Is Danny Williams Just More Roadkill in the Politics of Personal Destruction?
UltraTrebor
It seemed impossible that the far right could stoop any lower. But I was wrong. To the long list of
victims who've been used and abused by the right in their quest to destroy this president - a list
that already includes Vince Foster, Susan McDougal, Sarah Hawkins, Steve Smith, Monica and her
mother, the Hubbels- now we can add another name, 13-year-old Danny Williams. Of course the far
right isn't above using children like cannon-fodder - Kenneth Starr had Robert Hill's teenage son
subpoenead at school to try and bully his parents.
But I can't imagine anything tougher than having a prostitute for a mother. Here's a 13-year-old
boy who no doubt wants to believe, even needs desperately to believe that President Clinton is his
dad. But seriously, what are the real chances? Even if what his mother says is true - which seems
unlikely since there is no evidence that Clinton has ever needed to pay for sex - a prostitute is
likeley to have scores of different customers a month, and so the chances for any particular one of
them to be the father is similarly remote. Those on the right know this, and no doubt that's why
they want to milk the story while they have the chance. But did they ever give the least bit of
consideration to what they're doing to this boy?
At best, on the remote chance that the test is positive, it will only be the beginning of his
ordeal. Becasue they're not even doing the test correctly. So DNA experts say that if there is a
match, it would only be sufficient to say that there was about an 85% certainty that Mr Clinton was
the father. That is insufficient in American courts to conclusively prove paternity - especially
when you know his mother is a prostitute. So at that point, no doubt, the boy would be used to try
and destroy his supposed biological 'father' both politically and personally, and to destroy
whatever hope this country has of returning to normalcy, by dragging Clinton through the courts
again like Paula Jones did That's if Danny's lucky..
But what happens if the test fails, as seems much more likely? Then he's not only lost whatever
hope he had of finding a father, but now he's also become a public laughing stock in front of his
friends and the entire country. All courtesy of the Republican right-wing. Of course after they've
used him they'll just kick him back into the gutter anyway - that's not really their problem
anymore, is it? But at least they got some political milage out of him in the meantime.
I keep on waiting for someone like that guy at the Joe McCarthy hearings to finally say to people
like Matt Drudge "Have you no decency - even now? Must you destroy this boy's life too?"
cheers,
Trebor
Winston Smith
wrote:
SPAM ALERT!... RANT ALERT!... SPAM ALERT!... RANT ALERT!.. SPAM
ALERT!....
Bratty
Trebor,
I agree...and I'm a registered republican. The child should be off limits
to all. Let the religious zealots pray for forgiveness for this sin. The
young man in question is the only real victim here. Even if the story is
true or not, his life will be forever altered and, from the sounds of
things, he's got enough things to deal with as it is.
This entire political circus has ruined enough lives. I thought we elected
people to work for us and to try to make the United States a nice place to
live. I'm sure the boy mentioned in this latest scandal wishes he lived
anywhere but the US, right now. Nothing like having your picture in the
paper with the caption "Presidential bastard son of a crack whore"! The
press and anyone else who exploit this child is worse than anyone they've
ever accused of anything.
I consider myself to be a moderate, that is to say, I want smaller gov't and
"real" welfare reform. These were the issues I was hoping the congress
would concentrate on, sadly, they sold out to the far religious right and
compromised the whole party. I campaigned for Gore in TN back in the late
80's. If the GOP can't get back on track and do what they were elected to
do, I will be voting a split ticket in 2000. I'd like to see the democrats
back on track too. The US was set up for a two party system, I always liked
that idea. Now, I think the rise of other parties is going to be a healthy
thing. There has got to be some middle ground for the ones trapped in the
middle of the battle between the left and right.
Salvador Dali could not have painted a more surrealistic picture if he
tried!
Somewhere in the middle...
-Lisa
Van
I do too. One day, in the not too distant future, the chickens will
come home to roost and the Republicans will pay for this nonsense.
Van
--
>cheers,
>Trebor
>
>
>
>
***********************************************************************
December 2, 1998
Ex-Agriculture Sec. Espy Acquitted
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal jury cleared former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy of all 30 charges against him Wednesday in the climax to a four-year, $17 million corruption investigation headed by a prosecutor who Espy called a "schoolyard bully.''
---------------
Tuesday, November 24, 1998
McDougal Acquitted of All Counts
SANTA MONICA, Calif. (AP) -- Susan McDougal declared herself ready for a renewed battle with Kenneth Starr after she was acquitted of embezzlement charges in a case surrounded by hints of the Whitewater affair.
-----------------
"We concluded that it [Whitewater] would be inconsistent with the
statutory standard because of the difficulty of establishing the
truth with a sufficient degree of confidence"
-- Kenneth W. Starr
"... our investigation, which has been thorough, found no evidence
that anyone higher than Mr. Livingstone or Mr. Marceca was in any
way involved in ordering the files from the FBI. Second, we have
found no evidence that information contained in the files of former
officials was used for an improper purpose."
-- Kenneth W. Starr
"...we issued a report, we filed it with the special division, and
then made the report public, so that it could address what we saw
as these lingering questions with respect to the cause of death.
It was a suicide by Mr. Foster."
-- Kenneth W. Starr
"We do not anticipate that any evidence gathered in that investigation
will be relevant to the committee's current task. The president was not
involved in our Travel Office investigation."
-- Kenneth W. Starr
No one in the White House, to my knowledge, violated any law
or standard of conduct, including any action in the travel
office. There was no intent to benefit any individual or
specific group
-- Excerpt of Vince Foster suicide note
"I would just like to say that no one ever asked me to
lie, and I was never promised a job for my silence."
-- Monica Lewinsky grand jury testimony
Lee Harrison
(UltraTrebor) wrote:
> cheers,
> Trebor
When this came out a few days ago - as nothing more than a reiterated
rumor - Michael Rivero had it on his web page almost immediately. I
told him then that what he did was unconscionable and thoughtless, and
finally killfiled him.
When the reports about Dan Burton's illegitimate child came out, I
don't think the name was released; the child wasn't pursued by the
press, as far as I know.
But this 13 year old kid is black, and his mother's a prostitute, so
it's okay for the rightwing to inflict more misery on the child, while
proving nothing illegal or even significant, or even suggesting
anything relevant to the president's responsibilities and performance
on the job.
How can they make themselves more irrelevant?
I'll never forget what they've done. Even their so-called moderates
now behave and talk like radical rightwingers. We have enough votes
to send many of the Republicans and rightwing Democrats home in 2000,
and we should do that without fail.
--
Lee Harrison | Vide et crede
"If we can get just one person in Congress, it will be like opening
the floodgates. It could change this country overnight." - David
Duke, 1.2.99
Mark Stringer
>wrong.
Some kid wants to know who his dad is and somehow this is the far
right's fault?
> But I can't imagine anything tougher than having a prostitute for a mother.
How about having a father who wishes you never existed?
> Here's a 13-year-old boy who no doubt wants to believe, even needs
>desperately to believe that President Clinton is his dad. But seriously,
>what are the real chances?
Given Clinton's history, I'd wouldn't bet a nickel against it.
>Even if what his mother says is true - which seems unlikely since there
>is no evidence that Clinton has ever needed to pay for sex.
Just cuz she was a working gal, who says he paid for it? Maybe it was
"on the house" cuz he was a powerful man or maybe she was off the clock at
the time or maybe he threatened to make life difficult for her if she
didn't deliver?
> But did they ever give the least bit of consideration to what they're
>doing to this boy?
I bet your big liberal heart is just pumping piss for Bubba's bastard
isn't it? Just like I'm sure it did for Burton's bastard. BTW, what
exactly are "they" doing to this boy? The kid wants to find out who is
dad is, simple as that. Perhaps you should be asking what Bubba has done
and is doing to this boy. Oh that's right, Bubba shouldn't be held
accountable for his actions, I forgot.
> Because they're not even doing the test correctly. So DNA experts say
>that if there is a match, it would only be sufficient to say that there
>was about an 85% certainty that Mr Clinton was the father. That is
>insufficient in American courts to conclusively prove paternity -
>especially when you know his mother is a prostitute.
Paternity tests are more accurate than 85% and if Bubba had nothing to
hide, he'd take one asap. Gee, if I conjure up all my powers of
discernment can I figure out why he wouldn't take the test? Hmmm. . .
. . .nope, I guess we better contact Unsolved Mysteries to solve this one.
> All courtesy of the Republican right-wing. . . .I keep on waiting for
>someone like that guy at the Joe McCarthy hearings to finally say to
>people like Matt Drudge "Have you no decency - even now? Must you destroy
>this boy's life too?"
Again, who has destroyed this boy's life? Did the Reps break into some
hooker's p---y and plant Clinton's sperm in there? Did the Reps force
Bubba to ignore the woman's claims? For a lad who is supposed to be
leader of the free world, Bubba isn't eager to be accountable for his
actions. A person who isn't accountable shouldn't have responsibilities.
Let's hope the Senate drives that message right though Clinton's hollow
soul.
pywa...@my-dejanews.com
tre...@my-dejanews.com (UltraTrebor) wrote:
>
> It seemed impossible that the far right could stoop any lower. But I was wrong. To the long list of
> victims who've been used and abused by the right in their quest to destroy this president - a list
> that already includes Vince Foster, Susan McDougal, Sarah Hawkins, Steve Smith, Monica and her
> mother, the Hubbels- now we can add another name, 13-year-old Danny Williams. Of course the far
> right isn't above using children like cannon-fodder - Kenneth Starr had Robert Hill's teenage son
> subpoenead at school to try and bully his parents.
