocated for and tightened up, making him thus a "hypocrite" according to you? Or not

No, stupid, I can't find a rule that specifically says don't get oral sex from interns in the office.

Just like I can't find a rule that specifically says, don't jerk off in the office, or don't shiat in the office.


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!
 
2014-02-08 11:30:25 PM  
Last I checked it was a consensual relationship among two adults.  It wasn't "rape", "rape rape", "legitimate rape", or "illegitimate rape".  Democrats are not against casual consensual sex, that is the GOP.  It was adultery but Democrats are not the party which runs as the party of morality.  So while bad judgement it wasn't a "women's rights" issue.
 
2014-02-08 11:30:45 PM  

Animatronik: bigpeeler: Which one is the asshole?

And I didn't need to read the rest of the thread. You can't treat women as equals unless you treat them with respect.If all women were clones of Janet Reno, Clinton would have been the most respectful pres in history....


You have never seen a picture of Monica Lewinsky, have you.
 
2014-02-08 11:40:31 PM  

liam76: cameroncrazy1984: Look, my point is,  liam76, that you can't just claim that rules "just exist and aren't written down specifically"

The fact that you are being so dick in the toaster stupid, so blatantly dishonest, or so fundamentally ignorant how the federal govt or any big govt works is a laughable.

The fact that you were given a clear example of how stupid your claim about needing specific rule, after the jerking off claim, and still pretend you need a rule "written down specifically" shows you aren't interested in an honest conversation.

cameroncrazy1984: and then try to claim specifically that Clinton "tightened up" said rules

This makes it very clear.

I never said "tightened up".


My first statement. -He oversaw a lot of progress on sexual harassment int he workplace.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment-a.c f m

In his first term the EEOC doubled the number of resolutions, and more than doubled the amount of monetary benefits (and that was before they resorted to lawsuits).


cameroncrazy1984: Are you going to show us the rule that Clinton supposedly advocated for and tightened up, making him thus a "hypocrite" according to you? Or not

No, stupid, I can't find a rule that specifically says don't get oral sex from interns in the office.

Just like I can't find a rule that specifically says, don't jerk off in the office, or don't shiat in the office.


I think you're slightly off the mark on what you're being asked for.
(I'm just gonna jump in here, because why the hell not?)

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.
Was there an Executive Order? Was there a memo sent to a Cabinet member? What about a directive to the DOJ? Was it spoken of in a policy speech? I doubt you're being asked to provide a link to a rule that specifically says not to have sexy time fun at work. No one needs to be shown where that's spelled out in black and white.

/personally, I was less upset by Clinton getting it on in the Oval Office than I was with him getting caught. You're the farking President. How about a little discretion for shiat's sake.
 
2014-02-08 11:42:23 PM  

Animatronik: bigpeeler: Which one is the asshole?

And I didn't need to read the rest of the thread. You can't treat women as equals unless you treat them with respect.If all women were clones of Janet Reno, Clinton would have been the most respectful pres in history....


So how was a consensual, if adulterous, sex act disrespecting women as a group?

/Don't bother, I know the answer is 'Because we can use that claim to deflect criticism when a Republican says something obscenely sexist'.
 
2014-02-09 12:34:24 AM  

Gyrfalcon: How is an event which happened to a man who was president TWO ADMINISTRATIONS ago, which he was actually impeached (though not tried) for,  and which stopped being newsworthy when the Starr Report failed to unearth any other evidence of wrongdoing by said former president suddenly newsworthy again?


Because the whole of the Democratic party fawned and continues to fawn over a man who consistently used his position of power to coerce sexual favors out of young women who worked around him.  The national media then attacked the accusers and if I remember James Carville was quotes as joking that "they must have drug a $100 bill through a trailer park."

the NOW never spoke out against Clinton. Gloria Allred never defended Kathleen Willy or Juanita Broadderick.  Essentially, rape, misogyny, misconduct in the workplace and vehicular manslaughter are ok for Democrat politicians so long as they defend pro-abortion bills.

 

heavymetal: Last I checked it was a consensual relationship among two adults.  It wasn't "rape", "rape rape", "legitimate rape", or "illegitimate rape".


And a relationship between a professor and college student is two consenting adults, or a doctor and patient, attorney and client.  However any normal person should agree that such relationships are inappropriate.  You'll actually find many feminists who would argue that a man in a position of authority who has sex with someone within his organization is committing some form or rape even if the sex wasn't forced.   If course, that definition of rape changes if the person happens to be a prominent left-leaning lawmaker.
 
2014-02-09 12:34:52 AM  

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

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 640x905]


Urge to kill rising... rising...
 
2014-02-09 01:23:10 AM  

o5iiawah: Because the whole of the Democratic party fawned and continues to fawn over a man who consistently used his position of power to coerce sexual favors out of young women who worked around him.  The national media then attacked the accusers and if I remember James Carville was quotes as joking that "they must have drug a $100 bill through a trailer park."

the NOW never spoke out against Clinton. Gloria Allred never defended Kathleen Willy or Juanita Broadderick.  Essentially, rape, misogyny, misconduct in the workplace and vehicular manslaughter are ok for Democrat politicians so long as they defend pro-abortion bills.


no.

It's because they can't attack what he says and prove him wrong using facts.

That's all there is to it.
 
2014-02-09 01:39:05 AM  

geek_mars: /personally, I was less upset by Clinton getting it on in the Oval Office than I was with him getting caught. You're the farking President. How about a little discretion for shiat's sake.


Well, there's this.

And his women all look like fat mares with glanders. Goddamn, you'd think a guy called Slick Willie could score some nicer looking mares.
 
2014-02-09 01:46:57 AM  

Gyrfalcon: geek_mars: /personally, I was less upset by Clinton getting it on in the Oval Office than I was with him getting caught. You're the farking President. How about a little discretion for shiat's sake.

Well, there's this.

And his women all look like fat mares with glanders. Goddamn, you'd think a guy called Slick Willie could score some nicer looking mares.


Well, everyone's tastes are different. His mother said he always went for the buxom, southern belle types and it stunned her when her son brought home this skinny, nerdy bookworm and said he intended to marry her.
 
2014-02-09 02:02:32 AM  

bigpeeler: Which one is the asshole?


Obviously the Rand one. Couple insanity with a dame who, despite her attack on a safety net, died on the dole for her largesse. Ayn Rand, HYPOCRITE, Rand Paul, confederate opportunist...
 
2014-02-09 02:04:32 AM  

o5iiawah: And a relationship between a professor and college student is two consenting adults, or a doctor and patient, attorney and client. However any normal person should agree that such relationships are inappropriate. You'll actually find many feminists who would argue that a man in a position of authority who has sex with someone within his organization is committing some form or rape even if the sex wasn't forced. If course, that definition of rape changes if the person happens to be a prominent left-leaning lawmaker.


So it wasn't rape by any definition except the strawman you created.  Well OK then.
 
2014-02-09 02:25:26 AM  
RAND PAUL is attacking Bill because he's scared shiatless of having to run against Hillary in 2016.
 
2014-02-09 02:27:39 AM  

Trailltrader: Rand Paul keeps attacking Bill Clinton because Bill Clinton is a lying pile of poo.  Where do you want to start?  Vince Fosters suicide with the gun found in his right hand and he's left handed?  All the shady land deals made in Arkansas?  Benghazi?  The number of women Bill Clinton has had sex with that he was dishonest with- and this guy had the authority to start WW III?

Or how about the double standards where that REPUBLICAN senator in Oregon was forced to resign, but when Bill Clinton sexually harassed a young girl all you heard was the sound of,,,,,,silence,,,,,,,from the National Organization of Women?  Where was the outrage?  ***sounds of crickets, tumbleweeds and wind***

Chelsea Clinton's father is actually Janet Reno- you can tell just by looking at her, and I'd be a 6 pack of beer (I'll pay you back, Drew) that DNA would show the truth.

Rand Paul is a hero for doing what he can to keep that quasi-repetillian female from ruining the country.


ooooh, troll thread!
 
2014-02-09 02:38:17 AM  

Spad31: log_jammin: Spad31: This is rapidly getting stupid.

it was stupid at  2014-02-08 05:48:52 AM

It was stupid when you defended adultery and dishonesty because of political orientation.


Have any GOPers committed serious offenses or is it just the Dem?
 
2014-02-09 02:40:10 AM  

bindlestiff2600: because lieing about a bJ

is exactly the same as lieing to start a war

/at least 24% of the population thinks so anyway


Bush junior committed a war crime when he ordered the invasion of Iraq.
 
