RE: Clinton got a blowjob!

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Clinton got a blowjob!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Clinton got a blowjob!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/6/2007 6:31:43 PM

puella

Posts: 2457
Joined: 12/2/2004
Status: offline

NorthernGent,

You really do need to come state-side and conduct a thorough research project on the subject of where to find the most pleasureable blow job before you can make such outlandish statements.......

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/6/2007 6:35:23 PM

RWAble

Posts: 282
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

Ditto
[/quote]

3,000 American soldiers dead and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, I think Bush's lie has won Clinton's hands down.
[/quote]

_____________________________

When the Yankees leave Florida, then we can be free.

Life is a voyage, not a destination.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/6/2007 6:45:26 PM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Now I am confused, was Clinton lying when he attacked Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq in the same day, killing tens of thousands of people back in 98? Remeber the Asprin factory? He did time this attack to his deposition in the Monica case. Do you remeber the bomb shelters in Iraq we hit incinerating women and children, in the same attack? Do you remeber the number varying from 500,000 to 5 million dead civilians in Iraq due to the sanctions Clinton kept up and enforced? So was clinton lying about all that stuff? or was he telling us the truth? Remeber he said that Saddam's Government was working with Ossama bin Laden to make Nerve gas in Sudan. So was Clinton lying and killing tens of thousands of people andattacking innocnet countries, or were there actually connections between Saddam and al queda regarding WMD's?

< Message edited by luckydog1 -- 3/6/2007 6:48:41 PM >

(in reply to RWAble)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/6/2007 6:46:31 PM

puella

Posts: 2457
Joined: 12/2/2004
Status: offline

RWAble...

Never think of Clinton as some sort of messianic figure. He is not. He is not the mother fucker that bush is, but he is not Christ, either.

(in reply to RWAble)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/6/2007 7:31:36 PM

farglebargle

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Now I am confused, was Clinton lying when he attacked Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq in the same day, killing tens of thousands of people back in 98? Remeber the Asprin factory? He did time this attack to his deposition in the Monica case. Do you remeber the bomb shelters in Iraq we hit incinerating women and children, in the same attack? Do you remeber the number varying from 500,000 to 5 million dead civilians in Iraq due to the sanctions Clinton kept up and enforced? So was clinton lying about all that stuff? or was he telling us the truth? Remeber he said that Saddam's Government was working with Ossama bin Laden to make Nerve gas in Sudan. So was Clinton lying and killing tens of thousands of people andattacking innocnet countries, or were there actually connections between Saddam and al queda regarding WMD's?

You know, going through the notes on that I was struck by Def Sec Cohen's words:

"We recognize these strikes will not eliminate the problem," Cohen said. "But our message is clear. There will be no sanctuary for terrorists and no limit to our resolve to defend American citizens and our interests -- our ideals of democracy and law -- against these cowardly attacks."

And was struck by the difference. It's clear to me by Cohen's words, that the goal is to defend AMERICAN citizens and interests, and our ideals of democracy and law.

Contrast with Bush's strategy of not DEFENDING anything, but lying, attacking, and occupying a sovereign nation supposedly to SPREAD our ideals of democracy and law. Which apparently, The Iraqi People don't care for very much.

Anyway, it seems prudent military strategy to toss a half-dozen cruise missiles at some bad guys to tying up our needed troops as sitting ducks in the middle of a civil war.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to luckydog1)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/6/2007 9:07:25 PM

outlier

Posts: 1111
Joined: 10/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

NorthernGent,

You really do need to come state-side and conduct a thorough research project on the subject of where to find the most pleasureable blow job before you can make such outlandish statements.......

puella

puella

Since it has been two and one half hours from this "suggestion"
of yours and NG has not replied here I can only assume he
contacted you via email to make sure you were willing to
participate in the "research". And by now he has packed
and is on his way to the airport. If not then he is not as smart
as I thought he was.