>
> boy who no doubt wants to believe, even needs desperately to believe that President Clinton is his
> unlikely since there is no evidence that Clinton has ever needed to pay for sex - a prostitute is
> likeley to have scores of different customers a month, and so the chances for any particular one of
> them to be the father is similarly remote. Those on the right know this, and no doubt that's why
> consideration to what they're doing to this boy?
>
> match, it would only be sufficient to say that there was about an 85% certainty that Mr Clinton was
> the father. That is insufficient in American courts to conclusively prove paternity - especially
> and destroy his supposed biological 'father' both politically and personally, and to destroy
> whatever hope this country has of returning to normalcy, by dragging Clinton through the courts
> again like Paula Jones did That's if Danny's lucky..
>
> But what happens if the test fails, as seems much more likely? Then he's not only lost whatever
> hope he had of finding a father, but now he's also become a public laughing stock in front of his
> used him they'll just kick him back into the gutter anyway - that's not really their problem
> anymore, is it? But at least they got some political milage out of him in the meantime.
>
> like Matt Drudge "Have you no decency - even now? Must you destroy this boy's life too?"
>
> Trebor
>
>
Trebor, Once again you have eloquently stated the truth. My concern here is
that the Star reporter says he submitted a DNA sample from Danny Williams to
be tested. Why didn't he physically take the young man to a reputable public
facility and allow them to obtain the sample? I know those people who
despise President Clinton have already make up their minds, but reasonable
people should question the integrity of the sample. The fact that the Star
and the Clinton haters are willing to publically humiliating a fourteen year
old child to get the President is indeed a sad commentary on the character of
a small segment of our society. I hope there are many many Americans who
will not allow the sins of the parents and the far right to visit the child.
Perhaps when this is over the Clinton haters' will go into group therapy, no
one needs it more.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
dbh
which Clinton finds himself knee-deep. We don't need to screw up an innocent
life anymore than it already is in order to establish the 'dark side' of our
President..........The 'slick one' has done enough, give this kid a
break!!!!!!
dbh
UltraTrebor wrote in message <36930934...@207.217.77.140>...
Stern
>
> On 6 Jan 1999 07:59:43 GMT, jv...@usa.net (Van) wrote:
>
> >I do too. One day, in the not too distant future, the chickens will
> >come home to roost and the Republicans will pay for this nonsense.
>
> on the wall, in mile-high flashing multicolored neon letters that say,
> "Stop the Witch Hunt NOW!". I'm a moderate, my parents are staunch
> Republicans, but the impeachment vote was the last straw for all of
> us. We've all promised each other that we'll vote "anything but
> Republican" in the next election.
>
> I imagine my folks will eventually return to the fold for lack of any
> realistic alternatives. As a moderate I have more options. The
> Republican Party has lost my vote forever.
Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
Dan Fahey
You should learn to read and understand what the writers is talking
about. You sould stop spaming every one until you can think.
DF
Winston Smith wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 07:14:23 GMT, tre...@my-dejanews.com (UltraTrebor)
> wrote:
> SPAM ALERT!... RANT ALERT!... SPAM ALERT!... RANT ALERT!.. SPAM
> ALERT!....
> >
johnz
Stringer <ui...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>
> Again, who has destroyed this boy's life? Did the Reps break into some
> hooker's p---y and plant Clinton's sperm in there?
This will be Bilk's theory, I predict....
JS
Red Herring
wrote:
>But I can't imagine anything tougher than having a prostitute for a mother.
How about having a racist white father who refuses to recognize you just
because you mom happens to be black?
Pixie
>James Kincaid wrote:
>>
>> On 6 Jan 1999 07:59:43 GMT, jv...@usa.net (Van) wrote:
>>
>> >I do too. One day, in the not too distant future, the chickens will
>> >come home to roost and the Republicans will pay for this nonsense.
>>
>> One can only be awed by the Republican inability to read the writing
>> on the wall, in mile-high flashing multicolored neon letters that say,
>> "Stop the Witch Hunt NOW!". I'm a moderate, my parents are staunch
>> Republicans, but the impeachment vote was the last straw for all of
>> us. We've all promised each other that we'll vote "anything but
>> Republican" in the next election.
>>
>> I imagine my folks will eventually return to the fold for lack of any
>> realistic alternatives. As a moderate I have more options. The
>> Republican Party has lost my vote forever.
>
>Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
And while you're leaving you might also stop trying to speak for others.. I, as
one of many, am overjoyed at most of the GOP stance. Ole Slick is unfit to hold
the office and should be removed.
Hamilton
r...@gulfstream.org.NOSPAM (Red Herring) wrote:
Oh give us a break. You really think 'black' is the embarrassing aspect
of this story if true?
Hamilton
(Pixie) wrote:
> Stern <ste...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >James Kincaid wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6 Jan 1999 07:59:43 GMT, jv...@usa.net (Van) wrote:
> >>
> >> >I do too. One day, in the not too distant future, the chickens will
> >> >come home to roost and the Republicans will pay for this nonsense.
> >>
> >> One can only be awed by the Republican inability to read the writing
> >> on the wall, in mile-high flashing multicolored neon letters that say,
> >> "Stop the Witch Hunt NOW!". I'm a moderate, my parents are staunch
> >> Republicans, but the impeachment vote was the last straw for all of
> >> us. We've all promised each other that we'll vote "anything but
> >> Republican" in the next election.
> >>
> >> I imagine my folks will eventually return to the fold for lack of any
> >> realistic alternatives. As a moderate I have more options. The
> >> Republican Party has lost my vote forever.
> >
> >Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
>
> And while you're leaving you might also stop trying to speak for
others.. I, as
> one of many, am overjoyed at most of the GOP stance. Ole Slick is unfit
to hold
> the office and should be removed.
He speaks for many. My elderly mother who has never voted for a Democrat
in her life before 98 -- did so then and is vociferous about doing so in
2000. She, who has led the most personally conservative of lives, is
appalled at the panty sniffing perverts who seem to dominate the GOP and
thinks that to elect them is to encourage totalitarianism. One of the oddest
outcomes of this nonsense had been the emergence of some sense of what it
means to have a free society in the population at large. Who woulda
guessed?
ZACK SESSIONS
>On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 07:14:23 GMT, tre...@my-dejanews.com (UltraTrebor)
>wrote:
>>But I can't imagine anything tougher than having a prostitute for a mother.
>How about having a racist white father who refuses to recognize you just
>because you mom happens to be black?
You guys are really jumping the gun on this one yet, aren't you? Not a shred
of proof and your hate for Clinton will not let you believe anything else.
Art Vandelay
Mark Stringer
to reason. Poor old fox was caught in a Dem brain-hold trap (those things
should be outlawed). She went for the "it's about sex" gaga and no longer
has the brain power to see it's b.s. This can't be held against her.
Thank her for a lifetime of voting conservative though.
Mark Stringer
> You guys are really jumping the gun on this one yet, aren't you? Not a shred
> of proof and your hate for Clinton will not let you believe anything else.
fully cooperating with a paternity test. It's a golden opportunity for
him to score points against his detractors. I guess you can't put a spin
on DNA so don't look for Bubba to take this route.
Aren't you liberals tired of playing stupid to protect Bubba? Well, I'm
assuming you're only playing.
Red Herring
>In article <3693ae3f....@news.gulfstream.org>,
>r...@gulfstream.org.NOSPAM (Red Herring) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 07:14:23 GMT, tre...@my-dejanews.com (UltraTrebor)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >But I can't imagine anything tougher than having a prostitute for a mother.
>>
>> How about having a racist white father who refuses to recognize you just
>> because you mom happens to be black?
>
>Oh give us a break. You really think 'black' is the embarrassing aspect
>of this story if true?
WJC, as in William "John" Clinton, is a national embarassment indeed, but
that is beyond my original point.
The damning aspect of this story is that the man in the Oval Office is a
creep who racially discriminates against his own son.
rdo...@pipeline.com
(zepp, a weasel) wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 03:30:51 -0800, Mark Stringer
> <ui...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, UltraTrebor wrote
> >> It seemed impossible that the far right could stoop any lower. But I was
> >>wrong.
> >
> > Some kid wants to know who his dad is and somehow this is the far
> >right's fault?
>
> It seems to be quite the news story. There's a lot of kids out there
> who wonder who their daddy was who don't even make the features
> section of the local home-town paper. I don't see you sobbing
> convulsively over them.
Well, the NY Post ran the story on Sunday with huge front page headlines.
They haven't mentioned word one since then. Must be a non-story if even they
won't touch it anymore.
Mark Stringer
> It seems to be quite the news story. There's a lot of kids out there
> who wonder who their daddy was who don't even make the features
> section of the local home-town paper. I don't see you sobbing
> convulsively over them.
I'm well aware of this fact as I'm in Big Brothers. I'm not
sobbing over anything or anyone. I'm doing what's in my power to
hopefully be a positive influence in someone's life. I try to walk the
walk instead of talking the talk.
> Given your history, you'll continue to claim that he is the father, no
> matter what the DNA test shows.
If a paternity test proved Bubba wasn't the father, what grounds would
any sane person have to say he is?
