Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Clinton's Polls Reflect Dumbed Down America

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Iconocla

unread,
Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98
to
Not just intellectually but morally are present-day Americans dumbed down,
as they have been described in the best-selling book of a few years back,
The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.

During the Clinton tapes shown yesterday we were shown a lying, prevaricating,
unprincipled man using a lawyer's evasiveness, obfuscation and weasel words
to try to avoid his obvious felonies and take his punishment like a man. Perhaps his
favorable polls this morning reflect a sympathy vote, but this is not a time for sympathy as
too much is at stake.

Imagine a devious sexual sociopath  saying that oral sex is not sexual and having millions of people
tolerate that. Imagine also this same person trying to claim that he was never alone
in the Oval Office having fellatio with Monica Lewinky because there were other people somewhere
present in the White House. Clinton lied the same way in his Paula Jones deposition
by saying that he was not alone with her in the hotel because there were other people in the
hotel. He maintains that all these comments were legally correct and he never committed perjury.

Well, he did commit perjury. He also suborned perjury with his "instructions" to his secretary
Betty Currie regarding his assignations with Monica. This is also obstruction of justice, abuse
of power and an attempt to undermine America's rule of law.

This guy Clinton is a menace to the American democratic system. He must resign or be impeached.
He needs a psychiatric assessment. The man in not well, mentally and emotionally and is
certainly not fit to be president of the U.S. His removal from office would not be undoing the
electoral process in the U.S. as the stupid Clintonoids maintain. Al Gore, who would replace Clinton
was elected on the same ticket. His replacing Clinton would be better for the entire nation as well
as the Democratic Party. If Clinton had an ounce of decency he would resign. Even Richard Nixon,
as corrupt as he was, had the moral courage to do that and end the agony of a nation.

john q public

unread,
Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98
to
can you say Minority opinion
Iconocla wrote in message <36079F20...@ionsys.com>...

Patrick J. Fields

unread,
Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98
to
Why are we being relentlessly bombarded by the subject of sex? Because it's a highly dependable propaganda campaign calculated to divert public attention from a very real attempt at a coup de' tat of our nation! Republicans were stupidly herded into it, in a selfish assumption that it would create "moral indignation", "Democrats" are falling over themselves to raise the drumbeat, and under all the cacophony is the sinister story of a transmutation from Constitutional to Totalitarian rule.
 
People reading this, have little time remaining to confirm the story for themselves and spread a warning to their fellows, because the instrument to collect and collate the supporting documentation is, itself, clicking away like a time bomb. The Internet, until January 1st, 2000, is our salvation. After that it is our doom, because an orchestrated Y2K "crisis" affecting capital and communications, followed by "terrorist threats" and "uncertainties related to international intent" will be used to trigger Executive Order 12919 and plunge our country into consummate presidential rule.
 
I seriously urge you all to search http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/eo.html the U.S. Federal Register, for  EO 12919. Then pull down all related documents for further study with this scenario in mind. The ability of the Executive Department to carry out this plan is all revealed in these documents.
 
This sex campaign along with all of life's other distractions are being depended upon to sap your interest. Time to prove me wrong is running short. If, in the hurry of life, you settle for the offhand contention that I'm "just a fool", we may all end up in that category.
 
Pat Fields
Repeal the 16th Amendment
Iconocla wrote in message <36079F20...@ionsys.com>...
Not just intellectually but morally are present-day Americans dumbed down,
as they have been described in the best-selling book of a few years back,
The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.

...cut...

Beverley Carlton

unread,
Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98
to
I've been calling this guy a "SOCIOPATH" FOR MONTHS, Glad to see you
feel the same way!!!
This is why he must GO...he isn't fit to run his own family let alone
OUR COUNTRY!!!
Bev


Not a Republican

unread,
Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98
to
Can you say, "Truth is not statistical?"

--
The Big Tent with no pole just won't stand. And that's why I'm Not a
Republican.
john q public wrote in message
<6u8tto$64n$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...

john q public

unread,
Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98
to
Can you say, "Opinion is not truth?"
BTW
The only thing according the Law of this country other than a confession
that can show "truth" is actually statistical. In some cases it is more than
50% in others it is 100% but it is always statistical. That, my friend, is
the POLLING of a JURY...........................

Not a Republican wrote in message <6u98nj$ruf$1...@winter.news.erols.com>...


>Can you say, "Truth is not statistical?"
>
>--
>The Big Tent with no pole just won't stand. And that's why I'm Not a
>Republican.
> john q public wrote in message
><6u8tto$64n$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...

Cat

unread,
Sep 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/24/98
to
Shut up you rightwing hack! America wasn't fooled by the republican
Coup tactics. Clinton rules!


Larz Sterne

unread,
Sep 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/27/98
to
Cat <C...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Shut up you rightwing hack! America wasn't fooled by the republican
>Coup tactics. Clinton rules!
>

Typical liberal Instead of intelligent debate You simply tell anyone
you disagree with to shut up and call them names.As to your statement
that " Clinton rules!" well it is currently correct since he is the
leader of free world at the moment, however since Saddam Hussein also
currently "rules!" that doesen't mean that Clinton isn't a lying sack
of crap. Frankly I'd rather have Saddam Hussein as our president. At
least I know that he does truly put his country and it's people first.
Which is far more than anyone can say for Clinton.
Remember Guys... It's easy to become a father. It's important to become a DAD!
Larz Sterne

john q public

unread,
Sep 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/27/98
to
Ok Larz just a couple of little problems.
1. you are stereotyping, not wise!
2. Typical liberal and right wing hack are both rude comments.
3. my experience in this NG, I have been called every name in the book but
never by a liberal, bet you have never been called names by a conservative.
Both groups are guilty of this. both equally.
4. I do believe you have won my vote for worst name calling here"lying sack
of crap"
5. I don't like assumptions so why don't you tell me what you meant with you
last comment.I certainly hope you weren't insinuating poor parenting by any
of the poster's in this string. I'm sure you weren't but I could be wrong.

BTW I agree with your last statement just don't know why you chose to put it
there.

Larz Sterne wrote in message <360eac6c....@news.mindspring.com>...

Larz Sterne

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
"john q public" <kysd...@sprintmail.com> wrote:

>5. I don't like assumptions so why don't you tell me what you meant with you
>last comment.I certainly hope you weren't insinuating poor parenting by any
>of the poster's in this string. I'm sure you weren't but I could be wrong.
>
>BTW I agree with your last statement just don't know why you chose to put it
>there.
>

>>Remember Guys... It's easy to become a father. It's important to become a
>DAD!
>>Larz Sterne
First i called him a sack of crap rather than using a more vehement
term that start with an S because not everyone here enjoys alot of
cursing and as to the second part It's called a Signature John. It
goes out with every post I make. Like this

UNetIX

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
I agree with Larz.. except on one point..

Klinton IS a lying sack of SHIT !! there I said it, now can we all just
bond together for a moment and IMPEACH this low life ?

john q public

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to

Larz Sterne wrote in message <3610537c...@news.mindspring.com>...

>UNetIX <uni...@planetwide.com> wrote:
>
>>I agree with Larz.. except on one point..
>>
>>Klinton IS a lying sack of SHIT !! there I said it, now can we all just
>>bond together for a moment and IMPEACH this low life ?
>>
>Alright now that you put it out there I'll drink to it or bond with it
>or whatever, the irony of this whole thing is that if the economy
>(something that Clinton actually has very little to do with) wasn't so
>good right now he would have been lynched by an old fasioned mob
>months ago.

>
>
>Remember Guys... It's easy to become a father. It's important to become a
DAD!
>Larz Sterne

For getting a Blow job damb I'm glad you don't know where I live...

Larz Sterne

unread,
Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98
to

Cat

unread,
Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98
to
UNetIX wrote:
>
> I agree with Larz.. except on one point..
>
> Klinton IS a lying sack of SHIT !! there I said it, now can we all just
> bond together for a moment and IMPEACH this low life ?
>

Clinton won't be impeached. The republicans are going ahead with the
impeachment charade because they are in the grip of the rightwing
extremists. The polls have been too consistent to deny. 70% of
Americans want' clinton to finish his term. 60% or more think that he is
a good President. IT may be hard for a rightwinger to accept but that
is reality.

Cat

unread,
Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98
to
Larz Sterne wrote:

>
> UNetIX <uni...@planetwide.com> wrote:
>
> >I agree with Larz.. except on one point..
> >
> >Klinton IS a lying sack of SHIT !! there I said it, now can we all just
> >bond together for a moment and IMPEACH this low life ?
> >
> Alright now that you put it out there I'll drink to it or bond with it
> or whatever, the irony of this whole thing is that if the economy
> (something that Clinton actually has very little to do with) wasn't so
> good right now he would have been lynched by an old fasioned mob
> months ago.

Wrong again. Clinton's approval ratings have to do with more than the
good economy. He may have character flaws that people don't like but he
also has character traits that are admired: Cares for the average
person, Great tenacity in the face of 6 years attacks by the
republicans. People like him and think he's done a good job.

Despite republican lies people also realize that he has had a part in
creating a strong economy.


