Bush parenting skills
ralph
your family. Strike one for GW, thinking he can ignore his personal
history and his kids will do fine.
The twins are obviously not just underage drinking, which is pretty
typical, but indulging in risky behavior. Not to armchair psychoanalyze,
but if they are not in the grip of an unbreakable compulsion, then they
are trying to send some kind of message. Reports are that they didn't
want GW to run, fearing loss of their privacy and normal life. Combine
that with their father's refusal to own up to his substance abusive
point, I think we have a couple of pissed off punitive kids.
Course, doesn't reflect well on GW's family values faith based yammer
yammer.
--
If you can't go down in history,
you can at least go down on me.
Ji7nx1
values shit trying to condemn others private lives while acting lik ehe was
such a perfect moral leader with a perfect family. since he did, he shouldn't
expect his family commiting illegal acts to get an easy pass. i hate dumb shit
like gwbush, the filthy motherfucker.
lazarus
keyed:
the funniest thing about this is that they are claiming this is
"personal" and we have no business asking about it. If she gives blow
jobs, can we ask about it then?
--
lazarus
I shave with Ockham's Razor every morning.
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one
fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all
the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen F. Roberts
MGoodrick71
>"personal" and we have no business asking about it. If she gives blow
>jobs, can we ask about it then?
>
>
You are comparing two VERY different circumstances. One circumstance had to do
with a PRESIDENT lying to everyone concerning an incident. No one has tried to
cover up this incident. I for one, felt that we had no right asking about the
personal aspects of Clintons affair with Monica. I also feel that we have no
right criticizing Bush on how he raises his kids when none of us really know
what he does or doesn't do with them. They are his kids, he has every right to
tell the press to back off, just as Clinton did about Monica on national TV. to
protect his family. I find it funny that people are pointing out how
hypocritical the president is concerning this issue since he's guilty of a DUI,
how can he tell his kids how to behave when he couldn't even do it as an
adult...and I'm thinking, first of all, the DUI happened 25 years ago, not last
year. If it happend recently, we would have a whole different ball game, but it
didn't.. I used to drink in college too, as a lot of us are guilty of as well,
even got caught by the police once, but it doesn't mark who I am today as an
adult, or change the lesson I learned from that circumstance. And it certainly
doesn't mark how I teach my children the difference between right and wrong.
Don't most rules we give our children stem from some personal experiences, and
isn't it our right to expct some respect for how we handle our children in
these circumstances? One of the biggest arguements I heard during the Monica
scandal was that his personal life doesn't effect his job, and yet people are
clammoring about the current Bush scandal as if the previous arguement never
occured. Don't argue about hypocracy and then act hypocritically at the same
time.
Matt
Sounds to me like he is raising perfectly normal kids.
scruffy
>
>First thing they tell the substance abuser: honesty, with yourself, with
>your family. Strike one for GW, thinking he can ignore his personal
>history and his kids will do fine.
>The twins are obviously not just underage drinking, which is pretty
>typical, but indulging in risky behavior. Not to armchair psychoanalyze,
>but if they are not in the grip of an unbreakable compulsion, then they
>are trying to send some kind of message. Reports are that they didn't
>want GW to run, fearing loss of their privacy and normal life. Combine
>that with their father's refusal to own up to his substance abusive
>point, I think we have a couple of pissed off punitive kids.
or they could just be as dumb as ol' dad.
>Course, doesn't reflect well on GW's family values faith based yammer
>yammer.
when was the last time the republicans had a family in the white house
that wasn't dysfunctional? maybe ford, the accidental president?
Rhiann1048
From: lazarus <A HREF="mailto:lazaru...@msn.com">lazaru...@msn.com</A>
Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 12:35 AM
Message-id: <erdeht8pmijsd2r1s...@4ax.com>
the funniest thing about this is that they are claiming this is
"personal" and we have no business asking about it. If she gives blow
jobs, can we ask about it then?
>>>>>>
I don't think it is funny at all. There is no comparison between the two
situations. This has to do with his kids, not him. Just like the media
respected the privacy of Chelsea, they should extend the same courtesy to Jenna
and Barbara.
Lori
scruffy
Rhiann1048 says...
>I don't think it is funny at all. There is no comparison between the two
>situations. This has to do with his kids, not him. Just like the media
>respected the privacy of Chelsea, they should extend the same courtesy
to Jenna
>and Barbara.
the courtesy *has* been extended to j&b. at least until they started
breaking laws multiple times. if chelsea had done the same you can bet
she would have gotten the same treatment.
Rhiann1048
From: ralph <A HREF="mailto:124...@gernsback.net">124...@gernsback.net</A>
Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 1:28 AM
Message-id: <3B1744...@gernsback.net>
First thing they tell the substance abuser: honesty, with yourself, with
your family. Strike one for GW, thinking he can ignore his personal
history and his kids will do fine.
>>>>>>>
What are you talking about? He *has* been up front about his personal history
with drinking. Just because he didn't mention one brush with the law that
happened years before his children were even born does not mean he is 'ignoring
his personal history'. Do you really believe that a parent is required to tell
their children absolutely every illegal thing they have done in the past. Just
because you have a kid that does not mean that you can not have a history that
is your own that your kids do not need to know about. His girls know about his
drinking and that is the important part. If he tried to hide that, then I
would say you have a valid arguement.
And what is this 'risky behavior' you are talking about? All I heard about is
the underage drinking. What else have they been doing?
Lori
Jeez. According to Ralph I better tell my 10 month old daughters that I got a
couple of speeding tickets in high school. Wouldn't want to 'ignore my
personal history' with speeding.
Rhiann1048
breaking laws multiple times. if chelsea had done the same you can bet
she would have gotten the same treatment.
>>>>>>>>
Being caught drinking in college is not a homicide. It is a minor offense. I
don't think that means the girls are suddenly fair game.
And we will never know if Chelsea would have been treated better or worse. I
just know that the media respected her privacy, as well they should have.
Lori
mr keyes
>
>
Laurel Carey
>
> Subject: Bush parenting skills
> From: ralph <A HREF="mailto:124...@gernsback.net">124...@gernsback.net</A>
> Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 1:28 AM
> Message-id: <3B1744...@gernsback.net>
>
> First thing they tell the substance abuser: honesty, with yourself, with
> your family. Strike one for GW, thinking he can ignore his personal
> history and his kids will do fine.
> >>>>>>>
>
> What are you talking about? He *has* been up front about his personal history
> with drinking. Just because he didn't mention one brush with the law that
> happened years before his children were even born does not mean he is 'ignoring
> his personal history'. Do you really believe that a parent is required to tell
> their children absolutely every illegal thing they have done in the past. Just
> because you have a kid that does not mean that you can not have a history that
> is your own that your kids do not need to know about. His girls know about his
> drinking and that is the important part. If he tried to hide that, then I
> would say you have a valid arguement.
Well, we don't know exactly how much he told them. If he glossed over
the DWI, then he might have glossed over most all of it. I think the
point is, that as a parent, you would want to show them the
consequences. If he just said, yeah, I used to drink, and now I'm Prez,
it's not much of a deterrent.
I have not told my kid every last thing I ever did, but when I do tell
about something that has a nasty consequence, it is meant to be a
lesson. Sometimes the nasty consequence isn't even a legal one, but
just personal. I have about a halfdozen kids around here that see me as
their spare mom, and because I make distinctions between various "bad"
behaviors and the various consequences, they really listen to me when I
say that something is really dangerous, or the end result will really
suck for you. Because I have "been there, done that", they can believe
that I know what I am talking about.
Saying to a kid, you can lose your license, doesn't sound like much.
But then when you go in to the details of the actual dollar costs of
fines, lawyers, etc. it seems worse. Then there's the driving school,
which is not only boring and cuts into your social time, but is
populated by icky drunks that you don't want to think you are in the
same groups as. But you are, and what's more, you have to pay cash for
all this fun. Then you talk about not being able to drive for a long
period, and your friends are all sick of you asking, and you have to ask
your mom, and now you feel like you're in jr. high. (the public
transport around here is feeble) And then when you can drive again, you
have to pay $2000 a year for insurance, for years thereafter.
I'm telling you, when you get into what it will *really* mean to them,
their faces change as you speak. I've had this same group of kids in my
house since they were in jr. high. The topics have changed as time has
gone by, but brutal truth has always made an impression.
Now W didn't have much of a consequence. He got his DWI, but he just
went to another state and got a new license right away. Never told
anyone, so he never had to hear about it. And it wasn't like he was in
college, he was 30 years old, and supposedly a grownup by then.
> And what is this 'risky behavior' you are talking about? All I heard about is
> the underage drinking. What else have they been doing?
I think it's risky behavior because they know that they are being
scrutinized, and they do it anyway. When I was that age, I was paranoid
about getting caught, and took a lot of trouble to hide my activities,
mainly because the endless eternal lectures from the P's just were too
much to face. If I thought the entire country was watching me, and
making fun of my fuckups, I'd either cut it out or be more discreet.
And I think he has taught his kids the lessons he learned in his own
life - don't worry about the rules, they don't apply to *us*. He never
had to pay for his missteps in youth, so why should they think they will
have to? But let you be some other random kid trying to go to school
and have fun on the side, and they'll cut your funds.
