When asked about Monica's part in helping bill 'flavor' his cigars,
Chelsea said 'no one ever asked me that question' and 'it's none of your
business'...

No one has ever asked her that question because her highness has been
taking only softballs from a highly 'filtered' audience.

Every evil bit of DNA that is in Bill and Hillary(ous) is in this demon
spawn....scary.

"Charles Pisano" <pisanochas@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13185-47EABB0E-70@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...

> When asked about Monica's part in helping bill 'flavor' his cigars,
> Chelsea said 'no one ever asked me that question' and 'it's none of your
> business'...
>
> No one has ever asked her that question because her highness has been
> taking only softballs from a highly 'filtered' audience.
>
> Every evil bit of DNA that is in Bill and Hillary(ous) is in this demon
> spawn....scary.
>


Nah....her response was exactly right. The information would serve no valid
purpose at this point in time. Based on this absolute and inarguably
immovable fact, we can conclude that the person who asked the question was a
heckler and didn't deserve an answer.

A more infuriating response would've been a CIA classic: "That information
is provided strictly on a need to know basis." That would've put the heckler
in a position of having to explain his/her need to know, which would be
absolutely impossible to do.

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:N8zGj.606$NU2.280@news01.roc.ny...
> "Charles Pisano" <pisanochas@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:13185-47EABB0E-70@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...
>
>> When asked about Monica's part in helping bill 'flavor' his cigars,
>> Chelsea said 'no one ever asked me that question' and 'it's none of your
>> business'...
>>
>> No one has ever asked her that question because her highness has been
>> taking only softballs from a highly 'filtered' audience.
>>
>> Every evil bit of DNA that is in Bill and Hillary(ous) is in this demon
>> spawn....scary.
>>
>
>
> Nah....her response was exactly right. The information would serve no
> valid purpose at this point in time. Based on this absolute and inarguably
> immovable fact, we can conclude that the person who asked the question was
> a heckler and didn't deserve an answer.
>
> A more infuriating response would've been a CIA classic: "That information
> is provided strictly on a need to know basis." That would've put the
> heckler in a position of having to explain his/her need to know, which
> would be absolutely impossible to do.
>

I definitely agree there. I don't care who gives who head, I just care that
a president lies under oath.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Charles Pisano" <pisanochas@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:13185-47EABB0E-70@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...
>
>> When asked about Monica's part in helping bill 'flavor' his cigars,
>> Chelsea said 'no one ever asked me that question' and 'it's none of your
>> business'...
>>
>> No one has ever asked her that question because her highness has been
>> taking only softballs from a highly 'filtered' audience.
>>
>> Every evil bit of DNA that is in Bill and Hillary(ous) is in this demon
>> spawn....scary.
>>
>
>
> Nah....her response was exactly right. The information would serve no valid
> purpose at this point in time. Based on this absolute and inarguably
> immovable fact, we can conclude that the person who asked the question was a
> heckler and didn't deserve an answer.

Yeah - I don't buy his later claim that he was attempting to allow
Chelsea to put the Clintons in a positive light by asking the question.
Read how he phrased the question and it is obvious that was not his
intent. But his explanation sounds like something the Clintons would
try to use in some of their "innocent" attacks on other people (like
Hillary saying that Obama "hasn't done the spade work").

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:64vtn3F2ds7vuU1@mid.individual.net...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> "Charles Pisano" <pisanochas@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:13185-47EABB0E-70@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...
>>
>>> When asked about Monica's part in helping bill 'flavor' his cigars,
>>> Chelsea said 'no one ever asked me that question' and 'it's none of your
>>> business'...
>>>
>>> No one has ever asked her that question because her highness has been
>>> taking only softballs from a highly 'filtered' audience.
>>>
>>> Every evil bit of DNA that is in Bill and Hillary(ous) is in this demon
>>> spawn....scary.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nah....her response was exactly right. The information would serve no
>> valid purpose at this point in time. Based on this absolute and
>> inarguably immovable fact, we can conclude that the person who asked the
>> question was a heckler and didn't deserve an answer.
>
> Yeah - I don't buy his later claim that he was attempting to allow Chelsea
> to put the Clintons in a positive light by asking the question. Read how
> he phrased the question and it is obvious that was not his intent. But
> his explanation sounds like something the Clintons would try to use in
> some of their "innocent" attacks on other people (like Hillary saying that
> Obama "hasn't done the spade work").
>
> Bill Putney


