Perkins blows it again... Livingston DOES step down
Kage D. McClued
Clinton, of course, is urging him to "reconsider."
What else could that hypocrite say?
As for Ramjet; the next time you're feeling REALLY, REALLY smart,
pull out a copy of THIS post... and your responses to my observation
that Livingston should step down.
Get a clue, Rog. You really are ignorant.
Kage
Joel Schoenberg
speakers gavel in January. If he says the president should follow suit,
does that mean he should step down to Vice President?
Kage D. McClued wrote in message <367c0...@news.pacifier.com>...
Kage D. McClued
Did you and Ramjet go to community college together?
The thread I started on Livingston said the following:
."Given the revelations of rampant adultery by Speaker-elect Bob Livingston,
.and given the nature of the impeachment proceedings before the House
.today... I believe that Mr. Livingston should resign as Speaker-elect; that
.the impeachment vote should be taken either under Gingrich or the Majority
.Leader acting as temporary Speaker; and that a new Speaker should be
.elected."
Now, suggest before you post on any given subject, you might at least become
marginally up to speed about what was said.
Otherwise, you might wind up looking, well, less then knowledgeable. While
that is not unusual for Ramjet, I would hate to think of you the same way
he's
universally thought of.
Furthermore, I would get checked out, were I you, because he has also
made it clear he is LEAVING OFFICE in about 6 months.
Kage
Please, Joel... I know how partisan you are, but do yourself a favor:
Look BEFORE you leap.
Joel Schoenberg wrote in message ...
Mike Hihn
Open mouth. Remove foot.
On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 21:54:54 GMT, "Joel Schoenberg" <nos...@gte.net>
wrote:
>Well, he did not step down at all.
Bzzzt, wrong again. Turn on your TV, willya.
Or buy a newspaper. I saw the speech at 8am this morning.
> He simply said he will not take the
>speakers gavel in January.
He also said he was resigning his House seat and would ask the
governor of Louisiana to call a special election.
In the SAME speech
See what happens when you believe Kluck?
> If he says the president should follow suit,
>does that mean he should step down to Vice President?
Only Democrats are THAT stoopid. When they say an impeachment would
"overturn the election" they apparently believe BOB DOLE would become
president.
Mike Hihn
Libertarian Party of WA -- http://lpws.org
"World's Smallest Political Quiz" -- http://www.self-gov.org/
drfeelgood
Are you as deaf as your democratic representatives seem to be? What part
of I'll ask for a general election to replace me didn't you hear through
your slanted hearing aid? It does take time to replace a resigning
representative you know.
Dr Feelgood
Joel Schoenberg <nos...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:F48FJ...@news.boeing.com...
>Well, he did not step down at all. He simply said he will not take the
>speakers gavel in January. If he says the president should follow suit,
>does that mean he should step down to Vice President?
>
>
Joel
On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 14:19:57 -0800, "Kage D. McClued"
<ka...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>Joel...
>
>Did you and Ramjet go to community college together?
>
>The thread I started on Livingston said the following:
>
>."Given the revelations of rampant adultery by Speaker-elect Bob Livingston,
>.and given the nature of the impeachment proceedings before the House
>.today... I believe that Mr. Livingston should resign as Speaker-elect; that
>.the impeachment vote should be taken either under Gingrich or the Majority
>.Leader acting as temporary Speaker; and that a new Speaker should be
>.elected."
>
>Now, suggest before you post on any given subject, you might at least become
>marginally up to speed about what was said.
>
>Otherwise, you might wind up looking, well, less then knowledgeable. While
>that is not unusual for Ramjet, I would hate to think of you the same way
>he's
>universally thought of.
>
>Furthermore, I would get checked out, were I you, because he has also
>made it clear he is LEAVING OFFICE in about 6 months.
>
>Kage
>
>Please, Joel... I know how partisan you are, but do yourself a favor:
>
>Look BEFORE you leap.
>
>
>Joel Schoenberg wrote in message ...
Joel
wrote:
>
>Open mouth. Remove foot.
>
>On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 21:54:54 GMT, "Joel Schoenberg" <nos...@gte.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Well, he did not step down at all.
>
>Bzzzt, wrong again. Turn on your TV, willya.
>Or buy a newspaper. I saw the speech at 8am this morning.
OOPS! I was listening to the radio, and they played the speech, but
they ended on the part about not taking the gavel!
My mistake.
>
>> He simply said he will not take the
>>speakers gavel in January.
>
>He also said he was resigning his House seat and would ask the
>governor of Louisiana to call a special election.
>In the SAME speech
>
>See what happens when you believe Kluck?
>
>> If he says the president should follow suit,
>>does that mean he should step down to Vice President?
>
Joel
Livingston revealed the relationships.
On 20 Dec 1998 01:43:35 GMT, ae...@u.washington.edu (Micheal Keane)
wrote:
>In article <F48FJ...@news.boeing.com>,
>Joel Schoenberg <nos...@gte.net> wrote:
>>Well, he did not step down at all. He simply said he will not take the
>>speakers gavel in January. If he says the president should follow suit,
>>does that mean he should step down to Vice President?
>
>He *is* stepping down. He won't become speaker in January and six monthes
>later, he's going to resign from Congress.
>
>Even if we do disagree, congratulations are in order for Kage for the
>prediction.
>--
>Micheal (Chris) Keane, Political Science, University of Washington
>Associate Professor of Psychogravitational Analysis, University of Ediacara
>Join the Church of Last Thursday and worship Queen Maeve!
>http://weber.u.washington.edu/~aexia/thursday.htm
NH
SHIPFIXR
>."Given the revelations of rampant adultery by Speaker-elect Bob Livingston,
>.and given the nature of the impeachment proceedings before the House
>.today... I believe that Mr. Livingston should resign as Speaker-elect; that
>.the impeachment vote should be taken either under Gingrich or the Majority
>.Leader acting as temporary Speaker; and that a new Speaker should be
>.elected."
>
Livingston became the speaker your statement was a safe bet....
DN
SHIPFIXR
>
stepping down...I have to wonder why.....was he close to being found out
himself and knew it?? I don't give to much thought to someone who commits all
of the adultery he confessed to as having a lot of integrity. On the other
hand, as I said, he did the right thing and that's rare enough.
DN
Joel
to listen to at the time, and my knee jerked (as Mike would put it).
On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 14:28:14 -0800, "drfeelgood"
<Drfee...@foxinternet.net> wrote:
>Joel:
> Are you as deaf as your democratic representatives seem to be? What part
>of I'll ask for a general election to replace me didn't you hear through
>your slanted hearing aid? It does take time to replace a resigning
>representative you know.
>
>
>Dr Feelgood
>
>Joel Schoenberg <nos...@gte.net> wrote in message
>news:F48FJ...@news.boeing.com...
>>Well, he did not step down at all. He simply said he will not take the
>>speakers gavel in January. If he says the president should follow suit,
>>does that mean he should step down to Vice President?
>>
>>
Joel
Mike Hihn
>Again, I'm sorry. I am crippled by the fact that I only had a radio
>to listen to at the time, and my knee jerked (as Mike would put it).
Probably NPR. <g>
Craig Hoyer
speakership, presidency, and all other elected positions.
A married couple can agree to a sexless marriage or one that includes sex
with other consenting adults. The legal status of marriage is often
desirable without religious, sexual, emotional and financial concomitants.
Livingston's decision reflects the narrow cultural beliefs of his power
base. I think he should stay.
Craig Hoyer
Anti-GOP Independent
Joel wrote in message <75jpfg$bvu$3...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
Mike Hihn
>Why do episodes of marital infidelity make him unqualified to lead?
Err, they don't.
As you insist on repeating the same witless question over and over
again, I will again repeat my more relevant question: Where do you
find infidelity within any impeachment article?
I might also ask your sage and unbiased opinion on whether a
"third-rate burglary" (not even committed by the president) makes one
unqualified to lead. Does it?
Third, nobody says Clinton is unqualified to lead, not in an
impeachment article. The issue is whether he's qualified to SERVE.
Mike Hihn
Roger) wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 07:05:42 GMT, nha...@yellowsub.net (NH) wrote:
>
>>Why Can't Anyone Recognize INTEGRITY When They See It?
>
>There's so little about that its become almost totally unrecognizable?
I just read you as saying, Roger, that integrity was irrelevant for
politicans anyhow. Perhaps that's why some no longer bother to
recognize it.
(I've already noted that integrity is a rather dubious claim for
Livingston;s belated resignation -- while also questioning the
propriety of the Clinton Administration's complicity in these "police
state" smear campaigns.)
Kage D. McClued
SHIPFIXR wrote in message <19981220154000...@ng29.aol.com>...
>>Why Can't Anyone Recognize INTEGRITY When They See It?
>>
>stepping down...I have to wonder why.....was he close to being found out
>himself and knew it??
My understanding is that Bill Clinton's literary icon, Hustler magazine,
was set to spill the beans.
The "why" of it is pretty clear, actually.
> I don't give to much thought to someone who commits all
>of the adultery he confessed to as having a lot of integrity.
Well, I guess we can also remove "integrity" from any list of Clinton's
characteristics.
He showed integrity by resigning. Pity the Prez cannot do the same.
> On the other
>hand, as I said, he did the right thing and that's rare enough.
>
True.
>DN
Kage
Kage D. McClued
Craig Hoyer wrote in message <75jtmk$2g8$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>Episodes of so-called "marital infidelity" are irrelevent to holding the
>speakership, presidency, and all other elected positions.
Maybe on your planet, but not here.
Anybody committing adultery is lying. They are lying in what is supposed
to be their deepest committment. While it suits your purpose, as a Clinton
supporter, to express this position, character DOES count. And a spouse
that
would violate their committment to another would just as easily violate
their
committment to the voter.
Common sense rears its ugly head somewhere.
>A married couple can agree to a sexless marriage or one that includes sex
>with other consenting adults. The legal status of marriage is often
>desirable without religious, sexual, emotional and financial concomitants.
OK. Then they shouldn't have any problem saying so up front, should they?
After all, they wouldn't want the voter to get the wrong impression (Like
Brian Baird did to us) would we?
"Ladies and Gentleman, here's my wife, Mary Lou Whatever. We have an
open marriage; can and do fuck anything that moves without giving it a
second thought!"
Dream on, Craig. We haven't yet sunk to that level... Clinton lying
about his adultery effortlessly puts the lie to your position.
>Livingston's decision reflects the narrow cultural beliefs of his power
>base. I think he should stay.
>
Well, he's obviously not interested in doing what you would like to give
your boy cover, which is, in reality, the ONLY reason you think he should
stay.
His decision reflects honor and political realism, heretofore absent in both
the president's actions and your posts.
>Craig Hoyer
>Anti-GOP Independent
>
Shhheeet.
Try replacing that with "Blindingly Biased Independent"
Kage
>Joel wrote in message <75jpfg$bvu$3...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
>>Why do episodes of marital infidelity make him unqualified to lead?
