Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:51:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 0:12:21 GMT
papercrafteradvocate "So I think it is down right HILARIOUS that there are people who hold HRC responsible for her husband's actions given that the current BLOTUS in charge bragged about doing the things he did." "It's the holding HER ass to the flame for what HE did." Who is holding her ass to the flame, and who is holding her responsible for his actions? I never said that, and it's quite a stretch to insinuate that was my point. THAT I find hilarious. The truth is the truth, whether people want it brought up or not. Don't have to agree with me, but don't put a spin on my words. One thing's for sure: NOBODY can bring up HRC except for a certain part of the population (which I said in my OP--she's taboo). Well, she's out in the news again, giving speeches, coming out with a book, setting up her PAC, she's around, and I'm certain her name will come up again a time or two. Not once did I ever try to insinuate anything or twist what you posted. I posted my thoughts on the matter--just like you did. You also pulled an answer from me quoting & responding to someone else, so not sure why you're including that in your post back at me. And while I'm at it, once again it is NOT taboo to speak of HRC. That has been a line that many conservatives/republicans like to attribute to the liberal peas. The times it's been mentioned that she's not relevant to conversation here, is when she's being used to excuse away Trump threads, or deflect conversation, or when it's truly not relevant to the thread. But not once did I say that she wasn't relevant here in your post. (bold is mine) You are correct in that. What you said in response to ME: "So I think it is down right HILARIOUS that there are people who hold HRC responsible for her husband's actions given that the current BLOTUS in charge bragged about doing the things he did." Am I not to think you're referring to ME and what I said when it's what you said to ME? Who else are you referring to if it wasn't directed at me? |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:51:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 0:14:12 GMT
Of course she's not going to address her own husband's behavior that resulted in his impeachment, and embarrassment to this country. But to point out a Nixon impeachment that didn't happen, and then to draw on that to hint at Trump possibly being impeached, when it hasn't even gotten that far? She could've left that out. If Trump ends up getting impeached, his picture will be right next to Bill's on the wall of shame. You're right. Just because the House Judiciary Committee had approved 3 Articles of Impeachment and referred them to the House, yes, technically, Nixon was not impeached. Good thing he resigned before the House could vote. Of course, the fact that the speech was a really good one is meaningless, I guess.  For the third time now--I said her speech was motivating. I should have typed it in all caps I guess.  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:51:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 0:37:42 GMT
I was embarrassed that our country was under the watchful eyes of the world because of his extracurricular activities (I know he wasn't impeached for his indiscretions). I think if he would have just owned it in the first place he might have ever even been impeached. Makes me wonder what will happen if it comes to voting for a Trump impeachment...which way will it go. Part of me thinks no way will the Republicans vote to impeach, but so many Republicans despised him they just might. The real embarrassment was Ken Starr asking a sitting president those questions in the first place. Why did he? My guess was because after a year or so of investigating White Water, Vince Foster's death, and travel gate they had nothing. So Ken Starr & company set out to embarrass Clinton thinking he would admit, under oath, what went on in the Oval Office. But Clinton did what married men have done for generations when asked if he had sex with another woman he lied. A gift to the Republicans and they ran with it. In the end they didn't come out looking any better than Clinton. But it circles back to Ken Starr and why he asked those questions in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on May 30, 2017 0:45:30 GMT
Not once did I ever try to insinuate anything or twist what you posted. I posted my thoughts on the matter--just like you did. You also pulled an answer from me quoting & responding to someone else, so not sure why you're including that in your post back at me. And while I'm at it, once again it is NOT taboo to speak of HRC. That has been a line that many conservatives/republicans like to attribute to the liberal peas. The times it's been mentioned that she's not relevant to conversation here, is when she's being used to excuse away Trump threads, or deflect conversation, or when it's truly not relevant to the thread. But not once did I say that she wasn't relevant here in your post. (bold is mine) You are correct in that. What you said in response to ME: "So I think it is down right HILARIOUS that there are people who hold HRC responsible for her husband's actions given that the current BLOTUS in charge bragged about doing the things he did." Am I not to think you're referring to ME and what I said when it's what you said to ME? Who else are you referring to if it wasn't directed at me? It was my thoughts on the matter just putting them out there. I shouldn't have quoted anyone for that post. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on May 30, 2017 0:49:55 GMT