The entitlement and the hypocrisy are what piss me off the most, as usual.
> Lori
>
> Jeez. According to Ralph I better tell my 10 month old daughters that I got a
> couple of speeding tickets in high school. Wouldn't want to 'ignore my
> personal history' with speeding.
I think you need to save that story for a bit later, like when they can
understand what you are talking about. But I think you will want to
tell them about it once they are of driving age. "You could get a
ticket" seems like generalized mom blather to them, but "I got a ticket,
and it cost me this much, and I got this punishment" etc. is more to the
point, more personal. And when you are the parent paying for the car
insurance on a driving record of multiple teen speeding tickets, then
you will have an urgent desire to get through to them, believe me.
Laurel
mom to a 19 year old, de facto mom to a halfdozen more - and they all
*both* like and respect me
-=Dana=-
wrote:
>Rhiann1048 wrote:
>>
>> Subject: Bush parenting skills
>> From: ralph <A HREF="mailto:124...@gernsback.net">124...@gernsback.net</A>
>> Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 1:28 AM
>> Message-id: <3B1744...@gernsback.net>
>>
>> First thing they tell the substance abuser: honesty, with yourself, with
>> your family. Strike one for GW, thinking he can ignore his personal
>> history and his kids will do fine.
>> >>>>>>>
>>
>> What are you talking about? He *has* been up front about his personal history
>> with drinking. Just because he didn't mention one brush with the law that
>> happened years before his children were even born does not mean he is 'ignoring
>> his personal history'. Do you really believe that a parent is required to tell
>> their children absolutely every illegal thing they have done in the past. Just
>> because you have a kid that does not mean that you can not have a history that
>> is your own that your kids do not need to know about. His girls know about his
>> drinking and that is the important part. If he tried to hide that, then I
>> would say you have a valid arguement.
>
>Well, we don't know exactly how much he told them. If he glossed over
>the DWI, then he might have glossed over most all of it. I think the
>point is, that as a parent, you would want to show them the
>consequences. If he just said, yeah, I used to drink, and now I'm Prez,
>it's not much of a deterrent.
Bill: "Chelsea, I'd like to talk to you about date rape."
-=Dana=-
"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."
BURCHVRON
hate like this! And they are supposed to be so compassionate! This person is
the perfect example of why liberals think with their hearts and conservatives
think with their minds!
Randy
<the_r...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Dear god! College students drink underage! I never thought it happend!
>
> Sounds to me like he is raising perfectly normal kids.
>
>
Agreed, but when your dad is the pres, you should be much more careful.
Reports also have said Jenna likes to smoke pot. I couldn't care less
for either but the problem is in the kids either not caring or thinking
they're above the law. Or maybe they're as dumb as dear old dad.
Randy
<lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 00:28:18 -0700, ralph <124...@gernsback.net>
> keyed:
>
> >First thing they tell the substance abuser: honesty, with yourself, with
> >your family. Strike one for GW, thinking he can ignore his personal
> >history and his kids will do fine.
> >The twins are obviously not just underage drinking, which is pretty
> >typical, but indulging in risky behavior. Not to armchair psychoanalyze,
> >but if they are not in the grip of an unbreakable compulsion, then they
> >are trying to send some kind of message. Reports are that they didn't
> >want GW to run, fearing loss of their privacy and normal life. Combine
> >that with their father's refusal to own up to his substance abusive
> >point, I think we have a couple of pissed off punitive kids.
> >Course, doesn't reflect well on GW's family values faith based yammer
> >yammer.
>
> the funniest thing about this is that they are claiming this is
> "personal" and we have no business asking about it. If she gives blow
> jobs, can we ask about it then?
>
>
Of course, but I'm sure she's a tap me on the head kind of girl. Good
chance of an evidentiary-dress, but no way is it from hte Gap.
Randy
rhian...@aol.com (Rhiann1048) wrote:
Yes, they should respect their privacy. When they commit crimes,
however minor, they give up part of that right.
Randy
ji7...@aol.com (Ji7nx1) wrote:
Any difference in the meaning of motherfucker or mother fucker?
(1 vs. 2 words)
Terwilliger
burc...@aol.com (BURCHVRON) got on the squawk-box and yelped:
>-Boy, the intelligence of this person!! You have to love liberals who spew the
>-hate like this!
As opposed to the "intelligence" of the conservatives who spew filth
like this, and much worse, when talking about Clinton.
>-And they are supposed to be so compassionate! This person is
>-the perfect example of why liberals think with their hearts and conservatives
>-think with their minds!
If G Dumb would think with his mind, he'd realize the inherent
hypocrisy surrounding his attitude toward drugs and addictions. He
tells me my choice of drug is injurious to others and his own daughter
is out breaking laws surrounding a "legal" drug. Sounds to me like he
doesn't think much at all.
>-
>-<<gwbush is a mother fucker. his fucking ass should not have ran on some family
>-values shit trying to condemn others private lives while acting lik ehe was
>-such a perfect moral leader with a perfect family. since he did, he shouldn't
>-expect his family commiting illegal acts to get an easy pass. i hate dumb shit
>-like gwbush, the filthy motherfucker.>>
This is a bit over the top, but, again, you'll find this tame compared
the musings of Reprobates and Cuntservatives when talking about
anything they disagree with.
E-squared/Erasmus Brown
Rush Limbaugh once said on his tv show, "You all know about Socks, the
White House cat...but did you know there's a White House Dog?"
Cut to a picture of Chelsea.
REAL Classy guy, that Limbaugh.
--
Erasmus Brown aka JC Denton aka Erik Smith aka Joe Needles
********************
Enter sig file here.
********************
ala...@junk.min.net
>I don't think it is funny at all. There is no comparison between the two
>situations. This has to do with his kids, not him. Just like the media
>respected the privacy of Chelsea, they should extend the same courtesy to
>Jenna and Barbara.
Rush Limbaugh, conservative attack dog, respected the privacy of Chelsea?
Alan
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Please remove .no.junk from my address to reply via e-mail. ***
Posted by al...@min.net using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564
---------------------------------------------------------------------
lazarus
Actually, Bush lied in court about his DUI. Should we now impeach
him, too?
lazarus
Actually, we'll never know because Chelsea was able to avoid being
arrested twice in the first six months of her father's presidency.
Amazing how those horrible Clintons were able to raise a child who
respects the law.
Now DimSon, on the other hand..............
lazarus
keyed:
>Dear god! College students drink underage! I never thought it happend!
>
>Sounds to me like he is raising perfectly normal kids.
>
Most kids manage not to get arrested every other month, though. He's
raising stupid kids, too.
lazarus
Sorry, it wasn't a "brush with the law", it was an arrest and
conviction for DUI. And he lied about it to the press, and in court.
Matt
hand out the MIP's. I think that is all the police do from thursday night
to sunday.
I also think that there is a certain amount of extra attention on her.
Some people may contact the police becuase of her position.
scruffy
says...
>
>On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:36:44 -0400, "Matt" <the_r...@mindspring.com>
>keyed:
>
>>Dear god! College students drink underage! I never thought it
happend!
>>
>>Sounds to me like he is raising perfectly normal kids.
>>
>
>Most kids manage not to get arrested every other month, though.
and how many 19 yr. olds do you know who have their own attorney?
scruffy
>I also think that there is a certain amount of extra attention on her.
>Some people may contact the police becuase of her position.
so how much will it take for her to get a kloo that it might be a good idea to
keep a low profile because of her position?
i know they weren't elected, but the fact is they are in a public postion
because of their father. if he felt like they couldn't handle it he shouldn't
have run.
if they want their privacy they should stay in their dorm room and get
tanked there and let some low profile friends buy the booze. if they had
any sense.
scruffy
says...
>
>Actually, Bush lied in court about his DUI. Should we now impeach
>him, too?
no sense trying--poppy and his buddies would just get the supreme court
to put the kibosh on that.
lazarus
keyed:
So, once again we see that the Clintons were able to raise a classier,
more intelligent daughter than the Bushes.
scruffy
BURCHVRON says...
>
>Boy, the intelligence of this person!! You have to love liberals who spew
the
>hate like this!
who do you suppose has made the death threats against jeffords since
he left the republican party? liberals who don't want him voting with them?
not likely. and gosh, it seems like ben nighthorse campbell was able to
jump to the republicans without any disgruntled liberals threatening him.
and then there's kirk who's expressed a desire to kill all the democrats he
can find.
calling W a motherfucker seems kind of tame now, doesn't it?
Mikey Trainer
scruffy<brother...@my-deja.com> wrote:
WHY CAN'T YOU REPLY TO WHAT I WROTE?
BTR1701
<lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 21:12:38 -0400, "Matt" <the_r...@mindspring.com>
> keyed:
>
> >In East lansing Michigan, home of michigan state university, they love
> >to
> >hand out the MIP's. I think that is all the police do from thursday
> >night
> >to sunday.
> >
> >I also think that there is a certain amount of extra attention on her.
> >Some people may contact the police becuase of her position.
> >
>
> So, once again we see that the Clintons were able to raise a classier,
> more intelligent daughter than the Bushes.
Yeah, amazing considering the low-class environment Chelsea came from.
BTR1701
<lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
> On 01 Jun 2001 15:43:56 GMT, rhian...@aol.com (Rhiann1048) keyed:
>
> >the courtesy *has* been extended to j&b. at least until they started
> >breaking laws multiple times. if chelsea had done the same you can bet
> >she would have gotten the same treatment.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >
> >Being caught drinking in college is not a homicide. It is a minor
> >offense. I
> >don't think that means the girls are suddenly fair game.
> >
> >And we will never know if Chelsea would have been treated better or
> >worse. I
> >just know that the media respected her privacy, as well they should
> >have.
> >
> >Lori
>
> Actually, we'll never know because Chelsea was able to avoid being
> arrested twice in the first six months of her father's presidency.
She was also barely in junior high. Not quite the same age as the Bush
girls.
lazarus
keyed:
What about it was low-class? Was it the parents who stayed together
in tough times? The loving parents that treated her like the most
valuable part of their lives?
Oh, maybe it's just that the Clintons aren't as rich as the Bushes.
Of course, they didn't steal as much of their wealth. Nor was it
inherited.
Or maybe it was low-class because she didn't have to pay by the minute
on her phone calls...........
Randy
scruffy<brother...@my-deja.com> wrote:
My Daddy the pResident for Dummies - IDG Books
lazarus
keyed:
So, how many arrests has she managed to pile up since then? She's in
college now, you know.
ralph
spasms that resemble thought, and you know it.
BURCHVRON wrote:
>
>
> the perfect example of why liberals think with their hearts and conservatives
> think with their minds!
>
> <<gwbush is a mother fucker. his fucking ass should not have ran on some family
> values shit trying to condemn others private lives while acting lik ehe was
> such a perfect moral leader with a perfect family. since he did, he shouldn't
> expect his family commiting illegal acts to get an easy pass. i hate dumb shit
> like gwbush, the filthy motherfucker.>>
--
If you can't go down in history,
you can at least go down on me.
ralph
suppose.
--
ralph
wrong from ignorance.
If it isn't fuzz math about the tax cut, it's fuzzy medicine about
Cheney's heart attack.
--
ralph
HATE YOUR GUNS! and rule your sheeple life!
Mikey Trainer wrote:
> >
> >
>
> WHY CAN'T YOU REPLY TO WHAT I WROTE?
--
ralph
said, it is a dilemma like Bill was saying; the girls do deserve their
privacy, yet their actions do reflect on the leader (titular, anyway) of
the most powerful nation in the world and his fitness to lead.
Rhiann1048 wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: Bush parenting skills
> From: lazarus <A HREF="mailto:lazaru...@msn.com">lazaru...@msn.com</A>
> Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 12:35 AM
> Message-id: <erdeht8pmijsd2r1s...@4ax.com>
>
> the funniest thing about this is that they are claiming this is
> "personal" and we have no business asking about it. If she gives blow
> jobs, can we ask about it then?
> >>>>>>
>
> I don't think it is funny at all. There is no comparison between the two
> situations. This has to do with his kids, not him. Just like the media
> respected the privacy of Chelsea, they should extend the same courtesy to Jenna
> and Barbara.
>
> Lori
ralph
figures making fun of 12 year old Chelsea calling her ugly on his
nationally syndicated show. If we can get over that, putting a 19 year
old's serial ID abuse in the paper isn't particularly shocking.
scruffy wrote:
>
> In article <20010601110449...@ng-df1.aol.com>,
> Rhiann1048 says...
>
> >I don't think it is funny at all. There is no comparison between the two
> >situations. This has to do with his kids, not him. Just like the media
> >respected the privacy of Chelsea, they should extend the same courtesy
> to Jenna
> >and Barbara.
>
> breaking laws multiple times. if chelsea had done the same you can bet
> she would have gotten the same treatment.
--
BTR1701
<lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:55:56 -0700, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
> keyed:
>
> >In article <iggght0lt84tgp6j1...@4ax.com>, lazarus
> ><lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> So, once again we see that the Clintons were able to raise a classier,
> >> more intelligent daughter than the Bushes.
> >
> >Yeah, amazing considering the low-class environment Chelsea came from.
>
> What about it was low-class? Was it the parents who stayed together
> in tough times? The loving parents that treated her like the most
> valuable part of their lives?
You're kidding, right? Regardless of your position on Clinton's perjury,
I can't believe even you would argue that Clinton having interns blow
him in the Oval Office was a mark of class and distinction.
Rhiann1048
HREF="mailto:eb2...@optonline.net">eb2...@optonline.net</A>
Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 5:13 PM
Message-id: <3B18218A...@optonline.net>
Rush Limbaugh once said on his tv show, "You all know about Socks, the
White House cat...but did you know there's a White House Dog?"
Cut to a picture of Chelsea.
REAL Classy guy, that Limbaugh.
>>>>>>>
I agree that that was a shitty thing to say.
Lori
Rhiann1048
Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 5:45 PM
Message-id: <3b182970$2$nyna$mr2ice@news>
Rush Limbaugh, conservative attack dog, respected the privacy of Chelsea?
>>>>
I don't listen to the guy, so perhaps you could elaborate with some
specifics...besides the tasteless joke that Erasmus already mentioned.
Lori
ralph
new driver's licenses with new numbers, effectively eliminating the
possibility of inquisitive reporters pulling their driving records, due
to the way they are indexed in Texas. This was in fact unusual; no other
governors of TX have received this service, nor did anyone else in
Bush's family other than he and Laura, the two with the records that
needed to be covered up, as we did learn later.
> > HREF="mailto:lazaru...@msn.com">lazaru...@msn.com</A>
> > Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 12:35 AM
> > Message-id: <erdeht8pmijsd2r1s...@4ax.com>
> >
> >
> > the funniest thing about this is that they are claiming this is
> > "personal" and we have no business asking about it. If she gives blow
> > jobs, can we ask about it then?
> > >>>>>>
> >
> > situations. This has to do with his kids, not him. Just like the media
> > respected the privacy of Chelsea, they should extend the same courtesy to
> > Jenna
> > and Barbara.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yes, they should respect their privacy. When they commit crimes,
> however minor, they give up part of that right.
ralph
>conservatives think with their minds!
>
>
> Rush Limbaugh once said on his tv show, "You all know about Socks, the
> White House cat...but did you know there's a White House Dog?"
>
> Cut to a picture of Chelsea.
>
> REAL Classy guy, that Limbaugh.
>
> Erasmus Brown aka JC Denton aka Erik Smith aka Joe Needles
> ********************
> Enter sig file here.
> ********************
Randy
wrote:
> I can't; my mental master Al Gore forces me to LIE LIBERALLY so I can
> HATE YOUR GUNS! and rule your sheeple life!
> Mikey Trainer wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > WHY CAN'T YOU REPLY TO WHAT I WROTE?
ROFL
ralph
man.
Matt wrote:
>
> Dear god! College students drink underage! I never thought it happend!
>
> Sounds to me like he is raising perfectly normal kids.
--
lazarus
keyed:
>In article <o7ight05hdnif55aq...@4ax.com>, lazarus
><lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:55:56 -0700, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
>> keyed:
>>
>> >In article <iggght0lt84tgp6j1...@4ax.com>, lazarus
>> ><lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> >> So, once again we see that the Clintons were able to raise a classier,
>> >> more intelligent daughter than the Bushes.
>> >
>> >Yeah, amazing considering the low-class environment Chelsea came from.
>>
>> What about it was low-class? Was it the parents who stayed together
>> in tough times? The loving parents that treated her like the most
>> valuable part of their lives?
>
>You're kidding, right? Regardless of your position on Clinton's perjury,
>I can't believe even you would argue that Clinton having interns blow
>him in the Oval Office was a mark of class and distinction.
You're right.
Much worse than stealing, lying, driving while intoxicated, perjuring
himself in court, lying to the press, going AWOL during the Vietnam
War, manipulating the draft to get a cushy job in the Nat'l Guard,
breaking campaign promises to help the military, appointing hypocrites
and bigots to cabinet positions.............
I have to take a break. I'll give you a few more classy things DimSon
has done later.
ralph
normal for college kids to get stoned. It's getting less normal for
college kids to get busted twice or three times; let alone keep on doing
it. And it's damn weird when your daddy is the family values dignity and
integrity and self respect faith based poster child.
Randy wrote:
>
> In article <9f89a9$qic$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, "Matt"
> <the_r...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear god! College students drink underage! I never thought it happend!
> >
> > Sounds to me like he is raising perfectly normal kids.
> >
> >
>
> Reports also have said Jenna likes to smoke pot. I couldn't care less
> for either but the problem is in the kids either not caring or thinking
> they're above the law. Or maybe they're as dumb as dear old dad.
Randy
rhian...@aol.com (Rhiann1048) wrote:
It was only the one incident. IIRC, he compared her looks to that of a
dog. Apple and oranges though. Had Chelsea broken the law and got
caught twice in a week , she'd have been rivaling Monica for front page
space.
ralph
about lately:
Uh Matt, if you are so famous you are getting undue attention from
people turning you in to the authorities, then trying to pass a fake ID
(when you're with a group of people who are presumably not so notorious)
is, shall we say..... a dumbass bonehead play. I guess this is the flip
side of those conservatives who were all enraged that Clinton would get
a blowjob in the White House, rather than check into a motel as 'John
Smith'.
