# Can you hear it?



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Of course you can't! That's because conservatives don't jump up and down like a bunch of bloody baboons upon losing elections. No trumped up charges of voter fraud, no appeals to racism, no attempts at besmirching a new POTUS. Conservative periodicals like the National Review and Weekly Standard have given thoughtful reflection talking about the historic nature of this election.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Are you talking about Ross Perot's giant sucking sound?


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

In the weeks leading up to the election, I read articles about how:


African-Americans would be angry if McCain won, because "we got this close, and they took it away from us." Implying that the only reason to vote for McCain is because he's "not the black guy."
African-American voters should think about some of the corrupt losers that have been elected because the only thing they had going for them was that they WERE "the black guy." Wilson Goode and John Street in Philadelphia and Bill Campbell in Atlanta come to mind immediately. And can anyone explain Marion Barry?


The election would be decided in McCain's favor by "Low Information Voters." These people don't watch TV, read the newspapers, listen to the radio, or have any contact with the outside world.
Of course, only people who have consciously ignored the fawning praise for the charismatic Barack Obama would vote against him. Because it's inconceivable that there are people who actually _disagree_ with him on the _issues_.

2000 might have been close, and 2008 might have been historic, but the ugliest post-election mess I've seen was in 1988 and 1992. In 1988, the Democratic pundits shouted from the rooftops that the only reason GHW Bush won was because people were stupid and uninformed (see article #2 above), and in the early years of the Clinton administration we had bumper stickers reading "Don't Blame Me, I Voted Bush" and "Who Elected HER?!"


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Bumper stickers saying "don't blame me, I voted for Bush" are nothing compared to the digital morphing of Bush into Hitler, constant comparisons to fascists, open statements that the President is stupid, a moron, illegitimate on news programs no less, without a challenge. 

The Senate majority leader called the President a "loser". The speaker called him a "total failure". Move on basically called a professional soldier a traitor. 

Some would say that the Bush administration has been divisive. I would argue that the majority of that divisiveness has come from the left and the congressional dems. At every turn, except perhaps in the few months following 9/11, the invective was non-stop.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

PT, there is plenty of nastiness on the right side, too. I do agree that the incidents you are describing from the left are unacceptable and contribute a lot to the divisiveness in our political culture. That said, Rush Limbaugh and some of the folks on the right need to at least see what Obama will do.

I fear he will govern from the left, but if he governs from the center, he could do some good. If nothing else, at least people who are in the minority might see more hope and more value into making sure they take their educations seriously.

I have not heard a lot of awful stuff yet except some folks on the right are demonizing Rahm Emmanuel (sp?). It sounds like he was a big part of getting Clinton to go for NAFTA, though, so he's possibly not a total leftist.

I'm fearful, but if he tries to govern from the center, I will try to be supportive of Obama. In the end, we're all in this together.


----------



## bimmerzimmer (Jul 28, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Of course you can't! That's because conservatives don't jump up and down like a bunch of bloody baboons upon losing elections. No trumped up charges of voter fraud, no appeals to racism, no attempts at besmirching a new POTUS. Conservative periodicals like the National Review and Weekly Standard have given thoughtful reflection talking about the historic nature of this election.


The conservatives use all their bellyaching and vitriol during the actual running of their campaigns (which was pathetic this year, by the way.) After they use what's left attacking their own pathetic VP pick. I've heard plenty of noise on that one. It's pretty hard to say an election was stolen from you when you lost by almost 200 electoral votes and over 6 million popular votes. If the conservatives are indeed quiet right now it's only because they are completely and thoroughly embarrassed.

bimmerzimmer


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

bimmerzimmer said:


> The conservatives use all their bellyaching and vitriol during the actual running of their campaigns (which was pathetic this year, by the way.) *After they use what's left attacking their own pathetic VP pick*. I've heard plenty of noise on that one. It's pretty hard to say an election was stolen from you when you lost by almost 200 electoral votes and over 6 million popular votes. *If the conservatives are indeed quiet right now it's only because they are completely and thoroughly embarrassed*.
> 
> bimmerzimmer


I'm glad you're not showing any vitriol.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

I just read an interesting article about the gay marriage amendment on the California ballot this year. 

It's no surprise that California voted heavily for Obama, or that there was very heavy black turnout. 70% of the black vote was in favor of the amendment banning gay marriage.

Gay activists, of course, think that black people should be on their side because they've been through a civil rights fight as well. 

When someone put up an Obama effigy in a noose, it was yanked down by the police immediately and there was national outrage. But when a gay couple in West Hollywood put up a Palin effigy in a noose, they screamed "freedom of speech" and refused to take it down. The Attorney General said he "might" investigate whether it's a "hate crime."

The point in the article was that this showed to black people that gays don't understand the black civil right movement at all. I think the incident also proves that things that aren't tolerated when they're directed at a Democrat are just fine when it's against a Republican.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Of course you can't! That's because conservatives don't jump up and down like a bunch of bloody baboons upon losing elections. No trumped up charges of voter fraud, no appeals to racism, no attempts at besmirching a new POTUS. Conservative periodicals like the National Review and Weekly Standard have given thoughtful reflection talking about the historic nature of this election.


Apparently you don't know where to look:

https://rationalresistance.blogspot.com/2008/11/there-is-lots-of-great-feeling-today.html


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

*Yes, I can*! Yes, I can hear it, the sound of right-wing Yahoos everywhere weeping and whining and gnashing their toothless gums. It is music to my ears!

Buzz


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Apparently you don't know where to look:
> 
> https://rationalresistance.blogspot.com/2008/11/there-is-lots-of-great-feeling-today.html


Shameless plug Jack? So far the conservative coverage of the election has been rather fair to the president elect. Contrast this with the liberal treatment of conservatives over the past 8 years: Pie throwing, effigy burning/hanging, Hitler morphing (and comparisons to any number of Reich party members), code pink outbursts and I could go on and on. During 8 years of Clinton I don't remember this kind of vitriol.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> *Yes, I can*! Yes, I can hear it, the sound of right-wing Yahoos everywhere weeping and whining and gnashing their toothless gums. It is music to my ears!
> 
> Buzz


Where is the evidence? Please provide me with proof beyond that which your fertile mind provides. Please show me one legitimate news outlet or politician that is questioning the legitimacy of an Obama presidency.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Where is the evidence? Please provide me with proof beyond that which your fertile mind provides. Please show me one legitimate news outlet or politician that is questioning the legitimacy of an Obama presidency.


It is absolutely everywhere...from sea to shining sea...it echos from the mountaintops and sweeps the grain from its stalks! Right wing Yahoos everywhere whining...it just makes me feel good all over!

