Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Two more Republicans in desperate need of lives

0 views
Skip to first unread message

D.F. Manno

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 12:28:39 PM7/30/03
to
From the Associated Press via ABC News:

> Just a few blocks from the future site of Bill Clinton's $160 million
> presidential library, a couple of Clinton haters hope to open a museum
> devoted to mocking his presidency.
>
> "As long as he's talking, we'll have to be here trying to keep him somewhat
> honest and stop him from rewriting history," says John LeBoutillier, a former
> Republican congressman from New York who rode Ronald Reagan's coattails to
> victory in 1980.
>
> LeBoutillier and his partner, Houston businessman Richard Erickson, plan to
> call it the Counter-Clinton Library. They say the museum here and one planned
> for Washington will look at such topics as Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, the
> last-minute pardons, even damaged White House furniture....

<http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030722_967.html>

I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
museum.
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what
they do not want to hear." (George Orwell)

Patrick M Geahan

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 12:44:26 PM7/30/03
to
D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:

> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
> museum.

I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
Clinton.

I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.

Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
politicos.

--
-------Patrick M Geahan---...@thepatcave.org---ICQ:3784715------
Quote of the Week: "I probably won't start on the idea, and if I do it
will wind up being an unfinished project on my personal website featuring
pictures of my cat." rh2600 on /.

Greg Goss

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 9:09:10 PM7/30/03
to
Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:

>D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
>> museum.
>
>I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
>Clinton.
>
>I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
>they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
>drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
>
>Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
>politicos.

And it lost them any chance at the 96 election. I'm beginning to
worry that the "good" side is going to blow 04 the same way. If you
hate hard enough, nobody listens.

SoCalMike

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 2:44:55 AM7/31/03
to

"D.F. Manno" <domm...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:dommanno-F01B8B...@corp-radius.supernews.com...

> From the Associated Press via ABC News:
>
> > Just a few blocks from the future site of Bill Clinton's $160 million
> > presidential library, a couple of Clinton haters hope to open a museum
> > devoted to mocking his presidency.
> >
> > "As long as he's talking, we'll have to be here trying to keep him
somewhat
> > honest and stop him from rewriting history," says John LeBoutillier, a
former
> > Republican congressman from New York who rode Ronald Reagan's coattails
to
> > victory in 1980.
> >
> > LeBoutillier and his partner, Houston businessman Richard Erickson, plan
to
> > call it the Counter-Clinton Library. They say the museum here and one
planned
> > for Washington will look at such topics as Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky,
the
> > last-minute pardons, even damaged White House furniture....
>
> <http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030722_967.html>
>
> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
> museum.

mebee some of ronnies soiled depends?


SoCalMike

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 2:46:19 AM7/31/03
to

"Patrick M Geahan" <pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote in message
news:a89lv-...@ziggy.thepatcave.org...

> D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
> > museum.
>
> I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
> Clinton.
>
> I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
> they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
> drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
>
> Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
> politicos.

and considering how well things were going for the country back then, and
his second term sweep... no need to steal either of those elections, no
sirree.


ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 11:42:39 AM7/31/03
to
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:

> >D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
> >> museum.

I recall quite a boat load of Counter-Reagan crap being trotted out, not a
museum specifically, but quite a load of crap none the less.

> >I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
> >Clinton.

Do you perhaps understand the Democratic hatred for George Bush? It's the
exact same thing... (except when directed at Clinton it was well deserved
;)

> >I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
> >they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
> >drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.

What part of politics escapes you? The Dems showed during the Regan years
that the Independant council law was a good stick for Congress to use
against a sitting president. So the Repubs give 'em the same treatment.

> >Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
> >politicos.

> And it lost them any chance at the 96 election. I'm beginning to
> worry that the "good" side is going to blow 04 the same way. If you
> hate hard enough, nobody listens.

Depending on who the Dems run, this may be a good Thing. Howard Dean, it
looks like, is playing into the "will froth to throw the election" hand.
That sort of rhetoric plays well in primaries amoungst the faithfull, but
he's got to be able to dosey-doe pretty quick when it comes to the general
election.


John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.

D.F. Manno

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 1:30:39 PM7/31/03
to
In article <PNaWa.395$GW4.2...@newshog.newsread.com>,
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:

> > Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
> > >D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
> > >> museum.
>
> I recall quite a boat load of Counter-Reagan crap being trotted out, not a
> museum specifically, but quite a load of crap none the less.

A museum is several orders of magnitude beyond buttons and bumper
stickers.

> > >I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
> > >Clinton.
>
> Do you perhaps understand the Democratic hatred for George Bush? It's the
> exact same thing... (except when directed at Clinton it was well deserved
> ;)

Clinton was legitimately elected--twice. Bush slithered into the White
House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
you are unable to comprehend.