Matt wrote:
>
> I also think that there is a certain amount of extra attention on her.
> Some people may contact the police becuase of her position.
--
ralph
they knew they would be under a microscope. I sympathize. They are
clearly making their dumbass dad pay for his putting them second to his
sense of destiny and entitlement, despite his protestations to the
contrary.
> >Some people may contact the police becuase of her position.
>
> keep a low profile because of her position?
>
> i know they weren't elected, but the fact is they are in a public postion
> because of their father. if he felt like they couldn't handle it he shouldn't
> have run.
>
> if they want their privacy they should stay in their dorm room and get
> tanked there and let some low profile friends buy the booze. if they had
> any sense.
--
ralph
circumstance; others come from a background of privilege and power and
just basically are a waste of carbon. BTR sees the light at last.
BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> > So, once again we see that the Clintons were able to raise a classier,
> > more intelligent daughter than the Bushes.
>
> Yeah, amazing considering the low-class environment Chelsea came from.
--
ralph
Hillary, because she couldn't make any money on that shady business
dealings. Just like they hate the whole Democratic white house coffee
buddhist temple stuff because first, the democrats weren't charging
enough, and secondy, they didn't get the cash up front. Hell, they were
saying that themselves when taken to task last week.
lazarus wrote:
>
>
> What about it was low-class? Was it the parents who stayed together
> in tough times? The loving parents that treated her like the most
> valuable part of their lives?
>
> Oh, maybe it's just that the Clintons aren't as rich as the Bushes.
> Of course, they didn't steal as much of their wealth. Nor was it
> inherited.
>
> Or maybe it was low-class because she didn't have to pay by the minute
> on her phone calls...........
>
>
> --
>
> lazarus
>
> I shave with Ockham's Razor every morning.
>
> "...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one
> fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all
> the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
> Stephen F. Roberts
--
MGoodrick71
>the most powerful nation in the world and his fitness to lead.
I think that many concervatives had the same arguement during Clinton's
scandals...Look, both sides are so hypocritical in this. For everything you say
about Bush I could come back about Clinton and Vice-Versa...Bottom line, the
girls have made mistakes, their parents will deal with them however they see
fit. You may not think they are good people or parents, but then, alot of
people could say that about the previous president as well. What I don't like
on BOTH sides is this willingness to jab at the kids (even if they did
something wrong) to make a swipe at the parents (both Clinton and Bush)...It
wasn't all right to bring Clintons personal mistakes into the Presidency, and
it's not right to bring Bush's Personal mistakes either (old or otherwise)
ralph
recovery or AA or suchlike, but I'd bet that they'd consider not
admitting that you had a DUI to be lying about your problem. 'Didn't
mention one brush with the law' is kind of a delicate way to put it,
though. And then to excuse it by saying he did not bring it up
specifically because he did not want his daughters to know about it?
Gee, there's a family of openness and honesty where a kid can feel free
to admit her mistakes and get useful real life advice from old dad. If
you can't live up to your loved ones' image, then for god's sake you can
just pretend to! Dysfunctional families are full of secrets. That much I
do know.
But it goes further than the DUI. Did you see the article in the
Washington Post during the campaign?
"I don't think I was clinically an alcoholic; I didn't have the genuine
addiction. I don't know why I drank. I liked to drink, I guess."
Sure, George, you weren't an alcoholic; you just liked to drink. For 20
years straight, insulting people and getting into fist fights with your
father; but you weren't an alcoholic, you just liked to drink. You're
better than those poor folks with no integrity and dignity and such.
They're addicted, you just like to drink. Jeez, you don't have to be in
recovery to know what AA'd say to that line of claptrap. And, if there's
still any doubt,
"Once he got started, he couldn't, didn't shut it off. He didn't have
the discipline." says Bush's buddy Don Evans in the same article. Evans
is now commerce secretary, in case you don't know, so it's not like he
and Bush are on slandering terms. Well, if that's the case, it's damn
good he was not addicted.
the article goes on to say.
Rhiann1048 wrote:
>
> Subject: Bush parenting skills
> From: ralph <A HREF="mailto:124...@gernsback.net">124...@gernsback.net</A>
> Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 1:28 AM
> Message-id: <3B1744...@gernsback.net>
>
> First thing they tell the substance abuser: honesty, with yourself, with
> your family. Strike one for GW, thinking he can ignore his personal
> history and his kids will do fine.
> >>>>>>>
>
> What are you talking about? He *has* been up front about his personal history
> with drinking. Just because he didn't mention one brush with the law that
> happened years before his children were even born does not mean he is 'ignoring
> his personal history'. Do you really believe that a parent is required to tell
> their children absolutely every illegal thing they have done in the past. Just
> because you have a kid that does not mean that you can not have a history that
> is your own that your kids do not need to know about. His girls know about his
> drinking and that is the important part. If he tried to hide that, then I
> would say you have a valid arguement.
>
> And what is this 'risky behavior' you are talking about? All I heard about is
> the underage drinking. What else have they been doing?
>
> Lori
>
> Jeez. According to Ralph I better tell my 10 month old daughters that I got a
> couple of speeding tickets in high school. Wouldn't want to 'ignore my
> personal history' with speeding.
ralph
drinking for the first 10 years of their lives, so they know what's
what. If the official party line in the family is that that's not out of
control, daddy just liked his drinks, then they're going to come to the
conclusion that getting caught repeatedly breaking a few laws to get a
drink isn't indicative of a problem and doesn't really need behavioral
attention.
Laurel Carey wrote:
> Well, we don't know exactly how much he told them. If he glossed over
> the DWI, then he might have glossed over most all of it. I think the
> point is, that as a parent, you would want to show them the
> consequences. If he just said, yeah, I used to drink, and now I'm Prez,
> it's not much of a deterrent.
>
> I have not told my kid every last thing I ever did, but when I do tell
> about something that has a nasty consequence, it is meant to be a
> lesson. Sometimes the nasty consequence isn't even a legal one, but
> just personal. I have about a halfdozen kids around here that see me as
> their spare mom, and because I make distinctions between various "bad"
> behaviors and the various consequences, they really listen to me when I
> say that something is really dangerous, or the end result will really
> suck for you. Because I have "been there, done that", they can believe
> that I know what I am talking about.
>
> Saying to a kid, you can lose your license, doesn't sound like much.
> But then when you go in to the details of the actual dollar costs of
> fines, lawyers, etc. it seems worse. Then there's the driving school,
> which is not only boring and cuts into your social time, but is
> populated by icky drunks that you don't want to think you are in the
> same groups as. But you are, and what's more, you have to pay cash for
> all this fun. Then you talk about not being able to drive for a long
> period, and your friends are all sick of you asking, and you have to ask
> your mom, and now you feel like you're in jr. high. (the public
> transport around here is feeble) And then when you can drive again, you
> have to pay $2000 a year for insurance, for years thereafter.
>
> I'm telling you, when you get into what it will *really* mean to them,
> their faces change as you speak. I've had this same group of kids in my
> house since they were in jr. high. The topics have changed as time has
> gone by, but brutal truth has always made an impression.
>
> Now W didn't have much of a consequence. He got his DWI, but he just
> went to another state and got a new license right away. Never told
> anyone, so he never had to hear about it. And it wasn't like he was in
> college, he was 30 years old, and supposedly a grownup by then.
>
> > And what is this 'risky behavior' you are talking about? All I heard about is
> > the underage drinking. What else have they been doing?
>
> I think it's risky behavior because they know that they are being
> scrutinized, and they do it anyway. When I was that age, I was paranoid
> about getting caught, and took a lot of trouble to hide my activities,
> mainly because the endless eternal lectures from the P's just were too
> much to face. If I thought the entire country was watching me, and
> making fun of my fuckups, I'd either cut it out or be more discreet.
>
> And I think he has taught his kids the lessons he learned in his own
> life - don't worry about the rules, they don't apply to *us*. He never
> had to pay for his missteps in youth, so why should they think they will
> have to? But let you be some other random kid trying to go to school
> and have fun on the side, and they'll cut your funds.
>
> The entitlement and the hypocrisy are what piss me off the most, as usual.
>
> > Lori
> >
> > Jeez. According to Ralph I better tell my 10 month old daughters that I got a
> > couple of speeding tickets in high school. Wouldn't want to 'ignore my
> > personal history' with speeding.
>
> I think you need to save that story for a bit later, like when they can
> understand what you are talking about. But I think you will want to
> tell them about it once they are of driving age. "You could get a
> ticket" seems like generalized mom blather to them, but "I got a ticket,
> and it cost me this much, and I got this punishment" etc. is more to the
> point, more personal. And when you are the parent paying for the car
> insurance on a driving record of multiple teen speeding tickets, then
> you will have an urgent desire to get through to them, believe me.
>
> Laurel
> mom to a 19 year old, de facto mom to a halfdozen more - and they all
> *both* like and respect me
ralph
sake! Have you no concern for the children!
lazarus wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, it wasn't a "brush with the law", it was an arrest and
> conviction for DUI. And he lied about it to the press, and in court.
>
>
> --
>
> lazarus
>
> I shave with Ockham's Razor every morning.
>
> "...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one
> fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all
> the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
> Stephen F. Roberts
--
BTR1701
<lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
And Clinton did none of those things? At least Bush had *a* military job
during Vietnam instead of hiding out in England and whining about the
war.
As for lying to the press? Have you forgotten Clinton's initial
finger-wagging denial of his Lewinsky affair?
Perjuring himself in court? Clinton was *found guilty* of perjury and
cited for contempt and will probably be disbarred.
Breaking campaign promises? Like Bush is the only politician to have
done that. They ALL do that. Clinton sure broke his share.
I can't believe you're seriously trying to make Clinton out to be some
kind of bastion of class and dignity.
BTR1701
wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > >
> > > So, once again we see that the Clintons were able to raise a classier,
> > > more intelligent daughter than the Bushes.
> >
> > Yeah, amazing considering the low-class environment Chelsea came from.
> Yeah, some folks just have class in their genes, regardless of
> circumstance; others come from a background of privilege and power and
> just basically are a waste of carbon. BTR sees the light at last.
Chelsea turned out well in spite of her parents, not because of them.
Class in the genes? Hardly. You can call Bill and Hillary a lot of
things but classy is certainly not one of them.
ralph
apparently, you are too.
Look, if he were such a paragon, he wouldn't have to keep telling us he
was during the campaign. We'd have noticed.
BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> I can't believe you're seriously trying to make Clinton out to be some
> kind of bastion of class and dignity.
--
BTR1701
wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > >
> > I can't believe you're seriously trying to make Clinton out to be some
> > kind of bastion of class and dignity.
> No, Bush is painting himself as the bastion of class and dignity. And
> apparently, you are too.
Nope. I never mentioned anything about Bush. I merely said the Clintons
have no class. The rest is merely your inference.
Haele
BTR1701 wrote in message ...
You presented your arguments to compare Clinton with Bush, as usual - "Your
guy was worse than my guy..." Who cares?
Clinton is no longer "in charge", and should no longer be scrutinized as if
he were - as has been happening.
Hillary, well...she's got her job, and since I'm not in her home state, I
wouldn't expect to hear about her except when she does something that is
effective. Again, as has been happening.
It's Shrub's turn now. His life, his kids, his habits are going to be in
the limelight. Class has nothing to do with it. Clinton has nothing to do
with the way our current POTUS acts or doesn't.
Judge him on his own merits, please.
As for the argument on hand, if he can't make an effort to control his kids
and impress responsibility on them, and *not* allow the Secret Service and
government resources to be totally misued by a pair of "high spirited"
teenagers, then I have some doubts about his parenting skills.
I know some kids don't make it through the age of stupidity until late. But
there are ways to get around it.
It would be interesting to ask the following question of those who defend
Bush's parenting skills:
"Well, now that you are saying 'kids are kids' and Bush is not responsible
for the way his girls are turning out, I want to be sure that you have not
been complaining about modern society letting kids get away with murder, and
that parents aren't being strict enough in raising them..."
This has nothing to do with Clinton, except, perhaps to compare how his
daughter turned out as opposed to Bush's daughters, who had likewise grown
up in a political atmosphere all their lives, and should understand how much
importance impressions make.
They are acting like "Di and Fergie" - girls out on a binge.
If they were adults, it probably could be more palatable. But they are
underaged - still supposedly under the control of their parents (-and where
*is* Laura, if George is too busy?), *and* using government resources while
they are having their binges.
Doesn't seem that they were even grounded for the first episode.
Shows poor judgment on the part of the parents. And the handlers of said
parents.
Haele
dvus
"lazarus" <lazaru...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:aiightc3ftei7gaap...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:56:58 -0700, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
> keyed:
>
> >In article <bgdghtktkrkf929ei...@4ax.com>, lazarus
> ><lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 01 Jun 2001 15:43:56 GMT, rhian...@aol.com (Rhiann1048) keyed:
> >>
> >> >the courtesy *has* been extended to j&b. at least until they started
> >> >breaking laws multiple times. if chelsea had done the same you can
bet
> >> >she would have gotten the same treatment.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >
> >> >offense. I
> >> >don't think that means the girls are suddenly fair game.
> >> >
> >> >And we will never know if Chelsea would have been treated better or
> >> >worse. I
> >> >just know that the media respected her privacy, as well they should
> >> >have.
> >> >
> >> >Lori
> >>
> >> Actually, we'll never know because Chelsea was able to avoid being
> >> arrested twice in the first six months of her father's presidency.
> >
> >She was also barely in junior high. Not quite the same age as the Bush
> >girls.
>
> So, how many arrests has she managed to pile up since then? She's in
> college now, you know.
Which proves exactly what? If for some reason, Chelsea
was picked up for shoplifting a piece of gum, what then?
Would you retract all this nonsense of comparing childhood
indiscretions to determine the worth of the parent as a
politician? Or would you find some way to justify one
misdemeanor as being less important than another in the
grand scheme of things?
Let's face it, up to a point, kid's behavior is just that. We
don't know every scrape the Bush kids got into up 'till now
nor those of Clinton's daughter, there may have been
incidents on either side that were never reported. IMO, as it
should be, so that people don't nit-pick them to death to
justify their political leanings. I suggest if people got off the
minutia and concentrated on the things that count every
sensible discussion wouldn't end up mired in immaterial
mud.
dvus
dvus
"ralph" <124...@gernsback.net> wrote in message
news:3B1882...@gernsback.net...
> Note that when Bush became governor of Texas, he and Laura both received
> new driver's licenses with new numbers, effectively eliminating the
> possibility of inquisitive reporters pulling their driving records, due
> to the way they are indexed in Texas. This was in fact unusual; no other
> governors of TX have received this service, nor did anyone else in
> Bush's family other than he and Laura, the two with the records that
> needed to be covered up, as we did learn later.
> Randy wrote:
Which only proves Bush was smart enough to know that
the mud-slingers would go to any length to find whatever
dirt they could, no matter how inconsequential, to discredit
himself and his family. That they managed to do so anyway
is a testimonial to the desperation of the press to fulfill their
political agenda.
dvus
dvus
"MGoodrick71" <mgood...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010601232831...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
Agreed.
dvus
Victoria
>I don't listen to the guy, so perhaps you could elaborate with some
>specifics...besides the tasteless joke that Erasmus already mentioned.
>
>Lori
There were jokes about Chesea Clinton's appearance on SNL, Letterman and Leno
just to mane three outlets that took cheap shots at the then-thirteen-year-old.
About the only media figure who cut her slack during what had to be a rough
patch for someone at fragile age was Madonna, who did a sketch on SNL in which
she spurned the advances of Bill and Hillary for a thrilled Chelsea.
Victoria
WWKD?
What Would Kali Do?
scruffy
says...
then why didn't the press manage to get gore elected? oh yeah, that's
right--they did. nevermind.
BTR1701
<haze...@adnc.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote in message ...
> >In article <3B18B3...@gernsback.net>, ralph <124...@gernsback.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> BTR1701 wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > I can't believe you're seriously trying to make Clinton out to be
> >> > some
> >> > kind of bastion of class and dignity.
> >
> >
> >> No, Bush is painting himself as the bastion of class and dignity. And
> >> apparently, you are too.
> >
> >Nope. I never mentioned anything about Bush. I merely said the Clintons
> >have no class. The rest is merely your inference.
>
> You presented your arguments to compare Clinton with Bush, as usual -
> "Your
> guy was worse than my guy..." Who cares?
No, I didn't. I made my comment regarding the CLintons' class and
another poster brought up Bush. I then responded, comparing Clinton to
the points raised about Bush. Again, I was commenting no Clinton, not
Bush.
> Doesn't seem that they were even grounded for the first episode.
Grounded? I don't know about your home but when I was 19 and off in
college, grounding went out the window as a form of punishment. Taking
away cars, money, etc. maybe, but grounding?
They aren't in junior high anymore.
Haele
BTR1701 wrote in message ...
>In article <3b190ffc$0$14532$19c6...@news.siscom.net>, "Haele"
><haze...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 wrote in message ...
>> >In article <3B18B3...@gernsback.net>, ralph <124...@gernsback.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> BTR1701 wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > I can't believe you're seriously trying to make Clinton out to be
>> >> > some
>> >> > kind of bastion of class and dignity.
>> >
>> >
>> >> No, Bush is painting himself as the bastion of class and dignity. And
>> >> apparently, you are too.
>> >
>> >Nope. I never mentioned anything about Bush. I merely said the Clintons
>> >have no class. The rest is merely your inference.
>>
>> You presented your arguments to compare Clinton with Bush, as usual -
>> "Your
>> guy was worse than my guy..." Who cares?
>
>No, I didn't. I made my comment regarding the CLintons' class and
>another poster brought up Bush. I then responded, comparing Clinton to
>the points raised about Bush. Again, I was commenting no Clinton, not
>Bush.
>
Gee, well, excuse me. I was following a thread on Bush's parenting skills,
and somehow Clinton's morals were thrown in to, I suppose, deflect any
criticism on Bush's apparent lack of parental authority.
Clinton's gone. Get over it. Judge your man on his own, not against
Clinton.
