none
Mix
As to role models, Pres. Clinton is a wonderful role model for
children. He loves his wife. He loves his daughter. He loves his
country. He loves the American people!!! Look at how hard he
works for the welfare of the American people!!!
He saw how much Americans were suffering due to the right-wing
economic policies of Reagan and Bush. He balanced the budget.
He created a robust economy. He's kept America at peace. He's
increased spending on education. He's cut the taxes of middle
class taxpayers. He's been trying to repair the private pension plans
that were weakened by Reagan. He's fought to preserve Social
Security and Medicare. He's reformed welfare. He's been trying to
do all he can to bring advancements in technology and medicine.
He's been trying to strengthen labor unions which took a beating
under Reagan. He works many hours a day trying to help the
American people. I can go on and on. This man has done so much,
I find it hard to believe he's human. I wonder if he is part god. He
might be part god.
That is a role model. He is just like 'Hercules.' All children should
strive to be just like him.
How can anyone disagree with me??????
Leo Schmitt
email: sch...@hotmail.com
Mix
I, and many others, have been very insulted by the reporters' I
have been listening to. When I use the word 喪eporter,' I am using
their description, not mine. These 喪eporters' have shown themselves
to be nothing but extreme right-wing Republican propagandists.
There is little difference between Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi
propaganda minister, and these 喪eporters.' The difference that
exists is that Goebbels was more honest. He allowed the public
to see that he was a propagandist.These 喪eporters' claim to be
independent journalists.
These 喪eporters' have insulted my intelligence. They have made
it so clear with their tactics and words that they are propagandists.
These 喪eporters' use libelous moves in order to attempt to destroy
President Clinton. Using rumor, speculation, 爽nnamed sources,'
their naked intent is to destroy President Clinton.
I, myself, have been shocked to hear the lowbrow slimy tactics
they have used. They speculate about 双ral' sex. They are doing
this because they think the American people will be so shocked by
such words that they will immediately call for the President's
impeachment. Yes, many Americans are prudes. However, they
are not as prudish as these 喪eporters' assume. And, the American
people are not retarded as they indicate.
By using such lowbrow tactics, these 喪eporters' are clearly
showing that they are people with no class. Because these
喪eporters' have no class, they are due no respect whatsoever.
Now, I will get to what really makes me furious. These reporters
assume that they are people who are worthy of some respect.
What gall! This is incredibly insulting.
These 喪eporters' have made statements recommending that
people use care with children and possibly shield children from
listening to the frank talk on television. How insulting! How
dare these people assume that they are worthy of giving anybody
advice on raising children.
This is an incredible insult.They assume that they should be
given respect. Any intelligent person knows they are worthy of
no respect. They are insulting the intelligence of the American
people.
Here they try to destroy the President using libelous means. Then,
they pretend to act so 組ood' and so 叢ure.' They act so
sanctimonious. They imply they are so 組ood' when they warn
people to shield children from 壮hocking' talk.
Feigned patriotic fervor and feigned religious fervor are the
refuge of scoundrels. However, 叢retended concern' for the
innocent ears of children is the most false refuge of all.
These 喪eporters' make it clear to all what 創o class' scoundrels
they are. Then, they go out of their way to insult us by pretending
to care what children hear.
When one pretends to be an extreme prude, when one pretends
to be so 叢ure,' when one pretends to be so 組ood' as to shield
children from 租irty' sex, I detect something very false. They
assume all Americans believe sex is dirty and unclean. They
assume all Americans are extreme prudes.
Many people in America live with a lover of the opposite sex
without being married. Many Americans read and view so
called 叢ornographic' publications. Many American women
have children without being married. Americans are prudish
to some extent. However, if Americans were as prudish as
these reporters assume, no American would dare to live with
someone of the opposite sex without being married. If Americans
were as prudish as they claim, any person living with someone,
whom they're not married to, would not do so for fear of being
lynched.
It is time for Americans to look closely at these self proclaimed
喪eporters,' and realize they are propagandists for the extreme
right wing of the Republican party. So many of these 喪eporters'
are not true journalists at all. They are right-wing Republican
propagandists. They have shown that they work for the wealthy
right-wingers in the Republican party. Most of the major news
organizations are owned by right-wing Republicans. In the last
few days, they have shown a new low. They have shown
themselves to be people of no class whatsoever. They have shown
that they are people who should be shown no respect whatsoever.
I'll give a few examples. Sam Donaldson, Wolf Blitzer, Gloria
Borger, Laura Ingraham, Cokie Roberts, Judy Woodruff are some
examples. It is a crime that people like these are allowed to raise
children. It is so degrading for their children to have such parents.
I was especially sickened by Laura Ingraham. That woman is
outrageous!
Leo Schmitt
email: sch...@hotmail.com
Sjw1963
I am not too sure what this is to dowith parenting but I did take note of the
few points concerning children contained within it. As far as the press go we
in the UK lost a princess recently as a result of their behaviour and to add
insult to injury I recived some spam offering the 'last pictures of Diana for
just $5!
The way it is seen here that the point as to if Bill did or did not have an
affair is just not important and should remain between him and Mrs Clinton. We
see the 'did he lie under oath' as the only issue and I beleive this is near
impossible to prove. Basically the US press are just trying to do the same here
as they did in the UK and force their influence on the American people. My
advice to you would be ingnore those power hungry members of the media and make
up your own mind based on actual evidence. Most people would know or beleive
the press to be the most unethical people in society and as such we would do
well to read between the lines in whatever they say. I just love that picture
of Bill caressing his mistress! What a load of twaddle! The guy had just got re
elected to the job of most powerful man in the world and I guess anyone vaguely
familiar at that point may well have got a hug.
Steve Williams
http://members.aol.com/sjw1963
K&B.M
Leo,
It sounds like you spend a little too much time watching CNN.
Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote in article
<1998012615...@sirius.infonex.com>...
> I, and many others, have been very insulted by the reporters' I
> have been listening to. When I use the word ‘reporter,' I am using
> their description, not mine. These ‘reporters' have shown themselves
> to be nothing but extreme right-wing Republican propagandists.
(Clip)
Dylan's Mom
Sarah,
I agree with you, but I think the original poster is probably a troll. Who
else would post something so inflammatory?
--
Teri....@Compaqnospam.com
Sarah <SRBa...@Rocketmail.com> wrote in article
<6airud$ilj$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...
> Anyone who "loves his wife" and "loves his daughter" wouldn't make them
> look like fools in front of the entire world. You are right about one
> thing.... he "loves the American people" especially if they will come
visit
> him at all hours of the night. Every good thing this man has done is now
> ruined in most peoples eyes because he couldn't keep his pants on. We
are a
> laughing stock to every other country in this world. No wonder we have
so
> many problems in America. There aren't consequences any more.
Everyone's
> attitude is if it feels right go for it. I feel bad that my daughter is
> going to grow up in a country that no one takes pride in anymore. I'm
> certainly NOT for going back to the 50's, but I sure think that we could
> learn some things by looking at history.
>
> Sarah
> (Mom of Kaitlyn/23 months)
>
> Mix wrote in message <1998012615...@sirius.infonex.com>...
William Bradbury
Mix wrote:
>
> I, and many others, have been very insulted by the reporters' I
> their description, not mine. These 喪eporters' have shown themselves
> to be nothing but extreme right-wing Republican propagandists.
> themselves to be people of no class whatsoever. They have shown
> that they are people who should be shown no respect whatsoever.
>
> I'll give a few examples. Sam Donaldson, Wolf Blitzer, Gloria
> Borger, Laura Ingraham, Cokie Roberts, Judy Woodruff are some
> examples. It is a crime that people like these are allowed to raise
> children. It is so degrading for their children to have such parents.
> I was especially sickened by Laura Ingraham. That woman is
> outrageous!
>
> Leo Schmitt
>
> email: sch...@hotmail.com
Isn't this what the Pres. suggested be said? Was I the only one who
heard "the tape" where he requested that Ms. Flowers lie and claim that
the Republicans are just trying to make him look bad? Or was it, "just
claim a Republican approached you and told you to make this up"?
Your rant is as meritless and unbelievable as the Pres. at this time.
total idiot
click this icon here: http://www.dejanews.com
then type "mixm...@remail.obscura.com"
then click the highlighted message title under the subject column.
"mix" has posted 908 messages to the usenet newsgroups.
------------
Mix wrote:
>
> I, and many others, have been very insulted by the reporters' I
> their description, not mine. These ‘reporters' have shown themselves
> to be nothing but extreme right-wing Republican propagandists.
> There is little difference between Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi
> exists is that Goebbels was more honest. He allowed the public
> independent journalists.
>
> These ‘reporters' have insulted my intelligence. *****conspiracy fanatasy snipped********
---------hint, the SMART people are now going "unplugged".-------
> outrageous!
> Leo Schmitt
> mailto:sch...@hotmail.com
-------
RIC...@webtv.net
Some role model. I'm sorry but you are a true moron. You talk of
what he did for our country. What kind of american turns his back on
his country when they need him? This god of yours, ran to Canada so
he did not have to go to Vietnam. Who knows maybe my dad would not have
died in Vietnam, if he did not have to take someone like Clinton's
place. My dad could have been a coward and ran away, but he did not.
He did not agree with the war either, but his country called on him so
he went. While you great god clinton left are nation and it's people.
As for calling him a role model. I don't know about what you look up
to, not much aparently. Clinton destroys everything this country was
built on. If you think that cheating on your wife promotes family
values, your really more screwed up more than i already think. If you
think that he did not do it your just as much a fool as hilary is. Wake
up and look at all the facts about your role model. As for calling him
a God, Only if you spell it backwards.
Wakanyeja Makah
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:38:01 -0500, RIC...@webtv.net wrote:
<major snippage>
> Clinton destroys everything this country was
>built on.
Rick,
Although I certainly do not view President Clinton as a *GOD* and
there have been several issues on which he has waffled and I am personally
unhappy with, I also remember where this country WAS after eight years of
President Reagan and four years of President Bush. Unemployment was
sky-high, many middle class Americans were living in Tent Cities (remember
these?) the bottom had dropped out of Real Estate and we were in deep
Recession bordering on a Depression.
FYI...there were a great many people who left for Canada instead of
fighting in the Vietnam Conflict (...as LBJ continually reminded us..we
weren't there to WIN...only to contain...) Many of the people who REFUSED
to go to another country and kill people they had no grievance with and did
not know...did so because of STRONG MORAL CONVICTIONS....(Thou shalt not
kill comes to mind) so spare me your rhetoric.
Additionally, regardless of who is President of the United
States...they are still YOUR President. They are not BUBBA or BILLY-BOY,
they are the President of the United States of America. As a parent,
teaching respect for the office (regardless of who sits in the chair) is
paramount in our family. We also teach our children that this is what
VOTING is all about (and why it is so important to vote). You don't stand
around calling the President names...if you don't like his/her politics you
vote against them in the next election. Obviously, a great many Americans
were happy with President Clinton. The man won a second term by a vast
majority. Amazingly he has accomplished a great deal for this country
(despite your claims otherwise) while being continually dogged over
non-existant issues and groundless accusations. The latest to crawl out
has stated:
Yes I did have an affair with the President.
AND
No, I did not have an affair with the President.
Obviously, one of these is a LIE. It would seem that this would affect her
credibility somewhat. It did with me.
There have been a great many Presidents who had affairs while in
office...from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, JFK (remember
Marilyn),et al... so even if President Clinton did (which I seriously
doubt) he certainly would not be the FIRST...nor, I suspect, will he be the
LAST. Bottom line is that if Hillary doesn't have a problem with
this...who the HELL are we. I am much more interested in the real ISSUES
in this country, than whom is sleeping with whom. Maybe you should
concentrate less on politics and more on *soap operas* (which tend to fit
more into your mind-set).
W. Makah
Holly C.
affairs, he is far from alone in the category of U.S. Presidents.
The difference is that at one point in time the media had enough respect
for the office of the President not to report such things. Remember FDR
and how no one would take pictures of him in a wheelchair? Today they
would take close-ups.
I will also teach my child to have respect for the office of the
President, whether I happen to like who's in office or not. It is one
thing to discuss the political decisions of a political leader, but his
personal life is none of any of our business.
Holly
Annette Marcucilli
Holly C. wrote:
>It is one
> thing to discuss the political decisions of a political leader, but his
> personal life is none of any of our business.
Interesting that you should use that wording -- it is precisely what I
said to my husband, before he gave a rather intriguing reply. What's
more, I still haven't figured out a good "comeback", so I'm trolling for
one -- I *Hate* to let him get the better of me <VBG>. (You have *NO*
idea how much)
I was speaking specifically of JFK and Clinton, and all the reports of
their philandering, etc. I, too, said that I thought I'd prefer the
focus be placed on their performance as presidents, etc. And that their
private lives were not the business of the American people.
Well, dammit if Joe didn't point out rather rudely that *these two guys*
had no problem parading and exploiting their "personal lives" --
brilliant, lovely Jackie, clever Hillary, and Caroline -- before the
public in an effort to *BE* elected. And that, in these two cases, it
may well have been those great trophy wives and perhaps those cute kids,
that influenced *some* Americans in their decision.
If this was not any business of the American people, (he said), then why
not keep their private lives *out of the picture* from beginning to end?
He claims they're trying to play both ends against the middle, and that
they shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.
According to him, they made these beds, and .... well, you know the
rest.
Any clever retorts for my chortling spouse? Because I'm still
sputtering and can't think of any.
Annette :)
Clayton E. Cramer
Wakanyeja Makah wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:38:01 -0500, RIC...@webtv.net wrote:
> <major snippage>
> > Clinton destroys everything this country was
> >built on.
>
> Rick,
>
> Although I certainly do not view President Clinton as a *GOD* and
> there have been several issues on which he has waffled and I am personally
> unhappy with, I also remember where this country WAS after eight years of
> President Reagan and four years of President Bush. Unemployment was
> sky-high, many middle class Americans were living in Tent Cities (remember
> these?) the bottom had dropped out of Real Estate and we were in deep
> Recession bordering on a Depression.
How did I miss the tent cities?
There was a deeep recession in 1981-84, and another one in
1991-92. Must have missed the rest of the suffering you
were talking about.
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
Annette Marcucilli <Joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: If this was not any business of the American people, (he said), then why
: not keep their private lives *out of the picture* from beginning to end?
: He claims they're trying to play both ends against the middle, and that
: they shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.
Candidates have a hard time winning with their lovely spouse and kids
behind IRS-trial (sorry :-)) spec opaque glass. Besides, for every
second of air time a candidate spends to promote his/her family, an
hour or so is taken by stuff found by the ever-hounding media.
Spiros
--
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos email: stri...@primenet.com
at home in Central Indiana www.primenet.com/~strianta
BarbLuongo
In article <34D0F4...@concentric.net>, "Holly C." <hcas...@concentric.net>
writes:
>I will also teach my child to have respect for the office of the
>President, whether I happen to like who's in office or not. It is one
>thing to discuss the political decisions of a political leader, but his
>personal life is none of any of our business.
I wonder how such creeps can get voted in - but they do.
If he was in the military, he'd be kicked out (ala Kelly Flinn), but
he's the Commander in Chief, so it's supposed to not only be "ok", but
"respected"!
I have a hard time respecting someone who isn't faithful to his marriage
vows. I wonder how faithful he is to the country if he's not faitful to his
wife.
Then again, I don't really respect her for staying with him. I guess
they deserve each other!
Do we deserve them? What's the alternative? The Gores?
*sigh* I hope that somethin' better comes along...
<---Barb (barbl...@aol.com)--->
Mom to Will (9-23-82), Mary (10-8-85) & Laury (2-23-93)
BarbLuongo
In article <34D0EC...@earthlink.net>, Annette Marcucilli
<joe...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Any clever retorts for my chortling spouse? Because I'm still
>sputtering and can't think of any.
Kiss him. That works wonders for arguements like this with my hubby.
(I agree with him, they play off their pretty families, let them suffer
the consequences!)
Gwen A Orel
Well, you could always tell your husband that the lives they "trotted
out" had limits even then... we didn't see diapers changed, people
taking baths, we just didn't *get* those kind of gory details.
