Ah, Hillary's Hypocrisy

[Tribesman]

Though, I never said she fired the attorneys. But I guess it's easier for some to just set up strawmen and hack away.

Ahem that would be bollox then would it ? or was it another cwazy wabbit who wroted it.?......she and her husband had every single federal attorney fired in 1993.
.......she and her husband had every single federal attorney fired in 1993.

hmmmmm...notice the words she had fired

[ShadeHonestus]

She was too busy taking vacations with Chelsea at the tax payers expense to have an input...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ahem that would be bollox then would it ?

Nope, I said she and her husband had every attorney fired, not that she did it herself. You seem to be forgetting the crucial words 'and her husband'.

"We are the president", remember?

Anyways, here ya go tribesy: http://www.starfall.com/

Crazed Rabbit

[Goofball]

Nope, I said she and her husband had every attorney fired, not that she did it herself. You seem to be forgetting the crucial words 'and her husband'.

"We are the president", remember?

Anyways, here ya go tribesy: http://www.starfall.com/

Crazed Rabbit

"May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit..."

C'mon CR. That is just pure mental midgetry on your part.

Are you saying she had something to do with the firing or not?

Either way, you have no point.

If you are saying she was responsible for the firing, you're wrong, so the premise of your thread dies a quick death.

If you are saying she wasn't responsible for the firing, then what was the point of this thread in the first place?

[ShadeHonestus]

C'mon CR. That is just pure mental midgetry on your part.

Are you saying she had something to do with the firing or not?

Either way, you have no point.

If you are saying she was responsible for the firing, you're wrong, so the premise of your thread dies a quick death.

If you are saying she wasn't responsible for the firing, then what was the point of this thread in the first place?

There is a problem with this theory and that is the fact she was a very assertive first lady, both when he was governor and president. Is there any real doubt there? In fact many on both sides of the aisle put their marriage as one which was political in nature, not merely a product of fancy. Other, much more quiet first ladies have garnered more attention than you're willing to give the extremely political animal we know and love as Mrs Clinton. She served as the chair of presidential task forces for goodness sake and has a very long list of political involvement, domestic and foreign. To believe that she had zero input, zero influence, zero deciding power is a stance of midgetry. She wasn't at home baking muffins while Bill ran the country...

[Goofball]

There is a problem with this theory and that is the fact she was a very assertive first lady, both when he was governor and president. Is there any real doubt there? In fact many on both sides of the aisle put their marriage as one which was political in nature, not merely a product of fancy. Other, much more quiet first ladies have garnered more attention than you're willing to give the extremely political animal we know and love as Mrs Clinton. She served as the chair of presidential task forces for goodness sake and has a very long list of political involvement, domestic and foreign. To believe that she had zero input, zero influence, zero deciding power is a stance of midgetry. She wasn't at home baking muffins while Bill ran the country...

My wife is very assertive and has a very strong personality. Do you think my clients should be able to blame her if I turn down their loan applications?

Hillary may have had influence, but can ultimately bear no responsibility for any actions of the President. She could harp at Bill all day long, but she was not "the decider."

[ShadeHonestus]

Hillary may have had influence, but can ultimately bear no responsibility for any actions of the President. She could harp at Bill all day long, but she was not "the decider."

No official responsibility outside of official recommendations she did make throughout the administration while serving in official capacities. Does your wife serve any official capacity at your work? If so and depending on how close to your capacity, she could have culpability.

[Tribesman]

Are you saying she had something to do with the firing or not?

Either way, you have no point.

If you are saying she was responsible for the firing, you're wrong, so the premise of your thread dies a quick death.

If you are saying she wasn't responsible for the firing, then what was the point of this thread in the first place?

Thats a lot of words Goof , it is easier to just write bollox since that fully sums up Rabbits attempt at making a point

[Gawain of Orkeny]

wasn't there something funny about GWB and some high court judges getting him elected in the first place... oh i can't remember..... /sc off

And you believe that bunk. You obviously dont know how are system works. SCOTUS or no SCOTUS Bush would have been elected.

[Crazed Rabbit]

If you are saying she was responsible for the firing, you're wrong, so the premise of your thread dies a quick death.

If you are saying she wasn't responsible for the firing, then what was the point of this thread in the first place?

You seem to be assuming that she needs to be fully responsible for those firings to be a hypocrite.

A baseless assumption, in my opinion, as her explanation of the 1993 events and her condemnation of these much less events make her a hypocrite. 'Routine' when her hubby does it, an evil machination for political reasons when Bush does it. Hmmm...

Thats a lot of words Goof , it is easier to just write bollox

For you, I don't doubt it. That's your common response to just about everything - such ingrained habits make an observer wonder if the specimen is capable of producing any other response.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

EDIT: Or, to put it another way - BG

[Fisherking]

Dose anyone remember what she said about the 1100 FBI files they couldn't find but showed up on her desk?

[ShadeHonestus]

Dose anyone remember what she said about the 1100 FBI files they couldn't find but showed up on her desk?

Oh come on, its obviously less tin hatty to think the Saudi royal family controls the American Ruling class through top secret society BBQ's than thinking a politician like her would have anything to do in the white house but fluff the pillows.

I forget which one is more tin hatty, the Saudi control or the beliefs that the Jews control us completely hence our backing of Israel which is the root of all evil in the Middle East.

