uh, monica testified to the grand jury that she started  the whole thing by flashing her thong at bill.  and no, he should not have responded. 

And it's none of our business.

If this is truly not the public's business, then most surely neither was anything Mark Foley was doing the public's business.

I see no difference between Clinton's misuse of his office to commit sexual shenanigans or Mark Foley's.  Neither broke the existing laws although engaging in illicit sexual activity with subordinate employees will usually get an executive fired in the private sector and must be considered reprehensible conduct in all sectors.  Clinton should have resigned as did Foley.

Oh, that's classic.  First off, it's a minor distinction that we're talking about pursuing boys under the age of 18 here.  That's a little bit of difference from a legal adult pursuing you.  If she found it objectionable she shouldn't have flashed him.

If Foley wants to be with consenting adult males, I have no issue with that.  The real issue with it was the hypocrisy of raking Clinton over the coals and then trying to defend Foley.  The Republicans set the standard of the relevance of sexual behavior, and Foley paid for it, even by the terms of your argument.

If it really was something he should have resigned over, then the Republicans should have voted to remove him.  The public didn't give a damn, and the Republicans knew they didn't have a case to remove him, but he should have resigned on principle.  Right. 

So you have no problem with sexual harassment of employees or unwanted groping by presidents either?  Does that equal text messaging underage boys in your book?

I believe I made the distinction myself about underage boys.  I also made a distinction between an employee pursuing someone and the other way around.  You can criticize for infidelity, but a consentual relationship is not harrassment, especially if the employee instigates it.

soliciting minors repeatedly while your peers cover it up for you compared to a sexual encounter between consenting adults. Yeah, that's the same thing.

Age of consent in DC is 16 I believe.

 So none of Foley's boys were "minors" in this regard.

This is bad behaviour all around, all of you. Time out yourselves, for gosh sakes, and remember:

It is said that you shouldn't wrestle with pigs, because you get dirty and the pig enjoys it

Hannity loves liars as long as they tell the lies that conform to his fantasies.

"Hannity loves liars..."

You ain't lyin! :)

LET'S PLAY HANNITY'S MADDOGLIBS!!!!!

===============

"HANNITY: Now, these are just some of the mysteries surrounding the <_crime_> of <_name_>. Did s/he have in his/her possession <_plural objects_> that could have impacted the <_famous crime_> investigation? How was the <_tv cliche evidence_> missed?"

"In the minds of <_number or estimation or wild-ass guess_>, these questions may have provided a motive for foul play. But the most heated debate over <_name_> <_crime_> wasn't political, it had to do with old-fashioned <_occupation_> work -- and that's where we'll pick up next week when we open up another chapter in the <_plural name_>."

=============== 

Yeah, I know that the idea of a question providing a motive for foul play is odd, like "Where did you get those shoes" turning into "You nosy bytch!!!  I am going to kill you now!!!"

BUT IT'S A GAME, FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD!  Chill and enjoy.

Very nice, Neon. Although Autopsychic has demonstrated the exception to recent observations of the lack of Hannity supporters here (I think that was you).

I believe the theory was that Hannity was so stoopid, even by GOP radio standards, that his base audience didn't have the capacity to post a comment here.

Autopsychic seems to be right on board with the loaded rhetorical question and the 100% confidence that comes with wild-ass guesses and partisan speculation.

Eerily similar, if you check the Melanie Morgan thread, to Barney Fife's approach;

1. Ask open-ended questions that serve your agenda

2. admit that you don't know the answers to these questions

3. Demand that others answer these questions

4. Refer to these questions as "facts"(WTF?)

5. When debunked, backpedal by saying you covered your butt by admitting your ignorance

6. Declare victory by pointing out that everything you implied may be false, but you never said for certain that those things were true

Fascinating. Hannity is actually effective on some of our (presumed) fellow voters. ;0) 

I appreciate that you "got it".

As far as autopsychotic being a Hannity apologist, I would tend to think that he's more defending the idea of Clinton being a rapist than supporting Hannity's integrity.

Somehow, their paths crossed in Neverland, but I wouldn't perceive it as them taking a romantic walk hand-in-hand.  Merely a friendly "Nice day, don't you think?" exchange as they negotiate the intersection.  Autopsycho wants too much to exude the air of independence to actually admit being an "apologist" for anybody.

I think the air exuding from auto may stem from something other than independence; and

the sanctimonious accusations of the neo-cons really reek and we may need to plant about 1,000 trees per con to balance them out.

