Why Clinton Wins the TV Wars
Sid9
Religious Right)
It's a message that resonates with most Americans.
Isabel <a...@nonet.net> wrote in message news:368EDD93...@nonet.net...
>Sorry atwood,
>You are not as good at lying as Clinton. Your lies don't even made a good
pimple
>on his ass.
>
>atwood wrote:
>
>> Stephen Carpenter wrote in message <368E95...@epix.net>...
>> >Clinton refuses to say that he lied, and more and more pundits and
>> >people who know him say that, bizarre as it may sound, he really
>> >believes he didn't. I think it's true. In one sense, Clinton has
>> >never lied. He has the "gift" for self-delusion that all great
>> >salesmen possess to some degree: The ability to convince himself utterly
>> >and completely that something is absolutely true the moment he says it.
>> >He may say something to one person one moment. And then, turn around
>> >and say the exact opposite thing to someone else a few minutes later.
>> >And in each case, at the moment of transmission, Bill Clinton believes
>> >wholeheartedly in what he is saying.
>> >
>> >Consider how this plays on TV. The viewer sees a man whose words and
>> >body language are absolutely in tune. Every fiber of Clinton's
>> >being broadcasts total sincerity, because he believes. The subliminal
>> >message the viewer gets is that this guy ain't lying.
>>
>> If you go back and look at Clinton's statements, he was not lying. The
>> closest he came was when he wagged his finger at the camera and said he
>> never has sexual relations with Monica. But even there, he defined sexual
>> relations the way the dictionary does, i.e. sexual intercoure, which in
fact
>> he never did have with her. So, in the cold light of day the guy *was*
>> telling the truth. He'd win a perjury case hands down, even though any
>> normal person would snicker a whole lot.
>>
>> >Those who are old enough will remember when Marshall McLuhan and "The
>> >Media is the Message" was all in vogue. McLuhan talked about how TV
>> >is a "cool" medium; how strident or strong emotions like anger don't
>> >transmit well over the tube. How they tend to unsettle the viewer.
>> >
>> >Now consider the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee. They
>> >appeared before the cameras making statements about how there was
>> >nothing personal about their views, how they wanted to be fair to
>> >the president, about how the whole matter was entirely about the rule
>> >of law. I don't question that they were absolutely sincere in their
>> >statements. Their problem is that they absolutely detest Bill Clinton.
>> >While they are making calm and reasoned statements, their disdain for
>> >the man is positively oozing from their pores. Their words and body
>> >language are totally at odds with one another. What is transmitted to
>> >the viewer subliminally is alarm. The viewer is suspicious and tends
>> >to look upon them unfavorably because their speech and manner contradict
>> >one another and instinctively raise hackles.
>>
>> In fact, when the Republicans say it's not personal, they are the ones
who
>> are doing the blatant lying. Anyone who watches them on camera can, as
you
>> say, see the frothing rage. And it's obvious to anyone that the
Republicans
>> have been throwing every flimsy accusation at Clinton from the moment he
got
>> into office.
>>
>> >It is a terrible problem for the republicans. Because most people
>> >form their opinions from what they witness on TV, what they see is
>> >a depiction of right and wrong as filtered through this electronic
>> >medium. And this can be quite a different thing from right and wrong
>> >up close and personal.
>>
>> TV gives pictures and well as words and offers a window on people's
>> character. People look at Clinton and they see a lovable rogue, and they
>> look at the Republicans and see a bunch of zealots driven by fruitcake
wacko
>> religious ayatollah nutcases.
>
M. Kilgore
The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
>We have impeached you best democrat.
And? Get serious, it's not hard to impeach when you've got the numbers
within you're own party to do so. Don't get too cocky until you remove him
from office - that's the test.
mark
M. Kilgore
a
>lame duck Democratic Party with a lire leading.
Ya' mean that the name calling's enough and that you don't have the strength
of your convictions to see you through. Dunno', kinda' reminds me a bit of
those good ol'boy republicans that left the Big Tent in San Diego and drug a
TV camera crew along to watch'em yell at , in their words, the "goldamn
mexicans" across the border. Means little if you don't follow through. The
loudmouths in the house have done the easy part, but those ol'boys in the
senate have a long row to hoe. I figger' they're appreciatin' those ol'boys
in the house a fair to middlin' amount right now. Don't you?
mark
Isabel
The American People
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 03:02:57 GMT, Isabel <a...@nonet.net> wrote:
>
> >Sorry atwood,
> >You are not as good at lying as Clinton. Your lies don't even made a good pimple
> >on his ass.
>
> I don't see any examples of his lies.
>
> All I see is you making wild accusations you can't back up.
>
> Is that all you right wingers have?
>
> Jim
> Ecrasons l'infame
>
> Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
> ========================================================================
> Hear Rush sing "I'm A Nazi" http://www.99x.com/rush.ram
>
> If you have not already installed it you'll need the Real Player
> from http://www.real.com
>
> "I just flat out do not like him. I think he is an abusive, privacy-invading,
> sex-obsessed, right-wing, constitutionally insensitive, boring, obsequious, and
> miserable little man who has risen further in his life by his willingness to
> suck up to power than his meager talents and pitiful judgement ever would have
> gotten him.
> -- James Carville on Kenneth Starr
> ========================================================================
The American People
care that he was Impeached. Most Americans did not even bother to protest
the Impeachment. A large percentage of American People do not even now
that he was Impeached.
Sid wrote:
> He wins because he has a message that is better than the RRR (Radical
> Religious Right)
>
> It's a message that resonates with most Americans.
>
> Isabel <a...@nonet.net> wrote in message news:368EDD93...@nonet.net...
> >Sorry atwood,
> >You are not as good at lying as Clinton. Your lies don't even made a good
> pimple
> >on his ass.
> >
The American People
lame duck Democratic Party with a lire leading.
"M. Kilgore" wrote:
> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
> >We have impeached you best democrat.
>
bd
On 02 Jan 1999 19:40:08 PST, "Sid9" <si...@concentric.net> wrote:
>He wins because he has a message that is better than the RRR (Radical
>Religious Right)
>
>It's a message that resonates with most Americans.
>
>
>>atwood wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen Carpenter wrote in message <368E95...@epix.net>...
>>> >Clinton refuses to say that he lied, and more and more pundits and
>>> >people who know him say that, bizarre as it may sound, he really
>>> >believes he didn't. I think it's true. In one sense, Clinton has
>>> >never lied. He has the "gift" for self-delusion that all great
>>> >salesmen possess to some degree: The ability to convince himself utterly
>>> >and completely that something is absolutely true the moment he says it.
>>> >He may say something to one person one moment. And then, turn around
>>> >and say the exact opposite thing to someone else a few minutes later.
>>> >And in each case, at the moment of transmission, Bill Clinton believes
>>> >wholeheartedly in what he is saying.
Trouble is, different people use language differently, and have diffent
world-views. So if you have one consistent message, you have to use different
words to explain it to different people. So this can look like contradictions.
>>> >
>>> >Consider how this plays on TV. The viewer sees a man whose words and
>>> >body language are absolutely in tune. Every fiber of Clinton's
>>> >being broadcasts total sincerity, because he believes. The subliminal
>>> >message the viewer gets is that this guy ain't lying.
Imo what comes through is sincerity about the important thing -- that he
sincerely is looking for the best solution for everyone. He's sincerely trying
to communicate with each person, separately, using that person's language -- so
he can then help them undersatnd each other or find a solution that both sides
will feel comfortable with. This is why he's such a good peacemaker in
Palestine, Ireland, etc.
Imo he's sincerely keeping his eye on the ball, the real-life situation that
includes a lot of differing viewpoints. I don't worry that much about the words
he uses. The map is not the territory. To me, someone who relalizes that words
are less real than facts, and is willling to adjust words to fit the audience --
is a wise person, who can be trusted not to go off on some crazy tangent.
He's in control of his words. Whereas the Reps seem to be controlled BY words,
to let rote formulas do their thinking for them....
>>>
>>> If you go back and look at Clinton's statements, he was not lying. The
>>> closest he came was when he wagged his finger at the camera and said he
>>> never has sexual relations with Monica. But even there, he defined sexual
>>> relations the way the dictionary does, i.e. sexual intercoure, which in
>fact
>>> he never did have with her. So, in the cold light of day the guy *was*
>>> telling the truth. He'd win a perjury case hands down, even though any
>>> normal person would snicker a whole lot.
Right. "Did you throw rotten vegetables at the principal?"
"No, sir."
"Here's the evidence."
"But a rotten tomato isn't a vegetable, a tomato is a fruit,nya nya."
A Perry Mason sort of trick. :-) But, like Mason,he's a good guy and had a good
reason.
Still, as someone pointed out in a local paper, there IS a difference beween
real sex, the sort of sexual intercourse that needs birth control -- and stuff
that doesn't. "Heavy petting" was her term. :-)
>>>
>>> >Those who are old enough will remember when Marshall McLuhan and "The
>>> >Media is the Message" was all in vogue. McLuhan talked about how TV
>>> >is a "cool" medium; how strident or strong emotions like anger don't
>>> >transmit well over the tube. How they tend to unsettle the viewer.
Anger etc unsettle the world when they get in high office, too. Hooray for tv,
to filter out the crazies so they don't get elected to anything important. :-)
>>> >
>>> >Now consider the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee. They
>>> >appeared before the cameras making statements about how there was
>>> >nothing personal about their views, how they wanted to be fair to
>>> >the president, about how the whole matter was entirely about the rule
>>> >of law. I don't question that they were absolutely sincere in their
>>> >statements. Their problem is that they absolutely detest Bill Clinton.
>>> >While they are making calm and reasoned statements, their disdain for
>>> >the man is positively oozing from their pores. Their words and body
>>> >language are totally at odds with one another. What is transmitted to
>>> >the viewer subliminally is alarm. The viewer is suspicious and tends
>>> >to look upon them unfavorably because their speech and manner contradict
>>> >one another and instinctively raise hackles.
>>>
>>> In fact, when the Republicans say it's not personal, they are the ones
>who
>>> are doing the blatant lying. Anyone who watches them on camera can, as
>you
>>> say, see the frothing rage.
Right!!!!!
Either blatant lying -- or a self-deception that's actually dangerous, for them
and for us.
>>> And it's obvious to anyone that the
>Republicans
>>> have been throwing every flimsy accusation at Clinton from the moment he
>got
>>> into office.
>>>
>>> >It is a terrible problem for the republicans. Because most people
>>> >form their opinions from what they witness on TV, what they see is
>>> >a depiction of right and wrong as filtered through this electronic
>>> >medium. And this can be quite a different thing from right and wrong
>>> >up close and personal.
