If Bill Clinton runs now, will he win?
-
I don't think so. He is a character, and I enjoyed him as president, but I can't take him seriously anymore after he shook his finger at me (and the world) and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Jon Sagara Hi! I'm Melanoma, Moley Russell's wart. -- Uncle Buck
Jon Sagara wrote: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Well, maybe he really didn't.
-
Jon Sagara wrote: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Well, maybe he really didn't.
-
Not that I would vote for him, but he would probably win if he ran against GWB[^] X| Later,
JoeSox
www.joeswammi.com
Untitled[^] -
Nah, his sperm just magically appeared on her dress. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Tim Smith wrote: Nah, his sperm just magically appeared on her dress. Yeah, don't you just hate it when that happens? :rolleyes: Jeremy Falcon Imputek
-
Jon Sagara wrote: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Well, maybe he really didn't.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: Well, maybe he really didn't. Maybe, just maybe, she saw an opportunity to make a quick million selling her story to the tabloid. After all, who would the sensationalist public believe - the president or some trumped up tart*? Not that that ever happens of course. :suss: * she became a tart the moment she sold herself out In all honesty though who gives (or gave) a damn? Unless you somehow think him guilty of some great sin that somehow has an effect on you (I'm not going to mention the 'R' word here because there could be other reasons) all he is guilty of is lying about an adulterous activity - like about 95% of the people so eager to bring him down at the time. I wonder how many times the prominent figures that called for his blood have seen the inside of a cheap motel room, or a classy hotel room, with your money, for example. To treat as a criminal investigation was to deny the presidential family their basic right to privacy. I never did understand what the whole point was, but then I never saw the point behind the more recent Diana's Butler 'scandal' (or Diana for that matter), the whole Peter Mandelson 'scandal', or that thing with Blair's wife and that Aussie con man -- sorry, that Aussie con man 'scandal'. That's news? :wtf:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I'm waiting for Big Brother III" - JoeSox losing his credibility
h.a.s: 2.0.4
-
I know abt term limits. Curious to find out what Americans think. :-) My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Probably not but I'd vote for him over GWB any day.:) Brad Jennings "if the golden arches shut shop, where else are the VB people going to get work." - Colin Davies
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: Well, maybe he really didn't. Maybe, just maybe, she saw an opportunity to make a quick million selling her story to the tabloid. After all, who would the sensationalist public believe - the president or some trumped up tart*? Not that that ever happens of course. :suss: * she became a tart the moment she sold herself out In all honesty though who gives (or gave) a damn? Unless you somehow think him guilty of some great sin that somehow has an effect on you (I'm not going to mention the 'R' word here because there could be other reasons) all he is guilty of is lying about an adulterous activity - like about 95% of the people so eager to bring him down at the time. I wonder how many times the prominent figures that called for his blood have seen the inside of a cheap motel room, or a classy hotel room, with your money, for example. To treat as a criminal investigation was to deny the presidential family their basic right to privacy. I never did understand what the whole point was, but then I never saw the point behind the more recent Diana's Butler 'scandal' (or Diana for that matter), the whole Peter Mandelson 'scandal', or that thing with Blair's wife and that Aussie con man -- sorry, that Aussie con man 'scandal'. That's news? :wtf:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I'm waiting for Big Brother III" - JoeSox losing his credibility
h.a.s: 2.0.4
It was important because he was giving misleading information in sexual harassment case. The whole issue wasn't about sex, it was about lying to the courts. He has been disbared and suspended from practicing law before the Supreme Court. It is somewhat like why Nixon got in trouble. Watergate wasn't Nixon's folly. His mistake was the coverup. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: Well, maybe he really didn't. Maybe, just maybe, she saw an opportunity to make a quick million selling her story to the tabloid. After all, who would the sensationalist public believe - the president or some trumped up tart*? Not that that ever happens of course. :suss: * she became a tart the moment she sold herself out In all honesty though who gives (or gave) a damn? Unless you somehow think him guilty of some great sin that somehow has an effect on you (I'm not going to mention the 'R' word here because there could be other reasons) all he is guilty of is lying about an adulterous activity - like about 95% of the people so eager to bring him down at the time. I wonder how many times the prominent figures that called for his blood have seen the inside of a cheap motel room, or a classy hotel room, with your money, for example. To treat as a criminal investigation was to deny the presidential family their basic right to privacy. I never did understand what the whole point was, but then I never saw the point behind the more recent Diana's Butler 'scandal' (or Diana for that matter), the whole Peter Mandelson 'scandal', or that thing with Blair's wife and that Aussie con man -- sorry, that Aussie con man 'scandal'. That's news? :wtf:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I'm waiting for Big Brother III" - JoeSox losing his credibility
h.a.s: 2.0.4
David Wulff wrote: I never did understand what the whole point was I never gave a rat’s ass about who he was doing but since the president is the top law enforcement officer (Executive Branch) when he was under oath and swore to tell the truth and didn't tell the truth, this was perjury. Any other person who did the same and the evidence was found to prove him/her wrong would have been hauled off to jail. He's lucky that all he lost was his license to practice law in Arkansas and didn't get hauled off to Leavenworth (Federal Penitentiary) for committing perjury in a federal case.
-
-
Tim Smith wrote: Nah, his sperm just magically appeared on her dress. Yeah, don't you just hate it when that happens? :rolleyes: Jeremy Falcon Imputek
looks like it happened to you too :-D My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
I know abt term limits. Curious to find out what Americans think. :-) My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
If he did, I'd move to France. X| "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
I know abt term limits. Curious to find out what Americans think. :-) My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
I'm not sure. He was entertaining but, W is aslo o so funny. I personaly would have loved to seen junior and Gore debate more. Those things were so damn funny; I'll never forget Gore's sigh and lurching or just the blank/stupid stares on W's face. Classic But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. - Yeats
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: Well, maybe he really didn't. Maybe, just maybe, she saw an opportunity to make a quick million selling her story to the tabloid. After all, who would the sensationalist public believe - the president or some trumped up tart*? Not that that ever happens of course. :suss: * she became a tart the moment she sold herself out In all honesty though who gives (or gave) a damn? Unless you somehow think him guilty of some great sin that somehow has an effect on you (I'm not going to mention the 'R' word here because there could be other reasons) all he is guilty of is lying about an adulterous activity - like about 95% of the people so eager to bring him down at the time. I wonder how many times the prominent figures that called for his blood have seen the inside of a cheap motel room, or a classy hotel room, with your money, for example. To treat as a criminal investigation was to deny the presidential family their basic right to privacy. I never did understand what the whole point was, but then I never saw the point behind the more recent Diana's Butler 'scandal' (or Diana for that matter), the whole Peter Mandelson 'scandal', or that thing with Blair's wife and that Aussie con man -- sorry, that Aussie con man 'scandal'. That's news? :wtf:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I'm waiting for Big Brother III" - JoeSox losing his credibility
h.a.s: 2.0.4
David Wulff wrote: all he is guilty of is lying about an adulterous activity - like about 95% of the people so eager to bring him down at the time Ok, David, please - don't ever, ever say that again. If you want to use the "he who is without blame throw the first stone" line against someone who is not Prez, fine. But, though no one really expects politicians at that level to be free of vice, we at least expect them to be better at hiding it than the average joe on the street, and certainly better at handling it when they're found out. Clinton had plenty of chances to come out of that whole mess with at least a shred of integrity, and he pissed them all away. It's embarrassing - "Leader of the Free World" & all that, and he can't even pull off a half-assed cover-up on a pathetic little affair with an intern. :-O I'm not gonna argue 'bout the rest - anyone who didn't know Clinton was scum by the time he was elected in '92 had their hands over their eyes; acting surprised about it was just lame. :zzz:
shog nine
Ever since i heard the voice i thought i had no choice...