> > Just cuz she was a working gal, who says he paid for it?
> Yup, State gubbiners' jus' walking on down the street, and a girl
> whispers from the hedge, "hey big boy, I wanna fuck you for free",
> whereupon gubbiner jumps in the hedge and they make foliage.
> You believe that, don't you?
I have no idea how it would happen so I suggested a few possibilities.
Like I said, just cuz she's a working gal doesn't mean he picked her up
on some street corner.
> > I bet your big liberal heart is just pumping piss for Bubba's bastard
> >isn't it? Just like I'm sure it did for Burton's bastard.
>
> Back to strawmen, I see. Trouble is, you can't even beat your own
> staged objections convincingly.
Huh?
> They are going to compare the findings against what was published in
> the Starr "report". Starr was quite happy with the 85% possibility,
> and hung his entire "case" from it.
Wha? This serves me right, I shouldn't have decided to respond to a
post when I haven't read all the material.
> > Again, who has destroyed this boy's life?
>
> You. He was just some kid in some town before you came along and
> decided to try to make a martyr of him.
By "you" I'm assuming you mean conservatives. Then again, considering
rest of your "reasoning", maybe you do mean me. I don't look at the kid
as a martyr, I look at him as someone who'd like to know who his father
is, even if it ends up being a person like Bill. Would you deny a child
that right?
> Ah, whirling nuts on Usenet. What fun. So you want Clinton to
> respond to every crackpot claim that literally comes crawling out of
> the bushes. . .
This "crackpot" claim is unique because it can be proven true or false
with a blood test. Very simple, very quick. If he is telling the truth
about this situation, he could come out and say "This is just one example
of how my political enemies will stop at nothing to try and destroy me."
etc. etc. etc. Do you think he'd miss an opportunity like that? Zepp, it
isn't going to happen like that because he isn't being honest. I want you
to give one good reason why he wouldn't take the test if he's not Danny's
father. Spin on my man.......
zepp, a weasel
<ui...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, UltraTrebor wrote
>> It seemed impossible that the far right could stoop any lower. But I was
>>wrong.
>
> Some kid wants to know who his dad is and somehow this is the far
>right's fault?
It seems to be quite the news story. There's a lot of kids out there
who wonder who their daddy was who don't even make the features
section of the local home-town paper. I don't see you sobbing
convulsively over them.
>
>> But I can't imagine anything tougher than having a prostitute for a mother.
>
> How about having a father who wishes you never existed?
>
>> Here's a 13-year-old boy who no doubt wants to believe, even needs
>>desperately to believe that President Clinton is his dad. But seriously,
>>what are the real chances?
>
> Given Clinton's history, I'd wouldn't bet a nickel against it.
>
Given your history, you'll continue to claim that he is the father, no
matter what the DNA test shows.
>>Even if what his mother says is true - which seems unlikely since there
>>is no evidence that Clinton has ever needed to pay for sex.
>
> Just cuz she was a working gal, who says he paid for it? Maybe it was
>"on the house" cuz he was a powerful man or maybe she was off the clock at
>the time or maybe he threatened to make life difficult for her if she
>didn't deliver?
>
Yup, State gubbiners' jus' walking on down the street, and a girl
whispers from the hedge, "hey big boy, I wanna fuck you for free",
whereupon gubbiner jumps in the hedge and they make foliage.
You believe that, don't you?
>> But did they ever give the least bit of consideration to what they're
>>doing to this boy?
>
> I bet your big liberal heart is just pumping piss for Bubba's bastard
>isn't it? Just like I'm sure it did for Burton's bastard. BTW, what
>exactly are "they" doing to this boy? The kid wants to find out who is
>dad is, simple as that. Perhaps you should be asking what Bubba has done
>and is doing to this boy. Oh that's right, Bubba shouldn't be held
>accountable for his actions, I forgot.
Back to strawmen, I see. Trouble is, you can't even beat your own
staged objections convincingly.
>
>> Because they're not even doing the test correctly. So DNA experts say
>>that if there is a match, it would only be sufficient to say that there
>>was about an 85% certainty that Mr Clinton was the father. That is
>>insufficient in American courts to conclusively prove paternity -
>>especially when you know his mother is a prostitute.
>
> Paternity tests are more accurate than 85% and if Bubba had nothing to
>hide, he'd take one asap. Gee, if I conjure up all my powers of
>discernment can I figure out why he wouldn't take the test? Hmmm. . .
>. . .nope, I guess we better contact Unsolved Mysteries to solve this one.
They are going to compare the findings against what was published in
the Starr "report". Starr was quite happy with the 85% possibility,
and hung his entire "case" from it.
>
>> All courtesy of the Republican right-wing. . . .I keep on waiting for
>>someone like that guy at the Joe McCarthy hearings to finally say to
>>people like Matt Drudge "Have you no decency - even now? Must you destroy
>>this boy's life too?"
>
> Again, who has destroyed this boy's life?
You. He was just some kid in some town before you came along and
decided to try to make a martyr of him.
> Did the Reps break into some
>hooker's p---y and plant Clinton's sperm in there?
Shouldn't wonder. All Newt had to do was spit it back out. That's
why you fired him -- remember?
> Did the Reps force
>Bubba to ignore the woman's claims? For a lad who is supposed to be
>leader of the free world, Bubba isn't eager to be accountable for his
>actions. A person who isn't accountable shouldn't have responsibilities.
>Let's hope the Senate drives that message right though Clinton's hollow
>soul.
>
Ah, whirling nuts on Usenet. What fun. So you want Clinton to
respond to every crackpot claim that literally comes crawling out of
the bushes, do you? heh. Yup. I bet you do, at that.
**********************************************************
Isn't it amazing how, in the space of one year, the GOP,
the party of "family values", is now known as the party
of oiled black leather teddies, whipped cream, and analigus?
************************************************************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Ted Holden
wrote:
>>Oh give us a break. You really think 'black' is the embarrassing aspect
>>of this story if true?
>
>WJC, as in William "John" Clinton, is a national embarassment indeed, but
>that is beyond my original point.
>
>The damning aspect of this story is that the man in the Oval Office is a
>creep who racially discriminates against his own son.
Amazing, when you consider that this is the same guy who spends 2/3 of
his waking hours for the final two months prior to an election in
black churches, isn't it?
Ted Holden
med...@ix.deniz.com
Lee Harrison
Stringer <ui...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> On 6 Jan 1999, ZACK SESSIONS wrote:
>> You guys are really jumping the gun on this one yet, aren't you? Not a
> shred
>> of proof and your hate for Clinton will not let you believe anything else.
>
> If I'm Clinton and I know this is bogus I'd make a huge deal out of
> fully cooperating with a paternity test.
Have you ever held public office, Mark Stringer?
I don't recall hearing about any Congressman Mark Stringer or Senator
Mark Stringer.
If you were focused on conducting the nation's business - which you
are not - and you had been under accusation and political attack from
the radical/pseudo-Christian rightwing for seven years - which would
have driven you and most persons to resignation, unjustly or not - and
your enemies kept drudging up these pathetic and mercenary characters
to impugn your character & your professional reputation and
specifically to distract you from doing your job - which you're sworn
to do - then, if you're Clinton, you do your job and let the rightwing
cut its own throat and drown in its own political blood.
Which is happening now.
> It's a golden opportunity for
> him to score points against his detractors.
And by allowing the fools on the hill free rein, he does that.
Without your approval. Laughing at you and your kind.
> I guess you can't put a spin
> on DNA so don't look for Bubba to take this route.
You'd know what the tabloid Star says better than I do. I know they
pay big money for big lies.
What do you pay for these big lies, in personal terms? When people
read your posts in a few years - or a few months - and see what a fool
you are, citing a tabloid to attack a president and support his
impeachment, what will they think of you?
> Aren't you liberals tired of playing stupid to protect Bubba? Well, I'm
> assuming you're only playing.
You're not listening to yourself. Do that before you become more
emboldened.
Zepp
<ui...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, zepp, a weasel wrote:
>> It seems to be quite the news story. There's a lot of kids out there
>> who wonder who their daddy was who don't even make the features
>> section of the local home-town paper. I don't see you sobbing
>> convulsively over them.
>
> I'm well aware of this fact as I'm in Big Brothers. I'm not
>sobbing over anything or anyone. I'm doing what's in my power to
>hopefully be a positive influence in someone's life. I try to walk the
>walk instead of talking the talk.
And that's why you're here, to tell us about poor little Dennis,
abandoned cruelly by a rich and famous father . . .
>
>> Given your history, you'll continue to claim that he is the father, no
>> matter what the DNA test shows.
>
> If a paternity test proved Bubba wasn't the father, what grounds would
>any sane person have to say he is?
>
Welcome to Usenet. See 5,000 posts from resident whack John Moore on
Vincent Foster.
>> > Just cuz she was a working gal, who says he paid for it?
>
>> Yup, State gubbiners' jus' walking on down the street, and a girl
>> whispers from the hedge, "hey big boy, I wanna fuck you for free",
>> whereupon gubbiner jumps in the hedge and they make foliage.
>> You believe that, don't you?
>
> I have no idea how it would happen so I suggested a few possibilities.
>Like I said, just cuz she's a working gal doesn't mean he picked her up
>on some street corner.
Yup. Maybe she walked past the governors' motel room while Hillary
was in the john...