And if you are involved, and he is not on his way then allow me
to be the first of many to volunteer to stand in for him. We must
all be ready to do our bit for science

Outlier

_____________________________

Avatar from xkcd.com

"A happy sex life may take years to achieve, but it’s worth it in the long run.
Worth the time, the thought - or rather, the thoughtfulness - and, often,
the waiting." Pete Seeger

(in reply to puella)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/6/2007 11:26:26 PM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Ok farg so you are going to duck the fact that the reason Clinton attacked was that Saddam was helping al queda with WMD, at least you made an attempt at a response. No real surprise that you dodge the central aspect of my post. So Bush lied attacked and occupyied Iraq...Clinton just lied and attacked? Or was Clinton telling the truth---that saddams gov was assisting Ossama bin Laden in manufacturing Sarin in Sudan). Not that I actually expect you to answerThere is an adage going back thousands of years and told in many forms the Art of War /Machievelli, ect...If you attack a King, you have to kill him, or he will regroup and come back for revenge. Clinton violated this basic aspect of relations, we should have removed saddam in 98. But seriously is not Bush defending our Ideals of democracy and law helping the fledgeling democratic Gov in Iraq? That seems to be right in line with Cohens views to me. IF you get techincal Farg, Cohen said our "Ideals of democracy and law" are our intrests. He does not break it into 2 parts as you clumsily try to. So Farg you want a policy of wildly throwing missles around the muslim world. Any posability that 911 happened in retaliation to the policy of throwing bombs around?

(in reply to outlier)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/6/2007 11:38:59 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

I've traveled overseas a lot in the last 15 years. I've never heard so much as a critical comment about Clinton. What I have heard is dismay that we let a brilliant man with a strong grasp of international politics get so hamstrung over a rather minor sex scandal.

Since 2000 and especially after Nov. 2004 I've had repeated encounters with people all over the world angry with all Americans over GWB. The only lull in this sentiment was in the 6 or 8 months immediately post 9/11.

BTW their was no perjury in the harassment case. Legally discovery in a case dismissed as frivolous, as that case was, is not considered to have been under oath. With a special prosecutor and a very partisan attorney general in Arkansas all that they could do was get him to voluntarily give up his law license. If they had any chance with a judge on a perjury charge you can be sure one of them would have brought the charge.

(in reply to dcnovice)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/6/2007 11:48:47 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: puella

NorthernGent,

You really do need to come state-side and conduct a thorough research project on the subject of where to find the most pleasureable blow job before you can make such outlandish statements.......

Puella, I don't really go in much for gadgets, materialism, machines and oneupmanship, but if there was ever a time I wish I owned a private jet, it's now. Third hand stories aren't usually my style as I normally speak from experience, so I do agree I could do with exploring the subject before forming an opinion - one subject matter would do quite nicely :-)

To be fair to Monica, I did hear her mind was elsewhere during the event, she was wishing it was bush.....senior and junior - hence, the bad day at the office on her part.

As it happens, I am in the US (first time) around September/October, but it'll be down Georgia/Louisiana area (US geography not good, so this may make absolutely no sense whatsoever).

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to puella)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/6/2007 11:54:09 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: outlier

And if you are involved, and he is not on his way then allow me
to be the first of many to volunteer to stand in for him. We must
all be ready to do our bit for science

Outlier

Ah yes, the dog eat dog nature of human existence. Go to sleep for a few hours and volunteers emerge from all angles.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to outlier)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/7/2007 7:32:08 AM

farglebargle

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Ok farg so you are going to duck the fact that the reason Clinton attacked was that Saddam was helping al queda with WMD,

That's not right. In 1998 there was no connection between Al Quaida and Iraq. If you have any citations, I'll need to see them.

quote:

at least you made an attempt at a response. No real surprise that you dodge the central aspect of my post. So Bush lied attacked and occupyied Iraq...Clinton just lied and attacked? Or was Clinton telling the truth---that saddams gov was assisting Ossama bin Laden in manufacturing Sarin in Sudan).