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: Well, maybe he really didn't. Maybe, just maybe, she saw an opportunity to make a quick million selling her story to the tabloid. After all, who would the sensationalist public believe - the president or some trumped up tart*? Not that that ever happens of course. :suss: * she became a tart the moment she sold herself out In all honesty though who gives (or gave) a damn? Unless you somehow think him guilty of some great sin that somehow has an effect on you (I'm not going to mention the 'R' word here because there could be other reasons) all he is guilty of is lying about an adulterous activity - like about 95% of the people so eager to bring him down at the time. I wonder how many times the prominent figures that called for his blood have seen the inside of a cheap motel room, or a classy hotel room, with your money, for example. To treat as a criminal investigation was to deny the presidential family their basic right to privacy. I never did understand what the whole point was, but then I never saw the point behind the more recent Diana's Butler 'scandal' (or Diana for that matter), the whole Peter Mandelson 'scandal', or that thing with Blair's wife and that Aussie con man -- sorry, that Aussie con man 'scandal'. That's news? :wtf:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I'm waiting for Big Brother III" - JoeSox losing his credibility
h.a.s: 2.0.4
David Wulff wrote: I never did understand what the whole point was Two public employees, one clearly superior to the other, having sex in a public place of business during public working hours and then the superior lieing about it publicly. Any one else would have landed in jail in a heart beat for that kind of behavior. If he had been banging her in the Rose Garden, would that have been public enough for you to be concerned about the sob's lack of character? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Why not? He is the best republican president you will ever going to get. ;-) As far as the rest of world is concerned, any idiot will be better than GWB.
-
David Wulff wrote: all he is guilty of is lying about an adulterous activity - like about 95% of the people so eager to bring him down at the time Ok, David, please - don't ever, ever say that again. If you want to use the "he who is without blame throw the first stone" line against someone who is not Prez, fine. But, though no one really expects politicians at that level to be free of vice, we at least expect them to be better at hiding it than the average joe on the street, and certainly better at handling it when they're found out. Clinton had plenty of chances to come out of that whole mess with at least a shred of integrity, and he pissed them all away. It's embarrassing - "Leader of the Free World" & all that, and he can't even pull off a half-assed cover-up on a pathetic little affair with an intern. :-O I'm not gonna argue 'bout the rest - anyone who didn't know Clinton was scum by the time he was elected in '92 had their hands over their eyes; acting surprised about it was just lame. :zzz:
shog nine
Ever since i heard the voice i thought i had no choice...
Shog9 wrote: "he who is without blame throw the first stone" That wasn't what I intended to push across. :~
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I'm waiting for Big Brother III" - JoeSox losing his credibility
h.a.s: 0.0.4
-
I know abt term limits. Curious to find out what Americans think. :-) My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
David Wulff wrote: I never did understand what the whole point was Two public employees, one clearly superior to the other, having sex in a public place of business during public working hours and then the superior lieing about it publicly. Any one else would have landed in jail in a heart beat for that kind of behavior. If he had been banging her in the Rose Garden, would that have been public enough for you to be concerned about the sob's lack of character? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
David Wulff wrote: I never did understand what the whole point was I never gave a rat’s ass about who he was doing but since the president is the top law enforcement officer (Executive Branch) when he was under oath and swore to tell the truth and didn't tell the truth, this was perjury. Any other person who did the same and the evidence was found to prove him/her wrong would have been hauled off to jail. He's lucky that all he lost was his license to practice law in Arkansas and didn't get hauled off to Leavenworth (Federal Penitentiary) for committing perjury in a federal case.
Ok, it seems I wasn't too clear. I didn't mean I didn't care about what he did (the lying, the perjury), but of the way it was handled in the press. Don't tell me the average joe gave a damn about the lying or the perjury -- they just wanted the legal crap to end so they could read the "how the president did me in his private jet" spread in [insert US equivalent of the Daily Mirror here], and the "how he sent bodyguards to steal my [tapes/dress/photos]" special on NBC.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I'm waiting for Big Brother III" - JoeSox losing his credibility
h.a.s: 0.0.4
-