>
>> > I bet your big liberal heart is just pumping piss for Bubba's bastard
>> >isn't it? Just like I'm sure it did for Burton's bastard.
>>
>> Back to strawmen, I see. Trouble is, you can't even beat your own
>> staged objections convincingly.
>
> Huh?
The only way you can show inconsistancy on my part is by inventing it
for me. I haven't mentioned Burton's bastard.
>
>> They are going to compare the findings against what was published in
>> the Starr "report". Starr was quite happy with the 85% possibility,
>> and hung his entire "case" from it.
>
> Wha? This serves me right, I shouldn't have decided to respond to a
>post when I haven't read all the material.
>
>> > Again, who has destroyed this boy's life?
>>
>> You. He was just some kid in some town before you came along and
>> decided to try to make a martyr of him.
>
> By "you" I'm assuming you mean conservatives. Then again, considering
>rest of your "reasoning", maybe you do mean me. I don't look at the kid
>as a martyr, I look at him as someone who'd like to know who his father
>is, even if it ends up being a person like Bill. Would you deny a child
>that right?
Nope, but I wouldn't put a child in the glare of publicity to score
cheap political points until AFTER the tests were run and you knew
something. That fact that you, as an individual, do, leaves me
questioning your respect for children and your fitness to be a Big
Brother.
>
>> Ah, whirling nuts on Usenet. What fun. So you want Clinton to
>> respond to every crackpot claim that literally comes crawling out of
>> the bushes. . .
>
> This "crackpot" claim is unique because it can be proven true or false
>with a blood test. Very simple, very quick. If he is telling the truth
>about this situation, he could come out and say "This is just one example
>of how my political enemies will stop at nothing to try and destroy me."
>etc. etc. etc. Do you think he'd miss an opportunity like that? Zepp, it
>isn't going to happen like that because he isn't being honest. I want you
>to give one good reason why he wouldn't take the test if he's not Danny's
>father. Spin on my man.......
>
And if the blood tests exhonorate Clinton, will we continue to see
posts from you seeking justice and the father of little Denny
Williams?
Thought not.
Hypocrite.
>
-------------------------------------------
Republican louts, you better not cry
You better not "out", you're all gonna die,
Larry Flynt is coming to town.
He knows where you've been sleeping,
and where you hid your snake
he knows if you've been bad or worse
So be bad to help his take.
----------------------------------------------------
Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
Thank a liberal.
-----------------------------------------------------
Be good, servile little citizen-employees:
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
When in doubt, call a stoat,
'cos a ferret has merit!
-----------------------------------------------------
bank...@my-dejanews.com
"Lee Harrison" <lee...@arn.net> wrote:
<snip usual spastic response>
As you must know, White House yaps Lee Harringbone, Joe Blockhard, and
Semi-Sen. Tom Dorkle are neck-n-neck in the race to see who invokes "The
American Sheeple" most often -- certainly one of our most overused phrases
from the UAW's Lame Left, with "that's key", "totally outrageous", "we
need closure", and "Hillary, call me some Chinese" all in the top 10....
---------------------------------
Honor Our Troops: CONVICT CLINTON
---------------------------------
M. Kilgore
Mark Gibson wrote in message ...
SNIP
>Give it up, Tremor. Clinton has been impeached and he is now being
>tried for his many serious crimes.
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
And? What you ol'boys are forgetting is that Clinton has not been able to
defend himself in the past. With the trial in the senate, Clinton is free to
defend himself with vigor.
mark
ZACK SESSIONS
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate.
REally, 2/3 of his waking hours?
Geo
Then why is he trying to avoid the trial? He should be clamoring to
line up witness after witness to bolster his case. Or is that exactly
what he is afraid of?
Pixie
>
>Mark Gibson wrote in message ...
>
>SNIP
>
>>Give it up, Tremor. Clinton has been impeached and he is now being
>>tried for his many serious crimes.
>>
>>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
>
>
>And? What you ol'boys are forgetting is that Clinton has not been able to
>defend himself in the past. With the trial in the senate, Clinton is free to
>defend himself with vigor.
>
>mark
>
And just how will he "defend" himself? Denials ??? Claiming amnesia ??
Asserting that it was someone else? He's pretty well used up all the lies
available to the defense already... But I'm certain that he'll 'defend with
vigor'... Too bad he didn't do the proper thing and resign with vigor.
Mark Stringer
> > I'm well aware of this fact as I'm in Big Brothers. I'm not
> >sobbing over anything or anyone. I'm doing what's in my power to
> >hopefully be a positive influence in someone's life. I try to walk the
> >walk instead of talking the talk.
>
> And that's why you're here, to tell us about poor little Dennis,
> abandoned cruelly by a rich and famous father . . .
Yes Zepp, that is my reason for being here. In fact, it's my sole
purpose in life. If this kid doesn't find out who his father is I'm going
to disembowel myself with a heated soup spoon and hang myself with my own
colon.
> Yup. Maybe she walked past the governors' motel room while Hillary
> was in the john...
Cute. Now instead of thinking up absurd scenarios wouldn't it be nice
to cut the the bullshit (yours, mine and everyone's) and have Bubba submit
a test?
> > I don't look at the kid as a martyr, I look at him as someone who'd
> >like to know who his father is, even if it ends up being a person like
> >Bill. Would you deny a child that right?
>
> Nope, but I wouldn't put a child in the glare of publicity to score
> cheap political points until AFTER the tests were run and you knew
> something. That fact that you, as an individual, do, leaves me
> questioning your respect for children and your fitness to be a Big
> Brother.
Hasn't there been whisperings about Bubba having a bastard for some
time? The glare of publicity could have been avoided if Bill Clinton
would taken some responsibility have dealt with it long ago. Where does
the blame for that lie?
You perceive this situation as nothing more than Reps trying to make
"cheap political points". Well, shouldn't you be rejoicing? Or don't you
really believe the mantra that such tactics is creating backlash against
conservatives? These tactics are going to provide more Dem votes in the
future. . .right? BTW, I'll be sure to tell my caseworker "the weasel"
has questioned my fitness to be in BB.
> > This "crackpot" claim is unique because it can be proven true or false
> >with a blood test. Very simple, very quick. . . Zepp, it isn't going
> >to happen like that because he isn't being honest. I want you to give
> >one good reason why he wouldn't take the test if he's not Danny's
> >father. Spin on my man.
> >
> And if the blood tests exhonorate Clinton, will we continue to see
> posts from you seeking justice and the father of little Denny
> Williams? Thought not. Hypocrite.
If he took a blood test (which he won't) and it cleared him (which it
wouldn't and that's why he won't take one), I'll come on here and admit I
jumped the gun and was wrong about the whole situation and you were right.
If Bubba isn't the father, I hope the boy does find his father. How
does this make me a hypocrite or is that how you end all you posts to
people who may have a different take on things than you?
All this back and forth and you have yet to answer my main point and
question about the situation. . .If Clinton isn't the father, why wouldn't
he take the paternity test? I won't respond if you don't address this
question. Spin on. . . .
qwerty
Mark Gibson wrote in message ...
|>
|He has no defense against the stained dress. He lied under oath and
|the stain proves it.
I thought the perjury charge stemmed from the Grand Jury testimony where Clinton
admitted to a sexual affair. The perjury article from the Paula Jones testimony
did not pass. How would this stained dress make any difference. The perjury
charges stem from differing accounts from when the affair started and exactly
where Clinton touched Monica.
qwerty
Geo wrote in message <369542...@sdf.com>...
|M. Kilgore wrote:
|Then why is he trying to avoid the trial? He should be clamoring to
|line up witness after witness to bolster his case. Or is that exactly
|what he is afraid of?
Actually, there a number of Clinton's advisors that have been advocating exactly
that, a full blown, call and cross examine every witness they can. They feel
that they can mount a very strong defense. No witness or any the evidence has
yet to be cross examined by the defense.
lech...@uswest.net
"M. Kilgore" wrote:
> Mark Gibson wrote in message ...
>
> SNIP
>
> >Give it up, Tremor. Clinton has been impeached and he is now being
> >tried for his many serious crimes.
> >
> >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
>
> And? What you ol'boys are forgetting is that Clinton has not been able to
> defend himself in the past. With the trial in the senate, Clinton is free to
> defend himself with vigor.
>
> mark
He never had to defend himself because most witnesses died untimely deaths. Ron
Brown for one.
rdo...@pipeline.com
In article <#d$3dFqO#GA....@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>, "qwerty"
<nos...@all.com> wrote:
> Mark Gibson wrote in message ...
Karen Horn
:
: He speaks for many. My elderly mother who has never voted for a Democrat
: in her life before 98 -- did so then and is vociferous about doing so in
: 2000. She, who has led the most personally conservative of lives, is
There's no fool like an old fool. I'm sure she'll be happy if her
granddaughters get subjected to "kiss it" tactics by their bosses and
they get off scott free perjurying themselves in a jury trial. Your "elderly
mother" will have to accept that, because that's the standard her
new whoremaster hero "president" has set.
Hope she thinks it's worth it.
Karen
Karen Horn
: On 6 Jan 1999, ZACK SESSIONS wrote:
: > You guys are really jumping the gun on this one yet, aren't you? Not a shred
: > of proof and your hate for Clinton will not let you believe anything else.