Otherwise, it's just playing a "ignore that man behind the curtain" game so
you don't have to admit Bush is just as human and has as many faults as
....Al Gore.
("Oh, great and powerful wizard, now that I'm now the president, can you
please grant me a brain? You *promised*!")
*
>> Doesn't seem that they were even grounded for the first episode.
>
>Grounded? I don't know about your home but when I was 19 and off in
>college, grounding went out the window as a form of punishment. Taking
>away cars, money, etc. maybe, but grounding?
>
>They aren't in junior high anymore.
*
No, but they are *still* minors, and their parents are *still* responsible
for them. They should not be allowed to use government limos and Secret
Service to go out and screw up. (And taking away money and limo privileges
isn't "grounding?")
They should have been taught to take responsibility for their actions by the
time they were old enough to really start raising hell when the hormones
hit.
I was, and my folks were rather poor, rarely at home due to having to
work, and definatly not socially powerful or religious educator types.
When they were in Jr. High, their daddy was "Governor" of Texas. I would
think it would be obvious that they should have learned discipline and
social decorum, especially since a position like that requires the family to
attend and participate in official functions.
Joe the Barber's kids could be excused for kicking back and acting wild.
George the Governor's kids can't. Because the way he raises them reflects,
rightly or wrongly, how well he can lead and control the people around him.
Haele
lazarus
keyed:
Do you honestly profess to believe that if Chelsea had been arrested
it wouldn't have been front page news?
The reason the Bush kids' behaviour is relevant is that DimSon has
portrayed himself as a good father who should be an example to others.
lazarus
keyed:
So you're saying that there was a criminal past and he tried to cover
it up?
Why in the world aren't the Republicans trying to impeach him, then?
lazarus
keyed:
You mean he should have gotten a cushy job in the Guard while
supporting the deaths of thousands who weren't as fortunate? Or held
to his beliefs and avoided the military altogether?
>As for lying to the press? Have you forgotten Clinton's initial
>finger-wagging denial of his Lewinsky affair?
>
So, once Clinton did it, it's okay for all to do it.
>Perjuring himself in court? Clinton was *found guilty* of perjury and
>cited for contempt and will probably be disbarred.
>
Wrong. He was never convicted of anything. Unlike Bush.
>Breaking campaign promises? Like Bush is the only politician to have
>done that. They ALL do that. Clinton sure broke his share.
>
Yep. Guess that makes it okay. Of course, Bush was going to restore
integrity to the White House. Remember?
>I can't believe you're seriously trying to make Clinton out to be some
>kind of bastion of class and dignity.
I'm not.
I can't believe you're seriously trying to make Bush out to be some
kind of bastion of class and dignity.
It's really fun to watch you guys. Every time we bring up a flaw in
Bush, you start screaming about Clinton.
Newsflash: Clinton isn't President anymore. Bush was appointed
Resident, so we talk about him now. You guys need to find some
12-step program or something.
I notice you didn't answer the accusation of Bush appointing bigots
and hypocrites to the cabinet? Admitting that one, too?
lazarus
keyed:
So, the Bush girls have turned out bad in spite of their parents?
What about those genetics again?
BTW, when's the last time we had a Republican president who didn't
have a dysfunctional family?
lazarus
keyed:
>In article <3b190ffc$0$14532$19c6...@news.siscom.net>, "Haele"
><haze...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 wrote in message ...
>> >In article <3B18B3...@gernsback.net>, ralph <124...@gernsback.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> BTR1701 wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > I can't believe you're seriously trying to make Clinton out to be
>> >> > some
>> >> > kind of bastion of class and dignity.
>> >
>> >
>> >> No, Bush is painting himself as the bastion of class and dignity. And
>> >> apparently, you are too.
>> >
>> >Nope. I never mentioned anything about Bush. I merely said the Clintons
>> >have no class. The rest is merely your inference.
>>
>> You presented your arguments to compare Clinton with Bush, as usual -
>> "Your
>> guy was worse than my guy..." Who cares?
>
>No, I didn't. I made my comment regarding the CLintons' class and
>another poster brought up Bush. I then responded, comparing Clinton to
>the points raised about Bush. Again, I was commenting no Clinton, not
>Bush.
>
Sheesh, short memory. here's the first post you made in this thread:
********************************************
In article <bgdghtktkrkf929ei...@4ax.com>, lazarus
<lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
> On 01 Jun 2001 15:43:56 GMT, rhian...@aol.com (Rhiann1048) keyed:
>
> >the courtesy *has* been extended to j&b. at least until they started
> >breaking laws multiple times. if chelsea had done the same you can bet
> >she would have gotten the same treatment.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >
> >Being caught drinking in college is not a homicide. It is a minor
> >offense. I
> >don't think that means the girls are suddenly fair game.
> >
> >And we will never know if Chelsea would have been treated better or
> >worse. I
> >just know that the media respected her privacy, as well they should
> >have.
> >
> >Lori
>
> Actually, we'll never know because Chelsea was able to avoid being
> arrested twice in the first six months of her father's presidency.
She was also barely in junior high. Not quite the same age as the Bush
girls.
***********************************************************
Notice the immediate comparison you made?
The comparison, btw, was already going, from the beginning of the
thread. By joining in, you became part of it. Don't try and separate
out now, it's too late.
>> Doesn't seem that they were even grounded for the first episode.
>
>Grounded? I don't know about your home but when I was 19 and off in
>college, grounding went out the window as a form of punishment. Taking
>away cars, money, etc. maybe, but grounding?
>
>They aren't in junior high anymore.
Then they should start acting like it. (comparison coming) When
Chelsea was in Jr High, she behaved more maturely than these Bush
girls.
BTR1701
<haze...@adnc.com> wrote:
I wasn't even the one who brought up Clinton. Another poster compared
Chesea to the Bush girls, saying she was raised with parents who had
class.
I simply responded to that.
> >> Doesn't seem that they were even grounded for the first episode.
> >
> >Grounded? I don't know about your home but when I was 19 and off in
> >college, grounding went out the window as a form of punishment. Taking
> >away cars, money, etc. maybe, but grounding?
> >
> >They aren't in junior high anymore.
>
> *
> No, but they are *still* minors, and their parents are *still*
> responsible for them. They should not be allowed to use government limos and Secret
> Service to go out and screw up. (And taking away money and limo
> privileges isn't "grounding?")
Not according to any definition I've ever heard. Where I come from,
grounding means confining the kid to the house or his/her room for a
period of time.
ralph
>At least Bush had *a* military job during Vietnam instead of hiding out
>in England and whining about the war.
> Nope. I never mentioned anything about Bush.
--
ralph
BTR1701 wrote:
>
> No, I didn't. I made my comment regarding the CLintons' class and
> another poster brought up Bush. I then responded, comparing Clinton to
> the points raised about Bush. Again, I was commenting no Clinton, not
> Bush.
>
> > Doesn't seem that they were even grounded for the first episode.
>
> Grounded? I don't know about your home but when I was 19 and off in
> college, grounding went out the window as a form of punishment. Taking
> away cars, money, etc. maybe, but grounding?
>
> They aren't in junior high anymore.
--
ralph
Bush would never have been President.
dvus wrote:
> I suggest if people got off the
> minutia and concentrated on the things that count every
> sensible discussion wouldn't end up mired in immaterial
> mud.
>
> dvus
--
ralph
liberals to bury the truth about his DUI and his wife's motor vehicle
fatality because their incessant evil digging would uncover his morally
superior lying about them.
dvus wrote:
> Which only proves Bush was smart enough to know that
> the mud-slingers would go to any length to find whatever
> dirt they could, no matter how inconsequential, to discredit
> himself and his family. That they managed to do so anyway
> is a testimonial to the desperation of the press to fulfill their
> political agenda.
>
> dvus
--
Kirk
> If people got off the minutia and concentrated on things that count,
> Bush would never have been President.
Mmm, I dunno... Sometimes, people just totally dismiss your opinions.
Lord knows I do.
-- Kirk
"The physician can bury his mistakes, but
the architect can only advise his client to
plant vines."
-- Frank Lloyd Wright
BTR1701
wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> > No, I didn't. I made my comment regarding the CLintons' class and
> > another poster brought up Bush. I then responded, comparing Clinton to
> > the points raised about Bush. Again, I was commenting on Clinton, not
> > Bush.
> Does your newsreader display the title of the thread, by any chance?
What does that have to do with it? The poster was replying to me
personally. Besides, anyone who has any experience with Usenet knows
that the longer a thread lasts, the less likely the discussion will have
any bearing on it's title.
BTR1701
<lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
Still didn't mention Bush. Unless you're asserting that the President
and his two daughters are actually all the same person?
> >> Doesn't seem that they were even grounded for the first episode.
> >
> >Grounded? I don't know about your home but when I was 19 and off in
> >college, grounding went out the window as a form of punishment. Taking
> >away cars, money, etc. maybe, but grounding?
> >
> >They aren't in junior high anymore.
>
> Then they should start acting like it. (comparison coming) When
> Chelsea was in Jr High, she behaved more maturely than these Bush
> girls.
How do you know? Did you go to school with Chelsea AND the Bush girls?
How can you possibly know how they behaved in junior high?
