Started By
Message

re: Rand Paul demands Dems return money raised by "sexual predator" Bill Clinton

Posted on 2/9/14 at 10:49 pm to
Posted by Swampcat
Member since Dec 2003
12294 posts
Posted on 2/9/14 at 10:49 pm to
Now can we do something about Hugh Heffner finally. Talk about..
Posted by asurob1
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
26971 posts
Posted on 2/9/14 at 10:53 pm to
quote:

This forces Hillary to either defend someone accused of sexual harassment or distance herself from someone who'd be sharing the White House with her. Not a very appealing couple of choices there.

It also encourages her to show her hand a bit as to whether she's going to run or not. If she isn't, she'd have no real reason to start defending these attacks.


Actually her play will be to ignore it entirely.

Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
100313 posts
Posted on 2/9/14 at 10:55 pm to
quote:

Actually her play will be to ignore it entirely.


True. That's how she did it in the 90s when the media was hammering them.
Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 2/9/14 at 10:58 pm to
And she'll say what when people ask her if she's okay putting the fox back in the hen house? Will she establish age/gender restrictions for White House interns? Or do all 22-year old women have to burden the risk of having a known sexual wanderer potentially thrust himself on them if they want to intern at the White House?

If a 50-year old married partner in the corner office at the downtown law firm had sex with a college intern during working hours, is there a single firm on the planet who wouldn't fire him immediately?

In this case, Hillary would essentially be hiring that partner back...
This post was edited on 2/9/14 at 11:00 pm
Posted by trackfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
19691 posts
Posted on 2/9/14 at 11:07 pm to
quote:

She was a young, dumb, giggly girl who was pressured into sexual acts by the President of the United States. Even if she did hit on him first, that same father of the LSU girl and everyone else with a reasonable mind would expect any mid-aged male to consider reasoning with the girl that what she was asking for wasn't in her best interest. Worse yet, there was no love involved here that muddied up his thinking: he saw an opportunity to get a piece of arse from a girl who might as well have been pomping on the front lawn of an LSU sorority house and he went for it.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you concede that she's the one who hit on him, which is what she stated in her sworn testimony, how can you accuse Clinton of "pressuring her into sexual acts"? This makes no sense though I agree that he should have been disciplined enough to stiff-arm her, considering his position. However, I'll bet that most of the 44 men who have lived in the White House wouldn't have turned her down, especially prior to Nixon when the media turned a blind eye to that kind of stuff.
Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 2/9/14 at 11:27 pm to
I don't know if you know any 22 year old girls. But when you find out a 50 year old man in a position of power and undoubtedly in a position to further one's career has had sex with a 22 year old girl, there's an extremely strong presumption that his acts constituted some form of pressure, whether intentional or not.

If you want to take the odds that poor old Bill was just a victim of this girl's promiscuity, then I sincerely hope you never father a daughter. It's almost Res Ipsa Loquitor. The POTUS had sex with a 22-year old intern ... she was pressured.

And come on, most of the other 44 presidents would have done the same thing? Would most 50-year old married men you know take a 22-year old girl up on an offer for sex? I can unequivocally say most men I know would not do such a thing.

This isn't 35 and 25. This is like a 50-year old judge having sex with one of his college daughter's friends over family vacation. Are those the kind of people you know?

You're being dishonest, or so I hope you are.
Posted by ItNeverRains
Offugeaux
Member since Oct 2007
28166 posts
Posted on 2/10/14 at 6:21 am to
quote:

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you concede that she's the one who hit on him, which is what she stated in her sworn testimony, how can you accuse Clinton of "pressuring her into sexual acts"? This makes no sense though I agree that he should have been disciplined enough to stiff-arm her, considering his position. However, I'll bet that most of the 44 men who have lived in the White House wouldn't have turned her down, especially prior to Nixon when the media turned a blind eye to that kind of stuff.


Yes, Bill was an innocent victim to ML and felt forced to throw his semen down her throat and shove a cigar up her coot.

And to asurob, Honey Boo Boo could have been president during the dot com bubble and looked like a fricking genius. Clinton's first term was garbage until Newt told him to sit down and shut the frick up, go shove a cigar up that intern coot...

Which makes it Newt's fault.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
135438 posts
Posted on 2/10/14 at 6:57 am to
quote:

If you honestly think the attacks on bill will influence their opinion of Hillary...well, you're living in a republican wet dream that isn't going to happen.
The vast majority of women will understand the hypocrisy Paul is pointing out

You're simply referencing a few of the minority who won't
Posted by trackfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
19691 posts
Posted on 2/10/14 at 7:20 am to
I don't know why you insist on creating straw men, when I've already conceded that Clinton showed poor judgment and was wrong to do what he did. However, I don't understand why you refuse to accept Lewinsky's own version of events. The very first time she met the President she pulled up her dress to show him her thong underwear in order to get his attention. What could Clinton have possibly done to pressure her into doing this when he had never met her before? Here's an excerpt from the Barbara Walters interview:


BW: You showed the president your thong underwear. Where did you get the nerve? I mean -- who does that?

