America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by Speyside. 82 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Stormy Daniels debacle . . .
frankj1 Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
the hands were a give away...
tailgater Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
No big dill.
Cathcam13 Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 01-11-2018
Posts: 1,264
I doubt that anyone from my generation wants to run. Those of us who might have at one point in time have become so disgusted with how the older generation enjoys smearing ours, that none of them are really willing to stick their necks out, only to have it lopped off in the name of backwards progress. I would be willing, but no one is ever willing to back up a middle class gentlemen who has his own vices. I live in Oregon, one strike.
I am not happily married or willing to think about marriage, strike 2. And finally, I have skeletons in my closet that no one wants to have see the light of day. It tends to be an epidemic in my generation, even the good ones have skeletons in their closets...
frankj1 Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
tailgater wrote:
No big dill.

you insist on forcing me to like you.
RMAN4443 Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
delta1 wrote:
Please, someone explain how Trump's pickle is different from Clinton's?

Trump's is Orange???Think
gummy jones Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
Frank, I'm not mad at you. It's the internet. If someone disagreeing with you or letting you know that a comment of yours has offended them is grounds for you taking your ball and going home then you don't internet much. But we know that's not true.

But you state I am generalizing after you made multiple disparaging and back handed comments about a very large group of people to which you don't belong. I know it's easy to do and all the cool kids are doing it. perhaps some here Identify with those groups and do not enjoy having words put in their mouths so regularly. I don't consider myself "moral" but man I'm better than I used to be.

You then quickly deflect my comments and state you are (in essence) only talking about the bad moral folks. Okay, but that isn't what you said. Once again, and as others have pointed out, your problem is with Trump. He is the epitome of offensive to you, not the religious right zealots or what ever else you called us. He is the reason you post in these threads.

You take issue with me mentioning your body of work (anti Trump posts any given chance) but state you have, in fact, "hardened" your opposition recently. I'm not sure why you are upset we've noticed? Thank you for the admission so we no longer need rely on your body of work.

Once again, you are mad I have miscategorized you and feel it is unfair. I am telling you that I self identify (trendy, I know) with a group that you have regularly miscategorized and wonder if you find yourself unfair as well? Probably not as you readily admit you are one of the most fair and open minded. Thanks for clearing that up.

I know you say in your rebuttal that you aren't actually commenting on the group you are commenting on but rather the bad ones in that group. Well, assume I'm not talking to the fair and open minded Frank but rather the one who is incredibly partisan and self righteous at times.

You feel you deserve better? Well, I think better of you, trust me. If you look through my posts (don't waste your time doing it) you will see I don't respond to many people ever. Certainly never to certain people. Waste of time and I really don't care. Think of it as a friend telling you you have food in your teeth.

Also, you mad bro? I'm really not mad. Seriously. Sorry took me so long to respond but I had the kiddos away for the weekend.
gummy jones Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
#53 don't you know anything about politics? Either pay off or kill all closet skeletons on the double. Kill seems to work best for the Clintons whereas this current president seems to have made the mistake of choosing the former.
frankj1 Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
gummy jones wrote:
Frank, I'm not mad at you. It's the internet. If someone disagreeing with you or letting you know that a comment of yours has offended them is grounds for you taking your ball and going home then you don't internet much. But we know that's not true.

But you state I am generalizing after you made multiple disparaging and back handed comments about a very large group of people to which you don't belong. I know it's easy to do and all the cool kids are doing it. perhaps some here Identify with those groups and do not enjoy having words put in their mouths so regularly. I don't consider myself "moral" but man I'm better than I used to be.

You then quickly deflect my comments and state you are (in essence) only talking about the bad moral folks. Okay, but that isn't what you said. Once again, and as others have pointed out, your problem is with Trump. He is the epitome of offensive to you, not the religious right zealots or what ever else you called us. He is the reason you post in these threads.

You take issue with me mentioning your body of work (anti Trump posts any given chance) but state you have, in fact, "hardened" your opposition recently. I'm not sure why you are upset we've noticed? Thank you for the admission so we no longer need rely on your body of work.

Once again, you are mad I have miscategorized you and feel it is unfair. I am telling you that I self identify (trendy, I know) with a group that you have regularly miscategorized and wonder if you find yourself unfair as well? Probably not as you readily admit you are one of the most fair and open minded. Thanks for clearing that up.