Buzz


----------



## bimmerzimmer (Jul 28, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Shameless plug Jack? So far the conservative coverage of the election has been rather fair to the president elect. Contrast this with the liberal treatment of conservatives over the past 8 years: Pie throwing, effigy burning/hanging, Hitler morphing (and comparisons to any number of Reich party members), code pink outbursts and I could go on and on. During 8 years of Clinton I don't remember this kind of vitriol.


A case of selective memory retention.

bimmerzimmer


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Shameless plug Jack?


Sure, why not? Did you follow the link or read what the Obama haters are saying? I don't claim they're even the majority of the Republican Party, but they're out there.



pt4u67 said:


> During 8 years of Clinton I don't remember this kind of vitriol.


Then you have a very short memory. You don't remember, from very early in Clinton's term, the widely publicized statements that "he's not _my_ Commander-in-Chief", or statements that he wouldn't be safe to visit military bases in the South? What about Rush Limbaugh's standard introduction to his program, starting at the very beginning of Clinton's term: "America held hostage, Day xx"?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Speaking of baboons ...

The Philadelphia police arrested a man for wearing a McCain/Palin t-shirt to an Obama "celebration" street rally.






Nice town. I am sure the ACLU will be sending their best team of lawyers to remedy this flagrant violation of the First Amendment.

And so it begins.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Sure, why not? Did you follow the link or read what the Obama haters are saying? I don't claim they're even the majority of the Republican Party, but they're out there.


I'm sure there are plenty of Obama haters out there. And I'm sure there are those that oppose him strictly based on race. I'm talking about the systemic abuse of the president such that's been the case over the past 8 years.



> Then you have a very short memory. You don't remember, from very early in Clinton's term, the widely publicized statements that "he's not _my_ Commander-in-Chief", or statements that he wouldn't be safe to visit military bases in the South? What about Rush Limbaugh's standard introduction to his program, starting at the very beginning of Clinton's term: "America held hostage, Day xx"?


Rush is hardly the spokesmen of the Republican party. I'm sure we can find plenty during the time that Air America was on that would equal that. Turn on Olberman on any given night and you'll get an hour of it. I'm talking about *prominent, elected officials*. The speaker of the house, the majority leader, former presidential candidates.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Speaking of baboons ...
> 
> The Philadelphia police arrested a man for wearing a McCain/Palin t-shirt to an Obama "celebration" street rally.
> 
> ...


Or this:
https://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1382472.html

I love the tolerance of the left!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Speaking of baboons ...
> 
> The Philadelphia police arrested a man for wearing a McCain/Palin t-shirt to an Obama "celebration" street rally.
> 
> ...


why was he arrested for that? Aren't people allowed to wear whatever they want?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Speaking of baboons ...
> 
> The Philadelphia police arrested a man for wearing a McCain/Palin t-shirt to an Obama "celebration" street rally.
> 
> ...


Yeah, it is certainly conclusive evidence of the descending Red Terror when the _Philadelphia police_ jack some guy up.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

> *pt4u67*decries...
> 
> "...open statements that the President is stupid, a moron, illegitimate on news programs no less, without a challenge".


What's to challenge?

I would agree with Paul Begala, who publicly called Bush a _functioning moron_. In my lifetime (FDR though now) there have been only two really dim Presidents, but Ford wasn't dangerous. This one is.​


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm sure there are plenty of Obama haters out there. And I'm sure there are those that oppose him strictly based on race. I'm talking about the systemic abuse of the president such that's been the case over the past 8 years.
> 
> Rush is hardly the spokesmen of the Republican party. I'm sure we can find plenty during the time that Air America was on that would equal that. Turn on Olberman on any given night and you'll get an hour of it. I'm talking about *prominent, elected officials*. The speaker of the house, the majority leader, former presidential candidates.


You're joking right? I guess you've never hear of Ken Starr or a little thing called impeachment proceedings. Over a blow job. Or The Arkansas Project. Or Whitewater. Or the Narco-Republic allegations. Give me a friggin' break. It's called politics. That's the way the game's played.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Impeachment over perjury, you mean. As in lying under oath. About sexual relations he had with a subordinate. On the job.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Impeachment over perjury, you mean. As in lying under oath. About sexual relations he had with a subordinate. On the job.


Impeachment over perjury _about a blow_ job you mean. I too am a perjurer.​


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Impeachment over perjury _about a blow_ job you mean. I too am a perjurer.​


You mean you've lied under oath too?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

If you'd read the Starr report...



> In the introduction of his referral to the House, Starr accuses Clinton of lying under oath "in a civil deposition while he was a defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit" and "to a grand jury." Starr's prosecutors also allege Clinton "attempted to influence the testimony of a grand jury witness who had direct knowledge of facts that would reveal the falsity of his deposition testimony; attempted to obstruct justice by facilitating a witness' plan to refuse to comply with a subpoena; attempted to obstruct justice by encouraging a witness to file an affidavit that the president knew would be false ... ; lied to potential grand jury witnesses, knowing that then they would repeat those lies before the grand jury; and engaged in a pattern on conduct that was inconsistent with his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws."
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/09/11/starr.report/



> Monica Lewinsky alleged nine sexual encounters with Bill Clinton:
> 
> 
> November 15, 1995, in the private study off the Oval office
> ...




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

I mean I've lied about blow jobs (_getting_ them, I mean).​


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm sure there are plenty of Obama haters out there. And I'm sure there are those that oppose him strictly based on race. I'm talking about the systemic abuse of the president such that's been the case over the past 8 years.
> 
> Rush is hardly the spokesmen of the Republican party. I'm sure we can find plenty during the time that Air America was on that would equal that. Turn on Olberman on any given night and you'll get an hour of it. I'm talking about *prominent, elected officials*. The speaker of the house, the majority leader, former presidential candidates.


If you were a Republican back then you might not have noticed it, but it was very clear that from the very beginning of Clinton's presidency the Republicans resented his very presence, that he was somehow unworthy of being there, even though he was the most conservative candidate the Democrats could have fielded. Plus, I don't remember who it was, but when he was preparing to visit a military base somewhere down South a prominent congressman or senator speculated that maybe he wouldn't be safe to go there. Maybe this was after the "don't ask-don't tell" fiasco, but it was clearly a prominent Republican demonstrating a gleeful anticipation of the fact that he might be the target of an assassination attempt.

I couldn't stand him as a president, since he was just a part of the country's march to the right, but nobody could seriously claim with a straight face that the Republicans ever accorded him the respect that they would claim is the due of the president.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Impeachment over perjury, you mean. As in lying under oath. About sexual relations he had with a subordinate. On the job.


