- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/8/14 at 11:21 pm to LSUwag
quote:
W because he at least had integrity.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 11:26 pm to Alahunter
quote:
if Bill hadn't spent most of his time, trying to cover up his scandals, and had he focused on doing his job.
Hard to do that when you're being dogged by Ken Starr for your entire second term.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 11:32 pm to Layabout
quote:
Ken Starr
A real piece of shite. No matter what side of the political fence you're on.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 12:00 am to VOR
This lady, not voting for Bill:
Posted on 3/9/14 at 7:39 am to asurob1
quote:
waterboarding
Are you offended because the msm said you should be or was it W using the e for potato that left Barry without respect that upset you?
quote:
asurob1
Lemming much?
Posted on 3/9/14 at 8:01 am to tidehillcrest
W
Posted on 3/9/14 at 8:36 am to tidehillcrest
Ironic, the most dishonest and corrupt of the 3, clinton, is far and away the most competent. The most honest and least corrupt, Obama, is far and away the most incompetent. By corrupt I mean intellectually and financially. W and O are both equally morally upstanding in their personal lives, I just found W intellectually corrupt (not for money he has plenty and doesn't seem seedy greedy like Bill).
However, as horribly as Bush and his people ducked up the 9/11 response what they did would be better than nothing which is what Obama would have done. I'm not sure Bill would have gone far enough, which would be worse than going too far IMHO. So if it's pre 9/11 I'd hold my nose and say W. Now or in 1992 I'd go with Bill.
However, as horribly as Bush and his people ducked up the 9/11 response what they did would be better than nothing which is what Obama would have done. I'm not sure Bill would have gone far enough, which would be worse than going too far IMHO. So if it's pre 9/11 I'd hold my nose and say W. Now or in 1992 I'd go with Bill.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 8:39 am to VOR
quote:Whoa!
A real piece of shite. No matter what side of the political fence you're on.
What about KS do you know that the rest of us don't.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 8:53 am to BruinsWoo
quote:
Ironic, the most dishonest and corrupt of the 3, clinton, is far and away the most competent.
If any of the three had been POTUS in the 90s, they would give the illusion of competency. It was a time of IT renaissance, and we were the lone superpower with no enemies to speak of. The Dems had held the House for 40 years, but Hillary's healthcare plan scared the shite outta voters. A Republican House drug Billy Jeff kickin' and screaming to the table to sign welfare reform. You call that competent?
Now if you want to talk about which POTUS holds the record for depositing ejaculate in the Oval Office, Slick is your man.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 9:21 am to BruinsWoo
quote:
The most honest and least corrupt, Obama
Posted on 3/9/14 at 10:00 am to tidehillcrest
I can't believe people are actually picking W. Shows how politically narrow minded people are.
I'm guessing these people would pick W over any democrat president.
I'm guessing these people would pick W over any democrat president.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 10:04 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
What about KS do you know that the rest of us don't.
One man's view:
Allegation One:Starr learned about Lewinsky from Jones' lawyers.
Starr heard Linda Tripp's tale at least a week earlier than he claims from Jerome Marcus, a fellow member of the conservative Federalist Society who previously had been involved in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Marcus had heard about Lewinsky from the ubiquitous Lucianne Goldberg.
You could argue that this shows that Starr is more connected to the "vast right-wing conspiracy"--and the Jones lawsuit in particular--than he has admitted. In any event, he lied about it when asking to expand his jurisdiction to cover the Lewinsky matter. Starr maintains that all he got from Marcus was a vague "heads-up."
Allegation Two: Starr leaked evidence (and manipulated judges)
Was somewhat in cahoots with Michael Isikoff of Nesweek, especially regarding the Tripp-Lewinsky tapes.
Allegation Three: Starr lied in court (and manipulated judges)
In a July court hearing, Starr argued that Clinton's conversations with aide Bruce Lindsey were not covered by lawyer-client privilege because any thought of impeachment--the only relevant legal proceeding--was "premature." Three days later Starr asked his supervisory judges, in secret, for permission to release his report--which recommended impeachment. If this isn't lying in court, it's very close.
Allegation Four: Starr gave legal advice to Paula Jones
One of Jones' attorneys, Gilbert Davis, consulted Ken Starr four or six times during early 1994 about whether a sitting president could be sued. Starr was not Independent Counsel at the time of the consultations nor was he paid for his time. But he didn't disclose the contact to the Justice Department, either when he was appointed in August 1994 or when the Lewinsky matter brought the Paula Jones case into his inquiry.
