OT: America - STOP IT !!!
FKoe
fascinated at your President's sex life, making a big deal of a blow
job, discussing in detail his sexual practices, his anatomy, his
whatever. Does anybody in the great big US of A have any sense of
proportionality? What you had was a president with a propensity for
extramarital affairs. Certainly not the first time since George
Washington. You also had one who was widely regarded as a man who is
efficient in doing his job, no matter that the right does not like
him, one who has shown many times to be a politician with a keen sense
of right measure in critical situations. So, on which altar are you
sacrificing him now, and for what? I have seen umpteen comments like
"if he lies to his wife, he surely lies to the rest of us, thus he is
unworthy to be president." Well, you knew it in advance, and you voted
him into office. Besides, the logic is utterly wrong. If you think
that you are cleaning up something that needed cleaning, you are
horribly mistaken: you are destroying an able politician, and in doing
so you are destroying your own standing in the world - beyond
description. Doesn't anybody have the faintest conception of the
damage done to the country - not by the president's infidelity, but by
the public destruction of his credibility in all other respects, far
more important internationally than his relation to his wife? How many
amendments were added to the constitution to protect the privacy, the
right of the individual against the community - and your president
does not have a right to privacy? Do not blame Clinton for the
horrible crisis the US is experiencing right now, it is very much the
fault of the US media which are absolutely shameless. The exuse is
always that the public has a right to know. No, folks: the public does
not have the right to know everything about the President's private
life. I just wish there had been one single TV channel, one single
newspaper editor who would have confessed to being committed to
protect the President's right to privacy and personal dignity. THESE
ARE THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS, more basic than the right to be
considered not guilty, and you deny them to your own leader. Has no
one any sense of reality - that in destroying your President in this
ridiculous way you are embarrassing yourself as a nation far deeper
than you could possibly think it was possible?
In any judicial case there is a principle to be maintained: that the
measures taken should be in proportion to the alleged wrongdoing.
Apart from the question that extramarital affairs cannot be subjected
to the law in the sense that they are extrajudiciary, a white lie of
infinitesimal dimensions has been blown up to destroy the credibility
and dignity of a world power. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR SENSES???
Yes, apparently.
Both your fanatism as well as fatalism in this case is in no way
different in intensity or self-righteousness from the brutality of
fundamentalistic ayatollahs. It makes me shiver.
______________________________
Falk H. Koenemann
Aachen, Germany
pere...@t-online.de
Al Hemmalin
the lies and cover up. The same cover up, I might add, that Hitler used
in denying the use of death camps to the Third Reich public. We just do
not like cover ups.
.
.
ken$...@clark.net
: Goddammitt, what are you doing to yourself. Everybody looking
: fascinated at your President's sex life, making a big deal of a blow
: job, discussing in detail his sexual practices, his anatomy, his
: whatever. Does anybody in the great big US of A have any sense of
: proportionality? What you had was a president with a propensity for
Attaboy. I'm waiting to see just how low Congress can get. We can assume
the media will be even lower.
--
Kenneth T. Cornelius
ken...@clark.net
Dan
>
> Goddammitt, what are you doing to yourself. Everybody looking
> fascinated at your President's sex life, making a big deal of a blow
> job, discussing in detail his sexual practices, his anatomy, his
> whatever. Does anybody in the great big US of A have any sense of
> proportionality?
Falk,
Your condescending lecture tells me that you don't have a clue about
what is going on here.
Dan
maryf
>
> Goddammitt, what are you doing to yourself. Everybody looking
> fascinated at your President's sex life, making a big deal of a blow
> job, discussing in detail his sexual practices, his anatomy, his
> whatever.
When he is getting a blow job while on the phone with a member of
congress, it is a big deal to me. I don't expect to walk into my
bosses office to find him/her having sex during office hours.
> Does anybody in the great big US of A have any sense of
> proportionality? What you had was a president with a propensity for
> extramarital affairs. Certainly not the first time since George
> Washington.
No it's not the first time, just the first time it's really been made
public. During WWII or the korean war we didn't have the television
coverage. The gulf war had me in tears everynight watching the missles
blow up <gee we can watch a WAR on TV!!! it's sick and very sad, but
that's technology>
> You also had one who was widely regarded as a man who is
> efficient in doing his job, no matter that the right does not like
> him, one who has shown many times to be a politician with a keen sense
> of right measure in critical situations.
If you are still talking about Clinton, I disagree. But that's my
opinion :-).
> So, on which altar are you
> sacrificing him now, and for what? I have seen umpteen comments like
> "if he lies to his wife, he surely lies to the rest of us, thus he is
> unworthy to be president." Well, you knew it in advance, and you voted
> him into office.
Not I. I didn't vote for the man, I never would have. He was shown to
have these "sexual tendencies" (or whatever one chooses to call them)
prior to his election in 92. As for the "if he lies to his wife..."
well, yes I think he will lie to others. It's called moral fiber. He'll
protect his ass. He's not Christ who gave his body for the good of
mankind. Most men and women will give their souls for their loved ones,
but not for the rest of mankind. Clinton's Pastor in Arkansas has
kicked him out of the church they belonged to.
> Besides, the logic is utterly wrong. If you think
> that you are cleaning up something that needed cleaning, you are
> horribly mistaken: you are destroying an able politician, and in doing
> so you are destroying your own standing in the world - beyond
> description. Doesn't anybody have the faintest conception of the
> damage done to the country - not by the president's infidelity, but by
> the public destruction of his credibility in all other respects, far
> more important internationally than his relation to his wife? How many
> amendments were added to the constitution to protect the privacy, the
> right of the individual against the community - and your president
> does not have a right to privacy? Do not blame Clinton for the
> horrible crisis the US is experiencing right now, it is very much the
> fault of the US media which are absolutely shameless. The exuse is
> always that the public has a right to know. No, folks: the public does
> not have the right to know everything about the President's private
> life. I just wish there had been one single TV channel, one single
> newspaper editor who would have confessed to being committed to
> protect the President's right to privacy and personal dignity. THESE
> ARE THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS, more basic than the right to be
> considered not guilty, and you deny them to your own leader. Has no
> one any sense of reality - that in destroying your President in this
> ridiculous way you are embarrassing yourself as a nation far deeper
> than you could possibly think it was possible?
I wanted to snip the above paragraph, but didn't because the points made
by FKoe are important to my ... rebuttal <is that what I should call
it?>
I will stipulate that the media in this country is overboard, but no
less so then they are in other countires. Look at Princess Diana.
Clinton, as any president in the US depends on the Media for favorable
coverage, but when it becomes unfavorable...well, the media is still
there (jackals to an extent, that's their job, and obviously they do it
well and I don't fault them for it). The media does do damage, but when
the whole outlook of the country is to slay a lamb (of which Clinton is
not), it will happen (aka, GIVE US BARABUS instead of Jesus). Sigh.
And I will agree that in destroying our president, we are destroying
part of our country. I'm just sorry people in this country elected him
in the first place. Knowing that he is the president, he knows what the
media can and cannot do. And he put himself into a compromising
situation with a young lady, who at 21, probably thought he was gonna be
the love of her life (at 21 I was very naive and thought my boyfriend at
the time would be my life mate, NOT!). For crying out loud, she's not
that much older than his own daughter!!!
As for human rights (privacy and dignity)...Well our President in many
of his speeches talked about the values of the American family and
children's education. Well educatio, I'll put aside, his daughter is in
a very good college. But values...Family values mean a family that stay
togehter, trusts each other and doesn't hurt each other. I don't know
what Hillary's and Bill's marriage is about, if they have an arrangement
fine, if not fine. But if they had an arrangement where he could go out
and do what he chose to do sexually ... that is their decision. But the
fact that many families in the US frown on extra-marital affairs gives
many of us cause to question the leadership. Would you trust your
spouse if he/she slept with other people and lied to you about it? If
someone lies to me (who is supposed to be my best friend and confident),
why on earth would I expect them to be truthful to someone else?
Now that's not what all US citizens think, just what "I" think :-).
>
> In any judicial case there is a principle to be maintained: that the
> measures taken should be in proportion to the alleged wrongdoing.
> Apart from the question that extramarital affairs cannot be subjected
> to the law in the sense that they are extrajudiciary, a white lie of
> infinitesimal dimensions has been blown up to destroy the credibility
> and dignity of a world power. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR SENSES???
A white lie? A white lie is quite different, IMHO. This was a blatent
lie. The man not only lied to his wife. he lied to the people and he
lied under oath. This was NOT a white LIE. He was covering his ass.
Sorry, I just had to air MHO. And it's great to hear what someone in
another contry thinks (whether I agree with it or not). I've been
wondering. I wonder what they thought about watergate (but I was too
young to know and there wasn't the internet them :-) ).
Thanks FKoe for giving me some insight. (and I mean that sincerly :-)
).
--
Mary f. <No Kitty! it's MY POT PIE!>
_ _
( \ / )
|\ ) ) _,,,/ (,,_
/, . '`~ ~-. ;-;;,_
|,4) -,_. , ( `'-'
'-~~' (_/~~' `-'\_)
It's a widdle,widdle, widdle pud (She's not big on sharing, is she?)
http://home.earthlink.net/~maryf
maryf
I'll take the flogging and crawl back into my hole.
I really do apologize for the cross posting :-(.
Dave C.
But in this case, I believe Mr. Germany is failing to see the big
picture. Most residents of the US (including me) don't give a rat's ass
about the president's sexual (mis)conduct. But a few do, and they are
very vocal. Whether what the president did was right or wrong or
nobody's business is totally beside the point now. The whole world sees
us as very divided over this issue. Right or wrong, this controversy is
having a significant impact on world-wide politics. The president
should be impeached or resign. Not because he had a little extramarital
sex. Not because he lied about it. Not even because he should be
jailed for perjury. The reason he should leave office (willingly or
otherwise) is that this whole mess has made him the lamest duck that
ever swam the pond. He keeps saying over and over that he's just trying
to do the country's business. Yeah right, like he's gonna get anything
constructive done while impeachment and/or criminal charges are being
considered. Whether you believe he's *been* (key word) a good president
or not is totally irrelevant. He can't be a good (or bad) president
now, no matter how hard he tries. Whether it's right or wrong, that's
the way it is. Resign, Mr. President. -Dave
On hotmail dot com, I am user "davec2".
FKoe wrote in message <6u151n$ieg$1...@news00.btx.dtag.de>...
>Goddammitt, what are you doing to yourself. Everybody looking
>fascinated at your President's sex life, making a big deal of a blow
>job, discussing in detail his sexual practices, his anatomy, his
>whatever. Does anybody in the great big US of A have any sense of
>proportionality? What you had was a president with a propensity for
>extramarital affairs. Certainly not the first time since George
>Washington. You also had one who was widely regarded as a man who is
>efficient in doing his job,
(snip)
Jamie Utter
> making a big deal of a blow
> job, discussing in detail his sexual practices, his anatomy, his
> whatever.
I'm not sure, in Clinton's case it could be made into a BIG deal.
However,I'm concerned about the PERJURY. Lying under oath is different
than
a little white lie.
> Does anybody in the great big US of A have any sense of
> proportionality? What you had was a president with a propensity for
> extramarital affairs. Certainly not the first time since George
> Washington. You also had one who was widely regarded as a man who is
> efficient in doing his job, no matter that the right does not like
> him, one who has shown many times to be a politician with a keen sense
>
> of right measure in critical situations.
Yeah. Like bombing a harmless pharmaceutical plant to get the press
offhis sorry ass.
> So, on which altar are you
> sacrificing him now, and for what? I have seen umpteen comments like
> "if he lies to his wife, he surely lies to the rest of us, thus he is
> unworthy to be president." Well, you knew it in advance, and you voted
>
> him into office.
I never voted for him.
> Besides, the logic is utterly wrong. If you think
> that you are cleaning up something that needed cleaning, you are
> horribly mistaken: you are destroying an able politician, and in doing
>
> so you are destroying your own standing in the world - beyond
> description.
Sometimes doing the right thing smarts a little.
> Doesn't anybody have the faintest conception of the
> damage done to the country - not by the president's infidelity, but by
>
> the public destruction of his credibility in all other respects, far
> more important internationally than his relation to his wife?
It'd be nice for him and the Democratic party if it were someone
else'sfault.
> How many
> amendments were added to the constitution to protect the privacy, the
> right of the individual against the community - and your president
> does not have a right to privacy? Do not blame Clinton for the
> horrible crisis the US is experiencing right now
What crisis? I 'm not experiencing it. I had a beautiful day. The
weatherwas glorious. It was my husband's birthday. I cooked dinner for
my family
and invited my parents over. We had filet mignons. I grilled them to
PERFECTION.
Now I can say I'm on topic. These were accompanied by northern
California corn,
asparagus, Caesar salad. Dessert was my mom's homemade apple pie ala
mode. We
sloshed everything down with Fetzer's Cabernet Sauvignon. May parents
drank
scotch. They always have, although I don't see how. It had to be about
the
furthest thing from a "crisis" that I could imagine.
> it is very much the
> fault of the US media which are absolutely shameless. The exuse is
> always that the public has a right to know. No, folks: the public does
>
> not have the right to know everything about the President's private
> life.
I don't CARE about his private life. I just don't consider
committingperjury PRIVATE.
> I just wish there had been one single TV channel, one single
> newspaper editor who would have confessed to being committed to
> protect the President's right to privacy and personal dignity.
We have PBS.
> THESE
> ARE THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS, more basic than the right to be
>
> considered not guilty, and you deny them to your own leader.
Like I say, when you go in a court of law in this country and lie under
oathyou should expect it to no longer be private.
> Has no
> one any sense of reality - that in destroying your President in this
> ridiculous way you are embarrassing yourself as a nation far deeper
> than you could possibly think it was possible?
The president doesn't need any help destroying himself. He's doing
greaton his own. That goes for embarrassment too. The only thing I'm
embarrassed
about is how hesitant we are as a nation to toss him out on his sorry
ass.
> In any judicial case there is a principle to be maintained
Yeah! Right and Wrong. It's not as easy as it looks.
> that the
> measures taken should be in proportion to the alleged wrongdoing.
> Apart from the question that extramarital affairs cannot be subjected
> to the law in the sense that they are extrajudiciary, a white lie of
> infinitesimal dimensions has been blown up to destroy the credibility
> and dignity of a world power. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR SENSES???
I've got a different idea about "white lies" than you do. When I think
of whitelies, I think of maybe a hideously ugly person coming up to you
in the most
hideously grotesque clothing asking me what I think of their appearance
that
day. I might THINK that I have never in my life seen anything so
horrible, but
I would SAY: "You look terrific. Have you lost weight?" Something like
that.
Sure, it's not really true, but ultimately I figure stating my "true"
perceptions
would be hideously cruel and unnecessary. That's a little different than
if
I were called into court and grilled about the matter under oath. Then I
have
to say, "Yeah, I thought the person was sadly fat an ugly". Hopefully,
before the dirt bag lawyer said their customary "just answer the
question please", I'd
have a chance to say something like: "I was trying to spare the person's
feelings".
It wouldn't be
easy, but it would be my duty.
> Both your fanatism as well as fatalism in this case is in no way
> different in intensity or self-righteousness from the brutality of
> fundamentalistic ayatollahs. It makes me shiver.
Here we go, here we go. This isthe reason that there are as many
supporters of the president as
there are. This idea of the person who doesn't live in the glass house
should throw the first stone. The thing is, we all live in glass houses.
None of us is perfect. But the thing is, that can't be the basis of our
ideas of right and wrong. Those are supposed to be standards that we're
all supposed to be striving toward.
World leaders are supposed to be able to think with the BIG brain, not
the little one, below the waste.
Come on! How difficult is that when you're half a century old?
Lying about it makes it worse. Lying
about it in a court of law is what made it the issue THIS TIME.
It is a direct reflection of his lack of Character. It clearly
demonstrates
how he is unable to put the interests of this country above the
interests of himself. Makes him an untrustworthy person.
That's what I think. But I don't get polled. Neither do most of the
people on this group, I guess. Have any of you been polled?
They must conduct the polls at bowling alleys where no one
reads.
Jamie
PS. But I love you Germans, really. The way you close up
shop on Sundays, drink great beer, and don't worry about
a pound or too. I love the German culture. Six weeks vacation
even if you work for Woolworth. That is the way.
Jamie Utter
> Goddammitt, what are you doing to yourself. Everybody looking
> fascinated at your President's sex life,
Oh yeah, one more thing. I didn't think it was thatfascinating.
Jamie
Jack
>Goddammitt, what are you doing to yourself. Everybody looking
>fascinated at your President's sex life, making a big deal of a blow
>job, discussing in detail his sexual practices, his anatomy, his
Thank you for your opinion. You don't live here and it's not your
business. Please go visit your mistress and engage in whatever
perverse sex act you prefer this week and leave us be.
--
Jack - Senior Software Engineer - emulation fan - crank ;-)
I hate finding SPAM in my mailbox (it gets all green and stuff).
Please remove the SPAM from my address before sending.
Chris D
>FKoe wrote:
>>
>> Goddammitt, what are you doing to yourself. Everybody looking
>> fascinated at your President's sex life, making a big deal of a blow
>> job, discussing in detail his sexual practices, his anatomy, his
>> whatever. Does anybody in the great big US of A have any sense of
>> proportionality?
>
>Falk,
>
> Your condescending lecture tells me that you don't have a clue about
>what is going on here.
On the contrary. Having a fresh, outside, objective, and well-educated
perspective, it shows he has more of a clue than most Americans about the
American situation.... just as an intelligent, sensible American who diligently
studied the current events and history of Germany would have a good, unbiased
perspective of what's going on in Germany better than most of the Germans.
.....I don't think he is too far off base if and when he says that we will
become the next Third Reich.
chris
Leo Scanlon
>Goddammitt, what are you doing to yourself. Everybody looking
>fascinated at your President's sex life, making a big deal of a blow
>job, discussing in detail his sexual practices, his anatomy, his
>whatever. Does anybody in the great big US of A have any sense of
>proportionality?
That's the "whatever" aspect of our discussions. <g>
Leo
klaatu
>
> In dc.general FKoe <Pere...@t-online.de> wrote:
> : Goddammitt, what are you doing to yourself. Everybody looking
> : fascinated at your President's sex life, making a big deal of a blow
> : job, discussing in detail his sexual practices, his anatomy, his
> : whatever. Does anybody in the great big US of A have any sense of
>
> Attaboy. I'm waiting to see just how low Congress can get. We can assume
> the media will be even lower.
IMHO the very first thing that has to happen is the President should simply
drop absolutely everything resembling a defensive strategy. He should simply
come right out and say "okay, I boffed her. I boffed her brains out" or
something equivalent. But prevarications from him, and weaseling from his
lawyers, must stop right now. And that goes double for the idiots pumping
quarters into the spin-cycle.
There are more pressing matters than whether or not he bonked whom and when
did he bonk them. If he's going to be tossed out of office, it should be over
FileGate, and in particular the question of exactly which files on exactly
whom were in the White House at which times and who saw them.
>
> --
> Kenneth T. Cornelius
> ken...@clark.net
>
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
Re-transmission of this e-mail expressly prohibited.
Non-UseNet re-transmission of this article is a willful violation of US
Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
Dan
>
...An excellent posting, in my view.
> It was my husband's birthday. I cooked dinner for
> my family
> and invited my parents over. We had filet mignons. I grilled them to
> PERFECTION.
>
filet mignon tonight (yesterday was barbecued spare ribs). Think I'll
open a nice Zinfandel. We may in fact be in a crisis in this city, but
hey, the food's good. (Having lived in Stuttgart, in Schwabia, for
three years, I also appreciate that part -- the best in my opinion -- of
German cuisine).
> The president doesn't need any help destroying himself. He's doing
> great on his own. That goes for embarrassment too. The only thing I'm
> embarrassed about is how hesitant we are as a nation to toss him out on his sorry
> ass.
>
My sentiments, exactly.
> This is the reason that there are as many
> supporters of the president as
> there are. This idea of the person who doesn't live in the glass house
> should throw the first stone. The thing is, we all live in glass houses.
>
> None of us is perfect. But the thing is, that can't be the basis of our
> ideas of right and wrong. Those are supposed to be standards that we're
> all supposed to be striving toward.
>
It seems to me that the die-hard supporters of this administration, and
of Bill and Hill, fundamentally don't want there to be any standards
(except perhaps for extreme crimes such as murder), perhaps because of
their own behaviors. In 1993 the Ignatius Press, San Francisco,
published a really interesting and profound book by E. Michael Jones,
which now almost seems prophetic, titled "DEGENERATE MODERNS - Modernity
as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior." Taking advantage of the fact that
modern biography since the late 50's has not only not excluded its
subject's private lives (as had largely been the case before), but now
seems to positively dwell on the most private aspects of public and
historic figures, and that there is now a record, so to speak, of the
disparities between many subjects' personal life and public life, work,
and professions, Jones makes some very insightful observations, and
powerful arguments. Prior to reading this book, I had largely
subscribed to the idea that public figures' private lives were of no
concern to me. He changed my mind. Some of the thought-provoking
chapters include:
Intro: Why Modernity Is Rationalized Lust: Why Biography Is Destiny
1. Samoa Lost: Margaret Mead, Cultural Relativism, and the Guilty
Imagination
3. Homosexuality as Subversive: The Double Life of Sir Anthony Blunt
4. Stanley and Jane's Excellent Adventure: Or, Why Politically Correct
Professors Hate Western Civilization
5. The Case against Kinsey
8. Sigmund and Minna and Carl and Sabina: The Birth of Psychoanalysis
out of the Personal Lives of Its Founders
Epilogue: Moral Realism: The Ultimate Deconstruction
It seems to me that Clinton's long-time adultery, lies about it
(remember 60 Minutes & Genifer Flowers?), subornation of perjury (Again
Flowers..."If the two people involved don't say anything about it, it
didn't happen...." on tape), perjury under oath, tampering with evidence
and witnesses, abuse of power, and intimidation of witnesses, and
possibly even of Congress (the so-called "scorched earth" plan attacking
Congressional opponents), are already more than enough to give him the
heave-ho, and I hope that Congress will do its duty, impeach and convict
Clinton, and re-draw some semblance of a moral line officials cross at
their peril. If they don't do this, but wimp out with some sort of
deal, then virtually "anything goes," and America as a whole will
deteriorate beyond recognition.
And I haven't even discussed Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Amazing
Cattle Futures profits, 116 DNC folks fleeing to China, or taking the
Fifth or otherwise avoiding testimony in Campaign Finance Abuses... nor
dangerous technology transfers, and the hollowing out of our military
and intelligence arms.>
> That's what I think. But I don't get polled. Neither do most of the
> people on this group, I guess. Have any of you been polled?
> They must conduct the polls at bowling alleys where no one
> reads.
>
Wanna take a guess how often I, or people I know who think along the
lines I do are polled? Answer: Zero. Perhaps I should take up bowling?
Dan
Mr. Robin Cowdrey
>
> Thank you for your opinion. You don't live here and it's not your
> business. Please go visit your mistress and engage in whatever
> perverse sex act you prefer this week and leave us be.
>
> --
> Jack - Senior Software Engineer - emulation fan - crank ;-)
> I hate finding SPAM in my mailbox (it gets all green and stuff).
> Please remove the SPAM from my address before sending.
Sorry to disagree, but USA is the only super power there is
at present. You play a big part in world economics and
global policy. Your preoccupation with your president's sex
life has the potential of affecting us all. The Republican
Congress has at last found some dirt they can use to
discredit the president. Dirty internal politics is the name
of the game internally while a looming economic crisis which
USA can help resolve is on the back burner
--
Robin (from Canada)
'Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant'
Anon.
James Erb
corrective action, to keep this kind of disgraceful thing from happening in
the future.
I think we need a law, that any female who enters, willingly and
knowingly, into sex with a married president, should be required to stand in
front of the Washington monument, between the hours of 8 am and 4 pm,
wearing a placard, that says, "I am a slut".
Jim
Bob Sumner
>
> Goddammitt, what are you doing to yourself.(snip)
You are 99% correct. The missing 1% is the American "Holier Than Thou"
parochial attitude coming back to kick us in our collective butts. Nice
post. It's refreashing to read anything anywhere besides our internal
media.
--
Bob Sumner - Wasatch Mountains - Utah - USA
remove NOSPAM to reply
ImOut
James Erb wrote in message <6u4ec8$u08$1...@ins8.netins.net>...
Why is it the female who is a slut and not the married male (president) as
well?? Why not have them both with the placard? Why assume that the role
of the president will always be filled by a male? Maybe if the president
were female, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But I do agree with
you Jim - we do need to do something. I really hope you are more open
minded about woman than your post shows you to be.
Jen (not normally a feminist but - shesh)
dars
ImOut wrote:
> James Erb wrote in message <6u4ec8$u08$1...@ins8.netins.net>...
> >
> > I think we need a law, that any female who enters, willingly and
> >knowingly, into sex with a married president, should be required to >stand in
> front of the Washington monument, between the hours of 8 >am and 4 pm,
> wearing a placard, that says, "I am a slut".
>
>
> Why is it the female who is a slut and not the married male (president) as
> well?? Why not have them both with the placard? Why assume that the role of
> the president will always be filled by a male? Maybe if the president were
> female, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But I do agree with you Jim
> - we do need to do something. I really hope you are more open minded about
> woman than your post shows you to be.
>
> Jen (not normally a feminist but - shesh)
Maybe if they vote to only censor Slicko (not my choice) that could be part of
the punishment. Except the placard should say 'I am a treasonist and a liar and
a slut', and he should wear it for a year.
Could be a rough day tomorrow if that videotape is even a little bit ugly.
Prepare to go short!! Regardless, keep smiling.
- dars
Peter Gunn
>X-No-Archive:Yes
>
>Dave C. wrote:
>>
>> I know that the rest of the world has a (generally) low opinion of us.
>> But in this case, I believe Mr. Germany is failing to see the big
>> picture. Most residents of the US (including me) don't give a rat's ass
>> about the president's sexual (mis)conduct. But a few do, and they are
>> very vocal. Whether what the president did was right or wrong or
>> nobody's business is totally beside the point now. The whole world sees
>> us as very divided over this issue. Right or wrong, this controversy is
>> having a significant impact on world-wide politics. The president
>> should be impeached or resign. Not because he had a little extramarital
>> sex. Not because he lied about it. Not even because he should be
>> jailed for perjury. The reason he should leave office (willingly or
>> otherwise) is that this whole mess has made him the lamest duck that
>> ever swam the pond. He keeps saying over and over that he's just trying
>> to do the country's business. Yeah right, like he's gonna get anything
>> constructive done while impeachment and/or criminal charges are being
>> considered. Whether you believe he's *been* (key word) a good president
>> or not is totally irrelevant. He can't be a good (or bad) president
>> now, no matter how hard he tries. Whether it's right or wrong, that's
>> the way it is. Resign, Mr. President. -Dave
>>
>
>out a leader.
>
>Mr. President; for the good of our country, resign, and put an end to
>this madness.
Yeh he is lame, but keep in mind, the agenda that congress has is not
in making progress for the country anyway, quite frankly their immediate
agenda (republicans) is to remove Clinton from office. They didnt do
anything for the country when before the Clinton fiasco anyway, they did
attempt to put on a show for IRS reform for a while, but of course that
has gone by the wayside. Next year you and everyone else will be paying
taxes just as always. Business as usual America, whether Clinton is in or
out.
James Erb
ImOut wrote in message <6u4jsj$aiv$1...@sparky.wolfe.net>...
>
> Why is it the female who is a slut and not the married male (president) as
>well?? Why not have them both with the placard? Why assume that the role
>of the president will always be filled by a male? Maybe if the president
>were female, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But I do agree with
>you Jim - we do need to do something. I really hope you are more open
>minded about woman than your post shows you to be.
>
>Jen (not normally a feminist but - shesh)
>
Good point, remove the word 'female'. Single people should have sex with
single people, and leave married people alone, imo.
I muddled the point by using the word female, my apology.
john_...@sbphrd.com
dog...@edgenet.net wrote:
> Thannk you for your views from Germany. The real question is not sex but
> the lies and cover up. The same cover up, I might add, that Hitler used
> in denying the use of death camps to the Third Reich public. We just do
> not like cover ups.
ROTFLMSO :-) :-)
Sanctimonious rubbish. Worse, insulting & inaccurate sanctimonious rubbish.
Y'rs &c.
John Warr.
The English language will have no need of the word "Republican" as long as it
has the word "Traitor"
Dr Saml. Johnson.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
klaatu
>
> Jack wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for your opinion. You don't live here and it's not your
> > business. Please go visit your mistress and engage in whatever
> > perverse sex act you prefer this week and leave us be.
> >
> > --
> > Jack - Senior Software Engineer - emulation fan - crank ;-)
> > I hate finding SPAM in my mailbox (it gets all green and stuff).
> > Please remove the SPAM from my address before sending.
>
> Sorry to disagree, but USA is the only super power there is
> at present. You play a big part in world economics and
> global policy. Your preoccupation with your president's sex
> life has the potential of affecting us all.
And don't you just bet that it's being exploited to the hilt by any non-US
power which would benefit by the increasing isolationism, involution and
distraction of the highest levels of our government?
> The Republican
> Congress has at last found some dirt they can use to
> discredit the president. Dirty internal politics is the name
> of the game internally while a looming economic crisis which
> USA can help resolve is on the back burner
We probably can't help resolve the looming economic crisis without destituting
ourselves, which would simply mean that there would be no island of stability
and functional finance worldwide, and _everyone everywhere_ would be on the
shitpile.
> --
> Robin (from Canada)
>
> 'Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant'
> Anon.
--
klaatu
Okay, clearly the following things aren't anything done for the country...
-- balanced federal budget
-- economic recovery
-- deconstruction of welfare
-- stabilization of Washington DC which was on the edge of complete implosion
> they did
> attempt to put on a show for IRS reform for a while, but of course that
> has gone by the wayside. Next year you and everyone else will be paying
> taxes just as always. Business as usual America, whether Clinton is in or
> out.
--
klaatu
>
> Not that my opinion counts for much, but I think we need to take
> corrective action, to keep this kind of disgraceful thing from happening in
> the future.
>
> knowingly, into sex with a married president, should be required to stand in
> front of the Washington monument, between the hours of 8 am and 4 pm,
> wearing a placard, that says, "I am a slut".
Especially if the President should happen to be female...
Actually, if the married (male) President knowingly and willingly enters into
sex with said individual, they too should probably have to wear a sign stating
"I am a faithless slut-puppy" or maybe the SS at the White House should just
relax the rules and let graffiti artists paint the place...
>
> Jim
-----------------
FKoe <Pere...@t-online.de> wrote in article
<6u151n$ieg$1...@news00.btx.dtag.de>...
> Goddammitt, what are you doing to yourself. Everybody looking
> fascinated at your President's sex life, making a big deal of a blow
> job, discussing in detail his sexual practices, his anatomy, his
> whatever. Does anybody in the great big US of A have any sense of
> proportionality? What you had was a president with a propensity for
> extramarital affairs. Certainly not the first time since George
> Washington. You also had one who was widely regarded as a man who is
> efficient in doing his job, no matter that the right does not like
> him, one who has shown many times to be a politician with a keen sense
> of right measure in critical situations. So, on which altar are you
> sacrificing him now, and for what? I have seen umpteen comments like
> "if he lies to his wife, he surely lies to the rest of us, thus he is
> unworthy to be president." Well, you knew it in advance, and you voted
> him into office. Besides, the logic is utterly wrong. If you think
> that you are cleaning up something that needed cleaning, you are
> horribly mistaken: you are destroying an able politician, and in doing
> so you are destroying your own standing in the world - beyond
> description. Doesn't anybody have the faintest conception of the
> damage done to the country - not by the president's infidelity, but by
> the public destruction of his credibility in all other respects, far
> more important internationally than his relation to his wife? How many
> amendments were added to the constitution to protect the privacy, the
> right of the individual against the community - and your president
> does not have a right to privacy? Do not blame Clinton for the
> horrible crisis the US is experiencing right now, it is very much the
> fault of the US media which are absolutely shameless. The exuse is
> always that the public has a right to know. No, folks: the public does
> not have the right to know everything about the President's private
> life. I just wish there had been one single TV channel, one single
> newspaper editor who would have confessed to being committed to
> protect the President's right to privacy and personal dignity. THESE
> ARE THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS, more basic than the right to be
> considered not guilty, and you deny them to your own leader. Has no
> one any sense of reality - that in destroying your President in this
> ridiculous way you are embarrassing yourself as a nation far deeper
> than you could possibly think it was possible?
>
> In any judicial case there is a principle to be maintained: that the
> measures taken should be in proportion to the alleged wrongdoing.
> Apart from the question that extramarital affairs cannot be subjected
> to the law in the sense that they are extrajudiciary, a white lie of
> infinitesimal dimensions has been blown up to destroy the credibility
> and dignity of a world power. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR SENSES???
>
> Yes, apparently.
>
> Both your fanatism as well as fatalism in this case is in no way
> different in intensity or self-righteousness from the brutality of
> fundamentalistic ayatollahs. It makes me shiver.
Dave C.
What, exactly, do you expect the president to do for this country NOW???
What, exactly, do you expect the president to do for this country over
the remainder of his term? Think carefully before you answer. There
are other countries on the verge of war right now, and their leaders are
going public to say that one of the main reasons for this is that the
last remaining superpower in the world has *no effective leader* right
now. What the president has or has not done for this country in the
past is a moot point at *best*. Focusing on the past will do nobody any
good. We need to focus on the present and the future, which look mighty
bleak with no effective leadership. Even if you believe Clinton is the
right man for the job, he can no longer be the president of this
country. I believe the proper term is "lame duck". It is highly
irresponsible of him that he has not resigned already. It clearly
demonstrates (to me at least) that he does not have the best interests
of the country (or the world) at heart.
On a side note, CNN was reporting just this morning that 40% of
Americans believe the president should be impeached, and 35% of
Americans believe the president should resign. (or was that vice
versa?) Doesn't matter. Either way you look at it, fully 3/4 of
Americans believe he should leave office now. Resign, Mr.
resident. -Dave
On hotmail dot com, I am user "davec2".
>Okay, clearly the following things aren't anything done for the
Lee & Sue
>Ficht Dich, Scheisskopf.
>
>FKoe <Pere...@t-online.de> wrote in article
><6u151n$ieg$1...@news00.btx.dtag.de>...
>> Goddammitt, what are you doing to yourself. Everybody looking
>> fascinated at your President's sex life, making a big deal of a blow
>> job, discussing in detail his sexual practices, his anatomy, his
>> whatever. Does anybody in the great big US of A have any sense of
>> proportionality? What you had was a president with a propensity for
>> extramarital affairs.
A propensity for perjury?
Nixon just had a propensity to cover up burglaries (didn't even do it
himself). He must be innocent too.
O.J. Simson just has a propensity to get his DNA all over brutal
murder scenes.
Yes, getting things in proportion would be good. Now tell me, why is
a juror in Colorado being prosecuted for not giving a verdict that was
acceptable to the prosecution. Seems as though she was told that her
marijuana charges had been "expunged" from the court records. That it
was wiped off the record. That would mean to most people that she
didn't have to reveal that when she was questioned about prior arrests
during juror questioning.
She is being prosecuted criminally and could go to jail. But then,
she's not the president so the double standard is OK. And the case
against the president is definitely stronger.
FKoe
>Falk,
> Your condescending lecture tells me that you don't have a clue about
>what is going on here.
> Dan
Unfortunately I do. I lived for many years in the States, on both
coasts, and came to consider it my second home country. At least I am
sufficiently familiar with the United States to know what a grand jury
is - it is an obsolete institution inherited from medieval England
which was abandoned for good reason in the UK in 1923. The good reason
is: a grand jury has no place at all in a modern justice system
because the accused has no right and no chance do defend himself; it
is a process where any allegation sticks, and any attempt at defense
is regarded as incriminating. Compare this to the US constitution.
What happens to Clinton right now is very similar in intent and effect
to Stalin's show processes of 1937.
And even if you did not get the intent of my posting, contrary to many
others: I am not condescending, but I feel sorry for a country I love.
I am not really writing about Clinton, but the US. Clinton's
extramarital affairs are merely the trigger for the present crisis,
but the cause is well deep within the US justice system and America's
relation to itself. If Clinton's private life is the trigger, my
posting is directed at those who are pulling it.
_______________________________________
Falk H. Koenemann
Aachen, Germany
pere...@t-online.de
FKoe
Pere...@T-Online.de
Aachen, Germany
________________________________________________
Daddy, what does it mean, "Formatting C"?
-----------------
the US justice system. The grand jury does not determine guilt or
innocence, only whether or not the government should bring the case to
trial. If the grand jury determines that there is insufficient evidence,
then they issue a no bill, and there is no trial. If they determine that
there is sufficient evidence, then they issue an indictment. Then there is
a trial from which a person is either acquited or convicted. I could be
wrong on the particulars or the proper terms as I am no lawyer, but that is
basically how it works.
FKoe <Pere...@t-online.de> wrote in article
<6u686t$5ib$1...@news01.btx.dtag.de>...
Ken Overton
ls...@mediaone.net (Lee & Sue) writes:
>
> A propensity for perjury?
>
> Nixon just had a propensity to cover up burglaries (didn't even do it
> himself). He must be innocent too.
>
> O.J. Simson just has a propensity to get his DNA all over brutal
> murder scenes.
>
> Yes, getting things in proportion would be good.
I guess so, it seems pretty clear that you still have no sense
of proportion.
Here's a clue: justice systems are designed to take account of proportion
of crimes. Copying a CD of your favorite grunge band will never be
prosecuted until you start systematically copying and selling the copies.
You are more likely to be prosecuted for stealing a ferrari than for
stealing a pack of gum; for clubbing someone into a coma than for bumping
them on the sidewalk; and for lying about cheating on your wife than
for lying about convictions for dealing marijuana.
From the tone of your post, I gather that you consider the following to
be of equivalent proportion:
- Murder
- Burglary
- Possession of illegal drugs
- Adultery
If I'm ever on trial, I certainly hope you're not the judge. Although
I might hope that someone as incompetent as you were the prosecutor.
-- kov
P.S. Kindly keep these postings out of rec.food.cooking, 'kay?
David J. P. Long - Change '_' in email to '.'
>Goddammitt, what are you doing to yourself. Everybody looking
>fascinated at your President's sex life, making a big deal of a blow
>job, discussing in detail his sexual practices, his anatomy, his
>whatever. Does anybody in the great big US of A have any sense of
Believing what the media tells you? There's a hell of a lot more to
it than that.
It's the lies, the coverups and the pattern of illegal behavior that
is being investigated. The press has simply decided to concentrate on
the most salacious part of the investigation.
If we believed everything OUR media said about Germany, we would think
the neo-Nazis are about to overrun the country with help from old
hard-line communists.
+----/|-------------------------------------+-------------------+
| | | djl...@magic.mv.com \ Last update : |
| / | djl...@msn.com \ Rants - 6/15/98|
| ( ) http://www.mv.com/ipusers/magic \ ICQ# 8976662 |
+--`--' ----------------------------------------+---------------+
klaatu
>
> Okay, let's make this really simple:
>
> What, exactly, do you expect the president to do for this country NOW???
> What, exactly, do you expect the president to do for this country over
> the remainder of his term? Think carefully before you answer.
Believe it or not, I _always_ think clearly, if a bit "damagedly". Well, as
long as it's before I start in on the six-pack after dinner.
> There
> are other countries on the verge of war right now, and their leaders are
> going public to say that one of the main reasons for this is that the
> last remaining superpower in the world has *no effective leader* right
> now. What the president has or has not done for this country in the
> past is a moot point at *best*. Focusing on the past will do nobody any
> good. We need to focus on the present and the future, which look mighty
> bleak with no effective leadership. Even if you believe Clinton is the
> right man for the job, he can no longer be the president of this
> country. I believe the proper term is "lame duck". It is highly
> irresponsible of him that he has not resigned already. It clearly
> demonstrates (to me at least) that he does not have the best interests
> of the country (or the world) at heart.
Hmm - let's see. President Clinton (and no, I am not a Clinton supporter, I
just recognize that he has shown excellent past performance on execution of
policy) gave a speech at the UN to resounding applause. He went so far as to
try to address the issue of antipathies between the Islamic nations and our
own. He's got an excellent knack of both establishing and deconstructing
"linkages" in international policy. He's got a fair head of steam going as
regards establishing mementum in a de-linking of Islamic fundamentalism and
anti-US terrorism and if this initiative is pursued, it may do much to sort
out the wheat from the chaff even amongst the factions within the Islamic
nations, regarding the linkages between terrorists based within certain
Islamic states, and the Islamic states' governments. By working to de-polarize
antagonistic relationships between the US and Islam itself, we would see
depolarization of the relationships between aloof Islamic states and anti-US
organizations operating from their sovereign soil. Thus combatting terrorism
becomes an affair of international cooperation between police authorities,
rather than an affair of international antagonism between sovereign nations.
Rather than war between nations, we see war between cops and robbers,
cooperation rather than combativeness. He's making the right moves in
international diplomacy, and so long as he does, we should certainly let him.
In any case, I see absolutely nobody waiting in the wings who could fill his
shoes right now, in either political party.
However, there certainly some credibility in your argument regarding the
President's future inability to act with moral authority as regards governance
internal to the US itself. But regardless of a general abhorrence of the
sex-lies-videotape and general tawdriness of Washington-as-usual
bedroom/backroom politics stunningly revealed to be just as everyone's always
known it was, the fact is that President Clinton _is_ doing an excellent job
in the international arena, outside of that ill-advised strike on that
Sudanese pharmaceutical plant.
>
> On a side note, CNN was reporting just this morning that 40% of
> Americans believe the president should be impeached, and 35% of
> Americans believe the president should resign. (or was that vice
> versa?) Doesn't matter. Either way you look at it, fully 3/4 of
> Americans believe he should leave office now. Resign, Mr.
> resident. -Dave
Um, 40% plus 35% doesn't _necessarily_ add up to 75%, it's most likely that
those who approve of impeachment also approve of resignation.
>
> On hotmail dot com, I am user "davec2".
>
> >Okay, clearly the following things aren't anything done for the
> country...
> >
> >-- balanced federal budget
> >
> >-- economic recovery
> >
> >-- deconstruction of welfare
> >
> >-- stabilization of Washington DC which was on the edge of complete
> implosion
--
Rick Willis
>
> Okay, let's make this really simple:
>
> What, exactly, do you expect the president to do for this country NOW???
