How much power does Hillary have???

ziggy wrote:
Poor ole' Sam. Lucky for him and Aaron and JDR and James that the new forums always become "old forums" eventually. Otherwise they'd have to actually pony up with their phony aspersions about who said what. But since they can claim that "it's on the old forums" they can lie with cyber impunity.

Me thinks the good ole Zigster is letting his natural bigotry come into play here as Aaron, while possibly using common knowledge as basis for a statement or argument, hasn't made any accusations that based on statements from the forum that cannot be proven.


Cheers Zig.

Bill & Hillary are throwing another tantrum and the world should stop spinning on its axis? I don't think so.

They know how the media is when it comes to the spouses, children, parents, siblings of individuals seeking office. The Bush twins, have done a very good job of staying out of the spotlight. I'm sure it's taken some effort on their part, but other than very recently, those young women have gone to lengths to avoid being front and center and the scrutiny that comes with it. Other than a few lapses during their first years of college, they haven't done anything to cast themselves or their father in a bad light.

The news media have been terrible to first families and the families of those seeking the highest office since I can remember. Look at the way Amy Carter was treated back in the 70's. She was a little girl, I thought that should have been criminal. The Reagan children were constantly under a microscope, but at least they were adults.

If Chelsea wants the press to leave her alone, then she needs to stop looking for the spotlight on her mother's behalf. As long as she continues to campaing for her mother, I figure she is fair game. She's not some babe in the woods who doesn't know what to expect, and neither are her parents.

ziggy wrote:Poor ole' Sam. Lucky for him and Aaron and JDR and James that the new forums always become "old forums" eventually. Otherwise they'd have to actually pony up with their phony aspersions about who said what. But since they can claim that "it's on the old forums" they can lie with cyber impunity.

Yes Zigster, and you "Bush Haters" would never, ever even considered making a comment about a News story such as this:

05/31/2001 - Updated 11:32 PM ET

Bush daughters cited in Texas

By Tom Kenworthy, USA TODAY

AUSTIN, Texas — President Bush's 19-year-old twin daughters were charged Thursday with underage alcohol offenses after an incident in a popular restaurant known for its Tex-Mex food and ice-cold margaritas.

It was the second alcohol-related citation against Jenna Bush in less than five weeks. Police accused Jenna Bush of attempting to buy alcohol with false identification and Barbara Bush of being a minor in possession of alcohol.

Both charges are misdemeanors punishable by a fine of up to $500, attendance at an alcohol awareness course, community service and a 30-day suspension of a driver's license.

But Jenna Bush, who just completed her freshman year at the University of Texas, could face a stiffer punishment because she is facing her second charge.

She was ordered last month to perform ..............

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-05-31-bushdaughters.htm

While the term "pimping out" may not be politically correct, it seems to fit the bill. A friend of mine is a corporate whore, and I am presently the bitch of two universities.

I am not normally into such language, but I want to highlight a problem I find with today's left, particularly in academia. As long as language fits into their desired rubric, one can talk at length about sexual positions with dead animals, but if someone dares use the term "pimping out," well, that's just not appropriate!

If that kind of language upsets you, then shouldn't our current culture absolutely infuriate you to the point of storming a bastille or two?

SheikBen wrote:While the term "pimping out" may not be politically correct, it seems to fit the bill. A friend of mine is a corporate whore, and I am presently the bitch of two universities.

I am not normally into such language, but I want to highlight a problem I find with today's left, particularly in academia. As long as language fits into their desired rubric, one can talk at length about sexual positions with dead animals, but if someone dares use the term "pimping out," well, that's just not appropriate!

If that kind of language upsets you, then shouldn't our current culture absolutely infuriate you to the point of storming a bastille or two?

LOL I adore you, Michael. I really do cherish your intellect and wit.

Do you remember when women like me were called housewives? That isn't pc these days. I'm not into the whole pc thing. It's all such rubbish.

The bottom line is, if Bill & Hill don't want such references made about their offspring, they shouldn't pimp her out. lmao

I can't imagine, after having endured her father's legendary infidelities and the international airing of what Daddy did with his cigar to an intern young enough to be her sister, that sort of comment would phase her. Can you? Really, I think if the Clintons want to be treated with dignity and respect they should conduct their lives in a manner that demands dignity and respect.

If a family member is being 'pimped out', then what are campaign volunteers? Roadies in it only for the cheap thrill?

No, no..........we're groupies.

Groupies...of course. I knew as soon as I hit send I used the wrong word but the right one wouldn't come to the front of my brain.

So who's the whores??? Paid campaign staff!!!

Aaron wrote:Groupies...of course. I knew as soon as I hit send I used the wrong word but the right one wouldn't come to the front of my brain.

So who's the whores??? Paid campaign staff!!!