:
: If I'm Clinton and I know this is bogus I'd make a huge deal out of
: him to score points against his detractors. I guess you can't put a spin
: on DNA so don't look for Bubba to take this route.
: assuming you're only playing.
you give them far too much credit.
Karen
Karen Horn
: On 06 Jan 1999 15:49:34 PST, r...@gulfstream.org.NOSPAM (Red Herring)
: wrote:
:
: >>Oh give us a break. You really think 'black' is the embarrassing aspect
: >>of this story if true?
: >
: >WJC, as in William "John" Clinton, is a national embarassment indeed, but
: >that is beyond my original point.
: >
: >The damning aspect of this story is that the man in the Oval Office is a
: >creep who racially discriminates against his own son.
:
: Amazing, when you consider that this is the same guy who spends 2/3 of
: his waking hours for the final two months prior to an election in
: black churches, isn't it?
: Ted Holden
: med...@ix.deniz.com
:
Yeah, and notice what church he spends in the two months aFTER his elections?
Predominantly white ones catering to the elites. He's too good to
attend church with common soldiers like George Bush did. Billy's gotta
have his photo-op every Sunday flashing that white bible.
Karen
Zepp
>
>
>"M. Kilgore" wrote:
>
>> Mark Gibson wrote in message ...
>>
>> SNIP
>>
>> >Give it up, Tremor. Clinton has been impeached and he is now being
>> >tried for his many serious crimes.
>> >
>> >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
>>
>> And? What you ol'boys are forgetting is that Clinton has not been able to
>> defend himself in the past. With the trial in the senate, Clinton is free to
>> defend himself with vigor.
>>
>> mark
>
>He never had to defend himself because most witnesses died untimely deaths. Ron
>Brown for one.
Yup. Pearl Harbor never happened, either. Hollywood faked the whole
attack so FDR could win relection in '44.
Little Lulu
qwerty, says...
>
>
>Mark Gibson wrote in message ...
>|>
>
>|He has no defense against the stained dress. He lied under oath and
>|the stain proves it.
>
>
>I thought the perjury charge stemmed from the Grand Jury testimony where
Clinton
>admitted to a sexual affair. The perjury article from the Paula Jones
testimony
>did not pass. How would this stained dress make any difference. The
perjury
>charges stem from differing accounts from when the affair started and
exactly
>where Clinton touched Monica.
Or as Barney Frank so aptly asked, "What did the President touch, and when
did he touch it?"
The GOP Impeachment circus is now underway with its neo_Confederate
ringmasters freaks and bafoons rushing into the center ring. In four
short years the GOP has transmogrified its big tent into a big top.
chud...@ix.netcom.com
before he asks her to "kiss it?"
Do YOU snap your thongs and show titty to YOUR boss?
These are troubling issues, if true.
Pixie
Lulu, in addition to an immediate transplant of common sense, you also are in
dire need of access to a dictionary. One that you don't use as a doorstop.
Geo
>
> On Thu, 07 Jan 1999 15:25:50 -0800, Geo <g...@sdf.com> wrote:
>
> >M. Kilgore wrote:
> >>
> >> Mark Gibson wrote in message ...
> >>
> >>
> >> >Give it up, Tremor. Clinton has been impeached and he is now being
> >> >tried for his many serious crimes.
> >> >
> >> >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
> >>
> >> And? What you ol'boys are forgetting is that Clinton has not been able to
> >> defend himself in the past. With the trial in the senate, Clinton is free to
> >> defend himself with vigor.
>
> >line up witness after witness to bolster his case. Or is that exactly
> >what he is afraid of?
>
>
Huh?
> Jim
>
> Ecrasons l'infame
>
> Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
> ========================================================================
> Hear Rush sing "I'm A Nazi" http://www.99x.com/rush.ram
>
> If you have not already installed it you'll need the Real Player
> from http://www.real.com
>
> "We've got some pretty women on here this time."
>
> -- Strom Thurmond (Senile, S.C.) on the Senate Armed Services Committee
> ========================================================================
Geo
> |line up witness after witness to bolster his case. Or is that exactly
> |what he is afraid of?
>
> that, a full blown, call and cross examine every witness they can. They feel
> that they can mount a very strong defense. No witness or any the evidence has
> yet to be cross examined by the defense.
I heard the exact opposite on the evening news with Brokaw last night.
They reported that his advisors are pretty much against calling
winesses. I suppose that can be for any number of reasons.
Zepp
<ui...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>On 6 Jan 1999, ZACK SESSIONS wrote:
>> You guys are really jumping the gun on this one yet, aren't you? Not a shred
>> of proof and your hate for Clinton will not let you believe anything else.
>
> If I'm Clinton and I know this is bogus I'd make a huge deal out of
>fully cooperating with a paternity test. It's a golden opportunity for
>him to score points against his detractors. I guess you can't put a spin
>on DNA so don't look for Bubba to take this route.
> Aren't you liberals tired of playing stupid to protect Bubba? Well, I'm
>assuming you're only playing.
>
The attorney's claim to have enough information on Clinton's DNA that
they can come up with an 85% accuracy rating. If Clinton is
reasonably certain he isn't the father, why should he do anything.
Let 'em test the poor exploited kid, and them them shoot themselves in
the foot.
Zepp
wrote:
>On 06 Jan 1999 15:49:34 PST, r...@gulfstream.org.NOSPAM (Red Herring)
>wrote:
>
>>>Oh give us a break. You really think 'black' is the embarrassing aspect
>>>of this story if true?
>>
>>WJC, as in William "John" Clinton, is a national embarassment indeed, but
>>that is beyond my original point.
>>
>>The damning aspect of this story is that the man in the Oval Office is a
>>creep who racially discriminates against his own son.
>
>Amazing, when you consider that this is the same guy who spends 2/3 of
>his waking hours for the final two months prior to an election in
>black churches, isn't it?
Just out of curiousity, Ted, have you ever said anything honest in
your entire life?
Wait. Never mind. I just realized how silly that question is.
>
>
>Ted Holden
>med...@ix.deniz.com
Watson Aname
> Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>> Geo <g...@sdf.com> wrote:
>>> M. Kilgore wrote:
>>>> Mark Gibson wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>> Give it up, Tremor. Clinton has been impeached and he is now
>>>>> being tried for his many serious crimes.
>>>>>
>>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> And? What you ol'boys are forgetting is that Clinton has not been
>>>> able to defend himself in the past. With the trial in the senate,
>>>> Clinton is free to defend himself with vigor.
>>>
>>> Then why is he trying to avoid the trial? He should be clamoring
>>> to line up witness after witness to bolster his case. Or is that
>>> exactly what he is afraid of?
No one who places real value on their time and energy, which Clinton
certainly does, would "be clamoring to line up witness after witness
to bolster his case" if any less wasteful process is available. No
one who places real value on how they are perceived should be making
such an argument on Usenet.
>> Another Geo argument broken down on the side of the Usenet!
>
> Huh?
If you are NOT seeing a blinking red warning light on your mental
dash panel, then either your Self Parody Alarm Sensor or its bulb
is faulty and needs replacing before you risk posting again.
Watson
--
"Then this! - And that! - And sure enough! The man's
neck was broken, just as the book said it would be."
- Robert A. Heinlein freehold@^snip!^visi.net
The American People
Danny? Clinton was asking the price of a new car. Can he be planing on an
early return to Arkansas?
Mark Gibson wrote:
> Mark Stringer (ui...@victoria.tc.ca) wrote:
> >On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, zepp, a weasel wrote:
> >> It seems to be quite the news story. There's a lot of kids out there
> >> who wonder who their daddy was who don't even make the features
> >> section of the local home-town paper. I don't see you sobbing
> >> convulsively over them.
> >
> > I'm well aware of this fact as I'm in Big Brothers. I'm not
> >sobbing over anything or anyone. I'm doing what's in my power to
> >hopefully be a positive influence in someone's life. I try to walk the
> >walk instead of talking the talk.
> >
> >> Given your history, you'll continue to claim that he is the father, no
> >> matter what the DNA test shows.
> >
> > If a paternity test proved Bubba wasn't the father, what grounds would
> >any sane person have to say he is?
>
> Normally, I'd be very, very skeptical of claims that Crook Clinton is
> Danny Williams' father. But given the White House's strange silence
> on this issue, it appears that Clinton is very concerned that the DNA
> tests will prove him to be the father of a young, illegitimate son, thus
> making Clinton a deadbeat dad.
>
> Remember, bad news for Crook Clinton is good news for America!
>
> --
> "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had
> an affair with her." --Bill Clinton, sworn deposition, 17 January 1998
>
> "I think it's plain that the president should resign and spare the country
> the agony of this impeachment and removal proceeding...I think the
> country could be spared a lot of agony and the government could worry
> about inflation and a lot of other problems if he'd go on and resign."
> --Bill Clinton, Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives,
> 3rd District, Arkansas Arkansas Gazette, 8 August 1974
Geo
Joseph
> Don't be fooled by lying Democraps! These tales of long-time Republicans
> suddenly deciding to turn Democrap because of the impeachment and pending
> conviction of Crook Clinton are nothing but liberaloon propaganda designed
> to intimidate responsible people.
I see. Numerous Voter Registrar Offices around the country are
deliberately and feloniously falisfying their records and entering the
results into the public record where anyone can look them up, all for the
sake of "libraloon propaganda".
Have you checked the skies for black helicopters today?
> What is actually happening is that more and more people are turning
> against Clinton and the lying liberaloons who support him.
And your proof is...?
> Clinton is a crook, as are his cronies.
Oh, THAT'S your proof. How silly of me to have doubted you.
- Saint Joseph
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't sanity just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean, all you get is that
one trick, rational thinking. But when you're good and crazy, well,
the sky's the limit!
-- The Tick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
qwerty
|> |line up witness after witness to bolster his case. Or is that exactly
|> |what he is afraid of?
|>
exactly
|> that, a full blown, call and cross examine every witness they can. They
feel
|> that they can mount a very strong defense. No witness or any the
evidence has
|> yet to be cross examined by the defense.
|
|I heard the exact opposite on the evening news with Brokaw last night.
|They reported that his advisors are pretty much against calling
|winesses. I suppose that can be for any number of reasons.
I said "a number", Clinton's adivisor's are split on this issue.
--
The opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not reflect those of my
employer.
Who Cares?
>Only to sexually repressed and anal compulsive puritans.
>
>Any questions?
If the Senate calls any of the Jane Does to
testify, do you think you will freak out on
the Internet again, like you did on the night
before the Senate trial started?
Troy
Looking better than I thought before the Senators voted 100% for the plan to
include witnesses.
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jan 1999 18:03:31 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> aol.net> wrote:
>
> >This morning I saw Clinton in Detroit with a young black boy. Could this be
> >Danny? Clinton was asking the price of a new car. Can he be planing on an
> >early return to Arkansas?
>
> He was laughing at your last feeble attempt to get him.
>
> How many votes to convict did you say you had in the Senate?
Troy
CLINTON'S 1986 HO-DOWN LEADS TO 1999 FUN BABY SHOWDOWN!
**Universal Exclusive**
**Except for Uranus and the moon of Io**
By Jonathan Bourne
**Must Credit the DRUDGE RETORT**
"She walked off the street, into his life and stole his heart."
That's the logline that White House insiders are using to describe the
relationship between President Bill Clinton and an African-American
Arkansas prostitute by the name of Vivian Ward 13 years ago.
The week of passion produced a love child, according to the hooker with
a
now broken heart of gold. And this week the little bastard decided to
prove
who his real father is once and for all.
In the exclusive to end all exclusives, SHAVED SNIZZ magazine has paid
for
the DNA test for 13-year-old Danny Williams, and they intend to match
the
results to information made public in the Starr Report.
But how did the tryst come to exist? Like a good pimp, the DRUDGE RETORT
has gotten the dope from the happy hooker herself, Vivian Ward.
"He was on a business trip," trumpeted the strumpet, "And he was looking
for an escort." According to Vivian, then-Governor Clinton took the
skank
to his swank hotel room where they had the following exchange:
BILL: How much for the whole night?
VIVIAN: Stay here? You couldn't afford it.
BILL: Try me.
VIVIAN: Three hundred dollars.
BILL: Done. Thank you. Now we can relax.
"A night became a weekend, and then finally he asked me how much it
would
cost for me to stay with him for the whole week," harped the harlot. "I
told him $3,000 because I never thought he'd agree to it." But Clinton
closed the deal, and according to Vivian, they fell in love.
"You and I are such similar creatures, Vivian," Bill told her, "We both
screw people for money."
Danny Williams
(with black line to protect his privacy)
Vivian says she knew it was love because she did one thing with Clinton
that she'd never done with a client before -- she kissed him. "Kissing,
now
that's special," the hussy hissed.
But there's more. The call-girl called Clinton "infatuated" and told the
DRUDGE RETORT that the Solicitor-In-Chief sent her on an all-day
shopping
spree at the city's most posh designer stores. "It was just like 'My
Fair
Lady,'" Vivian said. "Almost identical to 'My Fair Lady.' In fact, it
was
like the whole thing was plagiarized from 'My Fair Lady.'"
But how did her egg get pierced by Bill Clinton's now all-too-familiar
semen? According to Vivian, she and Clinton were very careful before he
popped the tart. "I had condoms and I distinctly remember telling him:
'I
got red, I got yellow, I got green, I got blue, I'm all out of purple,
but
I do have one Gold Circle Coin left -- the condom of champions --
nothin'
is getting through this baby."
But a baby sure did get through. And now Clinton may have to answer to
being a dead-beat dad to little Danny Williams -- for 13 years!
The official White House reaction was predictably evasive, as this
transcript of the morning's press conference demonstrates:
JOE LOCKHART: Any other questions?
SAM DONALDSON: Yeah, what about this kid who's claiming to be the
President's illegitimate son?
JOE: I don't know what you're talking about.
SAM: The mother is a prostitute--?
JOE: Sorry, I don't know what you're saying.
SAM: The bastard son? You haven't heard of this, Joe?
JOE: No, it's just -- me no speak English.
Later, Press Secretary Lockhart was more forthcoming when Donaldson
posed a
hypothetical question:
SAM DONALDSON: Joe, let's just say hypothetically a President
fell in love with a prostitute.
JOE LOCKHART: Hypothetically, yes.
SAM: And let's say he decides to be her knight in shining armor?
JOE: Go on?
SAM: So what happens after he climbs up and rescues her?
JOE: She rescues him right back.
Editors of SHAVED SNIZZ have arranged for Williams and his mother to
hold
an all-media press conference blow-out (pun intended) if DNA results
show a
link. If they don't show a link, the editors have arranged for a severe
beating of the mother and child by hired goons.
Developing fast!
© DRUDGE RETORT 1999
GO AHEAD; REPRODUCE THIS WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE AUTHORS
dctest Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> Looks like Drudge's "bOmBSheLL!" pooped. Again.
grist_4_...@juno.com
: On 06 Jan 1999 15:49:34 PST, r...@gulfstream.org.NOSPAM (Red Herring)
: wrote:
:
: >>Oh give us a break. You really think 'black' is the embarrassing aspect
: >>of this story if true?
: >
: >WJC, as in William "John" Clinton, is a national embarassment indeed, but
: >that is beyond my original point.
: >
: >The damning aspect of this story is that the man in the Oval Office is a
: >creep who racially discriminates against his own son.
:
: Amazing, when you consider that this is the same guy who spends 2/3 of
: his waking hours for the final two months prior to an election in
: black churches, isn't it?
Maybe he was looking for his long lost son.....
Nah. Never mind.
--
Johnny Relentless
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
H.Selvitella
<mkil...@nospam.prysm.net> wrote:
>
>Mark Gibson wrote in message ...
>
>SNIP
>
>>Give it up, Tremor. Clinton has been impeached and he is now being
>>tried for his many serious crimes.
>>
>>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
>
>
>And? What you ol'boys are forgetting is that Clinton has not been able to
>defend himself in the past. With the trial in the senate, Clinton is free to
>defend himself with vigor.
Vigor mortis.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...we always have a reserve power, when we see
that the President has made a mistake. We can always later
impeach him, if we like."
--J.William Fulbright
Chairman,
Senate Foreign Relations Commitee
August 1964
H.Selvitella
wrote:
>
>Geo wrote in message <369542...@sdf.com>...
>|M. Kilgore wrote:
>|Then why is he trying to avoid the trial? He should be clamoring to
>|line up witness after witness to bolster his case. Or is that exactly
>|what he is afraid of?
>
>Actually, there a number of Clinton's advisors that have been advocating exactly
>that, a full blown, call and cross examine every witness they can. They feel
>that they can mount a very strong defense. No witness or any the evidence has
>yet to be cross examined by the defense.
>
Whatever he does he'll have to do it within the constraints
imposed by Senate Rules as administered by the Chief Justice. I
don't know what relation these bear to Judicial rules of
evidence, for example.
M. Kilgore
H.Selvitella wrote in message <36974cf7...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
SNIP
>Whatever he does he'll have to do it within the constraints
>imposed by Senate Rules as administered by the Chief Justice. I
>don't know what relation these bear to Judicial rules of
>evidence, for example.
Clinton has an advantage in the witness calling since the minority doesn't
have the numbers to call a witness on their own, republicans will have to
bend over backwards to avoid the charge of partisanship. That's one reason I
think the plug will be pulled soonest - democrats have to ask republicans to
do anything while republicans can do anything they want without asking.
Senate republicans are well aware that the process can be crafted in such
away that even though Clinton is removed, the republicans lose. Don't think
it can happen? Look at the house and think again. The Chief Justice has no
real authority in the matter, he functions by the grace of the senate
majority - in this case, the republicans. Again, if republicans aren't
careful, it's a small matter to make the CJ appear as a tool of the
republicans, especially since most people seem to think he doesn't like
Clinton, anyway.
mark
Watson Aname
> "M. Kilgore" <mkil...@nospam.prysm.net> wrote:
>> Mark Gibson wrote in message ...
>>
>> SNIP
>>
>>> Give it up, Tremor. Clinton has been impeached and he is now
>>> being tried for his many serious crimes.
>>>
>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
>>
>> And? What you ol'boys are forgetting is that Clinton has not been
>> able to defend himself in the past. With the trial in the senate,
>> Clinton is free to defend himself with vigor.
>
> Vigor mortis.
So THAT is what's afflicting the Republican Party - vigor mortis.
Hmm. This time a year ago they looked fairly healthy, and a gift
of unimaginable potential value was about to fall into their lap.