>>>
>>> TV gives pictures and well as words and offers a window on people's
>>> character. People look at Clinton and they see a lovable rogue, and they
>>> look at the Republicans and see a bunch of zealots driven by fruitcake
>wacko
>>> religious ayatollah nutcases.
>>
>
Right about the Reps. :-)
A loveable rogue would be much better than the Wacko Ayatollahs, of course.
Loveable rogues don't start wars: principles start wars. :-)
But I don't see Clinton as a rogue. I see him as a nice,sane,realistic person,
who is honest with himself and recognizes his weakness. He's in touch with his
feelings, they aren't going to suddenly make him do something nutty. He doesn't
demonize anyone. He has a sane view of the world.
One weakness of the flesh -- isn't a bad trade off. Maybe it's the reason he has
done such a good job and kept his cool.... Because he indulged, in an
unimportant way....
BD
*************************************************
Senators: dismiss charges. -- We need an "Ordinary Citizens' Bill of Rights"
Organizing for "We Will Remember" in 2000:
http://www.pfaw.org -- http://www.stonesthrow.org -- http://www.moveon.org
List of the 8 principles of the old objective moral code:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809/
*********************************************************
some where
wrote:
>Most Americans could care less about Clinton. Most Americans don't even
>care that he was Impeached. Most Americans did not even bother to protest
>the Impeachment. A large percentage of American People do not even now
>that he was Impeached.
Makes sense, in a warped kinda way.
After all, most Americans never voted for him.
Not even "most Americans" that voted!
M. Kilgore
some where wrote in message <76n49p$h...@news.voyager.net>...
SNIP
>Makes sense, in a warped kinda way.
>
>After all, most Americans never voted for him.
>
>Not even "most Americans" that voted!
>
I've gotta admit it, of all the conservative rhetoric I've heard since
Clinton's been in office, the argument that Clinton got elected because most
Americans didn't vote is the most fascinating. What does this really mean,
do you think? Did Dole & Bush lose because not enough Americans voted, or
did they lose because too many Americans did vote?
mark
Bratty
The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message
<2rCj2.872$fR1...@news.flash.net>...
>Most Americans could care less about Clinton. Most Americans don't even
>care that he was Impeached. Most Americans did not even bother to protest
>the Impeachment. A large percentage of American People do not even now
>that he was Impeached.
>
and, judging by some of the posts I've read, most still don't.
-Lisa
atwood
<2rCj2.872$fR1...@news.flash.net>...
>Most Americans could care less about Clinton. Most Americans don't even
>care that he was Impeached. Most Americans did not even bother to protest
>the Impeachment. A large percentage of American People do not even now
>that he was Impeached.
and when the republicans get tossed out of the house and senate in '00 and
gore gets elected president, the public won't know anything about that,
either. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!
Zepp
aol.net> wrote:
>The asshole has been impeached. You can keep him for all I care. Makes for a
>lame duck Democratic Party with a lire leading.
>
Thanks. We will. And the 107th Congresss, which will be heavily
Democratic, can vote to expunge the impeachment and fully exhonorate
him from Hyde's Smear.
>"M. Kilgore" wrote:
>
>> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
>> >We have impeached you best democrat.
>>
>> And? Get serious, it's not hard to impeach when you've got the numbers
>> within you're own party to do so. Don't get too cocky until you remove him
>> from office - that's the test.
>>
>> mark
>
-------------------------------------------
Republican louts, you better not cry
You better not "out", you're all gonna die,
Larry Flynt is coming to town.
He knows where you've been sleeping,
and where you hid your snake
he knows if you've been bad or worse
So be bad to help his take.
----------------------------------------------------
Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
Thank a liberal.
-----------------------------------------------------
Be good, servile little citizen-employees:
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
When in doubt, call a stoat,
'cos a ferret has merit!
-----------------------------------------------------
The American People
Makes for a lame duck Democratic Party with a lire leading.
The American People
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 04:29:13 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> aol.net> wrote:
>
> >We have impeached you best democrat.
>
> Impeached means charged.
>
> You have been throwing accusations at Bill Clinton for the last 6
> years.
>
> These two Impeachment Articles are your last shot.
>
> What will you do then?
>
> Jim
The American People
12:19 Central Time, Dec.19,1998 will live in infamy.
Zepp wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 05:20:21 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> aol.net> wrote:
>
> >The asshole has been impeached. You can keep him for all I care. Makes for a
> >lame duck Democratic Party with a lire leading.
> >
>
> Thanks. We will. And the 107th Congresss, which will be heavily
> Democratic, can vote to expunge the impeachment and fully exhonorate
> him from Hyde's Smear.
>
> >"M. Kilgore" wrote:
> >
> >> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
> >> >We have impeached you best democrat.
> >>
M. Kilgore
>Makes for a lame duck Democratic Party with a lire leading.
>
Yeah, you already said that. I admire your consistency.
mark
The American People
down with him. None of them can be trusted. It only took one bad apple in
the village.
I don't blame you for being angry.
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 17:39:20 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> aol.net> wrote:
>
> >The asshole has been impeached. You can keep him for all I care.
> >Makes for a lame duck Democratic Party with a lire leading.
> >Can't change that.
>
> Impeached means charged.
>
> You right wing extremists have been accusing Bill Clinton of things
> you can't prove for the last 6 years.
>
> You are down to your last two chances.
>
> He has beaten you again.
The American People
Infamy: Total loss if reputation; public disgrace; bad or disgraceful repute;
shamefulness; disgracefulness; scandalousness.
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 17:59:43 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> aol.net> wrote:
>
> >Never happen.
> >12:19 Central Time, Dec.19,1998 will live in infamy.
>
> Infamy, as in partisan stupidity.
>
> On this we agree.
>
> Jim
>
> >Zepp wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 05:20:21 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> >> aol.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The asshole has been impeached. You can keep him for all I care. Makes for a
> >> >lame duck Democratic Party with a lire leading.
> >> >
> >>
The American People
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 17:42:44 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> aol.net> wrote:
>
> >Can't kill a dead duck!
>
> Taking a shot isn't hitting the target.
>
> Jim
But, that crow don't fly no more.
M. Kilgore
The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
Hitting a crow is pretty much meaningless if you were aiming at the duck.
mark
The American People
The American People
spin and you should be angry about it.
They have you believing more than 70% of the American people are angry.
Perhaps they are, but it's not like the NY Times would like for you to believe.
The American People spoke on at the last elections in November, remember?
What State do you live in? Do you have a Republican Governor?
Most of them are Republican now because the Governors are attuned to what
the American People want.
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 19:39:10 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> aol.net> wrote:
>
> >Not over till it's over. With Clinton's impeachment, he has drug the Democrats
> >down with him. None of them can be trusted. It only took one bad apple in
> >the village.
>
> GOP Approval Rating Plummets in Polls
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/121998impeach-poll.html
>
> Richard W. Stevenson and Michael R. Kagay of the New York Times,
> December 19, 1998
>
> WASHINGTON--As the House of Representatives moved toward
> a vote on impeaching President Clinton, the Republican Party's
> standing with the public dropped significantly, matching its lowest
> rating in the past 14 years, the latest New York Times/CBS News
> Poll shows.
>
> While impeachment appears all but inevitable, half of the public
> still expects some other outcome, suggesting at least the possibility
> of further erosion in the Republican Party's image when the reality
> of only the second impeachment of a President in American history
> sinks in.
>
> Six of 10 Americans said Republicans in Congress were out of touch
> with the public's wishes on impeachment.
>
> The opposition to impeachment--62 percent said they wanted their
> representative to vote against it-- is reflected in every sector
> of society: every region, age group and income group, with the
> exception of those respondents who described themselves as
> Republicans.
>
> ***You were saying, loon?
>
> >I don't blame you for being angry.
>
> Angry that a reactionary minority is trying to undo two presidential
> elections?
>
> You bet.
>
> More than 70% of the American people are angry as well.
>
> Your ignorance of these facts is why you lose in matters political.
>
> Jim
Ertai
Volt...@geocities.com says...
> >Loose way of referring to birds of a feather flock together.
>
No, like democraps and child molesters like Larry Flynt.
--
The Democrat Congress of the '80s put us trillions in debt.
The Republican Congress of the '90s balanced the budget.
Source: The Constitution which gives purse strings to
the Congress.
M. Kilgore
The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
>Loose way of referring to birds of a feather flock together.
As conservatives say... I think I see your problem.
mark
Zepp
>On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 05:20:21 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
>aol.net> wrote:
>
>>The asshole has been impeached. You can keep him for all I care. Makes for a
>>lame duck Democratic Party with a lire leading.
>
>Oh really? Ask Trent Lott's boy Saddam about that.
>
"With a lire leading"? Doesn't he mean, "With a euro leading"?
We must just get the bottom feeder conspiracy nuts, Jim. I haven't
seen anyone howling about how the euro is proof of internationalism,
the New World Order, and the trilateral commission. Too busy trying
to resurrect Foster and Flowers, I guess.
> Jim
>
>>"M. Kilgore" wrote:
>>
>>> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
>>> >We have impeached you best democrat.
>>>
>>> And? Get serious, it's not hard to impeach when you've got the numbers
>>> within you're own party to do so. Don't get too cocky until you remove him
>>> from office - that's the test.
>>>
>>> mark
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
>========================================================================
>Hear Rush sing "I'm A Nazi" http://www.99x.com/rush.ram
>
>If you have not already installed it you'll need the Real Player
>from http://www.real.com
>
>"I just flat out do not like him. I think he is an abusive, privacy-invading,
>sex-obsessed, right-wing, constitutionally insensitive, boring, obsequious, and
>miserable little man who has risen further in his life by his willingness to
>suck up to power than his meager talents and pitiful judgement ever would have
>gotten him.
> -- James Carville on Kenneth Starr
>========================================================================
-------------------------------------------
The American People
I agree with you that most didn't know what impeachment is. This could be
why they don't care.
Bratty wrote:
> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message
> <2rCj2.872$fR1...@news.flash.net>...
> >Most Americans could care less about Clinton. Most Americans don't even
> >care that he was Impeached. Most Americans did not even bother to protest
> >the Impeachment. A large percentage of American People do not even now
> >that he was Impeached.
> >
M Soja
posted:
>On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 23:36:30 GMT, libe...@tax.spend.tax.spend.gov
>(Ertai) wrote:
>And still he posts that lie.
If Flynt's daughter isn't lying Ertai's not lying.
some where
wrote:
Ask Perot.
Clinton never received a majority of the votes of THOSE THAT VOTED.
You may not like that fact.
Tough break.