Surfcitysouthpaw: You left out Lou Costello's other tactic:

 7.  Demand that others present evidence to disprove the assertion.

Chances of Hannity making Obermann's list this week? He's been very busy and appalling. Got my vote.

Hannity, where is your proof that Foster was murdered or our former President raped someone? The lies will never stop.

careful...asking Hannity for proof will get you banned from the hannity.com forum for...CONTEMPT OF HOST.

You are to NEVER question Hannity over there!!!

I hear Hillary Clinton may have dropped a black glove at the scene of the crime :-O

The lady has class O-:

This phoney, overpaid, untalented media hack is a waste of air time. Why ABC Radio Networks and Roger Ailes hired this hypocrite, I will never know.

I can tell you from personal experience, he is not truthful. He also withholds the full story to fit his own twisted agenda.

Some of his callers are not the brightest stars in the universe. They follow this man like a cult leader, ready to drink his Kool-Aid. Sean is NOT a great American, but a Fraudalent American. 

Sean has stated that he doesn't want Hilliary Clinton in the White House, and he vowed to make sure it does not happen (money, lies, etc.) He is obsessed with Clinton, talking about her almost daily. I think something is wrong with him.

How Jill puts up with this sorry crap, I will never know. But hopefully she will have the courage to leave this Fox News nightmare.

Great point.  As far as I remember, Juanita Broaddrick (spelling?) is the only woman that Bill allegedly raped, so it should have been "woman" that he raped, rather than "women"!

Monica was under no duress, Kathleen Willey was only groped, and the rest of Bill's paramours were perfectly willing, so this pointing out of Hannity's misspeaking is absolutely on target.

These people with Clinton-fixations are just as bad as those who have spent almost forty years now hating Ted Kennedy for Chappaquiddick.  Except they are even worse, because they can't even point to a tragic accident as "evidence" that their fixation is somehow justified.

What a waste of a life.  The Clinton-haters will NEVER get over the fact that they guy they loathed was legitimately elected, by large margins, TWICE, and that the American people responded to their lame Moralistic crusade to impeach him by strengthening the Democratic majority in the House.  They don't just hate the Clintons, they hate a large segment of the American public for not joining them in that hate. Pathetic.

And Hannity? He's getting paid to be a Clinton-hating fanatic, so in a way his attitude is justified.  He's not sitting in his mom's basement, trying to piece together the "mystery" of Vince Foster with the help of crackpot websites.  

I won't even address the "raped Monica Lewinsky" comment- that's just too ignorant to deserve a response. 

Sean Hannity is a pathetic excuse of a human being and he also a huge example of why the Republican party is in full meltdown.

Living in Utah, we've had to put up with him coming to town several years in a row to be the host of the so-called July 4 "Stadium of Fire" freedom-fireworks show at Brigham Young University. (God, I almost choked saying BYU, Freedom, July 4 and Sean Hannity in one sentence...)

The local freedom fascists who kept inviting him finally got the hint that they looked like partisan idiots bringing the guy back as he veeered further and further into a pschotic ditch on the right side of the road. So, this year they brought in Hannity-lite, Glenn Beck.

(You all don't know how lucky you are to not have to put up with the reddest state in the union and the neo-nazi "freedom" torch-light rallies. The only thing missing are the burning crosses and bed sheets).

Anytime someone of Hannity's ilk has to go back to the "blame Bill Clinton" sewer, you know they're out of gas. 

I don't see how  you can say the Rep party is in full meltdown when the Dems have control of the House and the Senate, and both of their approval ratings are at an all time low.  I think it's safe to say that all of our politicians are not making anyone in this country happy.  The majority of them like to twist words, distort truths, and tell you what you want to hear.  We have far greater issues than Reps are idiots, or Dems are dummies.  We are not united at all as a country, on any front.  A healthy balance of Rep and Dem conversation and resolve is what we need, and no one is willing to compromise for anything. 

Although Congressional approval ratings are very low, it should be noted that Democratic ratings are much higher than Republican ratings in Congress, so I am not sure that evidence is as definitive as it seems you would like.

  Ah ha ha ha. That's a classic!  "oh yeah? our approval is low but yours is lower!!"  You gotta admit, you're quite an orator. Love your arguement on that one.

AP: "oh yeah? our approval is low but yours is lower!!"  You gotta admit, you're quite an orator"

And where do you get this idea from open_mind's coments? Open_mind said that the overall aproval rating of CONGRESS is low these days, but that Democrats in Congress have higher ratings than Republicans.

