Tony's visit to the USA
abelard
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:27:46 -0500, Bill Willis
>> <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>>
>> > BTW, What do you think Bill & Hill's pardon problems?
>>
>> wry grin....
>
>Aw shucks. I was hoping to get more out of you than that. ;-) How the
>mighty have fallen... Is he still your hero? {wry grin}
at least your question gets more specific!
1)my view of him as a politician is not even slightly modified.....
2)sad to see poor boy snatching the light fittings...if he did....
3)your system requires vast quantities of slush funds...
as if blush is not at the same game....
4)your damned populist politics demands that the mob is
appeased to the extent of locking up around 2 million
and ritual killing of adults.....
any pol who openly opposes the mob will
1) be attacked by the opposition...
2)likely be voted down by the ignorant unwashed
to whom idiots have given votes.....
the alternative is to allow politicians of extreme corruption
such as national socialists into power....
thus seeking political office has become a matter of choosing
the least evil....
if you block the state murder....far more killing is a very high
likelihood...if you don't protect your income flow..you may
as well not bother...
it is simple *fact* there is no informed and sane person who backs
state murder...but your leaders dare not say it....
such is some of the evil at the heart of the american polity....
a delicate conscience is a luxury no american leader can
indulge....
yes...i still regard clinton as one of the great leaders of the
20th century....
that he is human...or even has balls...is better than some
fundamentalist moron in hock to big oil or tobacco.....
that it gives fundamentalists a frisson that evokes an
unconscious guilt repressive response every time they
think of clinton's trousers may be disgusting....
but it is quite understandable....
that he has freed up america just a little by standing his ground
against the keyhole ken attempted coup has doubtless
moved the country forward somewhat from repressive
puritanical superstition.....
that another pseudo legal has been temporarily successful
is to be regretted....and would not have happened it the democrats
had not behaved with such craven cowardice once the great
man was no longer available....
disgusting though i regard the current spectacle....
it looks like blush may well do a better job than gore could have been
expected to achieve...
if he does not....then i expect gephart in the whitehouse in 4 years..
perhaps that is 'getting more out of me'....
you see...you only have to ask instead of fish....
i never never take bait...unless it profits me....
>> i do not believe in the lines on maps...or the moats in the
>> day of the rochet launched spear.....
>
>I suppose philosophically I agree with you but the reality is that there
>are lines on maps and the lines mean something and nations are highly
>competitive. Given that reality I want to make sure that my country's
>interests are well provided for.
that is very reasonable....as long as those interests are carefully
informed and long term....
which implies that isolationism is a dangerous fools notion..
>> i regard the interests of the us and the uk as indissoluble.....
>
>Not entirely but largely this is so.
enuf of an agreement at this time afaiac...
>> i regard russia as *far* more powerful that is commonly realised.....
>> it has an educated modern population and *vast* resources....
>> that they have been held back for most of a century by socialism
>> is an accident of history that i expect to see rapidly change...
>
>I agree that Russia has huge potential. I disagree that Russia lagging
>the rest of Europe into liberal democracy is solely due to its detour
>into socialism.
your own country was lawless and ruled by robber barons
a century ago.....some think it has come less far than others....
hubris is not wisdom for modern america....
> Russia has has a very illiberal history stretching
>back centuries.
so have all countries...
> The population of Russia is at heart authoritarian and
>this has nothing to do with socialism.
you could well say worse of germany....yet it is modernising....
it is the leadership that matters... russia is not peopled with fools.
several entities are capable of competing strongly with america
in rather short order....russia is in by far the best position.....
you have the power now....you have been a beacon for freedom...
to fritter that initiative would be both foolhardy and sad.....
at the moment...the planet depends greatly upon what you do...
and at times you are just a giant immature child....
you must negotiate with russia and soon.....go out into the world
and act....you will get far more that way....
russia is your greatest opportunity and your great potential ally....
> I am highly skeptical that there
>will be any rapid change in this respect. I hope I am wrong and you are
>right. Until Russia shows strong signs of change I hope it is not
>granted admission to NATO or for that matter membereship in the EU. I
>do not mean that I believe Russia ought to be isolated. Certainly not.
you *must* negotiate....russia is not your inferior....russia is your
greatest opportunity....
europe is still a mass of fractious states with far too many damned
socialists....europe should feel the thunder of american power....
that is far more likely to stop them bickering in their little ponds..
britain is your sworn friend....soon europe will speak english.....
that will change much.....
>> imv *all* advanced liberal democracies have far more common
>> interest in the modern situation than they have rivalry.....
>
>For sure, but Russia is far from an "advanced liberal democracy" and is
>not showing the slightest signs of moving in that direction.
russia can't move much faster than america did.....it has to
consolidate....to reorganise....
socialism is a terrible and poisonous disease....it depletes
initiative and despoils nations...that poison still infects much
of europe....
it is quite wrong to consider the current uk to be a free nation.....
there is much nuance i would put in this post...but it would
be too tiresome to hedge it with qualifications
>> it is up to the population (especially the elite) to reach out and
>> assist one another by every means available....
>> the alternative is a return to feudalism....combined with megadeath...
>>
>Uhm... OK, but what does this have to do with Russia joining NATO? BTW
>what do you see as the mission of NATO both within the alliance and vis
>a vis the rest of the world?
a giant military machine that should put the fear of god into any
who consider for a second to challenge it....
some groups added...
regards.
--
web site at www.abelard.org - new, docs on godel also inflation,
logic, ethics and much more...~1/3 million doc. requests yearly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Morrison
<abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
> a giant military machine that should put the fear of god into any
> who consider for a second to challenge it....
Fear of nothing, |*as all would be lost already* - for these fascist NATzO
<spit> pollygarchic bastards cannot kill the already dead.
Not "challenge"... it's no game - however long it might take, *destroy*.
abelard
Morrison) typed:
>In article <he4r9toagpudra0to...@4ax.com>, abelard
><abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>> a giant military machine that should put the fear of god into any
>> who consider for a second to challenge it....
>
>Fear of nothing, |*as all would be lost already* - for these fascist NATzO
><spit>
sounds more like splutter....
> pollygarchic bastards cannot kill the already dead.
>Not "challenge"... it's no game - however long it might take, *destroy*
with snowballs?
what is the 'it' to be 'destroyed'?
Cliff Morrison
<abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
> what is the 'it' to be 'destroyed'?
Their system. Them.
John Shafto
> abelard wrote:
>
> > what is the 'it' to be 'destroyed'?
>
> Their system. Them.
Do you mean humans?
You are referring to the system of free trade (capitalism)
between humans, correct?
--
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must
become happy." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1802
Cliff Morrison
<jo...@BOOGEYCHILLINshafto.org> wrote:
> "Cliff Morrison" wrote
> > abelard wrote:
> >
> > > what is the 'it' to be 'destroyed'?
> >
> > Their system. Them.
>
> Do you mean humans?
One sometimes does wonder...
adding-machines with biological components and distorted totals?
> You are referring to the system of free trade (capitalism)
> between humans, correct?
Crony capitalism and its system of debt-bondage; the forced (the use of
"free" in such context being a pretty sick joke) trade (descended from the
earlier form of merchantile gunboat imperialism) and compliance with WTO,
IMF and WB dogma.
Likewise the socio-economic regime their system imposes.
Bill Willis
abelard wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:04:47 -0500, Bill Willis
> <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
> >> > BTW, What do you think Bill & Hill's pardon problems?
> >>
> >> wry grin....
> >
> >Aw shucks. I was hoping to get more out of you than that. ;-) How the
> >mighty have fallen... Is he still your hero? {wry grin}
>
> at least your question gets more specific!
I think my original question was quite specific. I hadn't corresponded with you in
some time since the pardon controversy and was wondering what you made of it. You
have asnswered me extensively below but you really haven't said very much at all
regarding his use of his pardon powers. Maybe you got up on the wrong side of the bed
yesterday or maybe I annoy you because I am unable to excuse away and rationalize
everything your hero does.
> 1)my view of him as a politician is not even slightly modified.....
Really as a politician, especially a relatively young ex president with many years
ahead for who know what, especially a politician with a wife who is just beginning a
potentially golden political career, I think his activity regarding the pardons shows
recklessness beyond belief quite aside from the disgusting aspect of selling his
services to the highest bidders. Then again maybe you never thought much of him as a
politician in the first place. ;-) The columnist Andrew Sullivan has suggested that
there might be method to his madness and Clinton was actually out to sabotage his
wifes new career. At least Hill has gotten a 9 million dollar advance for her
upcoming book. I hope the check wasn't in both their names.
> 2)sad to see poor boy snatching the light fittings...if he did....
> Indeed. And he did and the WhiteHouse usher told him not to but he (and Hill) did
> anyway. Some of the stuff has been returned. It appears you can take the hillbilly
> out of the hills but you can't take the hills out of the hillbilly.
> 3)your system requires vast quantities of slush funds...
> as if blush is not at the same game....
>
LOL, Like new furntiture for their NY and Washington homes? Say what you want about
the Bush's but I think they at least buy their own personal furnishings.
> 4)your damned populist politics demands that the mob is
> appeased to the extent of locking up around 2 million
> and ritual killing of adults.....
> any pol who openly opposes the mob will
> 1) be attacked by the opposition...
> 2)likely be voted down by the ignorant unwashed
> to whom idiots have given votes.....
>
You are grouchy this evening. Whats up abelard - have a rough day.
Seriously it is very hard to know what to make of your views on the USA. On the one
hand you praise its openness and democracy (although you think we have too much). You
envy our freedoms etc. and then you complain bitterly of US populism. You moan about
British passivity, anti-democratic government, increasing lack of personal freedom
etc. ISTM you want us to become like you and you to become like us.
Certainly Bill Clinton never attempted to lead the nation away from high level of
imprisonment or the death penalty. Say what you might , but it is the responsibility
of leaders to lead. Bill Clinton did lead but at least in these instances he did not
lead in the direction you would have liked. He certainly could of but he chose not
to. Instead he chose to give highly unpopular pardons to wealthy tax dodgers and drug
lords and snake oil salesman.
> the alternative is to allow politicians of extreme corruption
> such as national socialists into power....
>
Don't be silly.
> thus seeking political office has become a matter of choosing
> the least evil....
Where do they choose there leaders better?
> if you block the state murder....far more killing is a very high
> likelihood...if you don't protect your income flow..you may
> as well not bother...
> it is simple *fact* there is no informed and sane person who backs
> state murder...but your leaders dare not say it....
>
You must have studied at the knee of Alistair Campbell. You can put a spin on things
with the best of them. ;-) The above is the essence of rationalizing and apologizing
for Bill Clinton.
> such is some of the evil at the heart of the american polity....
>
Oh grumpy gus.
> a delicate conscience is a luxury no american leader can
> indulge....
What countries do allow their leaders delicate consciences and what is their status in
the world compared with the US?
> yes...i still regard clinton as one of the great leaders of the
> 20th century....
Not even close. At best he was fair to middlin on some issues at worst on issues
regarding character and personal integrity he was without doubt near the bottom.
> that he is human...or even has balls...is better than some
> fundamentalist moron in hock to big oil or tobacco.....
> that it gives fundamentalists a frisson that evokes an
> unconscious guilt repressive response every time they
> think of clinton's trousers may be disgusting....
> but it is quite understandable....
You haven't a clue as to what is objectionable in Clinton. His inability to keep his
trousers up isn't the issue in the slightest. There are many more serious very
credible allegations that have been made against this guy than mere philandering.
Among them is rape and there are many more. Most importantly, he can't be trusted.
He is a pathological liar and it goes quite beyond the usual fibs of politicians..
>
>
> that he has freed up america just a little by standing his ground
> against the keyhole ken attempted coup has doubtless
> moved the country forward somewhat from repressive
> puritanical superstition.....
He hasn't done anything of the sort. Starr made a case that stuck. He is the 2nd
president in history to be impeached. He has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in
fines , the nation has paid millions in defending him, he is barred from practicing
law. If this is standing his ground and making a point then I guess the point is that
no evil deed will remain unpunished.. If the nation happened to be in economic hard
times during his term, I suspect he might have been hung from the flag pole on Capitol
Hill.
> that another pseudo legal has been temporarily successful
> is to be regretted....and would not have happened it the democrats
> had not behaved with such craven cowardice once the great
> man was no longer available....
LOL, Clinton has hurt the Democratic party quite enough thank you very much. While
the country did credit Clinton with economic good times and he was very popular with
minority populations, I think the mood of the country today can fairly be said to wish
he would just go away. Take a trip to Tahiti or somewhere. We are sick of hearing
about him, sick of watching him grab the limelight at every possibility. In short the
nation is sick and tired of Bill Clinton. We need a rest, Write him a letter maybe
he will visit you on your yak ranch in Mongolia. But count the silver before he
arrives.
>
>
> disgusting though i regard the current spectacle....
> it looks like blush may well do a better job than gore could have been
> expected to achieve...
I don't like the Bush presidency because he has traded on the family name rather than
having is own CV to run on. America is/should not be a nation governed by privlege.
I also don't think he won the election. That said, I like Bush as a person. He is a
modest man (perhaps with a lot to be modest about) but nonetheless he is a blessed
relief from the likes of Bill Clinton. I do not believe he will do the country any
harm. I also think that while he is no intellectual neither is he as thick as his
critics would have us believe.
> if he does not....then i expect gephart in the whitehouse in 4 years..
>
I don't. If the Whitehouse changes hands in 4 years it will (and should) go to Gore.
But even if it doesn't go to Gore it will certainly not go to Gephart. Gephart will
likely be Speaker of the House in two years time.
> perhaps that is 'getting more out of me'....
> you see...you only have to ask instead of fish....
> i never never take bait...unless it profits me....
I wasn't fishing I asked a very straightforward question.
>
>
> >> i do not believe in the lines on maps...or the moats in the
> >> day of the rochet launched spear.....
> >
> >I suppose philosophically I agree with you but the reality is that there
> >are lines on maps and the lines mean something and nations are highly
> >competitive. Given that reality I want to make sure that my country's
> >interests are well provided for.
>
> that is very reasonable....as long as those interests are carefully
> informed and long term....
> which implies that isolationism is a dangerous fools notion..
>
> >> i regard the interests of the us and the uk as indissoluble.....
> >
> >Not entirely but largely this is so.
>
> enuf of an agreement at this time afaiac...
>
> >> i regard russia as *far* more powerful that is commonly realised.....
> >> it has an educated modern population and *vast* resources....
> >> that they have been held back for most of a century by socialism
> >> is an accident of history that i expect to see rapidly change...
> >
> >I agree that Russia has huge potential. I disagree that Russia lagging
> >the rest of Europe into liberal democracy is solely due to its detour
> >into socialism.
>
> your own country was lawless and ruled by robber barons
> a century ago....
An exageration but in any case America was founded in the Enlightenment. It has
always been a nation of law but not all citizens are law abiding. I agree though that
American government has often been corrupt. America has always believed in a liberal
concept of self government.
> .some think it has come less far than others....
>
Some may think that, I don't. Do you?
> hubris is not wisdom for modern america....
>
Agreed.
> > Russia has has a very illiberal history stretching
> >back centuries.
>
> so have all countries...
>
Not in the same degree as Russia. Nor have most European countries held on to that
illiberal tradition as steadfastly as Russia.
> > The population of Russia is at heart authoritarian and
> >this has nothing to do with socialism.
>
> you could well say worse of germany....
Indeed I could of in days long past. I wouldn't want Germany in NATO in those days
either.
> yet it is modernising....
> it is the leadership that matters... russia is not peopled with fools.
>
Presently it is the leadership that troubles me. ISTM that Russian people crave
highly authoritarian rulers. This is not compatible with Western tradition.
> several entities are capable of competing strongly with america
> in rather short order....russia is in by far the best position...
I don't see Russia as being even a near contendor in the "short order" But anyway
be that as it may. America does not own the position of world superpower. Others
might and will probable compete and someday a new world leader may well emerge. The
world (and America) will deal with that reality when and if it occurs.
> .
> you have the power now....you have been a beacon for freedom...
> to fritter that initiative would be both foolhardy and sad.....
I am not suggesting otherwise. I believe that the US must impose standards on its
alliances. Russia does not meet these standards. This does not make Russia an enemy
nor does it unfairly isolate Russia.
> at the moment...the planet depends greatly upon what you do...
> and at times you are just a giant immature child....
>
America is led by fallable human beings just like everywhere else. I think on the
whole America usually tries to do the right thing in the context of course of putting
its own interests first. I don't think you can expect much more.
> you must negotiate with russia and soon.....go out into the world
> and act....you will get far more that way....
>
America is constantly negotiating with Russia.
> russia is your greatest opportunity and your great potential ally....
I hope so.
>
>
> > I am highly skeptical that there
> >will be any rapid change in this respect. I hope I am wrong and you are
> >right. Until Russia shows strong signs of change I hope it is not
> >granted admission to NATO or for that matter membereship in the EU. I
> >do not mean that I believe Russia ought to be isolated. Certainly not.
>
> you *must* negotiate....russia is not your inferior....russia is your
> greatest opportunity...
See above.
> .
> europe is still a mass of fractious states with far too many damned
> socialists....europe should feel the thunder of american power....
> that is far more likely to stop them bickering in their little ponds..
>
I am beginning to think that the US should start leaning on France and put a stop to
their silly resistence to US leadership. If they don't wish to participate in NATO on
the same terms as everyone else, then fine let them exist in isolation outside of
NATO.
> britain is your sworn friend...
Britain is indeed one of America's best friends in the world. Indeed it is the best
"non client" friend with the possible exception of Canada.
> .soon europe will speak english.....
> that will change much.....
Not Esperanto? ;-)
>
>
> >> imv *all* advanced liberal democracies have far more common
> >> interest in the modern situation than they have rivalry.....
> >
> >For sure, but Russia is far from an "advanced liberal democracy" and is
> >not showing the slightest signs of moving in that direction.
>
> russia can't move much faster than america did.....it has to
> consolidate....to reorganise....
> socialism is a terrible and poisonous disease....it depletes
> initiative and despoils nations...that poison still infects much
> of europe...
Russia will develop according to its own history and timetable just as all other
countries do. The issue is whether Russia ought to be a candidate for joining NATO
any time in the near future. I think not.
> .
> it is quite wrong to consider the current uk to be a free nation.....
I know that the UK is lacking (compared to the US) in freedom. I know also that the
US is not as free as I would like it to be.
>
>
> there is much nuance i would put in this post...but it would
> be too tiresome to hedge it with qualifications
>
> >> it is up to the population (especially the elite) to reach out and
> >> assist one another by every means available....
> >> the alternative is a return to feudalism....combined with megadeath...
> >>
> >Uhm... OK, but what does this have to do with Russia joining NATO? BTW
> >what do you see as the mission of NATO both within the alliance and vis
> >a vis the rest of the world?
>
> a giant military machine that should put the fear of god into any
> who consider for a second to challenge it....
>
Exactly. And a couple of other points about the alliance.
1. The fear of God element comes primarily from American capability.
2 If NATO is to be of lasting value it must last. If it spreads itself too thin or
has a membership that lacks common interest then it is doomed.
3 NATO members are above all else sworn to defend each other in the event of outside
attack. No provision is made for evaluating the underlying reasons for the attack.
An attack on one means an attack on all. I do not feel that we can safely extend that
guarantee to Russia.
Bill
abelard
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>
>
>abelard wrote:
>> at least your question gets more specific!
>
>I think my original question was quite specific. I hadn't corresponded with you in
>some time since the pardon controversy and was wondering what you made of it. You
>have asnswered me extensively below but you really haven't said very much at all
>regarding his use of his pardon powers.
given that you think he could have used his (second term?) to lead...
what do you imagine...pardon 500,000? this would been entirely out
of precedent....
ps...your post is likely too long for me to have time to do it justice
...also my newsfeed is in utter chaos....so i'm missing a
lot....and don't know how much of my stuff is getting out...
> Maybe you got up on the wrong side of the bed
>yesterday or maybe I annoy you because
not in the slightest....i enjoy many of your posts...this one i regard
as excellently argued....i admire and welcome that....there is
little learnt from discussing with idiots or fulfilling me
educating karma...
i am also near impossible to annoy....the most trying problem for
me is boredom....you rarely manage that....
> I am unable to excuse away and rationalize
>everything your hero does.
i don't not take the sainted bill on only one level....
as a politician, i regard him with great admiration.....
as a human, i regard him as far less of a clone than most
posers who achieve high office....but then the world is full
of others who live without side (in the slang sense of putting
on side)...so that is admirable....but not unusual
i also regard him as having considerable/unusual moral courage....
you seem to think he has more latitude as president than i imagine...
if he pardoned 1/2 a milion....he would have ruined his party's
prospects for a generation.....
they may even have declared him 'insane'....
>> 1)my view of him as a politician is not even slightly modified.....
>
>Really as a politician, especially a relatively young ex president with many years
>ahead for who know what, especially a politician with a wife who is just beginning a
>potentially golden political career,
i can't see her going further....but who knows...she's clearly
competent and talented....but he is a political giant....
> I think his activity regarding the pardons shows
>recklessness beyond belief
his judgement has so often been finely honed...i will not bet on the
recklessness claim...remember the fellow in the new testament
who was about to be sacked?
also his party requires funds....
>quite aside from the disgusting aspect of selling his
>services to the highest bidders.
what politician doesn't do that to some extent in a 'democracy'
but he has not sold out so often when it mattered....
whereas look at bliar!
> Then again maybe you never thought much of him as a
>politician in the first place. ;-) The columnist Andrew Sullivan has suggested that
>there might be method to his madness and Clinton was actually out to sabotage his
>wifes new career. At least Hill has gotten a 9 million dollar advance for her
>upcoming book. I hope the check wasn't in both their names.
i think they are in love....much depends upon whether that
judgement is accurate....
>> 2)sad to see poor boy snatching the light fittings...if he did....
>> Indeed. And he did and the WhiteHouse usher told him not to but he (and Hill) did
>> anyway. Some of the stuff has been returned. It appears you can take the hillbilly
>> out of the hills but you can't take the hills out of the hillbilly.
yes...very common....but very human....those raised in poverty
are often tempted and insecure where objects and money
are concerned...
you bill seem to expect so much more of the human monkey
than i do....i am impressed when they rise above the jungle....
i am not shocked or disappointed when they spit in the street....
or screw in the oval office......
you're an old prude my boy....
>> 3)your system requires vast quantities of slush funds...
>> as if blush is not at the same game....
>LOL, Like new furntiture for their NY and Washington homes? Say what you want about
>the Bush's but I think they at least buy their own personal furnishings.
c'mon....the bush family is up to their necks in shady deals....they
are just rich enuf...because of it...to be able to buy almost
anything or anyone....
much of the peevishness from the right was just because they
ultimately could not buy bill...including big tobacco and big oil..
some ways you are so damned conventional....bill didn't sell out
the office...he screwed in it....he maybe took some furniture....
the po' boy had some fun....methinks that's what you tight asses
really can't forgive him for.....
but he did not sell out his duty....so you really can't stand him....
you prefer style to substance....and can't really tell the difference.
