#1 2009-04-04 19:53:37
In the show airing April 6, Johnston tells Tyra Banks that he believes Sarah Palin knew he and Bristol, 18, were having sex when they lived under her roof. "I'm pretty sure she probably knew. Moms are pretty smart," Johnston says.
...with Bonus Feature
In other Palin family troubles, the half sister of Palin's husband Todd was accused of breaking into the same Wasilla, Alaska, house twice to steal money, the Associated Press reports. Diana Palin, 35, was charged with felony burglary and misdemeanor criminal trespass and theft stemming from two break-ins this week.
Now, I don't want to see this turning into the usual left/right pissfight. You right-wingers know good and well that the whole Palin family is a pack of worthless hicks. Don't lie to us AND yourselves, you know this. Ted Kennedy's a womanizing alcoholic from a family of womanizing alcoholics, Sarah Palin is a crazy redneck from a family of crazy rednecks.
Last edited by jesusluvspegging (2009-04-04 19:55:48)
Offline
#2 2009-04-04 19:57:39
The hick part doesn't bother me; the hypocrite part does.
The preceding statement should in no way be interpreted as a defense of Ted Kennedy or any other Kennedy, living or dead.
Offline
#3 2009-04-04 20:45:21
I'm a conservative, but Bill Clinton got a blowjob and it didn't cost me a dime.
Offline
#4 2009-04-04 22:46:11
Sarah Palin was a useful idiot for The Right. She is no longer useful and will fade away. In all fairness, I have to say that Sarah’s sister-in-law is an adult responsible for her own actions and that her actions don’t reflect on Sarah. Everyone has relatives they would prefer not to discuss.
Offline
#5 2009-04-04 23:33:16
jesusluvspegging wrote:
Now, I don't want to see this turning into the usual left/right pissfight. You right-wingers know good and well that the whole Palin family is a pack of worthless hicks.
I seem to recall that Taint (far from a right-winger) posted favorably about Palin a couple times here.
Personally, I though Palin was a bad choice from day one. The more I learned about her the less I cared for her on just about all aspects of qualification. I can't recall which day I concluded that she was a down-right terrible choice but it was well before election day.
I feel sorry for her daughter. Screwing up a good part of your life is bad enough. Having it paraded in the media... "Mom, why couldn't you have just stayed Governor of the most obscure state in the Union?"
Offline
#6 2009-04-05 19:38:18
Zookeeper wrote:
I seem to recall that Taint (far from a right-winger) posted favorably about Palin a couple times here.
Personally, I though Palin was a bad choice from day one. The more I learned about her the less I cared for her on just about all aspects of qualification. I can't recall which day I concluded that she was a down-right terrible choice but it was well before election day.
I feel sorry for her daughter. Screwing up a good part of your life is bad enough. Having it paraded in the media... "Mom, why couldn't you have just stayed Governor of the most obscure state in the Union?"
Indeed, you're correct. Sarah's not a bad person at all, but I disagreed with her on pretty much everything. She's wildly popular in Alaska, and will probably go on to another term as governor and probably on to Congress after that.
Which means, of course, her poor kids will probably continue to find themselves stuck in the spotlight.
Offline
#7 2009-04-05 19:42:50
opsec wrote:
I'm a conservative, but Bill Clinton got a blowjob and it didn't cost me a dime.
Actually, it probably cost you - individually - at least a dime or more for all the time and attention devoted to it through the whole impeachment process.
Offline
#8 2009-04-05 19:46:20
Taint wrote:
opsec wrote:
I'm a conservative, but Bill Clinton got a blowjob and it didn't cost me a dime.
Actually, it probably cost you - individually - at least a dime or more for all the time and attention devoted to it through the whole impeachment process.
Much more than a dime if you think that Bush's election was a result of the fallout.
Offline
#9 2009-04-06 00:42:48
Taint wrote:
opsec wrote:
I'm a conservative, but Bill Clinton got a blowjob and it didn't cost me a dime.
Actually, it probably cost you - individually - at least a dime or more for all the time and attention devoted to it through the whole impeachment process.
Actually, if he hadn't committed perjury with regard to said blowjob no dimes would have been lost over it. He wasn't impeached for a blowjob. He was impeached for lying under oath. If they'd caught him hands-down lying under oath concerning Whitewater he would have been impeached over that instead. As the old saying goes "sometimes, a blowjob is the best you're gonna get."
Last edited by Zookeeper (2009-04-06 00:43:44)
Offline
#10 2009-04-06 02:57:34
Zookeeper wrote:
Taint wrote:
opsec wrote:
I'm a conservative, but Bill Clinton got a blowjob and it didn't cost me a dime.
Actually, it probably cost you - individually - at least a dime or more for all the time and attention devoted to it through the whole impeachment process.
