Eric supposrts Perjury, or would if he knew what it was.
pyotr filipivich
>In alt.politics.clinton pyotr filipivich <py...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>: Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> writes:
>[...]
>: >I am big on experiential learning as compared to the didactic model
>: >myself.
>: Good enough in theory, but you have yet to demonstrate any
>: results of that alleged experience.
>But your opinion is just that.
Fish, red machine tools, and the Lincoln Memorial.
>: >: P.S. Bill is smart. He is also dishonest and has no scruples.
>: >: Honest men are at a disadvantage when dealing wiht his type.
>: >But his moral crimes are petty whereas Bush's and Reagan's are not.
>: I realize that rubbing Eric's metaphorical nose in the minor
>: detail that his hero LIES UNDER OATH, which is not only a 'moral' crime,
>: but a legal one, isn't going to cause him satori, but then again, Eric
>: has demonstrated repeatedly his belief that the President is above the
>: Law (as long as the President is a Democrat.)
>If Clinton's worse crime is sex, than he's way ahead of Reagan and Bush,
>morally.
>Eric
Yep - I can always depend on Eric to ignore the criminal
behavior of his hero, and concentrate on the sex.
One more time for the east coast audience. This president is
charged with lying under oath. In the real world, that is known as
perjury. If Clinton didn't want to lie under oath, he could have
refused to answer under his right to be secure against self
incrimination. But He did not chose such a course, rather he chose to
lie while under oath. And then lie to his subordinates, so that they
would then support his lies.
When called to testify before a Grand Jury, he could have copped
the Fifth, but he chose to again lie under oath. As was said at the
time, he was either admitting to perjury in the first instance, or
perjuring himself again. Clinton is two for two. And then in a post
testimony press conference, admitted that he had "mislead the American
people" in his previous testimony.
Eric doesn't find this bad, because in Eric's little world,
apparently lying under oath is a common occurance. Or maybe he likes
being lied to. Either one cause me to wonder about the truthfulness
of any of his statements. [Eric or Clinton's, either one.] Because
for all his alleged experiencial education, Eric hasn't learned that
even when they speak the truth, liar's reputations preceed them, and
cause their statements to be discounted as false. No body believes a
liar.
--
pyotr filipivich, AKA Nickolai Petrovich.
"Do not argue with the forces of nature,
for you are small, insignificant, and biodegradable."
Scott Graber
pyotr filipivich wrote in message <74ptlk$9ng$1...@halcyon.com>...
>>: >: P.S. Bill is smart. He is also dishonest and has no scruples.
>>: >: Honest men are at a disadvantage when dealing wiht his type.
>
>>: >But his moral crimes are petty whereas Bush's and Reagan's are not.
>
>>: I realize that rubbing Eric's metaphorical nose in the minor
>>: detail that his hero LIES UNDER OATH, which is not only a 'moral' crime,
>>: but a legal one, isn't going to cause him satori, but then again, Eric
>>: has demonstrated repeatedly his belief that the President is above the
>>: Law (as long as the President is a Democrat.)
Mouthing the mantra of his hypocritical models on the HJC, this poster has
President Clinton convicted of perjury, by an answer to an intentionally
vague question, an intentional pergury trap, of a matter immaterial to the
case he was being deposed about, which itself, from the start, was a bogus
political attack brought by trailer trash, and financed by Clintons
political enemies.
In this person's little narrow world, context is absent from reasoning. It
is quite forgiveable to lie about intentionally circumventing a direct
prohibition against funding a right wing Contra faction in Nicaragua, by
illegally selling weaponry to a terrorist nation, but unforgiveable to
attempt to obscure an embarassing personal indiscretion. It is so
indicative of the blind partisan illogic utilized by simple minded
followers, and consumers of propaganda..... to raise the level of damge
done by the personal indiscretion to that of subverting the will of the
legislative branch of our gov't. We can only shake our heads in disbelief
and pity, at the sorry state the educational system has left many of our
people.. unable to think a whit for themselves, but only parroting what they
heard on television this afternoon.
have fun wathching your reactionary party finally self destroy in the eyes
of the American people, when they finally recognize what a farce this
proceeding has been,, I certainly will.
SRG
Don Linsenbach
> Eric doesn't find this bad, because in Eric's little world,
> apparently lying under oath is a common occurance. Or maybe he likes
> being lied to. Either one cause me to wonder about the truthfulness
> of any of his statements. [Eric or Clinton's, either one.] Because
> for all his alleged experiencial education, Eric hasn't learned that
> even when they speak the truth, liar's reputations preceed them, and
> cause their statements to be discounted as false. No body believes a
> liar.
This very thing is what I said in this NG more than 8 months ago.
I will never believe any of Erics words as well as alot of other liberals
that blindly support clinton.
To me, if someone supports a liar, they are a liar themselves.
If someone convinces me that they are a liar, I will never believe their
words again.
Eric must be from the new school of thinking, the one that doesn't teach
the students to read Aesops fables, particularly "The Boy that Cried Wolf".
Eric breaks his arm patting himself on the back for all of the 'college' he
has under his belt.
But alas, he is very uneducated in the ways of common sense and logic.
He is foolish to the highest degree.
--
Don Linsenbach
Creative Concepts
Cape Coral, Florida
http://www.1ccad.com
Rafe B.
wrote:
Good post, Scott.
I'm kind of enjoying watching the Repugs self-destruct.
You'd think the election (what, five weeks ago?) would
have knocked some sense into their thick heads.
You wonder why those same gun nuts who wring
their hands over Randy Weaver's entrapment
think it's cool when Ken Starr does the same thing
to a sitting president, or when Linda Tripp does
the same thing to Monica Lewinsky.
Those who complain about Clinton's disregard
for the truth conveniently forget those long hard
years under Ronald (Iran-Contra) Reagan and
George ("There was no quid pro quo.") Bush.
The last honest US president was Jimmy Carter.
rafe b.
Lynette Warren
> In this person's little narrow world, context is absent from reasoning. It
> is quite forgiveable to lie about intentionally circumventing a direct
> prohibition against funding a right wing Contra faction in Nicaragua,
It wasn't OK for Bush to lie, either. I voted for Slick Willie, not knowing
at the time that he was even a bigger sleazebag than Bush.
Clinton needs to go. If he cared about anyone but himself, he'd
resign, but he's not ready to do that just yet. So onward with the
impeachment.
Lynette
--
Rafe B.
wrote:
What Clinton did with Monica has nothing to do with Clinton's
duties as a president.
In the role for which he was elected, Clinton's done a pretty
good job, by most accounts.
Sure he's a sleazebag. Way too right-wing for me. But
he balanced the federal budget, which is one thing that
Reagan and Bush, in 12 years time, totally failed to do.
That in itself was rather a right-wing agenda. You loons
that call Clinton a "socialist" are so far off the mark as to
be laughable.
rafe b.
Scott Graber
Lynette Warren wrote in message <3670F2...@surfari.net>...
>Scott Graber wrote:
>> In this person's little narrow world, context is absent from reasoning.
It
>> is quite forgiveable to lie about intentionally circumventing a direct
>> prohibition against funding a right wing Contra faction in Nicaragua,
>
>It wasn't OK for Bush to lie, either. I voted for Slick Willie, not
knowing
>at the time that he was even a bigger sleazebag than Bush.
Lieing .... comes with the territory..it's called the doctrine of plausible
deniability.... these simplistic arguments about lieing are sooooooo
innocent, as to invoke the cherry tree standard of truthfulness in political
life. We all KNOW that politicians lie... but it's not called lying... its
called spin... or interpretation...or whatever. We don't expecct a moron to
be elected that doesnt know when to lie and when to tell the truth.. now
when we elect such a moron.. then we will be in real, serious trouble.
>
>Clinton needs to go. If he cared about anyone but himself, he'd
>resign, but he's not ready to do that just yet. So onward with the
>impeachment.
>
>Lynette
I pity you, and this country, because your mind is so closed, and you are
unable to see that this is a purely partisan political coup. I suppose its
better than one of your right wing conspiracies resulting in brains blasted
onto the street... like the last great coup. I pray that Bill clinton fihts
to the last. and the Republicans will be responsible for the consequences.
So be it. When the hens come back to roost, the Republicans, and
brainwashed people like you will be responsible.
SRG
>
Scott Graber
Rafe B. wrote in message <36710c91...@199.1.13.10>...
>>> In this person's little narrow world, context is absent from reasoning.