Clinton is not even a hypocrite, in that he was elected by a public
who *knew* his reputation.
Gwen
Annette Marcucilli (joe...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Holly C. wrote:
: >It is one
: > thing to discuss the political decisions of a political leader, but his
: > personal life is none of any of our business.
: Interesting that you should use that wording -- it is precisely what I
: said to my husband, before he gave a rather intriguing reply. What's
: more, I still haven't figured out a good "comeback", so I'm trolling for
: one -- I *Hate* to let him get the better of me <VBG>. (You have *NO*
: idea how much)
: I was speaking specifically of JFK and Clinton, and all the reports of
: their philandering, etc. I, too, said that I thought I'd prefer the
: focus be placed on their performance as presidents, etc. And that their
: private lives were not the business of the American people.
: Well, dammit if Joe didn't point out rather rudely that *these two guys*
: had no problem parading and exploiting their "personal lives" --
: brilliant, lovely Jackie, clever Hillary, and Caroline -- before the
: public in an effort to *BE* elected. And that, in these two cases, it
: may well have been those great trophy wives and perhaps those cute kids,
: that influenced *some* Americans in their decision.
: If this was not any business of the American people, (he said), then why
: not keep their private lives *out of the picture* from beginning to end?
: He claims they're trying to play both ends against the middle, and that
: they shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.
: According to him, they made these beds, and .... well, you know the
: rest.
: Any clever retorts for my chortling spouse? Because I'm still
: sputtering and can't think of any.
: Annette :)
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
Gwen A Orel
You can respect the office of the presidency. And the president
is not subject to military law.
I just think that sexual indiscretion is a kind of failure of will,
a weakness, not at all on the same levell with, say, using the FBI
to harass political enemies, or selling arms to enemies.
Suppose Clinton had promised to go on a diet and fell off of it?
Would you doubt his character? I'm not saying infidelity is the
same as binging, but I think sex *is* an appetite, and not a crime...
what sin it is, is between him and his wife.
As for respecting any president-- as others have posted, that rules
out a *lot* of people. FDR. Kennedy. Woodrow Wilson. The list
goes on... King David. Henry the Eighth (yes, a jerk to women, but
one of England's greatest rulers ever).
Gwen
BarbLuongo (barbl...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <34D0F4...@concentric.net>, "Holly C." <hcas...@concentric.net>
: writes:
: >I will also teach my child to have respect for the office of the
: >President, whether I happen to like who's in office or not. It is one
: >thing to discuss the political decisions of a political leader, but his
: >personal life is none of any of our business.
: I wonder how such creeps can get voted in - but they do.
: If he was in the military, he'd be kicked out (ala Kelly Flinn), but
: he's the Commander in Chief, so it's supposed to not only be "ok", but
: "respected"!
: I have a hard time respecting someone who isn't faithful to his marriage
: vows. I wonder how faithful he is to the country if he's not faitful to his
: wife.
: Then again, I don't really respect her for staying with him. I guess
: they deserve each other!
: Do we deserve them? What's the alternative? The Gores?
: *sigh* I hope that somethin' better comes along...
: <---Barb (barbl...@aol.com)--->
: Mom to Will (9-23-82), Mary (10-8-85) & Laury (2-23-93)
--
HC
Gwen A Orel wrote:
>
> Well, you could always tell your husband that the lives they "trotted
> out" had limits even then... we didn't see diapers changed, people
> taking baths, we just didn't *get* those kind of gory details.
> Clinton is not even a hypocrite, in that he was elected by a public
> who *knew* his reputation.
>
> Gwen
>
> Annette Marcucilli (joe...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> : Holly C. wrote:
> : > thing to discuss the political decisions of a political leader, but his
> : > personal life is none of any of our business.
>
> : said to my husband, before he gave a rather intriguing reply. What's
> : more, I still haven't figured out a good "comeback", so I'm trolling for
> : one -- I *Hate* to let him get the better of me <VBG>. (You have *NO*
> : idea how much)
>
> : I was speaking specifically of JFK and Clinton, and all the reports of
> : their philandering, etc. I, too, said that I thought I'd prefer the
> : focus be placed on their performance as presidents, etc. And that their
> : private lives were not the business of the American people.
>
> : Well, dammit if Joe didn't point out rather rudely that *these two guys*
> : had no problem parading and exploiting their "personal lives" --
> : brilliant, lovely Jackie, clever Hillary, and Caroline -- before the
> : public in an effort to *BE* elected. And that, in these two cases, it
> : may well have been those great trophy wives and perhaps those cute kids,
> : that influenced *some* Americans in their decision.
>
> : If this was not any business of the American people, (he said), then why
> : not keep their private lives *out of the picture* from beginning to end?
> : He claims they're trying to play both ends against the middle, and that
> : they shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.
>
> : According to him, they made these beds, and .... well, you know the
> : rest.
>
> : Any clever retorts for my chortling spouse? Because I'm still
> : sputtering and can't think of any.
>
> : Annette :)
>
> "Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
>
> I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
Sorry Annette. I think he is right. Don't use your family to expouse
family values.......and then expect your personal life to be off limits
to the media when you engage in actions that do not reflect these
values. Considering the man knows what the media will do when this
information is found out.....you would think he would be smart enough to
keep his pants zipped until he is out of office.
Sometimes I worry about what some of our politicians would score on an
intelligence test.
Helen
Timothy J. Butler
BarbLuongo wrote:
>
> I wonder how such creeps can get voted in - but they do.
>
> If he was in the military, he'd be kicked out (ala Kelly Flinn), but
> he's the Commander in Chief, so it's supposed to not only be "ok", but
> "respected"!
>
> I have a hard time respecting someone who isn't faithful to his marriage
> vows. I wonder how faithful he is to the country if he's not faitful to his
> wife.
> Then again, I don't really respect her for staying with him. I guess
> they deserve each other!
>
> Do we deserve them? What's the alternative? The Gores?
>
> *sigh* I hope that somethin' better comes along...
Me too. Every night, I read my kids a story from Bill Bennett's
THE BOOK OF VIRTUES while they lie in bed. THe other night,
the virtue was honesty. The story that was up next was "George
Washington and the Cherry Tree." After I finished the story,
we talked for a few minutes about it. My 6 year old floored
me when he said,
"Daddy, do you mean that we used to have presidents who told the
truth?"
I explained to him that, yes, our presidents used to be honorable
men who told the truth. I said that the last man who held the
White House with an unswerving committment to telling the
truth was Jimmy Carter. But I also told him that it was my
hope and prayer that Americans would one day return to electing
honest men and women to leadership roles.
It's hard to be optimistic when we have no reason to believe that
the man in the Oval Office has told us the truth about anything.
Alan_Browning
In article <34D182...@intrepid.net>, ir5...@intrepid.net says...
>
>Sorry Annette. I think he is right. Don't use your family to expouse
>family values.......and then expect your personal life to be off limits
>to the media when you engage in actions that do not reflect these
>values. Considering the man knows what the media will do when this
>information is found out.....you would think he would be smart enough to
>keep his pants zipped until he is out of office.
Your husband is laying the blame in the wrong place. The problem is that
Americans are so damn naive in the first place. We expect our presidents to
be perfect and that's totally unrealistic. We fall for these carefully
constructed pictures and sounds bytes that appeal to our naivite: Kennedy
touch-football, Reagan in overalls driving a tractor, Bush visiting a VFW
meeting, etc. It's all bullsh*t. What do they have to do with political
records and policies? Absolutely nothing. We should see the commercials and
say, "So what - any a**hole can throw a football/drive a tractor/chew the fat
with a bunch of veterans. What's his position on healthcare/abortion/foreign
policy?" What people in other countries know is that their politicians have
faults and foibles just like they do and they had better pay attention to a
politician's record and ignore the rest of the noise.
If we were less prone to believing the images that the PR machines spewed out
we would have an easier time accepting that the president is less than
perfect. Zippergate wouldn't be an issue of national importance (it *really*
isn't). That would make it easier for everyone to focus on the actual *job*
the President is doing.
I mean, how lame is it to force someone to pretend to be perfect and then get
all hung up on it when we find out they aren't after all. We set ourselves up
for the fall. Of course, Jimmy Carter *was* honest to a fault and look what
it got him: ridicule in Washington and *lack* of support from the voters.
Turns out that the American public preferred image to substance: enter Ronald
Reagan.
My 2 cents.
Alan Browning
BarbLuongo
In article <34D1D9...@ford.com>, "Timothy J. Butler" <tbu...@ford.com>
writes:
>THE BOOK OF VIRTUES while they lie in bed. THe other night,
>the virtue was honesty. The story that was up next was "George
>Washington and the Cherry Tree."
You DO know that story is a lie, don't you? I find it kind of ironic as a
lesson in honesty!
>I explained to him that, yes, our presidents used to be honorable
>men who told the truth.
Really? I had the feeling that most of them were liars and cheats.
As time goes on, and we know more of the backgrounds of these
men, it looks like they are less and less desirable humans.
> I said that the last man who held the White House with an unswerving
>committment to telling the truth was Jimmy Carter.
Hmm, I wouldn't necessarily got that far back. But, my Mom and I were
chatting the other night, and I told her that I read Clinton doesn't believe
that getting oral sex is 1)sex or 2)cheating, because it's not sex to him.
And that might get him out of the perjury charge.
She said "We've come a long way from Jimmy Carter's "lust in the
heart is a sin!" " She's right, and that's sad.
This IS a good time for talking to the kids about it, though. My 15 year
old boy and I talk about current events, and to a lesser degree my 12
year old daughter does too.
>It's hard to be optimistic when we have no reason to believe that
>the man in the Oval Office has told us the truth about anything.
True. That's how I feel.
Timothy J. Butler
Alan_Browning wrote:
>
> If we were less prone to believing the images that the PR machines spewed out
> we would have an easier time accepting that the president is less than
> perfect. Zippergate wouldn't be an issue of national importance (it *really*
> isn't). That would make it easier for everyone to focus on the actual *job*
> the President is doing.
Hey, I don't want to get into a protracted discussion on this since this
isn't the right place or time, but it's ludicrous to say that this thing
isn't important. It's not an issue of national importance that the
President may have lied UNDER OATH and encouraged someone else to do the
same???? Sorry, my friend, not only is that important, but if Mr. Clinton
did it, he should be drummed out of office and sent to jail.
I would hope (but I doubt) that after this fiasco, we could put to rest
the patently absurd notion that the President's private life and character
are separate issues from his performance as President. It is precisely
because of Clinton's character problems that we're in this scandal now.
>
> I mean, how lame is it to force someone to pretend to be perfect and then get
> all hung up on it when we find out they aren't after all. We set ourselves up
> for the fall. Of course, Jimmy Carter *was* honest to a fault and look what
> it got him: ridicule in Washington and *lack* of support from the voters.
> Turns out that the American public preferred image to substance: enter Ronald
> Reagan.
Carter wasn't ridiculed because he told the truth. He was ridiculed for being
an ideological failure. And a lot of people right now are wishing we had a
little Reaganesque substance in the White House. (This from a man who didn't
vote for him either time.)
>
> My 2 cents.
Now I've offered mine.
<political ranting = off>
Gwen A Orel
Hear, hear, Alan. I think you're absolutely right. I also think
that the fact that most Americans do *not* care mean that we do
realize that he isn't perfect. That doesn't mean it's safe for him
to admit he fools around, though. It's an impossible position for him--
there's a kind of wink-wink nudge-nudge knowledge that we enjoy but
*don't* want confirmed.
Gwen
Alan_Browning (Alan_B...@brown.edu) wrote:
: In article <34D182...@intrepid.net>, ir5...@intrepid.net says...
: >
: >Sorry Annette. I think he is right. Don't use your family to expouse
: >family values.......and then expect your personal life to be off limits
: >to the media when you engage in actions that do not reflect these
: >values. Considering the man knows what the media will do when this
: >information is found out.....you would think he would be smart enough to
: >keep his pants zipped until he is out of office.
: Your husband is laying the blame in the wrong place. The problem is that
: Americans are so damn naive in the first place. We expect our presidents to
: be perfect and that's totally unrealistic. We fall for these carefully
: constructed pictures and sounds bytes that appeal to our naivite: Kennedy
: touch-football, Reagan in overalls driving a tractor, Bush visiting a VFW
: meeting, etc. It's all bullsh*t. What do they have to do with political
: records and policies? Absolutely nothing. We should see the commercials and
: say, "So what - any a**hole can throw a football/drive a tractor/chew the fat
: with a bunch of veterans. What's his position on healthcare/abortion/foreign
: policy?" What people in other countries know is that their politicians have
: faults and foibles just like they do and they had better pay attention to a
: politician's record and ignore the rest of the noise.
: If we were less prone to believing the images that the PR machines spewed out
: we would have an easier time accepting that the president is less than
: perfect. Zippergate wouldn't be an issue of national importance (it *really*
: isn't). That would make it easier for everyone to focus on the actual *job*
: the President is doing.
: I mean, how lame is it to force someone to pretend to be perfect and then get
: all hung up on it when we find out they aren't after all. We set ourselves up
: for the fall. Of course, Jimmy Carter *was* honest to a fault and look what
: it got him: ridicule in Washington and *lack* of support from the voters.
: Turns out that the American public preferred image to substance: enter Ronald
: Reagan.
: My 2 cents.
: Alan Browning
Dirt Devil
In article <34D182...@intrepid.net>, HC <ir5...@intrepid.net> wrote:
>Sometimes I worry about what some of our politicians would score on an
>intelligence test.
Two points lower and we'd have to water them to keep them alive.
--
Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby gl...@armory.com HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/
Clayton E. Cramer
HC wrote:
> Sorry Annette. I think he is right. Don't use your family to expouse
> family values.......and then expect your personal life to be off limits
> to the media when you engage in actions that do not reflect these
> values. Considering the man knows what the media will do when this
> information is found out.....you would think he would be smart enough to
> keep his pants zipped until he is out of office.
>
> intelligence test.
>
It's not intelligence he's lacking -- it's self-control.
A stupid person who controls himself is less scary than a
smart person who can't control himself.
Wakanyeja Makah
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:01:40 -0800, "Clayton E. Cramer"
<clayton...@dlcc.com> wrote:
>How did I miss the tent cities?
I have no idea, Clayton. But I am sure that any public library has
archived copies of the newspaper displaying the tent cities. For quite a
while this dominated the televised news and the papers. The economy at
that time was plummeting with massive layoffs. Many people (Middle Class
America) were losing their homes. It is amazing how a few years of a
strong economy can create mass amnesia.
W. Makah
Wakanyeja Makah
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:44:04 -0500, "Timothy J. Butler" <tbu...@ford.com>
wrote:
>Me too. Every night, I read my kids a story from Bill Bennett's
>the virtue was honesty. The story that was up next was "George
>we talked for a few minutes about it. My 6 year old floored
>me when he said,
>
>"Daddy, do you mean that we used to have presidents who told the
>truth?"
Timothy...besides the obvious (the story of George and the cherry tree is
untrue)
How can your six year old have any preconceived notions as to whether
politicians (presidents in particular) tell the truth or lie. Their
REALITY lies in what they have been exposed to via the media, and heard
from the adults which surround them. The idea that at 6 your child
perceives all presidents as "liars" based on what he has been told/exposed
to is very sad.
>I explained to him that, yes, our presidents used to be honorable
>men who told the truth. I said that the last man who held the
>White House with an unswerving committment to telling the
>truth was Jimmy Carter. But I also told him that it was my
>hope and prayer that Americans would one day return to electing
>honest men and women to leadership roles.
I find it hard to believe that you used George Washington as an example if
this is how you feel. Read your history a bit closer and you will find
that George did his share of philandering as well.
>It's hard to be optimistic when we have no reason to believe that
>the man in the Oval Office has told us the truth about anything.
I am sorry you feel that way. Of course it is still America (if you of
course live in the United States) and voting is always an option.
W. Makah
Wakanyeja Makah
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:05:56 -0500, "Timothy J. Butler" <tbu...@ford.com>
wrote:
>Hey, I don't want to get into a protracted discussion on this since this
>isn't the right place or time, but it's ludicrous to say that this thing
>isn't important. It's not an issue of national importance that the
>President may have lied UNDER OATH and encouraged someone else to do the
>same????
