Clinton Puts the Smack Down on Fox

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]hspder wrote:
doogie wrote:
Breaking your marriage vows and humiliating your wife and daughter to get your dick sucked by a FAT chick is the biggest example of being a pussy I can think of.

The fact that you, as many conservatives, seem to still be focusing on that just goes to show how much you lack any real arguments.[/quote]

You said he isn’t a pansy. Fucking over your wife and kids IS being a pansy. It’s the biggest pussy move there is, and pointing it out is a REAL argument. Dance around it all you want, but he IS a pussy.

[quote]
I know you’re Mr. Saint around here (your posts in the Sex and the Male Animal forum show that well), but you really need to get some perspective.[/quote]

I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. I’ve never cheated on anyone, especially not my wife, and certainly not after we’ve had kids.

Nice douchebag move of changing the argument from your original statement that Clinton isn’t a pansy to a discussion on sainthood.

62

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
doogie wrote:
I got to listen to Rush Limbaugh today for 2 hours. Point by point by point he destroyed Clinton’s answers. Many of them were outright lies (completely mistating what Clark’s book said). Jesus, Clinton is still a pathological liar.

You get your information from the Vulgar Pig Boy?
God, if Darwin doesn’t take care of you soon, I’ll put you out of your misery myself.
[/quote]

Why are worthless pieces of shit like you allowed to threaten people on the internet?

Stick to the subject troll.

63

[quote]doogie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
hspder wrote:

You can accuse Bill of anything, but NOT of being a pansy.

Breaking your marriage vows and humiliating your wife and daughter to get your dick sucked by a FAT chick is the biggest example of being a pussy I can think of.[/quote]

How about lying and getting thousands of people killed to make a quick buck?

How does that sit with you?

64

[quote]hedo wrote:
List a reference then. Your opinion on what you claim he said is irrelevant.[/quote]

The reference is the actual book:

If you mean quotes, you don’t really expect me to start typing the whole book, do you?

But don’t take my word for it, take these:

"
Editorial Reviews

Few political memoirs have made such a dramatic entrance as that by Richard A. Clarke. During the week of the initial publication of Against All Enemies, Clarke was featured on 60 Minutes, testified before the 9/11 commission, and touched off a raging controversy over how the presidential administration handled the threat of terrorism and the post-9/11 geopolitical landscape. Clarke, a veteran Washington insider who had advised presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush, dissects each man’s approach to terrorism but levels the harshest criticism at the latter Bush and his advisors who, Clarke asserts, failed to take terrorism and Al-Qaeda seriously.

From Publishers Weekly
[…]The level of detail Clarke includes is impressive. Not only does he paint a vivid portrait of the White House in crisis mode, but he even recalls a number of conversations (including one in which Bush, after learning of al Qaeda’s involvement, purportedly tells Clarke, “See if Saddam did this. See if he’s linked in any way”). […] His frustration over how the current administration has responded to 9/11 and how he believes the FBI and CIA failed to act leaks through at times.
"

65

[quote]doogie wrote:

Breaking your marriage vows and humiliating your wife and daughter to get your dick sucked by a FAT chick is the biggest example of being a pussy I can think of.[/quote]

Clinton is one of the most brilliant politicians we have today, who is comfortable speaking on nearly any subject. And unlike many conservatives, I am not a Clinton hater, even though I disagree with him.

That said - Clinton, without question, is the quintessential pansy. A manipulator and someone who wants to duck responsibility at every turn, he is the classic sensitive emasculated male who thinks a word like ‘honor’ is situational.

As one comedian explained, if you get four of your guy friends to help you move a table and one of them is Clinton, Clinton, though his face expresses strain, is the one faking that he is carrying his corner.

Clinton has many, many talents - being a stout-hearted Alpha Male type - nope.

I’d be ok with being friends with Bill Clinton - he’d be fun to talk politics with. But let’s not pretend he is some masculine ideal.

66

[quote]doogie wrote:
Nice douchebag move of changing the argument from your original statement that Clinton isn’t a pansy to a discussion on sainthood. [/quote]

I agree, totally unfair.

And unprovoked. It’s not like you tried to change the subject with a reference to “I did not have sex …”

Oops, that’s exactly what you did.

Sorry, my bad.

