wondering what the high & mighty righteous think of this
- Thread starter shamrock
- Start date
I think its deplorable if true--
Now would you mind answering question along same lines--
What does the low-weak-and non righteous think about the president of U.S. shoving cigars up interns in the whitehouse--and which do you feel is more deplorable?
Now would you mind answering question along same lines--
What does the low-weak-and non righteous think about the president of U.S. shoving cigars up interns in the whitehouse--and which do you feel is more deplorable?
I wonder how many through out the years have had there back on that big table in Prez office. Or there knees on the carpet. Both stories are of those who were caught. Or may even wanted to be caught. Not the guy of course not. Now for congressman. I bet we don't know the names of the other 100/200 that have been naughty through the years. But of course old stories. The current one seems to be what shamrock has posted.
See, if they had just given this contract to KBR/Haliburton, there would have been no needs for bribery.
See what happens when you create rules that says you have to give contracts to the little guy? Lack of good order and discipline
See what happens when you create rules that says you have to give contracts to the little guy? Lack of good order and discipline
I surprised that the "Yeah, Yeah, What Dogs said" police got in here before the "Clinton police." Everyone's probably trying to sleep one off.
As 1/2 of my taxes go to fund the defense side of the budget and 4/5's of that goes to the defense contractors, I think how those contracts are procured are much more relevant than one man's marraige which didn't effect me at all. I'm not sure how you can look at it any other way.
As 1/2 of my taxes go to fund the defense side of the budget and 4/5's of that goes to the defense contractors, I think how those contracts are procured are much more relevant than one man's marraige which didn't effect me at all. I'm not sure how you can look at it any other way.
Well said, Bobby. Although I'm not surprised that Dogs evidently thinks what Clinton did is more deplorable than the assertions of this situation. Million dollar fraud and gaining contracts and favors from elected officials by using prostitutes and who knows what else is much more deplorable than Clinton fooling around on his wife. I admit, I'd rather my tax dollars didn't go towards paying Clinton's salary for the few minutes every so often when he was engaging in his reprehensible behavior, but to compare that to this is ludicrous, IMO.
But of course, Dogs had to follow his "Insert Clinton into every thread" rule, so I get that.
But of course, Dogs had to follow his "Insert Clinton into every thread" rule, so I get that.
Agree with Bobby' and Chad'........
Basically, if Hitler would have been a Republican you could have justified his behavior and the turning of Europe into a burned out graveyard by simply equating Hitler with "Clinton got a blowjob"....
Hitler kills millions and somehow Clinton's blowjob balances the scale.
Rules and conduct and the ultimate consequences, however serious and grave they may be, don't apply when people look at things with party minds and simply cheer for thier soccer team.
Basically, if Hitler would have been a Republican you could have justified his behavior and the turning of Europe into a burned out graveyard by simply equating Hitler with "Clinton got a blowjob"....
Hitler kills millions and somehow Clinton's blowjob balances the scale.
Rules and conduct and the ultimate consequences, however serious and grave they may be, don't apply when people look at things with party minds and simply cheer for thier soccer team.
once again point proved, post any news negative towards todays
neocons and watch them hit the Clinton idiot button again and again, its comical. And the logic is even quite more striking. Millions in fraud extortion prostitution etc. etc., that's kids stuff Compared to Clintons and his blow job s, with a cigar?? Ohhhh you have to be kidding-that's unconscionable!
Dawg-my term{ high and mighty righteous} is meant to acknowledge the people that quickly point at Clinton when shit happens,the people that think the principles or state of someone else's marriage or lack of,is not only there business, but somehow paramount to any transgressions or crimes in American history. You know the type like Rush or NEWT to name a few. You know people who aren't even close to having their own house in order, but yet are always pointing and screaming over the fence at somebody else.
nosigar- I find it amusing when folks like you make negative comments about Boston, pick up a book read a little history, without us you probably wouldn't be down there still trying to figure out a voting machine.
Dtb-I have never made any statement or thread title or remark personal or negative towards you --- regarding any topic.
I posted the topic, didn't refer to you or anyone personally.
Now you quickly jumped in the thread and state {you}, followed with "Low, weak and non righteous", if you made those comments in my presence and I was not paralyzed from the neck down, I guarantee I would knock you're teeth out. Btj is the only other person I've encountered on the net making personal comments, I posted to him my kid brother would gladly make a trip to South Boston if he wanted to mouth off again.
Although always not agreeing with you I have always respected you and your service, even posting such on veterans & Memorial days Etc. I do not at all however respect your personal remarks. I sincerely doubt Sir you could stand a year in my shoes, never mind 20, however low or weak you perceive them.
Shamrock
neocons and watch them hit the Clinton idiot button again and again, its comical. And the logic is even quite more striking. Millions in fraud extortion prostitution etc. etc., that's kids stuff Compared to Clintons and his blow job s, with a cigar?? Ohhhh you have to be kidding-that's unconscionable!
Dawg-my term{ high and mighty righteous} is meant to acknowledge the people that quickly point at Clinton when shit happens,the people that think the principles or state of someone else's marriage or lack of,is not only there business, but somehow paramount to any transgressions or crimes in American history. You know the type like Rush or NEWT to name a few. You know people who aren't even close to having their own house in order, but yet are always pointing and screaming over the fence at somebody else.
nosigar- I find it amusing when folks like you make negative comments about Boston, pick up a book read a little history, without us you probably wouldn't be down there still trying to figure out a voting machine.
Dtb-I have never made any statement or thread title or remark personal or negative towards you --- regarding any topic.