2014-02-09 02:46:59 AM  

notyoucoach: pjbreeze: Rand Paul keeps attacking Bill Clinton because he's jealous of him.  The wank couldn't get a hummer at work if he tried.

I'm sure there are many of his young staffers eager to hum him. Of course 99.9% are male, NTTAWWT.


Does that include the Southern Avenger?
 
2014-02-09 03:04:38 AM  

walktoanarcade: 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."


I suspect that he would spend most of his time chasing skirts and at his age it's likely he won't be able to catch many.
 
2014-02-09 04:00:41 AM  

Gyrfalcon: And his women all look like fat mares with glanders. Goddamn, you'd think a guy called Slick Willie could score some nicer looking mares.


He's the president.  He doesn't  need to pick affairs that other men find attractive to elevate his social status through perceived competition.  He's already one of 102 people in the entire nation that actually get a farking  title that's used to address them even off the job.

Basically, the entire motivation set that you have for picking women that look good photographed from five feet away in a push-up bra doing a pose over the ones that give good head doesn't apply to him.
 
2014-02-09 04:06:08 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-09 04:13:44 AM  

o5iiawah: Because the whole of the Democratic party fawned and continues to fawn over a man who consistently used his position of power to coerce sexual favors out of young women who worked around him.


Dude, Clinton isn't going to fark you.
 
2014-02-09 07:40:34 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-09 09:08:04 AM  

log_jammin: no.

It's because they can't attack what he says and prove him wrong using facts.

That's all there is to it.


saying 'No' doesn't make your argument.
Bill Clinton by all accounts is a serial misogynist which is okay to democrats because he raises a butt-ton of money

Fart_Machine: So it wasn't rape by any definition except the strawman you created.  Well OK then.


I didn't create a strawman. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why Democrats dont seem to care that Bill Clinton as a man has a track record of sexual conduct with women in and around his professional circle.

As a reasonable and normal society, we look down on doctor/patient, student/teacher, attorney/client and employer/employee relationships so tell me where Clinton's is different.

By the way, you have no idea of what a strawman actually is.  Go play in traffic and make the world smarter.
 
2014-02-09 09:44:36 AM  

o5iiawah: Bill Clinton by all accounts is a serial misogynist which is okay to democrats because he raises a butt-ton of money


STOP ACTING LIKE MONICA NEVER SAID SHE WAS GOING TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO GET HER "PRESIDENTIAL KNEE PADS"
 
2014-02-09 10:07:55 AM  

jjorsett: He's attacking the Democratic Party for talking up the, "We're for women" line while continually protecting and defending that POS who's the exact opposite of what they supposedly stand for.


Yes, a consensually given BJ is a billionty times worse than requiring inanimate objects be shoved up a woman's vag before the small government the GOP loves so much deigns to *permit* her to consider an abortion. It's also just as bad as slut shaming women who use birth control, and trying to keep it legal for insurers to discriminate against women for health care coverage. Oh, and it's also just as bad as trying to kill bills that protect domestic abuse victims or introducing language into bills to clarify that certain types of rape aren't really rape. Yep, just as bad.
 
2014-02-09 11:19:16 AM  

o5iiawah: log_jammin: no.

It's because they can't attack what he says and prove him wrong using facts.

That's all there is to it.

saying 'No' doesn't make your argument.
Bill Clinton by all accounts is a serial misogynist which is okay to democrats because he raises a butt-ton of money

Fart_Machine: So it wasn't rape by any definition except the strawman you created.  Well OK then.

I didn't create a strawman. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why Democrats dont seem to care that Bill Clinton as a man has a track record of sexual conduct with women in and around his professional circle.

As a reasonable and normal society, we look down on doctor/patient, student/teacher, attorney/client and employer/employee relationships so tell me where Clinton's is different.

By the way, you have no idea of what a strawman actually is.  Go play in traffic and make the world smarter.


No you're creating a false argument that Clinton "raped" Lewinski based on feminists that exist in your empty head. Looking down on something isn't the same as claiming rape. Is it a hobby of yours to sound stupid in every Fark thread or are you a full-time idiot?
 
2014-02-09 11:27:44 AM  

grumpfuff: o5iiawah: Bill Clinton by all accounts is a serial misogynist which is okay to democrats because he raises a butt-ton of money

STOP ACTING LIKE MONICA NEVER SAID SHE WAS GOING TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO GET HER "PRESIDENTIAL KNEE PADS"


I vaguely remember hearing that in the 90's, but thought it was a rumor.
 
