For The Record, It Was The Republicans That Started This Precedent

[Big Fitz]

Because of their blood-lust and savage hatred for Clinton, the Republicans went gunning for blood. They pulled all the stops to get at Clinton. Gnawing and clawing at the law and morals to get at it.

I mean, you had the biggest hypocrite in Newt Gingrich, who was simultaneously publicly condemning Clinton for his affair while in the throws of his own affairs. In fact, multiple Republicans were, at the time, involved in affairs, as we later came to find out, while publicly attacking Clinton.

The Republicans opened the floodgates of this issue of using personal relationships, especially of the sexual nature to attack one's political opponents. This had never been done, to such a degree before. The precedent has been set, and I'm afraid there's no turning back.

Which brings us to Herman Cain, where these same Republicans are now seemingly wanting to forget that precedent and act as if sexual relationships are totally off limits. How does that work?

Forgot about Reagan and Nixon, eh?

 

[Sallow]

Because of their blood-lust and savage hatred for Clinton, the Republicans went gunning for blood. They pulled all the stops to get at Clinton. Gnawing and clawing at the law and morals to get at it.

I mean, you had the biggest hypocrite in Newt Gingrich, who was simultaneously publicly condemning Clinton for his affair while in the throws of his own affairs. In fact, multiple Republicans were, at the time, involved in affairs, as we later came to find out, while publicly attacking Clinton.

The Republicans opened the floodgates of this issue of using personal relationships, especially of the sexual nature to attack one's political opponents. This had never been done, to such a degree before. The precedent has been set, and I'm afraid there's no turning back.

Which brings us to Herman Cain, where these same Republicans are now seemingly wanting to forget that precedent and act as if sexual relationships are totally off limits. How does that work?

Absolutely.

 

[Vaard]

so Clinton set a precedent that perjurers and adulterers are capable of being President. What's the problem?

Better yet... only Democrat adulterers can be President...

See Herman Cain.

1992 presidential primaries... clinton was accused of having an affair with gennifer flowers, which both clinton and flowers denied at the time.......

not quite the same as herman cains current issues........

 

[Sallow]

Because of their blood-lust and savage hatred for Clinton, the Republicans went gunning for blood. They pulled all the stops to get at Clinton. Gnawing and clawing at the law and morals to get at it.

I mean, you had the biggest hypocrite in Newt Gingrich, who was simultaneously publicly condemning Clinton for his affair while in the throws of his own affairs. In fact, multiple Republicans were, at the time, involved in affairs, as we later came to find out, while publicly attacking Clinton.

The Republicans opened the floodgates of this issue of using personal relationships, especially of the sexual nature to attack one's political opponents. This had never been done, to such a degree before. The precedent has been set, and I'm afraid there's no turning back.

Which brings us to Herman Cain, where these same Republicans are now seemingly wanting to forget that precedent and act as if sexual relationships are totally off limits. How does that work?

Forgot about Reagan and Nixon, eh?

Nixon just broke into Muskie's office and let everyone know that he was seeing a shrink. Reagan let Lee Atwater have a field day with that Horton ad..

But Gingrich took it to a new level with the very very personal stuff. Like affairs.

 

[Vaard]

Because of their blood-lust and savage hatred for Clinton, the Republicans went gunning for blood. They pulled all the stops to get at Clinton. Gnawing and clawing at the law and morals to get at it.

I mean, you had the biggest hypocrite in Newt Gingrich, who was simultaneously publicly condemning Clinton for his affair while in the throws of his own affairs. In fact, multiple Republicans were, at the time, involved in affairs, as we later came to find out, while publicly attacking Clinton.

The Republicans opened the floodgates of this issue of using personal relationships, especially of the sexual nature to attack one's political opponents. This had never been done, to such a degree before. The precedent has been set, and I'm afraid there's no turning back.

Which brings us to Herman Cain, where these same Republicans are now seemingly wanting to forget that precedent and act as if sexual relationships are totally off limits. How does that work?

umm, you forgot about gary hart and donna rice.......