>>
>>
>>On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 07:05:42 GMT, nha...@yellowsub.net (NH) wrote:
>>
Craig Hoyer
NH wrote in message <367ca19f...@news.yellowsub.net>...
>Why Can't Anyone Recognize INTEGRITY When They See It?
Speaker-designate Rep. Livingston did not announce his forthcoming
resignation immediately after his first daliances. He announced only after
he was caught. One must infer that his public self-condemnation comes as a
result of being SEEN to be adultrous. Futhermore, I disagree with the
ethical principle that resignation from public office appropriately
addresses a simple lapse of private morality. As a result, I view his
quitting as a political act, not a moral act. Nonetheless, the high
integrity of his governmental duty and record remain unaffected. I feel his
capitulation is the country's loss.
Craig Hoyer
GOP-needed podiatrist
Kage D. McClued
Craig Hoyer wrote in message <75k5ar$as1$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>
>NH wrote in message <367ca19f...@news.yellowsub.net>...
>>Why Can't Anyone Recognize INTEGRITY When They See It?
>
>Speaker-designate Rep. Livingston did not announce his forthcoming
>resignation immediately after his first daliances. He announced only after
>he was caught.
And? So what? At least he didn't wave his finger at us and lie thru his
teeth, unlike Billy.
> One must infer that his public self-condemnation comes as a
>result of being SEEN to be adultrous.
Yeah? No kidding?
>Futhermore, I disagree with the
>ethical principle that resignation from public office appropriately
>addresses a simple lapse of private morality.
Not surprisingly, since to do anything else would force you to demand
that Clinton follow suit.
Nice to know that you see the deepest betrayal possible in any
relationionship as a "simple lapse of private morality."
How democrat of you.
>As a result, I view his
>quitting as a political act, not a moral act.
Bully for you. Of course, WE see YOUR position as a desperately
partisan act done to provide self-justification for your support of
the adulterer in chief.
>Nonetheless, the high
>integrity of his governmental duty and record remain unaffected.
Gee. I would think that resigning from the Speakership and one's
congressional seat DOES have an effect.
And, of course, you said the exact same things about Newt, right?
> I feel his capitulation is the country's loss.
>
I feel your position is bogus and self-serving.
>Craig Hoyer
>GOP-needed podiatrist
>
You left out "hypocrite."
Kage
>
Craig Hoyer
Kage D. McClued wrote in message <367d9...@news.pacifier.com>...
>
>Craig Hoyer wrote in message <75jtmk$2g8$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>Episodes of so-called "marital infidelity" are irrelevent to holding the
>>speakership, presidency, and all other elected positions.
>
>Maybe on your planet, but not here.
>
>Anybody committing adultery is lying.
As an axiom of logic, this is false.
>They are lying in what is supposed
>to be their deepest committment.
This supposition could be in error, therefore also false. Perhaps two
people could agree to marry or stay married without monogamy. I suspect this
in the Clintons'. It's none of my concern.
>While it suits your purpose, as a Clinton
>supporter, (break)
This is false assumption. I support some Clinton policies. I denounce
others. I am independent of party affiliation.
>to express this position, character DOES count.
The character of public policy matters, I agree. Private character may
be most appropriately addressed and considered by those concerned at
election time in the voters' booth.
>And a spouse
>that
>would violate their committment to another would just as easily violate
>their
>committment to the voter.
This compares apples and oranges. I'm not concerned with apples. An
elected official who votes against my interests won't get my vote.
>
>Common sense rears its ugly head somewhere.
>
>>A married couple can agree to a sexless marriage or one that includes sex
>>with other consenting adults. The legal status of marriage is often
>>desirable without religious, sexual, emotional and financial concomitants.
>OK. Then they shouldn't have any problem saying so up front, should they?
I want to hear as much as possible about politicians' and their spouses'
relationships, but only if I'm about to have an intimate personal
relationship with them. Even then, I wouldn't much care.
>After all, they wouldn't want the voter to get the wrong impression (Like
>Brian Baird did to us) would we?
Granted, others may find Baird's lack of forthcoming offensive. I don't.
I hope Baird votes the way I want him to in Congress. If he doesn't, I won't
support him.
>"Ladies and Gentleman, here's my wife, Mary Lou Whatever. We have an
>open marriage; can and do fuck anything that moves without giving it a
>second thought!"
Open marriages, lustless marriages, homosexual marriages, broken
marriages: all personal, not pertinent to secular governing.
>Dream on, Craig. We haven't yet sunk to that level... Clinton lying
>about his adultery effortlessly puts the lie to your position.
Clinton's lying is impossible to admire. My position remains unchanged
and unchallenged: constitutional requirements for federal office do not
include statements concerning marital status.
>>Livingston's decision reflects the narrow cultural beliefs of his power
>>base. I think he should stay.
>Well, he's obviously not interested in doing what you would like to give
>your boy cover, which is, in reality, the ONLY reason you think he should
>stay.
Clinton is referred to as "your boy". I think of him as the man holding
the presidency, not a friend, relative, like-minded activist,or fellow party
member. I have various reasons to find Livingston's resignation undesirable.
Providing political cover is not one of them. At least one other reason
besides the above stated is that he was a known quantity, an experienced
chairman with a reputation for compromise and negotiation.
>His decision reflects honor and political realism, heretofore absent in
both
>the president's actions and your posts.
As to Livingston's honor: in order to be consistent with your idea of
honor, he should have resigned his seat after his first extra-marital
experience. As to Clinton, we have a difference of opinion. As to my posts,
we can only wait and see about political realism. I hope for a resounding
GOP defeat in 2000.
I am not moved by your criticism of my honor. I have read many of your
posts as exemplified by this to which I am responding. I find your arguments
unnecessarily tainted by invective, ad hominem, false assumption and
vituperation. I hoped we could disagree without your self-defeating lack of
decorum. I need not respond in kind.
Craig Hoyer
I feel your Paine
"All national institutions of churches, whether
Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no
other than human inventions, set up to terrify
and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and
profit." ---Thomas Paine
>>Craig Hoyer
>>Anti-GOP Independent
>>
>Shhheeet.
>
>Try replacing that with "Blindingly Biased Independent"
>
>Kage
>
>
>>Joel wrote in message <75jpfg$bvu$3...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
>>>Why do episodes of marital infidelity make him unqualified to lead?
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 07:05:42 GMT, nha...@yellowsub.net (NH) wrote:
>>>
Craig Hoyer
Mr. McClued's response indicates that he wins, since he seems to be the
angrier. This is my final post on this thread.
Craig Hoyer
Anticipating Speaker Gephart
Kage D. McClued
Craig Hoyer wrote in message <75kf9e$n00$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>
>Kage D. McClued wrote in message <367d9...@news.pacifier.com>...
>>
>>Craig Hoyer wrote in message <75jtmk$2g8$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>>Episodes of so-called "marital infidelity" are irrelevent to holding the
>>>speakership, presidency, and all other elected positions.
>>
>>Maybe on your planet, but not here.
>>
>>Anybody committing adultery is lying.
>
> As an axiom of logic, this is false.
>
Look, proving that you attended the same correspondence school that
Clinton's
spin doctors went to is meaningless.
I defy you to commit adultery without lying. Lying to yourself... lying to
your spouse.
>>They are lying in what is supposed
>>to be their deepest committment.
>
> This supposition could be in error, therefore also false.
Sure it could. The moon COULD be made of green cheese.
Just for one example, what do you think would happen if
Bill Clinton held a press conference and said, just for one example:
"Even though I am married; even though I promised to be faithful
to Hillary, I have to tell you... I am more committed to ___________
(fill in the blank; person, animal, place or thing) then I am to my wife
or my marriage."
He, euphamistically, wouldn't last the day... and you know it.
Your "Wizard of Oz" approach to this situation is what discredits you.
I would advise you to at least keep your observations in the realm of the
real world.
> Perhaps two
>people could agree to marry or stay married without monogamy. I suspect
this
>in the Clintons'. It's none of my concern.
>
I suspect you sincerely hope and wish it to be the case to provide you
some justification for your position. But you also know that for either
of them to say that would result in political suicide in THIS country.
Whether or not its your concern is completely besides the point, and is
meaningless.
>>While it suits your purpose, as a Clinton supporter, (break)
>
> This is false assumption. I support some Clinton policies. I denounce
>others. I am independent of party affiliation.
>
Sure you are. And I'm Henry Kissinger.
>>to express this position, character DOES count.
>
> The character of public policy matters, I agree.
Sorry. While, as a diehard liberal democrat, you may be able to separate
private character from public character, most cannot.
Would you, for example, say the same thing about Newt?
Of course not.
>Private character may
>be most appropriately addressed and considered by those concerned at
>election time in the voters' booth.
>
Since their is no way to separate one from the other, I think not.
>>And a spouse that
>>would violate their committment to another would just as easily violate
>>their committment to the voter.
>
> This compares apples and oranges.
No... it compares character with.... character.
You will note they are the same.
> I'm not concerned with apples.
That is, of course, your privlege.
> An
>elected official who votes against my interests won't get my vote.
>
That would, I would venture to say, be an additional reason for you to vote
against any Republican.
>>Common sense rears its ugly head somewhere.
>>
>>>A married couple can agree to a sexless marriage or one that includes sex
>>>with other consenting adults. The legal status of marriage is often
>>>desirable without religious, sexual, emotional and financial
concomitants.
>
>>OK. Then they shouldn't have any problem saying so up front, should they?
>
> I want to hear as much as possible about politicians' and their
spouses'
>relationships, but only if I'm about to have an intimate personal
>relationship with them.
No... see... you keep missing the point, or just refusing to acknowledge it
to
keep up your comfort level.
You assume a million different things not in evidence as some sort of
justification for his actions.
>Even then, I wouldn't much care.
>
Bully for you. There are some that wouldn't care if he was a pedophile. So
what?
>>After all, they wouldn't want the voter to get the wrong impression (Like
>>Brian Baird did to us) would we?
>
> Granted, others may find Baird's lack of forthcoming offensive. I
don't.
You wouldn't. You support his political positions, which clearly causes you
to forgive any other immorality or illegality he may commit.
Again, to find his false and misleading use of his family, and his failure
to provide for the support of the 17 y.o. Bosnian amputee that he waived
around during his last election offensive would be to shatter your entire
premise.
Obviously, you're not about to do that.
>I hope Baird votes the way I want him to in Congress. If he doesn't, I
won't
>support him.
>
It won't matter if you do or don't, actually.
>>"Ladies and Gentleman, here's my wife, Mary Lou Whatever. We have an
>>open marriage; can and do fuck anything that moves without giving it a
>>second thought!"
>
> Open marriages, lustless marriages, homosexual marriages, broken
>marriages: all personal, not pertinent to secular governing.
>
Absolutely fails to address the issue.
What you decide is pertinent and what is is proven to be two different
things.
That Baird hid the state of his marriage proves that even HE didn't think
it wasn't pertinent.... or else he wouldn't have lied about it.
So, we can accept your premise, or we can look at the record of one
who was actually in that position.
Clearly, you are wrong.
