There Bill Clinton goes again

What do you think about Clarence Thomas and the Anita Hill thing.

Be honest... I know it will be hard for you.

I think she may have been telling the truth but do you see me running arround calling Thomas a sexual harrasser every thim his name is mentioned?

BTW I am female and have had teh same shit done to me at work and never reported it.


I would never forgo reporting a rape.

Are you sure you don't want to amend that? Cause I am darn sure we can find past comments from you about how you feel about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill.

I guess you just don't believe a black man can be a good Supreme Court Justice.

Go get em
 
Bush based his assumptions about WMDs based on reports to him. Not only did our country agree with the reports, but others did as well. You really do have a problem with FACTS don't you?

Rick

the intel was cherry picked, rick. there's really no reason to debate the issue because it's really done and dusted as far as i'm concerned. but if you take the time to look at Hans Blix's final reports to the U.N., it's pretty clear that the entry into Iraq was for no reason at all.

-- j

I'm not making any assessment on the intel jillian, what I am commenting on are TM's lies. She claims that others lie every time they say something that she doesn't agree with, yet she posts this same lie over and over and over again. The lie is that Bush lied to get us into a war. Bush didn't lie, he based his decision on intel received, and not only did he think it was enough to go to war over, but our representatives did as well as the other countries that joined in on that war.

TM is a flat out liar and it was just proved not only by myself but by you admitting that Bush used intel to get us into the war in Iraq. Thanks.

Rick
 
I'm not making any assessment on the intel jillian, what I am commenting on are TM's lies. She claims that others lie every time they say something that she doesn't agree with, yet she posts this same lie over and over and over again. The lie is that Bush lied to get us into a war. Bush didn't lie, he based his decision on intel received, and not only did he think it was enough to go to war over, but our representatives did as well as the other countries that joined in on that war.

TM is a flat out liar and it was just proved not only by myself but by you admitting that Bush used intel to get us into the war in Iraq. Thanks.

Rick

your disagreement with TM is between the two of you. but no, i think bush used cherry-picked, not actual intel to get us into Iraq. I also think he should have listened to his state department about what would happen if he deposed saddam. i do not think he 'relied on intel' at all... i think they shaped the 'intel' to what they wanted to do. does it rise to the level of a lie? i don't know...
 
The FACT remains that what Bill Clinton did in the Oval Office with an intern was sexual harassment. Having sexual relations with an intern in the workplace is sexual harassment and in ANY other job in this country Bill Clinton would have been fired immediately.

Rick
 
I'm not making any assessment on the intel jillian, what I am commenting on are TM's lies. She claims that others lie every time they say something that she doesn't agree with, yet she posts this same lie over and over and over again. The lie is that Bush lied to get us into a war. Bush didn't lie, he based his decision on intel received, and not only did he think it was enough to go to war over, but our representatives did as well as the other countries that joined in on that war.

TM is a flat out liar and it was just proved not only by myself but by you admitting that Bush used intel to get us into the war in Iraq. Thanks.

Rick

your disagreement with TM is between the two of you. but no, i think bush used cherry-picked, not actual intel to get us into Iraq. I also think he should have listened to his state department about what would happen if he deposed saddam. i do not think he 'relied on intel' at all... i think they shaped the 'intel' to what they wanted to do. does it rise to the level of a lie? i don't know...



So did the UN, our Allies and Democrats also Cherry pick? why do you care that Bush did but not them?
 
Bush based his assumptions about WMDs based on reports to him. Not only did our country agree with the reports, but others did as well. You really do have a problem with FACTS don't you?

Rick

the intel was cherry picked, rick. there's really no reason to debate the issue because it's really done and dusted as far as i'm concerned. but if you take the time to look at Hans Blix's final reports to the U.N., it's pretty clear that the entry into Iraq was for no reason at all.

-- j

I'm not making any assessment on the intel jillian, what I am commenting on are TM's lies. She claims that others lie every time they say something that she doesn't agree with, yet she posts this same lie over and over and over again. The lie is that Bush lied to get us into a war. Bush didn't lie, he based his decision on intel received, and not only did he think it was enough to go to war over, but our representatives did as well as the other countries that joined in on that war.

TM is a flat out liar and it was just proved not only by myself but by you admitting that Bush used intel to get us into the war in Iraq. Thanks.

Rick

Document your claim
 
I'm not making any assessment on the intel jillian, what I am commenting on are TM's lies. She claims that others lie every time they say something that she doesn't agree with, yet she posts this same lie over and over and over again. The lie is that Bush lied to get us into a war. Bush didn't lie, he based his decision on intel received, and not only did he think it was enough to go to war over, but our representatives did as well as the other countries that joined in on that war.