"spade work" - holy shit! It's either a brilliant slam, or utterly stupid,
in which case I wonder if one of Bush's speech writers is working for
Clinton on the side.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Charles Pisano" <pisanochas@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:13185-47EABB0E-70@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...
>
>> When asked about Monica's part in helping bill 'flavor' his cigars,
>> Chelsea said 'no one ever asked me that question' and 'it's none of your
>> business'...
>>
>> No one has ever asked her that question because her highness has been
>> taking only softballs from a highly 'filtered' audience.
>>
>> Every evil bit of DNA that is in Bill and Hillary(ous) is in this demon
>> spawn....scary.
>>
>
>
> Nah....her response was exactly right. The information would serve no valid
> purpose at this point in time. Based on this absolute and inarguably
> immovable fact, we can conclude that the person who asked the question was a
> heckler and didn't deserve an answer.
>
> A more infuriating response would've been a CIA classic: "That information
> is provided strictly on a need to know basis." That would've put the heckler
> in a position of having to explain his/her need to know, which would be
> absolutely impossible to do.
>
>
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeet Hoss, when the phone rings at 3 in the morning
ol Bill won't be anywhere around. Old lard butt will fire them
missiles and one of them is apt to be aimed at ol Bill.

In article <N8zGj.606$NU2.280@news01.roc.ny>,
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Charles Pisano" <pisanochas@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:13185-47EABB0E-70@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...
>
> > When asked about Monica's part in helping bill 'flavor' his cigars,
> > Chelsea said 'no one ever asked me that question' and 'it's none of your
> > business'...
> >
> > No one has ever asked her that question because her highness has been
> > taking only softballs from a highly 'filtered' audience.
> >
> > Every evil bit of DNA that is in Bill and Hillary(ous) is in this demon
> > spawn....scary.
> >
>
>
> Nah....her response was exactly right. The information would serve no valid
> purpose at this point in time. Based on this absolute and inarguably
> immovable fact, we can conclude that the person who asked the question was a
> heckler and didn't deserve an answer.

What!! I'd like to know the character of the people who are running for
president. Hell yes it's my business. I don't want a spitzer or bill
clinton in the WH fooling around with young interns and exposing the
taxpayer to lawsuit. Besides, what message does that type of activity
send to our youth, leaders who flaunt their sexual desires around
indiscriminately? If the pres can get away with it so can I. Wow, joe
you are too much the 60's liberal.












>
> A more infuriating response would've been a CIA classic: "That information
> is provided strictly on a need to know basis." That would've put the heckler
> in a position of having to explain his/her need to know, which would be
> absolutely impossible to do.
--



"It depends on how you define aloneŠ"

*Bill Clinton

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
> news:64vtn3F2ds7vuU1@mid.individual.net...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>> "Charles Pisano" <pisanochas@webtv.net> wrote in message
>>> news:13185-47EABB0E-70@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...
>>>
>>>> When asked about Monica's part in helping bill 'flavor' his cigars,
>>>> Chelsea said 'no one ever asked me that question' and 'it's none of your
>>>> business'...
>>>>
>>>> No one has ever asked her that question because her highness has been
>>>> taking only softballs from a highly 'filtered' audience.
>>>>
>>>> Every evil bit of DNA that is in Bill and Hillary(ous) is in this demon
>>>> spawn....scary.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nah....her response was exactly right. The information would serve no
>>> valid purpose at this point in time. Based on this absolute and
>>> inarguably immovable fact, we can conclude that the person who asked the
>>> question was a heckler and didn't deserve an answer.
>> Yeah - I don't buy his later claim that he was attempting to allow Chelsea
>> to put the Clintons in a positive light by asking the question. Read how
>> he phrased the question and it is obvious that was not his intent. But
>> his explanation sounds like something the Clintons would try to use in
>> some of their "innocent" attacks on other people (like Hillary saying that
>> Obama "hasn't done the spade work").
>>
>> Bill Putney
>
>
> "spade work" - holy shit! It's either a brilliant slam, or utterly stupid,
> in which case I wonder if one of Bush's speech writers is working for
> Clinton on the side.