M. Kilgore
some where wrote in message <76skk0$j...@news.voyager.net>...
What's not to like? Clinton did win a majority of the votes that are used to
put presidents in office. I'm happy, aren't you?
mark
The American People
foot protecting a lying president that was impeached? Where is the future in
this?
atwood wrote:
> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message
> <2rCj2.872$fR1...@news.flash.net>...
> >Most Americans could care less about Clinton. Most Americans don't even
> >care that he was Impeached. Most Americans did not even bother to protest
> >the Impeachment. A large percentage of American People do not even now
> >that he was Impeached.
>
The American People
be remembered in history. He is a public disgrace.
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 19:47:24 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> aol.net> wrote:
>
> >As defined in Webster.
> >Infamy: Total loss if reputation; public disgrace; bad or disgraceful repute;
> >shamefulness; disgracefulness; scandalousness.
>
> The day is a public disgrace?
>
> Your definition agrees with me.
>
> Jim
>
> >Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 17:59:43 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> >> aol.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Never happen.
> >> >12:19 Central Time, Dec.19,1998 will live in infamy.
> >>
> >> Infamy, as in partisan stupidity.
> >>
> >> On this we agree.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> >Zepp wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 05:20:21 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> >> >> aol.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >The asshole has been impeached. You can keep him for all I care. Makes for a
> >> >> >lame duck Democratic Party with a lire leading.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks. We will. And the 107th Congresss, which will be heavily
> >> >> Democratic, can vote to expunge the impeachment and fully exhonorate
> >> >> him from Hyde's Smear.
> >> >>
> >> >> >"M. Kilgore" wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
> >> >> >> >We have impeached you best democrat.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And? Get serious, it's not hard to impeach when you've got the numbers
> >> >> >> within you're own party to do so. Don't get too cocky until you remove him
> >> >> >> from office - that's the test.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> mark
> >> >> >
> >> >>
Bratty
>foot protecting a lying president that was impeached? Where is the future
in
>this?
>
time thus, making it a wee bit difficult to toss their own political hats
into the ring in 2000? Could this also be why a lot of republicans want him
as the incumbent in 2000....because they believe he can't win a national
election?
Just curious....
-Lisa
M. Kilgore
The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
>If Gore is so great, why is the Democratic Party shooting it's self in the
>foot protecting a lying president that was impeached? Where is the future
in
>this?
Protect him from what? Oh, you mean the ineptness republicans demonstrate as
they try to carry out a simple political procedure? Well, hell, if we have
to put up with the anoyance, Bill does, too.
mark
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: I wouldn't believe those guys in NY Times if I were you. That is Democratic
: spin and you should be angry about it.
: They have you believing more than 70% of the American people are angry.
: Perhaps they are, but it's not like the NY Times would like for you to believe.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The "libbbb'rul media" bogeyman appears again.
: The American People spoke on at the last elections in November, remember?
The first time the party controlling the White House ever had a net gain
in Congress duing the 6th year of a president's term.
That's one reason why Nootie is out. You do remember Speaker Nootie,
don't you?
: What State do you live in? Do you have a Republican Governor?
: Most of them are Republican now because the Governors are attuned to what
: the American People want.
And they are begging Congress to dump this impeachment nonsense before
they get tarred with it.
--
Buddy K
"I knew when he announced his affairs that he wasn't telling the
truth. He said he had never been involved with an employee and that
wasn't truthful. He considers himself a real Romeo. He makes Bill
Clinton look like Mary Poppins. It's hard telling how many women he's
been involved with."
--Larry Flynt on Bob Livingston.
: Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
: > On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 19:39:10 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
: > aol.net> wrote:
: >
: > >Not over till it's over. With Clinton's impeachment, he has drug the Democrats
: > >down with him. None of them can be trusted. It only took one bad apple in
: > >the village.
: >
: > GOP Approval Rating Plummets in Polls
: >
: > http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/121998impeach-poll.html
: >
: > Richard W. Stevenson and Michael R. Kagay of the New York Times,
: > December 19, 1998
: >
: > WASHINGTON--As the House of Representatives moved toward
: > a vote on impeaching President Clinton, the Republican Party's
: > standing with the public dropped significantly, matching its lowest
: > rating in the past 14 years, the latest New York Times/CBS News
: > Poll shows.
: >
: > While impeachment appears all but inevitable, half of the public
: > still expects some other outcome, suggesting at least the possibility
: > of further erosion in the Republican Party's image when the reality
: > of only the second impeachment of a President in American history
: > sinks in.
: >
: > Six of 10 Americans said Republicans in Congress were out of touch
: > with the public's wishes on impeachment.
: >
: > The opposition to impeachment--62 percent said they wanted their
: > representative to vote against it-- is reflected in every sector
: > of society: every region, age group and income group, with the
: > exception of those respondents who described themselves as
: > Republicans.
: >
: > ***You were saying, loon?
: >
: > >I don't blame you for being angry.
: >
: > Angry that a reactionary minority is trying to undo two presidential
: > elections?
: >
: > You bet.
: >
: > More than 70% of the American people are angry as well.
: >
: > Your ignorance of these facts is why you lose in matters political.
: >
: > Jim
: >
: > Ecrasons l'infame
The American People
If Gore is so great, why is the Democratic Party shooting it's self in the
in this?
I wasn't aware that the Democrats were annoyed with Gore, also.
In that case, you're right. But, where is the future in this?
qwerty
|If Gore is so great, why is the Democratic Party shooting it's self in the
|foot coveting a lying president that was impeached? Where is the future
|in this?
|I wasn't aware that the Democrats were annoyed with Gore, also.
|In that case, you're right. But, where is the future in this?
The future is, the longer this drags out, the worse the Republican will
look. The worse case scenario for the Democrats is if Gore ends up taking
over from Clinton. Which means they will be running an incumbent in 2000.
It's really hard for the Democrats to lose in these proceedings, no matter
what the outcome. The only feet getting shot here belong to the
Republicans. At this rate the Republicans will be only able to crawl by
2000.
--
The opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not reflect those of my
employer.
The American People
presentation of evidence, 1 day for Clinton than a vote? That isn't dragging it
out to make the Republicans look bad.
Are you saying that an incumbent is at a disadvantage? Or is it that Gore is
not Presidential material?
There is a lot of vacillation here. Where did your future go?
Mike
ethnic slur. Thats ok with you mick?
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <76ufj0$j...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>some where (som...@flubnutz.org) wrote:
>: On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 01:18:07 -0600, "M. Kilgore"
<mkil...@nospam.prysm.net>
>: wrote:
>
>: >
>: >some where wrote in message <76n49p$h...@news.voyager.net>...
>: >
>: >SNIP
>: >
>: >>Makes sense, in a warped kinda way.
>: >>
>: >>After all, most Americans never voted for him.
>: >>
>: >>Not even "most Americans" that voted!
>: >>
>: >
>: >
>: >I've gotta admit it, of all the conservative rhetoric I've heard since
>: >Clinton's been in office, the argument that Clinton got elected because
most
>: >Americans didn't vote is the most fascinating. What does this really
mean,
>: >do you think? Did Dole & Bush lose because not enough Americans voted,
or
>: >did they lose because too many Americans did vote?
>
>: Ask Perot.
>
>: Clinton never received a majority of the votes of THOSE THAT VOTED.
>
>: You may not like that fact.
>
>: Tough break.
>
>
>You may not like that fact.
>
>Tough break.
>
>Buddy K
>
>"With blacks you can usually settle for an incompetent, because there are
>just not enough competent ones, and so you put incompetents in and get
>along with them, because the symbolism is vitally important. You have to
>show you care."
>
>--the Nixon Tapes
>
>
Mike
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <76uhrb$1...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>Mike (nr...@bestweb.net) wrote:
>: Lets see I can remember Weasel calling Cuomo (whom I despise) a
disparaging
>: ethnic slur.
>
>Huh?
>
>: Thats ok with you mick?
>
>Mick? Who do you Irish think you're calling one of your own anyhow?
>
>--
>Buddy K
>
>"Women -- women got to be competent. With blacks, you look the other way.
>The same with Mexicans, you've got to look the other way. You've got to
>find one who's honest."
>
>--the Nixon Tapes
>
>
>
>
>: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <76ufj0$j...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>: >
>
>
qwerty
|presentation of evidence, 1 day for Clinton than a vote? That isn't dragging it
|out to make the Republicans look bad.
Well, they would like it to end because they would like to get on with business
they were elected to do. As Americans they I'm sure most of them feel that the
sooner this gets over the better off the Country will be. But, whatever the
outcome, the Democrats will have an advantage and if the the trial drags on, it
will only make the Republicans look worse.
|Are you saying that an incumbent is at a disadvantage? Or is it that Gore is
No, I'm saying that as an incumbent is a definite advantage. That the worst
thing that could happen is still a good thing for the Democrats. I quess you
missed the sarcasm. Gore would also be eligble to run for additional 2 terms,
after the current one expires. This would be a win for the Democrats.
|not Presidential material?
Gore is probably the most qualified contender for President is a long, long
time. I would have prefered him over Clinton to begin with.
|There is a lot of vacillation here. Where did your future go?
No vacillation here, the future is Democratic, start getting used to it.
Docky Wocky
Asking, or simply stating "Why Clinton Wins the TV Wars" demonstrates a
distinct lack of imagination.
Ask instead, "Why did Stalin win all the radio wars in the old Soviet Union
days?"
Simple. Stalin totally controlled the radio broadcasting system of Russia.
Nobody ever gave Stalin any competition - period.
Clinton wins all the TV wars because he has a network of folks who, besides
totally controlling access to the TV system of the USA, happen to think he
is by far the nicest boy on the block, and who fall all over each other
making sure that Clinton's excuses, mouthpieces, and state propaganda are on
their TV system more than 24 hours a day.
Stalin would have really enjoyed the US TV system. Clinton also admired
Stalin's approach to things.
Who Cares?
>
>You have charged him in a partisan proceeding.
"So What?" - Trolltaire, 1998
"Who Cares? - Trolltaire, 1997
"Everybody does it" - Trolltaire, 1996
>You will never convict him.
Not until he leaves office. :)
>Your last two accusations will go down unproven and he will kick your
>lame asses again.
Ouch!!! Ow! Here it comes again!
"That's good. And I'm an alien space baby."
Ow, please stop!
"I'm just not going to comment."
No more!! Please!
"'Hey, at least he didn't have oral sex with the
woman"
Mercy! Have mercy!
"He was good to me, he gave me money"
STOP!!!!
"I guarantee you that if you do this
you'll never work in Democratic politics
again!"
>
>And you did it to yourselves!