Adam Smith

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 4:59:18 PM7/31/03
to
Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote in message news:<a89lv-...@ziggy.thepatcave.org>...

> I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
> Clinton.


He's a lying scumbag and felon who disgraced the Presidency and whose
incompetence led to the 9/11 attacks. What other reasons do you want?


> I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
> they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
> drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.


Perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and subborning
perjury aren't "little things". Neither is sexual harassment. Add in
abuse of power (siccing the FBI and IRS on his political opponents,
which BTW Nixon was nearly impeached for TRYING and FAILING to do) and
a long history of general sliminess (it's one thing to just fire the
(appointed) head of the travel office who'd served every president
since Kennedy because you want to appoint someone else, it's quite
another to try to dig up dirt on him so as to fire him 'for cause' so
it doesnt look like exactly what it was.

> Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
> politicos.


Since when are felonies "petty"?

Adam Smith

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 5:06:40 PM7/31/03
to
"D.F. Manno" <domm...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<dommanno-8FCF33...@corp-radius.supernews.com>...

> Clinton was legitimately elected--twice. Bush slithered into the White
> House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
> you are unable to comprehend.


Right,typical democratic regard fore the 'facts'.

The FACTS are that GWB won every recount in Florida, including the
media sponsored ones.

The facts are that elected official the responsibility of making the
relevant decisions made them fully in compliance with florida law,
which the democrats tried to overturn in the courts.

the facts are that the media created the entire problem by reporting
floridas polls closed and Gore the winner while the polls in the
(predominately conservative and republican) panhandle were still open.

Jerry Bauer

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 5:20:27 PM7/31/03
to
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:06:40 -0700, Adam Smith wrote
(in message <8130079e.03073...@posting.google.com>):

The facts are that the election was extremely close and that the
Supreme Court ended it with a decision that left Bush the winner.

--
Jerry Randal Bauer

SoCalMike

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 8:12:40 PM7/31/03
to

<ra...@westnet.poe.com> wrote in message
news:PNaWa.395$GW4.2...@newshog.newsread.com...

> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> > Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
>
> > >D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or
"Counter-Reagan"
> > >> museum.
>
> I recall quite a boat load of Counter-Reagan crap being trotted out, not a
> museum specifically, but quite a load of crap none the less.
>
> > >I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for
Bill
> > >Clinton.
>
> Do you perhaps understand the Democratic hatred for George Bush? It's the
> exact same thing... (except when directed at Clinton it was well deserved
> ;)

mm hmm. theres a big difference between a hummer and a war. and osamas still
out there laughing his ass off, waiting to strike again. when he does, who
will we blame next? iran?


>
> > >I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it
when
> > >they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could
possibly
> > >drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
>
> What part of politics escapes you? The Dems showed during the Regan years
> that the Independant council law was a good stick for Congress to use
> against a sitting president. So the Repubs give 'em the same treatment.

so iran/contra never really happened?


SoCalMike

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 8:13:43 PM7/31/03
to

> The facts are that the election was extremely close and that the
> Supreme Court ended it with a decision that left Bush the winner.

which will hopefully be the last time something like that is used.


SoCalMike

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 8:14:48 PM7/31/03
to

>
> Since when are felonies "petty"?

compared to starting a war? pretty petty.


GrapeApe

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 10:53:51 PM7/31/03
to
<< and considering how well things were going for the country back then, and
his second term sweep... no need to steal either of those elections, no
sirree. >><BR><BR>


People forget his second term sweep had its own squeeky moments in the slanted
view of some. He won the electoral college, but I think the spin on his
popular vote meaning bupkus to some, is that it was not a true majority, that
is a third party sopped up the spillover, Perot or somebody. I think he had
like 48 percent of the vote to the elephants 47 or something, with Ross taking
up the slack.

GrapeApe

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 11:04:02 PM7/31/03
to
<< Perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and subborning
perjury aren't "little things". Neither is sexual harassment. Add in
abuse of power (siccing the FBI and IRS on his political opponents,
which BTW Nixon was nearly impeached for TRYING and FAILING to do) and
a long history of general sliminess (it's one thing to just fire the
(appointed) head of the travel office who'd served every president
since Kennedy because you want to appoint someone else, it's quite
another to try to dig up dirt on him so as to fire him 'for cause' so
it doesnt look like exactly what it was. >><BR><BR>


You are captain of the football team. Your prom date, Suzy Kominsky, the head
cheerleader, has a very clean reputation, despite being a cheerleader. After
the dance, she gives you a blowjob, without your even asking.

