DescentBB

I understand Hillary is getting Bill Cosby to campaign for her...or maybe she is getting her husband to campaign for her. I keep confusing the two.

one never needed drugs, nor forced himself on someone saying 'NO'. That should clear the confusion up for you.

callmeslick wrote:one never needed drugs, nor forced himself on someone saying 'NO'. That should clear the confusion up for you.

Obviously the confusion is with you. Try reading up on Juanita Broadderick. Perhaps you'll be less confused. Cosby at least used drugs, Clinton just used brute force .

Lol, one didn’t use drugs, he just abused the highest office of the land.

more bull★■◆● from you. This time, 20 year old, long-disproven bull★■◆●.

is Bill Clinton running for office? Why dig up his dirt? Apparently, you weasels couldn't really find anything on Hillary, huh?

Unfortunately slick, if Hillary gets elected, we WILL get Bill back in office, I can guarantee it. You know he can't help himself and will meddle in Hillary's political affairs of state, or at least be "consulted" as her adviser. I didn't like the crap he gave away to Republicans or the fact he was arrogant enough to spend time borking an intern (or more, who knows) instead of doing the job he was elected to do when he was president and I don't like the idea of him anywhere NEAR the White House NOW dammit! It'd be like electing Jeb, who you know would "consult" with his epic failure of a brother, George.

Or, perhaps his father instead.

If you're talking about the elder Bush, I think his time has long since passed to have to worry about him politically, fortunately.

tunnelcat wrote:...we WILL get Bill back in office, I can guarantee it.

I don't understand this comment. How would Bill Clinton be "meddling" any more than Hillary did as First Lady? Or Nancy Regan or any other First Lady? We've never had a First Gentleman in the White House. How are you expecting a man who has done fine public service as an ex-president to suddenly revert back to the person he was 20 years ago? Have you changed at all in the last 20 years? Have you ever learned from your mistakes or taken fair criticism to heart and changed for the better? Hillary is her own woman. I don't see how Bill Clinton is any more of an issue than Michelle Obama. Do you think Michelle is running the show? There is something sexist in the idea that Mrs. Clinton would be a proxy for her husband.

callmeslick wrote:more bull★■◆● from you. This time, 20 year old, long-disproven bull★■◆●.

Show me where it has been "dis-proven"

show me where anyone gives a crap. It didn't even lose BILL an election and, as noted, he isn't running for office. Can't pin anything to Hillary, huh?

Show me where it's been disproven that Bill Clinton is actually an incredibly life-like android created by the lizard people to condition humanity for indoctrination before the great invasion.

The sad fact is that conservatives have been crying wolf about the Clintons for so long, that few outside the tribe listen anymore. At some point, you'll probably find a winner, and nobody will care.

good summary, Vander, and, I might suggest, a worthwhile description of the entire 'conservative' playbook for a couple of decades. One manufactured outrage after another, another prediction of gloom and doom that doesn't come true. 'Crying Wolf' seems to be the whole strategy, on the hope that the electorate will be collectively stupid or scared enough to buy into it. It will come home to roost.

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:...we WILL get Bill back in office, I can guarantee it.

I don't understand this comment. How would Bill Clinton be "meddling" any more than Hillary did as First Lady? Or Nancy Regan or any other First Lady? We've never had a First Gentleman in the White House. How are you expecting a man who has done fine public service as an ex-president to suddenly revert back to the person he was 20 years ago? Have you changed at all in the last 20 years? Have you ever learned from your mistakes or taken fair criticism to heart and changed for the better? Hillary is her own woman. I don't see how Bill Clinton is any more of an issue than Michelle Obama. Do you think Michelle is running the show? There is something sexist in the idea that Mrs. Clinton would be a proxy for her husband.

Are you married vision? If you aren't, you won't understand that a lot of close discussion goes on between spouses about all sorts of things, even discussions concerning work. You know that Hillary will ask him for some advice from time to time because she'll have him living in the same house like any married couple, so we will effectively have Bill Clinton hanging by her side with his fingers in the pie. No thanks.

