To: doug from upland
Always thought it was more of a business arrangement for convenience.
2 posted on
08/24/2017 8:10:33 AM PDT by
V_TWIN
To: V_TWIN
I am amazed they remain married at this point—maybe so they can’t be forced to testify against each other in court for their wide variety of criminal conspiracies?
4 posted on
08/24/2017 8:11:59 AM PDT by
cgbg
(Hidden behind the social justice warrior mask is corruption and sexual deviance.)
To: V_TWIN
Socialists praising socialists. The Song Remains the same. Cue it up Jimmy and Robert.
5 posted on
08/24/2017 8:12:27 AM PDT by
dennisw
(Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it is enemy action.)
To: V_TWIN
Always thought it was more of a business arrangement for convenience.
Legal one too? Wifey testifying against hubby and vice a versa?
23 posted on
08/24/2017 8:30:24 AM PDT by
Don Corleone
(.leave the gun, take the canolis, take it to the mattress.)
To: V_TWIN
Always thought it was more of a business arrangement for convenience. Just like Barak and his Wookie.
42 posted on
08/24/2017 10:01:12 AM PDT by
OldMissileer
(Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, PK. Winners of the Cold War)
To: V_TWIN
The Clintons, good marriage role models?
Only if you consider repeated public humiliation a good part of marriage.
50 posted on
08/24/2017 10:54:30 AM PDT by
Phlap
(REDNECK@LIBARTS.EDU)
To: V_TWIN
This article was one of many written by friendly jurnos during the campaign to ease the wound known as Monica. How’d that work out for you Hill?
51 posted on
08/24/2017 11:03:06 AM PDT by
Phlap
(REDNECK@LIBARTS.EDU)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson