Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton...... Raped!
rightwinghank
**Exclusive**
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton turned furious and considered legal
action after learning bestselling author Ed Klein would allege in a new
book: Bill Clinton raped her -- resulting in the conception of daughter
Chelsea Clinton!
"[Author] Klein is going to rot in hell for this," a well-placed source
close to Hillary said over the weekend.
The explosive charge comes in THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY: WHAT SHE KNEW,
WHEN SHE KNEW IT, AND HOW FAR SHE'LL GO TO BECOME PRESIDENT -- set for
release next week.
[The book ranked #198 on AMAZON.COM's hourly sale chart late Sunday.]
MORE
"I'm going back to my cottage to rape my wife," Klein quotes Bill
Clinton as saying during a Bermuda getaway in 1979.
In the morning, the Clintons' room "looked like World War III. There
are pillows and busted-up furniture all over the place," an unnamed
source tells Klein.
Klein source claims Bill later learned Hillary was pregnant reading
about it in the ARKANSAS GAZETTE.
"The fact that his wife didn't tell him that she was pregnant before
she told a reporter doesn't seem to phase him one bit, because he says,
'Do you know what night that happened?"
"'No,' I say. 'When?"
"'It was Bermuda,' he says, 'And you were there!'"
MORE
The rape claim is just the beginning of Klein's alleged revelations,
the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY marks the most aggressive attempt yet to
investigate Hillary.
The former first lady turned senator fumed as a close aide offered
details of the book, an insider explains.
"Mrs. Clinton told me she would considering suing him for outright
libel," the top Hillary source explains. "This is the right wing attack
machine on crack!"
MORE
But Hillary and her camp may have a hard time typecasting Ed Klein as a
Clinton-crazed right-winger. Klein is the former foreign editor of
NEWSWEEK and former editor in chief of the NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE. He
is a frequent contributor to VANITY FAIR and PARADE.
He is also the author of THE KENNEDY CURSE; FAREWELL, JACKIE; and
several other NEW YORK TIMES bestsellers.
VANITY FAIR has already commissioned an excerpt of the embargoed
Hillary book, exploring Hillary's senate runs.
Developing... Drudge
....................................
This proves that Bill Clinton is and was unfit for office........
he raped a pig.......
love
hank
.......................................
Joe S.
something else. That should tell you something. And he now makes a living
by writing occasional pieces for third-rate pulp magazines. He needs some
cash so he figures the best way to pick up a bundle is to write a piece of
sensationalist trash. Just the sort of thing that will set you
rightwingnuts all a'twitter.
Nice try -- but it won't distract the attention of most Americans from
Bush's fiasco in Iraq, his failures in the war on terror, his attempts to
destroy social security, and his general attacks on middle and working class
America.
--
-----
Joe S.
"rightwinghank" <rightw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118627858.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
ADOLF LIBERAL
but wait!
there's more
Bill and Hillary could be Brother and Sister!
Captain Compassion
wrote:
>I notice that this guy Klein is former this and former that and former
>something else. That should tell you something. And he now makes a living
>by writing occasional pieces for third-rate pulp magazines. He needs some
>cash so he figures the best way to pick up a bundle is to write a piece of
>sensationalist trash. Just the sort of thing that will set you
>rightwingnuts all a'twitter.
>
>Nice try -- but it won't distract the attention of most Americans from
>Bush's fiasco in Iraq, his failures in the war on terror, his attempts to
>destroy social security, and his general attacks on middle and working class
>America.
Actuality isn't it the position of some feminists that all sex in
marriage is rape?
--
A general rule: if enough people predict something, it
won¹t happen. -- J. G. Ballard
"America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." -- John Updike
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net
edi...@netpath.net
since law school. Starting with how "public figures" - and she, as a
U.S. senator, surely would be ruled one - have an almost impossible
burden in suing anyone in any slander or libel case, due to
longstanding U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Peter Vos
rightwinghank wrote:
> RAGE AT AUTHOR AFTER CLAIM: BILL RAPED HILLARY, CONCEIVED CHELSEA
>
> **Exclusive**
>
> Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton turned furious and considered legal
> action after learning bestselling author Ed Klein would allege in a new
> book: Bill Clinton raped her -- resulting in the conception of daughter
> Chelsea Clinton!
>
[snip
Lemme get this straight... the Clintons get married in 1975.
Chelsea is born in 1980.
Someone is making a completely unsubstantiated claim that Clinton, a
man who is famous for his charism, raped his wife ????
Was there a police report?
Has Hillary at anytime claimed she was abused?
Is there any forensic evidence to support this claim?
Is there any documentary evidence to support this claim?
> ....................................
> This proves that Bill Clinton is and was unfit for office........
> he raped a pig.......
>
Lemme get this straight ... this completely unsubstantiated crap is
getting air time, but the following matters of public record "don't
count" and we're supposed to believe there is no "Vast Right Wing
Conspiracy" right?
====
Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond
had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting
two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a
10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years
in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in
federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an
inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was charged with
molesting his 9-year old step-daughter after including her in an
anti-Gore television commercial.
Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having
sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child
porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex
crimes involving children.
Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted
sexual assault on a child.
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as
a congressional page.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged
with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for
distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting
a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex
with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the
allegations were reported in the media.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of
raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two
years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old
girl.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first
degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony
counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16
(i.e. exposing himself to children).
Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two
daughters.
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted
of molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to
unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to
raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a
male child.
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good
military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex
with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for
Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in
the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.
Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas
Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six
years in prison.
===
Oh and what about that Republican journalist Gannon?
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
"Joe S." wrote:
>
> I notice that this guy Klein is former this and former that and former
> something else. That should tell you something. And he now makes a living
> by writing occasional pieces for third-rate pulp magazines.
>
Third rate? Isn't it supposed to be "NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE"? Granted
"Newsweek" too, but then Newsweek isn't exactly rightwing.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
bitch got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Hillary Clinton is actually a werewolf.
Peter Vos
edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> If Hitlery's really planning any libel suit, she's forgotten a lot
> since law school. Starting with how "public figures" - and she, as a
> U.S. senator, surely would be ruled one - have an almost impossible
> burden in suing anyone in any slander or libel case, due to
> longstanding U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
>
That may be true, assuming Hillary can't demonstrate "actual malice" on
the part of Klein. But regardless of Hillary's position, I don't think
Chelsea would be similarly constrained. Simply being the child of a
"public figure" doesn't automatically make you one.
In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., the Supreme Court stated that "those
who by reason of the notoriety of their achievements or the vigor and
success with which they seek the public's attention" are classified as
public figures under the First Amendment.
Public figures, the court observed, generally "have assumed roles of
especial prominence in the affairs of society" and have "assumed
special prominence in the resolution of public questions." As such, a
public figure "may recover for injury to reputation only on clear and
convincing proof that the defamatory falsehood was made with knowledge
of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth." This is known
as the "actual malice" standard. (Others, in contrast, may in some
cases recover based on a showing of mere negligence by the publisher --
not actual malice).
There are "all purpose" public figures, which include those who "occupy
positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed
public figures for all purposes." These are people like Ralph Nader,
Julia Roberts, Mohammad Ali, Britney Spears, Madonna and David
Letterman. Then there are "limited purpose" public figures, those who
"have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public
controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues
involved." By voluntarily propelling themselves into such
controversies, the limited purpose public figures invite attention and
comment.
Finally, the Court indicated that "it may be possible for someone to
become a public figure through no purposeful action of his own," but
that "the instances of truly involuntary public figures must be
exceedingly rare."
Chelsea does not appear to fall under the high court's definition of a
public figure. She is famous only because of who her parents are. The
media understands this. Main stream media has consistently protected
the privacy of presidential children. For example, it wasn't until the
Bush daughters actually got arrested that they got covered by more than
the National Enquirer. By any standard, when a member of the White
House family breaks the law, that is legitimate news.
I will not be surprised if Chelsea sues Klein... and wins.
Joe
would be ruled one - have an almost impossible burden in suing anyone in any
slander or libel case, due to longstanding U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
>
If something is a lie, she can win. Elton John got a $10 Million Judgment
when some magazine claimed he was partying with Michael Jackson and had kids
sleeping in his bed too.
Dr. Jesus
Peter Vos wrote:
You do realize a liberal can put an R next to his name and get elected,
right?
jimpgh2002
On what grounds would Chealsea sue?
Peter Vos
Dr. Jesus wrote:
> Peter Vos wrote:
>
> >
> > Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond
> > had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
> >
[snip lengthy list of Republicans who confessed, or were convicted of
sexual crimes]
>
> You do realize a liberal can put an R next to his name and get elected,
> right?
I didn't realize his name was Stom Thumond.... I just assumed it was
his accent.
jimpgh2002
Even if the book has some things in it that are wrong(and I
don't know if it does), how could one prove they were lies as opposed
to mistakes?
I imagine a lawsuit would be welcomed, actually; it would sell
more books and would probably be futile.
edi...@netpath.net
>That may be true, assuming Hillary can't demonstrate "actual malice" on
>the part of Klein. But regardless of Hillary's position, I don't think
>Chelsea would be similarly constrained. Simply being the child of a
>"public figure" doesn't automatically make you one.
I'd say any daughter of a president - who routinely accompanied the
First Lady on official trips abroad - definitely is a "public figure."
(Remember her going with Hitlery on Hitlery's official trips in Asia
during the Klintons Regime?)
And what could she sue Klein for libel for, anyhow? She lacks
STANDING to sue over his claim that her MOTHER - not her - was a rape
victim. (And, if his claim is true, then nobody has a valid libel case
- as truth is an absolute defense to libel cases; does Chelsea really
want Mom dragged in as a witness to be forced to testify under oath
about whether Dad ever raped Mom?)
Dr. Jesus
You run away so well...are you French?
Native American
"Joe S." <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:d8ipv...@news2.newsguy.com...
>I notice that this guy Klein is former this and former that and former
> something else. That should tell you something.
Do you know that Bill Clinton was the former governor of Arkansas?
Also, are you aware that Hillary Clinton was a former student at Wellesley
College?
Native American
"Peter Vos" <pvo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118638998.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>> If Hitlery's really planning any libel suit, she's forgotten a lot
>> since law school. Starting with how "public figures" - and she, as a
>> U.S. senator, surely would be ruled one - have an almost impossible
>> burden in suing anyone in any slander or libel case, due to
>> longstanding U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
>>
>
> That may be true, assuming Hillary can't demonstrate "actual malice" on
> the part of Klein. But regardless of Hillary's position, I don't think
> Chelsea would be similarly constrained. Simply being the child of a
> "public figure" doesn't automatically make you one.
So you actually think all the children who have been born because some
rapist raped their mom have legal standing to sue the rapist??? Or are you
saying you feel those children have legal standing to sue, for example, any
*judge* and *jury* who find some particular rapist guilty??
Native American
> Lemme get this straight... the Clintons get married in 1975.
> Chelsea is born in 1980.
>
> Someone is making a completely unsubstantiated claim that Clinton, a
> man who is famous for his charism, raped his wife ????
What's your substantiation for your claim that "the Clintons got married in
1975"? Also, what is your substantiation for your claim that "Chelsea was
born in 1980"?
Ramones
> don't know if it does), how could one prove they were lies as opposed
> to mistakes?>
A mistake is if the writers says Hillary was wearing pink panties instead of
red panties (after all, she was wearing panties of some kind). A lie is if
someone fabricates something totally abnormal that did not happen. Like
writing that Bill raped his wife goes way beyond anything that could be
thought of as a typographical error or innocent mistake. If Hillary can
prove she was A) somewhere else when the guy says she was being raped; or B)
have several hotel employees testify that the room was not "destroyed" and
in a shambles; I think Klein's ass is grass.
She should sue the bastard for every penny he has, and then get a
garnishment order on him so every time he sells an article she gets 40% of
his income. I do not like her, but claiming her only child was conceived
because her husband raped her is so fucking low it is boggles the
imagination. This guy was a Governor at the time, and he was young,
successful, and they were the ultimate Arkansas couple at that time.
Destroying a hotel room makes a lot of noise. It seems that something like
that would attract attention.
edi...@netpath.net
>She should sue the bastard for every penny he has, and then get a
>garnishment order on him so every time he sells an article she gets 40% of
>his income. I do not like her, but claiming her only child was conceived
>because her husband raped her is so fucking low it is boggles the
>imagination. This guy was a Governor at the time, and he was young,
>successful, and they were the ultimate Arkansas couple at that time.
And what about that means he couldn't have raped her? After all, a
congresscritter from out west named Packwood was disgraced for sexually
harassing numerous women several years ago, remember?
Peter Vos
No. However, in this case there are definite grounds for Chelsea to
sue... and win.
Peter Vos
edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> >That may be true, assuming Hillary can't demonstrate "actual malice" on
> >the part of Klein. But regardless of Hillary's position, I don't think
> >Chelsea would be similarly constrained. Simply being the child of a
> >"public figure" doesn't automatically make you one.
>
> I'd say any daughter of a president - who routinely accompanied the
> First Lady on official trips abroad - definitely is a "public figure."
> (Remember her going with Hitlery on Hitlery's official trips in Asia
> during the Klintons Regime?)
Wrong again. Note that even the well known shenanigans of the Bush
daughters were not fodder for press coverage until they actually got
arrested.
> And what could she sue Klein for libel for, anyhow?
Wrong again. Start with invasion of privacy and emotional distress, and
work out from there.
> STANDING to sue over his claim that her MOTHER - not her - was a rape
> victim. (And, if his claim is true, then nobody has a valid libel case
> - as truth is an absolute defense to libel cases; does Chelsea really
> want Mom dragged in as a witness to be forced to testify under oath
> about whether Dad ever raped Mom?)
If it is true, then they need to have proof.
If it is true then they need to explain why they didn't bring the
matter before the proper authority until 10 years after the statute of
limitations (and that is with extenuating DNA evidence)? By 1986, well
within the statute of limitations, Clinton was Governor. There is an
obligation to report a felony if you have evidence that one was
committed. Rape is a felony.
Of course, if you weren't a hypocritical polemicist you would not be
defending this outrageous behavior on the part of people who use
anonymous hearsay evidence to make money off of credulous people like
you.
Peter Vos
Invasion of privacy and wilfull infliction of emotional distress for
starters.
Native American
Nope. She definitely doesn't even have a case.
Native American
>
>
> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>> Peter wrote:
>> >That may be true, assuming Hillary can't demonstrate "actual malice" on
>> >the part of Klein. But regardless of Hillary's position, I don't think
>> >Chelsea would be similarly constrained. Simply being the child of a
>> >"public figure" doesn't automatically make you one.
>>
>> I'd say any daughter of a president - who routinely accompanied the
>> First Lady on official trips abroad - definitely is a "public figure."
>> (Remember her going with Hitlery on Hitlery's official trips in Asia
>> during the Klintons Regime?)
>
> Wrong again. Note that even the well known shenanigans of the Bush
> daughters were not fodder for press coverage until they actually got
> arrested.
>
>> And what could she sue Klein for libel for, anyhow?
>
> Wrong again. Start with invasion of privacy and emotional distress, and
> work out from there.
Nope. Remember - it wasn't Chelsea whom Bill Clinton raped, it was her
MOTHER. So there's no "invasion of privacy" whatsoever.
Plus, most Americans suspect Chelsea ALREADY is aware that her father is an
adulterer, a whoremonger, and a liar, in addition to being a suspected
rapist and groper, so she's already dealt with whatever "emotional distress"
that comes from knowing those things about her dad, and has dealt with them
LONG ago.
Peter Vos
Native American wrote:
> "Peter Vos" <pvo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118668570.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> >> Peter wrote:
> >> >That may be true, assuming Hillary can't demonstrate "actual malice" on
> >> >the part of Klein. But regardless of Hillary's position, I don't think
> >> >Chelsea would be similarly constrained. Simply being the child of a
> >> >"public figure" doesn't automatically make you one.
> >>
> >> I'd say any daughter of a president - who routinely accompanied the
> >> First Lady on official trips abroad - definitely is a "public figure."
> >> (Remember her going with Hitlery on Hitlery's official trips in Asia
> >> during the Klintons Regime?)
> >
> > Wrong again. Note that even the well known shenanigans of the Bush
> > daughters were not fodder for press coverage until they actually got
> > arrested.
> >
> >> And what could she sue Klein for libel for, anyhow?
> >
> > Wrong again. Start with invasion of privacy and emotional distress, and
> > work out from there.
>
>
> Nope. Remember - it wasn't Chelsea whom Bill Clinton raped, it was her
> MOTHER. So there's no "invasion of privacy" whatsoever.
If the charge had been made that he raped his wife and that was it, I
would agree with you. However, the charge is made that he raped his
wife and Chelsea is the product of that crime. Unless they can
demonstrate that is true, she is being drawn into a defamatory
situation and is clearly damaged by the allegations.
Native American
>> >> And what could she sue Klein for libel for, anyhow?
>> >
>> > Wrong again. Start with invasion of privacy and emotional distress, and
>> > work out from there.
>>
>>
>> Nope. Remember - it wasn't Chelsea whom Bill Clinton raped, it was her
>> MOTHER. So there's no "invasion of privacy" whatsoever.
>
>
> If the charge had been made that he raped his wife and that was it, I
> would agree with you. However, the charge is made that he raped his
> wife and Chelsea is the product of that crime. Unless they can
> demonstrate that is true, she is being drawn into a defamatory
> situation and is clearly damaged by the allegations.
Nope, no more than ANY bastard child is "being drawn into a defamatory
situation" when some judge or jury finds some adulterous rapist guilty.
jimpgh2002
You need to come up with something better than that. The book
denigrates her parents, not her. So it's not her privacy and as far
as emotional distress goes, she would've been bonkers by now if
accusations against Bill or Hill bothered her much.
Peter Vos
The additional damages would be loss of future income, and loss of
potential income.
It is important that in this instance it is explicitly claimed that she
is the RESULT of an alleged sex crime. Rape is a felony. Employers
generally don't like employees who are associated with felonies, either
as perpetrators or victims. That's a real invasion of privacy with
obvious wilful infliction of emotional distress. It also raises the
real possibility of potential professional damage given her chosen
career path.
This could easily impact an employer's decision to hire her as a
spokesperson on many issues relating to healthcare, her chosen
profession. What employer would want to have her deliver a report
knowing this unfounded allegation will give anyone with an ax to grind
an opportunity to color any presentation or publication she ever makes
regarding maternal healthcare, pediatrics, infancy, adoption, foster
care, abortion, or neonatal issues?
Being a victim of a sex crime is not a protected category. That is one
of the reasons victims are reluctant to make their allegations public.
In this case, she would be treated just like any victim of an alleged
sexual felony. The discrimination against victims of sex crimes is not
fair. It is precisely because it is not fair that she would have a
potential claim for damages.
Here's how it plays out: A prospective employer could actually tell
her to her face that they were not hiring her because of the POTENTIAL
adverse publicity it MIGHT generate and she would have no legal
recourse for discrimination. A prospective employer could actually
tell her they wouldn't even hire her to PREPARE documents for
presentations by other employees because the firm would be tarnished by
association. A firm could legitimately claim they were acting
responsibly by not hiring her since their prospective and current
clients MIGHT drop the firm or avoid it because they wanted to avoid
any association with potential controversy.
Invasion of privacy, wilful infliction of emotional distress, loss of
future earnings, lost of potential earnings, and thoe are just some
obvious causes of action here...... even without punitive damages you
are looking at a huge liability. Before this story was publicized she
had a demonstrated market value of $120K per year. Multiply that by 50
and you start to appreciate the magnitude of damages. It's millions of
dollars.
Throw in punitive damages and you could treble the award.
Name Redacted
edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> Ramones wrote:
> >She should sue the bastard for every penny he has, and then get a
> >garnishment order on him so every time he sells an article she gets 40% of
> >his income. I do not like her, but claiming her only child was conceived
> >because her husband raped her is so fucking low it is boggles the
> >imagination. This guy was a Governor at the time, and he was young,
> >successful, and they were the ultimate Arkansas couple at that time.
>
> And what about that means he couldn't have raped her?
Don't be stupid. "Could" and "couldn't" are irrelevant concepts. The
only point that would count is "did." And a torn-up room isn't
sufficient. Klein would need proof, because truth is the only perfect
defense against a claim of libel.
And claiming the Clinton's are public figures is not sufficient as a
defense as a very good case can be made that this allegation was made
with full knowledge of falseness and intended to harm the subjects.
Peter Vos
Name Redacted wrote:
> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> > Ramones wrote:
> > >She should sue the bastard for every penny he has, and then get a
> > >garnishment order on him so every time he sells an article she gets 40% of
> > >his income. I do not like her, but claiming her only child was conceived
> > >because her husband raped her is so fucking low it is boggles the
> > >imagination. This guy was a Governor at the time, and he was young,
> > >successful, and they were the ultimate Arkansas couple at that time.
> >
> > And what about that means he couldn't have raped her?
>
> Don't be stupid. "Could" and "couldn't" are irrelevant concepts. The
> only point that would count is "did." And a torn-up room isn't
> sufficient. Klein would need proof, because truth is the only perfect
> defense against a claim of libel.
>
> And claiming the Clinton's are public figures is not sufficient as a
> defense as a very good case can be made that this allegation was made
> with full knowledge of falseness and intended to harm the subjects.
That would be "deliberate malice"... but since Chelsea is claimed to be
the RESULT of a sex crime and she is NOT a "public person" her
threshold for damages is lower. On top of the invasion of privacy and
emotional distress, she would also have legitimate claims for loss of
income and potential loss of income since her chosen profession is
working as a healthcare analyst evaluating public policy.
Plus she has a demonstrated market value so future earnings are not all
that speculative.
Plus this was published first on the Web so you can shop for venues
with strict defamation laws (e.g. Australia) and get punitive damages
to boot.
bval...@aol.com
public figure. She is famous only because of who her parents are. The
media understands this. Main stream media has consistently protected
the privacy of presidential children. For example, it wasn't until the
Bush daughters actually got arrested that they got covered by more than
the National Enquirer. By any standard, when a member of the White
House family breaks the law, that is legitimate news.
I will not be surprised if Chelsea sues Klein... and wins.>>>>
Gee, where was your outrage when the press savaged the Bush twins when
they (gasp) bought a beer?
The big problem you have is that Ed Kline doesn't accuse Chelsea of
doing anything bad.
Name Redacted
Yeah, but perverts and Nazis find commonground with "R" values even
more.
Peter Vos
bval...@aol.com wrote:
> Gee, where was your outrage when the press savaged the Bush twins when
> they (gasp) bought a beer?
The press didn't "savage" them .... in fact, it wasn't until they were
ARRESTED that it got into the mainstream media. Surely you aren't
taking the Anne Coulter approach to law?
"I don't want murder laws applied to my friends."
- Anne Coulter on "Scarborough Country"
In the situational ethics that now define conservatism, cracking down
on kids who drink was a great national imperative, until that policy
meant political trouble for a Republican in the White House.
>
> The big problem you have is that Ed Kline doesn't accuse Chelsea of
> doing anything bad.
Claiming she is the RESULT of a sex crime is certainly not something to
ignore. If you think that doesn't carry a stigma, you must be living
in a cave. Hell, even folks who live in caves shun children born of
rape.
They wouldn't have a story without the claim that Chelsea was conceived
as the result of a rape. That changes everything.
mslu123@aol.com Lucile Wilson
source. Tawdry books sell all the time because its just that way but
take a look a the Jackson case. The people...the jury saw the truth and
found him inncent. The same with Hillary. The people know that this
continual trash about the Clintons is just that..."TRASH!"
Peter Vos
If it was just Bill and Hillary, I would agree with you. The fact is
they would not have a story here except for the outrageous claim that
Chelsea is the RESULT of a sex crime. That changes everything.
The problem with this sort of attack is it poses a threat to everyone,
not just the innocent bystanders in the current case. Millions of
people have got to be looking at this and wondering if they want to
risk exposing their children to this sort of life-long abuse. This is
the very reason decent people with real skills are increasingly
inclined to decline the call to public service. We all pay for that.
Native American
--
"Liberals, socialists and marxists - the triad of stupidity."
"Peter Vos" <pvo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118767869.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> If it was just Bill and Hillary, I would agree with you. The fact is
> they would not have a story here except for the outrageous claim that
> Chelsea is the RESULT of a sex crime. That changes everything.
Nope, it doesn't change a damn thing.
What you're saying is that every human being who is the product of rape is
somehow being "abused" when they learn that they are the product of rape.
How foolish of you to think that, Peter.
arthurs...@hotmail.com
"Nope, it doesn't change a damn thing.
What you're saying is that every human being who is the product of rape
is
somehow being "abused" when they learn that they are the product of
rape.
How foolish of you to think that, Peter. "
That's absurd. This isn't about rape victims. This isn't about 'the
product of rape' as you so inelegantly put it. Nor is it about how
Peter or society in general views such people.
This is about partisan politics at its most loathsome. Partisan
politics as practiced by the same crowd who have hounded the Clintons
since their days in Arkansas. And, unable to find evidence of
corruption during the governors term in Arkansas, his two terms as
President and the Senators partial, first term, they have continued
with personal attacks.
And it plays to a feeble electorate. Fascinated by spectacle. Obsessed
with sex and too lazy and complacent to face the real issues which we
as a nation, all of us, face. The issues which do not boil down to a
headline such as 'Clinton Rapes Hillary'. The issues which demand
persuasion, consensus and even sacrifice.
bval...@aol.com
when
> they (gasp) bought a beer?
>>>The press didn't "savage" them ....>>
Yes, they did. You guys had a delightful time trashing to teenage girls
for doing what virtually every other teenage girl in America has done.
Fine, you got in your cheap shots.
But don't think that's been forgotten. After the way you treated the
Bush twins, I have zero interest in sparing the feelings of Democrats.
>>>> The big problem you have is that Ed Kline doesn't accuse Chelsea of doing anything bad.>>>
<<<Claiming she is the RESULT of a sex crime is certainly not something
to ignore. >>>
Agreed, the fact that Hillary turned a blind eye to rape is an
essential issue. How can Hillary be president, if she can't even
handle her own household?
>>> If you think that doesn't carry a stigma, you must be living in a cave. Hell, even folks who live in caves shun children born of rape.>>>
After listening to the Democrats scream for the better part of a
decade, I'm not interested in sparing your feelings.
<<<<They wouldn't have a story without the claim that Chelsea was
conceived as the result of a rape. That changes everything. >>>
This pisses you off? Good.
bval...@aol.com
source.>>>
The source is the former editor-in-chief of the New York Times
Magazine. He was also an editor for Newsweek. He has also written for
Parade and Vanity Fair.
Peter Vos
No that is not what I'm saying. How foolish of you to think that.
Native American
--
"Liberals, socialists and marxists - the triad of stupidity."
"Peter Vos" <pvo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118776306.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Then neither is Chelsea suffering any imagined "abuse" on being informed
that her father is a rapist and that she herself is the biological product
of a rape.
Alric Knebel
If this is not just a rumor, and that man makes the outrageous claim
that Hillary was raped by Bill, that man's credibility will immediately
whither. And if you believe that man, Bill, you'll reveal yourself to
be so incredibly partisan-hateful, you will never regain any credibility
short of a becoming a born-again Christian. I already see you as
somewhat loathsome, but my opinion goes in and out because I allow for
who you listen to. But a willingness to believe something that
ludicrous shows a disgusting depravity on your part. You'd be an
extremely vile human being.
And you talk about MY dignity.
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
Native American
--
"Liberals, socialists and marxists - the triad of stupidity."
"Alric Knebel" <al...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:42AF505F...@bellsouth.net...
> bval...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>>>>Hillary and Chelsea will let this ride because they will consider ths
>>
>> source.>>>
>>
>> The source is the former editor-in-chief of the New York Times
>> Magazine. He was also an editor for Newsweek. He has also written for
>> Parade and Vanity Fair.
>
> If this is not just a rumor, and that man makes the outrageous claim that
> Hillary was raped by Bill,
If it's not just a rumor (and there is no reason to think that it is), then
that man's claim is hardly "outrageous". It may be "troublesome", at least
to the Democrats, but "outrageous"? No.
Alric Knebel
>
> Agreed, the fact that Hillary turned a blind eye to rape is an
> essential issue. How can Hillary be president, if she can't even
> handle her own household?
So, you're buying in to this rape story, you depraved nincompoop?
> After listening to the Democrats scream for the better part of a
> decade, I'm not interested in sparing your feelings.
You phony. What about the 90s? Is your brain so tiny that you have a
capacity to remember only what you heard on the radio that day?
Remember the 90s, the hounding of Clinton to the point he couldn't deal
with the issues?
> Peter Vos wrote:
> <<<<They wouldn't have a story without the claim that Chelsea was
> conceived as the result of a rape. That changes everything. >>>
>
> This pisses you off? Good.
Yes, it is good. Let me tell you why. It proves what we claimed all
along, that right-wing loons revel in listening to anything that bashes
Democrats. Remove seething hatred and outrageous screeds from
right-wing punditry and there is no other appeal. But this is so coarse
and vulgar, it's going to backfire. Bring it on, you dirty-faced loon.
Native American
--
"Liberals, socialists and marxists - the triad of stupidity."
"Alric Knebel" <al...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:42AF527...@bellsouth.net...
> bval...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Agreed, the fact that Hillary turned a blind eye to rape is an
>> essential issue. How can Hillary be president, if she can't even
>> handle her own household?
>
> So, you're buying in to this rape story, you depraved nincompoop?
namecalling, personal attack
[plonk]
Alric Knebel
If it's not just a rumor (and there is no reason to think that it is),
then that man's claim is hardly "outrageous". It may be "troublesome",
at least to the Democrats, but "outrageous"? No.
There's no reason NOT to take this as anything other than an absurd
claim in a highly partisan diatribe. It came out of nowhere. And it is
outrageous. The troubling part is you're not scrupulous enough to see
what's really troubling about it. Go ahead and pick that up, and give
that story legs. Your credibility will be lost, and it'll now be
obvious to even more people just how ridiculous your side is when it
comes to bashing your political opponents. A fact: Remove liberal
bashing from your right-wing punditry and there will be no appeal to the
spiritually craven dirty-faced masses like yourself. None. You're
going to prove us right in this observation just by your willingness to
believe it. And get this: once this book is out and discredited,
nothing your side says about Hillary (and this is really about trying to
hamstring HER, Bill's career pretty much finished) will be credible,
even if other accusations are true. You'll have been so ridiculous in
your claims and so obviously partisan blind, you'll be a joke. So, you
run out and you buy a copy as soon as it's released, and buy multiple
copies to give as gifts to your friends. We Democrats want this one
spread far and wide. That's how ridiculous the story is.
Also, when you write your posts, you write it below what is normally a
signature (that stuff about Marxism), so nothing you write comes up as
quoted material when someone replies to you. The composer window comes
open with "Native American wrote" then blank. I had to copy and paste
what you wrote. You should fix that.
Alric Knebel
If it's not just a rumor (and there is no reason to think that it is),
then that man's claim is hardly "outrageous". It may be "troublesome",
at least to the Democrats, but "outrageous"? No.
There's no reason NOT to take this as anything other than an absurd
claim in a highly partisan diatribe. It came out of nowhere. And it is
outrageous. The troubling part is you're not scrupulous enough to see
what's really troubling about it. Go ahead and pick that up, and give
that story legs. Your credibility will be lost, and it'll now be
obvious to even more people just how ridiculous your side is when it
comes to bashing your political opponents. A fact: Remove liberal
bashing from your right-wing punditry and there will be no appeal to the
spiritually craven dirty-faced masses like yourself. None. You're
going to prove us right in this observation just by your willingness to
believe it. And get this: once this book is out and discredited,
nothing your side says about Hillary (and this is really about trying to
hamstring HER, Bill's career pretty much finished) will be credible,
even if other accusations are true. You'll have been so ridiculous in
your claims and so obviously partisan blind, you'll be a joke. So, you
run out and you buy a copy as soon as it's released, and buy multiple
copies to give as gifts to your friends. We Democrats want this one
spread far and wide. That's how ridiculous the story is.
Also, when you write your posts, you write it below what is normally a
signature (that stuff about Marxism), so nothing you write comes up as
quoted material when someone replies to you. The composer window comes
open with "Native American wrote" then blank. I had to copy and paste
what you wrote. You should fix that.
arthurs...@hotmail.com
"If it's not just a rumor (and there is no reason to think that it is),
then
that man's claim is hardly "outrageous". It may be "troublesome", at
least
to the Democrats, but "outrageous"? No."
Like so many things bandied about regarding the Clintons over the
years, there is EVERY reason to believe this is one more (perhaps the
very worst) rumor. Never content to criticize the public records of the
governor of Arkansas and two term President of the US and the partial
term of a US Senator, the right-wing attack machine has gone personal
from the very beginning.
Outrageous? Of course. And totally unprovable.
This is obscene,
And you are gullible beyond belief.
bval...@aol.com
> Magazine. He was also an editor for Newsweek. He has also written for
> Parade and Vanity Fair.
>>>>If this is not just a rumor, and that man makes the outrageous claim
that Hillary was raped by Bill, that man's credibility will immediately
whither. >>>
I'm sure the Clintons will do everything they can to ruin this
reporters life. It's the Clinton way. However, to discredit Klein is
to bring down the New York Times and Newsweek. I'm not quite sure how
they're going to do that.
I snipped the personal attacks.
The Real Diddy Pop
is being told. Second, that suit would bog her down and end any hopes
for the prez in '08. Third, the author, Ed Klein is by no means a
right-wing hack, and from the excerpts I've seen, they are very
compelling. It doesn't surprise me, put yourself in the middle of that
conversation, I can totally see Willy making those comments. It fits
his character...you know...generally a scumbag of an individual.
edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> If Hitlery's really planning any libel suit, she's forgotten a lot
> since law school. Starting with how "public figures" - and she, as a
> U.S. senator, surely would be ruled one - have an almost impossible
> burden in suing anyone in any slander or libel case, due to
> longstanding U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
>
arthurs...@hotmail.com
"I'm sure the Clintons will do everything they can to ruin this
reporters life. It's the Clinton way. However, to discredit Klein is
to bring down the New York Times and Newsweek. I'm not quite sure how
they're going to do that."
I snipped the personal attack"
If Klein is discredited (which seems a forgone conclusion based on this
bullshit book) it will hardly 'bring down' the New York Times or
Newsweek. This is only on him.
Where do people get stuff like that? Too much Hannity on the box? Too
much O'Reilly? What a rich fantasy life you seem to lead.
Eris
wrote:
The hysterical obsession the tards have with the Clintons is
fascinating. He is one incredible man to upset the tards this way.
What is the source of this rape story? Mrs. McKinley's Sunday School
Class? Ken Starr?
Alric Knebel
No, it wouldn't discredit those magazines. Readers of those two
wouldn't care that he used to be the editor. Secondly, the Clintons
won't have to destroy him. His actions will destroy himself, though
they'd have every right to go after him and I'd be in full support of
it. Wouldn't you?
> I snipped the personal attacks.
Okay. I restored them for you here, so you can get a second look: "And
if you believe [Bill raped Hillary], Bill, you'll reveal yourself to be
so incredibly partisan-hateful, you will never regain any credibility
short of a becoming a born-again Christian. I already see you as
somewhat loathsome, but my opinion goes in and out because I allow for
who you listen to. But a willingness to believe something that
ludicrous shows a disgusting depravity on your part. You'd be an
extremely vile human being." There. My remarks were contingent upon
your position, but we're past that now, aren't we?
bval...@aol.com
You've read the book, have you? If not, then what did you base your
"forgone conclusion" upon? What's your intention? A little friendly
book-burning? Threats to Klein's wife and children? A burned cross on
his lawn? How, exactly, do you intend to bring about this "forgone
conclusion"?
><>> it will hardly 'bring down' the New York Times or Newsweek. This is only on him.>>>
Klein was the New York Times magazine editor-in-Chief, and Newsweek's
Overseas Editor. If Klein is shown to be a pathogical liar, it will
reflect VERY badly on the Times and Newsweek.
Hillary is going to find it a bit more difficult to ruin THIS life.
She's not dealing with a neurotic 20-year-old intern or a recently
widowed woman this time. She's dealing to a seasoned reporter, who
knows very well exactly the kind of person Hillary is. I can't imagine
he would have written this book if he didn't have documentation out the
yazoo. The other problem Hillary will discover is that the Mainstream
media won't be entirely in her pocketbook this time around. Klien is
well liked, and Hillary is a bitch who's made a lot of enemies over the
years.
Remember how you were certain that the Swift Boat Vets would be
squashed like bugs by the Democrats attack team? Did you notice that
the MSM took their best shots, and the SBVs kept chugging along? It's
going to be like that with Klein, except that a lot of the MSM is going
to be on the friend Ed's side.
bval...@aol.com
Class? Ken Starr? >>>>
The writer was the Editor-In-Chief of the New York Time's Magazine
section. He was also Overseas Editor for Newsweek. Have fun tryinig
to paint HIM as a kook.
arthurs...@hotmail.com
"You've read the book, have you? If not, then what did you base your
"forgone conclusion" upon? What's your intention? A little friendly
book-burning? Threats to Klein's wife and children? A burned cross on
his lawn? How, exactly, do you intend to bring about this "forgone
conclusion"? "
I probably won't read the book. No. The premise we are discussing, the
'rape of Hillary and resultant birth of Chelsea Clinton' is ludicrous.
It's false.
As to my intentions, and you list book-burning, threats to Klein &fils,
burned cross on the lawn. Of course not.
I'm not a republican for god's sake.
I'll just skip buying the fucker's book.
Alric Knebel
Oh, he's clearly not a kook. He's a dissembler. Kookiness is a
sickness; dissembling is a lack of character.
Peter Vos
edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> Ramones wrote:
> >She should sue the bastard for every penny he has, and then get a
> >garnishment order on him so every time he sells an article she gets 40% of
> >his income. I do not like her, but claiming her only child was conceived
> >because her husband raped her is so fucking low it is boggles the
> >imagination. This guy was a Governor at the time, and he was young,
> >successful, and they were the ultimate Arkansas couple at that time.
