CLINTON is Impeached
Alex Crouvier
Just some important news for you DVD -Heads ...enough to turn off those
players and snap back to reality for a while?
:-)
Master
>
> Yea I can't believe the Republicans had the Balls to do the right thing.
You mean like wire tap opponents, throw elections, shred
documents, bomb countries illegally, sell arms to our
enemies, etc. etc. etc.
Yes, that's nothing compared to a blow job.
Guy Kuo
gary...@aol.com (Gary 72122) wrote:
> Yea I can't believe the Republicans had the Balls to do the right thing.
...
> >On two articles: perjury and obstruction of justice
When is the DVD being released and what features will it have? Is this a
DIEVX only release in P&S or will it be a widescreen enhanced disc? Which
studio? Is this RSDL? Multi camera angles? Details! Details please about
this DVD.
Guy Kuo
Rodney Peterson
Do you approve of the action the House took today?
Yes-43%
No-55%
Undecided-2%
Do you approve of the way President Clinton is handling his job?
Yes-72%
No-25%
Undecided-3%
The action taken today clearly does not reflect the wishes of the
majority of Amercans (these are polls taken after impeachment)
It takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate (55 Republicans, 45 Democrats) to
forcibly remove Bill Clinton from office. Reality check: if the Senate
takes this to trial, it is extremely doubtful 67 Senators will vote for
removal. The margins today were largely along party lines and were much
less than a 2/3 majority of the House. Two of four articles failed.
Meantime, the new speaker of the house Bob Livingston quits because of a
stupid extra marital affair. Bill Clinton has never been a quitter and
has faced tough battles and powerful enemies his entire political
career. Virtually nobody believes a 2/3 majority of the Senate will vote
for removal especially since a full 45% of the Senate are Democrats. 12
Democrats and every single Republican would have to vote for removal. If
this goes along party lines as today's vote, Bill Clinton will continue
to serve as President until January 2000. He's not a quitter and has
clearly stated he will not resign and will very likely win in the Senate
trial, if it goes that far.
Rodney Peterson
January 2001", not January 2000.
Ura Dippschitt
ROCKN...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote:
> NBC News Poll Results Today:
>
> Do you approve of the action the House took today?
Hey dickwad, there are OTHER appropriate places for this. Fucking get a
clue. If I want to find out this shit, I'll log on to CNN. Fuck off!
Aurelian
>Gary 72122 wrote:
>>
>> Yea I can't believe the Republicans had the Balls to do the right thing.
>
>documents, bomb countries illegally, sell arms to our
>enemies, etc. etc. etc.
You conveniently forget that Clinton authorized the sale of advanced missile
guidance technology to China and the legality of his current bombing
campaign in Iraq is highly debatable to say the least. Let's also recall his
numerous failures to stand up to China on the issue of human rights. People
who live in glass houses....
>Yes, that's nothing compared to a blow job.
It's nothing compared to having the chief law enforcement officer and first
citizen of the Republic undermine one of our judicial system's most basic
principles- the responsibility to tell the truth under sworn oath in a court
of law. I am thankful that today the rule of the Constitution, the law of
the land, was upheld. That is far larger and more important than Clinton's
political fortunes. An overly lenient penalty establishes a far more
dangerous legal precedent than impeachment does. Since perjury before a
federal grand jury is a felony, I have no problem considering it a high
crime or misdemeanor.
My $0.02
A
Rodney Peterson
thread, dont click on it. I didn't start this thread, you moron.
wolfman6
--
x-no-archive: yes
************
Wolfman6
************
Guy Kuo wrote in message ...
>In article <19981219203840...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
>gary...@aol.com (Gary 72122) wrote:
>
>> Yea I can't believe the Republicans had the Balls to do the right thing.
Joe Bloomberg
Rodney Peterson wrote:
> NBC News Poll Results Today:
>
> Do you approve of the action the House took today?
>
Gary 72122
>Subject: CLINTON is Impeached
>From: Alex Crouvier <troj...@geocities.com>
>Date: 12/19/98 9:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <367C68...@geocities.com>
>
>On two articles: perjury and obstruction of justice
>
SonySddS1
>Just some important news for you DVD -Heads ...enough to turn off those
>players and snap back to reality for a while?
>
>
Nope.
Box Office Stats, Movie/DVD Reviews, Movie/DVD Release Dates, DVD News
http://members.aol.com/sonysdds1
Dllem
with::
>Mr. appropriately named (as in Ura Dipschitt), if you don't like the
>thread, dont click on it. I didn't start this thread, you moron.
I pressed 'Enter' on it.
(That big thing with squares is called a "Keyboard")
_________________________
| | | | |
[=] [D] [L] [L] [E] [M] [=]
|_______|_______|_______|
Remove the 'i' to reply
AB
>Gary 72122 wrote:
>>
>> Yea I can't believe the Republicans had the Balls to do the right thing.
>
>You mean like wire tap opponents, throw elections, shred
>documents, bomb countries illegally, sell arms to our
>enemies, etc. etc. etc.
Oh, you mean llike bomb aspirin factories in sudan when it gets hot
for you here, contend you have to bomb before ramadan so you don't
offend the muslim world, then go ahead and bomb into it? Or bomb
countries even though the UN, your allies, france, spain, china, and
russia object and threaten you? Or fix court cases by having people
lie for you, or propose CDAs which impair speech online, which luckily
are defeated, or propose manditory school uniforms? Or is it selling
fighter planes to China despite our embargo, and then magically coming
up with a couple hundred thousand in campaign donations.
Oh yeah, he's doing a great job.
AB
KEB
>In article <19981219203840...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
>
>> Yea I can't believe the Republicans had the Balls to do the right thing.
>> >On two articles: perjury and obstruction of justice
>
>DIEVX only release in P&S or will it be a widescreen enhanced disc? Which
>studio? Is this RSDL? Multi camera angles? Details! Details please about
>this DVD.
>
>Guy Kuo
I offer the following guarantee -- any DVD featuring Slick Willie will have
multi camera angles. Seems like his kind of movie!
QuadGrinder
>Yes, that's nothing compared to a blow job.
You are right, and it is also nothing compared to telling a lie under
oath.
----------------------------------------------------
Divx: Spam for your home theater
Silly rabbit, Divx is for kids!
----------------------------------------------------
remove "SPAM" to reply
scout
-- scout
--------------------------------------------
DiVX--You Pay When You Hit Play
1994 Mustang GT/K&N Pro/Free DVD
i think a 4.6 is 281. i also think a 5.0 is 4.942.
Alex Crouvier wrote in message <367C68...@geocities.com>...
>On two articles: perjury and obstruction of justice
>
>Just some important news for you DVD -Heads ...enough to turn off those
>players and snap back to reality for a while?
>
>:-)
Thomas Nagy
>In article <19981219203840...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
>gary...@aol.com (Gary 72122) wrote:
>
>> Yea I can't believe the Republicans had the Balls to do the right thing.
>....
>
>DIEVX only release in P&S or will it be a widescreen enhanced disc? Which
>studio? Is this RSDL? Multi camera angles? Details! Details please about
>this DVD.
Maybe New Line will issue a Double Platinum Edition of Wag the Dog.
Thomas Nagy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Check out my cats! (http://members.tor.shaw.wave.ca/~tnagy/)
Free Office Suite: http://www.stardivision.com/so40/index.html
Clyde Sauls
They are elected to do the will of the people which by the polls show
was not done. They did the will of the right wing republican party.
Whatever happen to republican party? Maybe they are being held hostage
by Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. Remember Abe Lincoln was a
republican. He probably wouldnt be one today
have a great day
Rodney Peterson
regard to political persausion. Polls conducted by news organzations are
done so in as scientific a manner as possible. The right wing is
nontheless highly represented in the media by Rush Limbaugh, Laura
Schlessinger, Adriana Huffington, Pat Buchanan and on and on-ad naseum.
To call the media liberal and biased is incorrect. The media, like the
public itself, is represented highly on both sides of the fence. True
journalists are there to report the news, not to tell you their opinion
of it.
William Foley
Polls also show OJ Simpson should be on death row. Thank God we do
not run this country by polls. I laugh everytime I hear these news
people say "the American people, in their infinite wisdom"
If americans had infinite wisdom, we would be watching tapes on
Betamaxes and their would never be a DIVX.
Just my thoughts,I may be wrong.
TomRipley
<troj...@geocities.com> wrote:
>On two articles: perjury and obstruction of justice
>
>Just some important news for you DVD -Heads ...enough to turn off those
>players and snap back to reality for a while?
>
>:-)
Not even remotely. I don't think he'll ever be convicted or removed
from office; to borrow a line from a favorite movie, "He is protected
from on high by the Prince of Darkness himself!"
