Reply With Quote
Leave it to Fox News.
Flynt Teases New “Huge” GOP Senate Sex Scandal
Friday October 26th, 2007 7:49 PM by BHDC Staff
LinkLarry Flynt, editor and publisher of Hustler magazine, just told FOX Business Network’s Neil Cavuto that he’s “hoping to expose a bombs ” that will stand “Washington and the country on its head.” Within the next week or two, he says his magazine will expose a sex scandal of huge proportions involving a prominent United States Senator. Flynt refused to comment on the Senator’s political affiliation, but alluded that he or she is a Republican.
Let it be Cornyn....let it be Cornyn.....
Leave it to Fox News.
Leave it to Larry Flynt. Now you just got to believe everything
that a "my life as a vagina" magazine publishes.
I would have thought he would wait a little closer to the elections
to publish anything.
Wow... real accurate portrayal Dan. The story says he alludes to a republican, but that's subject to interpretation. Then there are other things to consider. Who would care if he alludes to a democrat? The morals between the two parties are so different, it's not newsworthy if it's a democrat. Republicans however, stress family values more, making it a newsworthy issue.
Now a question. Why is he saying anything now? He apparently has no proof, or he would have worded things different rather than "hoping to expose."
I remember an account where he said he had 30 names. Of course, this was after he offered $1,000,000 for proof to women having sex with a congressman. How many of these 30 incident are just dingbats trying to cash in?
Too early for any newsworthy story here. Flynt isn't even stating it as fact yet. I guess he misses being in a news cycle.
OMG! It was on FOX. How the did that happen?
In other news, Democrats may put a sex addict in the White House.
Aside from my uncertainties about Gerald Ford's qualifications to diagnose addiction in those he knows only at a distance, assuming that President Ford's diagnosis is somehow reputable, I would think that your "in other news" tidbit would be that "Democrats have already put a sex addict in the White House." There's not really any uncertainty at this point about whether Bill Clinton will serve as President of the United States -- and I see no report that a present candidate for that office on the Democratic side is reputed by a former President to be a sex addict.
WELL THAT CERTAINLY IS A DISQUALIFER..
Yep you are right WC, when it is a Republican it is news.
When it is a dimm-o-crap, oh-hum, just another one of
the boys doing his thing, like all the dimm-o-craps.
You suggest Bill Clinton won't be residing at the White House should his wife be elected.
And, my uncertainties about Gerald Ford's diagnotic capabilities aside, as well; his wife (an addiction expert) concurred. Plus, I believe their relationship -- being members of a rather exclusive club (that of the U. S. Presidency) -- placed them in proximity to one another on quite a few occasions. In fact, I believe, President Ford served with President Clinton on more than one board or another.
I didn't say it was a disqualifier. There are many things about Hillary and her husband that should preclude any decent American -- no matter their political ideology -- from actually voting for her in 2008.WELL THAT CERTAINLY IS A DISQUALIFER..
Oh, and it's not just Gerald Ford and his wife;
How to Cure a Sex Addict
What kind of counseling did Bill Clinton get?
Putting someone "in the White House" usually connotes empowering such a person with cons utional authority. Bill Clinton will not be so empowered if his wife is elected, even if he's living in the White House during her term of office.
I would never say that the American people put Laura Bush or Hilary Clinton or Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan in the White House. The American people put their husbands into the White House -- their husbands took them along.
I'm sorry you have such a limited grasp on vocabulary and the meaning of words.
But, using your understanding, let's explore.
When he was elected in 1991, Bill Clinton promised us a co-presidency with his wife, Hillary.
Now, I can perfectly understand why Hillary would shy away from making any such claim about her presidency but, do you, in fact, believe a former president, living under the same roof with Hillary, won't have any influence whatsoever?
Carl Bernstein was on KLBJ-AM, in Austin, this morning. He's just finished a biography of Hillary -- a friendly one, at that (he's obviously a fan) -- in which he reveals that family and religion are what most shaped the Senator's life and ideology. :::snicker:::
Anyway, in the interview this morning, he -- a fan, mind you -- gleefully asserted that it would, indeed, be another co-presidency if Hillary were elected. He even said it as if it were a good thing.
Well, they wouldn't have been there if the American people hadn't elected their husbands president.
So, the husbands had a choice in the matter? I see.
Ah! Here we go with the resort to ad hominem. Right out of the Yonivore argument playbook.
I explained in some detail precisely what I understand the phrase "put someone in the White House." You take a more expansive view of that phrase, as is your prerogative. I don't ever vote to elect a First Lady or a First Daughter or First Son or a First Dog. That all of those people might live in the White House as a result of an election is far different than saying that voters are choosing to put those people there. If your view of Presidential voting encompasses consideration of the entire First Family, well then, I guess you're just a better patriot than me.