 

[Sallow]

so Clinton set a precedent that perjurers and adulterers are capable of being President. What's the problem?

Nothing really.

Bush opened the floodgates on people with convictions on their record to become President. First President of the US in history with a record.

Good job boys.

 

[Sallow]

Because of their blood-lust and savage hatred for Clinton, the Republicans went gunning for blood. They pulled all the stops to get at Clinton. Gnawing and clawing at the law and morals to get at it.

I mean, you had the biggest hypocrite in Newt Gingrich, who was simultaneously publicly condemning Clinton for his affair while in the throws of his own affairs. In fact, multiple Republicans were, at the time, involved in affairs, as we later came to find out, while publicly attacking Clinton.

The Republicans opened the floodgates of this issue of using personal relationships, especially of the sexual nature to attack one's political opponents. This had never been done, to such a degree before. The precedent has been set, and I'm afraid there's no turning back.

Which brings us to Herman Cain, where these same Republicans are now seemingly wanting to forget that precedent and act as if sexual relationships are totally off limits. How does that work?

umm, you forgot about gary hart and donna rice.......

Ain't it funny it's generally consevatives pulling the character assassination crap?

 

[mal]

Because of their blood-lust and savage hatred for Clinton, the Republicans went gunning for blood. They pulled all the stops to get at Clinton. Gnawing and clawing at the law and morals to get at it.

I mean, you had the biggest hypocrite in Newt Gingrich, who was simultaneously publicly condemning Clinton for his affair while in the throws of his own affairs. In fact, multiple Republicans were, at the time, involved in affairs, as we later came to find out, while publicly attacking Clinton.

The Republicans opened the floodgates of this issue of using personal relationships, especially of the sexual nature to attack one's political opponents. This had never been done, to such a degree before. The precedent has been set, and I'm afraid there's no turning back.

Which brings us to Herman Cain, where these same Republicans are now seemingly wanting to forget that precedent and act as if sexual relationships are totally off limits. How does that work?

Um... Yeah.

Clinton Sexually Abused an Unpaid Intern's Mouth in the Oval Office while Discussing Troop Deployment with a US Congressman on the phone and then Later "Willfully Lied under Oath" about the Potential Breech of Security by exposing someone of that Station to Classified information while Fucking her Face...

I wouldn't have cared if he was Fucking Midget Hookers at a Press Conference as long as he wasn't Breaking Laws that saw Military Officers under him Legally Sanctioned and doing so in a way that Exposed our Military Operations to a "Fat Tramp".

Anyway...



peace...

 

[Vaard]

Because of their blood-lust and savage hatred for Clinton, the Republicans went gunning for blood. They pulled all the stops to get at Clinton. Gnawing and clawing at the law and morals to get at it.

I mean, you had the biggest hypocrite in Newt Gingrich, who was simultaneously publicly condemning Clinton for his affair while in the throws of his own affairs. In fact, multiple Republicans were, at the time, involved in affairs, as we later came to find out, while publicly attacking Clinton.

The Republicans opened the floodgates of this issue of using personal relationships, especially of the sexual nature to attack one's political opponents. This had never been done, to such a degree before. The precedent has been set, and I'm afraid there's no turning back.

Which brings us to Herman Cain, where these same Republicans are now seemingly wanting to forget that precedent and act as if sexual relationships are totally off limits. How does that work?

Um... Yeah.

Clinton Sexually Abused an Unpaid Intern's Mouth in the Oval Office while Discussing Troop Deployment with a US Congressman on the phone and then Later "Willfully Lied under Oath" about the Potential Breech of Security by exposing someone of that Station to Classified information while Fucking her Face...

I wouldn't have cared if he was Fucking Midget Hookers at a Press Conference as long as he wasn't Breaking Laws that saw Military Officers under him Legally Sanctioned and doing so in a way that Exposed our Military Operations to a "Fat Tramp".