Do you believe everything that the media dishes up and serves to you?
Don't you find it at least suspect that this woman has given two different
versions of the TRUTH. Two very different, in fact completely opposite
versions. To me, this makes her testimony suspect.
> Sorry, my friend, not only is that important, but if Mr. Clinton
>did it, he should be drummed out of office and sent to jail.
Yes, and so should George Washington for growing marijuana...and
philandering and of course Thomas Jefferson kept slaves and grew marijuana
(and even smoked a bit...inhaling deeply) and even had a child by one of
his slaves. And then there was JFK and Marilyn...
PLEASE.....
>I would hope (but I doubt) that after this fiasco, we could put to rest
>the patently absurd notion that the President's private life and character
>are separate issues from his performance as President. It is precisely
>because of Clinton's character problems that we're in this scandal now.
Well, history has proven that it has been since the office of President
opened for business. Lets see...a strong economy...low unemployment
rate...declining national debt....strong overseas policy/relations...on one
hand- vs- who the President chooses to have sex with (in fact this even
occurred...and I have serious doubts) Sorry...I would have to go with the
strong economy every time. I don't care if they find him in the cupboard
with Madeline Albright in a pink fuzzy teddy (...bleeeeeecccchhhh!)
Ok...as long as they don't publish pictures...*the horror*
>Carter wasn't ridiculed because he told the truth. He was ridiculed for being
>an ideological failure. And a lot of people right now are wishing we had a
>little Reaganesque substance in the White House.
Yes, it always makes me feel safe and secure to have a man who is in
mid-stages of Alzheimer running the country....(never mind the hand
hovering over the button...by God, this is how John Wayne would have done
it.)
Right.
W. Makah
Dirt Devil
In article <34D23D...@dlcc.com>,
>A stupid person who controls himself is less scary than a
>smart person who can't control himself.
But, if he *did* have sex, but used a condom .....
oops -- nevermind. Don't wanna go there again.
Dirt Devil
In article <34D1D9...@ford.com>,
>THE BOOK OF VIRTUES while they lie in bed. THe other night,
>the virtue was honesty. The story that was up next was "George
>Washington and the Cherry Tree." After I finished the story,
>we talked for a few minutes about it. My 6 year old floored
>me when he said,
>
>"Daddy, do you mean that we used to have presidents who told the
>truth?"
>
>men who told the truth. I said that the last man who held the
>White House with an unswerving committment to telling the
>truth was Jimmy Carter. But I also told him that it was my
>hope and prayer that Americans would one day return to electing
>honest men and women to leadership roles.
>
>the man in the Oval Office has told us the truth about anything.
It's interesting to note that you believe the same myths as your kids
believe.
What is kind of frightening is to recognize that they may be part of
the next generation of voters.
Jim
Wakanyeja Makah wrote:
>>"Daddy, do you mean that we used to have presidents who told the
>>truth?"
>
>from the adults which surround them. The idea that at 6 your child
>perceives all presidents as "liars" based on what he has been told/exposed
>to is very sad.
Well he'd better learn in sometime and six is as good as time as
any ;-) Anyone that throws all facts/stories aside and draws
their conclusions on these guys truthfulness based on what they
say as they stare angrily into a camera is naive in the extreme. I
agree with you in that it is sad that at the young age of six, a
child questions the truthfulness of what our President tells
him. What's even sadder is that he is fully justified in doing so.
Jim
Annette Marcucilli
Dirt Devil wrote:
>
> In article <34D23D...@dlcc.com>,
> Clayton E. Cramer <clayton...@dlcc.com> wrote:
> >
> >It's not intelligence he's lacking -- it's self-control.
> >A stupid person who controls himself is less scary than a
> >smart person who can't control himself.
>
> But, if he *did* have sex, but used a condom .....
>
> oops -- nevermind. Don't wanna go there again.
ROTFLMAO !!! (now, now. Let's *NOT*)
Annette ;)
Annette Marcucilli
Wakanyeja Makah wrote:
> Something that I find absolutely terrifying (...besides that visual of
> Madeline Albright in a fuzzy teddy in the cupboard with President
> Clinton...)
First off, I want you to know that your repeated mention of this, along
with the horrific visual image it necessarily conjures up in my brain,
is likely to shorten my life by at least a few days. On the other hand,
since I'm expecting to spend at least my final few months of life in
physical agony due to my lifelong propensity for Twinkies and Rice
Krispie Treats, I suppose I owe you a debt of "advance gratitude" for
shortening that misery. <G> (Maybe if you hadn't made it *fuzzy*)<G>
>is the number of young people who (during the election) did not
> vote (co-workers, neighbors, et al) and when you discussed it with them
> (being the 37 year old fossil that I am) they would say "I'm just not
> *into* that voting and stuff" (This is a direct quote from a 22 year old
> mother of two) or "That doesn't really have much to do with me" or the
> masses who just don't BOTHER to vote....
>
> THAT is scary !!!! And annoying as HELL!
Amen. We have never made it an issue of morality (as my parents did) to
vote, but constantly discussed it in front of the kids as our way of
striking back at/or/supporting the powers-that-be. Hence, they were
always eager for their own opportunity to get out there and give "what
for" to the politicians.
Of course, never in a thousand years did I expect to find myself rushing
to the polls to cancel out my own son's vote! (Just laminated his John
Birch Society card last week. Yikes.) <G>
Annette :)
Wakanyeja Makah
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 14:44:56 GMT, ji...@ix.killspam.netcom.com (Jim) wrote:
>Well he'd better learn in sometime and six is as good as time as
>any ;-) Anyone that throws all facts/stories aside and draws
>their conclusions on these guys truthfulness based on what they
>say as they stare angrily into a camera is naive in the extreme. I
>agree with you in that it is sad that at the young age of six, a
>child questions the truthfulness of what our President tells
>him. What's even sadder is that he is fully justified in doing so.
>
>Jim
>
What is really SAD is that he is exposed to the media circus (or
perhaps parental discussion of the same) enough for him to come to a
conclusion such as this at 6 years old. (Remember when people use to raise
their children to believe that ...one day when they grew up...they might be
President)
As far as the *fully justified* comment...well you must have some
inside information. Amazing how easily a witch-hunt can start in
Washington...and how quickly people will start repeating it as absolutes
and truths...
I have a novel concept...what about considering someone innocent
until they are PROVEN guilty...
Oh just an FYI...according to the latest and greatest polls...the
President's popularity is at 75%, which is the highest it has been since he
took office...oh, and the economy is stronger and more stable that it has
been in 30 years...hmmmm
As long as the photos of Albright in the fuzzy teddy don't
surface...I still respect the man.
W. Makah
Wakanyeja Makah
On 31 Jan 1998 14:51:33 GMT, gl...@armory.com (Dirt Devil) wrote:
>But, if he *did* have sex, but used a condom .....
>
>oops -- nevermind. Don't wanna go there again.
...or maybe didn't use a condom because his fundamentalist parents never
discussed birth control with him...
(...oh no...too late...<grin>)
W. "I gotta get out more" Makah
Wakanyeja Makah
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 07:33:03 -0700, Annette Marcucilli
<joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>ROTFLMAO !!! (now, now. Let's *NOT*)
>
>Annette ;)
Like Mommy...er Nancy use to say "Just Say No!"
W. Makah
ROFLMAO!
Wakanyeja Makah
On 31 Jan 1998 14:54:38 GMT, gl...@armory.com (Dirt Devil) wrote:
>It's interesting to note that you believe the same myths as your kids
>believe.
>
>What is kind of frightening is to recognize that they may be part of
>the next generation of voters.
Something that I find absolutely terrifying (...besides that visual of
Madeline Albright in a fuzzy teddy in the cupboard with President
Clinton...) is the number of young people who (during the election) did not
vote (co-workers, neighbors, et al) and when you discussed it with them
(being the 37 year old fossil that I am) they would say "I'm just not
*into* that voting and stuff" (This is a direct quote from a 22 year old
mother of two) or "That doesn't really have much to do with me" or the
masses who just don't BOTHER to vote....
THAT is scary !!!! And annoying as HELL!
W. Makah
CandyBors
In article <34d3c828...@news.tds.net>, waka...@iktomi.gov (Wakanyeja
Makah) writes:
>
> What is really SAD is that he is exposed to the media circus (or
>perhaps parental discussion of the same) enough for him to come to a
>conclusion such as this at 6 years old. (Remember when people use to raise
>their children to believe that ...one day when they grew up...they might be
>President)
I just wonder if this story is actually true. It just doesn't sound to me like
the sort of thing a six year old would say. At six, I would have thought they
would just be learning about who the President was, not coming out with
cynicisms.
Anyone else wonder if this was maybe the product of a father's wishful
thinking?
Candy
Mummy to Peter, 4th September 1996
**********************************************
"A woman has to perform twice as well
as a man to get half the recognition.
Fortunately, this is not difficult."
**********************************************
Dirt Devil
In article <34D336...@earthlink.net>,
Annette Marcucilli <Joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Dirt Devil wrote:
>>
>> In article <34D23D...@dlcc.com>,
>> Clayton E. Cramer <clayton...@dlcc.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >It's not intelligence he's lacking -- it's self-control.
>> >A stupid person who controls himself is less scary than a
>> >smart person who can't control himself.
>>
>>
>> oops -- nevermind. Don't wanna go there again.
>
shhhhh. It'll just be between you and me. I won't tell anybody if
you don't.
Dirt Devil
In article <19980131180...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Jme0924 <jme...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I'm not sure how I feel about Clinton but I *do* feel that he is only a
>reflection of this country and we are all part of it. Yes, it would be nice
>if
>the man in the oval office was honest but I'm wondering if that's possible.
>We
>want honesty but we don't want to hear the truth. Whoever is in office is
>there because they said what we wanted to hear.
I'm reminded of the line in "A Few Good Men" where Nickelson's
character yells "You don't want the truth. You can't HANDLE the
truth."
Everybody lies to some extent. There are all kinds of reasons for
lying. Maybe all of them are good. Maybe none of them are good.
When I see things like parents trying to protect their children by
keeping them from seeing sex, I have to wonder if it is because the
parents aren't comfortable with the subject. Instead of just saying
that (assuming it's the case), they say "I want my kids to be children
for as long as they can be."
While I don't disagree with that reason, it is a lie in that case.
To expect our elected servants to be more and better than we are is
just setting them up for failure. It is like wishful thinking,
perhaps.
Having said all of that, let me now say that I *didn't* vote for
Clinton. I don't remember who I did vote for, as a matter of fact.
See, my vote *doesn't* count. %-}
BarbLuongo
In article <19980201171...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, cand...@aol.com
(CandyBors) writes:
>I just wonder if this story is actually true. It just doesn't sound to me
>like the sort of thing a six year old would say. At six, I would have
>thought they would just be learning about who the President was, not
>coming out with cynicisms.
>Anyone else wonder if this was maybe the product of a
>father's wishful thinking?
Yeah, I kind of wondered how genuine it was - reminded me of the
time a mother said her boy pondered why people would circ their
babies. It wasn't so much that they wonder, it's HOW it says they
came upon the ponderings.
Renee Lester
CandyBors (cand...@aol.com) wrote:
: I just wonder if this story is actually true. It just doesn't sound to me like
: the sort of thing a six year old would say. At six, I would have thought they
: would just be learning about who the President was, not coming out with
: cynicisms.
: Anyone else wonder if this was maybe the product of a father's wishful
: thinking?
I did. And when I read it to my husband he said point blank "A 6 year old
didn't say that!" I have grown pretty weary of the "what will we tell
our children?" angle--besides, all we have right now are *accusations*!
Maybe we should tell our children that in this country people are
innocent until proven guilty...
Renee
Jim
Wakanyeja
.. . .
>inside information. Amazing how easily a witch-hunt can start in
>Washington...and how quickly people will start repeating it as absolutes
>and truths...
>
> I have a novel concept...what about considering someone innocent
>until they are PROVEN guilty...
He is, but it's irrelevant as to what I believe regarding his general
truthfulness. Would you teach your six year old that what he says
is true and that he/she ought to believe him? I couldn't do this
to my child.
Hey, the guys got some tremendous attributes. Truthfulness
isn't among them.
Jim
Timothy J. Butler
Wakanyeja Makah wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:44:04 -0500, "Timothy J. Butler" <tbu...@ford.com>
> wrote:
> >Me too. Every night, I read my kids a story from Bill Bennett's
> >THE BOOK OF VIRTUES while they lie in bed. THe other night,
> >the virtue was honesty. The story that was up next was "George
> >Washington and the Cherry Tree." After I finished the story,
> >we talked for a few minutes about it. My 6 year old floored
> >me when he said,
> >
> >truth?"
>
> untrue)
Duh.
>
> How can your six year old have any preconceived notions as to whether
> politicians (presidents in particular) tell the truth or lie. Their
> REALITY lies in what they have been exposed to via the media, and heard
> from the adults which surround them. The idea that at 6 your child
> perceives all presidents as "liars" based on what he has been told/exposed
> to is very sad.
I think it's really unfortunate that you've taken such a cynical view of
my 6 year old's very insightful comments. I'd say he's a bit more in tune
with reality than you appear to be. Care to make a case that our political
leaders these days are honest men and women?
>
> >I explained to him that, yes, our presidents used to be honorable
> >men who told the truth. I said that the last man who held the
> >White House with an unswerving committment to telling the
> >truth was Jimmy Carter. But I also told him that it was my
> >hope and prayer that Americans would one day return to electing
> >honest men and women to leadership roles.
>
> I find it hard to believe that you used George Washington as an example if
> this is how you feel. Read your history a bit closer and you will find
> that George did his share of philandering as well.
No thanks on the historical revisionism. Washington is a great American
hero in my book.
>
> >It's hard to be optimistic when we have no reason to believe that
> >the man in the Oval Office has told us the truth about anything.
>
> I am sorry you feel that way. Of course it is still America (if you of
> course live in the United States) and voting is always an option.
I have seen no indication that President Clinton is capable of telling the
truth in any situation.
>
> W. Makah
Timothy J. Butler
Sheesh. You people. Yes, it's true. As to how a 6 year old could be saavy
enough to make such an insightful comment, the answer could be in the fact
that people are always telling me and my wife how smart he is. He has a
history of making similar observations that are truly amazing in their
discernment.
Yes, he did make the comment. If for some reason it makes anyone here
uncomfortable, feel free to disregard what I thought would be an
encouraging anecdote. That includes your husband, lady, who doesn't know me or
my son but has no problem calling me a liar for some reason that escapes me.
>
> Renee
Timothy J. Butler
Dirt Devil wrote:
>
> In article <34D1D9...@ford.com>,
> Timothy J. Butler <tbu...@ford.com> wrote:
> >
> >Me too. Every night, I read my kids a story from Bill Bennett's
> >THE BOOK OF VIRTUES while they lie in bed. THe other night,
> >the virtue was honesty. The story that was up next was "George
> >Washington and the Cherry Tree." After I finished the story,
> >we talked for a few minutes about it. My 6 year old floored
> >me when he said,
> >
> >"Daddy, do you mean that we used to have presidents who told the
> >truth?"
> >
> >men who told the truth. I said that the last man who held the
> >White House with an unswerving committment to telling the
> >truth was Jimmy Carter. But I also told him that it was my
> >hope and prayer that Americans would one day return to electing
> >honest men and women to leadership roles.
> >
> >the man in the Oval Office has told us the truth about anything.
>
> believe.
>
> What is kind of frightening is to recognize that they may be part of
> the next generation of voters.
Feel free to make your case that our political leaders, especially the
one who is currently running this country, are honest people. I won't
hold my breath.
Timothy J. Butler
Wakanyeja Makah wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:05:56 -0500, "Timothy J. Butler" <tbu...@ford.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hey, I don't want to get into a protracted discussion on this since this
> >isn't the right place or time, but it's ludicrous to say that this thing
> >isn't important. It's not an issue of national importance that the
> >President may have lied UNDER OATH and encouraged someone else to do the
> >same????
>
> Do you believe everything that the media dishes up and serves to you?