That's not why Clinton attacked. Perhaps by reading CLINTON's statement you can get up to speed.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Clinton quoting Butler:

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

quote:

Not that I actually expect you to answerThere is an adage going back thousands of years and told in many forms the Art of War /Machievelli, ect...If you attack a King, you have to kill him, or he will regroup and come back for revenge. Clinton violated this basic aspect of relations, we should have removed saddam in 98.

You REALLY don't understand the USA, Freedom, Liberty, The Rule of Law, Equal Protection under The Law and Due Process, do you?

That "All Men Are Created Equal" thing in the Declaration of Independence has some consequences which preclude your suggested course of action. However, Bush#41 COULD have done it, and with some justification, if he didn't wimp out in Gulf War I.

quote:

But seriously is not Bush defending our Ideals of democracy and law helping the fledgeling democratic Gov in Iraq?

Not when he's denying Due Process and Equal Protection to people. Bush's claims to support Freedom and Liberty are just bullshit, given he's holding people without trial.

quote:

That seems to be right in line with Cohens views to me. IF you get techincal Farg, Cohen said our "Ideals of democracy and law" are our intrests. He does not break it into 2 parts as you clumsily try to. So Farg you want a policy of wildly throwing missles around the muslim world. Any posability that 911 happened in retaliation to the policy of throwing bombs around?

The bases in Saudi Arabia were a much more significant factor than the 1998 retaliation. And since Hussein and Iraq weren't INVOLVED in 9/11, suggesting that 9/11 was a retaliation for the 1998 attacks is naive, and borders on propaganda.

< Message edited by farglebargle -- 3/7/2007 7:33:02 AM >

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to luckydog1)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/7/2007 7:34:52 AM

puella

Posts: 2457
Joined: 12/2/2004
Status: offline

Oi (see I remembered!), I was not setting up appointments, yanno!

(in reply to outlier)

Profile

Post #: 32

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/7/2007 10:49:14 AM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Well Farg here you go..."Nontheless, Clinton's Secretary of State William Cohen, testified to the 9/11 Commission in 2004, characterizing Al Shifa as a "WMD-related facility", which played a "chemical weapons role" such as to pose a risk that it, with the help of the Iraqi chemical weapons program connections he also testified to, might help Al Qaeda get chemical weapons technology. Page 9"   Is testimony in the 911 commission a valid source for you?

"Under-Secretary of State Thomas Pickering claimed to have sufficient evidence against Sudan, including contacts between officials at Al-Shifa plant and Iraqi chemical weapons experts, with the Iraq chemical weapons program the only one identified with using EMPTA for VX production. The National Democratic Alliance [NDA], a Sudanese opposition in Cairo led by Mubarak Al-Mahdi, also insisted that the plant was producing ingredients for chemical weapons. [3] Former Clinton administration counter terrorism advisor Richard Clarke and former national security advisor Sandy Berger also noted the facilities alleged ties with the former Iraqi government."

I copied these from wikipedia, you can go check them if you like.   Now it is kind of sad that you post a link that only deals with the Iraq attack, not the Sudan attack as I brought up. But I expect that kind of nonsense from you.

Again I ask you, and I know you are afraid to answer so will not. But was the Clinton admin lying when it said Iraq was involved in helping OBL make chemical weopons in Sudan, and thats why we bombed the place?

Farg says "The bases in Saudi Arabia were a much more significant factor than the 1998 retaliation. And since Hussein and Iraq weren't INVOLVED in 9/11, suggesting that 9/11 was a retaliation for the 1998 attacks is naive, and borders on propaganda. " But farg in 98 we attacked 3 places, Iraq Sudan , and Afghanistan. It is not naive at all to think that someone we tried to kill would attack back. It is very dishonest of you to try to pretend that it was just about Iraq. And the Clinton administration testified, and still maintains that Iraq and OBL had ties regarding chemical weopons. WAS THAT A LIE OR THE TRUTH? This is a huge mine that Hillary is going to have to dodge in her campaign.

Farg says "You REALLY don't understand the USA, Freedom, Liberty, The Rule of Law, Equal Protection under The Law and Due Process, do you?

