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 52
    More: Obvious, Rand Paul, Bill Clinton, Kentucky Senators, C-SPAN  
•       •       •

2857 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Feb 2014 at 9:11 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-08 05:54:28 AM
9 votes:

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 10:26:11 AM
8 votes:
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 09:50:18 AM
6 votes:
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 06:10:05 AM
6 votes:
Because he's terrified of Hillary Clinton running for president. Next question.
2014-02-08 06:23:30 AM
5 votes:

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 09:45:25 AM
4 votes:
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 09:01:44 AM
4 votes:

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 10:28:03 AM
3 votes:
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 07:48:53 AM
3 votes:

Spad31: This is rapidly getting stupid.


it was stupid at  2014-02-08 05:48:52 AM
2014-02-08 04:01:24 PM
2 votes:

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 03:05:37 PM
2 votes:

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 02:23:59 PM
2 votes:

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 02:07:13 PM
2 votes:
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 10:11:07 AM
2 votes:
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 10:05:33 AM
2 votes:

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 09:58:49 AM
2 votes:

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 09:19:23 AM
2 votes:

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 05:39:18 AM
2 votes:
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 04:27:04 AM
2 votes:
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.
2014-02-09 10:31:51 PM
1 votes:
Sounds like a plan FW:FW:FW:alktoanarcade.
2014-02-09 10:07:55 AM
1 votes:

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


Yes, a consensually given BJ is a billionty times worse than requiring inanimate objects be shoved up a woman's vag before the small government the GOP loves so much deigns to *permit* her to consider an abortion. It's also just as bad as slut shaming women who use birth control, and trying to keep it legal for insurers to discriminate against women for health care coverage. Oh, and it's also just as bad as trying to kill bills that protect domestic abuse victims or introducing language into bills to clarify that certain types of rape aren't really rape. Yep, just as bad.
2014-02-08 11:30:25 PM
1 votes:
Last I checked it was a consensual relationship among two adults.  It wasn't "rape", "rape rape", "legitimate rape", or "illegitimate rape".  Democrats are not against casual consensual sex, that is the GOP.  It was adultery but Democrats are not the party which runs as the party of morality.  So while bad judgement it wasn't a "women's rights" issue.
2014-02-08 10:11:17 PM
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: Now my question is this:

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

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



I think the press should ask RP about plagiarism every day for the next 16 years.  How soon do you think he'd get tired of that?
2014-02-08 06:12:22 PM
1 votes:

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 06:06:51 PM
1 votes:
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 04:23:08 PM
1 votes:

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 04:17:41 PM
1 votes:

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 03:57:13 PM
1 votes:
Wow - after fifteen years, they are still getting the Clinton sand out of their vaginas.
No hate like conservative hate.
2014-02-08 03:48:17 PM
1 votes:
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 03:21:00 PM
1 votes:

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 03:18:48 PM
1 votes:

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 03:05:41 PM
1 votes:

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 02:47:32 PM
1 votes:

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 02:24:54 PM
1 votes:
"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 01:57:46 PM
1 votes:
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 01:44:00 PM
1 votes:

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 01:37:09 PM
1 votes:

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 01:19:38 PM
1 votes:

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 01:07:37 PM
1 votes:

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 12:34:48 PM
1 votes:
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 10:52:25 AM
1 votes:

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 10:32:10 AM
1 votes:

NeverDrunk23: RyogaM: dumbobruni: Newt Gingrich

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

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



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

media.salon.com
2014-02-08 10:28:55 AM
1 votes:

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 09:55:35 AM
1 votes:

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

i.imgur.com

2014-02-08 09:51:48 AM
1 votes:
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 09:42:27 AM
1 votes:
Well, it isn't the first time Clinton has had trouble with a cum stain
2014-02-08 09:37:23 AM
1 votes:
Spad31: ...
Internet arguments, special Olympics, etc.

You;re quite the special one this morning, aren't you?
2014-02-08 09:33:37 AM
1 votes:

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 09:25:26 AM
1 votes:
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 07:38:30 AM
1 votes:

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 06:35:30 AM
1 votes:

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 05:01:47 AM
1 votes:
Which one is the asshole?
 
Displayed 52 of 52 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report