|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 18, 2007 18:10:13 GMT -5
Mrs. Bill Clinton picked up a personal endorsement recently.....but I wouldn't expect her website to trumpet the news.
Porn starlet Jenna Jameson says that she "loves" Hillary (hmmm.....) and that she supports Hillary's bid for President.
With an almost wistful look in her eyes, Jameson said that the days of Bill Clinton's presidency were "great" for those in the porn industry- "the best ever" she said in fact- and that Democrats were "her kind of people".
You just can't make this stuff up, folks.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 18, 2007 18:45:31 GMT -5
So what? I mean I wish that meant something. But I'll bet they are all into some form of porn, call girls, etc. Maybe not all, but a large percentage.
Did that lady who ran the escort service ever release names (in Washington?) The one who was recently in the news. She said she would release names rather than go to jail.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 18, 2007 18:47:10 GMT -5
And was it true that the reason Shelby (AL Senator) didn't vote to impeach Clinton was that he was afraid that Flint guy would rat on him?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 19, 2007 16:05:00 GMT -5
killer-
Dunno about Shelby and Flynt.
Even if Shelby was having an affair, it wouldn't matter unless he was testifying under oath and lied about it- you know, like Clinton did in order to deny Paul Jones her due process rights under a bill he- Clinton- had signed into law.
Flynt did "out" Senator Livingston, who was on track to be Majority Leader. Even though Livingston hadn't lied under oath about the affair, Livingston did the right and honorable thing and resigned. Clinton should have done the exact same thing.....but then "right" and "honorable" things aren't often mentioned in the same breath as "Bill Clinton"- unless it is to point out that he wouldn't do them.
Lying about sex is one thing; lying about sex >UNDER OATH< is quite another.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 23, 2007 12:54:28 GMT -5
Are you saying it's okay to lie, as long as it's not under oath?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 23, 2007 12:59:35 GMT -5
Legally-speaking, yes it is.
At least one would only confront possible retribution by one's spouse if they lied about sex while not under oath rather than criminal and civil punitive measures.
On second thought....scratch the "at least" portion of the above comments.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 23, 2007 13:03:47 GMT -5
DAMN! No wonder the Republican party has lost it's way!
|
|