Incremental dirt bags

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Sep 23, 2010
7,628
748
205
It occurs to me the American people do not vote against a president because he is a dirt bag. Clinton proved it. The man raped a woman and he was reelected. The thing that troubles me is that Clinton won both terms with a plurality; Hussein won with a majority.

NOTE: "All the world loves a lover." Ralph Waldo Emerson. One of America’s greatest tragedies was letting the media protect Clinton when he erased the line separating lover from pervert.

I’m not implying Hussein is a sex pervert à la Bill Clinton. Still, Hussein has been so secretive the public knows very little about his personal history. Bottom line: He alone is responsible for speculation about any perversions he might have been into before he got to the White House; especially during his years of being mentored by known homosexual Frank Marshall Davis. No matter. Republicans would be crazy to use it against him because Clinton demonstrated that sexual deviancy is NOT a roadblock to the presidency. Oddly enough, congressmen, senators, and state officials, are punished whenever they are outed.

All things considered, I concluded that incrementalism works for dirt bags at the presidential level as well as it works for socialism’s policies. Here’s the thing that is so troubling. Voters went from Clinton to Hussein in less than one generation. Question: How filthy will the next dirt bag be?

Beating Hussein

The Republican candidate will not defeat Hussein if he confines his campaign to talking about the economy, unemployment, jobs, and gas prices. As powerful as those topics are, Hussein’s disloyalty must play a prominent role in his list of weaknesses. Remember that Clinton’s loyalty to this country was not challenged in ‘92 or ‘96 although it should have been because he and Hussein are the same when it comes to their loyalty. Both betrayed this country to the International community, but Hussein’s betrayals were more aggressive in foreign and domestic policies.

Assuming top Republicans do not agree with Hussein’s worldview (a dangerous assumption to be sure), the RNC should be preparing a chronological list of the things Hussein did since he took office. A list comprised of uncomplicated declarative sentences —— no lies, no spin, no speculation, and no rhetoric. Concentrate on the things he did; the bills and executive orders he signed; the regulations he ordered bureaucracies like the EPA to implement. Every foul thing he did should be preceded by the date he did it —— including bowing and scrapping before foreign leaders who hate this country.

Don’t waste time telling voters the things Hussein said. That crap is easily dismissed as standard campaign rhetoric; Republicans do it, too. Besides, the parasite class has been swallowing Hussein’s garbage since 2008. There is no reason to think they will upchuck this year.

An accurate list of Hussein’s weaknesses must be widely distributed in order to be effective. Naturally, an accurate list would include items Democrats support. The healthcare bill for one, environmental crapola for another.

An accurate list would also include items congressional Republicans went along with. Most notably, raising the debt ceiling, stimulus packages, and bailouts. Whoever the Republican candidate happens to be he should have no trouble distancing himself from the things congressional Republicans did —— no trouble if he is a true conservative.

My point: Don’t detail Hussein’s disasters with an eye towards winning over his hardcore base.
 
Last edited:
Scary MUSLIM Black Man!!!

To Ravi: Clinton was black but he was not a Muslim!

Clinton . . . raped a woman

Rule of thumb: when someone exhibits a complete disconnect with reality, ignore.

To Dragon: I should take your advice and ignore you. Nevertheless, anyone who reads this thread can view the video and decide for themself who is disconnected from reality:

HILLARY THREATENED JUANITA BROADDRICK 2 WEEKS AFTER RAPE - YouTube
 
Clinton never raped anyone.

To Sallow: Yeah, right! And Hillary, who now speaks for the women of the world, was never in charge of bimbo eruptions.

Clinton never raped anyone.

Exactly. Or at least, there is no evidence that he did.

To Dragon: Other than the fact Juanita Broaddrick never lied while Clinton is an admitted liar.

Incidentally, Clinton raped her twice. The sound quality in the following video is not the best, but the message is clear:


Shays Shocker: Clinton Raped Broaddrick Twice - YouTube
 
started right off with a lie didnt you OP

To Truthmatters: Be precise if you can.