I was embarrassed that our country was under the watchful eyes of the world because of his extracurricular activities (I know he wasn't impeached for his indiscretions). I think if he would have just owned it in the first place he might have ever even been impeached. Makes me wonder what will happen if it comes to voting for a Trump impeachment...which way will it go. Part of me thinks no way will the Republicans vote to impeach, but so many Republicans despised him they just might. The real embarrassment was Ken Starr asking a sitting president those questions in the first place. Why did he? My guess was because after a year or so of investigating White Water, Vince Foster's death, and travel gate they had nothing. So Ken Starr & company set out to embarrass Clinton thinking he would admit, under oath, what went on in the Oval Office. But Clinton did what married men have done for generations when asked if he had sex with another woman he lied. A gift to the Republicans and they ran with it. In the end they didn't come out looking any better than Clinton. But it circles back to Ken Starr and why he asked those questions in the first place. I believe I read a while back that Judge Starr now thinks that maybe he got a little carried away in how far he pursued Pres. Clinton's peccadilloes and perhaps he should have left the personal stuff alone. Yeah, ya think?!?! |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:51:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 1:01:24 GMT
I was embarrassed that our country was under the watchful eyes of the world because of his extracurricular activities (I know he wasn't impeached for his indiscretions). I think if he would have just owned it in the first place he might have ever even been impeached. Makes me wonder what will happen if it comes to voting for a Trump impeachment...which way will it go. Part of me thinks no way will the Republicans vote to impeach, but so many Republicans despised him they just might. The real embarrassment was Ken Starr asking a sitting president those questions in the first place. Why did he? My guess was because after a year or so of investigating White Water, Vince Foster's death, and travel gate they had nothing. So Ken Starr & company set out to embarrass Clinton thinking he would admit, under oath, what went on in the Oval Office. But Clinton did what married men have done for generations when asked if he had sex with another woman he lied. A gift to the Republicans and they ran with it. In the end they didn't come out looking any better than Clinton. But it circles back to Ken Starr and why he asked those questions in the first place. I don't remember who Vince Foster is, I'll have to look him up. And yes, the entire thing being played out for the world to see was embarrassing. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on May 30, 2017 1:01:44 GMT
You're right. Just because the House Judiciary Committee had approved 3 Articles of Impeachment and referred them to the House, yes, technically, Nixon was not impeached. Good thing he resigned before the House could vote. Of course, the fact that the speech was a really good one is meaningless, I guess. For the third time now--I said her speech was motivating. I should have typed it in all caps I guess. Oh please. Reread your original post. You may have thought that the speech was good, but that was clearly not the intent of your OP. And you know what? You are right. She should not have said impeached. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:51:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 1:04:40 GMT
For the third time now--I said her speech was motivating. I should have typed it in all caps I guess. Oh please. Reread your original post. You may have thought that the speech was good, but that was clearly not the intent of your OP. And you know what? You are right. She should not have said impeached. Sorry that you don't believe me when I said this: "I don't know why she would even go down that road in her speech because otherwise I thought the speech was motivating." Oh well. ***eta*** What do you think the intent of my OP was then? |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 30, 2017 1:07:24 GMT
The real embarrassment was Ken Starr asking a sitting president those questions in the first place. Why did he? My guess was because after a year or so of investigating White Water, Vince Foster's death, and travel gate they had nothing. So Ken Starr & company set out to embarrass Clinton thinking he would admit, under oath, what went on in the Oval Office. But Clinton did what married men have done for generations when asked if he had sex with another woman he lied. A gift to the Republicans and they ran with it. In the end they didn't come out looking any better than Clinton. But it circles back to Ken Starr and why he asked those questions in the first place. I don't remember who Vince Foster is, I'll have to look him up. And yes, the entire thing being played out for the world to see was embarrassing. the guy who 'killed himself' in the park in Washington. He was the scapegoat for white water. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on May 30, 2017 1:07:47 GMT
Oh please. Reread your original post. You may have thought that the speech was good, but that was clearly not the intent of your OP. And you know what? You are right. She should not have said impeached. Sorry that you don't believe me when I said this: "I don't know why she would even go down that road in her speech because otherwise I thought the speech was motivating." Oh well. I saw that-right at the end. The rest of your post was about impeachment. And hey, it's a free country so far. But that OP was not about what a good speech it was. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:51:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 1:11:27 GMT
I don't remember who Vince Foster is, I'll have to look him up. And yes, the entire thing being played out for the world to see was embarrassing. the guy who 'killed himself' in the park in Washington. He was the scapegoat for white water. Thanks, I forgot about him. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on May 30, 2017 1:13:55 GMT
