Trump DID have sex with Stormy.

gelico wrote:

does anyone actually give a shit about an ''affair'' that took place years ago?

she is hardly Juanita Broaddrick is she?

Angry Andy wrote:

gelico wrote:

does anyone actually give a shit about an ''affair'' that took place years ago?

she is hardly Juanita Broaddrick is she?

And withouf resorting to lying, can you honestly say thr same thing had any sexual misdemeanours had been carried out by Hilary Clinton?

Angry Andy wrote:

gelico wrote:

does anyone actually give a shit about an ''affair'' that took place years ago?

she is hardly Juanita Broaddrick is she?

And withouf resorting to lying, can you honestly say thr same thing had any sexual misdemeanours had been carried out by Hilary Clinton?

nicko wrote:Bet Andy had a wank over that,   who gives a shit anyhow?

Syl wrote:Extra marital affairs by public figures hardly raise an eyebrow.
Most people have skeletons in their cupboards, its just nowadays they are dug out more often.

Apart from Trumps wife and family....who cares?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Extra marital affairs by public figures hardly raise an eyebrow.
Most people have skeletons in their cupboards, its just nowadays they are dug out more often.

Apart from Trumps wife and family....who cares?

Eds seems to feel that not only the offending philanderer should be condemned, but his wife as well.  There's all too powerful a sentiment out there to merely dismiss it as none of our business.

Besides, Trump broke the law.  He would have us believe that the US is no longer a nation of laws.  This might be good test.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Eds seems to feel that not only the offending philanderer should be condemned, but his wife as well.  There's all too powerful a sentiment out there to merely dismiss it as none of our business.

Besides, Trump broke the law.  He would have us believe that the US is no longer a nation of laws.  This might be good test.

Where did Eddie say that?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Where did Eddie say that?

Eddie is not the point.  She is merely an example of an opinion widely held by a huge faction since 2015--that Hillary is contemptible and culpable for staying with her husband.

But I have no doubt that eds would freely admit her views on this.  To be fair, ask her.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Eddie is not the point.  She is merely an example of an opinion widely held by a huge faction since 2015--that Hillary is contemptible and culpable for staying with her husband.

But I have no doubt that eds would freely admit her views on this.  To be fair, ask her.

Well you brought her up Quill, and she hasn't even posted in this thread.

Syl wrote:I think Melania and Hilary are two complete opposites anyway, so their actions regarding cheating husbands are not really comparable are they?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well you brought her up Quill, and she hasn't even posted in this thread.

To be fair to eddie, we'll let her speak for herself.

Syl wrote:I think Melania and Hilary are two complete opposites anyway, so their actions regarding cheating husbands are not really comparable are they?

Why the contrast between Melania and Hilary?  Remember, the original point was your claim that it is personal to the wife only.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

To be fair to eddie, we'll let her speak for herself.



Why the contrast between Melania and Hilary?  Remember, the original point was your claim that it is personal to the wife only.

I don't know why you brought Eddie up in the first place tbh.

But if you implied that Eddie would think Trumps wife was weak because you say she thought Clintons wife was weak, both having stayed with a cheating husband, my point was that who cares who cheats....apart from the wife obviously.

Syl wrote:If all public figures were castigated because they had an affair, I doubt many would be left standing.

gelico wrote:

Quill:  Eds seems to feel that not only the offending philanderer should be condemned, but his wife as well. There's all too powerful a sentiment out there to merely dismiss it as none of our business.

syl:  where did eddie say that?

quill:  eddie is not the point



FFS!

Syl wrote:

gelico wrote:

Quill:  Eds seems to feel that not only the offending philanderer should be condemned, but his wife as well. There's all too powerful a sentiment out there to merely dismiss it as none of our business.

syl:  where did eddie say that?

quill:  eddie is not the point



FFS!

Slippery little bugger when he wants to be isn't he.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Slippery little bugger when he wants to be isn't he.

I think it should be a norm that when we are speaking about someone, they should be allowed it to speak for themselves.  I believe it's wrong to speak about someone no longer on the site, and I believe equally it's wrong to speak about someone on site, but not in the present conversation.

I'm not sure I'm qualified to speak fully for eddie.  I only remember that she has strong opinions on the subject.  I brought it up merely to pinpoint a source.  Until she shows up, I think we should discuss the topic, but save her until she can speak for herself.

When she comes along, we can ask her.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think it should be a norm that when we are speaking about someone, they should be allowed it to speak for themselves.  I believe it's wrong to speak about someone no longer on the site, and I believe equally it's wrong to speak about someone on site, but not in the present conversation.

I'm not sure I'm qualified to speak fully for eddie.  I only remember that she has strong opinions on the subject.  I brought it up merely to pinpoint a source.  Until she shows up, I think we should discuss the topic, but save her until she can speak for herself.

When she comes along, we can ask her.

I quite agree, so stop going on about her.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I quite agree, so stop going on about her.

Why?  I think it's fair to say that someone has, or has had strong feelings about a topic.  It's merely pointing to a source.  But to go any further without that person present is to speak for him/her, which crosses a line.

Your way seems a bit artificial...like trying to hide something.

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:Who the fuck is eddie????

Syl wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:Who the fuck is eddie????

Its Alice not Eddie.