And do you really want to defend Clinton or Hussein by calling somebody else a liar? Clinton’s lies are well-documented, but minor compared to the lies Hussein tells:


Richard Nixon was removed from office, and Bill Clinton impeached for a single lie. Who could look at Obama’s record without concluding that his lying is in a completely different league to theirs?

President Obama evidently believes that he can solve any problem with a speech. But he really does not care whether what he says is true or not, nor does he feel any responsibility to honor the assurances and promises he makes. As a result, this nation is now in a position where it cannot believe a word that he says, and that amounts to an unprecedented crisis of confidence in the Presidency. Democratic government will atrophy if we allow lying on this scale to count as the business as usual of politics. When will the press and the Congress hold him accountable?

The Lies of Obama
Posted by John Ellis on Jan 21st, 2010

The Lies of Obama | FrontPage Magazine

Read the entire article to see a long list of lies Hussein told during the campaign and in his first year in office. The scary part is that he added two more years of lies since January 2010.

Surely, Hussein’s supporters know that the man is an unrepentant liar. It does not matter to them just as the lies the Clintons told did not matter to their supporters. So let me repeat: “Don’t waste time telling voters the things Hussein said.” His lies make satisfying reading, but they will not dissuade one Democrat from voting for him.
 
To Dragon: Other than the fact Juanita Broaddrick never lied

In 1997, Broaddrick made a sworn statement in connection with the Paul Jones case stating that Clinton had never sexually assaulted her.

The following year, in an interview with Dateline NBC, she contradicted her sworn testimony and said that he had.

On one or the other occasion, she lied.
 
To Dragon: Other than the fact Juanita Broaddrick never lied

In 1997, Broaddrick made a sworn statement in connection with the Paul Jones case stating that Clinton had never sexually assaulted her.

The following year, in an interview with Dateline NBC, she contradicted her sworn testimony and said that he had.

On one or the other occasion, she lied.

To Dragon: I was wrong. Obviously, she lied in the 1997 affidavit since she told the truth about the rape. This excerpt puts credibility on her side as well putting the stress she was under in perspective:

In November 1997, investigators for Paula Jones confronted Juanita Broaddrick – and tape recorded the encounter – but she slammed the door in their faces saying she didn’t want to relive the “horrible thing” that had happened. When Jones’ attorneys subpoenaed Broaddrick, she signed an affidavit saying she’d never experienced unwanted sexual advances from Bill Clinton. Paula Jones’ lawyers used Broaddrick’s story, disguised as “Jane Doe No. 5″ in a court filing based largely on a 1992 letter to Broaddrick from a friend of hers, Philip Yoakum. In that letter, Mr. Yoakum wrote that he was “particularly distraught when you told me of your brutal rape by Bill Clinton, how he bit your lip until you gave into his forcing sex upon you.” When this letter and the Jones court filing hit the news in March 1998, Mr. Yoakum told reporters he’d tried to get Broaddrick to go public during the 1992 campaign, but she’d said to him, “Who would believe me, little old Juanita from Van Buren?”

BOOK EXCERPT
The rape of Juanita Broaddrick
Chapter from 'Their Lives' tells of woman's horrifying encounter with Clinton

The rape of Juanita Broaddrick

As it turned out a great many Americans believed her —— more so after both Clintons were caught lying; he about Paula Jones; she about not knowing what she was married to after she had been in charge of bimbo eruptions for years.

Incidentally, I always found it disgusting that the term “bimbo eruptions” implies the women the Clintons used and abused were bimbos, yet nobody ever pointed out Hillary Clinton is the worst kind of bimbo. Her true calling is madam in a whorehouse not the savior of women as she likes to be known.
 
To Dragon: I was wrong. Obviously, she lied in the 1997 affidavit since she told the truth about the rape.


You should learn to distinguish between what you want to believe, and what is "obviously" true.

On the face of it, it's more likely that she lied when there were no possible criminal penalties for doing so, than when there were.
 
Rule of thumb: when someone exhibits a complete disconnect with reality, ignore.

You should learn to distinguish between what you want to believe, and what is "obviously" true.

