No they did propose such a plan but Bush Sr. basicly told them to sfuff it:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ton-trip-idea/

Ah good to hear that mess is over. The last thing the world needs is to see MORE Bush/Clinton.

Go Obama for the Dems GO Ron Paul for the general!

Here's a scary thought. If Hillary wins there will have been either a Clinton or a Bush in the White House for a quarter of a century.

And I was having a good morning till you posted that thought.

*PUKE* :shifty:

And I just read that Clinton got a large jump in support recently.

The horrors of the pre-fusion age. Gah

Everything was down party lines. The whole thing was a job plain an simple. Forty billion dollars was spent on that. Thats $40,000,000,000!
But it's worth it to get a Democrat huh. Pure stupidity.
In your book is an illusion. There isn't a politician on that hill who isn't a lying scumbag. But I guess in your book there is lying and there is lying. What would be the difference between the two? They are both spelled the same, they each mean the same, so what exactly is the difference? It's okay here but not there? Should we make it law that every time a politician says something they should raise their right hand and be put under oath? Get real!

The guy is dirt. The "Democrats :roll: " don't deny that. I don't believe the term sexual predator was used but your personal opinion on it doesn't matter. The "Democrats :roll: " think it's pretty darn stupid to bring a country to a virtual stand still and spend $40,000,000,000 over a blow job.
Not hypocrisy just aversion to stupidity.

Good post! :up: There are times to move on and just accept that the bad president soon to be out is not worth the effort anymore.

I hope you're wrong. But, I gotta admit, it's going to be fun rehashing the criminal Clinton administration again if she gets the nod. And it will get ugly. There is alot there.

Go to the Democratic Underground and tell those kooks that. They're still talking about some fantasy impeachment over there. I have a feeling they'll still be screaming for it next December when Bush is packing the U-Haul. How funny. :p

No its not funny. What Bush/Clinton have done to this country isn't funny in the least bit. If he gets charged I will laugh. Tho it wont mean anything since our real problem wont be fixed by a show trial.

Seriously! If Clinton gets the nomination and Ron Paul somehow does not I WILL write in him in the general election. No it isn't throwing my vote away.

The only one I MIGHT take a chance to show my support on is Obama. Hes got his scumbag qualities but atleast he is a TINY step in the right direction.

Now that you mention DU. I used to post on that forum a great deal until i figured it went to hell just like Free Republic did. (What a sticking hellhole it is now) I was stunned at how many outrageous posts they made there (In particular this one where they were giving praise to these eco nuts that were attacking a whaling ship like pirates) that only fed the agenda of the only side. When I pointed it out I got called a freeper and received a barrage of crap from people who seem to think animals are better than humans and that these pirates where heros. Thankfully tho there were others who did the same as me. This is showing that there is SOME hope in DU if they can stop with the side crap and focus on the issues.

I went there today and to my surprise a poll there revealed that a good amount that voted stated that they whould not support a democratic candidate regardless who it is. Perhaps some of them might even consider Ron Paul. :hmm:

Ron Paul is the best hope for America and I hope they realize that once Clintion wins the nomination.

Your figure is just a tad off... Starr spent $7 million investigating Clinton. Another $40 million was spent investigating Hillary and her crooked Whitewater pals. So even if you put them together thats nowhere near $40 billion. :roll:

BTW that's still less than what was spent investigating Reagan ($48.5 million) over the Contra scandal.

http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/clinton/A1dstarr2.html

What is the difference? One is a felony and one is merely a dishonorable action. C'mon Brad what's you're basicly saying here is that you think an elected official lying under oath in a court of law is ok by you depending on what he lies about. Having read your posts for several years now i find it hard to believe that...

Yeah that's why he's still such a big shot in the Democratic party right? Commanding millions per year in speaking fees and that's why he's out stumping for Hillary at various Dem campaign rallies, because you all think he's dirt... :roll:

Then you have quite the selective memory Brad. Google it yourself..

That's a common Dem misdirection. This was never, ever, about a "blow job". That's a common Dem tactic to squash the unpleasant truth by making it a subject too dirty to talk about in polite company. It was all about Bill lying under oath in a sexual harrassment trial, which is exactly what he did.

Gezz man this is why the dems are all over yall. You do not give up about that.

You do realize you are only fueling the Clinton supporters right? Call it reason but its reason over a closed and dead topic. They take it as they usually do and becomes ever more willing.

Attacking candidiates and their family isn't going to win this one. Clinton will take the nomination unless both republicans and democrats get seriously better candidates on the front lines.

Yes even republicans need to support Obama. Obama is THE only chance you will have at not facing a skilled political monster that will lay waste to any of the republicans except Ron Paul (Ron Paul can only win on a different style unrelated to the usual political crap) You may think that people like Rudy and Mccain can shove off her attack dogs but they have a couple of serious flaws and one that is politics.

#1 They are Male
#2 They support you know what...

Be shocked at that if you like but Clinton being a woman has a strong shield AND torpedo system she can use to lay waste to them while avoiding fallout. For any attempt to go after her will result in more and more people going to her support. This is somthing that has to be figured in as a setback for them every time an ad plays and clinton gets to mark it as an advantage every time they show an ad.

Anything dug up on her past is viewed as gold digging against a woman. She will dig up everything and anything against the republican with little fallout whatsoever.

If Clinton easily wins the nomination (as it is kinda starting to look like will happen as she stands a good chance to take Iowa AND NH) then get ready for a sickening campaign followed by her being the president for ANOTHER 4 years of buisness as usual in the white house.