>
> Jim
>
>>
>>Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 19:47:24 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
>>> aol.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >As defined in Webster.
>>> >Infamy: Total loss if reputation; public disgrace; bad or disgraceful
repute;
>>> >shamefulness; disgracefulness; scandalousness.
>>>
>>> The day is a public disgrace?
>>>
>>> Your definition agrees with me.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> >Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 17:59:43 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
>>> >> aol.net> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >Never happen.
>>> >> >12:19 Central Time, Dec.19,1998 will live in infamy.
>>> >>
>>> >> Infamy, as in partisan stupidity.
>>> >>
>>> >> On this we agree.
>>> >>
>>> >> Jim
>>> >>
>>> >> >Zepp wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 05:20:21 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
>>> >> >> aol.net> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >The asshole has been impeached. You can keep him for all I care.
Makes for a
>>> >> >> >lame duck Democratic Party with a lire leading.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Thanks. We will. And the 107th Congresss, which will be heavily
>>> >> >> Democratic, can vote to expunge the impeachment and fully
exhonorate
>>> >> >> him from Hyde's Smear.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >"M. Kilgore" wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
>>> >> >> >> >We have impeached you best democrat.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> And? Get serious, it's not hard to impeach when you've got the
numbers
>>> >> >> >> within you're own party to do so. Don't get too cocky until you
remove him
>>> >> >> >> from office - that's the test.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> mark
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> -------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> Republican louts, you better not cry
>>> >> >> You better not "out", you're all gonna die,
>>> >> >> Larry Flynt is coming to town.
>>> >> >> He knows where you've been sleeping,
>>> >> >> and where you hid your snake
>>> >> >> he knows if you've been bad or worse
>>> >> >> So be bad to help his take.
>>> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Thank a liberal.
>>> >> >> -----------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> Be good, servile little citizen-employees:
>>> >> >> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> When in doubt, call a stoat,
>>> >> >> 'cos a ferret has merit!
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> -----------------------------------------------------
>>> >>
>"We've got some pretty women on here this time."
>
> -- Strom Thurmond (Senile, S.C.) on the Senate Armed Services Committee
>========================================================================
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: Lets see I can remember Weasel calling Cuomo (whom I despise) a disparaging
: ethnic slur.
Huh?
: Thats ok with you mick?
Mick? Who do you Irish think you're calling one of your own anyhow?
--
Buddy K
"Women -- women got to be competent. With blacks, you look the other way.
The same with Mexicans, you've got to look the other way. You've got to
find one who's honest."
--the Nixon Tapes
: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <76ufj0$j...@portal.gmu.edu>...
: >
: >
The American People
back with.
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 20:57:55 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> aol.net> wrote:
>
> >What about that proposal the Democrats gave to Senator Lott for a 1 day
> >presentation of evidence, 1 day for Clinton than a vote? That isn't dragging it
> >
> >out to make the Republicans look bad.
> >Are you saying that an incumbent is at a disadvantage? Or is it that Gore is
> >not Presidential material?
> >There is a lot of vacillation here. Where did your future go?
>
> What there is here is you trying to set up straw men.
>
> Enjoy that ass kicking.
>
> Jim
>
> >qwerty wrote:
> >
> >> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
> >> |Protect was not a good choice of words, try this.
> >> |If Gore is so great, why is the Democratic Party shooting it's self in the
> >> |foot coveting a lying president that was impeached? Where is the future
> >> |in this?
> >> |I wasn't aware that the Democrats were annoyed with Gore, also.
> >> |In that case, you're right. But, where is the future in this?
> >>
> >> The future is, the longer this drags out, the worse the Republican will
> >> look. The worse case scenario for the Democrats is if Gore ends up taking
> >> over from Clinton. Which means they will be running an incumbent in 2000.
> >> It's really hard for the Democrats to lose in these proceedings, no matter
> >> what the outcome. The only feet getting shot here belong to the
> >> Republicans. At this rate the Republicans will be only able to crawl by
> >> 2000.
> >>
> >> --
> >> The opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not reflect those of my
> >> employer.
>
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: On 6 Jan 1999 02:30:03 GMT, hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK
: JR.) wrote:
: >Mike (nr...@bestweb.net) wrote:
: >: Lets see I can remember Weasel calling Cuomo (whom I despise) a disparaging
: >: ethnic slur.
: >
: >Huh?
: >
: >: Thats ok with you mick?
: >
: >Mick? Who do you Irish think you're calling one of your own anyhow?
: Next he will have me calling someone a kraut!
Looks like he's right from the shanty - no lace curtains for him.
--
Buddy K
"That's the problem, finding a Mexican that is honest. And Italians have
somewhat the same problem."
--the Nixon Tapes
: Jim
: Ecrasons l'infame
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: Asking, or simply stating "Why Clinton Wins the TV Wars" demonstrates a
: distinct lack of imagination.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where do you rightwingers find these loons to play on the newsgroups? Is
this Daryl's brother?
The American People
same shit coming out of the Democrats in Washington today again. Must
be the pressure again. If it's not going your way, make another threat.
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:19:18 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> aol.net> wrote:
>
> >If Gore is so great, why is the Democratic Party shooting it's self in the
> >foot protecting a lying president that was impeached? Where is the future in
> >this?
>
> Did it ever occur to you that the Republicans are the one's pissing in
> their own nest?
>
> You had better hope that Trent Lott manages to pull your right wing
> chestnuts out of your little impeachment fire.
>
> Jim
>
> >atwood wrote:
> >
> >> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message
> >> <2rCj2.872$fR1...@news.flash.net>...
> >> >Most Americans could care less about Clinton. Most Americans don't even
> >> >care that he was Impeached. Most Americans did not even bother to protest
> >> >the Impeachment. A large percentage of American People do not even now
> >> >that he was Impeached.
> >>
> >> and when the republicans get tossed out of the house and senate in '00 and
> >> gore gets elected president, the public won't know anything about that,
> >> either. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!
>
The American People
IMPEACHED." That is the only thing that will be remembered about him unless he Resigns,
Commits Suicide, Sainted or is Assassinated.
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:39:12 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> aol.net> wrote:
>
> >This is the day that Clinton was Impeached. This is the day that Clinton will
> >be remembered in history. He is a public disgrace.
>
> You have charged him in a partisan proceeding.
>
> You will never convict him.
>
> Your last two accusations will go down unproven and he will kick your
> lame asses again.
>
> And you did it to yourselves!
>
> Jim
>
> >
> >Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 19:47:24 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> >> aol.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >As defined in Webster.
> >> >Infamy: Total loss if reputation; public disgrace; bad or disgraceful repute;
> >> >shamefulness; disgracefulness; scandalousness.
> >>
> >> The day is a public disgrace?
> >>
> >> Your definition agrees with me.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> >Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 17:59:43 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> >> >> aol.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Never happen.
> >> >> >12:19 Central Time, Dec.19,1998 will live in infamy.
> >> >>
> >> >> Infamy, as in partisan stupidity.
> >> >>
> >> >> On this we agree.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jim
> >> >>
> >> >> >Zepp wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> Ecrasons l'infame
> >> >>
> >> >> Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
> >> >> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
> >> >>
> >> >> ========================================================================
> >> >> Hear Rush sing "I'm A Nazi" http://www.99x.com/rush.ram
> >> >>
> >> >> If you have not already installed it you'll need the Real Player
> >> >> from http://www.real.com
> >> >>
> >> >> "I just flat out do not like him. I think he is an abusive, privacy-invading,
> >> >> sex-obsessed, right-wing, constitutionally insensitive, boring, obsequious, and
> >> >> miserable little man who has risen further in his life by his willingness to
> >> >> suck up to power than his meager talents and pitiful judgement ever would have
> >> >> gotten him.
> >> >> -- James Carville on Kenneth Starr
> >> >> ========================================================================
> >>
> >> Ecrasons l'infame
> >>
> >> Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
> >> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
> >>
> >> ========================================================================
> >> Hear Rush sing "I'm A Nazi" http://www.99x.com/rush.ram
> >>
> >> If you have not already installed it you'll need the Real Player
> >> from http://www.real.com
> >>
> >> "I just flat out do not like him. I think he is an abusive, privacy-invading,
> >> sex-obsessed, right-wing, constitutionally insensitive, boring, obsequious, and
> >> miserable little man who has risen further in his life by his willingness to
> >> suck up to power than his meager talents and pitiful judgement ever would have
> >> gotten him.
> >> -- James Carville on Kenneth Starr
> >> ========================================================================
>
M. Kilgore
History To Have Been
>IMPEACHED." That is the only thing that will be remembered about him unless
he Resigns,
>Commits Suicide, Sainted or is Assassinated.
I see that you've and a few others have already given up on the trial. Wise
move. Still, I think you'll find that there will be a price associated with
putting the impeached tag next to Bill's name, both in the short and long
terms. Since you guys weren't able to take Clinton out when he was down, his
stature is slowly, but surely, rebuilding itself.
mark
"That was last episode, Rock - this is this one" - Bullwinkle Moose.
The American People
the football season almost over, I need a good program to last the rest of
this winter. Looks like this news group will be around for a few more
months.
"M. Kilgore" wrote:
> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
> >Clinton goes down in history as "The Only Twice Elected President In
> History To Have Been
> >IMPEACHED." That is the only thing that will be remembered about him unless
> he Resigns,
> >Commits Suicide, Sainted or is Assassinated.
>
Milt
wrote:
>The straw man fell for it, hook line and sinker. Look at the vacillation he came
>back with.
Vacillation? "Enjoy your ass-kicking" is pretty cut-and-dried. Do you even
know what "vacillation means? It's not the same as that petroleum jelly you
use there for your, well, never mind...
>
>Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 20:57:55 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
>> aol.net> wrote:
>>
>> >What about that proposal the Democrats gave to Senator Lott for a 1 day
>> >presentation of evidence, 1 day for Clinton than a vote? That isn't dragging it
>> >
>> >out to make the Republicans look bad.
>> >Are you saying that an incumbent is at a disadvantage? Or is it that Gore is
>> >not Presidential material?
>> >There is a lot of vacillation here. Where did your future go?
>>
>> What there is here is you trying to set up straw men.
>>
>> Enjoy that ass kicking.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> >qwerty wrote:
>> >
>> >> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
>> >> |Protect was not a good choice of words, try this.
>> >> |If Gore is so great, why is the Democratic Party shooting it's self in the
>> >> |foot coveting a lying president that was impeached? Where is the future
>> >> |in this?
>> >> |I wasn't aware that the Democrats were annoyed with Gore, also.
>> >> |In that case, you're right. But, where is the future in this?