Larz Sterne

unread,
Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98
to
Cat <C...@pacbell.com> wrote:

>UNetIX wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Larz.. except on one point..
>>
>> Klinton IS a lying sack of SHIT !! there I said it, now can we all just
>> bond together for a moment and IMPEACH this low life ?
>>
>

>Clinton won't be impeached. The republicans are going ahead with the
>impeachment charade because they are in the grip of the rightwing
>extremists. The polls have been too consistent to deny. 70% of
>Americans want' clinton to finish his term. 60% or more think that he is
>a good President. IT may be hard for a rightwinger to accept but that
>is reality.
>

First off the Republicans are going through with the impeachment
inquiry because there is sufficient evidence to show possible criminal
action. (Sorry liberal apologists but there is no "it would have
embarrased me to tell the truth " clause in perjury laws) And the
whole Lewinsky thing is the tip of the iceberg, It's focused on so
heavily because it's so lurid but his real crimes are theft,
embezzelment, conspiracy to commit murder and more. Whether or not
they can be proven is questionable, but there is enough to warrant an
inquiry.

Frankly at this point it has gone on so long that you may be right.
Republicans may agree to censure in order to keep Gore from getting
hold of the Oval Office with insufficient time for him to look like an
idiot before the 2000 elections.

Secondly, as to your earlier post that Clinton is involved in the
economy, that is a stupid assertion, Clinton is not an Economist.
Surely he appoints liberal economists, but so would Gore, Clinton
personally has no more to do with this booming economy than Reagan had
to do with the great economic boom in the 80's. It's like thanking
Ronald McDonald when you get a good cheeseburger.He didn't make it,
he's just the guy out front.

Thirdly I think you and I have been reading different polls. Sure I
hear proclamations about how high his job approval rating is, but I've
also seen polls that say that 70% of the population think he should
resign or be impeached. Remember that figures lie and liars figure. If
you took a poll in Iraq about Saddam's job approval rating it would
probably say he was a wonderful caring leader. That don't make it so.

Forthly as to your earlier assertion that Clinton is a caring and
decent man HAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA.....

He is a sociopath that uses people like Kleenex and tosses them aside
(or has them murdered) when he is done with them.

And finally as to your charge that I am a right-winger, well I am a
conservative on some issues(Crime, gun control) But I am for abortion
rights, I loathe the idea of prayer in schools , and can't tolerate
religious extremism in any form, ( I am agnostic) In fact Pat
Robertson would probably call me a liberal ( but that's not nearly as
bad as what I call him) Frankly I wish Don king would set up a
pay-per-view show with Pat Robertson and Jesse Jackson in a wrestling
cage match to the death. I'd pay to see it.

grp00

unread,
Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98
to

>First off the Republicans are going through with the impeachment
>inquiry because there is sufficient evidence to show possible criminal
>action. (Sorry liberal apologists but there is no "it would have
>embarrased me to tell the truth " clause in perjury laws) And the
>whole Lewinsky thing is the tip of the iceberg, It's focused on so
>heavily because it's so lurid but his real crimes are theft,
>embezzelment, conspiracy to commit murder and more. Whether or not
>they can be proven is questionable, but there is enough to warrant an
>inquiry.
>

We need Congress to start inquiry? What's Ken Starr been doing the last 5
years?


> Frankly at this point it has gone on so long that you may be right.
>Republicans may agree to censure in order to keep Gore from getting
>hold of the Oval Office with insufficient time for him to look like an
>idiot before the 2000 elections.
>

You mean it's not about sex or perjury and a Constitutional duty to impeach
him? You mean it's really about Politics!

>
>He is a sociopath that uses people like Kleenex and tosses them aside
>(or has them murdered) when he is done with them.
>


Murder? This is in Ken Starr's report?

Larz Sterne

unread,
Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98
to

>>
>First off the Republicans are going through with the impeachment
>inquiry because there is sufficient evidence to show possible criminal
>action. (Sorry liberal apologists but there is no "it would have
>embarrased me to tell the truth " clause in perjury laws) And the
>whole Lewinsky thing is the tip of the iceberg, It's focused on so
>heavily because it's so lurid but his real crimes are theft,
>embezzelment, conspiracy to commit murder and more. Whether or not
>they can be proven is questionable, but there is enough to warrant an
>inquiry.
>
To grp00 something who asked what Starr had been up to lately since I
mention a congresional inquiry. ( sorry lost your post)
Well since you are showing you ignorance let me tell you. Starr has
been conducting what is called a Grand Jury Investigation. This can be
done on anyone ( this is part of any normal trial proccess )
essentially you appoint a group of jurors who look at a case and
decide if it even justifies a trial. In most trials it is almost
formality. If the case is totally unprovable then no charges are made.
If, as in this case , there is sufficient evidence that a crime has
possibly been commited then it is forwarded to a court (or in this
case the House of Representatives) to stand trial(or in this case an
impeachment inquiry)