I know you say in your rebuttal that you aren't actually commenting on the group you are commenting on but rather the bad ones in that group. Well, assume I'm not talking to the fair and open minded Frank but rather the one who is incredibly partisan and self righteous at times.

You feel you deserve better? Well, I think better of you, trust me. If you look through my posts (don't waste your time doing it) you will see I don't respond to many people ever. Certainly never to certain people. Waste of time and I really don't care. Think of it as a friend telling you you have food in your teeth.

Also, you mad bro? I'm really not mad. Seriously. Sorry took me so long to respond but I had the kiddos away for the weekend.


nah, not mad at you either.
probably would be impossible to clarify my comments in any way other than in person, but...




gummy jones Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
But you don't think your wife could handle another broke back mountain episode?
frankj1 Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
gummy jones wrote:
But you don't think your wife could handle another broke back mountain episode?

what do you mean "another"???

gummy jones Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
Oh yea. I mean, would be the first time. Haven't seen cros in years.
frankj1 Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
HA!
MACS Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,773
delta1 wrote:
Please, someone explain how Trump's pickle is different from Clinton's?


Trump - banged some porn star before he was president (before he ran), and tried to cover it up.

Clinton - banged an intern (fraternization) WHILE he was president, then lied about it UNDER OATH (perjury).

Both are liars, but one is criminally so... hope that clears it up for you.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,423
And tried to molest another...

And rape another...

Yeah...Clinton was a creep.
delta1 Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
#63
...that seems right, but the cons say they don't care about the President's dalliances before office. Paula Jones happened before Bill became President, but became the cons' SP focus on Clinton. It's possible the Lewinsky escapade never would have seen the light of day if the cons dismissed Paula Jones as a "bang before he was President" like they are arguing for Trump today.

The key point, though, is that both Presidents are proven liars, while in office....
frankj1 Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
MACS wrote:
Trump - banged some porn star before he was president (before he ran), and tried to cover it up.

Clinton - banged an intern (fraternization) WHILE he was president, then lied about it UNDER OATH (perjury).

Both are liars, but one is criminally so... hope that clears it up for you.

how should we feel if Trump denies it under oath?
Will all the supporters change their minds?

won't happen, if allowed by law, he'll plead the 5th...which he should.

two dirt bags. each supported by their backers who prefer to support the policies they like.

the more things change...
MACS Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,773
frankj1 wrote:
how should we feel if Trump denies it under oath?
Will all the supporters change their minds?

won't happen, if allowed by law, he'll plead the 5th...which he should.

two dirt bags. each supported by their backers who prefer to support the policies they like.

the more things change...


Perjury is criminal. I don't know how you feel about that, but I'm actually averse to a felon president.

I laugh when the hypocrites point out hypocrisy... the dems are the biggest hypocrites alive, yet would like to point out the speck in their brother's eye with the plank in their own.

Feel free to reverse that quote to suit your political leanings...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Norm McDonald on hypocrisy:

"The comedian Patton Oswalt, he told me 'I think the worst part of the Cosby thing was the hypocrisy.' And I disagree... I thought it was the raping."
RMAN4443 Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
delta1 wrote:
#63
...that seems right, but the cons say they don't care about the President's dalliances before office. Paula Jones happened before Bill became President, but became the cons' SP focus on Clinton. It's possible the Lewinsky escapade never would have seen the light of day if the cons dismissed Paula Jones as a "bang before he was President" like they are arguing for Trump today.

The key point, though, is that both Presidents are proven liars, while in office....

Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas when he sexually harassed and propositioned Paula Jones......
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1870544_1870543_1870458,00.html

and then there was Gennifer Flowers, also while Governor.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Juanita_Broaddrick
tailgater Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
RMAN4443 wrote:
Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas when he sexually harassed and propositioned Paula Jones......
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1870544_1870543_1870458,00.html

and then there was Gennifer Flowers, also while Governor.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Juanita_Broaddrick


What are you saying?
That an adult male in Arkansas isn't allowed to have sexual relations with an adult woman who isn't his sister?

frankj1 Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
MACS wrote:
Perjury is criminal. I don't know how you feel about that, but I'm actually averse to a felon president.

I laugh when the hypocrites point out hypocrisy... the dems are the biggest hypocrites alive, yet would like to point out the speck in their brother's eye with the plank in their own.