>> >>
>> >> The future is, the longer this drags out, the worse the Republican will
>> >> look. The worse case scenario for the Democrats is if Gore ends up taking
>> >> over from Clinton. Which means they will be running an incumbent in 2000.
>> >> It's really hard for the Democrats to lose in these proceedings, no matter
>> >> what the outcome. The only feet getting shot here belong to the
>> >> Republicans. At this rate the Republicans will be only able to crawl by
>> >> 2000.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> The opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not reflect those of my
>> >> employer.
>>
M. Kilgore
>the football season almost over, I need a good program to last the rest of
>this winter. Looks like this news group will be around for a few more
>months.
Better get 3 or 4 cases if witnesses are called.
mark
Zepp
<richard...@lst.net> wrote:
>
>Asking, or simply stating "Why Clinton Wins the TV Wars" demonstrates a
>distinct lack of imagination.
>
>Ask instead, "Why did Stalin win all the radio wars in the old Soviet Union
>days?"
>
>Simple. Stalin totally controlled the radio broadcasting system of Russia.
>Nobody ever gave Stalin any competition - period.
>
>Clinton wins all the TV wars because he has a network of folks who, besides
>totally controlling access to the TV system of the USA, happen to think he
>is by far the nicest boy on the block, and who fall all over each other
>making sure that Clinton's excuses, mouthpieces, and state propaganda are on
>their TV system more than 24 hours a day.
>
>Stalin would have really enjoyed the US TV system. Clinton also admired
>Stalin's approach to things.
Yes, if it wasn't for you, we would never have heard of Monica, or
Whitewater, or Filegate, or any of those. The media never said a
WORD, especially about Monica.
The American People
fluctuate in mind or opinion; to be unsteady or inconstant.
Milt wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 04:50:42 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The straw man fell for it, hook line and sinker. Look at the vacillation he came
> >back with.
>
> Vacillation? "Enjoy your ass-kicking" is pretty cut-and-dried. Do you even
> know what "vacillation means? It's not the same as that petroleum jelly you
> use there for your, well, never mind...
> >
> >Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 20:57:55 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> >> aol.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >What about that proposal the Democrats gave to Senator Lott for a 1 day
> >> >presentation of evidence, 1 day for Clinton than a vote? That isn't dragging it
> >> >
> >> >out to make the Republicans look bad.
> >> >Are you saying that an incumbent is at a disadvantage? Or is it that Gore is
> >> >not Presidential material?
> >> >There is a lot of vacillation here. Where did your future go?
> >>
> >> What there is here is you trying to set up straw men.
> >>
> >> Enjoy that ass kicking.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> >qwerty wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
Billy Beck
"Who Cares?" <vene...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Troll...@Orphan.Hooker.gov wrote in message >
>>Your last two accusations will go down unproven and he will kick your
>>lame asses again.
>
>Ouch!!! Ow! Here it comes again!
>
>"That's good. And I'm an alien space baby."
>
>Ow, please stop!
>
>"I'm just not going to comment."
>
>No more!! Please!
>
>"'Hey, at least he didn't have oral sex with the woman"
>
>Mercy! Have mercy!
>
>"He was good to me, he gave me money"
>
>STOP!!!!
>
>"I guarantee you that if you do this you'll never work
>in Democratic politics again!"
"Well it just gets me so hot I could scream!
'I don't think so, don't remember...
Who wrote the memo, or who it's to...'"
(FZ - "What Kind Of Girl Do You Think We Are?")
Billy
VRWC fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
Docky Wocky
"Yes, if it wasn't for you, we would never have heard of Monica, or
Whitewater, or Filegate, or any of those. The media never said a
WORD, especially about Monica..."
_______________________________
Stalin just had a plain, folksy type of way of making even the most closed
minded media zealot see the light and admit he was slightly in error, or
needed some revision.
You just got to admire a guy who, if he was running things today, could even
make Hillary admit she hired Livingstone, cause Bubba to prostrate himself
in front of a Senate chamber full of hooting republicats wailing that he was
a purjurer and an all around stinky guy, and have Algore thinking seriously
about switching to a new occupation - maybe as a UPS driver.
But, of course, all of these examples are meaningless, because Stalin and
Bubba and Booba and Algore were all on the same side. Bubba, Booba, and
Algore would have been following him around his office licking his boots and
moaning for joy whenever they got an occasional kick for rewards.
Don't you just love these open discussions?
qwerty
History To Have Been
|IMPEACHED." That is the only thing that will be remembered about him unless
he Resigns,
|Commits Suicide, Sainted or is Assassinated.
You left out the most probable outcome, that being he is acquited!
Clinton goes down in history as "The Only Twice Elected President In History
To Have Been IMPEACHED by a highly partisan House and subsequently
overwhelmingly acquitted in the Senate. Which resulted in a landslide
victory for the Democratic Party in the 2000 elections and for many years
thereafter."
The American People
Your prediction is like all those made last year by the Democrats about
Clinton, poor judgment. Even before the news break by back as January.
The predictions are falling like dominos in a row.
IF he isn't removed by he Senate, he will be remembered as haven been the
only elected president Impeached. The fact that he was elected twice, the
other people involved and the fact he was not removed will be footnotes to
this fact.
qwerty wrote:
> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
> |Clinton goes down in history as "The Only Twice Elected President In
> History To Have Been
> |IMPEACHED." That is the only thing that will be remembered about him unless
> he Resigns,
> |Commits Suicide, Sainted or is Assassinated.
>
> You left out the most probable outcome, that being he is acquited!
>
> Clinton goes down in history as "The Only Twice Elected President In History
Dan Fahey
Is this guys a nut. Democrats controlling the press..HAHAHAHA Lets see
who is Richard Murdock and Sun Young Moon.? Together they own most of
the news media and demand profits. They control the press and the
conservative slant on the news.
Then there are the countless conservative organizations. How do they
get their money? We need to investigate them.
DF
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
>
> Docky Wocky (richard_wit...@lst.net) wrote:
>
> : Asking, or simply stating "Why Clinton Wins the TV Wars" demonstrates a
> : distinct lack of imagination.
>
> : Ask instead, "Why did Stalin win all the radio wars in the old Soviet Union
> : days?"
>
> : Simple. Stalin totally controlled the radio broadcasting system of Russia.
> : Nobody ever gave Stalin any competition - period.
>
> : Clinton wins all the TV wars because he has a network of folks who, besides
> : totally controlling access to the TV system of the USA, happen to think he
> : is by far the nicest boy on the block, and who fall all over each other
> : making sure that Clinton's excuses, mouthpieces, and state propaganda are on
> : their TV system more than 24 hours a day.
>
> : Stalin would have really enjoyed the US TV system. Clinton also admired
> : Stalin's approach to things.
>
Dan Fahey
HUH?!.. After 6 years of defaming Mr. Clinton and you have the audacity
to comment about someone defending themselves.
How Shallow, How out of it!
Df
The American People wrote:
>
> Don't you Democrats ever do anything except make threats? I heard the
> same shit coming out of the Democrats in Washington today again. Must
> be the pressure again. If it's not going your way, make another threat.
>
> Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:19:18 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> > aol.net> wrote:
> >
> > >If Gore is so great, why is the Democratic Party shooting it's self in the
> > >foot protecting a lying president that was impeached? Where is the future in
> > >this?
> >
> > Did it ever occur to you that the Republicans are the one's pissing in
> > their own nest?
> >
> > You had better hope that Trent Lott manages to pull your right wing
> > chestnuts out of your little impeachment fire.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > >atwood wrote:
> > >
> > >> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message
> > >> <2rCj2.872$fR1...@news.flash.net>...
> > >> >Most Americans could care less about Clinton. Most Americans don't even
> > >> >care that he was Impeached. Most Americans did not even bother to protest
> > >> >the Impeachment. A large percentage of American People do not even now
> > >> >that he was Impeached.
> > >>
> > >> and when the republicans get tossed out of the house and senate in '00 and
> > >> gore gets elected president, the public won't know anything about that,
> > >> either. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!
> >
Jean-Marc Lofficier
Dan Fahey wrote:
>
>
> Then there are the countless conservative organizations. How do they
> get their money? We need to investigate them.
>
Actually there was an interesting report a few weeks ago on 60 MINUTES about shady
Russian characters (with former KGC/now Russian Mafia backgrounds) using
Austrian-based companies to make donation to both Democratic and Republican
organizations.
Also from 60 MINUTES, an eye-opening interview, several months back, with the
founder of the Rutherford Institute, a "right wing" organization who started and
funded Paula Jones lawsuit. Did you know that its founder and current head is/was a
self-confessed card-carrying communist?
I can't help feeling that much of the Anti-Clinton movement has been set up by
forces we know very little about follwing an equally obscure agenda.
JM
Paul E Zukowski
This is true
PEZ
In article <2rCj2.872$fR1...@news.flash.net>, The American People
<"liberty"@ aol.net> wrote:
> Most Americans could care less about Clinton. Most Americans don't even
> care that he was Impeached. Most Americans did not even bother to protest
> the Impeachment. A large percentage of American People do not even now
> that he was Impeached.
>
> Sid wrote:
>
> > He wins because he has a message that is better than the RRR (Radical
> > Religious Right)
> >
> > It's a message that resonates with most Americans.
> >
> > Isabel <a...@nonet.net> wrote in message news:368EDD93...@nonet.net...
> > >Sorry atwood,
> > >You are not as good at lying as Clinton. Your lies don't even made a good
> > pimple
> > >on his ass.
> > >
> > >atwood wrote:
> > >
> > >> Stephen Carpenter wrote in message <368E95...@epix.net>...
> > >> >Clinton refuses to say that he lied, and more and more pundits and
> > >> >people who know him say that, bizarre as it may sound, he really
> > >> >believes he didn't. I think it's true. In one sense, Clinton has
> > >> >never lied. He has the "gift" for self-delusion that all great
> > >> >salesmen possess to some degree: The ability to convince himself utterly
> > >> >and completely that something is absolutely true the moment he says it.
> > >> >He may say something to one person one moment. And then, turn around
> > >> >and say the exact opposite thing to someone else a few minutes later.
> > >> >And in each case, at the moment of transmission, Bill Clinton believes
> > >> >wholeheartedly in what he is saying.
> > >> >
> > >> >Consider how this plays on TV. The viewer sees a man whose words and
> > >> >body language are absolutely in tune. Every fiber of Clinton's
> > >> >being broadcasts total sincerity, because he believes. The subliminal
> > >> >message the viewer gets is that this guy ain't lying.