As to your other question( whether or not the murder charges are in
the Starr report) I severly doubt it, number one he never commited the
murders, in fact his bag man is so good that very few of the
"accidental deaths " that have constantly surrounded anyone, friend or
foe, who knew to much about him have ever been classified as murders.
Most are classified as suicides, plane crashes, or single car crashes.
If Starr was dumb enough to include any of these accusations in his
report then he tanked his own case. He cannot prove those allegations
at all so he would be stupid to include them. However he may be able
to prove some of the theft and embezzlement charges.

John W. Hosie III

unread,
Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98
to
On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:29:42 GMT, Mercut...@yahoo.com (Larz Sterne)
wrote:

>Cat <C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Shut up you rightwing hack! America wasn't fooled by the republican
>>Coup tactics. Clinton rules!
>>
>Typical liberal Instead of intelligent debate You simply tell anyone
>you disagree with to shut up and call them names.As to your statement
>that " Clinton rules!" well it is currently correct since he is the
>leader of free world at the moment, however since Saddam Hussein also
>currently "rules!" that doesen't mean that Clinton isn't a lying sack
>of crap. Frankly I'd rather have Saddam Hussein as our president. At
>least I know that he does truly put his country and it's people first.
>Which is far more than anyone can say for Clinton.

>Remember Guys... It's easy to become a father. It's important to become a DAD!
>Larz Sterne

It is very disturbing to see Cat's post. It shows just how far away
from what our founding fathers had intended that we have come. It
wasn't that long ago that I was in high school. At that time, elected
officials were public SERVENTS. It is a shame that one must think that
an elected official RULES. We have no rulers in this country. We have
servants. And when we reach the point where elected officials lose
sight of that, it shoulld be time to help them on their way.

Phil Ronzone

unread,
Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98
to
In article <361450f9...@news.maranatha.net> hosie-at-maranatha-dot-net writes:
>It is very disturbing to see Cat's post. It shows just how
>far away from what our founding fathers had intended that we
>have come. It wasn't that long ago that I was in high school.
>At that time, elected officials were public SERVENTS. It is a
>shame that one must think that an elected official RULES. We
>have no rulers in this country. We have servants. And when we
>reach the point where elected officials lose sight of that,
>it shoulld be time to help them on their way.


Yep. And I'm tired of the servants fucking in "my" house.
--
"You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Rick H

unread,
Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98
to
Phil Ronzone wrote:
>
> In article <361450f9...@news.maranatha.net> hosie-at-maranatha-dot-net writes:
> >It is very disturbing to see Cat's post. It shows just how
> >far away from what our founding fathers had intended that we
> >have come. It wasn't that long ago that I was in high school.
> >At that time, elected officials were public SERVENTS. It is a
> >shame that one must think that an elected official RULES. We
> >have no rulers in this country. We have servants. And when we
> >reach the point where elected officials lose sight of that,
> >it shoulld be time to help them on their way.
>
> Yep. And I'm tired of the servants fucking in "my" house.

Public servants have been fucking in the White House since John Adams
moved in, with the possible exception of the Reagans.

-Rick

Phil Ronzone

unread,
Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98
to
In article <36153C...@aopala.org> Rick H <rick....@aopala.org> writes:
>> Yep. And I'm tired of the servants fucking in "my" house.
>
>Public servants have been fucking in the White House since John Adams
>moved in, with the possible exception of the Reagans.


Implied "adulterous" fucking was implied.

And of course, you have to include the Clintons (with each other).

bob garza

unread,
Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98
to
Dumb ass liberals do not understand the constitution of this great
country. The only thing they understand is the polling data from the
liberal press. slick willie broke the laws of this great country and
should be impeached now.


sewpine

unread,
Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98
to bob garza
We dumbass liberals understand every nuance of the constitution. If we
didn't you would not be posting here. The RepubliCUNTS are the ones that
insisted on limited access by the general public to Internet.

M. Kilgore

unread,
Oct 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/3/98
to

bob garza wrote in message <11030-36...@newsd-113.bryant.webtv.net>...

Dumb ass liberals do not understand the constitution of this great
country. The only thing they understand is the polling data from the
liberal press. slick willie broke the laws of this great country and
should be impeached now.