It
>>> is quite forgiveable to lie about intentionally circumventing a direct
>>> prohibition against funding a right wing Contra faction in Nicaragua,
>>
So onward with the
>>impeachment.
>>
>
>
>What Clinton did with Monica has nothing to do with Clinton's
>duties as a president.
>
>In the role for which he was elected, Clinton's done a pretty
>good job, by most accounts.
>
>Sure he's a sleazebag. Way too right-wing for me. But
>he balanced the federal budget, which is one thing that
>Reagan and Bush, in 12 years time, totally failed to do.
>
>That in itself was rather a right-wing agenda. You loons
>that call Clinton a "socialist" are so far off the mark as to
>be laughable.
Right wing brainwashed ditto head goose stepping neo reactionaries lack the
ability to analyze independently , and they accept the propaganda doled out
by their so called leadership. It's a true pity.
Sam A. Kersh
>The last honest US president was Jimmy Carter.
Could be, but, damn, he was inept.
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Life Member
TSRA, JPFO
Training is Sergeant's Business
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh/
===============================================================
talk.politics.guns' resident hypocrite admits to using a gun
by proxy
"So for me and my family, all we need for protection
against crime is some basic knowledge of where not to
travel, and how to travel there if we have to. For
instance, I've had to go into the Cabrini and Taylor Homes
in Chicago a number of times, but because they are
high-crime areas, I go in daylight, to meet someone I know,
with a bodyguard."
Robert L. Ray aka ki...@interaccess.com
Sam A. Kersh
>What Clinton did with Monica has nothing to do with Clinton's
>duties as a president.
>
>In the role for which he was elected, Clinton's done a pretty
>good job, by most accounts.
>
So lying in a court deposition is okay by you, rafe?
>Sure he's a sleazebag. Way too right-wing for me. But
>he balanced the federal budget, which is one thing that
>Reagan and Bush, in 12 years time, totally failed to do.
>
No, rafe, he didn't balance the budget. The Republican lead Congress
refused to go along with his tax and spend agenda.... Prior to the 1994
public revolt, the Clintonistas pushed through the largest tax increase
in U.S. history.
>That in itself was rather a right-wing agenda. You loons
>that call Clinton a "socialist" are so far off the mark as to
>be laughable.
Right Wing???? Damn, that just gives us an idea how far to the left you
are, rafe, if you consider Clinton "right-wing."
Eric Williams
: ra...@channel1.com (Rafe B.) wrote:
: >The last honest US president was Jimmy Carter.
: Could be, but, damn, he was inept.
Clinton's domestic policy may be competent, but I think his foreign policy
is as screwed up as Carter's was, if not more so. The press just isn't
making as big an issue of it as they did of Carter's.
--
Arrest rate of Washington DC police officers: 19 per 1000
Arrest rate of New York City police officers: 3 per 1000
Arrest rate of Florida concealed handgun permit holders: 0.9 per 1000
Which one should we disarm?
Scott Graber
Dan Z wrote in message <74rq7c$k...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <74rbk2$pan$1...@remarQ.com> "Scott Graber" <srgr...@sss.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>Right wing brainwashed ditto head goose stepping neo reactionaries
>lack the
>>ability to analyze independently , and they accept the propaganda
>doled out
>>by their so called leadership. It's a true pity.
>
>everyone that YOURS is the correct "spin......"
Its just about time someone called a duck a duck... if it walks like one.
We liberals have been Mr. Nice guy for too long. We have suffered the
insults of the smug elitist, racist, right wing reactionaries for far too
long. Now that they are emboldend enough to bomb clinics, murder
physicians, and attempt an overthrow of our President, its time to agree
that its time for No more MR. NICE GUY.
SRG
Eric Pinnell
Scott Graber wrote:
>
>
> We liberals have been Mr. Nice guy for too long. We have suffered the
> insults of the smug elitist, racist, right wing reactionaries for far too
> long.
Aw, his feelings are hurt.
> Now that they are emboldend enough to bomb clinics, murder
> physicians, and attempt an overthrow of our President, its time to agree
> that its time for No more MR. NICE GUY.
>
> SRG
Oh, wow. Look. The unarmed liberal is gonna be NOT nice to all those who
have guns. Five bucks says he eats one right in a very tender spot.
Eric Pinnell
Walt Gilbert
wrote:
>Its just about time someone called a duck a duck... if it walks like one.
>
>We liberals have been Mr. Nice guy for too long. We have suffered the
>insults of the smug elitist, racist, right wing reactionaries for far too
>long. Now that they are emboldend enough to bomb clinics, murder
>physicians, and attempt an overthrow of our President, its time to agree
>that its time for No more MR. NICE GUY.
>
>
>SRG
>
Oh-oh...looks like we conservatives might want to be careful checking
the mail for a while.
Ted?
Is that you Ted?
--
walt gilbert
misn...@yahoo.com
--
If you ever feel like you're on the verge of a nervous breakdown, just follow
these simple rules: First, calm down; second, come over and wash my car; third,
shine all my shoes. There, isn't that better?
Deep Thoughts
by Jack Handey
Lynette Warren
>
> We don't expecct a moron to be elected that doesnt know when to
> lie and when to tell the truth..
That's the problem. Clinton doesn't know when to stop lying.
> We all KNOW that politicians lie... but it's not called lying...
The President swore an oath in a court of law and then repeatedly lied his
ass off - over and over again. That's called lying, not "spin."
> now when we elect such a moron..
You did.
> then we will be in real, serious trouble.
Only if you let the Pathological Liar in Chief continue to get away with
it.
Lynette
--
Rafe B.
>In <36710c91...@199.1.13.10> ra...@channel1.com (Rafe B.) writes:
>>
>>What Clinton did with Monica has nothing to do with Clinton's
>>duties as a president.
>>
>
>
>But his lying under oath certainly does.
Lying about whether or not he had sex with an intern?
Give us a break!
It's not like he dropped bombs on Cambodia
(while lying to congress) or sold arms to Iran
(while lying to congress) or made deals with
Manuel Noriega (while lying to congress.)
Ken Starr's initial mandate was to investigate
Whitewater. Like your butthole friend Alphonse
D'Amato, who had tried for years to make a
case against Clinton, Ken failed to prove
wrongdoing.
But then Linda Tripp gave Ken an opening,
and Ken ran with it. So now the presidency is
on the line, over a matter that MOST folks
consider private, and at worst, totally irrelevant
to the presidency.
A host of legal experts have testified that no
private citizen would ever have faced perjury
charges in a similar situation.
You want an eye-opener? Have a look at
who financed Paula Jones' long-standing
legal battles with Clinton. It would turn your
stomach.
>>In the role for which he was elected, Clinton's done a pretty
>>good job, by most accounts.
>>
>>Sure he's a sleazebag. Way too right-wing for me. But
>>he balanced the federal budget, which is one thing that
>>Reagan and Bush, in 12 years time, totally failed to do.
>
I see you didn't bother arguing that point...
>"Balanced the budget" by depending on, what everbody else knows is
>strictly temporary, the high-flying stock market. Meantime, he takes
>credit for the economic prosperity brought on BY the policies of Reagan
>and Bush.
>
BWAHAHAH. What a laugh. Bushie boy has been
gone for six years now, Reagan for ten. Supply-side
was a myth, Danny boy! Wake up and smell the
coffee.
Clinton pissed off a huge portion of his own constituency
by agreeing to "welfare reform" and trimming the hell
out of the domestic budget.
In fact, there are some that say Wall Street is doing
well exactly because it LIKES the way Clinton (and the
Fed) are dealing with the Federal budget.
>>
>>That in itself was rather a right-wing agenda. You loons
>>that call Clinton a "socialist" are so far off the mark as to
>>be laughable.
>>
>
>
>I don't hear anybody laughing.
>
No, it's a serious matter when a completely partisan
congress takes it upon themselves to bring down
the presidency out of hatred and spite.
Clinton was elected by the American people, not
once, but twice. A sizeable majority (as of today,
70%) think he should NOT be impeached.
A host of constitutional scholars say that what Clinton
did (even "lying under oath") is not, by itself, an
impeachable offense.
So where do 21 arrogant Republicans get off
subverting the will of the American public, and
defying the Constitution?
rafe b.
Rafe B.
wrote:
>
>Right Wing???? Damn, that just gives us an idea how far to the left you
>are, rafe, if you consider Clinton "right-wing."