>> 4)your damned populist politics demands that the mob is
>> appeased to the extent of locking up around 2 million
>> and ritual killing of adults.....
>> any pol who openly opposes the mob will
>
>> 1) be attacked by the opposition...
>> 2)likely be voted down by the ignorant unwashed
>> to whom idiots have given votes.....
>You are grouchy this evening. Whats up abelard - have a rough day.
you entirely mis read me....
>Seriously it is very hard to know what to make of your views on the USA. On the one
>hand you praise its openness and democracy (although you think we have too much). You
>envy our freedoms etc. and then you complain bitterly of US populism. You moan about
>British passivity, anti-democratic government, increasing lack of personal freedom
>etc. ISTM you want us to become like you and you to become like us.
i believe in balance....as stated...america has too much freedom....
the uk too little....
but i believe in franchise by examination....not equal rights anyways.
>Certainly Bill Clinton never attempted to lead the nation away from high level of
>imprisonment or the death penalty. Say what you might , but it is the responsibility
>of leaders to lead. Bill Clinton did lead but at least in these instances he did not
>lead in the direction you would have liked. He certainly could of but he chose not
>to.
convince me...re above...
if he could...and did not...that was clear misjudgement....but i have
no access to his mind....i would expect it to be political realism.
but he could be a misguided religious bigot....tho' i doubt it with
his intelligence...we do have some intelligent poorly educated
bigots posting here who in the ignorance believe in state
murder....
even then...he was bright enuf that it was incumbent upon him
to know better...
> Instead he chose to give highly unpopular pardons to wealthy tax dodgers and drug
>lords and snake oil salesman.
see above...
>> the alternative is to allow politicians of extreme corruption
>> such as national socialists into power....
>Don't be silly.
what is silly about it....if all the honourable intelligent candidates
refuse to get their hands dirty...there is always an ignorant hick
like ford or adolph thirsting for power....
>> thus seeking political office has become a matter of choosing
>> the least evil....
>
>Where do they choose there leaders better?
most who get to the top are not without talents....
france does rather well imv...but it is an elitist country....
britain did well enuf much of the time...the narrow barrow boys
are a present problem...which i hope will be a temporary glitch...
(here i am involved in putting pressure on the situation...so
my statements hold something back)
>> if you block the state murder....far more killing is a very high
>> likelihood...if you don't protect your income flow..you may
>> as well not bother...
>> it is simple *fact* there is no informed and sane person who backs
>> state murder...but your leaders dare not say it....
>You must have studied at the knee of Alistair Campbell. You can put a spin on things
>with the best of them. ;-) The above is the essence of rationalizing and apologizing
>for Bill Clinton.
no...see above...
>> such is some of the evil at the heart of the american polity....
>Oh grumpy gus.
my interests are not served by pandering to the mob....i have
very little common interest with them....
perhaps i am far tougher minded than you appreciate....
>> a delicate conscience is a luxury no american leader can
>> indulge....
>
>What countries do allow their leaders delicate consciences and what is their status in
>the world compared with the US?
mostly leaders cannot afford same...no really able person can....
the problem comes when it is all ruthlessness and no backbone....
we have close to such a problem in the uk at present...
>> yes...i still regard clinton as one of the great leaders of the
>> 20th century....
>
>Not even close. At best he was fair to middlin on some issues at worst on issues
>regarding character and personal integrity he was without doubt near the bottom.
methinks you are a soft prude...perhaps it is time you commented on
same...:-)
>> that he is human...or even has balls...is better than some
>> fundamentalist moron in hock to big oil or tobacco.....
>> that it gives fundamentalists a frisson that evokes an
>> unconscious guilt repressive response every time they
>> think of clinton's trousers may be disgusting....
>> but it is quite understandable....
>
>You haven't a clue as to what is objectionable in Clinton. His inability to keep his
>trousers up isn't the issue in the slightest.
about time too....so why your focus on it?
> There are many more serious very
>credible allegations that have been made against this guy than mere philandering.
>Among them is rape and there are many more.
guilty without trial...oh dear mister prude....are you sure your
judgement is very objective?
> Most importantly, he can't be trusted.
>He is a pathological liar and it goes quite beyond the usual fibs of politicians..
he doesn't promise a bill of rights and a freedom of information act..
as a public act....and blatantly renege on it....that is real and
substantive corruption..
so he lied to the prurient busy bodies about his girl friend....
>> that he has freed up america just a little by standing his ground
>> against the keyhole ken attempted coup has doubtless
>> moved the country forward somewhat from repressive
>> puritanical superstition.....
>
>He hasn't done anything of the sort. Starr made a case that stuck. He is the 2nd
>president in history to be impeached.
politics...just like your supreme 'court'....your 'legal' system is
becoming a joke...
> He has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in
>fines ,
payola....cheapest most efficient way out....higher priorities....
> the nation has paid millions in defending him,
no...hounding him for corrupt political purposes....designed to
discredit him....just like a wife accusing a husband....
seems to be working on you tho'
>he is barred from practicing
>law.
more payola...he doesn't need the 'honour'....
he's likely laughing up his sleeve at you....which is what really
sticks in your craw....
you want revenge...you want to justify yourself....
he must pay and pay and pay....tall poppies must be cut down.....
after all...we're all equal in the sight of god....why should he get
away with having a ball...
and most of all....why shouldn't it be you having the fun....
you see....i am not convinced by the purity of the christianist
motives
to me....just a lot of posturing monkeys.....
he knows how to live...that's what you really can't swallow....
and yes...i am still giggling...
> If this is standing his ground and making a point then I guess the point is that
>no evil deed will remain unpunished.. If the nation happened to be in economic hard
>times during his term, I suspect he might have been hung from the flag pole on Capitol
>Hill.
oh such christian charity....he has made your country great again....
he has worked for peace around the globe....
the real quote is...no good deed will ever remain unpunished....
i'll try to get back to this later....
regards.
i'll leave the rest below so's i can act efficiently....
maybe this will get to be amusing...
--
John Shafto
> Bill Willis typed:
> >
> some ways you are so damned conventional....bill didn't sell out
> the office...he screwed in it....he maybe took some furniture....
> the po' boy had some fun....methinks that's what you tight asses
> really can't forgive him for.....
> but he did not sell out his duty....so you really can't stand him....
>
> you prefer style to substance....and can't really tell the difference.
You know, I voted for Clinton in 1992. I thought, "well here's a an
old softy Dem from Arkansas, running as a middle-of-the-road
Democrat". He lied, he was as liberal and shady as they come.
I regretted my mistake within two years. I will never trust another
Democrat, even if, like Clinton, he runs as a fiscal conservative.
I thought the governer would be closer to the people than old
spineless, Washington bred, Bush (I). Boy, was I ever wrong.
I generally follow politics closely here in the US, and I can say
without a doubt, that there is not one iota of substance in
Clinton, I realized that pretty quickly. You are lying to yourself
if you believe there was anything to Bill Clinton. Politicians are
politicians, the difference between Clinton and some others is
that at least some of the others try. He was/is a national
embarassment, and we are glad he is (almost) gone.
The blow job was no big deal really, the finger wagging lie was
much worse, but he showed his hand long before that.
abelard
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>LOL, Clinton has hurt the Democratic party quite enough thank you very much.
sure he has....8 years in the white house....and a steady erosion
in the other 2 houses...
> While
>the country did credit Clinton with economic good times and he was very popular with
>minority populations,
yeah....about a 66% minority....
i wish you well with his loser successor.....
> I think the mood of the country today can fairly be said to wish
>he would just go away.
yes...i have noticed this....how suddenly 'friends' disappear
when they can no longer grab from you....
harold wislon talks about how no one spoke to him immediately
he lost the leadership...whereas he couldn't get a moments peace
prior....
> Take a trip to Tahiti or somewhere. We are sick of hearing
>about him, sick of watching him grab the limelight at every possibility. In short the
>nation is sick and tired of Bill Clinton. We need a rest, Write him a letter maybe
>he will visit you on your yak ranch in Mongolia. But count the silver before he
>arrives.
he would be most welcome....i have had things stolen before....
fortunately i am not that attached to pieces of silver....
>> disgusting though i regard the current spectacle....
>> it looks like blush may well do a better job than gore could have been
>> expected to achieve...
>
>I don't like the Bush presidency because he has traded on the family name rather than
>having is own CV to run on. America is/should not be a nation governed by privlege.
>I also don't think he won the election.
of course he didn't...as stated, your system is highly corrupt....
> That said, I like Bush as a person.
he's a wanker...but at least he may strengthen your military....
he can't wait to sell the country out to big business...
still a country tends to get the politicians they deserve....
> He is a
>modest man (perhaps with a lot to be modest about) but nonetheless he is a blessed
>relief from the likes of Bill Clinton.
anything rather than that man eh!
> I do not believe he will do the country any
>harm. I also think that while he is no intellectual neither is he as thick as his
>critics would have us believe.
he is a puppet....though the puppeteers seem to have some sense....
>> if he does not....then i expect gephart in the whitehouse in 4 years..
>I don't. If the Whitehouse changes hands in 4 years it will (and should) go to Gore.
he can't hack it....his judgement is appalling....
>But even if it doesn't go to Gore it will certainly not go to Gephart. Gephart will
>likely be Speaker of the House in two years time.
i cannot read the situation that well....i see no impressive alternate
candidate...but if you are anything to go by....perhaps like our
current tory party....virginity and ambition is preferable to
power and competence.....
>> perhaps that is 'getting more out of me'....
>> you see...you only have to ask instead of fish....
>> i never never take bait...unless it profits me....
>
>I wasn't fishing I asked a very straightforward question.
it was too open....now it is focussed....
>> >> i regard russia as *far* more powerful that is commonly realised.....
>> >> it has an educated modern population and *vast* resources....
>> >> that they have been held back for most of a century by socialism
>> >> is an accident of history that i expect to see rapidly change...
>> >
>> >I agree that Russia has huge potential. I disagree that Russia lagging
>> >the rest of Europe into liberal democracy is solely due to its detour
>> >into socialism.
>>
>> your own country was lawless and ruled by robber barons
>> a century ago....
>
>An exageration but in any case America was founded in the Enlightenment. It has
>always been a nation of law but not all citizens are law abiding.
the supreme court is not law....it is clearly corrupt...big time....
>> .some think it has come less far than others....
>Some may think that, I don't. Do you?
i think it has come far....i think it is uncivilised to a much greater
extent than the old world....
>> hubris is not wisdom for modern america....
>Agreed.
good...
>> > Russia has has a very illiberal history stretching
>> >back centuries.
>>
>> so have all countries...
>Not in the same degree as Russia. Nor have most European countries held on to that
>illiberal tradition as steadfastly as Russia.
i am not politician or historian enuf to argue with you sure of my
footing...adding a russian or historical group might forward your
contentions....
russia is in process of disbanding/reorganising one of the greatest
empires of history...i am impressed by what i do see thus far....
keep always in mind...i am a logician/psychologist/educator.....
outside those areas...i am more informed than most....but i
move ever nearer to opinion rather than knowledge....
just another voice in the pot....
>> > The population of Russia is at heart authoritarian and
>> >this has nothing to do with socialism.
>>
>> you could well say worse of germany....
>
>Indeed I could of in days long past. I wouldn't want Germany in NATO in those days
>either.
50 years is a very short span to me....not 'long past'....
>> yet it is modernising....
>> it is the leadership that matters... russia is not peopled with fools.
>Presently it is the leadership that troubles me. ISTM that Russian people crave
>highly authoritarian rulers. This is not compatible with Western tradition.
most sheep yearn for authority...britain currently stomachs bliar....
>> several entities are capable of competing strongly with america
>> in rather short order....russia is in by far the best position...
>
>I don't see Russia as being even a near contendor in the "short order" But anyway
>be that as it may. America does not own the position of world superpower. Others
>might and will probable compete and someday a new world leader may well emerge. The
>world (and America) will deal with that reality when and if it occurs.
governments lose elections...
great powers lose influence....they go soft....they get fat and lazy..
america/nato getting fat and lazy is a very grim prospect afaiac.....
i do not wish to live in a medieval or socialist utopia....
i want a world that is safe for tall poppies....my only feasible
option is currently liberal democracy....
>> you have the power now....you have been a beacon for freedom...
>> to fritter that initiative would be both foolhardy and sad.....
>
>I am not suggesting otherwise. I believe that the US must impose standards on its
>alliances. Russia does not meet these standards. This does not make Russia an enemy
>nor does it unfairly isolate Russia.
i hope the usa will put as much effort and money into raising and
enabling russia as it did with germany....
it is by far the best and most important option for extending the
modern pax....
>> at the moment...the planet depends greatly upon what you do...
>> and at times you are just a giant immature child....
>America is led by fallable human beings just like everywhere else. I think on the
>whole America usually tries to do the right thing in the context of course of putting
>its own interests first. I don't think you can expect much more.
mostly agreed...you have a marvelous government infrastructure
as is being exhibited by the current lot of cronies......
i fear *any* us isolationism....
america's interests are widely my interests....
>> you must negotiate with russia and soon.....go out into the world
>> and act....you will get far more that way....
>America is constantly negotiating with Russia.
i think so...i hope it is serious....to allow russia to feed nuclear
hardware into foreign ports for peanuts does not make
sense to me with all america's trillions.....
>> russia is your greatest opportunity and your great potential ally....
>
>I hope so.
i think so....
>> europe is still a mass of fractious states with far too many damned
>> socialists....europe should feel the thunder of american power....
>> that is far more likely to stop them bickering in their little ponds..
>I am beginning to think that the US should start leaning on France and put a stop to
>their silly resistence to US leadership. If they don't wish to participate in NATO on
>the same terms as everyone else, then fine let them exist in isolation outside of
>NATO.
france is a very strange animal....it is often a coward....but it is
a determined nuclear power....i think it has learnt much from
the last century....
every politician tends to appease the mob....
france is remarkably free and remarkably bureaucratic and elitist....
the french and italians don't take government as seriously as
the northerners.....it is a very healthy trait....
>> britain is your sworn friend...
>
>Britain is indeed one of America's best friends in the world. Indeed it is the best
>"non client" friend with the possible exception of Canada.
ok....but you need your aircraft carriers around the world.....
i do emphasise...even the atlantic and the pacific are not deep or
wide enuf in a modern world...
>> .soon europe will speak english.....
>> that will change much.....
>
>Not Esperanto? ;-)
27 fanatics maybe....
>> russia can't move much faster than america did.....it has to
>> consolidate....to reorganise....
>> socialism is a terrible and poisonous disease....it depletes
>> initiative and despoils nations...that poison still infects much
>> of europe...
>
>Russia will develop according to its own history and timetable just as all other
>countries do. The issue is whether Russia ought to be a candidate for joining NATO
>any time in the near future. I think not.
it will be step by step....joint exercises etc....
>> it is quite wrong to consider the current uk to be a free nation.....
>
>I know that the UK is lacking (compared to the US) in freedom. I know also that the
>US is not as free as I would like it to be.
as you know...here we do not fully 'understand' one another...
>> a giant military machine that should put the fear of god into any
>> who consider for a second to challenge it....
>Exactly. And a couple of other points about the alliance.
>
>1. The fear of God element comes primarily from American capability.
>2 If NATO is to be of lasting value it must last. If it spreads itself too thin or
>has a membership that lacks common interest then it is doomed.
>3 NATO members are above all else sworn to defend each other in the event of outside
>attack. No provision is made for evaluating the underlying reasons for the attack.
>An attack on one means an attack on all. I do not feel that we can safely extend that
>guarantee to Russia.
then tell russia...clearly and often...and state russian entry as a
desire..
it would seem that on this issue we are in very close accord....
John Shafto
> > times and he was very popular with minority populations,
>
> yeah....about a 66% minority....
> i wish you well with his loser successor.....
I wouldn't take the popularity polls as much, they usually
ask random people something like "Do you think President
Clinton is doing a good job?". Jay Leno (on TV) does a
similar thing where he walks around LA and asks people
political questions randomly, the ignorance of the general
population is sometimes hilarious.
> > That said, I like Bush as a person.
>
> he's a wanker...but at least he may strengthen your military....
> he can't wait to sell the country out to big business...
> still a country tends to get the politicians they deserve....
Well, we see how you feel about that in 4 years.
It's lonely a the top, it takes a courage to be a leaders,
and every so often we choose a president for the people
instead of for the government, just to let them know who
is in charge. We choose liberty over federalist security
once in a while.
--
"The spirit of 1776 is not dead,
it has only been slumbering."
--Thomas Jefferson
abelard
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>
>
>abelard wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:00:25 -0500, Bill Willis
>> <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>>
>> > No high level American
>> >government official could ever directly influence the criminal justice system
>> >regardless of the immediate public pressure to do so.
i have sent out 2 long posts in response to your 500+ lines...please
confirm that you have rec'd them...thanx....
regards...
Bill Willis
abelard wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 10:51:50 -0500, Bill Willis
> <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>
> given that you think he could have used his (second term?) to lead...
> what do you imagine...pardon 500,000? this would been entirely out
> of precedent....
>
Presidents can (and should lead) in their first term as well as their second term. Why
must he pardon 500,000 (assuming 500,000 ought to be pardoned). Yes, 500,000 thousand
would certainly be taken very badly in the country. But why not 1,000 or even 5 or 10
thousand of the most eggregious cases. If he felt that the nation is going overboard in
locking up drug users he could of used his pardon power to highlight the problem. Because
someone might not be able to entirely solve a problem is no reason not to try to solve a
part of the problem.
> Maybe you got up on the wrong side of the bed
> >yesterday or maybe I annoy you because
>
> not in the slightest....i enjoy many of your posts...this one i regard
> as excellently argued....i admire and welcome that....there is
> little learnt from discussing with idiots or fulfilling me
> educating karma...
> i am also near impossible to annoy....the most trying problem for
> me is boredom....you rarely manage that....
I am happy to hear it. You can be sure that you fail to bore me as well. The fact that I
respond to your postings is proof as I wouldn't bother otherwise. You frustrate me
sometimes, you exasperate me sometimes but you do not bore me.
>
>
> > I am unable to excuse away and rationalize
> >everything your hero does.
>
> i don't not take the sainted bill on only one level....
> as a politician, i regard him with great admiration.....
> as a human, i regard him as far less of a clone than most
> posers who achieve high office....but then the world is full
> of others who live without side (in the slang sense of putting
> on side)...so that is admirable....but not unusual
> i also regard him as having considerable/unusual moral courage....
>
I regard him as being [almost] totally without moral courage. I too try to look at him on
many levels. He is without doubt one of the more interesting and complex public figures to
have come along in my memory. I feel as if he has taken me and the country on a roller
coaster ride. The ups and downs have been exciting but often dangerous and needlessly
reckless. I believe that had he personal integrity to match his u ndoubted charm personal
carisma [sp] and intelligence he could have been highly successful and left a lasting
legacy. As it is his own vanity willfullness and hubris constantly got in the way to the
point were he not only failed in his own administration but seriously damaged his party
(and what it stands for) as well.
> you seem to think he has more latitude as president than i imagine...
> if he pardoned 1/2 a milion....he would have ruined his party's
> prospects for a generation.....
> they may even have declared him 'insane'....
>
Where on earth did you gather that I suggest he pardon 1/2 million. How about 5 or ten for
starters.
> >> 1)my view of him as a politician is not even slightly modified.....
>
Is there anything he could have possibly done on a personal level that would alter your
view of him as a politician?
> >
> >Really as a politician, especially a relatively young ex president with many years
> >ahead for who know what, especially a politician with a wife who is just beginning a
> >potentially golden political career,
>
> i can't see her going further....but who knows...she's clearly
> competent and talented....
Beside the point whether she will go further or not. A very significant political career
can be found just in the Senate.
> but he is a political giant....
LOL, He is a political has been who seems intent on destroying any future for himself and
his wife.
>
>
> > I think his activity regarding the pardons shows
> >recklessness beyond belief
>
> his judgement has so often been finely honed...i will not bet on the
> recklessness claim...remember the fellow in the new testament
> who was about to be sacked?
If you see a parallel you must explain it to me further.
> also his party requires funds....
>
ROTFLOL I REQUIRE FUNDS.
> >quite aside from the disgusting aspect of selling his
> >services to the highest bidders.
>
> what politician doesn't do that to some extent in a 'democracy'
Thankfully most do not in this way. This is clear misapplication of his powers. He has
been unfaithful to his high office. He has acted (as Jimmy Carter says) disgracefully.
> but he has not sold out so often when it mattered....
> whereas look at bliar!
Blair hasn't seriously sold out IMV. It is true that he has lied about some things that
got him elected. But it is the nature of the type of government that you have to expect as
much. Why should Blair push for FOI. It will just be troublesome for him. What you need
is a Reform Party whose only agenda is reform of your political process. Perhaps it will
take 50 years or longer before such a party would be able to show measurable results but
without it I think your system will slowly and constantly rot and it won't matter a whit
which party wins or who the personality is that holds the PM office. Of course absorption
into Europe (or even the US) might help..
>
>
> > Then again maybe you never thought much of him as a
> >politician in the first place. ;-) The columnist Andrew Sullivan has suggested that
> >there might be method to his madness and Clinton was actually out to sabotage his
> >wifes new career. At least Hill has gotten a 9 million dollar advance for her
> >upcoming book. I hope the check wasn't in both their names.
>
> i think they are in love....much depends upon whether that
> judgement is accurate....
Oh you old sweety pie. I didn't think terms like "in love" were part of your vocabulary.
;-)
>
>
> >> 2)sad to see poor boy snatching the light fittings...if he did....
>
> >> Indeed. And he did and the WhiteHouse usher told him not to but he (and Hill) did
> >> anyway. Some of the stuff has been returned. It appears you can take the hillbilly
> >> out of the hills but you can't take the hills out of the hillbilly.
>
> yes...very common....but very human....those raised in poverty
> are often tempted and insecure where objects and money
> are concerned...
> you bill seem to expect so much more of the human monkey
> than i do....i am impressed when they rise above the jungle....
> i am not shocked or disappointed when they spit in the street....
> or screw in the oval office......
I'm not shocked when primative people behave primatively. I don't like it when people spit
in the streets but I am not shocked. Bill Clinton has had ample opportunity to learn the
refinements of civilized behavior but even so I am not overly upset at him screwing in the
Oval Office. As for making off with the furniture... Well that's simple stealing.
>
>
> you're an old prude my boy....
I don't think I am. But it doesn't bother me if you think I am. I am interested though in
what particularly makes you say that. Am I a prude because I object to a President
stealing furniture from the Whitehouse or am I a prude because I object to the Presidents
brother in law receiving a half million dollar fee for representing a criminal for an
executive pardon? Perhaps I am a prude because I criticize a President for lying under
oath? Are these the reasons or is there something else?
