Piece on Earth

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:28 am

I remember this guy, quite popular in many quarters as I recall. Depending on your point of view he was great at his job or an immoral philanderer and while one could make a case that he could easily be both and one matters and the other doesn’t, I personally found the debate exacerbating because I can’t separate the two, but as they say that is water under the bridge. On the other hand we seem to have found a new bridge to cross. This same fellow is again in the limelight as his formerly disrespected spouse seeks high office on her own.

We now learn that Mr. Big not only has trouble with his pants zipper, but apparently with his wallet pocket as well. Perhaps it is not unexpected that a rogue who can get away with seducing an intern will have the same success seducing cash from foreign governments, dictators and assorted others seeking favors and preferential treatment from the US and its politicians. Not unexpected yes, but also acceptable as well?

When our friend demeaned the highest office in the land and perhaps the world, we heard it had nothing to do with his job and his defenders simply ignored the potential impact of compromising his office, or the potential for blackmail and the like. Dare I say there were a few of us who simply saw it as immoral and indicative of a defective personality? Now, we are back to square one and apparently we are willing to accept that close ties with assorted governments and individuals seeking favored status is not relevant between spouses. :-3

But wait, let’s not be quick to judge, I suspect that there has been little pillow talk between this couple for a number of years so perhaps we have found a more profound meaning for the term “safe sex. Perhaps being “cut off will help save the free world. Let’s just hope this woman is as strong willed as we think she is. I’d hate to think that a peace deal in the Mideast will be influenced by a piece deal in Westchester County.

;)

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:29 am

Wow, she isn't even sworn in yet and your back on the Monica Lewinsky thing.

Yeah, good old Bill, Well, he may have been a philanderer indeed, but at least he wasn't an international laughing stock heading an administration of incompetent malcontents, leaving high office in a country that is virtually broke, in two seemingly intractable wars, and with a major U.S. city that still resembles a diaster zone after a hurricane that hit three years ago, while also facing an economic depression of biblical proportions.

Oh, and he also knew how to construct sentences in English at the level of an adult as well, and no one ever threw their shoes at Bill, though I admit some women may have thrown other items of clothing at him, that silver fox.

One wonders that if having oral sex with an intern, in a semi-pathetic affair, was all the George Bush had managed to achieve notoriety for; as opposed to blithley presiding over the current host of concurrent catastrophes (with his slack-jawed grin) you'd be a lot better off, as would we. Thanks George, nice job.

But then what would I know, I'm just a commie-loving, morally ambiguous Euro-socialist, don't worry, we'll get ours as well when your new President converts the nation to communism and Islam (yawn). :rolleyes:

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:36 am

Galbally;1108512 wrote: Wow, she isn't even sworn in yet and your back on the Monica Lewinsky thing.

Yeah, good old Bill, Well, he may have been a philanderer indeed, but at least he wasn't an international laughing stock heading an administration of incompetent malcontents, leaving high office in a country is virtually broke, in two seemingly intractable wars, with a major U.S. city that still resembles a diaster zone after a hurricane that hit two years ago, while also facing an economic depression of biblical proportions. Oh, and he also knew how to construct sentences in English at the level of an adult as well, and no one ever threw their shoes at Bill, though I admit some women may have thrown other items of clothing at him, that silver fox.

One wonder that if having oral sex with an intern, in a semi-pathetic affair was all the George Bush had managed to achieve notoriety for, as opposed to blithley presiding over the current host of concurrent catastrophes (with his slack-jawed grin) you'd be a lot better off, as would we. Thanks George, nice job.

But then what would I know, I'm just a commie-loving, morally ambiguous Euro-socialist, don't worry, we'll get ours as well when your new President converts the nation to communism and Islam (yawn). :rolleyes:

:yh_clap:yh_clap

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:32 pm

Galbally;1108512 wrote: Wow, she isn't even sworn in yet and your back on the Monica Lewinsky thing.

Yeah, good old Bill, Well, he may have been a philanderer indeed, but at least he wasn't an international laughing stock heading an administration of incompetent malcontents, leaving high office in a country is virtually broke, in two seemingly intractable wars, with a major U.S. city that still resembles a diaster zone after a hurricane that hit two years ago, while also facing an economic depression of biblical proportions. Oh, and he also knew how to construct sentences in English at the level of an adult as well, and no one ever threw their shoes at Bill, though I admit some women may have thrown other items of clothing at him, that silver fox.

