GOP gives up on 1996
Eleanor Rotthoff
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SGI.3.91r.960508171645.10043A-100000@freenet>,
>Russ Anderson <and...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
>>
>>On 7 May 1996, HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
>>> John Q. Public (j...@globaldialog.com) wrote:
>
>****************** Deleted ******************
>
>>
>>And the GOP wonder why they have a gender gap.
>>Staying married IS a family value (especially when you have kids).
>>
>
>
>Not to fear lil dittoheads. Dole said he is gonna deal with this gender
>gap stuff. In today's New York Times, Dole is quoted as saying he is
>going to give some speeches on stuff interesting to women. Oh boy! I bet
>the women of America can't wait.
>His 100% rating from the Christian Coalition won't be any problem with
>the women of America any more.
>American women's worrys of hack and slash primitive republicanism cutting
>away more of the saftey net won't be a problem anymore. Dole's gonna give
>some speeches and fix everything.
>
>
>Maybe he can go on The Tonight Show and try to kiss a pig also.
>
>
>Here's an open question for Dole on behalf of the women of America.
>
>Senator Dole, you have been a noted opponent of abortion rights and
>you have been given a 100% rating from the Christian Colaitian and given
>the Christian Coalition's endorsment by Ralph Reed.
>Do you plan to have any abortion litmus test with any Supreme Court
>nominations you may make during your administration?
Dole has already said that he opposes any single issue litmus test for
Supreme Court appointments.
>Who is on you list of possible nominees? How much input will the
>Christian Coalition have with any nominations you may make during a Dole
>administration?
>
>Anybody want to mail this off to Dole and ask for an answer on behalf of
>the women of Internet and America? Maybe the editors of Ms. magazine,
>and other magazines to get an official answer from Senator Dole?
>As long as he is going to try to give some speeches to gain some votes
>from women, maybe it is a good time for women to demand some straight
>answers to some very important questions concerning women and a possible
>Dole presidency.
>Any women want to do the deed?
>Do you women want a sour old 72 year old white man to tell you how
>you and your loved ones and friends will be allowed to live your lives
>in regards to your own body? Now or never, ladies of the internet.
>
>
>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
>
Eleanor Rotthoff
Irrational screaming is no substitute for logical argument.
Even if the screamer is correct, he is unpersuasive.
William Barwell
In article <3191654c...@news.io.com>,
When? Where? And can we trust him to actually do that?
And who would he put on the supreme court?
The women of America might want to make sure he answers some good hard
questions here. Or at least think about them hard and make sure they are
registered to vote if they are not at this time.
I somehow doubt Dole will be appointed many free choice proponents to teh
supreme court.
>
>>Who is on you list of possible nominees? How much input will the
>>Christian Coalition have with any nominations you may make during a Dole
>>administration?
>>
>>Anybody want to mail this off to Dole and ask for an answer on behalf of
>>the women of Internet and America? Maybe the editors of Ms. magazine,
>>and other magazines to get an official answer from Senator Dole?
>>As long as he is going to try to give some speeches to gain some votes
>>from women, maybe it is a good time for women to demand some straight
>>answers to some very important questions concerning women and a possible
>>Dole presidency.
>>Any women want to do the deed?
>>Do you women want a sour old 72 year old white man to tell you how
>>you and your loved ones and friends will be allowed to live your lives
>>in regards to your own body? Now or never, ladies of the internet.
>>
>>
>>Pope Charles
>>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>>Slack!
>>
>
>Eleanor Rotthoff
>
>Irrational screaming is no substitute for logical argument.
>Even if the screamer is correct, he is unpersuasive.
Heard Newt's irrational screaming yesterday? Newt claims there is a
liberal press plot to present Clinton in a good light.
John Stone
I heard Newt's screaming yesterday about a "liberal conspiricy"
(sorry I spelled that wrong). Ho hum, its to be
expected when you are facing disaster in the face (Nov. 96)
to blame the media for all your problems. John S.
Theodore R. Krueger
In article <4mrei8$r...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>Do you women want a sour old 72 year old white man to tell you how
>you and your loved ones and friends will be allowed to live your lives
>in regards to your own body? Now or never, ladies of the internet.
Or would you rather have as president someone who will use his
position to coerce you into having sex with him...but support
your right to abort the consequenses?
Ted
--
Why do "partial-birth" abortionists feel it necessary to turn the fetus
around and leave only the head in the womb before killing it? How is
this different from leaving only the head outside before killing it?
kru...@xroads.com
Jim Kennemur
On 8 May 1996 19:34:16 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SGI.3.91r.960508171645.10043A-100000@freenet>,
>Russ Anderson <and...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
>>
>>On 7 May 1996, HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
>>> John Q. Public (j...@globaldialog.com) wrote:
>
>****************** Deleted ******************
>
>>
>>And the GOP wonder why they have a gender gap.
>>Staying married IS a family value (especially when you have kids).
>>
>
>
>Not to fear lil dittoheads. Dole said he is gonna deal with this gender
>gap stuff. In today's New York Times, Dole is quoted as saying he is
>going to give some speeches on stuff interesting to women. Oh boy! I bet
>the women of America can't wait.
I bet he talks about shopping at the mall, cooking, cleaning and
birthin babies!
>His 100% rating from the Christian Coalition won't be any problem with
>the women of America any more.
They want people like Bob Dole telling them what to do with their
bodies.
>American women's worrys of hack and slash primitive republicanism cutting
>away more of the saftey net won't be a problem anymore. Dole's gonna give
>some speeches and fix everything.
He is such a compelling speaker. Take his response to the State of the
Union Address......
>Maybe he can go on The Tonight Show and try to kiss a pig also.
What if Newt is not available again?
Jim
=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>That must be why Colin Powell considers himself a
>Republican, eh?
>
>... or is he just another Uncle Tom?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Tim Watson
kru...@xroads.xroads.com (Theodore R. Krueger) wrote:
>In article <4mrei8$r...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
>William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>
>>Do you women want a sour old 72 year old white man to tell you how
>>you and your loved ones and friends will be allowed to live your lives
>>in regards to your own body? Now or never, ladies of the internet.
>
>Or would you rather have as president someone who will use his
>position to coerce you into having sex with him...but support
>your right to abort the consequenses?
>
>Ted
>
>
Or why in the world would any self-respecting woman support a man who,
throughout his adult life, has treated all women as the lowest kind of
sex object - the worst womanizer in presidential history. Clinton has
committed sexual harrasment many times, and is being sued for a blatant
and despicable example of this henious assault on women. He didn't tell
Paula Jones off-color jokes, as Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of
doing, stirring all good feminists to righteous indignation - the
governor of Arkansas had his bodyguard State Policeman escort a young
state employee to his hotel room, then dropped his slacks and underwear,
and told her to kiss his erect penis. This is the man who will allow you
"to live your lives in regards to your own body?" It requires a truly
twisted sort of logic to believe this sleazy womanizer is woman's
champion. Surely woman with understanding and intelligence will know
what to do in November - and it will be to repudiate this sleazebag in
record numbers.
Tim Watson
Jeff O'Donnell
In article <4mu2ka$e...@ren.cei.net>, Tim Watson <tim...@cei.net> wrote:
>Or why in the world would any self-respecting woman support a man who,
>throughout his adult life, has treated all women as the lowest kind of
>sex object - the worst womanizer in presidential history. Clinton has
>committed sexual harrasment many times, and is being sued for a blatant
>and despicable example of this henious assault on women. He didn't tell
>Paula Jones off-color jokes, as Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of
>doing, stirring all good feminists to righteous indignation - the
>governor of Arkansas had his bodyguard State Policeman escort a young
>state employee to his hotel room, then dropped his slacks and underwear,
>and told her to kiss his erect penis. This is the man who will allow you
>"to live your lives in regards to your own body?" It requires a truly
>twisted sort of logic to believe this sleazy womanizer is woman's
>champion. Surely woman with understanding and intelligence will know
>what to do in November - and it will be to repudiate this sleazebag in
>record numbers.
>
>
>
>Tim Watson
I have a sense that the chickens are all finally coming home to roost. If
Jones's lawyer has any sense, he will parade a long list of State Troopers and
others who knew Slick's pattern of using women before the jury (and the
American public).
And, of course, the penis description is going to be a hoot. I'm reminded of a
scene from Porky's (those who have seen it will know...)
Clinton's got to be breaking out into hives. If this thing goes to trial,
he'll end up losing the women vote he's counting on... if he settles at this
late date, he'll be admitting hanky panky (which, of course, the press would
report for one day and then drop).
I predict Clinton will offer to settle, giving the reason that even though
he's not guilty, raking the country through these bitter lies will be
detrimental to our vital national interests.
Failing that, he'll be accidentally gelded by a mysterious but failed
right-wing asassination attempt. Dang, there goes the evidence.
Hang on, people, we're in for the ride of our lives.
Jeff
Centurion 5
:If memory serves me correctly, it was in a Q&A following his speech on
:judicial appoinments.
Rhetorical prose, or unadultrated sincerity ...Given the fact he
is a politician?
:> And can we trust him to actually do that?
:He isn't the one who waffles. His Senate colleague, on both sides of
:the aisle maintain that, "Bob Dole's word is his bond."
What about his position(s) of late over the minimum-wage, trade,
abortion, etc. ?
:>And who would he put on the supreme court?
:>The women of America might want to make sure he answers some good hard
:>questions here. Or at least think about them hard and make sure they are
:>registered to vote if they are not at this time.
:>I somehow doubt Dole will be appointed many free choice proponents to teh
:>supreme court.
:His point was that no single issue will determine any judicial
:appointment in a Dole admnistration. He says he would opt for well
:qualified judges who would write law rather than legislate.
I believe that's what Reagan implied ...Seeing that Rhenquist was
well seated, yet stacked the judiciary without delay.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5th Centurion | YU3§Y3_3§Y3YU3§Y3_3§Y3Y3_3§Y3YYUU
Centurion Chronicles (c) & Web Page | YU3§Y3_3§Y3YU3§Y3_3§Y3Y3_3§Y3YYUU
<http://www.webcom.com/centrnv/> | YU3§Y3_3§Y3YU3§Y3_3§Y3Y3_3§Y3YYUU
Last Updated: 4/28/96 | YU3 Volpus Y3_3 Marina YUU
Accessors To Date:Too ManyTo Keep Count | E. PLURIBUS UNUM MCMXCVI c.e.
===============================================================================
Eleanor Rotthoff
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>In article <3191654c...@news.io.com>,
>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>>Here's an open question for Dole on behalf of the women of America.
>>>
>>>Senator Dole, you have been a noted opponent of abortion rights and
>>>you have been given a 100% rating from the Christian Colaitian and given
>>>the Christian Coalition's endorsment by Ralph Reed.
>>>Do you plan to have any abortion litmus test with any Supreme Court
>>>nominations you may make during your administration?
>>
>>Dole has already said that he opposes any single issue litmus test for
>>Supreme Court appointments.
>>
>
>When? Where?
If memory serves me correctly, it was in a Q&A following his speech on
judicial appoinments.
> And can we trust him to actually do that?
He isn't the one who waffles. His Senate colleague, on both sides of
the aisle maintain that, "Bob Dole's word is his bond."
>And who would he put on the supreme court?
>The women of America might want to make sure he answers some good hard
>questions here. Or at least think about them hard and make sure they are
>registered to vote if they are not at this time.
>I somehow doubt Dole will be appointed many free choice proponents to teh
>supreme court.
His point was that no single issue will determine any judicial
appointment in a Dole admnistration. He says he would opt for well
qualified judges who would write law rather than legislate.
Eleanor Rotthoff
(erot...@io.com)
"Before the people can trust their government
again, the government is going to have to
trust the people again." -- The People's Budget
seneca
erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) wrote:
>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>In article <3191654c...@news.io.com>,
>>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>>
><snip>
>>>>Here's an open question for Dole on behalf of the women of America.
>>>>
>>>>Senator Dole, you have been a noted opponent of abortion rights and
>>>>you have been given a 100% rating from the Christian Colaitian and given
>>>>the Christian Coalition's endorsment by Ralph Reed.
>>>>Do you plan to have any abortion litmus test with any Supreme Court
>>>>nominations you may make during your administration?
>>>
>>>Dole has already said that he opposes any single issue litmus test for
>>>Supreme Court appointments.
>>>
>>
>>When? Where?
>If memory serves me correctly, it was in a Q&A following his speech on
>judicial appoinments.
To be credible, I think you'll have to be more specific than that.
>> And can we trust him to actually do that?
>He isn't the one who waffles. His Senate colleague, on both sides of
>the aisle maintain that, "Bob Dole's word is his bond."
Robert is known to have had his waffling moments.
>>And who would he put on the supreme court?
>>The women of America might want to make sure he answers some good hard
>>questions here. Or at least think about them hard and make sure they are
>>registered to vote if they are not at this time.
>>I somehow doubt Dole will be appointed many free choice proponents to teh
>>supreme court.
>His point was that no single issue will determine any judicial
>appointment in a Dole admnistration. He says he would opt for well
>qualified judges who would write law rather than legislate.
Like carte blanche disapproval of all of Clinton's judicial
appointments. And, talk about waffling, that was after he had voted
for almost all of the appointments.
sensen
seneca
>Jeff
Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that
he also believes to be true.1
Demosthenes
sensen
John Q. Public
seneca wrote:
>
> Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that
> he also believes to be true.1
>
> Demosthenes
>
> sensen
Do you believe that Jerry Parks was murdered?
Andrew Hall
>>>>> Eleanor Rotthoff writes:
>> And can we trust him to actually do that?
Eleanor> He isn't the one who waffles. His Senate colleague, on both sides of
Eleanor> the aisle maintain that, "Bob Dole's word is his bond."
Surely you jest? Abortion. Log Cabin Republicans.
Separate bills for labor, min-wage increase, and gas tax
repeal?
Dole is a politician, and waffles with the best of them.
ah
=======================================================================
Little Weiner Countries.
-- Ex President George Bush's term for Third World
nations without oil.
William Barwell
>>In article <4mrei8$r...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
>>William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>>
>>>Do you women want a sour old 72 year old white man to tell you how
>>>you and your loved ones and friends will be allowed to live your lives
>>>in regards to your own body? Now or never, ladies of the internet.
>>
>>Or would you rather have as president someone who will use his
>>position to coerce you into having sex with him...but support
>>your right to abort the consequenses?
>>
>>Ted
help Dole in November. Women know what he is about. They don't
want him as president. He has a huge gender gap and it's growing and it
is one big reason he is 20% down on Clinton in the Polls.
Women do not want Dole, who has a 100% Christian Coalitian rating, telling
THEM they do not own their own bodies, controlling THEIR lives in such
intimate private details. The August convention is going to sink him
further. Your hateful, frenzied bad mouthing of Clinton is ludicrous and
stupid. Women do not trust Dole for very good reasons. His long track
record. He is a sour old white man with *NO* idea whatsoever about the
problems of women and women do not want him and his party controlling the
White House, House, Senate and Supreme Court. If Dole wins, the
Christian Coalition wins and the women of America will know this by November.
It will be clear. And they are going to go to the polls in droves to
make it plain that this is not acceptable.
Your Clinton bashing does not help as women can see through it, not being
dopey, bigoted ditoheads. Women have serious business to tend to in
Novemeber in teh voting booth. Dole and a Republican sweep of all
branches of government is a very real and baleful threat to them and
their rights. Clinton is not. He supports their rights.
Any women reading this who is not registered to vote in Novemeber
should think about this carefully and registed now. Your rights are in
jepardy and this is it. Rights once lost are very hard to regain.
Ask your friends if they are registered to vote also. Ask them if they
realize Dole is supported by the Christian Coalition and has a 100% CC
rating. Vote November or you may very well bitterly regret not doing so.
Michael Williams
On Fri, 10 May 1996, seneca wrote:
> Like carte blanche disapproval of all of Clinton's judicial
> appointments. And, talk about waffling, that was after he had voted
> for almost all of the appointments.
Senator Dole's complaints against some Clinton judicial appointees
was made with reference to their decisions after taking the bench.
The oft-quoted statistic that states Dole voted for an overwhelming
majority of Clinton appointees ignores that the decisions with which
the Senator disagrees were made *after* the confirmation process. Of
course.
Furthermore, as I've stated several other times, rather than tie up
the nomination process, a measure of partisan politicking from which
Dole has by and large abstained, Senator Dole realizes that the real
way to shape the judiciary is through a new executive, rather than
legislative obstructionism. In the interest of fairness to the
President, this is a lesson I wish Jesse Helms had learned a long
time ago regarding overseas appointments. A "block" he had placed
on several Clinton appointees for purely political purposes really
hamstringed our foreign policy for the first years of the administration.
------
Michael Williams
Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service
Georgetown University
will...@gusun.acc.georgetown.edu
Andrew Hall
>>>>> Michael Williams writes:
Michael> On Fri, 10 May 1996, seneca wrote:
>> Like carte blanche disapproval of all of Clinton's judicial
>> appointments. And, talk about waffling, that was after he had voted
>> for almost all of the appointments.
Michael> Senator Dole's complaints against some Clinton judicial appointees
Michael> was made with reference to their decisions after taking the bench.
Michael> The oft-quoted statistic that states Dole voted for an overwhelming
Michael> majority of Clinton appointees ignores that the decisions with which
Michael> the Senator disagrees were made *after* the confirmation process. Of
Michael> course.
This is a bit sneaky, as they made these decisions after Clinton nominated them too,
and Dole has been criticizing Clinton for making the nominations.
So which is it? Are they both guilty of supporting bad candidates,
or did the candidates change after coming into their robes?
Michael> Furthermore, as I've stated several other times, rather than tie up
Michael> the nomination process, a measure of partisan politicking from which
Michael> Dole has by and large abstained, Senator Dole realizes that the real
Michael> way to shape the judiciary is through a new executive, rather than
Michael> legislative obstructionism. In the interest of fairness to the
Michael> President, this is a lesson I wish Jesse Helms had learned a long
Michael> time ago regarding overseas appointments. A "block" he had placed
Michael> on several Clinton appointees for purely political purposes really
Michael> hamstringed our foreign policy for the first years of the administration.
ah
Tom Tilley
A few newsgroups trimmed in the followup line to avoid cross-posting to
hell and back. I'm posting from a.f.d-q...
In article <AHALL.96M...@remus.cs.uml.edu>,
ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall) writes:
>>>>>> Eleanor Rotthoff writes:
>
>
> >> And can we trust him to actually do that?
>
> Eleanor> He isn't the one who waffles. His Senate colleague, on both sides of
> Eleanor> the aisle maintain that, "Bob Dole's word is his bond."
>
>Surely you jest? Abortion. Log Cabin Republicans.
>Separate bills for labor, min-wage increase, and gas tax
>repeal?
The incident with the Log Cabin Republicans is a good illustration.
The Log Cabin Republicans are a GOP group which favors recognition
of the civil rights of homosexuals. They donated money to the
Dole campaign. Then, _Detroit News_ syndicated columnist Deb Price,
who is a lesbian and who writes on issues affecting homosexuals,
contacted the Dole campaign to ask about this donation. She was
planning to write a column recognizing Dole for what appeared to be
a new sign of open-mindedness. Dole responded by publicly turning
down the money, and returning the check to the Log Cabin Republicans.
He then... waffled, blaming his staff rather than himself for his
own reaction. But he didn't accept another donation from them.
In a May 8 _Nando Times_ article, Bob Dole was quoted as saying "I
want to broaden the base of the Republican Party." He sure has a
goofy way of showing it.
[ snip ]
Here's some more of Bob Dole not waffling, and broadening the base
of the Republican Party. "Expose" refers to a member of "Expose the
Right," an effort of People for the American Way. I especially like
how a press conference isn't a press conference:
| Three days ago at a press conference in Manchester, New Hampshire:
|
| expose: "Senator Dole, earlier today you said that you were
| opposed to discrimination."
| dole: "That's right, oh yeah, I'm opposed to discrimination."
| expose: " ... Would you endorse legislation that would make it
| illegal to discriminate against gay men and women?"
| (He turns away.)
| expose: "Senator Dole ..."
| dole: "We're not having a press conference."
|
| - From _The New Republic_, February 19, 1996, as reprinted by
| People for the American Way on their webpage.
Tom.
--
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------#
| Tom Tilley | "As an attempt to formally express the opinion or |
| til...@netcom.com | will of the Nye County Board of Commissioners, the |
| | resolution offers only an example of poor writing."|
| | - District Judge Lloyd George, on Nye County's (NV)|
| | illegal attempt at a "Sagebrush Rebellion." |
Itops Guest Acct. Milton Brewster
In article e...@ren.cei.net, Tim Watson <tim...@cei.net> writes:
>... why in the world would any self-respecting woman support a man who,
>throughout his adult life, has treated all women as the lowest kind of
>sex object - the worst womanizer in presidential history. Clinton has
>committed sexual harrasment many times, and is being sued for a blatant
>and despicable example of this henious assault on women. He didn't tell
>Paula Jones off-color jokes, as Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of
>doing, stirring all good feminists to righteous indignation - the
>governor of Arkansas had his bodyguard State Policeman escort a young
>state employee to his hotel room, then dropped his slacks and underwear,
>and told her to kiss his erect penis. This is the man who will allow you
>"to live your lives in regards to your own body?" It requires a truly
>twisted sort of logic to believe this sleazy womanizer is woman's
>champion. Surely woman with understanding and intelligence will know
>what to do in November - and it will be to repudiate this sleazebag in
>record numbers.
Timmy, Timmy, Timmy.
*) There is no proof to this day, that Clinton has ever slept with
anybody but his wife Hilary.
The GOP has spent five years and around $15M dollars on private
detectives, looking for Clinton bimbos to parade before AP
reporters. They have found no one. That's 'none', spelled with a
zero.
If the GOP bimbo hunt had been successful; several national GOP
figures (Gingrich, Dole, et.al) would be proclaiming it from church
steeples and TV screens, every night. They are all strangely
silent.
Those Arkansas troopers you mention are mythological beasts. They'd
be selling lots and lots of tell-all books if they were real. Where
are the books, Timmy?
You are personally ignoring how Gingrich, Dole, Limbaugh,
Robertson, Swaggart and other GOP stalwarts treat THEIR women--
which is far, far worse. Your disingenuous pose makes you a big
enough hypocrite to become a very successful National GOP
politician.
*) Clinton is NOT the biggest womanizer in presidential history.
Even if Clinton DID sleep around; chances are that it was only with
Genefer Flowers, who was an admitted personal friend. It took some
pretty slimy people from the GOP and from the National Enquirer,
along with a $50,000 check, for GF to make the claim. To this day,
her claim is unsubstantiated. Indeed, her tapes seem to exonerate
Clinton. In any case, there is no long list of one-night-stands to
giggle over here.
Kennedy, Johnson, Harding, Cleveland, Grant and several others have
him beat for the womanizer prize hands down. Did you know that
Nancy Reagan got preggers to force Ron to marry her? ..... Pretty
good family values there....
Do you know why some older NorthEast Homes have "George Washington
slept here" plaks posted beside their front doors?? .... That's
right. George really *did* sleep there-- with the mistress of the
house.
*) Twisted logic?? You, Timmy, are an idiot. All anyone has to do, is
look at Clinton's record. Clinton could be a dancing dog in a clown suit,
and he'd *still* have a record of accomplishment to look at-- a
record that would stand or fall on its own merits.
Clinton's record on family values and womens' rights fits with fully
values held by 3/4 of the American Female population. No Republican
has been able to say that since 1979. The situation is so very, very
bad; that the GOP stands to lose the next election just on this
Gender Gap alone.
We could also look at his taste in wives, which is superb.
Let's hear you defend Gingrich now.
Milton Brewster
PS: One thing both Clinton and Gingrich seem to agree on, is that blow
jobs are definitely the way to go. Timmy, I suggest that you
should have gone out and gotten yourself blown before you started
judging politicians who are sexually more experienced than you.
John Q. Public
Itops Guest Acct. Milton Brewster wrote:
>
>
> Timmy, Timmy, Timmy.
>
> *) There is no proof to this day, that Clinton has ever slept with
> anybody but his wife Hilary.
>
> The GOP has spent five years and around $15M dollars on private
> detectives, looking for Clinton bimbos to parade before AP
> reporters. They have found no one. That's 'none', spelled with a
> zero.
There's a "60 Minutes" interview that says you're a liar.
There's the betaing of Gary Johnson that says you're a liar.
There's The Sally Perdue story that says you're a liar.
There's the murder of Jerry Parks that says you're a liar.
Don't pull that "if ain't adjudicated, it ain't true"
bullshit on me. Nixon was innocent, according to this
"standard." Is a criminal conviction a necessary benchmark
to allow the judgement of character? How nice for
Mr. Nixon!
>
> Those Arkansas troopers you mention are mythological beasts. They'd
> be selling lots and lots of tell-all books if they were real. Where
> are the books, Timmy?
Where is their testimony? D'Amato stuffed it; that's where
it is. Why is it that the Troopers are liars *before* they
been found guilty in a court of law, but Clinton is not
a liar?
> *) Clinton is NOT the biggest womanizer in presidential history.
>
That's not the issue. The issue is that he has been accused
of what is sexual assault in most jurisdictions. Why is
Paula Jones a liar, but Anita Hill and Packwood's accusers
are truth tellers?
---------------------------------------------------------
"'Piss Christ' is to art as Bill Clinton is to the
Presidency of the United States of America."
-- Former Yippie Jay Severin, 5/10/96
Mike Best
In article <4mvk4h$c...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) writes:
>>>
>>>Or would you rather have as president someone who will use his
>>>position to coerce you into having sex with him...but support
>>>your right to abort the consequenses?
>
>help Dole in November.
Typical Clinton supporter, anything that criticizes or challenges the
president or his position is labelled as 'hate mongering'. What in
blazes are you going to use to describe _real_ hate mongering when
you come across it now that you've watered down it's meaning?
Mike Best
be...@anasazi.com
William Barwell
In article <Dr7oo...@anasazi.com>, Mike Best <be...@anasazi.com> wrote:
>In article <4mvk4h$c...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Or would you rather have as president someone who will use his
>>>>position to coerce you into having sex with him...but support
>>>>your right to abort the consequenses?
>>
>>Now, now Ted. That sort of hysterical republican hate mongering won't
>>help Dole in November.
>
Typical Mike Best. Yowling at the world.
Little scrawny fists balled up in rage at
the idea that his candidate is gonna lose because
Dole is bad news for women in America and they know it.
The hate mongering charge was levelled at Ted Krueger's hatemongering.
And it was hate mongering, too. But it doesn't work.
Even if Clinton was seen as being a sleaze by 100% of women voters, they
also know he supports their rights while Dole is probably
one of the most dangerous Senators in America when it comes to women's
rights. They know he will not change his spots on election day.
Clinton, sleazy or not, at least is not a radical with the blessings of
and a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition. Dole is.
Dole has not supported issues important to many women, and Clinton has.
November 20, many women will see only one candidate to support. Not Dole.
You may rage and rant and howl and bellow and make up yowling, sneering
false charges about Clinton all you want, Mikey. Women won't be paying
any attention to your radical neocon character assassination attempts
November 20. Now wipe the spittle off your chin and shirt and shut up.
You are wasting electrons.
Any women not registered to vote may wish to consider the effect of a
possible Dole election. Kiss reproductive rights goodbye. If you women
don't show up at the polls like in 1994, and Dole squeaks through, don't
blame me when it hits the fan. Register today. Tell 'em Mike Best sent you.
Dan Thornsberry
YES! I believe you and Discipio sucked him to death.
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Wanted - Any person willing to lie to a jury. No
experience necessary. It would be beneficial if the
applicant had an intense hatred of the Clintons. All
interested parties should contact Mr. Kenneth Starr
through the Dole campaign office. If Mr. Starr is
unavailable, you can contact any New Jersey numbers
runner and the message will be passed on to Senator
D'Amato.
-------------------------------------------------------
Star witness - A person who will enhance your position
when they testify.
Starr witness - A person you hire to perjure themselves.
Libruul - A person smarter than yourself.
Commie - A libruul who has traveled outside of Georgia.
NRA life member - A person whose father is also their
grandfather.
Dittohead - A person who decides thinking is just too
strenuous.
Libertarian - Member of an elite group of 14,000. Would
be much higher if ex-cons could vote.
John Birchers - Would be Libertarians if they could vote.
--------------------------------------------------------
# 1 militiaman problem:
Government intrusion into their lives.
# 2 militiaman problem:
Cockroach infestation of their homes.
==========================================================
| | The GOP wants more guns |
| Dan Thornsberry | |
|tbe...@computek.net | and less education!!! |
| | |
|==========================================================|
| The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty; |
| but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong, |
| means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the |
| weak. -Will Durant |
==========================================================
Joke of the week:
-
Q. Why are there no altar girls?
A. Because 9 out of 10 priests prefer little boys.
------------------------------------------------------------
"America, love it or leave it" - The Old Right
"America, blow it up" - The Newt Reich
"I am the GOP" - Timothy McVeigh
"Send us your insane, your violent, your racist" - Statue of Montana
"Give any senile old fool a credit card and he can
give you the illusion of prosperity" - Ronald Reagan
"Mommie, did the astrologer OK the press conference?" R. Reagan
"I might not be good enough for the US, but I'm
still good enough for Texas" - Phil Gramm
"The guvermint spens two much on edjication" - The GOP
"Come here little girl, I have something for you" - D. Koresh
"I am the NRA" - Timothy McVeigh
"OK son, If you see anyone coming, blast away" - R. Weaver
"Is the cash in the envelope?" - Newt Gingrich
"Yes sir, Mr. Gambino" - Alfonse D'Amato
"Yes sir, Mr. D'Amato" - Kenneth Starr
"When your fans are idiots, facts don't matter" - Rush Limbaugh
"Elect me because I'm too old to try later" - Bob Dole
"Yassuh Boss" - Clarence Thomas
William Barwell
In article <4n0nq6$g...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>,
Itops Guest Acct. Milton Brewster <ito...@itops13.corp.sun.com> wrote:
>In article 25...@globaldialog.com, "John Q. Public" <j...@globaldialog.com> writes:
>>Itops Guest Acct. Milton Brewster wrote:
****************** Deleted ******************
>
>>
>> ... you're a liar.
>>
>> ... you're a liar.
>>
>> ... you're a liar.
>>
>> ... you're a liar.
>>
>> [ John Q snipped many points here, that he just couldn't deal with. ]
>>
>
>
>( yawn )
>
>Do you see the pattern here, everybody? I post an objective comment.
>Mister Conservative here, can't deal with it-- so he pulls a Joe
>McCarthy, and calls me a liar a half-dozen times.
Typical one-trick-pony neocon.
Name calling and spite.
Kill file him. Most everybody else has already.
When I shake my killfile, I can hear 'em buzzing.
Itops Guest Acct. Milton Brewster
In article 25...@globaldialog.com, "John Q. Public" <j...@globaldialog.com> writes:
>Itops Guest Acct. Milton Brewster wrote:
>>
>> Timmy, Timmy, Timmy.
>>
>> *) There is no proof to this day, that Clinton has ever slept with
>> anybody but his wife Hilary.
>>
>> The GOP has spent five years and around $15M dollars on private
>> detectives, looking for Clinton bimbos to parade before AP
>> reporters. They have found no one. That's 'none', spelled with a
>> zero.
>
> ... you're a liar.
>
> ... you're a liar.
>
> ... you're a liar.
>
> ... you're a liar.
>
> [ John Q snipped many points here, that he just couldn't deal with. ]
>
( yawn )
Do you see the pattern here, everybody? I post an objective comment.
Mister Conservative here, can't deal with it-- so he pulls a Joe
McCarthy, and calls me a liar a half-dozen times.
Is it any wonder that the Conservative GOP congresspersons who actually
think like this, are about to go down to the most ignominious defeat in
the last 70 years, come next November?
NOTE: John Q: For future reference; calling someone a 'liar' instead of
addressing the substance of his/her message; qualifies as "Hate
Speech".
Thinking Americans are tired of it.
* * * * * * * Then John Q Public said this * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>"'Piss Christ' is to art as Bill Clinton is to the
>Presidency of the United States of America."
>
This kind of gratuitous, hateful, tasteless talk-radio slam has gotten
old, old, old. It won't re-elect your GOP Congress, John Q. It *will*
cause lots of voters to rally around the Clinton Bandwagon out of sympathy.
Milton Brewster
PS: I must have really, *really* said something right, for ol' John Q
to have gotten so bent out of shape.
Eleanor Rotthoff
hud...@worldnet.att.net (seneca) wrote:
>erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) wrote:
>
>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>
>>>In article <3191654c...@news.io.com>,
>>>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>>>
>><snip>
>
>>>>>Here's an open question for Dole on behalf of the women of America.
>>>>>
>>>>>Senator Dole, you have been a noted opponent of abortion rights and
>>>>>you have been given a 100% rating from the Christian Colaitian and given
>>>>>the Christian Coalition's endorsment by Ralph Reed.
>>>>>Do you plan to have any abortion litmus test with any Supreme Court
>>>>>nominations you may make during your administration?
>>>>
>>>>Dole has already said that he opposes any single issue litmus test for
>>>>Supreme Court appointments.
>>>>
>>>
>>>When? Where?
>
>>If memory serves me correctly, it was in a Q&A following his speech on
>>judicial appoinments.
>
>To be credible, I think you'll have to be more specific than that.
>
>>> And can we trust him to actually do that?
>
>>He isn't the one who waffles. His Senate colleague, on both sides of
>>the aisle maintain that, "Bob Dole's word is his bond."
>
>Robert is known to have had his waffling moments.
Do you feel a "need to be more specific than that"? :-)
>
>>>And who would he put on the supreme court?
>>>The women of America might want to make sure he answers some good hard
>>>questions here. Or at least think about them hard and make sure they are
>>>registered to vote if they are not at this time.
>>>I somehow doubt Dole will be appointed many free choice proponents to teh
>>>supreme court.
>
>>His point was that no single issue will determine any judicial
>>appointment in a Dole admnistration. He says he would opt for well
>>qualified judges who would write law rather than legislate.
>
>Like carte blanche disapproval of all of Clinton's judicial
>appointments. And, talk about waffling, that was after he had voted
>for almost all of the appointments.
His criticism, if you will recall, was not of Clinton's Supreme Court
appointments which the Senate tends to scrutinize with some care. The
Senate simply does not have the resources, especially in the wake of
Congress' recent reduction of its own budget by more than 30%, to
thoroughly investigate all of the hundreds of lower federal court
appointees. It has, however, announed firmly that it will refuse to
confirm Clinton's latest nominee to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
-- one Charles "Bud" Stack from Florida. Stack has no background on
the bench, and his legal writing is limited to once having written for
a police association newsletter. His claim to fame? He raised $7
million for the 1992 Clinton campaign plus several million dollars
more for the DNC. As the Austin American-Statesman (which supports
Clinton) editorialized recently, "Federal judgeships should not be
for sale."
Eleanor
>sensen
>
>>Eleanor Rotthoff
>>(erot...@io.com)
>
Eleanor Rotthoff
ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall) wrote:
>>>>>> Eleanor Rotthoff writes:
>
>
> >> And can we trust him to actually do that?
>
> Eleanor> He isn't the one who waffles. His Senate colleague, on both sides of
> Eleanor> the aisle maintain that, "Bob Dole's word is his bond."
>
>Surely you jest? Abortion. Log Cabin Republicans.
>Separate bills for labor, min-wage increase, and gas tax
>repeal?
How does any of this indicate waffling? He has not changed his basic
position on abortion -- that he opposes it except in the case of rape,
incest or life of the mother. The press at one point tried to create
the impression that he was changing his stand, but he quickly
corrected that.
As for his current attempt to craft a compromise with Senate
Democrats, that doesn't seem to be waffling, merely the normal action
of a legislative leader. In the face of Minority Leader Tom Daschle's
current threat "to shut this place [the Senate] down" and refuse to
allow any legislation to be voted on for the rest of the year, Dole
has tried to structure a reasonable compromise. Democrats said they
wanted a "clean vote" on the minimum wage. Dole agreed to that if
they would agree to a "clean vote" on gas tax repeal and a tiny 3-page
bill allowing companies to adopt a Total Quality Management program
without fear of lawsuits. [Yes, folks, Senate Democrats are indeed
filibustering TQM.] That's not waffling; that's a standard
bi-partisan compromise of the kind Clinton was pontificating about the
other day. So far, no compromise on the Dem side. It looks as though
they think they can damage Dole by refusing to permit legislation to
clear the Senate, so gridlock reins supreme.
>Dole is a politician, and waffles with the best of them.
>
>ah
Eleanor Rotthoff
"We elected an amiable windsock as president; our
legislative leaders know where America has been,
but not where it is going. The forward-looking
Democratic Party that led America for the past
60 years now relives past glories and blindly
defends yesterday's agenda."
Former Dem. Gov. of Colorado Richard Lamm
William Barwell
In article <3193f535...@news.io.com>,
Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>hud...@worldnet.att.net (seneca) wrote:
>
>>erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) wrote:
>>
>>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>
>>>>In article <3191654c...@news.io.com>,
>>>>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>>>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>>>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>>>>>Here's an open question for Dole on behalf of the women of America.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Senator Dole, you have been a noted opponent of abortion rights and
>>>>>>you have been given a 100% rating from the Christian Colaitian and given
>>>>>>the Christian Coalition's endorsment by Ralph Reed.
>>>>>>Do you plan to have any abortion litmus test with any Supreme Court
>>>>>>nominations you may make during your administration?
>>>>>
>>>>>Dole has already said that he opposes any single issue litmus test for
>>>>>Supreme Court appointments.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>When? Where?
>>
>>>If memory serves me correctly, it was in a Q&A following his speech on
>>>judicial appoinments.
>>
>>To be credible, I think you'll have to be more specific than that.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Do you feel a "need to be more specific than that"? :-)
"(Dole) always waits to see which way the political wind is blowing" -
Nancy Kasslebaum
He goes which way the money goes.
See chapter four of Senator For Sale by Stanley G. Hilton.
Dole's nickname on the capitol is Senator Flip-flop.
In teh 70's he allied himself with McGovern in liberalizing
food stamp elgibility. When neocon hard heartedness came into fashion,
Dole flip-flopped and was all for cutting food stamp elgibility.
Dole made big claims about being anti-tax and then engineered TEFRA, teh
largest tax increases we have ever had, in 1982.
He played fats and loose with taxes over the next few years, professing
to be anti-tax, while refusing to commit to notraisingtaxes, getting
himself the nickname, Senator Straddle from the Newtzis.
He has reversed course in such manners numerous times over his long career
on just about every concievable matter.
He opposed certain tax breaks to Chicago commodity traders until they
gave him large campaign contributions in 1984 and then he quickly
reversed himself. He even passed a bill that gave them more tax breaks.
He loudly proclaimed himself pro-civil rights and then viciously
led the filibuster that killed the 1990 civil rights bill.
He was loud in condemning PACs in 1982, but has filibustered every PAC
reform bill to come his way.
Dole was pro-Israel until 1988 when his candidacy was not supported by
American Jews. He soon became a loudmouthed jewish-lobbyist basher and
reversed course, urging cutbacks in aid to Israel.
He was fiercely anti-terrorist state except when Iraq wanted
Kansas wheat and loans to buy it and he flip-flopped quickly.
He was anti-special prosecutor in case of Iranscam, but flip flopped and
became pro-special prosecuter in case of Whitewater. Since the special
prosecutor law had been allowed to lapse at his urging, it had to be
resurrected at his urging. In spring of 1994, Dole vigorously claimed he
could never support Oliver North's run for Senate in Virginia. He later
flip-flopped and not only endorsed North, but gave North $5000.
Dole staunchly endorsed affirmative action for 25 years. Until it became a
hot button issue and overnight, he flip flopped on that too.
In 1994, Dole loudly proclaimed there was no health crisis in America.
Then turned right around and proclaimed there was.
Senator Flip Flop. They call him that for a reason.
You right wingers rip Clinton for his flip-flops while ignoring your own
presidential candidates flip-flops? Tsk!
RHA
In article <3192a258...@news.io.com>,
Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>
>>In article <3191654c...@news.io.com>,
>>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>>
><snip>
>
>>>>Here's an open question for Dole on behalf of the women of America.
>>>>
>>>>Senator Dole, you have been a noted opponent of abortion rights and
>>>>you have been given a 100% rating from the Christian Colaitian and given
>>>>the Christian Coalition's endorsment by Ralph Reed.
>>>>Do you plan to have any abortion litmus test with any Supreme Court
>>>>nominations you may make during your administration?
>>>
>>>Dole has already said that he opposes any single issue litmus test for
>>>Supreme Court appointments.
>>>
>>
>>When? Where?
>
>If memory serves me correctly, it was in a Q&A following his speech on
>judicial appoinments.
>
>
>He isn't the one who waffles.
Oh, really. What was that BS about if people wanting a "Ronald
Reagan" he'd be a "Ronald Reagan"?
What about when he was demanding sending arms to the Bosnian Muslims
and now complains?
Gee, what if we check on his China votes, minimum wage votes,
gasoline tax votes, other tax votes, family values........
> His Senate colleague, on both sides of
>the aisle maintain that, "Bob Dole's word is his bond."
>
>>And who would he put on the supreme court?
>>The women of America might want to make sure he answers some good hard
>>questions here. Or at least think about them hard and make sure they are
>>registered to vote if they are not at this time.
>>I somehow doubt Dole will be appointed many free choice proponents to teh
>>supreme court.
>
>His point was that no single issue will determine any judicial
>appointment in a Dole admnistration. He says he would opt for well
>qualified judges who would write law rather than legislate.
>
>
>
>
>Eleanor Rotthoff
>(erot...@io.com)
>
>"Before the people can trust their government
>again, the government is going to have to
>trust the people again." -- The People's Budget
--
rha
Lou Duchez
In article <Dr7oo...@anasazi.com>, be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) wrote:
> In article <4mvk4h$c...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) writes:
> >>>
> >>>Or would you rather have as president someone who will use his
> >>>position to coerce you into having sex with him...but support
> >>>your right to abort the consequenses?
> >
> >Now, now Ted. That sort of hysterical republican hate mongering won't
> >help Dole in November.
>
> president or his position is labelled as 'hate mongering'.
I don't know ... you have just called President Clinton a rapist.
That sounds pretty odious to me, and you don't have any facts on
the matter either.
Could it be that there's so little good to say about your team,
you have to invent slanderous material about the other side?
Don't feel bad, the Republicans have been playing that game for 50
years now. It's not like you're tarnishing your team's reputation
by doing anything new.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lou Duchez - ljdu...@en.com - http://www.en.com/users/ljduchez
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
William Barwell
In article <4muth9$8...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Centurion 5 <centu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:>:>When? Where?
>:If memory serves me correctly, it was in a Q&A following his speech on
>:judicial appoinments.
>
>is a politician?
>
>
>:He isn't the one who waffles. His Senate colleague, on both sides of
>:the aisle maintain that, "Bob Dole's word is his bond."
>
>abortion, etc. ?
His nickname in the Senate is Senator Flip-flop.
One of 'em anyway. Senator Straddle is another.
>
>:>And who would he put on the supreme court?
>:>The women of America might want to make sure he answers some good hard
>:>questions here. Or at least think about them hard and make sure they are
>:>registered to vote if they are not at this time.
>:>I somehow doubt Dole will be appointed many free choice proponents to teh
>:>supreme court.
>
>:His point was that no single issue will determine any judicial
>:appointment in a Dole admnistration. He says he would opt for well
>:qualified judges who would write law rather than legislate.
>
>I believe that's what Reagan implied ...Seeing that Rhenquist was
>well seated, yet stacked the judiciary without delay.
If you believe Dole would place a known supporter of abortion rights on
the Supreme court, I have some land in Florida you will certainly be
interested in.
The man does not speak the truth.
Eleanor Rotthoff
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>>>He isn't the one who waffles. His Senate colleague, on both sides of
>>>>the aisle maintain that, "Bob Dole's word is his bond."
>>>
>>>Robert is known to have had his waffling moments.
>>
>>Do you feel a "need to be more specific than that"? :-)
>
>Where to start?
>
>"(Dole) always waits to see which way the political wind is blowing" -
> Nancy Kasslebaum
Would you please post a source for this? Unless you can, it is
utterly incredible coming from a well-respected Senator who has always
regarded Bob Dole as her mentor and close friend.
>He goes which way the money goes.
Again, I note the total lack of support for your assertion.
>See chapter four of Senator For Sale by Stanley G. Hilton.
I have occasionally quoted in usenet from Pulitizer Prize winning
journalist James Stewart's Blood Sport, the best seller which is not
altogether complimentary to the Clintons. I do not stoop, however, to
quoting a partisan screed published solely for the purpose of
attacking a candidate in an election year. Mr. Hilton simply has no
credibility.
<snip>
>You right wingers rip Clinton for his flip-flops while ignoring your own
>presidential candidates flip-flops? Tsk!
No. Clinton partisans desperately try to make it appear that all
politicians flip-flop, engage in questionable land deals, and have
generally questionable character in order to the tell the American
people, "See, they're all equally unethical, but our guy is charming,
so vote for him." In this endeavor they are not above making up
charges out of whole cloth, fabricating quotes, distorting facts and
generally behaving in a manner as unethical as the candidate they
support. And they fully expect the American people to be stupid
enough and gullible enough to buy it. To borrow a colorful expression
-- That dog won't hunt.
Since you deleted without reply the substance of my post in order to
insert a partisan personal attack on Bob Dole, I insert it again below
in order to give you a fair chance to reply to it:
>Like carte blanche disapproval of all of Clinton's judicial
>appointments. And, talk about waffling, that was after he had voted
>for almost all of the appointments.
His criticism, if you will recall, was not of Clinton's Supreme Court
appointments which the Senate tends to scrutinize with some care. The
Senate simply does not have the resources, especially in the wake of
Congress' recent reduction of its own budget by more than 30%, to
thoroughly investigate all of the hundreds of lower federal court
appointees. It has, however, announed firmly that it will refuse to
confirm Clinton's latest nominee to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
-- one Charles "Bud" Stack from Florida. Stack has no background on
the bench, and his legal writing is limited to once having written for
a police association newsletter. His claim to fame? He raised $7
million for the 1992 Clinton campaign plus several million dollars
more for the DNC. As the Austin American-Statesman (which supports
Clinton) editorialized recently, "Federal judgeships should not be
for sale."
Eleanor Rotthoff
Irrational screaming is no substitute for logical argument.
Even if the screamer is correct, he is unpersuasive.
Eleanor Rotthoff
ri...@praline.no.NeoSoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>In article <3192a258...@news.io.com>,
>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3191654c...@news.io.com>,
>>>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>>Here's an open question for Dole on behalf of the women of America.
>>>>>
>>>>>Senator Dole, you have been a noted opponent of abortion rights and
>>>>>you have been given a 100% rating from the Christian Colaitian and given
>>>>>the Christian Coalition's endorsment by Ralph Reed.
>>>>>Do you plan to have any abortion litmus test with any Supreme Court
>>>>>nominations you may make during your administration?
>>>>
>>>>Dole has already said that he opposes any single issue litmus test for
>>>>Supreme Court appointments.
>>>>
>>>
>>>When? Where?
>>
>>If memory serves me correctly, it was in a Q&A following his speech on
>>judicial appoinments.
>>
>>> And can we trust him to actually do that?
>>
>>He isn't the one who waffles.
>
> Oh, really. What was that BS about if people wanting a "Ronald
> Reagan" he'd be a "Ronald Reagan"?
>
> What about when he was demanding sending arms to the Bosnian Muslims
> and now complains?
He, along with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn) and a majority of the
Congress, voted to lift the arms embargo in order to ship arms to the
Bosnians to allow them to defend themselves. Both Lieberman and Dole
wanted the President to exert leadership to persuade our European
allies to understand the importance of this action and warned that if
we did not lift the embargo, we would end up sending our own troops to
Bosnia. Guess what? Dole and Lieberman were right! As for any
alleged waffling, I think most people understand the difference beween
1) our shipping arms to the Bosnians openly and 2) our winking at
Iranian under-the-table arms shipments to Bosnia, thereby allowing
Iran to gain a serious foothold in a volatile area of Europe.
> Gee, what if we check on his China votes, minimum wage votes,
> gasoline tax votes, other tax votes, family values........
Again, the White House has -- with a fine tooth comb. It has a 35 year
record to sift through, and it still can't get around the fact that
it's your boy, not Dole, who flip flops back and forth like the wind.
You know, it's interesting. There is absolutely no way to predict
what we would get in a reelected Clinton, freed from the constraint of
public opinion and concerned only about his place in history.
Wouldn't it be a delicious irony if he decided that he wanted to be
remembered as the first New Wave president, not the last New Deal
president, and promptly proceeded to really go about downsizing
government, reforming entitlements, *really* adopting the whole GOP
agenda, lock stock and barrel? Those of you who support him can't be
sure it wouldn't happen, can you?
>>
>> His Senate colleague, on both sides of
>>the aisle maintain that, "Bob Dole's word is his bond."
>>
>>>And who would he put on the supreme court?
>>>The women of America might want to make sure he answers some good hard
>>>questions here. Or at least think about them hard and make sure they are
>>>registered to vote if they are not at this time.
>>>I somehow doubt Dole will be appointed many free choice proponents to teh
>>>supreme court.
>>
>>His point was that no single issue will determine any judicial
>>appointment in a Dole admnistration. He says he would opt for well
>>qualified judges who would write law rather than legislate.
>>
>rha
Brian Thomas
ito...@itops13.corp.sun.com (Itops Guest Acct. Milton Brewster)
wrote:
>
>*) There is no proof to this day, that Clinton has ever slept with
> anybody but his wife Hilary.
>
comes from TRIALS. One of which Bill Clinton is doing everything in
his power to avoid.
>*) Clinton is NOT the biggest womanizer in presidential history.
>
> Even if Clinton DID sleep around; chances are that it was only with
> Genefer Flowers, who was an admitted personal friend.
And Sally Perdue, and a few others. And don't forget his
failed attempt with Paula Jones. Ah, the old "So what?" defense.
BT
See also http://users.aol.com/beachbt/index.html for
more on the First Felons.
Tim Watson
tho...@liso.dnet.ge.com (Brian Thomas) wrote:
>ito...@itops13.corp.sun.com (Itops Guest Acct. Milton Brewster)
>wrote:
>>
>>*) There is no proof to this day, that Clinton has ever slept with
>> anybody but his wife Hilary.
>>
> Miltie, Miltie, Miltie, that's because in THIS country, proof
>comes from TRIALS. One of which Bill Clinton is doing everything in
>his power to avoid.
>
>>*) Clinton is NOT the biggest womanizer in presidential history.
>>
>> Even if Clinton DID sleep around; chances are that it was only with
>> Genefer Flowers, who was an admitted personal friend.
>
> And Sally Perdue, and a few others. And don't forget his
>failed attempt with Paula Jones. Ah, the old "So what?" defense.
>
And Elizabeth Ward, and ... but you're right - no matter how many
instances of marital infidelity Clinton commits, the True Believers will
still say: so what?
According the James Stewart, in Blood Sport, Clinton was sleeping around
right after he and Hillary were married, and it was so bad, Hillary was
depressed and considering divorce.
I can't imagine that we have ever had a president who has behaved the way
Bill Clinton has for the past twenty years - at least, that's as far back
as anyone knows. Multiple affairs, the use of his bodyguards as pimps to
pick up hookers for him, innumerable liasons like the Paula Jones matter
(except she objected), the list goes on. He is a womanizer, and the
worst in American presidential history. No two ways about it.
Tim Watson
William Barwell
In article <3194abe5...@news.io.com>,>>>>>He isn't the one who waffles. His Senate colleague, on both sides of
>>>>>the aisle maintain that, "Bob Dole's word is his bond."
>>>>
>>>
>>>Do you feel a "need to be more specific than that"? :-)
>>
>>Where to start?
>>
>>"(Dole) always waits to see which way the political wind is blowing" -
>> Nancy Kasslebaum
>
>Would you please post a source for this? Unless you can, it is
>utterly incredible coming from a well-respected Senator who has always
>regarded Bob Dole as her mentor and close friend.
Try Senator For sale, a book by Stanley G. Hilton.
Who by the way, was a Dole Senate counsel and aide
in 1979 and 1980.
"As his colleague, Kansas Senator Nancy Kassenbaum, has said, he
"tends to move in whatever way the political winds are blowing".
I do not know of her repudiating this remark.
I have seen it quoted elsewhere in the past.
You should read this book.
Dole has a big problem running for President. The tales told about his
previous outings are astounding. This guy may very well self
destruct spontaneously at any moment.
>
>>He goes which way the money goes.
>
>Again, I note the total lack of support for your assertion.
>
But then, you obviusly haven't looked very hard, have you?
read this book for starters.
>>See chapter four of Senator For Sale by Stanley G. Hilton.
>
>I have occasionally quoted in usenet from Pulitizer Prize winning
>journalist James Stewart's Blood Sport,
I am not talking about that book, I am talking about Dole and Senator For
Sale.
You asked for examples of flip floping by the Dolester and you got 'em.
Waving your arms and rolling your eyes and ignoring all of teh evidnce
that he has well earned his Senate nick name as Senator Flip Flop
is ismply a waste of my time, isn't it?
You are ignorant about Dole, and not only WANT to remain ignorant, but
worse than that, tyou want everybody to be as ignorant as well!
Posting to you to deignorify you is a futile past time.
All you are good for is as a foil to post for purposes of informing others,
who may even wish to get this book and read it.
Senator Flip Flop he is, he flip flops, he is notorious for it,
he is going the get hammered for it, he deserves it.
Flip Flop, Flip Flop. Flip Flop
Chapter 4 tells the tale.
Senator Straddle, Senator Flip Flop.
Blandly ignoring the facts and changing the subject won't help you Eleanor.
RHA
In article <4mu2ka$e...@ren.cei.net>, Tim Watson <tim...@cei.net> wrote:
>kru...@xroads.xroads.com (Theodore R. Krueger) wrote:
>>In article <4mrei8$r...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
>>William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>>
>>>Do you women want a sour old 72 year old white man to tell you how
>>>you and your loved ones and friends will be allowed to live your lives
>>>in regards to your own body? Now or never, ladies of the internet.
>>
>>position to coerce you into having sex with him...but support
>>your right to abort the consequenses?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Or why in the world would any self-respecting woman support a man who,
>sex object - the worst womanizer in presidential history. Clinton has
>committed sexual harrasment many times, and is being sued for a blatant
>and despicable example of this henious assault on women. He didn't tell
>Paula Jones off-color jokes, as Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of
>doing, stirring all good feminists to righteous indignation - the
>governor of Arkansas had his bodyguard State Policeman escort a young
>state employee to his hotel room, then dropped his slacks and underwear,
>and told her to kiss his erect penis. This is the man who will allow you
>"to live your lives in regards to your own body?" It requires a truly
>twisted sort of logic to believe this sleazy womanizer is woman's
>champion. Surely woman with understanding and intelligence will know
>what to do in November - and it will be to repudiate this sleazebag in
>record numbers.
Lawyer Timmy, I'd be a tad careful here. Have you any evidence
that will stand up in a court of law for each and every
accusation you've made in the above paragraph? If not provably
true, you may have committed slander by publishing (ie., posting)
your remarks as being fact when in fact you have no way of
knowing them to be accurate statements and only published them for
their negative effect. You may have screwed the pooch by not
using weasel words such as "It's been alleged..."
PS. If Bill sues, get a *real* lawyer. You know, one who is
smart enough to explain the concept of slander to his client.
--
rha
Michael Corbino
In alt.politics.usa.republican wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William(sorry for the double post to the ng. - a.pu.r)
>>Typical Clinton supporter, >>anything that criticizes or >>challenges the
>>blazes are you going to use >>to describe _real_ hate >>mongering when
you come >>across it now that you've >>watered down it's meaning?
in
>rage at the idea that his >candidate is gonna lose
>
Mr Best poses a simple
question. One which you of course ignore, and then proceed to bluster on
about how desperate _he_ must be.
ROTFL :-)
> because Dole is bad news for
>women in America and they >know it.
>
Would Dole only seek to lessen the tax burden for working men? That's
odd....hmmmm
You are aware ( your Popeness) that Women business owners employ more
people, than all the Fortune 500 companies combined aren't you ?
Given that, are you suggesting that a Dole administration would seek to
lessen regulatory burdens only, for Male owned companies ?
>The hate mongering charge >was levelled at Ted Krueger's >hatemongering.
And it
>was hate mongering, too. But >it doesn't work. Even if >Clinton was seen
as
>being a sleaze by 100% of >women voters, they also know >he supports their
rights
>
Hmm.. I must have glossed over that part of the Constitution.
Oh you mean that abortion thing....well, we'll get to that.
>while Dole is probably one of >the most dangerous Senators >in America
when it comes to >women's rights. They know he >will not change his spots
on >election day.
>
>Clinton, sleazy or not,
>
You got it right the first time......(sleazy that is)
>
>at least (Clinton) is not a >radical
>
True, to be considered a radical
Clinton would need to demonstrate some convictions.
Given Whitewater, Travelgate, The Iran-Croation Affair and Paula
Jones....the mere mention of the the word "conviction" must send shivers
down that portion of his anatomy where a spine should be, but isn't.
>
>...with the blessings of and a >100% rating from the >Christian Coalition.
>Dole is. Dole has not >supported issues important to >many women, and
Clinton >has.
>
( and never, I repeat _never_ ) (does he pander to their's or ) (anyone
else's fears)
What a swell guy !
>
>November 20, many women >will see only one candidate to >support. Not
Dole.
>
lockstep to the Pied Piper of Arkansas over the abortion issue.
Face it, many Women gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt last time around.