He should have disclosed his involvement, however minor, in a lawsuit against the president--especially when that lawsuit became central to his own investigation. Second, it shows once again that Starr is not a neutral pursuer of justice but an ideologically motivated pursuer of President Clinton.
And apparently, he's having his fun with witch hunts as President of Baylor University.
LINK
Posted on 3/9/14 at 10:28 am to VOR
quote:Fair enough.
One man's view:
Allegation One:Starr learned about Lewinsky from Jones' lawyers.
Starr heard Linda Tripp's tale at least a week earlier than he claims from Jerome Marcus, a fellow member of the conservative Federalist Society who previously had been involved in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Marcus had heard about Lewinsky from the ubiquitous Lucianne Goldberg.
You could argue that this shows that Starr is more connected to the "vast right-wing conspiracy"--and the Jones lawsuit in particular--than he has admitted. In any event, he lied about it when asking to expand his jurisdiction to cover the Lewinsky matter. Starr maintains that all he got from Marcus was a vague "heads-up."
Allegation Two: Starr leaked evidence (and manipulated judges)
Was somewhat in cahoots with Michael Isikoff of Nesweek, especially regarding the Tripp-Lewinsky tapes.
Allegation Three: Starr lied in court (and manipulated judges)
In a July court hearing, Starr argued that Clinton's conversations with aide Bruce Lindsey were not covered by lawyer-client privilege because any thought of impeachment--the only relevant legal proceeding--was "premature." Three days later Starr asked his supervisory judges, in secret, for permission to release his report--which recommended impeachment. If this isn't lying in court, it's very close.
Allegation Four: Starr gave legal advice to Paula Jones
One of Jones' attorneys, Gilbert Davis, consulted Ken Starr four or six times during early 1994 about whether a sitting president could be sued. Starr was not Independent Counsel at the time of the consultations nor was he paid for his time. But he didn't disclose the contact to the Justice Department, either when he was appointed in August 1994 or when the Lewinsky matter brought the Paula Jones case into his inquiry.
He should have disclosed his involvement, however minor, in a lawsuit against the president--especially when that lawsuit became central to his own investigation. Second, it shows once again that Starr is not a neutral pursuer of justice but an ideologically motivated pursuer of President Clinton.
Your animus based on those facts seems excessive. However, it probably has a bit to do with a reasonable intolerance of integrity breaches in the profession. I can relate.
Based on that though, how do you compare his transgressions in the matter with those of the Clintons?
Posted on 3/9/14 at 10:36 am to BayouBlitz
quote:
I can't believe people are actually picking W. Shows how politically narrow minded people are.
There's a whiff of irony in those two statements. Can you find it?
Posted on 3/9/14 at 10:47 am to son of arlo
Another of Clinton's greatest hits:
This post was edited on 3/9/14 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 3/9/14 at 10:51 am to son of arlo
quote:
The Dems had held the House for 40 years, but Hillary's healthcare plan scared the shite outta voters
Clinton himself would tell you that the Assault Weapons Ban gave the House to the Republicans.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 10:51 am to asurob1
quote:Both Congress and Bush. A lot of people based on the intelligence given.
Who decided to invade Iraq?
quote:There was a surplus, but the national debt continued to increase. So there were surpluses, yet the national debt continued to rise. Hmmm. How could this be? Would you like to take a stab at that one?
Did we or did we not have a surplus prior to W.
quote:I didn't agree with the bailout, either. But the bubble was not started under Bush. Bush actually tried to reform Fannie and Freddie years before the bubble burst, but the Democrats in congress wanted none of it.
Who handed the money out again?
But hey, hang on to your beliefs just how they are now.
They serve you so well.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 11:13 am to tidehillcrest
Bill
Posted on 3/9/14 at 11:13 am to son of arlo
Of course I call Clinton competent. He had a massive failure in nationalizing health care and losing congress right of bar and masterfully maneuvered after those losses to be a relevant policy maker wether you like his choices or not. Maybe anyone would have looked like a genius with the benefits of the IT bubble, who knows. But life isn't that simple. Bush has the war spending and real estate bubble for most of his tenure and didn't look anything close to a genius, so not sure you're right about that. But that wasn't the question anyway.
Page 3 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News