Feel free to reverse that quote to suit your political leanings...

sounds about right
tailgater Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Some people are ignoring another major point.

Bill Clinton was being pursued by Paula Jones because he made unwanted advances.
Stormy Daniels is just trying to get into the limelight.
The distinction isn't minor.

On one hand, an accused rapist is being accused of sexual harassment.
On the other, a willing whore feels she sold too low for her silence regarding an affair from 12 years ago.





RMAN4443 Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
tailgater wrote:
Some people are ignoring another major point.

Bill Clinton was being pursued by Paula Jones because he made unwanted advances.
Stormy Daniels is just trying to get into the limelight.
The distinction isn't minor.

On one hand, an accused rapist is being accused of sexual harassment.
On the other, a willing whore feels she sold too low for her silence regarding an affair from 12 years ago.






See post #69.......that's the point I was trying to make......I guess I should have mentioned Stormy Daniels in there, my bad
tailgater Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
RMAN4443 wrote:
See post #69.......that's the point I was trying to make......I guess I should have mentioned Stormy Daniels in there, my bad


I didn't read your post.
Nothing personal. Just bad timing on your part.

I read all the way up to post 68.
But of course, when I got to 69 I had to turn around.

DrMaddVibe Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,423
RMAN4443 wrote:
Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas when he sexually harassed and propositioned Paula Jones......
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1870544_1870543_1870458,00.html

and then there was Gennifer Flowers, also while Governor.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Juanita_Broaddrick



Ooooopppps...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3106180/Longtime-Bill-Clinton-sex-assault-accuser-says-Hillary-enabled-happen-again.html


In the Oval Office!!!!
RMAN4443 Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
tailgater wrote:
I didn't read your post.
Nothing personal. Just bad timing on your part.

I read all the way up to post 68.
But of course, when I got to 69 I had to turn around.


It's understandable.....Ha Ha!
delta1 Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
#180

Cons have conveniently forgotten all the women who came forward during the campaign and accused Trump of sexual harassment and sexual assault, some of whose civil suits vs Trump are proceeding....

Now the cons have accepted a new norm...they don't mind if the President constantly, openly, unashamedly and provably lies to us, as long as he doesn't lie while under oath (maybe that'll be OK...depends), but only if he's a Republican...

you're experts at slicing pickles really thin...
tailgater Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
delta1 wrote:
#180

Cons have conveniently forgotten all the women who came forward during the campaign and accused Trump of sexual harassment and sexual assault, some of whose civil suits vs Trump are proceeding....

Now the cons have accepted a new norm...they don't mind if the President constantly, openly, unashamedly and provably lies to us, as long as he doesn't lie while under oath (maybe that'll be OK...depends), but only if he's a Republican...

you're experts at slicing pickles really thin...


That really all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Russia!




delta1 Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
Let's not forget that Clinton was initially being investigated for something totally unrelated....alleged fraudulent financial dealings, Whitewater or some such...Trump's pickle is like a mirror/obverse image...hanky-panky seems to be morphing into crimes about money/fraud...
Speyside Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Interesting reading about the differences in Trump and Clinton. Can anyone tell me when Clinton was impeached? I seem to have missed that since the Senate acquited him. Also when was he convicted on criminal charges? I seem to have missed that also. Is he a sleaze ball, sure, but then again so is Trump.
delta1 Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
Clinton was actually impeached in the middle of his second term, in Dec., 1998, following a four years long Special Prosecutor investigation by Ken Starr...

Impeachment is the Constitutional process whereby the House has the power to bring charges against the President after finding evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. It is then up to the Senate to convict, needing a 2/3rds majority vote. The Senate failed to get the necessary 67 votes to convict Clinton, so he remained in office, even though he was impeached.


It's entirely possible that if there is evidence that Trump has committed some crimes associated with the investigation into the Daniels/Cohen affair or the Russian investigation, he would not be impeached by a GOP majority House, as evidenced by the House Intel Comte's report on Russian Interference.

Contrary to CBid popular culture, despite being impeached, historians and the majority of Americans believed that Clinton was a good President. His poll numbers at the end of his terms were the highest of any President after WWII.


Wonder what Trump's poll numbers will be when he leaves office?
Speyside Offline
#82 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Got it. Impeached but not convicted.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12