Tom
--
"Has anything you've done made your life better?"
- David McKenna, "American History X"
Midd33
calling for his/her impeachment regardless of their party affilliation. Yes
Clinton was wrong for not admitting to what he had done. But come on, no other
official whether in D.C. or a state's capital has cheated on his/her spouse??
LIES!! LIES I SAY!!!!
Andy
U2, Cure, Echo and the Bunnymen fan
49ers and Penguins fan
Hockey Player-a Cyclone but forever a Warrior
"I love it when other guys get ticked off at me. That means I'm playing hard.
That means they are going to get penalties" Darius Kasparaitis
PeterTHX
Rodney Peterson wrote in message
<13565-36...@newsd-163.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Ridiculous. You know what? You basically named ALL conservative media
outlets. What of the other 99.95%? Ask a typical journalist who he votes
for. Look at a typical profile of a democrat in a mainstream publication vs
the republican. The only ones who don't say the media's biased are the
liberals!
DrkJedi79
>clue. If I want to find out this shit, I'll log on to CNN. Fuck off!
Hmm. this reminds me of a recent topic. "Is this the rudest newsgroup of all?"
I wish people would just chill out and be nice on here. So the post is off
topic. You can at least be nice about telling people that their posts are off
topic. Maybe the guy that posted the Clinton question just wanted to see what
DVD fans were thinking on this historic event. But please, try not to be so
quick to treat our fellow DVD fans so harshly.
T.Dillon
Terry
Travis Carter
Midd33 wrote in message <19981220110524...@ng137.aol.com>...
>I now know this, anytime an elected official lies about ANYTHING, I will be
>calling for his/her impeachment regardless of their party affilliation. Yes
>Clinton was wrong for not admitting to what he had done. But come on, no
other
>official whether in D.C. or a state's capital has cheated on his/her
spouse??
Cheating on his spouse is not what the impeachment was about! Judges and
lawyers have been bared from practicing law ever again for lying under oath.
William Jefferson Clinton commited purgery and action must be taken. People
are always talking about some "crooked politician". It's about time
somebody did something about it. Yah, thousands of people have cheated on
their spouses, and no, that's not an impeachable offence. Lying in front of
God and a grand jury is.
Can we please put this in alt.politics.clinton and get back to DVD?
--
t. carter
WARNING!!!
Anti-SPAM measures are in effect.
Reply via newsgroups only!
StarDog
Clinton is probably buying Divx right now...
loser
On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 04:50:41 GMT, k...@nettally.com (KEB) wrote:
>In article <gk-191298...@port033.drizzle.com>, gk@No_Ham.org (Guy Kuo) wrote:
>>In article <19981219203840...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
>>gary...@aol.com (Gary 72122) wrote:
>>
>>> Yea I can't believe the Republicans had the Balls to do the right thing.
>>....
>>> >On two articles: perjury and obstruction of justice
>>
>>When is the DVD being released and what features will it have? Is this a
>>DIEVX only release in P&S or will it be a widescreen enhanced disc? Which
>>studio? Is this RSDL? Multi camera angles? Details! Details please about
>>this DVD.
>>
Vincent Leo
On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:54:33 GMT, "T.Dillon" <Wo...@InfonetSPAM.ca>
wrote:
Just me
Has Monica signed another deal with a DVD film company ????
Anyway, he should of admitted it straight away, everyone likes a blowjob !!!
Vincent Leo wrote in message <367e381d...@news.earthlink.net>...
KEB
>You cant Believe the repubications did the right thing. I dont think so.
>They are elected to do the will of the people which by the polls show
>was not done. They did the will of the right wing republican party.
>Whatever happen to republican party? Maybe they are being held hostage
FYI, history is replete with examples of congress acting against the will of
the majority. Most of our civil rights laws would not be on the books if
congress had listened to the majority. Slavery would probably still be around,
abortion would be illegal, government would have no power to levy any taxes,
Vietnam would never have been fought. While the correctness or incorrectness
of some of these actions is debateable, the point is that we have a
REPRESENTATIVE style of government -- not a democracy. We rely on our elected
representatives to do what we want and/or what is right for the country.
Sometimes these are not compatible. The House was charged with considering the
facts presented and determining whether or not Slick Willie's offenses were
impeachable. There is nothing in the Constitution that permits a referendum to
remove a sitting president. Impeaching based on public opinion polls is
dangerously close to doing just that. The House had to do what was RIGHT ...
not necessarily what we want. No one is happy that the country is going
through this ordeal, but ultimately there is only one person responsible for
congress having to take this action and endangering the good times the US
finds itself in right now.
KEB
>I now know this, anytime an elected official lies about ANYTHING, I will be
>calling for his/her impeachment regardless of their party affilliation. Yes
If the person lies under oath, then misuses his office to influence public
opinion and legal proceedings, and then lies point-blank to the American
people when confronted with his lie .... then you would be absolutely correct.
Really it would only take the lying under oath for you to be correct, the rest
is just gravy. We didn;t even talk about the fact that the offense is more
egregious if he is the commander-in-chief of a miliary that removes and court
martials any similar offender, or the fact that he used his office to quash
freedom of speech by censuring the public comments of current members of the
military.
QuadGrinder
Sauls) wrote:
>You cant Believe the repubications did the right thing. I dont think so.
>They are elected to do the will of the people which by the polls show
>was not done.
>
And if the "will of the people" was to create an Arian nation, and
kill all the jews, would you want the republicans to do the will of
the people?
DeadGnat
now be worth 5 cents.
Jeff
Jim
ROCKN...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote:
> The action taken today clearly does not reflect the wishes of the
> majority of Amercans (these are polls taken after impeachment)
Assuming polling is a fairly accurate and consistent science
(judging by how often it's used by the Media), how do you
incorporate the results of last week's poll commissioned by ABC
News? The results of that particular poll had a majority of
Americans wanting the president booted out of office if the House
passed any articles of impeachment.
Jim
ROCKN...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote:
> It is the job of the media to report balanced news coverage without
> regard to political persausion.
You're right, it SHOULD be their job.
> Polls conducted by news organzations are done so in as scientific
> a manner as possible. The right wing is nontheless highly
> represented in the media by Rush Limbaugh, Laura Schlessinger,
> Adriana Huffington, Pat Buchanan and on and on-ad naseum.
I don't recall anyone referring to these talk-jockies as
journalists.
> To call the media liberal and biased is incorrect. The media,
> like the public itself, is represented highly on both sides
> of the fence.
A poll was commissioned not too long ago asking journalists their
party affiliation and voting habits. 89% respondended as
Democrats, 5% Republicans.
Rodney Peterson
don't normally watch the news, but did by chance catch the NBC Saturday
News. I'm not sure why most journalists would describe themselves as
Democrats, I'd like to know who commissioned that poll and how the
results were obtained. Yes, those people are talk-show
journalists/entertainers, unfortunately, they have a huge dedicated
following who actually believe them, something like the National
Enquirer. Those shows, like Jerry Springer, Geraldo, etc. rely on
sensationalism to sell-oddly enough, they are owned and operated by the
very companies (Westwood One, ABC, etc.) that are supposedly so liberal
in their policies. So this doesn't add up in terms of broadcast
organzations skewing towards liberal-they pretty much skew towards
dollars.
Joe Anstett
> Gary 72122 wrote:
> >
> > Yea I can't believe the Republicans had the Balls to do the right thing.
>
> You mean like wire tap opponents, throw elections, shred
> documents, bomb countries illegally, sell arms to our
> enemies, etc. etc. etc.
>
> Yes, that's nothing compared to a blow job.
I guess you aren't aware of Clinton's decision to allow the transfer of
technology used in missile guidance systems to the Chinese. Coincidentally
the Chinese made lots of clandestine and illegal contributions to Clinton's
campaign, and the CEO of the company giving the Chinese the technology is a
big Clinton contributor.
Joe
Joe Anstett
> It is the job of the media to report balanced news coverage without
> regard to political persausion. Polls conducted by news organzations are
> done so in as scientific a manner as possible.
Please. They ask 800 people in areas that are decidedly Democratic.
> The right wing is
> nontheless highly represented in the media by Rush Limbaugh, Laura
> Schlessinger, Adriana Huffington, Pat Buchanan and on and on-ad naseum.
That's why more than 90% of the media votes Democratic, because the right
wing is highly represented. That's why I have to listen to extremely biased
news reports from all the major networks every day and night...
> To call the media liberal and biased is incorrect. The media, like the
> public itself, is represented highly on both sides of the fence. True
> journalists are there to report the news, not to tell you their opinion
> of it.