> Don't you find it at least suspect that this woman has given two different
> versions of the TRUTH. Two very different, in fact completely opposite
> versions. To me, this makes her testimony suspect.
Obviously, you rushed to respond without reading what I wrote. I didn't
say that Clinton is guilty of anything. I said that the issue here is
IF he lied under oath. I don't know if he did or didn't, but the
issue here is not his marital unfaithfulness but his truthfulness under
oath.
>
> > Sorry, my friend, not only is that important, but if Mr. Clinton
> >did it, he should be drummed out of office and sent to jail.
>
> Yes, and so should George Washington for growing marijuana...and
> philandering and of course Thomas Jefferson kept slaves and grew marijuana
> (and even smoked a bit...inhaling deeply) and even had a child by one of
> his slaves. And then there was JFK and Marilyn...
Gad zooks. You must have gone to public school. ;-)
>
> PLEASE.....
Very good. Now say "Thank you".
>
> >I would hope (but I doubt) that after this fiasco, we could put to rest
> >the patently absurd notion that the President's private life and character
> >are separate issues from his performance as President. It is precisely
> >because of Clinton's character problems that we're in this scandal now.
>
> Well, history has proven that it has been since the office of President
> opened for business. Lets see...a strong economy...low unemployment
> rate...declining national debt....strong overseas policy/relations...on one
> hand- vs- who the President chooses to have sex with (in fact this even
> occurred...and I have serious doubts) Sorry...I would have to go with the
> strong economy every time. I don't care if they find him in the cupboard
> with Madeline Albright in a pink fuzzy teddy (...bleeeeeecccchhhh!)
> Ok...as long as they don't publish pictures...*the horror*
Well, you and I have very different standards for leaders. Nice to know that
character doesn't matter in your book. It does in mind. I prefer my president
to be a decent human being and don't vote for him based on how much money
is in my pocket. Your position is pretty incredible anyway considering
that the president has little to do with the health of the economy anyway.
>
> >Carter wasn't ridiculed because he told the truth. He was ridiculed for being
> >an ideological failure. And a lot of people right now are wishing we had a
> >little Reaganesque substance in the White House.
>
> Yes, it always makes me feel safe and secure to have a man who is in
> mid-stages of Alzheimer running the country....(never mind the hand
> hovering over the button...by God, this is how John Wayne would have done
> it.)
Well, you're in the minority. Reagan was elected by landslides both times,
and the 80's are remembered as a time when prosperity boomed and the cold
war was won. So much for the hand on the button argument. And even in the
mid-stages of Alzheimer's, he's got the current creep in the Oval
Office beat hands down. (In my opinion.) Clinton's a disgrace to this
country.
>
> Right.
Glad you agree.
>
> W. Makah
Dirt Devil
In article <34d6cc2c...@news.tds.net>,
Wakanyeja Makah <question...@repeatedly.com> wrote:
>
>Something that I find absolutely terrifying (...besides that visual of
>Madeline Albright in a fuzzy teddy in the cupboard with President
>Clinton...)
Sure -- you just *had* to include *that* little visual, huh?
See, I am very visual. Now, tonight, as I am falling asleep, that
little "gift" is gonna pop into my head and cause me to be suddenly
wide awake with a start.
I sure hope that you are proud of yerself. You have just added
another person to the list of people who need drugs in order to get to
sleep.
>is the number of young people who (during the election) did not
>vote (co-workers, neighbors, et al) and when you discussed it with them
>(being the 37 year old fossil that I am) they would say "I'm just not
>*into* that voting and stuff" (This is a direct quote from a 22 year old
>mother of two) or "That doesn't really have much to do with me" or the
>masses who just don't BOTHER to vote....
>
>THAT is scary !!!! And annoying as HELL!
But, given the way that some people vote and the 'reason' that they
use to determine who they will vote for, might it be better for them
to abstain?
I'm not suggesting that *my* reasons for voting for someone are better
than any other thought out reasons -- but thought out reasons would
seem to be a slight improvement over "That's who my Daddy would have
voted for.", dont you think?
Dirt Devil
In article <34D3DD...@earthlink.net>,
Annette Marcucilli <Joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Of course, never in a thousand years did I expect to find myself rushing
>to the polls to cancel out my own son's vote! (Just laminated his John
>Birch Society card last week. Yikes.) <G>
I was talking to a friend of mine, recently. She has raised her kids
to think for themselves and to value themselves. We were talking
about 'teen rebelion'. Her kids never had a need to rebel *against*
anything, because they were no closley controlled by their parents.
She asked her oldest what he would do to rebel (he just turned 18).
He gave her a wry smile and said "Register as a Republican".
Dirt Devil
In article <6b36vq$9...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
Renee Lester <rle...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>CandyBors (cand...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: Anyone else wonder if this was maybe the product of a father's wishful
>: thinking?
>
>I did. And when I read it to my husband he said point blank "A 6 year old
>didn't say that!" I have grown pretty weary of the "what will we tell
>our children?" angle--besides, all we have right now are *accusations*!
>Maybe we should tell our children that in this country people are
>innocent until proven guilty...
Why you sound lie and absolute COMMUNIST! That's .... that's ....
why, that's absolutely unAmurikun! We have a long, proud tradition of
burning witches. Gosh, think of it -- what would we have done without
the McCarther Hearings and the HUAC and our latest scandals?
Next thing, you'll be wanting facts. Well, Renee, you are in the
*wrong* country to be asking for that. In the Good Old U S of A, we
use the opinion system. And so what if opinions can be so esaily
colored? It makes for better TV.
Timothy J. Butler
Dirt Devil wrote:
>
> In article <6b36vq$9...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
> Renee Lester <rle...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
> >CandyBors (cand...@aol.com) wrote:
> >
> >: Anyone else wonder if this was maybe the product of a father's wishful
> >: thinking?
> >
> >I did. And when I read it to my husband he said point blank "A 6 year old
> >didn't say that!" I have grown pretty weary of the "what will we tell
> >our children?" angle--besides, all we have right now are *accusations*!
> >Maybe we should tell our children that in this country people are
> >innocent until proven guilty...
>
> Why you sound lie and absolute COMMUNIST! That's .... that's ....
> why, that's absolutely unAmurikun! We have a long, proud tradition of
> burning witches. Gosh, think of it -- what would we have done without
> the McCarther Hearings and the HUAC and our latest scandals?
>
> Next thing, you'll be wanting facts. Well, Renee, you are in the
> *wrong* country to be asking for that. In the Good Old U S of A, we
> use the opinion system. And so what if opinions can be so esaily
> colored? It makes for better TV.
Since I'm sure that this diatribe is, in part, directed at me, I will
throw in that I've made it clear to my son that, while I disagree
strongly with Mr. Clinton's policies and performance as our President,
there is no proof that Mr. Clinton did anything wrong and until that time,
it would be improper of us to assume wrong-doing on his part. I strongly
believe in innocent until proven guilty, and I strongly believe in
impressing that attitude on my children.
I don't think we burn witches anymore. But on usenet, people we don't agree
with seem to make good kindling.
Renee Lester
Timothy J. Butler (tbu...@ford.com) wrote:
: Renee Lester wrote:
: > I did. And when I read it to my husband he said point blank "A 6 year old
: > didn't say that!" I have grown pretty weary of the "what will we tell
: > our children?" angle--besides, all we have right now are *accusations*!
: > Maybe we should tell our children that in this country people are
: > innocent until proven guilty...
: Sheesh. You people. Yes, it's true. As to how a 6 year old could be saavy
: enough to make such an insightful comment, the answer could be in the fact
: that people are always telling me and my wife how smart he is. He has a
: history of making similar observations that are truly amazing in their
: discernment.
: Yes, he did make the comment. If for some reason it makes anyone here
: uncomfortable, feel free to disregard what I thought would be an
: encouraging anecdote. That includes your husband, lady, who doesn't know me or
: my son but has no problem calling me a liar for some reason that escapes me.
Fine. Maybe you can enlighten us as to how your son came up with this
observation. He has only been alive for one president. How has he
come up with the idea that "presidents today do not tell the truth"?
You have already said that you acknowledge that Clinton is innocent
until proven guilty. Are there other examples of Clinton's lying
that you have told him about? Or lying of previous presidents? Or
does he glean all of this from watching the news?
Renee
Jim
>> >: Anyone else wonder if this was maybe the product of a father's wishful
>> >: thinking?
>> >
>> >didn't say that!" I have grown pretty weary of the "what will we tell
>> >our children?" angle--besides, all we have right now are *accusations*!
>> >Maybe we should tell our children that in this country people are
>> >innocent until proven guilty...
Agreed. And following that civic lesson we can tell our kids that
we don't refer to others as liars without a scintilla of evidence
to support it ;-)
Jim
Timothy J. Butler
> : > didn't say that!" I have grown pretty weary of the "what will we tell
> : > our children?" angle--besides, all we have right now are *accusations*!
> : > Maybe we should tell our children that in this country people are
> : > innocent until proven guilty...
>
> : enough to make such an insightful comment, the answer could be in the fact
> : that people are always telling me and my wife how smart he is. He has a
> : history of making similar observations that are truly amazing in their
> : discernment.
>
> : Yes, he did make the comment. If for some reason it makes anyone here
> : uncomfortable, feel free to disregard what I thought would be an
> : encouraging anecdote. That includes your husband, lady, who doesn't know me or
> : my son but has no problem calling me a liar for some reason that escapes me.
>
> Fine. Maybe you can enlighten us as to how your son came up with this
> observation. He has only been alive for one president. How has he
> come up with the idea that "presidents today do not tell the truth"?
> You have already said that you acknowledge that Clinton is innocent
> until proven guilty. Are there other examples of Clinton's lying
> that you have told him about? Or lying of previous presidents? Or
> does he glean all of this from watching the news?
Probably all of the above.
I think you've answered your own question. He's only been alive for
Clinton, and while Mr. Clinton is innocent of perjury until proven
quilty, he lies and lies and lies and lies. He's been caught lying
countless times. He's been caught lying in the past week. I think
it would be an easy mistake for a child to assume that all presidents
act like the current one. And as you will recall, I did correct him
and point out that we have had a recent President who dedicated himself
to telling the truth, namely Mr. Carter.
Your turn. Strictly adhering to innocent until proven guilty, please
explain why your husband (and presumably you) have stated on this
newsgroup that I lied in relating that incident with my son.
> Renee
Timothy J. Butler
Jim wrote:
>
> >> >: Anyone else wonder if this was maybe the product of a father's wishful
> >> >: thinking?
> >> >
> >> >didn't say that!" I have grown pretty weary of the "what will we tell
> >> >our children?" angle--besides, all we have right now are *accusations*!
> >> >Maybe we should tell our children that in this country people are
> >> >innocent until proven guilty...
>
> we don't refer to others as liars without a scintilla of evidence
> to support it ;-)
Thanks, Jim. I said pretty much the same thing to my son in recent days
with all the hubbub over this scandal. :-)
Alexis Bywater
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
> Dirt Devil wrote:
> >
> > In article <34D1D9...@ford.com>,
> > Timothy J. Butler <tbu...@ford.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >Me too. Every night, I read my kids a story from Bill Bennett's
> > >THE BOOK OF VIRTUES while they lie in bed. THe other night,
> > >the virtue was honesty. The story that was up next was "George
> > >Washington and the Cherry Tree." After I finished the story,
> > >we talked for a few minutes about it. My 6 year old floored
> > >me when he said,
> > >
> > >"Daddy, do you mean that we used to have presidents who told the
> > >truth?"
> > >
> > >I explained to him that, yes, our presidents used to be honorable
> > >men who told the truth. I said that the last man who held the
> > >White House with an unswerving committment to telling the
> > >truth was Jimmy Carter. But I also told him that it was my
> > >hope and prayer that Americans would one day return to electing
> > >honest men and women to leadership roles.
> > >
> > >It's hard to be optimistic when we have no reason to believe that
> > >the man in the Oval Office has told us the truth about anything.
> >
> > It's interesting to note that you believe the same myths as your kids
> > believe.
> >
> > What is kind of frightening is to recognize that they may be part of
> > the next generation of voters.
>
> Feel free to make your case that our political leaders, especially the
> one who is currently running this country, are honest people. I won't
> hold my breath.
I think that Glen is fully aware of the shortfallings of any *human
being*, and even though they might be presidents, they are indeed human
beings. I don't think that Glen would even attempt to make a case about
any political leaders, past or present, being honest people, he's not that
naive.
I believe he was also trying to express astonishment at the fact that you
seem to believe the cherry tree myth, a delightful piece of propoganda but
it's truthfulness is open to interpretation.
Also, I'll bet if people had it in for Jimmy Carter (or any president in
the last 100 years), they could probably dig up some dirt on him in no
time. Personally, I'd rather have a president who was able to run the
country effectively as opposed to a completely honest one.
Timothy J. Butler
Then I am at a loss as to what myths he is referring to.
>
> I believe he was also trying to express astonishment at the fact that you
> seem to believe the cherry tree myth, a delightful piece of propoganda but
> it's truthfulness is open to interpretation.
Lest we forget, you feel that ALL truth is open to interpretation, even
1 + 1 = 2. Therefore your skepticism at the veracity of this particular anecdote
is unremarkable in the extreme. (For the record, this was not presented to
my son for its moral value, not for its historical accuracy. One of those
nasty moral absolutes that I am forcing down my son's throat is that lying
is bad and telling the truth is good. What a bad father I am.)
>
> Also, I'll bet if people had it in for Jimmy Carter (or any president in
> the last 100 years), they could probably dig up some dirt on him in no
> time.
I challenge you to justify this absurd claim in any way. A lot of people
think that Jimmy Carter was a bad president, but I have never heard anyone
doubt his character. The closest I've ever heard anyone come is his brother.
Personally, I'd rather have a president who was able to run the
> country effectively as opposed to a completely honest one.
I prefer someone who can manage both, thank you.
Dirt Devil
In article <34d4cad9...@news.tds.net>,
Wakanyeja Makah <question...@repeatedly.com> wrote:
>On 31 Jan 1998 14:51:33 GMT, gl...@armory.com (Dirt Devil) wrote:
>>But, if he *did* have sex, but used a condom .....
>>
>>oops -- nevermind. Don't wanna go there again.
>
>
>...or maybe didn't use a condom because his fundamentalist parents never
>discussed birth control with him...
>
>(...oh no...too late...<grin>)
I know -- the Dirt Devil made ya do it.
Alexis Bywater
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
> Wakanyeja Makah wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:05:56 -0500, "Timothy J. Butler" <tbu...@ford.com>
> > wrote:
> >
<some snippage>
> > > Sorry, my friend, not only is that important, but if Mr. Clinton
> > >did it, he should be drummed out of office and sent to jail.
> >
> > Yes, and so should George Washington for growing marijuana...and
> > philandering and of course Thomas Jefferson kept slaves and grew marijuana
> > (and even smoked a bit...inhaling deeply) and even had a child by one of
> > his slaves. And then there was JFK and Marilyn...
>
> Gad zooks. You must have gone to public school. ;-)
Are you saying that you don't accept the above statements as fact but
happily believe the George Washington was a good man who admitted to
cutting down a cherry tree?
> Well, you and I have very different standards for leaders. Nice to know that
> character doesn't matter in your book. It does in mind. I prefer my president
> to be a decent human being and don't vote for him based on how much money
> is in my pocket. Your position is pretty incredible anyway considering
> that the president has little to do with the health of the economy anyway.
If that's the case, why do they bother about talking about the economy
while they're in the presidential race?
> >
> > >Carter wasn't ridiculed because he told the truth. He was ridiculed for being
> > >an ideological failure. And a lot of people right now are wishing we had a
> > >little Reaganesque substance in the White House.
> >
> > Yes, it always makes me feel safe and secure to have a man who is in
> > mid-stages of Alzheimer running the country....(never mind the hand
> > hovering over the button...by God, this is how John Wayne would have done
> > it.)
>
> Well, you're in the minority. Reagan was elected by landslides both times,
> and the 80's are remembered as a time when prosperity boomed and the cold
> war was won. So much for the hand on the button argument. And even in the
> mid-stages of Alzheimer's, he's got the current creep in the Oval
> Office beat hands down. (In my opinion.) Clinton's a disgrace to this
> country.