It was impeachment over a blow job; perjury was the pretext. It was the best that Starr could come up with - well that and analingus. The whole thing was a bag job from beginning to end.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Of course I've read the Starr report. It concluded he was banging Monica. So friggin' what? It was bullshite from beginning to end.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> I mean I've lied about blow jobs (_getting_ them, I mean).​


​:icon_smile:



Lushington said:


> It was impeachment over a blow job; perjury was the pretext. It was the best that Starr could come up with - well that and analingus. The whole thing was a bag job from beginning to end.


I think Bill Clinton could have avoided the impeachment proceedings if he didn't lie about it. I though the whole affair was tacky and inappropriate. He was foolish to do what he did with Ms. Lewinksy but to lie about it, made things much worse.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Lushington said:


> Of course I've read the Starr report. It concluded he was banging Monica. So friggin' what? It was bullshite from beginning to end.


I assume you're using "bullshite" to mean "sure, it was true, but let's ignore it anyway because he's a Democrat."


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> If you were a Republican back then you might not have noticed it, but it was very clear that from the very beginning of Clinton's presidency the Republicans resented his very presence, that he was somehow unworthy of being there, even though he was the most conservative candidate the Democrats could have fielded. Plus, I don't remember who it was, but when he was preparing to visit a military base somewhere down South a prominent congressman or senator speculated that maybe he wouldn't be safe to go there. Maybe this was after the "don't ask-don't tell" fiasco, but it was clearly a prominent Republican demonstrating a gleeful anticipation of the fact that he might be the target of an assassination attempt.
> 
> I couldn't stand him as a president, since he was just a part of the country's march to the right, but nobody could seriously claim with a straight face that the Republicans ever accorded him the respect that they would claim is the due of the president.


Again Jack, this sort of thing from time to time is an unfortunate part of our public discourse. Just last week Elizabeth Dole tried to imply that Kay Hagan was an atheist. I found this disgusting. Politicians will do stupid things because they are human and have human faults.

I'm talking about a systemic campaign to demonize this president. From the media, to left wing groups and to elected officials. This was wide spread and systemic. From veiled implications that the POTUS had advance notice of the 9/11 attacks to allegations that the Iraq war was waged due to some psychological need to please his father or to help his oil company pals, it has been non-stop for 8 years. Politics is politics but I think part of the reason we are viewed unfavorably around the world is because of the utter lack of recognition by some in congress that this presidency was even legitimate.


----------



## SimonTemplar (Feb 3, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Bumper stickers saying "don't blame me, I voted for Bush" are nothing compared to the digital morphing of Bush into Hitler, constant comparisons to fascists, open statements that the President is stupid, a moron, illegitimate on news programs no less, without a challenge.
> 
> The Senate majority leader called the President a "loser". The speaker called him a "total failure". Move on basically called a professional soldier a traitor.
> 
> Some would say that the Bush administration has been divisive. I would argue that the majority of that divisiveness has come from the left and the congressional dems. At every turn, except perhaps in the few months following 9/11, the invective was non-stop.


You are very wise:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I assume you're using "bullshite" to mean "sure, it was true, but let's ignore it anyway because he's a Democrat."


No, I used it for bullshit. I'm not a Democrat and I sure as hell didn't vote for Clinton. The Starr investigation was the governmental arm of Scaife's Arkansas Project, which alleged all kinds of nonsense up to and including murder. Three and half years and $50 million later, the best Starr could come up with the Lewinsky scandal, which no one cared about. I've written here before that Clinton should have resigned when the scandal blew up, and that would have both the honorable and the strategically wise thing to do. I would have liked to see Clinton impeached for loads of things, but the "blue dress" business was absurd. The point is, any contention that Clinton was treated with uniform respect by his political opponents, with the implied corollary that right-wing lunatics are above personal attacks on The President, is flat wrong. And if one takes a look a Bush's approval ratings throughout his Presidency, its not hard to deduce why his opponents would feel free to trash his person:

https://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

When the first Black President rolls into office by virtue of a electoral drubbing, and, compared to recent years, a pretty good popular butt-kicking, it also is not hard to deduce why his opponents would be somewhat subdued in the first week after his election.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Lushington said:


> I'm not a Democrat and I sure as hell didn't vote for Clinton. The Starr investigation was the governmental arm of Scaife's Arkansas Project, which alleged all kinds of nonsense up to and including murder. Three and half years and $50 million later, the best Starr could come up with the Lewinsky scandal, which no one cared about. I've written here before that Clinton should have resigned when the scandal blew up, and that would have both the honorable and the strategically wise thing to do. *I would have liked to see Clinton impeached for loads of things*, but the "blue dress" business was absurd. :


Lush's points are well taken. By me anyhow.

But I'm not sure I understand his _I would liked to have seen Clinton impeached for loads of things _remark_. _Really? Loads? And did they have a legal foundation, or was this dorm room talk?
​


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The man carried on an affair with a subordinate _while on the job_, perjured himself about it, and encouraged others to perjure themselves to protect himself.

He pretty much admitted to committing numerous impeachable offenses. How is that absurd?

He was only "acquitted" because the members of his own party refused to convict for political reasons. If you ask me, that's the absurd part.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> Lush's points are well taken. By me anyhow.
> 
> But I'm not sure I understand his _I would liked to have seen Clinton impeached for loads of things _remark_. _Really? Loads? And did they have a legal foundation, or was this dorm room talk?
> ​


Dorm room? P&P, if I had been found anywhere near a dorm room during the Lewinsky scandal, I would have had a _lot_ of explaining to do. Removing Slick from office for the bombing and sanction regime of Iraq would have been a good place to start, but we're getting way off topic now.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The man carried on an affair with a subordinate _while on the job_, perjured himself about it, and encouraged others to perjure themselves to protect himself.
> 
> He pretty much admitted to committing numerous impeachable offenses. How is that absurd?
> 
> He was only "acquitted" because the members of his own party refused to convict for political reasons. If you ask me, that's the absurd part.


You're missing the point. The Lewinsky mess was tawdry and unsavory, but it was not enough to run Clinton from office. It _was_ the kind of evidence that you put in your back pocket and wait for the right moment to use as leverage. Starr's investigation into Clinton's alleged crimes came up so empty that he had spill the whole story - and the Republicans gained nothing from it, as Clinton left office with largest approval rating ever for a lame-duck incumbent. On the other hand, the Kennedys knew about a $100,000 bribe that Nixon had taken from Romanian Iron Guardist Nicholae Malaxa, and they were able to use this knowledge to prevent Nixon from publically challenging the results of the 1960 election. _That's_ how the game is played. Had the Republicans used their heads they could made use of the Lewinsky information in some similar matter - perhaps even after November 2000. Poltically the whole thing was the work of inept amateurs - even Ken Starr now regrets having anything to do with it.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Shameless plug Jack? So far the conservative coverage of the election has been rather fair to the president elect. Contrast this with the liberal treatment of conservatives over the past 8 years: Pie throwing, effigy burning/hanging, Hitler morphing (and comparisons to any number of Reich party members), code pink outbursts and I could go on and on. During 8 years of Clinton I don't remember this kind of vitriol.