Intelligent Robertson republicans don't understand enough about politics to
take a political action without screwing it up.

mark

Larz Sterne

unread,
Oct 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/3/98
to
ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) wrote:

>>Public servants have been fucking in the White House since John Adams
>>moved in, with the possible exception of the Reagans.
>
>
>Implied "adulterous" fucking was implied.
>
>And of course, you have to include the Clintons (with each other).
>
>
>--
>"You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"
>
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)


Cute guys but I think you missed the point that fucking isn't the
issue. By the way Phil love your Sig

David Salvador Flores

unread,
Oct 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/4/98
to
In article <360eac6c....@news.mindspring.com>,
Larz Sterne <Mercut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Cat <C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>

[deletia]


>of crap. Frankly I'd rather have Saddam Hussein as our president. At
>least I know that he does truly put his country and it's people first.

By bombing them with poisoned gas? If that's the Republican
ideal of "putting [your] country and its people first" I
surely hope I never see another Republican president in my
life. You Repubilcans really do scare me at times... most of
the time, in fact.


-Dave

David Salvador Flores

unread,
Oct 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/4/98
to
In article <36143a83....@news.mindspring.com>,
Larz Sterne <Mercut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>

[deletia]


>To grp00 something who asked what Starr had been up to lately since I
>mention a congresional inquiry. ( sorry lost your post)
>Well since you are showing you ignorance let me tell you. Starr has
>been conducting what is called a Grand Jury Investigation. This can be
>done on anyone ( this is part of any normal trial proccess )
>essentially you appoint a group of jurors who look at a case and
>decide if it even justifies a trial. In most trials it is almost
>formality. If the case is totally unprovable then no charges are made.
>If, as in this case , there is sufficient evidence that a crime has
>possibly been commited then it is forwarded to a court (or in this
>case the House of Representatives) to stand trial(or in this case an
>impeachment inquiry)

I'm sorry, that's not how it works. If the President is impeached
he is tried in the Senate with the chief justice of the Supreme
Court presiding.

The whole point of the Starr investigation was to build and present
a case for impeachment. The Repubs now have the case. If they
decide not to impeach immediately what they are saying is that
after 4 years and 50 million Dollars Starr did not build a credible
case for impeachment, and so instead they intend to try and
build one themselves.

It's that simple.

-Dave

djmilt

unread,
Oct 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/4/98
to
On 4 Oct 1998 18:52:28 GMT, ds...@node9.unix.Virginia.EDU (David

Salvador Flores) wrote:

>
>The whole point of the Starr investigation was to build and present
>a case for impeachment. The Repubs now have the case. If they
>decide not to impeach immediately what they are saying is that
>after 4 years and 50 million Dollars Starr did not build a credible
>case for impeachment, and so instead they intend to try and
>build one themselves.
>
>It's that simple.

Henry Hyde said today that they are not going to limit themselves just
to Starr's report. Since Larry Klayman has also just submitted his
report which encomposses a far wider range of injustices, perhaps he
is referring to that. Maybe we will know as early as tomorrow when the
Judiciary Comm.'s lawyer submits his summary at the hearing.

>
>
>-Dave

Jeanne

John Gilmer

unread,
Oct 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/5/98
to
You have made my day!

David Salvador Flores wrote in message
<6v8fls$hfh$1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>...
>... You Repubilcans really do scare me at times... most of
>the time, in fact.
>
>

>yahoo.com

unread,
Oct 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/5/98
to
In article <3619a143....@news.mindspring.com>, Mercut...@yahoo.com wrote:

>>
>First I am a Libertarian not a Republican.
>
>Second Saddam gasses other countries,such as Kuwait, not his own.
<snip>
Actually Saddam has used gas in his country. There were several well
documented uses of poison gas against the Iraq's Kurdish population during or
shortly after the Iran/Iraq conflict.

basher


kysd...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Oct 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/6/98
to
Actually Mark the problem is that they can't tell the difference between
politics and religion.
This lack of understanding makes the idea of separation of Church and State a
dangerous proposition to them. To tell you the truth though I feel much safer
knowing that there is someone making decisions for them, just the thought of a
republican attempting to think on it own is scary. I can see the smoke rising
from the top of their heads now.

Here let me help, Rush would say that I'm making personal attacks to escape
from the truth. The truth is what all Liberals fear most. Talk about honor or
integrity is the easiest was to clear a room of liberals.
Then he would start with the insults.

just thought I'd save you all the trouble of straining for an approved
response.


In article <6v4cmc$ept$1...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>,

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

me

unread,
Oct 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/6/98
to

"HEEELLLLLO" !!!! .........Bill Clinton

Looks like the people are starting to get tired of your face.
Smart thing to do is to pack your bags and move back to "Arkansie" Pigs, hogs,
chickens, ahhhhh.....
"Home sweet Home".