>>Dream on, Craig. We haven't yet sunk to that level... Clinton lying
>>about his adultery effortlessly puts the lie to your position.
>
> Clinton's lying is impossible to admire. My position remains unchanged
>and unchallenged: constitutional requirements for federal office do not
>include statements concerning marital status.
>
Unchanged? Yes.
Unchallenged? Well, if you substituted "destroyed" for "unchallenged,"
you'd be right on the money.
>>>Livingston's decision reflects the narrow cultural beliefs of his power
>>>base. I think he should stay.
>
>>Well, he's obviously not interested in doing what you would like to give
>>your boy cover, which is, in reality, the ONLY reason you think he should
>>stay.
>
> Clinton is referred to as "your boy". I think of him as the man holding
>the presidency, not a friend, relative, like-minded activist,or fellow
party
>member.
Strange... you don't right about him that way.
I have the support, by their actions, of my position.
You, on the other hand, don't.
> I have various reasons to find Livingston's resignation undesirable.
>Providing political cover is not one of them.
Right.
>At least one other reason
>besides the above stated is that he was a known quantity, an experienced
>chairman with a reputation for compromise and negotiation.
>
Yeah, and I understand the Al Capone was much the same.
There a thousands of people out there that can exercise the qualities
without
breaking rules that I, as a state employee, would be fired immediately for.
The nation will be much better off without him then with him.
>>His decision reflects honor and political realism, heretofore absent in
>>both the president's actions and your posts.
>
> As to Livingston's honor: in order to be consistent with your idea of
>honor, he should have resigned his seat after his first extra-marital
>experience.
I agree. He should have. But I have no problem with him, or anyone else,
leaving a job they would not HAVE to leave due to obvious conflicts of
interest that would take place if they stayed. That is what I call honor.
I believe that making a decision that is best for the country at one's own
personal expense is honorable. That is why Clinton SHOULD resign, but
also, since he is totally lacking in honor (he's even lied to his own
Cabinet
and congressional leaders) I know he won't.
> As to Clinton, we have a difference of opinion. As to my posts,
>we can only wait and see about political realism. I hope for a resounding
>GOP defeat in 2000.
You know... I am a Republican. I will remain one. And frankly, I don't
care
if we lose on this issue or not.
As a Republican, I am guided by principles that do not change based on
the latest polls, unlike the democrats.... or do you think they're acting
the same way towards Clinton now that they have through-out? Of course
they aren't.
The issue is one of right or wrong. No poll can decide that... and no one
should vote on it.
> I am not moved by your criticism of my honor.
Of course not.
>I have read many of your
>posts as exemplified by this to which I am responding. I find your
arguments
>unnecessarily tainted by invective, ad hominem, false assumption and
>vituperation.
You, of course, may characterize them any way you like, but that does not
change their factual nature.
> I hoped we could disagree without your self-defeating lack of
>decorum. I need not respond in kind.
>
I am unmoved by your basic dishonesty, however. Wrap it any way
you choose.
>Craig Hoyer
>I feel your Paine
>
Hopefully, you can also feel my Federalist #63.
Kage
Kage D. McClued
Joel wrote in message <75kgt3$967$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
>So apparently Kage, you are saying that anyone who has ever commited
>adultery is ineligible for a place in congress or the presidency.
>This seems awfully limiting. Besides Livingston, we would not have
>the following people in congress: Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Helen
>Chenoweth and Dan Burton.
Or a variety of democrats, either.
>
>Are you a fan of any of these people? Do you want them out of
>Congress now?
Uhhh.... unless I'm mistaken, Gingrich HAS resigned.
As for the others, they have been examined by their respective
constituencies
and re-elected with full disclosure.
*I* would not have voted for any of them, knowing what I know now. Of
course, I didn't vote for any of them any way.
My post suggesting that Livingston should step down did not call
for his resignation from Congress. If he is who his constituents want,
then they are welcome to him. But I do not want them in leadership
positions, to serve as lightning rods for the democrats, who are
seemingly incapable of examining themselves with the same critical
eye.
>
Since you asked.
Kage
>On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:49:43 -0800, "Kage D. McClued"
><ka...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Craig Hoyer wrote in message <75jtmk$2g8$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>>Episodes of so-called "marital infidelity" are irrelevent to holding the
>>>speakership, presidency, and all other elected positions.
>>
>>Maybe on your planet, but not here.
>>
>>Anybody committing adultery is lying. They are lying in what is supposed
>>to be their deepest committment. While it suits your purpose, as a
Clinton
>>supporter, to express this position, character DOES count. And a spouse
>>that
>>would violate their committment to another would just as easily violate
>>their
>>committment to the voter.
>>
>>Common sense rears its ugly head somewhere.
>>
>>>A married couple can agree to a sexless marriage or one that includes sex
>>>with other consenting adults. The legal status of marriage is often
>>>desirable without religious, sexual, emotional and financial
concomitants.
>>
>>OK. Then they shouldn't have any problem saying so up front, should they?
>>After all, they wouldn't want the voter to get the wrong impression (Like
>>Brian Baird did to us) would we?
>>
>>"Ladies and Gentleman, here's my wife, Mary Lou Whatever. We have an
>>open marriage; can and do fuck anything that moves without giving it a
>>second thought!"
>>
>>Dream on, Craig. We haven't yet sunk to that level... Clinton lying
>>about his adultery effortlessly puts the lie to your position.
>>
>>>Livingston's decision reflects the narrow cultural beliefs of his power
>>>base. I think he should stay.
>>>
>>Well, he's obviously not interested in doing what you would like to give
>>your boy cover, which is, in reality, the ONLY reason you think he should
>>stay.
>>
>>His decision reflects honor and political realism, heretofore absent in
both
>>the president's actions and your posts.
>>
Kage D. McClued
Kage
Craig Hoyer wrote in message <75kg5b$nnm$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
Kage McClued
Anticipating Hoyer's disappointment
>
NH
On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 21:18:08 GMT, xxno...@gte.net (Joel) wrote:
Mike Hihn
>Why Can't Anyone Recognize INTEGRITY When They See It?
That's debatable, considering that he did not step down immediately.
SHIPFIXR
>was set to spill the beans.
>
>The "why" of it is pretty clear, actually.
If that's true, it confirms my suspicions.
>Well, I guess we can also remove "integrity" from any list of Clinton's
>characteristics.
>
I won't have to do that.....it was never there to begin with.
>He showed integrity by resigning. Pity the Prez cannot do the same.
>
Can't show it if you don't have it, you would think the man would have the
political smarts to at least fake it though.....of course, what does he have to
lose? Only the country is going to lose by a trial and that's not something
he has at the top of his personal list.
DN
Joel
On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 21:56:59 GMT, lib...@wolfenet.com (Mike Hihn)
wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 21:17:20 GMT, xxno...@gte.net (Joel) wrote:
>
>>Again, I'm sorry. I am crippled by the fact that I only had a radio
>>to listen to at the time, and my knee jerked (as Mike would put it).
>
>Probably NPR. <g>
>
>
Joel
adultery is ineligible for a place in congress or the presidency.
This seems awfully limiting. Besides Livingston, we would not have
the following people in congress: Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Helen
Chenoweth and Dan Burton.
Are you a fan of any of these people? Do you want them out of
Congress now?
On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:49:43 -0800, "Kage D. McClued"
<ka...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>>Why do episodes of marital infidelity make him unqualified to lead?
>>>
>>>
Mike Hihn
>So apparently Kage, you are saying that anyone who has ever commited
>adultery is ineligible for a place in congress or the presidency.
>This seems awfully limiting. Besides Livingston, we would not have
>the following people in congress: Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Helen
>Chenoweth and Dan Burton.
Or Bill Clinton.
If you wish to parrot Roger Kluck's post (nearly word for word),
woudn't it be easier to just paste it in? Then he'd be responsible
for the factual errors, instead of you.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Why Can't Anyone Recognize INTEGRITY When They See It?
Integrity on the second try, isn't quite the same as real integrity.
Certain other politicians could definitely learn from even this
inferior example, though.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Captain
>
> Craig Hoyer wrote in message <75kf9e$n00$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
> >
> >Kage D. McClued wrote in message <367d9...@news.pacifier.com>...
> >>
> >>Craig Hoyer wrote in message <75jtmk$2g8$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
> >>>Episodes of so-called "marital infidelity" are irrelevent to holding the
> >>>speakership, presidency, and all other elected positions.
> >>
> >>Maybe on your planet, but not here.
> >>
> >>Anybody committing adultery is lying.
> >
> > As an axiom of logic, this is false.
> >
> As a reality check, it is right on the money.
>
> Look, proving that you attended the same correspondence school that
> Clinton's
> spin doctors went to is meaningless.
>
> I defy you to commit adultery without lying. Lying to yourself... lying to
> your spouse.
>
to wait the eighteen months for an uncontested divorce and
got on with our lives. By anyone's definition during that time
sex with someone else was adultery but I didn't lie about it
to her, to the person I was involved with or myself. I didn't
ask whether she was involved with or having sex with anyone
else, if she did it was adultery but she didn't lie about it.
And as to 'having sexual relations', I remember a lot of
little boys that thought when they got a little school girl
to touch it, they "scored", but they were lying. Even when
they got one of them to kiss it. If touching it, jacking a
guy off, letting him rub it against you or kissing it means
"sexual intercourse" or "sexual relations", a lot of guys
that thought they were the first or married a virgin got
second hand goods. And a lot of women wore white when they
should have been in red.
--
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory
beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
~ George Orwell ~
Joel Schoenberg
NH wrote in message <367d76bd...@news.yellowsub.net>...
>They Don't.
>
>On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 21:18:08 GMT, xxno...@gte.net (Joel) wrote:
>
Joel Schoenberg
Kage D. McClued wrote in message <367de...@news.pacifier.com>...
>
>Craig Hoyer wrote in message <75kf9e$n00$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>
>>Kage D. McClued wrote in message <367d9...@news.pacifier.com>...
>>>
>>>Craig Hoyer wrote in message <75jtmk$2g8$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>>>Episodes of so-called "marital infidelity" are irrelevent to holding the
>>>>speakership, presidency, and all other elected positions.
>>>
>>>Maybe on your planet, but not here.
>>>
>>>Anybody committing adultery is lying.
>>
>> As an axiom of logic, this is false.
>>
>As a reality check, it is right on the money.
No, it is wrong. If a couple, for instance, experimented sexually with
another person *together*, then they are not lying to each other, yet are
also comitting adultery.
Mark Jungck
>
> I agree.
>
> NH wrote in message <367d76bd...@news.yellowsub.net>...
> >They Don't.
> >
> >On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 21:18:08 GMT, xxno...@gte.net (Joel) wrote:
Perhaps, because a significant portion (minority/majority) of Americans
think it does, and therefore wouldn't follow him?
BTW, there is a difference between Congress and the President. The
President is entrusted to make decisions by himself while Congress
requires a majority of its members. Character flaws have a larger
effect on the Presidency, since there can be a moderating effect in
the Congress.