The next day, you are brought up in front of the entire class, you don't know
why, and you are grilled about whether you had sex with Suzy Kominsky. Did you
Score? Huh?

Well, you could, proper gentlemans kneejerk response, say that really isn't any
of their business, but if you do, they say you must be covering up something.
Do you say you did not have that private moment, to protect her reputation? Or
do you tell the truth, because coach says you must, if you want to play in the
big game?

You know, some people leave that stuff in grade school, rather than spending
millions towards some odd end. If she doesn't drown, shes a witch.

D.F. Manno

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 12:03:56 AM8/1/03
to
In article <20030731225351...@mb-m07.aol.com>,
grap...@aol.comjunk (GrapeApe) wrote:

> People forget his second term sweep had its own squeeky moments in the slanted
> view of some. He won the electoral college, but I think the spin on his
> popular vote meaning bupkus to some, is that it was not a true majority, that
> is a third party sopped up the spillover, Perot or somebody. I think he had
> like 48 percent of the vote to the elephants 47 or something, with Ross taking
> up the slack.

To those people I say "So?" I could parrot those who so loudly declaim
Bush's legitimacy and say that the popular vote doesn't count, or I
could note that Clinton got more votes than his opponents, something
Bush couldn't manage.

That spin on the popular vote you mention sounds like the Bushies'
oft-repeated line that Bush won more votes than Clinton did in either
of his elections. The problem with that line is that Bush wasn't
running against Clinton, he was running against Gore, and he came in
second.

ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 9:15:09 AM8/1/03
to
D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> In article <PNaWa.395$GW4.2...@newshog.newsread.com>,
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:

> > > Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
> > > >D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or
> > > >> "Counter-Reagan" museum.
> >
> > I recall quite a boat load of Counter-Reagan crap being trotted out,
> > not a museum specifically, but quite a load of crap none the less.

> A museum is several orders of magnitude beyond buttons and bumper
> stickers.

Nah, it's not. It's being funded by private individuals, and well, the
man did have a truth issue, so it's not ureasonable to guess that there
will be a whitewash in the library and they want to see that that doesn't
happen.

> > > >I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred
> > > >for Bill Clinton.
> >
> > Do you perhaps understand the Democratic hatred for George Bush?
> > It's the exact same thing... (except when directed at Clinton it was
> > well deserved ;)

> Clinton was legitimately elected--twice. Bush slithered into the White
> House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
> you are unable to comprehend.

Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.

Patrick M Geahan

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 9:26:02 AM8/1/03
to
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:

> Nah, it's not. It's being funded by private individuals, and well, the
> man did have a truth issue, so it's not ureasonable to guess that there
> will be a whitewash in the library and they want to see that that doesn't
> happen.

I assume, then, that you'd be perfectly happy with an anti-Reagan,
anti-Bush, or anti-Nixon library?

Fact is, all of them have had 'truth issues'. The difference is that no
one else was petty enough to bitch about them after they were done and
gone.

Whiny bastards, al


> Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
> part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.

Actually, I'm very proud of the work Bill Clinton did. Balanced budget,
low unemployment, good work towards peace.

None of which you can say about the current president. I assume, then,
that since you're in favor of full-blown truth, that you'll be waiting to
open the anti-GWB library. After all that one might be a whitewash too.

Patrick M Geahan

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 9:31:22 AM8/1/03
to
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:

> I recall quite a boat load of Counter-Reagan crap being trotted out, not a
> museum specifically, but quite a load of crap none the less.

Huge huge difference between a few people writing articles and a museum
dedicated to hatred of *one* man.

Would you be in favor of an anti-Reagan library? There's good evidence in
the historical record that he may have lied about Iran-Contra. Would you
call his museum a 'whitewash'?

> Do you perhaps understand the Democratic hatred for George Bush? It's the
> exact same thing... (except when directed at Clinton it was well deserved

Hatred? I don't see anyone investigating GWB for his pre-White House
business dealings or his absence from the Texas National Guard. What I do
see is a lot of questoins being asked about his *current* performance,
which is what Congress is supposed to do.


> What part of politics escapes you?

The part where politicians become whiny pricks who can't handle losing
like adults.

GrapeApe

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 9:48:35 AM8/1/03
to
<< > Clinton was legitimately elected--twice. Bush slithered into the White
> House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
> you are unable to comprehend.

Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.

>><BR><BR>


Yall is tooty fruitcakes, ya know that?

Charles A Lieberman

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 11:33:24 AM8/1/03
to
In article <ac6qv-...@ziggy.thepatcave.org>,

Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:

> I assume, then, that you'd be perfectly happy with an anti-Reagan,
> anti-Bush, or anti-Nixon library?
>
> Fact is, all of them have had 'truth issues'. The difference is that no
> one else was petty enough to bitch about them after they were done and
> gone.

