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  
•       •       •

2878 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Feb 2014 at 9:11 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



417 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size

 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.usView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.netView Full Size
 
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.ukView Full Size
 
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.usView Full Size


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.comView Full Size
 
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.