|
Hillary's complicity (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
How the hell do you get off having a visceral and illogical hatred for a woman whose husband cheated on her, while more or less giving a man who cheated on his wife a free pass?
Like I said, this thread is retarded. You provided absolutely no evidence that Hillary knew about the Lewinsky affair, and instead posted wikipedia articles that talk about allegations against her husband.
I agree with PKC - like this is why people think Americans are petty and stupid. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
I'd hit it. :toocool: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
They would support her no matter what. It's the nature of Democrats. |
No more our nature than it is in Republicans to support a warmonger who deliberately dodged fighting in the Vietnam war and serving the rest of his time in the National Guard, I suppose. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
No more our nature than it is in Republicans to support a warmonger who deliberately dodged fighting in the Vietnam war and serving the rest of his time in the National Guard, I suppose. |
When you say "Dodged the Vietnam War", you're talking about Clinton, right?
Oh wait, that's right; He didn't even bother to serve in the Guard. ;) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
"How is do you"? How DARE you ask me "How is do you"!! NOBODY asks ME "How is do you"! I've got your "How is do you" pal, right here!! :stongue: |
hahaha. i was wasted when i wrote that :p
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Anyway...
There is no tiny line regarding the belief that there were WMD's in Iraq. They thought they were there, but they weren't (apparently). End of story.
But you don't have a real appreciation for our domestic laws (again, because you don't live here), and how inappropriate it was/is for a President, of all people, to break the law.
Richard Nixon resigned over no less of a law-breaking scandal. Clinton SHOULD have done the same thing, but he's an arrogant prick who thinks his personal interests are greater then that of the country's. He set a dangerous precedent by breaking the law and NOT resigning. Slippery slope, IMHO. |
come on now, do you REALLY think bush is a more honest president than clinton was? honestly!? :stongue: clinton was 10x the president and bush is 10x the liar. how can you rally so hard against clinton for lying about his personal life when bush has made it his goal in life to circumvent your constitution and sow fear and panic in the populace? how can you give bush a free ride on things like the plame affair, and yet get so indignant over what bill does will his willy?
the bias here is astounding. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
How the hell do you get off having a visceral and illogical hatred for a woman whose husband cheated on her, while more or less giving a man who cheated on his wife a free pass?
|
because i support Obama and this is the democratic primary. McCain will get his dues in due time.;)
srsly, somebody should swift boat Hillary with this. throw out baseless allegations that can't be disproved. raise many questions. split her core supporters. i think it has legs.
what did she know? when did she know it? did she conspire with the president to lie before the grand jury? what role did she play in the president's decision to pay paula jones money to withdraw her sexual harassment suit?
why does she look the other way when it's politically convenient? taking this further, would she act the same way if she held presidential power. would she put political convenience ahead of principle? (recall the US embrace of sadam hussein in the iraq/iran war.) |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
I'd hit it. :toocool: |
:nervous: |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
that's what we like to see, americans poking their nose into the married lives of their leaders!
agree with lesbiankalashnikov, thread is pointless and stupid and a reason why the world often laughs at america. |
The world often laughs at America for being totally ing ignorant about anything beyond football, and hence being incredibly naive to and extent that's often unbelievable... not because of whatever else you're referring to. Plus, making a big deal over lying about a BJ and grounds for impeachement is kind of sad compared to lying to go to war and devestate a nation! I know you don't anyone in the goverment or intelligence agency was complicit in 9-11, but to ignore PNAC, their goals of American Hegemony and total global dominance, isn't exactly a theory or overly critical analysis of their actions. Their (NeoCon) policy and words are actually consistant in that respect. There's two things I've realized that drive you nuts, one would be even the slightest mention of religion, and the second would be skepticism/criticism of those in power. But loosing your mind (which you didn't really do here but do have a tendancy to do quite a bit) or pure derision doesn't really help your cause or your argument a whole lot, and certainly not you personaly. Reactive responses don't generally help much. Yes, I know I'm guilty of being reactive at times too, but at least I'm pissed off for legitimate reasons (war, bloodshed, opression, uter hypocrisy and injustice), things like that, you know, that should piss anyone off but apparently that's not the case. Just a though. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
come on now, do you REALLY think bush is a more honest president than clinton was? honestly!? :stongue: clinton was 10x the president and bush is 10x the liar. how can you rally so hard against clinton for lying about his personal life when bush has made it his goal in life to circumvent your constitution and sow fear and panic in the populace? how can you give bush a free ride on things like the plame affair, and yet get so indignant over what bill does will his willy?
the bias here is astounding. |
What's "astounding" is that you don't read! Are you wasted again or something? :p
I said I don't care what he does with his pecker. Lying on the witness stand in a civil manner is another matter.
Bush lies? About what; WMD's? Please...let's not get in to that old argument again.
lol@"bush has made it his goal in life to circumvent your constitution and sow fear and panic in the populace". Don't you think that's a little absurd in the literal sense?
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
...would she act the same way if she held presidential power? |
I don't think anyone will be going down on Hilary in the Oval Office. Maybe if she was 30 years younger... :tongue2 |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
When you say "Dodged the Vietnam War", you're talking about Clinton, right?
Oh wait, that's right; He didn't even bother to serve in the Guard. ;) |
No, I mean your little Dubya. Of course Billy Boy made his stance known loud and clear about the war and went to Canada instead. Everyone knew where he stood with that war. Unlike little George who pretended to want to fight but put a big fat check mark by the option to stay instead of ACTUALLY fight in that war overseas, and then turned around and ended up not serving out his time in the Guard in the first place.
Not that his 5 deferments warmongering VP is any better, of course.
I hold little loyalty to Clinton, but he's come out and stated his reasons why he dodged that war. Has your little boy hero done the same? Or does it just not count for him because, well, he was kinda, sorta there in the Guard, demonstrating how big and bad of a fighter he really was?
And shall we continue with this silly branding and generalizations on the "nature of libruls", so long as I can continue to demonstrate the similar tone of the "nature of chickenhawks" and "neocons"? Or shall we both concede the point is way too tangential to the thread in the first place, if there was a point to be made at all? |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
No, I mean your little Dubya. Of course Billy Boy made his stance known loud and clear about the war and went to Canada instead. Everyone knew where he stood with that war. Unlike little George who pretended to want to fight but put a big fat check mark by the option to stay instead of ACTUALLY fight in that war overseas, and then turned around and ended up not serving out his time in the Guard in the first place.
Not that his 5 deferments warmongering VP is any better, of course.
I hold little loyalty to Clinton, but he's come out and stated his reasons why he dodged that war. Has your little boy hero done the same? Or does it just not count for him because, well, he was kinda, sorta there in the Guard, demonstrating how big and bad of a fighter he really was? |
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: my f-n' ASS OFF at your reasoning.
| quote: | | Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And shall we continue with this silly branding and generalizations on the "nature of libruls", so long as I can continue to demonstrate the similar tone of the "nature of chickenhawks" and "neocons"? Or shall we both concede the point is way too tangential to the thread in the first place, if there was a point to be made at all? |
Nope. You're a typical Liberal.
Thanks for playing though!
:D |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: my f-n' ASS OFF at your reasoning. |
If my reasoning is not sound, explain. Right now it's obvious you're the only one in the room laughing, which makes you appear a little foolish.
| quote: | Nope. You're a typical Liberal.
Thanks for playing though!
:D |
And you seem to be the typical Bush-apologist, that scary shrinking minority of Americans who can't seem to get a firm grip on reality. Oh well. |
|
|
|
|