Most of the people I know remember Reagan as the guy who made them go into
horrendous debt so that they could get a college education since federal
financial aid was effectively obliterated.
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
: my 6 year old's very insightful comments. I'd say he's a bit more in tune
: with reality than you appear to be. Care to make a case that our political
: leaders these days are honest men and women?
I will not take credit for the rhetorical question below. If you want
to argue, argue with the esteemed Dr. Dean Edell, MD, talk show host
extraordinai're.
Suppose one's kid is seriously *sick* with some non-trivial disease.
The only doctor who can treat the kid happens to have some sex
kinky behavior in his private life, which does not interfere at
all with his practice.
Would the parent, on moral grounds alone, refuse to use the particular
physician?
A simple yes/no, in Dr. Laura style, would be sufficient. It is
hypocritical (speaking of Dr. Laura :-)) to demand that the evil
black helicopter flying government stay off our bedrooms and lifes,
while we have every right to be voyeristic and turn any politician's
life into a soap opera.
Spiros
--
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos email: stri...@primenet.com
at home in Central Indiana www.primenet.com/~strianta
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
: character doesn't matter in your book. It does in mind. I prefer my president
: to be a decent human being and don't vote for him based on how much money
: is in my pocket. Your position is pretty incredible anyway considering
: that the president has little to do with the health of the economy anyway.
I'll explain this in terms of rec.autos, my OTHER favorite news group.
From your header I see you work for the OTHER company. Would a company
whose profits depend heavily on having inexpensive gasoline go down the
drain faster than you can say 'Navigator' were the price of gas to raise
to, say, $2.00/gallon? Or if Saddam Jr. attacked yet another oil
producing, gold plated toilet using royalty and we sat there and watched
the Pro Bowl in awe? (it sucked). Would the country's economy collapse
because of it? not immediately, but it'd be a start?
Would the economy do as well as it does today if we had added another
trillion dollars to the debt, Reagan style? You seem to have the kneejerk
ultramoralist republican idea that our leaders should be held to
the highest standard. Well, it'd be nice, but I'm not sure I'd want
someone with no skeletons in their closets running. I have no
skeletons in my closet, but I don't think you'd want ME to run.
: Well, you're in the minority. Reagan was elected by landslides both times,
: and the 80's are remembered as a time when prosperity boomed and the cold
On borrowed money. By 88 all my friends who called me when I got a job
in Detroit and asked me "Why?" a few years earlier were busy faxing
me resumes as their overbloated defense jobs were canned....
: mid-stages of Alzheimer's, he's got the current creep in the Oval
: Office beat hands down. (In my opinion.) Clinton's a disgrace to this
: country.
O well. To each his own. It appears the republicans haven't gotten the
clue yet. Tell you what, run another Dr. Laura type in 2000 and see
if he has a (pun intended) prayer. republicans ignore basic political
theory, the 40/40/20. 40% are democrats no matter what, 40% are
republicans no matter what, and the 20% that's left is the allmighty
soccer-mom (it's misc.kids, had to make a connection), mutual-fund-dad,
'he's good for our schools' crowd. Since the republicans appear to
cater to the 40% (unlike Reagan who smartly courted the 20% and won
by landslides) you might as well send the window sizes of the White
House to AlGore so that he can have the drapes ordered by 2000.
Signed: A Limo-Liberal and proud of it :-)
Jim
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos wrote:
.. . . .
>Suppose one's kid is seriously *sick* with some non-trivial disease.
>The only doctor who can treat the kid happens to have some sex
>kinky behavior in his private life, which does not interfere at
>all with his practice.
>
>Would the parent, on moral grounds alone, refuse to use the particular
>physician?
>
>A simple yes/no, in Dr. Laura style, would be sufficient.
No. But to make your doctor/politician analogy valid you'd have
to go on to state that the doctor's partner suffers from a similar
affliction, the doctor down the road has the same, the doctor in
the next town is kinky, the doctor a state over is . . . well you
get the idea ;-)
Certainly if you had the simple choice to go next door to a
similarly gifted doctor minus the baggage, you'd choice him. If
only your HMO would permit it ;-)
Jim
Jim
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos wrote:
[snip of how gas prices affect the browser wars or something to that
effect]
>Would the economy do as well as it does today if we had added another
>trillion dollars to the debt, Reagan style? You seem to have the kneejerk
>ultramoralist republican idea that our leaders should be held to
>the highest standard. Well, it'd be nice, but I'm not sure I'd want
ROFL. So expecting a president of not committing perjury or
obstructing justice is holding him to the *highest standard.*
>On borrowed money. By 88 all my friends who called me when I got a job
>in Detroit and asked me "Why?" a few years earlier were busy faxing
>me resumes as their overbloated defense jobs were canned....
You're stumbling into the truth here. The budget is being balanced
due to cuts in the defense budget and the defense budget is being
cut due to the leadership of the 80's. We won the cold war.
Domestic spending is *not* declining.
>O well. To each his own. It appears the republicans haven't gotten the
>clue yet. Tell you what, run another Dr. Laura type in 2000 and see
What's with you and Dr. Laura?!
>if he has a (pun intended) prayer. republicans ignore basic political
>theory, the 40/40/20. 40% are democrats no matter what, 40% are
>republicans no matter what, and the 20% that's left is the allmighty
>soccer-mom (it's misc.kids, had to make a connection), mutual-fund-dad,
>'he's good for our schools' crowd. Since the republicans appear to
>cater to the 40% (unlike Reagan who smartly courted the 20% and won
>by landslides)
Actually, Reagan won by courting your democratic 40.
> you might as well send the window sizes of the White
>House to AlGore so that he can have the drapes ordered by 2000.
I'd have thought you’d be a Gephart(?) man . . .
Jim
Timothy J. Butler
Alexis Bywater wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
>
> > Wakanyeja Makah wrote:
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
>
> <some snippage>
>
> > > > Sorry, my friend, not only is that important, but if Mr. Clinton
> > > >did it, he should be drummed out of office and sent to jail.
> > >
> > > Yes, and so should George Washington for growing marijuana...and
> > > philandering and of course Thomas Jefferson kept slaves and grew marijuana
> > > (and even smoked a bit...inhaling deeply) and even had a child by one of
> > > his slaves. And then there was JFK and Marilyn...
> >
> > Gad zooks. You must have gone to public school. ;-)
>
> Are you saying that you don't accept the above statements as fact but
> happily believe the George Washington was a good man who admitted to
> cutting down a cherry tree?
George Washington was a great man. That is indisputable. No, I don't
believe that he ever chopped down his father's cherry tree. And yeah,
I'm pretty happy about that.
>
> > Well, you and I have very different standards for leaders. Nice to know that
> > character doesn't matter in your book. It does in mind. I prefer my president
> > to be a decent human being and don't vote for him based on how much money
> > is in my pocket. Your position is pretty incredible anyway considering
> > that the president has little to do with the health of the economy anyway.
>
> If that's the case, why do they bother about talking about the economy
> while they're in the presidential race?
Because they know that most people blame/give credit to the President for
the economy regardless of how little impact he has on it. Are YOU saying that
if the current trouble in the Asian markets negatively impacts our economy
that you're going to blame Clinton? I'm not.
>
> > >
> > > >Carter wasn't ridiculed because he told the truth. He was ridiculed for being
> > > >an ideological failure. And a lot of people right now are wishing we had a
> > > >little Reaganesque substance in the White House.
> > >
> > > Yes, it always makes me feel safe and secure to have a man who is in
> > > mid-stages of Alzheimer running the country....(never mind the hand
> > > hovering over the button...by God, this is how John Wayne would have done
> > > it.)
> >
> > Well, you're in the minority. Reagan was elected by landslides both times,
> > and the 80's are remembered as a time when prosperity boomed and the cold
> > war was won. So much for the hand on the button argument. And even in the
> > mid-stages of Alzheimer's, he's got the current creep in the Oval
> > Office beat hands down. (In my opinion.) Clinton's a disgrace to this
> > country.
>
> Most of the people I know remember Reagan as the guy who made them go into
> horrendous debt so that they could get a college education since federal
> financial aid was effectively obliterated.
Funny they don't blame Congress, who decides how government money is spent in this
country. Sounds like they need a little civics education.
Alexis Bywater
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
> Alexis Bywater wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
> >
> > > Dirt Devil wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <34D1D9...@ford.com>,
> > > > Timothy J. Butler <tbu...@ford.com> wrote:
> > > > >
The myth about the cherry tree (see below).
> >
> > I believe he was also trying to express astonishment at the fact that you
> > seem to believe the cherry tree myth, a delightful piece of propoganda but
> > it's truthfulness is open to interpretation.
>
> Lest we forget, you feel that ALL truth is open to interpretation, even
> 1 + 1 = 2. Therefore your skepticism at the veracity of this particular anecdote
> is unremarkable in the extreme. (For the record, this was not presented to
> my son for its moral value, not for its historical accuracy. One of those
> nasty moral absolutes that I am forcing down my son's throat is that lying
> is bad and telling the truth is good. What a bad father I am.)
I will not talk about your religious beliefs if you do not discuss mine,
this shouldn't turn into a religious argument (again).
I am skeptical across the board about 'history' that seems to me to be
obviously propaganda.
If it wasn't presented to your son as historically accurate, why would he
come up with such a statment as you have recounted above?
> >
> > Also, I'll bet if people had it in for Jimmy Carter (or any president in
> > the last 100 years), they could probably dig up some dirt on him in no
> > time.
>
> I challenge you to justify this absurd claim in any way. A lot of people
> think that Jimmy Carter was a bad president, but I have never heard anyone
> doubt his character. The closest I've ever heard anyone come is his brother.
How 'bout Ronald Reagan?
I obviously don't have the facilities to research the behaviours of Jimmy
Carter.
I'm sure if I had the resources, I would be able to find some unsavory
details of his life. Everybody seems to have at least one secret that
they'd like kept secret.
> Personally, I'd rather have a president who was able to run the
> > country effectively as opposed to a completely honest one.
>
> I prefer someone who can manage both, thank you.
And Jimmy Carter is your man?
>
Alexis Bywater
On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
> Alexis Bywater wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
> >
> > > Wakanyeja Makah wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:05:56 -0500, "Timothy J. Butler" <tbu...@ford.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > <some snippage>
> >
> > > > > Sorry, my friend, not only is that important, but if Mr. Clinton
> > > > >did it, he should be drummed out of office and sent to jail.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and so should George Washington for growing marijuana...and
> > > > philandering and of course Thomas Jefferson kept slaves and grew marijuana
> > > > (and even smoked a bit...inhaling deeply) and even had a child by one of
> > > > his slaves. And then there was JFK and Marilyn...
> > >
> > > Gad zooks. You must have gone to public school. ;-)
> >
> > Are you saying that you don't accept the above statements as fact but
> > happily believe the George Washington was a good man who admitted to
> > cutting down a cherry tree?
>
> George Washington was a great man. That is indisputable. No, I don't
> believe that he ever chopped down his father's cherry tree. And yeah,
> I'm pretty happy about that.
He seems to have been a great man, he did found our country and there's
some serious idolization going on, but that has nothing to do with whether
or not he grew marijuana - I don't think he was dealing pot on the side.
He was only human.
Thomas Jefferson was a great man as well, but, as all great men, he was
only human.
> >
> > > Well, you and I have very different standards for leaders. Nice to know that
> > > character doesn't matter in your book. It does in mind. I prefer my president
> > > to be a decent human being and don't vote for him based on how much money
> > > is in my pocket. Your position is pretty incredible anyway considering
> > > that the president has little to do with the health of the economy anyway.
> >
> > If that's the case, why do they bother about talking about the economy
> > while they're in the presidential race?
>
> Because they know that most people blame/give credit to the President for
> the economy regardless of how little impact he has on it. Are YOU saying that
> if the current trouble in the Asian markets negatively impacts our economy
> that you're going to blame Clinton? I'm not.
So, in reality, you are saying that the Presidency is just a figure-head
type role. What does it matter then, when and with whom he has sex?
> >
> > > >
> > > > >Carter wasn't ridiculed because he told the truth. He was ridiculed for being
> > > > >an ideological failure. And a lot of people right now are wishing we had a
> > > > >little Reaganesque substance in the White House.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it always makes me feel safe and secure to have a man who is in
> > > > mid-stages of Alzheimer running the country....(never mind the hand
> > > > hovering over the button...by God, this is how John Wayne would have done
> > > > it.)
> > >
> > > Well, you're in the minority. Reagan was elected by landslides both times,
> > > and the 80's are remembered as a time when prosperity boomed and the cold
> > > war was won. So much for the hand on the button argument. And even in the
> > > mid-stages of Alzheimer's, he's got the current creep in the Oval
> > > Office beat hands down. (In my opinion.) Clinton's a disgrace to this
> > > country.
> >
> > Most of the people I know remember Reagan as the guy who made them go into
> > horrendous debt so that they could get a college education since federal
> > financial aid was effectively obliterated.
>
> Funny they don't blame Congress, who decides how government money is spent in this
> country. Sounds like they need a little civics education.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the Mr. Reagan married a pregnant woman who
had evidently conceived this child during Mr. Reagan's previous marriage.
I guess that's not particularly disgraceful, though.
Dirt Devil
In article <34D617...@ford.com>,
>>
>> In article <6b36vq$9...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
>> Renee Lester <rle...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>> >
>> >didn't say that!" I have grown pretty weary of the "what will we tell
>> >our children?" angle--besides, all we have right now are *accusations*!
>> >Maybe we should tell our children that in this country people are
>> >innocent until proven guilty...
>>
>> why, that's absolutely unAmurikun! We have a long, proud tradition of
>> burning witches. Gosh, think of it -- what would we have done without
>> the McCarther Hearings and the HUAC and our latest scandals?
>>
>> Next thing, you'll be wanting facts. Well, Renee, you are in the
>> *wrong* country to be asking for that. In the Good Old U S of A, we
>> use the opinion system. And so what if opinions can be so esaily
>> colored? It makes for better TV.
>
>Since I'm sure that this diatribe is, in part, directed at me,
Just to dispell that myth, no it was not. It was simply humor aimed
at unthinking people who want to make the world into something that it
is not and has never been.
I *try* not to attack individuals. I must say, though, that some
weeks ago, I did attack Clayton and I want to appologize for that.
After I read the post (after it was already posted) I cringed at what
I had said. It was especially inappropriate, considering the troubles
that he was having with his daughter.
>I will
>throw in that I've made it clear to my son that, while I disagree
>strongly with Mr. Clinton's policies and performance as our President,
>there is no proof that Mr. Clinton did anything wrong and until that time,
>it would be improper of us to assume wrong-doing on his part. I strongly
>believe in innocent until proven guilty, and I strongly believe in
>impressing that attitude on my children.
Now that *proves* that I wasn't attacking you. See, I tend to agree
with what you just said. The only difference is that I don't care
what he does with his personal life.
>I don't think we burn witches anymore. But on usenet, people we don't agree
>with seem to make good kindling.
Well, where there is smoke (inhaling or not) there can be flames. %-}
It is for that reason that, while on the net, I wear Nomex.
Timothy J. Butler
Alexis Bywater wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
>
> > Alexis Bywater wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wakanyeja Makah wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > >
> > > <some snippage>
> > >
> > > > > > Sorry, my friend, not only is that important, but if Mr. Clinton
> > > > > >did it, he should be drummed out of office and sent to jail.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, and so should George Washington for growing marijuana...and
> > > > > philandering and of course Thomas Jefferson kept slaves and grew marijuana
> > > > > (and even smoked a bit...inhaling deeply) and even had a child by one of
> > > > > his slaves. And then there was JFK and Marilyn...
> > > >
> > > > Gad zooks. You must have gone to public school. ;-)
> > >
> > > Are you saying that you don't accept the above statements as fact but
> > > happily believe the George Washington was a good man who admitted to
> > > cutting down a cherry tree?
> >
> > George Washington was a great man. That is indisputable. No, I don't
> > believe that he ever chopped down his father's cherry tree. And yeah,
> > I'm pretty happy about that.
>
> He seems to have been a great man, he did found our country and there's
> some serious idolization going on, but that has nothing to do with whether
> or not he grew marijuana - I don't think he was dealing pot on the side.