The media is highly biased towards liberalism. There are innumerable
examples which we can discuss if you wish.
Joe
Joe Anstett
> I'd be interested in the results of the ABC poll, which I've not seen. I
> don't normally watch the news, but did by chance catch the NBC Saturday
> News. I'm not sure why most journalists would describe themselves as
> Democrats, I'd like to know who commissioned that poll and how the
> results were obtained.
Because we've had a frightening shift of the media in the past 30 years.
We used to have journalists that wanted to tell a story. Now we have
journalists that want to "make a difference".
Joe
Joe Anstett
Joe
scout wrote:
> We'd also like to see the same thing happen to DIVX.
>
> -- scout
> --------------------------------------------
> DiVX--You Pay When You Hit Play
> 1994 Mustang GT/K&N Pro/Free DVD
> i think a 4.6 is 281. i also think a 5.0 is 4.942.
>
> Alex Crouvier wrote in message <367C68...@geocities.com>...
> >On two articles: perjury and obstruction of justice
> >
Joe Anstett
> NBC News Poll Results Today:
I'm so sick and tired of polls. Especially ones that try to TELL the
American people what to think instead of ASKING them what they think.
> Do you approve of the action the House took today?
>
> Yes-43%
> No-55%
> Undecided-2%
>
> Do you approve of the way President Clinton is handling his job?
>
> Yes-72%
> No-25%
> Undecided-3%
>
> The action taken today clearly does not reflect the wishes of the
> majority of Amercans (these are polls taken after impeachment)
You know what? Sometimes the majority of the American people are WRONG. I
know you must hate to hear that, but the American people are also
responsible for KMart, the Spice Girls, Pizza Hut, AOL, Ford pick-up trucks,
and lots of other phenomenon.
Should the rule of law be thrown out because it isn't popular?
> It takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate (55 Republicans, 45 Democrats) to
> forcibly remove Bill Clinton from office. Reality check: if the Senate
> takes this to trial, it is extremely doubtful 67 Senators will vote for
> removal. The margins today were largely along party lines and were much
> less than a 2/3 majority of the House. Two of four articles failed.
> Meantime, the new speaker of the house Bob Livingston quits because of a
> stupid extra marital affair. Bill Clinton has never been a quitter and
> has faced tough battles and powerful enemies his entire political
> career. Virtually nobody believes a 2/3 majority of the Senate will vote
> for removal especially since a full 45% of the Senate are Democrats. 12
> Democrats and every single Republican would have to vote for removal. If
> this goes along party lines as today's vote, Bill Clinton will continue
> to serve as President until January 2000. He's not a quitter and has
> clearly stated he will not resign and will very likely win in the Senate
> trial, if it goes that far.
Of course not -- regardless of what's best for his country or his family or
his personal life, he will hang on to the oval office like an alleycat with
its claws embedded into a wool blanket. Bill Clinton cares about one thing
-- himself. Keeping his butt in the oval office, and his "legacy", are his
priorities..
Does anyone on EITHER side of the aisle believe Clinton is one of the most
important presidents to ever live as Algore declared Saturday during the
press conference on the White House lawn? Come ON.
Joe
Joe Anstett
> I now know this, anytime an elected official lies about ANYTHING, I will be
> calling for his/her impeachment regardless of their party affilliation. Yes
> Clinton was wrong for not admitting to what he had done. But come on, no other
> official whether in D.C. or a state's capital has cheated on his/her spouse??
There's a difference between LYING, and LYING UNDER OATH. It's called PERJURY.
It's a serious offense. If you or I did it under a legal proceeding, we would be
in jail.
As for whether it's impeachable or not... Whether it's a "high crime or
misdemeanor" or not... Perjury is a felony. One cannot be elected President if
one is a convicted felon. Sounds like having a sitting President who is a felon
warrants impeachment to me.
John Q. Public knows it's a big crime to lie under oath. Lawyers know it better
than anyone else, and as officers of the court they have a greater responsibility
than the average citizen. Lawyers have a greater duty than others to the
maintenance of truth in the legal system.
Clinton is not only a lawyer, but the ONE PERSON IN THE COUNTRY who is sworn to
protect, preserve, and defend the very Constitution of this country.
As a citizen, what he did is wrong. As a lawyer, what he did is even more wrong.
As the President, what he did is intolerable. ANY President who lies under oath,
regardless of popularity or political affiliation, should be impeached. Then he
should be DISBARRED as a lawyer, and then prosecuted as a citizen.
I don't care if he lied about sex, about picking his nose, about parking in a
handicapped spot, or about murder. HE LIED UNDER OATH. Not to protect his
family, but to protect his own ASS.
Joe
Joe Anstett
> You cant Believe the repubications did the right thing. I dont think so.
> They are elected to do the will of the people
No they aren't. This is a representative republic, not a democracy.
> which by the polls show
> was not done.
I'm so sick of these polls, that skew the results by asking the right
questions in the right areas with the right demographics, and by asking only
800 people (God knows who these 800 people are).
And you know what? Who cares about polls if the result is wrong?
> They did the will of the right wing republican party.
> Whatever happen to republican party? Maybe they are being held hostage
> by Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. Remember Abe Lincoln was a
> republican. He probably wouldnt be one today
You could say the same about the Democratic party. What happened to it?
It's now a loose coalition of special interest groups -- big labor unions,
big government employees, racial caucuses, etc. What ever happened to
common-sense Democrats, or even the "new Democrats" Clinton promised? Maybe
they are being held hostage by Barney Frank or Dick Gephardt or David
Bonnier. Remember JFK? Ever read what he wrote and spoke about? By
today's standards, he would be called a Republican.
Joe
Jeff Shirton
(Rodney Peterson) wrote:
> Mr. appropriately named (as in Ura Dipschitt),
My guess is that he made up that name specifically for response to your
post (ie. directed at you, and IMO, very appropriately).
> if you don't like the thread, dont click on it.
You must have the I.Q. of pool-ball. It's not the responsibility of the
reader to only click on on-topic posts, it's the responsibility of the
poster only to post on-topic posts. EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T START THE THREAD.
"Responsibility". What a concept.
> I didn't start this thread, you moron.
Who cares, dipshit? Just because someone starts an off-topic thread,
doesn't mean that it's okay to continue the off-topic thread. That's
the trouble with society today, nobody wants to take responsibility
for their actions. And that's one place where Clinton puts you to shame,
you moron, since he's willing to take responsibility for his actions,
and you're apparently not.
As "Ura Dipschitt" (no doubt directed at you) pointed out, this is
alt.video.dvd, *NOT* news.CNN. GET A CLUE. Moron.
OB. DVD: I'd like to see a DVD on the morality of taking responsibility
for one's actions. (And the rerelease of LSOH.)
--
__
Joe Anstett
> >Please. They ask 800 people in areas that are decidedly Democratic.
>
> Interesting. Where do you get the information on this? Do you have
> proof of this, or are you deluding yourself into thinking this because
> you are unable to come to grips with the fact that most people don't
> agree with you?
I live in the New York market. Next time you see a poll, take a look at the
footnotes. They often ask approximately 800 people, they skew the questions to
get the answers they are seeking, and they often conduct the polls in well-known
areas that don't often represent a fair sampling of the "average Amercian".
> >That's why more than 90% of the media votes Democratic, because the right
> >wing is highly represented. That's why I have to listen to extremely biased
> >news reports from all the major networks every day and night...
>
> If you're getting information that 90%(!) of all people in radio,
> television, the press, etc. vote democratic, then you already are
> getting extremely biased information.
You can prove otherwise?
> >The media is highly biased towards liberalism. There are innumerable
> >examples which we can discuss if you wish.
>
> I think there are more liberals than conservatives in the media, but
> that doesn't mean everything you hear that's not from Rush Limbaugh's
> mouth is untrue...or everything that he says is.
I never said that. I said that the preponderance of the mainstream media is
decidedly liberal, and they provide examples of their bias every day.
Joe
Joe Anstett
> The Republicans already lost ground in an unbiased non-media poll that
> was conducted called the election!
That assumes that people don't vote based on the individual merits of the issues and candidates and
vote strictly along a party line, which obviously isn't the case. As much as the Democrats would like
it to be so.
It also incorrectly assumes that the Republicans got destroyed in the last election and the Democrats
were ushered in by the masses.
Quite the contrary, the Republicans lost a few seats but maintained their majority.
And as to being an "unbiased non-media poll", why all the desperate appeals to traditional Democratic
voters before the election, why the scare tactics that even the President participated in (like saying
Republicans were trying to video tape voters to intimidate them, or DNC ads in Mississippi that said
if constituants don't vote, it's another church that burns or another brother that gets assaulted,
pure race baiting). Meanwhile, in large cities there are numerous cases of voter fraud -- people
voting multiple times, people who have been dead showing up to vote, et al.