On the face of it, it's more likely that she lied when there were no possible criminal penalties for doing so, than when there were.

To Dragon: You’re disconnecting from reality again.

There is not a chance Ms. Broaddrick would of been charged with a crime or even sued. In either case Bill Clinton, and probably Hillary, would have had to testify under oath. Any half-ass lawyer would have crucified them; whereas, Broaddrick did NOT have to testify in a criminal trial. More to the point, you can be sure the best lawyers in the country would have begged for a chance to question the Clintons in open court. That’s reality.
 
Last edited:
There is not a chance Ms. Broaddrick would of been charged with a crime or even sued.

That's only clear in hindsight, based on information unavailable to her at the time. That is to say, because of the judge's ruling in the case, her testimony was not material and therefore could not constitute perjury (Clinton's own dishonest testimony was not perjury for the same reason). However, that's only true because the judge ruled that Jones failed to establish any harm resulting from Clinton's alleged conduct, and so whether or not he actually engaged in that conduct made no difference legally. If it had been ruled that Jones' allegations did constitute harm on Clinton's part, then the truth or falsehood of the allegations would have been material, and so both testimonies would have been material, and Clinton's at least would have constituted perjury.

As Broaddrick had no way to know how the judge would rule when she gave her testimony, she had to think that the oath was binding and that she could face consequences for testifying dishonestly. While this does not PROVE that she lied on the other occasion and told the truth on this one, it does create a tilt in probability that direction.

Bear in mind as well that while many women have testified to Clinton being a promiscuous womanizer, Broaddrick is the only one who has ever hinted at the possibility of rape, and we know that she is not perfectly honest. Being a womanizer and being a rapist aren't even related behaviors.
 
On the face of it, it's more likely that she lied when there were no possible criminal penalties for doing so, than when there were.

There is not a chance Ms. Broaddrick would of been charged with a crime or even sued.

That's only clear in hindsight, based on information unavailable to her at the time. That is to say, because of the judge's ruling in the case, her testimony was not material and therefore could not constitute perjury (Clinton's own dishonest testimony was not perjury for the same reason). However, that's only true because the judge ruled that Jones failed to establish any harm resulting from Clinton's alleged conduct, and so whether or not he actually engaged in that conduct made no difference legally. If it had been ruled that Jones' allegations did constitute harm on Clinton's part, then the truth or falsehood of the allegations would have been material, and so both testimonies would have been material, and Clinton's at least would have constituted perjury.

As Broaddrick had no way to know how the judge would rule when she gave her testimony, she had to think that the oath was binding and that she could face consequences for testifying dishonestly. While this does not PROVE that she lied on the other occasion and told the truth on this one, it does create a tilt in probability that direction.

Bear in mind as well that while many women have testified to Clinton being a promiscuous womanizer, Broaddrick is the only one who has ever hinted at the possibility of rape, and we know that she is not perfectly honest. Being a womanizer and being a rapist aren't even related behaviors.

To Dragon: Hindsight does not enter into it. Elected officials do not testify in court if it can be avoided. I knew the unwritten rule when I was a teenager as did everybody in the old neighborhood. In light of all of the scandals involving elected officials who never testified in open court it’s not much of a stretch to say most Americans also know the rule. Officials even avoid it when they are the defendants in a criminal trial. If Broaddrick was not clear on that unwritten rule at least one or two of the people she was talking to at the time would have explained it. I just cannot believe the subject never came up.

For the record, Clinton did commit perjury, but US District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright reduced it to contempt of court and called it “intentionally false testimony.” It would have been perjury for the rest of us. Clinton was punished for giving “false testimony” but not as severely as he would have been had the charge been perjury.
 
We are discussing the testimony of someone who is not an elected official.

And no, Clinton did not commit perjury. Unlike whether Broaddrick lied, this is not even in doubt or in dispute by anyone who knows about the law. Testimony under oath must be material in order to constitute perjury. "Material" means that it must impact the determination of the case, possibly resulting in an unjust verdict. False testimony under oath that is not material to the case is NOT perjury, although as in Clinton's case it may be considered conduct inappropriate for a lawyer and may result in disbarment.