>
> And what about that means he couldn't have raped her? After all, a
> congresscritter from out west named Packwood was disgraced for sexually
> harassing numerous women several years ago, remember?
Oh well there you have it... I mean hell .... there was a guy used to
have sex with boys, kill them, and eat them... so what about that means
Clinton isn't a cannibal?
*sheesh*... why don't you just admit it... these guys are totally out
of line.
==
"At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
- Mr. Welch
bval...@aol.com
The Hell it wouldn't.
>>>Readers of those two wouldn't care that he used to be the editor.>>>>
It's not a matter of the Readers - it's their professional standing.
Oh, wait, you have no idea what it's like working in a newspaper, do
you? You have no idea about earning and keeping a reputation. Let's
just leave it with "It's a professional thing - you wouldn't
understand."
>>>Secondly, the Clintons won't have to destroy him. His actions will destroy himself,>>>
By coming up with a powerful book? How with THAT destroy him?
>>>> though they'd have every right to go after him and I'd be in full support of it. Wouldn't you? >>>
You'd be in favor of powerful politicians destroying the life of a
respected political journalist to shut down an embarassing story?
Well, aren't YOU the precious little fascist?
You repeatedly just assumed Ed's storys is all nonsense. Here's an
unpleasant thought for you: Mr. Kline is one of the best, most
acomplished, journalists of our generation. What makes you all fired
certain that he would throw his career away by printing such a story
without solid evidence? What makes you think the Main Street Media is
going to pile on one of their own? Why is it impossible that he's
correct?
>>>> I snipped the personal attacks. >>>
OK, you took your best shot. Now let me explain to you why I find it
amusing. What you write is no more hurtful than a three-year-old
sticking his tongue out a car window, because what you wrote is not
true.
Now, let me show you how to actually hurt somebody.
Ready?
· Of course it pisses you off that you've never been paid to write.
What writer wants to lay asphalt all day, then come home to post some
notes that virtually nobody will ever see?
· You will never be paid to write, because you suck, and you don't
have the ability to improve.
· The reason that you're disliked in the Air Force is not because
you're a Democrat, but because you're a jerk.
· You have never written anything I don't understand.
· You ae inflicted with a very childish arrogance which insists that
it's impossible for anyone who truely understands what you say to
disagree. This leads to the very soothing believe that any disagree
comes from other people being stupid or dishonest.
· Success will always alude you, because you don't deserve it.
Eris
wrote:
He wasn't there, were did the info come from? Mrs. McKinley's Sunday
School Class?
bval...@aol.com
>section. He was also Overseas Editor for Newsweek. Have fun tryinig
>to paint HIM as a kook.
>>>He wasn't there, were did the info come from? Mrs. McKinley's Sunday
School Class?>>>
He claims Bill Clinton told him.
ThomJeff
Gee. "Editor-in-Chief" of the New York Times
Magazine Section and Overseas Editor for
Newsweek writes a damning book on what you
consider to be the icon of the liberals.
What does that say about the New York Times and
Newsweek?
BTW: here's the "proof" from Drudge:
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2005/06/13/20050613_004738_flash3ek.htm
"I'm going back to my cottage to rape my wife,"
Klein quotes Bill Clinton as saying during a
Bermuda getaway in 1979.
In the morning, the Clintons' room "looked like
World War III. There are pillows and busted-up
furniture all over the place," an unnamed source
tells Klein.
---
Pretty impressive. An unnamed source reports
what Bill Clinton said 26 years ago ABOUT HIS
WIFE. (Proof enough for the dittohead crowd.)
Very very impressive. Very very much like all
the Clinton "scandals."
Hey, Vallely, I heard that Hillary killed Vince
Foster with the same gun she used on Ron Brown.
(You can quote me.)
Great quote from Hillary: "This is the right
wing attack machine on crack!"
Thom
ThomJeff
He was in Bermuda with the Clintons in 1979? Really?
Why do you suppose he mention this rape before?
ThomJeff
>
>>Lemme get this straight... the Clintons get married in 1975.
>>Chelsea is born in 1980.
>>
>>Someone is making a completely unsubstantiated claim that Clinton, a
>>man who is famous for his charism, raped his wife ????
>
>
>
> What's your substantiation for your claim that "the Clintons got married in
> 1975"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham
> Also, what is your substantiation for your claim that "Chelsea was
> born in 1980"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Clinton
---
Your turn.
Alric Knebel
>>>>If Klein is discredited (which seems a forgone conclusion based on this bullshit book)>>>
>
>
> You've read the book, have you? If not, then what did you base your
> "forgone conclusion" upon? What's your intention? A little friendly
> book-burning? Threats to Klein's wife and children? A burned cross on
> his lawn? How, exactly, do you intend to bring about this "forgone
> conclusion"?
Jesus, you're still an idiot. Let me go ahead and rub your nose in your
own shit. She based her "foregone conclusion" -- that's it'll be
discredited -- on the same thing you based your FOREGONE CONCLUSION that
he has veracity. What's your intention, you bad dog? A little happy
propaganda party?
You know, you're such a zippy right-wing ass, you went on after that
stupid question and suggested that Arthur might consider silliest shit.
"A little friendly book-burning," threats to Klein's family, a burned
cross. You suck. You don't "bring about" a foregone conclusion, you
moron. He's basing it on what the book says, and I tend to agree with
him. It's a ridiculous accusation, and only a right-wing twit with
poison in his veins and too eager to believe it could fail to see it.
You stupid clown, you mistake your eagerness as a foregone conclusion.
Somebody should pop the stupid right off that face of yours. Let me
analyze you some more, you moron. Here's what the deal is. YOU are a
rabidly hateful person, stemming from your stupidity and baseness.
You're a depraved person to the point that you're delusional. There's
absolutely no evidence that this story is true, yet you already believe
it wholeheartedly. You're so evil it's made you stupid. You give
credence to the stereotype of the right-wing loon. Take a look at what
you say next, in your gleeful stupidity.
>><>> it will hardly 'bring down' the New York Times or Newsweek. This is only on him.>>>
>
>
> Klein was the New York Times magazine editor-in-Chief, and Newsweek's
> Overseas Editor. If Klein is shown to be a pathogical liar, it will
> reflect VERY badly on the Times and Newsweek.
Okay, you delusional half-wit. These two lines alone will take a couple
of paragraphs. If the story isn't true, you hyperbolic asshole, it
doesn't mean that Klein is a "pathological liar." It merely means that
he lied in THIS BOOK, and his reasons aren't yet known, and might not
ever be known. But it in no way proves he's a pathological liar. If
this is a lie, then all it means is he lied this time. People who
subscribe to either of those media outlets aren't going to cancel their
subscriptions because some guy decided he'd tell outrageous stories to
make a buck. YOU might do something like that (cancel your
subscriptions), being a black-and-white imbecile as you are, but
thinking people aren't like that. Right-wing twits think like that,
people like you and your stupid friends. Take it from me, not from Rush
or one of the other pie holes filling your empty head with nonsense:
Klein's and THE NYT's and Newsweek's veracity are not correlated. Your
bloodlust for these media outlets has befuddled you, made you stupid and
mean, and you believe you have liberals cornered, giving you a win-win
situation: if Klein is a liar, then the veracity of The New York Times
is in doubt; if we view the The New York Times as infallible, then the
story about Hillary being raped by Bill must be true. I can almost see
you rubbing your hands together, the image of those trapped liberals so
delicious to your twisted mind. But, again, your simpleton's logic has
foiled you. We liberals and the readers of The New York Times and
Newsweek are smarter than you. We don't listen to Rush are Hannity. We
think Klein might have been a better person in the past, and for some
reason suddenly has an ax to grind with the Clintons. Maybe someone
paid him to write the book, as exactly what it is, as part of a smear
campaign, as David Brock said he was paid to do by The American
Spectator.
> Hillary is going to find it a bit more difficult to ruin THIS life.
> She's not dealing with a neurotic 20-year-old intern or a recently
> widowed woman this time. She's dealing to a seasoned reporter, who
> knows very well exactly the kind of person Hillary is. I can't imagine
> he would have written this book if he didn't have documentation out the
> yazoo. The other problem Hillary will discover is that the Mainstream
> media won't be entirely in her pocketbook this time around. Klien is
> well liked, and Hillary is a bitch who's made a lot of enemies over the
> years.
Good God Almighty, what a mess you are. One line of wishful thinking
after the other. First, Hillary isn't hated by anybody but you
right-wing loons. Nor has she made more enemies over the years. Try
not to drool as you project your ideas onto the world at large. Over
the last few years, she's actually done quite well, and has really come
into her own. If anything, she's more popular than ever. You're just
too giddy with hate to see it. Use your inhaler and calm down. Second,
Klein doesn't need "documentation out of the yazoo" to please the
gloating and stupid readers like yourself. That's good, because he
doesn't have it. The article itself said he's gone by word of mouth,
words that were really construed out of context. You can bet, you
ignoramus, if it existed, you would have seen it long before now.
Arkansas has been scoured for any possible good dirt. This book will be
comprised of quotes from people who really hated the Clintons. The
reasons for the hatred might be petty, but the stories will please
people like you. That's all that matters to the bookseller.
> Remember how you were certain that the Swift Boat Vets would be
> squashed like bugs by the Democrats attack team? Did you notice that
> the MSM took their best shots, and the SBVs kept chugging along? It's
> going to be like that with Klein, except that a lot of the MSM is going
> to be on the friend Ed's side.
We'll see, you gloating nitwit. We'll see. Even if it's discredited
and written off as just one more anti-Clinton tome, spavined souls like
you will still cling perversely to it as gospel. You'll have your
little dicks in your hand, reading and masturbating and ejaculating to
these new, even more outrageous stories to feed your bitter jealousy and
hatred. I've said this a lot of times in this newsgroup, that the
right-wing nitwits are so hateful and so dysfunctional, to meet their
bloodlust, the pundits and pie holes are going to have to keep cranking
up the rhetoric, to get more shrill, more ridiculous, make the enemy
more evil. And look where we are now: Bill Clinton raped Hillary, and
Chelsea was the result. Man, you're sick just WANTING to believe that,
you twisted right-wing fuck.
Alric Knebel
>>>>No, it wouldn't discredit those magazines.>>>
>
> The Hell it wouldn't.
You can say that until you eyes bulge, but it's not. We'll know who's
right in a week or so.
>>>>Readers of those two wouldn't care that he used to be the editor.>>>>
>
> It's not a matter of the Readers - it's their professional standing.
> Oh, wait, you have no idea what it's like working in a newspaper, do
> you? You have no idea about earning and keeping a reputation. Let's
> just leave it with "It's a professional thing - you wouldn't
> understand."
The READERS buy the magazine. If the readers decide that Klein's book
is trash, there's nothing the professionals can say about it. And if a
professional wrote a scathing book filled with lies, you can bet he's
going to experience the same warmth Jason Blair felt. "It's a
professional thing." The New York Times and Newsweek is going to get
along just fine. You'll see.
>>>>Secondly, the Clintons won't have to destroy him. His actions will destroy himself,>>>
>
>
> By coming up with a powerful book? How with THAT destroy him?
Because it'll be a book of trash. "Powerful" will be in the eye of the
beholder. It won't be "powerful" except to you Limbaugh listeners, and
the same audience who enjoys Ann Coulter. The Clintons won't need to
destroy him. It simply will have no credibility, like that writer who
wrote that anti-Bush book last year who claimed Laura sold pot in
college. In this case, Klein will get a gaggle of newer, goofier
readers, but he'll lose the readers from The New York Times and Newsweek
who once respected him. He'll embrace a class of nitwits who love dirt
and screeching and nothing else.
>>>>>though they'd have every right to go after him and I'd be in full support of it. Wouldn't you? >>>
>
>
> You'd be in favor of powerful politicians destroying the life of a
> respected political journalist to shut down an embarassing story?
> Well, aren't YOU the precious little fascist?
And you're in favor of a writer destroying the lives of a couple of
people by publishing outrageous stories about them? Why, you fuck-face,
empty-headed piece of shit. How dare you call me a fascist. At least
the Clintons would be retaliating. What's this dickhead's excuse?
> You repeatedly just assumed Ed's storys is all nonsense. Here's an
> unpleasant thought for you: Mr. Kline is one of the best, most
> acomplished, journalists of our generation. What makes you all fired
> certain that he would throw his career away by printing such a story
> without solid evidence? What makes you think the Main Street Media is
> going to pile on one of their own? Why is it impossible that he's
> correct?
Oh, cut with the crap. The fact that he worked at those two magazines
alone would have undermined his credibility with you just a few short
weeks ago. Now he's writing a book on the Clinton's and suddenly he's
worthy of a shower of superlatives. You phony.
I never said he'd destroy his career. Only his credibility.
>>>>>I snipped the personal attacks. >>>
>
>
> OK, you took your best shot. Now let me explain to you why I find it
> amusing. What you write is no more hurtful than a three-year-old
> sticking his tongue out a car window, because what you wrote is not
> true.
What I write might or might not be hurtful, but it's accurate about you.
I say it because it's true. If you're hurt, that's only for your own
good, you partisan clown.
> Now, let me show you how to actually hurt somebody.
>
> Ready?
Sure. Go ahead.
> · Of course it pisses you off that you've never been paid to write.
> What writer wants to lay asphalt all day, then come home to post some
> notes that virtually nobody will ever see?
You still think that's it, huh? Well, keep trying, Little Engine.
> · You will never be paid to write, because you suck, and you don't
> have the ability to improve.
What shit. Let me lay it out for you. I have never submitted anything,
which is the first step to publishing, right? For right now, what I
write is good enough. I've already been through this, haven't I? Sure
we have. Let me go on. YOUR opinion of whatever of my writing you've
seen is meaningless. Believe me, I've been doing this for years and I'm
improving all the time. It's against the laws of effort, you dolt. I
never just READ. I study what I read, the style of the writer, mostly
as a result of sheer awe and wonder at how they accomplished it. In the
space of all these years, yours is not the only input I've received, and
I dismiss you outright. You've got way too much invested in besmirching
me, and the writing you've seen (I'm assuming this fixation on my
writing means you went to my website) has been hostile to your side, not
counting the personal hostility I've directed at you right here in this
newsgroup, down to this current moment. As if you have credibility
after all of that, you being so partisan disgusting
> · The reason that you're disliked in the Air Force is not because
> you're a Democrat, but because you're a jerk.
Who said I wasn't liked? I was liked. There's some people I've known
and liked for years out there. Good friends. People I socialize with.
You're just sticking that little tongue out at me for all it's worth,
aren't you? Once again, your NEED to see things a particular way has
caused you to see nothing at all.
> · You have never written anything I don't understand.
When I say that (IF I say that; I'm not sure), I mean you're delusional.
You don't understand anything ANYBODY writes because you see in it
only what your partisan bias and poisoned emotions allow you to see.
You live in your own world in which you seize upon every ugly thought
(or twist an idea until it becomes an ugly thought), hold on to it until
the veins in your forehead bulge, and you spout it out with something
akin to Tourette's Syndrome. Whatever thought you cherish has to be
hateful and trite, to match the hatefulness and triteness of your soul.
Your education lent you nothing but a modicum of skill you could sell.
A cornpone can think on the same level as you.
To be honest, i don't see other right-wing loons joining you very often.
> · You ae inflicted with a very childish arrogance which insists that
> it's impossible for anyone who truely understands what you say to
> disagree. This leads to the very soothing believe that any disagree
> comes from other people being stupid or dishonest.
You ARE stupid and dishonest. Not everyone who disagrees with me is
stupid or dishonest, but YOU really are. As is your wont, you're making
generalities about what I say to everyone else based on what I say to
you. Look at what I say elsewhere. I treat you differently because you
easily the most blindly partisan asshole I've ever met. And giddy with
it. You say such outrageously stupid things, I can barely get my head
around the fact that you'd be smart enough to refrain from saying these
things to someone who's liable to knock the hell out of you. They're so
ugly, the things you say. All I can do is retaliate for my side by
talking down to your level while maintaining mine.
> · Success will always alude you, because you don't deserve it.
Now, let's review what just passed between us. Your mistake is you
think you've spotted my Achilles' heel, based on the fact that I told
you I like to write, and you can probably assume a bit of stuff from my
website stuff. Then you picked up a factoid or two from an e-mail I
wrote to Zepp years ago, who then posted it on his website, and you take
these factoids and make gross generalizations based on them, forgetting
that you sort of walked in on the middle of a conversation. So you got
to pounding on it, going at it, knowing that the Achilles' heel has got
to be there somewhere. But here's your problem. In looking for the
weakness so desperately, you look where you WISH the weakness was
instead of where it really is. You're pissed off because I have more
confidence than you think my accomplishments warrant. My confidence
doesn't come from my accomplishments. It comes by a deep personal
conviction about things that have nothing to do with other people's
assessments of me, on what I think is really the purpose of life. I can
see by how you're talking that you think I should consider YOU as
successful, but I don't. You're a grub. You fall far short of the
people I admire and the fact that you've been paid at times to "write"
means nothing to me. So, YOU can't hurt me with your long-distance
evaluation of my life. Bill, you CAN'T do it. I don't respect you
enough. The lack of respect isn't based on what you do for a living.
It's what you say HERE. You say some crazy shit.
bval...@aol.com
WIFE. (Proof enough for the dittohead crowd.) >>>
Are you the same person who defended Dan Rather when he produced a
photocopy of a meno that was typed in 1973 using MS Word? Well, let's
see what Vanity Fair has to say, when they print an excerpt of the
book. BTW, I'd be very nervous if I were a Hillary fan - you're not
dealing with an intern this time, but a solid journaist pro.
>>>Great quote from Hillary: "This is the right wing attack machine on crack!">>>
Yeah - it seems almost chulish to point out that Ed Klein isn't a
conservative, but a liberal. He was the Editor In Chief of New York
Times Magazine, don'tchaknow.
Alric Knebel
>>>>>Pretty impressive. An unnamed source reports what Bill Clinton said 26 years ago ABOUT HIS
>
> WIFE. (Proof enough for the dittohead crowd.) >>>
>
> Are you the same person who defended Dan Rather when he produced a
> photocopy of a meno that was typed in 1973 using MS Word? Well, let's
> see what Vanity Fair has to say, when they print an excerpt of the
> book. BTW, I'd be very nervous if I were a Hillary fan - you're not
> dealing with an intern this time, but a solid journaist pro.
Take it from a Hillary fan (a very recent one): I'm not a bit nervous.
>>>>Great quote from Hillary: "This is the right wing attack machine on crack!">>>
>
> Yeah - it seems almost chulish to point out that Ed Klein isn't a
> conservative, but a liberal. He was the Editor In Chief of New York
> Times Magazine, don'tchaknow.
Oh, you're so darned cute when you're a being smug asshole. Just
because he once worked for those "liberal" magazines doesn't mean he
still does. That's what she's saying, you fucking slop-slurping pig.
Do you think LIBERALS are behind this effort?
bval...@aol.com
> "forgone conclusion" upon? What's your intention? A little friendly
> book-burning? Threats to Klein's wife and children? A burned cross on
> his lawn? How, exactly, do you intend to bring about this "forgone
> conclusion"?
>>>Jesus, you're still an idiot. Let me go ahead and rub your nose in your
own shit. She based her "foregone conclusion" -- that's it'll be
discredited -- on the same thing you based your FOREGONE CONCLUSION
that
he has veracity.>>>
I said it was a foregone conclusion? Really?
bval...@aol.com
> "forgone conclusion" upon? What's your intention? A little friendly
> book-burning? Threats to Klein's wife and children? A burned cross on
> his lawn? How, exactly, do you intend to bring about this "forgone
> conclusion"?
>>>Jesus, you're still an idiot. Let me go ahead and rub your nose in your
own shit. She based her "foregone conclusion" -- that's it'll be
discredited -- on the same thing you based your FOREGONE CONCLUSION
that
he has veracity.>>>
I said it was a foregone conclusion? Really?
bval...@aol.com
because he once worked for those "liberal" magazines doesn't mean he
still does. That's what she's saying, you fucking slop-slurping pig.
>>>
This is just a guess here - you drink heavily because you have no
friends. Am I right?
Peter Vos
> >>>No, it wouldn't discredit those magazines.>>>
>
> The Hell it wouldn't.
>
> >>>Readers of those two wouldn't care that he used to be the editor.>>>>
>
> It's not a matter of the Readers - it's their professional standing.
> Oh, wait, you have no idea what it's like working in a newspaper, do
> you? You have no idea about earning and keeping a reputation. Let's
> just leave it with "It's a professional thing - you wouldn't
> understand."
>
> >>>Secondly, the Clintons won't have to destroy him. His actions will destroy himself,>>>
>
> By coming up with a powerful book? How with THAT destroy him?
>
> >>>> though they'd have every right to go after him and I'd be in full support of it. Wouldn't you? >>>
>
> You'd be in favor of powerful politicians destroying the life of a
> respected political journalist to shut down an embarassing story?
I realize the mostly incoherent exchange is not directed at me, but
your last question deserves an answer: No.
Having answered the question asked, I would point out you seem to have
the current situation backwards.... the issue is a political journalist
actually damaging a respected politician ... for some reason the term
"political journalist" strikes me as either intensely ironic or a newly
minted oxymoron.... or maybe it just betrays your ignorance equating
"pundit" with "journalist" like so many folks seem to do in the world
of infotainment!
> Well, aren't YOU the precious little fascist?
>
> You repeatedly just assumed Ed's storys is all nonsense. Here's an
> unpleasant thought for you: Mr. Kline is one of the best, most
> acomplished, journalists of our generation.
Really? You must be awfully young to believe that. Oh by the way, you
spelled his name wrong. Kind of an insulting way to refer to such a
luminary man of letters wouldn't you agree? Sort of like heaping praise
on the esteemed James Gallows, or dear departed Mike Kerry, or Seymour
Harsh... and where would we be without that grumpy New Yorker, Jimmy
Broslin?
Puh - leeze.
> What makes you all fired
> certain that he would throw his career away by printing such a story
> without solid evidence?
Calculated risk: Hillary and Bill can't sue and win... I mean I didn't
actually lie, I merely reported something someone told me and he swore
he was telling me the truth....Besides, if they sue I get on the talk
shows. You know what they say, "Any press is good press so long as
they spell your name right." Which as noted above you didn't ..... but
that's ok... no one said you were an opinion leader in the first place.
> What makes you think the Main Street Media is
> going to pile on one of their own?
Oh you obviously don't pay attention kiddo... look how well they stood
up for Helen Thomas. If there was any solidarity in the shark tank,
all the cute talking head bimbos of the White House Press Corps(e)
would have insisted she be given her due and held their questions until
she asked hers. But no... as soon as this administration kicked her
ass to the back of the room, they all jumped in to the scrum like
poorly behaved 1st graders "pick me...oooh....oooh ....pick me ...pick
me...." never once thinking that job wouldn't even exist except for
the years of work by women like Helen in the first place.
And then we have the sterling example of that paragon of journalistic
integrity, Novak, who is happy to let his colleagues face prison
sentences rather than identify the traitor who ruined the longstanding
covert operations of Brewster Jennings and Associates. And you wonder
why journalists have such crappy numbers in the annual polls of respect
by profession?
> Why is it impossible that he's correct?
Here's some better questions: Why now? What's the point? Are you
advocating we publish the names of all rape victims? Of all children
conceived thus? Should abortions no longer be an option in the case of
rape? Should we cut to the bottom line and keep all women barefoot as
well? Think of all those poor kids in third world countries who would
be out of work....wouldn't that make you sad?
>
> >>>> I snipped the personal attacks. >>>
>
So did I... but hey .... if a guy can get Scaife to pay for them...
that's not a personal attack...that's journalism...
And people wonder why major metro circulation is in the toilet, why
more people think O'Reilly is a journalist than Woodward, why Lush gets
to proclaim himself "America's anchorman" and no one blows beer out
their nose laughing at him... it's a damn shame.
Makes you wonder how Franklin and Jefferson would be taking it all in
..... I can see it now ... Ben pouring a stiff draught of beer, Tom
gazing despondently into the wine...and Ben trying to lift his spirits
"I told you....it would end in Despotism as other Forms have done
before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need
Despotic Government, being incapable of any other." Then they drink
themselves into oblivion.
Alric Knebel
Do you think it's not true, you disingenuous, slop-slurping shithead?
I'm assuming by the way you sucked it all up that you believed it. Or
you certainly wanted to. Which is it, pig-brain? Did you reach a
foregone conclusion that it's real or did I misread you?
Alric Knebel
Hey, get that poisonous mug of yours back in your slop bucket, you pig.
You've got more shit to eat.
Eris
wrote:
>bval...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>>>>>Oh, you're so darned cute when you're a being smug asshole. Just
>>
>> because he once worked for those "liberal" magazines doesn't mean he
>> still does. That's what she's saying, you fucking slop-slurping pig.
>>
>>
>> This is just a guess here - you drink heavily because you have no
>> friends. Am I right?
>
>Hey, get that poisonous mug of yours back in your slop bucket, you pig.
> You've got more shit to eat.
It is funny that they have to still denigrate one of the greatest
presidents ever and prop up one of the most worthless, can you image
what they would have done with if Clinton had sat there and read My
Pet Goat? I guess this is just another diversion from all of
Bush/Jesus incompetence.
Mother of All Flockers
> I notice that this guy Klein is former this and former that and former
> something else.
All you need to know about Klein's ethics and journalistic abilities
can be found in this article:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1118825137270500.xml&coll=1
CNY native appalled by book on Hillary Clinton
Work hints at lesbian affair. Nancy Pietrafesa says author never talked
to her.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
By Erik Kriss, Albany bureau
Nancy Pietrafesa is getting used to the fallout from her college
friendship with Hillary Rodham Clinton, but she still doesn't like it.
A book to be released next week portrays "rumors" of an alleged lesbian
affair between Pietrafesa and New York's junior U.S. senator during
their Wellesley College days in the late 1960s.
"One, it's absolutely untrue, and two, it's a totally irresponsible and
hurtful thing to say," said Pietrafesa, a member of a well-known
Central New York family who now lives in Berkeley, Calif., with her
husband of nearly 35 years and their three sons.
"When something is so untrue and you're living in such a different
manner, it's very hard to take something like this seriously," added
Pietrafesa, who said she was never interviewed by author Edward Klein.
"When your children are questioned and people are so surprised that
they're well-mannered and we haven't eaten our young. . . ."
Klein's "The Truth About Hillary" is set for release Tuesday. Penguin
Books' Sentinel imprint would not release any excerpts from the book,
subheaded, "What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to
Become President."
Publisher Adrian Zackheim issued a statement standing "100 percent"
behind Klein, who has worked for The New York Times, Newsweek and
Vanity Fair and written two books about the Kennedys. The statement
said Klein interviewed 96 people who knew Clinton.
Pietrafesa said she was not among them.
"Isn't that a baseline (journalistic) standard?" she said.
The New YorkPost reported that the book references "rumors" about a
Clinton-Pietrafesa relationship. According to the Post, the book claims
Clinton was heavily influenced by the "culture of lesbianism" while
attending Wellesley.
The book says the former U.S. first lady and potential 2008
presidential candidate "embraced" lesbianism and her politics was
"shaped" by it in a profound way, the Post said this week. The
newspaper reported that Pietrafesa's name is misspelled repeatedly
through the book.
Zackheim said Klein is contractually prohibited from commenting until
the book goes on sale. Clinton's office had a different reason for not
commenting.
"We don't comment on works of fiction, let alone a book full of blatant
and vicious fabrications contrived by someone who writes trash for
cash," Clinton press secretary Philippe Reines said.
Pietrafesa, a writer, artist and photographer, noted she's been
mentioned on a number of occasions in "trash for cash" books about
Clinton, who polls show is the favorite to win the 2008 Democratic
presidential nomination.
"My kids have been questioned, and there was great shock they weren't
the kids of werewolves," Pietrafesa said, noting that among those
inquiring were the parents of one of her son's girlfriends.
"This could hurt my family," she said of the latest book. "This could
be an insidious, totally destructive thing in a family. Having that
even as a question about my love and loyalty to my husband is very
hard, and very sad."
Pietrafesa, a daughter of Robert and the late Anne Pietrafesa, of
Fayetteville, suggested rumors of Clinton's lesbianism are rooted in
jealousy.
"Women who are accomplished, whose ambitions, behavior, accomplishments
make some people uncomfortable with their own, can really expect their
sexuality questioned or slurred, denigrated," she said.
"We were good friends. We spent a lot of time together. We trusted one
another. We had a very similar sense of humor. I know no one believes
this, but she's really a fun person, and she's witty and she loves to
laugh, and she has a great sense of irony, so that, of course, fueled
us.
"No one can pin it (a lesbian affair) on someone she doesn't hang with,
or isn't seen with. I guess it's just seeing her a lot."
The two were close enough to persuade Pietrafesa and her husband, John
Danner, to move to Arkansas in the late 1970s to help newly elected
Gov. Bill Clinton and his wife establish a government, with Pietrafesa
becoming Gov. Clinton's representative to the Ozark Regional
Commission.
But tensions between Clinton staffers and the governor's "Yankee"
advisers, plus what Pietrafesa has called the Clintons' "bunker
mentality," eventually drove the friends apart.
Pietrafesa said the last time she saw Hillary Clinton was before Bill
Clinton was elected president in 1992.
© 2005 The Post-Standard. Used with permission.
Copyright 2005 syracuse.com. All Rights Reserved.
fiend999
Native American <NativeA...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> --
> "Liberals, socialists and marxists - the triad of stupidity."
>
> "Alric Knebel" <al...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:42AF527...@bellsouth.net...
> > bval...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Agreed, the fact that Hillary turned a blind eye to rape is an
> >> essential issue. How can Hillary be president, if she can't even
> >> handle her own household?
> >
> > So, you're buying in to this rape story, you depraved nincompoop?
>
>
> namecalling, personal attack
>
> [plonk]
>
>
I am sure he is heartbroken, hypocrite.
bval...@aol.com
presidents ever and prop up one of the most worthless, can you image
what they would have done with if Clinton had sat there and read My
Pet Goat? I guess this is just another diversion from all of
Bush/Jesus incompetence. >>>>
As opposed to getting a blow job while on the phone plotting a military
operation?
bval...@aol.com
presidents ever and prop up one of the most worthless, can you image
what they would have done with if Clinton had sat there and read My
Pet Goat? I guess this is just another diversion from all of
Bush/Jesus incompetence. >>>>
As opposed to getting a blow job while on the phone plotting a military
operation?
bval...@aol.com
presidents ever and prop up one of the most worthless, can you image
what they would have done with if Clinton had sat there and read My
Pet Goat? I guess this is just another diversion from all of
Bush/Jesus incompetence. >>>>
As opposed to getting a blow job while on the phone plotting a military
operation?
bval...@aol.com
You've got more shit to eat. >>>
Don't you have some asphalt to lay?
bval...@aol.com
>>>I realize the mostly incoherent exchange is not directed at me, but
your last question deserves an answer: No. >>>
Don't tell me - tell the people who are calling to destroy Ed Klein's
career.
>>>Having answered the question asked, I would point out you seem to have
the current situation backwards.... the issue is a political journalist
actually damaging a respected politician ... >>>>
Hillary's respect? For what, exactly? Hillary has insanely high
negative numbers, and enough skeletons's to populate "Night of the
Living Dead" remake. Remember when the police booed her at the MTV
tribute to the 911 police? Remember WHY they booed her? Because she
had her limo-driver run over a cop because she thought she was too
important to bother with security clearance? There are hundreds of
really ugly stories about Hillary like that. Mind you, this won't
require an investigative reporting - a half hour at Nexus will do the
trick.
>>>>for some reason the term "political journalist" strikes me as either intensely ironic or a newly minted oxymoron.... or maybe it just betrays your ignorance equating "pundit" with "journalist" like so many folks seem to do in the world
of infotainment! >>>>>
"Political Journalist" is not a wacky new phrase dreamed up by Rush
LImbaugh to annoy you personally. It's a very old, very respected
position.
> Well, aren't YOU the precious little fascist?
> You repeatedly just assumed Ed's story is all nonsense. Here's an
> unpleasant thought for you: Mr. Kline is one of the best, most
> accomplished, journalists of our generation.
>>>Really? You must be awfully young to believe that.>>>>
Nope. BTW, I've also worked at the Weekend Art Director for UPI, and
staff artist for the New York Daily news.
>>>Oh by the way, you spelled his name wrong.>>>
It happens.
>>>> Kind of an insulting way to refer to such a luminary man of
letters wouldn't you agree? Sort of like heaping praise on the esteemed
James Gallows, or dear departed Mike Kerry, or Seymour
Harsh... and where would we be without that grumpy New Yorker, Jimmy
Broslin?
Puh - leeze. >>>
Oh, we're having one of THOSE conversations. Oh, excuse me. Jesus,
you never heard of Political Journalists? (LOUD HORSE LAUGH) I guess
you might have to have your mother read a newspaper for you.
Personally, I don't care for such tactics - but the aggressors define
the rules of engagement.
<<<<What makes you all fired certain that he would throw his career
away by printing such a story without solid evidence?>>>>>
>>>Calculated risk: Hillary and Bill can't sue and win... I mean I didn't
actually lie, I merely reported something someone told me and he swore
he was telling me the truth....Besides, if they sue I get on the talk
shows.>>>
Or he could be telling the truth. You desperately want to frame the
debate with the assumption that he's lying. Two facts belittle that
assumption:
1. Ed has never pulled that sort of stunt before. Why start now?
2. This isn't the first time a credible claim of rape has been leveled
against the former President.
>>>>You know what they say, "Any press is good press so long as
they spell your name right." Which as noted above you didn't ..... but
that's ok... no one said you were an opinion leader in the first place.
>>>>
Well, that's really a rather pointless insult.
> What makes you think the Main Street Media is
> going to pile on one of their own?
>>>>Oh you obviously don't pay attention kiddo... >>>
OH MY GOD, YOU DIDN'T PUT A COMMA AFTER "OH"!! Clearly, you are an
illiterate boob!!!!
Again, I remind you, the aggressors define the rules of engagement.
>>>...look how well they stood up for Helen Thomas. >>>>
Helen Thomas was a crazy old bat when I worked with her at UPI.
>>> If there was any solidarity in the shark tank, all the cute talking head bimbos of the White House Press Corps(e) would have insisted she be given her due and held their questions until she asked hers.>>>>
Why? The woman is a political shill. She lobbed one softball question
after another to Clinton, and then suddenly turned into a vulture when
Bush came into office. It's impossible to respect Helen if you don't
agree with her politics.
>>>>But no... as soon as this administration kicked her ass to the back of the room, they all jumped in to the scrum like
poorly behaved 1st graders "pick me...oooh....oooh ....pick me ...pick
me...." never once thinking that job wouldn't even exist except for
the years of work by women like Helen in the first place. >>>>>
Ah. So now Helen Thomas wrote the First Amendment? Did she do it with
a Pen As Big As New Jersey, with a Quill the size of Trenton from Main
Street to 23rd Street?
>>>>And then we have the sterling example of that paragon of journalistic
integrity, Novak, who is happy to let his colleagues face prison
sentences rather than identify the traitor who ruined the longstanding
covert operations of Brewster Jennings and Associates. >>>
You mean Valerie Plame? Gee, was Valerie outed before or after she
posed in a cheesecake double-spread in Vanity Fair? Last time I
checked, she was still very much with us. Now, if you want to talk
about getting people killed, you'd have to visit the aid and comfort
given to the enemy by Michael Moore.
>>>And you wonder why journalists have such crappy numbers in the annual polls of respect
by profession?>>>
It's not Bob's Novak's fault.
> Why is it impossible that he's correct?
>>>>Here's some better questions: Why now?>>>>
Because if he printed earlier, Ed would be accused of being a shill for
the Bush campaign. If he did it later, he's be accused of trying to
effect the election. Frankly, right now is the time that the book
would do the least amount of damage to Hillary.
>>>>What's the point? >>>
He's a journalist with a story to tell. How much more of a point do
you need?
>>>>Are you advocating we publish the names of all rape victims?>>>>
You mean like how the New York Times did with the woman who Ted Kennedy
raped? Or the woman who was gang raped in Central Park? Considering
the respect the Clintons showed for any who stood up to them, I'm not
particularly interested in protecting Hillary's feelings.
>>>Of all children conceived thus? Should abortions no longer be an option in the case of rape? Should we cut to the bottom line and keep all women barefoot as well? Think of all those poor kids in third world countries who would
be out of work....wouldn't that make you sad? >>>>
The above is an example of what sitcom writers call a Joke-Like
Substance. It kinda sounds like a joke, but it doesn't make any sense,
and it's certainly not funny.
> >>>> I snipped the personal attacks. >>>
>>>So did I... but hey .... if a guy can get Scaife to pay for them...
that's not a personal attack...that's journalism... >>>
You mean like George Soros, when he paid tens of millions of dollars
for Move-On to create ads that showed Bush as Hitler?
>>>>And people wonder why major metro circulation is in the toilet, why more people think O'Reilly is a journalist than Woodward, why Lush gets to proclaim himself "America's anchorman" and no one blows beer out
their nose laughing at him... it's a damn shame.>>>
People think of Rush and O'Reilly as real journalists because they've
been acting like real journalists.
>>>>Makes you wonder how Franklin and Jefferson would be taking it all in
..... I can see it now ... Ben pouring a stiff draught of beer, Tom
gazing despondently into the wine...and Ben trying to lift his spirits
"I told you....it would end in Despotism as other Forms have done
before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need
Despotic Government, being incapable of any other." Then they drink
themselves into oblivion. >>>
No, Franklin and Jefferson understood what actual despotism was -
they have lived under the rule of an insane king. They would consider
Rush Limbaugh their crowing achievement. Franklin would have gone nuts
over the Bloggers.
bval...@aol.com
>>>I realize the mostly incoherent exchange is not directed at me, but
your last question deserves an answer: No. >>>
Don't tell me - tell the people who are calling to destroy Ed Klein's
career.
>>>Having answered the question asked, I would point out you seem to have
the current situation backwards.... the issue is a political journalist
actually damaging a respected politician ... >>>>
Hillary's respect? For what, exactly? Hillary has insanely high
negative numbers, and enough skeletons's to populate "Night of the
Living Dead" remake. Remember when the police booed her at the MTV
tribute to the 911 police? Remember WHY they booed her? Because she
had her limo-driver run over a cop because she thought she was too
important to bother with security clearance? There are hundreds of
really ugly stories about Hillary like that. Mind you, this won't
require an investigative reporting - a half hour at Nexus will do the
trick.
>>>>for some reason the term "political journalist" strikes me as either intensely ironic or a newly minted oxymoron.... or maybe it just betrays your ignorance equating "pundit" with "journalist" like so many folks seem to do in the world
of infotainment! >>>>>
"Political Journalist" is not a wacky new phrase dreamed up by Rush
LImbaugh to annoy you personally. It's a very old, very respected
position.
> Well, aren't YOU the precious little fascist?
> You repeatedly just assumed Ed's story is all nonsense. Here's an
> unpleasant thought for you: Mr. Kline is one of the best, most
> accomplished, journalists of our generation.
>>>Really? You must be awfully young to believe that.>>>>
Nope. BTW, I've also worked at the Weekend Art Director for UPI, and
staff artist for the New York Daily news.
>>>Oh by the way, you spelled his name wrong.>>>
It happens.
>>>> Kind of an insulting way to refer to such a luminary man of
letters wouldn't you agree? Sort of like heaping praise on the esteemed
James Gallows, or dear departed Mike Kerry, or Seymour
Harsh... and where would we be without that grumpy New Yorker, Jimmy
Broslin?
Puh - leeze. >>>
Oh, we're having one of THOSE conversations. Oh, excuse me. Jesus,
you never heard of Political Journalists? (LOUD HORSE LAUGH) I guess
you might have to have your mother read a newspaper for you.
Personally, I don't care for such tactics - but the aggressors define
the rules of engagement.
<<<<What makes you all fired certain that he would throw his career
away by printing such a story without solid evidence?>>>>>
>>>Calculated risk: Hillary and Bill can't sue and win... I mean I didn't
actually lie, I merely reported something someone told me and he swore
he was telling me the truth....Besides, if they sue I get on the talk
shows.>>>
Or he could be telling the truth. You desperately want to frame the
debate with the assumption that he's lying. Two facts belittle that
assumption:
1. Ed has never pulled that sort of stunt before. Why start now?
2. This isn't the first time a credible claim of rape has been leveled
against the former President.
>>>>You know what they say, "Any press is good press so long as
they spell your name right." Which as noted above you didn't ..... but
that's ok... no one said you were an opinion leader in the first place.
>>>>
Well, that's really a rather pointless insult.
> What makes you think the Main Street Media is
> going to pile on one of their own?
>>>>Oh you obviously don't pay attention kiddo... >>>
OH MY GOD, YOU DIDN'T PUT A COMMA AFTER "OH"!! Clearly, you are an
illiterate boob!!!!
Again, I remind you, the aggressors define the rules of engagement.
>>>...look how well they stood up for Helen Thomas. >>>>
Helen Thomas was a crazy old bat when I worked with her at UPI.
>>> If there was any solidarity in the shark tank, all the cute talking head bimbos of the White House Press Corps(e) would have insisted she be given her due and held their questions until she asked hers.>>>>
Why? The woman is a political shill. She lobbed one softball question
after another to Clinton, and then suddenly turned into a vulture when
Bush came into office. It's impossible to respect Helen if you don't
agree with her politics.
>>>>But no... as soon as this administration kicked her ass to the back of the room, they all jumped in to the scrum like
poorly behaved 1st graders "pick me...oooh....oooh ....pick me ...pick
me...." never once thinking that job wouldn't even exist except for
the years of work by women like Helen in the first place. >>>>>
Ah. So now Helen Thomas wrote the First Amendment? Did she do it with
a Pen As Big As New Jersey, with a Quill the size of Trenton from Main
Street to 23rd Street?
>>>>And then we have the sterling example of that paragon of journalistic
integrity, Novak, who is happy to let his colleagues face prison
sentences rather than identify the traitor who ruined the longstanding
covert operations of Brewster Jennings and Associates. >>>
You mean Valerie Plame? Gee, was Valerie outed before or after she
posed in a cheesecake double-spread in Vanity Fair? Last time I
checked, she was still very much with us. Now, if you want to talk
about getting people killed, you'd have to visit the aid and comfort
given to the enemy by Michael Moore.
>>>And you wonder why journalists have such crappy numbers in the annual polls of respect
by profession?>>>
It's not Bob's Novak's fault.
> Why is it impossible that he's correct?
>>>>Here's some better questions: Why now?>>>>
Because if he printed earlier, Ed would be accused of being a shill for
the Bush campaign. If he did it later, he's be accused of trying to
effect the election. Frankly, right now is the time that the book
would do the least amount of damage to Hillary.
>>>>What's the point? >>>
He's a journalist with a story to tell. How much more of a point do
you need?
>>>>Are you advocating we publish the names of all rape victims?>>>>
You mean like how the New York Times did with the woman who Ted Kennedy
raped? Or the woman who was gang raped in Central Park? Considering
the respect the Clintons showed for any who stood up to them, I'm not
particularly interested in protecting Hillary's feelings.
>>>Of all children conceived thus? Should abortions no longer be an option in the case of rape? Should we cut to the bottom line and keep all women barefoot as well? Think of all those poor kids in third world countries who would
be out of work....wouldn't that make you sad? >>>>
The above is an example of what sitcom writers call a Joke-Like
Substance. It kinda sounds like a joke, but it doesn't make any sense,
and it's certainly not funny.
> >>>> I snipped the personal attacks. >>>
>>>So did I... but hey .... if a guy can get Scaife to pay for them...
that's not a personal attack...that's journalism... >>>
You mean like George Soros, when he paid tens of millions of dollars
for Move-On to create ads that showed Bush as Hitler?
>>>>And people wonder why major metro circulation is in the toilet, why more people think O'Reilly is a journalist than Woodward, why Lush gets to proclaim himself "America's anchorman" and no one blows beer out
their nose laughing at him... it's a damn shame.>>>
People think of Rush and O'Reilly as real journalists because they've
been acting like real journalists.
>>>>Makes you wonder how Franklin and Jefferson would be taking it all in
..... I can see it now ... Ben pouring a stiff draught of beer, Tom
gazing despondently into the wine...and Ben trying to lift his spirits
"I told you....it would end in Despotism as other Forms have done
before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need
Despotic Government, being incapable of any other." Then they drink
themselves into oblivion. >>>
No, Franklin and Jefferson understood what actual despotism was -
Peter Vos
bval...@aol.com wrote:
> > You'd be in favor of powerful politicians destroying the life of a
> > respected political journalist to shut down an embarrassing story?
>
>
> >>>I realize the mostly incoherent exchange is not directed at me, but
> your last question deserves an answer: No. >>>
>
> Don't tell me - tell the people who are calling to destroy Ed Klein's
> career.
>
> >>>Having answered the question asked, I would point out you seem to have
> the current situation backwards.... the issue is a political journalist
>
> actually damaging a respected politician ... >>>>
>
> Hillary's respect? For what, exactly? Hillary has insanely high
> negative numbers, and enough skeletons's to populate "Night of the
> Living Dead" remake. Remember when the police booed her at the MTV
> tribute to the 911 police? Remember WHY they booed her? Because she
> had her limo-driver run over a cop because she thought she was too
> important to bother with security clearance? There are hundreds of
> really ugly stories about Hillary like that. Mind you, this won't
> require an investigative reporting - a half hour at Nexus will do the
> trick.
Yeah.... she has so little respect she won a Senate race her first time
out.
>
> >>>>for some reason the term "political journalist" strikes me as either intensely ironic or a newly minted oxymoron.... or maybe it just betrays your ignorance equating "pundit" with "journalist" like so many folks seem to do in the world
> of infotainment! >>>>>
>
> "Political Journalist" is not a wacky new phrase dreamed up by Rush
> LImbaugh to annoy you personally. It's a very old, very respected
> position.
I seriously doubt Klein falls in the same category as Morton
Kondracke.... but hey... you clipped out the part where it was clear
you have no context for judging journalistic achievement so we'll drop
it.
>
> > Well, aren't YOU the precious little fascist?
> > You repeatedly just assumed Ed's story is all nonsense. Here's an
> > unpleasant thought for you: Mr. Kline is one of the best, most
> > accomplished, journalists of our generation.
>
> >>>Really? You must be awfully young to believe that.>>>>
>
> Nope. BTW, I've also worked at the Weekend Art Director for UPI, and
> staff artist for the New York Daily news.
>
Well if that is true, then you surely have to explain how you put Klein
on such a pedestal. I mean c'mon, Juan Gonzalez, has done better work.
> >>>Oh by the way, you spelled his name wrong.>>>
>
> It happens.
>
I notice attention to detail isn't your strong suit.
C'mon.... you know why she left UPI .... or did you arrive with the new
crop when Sun Myung Moon's News World Communications bought it up in
2000?
>
> >>>>But no... as soon as this administration kicked her ass to the back of the room, they all jumped in to the scrum like
> poorly behaved 1st graders "pick me...oooh....oooh ....pick me ...pick
> me...." never once thinking that job wouldn't even exist except for
> the years of work by women like Helen in the first place. >>>>>
>
> Ah. So now Helen Thomas wrote the First Amendment? Did she do it with
> a Pen As Big As New Jersey, with a Quill the size of Trenton from Main
> Street to 23rd Street?
funny boy.... how many women were even allowed on the beat before her?
And she is such a partisan shill I guess that is why she was the only
woman print journalist to accompany Nixon to China....
>
> >>>>And then we have the sterling example of that paragon of journalistic
> integrity, Novak, who is happy to let his colleagues face prison
> sentences rather than identify the traitor who ruined the longstanding
> covert operations of Brewster Jennings and Associates. >>>
>
> You mean Valerie Plame? Gee, was Valerie outed before or after she
> posed in a cheesecake double-spread in Vanity Fair? Last time I
> checked, she was still very much with us. Now, if you want to talk
> about getting people killed, you'd have to visit the aid and comfort
> given to the enemy by Michael Moore.
>
> >>>And you wonder why journalists have such crappy numbers in the annual polls of respect
> by profession?>>>
>
> It's not Bob's Novak's fault.
>
> > Why is it impossible that he's correct?
>
> >>>>Here's some better questions: Why now?>>>>
>
> Because if he printed earlier, Ed would be accused of being a shill for
> the Bush campaign. If he did it later, he's be accused of trying to
> effect the election. Frankly, right now is the time that the book
> would do the least amount of damage to Hillary.
>
> >>>>What's the point? >>>
>
> He's a journalist with a story to tell. How much more of a point do
> you need?
Truth is generally an important one.. after all the Society of
Professional Journalists has a code of conduct that spells out when a
story is really a story. You might want to read it. Of course Geraldo
never let that stop him... nor did Gannon.... I suppose you count them
as real journalists too right?
>
> >>>>Are you advocating we publish the names of all rape victims?>>>>
>
> You mean like how the New York Times did with the woman who Ted Kennedy
> raped? Or the woman who was gang raped in Central Park?
BS... the Central Park Jogger came forward on her own volition. And
FYI... she wasn't "gang raped" turns out the guys who confessed after
"interrogation" didn't do it. Or did you forget that little tidbit?
> Considering
> the respect the Clintons showed for any who stood up to them, I'm not
> particularly interested in protecting Hillary's feelings.
>
> >>>Of all children conceived thus? Should abortions no longer be an option in the case of rape? Should we cut to the bottom line and keep all women barefoot as well? Think of all those poor kids in third world countries who would
> be out of work....wouldn't that make you sad? >>>>
>
> The above is an example of what sitcom writers call a Joke-Like
> Substance. It kinda sounds like a joke, but it doesn't make any sense,
> and it's certainly not funny.
>
> > >>>> I snipped the personal attacks. >>>
>
>
> >>>So did I... but hey .... if a guy can get Scaife to pay for them...
> that's not a personal attack...that's journalism... >>>
>
> You mean like George Soros, when he paid tens of millions of dollars
> for Move-On to create ads that showed Bush as Hitler?
You misrepresent that... those ads were produced independently by
people who submitted it as part of a competition that had over 1500
submissions. That wasn't Soros. Apparently the Bush campaign was so
outraged by the comingling of Nazi images with images of an American
politician they decided the best response to this offense was to repeat
it.
Recall the Bush video's opening with a white-on-black graphic saying,
"The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party. The Coalition of the
Wild-eyed?" That was followed by a parade of angry speakers: Al Gore,
Hitler, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Dick Gephardt, Hitler, Gore, and
Kerry. Gee... Hitler is a member of the Democratic Party?
