Godwins Law.. sort of

Okay after having spent many an evening argueing away with a pack of neo-cons, I was wondering if anyone else though this might be a good new law..

the Clintonian Law.. anyone who mentions that clinton got a blow job as a reply to a valid political arguement is immediatly ignored and or mocked for their obvious jealousy.

just a thought. anyone care to comment?

Well, Cowhead, obviously you need to read my new book:

HOW TO TALK TO A NEO-CON
(if you have to)

I'd rather have Bill screwing Monica than GW screwing me. :thepain:

no seriously..

although Briana if you do have a book would you care to edit/proofread the one I'm working on?

a friend of mine got me to go to the history channel message board.. oh what fun! but the clinton blowjob (and look! EVERYONE likes oral sex... admit it or not) but this seems to be the main arguement against and/or for everything.. silly (or the people in question have never given or received oral sex.. which is a possibility..okay I'm off on a tangent.. time for bed)

cowhead wrote:

(and look! EVERYONE likes oral sex... admit it or not)

you would think so, but i briefly dated the woman who negates this fact. it really freaked her out. we'll call that a very short relationship.

BTW - even though i don't care for Clinton, i couldn't care less what he stuck where during his off duty hours.

Are you sure their objection was "Clinton got a BJ!" and not "Clinton lied under oath during a legally mandated deposition for a sexual harrasment lawsuit filed against him, which in any ordinary circumstances would be considered perjury."?

There is a difference you know, and many people couldn't give a damn about the first and have a serious problem with the second.

Their objection was "Clinton is not George H. W. Bush."

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

I'd rather have Bill screwing Monica than GW screwing me. :thepain:

Heh heh heh :rollanim:

cowhead wrote:

Okay after having spent many an evening argueing away with a pack of neo-cons,..

So you're saying that there are actual people who take the neo-con line who aren't think-tankers? :3_eyes:

Seriously though, are you sure who you're arguing with? The neo-con tripe that I've read leads me to believe they'd be just as happy in a sufficiently [STRIKE] murderous[/STRIKE] hawkish Democratic administration. Aren't the hard core Clinton blowjobbers generally more straight up Republican/conservative?

smoothmoniker wrote:

Are you sure their objection was "Clinton got a BJ!" and not "Clinton lied under oath during a legally mandated deposition for a sexual harrasment lawsuit filed against him, which in any ordinary circumstances would be considered perjury."?

No.. had they said that I would have said something along the lines of "oh yeah..there was that part of the arguement" but so far no0one has been particularly articulate about what exactly they are trying to pin on clinton.

that aside.. clinton, gore, bush, reagan and kerry are all part of the problem, one of the problems anyway... that being that there is no real division between the arms of the party, it's all one big happy inbred monstrosity. (there are a few politicians out there that I do really want to help out the rest of us.. but too few and too far between)