The real embarrassment was Ken Starr asking a sitting president those questions in the first place. Why did he? My guess was because after a year or so of investigating White Water, Vince Foster's death, and travel gate they had nothing. So Ken Starr & company set out to embarrass Clinton thinking he would admit, under oath, what went on in the Oval Office. But Clinton did what married men have done for generations when asked if he had sex with another woman he lied. A gift to the Republicans and they ran with it. In the end they didn't come out looking any better than Clinton. But it circles back to Ken Starr and why he asked those questions in the first place. I believe I read a while back that Judge Starr now thinks that maybe he got a little carried away in how far he pursued Pres. Clinton's peccadilloes and perhaps he should have left the personal stuff alone. Yeah, ya think?!?! I do think!  |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on May 30, 2017 1:15:49 GMT
Oh please. Reread your original post. You may have thought that the speech was good, but that was clearly not the intent of your OP. And you know what? You are right. She should not have said impeached. Sorry that you don't believe me when I said this: "I don't know why she would even go down that road in her speech because otherwise I thought the speech was motivating." Oh well. ***eta*** What do you think the intent of my OP was then? Obviously to point out her mistake. As is your right. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:51:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 1:17:25 GMT
While I despise Bill Clinton, I will point out that it is reasonable to consider the poisonous politics related to his impeachment. Yes, he lied about getting a blow job in the oval office. I'll raise the question about why he was questioned about getting a blow job in the oval office while the person instigating the investigation was screwing around on his wife (who had cancer) and the speaker of the House was molesting young boys, all without any political ramifications or investigations for either of them at the time. I'll also posit that lying about getting a blow job in the oval office is not really on the same scale as engaging in what a former CIA director has said would be treasonous behavior if proven true. YMMV. how cute. You think it was just about a blow job. Precious. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on May 30, 2017 1:25:51 GMT
While I despise Bill Clinton, I will point out that it is reasonable to consider the poisonous politics related to his impeachment. Yes, he lied about getting a blow job in the oval office. I'll raise the question about why he was questioned about getting a blow job in the oval office while the person instigating the investigation was screwing around on his wife (who had cancer) and the speaker of the House was molesting young boys, all without any political ramifications or investigations for either of them at the time. I'll also posit that lying about getting a blow job in the oval office is not really on the same scale as engaging in what a former CIA director has said would be treasonous behavior if proven true. YMMV. how cute. You think it was just about a blow job. Precious. Blow jobs, pussy-grabbing, seeking back channels to Russia. The list of misdeeds is endless. But I would take Clinton's misdeeds over the current occupant's misdeeds any day. You do you. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on May 30, 2017 1:26:22 GMT
I don't remember who Vince Foster is, I'll have to look him up. And yes, the entire thing being played out for the world to see was embarrassing. the guy who 'killed himself' in the park in Washington. He was the scapegoat for white water. Not sure why you put "killed himself" in quotation marks. He did kill himself, and his family has been absolutely tortured for the past 20+ years by the right-wing press claiming he was murdered by the Clintons. They have publicly stated that he suffered from depression and that they (and the police) are 100% convinced he committed suicide. It's very sad that there's still apparently some question in people's minds about this. |
|
craftymom101
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,950 
|
Post by craftymom101 on May 30, 2017 1:26:52 GMT
Thank you for clarifying hop2 |
|
|
|
Post by annabella on May 30, 2017 1:34:13 GMT
Nixon was not impeached (he resigned before officially being impeached, People in high positions are allowed to resign to save face. They know they are getting fired and are told by the powers that be that they can submit their resignation instead. Nixon knew what they had on him and what would be next. While legally he was not impeached, in reality he was because if he did not play along the next step would have been impeachment. When it comes to the Clintons I've noticed a lot of Republicans are very narrow minded and look at the small picture of a "sex scandal" or "improper use of email" and think that makes them "crooked" and unworthy of office. Yet fail to see the larger much bigger cluster fucks of serious issues Trump has. A smart person has to be able to differentiate between a small issue and a big issue, no politician is perfect, and neither of those issues warranted impeachment. But someone who can't find a large, serious flaw with the Clintons (who had the experience, relationships and professionalism to run the office of President) will continue to waive those issues as concern because technically if you lie under oath you broke the law, but the big picture issue no one should be asking someone under oath if they had an affair, its not relevant to anything, its only narrow-minded to be stuck on it. It's immoral to his wife, disgraceful to the office, but not breaking any laws and thus shouldn't be asked about under oath. The real embarrassment was Ken Starr asking a sitting president those questions in the first place. Why did he? My guess was because after a year or so of investigating White Water, Vince Foster's death, and travel gate they had nothing. So Ken Starr & company set out to embarrass Clinton thinking he would admit, under oath, what went on in the Oval Office. But Clinton did what married men have done for generations when asked if he had sex with another woman he lied. A gift to the Republicans and they ran with it. In the end they didn't come out looking any better than Clinton. But it circles back to Ken Starr and why he asked those questions in the first place. Exactly! |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:51:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 1:52:21 GMT
