Countdown to Impeachment: Streamy Sex Emails Show Exchanges Between Clinton and Lewinsky
Thomas Odell
"I never had sexual relations with THAT woman."
Bill Clinton shaking his crooked finger at the camera
February 2, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Well liberals, don't look now but evidence has just popped up that the
prevert Clinton and the intern Lewinsky communicated routinely back and
forth via email. Special Prosecutor Starr is now in possession of
Lewinsky's personal computer and the evidence does NOT look good for
poor old Bill.
Remember, if Clinton is proven to have had sex with this woman, he HAS
LIED to the public and will likely be impeached soon thereafter.
No thinking person can possibly believe that Clinton is not quilty.
Clinton will ultimately be impeached or driven from office in disgrace.
Liberals are about to get their just rewards.
Midtowng
Thomas Odell wrote:
> "I never had sexual relations with THAT woman."
>
> Bill Clinton shaking his crooked finger at the camera
> February 2, 1998
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> Well liberals, don't look now but evidence has just popped up that the
> prevert Clinton and the intern Lewinsky communicated routinely back and
> forth via email. Special Prosecutor Starr is now in possession of
> Lewinsky's personal computer and the evidence does NOT look good for
> poor old Bill.
Contrary to what you might have been told, you can't have sexover the
internet.
> Clinton will ultimately be impeached or driven from office in disgrace.
Where have I heard this before? Oh, I remember. It wasright here. You said
it about Whitewater, Filegate, and the
Foster murder. We're still waiting.
> Liberals are about to get their just rewards.
Since when did Clinton become a liberal?
--
The public is easy to distract
when bombs are falling on Iraq.
Thomas Odell
Midtowng wrote:
>
> Thomas Odell wrote:
> > Clinton will ultimately be impeached or driven from office in disgrace.
>
> Where have I heard this before? Oh, I remember. It wasright here. You said
> it about Whitewater, Filegate, and the
> Foster murder. We're still waiting.
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA. Thanks for playing into my hand you poor lost lad.
What I've said in the past and I'd be delighted to repost it should you
question my verasity on the topic, is that impeachment proceedings
against Clinton would commence in 1998. I said that ALL of last year.
I noted that there were too many dirty scandals such as Whitewater,
filegate and the rest but NEVER did I say that each of those scandals
would draw impeachment proceedings.
Yet another thing that you cannot get right.
I noted that Clinton's scandals would have to ultimately catch up with
him by 1998.
And I predicted it for 1998. What year is it Garrett?
You poor sap.
Thomas Odell
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> Time to fire starr
PLEASE fire Ken Starr. Fire him today. Fire him this minute. Right
away. Immediately. Don't waste a second .
If you think you can, have your corrupt president fire Ken Starr. Upon
the firing of Starr, Clinton's impending impeachment would follow within
a month.
Please, fire Starr. Let's get this over with.
edh...@nospambest.com
Thomas Odell wrote:
> Remember, if Clinton is proven to have had sex with this woman, he HAS
You're a silly man, Tom. Clinton isn't even close to being impeached,
regardless of what his e-mails say. The Republicans don't want to exile
him, they want to demonize him so they can run against him in the next
election. A new moral leadership and all that.
It doesn't matter what's in the e-mail. Everybody already knows that
Monica was blowing the man, evidently quite a lot. And everybody knows
that Clinton lied about it. Big deal.
A much bigger problem for the Republicans is the growing repulsion the
public is developing for Ken Starr. Now that it has come out that Linda
Tripp briefed the Paula Jones lawyers the day before they questioned
Clinton, the tie between Starr and the Jones team is even more clear.
And the public doesn't like it. Starr's numbers are right up there with
Hitler's, in case you haven't noticed.
I'll predict this: Not only does the e-mail not matter, the Republicans
better find a way to call off Starr pretty soon, or this whole thing
will explode next election. The Republicans may well lose the House
over it.
Ed Hooks
Gail Weasel
Thomas Odell wrote:
>
> "I never had sexual relations with THAT woman."
>
> Bill Clinton shaking his crooked finger at the camera
> February 2, 1998
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> Well liberals, don't look now but evidence has just popped up that the
> prevert Clinton and the intern Lewinsky communicated routinely back and
> forth via email. Special Prosecutor Starr is now in possession of
> Lewinsky's personal computer and the evidence does NOT look good for
> poor old Bill.
>
Sure, KOTM, we really believe THAT!
> Remember, if Clinton is proven to have had sex with this woman, he HAS
> LIED to the public and will likely be impeached soon thereafter.
>
The Founding Fathers rightfully did not include "lying
to the public" as an impeachable offense, never mind
lying to the public about a President's sex life. I
believe to undo the last election, you have to impeach
the President in the House for high crimes and misdeamors
and then convict him in the Senate. Very unlikely at this
point.
> No thinking person can possibly believe that Clinton is not quilty.
>
No thinking person can possibly believe that Clinton is a
saint and a chaste man. I agree.
> Clinton will ultimately be impeached or driven from office in disgrace.
>
In either case, he will be handing the powers of the Presidency
to Gore. As a yellow-dog Democrat, why should I worry?
> Liberals are about to get their just rewards.
If Clinton were a liberal, I might agree with you, KOTM.
Gail
edh...@nospambest.com
Thomas Odell wrote:
> What I've said in the past and I'd be delighted to repost it should you
> question my verasity on the topic, is that impeachment proceedings
> against Clinton would commence in 1998...
Hmmmm....I suspect you are right about "proceedings" beginning in 1998.
However, there will be no impeachment. The idea is to drag it out, to
demonize Clinton. They don't want to exile him.
Anyway, it isn't going to work. This thing is much more likely to
backfire on the Republicans. Clearly, Clinton was caught in a trap, and
the good old American sense of fair play is tilting those polls in his
favor. <g>
Ed Hooks
Midtowng
Thomas Odell wrote:
> Midtowng wrote:
> > Thomas Odell wrote:
> > > Clinton will ultimately be impeached or driven from office in disgrace.
> >
> > Where have I heard this before? Oh, I remember. It wasright here. You said
> > it about Whitewater, Filegate, and the
> > Foster murder. We're still waiting.
>
> HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.
Once again, Odell thinks this is an intelligent comeback.
> Thanks for playing into my hand you poor lost lad.
This should be good.
> What I've said in the past and I'd be delighted to repost it should you
> question my verasity on the topic, is that impeachment proceedings
> against Clinton would commence in 1998.
Really? You said it would "start in 1998"? All right. Prove itsince you say you
can.
> I said that ALL of last year.
> I noted that there were too many dirty scandals such as Whitewater,
> filegate and the rest but NEVER did I say that each of those scandals
> would draw impeachment proceedings.
You never said that each and every one of them would drawimpeachment scandels. I
never said that. You just made a
blanket declaration.
> I noted that Clinton's scandals would have to ultimately catch up with
> him by 1998.
>
> And I predicted it for 1998. What year is it Garrett?
What year is it? Just another year that Clinton won't seeimpeachment
proceedings.
> You poor sap.
Yes, Mr. KOTM.
-GJ
Midtowng
Thomas Odell wrote:
> Well liberals, don't look now but evidence has just popped up that the
> prevert Clinton and the intern Lewinsky communicated routinely back and
> forth via email. Special Prosecutor Starr is now in possession of
> Lewinsky's personal computer and the evidence does NOT look good for
> poor old Bill.
I wonder where you heard this because the afternoon newspaper,the CNN web
site, and the Washington Post web site all lack
this "dramatic" story.
> Remember, if Clinton is proven to have had sex with this woman, he HAS
> LIED to the public and will likely be impeached soon thereafter.
> No thinking person can possibly believe that Clinton is not quilty.
>
> Clinton will ultimately be impeached or driven from office in disgrace.
>
> Liberals are about to get their just rewards.
I hate to break up this rant with actual facts, but the evidence so
far that Clinton has lied is this:
1) One testimony of a Monica Lewinsky who has already lied
under oath.
That's it folks. There hasn't been anything else. Despite what
blaring headlines might have led you to believe, there hasn't been
a single piece of physical evidence, nor a single other witness
to corroborate Monica's story of the affair. Nothing. Nada.
Zip.
If the Republicans try to start impeachment proceedings
without any other evidence this will backfire on them
harder than anything since Watergate.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"I never had sexual relations with THAT woman."
> Bill Clinton shaking his crooked finger at the camera
> February 2, 1998
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>Well liberals, don't look now but evidence has just popped up that the
>prevert Clinton and the intern Lewinsky communicated routinely back and
>forth via email. Special Prosecutor Starr is now in possession of
>Lewinsky's personal computer and the evidence does NOT look good for
>poor old Bill.
sounds like another starr leak to me. Time to fire starr, for his
gestapo tactics and charge him with the felony of leaking grand jury
information.
>Remember, if Clinton is proven to have had sex with this woman, he HAS
>LIED to the public and will likely be impeached soon thereafter.
>No thinking person can possibly believe that Clinton is not quilty.
>Clinton will ultimately be impeached or driven from office in disgrace.
>Liberals are about to get their just rewards.
Let The White Rose enlighten you.
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
gdy weasel
Hank Ingram
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>sounds like another starr leak to me. Time to fire starr, for his
>gestapo tactics and charge him with the felony of leaking grand jury
>information.
If the leaks are coming from the WhiteHouse, will you call for
Clinton's removal?
Hank Ingram, McLeansville NC
hin...@greensboro.com http://www.nr.infi.net/~hingram
Travel Agent, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy(tm)
Bill Clinton - The Bread and Circuses President
Arnie
> sounds like another starr leak to me. Time to fire starr, for his
> gestapo tactics and charge him with the felony of leaking grand jury
> information.
Don't you want to wait for proof, since the presidential supporters say
they believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".
A. Bishop
edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
> I'll predict this: Not only does the e-mail not matter, the Republicans
> better find a way to call off Starr pretty soon, or this whole thing
> will explode next election. The Republicans may well lose the House
> over it.
C'mon, its much too early to be making predictions for Nov. Besides,
most congressional repubs aren't touching this with a 10 foot pole.
ab
Scott Erb
In article <6c5af1$e...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, od...@worldnet.att.net
says...
>Remember, if Clinton is proven to have had sex with this woman, he HAS
>LIED to the public and will likely be impeached soon thereafter.
ROTFL!
You need to have 67 Senate votes to get Clinton out of office. And lying
to the American public is not even an impeachable offense.
August's kook of the month is getting desparate. (Snicker!)
edh...@nospambest.com
A. Bishop wrote:
> C'mon, its much too early to be making predictions for Nov. Besides,
> most congressional repubs aren't touching this with a 10 foot pole.
You're right, it's early. And you're also correct about Repub leaders
taking a wait-and-see attitude. However, we can predict some things
with a degree of confidence, based on Clinton's track record and current
poll results.
It seems clear that the public has no taste for tactics such as wringing
tears out of Monica Levinsky's mother. Nor are people keen on the idea
of grilling Secret Service. The harder Starr pushes, therefore, the
worse it will be for the Repubs.
It is also clear that Starr and Paula Jones's team are in cahoots.
Those of us who follow these things closely already know it, and the
general public will be brought up to speed soon. And they won't like
it. Starr is simply not "independent", and so his tactics do not rest
well with the American sense of fair play.
I think Clinton was as surprised as the Repubs by his soaring poll
ratings. Nobody knows for sure what to do with this info but, if it
bodes badly for either side, it is the Republicans who had best watch
out.
Ed Hooks
Allen Whiteacre
> If the Republicans try to start impeachment proceedings
> without any other evidence this will backfire on them
> harder than anything since Watergate.
>
Clinton.