Mark Jungck
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Jungck mju...@cmc.net
Help stamp out Netgarbage. Propagate corrections.
Check http://www.urbanlegends.com/afu.faq/index.html
Clavius
>Joel Schoenberg wrote:
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> NH wrote in message <367d76bd...@news.yellowsub.net>...
>> >They Don't.
>> >
>> >On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 21:18:08 GMT, xxno...@gte.net (Joel) wrote:
>> >>Why do episodes of marital infidelity make him unqualified to lead?
>
>Perhaps, because a significant portion (minority/majority) of Americans
>think it does, and therefore wouldn't follow him?
<snip>
Another reason is that perhaps *mere* marital infidelity wasn't the reason
he stepped down at all. Personally, I'm waiting for Flynt to publish before
I even bother wondering things like, oh, does he have a thing for farm
animals, does somebody have pictures of him in a tutu, does he suffer
too-frequent bouts of E. Coli infection, did he get a membership at the
local porn video store under his *own* name, is he a formaldehyde addict, is
he thinking of becoming a Democrat, etc....
Nope. I'm going to wait until the article comes out before I even
speculate.
Jim the Thug
Mike Hihn
>Another reason is that perhaps *mere* marital infidelity wasn't the reason
>he stepped down at all. Personally, I'm waiting for Flynt to publish before
>I even bother wondering things like, oh, does he have a thing for farm
>animals, does somebody have pictures of him in a tutu, does he suffer
>too-frequent bouts of E. Coli infection, did he get a membership at the
>local porn video store under his *own* name, is he a formaldehyde addict, is
>he thinking of becoming a Democrat, etc....
That would depend on what the Clinton Smear Team (similar to the Nixon
plumbers) turned over to Flynt.
Cokie Roberts --- hardly a right-winger -- has reported her "dismay'
that Clinton aides were shopping the Livingston story four weeks
before it broke. And Dick Morris has confirmed that Clinton staff
were involved.
Even Nixon is starting to look like a saint, by comparison.
Frederick
Mike Hihn wrote in message <3690c802...@news1.wolfenet.com>...
>On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:06:58 -0800, "Clavius" <cla...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>>Another reason is that perhaps *mere* marital infidelity wasn't the reason
>>he stepped down at all. Personally, I'm waiting for Flynt to publish
before
>>I even bother wondering things like, oh, does he have a thing for farm
>>animals, does somebody have pictures of him in a tutu, does he suffer
>>too-frequent bouts of E. Coli infection, did he get a membership at the
>>local porn video store under his *own* name, is he a formaldehyde addict,
is
>>he thinking of becoming a Democrat, etc....
>
>
>That would depend on what the Clinton Smear Team (similar to the Nixon
>plumbers) turned over to Flynt.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we do have a new world record in the knee jerk
competition. That was Mike Hihn of seattle.politics coming in at an amazing
225 yards and 12 inches, twice the length of a football field.
>
>Cokie Roberts --- hardly a right-winger -- has reported her "dismay'
>that Clinton aides were shopping the Livingston story four weeks
>before it broke. And Dick Morris has confirmed that Clinton staff
>were involved.
>
>Even Nixon is starting to look like a saint, by comparison.
>
Never takes long, does it folks. Rampant corruption, anti-Semitism, lying,
obstruction of justice, complete disregard for the American people,
congress, the judicial system, etc., and yet, because of Bill Clinton's
marital infidelities, this man, Nixon, possibly the sleaziest president we
have ever had, is beginning to look like a saint.
And of course it has to be true, because Mike isn't a Republican.....no, he
is a libertarian, so he's completely unbiased and non-partisan.
Scratch a libertarian lightly enough and look what we find?
---Frederick
Frederick
Mike Hihn wrote in message <369ae413...@news1.wolfenet.com>...
>On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:41:35 -0800, "Frederick"
><rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Mike Hihn wrote in message <3690c802...@news1.wolfenet.com>...
>>>On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:06:58 -0800, "Clavius" <cla...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>>>That would depend on what the Clinton Smear Team (similar to the Nixon
>>>plumbers) turned over to Flynt.
>
>>Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we do have a new world record in the knee jerk
>>competition. That was Mike Hihn of seattle.politics coming in at an
amazing
>>225 yards and 12 inches, twice the length of a football field.
>
>evidence and an argument to SUPPORT my conclusions -- but this time
>you were actually dumb enough to leave it in.
I see, Mike. So when you post about anybody else's knees in this newsgroup,
of which we have numerous examples ("The Best Of Mike Hihn's Knee Jerk
Comments"), those are not personal attacks. Do I have it right?
>
>>>Cokie Roberts --- hardly a right-winger -- has reported her "dismay'
>>>that Clinton aides were shopping the Livingston story four weeks
>>>before it broke. And Dick Morris has confirmed that Clinton staff
>>>were involved.
>
>Please, Frederick, learn the difference between character
>assassination and a supported argument.
Gasp. You're right, Mike. Cokie Roberts is the last word on the subject. As
is adulterer and philanderer Dick Morris. Funny how you like certain people
as a source of information for some topics, and not for others. I guess
that's what makes your knee jerk so much today.
>
>You are again degrading this entire newsgroup -- despite your repeated
>promises to clean up your act. (Evidence provided above.)
Well, Mike, sometimes you have to employ the tactics of your attackers and
critics. As I am sure you are well aware, I am doing nothing that you do not
constantly and repeatedly engage in. Anytime you are willing to stop your
pranks and foolishness, I believe I can call a moratorium on the knee jerk
comments.
Oh, and that includes your flushing sounds. God, I find those so annoying.
Even if they usually go against you.
---Frederick
Frederick
Mike Hihn wrote in message <36ac0865...@news1.wolfenet.com>...
>On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:58:22 -0800, "Frederick"
><rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Mike Hihn wrote in message <369ae413...@news1.wolfenet.com>...
>>>On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:41:35 -0800, "Frederick"
>>><rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Cokie Roberts --- hardly a right-winger -- has reported her "dismay'
>>>>>that Clinton aides were shopping the Livingston story four weeks
>>>>>before it broke. And Dick Morris has confirmed that Clinton staff
>>>>>were involved.
>>>
>>>Please, Frederick, learn the difference between character
>>>assassination and a supported argument.
>>
>>Gasp. You're right, Mike. Cokie Roberts is the last word on the subject.
>
>best you can do.
And then you wonder why you are so despised on this newsgroup and subject to
personal attacks. If you don't want to repost my entire reply, fine...then
don't respond at all. To do it in your smarmy manner is as distasteful as it
is dishonest. And then to make your lame "the best you can do" remark on top
of it.
Yes, Mike, I can definitely see you want to bury the hatchet.
---Frederick
Mike Hihn
<rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Mike Hihn wrote in message <3690c802...@news1.wolfenet.com>...
>>On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:06:58 -0800, "Clavius" <cla...@gte.net> wrote:
>>That would depend on what the Clinton Smear Team (similar to the Nixon
>>plumbers) turned over to Flynt.
>Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we do have a new world record in the knee jerk
>competition. That was Mike Hihn of seattle.politics coming in at an amazing
>225 yards and 12 inches, twice the length of a football field.
Again, while you indulge in purely personal attacks, I provided
evidence and an argument to SUPPORT my conclusions -- but this time
you were actually dumb enough to leave it in.
>>Cokie Roberts --- hardly a right-winger -- has reported her "dismay'
>>that Clinton aides were shopping the Livingston story four weeks
>>before it broke. And Dick Morris has confirmed that Clinton staff
>>were involved.
Please, Frederick, learn the difference between character
assassination and a supported argument.
You are again degrading this entire newsgroup -- despite your repeated
promises to clean up your act. (Evidence provided above.)
Mike Hihn
<rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Mike Hihn wrote in message <369ae413...@news1.wolfenet.com>...
>>On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:41:35 -0800, "Frederick"
>><rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Cokie Roberts --- hardly a right-winger -- has reported her "dismay'
>>>>that Clinton aides were shopping the Livingston story four weeks
>>>>before it broke. And Dick Morris has confirmed that Clinton staff
>>>>were involved.
>>
>>Please, Frederick, learn the difference between character
>>assassination and a supported argument.
>
>Gasp. You're right, Mike. Cokie Roberts is the last word on the subject.
Well, if that's your rebuttal (second attempt) , I guess that's the
best you can do.
Mike Hihn
Joel
I have yet to hear your response to this. I mean, you defied us to
come up with a way to commit adultery without lying, and we came up
with two very plausable possibilities, yet no word from you as to
whether you admit that we met the challenge. No hurry, though,
because I will just assume that our scenarios are acceptable to you.
>>
>> I defy you to commit adultery without lying. Lying to yourself... lying to
>> your spouse.
>>
>Not even difficult. My former wife and I separated, decided
>to wait the eighteen months for an uncontested divorce and
>got on with our lives. By anyone's definition during that time
>sex with someone else was adultery but I didn't lie about it
>to her, to the person I was involved with or myself. I didn't
>ask whether she was involved with or having sex with anyone
>else, if she did it was adultery but she didn't lie about it.
>
>And as to 'having sexual relations', I remember a lot of
>little boys that thought when they got a little school girl
>to touch it, they "scored", but they were lying. Even when
>they got one of them to kiss it. If touching it, jacking a
>guy off, letting him rub it against you or kissing it means
>"sexual intercourse" or "sexual relations", a lot of guys
>that thought they were the first or married a virgin got
>second hand goods. And a lot of women wore white when they
>should have been in red.
>
>--
>Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory
>beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
> ~ George Orwell ~
And mine was the one with a couple experimenting *together* with
sexual contact with another person.
Mike Hihn
>Kage and Mike;
>
>I have yet to hear your response to this. I mean, you defied us to
>come up with a way to commit adultery without lying,
I had nothing to do with that -- and did not make even a peep on that
topic.
Purely as an aside, the scenarios look sufficient to me.
Finally, please tell Frederick and Clavius that this is about the 5th
or 6th time you've attributed something to me that I never said.
I'm sure you recall, Joel. though perhaps not the exact number.
Correct?
Frederick
Mike Hihn wrote in message <36b84fb5...@news1.wolfenet.com>...
>On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 06:28:31 GMT, xxno...@gte.net (Joel) wrote:
>
>>Kage and Mike;
>>
>>I have yet to hear your response to this. I mean, you defied us to
>>come up with a way to commit adultery without lying,
>
>I had nothing to do with that -- and did not make even a peep on that
>topic.
>
>Purely as an aside, the scenarios look sufficient to me.
>
>Finally, please tell Frederick and Clavius that this is about the 5th
>or 6th time you've attributed something to me that I never said.
>I'm sure you recall, Joel. though perhaps not the exact number.
>Correct?
>
not the "attribution police." And a good thing too.
---Frederick
Mark Jungck
> Episodes of so-called "marital infidelity" are irrelevent to holding the
> speakership, presidency, and all other elected positions.
NOT irrelevant. But those who choose to vote so, get the kind of
government they deserve. ;)
> A married couple can agree to a sexless marriage or one that includes sex
> with other consenting adults. The legal status of marriage is often
> desirable without religious, sexual, emotional and financial concomitants.
