Tyrell is REALLY bad at...well, everything. Truly horrible. I won't be reading it.
-=Mike

Kim: "A new book by American Spectator founder and Editor in Chief R. Emmett Tyrell is set for release next week and it will put the Hillary campaign on defense for sure. According to The Clinton Crack-Up, Bill didn't quit his womanizing after he left the White House."

I have no idea if he allegations are true or not - but why on earth would Hillary be "on the defense" for Bill's supposed indiscretions?

You conservative women sure have some outdated ideas of a woman's role in a marriage, career, politics, etc...

Does anyone think Tyrell's allegations are not true?

Our trolls, to name but a few.

Alternative troll-take: It doesn't matter, it's just about sex (and infidelity, and lying, and abuse of power, etc.)

One can hear the hearts of good Wizbangers everywhere beating faster upon hearing that another someone has taken it upon himself to hasten our descent even further into 21st century tabloid politics. Have fun rolling around in the slime. I don't think it will be real crowded though, because I suspect most reasonable Americans are way more concerned about the systemic depradations of the current occupant of the White House than they are about the personal life of the last one. Don't forget to feel as morally superior and outraged as you can, especially you good Chritians with perfect lives. And don't get hurt falling off that high horse!

Oh grouchy, you just touch my heart something awful.He pains me to hear that you are so concerned about the state of affairs in the home of billie boy and hillie girl.

j,

Believe me, the Clintons are the last of my concerns.

What's in YOUR closet?

Nobody wants the ex sleazemaster in chief running around feeling up women in the White House again. This time with more time on his hands.
Nope. And all this will rehash the Clintons and how terrible they were. Bye bye to Clintons rewritten legacy.

You can argue with some validity about Tyrell's motivation, the timing of the book, etc. However, Tyrell's ultimate point, about what sort of marriage is Bill & Hillary's and why it matters, is inarguable.

Bill's serial indiscretions are nothing new, as Kim is correct to point out. When I worked on the Clinton campaign in 1992 (fresh out of college and with the politics appropriate to that time in my life) it was a well-known fact that Bill was a horndog and that Hillary didn't have a problem with it as long as he didn't get caught. Bill was notorious for hitting up pretty women on the advance team in each city where he'd be making an appearnace: he loved to flirt, and women responded to it.

I have always thought less of Hillary for not leaving Bill. It's reflective of her thinking, namely that (A) Bill owes her, and (B) That she can't win the White House without him at her side.

Bill Clinton (in 1992) put forward the idea that, in electing him President you would get a Co-Executive in Hillary, was tested with Hillary's health care initiative, and Bill was forced to back down from this assertion immediately after the initiative's failure. Hillary is now running with the idea that, in electing her President, you get Bill back in the White House, although what exactly he'd be doing is unclear.

Some might say that, in Hillary and Bill Clinton, you get two talented people instead of one. I am one of those people who is put off by the odd symbiosis of their relationship, a co-dependency that was distracting during Bill's term, and is likely to be a continuing distraction if Hillary, having been elected President, is still married to Bill. And I don't want a President who's distracted by her husband's wandering eye while the world is going crazy around us.

"And then Lee makes this snarky remark about conservative women:"

The idea that Hillary should be on the defense because of something Bill may have done seems absurd to me - but apparently the political motivations of conservative women bloggers are such that they are blind to that -- or, as my comment suggested - are conservative women still stuck in those 19th century roles?

I envision Kim riding in the back of a covered wagon, crossing the prairies on her way to new frontier. Her hair is in an appropriately modest bonnet.
She tears up just a bit as she watches her man struggling with the team of horse pulling the wagon, but she knows she's in good hands...

Hillary's driving her own wagon, Kim. She doesn't need to defend Bill.

And when are conservatives going to hold any of their own accountable for their own individual actions? I see the White House liars are still in their comfy little nests, despite the revelations that are all over the front pages.

Has AG Gonzales' wife come to his defense yet?

What about Mrs. Rove?

Mrs. Libby?

Hillary and Bill as two talents in one? Talents for what? Corruption? They've got mucho talent for that.

The timing is good. It is to remind people to ask themselves: are we really ready for Mr. Houndog to be let loose to wander the halls of the White House again looking for new meat? Are we ready to have full time chaperones for each intern? Are we ready to pay for a full time occupied room at the nearest Marriott? No thanks.