Republicans need Clinton to stay in power until the end. How hard woould it
be to unseat a President Gore who was riding a strong economy. Unseating a
sitting president is no easy task. Certainly republicans are hoping Clinton
survives this scandal so they can have an easier time ofg beating the
democrats in 2000. If Gore doesn't have to fight off Gephardt, he is going
to only be harder to beat.
I don't think Clinton has a bigger cheering section right now than
Republicans.
>
>
Hank Ingram
edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>It doesn't matter what's in the e-mail. Everybody already knows that
>Monica was blowing the man, evidently quite a lot. And everybody knows
>that Clinton lied about it. Big deal.
Nixon lied. Big deal.
>A much bigger problem for the Republicans is the growing repulsion the
>public is developing for Ken Starr. Now that it has come out that Linda
>Tripp briefed the Paula Jones lawyers the day before they questioned
>Clinton, the tie between Starr and the Jones team is even more clear.
>And the public doesn't like it. Starr's numbers are right up there with
>Hitler's, in case you haven't noticed.
Actually, Hitler had GREAT poll numbers before WW2. Just like Clinton.
Starr's numbers suck because the White House Spin Machine is in full
attack mode.
>I'll predict this: Not only does the e-mail not matter, the Republicans
>better find a way to call off Starr pretty soon, or this whole thing
>will explode next election. The Republicans may well lose the House
>over it.
Not quite. These bashlash prediction never seem to come true. If
Clinton is a liar(and we know he is), we should keep it front and
center. He stared the American People right in the eye and lied. Where
will he stop lying? Not only that, how will we know what to believe?
>Ed Hooks
Long time, no see. Not since Compuserve anyway. Still a member of the
dreaded "Hollywood elite"?
Hank Ingram
Two words. Archibald Cox. Please fire him, Mr President.
Michael Zarlenga
edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
: It doesn't matter what's in the e-mail. Everybody already knows that
: Monica was blowing the man, evidently quite a lot. And everybody knows
: that Clinton lied about it. Big deal.
Not everybody. According to a recent poll,only 54% realize Clinton
is lying. Once that # reaches 90% or so, then this matter can be
dropped. I'd still like to see the Lyin' King deny it a few more
times so that the Clinton rump swabs who have some modicum of integ-
rity left in their souls will manage to finally pull themsleves out
of their denial and see their man for what he really is : a patholo-
gical liar.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
"The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend
to be something they're not."
Hillary Clinton, 1992 60 Minutes interview
Hank Ingram
"A. Bishop" <acbi...@erols.com.placebo> wrote:
>C'mon, its much too early to be making predictions for Nov. Besides,
>most congressional repubs aren't touching this with a 10 foot pole.
They don't need to touch it. It's doing nicely on its own.
Hank Ingram
edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>It seems clear that the public has no taste for tactics such as wringing
>tears out of Monica Levinsky's mother. Nor are people keen on the idea
>of grilling Secret Service. The harder Starr pushes, therefore, the
>worse it will be for the Repubs.
YOU should recognize acting when you see it. I'm surprised Marcia
Lewis hasn't hurled herself down the steps to garner more sympathy.
Thomas Odell
edk...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
> You're a silly man, Tom.
Flattery from a kook leftist propagandist. Wow.
> Clinton isn't even close to being impeached
Keeping saying that and don't forget to keep clicking your heals. Do
you have Toto in your arms too?
> It doesn't matter what's in the e-mail. Everybody already knows that
> Monica was blowing the man, evidently quite a lot. And everybody knows
> that Clinton lied about it. Big deal.
Big deal. Wow your standards are awe-inspiring. Does your wife stay
out late at night to troll dark alleys and do you think that's no big
deal either?
> A much bigger problem for the Republicans is the growing repulsion the
> public is developing for Ken Starr.
Better check your history bucko. Guy by the name of Archibald Cox was
similarly situated. He was investigating a guy named Nixon. Perhaps
you recall the story.
> Starr's numbers are right up there with
> Hitler's, in case you haven't noticed.
Funny. I didn't think that this was a personality contest. I thought we
hired special prosecutors to unearth the facts. Interesting the way you
propagandists and Clinton apologists keep trying to make Starr the issue
rather than deal with the corrupt bastard you voted into office.
> I'll predict this: Not only does the e-mail not matter, the Republicans
> better find a way to call off Starr pretty soon, or this whole thing
> will explode next election. The Republicans may well lose the House
> over it.
My but are you a fool. I guess that is why Democrats are retiring from
the House one after the other. Seasoned Dems like Fazio and others who
if the House reverted to Dem control would get prized leadership slots.
Nope Mr. Propagandist, you are simply full of it. The Republicans will
gain seats in the House -- I'll predict 30 additional seats.
Wanna bet?
No? You propaganda-spewers are a pretty cowardly bunch. But then look
at who you choose to admire.
Thomas Odell
Gail Weasel wrote:
>
> Thomas Odell wrote:
> >
> > "I never had sexual relations with THAT woman."
> >
> > Bill Clinton shaking his crooked finger at the camera
> > February 2, 1998
> >
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> >
> > Well liberals, don't look now but evidence has just popped up that the
> > prevert Clinton and the intern Lewinsky communicated routinely back and
> > forth via email. Special Prosecutor Starr is now in possession of
> > Lewinsky's personal computer and the evidence does NOT look good for
> > poor old Bill.
> >
>
About time BOTY!
> In either case, he will be handing the powers of the Presidency
> to Gore. As a yellow-dog Democrat, why should I worry?
More lies huh? Yellow-dog Democrat? Hardly. You are a pinko
Socialist.
> > Liberals are about to get their just rewards.
>
> If Clinton were a liberal, I might agree with you, KOTM.
Clinton is a liberal BOTY. Leave it to you to overlook the obvious.
Thomas Odell
Midtowng wrote:
>
> Thomas Odell wrote:
>
> > prevert Clinton and the intern Lewinsky communicated routinely back and
> > forth via email. Special Prosecutor Starr is now in possession of
> > Lewinsky's personal computer and the evidence does NOT look good for
> > poor old Bill.
>
> site, and the Washington Post web site all lack
> this "dramatic" story.
Been on MSNBC all day sap.
> I hate to break up this rant with actual facts,
I am surprised that you spelled "facts" correctly. That's a first.
> but the evidence so
> far that Clinton has lied is this:
>
> 1) One testimony of a Monica Lewinsky who has already lied
> under oath.
>
> That's it folks.
Well first of all, Ms. Lewinsky hasn't testified to anything yet. Leave
it to you to screw up this simple fact.
And as usual we also find you propagandizing again.
Ms. Lewinsky's former boyfriend HAS spoken to the press and he said that
Lewinsky told him that she had sex with Clinton and earned her
"presidential knee-pads" in the process. This was apparently told to
this chap six months ago long before any of us had ever heard of
Lewinsky.
Lewinsky's roommate has also come forward to verify evidence against
Clinton.
Clinton's secretary has ALSO come forward and regrettably the press
neglected to inform the public that her brothers were all beaten up
under very mysterious circumstances after she came forward.
Once more Garrett Johnson thinks that his stupidity has some connection
with reality.
Pity.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
hin...@eatspam.net (Hank Ingram) wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>>sounds like another starr leak to me. Time to fire starr, for his
>>gestapo tactics and charge him with the felony of leaking grand jury
>>information.
>If the leaks are coming from the WhiteHouse, will you call for
>Clinton's removal?
Thats gotta be the dumbest spin control/starr leak yet it even tops
the cum story. Now tell us little ditto creature why the hell would
the Whitehouse leak damaging stories especially false damaging
stories??
>Hank Ingram, McLeansville NC
>hin...@greensboro.com http://www.nr.infi.net/~hingram
>Travel Agent, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy(tm)
>Bill Clinton - The Bread and Circuses President
Tony Burda
This can't be so! When their daughter was leaving for Stanford, I heard
them say <paraphased> I guess that we're gonna' have to learn email now when
we talk to chelsea!"
Gail Weasel
Thomas Odell wrote:
>
> Gail Weasel wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Odell wrote:
> > >
> > > "I never had sexual relations with THAT woman."
> > >
> > > Bill Clinton shaking his crooked finger at the camera
> > > February 2, 1998
> > >
> > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > >
> > > prevert Clinton and the intern Lewinsky communicated routinely back and
> > > forth via email. Special Prosecutor Starr is now in possession of
> > > Lewinsky's personal computer and the evidence does NOT look good for
> > > poor old Bill.
> > >
> >
>
> About time BOTY!
>
I guess that stands for "bitch of the year."
Well, Tom, it's twelve hours later, and there's nothing
in the Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times,
San Jose Mercury News or AP. You told Garrett you heard
it on MSNBC, but they apparently don't want to put
such foolishness on their Web Page.
So what did the President write? "Thanks for the blow job?"
"It was wonderful being alone with you?" "Lie, lie, lie,
under oath?"
Please keep us informed.
> > In either case, he will be handing the powers of the Presidency
> > to Gore. As a yellow-dog Democrat, why should I worry?
>
> More lies huh? Yellow-dog Democrat? Hardly. You are a pinko
> Socialist.
>
"Socialist" to Odell and Kottman: Someone who doesn't think
Ronald Reagan should be on Mt. Rushmore.
What's a Socialist position I've espoused, Tom?
>
> > > Liberals are about to get their just rewards.
> >
> > If Clinton were a liberal, I might agree with you, KOTM.
>
> Clinton is a liberal BOTY. Leave it to you to overlook the obvious.
Because YOU say so?
I think not.
He appears to be liberal on some social issues, but
he's not liberal on capital punishment, the Drug War,
CDA, the budget, welfare,
the line-item veto, and other things
that both the left and right have criticized him for.
Intelligent people use critical analysis and facts
to come to conclusions; they do NOT just decide for
themselves what words mean and make up things and
CALL them facts. You OTHER people are called KOTMs.
Gail
Gail Weasel
Thomas Odell wrote:
>
> Midtowng wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Odell wrote:
> >
> > > prevert Clinton and the intern Lewinsky communicated routinely back and
> > > forth via email. Special Prosecutor Starr is now in possession of
> > > Lewinsky's personal computer and the evidence does NOT look good for
> > > poor old Bill.
> >
> > site, and the Washington Post web site all lack
> > this "dramatic" story.
>
> Been on MSNBC all day sap.
>
It's not on their home page this morning, and it's not
on AP or in the Washington Post, LA Times, New York
Times, etc.
>
> > but the evidence so
> > far that Clinton has lied is this:
> >
> > 1) One testimony of a Monica Lewinsky who has already lied
> > under oath.
> >
> > That's it folks.
>
> Well first of all, Ms. Lewinsky hasn't testified to anything yet. Leave
> it to you to screw up this simple fact.
>
She testified under oath in a deposition in the Paula
Jones case that she did not have a sexual relationship
with the President. How you could have missed this
amazes me, because this is the whole basis of the
Case Against Clinton. Starr is threatening her with
perjury--lying under oath-to get her to testify against
the President.
> And as usual we also find you propagandizing again.
>
At least he reads the newspapers and knows what's going
on.
The Washington Post has an excellent spread on their
Web Page and not very kind to the Clintons. Read it before
posting.
> Ms. Lewinsky's former boyfriend HAS spoken to the press and he said that
> Lewinsky told him that she had sex with Clinton and earned her
> "presidential knee-pads" in the process. This was apparently told to
> this chap six months ago long before any of us had ever heard of
> Lewinsky.
>
So? Who hasn't lied about their sex lives? Don't forget
a criminal charge must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
There's lots of wiggle room for Clinton here.
> Lewinsky's roommate has also come forward to verify evidence against
> Clinton.
>
> Clinton's secretary has ALSO come forward and regrettably the press
> neglected to inform the public that her brothers were all beaten up
> under very mysterious circumstances after she came forward.