Hmm, there isn't much left when you've removed those last four. Oh and
you left out social. Hardly worth calling it a marriage then.
Doubt marriage just for the legal status is "often". Such marriages
are so weak I have to also doubt they'll last long. Just as with any
marriage that relies on just one of these areas.
Roger Perkins
decision he was forced into by dirty press - sorta makes me wonder where those
FBI files went to - but not for illegal actions. What a persons marriage is
like is nobodys business unless it gets into a court. Then you are subject to
the law.
Review, AG Ranger. Clinton is charged with perjury, not adultery or any sexual
crimes. What does Livingston have to do with that? Nothing. He is avoiding
some difficult political BS and retiring while calling on Clinton to do the
same. Do you really think he is hurt by this? Not on his retirement.
So what's you point? Are you saying there is a connection between Livingston
and Clinton? One is charged with crimes, the other is not. Or are you just
making another "moral" judgement? (Since you frequently get confused, please
not that I do not support adultery or perjury. But I can at least tell the
difference). Let's rear the head here. I may not like a cheater, but I can't
take them to court unless a law is violated. And your moral sensetivities, or
mine, don't rise to that level. If the voters don't like him, they can vote him
out.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"Kage D. McClued" wrote:
> Craig Hoyer wrote in message <75jtmk$2g8$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
> >Episodes of so-called "marital infidelity" are irrelevent to holding the
> >speakership, presidency, and all other elected positions.
>
> Maybe on your planet, but not here.
>
> Anybody committing adultery is lying. They are lying in what is supposed
> to be their deepest committment. While it suits your purpose, as a Clinton
> supporter, to express this position, character DOES count. And a spouse
> that
> would violate their committment to another would just as easily violate
> their
> committment to the voter.
>
> Common sense rears its ugly head somewhere.
>
> >A married couple can agree to a sexless marriage or one that includes sex
> >with other consenting adults. The legal status of marriage is often
> >desirable without religious, sexual, emotional and financial concomitants.
>
> OK. Then they shouldn't have any problem saying so up front, should they?
> After all, they wouldn't want the voter to get the wrong impression (Like
> Brian Baird did to us) would we?
>
> "Ladies and Gentleman, here's my wife, Mary Lou Whatever. We have an
> open marriage; can and do fuck anything that moves without giving it a
> second thought!"
>
> Dream on, Craig. We haven't yet sunk to that level... Clinton lying
> about his adultery effortlessly puts the lie to your position.
>
> >Livingston's decision reflects the narrow cultural beliefs of his power
> >base. I think he should stay.
> >
> Well, he's obviously not interested in doing what you would like to give
> your boy cover, which is, in reality, the ONLY reason you think he should
> stay.
>
> His decision reflects honor and political realism, heretofore absent in both
> the president's actions and your posts.
>
> >Craig Hoyer
> >Anti-GOP Independent
> >
> Shhheeet.
>
> Try replacing that with "Blindingly Biased Independent"
>
> Kage
>
> >Joel wrote in message <75jpfg$bvu$3...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
> >>Why do episodes of marital infidelity make him unqualified to lead?
> >>
> >>
Roger Perkins
Don't let Kage's mouth fool you. He makes alot of noise, but seldom alot
of sense. If you really what to see him get up on his ignorant high
horse, ask him about women in the service. It's one of the many topics he
knows nothing about but is willing to try and intimidate over.
Stay around. Eventually he'll dumb himself to death and go away. It alwasy
happens.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Kage D. McClued
I know how frustrating it is for you to have jammed your dick into
the usenet fan, (given your previous proclivity for doing so)but this
obvious troll bait is one of the weaker efforts I've seen from you....
and that's of the many weaker efforts you've exerted.
I know that it pisses you off because I beat you like a rented mule, the
Livingston issue being just another case in point. I suggested that
Livingston step down for reasons clearly incomprehensible to one of
your limited intellect. You came back with your usual irrelevant, off
topic, nonsensical bullshit, and guess what?
Around 5 hours after I posted it, he did.
The idea that I was once again right, while you were, once again,
wrong making you crazy is understandable. Being unable to discern
basic military concepts such as "honor" as they are obviously over your
head is regrettable on your part, but what we've come to expect.
Your face ran into my door. Get over it.
Kage
Roger Perkins wrote in message <36815ABE...@sisna.com>...
Steven Spears
it to keep Military Officers from being promoted to the rank of General for
marital infidelity. He is the Commander and Chief of these Military
Officers! He should have to keep with the same tradition and standards that
they have to.
Right now there is a Army General that has retired. He is now going before
a court martial because he had marital infidelity with Junior Officers
wives. This General is looking at brig time. Is this right? Not if
President Clinton does not have to stand before the judge and pay the price.
Besides he is being charged with lying and perjury. Not marital infidelity!
He does not even believe that he has done anything wrong! He is a lawyer he
knows that lying to a grand jury is perjury.
Why should President Clinton be any different? This is just a tip of the
iceberg of what he has done. How about the FBI files on all the Republican
Party? How about murder?
This man does not belong in charge of our Great Nation and surly not in
charge of our military.
Joel Schoenberg wrote in message ...
>I agree.
>
>NH wrote in message <367d76bd...@news.yellowsub.net>...
>>They Don't.
>>
>>On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 21:18:08 GMT, xxno...@gte.net (Joel) wrote:
>>
Mike Hihn
Joel, I had hoped for an honest response here.
Perhaps you missed the question?
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 08:03:48 GMT, lib...@wolfenet.com (Mike Hihn)
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 06:28:31 GMT, xxno...@gte.net (Joel) wrote:
>
>>Kage and Mike;
>>
>>I have yet to hear your response to this. I mean, you defied us to
>>come up with a way to commit adultery without lying,
>
>I had nothing to do with that -- and did not make even a peep on that
>topic.
>
>Purely as an aside, the scenarios look sufficient to me.
>
>Finally, please tell Frederick and Clavius that this is about the 5th
>or 6th time you've attributed something to me that I never said.
>I'm sure you recall, Joel. though perhaps not the exact number.
>Correct?
>
W.N.(Bill) McCaw
>
> I would say it makes him unqualified to lead. He has the power and has used
> it to keep Military Officers from being promoted to the rank of General for
> marital infidelity. He is the Commander and Chief of these Military
> Officers! He should have to keep with the same tradition and standards that
> they have to.
To my knowledge, Clinton has not used that power to keep officers from
being promoted. I suspect that he has kept a pretty hands off attitude
towards the military.
Frankly, he (Clinton) lost some respect from me when he backed off from
the Gays in the Military question in the first months of his first
term. He should have gone ahead with the listing in the Federal
Register and let the chips fall where they would. Then the Onus would
have been on the Congress instead of him for waffling.
>
> Right now there is a Army General that has retired. He is now going before
> a court martial because he had marital infidelity with Junior Officers
> wives. This General is looking at brig time. Is this right? Not if
> President Clinton does not have to stand before the judge and pay the price.
> Besides he is being charged with lying and perjury. Not marital infidelity!
> He does not even believe that he has done anything wrong! He is a lawyer he
> knows that lying to a grand jury is perjury.
Respectifully, having sex with a junior officers wife is the nub of why
the military is so stern with the question of adultry.
I personally think the services should modify the UMCJ about sex except
with cases such as this where seniors and juniors are mixed and not
married.
Clinton OHO had sexual "fooling around" as Monica puts it, with a
willing, and in fact pursuing partner. Vastly different. It is of
course adultry, but in the General's case, his affair also was very
destructive to military discipline.
>
> Why should President Clinton be any different? This is just a tip of the
> iceberg of what he has done. How about the FBI files on all the Republican
> Party? How about murder?
All throughly investigated by the the Hound Dog, Starr, and reported to
be not true!
>
> This man does not belong in charge of our Great Nation and surly not in
> charge of our military.
>
You are entitiled to your opinion, as are the majority of the
population.
--
Cheers! W.N.(Bill) McCaw
"When is doubt, Act like a pro!!"
Roger L. Perkins
sorta put you into the "too-stupid-to-pay-attention-to" file a long time
ago. You remember, when you were trying to pass off your time as an AG
Ranger as real military time.
I guess the reason you like to use me to focus your little tirades is
because you want to be accepted as a peer by me so bad. You know, a
"soldier buddy". But it just won't happen so you need to adjust to that,
sonny. I don't have any time for those who claim to be what they aren't.
You really need to concentrate on those who you can fool and leave those of
us who see through you off your list. You just get beaten up over and over
and...
Say? When did you say that "big DC job" was going to come? You remember,
the one where you were going to fix the military that threw you out?
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Kage D. McClued wrote in message <3681d...@news.pacifier.com>...
Kage D. McClued
all pissed off.
Its sufficient for me that I have managed to get so thoroughly under
that thin skin of yours, no doubt why you were passed over and forced
to retire.
See, whenever you get your assed kicked, which is all to frequently
for someone claiming to have actually been a serving Army officer,
you resort to this playground bullshit.
To me, its a sure sign that you've been caught with your dick
hanging out once again. Otherwise, you'd stick to addressing issues
instead of acting like the little psycho-soldier you claim to be.
I have enjoyed busting your chops all these years, and I look forward
to continue to do so in the future. I got over my disappointment that
you are unable to grasp new concepts and perspectives intelligent
enough to differ from yours. As the Alzheimer's you suffer from
becomes more progressive, your babble will become even more disjointed.
What a shame. You could have actually amounted to something.
Kage
Roger L. Perkins wrote in message <36842...@news.sisna.com>...
Mike Hihn
<wnm...@bmi.net> wrote:
>Frankly, he (Clinton) lost some respect from me when he backed off from
>the Gays in the Military question in the first months of his first
>term. He should have gone ahead with the listing in the Federal
>Register and let the chips fall where they would. Then the Onus would
>have been on the Congress instead of him for waffling.
Well, I can sympathize with that disappointment, but we would have had
to reinstate a compulsory draft, in peacetime, to make it stick.
The concept of an all-volunteer military would have collapsed
overnight. He was only elected to President, not Emperor.
At the time, incredibly, many of the left were willing to re-impose
the draft to make it stick.
Under the circumstances, "don't ask, don't tell" was (and is) the best
that could be done -- but has frequently been ignored.
SHIPFIXR
>for someone claiming to have actually been a serving Army officer,
>you resort to this playground bullshi
Question: when did Perkins claim "to have actually been a serving Army
officer.."? I've never seen that anywhere. Do I have him mixed up with
someone else....or do you?
DN
Roger L. Perkins
bullshit"?
Read the record, kid. Whether I got passed over or not (Didn't. 7 years
enlisted) I at least did my full time and wasn't kicked out. You were.
That's why I get my check every month and you get pissed on the internet.
Under my skin? Hell, you aren't near man enough to get close to that.
But what the Hell! You are so weak I think I'll just leave you alone
knowing that you will never measure up no matter how much whining you do.