No reckoning what condition they shall enjoy a year hence were an
actual advantageous wind to fill the sails of Democratic fortune.
That of a broke dicked dog, were current performance to continue.
Watson, who loves the smell of burning reactionary in the morning
Lee Harrison
> Looks like Drudge's "bOmBSheLL!" pooped. Again.
What dumbass rag named Drudge "Man of the Year?" The one nobody
remembers now, maybe. Anyway, here's the truth, provided by the
incandescent Jim Kennemur:
Scandal Interruptus: No Clinton DNA Match
Time Daily, January 9, 1999
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/daily/index.html
NEW YORK -- Bill Clinton has been dogged for years by the rumor that
in Arkansas he fathered a child of an African-American prostitute.
In 1992 the tale was flogged by the tabloid Globe. But it really
took off last week when news leaked that the tabloid Star was
conducting DNA tests to confirm or refute the rumors once and for all,
provoking a frenzy of speculation in Washington after the story leapt,
in the usual fashion, from the Drudge Report to the New York Post
to papers around the world.
Using the Starr Report's FBI analysis of Clinton's DNA as its
reference,Star paid former prostitute Bobbie Ann Williams, the source
for the Globe article, and her 13-year-old son for their story and
blood samples. And the result: "There was no match. Not even close,"
says a Star source. (The Starr Report contains sufficient data
to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity.) But if the
tabloid was disappointed by the results, it's putting up a good,
Brill's Content-ready front. Says editor in chief Phil Bunton:
"We investigate dozens of stories every week, and if they don't
prove to be true, we don't run them."
--
Lee Harrison | Vide et crede
"If we can get just one person in Congress, it will be like opening
the floodgates. It could change this country overnight." - David
Duke, 1.2.99
Lee Harrison
wrote:
> Oh, You saw his son with him?
> Looking better than I thought before the Senators voted 100% for the plan to
> include witnesses.
First, the plan - basically the Liebermann Plan - provides 24 hours
for the Right-House and the President to present their respective
cases - then 10 hours for questions from the Senators - then a vote as
to whether the evidence is compelling enough to call witnesses.
As to that last provision - the vote concerning credible evidence -
read this:
(provided by Jim)
Scandal Interruptus: No Clinton DNA Match
Time Daily, January 9, 1999
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/daily/index.html
NEW YORK -- Bill Clinton has been dogged for years by the rumor that
in Arkansas he fathered a child of an African-American prostitute.
In 1992 the tale was flogged by the tabloid Globe. But it really
took off last week when news leaked that the tabloid Star was
conducting DNA tests to confirm or refute the rumors once and for all,
provoking a frenzy of speculation in Washington after the story leapt,
in the usual fashion, from the Drudge Report to the New York Post
to papers around the world.
Using the Starr Report's FBI analysis of Clinton's DNA as its
reference,Star paid former prostitute Bobbie Ann Williams, the source
for the Globe article, and her 13-year-old son for their story and
blood samples. And the result: "There was no match. Not even close,"
says a Star source. (The Starr Report contains sufficient data
to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity.) But if the
tabloid was disappointed by the results, it's putting up a good,
Brill's Content-ready front. Says editor in chief Phil Bunton:
"We investigate dozens of stories every week, and if they don't
prove to be true, we don't run them."
----------------------------
I wonder. If what the Star says is true about the House using this
idiotic lie as a basis for voting for impeachment, how stupid are
they?
When will the less stupid middle-of-the-roaders turn on
DeLay-Barr-Graham-Hyde-Armey-Hastert-et al and deprive the fools of
any further authority?
Anyway, the bastards that drug this poor kid's name through the mud to
attempt a smear on the president should be identified, and if they
hold public office, removed from it, or if they make their living by
practicing law, they should be disbarred.
> Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Jan 1999 18:03:31 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
>> aol.net> wrote:
>>
>> >This morning I saw Clinton in Detroit with a young black boy. Could this
> be
>> >Danny? Clinton was asking the price of a new car. Can he be planing on an
>> >early return to Arkansas?
>>
>> He was laughing at your last feeble attempt to get him.
>>
>> How many votes to convict did you say you had in the Senate?
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> Ecrasons l'infame
>>
>> Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>>
>> ========================================================================
>> Hear Rush sing "I'm A Nazi" http://www.99x.com/rush.ram
>>
>> If you have not already installed it you'll need the Real Player
>> from http://www.real.com
>>
>> "We've got some pretty women on here this time."
>>
>> -- Strom Thurmond (Senile, S.C.) on the Senate Armed Services Committee
>> ========================================================================
>
Lee Harrison
Scandal Interruptus: No Clinton DNA Match
Time Daily, January 9, 1999
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/daily/index.html
NEW YORK -- Bill Clinton has been dogged for years by the rumor that
in Arkansas he fathered a child of an African-American prostitute.
In 1992 the tale was flogged by the tabloid Globe. But it really
took off last week when news leaked that the tabloid Star was
conducting DNA tests to confirm or refute the rumors once and for all,
provoking a frenzy of speculation in Washington after the story leapt,
in the usual fashion, from the Drudge Report to the New York Post
to papers around the world.
Using the Starr Report's FBI analysis of Clinton's DNA as its
reference,Star paid former prostitute Bobbie Ann Williams, the source
for the Globe article, and her 13-year-old son for their story and
blood samples. And the result: "There was no match. Not even close,"
says a Star source. (The Starr Report contains sufficient data
to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity.) But if the
tabloid was disappointed by the results, it's putting up a good,
Brill's Content-ready front. Says editor in chief Phil Bunton:
"We investigate dozens of stories every week, and if they don't
prove to be true, we don't run them."
----------------------------
Basically, your rightwing heros slandered this little kid for no other
reason than their slobbering attempt to discredit President Clinton.
And since you happily joined them, "dctest Anonymous Remailer", fuck
you, you piece of human shit.
Anyway. If what the Star says is true about the House using this
idiotic lie as a basis for voting for impeachment, they did something
very stupid and illegitimate, if not illegal.
They based their votes to impeach the President of the United States
on a tabloid article that was proven to be false.
If what the Star says is true, these idiot congresspeople should
resign immediately.
I predict this will be the next big scandal for the rightwingers.
After those pictures of Bob Barr wearing women's underwear come out.
When will the less stupid middle-of-the-roaders turn on
DeLay-Barr-Graham-Hyde-Armey-Hastert-et al and deprive the fools of
any further authority?
In article <3696DF74...@flash.net> , Troy <tro...@flash.net>
wrote:
> dctest Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>
>> Looks like Drudge's "bOmBSheLL!" pooped. Again.
>
Lady...@my-dejanews.com
> >
> >
> >And? What you ol'boys are forgetting is that Clinton has not been able to
> >defend himself in the past. With the trial in the senate, Clinton is free to
> >defend himself with vigor.
>
> Vigor mortis.
>
Not been able to defend himself???!!!! What planet are you on???!!! I guess
all the witness smearing in the press isn't defending himself. I guess the
public trashing of Ken Starr isn't defending. .Of course, the house democrats
were invited MANY TIMES to PLEASE CALL WITNESSES to defend their hero. They
never did. Know why? THERE AREN'T ANY FACT WITNESSES to defend the dirtbag.
WHat did that idiot lawyer of his, Kendall, do when HE had the chance to
defend his highness? Wasted every minute with trying to tear Starr apart,
rather than offer any, I repeat ANY, evidence that would clear his highness
of the crimes he is accused of. You are dreaming. sheila
TOMofSNJ
<7795ls$g0c$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> were invited MANY TIMES to PLEASE CALL WITNESSES to defend their hero.
They
Why would they defend the president and possible provide useful
information for the senate trial in the house's "witch hunt". If your
remember It was the "republicans" that failed to call witnesses other than
Ken Starr. When I watch Ken Starr, I was amazed at how often he did not
answer questions because he could not remember the facts or he did not
want the information on TV. Ken Starr was not present at the
"president's" disposition. Ken Starr failed to explain the Trip
connection. I think you will find Ken Starr in big trouble when the truth
comes out about the Starr-trip-Jones' lawyers is finally public. Ken
Starr continued to collect a million dollars a year salary while going
after the president. Who was providing money to his law firm to pay his
million dollars salary for no work?
Only a fool would have provided any real defense at the judiciary "witch
hunt". The fact that Clinton did not provided any defense at the house is
only useful to the 12 angry white men to defend an otherwise "weak" case.
Dave I.
Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
<36b48999...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 08:37:39 GMT, grist_4_...@juno.com wrote:
>
>>Ted Holden (med...@ix.deniz.com) wrote:
>> : On 06 Jan 1999 15:49:34 PST, r...@gulfstream.org.NOSPAM (Red Herring)
>> : wrote:
>> :
>> : >>Oh give us a break. You really think 'black' is the embarrassing
aspect
>> : >>of this story if true?
>> : >
>> : >WJC, as in William "John" Clinton, is a national embarassment indeed,
but
>> : >that is beyond my original point.
>> : >
>> : >The damning aspect of this story is that the man in the Oval Office is
a
>> : >creep who racially discriminates against his own son.
>> :
>> : Amazing, when you consider that this is the same guy who spends 2/3 of
>> : his waking hours for the final two months prior to an election in
>> : black churches, isn't it?
>>
>>Maybe he was looking for his long lost son.....
>>
>>Nah. Never mind.