>
>
> >> 3)your system requires vast quantities of slush funds...
> >> as if blush is not at the same game....
>
> >LOL, Like new furntiture for their NY and Washington homes? Say what you want about
> >the Bush's but I think they at least buy their own personal furnishings.
>
> c'mon....the bush family is up to their necks in shady deals....they
> are just rich enuf...because of it...to be able to buy almost
> anything or anyone....
> much of the peevishness from the right was just because they
> ultimately could not buy bill...including big tobacco and big oil..
Maybe so but if they couldn't buy Clinton it was only because he had sold himself
elsewhere..
>
>
> some ways you are so damned conventional....bill didn't sell out
> the office...he screwed in it....he maybe took some furniture....
> the po' boy had some fun....methinks that's what you tight asses
> really can't forgive him for.....
> but he did not sell out his duty....so you really can't stand him....
Not so.
>
>
> you prefer style to substance....and can't really tell the difference.
>
No I prefer substance. Clintonl provided only style. Clinton was always on the make for
the big score that would secure his place in history. It was ego and vanity that drove
him. Even his efforts at peacemaking in NI and the Middle East were driven IMV with
providing a laurel for his own crown. He wanted peace, and approached the process as a
bully boy demanding concessions that would later be ignorred. He made some headlines but
his efforts have been a failure.. . >Certainly Bill Clinton never attempted to lead
the nation away from high level of
> >imprisonment or the death penalty. Say what you might , but it is the responsibility
> >of leaders to lead. Bill Clinton did lead but at least in these instances he did not
> >lead in the direction you would have liked. He certainly could of but he chose not
> >to.
>
> convince me...re above...
> if he could...and did not...that was clear misjudgement....but i have
> no access to his mind....i would expect it to be political realism.
>
Of course he could have. That is self evident. Afterall he did find it perfectly possible
to pardon certain sleazy criminals. Perhaps there would have been a certain political
price to pay but that is called political courage and leaders possess political courage.
> but he could be a misguided religious bigot....tho' i doubt it with
> his intelligence...we do have some intelligent poorly educated
> bigots posting here who in the ignorance believe in state
> murder....
There are many intelligent people who firmly believe in capital punishment.
> >> thus seeking political office has become a matter of choosing
> >> the least evil....
> >
> >Where do they choose there leaders better?
>
> most who get to the top are not without talents....
> france does rather well imv...but it is an elitist country....
>
France has elected one thug after the other for the last several decades.
> britain did well enuf much of the time...the narrow barrow boys
> are a present problem...which i hope will be a temporary glitch...
What is a barrow boy? Why do you suppose you will get better than Blair in the future?
> >> if you block the state murder....far more killing is a very high
> >> likelihood...if you don't protect your income flow..you may
> >> as well not bother...
> >> it is simple *fact* there is no informed and sane person who backs
> >> state murder...but your leaders dare not say it....
>
Your "simple *fact*" is neither simple or a fact. There are many very informed and
intelligent people who back capital punishment. Indeed until very recently it was a view
that was nearly universally held/methinks you are a soft prude...perhaps it is time you
commented on
> same...:-)
I'll be glad to if you will state your reasons for your view.
>
>
> >> that he is human...or even has balls...is better than some
> >> fundamentalist moron in hock to big oil or tobacco.....
> >> that it gives fundamentalists a frisson that evokes an
> >> unconscious guilt repressive response every time they
> >> think of clinton's trousers may be disgusting....
> >> but it is quite understandable....
> >
> >You haven't a clue as to what is objectionable in Clinton. His inability to keep his
> >trousers up isn't the issue in the slightest.
>
> about time too....so why your focus on it?
>
I don't and have never focused on it in the slightest. In matters sexual I usually react
only with envy and regret that it isn't me when I hear of others having an especially good
time.
> > There are many more serious very
> >credible allegations that have been made against this guy than mere philandering.
> >Among them is rape and there are many more.
>
> guilty without trial...oh dear mister prude....are you sure your
> judgement is very objective?
I don't say he is guilty but he has been accused. He has been accused often by many
different women of a kind of sexual harrassment. He is undoubtedly aggresive sexually and
there is a pattern. Forcing yourself on someone sexually is intolerable. Don't you
agree. Or am I a prude for feeling this way?
>
>
> > Most importantly, he can't be trusted.
> >He is a pathological liar and it goes quite beyond the usual fibs of politicians..
>
> he doesn't promise a bill of rights and a freedom of information act..
> as a public act....and blatantly renege on it....that is real and
> substantive corruption..
He is certainly not above doing such. He has backpeddled on many of his promises. Of
course an American President is limited in his ability to deliver but even so....
> so he lied to the prurient busy bodies about his girl friend....
>
Who were legitmately trying to establish a pattern of a sexual predator because of a
harrassment lawsuit brought by another woman who was not his girlfriend but was nonetheless
bothered by him.
> >> that he has freed up america just a little by standing his ground
> >> against the keyhole ken attempted coup has doubtless
> >> moved the country forward somewhat from repressive
> >> puritanical superstition.....
> >
> >He hasn't done anything of the sort. Starr made a case that stuck. He is the 2nd
> >president in history to be impeached.
>
> politics...just like your supreme 'court'....your 'legal' system is
> becoming a joke...
>
I have considerable (not absolute) respect for the Supreme Court. It is the institution
that keeps the US on an even footing. It has served us well.
> > He has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in
> >fines ,
>
> payola....cheapest most efficient way out....higher priorities....
>
Spin Spin Spin . . . If he was looking for the most efficient way out he would have stood
up like a man and said yes I had sex with that woman. We were both consenting adults and
what we do is our own business. You seem to think that had he done this the nation would
go into a tizzy and turn him out on his ear. Not so, indeed had he done this he might have
struck a blow against purient witchhunting (cigars etc.) that you seem to mistakenly credit
him with.
> > the nation has paid millions in defending him,
>
> no...hounding him for corrupt political purposes....designed to
> discredit him....just like a wife accusing a husband....
> seems to be working on you tho'
>
If what you say is so, then he is a most inept politician as he could have easily nipped
such hounding in the bud simply by truthfully dealing with it and confronting his accusers.
Just out of curiosity, Have you ever spent time in the United States?
> >he is barred from practicing
> >law.
>
> more payola...he doesn't need the 'honour'....
> he's likely laughing up his sleeve at you....which is what really
> sticks in your craw....
> you want revenge...you want to justify yourself...
I just want him to go away.
> > If this is standing his ground and making a point then I guess the point is that
> >no evil deed will remain unpunished.. If the nation happened to be in economic hard
> >times during his term, I suspect he might have been hung from the flag pole on Capitol
> >Hill.
>
> oh such christian charity....he has made your country great again....
> he has worked for peace around the globe....
> the real quote is...no good deed will ever remain unpunished....
>
;-), I well know what the real quote is.
Bill
Bill Willis
abelard wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 10:51:41 -0500, Bill Willis
> <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>
> >
> >
> >abelard wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:00:25 -0500, Bill Willis
> >> <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
> >>
> >> > No high level American
> >> >government official could ever directly influence the criminal justice system
> >> >regardless of the immediate public pressure to do so.
>
> i have sent out 2 long posts in response to your 500+ lines...please
> confirm that you have rec'd them...thanx....
I have received both of them and have replied (just now) to one of them. I will
probably reply to the other soon. I have been very busy, Thanks for your responses.
Bill
Bill Willis
abelard wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 10:51:50 -0500, Bill Willis
> <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>
> >LOL, Clinton has hurt the Democratic party quite enough thank you very much.
>
> sure he has....8 years in the white house....and a steady erosion
> in the other 2 houses...
Clinton contributed mightely to the erosion.
>
>
> > While
> >the country did credit Clinton with economic good times and he was very popular with
> >minority populations,
>
> yeah....about a 66% minority....
> i wish you well with his loser successor.....
>
Nonsense, Clinton scored well in polls that measured his performance rating. I don't think
he ever reached 66% but it any case that is not a measure of popularity. The poll ratings
were purely a reflection of economic good times. Poll results were quite different when
they measured peoples response to his personal integrity etc.
>> disgusting though i regard the current spectacle....
> >> it looks like blush may well do a better job than gore could have been
> >> expected to achieve...
>
It seems you have fixed your opinion against Gore because he didn't sufficiently embrace
Clinton during the campaign. Similarly you were out of sympathy with Lieberman because he
dared to call a spade a spade during the Lewinski scandal. It seems your infatuation with
Clinton colors your perspective on all else.
> >
> >I don't like the Bush presidency because he has traded on the family name rather than
> >having is own CV to run on. America is/should not be a nation governed by privlege.
> >I also don't think he won the election.
>
> of course he didn't...as stated, your system is highly corrupt....
>
While I don't think he won the election, he came pretty damned close to winning the
election. I think I am much more able than you to tolerate other people's viewpoints
without claiming corruption etc.
> > That said, I like Bush as a person.
>
> he's a wanker..
What does "wanker" actually mean in Britspeak. Is it similar to jerk? If so, I
disagree. Bush is an average man somewhat better educated than most. He has always lived
a privleged life and all his points of reference regarding America are formed from that
standpoint.
> .but at least he may strengthen your military....
> he can't wait to sell the country out to big business...
> still a country tends to get the politicians they deserve....
Indeed a country does get the leaders they deserve. I would want it no other way.
> >> if he does not....then i expect gephart in the whitehouse in 4 years..
>
> >I don't. If the Whitehouse changes hands in 4 years it will (and should) go to Gore.
>
> he can't hack it....his judgement is appalling....
You constantly amuse me with your certainty and pontificating. I am no Gore groupie by any
means but your view of him has solidified since the campaign and while I doubt you know
much about Gore beyond the recent campaign I expect he is on your shit list forever for
failing to be a true disciple to your hero.
>
>
> >But even if it doesn't go to Gore it will certainly not go to Gephart. Gephart will
> >likely be Speaker of the House in two years time.
>
> i cannot read the situation that well....i see no impressive alternate
> candidate...but if you are anything to go by....perhaps like our
> current tory party....virginity and ambition is preferable to
> power and competence.....
I don't think the recent US election points to much of anything. Clearly the election
might have gone either way. Clearly both candidates were within a whisker of each others
positions on most important matters.
>
>
> >> perhaps that is 'getting more out of me'....
> >> you see...you only have to ask instead of fish....
> >> i never never take bait...unless it profits me....
> >
> >I wasn't fishing I asked a very straightforward question.
>
> it was too open....now it is focussed....
>
How was it open? I asked simply for your view on the Clinton pardon controversy. What
could be more direct and focussed.
> >> >> i regard russia as *far* more powerful that is commonly realised.....
> >> >> it has an educated modern population and *vast* resources....
> >> >> that they have been held back for most of a century by socialism
> >> >> is an accident of history that i expect to see rapidly change...
> >> >
> >> >I agree that Russia has huge potential. I disagree that Russia lagging
> >> >the rest of Europe into liberal democracy is solely due to its detour
> >> >into socialism.
> >>
> >> your own country was lawless and ruled by robber barons
> >> a century ago....
> >
> >An exageration but in any case America was founded in the Enlightenment. It has
> >always been a nation of law but not all citizens are law abiding.
>
> the supreme court is not law....it is clearly corrupt...big time....
>
The supreme court is law. The Supreme court was created by the Constitution which is above
all the Supreme law of the land. The Supreme court is fallable and political but I don't
think it is corrupt.
> >> .some think it has come less far than others....
>
> >Some may think that, I don't. Do you?
>
> i think it has come far....i think it is uncivilised to a much greater
> extent than the old world....
I don't. I think the United States is far better at confronting and solving real problems
than the old world. While the same issues comfound both the new and the old world the
effects of these problems are usually markedly less in America than in Europe.
> >> > Russia has has a very illiberal history stretching
> >> >back centuries.
> >>
> >> so have all countries...
>
> >Not in the same degree as Russia. Nor have most European countries held on to that
> >illiberal tradition as steadfastly as Russia.
>
> i am not politician or historian enuf to argue with you sure of my
> footing...adding a russian or historical group might forward your
> contentions....
I am not a historian either but I am very interested in history. I think it is important
to have some considerable background in matters historical to gain perspective in
contemporary matters.
> russia is in process of disbanding/reorganising one of the greatest
> empires of history...i am impressed by what i do see thus far....
>
Really, What impresses you? Certainly the suddenness of the disbanding was surprising but
the re-organizing?. What impresses you there?>> > The population of Russia is at heart
authoritarian and
> >> >this has nothing to do with socialism.
> >>
> >> you could well say worse of germany....
> >
> >Indeed I could of in days long past. I wouldn't want Germany in NATO in those days
> >either.
>
> 50 years is a very short span to me....not 'long past'....
50 years can be time enough but you miss the point. Europe (not just Germany) went through
a major aberration caused mainly by Hitler. Hitler set back the liberal historical trends
that had been forming for more than a century in Europe. Fortunately the interruption was
brief. What is important is that for Russia the Hitler interlude (while catastrophic) was
no interruption from business as usual. Hitler was just one more despot trying to prevail.
>
>
> >> yet it is modernising....
> >> it is the leadership that matters... russia is not peopled with fools.
>
> >Presently it is the leadership that troubles me. ISTM that Russian people crave
> >highly authoritarian rulers. This is not compatible with Western tradition.
>
> most sheep yearn for authority...britain currently stomachs bliar....
Well if Blair starts trying to control the Press or take extra legal measures to ensure his
grip on power, then I would want the US to reevaluate its alliance with Britain. I don't
think Blair and Putin are comparable in any way. This is another example of your
absolutism. You have decided against Blair (admittedly for some good reasons) and are
therefore utterly hardened against him. Because you oppose Blair doesn't put him or the
British who support him in the same category as Putin and the Russians.
>
>
> >> several entities are capable of competing strongly with america
> >> in rather short order....russia is in by far the best position...
> >
> >I don't see Russia as being even a near contendor in the "short order" But anyway
> >be that as it may. America does not own the position of world superpower. Others
> >might and will probable compete and someday a new world leader may well emerge. The
> >world (and America) will deal with that reality when and if it occurs.
>
> governments lose elections...
> great powers lose influence....they go soft....they get fat and lazy..
> america/nato getting fat and lazy is a very grim prospect afaiac.....
>
> i do not wish to live in a medieval or socialist utopia....
> i want a world that is safe for tall poppies....my only feasible
> option is currently liberal democracy....
Neither do I, that is precisely why I am highly skeptical of allowing Russia into NATO.
The avenue of least resistence would be to let Russia in but it would destroy the rasion
d'etre of the NATO alliance. I think there are several other countries that shouldn't be a
part of NATO but certainly Russia would be the oddest of the odd men out.
>
>
> >> you have the power now....you have been a beacon for freedom...
> >> to fritter that initiative would be both foolhardy and sad.....
> >
> >I am not suggesting otherwise. I believe that the US must impose standards on its
> >alliances. Russia does not meet these standards. This does not make Russia an enemy
> >nor does it unfairly isolate Russia.
>
> i hope the usa will put as much effort and money into raising and
> enabling russia as it did with germany....
Not just the USA but Europe as well. Indeed Europe is an economic rival to the US. It is
right that Europe take the lead in helping Russia now as America helped Europe following
the war. Remember however that the situations is post war Germany and Post Soviet Russia
are quite different. Germany had a long history of free market capitalism and was (with
the exception of the Hitler era) moving towards and not away from liberal democracy.
Pouring money into Russia will not solve much , Russia needs institutional help but first
it must want institutional help.
> it is by far the best and most important option for extending the
> modern pax....
>
Extending the modern pax is not that simple. Remember the song title "It takes two to
tango" Very apt here.
> >> at the moment...the planet depends greatly upon what you do...
> >> and at times you are just a giant immature child....
>
> >America is led by fallable human beings just like everywhere else. I think on the
> >whole America usually tries to do the right thing in the context of course of putting
> >its own interests first. I don't think you can expect much more.
>
> mostly agreed...you have a marvelous government infrastructure
> as is being exhibited by the current lot of cronies......
The keystone of that marvelous infrastructure is the Supreme Court. ;-)
> i fear *any* us isolationism....
As well you might. It is understandable that a European would feel this way and an
American would fell less fear. I agree that US isolationism would be a bad thing but it is
always a possibility. I believe that Europe ought to seek its own way independent of an
American umbrella. It is time for Europe to grow up. The war has been over for 56 years.
Europe and America should be close friends and allies but shoulder absolutely equally the
burdens of defense and maintaining the preeminence of Western Liberal democracy in the
world.
> america's interests are widely my interests....
>
Indeed. See above.
> >> you must negotiate with russia and soon.....go out into the world
> >> and act....you will get far more that way....
>
> >America is constantly negotiating with Russia.
>
> i think so...i hope it is serious....to allow russia to feed nuclear
> hardware into foreign ports for peanuts does not make
> sense to me with all america's trillions.....
>
I don't know what you are referring to.>> europe is still a mass of fractious states with
far too many damned
> >> socialists....europe should feel the thunder of american power....
> >> that is far more likely to stop them bickering in their little ponds..
>
> >I am beginning to think that the US should start leaning on France and put a stop to
> >their silly resistence to US leadership. If they don't wish to participate in NATO on
> >the same terms as everyone else, then fine let them exist in isolation outside of
> >NATO.
>
> france is a very strange animal....it is often a coward....but it is
> a determined nuclear power....i think it has learnt much from
> the last century....
> every politician tends to appease the mob....
> france is remarkably free and remarkably bureaucratic and elitist....
> the french and italians don't take government as seriously as
> the northerners.....it is a very healthy trait....
I'm not sure of that at all. France is highly statist. The French look to the government
for things that Americans would never dream of. Marc Living told me that in France you
need permission from the state to name your own child something that is not on the
*approved* list of names. I think the French take their government very seriously indeed.
The French also lead the world IMV in parochial self interest.
>
>
> >> britain is your sworn friend...
> >
> >Britain is indeed one of America's best friends in the world. Indeed it is the best
> >"non client" friend with the possible exception of Canada.
>
> ok....but you need your aircraft carriers around the world....
No, *We* need American aircraft carriers around the world. *You* need to ween yourself
from American dependency.
> >Russia will develop according to its own history and timetable just as all other
> >countries do. The issue is whether Russia ought to be a candidate for joining NATO
> >any time in the near future. I think not.
>
> it will be step by step....joint exercises etc....
No problem there. If you are talking about some undefined future time, all is possible.
If that is what you mean by Russia joining NATO then you need to make it clear. Your
postings indicate that you see Russia joining NATO in the near term.
> >> a giant military machine that should put the fear of god into any
> >> who consider for a second to challenge it....
>
> >Exactly. And a couple of other points about the alliance.
> >
> >1. The fear of God element comes primarily from American capability.
> >2 If NATO is to be of lasting value it must last. If it spreads itself too thin or
> >has a membership that lacks common interest then it is doomed.
> >3 NATO members are above all else sworn to defend each other in the event of outside
> >attack. No provision is made for evaluating the underlying reasons for the attack.
> >An attack on one means an attack on all. I do not feel that we can safely extend that
> >guarantee to Russia.
>
> then tell russia...clearly and often...and state russian entry as a
> desire..
> it would seem that on this issue we are in very close accord....
Maybe, but like many things it is a matter of emphasis. I think Russia knows the type of
society it must build if it hopes to become a mainstream Western Nation. Perhaps NATO
membership can be the prize but the important thing is that NATO membership is far more
important to Russia then it is to the West or the US.
Bill
abelard
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>abelard wrote:
>> given that you think he could have used his (second term?) to lead...
>> what do you imagine...pardon 500,000? this would been entirely out
>> of precedent....
>Presidents can (and should lead) in their first term as well as their second term.
ideally...however, with your adversarial system and universal
franchise of the ignorant...the other lot invariably appeal to
the mob....if a pol attempts to rise above this he will lose.....
> Why
>must he pardon 500,000 (assuming 500,000 ought to be pardoned). Yes, 500,000 thousand
>would certainly be taken very badly in the country. But why not 1,000 or even 5 or 10
>thousand of the most eggregious cases.
he did pardon a few thousand...that publicity concentrates
on particular cases where the opposition imagine they
can denigrate him does not change that fact....
as a prosecuting council...you do a very fine job....but
in reason i regard your case as thin..
clinton is just another struggling human....this either/or
'logic' of saint or sinner is part of what is deeply unhealthy in
western society....
further, the principle of *civilised* law is innocent until proven
'guilty' beyond reasonable doubt...not verdict according to
whatever i can sell to the ignorant mob....
your leadership is deeply corrupt....
your christianist principle is 'we are all sinners'....again...
any society that acts otherwise is corrupt and uncivilised....
the bush coterie is clearly corrupt to a far different order than
clinton...
> If he felt that the nation is going overboard in
>locking up drug users he could of used his pardon power to highlight the problem. Because
>someone might not be able to entirely solve a problem is no reason not to try to solve a
>part of the problem.
you may have a case...i know not...but he did pardon 'drug'
aficionados...
>I am happy to hear it. You can be sure that you fail to bore me as well. The fact that I
>respond to your postings is proof as I wouldn't bother otherwise. You frustrate me
>sometimes, you exasperate me sometimes but you do not bore me.
1)thank you kind sir...
2)i do not intend to fuss you...
3)i have said...i do not function by the current rec'd paradigm...
>> > I am unable to excuse away and rationalize
>> >everything your hero does.
>>
>> i don't not take the sainted bill on only one level....
>> as a politician, i regard him with great admiration.....
>> as a human, i regard him as far less of a clone than most
>> posers who achieve high office....but then the world is full
>> of others who live without side (in the slang sense of putting
>> on side)...so that is admirable....but not unusual
>> i also regard him as having considerable/unusual moral courage....
>I regard him as being [almost] totally without moral courage. I too try to look at him on
>many levels. He is without doubt one of the more interesting and complex public figures to
>have come along in my memory. I feel as if he has taken me and the country on a roller
>coaster ride. The ups and downs have been exciting but often dangerous and needlessly
>reckless.
you have ended richer, more confident, probably more humane...
the world is probably more rational after his efforts in israel,
ni, serbia etc....
the major failure/s imv is weakening the military which you hardly
mention...and your disgusting and uncivilised 'crime' industry....
> I believe that had he personal integrity to match his undoubted charm personal
>carisma [sp] and intelligence he could have been highly successful and left a lasting
>legacy. As it is his own vanity willfullness and hubris constantly got in the way to the
>point were he not only failed in his own administration but seriously damaged his party
>(and what it stands for) as well.
trouble is...i swallow none of this....
afaiac it is the cowardice of gore that has damaged you....
>> you seem to think he has more latitude as president than i imagine...
>> if he pardoned 1/2 a milion....he would have ruined his party's
>> prospects for a generation.....
>> they may even have declared him 'insane'....
>Where on earth did you gather that I suggest he pardon 1/2 million.
so....how many?