Only fools and the most arrogant of Democrats should dare make that
assumption again.
>You may rage and rant and >howl and bellow and make up >yowling, sneering
false
>charges about Clinton all you >want, Mikey. Women won't be >paying any
attention to your >radical neocon character >assassination attempts
>November 20.
>
to likes of your ilk, and all your ranting about evil neocons.
>Now wipe the spittle off your >chin and shirt and shut up.
>
Perhap it is you who is in need of a Kleenex, as well as a bit of your own
advice.
>You are wasting electrons.
>
Ditto !
(obligatory dontcha know)
>Any women not registered to >vote may wish to consider the >effect of a
possible Dole >election.
>
(indeed terrible things)
>Kiss reproductive rights >goodbye.
>
His Holyness is correct, us evil neocons don't want you "Womyn" to
reproduce and give us more Popes of Houston.
Waddya say Mr. Barwell all kidding aside. How about a one time only -
(women only)
referendum vote on the abortion issue....winner take all, as it were. Can
we count on your support to end this issue once and (hopefully) for all ?
>
>If you women don't show up >at the polls like in 1994, and >Dole squeaks
through, don't >blame me when it hits the fan. >
Methinks it will be
_because of_ folks like you that women should and will vote for Bob.
Bill didn't deliver, or do you expect Women to forget all the promises
candidate Clinton broke. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, per Georgie S." he kept
all the promises he intended to keep".
> Register today.
>
Finally, something we can all agree on.
Tell 'em Mike Best sent you.
>
>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
>
cor...@hooked.net
William Barwell
In article <31954425...@news.io.com>,
Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>
>>In article <3194abe5...@news.io.com>,
>>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>He isn't the one who waffles. His Senate colleague, on both sides of
>>>>>>>the aisle maintain that, "Bob Dole's word is his bond."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Robert is known to have had his waffling moments.
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you feel a "need to be more specific than that"? :-)
>>>>
>>>>Where to start?
>>>>
>>>>"(Dole) always waits to see which way the political wind is blowing" -
>>>> Nancy Kasslebaum
>>>
>>>Would you please post a source for this? Unless you can, it is
>>>utterly incredible coming from a well-respected Senator who has always
>>>regarded Bob Dole as her mentor and close friend.
>>
>>Try Senator For sale, a book by Stanley G. Hilton.
>>Who by the way, was a Dole Senate counsel and aide
>>in 1979 and 1980.
>>
>>"As his colleague, Kansas Senator Nancy Kassenbaum, has said, he
>>"tends to move in whatever way the political winds are blowing".
>
>you had indicated you were doing, you were repeating an allegation by
>the author of the kind of typical partisan "attack book" that comes
>out in every political campaign. And quoting him in a context which
>is, on its face, absolutely incredible. Why am I not surprised>
I quoted her via this book, by an ex-Dole aide.
You quote from Sowell, and expect us to gobble down his half baked
opinions and yet a source ofa specific quote by a Senator from
a book by an ex-Dole aide is not acceptable here.
Git lost!
You think Hilton would manufactor this quote?
Silly woman!
Sorry, if you want to quibble, I ain't gonna play that silly assed game
with you. That sort of game may go over good with dittoheads, but in teh
real world, it makes *you* look silly. You cannot wave away embarressing
quotes from US Senators that easy.
Senator Flip Flop all too often bends with the political winds.
This ain't no secret. Even Buchanan ripped him for this often enough.
I note several good examples ogf Senator Flip Flops you utterly ignored
in favor of this obvious sophistry.
How about his disavowal of Ollie North, convicted felon and then his
turning around and not only backing him, but giving him $5000?
Flip Flop! Stuck his finger up in teh air and saw where the wind was
blowing and he flip flopped. No wonder Senator Kassenbaum said what she
said.
"While I liked Senator Dole as a person, I was appalled at his utter lack
of committment to any ideals or beliefs."
- Stanley G. Hilton.
Stanley was an aide for several years to Dole.
It's not like a Senator can do this for years and
have it go unnoticed.
Watch out, credibility is a precious commodity on the net, don't waste
yours with sensless quibbles that merely call your judgement into question.
Milt Shook
> Tim Watson
>
You know what's wrong with you sick, twisted conservative wannabes?
You're a bunch of hypocrites. When that woman said she had an affair with
Bush in '92, there was plenty of evidence, and only one half-hearted
denial from the GOP. You let Newt run roughshod all over Washington--a
guy who dumped his wife while she was sick in bed with cancer, and
stiffed his kids with child support, until he was practically threatened
with jail.
All the while, you let this Paula Jones shit run all over the place.
First of all, if you'd bother to do any research, you asshole, you'd find
out that nearly every person involved with the case thinks they'll lose.
Not because he's the president, but because she has no credibility or
evidence in her favor. The story is just so fucking ridiculous! But, the
bottom line is, you keep on using unfounded rumors to brand the president
as a sleaze. Well, that's bullshit! There is a hell of a lot more
evidence that Newt's a sleaze than has even been faked about Clinton.
You guys just can't debate on the issues, because he kicks the GOPs ass
on everything. The reason Al D'Amato and Kenneth Starr keep the Watergate
hearing open, is because they are desparate. They have no credibility on
the issues, so they're hoping to find something, anything, to pin on him.
But it's all crap...
Oh, by the way; look at where Paula gets the money to fight this suit,
and you'll find that it comes from the GOP.
Wayne Mann
erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) wrote:
>hud...@worldnet.att.net (seneca) wrote:
>>erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) wrote:
>>
>>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>
>>>>In article <3191654c...@news.io.com>,
>>>>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>>>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>>>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>>>>>Here's an open question for Dole on behalf of the women of America.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Senator Dole, you have been a noted opponent of abortion rights and
>>>>>>you have been given a 100% rating from the Christian Colaitian and given
>>>>>>the Christian Coalition's endorsment by Ralph Reed.
>>>>>>Do you plan to have any abortion litmus test with any Supreme Court
>>>>>>nominations you may make during your administration?
>>>>>
>>>>>Dole has already said that he opposes any single issue litmus test for
>>>>>Supreme Court appointments.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>When? Where?
>>
>>>If memory serves me correctly, it was in a Q&A following his speech on
>>>judicial appoinments.
>>
>>To be credible, I think you'll have to be more specific than that.
>>
>>>> And can we trust him to actually do that?
>>
>>>He isn't the one who waffles. His Senate colleague, on both sides of
>>>the aisle maintain that, "Bob Dole's word is his bond."
>>
>>Robert is known to have had his waffling moments.
>Do you feel a "need to be more specific than that"? :-)
>>
>>>>And who would he put on the supreme court?
>>>>The women of America might want to make sure he answers some good hard
>>>>questions here. Or at least think about them hard and make sure they are
>>>>registered to vote if they are not at this time.
>>>>I somehow doubt Dole will be appointed many free choice proponents to teh
>>>>supreme court.
>>
>>>His point was that no single issue will determine any judicial
>>>appointment in a Dole admnistration. He says he would opt for well
>>>qualified judges who would write law rather than legislate.
>>
>>Like carte blanche disapproval of all of Clinton's judicial
>>appointments. And, talk about waffling, that was after he had voted
>>for almost all of the appointments.
>His criticism, if you will recall, was not of Clinton's Supreme Court
>appointments which the Senate tends to scrutinize with some care. The
>Senate simply does not have the resources, especially in the wake of
>Congress' recent reduction of its own budget by more than 30%, to
>thoroughly investigate all of the hundreds of lower federal court
>appointees. It has, however, announed firmly that it will refuse to
>confirm Clinton's latest nominee to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
>-- one Charles "Bud" Stack from Florida. Stack has no background on
>the bench, and his legal writing is limited to once having written for
>a police association newsletter. His claim to fame? He raised $7
>million for the 1992 Clinton campaign plus several million dollars
>more for the DNC. As the Austin American-Statesman (which supports
>Clinton) editorialized recently, "Federal judgeships should not be
>for sale."
>Eleanor
>>sensen
>>
>>>Eleanor Rotthoff
>>>(erot...@io.com)
>>
Eleanor you might be happy to hear that Clinton has recognised the
inevitable and has withdrawn his name. I hope the majority in the
Senate will stop ALL judicial appointments until after the election,
because if not we will be stuck with some of the worst Judges in
history. Some of his appoints ments have been really far Left Wing
Liberals, and the rest have been farther to the left.
\\/ayne //\ann
"A politician who commends himself as 'caring' and
'sensitive' because he wants to expand the government's
charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing
to do good with other peoples' money." - PJ O'Rourke
Eleanor Rotthoff
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>In article <3194abe5...@news.io.com>,
>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>
>>>>>>He isn't the one who waffles. His Senate colleague, on both sides of
>>>>>>the aisle maintain that, "Bob Dole's word is his bond."
>>>>>
>>>>>Robert is known to have had his waffling moments.
>>>>
>>>>Do you feel a "need to be more specific than that"? :-)
>>>
>>>Where to start?
>>>
>>>"(Dole) always waits to see which way the political wind is blowing" -
>>> Nancy Kasslebaum
>>
>>Would you please post a source for this? Unless you can, it is
>>utterly incredible coming from a well-respected Senator who has always
>>regarded Bob Dole as her mentor and close friend.
>
>Try Senator For sale, a book by Stanley G. Hilton.
>Who by the way, was a Dole Senate counsel and aide
>in 1979 and 1980.
>
>"As his colleague, Kansas Senator Nancy Kassenbaum, has said, he
>"tends to move in whatever way the political winds are blowing".
So the bottom line is that instead of your quoting Sen. Kassenbaum, as
you had indicated you were doing, you were repeating an allegation by
the author of the kind of typical partisan "attack book" that comes
out in every political campaign. And quoting him in a context which
is, on its face, absolutely incredible. Why am I not surprised>
<snip>
>I do not know of her repudiating this remark.
>I have seen it quoted elsewhere in the past.
> You should read this book.
I do not waste my time reading scurrilous "attack books" about Clinton
(and there have been several of them) nor do I read Hilton's kind of
trash.
<snip>
Eleanor Rotthoff
ri...@praline.no.NeoSoft.com (RHA) wrote:
<snip>
> Lawyer Timmy, I'd be a tad careful here. Have you any evidence
> that will stand up in a court of law for each and every
> accusation you've made in the above paragraph? If not provably
> true, you may have committed slander by publishing (ie., posting)
> your remarks as being fact when in fact you have no way of
> knowing them to be accurate statements and only published them for
> their negative effect. You may have screwed the pooch by not
> using weasel words such as "It's been alleged..."
>
> PS. If Bill sues, get a *real* lawyer. You know, one who is
> smart enough to explain the concept of slander to his client.
>rha
Under the Supreme Court's decision in NY Times v. Sullivan, the
landmark case, it's almost impossible to libel or slander a public
figure. (For the record, slander is oral, libel is written.) The
court reasoned that public figures, by seeking the limelight,
voluntarily open themselves up to criticism, even untrue criticism, to
a much greater degree than private individuals. While this seems a
reasonable analysis, given the gutter level of our current public
discourse it may be time for the Court to revisit that issue. Since
truth is always a defense to libel and slander, it seems as though
there should be some limit to the nature and extent of the *untrue*
statements people can make about a public figure.
If it were possible for a public figure to win a case of libel or
slander, Newt Gingrich would be a millionaire and David Bonior et al
would be paupers.
Eleanor Rotthoff
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the
to the federal government are few and defined. Those which
are to remain in the State governments are numerous and
indefinite."
James Madison, The Federalist No. 45.
David Joslin
In article <31954425...@news.io.com>,
Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>"As his colleague, Kansas Senator Nancy Kassenbaum, has said, he
>>"tends to move in whatever way the political winds are blowing".
>
>So the bottom line is that instead of your quoting Sen. Kassenbaum, as
>you had indicated you were doing, you were repeating an allegation by
>the author of the kind of typical partisan "attack book" that comes
>out in every political campaign. And quoting him in a context which
>is, on its face, absolutely incredible. Why am I not surprised>
Skepticism is often a good thing. But here, you might
want to augment that skepticism with a little research.
A quick altavista search turned up another citation, from
a Steve Forbes press release from October 16, 1995:
Given Bob Dole's different positions on term limits, it may
be useful to recall what his friend and Senate colleague
Nancy Kassenbaum said about Bob Dole in 1987:
"Bob waits to see which way the wind is blowing," says Nancy
Landon Kassenbaum, the junior Republican Senator from
Kansas. (St. Petersburg Times, 11/8/87)
That has another citation you could check, if you still
have doubts. There are other search engines that would
probably be much more helpful, too.
In case it helps, I've appended some things Bob Dole has
said about term limits, taken from the same press release.
Looks to me like he detected a shift in the wind. What
do you make of it?
dj
BOB DOLE ON TERM LIMITS
"I've never been for term limits. If people want to
throw us out, they know how to do it." (AP - 4/3/92)
"I don't know if you need term limits." (AP - 8-21-92)
"Dole said he opposes term limits, noting there will
be about 150 new House members this year without such a
restriction." (The Saturday Oklahoman - 8-22-92)
Just five days later, "Dole said he saw 'no
contradiction' in supporting term limits even though he has
served 24 years in the Senate and eight in the House. (AP -
8-27-92)
"Dole, responding to the criticism, said he favors
term limits, but then blamed the Democrat-controlled
Congress for the Washington stalemate that has prompted a
call for term limits. (AP - 10-9-92)
Senator Dole "proposed term limits for all members of
the House and Senate - a plan that is anathema to the
Democratic leadership - and suggested that each session of
Congress be limited to six months a year." (LA Times -
1/27/93)
Wayne Mann
ri...@praline.no.NeoSoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>In article <4mu2ka$e...@ren.cei.net>, Tim Watson <tim...@cei.net> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>Or why in the world would any self-respecting woman support a man who,
>>throughout his adult life, has treated all women as the lowest kind of
>>sex object - the worst womanizer in presidential history. Clinton has
>>committed sexual harrasment many times, and is being sued for a blatant
>>and despicable example of this henious assault on women. He didn't tell
>>Paula Jones off-color jokes, as Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of
>>doing, stirring all good feminists to righteous indignation - the
>>governor of Arkansas had his bodyguard State Policeman escort a young
>>state employee to his hotel room, then dropped his slacks and underwear,
>>and told her to kiss his erect penis. This is the man who will allow you
>>"to live your lives in regards to your own body?" It requires a truly
>>twisted sort of logic to believe this sleazy womanizer is woman's
>>champion. Surely woman with understanding and intelligence will know
>>what to do in November - and it will be to repudiate this sleazebag in
>>record numbers.
> Lawyer Timmy, I'd be a tad careful here. Have you any evidence
> that will stand up in a court of law for each and every
> accusation you've made in the above paragraph? If not provably
> true, you may have committed slander by publishing (ie., posting)
> your remarks as being fact when in fact you have no way of
> knowing them to be accurate statements and only published them for
> their negative effect. You may have screwed the pooch by not
> using weasel words such as "It's been alleged..."
> PS. If Bill sues, get a *real* lawyer. You know, one who is
> smart enough to explain the concept of slander to his client.
>--
>rha
I agree with every word Tim said. If Clinton wants to sue Tim, he can
sue me at the same time. For the Left Wing Liberal people that tell
all of the "Clinton's" I will tell you very simply why. Everything he
said it true, and the defense for Libel or slander, and there is a
difference, is TRUTH. I just wish he would sue me. That way I could
PROVE in a court what he is.
John Q. Public
Brian Thomas
Milt Shook <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
<Nothing of consequesce.>
So, Milt Shook. The question is, why is Milt Shaking? ;)
Garry N. Ray
ito...@itops13.corp.sun.com (Milton Brewster) completed his hazing
for the Begala Brigade:
=>*) There is no proof to this day, that Clinton has ever slept with
=> anybody but his wife Hilary.
Ya know, I'd read that windowpane was making a comeback. You've just
confirmed it.
From David Maraniss in _First In His Class_ p. 441:
------------
"Okay," [Betsy Wright] said to [Clinton] as they sat in her living
room. Then she started listing the names of women he had allegedly had
affairs with and the places where they were said to have occurred.
"Now," she concluded, "I want you to tell me the truth about every
single one." She went over the list twice with Clinton, according to
her later account, the second time to determine whether any of the
women might tell their stories to the press. At the end of the
process, she suggested that [the most ethical president in history]
should not get into the race.
[source: Betsy Wright]
------------
=> We could also look at his taste in wives, which is superb.
Picture yourself on a boat on a river, with plasticine porters and
looking glass eyes....
=>PS: One thing both Clinton and Gingrich seem to agree on, is that blow
=> jobs are definitely the way to go. Timmy, I suggest that you
[rrriiiiiiipppppp]
The Begala Brigade's favored adaptation of Occam's Razor.
John Q. Public
William Barwell wrote:
>
> In article <4n0nq6$g...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>,
> Itops Guest Acct. Milton Brewster <ito...@itops13.corp.sun.com> wrote:
> >In article 25...@globaldialog.com, "John Q. Public" <j...@globaldialog.com> writes:
> >>Itops Guest Acct. Milton Brewster wrote:
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> ... you're a liar.
> >>
> >> ... you're a liar.
> >>
> >> ... you're a liar.
> >>
> >> ... you're a liar.
> >>
> >> [ John Q snipped many points here, that he just couldn't deal with. ]
> >>
> >
> >
> >( yawn )
> >
> >Do you see the pattern here, everybody? I post an objective comment.
> >Mister Conservative here, can't deal with it-- so he pulls a Joe
> >McCarthy, and calls me a liar a half-dozen times.
>
> Name calling and spite.
Why did you snip my comments, then, subgenius?
Not everyone is as dumb as Bill Clinton's 43 percent.
Post 'em.
Wayne Mann
Milt Shook <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>You know what's wrong with you sick, twisted conservative wannabes?
>You're a bunch of hypocrites. When that woman said she had an affair with
>Bush in '92, there was plenty of evidence, and only one half-hearted
>denial from the GOP.
Wel, lie number one. This BS story was proved a lie.
You let Newt run roughshod all over Washington--a
>guy who dumped his wife while she was sick in bed with cancer, and
>stiffed his kids with child support, until he was practically threatened
>with jail.
LIE number two. Molly Ivens wrote this with one source. Then the
Charlotte Observer wrote an article and proved that this is all lies.
The woman that was the source for Ivens was a mental case and she
admitted she had lied. The Observer actually investigated the
situation, and not just run something like Ivens because of her
ideology. When Newts wife was in the Hospital, they were already
seperated for sometime. He brought his girls to visit her just before
she was going to be going home. She had ASKED HIM to bring some
papers that needed her signature. As to the Church and food and Child
support, that is all lies. The Pastor of the Church said it was NOT
true. The mental case just told a bunmch of lies and instead of Ivens
varifying it, she just printed it, and has NEVER apologized for her
lies, no more than MSHOOK will apologize for spreading lies.
>All the while, you let this Paula Jones shit run all over the place.
The "place" is the courts.
>First of all, if you'd bother to do any research, you asshole, you'd find
>out that nearly every person involved with the case thinks they'll lose.
Boy we have found a real liar here. A pathological liar in the WHite
House and another one here.
>Not because he's the president, but because she has no credibility or
>evidence in her favor.
SHe has more than enough evidence. I can't wait for Clinton to have
to drop his drawers in front of the Jury.
The story is just so fucking ridiculous!
Well you got that right. Your story is rediculous.
But, the
>bottom line is, you keep on using unfounded rumors to brand the president
>as a sleaze.
He is a sleaze.
Well, that's bullshit!
NO, that is called truth!
There is a hell of a lot more
>evidence that Newt's a sleaze than has even been faked about Clinton.
OH, I see. He did something so it is OK for Clinton to be a crook and
sleaze. Moral relitivaty.
>You guys just can't debate on the issues, because he kicks the GOPs ass
>on everything.
Your ignorance is only exceeded by your stupidity and your ability to
tell lies.
The reason Al D'Amato and Kenneth Starr keep the Watergate
>hearing open, is because they are desparate.
More lies.
They have no credibility on
>the issues, so they're hoping to find something, anything, to pin on him.
They have plenty already. He will get the two terms he deserves, one
in the White House and the second in the "Big House."
>But it's all crap...
Yes you are full of crap.
>Oh, by the way; look at where Paula gets the money to fight this suit,
>and you'll find that it comes from the GOP.
Another lie. It is being done on a Pro Bono basis. If you actually
knew anything at all, you would know that. You are nothing but a snot
nosed little punk that all you can do is tell lies.
Garry N. Ray
ri...@praline.no.NeoSoft.com (RHA) did some whistlin'-in-the-dark:
=> Lawyer Timmy, I'd be a tad careful here. Have you any evidence
=> that will stand up in a court of law for each and every
=> accusation you've made in the above paragraph? If not provably
=> true, you may have committed slander by publishing (ie., posting)
Perhaps you'll proffer the same wise advice to David Maraniss,
Washington Post reporter and a 1993 winner of the Pulitzer Prize:
From _First In His Class_ p. 441:
------------
"Okay," [Betsy Wright] said to [Clinton] as they sat in her living
room. Then she started listing the names of women he had allegedly had
affairs with and the places where they were said to have occurred.
"Now," she concluded, "I want you to tell me the truth about every
single one." She went over the list twice with Clinton, according to
her later account, the second time to determine whether any of the
women might tell their stories to the press. At the end of the
process, she suggested that [the most ethical president in history]
should not get into the race.
[source: Betsy Wright in three separate interviews with Maraniss]
------------
Eleanor Rotthoff
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>Watch out, credibility is a precious commodity on the net, don't waste
>yours with sensless quibbles that merely call your judgement into question.
I absolutely agree that credibility is priceless, not just on the net
but anywhere.
William Barwell
In article <3194ca40....@news.en.com>,
Brian Thomas <tho...@liso.dnet.ge.com> wrote:
>ito...@itops13.corp.sun.com (Itops Guest Acct. Milton Brewster)
>wrote:
>>
>>
>comes from TRIALS. One of which Bill Clinton is doing everything in
>his power to avoid.
>
>>*) Clinton is NOT the biggest womanizer in presidential history.
>>
>> Even if Clinton DID sleep around; chances are that it was only with
>> Genefer Flowers, who was an admitted personal friend.
>
> And Sally Perdue, and a few others. And don't forget his
>failed attempt with Paula Jones. Ah, the old "So what?" defense.
>
Reagan's date rape of Selene Waters.
And of course, grinnin' Newtie's public blowjobs.
So what!, you say?
RHA
In article <4n2lu3$u...@ren.cei.net>, Tim Watson <tim...@cei.net> wrote:
>tho...@liso.dnet.ge.com (Brian Thomas) wrote:
>>ito...@itops13.corp.sun.com (Itops Guest Acct. Milton Brewster)
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>*) There is no proof to this day, that Clinton has ever slept with
>>> anybody but his wife Hilary.
>>>
>> Miltie, Miltie, Miltie, that's because in THIS country, proof
>>comes from TRIALS. One of which Bill Clinton is doing everything in
>>his power to avoid.
>>
>>>*) Clinton is NOT the biggest womanizer in presidential history.
>>>
>>> Even if Clinton DID sleep around; chances are that it was only with
>>> Genefer Flowers, who was an admitted personal friend.
>>
>> And Sally Perdue, and a few others. And don't forget his
>>failed attempt with Paula Jones. Ah, the old "So what?" defense.
>>
>
>
>instances of marital infidelity Clinton commits, the True Believers will
>still say: so what?
>
>According the James Stewart, in Blood Sport, Clinton was sleeping around
>right after he and Hillary were married, and it was so bad, Hillary was
>depressed and considering divorce.
>
>I can't imagine that we have ever had a president who has behaved the way
>Bill Clinton has for the past twenty years - at least, that's as far back
>as anyone knows. Multiple affairs, the use of his bodyguards as pimps to
>pick up hookers for him, innumerable liasons like the Paula Jones matter
| |
|____________________________________________|
Hmmmmm, Lawyer Timmy says Clinton's bodyguards procured
"hookers".........who has Lawyer Timmy recently claimed
got Ms. Jones into a room for Bill.....*bodyguards*!
**W**E**L**L**!!
Gee, maybe Lawyer Timmy is finally on to something.
>(except she objected), the list goes on. He is a womanizer, and the
>worst in American presidential history. No two ways about it.
Ya better have proof for your statement, Lawyer Timmy!
*Slander* is the issue.
--
rha
Billy Beck
gn...@nxi.com (Garry N. Ray) wrote:
>Ya know, I'd read that windowpane was making a comeback.
It most certainly is, and that is a wonderful development.
It's not been quite as good as the products of, say, 1977-1982 in the
northeast. It should be held in mind, though, that production and
marketing constraints in those days were not quite what they are
today.
In any case, we've seen a resurgance of the legendary "Philadelphia
Pyramids" in recent weeks - 225 micrograms in the old days - laid out
in gelatine sheets. The local market is extremely competitive,
however, a circumstance which precludes this reporter's product review
at the moment.
Will report ASAP.
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
"Rant" updated 4/16/96
William Barwell
In article <31963b2b...@news.io.com>,
Do keep in mind I am not pro-Clinton, I am anti-GOP.
Clinton is the least of evils.
Lamm may very well be Perot's reform party candidate.
He has said if Perot lets it know he will not run, he Lamm, will.
William Barwell
In article <4n3g4g$f...@bass.hooked.net>,
Michael Corbino <cor...@bass.hooked.net> wrote:
>In alt.politics.usa.republican wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>Barwell) said:
>
>> because Dole is bad news for
>>women in America and they >know it.
>>
>Why is that ?
>Would Dole only seek to lessen the tax burden for working men? That's
>odd....hmmmm
No, it is a matter of women's rights and reproductive free choice.
Dole has long established an unenviable record of wrong votes
on women's rights issues in the Senate.
From family leave to reproductive rights.
He has been bad news. He has the blessings of the Christian Coaliton
and a 100% CC rating.
If he wins, a government with the GOP in control of the House, the
Senate and the presidency, and the Supreme Court is going to be
bad news for women rights in American and you can bet this is
beginning to dawn on a lot of women who have been shocked at what
happened in 1994.
A lot of women are realizing, this is it, do or die.
Rights lost are very hard to regain.
Women have had to battle hard to retain their rights in the 80's and 90's
and it is do or die time now. Dole recently got rated as one of the ten
worst Senators as far as women's rights by McCall's magazine.
You can bet his record on this issue will be a big issue amongst women.
When what Dole represents hits the average women, and they realize how
close they are to disaster, they will turn out in large numbers to let
the GOP know what they think of all of this.
Women are giving Clinton their votes to avoid Dole. Which
is one reason the latest Harris poll gives Clinton a 25% lead over
Dole.
The Christian coalition gave their support to Dole, not Buchanan.
There was a reason for that. They know he will pay off for them
in the end. And you can bet that women of America do not want a sour old
73 year old conservative telling them how they must run their lives with
help from the Christian Coalition.
See ya in November.
Any women not registered to vote is behaving foolishly.
register now before it is too late. If you think fight for
women's rights is hard now, you will hate a Dole presidency.
It will be much harder. And you can expect in such a case a hard charge
at changing laws as fast as possible by the right to lock in
as many changes as possibel and a hard battle for everything left
for 4 long years. It will be wearying beyond belief.
You will live with Dole's supreme court for the rest of your life.
William Barwell
In article <4n5ckc$3...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
Wayne Mann <wdm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Milt Shook <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>
>
>>You know what's wrong with you sick, twisted conservative wannabes?
>>You're a bunch of hypocrites. When that woman said she had an affair with
>>Bush in '92, there was plenty of evidence, and only one half-hearted
>>denial from the GOP.
>
> Wel, lie number one. This BS story was proved a lie.
>
to have slept around with over the years.
Of course looking at Barbara Bush.....
Bill Edison
In article <4n0nq6$g...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM.
ito...@itops13.corp.sun.com (Itops Guest Acct. Milton Brewster) writes:
.
.In article 25...@globaldialog.com, "John Q. Public" <j...@globaldialog.com. writes:
..Itops Guest Acct. Milton Brewster wrote:
.
...
... Timmy, Timmy, Timmy.
...
... *) There is no proof to this day, that Clinton has ever slept with
... anybody but his wife Hilary.
...
Huh? Are you forgetting his admission on "60-minutes" or just
out the usual liberal smoke-screen?
Here's a short synopsis of the mayhem that's engulfed DC since
these dummies strolled into town:
Vince Foster Committed suicide (yeah right)
Les Aspin resigned
Bernie Nussbaum resigned
Webb Hubbell resigned
Webb Hubbell pleaded guilty to Federal charges of mail fraud and tax evasion.
Bobby Ray Inman resigned before being confirmed as Sec. of Defense
David Watkins resigned
Mac Maclarty resigned and was reassigned
Kristine Gebbe resigned as AIDS Planning Coordinator
Roger Altman resigned as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury
Lloyd Bentsen resigned as Secretary of the Treasury.
Joycelyn Elders was fired as Surgeon General.
Dee Dee Myers resigned as press secretary, effective the end of December.
Jean Hansen resigned from the Treasury Department
Mike Espy resigned as Secretary of Agriculture
Dante Caputo resigned from U.N. commission over Haitian policy
Two members of the department of state resigned over Bosnia policy
Third in command at Reno's Justice Department resigned
David Gergen resigned, effective January 1.
David Watkins, White House Administration, fired for using helicopters
David Watkins,to settle a sexual harassement charge, was able to pay the
the person $37,500 from Clinton's '92 campaign fund.
David Wilhelm was demoted as chairman of the DNC and was be replaced by
Cohelo
William Kennedy III was demoted for Nanny Gate
Harold Ickes was subpoenaed by Whitewater Grand Jury
George Stephanopoulis was subpoenaed
Patsy Thomassen was subpoenaed
Lisa Caputo was subpoenaed
Maggie Williams was subpoenaed
Bill Clinton was charged in a law suit with sexual harassment
Henry Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is being sued
by former mistress for non-payment
Henry Cisneros is under Federal Investigation
Hillary Robem Cheatem is being sued for 44 mil by a health group
Ira Magaziner is being sued for 44 mil by a health group
Charges against both dismissed. NEW since last post.
Ira Magaziner may be charged with perjury or criminal contempt.
... The GOP has spent five years and around $15M dollars on private
... detectives, looking for Clinton bimbos to parade before AP
... reporters. They have found no one. That's 'none', spelled with a
... zero.
This must really embarrass you after the 25 investigations done
on the Reagan administration when only one yielded anything.
.. ... you're a liar.
..
.. [ John Q snipped many points here, that he just couldn't deal with. ]
..
.
.
.( yawn )
.
.Do you see the pattern here, everybody? I post an objective comment.
.Mister Conservative here, can't deal with it-- so he pulls a Joe
.McCarthy, and calls me a liar a half-dozen times.
His comment was off-the-wall, but yours was hardly "objective".
.
.Is it any wonder that the Conservative GOP congresspersons who actually
.think like this, are about to go down to the most ignominious defeat in
.the last 70 years, come next November?
Nope- they won't. Clinton will probably stroll into DC again but he'll
be a lame duck and blame everything on republicans.
.
.NOTE: John Q: For future reference; calling someone a 'liar' instead of
. addressing the substance of his/her message; qualifies as "Hate
. Speech".
No, it doesn't, but good try.
.
. Thinking Americans are tired of it.
"Thinking Americans" finally cast their votes in the Nov 94 election.
Since Clinton has the press on his side (although he didn't make any
friends LAST week when he BLAMED THEM for wrongly using the word "cut"
in reference to some of the republican budgetary proposals. Since the
press AND Clinton both used this word knowing full well it was a
lie, do you think they could be arrested for conspiring to bombard
the public with "hate speech?"), he (again) probably WILL win re-election
but he'll be a lame duck in a booth at McDonald's. Did you see Robert
Rubin DENY that Clinton *ever said* he thought he raised taxes too much?
Do you think he is guilty of "hate speech?" Remember when Clinton
all but called Bush a "racist" in regard to his Haitain policy? Since
Clinton adopted the same policy when his butt hit the chair, do you
think it qualifies as another count of "hate speech?" . How silly.
.
Bill Edison
.
.* * * * * * * Then John Q Public said this * * * * * * * * * * *
..
.."'Piss Christ' is to art as Bill Clinton is to the
..Presidency of the United States of America."
..
.
.This kind of gratuitous, hateful, tasteless talk-radio slam has gotten
.old, old, old. It won't re-elect your GOP Congress, John Q. It *will*
.cause lots of voters to rally around the Clinton Bandwagon out of sympathy.
.
.
.Milton Brewster
.
.PS: I must have really, *really* said something right, for ol' John Q
.to have gotten so bent out of shape.
.
.
.
.
Michael Zarlenga
: > *) There is no proof to this day, that Clinton has ever slept with
: > anybody but his wife Hilary.
You forgot about the Flowers tape where he suggests that Genifer lie
about their affair.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, ya know.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
How can you tell when Bill Clinton's lying? Hillary's lips move.
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP Public key and killfile
Tom Tilley
A couple of groups deleted from the follow-up line. I'm posting
from a.f.d-q...
In article <319543ac...@news.io.com> erot...@io.com writes:
>ri...@praline.no.NeoSoft.com (RHA) wrote:
[ snip ]
>> PS. If Bill sues, get a *real* lawyer. You know, one who is
>> smart enough to explain the concept of slander to his client.
>
>>rha
>
>Under the Supreme Court's decision in NY Times v. Sullivan, the
>landmark case, it's almost impossible to libel or slander a public
>figure. (For the record, slander is oral, libel is written.) The
>court reasoned that public figures, by seeking the limelight,
>voluntarily open themselves up to criticism, even untrue criticism, to
>a much greater degree than private individuals. While this seems a
>reasonable analysis, given the gutter level of our current public
>discourse it may be time for the Court to revisit that issue. Since
>truth is always a defense to libel and slander, it seems as though
>there should be some limit to the nature and extent of the *untrue*
>statements people can make about a public figure.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't _Sullivan_ find that public
figures can gain redress for defamation (libel or slander) in
the case of "actual malice" (an utterly reckless disregard for
what might be the truth of the matter)? Or am I konfused?
Just wondering...
>If it were possible for a public figure to win a case of libel or
>slander, Newt Gingrich would be a millionaire and David Bonior et al
>would be paupers.
Legislators have legislative immunity, which is a separate issue.
Further, is libel and slander an equitable proceeding or not? If
it is, then I can't see how Gingrich could sue anyone for defamation
given his propensity for shooting off at the mouth. If it isn't,
then this doesn't apply...
Tom.
--
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------#
| Tom Tilley | "As an attempt to formally express the opinion or |
| til...@netcom.com | will of the Nye County Board of Commissioners, the |
| | resolution offers only an example of poor writing."|
| | - District Judge Lloyd George, on Nye County's (NV)|
| | illegal attempt at a "Sagebrush Rebellion." |
Eleanor Rotthoff
jos...@always.cirl.uoregon.edu (David Joslin) wrote:
>In article <31954425...@news.io.com>,
>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>>"As his colleague, Kansas Senator Nancy Kassenbaum, has said, he
>>>"tends to move in whatever way the political winds are blowing".
>>
>>So the bottom line is that instead of your quoting Sen. Kassenbaum, as
>>you had indicated you were doing, you were repeating an allegation by
>>the author of the kind of typical partisan "attack book" that comes
>>out in every political campaign. And quoting him in a context which
>>is, on its face, absolutely incredible. Why am I not surprised>
>
>Skepticism is often a good thing. But here, you might
>want to augment that skepticism with a little research.
I really should apologize for the sarcasm. I'm afraid that I get a
little impatient with Zepp who attributes to the GOP every evil in the
world since The Flood and either fails to back up his allegations at
all or "backs them up" with a torrent of abusive illogic. I do,
however, think that taking at face value a quotation from a typical
election year "attack book", especially when the quotation contains a
criticism of one person by another who has a long history of being an
admirer of his is a little thin. But then I believe in fundamental
fairness, and heaven knows that's an old-fashioned concept in today's
gutter politics.
>A quick altavista search turned up another citation, from
>a Steve Forbes press release from October 16, 1995:
>
> Given Bob Dole's different positions on term limits, it may
> be useful to recall what his friend and Senate colleague
> Nancy Kassenbaum said about Bob Dole in 1987:
>
> "Bob waits to see which way the wind is blowing," says Nancy
> Landon Kassenbaum, the junior Republican Senator from
> Kansas. (St. Petersburg Times, 11/8/87)
I note that this is almost the identical quote, again taken from an
election year attack ad. Wonder if the original source is the same.
I'll check with the St. Petersburg Times to see. Let you know the
results.
>That has another citation you could check, if you still
>have doubts. There are other search engines that would
>probably be much more helpful, too.
>
>In case it helps, I've appended some things Bob Dole has
>said about term limits, taken from the same press release.
>Looks to me like he detected a shift in the wind. What
>do you make of it?
As I read over your list of quotes, taking them entirely at face
value, it appears to me that he came to support term limits very, very
reluctantly as many politicians did and only in the face of 1) public
pressure for term limits and 2) the impossible gridlock which we face
today. (When you have the Democrats in the US Senate filibustering a
bill to allow companies to adopt Total Quality Management programs,
you know that gridlock has reached unparalleled heights!)
Now, if he turned around tomorrow, or next week, and said that he
opposes term limits, I'd consider that waffling. Are you suggesting
that he has done that since he reluctantly decided to support them?
Since your last quotes are over 3 years old, he certainly didn't adopt
that stance for purposes of his presidential campaign.
Do you consider it waffling, or statesmanship, that he did not make
political hay over sending troops to Bosnia after he and Sen. Joseph
Lieberman (D-Conn) had spent two years warning the Administration that
if it did not lift the arms embargo we would have to send in our own
troops?
I submit to you that Dole's Senate colleagues would not have elected
him their leader continually for over 10 years if they didn't think
they could rely on him to keep his word and steer a steady course.
Nor could he have functioned effectively in that role given Senate
rules if his Democratic counterparts had not been able to rely on him
to do the same thing. No one has ever questioned that until Clinton
partisans decided that they need to say, "See, no politician has any
character, but our guy runs a glitzy campaign, so vote for him."