No matter how much mumbo-jumbo you make up. You stick out like the loser
you are no matter how you try to dress it up. Expert on women in the
military, expert on political wrangling, expert on this-and-that. But you
know I know, Kage. It' s guys like me that gave you your bad OERs for not
being to make the grade. That's because we see right through you.
But go ahead and use me as your excuse. My guess is that you usually have
someone handy to blame for your shortcomings, don't you now? Yeah, that's a
good little loser.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Kage D. McClued wrote in message <36846...@news.pacifier.com>...
>Ramjet, I just love it when you come down off another viagra high
>all pissed off.
>
>Its sufficient for me that I have managed to get so thoroughly under
>that thin skin of yours, no doubt why you were passed over and forced
>to retire.
>
>See, whenever you get your assed kicked, which is all to frequently
>for someone claiming to have actually been a serving Army officer,
Roger L. Perkins
Actually, he and I have crossed before which is where he knows my background
from. I acutally am a retired Army major with 7 years enlisted time under
my belt. I retired in 91 as the G2 of US Army SF Command and now I teach
college. Kage is just bitter because his career just didn't work out.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
SHIPFIXR wrote in message <19981226105221...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
>>See, whenever you get your assed kicked, which is all to frequently
>>for someone claiming to have actually been a serving Army officer,
>>you resort to this playground bullshi
>
> Question: when did Perkins claim "to have actually been a serving
Army
Kage D. McClued
Roger L. Perkins wrote in message <36855...@news.sisna.com>...
>Hmmm... look how fast you - how did you put it - "resort to this playground
>bullshit"?
>
>Read the record, kid. Whether I got passed over or not (Didn't. 7 years
>enlisted) I at least did my full time and wasn't kicked out. You were.
Well, Rog, I gotta tell you... 13 years of commissioned service ending up
as a major equals being passed over.
That said, except for your bigotted perspective, feel free to prove that I
was "kicked out."
You can't, of course, as you have never disproven my assertions on
anything.... which is an all too clear example of what your OER's
looked like. Typical of a ROAD officer.
Nevertheless... that you keep raising to the bait is enough entertainment
to me.
>That's why I get my check every month and you get pissed on the internet.
Well, Rog, as even a dolt such as yourself knows, you were just fortunate
enough to be passed over close enough to the 20 year mark to get paid for
it.
Just because you didn't get promoted and had to retire doesn't mean you
don't get a check, Perkins... know what I mean?
>Under my skin? Hell, you aren't near man enough to get close to that.
>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Man... what a card.
Perkins, you have never substantively discussed a single issue on this net
since I've started reading your trash. I have beat you like a rented mule,
and your only response is completely unsubstantiated "Leftyrule" (It is
a certain way, because *I*, the Great Ramjet, say it is!) bullshit. It
causes
you to hit the bottle I've whooped up on your ass so much. It has
frequently
been so easy to embarass you that even I, on occasion, have felt sorry for
you!
>But what the Hell! You are so weak I think I'll just leave you alone
>knowing that you will never measure up no matter how much whining you do.
Don't do me any favors, Ramjet. Whenever you fell froggy, come ahead on and
leap.
>No matter how much mumbo-jumbo you make up.
*I* MAKE UP?
Shades of your idiotic, any E-3 knows but Ramjet didn't basic load debacle.
>You stick out like the loser
>you are no matter how you try to dress it up.
"We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto!"
Rest assured Ramjet, even though I enjoy spraypainting your face red, I
don't lose any sleep over the idiocy you spout.
> Expert on women in the military,
HHHmmm....
Expert? Nah... that's an over statement. I let DoD and DA do the talking
for me.
>expert on political wrangling,
Well, I DID make you look shitfaced on the Livingston resignation, didn't I?
You should be used to that by now.
>expert on this-and-that.
It's a living.
Heh.
>But you know I know, Kage.
What I know is that you're one sick, blinded biased asshole, Ramjet... an
opinion
I have seen expressed by many here over the years. Would you like a list?
>It' s guys like me that gave you your bad OERs for not being to make the
grade.
Actually, Rog, it was a guy like you that I replaced after he was
reliefed-for-cause.
He had all that airborne bullshit going on as well. Had the same attitude,
to.
He was so smart... knew it all... didn't listen to his NCO's (according to
the
Article 32) and got his ass kicked in a PGEurope inspection... wound up
missing over $15,000 in funds...
His wings didn't help him where he got sent, Ramjet.
Is that what happened to you, 4 block boy?
>That's because we see right through you.
>
In your dreams, Ramjet. You've been flat out wrong so often, there's a
second
crack in your ass.
>But go ahead and use me as your excuse.
"Use you?" Whatever for? What a bizarre idea, that anyone would need, or
want, to
do that. I guess that Barstow messkit repair thing really messed you up,
huh Ram?
> My guess is that you usually have
>someone handy to blame for your shortcomings, don't you now?
Well, jet, I'll have to defer to your expertise and experience on the
matter. Frankly,
given your level of shallowness, I'm sure that the old "when did you stop
beating
your wife" question takes on an entirely new meaning for a clown like you.
>Yeah, that's a good little loser.
>
And who better to know if not our resident expert in the field.
>Roger
>AIRBORNE!
>
Weak, Ramjet... weak. But, as always, what we've grown to expect from you.
Kage
~Kent~
star general eh?? [;o)
SHIPFIXR wrote in message <19981226211617...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...
>>Actually, he and I have crossed before which is where he knows my
background
>>from. I acutally am a retired Army major with 7 years enlisted time under
>>my belt. I retired in 91 as the G2 of US Army SF Command and now I teach
>>college. Kage is just bitter because his career just didn't work out.
>>
fact
>you were an Officer. Did you know Kage in the Army or just from the
BB's??
>He seems to want to cast doubt upon your having been an Officer is the
reason I
>ask. "for someone claiming to have actually been a serving Army officer" is
the
>way he put it I believe.
>
> I had just under 12 years Enlisted time prior to getting my Warrant;
>retired in '85 as a Lieutenant Commander myself.
>
> Thanks for clearing it up for me.
>
>DN
>
>
Roger L. Perkins
and found a way to blame anyone and everyone except themselves for their
failings. They are the one's who get the "works well with supervision"
block all the time. He has shared that he was an AG officer and had been
enlisted as well. My guess it that the transition didn't take real well.
Happens. Luckily I didn't run across him, just his type, on active duty. I
hate having to retrain folks.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
SHIPFIXR
SHIPFIXR
>that thin skin of yours, no doubt why you were passed over and forced
>to retire.
>
and ends up an O-4 has had a good enough career.. what did you end up as? Did
you have a good enough career??
DN
SHIPFIXR
>>enlisted) I at least did my full time and wasn't kicked out. You were.
>
>Well, Rog, I gotta tell you... 13 years of commissioned service ending up
>as a major equals being passed over.
>
is right at the 15 year mark, has been for a long time. If he was passed over
(and you have to pass over twice) he must have made Major REAL early in his
career......like skipped Captain altogether.....do they do that in the Army??
>That said, except for your bigotted perspective, feel free to prove that I
>was "kicked out."
>
WERE you "kicked out"??
>
>>That's why I get my check every month and you get pissed on the internet.
>
>Well, Rog, as even a dolt such as yourself knows, you were just fortunate
>enough to be passed over close enough to the 20 year mark to get paid for
>it.
>
>Just because you didn't get promoted and had to retire doesn't mean you
>don't get a check, Perkins... know what I mean?
>
I think you are probably wrong about that but I have the strangest
feeling you....... don't care........... about right and wrong.
DN
SHIPFIXR
>Don't believe everything you read DN. [;o) Shucks, I could have been a two
>star general eh?? [;o)
Which means WHAT? Don't believe everything I read of Kage's or
Perkins....or, come to think of it.....yours?
DN
Kage D. McClued
background
>>from. I acutally am a retired Army major with 7 years enlisted time under
>>my belt. I retired in 91 as the G2 of US Army SF Command and now I teach
>>college. Kage is just bitter because his career just didn't work out.
>>
Gotta love it. 13 years commissioned service... passed over for LTC...
and you say MY career "didn't work out."
Ramjet, feel free to PROVE your bullshit...
Otherwise, well, we'll just see you for the faker you are.
> OK, I knew you were retired Army but for some reason had missed the
fact
>you were an Officer. Did you know Kage in the Army or just from the
BB's??
>He seems to want to cast doubt upon your having been an Officer is the
reason I
>ask. "for someone claiming to have actually been a serving Army officer" is
the
>way he put it I believe.
>
I have SOME doubt that he served a day, given the variety of mistakes he's
made in some extremely common areas of basic skills.
I SERIOUSLY doubt that he "teaches" anything, anywhere.
"Teaching" requires the free exchange of ideas.
Ramjet has proven himself genetically incapable of accepting any idea or
concept that didn't originate under his furrowed brow.
> I had just under 12 years Enlisted time prior to getting my Warrant;
>retired in '85 as a Lieutenant Commander myself.
>
> Thanks for clearing it up for me.
>
Well... sorta cleared up. Ramjet's ideas about my career are as lacking
in vision and facts as most of his other positions. But he's great to have
around,
and I enjoy swiss-cheesing his positions.
Hopefully, one of these days, he'll actually cite a genuine source for his
disagreements with me. But in all the years I've been here, I have yet to
see him do it.
Kage
>DN
>
>
Kage D. McClued
SHIPFIXR wrote in message <19981226211838...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...
No, in fact I didn't get kicked out. I was enlisted... went ROTC... made
Regular Army... was retreaded out of combat arms into paper-pushing because
of hearing loss... spent 5 years commissioned and resigned due to family
problems, specifically concerning one of my step-children, but which are
really none of Ramjet's business.
He tells the world that I was "kicked out" as an attempt to discredit my
positions which usually disagree with his. He made it to O-4 (which, I
agree, is not bad for anyone with substantial enlisted time) and, therefore,
(rather childishly, I think) attempts to beat me over the head with it
whenever we disagree. You may have detected some of his condescending
attitude on this thread.
Actually, I believe the "rightness" or ""wrongness"" of a position is based
on the facts that support it. Ramjet relies entirely on his own anecdotal
experiences, and anything that disagrees with that, no matter the source, is
subject to his ridicule (from the playground version of "if you can't attack
the message, attack the messenger" school of thought)
In time, you will hopefully read what we all have to say... and you can form
your own opinions.
Kage
Kage D. McClued
SHIPFIXR wrote in message <19981226212952...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...
I have answered the "did I get kicked out" question above.
In the mid 80's, in the Army, to have gone 13 years commissioned, unless
promoted late as a junior officer (passed over at least once for CPT, for
example) would have resulted in at least one look for O-5)
I would venture to say that, as for the issue for what is right or wrong,
the best way to decide that is to read what we write.
I have no problem going head to head with Perkins based on the facts... but
review the entire Livingston thread, for example.
I started the prior thread a few hours before it came to pass: "Livingston
should step down."
Ramjet STARTED his response to me on the Livingston thread, which he
obviously posted to before the announcement of Livingston's resignation, by
saying:
"(sigh) And again we have to explain the obvious to those who fail to get
their
facts straight. I just love it when he tries to act like he has a clue."