> > >>
> > >> If you go back and look at Clinton's statements, he was not lying. The
> > >> closest he came was when he wagged his finger at the camera and said he
> > >> never has sexual relations with Monica. But even there, he defined sexual
> > >> relations the way the dictionary does, i.e. sexual intercoure, which in
> > fact
> > >> he never did have with her. So, in the cold light of day the guy *was*
> > >> telling the truth. He'd win a perjury case hands down, even though any
> > >> normal person would snicker a whole lot.
> > >>
> > >> >Those who are old enough will remember when Marshall McLuhan and "The
> > >> >Media is the Message" was all in vogue. McLuhan talked about how TV
> > >> >is a "cool" medium; how strident or strong emotions like anger don't
> > >> >transmit well over the tube. How they tend to unsettle the viewer.
> > >> >
> > >> >Now consider the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee. They
> > >> >appeared before the cameras making statements about how there was
> > >> >nothing personal about their views, how they wanted to be fair to
> > >> >the president, about how the whole matter was entirely about the rule
> > >> >of law. I don't question that they were absolutely sincere in their
> > >> >statements. Their problem is that they absolutely detest Bill Clinton.
> > >> >While they are making calm and reasoned statements, their disdain for
> > >> >the man is positively oozing from their pores. Their words and body
> > >> >language are totally at odds with one another. What is transmitted to
> > >> >the viewer subliminally is alarm. The viewer is suspicious and tends
> > >> >to look upon them unfavorably because their speech and manner contradict
> > >> >one another and instinctively raise hackles.
> > >>
> > >> In fact, when the Republicans say it's not personal, they are the ones
> > who
> > >> are doing the blatant lying. Anyone who watches them on camera can, as
> > you
> > >> say, see the frothing rage. And it's obvious to anyone that the
> > Republicans
> > >> have been throwing every flimsy accusation at Clinton from the moment he
> > got
> > >> into office.
> > >>
> > >> >It is a terrible problem for the republicans. Because most people
> > >> >form their opinions from what they witness on TV, what they see is
> > >> >a depiction of right and wrong as filtered through this electronic
> > >> >medium. And this can be quite a different thing from right and wrong
> > >> >up close and personal.
> > >>
> > >> TV gives pictures and well as words and offers a window on people's
> > >> character. People look at Clinton and they see a lovable rogue, and they
> > >> look at the Republicans and see a bunch of zealots driven by fruitcake
> > wacko
> > >> religious ayatollah nutcases.
> > >
--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.
Paul E Zukowski
> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message
> <2rCj2.872$fR1...@news.flash.net>...
> >Most Americans could care less about Clinton. Most Americans don't even
> >care that he was Impeached. Most Americans did not even bother to protest
> >the Impeachment. A large percentage of American People do not even now
> >that he was Impeached.
> >
> Who are you trying to kid? Most American's didn't know what impeachment was
> and, judging by some of the posts I've read, most still don't.
> -Lisa
Most don't seem to care.
PEZ
Paul E Zukowski
<mkil...@nospam.prysm.net> wrote:
> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
> >We have impeached you best democrat.
>
> And? Get serious, it's not hard to impeach when you've got the numbers
> within you're own party to do so. Don't get too cocky until you remove him
> from office - that's the test.
>
> mark
That show starts in just a few hours
I wonder how they will tell Bill
Will they start with Al is very happy today??
M. Kilgore
Paul E Zukowski wrote in message ...
>In article <76mrsk$1mf$1...@news1-alterdial.uu.net>, "M. Kilgore"
snip
>> And? Get serious, it's not hard to impeach when you've got the numbers
>> within you're own party to do so. Don't get too cocky until you remove
him
>> from office - that's the test.
>>
>> mark
>
>That show starts in just a few hours
>I wonder how they will tell Bill
>Will they start with Al is very happy today??
>PEZ
It's not getting off to a good start, seems like the chief justice has some
scheduling conflicts.
Who Cares?
>
>So why are we bothering to have an trial?
>
>You assholes have declared him guilty in advance.
"Ain't it cool?" - _Broken Arrow_
Chill, Daddy-o. *Everybody* knows
that "the votes aren't there". :)
ding...@erinet.com
>
> And here is another Democratic threat.
Yeah, but one who doesn't read the news; Hyde has had
USSS protection for a few months now.
>
> HyperReal-Anon wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 19:20:51 -0500 pez...@ntplx.net (Paul E Zukowski)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <76n5q9$7...@news.dx.net>, "Bratty" <oldr...@mexia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message
> > >> <2rCj2.872$fR1...@news.flash.net>...
> > >> >Most Americans could care less about Clinton. Most Americans don't even
> > >> >care that he was Impeached. Most Americans did not even bother to protest
> > >> >the Impeachment. A large percentage of American People do not even now
> > >> >that he was Impeached.
> > >> >
> > >> Who are you trying to kid? Most American's didn't know what impeachment was
> > >> and, judging by some of the posts I've read, most still don't.
> > >> -Lisa
> > >
> > >Most don't seem to care.
> >
> > After six months of Henry Hyde trying to prove what parts of Monica's
> > anatomy Bill Clinton touched, and why that is an impeachable offense,
> > they will.
> >
> > Right now 75% of the voters are disgusted with the Grand Old Potty.
> >
> > After a nice long sex trial, they'll hate Republicans.
> >
> > Henry Hyde had better get a bodyguard if he plans to walk the streets
> > of DC.
Dan Fahey
I am watching closely..That is why Trent Lott has been have in meeting
with the President without the ERW permission. He is trying to save
some remaining respect for his party.
The method Mr. Clinton is using is "Called Rope a Dope". It is a real
method of defending yourself and win against a determined attacker.
Mr. Clinton realized he was going to take a bunch of hits. He also knew
he was tough enough to take them. He knew the ERW Republicans did not
have and could not throw a knock out punch. However, they sure looked
good trying.
There is an old book called Sambo that details this method. The
parallels are similar. A tiger was chasing Sambo. Sambo could out-run
the Tiger. The Tiger tried too hard and melted into Butter and then the
family feasted on the fresh butter.
As for losing big in 00. Maybe some loses. The RNC has a very large
coffer of money and have won many of their SLOTS on out-spending their
opponents. Ah BUT YES!, there is going to be some feasting and the smell
of buring money!
Hopefully, we will get a better set of statepeople in for 00, regardless
of party. The next century is going to be great. This century grew and
developed so rapidly. The next one will bring so many new developments.
"Scotty! Scotty! Where are the DiLithium Crystals!"
Dan Fahey
The American People wrote:
>
> Where you been? Haven't you heard? The Republicans are going to loose
> big in '00 if they try to impeach Clinton. The Democrats Party Spokesman
> Flynt is blackmailing the Republicans with sexual scandals if the Republicans
> put Clinton on trial. The Republicans are going to shut down the Government.
> The Stock market is going to crash because of what the Republicans are
> doing. The Economy is going to fails, if the Republicans tie up the Senate in a
> trial. The Republicans are going to........... And on and on. The strongest threats
>
> will start coming from the White House now that they realize that there is
> going to be a trial in the Senate. Keep your eyes open and judge for your
> self.
>
> Dan Fay wrote:
>
> > Democrats making threats?
> >
> > HUH?!.. After 6 years of defaming Mr. Clinton and you have the audacity
> > to comment about someone defending themselves.
> >
> > How Shallow, How out of it!
> >
> > Df
> >
> > The American People wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't you Democrats ever do anything except make threats? I heard the
> > > same shit coming out of the Democrats in Washington today again. Must
> > > be the pressure again. If it's not going your way, make another threat.
> > >
> > > Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:19:18 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> > > > aol.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >If Gore is so great, why is the Democratic Party shooting it's self in the
> > > > >foot protecting a lying president that was impeached? Where is the future in
> > > > >this?
> > > >
> > > > Did it ever occur to you that the Republicans are the one's pissing in
> > > > their own nest?
> > > >
> > > > You had better hope that Trent Lott manages to pull your right wing
> > > > chestnuts out of your little impeachment fire.
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > > >atwood wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message
> > > > >> <2rCj2.872$fR1...@news.flash.net>...
> > > > >> >Most Americans could care less about Clinton. Most Americans don't even
> > > > >> >care that he was Impeached. Most Americans did not even bother to protest
> > > > >> >the Impeachment. A large percentage of American People do not even now
> > > > >> >that he was Impeached.
> > > > >>
Dan Fahey
has been more and more political support of candidates abroad. If it is
not in the way of CIA funding or wasr interdiction ist has been with
direct payments.
I heard there was a direct connection between Netenyaho of Israel and
the Republican party. Whereby many other countries were removing
conservative leadership, such as South Africa and England, Israel
assassinated a great leader an replaced him with a Conservative.
It is interesting to see how conservative leadership leads to economic
and social depression such as Louisianna and Mississippi, Most of the
South American countries, Asia, many of the African and Arab countries.
At the same time, these committed Ultra-conservatives will screem that
anything that is progressive is considered Liberal.
DF
The American People
The American People
Clinton's trial is what will keep it going. I guess you can't figure which news
group I'm posting from, It's alt.impeach.clinton. I'll 1/2 forgive you for that.
The half you have wrong is, I am not loon.
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 08:44:00 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> aol.net> wrote:
>
> >No, I haven't given up I need to go get more microwave popcorn. With
> >the football season almost over, I need a good program to last the rest of
> >this winter. Looks like this news group will be around for a few more
> >months.
>
> These newsgroup doen't depend on your presence to continue, loon.
>
> Jim
>
> >"M. Kilgore" wrote:
> >
> >> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
> >> >Clinton goes down in history as "The Only Twice Elected President In
> >> History To Have Been
> >> >IMPEACHED." That is the only thing that will be remembered about him unless
> >> he Resigns,
> >> >Commits Suicide, Sainted or is Assassinated.
> >>
> >> I see that you've and a few others have already given up on the trial. Wise
> >> move. Still, I think you'll find that there will be a price associated with
> >> putting the impeached tag next to Bill's name, both in the short and long
> >> terms. Since you guys weren't able to take Clinton out when he was down, his
> >> stature is slowly, but surely, rebuilding itself.
> >>
> >> mark
> >>
> >> "That was last episode, Rock - this is this one" - Bullwinkle Moose.
>
The American People
in advance.
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 07:49:55 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> aol.net> wrote:
>
> >Clinton goes down in history as "The Only Twice Elected President In History To Have Been
> >IMPEACHED." That is the only thing that will be remembered about him unless he Resigns,
> >Commits Suicide, Sainted or is Assassinated.
>
> So why are we bothering to have an trial?
>
> You assholes have declared him guilty in advance.
>
> Jim
The American People
HyperReal-Anon wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 19:20:51 -0500 pez...@ntplx.net (Paul E Zukowski)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <76n5q9$7...@news.dx.net>, "Bratty" <oldr...@mexia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message
> >> <2rCj2.872$fR1...@news.flash.net>...