You have got to be kidding. From day one the media and the right wing hounded and villified the Clintons. From Fox news to right wing radio shows the Clintons were continualy attacked. The main stream media didn't leave them alone either. Continuous "news" about Monica et al which the media never did before with any other president who screwed around (a great many on both sides). Congress itself spending over 40 million on a wild goose white water chase that found nothing and impeacing Clinton for lying about sex while ignoring Bush knowingly telling us lies to make an excuse to attack Iraq (plus trying his best to rip away our rights including habeous corpus (sp?). etc.

Again, you have got to be kidding.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Lushington said:


> You're missing the point. The Lewinsky mess was tawdry and unsavory, but it was not enough to run Clinton from office. It _was_ the kind of evidence that you put in your back pocket and wait for the right moment to use as leverage. Starr's investigation into Clinton's alleged crimes came up so empty that he had spill the whole story - and the Republicans gained nothing from it, as Clinton left office with largest approval rating ever for a lame-duck incumbent. On the other hand, the Kennedys knew about a $100,000 bribe that Nixon had taken from Romanian Iron Guardist Nicholae Malaxa, and they were able to use this knowledge to prevent Nixon from publically challenging the results of the 1960 election. _That's_ how the game is played. Had the Republicans used their heads they could made use of the Lewinsky information in some similar matter - perhaps even after November 2000. Poltically the whole thing was the work of inept amateurs - even Ken Starr now regrets having anything to do with it.


So, just to clarify, you are ok with blackmailing a presidential candidate from one party who has accepted a bribe in order to prevent him from exposing obvious voter fraud from a presidential candidate from another party?


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> You have got to be kidding. From day one the media and the right wing hounded and villified the Clintons. From Fox news to right wing radio shows the Clintons were continualy attacked. The main stream media didn't leave them alone either. Continuous "news" about Monica et al which the media never did before with any other president who screwed around (a great many on both sides). Congress itself spending over 40 million on a wild goose white water chase that found nothing and impeacing Clinton for lying about sex while ignoring Bush knowingly telling us lies to make an excuse to attack Iraq (plus trying his best to rip away our rights including habeous corpus (sp?). etc.
> 
> Again, you have got to be kidding.


From Day 1? Fox News wasn't even on the air until 1996. Something like 90% of the Washington press corps voted for Clinton. The media only went with the Lewinsky story after Drudge broke it. Drudge only got it because Newsweek refused to report on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Lewinsky_scandal#Denial_and_subsequent_admission

At that point Limbaugh and a handful of newspapers were more or less the sum of the Right wing media.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

So you're saying it was a bad move, politically. I guess it's hard to argue against that.

But do you dispute that Clinton was guilty or that it was an impeachable offense?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> So, just to clarify, you are ok with blackmailing a presidential candidate from one party who has accepted a bribe in order to prevent him from exposing obvious voter fraud from a presidential candidate from another party?


Read my post. I didn't say I was "ok" with any of it; but this is presidential politics. It's no place for pussies, prudes, or those who are above the necessary chicanery to get the job done. People in the business of getting Presidents elected are bribed. They steal votes. They lie. That's the way the game has always been played, and that's the way the game always will be played. You can put the lot of them in prison and throw away the key for all I care. But if you're going to play that game you damn well better know the rules; and if you have a hammer to smash your opponent you pick right place and time to drop it - and not on your own foot, like the Republicans did with Clinton. God, there are some innocents around here.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

KenR said:


> He was foolish to do what he did with Ms. Lewinksy but to lie about it, made things much worse.


Even the most favorable Nixon bios keep coming back to this same concept.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Read my post. I didn't say I was "ok" with any of it; but this is presidential politics. It's no place for pussies, prudes, or those who are above the necessary chicanery to get the job done. People in the business of getting Presidents elected are bribed. They steal votes. They lie. That's the way the game has always been played, and that's the way the game always will be played. You can put the lot of them in prison and throw away the key for all I care. But if you're going to play that game you damn well better know the rules; and if you have a hammer to smash your opponent you pick right place and time to drop it - and not on your own foot, like the Republicans did with Clinton. God, there are some innocents around here.


Uhuh, well. I guess I am an "innocent" because I don't approve of government corruption. How about assassination as a political tool? How do you stand on that one?

Both sides surely committed voter fraud in the last election (and the ones before it). A common sense measure would be to require a photo ID to vote (we now require one to get on a plane). Both sides oppose it for various reasons, but the bottom line is that they both want to go on committing voter fraud. A county in Mississippi had 33% more registered voters in this election than they had residents over 18 in the county. They had done a terrible job purging their voter rolls. When they discovered it they couldn't do anything about it, because for some reason there is a law against purging voter rolls within 90 days of an election. Seems like the only reason such a law would exist is to make it easier to commit voter fraud.

The fact that we tolerate things like this is the reason they continue.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Lushington said:


> ... God, there are some innocents around here.


Indeed, even though people get into the game every day without knowing how it's done. They make a great mess of things. Jesse Unruh said many years ago about the political scene in the California legislature something that applies doubly well to the current national scene:

_"If you can't take their money, drink their liquor, f**k their women, and then come in here the next day and vote against them, you don't belong here."_

The nature of the game has always been about power, money and sex. Anyone can go read Suetonius' _Twelve Caesars_ and find out this is what it's all been about for thousands of years. Just because the public rhetoric is changed does not mean that the underlying reality has changed at all.

As long as people are content with corruption and a certain level of ignorance of the ways of the governing class it won't change.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> Uhuh, well. I guess I am an "innocent" because I don't approve of government corruption. How about assassination as a political tool? How do you stand on that one?


Play your game with someone else. If you don't how the world works, and always has worked and always will work, it's not my job to set you straight.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Quay said:


> Indeed, even though people get into the game every day without knowing how it's done. They make a great mess of things. Jesse Unruh said many years ago about the political scene in the California legislature something that applies doubly well to the current national scene:
> 
> _"If you can't take their money, drink their liquor, f**k their women, and then come in here the next day and vote against them, you don't belong here."_
> 
> ...


Jess Unruh. Now there was an operator.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Play your game with someone else. If you don't how the world works, and always has worked and always will work, it's not my job to set you straight.