Maybe Camp David is really a double top secret playground for excellent Arab-Jew relations that is kept under wraps as the conflict is just a farce to control american politics.


But really, Mrs Clinton involved in the administration of her husband (despite all the official positions and well known public assertions of policy) is really a whacky idea.


[edit] I almost forgot

[Fisherking]

That was not a part of the cookie baking defence now was it?

Which one of them I wonder thought the Commandant of the Marines would look good passing out the canapés? I know Bill asked, but do you think he really has that much of an eye for fashion and style?

[Tribesman]

EDIT: Or, to put it another way - BG

Aw come on Banquo you know Rabbitte says that is his favourite word in debates when people are talking crap .
If its good enough to describe excrement in the Dail it is certainly good enough for the excrement that is rabbits "point" here .
And lets face it there is no merit whatsoever in rabbits "point" .

[Banquo's Ghost]

Aw come on Banquo you know Rabbitte says that is his favourite word in debates when people are talking crap .

In case members are now thoroughly confused, this is the said Rabbitte, not our esteemed conservative poster.

If its good enough to describe excrement in the Dail it is certainly good enough for the excrement that is rabbits "point" here .
And lets face it there is no merit whatsoever in rabbits "point" .

You might well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

(It was the quantity of the description that brought the edit, rather than the quality. )

[Tribesman]

(It was the quantity of the description that brought the edit, rather than the quality.

OK understood , so if I think something is a lot of bollox I don't really have to write bollox lots of times

[ShadeHonestus]

That was not a part of the cookie baking defense now was it?

I think she was too busy, after baking the cookies, in firing those travel office personnel. Remember the clear and substantial evidence against her, yet the congress at the time decided not to prosecute despite the firings being purely political and for personal gain? Damn those republicans and their modicum of decency and perspective.

[Goofball]

I think she was too busy, after baking the cookies, in firing those travel office personnel. Remember the clear and substantial evidence against her, yet the congress at the time decided not to prosecute despite the firings being purely political and for personal gain? Damn those republicans and their modicum of decency and perspective.

I am completely floored that you can say that with a straight face. The Republicans have respect for "decency and perspective," do they?

How was it either decent or in perspective to put a president on the stand and start asking him about his sex life?

Gimme a very large break.

[ShadeHonestus]

The Republicans have respect for "decency and perspective," do they?

Show it marked contrast to the feeding frenzy currently going on, even without the scent of illegality in the water.

How was it either decent or in perspective to put a president on the stand and start asking him about his sex life?

Oh do you mean his obstruction of justice under section 1503 or witness tampering under U.S. Code 1512. Oh wait you're referring to his confusion over what "sex" actually was, that damn perjury bit.

Gimme a very large break.

*breaks you off a piece of my kit-kat bar*

[Goofball]

Show it marked contrast to the feeding frenzy currently going on, even without the scent of illegality in the water.

Show it marked contrast to the feeding frenzy currently going on, even without the scent of illegality in the water.

They are asking for restraint because it's one of their own in the hotseat. Make no mistake, if it was a Democrat, they'd be howling for blood.

I am simply pointing out that claiming that the Republicans are somehow more of a "high road" party than the Democrats is just plain silly. Both parties have shown that they will always use whatever tactics are available to them to achieve political advantage, no matter how dirty.

If you don't understand that then there is no point discussing American politics with you.

How was it either decent or in perspective to put a president on the stand and start asking him about his sex life?

Oh do you mean his obstruction of justice under section 1503 or witness tampering under U.S. Code 1512. Oh wait you're referring to his confusion over what "sex" actually was, that damn perjury bit.

No. I mean exactly what I said:

How was it either decent or in perspective to put a president on the stand and start asking him about his sex life?

If you can't answer the question, just say so.

Gimme a very large break.

*breaks you off a piece of my kit-kat bar*

Thanks, but I prefer:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If you don't understand that then there is no point discussing American politics with you.

And if you dont understand Hillary was the most powerfull 1st lady in US history theres no use disscussing it with you either.

National Healthcare anyone? If she wanted people fired they were fired.

Everyone knows Hillary wears the pants in the Clinton family

[drone]

Everyone knows Hillary wears the pants in the Clinton family

That's only because Bill can't keep his on.

[ShadeHonestus]

They are asking for restraint because it's one of their own in the hotseat. Make no mistake, if it was a Democrat, they'd be howling for blood.

Actually they were quoted as saying to the effect that political witch hunts in the firings or hirings of those who serve strictly at the pleasure of the president was not an appropriate concern.

I am simply pointing out that claiming that the Republicans are somehow more of a "high road" party than the Democrats is just plain silly. Both parties have shown that they will always use whatever tactics are available to them to achieve political advantage, no matter how dirty.

If you don't understand that then there is no point discussing American politics with you.

Democrats take the high road on the other side, yet no call on them. The outrage of the minute investigations of Clinton and in the first 100 days we've already had investigations of staplers for their color being red or blue.

No. I mean exactly what I said:

How was it either decent or in perspective to put a president on the stand and start asking him about his sex life?

If you can't answer the question, just say so.

If you can't understand what led to and subsequently surrounded the president being asked that question, then there is no point arguing anything past what the latest sound byte is with you.

Let alone the fact that he supposedly could recognize what is perjury and what isn't...but that is after the fact and a sideshow.

I could explain that for the 100000000 time, but its much more hip to say it was about sex and just the president not wanting to disclose a blow job. laughable.....