> He was only human.
Idolization of these great men is just as wrong as the current hysteria
to denounce them as oppressive tyrants.
>
> Thomas Jefferson was a great man as well, but, as all great men, he was
> only human.
Which doesn't disqualify them from having good character.
>
> > >
> > > > Well, you and I have very different standards for leaders. Nice to know that
> > > > character doesn't matter in your book. It does in mind. I prefer my president
> > > > to be a decent human being and don't vote for him based on how much money
> > > > is in my pocket. Your position is pretty incredible anyway considering
> > > > that the president has little to do with the health of the economy anyway.
> > >
> > > If that's the case, why do they bother about talking about the economy
> > > while they're in the presidential race?
> >
> > Because they know that most people blame/give credit to the President for
> > the economy regardless of how little impact he has on it. Are YOU saying that
> > if the current trouble in the Asian markets negatively impacts our economy
> > that you're going to blame Clinton? I'm not.
>
> So, in reality, you are saying that the Presidency is just a figure-head
> type role. What does it matter then, when and with whom he has sex?
If you define the Presidency as "overseer of the economy", then the position
is a figurehead. I don't define the job that way. And yes, I think that good
behaviour is important to the role. Do you think it would be a good idea
to have a leader who sexually harasses female subordinates? How about lying
under oath and pressuring others to do the same? IF (a big if) any of these
things can be proven, Mr. Clinton should be thrown out. He is more qualified for
serving time in jail rather than the White House.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >Carter wasn't ridiculed because he told the truth. He was ridiculed for being
> > > > > >an ideological failure. And a lot of people right now are wishing we had a
> > > > > >little Reaganesque substance in the White House.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, it always makes me feel safe and secure to have a man who is in
> > > > > mid-stages of Alzheimer running the country....(never mind the hand
> > > > > hovering over the button...by God, this is how John Wayne would have done
> > > > > it.)
> > > >
> > > > Well, you're in the minority. Reagan was elected by landslides both times,
> > > > and the 80's are remembered as a time when prosperity boomed and the cold
> > > > war was won. So much for the hand on the button argument. And even in the
> > > > mid-stages of Alzheimer's, he's got the current creep in the Oval
> > > > Office beat hands down. (In my opinion.) Clinton's a disgrace to this
> > > > country.
> > >
> > > Most of the people I know remember Reagan as the guy who made them go into
> > > horrendous debt so that they could get a college education since federal
> > > financial aid was effectively obliterated.
> >
> > Funny they don't blame Congress, who decides how government money is spent in this
> > country. Sounds like they need a little civics education.
>
> Oh, and I forgot to mention the Mr. Reagan married a pregnant woman who
> had evidently conceived this child during Mr. Reagan's previous marriage.
> I guess that's not particularly disgraceful, though.
I never said Reagan was a paragon of virtue. I would never claim that. I only
said that he's got the current creep in the Oval Office beat hands down. If
you object to Mr. Reagan's escapades, you must be livid with Clinton's out
of control libido. At least Reagan never had anyone in his campaign ever managing
"bimbo eruptions".
Timothy J. Butler
Alexis Bywater wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
>
> > Alexis Bywater wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <34D1D9...@ford.com>,
As I stated, this was not presented to my son as historical fact. I wonder
how many people who criticize me for exposing my child to this particular
instance of "propaganda" took their own children to see Disney's POCAHONTAS
(sp?), a historically inaccurate depiction with more than it's own share of
propaganda.
>
> > >
> > > I believe he was also trying to express astonishment at the fact that you
> > > seem to believe the cherry tree myth, a delightful piece of propoganda but
> > > it's truthfulness is open to interpretation.
> >
> > Lest we forget, you feel that ALL truth is open to interpretation, even
> > 1 + 1 = 2. Therefore your skepticism at the veracity of this particular anecdote
> > is unremarkable in the extreme. (For the record, this was not presented to
> > my son for its moral value, not for its historical accuracy. One of those
> > nasty moral absolutes that I am forcing down my son's throat is that lying
> > is bad and telling the truth is good. What a bad father I am.)
>
> I will not talk about your religious beliefs if you do not discuss mine,
> this shouldn't turn into a religious argument (again).
I just want it stated for the record that by your own religious beliefs, you
have no right to make any truth claims on another person since you feel that
all truth is relative. Your very presense in this discussion is a violation
of those beliefs, since you have no basis to disagree with my or my son's truths.
>
> I am skeptical across the board about 'history' that seems to me to be
> obviously propaganda.
Really. You seem to have bought a lot of the propaganda about the 1980's.
>
> If it wasn't presented to your son as historically accurate, why would he
> come up with such a statment as you have recounted above?
I'm sure that the precedence set by the current holder of the office is
enough to inspire my son to question the depiction of a president as being an
honest person.
>
> > >
> > > Also, I'll bet if people had it in for Jimmy Carter (or any president in
> > > the last 100 years), they could probably dig up some dirt on him in no
> > > time.
> >
> > I challenge you to justify this absurd claim in any way. A lot of people
> > think that Jimmy Carter was a bad president, but I have never heard anyone
> > doubt his character. The closest I've ever heard anyone come is his brother.
>
> How 'bout Ronald Reagan?
What about him?
>
> I obviously don't have the facilities to research the behaviours of Jimmy
> Carter.
Then you cannot back up your absurd claim.
>
> I'm sure if I had the resources, I would be able to find some unsavory
> details of his life. Everybody seems to have at least one secret that
> they'd like kept secret.
But that doesn't mean they are lacking in good character. You set up a false
standard. Nobody is perfect, but that doesn't mean that people cannot possess
or strive to maintain good character.
>
> > Personally, I'd rather have a president who was able to run the
> > > country effectively as opposed to a completely honest one.
> >
> > I prefer someone who can manage both, thank you.
>
> And Jimmy Carter is your man?
Mr. Carter, while a man of good character, did not run the country very
well.
I'd settle for two of our arguably best - George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
In recent times, I can't think of someone who met the standard that these
two did, although Ronald Reagan was an outstanding leader. (Again, from a
man who never voted for him.) However, there's no reason to believe that
this country couldn't produce another Washington or Lincoln one day.
Timothy J. Butler
Dirt Devil wrote:
>
> In article <34D617...@ford.com>,
> >> Renee Lester <rle...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I did. And when I read it to my husband he said point blank "A 6 year old
> >> >didn't say that!" I have grown pretty weary of the "what will we tell
> >> >our children?" angle--besides, all we have right now are *accusations*!
> >> >Maybe we should tell our children that in this country people are
> >> >innocent until proven guilty...
> >>
> >> Why you sound lie and absolute COMMUNIST! That's .... that's ....
> >> why, that's absolutely unAmurikun! We have a long, proud tradition of
> >> burning witches. Gosh, think of it -- what would we have done without
> >> the McCarther Hearings and the HUAC and our latest scandals?
> >>
> >> Next thing, you'll be wanting facts. Well, Renee, you are in the
> >> *wrong* country to be asking for that. In the Good Old U S of A, we
> >> use the opinion system. And so what if opinions can be so esaily
> >> colored? It makes for better TV.
> >
> >Since I'm sure that this diatribe is, in part, directed at me,
>
> Just to dispell that myth, no it was not. It was simply humor aimed
> at unthinking people who want to make the world into something that it
> is not and has never been.
Then please accept my apology. I am sincerely sorry that I jumped to
that conclusion.
<snip>
Dirt Devil
In article <6b5sp1$9...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos <stri...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>A simple yes/no, in Dr. Laura style, would be sufficient. It is
>hypocritical (speaking of Dr. Laura :-)) to demand that the evil
>black helicopter flying government stay off our bedrooms and lifes,
>while we have every right to be voyeristic and turn any politician's
>life into a soap opera.
As far as soap operas go, one has to admit, though, that this is a
sure winner! It has all of the elements of great entertainment. It
has sex, power and corruption ... and toss in a conspiracy theory from
the sidelines, just to keep the viewres on their toes.
I swear that, had this not happened in reality, someone would have
writen it.
Alexis Bywater
I might be wrong, but you do seem to idolize George Washington.
> >
> > Thomas Jefferson was a great man as well, but, as all great men, he was
> > only human.
>
> Which doesn't disqualify them from having good character.
Evidence of adultery doesn't disqualify him?
Just because nobody asks the question doesn't mean that the answer
changes.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Well, you and I have very different standards for leaders. Nice to know that
> > > > > character doesn't matter in your book. It does in mind. I prefer my president
> > > > > to be a decent human being and don't vote for him based on how much money
> > > > > is in my pocket. Your position is pretty incredible anyway considering
> > > > > that the president has little to do with the health of the economy anyway.
> > > >
> > > > If that's the case, why do they bother about talking about the economy
> > > > while they're in the presidential race?
> > >
> > > Because they know that most people blame/give credit to the President for
> > > the economy regardless of how little impact he has on it. Are YOU saying that
> > > if the current trouble in the Asian markets negatively impacts our economy
> > > that you're going to blame Clinton? I'm not.
> >
> > So, in reality, you are saying that the Presidency is just a figure-head
> > type role. What does it matter then, when and with whom he has sex?
>
> If you define the Presidency as "overseer of the economy", then the position
> is a figurehead. I don't define the job that way.
I think that a reasonable percentage of people would, indeed, put
'overseer of the economy' in the presidents job description. How would you
define the job?
Or, if he did, they did a better job that the current 'manager of bimbo
eruptions'.
Alexis Bywater
Actually, if I'm supposed to be a 'relativist delegate', then it's my job
to point out potential truths. :)
> >
> > I am skeptical across the board about 'history' that seems to me to be
> > obviously propaganda.
>
> Really. You seem to have bought a lot of the propaganda about the 1980's.
Living through them makes a difference.
> >
> > If it wasn't presented to your son as historically accurate, why would he
> > come up with such a statment as you have recounted above?
>
> I'm sure that the precedence set by the current holder of the office is
> enough to inspire my son to question the depiction of a president as being an
> honest person.
And I, on the other side, would question the leadership abilities of
someone who is always honest, especially since we're living in the 1990's
and not the 1700's.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Also, I'll bet if people had it in for Jimmy Carter (or any president in
> > > > the last 100 years), they could probably dig up some dirt on him in no
> > > > time.
> > >
> > > I challenge you to justify this absurd claim in any way. A lot of people
> > > think that Jimmy Carter was a bad president, but I have never heard anyone
> > > doubt his character. The closest I've ever heard anyone come is his brother.
> >
> > How 'bout Ronald Reagan?
>
> What about him?
I can't say that I've heard much defaming that wonderful president, aside
from encroaching Alzheimers.
> >
> > I obviously don't have the facilities to research the behaviours of Jimmy
> > Carter.
>
> Then you cannot back up your absurd claim.
My claim was that if someone cared enough to, tried hard enough and had
the resources then they could probably dig up dirt on *anyone*. I don't
see how my lack of resources makes my claim absurd.
> >
> > I'm sure if I had the resources, I would be able to find some unsavory
> > details of his life. Everybody seems to have at least one secret that
> > they'd like kept secret.
>
> But that doesn't mean they are lacking in good character. You set up a false
> standard. Nobody is perfect, but that doesn't mean that people cannot possess
> or strive to maintain good character.
So, as long as I strive to maintain good character it's okay if I
impregnate someone out of wedlock?
> >
> > > Personally, I'd rather have a president who was able to run the
> > > > country effectively as opposed to a completely honest one.
> > >
> > > I prefer someone who can manage both, thank you.
> >
> > And Jimmy Carter is your man?
>
> Mr. Carter, while a man of good character, did not run the country very
> well.
>
> I'd settle for two of our arguably best - George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
> In recent times, I can't think of someone who met the standard that these
> two did, although Ronald Reagan was an outstanding leader.
In your opinion. I doubt if you'd get 100% agreement on this.
(Again, from a
> man who never voted for him.) However, there's no reason to believe that
> this country couldn't produce another Washington or Lincoln one day.
I think that with the political system in it's current state it would be
highly unlikely.
Timothy J. Butler
You seem to confuse "idolize" with "admire".
>
> > >
> > > Thomas Jefferson was a great man as well, but, as all great men, he was
> > > only human.
> >
> > Which doesn't disqualify them from having good character.
>
> Evidence of adultery doesn't disqualify him?
No, being human doesn't disqualify him.
>
> Just because nobody asks the question doesn't mean that the answer
> changes.
And just because it's possible doesn't mean its true. And just because some
people have skeletons in their closets doesn't mean that all people have
skeletons in their closets.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, you and I have very different standards for leaders. Nice to know that
> > > > > > character doesn't matter in your book. It does in mind. I prefer my president
> > > > > > to be a decent human being and don't vote for him based on how much money
> > > > > > is in my pocket. Your position is pretty incredible anyway considering
> > > > > > that the president has little to do with the health of the economy anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > If that's the case, why do they bother about talking about the economy
> > > > > while they're in the presidential race?
> > > >
> > > > Because they know that most people blame/give credit to the President for
> > > > the economy regardless of how little impact he has on it. Are YOU saying that
> > > > if the current trouble in the Asian markets negatively impacts our economy
> > > > that you're going to blame Clinton? I'm not.
> > >
> > > So, in reality, you are saying that the Presidency is just a figure-head
> > > type role. What does it matter then, when and with whom he has sex?
> >
> > If you define the Presidency as "overseer of the economy", then the position
> > is a figurehead. I don't define the job that way.
>
> I think that a reasonable percentage of people would, indeed, put
> 'overseer of the economy' in the presidents job description. How would you
> define the job?
Which explains why most people vote the economy. Doesn't make it right
though. I would define the job as being the head of the executive branch
of the United States government. Congress has more to do with the economy
than the president, but not even Congress can determine the course
of the economy. (Note my previous example of the trouble in the Asian
markets.)
Gee, another unfounded, absurd notion. Please cite your evidence that Reagan
had someone in charge of "bimbo eruptions", and I will take the above
statement seriously. Else go peddle your baseless innuendo elsewhere.
Timothy J. Butler
I lived through them too. In hindsight, they were nothing like the leftist
propaganda paints them. By all accounts, there were a time of prosperity,
optimism, and world leadership for this country.
>
> > >
> > > If it wasn't presented to your son as historically accurate, why would he
> > > come up with such a statment as you have recounted above?
> >
> > I'm sure that the precedence set by the current holder of the office is
> > enough to inspire my son to question the depiction of a president as being an
> > honest person.
>
> And I, on the other side, would question the leadership abilities of
> someone who is always honest, especially since we're living in the 1990's
> and not the 1700's.
Hhhmmm. Honesty as an undesirable leadership quality? That's either really
cynical or really warped.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I'll bet if people had it in for Jimmy Carter (or any president in
> > > > > the last 100 years), they could probably dig up some dirt on him in no
> > > > > time.
> > > >
> > > > I challenge you to justify this absurd claim in any way. A lot of people
> > > > think that Jimmy Carter was a bad president, but I have never heard anyone
> > > > doubt his character. The closest I've ever heard anyone come is his brother.
> > >
> > > How 'bout Ronald Reagan?
> >
> > What about him?
>
> I can't say that I've heard much defaming that wonderful president, aside
> from encroaching Alzheimers.
Surely you jest.
>
> > >
> > > I obviously don't have the facilities to research the behaviours of Jimmy
> > > Carter.
> >
> > Then you cannot back up your absurd claim.
>
> My claim was that if someone cared enough to, tried hard enough and had
> the resources then they could probably dig up dirt on *anyone*. I don't
> see how my lack of resources makes my claim absurd.
Gee, I guess Mother Theresa should be happy that she passed on before
someone could dig up all the dirt in her background.
You make a assertion that someone has a flawed character and then hide
from having to prove it by saying that you don't have enough resources
to conduct an investigation of his background. Sounds absurd and
grossly unfair to me. I prefer innocent until proven guilty, and based
on that principle and your admission that you can't prove what you're
saying, I have no choice but to conclude that your assertion that Jimmy
Carter had "dirt" that could be dug up is nothing more than 100%
fabrication on your part. Produce your proof and I will change my opinion.