BTR1701
<lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 23:44:28 -0700, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
> keyed:
>
> >In article <3B1885...@gernsback.net>, ralph <124...@gernsback.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> BTR1701 wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > So, once again we see that the Clintons were able to raise a
> >> > > classier,
> >> > > more intelligent daughter than the Bushes.
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, amazing considering the low-class environment Chelsea came
> >> > from.
> >
> >> Yeah, some folks just have class in their genes, regardless of
> >> circumstance; others come from a background of privilege and power and
> >> just basically are a waste of carbon. BTR sees the light at last.
> >
> >Chelsea turned out well in spite of her parents, not because of them.
> >
> >Class in the genes? Hardly. You can call Bill and Hillary a lot of
> >things but classy is certainly not one of them.
>
> So, the Bush girls have turned out bad in spite of their parents?
> What about those genetics again?
I'm not talking about Bush. Just responding to the assertion that the
Clintons are classy.
BTR1701
<lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
So running off to another country during war is considered patriotic
now. It's like Orwellian doublespeak. People who actually served, even
if it's in the Guard (and I'm not talking about just Bush here, but all
Guard members of the time) are painted as draft dodgers but others who
avoided service altogether by running off overseas are patriots.
>
> >As for lying to the press? Have you forgotten Clinton's initial
> >finger-wagging denial of his Lewinsky affair?
> >
>
> So, once Clinton did it, it's okay for all to do it.
Never said that.
>
> >Perjuring himself in court? Clinton was *found guilty* of perjury and
> >cited for contempt and will probably be disbarred.
> >
>
> Wrong. He was never convicted of anything. Unlike Bush.
Sure he was. The judge found Clinton in contempt for his perjury. Upon
re-reading my post, I'll admit that I was inaccurate about his being
found guilty of perjury. That was a wrong way to state it. He was never
charged or tried for perjury but the judge found him guilty of contempt
because of his false and misleading testimony.
> >I can't believe you're seriously trying to make Clinton out to be some
> >kind of bastion of class and dignity.
>
> I'm not.
> I can't believe you're seriously trying to make Bush out to be some
> kind of bastion of class and dignity.
I'm not. That's your inference. I'm merely commenting on Clinton since
it was asserted that Bill and Hillary are "classy".
>
> It's really fun to watch you guys. Every time we bring up a flaw in
> Bush, you start screaming about Clinton.
No, I wasn't the one who brought up Clinton. Lazarus brought up Clinton
when he asserted that Chelsea was raised by the "classy" Clintons.
>
> I notice you didn't answer the accusation of Bush appointing bigots
> and hypocrites to the cabinet? Admitting that one, too?
No, that's just to vague to be worth the debate.
ralph
--
lazarus
keyed:
And I didn't mention Clinton. You're the one still obsessed with his
sex life.
>
>> >> Doesn't seem that they were even grounded for the first episode.
>> >
>> >Grounded? I don't know about your home but when I was 19 and off in
>> >college, grounding went out the window as a form of punishment. Taking
>> >away cars, money, etc. maybe, but grounding?
>> >
>> >They aren't in junior high anymore.
>>
>> Then they should start acting like it. (comparison coming) When
>> Chelsea was in Jr High, she behaved more maturely than these Bush
>> girls.
>
>How do you know? Did you go to school with Chelsea AND the Bush girls?
>How can you possibly know how they behaved in junior high?
I know that her behaviour in Jr High was better than their behaviour
in college. Try to keep up.
The reason we know her behaviour was better is that she never got
arrested. Understand?
ralph
>So, once again we see that the Clintons were able to raise a classier,
>more intelligent daughter than the Bushes.
BTR1701 wrote:
> Another poster compared
> Chesea to the Bush girls, saying she was raised with parents who had
> class.
>
> I simply responded to that.
lazarus
keyed:
No, all Guard members who got their slot because of their daddies are
hypocrites. If he was really patriotic, he would have gone to fight.
Clinton may not have been patriotic, but he had integrity. Unlike
Bush.
>>
>> >As for lying to the press? Have you forgotten Clinton's initial
>> >finger-wagging denial of his Lewinsky affair?
>> >
>>
>> So, once Clinton did it, it's okay for all to do it.
>
>Never said that.
Implied it. You keep bringing up Clinton's behaviour as an excuse for
DimSon's. Get over it, judge him on the merits.
>>
>> >Perjuring himself in court? Clinton was *found guilty* of perjury and
>> >cited for contempt and will probably be disbarred.
>> >
>>
>> Wrong. He was never convicted of anything. Unlike Bush.
>
>Sure he was. The judge found Clinton in contempt for his perjury. Upon
>re-reading my post, I'll admit that I was inaccurate about his being
>found guilty of perjury. That was a wrong way to state it. He was never
>charged or tried for perjury but the judge found him guilty of contempt
>because of his false and misleading testimony.
>
How could a judge find him guilty of something he had never been
charged with? Are you sure you're a lawyer?
>
>> >I can't believe you're seriously trying to make Clinton out to be some
>> >kind of bastion of class and dignity.
>>
>> I'm not.
>
>> I can't believe you're seriously trying to make Bush out to be some
>> kind of bastion of class and dignity.
>
>I'm not. That's your inference. I'm merely commenting on Clinton since
>it was asserted that Bill and Hillary are "classy".
Who asserted it?
>>
>> It's really fun to watch you guys. Every time we bring up a flaw in
>> Bush, you start screaming about Clinton.
>
>No, I wasn't the one who brought up Clinton. Lazarus brought up Clinton
>when he asserted that Chelsea was raised by the "classy" Clintons.
>
No, I said that Chelsea was classier than the Bush girls. I have yet
to say the Clintons are classy. You really should try to keep up.
>>
>> I notice you didn't answer the accusation of Bush appointing bigots
>> and hypocrites to the cabinet? Admitting that one, too?
>
>No, that's just to vague to be worth the debate.
Okay, here's a couple of specifics.
Colin Powell: Bigot and hypocrite. Got to his position because
generals who were ordered to integrate the services for blacks
followed their orders and led. When ordered to integrate the military
for gays, he resigned. It's a shame none of the soldiers under his
command had the ability to just quit when they got an order they
didn't like.
John Ashcroft: Has taken a position that requires him to enforce a
law that his religion says is wrong. Thus, he has claimed he has no
problem committing a sin for his job. And yet he calls himself
religious.
Want some more?
lazarus
keyed:
Who made the assertion that the Clintons are classy?
I never did, and I defy you to show me where I might have. I said
that Chelsea turned out much classier than the Bush girls.
Rhiann1048
From: "Haele" <A HREF="mailto:haze...@adnc.com">haze...@adnc.com</A>
Date: Sat, Jun 2, 2001 7:54 PM
Message-id: <3b199951$0$14533$19c6...@news.siscom.net>
No, but they are *still* minors, and their parents are *still* responsible
for them. They should not be allowed to use government limos and Secret
Service to go out and screw up. (And taking away money and limo privileges
isn't "grounding?")
They should have been taught to take responsibility for their actions by the
time they were old enough to really start raising hell when the hormones
hit.
Haele
>>>>>>>
They are both in college. They are 18 or 19 or whatever they are. How do you
figure that they are minors? When do they cease to become minors in your
opinion? I always considered that to be 18 no matter what. Just because you
can't drink legally, rent a car, or you have parents putting you through school
doesn't mean that you are still a minor IMO.
As for the secret service. How much of a say do the girls have in that anyway?
I thought the SS was required to be on their ass all the time. It isn't like
they can just hop in their own cars and take off now, can they? As I see it
they are doing what they want and the SS has to come along for the ride. That
is the job of the SS. How is that wasting anyone's money? Because she is
required to have a tail on her all the time should she just have to stay home?
I really do not get your beef with that is. The secret service are there to
protect them, not enforce a grounding. They are adults in college.
Are they showing good judgment? No. On that point we are in 100% agreement.
But do you really think that she is getting into all this trouble because she
is just that careless or because she is under such a microscope that she can't
get away with things the average 18/19 year old can. I would guess the latter.
Lori
lazarus
So Chelsea Clinton was an above average teen? She manage to avoid
getting arrested every other month.
Rhiann1048
Date: Sun, Jun 3, 2001 12:08 AM
Message-id: <e2ljhtgkmsgs98137...@4ax.com>
So Chelsea Clinton was an above average teen? She manage to avoid
getting arrested every other month.
>>>>>>>>>
I may not have much respect for her parents, but I have always had respect for
her. As I have said before, I think she is a very poised and together young
woman. She is at one of the top schools in the country. My guess is that she
realizes what an accomplishment that is and is taking every advantage of the
opportunity instead of pissing it away by thinking of college as one 4 year
frat party. There are students who are there to learn and it sounds like she
is one of them.
So to answer your question, I think she is an above average teen. Maybe she
isn't into the party scene so for her it doesn't take much effort to stay out
of trouble. Or maybe she goes out and gets drunk every other night but is
smart enough not to get caught. We just don't know.
Lori
Haele
Rhiann1048 wrote in message
<20010603014742...@ng-mr1.aol.com>...
Okay, caught me on the "minor"...I should have typed "underaged".
:)
My point stands tho...both girls were misusing government vehicles as
approved by their parents staff, of whom their parents have responsibility
over, for their transportation in these incidents, even after the first
time. A boyfriend was *picked up* by Secret Service in a government vehicle
to go to a date.