Two things: (1) my point was confined to vesting a person with cons utional authority to act as a President -- a nominee can say he or she offers a co-Presidency, but that doesn't vest the co-President with any cons utional authority whatsoever; and (2) I'm not particularly concerned with what Hillary Clinton is promising to do, because I'm unlikely to vote for her, at least in the primaries.
Right, but people aren't voting for the First Family -- at least not many people that I know cast votes on that basis.
If you socialize with people who decide whom they'll vote for based on the characteristics of his or her family, we're clearly involved with very different sorts of people. The people that I talk to consider policies of the potential nominee to be a paramount concern and tend to cast votes on that basis.
I guess they were compelled to get married?
You should see the royalties I receive.
It's not just me. I can't think of a presidential election since Johnson and Chicago Democrats stole the election for Kennedy, where the presidents' spouses weren't vetted almost as harshly as were the candidates themselves.
Who you choose to marry, whether you want to believe it or not, says a lot about your character and judgement -- just as your spouses judgement and character also says a lot about your own.
Considering Bill Clinton appointed Hillary to oversee what became one of the biggest FUBAR's in Government history -- with her HillaryCare nonsense -- I took the "co-presidency" pledge to heart.
So, where the Clintons are concerned, the American public should take their spouse into consideration...because, it is exceedingly clear they are a political team and electing one is electing the other.
Nor do I if I don't believe the wife, daughter, son or dog isn't going to factor heavily into decisions made by the executive.
Unfortunately, in this case, that's a forgone conclusion. With one, you get the other. The only difference between Democrats and everyone else on this issue is that Democrats think that's a good thing.
No guessing to it.
But, frankly, I don't consider Chelsea a factor. And, since Hillary jettisoned Socks The Cat (poor kitty) when he became a political liability, I'm not too concerned about him either.
I still think the Clinton's silenced the dog to keep secrets.
The only thing a president can't proxy to their spouse is responsibility for their cons utional obligations and authority. Other than that, as was clearly demonstrated in 1992, the president can share the largesse and perks of their office with just about anyone they please.
Well, I'm not sure how representative you are of the average Democratic voter so, you'll excuse me if that doesn't allay my concerns.
Well, I think even you'd have to admit the Clintons were the first to actually advertise themselves as a co-presidency.
Oh, I think we clearly run in different social and political circles.
I'm not concerned about any of the Republican spouses.
So, maybe, this concern is due to how this particular candidate and her spouse have sold their relationship and executive responsibility in the past.
Could that be?
Hey, in Bill Clinton's case -- can we be so sure?
It's amazing to me that yoni is only concerned about democrats and their spouses..
So, where the Clintons are concerned, the American public should take their spouse into consideration...because, it is exceedingly clear they are a political team and electing one is electing the other.
exceedingly clear.. like bush talking to God is a good thing? I am not sure where you come from but anyone who claims they talk to God is not qualified to lead this country..
Actually, I'm only concerned with the Clintons. They're the only married couple that claimed to give America a "two-for-the-price-of-one" co-presidency.
None of the other Democrats concern me in the least. None of them are married to former presidents and none of them -- with the exception of John Edwards -- have their spouses carrying political water for them.
President Bush didn't appoint Laura to oversee a mammoth government bureaucracy that tried to grab hold of 17% of the GDP. Did he? Did he claim Laura was his co-president? No.
And, I know of no current Republican or Democratic candidate that is suggesting they'll do the same with their spouses.
I think Hussein Obama would disagree...but, maybe you and he have a different understanding of what "talking to God," means.
If you pray, you talk to God and, in America, that's not a minority. So, you don't talk to God...oh well.
But Hussein prays to that other god, doesn't he?
Huh?Hussein Obama
What is that supposed to mean?
It's code for "terraist sleeper agent."
So potentially the President of the United States could be a terrorist?
Like Marty McFly would say, "That's heavy!"
Isn't that his name?
Barak Hussein Obama?
Anyway, I was wondering a week or so ago, why the media -- and this forum, for that matter -- let Hussein off the hook when he was playing up his relationship with God and how that would affect his policy decisions, if president.
There's people claiming that now.
Yeah. One has to wonder why Hussein tries to obscure his Muslim past while talking up his Christian God all of a sudden.
So what do YOU believe?There's people claiming that now.More Yoninnuendo.Yeah. One has to wonder why Hussein tries to obscure his Muslim past while talking up his Christian God all of a sudden.
On top of that, it has been proven how unpatriotic he is by not covering his heart during the Natrinal Anthem.
That is two strikes on Obama.
Yoni, send this dude to the pen, I know you can come up up with stike # 3.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