> >> >Most Americans could care less about Clinton. Most Americans don't even
> >> >care that he was Impeached. Most Americans did not even bother to protest
> >> >the Impeachment. A large percentage of American People do not even now
> >> >that he was Impeached.
> >> >
The American People
called me on anything.
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 04:50:42 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> aol.net> wrote:
>
> >The straw man fell for it, hook line and sinker. Look at the vacillation he came
> >back with.
>
> What are you babbling about. I called you on your BS.
>
> Do you even read these before you post a reply?
>
> Jim
>
> >Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 20:57:55 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> >> aol.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >What about that proposal the Democrats gave to Senator Lott for a 1 day
> >> >presentation of evidence, 1 day for Clinton than a vote? That isn't dragging it
> >> >
> >> >out to make the Republicans look bad.
> >> >Are you saying that an incumbent is at a disadvantage? Or is it that Gore is
> >> >not Presidential material?
> >> >There is a lot of vacillation here. Where did your future go?
> >>
> >> What there is here is you trying to set up straw men.
> >>
> >> Enjoy that ass kicking.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> >qwerty wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The American People <"liberty"@ aol.net> > wrote in message ...
> >> >> |Protect was not a good choice of words, try this.
> >> >> |If Gore is so great, why is the Democratic Party shooting it's self in the
> >> >> |foot coveting a lying president that was impeached? Where is the future
> >> >> |in this?
> >> >> |I wasn't aware that the Democrats were annoyed with Gore, also.
> >> >> |In that case, you're right. But, where is the future in this?
> >> >>
> >> >> The future is, the longer this drags out, the worse the Republican will
> >> >> look. The worse case scenario for the Democrats is if Gore ends up taking
> >> >> over from Clinton. Which means they will be running an incumbent in 2000.
> >> >> It's really hard for the Democrats to lose in these proceedings, no matter
> >> >> what the outcome. The only feet getting shot here belong to the
> >> >> Republicans. At this rate the Republicans will be only able to crawl by
> >> >> 2000.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> The opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not reflect those of my
> >> >> employer.
> >>
The American People
Lott manages to pull your right wing chestnuts out of your little impeachment
If you look at post that I have responded to today, in alt.impeach.clinton, you
will see several that I have said " another Democratic threat". You should come
over, here is where the action is.
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 05:03:33 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> aol.net> wrote:
>
> >Don't you Democrats ever do anything except make threats?
>
> Where was there a threat in my post?
>
> > I heard the same shit coming out of the Democrats in Washington today again.
>
> They aren't threatening you, loon. They are warning you that you are
> about to do yourself great political harm.
>
> > Must be the pressure again. If it's not going your way, make another threat.
>
> Show us the first one.
>
> Jim
>
> >Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:19:18 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> >> aol.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If Gore is so great, why is the Democratic Party shooting it's self in the
> >> >foot protecting a lying president that was impeached? Where is the future in
> >> >this?
> >>
> >> Did it ever occur to you that the Republicans are the one's pissing in
> >> their own nest?
> >>
> >> You had better hope that Trent Lott manages to pull your right wing
> >> chestnuts out of your little impeachment fire.
>
Jean-Marc Lofficier
Dan Fahey wrote:
> WOW...some information. You know it seems that internationally thier
> has been more and more political support of candidates abroad. If it is
> not in the way of CIA funding or wasr interdiction ist has been with
> direct payments.
>
Yeah. If t wasn't for 60 MINUTES, none of this would be known to the public at large.
(And judging from what I read here, many people don't even watch 60 MINUTES.)
Personally, I find it equally disturbing to see "dirty" foreign money being channelled
into Democratic OR Republican coffers. If nothing else, it exposes politicians to future
blackmail.
Almost nobody discusses the Clinton Scandal taking into account the existence of the
Rutherford Institute who started & funded the Paula Jones lawsuit, and the few bits of
information that have come out about Rutherford have been extremely disturbing.
JM
Donny Balasco
has to due with the fact that most Conservative Far Right Republicans
look like they either belong on the FBI's ten most wanted list or they
look like they just escaped from some Nervous Hospital .
Sincerely
DB
Donny Balasco
Scott Erb
>The people support the GOP.
Sure Markie, you just keep repeating that, over and over...maybe add how
the polls all bias the Democrats (you can forget the November election and
how the polls *underestimated* Democratic strength if try hard enough).
Stay out of touch with reality, it amuses us.
qwerty
|Dimwitted Dan Fahey (danf...@dansources.com) wrote:
|>
|>As for losing big in 00. Maybe some loses. The RNC has a very large
|>coffer of money and have won many of their SLOTS on out-spending their
|>opponents. Ah BUT YES!, there is going to be some feasting and the smell
|>of buring money!
|
Yea, right. What data do you have to back up this claim. That you managed
to barely hang onto you majority in Congress after expecting really big
gains. That is perhaps the smallest majority in U.S. history?
|Clinton is an international laughingstock. He has destroyed what
|tiny shreds of credibility the Demmies had left.
Well, Clinton got a standing ovation in U.N. a few weeks ago. I didn't hear
anyone laughing.
|>Hopefully, we will get a better set of statepeople in for 00, regardless
|>of party. The next century is going to be great. This century grew and
|>developed so rapidly. The next one will bring so many new developments.
|
|Yes, now that more and more people are turning away from socialism and
|toward libertarianism, we can expect to see great improvements in
|the next century.
Uh, the next century is the 21st, not the 19th.
Dan Fahey
>
> The Brilliant and most Wonderful Dan Fahey
(danf...@dansources.com) wrote:
> >
> >As for losing big in 00. Maybe some loses. The RNC has a very large
> >coffer of money and have won many of their SLOTS on out-spending their
> >opponents. Ah BUT YES!, there is going to be some feasting and the smell
> >of buring money!
>
> The people support the GOP. They scoff at the crooked Democraps.
> tiny shreds of credibility the Demmies had left.
So do I..support the GOP and also the DNC...but not ERW and or Christian
Right GOP. I do not know where you get your information about Mr.
Clintons international sucess but he has been outstanding. So you are
showing your stupidity again.
> >Hopefully, we will get a better set of statepeople in for 00, regardless
> >of party. The next century is going to be great. This century grew and
> >developed so rapidly. The next one will bring so many new developments.
>
> Yes, now that more and more people are turning away from socialism and
> toward libertarianism, we can expect to see great improvements in
> the next century.
This is interesting that you are using big words you do not understand.
You have absolutely no concept and many of the other posters have told
you the same thing.
I would love to play you in Poker...your such a PUTZ..!
> --
> "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had
> an affair with her." --Bill Clinton, sworn deposition, 17 January 1998
>
> "I think it's plain that the president should resign and spare the country
> the agony of this impeachment and removal proceeding...I think the
> country could be spared a lot of agony and the government could worry
> about inflation and a lot of other problems if he'd go on and resign."
> --Bill Clinton, Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives,
> 3rd District, Arkansas Arkansas Gazette, 8 August 1974
There you go again misquoting the facts to fit your argument...
Dan Fahey
Dan Fahey
>
> Jim "Racist as they come" Kennemur aka Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> >On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 20:57:55 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
> >aol.net> wrote:
> >
> >>What about that proposal the Democrats gave to Senator Lott for a 1 day
> >>presentation of evidence, 1 day for Clinton than a vote? That isn't dragging it
> >>
> >>out to make the Republicans look bad.
> >>Are you saying that an incumbent is at a disadvantage? Or is it that Gore is
> >>not Presidential material?
> >>There is a lot of vacillation here. Where did your future go?
> >
>
> Any time Bubba Clinton gets his ass kicked (which is most of the time,
> these days) I enjoy it!
That is not his ass that is getting kicked in all the time.. It is
yours..and it is so amazing it is your won foot.
Ohh wow..wait a minute..Its your foot. It starts from you mouth.. your
leg..wow.. The Shoe is coming out of your ass.!!!!
HaHAHAHAHAHahahahah
The Great and Wonderful Dan Fahey
Scott Erb
says...
>>Oh, wow. Liberal threats. But what else is new? The word came
>>down from the slickster to Alec Baldwin to the sheeple that Hyde
>>should fear for his life. So they continue the attack their whoremaster
>>wants.
>
>Whoremaster?
>
>Are you threatening Henry now?
>
>Or were you threatening Bob Barr?
>
>Or maybe Dan Burton?
>
>Helen Chenoweth perhaps?
>
>That GOP whoremaster list is getting long.
>
>And there will be a few more names to add in the near future.
>
> Jim
>Ecrasons l'infame
Don't say "master" too loud in the presence of Bob Livingston. He might
get the wrong idea.
Bratty
on the "Popular Election" from a historical view. (1960-1992)
{Note: Voting age population percentages= the percentage of legal voting age
Americans who actually went out and voted in the election.}
• 1960 John Kennedy- with 31.2% of voting age population voting-got 49.7% of
those votes.
• 1964 Lyndon Johnson-with 37.8% of voting age population voting-got 61.1%
of those votes. (This election had the highest voter turn-out *ever* and
this candidate had the highest percentage of votes from the voting age
population that voted-*ever*.)
• 1968 Richard Nixon-with 26.4% of the voting age population voting-got
43.4% of those votes.
• 1972 Richard Nixon-with 33.7% of the voting age population voting-got
60.7% of those votes.
• 1976 Jimmy Carter-with 27.2% of the voting population voting-got 50.1% of
those votes.
• 1980 Ronald Reagan-with 26.7% of the voting age population voting-got
51.0% of those votes.
• 1984 Ronald Reagan-with 32.0% of the voting age population voting-got
58.7% of those votes.
• 1988 George Bush-with 26.7% of the voting age population voting-got 53.4%
of those votes.
• 1992 Bill Clinton-with 23.1% of the voting age population voting-got 43.0%
of those votes.
The porportion of the voting age population has increased over time with the
Fifteenth Amendment in 1987 which eliminated the race barrier for black
males, the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920 which enfranchised women, the
Twenty-fourth Amendment which abolished the poll tax in federal elections
and, the Twenty-sixth Amendment which lowered the legal voting age to 18.
Even with the increases in the voting age population, no federal election
has ever drawn out more than 40% of the Americans old enough to legally cast
a ballot.
Volt, you were right, this is theater....off-off-off-off Broadway! Too bad
we can't use stage-hooks, huh?
-Lisa
some where
wrote:
>
>some where wrote in message <76skk0$j...@news.voyager.net>...
>>On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 01:18:07 -0600, "M. Kilgore" <mkil...@nospam.prysm.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>some where wrote in message <76n49p$h...@news.voyager.net>...