ML: ...If you take my word for it, it was a small, subtle, flirtatious gesture. And that's me.

BW: Was it saying "I'm available?"

ML: I think it was saying, "I'm interested, too. I'll play."

BW: Did you ever say to yourself, "I'm doing something wrong. This is bad for the president. This is bad for the country." Did you ever think about that?

ML: Now with everything that's happened, ... I feel bad that I didn't. But, I didn't at that time. I was enamored with him. And I was excited. And I was enjoying it.



By the way, do you have any idea how many of our Presidents are alleged to have been adulterers going all the way back to Thomas Jefferson all the way up to Ike, JFK and LBJ? Is this really a surprise considering how women were treated in society 200 years ago?
Posted by Matrixman
Texas
Member since Apr 2010
719 posts
Posted on 2/10/14 at 7:24 am to
quote:

His dad didn't play games


Paul - Lee (Mike) 2016

Posted by skinny domino
sebr
Member since Feb 2007
14498 posts
Posted on 2/10/14 at 7:28 am to
quote:

Paul - Lee (Mike) 2016
Oh, please make this happen.
Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 2/10/14 at 7:45 am to
You're really contorting yourself for reasons beyond my comprehension, unless you're just that adamant about defending a member of the home team at all costs. And I don't buy the "Everyone else does it, too." defense. The fact is, it's not 200 years ago, and you'd be hard pressed to find majority support for 50-year old married men having sex with college-aged girls on the job and in the office.

If this were the corporate world, Bill Clinton wouldn't be allowed back in the building. Are you that deprived of the modern state of workforce sexual harrassment policy?

I also find it highly doubtful a girl would have the nerve to make sexual advances on the POTUS unless she had some reason to think he might be interested in them. Take a second look at her response to BW.

quote:

BW: You showed the president your thong underwear. Where did you get the nerve? I mean -- who does that?

ML: ...If you take my word for it, it was a small, subtle, flirtatious gesture. And that's me.

BW: Was it saying "I'm available?"

ML: I think it was saying, "I'm interested, too. I'll play."


That "too" is a crucial word.

This post was edited on 2/10/14 at 7:46 am
Posted by son of arlo
State of Innocence
Member since Sep 2013
4577 posts
Posted on 2/10/14 at 8:25 am to
Hillary's got a point. All those hos that get it on the the workplace deserve what they get for being whiney bitches. Even NOW said you can get a free grope on a whore at work as long as you quit when they indicate they don't like it.

We were on a dangerous trend in the early 90s where a woman could sue a man/company for sex harrassment if a co-worker had a picture of his own wife in a bikini on his desk. Billy Jeff shut that nonsense down wid a quickness. Next thing you know, feminists were ready to put on the kneepads for him to collect their own DNA sample.
Posted by trackfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
19691 posts
Posted on 2/10/14 at 8:49 am to
quote:

You're really contorting yourself for reasons beyond my comprehension,

Actually it is you who are contorting yourself with strawmen and non sequiturs, probably due to you blind hatred of all things Clinton. All I did was present the facts but you can't handle them.

quote:

And I don't buy the "Everyone else does it, too." defense.

It's not a defense, it's a fact that puts his behavior in context. My point is that he wasn't a Presidential outlier that in his personal conduct. Also, I never used the phrase "everyone else", those are your words.

quote:

you'd be hard pressed to find majority support for 50-year old married men having sex with college-aged girls on the job and in the office.

Straw man.

quote:

I also find it highly doubtful a girl would have the nerve to make sexual advances on the POTUS unless she had some reason to think he might be interested in them. Take a second look at her response to BW.

Facts don't change according to you ability to stomach them. Go and read the whole court transcript for yourself if you don't believe me.

quote:

That "too" is a crucial word.

Now, you're just playing semantics games, which is exactly what folks like you rightfully accused Clinton of when he talked about the meaning of the word "is".
This post was edited on 2/10/14 at 8:50 am
Posted by RCDfan1950
United States
Member since Feb 2007
38612 posts
Posted on 2/10/14 at 8:49 am to
There is an easy way to speculate as to whether Clinton's actions were over the legal line; and that is would Monica's position be ACTIONABLE in Civil Court? Could she obtain damages for sexual harassment, using her age/relative naivete' and Bill's position of power? Would a normal parent feel that their child was taken advantage of/abused, in that situation?