Well, in that case your gunloon pal Chris Morton must be a Communist.
rafe b.
--------------
[Bill Clinton is] about as liberal as a torchlight parade and book
burning in Munich.
Chris Morton, 5/6/97
--------------
Franklin Jennings
"Rafe B." wrote:
>
>
> A host of legal experts have testified that no
> private citizen would ever have faced perjury
> charges in a similar situation.
And those people would be wrong, as there were several persons who were in
similar situations and served time for it.
>
>
>
--
*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanlysis (1952)
"I would rather be ashes than dust! I would rather that my spark
should burn out in a brilliant blaze than it should be stifled by
dry rot. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in
magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent plant. The proper
function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my
days in trying to prolong them.I shall use my time."
Jack London
Rafe B.
>
>Does this mean you liberals are going to commit bombings, murder and
>revolution?
No, we leave that to right-wing wankers such as yourself.
rafe b.
Steve Fischer
LIberals don't have the guts to risk life or limb for anything.
They leave it to the more radical communists (Weathermen, etc)
to actually DO their dirtywork.
--
/Steve D. Fischer/Atlanta, Georgia/str...@netcom.com/
Sam A. Kersh
>On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:10:33 GMT, csmk...@flash.net (Sam A. Kersh)
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Right Wing???? Damn, that just gives us an idea how far to the left you
>>are, rafe, if you consider Clinton "right-wing."
>
>
>Well, in that case your gunloon pal Chris Morton must be a Communist.
>
Can't get through even one post without being insulting, can you.
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Life Member
TSRA Life Member
L.E.A.A., JPFO
Mike
Sam A. Kersh wrote in message <3672f584...@news.flash.net>...
Rafe B.
wrote:
>ra...@channel1.com (Rafe B.) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:10:33 GMT, csmk...@flash.net (Sam A. Kersh)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Right Wing???? Damn, that just gives us an idea how far to the left you
>>>are, rafe, if you consider Clinton "right-wing."
>>
>>
>>Well, in that case your gunloon pal Chris Morton must be a Communist.
>>
>
>Can't get through even one post without being insulting, can you.
>
'S'matter, Sammy boy? Are you ashamed of what Mr. Morton
has to say? Good. There may be hope for you, then.
rafe b.
Dave Hensley
wrote:
>In article <3672b297...@199.1.13.10> ra...@channel1.com (Rafe B.) writes:
>>On 12 Dec 1998 17:22:56 GMT, dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Does this mean you liberals are going to commit bombings, murder and
>>>revolution?
>>
>>
>>No, we leave that to right-wing wankers such as yourself.
>>
>>
>>rafe b.
>
> LIberals don't have the guts to risk life or limb for anything.
>They leave it to the more radical communists (Weathermen, etc)
>to actually DO their dirtywork.
Jeez, man. The 60's are WAY over. Get over it.
Best regards,
Dave
Dan Sorenson
>What Clinton did with Monica has nothing to do with Clinton's
>duties as a president.
True. I recall nothing in the Constitution that states
getting your bone smoked is a requirement, duty, or otherwise
related to the office. On the other hand, there are at least
three counts of impeachment being handed to him for what he did
afterwords, mainly consisting of of perjury and witness tampering.
If the President gets his root slurped, that's nobody's business.
If the President perjures himself, that's everybody's business.
>Sure he's a sleazebag. Way too right-wing for me. But
>he balanced the federal budget, which is one thing that
>Reagan and Bush, in 12 years time, totally failed to do.
It helps when a Republican-controlled congress passes
all the bills you get to either sign or veto. If you'll recall,
all spending originates in the House of Representatives. If
the House doesn't authorize it, it isn't spent. Funny how
you give Clinton credit for the cuts that Republicans made,
in spite of the NEA, PBS, and general media circus saying how
welfare mothers would be out on the streets. Clinton and the
liberals fought it, they lost, and now you claim it a victory.
Must be like the 100,000 police officers Clinton loves
to talk about hiring. At last count, fewer than half of them
had ever donned a uniform.
If this administration has a legacy, it's one of
words and not action. El Presidente loves to crow about all
the cops he says he'd fund, yet less than half of them exist.
He loves to crow about all the criminals he stopped from buying
guns, yet they have fewer than ten convictions on felony, federal
charges that are part and parcel of the same law that stops the
sale.
Go ahead and brag about what a great job the philanderer
in chief is doing. By the way he talks he's doing a bang-up job.
The proof, however, is less flattering.
--
* Dan Sorenson DoD #1066 ASSHOLE #35 BOTY 97 Ret. vik...@probe.net *
* Vikings? There ain't no vikings here. Just us honest farmers. *
* The town was burning, the villagers were dead. They didn't need *
* those sheep anyway. That's our story and we're sticking to it. *
Eric Pinnell
Rafe B. wrote:
> On 12 Dec 1998 17:22:56 GMT, dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
>
> >
> >Does this mean you liberals are going to commit bombings, murder and
> >revolution?
>
> No, we leave that to right-wing wankers such as yourself.
>
> rafe b.
*WARNING* Rafe is a Limey. Repeat. Rafe is a Limey. Which means, like
the
other boot licking wimps in the UK, his opinion isn't worth reading.
Eric Pinnell
no one of consequence
]
]Dan Z wrote in message <74rq7c$k...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>...
]>In <74rbk2$pan$1...@remarQ.com> "Scott Graber" <srgr...@sss.net> writes:
]>>
]>>
]>>Right wing brainwashed ditto head goose stepping neo reactionaries
]>lack the
]>>ability to analyze independently , and they accept the propaganda
]>doled out
]>>by their so called leadership. It's a true pity.
]>
]>And your obviously unbiased reaction will certainly help convince
]>everyone that YOURS is the correct "spin......"
]Its just about time someone called a duck a duck... if it walks like one.
Except this duck is a swan.
]We liberals have been Mr. Nice guy for too long. We have suffered the
]insults of the smug elitist, racist, right wing reactionaries for far too
]long. Now that they are emboldend enough to bomb clinics, murder
]physicians, and attempt an overthrow of our President, its time to agree
]that its time for No more MR. NICE GUY.
Oh? Do tell.
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@io.com |
|"You know I like her. Scares the hell out of me sometimes, but I do like|
|her. Just, uh, don't tell her that." Dr. Franklin about Ivanova. -B5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
John Kane
>
> Scott Graber wrote:
> > We liberals have been Mr. Nice guy for too long. We have suffered the insults of the smug elitist, racist, right wing reactionaries for far too long.
> Aw, his feelings are hurt.
> > Now that they are emboldend enough to bomb clinics, murder
> > physicians, and attempt an overthrow of our President, its time to agree
> > that its time for No more MR. NICE GUY.
> > SRG
> Oh, wow. Look. The unarmed liberal is gonna be NOT nice to all those who
> have guns. Five bucks says he eats one right in a very tender spot.
Of course, the revolutions in the USSR, Germany, Poland, the Czech
Republic, Slovinia, Indonisia and South Africa did not require guns ( SA
being something of an exception). Keep those guns coming. They seem to
reduce the chance of a revolution!
>
> Eric Pinnell
--
John Kane
Hull, Quebec, Canada
Tel: (819) 770-5468 Fax: (819) 772-0795
Rafe B.
wrote:
Hey eric, that's a kick! Just wondering at how
you arrived at that brilliant conclusion...
rafe b.
Steve Fischer
>On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 21:00:42 GMT, str...@netcom.com (Steve Fischer)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3672b297...@199.1.13.10> ra...@channel1.com (Rafe B.) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Does this mean you liberals are going to commit bombings, murder and
>>>>revolution?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, we leave that to right-wing wankers such as yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>rafe b.
>>
>>They leave it to the more radical communists (Weathermen, etc)
>>to actually DO their dirtywork.
>
>Jeez, man. The 60's are WAY over. Get over it.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Dave
True, but glad you appear to agree with my premise.
Sam A. Kersh
>On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 21:00:42 GMT, str...@netcom.com (Steve Fischer)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3672b297...@199.1.13.10> ra...@channel1.com (Rafe B.) writes:
>>>On 12 Dec 1998 17:22:56 GMT, dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Does this mean you liberals are going to commit bombings, murder and
>>>>revolution?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, we leave that to right-wing wankers such as yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>rafe b.
>>
>> LIberals don't have the guts to risk life or limb for anything.
>>They leave it to the more radical communists (Weathermen, etc)
>>to actually DO their dirtywork.