No presidency for Hil. No legacy for Bill. God is laughing.

Lee,

It's true, the only person that should be on the defense is Bill Clinton.

However,

The nature of the beast is that it may taint her by association...and there's little she can do to circumvent that fact.

The difference in your last comparison to Mrs. Libby, Gonzales, and Rove vs Mrs. Clinton, is that Mrs. Clinton is running for president where the other three are not.

"The idea that Hillary should be on the defense because of something Bill may have done seems absurd to me"

Once again, Lee misses the larger point, even after previous comments lay it all out (nice comment langry).

I'll put it succinctly and try to type slowly for you Lee:

It's not about the what was/what is, it's about the what will be.

"And I don't want a President who's distracted by her husband's wandering eye while the world is going crazy around us." - langtry.

Additionally, Hill's blind-eye to Bill's transgressions does call attention to Hill's lust for power.

To expand on langtry's point: if Hill can't keep her house in order (y'know ... maintaining the wedding vows as well as a modicum of dignity), how will she keep the White House in order?

Do you want foreign powers giggling and pointing fingers at Hillary during formal affairs because they all know (WE ALL KNOW) that Bill's pounding the help in a broom closet?

Comparisons of the current administration aren't even relevant, here.

Lee, you really think I'm the quiet, let my husband handle every problem in my life kind of woman? Ha! My husband has to read your vision of me. He'll laugh his ass off.

"Lee, you really think I'm the quiet, let my husband handle every problem in my life kind of woman? Ha! My husband has to read your vision of me. He'll laugh his ass off. "

Then you are not a good republican women and should endeavor to do a better job of being subservient to your husband.

Y'know, if Bill and Hillary are swingers, it would explain both of their behavior, and also why she has responded the way she has. She can't publically slam him, for he acted with her consent, but she can't acknowledge it either because it wouldn't play well with a majority of voters.

So Lee and Kim might both be right, in a sense.

"The nature of the beast is that it may taint her by association...and there's little she can do to circumvent that fact."

Yes, Heralder - there are small-minded people who will judge Hillary by the actions of the guys she married -- but I suspect those sun-bonnet types weren't going to vote for a woman for President anyway.

They know their place -- they'll vote for whoever their husband tells them to vote for.

/snark off

"The difference in your last comparison to Mrs. Libby, Gonzales, and Rove vs Mrs. Clinton, is that Mrs. Clinton is running for president where the other three are not."

That changes the stakes, but not the actions of woman who is her own man -- erhh woman.

/pathetic attempt at humor off

Kim wants Hillary to be on the defense, and if Hillary joins any covered wagon caravans no doubt the wimmen-folk are going to give her a good talking to.... but I think in this day and age the political fallout from this is minor at best. Just my $0.02.

"if Bill and Hillary are swingers,"

... ew.

Bill Clinton should be ashamed, if he were a normal person. He isn't. This is a guy without a conscience, without shame. Remember, this is a guy who cheats REGULARLY at golf. And one time he did it with the reigning amateur champion he played with. The guy noticed. Can you imagine? Doing it in front of a young impressionable guy like that? The boy was shocked to say the least. Clinton is a pathological liar and his wife is a psycho bitch from hell.

Hillary doesn't have to answer for Bill's misconduct.

However, if the allegations are true, it further exposes Hillary's marriage to Bill for what it is - purely for political notoriety. If that's what they want fine, but stop trying to pretend it's something it's not.

National Politics 101:

Hillary NEEDS some of those covered wagon types to vote for her in order to win the election. She can't get there entirely on her base.

So, whereas the political fall-out looks minimal to Lee, to the voters that Hill's trying to sway, it may not.

yo:

Do you want foreign powers giggling and pointing fingers at Hillary during formal affairs because they all know (WE ALL KNOW) that Bill's pounding the help in a broom closet?

OK, I've had enough of this chickenhawkery...I will step forward and serve my country.

I will pound the help in the broom closet so that Bill doesn't have to.

I will stand up, so Bill can stand down (so to speak).

Seeing as how the ONLY reason Hillary is even in the public spotlight is because she rode her man's coattails, this is very appropriate to discuss. Take away Bill and Hillary is just an unattractive, bitter harpy.
-=Mike

I wonder if Lee's left hand is jealous of his right hand. Just asking.

The Elizabethan term for this was "cuckold". So that means Hillary does have horns, courtesy of BJ Bill.