I'm sorry, *Nixon*? Once he was out of office, he was free and clear in
the great court of public opinion? Really?

--
Charles A. Lieberman | When free speech is outlawed,
New York, New York, USA |
http://calieber.tripod.com/ cali...@bigfoot.com

Charles A Lieberman

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 11:33:39 AM8/1/03
to
In article <YfiWa.22923$cF.9369@rwcrnsc53>,
"SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > What part of politics escapes you? The Dems showed during the Regan years
> > that the Independant council law was a good stick for Congress to use
> > against a sitting president. So the Repubs give 'em the same treatment.
>
> so iran/contra never really happened?

Um, Clinton's pecadillos did too. You could, however, argue based on the
relatve importance of the two, vis-a-vis policy, rule of law, etc. etc.

ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 1:17:04 PM8/1/03
to
Patrick M Geahan <pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:

> > Nah, it's not. It's being funded by private individuals, and well, the
> > man did have a truth issue, so it's not ureasonable to guess that there
> > will be a whitewash in the library and they want to see that that doesn't
> > happen.

> I assume, then, that you'd be perfectly happy with an anti-Reagan,
> anti-Bush, or anti-Nixon library?

Knock yourself out. The more people speaking out, the better IMO.

> Fact is, all of them have had 'truth issues'. The difference is that no
> one else was petty enough to bitch about them after they were done and
> gone.

You very statement renders itself incorrect.

> Whiny bastards, al

Al? Yeah, he could be a tad whiney when he wasn't boasting of fake
accomplishments. :)

> > Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
> > part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.

> Actually, I'm very proud of the work Bill Clinton did. Balanced budget,

Yeah, Clinton was repugnant enough to get a Republican revolution in for
the next election and that did do the trick.

> low unemployment,

Yup, the ground work laid down by the previous administartions yeailded a
strong spurt of economic growth for him to be sitting in the white house
for.

> good work towards peace.

Sure, 9-11, hostility in Russia, establishing NATO as an invading force,
Taking half measures when they were politically expedient and then no
follow through, from Somalia to Iraq to Hati to Koscovo: great record
there.

> None of which you can say about the current president.

That's true. No balanced Budget when the policies of the previous
adminstration have caught up with us and ruined the economy. Rising
unemployment comes with that economic stumble too. And of course, the old
status quo that allowed crap like 9-11 is being righted. All in all
leagues above the previous administration. Not perfect, to be sure, but
still majorly improved.

> I assume, then,
> that since you're in favor of full-blown truth, that you'll be waiting to
> open the anti-GWB library. After all that one might be a whitewash too.

Go for it. I'd love to see it. It should be amusing to see all the
anti-bush propoganda gathered into one locale.

Patrick M Geahan

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 1:32:53 PM8/1/03
to
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:

> Sure, 9-11, hostility in Russia, establishing NATO as an invading force,

> That's true. No balanced Budget when the policies of the previous
> adminstration have caught up with us and ruined the economy. Rising
> unemployment comes with that economic stumble too. And of course, the old
> status quo that allowed crap like 9-11 is being righted. All in all
> leagues above the previous administration. Not perfect, to be sure, but
> still majorly improved.

Wow. That's absolutely *amazing*. According to you, Bill Clinton did
*nothing* for eight years but ride on the coattails of previous
administrations? That Reagan, Bush Sr., and all those folks did such an
amazing job running the country that it was able to run for eight years on
auto-pilot?

That's so amazingly thick-headed that I don't even know where to start.

Richard R. Hershberger

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 1:55:46 PM8/1/03
to
Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote in message news:<a89lv-...@ziggy.thepatcave.org>...

> I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill

> Clinton.
>
> I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
> they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
> drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
>
> Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
> politicos.

I too have pondered this question. I think it is because Clinton was,
to their mind, dead wrong about nearly everything yet consistently
popular. This infuriates them to this day. After all, someone that
wrong yet that popular must be at best extraordinarily sleazy or at
worst actively in league with the devil. This leaves vilification as
the only legitimate reaction. Or so the logic goes...

Richard R. Hershberger

Charles A Lieberman

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 2:14:12 PM8/1/03
to
In article <5rkqv-...@ziggy.thepatcave.org>,

Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:

> That Reagan, Bush Sr., and all those folks did such an
> amazing job running the country that it was able to run for eight years on
> auto-pilot?

Although not years any of them were in office.