>
>Jeez, man. The 60's are WAY over. Get over it.
Why? The "liberals" are still using stooges to do their dirty work....
Two of the 3 stooges I know are rafe and RAY.
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Life Member
Sam A. Kersh
Once again, Rafe jumps to the wrong conclusion... But we're used to
that.
Frank Ney
"Scott Graber" <srgr...@sss.net> to write:
>>And your obviously unbiased reaction will certainly help convince
>>everyone that YOURS is the correct "spin......"
>
>Its just about time someone called a duck a duck... if it walks like one.
>
>We liberals have been Mr. Nice guy for too long. We have suffered the
>insults of the smug elitist, racist, right wing reactionaries for far too
>long. Now that they are emboldend enough to bomb clinics, murder
>physicians, and attempt an overthrow of our President, its time to agree
>that its time for No more MR. NICE GUY.
Funny, that's exactly what we think of you liberal victim-disarming,
tree-hugging, feminazi freedom-haters. No more MR. NICE GUY.
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Fan Guest of Honor, Technicon 16 http://www.technicon.org
--
"Apparently, on New Texas, killing a politician was not malum in se, and
was malum prohibitorum only to the extent that what the politician got
was in excess of what he deserved."
- H. Beam Piper, _Lone Star Planet_ opa _A Planet For Texans_
D.G. Porter
>
> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 21:50:25 -0500,
>
> >that its time for No more MR. NICE GUY.
>
> Funny, that's exactly what we think of you liberal victim-disarming,
> tree-hugging, feminazi freedom-haters. No more MR. NICE GUY.
The lexicon of the true rabid right-wing loon.
"victim-disarming" = "I need more guns than sperm since my dick stopped
working."
"tree-hugging" = "God damn commie wants to preserve that last bit of
nature when I could still make a buck and a half off it!"
[BTW, Napoleon was a tree hugger. Literally.]
"feminazi" = "Duh, I lissen to Rush. Huh-huh, women should stay
barefoot in winter and pregnant in summer, huh-huh! And I can't get
any unless I pay for it, that sucks."
"freedom-hater" = "God damn commie wants to tell me I can't shoot people
if I want to! God damn commie want to tell me I can't poison my
neighbor's yard in my pursuit of making a buck! God damn commie sez I
can't feel up my secretry, beat my wife and fuck my daughter in
private!"
pyotr filipivich
>On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 02:21:55 -0800, Lynette Warren <ar...@surfari.net>
>wrote:
>>Scott Graber wrote:
>>> In this person's little narrow world, context is absent from reasoning. It
>>> is quite forgiveable to lie about intentionally circumventing a direct
>>> prohibition against funding a right wing Contra faction in Nicaragua,
>>
>>It wasn't OK for Bush to lie, either. I voted for Slick Willie, not knowing
>>at the time that he was even a bigger sleazebag than Bush.
>>
>>Clinton needs to go. If he cared about anyone but himself, he'd
>>resign, but he's not ready to do that just yet. So onward with the
>>impeachment.
>>
>What Clinton did with Monica has nothing to do with Clinton's
>duties as a president.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
But the funny thing is the large number of liberals who are
shooting thimselves in the foot.
What Clinton did and didn't do with the women in his office is
his private business - until the lawyers get involved.
Clarence Thomas is _accused_ by one person to have made off
color remarks, and that's sexual harrassemtn, and he's not fit to be on
the SUpreme Court.
Bill Clinton is boffing the interns, and he's fit to appoint
Supreme Court Judges?
Lawrence Walsh spends 71 million dollars investigating "the
October Suprise" - because the very seriousness of the chrage bears
investigation, and the fact that there is no evidence "merely proves the
extent of the coverup". Meanwhile the IC _asked for by Bill CLinton_ to
look originally into allegations about some thrid rate real estate deal,
has gotten 6 convictions and 12 guilty pleas.
But we're told that there's nothing to the Whitewater mess.
Chuck Colson did four years in the Federal Pen for showing 1
(one) FBI file to a supporter. But no body knows who asked for a
thousand FBI files (and at least 2 IRS files) to be sent to the White
House.
18 minutes of confidential tapes are erased and this is a Sign
of the Immanent Downfall of the Republic. But six months of security
logs go walkies and it's just a routine SNAFU.
>In the role for which he was elected, Clinton's done a pretty
>good job, by most accounts.
And which accounts would those be - the Bimbo Eruption task
force from the 92 election days? (that group was formed _by_ the Clinton
Campaign, to respond to the number of women who were going to come out
and mention either his sexual advances or their affairs with him.
>Sure he's a sleazebag. Way too right-wing for me. But
>he balanced the federal budget, which is one thing that
>Reagan and Bush, in 12 years time, totally failed to do.
Sorry rafe, Clinton hasn't balanced a budget at all. And
neither has the Congress. They're still playing accounting games to
cover up the deficit spending.
>That in itself was rather a right-wing agenda. You loons
>that call Clinton a "socialist" are so far off the mark as to
>be laughable.
To call Clinton anything more than an opportunist is to
misidentify his political stance.
He's a hypocrite, so I suppose that qualifies him for politics.
But he's also lying under oath - which disqualifies him from holding
_any_ office of trust in the country.
--
pyotr filipivich, AKA Nickolai Petrovich.
"Do not argue with the forces of nature,
for you are small, insignificant, and biodegradable."
Michael Zarlenga
: > Funny, that's exactly what we think of you liberal victim-disarming,
: > tree-hugging, feminazi freedom-haters. No more MR. NICE GUY.
: The lexicon of the true rabid right-wing loon.
: "victim-disarming" = "I need more guns than sperm since my dick stopped
: working."
Still suffering from penis envy, eh, DG?
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
pyotr filipivich
>pyotr filipivich wrote in message <74ptlk$9ng$1...@halcyon.com>...
>>>: >: P.S. Bill is smart. He is also dishonest and has no scruples.
>>>: >: Honest men are at a disadvantage when dealing wiht his type.
>>
>>>: >But his moral crimes are petty whereas Bush's and Reagan's are not.
>>
>>>: I realize that rubbing Eric's metaphorical nose in the minor
>>>: detail that his hero LIES UNDER OATH, which is not only a 'moral' crime,
>>>: but a legal one, isn't going to cause him satori, but then again, Eric
>>>: has demonstrated repeatedly his belief that the President is above the
>>>: Law (as long as the President is a Democrat.)
>Mouthing the mantra of his hypocritical models on the HJC, this poster has
>President Clinton convicted of perjury, by an answer to an intentionally
>vague question, an intentional pergury trap, of a matter immaterial to the
>case he was being deposed about, which itself, from the start, was a bogus
>political attack brought by trailer trash, and financed by Clintons
>political enemies.
So then you're saying the President _didn't_ publically say he
mislead the court in his desposition in the Paula Jones case. Is that
what you're saying?
That it's okay to lie in court, or to the American people, or to
the Judical Department, or to Congress?
I thought the last of the Nixon supporters had passed away.
Well, learn something new every day.
>>>If Clinton's worse crime is sex, than he's way ahead of Reagan and Bush,
>>>morally.
>>
>>>Eric
>>
>> Yep - I can always depend on Eric to ignore the criminal
>>behavior of his hero, and concentrate on the sex.
>>
>> One more time for the east coast audience. This president is
>>charged with lying under oath. In the real world, that is known as
>>perjury. If Clinton didn't want to lie under oath, he could have
>>refused to answer under his right to be secure against self
>>incrimination. But He did not chose such a course, rather he chose to
>>lie while under oath. And then lie to his subordinates, so that they
>>would then support his lies.
>> When called to testify before a Grand Jury, he could have copped
>>the Fifth, but he chose to again lie under oath. As was said at the
>>time, he was either admitting to perjury in the first instance, or
>>perjuring himself again. Clinton is two for two. And then in a post
>>testimony press conference, admitted that he had "mislead the American
>>people" in his previous testimony.
>>
>> Eric doesn't find this bad, because in Eric's little world,
>>apparently lying under oath is a common occurance. Or maybe he likes
>>being lied to. Either one cause me to wonder about the truthfulness
>>of any of his statements. [Eric or Clinton's, either one.] Because
>>for all his alleged experiencial education, Eric hasn't learned that
>>even when they speak the truth, liar's reputations preceed them, and
>>cause their statements to be discounted as false. No body believes a
>>liar.