KobeClan

P.S. Lee's line of reasoning goes to show just how devoid of morality he is, in case anyone was still in doubt. LOL

Posted by: Heralder at March 16, 2007 01:27 PM

You are so brave, sir. I'd kneel out of respect, but I wouldn't want you to get the wrong idea.

Heralder,

Does that make the rest of us philanderhawks?

Not interrupt the polite exchange of valid ideas in this thread (cough), but...

This book will get no attention apart from brief mentions, probably not by name, of "slanderous, unproven conservative attacks on the noble Hillary and her rambunctious beau". We all know that's what will happen. Unlike books about murdering Bush or the continued freefall of our economy beginning around Feb. 1, 2001, this one will not be on display as you walk into B&N or Borders, it will be shelved in the back, if at all, in slim numbers, like other conservative hitjob books.

re: Heralder

So, people shouldn't criticize Bill for cheating on Hillary unless they're willing to consummate a marriage with her ? :)

Any normal female would have divorced him many years ago. They obviously have a deal of some sort.

The real question is why she has no boyfriends. I'd be open to being proven wrong, but I doubt they have spent one night in the same house, since the White House. The Georgetown house is hers - not his.

yo,

Indeed, my training might take over, and we'd both be embarrassed.

Sheik,

Yes. Had I been around at the time of Monica Lewinski, I would have bravely thrown myself on that grenade to save Bill. The pain would have only been momentary.

_Mike_,

I wouldn't go that far. If even Bill has a problem with that, it's unfit for consumption.

Kim:"Hillary may be driving the wagon, but Bill is inside the banging the help."

LOL! That may be true.

Ok, so there are two of us who actually thought Monica was kinda cute.

Well, make that three. . .

Lee -

Good to see you here!

I would offer that there are many voters who feel the level of casual dishonor thus exhibited by former-President Clinton to be so great that they would not want him back in the White House under any conditions. If that meant voting against his wife, who they might well accept on her own perceived merits (or possibly lesser merits of her opponents), then sobeit.

She, however, may have made the cold calculation that she remains better off with him than w/o him. Her tacit acceptance, however, sends its own signal, though how voters will interpret said signal will doubtless vary from person to person.

Heralder ....! Monica? Really? Bleh ...

My biggest issue with Bill's transgressions weren't that he did IT .. but that he did THEM!

I mean, really ..., the leader of the free world should be able to get a better POA than Monica.

Give credit to JFK, he got Marilyn Monroe.

As for your training, I think the less said, the better.

Lee, I had to laugh out loud myself when I wrote it. I can just see Hillary out front, exposed to the elements while Bill's safe inside getting it on with a busty peasant girl.

Kim - She certainly has more patience that I would, or anyone else I now for that matter. I don't understand their marriage...

Maybe she's boinking the butler?

(I was going to write that she was maybe boinking a secret service guy - but "boinking the butler" has such a nice ring to it - lol!)

"Hillary may be driving the wagon, but Bill is inside the banging the help."

And Kim is into voyeurism and would be there taping it.

A lot of conservatives need to get their own sex lives and stop obsessing about the Clinton's. It's not healthy.

jp2,

Oh come one, we're all having a little fun, no need to come in and shit on the furniture.

On that note, everyone have a great weekend.

Likewise H-Dude, and everyone. I'm moving this weekend. We'll see if I can find my sense of humor come Monday.

jp2 - In the heighth of the Monica Lewinsky scandal I half expected to see a television commercial advertising the new DVD "White House Interns Gone Wild!!" -- two action-packed hours of Bill's adventures at, on top of, and under the big desk in the Oval Office.

I half expected to see a television commercial advertising the new DVD "White House Interns Gone Wild!!" -- two action-packed hours of Bill's adventures at, on top of, and under the big desk in the Oval Office..

Easy way to pay his lawyers, and fun for the whole country!
Although we'd have been sweeping far-right pundits off the streets from the collective aneurism.

You know the hypocrisy of the whole damnable affair is that by 50 years old most men have at one time or continuosly been unfaithful to their wife and used their power (i.e CEO, managers,etc) to seduce some young woman.

Women also know it and most of them do exactly what Hillary did. Accept it and move on.

For some neocon hypocrite to write a book about it and use more smear to throw a wrench at Hillary is just the epitome of sensationalized drivel for the right wing fundies to soak up on their way to their own liason. A perfect right wing harlequin novel.

