Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 74

Thread: Where's the indictment against Bill Clinton?

  1. #41
    if my thought dreams could be seen goldfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    21,084
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,365
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,337
    Thanked in
    2,262 Posts
    what you described of Clinton isn't like drugging and raping women

    that's the only thing i am arguing

    if you still see your examples as similar, then so be it and i will go about my exciting afternoon of laundry and dishes etc and listening to music
    "For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman

    "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"

  2. #42
    Boras' Client
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    4,001
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    368
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,204
    Thanked in
    847 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BedellBrave View Post
    I don't know. We need to think of something really clever and with a nice ring to it.

    Listen, I'm a fallen sinner who falls so far short of the glory of God. I've got plenty of logs to pull out of my own eye. But why so many decent (I'll assume such) guys around here defend the Clintons, turn a blind-eye, give then the least bit of cover or excuse, over what is clearly abusive, sexist, serial, behavior, is beyond me. I get pulling for your team and all, but after awhile, you just need to back up and look at what you are doing.
    Personally I think the Clintons are the closest thing Dems have to an "icon" to root for, much like the Kennedys were before Teddy came along and took that "ill fated drive off the bridge" one evening. For a comparison look at how Repubs do with Reagan. You see/hear them building Ramses II sized statues to the guy while praising him for stuff he didn't even do or praising him while ignoring him for the stuff he really did do. We all need our heroes I suppose but I tend to side with Pappy Boyington on that issue.

  3. #43
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,293
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,324
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,728
    Thanked in
    1,066 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by goldfly View Post
    what you described of Clinton isn't like drugging and raping women

    that's the only thing i am arguing

    if you still see your examples as similar, then so be it and i will go about my exciting afternoon of laundry and dishes etc and listening to music

    He's been accused of sexual assault/rape multiple times. He may not have used a drug to get what he wanted, course there are many others tools a Horn-dog can use to work his "magic."

  4. #44
    Boras' Client
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    4,001
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    368
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,204
    Thanked in
    847 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BedellBrave View Post
    I don't care who you are. That's funny.
    I salute you in the name of Delta Farce and Witless Protection!!! Health Inspector, not so much.

  5. #45
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,293
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,324
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,728
    Thanked in
    1,066 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Oklahomahawk View Post
    Personally I think the Clintons are the closest thing Dems have to an "icon" to root for, much like the Kennedys were before Teddy came along and took that "ill fated drive off the bridge" one evening. For a comparison look at how Repubs do with Reagan. You see/hear them building Ramses II sized statues to the guy while praising him for stuff he didn't even do or praising him while ignoring him for the stuff he really did do. We all need our heroes I suppose but I tend to side with Pappy Boyington on that issue.

    I think you are on to something there OHawk.

  6. #46
    Boras' Client
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    4,001
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    368
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,204
    Thanked in
    847 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BedellBrave View Post
    He's been accused of sexual assault/rape multiple times. He may not have used a drug to get what he wanted, course there are many others tools a Horn-dog can use to work his "magic."
    I remember the good old days when Governor Clinton would meet a young hottie and then "offer them a position on the Governor's staff" so to speak.

  7. #47
    Boras' Client
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    4,001
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    368
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,204
    Thanked in
    847 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BedellBrave View Post
    I think you are on to something there OHawk.
    You do remember Boyington's statement about heroes, right?

  8. #48
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,293
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,324
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,728
    Thanked in
    1,066 Posts
    Ask yourself this question, if you had a 18 year old daughter, would you really want her around Bill Clinton?

  9. #49
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,293
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,324
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,728
    Thanked in
    1,066 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Oklahomahawk View Post
    You do remember Boyington's statement about heroes, right?

    No, remind me.

  10. #50
    Boras' Client
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    4,001
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    368
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,204
    Thanked in
    847 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BedellBrave View Post
    No, remind me.
    Show me a hero and I'll prove to you he's a bum.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Oklahomahawk For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (01-09-2016), Julio3000 (01-09-2016)

  12. #51
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,293
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,324
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,728
    Thanked in
    1,066 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Oklahomahawk View Post
    Show me a hero and I'll prove to you he's a bum.