> What, exactly, do you expect the president to do for this country over
> are other countries on the verge of war right now, and their leaders are
> going public to say that one of the main reasons for this is that the
> last remaining superpower in the world has *no effective leader* right
> now. What the president has or has not done for this country in the
> past is a moot point at *best*. Focusing on the past will do nobody any
> good. We need to focus on the present and the future, which look mighty
> bleak with no effective leadership. Even if you believe Clinton is the
> right man for the job, he can no longer be the president of this
> country. I believe the proper term is "lame duck". It is highly
> irresponsible of him that he has not resigned already. It clearly
> demonstrates (to me at least) that he does not have the best interests
> of the country (or the world) at heart.
I agree with your statement -- to an extent. What
you state *may* be true. On the other hand, can
Clinton, *damged* as he is, really be worse than
Gore? I think Gore has to be the most *invisible*
Vice Prez to hold this office in the past 30
years. If or when Clinton is forced from office,
we will *still* be a country without a leader.
Also, IMHO, think it would be a grave mistake for
these other antagonistic leaders to fool
themselves into believing we have no effective
leader. If you believe that the President of the
US is *THE* one who makes military directive
decisions, you are sadly mistaken. The consortum
of advisors *behind* the figure head are the one's
who call the shots. Militarily speaking, the US
is as potent now as it's ever been.
The major factor crippling the ability of Clinton
today is the media frenzy surrounding the
controversy. The media tries to brianwash the
masses into thinking we *want* to know all the
juicy details of Clinton's explicit behavior.
People say things like, 'Kennedy may have screwed
around, but at least he was discreet about it'.
Bullshit! Everybody old enough to remember JFK
*knows* what he did. But the media of the day had
more ethics, more couth, than to drag his name
though the mud -- over and over and over.
Personally, I've tried with earnest to avoid all
the media hype, but it's impossible unless one
does not own a TV, radio, have access to the
Internet or read newspapers/magazines. As of
right now, Clinton probably is a noneffective
leader *domestically*. However, he does possess
the capability, and has proven it time and time
again. If the media would just drop the issue
*now*, in a month or two, nobody will even
remember Monica Lewinsky.
Let's not forget that the Republicans have some
hidden agendas also. Clinton has never been very
popular with them, and who knows, maybe they
initiated the persecution of Clinton. We'll never
know, but it's not all that far-fetched. Granted,
Clinton never seems to need any assistance at
positioning his ass in the proverbial sling, but
it seems highly suspicious that all this has come
about over a conversation between two *friends*
(Monica & Linda).
Have a hardcore day...
Rick
>
> On a side note, CNN was reporting just this morning that 40% of
> Americans believe the president should be impeached, and 35% of
> Americans believe the president should resign. (or was that vice
> versa?) Doesn't matter. Either way you look at it, fully 3/4 of
> Americans believe he should leave office now. Resign, Mr.
> resident. -Dave
The latest polls I've seen indicate that the
American people are split about 50/50 on whether
he should remain or leave office, with a very
slight majority leaning towards his resignation.
Dave C.
failing to see the big picture. How the president got into this mess is
beside the point. We can blame the Republicans or the media or Ken
Starr or or or . . .
But it's not going to change the fact that this country has no effective
leader at the moment. This whole controversy has taken on a life of
it's own. We might wish that the media would drop the whole matter, but
I don't think anybody's stupid enough to believe that will ever happen.
There's only one way out of this mess. The president must resign. Now.
Right or wrong, that's the way it is. No point in discussing how it
happened, unless we want to prevent it from ever happening again. This
is a lame duck administration, and nothing's going to change that now.
Resign, Mr. President. -Dave
On hotmail dot com, I am user "davec2".
Rick Willis wrote in message <360878F9...@newwave.net>...
>The major factor crippling the ability of Clinton
>today is the media frenzy surrounding the
>controversy. The media tries to brianwash the
>masses into thinking we *want* to know all the
>juicy details of Clinton's explicit behavior.
>People say things like, 'Kennedy may have screwed
>around, but at least he was discreet about it'.
>Bullshit! Everybody old enough to remember JFK
>*knows* what he did. But the media of the day had
>more ethics, more couth, than to drag his name
>though the mud -- over and over and over.
(snip)
Joseph A. Gregor
> I agree with your statement -- to an extent. What
> you state *may* be true. On the other hand, can
> Clinton, *damged* as he is, really be worse than
> Gore? I think Gore has to be the most *invisible*
> Vice Prez to hold this office in the past 30
> years. If or when Clinton is forced from office,
> we will *still* be a country without a leader.
I've heard this argument several times over the years.
It seems that we are giving presidential candidates a
strong incentive to run with weak VP's. As always, we
get the candidates we deserve.
>
> Also, IMHO, think it would be a grave mistake for
> these other antagonistic leaders to fool
> themselves into believing we have no effective
> leader. If you believe that the President of the
> US is *THE* one who makes military directive
> decisions, you are sadly mistaken. The consortum
> of advisors *behind* the figure head are the one's
> who call the shots.
thats now how it work this last time around. The experts
were never convened prior to the strike.
> Militarily speaking, the US is as potent now as it's
> ever been.
Also not true, though for different reasons. We have
disarmed ourselves to 1/2 to 2/3 or our previous deployable
strength since the Gulf War.
>
> Let's not forget that the Republicans have some
> hidden agendas also. Clinton has never been very
> popular with them, and who knows, maybe they
> initiated the persecution of Clinton. We'll never
> know, but it's not all that far-fetched. Granted,
> Clinton never seems to need any assistance at
> positioning his ass in the proverbial sling, but
> it seems highly suspicious that all this has come
> about over a conversation between two *friends*
> (Monica & Linda).
The persecution of Clinton is a natural reaction to
the persecution of Bush, Reagan (although he was as
non-stick as Clinton), and other Republican office
holders back when the Dems owned congress. Unfortunately,
the precedent being set, and paybacks being a &^$%#, the
Republicans are carrying on the tradition now that they
own congress.
Clinton had a chance to stop this, at Bush's suggestion,
by not renewing the independent council law. Remarkable
act of political stupidity. But, I guess, Clinton never
imagined the Dems would lose majority in congress, and
the law was mighty useful to them in helping to harrass
and discredit Bush. Clinton likely couldn't imagine that
Bush's advise was given in the spirit of doing whats
right for the country, rather than the self.
You reap what you sow.
> > >Okay, clearly the following things aren't anything done for the
> > country...
> > >
> > >-- balanced federal budget
...for the first time in years. A Republican congress for the first
time in years. It's not clear that you can credit this one to the
president. Not alone, anyway.
> > >
> > >-- economic recovery
Longest in recent history. Began 6 month before Clinton took office
according to govt. stats. Gotta give this one to Bush, if you're gonna
claim that presidents are responsible for economic recoveries.
> > >
> > >-- deconstruction of welfare
Think this would have happened if the Dems had held on to congress?
No way.
> > >
> > >-- stabilization of Washington DC which was on the edge of complete
> > implosion
What involvement, precisely, has the president had in this? Congress
runs the show here, too.
All these arguments point to the Republican leaders as the men of the
hour. Kinda scary, if you ask me.
-- Joe
Rick Willis
>
> Rick Willis wrote:
> > I agree with your statement -- to an extent. What
> > you state *may* be true. On the other hand, can
> > Clinton, *damged* as he is, really be worse than
> > Gore? I think Gore has to be the most *invisible*
> > Vice Prez to hold this office in the past 30
> > years. If or when Clinton is forced from office,
> > we will *still* be a country without a leader.
>
> I've heard this argument several times over the years.
> It seems that we are giving presidential candidates a
> strong incentive to run with weak VP's. As always, we
> get the candidates we deserve.
Yeah, I know. I don't understand the theory
behind it however. As Americans, we *all* realize
that should something *happen* to the Prez, we get
stuck with his weak contemporary. Seems to me,
two *strong* running mates makes a lot more sense
than one weak and one strong one. Go figure.
>
> >
> > Also, IMHO, think it would be a grave mistake for
> > these other antagonistic leaders to fool
> > themselves into believing we have no effective
> > leader. If you believe that the President of the
> > US is *THE* one who makes military directive
> > decisions, you are sadly mistaken. The consortum
> > of advisors *behind* the figure head are the one's
> > who call the shots.
>
> thats now how it work this last time around. The experts
> were never convened prior to the strike.
It had more than likely been discussed, perhaps
many times, prior to the strike. The President is
not nearly as powerful as most people would like
to think.
>
> > Militarily speaking, the US is as potent now as it's
> > ever been.
>
> Also not true, though for different reasons. We have
> disarmed ourselves to 1/2 to 2/3 or our previous deployable
> strength since the Gulf War.
And you're saying that's *not* a formidable force
to reckon with? The *technology* forged and owned
by the US insures the potency of our military
forces -- not sheer numbers.
>
> >
> > Let's not forget that the Republicans have some
> > hidden agendas also. Clinton has never been very
> > popular with them, and who knows, maybe they
> > initiated the persecution of Clinton. We'll never
> > know, but it's not all that far-fetched. Granted,
> > Clinton never seems to need any assistance at
> > positioning his ass in the proverbial sling, but
> > it seems highly suspicious that all this has come
> > about over a conversation between two *friends*
> > (Monica & Linda).
>
> The persecution of Clinton is a natural reaction to
> the persecution of Bush, Reagan (although he was as
> non-stick as Clinton), and other Republican office
> holders back when the Dems owned congress. Unfortunately,
> the precedent being set, and paybacks being a &^$%#, the
> Republicans are carrying on the tradition now that they
> own congress.
Which is why I'm generally against a two-party
system. It's always one faction's or the other's
way. There's rarely any *middle ground*. I'm
extremely glad to see the Libertarian Party begin
to make a comeback. As I see it, it takes at
*least* three political parties to level the
playing field.
>
> Clinton had a chance to stop this, at Bush's suggestion,
> by not renewing the independent council law. Remarkable
> act of political stupidity. But, I guess, Clinton never
> imagined the Dems would lose majority in congress, and
> the law was mighty useful to them in helping to harrass
> and discredit Bush. Clinton likely couldn't imagine that
> Bush's advise was given in the spirit of doing whats
> right for the country, rather than the self.
LOL -- a snafu of *epic* proportion :-)
>
> You reap what you sow.
>
> > > >Okay, clearly the following things aren't anything done for the
> > > country...
> > > >
> > > >-- balanced federal budget
>
> ...for the first time in years. A Republican congress for the first
> time in years. It's not clear that you can credit this one to the
> president. Not alone, anyway.
People tend to credit the President with *many*
actions he has little or next to nothing to do
with.
>
> > > >
> > > >-- economic recovery
>
> Longest in recent history. Began 6 month before Clinton took office
> according to govt. stats. Gotta give this one to Bush, if you're gonna
> claim that presidents are responsible for economic recoveries.
Once again, giving credit where credit isn't due.
People have to realize there's more to government
than the President. Guess when one constantly see
the Prez giving speech after speech about issues
that concern the American people the most, they
begin to think *he* is the one responsible for
fixing what's broken (or fixing that which wasn't
broken).
>
> > > >
> > > >-- deconstruction of welfare
>
> Think this would have happened if the Dems had held on to congress?
> No way.
Nope, and this is one thing I have to give the
Republicans credit for (bad as I hate to).
>
> > > >
> > > >-- stabilization of Washington DC which was on the edge of complete
> > > implosion
>
> What involvement, precisely, has the president had in this? Congress
> runs the show here, too.
Either them, or Marion Berry ;-)
>
> All these arguments point to the Republican leaders as the men of the
> hour. Kinda scary, if you ask me.
In recent history, it seems a trend has been
forged for the majority party to initiate
objectives and policies to make the minority party
look bad (or at least worse than they already do),
*especially* if the minority party is sitting in
the *catbird's* seat (the Executive office). I'm
not so sure, however, that a precedent has been
set as to the success of *looking good* once the
majority party controls the White House. As a
matter of fact, I believe it to be just the
opposite.
Have a hardcore day...
Rick
>
> -- Joe
klaatu
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:55:52 +0000, "Joseph A. Gregor"
> <joseph...@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> >> > >-- balanced federal budget
> >...for the first time in years. A Republican congress for the first
> >time in years. It's not clear that you can credit this one to the
> >president. Not alone, anyway.
>
> pay paul and then telling us they payed all their debt off...
There's are ongoing arguments about whether or not to use the surplus, such as
it is, to prop up Social Security (that's what I'd prefer); use the entire
surplus to give the average American a $200.00/year tax cut; or to use the
surplus as a slush-fund for whatever seems right at the moment.
BTW, I don't see all that much with robbing peter to pay paul so long as
social-security and medicare isn't what's getting robbed. But for right now
they need to repay a lot of the National Debt simply so that we don't get
eaten alive by the interest rates alone.
>
> >> > >-- economic recovery
> >Longest in recent history. Began 6 month before Clinton took office
> >according to govt. stats. Gotta give this one to Bush, if you're gonna
> >claim that presidents are responsible for economic recoveries.
>
> I agree with the time span, but I don't think the prez has as much
> influence over that as we like to think. Thank Greenspan next time
> your in Washington...
There's something to be said for an Objectivist viewpoint in control of
finance and economics.
As the original posters of the list of things Clinton actually did for the
country, I guess I wasn't clear - I do not attribute it to Clinton as his
personal responsiblity; I attribute it to him having enough sense to leave
well-enough alone, to not interfere with the ongoing processes leading towards
recovery, and most importantly for not dragging his feet as the Republicans
actually got down to work on making it actually happen. Which they assuredly
did...
>
> >> > >-- deconstruction of welfare
> >Think this would have happened if the Dems had held on to congress?
> >No way.
>
> Well, its a start, but it needs to be finished.
It's happening. But here's one of these rob-peter-to-pay-paul situations. We
really do need to allocate a hell of a lot more money and manpower to
adult-education (in particular job-training) to get the Welfare-to-Work
initiatives up to full speed.
>
> >> > >-- stabilization of Washington DC which was on the edge of complete
> >> > implosion
> >What involvement, precisely, has the president had in this? Congress
> >runs the show here, too.
>
> Agreed. Congress is the body legally required to handle this mess.