Of course, five hours after I posted the call for his resignation,
Livingston, in fact, resigned.
Clearly, I did "have a clue," and equally clearly, Roger did not.
The end result? Well, you should be able to guess by now Ramjet's approach.
Clearly, there may be, as you said, one of us that "....... don't
care........... about right and wrong" but it isn't me.
The words we all post speak for themselves. Who we are, where or when we
served, or, for that matter, how long does not confer upon us the mantle of
perfection that Perkins tries to wear.
Believe me... or don't. This is, after all, the usenet. Contribute
often... mix it up... enjoy the give and take of present and past
professionals. But please understand... when someone insists on exhibiting
a certain lack of professionalism; honor, if you will, by focusing their
attack on my career, even though they have no information to support that
position but their own biases and prejudices; when they attack my service
because, as an officer, it wasn't "grunt" enough, they should not expect me
to avoid taking them on... and on their own terms.
Ramjet and I have even, surprisingly, agreed on occasion. I respond to his
insistence in engaging in childish attempts to discredit me with the level
of respect they deserve. If he would ever go to facts... and stay there...
as I have REPEATEDLY asked him to do (even politely) and as he has
repeatedly FAILED to do, then so would I.
I hope this answers your questions. I will not be addressing the issue
again.
Kage
SHIPFIXR
>
you?
>In the mid 80's, in the Army, to have gone 13 years commissioned, unless
>promoted late as a junior officer (passed over at least once for CPT, for
>example) would have resulted in at least one look for O-5)
>
I won't argue the point, 9-10 for O-4 and 14-15 for O-5 has been the norm
since I was in, it certainly was when I retired (1985, you can't get more
"mid-80's" than that) Perhaps what you meant is he was passed over for one of
his earlier promotions on the first go round, he says he retired in 1991.....
>Of course, five hours after I posted the call for his resignation,
>Livingston, in fact, resigned.
>
Oh, were you the one who wrote the post calling for Livingston to resign
and not be the one to preside over the House during the impeachment vote??
>I hope this answers your questions. I will not be addressing the issue
>again.
>
Well, in that you haven't answered my simple question about whether or not
you were kicked out.....no "addressing the issue again" seems a bit lame.
One last question, although you won't, as you say, be answering again.....if
Perkins has no information to be supporting the things he states about your
career.....do YOU have any that supports the things you state about his??
Just a thought.
DN
~Kent~
SHIPFIXR wrote in message <19981226234026...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
Kage D. McClued
SHIPFIXR wrote in message <19981227120545...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
>>I have answered the "did I get kicked out" question above.
>>
> I'm sure you did but for those of us who got here late....did you or
didn't
>you?
>
>>In the mid 80's, in the Army, to have gone 13 years commissioned, unless
>>promoted late as a junior officer (passed over at least once for CPT, for
>>example) would have resulted in at least one look for O-5)
>>
> I won't argue the point, 9-10 for O-4 and 14-15 for O-5 has been the
norm
>since I was in, it certainly was when I retired (1985, you can't get more
>"mid-80's" than that) Perhaps what you meant is he was passed over for one
of
>his earlier promotions on the first go round, he says he retired in
1991.....
>
>>Of course, five hours after I posted the call for his resignation,
>>Livingston, in fact, resigned.
>>
> Oh, were you the one who wrote the post calling for Livingston to
resign
>and not be the one to preside over the House during the impeachment vote??
>
Yes. I was... dated the 17th, and posted at 11:56 PST on the 17th, about 5
hours (Locally)
before he did so.
>>I hope this answers your questions. I will not be addressing the issue
>>again.
>>
> Well, in that you haven't answered my simple question about whether or
not
>you were kicked out.....no "addressing the issue again" seems a bit lame.
I DID respond to that. I posted to that, specifically answering your
questions
at 2:40 a.m. today (27th). If, for whatever the reason, your server doesn't
show it (my isp's news server occasionally does not post all messages) here
is what I posted in response:
Start quote:
"No, in fact I didn't get kicked out. I was enlisted... went ROTC... made
Regular Army... was retreaded out of combat arms into paper-pushing because
of hearing loss... spent 5 years commissioned and resigned due to family
problems, specifically concerning one of my step-children, but which are
really none of Ramjet's business.
He tells the world that I was "kicked out" as an attempt to discredit my
positions which usually disagree with his. He made it to O-4 (which, I
agree, is not bad for anyone with substantial enlisted time) and, therefore,
(rather childishly, I think) attempts to beat me over the head with it
whenever we disagree. You may have detected some of his condescending
attitude on this thread.
Actually, I believe the "rightness" or ""wrongness"" of a position is based
on the facts that support it. Ramjet relies entirely on his own anecdotal
experiences, and anything that disagrees with that, no matter the source, is
subject to his ridicule (from the playground version of "if you can't attack
the message, attack the messenger" school of thought)
In time, you will hopefully read what we all have to say... and you can form
your own opinions.
Kage"
>One last question, although you won't, as you say, be answering again.....
I did not anticipate the earlier post failing to get on the board, and had
felt I
had explained things all they needed to be.
>if
>Perkins has no information to be supporting the things he states about your
>career.....do YOU have any that supports the things you state about his??
>Just a thought.
>
In the words of another "Hollywood Warrior:"
"He drew First Blood, not me."
I stand by what I say based on the ideas the words contain. Anyone may feel
free to disagree. Hopefully, however, when pressed as to why, they will do
more then sprout invective, and belittle the service of others.
>DN
Kage
SHIPFIXR
>resign
>>and not be the one to preside over the House during the impeachment vote??
>>
>Yes. I was... dated the 17th, and posted at 11:56 PST on the 17th, about 5
>hours (Locally)
>before he did so.
>
impeachment vote when he wasn't scheduled to become speaker of the House until
Congress came back in session in January??
>>>I hope this answers your questions. I will not be addressing the issue
>>>again.
>>>
>> Well, in that you haven't answered my simple question about whether or
>not
>>you were kicked out.....no "addressing the issue again" seems a bit lame.
>
>I DID respond to that. I posted to that, specifically answering your
>questions
>at 2:40 a.m. today (27th). If, for whatever the reason, your server doesn't
>show it (my isp's news server occasionally does not post all messages) here
>is what I posted in response:
>
>Start quote:
Yes, I read it after I posted this...sorry.
>>One last question, although you won't, as you say, be answering again.....
>
>I did not anticipate the earlier post failing to get on the board, and had
>felt I
>had explained things all they needed to be.
>
>>if
>>Perkins has no information to be supporting the things he states about your
>>career.....do YOU have any that supports the things you state about his??
>>Just a thought.
>>In the words of another "Hollywood Warrior:"
>
>"He drew First Blood, not me."
>
It sounds like he said it about you so you are saying it about
him.....or vice versa. Hate to say it but the whole thing sounds kind of
"Romper Room" to me.....not that I haven't been guilty of that on occasion.....
DN
Roger L. Perkins
How long to Major, Mr. AG Ranger? Enlisted for 7 years. Commissioned year
group 78. 2 years to 1Lt. Captain 1 June 82. Pinned on Major 1 Aug 90
(#2022 in the zone) and then retired 1 Nov 91. You do the math on whether
I even got a sniff at an O-5 board much less got passed over. I guess
that's why you got RIFed, huh? Not much of an AG pogue. BTW, a major only
has to do 6 months TIG as compared to an LTC's - what? - 3 years to retire
in grade? But I bet you knew that, you having been a clerk and all.
Now, Kage, why don't you just slink away. You are smart enough (now THERE'S
an assumption!) to know you just can't impress me or most of the other real
soldiers here no matter how much you want to. You tried before and lost
out. Make it ez on yourself and don't go around trying to "prove" your
"career". Like my stuff, it could all be bullshit and there is no way to
prove it on the net. You either are believable or you or not.
You're not to me. And you just can't stand it.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Kage D. McClued wrote in message <36860...@news.pacifier.com>...
Roger L. Perkins
to pass a short military career into a position of expertise. And I called
him on it and he hates it. Too bad. He continually makes statements that
require a level of experienc ehe does not possess and then tries to hammer
those who call him on it. This thread on the Livingston post is a good
example. Kage has neglected to post the entire thing because it does't deal
with whether Livingston would resign or not. It deals with whether he broke
the law or not. You see, I see a difference between what pisses me off and
what is illegal. I think Kage misses that important point, as he has missed
so many other important points in other "discussions" we have had. Anyway,
here is the complete post. You decide.
>(sigh) And again we have to explain the obvious to those who fail to get
their
>facts straight. I just love it when he tries to act like he has a clue.
Adultery isn't >against the law. A minor point, I know, but still...
Perjury is. About what doesn't >matter. Look at the charges against
Clinton. Nothing there about sexual misconduct.
>Just about lying and abuse of power. Now here is the tricky part, Kage...
Livingston >didn't lie in court. Not a criminal. (Work with me here, Kage.
You can do it!) Clinton >- criminal. Livingston - not criminal. Got it?
>
>Now I know that this is very confusing to those of you with simple minds
(Kage? >Listen up here!) but try. Even the Congress can't seem to get it's
facts straight at >times so I guess it's no wonder you have trouble too. If
this was easy we would have >been through it long ago. But if you take the
time to actually listen to the charges >you will see that the sex was merely
a symptom of
>a problem, not the problem itself. When Bill raised his hand he could have
said
>"Yes I did! I played her like a cheap gong!" and been fine. A jerk, but
not a >perjurer. But he chose to lie and with that stepped across the line
from cheating >husband to betraying his oath of office.
>
>And please don't fire back like one of those who want the issue to be sex
soooo >bad! It isn't. Perjury is and that is what he is charged with.
Like Bill, you can't pick >and choose what you want to see, which laws you
want to follow, etc. You must deal >with reality.
So, you see, I didn't say what Kage says I did. He usually get's things
wrong. Even with his preachy-ness he's still a dolt.
And that's all this time. I'll just wait around until he says something
stupid again and then jump in. Just like I told him about the women in the
service thing. Kage shouldn't talk about things he doesn't understand. But
he should fit in in DC quite well.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Kage D. McClued wrote in message <36860...@news.pacifier.com>...
>
>SHIPFIXR wrote in message <19981226211838...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...
>>>Its sufficient for me that I have managed to get so thoroughly under
>>>that thin skin of yours, no doubt why you were passed over and forced
>>>to retire.
>>>
>> Did you really get kicked out?? Anyone who enlists in the Armed
>forces
>>and ends up an O-4 has had a good enough career.. what did you end up as?
>Did
>>you have a good enough career??
>>
>>DN
>
>
Kage D. McClued
SHIPFIXR wrote in message <19981227182031...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
>>> Oh, were you the one who wrote the post calling for Livingston to
>>resign
>>>and not be the one to preside over the House during the impeachment
vote??
>>>
>>Yes. I was... dated the 17th, and posted at 11:56 PST on the 17th, about 5
>>hours (Locally)
>>before he did so.