Jenna was using Secret Service to stand by while they were engaging in
illegal activities. Does Secret Service have the ability and the charge to
make an arrest? Yes, see below... Did they?
"Under Title 18, Section 3056, United States Code, agents and officers of
the Secret Service can carry firearms; execute warrants issued under the
laws of the United States; make arrests without warrants for any offense
against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony
recognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable
grounds to believe that the person
person to be arrested has committed such felony; offer and pay rewards for
services and information leading to the apprehension of persons involved in
the violation of the law that the Secret Service is authorized to enforce;
investigate fraud in connection with identification documents, fraudulent
commerce, fictitious instruments and foreign securities perform other
functions and duties authorized by law. The Secret Service works closely
with the United States Attorney's Office in both protective and
investigative matters. "
Identity fraud is a felony. And the Secret Service just "stood by", Sorry,
anyone other than Jenna would be in jail. Big time.
Lori, I know you feel sorry for them because they are still "just teenagers"
and perhaps should have a little "wild time", but both girls were acting in
an highly inappropriate manner for girls who were supposedly raised in a
political atmosphere and *knew* the rules and the reasons behind them. That
there's no excuse for irresponsible behavior should have been brought home
to them way before this.
If you think I'm hard on them for that, you're right. With the privileges
they had, with the opportunities they had, with the experiences they have
have had *all their lives*, there is absolutely no excuse for this.
They aren't the kids of a hard-working good'ol boy who worked all his life
to save up for a ranch house in the 'burbs, no matter how much you might
want to cut them slack. They were the children of the Governor of Texas for
most of their lives, and now, they are the not-quite-adult children of the
President of the United States. Like many other children before them.
There were no "suprises" awaiting them when their father became president,
the precedence for the way any of their activities would be viewed was
always out in the open - if they were going to act irresponsible, the press
would be all over them and their parents. And there was no reason for them
or their parents not to know it.
Haele
BTR1701
<lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 22:21:04 -0700, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
> keyed:
> >> You mean he should have gotten a cushy job in the Guard while
> >> supporting the deaths of thousands who weren't as fortunate? Or held
> >> to his beliefs and avoided the military altogether?
> >
> >So running off to another country during war is considered patriotic
> >now. It's like Orwellian doublespeak. People who actually served, even
> >if it's in the Guard (and I'm not talking about just Bush here, but all
> >Guard members of the time) are painted as draft dodgers but others who
> >avoided service altogether by running off overseas are patriots.
>
> No, all Guard members who got their slot because of their daddies are
> hypocrites. If he was really patriotic, he would have gone to fight.
>
> Clinton may not have been patriotic, but he had integrity. Unlike
> Bush.
Yeah, Clinton has bags of integrity. He's a politician. Integrity is
what politicians are known for, after all.
> >> >As for lying to the press? Have you forgotten Clinton's initial
> >> >finger-wagging denial of his Lewinsky affair?
> >> >
> >>
> >> So, once Clinton did it, it's okay for all to do it.
> >
> >Never said that.
>
> Implied it. You keep bringing up Clinton's behaviour as an excuse for
> DimSon's. Get over it, judge him on the merits.
No, you inferred it. I implied nothing. I can't help your myopia.
Interesting how I've gone from being accused of directly supporting Bush
to now just doing so by implication. The backpedaling is amazing to
behold.
> >> >Perjuring himself in court? Clinton was *found guilty* of perjury and
> >> >cited for contempt and will probably be disbarred.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Wrong. He was never convicted of anything. Unlike Bush.
> >
> >Sure he was. The judge found Clinton in contempt for his perjury. Upon
> >re-reading my post, I'll admit that I was inaccurate about his being
> >found guilty of perjury. That was a wrong way to state it. He was never
> >charged or tried for perjury but the judge found him guilty of contempt
> >because of his false and misleading testimony.
> >
>
> How could a judge find him guilty of something he had never been
> charged with? Are you sure you're a lawyer?
Obviously more of one than you. A person does not have to be formally
charged with contempt to be found in contempt. It's a judicial ruling as
a matter of law. It's about the only thing in our legal system you can
be put in jail for without receiving a trial.
For example: a judge orders a defendant to provide writing samples to be
compared by a handwriting expert to a ransom note in a kidnapping case.
The defendant refuses to comply. The judge will issue an order of
contempt and jail the defendant until he complies.
As for Clinton, his contempt citation is a matter of public record.
Don't take my word for it. Hunt it down and find out for yourself.
BTR1701
<lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
No, someone else did. I was responding to them. You seem to be obsessed
with the false idea that I was the one who brought the Clintons up in
the first place.
> >> >> Doesn't seem that they were even grounded for the first episode.
> >> >
> >> >Grounded? I don't know about your home but when I was 19 and off in
> >> >college, grounding went out the window as a form of punishment.
> >> >Taking
> >> >away cars, money, etc. maybe, but grounding?
> >> >
> >> >They aren't in junior high anymore.
> >>
> >> Then they should start acting like it. (comparison coming) When
> >> Chelsea was in Jr High, she behaved more maturely than these Bush
> >> girls.
> >
> >How do you know? Did you go to school with Chelsea AND the Bush girls?
> >How can you possibly know how they behaved in junior high?
>
> I know that her behaviour in Jr High was better than their behaviour
> in college. Try to keep up.
>
> The reason we know her behaviour was better is that she never got
> arrested. Understand?
No, you don't. All that means is that she may have been better at
getting away with things. It in no way proves what she did or didn't do.
She might have been a perfect angel. She might have been a holy terror.
You don't know one way or the other. The only thing her lack of arrests
proves on its face is that if she did anything wrong, she got away with
it.
You constantly make these huge and puzzling leaps of logic that only you
seem to understand and then cover for it by saying "keep up".
lazarus
keyed:
>In article <2nbjhto4alk877cag...@4ax.com>, lazarus
><lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 22:21:04 -0700, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
>> keyed:
>
>> >> You mean he should have gotten a cushy job in the Guard while
>> >> supporting the deaths of thousands who weren't as fortunate? Or held
>> >> to his beliefs and avoided the military altogether?
>> >
>> >So running off to another country during war is considered patriotic
>> >now. It's like Orwellian doublespeak. People who actually served, even
>> >if it's in the Guard (and I'm not talking about just Bush here, but all
>> >Guard members of the time) are painted as draft dodgers but others who
>> >avoided service altogether by running off overseas are patriots.
>>
>> No, all Guard members who got their slot because of their daddies are
>> hypocrites. If he was really patriotic, he would have gone to fight.
>>
>> Clinton may not have been patriotic, but he had integrity. Unlike
>> Bush.
>
>Yeah, Clinton has bags of integrity. He's a politician. Integrity is
>what politicians are known for, after all.
>
So standing up for your beliefs is not an act of integrity?
>
>> >> >As for lying to the press? Have you forgotten Clinton's initial
>> >> >finger-wagging denial of his Lewinsky affair?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> So, once Clinton did it, it's okay for all to do it.
>> >
>> >Never said that.
>>
>> Implied it. You keep bringing up Clinton's behaviour as an excuse for
>> DimSon's. Get over it, judge him on the merits.
>
>No, you inferred it. I implied nothing. I can't help your myopia.
>Interesting how I've gone from being accused of directly supporting Bush
>to now just doing so by implication. The backpedaling is amazing to
>behold.
>
No backpedaling here. Every time a Bush transgression is brought up,
you bring up Clinton. It's obvious what you're doing.
>
>> >> >Perjuring himself in court? Clinton was *found guilty* of perjury and
>> >> >cited for contempt and will probably be disbarred.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. He was never convicted of anything. Unlike Bush.
>> >
>> >Sure he was. The judge found Clinton in contempt for his perjury. Upon
>> >re-reading my post, I'll admit that I was inaccurate about his being
>> >found guilty of perjury. That was a wrong way to state it. He was never
>> >charged or tried for perjury but the judge found him guilty of contempt
>> >because of his false and misleading testimony.
>> >
>>
>> How could a judge find him guilty of something he had never been
>> charged with? Are you sure you're a lawyer?
>
>Obviously more of one than you. A person does not have to be formally
>charged with contempt to be found in contempt. It's a judicial ruling as
>a matter of law. It's about the only thing in our legal system you can
>be put in jail for without receiving a trial.
>
You said he was "found guilty" of contempt. not found in contempt,
found guilty of contempt.
I'm fully aware of a judge's being able to hold someone in contempt,
but it's completely different from being found guilty of something, a
distinction I would expect a lawyer to be able to make.
How much contempt was he held in? Jail time? No. All that
apparently happened was a judge got pissy.
>For example: a judge orders a defendant to provide writing samples to be
>compared by a handwriting expert to a ransom note in a kidnapping case.
>The defendant refuses to comply. The judge will issue an order of
>contempt and jail the defendant until he complies.
>
>As for Clinton, his contempt citation is a matter of public record.
>Don't take my word for it. Hunt it down and find out for yourself.
Well, if you're claiming it exists, why don't you do it? Hell, I
already did all that work on your hotel room and phone rate problems.
You expect me to help you debate, too?