>
> > >
> > > I'm sure if I had the resources, I would be able to find some unsavory
> > > details of his life. Everybody seems to have at least one secret that
> > > they'd like kept secret.
> >
> > But that doesn't mean they are lacking in good character. You set up a false
> > standard. Nobody is perfect, but that doesn't mean that people cannot possess
> > or strive to maintain good character.
>
> So, as long as I strive to maintain good character it's okay if I
> impregnate someone out of wedlock?
The craziness continues. Where did I supposedly state that? Are you making
up truth again?
>
> > >
> > > > Personally, I'd rather have a president who was able to run the
> > > > > country effectively as opposed to a completely honest one.
> > > >
> > > > I prefer someone who can manage both, thank you.
> > >
> > > And Jimmy Carter is your man?
> >
> > Mr. Carter, while a man of good character, did not run the country very
> > well.
> >
> > I'd settle for two of our arguably best - George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
> > In recent times, I can't think of someone who met the standard that these
> > two did, although Ronald Reagan was an outstanding leader.
>
> In your opinion. I doubt if you'd get 100% agreement on this.
Of course it's my opinion. Who else's opinion should I state? And find me
anything that I'll get 100% agreement on.
>
> (Again, from a
> > man who never voted for him.) However, there's no reason to believe that
> > this country couldn't produce another Washington or Lincoln one day.
>
> I think that with the political system in it's current state it would be
> highly unlikely.
True, but at least you conceeded my point. It certainly is possible. One good
reason to strive to reform the system.
Dirt Devil
In article <34D609...@ford.com>,>Obviously, you rushed to respond without reading what I wrote. I didn't
>say that Clinton is guilty of anything. I said that the issue here is
>IF he lied under oath. I don't know if he did or didn't, but the
>issue here is not his marital unfaithfulness but his truthfulness under
>oath.
Have you considered that he might not have lied at all? After all, he
*could* have had his fingers crossed (is this still valid, today? I'm
*struggeling* to keep this relevant to misc.kids).
>Well, you and I have very different standards for leaders. Nice to know that
>character doesn't matter in your book. It does in mind. I prefer my president
>to be a decent human being and don't vote for him based on how much money
>is in my pocket.
See, I just don't get this. Why does the President (or anybody else)
need to have 'superior moral values"? Does the President also have to
be able to walk on water?
I don't care if, in his off hours, he fondles little girls in the oval
office. (Well, I care a bit. I just don't need to see pictures of it
.... unless the girls are at least 21 and consent to the pictures, but
that's my own perversion)
All of us on this earth, as far as I know, are simply people. Every
person has faults.
I know that I am not going to blindly follow any leader, just because
he or she was elected by some group of people. I don't care how
"good" his character is perceived by some.
Do keep in mind that, as "good" as Carter's character is perceived to
be, he lied constantly to the American people. He "had" to -- for
"national security reasons".
Oh? That's not lying? Darn me for being a stickler for details.
Dirt Devil
In article <34D640...@ford.com>,
>>
>> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
>>
>> > Dirt Devil wrote:
>> > >
The myth that *any* President was absolutely honest -- ever. No human
being has ever told The Absolute Truth. I would suggest that it is
absolutely impossible to even do so.
>> I believe he was also trying to express astonishment at the fact that you
>> seem to believe the cherry tree myth, a delightful piece of propoganda but
>> it's truthfulness is open to interpretation.
>
>Lest we forget, you feel that ALL truth is open to interpretation, even
>1 + 1 = 2. Therefore your skepticism at the veracity of this particular
>anecdote
>is unremarkable in the extreme. (For the record, this was not presented to
>my son for its moral value, not for its historical accuracy. One of those
>nasty moral absolutes that I am forcing down my son's throat is that lying
>is bad and telling the truth is good. What a bad father I am.)
Ah, so you *know* The Truth about history, then. This is a Good
Thing(tm). Historians have argued about The Truth of history for as
long as there has been history. Why? Ask any two people about
anything that they both experienced. Even if they tell The Truth, you
are likley to get different versions.
>> Also, I'll bet if people had it in for Jimmy Carter (or any president in
>> the last 100 years), they could probably dig up some dirt on him in no
>> time.
>
>I challenge you to justify this absurd claim in any way. A lot of people
>think that Jimmy Carter was a bad president, but I have never heard anyone
>doubt his character. The closest I've ever heard anyone come is his brother.
He lied to the American people all of the time for "national security
reasons". If you are willing to overlook those lies, I have to wonder
about your own honesty.
>Personally, I'd rather have a president who was able to run the
>> country effectively as opposed to a completely honest one.
>
>I prefer someone who can manage both, thank you.
Yer looking for something that is not possible.
Yer choice.
Timothy J. Butler
Dirt Devil wrote:
>
> In article <34D609...@ford.com>,
> >say that Clinton is guilty of anything. I said that the issue here is
> >IF he lied under oath. I don't know if he did or didn't, but the
> >issue here is not his marital unfaithfulness but his truthfulness under
> >oath.
>
> Have you considered that he might not have lied at all? After all, he
> *could* have had his fingers crossed (is this still valid, today? I'm
> *struggeling* to keep this relevant to misc.kids).
From what I know of Bill Clinton, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn
that he thought that crossing his fingers was good protection against
lying.
>
> >Well, you and I have very different standards for leaders. Nice to know that
> >character doesn't matter in your book. It does in mind. I prefer my president
> >to be a decent human being and don't vote for him based on how much money
> >is in my pocket.
>
> See, I just don't get this. Why does the President (or anybody else)
> need to have 'superior moral values"? Does the President also have to
> be able to walk on water?
Yeah. Really. Who cares. Really. Let him screw around on Hillary. Heck,
maybe he's having sex with Chelsea. Who cares as long as the economy's
okay. Right? Maybe he likes to dress up in frilly teddys and play little
games with Buddy, the first pooch. Doesn't matter right? As long as the
economy's good.
>
> I don't care if, in his off hours, he fondles little girls in the oval
> office. (Well, I care a bit. I just don't need to see pictures of it
> .... unless the girls are at least 21 and consent to the pictures, but
> that's my own perversion)
So pedophilia in the Oval Office is a-ok with you, huh?
>
> All of us on this earth, as far as I know, are simply people. Every
> person has faults.
Most of us don't have faults that are criminal.
>
> I know that I am not going to blindly follow any leader, just because
> he or she was elected by some group of people. I don't care how
> "good" his character is perceived by some.
Neither am I. Your point?
>
> Do keep in mind that, as "good" as Carter's character is perceived to
> be, he lied constantly to the American people. He "had" to -- for
> "national security reasons".
Sure there were things he didn't say, but unless you cite an example of
a time when he said something that he knew was not the case,
you must have a totally different meaning of the words "lied constantly"
than the people of this planet do.
>
> Oh? That's not lying? Darn me for being a stickler for details.
Stickler? Maybe. But not for detail.
Alexis Bywater
I define idolize as: To regard with blind admiration or devotion. Which is
exactly what I see you doing.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Thomas Jefferson was a great man as well, but, as all great men, he was
> > > > only human.
> > >
> > > Which doesn't disqualify them from having good character.
> >
> > Evidence of adultery doesn't disqualify him?
>
> No, being human doesn't disqualify him.
So you'd be happy if Clinton just admitted to the whole thing and we all
went on with our lives?
> >
> > Just because nobody asks the question doesn't mean that the answer
> > changes.
>
> And just because it's possible doesn't mean its true. And just because some
> people have skeletons in their closets doesn't mean that all people have
> skeletons in their closets.
Because public approval and disapproval of various acts changes with time
and fads, I'd think that, yes, everyone has at least one skeleton rattling
around in their closet.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, you and I have very different standards for leaders. Nice to know that
> > > > > > > character doesn't matter in your book. It does in mind. I prefer my president
> > > > > > > to be a decent human being and don't vote for him based on how much money
> > > > > > > is in my pocket. Your position is pretty incredible anyway considering
> > > > > > > that the president has little to do with the health of the economy anyway.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If that's the case, why do they bother about talking about the economy
> > > > > > while they're in the presidential race?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because they know that most people blame/give credit to the President for
> > > > > the economy regardless of how little impact he has on it. Are YOU saying that
> > > > > if the current trouble in the Asian markets negatively impacts our economy
> > > > > that you're going to blame Clinton? I'm not.
> > > >
> > > > So, in reality, you are saying that the Presidency is just a figure-head
> > > > type role. What does it matter then, when and with whom he has sex?
> > >
> > > If you define the Presidency as "overseer of the economy", then the position
> > > is a figurehead. I don't define the job that way.
> >
> > I think that a reasonable percentage of people would, indeed, put
> > 'overseer of the economy' in the presidents job description. How would you
> > define the job?
>
> Which explains why most people vote the economy. Doesn't make it right
> though.
When campaign speeches are used to make promises and statements regarding
economy, it seems like an issue people are voting on/for. Seems like a
reasonable misunderstanding.
I would define the job as being the head of the executive branch
> of the United States government. Congress has more to do with the economy
> than the president, but not even Congress can determine the course
> of the economy. (Note my previous example of the trouble in the Asian
> markets.)
Then perhaps potential presidents who make any claims whatsoever regarding
the economy shouldn't be considered as viable candidates.
Like I said before, if you don't ask the question, you don't have to worry
about the answer.
Timothy J. Butler
Dirt Devil wrote:
>
> In article <34D640...@ford.com>,
> Timothy J. Butler <tbu...@ford.com> wrote:
> >Alexis Bywater wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > In article <34D1D9...@ford.com>,
And I'd agree. I never claimed that absolute honesty or that telling
the absolute truth was necessary for someone to be generally considered
an honest person. Poof. Your straw man falls.
>
> >> I believe he was also trying to express astonishment at the fact that you
> >> seem to believe the cherry tree myth, a delightful piece of propoganda but
> >> it's truthfulness is open to interpretation.
> >
> >Lest we forget, you feel that ALL truth is open to interpretation, even
> >1 + 1 = 2. Therefore your skepticism at the veracity of this particular
> >anecdote
> >is unremarkable in the extreme. (For the record, this was not presented to
> >my son for its moral value, not for its historical accuracy. One of those
> >nasty moral absolutes that I am forcing down my son's throat is that lying
> >is bad and telling the truth is good. What a bad father I am.)
>
> Ah, so you *know* The Truth about history, then. This is a Good
> Thing(tm). Historians have argued about The Truth of history for as
> long as there has been history. Why? Ask any two people about
> anything that they both experienced. Even if they tell The Truth, you
> are likley to get different versions.
Thanks for the inservice on truth. What that has to do with me teaching
my son that lying is bad completely escapes me. I suggest you go read what
I wrote again. If it still escapes you, I don't know what to say.
>
> >> Also, I'll bet if people had it in for Jimmy Carter (or any president in
> >> the last 100 years), they could probably dig up some dirt on him in no
> >> time.
> >
> >I challenge you to justify this absurd claim in any way. A lot of people
> >think that Jimmy Carter was a bad president, but I have never heard anyone
> >doubt his character. The closest I've ever heard anyone come is his brother.
>
> He lied to the American people all of the time for "national security
> reasons". If you are willing to overlook those lies, I have to wonder
> about your own honesty.
See my other post. Not telling everything that one knows is not lying.
Deliberately saying something one knows is not true is lying. If you
have an instance where Carter said something that he knew was false,
I'll listen. But it won't change my mind that generally speaking, Carter
was the most honest President we're had recently and was generally a
good man. Lousy president, though.
>
> >Personally, I'd rather have a president who was able to run the
> >> country effectively as opposed to a completely honest one.
> >
> >I prefer someone who can manage both, thank you.
>
> Yer looking for something that is not possible.
Sorry. I'm an optimist. You apparently are not.
>
> Yer choice.
Thank you.
Timothy J. Butler
Better clean your glasses then.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thomas Jefferson was a great man as well, but, as all great men, he was
> > > > > only human.
> > > >
> > > > Which doesn't disqualify them from having good character.
> > >
> > > Evidence of adultery doesn't disqualify him?
> >
> > No, being human doesn't disqualify him.
>
> So you'd be happy if Clinton just admitted to the whole thing and we all
> went on with our lives?
I might view him with a little more sympathy, but there's still the matter of
some illegality that would have to be dealt with.
>
> > >
> > > Just because nobody asks the question doesn't mean that the answer
> > > changes.
> >
> > And just because it's possible doesn't mean its true. And just because some
> > people have skeletons in their closets doesn't mean that all people have
> > skeletons in their closets.
>
> Because public approval and disapproval of various acts changes with time
> and fads, I'd think that, yes, everyone has at least one skeleton rattling
> around in their closet.
Unless you define a skeleton as something as trivial as pulling the kitty's
tail as a youngster, your assertion is absurd. And unprovable.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, you and I have very different standards for leaders. Nice to know that
> > > > > > > > character doesn't matter in your book. It does in mind. I prefer my president
> > > > > > > > to be a decent human being and don't vote for him based on how much money
> > > > > > > > is in my pocket. Your position is pretty incredible anyway considering
> > > > > > > > that the president has little to do with the health of the economy anyway.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If that's the case, why do they bother about talking about the economy
> > > > > > > while they're in the presidential race?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because they know that most people blame/give credit to the President for
> > > > > > the economy regardless of how little impact he has on it. Are YOU saying that
> > > > > > if the current trouble in the Asian markets negatively impacts our economy
> > > > > > that you're going to blame Clinton? I'm not.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, in reality, you are saying that the Presidency is just a figure-head
> > > > > type role. What does it matter then, when and with whom he has sex?
> > > >
> > > > If you define the Presidency as "overseer of the economy", then the position
> > > > is a figurehead. I don't define the job that way.
> > >
> > > I think that a reasonable percentage of people would, indeed, put
> > > 'overseer of the economy' in the presidents job description. How would you
> > > define the job?
> >
> > Which explains why most people vote the economy. Doesn't make it right
> > though.
>
> When campaign speeches are used to make promises and statements regarding
> economy, it seems like an issue people are voting on/for. Seems like a
> reasonable misunderstanding.
Only if the populace at large is reasonably ignorant of civics. Come to
think of it, it does sound like a reasonable misunderstanding.
>
> I would define the job as being the head of the executive branch
> > of the United States government. Congress has more to do with the economy
> > than the president, but not even Congress can determine the course
> > of the economy. (Note my previous example of the trouble in the Asian
> > markets.)
>
> Then perhaps potential presidents who make any claims whatsoever regarding
> the economy shouldn't be considered as viable candidates.
Possibly.
You're not asking questions. You're making accusations. Baseless, unproven,
unfounded accusations.
Abby Franquemont
In article <34d712bb...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Jim <ji...@ix.killspam.netcom.com> wrote:
>Spiros Triantafyllopoulos wrote:
>.. . . .
>>Suppose one's kid is seriously *sick* with some non-trivial disease.
>>The only doctor who can treat the kid happens to have some sex
>>kinky behavior in his private life, which does not interfere at
>>all with his practice.
>>
>>Would the parent, on moral grounds alone, refuse to use the particular
>>physician?
>
>to go on to state that the doctor's partner suffers from a similar
>affliction, the doctor down the road has the same, the doctor in
>the next town is kinky, the doctor a state over is . . . well you
>get the idea ;-)
Erm... why, exactly is that necessary?
>Certainly if you had the simple choice to go next door to a
>similarly gifted doctor minus the baggage, you'd choice him. If
>only your HMO would permit it ;-)
Who says I'd even be asking who the doctor sleeps with, or that I
would care what he or she does on his or her time off in any way?
How would I come to know about this doctor's kink in the first place?
Is there some reason I should be asking that kind of question? I'm
in the middle of picking a pediatrician, so... *grin*
--
Abby Franquemont Nothing cures insomnia like the realization
J. Random BOFH that it's time to get up. --Fortune program
BarbLuongo
>>Obviously, you rushed to respond without reading what I wrote. I didn't
>>say that Clinton is guilty of anything. I said that the issue here is
>>IF he lied under oath. I don't know if he did or didn't, but the
>>issue here is not his marital unfaithfulness but his truthfulness under
>>oath.
>Have you considered that he might not have lied at all? After all, he
>*could* have had his fingers crossed (is this still valid, today? I'm
>*struggeling* to keep this relevant to misc.kids).