    Yep, all heroes have feet of clay. Some have feet of dung.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to BedellBrave For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (01-09-2016)

  14. #52
    Boras' Client
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    4,001
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    368
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,204
    Thanked in
    847 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BedellBrave View Post
    Yep, all heroes have feet of clay. Some have feet of dung.
    And some have feet of dung attached to a remainder of body parts made of dung.

  15. #53
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,293
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,324
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,728
    Thanked in
    1,066 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Oklahomahawk View Post
    And some have feet of dung attached to a remainder of body parts made of dung.

    And brains filled with ****e and semen

  16. #54
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    I'm not really sure what you're looking for here, BB. I told you my rationale for being skeptical about accusations against the Clintons 20 years ago. If you choose to discount that, fine. But that was, in my mind, a reasonable rationale. 20 years later, given time and a different perspective, I might have a different opinion about Bill Clinton.

    I'm just not sure what you're looking for from me. I've cast a total of one ballot for a Clinton in my life. That was for Bill, in 1996. Given the same opportunity, I'd cast the same vote. The party as a whole, and myself as individual, made a different choice in 2008.

    Given the choice between Hillary or Trump, or Cruz, or Rubio, I will pull the lever for a Clinton again. Looking at the nationwide state of the Republican Party, I'm not sure how you could criticize me for making that decision. Bill Clinton is a phenomenally skilled politician, and, quite possibly, a predatory dirtbag. If you want me to say that he's Cosby, or that I shouldn't vote for his wife, given the opposition, you're going to have to go back to work.

    So I guess that what you're saying is that Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston and Denny Hastert don't matter...that the folks who were lighting the bonfire for the Clintons get a pass. That I can be clear-eyed about the Clintons and still vote for them, considering the alternatives, just isn't a possibility?

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Julio3000 For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (01-09-2016)

  18. #55
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,903
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    47,596
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6,441
    Thanked in
    3,830 Posts
    Personally, I partake in no great hero-worship of William Jefferson Clinton.

    Having said that, my second note—and we're probably not on the same page here, [MENTION=68]BedellBrave[/MENTION]—is that I don't give a **** about the consensual philandering in which Clinton may or may not have engaged; that's between himself, his gods, and his significant other, and if she's still with him, that's her right according to her world-view. (For the record: I do think that the "may haves" probably outweigh the "may not haves" for old Bill.)

    Thirdly, and where I guess we arrive at the nut-meat of the matter, as far as I'm concerned: the allegations of sexual assault, and—in one case—of legally-defined rape, are alarming, and—if true—despicable. But I feel that you're drawing a false equivalency between two disparate sets of circumstances, and doing so merely in order to score a cheap, beneath-you, and ultimately unnecessary point (which is, essentially, "the 'other side' is full of hypocrites!"). The details in these kinds of cases do matter, and while—as [MENTION=4]Julio3000[/MENTION] noted—there's a gravely-high possibility that, around women over whom he wields some power (and, given his stature, that is most women), Bill Clinton is a "predatory dirtbag", at the same time, that's very different from the now-almost-forty-some-odd-cases, with eerily matching narratives, describing Bill Cosby drugging and raping women. Still, I'll cede the (obvious) point that, in a white-male-dominated culture of misogyny-forgiveness, it's nonetheless unfortunate that either man is likely to see appropriate censure, nor any of their respective victims likely to find some measure of solace.

    And, lastly, speaking to that core issue—the accurate, though altogether unnecessary, illumination of the hypocrisies of the Other—I'll just say that we all have our sacred cows, and we're all reticent to bring them to slaughter; we are, all of us, too-often guilty of excusing away behavior we'd otherwise find anathema; and we're each too-frequently apostate to our own moral compasses. But, in the case of the two Bills, I think we have one man whose sins are dirty and deceitful (Clinton), and one man whose sins are despicable and utterly dehumanizing (Cosby); in my personal catechism, the former is venial (pending substantiation of that handful of more grave accusations), while the latter is straight-up mortal.
    Last edited by jpx7; 01-09-2016 at 06:06 PM.
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jpx7 For This Useful Post:

    50PoundHead (01-09-2016), Julio3000 (01-09-2016)

  20. #56
    Hessmania Forever
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    13,995
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,887
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7,678
    Thanked in
    4,941 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jpx7 View Post
    Personally, I partake in no great hero-worship of William Jefferson Clinton.