Joe
Rodney Peterson
express any opinions they wish on any subject they wish as long as no
laws are broken. And, by the way, I think you're a dipshit and an
asshole for attemping to trying to run your way what is a public forum.
Kim Wetch
Joe Anstett <joe.a...@SPAMSUCKSrcn.com> wrote in message
news:367DAE6D...@SPAMSUCKSrcn.com...
Jeese, take a break. Take a deep breath or two. As a lurker in the
newsgroup I have admired your view on DIVX. But your appearence in this
thread is not becoming at all. And of course this thread has nothing to do
with DVD (or DIVX), does it? I would suggest that your anger and
frustration is more valued in some other newgroup. Do you agree?
Kim
Scot Gardner
would not object to.
Vincent Leo
>Please. They ask 800 people in areas that are decidedly Democratic.
Interesting. Where do you get the information on this? Do you have
proof of this, or are you deluding yourself into thinking this because
you are unable to come to grips with the fact that most people don't
agree with you?
>That's why more than 90% of the media votes Democratic, because the right
>wing is highly represented. That's why I have to listen to extremely biased
>news reports from all the major networks every day and night...
If you're getting information that 90%(!) of all people in radio,
television, the press, etc. vote democratic, then you already are
getting extremely biased information.
>The media is highly biased towards liberalism. There are innumerable
Michael Neff
alt.video.dvd onto alt.politics.clinton or something like that?
- Mike
In article <367DB2CF...@SPAMSUCKSrcn.com> Joe Anstett <joe.a...@SPAMSUCKSrcn.com> writes:
>Vincent Leo wrote:
>
>> >Please. They ask 800 people in areas that are decidedly Democratic.
>>
>> Interesting. Where do you get the information on this? Do you have
>> proof of this, or are you deluding yourself into thinking this because
>> you are unable to come to grips with the fact that most people don't
>> agree with you?
>
>I live in the New York market. Next time you see a poll, take a look at the
>footnotes. They often ask approximately 800 people, they skew the questions to
>get the answers they are seeking, and they often conduct the polls in well-known
>areas that don't often represent a fair sampling of the "average Amercian".
>
>> >That's why more than 90% of the media votes Democratic, because the right
>> >wing is highly represented. That's why I have to listen to extremely biased
>> >news reports from all the major networks every day and night...
>>
>> If you're getting information that 90%(!) of all people in radio,
>> television, the press, etc. vote democratic, then you already are
>> getting extremely biased information.
>
>You can prove otherwise?
>
>> >The media is highly biased towards liberalism. There are innumerable
>> >examples which we can discuss if you wish.
>>
>> I think there are more liberals than conservatives in the media, but
>> that doesn't mean everything you hear that's not from Rush Limbaugh's
>> mouth is untrue...or everything that he says is.
>
Vincent Leo
>There's a difference between LYING, and LYING UNDER OATH. It's called PERJURY.
>It's a serious offense. If you or I did it under a legal proceeding, we would be
>in jail.
>
>As for whether it's impeachable or not... Whether it's a "high crime or
>misdemeanor" or not... Perjury is a felony. One cannot be elected President if
>one is a convicted felon. Sounds like having a sitting President who is a felon
>warrants impeachment to me.
While I agree he lied under oath, Clinton has never been legally
convicted of a felony. He can be tried after he leaves office, or
gets thrown out, but the felony rap hasn't been proven.
>John Q. Public knows it's a big crime to lie under oath. Lawyers know it better
>than anyone else, and as officers of the court they have a greater responsibility
>than the average citizen. Lawyers have a greater duty than others to the
>maintenance of truth in the legal system.
>
>Clinton is not only a lawyer, but the ONE PERSON IN THE COUNTRY who is sworn to
>protect, preserve, and defend the very Constitution of this country.
Presuming what you say is true, we should conclude that lawyers lie
less than anyone. Why is it that Joe Q. Public mistrusts lawyers more
than any other profession save perhaps used car salesmen?
Vincent Leo
>I'm so sick and tired of polls. Especially ones that try to TELL the
>American people what to think instead of ASKING them what they think.
If I read polls that I didn't agree with on a daily basis, I'd choose
to disregard them too...except when they show something I agree with.
Then I love them!
>You know what? Sometimes the majority of the American people are WRONG. I
>know you must hate to hear that, but the American people are also
>responsible for KMart, the Spice Girls, Pizza Hut, AOL, Ford pick-up trucks,
>and lots of other phenomenon.
The majority of people in America don't shop at K-Mart, don't listen
to the Spice Girls (which are a UK creation, by the way), don't eat at
Pizza Hut, don't have AOL, don't drive Ford pickups. Or were you
trying to pick on the minority opinion...
Vincent Leo
wrote:
>The Republicans already lost ground in an unbiased non-media poll that
>was conducted called the election! Could we move this discussion off of
>alt.video.dvd onto alt.politics.clinton or something like that?
>
>- Mike
You're right, Mike. I subscribe to so many newsgroups, sometimes I
forget to think about which one I'm in before I post. My apologies to
my fellow DVD watchers for continuing this thread any more than it
should have been.
Steve Scott
Peterson) wrote:
>I'd be interested in the results of the ABC poll, which I've not seen. I
>don't normally watch the news, but did by chance catch the NBC Saturday
>News. I'm not sure why most journalists would describe themselves as
>Democrats,
FWIW, over 90% of the Washington media admitted to voting for Clinton.
So much for balance in the news. Peter Jennings compared the '94
elections (Republicans gaining majority in both houses) as America's
voters throwing a tantrum like a two year old.
My guess is that they describe themselves as Democrats because they're
liberals.
Steve Scott
wrote:
>I think there are more liberals than conservatives in the media, but
>that doesn't mean everything you hear that's not from Rush Limbaugh's
>mouth is untrue...or everything that he says is.
Of course not. The difference is that Limbaugh readily admits his
conservatism while the vast majority of "journalists" deny allowing
their political persuasion from affecting their reporting...yet it's all
too obvious in most cases.
ZDBop
In article <75k0bt$f...@chronicle.concentric.net>, jl...@nospam.com (Jim)
writes:
>A poll was commissioned not too long ago asking journalists their
>party affiliation and voting habits. 89% respondended as
>Democrats, 5% Republicans.
Who would want to belong to a party that was being controlled the the
conservative religious right?
I know this is all off-topic, but I suppose it's a lot more important than DVD.
This whole thing wasn't about lying under oath. They didn't kick Newt Gingrich
or Barney Frank--to be balanced--out of office. This was about getting a man
many hate. It was about getting even for Nixon, Bork, and Thomas. It was
about who controls the House. It was about politics.
Conservatives hate Clinton for taking all their issues. Religious
right-wingers hate him as the Anti-Christ. Many Republicans saw it as a chance
to right a lot of old wrongs. All would do anything to achieve their goals.
The scorched earth policy adopted since Gingrich got a majority will eventually
cause their own downfall--witness the resounding defeat at the mid-term
elections--and probably lead to their minority status after 2000.
The polls, which are rising as we speak, in support of the President, reflect
that the majority of Americans recognize these factors and that the 70% who
feel he should remain as President know the charges do not rise to the level of
impeachment, much less removal from office.
The long-term effects of the actions of a very few--and forget about it being
passed by virtually all Republican House members, since the leadership would
have crushed any opposition ruthlessly--these leaders are frighteningly radical
are very close to destroying the democracy. Their are undertones which few
see, and that reporters are loath to report since they will be branded
liberals.
While we go about our Christmas shopping and dreaming of DVD movies under the
tree, our system of goverment has taken a severe hit. How serious the wound is
won't be known until HDTV is in every household, or beyond. It isn't a good
time to be awake.
Sorry, for the length, but you folks are highly intelligent people who know a
DIVX deal when you see it.
Rodney Peterson
negatively against Bill Clinton by impeaching him, they are so far
proven disastorously wrong. A new poll released by CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/
shows not only Bill Clinton's approval rating at an all time high, but
higher than the highest approval rating ever received by President
Reagan. Meanwhile, the public's negative opinion of the GOP controlled
House has increased significantly.
It takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate to remove Bill Clinton from office but
it would take only a 51-49 vote to stop the impeachment process dead in
its tracks and make a deal for censure or no punishment at all. Given
the public anger over this situation, that could likely happen.
And businessman Ted Turner, the owner of CNN, could scarcely be called a
Democrat. He's as Republican as they come.