Anyway...



peace...

ah.. consensual sex is now sexual abuse........

makes sense that republicans need to label consenual sex as sexual abuse tho.. that way they can say cains actual sexual abuse was really consensual sex.......

 

[Unkotare]

Because of their blood-lust and savage hatred for Clinton, the Republicans went gunning for blood. They pulled all the stops to get at Clinton. Gnawing and clawing at the law and morals to get at it.

I mean, you had the biggest hypocrite in Newt Gingrich, who was simultaneously publicly condemning Clinton for his affair while in the throws of his own affairs. In fact, multiple Republicans were, at the time, involved in affairs, as we later came to find out, while publicly attacking Clinton.

The Republicans opened the floodgates of this issue of using personal relationships, especially of the sexual nature to attack one's political opponents. This had never been done, to such a degree before. The precedent has been set, and I'm afraid there's no turning back.

Which brings us to Herman Cain, where these same Republicans are now seemingly wanting to forget that precedent and act as if sexual relationships are totally off limits. How does that work?

Absolutely.

You chime in with "absolutely" to a post that has been discredited, debunked, and disproven six ways to Sunday? Way to read the thread before replying, Swallow.

 

[Unkotare]

Reagan let Lee Atwater have a field day with that Horton ad...

Wrong election, wrong Republican, moron.

 

[Truthmatters]

Because of their blood-lust and savage hatred for Clinton, the Republicans went gunning for blood. They pulled all the stops to get at Clinton. Gnawing and clawing at the law and morals to get at it.

I mean, you had the biggest hypocrite in Newt Gingrich, who was simultaneously publicly condemning Clinton for his affair while in the throws of his own affairs. In fact, multiple Republicans were, at the time, involved in affairs, as we later came to find out, while publicly attacking Clinton.

The Republicans opened the floodgates of this issue of using personal relationships, especially of the sexual nature to attack one's political opponents. This had never been done, to such a degree before. The precedent has been set, and I'm afraid there's no turning back.

Which brings us to Herman Cain, where these same Republicans are now seemingly wanting to forget that precedent and act as if sexual relationships are totally off limits. How does that work?

Um... Yeah.

Clinton Sexually Abused an Unpaid Intern's Mouth in the Oval Office while Discussing Troop Deployment with a US Congressman on the phone and then Later "Willfully Lied under Oath" about the Potential Breech of Security by exposing someone of that Station to Classified information while Fucking her Face...

I wouldn't have cared if he was Fucking Midget Hookers at a Press Conference as long as he wasn't Breaking Laws that saw Military Officers under him Legally Sanctioned and doing so in a way that Exposed our Military Operations to a "Fat Tramp".

Anyway...



peace...

ah.. consensual sex is now sexual abuse........

makes sense that republicans need to label consenual sex as sexual abuse tho.. that way they can say cains actual sexual abuse was really consensual sex.......

They will lie about anything.

they lie about James Madisons interpitation of the contitution that he fucking wrote.

They lie about FDR and the New Deal.

They lie about consumer confidence and anything else the outs their historically failed ideas

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Um... Yeah.

Clinton Sexually Abused an Unpaid Intern's Mouth in the Oval Office while Discussing Troop Deployment with a US Congressman on the phone and then Later "Willfully Lied under Oath" about the Potential Breech of Security by exposing someone of that Station to Classified information while Fucking her Face...

I wouldn't have cared if he was Fucking Midget Hookers at a Press Conference as long as he wasn't Breaking Laws that saw Military Officers under him Legally Sanctioned and doing so in a way that Exposed our Military Operations to a "Fat Tramp".

Anyway...



peace...

ah.. consensual sex is now sexual abuse........

makes sense that republicans need to label consenual sex as sexual abuse tho.. that way they can say cains actual sexual abuse was really consensual sex.......

They will lie about anything.

they lie about James Madisons interpitation of the contitution that he fucking wrote.

They lie about FDR and the New Deal.

