National Enquirer: Sarah Palin's infidelity

#26
#26
BigPapaVol said:
Surely you recall that they didn't impeach him, even though he clearly lied under oath. The resistance came from somewhere. The dems defended their known philanderer at every turn. Hillary even tried to pretend that she had no idea.

I thought the whole charade was ridiculous at the time, but it's our two party system.
Click to expand...

they impeached him, they weren't able to vote him out of office.
 
#28
#28
KB5252 said:
He was doing it in the white house while trouble was brewing in the world. I don't care that he had affairs (I could even understand, after sleeping with a cold witch for many years:)) but when your president your time could be better spent focusing on the nations problems.
Click to expand...

As I recall he was on a conference call. Multitasking is great.
 
#29
#29
BigPapaVol said:
Surely you recall that they didn't impeach him, even though he clearly lied under oath. The resistance came from somewhere. The dems defended their known philanderer at every turn. Hillary even tried to pretend that she had no idea.

I thought the whole charade was ridiculous at the time, but it's our two party system.
Click to expand...
I'd say it came from something like this
Clinton: Job Ratings
It's amazing what a president can do when a majority of the people think their president is competent unlike some presidents we've grown use to.:rock:
Bush: Job Ratings
 
#31
#31
BigPapaVol said:
was there a point?
Click to expand...
You said the resistance came from somewhere it came from the fact most Americans approved of their president at the time of the hearings which emboldened the Dems to fight against the impeachment if Clinton had Bush's numbers in the fall of 98 he would have been long gone.GET IT.
 
#34
#34
nickknx865 said:
Clinton did a good job. Bush has an IQ that of my stoner friends at school.
Click to expand...

Remember what you said about Al Gore and how that person would never be half as successful as him?

Well, same goes for you and Bush.
 
#36
#36
WOW! First the Star then the Enquirer. You people need to seriously upgrade your reading material.
 
#37
#37
615 Vol said:
Well according to a post I just read about Palin, it should have been his business. If that's true, why did they seize the opportunity to try and impeach him? I know hypocrisy is not partisan but it's funny that the same people that were calling for Clinton's head are now saying to leave Palin alone and mind your business.
Click to expand...

Big difference: Clinton was a sitting president having an affair with a young intern. Palin's wasn't an elected official at the time of her affair. Same goes for McCain's affair.
 
#38
#38
DAVOL said:
You said the resistance came from somewhere it came from the fact most Americans approved of their president at the time of the hearings which emboldened the Dems to fight against the impeachment if Clinton had Bush's numbers in the fall of 98 he would have been long gone.GET IT.
Click to expand...
so back to the point, there was plenty of public outcry about the mistreatment of Clinton.
 
#39
#39
notverycrucial said:
Big difference: Clinton was a sitting president having an affair with a young intern. Palin's wasn't an elected official at the time of her affair. Same goes for McCain's affair.
Click to expand...
the bigger difference between Clinton and Palin is that one was true, the other has yet to be proven so.
 
#40
#40
BigPapaVol said:
the bigger difference between Clinton and Palin is that one was true, the other has yet to be proven so.
Click to expand...

And short of an actual admission from either Palin or her alleged lover, I doubt it ever will be. Again, it's not a big deal to me, but the National Enquirer doesn't usually publish this type of stuff unless they can back it up. As Jonah Goldberg said when defending the Enquirer over the John Edwards affair:

Whatever the merits of the whole Edwards love child story, are we really supposed to believe that one of America's most famous trial lawyers wouldn't sue a publication that printed defamatory and slanderous lies about him?

Also, it's worth pointing out that while the Enquirer may or may not be scrupulous in its choice of stories — that's in the eye of the beholder — it is pretty scrupulous about its facts. They win lawsuits. They've broken a host of stories the MSM guys couldn't.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top