Rodney Peterson
(see separate post regarding CNN poll) the GOP is likely to pay a very
heavy price in the 2000 elections. I don't understand why Newt Gingrich
would consider the loss of five seats (out of 435) a mark of failure and
then quit the speakership while a new speaker quits in the midst of
revelations of having an extra-marital affair. But then again, Newt
Gingrich left his wife while she needed him most, stricken ill with
cancer. And obviously Livingston quit because having problems similar to
the President's extra marital affairs seriously devalues the GOP
position of accusing the President of marital infidelity while being
guilty of it himself and makes a case for Senate removal of the
President even less likely. A full 84% of respondents answered that
Livingston's decision to quit the post he hadn't even started and the
house had no bearing on how they felt towards President Clinton.
President Clinton is very used to fighting tough battles and winning and
is resilient as people come.
Huh
---snip---
>Just some important news for you DVD -Heads ...enough to turn off those
>players and snap back to reality for a while?
No. When will the DVD release of the impeachment trial be released. And more
importantly, will it be enhanced for 16:9? heh heh
Thomas Nagy
>If the Republican House thought public opinion could be swayed
>negatively against Bill Clinton by impeaching him, they are so far
>proven disastorously wrong. A new poll released by CNN:
>
>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/
This so called 'poll' is a bad joke and IMO it shows how untrustworthy
the media is. I have a hard time to believe that americans applaud a
president who lies under oath. Not only that, but according to the poll,
if you want to increase your popularity, the easiest way of doing it is
to take an oath that you will tell the truth and then lie your ass off.
I do not know who are those people who were supposedly asked in
this 'poll' but they are definitely not among the americans I know
(or, for that matter I would ever like to know). For all those who
believe this poll is a valid representation of how americans think:
I have an oceanfront resort in Nebraska for sale, $100 cash.
>shows not only Bill Clinton's approval rating at an all time high, but
>higher than the highest approval rating ever received by President
>Reagan. Meanwhile, the public's negative opinion of the GOP controlled
>House has increased significantly.
>
>It takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate to remove Bill Clinton from office but
>it would take only a 51-49 vote to stop the impeachment process dead in
>its tracks and make a deal for censure or no punishment at all. Given
>the public anger over this situation, that could likely happen.
>
>And businessman Ted Turner, the owner of CNN, could scarcely be called a
>Democrat. He's as Republican as they come.
Thomas Nagy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Check out my cats! (http://members.tor.shaw.wave.ca/~tnagy/)
Free Office Suite: http://www.stardivision.com/so40/index.html
Joe
>Gary 72122 wrote:
>>
>> Yea I can't believe the Republicans had the Balls to do the right thing.
>
>You mean like wire tap opponents, throw elections, shred
>documents, bomb countries illegally, sell arms to our
>enemies, etc. etc. etc.
>
>Yes, that's nothing compared to a blow job.
Now that you mention it, it's a bit funny how the bombing is Iraq
stopped right around the time of the vote. I guess Billy Boy the
cigar man decided he risked enough lives (Iraqi and American) trying
to delay the vote unsuccessfully.
Joe
Joe
(Rodney Peterson) wrote:
>It is the job of the media to report balanced news coverage without
>regard to political persausion.
It's a shame they don't do that job.
>Polls conducted by news organzations are
>done so in as scientific a manner as possible.
You are still a deluded fool, THX-disc-boy!
>The right wing is
>nontheless highly represented in the media by Rush Limbaugh, Laura
>Schlessinger, Adriana Huffington, Pat Buchanan and on and on-ad naseum.
Nice try. Try to explain how 94% of news media personnel voted for
Clinton according to several 1996 polls, which you claim are
scientifically accurate.
>To call the media liberal and biased is incorrect. The media, like the
>public itself, is represented highly on both sides of the fence. True
>journalists are there to report the news, not to tell you their opinion
>of it.
>
Could the same be said for the entertainment industry? How about the
Lethal Weapon series being loaded with anti-conservative propaganda?
Joe
Joe
(Rodney Peterson) wrote:
>I'd be interested in the results of the ABC poll, which I've not seen. I
>don't normally watch the news,
It would explain why your opinions on current events demonstrate such
ignorance.
Joe
Joe
(Rodney Peterson) wrote:
>If the Republican House thought public opinion could be swayed
>negatively against Bill Clinton by impeaching him, they are so far
>proven disastorously wrong.
They were not elected to support public opinion on an issue-to-issue
basis but to uphold our laws. Clinton broke the law, the House did
the right thing. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Joe
Andrew D Nierengarten
couch to get it?
ANier
Huh wrote in message <75m2hr$nis$7...@news1.fast.net>...
Jim
> They were not elected to support public opinion on an issue-to-issue
Interestingly, none of his supporters seem to remember his veto
of the "partial-birth abortion" ban, a bill which more than 80%
of the populus supported. So much for serving the American
people's will.
Keith Wood
[In article <367C68...@geocities.com>, troj...@geocities.com says...
[---snip---
[>Just some important news for you DVD -Heads ...enough to turn off those
[>players and snap back to reality for a while?
[
[No. When will the DVD release of the impeachment trial be released. And more
[importantly, will it be enhanced for 16:9? heh heh
They're going to have to -- from Paula Jones' deposition, Clinton has
a bent crank -- the wider format will be needed to show it all.
Jim
ROCKN...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote:
> I'd be interested in the results of the ABC poll, which I've not
> seen. I don't normally watch the news, but did by chance catch
The news appeared on December 16th:
"If Clinton is impeached, 57 percent in this poll say he should
resign rather than fight the charges in the Senate, essentially
the same as it was in an ABC/Post poll completed Sunday
(58 percent)."
> I'm not sure why most journalists would describe themselves as
> Democrats,
Maybe because they really are Democrats, per Steve's commentary
regarding Peter Jennings. Heck, I've heard Brokaw et. all, refer
to the '94 elections as a coup d'etat. As an interesting aside,
Parade magazine commissioned a poll in '97 concerning this
very subject. 53% responded by saying "that journalists favor the
liberal point of view" more so than their desire for profits,
ratings, etc.
> I'd like to know who commissioned that poll and how the results
> were obtained.
I thought polling was an accurate science? If you must know,
it was conducted by Roper. Here are the relevant results
obtained in '96: 89% of journalists voted for Clinton, but only
7% voted for Bush in '92. 61% say they're liberals, but 9% say
conservative.
Jim
wrote:
> The long-term effects of the actions of a very few--and forget about
> it being passed by virtually all Republican House members, since the
> leadership would have crushed any opposition ruthlessly--
Your logic is truly inspiring. I'd love to know why all four
articles of impeachment weren't passed, given the noose the
leadership was holding over all members. Why only two?
> these leaders are frighteningly radical are very close to
> destroying the democracy.
(ROTFLMAO!)
How? By having Al Gore run as an incumbent in 2000? You've
got to be out of your mind if you think the leadership actually
wants to run against an Al Gore that has two years of incumbency
and Presidential experience on his belt. Keep up the critical
thinking; I wouldn't want your brain to freeze over this season.
> While we go about our Christmas shopping and dreaming of DVD movies
> under the tree, our system of goverment has taken a severe hit.
Let's get it straight. Democrats *created* the Independent Counsel
Act despite objections from Republicans. And ironies of ironies,
a Democratic President, William Jefferson Clinton, *renewed* the
Independent Counsel Act in '92, again despite strong objections
from Republicans. Face it, you morons hung yourself on a system
of your own making. Next time you try to pass blame, take a look
in the mirror.
Joe
(Rodney Peterson) wrote:
>NBC News Poll Results Today:
>
>Do you approve of the action the House took today?
>
>Yes-43%
>No-55%
>Undecided-2%
>
>Do you approve of the way President Clinton is handling his job?
>
>Yes-72%
>No-25%
>Undecided-3%
>
>The action taken today clearly does not reflect the wishes of the
>majority of Amercans (these are polls taken after impeachment)
>
the polls are skewed. Hey pal, how would you like it if we took an
online poll as to whether we like your presence in this newsgroup?
Would you abide by the results and disappear if it went against you?
This is what you are saying Congress should do in the Clinton matter.
>
>It takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate (55 Republicans, 45 Democrats) to
>forcibly remove Bill Clinton from office. Reality check: if the Senate
>takes this to trial, it is extremely doubtful 67 Senators will vote for
>removal.
Because the democrats are so partisan.
> The margins today were largely along party lines and were much
>less than a 2/3 majority of the House. Two of four articles failed.
That's because republicans were not as partisan as democrats.
>Meantime, the new speaker of the house Bob Livingston quits because of a
>stupid extra marital affair.
