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.
Spad31: Meh. *talking points*
Spad31: log_jammin: Spad31: This is rapidly getting stupid.it was stupid at 2014-02-08 05:48:52 AMIt was stupid when you defended adultery and dishonesty because of political orientation.
Spad31: This is rapidly getting stupid.
walktoanarcade: cameroncrazy1984: walktoanarcade: You know I never said anything even approaching thatIf 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.
walktoanarcade: You twist my being against anyone going against the 22nd amendment as misogyny? You're a card! ;)
walktoanarcade: [because people from the Civil War are still alive]Are you getting my point? I doubt it.
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.
dumbobruni: Newt Gingrich
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.
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.
Gyrfalcon: Now my question is this:How is an event which happened to a man who was president TWO ADMINISTRATIONS ago, which he was actually impeached (though not tried) for, and which stopped being newsworthy when the Starr Report failed to unearth any other evidence of wrongdoing by said former president suddenly newsworthy again?WHO CARES anymore, really? Why does this matter in the slightest? That was sixteen years ago...the statute of limitations ought to have run on "minor annoyances to the American public" by now. Someone needs to tell Rand Paul to STFU for gods sake and find a current scandal to flog.
liam76: He should have been asked about it.
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!
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 pointHow 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.
2013-11-26 10:57:57 (10 weeks ago)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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*
fusillade762: Because he's terrified of Hillary Clinton running for president. Next question.
NeverDrunk23: RyogaM: dumbobruni: Newt GingrichRan 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.
RyogaM: dumbobruni: Newt GingrichRan 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?
Trailltrader: Vince Fosters ...Arkansas...Benghazi...quasi-repetillian female
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.
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?
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 29 2017 11:28:00
Runtime: 0.256 sec (255 ms)