67

[quote]hedo wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
doogie wrote:
I got to listen to Rush Limbaugh today for 2 hours. Point by point by point he destroyed Clinton’s answers. Many of them were outright lies (completely mistating what Clark’s book said). Jesus, Clinton is still a pathological liar.

You get your information from the Vulgar Pig Boy?
God, if Darwin doesn’t take care of you soon, I’ll put you out of your misery myself.

Why are worthless pieces of shit like you allowed to threaten people on the internet?

Stick to the subject troll.

[/quote]

I know you are, but what am I?

68

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
doogie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
hspder wrote:

You can accuse Bill of anything, but NOT of being a pansy.

Breaking your marriage vows and humiliating your wife and daughter to get your dick sucked by a FAT chick is the biggest example of being a pussy I can think of.

How about lying and getting thousands of people killed to make a quick buck?

How does that sit with you?[/quote]

How much did he make? How quickly did he make it?

Oh - and while you’r eat it - prove he lied. There are hundreds of democrats in DC that would love to have proof of this.

Wreckless = twat-faced idiot.

69

[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
List a reference then. Your opinion on what you claim he said is irrelevant.

The reference is the actual book:

If you mean quotes, you don’t really expect me to start typing the whole book, do you?

But don’t take my word for it, take these:

"
Editorial Reviews

Few political memoirs have made such a dramatic entrance as that by Richard A. Clarke. During the week of the initial publication of Against All Enemies, Clarke was featured on 60 Minutes, testified before the 9/11 commission, and touched off a raging controversy over how the presidential administration handled the threat of terrorism and the post-9/11 geopolitical landscape. Clarke, a veteran Washington insider who had advised presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush, dissects each man’s approach to terrorism but levels the harshest criticism at the latter Bush and his advisors who, Clarke asserts, failed to take terrorism and Al-Qaeda seriously.

From Publishers Weekly
[…]The level of detail Clarke includes is impressive. Not only does he paint a vivid portrait of the White House in crisis mode, but he even recalls a number of conversations (including one in which Bush, after learning of al Qaeda’s involvement, purportedly tells Clarke, “See if Saddam did this. See if he’s linked in any way”). […] His frustration over how the current administration has responded to 9/11 and how he believes the FBI and CIA failed to act leaks through at times.
"
[/quote]

Yes type it or cut and paste it. You also need to cite the actual link you are quoting from or identify the source so it can be verified. Shouldn’t be too hard for you. Your honesty and credibility is of course suspect hspder character.

Clarke never changed his story. You must be reading from the “left” side of the book.

Both side should share the blame. 8 yrs of inaction for Clinton. 8 mos. for Bush. Bush reacted forcefully when we were attacked. Clinton did not. Indisputable.

70

[quote]doogie wrote:
You said he isn’t a pansy. Fucking over your wife and kids IS being a pansy. It’s the biggest pussy move there is, and pointing it out is a REAL argument. Dance around it all you want, but he IS a pussy.[/quote]

Do you know how many guys on the planet have fucked up in this regard?

Pussy is not the right word to describe somebody who succumbs to temptation. Pussy is a word to describe somebody who folds under pressure or won’t stand up for what he believes in.

Fucking learn the language before you lecture people on it.

71

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
doogie wrote:
I got to listen to Rush Limbaugh today for 2 hours. Point by point by point he destroyed Clinton’s answers. Many of them were outright lies (completely mistating what Clark’s book said). Jesus, Clinton is still a pathological liar.

You get your information from the Vulgar Pig Boy?
God, if Darwin doesn’t take care of you soon, I’ll put you out of your misery myself.
[/quote]

I’m pretty sure I’ve out-bred you already. The dream lives another generation!

72

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Do you think more people watched it than would have watched it without the hissy fit? Significantly more? I sure do.[/quote]

Looking at the relatively poor ratings, I doubt it. But assuming you are right – how did the hissy fit change the way the extra audience read it?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Of course, this is aside from the main point of my statement, which is that the mockumentary, and more particularly the hissy fit, made it so Wallace’s question was newsworthy today.[/quote]

As I said before, I do not believe that is relevant at all – if indeed the explosion was calculated, it just makes Clinton look smarter…

You don’t see me accusing Wallace of any wrongdoing – in fact, I can only thank him.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I think the point President Clinton was attempting to make was that he was criticized for paying too much attention to bin Laden by all those “right wingers.”[/quote]

