I find the jokes about Hilary offensive. (Did anyone poke fun of what Barbara looked like [and she’s no skinny spring chicken] or point out that Nancy Reagan looked anorexic?)
I find the comparison between what Clinton did to cause the impeachment and what Nixon did to be like comparing an accident and first degree homicide. While I don’t approve of Clinton’s antics, it was between him and Monica. Yes, he stepped over the line when it came to sexual harassment.
It became very clear, in Nixon’s own words, that he conspired to obstruct justice, that he passed out bribes, that he condoned burglary as well as suggesting his own people not tell the truth (is that not at least similar to perjury)?
And besides, I never thought it was about either the perjury or the sex, it was about power and the abuse thereof.
Isabelle may have been describing his habit of hiring private detectives to wreck the repuations of women who had or might point out that ol’ Bill had some friendly hands.
Fortunately for the womenfolk of the USA, Mr. C did not use a 1920s style death ray to threaten the girlies into giving up their sweet, sweet lovin’.
Why don’t you just go back to fucking your mother and spare the rest of us yoiur utterly pointless drivel that you try and pass off as legitimate posts?
sheesh.
Let’s recap-
you did a drive by in this thread in the first place w/the original comment about death rays,
Jack, being tired (as others are) of the whole ‘death rays’ thing commented on that.
you, commented back that he wasn’t a moderator or administrator, so ‘blow it out your ear’.
and he commented back the comment you quote here.
and in a blinding display of irony, you beat him up for posting contentless drive bys. (hint, see, please, your post page one that started this whole thing).
A word or two of unsolicited advice -
posting stuff on in a pit thread pretty much invites folks to respond to it, (here’s the interesting part) even if it’s just to point out that they found it annoying or stupid).
even if they’re not moderators or administrators.
when you post a content less pointless drive by posting to a thread, it’s really, ironic (and not in a good way) to yell at someone else for posting content less pointless drive bys.
Especially when in doing so, you revive a dying thread, to make a ‘scathing’ comeback to something that went on 3 days ago.
You’ll find that unlike Mr. Batty whose posts in this thread are nothing more then tired old one liners with only a tangential relationship to the topic at hand, my posts (with the exception of those directed towards Mr. Batty had a direct relationship to the thread’s topic. Even my initial post with the 1920’s style death rays was connected to the topic.
I’m almost finished reading A Vast Conspiracy, which is incredibly balanced (EVERYone comes out looking like a jerk). Though Clinton did lie, the only thing he ever lied about was the extramarital affair. Sleazy, yes, but that’s why they call them extramarital affairs: how many of his attacker do you suppose were entirely free from that particular sin? No way of knowing, of course, but you’ll never convince me that it approaches 100%. The closest he came to telling someone else to lie was maintaining, during the affair, that no one should know about it; once it was a legal issue he never discussed such things again, with Monica or anyone. So he never obstructed justice. Nor did he harrass anyone: though he was an extramarital sleazoid, his affairs were always consensual (there’s much circumstantial evidence to suggest that Paula Jones was just as aggressive as Clinton; ditto Kathleen Willey).
The fishing expedition was undertaken ENTIRELY by men (almost exclusively men) who were on the record as Clinton-haters before they ever got involved with the Office of the Independent Council, so it was clearly politically motivated from day one. Nonetheless, despite years of digging, and more than $50million spent on the dig, the ONLY thing they ever got on either Clinton was that Bill lied to hide a consensual affair.
Tell me how this compares to Watergate, let alone Iran-Contra.
Hey bright eyes, I read it. and went back to find your initial post. which was a fucking classic content less drive by posting. I find it totally ironic (and again, not in a good way) that you quoted my entire post w/o really answering anything of substance in it, merely to again comment on the content less drive by nature (IYHO) of Jack’s posting.
Whitehouse.gov has pulled a lot of funny boners. The latest, if I remember, was right after the Bush administration stuff about how Bush didn’t personally review every single line of his SotU speech. But on Whitehouse gov, the have a picture of the previous year of Bush doing just that, with a caption that said something like “the president reviews the SotU line by line.”
Under oath, mind you. Lying under oath isn’t worse or better just because of what you are lying about. It’d still be perjury if he lied about his toothbrushing habits. If he didn’t want to incriminate himself in court, he could have taken the fifth.