I posted the topic, didn't refer to you or anyone personally.
Now you quickly jumped in the thread and state {you}, followed with "Low, weak and non righteous", if you made those comments in my presence and I was not paralyzed from the neck down, I guarantee I would knock you're teeth out. Btj is the only other person I've encountered on the net making personal comments, I posted to him my kid brother would gladly make a trip to South Boston if he wanted to mouth off again.
Although always not agreeing with you I have always respected you and your service, even posting such on veterans & Memorial days Etc. I do not at all however respect your personal remarks. I sincerely doubt Sir you could stand a year in my shoes, never mind 20, however low or weak you perceive them.
Shamrock
Last edited:
shamrock said:
Shamrock,
Good to see you posting again.
While Waynes obsession with Clinton is beyond the pale, I don't think he meant anything personal towards you with his comments.
He simply can't get over somebody lying about a blow job 8 years ago and finds any way possible to interject that view into any thread, regardless of topic.
He will never, ever directly criticize this admin without a Clinton reference. We are circling down the drain in Iraq, we have congressmen arranging for prostitutes and getting 2 million in kickbacks, and he's still caught up in the 90's.
I don't think he meant any harm though about the other stuff.
prostitution,eh?......
i`m still upset about nu-cu-lar.....
shammy...you`d better be careful...i might forward your name to some shadowy rovian sock puppets i hang out with....and have you fitted for an i.r.s. enema....
try and keep the pro left wing articles to a minimum...
i have connections...:142squint :mj17:
you don`t want to end up like this unfortunate lil` liberal...
i`m still upset about nu-cu-lar.....
shammy...you`d better be careful...i might forward your name to some shadowy rovian sock puppets i hang out with....and have you fitted for an i.r.s. enema....
try and keep the pro left wing articles to a minimum...
i have connections...:142squint :mj17:
you don`t want to end up like this unfortunate lil` liberal...
Last edited:
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
I guess I just don't get why you feel that people that differ in opinion from you are the only ones guilty of this. And I'm sure DTB meant nothing by his statement personally. I think he was just using your reference and stating the opposite. Everything's good.
But, in my opinion, your way of presenting this thread makes you seem guilty of the "high and mighty" ego complex.
Was nothing personal Shamrock-I see where there was no mention of BJ's somehow liberals always bring in back as defence.
I stated when congressman got caught they should throw book at him as he should be held to higher standards.
That would include the Pres who should be held to highest standards.
What is mind boggling to me is the lesser spends time in jail and rightfully so and the pres who bilked the public out of millions on land sceme that "everyone one else spent time in jail for--and sold pardons to most wanted fugatives for cash--not only spends no time but makes millions in book and speaches after the fact--and many condeming the congressman are the same that sing Clinton praises--go figure.
I stated when congressman got caught they should throw book at him as he should be held to higher standards.
That would include the Pres who should be held to highest standards.
What is mind boggling to me is the lesser spends time in jail and rightfully so and the pres who bilked the public out of millions on land sceme that "everyone one else spent time in jail for--and sold pardons to most wanted fugatives for cash--not only spends no time but makes millions in book and speaches after the fact--and many condeming the congressman are the same that sing Clinton praises--go figure.
I was trying to find something that would top prostitution on the immoral scale Stevie and couldn't get into the area of BJ's which I am all for 
Bottom line corrupt politicians are non partisan. Why on earth would all these people from high paying jobs go into politics when legitimate salary is minimal. Its the payoffs from other interest groups.
While most polticians have been wealthy prior to election you can be certain those that weren't will be when they leave.
I won't go into the CLASSIC example.
Bottom line corrupt politicians are non partisan. Why on earth would all these people from high paying jobs go into politics when legitimate salary is minimal. Its the payoffs from other interest groups.
While most polticians have been wealthy prior to election you can be certain those that weren't will be when they leave.
I won't go into the CLASSIC example.
No, he didn't mention a BJ. He mentioned shoving a cigar up interns in the Whitehouse. So I guess it even pales more in comparison in the overal scheme(s) of things.
I do want to point out that in DTB's anti-Clinton crusade that in his above assertion regarding the Whitewater situation that the case against the Clintons was dropped for a lack of evidence - and this case was spearheaded by an "independent counsels" office (Kenneth Starr) which as we all know would have nailed them to the wall if possible (see impeachment, Monica Lewinski, etc.).
So, your assessment above was proven to not have merit, legally, Dogs. We're asked to prove our assertions about Bush, Cheney, Snow, Wolfowicz, Rove, Libby, etc., right? How about dealing with the truth, and not unproven allegations, eh?
I do want to point out that in DTB's anti-Clinton crusade that in his above assertion regarding the Whitewater situation that the case against the Clintons was dropped for a lack of evidence - and this case was spearheaded by an "independent counsels" office (Kenneth Starr) which as we all know would have nailed them to the wall if possible (see impeachment, Monica Lewinski, etc.).
So, your assessment above was proven to not have merit, legally, Dogs. We're asked to prove our assertions about Bush, Cheney, Snow, Wolfowicz, Rove, Libby, etc., right? How about dealing with the truth, and not unproven allegations, eh?
We may as well discuss Watergate and Iran-Contra while we're at it. Jesus. How about when Reagan 'cut and run' when terrorists blew up 250 marines in Lebanon? He got the hell out of Dodge. Yeah, that's real topical. Let's talk more about Whitewater and cigars and how bad it is that somebody that grew up dirt poor rose to the presidency. Anything from 10 years ago or longer will do. And how it's more impressive that a trust fund baby became president. Yeah, that makes sense.