One wonder that if having oral sex with an intern, in a semi-pathetic affair was all the George Bush had managed to achieve notoriety for, as opposed to blithley presiding over the current host of concurrent catastrophes (with his slack-jawed grin) you'd be a lot better off, as would we. Thanks George, nice job.

But then what would I know, I'm just a commie-loving, morally ambiguous Euro-socialist, don't worry, we'll get ours as well when your new President converts the nation to communism and Islam (yawn). :rolleyes:

See didn't I tell you his behavior didn't matter.

Kindle · Post by **Kindle** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:45 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1108186 wrote: I remember this guy, quite popular in many quarters as I recall. Depending on your point of view he was great at his job or an immoral philanderer and while one could make a case that he could easily be both and one matters and the other doesn’t, I personally found the debate exacerbating because I can’t separate the two, but as they say that is water under the bridge. On the other hand we seem to have found a new bridge to cross. This same fellow is again in the limelight as his formerly disrespected spouse seeks high office on her own.

We now learn that Mr. Big not only has trouble with his pants zipper, but apparently with his wallet pocket as well. Perhaps it is not unexpected that a rogue who can get away with seducing an intern will have the same success seducing cash from foreign governments, dictators and assorted others seeking favors and preferential treatment from the US and its politicians. Not unexpected yes, but also acceptable as well?

When our friend demeaned the highest office in the land and perhaps the world, we heard it had nothing to do with his job and his defenders simply ignored the potential impact of compromising his office, or the potential for blackmail and the like. Dare I say there were a few of us who simply saw it as immoral and indicative of a defective personality? Now, we are back to square one and apparently we are willing to accept that close ties with assorted governments and individuals seeking favored status is not relevant between spouses. :-3

But wait, let’s not be quick to judge, I suspect that there has been little pillow talk between this couple for a number of years so perhaps we have found a more profound meaning for the term “safe sex. Perhaps being “cut off will help save the free world. Let’s just hope this woman is as strong willed as we think she is. I’d hate to think that a peace deal in the Mideast will be influenced by a piece deal in Westchester County.

;)

Politics do make strange bedfellows and birds of a feather............... and so on.....

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:39 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1108855 wrote: See didn't I tell you his behavior didn't matter.

In terms of having the odd affair, as opposed to fatally weakening the interests my nation would I really give a damn about behaviour like that? No, I'm an adult it happens, I'm also a European and we tend to be a little less prurient about such matters (well if you disregard the Brits maybe).

The corruption issue is different however. I think someone has already brought this to Hillary Clinton's attention at her inauguration or whatever the ceremony is called, in relation to the Clinton Foundation. Considering what is happening now, she would be wise to ensure that she cannot be linked to anything that could even suggest corruption.

Perhaps its also time to look at the entire lobbying system in Washington, and the pernicious influence that money and big business interests seem to have over the political process in the Houses of Congress. Perhaps that will prevent debacles such as the financial calamity we and you are currently witnessing from happening again. Probably not, there will always be financial calamities, but perhaps it might delay the next one.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:08 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1108186 wrote: Depending on your point of view he was great at his job or an immoral philandererThe mistake is the "or". Replace it with "and" and you have nothing left in that post but shoddy unsightly wrecking bile. In fundamentalist Iran since 1979 "immoral philanderer" might be a bar to public service but by Christ, there's no bloody excuse whatever for an American to be using it.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:14 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1108186 wrote: I remember this guy, quite popular in many quarters as I recall. Depending on your point of view he was great at his job or an immoral philanderer and while one could make a case that he could easily be both and one matters and the other doesn’t, I personally found the debate exacerbating because I can’t separate the two, but as they say that is water under the bridge. On the other hand we seem to have found a new bridge to cross. This same fellow is again in the limelight as his formerly disrespected spouse seeks high office on her own.

We now learn that Mr. Big not only has trouble with his pants zipper, but apparently with his wallet pocket as well. Perhaps it is not unexpected that a rogue who can get away with seducing an intern will have the same success seducing cash from foreign governments, dictators and assorted others seeking favors and preferential treatment from the US and its politicians. Not unexpected yes, but also acceptable as well?