The real embarrassment was Ken Starr asking a sitting president those questions in the first place. Why did he? My guess was because after a year or so of investigating White Water, Vince Foster's death, and travel gate they had nothing. So Ken Starr & company set out to embarrass Clinton thinking he would admit, under oath, what went on in the Oval Office. But Clinton did what married men have done for generations when asked if he had sex with another woman he lied. A gift to the Republicans and they ran with it. In the end they didn't come out looking any better than Clinton. But it circles back to Ken Starr and why he asked those questions in the first place. I don't remember who Vince Foster is, I'll have to look him up. And yes, the entire thing being played out for the world to see was embarrassing. Am embarrassment brought on by the Republicans. Everyone knew when Clinton was elected he had extramarital sex. In fact that is why I voted for Bush Senior. But the Republicans just couldn't leave it alone and kept picking at it until Ken Starr asked those very unprofessional had nothing to do with anything questions. And no I'm not giving Clinton a pass. But none of this needed to happen if it hadn't been for the Republicans pettiness. |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 30, 2017 2:01:56 GMT
Thank you for clarifying hop2 Its complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 30, 2017 2:09:14 GMT
the guy who 'killed himself' in the park in Washington. He was the scapegoat for white water. Not sure why you put "killed himself" in quotation marks. He did kill himself, and his family has been absolutely tortured for the past 20+ years by the right-wing press claiming he was murdered by the Clintons. They have publicly stated that he suffered from depression and that they (and the police) are 100% convinced he committed suicide. It's very sad that there's still apparently some question in people's minds about this. Your right Lucy. I should have left the quotes off. The police have proved that he did kill himself. I just thought it would be easier to remember what he was infamous for that way. Not because he didn't kill himself but that the fact that he did kill himself also became another investigation, among many. I do maintain that he was the scape goat for White water, not sure whom he was scape goat for though, that died with him. |
|
|
|
Post by gardengoddess on May 30, 2017 3:01:12 GMT
I'd like to see some specifics of parallels between this President and past Presidents. I can give you some parallels between THIS President and President Nixon, but I'd like to hear what that asshole in the WH has in common with President Obama or President Bush for that matter. As far as HRC speech....you go girl! and how long is it going to take for the Clinton haters to get over the blow job? As others have already said...I WISH a blow job was the only thing we have to worry about. I got nothing for Obama - unless you want to count a fixation on passing healthcare legislation asap rather than taking the time to make it the best it can be. I'd rather a president who wants things done right rather than just completed. Bush - Syria - someone should do something about the tragedy in Syria but ( as in the past ) it was poorly carried out. And I do not mean by the military, I mean by the administration. If your going to have the balls to bomb someone then don't ask permission from our Cold War enemies. When you do you tie the hands of the military from doing their jobs well. Clinton - I wager Trumps administration will surpass Clintons for investigations. Personally I hope Trump doesn't have a teglin coating like Bill and something actually sticks Bush 1 - I have nothing Reagan - well they have that trickle down economics thing in common, although I really believe Reagannactually thought it would work. And there's the dementia thing but I must admit I never noticed Reagans issues when he was in office. Carter- they have the same problem for exact opposite reasons - they weren't prepared for how D.C. Works. Carter because he was too honest to really 'get' how D.C. would be, and Trump because he's too crooked to care Nixon - see OP Kennedy - Nepotism, corruption, favoritism, with a side of womanizing. I know a lot of people like to look at the Kennedy administration like the glory days but it was in fact a highly corrupt administration. And he nearly brought us to all out nuclear war because he failed to understand the crisis he was creating. I see no parallels that equal anything that this asshole that resides in the WH has done is just over 100 days in office and during the last year of campaign. I don't remember any of those previous President pointedly going after minority groups of people, vilify our news media and accuse them of being "fake news", install WITHOUT confirmation family in the White House, appoint a known white supremacist as a senior advisor, appointed a foreign agent as National Security Advisor, name calls his adversaries or send embarrassing and immature tweets in the middle of the night (yes, I know twitter has only been around since 2006) and pretty much have made us an international embarrassment. |
|
