As if this isn't exactly why Bill Clinton was never prosecuted for rape.

Jake: "As if"? Why, if I didn't know any better, I'd think you were just pulling your view of "reality" out of thin air! Surely, you don't think that the FACT that Young took these illegal contributions is equatable to your UNJUSTIFIED SPECULATION that Clinton raped someone. Surely!

There's no statute of limitations on murder (unless you are the mother of an unborn child ; )

Clinton was not prosecuted for rape because only wingnut nazis believe that there was any credibility to that stuff.

Are Repukeliscum human? Before we worry about the abortion of the Repukelifetuses, it's important to settle that question.

Yes, I do, Dan. And, don't call me Shirley.

chabuka:

Do you think that Clinton was impeached for rape?

I know this if futile but, do you all really need to let one idiot derail the entire thread. Many of these assholes are paid to come to liberal sites and disrupt the dialog. It works because folks respond to them. I know it’s tough when they spout their asinine bullshit, but if you really want to piss them off don't respond to it. Ignore them like you'd ignore a petulant child, because that is exactly what they are.

BEGIN SAMPLE

If "________" was a legitimate defense for ______, then it should be for ________.

END SAMPLE

I encourage each of you to copy this legal argument and use it whenever you feel it applies. The beauty of this statement is that you don't need to provide supporting details. It doesn't even need to legally apply in any way. It simply only needs to feel right for YOU.

Please, everyone, stop attacking Jake D. He has done everyone struggling for legal guidance a huge favor here.

[Please forgive my poorly-phrased final sentence.]

You were the one who inserted those "blanks" not me.

and who could possibly be Young's role models?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I wonder................

Could it be the "Masters of Fuck You" Bush and Cheney??? Setting a wonderful example for scorched earth politics everywhere.

You know, baselessly accusing someone of a crime as serious as rape is a highly unethical thing to do, Jake. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I'm sure that your lack of conscience precludes any feelings of shame. Other than the uncorroborated ravings of a trailer-park lunatic willing to do anything for 15 minutes of fame, do you have any evidence to put forth regarding your calumnious accusations? Other than your own personal feelings of inadequacy that force you to lash out at a president who was more popular than any Republican in the last 50 years, what makes you believe that Juanita Broderick is believable? Finally, how sad is your life, that you feel compelled to drop half-assed hate-bombs into the comments section of a liberal blog just for a little attention?

(sc: again, as in never again)

Our troll is accomplishing what he intends to do...disrupt the comments. Those who are responding to the troll are aiding him.

Maybe there is some hope. This site has been one place that I visit, and I visit a few, where the troll problem has not been an issue. I thought that it might be that the contributers here might be a bit more savy and seasoned then some of the other sites. Maybe folks here are smarter, but as TPM's profile rises the assault of the trolls will only get worse. As I said before it is tough not responding, but each time you do remember you are doing exactly what they want you to do. It is a distraction. It needs to stop.

If you want to see what happens when the trolls take over just go over to Huffington Post and read the last pages of any comment section. It will be entirely personal attacks between a few trolls and regular commenters who feel the need to "engage" them. Some of their fights have been going on since the first days of Huffpo. So please think hard before responding to these assholes. It CAN totally ruin the comments section of a blog and they are getting paid to do it.

Never wrestle with a pig you both get covered in crap and the pig likes it.

I just spoke with Meredith Penny, Rep. Young's press secretary in D.C., who clarified that the Congressman has NOT "admitted" to taking illegal campaign contributions, under any interpretation of applicable law or ethics rules. He has agreed to return the portion that could conceivably be alleged as "illegal" but the contributions outside the applicable statute of limitations are not "illegal" and, as such, he is not returning those contributions.

I believe the Congressman is denying the contributions were illegal at one time -- therefore, nothing unethical either -- that's the whole reason I called.

any guys lookin 4 handsome man tonite?