Three cheers for Chelsea Clinton. What a classy young lady. I loved her response when questioned by the college student about how her mother handled the Monica Lewinsky scandal. She informed him NOYB — none of your business.
Josephine Byrne
Raytown
« Plenty of shame to go around | Main | Isn’t it rich? »
No, Arminius, I think I got it right the first time. But now I understand what you mean. It's okay to pillory people like Kerry, Max Cleland and Al Gore, who actually served. They are, after all Democrats. But, you can't disparage the good name of a Republican, even a president who is a coke snorting, pot smoking, alcoholic deserter. Oh, sorry, there I go again being disgusted instead of hateful.
Posted by: newdealer | March 31, 2008 at 07:50 PM
newdealer:
"You response, however, was filled with hate."
You confused disgust for hatred. My contention that you're a low life stands.
www.sinsofthehusband.com
Posted by: Arminius | March 31, 2008 at 07:39 PM
Tom:
"Arminius is smearing a decorated Vietnam Vet based on the whoppers told by the Swiftboat Veterans for Lies ads, which have been debunked. Incredible."
So you have a problem with me saying Kerry left Vietnam nine months early (a fact), but you then call 260+ Vietnam veterans, all of whom served their full tours, liars? One of SBVT's supporters is a Medal of Honor recipient. A bit hypocritical, aren't you?
BTW, Warren Buffet has offered $1 million to anyone who can prove the SBVT lied about the Bactine Kid. Note that no one has collected that money.
Also, keep in mind that SBVT's second ad was essentially no different from an opinion piece Jim Webb (now a Democrat senator) wrote in 2004. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-18-veterans-edit_x.htm
Is Sen. Webb also a liar?
Posted by: Arminius | March 31, 2008 at 07:36 PM
Squirt:
"That's a flat-out lie. You have no idea who that person is supporting. Once again, you're grasping for straws."
You're wrong again, Squirt. The guy appeared on numerous programs and said he was a Hillary supporter.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/26/lewinsky-questioner-surprised-with-chelseas-response/
Posted by: Arminius | March 31, 2008 at 07:31 PM
Arminius - The hypothetical question I posed to ask McCain was, if you can actually read my post and think about it, suggesting that we have civility instead of political tribalism in our elections. You response, however, was filled with hate, not to mention inaccuracies. I could almost see the vein in your forehead throbbing. That was funnier than NMMNG calling me a commie!
Posted by: newdealer | March 31, 2008 at 04:54 PM
Arminius is smearing a decorated Vietnam Vet based on the whoppers told by the Swiftboat Veterans for Lies ads, which have been debunked. Incredible.
Posted by: Tom | March 31, 2008 at 04:27 PM
"The guy who asked the question is a Hillary supporter."
That's a flat-out lie. You have no idea who that person is supporting. Once again, you're grasping for straws.
Posted by: Jim | March 31, 2008 at 04:03 PM
newdealer:
"So, Marctnts, you then agree then that it would be appropriate for someone to ask McCain why he didn't choose to die under torture while a pow instead of spilling his guts and making an anti-American propaganda confession?"
You're a low-life. You're probably one of these nucases who defended John "The Bactine Kid" Kerry's dishonest manueverings to leave Vietnam nine months early, and then you attack a man who was a POW for five years. Incredible.
www.sinsofthehusband.com
Posted by: Arminius | March 31, 2008 at 03:52 PM
newdealer:
"The intent of the question was not to seek an informative answer but merely to embarrass Chelsea Clinton, making the question insincere and not appropriate."
That's a flat-out lie. The guy who asked the question is a Hillary supporter.
Posted by: Arminius | March 31, 2008 at 03:49 PM
newdealer:
"The intent of the question was not to seek an informative answer but merely to embarrass Chelsea Clinton, making the question insincere and not appropriate."
That's a flat-out lie. The guy who asked the question in a Hillary supporter.
Posted by: Arminius | March 31, 2008 at 03:49 PM
Actually, Chelsea was asked if the Monica Lewinsky scandal hurt her mother's credibility. It is our business since Hillary was defending what she knew was a lie.
And if Chelsea is going to campaign for her mother in public, she has to expect tough questions. She not a little kid anymore.
Posted by: Arminius | March 31, 2008 at 03:47 PM
OH I agree with NOYB and MYOB, too bad Bill Clinton and many other politicians from BOTH sides think it only applies to them.
Government has NO BUSINESS mandating what standard people HAVE to live at or what little Timmy is entitled to. Nor should government be concerned what it on the air waves of entertainment.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | March 31, 2008 at 03:35 PM
OH I agree with NOYB and MYOB, too bad Bill Clinton and many other politicians from BOTH sides think it only applies to them.
Government has NO BUSINESS mandating what standard people HAVE to live at or what little Timmy is entitled to. Nor should government be concerned what it on the air waves of entertainment.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | March 31, 2008 at 03:33 PM
"You're just mad because you're a commie and you know it." - NMMNG
Now that's funny!!!
Posted by: newdealer | March 31, 2008 at 03:18 PM
nspewdealer I know EXACTLY what socialism is, I experience it daily as the tax and welfare mongers liek you TAKE from those of that CHOOSE to work and PROVIDE for our families, rather than sit around blaming Bush for everything. You're just mad because you're a commie and you know it.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | March 31, 2008 at 03:00 PM
Sorry, I'm still here. I only decided it was a waste of time to "argue" with morons.
Arguing with "Chris40" over whether the FBI is anti-Semetic is almost as productive as trying to convince "Mark Robertson" that Bush is an idiot.
Posted by: whispering_to_kc | March 31, 2008 at 02:56 PM
Chris40 - Before doing a knee-jerk reaction, try reading my next post. My point being that both questions are inappropriate. Some civility needs to be brought back to politics and focus should be on issues rather than scandal. What is really offensive is people voting for a candidate because my candidate's scandals aren't anywhere near as bad as your candidate's scandals.
Posted by: newdealer | March 31, 2008 at 02:13 PM
"So, Marctnts, you then agree then that it would be appropriate for someone to ask McCain why he didn't choose to die under torture while a pow instead of spilling his guts and making an anti-American propaganda confession? If he can't take the question, should he really be running for president?
Posted by: newdealer | Mar 31, 2008 11:27:28 AM"
Nice. Very nice, newdealer. And you wonder why anyone with a shred of patriotism has to hold his or her nose when voting for a liberal.
I haven't seen such an offensive post since whispering_to_kc crawled back under his rock and stayed there.
Posted by: Chris40 | March 31, 2008 at 01:55 PM
Newdealer,
I would argue that an appropriate answer to the question about Monica would have included discourse on the privacy (or lack therof) of public officials, potential strategies to diffuse what could turn out to be an issue an the general election, and the beneficial character traits (or lack therof) that her mother has demonstrated in her handling of the issue.
Again, "It's none of your business" is only an appropriate answer when it's being asked of a daughter, not when it's being asked of a campaign representative.
Posted by: Marctnts | March 31, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Marctnts - Thanks for agreeing. I think Chelsea did answer a "dumb-a## question" appropriately. I also think that both the question to Chelsea and my suggested question to McClain are inappropriate and ment merely to embarrass. They are both examples of political tribalism and just bad manners.
NMMNG - As for you, thanks for once again proving that you are a knee-jerk, political troglodyte who still doesn't have a clue what socialism means.
Posted by: newdealer | March 31, 2008 at 12:24 PM