I don't need you to "set me straight." I find your acceptance of corruption pathetic. There is a growing tendency among Americans to justify the illegal and unethical behavior of one political party by simply saying the other party does it too. I find it sad that this is the best we can do, and that people simply accept it.

I know enough about history to know that this sort of thing has gone on for centuries. That doesn't mean I have to accept it. I know that is has gone on in America since the beginning- I don't have to approve of it. The reason it continues is that American voters are blinded by a two party system that excuses the behavior.

And by the way, you can keep your condescending attitude to yourself as well. You're a genius. You know so much about history. The rest of us are just rubes. Ok, feel better now?


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Lushington said:


> It was impeachment over a blow job; perjury was the pretext. It was the best that Starr could come up with - well that and analingus. The whole thing was a bag job from beginning to end.


Analingus? He ate her ass?!?! Or she ate his ass?!?!? Somehow I missed that. Thank you Mr. President! I have a whole new respect for him now. A BJ is one thing but it takes guts to ask a girl to eat your ass or if you can eat her ass!!

And someone listed the days of the hummers One was during a meeting?!?!? And she brought him pizza? And once when he was on the phone? I'm saluting him right now! Now that's a real President! Peace, prosperity, and fornication for all. I'll take that over the current meltdown any day.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

I remember reading about it in the Starr Report. It was buried in one of the footnotes. It didn't elaborate on who did what to whom.

During one of the oral sex phone calls Clinton was discussing deploying troops to Bosnia with a member of Congress.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> I don't need you to "set me straight." I find your acceptance of corruption pathetic. There is a growing tendency among Americans to justify the illegal and unethical behavior of one political party by simply saying the other party does it too. I find it sad that this is the best we can do, and that people simply accept it.
> 
> I know enough about history to know that this sort of thing has gone on for centuries. That doesn't mean I have to accept it. I know that is has gone on in America since the beginning- I don't have to approve of it. The reason it continues is that American voters are blinded by a two party system that excuses the behavior.
> 
> And by the way, you can keep your condescending attitude to yourself as well.


I'm happy to; so long as you keep your 8th grade, slippery slope arguments to yourself. And I'm sure there are remedial reading courses for adults even in New Jersey; recognizing you might need some help in this respect, please re-read my posts in this thread, or have someone read them for you, and identify where I've "accepted" political corruption. I'd be interested to read that. Allow me to quote myself: "You can put the lot of them in prison and throw away the key for all I care." I have the unusual habit, I know, of dealing with the world as I find it, not as it exists in some right-wing utopia, where paragons of virtue, or even men and women of principle, present themselves for elective office.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> Analingus? He ate her ass?!?! Or she ate his ass?!?!? Somehow I missed that. Thank you Mr. President! I have a whole new respect for him now. A BJ is one thing but it takes guts to ask a girl to eat your ass or if you can eat her ass!!
> 
> And someone listed the days of the hummers One was during a meeting?!?!? And she brought him pizza? And once when he was on the phone? I'm saluting him right now! Now that's a real President! Peace, prosperity, and fornication for all. I'll take that over the current meltdown any day.


Bill Clinton, unfortunately for the nation at large, has the kavorka. As Sinead O'Connor said: "I'd bring my own cigars."


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

KenR said:


> [/indent]:icon_smile:
> 
> I think Bill Clinton could have avoided the impeachment proceedings if he didn't lie about it. I though the whole affair was tacky and inappropriate. He was foolish to do what he did with Ms. Lewinksy but to lie about it, made things much worse.


Momma always said tell the truth, and you'll get in less trouble.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Analingus? He ate her ass?!?! Or she ate his ass?!?!? Somehow I missed that. Thank you Mr. President! I have a whole new respect for him now. A BJ is one thing but it takes guts to ask a girl to eat your ass or if you can eat her ass!!
> 
> And someone listed the days of the hummers One was during a meeting?!?!? And she brought him pizza? And once when he was on the phone? I'm saluting him right now! Now that's a real President! Peace, prosperity, and fornication for all. I'll take that over the current meltdown any day.


It was him to her.

Yeah, taking advantage of a woman with low self-esteem and his subordinate.

Too bad, the economy can't be blamed on President Bush, but whatever, you liberals will always be historical revisionists.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm talking about a systemic campaign to demonize this president. From the media, to left wing groups and to elected officials. This was wide spread and systemic. From veiled implications that the POTUS had advance notice of the 9/11 attacks to allegations that the Iraq war was waged due to some psychological need to please his father or to help his oil company pals, it has been non-stop for 8 years. Politics is politics but I think part of the reason we are viewed unfavorably around the world is because of the utter lack of recognition by some in congress that this presidency was even legitimate.


You're showing an unaccustomed resistance to recognizing reality, but I'll just mention a couple of things.

1. You can't tag us with people who think Bush knew in advance about the 2001 terrorist attacks. There are a few out there, but they are recognized as wack jobs, comparable to the Republicans who think that the Clintons killed Ron Brown and Vincent Foster.

2. The mass media were, in general, in the tank for Bush from the beginning. Both The Times and The Post served as a mouthpiece for the administration in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq and refused to question the underlying assumptions, even though there was sufficient information to demonstrate the falsity of the claims underlying the war at the time.

3. I'm reluctant to even mention this, given the good feeling resulting from last week's election results, but the fact remains: Gore won in 2000. The Bush presidency was the result of an illegitimate and wholly politically motivated decision by a conservative court. If some of Bush's opponents have seemed hostile or bitter during the last eight years, this is one major reason.

4. You're kidding yourself if you don't think Limbaugh and his listeners don't constitute the mainstream of the Republican Party, or at least of a major segment of the party.

I don't expect to persuade you, but I think it's worth putting the facts out there.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> It was him to her.
> 
> Yeah, taking advantage of a woman with low self-esteem and his subordinate.
> 
> Too bad, the economy can't be blamed on President Bush, but whatever, you liberals will always be historical revisionists.


You conservatives will always see the world through Regan/Jesus Christ colored glasses. And I think we have all taken advantage of women with low self-esteem at some point. That's low hanging fruit. But who said this is wrong or that Monica had low self-esteem?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You're showing an unaccustomed resistance to recognizing reality, but I'll just mention a couple of things.
> 
> 1. You can't tag us with people who think Bush knew in advance about the 2001 terrorist attacks. There are a few out there, but they are recognized as wack jobs, comparable to the Republicans who think that the Clintons killed Ron Brown and Vincent Foster.
> 
> ...


In response:

1. Conspiracy enthusiasts abound everywhere. Most rational people look at them with a skeptical eye. But don't give the "Bush knew" people a pass, then vilify the Vince Foster murder theorists. They are all two sides of a devalued coin.