I hope, for your sake, that Clinton e-mailed the thugs
he hired a nice thank-you note.
>
> Once more Garrett Johnson thinks that his stupidity has some connection
> with reality.
>
I believe Garrett and I have already posted that we believe
something went between Lewinsky and Clinton. That doesn't
mean we think that it can be proved to a jury, or that
the Repugs will actually try to impeach the President,
barring, of course, physical evidence of some kind.
As is stands now, Starr's case seems to be weak.
> Pity.
Tom, you shouldn't underestimate your opponents. It
results in lazy and often hazy posting.
Gail
a
a
Midtowng
Thomas Odell wrote:
> Midtowng wrote:
> > Thomas Odell wrote:
> > > Well liberals, don't look now but evidence has just popped up that the
> > > prevert Clinton and the intern Lewinsky communicated routinely back and
> > > forth via email. Special Prosecutor Starr is now in possession of
> > > Lewinsky's personal computer and the evidence does NOT look good for
> > > poor old Bill.
> >
> > I wonder where you heard this because the afternoon newspaper,the CNN web
> > site, and the Washington Post web site all lack
> > this "dramatic" story.
>
> Been on MSNBC all day sap.
I don't have nor want cable. And it still can't be all thatdramatic if both the
Washington Post and CNN are ignoring it.
> > I hate to break up this rant with actual facts,
>
> I am surprised that you spelled "facts" correctly. That's a first.
I'm suprised that you didn't drool on your keyboard. That's afirst.
> > but the evidence so
> > far that Clinton has lied is this:
> >
> > 1) One testimony of a Monica Lewinsky who has already lied
> > under oath.
> >
> > That's it folks.
>
> Well first of all, Ms. Lewinsky hasn't testified to anything yet. Leave
> it to you to screw up this simple fact.
Leave it to the KOTM to screw up this "slam" yet again.Lewinsky HAS testified.
She said that she _didn't_
have an affair. Remember that? I bet you forgot.
Then she gave Starr a proffer that said she did have
an affair.
> And as usual we also find you propagandizing again.
>
> Ms. Lewinsky's former boyfriend HAS spoken to the press and he said that
> Lewinsky told him that she had sex with Clinton and earned her
> "presidential knee-pads" in the process. This was apparently told to
> this chap six months ago long before any of us had ever heard of
> Lewinsky.
This is the same boyfriend that said he didn't believe Lewinsky andthat she was
a "manipulative liar".
Ooops. I guess you forgot that one too.
> Lewinsky's roommate has also come forward to verify evidence against
> Clinton.
And Tripp has those tapes as well. And guess what? Thisall still means that
only Lewinsky is saying that she had an
affair with Clinton. She could tell a thousand people that,
and a thousand people could come forward and tell us what
she told them and it still wouldn't mean anything more than
that what it does now.
> Clinton's secretary has ALSO come forward and regrettably the press
> neglected to inform the public that her brothers were all beaten up
> under very mysterious circumstances after she came forward.
And Foster was "murdered" under "mysterious circumstances".And then there was
that ArkansasMafia thing. Big deal.
Clinton's secretary still said that she never saw or heard anything.
> Once more Garrett Johnson thinks that his stupidity has some connection
> with reality.
And Odell still hasn't grasped what the word "proof" means.
> Pity.
Midtowng
Gail Weasel wrote:
> Thomas Odell wrote:
> > Gail Weasel wrote:
> > > Thomas Odell wrote:
> > > > "I never had sexual relations with THAT woman."
> > > >
> > > > Bill Clinton shaking his crooked finger at the camera
> > > > February 2, 1998
> > > >
> > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > > >
> > > > Well liberals, don't look now but evidence has just popped up that the
> > > > prevert Clinton and the intern Lewinsky communicated routinely back and
> > > > forth via email. Special Prosecutor Starr is now in possession of
> > > > Lewinsky's personal computer and the evidence does NOT look good for
> > > > poor old Bill.
> > > >
> > > Sure, KOTM, we really believe THAT!
> >
> > About time BOTY!
> >
> I guess that stands for "bitch of the year."
>
> Well, Tom, it's twelve hours later, and there's nothing
> in the Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times,
> San Jose Mercury News or AP. You told Garrett you heard
> it on MSNBC, but they apparently don't want to put
> such foolishness on their Web Page.
>
> So what did the President write? "Thanks for the blow job?"
> "It was wonderful being alone with you?" "Lie, lie, lie,
> under oath?"
>
> Please keep us informed.
CNN and Washington Post don't have it either the next day.But then Odell just
told everyone that Clinton has ordered
nuclear missles to be pointed at Iraq, and yet the mainstream
news missed that one too.
And then Odell has the nerve to call me and you liars.
> Intelligent people use critical analysis and facts
> to come to conclusions; they do NOT just decide for
> themselves what words mean and make up things and
> CALL them facts. You OTHER people are called KOTMs.
>
> Gail
--
Hank Ingram
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>Thats gotta be the dumbest spin control/starr leak yet it even tops
>the cum story. Now tell us little ditto creature why the hell would
>the Whitehouse leak damaging stories especially false damaging
>stories??
You tell me, convict. If the White House IS leaking information, would
you nail them for it?
Hank Ingram
"Allen Whiteacre" <ka...@kyt0.attnet.or.jp> wrote:
>Actually I think the republicans are in trouble if they do impeach Prez
>Clinton.
>Republicans need Clinton to stay in power until the end. How hard woould it
>be to unseat a President Gore who was riding a strong economy. Unseating a
>sitting president is no easy task. Certainly republicans are hoping Clinton
>survives this scandal so they can have an easier time ofg beating the
>democrats in 2000. If Gore doesn't have to fight off Gephardt, he is going
>to only be harder to beat.
Gore would be easier to unseat than Clinton. Clinton has an enormous,
er, uh, charisma. And Gore has Tipper who is disliked by the extreme
right and extreme left. .
edh...@nospambest.com
Hank Ingram wrote:
> Nixon lied. Big deal.
You're right. It WAS a big deal. So was the crime. The absolute most
Clinton is guilty of is lying on a deposition in a civil case. And he
lied when set up in a sting operation oriented to his private sex life.
I am a pretty honest fellow myself, and I think I might well have lied
had I been sitting in Clinton's chair on the day of deposition. Starr
has no MORAL/ETHICAL right to be inquiring into Clinton's sex life in
the first place, in my opinion. And it was his exploration into same
that set the sting at the Paula Jones thing.
> Actually, Hitler had GREAT poll numbers before WW2. Just like Clinton.
I was referring to Hitler's CURRENT numbers.<g>
>... If
> Clinton is a liar(and we know he is), we should keep it front and
> center. He stared the American People right in the eye and lied. Where
> will he stop lying? Not only that, how will we know what to believe?
You're right about him being a liar. But then we knew that when we
elected him, didn't we? This info was abundantly available.
As for keeping the lying front and center, I presume that is precisely
what the Republican leadership is up to. They'll keep it front and
center until the next elections, and then they'll run against Clinton
instead of Gore.
> Long time, no see. Not since Compuserve anyway. Still a member of the
> dreaded "Hollywood elite"?
Yup. Still hanging in there. How have you been?
Ed Hooks
edh...@nospambest.com
Hank Ingram wrote:
> YOU should recognize acting when you see it. I'm surprised Marcia
I certainly recognize the actor in Bill Clinton. He's quite good. But
Marcia Lewis is a different story. My sense of her is that she is an
ethical pragmatist who is mainly oriented in life to landing rich men, a
posture that would have found her basically advocating her daughter's
involvement with Clinton. But she is not a person who likes being on
stage the way Clinton does. When Ken Starr played those tapes for her,
I suspect it genuinely upset her.
James Carville is a good actor, too.<g> But he's a piker next to
Clinton. "I have never had sexual relations with...THAT WOMAN!...Miss
Lewinsky." LOL! Lovely show.
Ed Hooks
edh...@nospambest.com
Michael Zarlenga wrote:
> According to a recent poll,only 54% realize Clinton
> is lying. Once that # reaches 90% or so, then this matter can be
This whole subject of how much tolerence the public has for lying
politicians is fascinating. My sense is that Americans, while largely
brain dead, are honest, God-fearin' sorts. They go to Sunday school and
study the ten commandments. But, in the case of Clinton/Lewinsky, I
think a lot of folk are responding like me: Yes, he lied -- but it's
not the end of the world for a person to lie when asked questions that
are personal, invasive and inappropriate in the first place.
Mainly, Clinton's lie affects his marriage vows anyway. The contract he
has with the public says nothing about his sex life, one way or the
other. And, as we all have learned, Hilary evidently doesn't have any
problems with Bill chasing skirts. I suspect she doesn't like the blow
job position.<g>
Ed Hooks
Scott Erb
In article <6c6lh2$sdj$1...@nw001t.infi.net>, hin...@eatspam.net says...
>Actually, Hitler had GREAT poll numbers before WW2. Just like Clinton.
1) I don't think Clinton had great poll numbers before WWII.
2) I don't think Germany had any polling organizations conducting a
scientific survey on Hitler's popularity before WWII.
Hitler never got a majority in a democratic and fair election, to be sure,
and had a propaganda machine that did not allow dissent (and especially
not the kind of info that we've seen on the airwaves) during the thirties.
Perhaps you're clutching at straws here, frustrated that the scandal isn't
hurting the President.
The American people are concerned about one thing: politics and the job
the President is doing. That politicians lie and do nasty things...well,
the public is hardly surprised or shocked by THAT. What's ironic is that
partisans of either party seem to think its only the other party which
does it. I don't really trust Clinton. I sure didn't trust Dole. I
think Bush was not at all to be trusted. Gingrich is worse than any of
them. But Clinton is doing a decent job as President and unless there is
real hard evidence that he actually told Lewinsky to lie under oath, or
unless he orders a military strike against Iraq, I'll certainly continue
to approve of the job he is doing. I suspect I'll start opposing Clinton
out of disagreement with his Iraqi policy before out of anything to do
with this little pseudo-scandal.
Midtowng
Thomas Odell wrote:
> Well liberals, don't look now but evidence has just popped up that the
> prevert Clinton and the intern Lewinsky communicated routinely back and
> forth via email. Special Prosecutor Starr is now in possession of
> Lewinsky's personal computer and the evidence does NOT look good for
> poor old Bill.
Well the news finally reported something about this, and once again,Odell
messed this one up. The actual emails in question were between
Lewinsky and TRIPP, not Clinton. And on top of that, Lewinsky's
lawyer is denying even that. Here's the actual story from the CNN
web site:
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Feb. 15) -- An
attorney for former White House intern Monica
Lewinsky told CNN on Sunday he had "no
knowledge" of e-mail in which she and Linda
Tripp reportedly discussed Lewinsky's alleged
affair with President Bill Clinton.
"I have no knowledge of any such e-mail,
particularly hard copy of such e-mail, and assume
it came from Linda Tripp," said attorney Bill
Ginsburg.
"I would like to cross-examine Linda Tripp
on how she just happened to have hard
copies of e-mail and who in fact did
create that e-mail. I doubt very much that it
was Monica Lewinsky," Ginsburg added.
Newsweek reported that Lewinsky sent
Tripp computer e-mails, and that Tripp
turned over hard copies of the messages
to Whitewater prosecutor Ken Starr, who
is studying them as "potentially important" evidence."
> Liberals are about to get their just rewards.
We'll have to wait for a liberal to get elected
first.
Thomas Odell
Gail Weasel wrote:
> I guess that stands for "bitch of the year."
Well if the shoe fits Gail. Nice feet you got there by the way.
> What's a Socialist position I've espoused, Tom?
www.dejanews.com. Do a search on most of your posts. Full of pinko
socialist tripe.