They lie about consumer confidence and anything else the outs their historically failed ideas

And you are so honest.



NOT!!

 

[mal]

Because of their blood-lust and savage hatred for Clinton, the Republicans went gunning for blood. They pulled all the stops to get at Clinton. Gnawing and clawing at the law and morals to get at it.

I mean, you had the biggest hypocrite in Newt Gingrich, who was simultaneously publicly condemning Clinton for his affair while in the throws of his own affairs. In fact, multiple Republicans were, at the time, involved in affairs, as we later came to find out, while publicly attacking Clinton.

The Republicans opened the floodgates of this issue of using personal relationships, especially of the sexual nature to attack one's political opponents. This had never been done, to such a degree before. The precedent has been set, and I'm afraid there's no turning back.

Which brings us to Herman Cain, where these same Republicans are now seemingly wanting to forget that precedent and act as if sexual relationships are totally off limits. How does that work?

Um... Yeah.

Clinton Sexually Abused an Unpaid Intern's Mouth in the Oval Office while Discussing Troop Deployment with a US Congressman on the phone and then Later "Willfully Lied under Oath" about the Potential Breech of Security by exposing someone of that Station to Classified information while Fucking her Face...

I wouldn't have cared if he was Fucking Midget Hookers at a Press Conference as long as he wasn't Breaking Laws that saw Military Officers under him Legally Sanctioned and doing so in a way that Exposed our Military Operations to a "Fat Tramp".

Anyway...



peace...

ah.. consensual sex is now sexual abuse........

makes sense that republicans need to label consenual sex as sexual abuse tho.. that way they can say cains actual sexual abuse was really consensual sex.......

WRONG...

Military Officers were Charged with doing the VERY thing Clinton did and they weren't Jeopordizing National Security doing it.



peace...

 

[Unkotare]

They lie about FDR and the New Deal.

FDR is covered in more than enough shame that no lies are necessary.

 

[Truthmatters]

ah.. consensual sex is now sexual abuse........

makes sense that republicans need to label consenual sex as sexual abuse tho.. that way they can say cains actual sexual abuse was really consensual sex.......

They will lie about anything.

they lie about James Madisons interpitation of the contitution that he fucking wrote.

They lie about FDR and the New Deal.

They lie about consumer confidence and anything else the outs their historically failed ideas

And you are so honest.



NOT!!

James Madison's Veto Messages by Gene Garman



June 3, 1811



I have recd. fellow Citizens your address, approving my Objection to the Bill contain[in]g a grant of public land, to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House Missippi Terry. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion & Civil Govt as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constn: of the U.S. I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself. Among the various religious Societies in our Country, none have been more vigilant or constant in maintain[in]g that distinction, than the Society of which you make a part, and it is an honourable proof of your sincerity & integrity, that you are as ready to do so, in a case favoring the interest of your brethren, as in other cases. It is but just, at the same time, to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, to remark that their application to the Natl. Legislature does not appear to have contemplated a grant of the Land in question, but on terms that might be equitable to the public as well as to themselves. Accept my friendly respects


------------------------------

President Madison's letter as quoted above is located in The Papers of James Madison: Presidential Series, 3:323-324.

 

[Truthmatters]

They lie about FDR and the New Deal.

FDR is covered in more than enough shame that no lies are necessary.

and there you have a con doing just what I said

 

[Unkotare]

They lie about FDR and the New Deal.

FDR is covered in more than enough shame that no lies are necessary.

and there you have a con doing just what I said

Are you saying it is a lie that FDR is covered in shame?

 

[Truthmatters]

FDR has always ranked amoung the greatest presidents on both historians lists and American peoples list.

You see him as shameful because your head is full of partisan ballyhoo

 

[Unkotare]

FDR has always ranked amoung the greatest presidents on both historians lists and American peoples list.

You see him as shameful because your head is full of partisan ballyhoo

Do you or do you not consider it shameful for a US President to place tens of thousands of loyal, patriotic American citizens into concentration camps?