>
> >>>>And people wonder why major metro circulation is in the toilet, why more people think O'Reilly is a journalist than Woodward, why Lush gets to proclaim himself "America's anchorman" and no one blows beer out
> their nose laughing at him... it's a damn shame.>>>
>
> People think of Rush and O'Reilly as real journalists because they've
> been acting like real journalists.
>
If that is what you think real journalists act like, then you make my
point at the beginning that "pundits" and "journalists" have become
hopelessly conflated in the world of infotainment.
> >>>>Makes you wonder how Franklin and Jefferson would be taking it all in
> ..... I can see it now ... Ben pouring a stiff draught of beer, Tom
> gazing despondently into the wine...and Ben trying to lift his spirits
> "I told you....it would end in Despotism as other Forms have done
> before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need
> Despotic Government, being incapable of any other." Then they drink
> themselves into oblivion. >>>
>
> No, Franklin and Jefferson understood what actual despotism was -
> they have lived under the rule of an insane king. They would consider
> Rush Limbaugh their crowing achievement.
> Franklin would have gone nuts over the Bloggers.
I assume you mean Franklin would have been elated with bloggers. Looks
like we finally agree on something.
Alric Knebel
>
> Hillary's respect? For what, exactly? Hillary has insanely high
> negative numbers, and enough skeletons's to populate "Night of the
> Living Dead" remake. Remember when the police booed her at the MTV
> tribute to the 911 police? Remember WHY they booed her? Because she
> had her limo-driver run over a cop because she thought she was too
> important to bother with security clearance? There are hundreds of
> really ugly stories about Hillary like that. Mind you, this won't
> require an investigative reporting - a half hour at Nexus will do the
> trick.
"Insanely high negative numbers"? You dope. You know, you're so
jaw-dropping partisan-stupid, I might just killfile you and be done with
it. You're insane. That's such obvious hyperbole, only a nitwit would
fail to see it. Where are you getting your numbers? The AMERICAN
SPECTATOR? Sure, her negative polls would be high there, but that's not
the same as a poll of normal people (that would be people not like you).
As for that cop story, if it's true (doubtful), it's exaggerated. RAN
OVER a cop? How about drove PAST him. Look, she's clearly
identifiable, and any cop that wouldn't let her pass had to be just a
right-wing pissant trying to invoke his tiny authority over a Senator
because HE didn't like her or think she deserved to be Senator of New
York. Guess what, the VOTERS decide who's senator, not cops. As for
Nexus, it'll turn up exaggerated claims in places like The American
Spectator. What a dope like you fails to consider is, she's an elected
official, which means her numbers must be better than half good.
--
Alric Knebel
zzbu...@netscape.net
Captain Compassion wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:10:56 -0500, "Joe S." <nob...@nowhere.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I notice that this guy Klein is former this and former that and former
> >something else. That should tell you something. And he now makes a living
> >by writing occasional pieces for third-rate pulp magazines. He needs some
> >cash so he figures the best way to pick up a bundle is to write a piece of
> >sensationalist trash. Just the sort of thing that will set you
> >rightwingnuts all a'twitter.
> >
> >Nice try -- but it won't distract the attention of most Americans from
> >Bush's fiasco in Iraq, his failures in the war on terror, his attempts to
> >destroy social security, and his general attacks on middle and working class
> >America.
>
> Actuality isn't it the position of some feminists that all sex in
> marriage is rape?
Nobody really knows. After AIDS was discovered, the only
feminism still exists is the only place that Africa
still exists, which is Microsoft.
Alric Knebel
That would be funny, if I actually did that for a living, you
slop-slurping pig. But I have nothing against people who lay asphalt.
On the other hand, I have a tough time with slop-slurping, lie-spewing
pigs and second-rate writers who think they're better than people who
lay asphalt.
Eris
wrote:
Even if that is true, it was probably better than meditation for
clearing up his thought process.
Who was he on the phone with? Who was doing the planning, him or the
other party.
What was Bush getting/giving when he plan Iraq?
bval...@aol.com
out. >>>
And she did so in one of the most liberal states in the country, with
desperate armtwisting of the President of the United States, and the
person she was running against had to drop out because of cancer.
> "Political Journalist" is not a wacky new phrase dreamed up by Rush
> LImbaugh to annoy you personally. It's a very old, very respected
> position.
>>>I seriously doubt Klein falls in the same category as Morton Kondracke.... >>>
Really? Kondracke was Washington bureau chief of Newsweek. Klein was
the foreign editor of Newsweek.
Kondracke was executive editor and senior editor of The New Republic.
Klein was Editor In Chief of the New York Times Magazine.
Sounds to me like they're in the same category.
>>>>but hey... you clipped out the part where it was clear you have no context for judging journalistic achievement so we'll drop it. >>>
It was "clear"? Really? I was the weekend Art Director for UPI.
Let's hear you list YOUR credentials, fella?
>>>C'mon.... you know why she left UPI .>>>
Yeah. She didn't like the religion of the owner. Great lady.
> He's a journalist with a story to tell. How much more of a point do
> you need?
>>>>Truth is generally an important one.. after all the Society of
Professional Journalists has a code of conduct that spells out when a
story is really a story. >>>>
And you're callling Ed Klein a liar based on what, exactly?
You mean like how the New York Times did with the woman who Ted
Kennedy
> raped? Or the woman who was gang raped in Central Park?
>>>BS... the Central Park Jogger came forward on her own volition.>>>
After several papers printed her name. BTW, I can't help but notice
that you're giving Kennedy a pass on his rape.
> You mean like George Soros, when he paid tens of millions of dollars
> for Move-On to create ads that showed Bush as Hitler>>>
>>>You misrepresent that...>>>
I did no such thing.
>>>those ads were produced independently by
people who submitted it as part of a competition that had over 1500
submissions.>>>
Don't care. Move On picked them, and put them on the web. They are
responsible for the content they show.
>>> That wasn't Soros.>>>>
Soros bankrolled
>>>>Apparently the Bush campaign was so outraged by the comingling of Nazi images with images of an American
politician they decided the best response to this offense was to repeat
it.>>>
The hutzpah of the left never fails to astound. Let's see if I've got
this straight. George Soro's "Move On" showed an ad that accused the
President of the United States of being of Nazi. When President Bush
showed exactly what Move On did, you become outrged that he would sink
so low as to say the truth.
> People think of Rush and O'Reilly as real journalists because they've
> been acting like real journalists.
>>>If that is what you think real journalists act like, then you make my point at the beginning that "pundits" and "journalists" have become hopelessly conflated in the world of infotainment. >>>
Which means to mean that you have no sense of history when it comes to
Journalism. I suggest you rent "Citizen Kane" to get a rough idea of
the history of the media.
Peter Vos
bval...@aol.com wrote:
> Really? Kondracke was Washington bureau chief of Newsweek. Klein was
> the foreign editor of Newsweek.
>
> Sounds to me like they're in the same category.
Gotcha!
We pause to note this guy now cites Klein's stint at Newsweek to
support the claim he is "one of the best, most accomplished journalists
of our generation...".
Yet only a few weeks ago this guy lambasted Newsweek's reporting of a
story (later confirmed by the Pentagon as basically true) as:
"An insanely irresponable story that got 17 people killed."
So to review: You are now defending the guy as "one of the best
journalists of our generation" because he works for an outfit you
accuse of "insanely irresponsible[sic]" reporting.
Sounds like you have a truly flexible set of journalistic standards
where consistency of facts is secondary to consistency of party
loyalty.
Eris
wrote:
>>The writer was the Editor-In-Chief of the New York Time's Magazine
>>section. He was also Overseas Editor for Newsweek. Have fun tryinig
>>to paint HIM as a kook.
>
>
>>>>He wasn't there, were did the info come from? Mrs. McKinley's Sunday
>School Class?>>>
>
>He claims Bill Clinton told him.
And he has a balloon payment due on his condo,so now he brings it up?
Eris
<thomje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Native American wrote:
>> "Peter Vos" <pvo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1118636889....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Lemme get this straight... the Clintons get married in 1975.
>>>Chelsea is born in 1980.
>>>
>>>Someone is making a completely unsubstantiated claim that Clinton, a
>>>man who is famous for his charism, raped his wife ????
>>
>>
>>
>> What's your substantiation for your claim that "the Clintons got married in
>> 1975"?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham
>
>> Also, what is your substantiation for your claim that "Chelsea was
>> born in 1980"?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Clinton
>
>---
>
>Your turn.
Naive American is a provocateur for the RNC. You will never get an
accurate of sincere answer from that one.
bval...@aol.com
> the foreign editor of Newsweek.
> Sounds to me like they're in the same category.
Gotcha!
We pause to note this guy now cites Klein's stint at Newsweek to
support the claim he is "one of the best, most accomplished journalists
of our generation...".
Yet only a few weeks ago this guy lambasted Newsweek's reporting of a
story (later confirmed by the Pentagon as basically true) as:
"An insanely irresponable story that got 17 people killed."
So to review: You are now defending the guy as "one of the best
journalists of our generation" because he works for an outfit you
accuse of "insanely irresponsible[sic]" reporting. >>>
Did the offending Newsweek story happen under Ed's watch? No? Then
what, exactly, is your point? What you're doing is like blameing Walt
Disney for producing the latests "Herbie" movie.
BTW, since you're such a stickler for such things, I couldn't help but
notice that you cut out,(no, wait, "dishonestly" cut out) the point I
made, that Kondracke and Klein have resumes of virtually identical
prestege. Why is it that you didn't want to mention that point, I
wonder? Or are you one of those guys who live to scream "gotcha"?
arthurs...@hotmail.com
" I suggest you rent "Citizen Kane" to get a rough idea of
the history of the media. "
And then 'Life of Brian' for the history of the christian faith.
bval...@aol.com
Yup, for a person who was utterly illiterate of the history of
Christianity, "Life of Brian" would at least hint of the virtues and
foolishness of Christians. Of course, I'm talking about a person who
knows as little of Christianity as Peter Vos knows of the history of
media.
MFOgilvie
rightwinghank wrote:
> RAGE AT AUTHOR AFTER CLAIM: BILL RAPED HILLARY, CONCEIVED CHELSEA
>
> **Exclusive**
>
> Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton turned furious and considered legal
> action after learning bestselling author Ed Klein would allege in a new
> book: Bill Clinton raped her -- resulting in the conception of daughter
> Chelsea Clinton!
>
> "[Author] Klein is going to rot in hell for this," a well-placed source
> close to Hillary said over the weekend.
>
> The explosive charge comes in THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY: WHAT SHE KNEW,
> WHEN SHE KNEW IT, AND HOW FAR SHE'LL GO TO BECOME PRESIDENT -- set for
> release next week.
>
> [The book ranked #198 on AMAZON.COM's hourly sale chart late Sunday.]
>
> MORE
>
> "I'm going back to my cottage to rape my wife," Klein quotes Bill
> Clinton as saying during a Bermuda getaway in 1979.
>
> In the morning, the Clintons' room "looked like World War III. There
> are pillows and busted-up furniture all over the place," an unnamed
> source tells Klein.
>
> Klein source claims Bill later learned Hillary was pregnant reading
> about it in the ARKANSAS GAZETTE.
>
> "The fact that his wife didn't tell him that she was pregnant before
> she told a reporter doesn't seem to phase him one bit, because he says,
> 'Do you know what night that happened?"
>
> "'No,' I say. 'When?"
>
> "'It was Bermuda,' he says, 'And you were there!'"
>
> MORE
>
> The rape claim is just the beginning of Klein's alleged revelations,
> the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
>
> TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY marks the most aggressive attempt yet to
> investigate Hillary.
>
> The former first lady turned senator fumed as a close aide offered
> details of the book, an insider explains.
>
> "Mrs. Clinton told me she would considering suing him for outright
> libel," the top Hillary source explains. "This is the right wing attack
> machine on crack!"
>
> MORE
>
> But Hillary and her camp may have a hard time typecasting Ed Klein as a
> Clinton-crazed right-winger. Klein is the former foreign editor of
> NEWSWEEK and former editor in chief of the NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE. He
> is a frequent contributor to VANITY FAIR and PARADE.
>
> He is also the author of THE KENNEDY CURSE; FAREWELL, JACKIE; and
> several other NEW YORK TIMES bestsellers.
>
> VANITY FAIR has already commissioned an excerpt of the embargoed
> Hillary book, exploring Hillary's senate runs.
>
> Developing... Drudge
> ....................................
> This proves that Bill Clinton is and was unfit for office........
> he raped a pig.......
>
> love
> hank
> .......................................
He must have really tied one on that night. Adds new richness to the
phrase "blind drunk."
Alric Knebel
arthurs...@hotmail.com
--
Alric Knebel
It was supposed to be a secret.
:)