> He appears to be liberal on some social issues,
Like trying to nationalize the healthcare industry? Last time I
checked, nationalizing industry was policy promoted by SOCIALIST dogma.
But then leave it to you to miss the obvious.
> he's not liberal on capital punishment, the Drug War,
How foolish you look. Drug use is skyrocketing among the young since
Clinton came to office. Clinton cut funding to the anti-drug effort.
The latest stats show that approximately 70% of teens are now regularly
using some sort of recreational drugs.
Reality never was your strong suit.
> Intelligent people use critical analysis and facts
> to come to conclusions;
Yes. It has always been troubling that you take such a casual approach
to the issue of intelligence, honor and fairplay.
Pity.
Tell me Gail, does your conscience ever bother you? You will say
anything in the promotion of your radical ideology. Does it ever bother
you when you reflect upon your dishonest tactics or do you simply suffer
from mental illness that clouds your perceptions of truth and
dishonesty?
> You OTHER people are called KOTMs.
Anything you say BOTY.
Scott Erb
In article <6c6m2l$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, od...@worldnet.att.net
says...
>My but are you a fool.
O'Dell, you can't even spell. "Butt" has two t's, and you forgot the
comma after it.
I guess you're scratching your butt wondering why your pseudo-scandal
isn't going anywhere. (Snicker).
Thomas Odell
Midtowng wrote:
> But then Odell just
> told everyone that Clinton has ordered
> nuclear missles to be pointed at Iraq, and yet the mainstream
> news missed that one too.
Mainstream media missed the fact that the little boy who calls himself
the leader of the free world has just ordered the recalibration of
America's nuclear missles targeted to Baghdad?
Once again you prove yourself as a sap.
The executive order was signed by Clinton this week. It was reported on
FOX news. SecDef Cohen has publicly acknowledged it. Call the news
office at the DoD in D.C. if you want to question this.
I cannot help that you suffer from terminal stupidity Garrett.
> And then Odell has the nerve to call me and you liars.
You are a liar. A rather stupid one, but a liar none the less.
Mark McGilvray
Scott Erb wrote:
> In article <6c5af1$e...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, od...@worldnet.att.net
> says...
>
> >Remember, if Clinton is proven to have had sex with this woman, he HAS
> >LIED to the public and will likely be impeached soon thereafter.
>
> ROTFL!
>
> You need to have 67 Senate votes to get Clinton out of office. And lying
> to the American public is not even an impeachable offense.
>
> August's kook of the month is getting desparate. (Snicker!)
Scott, spitting on the sidewalk is an impeachable offense if you have the
votes to back it up.
Mark McGilvray
Gail Weasel wrote:
> Thomas Odell wrote:
> >
> > Midtowng wrote:
> > >
> > > Thomas Odell wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well liberals, don't look now but evidence has just popped up that the
> > > > prevert Clinton and the intern Lewinsky communicated routinely back and
> > > > forth via email. Special Prosecutor Starr is now in possession of
> > > > Lewinsky's personal computer and the evidence does NOT look good for
> > > > poor old Bill.
> > >
> > > I wonder where you heard this because the afternoon newspaper,the CNN web
> > > site, and the Washington Post web site all lack
> > > this "dramatic" story.
> >
> > Been on MSNBC all day sap.
> >
>
> It's not on their home page this morning, and it's not
> on AP or in the Washington Post, LA Times, New York
> Times, etc.
>
> >
> > > but the evidence so
> > > far that Clinton has lied is this:
> > >
> > > 1) One testimony of a Monica Lewinsky who has already lied
> > > under oath.
> > >
> > > That's it folks.
> >
> > Well first of all, Ms. Lewinsky hasn't testified to anything yet. Leave
> > it to you to screw up this simple fact.
> >
>
> She testified under oath in a deposition in the Paula
> Jones case that she did not have a sexual relationship
> with the President. How you could have missed this
> amazes me, because this is the whole basis of the
> Case Against Clinton. Starr is threatening her with
> perjury--lying under oath-to get her to testify against
> the President.
>
> > And as usual we also find you propagandizing again.
> >
>
> At least he reads the newspapers and knows what's going
> on.
>
> The Washington Post has an excellent spread on their
> Web Page and not very kind to the Clintons. Read it before
> posting.
>
> > Ms. Lewinsky's former boyfriend HAS spoken to the press and he said that
> > Lewinsky told him that she had sex with Clinton and earned her
> > "presidential knee-pads" in the process. This was apparently told to
> > this chap six months ago long before any of us had ever heard of
> > Lewinsky.
> >
>
> So? Who hasn't lied about their sex lives? Don't forget
> a criminal charge must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
> There's lots of wiggle room for Clinton here.
>
> > Lewinsky's roommate has also come forward to verify evidence against
> > Clinton.
> >
> > Clinton's secretary has ALSO come forward and regrettably the press
> > neglected to inform the public that her brothers were all beaten up
> > under very mysterious circumstances after she came forward.
>
> I hope, for your sake, that Clinton e-mailed the thugs
> he hired a nice thank-you note.
>
> >
> > Once more Garrett Johnson thinks that his stupidity has some connection
> > with reality.
> >
>
> I believe Garrett and I have already posted that we believe
> something went between Lewinsky and Clinton. That doesn't
> mean we think that it can be proved to a jury, or that
> the Repugs will actually try to impeach the President,
> barring, of course, physical evidence of some kind.
>
> As is stands now, Starr's case seems to be weak.
>
> > Pity.
>
> Tom, you shouldn't underestimate your opponents. It
> results in lazy and often hazy posting.
>
> Gail
>
Gail speaks from experience of both.
James Williams
Gail Weasel
Midtowng wrote:
>
>
> CNN and Washington Post don't have it either the next day.But then Odell just
> told everyone that Clinton has ordered
> nuclear missles to be pointed at Iraq, and yet the mainstream
> news missed that one too.
>
Well, CNN did have something this morning. Turns out
Newsweek has e-mail between, you guessed it--Tripp
and Lewinsky. CNN has Lewinsky "steamily" complaining
last year that the Big Creep did not call her on V-Day!
Jeez.
Gail
Gail Weasel
Hank Ingram wrote:
>
> "Allen Whiteacre" <ka...@kyt0.attnet.or.jp> wrote:
> >Actually I think the republicans are in trouble if they do impeach Prez
> >Clinton.
> >Republicans need Clinton to stay in power until the end. How hard woould it
> >be to unseat a President Gore who was riding a strong economy. Unseating a
> >sitting president is no easy task. Certainly republicans are hoping Clinton
> >survives this scandal so they can have an easier time ofg beating the
> >democrats in 2000. If Gore doesn't have to fight off Gephardt, he is going
> >to only be harder to beat.
>
> Gore would be easier to unseat than Clinton. Clinton has an enormous,
> er, uh, charisma. And Gore has Tipper who is disliked by the extreme
> right and extreme left. .
That would mean throwing away, what, 200,000 votes
nationwide?
Both Gores are very personable and without a whiff of
character problems.
But go on with your wishful thinking. I laughingly
told everyone I knew that Bush couldn't win, because
a sitting Vice-President hadn't won since Van Buren.
Gail
Gail Weasel
Thomas Odell wrote:
>
>> > What's a Socialist position I've espoused, Tom?
>
> www.dejanews.com. Do a search on most of your posts. Full of pinko
> socialist tripe.
>
A specific position, Tom. That's all I ask.
> > He appears to be liberal on some social issues,
>
> Like trying to nationalize the healthcare industry? Last time I
> checked, nationalizing industry was policy promoted by SOCIALIST dogma.
His health care plan was more conservative than a Socialist
plan, which would be a single-player plan or a Canadian
type plan, which I supported by the way.
> But then leave it to you to miss the obvious.
>
I make distinctions between socialists, liberals,
conservatives and right-wing nutcases like yourself.
You just throw every one to the left of you, which
would be 95% of Americans, into one category and
call it SOCIALIST!
> > he's not liberal on capital punishment, the Drug War,
>
> How foolish you look. Drug use is skyrocketing among the young since
> Clinton came to office. Clinton cut funding to the anti-drug effort.
> The latest stats show that approximately 70% of teens are now regularly
> using some sort of recreational drugs.
>
I was referring to habeas corpus resrictions that seem
to offend the other people who call themselves Libertarian
around here.
> Reality never was your strong suit.
>
You're projecting again.
> > Intelligent people use critical analysis and facts
> > to come to conclusions;
>
> Yes. It has always been troubling that you take such a casual approach
> to the issue of intelligence, honor and fairplay.
>
I see those qualities in Casburn and Hall, whom I disagree with
vehemently, but I have never see YOU display those qualities.
> Pity.
>
> Tell me Gail, does your conscience ever bother you?
Sure.
You will say
> anything in the promotion of your radical ideology.
I often praise Republicans. I praised Bush just yesterday.
My "radical" ideology is shared by millions of soccer moms
around the country.
Does it ever bother
> you when you reflect upon your dishonest tactics or do you simply suffer
> from mental illness that clouds your perceptions of truth and
> dishonesty?
>
I don't use dishonest tactics, including the dishonest
tactic of using an entire post to evade the issue --
what steamy e-mail did Clinton send Lewinsky, Tom--
and to insult someone I don't know just because I
don't agree with them.
> > You OTHER people are called KOTMs.
>
> Anything you say BOTY.
Tom thinks calling a woman a bitch is an example of
honest, intellect and fair play, I guess.
Gail
a
a
a
edh...@nospambest.com
Scott Erb wrote:
> I suspect I'll start opposing Clinton
> out of disagreement with his Iraqi policy before out of anything to do
> with this little pseudo-scandal.
I suspect he'll start bombing Saddam just about the time Monica goes
under oath.<g> Hell, it worked for Bush.
Ed Hooks
Knopp
> Hank Ingram wrote:
> >
> > "Allen Whiteacre" <ka...@kyt0.attnet.or.jp> wrote:
> > >Actually I think the republicans are in trouble if they do impeach Prez
> > >Clinton.
> > >Republicans need Clinton to stay in power until the end. How hard woould it
> > >be to unseat a President Gore who was riding a strong economy. Unseating a
> > >sitting president is no easy task. Certainly republicans are hoping Clinton
> > >survives this scandal so they can have an easier time ofg beating the
> > >democrats in 2000. If Gore doesn't have to fight off Gephardt, he is going
> > >to only be harder to beat.
> >
> > Gore would be easier to unseat than Clinton. Clinton has an enormous,
> > er, uh, charisma. And Gore has Tipper who is disliked by the extreme
> > right and extreme left. .
>
>
> That would mean throwing away, what, 200,000 votes
> nationwide?
>
> Both Gores are very personable and without a whiff of
> character problems.
Your right. There are no controlling moral values which the Gore's can be
accused of breaking. BWhahahah!!!!
> But go on with your wishful thinking. I laughingly
> told everyone I knew that Bush couldn't win, because
> a sitting Vice-President hadn't won since Van Buren.
>
> Gail
--
Please remove PEZ from the address to reply via E-Mail. This is a
"Spam-Buster".
Scott Erb
In article <6c7noe$p64$2...@gte2.gte.net>, mcmcg...@mymail.net says...
>Scott, spitting on the sidewalk is an impeachable offense if you have the
>votes to back it up.
By that logic, just having Congress people not like you is an impeachable
offense. However, the Constitution does give some guidance if one wants
to really look at what an impeachable offense is.
vaccine
Oh wow...
Another personal attack by a liberal. Your creditability is now on record.
Will you place that on your webpage, too?
Congrats.,
-vaccine
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
>>Lewis hasn't hurled herself down the steps to garner more sympathy.
>Remember when your Momma told you that she and your Daddy were married
>when you were conceived, Hank?
>
>Now that was acting!