Laughable.

"Although we'd have been sweeping far-right pundits off the streets from the collective aneurism."

I can't possibly see how that comment can be topped.

Have a nice weekend, all.

I just wonder if any lefties or informationally retarded people who are planning on voting for Hillary would approve of teaching their daughters that they should marry smooth talking sleezebags and ingore their constant adultery and just stand by them regardless because only with a man like Bill Clinton can they (the women) achieve anything in life? That is, afterall, the only example Hillary will set for women if she is actually elected President.

This seems common in the women who've risen to power on the left, especially Hillary, but it is not a lesson I'd want my daughter, or any young women for that matter, to learn.

But I guess that's the diffence between conservatives and socialist-regressives. The whole moral compass vs. moral weathervane thing yet again.

Will hillary send in her flying monkeys to burn down all bookstores who will carry the book?

I think it's really rather sad when people think that everyone cheats. That it's only to be expected.

How depressing!

Most women accept it and move on? Yeah, accept the divorce and move on. And those women, *particularly* the liberated sorts who have long ago rejected the sexual double standard where men get to sleep around after marriage, even if they decide it doesn't really matter are going to first wonder why Hillary doesn't have any self-respect.

Will this book make any difference? Not in the least. Because we all know that Bill is a man whore and no one has ever had the delusion that this isn't on-going.

Everyone seems to forget that while Clinton was cheating on his wife, he neglected national security to the extent that the CIA director openly joked about crashing a plane into the White House lawn to get an appointment.

Laugh it up all you want. No one was laughing on 9-11 when the people were falling to their deaths from the WTC, killed by terrorists who were already IN the US and planning their attack a year before Bush took office -- and escaping any attempt at detection because of the Clinton wall.

Both of these people are loathsome scum.

I didn't care who he slept with while in the White House, I certainly don't care who he's sleeping with now. I didn't care that he lied to a Grand Jury, I cared that he lied to me.

This "news" isn't going to keep me from voting for or against Hillary, she seems to be doing a great job of pushing me away from her all on her own. After 23 years of military medical "service," you simply cannot convince me that a Federally run health care system is the way to go.

yawn.

Women also know it and most of them do exactly what Hillary did. Accept it and move on. Laughable.
Posted by: civil behavior at March 16, 2007 02:41 PM

Guess that explains why the U.S. leads the free world in percentage of divorces among the population. Woman "accept it and move on."

Oh, wait... it means the opposite doesn't it? You're easily "laughable" CB.

Wonder if the author will blow the lid off Bill and Belinda's excellent adventure?

grouchie says-"what's in your closet"--clothes-what do you keep in yours?

Three cheers for Lee Lee, his husband will be proud of him.

Your jealousy is showing, Scrappy - you know my heart belongs to jhow66 - that hunka-hunka burning love.

Gay guys say that you can alway spot the closet homosexuals because they are the ones calling everyone else "gay" -- because they are so ashamed of themselves and their true feelings.

My guess is that SCRAPIRON is the hard hat guy in the band "Village People".

You people are funny. Clinton had some of his highest public approval numbers during whole Lewinsky hubbub. If you think the public gives a rat's ass about this, you're going to be very surprised in November '08.

I agree no one cares, Brian. And I believe that I said so. We already know that Bill is a man whore and that Hillary sees fit to remain married to him.

I think it's rather sad that self-identified "feminists" give Bill a pass on his behavior... not the man whore bit, but the "I'm entitled to sex with my subordinates" bit of old-school chauvinism. It's pretty much the definition of sexist pig, isn't it?

But he's excused by feminists just as Hillary is somehow not seen as riding on her husband's accomplishments and coat-tails. I suppose that's okay too, since she doesn't bake cookies.

They may not care about this, but they don't want him back in the White House either, in any capacity.

It's very telling that this embarrassing couple are now in the running to return to the Oval Office.

Talk about a lack of decent people in the democrat party to run. Wow.

Yes, Lee is a misfit, spending his days here betraying his incompetence. Good thing no results or anything productive are required of him. I'm glad he doesn't work for the airlines, repair truck brakes, certify elevators.

For that kind of responsibility, you'd have to use some small degree of judgment.

They may not care about this, but they don't want him back in the White House either, in any capacity.