MSNBC poll :
From what you've
seen, how is the
Judiciary Committee
conducting itself

* 27067 responses
Fairly: It's doing its
constitutional duty
71%
Unfairly: This is an
empty partisan
exercise
29%

**********************************************

CNN poll :
Created: Mon Oct 05 07:32:29 EDT 1998

Should any impeachment inquiry be
limited in scope?

Yes, only to
issues in the
Starr report
39%
27026 votes
No, other
issues
should be
considered
61%
42217 votes
Total: 69243 votes

Larz Sterne

unread,
Oct 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/6/98
to
ds...@node9.unix.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) wrote:

>In article <360eac6c....@news.mindspring.com>,


>Larz Sterne <Mercut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Cat <C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>
>[deletia]
>>of crap. Frankly I'd rather have Saddam Hussein as our president. At
>>least I know that he does truly put his country and it's people first.
>
>By bombing them with poisoned gas? If that's the Republican
>ideal of "putting [your] country and its people first" I
>surely hope I never see another Republican president in my

>life. You Repubilcans really do scare me at times... most of
>the time, in fact.
>
>
>-Dave


>
First I am a Libertarian not a Republican.

Second Saddam gasses other countries,such as Kuwait, not his own.

Don't get me wrong I was over in the Gulf War and helped bomb him
because his ideas of helping his country don't mix with our countries
ideas. But he is looking out for his country.

If I truly had my wish then someone would shoot both Sadaam and
Clinton, and save Americans a whole lot of money

Larz Sterne

unread,
Oct 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/6/98
to
ds...@node9.unix.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) wrote:

>In article <36143a83....@news.mindspring.com>,
>Larz Sterne <Mercut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>

(read Larz's part above if ya want it)


>
>I'm sorry, that's not how it works. If the President is impeached
>he is tried in the Senate with the chief justice of the Supreme
>Court presiding.
>

>The whole point of the Starr investigation was to build and present
>a case for impeachment. The Repubs now have the case. If they
>decide not to impeach immediately what they are saying is that
>after 4 years and 50 million Dollars Starr did not build a credible
>case for impeachment, and so instead they intend to try and
>build one themselves.
>
>It's that simple.

Learn to read before you criticise. You contradict yourself so badly
as to appear stupid. The whole Starr investigation was only to find
enough to admit that there might have been enough criminal activity to
start an impeachment inquiry. Effectively at this level Starr acted as
a police agency.

Right now no one has "the case" because as you admitted yourself,
there is no case yet. The House cannot decide anything more
substantial than to send the problem on to the Senate. Only then does
it become " the Case". Right now it is only an inquiry as to whether
there is enough to pass it on to an Impeachment trial. But you lie and
say they(the Repubs) have it and insinuate that any hesitation means
they have no case.

Oh by the way when did it jump from 44 mil to 50 mil? No matter that
still means that my share comes to about a dollar, and if I've ever
gotten more entertainment out of a dollar then I don't know where that
was, besides which how much of that dollar could have been saved if
Clinton wouldn't have lied in the first place.

HOOVER

unread,
Oct 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/6/98
to
Wrong! Clinton's Polls reflect that America's citizens are fools. At
least the ones who are polled.

HOOVER

unread,
Oct 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/6/98
to
Larz Sterne wrote:
>
> ds...@node9.unix.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) wrote:
>
> >In article <36143a83....@news.mindspring.com>,
> >Larz Sterne <Mercut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
>
> (read Larz's part above if ya want it)
> >
> >I'm sorry, that's not how it works. If the President is impeached
> >he is tried in the Senate with the chief justice of the Supreme
> >Court presiding.
> >
> >The whole point of the Starr investigation was to build and present
> >a case for impeachment. The Repubs now have the case. If they
> >decide not to impeach immediately what they are saying is that
> >after 4 years and 50 million Dollars Starr did not build a credible
> >case for impeachment, and so instead they intend to try and
> >build one themselves.
> >
> >It's that simple.
>
> Learn to read before you criticise. You contradict yourself so badly
> as to appear stupid. The whole Starr investigation was only to find
> enough to admit that there might have been enough criminal activity to
> start an impeachment inquiry. Effectively at this level Starr acted as
> a police agency.

Good for him!