Setting a moral example.
>Bill Clinton has never been a quitter and
>has faced tough battles and powerful enemies his entire political
>career.
Yeah, battling to keep his scumbag behavior out of the papers would be
the toughest challenge.
>Virtually nobody believes a 2/3 majority of the Senate will vote
>for removal especially since a full 45% of the Senate are Democrats.
...and democrats are do partisan.
>12
>Democrats and every single Republican would have to vote for removal. If
>this goes along party lines as today's vote, Bill Clinton will continue
>to serve as President until January 2000.
Today's votes weren't strictly along party lines.
>He's not a quitter and has
>clearly stated he will not resign and will very likely win in the Senate
>trial, if it goes that far.
>
Only a handful of democratic votes were cast in favor of impeachment,
though many republicans voted against two of the charges. Which side
is really more partisan? Look at the numbers, pal.
As for Clinton not being a quitter, maybe he should start. His own
"handlers" are out there saying how bad this is for the country. If
cigar-boy really believes this, he should resign just to save the
country the time, money and embarrassment. But he's only interested
in himself. What a jerk. Nixon could have survived a Senate vote but
chose to have a little class and retain whatever dignity he could -
two virtues that Clinton will go down in history as having none of.
Since you had to get in on this political discussion, I'll remind your
detractors of your true ignorance in such matter with my sig...
Joe
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:38:35 -0700 (PDT), ROCKN...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote:
>The 1996 election results as posted are correct. I had forgotten Perot
>even ran in 1996.
>
Rodney Peterson
movie that features the President of the United States is propaganda.
According to you, that would include such films as "Mars Attacks!" I
don't recall seeing any blatant liberal messages in the Lethal Weapon
series. And the representative government you so much like to talk
about, will likely once again be represented by Democrats after 2000 as
it is clear less than a third of the country now has a favorable view of
Republicans. As far as the people polled, I doubt any of them would want
to know you or your right wing, biased, closed minded friends either.
Even the ones with DTS.
Joe, you're just a total fool.
Vic Medina
(Besides the fact that this shouldn't even be discussed here)
1. If some are so big about polls, how about the one that says DVD has
gotten only a small percentage of the home video consumer market? THAT
MUST MEAN VHS IS BETTER SINCE MORE ARE USING IT! Come on! Polls can be
skewed. It doesn't make something right that was wrong.
2. I'm sure all the Clinton supporters appreciate the fact that Mr.
"THX DVD FOR SALE" is the prez's leading spokesman on this thread.
3. It aint about sex. If it were, I as a Republican wouldn't want
Clinton out. The fact that he lied under oath and used his office to
cover up the whole thing is the point. THAT'S illegal, folks. Nixon
didnt leave office over a bungled break-in, it's because he lied and
tried to cover up his knowledge of it. If a President is willing to do
that over a sex thing, what else won't he do? Doesn't anyone own
ABSOLUTE POWER, PRIMARY COLORS, the NETFLIX GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, or WAG
THE DOG on DVD? I do. I watched them this weekend and it's downright
scary the parallels we're seeing.
4. If the President mentioned today that he likes DIVX, how many of us
would change our tune?
5. Integrity is hard to find. I have a hard time finding it in the
White House, the executive offices of Fox Home Video and Buena Vista
Home Video, and the showfloor of Circuit City.
Of course, I'm sure posts will follow using crude language and name
calling to affirm their position and tear down mine, but they are
entitled to it. Thought provoking posts, no matter what side you take,
are appreciated. Of course, I'd much rather like to read about a way to
get Armageddon early on DVD rather than waiting until my vacation
actually ends to go get it.
See ya in the DVD aisle at Dallas Best Buys.
Vic
Rodney Peterson
dirt on him. Lousiana lost a great deal of political clout in the House
because he quit. Do you think he would have ever quit otherwise? What's
so honorable about getting caught doing the same thing you accuse your
cheif adversary of doing and then quitting instead of facing the music?
What's so honorable about losing five seats (out of 435) and then
quitting because you're dissatisfied with the election results (Newt
Gingrich, after having led the GOP to victory a short time ago.)
Politics is a tough game, Bill Clinton knows it, and he's always been in
there fightng. According to Flynt, there are even bigger shoes about to
drop-all Republicans. While I personally don't care for Flynt, he
decided that since the Republicans were getting in the mud (like they
usually do, Linda Tripp illegally taped private conversations with
Monica Lewinsky under Kenneth Starr's request to entrap Bill Clinton) he
was going to get right there in the mud, too, offering $ 1 million for
proof of indiscretions with powerful Republicans. Flynt saw what he
thought was entrapment and opened up his rather large wallet to get
right there in the game with the other players. Flynt has pulled crazy
stunts in the past, like hiring people to demonstrate their enthusiasm
for him in public during his campaign for the Presidency some years ago,
but this time he actually did something that sent a shockwave through
the halls of political power. And I don't think he would have given a
damn except for the way he felt along with most Americans is that Bill
Clinton was the victim of a six year witch hunt by Kenneth Starr. It was
all about Whitewater for years until the Lewinsky thing broke, then the
gears shifted straight towards the President's personal life. Not a word
about Whitewater anymore. The Senate has the power to do what they will
with this case now, and the likeliest outcome is there will be no trial
and either censure or no punishment at all for the President.
DrkJedi79
>Lethal Weapon series being loaded with anti-conservative propaganda?
>
Richard Donner, the director of the Lethal Weapon series is admittedly very
liberal. He also wishes to express his political views in his films. I assume
that the success rate of his films makes the studio turn a blind eye to his
obvios political posturing. Personally, I think that a filmmaker should be
able to express his views in his films when they are relevant. Donner's
various political statements in the Lethal Weapon series are so obvious and out
of place that it looks pathetic. Again, I am not commenting one way or the
other on Donner's political views, just the way in which he expresses them.
They seem almost childish and "in your face" in his films.
G Beenie
In article <12023-36...@newsd-164.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
ROCKN...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) writes:
>
>NBC News Poll Results Today:
>
>Do you approve of the action the House took today?
>
>Yes-43%
>No-55%
>Undecided-2%
>
>Do you approve of the way President Clinton is handling his job?
>
>Yes-72%
>No-25%
>Undecided-3%
These poll results were obtained with something less than 500
participants.
>The action taken today clearly does not reflect the wishes of the
>majority of Amercans (these are polls taken after impeachment)
What's your point? The Constitution doesn't mention anything about the
wishes of the electorate.
>It takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate (55 Republicans, 45 Democrats) to
>forcibly remove Bill Clinton from office. Reality check: if the Senate
>takes this to trial, it is extremely doubtful 67 Senators will vote for
>removal.
Probably true. However, the lawful course of action cannot be dictated by
the odds of success of a trial, any more than a grand jury in a criminal case
cannot be dissuaded from returning an indictment by the odds of finding a
suitable jury.
>Meantime, the new speaker of the house Bob Livingston quits because of a
>stupid extra marital affair.
Bob Livingstone quit because he is a decent, honorable human being.
Moreover, he has shown the qualities of a true leader by holding himself to the
same standard as he holds others. Republicans don't normally do much for me,
but Livingstone has impressed me with his ethics and his willingness to lead by
example.
>Bill Clinton has never been a quitter
Except when it came to fighting for his country.
and
>has faced tough battles and powerful enemies his entire political
>career.
And not losing to his enemies appears to be more important to him than the
future of our Republic.
Geena P.
"The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the
dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own
hide--as, I think, he will."
-- from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
John & Deborah Proctor
qwip...@earthlink.net (Vincent Leo) wrote:
>
>>There's a difference between LYING, and LYING UNDER OATH. It's called PERJURY.
>>It's a serious offense. If you or I did it under a legal proceeding, we would be
>>in jail.
>>
>>As for whether it's impeachable or not... Whether it's a "high crime or
>>misdemeanor" or not... Perjury is a felony. One cannot be elected President if
>>one is a convicted felon. Sounds like having a sitting President who is a felon
>>warrants impeachment to me.
>
>While I agree he lied under oath, Clinton has never been legally
>convicted of a felony. He can be tried after he leaves office, or
>gets thrown out, but the felony rap hasn't been proven.
>
>
And that is because the issue of whether or not a sitting POTUS can
be prosecuted has yet to be tested before the Supreme Court.
Kenneth Starr has already won 17/18 decisions before the
Supreme Court against Clinton, maybe Judge Starr should
test this one. Impeachment by the House and a trial that
could lead to conviction in the Senate is a political process,
not a legal one. Perjury could be proved in the Senate during
that process, and the POTUS could still be prosecuted for
it in a criminal court after he leaves office.