> How about 5 or ten for
>starters.
i think the number was about 4000...and more or less par for
that power...
if it isn't in the media...it didn't happen?
>> >> 1)my view of him as a politician is not even slightly modified.....
>Is there anything he could have possibly done on a personal level that would alter your
>view of him as a politician?
well...madsam shot a cabinet minister during a meeting.....
>> i can't see her going further....but who knows...she's clearly
>> competent and talented....
>
>Beside the point whether she will go further or not. A very significant political career
>can be found just in the Senate.
good and fine by me...imv she can certainly contribute at that level..
i regard her as impressive....but without the necessary edge....
>> but he is a political giant....
>
>LOL, He is a political has been who seems intent on destroying any future for himself and
>his wife.
politically, he is probably now not so powerful...that is the way of
politics....as for hillary...she seems to be doing fine...
>> his judgement has so often been finely honed...i will not bet on the
>> recklessness claim...remember the fellow in the new testament
>> who was about to be sacked?
if the hatred grows great enuf....maybe there'll be a home in
israel or switzerland or outer mongolia....
>Thankfully most do not in this way. This is clear misapplication of his powers. He has
>been unfaithful to his high office. He has acted (as Jimmy Carter says) disgracefully.
now there was a great success....another tight ass....
>> but he has not sold out so often when it mattered....
>> whereas look at bliar!
>
>Blair hasn't seriously sold out IMV. It is true that he has lied about some things that
>got him elected.
where has clinton told direct lies concerning his program in order
to get elected....i can think of no previous uk pm who has...
imv this is unprecedented....but i am no historian...
>But it is the nature of the type of government that you have to expect as
>much. Why should Blair push for FOI. It will just be troublesome for him. What you need
>is a Reform Party whose only agenda is reform of your political process. Perhaps it will
>take 50 years or longer before such a party would be able to show measurable results but
>without it I think your system will slowly and constantly rot and it won't matter a whit
>which party wins or who the personality is that holds the PM office. Of course absorption
>into Europe (or even the US) might help..
all seems sense to me...
>> i think they are in love....much depends upon whether that
>> judgement is accurate....
>
>Oh you old sweety pie. I didn't think terms like "in love" were part of your vocabulary.
>;-)
it is a natural and real phenomenon....it must be attended to in any
objective analysis...
>> i am not shocked or disappointed when they spit in the street....
>> or screw in the oval office......
>
>I'm not shocked when primative people behave primatively. I don't like it when people spit
>in the streets but I am not shocked. Bill Clinton has had ample opportunity to learn the
>refinements of civilized behavior but even so I am not overly upset at him screwing in the
>Oval Office. As for making off with the furniture... Well that's simple stealing.
what provincials you americans can be.....
but if it is defrauding hundreds of millions in savings and loan....
that's just business!!
no doubt bill and hills convinced themselves no-one would
want it...or a souvenir was a reasonable wage...if they even
did it.....
i believe everything the media tells me...
>> you're an old prude my boy....
>
>I don't think I am. But it doesn't bother me if you think I am. I am interested though in
>what particularly makes you say that. Am I a prude because I object to a President
>stealing furniture from the Whitehouse or am I a prude because I object to the Presidents
>brother in law receiving a half million dollar fee for representing a criminal for an
>executive pardon? Perhaps I am a prude because I criticize a President for lying under
>oath? Are these the reasons or is there something else?
probably more for expecting too much of poor monkeys struggling
out of the forest...
>
>> c'mon....the bush family is up to their necks in shady deals....they
>> are just rich enuf...because of it...to be able to buy almost
>> anything or anyone....
>> much of the peevishness from the right was just because they
>> ultimately could not buy bill...including big tobacco and big oil..
>
>Maybe so but if they couldn't buy Clinton it was only because he had sold himself
>elsewhere..
like where?
>> you prefer style to substance....and can't really tell the difference.
>No I prefer substance. Clintonl provided only style. Clinton was always on the make for
>the big score that would secure his place in history. It was ego and vanity that drove
>him. Even his efforts at peacemaking in NI and the Middle East were driven IMV with
>providing a laurel for his own crown. He wanted peace, and approached the process as a
>bully boy demanding concessions that would later be ignorred. He made some headlines but
>his efforts have been a failure.. . Certainly Bill Clinton never attempted to lead
>the nation away from high level of
>> >imprisonment or the death penalty. Say what you might , but it is the responsibility
>> >of leaders to lead. Bill Clinton did lead but at least in these instances he did not
>> >lead in the direction you would have liked. He certainly could of but he chose not
>> >to.
you are maybe more certain that he could than i am....
but if you are correct...you have a case...
but who can read the mind of another....
maybe he'll write in due couse...but hilly still in politics
will likely inhibit that...
>> convince me...re above...
>> if he could...and did not...that was clear misjudgement....but i have
>> no access to his mind....i would expect it to be political realism.
>Of course he could have. That is self evident. Afterall he did find it perfectly possible
>to pardon certain sleazy criminals.
once it had no political cost....
> Perhaps there would have been a certain political
>price to pay but that is called political courage and leaders possess political courage.
yet you claim he damaged the party...
>> but he could be a misguided religious bigot....tho' i doubt it with
>> his intelligence...we do have some intelligent poorly educated
>> bigots posting here who in the ignorance believe in state
>> murder....
>
>There are many intelligent people who firmly believe in capital punishment.
of course there are...if they are also uninformed...
intelligence is not a substitute for knowledge...
>> most who get to the top are not without talents....
>> france does rather well imv...but it is an elitist country....
>France has elected one thug after the other for the last several decades.
probably....but the country runs rather well....
i am primarily concerned with results...
>> britain did well enuf much of the time...the narrow barrow boys
>> are a present problem...which i hope will be a temporary glitch...
>
>What is a barrow boy?
a market trader...
> Why do you suppose you will get better than Blair in the future?
if the tory party puts its shop in order...we will...
we tend to get decent leaders when thing are in a real mess...
in the meantime the british tend to elect mediocrities....
you now regard clinton as too much fun...
>> >> if you block the state murder....far more killing is a very high
>> >> likelihood...if you don't protect your income flow..you may
>> >> as well not bother...
>> >> it is simple *fact* there is no informed and sane person who backs
>> >> state murder...but your leaders dare not say it....
>Your "simple *fact*" is neither simple or a fact. There are many very informed and
>intelligent people who back capital punishment.
no....
intelligent people yes...uninformed people yes...
maybe even some thik informed people....
but no intelligent informed rational person...
> Indeed until very recently it was a view
>that was nearly universally held
yes...once the world was flat....
>/methinks you are a soft prude...perhaps it is time you
>commented on
>
>> same...:-)
>
>I'll be glad to if you will state your reasons for your view.
the reasons are adequately laid out in many books...
add to which, the psychological damage to society in terms of
paranoid fears plus the corruption of those involved in the
process...
there is no benefit at any level...and many costs....
>I don't and have never focused on it in the slightest.
yes you do...you refer to his alleged perjury....
> In matters sexual I usually react
>only with envy and regret that it isn't me when I hear of others having an especially good
>time.
well... that sounds fairly healthy....
go on admit it....all those randy old prudes trying to protect the
beautiful innocent monica...after all, it should'ha been them....
and maybe we can get rid of him and get a puppet into the whitehouse..
like bush....or at least slow him down and stop his attacks on
our drug profits....
they are quite disgusting...if one has an aesthetic sense....
clearly bill has...or it wouldn't be him having the fun.....
there is little more hypocritical and disgusting as an old fart like
keyhole ken or lieberman attempting to protect the virginity
of a ripe young lass....
that one adds political advantage to the brew just makes it
even more ludicrous....
and he even had the balls to thumb his nose at the venal prurient
old farts....insult to injury....
>> guilty without trial...oh dear mister prude....are you sure your
>> judgement is very objective?
>
>I don't say he is guilty but he has been accused.
absolutely irrelevant and meaningless....
the accusations are politically and financially motivated....
every powerful person collect such fleas.....
> He has been accused often by many
>different women of a kind of sexual harrassment.
there are more than a hundred million females in the states...
he travels widely and meet thousands...
> He is undoubtedly aggresive sexually and
>there is a pattern.
or a bandwagon...
> Forcing yourself on someone sexually is intolerable. Don't you
>agree. Or am I a prude for feeling this way?
no...i fully agree...
innocent until *proved* guilty....and you are *nowhere* in sight
of that....nor do i see any prospect of that....
that said....all humans have weaknesses...possibly he has such a
weakness....
society is in course of changing in this respect.....males have to
adjust...females if they have any wit, will not expect a five
minute revolution.....some of this is in the genes....
meanwhile females are widely exploiting the situation....that is
also an 'evil'...a social corrosive....your legal system encourages
that...as does the public prurience...as does the venality of
political opportunists....
this is not a simple situation...
>> he doesn't promise a bill of rights and a freedom of information act..
>> as a public act....and blatantly renege on it....that is real and
>> substantive corruption..
>
>He is certainly not above doing such.
evidence...
> He has backpeddled on many of his promises. Of
>course an American President is limited in his ability to deliver but even so....
evidence beyond political necessity..
innocent until proved guilty....re bliar there is publicly available
evidence....
>> so he lied to the prurient busy bodies about his girl friend....
>Who were legitmately trying to establish a pattern of a sexual predator
imv impossible in the circumstances...therefore a fishing
expedition....a witch hunt....
> because of a
>harrassment lawsuit brought by another woman who was not his girlfriend but was nonetheless
>bothered by him.
many will be 'bothered' by the powerful and famous for millions
of dollars and rubbed off fame...
even grant's whore made a living out of it....
>> politics...just like your supreme 'court'....your 'legal' system is
>> becoming a joke...
>I have considerable (not absolute) respect for the Supreme Court. It is the institution
>that keeps the US on an even footing. It has served us well.
what...after this farce!
>> > He has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in
>> >fines ,
>>
>> payola....cheapest most efficient way out....higher priorities....
>Spin Spin Spin . . . If he was looking for the most efficient way out he would have stood
>up like a man and said yes I had sex with that woman.
none of your business...
a man does not boast of such things....a gentleman denies it....
>We were both consenting adults and
>what we do is our own business. You seem to think that had he done this the nation would
>go into a tizzy and turn him out on his ear.
hindsight....
> Not so, indeed had he done this he might have
>struck a blow against purient witchhunting (cigars etc.) that you seem to mistakenly credit
>him with.
again...hindsight....
>> > the nation has paid millions in defending him,
>>
>> no...hounding him for corrupt political purposes....designed to
>> discredit him....just like a wife accusing a husband....
>> seems to be working on you tho'
>If what you say is so, then he is a most inept politician as he could have easily nipped
>such hounding in the bud simply by truthfully dealing with it and confronting his accusers.
1)still not your business...
2)still hindsight....
>Just out of curiosity, Have you ever spent time in the United States?
no...not a minute....
>> more payola...he doesn't need the 'honour'....
>> he's likely laughing up his sleeve at you....which is what really
>> sticks in your craw....
>> you want revenge...you want to justify yourself...
>
>I just want him to go away.
a reasonable viewpoint....
worry not...all things pass....
>;-), I well know what the real quote is.
good!
and very likely more apposite....
regards.
abelard
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>I have received both of them and have replied (just now) to one of them. I will
>probably reply to the other soon. I have been very busy, Thanks for your responses.
only checking....my isp is in chaos...
always feel most free to ignore my responses!
there is not the slightest pressure for response....
when i specifically want an answer to a particular
point...i state so....
meanwhile i fine your responses widely useful and interesting...
regards.
abelard
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>
>
>abelard wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 10:51:50 -0500, Bill Willis
>> <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>>
>> >LOL, Clinton has hurt the Democratic party quite enough thank you very much.
>>
>> sure he has....8 years in the white house....and a steady erosion
>> in the other 2 houses...
>
>Clinton contributed mightely to the erosion.
you have more or less balance...you were in minorities...
>> > While
>> >the country did credit Clinton with economic good times and he was very popular with
>> >minority populations,
>>
>> yeah....about a 66% minority....
>> i wish you well with his loser successor.....
>Nonsense, Clinton scored well in polls that measured his performance rating. I don't think
>he ever reached 66% but it any case that is not a measure of popularity. The poll ratings
>were purely a reflection of economic good times. Poll results were quite different when
>they measured peoples response to his personal integrity etc
so what...who cares...he is there to get results...
>>> disgusting though i regard the current spectacle....
>
>> >> it looks like blush may well do a better job than gore could have been
>> >> expected to achieve...
>It seems you have fixed your opinion against Gore because he didn't sufficiently embrace
>Clinton during the campaign. Similarly you were out of sympathy with Lieberman because he
you really don't get it...clinton dominated the scene...he handed
a full flush to gore....who blew it monumentally....
gore and lieberman threw it away...they lost....
i am sure they are wonderful fellows....and they are losers....
when even a moderately introspective pigeon could have won.....
they are failures....they are fools....clinton was a winner....
get it yet?
>dared to call a spade a spade during the Lewinski scandal.
and back again to the 'scandal' you keep telling me you don't care
about....next i will be rotfl.....
> It seems your infatuation with
>Clinton colors your perspective on all else.
he won old chap...he kept on winning....he beat off keyhole ken....
he beat of the brave lieberman who waited till he was out of the
country to savage his benefactor....and who then surprisingly
got the vice p post.....
i bet he thought he was made.....
sadly the great american public looked....and ended up with blush...
>> >I don't like the Bush presidency because he has traded on the family name rather than
>> >having is own CV to run on. America is/should not be a nation governed by privlege.
>> >I also don't think he won the election.
>>
>> of course he didn't...as stated, your system is highly corrupt....
>While I don't think he won the election, he came pretty damned close to winning the
>election. I think I am much more able than you to tolerate other people's viewpoints
>without claiming corruption etc.
i tolerate his views...i probably prefer his views....i even think you
got the better deal...by accident and by corruption.....
i am not 'claiming corruption'...the supreme court acted corruptly
as is obvious to any objective observer....
>> > That said, I like Bush as a person.
>>
>> he's a wanker..
>
>What does "wanker" actually mean in Britspeak. Is it similar to jerk?
a fine translation...
> If so, I
>disagree. Bush is an average man somewhat better educated than most. He has always lived
>a privleged life and all his points of reference regarding America are formed from that
>standpoint.
probably..
>> .but at least he may strengthen your military....
>> he can't wait to sell the country out to big business...
>> still a country tends to get the politicians they deserve....
>
>Indeed a country does get the leaders they deserve. I would want it no other way.
but then i am an elitist...
>> he can't hack it....his judgement is appalling....
>
>You constantly amuse me with your certainty and pontificating. I am no Gore groupie by any
>means but your view of him has solidified since the campaign
of course...he showed himself a complete political moron....
clint had left him the presidency for the taking....and he still blew
it...after inventing the internet i would have hope for better....
he turned out to be an empty shell without clint to carry him....
> and while I doubt you know
>much about Gore beyond the recent campaign I expect he is on your shit list forever for
>failing to be a true disciple to your hero.
no, i repeat..i am sure he is a fine fellow....as a fellow i would
probably prefer his company to bush's and certainly to lieberman...
what a romantic you are...you should be english...and me american...
you prefer noble losers...i prefer competence....
>> i cannot read the situation that well....i see no impressive alternate
>> candidate...but if you are anything to go by....perhaps like our
>> current tory party....virginity and ambition is preferable to
>> power and competence.....
>
>I don't think the recent US election points to much of anything. Clearly the election
>might have gone either way.
not with a half competent democrat candidate....
> Clearly both candidates were within a whisker of each others
>positions on most important matters.
rhubarb...blush is a big business puppet...and gore a dogmatic
tree hugger....
you had a president....methinks you don't know when you
are well off...
>> it was too open....now it is focussed....
>How was it open? I asked simply for your view on the Clinton pardon controversy. What
>could be more direct and focussed.
you asked it in a way that i thought that it fished for an out
of context response....i will not judge clinton by one act....
i will not judge him by the prattling of his clear inferiors....
neither incidentally will history....
>> the supreme court is not law....it is clearly corrupt...big time....
>The supreme court is law. The Supreme court was created by the Constitution which is above
>all the Supreme law of the land. The Supreme court is fallable and political but I don't
>think it is corrupt.
it is political...it is not corrupt...an interesting view...
>> i think it has come far....i think it is uncivilised to a much greater
>> extent than the old world....
>
>I don't. I think the United States is far better at confronting and solving real problems
>than the old world. While the same issues comfound both the new and the old world the
>effects of these problems are usually markedly less in America than in Europe.
the people of southern europe are happier than those of the north...
>> i am not politician or historian enuf to argue with you sure of my
>> footing...adding a russian or historical group might forward your
>> contentions....
>
>I am not a historian either but I am very interested in history. I think it is important
>to have some considerable background in matters historical to gain perspective in
>contemporary matters.
no serious argument....i study history to understand human
behaviour and communication logic....
not in order to understand politics.....
i am an explorer....as with all my kind...i must remain aware
of when i am best elsewhere....in exile...
my kind are not popular with authority...we open doors
and shine in light....
i care who rules....i care little what the sheep do.....
like monks...i advise my society....but i am not entirely of it....
my time frame is much longer....
the job of the politician is essentially to keep the mob content
and fed....and to keep them in their place....to stop mayhem
and riot....
my concern is to seek a way forward....and to keep my skin
intact while i do it....
my kind are useful...but not wildly popular...at least until we
are safely ded...
>> russia is in process of disbanding/reorganising one of the greatest
>> empires of history...i am impressed by what i do see thus far....
>Really, What impresses you? Certainly the suddenness of the disbanding was surprising but
it did not surprise me...i predicted it....
all such enterprises tend to die with the last old man....
>the re-organizing?. What impresses you there? The population of Russia is at heart
>authoritarian and
your post is becoming disrupted....
i am impressed that they have blocked chechnya....i am impressed that
they are learning fast...i am impressed that their economy is
stabilising...i am impressed that they have backed away from
milo.....
i am impressed they crushed adolph....i am impressed by the few
i meet...they are highly analytic and realistic and detached....
the strangest thing (for me) is their *fierce* national loyalty...
there is a limit to what i wish to say openly here...
>> 50 years is a very short span to me....not 'long past'....
>
>50 years can be time enough but you miss the point. Europe (not just Germany) went through
>a major aberration caused mainly by Hitler. Hitler set back the liberal historical trends
germany was steadily centralising power before adolph....
they were behaving almost exactly like h***** and bliar....
>that had been forming for more than a century in Europe.
there were other elements...trade 'war', a dying feudal regime....
think of adolph as cromwell or napoleon.....religious differences..
rome never really got to germany....they have been running to catch
up ever since...
i don't regard hitler as an aberration.....i have studied him in
considerable depth...(i am not even sure i believe in aberrations)
germany took to hitler like a duck to water....
> Fortunately the interruption was
>brief. What is important is that for Russia the Hitler interlude (while catastrophic) was
>no interruption from business as usual. Hitler was just one more despot trying to prevail.
i don't accept that....
>> most sheep yearn for authority...britain currently stomachs bliar....
>
>Well if Blair starts trying to control the Press or take extra legal measures to ensure his
>grip on power, then I would want the US to reevaluate its alliance with Britain. I don't
>think Blair and Putin are comparable in any way. This is another example of your
>absolutism.
no, it is a broad brush and a very long term perspective....
> You have decided against Blair (admittedly for some good reasons) and are
>therefore utterly hardened against him.
you over egg...you clearly do not fully grasp my perspective....
i regard bernard of clairvaux as a destroyer....
i regard newton as vastly more relevant than bliar....
we currently have bad and ignorant squires....
hague may well be worse....
you have blush...he is an annoying blip to me....but your
political culture is probably currently more robust than ours...
i expect bliar and his crap not to last long...same with kennedy
and hague...
freedom of information and a bill of rights is vastly more relevant
and important than any of the small minded, often venal,
pygmies....
they are tin rattling monkeys who want to be 'important'....
einstein is 'important'...they are not....
some of the teachers posting here are much more important
to the future than bliar....bliar is just a nuisance in the way
of progress...
blush is far more important...so is putin...
> Because you oppose Blair doesn't put him or the
>British who support him in the same category as Putin and the Russians.
no, bliar is a cypher...and a nuisance....nothing more...
>> i do not wish to live in a medieval or socialist utopia....
>> i want a world that is safe for tall poppies....my only feasible
>> option is currently liberal democracy....
>
>Neither do I, that is precisely why I am highly skeptical of allowing Russia into NATO.
>The avenue of least resistence would be to let Russia in but it would destroy the rasion
>d'etre of the NATO alliance. I think there are several other countries that shouldn't be a
>part of NATO but certainly Russia would be the oddest of the odd men out.
i think things will move faster than you think...
>> i hope the usa will put as much effort and money into raising and
>> enabling russia as it did with germany....
>
>Not just the USA but Europe as well. Indeed Europe is an economic rival to the US. It is
>right that Europe take the lead in helping Russia now as America helped Europe following
>the war.
yes...'europe' should be thinking....but europe is petty squabbling
little backwaters...they are tired of fighting...they are tired of
thinking....they are overcrowded....they care about freebies in
brussels.....barrow boys...small fish in small ponds.....
you are rome....they are provinces...you rule the world....
consolidate your grip...pay your dues....
i tell you...russia is your opportunity....
if europe has the wit to cooperate...so very much the better....
but you must lead....or your empire also will collapse from
within....
> Remember however that the situations is post war Germany and Post Soviet Russia
>are quite different. Germany had a long history of free market capitalism and was (with
>the exception of the Hitler era) moving towards and not away from liberal democracy.
i don't accept this analysis...
>Pouring money into Russia will not solve much , Russia needs institutional help but first
>it must want institutional help.
probably agree...i think they have the wit...i hope they
have the wit...but on that (important) detail i am insufficiently
informed..
>> it is by far the best and most important option for extending the
>> modern pax....
>Extending the modern pax is not that simple.
no, it is not simple....but it is worth the effort...and you have
the (people) resources....
you also remain *vastly* richer at present....
you consume much....you must contribute much...
you have to pay to keep pre-eminence...
>> >America is led by fallable human beings just like everywhere else. I think on the
>> >whole America usually tries to do the right thing in the context of course of putting
>> >its own interests first. I don't think you can expect much more.
>>
>> mostly agreed...you have a marvelous government infrastructure
>> as is being exhibited by the current lot of cronies......
>
>The keystone of that marvelous infrastructure is the Supreme Court. ;-)
hmphh
>> i fear *any* us isolationism....
>
>As well you might. It is understandable that a European would feel this way and an
>American would fell less fear.
i tell you...the oceans no longer mean anything....
> I agree that US isolationism would be a bad thing but it is
>always a possibility. I believe that Europe ought to seek its own way independent of an
>American umbrella. It is time for Europe to grow up.
i am not sanguine...
> The war has been over for 56 years.