Mr. Horrible

unread,
Oct 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/6/98
to
Larz Sterne wrote:
>
> ds...@node9.unix.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) wrote:
>
> >In article <360eac6c....@news.mindspring.com>,

> >Larz Sterne <Mercut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Cat <C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >[deletia]
> >>of crap. Frankly I'd rather have Saddam Hussein as our president. At
> >>least I know that he does truly put his country and it's people first.
> >
> >By bombing them with poisoned gas? If that's the Republican
> >ideal of "putting [your] country and its people first" I
> >surely hope I never see another Republican president in my
> >life. You Repubilcans really do scare me at times... most of
> >the time, in fact.
> >
> >
> >-Dave
> >
> First I am a Libertarian not a Republican.
>
> Second Saddam gasses other countries,such as Kuwait, not his own.

Wrong. He gassed his own people (the Kurds).

> Don't get me wrong I was over in the Gulf War and helped bomb him
> because his ideas of helping his country don't mix with our countries
> ideas. But he is looking out for his country.
>
> If I truly had my wish then someone would shoot both Sadaam and
> Clinton, and save Americans a whole lot of money

Please make your sentiments known to the Secret Service.

Mr. Horrible

unread,
Oct 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/6/98
to
HOOVER wrote:
>
> Wrong! Clinton's Polls reflect that America's citizens are fools. At
> least the ones who are polled.

Convincing people by calling them fools rarely works.

David Salvador Flores

unread,
Oct 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/6/98
to
In article <3619a143....@news.mindspring.com>,

Larz Sterne <Mercut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>ds...@node9.unix.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) wrote:
>
>>In article <360eac6c....@news.mindspring.com>,
>>Larz Sterne <Mercut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Cat <C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>[deletia]
>>>of crap. Frankly I'd rather have Saddam Hussein as our president. At
>>>least I know that he does truly put his country and it's people first.
>>
>>By bombing them with poisoned gas? If that's the Republican
>>ideal of "putting [your] country and its people first" I
>>surely hope I never see another Republican president in my
>>life. You Repubilcans really do scare me at times... most of
>>the time, in fact.
>>
>>
>>-Dave
>>
>First I am a Libertarian not a Republican.
>
>Second Saddam gasses other countries,such as Kuwait, not his own.

Wrong. Saddam gassed Iraqi Kurds living in villages within the
borders of Iraq.

-Dave

Larz Sterne

unread,
Oct 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/7/98
to

>>
>>Second Saddam gasses other countries,such as Kuwait, not his own.
>
>Wrong. Saddam gassed Iraqi Kurds living in villages within the
>borders of Iraq.

Yeah but that was roughly like our attacking the Waco compound. Sorry
but every now and then you have to use a little chlorine to clean out
the gene pool.They were Iranian supporters, and religious fanatics. In
fact the reason that he bombed them was because they refused
allegiance to Iraq, and claimed that they weren't inside it's borders.

Effectively thats like saying the Russians were bombing their own
people when they attacked German troops that had invaded their land
during World War II because they were inside Russia's borders.

Besides which I've already said that I was exagerating for effect. I
want to see Saddam in a grave, not the Oval Office.

Look I know it's against the rules for Liberals to have a sense of
humor, but don't you think your carrying that a bit to far?

Larz Sterne

unread,
Oct 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/7/98
to
(Larz joked)

>> If I truly had my wish then someone would shoot both Sadaam and
>> Clinton, and save Americans a whole lot of money

(and Mr. Horrible didn't get it)

>Please make your sentiments known to the Secret Service.
>

Sure why not Mr. Horrible? In case you have forgotten this is a free
country. I can wish Clinton were dead all I want( I dont really, I
just wish he was out of office), The only thing that is illegal is
acting on the wish that he were dead.

Besides, with as much trouble as Clinton has given the Secret Service,
I'm quite sure a number of them wouldn't mind seeing him shot
themselves. The only reason they wouldn't let it happen is profesional
pride

David Salvador Flores

unread,
Oct 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/7/98
to
In article <3619a385....@news.mindspring.com>,

Larz Sterne <Mercut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>ds...@node9.unix.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) wrote:
>
>>In article <36143a83....@news.mindspring.com>,

>>Larz Sterne <Mercut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>
>(read Larz's part above if ya want it)
>>
>>I'm sorry, that's not how it works. If the President is impeached
>>he is tried in the Senate with the chief justice of the Supreme
>>Court presiding.
>>
>>The whole point of the Starr investigation was to build and present
>>a case for impeachment. The Repubs now have the case. If they
>>decide not to impeach immediately what they are saying is that
>>after 4 years and 50 million Dollars Starr did not build a credible
>>case for impeachment, and so instead they intend to try and
>>build one themselves.
>>
>>It's that simple.
>
>Learn to read before you criticise. You contradict yourself so badly
>as to appear stupid. The whole Starr investigation was only to find
>enough to admit that there might have been enough criminal activity to
>start an impeachment inquiry. Effectively at this level Starr acted as
>a police agency.