At least, in the compromise creating the DCFRA Control Board, the President
was allowed to appoint the members of the DCFRA. But the thing is that he
actually chose well, all things considered: in a town almost-universally
kneejerk Democrats, suddenly champing resentfully under the bit of a
near-total Republican "invasion" (DC people hate the rest of America; anything
from outside the Beltway is anathematic and considered "provincial inbreds
agitating in the hinterland"), the President could have continued his former
policy of resolutely ignoring Washington DC's local issues. This would have
been right in line with the traditional leftist-Democrat agenda of letting the
Nation's Capital implode along with the rest of the nation's inner-cities. But
he did wisely choose to heed the Nation's call to actually do something
effectual about the fact that Washington was sinking back into the swamps and
into destitution and savagery.
Personally I think it would have served the locals right - for being such
staunch Democrats for all of these years, despite a firsthand wealth of
experience where Democratic social policies led - to have let the place rot, a
policy which the Reagan/Bush Administration certainly followed. Jeeze, the
place was a feeding frenzy for a grab-all-you-can running firefight between
the bloodsuckers, carpetbaggers and gangsters.
Now at least there's a (mere) facade of competence and respectability about
the place.
>
> >All these arguments point to the Republican leaders as the men of the
> >hour. Kinda scary, if you ask me.
>
> Well, if you ask me, the Repubs are still acting like the minority...
> But I do have to agree, they are responsible for the above. They are
> also responsible for the balanced budget lie. (as is Clinton)
Joseph A. Gregor
>
> Joseph A. Gregor wrote:
> >
> > Rick Willis wrote:
> >
> > > Militarily speaking, the US is as potent now as it's
> > > ever been.
> >
> > Also not true, though for different reasons. We have
> > disarmed ourselves to 1/2 to 2/3 or our previous deployable
> > strength since the Gulf War.
>
> And you're saying that's *not* a formidable force
> to reckon with? The *technology* forged and owned
> by the US insures the potency of our military
> forces -- not sheer numbers.
Dind't say it wasn't formidible, just that it wasn't as
potent as it's ever been.
Technology can replace numbers, but it takes longer to
field and learn how to use new enableing technologies
than it has taken us to downsize recently.
> > > > >
> > > > >-- economic recovery
> >
> > Longest in recent history. Began 6 month before Clinton took office
> > according to govt. stats. Gotta give this one to Bush, if you're gonna
> > claim that presidents are responsible for economic recoveries.
>
> Once again, giving credit where credit isn't due.
> People have to realize there's more to government
> than the President. Guess when one constantly see
> the Prez giving speech after speech about issues
> that concern the American people the most, they
> begin to think *he* is the one responsible for
> fixing what's broken (or fixing that which wasn't
> broken).
True story, and a principle that Clinton has used
quite successfully these last 6 years.
-- Joe
cl...@xld.com
Clark, Still Free in Round Rock Texas USA
http://xld.com/
The XLData Net -- Social and Political Issues
In article <6u151n$ieg$1...@news00.btx.dtag.de>,
Pere...@t-online.de (FKoe) wrote:
Whine snipped...
>
> In any judicial case there is a principle to be maintained: that the
> measures taken should be in proportion to the alleged wrongdoing.
> Apart from the question that extramarital affairs cannot be subjected
> to the law in the sense that they are extrajudiciary, a white lie of
> infinitesimal dimensions has been blown up to destroy the credibility
> and dignity of a world power. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR SENSES???
>
More snipped...
We aren't in the least concerned with the extramarital affair or "a white
lie". Our concern is with the succession of felonious lying under oath by
this elected leader. Perhaps that's acceptable in other cultures, but it's
not good enough in the United States. We demand truth.
It matters not how good a president he may appear to be. His lies are an
indication that he is not as good as his followers say he is.
The XLData Net, in association with Amazon.com, is making the
Starr Reports and other items available for on line purchase
at URL:
http://xld.com/public/amazon/starr/reports.htm
Regards,
Clark Simmons, WM
> ______________________________
> Falk H. Koenemann
> Aachen, Germany
> pere...@t-online.de
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
doo...@**remove**mailexcite.com
>When he is getting a blow job while on the phone with a member of
>congress, it is a big deal to me. I don't expect to walk into my
>bosses office to find him/her having sex during office hours.
Clinton is not your boss, he is our servant. Not only was he
conducting our business while with Monica, he did it on our
property, on our time, and used our other servants to facilitate
and cover up his activities. A public servant in the state of
Arkansas accused him of sexual harrasment and when we
asked him about it, he feed us a string of lies.
>> Does anybody in the great big US of A have any sense of
>> proportionality? What you had was a president with a propensity for
>> extramarital affairs. Certainly not the first time since George
>> Washington.
>
>No it's not the first time, just the first time it's really been made
>public.
As unnacceptable it is for Clinton to have engaged in adultry,
it is not adultry that he faces empeachment for.
>> You also had one who was widely regarded as a man who is
>> efficient in doing his job, no matter that the right does not like
>> him, one who has shown many times to be a politician with a keen sense
>> of right measure in critical situations.
>
>If you are still talking about Clinton, I disagree. But that's my
>opinion :-).
Yet another Clinton defender saying Clinton is efficient (good?) at
his job. Yet another Clinton defender failing to tell us how/what
Clinton has done that is good. And, even if we agree to the silly
lie that Clinton is an efficient president, he *was* an efficient
president. His presidency is already over, it's just an issue of
getting him out of the office so that someone can do the job.
>I will stipulate that the media in this country is overboard, but no
>less so then they are in other countires. Look at Princess Diana.
A bimbo who died like she lived. Her popularity is another example
that most people in the general public are boneheads undeserving of
whatever degree of freedom they enjoy.
Tailwheel
>
> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 20:36:15 GMT, doobie@**remove**mailexcite.com
> wrote:
>
> >Clinton is not your boss, he is our servant. Not only was he
> >conducting our business while with Monica, he did it on our
> >property, on our time, and used our other servants to facilitate
> >and cover up his activities. A public servant in the state of
> >Arkansas accused him of sexual harrasment and when we
> >asked him about it, he feed us a string of lies.
>
> out of court.
======================
So why is Clinton offering a half million to suppress so-called
evidence? He's gotta make a deal by Tuesday.
Young
>
> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 20:36:15 GMT, doobie@**remove**mailexcite.com
> wrote:
>
> >Clinton is not your boss, he is our servant. Not only was he
> >conducting our business while with Monica, he did it on our
> >property, on our time, and used our other servants to facilitate
> >and cover up his activities. A public servant in the state of
> >Arkansas accused him of sexual harrasment and when we
> >asked him about it, he feed us a string of lies.
>
> And when the Judge looked at all the so-called evidence, it was thrown
> out of court.
You don't know what you're talking about. When the judge looked at the
evidence, she decided that Paula wasn't injured under Arkansas laws,
not that it didn't happen. Would have been illegal under most other
state laws.
nancy
Charles Demas
<No_...@For.Me.Today> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:21:40 GMT,
>bob...@gte.net (Bob Ward) wrote:
>
>>And when the Judge looked at all the so-called evidence, it was
>>thrown out of court.
>
>than her word. Needless to say, this is begin reviewed. Why do you
>think Clinton is offering to settle now of all times...
As I understand it, the case was dismissed because the judge could see
no damage to Jones' job/career.
As to why Clinton is offering a settlement, I think it may be that if
the case is settled, then there can be no perjury charge as his
testimony wouldn't have affected the outcome of the "settled case."
Essentially, perjury must be relevant to the outcome of the case, it
isn't just lying, but lying that affects the outcome of the case.
If the case is settled out of court, then Clinton's testimony will
not have an effect on the outcome of the court case because it will
have been settled out of court. He could then admit that he lied under
oath without the fear of being charged with perjury because of his
testimony there.
If the Jones case is settled, then the question of trying to influence
witnesses in the case and obstruction of justice becomes moot also, as
without a court case, what justice was actually obstructed.
Whether you agree with the above ideas about actual obstruction or
not, settling the case would allow these arguments to be used. That
would give Clinton and his representatives mor "wiggle room" than they
presently have, and would give more people reasons to go against
impeachment and/or removal.
So, there are many good (political and other) reasons for Clinton to be
offering a settlement, even if there is no actual merit in the Jones
case at this point.
Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.
--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
de...@tiac.net | \___/ | http://www.tiac.net/users/demas
Ed Lewis
[Note drastic Followup-To changes]
In ne.general on 27 Sep 1998 06:23:40 GMT Charles Demas <de...@sunspot.tiac.net> wrote:
| As to why Clinton is offering a settlement, I think it may be that if
| the case is settled, then there can be no perjury charge as his
| testimony wouldn't have affected the outcome of the "settled case."
My only question regarding a settlement offer is where would Clinton get
the money to pay for it? AFAIK he and Hillary are not financially
well-off. If anything, I would suspect they have a negative net worth.
--
Edward S. Lewis Prevail Technology, Inc.
Open Systems Consultant 135 Beaver Street
http://www.solipsism.com Waltham, MA 02452
George Matthew Regnery
wrote:
>> And when the Judge looked at all the so-called evidence, it was thrown
>> out of court.
>
>You don't know what you're talking about. When the judge looked at the
>evidence, she decided that Paula wasn't injured under Arkansas laws,
>not that it didn't happen. Would have been illegal under most other
>state laws.
>
>nancy
I thought Paula Jones filed a law in federal district court, and not
in state court, and therefore the state law wouldn't matter.
--
George M. Regnery | Want to know more about a company (public or private,
------------------+ foreign or domestic) such as its stock price, who's
in charge, court cases, etc? Then check out my web site dedicated to
researching corporations: http://www.corporateinformation.com
Young
>
> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 20:30:05 -0400, Young <qwe...@mail.monmouth.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> And when the Judge looked at all the so-called evidence, it was thrown
> >> out of court.
> >
> >You don't know what you're talking about. When the judge looked at the
> >evidence, she decided that Paula wasn't injured under Arkansas laws,
> >not that it didn't happen. Would have been illegal under most other
> >state laws.
> >
> >nancy
>
> I thought Paula Jones filed a law in federal district court, and not
> in state court, and therefore the state law wouldn't matter.
No. That's where she's filed her appeal of that decision, if I'm not
wrong, that was made by a Clinton appointee in Arkansas.
nancy
George Matthew Regnery
wrote:
>As to why Clinton is offering a settlement, I think it may be that if
>the case is settled, then there can be no perjury charge as his
>testimony wouldn't have affected the outcome of the "settled case."
>
>Essentially, perjury must be relevant to the outcome of the case, it
>isn't just lying, but lying that affects the outcome of the case.
>
>If the case is settled out of court, then Clinton's testimony will
>not have an effect on the outcome of the court case because it will
>have been settled out of court. He could then admit that he lied under
>oath without the fear of being charged with perjury because of his
>testimony there.
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think there's any condition of
materiality for lying during a deposition. Materiality only matters
in the actual trial phase.
Another issue is that impeachment occurs when an elected official
commits bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors. "High
Crimes and Misdemeanors" doesn't necessarily have to be a certain
class of misdemeanor or felony. In the past, a judge was impeached
because he visited brothels and didn't have high morals, said the
Senate. That's not a crime, but he was still removed from office. So
even if Bill Clinton could say that he lied but it wasn't material,
the Senate could still vote to remove him from office: they don't need
approval from a three judge panel or the supreme court. They could
simply say that lying in a court proceeding was bad enough.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
>> And when the Judge looked at all the so-called evidence, it was thrown
>> out of court.
Young <qwe...@mail.monmouth.com> writes:
>You don't know what you're talking about. When the judge looked at the
>evidence, she decided that Paula wasn't injured under Arkansas laws,
>not that it didn't happen. Would have been illegal under most other
>state laws.
The judge dismissed the case because even if everything Paula Jones said
about Clinton's actions were true, it still didn't meet the definition of
sexual harrassment. I don't have the Arkansas laws, but here's the
federal definition of sexual harrassment from the EEOC's web page:
] Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or
] physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when
] submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly
] affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an
] individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or
] offensive work environment.
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html
Generally, sexual harassment can be divided into two categories: quid
pro quo sexual harassment and hostile environment sexual harassment.
Here are the definitions of these two from the Massachusetts law:
]Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when:
]
] *submission to or rejection of the unwelcome sexual conduct is
] used as a basis for employment decisions affecting the employee, or
]
] *submission to or rejection of the unwelcome sexual conduct is
] made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment
] or advancement.
]
]This type of sexual harassment may include requests for sexual favors,
]unwanted sexual advances or repeated requests for dates.
]
]Hostile environment sexual harassment exists when the unwelcome sexual
]conduct unreasonably interferes with a person's work performance or
]creates an intimidating, hostile, or sexually offensive work environment.
]
]However, it is important to note that in order to constitute hostile
]environment sexual harassment, the unwelcome behavior must be sufficiently
]severe so as to create a hostile or abusive working environment, or to
]unreasonably interfere with an individual's ability to do his or her job.
]In most cases, this requires a pattern (or repeated instances) of
]unwelcome sexual behavior or at least one severe instance of unwelcome
]sexual conduct.
Paula Jones never claimed that Clinton made any hints that having sex
would affect any employment decisions, so there wasn't quid-pro-quo.
When she turned down his one and only proposition, he never asked her
again, so it wasn't a hostile working environment.
As the judge said when she dismissed the case Even if Clinton did
everything Paula Jones accused him of, it still didn't meet the
definitions of sexual harassment.
--
-------------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <-------------------
"Love wouldn't be blind if the braille weren't so damned much fun."
- Armistead Maupin, "Maybe the Moon"
Elisabeth Anne Riba
>The judge basically decided that the word of the prez was worth more
>than her word. Needless to say, this is begin reviewed. Why do you
>think Clinton is offering to settle now of all times...
Actually, it was exactly the opposite. The judge decided that even if
everything Paula Jones claimed was true, it still wasn't sexual
harassment.
The Boston Globe article written the day of the dismissal explains the
reasons more clearly:
Title: CASE DISMISSED JUDGE FINDS NO MERIT IN JONES'S SUIT VS.
CLINTON[Third Edition]
Source: Boston Globe; Boston, Mass.
Date: Apr 2, 1998
Author: Brian McGrory, Globe Staff
Start Page: A1
US District Judge Susan Webber Wright pointedly made no determination
of whether Clinton, while governor, exposed himself to Jones in a
suite at Little Rock's Excelsior Hotel in 1991 and asked for sexual
favors, as Jones has charged. Rather, Wright said that even if Clinton
committed the acts, they did not amount to a sexual assault and Jones
never suffered enough in her state job to prove a harassment case
before a federal jury.
