Author Topic: Clinton interview: Close, but no cigar. (Read 709 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #30 on:** June 23, 2004, 12:37:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
ya I do. Because the Republicans wanted to cripple the white house.

I guess your ignorance can be excused since you have no real interest or influence in US politics.

Nash · « **Reply #31 on:** June 23, 2004, 12:47:08 PM »

I would say he has interest. Looks that way anyways.

Neither of you have any influence though.

So what's the diff?

AKIron · « **Reply #32 on:** June 23, 2004, 12:47:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
I would say he has interest. Looks that way anyways.

Neither of you have any influence though.

So what's the diff?

Uh, I can vote.

Nash · « **Reply #33 on:** June 23, 2004, 12:53:47 PM »

Yeah so?

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #34 on:** June 23, 2004, 01:04:58 PM »

Yeah Iron doncha know your vote doesn't count cuz amreeka = teh nazis, boosh = teh hitl3r!!!!
Lefty 101
DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

AKIron · « **Reply #35 on:** June 23, 2004, 01:36:11 PM »

I was gonna answer but Funked answered it so much more eloquently than I could have.

BTW, regarding Clinton's legacy. Here's a giant stride he made in protecting the rights of "little" women everywhere by redefining sexual harassment.

Regarding Paula Jones's claim that she had suffered emotional distress, Judge Webber Wright wrote that whatever went on in the Little Rock hotel room, it "was brief and isolated; did not result in any physical harm ... did not result in distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/clinton_scandal/72796.stm

So long as it's not unendurable then no foul, hmmmm.