Rand Paul demands Dems return money raised by ‘sexual predator’ Bill C


Sen. Rand Paul, who has been in a bit of a tiff recently with the Clintons, says that any Democrat who has raised campaign money with former President Clinton should return the cash to protest his sexual behavior in the White House.

Read more: washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/7/rand-paul-demands-democrats-return-money-raised-se/#ixzz2sfylauNi
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

He makes a good point


This is outright slander and libel.


Remember Senator Claire McCaskill (Dem) once said re: President Clinton “I do not want him near my daughter”?
And remember the credible woman who described the time then-Gov. Clinton raped her?

But Republicans arguing against public funding for contraceptives and abortion is a war on women?

Go Rand Paul!!


is this like sour grapes? is rand paul a republican or an independent? i don’t see the point in rand paul making an issue of this. i am not a fan of bill clinton, but he has not been president for many years. this should have been an issue when he was in office!! then was the time to be outraged. not now.


He is the number one fund raiser for the Democrat party. What would the Democrat party reaction of be if David Duke were raising money for the Republican party and as revered by the party as Clinton is by the Democrats?


It is only slander or libel if it is not true. Although President Clinton denied the behavior many times, it was proven to be true, at least with Monica. He also lied in sworn testimony for another accuser and was given a minor penalty for that.


If it is anything it would be detraction


Would it be a sin if I called Hitler, Stalin, and Mao murderers?


first I said if anything. Second, yes it could be, depending on the situation.


He was disbarred-a career killer for most lawyers.


This sounds to me like a problem with scruples. What would you think of the service our county sherif has started that emails the name and address of registered sex offenders to people within a one mile radius when they sign up for free alerts? The information is factual and serves a real purpose for parents who want to protect their children.


I am sorry do you understand what “could” or “if anything” means? You put out a red herring/straw man and I responded that it is possible, if unlikely.

Yes those guys you mentioned did terrible things. So did some of the greatest Saints and old testament figures who later turned their lives around.

Detraction is a real sin that is almost completely ignored these days. Sex offender lists serve a real purpose and not considered detraction. Neither is factual accounts of history. Exposing others sins for political gain could be, have to be careful of why you are doing it, to protect the public or to get a leg up. I don’t have an opinion on what Rand Paul said, as I haven’t read the whole context. I am responding that if a sin occurred, it would be detraction, since the offenses exposed are factual or reasonably factual. Remember your intention for saying something is a factor in if something is sinful.


Excellent point:thumbsup:


Just imagine if we disbarred all lawyers who lied. Would we be able to keep the courts open?:wink:

Clinton voluntarily surrendered his law license in 2001 and was disbarred from practicing before the Supreme Court in 2008. I am not sure what the point of that was.

Obstruction of justice and perjury have earned prison time for lesser mortals. Martha Stewart was acquitted of perjury, but convicted of lying to federal investigators. She got prison time for that. Of course, Clinton might have volunteered for serving time in a women’s prison, especially compared to a life sentence with Hilary.:eek:


Actually that is the law here in Michigan. I was shocked over the one which showed hundreds of abusers living at the same address when it dawned on me it was the local prison. :o I think it’s a good thing to know though it may hamper the individual who has done his, or her time and wishes to start anew.



Don’t think you are going to change many minds with statements like the above.


So David Dukes and Bill Clinton are pretty much the same thing? Come on, get a grip.

Rand Paul is trying to invoke the name of “Clinton” as a scare tactic. It’s not about Bill, it’s about Hillary, who he thinks (somewhat optimistically, in my opinion) that he will have to face in the 2016 general election, and he’s trying to tar her with Bill Clinton’s bad behavior (some real, some merely alleged, and some just plain made up). Which, I have to say, is a pretty neat trick, given that she’s the one hurt by it. She’s already paid the price.

And, just a quick and friendly correction – it’s the “Democratic Party,” not the “Democrat Party.” But hey, I make typos all the time too.


Rand Paul is attempting to show the Democrats are the perpetrators of the real war-on-women. Powerful influential men who routinely use and abuse women, specifically powerless and vulnerable women. Democrats looking out for the little gal? Bill Clinton is the poster boy of such men. Consider all of the Democrat women who promote and underwrite such men.

I suspect Senator Rand Paul knows more about the powerful abusive men in DC then is reported by the media.


She was a classic enabler . The Democrat party should be embarrassed that a serial abuser is so revered in their party


No, David Duke and Bill Clinton are not the same thing: David Duke didn’t harass women. And to my knowledge, Clinton wasn’t a white supremacist.

Hillary got what she wanted with her partnership with Bill - power and a platform to run for higher office - possibly even being the standard bearer for the Democrat party in 2016. The price she had to pay was, dealing with his sex scandals. But she certainly “stood by her man” - and was rewarded with a political future.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.