>
> Jim
vaccine
So,
What you are saying in a sense is its ok to you if your leader lies to you
when directly questioned, because you adore him and what he does for you.
Do I have it right?
-vaccine
"Expect more and you might get it."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote in message <34E6F6...@NOSPAMbest.com>...
Knopp
In article <34E6F6...@NOSPAMbest.com>, edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
> Michael Zarlenga wrote:
> > According to a recent poll,only 54% realize Clinton
> > is lying. Once that # reaches 90% or so, then this matter can be
> > dropped. ..
>
> This whole subject of how much tolerence the public has for lying
> politicians is fascinating. My sense is that Americans, while largely
> brain dead, are honest, God-fearin' sorts. They go to Sunday school and
> study the ten commandments. But, in the case of Clinton/Lewinsky, I
> think a lot of folk are responding like me: Yes, he lied -- but it's
> not the end of the world for a person to lie when asked questions that
> are personal, invasive and inappropriate in the first place.
A federal court judge ruled that they were appropriate, given that Mr.
Clinton is being sued for sexual behavior to which there are laws against.
If Mr. Clinton feels that he's above the judges ruling and is allowed to
lie under oath becuase he feel's it's his right, then right there we have a
clear cut example of a leader abusing his power who has no respect for our
judicial system.
> Mainly, Clinton's lie affects his marriage vows anyway. The contract he
Uhh..no. It effects a jury who are going to be judging a case against the
President. Planning to lie and suggesting that others do the same is
against the law, regardless of what type of behavior you are lying about.
> has with the public says nothing about his sex life, one way or the
> other. And, as we all have learned, Hilary evidently doesn't have any
> problems with Bill chasing skirts. I suspect she doesn't like the blow
> job position.<g>
Bill's friend Dick Morris insinuated that it wasn't so much that she had a
problem with oral sex....it was just that she had a problem with performing
it on a penis. If so, he should have no reason to lie about his situation.
edh...@nospambest.com
Hank Ingram wrote:
> Clinton is guilty of lying and possible perjury. If he;s willing to
> lie over a nothing affair, what else will he lie about?..
I presume Clinton -- like all the politicos -- lies like a rug most of
the time.
> Starr isn't going after the sex part. That's why Monica didn't get
> immunity. The press is interested in the sex part.
Oh come on now. Starr started picking at Clinton's private sex life,
knowing full well such prying would likely lead to evasiveness on
Clinton's part. It was quite well orchestrated.
> Those who elected him may not have thought he was a liar. My mother
> certainly thought he hung the moon as did my wife. They were willing
> to overlook his transgressions under the assumption he would change
> after the election. It's a woman thing I think.
LOL! Indeed it is a woman thing. "He'll change!" I've heard that.
The other day, I read a column in which Clinton was depicted as the
"Bubba President." "See Big Mac, Eat Big Mac....See Purty Lil
Gal...."<GG>
> My daughter just announced she has a purple mustache(she's 4). My son
> just started sleeping through the night(he's two). I'm praying for a
> coma. I need the sleep.
Ahhh...My daughter turns fourteen years old tomorrow. Just wait til
Miss purple mustache starts up with "sex, drugs and rock and roll". You
ain't lived yet. It's thoroughly amazing how much crap there is out
there in the movie theatres, on MTV, primetime TV, CD's.... And it's all
targeted to 13 year old kids.
Ed
edh...@nospambest.com
volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>
> How nice. A right wing loon reunion.
Now hold on for a minute, Jim. Hank can speak for himself, but I'm
certainly not a right wing loon. I'm not a good fit for EITHER party.,
being conservative on fiscal matters and pretty liberal on social
matters.
I advocate a whole new form of gov't, proportional representation.
Ed Hooks
edh...@nospambest.com
Hank Ingram wrote:
> According to what I heard, most of the
> time was spent wandering between the courtroom and her lawyer.
> Remember she is being questioned. Playing tapes is not questioning.
You don't think they played the tapes for her? That's not what I heard
on the news. But it's possible the news reports are wrong.
> Carville is much quicker on his feet than Clinton. Clinton
> can do prerehearsed sincerity but Carville can make a pile of shit
> look like a bowl of Captain Crunch...
I think Carville is a good hatchet man. He's outrageous and
entertaining, something of a Fool. (Capital "F")
> When Clinton gets hit from
> nowhere, he falls apart. That's why he is ducking the press. I think
> Clinton honestly believes his own stuff.
Hmmmm.....In denial, like Lewinsky said, huh? Maybe. For sure he likes
to start each day as if yesterday didn't happen. I still remember that
wonderful profile of Clinton that was in the New York Times Magazine a
couple of years ago. His mother taught him to let yesterdays fade away
and to make new starts.
Clinton has been fortunate to run against weak Republicans, and at a
time when the political pendelum had swung too far to the right. If the
Republicans had fielded moderate candidates, I honestly don't think
Clinton would have had a chance.
Ed Hooks
edh...@nospambest.com
Hank Ingram wrote:
> People expect lies but not continuous lies. Your credibility erodes if
> you lie in the face of the truth....
We have to keep in mind that polls consistently indicate a high distrust
of ALL politicians, both Republican and Demo. Indeed, the electorate is
downright cynical about politicians. This is probably the main reason
that Clinton's lies have not resulted in Republican traction.
> If Bill Clinton were to come clean and swear he would never do it
> again and THEN get caught AGAIN, what would we say?
We don't have this problem. He's not going to admit anything.
> He's a hypocrite. Every Sunday, he walks into the same
> church(denomination) where he made his vows of fidelity. Whether
> Hillary cares is not the issue. He needs to care.
Sure, he's a hypocrite. And he sees the world only through a prism of
self-interest. He evidently has no problem with telling lies if the end
result is to perpetuate his power. Indeed, he's a CHARMING liar!
I know it's frustrating, Hank, that mainstream America is not embracing
a more fundamentalist code of values when it comes to politicians. But
our government is very sick and ugly. Americans are getting more like
Italians, that's all.<g>
Ed
edh...@nospambest.com
Knopp wrote:
> A federal court judge ruled that they were appropriate, given that Mr.
> Clinton is being sued for sexual behavior to which there are laws against.
The sequence of events that led up to this particular lie at the Paula
Jones deposition involves an outright sting operation. Starr and the
Jones lawyers set the man up, pure and simple, leaving him with utterly
unpalatable choices once he was in the deposition hearing.
> Uhh..no. It effects a jury who are going to be judging a case against the
> President. ...
Ain't gonna be a jury. According to the Washington Post, Starr plans to
turn everything over to the House for possible impeachment proceedings.
It's all political.
> Bill's friend Dick Morris insinuated that it wasn't so much that she had a
> problem with oral sex....it was just that she had a problem with performing
> it on a penis.
LOL!
Why do you have PEZ in your handle? Do you collect them?
Ed Hooks
edh...@nospambest.com
vaccine wrote:
>
> So,
>
> What you are saying in a sense is its ok to you if your leader lies to you
> when directly questioned, because you adore him and what he does for you.
I don't adore Clinton. Didn't vote for him, wouldn't vote for him.
He's a wimp, a kissy mamma.
The general answer to your question is that I expect politicians to
lie. They're all pretty much crooks, best I can tell. Especially the
Demos and Repubs.
Ed Hooks
volt...@geocities.com
On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 12:03:43 GMT, hin...@eatspam.net (Hank Ingram)
wrote:
>edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>>It doesn't matter what's in the e-mail. Everybody already knows that
>>Monica was blowing the man, evidently quite a lot. And everybody knows
>>that Clinton lied about it. Big deal.
>Nixon lied. Big deal.
>>A much bigger problem for the Republicans is the growing repulsion the
>>public is developing for Ken Starr. Now that it has come out that Linda
>>Tripp briefed the Paula Jones lawyers the day before they questioned
>>Clinton, the tie between Starr and the Jones team is even more clear.
>>And the public doesn't like it. Starr's numbers are right up there with
>>Hitler's, in case you haven't noticed.
>
>Actually, Hitler had GREAT poll numbers before WW2. Just like Clinton.
Hitler would have been a Republican.
>Starr's numbers suck because the White House Spin Machine is in full
>attack mode.
So the public really likes right wing conspiracies as long as they
aren't aware of theM?
>>I'll predict this: Not only does the e-mail not matter, the Republicans
>>better find a way to call off Starr pretty soon, or this whole thing
>>will explode next election. The Republicans may well lose the House
>>over it.
>Not quite. These bashlash prediction never seem to come true. If
>Clinton is a liar(and we know he is), we should keep it front and
>center. He stared the American People right in the eye and lied. Where
>will he stop lying? Not only that, how will we know what to believe?
You keep saying he lied but can't prove it.
If wishes were horse then right wing asses would ride.
Jim
volt...@geocities.com
On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 12:05:00 GMT, hin...@eatspam.net (Hank Ingram)
wrote:
>Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>>> Time to fire starr
>
>>PLEASE fire Ken Starr. Fire him today. Fire him this minute. Right
>>away. Immediately. Don't waste a second .
>
>>If you think you can, have your corrupt president fire Ken Starr. Upon
>>the firing of Starr, Clinton's impending impeachment would follow within
>>a month.
>
>>Please, fire Starr. Let's get this over with.
>
>Two words. Archibald Cox. Please fire him, Mr President.
One word.
BORK!
Jim
volt...@geocities.com
On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 12:06:01 GMT, hin...@eatspam.net (Hank Ingram)
wrote:
>"A. Bishop" <acbi...@erols.com.placebo> wrote:
>>C'mon, its much too early to be making predictions for Nov. Besides,
>>most congressional repubs aren't touching this with a 10 foot pole.
>
>They don't need to touch it. It's doing nicely on its own.
The Scaife Mafia is not happy with Starr. He is in danger of losing
his cushy chair at Pepperdine.
Jim
volt...@geocities.com
On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 12:07:46 GMT, hin...@eatspam.net (Hank Ingram)
wrote:
>edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>
>>It seems clear that the public has no taste for tactics such as wringing
>>tears out of Monica Levinsky's mother. Nor are people keen on the idea
>>of grilling Secret Service. The harder Starr pushes, therefore, the
>>worse it will be for the Repubs.
>
>YOU should recognize acting when you see it. I'm surprised Marcia
Hank Ingram
edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>You're right. It WAS a big deal. So was the crime. The absolute most
>Clinton is guilty of is lying on a deposition in a civil case. And he
>lied when set up in a sting operation oriented to his private sex life.
>I am a pretty honest fellow myself, and I think I might well have lied
>had I been sitting in Clinton's chair on the day of deposition. Starr
>has no MORAL/ETHICAL right to be inquiring into Clinton's sex life in
>the first place, in my opinion. And it was his exploration into same
>that set the sting at the Paula Jones thing.
Clinton is guilty of lying and possible perjury. If he;s willing to
lie over a nothing affair, what else will he lie about?
Starr isn't going after the sex part. That's why Monica didn't get
immunity. The press is interested in the sex part.
>I was referring to Hitler's CURRENT numbers.<g>
That aren't that great depending on the person doing the polling. But
a little PR....
>>... If
>> Clinton is a liar(and we know he is), we should keep it front and
>> center. He stared the American People right in the eye and lied. Where
>> will he stop lying? Not only that, how will we know what to believe?
>You're right about him being a liar. But then we knew that when we
>elected him, didn't we? This info was abundantly available.
Those who elected him may not have thought he was a liar. My mother
certainly thought he hung the moon as did my wife. They were willing
to overlook his transgressions under the assumption he would change
after the election. It's a woman thing I think.
>Yup. Still hanging in there. How have you been?
My daughter just announced she has a purple mustache(she's 4). My son
just started sleeping through the night(he's two). I'm praying for a
coma. I need the sleep.
Hank Ingram, McLeansville NC
hin...@greensboro.com http://www.nr.infi.net/~hingram
Travel Agent, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy(tm)
Bill Clinton - The Bread and Circuses President
Hank Ingram
edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>I certainly recognize the actor in Bill Clinton. He's quite good. But
>Marcia Lewis is a different story. My sense of her is that she is an
>ethical pragmatist who is mainly oriented in life to landing rich men, a
>posture that would have found her basically advocating her daughter's
>involvement with Clinton. But she is not a person who likes being on
>stage the way Clinton does. When Ken Starr played those tapes for her,
>I suspect it genuinely upset her.
I'm not sure he could legally. According to what I heard, most of the
time was spent wandering between the courtroom and her lawyer.
Remember she is being questioned. Playing tapes is not questioning.
Remember, Marcia thought Tripp getting sick was a good idea to avoid
questioning. I told my wife "I bet she pulls up lame". Right on the
money.
>James Carville is a good actor, too.<g> But he's a piker next to
>Clinton. "I have never had sexual relations with...THAT WOMAN!...Miss
>Lewinsky." LOL! Lovely show.
I disagree. Carville is much quicker on his feet than Clinton. Clinton
can do prerehearsed sincerity but Carville can make a pile of shit
look like a bowl of Captain Crunch. When Clinton gets hit from
nowhere, he falls apart. That's why he is ducking the press. I think
Clinton honestly believes his own stuff.
Remember "it's the economy stupid". They weren't talking to Bush. They
were talking to Clinton. Stick to the script, stupid. Everytime
Clinton left the script, his poll numbers dropped.
Hank Ingram
edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>This whole subject of how much tolerence the public has for lying
>politicians is fascinating. My sense is that Americans, while largely
>brain dead, are honest, God-fearin' sorts. They go to Sunday school and
>study the ten commandments. But, in the case of Clinton/Lewinsky, I
>think a lot of folk are responding like me: Yes, he lied -- but it's
>not the end of the world for a person to lie when asked questions that
>are personal, invasive and inappropriate in the first place.
People expect lies but not continuous lies. Your credibility erodes if
you lie in the face of the truth.
If Bill Clinton were to come clean and swear he would never do it
again and THEN get caught AGAIN, what would we say?
>Mainly, Clinton's lie affects his marriage vows anyway. The contract he
>has with the public says nothing about his sex life, one way or the
>other. And, as we all have learned, Hilary evidently doesn't have any
>problems with Bill chasing skirts. I suspect she doesn't like the blow
>job position.<g>
He's a hypocrite. Every Sunday, he walks into the same
church(denomination) where he made his vows of fidelity. Whether
Hillary cares is not the issue. He needs to care.
volt...@geocities.com
On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 03:06:42 GMT, hin...@eatspam.net (Hank Ingram)
wrote:
>edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>
>>You're right. It WAS a big deal. So was the crime. The absolute most
>>Clinton is guilty of is lying on a deposition in a civil case. And he
>>lied when set up in a sting operation oriented to his private sex life.
>>I am a pretty honest fellow myself, and I think I might well have lied
>>had I been sitting in Clinton's chair on the day of deposition. Starr
>>has no MORAL/ETHICAL right to be inquiring into Clinton's sex life in
>>the first place, in my opinion. And it was his exploration into same
>>that set the sting at the Paula Jones thing.
>
>Clinton is guilty of lying and possible perjury.
Based on what, Hank? Your vivid yet limited imagination?
>If he;s willing to
>lie over a nothing affair, what else will he lie about?
>Starr isn't going after the sex part. That's why Monica didn't get
>immunity. The press is interested in the sex part.
While you are interested in getting the man who has kicked your right
wing asses over and over again.
>>I was referring to Hitler's CURRENT numbers.<g>
>
>That aren't that great depending on the person doing the polling. But
>a little PR....
Been into the NAWTH KARLINA shine again, Hank?
Can you try that last one in English?
>>>... If
>>> Clinton is a liar(and we know he is), we should keep it front and
>>> center. He stared the American People right in the eye and lied. Where
>>> will he stop lying? Not only that, how will we know what to believe?
>
>>You're right about him being a liar. But then we knew that when we
>>elected him, didn't we? This info was abundantly available.
If you read the National Spectator or the Star.
>Those who elected him may not have thought he was a liar. My mother
>certainly thought he hung the moon as did my wife. They were willing
>to overlook his transgressions under the assumption he would change
>after the election. It's a woman thing I think.
So anyone who voted for Bill Clinton is a silly woman?
>>Yup. Still hanging in there. How have you been?
How nice. A right wing loon reunion.
Do you two have on name tags?
>My daughter just announced she has a purple mustache(she's 4). My son
>just started sleeping through the night(he's two). I'm praying for a
>coma. I need the sleep.
Your normal level of thought isn't that far from a coma, Hank.
These right wing fools make me laugh.
Jim
Knopp
In article <34E77A...@NOSPAMbest.com>, edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
> Knopp wrote:
>
> > A federal court judge ruled that they were appropriate, given that Mr.
> > Clinton is being sued for sexual behavior to which there are laws against.
>
> The sequence of events that led up to this particular lie at the Paula
> Jones deposition involves an outright sting operation. Starr and the
> Jones lawyers set the man up, pure and simple, leaving him with utterly
> unpalatable choices once he was in the deposition hearing.
Mr Clinton planned on lying before Ms. Jone's attorneys knew the exact
details of the case. Mr. Clinton knew that he was going to be asked about
Ms. Lewinsky, and knew that they would ask about any gifts given to Ms.
Lewinsky, because those were subpeoned as part as her request for
testimony. You are implying that because the Jones lawyers had knowledge
that Clinton was going to lie beforehand that this is some sort of "sting".
Hardly. They were just prepared to ask him questions regarding his already
decided upon illegal tactics. It's no one's fault but Mr. Clinton's.
> > Uhh..no. It effects a jury who are going to be judging a case against the
> > President. ...
>
> Ain't gonna be a jury. According to the Washington Post, Starr plans to
> turn everything over to the House for possible impeachment proceedings.
> It's all political.
There is going to be a jury in the Paula Jones case. That was the point.
Mr. CLinton was trying to defraud another citizen of a fair trial. Hardly
something we can allow the chief law enforcement officer of the United
States to be a part of.
> > Bill's friend Dick Morris insinuated that it wasn't so much that she had a
> > problem with oral sex....it was just that she had a problem with performing
> > it on a penis.
>
> LOL!
>
> Why do you have PEZ in your handle? Do you collect them?
>
> Ed Hooks
No, it's just a spambuster. I figured that it was a short word that would
stand out and let even know that it didn't belong.
volt...@geocities.com
On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 19:46:22 -0800, "vaccine" <vac...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>So,
>
>What you are saying in a sense is its ok to you if your leader lies to you
>when directly questioned, because you adore him and what he does for you.
>
>Do I have it right?
No but you have constructed a dandy strawman to wack off with. Hope
you two enjoy each other.
Jim
>"Expect more and you might get it."
We expect more right wing foolishness from you. And I bet we get it.
Jim
Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
http://home.att.net/~clusterone/
========================================================================
"I think it would have been smarter had the attorney general,
looking at the many years of Starr's involvement and the public
perception, which is adverse to Starr ..., let someone else
come in."
-- Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa
======================================================================
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
PEZk...@citynet.net (Knopp) wrote:
>In article <34E77A...@NOSPAMbest.com>, edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>> Knopp wrote:
>>
>> > A federal court judge ruled that they were appropriate, given that Mr.
>> > Clinton is being sued for sexual behavior to which there are laws against.
>>
>> The sequence of events that led up to this particular lie at the Paula
>> Jones deposition involves an outright sting operation. Starr and the
>> Jones lawyers set the man up, pure and simple, leaving him with utterly
>> unpalatable choices once he was in the deposition hearing.
>Mr Clinton planned on lying before Ms. Jone's attorneys knew the exact
>details of the case. Mr. Clinton knew that he was going to be asked about
>Ms. Lewinsky, and knew that they would ask about any gifts given to Ms.
>Lewinsky, because those were subpeoned as part as her request for
>testimony. You are implying that because the Jones lawyers had knowledge
>that Clinton was going to lie beforehand that this is some sort of "sting".
>Hardly. They were just prepared to ask him questions regarding his already
>decided upon illegal tactics. It's no one's fault but Mr. Clinton's.
thanks for confirming starr has been involvd and leaked information to
Jones. Now do the proper thing and demand starr be canned and charge
with his criminal behavior.
Let The White Rose enlighten you.
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
gdy weasel
Knopp
In article <6c9n0g$oua$2...@usenet76.supernews.com>,
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
Nothing I said implies that STARR leaked anything. You're hallucinating as
usual. Remember Gydiot...HOOKED ON PHONICS...it can work for YOU!
Milt
Thomas Odell wrote:
> Gail Weasel wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Odell wrote:
> > >
> > > "I never had sexual relations with THAT woman."
> > >
> > > Bill Clinton shaking his crooked finger at the camera
> > > February 2, 1998
> > >
> > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > >
> > > Well liberals, don't look now but evidence has just popped up that the
> > > prevert Clinton and the intern Lewinsky communicated routinely back and
> > > forth via email. Special Prosecutor Starr is now in possession of
> > > Lewinsky's personal computer and the evidence does NOT look good for
> > > poor old Bill.
> > >
> >
> > Sure, KOTM, we really believe THAT!
>
> About time BOTY!
That was really nice, odell...
> > In either case, he will be handing the powers of the Presidency
> > to Gore. As a yellow-dog Democrat, why should I worry?
>
> More lies huh? Yellow-dog Democrat? Hardly. You are a pinko
> Socialist.
No, she isn't. Hitler was a socialist, according to you, and Gail is nothing
like Hitler. Tell you what-- why don't you learn what the words you use mean,
and get back to us...
> > > Liberals are about to get their just rewards.
> >
> > If Clinton were a liberal, I might agree with you, KOTM.
>
> Clinton is a liberal BOTY. Leave it to you to overlook the obvious.
Clinton is not a liberal. He's a moderate. Liberals wouldn't throw welfare
mothers out on the street...
Milt
Milt
Thomas Odell wrote:
> "I never had sexual relations with THAT woman."
>
> Bill Clinton shaking his crooked finger at the camera
> February 2, 1998
You simply can't use a real quote, can you? Making up "facts" does not make
for a good argument, odell...
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> Well liberals, don't look now but evidence has just popped up that the
> prevert Clinton and the intern Lewinsky communicated routinely back and
> forth via email. Special Prosecutor Starr is now in possession of
> Lewinsky's personal computer and the evidence does NOT look good for
> poor old Bill.
They didn't get them from her computer, according to reports. (LEAKED
reports, I might add...) Supposedly, they were hard copies of emails that
Tripp provided. First of all, where did Tripp get HARD COPIES of private
emails? Second of all, good luck authenticating them...
> Remember, if Clinton is proven to have had sex with this woman, he HAS
> LIED to the public and will likely be impeached soon thereafter.
In your dreams, odell. If politicians were impeached for lying to the
people, there would be no politicians left! He'd pretty much have to commit
a crime...
> No thinking person can possibly believe that Clinton is not quilty.
Without proof? Only NON-thinking people believe what they're told without
evidence...
> Clinton will ultimately be impeached or driven from office in disgrace.
Bets, anyone? He's got a 70+% approval rating, and it's an election year,
and the people don't really care about the sex. Impeaching him now would be
political suicide for the GOP, without evidence of a lot more than sex with
a grown woman not his wife...
> Liberals are about to get their just rewards.
You just don't get it, do you? Liberals would RATHER have Al Gore in there.