It's sad but it's currently shaping up to be the perfect election for Clinton. These stupid debates about HIS time in office only gains her more time and points.

Okay, I'll take the foot out of my mouth now. Must of been thinking of McDonalds hamburgers or something. Seven million is still an expensive blow job.
What I think is I think I'm a kind of honourable straight laced kind of guy. But if I was asked that question in front of the whole world even if it were true I would say no myself. The embarrasment factor would be too great. For the record I've never cheated in 28 years nor been in a court besides to fight a speeding ticket. To me there are limits in the publics right to know in personal issues even when one is in public life. Then I look at the accusers and can probably give a good guesstimation that half or more are guilty of cheating on their spouse themselves while holding office. This was nothing but an assination attempt pure and simple.
I think it's disgusting that a political party virtualy stops a nation out of vindictiveness to try and chop an individual over such a "crime". I think it was a more serious crime in the level that the Republicans took this to.
You have the habit of any disagreement in a political debate it's "You Democrats". It's your if you're not Republican you are a Democrat thing. I tagged myself as the "Democrats" so you could identify. The simple answer on Clinton I think is #1. He wasn't ever found guilty of anything. #2. The Republicans tried pounding on him so hard they screwed themselves and turned the publics perception of him. So blame "yourselves".
You'll have to show me.
Get real. Those darn Dems again. The court dropped the sexual harrassment case because of no proof. So yeah, it's all about a blow job.

The only way that a Republican makes it to the White House is if Obama is the Democratic candidate.

The first thing they will attack is Obama's perceived lack of patriotism. Always a favorite mud slinging tactic they will harp on Obama refusing to wear an american flag pin on his lapel and his failure to salute the flag (hand over heart) during the pledge of allegiance. Mix in a little sub conscious racism and distrust of people of muslim origin on the part of the American voter and poof! Another Republican in the White House. :damn: :damn:

This isn't 2004. Any such attack ads will be dismissed quickly as "Swiftboating". Only Mccain could gather the gall to launch such a low blow. And miss...

Try it against Clinton and youve lost.. Outright. She will have any candidate that dares try that made to look like such crap that they will more than likely run away crying.

The republicans are setting themselves up for a huge loss if they face Clinton and a beating from even Obama. They ought to really pour in the support to Ron Paul so they can restore faith that the party can actually complete.

I can see Obama VS Ron Paul being one of the closest and most desisive campaigns of all time.

I can see Clinton VS Rudy or Mccain, etc.. being one of the worst slugfests in election history. It will NOT be pretty or good for America. I can see lots of people voting for donald duck on this one. I will of course write in Ron Paul.

As much as I would like to agree with that assessment, I find I Can't.

Mud slinging has been around too long as a successfull campaign tactic in the US to go away overnight.

Sure it may last till the candidates from each party are selected, but once the Reps and Dems square off I fear the gloves will come off. If Clinton is the Democratic candidate, then it will more than likely start from the Republican side since Clinton has made it clear that those tactics won't be a part of her campaign.

Maybe if whomever gets nominated for the Republicans comes out and clearly states that he will not use attack ads, It might happen. But, since I believe the Republicans are in the back seat, they will get desperate at some point and lash out.

And the moment they do they will have dropped their weak sheild.

Doh...what a dipstick he was/is...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urQFfXWRunw

One last time Brad. It was not about a "blow job". No matter how many times you repeat such a disgusting falsehood it still does not make it true. Clinton could have actually told the truth (strange concept for him i know) and Starr would have been able to continue with the White Water investigation like he should have and maybe we wouldn't be facing the prospect of another Clinton in the White House.

If he lies under oath on the witness stand in a court of law what else is he lying about would be my take on it but I do agree with you there is little to show for all that effort. I guess they don't call him "Slick Willie" for nothing...


You tagged yourself and now you're talking about my habits? :roll:

Screwed themselves right into the Whitehouse and control of both houses of Congress you mean.

Naw. I'm not interested in playing go find games with you. Googling "Bill Clinton sexual predator" brought up over half a million hits. If you can't do that it's because you don't want to see what is out there, not because it doesn't exist...

No the court dropped the case because the judge felt Willey couldn't demonstrate damage from the harrassment, not because the harrassment didn't happen. But don't believe me, look it up. In any case, you obviously know that perjury on the witness stand has nothing to do with the merits of the case in which the perjury occured. Just ask Scooter Libby...

quote]One last time Brad. It was not about a "blow job". No matter how many times you repeat such a disgusting falsehood it still does not make it true. Clinton could have actually told the truth (strange concept for him i know) and Starr would have been able to continue with the White Water investigation like he should have and maybe we wouldn't be facing the prospect of another Clinton in the White House.[/quote]
It was an assasination attempt therefore it was about a blowjob even if your selfrightiousness and prejeduce doesn't want to see it.
As far as Starr, what, four or five years he tried. Pal, if you can't do it in that amount of time there isn't anything there.
I told you my guess on why. All that effort, yeah that one way to call it. All that effort to take him down failed. An assasination attempt by party lines that the swing against was from your own party.
Am I wrong? Read your posts. It's all "You Democrats".
I'm not going to hunt for your accusations. You make it, you show it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Willey Yeah you can really believe what this person says. Harrassment is illegal. If it was there he'd have been burnt.
Blow job vs. Libby. What was more damaging? Like I said put it in perspective.