2. At the time of the build up and invasion Congress, the public and the press were generally supportive. Should anyone be surprised that they were? Vietnam had a number of legacies, one of them was the excesses of the anti-war movement, and people were not eager to repeat that so quickly.

3. I honestly don't know enough about this, so I can't comment.

4. There is a big difference between the mainstream and a major segment. Thinking that this is the mainstream is just wishful thinking on the left. Or are all liberals moveon.org/daily cos "far left loons". No? Then Republicans are not all ditto heads.

Facts or opinions?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> You conservatives will always see the world through Regan/Jesus Christ colored glasses. And I think we have all taken advantage of women with low self-esteem at some point. That's low hanging fruit. But who said this is wrong or that Monica had low self-esteem?


Please explain the Reagan/Jesus Christ rose colered glasses statement.

Taking advantage of someone with low self esteem is not wrong?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

KenR said:


> In response:
> 
> 1. Conspiracy enthusiasts abound everywhere. Most rational people look at them with a skeptical eye. But don't give the "Bush knew" people a pass, then vilify the Vince Foster murder theorists. They are all two sides of a devalued coin.


You're right, Ken, but I don't give the "Bush knew" people a pass. I point out that they're recognized as wack jobs, and nobody I would ever take seriously takes them seriously.

Jack


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You're right, Ken, but I don't give the "Bush knew" people a pass. I point out that they're recognized as wack jobs, and nobody I would ever take seriously takes them seriously.
> 
> Jack


Agreed. They are all wack. :icon_smile:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Several years ago, I worked with a man who was in his senior years. Somebody mentioned FDR and he went into a apoleptic fit that resulted in his death a few weeks later.
I hope everyone posting here has had their cholesteral lowering oatmeal this morning and practiced the stess reducing exercise the therapist taught.
You people have a fedw more presidential terms to live through, try to enjoy the sunrises.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Kav said:


> You people have a fedw more presidential terms to live through . . .


We hope.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I have an online friend in Saint Petersburg Russia at University. Yasha Tselikovskaya is this tall, willowy girl with slight epicanthric eyelids that come from some far eastern ancestor.
Yasha comes from a town called Beslan, and, a few years ago I Western Unioned a round tip plane fare so she could rush home. I was repaid, in full later.
She often expresed worries about the world's future and asks why my government does things, as I her.
I believe talking to people is a pretty good way of insuring the bad things don't happen. We have a tremendous tool here, a freedom many do not have.
We use it, talking about a presidential blowjob.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> Analingus? He ate her ass?!?! Or she ate his ass?!?!? Somehow I missed that. Thank you Mr. President! I have a whole new respect for him now. A BJ is one thing but it takes guts to ask a girl to eat your ass or if you can eat her ass!!


I can't believe he kept that from Hilary for quite a long time.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Howard said:


> I can't believe he kept that from Hilary for quite a long time.


She's a smart lady and Bill certainly had a history of affairs. I'm sure she knew about what was going on, in general.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

KenR said:


> She's a smart lady and Bill certainly had a history of affairs. I'm sure she knew about what was going on, in general.


Hilary should've done the same thing.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Howard said:


> Hilary should've done the same thing.


She may have. There were some rumors swirling around her and Vince Foster.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

KenR said:


> She may have. There were some rumors swirling around her and Vince Foster.


Well,there you go!


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

KenR said:


> She may have. There were some rumors swirling around her and Vince Foster.


Hillary ate Vince Foster's ass?!?! A family of freaks! I wonder what Chelsey likes? I bet she's a freak!


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Shameless plug Jack? So far the conservative coverage of the election has been rather fair to the president elect. Contrast this with the liberal treatment of conservatives over the past 8 years: Pie throwing, effigy burning/hanging, Hitler morphing (and comparisons to any number of Reich party members), code pink outbursts and I could go on and on. During 8 years of Clinton I don't remember this kind of vitriol.


That's probably because the country was *on the right track* and people were generally *happy*. Call me crazy, but between a morally objectionable war, a spiraling economy, and the threat of extremist morality being imposed on us, most were unhappy.

Liberals want people to be able to do what the people want socially, while taking care of each other fiscally, conservatives want people to do what *conservatives *want socially while taking care of themselves fiscally. To me, there's something inherently wrong, and un-American about that.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Phinn said:


> Speaking of baboons ...
> 
> The Philadelphia police arrested a man for wearing a McCain/Palin t-shirt to an Obama "celebration" street rally.
> 
> ...


1. The video is out of context

2. He was not arrested, was not read his rights

3. Because context is missing, you don't know if he was put in lock up, or driven home

4. Read the classy comments posted by the right below...like, "you can take the monkeys out of the jungle but you can't take the jungle out...", or the racist assumption that these people were "stupid" because Obama was their color, assuming they knew nothing of his policies because they were black, and therefore too dumb to get it

5. I remember lots of protesters being locked up when the RNC was here in NYC in 2004, so this is nothing new


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

*YUCK!*

I have never seen the words "eating" and "ass" together this much in my life...


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> 1. The video is out of context
> 
> 2. He was not arrested, was not read his rights
> 
> ...


You're missing the point entirely. This silly little clip is irrefutable evidence that The Committee of Public Safety is assembling in secret even as we type. Guillotines will soon be appearing in public spaces across the land whereupon right-thinking rightists (a tautology _and_ an oxymoron) will be bloodily sacrificed in order to Spread The Wealth. Anyone caught with a copy of _The Road to Serfdom_, _Human Action_, or with the collected works Frederic Bastiat will literally lose his head in the days to come. After all, the Philadelphia Police Department - Frank Rizzo's old knocking shop - is universally admired for its left-wing sympathies and commitment to non-violence. If it can be turned to brutal Obamamania, no is one safe.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> You're showing an unaccustomed resistance to recognizing reality, but I'll just mention a couple of things.
> 
> 1. You can't tag us with people who think Bush knew in advance about the 2001 terrorist attacks. There are a few out there, but they are recognized as wack jobs, comparable to the Republicans who think that the Clintons killed Ron Brown and Vincent Foster.
> 
> ...


1) I'm not trying to pin you or anyone else as a conspiracy theorist. During the 9/11 commission hearings Condy Rice was raked over the coals as to "what did the President know, and when did he know it". It implied that the President had inside information as to when and where (at least it gave fuel to the fire).