And the GOP would likely lose in 2000 with Gore in as an incumbent
president. In other words, this is a political thing, and it would be
counter-productive to the GOP to impeach Clinton...
You make a great KOTM, odell..
Milt
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
PEZk...@citynet.net (Knopp) wrote:
guess again knopp, your statements about jones confirm it.
>--
>Please remove PEZ from the address to reply via E-Mail. This is a
>"Spam-Buster".
Let The White Rose enlighten you.
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
gdy weasel
Kevin Davis
No, you conveniently forgot to include suborning perjury.
Perjury and suborning perjury is likely.
What the absolute most he is guilty of is only known by him. I
seriously doubt as do most Americans with IQs that run into at least
double digits.
On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:59:25 +0000, edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>Hank Ingram wrote:
>
>> Nixon lied. Big deal.
>
>You're right. It WAS a big deal. So was the crime. The absolute most
>Clinton is guilty of is lying on a deposition in a civil case.
Remove zzz from my email address:
~~~Golf Tip: Don't pick up a lost ball until it stops rolling~~~o
Kevin Davis "Hoser" email - kda...@zzzcastlegate.net
Home Page - http://www.castlegate.net/personals/kdavis
Standard Disclaimer (Win95 Tips, sound bites, and more!)
rha...@pcmagic.net
In article <01bd3a07$ddc37c00$5d184ca5@default>,
"Allen Whiteacre" <ka...@kyt0.attnet.or.jp> wrote:
>
> > If the Republicans try to start impeachment proceedings
> > without any other evidence this will backfire on them
> > harder than anything since Watergate.
> >
> Actually I think the republicans are in trouble if they do impeach Prez
> Clinton.
> Republicans need Clinton to stay in power until the end. How hard woould it
> be to unseat a President Gore who was riding a strong economy. Unseating a
> sitting president is no easy task. Certainly republicans are hoping Clinton
> survives this scandal so they can have an easier time ofg beating the
> democrats in 2000. If Gore doesn't have to fight off Gephardt, he is going
> to only be harder to beat.
> I don't think Clinton has a bigger cheering section right now than
> Republicans.
...or Hitler either.
cheers,
Trebor
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
rha...@pcmagic.net
In article <6c6lh2$sdj$1...@nw001t.infi.net>,
> >Monica was blowing the man, evidently quite a lot. And everybody knows
> >that Clinton lied about it. Big deal.
>
> Nixon lied. Big deal.
>
> >A much bigger problem for the Republicans is the growing repulsion the
> >public is developing for Ken Starr. Now that it has come out that Linda
> >Tripp briefed the Paula Jones lawyers the day before they questioned
> >Clinton, the tie between Starr and the Jones team is even more clear.
> >And the public doesn't like it. Starr's numbers are right up there with
> >Hitler's, in case you haven't noticed.
>
> Actually, Hitler had GREAT poll numbers before WW2. Just like Clinton.
>
> attack mode.
>
> >better find a way to call off Starr pretty soon, or this whole thing
> >will explode next election. The Republicans may well lose the House
> >over it.
>
> Not quite. These bashlash prediction never seem to come true.
> Clinton is a liar(and we know he is), we should keep it front and
> center. He stared the American People right in the eye and lied.
Yea, right - like no Republican politician ever lied. Like no Republican ever
cheated on their wife. Hypocrisy is the much greater sin here.
Repubs, if Clinton's so evil, and if you think he's committed an impeachable
offence, then stop being such cowards and impeach him.
I dare you!
I double dare you!!
Midtowng
Kevin Davis wrote:
> No, you conveniently forgot to include suborning perjury.
> Perjury and suborning perjury is likely.
On the contrary. Even Monica isn't accusing Clinton oftelling her to lie
(refer to the proffer that she gave Starr).
That leaves exactly zero the number of people accusing
Clinton of telling someone to lie.
> What the absolute most he is guilty of is only known by him. I
> seriously doubt as do most Americans with IQs that run into at least
> double digits.
>
> On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:59:25 +0000, edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>
> >Hank Ingram wrote:
> >
> >> Nixon lied. Big deal.
> >
> >You're right. It WAS a big deal. So was the crime. The absolute most
> >Clinton is guilty of is lying on a deposition in a civil case.
>
> Remove zzz from my email address:
>
> ~~~Golf Tip: Don't pick up a lost ball until it stops rolling~~~o
>
> Kevin Davis "Hoser" email - kda...@zzzcastlegate.net
> Home Page - http://www.castlegate.net/personals/kdavis
> Standard Disclaimer (Win95 Tips, sound bites, and more!)
--
The public is easy to distract
when bombs are falling on Iraq.
Bill
>It seems clear that the public has no taste for tactics such as wringing
>tears out of Monica Levinsky's mother. Nor are people keen on the idea
>of grilling Secret Service. The harder Starr pushes, therefore, the
>worse it will be for the Repubs.
I disagree. If Monica's mother has knowledge of the commission of a crime,
she has no priviledge from testifying. If Clinton's testimony under OATH was
false, we must impeach him. Furthermore, The USSS has no ability to wear
badges and cover-up crimes at the same time. Trust relationships or not,
they must testify truthfully about anything seen or heard that would
contradict the First Scumbag's SWORN testimony. To claim any non-existent
"priviledge-relationship" is an attempt to obstruct justice, and can cost
any officer or official not only their badge, but their freedom.
>It is also clear that Starr and Paula Jones's team are in cahoots.
>Those of us who follow these things closely already know it, and the
>general public will be brought up to speed soon. And they won't like
>it. Starr is simply not "independent", and so his tactics do not rest
>well with the American sense of fair play.
I agree if you mean Clinton will soon be found out. I believe Starr must be
incompetent or collaborating with the First Rapist's office or he would have
been able to bring him to justice by now.
>I think Clinton was as surprised as the Repubs by his soaring poll
>ratings.
Yes, as were all those honest, ethical Americans who mistakenly placed their
faith and trust in the honesty of the media and the pollsters (up until that
time). It is clear to me that these numbers are completely and utterly
fabricated by someone with the politics of MAO and the brains of Forrest
Gump.
Bill
>A much bigger problem for the Republicans is the growing repulsion the
>public is developing for Ken Starr.
Really? I am not repulsed by him. And I'm "the public." I am however,
repulsed by Clinton...
> Now that it has come out that Linda
>Tripp briefed the Paula Jones lawyers the day before they questioned
>Clinton, the tie between Starr and the Jones team is even more clear.
Oh? (Tripp=Starr?) And I thought Tripp only went to Starr after she was
being slandered with character assassinations from the WH. I'd do the same
if I was being targeted by BeelzeeBubba, then got ahold of some
corroborating evidence...
>And the public doesn't like it. Starr's numbers are right up there with
>Hitler's, in case you haven't noticed.
ACTUALLY, CLINTON'S numbers are right up there with what HITLER's were when
he had been in power for the same amount of time, using the same tactics,
with a strikingly similar staff & set of predjudices..
My turn to make predictions: Our prayers are answered and this SCUM is not
only impeached, but sent to prison for the drugs, murders, graft &
corruption he is 100% guilty of. "President Gore" serves out his term and
the American people are so revulsed at his ultra-left eco-nazi loyalties
that Pat Buchanan and Allen Keyes are elected on an ultra-conservative
ticket.
Well, we can dream, can't we....
Gail Weasel
Bill wrote:
>
> >It seems clear that the public has no taste for tactics such as wringing
> >tears out of Monica Levinsky's mother. Nor are people keen on the idea
> >of grilling Secret Service. The harder Starr pushes, therefore, the
> >worse it will be for the Repubs.
>
> I disagree. If Monica's mother has knowledge of the commission of a crime,
> she has no priviledge from testifying.
The poster starts reasonably enough, but then
goes on to call the President First Scumbag and then
First Rapist!
Hint: You may have some good points, but how can we
take them seriously when you betray your own biases so
openly and fall into hyperbole so easily?
the First Scumbag's SWORN testimony. Twill soon be found out. I believe
Starr must be
> incompetent or collaborating with the First Rapist's office or he would have
> been able to bring him to justice by now.
>
The President is accused of RAPE now?
You have no shame. It's no wonder the American people are
giving higher approval ratings to him them ever. It's the only
way for US to register our complete disgust with remarks like
that.
Gail
Michael Simpson
On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 18:06:14 -0600, rha...@pcmagic.net wrote:
>
>Yea, right - like no Republican politician ever lied. Like no Republican ever
>cheated on their wife. Hypocrisy is the much greater sin here.
Duh. No matter how many times we explain it to you (collective you),
I doubt you will get it. LYING UNDER OATH to evade the possibility of
a judgement against him by another citizen of our country.
>Repubs, if Clinton's so evil, and if you think he's committed an impeachable
>offence, then stop being such cowards and impeach him.
If it were within my power, I would have done it years ago.
>I dare you!
>
>I double dare you!!
Meaniningless babble.
>cheers,
>Trebor
cheers,
Michael
Hank Ingram
edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>> Clinton is guilty of lying and possible perjury. If he;s willing to
>> lie over a nothing affair, what else will he lie about?..
>I presume Clinton -- like all the politicos -- lies like a rug most of
>the time.
Yes but that doesn't make it right. He is the President.
>Oh come on now. Starr started picking at Clinton's private sex life,
>knowing full well such prying would likely lead to evasiveness on
>Clinton's part. It was quite well orchestrated.
Starr was after the sex part because he had evidence of Clinton's
lying in the past on the issue.
>Ahhh...My daughter turns fourteen years old tomorrow. Just wait til
>Miss purple mustache starts up with "sex, drugs and rock and roll". You
>ain't lived yet. It's thoroughly amazing how much crap there is out
>there in the movie theatres, on MTV, primetime TV, CD's.... And it's all
>targeted to 13 year old kids.
Yea, I teach them. One of my Sunday School students told me that
bisexuality is really in. The girls make out in the bathrooms between
classes. And this is a rural school. Gee, whatever happened to
smoking?
Hank Ingram
edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
> Americans are getting more like>Italians, that's all.<g>
BANG! Right on the head.
Hank Ingram
PEZk...@citynet.net (Knopp) wrote:
>Bill's friend Dick Morris insinuated that it wasn't so much that she had a
>problem with oral sex....it was just that she had a problem with performing
No. Morris was referring to a HYPOTHETICAL situation. He never said
Hillary was a lesbian. NEVER trust the media.
Hank Ingram
edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>I think Carville is a good hatchet man. He's outrageous and
>entertaining, something of a Fool. (Capital "F")
He's the best I have seen but mostly because he is outrageous. A
Republican would be crucified for acting like Carville.
>Hmmmm.....In denial, like Lewinsky said, huh? Maybe. For sure he likes
>to start each day as if yesterday didn't happen. I still remember that
>wonderful profile of Clinton that was in the New York Times Magazine a
>couple of years ago. His mother taught him to let yesterdays fade away
>and to make new starts.
More like "ignore it and hope it goes away".
>Clinton has been fortunate to run against weak Republicans, and at a
>time when the political pendelum had swung too far to the right. If the
>Republicans had fielded moderate candidates, I honestly don't think
>Clinton would have had a chance.
HAHAHA! I don't think Bush or Dole would pass the "far right"
classification. Many in the "far right" voted for Howard Phillips in
the last election. I voted for Dole although I would have preferred
someone more to the right.
Thompson/Watts in 2000. You heard it here first.
Hank Ingram
Milt <mi...@no.spam> wrote:
>Clinton is not a liberal. He's a moderate. Liberals wouldn't throw welfare
>mothers out on the street...
Actually, you aren't so far off.
Clinton:
1. Eased restrictions on school prayer.
2. pushed NAFTA
3. Supported the line item veto
4. fought cloning
5. fought drug legalization
6. supported clamping down on Cuba
7. Attacked Iraq for threatening Bush
I ain't Bill that's a liberal, it's Hillary.