SoCalMike

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 2:24:08 PM8/1/03
to

"GrapeApe" <grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote in message
news:20030731225351...@mb-m07.aol.com...

and in 2000, nader was the "spoiler"


Adam Smith

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 3:17:01 PM8/1/03
to
Jerry Bauer <use...@bauerstar.com> wrote in message news:<0001HW.BB4ED62B...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...

> > The FACTS are that GWB won every recount in Florida, including the
> > media sponsored ones.
> >
> > The facts are that elected official the responsibility of making the
> > relevant decisions made them fully in compliance with florida law,
> > which the democrats tried to overturn in the courts.
> >
> > the facts are that the media created the entire problem by reporting
> > floridas polls closed and Gore the winner while the polls in the
> > (predominately conservative and republican) panhandle were still open.
>
> The facts are that the election was extremely close and that the
> Supreme Court ended it with a decision that left Bush the winner.


As opposed to a decision which would have left Gore the winner? Which
didnt exist, as Bush won the media recounts.

Adam Smith

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 3:21:52 PM8/1/03
to
"SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<YhiWa.23254$Vt6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...

> >
> > Since when are felonies "petty"?
>
> compared to starting a war? pretty petty.


And the war Bush has "started" is which, exactly? It isnt the war
against terrorism, the terrorists started that by killing 3000+
Americans. It isnt the war against afghanistan, the afghans started
that by supporting the terrorists. It isnt the war against Iraq, Iraq
started that by invading Kuwait and then not complying with the terms
of their surrender agreement.

Adam Smith

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 3:31:04 PM8/1/03
to
grap...@aol.comjunk (GrapeApe) wrote in message news:<20030731230402...@mb-m07.aol.com>...

> << Perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and subborning
> perjury aren't "little things". Neither is sexual harassment. Add in
> abuse of power (siccing the FBI and IRS on his political opponents,
> which BTW Nixon was nearly impeached for TRYING and FAILING to do) and
> a long history of general sliminess (it's one thing to just fire the
> (appointed) head of the travel office who'd served every president
> since Kennedy because you want to appoint someone else, it's quite
> another to try to dig up dirt on him so as to fire him 'for cause' so
> it doesnt look like exactly what it was. >><BR><BR>
>
>
> You are captain of the football team. Your prom date, Suzy Kominsky, the head
> cheerleader, has a very clean reputation, despite being a cheerleader. After
> the dance, she gives you a blowjob, without your even asking.
>
> The next day, you are brought up in front of the entire class, you don't know
> why, and you are grilled about whether you had sex with Suzy Kominsky. Did you
> Score? Huh?


Not relevant. Clinton was questioned as part of Paula Jones sexual
harassament suit, and other sexual conduct is standard evidence in
such suits.


> Well, you could, proper gentlemans kneejerk response, say that really isn't any
> of their business,


Not when Jane Doe has sued you for similar activities in a sexual
harassment suit you don't. It very specifically IS their business.


> but if you do, they say you must be covering up something.


Which he was- a pattern of behavior relevant to a sexual harassment
suit against him.

> Do you say you did not have that private moment, to protect her reputation? Or
> do you tell the truth, because coach says you must, if you want to play in the
> big game?


While I'm under oath, when lying would be a FELONY? I talk.

> You know, some people leave that stuff in grade school, rather than spending
> millions towards some odd end. If she doesn't drown, shes a witch.


Except that adults are expected to obey the law and minors not so
much. Clinton "just lied about sex" because sex was exactly the focus
of the investigation.

Imagine the "he wasn't lying about theft, he lust lied about swiping
stuff" argument.

D.F. Manno

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 4:02:07 PM8/1/03
to
In article <xJtWa.928$6W2.3...@monger.newsread.com>,
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:

> D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Clinton was legitimately elected--twice. Bush slithered into the White
> > House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
> > you are unable to comprehend.
>
> Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
> part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.

The "bullshit lie" is that Bush was legitimately elected. You can spin
and lie all you like, but Gore won that election and SCOTUS stole it
from him.

D.F. Manno

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 4:04:35 PM8/1/03
to
In article <kgxWa.533$GW4.2...@newshog.newsread.com>,
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:

> Patrick M Geahan <pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I'm very proud of the work Bill Clinton did. Balanced budget,
>
> Yeah, Clinton was repugnant enough to get a Republican revolution in for
> the next election and that did do the trick.
>
> > low unemployment,
>
> Yup, the ground work laid down by the previous administartions yeailded a
> strong spurt of economic growth for him to be sitting in the white house
> for.
>
> > good work towards peace.
>
> Sure, 9-11, hostility in Russia, establishing NATO as an invading force,
> Taking half measures when they were politically expedient and then no
> follow through, from Somalia to Iraq to Hati to Koscovo: great record
> there.
>
> > None of which you can say about the current president.
>
> That's true. No balanced Budget when the policies of the previous
> adminstration have caught up with us and ruined the economy. Rising
> unemployment comes with that economic stumble too. And of course, the old
> status quo that allowed crap like 9-11 is being righted. All in all
> leagues above the previous administration. Not perfect, to be sure, but
> still majorly improved.