>>
>In this person's little narrow world, context is absent from reasoning. It
>is quite forgiveable to lie about intentionally circumventing a direct
>prohibition against funding a right wing Contra faction in Nicaragua, by
>illegally selling weaponry to a terrorist nation, but unforgiveable to
>attempt to obscure an embarassing personal indiscretion. It is so
>indicative of the blind partisan illogic utilized by simple minded
>followers, and consumers of propaganda..... to raise the level of damge
>done by the personal indiscretion to that of subverting the will of the
>legislative branch of our gov't.
But you support that, don't you.
After all, you're making lying under oath a non-issue, so it
would follow that if the President can lie under oath in such a trivial
manner, his agents don't have to be completely forth coming when
Congress asks them about things they don't think Congress needs to know.
>We can only shake our heads in disbelief
>and pity, at the sorry state the educational system has left many of our
>people.. unable to think a whit for themselves, but only parroting what they
>heard on television this afternoon.
Yes, it is sad. All these Presidential defenders who feel that
perjury is not a crime if the President does it. They sit glued to the
tube, lapping up the latest spin from the DNC's mouthpieces; feeling
they're getting the Real Information.
>have fun wathching your reactionary party finally self destroy in the eyes
>of the American people, when they finally recognize what a farce this
>proceeding has been,, I certainly will.
I'll miss the Democrats too. Because they're the ones who want
to ignore the Constitution and go for an irrelevant censure vote.
Frank Ney
csmk...@flash.net (Sam A. Kersh) to write:
>>'S'matter, Sammy boy? Are you ashamed of what Mr. Morton
>>has to say? Good. There may be hope for you, then.
>
>Once again, Rafe jumps to the wrong conclusion... But we're used to
>that.
Give the poor boy a break -- jumping to conclusions is the only exercise the
girly-boy gets all day. . .
Frank Ney
vik...@probe.net (Dan Sorenson) to write:
> Go ahead and brag about what a great job the philanderer
>in chief is doing. By the way he talks he's doing a bang-up job.
No, he's just banging anyone but Mrs. Clinton. Hell, given he's from
Arkansas I'm surprised Chelsea isn't on his list of "conquests." Wouldn't
that be a fun prison term for Mr. "Kiss It" if the general population knew
he had a case of short-eyes. . .
>The proof, however, is less flattering.
Much less flattering. I'm waiting for the black uniforms with silver
accents to hit the streets.
bob
>
> >Clinton needs to go. If he cared about anyone but himself, he'd
> >resign, but he's not ready to do that just yet. So onward with the
> >impeachment.
>
> What Clinton did with Monica has nothing to do with Clinton's
> duties as a president.
>
> good job, by most accounts.
>
> he balanced the federal budget, which is one thing that
> Reagan and Bush, in 12 years time, totally failed to do.
>
> that call Clinton a "socialist" are so far off the mark as to
> be laughable.
>
I'm sorry sir, but you are wrong on all accounts. Any way you look at
it, Clinton either violated the rules and regulations of all
organizations he represents/head, or just outright broke the law. How
could his "inappropriate relationship" not have anything to do with his
duties as the President?
As President, he too must follow the laws of this country. I apologize
for not being able to cite the exact law, but it is a federal crime to
engage in sex of any kind in a federal building. I believe it only
carries a maximum 6 month sentence, but it is still a violation of the
law just the same. Clinton's duties as the President definitely include
upholding the laws of the land.
What about when he was on the phone with a Congressman discussing the
troop deployment to Bosnia while Monika was performing oral sex? Where
his official duties involed then? What does that say about his attitude
towards the military and the responsibilities of his office? Here he is
talking about putting American troops in harms way, but it's not
important enough to interrupt his blow job! How clearly was he thinking
and how rational were the decisions he made while Monika was doing her
best to "distract" him? Gee, I'm sorry; but I'm in the military and I
take personal offense to such conduct! My life is more important that a
blow job!! The life of my brothers-in-arms is more important than a blow
job. I have yet to run into a person associated with the military that
does not take offense to the President's actions when explained to them
in this manner. I would be seriously surprised if any person who has
worn a uniform with honor in the armed services would excuse Clinton's
behavior.
Clinton is the Commander-In-Chief of the military. The military has an
officail "zero-tolerance" policy towards sexual harrassment. The SgtMjr
Of the Army was recently forced to resign after he was ACQUITTED of all
charges of sexual harrassment. A 3-star AF general was passed up for his
4th star and didn't get nominated for chairman of the JCS because he had
an affair 15 years earlier while he was separated from his wife. A
female AF pilot was recently discharged for inappropriate sexual
relations with enlisted personnel. Just last week an Army Special Forces
CO was relieved of his duties for admitting to having an affair.
[+] Clinton was on the clock being paid at taxpayer expense
[+] Monika was still on the clock during several encounters, also at
taxpayer expense
[+] Clinton was in a federal office provided at tax payer expense
[+] Clinton was doing a subordinate employee, less than half his age.
[+] Clinton conducted official business during the encounters
[+] Clinton was discussing life & death matters (sending troops to
Bosnia) with a Congressman while Monika performed oral sex
[+] Clinton lied under oath in court
[+] Clinton lied under oath to the Grand Jury
[+] Clinton lied in response to the official inquiries of the House
Judicary Committee
[+] Clinton lied to the entire nation
[+] Clinton lied to me
Yes, other people have lied under oath; but Clinton was caught red
handed. We have a crime. We have the criminal. We have the proof. Plain
and simple, either it is okay to go in to court and lie under oath about
the testimony you are providing or it isn't. Either it is okay for the
Chief Executive to lie during the official proceedings of the Judical
Branch or it is not. Either it is okay for the Chief Executive to lie in
his official dealings with Congressional investigations into his wrong
doings or it is not.
Everyone knows that our government has a series of checks and balances
built into the system. The executive branch can't enact anything without
the legislature. And unless the legislature overrides a veto (which
hasn't happened very recently), they can't enact anything without the
chief executive. Yet it always surprises me when individual politicians
take credit for single handedly doing something positive and lay all
blame on others when something negative happens. What is worse than a
politician making such claims, is the public falling for such claims!!
Clinton DID NOT "balance the federal budget"!!! He may have approved
the budget passed by the Republican controlled Congress; but he didn't
"balance the budget". Neither political party, or branch of the
government, can take any individual credit for passing a "balanced
budget". Especially since the alledged balanced budget is based on
financial assumption, fiscal forcasts and proposed earning & savings
that have already proved to be off by hundreds of millions of dollars.
pyotr filipivich
>Lynette Warren wrote in message <3670F2...@surfari.net>...
>>Scott Graber wrote:
>>> In this person's little narrow world, context is absent from reasoning.
>It
>>> is quite forgiveable to lie about intentionally circumventing a direct
>>> prohibition against funding a right wing Contra faction in Nicaragua,
>>
>>It wasn't OK for Bush to lie, either. I voted for Slick Willie, not
>knowing
>>at the time that he was even a bigger sleazebag than Bush.
>Lieing .... comes with the territory..it's called the doctrine of plausible
>deniability.... these simplistic arguments about lieing are sooooooo
>innocent, as to invoke the cherry tree standard of truthfulness in political
>life. We all KNOW that politicians lie... but it's not called lying... its
>called spin... or interpretation...or whatever. We don't expecct a moron to
>be elected that doesnt know when to lie and when to tell the truth.. now
>when we elect such a moron.. then we will be in real, serious trouble.
Sorry scooter old sock, but there is a great deal of difference
between offering an interpretation of the facts, and denying the facts
all together. The former situation can lead to all manner of jokes,
usually of the type with the punchline "and your Honor, that's why I was
in bed with an underaged girl.".
The latter are not very different from those who attempt to deny
that there ever was a Battle for Stalingrad, as there was no Stalingrad.
>>Clinton needs to go. If he cared about anyone but himself, he'd
>>resign, but he's not ready to do that just yet. So onward with the
>>impeachment.
>>
>>Lynette
>I pity you, and this country, because your mind is so closed, and you are
>unable to see that this is a purely partisan political coup. I suppose its
>better than one of your right wing conspiracies resulting in brains blasted
>onto the street... like the last great coup. I pray that Bill clinton fihts
>to the last. and the Republicans will be responsible for the consequences.
>So be it. When the hens come back to roost, the Republicans, and
>brainwashed people like you will be responsible.
So why are you fighting so hard to get Clinton off the hook, and
protect the Republicans from the backlash?
pyotr filipivich
>On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 22:35:22 -0500, "Scott Graber" <srgr...@sss.net>
>wrote:
>Good post, Scott.
>I'm kind of enjoying watching the Repugs self-destruct.
So why are so many Democrats so intent on protecting the
Republicans by keeping them from self-destructing?
When the opposition is digging themselves into a hole, don't
tell them to knock off early. Hand them more shovels!
>You'd think the election (what, five weeks ago?) would
>have knocked some sense into their thick heads.
>You wonder why those same gun nuts who wring
>their hands over Randy Weaver's entrapment
>think it's cool when Ken Starr does the same thing
>to a sitting president, or when Linda Tripp does
>the same thing to Monica Lewinsky.
Ah Rafe old bud, I realize that there are certian poltical
realities you prefer to abid by, but one of the patterns of the Clinton
administration is their savageing of any one who even mentions "the
emperor has no clothes." Okay, bad choice of anaolgy. But the Clinton
spin machine will attack and destroy any person they see as a tthreat.
Linda Tripp had seen that happen before, and she was not going to have
it come down to a case of her word vs the President, his cronies and
their laptop lackies in the press. She got, on tape, one of Clinton's
subordinates talking about their sexual relationship.
Something that nobody seems willing to explain or deny. The
Clinton spin machine goes right on attacking those who bring the message
- and never refutes the charges.
>Those who complain about Clinton's disregard
>for the truth conveniently forget those long hard
>years under Ronald (Iran-Contra) Reagan and
>George ("There was no quid pro quo.") Bush.
Yeap. I remember the Reagan campaign's Bimbo Eruption
Task Force. Or I would if I were a Clitonista, they seem quite capable
of remembering things no one else recall. (LIke those black churches
burning in Arkansas.)
What I find interesting is why are the Democrats so concerned
about former presidents who mislead congress, when they aren't concerned
about current presidents who lie under oath. I thought everybody did it
so it wasn't any big deal.
Rafe B.
wrote:
>ra...@channel1.com (Rafe B.) writes:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 22:35:22 -0500, "Scott Graber" <srgr...@sss.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>Good post, Scott.
>
>>I'm kind of enjoying watching the Repugs self-destruct.
>
> So why are so many Democrats so intent on protecting the
>Republicans by keeping them from self-destructing?
Because it's a disgrace? Because there's real work to do?
Because a trial in the senate basically means that
the federal government stands still for the next
several months?
That last motive, of course, would suit most
repugs just fine. Having no plan of their own,
obstruction is all they can offer.
> When the opposition is digging themselves into a hole, don't
>tell them to knock off early. Hand them more shovels!
>
At one level, I agree with you. At that level,
it's all very comical, and I'm quite content
to see the repugs charge away. Their quest
for ideological purity will be their undoing.
>>You'd think the election (what, five weeks ago?) would
>>have knocked some sense into their thick heads.
>
>>You wonder why those same gun nuts who wring
>>their hands over Randy Weaver's entrapment
>>think it's cool when Ken Starr does the same thing
>>to a sitting president, or when Linda Tripp does
>>the same thing to Monica Lewinsky.
>
> Ah Rafe old bud, I realize that there are certian poltical
>realities you prefer to abid by, but one of the patterns of the Clinton
>administration is their savageing of any one who even mentions "the
>emperor has no clothes." Okay, bad choice of anaolgy. But the Clinton
>spin machine will attack and destroy any person they see as a tthreat.
>Linda Tripp had seen that happen before, and she was not going to have
>it come down to a case of her word vs the President, his cronies and
>their laptop lackies in the press. She got, on tape, one of Clinton's
>subordinates talking about their sexual relationship.
> Something that nobody seems willing to explain or deny. The
>Clinton spin machine goes right on attacking those who bring the message
>- and never refutes the charges.
Linda Tripp is a sad excuse for a human being.
How can you claim that her actions were anything
other than entrapment?
She did it for the "good of the country?" Yeah, right.
If anything, Linda's behavior has made the women
of this country even more sympathetic to Bill
Clinton. Personal trust seems to matter to them, and
Linda violated that, in a major way.
>>Those who complain about Clinton's disregard
>>for the truth conveniently forget those long hard
>>years under Ronald (Iran-Contra) Reagan and
>>George ("There was no quid pro quo.") Bush.
>
> Yeap. I remember the Reagan campaign's Bimbo Eruption
>Task Force. Or I would if I were a Clitonista, they seem quite capable
>of remembering things no one else recall. (LIke those black churches
>burning in Arkansas.)
>
> What I find interesting is why are the Democrats so concerned
>about former presidents who mislead congress, when they aren't concerned
>about current presidents who lie under oath. I thought everybody did it
>so it wasn't any big deal.
>
Lesser of evils, pyotr, I'm afraid.
Lying about blow-jobs just doesn't hold
a candle to lying about illegal arms shipments,
or lying about clandestine deals with central
american dictators, or lying about rigging
a national political campaign.
There was a cute political cartoon the other
day. Nixon is peeking behind a slightly
ajar door, labeled "Hall of Shame."
Clinton faces the door with a puzzled look.
Nixon says to Clinton, "Sorry, we don't allow
amateurs in here."
Qualitatively, they're all scumbags and liars,
but our system makes it so. Quantitatively,
Clinton's transgressions simply don't match
up to those of his republican predecessors.
rafe b.
Michael Beck
snip
>>
>> So why are so many Democrats so intent on protecting the
>>Republicans by keeping them from self-destructing?
>
>
>Because it's a disgrace? Because there's real work to do?
>Because a trial in the senate basically means that
>the federal government stands still for the next
>several months?
That may be better than more federal spending.
>
>That last motive, of course, would suit most
>repugs just fine. Having no plan of their own,
>obstruction is all they can offer.
Please list the details of the president's plan on social security.
>
>
>> When the opposition is digging themselves into a hole, don't
>>tell them to knock off early. Hand them more shovels!
>>
>
>At one level, I agree with you. At that level,
>it's all very comical, and I'm quite content
>to see the repugs charge away. Their quest
>for ideological purity will be their undoing.
No. It will be Bill Clinton's.
>
snip
>
>
>Linda Tripp is a sad excuse for a human being.
Right. She was labeled a "liar" by the president's lawyer in Newsweek
magazine. She's just an ordinary lady who should have been trashed by
the Clinton spin machine when she testified that hanky panky went on
in Foster's office after he died. She should have just been a good
victim and shut up like the rest.
>How can you claim that her actions were anything
>other than entrapment?
They were self-preservation. She was smart to tape. Otherwise, they
would have buried her.
>
>She did it for the "good of the country?" Yeah, right.
She did it for the good of herself.
>
>If anything, Linda's behavior has made the women
>of this country even more sympathetic to Bill
>Clinton. Personal trust seems to matter to them, and
>Linda violated that, in a major way.
That's a good one. If personal trust *did* matter to these people,
they wouldn't back Clinton in the first place. The dizzy broads who
follow Clinton remind me of the female jurors who voted against the
Menendez brothers during their first trial. After the verdict, they
tearfully explained that they couldn't bring themselves to put these
boys in jail because they sympathized with the fact that they were
without parents.
>
>
>>>Those who complain about Clinton's disregard
snip
>
>Lesser of evils, pyotr, I'm afraid.
>
>Lying about blow-jobs just doesn't hold
>a candle to lying about illegal arms shipments,
>or lying about clandestine deals with central
>american dictators, or lying about rigging
>a national political campaign.
The October surprise myth just doesn't seem to die. You extremists
will hold on to that story longer than the loons who insist that Vince
Foster was murdered.
BTW, the truth about the Iran/Contra mess was put right in front of
the people upon the orders of Ronald Reagan. He did nothing to
obstruct the investigation and let the facts fall where they may.
Clinton used the power of his office to obstruct justice and he lied
under oath. He has been far more damaging to our system out of
PERSONAL and SELFISH motives. In contrast, Reagan's policy may have
been misguided but it was intended to help AMERICAN CITIZENS, not
satisfy his selfish urges.
>
>There was a cute political cartoon the other
>day. Nixon is peeking behind a slightly
>ajar door, labeled "Hall of Shame."
>
>Clinton faces the door with a puzzled look.
>Nixon says to Clinton, "Sorry, we don't allow
>amateurs in here."
That was the door that said "Presidents Only". Clinton has strictly
been a low-class amateur in that area.
>
>Qualitatively, they're all scumbags and liars,
>but our system makes it so.
That's just not true. The men in the office *make* the system.
Reagan was basically an honest man. That caused him many problems
with pseudo sophisticates who thought he was rude to call the USSR the
"evil empire". Bush was also a highly principled individual. He
basically couldn't compete with Clinton at Clinton's low-grade level.
The same is true for Dole. I remember a story before the election
that stated if the US Senate voted for president, Dole would beat
Clinton 99-1. His record of integrity was outstanding.
Clinton is the scumbag and liar. Don't tarnish everyone else just to
save your "boy".
> Quantitatively,
>Clinton's transgressions simply don't match
>up to those of his republican predecessors.
Clinton's transgressions vastly exceed nearly every GOP president.
He's on par with Nixon and way ahead of him when it comes to personal
intimidation and media manipulation.
>
>
>
>rafe b.
Eric Chomko
: Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> writes:
[...]
: >If Clinton's worse crime is sex, than he's way ahead of Reagan and Bush,
: >morally.
: Yep - I can always depend on Eric to ignore the criminal
: behavior of his hero, and concentrate on the sex.
: One more time for the east coast audience. This president is
: charged with lying under oath. In the real world, that is known as
: perjury. If Clinton didn't want to lie under oath, he could have
: refused to answer under his right to be secure against self
: incrimination. But He did not chose such a course, rather he chose to
: lie while under oath. And then lie to his subordinates, so that they
: would then support his lies.
: When called to testify before a Grand Jury, he could have copped
: the Fifth, but he chose to again lie under oath. As was said at the
: time, he was either admitting to perjury in the first instance, or
: perjuring himself again. Clinton is two for two. And then in a post
: testimony press conference, admitted that he had "mislead the American
: people" in his previous testimony.
The 5th? Maybe. But you right wingers would have taken that as an
admission of guilt.
: Eric doesn't find this bad, because in Eric's little world,
: apparently lying under oath is a common occurance. Or maybe he likes
I'M NOT A SPOOK! Spooks lie under oath as instructed. Don't lecture me.
: being lied to. Either one cause me to wonder about the truthfulness
: of any of his statements. [Eric or Clinton's, either one.] Because
: for all his alleged experiencial education, Eric hasn't learned that
: even when they speak the truth, liar's reputations preceed them, and
: cause their statements to be discounted as false. No body believes a
: liar.
It's a personal act that has been made into a legal. At the core it IS
about sex. And for the GOP to have us believe that the whole motivation on
their part is due to some moral calling; spare us! This whole thing is
purely partisan politics.
Eric
Eric Chomko
: pyotr filipivich <py...@halcyon.com> wrote
: > Eric doesn't find this bad, because in Eric's little world,
: > apparently lying under oath is a common occurance. Or maybe he likes
: > of any of his statements. [Eric or Clinton's, either one.] Because
: > for all his alleged experiencial education, Eric hasn't learned that
: > even when they speak the truth, liar's reputations preceed them, and
: > cause their statements to be discounted as false. No body believes a
: > liar.
: This very thing is what I said in this NG more than 8 months ago.
: I will never believe any of Erics words as well as alot of other liberals
: that blindly support clinton.
You people really DON'T get it, do you? It is not so much support for
Clinton, but more a total disdain for Starr's tactics and knowing that a
"get Clinton" crowd is behind the whole process. The use of the tapes, the
whole affair turned into a legal issue just to get him for
something...anything. No, I don NOT support those people that would go to
any length to tear down there opponent as a means to even the playing
field. Sure Clinton has personal problems, but the truest sign of weakness
is the GOP and this whole witch hunt fiasco. If the DOJ had any sense it
would never have let this get so far out of hand. But I suspect that the
same invisible hands at work manipuating Starr are holding blinders of the
eyes of the key folks in the DOJ.
: To me, if someone supports a liar, they are a liar themselves.
Convenient for you. Exactly how did you arrive at that conclusion?
: If someone convinces me that they are a liar, I will never believe their
: words again.
Never forgive, huh? Never. That standard should ONLY be held to you! And
if you knew anything about personal power then you would hold it that way.
: Eric must be from the new school of thinking, the one that doesn't teach
: the students to read Aesops fables, particularly "The Boy that Cried Wolf".
: Eric breaks his arm patting himself on the back for all of the 'college' he
: has under his belt.
So you DO listen.
: But alas, he is very uneducated in the ways of common sense and logic.
: He is foolish to the highest degree.
Because I don't agree with you? Geez, Don, in true conservative form, you
speak your opinion as if it were the gospel. The the 2nd coming?
Eric
Eric Chomko
: On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:10:33 GMT, csmk...@flash.net (Sam A. Kersh)
: wrote:
: >
: >Right Wing???? Damn, that just gives us an idea how far to the left you
: >are, rafe, if you consider Clinton "right-wing."
: Well, in that case your gunloon pal Chris Morton must be a Communist.
Morton is an anarchist.
Eric
: rafe b.
: --------------
: [Bill Clinton is] about as liberal as a torchlight parade and book
: burning in Munich.
: Chris Morton, 5/6/97
: --------------
Eric Chomko
: In <74slpi$hlg$1...@remarQ.com> "Scott Graber" <srgr...@sss.net> writes:
: >
[...]
: >
: >>>
: >>>Right wing brainwashed ditto head goose stepping neo reactionaries
: >>lack the
: >>>ability to analyze independently , and they accept the propaganda
: >>doled out
: >>>by their so called leadership. It's a true pity.
: >>
: >>And your obviously unbiased reaction will certainly help convince
: >>everyone that YOURS is the correct "spin......"
: >
: >Its just about time someone called a duck a duck... if it walks like
: one.
: >
: >We liberals have been Mr. Nice guy for too long. We have suffered the
: >insults of the smug elitist, racist, right wing reactionaries for far
: too
: >long. Now that they are emboldend enough to bomb clinics, murder
: >physicians, and attempt an overthrow of our President, its time to
: agree
: >that its time for No more MR. NICE GUY.
: >
: Does this mean you liberals are going to commit bombings, murder and
: revolution?
No that will be left to you right wingers as is your custom. No we will
continue to kill you with kindness and extend a hand, and try and convince
you that win/win is really best for all. Somehow that seems to drive you
nuts.
Eric
Eric Chomko
: Rafe B. wrote:
: > On 12 Dec 1998 17:22:56 GMT, dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
: >
: > >
: > >Does this mean you liberals are going to commit bombings, murder and
: > >revolution?
: >
: > No, we leave that to right-wing wankers such as yourself.
: >
: > rafe b.
: *WARNING* Rafe is a Limey. Repeat. Rafe is a Limey. Which means, like
: the
: other boot licking wimps in the UK, his opinion isn't worth reading.
Isn't Defoe also from the UK? And his being RW aren't you at least a
little confused?
Eric Chomko
: Eric Pinnell
pyotr filipivich
>On 14 Dec 1998 21:44:42 -0800, py...@halcyon.com (pyotr filipivich)
>wrote:
>>ra...@channel1.com (Rafe B.) writes:
>>
>>>You wonder why those same gun nuts who wring
>>>their hands over Randy Weaver's entrapment
>>>think it's cool when Ken Starr does the same thing
>>>to a sitting president, or when Linda Tripp does
>>>the same thing to Monica Lewinsky.
>>
>> Ah Rafe old bud, I realize that there are certian poltical
>>realities you prefer to abid by, but one of the patterns of the Clinton
>>administration is their savageing of any one who even mentions "the
>>emperor has no clothes." Okay, bad choice of anaolgy. But the Clinton
>>spin machine will attack and destroy any person they see as a tthreat.
>>Linda Tripp had seen that happen before, and she was not going to have
>>it come down to a case of her word vs the President, his cronies and
>>their laptop lackies in the press. She got, on tape, one of Clinton's
>>subordinates talking about their sexual relationship.
>> Something that nobody seems willing to explain or deny. The
>>Clinton spin machine goes right on attacking those who bring the message
>>- and never refutes the charges.
>Linda Tripp is a sad excuse for a human being.
>How can you claim that her actions were anything
>other than entrapment?
>She did it for the "good of the country?" Yeah, right.
Nope. She did it for "self-defense", knowing the attack machine
this administration has, in palce and ready to use, to attack and
destroy the reputation of anyone who would dare cross it.
>If anything, Linda's behavior has made the women
>of this country even more sympathetic to Bill
>Clinton. Personal trust seems to matter to them, and
>Linda violated that, in a major way.
And thus they are lining up with a man who veiws the secretarial
staff as his private stable. They've decided to turn their back on
twenty five years of social progress and make sleeping with the boss an
acceptable way of getting a promotion.
Way to go girls!
Oh, yeah, bring me a cup of coffee willya?
>>>Those who complain about Clinton's disregard
>>>for the truth conveniently forget those long hard
>>>years under Ronald (Iran-Contra) Reagan and
>>>George ("There was no quid pro quo.") Bush.
>>
>> Yeap. I remember the Reagan campaign's Bimbo Eruption
>>Task Force. Or I would if I were a Clitonista, they seem quite capable
>>of remembering things no one else recall. (LIke those black churches
>>burning in Arkansas.)
>>
>> What I find interesting is why are the Democrats so concerned
>>about former presidents who mislead congress, when they aren't concerned
>>about current presidents who lie under oath. I thought everybody did it
>>so it wasn't any big deal.
>>
>Lesser of evils, pyotr, I'm afraid.
>Lying about blow-jobs just doesn't hold
>a candle to lying about illegal arms shipments,
Exqueeze me, but there is a slight difference between lying
about blow jobs in the locker room, or on national television, or even
on the internet, and doing it in a court of law. It's a sad fact of
nature that once lawyers get involved, what was once a fine, enjoyable
and private thing between two people, becomes a tawdry affair between a
superior and a subordiante.
And that's the problem - the liberals, like yourself, seem quite
willing to ingonre the legal violations, as long as they can gloss it
over as being about sex. There is a story of the Hodja (Nashrudin, the
wise fool of Turkish folklore) who was asked by his friend to mislead
the court in a case involving a number of sacks of wheat. So when the
Hodja is called, he begins to testify about sacks of barley. Regardless
what he's asked aobut, he refers to barley. Finally the judge stops him
and says "You are here to testify in a metter involving wheat. Why aree
you talking about barley?" And the Hodja replies, "I was asked to give
an untruthful testimony. If one is not going to answer truthfully, then
does it matter if I'm talking about wheat or barley?"
If the President is going to be absolved of lying under oath,
does it really matter what he was lying about?
>or lying about clandestine deals with central
>american dictators, or lying about rigging
>a national political campaign.
Ah, so then you do believe that Charlie Tre and John Wong were
channeling illegal contributions fromt he Chinese Government.
>There was a cute political cartoon the other
>day. Nixon is peeking behind a slightly
>ajar door, labeled "Hall of Shame."
>Clinton faces the door with a puzzled look.
>Nixon says to Clinton, "Sorry, we don't allow
>amateurs in here."
>Qualitatively, they're all scumbags and liars,
>but our system makes it so. Quantitatively,
>Clinton's transgressions simply don't match
>up to those of his republican predecessors.
Hmmmm - I could agree with you here. Clinton doesn't seem to
have the scope of vision to even come up with some of the national
security angles the GOP has. Bill Clinton seems to be using all his
political power to cover up personal agrandizment. To bad that
Clinton's standards are so low. He could have really been a contender.
tschus
pyotr
pyotr filipivich
>In alt.politics.clinton pyotr filipivich <py...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>: Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> writes:
>[...]
>: >If Clinton's worse crime is sex, than he's way ahead of Reagan and Bush,
>: >morally.
>: Yep - I can always depend on Eric to ignore the criminal
>: behavior of his hero, and concentrate on the sex.
>: One more time for the east coast audience. This president is
>: charged with lying under oath. In the real world, that is known as
>: perjury. If Clinton didn't want to lie under oath, he could have
>: refused to answer under his right to be secure against self
>: incrimination. But He did not chose such a course, rather he chose to
>: lie while under oath. And then lie to his subordinates, so that they
>: would then support his lies.
>: When called to testify before a Grand Jury, he could have copped
>: the Fifth, but he chose to again lie under oath. As was said at the
>: time, he was either admitting to perjury in the first instance, or
>: perjuring himself again. Clinton is two for two. And then in a post
>: testimony press conference, admitted that he had "mislead the American
>: people" in his previous testimony.
>The 5th? Maybe. But you right wingers would have taken that as an
>admission of guilt.
So?
He's already understood to be the sort of sexual predator that
gave sexual harassement laws their reason for being. Copping the fifth
would have merely prevented him from being on record in a lie. Copping
the fifth would have left him in a better situation, becuase he would
not have perjured himself. And there would be nothing to take to the
grand jury.
>: Eric doesn't find this bad, because in Eric's little world,
>: apparently lying under oath is a common occurance. Or maybe he likes
>I'M NOT A SPOOK! Spooks lie under oath as instructed. Don't lecture me.
Who said you were a spook? You just see nothing wrong about
lying under oath, that's all. And the worse thing, you don't even see
the tactical error Bill Clinton committed.
I mean, by now, he's such a documentablly mendacious
prevaricator that _nothing_ he says can be taken at face value,
but must always be considered in the light of the his proclivity to
redefine words for his own benefit. "That would depend on what your
defintion of what 'is' is."
Maybe you should see if there's an old fashioned librarian
around who can read you the old story "the boy who cried wolf."
>: being lied to. Either one cause me to wonder about the truthfulness
>: of any of his statements. [Eric or Clinton's, either one.] Because
>: for all his alleged experiencial education, Eric hasn't learned that
>: even when they speak the truth, liar's reputations preceed them, and
>: cause their statements to be discounted as false. No body believes a
>: liar.
>It's a personal act that has been made into a legal. At the core it IS
>about sex. And for the GOP to have us believe that the whole motivation on
>their part is due to some moral calling; spare us! This whole thing is
>purely partisan politics.
It's only the party of lies that wants to make this a moral
issue - having spent so much time to obscure what morality is.
The GOP is focussing on the legal issue: giving false or
misleading testimony under oath in a court of law is a crime. It
doesn't matter to the law if you deny having sex with someone, or
claiming that you did when you didn't. It doesn't matter to the law if
you lie about barley when the case is about wheat, it doesn't matter if
your false testimony helps your opponent - it is a crime to give false
and misleading testimony in a court of law.
The Democrats don't want to admit that such is the crux of
the matter - did Clinton tell the truth in his deposition in the Paula
Jones civil case, and did he tell the truth before the grand jury - both
occassions when he was under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. Not "the Truth, half the truth, or to lie you
head off if you feel like it."
Eric Chomko
: Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> writes:
[...]
: Who said you were a spook? You just see nothing wrong about
: lying under oath, that's all. And the worse thing, you don't even see
: the tactical error Bill Clinton committed.
Yes, I have. And he has too.
: I mean, by now, he's such a documentablly mendacious
: prevaricator that _nothing_ he says can be taken at face value,
: but must always be considered in the light of the his proclivity to
: redefine words for his own benefit. "That would depend on what your
: defintion of what 'is' is."
Well, given that the current Iraq situation has the unamimous backing of
the NSC, they all can't be lying. If he lies about his personal life, I
can care less.
: Maybe you should see if there's an old fashioned librarian
: around who can read you the old story "the boy who cried wolf."
And maybe you should come clean on that the only reason you hate this
president is because of his stand on guns.
: >It's a personal act that has been made into a legal. At the core it IS
: >about sex. And for the GOP to have us believe that the whole motivation on
: >their part is due to some moral calling; spare us! This whole thing is
: >purely partisan politics.
: It's only the party of lies that wants to make this a moral
: issue - having spent so much time to obscure what morality is.
No! The GOP wants to define it for us!
:
: The GOP is focussing on the legal issue: giving false or
Of course they are anything to get him out.
: misleading testimony under oath in a court of law is a crime. It
: doesn't matter to the law if you deny having sex with someone, or
: claiming that you did when you didn't. It doesn't matter to the law if
: you lie about barley when the case is about wheat, it doesn't matter if
: your false testimony helps your opponent - it is a crime to give false
: and misleading testimony in a court of law.
Right and he should be punished but not impeached. What do you want his
head on a pike?
: The Democrats don't want to admit that such is the crux of
: the matter - did Clinton tell the truth in his deposition in the Paula
: Jones civil case, and did he tell the truth before the grand jury - both
: occassions when he was under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and
: nothing but the truth. Not "the Truth, half the truth, or to lie you
: head off if you feel like it."
The GOP will screw it up. Watch and see.
Eric