It's like a teacher stating that her "class" is performing under expected ratings this year, but that the girls are performing better then the boys. This could even suggest that the boys are doing to poorly that they are dragging down the class averages. What don't you get?

Ummm...Considering the argument was comparing two things, silly me, I thought a comparison was in order.  What was I thinking?

; )

Ahhh.  McCarthys' America.  Thanks Fox for the Fairness and balanced reporting.

The CIA, the military and George W. Bush are all on record saying the buried, unusable weapons found in Iraq are not the WMD we were searching for.

Senator Rick Santorum who was trailing badly in his reelection bid started this story with a hysterical press conference which was flogged by Fox News (sound familiar?)

The people of Pennsylvania decided they didn't want Rick to be their senator any more.

Well, AutoPsycho, like Hannity, never met a fact he couldn't ignore.

All I have to say about these Professional Besmirchers of Cable "News" and Radio Talk is that any real man (and by that I mean any mature, responsible adult) in an important career postition occasionally takes sabbtical to engage in reflection and ___Professionl Development___ . These folks are the vanguard of the decline of civil and polictical discourse in American society. Or to put it another way: Grow Up.

Wow, after listening to the clip all I can say is what a misleading headline.

Hannity is a right wing rat. Unscrupulous like the Bush regime.

Just like I said all along, more Bill Baggage, I think not.

It's still amazing to me that people could be so blinded by irrational hatred for Bill Clinton they actually believe he had Vince Foster whacked and is a serial rapist. Ken Starr and the Republican dredged up any and every hair brained charge they could come up with, spent millions of our tax dollars investigating the guy and came up with only one lie about an extra marital affair. Yet the same people ignore the incompetence and criminal activity going on in the White House. Seek help.

I've been reading the posts on this site for a few months and it is obvious that "discussing the article" translates to agreeing with the other liberal posters, and any and all dissenters are simply labeled as "trolls".

 All views are welcome.....yeah right. The "inclusive" and "free speech" crowd indeed.

Apparently you can't read friend. There are plenty of conservatives like Tommy and others who carry on pretty good conversations. What's not tolerated much is GOP talking point already disproven and thoroughly debunked garbage.

You are apparently a selective reader.  I will admit that the quality of debate from conservatives have deminished due to the hand they have been dealt - the Bush Administration imploding as we speak.

There have been some good debates here at times.  I have even been swayed personally by some conservative posters in the past.  Perhaps you have just decided to start monitoring MMFA at a particularly bad time in our history as a nation and for what currently constitutes conservative "thought".  I am sure it will get better sometime.

Your views or opinions have to be based on facts and, no, facts aren't debatable they are the basis for discussion.

If you're just going to pull things out of thin air or base your opinions on the views of people who do your opinions are as worthless as the nutjobs I see once in awhile on my ride uptown on the A train.

...if you're aren't bringing anything new to the table and are just repeating the tired right wing lies of the past decade you aretrolling and, worse than that, you're boring too.

Hannity attacking HRC is similar to Joe Conason or anyone at Air (err?) America radio attacking GWB.  We all know the bias and we can judge the message and the messenger.

However, I believe that there were - in fact - some very credible reports of Bill Clinton raping a woman during his time as Gov. in Ark.

Credible reports? You mean like the credible report of GWB raping a woman in Texas? If they were that credible why wasnt he ever charged with the crime of rape? You believe that because you WANT to, no other reason.

Bias doesn't excuse ignorance. Joe Conason is a well read and established author who uses facts to form his opinions. Hannity uses rumor and hyperbole. Your comparison is disingenuous.

Ken Starr would love your proof. No other president was investigated more thoroughly. If he was a serial rapist someone would have come forward. A womanizer and cad for sure, but rapist? He didn't have a daddy working in the highest levels of government to bail him out and hide things of this magnitude.

You can't compare Conason to Hannity unlesss you can show Conason is an ouright liar just like Hannity is.

"However, I believe that there were - in fact - some very credible reports of Bill Clinton raping a woman during his time as Gov. in Ark."

And I believe -in fact-there are some credible reports the moon is made of green cheese.

I think I'm starting to get the hang of this game.

Well said, Johnny_NYC, well said.

Juanita Broaddrick 

I found her testimony very compelling.

Instead of responding to troll comments people should be pointing out how Hannity says he is all about "Innocent until proven guilty". He was on his high horse over the Duke rape case and yet he's quick to accuse any person left of him of even the most insane accusation. Not only is Hannity a total hack he's a god awful American and an even worse Christian.

 _