BOB DOLE ON TERM LIMITS
>
> "I've never been for term limits. If people want to
>throw us out, they know how to do it." (AP - 4/3/92)
>
> "I don't know if you need term limits." (AP - 8-21-92)
>
> "Dole said he opposes term limits, noting there will
>be about 150 new House members this year without such a
>restriction." (The Saturday Oklahoman - 8-22-92)
>
> Just five days later, "Dole said he saw 'no
>contradiction' in supporting term limits even though he has
>served 24 years in the Senate and eight in the House. (AP -
>8-27-92)
>
> "Dole, responding to the criticism, said he favors
>term limits, but then blamed the Democrat-controlled
>Congress for the Washington stalemate that has prompted a
>call for term limits. (AP - 10-9-92)
>
> Senator Dole "proposed term limits for all members of
>the House and Senate - a plan that is anathema to the
>Democratic leadership - and suggested that each session of
>Congress be limited to six months a year." (LA Times -
>1/27/93)
Eleanor Rotthoff
William Barwell
In article <3196a8d6...@news.io.com>,
Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>jos...@always.cirl.uoregon.edu (David Joslin) wrote:
>
>>In article <31954425...@news.io.com>,
>>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>>>"As his colleague, Kansas Senator Nancy Kassenbaum, has said, he
>>>>"tends to move in whatever way the political winds are blowing".
>>>
>>>So the bottom line is that instead of your quoting Sen. Kassenbaum, as
>>>you had indicated you were doing, you were repeating an allegation by
>>>the author of the kind of typical partisan "attack book" that comes
>>>out in every political campaign. And quoting him in a context which
>>>is, on its face, absolutely incredible. Why am I not surprised>
>>
>>Skepticism is often a good thing. But here, you might
>>want to augment that skepticism with a little research.
>
>I really should apologize for the sarcasm. I'm afraid that I get a
>little impatient with Zepp who attributes to the GOP every evil in the
>world since The Flood and either fails to back up his allegations at
>all or "backs them up" with a torrent of abusive illogic.
Zepp didn't post any of this. I did.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Obviously you do not pay much attention to these posts.
I do,
>however, think that taking at face value a quotation from a typical
>election year "attack book", especially when the quotation contains a
>criticism of one person by another who has a long history of being an
>admirer of his is a little thin.
"Attack book"?
Facts is facts. Senator Flip Flop earned his name.
Tough. And Kassenbaum's quote was confirmed in another post by somebody
else. Your attack was an unwarranted insinuation the quote was false, as
if somebody writing sucha book would manufactor such a quote.
Merely brushing aside quotes you don't like with loaded phrases like
'attack book' is silly.
But then I believe in fundamental
>fairness, and heaven knows that's an old-fashioned concept in today's
>gutter politics.
>
When is quoting factual quotes gutter politics?
When even his friends and allies mention it, this is notable.
>>A quick altavista search turned up another citation, from
>>a Steve Forbes press release from October 16, 1995:
>>
>> Given Bob Dole's different positions on term limits, it may
>> be useful to recall what his friend and Senate colleague
>> Nancy Kassenbaum said about Bob Dole in 1987:
>>
>> "Bob waits to see which way the wind is blowing," says Nancy
>> Landon Kassenbaum, the junior Republican Senator from
>> Kansas. (St. Petersburg Times, 11/8/87)
>
>I note that this is almost the identical quote, again taken from an
>election year attack ad. Wonder if the original source is the same.
>I'll check with the St. Petersburg Times to see. Let you know the
>results.
Ahh... Eleanor is one of THEM. A fact she does not like will not be
accepted any way. She will twist and turn and quibble and handwave, and
emote and strike poses and sidestep, and obfusticate, but she will not
accept facts she does not like.
>
>As I read over your list of quotes, taking them entirely at face
>value, it appears to me that he came to support term limits very, very
>reluctantly as many politicians did and only in the face of 1) public
>pressure for term limits and 2) the impossible gridlock which we face
>today. (When you have the Democrats in the US Senate filibustering a
>bill to allow companies to adopt Total Quality Management programs,
>you know that gridlock has reached unparalleled heights!)
Read the book Senator For Sale.
A whole chapter is devoted to Dole's filibusters and grid lock
causing manuveurs over the last three years.
He is the champ of gridlock and parlimentary obstructionism.
Three whole chapters are devoted to Dole's championship level obstructionism.
Grid lock is good. Gridlock was planned by our founding Fathers in the
Constitution.
- Bob Dole.
This was said just after Clinton was elected promising to end gridlock.
"The Republican leader has come to use the filibuster as never before, and
this is now a regular party feature in the Senate."
- Senator George Mitchell.
Mitchell noted that for 50 years the Senate averaged but one filibuster a
year but Dole had led 48 filibusters against Clinton proposals by the
start of the 1993 sessions.
Dole is an obstructionist jerk who planned to become president by
destroying Clinton's programs totally one by one.
He led more filibusters in one year than in the previous 50 years,
Eleanor! Imagine that.
"Republican Prince of Lesislative Darkness, the Senator Gridlock of
Parlimetary Manuevering, able to take a proposal by a new President and -
despite majorites in the House and Senate - drop it into the black hole of
procedural defeat."
- Senator Alan Cranston on Bob Dole
He "pursues gridlock as a strategy."
- Cranston on Dole again.
Glad you think gridlock and obstructionism is bad, Eleanor. Dole isn't
your man then. He is the principal leader of the gridlock paralyzing this
nation since Clinto got elected.
He has publically talked a good talk about electionreform, buthe
filibuster that to death too.
Flip Flop. Flip Flop.
"The system cries for reform. I think it is incumbent for all of us to
try to achieve that."
Bob Dole.
Then he became one of only 31 Senators to vote againstthe bipartisan
Boren-Goldwater PAC reform bill.
Flip Flop!
In 1987 regarding S.2, another reform bill, he said,
"I do not belive there will be any effort to stop any such legislation."
Then he filibustered S.2 to death.
Flip Flop!
He has personally killed almost every finance reform bill introduced in
the Senate for almost a decade now.
The last was in September 1994 when the bipartisan reform bill the Senate
and House had passed 18 months earlier was finally killed By Dole's
personal efforts by filibustering that one to death before a final vote
could be taken on it.
Flip Flop artist and obstructionist.
Unfit to be president.
Tim Watson
Wayne Mann wrote:
>
> ri...@praline.no.NeoSoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>
> >In article <4mu2ka$e...@ren.cei.net>, Tim Watson <tim...@cei.net> wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Or why in the world would any self-respecting woman support a man who,
> >>throughout his adult life, has treated all women as the lowest kind of
> >>sex object - the worst womanizer in presidential history. Clinton has
> >>committed sexual harrasment many times, and is being sued for a blatant
> >>and despicable example of this henious assault on women. He didn't tell
> >>Paula Jones off-color jokes, as Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of
> >>doing, stirring all good feminists to righteous indignation - the
> >>governor of Arkansas had his bodyguard State Policeman escort a young
> >>state employee to his hotel room, then dropped his slacks and underwear,
> >>and told her to kiss his erect penis. This is the man who will allow you
> >>"to live your lives in regards to your own body?" It requires a truly
> >>twisted sort of logic to believe this sleazy womanizer is woman's
> >>champion. Surely woman with understanding and intelligence will know
> >>what to do in November - and it will be to repudiate this sleazebag in
> >>record numbers.
>
> > knowing them to be accurate statements and only published them for
> > their negative effect. You may have screwed the pooch by not
> > using weasel words such as "It's been alleged..."
>
> > smart enough to explain the concept of slander to his client.
>
> >rha
I missed RHA's original post, and I thank Wayne Mann for reposting it, giving
me a chance to respond.
Yes, I do have access to much evidence of the factual statements made above.
I said "Clinton has committed sexual harassment many times". I have personal
knowledge of this, from conversations with lawyers who have been retained to
threaten Clinton to compel him to back off and leave particular women alone.
The references to the Jones charges are from her complaint - and Clinton has
the opportunity right now to offer evidence that they are untrue. He has
chosen not to do so. Four troopers of the Arkansas State Police have given
sworn testimony of Clinton's behavior with many woman, some "girlfriends",
most whores. This information was published in January of 1994 in the Los
Angeles Times and The American Spectator, and repeated in several newspapers
and journals around the country. Clinton has not threatened a libel or
slander suit against either the policemen (whom he tried to keep quiet by
offering them jobs in the federal government) or the newspapers which
published their stories. He has not even specifically denied their charges.
It has been widely published that Clinton had affairs with Gennifer Flowers,
Sally Perdue, Deborah Mathis, Elizabeth Ward, and perhaps others in the
1980's. No threats from the Clinton camp over these charges.
I believe most of this information is true, from observation and knowledge of
the players. If even half of it is true, Clinton is most definetly a "sleazy
womanizer", and I can't recall a president in our history who has his record.
If the feminists of American meant what they said when they rose up in arms
over Clarence Thomas and Robert Packwood, it is astonishing to me that they
would meekly support Bill Clinton, whose record of treating women as sex
objects is ten, no, one hundred times worse than anything Thomas or Packwood
were even accused of doing.
Tim Watson
qq
jhs...@skn.net
On 5/13/96 1:10PM, in message <31976D...@cei.net>, Tim Watson
<tim...@cei.net> wrote:
--
In regards to RHA's comments on no evidence against Clinton
Where the hell have you been. have you ever seen the video Clinton Chronicles,
yes it's documented and could stand up in court. As for Clinton when the
stories hit the press he put his smear campaign in full swing. These women were
not whores!!!!! but the press made them out to be. But let's assume for a
moment this were true, What does this say about Clinton, Can you still say he
has morals, I think not. Lots of people have fell victim to Clinton and more
will follow. this is a man that will let no one get in his way.
The press today is so biased that the real story rarely ever gets published.
in most every story that does by the time the story is half over it focuses on
defending Clinton. As long as the stories are biased this country will be held
in the grasp of a man that under the right conditions could be as bad or worse
than hitler.
Hey RHA wake up and search for the truth instead of accepting what you are told
to be the truth. This hold true for what I'm telling you don't believe me
research it with an open mind.
James Smith
heidi_hi
You talk about Dole being bad for women's rights and reproductive rights but
you don't go on to explain any other rights other than Dole's position on
abortion.
I am a women and I would trust the Christian Coalition's candidate of choice.
I'm sick of everyone thinking that all women are pro-abortion. Please quit
talking about what is good for women. Talk about what you think is good for
yourself. All women don't have your views. You haven't the foggiest idea
what is good for me and for that matter I don't believe you really care.
Lou Duchez
heidi_hi (ionet.net) wrote:
: You talk about Dole being bad for women's rights and reproductive rights but
: you don't go on to explain any other rights other than Dole's position on
: abortion.
Fine, what other rights does Dole stand for?
- The right of business to rape the country
- The right of religious bigots to impose their will on the rest of us
- The right to rack up an enormous national debt and then blame it on
people too poor to make any measurable difference in the problem
So this is the kind of guy you want in office. I see.
: I am a women and I would trust the Christian Coalition's candidate of choice.
That's too bad. It should be obvious to, well, pretty much everyone that
the Christian Coalition is not about love and tolerance, but about
eliminating diversity. You may fit pretty near the midrange position
that they're shaving around, but I guarantee they'll eventually get to you.
And you're *welcoming* this.
: I'm sick of everyone thinking that all women are pro-abortion.
Fine, adopt a kid if you oppose abortion. Show us that you really care
about children and aren't in it to wag your finger at women who don't
subscribe to your religious beliefs.
Or do you believe that abortion is wrong even in the cases of rape and
incest?
: Please quit
: talking about what is good for women. Talk about what you think is good for
: yourself.
Yeah, *that's* a Christian attitude: screw everyone else, just look out
for yourself.
Look, Barwell isn't forcing anyone to vote in either direction. But he
*is* pointing out how critical these upcoming elections are.
: All women don't have your views.
But a significant number DO.
: You haven't the foggiest idea
: what is good for me and for that matter I don't believe you really care.
Well, since you're putting your faith in the hands of the Christian
Coalition's choice, apparently you don't care what's good for yourself
either. You're trusting them to pick a candidate who will be good for
the people instead of a dollars-and-cents sleazeball who uses religion as
the distraction to push his personal agenda.
Which is to say, you're driving without your headlights on.
Face facts, sister. All large religious organizations have WAY more to
do with money and political power than they do with spirituality. Have
you ever heard of a reverend who is more interested in tending to his
flock than in moving on to a position of authority and power? Those are the
good ones, and they never attain national status. It's the power-hungry
ones who make it to the top. And you can bet they don't give a rat's ass
about you, except for getting your vote.
Milton Brewster
In article 1359...@news.io.com, erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) writes:
< snip >
>[Dole's] criticism, if you will recall, was not of Clinton's Supreme Court
>appointments which the Senate tends to scrutinize with some care. The
>Senate simply does not have the resources, especially in the wake of
>Congress' recent reduction of its own budget by more than 30%, to
>thoroughly investigate all of the hundreds of lower federal court
>appointees. It has, however, announed firmly that it will refuse to
>confirm Clinton's latest nominee to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
>-- one Charles "Bud" Stack from Florida. Stack has no background on
>the bench, and his legal writing is limited to once having written for
>a police association newsletter. His claim to fame? He raised $7
>million for the 1992 Clinton campaign plus several million dollars
>more for the DNC. As the Austin American-Statesman (which supports
>Clinton) editorialized recently, "Federal judgeships should not be
>for sale."
>
>Eleanor
>
I don't agree with you very often, but I actually *do* have some respect
for your sincerity and your good-faith attempts to produce citations
which support your points of view. With this in mind, I must disagree
with your position re: Congress, in the above paragraph.
Congress' examination of current Court appointments simply is *not*
hampered by its recent budget change. It simply doesn't cost enough to
examine a Judicial nominee, for the budget change to matter. Besides,
most of that cost of investigating a nominee is borne by the FBI, the
Justice Department and other Executive departments, anyway. In any
case, NO congressperson has ANY excuse for confirming an appointment of
a person he/she doesn't like, Republican OR Democrat.
* * * * * * * *
Congress' approval of Executive Judicial appointments has always been
riddled with political compromise. Democrats often support Republicans
and Republicans appoint Democrats, in exchange for their support on
other issues.
Here is how the President selects Judicial Nominees: The Senior
Senator from the State holding the vacancy has the right to propose
nominees for the vacant position. If the Senator is a member of the
opposing party, then the senior elected Official in of the President's
party in that State may also propose nominees. Usually the Junior
Senator and the Governor are involved. House members are usually
consulted.
How the final nominee is selected depends upon the working
relationships between all these parties. All these parties must
essentially agree on the nominee, or there is Hell to pay. At the very
least, the Republican Senators from Florida share the responsibility
for Mister Stack's nomination.
Neither Clinton nor Dole are responsible for this mechanism. They're
just trying to make things work out as best they can.
* * * * * * * * * *
I have no idea whether Mister Stack is qualified for the bench or not.
I certainly DO know, that ALL Presidents have appointed unqualified
people to the Federal bench. Reagan, Bush and Nixon have especially
bleak records-- partly because Democrat Senators through the '70s and
'80s bargained away their rights to refuse bad nominations.
It is personally disingenuous of you, to criticize Clinton for
nominating Mister Stack, while ignoring the dozens of unqualified
appointments of Conservative Judges, made by Conservative Republican
Presidents, over the last 28 years. Fair is fair, Eleanor.
Milton Brewster
Lucile V. Wilson
In <Pine.A32.3.91.960511...@kitts.u.arizona.edu> Milt
Shook <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
>
>On 10 May 1996, Tim Watson wrote:
>
>> kru...@xroads.xroads.com (Theodore R. Krueger) wrote:
>> >In article <4mrei8$r...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
>> >William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Do you women want a sour old 72 year old white man to tell you how
>> >>you and your loved ones and friends will be allowed to live your
lives
>> >>in regards to your own body? Now or never, ladies of the
internet.
>> >
>> >Or would you rather have as president someone who will use his
>> >position to coerce you into having sex with him...but support
>> >your right to abort the consequenses?
>> >
>> >Ted
>>
>You know what's wrong with you sick, twisted conservative wannabes?
>You're a bunch of hypocrites. When that woman said she had an affair
with
>Bush in '92, there was plenty of evidence, and only one half-hearted
>guy who dumped his wife while she was sick in bed with cancer, and
>stiffed his kids with child support, until he was practically
threatened
>with jail.
>
>All the while, you let this Paula Jones shit run all over the place.
>First of all, if you'd bother to do any research, you asshole, you'd
find
>out that nearly every person involved with the case thinks they'll
lose.
>Not because he's the president, but because she has no credibility or
>evidence in her favor. The story is just so fucking ridiculous! But,
the
>bottom line is, you keep on using unfounded rumors to brand the
president
>as a sleaze. Well, that's bullshit! There is a hell of a lot more
>evidence that Newt's a sleaze than has even been faked about Clinton.
>
>You guys just can't debate on the issues, because he kicks the GOPs
ass
>on everything. The reason Al D'Amato and Kenneth Starr keep the
Watergate
>hearing open, is because they are desparate. They have no credibility
on
>the issues, so they're hoping to find something, anything, to pin on
him.
>But it's all crap...
>
>Oh, by the way; look at where Paula gets the money to fight this suit,
>and you'll find that it comes from the GOP.
**************************************************************
and the religious right.
Lu
Milton Brewster
In article 966...@news.io.com, erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) writes:
>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
< snip >
>So the bottom line is that instead of your quoting Sen. Kassenbaum, as
>you had indicated you were doing, you were repeating an allegation by
>the author of the kind of typical partisan "attack book" that comes
>out in every political campaign. And quoting him in a context which
>is, on its face, absolutely incredible. Why am I not surprised
I read the quote. It was a fair rephrase of something the Author heard
Senator Kassenbaum say. As a credible rephrase, it should not be
dismissed out-of-hand. The onus is on the researcher (you) to go to
the Author and ask her for her source, and to go to Senator Kassenbaum
and ask for confirmation.
You dismiss the book as an "attack book." This is not a valid
criticism. Even an attack book can contain a fair representation of a
real event. You are dismissing the message because you don't like the
messenger.
This book has been out for some time and has been widely promoted.
Senator Kassenbaum has had ample opportunity to issue a press release
denying this statement, if she chose to. Instead, she has announced
that she is retiring from the Senate because as a Moderate Republican,
she can't get anything done (Charley Rose's PBS interview show, about
seven months ago).
Fair is fair, Eleanor. Kassenbaum is a pretty cool lady as politicians
go-- the statement attributed to her sounds credible to me. It's
time for you to wake up and smell the coffee.
Milton Brewster
Paul Knight
Theodore R. Krueger (kru...@xroads.xroads.com) wrote:
: --
: Why do "partial-birth" abortionists feel it necessary to turn the fetus
: around and leave only the head in the womb before killing it? How is
: this different from leaving only the head outside before killing it?
: kru...@xroads.com
I presume that the author of this question could perform the research
to determine the answer to this question. As I understand it, there are
only two or three gynecologists who perform this operation on a very
few women each year. My assumption is that the reason is a technical
one dealing with the mechanics of the surgery itself. Perhaps Mr.
Krueger could enlighten us with the correct answer.
PAX,
P.
Milton Brewster
>
>Why did you snip my comments, then, subgenius?
>
>Not everyone is as dumb as Bill Clinton's 43 percent.
>
>Post 'em.
I snipped your comments because they were boring. I just used your rant
to make the one or two points I cared to make.
BIG HINT: If you're going to be insulting, then you have to be at
least interesting about it, or I will ignore your ass.
And most of your posts are just mean-minded Rush retreads.
Milton Brewster
Tim Watson
Claims like this one are always amusing, because it is obvious that this
poster would have us believe that women qua women have certain rights which
must be protected. This is, in my opinion, a calculated tactic to appeal to
the fear and misunderstanding fostered by the Democratic Party and such
"women's" leaders as Patricia Ireland and Eleanor Smeal.