>Europe and America should be close friends and allies but shoulder absolutely equally the
>burdens of defense and maintaining the preeminence of Western Liberal democracy in the
>world.
i agree...but they will mostly happily free ride and whine...
>> america's interests are widely my interests....
>Indeed. See above.
>> i think so...i hope it is serious....to allow russia to feed nuclear
>> hardware into foreign ports for peanuts does not make
>> sense to me with all america's trillions.....
>I don't know what you are referring to.
they are supplying to china, iran and others....i don't keep score...
>> france is a very strange animal....it is often a coward....but it is
>> a determined nuclear power....i think it has learnt much from
>> the last century....
>> every politician tends to appease the mob....
>> france is remarkably free and remarkably bureaucratic and elitist....
>> the french and italians don't take government as seriously as
>> the northerners.....it is a very healthy trait....
>
>I'm not sure of that at all. France is highly statist. The French look to the government
>for things that Americans would never dream of. Marc Living told me that in France you
>need permission from the state to name your own child something that is not on the
>*approved* list of names. I think the French take their government very seriously indeed.
>The French also lead the world IMV in parochial self interest.
as i say...it is a strange animal....you cannot call 'your' kid 'atom
bomb' or after every member of the manchester football team...
(i think you can appeal)...but if your kids don't support you in
your dotage the 'government' will take you to court and
force you....
france is wildly devolved...there are four tax raising levels of
government....
>> ok....but you need your aircraft carriers around the world....
>
>No, *We* need American aircraft carriers around the world. *You* need to ween yourself
>from American dependency.
i don't agree if that means new competing power blocks....
>> it will be step by step....joint exercises etc....
>
>No problem there. If you are talking about some undefined future time, all is possible.
>If that is what you mean by Russia joining NATO then you need to make it clear. Your
>postings indicate that you see Russia joining NATO in the near term.
i don't think in terms of time tables....i think in terms of
processes...
but you must catch the tides...
>> >1. The fear of God element comes primarily from American capability.
>> >2 If NATO is to be of lasting value it must last. If it spreads itself too thin or
>> >has a membership that lacks common interest then it is doomed.
>> >3 NATO members are above all else sworn to defend each other in the event of outside
>> >attack. No provision is made for evaluating the underlying reasons for the attack.
>> >An attack on one means an attack on all. I do not feel that we can safely extend that
>> >guarantee to Russia.
>>
>> then tell russia...clearly and often...and state russian entry as a
>> desire..
>> it would seem that on this issue we are in very close accord....
>
>Maybe, but like many things it is a matter of emphasis. I think Russia knows the type of
>society it must build if it hopes to become a mainstream Western Nation. Perhaps NATO
>membership can be the prize but the important thing is that NATO membership is far more
>important to Russia then it is to the West or the US.
mostly agreed.....but i think it just as important for america and for
europe....
regards...
Bill Willis
abelard wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 22:04:44 -0500, Bill Willis
> <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
Believe it or not, I have snipped vast areas of this as it is becoming too repetitive. We are
both more or less fixed in how we regard Clinton and are repeating the same arguments over and
over. I have commented on those things that I think needed commenting on and it is still a very
long posting.
> he bush coterie is clearly corrupt to a far different order than
> clinton...
>
The kind of corruption I see with the Bush coterie is the kind of corruption that exists
wherever there are wealthy people. Wealthy people help each other. They provide access and
sweetheart deals that aren't available to everyone else. It is usually all legal enough but it
is a kind of corruption nonetheless. BTW, the Clintons have their fair share of access to this
crowd as well and have profitted. One point of reference is Hillary's spectacular successes
trading commodities.
> you may have a case...i know not...but he did pardon 'drug'
> aficionados...
I'm glad to hear it. I did not know this. I regard drug offenders as criminals but sometimes
the sentences are to harsh. This is what the pardon powers are for, a means of smoothing out
some of the harsher realities of the criminal justice system. BTW, the overwhelming majority of
drug offenders are not in jail at all. It usually takes repeat arrests and generally the
commission of some other crime before one sees the inside of a jail (sadly).
The ups and downs have been exciting but often dangerous and needlessly
> >reckless.
>
> you have ended richer, more confident, probably more humane...
> the world is probably more rational after his efforts in israel,
> ni, serbia etc....
Serbia was a success but I see no progress in Israel and nothing really (of his doing) in NI
either. In both these places he tried to force a paper solution when what is needed is
transforming hearts and minds. By trying to back leaders in a corner and demand their signature
on a bottom line he probably destroyed the Barak government and weakend Arafat as well.
(Although the Palestinans will be well rid of Arafat whenever that day comes)
> the major failure/s imv is weakening the military which you hardly
> mention...and your disgusting and uncivilised 'crime' industry....
>
> trouble is...i swallow none of this....
> afaiac it is the cowardice of gore that has damaged you....
Gore cannot blame Clinton for his defeat but Clinton did not (and could not) help Gore either.
Gore's primary failure was IMV that he refused to approach the electorate as just himself. He
was the victim of his advisors. He paid too much attention to his image. That said, I think
Gore is a fine man and would have made a decent President.
> what provincials you americans can be.....
> but if it is defrauding hundreds of millions in savings and loan....
> that's just business!!
>
What a hypocrite! You say when I repeat some charge about Clinton "What about innocence until
proven guilty"? George Bush Jr (or Sr.) were never involved in the savings and loan scandal
some years back. His brother Neil Bush was but it never came to criminal charges (unlike Bill
Clinton who had to plea bargain away perjury charges).
> no doubt bill and hills convinced themselves no-one would
> want it...or a souvenir was a reasonable wage...if they even
> did it.....
> i believe everything the media tells me...
You apparently very selectively believe what the media tells you. If it is against one of your
buddies well then it's and outrage but some slander about someone you don't care about - well
that is apparently fair game to bruit around.
> you are maybe more certain that he could than i am....
> but if you are correct...you have a case...
> but who can read the mind of another....
> maybe he'll write in due couse...but hilly still in politics
> will likely inhibit that...
You do make a point here. I think the fact that Hillary is still in politics will inhibit both
of them from coming clean. I fully expect in the years ahead that Clinton will get himself into
one mess after the other. He is pathological, he genuinely feels he is being persecuted by
enemies and yet continuously gives his enemies ever more amunition to do just that. >Of course
he could have. That is self evident. Afterall he did find it perfectly possible
> >to pardon certain sleazy criminals.
>
> once it had no political cost....
Indeed it is having a heavy political cost. Also just because his term is over doesn't mean
that he need be a political dinasour. Jimmy Carter provides an excellent example for
politicians in retirement.
> >There are many intelligent people who firmly believe in capital punishment.
>
> of course there are...if they are also uninformed...
> intelligence is not a substitute for knowledge...
Intelligent people know first and foremost that they do "not" have the knowledge. This is what
worries me about you. You are so damned certain about the rightness of your vieewpoint.
Intelligent people know that there are many legitimate ways to look at issues and have to seek
to find a comfortable way to incorporate a viewpoint with an overall broader outlook.
>France has elected one thug after the other for the last several decades.
> probably....but the country runs rather well....
> i am primarily concerned with results...
It does seem to run rather well and given its high level of social democracy I find it
surprising that a day of reckoning hasn't come. I personally could never stand the
intrusiveness of government in the French manner.
> > Why do you suppose you will get better than Blair in the future?
>
> if the tory party puts its shop in order...we will...
> we tend to get decent leaders when thing are in a real mess...
> in the meantime the british tend to elect mediocrities....
> you now regard clinton as too much fun...
The Tories are by and large clones of the Republicans and home for the rich and business
interests in the UK. The same corruption that you ascribe to the Bush family is rampant in the
Tory party.
>Your "simple *fact*" is neither simple or a fact. There are many very informed and
> >intelligent people who back capital punishment.
>
> no....
> intelligent people yes...uninformed people yes...
> maybe even some thik informed people....
> but no intelligent informed rational person...
See my comment above on this subject.
>
>
> > Indeed until very recently it was a view
> >that was nearly universally held
>
> yes...once the world was flat....
A view that has been proven false whereas the desirability of the death penalty is very
obviously a matter of open debate and no where near proven one way or the other.
> yes you do...you refer to his alleged perjury....
Indeed I do. Indeed it is more than merely alleged. He has made a deal with his prosecutors
and thus admitted the charge. He is either guilty or a coward or more likely both..
>
>
> > In matters sexual I usually react
> >only with envy and regret that it isn't me when I hear of others having an especially good
> >time.
>
> well... that sounds fairly healthy....
> go on admit it....all those randy old prudes trying to protect the
> beautiful innocent monica...after all, it should'ha been them....
> and maybe we can get rid of him and get a puppet into the whitehouse..
> like bush....or at least slow him down and stop his attacks on
> our drug profits....
> they are quite disgusting...if one has an aesthetic sense....
> clearly bill has...or it wouldn't be him having the fun.....
>
> there is little more hypocritical and disgusting as an old fart like
> keyhole ken or lieberman attempting to protect the virginity
> of a ripe young lass....
> that one adds political advantage to the brew just makes it
> even more ludicrous....
> and he even had the balls to thumb his nose at the venal prurient
> old farts....insult to injury....
Clearly you don't get it. None of these people, not Lieberman, not even Ken Starr and certainly
not the overwhelming majority of the American people and definitely not me were focused or
cared about Clinton's silly sex life. ISTM that it is you who is obsessed with the sexual
aspects of this case.
Do I approve of him getting a blow job while conducting state business? What a silly question.
Probably I don't *approve* of it in the sense that I don't approve of people pissing or spitting
in the streets either. People do these things sometimes but it is vulgar. Sometimes I have
been vulgar myself. But all this isn't the issue and I really don't think you have a clue as to
what the issue is although God knows I have done my best to explain it to you.
>
>
> >> guilty without trial...oh dear mister prude....are you sure your
> >> judgement is very objective?
> >
> >I don't say he is guilty but he has been accused.
>
More objective than you it would seem concerning the Bush S&L allegation.
> He has been accused often by many
> >different women of a kind of sexual harrassment.
>
> there are more than a hundred million females in the states...
> Yet other powerful men are not similarly accused. Blair is a reasonably good looking and
> powerful man who travels widely among millions of females yet he is not similarly plagued.
> he travels widely and meet thousands...
>
> > He is undoubtedly aggresive sexually and
> >there is a pattern.
>
> or a bandwagon...
>
Or might you be burying your head in the sand. Don't you have a glimmer of worry that your hero
might (just might) be a sexual predator. Sure Clinton has his enemies, most politicians have
their enemies. Ronald Reagan and Thatcher had enemies galore but this is very different.
> > Forcing yourself on someone sexually is intolerable. Don't you
> >agree. Or am I a prude for feeling this way?
>
> no...i fully agree...
> innocent until *proved* guilty....and you are *nowhere* in sight
> of that....nor do i see any prospect of that....
Innocent until proven guilty refers to a presumption in a trial and nothing else. I (and you)
am perfectly free to form opinions and have no obligation to employ innocent until proven
guilty. That said, I make no judgement on Clinton's guilt regarding the rape charge. I merely
note that the charge has been made and that it comes in the context of a series of women making
quite serious allegations about his sexual harrassment conduct.
If you agree that forcing yourself on someone in a sexual way is wrong, how do you expect it to
be adjudicated fairly? Why was Ken Starr wrong to explore Clinton's sexual behavior in the
light of several sexual harassment charges?.
> that said....all humans have weaknesses...possibly he has such a
> weakness....
> society is in course of changing in this respect.....males have to
> adjust...females if they have any wit, will not expect a five
> minute revolution.....some of this is in the genes....
> meanwhile females are widely exploiting the situation....that is
> also an 'evil'...a social corrosive....your legal system encourages
> that...as does the public prurience...as does the venality of
> political opportunists....
This is nonsense. It has never been acceptable for anyone to force himself sexually on
another. Forcing is not limited to rape. Indecent exposure on a train for example is
criminally prosecutable. Sure, the mores of sexual behavior are changing but only consentual
sexual behavior.
>
>
> this is not a simple situation...
>
> >> he doesn't promise a bill of rights and a freedom of information act..
> >> as a public act....and blatantly renege on it....that is real and
> >> substantive corruption..
> >
> >He is certainly not above doing such.
He is a proven liar. You yourself have excused him time and again for acting in a politically
safe manner.
>
>
> evidence...
>
> > He has backpeddled on many of his promises. Of
> >course an American President is limited in his ability to deliver but even so....
>
> evidence beyond political necessity..
> innocent until proved guilty....re bliar there is publicly available
> evidence....
Who defines what is political necessity. What you claim political necissity for Clinton might
not be political necessity at all. Likewise the opposite for Blair.
>
>
> >> so he lied to the prurient busy bodies about his girl friend....
>
> >Who were legitmately trying to establish a pattern of a sexual predator
>
> imv impossible in the circumstances...therefore a fishing
> expedition....a witch hunt....
Your view is the wrong view IMV.
>
>
> > because of a
> >harrassment lawsuit brought by another woman who was not his girlfriend but was nonetheless
> >bothered by him.
>
> many will be 'bothered' by the powerful and famous for millions
> of dollars and rubbed off fame...
> even grant's whore made a living out of it....
Yes, yet Grant's whore was Grant's whore n'est ce pas? She didn't just accuse him.
Also, other politicans are not usually plagued with endless series of bogus charges by women
trying to make a quick buck. I think you have a very weak argument here.
>
>
> >> politics...just like your supreme 'court'....your 'legal' system is
> >> becoming a joke...
>
> >I have considerable (not absolute) respect for the Supreme Court. It is the institution
> >that keeps the US on an even footing. It has served us well.
>
> what...after this farce!
;-)
>
>
> >> > He has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in
> >> >fines ,
> >>
> >> payola....cheapest most efficient way out....higher priorities....
>
> >Spin Spin Spin . . . If he was looking for the most efficient way out he would have stood
> >up like a man and said yes I had sex with that woman.
>
> none of your business...
> a man does not boast of such things....a gentleman denies it....
OK, why not stand up and say just that. Say, it is none of your business and I am not going to
discuss my private life with you in any way. It might cause him some legal problems if he did
this but lying under oath causes legal problems as well.
>
>
> >We were both consenting adults and
> >what we do is our own business. You seem to think that had he done this the nation would
> >go into a tizzy and turn him out on his ear.
>
> hindsight....
>
> > Not so, indeed had he done this he might have
> >struck a blow against purient witchhunting (cigars etc.) that you seem to mistakenly credit
> >him with.
>
> again...hindsight....
>
> >> > the nation has paid millions in defending him,
> >>
> >> no...hounding him for corrupt political purposes....designed to
> >> discredit him....just like a wife accusing a husband....
> >> seems to be working on you tho'
>
> >If what you say is so, then he is a most inept politician as he could have easily nipped
> >such hounding in the bud simply by truthfully dealing with it and confronting his accusers.
>
> 1)still not your business...
You are wrong on this. Public officials offer themselves to the public. Anything the public
wishes to make their business is their business. As far as the law goes, Clinton had the best
legal help in the world and if the special prosecutor was asking something that was improper
Clinton could appeal within the law. Of course I know you don't regard the law as applying to
the like of Clinton in the same manner as lesser mortals. But it does.
> 2)still hindsight...
What is your point about hindsight? We are discussing this matter after the event. Of course
it is hindsight, what of it?
> .
>
> >Just out of curiosity, Have you ever spent time in the United States?
>
> no...not a minute....
I am not surprised. While you have more than a usual knowledge (for a Brit) about goings on in
the US you don't seem attuned to the nuances. You often buy into sterotypical British attitudes
regarding America and Americans. I believe I am much more in touch with the British way of life
than you are with the American. There is benefit to experiencing a place first hand and I have
spent a lot of time in your country and know a fair amount of British people, attitudes etc.
Still I am frequently mystified..
Bill
Bill Willis
abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 13:30:21 -0500, Bill Willis
> <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
> >It seems you have fixed your opinion against Gore because he didn't sufficiently embrace
> >Clinton during the campaign. Similarly you were out of sympathy with Lieberman because he
>
> you really don't get it...clinton dominated the scene...he handed
> a full flush to gore....who blew it monumentally....
I think you don't "get it". Clinton handed Gore a very mixed bag. He may have dominated the
scene in the sense that he does even now but that wasn't necessarily to Gore's advantage. I
think Gore after a quarter century in politics has at least as finely tuned political instincts
regarding the USA as abelard does regarding the USA. If Gore felt that using his association
with Clinton would be more of an asset than a liability he would have been willing to kiss his
ass in Times Square. I think when all is said and done the real reason Gore lost was that the
public was just simply tired of Clinton and they were ready for a calmer less frenetic time.
Clintons vices weren't heaped on Gore but he was too closely associated with Clinton. That
said, he almost won. In fact I think he did win.
> gore and lieberman threw it away...they lost....
> i am sure they are wonderful fellows....and they are losers....
> when even a moderately introspective pigeon could have won.....
> they are failures....they are fools....clinton was a winner....
> get it yet?
>
> >dared to call a spade a spade during the Lewinski scandal.
>
> and back again to the 'scandal' you keep telling me you don't care
> about....next i will be rotfl.....
I can't help it abelard. It was a scandal, and I did care about it. I've told you he should
have resigned right away if he was honorable. Of course I suppose that is sort of oxymoronic
because if he was honorable he wouldn't be in the position in the first place.
>
>
> > It seems your infatuation with
> >Clinton colors your perspective on all else.
>
> he won old chap...he kept on winning....he beat off keyhole ken....
> he beat of the brave lieberman who waited till he was out of the
> country to savage his benefactor....and who then surprisingly
> got the vice p post.....
> i bet he thought he was made.....
> sadly the great american public looked....and ended up with blush...
>
It seems that is your mantra and you are sticking to it.
> i am not 'claiming corruption'...the supreme court acted corruptly
> as is obvious to any objective observer....
Oh? Did they now? And which justices acted corruptly and who corrupted them? Was it the
justices that voted to halt the recount that were corrupt or was it the justices that voted to
let the recount (without specifying any standards) proceed. Should the justices of ignorred the
Constitution and set aside the election? Perhaps the justices should have disregarded the dates
specified in the Constitution. Perhaps to all of the above but the point is that they are
highly subjective and political questions that have to be answered. The Supreme Court is the
mechanism we have. What would you have instead? Help us instead of just casting stones.
> >> .but at least he may strengthen your military...
Forgive me if I am not overly worried about a military that is the most powerful on the planet.
Although, I hope Europe will strengthen its military (within NATO for the time being of course
;)
> > Clearly both candidates were within a whisker of each others
> >positions on most important matters.
>
> rhubarb...blush is a big business puppet..
And Gore is only the tiniest half step to the left.
> .and gore a dogmatic
> tree hugger....
Trees need hugs too.
you asked it in a way that i thought that it fished for an out of context response....i will
not judge clinton by one act....
I wasn't asking you to judge Clinton, I was asking you view on one act of Clinton.
> i will not judge him by the prattling of his clear inferiors....
>
> neither incidentally will history....
Clinton will be a very minor figure in history. One of a group of nonentities that governed
after the end of the Cold War and before the beginning of whatever happens to be the next
significant moment in history.
>
>
> >> the supreme court is not law....it is clearly corrupt...big time....
>
A new mantra? Perhaps sometime you will provide the specifics of how it is corrupt big time
and what we should do about it?
> >The supreme court is law. The Supreme court was created by the Constitution which is above
> >all the Supreme law of the land. The Supreme court is fallable and political but I don't
> >think it is corrupt.
>
> it is political...it is not corrupt...an interesting view...
>
Are you suggesting that all politics are corrupt?
> >I don't. I think the United States is far better at confronting and solving real problems
> >than the old world. While the same issues comfound both the new and the old world the
> >effects of these problems are usually markedly less in America than in Europe.
>
> the people of southern europe are happier than those of the north...
>
Yes, and I like apples better than cabbage.
> >> i am not politician or historian enuf to argue with you sure of my
> >> footing...adding a russian or historical group might forward your
> >> contentions....
> >
> >I am not a historian either but I am very interested in history. I think it is important
> >to have some considerable background in matters historical to gain perspective in
> >contemporary matters.
>
> no serious argument....i study history to understand human
> behaviour and communication logic....
> not in order to understand politics.....
Oh, that explains it then ;-)
> i am an explorer....as with all my kind...i must remain aware
> of when i am best elsewhere....in exile...
> my kind are not popular with authority...we open doors
> and shine in light....
> i care who rules....i care little what the sheep do.....
>
Aren't you a shepherd in your lonely exile? Is that why you are in France, have the authorities
turned you out. Do tell abelard, This sounds like a much more interesting story than Clinton
or NATO.
> like monks...i advise my society....but i am not entirely of it....
> my time frame is much longer....
Fine, but it helps when you give your advice if you allude to the time frames you have in mind.
>
>
> the job of the politician is essentially to keep the mob content
> and fed....and to keep them in their place....to stop mayhem
> and riot....
> my concern is to seek a way forward....and to keep my skin
> intact while i do it....
> my kind are useful...but not wildly popular...at least until we
> are safely ded...
>
>
> >> russia is in process of disbanding/reorganising one of the greatest
> >> empires of history...i am impressed by what i do see thus far....
>
> >Really, What impresses you? Certainly the suddenness of the disbanding was surprising but
>
> it did not surprise me...i predicted it....
> all such enterprises tend to die with the last old man....
Congratulations on your forsight. I must admit I was astonished not that it fell but at the
suddeness and completeness with which it fell. Might the USA similarly disintegrate one day? I
don't think so but .... I didn't think Russia would either.
> >the re-organizing?. What impresses you there? The population of Russia is at heart
> >authoritarian and
>
> your post is becoming disrupted....
> i am impressed that they have blocked chechnya...
Ruthlessly.
> .i am impressed that
> they are learning fast..
I see little evidence.
> .i am impressed that their economy is
> stabilising..
I see little evidence.
> .i am impressed that they have backed away from
> milo.
I see only the slightest evidence.
> ....
> i am impressed they crushed adolph...
Me too.
> .i am impressed by the few
> i meet...they are highly analytic and realistic and detached....
The Russians are fine people. Although I detect sadness and fatalism in their perspective on
life. Not surprising given their history.
> the strangest thing (for me) is their *fierce* national loyalty...
>
Yes, Mother Russia. But really I think you are an exception in your lack of national
feelingl. Most people feel considerable attachment to their homeland.
> there is a limit to what i wish to say openly here...
Why not email me then?
>
>
> >> 50 years is a very short span to me....not 'long past'....
> >
> >50 years can be time enough but you miss the point. Europe (not just Germany) went through
> >a major aberration caused mainly by Hitler. Hitler set back the liberal historical trends
>
> germany was steadily centralising power before adolph....
> they were behaving almost exactly like h***** and bliar....
>
Centralized power is not necessarily illiberal. It is unwise (mostly for utilitarian reasons)
but it is not anti freedom or anti democratic in and of itself.
> >that had been forming for more than a century in Europe.