Where were you at the time? I mean, do you need me to go dig up old transcripts from Republican speeches? You don’t remember them from memory? I know you were very young at the time, but young people usually have very good memory…

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
However, that wasn’t the point of the actual criticism – it was that the Bush administration, upon taking office, thought his focus was too much on bin Laden and not enough on the rogue states.[/quote]

That was how Clarke presented it in 2002, clearly for the GOP’s political purposes. That was not what was said before (during the actual Clinton years) OR in Clarke’s book.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This also is not good evidence for the idea that “right wingers” attacked him while he was President for going after bin Laden.[/quote]

So you seem to be developing amnesia, since I clearly remember what the right wing was saying at the time.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Not really – one of his main points was that the “right wingers” had criticized him for being “bin Laden obsessed” while he was going after bin Laden during his Presidency. But there’s no evidence this is true[/quote]

So you claim that there’s no evidence by using a specific search engine with a VERY specific word? Has it occurred to you that the actual wording was slightly different and he was just paraphrasing?

73

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
doogie wrote:
I got to listen to Rush Limbaugh today for 2 hours. Point by point by point he destroyed Clinton’s answers. Many of them were outright lies (completely mistating what Clark’s book said). Jesus, Clinton is still a pathological liar.

You get your information from the Vulgar Pig Boy?
God, if Darwin doesn’t take care of you soon, I’ll put you out of your misery myself.

Why are worthless pieces of shit like you allowed to threaten people on the internet?

Stick to the subject troll.

I know you are, but what am I?[/quote]

Brilliant. One of the most legible things you have said in many months. Keep it up.

74

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
doogie wrote:

Breaking your marriage vows and humiliating your wife and daughter to get your dick sucked by a FAT chick is the biggest example of being a pussy I can think of.

Clinton is one of the most brilliant politicians we have today, who is comfortable speaking on nearly any subject. And unlike many conservatives, I am not a Clinton hater, even though I disagree with him.

That said - Clinton, without question, is the quintessential pansy. A manipulator and someone who wants to duck responsibility at every turn, he is the classic sensitive emasculated male who thinks a word like ‘honor’ is situational.

As one comedian explained, if you get four of your guy friends to help you move a table and one of them is Clinton, Clinton, though his face expresses strain, is the one faking that he is carrying his corner.

Clinton has many, many talents - being a stout-hearted Alpha Male type - nope.

I’d be ok with being friends with Bill Clinton - he’d be fun to talk politics with. But let’s not pretend he is some masculine ideal.[/quote]

And Bush is this “the buck stops here” kinda guy?

You must be joking.

It was the CIA right? And Clinton? But not Bush!

You’re just another cheerleader.

75

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Clinton is one of the most brilliant politicians we have today, who is comfortable speaking on nearly any subject. And unlike many conservatives, I am not a Clinton hater, even though I disagree with him.

That said - Clinton, without question, is the quintessential pansy. A manipulator and someone who wants to duck responsibility at every turn, he is the classic sensitive emasculated male who thinks a word like ‘honor’ is situational.

As one comedian explained, if you get four of your guy friends to help you move a table and one of them is Clinton, Clinton, though his face expresses strain, is the one faking that he is carrying his corner.

Clinton has many, many talents - being a stout-hearted Alpha Male type - nope.

I’d be ok with being friends with Bill Clinton - he’d be fun to talk politics with. But let’s not pretend he is some masculine ideal.[/quote]

I really don’t think there is much information on Clinton’s masculinity in any important sense.

I think what there is out there is some strange republican fantasy that liberals are soft and republicans are strong. Guys, stop stroking off to this nonsense and grab a slice of reality.

This is a manufactured parody.

76

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
doogie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
hspder wrote:

You can accuse Bill of anything, but NOT of being a pansy.

Breaking your marriage vows and humiliating your wife and daughter to get your dick sucked by a FAT chick is the biggest example of being a pussy I can think of.

How about lying and getting thousands of people killed to make a quick buck?

How does that sit with you?

How much did he make? How quickly did he make it?

Oh - and while you’r eat it - prove he lied. There are hundreds of democrats in DC that would love to have proof of this.

Wreckless = twat-faced idiot. [/quote]

If you still need proof he lied about wmd, if you still haven’t figured out that there were no links between Saddam and 9/11, then my friend…

Well, I’m simply lost for words. You’re SO FAR out of reality, you simply can’t be helped anymore.