>>
> Wonder why you would think Livingston would be presiding over the
>impeachment vote when he wasn't scheduled to become speaker of the House
until
>Congress came back in session in January??
>
the debate was, I believed (and still do) idiocy itself. Newt had done his
disappearing act, and I'm sure that, had Livingston not been "outted," he
more then likely was going to run the show... as part of a "break in" period
with the American people. What better way for the new Speaker to show his
parlimentary skills, and how fair he would be in the entire process?
>
>>>>I hope this answers your questions. I will not be addressing the issue
>>>>again.
>>>>
>>> Well, in that you haven't answered my simple question about whether
or
>>not
>>>you were kicked out.....no "addressing the issue again" seems a bit lame.
>>
>>I DID respond to that. I posted to that, specifically answering your
>>questions
>>at 2:40 a.m. today (27th). If, for whatever the reason, your server
doesn't
>>show it (my isp's news server occasionally does not post all messages)
here
>>is what I posted in response:
>>
>>Start quote:
>
> Yes, I read it after I posted this...sorry.
>
No problem. Its a shame I have to engage in damage control like this every
so often... but circumstances sometimes dictate...
>
>>>One last question, although you won't, as you say, be answering
again.....
>>
>>I did not anticipate the earlier post failing to get on the board, and had
>>felt I had explained things all they needed to be.
>>
>>>if
>>>Perkins has no information to be supporting the things he states about
your
>>>career.....do YOU have any that supports the things you state about his??
>>>Just a thought.
>>>In the words of another "Hollywood Warrior:"
>>
>>"He drew First Blood, not me."
>>
> It sounds like he said it about you so you are saying it about
>him.....or vice versa. Hate to say it but the whole thing sounds kind of
>"Romper Room" to me.....not that I haven't been guilty of that on
occasion.....
>
I guess one of the differences between me and Roger is that I will freely
admit it.
When he takes the issues to this personal of a level... he, IMHO, goes over
the line.
I respond in kind... sort of a MAD policy.
I WANT to stick to issues... to substantiated fact. Roger, who professes to
be a
university level teacher, should revel in that type of requirement.
I prefer to let the facts speak for themselves. If someone can come up with
better... or more substantiated cites then I do... well, so be it!
>DN
>
Kage... welcome aboard.
Kage D. McClued
in one of his posts down the line.
Roger starts:
(sigh) OK. Like any of this is "proof" on the net, but here goes.
How long to Major, Mr. AG Ranger? Enlisted for 7 years. Commissioned year
group 78. 2 years to 1LT. Captain 1 June 82. Pinned on Major 1 Aug 90
(#2022 in the zone) and then retired 1 Nov 91. You do the math on whether
I even got a sniff at an O-5 board much less got passed over. I guess
that's why you got RIFed, huh? Not much of an AG pogue. BTW, a major only
has to do 6 months TIG as compared to an LTC's - what? - 3 years to retire
in grade? But I bet you knew that, you having been a clerk and all.
Now, Kage, why don't you just slink away. You are smart enough (now THERE'S
an assumption!) to know you just can't impress me or most of the other real
soldiers here no matter how much you want to. You tried before and lost
out. Make it ez on yourself and don't go around trying to "prove" your
"career". Like my stuff, it could all be bullshit and there is no way to
prove it on the net. You either are believable or you or not.
You're not to me. And you just can't stand it.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Roger ends.
For whatever the reason, when I think "Major in the US Army," this kind of
vitriol, or even the desire on the part of a Major to spew this type of
tripe does
not immediately come to mind.
Three quick examples:
Promotion to 1LT took 18 months... not two years.
He tells the world I was "RIFed" in an era where there were no rifs.
He characterizes my entire service in the Army as an "AG Pogue,"
even though he knows I spent 9 years in Combat Arms (Recon and
Infantry) and was involuntarily retreaded to AG due to hearing loss.
Unfortunately, he is unaware that he lacks the innate superiority
he attempts to project.
That, of course, does not stop him... he has nothing to support most of
his positions except his dislike for me.
So be it.
Kage
SHIPFIXR wrote in message <19981227182031...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
>>> Oh, were you the one who wrote the post calling for Livingston to
>>resign
>>>and not be the one to preside over the House during the impeachment
vote??
>>>
>>Yes. I was... dated the 17th, and posted at 11:56 PST on the 17th, about 5
>>hours (Locally)
>>before he did so.
>>
> Wonder why you would think Livingston would be presiding over the
>impeachment vote when he wasn't scheduled to become speaker of the House
until
>Congress came back in session in January??
>
>
>
>>>>I hope this answers your questions. I will not be addressing the issue
>>>>again.
>>>>
>>> Well, in that you haven't answered my simple question about whether
or
>>not
>>>you were kicked out.....no "addressing the issue again" seems a bit lame.
>>
>>I DID respond to that. I posted to that, specifically answering your
>>questions
>>at 2:40 a.m. today (27th). If, for whatever the reason, your server
doesn't
>>show it (my isp's news server occasionally does not post all messages)
here
>>is what I posted in response:
>>
>>Start quote:
>
> Yes, I read it after I posted this...sorry.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>One last question, although you won't, as you say, be answering
again.....
>>
>>I did not anticipate the earlier post failing to get on the board, and had
>>felt I
>>had explained things all they needed to be.
>>
>>>if
>>>Perkins has no information to be supporting the things he states about
your
>>>career.....do YOU have any that supports the things you state about his??
>>>Just a thought.
>>>In the words of another "Hollywood Warrior:"
>>
>>"He drew First Blood, not me."
>>
> It sounds like he said it about you so you are saying it about
>him.....or vice versa. Hate to say it but the whole thing sounds kind of
>"Romper Room" to me.....not that I haven't been guilty of that on
occasion.....
>
>DN
>
>
Kage D. McClued
You know how you get when you fall off the wagon...
Roger L. Perkins wrote in message <3686f...@news.sisna.com>...
>YUP! Guilty as charged. I think Kage is a loud-mouthed jerk who has tried
>to pass a short military career into a position of expertise.
Yeah... 14.5 years... a short military career.
> And I called him on it and he hates it.
Call away, bozo... I have kicked your ass so many times your right cheek has
callouses.
> Too bad. He continually makes statements that
>require a level of experienc ehe does not possess
Test time, Ramjet.
Quote ANY of the "statements" you allege in the above.
You won't, of course, because playground whiners generally don't.
>and then tries to hammer those who call him on it.
Ramjet, have you had this confusion looked into?
"Tries?" Christ on a bicycle, I have whooped your ass like a rented mule
for YEARS,
and you say I "try?"
>This thread on the Livingston post is a good
>example. Kage has neglected to post the entire thing because it does't
deal
>with whether Livingston would resign or not.
Ramjet, I never cared, said or asked if he broke the law. That had nothing
to do with
my initial call that he resign.
Anyone wanting to look at what I posted can feel free to look it up the
old-fashioned way.
At least get THESE facts straight!
In addition, the issue that I was refering to, although on the Livingston
thread, had nothing really to do with that subject. What it was was a
discussion between adults about your juvenile behavoir.
Your post here, come to think of it, pretty much confirms it.
>It deals with whether he broke
>the law or not. You see, I see a difference between what pisses me off and
>what is illegal.
Then you really don't have any real problem with the Livingston resignation,
because even an ingrate such as your self should know that, in the D.C.,
adultery IS illegal... since you asked... that said:
My call for his resignation, as I told you when I first busted your chops on
this issue, had nothing to do with legality. Feel free to remain "pissed
off," or, when I'm done with you, pissed on.
It had to do with the entirely foreign to you concept of honor, a
characteristic you are, equally, completely incapable of understanding or
even seeing when it bites you in the ass.
Obviously, Mr. Livingston saw it my way. Anything else you prattle on about
is really worthless in the face of that fact. Even if it pisses you off.
> I think Kage misses that important point, as he has missed
>so many other important points in other "discussions" we have had.
I miss nothing of the sort. I wrote it... I stand by it. That you're blind
as a bat and can't see it is just typical Ramjet.
> Anyway,
>here is the complete post. You decide.
>
Well, I read it and decided. You know what my response is... but I will
take this
opportunity to point out that you so thoroughly missed the point of my
demand
for Livingston's resignation that clearly, you are incapable of "getting
it."
Please... get an MRI or something, will you?
*I* said that YOU posted the following:
"(sigh) And again we have to explain the obvious to those who fail to get
their facts straight. I just love it when he tries to act like he has a
clue."
You post your tripe here, and what do I see?
>>(sigh) And again we have to explain the obvious to those who fail to get
>their
>>facts straight. I just love it when he tries to act like he has a clue.
Your bias blinds you so completely that you are genetically incapable
of admitting when you're wrong. What a pity.
> He usually get's things
>wrong. Even with his preachy-ness he's still a dolt.
>
Yeah. Like the example above, huh?
"I didn't say what Kage says I did."
God help me, for ANYONE to lie like that... let alone a former officer...
Shameful.
>And that's all this time. I'll just wait around until he says something
>stupid again and then jump in. Just like I told him about the women in the
>service thing. Kage shouldn't talk about things he doesn't understand.
But
>he should fit in in DC quite well.
>
We're still waiting for your proof on that one, Ramjet. But I'll be putting
up a web page and a discussion board that covers that very thing, and you
can feel free to come in and puke all over it.
>Roger
>AIRBORNE!
Kage
NimBill
>
>Oh, Kage is just a whiner. You've met the type. Couldn't quite get with it
>and found a way to blame anyone and everyone except themselves for their
>failings. They are the one's who get the "works well with supervision"
>block all the time. He has shared that he was an AG officer and had been
>enlisted as well. My guess it that the transition didn't take real well.
>Happens. Luckily I didn't run across him, just his type, on active duty. I
>hate having to retrain folks.
>
>Roger
>AIRBORNE!
You will remember me. I have no doubts about you or your credentials because
you have been too consistent over the years.
Kage is a different story.
I am and have always been;
Bill Rollins in New Mexico
Wanted! Woman to dig worms, clean fish and cut bait. Must own boat, motor and
trailer and be willing to go bowling when weather is bad. Send picture of boat,
motor and trailer.
Kage D. McClued
Feel free to site specifics... if you can.
Kage
NimBill wrote in message <19981228015419...@ng50.aol.com>...
Roger L. Perkins
and that's what gets you. It's why you post about me so much. "Hey! Pay
attention to lil' Kage! I am somebody!"
(sigh) Sorry.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Kage D. McClued wrote in message <36872...@news.pacifier.com>...
NimBill
>
>Three quick examples:
>
>Promotion to 1LT took 18 months... not two years.
>
>
This one is wrong! In the 70s promotion to O-2 gradually slowed from the 12
months it had been in the late 60s to 15 months to 18 months to 24 months due
to the post Vietnam drawdown. I knew a couple of folks who were commissioned
only a few days too late and wound up being several months junior to others who
were in their college class when earlier they were only days behind.
Knew one Ensign who wore the Bull Ensign bars for 6 months because of this.