>
> there were other elements...trade 'war', a dying feudal regime.
Similar to many countries in Western Europe.
> ...
> think of adolph as cromwell or napoleon.
But he was nothing like either of these figures. His similarity to Napoleon starts and ends IMV
with their desire to dominate EUrope beyond that they are completely different.
> ....religious differences..
> rome never really got to germany....they have been running to catch
> up ever since...
> i don't regard hitler as an aberration.....i have studied him in
> considerable depth...(i am not even sure i believe in aberrations)
> germany took to hitler like a duck to water....
Indeed they did take to Hitler, and I feel similar aberrations could happen just about anywhere
including the UK and USA.
>
>
> > Fortunately the interruption was
> >brief. What is important is that for Russia the Hitler interlude (while catastrophic) was
> >no interruption from business as usual. Hitler was just one more despot trying to prevail.
>
> i don't accept that....
>
OK
> >> most sheep yearn for authority...britain currently stomachs bliar....
> >
> >Well if Blair starts trying to control the Press or take extra legal measures to ensure his
> >grip on power, then I would want the US to reevaluate its alliance with Britain. I don't
> >think Blair and Putin are comparable in any way. This is another example of your
> >absolutism.
>
> no, it is a broad brush and a very long term perspective....
>
OK, that is quite different. Painting with too broad a brush is not always very helpful.
Broad brushes are best used in painting barns.
> > You have decided against Blair (admittedly for some good reasons) and are
> >therefore utterly hardened against him.
>
> you over egg...you clearly do not fully grasp my perspective....
> i regard bernard of clairvaux as a destroyer....
>
I can only take you by what you write. If I take you too literally, I have no choice unless you
tell me otherwise. I can't read your mind and I don't know you well enough to take you beyond
your words.
> i regard newton as vastly more relevant than bliar....
> we currently have bad and ignorant squires....
>
Indeed Newton is more relevant. Indeed probably several thousand UK citizens today are more
relevant than Blair. The same can be said for Clinton. Politics are interesting because they
are a common reference point in democracies and we all more or less have a stake. But by no
means are they the be all and end all. Surely Einstein, Edison, Gates, and Ford are vastly
more important figures historically than Clinton, Gore and Putin together. Sometimes
politicians are important historically Lincoln was important, Churchill and Gladstone were
important Roosevelt too. Even Thatcher and Reagan were important. But Clinton, Blair and Putin
and Bush and Major etc. are footnotes..
> i expect bliar and his crap not to last long...same with kennedy
> and hague...
> freedom of information and a bill of rights is vastly more relevant
> and important than any of the small minded, often venal,
> pygmies....
That is for sure but when will you get it?.
>
>
> they are tin rattling monkeys who want to be 'important'....
> einstein is 'important'...they are not....
> some of the teachers posting here are much more important
> to the future than bliar....bliar is just a nuisance in the way
> of progress...
> blush is far more important...so is putin...
Bush isn't that important either and Putin doesn't even come onto the radar.
> > I agree that US isolationism would be a bad thing but it is
> >always a possibility. I believe that Europe ought to seek its own way independent of an
> >American umbrella. It is time for Europe to grow up.
>
> i am not sanguine...
>
> > The war has been over for 56 years.
> >Europe and America should be close friends and allies but shoulder absolutely equally the
> >burdens of defense and maintaining the preeminence of Western Liberal democracy in the
> >world.
>
> i agree...but they will mostly happily free ride and whine...
We agree but this is where the emphasis for change is most important. I agree that US
isolationism would be a bad thing but it would hurt the US (in the short term) very little.
There is a constant nostalgia in the US for withdrawal from the rest of the world. A clever
populist politician could easily capitalize on this natural but foolish sentiment. Certainly
Bush is going to be much less involved in the world than Clinton. I do not say he is
isolationist but America will be casting a much smaller shadow internationally in the next four
years. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Clinton was too involved, often in areas that were
of no interest to America and often was badly briefed..
Bill
abelard
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>
>
>abelard wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 22:04:44 -0500, Bill Willis
>> <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>
>Believe it or not, I have snipped vast areas of this as it is becoming too repetitive.
fine by me...less toil..
> We are
>both more or less fixed in how we regard Clinton and are repeating the same arguments over and
>over. I have commented on those things that I think needed commenting on and it is still a very
>long posting.
>
>> he bush coterie is clearly corrupt to a far different order than
>> clinton...
>The kind of corruption I see with the Bush coterie is the kind of corruption that exists
>wherever there are wealthy people. Wealthy people help each other. They provide access and
>sweetheart deals that aren't available to everyone else. It is usually all legal enough but it
>is a kind of corruption nonetheless. BTW, the Clintons have their fair share of access to this
>crowd as well and have profitted. One point of reference is Hillary's spectacular successes
>trading commodities.
i accept this in general....but why rail against clinton's small
potatoes while overlooking bush's mountains?
the bush's are now rich enuf to be quite beyond the law....
whereas clinton is nouveau riche...well, not seriously rich....
always resented by the incumbents...
>> you may have a case...i know not...but he did pardon 'drug'
>> aficionados...
>
>I'm glad to hear it.
it's in his response to the carping...with comparisons with
previous presidents..
> I did not know this. I regard drug offenders as criminals
just like bootleggers eh
> but sometimes
>the sentences are to harsh. This is what the pardon powers are for, a means of smoothing out
>some of the harsher realities of the criminal justice system. BTW, the overwhelming majority of
>drug offenders are not in jail at all. It usually takes repeat arrests and generally the
>commission of some other crime before one sees the inside of a jail (sadly).
the reports i read are ~1/2 million....
>> you have ended richer, more confident, probably more humane...
>> the world is probably more rational after his efforts in israel,
>> ni, serbia etc....
>
>Serbia was a success but I see no progress in Israel and nothing really (of his doing) in NI
>either. In both these places he tried to force a paper solution when what is needed is
>transforming hearts and minds. By trying to back leaders in a corner and demand their signature
>on a bottom line he probably destroyed the Barak government and weakend Arafat as well.
>(Although the Palestinans will be well rid of Arafat whenever that day comes)
i continue to insist...i claim no expertise on such judgements...
i have an opinion...
>> the major failure/s imv is weakening the military which you hardly
>> mention...and your disgusting and uncivilised 'crime' industry....
>>
>> trouble is...i swallow none of this....
>> afaiac it is the cowardice of gore that has damaged you....
>
>Gore cannot blame Clinton for his defeat but Clinton did not (and could not) help Gore either.
no sale..
>Gore's primary failure was IMV that he refused to approach the electorate as just himself. He
>was the victim of his advisors. He paid too much attention to his image. That said, I think
>Gore is a fine man and would have made a decent President.
all this...very likely...
>> what provincials you americans can be.....
>> but if it is defrauding hundreds of millions in savings and loan....
>> that's just business!!
>What a hypocrite! You say when I repeat some charge about Clinton "What about innocence until
>proven guilty"? George Bush Jr (or Sr.) were never involved in the savings and loan scandal
>some years back. His brother Neil Bush was but it never came to criminal charges (unlike Bill
>Clinton who had to plea bargain away perjury charges).
of course it didn't...they are effectively above the law....
who was in the white house at the time?
read up on moral hazard in my doc on inflation....
it's legal crime...
>> no doubt bill and hills convinced themselves no-one would
>> want it...or a souvenir was a reasonable wage...if they even
>> did it.....
>> i believe everything the media tells me...
>
>You apparently very selectively believe what the media tells you. If it is against one of your
>buddies well then it's and outrage but some slander about someone you don't care about - well
>that is apparently fair game to bruit around.
i am *far* more detached than you appreciate...
if you wish to understand me it may be sensible for you to plumb this
a little...
>> you are maybe more certain that he could than i am....
>> but if you are correct...you have a case...
>> but who can read the mind of another....
>> maybe he'll write in due couse...but hilly still in politics
>> will likely inhibit that...
>
>You do make a point here. I think the fact that Hillary is still in politics will inhibit both
>of them from coming clean. I fully expect in the years ahead that Clinton will get himself into
>one mess after the other.
i would expect him to learn...
> He is pathological,
what, more exactly, do you mean by that...
>he genuinely feels he is being persecuted by
>enemies
i think he has been....
but persecutors mostly persecute for perceived advantage....
profit...political office...or even animal hatred....
persecution is a behaviour of unconscious idiots...
> and yet continuously gives his enemies ever more amunition to do just that.
could be....but so does a person with very great integrity....
now...think before you answer!
>Of course
>he could have. That is self evident. Afterall he did find it perfectly possible
>
>> >to pardon certain sleazy criminals.
>>
>> once it had no political cost....
>
>Indeed it is having a heavy political cost. Also just because his term is over doesn't mean
>that he need be a political dinasour.
but you must plumb what drives him...and what his objectives....
i think he has much more respect outside the political cackle
in the usa....
i think you ask the wrong questions...jackson pollock was
known to piss in the grate at parties...nobody sane will ever
care when they look at his paintings...
i could give you pages of similar...
> Jimmy Carter provides an excellent example for
>politicians in retirement.
yes...carter seems to have been much more as an ex than he was as
incumbent...
>> >There are many intelligent people who firmly believe in capital punishment.
>>
>> of course there are...if they are also uninformed...
>> intelligence is not a substitute for knowledge...
>
>Intelligent people know first and foremost that they do "not" have the knowledge. This is what
>worries me about you. You are so damned certain about the rightness of your vieewpoint.
>Intelligent people know that there are many legitimate ways to look at issues and have to seek
>to find a comfortable way to incorporate a viewpoint with an overall broader outlook.
depends upon the issue...
>>France has elected one thug after the other for the last several decades.
>
>> probably....but the country runs rather well....
>> i am primarily concerned with results...
>
>It does seem to run rather well and given its high level of social democracy I find it
>surprising that a day of reckoning hasn't come. I personally could never stand the
>intrusiveness of government in the French manner.
but the french have a different attitude to it....it's make work....
it helps the less able to get by....it's a redistribution scheme..
it is very irritating....but nobody gives a damn....
a barrier is erected to stop people going in a particular direction...
people just come along and carefully remove it...and carry on
regardless...
it is much more anarchic in reality...but you must have the bit
of paper and the stamp.....just recently...my passport would not
suffice as identification...i had to take it to the mayor's office
with a piece of tat....they office had to look at the passport
and sign and stamp the tatty form...to say it was me....i kid
you not...no hidden details....exactly as i recount it...
it is quite hilarious if you take it the right way....
and it varies from village to village....
25+% 'work' for the government....glory knows how much is
'under the table'...
you stand in a queue at the post office...and there is a 20 minute
conversation about the dog....they just stand there and wait...
i am fascinated by the economics of it all....
>> if the tory party puts its shop in order...we will...
>> we tend to get decent leaders when thing are in a real mess...
>> in the meantime the british tend to elect mediocrities....
>> you now regard clinton as too much fun...
>
>The Tories are by and large clones of the Republicans and home for the rich and business
>interests in the UK. The same corruption that you ascribe to the Bush family is rampant in the
>Tory party.
if you substitute brown envelopes with a thousand quid for
a swiss bank account with a million or 5...
the tory party has turned against its roots...it is infected by
socialists....
but see the stuff on france....i think you should think about
'economics'....
> >Your "simple *fact*" is neither simple or a fact. There are many very informed and
>
>> >intelligent people who back capital punishment.
>>
>> no....
>> intelligent people yes...uninformed people yes...
>> maybe even some thik informed people....
>> but no intelligent informed rational person...
>
>See my comment above on this subject.
i did of course..
>> > Indeed until very recently it was a view
>> >that was nearly universally held
>>
>> yes...once the world was flat....
>
>A view that has been proven false whereas the desirability of the death penalty is very
>obviously a matter of open debate and no where near proven one way or the other.
at the moment the data is at the very best it does no good...
as a psychologist....i know it does much damage to 'civilisation'
and individuals and 'humanity'....
it will go the way of the rack...and the cat o' nine tails...
it demeans you as a nation...
it is not 'open to debate'....it may be open to you to study and
understand...
>> yes you do...you refer to his alleged perjury....
>
>Indeed I do. Indeed it is more than merely alleged. He has made a deal with his prosecutors
>and thus admitted the charge. He is either guilty or a coward or more likely both..
bollox my friend....you have a plea bargaining system....
you do not appreciate how corrupt your society is...or backward...
the feudal societies have blood money...
you have...'agree that you have parked in the wrong place
and pay a fine....or we'll run you in for drunk driving....'etc..
the british had (a modicum) of law until recently....you have
economics...
>> there is little more hypocritical and disgusting as an old fart like
>> keyhole ken or lieberman attempting to protect the virginity
>> of a ripe young lass....
>> that one adds political advantage to the brew just makes it
>> even more ludicrous....
>> and he even had the balls to thumb his nose at the venal prurient
>> old farts....insult to injury....
>
>Clearly you don't get it. None of these people, not Lieberman, not even Ken Starr and certainly
>not the overwhelming majority of the American people and definitely not me were focused or
>cared about Clinton's silly sex life. ISTM that it is you who is obsessed with the sexual
>aspects of this case.
tell it to the marines...
>Do I approve of him getting a blow job while conducting state business? What a silly question.
>Probably I don't *approve* of it in the sense that I don't approve of people pissing or spitting
>in the streets either.
nasty dirty man....not like us upstanding citizens eh....
your whole attitude gives you away....sex is dirty...like spitting....
> People do these things sometimes but it is vulgar.
and i was told it was fun rotfl...to repeat your words above....
you clearly don't get it....
> Sometimes I have
>been vulgar myself.
perish the thought...
ken star...well mister willis, when you were vulgar...did you piss
out the left hand side of your nikkers..or the right hand side....
the fate of the nation rests upon it....
if you get it wrong....we'll do you for 'perjury'!
no my friend....you don't get it...keyhole ken is the problem....
the prurient venal old farts is the problem....
> But all this isn't the issue and I really don't think you have a clue as to
>what the issue is although God knows I have done my best to explain it to you.
you have indeed...
>> >> guilty without trial...oh dear mister prude....are you sure your
>> >> judgement is very objective?
>> >I don't say he is guilty but he has been accused.
>More objective than you it would seem concerning the Bush S&L allegation.
you don't get it....i think it is pot kettle....
and i know which one i would prefer my sister to bring home....
>> He has been accused often by many
>
>> >different women of a kind of sexual harrassment.
>>
>> there are more than a hundred million females in the states...
>
>> Yet other powerful men are not similarly accused. Blair is a reasonably good looking and
>> powerful man who travels widely among millions of females yet he is not similarly plagued.
>> he travels widely and meet thousands...
>>
>> > He is undoubtedly aggresive sexually and
>> >there is a pattern.
>>
>> or a bandwagon...
>Or might you be burying your head in the sand. Don't you have a glimmer of worry that your hero
>might (just might) be a sexual predator.
whatever exactly one of those is....
not the slightest...i know that i don't know...i know that humans
are silly monkeys....
i care mostly whether he was a good president.....
i also 'think' he is a good man....
i expect him to have weaknesses...all humans do....
i cannot get in a hysterical tizz about it...
hysterical tizzes are a great deal of what demeans humans and
inhibits the building of a better world...
sure i think he like ladies....whether is goes any further...
i probably doubt it...
you are the country with nutters waiting to bump of presidents or
john lennon or martin luther.....
you are the country where a good accusation holds people up
to ransom...either you pay up...or i'll drag you through the
courts for ever...and it will cost you much more in legal fees
and time...
your system puts up economic incentives to stupid behaviour...
when that happens...a market opens to exploit the opportunity...
> Sure Clinton has his enemies, most politicians have
>their enemies. Ronald Reagan and Thatcher had enemies galore but this is very different.
no it isn't....it is the commercialisation of law....it is the
politicisation of law...it is the mediarisation of law....
>> > Forcing yourself on someone sexually is intolerable. Don't you
>> >agree. Or am I a prude for feeling this way?
>>
>> no...i fully agree...
>> innocent until *proved* guilty....and you are *nowhere* in sight
>> of that....nor do i see any prospect of that....
>
>Innocent until proven guilty refers to a presumption in a trial and nothing else. I (and you)
>am perfectly free to form opinions and have no obligation to employ innocent until proven
>guilty.
it is also sound logic...it stops you 'jumping to conclusions'...
it stops you being impulsive...it encourages you to be
objective....it thus improves civilisation...
> That said, I make no judgement on Clinton's guilt regarding the rape charge.
which implies that...>>>>
> I merely
>note that the charge has been made and that it comes in the context of a series of women making
>quite serious allegations about his sexual harrassment conduct.
they are mostly trivial....this is the way a band wagon grows...at
each stage the ante is upped....
plastered all over the media is genny....i wonder how much she
got for the story....
this is an open invitation to another more luscious tale....etc etc...
where there is smoke their is fire you know missis sawkins.....
each stage the story will be better received.....each stage the
person can less defend themselves....
if you take it seriously....you open the door to the mob....
to witch trials...to the fishing expedition.....
but america has a long history of witch trial.....
for this weeks episode....the drug war....
the reality is you *do not know*...you probably never will...
you have no serious way of assessing the tittle tattle.....
your society is corrupt....
it is naive and gullible...
you cannot accept that you do not know...
there are thing you cannot know...
however...to succumb to the mass hysteria of the mob
is a very dangerous game...
>If you agree that forcing yourself on someone in a sexual way is wrong, how do you expect it to
>be adjudicated fairly?
i don't
> Why was Ken Starr wrong to explore Clinton's sexual behavior in the
>light of several sexual harassment charges?.
1)because an act between consenting adults is entirely irrelevant....
2)you have much trouble going this route when you insist a prostitutes
trade precludes her from successfully bringing a rape charge....
you have monetarised the law.....you are reaping the obvious
consequences....
3)there are things you cannot know....wrongs you cannot right...
to destroy culture and logic in your frustration is foolish
and dangerous cultural vandalism...
to 'solve' the 'problem'...you must have a camera in every room etc
and signed consent forms before notaries who are investigated
constantly...etc....
the 'cure' is worse than the disease....
>> that said....all humans have weaknesses...possibly he has such a
>> weakness....
>> society is in course of changing in this respect.....males have to
>> adjust...females if they have any wit, will not expect a five
>> minute revolution.....some of this is in the genes....
>> meanwhile females are widely exploiting the situation....that is
>> also an 'evil'...a social corrosive....your legal system encourages
>> that...as does the public prurience...as does the venality of
>> political opportunists....
>
>This is nonsense.
oh no it's not....
> It has never been acceptable for anyone to force himself sexually on
>another. Forcing is not limited to rape. Indecent exposure on a train for example is
>criminally prosecutable. Sure, the mores of sexual behavior are changing but only consentual
>sexual behavior.
so?
>> this is not a simple situation...
>>
>> >> he doesn't promise a bill of rights and a freedom of information act..
>> >> as a public act....and blatantly renege on it....that is real and
>> >> substantive corruption..
>> >
>> >He is certainly not above doing such.
>
>He is a proven liar.
all humans lie...
>You yourself have excused him time and again for acting in a politically
>safe manner.
i haven't 'excused' him... i have offered potential reasons...
>> evidence...
>>
>> > He has backpeddled on many of his promises. Of
>> >course an American President is limited in his ability to deliver but even so....
>>
>> evidence beyond political necessity..
>> innocent until proved guilty....re bliar there is publicly available
>> evidence....
>
>Who defines what is political necessity. What you claim political necissity for Clinton might
>not be political necessity at all. Likewise the opposite for Blair.
true...but the issue is thereby avoided....you have provided no
near congruent example...
>> >> so he lied to the prurient busy bodies about his girl friend....
>>
>> >Who were legitmately trying to establish a pattern of a sexual predator
>>
>> imv impossible in the circumstances...therefore a fishing
>> expedition....a witch hunt....
>
>Your view is the wrong view IMV.
reasonable....probably...but is your reasoning persuasive?
>> > because of a
>> >harrassment lawsuit brought by another woman who was not his girlfriend but was nonetheless
>> >bothered by him.
>>
>> many will be 'bothered' by the powerful and famous for millions
>> of dollars and rubbed off fame...
>> even grant's whore made a living out of it....
>
>Yes, yet Grant's whore was Grant's whore n'est ce pas? She didn't just accuse him.
>
>Also, other politicans are not usually plagued with endless series of bogus charges by women
>trying to make a quick buck. I think you have a very weak argument here.
whereas i don't....cop to the other 607 burglaries in
the area and help my clear up rate...and i'll put in a good word
to the judge.....
i think you are naive...
>> none of your business...
>> a man does not boast of such things....a gentleman denies it....
>
>OK, why not stand up and say just that.
1)it is none of their business.....2 he already had been hounded
on sex...
2)he misjudged the common sense of the american people....
3)self-protection/fear
before you are so ready to throw stones...i suggest you
try living in a gold fish bowl surrounded by specimens like
star and ...well....i would rather not calumniate your heroes
> Say, it is none of your business and I am not going to
>discuss my private life with you in any way.
he is garrulous and friendly...
> It might cause him some legal problems if he did
>this but lying under oath causes legal problems as well.
he appears to have stopped the bandwagon....
now they look for another one...
anything to undermine the power his popularity gives him...
>> 2)still hindsight...
>
>What is your point about hindsight? We are discussing this matter after the event. Of course
>it is hindsight, what of it?
he would likely handle it differently now....he is older and wiser....
he has the information that the american people are more
grown up than he imagined...
>> >Just out of curiosity, Have you ever spent time in the United States?
>>
>> no...not a minute....
>
>I am not surprised. While you have more than a usual knowledge (for a Brit) about goings on in
>the US you don't seem attuned to the nuances. You often buy into sterotypical British attitudes
>regarding America and Americans.
stereotypes are mere shorthand...
i do not have to sit on american mud to meet and discuss with
americans...i hoped you would know better....
america is a large country....you do not understand all the 'nuances'.
there are approaching 300 million people....
it is my place to have more knowledge of people than is common...
at present i am reading thousands of pages upon one american
and a hundred years of your history...
i know more about america than most americans....let alone
brits.....
but of course my span and knowledge is limited....it is about britain
also....
> I believe I am much more in touch with the British way of life
>than you are with the American.
in some areas...i would expect that....
> There is benefit to experiencing a place first hand and I have
>spent a lot of time in your country and know a fair amount of British people, attitudes etc.
i am not convinced...i know americans...friends live with them...
i know americans...friends live in the states...others hop
over for work regularly...and more...
why, i've even seen hollywood films...and cnn...and much else...