There is no such thing as "women's rights" as distinct from the individual
rights all citizens enjoy under the constitution.
What this poster and others who make this sort of moronic appeal are really
talking about is abortion. (The family leave question applies to both
parents, as it should, don't you think?). The Democratic Party and radical
feminists prefer to give the impression that they are appealing to all women,
both pro-life and pro-choice, and so they prattle on about "women's rights",
and they may well fool some women.
Those women who believe that abortion is nothing more than a surgical
procedure for the removal of an unwanted appendage to their bodies will
rightly support Democrats, and especially Bill Clinton, who recently signaled
his willingness to support infanticide if that's what it took to keep the
radical feminists happy with him.
But women who are not certain about abortion, and women who oppose it as the
taking of human life, should not be fooled by this phony appeal to "women's
rights". As a matter of fact, I think you may safely mentally substitute the
words "abortion rights" every time you hear or read the words "women's
rights", and you will better understand the debate, and the debaters.
Tim Watson
qq
Tim Watson
heidi_hi wrote:
>
> You talk about Dole being bad for women's rights and reproductive rights but
> you don't go on to explain any other rights other than Dole's position on
> abortion.
>
> talking about what is good for women. Talk about what you think is good for
> what is good for me and for that matter I don't believe you really care.
Bravo! Great post. Thanks.
Tim Watson
qq
John Q. Public
Lou Duchez wrote:
>
>
> Fine, what other rights does Dole stand for?
>
> - The right of business to rape the country
Dole would be about as bad as they come in this regard, if it weren't
for Clinton. I hope the thought of liquified Arkansas chicken innards
and waste being pumped into streams keeps you amused as you proselytize
for the greatest enemy of civil rights in the history of the United
States, Bill Clinton.
Michael Corbino
In alt.politics.usa.republican wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) said:
>In article <4n3g4g$f...@bass.hooked.net>, Michael Corbino
><cor...@bass.hooked.net> wrote:
>>In alt.politics.usa.republican wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>>Barwell) said:
>****************** Deleted ******************
>
>
>>
>>> because Dole is bad news >>>for women in America and >>>they know it.
>>>
>>Why is that ?
>>Would Dole only seek to >>lessen the tax burden for >>working men?
That's
>>odd....hmmmm
>
>No, it is a matter of women's >rights and reproductive free >choice. Dole
has long >established an unenviable >record of wrong votes on >women's
rights issues
>in the Senate.
>
importance to a lot of women, it is to me many others not a right. It is at
best to many people, a medical proceedure that is currently allowed by law.
Regardless of whether or not you view it as tantamount to murder,(as some
do) it is an issue that will not go away anytime soon. Given that, and as
I've asked before don't you think it might just be best to put it to a
referendum vote and let the chips fall where they may ?
>From family leave to >reproductive rights. He has >been bad news.
>
view him the way you do. (careful what you say here)
>He has the blessings of the >Christian Coaliton and a 100% >CC rating.
>
doesn't in and of itself do a particularly good job of painting him as
evil.
>If he wins, a government with >the GOP in control of the >House, the
Senate and the >presidency, and the Supreme >Court is going to be bad news
>for women rights in American >
right ?
>and you can bet this is
>beginning to dawn
>on a lot of women who have >been shocked at what >happened in 1994.
>
enthusiastically pull the lever for the Republican nominee. Btw, she is
......Pro-Choice......gosh I must subverted her will to think for herself.
Or could it be, given the choice her choice is abundantly clear.
> A lot of women are realizing, >this is it, do or die.
>Rights lost are very hard to >regain.
>Women have had to battle >hard to retain their rights in the >80's and
90's and it is do or die >time now. Dole recently got >rated as one of the
ten worst
>Senators as far as women's >rights by McCall's magazine. >You can bet his
record
>on this issue will be a big >issue amongst women.
>
abortion issue, what other rights are you talking about, that are
_exclusive_ to women ?
>When what Dole represents >hits the average women, and >they realize how
close
>they are to disaster, they will >turn out in large numbers to >let the GOP
know what they >think of all of this.
>
that spells diaster for women ?
>Women are giving Clinton >their votes to avoid Dole. >Which is one reason
the
>latest Harris poll gives Clinton >a 25% lead over Dole.
>
essence of evil", I've got a feeling the only poll that matters is going to
prove you wrong.
>The Christian coalition gave >their support to Dole, not >Buchanan. There
was a
>reason for that.
>
stood a chance, do you ?
>They know he will pay off for >them in the end. And you can >bet that
women of America do >not want a sour old 73 year >old conservative telling
>them how they must run their >lives with help from the >Christian
Coalition.
>
Of course not, they much prefer being led around by the nose by the current
Liberal Coalition.
See, turn it around and take a good look at how silly you sound to have
unilaterially decided what is in the best interest of all women.
>See ya in November.
>
Of that you may be assured.
>Any women not registered to >vote is behaving foolishly. >register now
before it
>is too late. If you think fight >for women's rights is hard >now, you
will hate
>a Dole presidency.
>
What womens rights ?
>It will be much harder. And >you can expect in such a case >a hard charge
at changing >laws as fast as possible by the >right to lock in as many
>changes as possibel and a hard >battle for everything left for 4 >long
years. It will be >wearying beyond belief. You >will live with Dole's
supreme
>court for the rest of your life.
>
Sorry William but, I think you do a tremendous disservice to all women
regardless of their political persuasion if you think this election is
going to be solely about Abortion.
Much as you may hope so, it will not likely be the case.
Regards,
M. Corbino
-
Dan Thornsberry
Tim Watson wrote:
>
> But women who are not certain about abortion, and women who oppose it as the
> taking of human life, should not be fooled by this phony appeal to "women's
> rights". As a matter of fact, I think you may safely mentally substitute the
> words "abortion rights" every time you hear or read the words "women's
> rights", and you will better understand the debate, and the debaters.
>
> Tim Watson
So you are saying that without you telling women what womens
rights actually mean, they are likely to be fooled by Clinton.
You are saying the women leaving the GOP on droves are stupid?
Without you imparting knowledge to these women they don't know
what to think?
You are right Timmy, I can't see why women are dumping the party
who knows what is best for them.
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Overheard Republican prayer: Oh dear God, Please let
Bob Dole have a stroke BEFORE the convention.
-------------------------------------------------------
Newsweek Conventional Wisdom 5-13-96
Rush Limbaugh - down arrow-
Old CW: Spititual leader of the GOP revolution.
New CW: Just another Big fat Idiot.
-------------------------------------------------------
Wanted - Any person willing to lie to a jury. No
experience necessary. It would be beneficial if the
applicant had an intense hatred of the Clintons. All
interested parties should contact Mr. Kenneth Starr
through the Dole campaign office. If Mr. Starr is
unavailable, you can contact any New Jersey numbers
runner and the message will be passed on to Senator
D'Amato.
-------------------------------------------------------
Star witness - A person who will enhance your position
when they testify.
Starr witness - A person you hire to perjure themselves.
Libruul - A person smarter than yourself.
Commie - A libruul who has traveled outside of Georgia.
NRA life member - A person whose father is also their
grandfather.
Dittohead - A person who decides thinking is just too
strenuous.
Libertarian - Member of an elite group of 14,000. Would
be much higher if ex-cons could vote.
John Birchers - Would be Libertarians if they could vote.
--------------------------------------------------------
# 1 militiaman problem:
Government intrusion into their lives.
# 2 militiaman problem:
Cockroach infestation of their homes.
==========================================================
| | The GOP wants more guns |
| Dan Thornsberry | |
|tbe...@computek.net | and less education!!! |
| | |
|==========================================================|
| The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty; |
| but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong, |
| means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the |
| weak. -Will Durant |
==========================================================
Things you never learned in Sunday school:
-
The year was 964. His Holiness, Pope John XII, Gods
representative on Earth, was caught in the bed of a
married woman by her unfortunate husband. The outraged
cuckold beat the Pope so severely that he died of his
injuries three days later.
------------------------------------------------------------
"America, love it or leave it" - The Old Right
"America, blow it up" - The Newt Reich
"I am the GOP" - Timothy McVeigh
"Send us your insane, your violent, your racist" - Statue of Montana
"Give any senile old fool a credit card and he can
give you the illusion of prosperity" - Ronald Reagan
"Mommie, did the astrologer OK the press conference?" R. Reagan
"I might not be good enough for the US, but I'm
still good enough for Texas" - Phil Gramm
"The guvermint spens two much on edjication" - The GOP
"Come here little girl, I have something for you" - D. Koresh
"I am the NRA" - Timothy McVeigh
"OK son, If you see anyone coming, blast away" - R. Weaver
"Is the cash in the envelope?" - Newt Gingrich
"Yes sir, Mr. Gambino" - Alfonse D'Amato
"Yes sir, Mr. D'Amato" - Kenneth Starr
"When your fans are idiots, facts don't matter" - Rush Limbaugh
"Elect me because I'm too old to try later" - Bob Dole
"Yassuh Boss" - Clarence Thomas
William Barwell
In article <4n8pkq$6...@chum.hooked.net>,
Michael Corbino <cor...@chum.hooked.net> wrote:
>In alt.politics.usa.republican wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>Barwell) said:
>
>
****************** Deleted ******************
>>
>Yet many women in Kansas keep voting him, why do you suppose they don't
>view him the way you do. (careful what you say here)
>
Kansas is an anomolous state like Utah.
Dole has a very strong machine that runs politics in Kansas.
But not beyond. He has run for Vice President once and President twice
and done poorly. His Kansas situation is local.
And even there he has had opposition, underfunded, no real organization,
but a Woman named ODell with no name recognition or money did
get 40% of the vote appealing to women voters for one large part of her
constituency. If she had experience in running a campaign, a strong
backing from a strong political organization and money she may have
done better. Women did not like Dole much.
They don't now nation wide. The Gender gap is huge and getting wider.
And 54% of the voters in 1992 were women. It may be even bigger this
time around.
He is also losing independent voters in droves.
Independent women are going for Clinton overwhelmingly.
He was counting on wooing the independents to give him victory.
He is losing them instead and his policies towards women are
a big part of the problem.
The world at large is not Utah or Kansas.
His successes in Kansas have not helped him win national office.
Precisely because of that.
Milt Shook
On Mon, 13 May 1996, Tom Tilley wrote:
> A couple of groups deleted from the follow-up line. I'm posting
> from a.f.d-q...
>
> In article <319543ac...@news.io.com> erot...@io.com writes:
> >ri...@praline.no.NeoSoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> >> PS. If Bill sues, get a *real* lawyer. You know, one who is
> >> smart enough to explain the concept of slander to his client.
> >
> >>rha
> >
> >Under the Supreme Court's decision in NY Times v. Sullivan, the
> >landmark case, it's almost impossible to libel or slander a public
> >figure. (For the record, slander is oral, libel is written.) The
> >court reasoned that public figures, by seeking the limelight,
> >voluntarily open themselves up to criticism, even untrue criticism, to
> >a much greater degree than private individuals. While this seems a
> >reasonable analysis, given the gutter level of our current public
> >discourse it may be time for the Court to revisit that issue. Since
> >truth is always a defense to libel and slander, it seems as though
> >there should be some limit to the nature and extent of the *untrue*
> >statements people can make about a public figure.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't _Sullivan_ find that public
> figures can gain redress for defamation (libel or slander) in
> the case of "actual malice" (an utterly reckless disregard for
> what might be the truth of the matter)? Or am I konfused?
>
> Just wondering...
Yes. If it's true, it's not slander or libel. But if it's patently
untrue, even a public figure can gain redress. Look at Carol Burnett and
the Enquirer..
> >If it were possible for a public figure to win a case of libel or
> >slander, Newt Gingrich would be a millionaire and David Bonior et al
> >would be paupers.
What has ever been said about Newt that isn't true and documented???
>
> Legislators have legislative immunity, which is a separate issue.
>
ONLY from what is said on the floor. For instance, Bob Dornan can't get
on CSPAN and say that Bill Clinton had sex with his daughter and refuses
to pay for support, unless it happened. (IT DIDN'T!!)
John Q. Public
Milton Brewster wrote:
>
> In article 3C...@globaldialog.com, "John Q. Public" <j...@globaldialog.com> writes:
>
> >
> >Why did you snip my comments, then, subgenius?
> >
> >Not everyone is as dumb as Bill Clinton's 43 percent.
> >
> >Post 'em.
>
> I snipped your comments because they were boring.
How nice of you to guard the esthetics of usenet against
"boring" material, while praising the infantile
sig tracks of Dan Thornsberry. It's no wonder
you didn't like Severin's "Piss Christ" crack;
it hit too close to home.
.
>
> BIG HINT: If you're going to be insulting, then you have to be at
> least interesting about it, or I will ignore your ass.
Dear Lord, how will I survive if Milton Brewster ignores me?
> And most of your posts are just mean-minded Rush retreads.
>
I haven't listened to Limbaugh for years. It's interesting that
you do, however.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prediction of the decade: "The public will never believe the
innocence of the Clintons & their loyal staff." -- author unknown
Dan Thornsberry
"OK Parks, give me those drugs or I will shoot" - John Q.
Vern Morrison
"I am a women," my ass. You're a guy who posted with no username
or email address, and a fake posting name. Only a clueless rightwinger
--but I repeat myself--would write something like "I am a women" and expect
other people to believe it. Nice try, "Heidi."
--Vern "I am a men" Morrison
Dennis McClain-Furmanski
On 05-13-96, ionet.net wrote:
> You talk about Dole being bad for women's rights and reproductive
> rights but you don't go on to explain any other rights other than
> Dole's position on abortion.
> I am a women and I would trust the Christian Coalition's candidate of
> choice. I'm sick of everyone thinking that all women are pro-abortion.
> Please quit talking about what is good for women. Talk about what you
> think is good for yourself. All women don't have your views. You
> haven't the foggiest idea what is good for me and for that matter I
> don't believe you really care.
your fins, he's going to come back with a firehose and knock little
children off the monkey bars. He's a mean man.
You're not using your fins, are you? You're obviously not using your
rights.
I am not a mean man. I am not a man. I am a Yeti. Vote for ME.
Elect a SubGenius for Last President of the United States
To vote, send $1 to: PO Box 140306, Dallas, TX 75214
For me: "SubPresident DynaSoar"; against me: "Kill Dynasoar"
Vote early, vote often, vote for or against anyone you want.
* 2qwk! 2.0 * "But I don't like Spam!!!!"
--
Doktor DynaSoar Iridium -- dyn...@infi.net -- Punctuator of Evolution
John Q. Public
Dan Thornsberry wrote:
>
>
> "OK Parks, give me those drugs or I will shoot" - John Q.
GARY PARKS: My father was Luther Gerald Parks, AKA Jerry Parks.
(Son of murder He was the head of Clinton's security for Clinton's
victim, Jerry Parks) inaugural campaign whenever he was running for
President. My father was brutally murdered at
Chenal Parkway and Arkansas Highway 10 in one of
the most elite parts of Little Rock, Arkansas.
Someone pulled aside alongside of him and started
shooting at him. They cornered him, stopped him on
Highway 10 as he was turning left off of Chenal
Parkway. They stepped out of the car after
blocking his path. He was shot five times, once in
the leg, once in the arm, three times in the chest.
My father had a file on Bill Clinton's infidelity
and his affairs that ran from approximately '82,
'83 to somewhere between 'til about '90 to '91.
The file consisted of pictures, of times, dates,
places, of where Bill Clinton was at, where Roger
Clinton was at, the type of drug use that Bill
Clinton and Roger Clinton were involved in. I was
the only person that would ever go with him when he
would do his private investigative work. And I
remember four to five times that I was with him,
and that's what he was keying on.
I saw Clinton with a lot of different women, a lot
of different types, sizes, shapes, colors, one of
them being Gennifer Flowers. You know, I was just
like, Wow. It was more neat than anything else
that somebody that is this famous, this big wig can
get away with this. It just blew my mind.
NARRATOR: SHORTLY BEFORE JERRY'S DEATH, THE PHONE LINES AT
HIS HOME WERE CUT, THE SECURITY SYSTEM WAS
DISCONNECTED AND THE CLINTON FILES WERE STOLEN.
GARY PARKS: I believe my father was assassinated because he was
the one link that could actually close everything
and completely shut Clinton down. I feel that Bill
Clinton had my father killed to save his political
career.
When I did contact Little Rock Special
Investigative services, they told me that they had
been pulled off the case three weeks prior to that.
That just blows my mind on how when I hear that
they're making progress, all of a sudden they're
pulled off the case. Something's not right there.
<excerpted from The Clinton Chronicles>
M...@nowhere.where
> You talk about Dole being bad for women's rights and reproductive rights but
> you don't go on to explain any other rights other than Dole's position on
> abortion.
>
> I am a women and I would trust the Christian Coalition's candidate of choice.
> I'm sick of everyone thinking that all women are pro-abortion. Please quit
> talking about what is good for women. Talk about what you think is good for
> yourself. All women don't have your views. You haven't the foggiest idea
> what is good for me and for that matter I don't believe you really care.
Ahhh...thank goodness. It's nice to finally hear a woman stand up for
herself and not be bullied by feminist groups or those that *think* they
know what all women want. I admire you...
--
Save the humans---"Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" Mark 16:15
Eleanor Rotthoff
ito...@itops13.corp.sun.com (Milton Brewster) wrote:
>In article 966...@news.io.com, erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) writes:
>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>
>< snip >
>
>>So the bottom line is that instead of your quoting Sen. Kassenbaum, as
>>you had indicated you were doing, you were repeating an allegation by
>>the author of the kind of typical partisan "attack book" that comes
>>out in every political campaign. And quoting him in a context which
>>is, on its face, absolutely incredible. Why am I not surprised
>
>
>I read the quote. It was a fair rephrase of something the Author heard
>Senator Kassenbaum say. As a credible rephrase, it should not be
>dismissed out-of-hand.
Would you not find it disingenuous if I posted "Bill Clinton said
....." when in fact what I meant was "Bob Dole said that Bill Clinton
said......." or, worse still, "A strong Bob Dole supporter said that
Bill Clinton said ....."?
>The onus is on the researcher (you) to go to
>the Author and ask her for her source, and to go to Senator Kassenbaum
>and ask for confirmation.
I'm sorry but I can't accept that analysis. As you must surely know,
it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. If I post something
as a fact, I think is is incumbent upon me to substantiate it.
>You dismiss the book as an "attack book." This is not a valid
>criticism. Even an attack book can contain a fair representation of a
>real event. You are dismissing the message because you don't like the
>messenger.
I have nothing against this particular messenger; I just don't like
the genre. In every political campaign we see the same thing. Some
hack is hired to write a book savaging a candidate with mudslinging
and innuendo. Then the other side hires its hack to do the same thing
to the opposing candidate. Sorry, but that sort of thing is just not
to my taste -- regardless of the political orientation of the author.
Eleanor Rotthoff
Modern American liberals seem to regard themselves as
Plato's philosopher kings (and queens). Modern American
conservatives regard their liberal brethren as more
nearly akin to the Eupatrid oligarchs.