"The court has determined that her quid pro quo and hostile work
environment sexual harassment claim are without merit and warrant a
grant of summary judgment," Wright said in her 39-page decision
released yesterday afternoon.
"Although the governor's alleged conduct, if true, may certainly be
characterized as boorish and offensive, even a most charitable reading
of the record in this case fails to reveal a basis for a claim of
criminal sexual assault," Wright's decision said.
. . .
The central weakness of Jones's case was her inability to prove that
she suffered in her state job after she rejected any Clinton overtures
on May 8, 1991. Jones said Clinton told her "I love your curves," put
his hand on her leg, then exposed himself and asked her to "kiss it."
Clinton has repeatedly denied the charges, saying he doesn't recall
meeting her.
His lawyers showed that Jones received pay raises and never brought
the incident up with superiors. The lawyers also ridiculed her claim
that she was one of the only members of her department not to receive
flowers on Secretary's Day.
. . .
Excerpts from the opinion by US District Court Judge Susan Webber
Wright, dismissing the suit by Paula Jones
- The plaintiffs' allegations fall far short of the rigorous standards
for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law.
- The court has determined that her quid pro quo and hostile work
environment sexual harassment claim are without merit and warrant a
grant of summary judgment.
- Although the governor's alleged conduct, if true, may certainly be
characterized as boorish and offensive, even a most charitable reading
of the record in this case fails to reveal a basis for a claim of
criminal sexual assault.
- While the court will certainly agree that plaintiffs' allegations
describe offensive conduct, the court . . . has found that the
governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault.
- Absent an underlying violation of federal law, there can be no
actionable claim alleging a conspiracy.
- {The alleged conduct} was brief and isolated, did not result in any
physical harm . . .. did not result in distress so severe that no
reasonable person could be expected to endure it.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
>No. That's where she's filed her appeal of that decision, if I'm not
>wrong, that was made by a Clinton appointee in Arkansas.
Judge Webber Wright was appointed to the federal bench by President Bush.
According to all profiles I've read of her, she is a strong conservative,
and has been politically opposed to Clinton in other races.
[Boston Globe: Clinton mounted an unsuccessful challenge in 1974 against
Representative John Paul Hammerschmidt, an Arkansas Republican. Wright
worked for Hammerschmidt in that campaign. She also led a lawyers-for-Bush
group in 1988.]
Judge Wright sentenced Susan McDougal to 18 months in jail for contempt
of court. Throwing out Paula Jones lawsuit was a matter of justice, not
partisanship. [See my other posts in this thread for an explanation of
sexual harassment law and the judge's statements explaining her decision]
lla...@my-dejanews.com
l...@netcom.com (Elisabeth Anne Riba) wrote:
> No_...@For.Me.Today writes:
> >The judge basically decided that the word of the prez was worth more
> >than her word. Needless to say, this is begin reviewed. Why do you
> >think Clinton is offering to settle now of all times...
>
> Actually, it was exactly the opposite. The judge decided that even if
> everything Paula Jones claimed was true, it still wasn't sexual
> harassment.
Well, I work for a state run university and this kind of behavior will
get you canned. Maybe one could fight it but the fact is the state has
deeper pockets than most individuals. Our system is biased tword whom-
ever has the most resources, i.e. money, power, ... . Right and wrong
are merely incidental.
--
Louis-ljl-{ Louis J. LaBash, Jr. }
d s f o x o g s c i . u c s d . e d u
> In article <lisF00...@netcom.com>,
> l...@netcom.com (Elisabeth Anne Riba) wrote:
> > No_...@For.Me.Today writes:
> > >The judge basically decided that the word of the prez was worth more
> > >than her word. Needless to say, this is begin reviewed. Why do you
> > >think Clinton is offering to settle now of all times...
> >
> > Actually, it was exactly the opposite. The judge decided that even if
> > everything Paula Jones claimed was true, it still wasn't sexual
> > harassment.
>
> Well, I work for a state run university and this kind of behavior will
> get you canned. Maybe one could fight it but the fact is the state has
> deeper pockets than most individuals. Our system is biased tword whom-
> ever has the most resources, i.e. money, power, ... . Right and wrong
> are merely incidental.
Just the way in your posts correct and incorrect are merely incidental.
What has grounds for dismissal got to do with sexual harrassment law?
--
David Fox http://www.cat.nyu.edu/fox xoF divaD
UCSD HCI Lab baL ICH DSCU
doo...@**remove**mailexcite.com
wrote:
>Judge Webber Wright was appointed to the federal bench by President Bush.
Bush was the slippery slide to Clinton.
doo...@**remove**mailexcite.com
>O.J. Simson just has a propensity to get his DNA all over brutal
>murder scenes.
Good thing that the OJ jury had the self-restraint to avoid blowing
the DNA evidence all out of perportion and doing something irrational
like convicting him for the improper behavior. Whatever OJ did is a
private matter between him and his ex-wife. The Hollywood is doing
good, OJ is a good (fair) actor so we should just let him continue
doing his job.
>She is being prosecuted criminally and could go to jail. But then,
>she's not the president so the double standard is OK. And the case
>against the president is definitely stronger.
At the federal level, scores of people are convicted of perjury every
year.
BTW, considering that Clinton defenders are for the most part
OJ defenders, why weren't they yelling that Fuhrman's lie was a
personal issue and that he did do a good detective job.
doo...@**remove**mailexcite.com
wrote:
>> As always, we
>> get the candidates we deserve.
>
>Yeah, I know.
Yep, I know too.
>It had more than likely been discussed, perhaps
>many times, prior to the strike. The President is
>not nearly as powerful as most people would like
>to think.
He's more powerful than you imagine. He could nuke half the world by
just choosing too. In theory, he could declare marshal law and refuse
to leave office for the next 20 years (who's going to stop him). He
dropped dozens of bombs when his poll ratings started to fall.
Likewise, he could devistate the economy with hardly any effort.
More likely, he's just done being president. All we need now of him
is for him to leave the building to allow someone to do the job of
president.
Michel Boucher
>> Actually, it was exactly the opposite. The judge decided that even if
>> everything Paula Jones claimed was true, it still wasn't sexual
>> harassment.
>
>Well, I work for a state run university and this kind of behavior will
>get you canned. Maybe one could fight it but the fact is the state has
>deeper pockets than most individuals. Our system is biased tword whom-
>ever has the most resources, i.e. money, power, ... . Right and wrong
>are merely incidental.
It may get you canned, or not, but that was NOT the point of the lawsuit. The
lawsuit was to obtain (in the form of monetary compensation) amounts that would be
equal to losses that occurred following the incident, and possibly some form of
punitive award as well (I don't the specifics of the suit). Obviously, she could not
demonstrate any losses to the judge's satisfaction. In fact, it would appear that
the damage (if any) has brought her greater income and notoriety and that she seems
to enjoy the attention lavished upon her to the extent that the continuation of the
suit may be as much to meet HER need for whatever the limelight offers, as it is to
"obtain justice". She has obtained justice by due process (the court recognizes that
she has been compensated amply for the "humiliation"), she doesn't like it...case
closed.
Book her, Dano!
Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Battlefield/8738/
Co-author, DARKLANDS FAQ (http://www.darklands.net/)
Maintainer, Darklands List (http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/darklands to subscribe)
President Pro-Tem, Christina Amphlett Fan Club
For private mail, get the zed out.
Dan
>
> Good thing that the OJ jury had the self-restraint to avoid blowing
> the DNA evidence all out of perportion and doing something irrational
> like convicting him for the improper behavior. Whatever OJ did is a
> private matter between him and his ex-wife. The Hollywood is doing
> good, OJ is a good (fair) actor so we should just let him continue
> doing his job.
>
Give OJ a break. He's diligently trying to track down "the real
killers" hiding out on a golf course somewhere.
Dan
d s f o x o g s c i . u c s d . e d u
> On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 03:28:51 GMT, rha...@athens.net (Rick Harle)
> wrote:
>
> >>BTW, considering that Clinton defenders are for the most part
> >>OJ defenders,
> >
> >Do you ever get tired of being wrong????
>
> To be tired of something, you must first do that something.
> Were you outraged at the blatent disregard for justice shown
> by the O.J. jury? Do you think Clinton should be empeached?
>
> No and no?
For the average U.S. citizen the answers are yes and no. The statement
"Clinton defenders are for the most part OJ defenders" is provably
false using simple statistics. Perhaps the reverse.
Kate Reynolds
(Michel Boucher) wrote:
>
> It may get you canned, or not, but that was NOT the point of the lawsuit. The
> lawsuit was to obtain (in the form of monetary compensation) amounts
that would be
> equal to losses that occurred following the incident, and possibly some
form of
> punitive award as well (I don't the specifics of the suit). Obviously,
she could not
> demonstrate any losses to the judge's satisfaction. In fact, it would
appear that
> the damage (if any) has brought her greater income and notoriety and
that she seems
> to enjoy the attention lavished upon her to the extent that the
continuation of the
> suit may be as much to meet HER need for whatever the limelight offers,
as it is to
> "obtain justice". She has obtained justice by due process (the court
recognizes that
> she has been compensated amply for the "humiliation"), she doesn't like
it...case
> closed.
I mention again that if all the above is true, the Clintons wouldn't care
whether they settled with PJ or not. Yet, by all accounts, they are
willing to pay quite a large sum to stop PJ from appealing.
Hmmm.
Kate
--
To reply, please delete TAKETHISOUT
Kate Reynolds
Riba) wrote:
<Big snip>
>
> As the judge said when she dismissed the case Even if Clinton did
> everything Paula Jones accused him of, it still didn't meet the
> definitions of sexual harassment.
> --
It makes one wonder why the Clinton folks are so eager to settle, doesn't
it? After all, if his testimony wasn't material and if PJ's case didn't
meet the definitions of sexual harassment, one might think he wouldn't
need to settle. Why bother at all?
Kate Reynolds
c s d . e d u (David Fox) wrote:
> >
> > To be tired of something, you must first do that something.
> > Were you outraged at the blatent disregard for justice shown
> > by the O.J. jury? Do you think Clinton should be empeached?
> >
> > No and no?
>
> For the average U.S. citizen the answers are yes and no. The statement
> "Clinton defenders are for the most part OJ defenders" is provably
> false using simple statistics. Perhaps the reverse.
> --
> David Fox http://www.cat.nyu.edu/fox xoF divaD
> UCSD HCI Lab baL ICH DSCU
I'm curious about something. If some future president makes racist
remarks in the "privacy" of the oval office, is that his own business?
Just where do liberals draw the line?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Young
> It's been explained before... I'll explain again. Sometimes it is
> worth settling a nuisance lawsuit of this type when the costs to
> continue the litigation exceed the cost of settling the suit. Since
> Ken Starr put so much effort into smearing the president's reputation,
> it makes sense to make the case go away even though he would likely
> win in the long run, although at a much higher cost financially than
> it would to just settle the case and get back to more important
> issues.
Actually, I've read that if they can settle the case by ... tomorrow?,
that the perjured deposition will be out of the mix and he'll avoid
impeachment.
nancy
Andy
Dan wrote in message <361174...@his.com>...
>>
>Hey Doob...
>
> Give OJ a break. He's diligently trying to track down "the real
>killers" hiding out on a golf course somewhere.
And I've been helping him. I keep looking so hard for the bad guy that
my golf game has just gone to hell!!!
d s f o x o g s c i . u c s d . e d u
> In article <u8pvcdk...@pipeline.ucsd.edu>, d s f o x @ c o g s c i . u
> c s d . e d u (David Fox) wrote:
>
> > >
> > > To be tired of something, you must first do that something.
> > > Were you outraged at the blatent disregard for justice shown
> > > by the O.J. jury? Do you think Clinton should be empeached?
> > >
> > > No and no?
> >
> > For the average U.S. citizen the answers are yes and no. The statement
> > "Clinton defenders are for the most part OJ defenders" is provably
> > false using simple statistics. Perhaps the reverse.
>
> I'm curious about something. If some future president makes racist
> remarks in the "privacy" of the oval office, is that his own business?
Yes. Any other questions?
Dan
>
> It's been explained before... I'll explain again. Sometimes it is
> worth settling a nuisance lawsuit of this type when the costs to
> continue the litigation exceed the cost of settling the suit. Since
> Ken Starr put so much effort into smearing the president's reputation,
> it makes sense to make the case go away even though he would likely
> win in the long run, although at a much higher cost financially than
> it would to just settle the case and get back to more important
> issues.
Nice try. Real reason is that Starr, doing his lawful duty, proved (in
my opinion) that Clinton committed perjury in the Jones case. In
Clinton's perverted version of reality and linguistics, if the case is
settled he can then argue that the perjury "doesn't count." Hell, I'd
bet he'd go so far as to say that because the case was settled, his
perjury "never happened." Of course, that all depends on one's
definition of "never," and "happened."
Dan
d s f o x o g s c i . u c s d . e d u
> On 30 Sep 1998 06:33:29 -0700, d s f o x @ c o g s c i . u c s d . e d
> u (David Fox) wrote:
>
> >> Were you outraged at the blatent disregard for justice shown
> >> by the O.J. jury? Do you think Clinton should be empeached?
>
> >For the average U.S. citizen the answers are yes and no. The statement
> >"Clinton defenders are for the most part OJ defenders" is provably
> >false using simple statistics. Perhaps the reverse.
>
> Really? ~80% of blacks agreed with the verdict in the OJ case, 90+%
> of blacks want Clinton to stay in office. You're welcome to provide a
> simple sample of statics to demonstrate "perhaps the reverse."
Hardly necessary, as you've just shown it yourself.
> The breakdown is pretty much: Liberals support the Clinton and
> the OJ verdict, conservatives oppose Clinton and the OJ verdict.
> It really doesn't matter if we're talking about double murder, a
> simple BJ from an intern, or all of Clinton's crimes inbetween.
This is just to jumbled and confused to try to respond to. You are
welcome to your unusual opinions.
doo...@**remove**mailexcite.com
(Kate Reynolds) wrote:
>I mention again that if all the above is true, the Clintons wouldn't care
>whether they settled with PJ or not. Yet, by all accounts, they are
>willing to pay quite a large sum to stop PJ from appealing.
Clinton might settle the Jones case to avoid the consequences
of perjury (material lies). The judge would be within her right and
the law to rule in favor of Jones just because of the perjury, let
alone bringing criminal charges against Clinton (jail to the chief).