    Having said that, my second note—and we're probably not on the same page here, [MENTION=68]BedellBrave[/MENTION]—is that I don't give a **** about the consensual philandering in which Clinton may or may not have engaged; that's between himself, his gods, and his significant other, and if she's still with him, that's her right according to her world-view. (For the record: I do think that the "may haves" probably outweigh the "may not haves" for old Bill.)

    Thirdly, and where I guess we arrive at the nut-meat of the matter, as far as I'm concerned: the allegations of sexual assault, and—in one case—of legally-defined rape, are alarming, and—if true—despicable. But I feel that you're drawing a false equivalency between two disparate sets of circumstances, and doing so merely in order to score a cheap, beneath-you, and ultimately unnecessary point (which is, essentially, "the 'other side' is full of hypocrites!"). The details in these kinds of cases do matter, and while—as [MENTION=4]Julio3000[/MENTION] noted—there's a gravely-high possibility that, around women over whom he wields some power (and, given his stature, that is most women), Bill Clinton is a "predatory dirtbag", at the same time, that's very different from the now-almost-forty-some-odd-cases, with eerily matching narratives, describing Bill Cosby drugging and raping women. Still, I'll cede the (obvious) point that, in a white-male-dominated culture of misogyny-forgiveness, it's nonetheless unfortunate that either man is likely to see appropriate censure, nor any of their respective victims likely to find some measure of solace.

    And, lastly, speaking to that core issue—the accurate, though altogether unnecessary, illumination of the hypocrisies of the Other—I'll just say that we all have our sacred cows, and we're all reticent to bring them to slaughter; we are, all of us, too-often guilty of excusing away behavior we'd otherwise find anathema; and we're each too-frequently apostate to our own moral compasses. But, in the case of the two Bills, I think we have one man whose sins are dirty and deceitful (Clinton), and one man whose sins are despicable and utterly dehumanizing (Cosby); in my personal catechism, the former is venial (pending substantiation of that handful of more grave accusations), while the latter is straight-up mortal.
    Where's the post-of-the-week nomination button?

  21. #57
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,293
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,324
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,728
    Thanked in
    1,066 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jpx7 View Post
    Personally, I partake in no great hero-worship of William Jefferson Clinton.

    Having said that, my second note—and we're probably not on the same page here, [MENTION=68]BedellBrave[/MENTION]—is that I don't give a **** about the consensual philandering in which Clinton may or may not have engaged; that's between himself, his gods, and his significant other, and if she's still with him, that's her right according to her world-view. (For the record: I do think that the "may haves" probably outweigh the "may not haves" for old Bill.)

    Thirdly, and where I guess we arrive at the nut-meat of the matter, as far as I'm concerned: the allegations of sexual assault, and—in one case—of legally-defined rape, are alarming, and—if true—despicable. But I feel that you're drawing a false equivalency between two disparate sets of circumstances, and doing so merely in order to score a cheap, beneath-you, and ultimately unnecessary point (which is, essentially, "the 'other side' is full of hypocrites!"). The details in these kinds of cases do matter, and while—as [MENTION=4]Julio3000[/MENTION] noted—there's a gravely-high possibility that, around women over whom he wields some power (and, given his stature, that is most women), Bill Clinton is a "predatory dirtbag", at the same time, that's very different from the now-almost-forty-some-odd-cases, with eerily matching narratives, describing Bill Cosby drugging and raping women. Still, I'll cede the (obvious) point that, in a white-male-dominated culture of misogyny-forgiveness, it's nonetheless unfortunate that either man is likely to see appropriate censure, nor any of their respective victims likely to find some measure of solace.

    And, lastly, speaking to that core issue—the accurate, though altogether unnecessary, illumination of the hypocrisies of the Other—I'll just say that we all have our sacred cows, and we're all reticent to bring them to slaughter; we are, all of us, too-often guilty of excusing away behavior we'd otherwise find anathema; and we're each too-frequently apostate to our own moral compasses.
    But, in the case of the two Bills, I think we have one man whose sins are dirty and deceitful (Clinton), and one man whose sins are despicable and utterly dehumanizing (Cosby); in my personal catechism, the former is venial (pending substantiation of that handful of more grave accusations), while the latter is straight-up mortal.