2) I'm sure it warms your heart to cling to the notion that the Bush admin. purposely lied and misled the nation into war. This has been long debated and there's nothing I can say to change your mind. I'll just say this: You're wrong. Argue that the intel was bad, argue that we should have had better intelligence or whatever. If Saddam thought he had them, someone was putting on a hell of an act. By the way, you conveniently forget that the infrastructure for a WMD program (including nukes) was mostly intact and Saddam was quietly buying off security council countries with oil money in order to weaken sanctions. But hey, its easy to say Bush lied because it doesn't take much thought!

3) GORE LOST!! He's the one that took it to the courts. The SCOTUS decided and that's that.

4) No more than Olberman and Air America represent the mainstream of the Democratic party.

You're entitled to an opinion, Jack, but not to your own facts.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> That's probably because the country was *on the right track* and people were generally *happy*. Call me crazy, but between a morally objectionable war, a spiraling economy, and the threat of extremist morality being imposed on us, most were unhappy.
> 
> Liberals want people to be able to do what the people want socially, while taking care of each other fiscally, conservatives want people to do what *conservatives *want socially while taking care of themselves fiscally. To me, there's something inherently wrong, and un-American about that.


The Eloi were happy and felt as though they were on the right track. It took the time traveler to see what was really going on. Go on sir, stay an Eloi. I remember the "Gay 90's" and think of a gathering storm with major terrorist strikes almost every 2 years. That you choose to ignore threats does not nullify those threats.

By the way, I too want to take care of people. I want to do this by making as much money and keeping as much of it as I can so that I can spend it in the economy and help put others to work. You want to take my money and spend it in ways that you think best help others. I will take the collective wisdom of the market over the tyranny of one.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> Hillary ate Vince Foster's ass?!?! A family of freaks! I wonder what Chelsey likes? I bet she's a freak!


I'm not sure that was where I was going with my mentioning of Hillary...

Amazing. Who would have thought that getting back to discussing oral sex would be a step towards civilized discourse.

Chelsea? Hmmm.... :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Impeachment over perjury, you mean. As in lying under oath. About sexual relations he had with a subordinate. On the job.


It is reasonable to infer that Lushington doesn't think lying is that big a deal since he did it in his post.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

rgrossicone said:


> That's probably because the country was *on the right track* and people were generally *happy*. Call me crazy, but between a morally objectionable war, a spiraling economy, and the threat of extremist morality being imposed on us, most were unhappy.
> 
> Liberals want people to be able to do what the people want socially, while taking care of each other fiscally, conservatives want people to do what *conservatives *want socially while taking care of themselves fiscally. To me, there's something inherently wrong, and un-American about that.


Yes, the 90's were an easier time to be the POTUS. President Clinton did not have to deal with 9/11 and its ramifications, President Bush did.

Morally objectionable war? Yes, to some.
Spiralling economy? There are so many factors to that I don't know where to begin.
Extremist morality? Who was imposing this on you? Who was telling you how to think and act? I'm a Republican and I would not allow this.

Your last paragraph is something that liberals conjure up to make them feel morally superior. But it is pure imagination.

Please start hanging out with a more politically diverse group. Kool Aid is bad for the teeth.

Other than that, how's the running coming along? :icon_smile:


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

rgrossicone said:


> YUCK! ... I have never seen the words "eating" and "ass" together this much in my life...


 I agree (officially). The inability to express oneself without resorting to street language shows a certain lack of command of the English language.

Will one of you next be posting photos for those who still do not comprehend? Or can we write with a bit more dignity?

____________________________________
And, as usual, stop reporting posts on the Interchange unless they contain hate speech or spam. If you don't want to read what is here ... stay on the clothing fora.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Will one of you next be posting photos for those who still do not comprehend?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Let me rephrase that
> 
> It's reasonable to infer you're full of pigshit.
> 
> And while you're at it, go fist yourself.


My, my, Lushington, you seem to have lost your composure.

Where is your world-weary sigh? Where is your attempt at a condescending sneer? How will you continue to feign intelligence and sophistication without the sneering and the sighing? They've worked so well for you in the past. Why abandon your best and only rhetorical tools now?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> You're entitled to an opinion, Jack, but not to your own facts.


Funny, I was about to say the same to you. The Republicans are out of power, time for reality to take over.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I think it error to say Clinton didn't have to deal with 9/11. 
Has anyone read his letter to the draft board applying of C/O status ( which he got?)
The man had to be briefed on Normandy Beach and ignored the opportunity to have Obama in prison. His response in Sudan was to abandon the region to genocide and to use air power and cruise missiles ( phallic) to bomb serbians during Easter but observe a truce during Rammadan.
The one thing you bring from any military service, is the concept of standing a watch.
They don't cover that for Rhodes scholars.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I agree (officially). The inability to express oneself without resorting to street language shows a certain lack of command of the English language.
> 
> Will one of you next be posting photos for those who still do not comprehend? Or can we write with a bit more dignity?
> 
> ...


Would "tossed her salad" have been more appropriate? They mean the same thing and conjure the same image. But "eat her ass" makes it seem more comical I think. Articles of impeachment were delivered on the President of the United States because he lied about licking a girl's ass. How comical and absurd we are!

Which is why I like President Bush. He has the morals and judgment to not eat ass - not even his own wife's. They only "make love" and even then they only do it missionary style, with the lights off, and never on Sunday or Christmas.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

This thread has gotten surreal if not ridiculous. Is there anyone here who wants to say something that is not completely foolish?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Phinn said:


> My, my, Lushington, you seem to have lost your composure.
> 
> Where is your world-weary sigh? Where is your attempt at a condescending sneer? How will you continue to feign intelligence and sophistication without the sneering and the sighing? They've worked so well for you in the past. Why abandon your best and only rhetorical tools now?


Phinn, you phool, you're beneath sneering. I've owned your stupid ass since day one on this board. I've owned your stupid ass on this thread. I haven't lost my composure at all. When some stupid motherphucker calls me a liar, I tell him his full of pigshit and to go fist himself. You can go fist yourself too. Here's the post the stupid cracker was referring to:



> You're joking right? I guess you've never hear[d] of Ken Starr or a little thing called impeachment proceedings. Over a blow job. Or The Arkansas Project. Or Whitewater. Or the Narco-Republic allegations. Give me a friggin' break. It's called politics. That's the way the game's played.


Where's the lie here? The blow job/perjury bit? If that's it, you're even stupider that I think, which is nearly impossible. Tell me smart guy; had Clinton lied about where he had had dinner the night before his deposition do you think he would have been impeached? Or if he had lied about his GPA at Yale? Or the make and model of his first car? Of course not. Jones's lawyers got him on the Lewinsky bit, Ken Strarr stumbled into that, and that all he had to show for three and half years and $50 milllion -well that and Susan McDougal. And now one cared - except pea-brains such as yourself - and Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating. Brilliant move. So in tribute to the old New Left, eat **** and die, you cross-eyed imbecile.

Please, let's watch the profanity.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Kav said:


> The one thing you bring from any military service, is the concept of standing a watch.
> They don't cover that for Rhodes scholars.


Maybe they do, but Clinton didn't bother to finish the program.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Lushington said:


> I'm happy to; so long as you keep your 8th grade, slippery slope arguments to yourself. And I'm sure there are remedial reading courses for adults even in New Jersey; recognizing you might need some help in this respect, please re-read my posts in this thread, or have someone read them for you, and identify where I've "accepted" political corruption. I'd be interested to read that. Allow me to quote myself: "You can put the lot of them in prison and throw away the key for all I care." I have the unusual habit, I know, of dealing with the world as I find it, not as it exists in some right-wing utopia, where paragons of virtue, or even men and women of principle, present themselves for elective office.


You started by saying that the Republicans should have taken the information about the Lewinsky affair and used it as leverage to blackmail the Democrats in the 2000 election, as you claim happened in the 1960 election. Then you criticize people for not knowing that this is "how it works." This is tacit approval. Your statement that "You can put the lot of them in prison and throw away the key for all I care" seems ambivalent at best and is certainly not a denunciation of government or electoral fraud.

I don't think that its some sort of right-wing utopian impulse to denounce government officials that do illegal things. It seems odd to me that you would spend so much time attacking a person for saying they would like the government to refrain from engaging in fraud. But then again, you are a troll.

You've been on this board for over two years, but I've never noticed a post by you until the last two weeks. Maybe I just missed your previous messages, but I am assuming I just never noticed them because I never found anything you said useful or interesting. In the last two weeks, the posts I have noticed from you immediately resort to aggressive ad hominem attacks, and you have in two weeks used more profanity than I have seen by every other member of the board in two years. You are an aggressive troll with little to offer anyone who wants to have an actual discussion.

You accuse me of being like an 8th grader, but then you attack Phinn and say you "owned him". Well here you go, I am sure this will make you feel better:

You are right, I am wrong. You are so much smarter than me, and you see how things really are. Thank god there are people like you to explain things to me that I haven't been able to figure out in my 20 years of following politics and studying history. I am have no idea what I am talking about and you are a genius and pwned me. There, have what you want? Now quiet down and let the adults have a conversation.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Where's the lie here? The blow job/perjury bit? If that's it, you're even stupider that I think, which is nearly impossible. Tell me smart guy; had Clinton lied about where he had had dinner the night before his deposition do you think he would have been impeached? Or if he had lied about his GPA at Yale? Or the make and model of his first car? Of course not. Jones's lawyers got him on the Lewinsky bit, Ken Strarr stumbled into that, and that all he had to show for three and half years and $50 milllion -well that and Susan McDougal. And now one cared - except pea-brains such as yourself - and Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating. Brilliant move. So in tribute to the old New Left, eat shiit and die, you cross-eyed imbecile.


Not that you are the sort of person who lets things like facts cloud your well crafted arguments, but I'd suggest you read a definition of perjury, especially the part that deals with materiality. But again, please don't let facts or reason stand in your way, just go on making personal attacks against people, those are kind of like arguments. Oh, and I'd really like it if you'd start attacking people's mothers or other family members. Oh, and if you could use a bit more profanity, that would convince everyone of your infinite coolness.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Lush, I see your light's still on and the hour's too late for me to write anything of use except this:

Your posts are nothing short of thrilling. Honest. Not kiddin' ya. Would have written it in a PM, but wanted all the rest to see.
​


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> Lush, I see your light's still on and the hours too late for me to write anything of use except this:
> 
> Your posts are nothing short of thrilling. Honest. Not kiddin' ya. Would have written it in a PM, but wanted all the rest to see.
> ​


This should come as no surprise.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Of course you can't! That's because conservatives don't jump up and down like a bunch of bloody baboons upon losing elections. No trumped up charges of voter fraud, no appeals to racism, no attempts at besmirching a new POTUS. Conservative periodicals like the National Review and Weekly Standard have given thoughtful reflection talking about the historic nature of this election.


Lol! No, we just sold our stocks, bought more guns and ammo and moved the rest of the money to Midas Mulligan's bank. And we'll cut way back on services and tipping until the methods we used to create wealth and jobs is affirmed rather than ridiculed. We have to make what we have left stretch. Now, let's see....who to lay off?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Funny, I was about to say the same to you. The Republicans are out of power, time for reality to take over.


No doubt Jack, the Republicans are out of power......for now! Now, Karl Rove and I are getting back into the lab.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Hey guys, this thread is starting to get a bit disgusting with allusions to strange sexual acts and what not. Come on, lets get a grip.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

KenR said:


> This thread has gotten surreal if not ridiculous. Is there anyone here who wants to say something that is not completely foolish?


Maybe someone could make a list of Democratic presidents who _didn't_ cheat on their wives?

I'm not sure what Wilson's relationship was with his second wife while he was still married to his first, so I'm thinking it's just Truman and Carter.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> Hillary ate Vince Foster's ass?!?! A family of freaks! I wonder what Chelsey likes? I bet she's a freak!


LOL but, the real question is did any of the Republican bashing, liberal, Democrat loving, posters to this thread, eat Vince Fosters ass...and did it occur before or after his passing? That could introduce a whole new dynamic (and a new record low!) to the exchanges taking place, herein!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Phinn, you phool, you're beneath sneering. I've owned your stupid ass since day one on this board.


Have we had a conversation before?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Stringfellow said:


> Hillary ate Vince Foster's ass?!?! A family of freaks! I wonder what Chelsey likes? I bet she's a freak!


Hey,she's too young for you!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

rgrossicone said:


> I have never seen the words "eating" and "ass" together this much in my life...


Me neither.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

PLEASE

LET"S HAVE COOLER HEADS PREVAIL BEFORE ANY FURTHER MODERATION NEEDS TO BE DONE TO THIS THREAD.

WATCH THE PROFANITY.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

M6Classic said:


> *Yes, I can*! Yes, I can hear it, the sound of right-wing Yahoos everywhere weeping and whining and gnashing their toothless gums. It is music to my ears!
> 
> Buzz


Psychotic disorders are very troubling and often not responsive to medication. I hope that you find an efficacious treatment for the voices in your head.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> Psychotic disorders are very troubling and often not responsive to medication. I hope that you find an efficacious treatment for the voices in your head.


Then he must have a special disorder that can be treated quickly.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

hopkins_student said:


> Psychotic disorders are very troubling and often not responsive to medication. I hope that you find an efficacious treatment for the voices in your head.


Man, if you think it is only in my head you gotta get out more.

Buzz


----------