It's official--you're a resident of Cloud Cuckoo Land.

ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 4:30:47 PM8/1/03
to
Patrick M Geahan <pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:

> > Sure, 9-11, hostility in Russia, establishing NATO as an invading
> > force, That's true. No balanced Budget when the policies of the
> > previous adminstration have caught up with us and ruined the economy.
> > Rising unemployment comes with that economic stumble too. And of
> > course, the old status quo that allowed crap like 9-11 is being
> > righted. All in all leagues above the previous administration. Not
> > perfect, to be sure, but still majorly improved.

> Wow. That's absolutely *amazing*. According to you, Bill Clinton did
> *nothing* for eight years but ride on the coattails of previous
> administrations?

Oh, that's not all he did. On the plus side, he did work to eliminate
bias against homosexualti in the military. Of course he went back on his
campaign promis there and only gave us "don't ask, don't tell" which
frankly, suck. On the minus side though, in addidtion to riding on the
coattails of others, he horribly mismanaged the Somalia operation,
expanded Nato into an offensive Axis, worked to curtail civil rights at
home, and worked to expand spending faster than it was already growing.

> That Reagan, Bush Sr., and all those folks did such an
> amazing job running the country that it was able to run for eight years on
> auto-pilot?

Pretty much; the economy was strong, the cold war was ended, the world
stood on the brink of a possible golden age, all we needed was a strong
foriegn policy to tie it all up... But that never materialized; The US
showed itself to be a paper tiger in Somalia, ecouraging terrorist
attacks; The couuntries of the formeer Soviet Union reached out to us for
help and guidance, and that was messed up, we essentially abandoned them;
NATO was used to attack; US military actions were weak and unfocused; etc.
Things didn't fall apart right away, since there was so much positive
momentum: the Berlin Wall had come down, The Soviet Union Not only fell,
but an abortive coup had been struck down the the people.

It's a matter of lucky timing that Clinton got what he got, But people
insist on giving him the credit anyway.

> That's so amazingly thick-headed that I don't even know where to start.

That they give him the credit? I agree.

Jerry Bauer

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 7:04:18 PM8/1/03
to
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 12:17:01 -0700, Adam Smith wrote
(in message <8130079e.0308...@posting.google.com>):

Yes, in fact, the Supreme Court did not make a decision that left
Gore the winner.

--
Jerry Randal Bauer

Sean Houtman

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 9:07:30 PM8/1/03
to
From: loc...@hotmail.com (Adam Smith)

MOM!! He started it! He looked at me!

Sean

--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.

Sean Houtman

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 9:09:57 PM8/1/03
to
From: rrh...@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger)

The thing I find most disturbing about the Republicans is their fondness for
hating. They do quite a lot of it.

Dana Carpender

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 11:11:24 PM8/1/03
to

ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>
> Go for it. I'd love to see it. It should be amusing to see all the
> anti-bush propoganda gathered into one locale.
>
>

Anti-Bush propaganda? I have yet to see a net-lore list of everyone
George has ever shaken hands with who subsequently died, with the strong
implication that he had something to do with their deaths. Many of us
may not like how Bush is doing his job, and may feel that his personal
and business record foretold that he'd be a crappy president, but I have
yet to see anything *like* the tin-foil-hat propaganda about him that I
did about Clinton.

--
Dana W. Carpender
Howard Dean For President
Take Back the Democratic Party!
Take Back America!
http://www.deanforamerica.com

Opus the Penguin

unread,
Aug 2, 2003, 2:09:07 AM8/2/03
to
seanh...@aol.comnose (Sean Houtman) wrote:

> The thing I find most disturbing about the Republicans is their
> fondness for hating. They do quite a lot of it.

What do you find most disturbing about the Democrats?

--
Opus the Penguin
"Any question that begins with "Why do my cats..." is rhetorical." -
Jerry Randal Bauer

SoCalMike

unread,
Aug 2, 2003, 4:38:04 AM8/2/03
to

"Adam Smith" <loc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8130079e.0308...@posting.google.com...

> "SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<YhiWa.23254$Vt6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
> > >
> > > Since when are felonies "petty"?
> >
> > compared to starting a war? pretty petty.
>
>
> And the war Bush has "started" is which, exactly?

im pretty sure its the current one. that little iraq thing.

meanwhile, osama plans his next move.