When our friend demeaned the highest office in the land and perhaps the world, we heard it had nothing to do with his job and his defenders simply ignored the potential impact of compromising his office, or the potential for blackmail and the like. Dare I say there were a few of us who simply saw it as immoral and indicative of a defective personality? Now, we are back to square one and apparently we are willing to accept that close ties with assorted governments and individuals seeking favored status is not relevant between spouses. :-3

But wait, let’s not be quick to judge, I suspect that there has been little pillow talk between this couple for a number of years so perhaps we have found a more profound meaning for the term “safe sex.” Perhaps being “cut off” will help save the free world. Let’s just hope this woman is as strong willed as we think she is. I’d hate to think that a peace deal in the Mideast will be influenced by a piece deal in Westchester County.

;)

I say this first in order to not being accussed of anti-American. I am anti-dumb-Presidents. In Britain we also have a reputation for elcting slime-balls into office although they are confined to the Conservative Party and the Opposition to my Prime Minister.

Quinn, your country seems to certainly have a knack of voting the wrong one in time and time again.

I do not know as much about Hilary as American folk but i do believe she would have been the better candidate for the Whitehouse than Obama. I do not say that because she is a woman either. From what i have read about her, she has balls.

I couldn't care less if politicians have a personal life as long as they don't invade countries illegally risking the live's of their own people, or shaft the economy.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:58 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1108186 wrote: I remember this guy, quite popular in many quarters as I recall. Depending on your point of view he was great at his job or an immoral philanderer and while one could make a case that he could easily be both and one matters and the other doesn’t, I personally found the debate exacerbating because I can’t separate the two, but as they say that is water under the bridge. On the other hand we seem to have found a new bridge to cross. This same fellow is again in the limelight as his formerly disrespected spouse seeks high office on her own.

We now learn that Mr. Big not only has trouble with his pants zipper, but apparently with his wallet pocket as well. Perhaps it is not unexpected that a rogue who can get away with seducing an intern will have the same success seducing cash from foreign governments, dictators and assorted others seeking favors and preferential treatment from the US and its politicians. Not unexpected yes, but also acceptable as well?

When our friend demeaned the highest office in the land and perhaps the world, we heard it had nothing to do with his job and his defenders simply ignored the potential impact of compromising his office, or the potential for blackmail and the like. Dare I say there were a few of us who simply saw it as immoral and indicative of a defective personality? Now, we are back to square one and apparently we are willing to accept that close ties with assorted governments and individuals seeking favored status is not relevant between spouses. :-3

But wait, let’s not be quick to judge, I suspect that there has been little pillow talk between this couple for a number of years so perhaps we have found a more profound meaning for the term “safe sex. Perhaps being “cut off will help save the free world. Let’s just hope this woman is as strong willed as we think she is. I’d hate to think that a peace deal in the Mideast will be influenced by a piece deal in Westchester County.

;)

totally agree! :-6

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:46 am

Scrat;1108864 wrote: It doesn't really matter Quinn, this country is up for sale to the highest bidder (emphasis added by BTS)because of the system we designed, McInsane was perfectly willing to sell the farm to that runt with delusions of grandeur in Georgia and risk millions of lives and billions in petty proxy wars that we aren't going to win.

None of 'em are worth a s**t. Including yours.

The very reason we NEED to see "who, how much and when people donated to the CLINTON LIBRARY"

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:13 pm

BTS;1109269 wrote: The very reason we NEED to see "who, how much and when people donated to the CLINTON LIBRARY"

Why do you prefer to destroy the Presidency of the next four years, if at all possible, rather than put the US back on track?

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:58 pm

spot;1109306 wrote: Why do you prefer to destroy the Presidency of the next four years, if at all possible, rather than put the US back on track?

HUH??????????

So you think, just go on ...... bury our heads in the sand?

Well, if you really always wanted to "put the US back on track", then, why for 8 years did you contest anything GW Bush ever did?

Oh that's different eh?

Didn't Barry Obama ask for her records during the primary?