Judges take perjury seriously, even if the bonehead public doesn't.
doo...@**remove**mailexcite.com
u (David Fox) wrote:
>> Were you outraged at the blatent disregard for justice shown
>> by the O.J. jury? Do you think Clinton should be empeached?
>For the average U.S. citizen the answers are yes and no. The statement
>"Clinton defenders are for the most part OJ defenders" is provably
>false using simple statistics. Perhaps the reverse.
Really? ~80% of blacks agreed with the verdict in the OJ case, 90+%
of blacks want Clinton to stay in office. You're welcome to provide a
simple sample of statics to demonstrate "perhaps the reverse."
The breakdown is pretty much: Liberals support the Clinton and
Doobie
dropout. You can't rape the willing, you can't refute the
meaningless.
On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 01:21:46 GMT, bob...@gte.net (Bob Ward) wrote:
>>>I mention again that if all the above is true, the Clintons wouldn't care
>>>whether they settled with PJ or not. Yet, by all accounts, they are
>>>willing to pay quite a large sum to stop PJ from appealing.
>>
>>Clinton might settle the Jones case to avoid the consequences
>>of perjury (material lies). The judge would be within her right and
>>the law to rule in favor of Jones just because of the perjury, let
>>alone bringing criminal charges against Clinton (jail to the chief).
>>Judges take perjury seriously, even if the bonehead public doesn't.
>
>Once again Doobie proudly exhibits his total lack of understanding of
>the American Justice System. Looks like the bonehead is Doobie
>(again).
Doobie
>Nice try. Real reason is that Starr, doing his lawful duty, proved (in
>my opinion) that Clinton committed perjury in the Jones case. In
>Clinton's perverted version of reality and linguistics, if the case is
>settled he can then argue that the perjury "doesn't count." Hell, I'd
>bet he'd go so far as to say that because the case was settled, his
>perjury "never happened." Of course, that all depends on one's
>definition of "never," and "happened."
It's kind of silly to qualify your statement with the parenthetical
comment that the perjury was proved "in your opinion." He perjured
himself. Period. No reasonable person could believe that he didn't
remember ever being alone with Monica any more than if he claimed
he didn't remember receiving oral sex from her. Or, consider his
claim that *he* didn't engage in sexual behavior based on the
definition of sex in the Jones case. That definition was designed to
include oral sex as sex! And, he knew what he was really being asked.
He admited to deliberatly misleading statements under oath. That is
exactly the same as admiting to perjury!!
Only the fundamentally perverted would say that Clinton is not
guilty of perjury.
Andrea L. Vance
Organization: University of Vermont
Distribution:
doobie@**remove**mailexcite.com wrote:
: The breakdown is pretty much: Liberals support the Clinton and
: the OJ verdict, conservatives oppose Clinton and the OJ verdict.
: It really doesn't matter if we're talking about double murder, a
: simple BJ from an intern, or all of Clinton's crimes inbetween.
Huh? Most of my liberal friends and co-workers, including me, did not
support the OJ verdict, and don't think Clinton should be impeached. Which
liberals are you talking to? And granted, when I say we think Clinton
should not be impeached, it has nothing to do with his "guilt" or whether
he screwed Monica. I for one, would welcome some kind of censure. BUt not
impeachment. (for many reasons I'm not going to take the time to go into
here)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no such thing as an immacculate perception -- Nietzsche
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Charles Demas
>>>
>>> It's been explained before... I'll explain again. Sometimes it is
>>> worth settling a nuisance lawsuit of this type when the costs to
>>> continue the litigation exceed the cost of settling the suit. Since
>>> Ken Starr put so much effort into smearing the president's reputation,
>>> it makes sense to make the case go away even though he would likely
>>> win in the long run, although at a much higher cost financially than
>>> it would to just settle the case and get back to more important
>>> issues.
>>
>>my opinion) that Clinton committed perjury in the Jones case. In
>>Clinton's perverted version of reality and linguistics, if the case is
>>settled he can then argue that the perjury "doesn't count." Hell, I'd
>>bet he'd go so far as to say that because the case was settled, his
>>perjury "never happened." Of course, that all depends on one's
>>definition of "never," and "happened."
>>
>
>
>Your opinion will be more meaningful when you are on the bench, with
>all the facts before you. Until then, you are just as misinformed as
>the rest of us.
What kind of a rebuttal is that? "You're not a judge, so your opinion
doesn't count."
We'll see if what Dan has said happens when the Jones case is settled.
They're just dickering about the money at this point, probably because
Jones herself wouldn't get any significant money out of the dollar
amount offered by the Clinton side once Jones' lawyer's fees and
EXPENSES were paid off the top. The lawyers may be limited (by law) to
a certain percentage of the settlement, but that's _AFTER_ the expenses
are deducted, IIRC. FWIW, IANAL (thank God).
Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.
--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
de...@tiac.net | \___/ | http://www.tiac.net/users/demas
Timothy Kendall
>
> [...]
>
> The breakdown is pretty much: Liberals support the Clinton and
> the OJ verdict, conservatives oppose Clinton and the OJ verdict.
> It really doesn't matter if we're talking about double murder, a
> simple BJ from an intern, or all of Clinton's crimes inbetween.
Of which there have demonstrably been precisely zero.
Stephen La Joie
>
> No_...@For.Me.Today writes:
> >The judge basically decided that the word of the prez was worth more
> >than her word. Needless to say, this is begin reviewed. Why do you
> >think Clinton is offering to settle now of all times...
>
> everything Paula Jones claimed was true, it still wasn't sexual
> harassment.
"The judge" is a Clinton crony. She should have excused herself
from hearing a case involving Bill Clinton. Clinton was her law
professor.
She had no business sitting on that motion.
Pretty clearly, her biased ruling for her old chum is going to be
thrown out as stupid on appeal, unless Clinton pays up quickly.
Stephen La Joie
>
> Young <qwe...@mail.monmouth.com> writes:
> >No. That's where she's filed her appeal of that decision, if I'm not
> >wrong, that was made by a Clinton appointee in Arkansas.
>
> and has been politically opposed to Clinton in other races.
Read more. She ususally doesn't hear cases like this. When she was
a law student, Clinton was one of her profs.
Xiphias Gladius
He lost her final paper, and flunked her for no good reason. She hated
his guts.
- Ian
--
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ian
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
Stephen La Joie
>
> Bob Ward wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 20:36:15 GMT, doobie@**remove**mailexcite.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Clinton is not your boss, he is our servant. Not only was he
> > >conducting our business while with Monica, he did it on our
> > >property, on our time, and used our other servants to facilitate
> > >and cover up his activities. A public servant in the state of
> > >Arkansas accused him of sexual harrasment and when we
> > >asked him about it, he feed us a string of lies.
> >
> > And when the Judge looked at all the so-called evidence, it was thrown
> > out of court.
> ======================
> So why is Clinton offering a half million to suppress so-called
> evidence? He's gotta make a deal by Tuesday.
Exactly...
Because the Appellate court was going to dispose ANOTHER one of Judge
Webber-Wrights idiotic and blatantly bias findings in favor of her
old law school prof, Bill Clinton, that's why. The Supreme Court throw
out her first idiot decision. The Appellate court is very likely to
throw out this one.
She was suppose to say up front she knew Bill Clinton personally and
withdraw from the case. I say impeach Judge Webber-Wright.
Doobie
wrote:
>Huh? Most of my liberal friends and co-workers, including me, did not
>support the OJ verdict, and don't think Clinton should be impeached.
What do you mean you didn't support the OJ verdict? Do you mean
that the jury's decision is inexcusable?
> Which
>liberals are you talking to? And granted, when I say we think Clinton
>should not be impeached, it has nothing to do with his "guilt" or whether
>he screwed Monica. I for one, would welcome some kind of censure. BUt not
>impeachment. (for many reasons I'm not going to take the time to go into
>here)
What the heck is censure? "Bad president, let's move on"? Clinton
needs his butt kicked so hard that no future president has the guts to
tell brazen lies under oath and to the American people.
Kate Reynolds
Gladius) wrote:
> Stephen La Joie <laj...@eskimo.com> writes:
>
> >Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote:
> >>
> >> Young <qwe...@mail.monmouth.com> writes:
> >> >No. That's where she's filed her appeal of that decision, if I'm not
> >> >wrong, that was made by a Clinton appointee in Arkansas.
> >>
> >> Judge Webber Wright was appointed to the federal bench by President Bush.
> >> According to all profiles I've read of her, she is a strong conservative,
> >> and has been politically opposed to Clinton in other races.
>
> >Read more. She ususally doesn't hear cases like this. When she was
> >a law student, Clinton was one of her profs.
>
> He lost her final paper, and flunked her for no good reason. She hated
> his guts.
>
> - Ian
I think what happened is that he lost all the papers and then offered all
the students a B or B+. Susan Webber Wright asked to take the test again
and she got an A. I never heard that that incident made her hate his
guts.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
>In article <6v0l05$cu5$1...@hiram.io.com>, i...@schultz.io.com (Xiphias
>Gladius) wrote:
>> Stephen La Joie <laj...@eskimo.com> writes:
>>
>> >Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Young <qwe...@mail.monmouth.com> writes:
>> >> >No. That's where she's filed her appeal of that decision, if I'm not
>> >> >wrong, that was made by a Clinton appointee in Arkansas.
>> >>
>> >> Judge Webber Wright was appointed to the federal bench by President Bush.
>> >> According to all profiles I've read of her, she is a strong conservative,
>> >> and has been politically opposed to Clinton in other races.
>>
>> >Read more. She ususally doesn't hear cases like this. When she was
>> >a law student, Clinton was one of her profs.
>>
>> He lost her final paper, and flunked her for no good reason. She hated
>> his guts.
>>
>I think what happened is that he lost all the papers and then offered all
>the students a B or B+. Susan Webber Wright asked to take the test again
>and she got an A. I never heard that that incident made her hate his
>guts.
Here's the only news account on this that I could find, from the Boston
Globe. The point of all this is that the judge was not a Clinton
appointee, so therefore we can't characterize her dismissal of the Paula
Jones lawsuit as a partisan or patronage deal.
Though talk-show critics make much of the fact that Wright took a
class that Clinton taught at the University of Arkansas law school in
1973, she actually is an old political foe of the president.
Clinton mounted an unsuccessful challenge in 1974 against
Representative John Paul Hammerschmidt, an Arkansas Republican. Wright
worked for Hammerschmidt in that campaign. She also led a
lawyers-for-Bush group in 1988.
. . .
Her class with Clinton posed one of the few threats to her steady rise
to academic prominence. Fresh out of Yale Law School, young professor
Clinton lost Wright's final exam. She irately refused his suggestion
that she take a B-plus as a compromise solution, because it would
spoil her A average and her chance to be editor of the law review.
--
-------------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <-------------------
"Love wouldn't be blind if the braille weren't so damned much fun."
- Armistead Maupin, "Maybe the Moon"
lla...@my-dejanews.com
ka...@waldenpond.TAKETHISOUT.com. (Kate Reynolds) wrote:
> In article <6v0l05$cu5$1...@hiram.io.com>, i...@schultz.io.com (Xiphias
> Gladius) wrote:
>
> > Stephen La Joie <laj...@eskimo.com> writes:
> >
> > >Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Young <qwe...@mail.monmouth.com> writes:
> > >> >No. That's where she's filed her appeal of that decision, if I'm not
> > >> >wrong, that was made by a Clinton appointee in Arkansas.
> > >>
> > >> Judge Webber Wright was appointed to the federal bench by President Bush.
> > >> According to all profiles I've read of her, she is a strong conservative,
> > >> and has been politically opposed to Clinton in other races.
> >
> > >Read more. She ususally doesn't hear cases like this. When she was
> > >a law student, Clinton was one of her profs.
> >
> > He lost her final paper, and flunked her for no good reason. She hated
> > his guts.
>
> I think what happened is that he lost all the papers and then offered all
> the students a B or B+. Susan Webber Wright asked to take the test again
> and she got an A. I never heard that that incident made her hate his
> guts.
The Clintons seem to habitually lose papers, records, ... . Although some
reappear, years later.
--
Louis-ljl-{ Louis J. LaBash, Jr. }
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Kate Reynolds
Harle) wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 12:30:58 -0700, ka...@waldenpond.TAKETHISOUT.com.
> (Kate Reynolds) wrote:
> >It makes one wonder why the Clinton folks are so eager to settle, doesn't
> >it? After all, if his testimony wasn't material and if PJ's case didn't
> >meet the definitions of sexual harassment, one might think he wouldn't
> >need to settle. Why bother at all?
> >
> >Kate
>
> This is really simple, I know that doesn't mean you will be able to
> understand, but try. Settle it to put an end to it, get it. Doesn't
> even matter if he is guilty or innocent.
>
> Rick
HI, Rick,
As I see it, the problem is that it *does* matter -- at
least to Paula Jones. BC has had an opportunity to settle
it or put an end to it as you said, for at least a couple
of years. I was merely trying to make the point that his
choice of this particular time to settle raises
suspicions -- that's all.
Darren Farmer
>
>Doobie wrote:
>>
>> What the heck is censure? "Bad president, let's move on"? Clinton
>> needs his butt kicked so hard that no future president has the guts to
>> tell brazen lies under oath and to the American people.
>
>I want INTEGRITY back in Washington. If that is ever to happen it must
>start now. A message must be sent to all that Clinton's behavior will no
>longer be tolerated.
Are you kidding? If you think "kicking the President's butt" is going to do
anything make the Republicans happy, your dead wrong. We all know this is
just a bad case of sour grapes that's costing the taxpayers millions. There
was corruption long before and there will be corruption long after this
Clinton ordeal is over. After all, by definition, politicians are corrupt.
Xiphias Gladius
>On this issue, you are dead on the mark!
>I want INTEGRITY back in Washington.
"Back"?
When, pray tell, did we EVER have integrity in Washington?
I swear, the only Presidents whose integrity I've ever respected are John
Adams the first and Jimmy Carter -- and they were both miserably unpopular
and ineffective.
klaatu
>
> X-No-Archive:Yes
>
> Doobie wrote:
> >
> > What the heck is censure? "Bad president, let's move on"? Clinton
> > needs his butt kicked so hard that no future president has the guts to
> > tell brazen lies under oath and to the American people.