Speak for yourself, Sock Puppet Jo. Bill Clinton's approval ratings when he left office were more than twice those of Bush's current ratings.

Hillary didn't know about Gennifer Flowers for 12 long years. Someone like this cannot be trusted with National Security.

Lee, you really think I'm the quiet, let my husband handle every problem in my life kind of woman? Ha! My husband has to read your vision of me. He'll laugh his ass off.

No kidding!

Everytime I see Lee (or someone of his particular political persuasion) make a comment about conservative women, I tend to think it reflects on HIS VIEW of what a women's role in this world should be. It certainly doesn't fit the description of any conservative woman that I know.

I don't think that Senator Clinton has just conservative women to worry about though. A lot of people were willing to accept her support of President Clinton during his Monica Lewinsky affair despite the obvious conflict with their support of laws agains sexual harrassment, etc. otherwise. Rightly or wrongly, they thought it was in defense of something they put greater importance on - abortion rights. (Now, I believe subsequent events have proven that theory wrong, but that's another topic.)

However, many thought that, once out of the White House, she would divorce him and run on her own merits. Without him, they may support Hillary. With him, they aren't so sure.

"However, many thought that, once out of the White House, she would divorce him and run on her own merits. Without him, they may support Hillary. With him, they aren't so sure."

Wagons Ho!

Who are "they" by the way? And how do you know what "they" think, OV?

Did this epiphany come to you while sitting around the campfire, or while you were cleaning clothes on rocks down by the river?

Tyrell's book is undoubtedly the latest packaging of the same poorly sourced tabloid smears he's been using to try and destroy the Clintons for years. Among the more delusional of his latest musings is the "Clinton Curse" which, according to Tyrell, even extended to his dog Buddy. This guy is a joke. He was one of the point men in Richard Mellon Scaife's $2.4 million Arkansas Project, whose sole purpose was the destruction of a political figure, which came up with nothing of substance. If you listen hard, I think you can hear Bill laughing. Anyone giving credibility to this cheap bottom-dwelling crap need to think to think twice before they accuse someone of having "Bush Derangement Syndrome".

It will have about as much effect on Hillary's campaign as the anti-Hillarite caterwauling on this site. The longer the far right's Clinton obsession goes on, the more marginalized and pathetic it becomes.

Wagons Ho!

Who are "they" by the way? And how do you know what "they" think, OV?

Did this epiphany come to you while sitting around the campfire, or while you were cleaning clothes on rocks down by the river?

I see Lee's obsession with what he thinks the place of a woman should be continues. LOL!

Lee, if you read what I said, you know that I said "many" people. How do I know what "many" people believe? I listened to what they said. I even asked their opinion. I watched and listened as they made the point on radio or television. I read the opinion posted in newspapers.

Now, had you read what I actually said, you already would know I never claimed a faux majority - like so many posters here claim. I said "many".

I listened to what they said. I even asked their opinion.

Who is "they" OhioVoter? Who did you talk to and listen to...?

Hey Scrap' ain't it nice that we still get under old p'p''s skin. LOL. Doesn't he sound sooooo intellectual with his long posts that contain all those links and the block quotes. My my he must have alot of book learning. But there is a BIG differance between "book learning" and "common sense". After reading his post it is easy to see that he has about as much common sense as a tree stump.

Point? ... Lee ... Point?

I didn't think my point was that unclear to start with, but, then you could be hung over and a little slower than usual on the uptake this morning so I answered it anyway.

Now you can answer mine.

Since you refuse to identify the "they" you've referred to perhaps you can tell us how many people you talked to, OhioVoter.

Are did you just make up everything you said in this paragraph?

I don't think that Senator Clinton has just conservative women to worry about though. A lot of people were willing to accept her support of President Clinton during his Monica Lewinsky affair despite the obvious conflict with their support of laws agains sexual harrassment, etc. otherwise. Rightly or wrongly, they thought it was in defense of something they put greater importance on - abortion rights. (Now, I believe subsequent events have proven that theory wrong, but that's another topic.)

However, many thought that, once out of the White House, she would divorce him and run on her own merits. Without him, they may support Hillary. With him, they aren't so sure.

What's the basis for your statement, OhioVoter?

How do you know what "they" are thinking when you can't even tell us who "they" are?

How many people are we talking about? 5? 10?

Lee:
You conservative women sure have some outdated ideas of a woman's rolein a marriage

See Lee is 'progressive' which apparently to Lee means that a woman just takes it quietly when her husband repeatedly breaks their marriage vows. Apparently, that's his definition of a 'strong' woman. Remember this is Lee - up is down, black is white, and strong is weak...

Oh and Lee, who decides what's 'outdated' ? Are you saying that the Clinton's vows didn't include the 'forsaking all others' line ? Where did you learn this ?

I stated my opinion, underscoreMIKEunderscore, and I didn't claim that some nebulous "they" feel that way, and that "they" feel as I do.

I stated my opinion, underscoreMIKEunderscore, and I didn't claim that some nebulous "they" feel that way, and that "they" feel as I do.

Actually, you stated:
You conservative women sure have some outdated ideas of a woman's rolein a marriage

The idea that there's a 'role' implies that there's some general acceptance for the proper conduct and not just an opinion.

Stating an opinion would have been
You conservative women sure expect a women to behave differently that I do

Of course, we both know that it's pointless nitpicking similar to pointing out that your 01:37 PM post contains a comma splice.

and such as when you said:
Gay guys say that you can alway

All gay guys ? When did you survey every gay man ? How many did you survey ? 5 ? 10 ?

"The idea that there's a 'role' implies that there's some general acceptance for the proper conduct and not just an opinion."

Only in the make-believe fantasy world you and other conservatives like OhioVoter live in, underscoreMIKEunderscore. I didn't say that there was agreement as to what that role was, or that many people agreed with me (as I've already said above) I just stated my opinion as to the nature of conservative women's views of a woman's role (noun) - as expressed by Kim, a conservative woman.

Reality bites again...

"All gay guys ? When did you survey every gay man ? How many did you survey ? 5 ? 10 ?

No, underscoreMikeunderscore, I didn't make the claim that all gay guys say that, now did I? What I said was "Gay guys say..."

re: Scrapiron's repressed homosexual tendencies... -- that's just what I've been told by more than one gay man, and it's also what I've read, underscoreMikeunderscore. Here's a link which supports my contention.

Repressed Homosexuality Could Be Root of Homophobia

New research lends considerable credence to the psychoanalytic theory that repressed homosexual urges may be at the root of homophobic behavior by heterosexual men.

Using a scale that measures traits of homophobia--fear, anger, anxiety, or aversion in response to interactions with gay men or lesbians--University of Georgia researchers compared 35 men who exhibited homophobic traits with 29 men who do not. Both groups identified themselves as exclusively heterosexual.

I'm still waiting for a link or quote from OhioVoter that supports her statement about how people feel about Clinton's marriage, and supports her contention about how people will vote as a result of that view. Also, she's made no distinction whether she's talking about 5 or 500,000 voters -- and since the number of voters are an impotrtant factor in ane election (really - you can look it up!) quantifying (you can look that up too) the number of voters matters.

Can you help OhioVoter out? OV seems to be hiding now... but your troll attacks have been an interesting distraction while we wait for OV to show up again -- thanks.

Also, underscoreMIKEunderscore, the coordinating conjuction "and" following the comma in my 1:32 comment covers your mistaken belief that there is a "comma splice".

"...I didn't claim that some nebulous "they" feel that way, and that "they" feel as I do."

Even if the coordinating conjunction wasn't there comma splices are considered acceptable when the clauses are short and alike in form -- unless you have something hard stuck up your ass, like your head. Which is apparent in your case.

but thanks for playing!

There are two standards in this country. One for the Clintons and one for everyone else. Don't believe me? Check out these examples.

Bill Clinton lies to a judge in a court case while under oath about whether he had sex with someone (something I have no problem remembering in my life), and nothing happens to him.

Lewis Libby forgets some detail that he discussed with some staff members and reporters (something that happened day after day for him) when he was not under oath, and he goes to jail for it.

Bill Clinton gets head in the oval office from a co-worker and people love him. Bob Packwood fondles a co-worker and is ousted from the Senate.

I for one don't care about which standard of decorum we adhere to, but lets just pick one and be consistent about it.

Since you refuse to identify the "they" you've referred to perhaps you can tell us how many people you talked to, OhioVoter.

Ummm, Lee .... when you accuse someone fo "refusing" to answer something, posting the very quote that proves that they did - and that you, of course, are lying - isn't the brightest of moves.

I see that you are refusing to answer my question asked earlier - what your point was. Since you clearly have labeled "how many" as a "new" question, you have avoided answering my earlier question.

Why are you afraid of answering what I asked your ealier? You have proven that I answered your twice already. It's your turn to respond.

You didn't idenitfy who "they" are here:

Everytime I see Lee (or someone of his particular political persuasion) make a comment about conservative women, I tend to think it reflects on HIS VIEW of what a women's role in this world should be. It certainly doesn't fit the description of any conservative woman that I know.

I don't think that Senator Clinton has just conservative women to worry about though. A lot of people were willing to accept her support of President Clinton during his Monica Lewinsky affair despite the obvious conflict with their support of laws agains sexual harrassment, etc. otherwise. Rightly or wrongly, they thought it was in defense of something they put greater importance on - abortion rights. (Now, I believe subsequent events have proven that theory wrong, but that's another topic.)

However, many thought that, once out of the White House, she would divorce him and run on her own merits. Without him, they may support Hillary. With him, they aren't so sure.

Posted by: OhioVoter at March 17, 2007 08:31 AM

and you didn't idenitfy who they are in your next comment:

I see Lee's obsession with what he thinks the place of a woman should be continues. LOL!

Lee, if you read what I said, you know that I said "many" people. How do I know what "many" people believe? I listened to what they said. I even asked their opinion. I watched and listened as they made the point on radio or television. I read the opinion posted in newspapers.

Now, had you read what I actually said, you already would know I never claimed a faux majority - like so many posters here claim. I said "many".
Posted by: OhioVoter at March 17, 2007 12:28 PM

Nope, - you didn't identify "who" they are in the second comment - how about the next one, OhioVoter --

Point? ... Lee ... Point?

I didn't think my point was that unclear to start with, but, then you could be hung over and a little slower than usual on the uptake this morning so I answered it anyway.

Now you can answer mine.

Posted by: OhioVoter at March 17, 2007 01:04 PM

Now I can answer yours? Why are you changing the subject?

Do you not understand this simple question -- When you speak of them and they WHO are you talking about OhioVoter? WHO is the they , them etc you speak of?

I realize that you are slow, but think about the question -- you can do it.

Did you just make it all up?

Can you help OhioVoter out? OV seems to be hiding now... but your troll attacks have been an interesting distraction while we wait for OV to show up again -- thanks.

Fascinating .... Less than two hours elapsed between the time I made my last post and you accused me of "hiding". Apparently your opinion of conservative women includes that they should wait breathlessly - forgoing all else in their lives - until you are ready to speak. When you do speak, then they must respond promptly or risk your wrath.

I have to admit, Kim, your handling of Lee takes the bloody cake, and ranks as the best here. Congratulations for a skillful and effective treatment of trolls.

I do so love these twin mindsets of the liberals out there: First, since so many other people do it, it must be ok. Second, if there stands the slimmest chance you did the same thing as you accused someone else of doing, you obviously cannot call them on it. I would enumerate just how laughably ludicrous both of those mindsets are, both in terms of logic and believability, but it is so patently obvious I would not disdain anyone's intelligence in such a manner.

Billyboy cheated on his wife, is cheating on his wife (possibly even at this moment), and will cheat on his wife. Any woman who stays with that kind of a man is a damned fool, and, I am sorry, there is no way around that. Cheating, by its very nature, is straight-up lying, if not the worst form of lying, and no one should tolerate it. Either she likes his power (obviously does not have any now), he pays her a damned lot of money (dubious), or she is just plain crackerjacks (highly likely).

What Bill Clinton did/does/will do is wrong, and there is no way around that, I am sorry. Furthermore, his lying about it made it all the worse, and showed him for the kind of "man" he truly is. And, thankfully, Hillary's continued tolerance of it will almost indubitoubly damage her Presidential career, since very, very few people want that kind of nonsense back in the White House, no matter how many governmental handouts the Democrats promise them.

Yikes!

Not only does he provide the quotes proving him wrong, but he bolded it twice and still doesn't understand.

peo·ple /ˈpipəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pee-puhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -ples for 4, verb, -pled, -pling. -noun 1. persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think? 2. persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help. 3. human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings. 4. the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people. 5. the persons of any particular group, company, or number (sometimes used in combination): the people of a parish; educated people; salespeople. 6. the ordinary persons, as distinguished from those who have wealth, rank, influence, etc.: a man of the people. 7. the subjects, followers, or subordinates of a ruler, leader, employer, etc.: the king and his people. 8. the body of enfranchised citizens of a state: representatives chosen by the people. 9. a person's family or relatives: My grandmother's people came from Iowa.

courtesy of dictionary.com

Still avoiding my previous question, I see.