>Still I am frequently mystified..
any person is...if you are sane and bright...you realise it..
abelard
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>Oh? Did they now? And which justices acted corruptly and who corrupted them? Was it the
>justices that voted to halt the recount that were corrupt or was it the justices that voted to
>let the recount (without specifying any standards) proceed. Should the justices of ignorred the
>Constitution and set aside the election? Perhaps the justices should have disregarded the dates
>specified in the Constitution. Perhaps to all of the above but the point is that they are
>highly subjective and political questions that have to be answered. The Supreme Court is the
>mechanism we have. What would you have instead? Help us instead of just casting stones.
separation of powers!
better voting machines! the richest berg on the planet....
and you use antique equipment....
or use hand counting....it's more reliable...
you know all this...the supreme court action was a joke...
bush running around in a panic trying to stop the count...
more farce...
the supreme court...the electoral officer...the florida court...
nothing to do with 'law'....
they were voting....not attempting to 'uphold the rule of law....'
not attempting to 'let the people speak'......
you cannot be so blind as not to see it is a farce....
>> >> .but at least he may strengthen your military...
>
>Forgive me if I am not overly worried about a military that is the most powerful on the planet.
>Although, I hope Europe will strengthen its military (within NATO for the time being of course
>;)
i wish it to stay that way...and extend its lead....
not grow fat and lazy....
>> > Clearly both candidates were within a whisker of each others
>> >positions on most important matters.
>>
>> rhubarb...blush is a big business puppet..
>
>And Gore is only the tiniest half step to the left.
he wouldn't drill in alaska...
>> .and gore a dogmatic
>> tree hugger....
>
>Trees need hugs too.
i'm not complaining....the dogmatic leaning worries...
>you asked it in a way that i thought that it fished for an out of context response....i will
>not judge clinton by one act....
>
>I wasn't asking you to judge Clinton, I was asking you view on one act of Clinton.
1)i cannot view a person as a single act..
2)i don't trust the media..
>> i will not judge him by the prattling of his clear inferiors....
>>
>> neither incidentally will history....
>
>Clinton will be a very minor figure in history. One of a group of nonentities that governed
>after the end of the Cold War and before the beginning of whatever happens to be the next
>significant moment in history.
that will be easier to assess in ten years....
have his peace initiatives stuck?
is america more humane?
or have the bigots undone his actions...
>> >The supreme court is law. The Supreme court was created by the Constitution which is above
>> >all the Supreme law of the land. The Supreme court is fallable and political but I don't
>> >think it is corrupt.
>>
>> it is political...it is not corrupt...an interesting view...
>Are you suggesting that all politics are corrupt?
i believe in separation of powers...i believe in the competition....
it tempers hubris and the mount of damage one monkey can
perpetrate....
i have not a high opinion of the adjustment of tribal monkeys
to big states and atomic spears....
i want systems that do not put very much power into their hands....
>> the people of southern europe are happier than those of the north...
>Yes, and I like apples better than cabbage.
they are also from a papist tradition....they also have
often embraced fascism/socialism.....
the puritans of the north have much to teach them...
and much to learn from them...
>> no serious argument....i study history to understand human
>> behaviour and communication logic....
>> not in order to understand politics.....
>
>Oh, that explains it then ;-)
then you can explain it to me...
>> i am an explorer....as with all my kind...i must remain aware
>> of when i am best elsewhere....in exile...
>> my kind are not popular with authority...we open doors
>> and shine in light....
>> i care who rules....i care little what the sheep do.....
>Aren't you a shepherd in your lonely exile?
mostly writing...
> Is that why you are in France, have the authorities
>turned you out.
no...i am preparing....
> Do tell abelard, This sounds like a much more interesting story than Clinton
>or NATO.
very likely...
>> like monks...i advise my society....but i am not entirely of it....
>> my time frame is much longer....
>
>Fine, but it helps when you give your advice if you allude to the time frames you have in mind.
you can assume a unit of at least half a century......
i press pressure points when it seems useful.....
but mostly i seek to modify the culture....
i believe if people can be taught to think...they will work out
better actions for themselves....
if they have facts available ....they will also act better....
hence eg...freedom of information...
which also curtails the worst of the alpha predators and parasites...
>> it did not surprise me...i predicted it....
>> all such enterprises tend to die with the last old man....
>
>Congratulations on your forsight. I must admit I was astonished not that it fell but at the
>suddeness and completeness with which it fell.
>Might the USA similarly disintegrate one day? I
>don't think so but .... I didn't think Russia would either.
well. all things pass....you have a very interesting situation....
you ask a very complicated question....it is hard to know where to
begin....a major change is coming about as governments get
ever weaker relative to individuals....
it is part of why governments are in a panic.....
a (growing) proportion of the population is becoming economically
redundant....
read 'snowcrash' and 'player of games' listed at my book list...
both scenarios are available....
if humans become conscious they can control their future...
if they do not....the planet will become a dustbin.....
they will no more control their future than calhoun's rats....
see feedback doc....
you are *far* more in the calhoun's rats situation at present...
>> your post is becoming disrupted....
>> i am impressed that they have blocked chechnya...
>
>Ruthlessly.
yes...as with milo and madsam....
>> .i am impressed that
>> they are learning fast..
>
>I see little evidence.
>
>> .i am impressed that their economy is
>> stabilising..
>
>I see little evidence.
that's what my economist tends to read....go to a library....
and look back over a few years for each russia article....
>> .i am impressed that they have backed away from
>> milo.
>
>I see only the slightest evidence.
do you want a fan dance?
>> i am impressed they crushed adolph...
>
>Me too.
>
>> .i am impressed by the few
>> i meet...they are highly analytic and realistic and detached....
>
>The Russians are fine people. Although I detect sadness and fatalism in their perspective on
>life.
possibly..i cannot read their moods too well...
> Not surprising given their history.
>
>> the strangest thing (for me) is their *fierce* national loyalty...
>Yes, Mother Russia. But really I think you are an exception in your lack of national
>feelingl. Most people feel considerable attachment to their homeland.
no...it is *much* more than is common in the west....they refer to it
as a reason for the way they think....they do it as a 'given'....
as if surprised you don't immediately understand.....
my country right or wrong.....
>> there is a limit to what i wish to say openly here...
>
>Why not email me then?
it would become a topic of conversation....it will i imagine come out
over time....some of it is there between the lines.....
>> germany was steadily centralising power before adolph....
>> they were behaving almost exactly like h***** and bliar....
>Centralized power is not necessarily illiberal. It is unwise (mostly for utilitarian reasons)
>but it is not anti freedom or anti democratic in and of itself.
no, but the ground is there at the first trouble,,,,at the first able
nut case....it is a fragile (unadaptable) arrangement....
an accident waiting to happen....
perhaps about here i should remind you of my default time
scales...it is always lurking behind my statements...
>> >that had been forming for more than a century in Europe.
>>
>> there were other elements...trade 'war', a dying feudal regime.
>
>Similar to many countries in Western Europe.
it was later in the cycle.....
>> think of adolph as cromwell or napoleon.
>
>But he was nothing like either of these figures. His similarity to Napoleon starts and ends IMV
>with their desire to dominate EUrope beyond that they are completely different.
not the issue...the issue was the crushing of the old feudal class...
>> ....religious differences..
>> rome never really got to germany....they have been running to catch
>> up ever since...
>> i don't regard hitler as an aberration.....i have studied him in
>> considerable depth...(i am not even sure i believe in aberrations)
>> germany took to hitler like a duck to water....
>
>Indeed they did take to Hitler, and I feel similar aberrations could happen just about anywhere
>including the UK and USA.
i don't know...they are not primarily catholic cultures....
though they are very active politically....
the sheep like response to the attack on liberties in the uk
is troubling...
the british generally sleep until it is the last minute....i still
fear for britain...your population is less vulnerable....at
present....
there will be an increasing number of countries....
the eu is entirely against the trend.....
tax revenues will get ever harder to collect....
>> > Fortunately the interruption was
>> >brief. What is important is that for Russia the Hitler interlude (while catastrophic) was
>> >no interruption from business as usual. Hitler was just one more despot trying to prevail.
>>
>> i don't accept that....
>OK
see also above..
>I can only take you by what you write. If I take you too literally, I have no choice unless you
>tell me otherwise. I can't read your mind and I don't know you well enough to take you beyond
>your words.
i keep trying to give you context....the time frame seems to be an
issue...
>> i regard newton as vastly more relevant than bliar....
>> we currently have bad and ignorant squires....
>Indeed Newton is more relevant. Indeed probably several thousand UK citizens today are more
>relevant than Blair. The same can be said for Clinton. Politics are interesting because they
>are a common reference point in democracies and we all more or less have a stake. But by no
>means are they the be all and end all. Surely Einstein, Edison, Gates, and Ford are vastly
>more important figures historically than Clinton, Gore and Putin together. Sometimes
>politicians are important historically Lincoln was important, Churchill and Gladstone were
>important Roosevelt too. Even Thatcher and Reagan were important. But Clinton, Blair and Putin
>and Bush and Major etc. are footnotes..
by and large agreed....but one politician can cause a lot of local
damage...major has....
i regard clinton as more important than you do....
what putin does matters....bush is a minnow....unless he lets your
military continue to waste....
trouble is....some of these minnows want to be 'important' rather
than just get their noses in the trough......
hubris is a terrible weakness in a suited monkey....especially
when they can play toys with the planet.....
>> i expect bliar and his crap not to last long...same with kennedy
>> and hague...
>> freedom of information and a bill of rights is vastly more relevant
>> and important than any of the small minded, often venal,
>> pygmies....
>
>That is for sure but when will you get it?.
i have visions of them out on the streets if this crap carries on....
they are slow...but they are damned ornery when they finally
get pissed off....
bliar is a damned fool....
and you worry about a bright philanderer....
stupidity is dangerous....we have a seriously stupid pm...
>> blush is far more important...so is putin...
>
>Bush isn't that important either and Putin doesn't even come onto the radar.
at present...i don't judge that way.....he seems very serious
and purposeful to me....and doesn't fuss much as he moves....
but i would wish to see more....
>> > The war has been over for 56 years.
>> >Europe and America should be close friends and allies but shoulder absolutely equally the
>> >burdens of defense and maintaining the preeminence of Western Liberal democracy in the
>> >world.
>>
>> i agree...but they will mostly happily free ride and whine...
>
>We agree but this is where the emphasis for change is most important. I agree that US
>isolationism would be a bad thing but it would hurt the US (in the short term) very little.
>There is a constant nostalgia in the US for withdrawal from the rest of the world. A clever
>populist politician could easily capitalize on this natural but foolish sentiment. Certainly
>Bush is going to be much less involved in the world than Clinton. I do not say he is
>isolationist but America will be casting a much smaller shadow internationally in the next four
>years. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Clinton was too involved, often in areas that were
>of no interest to America and often was badly briefed..
i don't agree with the last statement...though some balance may be
productive...the rest...we are mainly in accord...
regards.
Bill Willis
abelard wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 20:07:34 -0500, Bill Willis
> <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:..
> >
> >And Gore is only the tiniest half step to the left.
>
> he wouldn't drill in alaska...
Neither would I.
>
>
> >> .and gore a dogmatic
> >> tree hugger....
> >
> >Trees need hugs too.
>
> i'm not complaining....the dogmatic leaning worries...
How is he dogmatic?
>> the people of southern europe are happier than those of the north...
Not according to a study that I very recently read in either the Times or the Economist. It seems in
Europe the least happy people are in either France and Spain or maybe it was Italy and Spain. The
UK placed in the middle and the Scanda countries were at top of the happieness scale. Although this
doesn't square with other studies I have read regarding high suicide rates in some of the Scanda
countries.
> they are also from a papist tradition....they also have
> often embraced fascism/socialism.....
Make no mistake, Britain embraced socialism. I really don't see the connection you are trying to
make here. Neither Germany or Russia are (primarily) RC.
> Is that why you are in France, have the authorities
> >turned you out.
>
> no...i am preparing....
>
My impression is that most of your posturing is probably limited to the internet and that you would
be the last person to get into serious trouble with the authorities. ;-)
> > Do tell abelard, This sounds like a much more interesting story than Clinton
> >or NATO.
>
> very likely...
Well tell - tell!
>
>
> >> like monks...i advise my society....but i am not entirely of it....
> >> my time frame is much longer....
> >
> >Fine, but it helps when you give your advice if you allude to the time frames you have in mind.
>
> you can assume a unit of at least half a century......
That is IMV a useless unit in terms of topics in discussion here. Not that it matters but I expect I
will be dead in 50 years. Anything is possible in a half a century and there are so many other
separate and unrelated events that will affect NATO and Russia in the next 50 years that making a
statement (as you do) that Russia should join NATO without any qualifiers, ands if or buts is just
plain silly.
More to the immediate point I noted today that Russia plans to resume arms sales to Iran. Such a
course doesn't indicate that Russia places a particularly high priority in joining NATO.
no...it is *much* more than is common in the west....they refer to it
> as a reason for the way they think....they do it as a 'given'....
> as if surprised you don't immediately understand.....
> my country right or wrong.....
Perhaps so and perhaps in some ways this attitude will prevent Russia from becoming a typical
European democracy. Certainly the Russians (people) resent that their country so completely lost the
Cold War and they seem to have an lingering Cold War resentment towards America.no, but the ground is
there at the first trouble,,,,at the first able
> nut case....it is a fragile (unadaptable) arrangement....
> an accident waiting to happen....
>
> perhaps about here i should remind you of my default time
> scales...it is always lurking behind my statements...
{exasperation] Why won't you just write what is on your mind. I am constantly having to guess with
you. You allude and insinuate too much. You leave entirely too much unsaid. You may feel you are
communicating but much is missed.
>
>
> >> >that had been forming for more than a century in Europe.
> >>
> >> there were other elements...trade 'war', a dying feudal regime.
> >
> >Similar to many countries in Western Europe.
>
> it was later in the cycle.....
>
> >> think of adolph as cromwell or napoleon.
> >
> >But he was nothing like either of these figures. His similarity to Napoleon starts and ends IMV
> >with their desire to dominate EUrope beyond that they are completely different.
>
> not the issue...the issue was the crushing of the old feudal class...
Well then what is the connection that you are making between Cromwell, Napoleopn and Hitler whose
timespans were in the 17th, 19th and 20th centuries? Cromwell crushed the ruling class, and neither
Napoleon or Hitler were about crushing classes per se..
>
>
> >> ....religious differences..
> >> rome never really got to germany....they have been running to catch
> >> up ever since...
Who has been trying to catch up?
> >> i don't regard hitler as an aberration.....i have studied him in
> >> considerable depth...(i am not even sure i believe in aberrations)
> >> germany took to hitler like a duck to water....
> >
> >Indeed they did take to Hitler, and I feel similar aberrations could happen just about anywhere
> >including the UK and USA.
>
> i don't know...they are not primarily catholic cultures....
> though they are very active politically....
You are confusing me. Are you implying that such things are more likely to happen in Catholic
cultures. or are you implying the opposite? What is it about Catholic cultures that would affect
such things one way or the other.
My own view is that Catholics and Protestants in Germany (and much of Europe) were equally accepting
of Hitler.
> the sheep like response to the attack on liberties in the uk
> is troubling...
> the british generally sleep until it is the last minute....
That is a popular view regarding Britain's readiness prior to the War. There is some truth but the
US was very unready for war as well. For that matter the French were the masters of deceiving
themselves. They actually thought they were prepared for the war.
> i keep trying to give you context....the time frame seems to be an
> issue...
Yes it is. Why don't you put your remarks in better context.by and large agreed....but one
politician can cause a lot of local
>> i expect bliar and his crap not to last long...same with kennedy
> >> and hague...
> >> freedom of information and a bill of rights is vastly more relevant
> >> and important than any of the small minded, often venal,
> >> pygmies....
You seem to take Hague's mouthings much to seriously especially for one who claims to be so
congnizant of the necessity of politicians appealing to the masses. Same can be said to some extent
regarding Blair. I don't regard Blair as stupid . Your problems are institutional. It is apparent
that Blair isn't interested in institutional reforms but then neither are Hague or Portillo or Clarke
or Widdecombe or Brown.
i have visions of them out on the streets if this crap carries on....
They don't have to go to the streets, they need leaders who are willing to make the case to the
people for the need of the necessary reforms. They have the means of electing these leaders.
Bill
Bill Willis
abelard wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2001 11:47:28 -0500, Bill Willis
> <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:..well, not seriously rich....
> always resented by the incumbents...
>
> i am *far* more detached than you appreciate...
> if you wish to understand me it may be sensible for you to plumb this
> a little...
I don't buy this detached pose. Sometimes you are very very much a short-termist and react to
immediate happenings as if they were of the utmost historical importance. But it doesn't matter a
whit what I think about your "detachment" etc. Why should I or anyone have to "plumb" any subtelties
or read between the lines with your messages. If you really want to communicate Say what you mean
and above all mean what you say. Be specificic and make an attempt to give enough information so
that your meanings will not be misunderstood. Place your views in the proper context and do not use
extreme rhetoric unless you feel extreme rhetoric is needed to emphasie your points.
I know you feel that many of these subtelties are adequately covered in your web site and in some
cases undoubtedly they are. But you cannot expect that all posters have extensively studied you web
site to understand these subtelties. If you do expect this, you expect too much.
{Lecture ended} and at the end of the day I do enjoy your postings and am always interested in your
view on this and that..
I fully expect in the years ahead that Clinton will get himself into
> >one mess after the other.
>
> i would expect him to learn...
Well lets just see how the next couple of years plays out. BTW a mess is any trouble (not necessarily
Illegal) that causes further damage his or his wifes reputation. This would include sexual scandals
which you may well say are nobody's business but people make such things their business.
>
>
> > He is pathological,
>
> what, more exactly, do you mean by that...
>
I mean I detect a trait of self-destruction in his nature.
> > and yet continuously gives his enemies ever more amunition to do just that.
>
> could be....but so does a person with very great integrity....
>
> now...think before you answer!
I always think before I write. Is it great integrity that caused him to drop his pants in front of
an Arkansas state employee. Is it great integrity that caused him to make off with the furniture
when he left the White House. Was it great integrity that caused him to pardon a drug dealer on the
recommendation of his brother in law who received a fat fee for his services as an intermediary?
Think before you respond abelard!!
> but you must plumb what drives him...and what his objectives....
> i think he has much more respect outside the political cackle
> in the usa....
> i think you ask the wrong questions...jackson pollock was
> known to piss in the grate at parties...nobody sane will ever
> care when they look at his paintings...
> i could give you pages of similar...
I'm sure you could. A couple of points...
1. Clinton is a politician and relies on the hoi polloi/
2. Pollock's paintings might have been appreciated but I don't expect he was popular as a guest at
*civilized* parties.
3 I don't agree that Clinton has the degree of respect outside the political cackle that you do.
4. I can't stand Pollock's dribblings..
> >Intelligent people know first and foremost that they do "not" have the knowledge. This is what
> >worries me about you. You are so damned certain about the rightness of your vieewpoint.
> >Intelligent people know that there are many legitimate ways to look at issues and have to seek
> >to find a comfortable way to incorporate a viewpoint with an overall broader outlook.
>
> depends upon the issue...
Of course. And the death penalty definitely falls in such a category. You don't even deal with the
issues you just ponitificate and dogmatize the issue pretending that a view other than yours cannot
possibly be correct.but the french have a different attitude to it....it's make work....
> it helps the less able to get by....it's a redistribution scheme..
> it is very irritating....but nobody gives a damn....
>
> a barrier is erected to stop people going in a particular direction...
> people just come along and carefully remove it...and carry on
> regardless...
> it is much more anarchic in reality...but you must have the bit
> of paper and the stamp.....just recently...my passport would not
> suffice as identification...i had to take it to the mayor's office
> with a piece of tat....they office had to look at the passport
> and sign and stamp the tatty form...to say it was me....i kid
> you not...no hidden details....exactly as i recount it...
> it is quite hilarious if you take it the right way....
> and it varies from village to village....
> 25+% 'work' for the government....glory knows how much is
> 'under the table'...
> you stand in a queue at the post office...and there is a 20 minute
> conversation about the dog....they just stand there and wait...
>
> i am fascinated by the economics of it all....
LOL, More than a little of what you say rings true with me.if you substitute brown envelopes with a
thousand quid for
> a swiss bank account with a million or 5...
> the tory party has turned against its roots...it is infected by
> socialists....
I suspect your socialists are my social democrats. Were I European I would undoubtedly be a Social
democrat.
> but see the stuff on france....i think you should think about
> 'economics'....
Were are you going with this comment?
> >> yes...once the world was flat....
> >
> >A view that has been proven false whereas the desirability of the death penalty is very
> >obviously a matter of open debate and no where near proven one way or the other.
>
> at the moment the data is at the very best it does no good...
> as a psychologist....i know it does much damage to 'civilisation'
> and individuals and 'humanity'...
You *know* or you *think*? When did it start doing great damage to civiliztion and individuals
etc.? How does it do this harm?. A contrary view holds that capital punishment is the highest
expression of the sanctity of human life and anything less (for murder) is an assault on civilization
and humanity etc.?
> .
> it will go the way of the rack...and the cat o' nine tails...
> it demeans you as a nation...
It probably will go away in time. That seems to be the trend. I don't see how it demeans the US as
a nation although I would personally support its abolition
>
>
> it is not 'open to debate'....it may be open to you to study and
> understand...
>
Indeed it is very much open to debate.
bollox my friend....you have a plea bargaining system....
> you do not appreciate how corrupt your society is...or backward...
> the feudal societies have blood money...
You do make a point here.
> you have...'agree that you have parked in the wrong place
> and pay a fine....or we'll run you in for drunk driving....'etc..
> the british had (a modicum) of law until recently....you have
> economics...
>
Don't the British have their fines. Indeed the British restrict access to their courts based
primarily on money. Failure in a British Court can lead to complete ruin.
> >Clearly you don't get it. None of these people, not Lieberman, not even Ken Starr and certainly
> >not the overwhelming majority of the American people and definitely not me were focused or
> >cared about Clinton's silly sex life. ISTM that it is you who is obsessed with the sexual
> >aspects of this case.
>
> tell it to the marines...
>
Nope, I'd rather tell you.
> >Do I approve of him getting a blow job while conducting state business? What a silly question.
> >Probably I don't *approve* of it in the sense that I don't approve of people pissing or spitting
> >in the streets either.
>
> nasty dirty man....not like us upstanding citizens eh....
> your whole attitude gives you away....sex is dirty...like spitting....
I'm certainly not saying that *sex* is dirty but there are vulgar expressions of sex. Just as there
are vulgar expressions of eating or talking etc. .
>
>
> > People do these things sometimes but it is vulgar.
>
> and i was told it was fun rotfl...to repeat your words above....
> you clearly don't get it....
>
;( You are taking my comment out of context.no my friend....you don't get it...keyhole ken is the
problem....
> the prurient venal old farts is the problem....
When you deal with the issue of how a President charged with sexual harrassment should deal with such
charges within the law then I will consider what you say. Is a President above the law? You have
agreed that sexual harrasment is wrong, in the US it is also against the law, Clinton was accused
(not by Ken Star) of sexual harassment. You won't deal with the issue. The purient venal old farts
had nothing to say in the matter.l. You are looking at this issue with one eye closed.>Or might you
be burying your head in the sand. Don't you have a glimmer of worry that your hero
> >might (just might) be a sexual predator.