Book it, if this had went to a Civil Court and Bill went in with Hillary's strategy of attacking the women and lying...and the plaintiffs dropped the 'dress bomb' in the trial... .

Bottom line. Both of the Clintons are lying, low-life, demagogic, narcissistic bottom feeders who can do nothing good for the political comity of this Nation. Period.

BTW, as supreme narcissists...they will never go away, or be truly defined as who they really are. Neither will Lucifer. Both serve a valid purpose toward defining the good.

Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 2/10/14 at 9:40 am to
quote:

Actually it is you who are contorting yourself with strawmen and non sequiturs, probably due to you blind hatred of all things Clinton. All I did was present the facts but you can't handle them.


The term "straw man" is horribly overused, and typically used incorrectly, such as in your case. Your argument is that Bill Clinton was seduced, and that other Presidents would have been likely to do exactly as he did. My argument fails to even consider those claims, as the conduct in and of itself was morally indefensible. Further, even if he was seduced, I highly doubt it was a one-way street.

I also draw an analogy, which is what you're likely confusing for a straw man, in saying this would be no different than a law partner having sex with a college-aged file clerk in the office and during working hours. In the corporate world, that would subject the partner to immediate sexual harrassment scrutiny, and I don't see why the President should be held to any lesser standard.

Finally, throughout the scandal, all we heard about was Monica Lewinsky "the woman." If you polled the average American, I'd venture to bet they wouldn't know she was just a tender 22 years old. I've also placed emphasis on this point as I think it's gone unnoticed by many. Again, using an analogy (not a straw man), it wouldn't be entirely different than Les Miles having sex with an LSU cheerleader in the locker room after a football game. Such analogy paints an accurate picture of just what kind of age/maturity difference we're dealing with here.

quote:

It's not a defense, it's a fact that puts his behavior in context. My point is that he wasn't a Presidential outlier that in his personal conduct. Also, I never used the phrase "everyone else", those are your words.


In statistics, we look for stanionarity within a given data set to ensure that factors which have significant explanatory power at the onset of the data collection period don't change throughout the data collection period. If you're comparing interest rates to bond yields, for example, you'd want to know if there were any significant Fed policy changes within the time series at issue.

Comparing Bill Clinton's actions to anyone other than modern-day presidents reeks of non-stationarity. Times have changed, my friend. What was normal back in Teddy Roosevelt's days isn't nearly as normal today. Would you project the percentage of women married with children by the age of 16 in 1900 to 2014 and expect to achieve an accurate result?

Further, whether other Presidents "would have" done this or "would have" done that is simply a pathetic line of reasoning. The fact is, Bill Clinton DID have sex with a college-aged girl while on the job. That's all that matters here.

quote:

Now, you're just playing semantics games, which is exactly what folks like you rightfully accused Clinton of when he talked about the meaning of the word "is".


Semantics? Do you not understand what the word "too" means?
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
Posted on 2/27/14 at 9:47 am to
Rand is apparently smarter than we think. After watching Rand's attacks on Bill Clinton play out the last few weeks I believe the main motivation behind the attacks is to neutralize Bill Clinton as a campaigner for red state democrat candidates. Obama can't campaign for these red state candidates...he's too toxic due to the debacle that is Obamacare. So Bill Clinton has played pinch runner for Obama in these red state areas. Meanwhile Rand is reminding people of Clinton's philandering in an attempt to discredit Obama's back up.

Here's more of Rand's Bill Clinton attacks:

LINK
Posted by trackfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
19691 posts
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:22 am to
quote:


Rand is apparently smarter than we think. After watching Rand's attacks on Bill Clinton play out the last few weeks I believe the main motivation behind the attacks is to neutralize Bill Clinton as a campaigner for red state democrat candidates.

Some of the folks on MSNBC called this three weeks ago. It was never about Hillary, it was about making Bill radioactive.
Posted by son of arlo
State of Innocence
Member since Sep 2013
4577 posts
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:31 am to
quote:

In the corporate world, that would subject the partner to immediate sexual harrassment scrutiny, and I don't see why the President should be held to any lesser standard.


I wonder when the blue dress came out, did Billy Jeff ask Hillary, "Was that wrong? Seriously, I didn't know. I've worked at other places where that kind of stuff went on all the time."

George Costanza OJT on sexual behavior in the workplace.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
135438 posts
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:38 am to
quote:

it was about making Bill radioactive.
That was his aid to McConnell in the current KY race. It's a political chip McConnell very much appreciates.

However, the broader game was/is to defuel any Clinton-backed, Clinton-guided conversation regarding "War on Women".
first pageprev pagePage 12 of 13Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram