Registering for Confiscation

[t.nie]

Can you provide links to the records that show he is a convicted rapist? I find this most alarming, that a man actually charged, tried and convicted of rape is held in such high esteem and respect.

Nugent was never convicted of anything either, but by his own admission he smeared himself in excrement, didn't bathe and then went to be drafted and did all of it to portray himself as mentally unstable and unfit for service because he didn't want to serve his country. Now, he is all for enjoying the spoils and benefits of being an American, but he wants none of the responsibilities that come with it.

So who is the greater scumbag? Someone like Clinton who by the very nature of the career he pursued and his success in it will be the target of smear and innuendo from his opponents or a guy who admits that when it came right down to it he didn't want to serve his nation and would stoop to lies and deception to avoid it.

I know which one I respect less, although I have little respect for either.

[TS FAN]

Politics protected Clinton. BTW, what point are you trying to make? Clinton also lied to the FEDS, same thing that got Martha Stewart put in prison. As a declaring Christian, you should have no reason, no time, no way to be defending someone who conduct's his life the way Clinton has. His wife is just as bad for trying to cover it up. BTW, what does Nugent have to do with Clinton?

[t.nie]

I said I have little respect for either. But if you are going to call someone a rapist, it means they have been convicted of rape. So I asked for someone to show me the proof he was convicted. Of course that doesn't exist, but go ahead and lie about the guy anyway. As a Christian I think it is relevant to not bear false witness against someone, anyone, and saying a man is a rapist when he has never been convicted as such is bearing a false witness against him.

Call him a philanderer, a womanizer, an unfaithful husband by all means. That is what he is. But stick to facts, not smear, lies and innuendo.

Nugent got mentioned in some post trying to slam Clinton for evading the draft by being a student. I said it seems more honorable to be a student pursuing a bona fide course of study than to be a person who fakes mental instability by smearing himself in excrement to avoid the draft.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Clinton got deferred because he was in college, like many other students. Nugent got deferred by not bathing, smearing himself in his own excrement and faking mental instability.

I see a small difference between the two. One is just a run of the mill deferment granted to thousands of the fortunate ones who could go to college. The other is the cynical, deliberate and deceitful manipulation of regulations to avoid the call of duty. The one similarity between the two that I have been able to gather is both are/were serial womanizers, Nugent probably more so even than Clinton.

When it comes to gun control, I would just advise anyone to stay away from former VP Cheney. The man is just as dangerous with a gun in his hand as he is with an elected office.

What a rediculous comparison. What underhanded deeds has Nugent done like the Clintons who have seen dozens of people die that have been involved with their affairs and exposing them, let alone their Progressive concepts of taking America into Socialism and Communism. Bill did go to Europe to avoid the draft and as far as Nugent goes, he exorcises more patriotism and love of America in one day than the Clintons will ever show in a lifetime combined.

And the unfounded assault on Chaney is just that. It is mainly fabricated propaganda just as they used to discredit Bush or as far as that goes, ANY opposition to the Democrat party period. Just keep on crying Bush, Koch Brothers, Chaney, etc. with false smears and the loyal partisans in the public will parrot the nonsense. Without question. The drive by media doing their partisan part.

[t.nie]

I find it hard to call a guy who smeared himself in his own excrement and faked being mentally unstable twice to avoid the draft a "Patriot" but I guess we have different standards for measuring how much a person loves their country.

Clinton didn't need to "go to Europe" to dodge the draft. He was ineligible because of his student status, regardless of whether or not he was in the USA or abroad at the time. So making a point of him going abroad as a student to avoid anything is irrelevant, he wasn't going to get drafted even if he was here in the USA.

I'm still not convinced that Cheney's gun control is all that great, regardless of how you defend him....

[Highside Hustler25]

As soon as I saw the name Clinton. I knew a certain someone would show in his defense.

[t.nie]

He's a lowlife womanizing philandering piece of garbage. But he isn't a rapist or a murderer or some of the other stuff some people who hate him post about him on here.

Being a Christian means you don't follow the herd. You seek truth and defend it.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Being a Christian means you don't follow the herd. You seek truth and defend it.

Well then, when are you going to get started?

[CIRF]

I said I have little respect for either. But if you are going to call someone a rapist, it means they have been convicted of rape. So I asked for someone to show me the proof he was convicted. Of course that doesn't exist, but go ahead and lie about the guy anyway. As a Christian I think it is relevant to not bear false witness against someone, anyone, and saying a man is a rapist when he has never been convicted as such is bearing a false witness against him.

Call him a philanderer, a womanizer, an unfaithful husband by all means. That is what he is. But stick to facts, not smear, lies and innuendo.

Nugent got mentioned in some post trying to slam Clinton for evading the draft by being a student. I said it seems more honorable to be a student pursuing a bona fide course of study than to be a person who fakes mental instability by smearing himself in excrement to avoid the draft.

Ask Juanita Broaddrick if the clinton's are rapists or not.

Who ya' gonna' believe, a known and proven liar or Ms. Broaddrick.

Lucianne Goldberg once said on a national cable network unequivocally that Clinton raped Ms. Broaddrick and then looked into the camera and said "Mr. Clinton, if this isn't true then by all means SUE ME".

Bill Clinton is quite possibly the foremost piece human garbage ever to be elected President of the United States.

Hard to accept, I know, but true nonetheless.

[dirtdobber45]

After what happened yesterday I believe we should confiscate all registered firearms ....if you have an Arabic name only before they all are armed to the teeth and those sleeper cells come alive

[ss12]

Clayton I got you something for Christmas.

http://www.chiabarackobama.com/

[Clayton_Wetter]

Pull!!!!!..

[t.nie]

Ask Juanita Broaddrick if the clinton's are rapists or not.

Who ya' gonna' believe, a known and proven liar or Ms. Broaddrick.

Lucianne Goldberg once said on a national cable network unequivocally that Clinton raped Ms. Broaddrick and then looked into the camera and said "Mr. Clinton, if this isn't true then by all means SUE ME".

Bill Clinton is quite possibly the foremost piece human garbage ever to be elected President of the United States.

Hard to accept, I know, but true nonetheless.

So now the accusation is all it takes to convict? Interesting how you will stand on the constitution when you believe it is protecting your rights, but throw it out as soon as it doesn't fit your point of view.

Innocent until proven guilty I believe is the very foundational principle of our judicial system. It's not up to the accused to sue the accuser to be proven not guilty of the accusations. It's up to the prosecutor to bring a case and prove it, beyond reasonable doubt.

I do believe that Willie is a low life who did despicable rotten dishonorable deeds behind his wife and other people's backs when he thought they weren't looking. But if there were any truth to any of this stuff, after spending years of time and millions of dollars investigating, don't you think Starr could have come up with more than "he lied about receiving oral sex from Lewinsky?"

Sorry, but there were so many people wanting to hang Willie for anything substantial I think if there were something they could have hung him for, they would have. In the end, they came up empty handed and wasted a lot of time and money in the process of finding nothing of any substance.

[buster83]

lot of the older guns went by alphabet but are still recorded when sold, then there are lot of that were hawked off for cash that have changed hands but still legal,there are a few plain guns nothing, according to fbi these illegal.but the crap that happened in california no gun paperwork would have stopped that, they had a plan and enuff ied`s to get where they wanted but chose suicide. but our first presidents would have never allowed these people in this country,know this is a breeding bed for them.

[CIRF]

So now the accusation is all it takes to convict? Interesting how you will stand on the constitution when you believe it is protecting your rights, but throw it out as soon as it doesn't fit your point of view.

Innocent until proven guilty I believe is the very foundational principle of our judicial system. It's not up to the accused to sue the accuser to be proven not guilty of the accusations. It's up to the prosecutor to bring a case and prove it, beyond reasonable doubt.

I do believe that Willie is a low life who did despicable rotten dishonorable deeds behind his wife and other people's backs when he thought they weren't looking. But if there were any truth to any of this stuff, after spending years of time and millions of dollars investigating, don't you think Starr could have come up with more than "he lied about receiving oral sex from Lewinsky?"

Sorry, but there were so many people wanting to hang Willie for anything substantial I think if there were something they could have hung him for, they would have. In the end, they came up empty handed and wasted a lot of time and money in the process of finding nothing of any substance.

You liable someone when you state publicly a provable falsehood. If the Broaddrick rape didn't happen and Goldberg said (which she did!) publicly unequivocally that it did that is clear liable and the clinton's, with their powerful legal counsel, could have taken Ms. Goldberg right down that primrose path!

If the rapist in cheif and his enabling wife could have sued Goldberg for liable and won without Ms. Broaddrick taking the stand under oath and all the details coming out they undoubtedly would have. Crimminal proceedings would have had nothing to do with the liable suit. The statute of limitations had already run out on the Broaddrick rape so no criminal proceedings could have been possible at the time Ms. Goldberg publicly stated that the Clinton's were rapists.

Lucianne Goldberg was, and still is, roundly hated by clinton the rapist and his enabling wife and all of their lap dog water carriers. This hatred stems from her involvement in proving the rapist was getting hummers in the Oval Office from a young intern and jizzin' all over the young intern's dress. If there was a legal avenue to have shut Ms. Goldberg up they would most assuredly have done it but sworn testimony in open court would have been way too damming to the Clinton's. How many women of that generation were raped and it never got reported or prosecuted? A lot.

Again, I ask. Who has the most credibility? Who are we to believe? A proven disbarred serial liar and his enabling wife (wonder when the last time the rapist gave the enabler the high hard one? LOLOL!!) or Ms. Broaddrick? I reckon it depends a lot on how naive one may be and/or how much one wants to look the other way to justify themselves feeling good about the rapist and his enabling wife.

I apologize to the OP for hijacking the thread.

[TS FAN]

Hilary rotton Clinton said all women that accuse men of rape should be believed. What a statement from a women that tried to destroy the THREE women that accused Billy boy of raping them. However the foolish lefty sheep that feel she cannot do any wrong, cheer her, and cannot wait to vote for her.

[CIRF]

Hilary rotton Clinton said all women that accuse men of rape should be believed. What a statement from a women that tried to destroy the THREE women that accused Billy boy of raping them. However the foolish lefty sheep that feel she cannot do any wrong, cheer her, and cannot wait to vote for her.

Oh so right!

What makes me chuckle is the National Organization of Women. NOW was, and still are, solidly behind Clinton and never once denounced him or his enabling wife. No credibility there, that's for sure!

As I once heard someone on TV say, if you're a politician and do bad things to women that NOW would denounce make sure you're pro-choice on all stages of abortion and hold a hard left stance on all other issues.

NOW's deafening silence and continued endorsement of the clinton's is one of the most hypocritical and blatant disregards of conservative women and one of the most blatant double standards anyone has ever seen!

[t.nie]

You liable someone when you state publicly a provable falsehood. If the Broaddrick rape didn't happen and Goldberg said (which she did!) publicly unequivocally that it did that is clear liable and the clinton's, with their powerful legal counsel, could have taken Ms. Goldberg right down that primrose path!

If the rapist in cheif and his enabling wife could have sued Goldberg for liable and won without Ms. Broaddrick taking the stand under oath and all the details coming out they undoubtedly would have. Crimminal proceedings would have had nothing to do with the liable suit. The statute of limitations had already run out on the Broaddrick rape so no criminal proceedings could have been possible at the time Ms. Goldberg publicly stated that the Clinton's were rapists.

Lucianne Goldberg was, and still is, roundly hated by clinton the rapist and his enabling wife and all of their lap dog water carriers. This hatred stems from her involvement in proving the rapist was getting hummers in the Oval Office from a young intern and jizzin' all over the young intern's dress. If there was a legal avenue to have shut Ms. Goldberg up they would most assuredly have done it but sworn testimony in open court would have been way too damming to the Clinton's. How many women of that generation were raped and it never got reported or prosecuted? A lot.

Again, I ask. Who has the most credibility? Who are we to believe? A proven disbarred serial liar and his enabling wife (wonder when the last time the rapist gave the enabler the high hard one? LOLOL!!) or Ms. Broaddrick? I reckon it depends a lot on how naive one may be and/or how much one wants to look the other way to justify themselves feeling good about the rapist and his enabling wife.

I apologize to the OP for hijacking the thread.

Nice ramble. Check your definitions. You slander someone when you make a public statement that is false about them. Libel is when you put your accusation in print.

In either case, simply stating your opinion is not sufficient to rise to the level of libel or slander. She stated her opinion "clinton raped this girl" but that's all it amounts to. Her opinion.

She also did nothing that could be measurable in terms of damage to Clinton by voicing this opinion. To sue someone, they have to not only knowingly claim something false about you, but that claim has to have some measurable damage to you. As she was effectively nothing more than a person repeating hearsay and gossip and giving her opinion, none of what she said did any damage to Clinton at all.

Unfortunately your presentation stumbles around mired in opinions, repeated gossip and hearsay and you fall flat when using terms you obviously have no comprehension of what they mean.

So basically, you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe, but just believing something does not prove anything to anyone else. It just means you fervently believe whatever it is your saying.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Clinton didn't sue her for anything. The fact is, there was nothing in what she said that rose to the standards required to sue someone over it.

If you want to debate credibility, then I would come down on the side of thinking that if the person making the accusation or the accusation itself had any credibility whatsoever, it would have ended up in charges against Clinton. As that didn't happen, I will file this under more smearing of Clinton with no basis in facts.

Sorry, but that's the bottom line. He wasn't charged, people run their mouths all the time, it amounts to nothing unless you just want to believe it because it fits your view of Clinton. Whatever. I tend to stick to facts, not rumors and gossip.

[TS FAN]

Tnie you are certainly a good Democrat. You have their talking points down.

[TS FAN]

Oh so right!

What makes me chuckle is the National Organization of Women. NOW was, and still are, solidly behind Clinton and never once denounced him or his enabling wife. No credibility there, that's for sure!

As I once heard someone on TV say, if you're a politician and do bad things to women that NOW would denounce make sure you're pro-choice on all stages of abortion and hold a hard left stance on all other issues.

NOW's deafening silence and continued endorsement of the clinton's is one of the most hypocritical and blatant disregards of conservative women and one of the most blatant double standards anyone has ever seen!

NOW is a farce. It should be called what it is. Organization for Female Democrats. Honesty is never in the Democratic play book.