2014-02-09 11:49:57 AM  

liam76: grumpfuff: o5iiawah: Bill Clinton by all accounts is a serial misogynist which is okay to democrats because he raises a butt-ton of money

STOP ACTING LIKE MONICA NEVER SAID SHE WAS GOING TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO GET HER "PRESIDENTIAL KNEE PADS"

I vaguely remember hearing that in the 90's, but thought it was a rumor.


They wouldn't let the New York Daily News print it it wasn't true, right?

/I thought it was an admission by Monica to her BFF Linda Tripp, but that's wrong
 
2014-02-09 12:09:26 PM  

liam76: grumpfuff: o5iiawah: Bill Clinton by all accounts is a serial misogynist which is okay to democrats because he raises a butt-ton of money

STOP ACTING LIKE MONICA NEVER SAID SHE WAS GOING TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO GET HER "PRESIDENTIAL KNEE PADS"

I vaguely remember hearing that in the 90's, but thought it was a rumor.


I read that it showed up in a transcript somewhere. I guess I could be wrong.
 
2014-02-09 12:39:43 PM  
You know, I wonder if this will not backfire a bit more on the Republicans than they'll think.  This whole attack is based on the belief that women can't be sexually aggressive, enjoy sex, seek sex, etc etc.  Any sexual contact between a man and a woman is because the man wants it.

Are they also taking the claim that some feminists also advance that all male on female sex is rape?
 
2014-02-09 01:02:12 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-09 01:44:32 PM  

liam76: 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


Well then seriously how can you claim that they were "tightened" under Clinton if you can't find any specific rules for it? Also you can't even find any instances of executives being fired for consensual relationships as an example of said rule-tightening. Your proof is literally "because I said so!"
 
2014-02-09 02:55:24 PM  

o5iiawah: I didn't create a strawman. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why Democrats dont seem to care that Bill Clinton as a man has a track record of sexual conduct with women in and around his professional circle.


Of course you did.

Only butthurt right wingers even care about Clinton. Most of us realize that the Lewinsky affair and all the other "gotcha" affairs (many of which didn't happen) (mad?) was a witch hunt.

So you keep chasing those witches. Maybe you'll meet the ghost of McCarthy along the way and you two can have a drink somewhere and lament the loss of America.
 
2014-02-09 03:06:49 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: liam76: 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

Well then seriously how can you claim that they were "tightened" under Clinton if you can't find any specific rules for it? Also you can't even find any instances of executives being fired for consensual relationships as an example of said rule-tightening. Your proof is literally "because I said so!"


i.imgur.com
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ1/content-detail.html

/meme is not an admission of motivation, but a prediction of how it'll be taken
 
2014-02-09 03:08:55 PM  
I love how this thread should have been dead hours ago, but there's just that much more butthurt over Clinton to be had. Notice the lack of any actual condemnation for (either) Paul, but Bill sure rustles your jimmies, doesn't he?
 
2014-02-09 03:11:46 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: cameroncrazy1984: liam76: 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

Well then seriously how can you claim that they were "tightened" under Clinton if you can't find any specific rules for it? Also you can't even find any instances of executives being fired for consensual relationships as an example of said rule-tightening. Your proof is literally "because I said so!"

[i.imgur.com image 686x1214]
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ1/content-detail.html

/meme is not an admission of motivation, but a prediction of how it'll be taken


Interestingly that law appears to apply to Congress only. And covers a wide variety of issues.
 
2014-02-09 03:45:07 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: liam76: That is funny, I have you tagged, as "idiot, cries trool when confused.

Trool?


Cry Trool!, and let slip the doogs of war.
 
2014-02-09 03:54:41 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Interestingly that law appears to apply to Congress only. And covers a wide variety of issues.


You would have to ask the author, but at a guess it's part of a show to cancel out the perception that 'Congress always exempts itself from regulations' that is commonly held.

In which case, the implication is that other branches of the government were already covered before the bill.
 
2014-02-09 04:56:30 PM  

liam76: grumpfuff: o5iiawah: Bill Clinton by all accounts is a serial misogynist which is okay to democrats because he raises a butt-ton of money

STOP ACTING LIKE MONICA NEVER SAID SHE WAS GOING TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO GET HER "PRESIDENTIAL KNEE PADS"

I vaguely remember hearing that in the 90's, but thought it was a rumor.