SoCalMike

unread,
Aug 2, 2003, 4:39:44 AM8/2/03
to

>
> It's official--you're a resident of Cloud Cuckoo Land.

nah... hes the mayor of simpleton.


SoCalMike

unread,
Aug 2, 2003, 4:41:53 AM8/2/03
to

"Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93CAEB7489D14op...@127.0.0.1...

> seanh...@aol.comnose (Sean Houtman) wrote:
>
> > The thing I find most disturbing about the Republicans is their
> > fondness for hating. They do quite a lot of it.
>
> What do you find most disturbing about the Democrats?

theyre too friggin nice. thats changing tho.


Kevin O'Neill

unread,
Aug 2, 2003, 12:18:26 PM8/2/03
to
rrh...@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) wrote in message news:<82401463.0308...@posting.google.com>...

I think this is very close to right on. The attitude reminds me of me
dear old paternal grampy, who could go into a purple rage at the sight
of two obviously gay men in public demonstration affection; Miami in
the '70s was really not the place for him to be. It just made him
crazy, I think in part because it was clear to him that the trend was
away from things he thought were important, and towards values he
really really disliked, and that these guys were clearly not ashamed,
or ostracized, or anything, they were often wealthy, young, looked
happy, driving nice cars and wearing nice clothes and in general
appearing to be doing well, and gay as all hell right out there in
front of god and everyone, it just made him crazy. So too our current
crop of Repubs; to them, Bill was a walking symbol of liberal social
views, and the fact that the country liked and trusted him drove them
up the wall, perhaps because they're old and crabby and hate the idea
that whatever blather they go on about, in fifty years hating someone
for being gay will be considered the height of ignorance, fewer people
than ever will believe in god, fewer people than ever will get
married, many of our public figures will have experimented with drugs,
and on and on and hey! the world won't end and Jesus won't come down
and smack anyone around for it. Bill was the future, and it drives
them up the wall.

I think too that that issue of us trusting Bill, especially when he
skipped so many of the right's 'required' pretenses for trust, was
galling and still is. In fact, I would bet that one or two of our
local social conservatives started twitching when they read that word
a few lines up, ready to shout out to all us misguided liberals that
we damn well paid for trusting him, didn't we? Implying that he
showed himself untrustworthy, you see. Except that, for me, and for
many liberals, he didn't. We still see the whole Ken Starr witch hunt
as a, you know, witch hunt, and don't really think Bill did anything
unreasonable, except in perhaps averting our eyes from the sort of
countrified Arkansas trailer park aesthetic he seemed to find
attractive...

I am unfortunate enough to live in Plano, though only for a few more
days, which is one of the bastions of social conservatism in Texas. I
live in a pretty racially mixed neighborhood. All my white neighbors
hate Bill. Half my black neighbors still love him, half are mad Al
isn't running, but black folks don't seem to be required to be
Republicans the same way everyone else does in order to be accepted
into the social order hereabouts. All my hispanic neighbors are
proud-to-be-fitting-in brand new Republicans. The funny thing to me
is that the hispanic folks, all of whom have just brought home new
babies, by the way, like five families all at once, how weird is that?
anyway, the hispanic folks are pretty uniformly church goers, seem
pretty socially conservative, I would not expect them to be cool with
the pregnant daughter or the gay son, say, and I would have expected
them to be all up on the hate-Bill bandwagon. Not so. They don't
love him, but there's not the vitriol I hear from white conservatives.
In my experience it's a purely white social conservative phenomenon.

Kevin

Opus the Penguin

unread,
Aug 2, 2003, 1:14:55 PM8/2/03
to

Does "nice" mean "self-righteous" "smug" "sour-grapesy" and "full of
schadenfreude"? I'm always looking to expand my vocabulary.

SoCalMike

unread,
Aug 2, 2003, 2:11:10 PM8/2/03
to

"Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93CB67580E23Aop...@127.0.0.1...

> "SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93CAEB7489D14op...@127.0.0.1...
> >> seanh...@aol.comnose (Sean Houtman) wrote:
> >>
> >> > The thing I find most disturbing about the Republicans is their
> >> > fondness for hating. They do quite a lot of it.
> >>
> >> What do you find most disturbing about the Democrats?
> >
> > theyre too friggin nice. thats changing tho.
>
>
> Does "nice" mean "self-righteous" "smug" "sour-grapesy" and "full of
> schadenfreude"? I'm always looking to expand my vocabulary.

just less so than the republicans. democrats need more dirty tricks, and the
balls to try em.


Adam Smith

unread,
Aug 2, 2003, 3:42:15 PM8/2/03
to
"SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MLKWa.47425$YN5.37274@sccrnsc01>...

> > And the war Bush has "started" is which, exactly?
>
> im pretty sure its the current one. that little iraq thing.

Ah, another ignorant Lefty. Let me explain- the penealty for failing
to comply with a surrender agreement is resumption of hostilities.
Resumption is NOT the initiation of new hostilities.

> meanwhile, osama plans his next move.


Either Iraq was going to be invaded or no future surrender agreement
can have disarmament and inspection as terms. Saddam was let off easy
the first time, would you rather deny the US the option of letting off
others easy next time than see the US actually enforce the terms of a
surrender agreement? No, we can't let saddam off and expect the next
guy to comply.

M C Hamster

unread,
Aug 2, 2003, 3:46:11 PM8/2/03
to
"Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93CB67580E23Aop...@127.0.0.1...

> "SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93CAEB7489D14op...@127.0.0.1...
> >> seanh...@aol.comnose (Sean Houtman) wrote:
> >>
> >> > The thing I find most disturbing about the Republicans is their
> >> > fondness for hating. They do quite a lot of it.
> >>
> >> What do you find most disturbing about the Democrats?
> >
> > theyre too friggin nice. thats changing tho.
>
>
> Does "nice" mean "self-righteous" "smug" "sour-grapesy" and "full of
> schadenfreude"? I'm always looking to expand my vocabulary.

Democrats are more given to eleemosynary concerns.

M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival


M C Hamster

unread,
Aug 2, 2003, 4:00:07 PM8/2/03
to
"Adam Smith" <loc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8130079e.0308...@posting.google.com...

Wrong, completely wrong. Perhaps you have forgotten that the US Supreme
Court vacated the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, which itself simply
authorized the continuation of the hand counting of ballots in Florida (and
disallowed the premature certification of the vote count by Katherine
Harris). If you're right, that hand recount would have made Bush the
completely legitimate winner in Florida. The hand count could have been
completed within about a week. But the US Supreme Court didn't know that
would be the outcome of the hand count, and so decided to overturn a state's
own decision, despite the fact that the Supreme Court *always* chooses to
defer to states rights (on any social issues which hew to a conservative
political philosophy).

So you're wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, the alternative decision by the SCOTUS
would NOT have left Gore the winner, given the "media recounts" you mention.
What it did is give people on the left yet another opportunity to question
the legitimacy of GWB's election which needn't have occurred had they been
willing to find out who *actually* got the most votes in Florida.

FWIW, I myself accept that Bush won Florida and the electoral college vote
(though of course all those bad ballots in West Palm Beach means that more
people *tried* to vote for Gore than Bush there, but c'est la vie). The
fact that Gore got half a million more votes in the country is far more
problematical, and the electoral college is a completely idiotic and
nonsensical system, but apparently that problem will never get fixed either.

No, George is MY president! (Just like my mother-in-law is my
mother-in-law.)

Adam Smith

unread,
Aug 2, 2003, 4:06:31 PM8/2/03
to
seanh...@aol.comnose (Sean Houtman) wrote in message news:<20030801210957...@mb-m25.aol.com>...

> The thing I find most disturbing about the Republicans is their fondness for
> hating. They do quite a lot of it.


Actually, it's the Democrats with the fondness for hating. Just look
at all the knee-jerk responses and assessments of conservatives and
conservative groups, FOR MERELY BEING CONSERVATIVE. You can't have an
intelligent conversation with Dems involving the NRA or Christian
Coallition because of their knee-jerk hatred.

Democrats also hate people for who they are, while Republicans only
hate for cause. Reagan V Clinton: Dems hated Reagan for being
conservative and popular, Repubs hate(d) Clinton for being a slimeball
(Whitewater (no, it wasn't "just a failed land deal", it was an
element in a scheme to loot a S&L which the Clinton's were neck deep
in), Evading the Draft, Bimbos (of which Paula Jones was only the
biggest), Sliminess (Travel Office firings, the aftermath of Vince
Foster's suicide).

Also note the talk from the left about what a 'dimwit' GWB suposedly
is, especially compared to Gore, and yet the evidence (test scores,
college grades, not flunking out of multiple schools) indicates that
GWB is clearly smarter.

Hell, look at the tarring and feathering of McCarthy, which was pure
slander. Notice how very little of what is said about him is actually
backed up with primary sources. 'Everyone' says he kept changing the
number of people on his list, yet no one ever provides actual
quotations. "He was just an opportunist seeking a cause that meant
nothing to anyone until he started beating his drum" Except that his
first speech was all of two weeks after Hiss was convicted.

"Reagan was senile as President" Given the ass-kicking he gave the
Dems, i think a better case can be made that THEY were senile.