>
> whatever exactly one of those is....
>
> not the slightest...i know that i don't know...
Yet you do know that there have been numerous charge against Clinton.
> > Sure Clinton has his enemies, most politicians have
> >their enemies. Ronald Reagan and Thatcher had enemies galore but this is very different.
>
> no it isn't....it is the commercialisation of law....it is the
> politicisation of law...it is the mediarisation of law....
Possibly but Clinton above all had his days in court and had ample opportunity to make your point.
Instead he played right into these "sations" that you speak of.
>
>
> >> > Forcing yourself on someone sexually is intolerable. Don't you
> >> >agree. Or am I a prude for feeling this way?
> >>
> >> no...i fully agree...
> >> innocent until *proved* guilty....and you are *nowhere* in sight
> >> of that....nor do i see any prospect of that....
> >
> >Innocent until proven guilty refers to a presumption in a trial and nothing else. I (and you)
> >am perfectly free to form opinions and have no obligation to employ innocent until proven
> >guilty.
>
> it is also sound logic...it stops you 'jumping to conclusions'...
> it stops you being impulsive...it encourages you to be
> objective....it thus improves civilisation...
Sure. In a court of law. Outside of a court of law we too try to be objective within our means but
we also form opinions and points of view. Otherwise these discussions (about everything) would be
pretty dry stuff.
> the reality is you *do not know*...you probably never will...
> you have no serious way of assessing the tittle tattle.....
> your society is corrupt....
> it is naive and gullible...
>
Sure I can. But courts exist to resolve matters of law. Courts make mistakes but resolving such
matters is their rason d'etre. The society, media etc. doesn;t at the end of the day decide these
matters otherwise OJ Simpson would now be dead.
> you cannot accept that you do not know...
> there are thing you cannot know...
Of course I accept this and indeed I accept it regarding much of various Clinton accusations. It was
a legal issue and has to be resolved within the legal system.>If you agree that forcing yourself on
someone in a sexual way is wrong, how do you expect it to
> >be adjudicated fairly?
>
> i don't
Do you expect it to be adjudicated at all? Should similar charges against ordinary people be
adjudicated?
>
>
> > Why was Ken Starr wrong to explore Clinton's sexual behavior in the
> >light of several sexual harassment charges?.
>
> 1)because an act between consenting adults is entirely irrelevant....
>
Probably so, but one first must determine consent.
> 2)you have much trouble going this route when you insist a prostitutes
> trade precludes her from successfully bringing a rape charge....
Who claims this? Prostitutes can most certainly claim rape. In non open and shut cases however,
the fact of prostitution can be a factor in evaluating the evidence. Above all accusations must be
proved in court.
> you have monetarised the law.....you are reaping the obvious
> consequences....
>
Nonsense. At least in your points above.
> 3)there are things you cannot know....wrongs you cannot right...
> to destroy culture and logic in your frustration is foolish
> and dangerous cultural vandalism...
>
Indeed this is so. Merely charging someone with wrongdoing is not nearly sufficient. The wrongdoing
must be proved. It is not an act of frustration , it is called due process..
> to 'solve' the 'problem'...you must have a camera in every room etc
> and signed consent forms before notaries who are investigated
> constantly...etc....
> the 'cure' is worse than the disease....
This is an unreasonable and unnecessary demand. There are ways of proving charges based on logic and
circumstantial evidence that come close enough to a cure. There are mistakes but then there are
mistakes everywhere. How many people are killed in auto accidents?
>
>
> >> that said....all humans have weaknesses...possibly he has such a
> >> weakness....
> >> society is in course of changing in this respect.....males have to
> >> adjust...females if they have any wit, will not expect a five
> >> minute revolution.....some of this is in the genes....
> >> meanwhile females are widely exploiting the situation....that is
> >> also an 'evil'...a social corrosive....your legal system encourages
> >> that...as does the public prurience...as does the venality of
> >> political opportunists....
> >
> >This is nonsense.
>
> oh no it's not....
I do agree that there is considerable nonsensical charges of sexual harassment etc. reflecting the
societies willingness to prosecute acts that were previously largely ignorred. Still charges have to
be adjudicated in court based on the law as it is written.
> >Who defines what is political necessity. What you claim political necissity for Clinton might
> >not be political necessity at all. Likewise the opposite for Blair.
>
> true...but the issue is thereby avoided....you have provided no
> near congruent example...
I don't need to. My congruent example would be no better than yours. All I would need to say (and I
am not saying it ;-) is Blair feels that FOI would be too dangerous for the reelection of the Labour
party
>
>
> >> >> so he lied to the prurient busy bodies about his girl friend....
> >>
> >> >Who were legitmately trying to establish a pattern of a sexual predator
> >>
> >> imv impossible in the circumstances...therefore a fishing
> >> expedition....a witch hunt....
> >
> >Your view is the wrong view IMV.
>
> reasonable....probably...but is your reasoning persuasive?
I think so but you do not ... not so surprising.
>
>
> >Also, other politicans are not usually plagued with endless series of bogus charges by women
> >trying to make a quick buck. I think you have a very weak argument here.
>
> whereas i don't....cop to the other 607 burglaries in
> the area and help my clear up rate...and i'll put in a good word
> to the judge.....
> i think you are naive...
I think you are overly cynical.
before you are so ready to throw stones...i suggest you
> try living in a gold fish bowl surrounded by specimens like
> star and ...
I am not throwing even a pebble let alone a stone. As for the gold fish bowl, anyone who runs for
high office knows exactly what to expect so I feel no pity.
> well....i would rather not calumniate your heroes
It is you who has heroes. But you shouldn't calumniate anyone ;-)
>
>
> > Say, it is none of your business and I am not going to
> >discuss my private life with you in any way.
>
> he is garrulous and friendly...
ROTFLOL, He sure is.
> >
> >What is your point about hindsight? We are discussing this matter after the event. Of course
> >it is hindsight, what of it?
>
> he would likely handle it differently now....he is older and wiser....
> he has the information that the american people are more
> grown up than he imagined...
We all would handle many things differently. So what.
>
>
> >> >Just out of curiosity, Have you ever spent time in the United States?
> >>
> >> no...not a minute....
> >
> >I am not surprised. While you have more than a usual knowledge (for a Brit) about goings on in
> >the US you don't seem attuned to the nuances. You often buy into sterotypical British attitudes
> >regarding America and Americans.
>
> stereotypes are mere shorthand...
> i do not have to sit on american mud to meet and discuss with
> americans...i hoped you would know better....
I do and I am not suggesting otherwise. Still I imagine you would benefit from personal experience
with the country. I am sure that you have considerably more insight into the French and British ways
of life than I do because you have spent more time on "their mud".
> america is a large country....you do not understand all the 'nuances'.
> there are approaching 300 million people....
> it is my place to have more knowledge of people than is common...
>
> at present i am reading thousands of pages upon one american
> and a hundred years of your history...
> i know more about america than most americans....let alone
> brits.....
You certainly know more American history than most americans ...You know more of American politics
than most Americans but that isn't my focus. You would know Americans better if you had spent some
time with us on our own turf.
> but of course my span and knowledge is limited....it is about britain
> also....
>
> > I believe I am much more in touch with the British way of life
> >than you are with the American.
>
> in some areas...i would expect that....
>
> > There is benefit to experiencing a place first hand and I have
> >spent a lot of time in your country and know a fair amount of British people, attitudes etc.
>
> i am not convinced...i know americans...friends live with them...
> i know americans...friends live in the states...others hop
> over for work regularly...and more...
> why, i've even seen hollywood films...and cnn...and much else...
>
> >Still I am frequently mystified..
>
> any person is...if you are sane and bright...you realise it..
But that is the essence of my comment.
Bill
abelard
typed:
>I don't buy this detached pose.
just found this...i though i was going to get a rest....
it isn't a pose....
> Sometimes you are very very much a short-termist and react to
>immediate happenings as if they were of the utmost historical importance.
i have little doubt that i regard some things as much more critical
than the current fashion...i regarded clinton facing the prudes
down as far more important than bliar's lies or bush's venality....
i regarded it as more important than whether either country got
an extra point or 2 on the gdp.....
it is the culture i aim to shift....
bliar is a nuisance to me personally...because i can't trust british
law any more...but like my kind...exile is an ever present necessity..
> But it doesn't matter a
>whit what I think about your "detachment" etc.
of course not...but if you don't grasp it....it will make it more
difficult to read me....
> Why should I or anyone have to "plumb" any subtelties
>or read between the lines with your messages. If you really want to communicate Say what you mean
often that is not optimal behaviour....
>and above all mean what you say. Be specificic and make an attempt to give enough information so
>that your meanings will not be misunderstood. Place your views in the proper context and do not use
>extreme rhetoric unless you feel extreme rhetoric is needed to emphasie your points.
i only use rhetoric to move the route of the sheep....you
don't qualify...
sometimes i make a 'noise' to wake the complacent from
slumber....the moment they wake..i desist....
it is calculated....
>I know you feel that many of these subtelties are adequately covered in your web site and in some
>cases undoubtedly they are. But you cannot expect that all posters have extensively studied you web
>site to understand these subtelties.
there is a great deal more to do....
> If you do expect this, you expect too much.
i don't tend to keep my mind in a state called 'expect'....
>> could be....but so does a person with very great integrity....
>>
>> now...think before you answer!
>
>I always think before I write. Is it great integrity that caused him to drop his pants in front of
>an Arkansas state employee.
alleged...
> Is it great integrity that caused him to make off with the furniture
>when he left the White House.
i have no details...you mean something different from myself
by integrity...y'old prude.....
i would tend to call what you call integrity...conformism to
local customs of which you approve....
>Was it great integrity that caused him to pardon a drug dealer on the
>recommendation of his brother in law who received a fat fee for his services as an intermediary?
>
>Think before you respond abelard!!
sure...by integrity...i mean consistent....internally one......
not mentally disorganised as i regard the great majority of humans....
his brother in law's acts are not clinton's acts....
>> i think you ask the wrong questions...jackson pollock was
>> known to piss in the grate at parties...nobody sane will ever
>> care when they look at his paintings...
>> i could give you pages of similar...
>
>I'm sure you could. A couple of points...
>
>1. Clinton is a politician and relies on the hoi polloi/
he gained and held that....
>2. Pollock's paintings might have been appreciated but I don't expect he was popular as a guest at
>*civilized* parties.
they still invited him...not that i would....
>3 I don't agree that Clinton has the degree of respect outside the political cackle that you do.
opinion...my perspective is outside the us....he is now politically not
very relevant...but his going rate is $100,000 an appearance atm....
he can retire in a year to a tropical isle if he wishes....
>4. I can't stand Pollock's dribblings..
you probably can't read them....i can't read much classical music....
>> >Intelligent people know first and foremost that they do "not" have the knowledge. This is what
>> >worries me about you. You are so damned certain about the rightness of your vieewpoint.
>> >Intelligent people know that there are many legitimate ways to look at issues and have to seek
>> >to find a comfortable way to incorporate a viewpoint with an overall broader outlook.
>>
>> depends upon the issue...
>
>Of course. And the death penalty definitely falls in such a category.
in your view...
> You don't even deal with the
>issues you just ponitificate and dogmatize the issue pretending that a view other than yours cannot
>possibly be correct.
sure...read two solid books on the subject....study psychology
in some depth....get 'clinical' experience...then argue.....
>but the french have a different attitude to it....it's make work....
your news reader is disorganising your posts consistently
tacking my lines on the end of yours
>> you stand in a queue at the post office...and there is a 20 minute
>> conversation about the dog....they just stand there and wait...
>>
>> i am fascinated by the economics of it all....
>
>LOL, More than a little of what you say rings true with me.if you substitute brown envelopes with a
>thousand quid for
note the concatenation ^^
>> a swiss bank account with a million or 5...
>> the tory party has turned against its roots...it is infected by
>> socialists....
>
>I suspect your socialists are my social democrats. Were I European I would undoubtedly be a Social
>democrat.
socialist kill the golden goose...they attempt to run society
top down...and use ever increasing force when it fails
to work....
what is a social democrat in that context?
>> but see the stuff on france....i think you should think about
>> 'economics'....
>
>Were are you going with this comment?
what people do is chosen...or imv should be....you can choose
not to manufacture (or buy) ever more plastic junk....
western relationships are over monetarised...and work is running out...
you are mostly calhoun's rats....
>> at the moment the data is at the very best it does no good...
>> as a psychologist....i know it does much damage to 'civilisation'
>> and individuals and 'humanity'...
>
>You *know* or you *think*? When did it start doing great damage to civiliztion and individuals
>etc.? How does it do this harm?. A contrary view holds that capital punishment is the highest
>expression of the sanctity of human life and anything less (for murder) is an assault on civilization
>and humanity etc.?
shallow rationalisation....
think of society in terms of increasing consciousness....in time
i think it likely that western society will give up meat...let alone
this barbarism...
>> it will go the way of the rack...and the cat o' nine tails...
>> it demeans you as a nation...
>
>It probably will go away in time. That seems to be the trend. I don't see how it demeans the US as
>a nation although I would personally support its abolition
but you are civilised....why give your atavistic opponents empathy?
tolerance becomes softness at times...
the practice is a social evil.....with full assessment i would strongly
imagine it *causes* far more (other) murders than is appreciated...
however...if a whiff of grape shot was necessary to put down
mob rule...i would immediately order it or carry it out....
i am a pragmatist...and yes..i am much more detached than you
comprehend.....
i don't think you entirely understand that i can agree with wet
liberals for very different reasons, than their reasons for holding
a position.....or for that matter with the brainless fascisti that
post here....
>> you have...'agree that you have parked in the wrong place
>> and pay a fine....or we'll run you in for drunk driving....'etc..
>> the british had (a modicum) of law until recently....you have
>> economics...
>Don't the British have their fines. Indeed the British restrict access to their courts based
>primarily on money. Failure in a British Court can lead to complete ruin.
there is very little justice in britain....that does not make the states
nirvana....but i trust the rule of law more in the states.....
i am actually surprised it has broken down in the recent coup...
get clear...i regard humans as struggling out of the swamp...and
often not very far from it....
>I'm certainly not saying that *sex* is dirty but there are vulgar expressions of sex. Just as there
>are vulgar expressions of eating or talking etc. .
you didn't have to watch...neither did keyhole ken....
'exactly how far did it go in'...'about this far officer'....
>> the prurient venal old farts is the problem....
>
>When you deal with the issue of how a President charged with sexual harrassment should deal with such
>charges within the law then I will consider what you say.
you won't change the 'law', until you come to terms with the limits of
what 'wrongs' you *can* right....until you come to terms with the
reality that the cost outweighs the gain.....
> Is a President above the law? You have
>agreed that sexual harrasment is wrong,
all harassment is wrong...why distinguish sexual?
animal courtship often involves a degree of 'suasion male to female....
legislation won't change that.....
how you gonna define the borderline? how you going to police it?
>in the US it is also against the law,
so?...humans are dumb...
> Clinton was accused
>(not by Ken Star) of sexual harassment.
accusations are ten a penny...
keyhole ken sexually harassed clinton....on a public stage....
keyhole is responsible for his own acts....i cannot accept
'only following orders'....
> You won't deal with the issue.
i do and will...but the answers don't suit....
some cut out because it has become uninterpretable due to
your newsreader...
>> it is also sound logic...it stops you 'jumping to conclusions'...
>> it stops you being impulsive...it encourages you to be
>> objective....it thus improves civilisation...
>
>Sure. In a court of law. Outside of a court of law we too try to be objective within our means but
>we also form opinions and points of view. Otherwise these discussions (about everything) would be
>pretty dry stuff.
suits me...
>> the reality is you *do not know*...you probably never will...
>> you have no serious way of assessing the tittle tattle.....
>> your society is corrupt....
>> it is naive and gullible...
>Sure I can. But courts exist to resolve matters of law. Courts make mistakes but resolving such
>matters is their rason d'etre. The society, media etc. doesn;t at the end of the day decide these
>matters otherwise OJ Simpson would now be dead.
i want the barricades....i want them extended/improved...to the media....
to the tittle tattle....
it's personal...my kind has always been vulnerable to the mob....
>> you cannot accept that you do not know...
>> there are thing you cannot know...
>
>Of course I accept this and indeed I accept it regarding much of various Clinton accusations.
but why do you think it is possible to resolve...imv it is mostly
hot air...
> It was
>a legal issue and has to be resolved within the legal system.
i am unconvinced that is rational....
>If you agree that forcing yourself on
>someone in a sexual way is wrong, how do you expect it to
>> >be adjudicated fairly?
>>
>> i don't
>
>Do you expect it to be adjudicated at all? Should similar charges against ordinary people be
>adjudicated?
a lot of the time....probably not...
>> > Why was Ken Starr wrong to explore Clinton's sexual behavior in the
>> >light of several sexual harassment charges?.
>>
>> 1)because an act between consenting adults is entirely irrelevant....
>Probably so, but one first must determine consent.
there was no slightest suspicion that the delightful monica
was not consenting...
>> 2)you have much trouble going this route when you insist a prostitutes
>> trade precludes her from successfully bringing a rape charge....
>
>Who claims this? Prostitutes can most certainly claim rape. In non open and shut cases however,
>the fact of prostitution can be a factor in evaluating the evidence. Above all accusations must be
>proved in court.
ah the naivete...'proved'....most of the time it is next to unprovable....
often, i doubt that even the parties have a full idea of what happened...
the whole situation is close to farce....why all the publicity?
it's a show...attempt to get the mob on 'your side'....
why the courtroom histrionics/rhetoric?
in britain 80 or 90% 'get off'...of course their lives are still screwed
up...so now the loons want to effect guilt by accusation....
it's mostly just another hysteria...a witch hunt....
an easy result to revenge or money....
>> 3)there are things you cannot know....wrongs you cannot right...
>> to destroy culture and logic in your frustration is foolish
>> and dangerous cultural vandalism...
>Indeed this is so. Merely charging someone with wrongdoing is not nearly sufficient. The wrongdoing
>must be proved. It is not an act of frustration , it is called due process..
true...that is what it is called....i saw figures stating that 80+% of
child abuse claims by females in the usa are proving false....
who knows whether it is true....but it doesn't stop the devastation....
your so-called due process is probably doing (much) more damage
than what went before.....
the system is *fundamentally* flawed....the attempt to gain 'justice'
is flawed....
the culture must change....no blame...no excuse....
you must leave the emotionalism behind in the jungle.....
the society is sick...our inheritance is not suited for modern civilised
life...we have to learn to remake a human culture....
>> to 'solve' the 'problem'...you must have a camera in every room etc
>> and signed consent forms before notaries who are investigated
>> constantly...etc....
>> the 'cure' is worse than the disease....
>
>This is an unreasonable and unnecessary demand. There are ways of proving charges based on logic and
>circumstantial evidence that come close enough to a cure. There are mistakes but then there are
>mistakes everywhere. How many people are killed in auto accidents?
i don't find that line even mildly convincing.....
you are not designed to drive a ton or three of hurtling metal
at 100mph....eventually it will be automated.....
you have far more faith in common human behaviour and current
levels of reason than i have....
>> >> that said....all humans have weaknesses...possibly he has such a
>> >> weakness....
>> >> society is in course of changing in this respect.....males have to
>> >> adjust...females if they have any wit, will not expect a five
>> >> minute revolution.....some of this is in the genes....
>> >> meanwhile females are widely exploiting the situation....that is
>> >> also an 'evil'...a social corrosive....your legal system encourages
>> >> that...as does the public prurience...as does the venality of
>> >> political opportunists....
>> >
>> >This is nonsense.
>>
>> oh no it's not....
>
>I do agree that there is considerable nonsensical charges of sexual harassment etc. reflecting the
>societies willingness to prosecute acts that were previously largely ignorred. Still charges have to
>be adjudicated in court based on the law as it is written.
re-write the law...or even forget it if you can't do that effectively....
>I don't need to. My congruent example would be no better than yours. All I would need to say (and I
>am not saying it ;-) is Blair feels that FOI would be too dangerous for the reelection of the Labour
>party
then he should not have made the public promise...
>> >Also, other politicans are not usually plagued with endless series of bogus charges by women
>> >trying to make a quick buck. I think you have a very weak argument here.
>>
>> whereas i don't....cop to the other 607 burglaries in
>> the area and help my clear up rate...and i'll put in a good word
>> to the judge.....
>> i think you are naive...
>
>I think you are overly cynical.
i would expect that....you are a good lad....
>>before you are so ready to throw stones...i suggest you
>> try living in a gold fish bowl surrounded by specimens like
>> star and ...
>
>I am not throwing even a pebble let alone a stone. As for the gold fish bowl, anyone who runs for
>high office knows exactly what to expect so I feel no pity.
and if no good man will do the job because of the hassle.....?
were you better served when you knew less?
>> > Say, it is none of your business and I am not going to
>> >discuss my private life with you in any way.
>>
>> he is garrulous and friendly...
>
>ROTFLOL, He sure is.
and you would prefer po face lieberman? the life and soul of the
party....he can't even play the sax....
do you still yearn for puritansville my friend?
>> >What is your point about hindsight? We are discussing this matter after the event. Of course
>> >it is hindsight, what of it?
>>
>> he would likely handle it differently now....he is older and wiser....
>> he has the information that the american people are more
>> grown up than he imagined...
>
>We all would handle many things differently. So what.
you were suggesting what he should have done with hindsight....
he had not that luxury available at the time...
>> stereotypes are mere shorthand...
>> i do not have to sit on american mud to meet and discuss with
>> americans...i hoped you would know better....
>
>I do and I am not suggesting otherwise. Still I imagine you would benefit from personal experience
>with the country. I am sure that you have considerably more insight into the French and British ways
>of life than I do because you have spent more time on "their mud".
but i can't speak more than a few words of frog....
>> at present i am reading thousands of pages upon one american
>> and a hundred years of your history...
>> i know more about america than most americans....let alone
>> brits.....
>
>You certainly know more American history than most americans ...You know more of American politics
>than most Americans but that isn't my focus. You would know Americans better if you had spent some
>time with us on our own turf.
i will know more tomorrow anyways....i study people...not americans....
not brits....not french....
i generalise out as best i can from my small windows....
glory knows what i would gain by sitting on all american mud....
mmoma and vegas would be neat...maybe a quik glance at the canyon...
i'd happily hole up in the dessert in a hut and study.....i'm a
3/4 way recluse....i like people who can keep up with me
or put up with the fact that they cannot....it rather narrows
the options!
then what? i can see more americans on tele...and they are more
likely to think than jo sixpack...
what would i gain from meeting an all american moron that i could
not attain from a british moron?
>> >Still I am frequently mystified..
>>
>> any person is...if you are sane and bright...you realise it..
>
>But that is the essence of my comment.
sure...but you'd have to be out to lunch for any
different response!