Please, please, please, bring up the war on terror.

Please.

Pretty please???

77

I don’t give two shits what Clinton did with his dick. That’s his business, not mine, and I do not have the right to critisize his personal life. Neither do any of you fucks. I don’t even care that he lied about it. If the man had an abnormal penis, and people accused him of having one, and he lied about having an abnormal penis, would anyone think less of the man? FUCK no.

What I DO give a shit about, and DO have a right to critisize him about is what he did with our COUNTRY. That’s OUR business, and ALL of us fucks have a right, nay, a DUTY to critisize him on how he ran the country.

…except that I don’t really have a lot of criticism on how he ran the country - he did a damned fine job. Budgetary surplus, relative peace and security. I think it’s silly that some are out to make him a scapegoat, Fox news included. I commend Bill for going right into the lion’s den, perfectly prepared to kick ass and take names. Of COURSE this was a a calculated move. A BRILLIANTLY calculated move. He ripped that guy to shreds, and yes, he knew he was going to, because he KNEW he was going to be asked that question. He didn’t blow up at him, he just made himself incredibly clear. Hunting the Hunter is indeed fair game. It was like watching a tabby cat try to ambush a polar bear. Do I feel sorry for the poor widdle kitty? Fuck no. Don’t pounce on a polar bear. …especially if that polar bear knows you’re comin’.

Do I think this was shitty on Clinton’s behalf? Nope. I respect brilliance.

78

[quote]hedo wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
doogie wrote:
I got to listen to Rush Limbaugh today for 2 hours. Point by point by point he destroyed Clinton’s answers. Many of them were outright lies (completely mistating what Clark’s book said). Jesus, Clinton is still a pathological liar.

You get your information from the Vulgar Pig Boy?
God, if Darwin doesn’t take care of you soon, I’ll put you out of your misery myself.

Why are worthless pieces of shit like you allowed to threaten people on the internet?

Stick to the subject troll.

I know you are, but what am I?

Brilliant. One of the most legible things you have said in many months. Keep it up.

[/quote]

Hey, I was just using language you would understand. With you listening to the Vulgar Pig Boy all day. Defending Doogie when he claims to use that as his prime source of information.

And going all poetic on me with [i]"Why are worthless pieces of shit like you allowed to threaten people on the internet?

Stick to the subject troll. [/i]

It’s not brilliant. It’s pretty sad actually. But hey, it’s at YOUR level right?

You’re a tool hedo.

79

[quote]knewsom wrote:
I don’t give two shits what Clinton did with his dick. That’s his business, not mine, and I do not have the right to critisize his personal life. Neither do any of you fucks. I don’t even care that he lied about it. If the man had an abnormal penis, and people accused him of having one, and he lied about having an abnormal penis, would anyone think less of the man? FUCK no.

What I DO give a shit about, and DO have a right to critisize him about is what he did with our COUNTRY. That’s OUR business, and ALL of us fucks have a right, nay, a DUTY to critisize him on how he ran the country.

…except that I don’t really have a lot of criticism on how he ran the country - he did a damned fine job. Budgetary surplus, relative peace and security. I think it’s silly that some are out to make him a scapegoat, Fox news included. I commend Bill for going right into the lion’s den, perfectly prepared to kick ass and take names. Of COURSE this was a a calculated move. A BRILLIANTLY calculated move. He ripped that guy to shreds, and yes, he knew he was going to, because he KNEW he was going to be asked that question. He didn’t blow up at him, he just made himself incredibly clear. Hunting the Hunter is indeed fair game. It was like watching a tabby cat try to ambush a polar bear. Do I feel sorry for the poor widdle kitty? Fuck no. Don’t pounce on a polar bear. …especially if that polar bear knows you’re comin’.

Do I think this was shitty on Clinton’s behalf? Nope. I respect brilliance.[/quote]

YES ! ! !

HIGH FIVE ! ! !

80

Monday is a half day for me and I listen to Limbaugh (of course) on the drive home. He shredded Clinton thoroughly. He points out so many contradictions in Clinton’s actions and his words today, it appear Clinton is pathological. The constant attempt to shift the blame, for ex, for everything from himself to the CIA and FBI is almost childish. (Bush NEVER blames subordinates, btw, for anything.)

Many of you gents laugh or ridicule Rush, but when he uncovers lie after lie, contradiction after contradiction, you have to put that aside and open your ears.