Then why is Starr referred to as a "Special Prosecutor" instead of
a "Special Policeman?"

>
>Right now no one has "the case" because as you admitted yourself,
>there is no case yet. The House cannot decide anything more
>substantial than to send the problem on to the Senate. Only then does
>it become " the Case". Right now it is only an inquiry as to whether
>there is enough to pass it on to an Impeachment trial. But you lie and
>say they(the Repubs) have it and insinuate that any hesitation means
>they have no case.

Listen, I've read some stupid things before, but this really takes the
cake. To claim that Starr was not hired to investigate and present
a case for impeachable offenses is simply ludicrous. The Independent
counsel's report is a "case" for impeachment, outlining 11 potential
counts and the evidence that supports them. That's what, in ordinary
parlance, one refers to as "making a case." I'm sorry, but
as a native speaker of Standard American English, I must ask that
you stick to the standard definitions of normal words; which you
obviously are not.


-Dave


Larz Sterne

unread,
Oct 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/8/98
to
ds...@node7.unix.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) wrote:


>Listen, I've read some stupid things before, but this really takes the
>cake. To claim that Starr was not hired to investigate and present
>a case for impeachable offenses is simply ludicrous. The Independent
>counsel's report is a "case" for impeachment, outlining 11 potential
>counts and the evidence that supports them. That's what, in ordinary
>parlance, one refers to as "making a case." I'm sorry, but
>as a native speaker of Standard American English, I must ask that
>you stick to the standard definitions of normal words; which you
>obviously are not.
>

I'm sure you have read some stupid things in your time namely anything
you've ever written

Starr WAS investigating to see if there was enough evidence for a
case, then he submitted a report that says in his opinion there is,
Starr has no power to start a trial, he only recommended that one be
started, now the house can vote to decide whether his recommendation
was correct. But your original suggestion was that any delay on the
part of the Rebublicans was an admission of a lack of case, when in
fact the process is long and drawn out by nature.

and I won't even comment on the Irony of a Clinton supporter asking
someone to use plain English and Standard Definitions......" Define
plain English"

so...@gte.net

unread,
Oct 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/8/98
to

--
Hitler had gun control (6million men women & children many shot dead)
Stalin had gun control (20 million men women and children murdered, many
shot)
China has gun control (thousands shot dead in Teane Mien Square)

David Salvador Flores

unread,
Oct 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/8/98
to
In article <361c2e35....@news.mindspring.com>,

Larz Sterne <Mercut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>ds...@node7.unix.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) wrote:
>
>
>>Listen, I've read some stupid things before, but this really takes the
>>cake. To claim that Starr was not hired to investigate and present
>>a case for impeachable offenses is simply ludicrous. The Independent
>>counsel's report is a "case" for impeachment, outlining 11 potential
>>counts and the evidence that supports them. That's what, in ordinary
>>parlance, one refers to as "making a case." I'm sorry, but
>>as a native speaker of Standard American English, I must ask that
>>you stick to the standard definitions of normal words; which you
>>obviously are not.
>>

[deletia]


>
>Starr WAS investigating to see if there was enough evidence for a
>case, then he submitted a report that says in his opinion there is,


Thank you for finally seeing the light and agreeing with me and common
sense generally.


-Dave

David Salvador Flores

unread,
Oct 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/8/98
to
In article <361aca6c....@news.mindspring.com>,

Larz Sterne <Mercut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Second Saddam gasses other countries,such as Kuwait, not his own.
>>
>>Wrong. Saddam gassed Iraqi Kurds living in villages within the
>>borders of Iraq.
>

[deletia]


>Look I know it's against the rules for Liberals to have a sense of
>humor, but don't you think your carrying that a bit to far?


Knee slapper.


Typical right-wing response to getting nailed on a falsehood: C'mon
guys I was only joking, tee, hee, hee.


>Remember Guys... It's easy to become a father. It's important to become a DAD!
>Larz Sterne


-Dave

fathersm...@usa.net

unread,
Oct 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/8/98
to
In article <361993AE...@worldnet.att.net>,

Bye, bye, Bubba!

BearNakedPlum

unread,
Oct 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/8/98
to
You are dreaming, the President will survive. What makes you think
anyone else will be better. They are all crooks and liars; thats how
you get elected, fool. We need to completely clean house and put
in a new bunch every couple of weeks. Finally, we would all get our
chance to show our stupidity. Worry about running your own life, not
mine.
0 new messages