Eleanor Rotthoff
ito...@itops13.corp.sun.com (Milton Brewster) wrote:
>In article 1359...@news.io.com, erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) writes:
>
>
>< snip >
>
>>[Dole's] criticism, if you will recall, was not of Clinton's Supreme Court
>>appointments which the Senate tends to scrutinize with some care. The
>>Senate simply does not have the resources, especially in the wake of
>>Congress' recent reduction of its own budget by more than 30%, to
>>thoroughly investigate all of the hundreds of lower federal court
>>appointees. It has, however, announed firmly that it will refuse to
>>confirm Clinton's latest nominee to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
>>-- one Charles "Bud" Stack from Florida. Stack has no background on
>>the bench, and his legal writing is limited to once having written for
>>a police association newsletter. His claim to fame? He raised $7
>>million for the 1992 Clinton campaign plus several million dollars
>>more for the DNC. As the Austin American-Statesman (which supports
>>Clinton) editorialized recently, "Federal judgeships should not be
>>for sale."
>>
>>Eleanor
>>
>
>I don't agree with you very often, but I actually *do* have some respect
>for your sincerity and your good-faith attempts to produce citations
>which support your points of view.
Thank you.
> With this in mind, I must disagree
>with your position re: Congress, in the above paragraph.
Fair enough.
>Congress' examination of current Court appointments simply is *not*
>hampered by its recent budget change. It simply doesn't cost enough to
>examine a Judicial nominee, for the budget change to matter. Besides,
>most of that cost of investigating a nominee is borne by the FBI, the
>Justice Department and other Executive departments, anyway.
Good point, although isn't the FBI background check limited to its
usual kind of check for criminality, etc.? They don't try to research
the nominee's judicial record, professional qualifications and the
like, do they? Isn't this the kind of thing that elected officials
have to rely on their own (and committee) staffs to do -- staffs which
have now been seriously reduced?
.
> In any
>case, NO congressperson has ANY excuse for confirming an appointment of
>a person he/she doesn't like, Republican OR Democrat.
Do you really think that congressional representatives can fully
inform themselves about the judicial background, writings,
qualifications and previous opinions of each of hundreds of district
court nominees? I agree with your statement as to SC justices, but I
don't think that appointees to the lower courts can possibly get that
kind of scrutiny.
<snip>
>Here is how the President selects Judicial Nominees: The Senior
>Senator from the State holding the vacancy has the right to propose
>nominees for the vacant position. If the Senator is a member of the
>opposing party, then the senior elected Official in of the President's
>party in that State may also propose nominees. Usually the Junior
>Senator and the Governor are involved. House members are usually
>consulted.
How does this process work in the case of an appellate appointment
where the Circuit Court covers a number of different states?
>How the final nominee is selected depends upon the working
>relationships between all these parties. All these parties must
>essentially agree on the nominee, or there is Hell to pay. At the very
>least, the Republican Senators from Florida share the responsibility
>for Mister Stack's nomination.
I think we can feel confident that Connie Mack did not recommend Bud
Stack. <g> (The senior senator from Florida is Democrat Bob Graham.)
His nomination is now a moot point, however, since the White House has
decided to withdraw it.
>I have no idea whether Mister Stack is qualified for the bench or not.
Well, he was nominated to the appellate (not district) court bench
with no judicial experience and no legal writing other than a police
association newsletter.
>I certainly DO know, that ALL Presidents have appointed unqualified
>people to the Federal bench.
This is absolutely true. I would hope that we could strengthen the
selection process so that it happens less often, on both sides.
> Reagan, Bush and Nixon have especially
>bleak records-- partly because Democrat Senators through the '70s and
>'80s bargained away their rights to refuse bad nominations.
I can't speak to Reagan and Bush nominees throughout the country. I
would assume, given the law of averages, that some of them have been
good, some have been bad, and some mediocre. But the judges they
appointed down here in the Fifth Circuit have worked out very well.
It seems to me, however, that the Stack nomination was qualitatively
different. Was either Reagan or Bush ever accused, by a newspaper
which *supported* them, of "selling federal judgeships"?
>It is personally disingenuous of you, to criticize Clinton for
>nominating Mister Stack, while ignoring the dozens of unqualified
>appointments of Conservative Judges, made by Conservative Republican
>Presidents, over the last 28 years.
I'm afraid I'm confused. Are you suggesting that we should never
criticize a bad appointment because previous presidents have made bad
appointments? If so, I can't agree. I'm delighted that Stack's
nomination has been withdrawn, and I do not think it would have been
had people not criticized it. I can assure you that I would have been
just as outspoken in my criticism of the nomination had Stack been
appointed by a Republican president.
> Fair is fair, Eleanor.
And I do try very hard to be fair. Like everyone else, I don't always
succeed, but I do try.
>Milton Brewster
Eleanor Rotthoff
"Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate
branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the
accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy
balance of power between the States and the Federal Government
will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front."
U.S. Supreme Court, Gregory v. Ashcroft, 1991.
Eleanor Rotthoff
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>Zepp didn't post any of this. I did.
>
>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
My abject apologies to Zepp!
Eleanor Rotthoff
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the
to the federal government are few and defined. Those which
are to remain in the State governments are numerous and
indefinite."
James Madison, The Federalist No. 45.
Dan Thornsberry
John Q. Public wrote:
>
> Dan Thornsberry wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > "OK Parks, give me those drugs or I will shoot" - John Q.
bullshit
> <excerpted from The Clinton Chronicles>deleted
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Prediction of the decade: "The public will never believe the
> innocence of the Clintons & their loyal staff." -- author unknown
Is it really possible that anyone alive still considers
the Clinton Chronocles factual. Let me rephrase that question
to exclude right wing bible thumping bigoted morons, because
we know John Q believes it.
Dan Thornsberry
M...@nowhere.where wrote:
>
> In article <4n7rg7$3...@ionews.ionet.net>, ionet.net (heidi_hi) wrote:
>
> > You talk about Dole being bad for women's rights and reproductive rights but
> > you don't go on to explain any other rights other than Dole's position on
> > abortion.
> >
> > I am a women and I would trust the Christian Coalition's candidate of choice.
> > I'm sick of everyone thinking that all women are pro-abortion. Please quit
> > talking about what is good for women. Talk about what you think is good for
> > yourself. All women don't have your views. You haven't the foggiest idea
> > what is good for me and for that matter I don't believe you really care.
>
> Ahhh...thank goodness. It's nice to finally hear a woman stand up for
> herself and not be bullied by feminist groups or those that *think* they
> know what all women want. I admire you...
who knows her place.
> --
> Save the humans---"Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" Mark 16:15
"Go ye into all the worlds trailer parks and preach the gospel to every klansman"
Terry Simms
In article <319773...@globaldialog.com>, j...@globaldialog.com says...
>
>Dear Lord, how will I survive if Milton Brewster ignores me?
>
>>And most of your posts are just mean-minded Rush retreads.
>>
>
>I haven't listened to Limbaugh for years. It's interesting that
>you do, however.
>
As someone who has lurked on this newsgroup for some time sampling the
intellectual temperature of it's various *voices*, I am really confused by
this last. Am I to understand that being familiar with one's opponent
(i.e., Rush Limbaugh) reflects questionably upon one? Or are you just using
Rush's *technique* of "using absurdity to point out the absurd"? If so, I'm
not sure that you quite have the hang of it. I, for one, watch Rush every
time I have the opportunity, for much the same reasons that criminoligists
study criminals.
Anoldude
Lou Duchez
In article <31974D...@globaldialog.com>,
Gosh, John Q., you've sure set me straight.
Yes, it should be obvious that Clinton's a pro-business president.
But take a look at the deregulation efforts in Congress, which are
being pushed by the Pubs, and tell me that Clinton has a worse track
record. It's funny you should mention water pollution in Arkansas,
when the Pubs are out to gut clean water legislation nationally ...
if you think it's bad for Clinton to have allowed pollution in one
state, then you must obviously think it's 50 times worse to let
the regulations slide nationally. I mean, isn't that the obvious
conclusion, huh, John Q? You're telling me that it's a good thing
to place restrictions on business for the sake of the environment?
Sheesh. And they let you touch sharp instruments.
And living in Cleveland -- where the rivers used to burn and the lakes
were once incapable of supporting life -- I definitely see the good
that environmental legislation can do. So while I find myself
disappointed by Clinton's frequent pro-business turns, he just can't
touch Dole and the Pubs.
And "the greatest enemy of civil rights in the history of the
United States"? Forgive me for not having heard your spiel before --
I get the feeling everyone else is sick of hearing it -- but how
exactly is Clinton this criminal overlord supervillain you make
him out to be? Is he smarter than Lex Luthor? Stronger than the
Kingpin? Or are we going for a general Dr. Doom motif, where he's
constantly scheming to destroy his archenemies ...
Mr. Boneless - Bob Dole, who has given up on having any principles
whatsoever, and has taken to parroting whatever lines
will get him elected
The Invisible Boy - Rush Limbaugh, whose distortions and outright
lies are utterly transparent
The Human Flaming Idiot - Dan Quayle
The Really Disgusting Thing - Newt Gingrich, whose utter hypocrisy
and incredible sleaziness speak for themselves
Yes, when pro-business interests are threatened, when the Powerbrokering
Right (there's nothing Christian about them) is in danger, the
Quarrelous Quartet springs into action!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lou Duchez - ljdu...@en.com - http://www.en.com/users/ljduchez
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Revay
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>Let us not ignore George Bush's 6 known paramours. Nor forget
>Reagan's date rape of Selene Waters.
>And of course, grinnin' Newtie's public blowjobs.
Wow! Send me the URL!
(err ... That is why you posted this, isn't it?)
>So what!, you say?
Well, they could have avoided doing Hell Time if they'd only gotten a
Short Duration Marriage, thanks be ta "Bob" (or "Bawbee," as he's known
heah in Bawshtan).
>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
...................Tom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Extremism in the defense of extremism is no vice!"
-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, Rant Tape 16 (1980)
The letters in "Rush Limbaugh" can spell "I gab, hurl mush."
-- The Rt. Rev. Wor. Dr. Y. Foo, FRC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Watson
RHA wrote:
>
> In article <4n2lu3$u...@ren.cei.net>, Tim Watson <tim...@cei.net> wrote:
> >tho...@liso.dnet.ge.com (Brian Thomas) wrote:
> >>ito...@itops13.corp.sun.com (Itops Guest Acct. Milton Brewster)
> >>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>*) There is no proof to this day, that Clinton has ever slept with
> >>> anybody but his wife Hilary.
> >>>
> >> Miltie, Miltie, Miltie, that's because in THIS country, proof
> >>comes from TRIALS. One of which Bill Clinton is doing everything in
> >>his power to avoid.
> >>
> >>>*) Clinton is NOT the biggest womanizer in presidential history.
> >>>
> >>> Even if Clinton DID sleep around; chances are that it was only with
> >>> Genefer Flowers, who was an admitted personal friend.
> >>
> >> And Sally Perdue, and a few others. And don't forget his
> >>failed attempt with Paula Jones. Ah, the old "So what?" defense.
> >>
> >
> >
> >And Elizabeth Ward, and ... but you're right - no matter how many
> >instances of marital infidelity Clinton commits, the True Believers will
> >still say: so what?
> >
> >According the James Stewart, in Blood Sport, Clinton was sleeping around
> >right after he and Hillary were married, and it was so bad, Hillary was
> >depressed and considering divorce.
> >
> >I can't imagine that we have ever had a president who has behaved the way
> >Bill Clinton has for the past twenty years - at least, that's as far back
> >as anyone knows. Multiple affairs, the use of his bodyguards as pimps to
> >pick up hookers for him, innumerable liasons like the Paula Jones matter
> ^ ^
> | |
> |____________________________________________|
>
> Hmmmmm, Lawyer Timmy says Clinton's bodyguards procured
> "hookers".........who has Lawyer Timmy recently claimed
> got Ms. Jones into a room for Bill.....*bodyguards*!
>
> **W**E**L**L**!!
>
> Gee, maybe Lawyer Timmy is finally on to something.
The Los Angeles Times and the American Spectator have reported the statements
of four troopers of the Akansas State Police, who were members of Clinton's
security detail when he was governor of Arkansas, and who stated under oath
that Governor Clinton used them to arrange sexual liasons with whores, among
many other things. Trooper Ferguson, the State Policeman who has stated
under oath that he took Paula Jones to Clinton's hotel room when she said he
did in her suit, did not in any place describe Jones as a "hooker". There
were many incidents of this nature involving Clinton, his bodyguards, and
sex. This information is available at both the LA Times and the Spectator,
and in many other places.
> >(except she objected), the list goes on. He is a womanizer, and the
> >worst in American presidential history. No two ways about it.
>
> Ya better have proof for your statement, Lawyer Timmy!
> *Slander* is the issue.
> --
> rha
Are you going to sue me for your boss? I live in Newport, Jackson County,
Arkansas. I will accept personal service of your complaint. Just let me
know when you will be filing.
Tim Watson
zz
John Q. Public
Dan Thornsberry wrote:
>
> John Q. Public wrote:
> >
> > Dan Thornsberry wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
>
> > <excerpted from The Clinton Chronicles>deleted
> > Prediction of the decade: "The public will never believe the
> > innocence of the Clintons & their loyal staff." -- author unknown
>
> the Clinton Chronocles factual.
As soon as I find a way to contact Gary Parks, I'll
let you know. Then you'll be able to call him a liar,
up close and personal.
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
Eleanor Rotthoff (erot...@io.com) wrote:
: If it were possible for a public figure to win a case of libel or
: slander, Newt Gingrich would be a millionaire and David Bonior et al
: would be paupers.
Partisanship is one thing, but this is absolutely goofy beyond belief. Bonior is
using Newt's tactics on Newt himself and we can hear the squeals of the stuck pig.
--
Buddy K
Milt Shook
On Tue, 14 May 1996, John Q. Public wrote, in a work of pure bullshit:
> Dan Thornsberry wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > "OK Parks, give me those drugs or I will shoot" - John Q.
>
> <excerpted from The Clinton Chronicles>
>
Dan Thornsberry
John Q. Public wrote:
>
> Dan Thornsberry wrote:
> >
> > John Q. Public wrote:
> > >
> > > Dan Thornsberry wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> >
> > > <excerpted from The Clinton Chronicles>deleted
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Prediction of the decade: "The public will never believe the
> > > innocence of the Clintons & their loyal staff." -- author unknown
> >
> > the Clinton Chronocles factual.
>
> As soon as I find a way to contact Gary Parks, I'll
> let you know. Then you'll be able to call him a liar,
> up close and personal.
Now that every knows that you sucked Parks to death
the investigation will be closed.
heidi_hi
In article <4n806j$q...@antares.en.com>, ljdu...@en.com says...
>
>heidi_hi (ionet.net) wrote:
>
>: You talk about Dole being bad for women's rights and reproductive rights
but
>: you don't go on to explain any other rights other than Dole's position on
>: abortion.
>
>
>- The right of business to rape the country
>- The right to rack up an enormous national debt and then blame it on
> people too poor to make any measurable difference in the problem
Can you please provide specific quotes from Senator Dole to substatiate your
claims?
>
>: I am a women and I would trust the Christian Coalition's candidate of
choice.
>
>That's too bad. It should be obvious to, well, pretty much everyone that
>the Christian Coalition is not about love and tolerance, but about
>eliminating diversity. You may fit pretty near the midrange position
>that they're shaving around, but I guarantee they'll eventually get to you.
I doubt it. How can you guarantee something when you don't even know me?>
>
>: I'm sick of everyone thinking that all women are pro-abortion.
>
>Fine, adopt a kid if you oppose abortion. Show us that you really care
>about children and aren't in it to wag your finger at women who don't
>subscribe to your religious beliefs.
I've already beat you on this one. I have an adopted child.
>
>Or do you believe that abortion is wrong even in the cases of rape and
>incest?
>
Yes I do believe it is wrong.
>: Please quit
>: talking about what is good for women. Talk about what you think is good
for
>: yourself.
>
>Yeah, *that's* a Christian attitude: screw everyone else, just look out
>for yourself.
>
There is nothing un-Christain about not wanting someone to assume they are
speaking for an entire group of people (women) when they are not.
>
>: All women don't have your views.
>
>But a significant number DO.
So, let them speak for themselves.
And I'll repeat.
>
>: You haven't the foggiest idea
>: what is good for me and for that matter I don't believe you really care.
>
>Well, since you're putting your faith in the hands of the Christian
>Coalition's choice, apparently you don't care what's good for yourself
>either. You're trusting them to pick a candidate who will be good for
>the people instead of a dollars-and-cents sleazeball who uses religion as
>the distraction to push his personal agenda.
>
>Which is to say, you're driving without your headlights on.
I don't need headlights I don't prowl around at night.
John Q. Public
The passing accusation that one's opponent's words are simply echoes
of Limbaugh's is cowardly and lazy, and is a lackluster smear tactic,
same as the "black helicopter" tarbrush. It appears to me that since
Mr. Brewster uses the same tactics as Limbaugh, he's learned something
from him. Of course, this wouldn't be the first time that cryptofascist
lefties have unknowingly employed the art of projection, would it?
Lou Duchez
heidi_hi (ionet.net) wrote:
: In article <4n806j$q...@antares.en.com>, ljdu...@en.com says...
: >Fine, what other rights does Dole stand for?
: >
: >- The right of business to rape the country
: >- The right of religious bigots to impose their will on the rest of us
: >- The right to rack up an enormous national debt and then blame it on
: > people too poor to make any measurable difference in the problem
:
: Can you please provide specific quotes from Senator Dole to substatiate your
: claims?
Right, like he's going to say: "I support the agenda of religious
bigots". He doesn't have to *admit* to it for it to be true. His
record demonstrates his inclinations. How about:
1) He supports deregulation of businesses. He voted for the
Telecommunications Reform Bill. He has a long and distinguished record
of pro-business support, the effect of which is clearly to remove
safeguards the American people have relied on.
2) His support from the Religious Right. He's subscribing to their agenda.
These are the folks who want to turn America into a "Christian" nation,
remember?
3) Have you ever heard of him speaking in favor of slashing welfare to try
to balance the budget? Of course you have.
Next you're going to tell me that Bob Dole doesn't even *exist*.
Sheesh. If you can't admit what he's up to, perhaps you shouldn't back
him. You obviously have your own reservations about him.
: >That's too bad. It should be obvious to, well, pretty much everyone that
: >the Christian Coalition is not about love and tolerance, but about
: >eliminating diversity. You may fit pretty near the midrange position
: >that they're shaving around, but I guarantee they'll eventually get to you.
:
: I doubt it. How can you guarantee something when you don't even know me?
You're right, it's statistically possible that your opinions are
*exactly* where the powers-that-be are. But why should it matter that
*you* happen to agree with them? This is a land that holds civil rights
sacred, toots. The CC stands against that.
: >Fine, adopt a kid if you oppose abortion. Show us that you really care
: >about children and aren't in it to wag your finger at women who don't
: >subscribe to your religious beliefs.
:
: I've already beat you on this one. I have an adopted child.
Then I'm slightly impressed.
: >Or do you believe that abortion is wrong even in the cases of rape and
: >incest?
: >
: Yes I do believe it is wrong.
You are consistent as well. I'm once again slightly impressed.
: >Well, since you're putting your faith in the hands of the Christian
: >Coalition's choice, apparently you don't care what's good for yourself
: >either. You're trusting them to pick a candidate who will be good for
: >the people instead of a dollars-and-cents sleazeball who uses religion as
: >the distraction to push his personal agenda.
: >
: >Which is to say, you're driving without your headlights on.
:
: I don't need headlights I don't prowl around at night.
But you're definitely in the dark ...