>>John Q. Public knows it's a big crime to lie under oath. Lawyers know it better
>>than anyone else, and as officers of the court they have a greater responsibility
>>than the average citizen. Lawyers have a greater duty than others to the
>>maintenance of truth in the legal system.
>>
>>Clinton is not only a lawyer, but the ONE PERSON IN THE COUNTRY who is sworn to
>>protect, preserve, and defend the very Constitution of this country.
>
>Presuming what you say is true, we should conclude that lawyers lie
>less than anyone. Why is it that Joe Q. Public mistrusts lawyers more
>than any other profession save perhaps used car salesmen?
>
Maybe this explains why the President's lawyer, Bill Bennett, representing
him in his civil suit against Paula Jones filed a letter with the Court
in which he stated that his client, William Jefferson Clinton, lied
to him. If Bill Bennett had not taken this action, he could of lost
his own license to practice law.
Which news shows do watch? Geraldo? Try watching Fox News, they are
more fair in reporting the news.
Deborah Proctor
call...@ix.netcom.com
G Beenie
In article <2758-36...@newsd-171.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, Clyd...@webtv.net
(Clyde Sauls) writes:
>They are elected to do the will of the people
Who told you that?
PeterTHX
Rodney Peterson wrote in message
<17437-36...@newsd-164.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Well, Joe, as I recall you're the deluded fool who believes that every
movie that features the President of the United States is propaganda.
According to you, that would include such films as "Mars Attacks!" I
series
Oh please. Donner is forever sticking what liberal messages he can into his
films. LW2: Condoms, tuna, and Bush dealing with South Africa which had
aparteid (sp?) at the time
LW3 NRA jokes. Assassins: fur, abortion, NRA bashing(bus sign), etc. He's
proud of it.
BZZT! Try again.
>. And the representative government you so much like to talk
about, will likely once again be represented by Democrats after 2000 as
it is clear less than a third of the country now has a favorable view of
Republicans. As far as the people polled, I doubt any of them would want
to know you or your right wing, biased, closed minded friends either.
Even the ones with DTS.
Wishful thinking. Carter gave Dems a bad name and they still retained
congressional control, even though they have a huge impact on the economy.
The Republicans are responsible for the surplus and whatever economics that
are good now because of them controlling spending. Name a Clinton policy
that would be????
Joe
(Rodney Peterson) wrote:
>Well, Joe, as I recall you're the deluded fool who believes that every
>movie that features the President of the United States is propaganda.
>According to you, that would include such films as "Mars Attacks!" I
>don't recall seeing any blatant liberal messages in the Lethal Weapon
>series.
Really?
"Probably a spokesman for the NRA!"
"Ugh! Exxon!"
These are the only two I can think of off the top of my head, but
there's plenty of others.
>And the representative government you so much like to talk
>about, will likely once again be represented by Democrats after 2000 as
>it is clear less than a third of the country now has a favorable view of
>Republicans. As far as the people polled, I doubt any of them would want
>to know you or your right wing, biased, closed minded friends either.
>Even the ones with DTS.
>
>Joe, you're just a total fool.
>
Yeah, right. But at least I'm a law-abiding fool, THX-disc-boy.
Joe
I agree. Somehow, though, dumb ass THX-disc-boy Rodney doesn't see
what to you and I is so glaringly obvious.
Joe
> Geena P.
>
>"The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the
>dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own
>hide--as, I think, he will."
> -- from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
Nice work, Geena. We actually agree on something :-)
Joe
(Rodney Peterson) wrote:
>Livingstone quit for one reason-Hustler publsher Larry Flynt got the
>dirt on him. Lousiana lost a great deal of political clout in the House
>because he quit. Do you think he would have ever quit otherwise? What's
>so honorable about getting caught doing the same thing you accuse your
>cheif adversary of doing and then quitting instead of facing the music?
You ass! Livingstone didn't lie under oath. You simply refuse to
understand what this is about no matter how often it is explained to
you.
>It was
>all about Whitewater for years until the Lewinsky thing broke, then the
>gears shifted straight towards the President's personal life. Not a word
>about Whitewater anymore. The Senate has the power to do what they will
>with this case now, and the likeliest outcome is there will be no trial
>and either censure or no punishment at all for the President.
>
His punishment will be his place in history as the worst embarrassment
in the history of this great country.
ZDBop
Out of curiosity, maybe somebody can answer a question for me. When did junior
high become middle school? Was it about the time liberal became a swear word?
ZDBop
In article <75mg6s$4...@chronicle.concentric.net>, jl...@nospam.com (Jim)
writes:
>Your logic is truly inspiring. I'd love to know why all four
>articles of impeachment weren't passed, given the noose the
>leadership was holding over all members. Why only two?
It gives people like you the ability to say, "See how fair we are." Pretty
transparent. The only thing that mattered was passing at least one.
>> these leaders are frighteningly radical are very close to
>> destroying the democracy.
>
>(ROTFLMAO!)
>
>How? By having Al Gore run as an incumbent in 2000?
No, by allowing a branch of the government to be dominated by a very small
group--percentage-wise--who have a moral agenda to push on the majority of
citizens. The latest incarnation of Speaker has a perfect voting record,
according to the Christian Coalition. Are you comfortable with their agenda?
Do you support it?
>> While we go about our Christmas shopping and dreaming of DVD movies
>> under the tree, our system of goverment has taken a severe hit.
>
>Let's get it straight. Democrats *created* the Independent Counsel
>Act despite objections from Republicans. <snip>
ah, the loyal opposition. Yes, it was passed because of the abuse of office by
Nixon. Those who envision the OIC wanted to keep things like the Saturday
Night Massacre from happening again. (Nixon fired Archibald Cox--Kleindenst
and others resigned--the country in chaos.) As often happens, a good idea goes
ary. The OIC has become the tool of one man--Starr--with one agenda; get the
President. Not an irony, but an abuse.
> Face it, you morons hung yourself on a system
>of your own making. Next time you try to pass blame, take a look
>in the mirror.
Using your logic, one could say Nixon created the system. When the OIC act
expires and is not extended, I suppose you could say it's Clinton's fault. Uh,
what logic are you using?
Perhaps the Christian Coalition's positions are yours. Perhaps you approve of
what's happened. But as often happens in zealotry, the long-term consequences
are given no thought. Some, like Hyde, waited twenty-five years to even the
score. It's not likely Democrats will ever forget this. This is not good for
the country in the present--dividing us down entrenched lines--nor for the
future, when the Presidency has been turned into nothing more than a management
position.
ZDBop
>3. It aint about sex.
Vic, it is about sex. If it were anything else, it would be long gone by now.
Sad, but there it is. Sex sells, and holds the attention of people of all
persuasions.
Adrain Barton
<joe.a...@SPAMSUCKSrcn.com> wrote:
>Master wrote:
>
>> Gary 72122 wrote:
>> >
>> > Yea I can't believe the Republicans had the Balls to do the right thing.
>>
>> You mean like wire tap opponents, throw elections, shred
>> documents, bomb countries illegally, sell arms to our
>> enemies, etc. etc. etc.
>>
>> Yes, that's nothing compared to a blow job.
>
>I guess you aren't aware of Clinton's decision to allow the transfer of
>technology used in missile guidance systems to the Chinese. Coincidentally
>the Chinese made lots of clandestine and illegal contributions to Clinton's
>campaign, and the CEO of the company giving the Chinese the technology is a
>big Clinton contributor.
>
>Joe
A policy started in the Bush presidency.
Adrain Barton
>
>Rodney Peterson wrote in message
><13565-36...@newsd-163.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>It is the job of the media to report balanced news coverage without
>regard to political persausion. Polls conducted by news organzations are
>done so in as scientific a manner as possible. The right wing is
>nontheless highly represented in the media by Rush Limbaugh, Laura
>Schlessinger, Adriana Huffington, Pat Buchanan and on and on-ad naseum.
>To call the media liberal and biased is incorrect. The media, like the
>public itself, is represented highly on both sides of the fence. True
>journalists are there to report the news, not to tell you their opinion
>of it.
>
>Ridiculous. You know what? You basically named ALL conservative media
>outlets. What of the other 99.95%? Ask a typical journalist who he votes
>for. Look at a typical profile of a democrat in a mainstream publication vs
>the republican. The only ones who don't say the media's biased are the
>liberals!
>
The reason a lot of journalists are liberal is that conservatives try
to restrict the first amendment. Also, he didn't name all conservative
outlets. How about G. Gordon Liddy, Chris Matthews, Oliver North. How
many nationally sindicated liberal talk show hosts can you name?