That "All Men Are Created Equal" thing in the Declaration of Independence has some consequences which preclude your suggested course of action. However, Bush#41 COULD have done it, and with some justification, if he didn't wimp out in Gulf War I. "

But I did not sugest a course of action, you must be getting low on your meds. I pointed out a few facts and asked a question. That no one has dared answer.

(in reply to puella)

Profile

Post #: 33

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/7/2007 10:58:38 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

Oh I know, Puella......I wouldn't tarnish your good name with indecent proposals, but I will say it could have been a work of art :-).....you know how it is...good looking, left-wing women causing a rush of blood to the head and all that

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to puella)

Profile

Post #: 34

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/7/2007 10:59:12 AM

farglebargle

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

My favorite part of that page 9 is:

"indirect links between the facility and Bin Ladin and the Iraqi chemical weapons program and extraordinary security during construction."

INDIRECT LINKS? How many degrees of Osama Bin Ladin was Saddam Hussein?
INDIRECT LINKS? How many degrees of Osama Bin Ladin was George Bush?

Theres an indirect link between the quarter in my pocket and the mean temperature on the poles of mars in 1852.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to luckydog1)

Profile

Post #: 35

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/7/2007 1:13:46 PM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Farg the Clinton administration felt it was a substantial enough link to kill people and attack soverign nations over. Was it a lie or not? I realise you are unable to answer a simple question.

In post 31 you say there was "no connection" between the 2 were you lying or mistaken. Or was clinton lying?

(in reply to farglebargle)

Profile

Post #: 36

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/7/2007 1:50:09 PM

PoisonRoses

Posts: 65
Joined: 6/12/2006
Status: offline

That must have been one powerful blowjob for it to still be so vivid in everybodies mind

(in reply to luckydog1)

Profile

Post #: 37

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/7/2007 2:06:37 PM

MastersofPain

Posts: 13
Joined: 2/18/2006
Status: offline

It must have been because no one seems toremember that Bill was in the office to get blow jobs, Hiliary was running the country. She needed Monica's help to divert attention from her activities. I'm sure that after all was said and done that Hiliary got some from Monica too.

(in reply to PoisonRoses)

Profile

Post #: 38

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/7/2007 2:26:16 PM

farglebargle

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Farg the Clinton administration felt it was a substantial enough link to kill people and attack soverign nations over. Was it a lie or not? I realise you are unable to answer a simple question.

In post 31 you say there was "no connection" between the 2 were you lying or mistaken. Or was clinton lying?

Not really. How much of the report does your cite take up? A paragraph? I think you overstate the importance of it, given that it was part of Clinton's retaliation for the attacks against the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. And seeing as it cites not one, but two "INDIRECT LINKS" to connect the dots?

There's an indirect link between a bottle of water and the sun. That's meaningless, but true, and demonstrates the value of "Indirect Links". Go read up on the "Rule of Fives".

The Law of Fives states simply that: ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN FIVES, OR ARE DIVISIBLE BY OR ARE MULTIPLES OF FIVE, OR ARE SOMEHOW DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY APPROPRIATE TO 5.

The Law of Fives is never wrong.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to luckydog1)

Profile

Post #: 39

RE: Clinton got a blowjob! - 3/7/2007 4:47:04 PM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Actually farg, I did not attach any level of importance to it, yet again you try to argue against somehting I never claimed. Rather pathetic attempt to avoid my point. I simply provided you with evidence that the Clinton administration stated it was true and gave it as a reason for attacking and killing people. You can dance around and avoid the point all you want. The fact is you claimed there was no link, and I proved to you that the Clinton administration claimed there was, and killed people over it. I am asking you( and any other Clinton suppporter) was he lying or not? We hit afghanistan to try and kill Bin Laden in response ot the African bombings. We knew that Bin Laden had already left Sudan. We hit the plant in Sudan because of the ( claimed) chemical weopons link between Bin Laden and Iraq.

But hey Farg you are the only one who would even respond, all of the other Democrats were afraid to even engage

(in reply to farglebargle)

Profile

Post #: 40