TM is a flat out liar and it was just proved not only by myself but by you admitting that Bush used intel to get us into the war in Iraq. Thanks.

Rick

your disagreement with TM is between the two of you. but no, i think bush used cherry-picked, not actual intel to get us into Iraq. I also think he should have listened to his state department about what would happen if he deposed saddam. i do not think he 'relied on intel' at all... i think they shaped the 'intel' to what they wanted to do. does it rise to the level of a lie? i don't know...



So did the UN, our Allies and Democrats also Cherry pick? why do you care that Bush did but not them?

Do you remember how many of them refused to back us in Iraq due to the lies?






"The FACT remains that what Bill Clinton did in the Oval Office with an intern was sexual harassment. Having sexual relations with an intern in the workplace is sexual harassment and in ANY other job in this country Bill Clinton would have been fired immediately.

Rick "


Do you have a copy of the law that says sex in a office is illegal?

it was consentual
 
Last edited:
the intel was cherry picked, rick. there's really no reason to debate the issue because it's really done and dusted as far as i'm concerned. but if you take the time to look at Hans Blix's final reports to the U.N., it's pretty clear that the entry into Iraq was for no reason at all.

-- j

I'm not making any assessment on the intel jillian, what I am commenting on are TM's lies. She claims that others lie every time they say something that she doesn't agree with, yet she posts this same lie over and over and over again. The lie is that Bush lied to get us into a war. Bush didn't lie, he based his decision on intel received, and not only did he think it was enough to go to war over, but our representatives did as well as the other countries that joined in on that war.

TM is a flat out liar and it was just proved not only by myself but by you admitting that Bush used intel to get us into the war in Iraq. Thanks.

Rick

Document your claim

Give me a fucking break. You called me a liar at least three times and I asked you to point out at least three times ANY lie that I've posted. You didn't, and can't.

Rick
 
your disagreement with TM is between the two of you. but no, i think bush used cherry-picked, not actual intel to get us into Iraq. I also think he should have listened to his state department about what would happen if he deposed saddam. i do not think he 'relied on intel' at all... i think they shaped the 'intel' to what they wanted to do. does it rise to the level of a lie? i don't know...



So did the UN, our Allies and Democrats also Cherry pick? why do you care that Bush did but not them?

Do you remember how many of them refused to back us in Iraq due to the lies?



No.... I don't. Please inform me.
 
your disagreement with TM is between the two of you. but no, i think bush used cherry-picked, not actual intel to get us into Iraq. I also think he should have listened to his state department about what would happen if he deposed saddam. i do not think he 'relied on intel' at all... i think they shaped the 'intel' to what they wanted to do. does it rise to the level of a lie? i don't know...



So did the UN, our Allies and Democrats also Cherry pick? why do you care that Bush did but not them?

Do you remember how many of them refused to back us in Iraq due to the lies?






"The FACT remains that what Bill Clinton did in the Oval Office with an intern was sexual harassment. Having sexual relations with an intern in the workplace is sexual harassment and in ANY other job in this country Bill Clinton would have been fired immediately.

Rick "


Do you have a copy of the law that says sex in a office is illegal?

it was consentual

Do you really not know how to read? Please give me exactly where in the above quote I said that "sex in a office is illegal." What I said is "sexual relations with an intern in the workplace is sexual harassment." Please tell me that you do know that sex between a supervisor and their subordinate is considered sexual harassment weather it is mutually agreed upon or not. It is considered sexual harassment because there is a tendency to give unfair advantages to someone with whom you're having a relationship. In any other job in the country such a relationship is grounds for immediate dismissal.

Oh, and I'm with Nonelitist, I'd like to see the list of the countries that refused to back us as well.

Rick
 
Last edited:
The crime that Clinton performed was lying to the grand jury and obstructing justice.

Paula Jones had a legal right to have truthful testimony in her sexual harassment suit.
 
Former President Bill Clinton last week inadvertently demonstrated Karl Marx's shrewd observation, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." The historical event in question is the attempt to deter by smearing a broad-based, popular, American anti-high-tax, anti-big-central government movement as likely to induce seditious violence against the government.

The historic example of this calumny was Alexander Hamilton's slander against Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's emerging Republican/Democratic Party. The first repetition, as tragedy, was Bill Clinton's attack on the Republican Contract With America rhetoric following the Oklahoma bombing in 1995 - which resulted in deflecting the upward progress of conservatism from the summer of 1995 onward.