In most cases, the candidates themselves. They switch positions on various issues constantly, sometimes on an almost daily basis.

Immigration, abortion, licenses for illegal immigrants, the war, the surge, tax cuts, tax increases.........the list is almost endless. They court unions, business, Christians, Jews, foreign dignitaries, celebrities, blacks, hispanics, soccer moms and sportsmen of all types. Yeah, the candidates are the real whores, 99.9% of the time.

They court unions, business, Christians, Jews, celebrities, blacks, hispanics, soccer moms and sportsmen of all types.

Also known as the American voter?

I think this shed's light on one of the reasons we have the leaders we do.

I recall in 1995 many Republicans wanted Colin Powell to run against Bill Clinton. He was also mentioned in 1998/99 as a possible candidate for the 2000 election. He declined on both occasions. I remember him telling Barbara Walters that he valued his private life too much and he would never allow his family to face the public scrutiny that was required to be a political candidate.

There are those here that say this public spotlight is all a part of politics and if you're going to put yourself out there, it's part of the price to pay.

Why? Chelsea Clinton campaigned for her mother. How is that prostituting? And why only her and Hillary? Why not John McCain's daughter? Or his mother?

I believe that the reason we have the undesirable, unqualified leaders that run for public office is because we've gotten to a point where NOTHING is off limits. There is no 'too low' or 'uncalled for' any more. Nothing remains private. I understand that candidates need to be vetted but I don't believe for a minute that the media, or anyone else for that matter, should be able to say whatever they choose whenever they choose without any repercussions whatsoever.

I honestly believe we get the candidates we have because good, qualified people will no longer subject themselves to the media circus and all that comes with it.

SFCraig wrote:They court unions, business, Christians, Jews, celebrities, blacks, hispanics, soccer moms and sportsmen of all types.

Also known as the American voter?

You call them the American voter, I call them sheeple. When a candidate constantly changes their position on various issues to suit their target audience, or the prevailing winds of public opinion, and the "American voters" elect them, I have a problem.

So Hillary was for driver's licenses for illegal aliens, then opposed to it when the heat got too high, that's a problem. When John McCain was for amnesty for illegal immigrants, then alters his position due to public outcry, I have a problem with that. I don't trust them. I have no reason to trust them, in fact, I have cause to distrust them. Neither one of those people will ever get my vote.

I'm sick of being lied to. Aren't you? I would much rather you tell me a truth I don't want to hear up front, than have you go behind my back sneaking and conniving. I must be some kind of freak, eh?

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:Poor ole' Sam. Lucky for him and Aaron and JDR and James that the new forums always become "old forums" eventually. Otherwise they'd have to actually pony up with their phony aspersions about who said what. But since they can claim that "it's on the old forums" they can lie with cyber impunity.

Yes Zigster, and you "Bush Haters" would never, ever even considered making a comment about a News story such as this:

05/31/2001 - Updated 11:32 PM ET

Bush daughters cited in Texas

By Tom Kenworthy, USA TODAY

AUSTIN, Texas — President Bush's 19-year-old twin daughters were charged Thursday with underage alcohol offenses after an incident in a popular restaurant known for its Tex-Mex food and ice-cold margaritas.

It was the second alcohol-related citation against Jenna Bush in less than five weeks. Police accused Jenna Bush of attempting to buy alcohol with false identification and Barbara Bush of being a minor in possession of alcohol.

Both charges are misdemeanors punishable by a fine of up to $500, attendance at an alcohol awareness course, community service and a 30-day suspension of a driver's license.

But Jenna Bush, who just completed her freshman year at the University of Texas, could face a stiffer punishment because she is facing her second charge.

She was ordered last month to perform ..............

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-05-31-bushdaughters.htm[/quote] [/quote]

Now Sam, what the hell does any of that have to do with Ziggy? I don't and never have given a flying duck about what the Bush daughters, the Clinton daughter, SamCogar's daughter and anyone's daughter other than mine and Ms. Ziggy's does. So blow it up someone else's rear end.

ziggy wrote:Now Sam, what the hell does any of that have to do with Ziggy? I don't and never have given a flying duck about what the Bush daughters, the Clinton daughter, SamCogar's daughter and anyone's daughter other than mine and Ms. Ziggy's does. So blow it up someone else's rear end.

"DUH", it has to do with you, Ziggy ......... because it was you who made this statement, to wit:

ziggy wrote:Poor ole' Sam. Lucky for him and Aaron and JDR and James that the new forums always become "old forums" eventually. Otherwise they'd have to actually pony up with their phony aspersions about who said what. But since they can claim that "it's on the old forums" they can lie with cyber impunity.

Zigster, I don't need any luck ....... because I do not need to lie about something to impress anyone.

Besides, if one lies, ....... sooner or later they will have to tell another lie to un-lie what they previously lied about.

cheers