>
> start now. A message must be sent to all that Clinton's behavior will no
> longer be tolerated.
Actually, that's not the issue. At this point in time, that's like cutting off
someone's hands because they stole a loaf of bread when they weren't hungry.
The ideal thing would have been, not to keep the bread behind the counter, but
to not let the thief into the store.
Punishment after the act does not alter the fact that the transgressor was
admitted by the shopkeeper.
All this whole sordid affair reallty indicates is that the American people
really need to be much more involved at all levels of party politics, in order
to insure that we never again elect someone who's evidently so amenable to
moral turpitude.
>
> Accept that some days you're the pigeon, and some days you're the
> statue.
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
Re-transmission of this e-mail expressly prohibited.
Non-UseNet re-transmission of this article is a willful violation of US
Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
T. Andrew Hooper
BUT if people in Vermont want to read this kind of drivel about
national politics there are plenty of newsgroups which are dedicated
to that kind of thing that they can frequent on their own. This
discussion does not belong on ne.general, vt.general or any of the
.general discussion groups.
Please post follow-ups appropriately.
On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 20:30:05 -0400, Young <qwe...@mail.monmouth.com>
wrote:
>Bob Ward wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 20:36:15 GMT, doobie@**remove**mailexcite.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Clinton is not your boss, he is our servant. Not only was he
>> >conducting our business while with Monica, he did it on our
>> >property, on our time, and used our other servants to facilitate
>> >and cover up his activities. A public servant in the state of
>> >Arkansas accused him of sexual harrasment and when we
>> >asked him about it, he feed us a string of lies.
>>
>> And when the Judge looked at all the so-called evidence, it was thrown
>> out of court.
>
>You don't know what you're talking about. When the judge looked at the
>evidence, she decided that Paula wasn't injured under Arkansas laws,
>not that it didn't happen. Would have been illegal under most other
>state laws.
>
>nancy
Doobie
>> I think what happened is that he lost all the papers and then offered all
>> the students a B or B+. Susan Webber Wright asked to take the test again
>> and she got an A. I never heard that that incident made her hate his
>> guts.
>
>The Clintons seem to habitually lose papers, records, ... . Although some
>reappear, years later.
For all I know, she never took the test again. More likely, she got
her A in trade, knowing Clinton. We might also speculate that she
dismissed the case out of fear that Clinton would talk.
Dan
>
> >>Bob Ward wrote:
> >>>
> >
> >>Your opinion will be more meaningful when you are on the bench, with
> >all the facts before you. Until then, you are just as misinformed as
> >the rest of us.
Bob,
You'll be happy to learn that I haven't been on the bench since I
played football in high school, and don't plan to be there anytime soon!
Dan
>
> What kind of a rebuttal is that? "You're not a judge, so your opinion
> doesn't count."
>
> We'll see if what Dan has said happens when the Jones case is settled.
>
> They're just dickering about the money at this point, probably because
> Jones herself wouldn't get any significant money out of the dollar
> amount offered by the Clinton side once Jones' lawyer's fees and
> EXPENSES were paid off the top. The lawyers may be limited (by law) to
> a certain percentage of the settlement, but that's _AFTER_ the expenses
> are deducted, IIRC. FWIW, IANAL (thank God).
>
> Chuck Demas
> Needham, Mass.
Chuck,
As usual, the only real winners are the lawyers. And that's not
counting what they'll get from the Clintons' bills.
>
> --
> Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
> Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
> Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
> de...@tiac.net | \___/ | http://www.tiac.net/users/demas
Like your signature!
Dan
Dan
>
> On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 21:43:48 -0400, Dan <dan...@his.com> wrote:
>
> >Nice try. Real reason is that Starr, doing his lawful duty, proved (in
> >my opinion) that Clinton committed perjury in the Jones case.
>
> comment that the perjury was proved "in your opinion." He perjured
> himself. Period.
> guilty of perjury.
Doob -
I'm happy you agree with my basic view of Clinton's perjury. The
reason that I added the qualifier "in my opinion" is that it's my
understanding that perjury isn't just lying, but lying under oath, and
is a felony under our legal system. Although I personally feel that
there's no room for doubt about the President perjuring himself
(multiple times, I might add), he has not yet been found guilty of the
felony of perjury, and that's why I added the qualification. The House
has to decide if his perjury -- or other offenses -- are impeachable,
and if so, the Senate has to bring in a conviction (which I hope they
do).
Dan
Dan
> What the heck is censure? "Bad president, let's move on"? Clinton
> needs his butt kicked so hard that no future president has the guts to
> tell brazen lies under oath and to the American people.
Doob --
Bluntly stated, and certain to be attacked by the
morally/judgmentally challenged crowd, but I actually think you've
captured the very heart of this whole matter.
And before I am excoriated by the Carville Clones, let me say that if
I were to go with my personal political instincts and desires, I'd want
Clinton to get his "Bad President, let's move on" censure, and keep Gore
in the Vice-presidency. Even if Clinton were to "escape" this way, and
go on with "doing the job he was elected to do," I believe that after
what's happened (and what may yet come out), the American people will
never again be able to regard him as a serious person, and his efforts
to look and act "presidential" will be counter-productive, slowly grate
on people, and further decimate the Democratic Party.
The key comment on what I mean was from Cokie Roberts, hardly a
Republican/Conservative journalist. On more than one occasion she let
slip that she can never look at the man again without replaying all
those gross scenes in her mind. Does anyone out there think that Bill
can ever smoke a cigar again in public? So, as someone who generally
agrees with "conservative republican" positions, I normally would be in
favor of keeping Bubba in the White House, while we watch to see how Mr.
"no controlling legal authority" Gore twists in the campaign finance
wind.
The problem with my taking that position is that it undermines the
moral foundations of our civilization. If the President, of all people,
is allowed to lie, mislead, abuse, etc., without there being a clear,
reasonably swift, and severe punishment, then we have truly lost the
moral underpinnings to the rule of law which are, after all, the sine
qua non of our whole society.
Our Constitution recognized the possibility of this happening, and
allowed for impeachment and removal of officials. I hope, therefore,
against my own political interests, that the House of Representatives,
and the Senate, muster the integrity and courage to do the right thing
for our nation, and impeach, and convict, this "most ethical" President
in our history.
Dan
Dan
>
> All this whole sordid affair reallty indicates is that the American people
> really need to be much more involved at all levels of party politics, in order
> to insure that we never again elect someone who's evidently so amenable to
> moral turpitude.
>
Why on earth do you think that more involvement at all levels of
party politics will somehow insure that we never again elect a **** like
Clinton?
I think that you have this "sordid affair" a bit jumbled, and really
ought to re-think your position/statement.
Regards,
Dan
Doobie
>>For all I know, she never took the test again. More likely, she got
>>her A in trade, knowing Clinton. We might also speculate that she
>>dismissed the case out of fear that Clinton would talk.
>
>
>That's Doobie for you... whenever he has no knowledge of the subject,
>he turns to slander and lies.
You got me, bonehead. Clinton's morals are too high to allow such
speculation... not. And, why do you object to slander and lies
(pretending that I'm guilty of such), it's your hero's (Clinton) stock
and trade? You've got nothing 'cept the meaningless chatter of
a child.
Doobie
> And before I am excoriated by the Carville Clones, let me say that if
>I were to go with my personal political instincts and desires, I'd want
>Clinton to get his "Bad President, let's move on" censure, and keep Gore
>in the Vice-presidency.
For Republicans, it's best that Clinton stay in office. He's nearly
harmless as a Liberal because his power is gone. And, it will
be easier to beat VP Gore than incumbant Gore.
But, if Clinton stays in office, it'll be bad for the future of the
country because of the liberties to lie, etc., that will be given
to future presidents.
> The problem with my taking that position is that it undermines the
>moral foundations of our civilization.
Exactly.
> Our Constitution recognized the possibility of this happening, and
>allowed for impeachment and removal of officials.
America was the greatest country on Earth. Americans invented more
things in the last 200 years than all other people on Earth combined.
We have been the most prosperous nation, the nation with the highest
standard of living, and the nation with the most freedom. Americans
had the intergety to beat down immoral practices (e.g. slavery) that
existed when this country was founded. I could go on about the
greatness of this country, but that greatness is quickly becoming a
thing of the past. A country that doesn't want to be saved from men
like Clinton doesn't deserve to be saved.
klaatu
It's getting more sordid all of the time, Dan. What I'm trying to get at here
is that national-level politicians don't just come out of nowhere, they have
to get their start on a local-level base. It might even be that we should even
try to get more attention paid to the backgrounds of kids being elected for
class president.
You don't wind up with a high-level politician with a predilection for dicking
the public and covering it up, without that particular psychology having been
reinforced somewhere at a lower level. So my point is that everyone everywhere
needs to place the highest scrutiny on who gets preferred to office at even
the lowest levels, because 20 years from now, some sleazy guilt-dodger might
be your president simply because you didn't adequately assess their
personality and opeartional modes _now_.
In short, "morally bankrupt as mayor, morally bankrupt as governor." Extend
that up and down all you like, I think it'll still parse.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
John Reder
>
>
> You don't wind up with a high-level politician with a predilection for dicking
> the public and covering it up, without that particular psychology having been
> reinforced somewhere at a lower level. So my point is that everyone everywhere
> needs to place the highest scrutiny on who gets preferred to office at even
> the lowest levels, because 20 years from now, some sleazy guilt-dodger might
> be your president simply because you didn't adequately assess their
> personality and opeartional modes _now_.
That is a load of sanctimonious bull! You opinion has nothing to do
with what went on with Monica Lewinsky. She is just the handiest tool
to build support for your platform.
Nobody was "dicking the public". Nothing related to the public was
effected in any way at all. The stock market losses have been blamed on
it, the embassy bombing has been blamed on it, the Russian economy and
on and on. It's all crap.
And all this high minded moralistic argument, corruption of the
faith of the youth and the like, is just more crap propaganda. When
Ollie North committed perjury and justified it by saying "it's only
lying to Congress". So perjury is endemic to the whole mess of
government and gets criticized along patrician lines.
I don't care about Clinton. I didn't care about Bush or Dole either.
(Clinton was one of those over motivated kids that was consumed from
adolescence with achievement. Bush was one of those rich politician's
kids going into the family business. Dole...I don't feel comfortable
with anyone that refers to themselves in the 3rd person.) They're all
bozos on the bus to Washington. So I have no "stake" in the matter.
What I do care about is all the bats flying around dropping the guano.
If you really hate Clinton and want to see him hurting, that's your
business. Just have to honesty to admit it, without throwing the
bullshit.
Clinton will be gone in a couple of years no matter what. But the
bullshitters are still going to around, shoveling it down my throat,
about one thing or another. So it looks like Clinton is one dishonest
bullshitter leaving, like one drop of rain out of the downpour.
He's dishonest with what he does, but you are no better, when you start
using buzzes like "dicking the public". When you can come up with one
honest thing that this did to hurt you, besides some moralistic
"destroying my faith in the office" garbage. I might take you
seriously. But, you never will come up with one.
Doobie
<john...@XXXyahoo.com> wrote:
> That is a load of sanctimonious bull! You opinion has nothing to do
>with what went on with Monica Lewinsky. She is just the handiest tool
>to build support for your platform.
It's easier to nail him for perjury than to nail him for treason. We
live in a country where people become heros for attempting to destroy
the Constitution (e.g. what has Clinton ever done to uphold the 10th
Amendment). Clinton is a scumbag in all that he does. And, I'm not
going to sit by and let the bonehead public destroy my country without
grabing the handiest tools around to try to save the country. I'm
just disappointed that many good people waste their time fighting the
smoke and not the fire.
Dan
>
> It's getting more sordid all of the time, Dan. What I'm trying to get at here
> is that national-level politicians don't just come out of nowhere, they have
> to get their start on a local-level base. It might even be that we should even
> try to get more attention paid to the backgrounds of kids being elected for
> class president.
>
> the public and covering it up, without that particular psychology having been
> reinforced somewhere at a lower level. So my point is that everyone everywhere
> needs to place the highest scrutiny on who gets preferred to office at even
> the lowest levels, because 20 years from now, some sleazy guilt-dodger might
> be your president simply because you didn't adequately assess their
> personality and opeartional modes _now_.
>
> that up and down all you like, I think it'll still parse.
>
Ahhh. OK. Thanks for the explanation. I think what you mean,
however, is more involvement by HONEST/HONORABLE people at lower levels,
to weed out the crap like the Clintons. The problem with that, I think,
is that most "honorable" folks are too busy with making ends meet,
caring for children and/or elders, and just don't have time to get
seriously involved. D.C. is a good example. The so-called "activists"
who have time to attend, and influence, local politics tend to be
unemployed, under-employed, crazy, criminal, or in some related
undesirable category of folks. Real law-abiding taxpayers like me, with
an 83-year-old mother, and essentially three full-time jobs, would have
to make ridiculously heroic efforts to "get more involved" at the local
level.
By the way, my wife and I always vote in local elections and try that
way to screen out the horrendously bad from the merely unpalatable.
Anyway, thanks for your response.
Dan
Dan
>
> Clinton is a scumbag in all that he does.
Doob,
No Clinton apologist I, as I think you know. Seems to me, however,
that he's only 99% evil. He did re-appoint Alan Greenspan, who seems to
be a key player in our relative financial stability.
Dan
Dan
>
> Clinton is the classic example of this; a gifted and promising student
> who like many american kids did not what the war to interrupt his
> promising career so he "lost" his draft card and then went to Europe.
> Got away with it too, so it is a way to do things that works. So, he
> kept on doing it. To people like him the end justifies the means.
> I honestly believe Clinton feels he has done nothing wrong (except
> perhaps to get caught).
Wiz,
Nice posting. And I think you've hit something central to the moral
system of the Clintons and their ilk. That is, as came out in his tape
of telling Jennifer Flowers that "if the two principals say it didn't
happen, it didn't happen" (or something very close to that), he
proceeded, as I recall, to say something about "you know how important
our work is..." I think that was also tried on Monica L.
For Clinton and his supporters, they've actually persuaded themselves
that the republicans and conservatives are evil, based on their
political positions, and that liberals are good, based on their
positions. From this seriously flawed base of morality (See Shelby
Steele's NYT article, and others), it's an easy step to justify lying,
abuse of power, perjury, and God knows what else. For them, the ends
does justify any means.
So, I think you're on to one of the really fundamental dimensions of
what's going on.
Dan