This is the only You Tube that came up with her statement in my search
(apparently someone has done a good job of sanitizing the quote from the
internet): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oRwZQLdhEw

Long video, but the statement of interest occurs within the first minute
of it.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

"dbu" <nospam@nospam.moc> wrote in message
news:nospam-28413B.17002126032008@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <N8zGj.606$NU2.280@news01.roc.ny>,
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Charles Pisano" <pisanochas@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:13185-47EABB0E-70@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...
>>
>> > When asked about Monica's part in helping bill 'flavor' his cigars,
>> > Chelsea said 'no one ever asked me that question' and 'it's none of
>> > your
>> > business'...
>> >
>> > No one has ever asked her that question because her highness has been
>> > taking only softballs from a highly 'filtered' audience.
>> >
>> > Every evil bit of DNA that is in Bill and Hillary(ous) is in this demon
>> > spawn....scary.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Nah....her response was exactly right. The information would serve no
>> valid
>> purpose at this point in time. Based on this absolute and inarguably
>> immovable fact, we can conclude that the person who asked the question
>> was a
>> heckler and didn't deserve an answer.
>
> What!! I'd like to know the character of the people who are running for
> president. Hell yes it's my business. I don't want a spitzer or bill
> clinton in the WH fooling around with young interns and exposing the
> taxpayer to lawsuit. Besides, what message does that type of activity
> send to our youth, leaders who flaunt their sexual desires around
> indiscriminately? If the pres can get away with it so can I. Wow, joe
> you are too much the 60's liberal.


The subject only interests you for prurient reasons. That, and you live your
life vicariously through others.

"dbu"
> "JoeSpareBedroom" ...
>>
>> > When asked about Monica's part in helping bill 'flavor' his cigars,
>> > Chelsea said 'no one ever asked me that question' and 'it's none of
>> > your
>> > business'...
>> >
>> > No one has ever asked her that question because her highness has been
>> > taking only softballs from a highly 'filtered' audience.
>> >
>> > Every evil bit of DNA that is in Bill and Hillary(ous) is in this demon
>> > spawn....scary.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Nah....her response was exactly right. The information would serve no
>> valid
>> purpose at this point in time. Based on this absolute and inarguably
>> immovable fact, we can conclude that the person who asked the question
>> was a
>> heckler and didn't deserve an answer.
>
> What!! I'd like to know the character of the people who are running for
> president. Hell yes it's my business. I don't want a spitzer or bill
> clinton in the WH fooling around with young interns and exposing the
> taxpayer to lawsuit. Besides, what message does that type of activity
> send to our youth, leaders who flaunt their sexual desires around
> indiscriminately? If the pres can get away with it so can I. Wow, joe
> you are too much the 60's liberal.
>
Well, I'm not a liberal, but more of a moderate. I agree that who the
president is screwing is way less important than what sort of effect he has
on *my* life. I think it's pretty much a given that politicians are rarely
trustworthy, in any aspect. Do I approve of Bill Clinton's sex-capades?
No, but what does his getting blown have to do with the economy? Zilch.
>
>>
>> A more infuriating response would've been a CIA classic: "That
>> information
>> is provided strictly on a need to know basis." That would've put the
>> heckler
>> in a position of having to explain his/her need to know, which would be
>> absolutely impossible to do.

No, it's none of his (or our) business. Hillary obviously got past it, so
should we. I was more upset about his lying about the incident, than the
incident itself.

As for Chelsea being negatively viewed by her answer, I say she didn't ask
to be the child of a public figure, and does not deserve to be harassed by
the media. Having said that, if she's actively campaigning for her mother,
she'd better grow some really thick skin, because that's a decision she
would have made on her own.

Natalie