How long before John Edwards is implicated....

by **Face** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 4:00 pm

Originally posted by Slayer
Clinton was a great politician.....Hell I think some people admired Clinton fro what he did.

Being a great politician is completely different from being a good President, Commander-In-Chief, and a good leader.

by **Sewer-Urchin** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 4:55 pm

Faceman is right...although all too often being a good politician gets you one or two shots at showing how poor a President you are.

by **CharlieDontSurf** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 4:43 pm

Originally posted by JimmyTango

Since I said denying it is plain stupid, and not that you are stupid, would that mean you opened your mouth and removed all doubt? [/B]

No, I was referring to you posting in error instead of making sure that I didn't mention that he's a Democrat again when I clearly did. Just drop it. You're obviously a zealot Bush hater that frankly would vote for the Devil (a.k.a. Fat Bastard) if he ran against Bush. :whine:

by **ShipWreck** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:13 am

make ur own bush speech

just make em say what u want to hear and be happy

by **Xenius** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:51 am

Hah, nice bush soundboard.

by **RCglider** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:58 am

Aside from the moral issue of a president's behavior, one consequence to a nation's security is called blackmail. That's why character does matter.

by **Sewer-Urchin** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:35 pm

Originally posted by RCglider
Aside from the moral issue of a president's behavior, one consequence to a nation's security is called blackmail. That's why character does matter.

by **Major SONAR** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 3:04 pm

Aside from the moral issue of a president's behavior, one consequence to a nation's security is called blackmail. That's why character does matter.

Exactly...

Imagine what might have happened if Monica had decided to go to the Chinese Embassy. I would think blackmail would certainly have been possible, even probable.

by **Folic_Acid** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 3:10 pm

When you're getting a security clearance from the government, one of the biggest series of questions (as well as a large portion of their investigation) is focused on blackmailability - basically, whether you can be blackmailed for anything you've done, or be blackmailed based on your financial situation. Wouldn't it be a bit odd that the blackmailability of a lowly federal employee would be important, but that of the President would not?

by **Sewer-Urchin** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:18 pm

I guess they thought that the blackmailer's would have trouble figgureing out who got to go first.

How long before John Edwards is implicated....

Who is online