Adrain Barton
<joe.a...@SPAMSUCKSrcn.com> wrote:
>
>I live in the New York market. Next time you see a poll, take a look at the
>footnotes. They often ask approximately 800 people, they skew the questions to
>get the answers they are seeking, and they often conduct the polls in well-known
>areas that don't often represent a fair sampling of the "average Amercian".
>
Any polling organization that uses these methods would be out of
business after their first poll. You either are an idiot or you
believe everything Rush Limbaugh says, which make you an idiot anyway.
Adrain Barton
<joe.a...@SPAMSUCKSrcn.com> wrote:
>Quite the contrary, the Republicans lost a few seats but maintained their majority.
>
Pre-election estimates by the Republicans showed that they probably
would gain up to 11 seats. To then lose 5 was such a blow that
Gingrich had to resign.
Adrain Barton
<joe.a...@SPAMSUCKSrcn.com> wrote:
>There's a difference between LYING, and LYING UNDER OATH. It's called PERJURY.
>It's a serious offense. If you or I did it under a legal proceeding, we would be
>in jail.
>
Very few purjury cases are ever persued. Not every crime is
prosecuted. There are a lot of cases that are dropped even though they
know the defendant is guilty, because it would be too hard to prove
and be a waste of taxpayers money. I seriously doubt that if I lied
about having an affair 10 years after the events of the subject of a
civil case that was thrown out of court, that I would be brought up on
perjury charges.
DrkJedi79
>high become middle school?
I have no idea. I have noticed that elementary school is now primary school
and junior high is now middle school. Are they going to change the name of
high school too?
Rodney Peterson
different names. He likes to point out in his sig what he considers to
be my political ignorance by forgetting Ross Perot even ran in 1996.
Well, what's to remember? When was Perot ever anything other than an
eccentric nut case who claimed the CIA was out to ruin his daughter's
wedding, for Christ's sake. A charismatic communist candidate would have
been easier to take more seriously. Or maybe David Duke, probably
another one of "Joe's" heroes. Perot, like so many of the right wing
conservative politicans Joe idolizes, quit and ran away in 1992 just
like Gingrich and Livingston did recently. Gingrich could have fought
for his job, surely as Clinton is fighting for his. But he's a quitter
and leaves when the going gets tough, just like leaving his sick wife's
bedside. Livingston didn't even try to fight, he just plain gave up
damaging the poilitical clout of the state of Louisiana in the process.
Joe has also stated in the past every single movie that features the
President of The United States is propaganda. He actually believes the
President in "Independence Day" is modeled after Bill Clinton. To say
nothing of his zealous defense of the DTS format, which simply
redistributes sound through different channels making it sound louder
and clearer than it really is. He also likes to point out he's a law
abiding citizen, in someway insinuating the sale of those precious DTS
or THX Demo Discs to interested parties is close to a felonious crime,
yet he hides behind several different aliases and spouts nonsense such
as all the polls that don't see things his way are fixed. People like
"Joe" (God knows if that's his real name) are dangerous, psychotic,
right wing zealots.
Rodney Peterson
wait until 2000 when public opinion comes back and bites them in the
ass, considering most of the country is angered over Clinton's
impeachment, thinks the House and Kenneth Starr abused their powers and
less than a third of the country now holds a favorable view of
Republicans. If these numbers and the level of anger holds, Republicans
stand to lose both legislative branches and the Presidency either to Al
Gore or the attractive female senator from Louisiana whose name escapes
me. Your precious representative government, as you like to call it,
"Joe", will be represented by Democrats. Republicans had their first
chance in nearly fifty years (or something like that) to control
Congress and what did they do the first chance they got? Shut down the
government, move to entrap a popular President and a lot of other
garbage that just plain pissed people off. Your analogy that Democrats
kept control of the Congress after Reagan was elected just doesn't hold
water. The Democratic congress did nothing to piss the majority off pre
election, as the Republicans have done. Not to mention Carter had just
suffered a disastrous undercover operation failure trying to free the
hostages in Iran, and was running against a very charismatic opponent
(one of the reasons Bush lost, of course.) Who the hell are the
Republicans going to run in 2000: Dan Quayle? And will Larry Flynt show
up to dig out the garbage on whoever it may be and will that person be
ruined and quit just like Livingston without even trying to fight back?
Michael Neff
In article <367DB6D2...@SPAMSUCKSrcn.com> Joe Anstett
<joe.a...@SPAMSUCKSrcn.com> writes:
>Michael Neff wrote:
>
>> The Republicans already lost ground in an unbiased non-media poll that
>> was conducted called the election!
>
>That assumes that people don't vote based on the individual merits of the
>issues and candidates and
>vote strictly along a party line, which obviously isn't the case. As much
>as the Democrats would like
>it to be so.
Most people including myself feel that it will even be more party line
in voting patterns in the election to come. Whether or not there are
some differences in minor issues, etc., the fact is that Republicans as
a whole lost ground and it isn't too hard to conclude from that this
Clinton thing isn't earning them brownie points.
>It also incorrectly assumes that the Republicans got destroyed in the
>last election and the Democrats
>were ushered in by the masses.
>
>Quite the contrary, the Republicans lost a few seats but maintained their
>majority.
Had those that weren't running been up for election at that point, I'd
warrant that the Republicans would be in a minority now. They lost more
seats than they gained. No matter how you cut it, that's not gaining favor.
>And as to being an "unbiased non-media poll", why all the desperate appeals
>to traditional Democratic
>voters before the election, why the scare tactics that even the President
>participated in (like saying
>Republicans were trying to video tape voters to intimidate them, or DNC ads
>in Mississippi that said
>if constituants don't vote, it's another church that burns or another
>brother that gets assaulted,
>pure race baiting). Meanwhile, in large cities there are numerous cases of
>voter fraud -- people
>voting multiple times, people who have been dead showing up to vote, et al.
And you're going to tell me that the Republicans are innocent of this sort
of thing? You ever watch anything like the 700 club? If the election isn't
unbiased enough for you in terms of direct tally of what people feel, what
other measure is?
Let's get talkin about DVD's and trash DIVX instead!
- Mike
Keith Wood
zd...@aol.com (ZDBop) wrote:
[
Borrowing a slogan: "It's the OATH, Stupid!"
Everyone lies about sex. Big deal.
When you lie UNDER OATH, it doesn't matter what the lie is about,
it's still a crime. There are a couple of hundred people in prison
for it, and tens of thousands have felony conviction records, lost
careers, and paid hefty fines for lying under oath. Felons are not
qualified to hold elective office on the local level, should we have
one as President?
Keith Wood
py...@gte.net (Adrain Barton) wrote:
[On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 21:30:39 -0500, Joe Anstett
[<joe.a...@SPAMSUCKSrcn.com> wrote:
[
[
[>
[>I live in the New York market. Next time you see a poll, take a look at the
[>footnotes. They often ask approximately 800 people, they skew the questions to
[>get the answers they are seeking, and they often conduct the polls in well-known
[>areas that don't often represent a fair sampling of the "average Amercian".
[>
[
[Any polling organization that uses these methods would be out of
[business after their first poll.
I wish you knew what you are talking about.
Keith Wood
py...@gte.net (Adrain Barton) wrote:
[On 20 Dec 1998 16:36:33 GMT, "PeterTHX" <pete...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[The reason a lot of journalists are liberal is that conservatives try
[to restrict the first amendment.
Uh, no, but thank you for playing "Stump the News Anchor."
Most journalists are liberal because journalism professors tend to be
liberal. He who teaches, molds.
It has nothing to do with the Constitution or restrictions on free
speech. If you had ever been a journalist you would know this.
Perhaps I am commiting the greatest heresy by speaking on the subject
of journalism from the standpoint of a journalist.
Keith Wood
py...@gte.net (Adrain Barton) wrote:
[On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 20:56:46 -0500, Joe Anstett
[<joe.a...@SPAMSUCKSrcn.com> wrote:
[
[
[>There's a difference between LYING, and LYING UNDER OATH. It's called PERJURY.
[>It's a serious offense. If you or I did it under a legal proceeding, we would be
[>in jail.
[>
[Very few purjury cases are ever persued. Not every crime is
[prosecuted. There are a lot of cases that are dropped even though they
[know the defendant is guilty, because it would be too hard to prove
[and be a waste of taxpayers money. I seriously doubt that if I lied
[about having an affair 10 years after the events of the subject of a
[civil case that was thrown out of court, that I would be brought up on
[perjury charges.
Agreed completely.
But if you were the President of the United States, lying under oath
to both a Federal judge and later a Federal grand jury, simply to
avoid prosecution in a Federal civil-rights suit, I think that you
would see similar interest by those of us in the media.