Well, not sure about the "knee pads" line, but:

She was standing with her back to the office door, and when he returned, she put her hands on her hips and with her thumbs lifted the back of her jacket, allowing him a fleeting glimpse of her thong underwear.
She told him she had this vision of them together as 'Little Bill and Little Monica,' walking hand-in-hand in the sunlight.
Monica: "People have made it seem so demeaning for me, but it wasn't, it was exciting, and the irony is that I had the first orgasm of the relationship."

http://jezebel.com/5962809/we-read-monica-lewinskys-authorized-1999- bi ography-so-you-dont-have-to

/This thread has been dead for a while, but for what it's worth, getting a consensual blowjob from a coworker at the office is probably a solid reason for getting fired (and such rules were probably in place long before Clinton was in office).
 
2014-02-09 05:08:00 PM  

HighOnCraic: This thread has been dead for a while, but for what it's worth


I don't think so. How dare us liberals worship that sex predator? This outrage must continue, as it pulls away at the very fabric of our liberalism.
 
2014-02-09 05:17:16 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: In which case, the implication is that other branches of the government were already covered before the bill.


There is no implication of anything.  This was part of the Republican's Contract With America.
 
2014-02-09 05:24:13 PM  

whidbey: HighOnCraic: This thread has been dead for a while, but for what it's worth

I don't think so. How dare us liberals worship that sex predator? This outrage must continue, as it pulls away at the very fabric of our liberalism.


Meh.  I voted for Clinton twice, because I thought he'd do a better job than Bush or Dole.  I still think he displayed horrible judgment--he knew the Republicans were looking hard at his personal life.
 
2014-02-09 05:50:02 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: liam76: grumpfuff: o5iiawah: Bill Clinton by all accounts is a serial misogynist which is okay to democrats because he raises a butt-ton of money

STOP ACTING LIKE MONICA NEVER SAID SHE WAS GOING TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO GET HER "PRESIDENTIAL KNEE PADS"

I vaguely remember hearing that in the 90's, but thought it was a rumor.


They wouldn't let the New York Daily News print it it wasn't true, right?

/I thought it was an admission by Monica to her BFF Linda Tripp, but that's wrong


Well who was it then?

*click*

Her former High School teacher who she had an affair with for 5 years after graduating?

Wow, that girl has more issues than Reader's Digest, I swear.

Not just any teacher but her Drama teacher?

How very appropriate.
 
2014-02-09 05:50:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: liam76: 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

Well then seriously how can you claim that they were "tightened" under Clinton if you can't find any specific rules for it? Also you can't even find any instances of executives being fired for consensual relationships as an example of said rule-tightening. Your proof is literally "because I said so!"



I have already proven what the EEOC did under Clinton with regards to sexual harassment. My proof is the stats that I linked, and you ignored of the amount of cases they won money and got resolutions for doubling under his first term.


The fact that you are still pretending you need a specific rule about BJ's is laughably pathetic.


Please keep doing that. Keep pretending that since there is no specific rule about BJ's written in federal the federal code that it is A-ok and Clinton did nothing with regards to working against sexual harassment in the workplace, despite the EEOC numbers.
 
2014-02-09 06:22:06 PM  

rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: In which case, the implication is that other branches of the government were already covered before the bill.

There is no implication of anything.  This was part of the Republican's Contract With America.


you mean the part that said

"1. require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;"

Thanks for playing.

/or maybe you don't include the other branches of government in "the rest of the country"
 
2014-02-09 06:28:09 PM  

liam76: My proof is the stats that I linked


Do you live in an alternate universe where you actually linked to other websites besides fark that the rest of us normal humans can't experience? Because the only links you've posted in this thread were to other fark comments.
 
2014-02-09 06:45:25 PM  

liam76: Please keep doing that. Keep pretending that since there is no specific rule about BJ's written in federal the federal code that it is A-ok and Clinton did nothing with regards to working against sexual harassment in the workplace, despite the EEOC numbers.


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.
 
2014-02-09 06:55:49 PM  

mgshamster: Do you live in an alternate universe where you actually linked to other websites besides fark that the rest of us normal humans can't experience? Because the only links you've posted in this thread were to other fark comments



Ok, dum dum.

liam76: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment-a.c f m


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.
 
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 417 of 417 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report