Hank Ingram
volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>Remember when your Momma told you that she and your Daddy were married
>when you were conceived, Hank?
>Now that was acting!
At least I was conceived. You were squeezed from a bar rag. Yukyuk.
Hank Ingram
By the way, this isn't email.
"vaccine" <vac...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Oh wow...
>Another personal attack by a liberal. Your creditability is now on record.
>Will you place that on your webpage, too?
>Congrats.,
>-vaccine
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
>>>Lewis hasn't hurled herself down the steps to garner more sympathy.
>>Remember when your Momma told you that she and your Daddy were married
>>when you were conceived, Hank?
>>
>>Now that was acting!
>>
>> Jim
Hank Ingram
edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>
>> How nice. A right wing loon reunion.
>Now hold on for a minute, Jim. Hank can speak for himself, but I'm
>certainly not a right wing loon. I'm not a good fit for EITHER party.,
>being conservative on fiscal matters and pretty liberal on social
>matters.
>I advocate a whole new form of gov't, proportional representation.
Don't believe him, Jim. The man's a Libertarian Communist of the worst
kind.
volt...@geocities.com
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 02:44:57 GMT, hin...@eatspam.net (Hank Ingram)
wrote:
>edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>
>>volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>>
>>> How nice. A right wing loon reunion.
>
>>Now hold on for a minute, Jim. Hank can speak for himself, but I'm
>>certainly not a right wing loon. I'm not a good fit for EITHER party.,
>>being conservative on fiscal matters and pretty liberal on social
>>matters.
>
>>I advocate a whole new form of gov't, proportional representation.
>
>Don't believe him, Jim. The man's a Libertarian Communist of the worst
>kind.
There is a best kind?
Jim
Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
http://home.att.net/~clusterone/
==============================================================================
"I really identified with Nixon because of his rather humble roots
and the way he worked his way up. I admired that greatly."
-- Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr
==============================================================================
volt...@geocities.com
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 02:42:19 GMT, hin...@eatspam.net (Hank Ingram)
wrote:
>volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>Remember when your Momma told you that she and your Daddy were married
>>when you were conceived, Hank?
>>Now that was acting!
>
>At least I was conceived. You were squeezed from a bar rag. Yukyuk.
A Texas bar rag and proud of it.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
hin...@eatspam.net (Hank Ingram) wrote:
>edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>>I think Carville is a good hatchet man. He's outrageous and
>>entertaining, something of a Fool. (Capital "F")
>He's the best I have seen but mostly because he is outrageous. A
>Republican would be crucified for acting like Carville.
huh the republicon party are full of idiots, lets see there is nootie,
melonhead, the b1 drunk.....................................
>>Hmmmm.....In denial, like Lewinsky said, huh? Maybe. For sure he likes
>>to start each day as if yesterday didn't happen. I still remember that
>>wonderful profile of Clinton that was in the New York Times Magazine a
>>couple of years ago. His mother taught him to let yesterdays fade away
>>and to make new starts.
>More like "ignore it and hope it goes away".
>>Clinton has been fortunate to run against weak Republicans, and at a
>>time when the political pendelum had swung too far to the right. If the
>>Republicans had fielded moderate candidates, I honestly don't think
>>Clinton would have had a chance.
>HAHAHA! I don't think Bush or Dole would pass the "far right"
>classification. Many in the "far right" voted for Howard Phillips in
>the last election. I voted for Dole although I would have preferred
>someone more to the right.
>Thompson/Watts in 2000. You heard it here first.
>Hank Ingram, McLeansville NC
>hin...@greensboro.com http://www.nr.infi.net/~hingram
>Travel Agent, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy(tm)
>Bill Clinton - The Bread and Circuses President
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
hin...@eatspam.net (Hank Ingram) wrote:
>edh...@NOSPAMbest.com wrote:
>>> Clinton is guilty of lying and possible perjury. If he;s willing to
>>> lie over a nothing affair, what else will he lie about?..
>>I presume Clinton -- like all the politicos -- lies like a rug most of
>>the time.
>Yes but that doesn't make it right. He is the President.
>>Oh come on now. Starr started picking at Clinton's private sex life,
>>knowing full well such prying would likely lead to evasiveness on
>>Clinton's part. It was quite well orchestrated.
>Starr was after the sex part because he had evidence of Clinton's
>lying in the past on the issue.
gwad damn idiot now you are going to tell us that its vital to
national defense, huh?
>>Ahhh...My daughter turns fourteen years old tomorrow. Just wait til
>>Miss purple mustache starts up with "sex, drugs and rock and roll". You
>>ain't lived yet. It's thoroughly amazing how much crap there is out
>>there in the movie theatres, on MTV, primetime TV, CD's.... And it's all
>>targeted to 13 year old kids.
>Yea, I teach them. One of my Sunday School students told me that
>bisexuality is really in. The girls make out in the bathrooms between
>classes. And this is a rural school. Gee, whatever happened to
>smoking?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
"Bill" <wrentie...@provide.net> wrote:
>>A much bigger problem for the Republicans is the growing repulsion the
>>public is developing for Ken Starr.
>Really? I am not repulsed by him. And I'm "the public." I am however,
>repulsed by Clinton...
>> Now that it has come out that Linda
>>Tripp briefed the Paula Jones lawyers the day before they questioned
>>Clinton, the tie between Starr and the Jones team is even more clear.
>Oh? (Tripp=Starr?) And I thought Tripp only went to Starr after she was
>being slandered with character assassinations from the WH. I'd do the same
>if I was being targeted by BeelzeeBubba, then got ahold of some
>corroborating evidence...
>>And the public doesn't like it. Starr's numbers are right up there with
>>Hitler's, in case you haven't noticed.
>ACTUALLY, CLINTON'S numbers are right up there with what HITLER's were when
>he had been in power for the same amount of time, using the same tactics,
>with a strikingly similar staff & set of predjudices..
Nope the only Nazis here are the little gestapo agent starr. Actually
its the republicon tactics that resemble those of Hitler. First they
cannot win an election outright so they try to disrupt the current
government using any means possible, just as Hitler did. In addition
to their attacks on Clinton there was b1 drunk trying to reverse the
results of an election and another moron from the republicon party
trying to do the same in La.
Secondly following the example of Hitler they attack and demand
impeachment of judges they disagree with. Delay the confirmation of
judgicial appointments. Lastly by appling some type of litums test to
insure the appointments have the proper outlook.
Third its again the republicons like the Nazis that silenced any
groups opposing them like labor unions. Its the republicons that are
trying to limit the right to free speach, free assembly to force
everyone to pray to their god much like the Nazis did.
Lastly there is the tactic of the republicons of splitting the
electorate and playing one group off the other, raygun intiated class
warfare with his demonization of the poor with his non existent
welfare queen. presently the republicons are demonizing the minorities
with their bullshit over AA, immigrants, and their bullshit over
english only.
Now thats 4 close parallels between the tactics of the republicons
and the Nazis thats beyond debate. You can't rewrite history so go
piss up a rope you need a shower anyway.
rha...@pcmagic.net
In article <34e8df66.546313276@news>,
sim...@nospam.cts.com (Michael Simpson) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 18:06:14 -0600, rha...@pcmagic.net wrote:
>
> >
> >Yea, right - like no Republican politician ever lied. Like no Republican
ever
> >cheated on their wife. Hypocrisy is the much greater sin here.
>
> Duh. No matter how many times we explain it to you (collective you),
> I doubt you will get it. LYING UNDER OATH to evade the possibility of
> a judgement against him by another citizen of our country.
Get a clue. Whatever was said in the deposition, and whatever is actually the
case - it is a civil case, not a criminal case, and the judge in the case has
already thrown out the Lewinsky matter, so it has no relavance to the outcome.
Read a newspaper.
>
> >Repubs, if Clinton's so evil, and if you think he's committed an
impeachable
> >offence, then stop being such cowards and impeach him.
>
> If it were within my power, I would have done it years ago.
No doubt. Whooping Republicans at the polls is now an impeachable offence.
But as polls show, your attitude has also given Americans legitimate reason
for concern about the un-democratic extremism engulfing the Republican party.
>
> >I dare you!
> >
> >I double dare you!!
>
> Meaniningless babble.
I triple-dog dare you!!!
cheers,
Robert
rha...@pcmagic.net
Read a newspaper.
I triple-dog dare you!!!
cheers,
Trebor
Mark Satterstrom
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>Nope the only Nazis here are the little gestapo agent starr. Actually
>its the republicon tactics that resemble those of Hitler.
> Secondly following the example of Hitler they attack and demand
>impeachment of judges they disagree with.
Gee, how are the two quotes above related? Who's attacking who??
> Third its again the republicons like the Nazis that silenced any
>groups opposing them like labor unions.
Or independent investigators who are trying to do their job as Janet
Reno asked.
>Its the republicons that are
>trying to limit the right to free speach, free assembly to force
>everyone to pray to their god much like the Nazis did.
No, I believe Hitler did all he could to obliterate "God" from his
Germany.
> Lastly there is the tactic of the republicons of splitting the
>electorate and playing one group off the other, raygun intiated class
>warfare with his demonization of the poor with his non existent
>welfare queen.
Class warfare has been a liberal weapon for decades. Do the phrases
"The rich profitted unfairly in the 80s" and "Republican tax breaks
only benefit the wealthy" sound familiar? They should. All good
liberals memorized those phrases and mindlessly repeated them ad
nauseum.
> Now thats 4 close parallels between the tactics of the republicons
>and the Nazis thats beyond debate. You can't rewrite history so go
>piss up a rope you need a shower anyway.
No, despite your immature vulgarity and terrible spelling, you've not
made your point. Partial birth abortion is the closest thing to Nazi
Germany in America today. That's the liberal version of "family
values."
-Mark
"When basic morality is compared to Nazi Germany, there is but one
conclusion: I am corresponding with an idiot."
edh...@nospambest.com
Bill wrote:
> My turn to make predictions: Our prayers are answered and this SCUM is not
> only impeached, but sent to prison for the drugs, murders, graft &
> corruption he is 100% guilty of. "President Gore" serves out his term and
> the American people are so revulsed at his ultra-left eco-nazi loyalties
> that Pat Buchanan and Allen Keyes are elected on an ultra-conservative
> ticket.
>
> Well, we can dream, can't we....
That's a hell of a dream all right, I'll give you that.<g> And it has
just about as much relationship to reality as a dream, too.
Ed Hooks
edh...@nospambest.com
Mark Satterstrom wrote:
> Partial birth abortion is the closest thing to Nazi
LOL! This thread is heading into the toilet pretty quickly.<g> You
fruitcakes and your outrage over "partial birth abortion" crack me up.
Ed Hooks
edh...@nospambest.com
Bill wrote:
> ... If Monica's mother has knowledge of the commission of a crime,
> she has no priviledge from testifying. If Clinton's testimony under OATH was
> false, we must impeach him...
Yeah, those points seem clear enough, Bill. But you're missing the spin
on these events. It doesn't MATTER that Monica's mom has no privilege
from testifying! It did not look good for the Republicans that Starr
dragged her in there and made her listen to tapes of her daughter
talking about blow jobs. Mothers everywhere empathized with her
horror. And as for Clinton's testimony being false, my sense of this is
that the majority of people would be uncomfortable answering questions
about their sex lives. Bill may be dishonest, but the larger impression
is that he was set up by a Republican attack dog.
> It is clear to me that these numbers are completely and utterly
> fabricated by someone with the politics of MAO and the brains of Forrest
> Gump.
Nah. The polls reflect the high degree of cynicism and disdain the
public has for all politicians.
Ed Hooks