Clinton's testimony (and Broaddrick's) was relevant only to whether Clinton demonstrated a pattern of improper and inappropriate sexual advances towards women. The ruling made any such pattern totally irrelevant to the case, and therefore any testimony about it immaterial -- and hence not perjury.

Doesn't matter whether you think Clinton is a scumbag, that's still the law.
 
We are discussing the testimony of someone who is not an elected official.

And no, Clinton did not commit perjury. Unlike whether Broaddrick lied, this is not even in doubt or in dispute by anyone who knows about the law. Testimony under oath must be material in order to constitute perjury. "Material" means that it must impact the determination of the case, possibly resulting in an unjust verdict. False testimony under oath that is not material to the case is NOT perjury, although as in Clinton's case it may be considered conduct inappropriate for a lawyer and may result in disbarment.

Clinton's testimony (and Broaddrick's) was relevant only to whether Clinton demonstrated a pattern of improper and inappropriate sexual advances towards women. The ruling made any such pattern totally irrelevant to the case, and therefore any testimony about it immaterial -- and hence not perjury.

Doesn't matter whether you think Clinton is a scumbag, that's still the law.

To Dragon: No. We were discussing why Broaddrick did not have to worry about being charged with perjury or sued. Now that I think of it she may have lied in the 1997 affidavit because she feared she could not prove the charge and might be sued. Once she learned about the strength of the previously mentioned unwritten rule she felt confident about telling the truth.

And I don’t know where you got your definition of perjury, but I got mine from dictionaries.


perjury (noun)
plural perjuries

1. Law. The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.

2. The breach of an oath or a promise.

Note the similarity between #1. and “intentionally false testimony.”
 
No. We were discussing why Broaddrick did not have to worry about being charged with perjury or sued.

And your reasoning about that had to do with elected officials not testifying in court if they can get away with it. Broaddrick, however, was not an elected official, so the reasoning doesn't apply.

And I don’t know where you got your definition of perjury, but I got mine from dictionaries.

I got mine from a LEGAL dictionary.

perjury: Definition of perjury. Define perjury

perjury [pər-jə-rē] n
pl: -ries
[Anglo-French perjurie parjurie, from Latin perjurium, from perjurus deliberately giving false testimony, from per- detrimental to + jur- jus law]
: the act or crime of knowingly making a false statement (as about a material matter) while under oath or bound by an affirmation or other officially prescribed declaration that what one says, writes, or claims is true compare false swearing

The matter testified must be material to the case.
 
No. We were discussing why Broaddrick did not have to worry about being charged with perjury or sued.

And your reasoning about that had to do with elected officials not testifying in court if they can get away with it. Broaddrick, however, was not an elected official, so the reasoning doesn't apply.

And I don’t know where you got your definition of perjury, but I got mine from dictionaries.

I got mine from a LEGAL dictionary.

perjury: Definition of perjury. Define perjury

perjury [pər-jə-rē] n
pl: -ries
[Anglo-French perjurie parjurie, from Latin perjurium, from perjurus deliberately giving false testimony, from per- detrimental to + jur- jus law]
: the act or crime of knowingly making a false statement (as about a material matter) while under oath or bound by an affirmation or other officially prescribed declaration that what one says, writes, or claims is true compare false swearing

The matter testified must be material to the case.

To Dragon: If I’m following you correctly, you are saying Clinton never raped Broaddrick because he never committed perjury in a strict legal sense. In your defense of Clinton the definition of perjury is more important than the fact he was never charged with the rape, nor did he ever testify about it in any context. I don’t think he ever denied it, yet tens of millions believe he did it.

Legal contortions notwithstanding, Clinton did commit perjury as average Americans understand it. Judge Webber (she was a student of Clinton’s when he was a law professor) let him off the hook in the Paula Jones case.

My final comment. Most people think a miscarriage of justice only occurs when an innocent man is found guilty. People like Clinton getting away with rape because of their position in government is a bigger miscarriage of justice.
 

Forum List

Back
Top