Sure, people change, but I don't think Bill has changed one wit because he's been deep into politics since he's left office. In fact, I think he's gotten even more addicted to politics than he was before. And prove to me that a habitual womanizing adulterer can change his ways, unless Hillary has eyes in the back of her head and put him on a short leash. But his major fault is that he, and Hillary, are Washington insiders. Neither of them have a clue as to how most people in this country live their lives day to day. They're a rich power couple that has lived that way so long, they don't know how to live any other way. I think their sense of entitlement is high in the clouds. I don't even think Bill thinks he did anything wrong when he had his little affair either. Hillary herself is a flip flopper, changing her mind when it suits her political machinations. I'd be the first to say I'd like to see a woman president, but not Hillary. I'd also prefer that both Hillary and Bill not be anywhere near the White House anymore. When Bill was president, he was a crony capitalist, had an interventionist foreign policy and made the Oval Office into a vile punch line. No, we don't need him even living in the people's house again. We get Hillary, we get Bill, no two ways about it. Even if Trump or Cruz win the Republican nomination, I don't know if I can hold my nose long enough to vote for Hillary, I dislike them both that much.

callmeslick wrote:'Crying Wolf' seems to be the whole strategy, on the hope that the electorate will be collectively stupid or scared enough to buy into it.

Unfortunately this tactic has been proven to work over the lase couple decades. However, we might be on the verge of a turning point where people don't give in to hyperbole and vote against their own interests. Obama's landslide reelection seemed to indicate that, and the current floundering of the Republican Party against an incredibly unpopular Democratic candidate could also be highlighting a possible shift toward ... sensibility? I'm not sure what the right word is.

tunnelcat wrote:Are you married vision? If you aren't, you won't understand that a lot of close discussion goes on between spouses about all sorts of things, even discussions concerning work.

I'm not promoting the Clintons, I just think it's quite silly to believe that decisions are made about America's future in the way you are describing. It doesn't matter what Bill thinks, and it doesn't matter a whole lot what Hillary thinks either. The president has a cabinet of advisors. Executive decisions are made by a large group of experts, and these experts only make up one third of our government (the others being the judicial and legislative branches). Will Bill have an influence? Sure, but it is much more marginal than you think. The president's job is to make speeches and look good in front of the camera. Besides, Bill Clinton was one of the better presidents of the 20th Century, whether you like it or not.

vision wrote:I'm not promoting the Clintons, I just think it's quite silly to believe that decisions are made about America's future in the way you are describing. It doesn't matter what Bill thinks, and it doesn't matter a whole lot what Hillary thinks either. The president has a cabinet of advisors. Executive decisions are made by a large group of experts, and these experts only make up one third of our government (the others being the judicial and legislative branches). Will Bill have an influence? Sure, but it is much more marginal than you think. The president's job is to make speeches and look good in front of the camera. Besides, Bill Clinton was one of the better presidents of the 20th Century, whether you like it or not.

That's the problem. Hillary will bring in the same people who have worked with them in politics before, because she knows them. We'll get nothing new and nothing will change. It'll be the same old insider tactics and problem solving we got under Bill because both of them are comfortable with it. Personally, I want to see someone NEW, with new ideas and goals, new people around them, not insiders and not a retread bringing along the same, worn out baggage from yesteryear. Maybe that's a pipe dream, because we've seen what Washington did to Obama, but one can only keep trying.

As for Bill Clinton being one of the better presidents, I don't agree. He was a playboy and turncoat who sucked up to whatever interest group made him look good or advanced his agenda, whatever that was. You're forgetting the dot.com bubble began under his watch. He gave us the whole impeachment circus that sunk Al Gore's chances in 2000. Hell, I didn't want to vote for Gore after watching him stand there next to Clinton in the Rose Garden after the impeachment. It told me that Gore wasn't his own man, just a Clinton sycophant. Bill Clinton essentially turned the country over to conservative Republicans for 12 years after 1994 and ultimately gave us 8 years of Bush and an endless war on terrorism, not that Bill didn't do his own little standoff warmongering in some of those war torn regions. He gave us DOMA of all things. He turned on the unions and minorities who had supported him, the very base of the Democratic Party by "triangulating" with Republicans, who eventually turned on him for his efforts anyway. What good was that? He even went out on his wife, going against married women everywhere. No, he was a lousy DEMOCRATIC president and he, and his wife, need to go away.