>
>
> Jim
>
All you've got on Hyde and Burton is an affair or two. In Hyde's case, it
was more than 30 years ago. There's so much more than that on Slick Willie,
who STILL lies to the people. That's the difference.
Dave
Hamilton
<Wear@Smile> wrote:
When Hyde was Clinton's age he behaved like Clinton -- maybe worse since he
broke up a family. Now that he can't do it anymore, he is sanctimonious.
Burton has a long time reputation as a major skirt chaser -- certainly no
more virtuous than Clinton at his worst -- and the DNA did match in his case,
so he was a careless irresponsible skirt chaser as well. Livningston
apparently traded sex for political favors with lobbyists -- a far worse
offence than anything Clinton is involved in.
And poor Danny Williams HAS been made roadkill in the pursuit of
'get Clinton'. NOw everyone in the country is a witness to his humiliation.
Nice going GOPs -- you don't care who you run over as long as you can
try to nail Clinton.
grist_4_...@juno.com
Personally, I always thought Danny looked more like
Hillary....
--
Johnny Relentless
Airhed
TOMofSNJ wrote in message <01be3ca0$63aa6d60$f448ccd1@default>...
...
>If your
>remember It was the "republicans" that failed to call witnesses other than
>Ken Starr. When I watch Ken Starr, I was amazed at how often he did not
>answer questions because he could not remember the facts or he did not
>want the information on TV.
If you were amazed at how often he said it, you must have been
absolutely _stunned_ at the "Big Creep"'s "I don't recalls" and "I can't
remembers". Perhaps they were so overwhelming you forgot them? I was
amazed at how often Ken Starr offered to retrieve the information- I don't
think he left very much info at a mere "I don't recall". He _often_
followed up with offers to retrieve the information or [valid] explanations
why he wouldn't know. What was asked of Clinton in his deposition was all
information that he, personally should [or certainly could] have known- not
information on what an entire office has done.
>Ken
>Starr continued to collect a million dollars a year salary while going
>after the president. Who was providing money to his law firm to pay his
>million dollars salary for no work?
Say he collects that much money, then. I recommend you do a little
research and find out how much a cruise missile costs. Then find out how
many were launched at the Big Creep's behest. Do a little multiplication.
Now there's a sum to complain about.
Now I have a question. Imagine, hypothetically, the President Clinton
_is_ convicted in the senate, just for a moment. What will be the response
of the media and press? They will never in a million years say that justice
has been served- rather it will be said that this was a travesty carried on
the shoulders of a partisan political system. It seems, in fact, that the
facts do not matter a whit to the media and, therefore, the public. The
public likes to be spoonfed soundbites, and they get it at a cost- the cost
of independant thought. How many times has the media _told_ you what to
think? People need to get off the party bandwagon and get the Constitution.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work to remain stupid." -
Benjamin Franklin
H.Selvitella
Gibson) wrote:
>H.Selvitella (he...@wnet.att.net) wrote:
>>On Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:32:20 -0600, "M. Kilgore"
>><mkil...@nospam.prysm.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Mark Gibson wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>SNIP
>>>
>>>>Give it up, Tremor. Clinton has been impeached and he is now being
>>>>tried for his many serious crimes.
>>>>
>>>>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>And? What you ol'boys are forgetting is that Clinton has not been able to
>>>defend himself in the past. With the trial in the senate, Clinton is free to
>>>defend himself with vigor.
>>
>>Vigor mortis.
>
>Or perhaps vigorish at the taxpayers' expense!
Vigorish mortisha? His vife spends a lot of money?
H.Selvitella
You make it sound as though the RULES will be made up as
necessity dictates.
I should be very surprised to discover that the Chief Justice has
no procedure over which to preside.
M. Kilgore
H.Selvitella wrote in message <3699d4a3...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Sat, 9 Jan 1999 11:30:31 -0600, "M. Kilgore"
SNIP
>>Senate republicans are well aware that the process can be crafted in such
>>away that even though Clinton is removed, the republicans lose. Don't
think
>>it can happen? Look at the house and think again. The Chief Justice has no
>>real authority in the matter, he functions by the grace of the senate
>>majority - in this case, the republicans. Again, if republicans aren't
>>careful, it's a small matter to make the CJ appear as a tool of the
>>republicans, especially since most people seem to think he doesn't like
>>Clinton, anyway.
>>
>>mark
>
>You make it sound as though the RULES will be made up as
>necessity dictates.
No, that's the other interesting part, the republicans don't have the
numbers to change the rules without having bipartisan support. The current
requirement for bipartisan support (a practical one) limits what can be done
with rule changes to innoculous changes.
>I should be very surprised to discover that the Chief Justice has
>no procedure over which to preside.
The Chief Justice presides, but he has no real authority to do anything.
It's hoped, of course, that the CJ will keep both sides from getting too
wild, but anytime the senate disagree's with him, they can tell him to shove
it. You need to bear in mind that the senate trial is a political action and
the participants aren't bound entirely by the rule of law. The outcome of
the trial will be a result of considering the truth of the charges and the
relative position each party is left in at the end of the trial. I know the
conservatives don't like that, but that's the way it is. If the republicans
can get overwhelming bipartisan support then they can convict, but it
doesn't look like that'll happen. They can also convict on a 2/3's majority,
but that leaves them in a bad position afterwards. I look for them to pull
the plug and dismiss.
mark
H.Selvitella
We'll see.
M. Kilgore
H.Selvitella wrote in message <369b504...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
SNIP
>>The Chief Justice presides, but he has no real authority to do anything.
>>It's hoped, of course, that the CJ will keep both sides from getting too
>>wild, but anytime the senate disagree's with him, they can tell him to
shove
>>it. You need to bear in mind that the senate trial is a political action
and
>>the participants aren't bound entirely by the rule of law. The outcome of
>>the trial will be a result of considering the truth of the charges and the
>>relative position each party is left in at the end of the trial. I know
the
>>conservatives don't like that, but that's the way it is. If the
republicans
>>can get overwhelming bipartisan support then they can convict, but it
>>doesn't look like that'll happen. They can also convict on a 2/3's
majority,
>>but that leaves them in a bad position afterwards. I look for them to pull
>>the plug and dismiss.
>>
>We'll see.
Indeed we will. It's a crap shoot at best, I think. People will try to make
sense out of the trial by relating it to criminal procedures they've seen
and probably won't have much luck doing that. After reviewing the Johnson
impeachment/trial and looking at this one, I'm beginning to think that the
framers, by including "high crimes and misdemeanors," purposely set it up so
that we, the people, pay a price when we let things get so screwed up and
actually get to the point they are now - e.g., the impeachment/removal
process of a president for crimes other than bribery or treason represents a
failure of the system rather than a "victory" of the system.
mark
H.Selvitella
<mkil...@nospam.prysm.net> wrote:
Sounds like a wise contingency for flexibility. OF COURSE we can
screw up as we have done with this guy. Avoiding the FATAL
screw-up inherent in democratic systems is at issue: popular
approval of a real stinker.
Nothing's perfect. But our system is perfecter than any other.
No?
M. Kilgore
H.Selvitella wrote in message <369ca4b6...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:14:16 -0600, "M. Kilgore"
SNIP
>Sounds like a wise contingency for flexibility. OF COURSE we can
>screw up as we have done with this guy. Avoiding the FATAL
>screw-up inherent in democratic systems is at issue: popular
>approval of a real stinker.
And there is the problem, Clinton is much more the lovable, but effective,
stinker than the evil incarnate some would have him be.
>
>Nothing's perfect. But our system is perfecter than any other.
>
>No?
I'm pretty happy with it. It's a bit unusal that we've let the extremes pull
so hard before we've self-corrected, though. Most times when we let one of
the extremes grab control, we only do it for a short while and then
re-establish the center long before it gets to the point it is now. I guess
we must have just been having too much fun.
mark
H.Selvitella
<mkil...@nospam.prysm.net> wrote:
>
>H.Selvitella wrote in message <369ca4b6...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:14:16 -0600, "M. Kilgore"
>
>SNIP
>
>>Sounds like a wise contingency for flexibility. OF COURSE we can
>>screw up as we have done with this guy. Avoiding the FATAL
>>screw-up inherent in democratic systems is at issue: popular
>>approval of a real stinker.
>
>And there is the problem, Clinton is much more the lovable, but effective,
>stinker than the evil incarnate some would have him be.
>
The television image is certainly "personable", but on the street
I think you would pass him by if you were acquainted, even if he
had taken to playing the saxophone in doorways. In the boardroom
you would, perhaps, marvel at platitudes once and opt for a
different seating arrangement thereafter. You would at the very
least blush if he were to put his hand in your pocket. You would
not ask his advice if your son were contemplating a military
career. You would call your lawyer if your daughter brought him
home to dinner. But, in two dimensional television, I grant you
he seems a "personable" fellow, affected, transparent, but
"personable".
>>Nothing's perfect. But our system is perfecter than any other.
>>No?
>I'm pretty happy with it. It's a bit unusal that we've let the extremes pull
>so hard before we've self-corrected, though. Most times when we let one of
>the extremes grab control, we only do it for a short while and then
>re-establish the center long before it gets to the point it is now. I guess
>we must have just been having too much fun.
I think the center is fluid and that it has slipped so far to the
left a man is afraid to pray for fear of being characterized an
extremist.
Nevertheless it can be said with humour: Kilgore was here!