Slick Willie is at it again!

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

A person with 20/20 vision can easily see that what's missing in your post is any substantive repudiation of the fact that Slick Willie put this woman on the payroll at taxpayer expense to be his side-piece for an occasional romp in the Oval Office in White House -- also paid for by the American taxpayers.
I made no repudiation because this is one of those rare times you were correct--his behavior while president was completely wrong. BUT, that was not your OP--just in case you are having trouble remembering. Your OP was about the NOT-in-office Clinton lusting after a NOT-his-employee who is NOT on his payroll. I am sorry you have such trouble with this simple word "NOT", but it does make a difference. Quit redefining the topic after you have be caught.

ASPD catered to men paying independent women -- not women (subordinate employees) they supervised -- with their own money for entertainment at spots not as estimable as the taxpayer supported Oval Office in the White House.
Let's examine your claim:
--President in the 50s: while he was in the military, with other military, who last I looked are paid with government $. You are incorrect
--President in the 60s: Actually, you are right. As far as I know MM was not on the gov't payroll.
--Joe Ashey: military subordinate so yes, on gov't $
--Congressman with page. Yep, gov't money for the page.
--Two senior gov't officials hiring former ASPD ladies: yes, for gov't positions with gov't paychecks.
--The senior SES: Yes, the "admin assistant" was in a GS position, gov't $.

So the tally is: I admit I had one out of 6 wrong, which means you had 5 or 6 wrong. A stellar 14% grade for you.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And that is why the quarters were directed toward you.

There is no "equivalency" with this Board and a POTUS in the White House for their to be a claim of hypocrisy. You are on this board?

As for the latter observation, how would you KNOW what "men" are on this board in so far as their identities are concerned? Originally Posted by LexusLover

No, say it ain't so! It ain't so.

Let's examine your claim:
--President in the 50s: while he was in the military, with other military, who last I looked are paid with government $. You are incorrect. You are incorrect. Somersby wasn't American, her salary wasn't paid for by U.S. taxpayers and there's substantial doubt about the accusation that there was an affair.
--President in the 60s: Actually, you are right. As far as I know MM was not on the gov't payroll.
--Joe Ashey: military subordinate so yes, on gov't $ Wasn't in the Oval Office of the White House.
--Congressman with page. Yep, gov't money for the page. Wasn't in the Oval Office of the White House.
--Two senior gov't officials hiring former ASPD ladies: yes, for gov't positions with gov't paychecks. Wasn't in the Oval Office of the White House.
--The senior SES: Yes, the "admin assistant" was in a GS position, gov't $. Wasn't in the Oval Office of the White House.

Originally Posted by Old-T

I think this guy in the following clip was inspired by Bill Clinton. Like Clinton he thinks he talented , he thinks he's cool but he's not, lol.

Jim


https://youtu.be/hVSgXne9fHc Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

As usual, you try to change the topic each time you are caught.

Since your OP on this thread didn't happen in the WH your point is completely irrelevant.

You argued no one else ever had sex with a subordinate, paid by gov't funds. When shown that you are, as usual, WRONG, you try to sidestep and now argue that your whole point was about Clinton in the WH.

That wasn't any part of your OP, and IF you now claim it was, you are a liar or demented. Besides being hypocritical. But it is good to know that you believe sex in a rental home is far worse (somehow) than if it was done somewhere else. What the hell does it matter if it was in the WH or elsewhere? It doesn't. But I am sure you will fixate on some other meaningless item, because after years of playing word games you still have difficulty staying on YOUR OWN topics.


Clinton did not ogle this one on the public dime, in the WH, or in any other way different from thousands of posters on ECCIE--like you. Thus the hypocrite tag fits you very well.

But you being you, I am sure you will reply with some other non sequitur. No one does that better than you. Originally Posted by Old-T

I personally would ogle that girl anytime - she is fine as hell. Originally Posted by friendly fred

As usual, you try to change the topic each time you are caught.

Since your OP on this thread didn't happen in the WH your point is completely irrelevant.

You argued no one else ever had sex with a subordinate, paid by gov't funds. When shown that you are, as usual, WRONG, you try to sidestep and now argue that your whole point was about Clinton in the WH.

That wasn't any part of your OP, and IF you now claim it was, you are a liar or demented. Besides being hypocritical. But it is good to know that you believe sex in a rental home is far worse (somehow) than if it was done somewhere else. What the hell does it matter if it was in the WH or elsewhere? It doesn't. But I am sure you will fixate on some other meaningless item, because after years of playing word games you still have difficulty staying on YOUR OWN topics.


Clinton did not ogle this one on the public dime, in the WH, or in any other way different from thousands of posters on ECCIE--like you. Thus the hypocrite tag fits you very well.

But you being you, I am sure you will reply with some other non sequitur. No one does that better than you. Originally Posted by Old-T

And that is why the quarters were directed toward you.

There is no "equivalency" with this Board and a POTUS in the White House for their to be a claim of hypocrisy. You are on this board?

As for the latter observation, how would you KNOW what "men" are on this board in so far as their identities are concerned? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I personally would ogle that girl anytime - she is fine as hell. Originally Posted by friendly fred

But then you weren't addressing the OP, were you? So quit pretending like you were.

You were addressing a subsequent post that pointedly addressed the illicit rendezvous held in the rooms of a taxpayer built and maintained building -- one of this country's most prestigious buildings -- i.e., the Oval Office in the White Office, became part of the conversation, weren't you? So, it was not irrelevant as you falsely claim? You've embarrassed yourself again, Old-T, because your every claim is 100% out of whack with reality, Old-T. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

[COLOR="blue"][I]

The hypocrisy is very much there: Originally Posted by Old-T