Actually, if he hadn't committed perjury with regard to said blowjob no dimes would have been lost over it. He wasn't impeached for a blowjob. He was impeached for lying under oath. If they'd caught him hands-down lying under oath concerning Whitewater he would have been impeached over that instead. As the old saying goes "sometimes, a blowjob is the best you're gonna get."
Don't be so ridiculously naive. Perjury is what they tried (and failed, by the way) to convict him of. The blowjob was the focus of all the attention.
Offline
#11 2009-04-06 06:30:24
tojo2000 wrote:
Zookeeper wrote:
Taint wrote:
Actually, it probably cost you - individually - at least a dime or more for all the time and attention devoted to it through the whole impeachment process.Actually, if he hadn't committed perjury with regard to said blowjob no dimes would have been lost over it. He wasn't impeached for a blowjob. He was impeached for lying under oath. If they'd caught him hands-down lying under oath concerning Whitewater he would have been impeached over that instead. As the old saying goes "sometimes, a blowjob is the best you're gonna get."
Don't be so ridiculously naive. Perjury is what they tried (and failed, by the way) to convict him of. The blowjob was the focus of all the attention.
Nice try.
He plead guilty to perjury and lost his license to practice law in the state of Arkansas (which meant nothing as the Arkansas hillbillies were "movin' on up" to the eastside, anyway).
Had the left had Bush dead to rights on any perjury, they would have been thrilled regardless of what the lie was about. Had he not lied there would have been no impeachment, sorry. Perjury is perjury, even if it is over something as silly as a blowjob.
Again, nice try though!
Offline
#12 2009-04-06 06:33:27
ptah13 wrote:
Had the left had Bush dead to rights on any perjury, they would have been thrilled regardless of what the lie was about. Had he not lied there would have been no impeachment, sorry. Perjury is perjury, even if it is over something as silly as a blowjob.
Again, nice try though!
The problem with Bush's multiple lies is they're all so big that people don't want to believe them.
Offline
#13 2009-04-06 06:40:21
This takes me back to the old question:
Why is it, when Kennedy was in office he was humping the most smokin' babes in the land while all Bill could pull is a barely-legal plumper with more issues than People Magazine?
I can just see him asking himself the same question, with Monica in the wings mumbling to herself, "you, sir, are no Jack Kennedy" while picking the remnants of the First Cuban from the multiple folds of her flappin' vulva.
Offline
#14 2009-04-06 06:44:04
ptah13 wrote:
This takes me back to the old question:
Why is it, when Kennedy was in office he was humping the most smokin' babes in the land while all Bill could pull is a barely-legal plumper with more issues than People Magazine?
'cause she was a plumper. If he'd been boning somebody hot, nobody would have said a word.
That man has TERRIBLE taste in women.
Offline
#15 2009-04-06 06:49:26
jesusluvspegging wrote:
ptah13 wrote:
This takes me back to the old question:
Why is it, when Kennedy was in office he was humping the most smokin' babes in the land while all Bill could pull is a barely-legal plumper with more issues than People Magazine?'cause she was a plumper. If he'd been boning somebody hot, nobody would have said a word.
That man has TERRIBLE taste in women.
True-that...
have you seen that bitch he married? (shudder!) Egad she's a hideon!
Offline
#16 2009-04-06 06:55:43
ptah13 wrote:
Nice try.
He plead guilty to perjury and lost his license to practice law in the state of Arkansas (which meant nothing as the Arkansas hillbillies were "movin' on up" to the eastside, anyway).
Again, nice try though!
He was impeached in the House on the basis of perjury, but he was not convicted by the Senate or any court, and he didn't plead guilty. He also only had his license suspended for five years and a $25,000 fine. It doesn't mean he didn't lie, it just means he wasn't convicted of perjury.
Offline
#17 2009-04-06 06:55:45
ptah13 wrote:
have you seen that bitch he married? (shudder!) Egad she's a hideon!
She was mildly attractive for a brief period of time, from the correct angles, many years ago.
Last edited by jesusluvspegging (2009-04-06 06:56:09)
Offline
#18 2009-04-06 07:47:34
Asking Bill Clinton to discuss his sex life under oath with six billion of his closest friends certain to hear the testimony was an abuse of process. This is part of why he wasn’t convicted, because many in the Senate realized that interrogating and deposing leaders over their sexual activities would set a dangerous precedent. It may have energized the fundytards to vote Republican for a few years, but it set in motion a seething anger against Republicans that will work against them in the long run.
Offline
#19 2009-04-06 10:18:21
Sorry, but he was guilty of perjury, regardless of if he was convicted of it or not.
Here is what the judge had to say on the matter:
"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false ... ."
Sure sounds like plain and simply perjury to me.
And Paula Jones had the right to establish what kind of dog he was, so it was a pretty valid question in the first place.
Again, lying in court under oath is wrong, especially for a supposed lawyer and president, no matter how you apologists try and sugar-coat it.
Offline