What I'm getting the biggest kick out of, is the idea that it may NOT
be perjury, due to the idea that he *actually believes* that oral
1) isn't "sex" and therefore;
2) isn't cheating.
If he sincerely believes that, then it's not lying under oath?! Ugh!
<---Barb (barbl...@aol.com)--->
Mom to Will (9-23-82), Mary (10-8-85) & Laury (2-23-93)
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
Jim <ji...@ix.killspam.netcom.com> wrote:
: ROFL. So expecting a president of not committing perjury or
: obstructing justice is holding him to the *highest standard.*
So far we have no such things coming out. If and when they do...
: You're stumbling into the truth here. The budget is being balanced
: due to cuts in the defense budget and the defense budget is being
: cut due to the leadership of the 80's. We won the cold war.
Correction. We knew we had won the cold war before spending the
money in the first place, but thanks to prevailing policy we decided
to spend the money alltogether. To anyone but contract-greedy
businessmen and their politicians, the former Soviet Union was
nowhere near the threat it was made out to be. O well.
: What's with you and Dr. Laura?!
Long story.
<SNIP>
: > you might as well send the window sizes of the White
: >House to AlGore so that he can have the drapes ordered by 2000.
: I'd have thought you’d be a Gephart(?) man . . .
I'm a Dukakis man, actually :-).
Jim
Abby Franquemont asks:
>Erm... why, exactly is that necessary?
Tongue-in-cheek. You can find a non-perverted doctor. Good luck
with the truthful politician ;-)
>Who says I'd even be asking who the doctor sleeps with, or that I
>would care what he or she does on his or her time off in any way?
>How would I come to know about this doctor's kink in the first place?
>Is there some reason I should be asking that kind of question?
Who said anyone would? In the scenario Spiros presented, it was
a given. No asking was involved.
> I'm
>in the middle of picking a pediatrician, so... *grin*
And in his scenario, I'd find another doc.
Jim
Dirt Devil
In article <34D609...@ford.com>,
>one who is currently running this country, are honest people. I won't
>hold my breath.
That was not what I was suggesting. In fact, I was suggesting almost
the opposite -- that this President, as all who preceeded him, have
lied.
Dirt Devil
In article <6b8oms$l...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
Hey -- I *liked* him. Wasn't bad ... for a Democrat. The only one
running, at that time, who was opposed to the death penalty.
Dirt Devil
In article <34D78E...@ford.com>,>Alexis Bywater wrote:
Timothy and Alexis -- could I persuade you two to consider thinking
about the possibility of *not* quoting *everything* that has ever
transpired?
The discussions are kool and all, but I have gotten to the point where
I am actually deleting posts when the first page comes up and shows
that it is only 12% of the entire post.
It makes perfect sense to quote the part of the previous post to which
you are responding. Do we *really* need a running history?
<on bended knee> *please*
Timothy J. Butler
Dirt Devil wrote:
>
> In article <34D78E...@ford.com>,
>
> Timothy and Alexis -- could I persuade you two to consider thinking
> about the possibility of *not* quoting *everything* that has ever
> transpired?
>
> The discussions are kool and all, but I have gotten to the point where
> I am actually deleting posts when the first page comes up and shows
> that it is only 12% of the entire post.
>
> It makes perfect sense to quote the part of the previous post to which
> you are responding. Do we *really* need a running history?
>
> <on bended knee> *please*
You have my sworn word. You see, I learned something a while back
that I, much to my regret, forgot here over the last few days. That
is this - Alexis is totally impossible to reason with, discuss an
issue with, and logically debate with. Therefore, I will not respond
to her any longer on this issue. You cannot reason with the irrational.
My apologies for the at-length quoting. You are right in that it was
not appropriate.
Alexis Bywater
On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
> Dirt Devil wrote:
> >
> > In article <34D78E...@ford.com>,
> > Timothy J. Butler <tbu...@ford.com> wrote:
> > >Alexis Bywater wrote:
> >
> > Timothy and Alexis -- could I persuade you two to consider thinking
> > about the possibility of *not* quoting *everything* that has ever
> > transpired?
> >
> > The discussions are kool and all, but I have gotten to the point where
> > I am actually deleting posts when the first page comes up and shows
> > that it is only 12% of the entire post.
> >
> > It makes perfect sense to quote the part of the previous post to which
> > you are responding. Do we *really* need a running history?
> >
> > <on bended knee> *please*
>
> You have my sworn word. You see, I learned something a while back
> that I, much to my regret, forgot here over the last few days. That
> is this - Alexis is totally impossible to reason with, discuss an
> issue with, and logically debate with. Therefore, I will not respond
> to her any longer on this issue. You cannot reason with the irrational.
Wooo! Thanks Tim!
Y'see, I've figured out the same thing about you.
It appears to be the same with most folks who take a large amount of stuff
on faith, there's no reasoning with them. Logic and faith don't mix, it's
like oil and water.
Timothy J. Butler
BarbLuongo wrote:
>
> In article <34D1D9...@ford.com>, "Timothy J. Butler" <tbu...@ford.com>
> writes:
>
> >THE BOOK OF VIRTUES while they lie in bed. THe other night,
> >the virtue was honesty. The story that was up next was "George
> >Washington and the Cherry Tree."
>
> lesson in honesty!
Why can't a work of fiction be used to communicate a moral message?
Yes, I am aware that it is a myth. I wonder how many people who have over-reacted
to my using this folk tale to teach the value of honesty took their children to
see Disney's Pocahontas.
>
> >I explained to him that, yes, our presidents used to be honorable
> >men who told the truth.
>
> Really? I had the feeling that most of them were liars and cheats.
> As time goes on, and we know more of the backgrounds of these
> men, it looks like they are less and less desirable humans.
Sorry, but that smacks of cynicism and historical revisionism. Although
they were flawed people like the rest of us, there's no doubt that our
early leaders were men and women of honor, faith, and integrity.
>
> > I said that the last man who held the White House with an unswerving
> >committment to telling the truth was Jimmy Carter.
>
> Hmm, I wouldn't necessarily got that far back. But, my Mom and I were
> chatting the other night, and I told her that I read Clinton doesn't believe
> that getting oral sex is 1)sex or 2)cheating, because it's not sex to him.
> And that might get him out of the perjury charge.
I think he also swore that he had never met with her alone. Ah well. At least
they came up with a definition of sex that finally pinned him down to admitting
that he had sex with Gennifer Flowers.
>
> She said "We've come a long way from Jimmy Carter's "lust in the
> heart is a sin!" " She's right, and that's sad.
Yup. Carter wasn't a very effective persident, but I think he was a pretty
honorable guy.
>
> This IS a good time for talking to the kids about it, though. My 15 year
> old boy and I talk about current events, and to a lesser degree my 12
> year old daughter does too.
True, and if my kids were older, I'm sure we'd be having long discussions
about all of this. I do find it disturbing that we have 7 and 8 year
olds talking about the President engaging in oral sex. Very tragic.
>
> >It's hard to be optimistic when we have no reason to believe that
> >the man in the Oval Office has told us the truth about anything.
>
> True. That's how I feel.
Timothy J. Butler
Alexis Bywater wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
>
> > Dirt Devil wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <34D78E...@ford.com>,
> > >
> > > Timothy and Alexis -- could I persuade you two to consider thinking
> > > about the possibility of *not* quoting *everything* that has ever
> > > transpired?
> > >
> > > The discussions are kool and all, but I have gotten to the point where
> > > I am actually deleting posts when the first page comes up and shows
> > > that it is only 12% of the entire post.
> > >
> > > It makes perfect sense to quote the part of the previous post to which
> > > you are responding. Do we *really* need a running history?
> > >
> > > <on bended knee> *please*
> >
> > You have my sworn word. You see, I learned something a while back
> > that I, much to my regret, forgot here over the last few days. That
> > is this - Alexis is totally impossible to reason with, discuss an
> > issue with, and logically debate with. Therefore, I will not respond
> > to her any longer on this issue. You cannot reason with the irrational.
>
> Wooo! Thanks Tim!
>
> Y'see, I've figured out the same thing about you.
>
> It appears to be the same with most folks who take a large amount of stuff
> on faith, there's no reasoning with them. Logic and faith don't mix, it's
> like oil and water.
I glad you agree that one of us is irrational. Now I ask you - which one of
us has a problem accepting 1 + 1 = 2? I think that would be a good indicator
of who's who.
Alexis Bywater
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
> Alexis Bywater wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Timothy J. Butler wrote:
> >
> > > Dirt Devil wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <34D78E...@ford.com>,
> > > > Timothy J. Butler <tbu...@ford.com> wrote:
> > > > >Alexis Bywater wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It makes perfect sense to quote the part of the previous post to which
> > > > you are responding. Do we *really* need a running history?
> > > >
> > > > <on bended knee> *please*
> > >
> > > You have my sworn word. You see, I learned something a while back
> > > that I, much to my regret, forgot here over the last few days. That
> > > is this - Alexis is totally impossible to reason with, discuss an
> > > issue with, and logically debate with. Therefore, I will not respond
> > > to her any longer on this issue. You cannot reason with the irrational.
> >
> > Wooo! Thanks Tim!
> >
> > Y'see, I've figured out the same thing about you.
> >
> > It appears to be the same with most folks who take a large amount of stuff
> > on faith, there's no reasoning with them. Logic and faith don't mix, it's
> > like oil and water.
>
> I glad you agree that one of us is irrational. Now I ask you - which one of
> us has a problem accepting 1 + 1 = 2? I think that would be a good indicator
> of who's who.
Awww, you're such a sweetie. And all this derogatory stuff from a
christian, too. Should I start insulting your belief in ghosts and
all-powerful beings now?
Just to clarify, I said that 1 + 1 = 2 works only in situations where
specific parameters are set and not, for instance, in the case of 1 glass
of milk and 1 tablespoon of chocolate syrup.
Wakanyeja Makah
On Thu, 05 Feb 1998 08:19:10 -0500, "Timothy J. Butler" <tbu...@ford.com>
wrote:
>I glad you agree that one of us is irrational. Now I ask you - which one of
>us has a problem accepting 1 + 1 = 2? I think that would be a good indicator
>of who's who.
As an observer, I would have to say it is very clear who is the irrational
one. The one who is busy teaching his children morality based on myths
that are based on lies...George Washington...Biblical...and otherwise...
W. Makah
Dirt Devil
In article <34D8B1...@ford.com>,
>> Timothy and Alexis -- could I persuade you two to consider thinking
>> about the possibility of *not* quoting *everything* that has ever
>> transpired?
>
>You have my sworn word.
Under oath? %-}
>You see, I learned something a while back
>that I, much to my regret, forgot here over the last few days. That
>is this - Alexis is totally impossible to reason with, discuss an
>issue with, and logically debate with. Therefore, I will not respond
>to her any longer on this issue. You cannot reason with the irrational.
Sorry that you feel that way. I have had long email conversations
with her and find her to be quite delightful.
I find that everybody is rational -- all that I have to do is keep
looking more deeply. Often, saying that somebody is irrational is
another way of saying "I don't understand how you got to that point
and I'm not going to try to understand."
Your choice.
>My apologies for the at-length quoting. You are right in that it was
>not appropriate.
I didn't mean to apply that it wasn't appropriate. Just wanted to say
that it was difficult and time consuming to get through all of the
quoted material to get to the latest and greatest discussion.
Wakanyeja Makah
On Thu, 05 Feb 1998 08:17:27 -0500, "Timothy J. Butler" <tbu...@ford.com>
wrote:
>Why can't a work of fiction be used to communicate a moral message?
I believe she asked if you find it ironic that you are teaching a child not
to lie by telling him a story which is a lie.
The story that you use to teach your child how important is it *not to lie*
probably shouldn't be a lie itself.
>Yes, I am aware that it is a myth. I wonder how many people who have over-reacted
>to my using this folk tale to teach the value of honesty took their children to
>see Disney's Pocahontas.
Disney's Pocahontas was a perfect example of WHY it is not good to teach
your family moral values through the use of lies. Yes, unfortunately, my
youngest son saw this film. Yes, the message was beautiful...but the story
was a disgrace. Actually, it was a wonderful opportunity to talk to my son
about the REAL story behind the film (which we did). Glorifying a
kidnapper, pedophile, and a man so vile that his own men wanted NOTHING to
do with him doesn't seem like a such a great idea to me! They could have
filmed this same movie with the same values and not used the Pocahontas
(myth) and it would have worked. In short...I don't think that LYING to
children is ever right.
>Sorry, but that smacks of cynicism and historical revisionism. Although
>they were flawed people like the rest of us, there's no doubt that our
>early leaders were men and women of honor, faith, and integrity.
Sorry. The fact of the matter is that a great many of these former
Presidents had affairs, lied, cheated, kept slaves, grew marijuana (and
smoked it). Being Lakota Sioux I worry a LOT when people start tossing
about the words "Historical Revisionism". Especially in the light that
Native Americans were viewed for a great number of years. What you see as
"revisionism" I see as the TRUTH finally being told after years and years
of LIES!
>> > I said that the last man who held the White House with an unswerving
>> >committment to telling the truth was Jimmy Carter.
I believe this. He was a very honorable person. He was also a very poor
President.
>Yup. Carter wasn't a very effective persident, but I think he was a pretty
>honorable guy.
Excuse me...but in my not so humble opinion...I think being an effective
President is pretty damn important! Imagine if all employers (after
all...isn't that what the voter is..an employer of the President) decided
that "Well, you know...John isn't very effective at his job...but he is a
very honorable guy...so we are going to let him preform your surgery..."
Right.
>True, and if my kids were older, I'm sure we'd be having long discussions
>about all of this. I do find it disturbing that we have 7 and 8 year
>olds talking about the President engaging in oral sex. Very tragic.
Agreed. It is also tragic that children learn by their parent's example
how to pre-judge and hate and disrespect the President of the United
States.
W. Makah
Laurie
<snipped a bunch of stuff to get to my point....>
>
> > you might as well send the window sizes of the White
> >House to AlGore so that he can have the drapes ordered by 2000.
I'll kill myself, I swear I will, if Al Gore becomes our president.
Timothy J. Butler
Dirt Devil wrote:
>
> In article <34D8B1...@ford.com>,
> >> Timothy and Alexis -- could I persuade you two to consider thinking
> >> about the possibility of *not* quoting *everything* that has ever
> >> transpired?
> >>[...]
> >> <on bended knee> *please*
> >
> >You have my sworn word.
>
> Under oath? %-}
Sure. My word means more than some people's in high political office. ;-)
>
> >You see, I learned something a while back
> >that I, much to my regret, forgot here over the last few days. That
> >is this - Alexis is totally impossible to reason with, discuss an
> >issue with, and logically debate with. Therefore, I will not respond
> >to her any longer on this issue. You cannot reason with the irrational.
>
> Sorry that you feel that way. I have had long email conversations
> with her and find her to be quite delightful.
To each his own.
>
> I find that everybody is rational -- all that I have to do is keep
> looking more deeply. Often, saying that somebody is irrational is
> another way of saying "I don't understand how you got to that point
> and I'm not going to try to understand."
Fine. However, as a person who literally makes his living via logic,
I cannot logically debate someone on any point who feels that reality
is simply a frame of mind and truth can be changed with a thought.
Alexis' proof that 1 + 1 does not necessarily equal 2 is that somewhere
there should be a mathematician who can develop such a proof. Not that
she knows that there is such a mathematician. She just imagines that there
is one. This is proof in her mind. Sorry, but I see nothing reasonable,
rational, or logical about that thinking.
>
> Your choice.
Thank you again.
>
> >My apologies for the at-length quoting. You are right in that it was
> >not appropriate.
>
> I didn't mean to apply that it wasn't appropriate. Just wanted to say
> that it was difficult and time consuming to get through all of the
> quoted material to get to the latest and greatest discussion.
Okay.
Helen Arias
Won't your kids miss you?
Killing yourself over who is President? Wow!
H.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <34D9E8...@earthlink.net>,
Laurie <patm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I'll kill myself, I swear I will, if Al Gore becomes our president.
Well, then, what will you do if Gingerich becomes pres, and the
"Handmaid's Tale" comes true?
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1998, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.