People? That's the best you can make up?

What people? Who are these people? Are they conservatives? Republicans? Elves? Neighbors? Americans? Voters? Adults?

Who? is a one syllable word, OhioVoter. Why can't you answer the question.

Maybe if you tell us when you talked to them -- or where? or how you happened to be talking to these people on this subject?

Still waiting.... or perhaps you're now ready to admit that you pulled those statements out of thin air -- and you don't have any factual basis for quoting what "they" are going to do in reaction to this book -- you made it all up, OV.... and you're talking out of your ass again.

I'll leave you alone now to continue your fantasy postings ---

I see that Lee has evolved his arguement again.

He asks a questions, people demonstrate that they have responded and then he claims something else was said entirely rather than discuss the issue.

The only difference in this case is that I didn't have to respond to his quesition - I CLEARLY STATED WHO I WAS REFERRING TO IN MY INITIAL POST. (Which, BTW, makes no reference to a reaction to the book.)

I'm not sure why Lee is having such a tough time understanding this concept of talking to people.

Is it because he doesn't talk to people that he meets? Is it that he doesn't meet people? Is it that he doesn't discuss certain issues with people he meets? Is it that it isn't part of his job to discuss such issues with people he meets? Is it that he doesn't listen to the responses of people when an issue is being discussed?

Meanwhile, he continues to avoid my question.

"I see that Lee has evolved his arguement again."

Nope, you're lying again OV. It must be a compulsive thing with you - how sad.

Nothing evolved in questioning . Here's my very first comment to you on this subject:

[OhioVoter] "However, many thought that, once out of the White House, she would divorce him and run on her own merits. Without him, they may support Hillary. With him, they aren't so sure."

Lee: Wagons Ho!

Who are "they" by the way? And how do you know what "they" think, OV?

Did this epiphany come to you while sitting around the campfire, or while you were cleaning clothes on rocks down by the river?
Posted by: Lee at March 17, 2007 11:41 AM

Nothing evolved, including your compuslive efforts at dodging the quesiton, and now pretending that my question evolved --

tsk tsk you lying little tramp...

He was one of the point men in Richard Mellon Scaife's $2.4 million Arkansas Project, whose sole purpose was the destruction of a political figure, which came up with nothing of substance.

Wow. Soros has spent several times MORE than that and produced EVEN LESS.

Kudos.
-=Mike

Lee bLeeted:
Only in the make-believe fantasy world you and other conservatives like OhioVoter live in, underscoreMIKEunderscore. I didn't say that there was agreement as to what that role was, or that many people agreed with me (as I've already said above) I just stated my opinion as to the nature of conservative women's views of a woman's role (noun) - as expressed by Kim, a conservative woman.

Is it just a physical handicap, Lee or is it mental as well ? You stated that there was a role. As I stated, a role implies an accepted convention and I simply asked how it you arrived at this convention that no one I know shares. It must only exists in 'Lee lala land'.

No, underscoreMikeunderscore, I didn't make the claim that all gay guys say that, now did I? What I said was "Gay guys say..."

So 'gay guys' is a monolithic entity in 'Lee lala land' ? I know gay guys that have never uttered that phrase, so are you lying, confused, or referring to 'Lee lala land' ?

You stated that Gay guys say that you can alway yet you cited some research and not this monolithic 'guy guys' to which you previously referred. Can't you at least keep your own lies straight (no pun intended) ?

You try so hard. Yet, you fail so often, fLee.

Lee did it AGAIN. LOL!

He called me a liar and then quoted the very comment that proved him wrong.

My comment:

I see that Lee has evolved his arguement again.

Lee's response:

Nothing evolved, including your compuslive efforts at dodging the quesiton, and now pretending that my question evolved --

(bolded mine)

Either he doesn't know the meanings of the words "question" and "argument" or his arguement just evolved again.

He, of course, is still evading the question I asked him earlier.

OV, having observed Lee for a while now, I think the former is the more likely scenario.
-=Mike

Hi


Bye