The second repetition - this time as farce - occurred last week as, once again, Mr. Clinton went back to his once-trusty playbook and implied that this time, the Tea Party rhetoric might result in political violence.

By coincidence, I have found myself involved in both of Mr. Clinton's attempted repetitions. As Newt Gingrich's press secretary in 1995, I received the calls of reporters asking me to respond to Clinton White House-generated accusations that our Contract with America rhetoric had caused Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Oklahoma City government building. As preposterous as the charge was - advocating constitutional, limited government is inherently nonseditious, nor did we ever call for violence of any sort - the charge had its intended effect and put Mr. Clinton back in the political driver's seat in Washington after the drubbing he took the previous November.

EDITED- to a few paragraphs per copyright policy of USMB

Care

More here: BLANKLEY: There Bill Clinton goes again - Washington Times

So history comes full circle and now the party that resulted from a backlash of this kind of slander falls prey to using the same kind of smear tactic.

Bill Clinton has been using this tactic since the OK City bombing.

But we have had a year of the tea party and the only violence has come from the left. Whether it's beating up black men handing out "don't tread on me" flags or the disputed beating of a couple two weeks ago (still debate on whether it was political or not).

The point is, there has been NO violence from the tea party nor will there be. It's not about violence. It's about beliving in the Constitutional political process to return this country to it's Constitutional limits.

They see the Obama government as an out of control attempt to do away with the Constitutional limits on government and they want to put a stop to it.

The fact that all the left can answer with is smears, is solid evidence of on which side the truth lies.

The side with the truth doesn't need smears, and obviously that's all Obama's side has.


UH nice spin (as usual) but did you happen to forget the guy who flew a plane into a building that housed IRS offices a while back over his complaints about taxes and government? Sounds like a tea party kind of guy to me.

BTW since you started thsi thread with nothing but a smear attempt does that mean that you are not on the side with the truth?? LOL
 
Former President Bill Clinton last week inadvertently demonstrated Karl Marx's shrewd observation, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." The historical event in question is the attempt to deter by smearing a broad-based, popular, American anti-high-tax, anti-big-central government movement as likely to induce seditious violence against the government.

The historic example of this calumny was Alexander Hamilton's slander against Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's emerging Republican/Democratic Party. The first repetition, as tragedy, was Bill Clinton's attack on the Republican Contract With America rhetoric following the Oklahoma bombing in 1995 - which resulted in deflecting the upward progress of conservatism from the summer of 1995 onward.

The second repetition - this time as farce - occurred last week as, once again, Mr. Clinton went back to his once-trusty playbook and implied that this time, the Tea Party rhetoric might result in political violence.

By coincidence, I have found myself involved in both of Mr. Clinton's attempted repetitions. As Newt Gingrich's press secretary in 1995, I received the calls of reporters asking me to respond to Clinton White House-generated accusations that our Contract with America rhetoric had caused Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Oklahoma City government building. As preposterous as the charge was - advocating constitutional, limited government is inherently nonseditious, nor did we ever call for violence of any sort - the charge had its intended effect and put Mr. Clinton back in the political driver's seat in Washington after the drubbing he took the previous November.

EDITED- to a few paragraphs per copyright policy of USMB

Care

More here: BLANKLEY: There Bill Clinton goes again - Washington Times

So history comes full circle and now the party that resulted from a backlash of this kind of slander falls prey to using the same kind of smear tactic.

Bill Clinton has been using this tactic since the OK City bombing.

But we have had a year of the tea party and the only violence has come from the left. Whether it's beating up black men handing out "don't tread on me" flags or the disputed beating of a couple two weeks ago (still debate on whether it was political or not).

The point is, there has been NO violence from the tea party nor will there be. It's not about violence. It's about beliving in the Constitutional political process to return this country to it's Constitutional limits.

They see the Obama government as an out of control attempt to do away with the Constitutional limits on government and they want to put a stop to it.

The fact that all the left can answer with is smears, is solid evidence of on which side the truth lies.

The side with the truth doesn't need smears, and obviously that's all Obama's side has.


UH nice spin (as usual) but did you happen to forget the guy who flew a plane into a building that housed IRS offices a while back over his complaints about taxes and government? Sounds like a tea party kind of guy to me.

BTW since you started thsi thread with nothing but a smear attempt does that mean that you are not on the side with the truth?? LOL

Uh nice spin (as usual) but did you happen to forget the guy who flew a plane into a building that housed IRS offices a while back over his complaints about Bush and health care reform while spouting the Socialist's creed? Oh, he was also a registered Democrat. Sounds like an Obama supporter to me.

Rick
 

Forum List

Back
Top