>>>
>>>SNIP
>>>
>>>>Makes sense, in a warped kinda way.
>>>>
>>>>After all, most Americans never voted for him.
>>>>
>>>>Not even "most Americans" that voted!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I've gotta admit it, of all the conservative rhetoric I've heard since
>>>Clinton's been in office, the argument that Clinton got elected because
>most
>>>Americans didn't vote is the most fascinating. What does this really mean,
>>>do you think? Did Dole & Bush lose because not enough Americans voted, or
>>>did they lose because too many Americans did vote?
>>
>>Ask Perot.
>>
>>Clinton never received a majority of the votes of THOSE THAT VOTED.
>>
>>You may not like that fact.
>>
>>Tough break.
>
>
>What's not to like? Clinton did win a majority of the votes that are used to
>put presidents in office. I'm happy, aren't you?
Shit you're dense.
The majority of voters did *not* vote for him. He got something like 43% the
first Reign, and about 49% the second.
A *plurality*, NOT a "majority".
It's not rocket science. Hell, it's hardly even *statistics*.
Am I happy?
Yup. I'm about to watch the Senate prove that the Peter Principle is not
entirely inviolable.
some where
wrote:
>some where (som...@flubnutz.org) wrote:
>: On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 01:18:07 -0600, "M. Kilgore" <mkil...@nospam.prysm.net>
>: wrote:
>
>: >
>: >some where wrote in message <76n49p$h...@news.voyager.net>...
>: >
>: >SNIP
>: >
>: >>Makes sense, in a warped kinda way.
>: >>
>: >>After all, most Americans never voted for him.
>: >>
>: >>Not even "most Americans" that voted!
>: >>
>: >
>: >
>: >I've gotta admit it, of all the conservative rhetoric I've heard since
>: >Clinton's been in office, the argument that Clinton got elected because most
>: >Americans didn't vote is the most fascinating. What does this really mean,
>: >do you think? Did Dole & Bush lose because not enough Americans voted, or
>: >did they lose because too many Americans did vote?
>
>: Ask Perot.
>
>: Clinton never received a majority of the votes of THOSE THAT VOTED.
>
>: You may not like that fact.
>
>: Tough break.
>
>Clinton has WON office twice.
>
>You may not like that fact.
>
>Tough break.
Chew harder.
I'll settle for one conviction to make matters right.
Enjoy!
The American People
Five card?
Karen Horn
: Right now 75% of the voters are disgusted with the Grand Old Potty.
:
: After a nice long sex trial, they'll hate Republicans.
:
: Henry Hyde had better get a bodyguard if he plans to walk the streets
: of DC.
:
:
down from the slickster to Alec Baldwin to the sheeple that Hyde
should fear for his life. So they continue the attack their whoremaster
wants.
Karen
Karen Horn
:
: And there will be a few more names to add in the near future.
:
: Jim
Squirm all you want Jim with the phony French bullshit. Your
whoremaster in the Whore House will be soon on Capitol Hill singing
has hiney off how "alone" wasn't "along" and "is" isn't "is." And
you jackasses will have fun defending him.
Karen
Arne Langsetmo
writes:
>
[snip]
>Shit you're dense.
>
>The majority of voters did *not* vote for him. He got something like
>43% the first Reign, and about 49% the second.
>
>A *plurality*, NOT a "majority".
Enough to elect him. A fact that seems to irk you. TS, matey. . . .
>It's not rocket science. Hell, it's hardly even *statistics*.
>
>Am I happy?
And stupid, too, apparently. Are you also overweight?
>Yup. I'm about to watch the Senate prove that the Peter Principle is
>not entirely inviolable.
Quite true. Try not to get too disappointed when they demonstrate it.
The Republicans, however, seem to mesh quite nicely with Peter's
theories.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Arne Langsetmo
aol.net> writes:
>
>I must be out of the loop. What are the Mr. Clintons international
>sucesses? Five card?
Ever thought about reading a newspaper? Or maybe even travelling
abroad?
[snip]
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Mark Gibson
Distribution:
X-no-archive: yes
Lines: 43
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
Demented Dan Fahey (danf...@dansources.com) wrote:
>Mark Gibson wrote:
>>
>> Jim "Racist as they come" Kennemur aka Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>> >On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 20:57:55 GMT, The American People <"liberty"@
>> >aol.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>What about that proposal the Democrats gave to Senator Lott for a 1 day
>> >>presentation of evidence, 1 day for Clinton than a vote? That isn't dragging it
>> >>
>> >>out to make the Republicans look bad.
>> >>Are you saying that an incumbent is at a disadvantage? Or is it that Gore is
>> >>not Presidential material?
>> >>There is a lot of vacillation here. Where did your future go?
>> >
>> >Enjoy that ass kicking.
>>
>> Any time Bubba Clinton gets his ass kicked (which is most of the time,
>> these days) I enjoy it!
>
>That is not his ass that is getting kicked in all the time.. It is
>yours..and it is so amazing it is your won foot.
Clinton got his ass kicked when he was impeached. He got his ass kicked
again when the Senate decided to hold a full trial against the wishes
of the corrupt Democrats who support Crook Clinton.
Remember, bad news for Crook Clinton is good news for America!
>The Great and Wonderful Dan Fahey
You are delusional, Fahey. But we've known that for a long time...
Phil Weingart
Jean-Marc Lofficier <jean...@starwatcher.org> wrote:
> Almost nobody discusses the Clinton Scandal taking into account the existence of the
> Rutherford Institute who started & funded the Paula Jones lawsuit, and the few bits of
> information that have come out about Rutherford have been extremely disturbing.
You should do some homework, then. Rutherford is one of the more
original and independent organizations on the right, and there's
nothing in the least ominous about them. It's mostly the work of
an attorney named John Whitehead, who's written a few books about
Constitutional law and philosophy. He's actually very poorly funded.
--
Phil Weingart | "Of course. I have lunch with arms dealers
pwei...@dazel.com | all the time. Don't you?"
| Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, when asked
| whether the campaign finance activities
| of the White House weren't just "politics
| as usual."
The American People
I was in Europe the day after the Starr report was on the news stand.
I took a copy with me to read.
I will be back in Europe next month.
However, this has nothing to do with Clinton's international successes.
I am sure that, if he had any, you or Don Fahey could tell me what they
were.
Jean-Marc Lofficier
Phil Weingart wrote:
> In article <3694F099...@starwatcher.org>
> Jean-Marc Lofficier <jean...@starwatcher.org> wrote:
>
> > Almost nobody discusses the Clinton Scandal taking into account the existence of the
> > Rutherford Institute who started & funded the Paula Jones lawsuit, and the few bits of
> > information that have come out about Rutherford have been extremely disturbing.
>
> You should do some homework, then. Rutherford is one of the more
> original and independent organizations on the right, and there's
> nothing in the least ominous about them. It's mostly the work of
> an attorney named John Whitehead, who's written a few books about
> Constitutional law and philosophy. He's actually very poorly funded.
>
You're so wrong.
On 60 MINUTES, John Whitehead revealed himself to have been a card-carrying communist (I
mean Marxist-Leninist) in the early 80s, publishing a communist newspper and organizing
communist demontrations. I'm not the one who made it up, he admitted it himself when
confronted with tangible evience of his past deeds.
Second, Whitehead admitted they'd spent around $100 million in the funding of the Paula
Jones lawsuit but refused to reveal the provenance of the funds, except for "donations"
(which can mean anything).
I don't know about you, but I don't ike the idea of an allegedly reformed communist spending
an untraced $100 million to destabilize the politics of my country. If you believe that
Whitehead is what he pretends to be, then you should believe Clinton, ah, ah.
JM
Arne Langsetmo
aol.net> writes:
>
>I read a newspaper every day.
>I was in Europe the day after the Starr report was on the news stand.
>I took a copy with me to read.
>I will be back in Europe next month.
Then surely you will understand that abroad, many people think
highly of both Clinton and the United States, and that they are
dumbfounded at the antics of the Republlicans in this matter.
Or perhaps you read, but you do not comprehend. Or you choose to
hear what you _want_ to hear.
>However, this has nothing to do with Clinton's international
>successes.
>I am sure that, if he had any, you or Don Fahey could tell me
>what they were.
Try Bosnia, Haiti, Northern Ireland, etc. He is well-respected by
many foreign leaders, even if they do not always agree on his
acts and tactics.
>Arne Langsetmo wrote:
>
>> In <H2cl2.777$rM1....@news.flash.net> The American People
<"liberty"@
>> aol.net> writes:
>> >
>> >I must be out of the loop. What are the Mr. Clintons international
>> >sucesses? Five card?
>>
>> Ever thought about reading a newspaper? Or maybe even travelling
>> abroad?
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Field Marshal D.J.
Arne Langsetmo wrote:
-snip-
>Then surely you will understand that abroad, many people think
>highly of both Clinton and the United States, and that they are
>dumbfounded at the antics of the Republlicans in this matter.
Frankly, we don't really give a SHIT what other countries think
about us, thank you !
-snip more silly nonsense-
>Try Bosnia, Haiti, Northern Ireland, etc. He is well-respected by
>many foreign leaders, even if they do not always agree on his
>acts and tactics.
You mean a coterie of communists, crooks, & mentally deficient
morons ? Well, I guess they would love Butthead Bill...
Please, pal. You're killing me...
Have a nice day !
Peace & Love,
D.J.
The American People
Let's try Bosnia. Which Christmas was he referring to when he said the
troops would be home?
His efforts in Haiti, what was it?
Northern Ireland, oh yes, he got the Nobel Peach Prize for that one.
I notice you didn't include Iraq.
Foreign Leaders respect the Office of the President of the United States,
But not Clinton.
Or, I should say they did before.
Arena Langsetmo wrote:
> In <0spl2.126$sI4...@news.flash.net> The American People <"liberty"@
> aol.net> writes:
> >
> >I read a newspaper every day.
> >I was in Europe the day after the Starr report was on the news stand.
> >I took a copy with me to read.
> >I will be back in Europe next month.
>
> Then surely you will understand that abroad, many people think
> highly of both Clinton and the United States, and that they are
> dumbfounded at the antics of the Republlicans in this matter.
>
> Or perhaps you read, but you do not comprehend. Or you choose to
> hear what you _want_ to hear.
>
> >However, this has nothing to do with Clinton's international
> >successes.
> >I am sure that, if he had any, you or Don Fahey could tell me
> >what they were.
>
> Try Bosnia, Haiti, Northern Ireland, etc. He is well-respected by
> many foreign leaders, even if they do not always agree on his
> acts and tactics.
>