If so...........why not now? How much of the Clinton's monies come from the Middle East? Savory individuals? Thousands?... Millions?

No I think we have a right to know just who fed their coffers...

Don't you?

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:02 pm

I think you're trying to wreck the Presidency with exactly the same string of lies which dogged the Democrats through the nineties and which were acknowledged afterwards as unfounded wrecking.

If you leave your country ultimately less able to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations then that's fine by me, I'll just watch and wince.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:44 pm

Galbally;1108929 wrote: In terms of having the odd affair, as opposed to fatally weakening the interests my nation would I really give a damn about behaviour like that? No, I'm an adult it happens, I'm also a European and we tend to be a little less prurient about such matters (well if you disregard the Brits maybe).

The corruption issue is different however. I think someone has already brought this to Hillary Clinton's attention at her inauguration or whatever the ceremony is called, in relation to the Clinton Foundation. Considering what is happening now, she would be wise to ensure that she cannot be linked to anything that could even suggest corruption.

Perhaps its also time to look at the entire lobbying system in Washington, and the pernicious influence that money and big business interests seem to have over the political process in the Houses of Congress. Perhaps that will prevent debacles such as the financial calamity we and you are currently witnessing from happening again. Probably not, there will always be financial calamities, but perhaps it might delay the next one.

You are correct about the lobbying. It is a real shame. People and groups should have access to lobby, inform, educate, etc. I have done a lot of it in Washington myself.

But the money that goes with it has got to stop. I once went to a Congressman's office to give him a check from a Political Action Committee. We had to go outside and step into the street because the law said he could not accept the money on Federal Govt property, but he could accept the money (donation to his campaign to be polite). I have refused for years to contribute to my company's politcal action committee, even when the CEO asked me to consider contributing.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:53 pm

oscar;1109021 wrote: I say this first in order to not being accussed of anti-American. I am anti-dumb-Presidents. In Britain we also have a reputation for elcting slime-balls into office although they are confined to the Conservative Party and the Opposition to my Prime Minister.

Quinn, your country seems to certainly have a knack of voting the wrong one in time and time again.

I do not know as much about Hilary as American folk but i do believe she would have been the better candidate for the Whitehouse than Obama. I do not say that because she is a woman either. From what i have read about her, she has balls.

I couldn't care less if politicians have a personal life as long as they don't invade countries illegally risking the live's of their own people, or shaft the economy.

But you see their "personal" life does matter because it affects how they and the US are perceived. I never saw them but I can imagine how the Arab newspapers dealt with the Clinton/Lewinsky mess.

Yesterdays paper has this tidbit on the the front page, "Two men were stoned to death for adultery in Iran last month, the judiciary said."

Stoned to death for adultery! So, the great Satan of the US says adultery does not matter, it's personal; and yet the person who gets a pass has to deal with countries who seem to feel it matters to the tune of stoning someone to death for it.

There is no such thing as something not mattering...to someone, and that's the problem, you never know who that someone is.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:43 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1110008 wrote: You are correct about the lobbying. It is a real shame. People and groups should have access to lobby, inform, educate, etc. I have done a lot of it in Washington myself.

But the money that goes with it has got to stop. I once went to a Congressman's office to give him a check from a Political Action Committee. We had to go outside and step into the street because the law said he could not accept the money on Federal Govt property, but he could accept the money (donation to his campaign to be polite). I have refused for years to contribute to my company's politcal action committee, even when the CEO asked me to consider contributing.

I totally agree with you on that point, every nation has some form of corruption be it overt or implicit, and also lobbying by all sorts of groups, but the scale of the monies involved and the freedom that Private companies are allowed to influence things, that really they just shouldn't have its totally pernicious to the State, seems to me to one of the major things that could be done to reform the U.S. governmental system very quickly. It probably won't happen though, given the nature of politics and people.

In general the U.S. system as it was conceived and operated has been very good, but in modern times the lobbying and pandering to business and private capital has gotten out of control IMO, looking in from the outside. Its natural I suppose, Washington is the Capital of the World's most powerful and wealth nation, it attacts all unto itself, but I guess somewhere along the line the perspective got lost on what was going on. Don't worry though, its not the only nation with such problems, its just as with everything in America the magnitude and scale is so much greater.