    ^^^ That's what I'm looking for without any need to give extended caveats. They aren't necessary, imho. He has been and likely still is (by the fact of his flying with Epstein) a predatory, adulterous, sexist pig. The allegations, the known abuse of his power, the pay-off, the repeated stories of victims being threatened, seem worthy to have his sins bumped up in the moral calculus from mere venial category, imho. The Clintons are a Arkansas, money-grubbing, power-couple with few scruples. I only have growing disdain for them.

    Though of course I don't agree with him, support for President Obama, on the other hand makes sense and I commend it.

    Put policy agreement/disagreement aside, if I had the opportunity to pull the lever for a Clinton, for a Hastert, for a Gingrich, etc., knowing what we know, I will not do it. That's me. If I were a D I'd pull it for Sanders. And not vote if it's Clinton.

    I'm to this point with the Rs as well. My field is narrowing.

    I realize there are no morally perfect candidates, but I'm done with considering supporting known deviants and their enablers who then hypocritically preach against sexism, or what have you.
    Last edited by BedellBrave; 01-09-2016 at 07:44 PM.

  22. #58
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,293
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,324
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,728
    Thanked in
    1,066 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    I'm not really sure what you're looking for here, BB. I told you my rationale for being skeptical about accusations against the Clintons 20 years ago. If you choose to discount that, fine. But that was, in my mind, a reasonable rationale. 20 years later, given time and a different perspective, I might have a different opinion about Bill Clinton.

    I'm just not sure what you're looking for from me. I've cast a total of one ballot for a Clinton in my life. That was for Bill, in 1996. Given the same opportunity, I'd cast the same vote. The party as a whole, and myself as individual, made a different choice in 2008.

    Given the choice between Hillary or Trump, or Cruz, or Rubio, I will pull the lever for a Clinton again. Looking at the nationwide state of the Republican Party, I'm not sure how you could criticize me for making that decision. Bill Clinton is a phenomenally skilled politician, and, quite possibly, a predatory dirtbag. If you want me to say that he's Cosby, or that I shouldn't vote for his wife, given the opposition, you're going to have to go back to work.

    So I guess that what you're saying is that Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston and Denny Hastert don't matter...that the folks who were lighting the bonfire for the Clintons get a pass. That I can be clear-eyed about the Clintons and still vote for them, considering the alternatives, just isn't a possibility?

    Who said they should be given a pass?? Why would you give Clinton a pass because of them? Why give any of them a pass? Why this false either/or?

  23. #59
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BedellBrave View Post
    Who said they should be given a pass?? Why would you give Clinton a pass because of them? Why give any of them a pass? Why this false either/or?
    Why would I give Clinton a pass because of them? I said that the context mattered. If the same people who were telling me that WJC was a serial rapist were also peddling rumors that Hillary offed Vince Foster or that Blll sold cocaine out of the Governor's mansion, I'd say that some skepticism was in order. So, yeah, there's a place I'm willing to go with Clinton, and it pretty much ends where the legal documents stop . . . precisely because of the same context.

  24. #60
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,293
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,324
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,728
    Thanked in
    1,066 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    Why would I give Clinton a pass because of them? I said that the context mattered. If the same people who were telling me that WJC was a serial rapist were also peddling rumors that Hillary offed Vince Foster or that Blll sold cocaine out of the Governor's mansion, I'd say that some skepticism was in order. So, yeah, there's a place I'm willing to go with Clinton, and it pretty much ends where the legal documents stop . . . precisely because of the same context.

    I don't know why you would either, much less defend him as you said you did.

Similar Threads

  1. Clinton declares war on Sanders
    By AerchAngel in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-12-2017, 07:09 PM
  2. Sanders is a better candidate than Clinton
    By weso1 in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 01-14-2016, 09:26 PM
  3. So if your name is Clinton or
    By VOLracious in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-09-2015, 08:27 AM
  4. Bush/Clinton
    By BedellBrave in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 01-08-2015, 11:44 AM
  5. Hilary Clinton
    By sturg33 in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-16-2013, 10:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •