Guess_Who is at it again

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Jennifer M.

unread,
Feb 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/5/99
to
My e-zine runs a page that asks our visitors (mostly teen girls) a question
and the following week we post some of the answers. I think you'll get a
kick out of this one Question/Answer:

QUESTION: If you could meet one person, dead or alive, in the entire world
who would it be, why would it be that person, and what would be the first
question that you would ask?


ANSWER: I’d like to meet Bill Clinton. I wouldn’t ask him any question. I’d
slap his face very hard and tell him: "that’s for squandering so much talent
and for messing up the chance of being one of the greatest Presidents we
ever had." Then, if the Secret Service hadn’t gotten to me yet, I’d kick him
in the balls with all the force my body could muster. And while he lay there
in agony, I’d tell him: "I hope this causes your pecker to stay out of
commission for the next 2 years so you can concentrate on fixing Social
Security, (God knows the damn Republicans won’t do it)."

Guess_Who


--
Jennifer M.
CyberGrrlz -- http://www.cybergrrlz.com
The e-zine for girls with brains and a sense of humor
(smarter guys will like it too)


kbrauer

unread,
Feb 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/5/99
to

"Jennifer M." wrote:


hehehehe, Only two years??


I'd ask to meet with Jesus Christ. Because he could tell me how a guy like
Clinton can live, with only his little head in a state of potency. And maybe he
could tell me if there is anything good about Bill, 'cause I don't think so.
hoHO

Hoosier Pharmer


Jennifer M.

unread,
Feb 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/6/99
to
>I'd ask to meet with Jesus Christ. Because he could tell me how a guy like
>Clinton can live, with only his little head in a state of potency. And
maybe he
>could tell me if there is anything good about Bill, 'cause I don't think
so.
>hoHO
>
>Hoosier Pharmer
>

It's guys like you that make people like me defend Clinton... He's the
President at a time when 71% of Americans say this is the best this country
has been in their lifetime and Clinton has NOTHING to do with it?? Nothing??
Come on dude.

"Love may be blind... but conservative's jealousy is blind AND stupid" -- by
me! :-)

heat...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/7/99
to
In article <79gjdk$55v$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>,

"Jennifer M." <jmor...@cybergrrlz.comx> wrote:
> >I'd ask to meet with Jesus Christ. Because he could tell me how a guy like
> >Clinton can live, with only his little head in a state of potency. And
> maybe he
> >could tell me if there is anything good about Bill, 'cause I don't think
> so.
> >hoHO
> >
> >Hoosier Pharmer
> >
>
> It's guys like you that make people like me defend Clinton... He's the
> President at a time when 71% of Americans say this is the best this country
> has been in their lifetime and Clinton has NOTHING to do with it?? Nothing??
> Come on dude.
>
> "Love may be blind... but conservative's jealousy is blind AND stupid" -- by
> me! :-)

Was discussing Clinton with a lawyer friend of mine the other day. We were
both wondering when it became alright to lie, cheat and get away with it just
because you're well-liked and are doing well at your job. Our justice system
was not set up this way. Where do we draw the line on turning our backs to
popular people who break the law? What dishonest thing or illegal thing
would Clinton have to do to get the consequence that he deserves? Rape,
murder? Are these things any more illegal than obstructing justice, lying
under oath? Maybe not as heinous, but still illegal. People act as if there
isn't anyone out there who can do just as good of a job as Clinton? Well,
I'll venture to guess that there are. Is it too outlandish to want a
president that is honest, faithful, AND good at his job?

BTW, Hoosier Pharmer is a woman.

Heather


>
> Jennifer M.
> CyberGrrlz -- http://www.cybergrrlz.com
> The e-zine for girls with brains and a sense of humor
> (smarter guys will like it too)
>
>

vincit omnia veritas

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/7/99
to

> In article <79gjdk$55v$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>,
> "Jennifer M." <jmor...@cybergrrlz.comx> wrote:

> > It's guys like you that make people like me defend Clinton... He's the
> > President at a time when 71% of Americans say this is the best this country
> > has been in their lifetime and Clinton has NOTHING to do with it?? Nothing??
> > Come on dude.

Hoosier phar,er is female - and it is females who defend Clinton when they
would have condemned a Republican from day one who make women look lik utter
hypocrites who will compromise their beliefs if they like a person's
political affiliation. Manistream feminists would have been ALL OVER a
Republican - but because Clinton is "pro-choice" they look the other way.
This type of hypocrisy os so blatant - and it puts women back. Yep - it gives
the impression that we (women) are idiots who will give in to guys if they
give us what we want. Hey - want to get away with crimes and treating women
like trash? Give her some pro-choice/liberal politices and she'll give you
free reign!

Read this:
http://www.gargaro.com/modernwoman.html

http://www.gargaro.com
http://www.rightgrrl.com

kbrauer

unread,
Feb 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/7/99
to
Hey Jennifer,
I am rightgrrl, Dec '97.
hehehehehe!
You can see an picture of me when I was very pregnant there, on the net..

I could tell Bill was a lying piece of crap back in 1991. I never thought of
Carter that way, even though I did not admire his foriegn policy. Yup, I am old
enough to remember Carter ("I have lusted in my heart many times."), and
Roselyn, and loud mouth Lillie, (his mom). She was funny.

I even wrote a parody song about them. But they were decent people, not evil,
like Bill.

Hoosier Pharmer

"Jennifer M." wrote:

> >I'd ask to meet with Jesus Christ. Because he could tell me how a guy like
> >Clinton can live, with only his little head in a state of potency. And
> maybe he
> >could tell me if there is anything good about Bill, 'cause I don't think
> so.
> >hoHO
> >
> >Hoosier Pharmer
> >
>

> It's guys like you that make people like me defend Clinton... He's the
> President at a time when 71% of Americans say this is the best this country
> has been in their lifetime and Clinton has NOTHING to do with it?? Nothing??
> Come on dude.
>

> "Love may be blind... but conservative's jealousy is blind AND stupid" -- by
> me! :-)
>

> Jennifer M.
> CyberGrrlz -- http://www.cybergrrlz.com
> The e-zine for girls with brains and a sense of humor
> (smarter guys will like it too)


Hoosier Pharmer's Home http://w3.one.net/~kbrauer/html%20files
Pharmacist's Rant http://w3.one.net/~kbrauer/html%20files/pharmacistsrant.htm

Alan Keyes! What a guy! http://www.keyes2000.org

img...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to
In article <79gjdk$55v$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>,

"Jennifer M." <jmor...@cybergrrlz.comx> wrote:
> >I'd ask to meet with Jesus Christ. Because he could tell me how a guy like
> >Clinton can live, with only his little head in a state of potency. And
> maybe he
> >could tell me if there is anything good about Bill, 'cause I don't think
> so.
> >hoHO
> >
> >Hoosier Pharmer
> >
>
> It's guys like you that make people like me defend Clinton... He's the
> President at a time when 71% of Americans say this is the best this country
> has been in their lifetime and Clinton has NOTHING to do with it?? Nothing??
> Come on dude.

Sure--and the Republican Congress in 1994 had nothing to do with it, either,
right? If you recall, the economy was fast going down the toilet before the
Republican Congress came in. Frankly, most economists believe that the
President has little or nothing to do with the state of the economy, good or
bad. It's Congress that makes the laws, not the President. Frankly, I think
the whole concept of "President" as some sort of power domestically is getting
old. He's more of a figurehead anymore. Good for foreign affairs; not much
good domestically.

-----------------------------------------
"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe
what you just said."-- William Buckley, Jr.

davi...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to
In article <79j92s$7v6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

heat...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <79gjdk$55v$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>,
> "Jennifer M." <jmor...@cybergrrlz.comx> wrote:

> > It's guys like you that make people like me defend Clinton... He's the
> > President at a time when 71% of Americans say this is the best this country
> > has been in their lifetime and Clinton has NOTHING to do with it?? Nothing??
> > Come on dude.

Doing nothing is often a distinct action in itself...

> Was discussing Clinton with a lawyer friend of mine the other day. We were
> both wondering when it became alright to lie, cheat and get away with it just
> because you're well-liked and are doing well at your job.

Has it ever been any other way? If you look at the Republican attitude
it's interesting - it seems to be that you can lie cheat etc - all
as long as nobody finds out - if someone finds out you have to resign.

You presumably think this attitude is just as bad?

> Our justice system
> was not set up this way. Where do we draw the line on turning our backs to
> popular people who break the law?

In fact it's the justice idea that supports Clinton because he has
NOT been proved guilty of anything beyond a reasonable doubt. I
don't think that there is evidence that could convict him if
he even was ever charged. If there is no evidence then it is
the justice ideal that says we do NOT say "Oh, we know he did
it anyway".

> What dishonest thing or illegal thing
> would Clinton have to do to get the consequence that he deserves? Rape,
> murder? Are these things any more illegal than obstructing justice, lying
> under oath? Maybe not as heinous, but still illegal.

But you seem to want a process that is extra-legal and can remove him
without the hassle of evidence or due process that would be extended
to anyone who wasn't a president. That's ok, because it _is_ a
perculiar situation - more politics than justice - but if you want
the constitution to have a "vote of no confidence" then you should
change the constitution to say that.

> People act as if there
> isn't anyone out there who can do just as good of a job as Clinton?

If part of the job is that he's been elected, then no.

> Well,
> I'll venture to guess that there are. Is it too outlandish to want a
> president that is honest, faithful, AND good at his job?

I don't know. If the other politicians were investigated and put
through the same process - giving them the opportunity to lie
under oath too - what percent do you think would come through it
with a clean bill?

I though Clinton seemed to come out with an above average score.
How pure do you want these people to be? And to what extent are
you willing to admit that most people seem to disagree with you
about how pure they expect their politicians to be?

David

heat...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
In article <79mud2$257$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

davi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <79j92s$7v6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> heat...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <79gjdk$55v$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>,
> > "Jennifer M." <jmor...@cybergrrlz.comx> wrote:
>
> > > It's guys like you that make people like me defend Clinton... He's the
> > > President at a time when 71% of Americans say this is the best this country
> > > has been in their lifetime and Clinton has NOTHING to do with it?? Nothing??
> > > Come on dude.
>
> Doing nothing is often a distinct action in itself...
>
> > Was discussing Clinton with a lawyer friend of mine the other day. We were
> > both wondering when it became alright to lie, cheat and get away with it just
> > because you're well-liked and are doing well at your job.
>
> Has it ever been any other way? If you look at the Republican attitude
> it's interesting - it seems to be that you can lie cheat etc - all
> as long as nobody finds out - if someone finds out you have to resign.

Hello David! I've missed you. So let's get on with the business of sentence
dissection.


>
> You presumably think this attitude is just as bad?

I can't speak for the other Republicans but I certainly don't condone the
dishonesty. Is it all that outlandish to expect some level of morality in our
president? I would expect it no matter what political party they were in.
This seems to be a gross generalization of Republicans.

>
> > Our justice system
> > was not set up this way. Where do we draw the line on turning our backs to
> > popular people who break the law?
>
> In fact it's the justice idea that supports Clinton because he has
> NOT been proved guilty of anything beyond a reasonable doubt. I
> don't think that there is evidence that could convict him if
> he even was ever charged. If there is no evidence then it is
> the justice ideal that says we do NOT say "Oh, we know he did
> it anyway".

He lied about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky under oath.
This is not sufficient evidence? I would agree that the "justice idea"
supports Clinton because that's just what it is, an idea. There has been
such a manipulation of the system, a manipulation of terms and their
definitions. Spin doctoring galore. We've lost the meaning of true justice
in all of this doublespeak rhetoric.

>
> > What dishonest thing or illegal thing
> > would Clinton have to do to get the consequence that he deserves? Rape,
> > murder? Are these things any more illegal than obstructing justice, lying
> > under oath? Maybe not as heinous, but still illegal.
>
> But you seem to want a process that is extra-legal and can remove him
> without the hassle of evidence or due process that would be extended
> to anyone who wasn't a president. That's ok, because it _is_ a
> perculiar situation - more politics than justice - but if you want
> the constitution to have a "vote of no confidence" then you should
> change the constitution to say that.

Not extra-legal, just legal. It is frustrating to me that there are people
that ae willing to look the other way because Clinton supports their agendas.
I know that people say that the Republicans would be the same way. Maybe, I
don't put too much stock in any politicians Republican or Democrat. But I
would be just as passionate for justice if the president was supportive of my
social and political convictions. Many a trial has been ridiculously delayed
because of due process. (Charles Ng, for example), but we're dealing with the
head of our nation here. The sooner this can be resolved, the better. For
me personally this is about justice and not politics. But honestly David,
I'm not convinced re: the motivations of the Republican politicians. Except
in a few rare individuals, a politician, is a politician, is a politician. :
(

>
> > People act as if there
> > isn't anyone out there who can do just as good of a job as Clinton?
>
> If part of the job is that he's been elected, then no.

Dazzling wit.


>
> > Well,
> > I'll venture to guess that there are. Is it too outlandish to want a
> > president that is honest, faithful, AND good at his job?
>
> I don't know. If the other politicians were investigated and put
> through the same process - giving them the opportunity to lie
> under oath too - what percent do you think would come through it
> with a clean bill?
>
> I though Clinton seemed to come out with an above average score.
> How pure do you want these people to be? And to what extent are
> you willing to admit that most people seem to disagree with you
> about how pure they expect their politicians to be?
>

So are you saying that you believe he lied under oath? Do you base this
belief on evidence or personal opinion? And yes David, my standards are much
higher than many. We live in an age of moral relativity, whatever feels good
right? To be clear, I don't expect anyone to have a clean bill. I most
certainly don't have one, but ask me any question about my past, my conduct,
I'll give you an honest answer. How many politicians have engaged in
extra-marital sexual behavior? Probably more than we would even guesstimate.
But this I can get past, it's the habitual deceit that I can not.

Heather


> David
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>

vincit omnia verita

davi...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
In article <79ppgj$f9s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
heat...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> Hello David! I've missed you. So let's get on with the business of sentence
> dissection.

Maybe you should e-mail me at lea...@hiwaay.net / da...@booksys.com
or send me your e-mail address...

> > You presumably think this attitude is just as bad?
>
>I can't speak for the other Republicans but I certainly don't condone the
>dishonesty. Is it all that outlandish to expect some level of morality in our
>president?

Expect? probably outlandish, yes.
Desire? maybe not.
Enforce? now that's something else again.

Which one did you mean?

> > In fact it's the justice idea that supports Clinton because he has
> > NOT been proved guilty of anything beyond a reasonable doubt. I
> > don't think that there is evidence that could convict him if
> > he even was ever charged. If there is no evidence then it is
> > the justice ideal that says we do NOT say "Oh, we know he did
> > it anyway".
>
> He lied about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky under oath.
> This is not sufficient evidence?

You think there is sufficient evidence of purjury to convict him?
I disagree. I don't think he'd be so foolish.

> > But you seem to want a process that is extra-legal and can remove him
> > without the hassle of evidence or due process that would be extended
> > to anyone who wasn't a president. That's ok, because it _is_ a
> > perculiar situation - more politics than justice - but if you want
> > the constitution to have a "vote of no confidence" then you should
> > change the constitution to say that.
>
> Not extra-legal, just legal.

Then you presumably oppose impeachment and support charging the
president with whatever crimes there is sufficient evidence of,
[IMO none] after he leaves office, in the normal way, just like
anyone else would be charged?

>It is frustrating to me that there are people

>that are willing to look the other way because Clinton supports their agendas.

Clinton seems pretty middle-of-the-road to me. What agenda?
He almost seems apolitical. A lot of his stuff seems right
wing. He doesn't seem in any way extreme.

> I know that people say that the Republicans would be the same way.

They are the same way. Hardly any Republicans seem bothered about
how their party is opposing the constitution and the rule of law.
Actually they seem far worse. What Clinton may have done is trivial.

> > > People act as if there
> > > isn't anyone out there who can do just as good of a job as Clinton?
> >
> > If part of the job is that he's been elected, then no.
>
> Dazzling wit.

The republicans seem to be attempting a coup of sorts. They are
deliberately removing the popularly elected president [well,
trying anyway...] In this sense, no, no-one else is a suitable
substitute because _he_ was the one elected. Or else why
have any elections? Why not just let Congress apoint a president?
That's the way the UK works. But if you want it to work that
way in the US too, change the constitution.

> > I thought Clinton seemed to come out with an above average score.


> > How pure do you want these people to be? And to what extent are
> > you willing to admit that most people seem to disagree with you
> > about how pure they expect their politicians to be?

> So are you saying that you believe he lied under oath?

I honestly have no opinion on it. I just don't think it
can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

> And yes David, my standards are much
> higher than many.

So you feel you should be able to inflict your moral standards on
the majority? They want to keep him. You don't. Shouldn't the majority
decide? Or not?

> How many politicians have engaged in
> extra-marital sexual behavior? Probably more than we would even guesstimate.
> But this I can get past, it's the habitual deceit that I can not.

Isn't adultery habitual deceit? To the wife and children? To the
voters - if you pretend to be a normal family man?

heat...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
In article <79sp2c$4pf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
davi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <79ppgj$f9s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

> heat...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Hello David! I've missed you. So let's get on with the business of sentence
> > dissection.
>
> Maybe you should e-mail me at lea...@hiwaay.net / da...@booksys.com
> or send me your e-mail address...
>
> > > You presumably think this attitude is just as bad?
> >
> >I can't speak for the other Republicans but I certainly don't condone the
> >dishonesty. Is it all that outlandish to expect some level of morality in our
> >president?
>
> Expect? probably outlandish, yes.
> Desire? maybe not.
> Enforce? now that's something else again.
>
> Which one did you mean?

All of the above. Maybe I'm too optimistic about the moral fiber
of people out there. One of my numerous faults. I'm always
inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt. Even Clinton.
Not to say that I don't aknowledge his wrong doing or in my opinion,
his criminal behavior. What I do though is try to understand why
someone makes the choices that they make, it helps me to sympathize
with them more. Sympathize with Clinton? Yeah, I know, most
conservatives would probably flame me for that. I just think
that it promotes a more dignified and humane demeanor.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Blah, blah, blah. I even talk too much
on the computer ; )


>
> > > In fact it's the justice idea that supports Clinton because he has
> > > NOT been proved guilty of anything beyond a reasonable doubt. I
> > > don't think that there is evidence that could convict him if
> > > he even was ever charged. If there is no evidence then it is
> > > the justice ideal that says we do NOT say "Oh, we know he did
> > > it anyway".
> >
> > He lied about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky under oath.
> > This is not sufficient evidence?
>

> You think there is sufficient evidence of purjury to convict him?
> I disagree. I don't think he'd be so foolish.

Well, let's just say that I think that he's been intelligent enough
to testify in terms that he knew would be sufficiently obtuse.

>
> > > But you seem to want a process that is extra-legal and can remove him
> > > without the hassle of evidence or due process that would be extended
> > > to anyone who wasn't a president. That's ok, because it _is_ a
> > > perculiar situation - more politics than justice - but if you want
> > > the constitution to have a "vote of no confidence" then you should
> > > change the constitution to say that.
> >
> > Not extra-legal, just legal.
>

> Then you presumably oppose impeachment and support charging the
> president with whatever crimes there is sufficient evidence of,
> [IMO none] after he leaves office, in the normal way, just like
> anyone else would be charged?

I think that this is one of the key problems. This isn't a normal situation,
and he isn't just anyone. The process should be just as fair and just for the
president as anyone. But the process should be more expedient. We're not
just talking about some guy who has to be back at his 7-11 job Monday morn.
This is the man, even if he is just a figure head as some say, who is dealing
with foreign relations and policy, matters of state, lawmaking, etc.


>
> >It is frustrating to me that there are people

> >that are willing to look the other way because Clinton supports their agendas.
>
> Clinton seems pretty middle-of-the-road to me. What agenda?
> He almost seems apolitical. A lot of his stuff seems right
> wing. He doesn't seem in any way extreme.

He is a chameleon of sorts. But the agenda that doesn't change is abortion.
To me and many others, this is a very big issue. So it doesn't surprise me
that those who are so vocally pro-choice are also so pro-Clinton. Barbara
Boxer from my own state practically wanted Bob Packwood's head on a silver
platter but her tune sure changed when it was a Democrat in the hot seat.

>
> > I know that people say that the Republicans would be the same way.
>

> They are the same way. Hardly any Republicans seem bothered about
> how their party is opposing the constitution and the rule of law.
> Actually they seem far worse. What Clinton may have done is trivial.

This is a good example of why labeling is not always accurate. I affiliate
myself politically because in order to vote I have to. But I certainly don't
equate Republicans as good guys and Democrats as the bad. Corruption
is everywhere. Clinton's actions though, were not trivial.


>
> > > > People act as if there
> > > > isn't anyone out there who can do just as good of a job as Clinton?
> > >
> > > If part of the job is that he's been elected, then no.
> >
> > Dazzling wit.
>

> The republicans seem to be attempting a coup of sorts. They are
> deliberately removing the popularly elected president [well,
> trying anyway...] In this sense, no, no-one else is a suitable
> substitute because _he_ was the one elected. Or else why
> have any elections? Why not just let Congress apoint a president?
> That's the way the UK works. But if you want it to work that
> way in the US too, change the constitution.

Okay, I understand what you were saying now.
>
> > > I thought Clinton seemed to come out with an above average score.


> > > How pure do you want these people to be? And to what extent are
> > > you willing to admit that most people seem to disagree with you
> > > about how pure they expect their politicians to be?
>
> > So are you saying that you believe he lied under oath?
>

> I honestly have no opinion on it. I just don't think it
> can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Legally speaking, you might be correct. Reasonable doubt seems
to be almost a relative term these days.


>
> > And yes David, my standards are much
> > higher than many.
>

> So you feel you should be able to inflict your moral standards on
> the majority? They want to keep him. You don't. Shouldn't the majority
> decide? Or not?

Well I'm sorry if I'm "inflicting" my standards upon anyone ; ) Just because
the majority wants it doesn't make it right, but that is the system and all
political systems are flawed, it's inevitable.


>
> > How many politicians have engaged in
> > extra-marital sexual behavior? Probably more than we would even guesstimate.
> > But this I can get past, it's the habitual deceit that I can not.
>

> Isn't adultery habitual deceit? To the wife and children? To the
> voters - if you pretend to be a normal family man?

This is my point. When confronted, he had the opportunity to tell the truth.
He could have ended the habitual deceit and 'fessed up. Errare humanum est.

You're welcome to mail me here at my DN account, heat...@my-dejanews.com

Heather
>
> David
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>

vincit omnia veritas

davi...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
In article <79v13f$37p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
heat...@my-dejanews.com wrote:


> > You think there is sufficient evidence of purjury to convict him?
> > I disagree. I don't think he'd be so foolish.
>
> Well, let's just say that I think that he's been intelligent enough
> to testify in terms that he knew would be sufficiently obtuse.

Ok. We agree then. The evidence to convict isn't there.

> I think that this is one of the key problems. This isn't a normal situation,
> and he isn't just anyone. The process should be just as fair and just for the
> president as anyone. But the process should be more expedient

That's why I said you seemed to want an extra-legal method. You
want a method which goes beyond the law and is political.

>Clinton's actions though, were not trivial.

They are compared to the abuse of the law by the Republican
party. Perhaps they should be impeached. Clinton's activities
were trivial because they had no effect on the government
and no long term effect on anything. The Republicans have
done both these things. Don't you think that screwing the
constitution is more serious than screwing an intern?

But it seems that Republicans like screwing the constitution
in general - I think of the flag burning proposed ammendments.

> Well I'm sorry if I'm "inflicting" my standards upon anyone ; ) Just because
> the majority wants it doesn't make it right, but that is the system and all
> political systems are flawed, it's inevitable.

So do you think that it would have been a bad thing if Clinton
had been removed? Since it was so clearly against the will of
the people?

This seems to be one of the two differences I've noticed between
Republicans and Democrats; Republicans don't believe in representing
the people. They are - well - anti-democratic. The other thing is
that they pretend to be moral and law abiding while being immoral
and lawless. I guess this was a most unfortunate year for me to come
to the states and have to assess the two parties. I expect the
Republicans have never looked this bad in their history ever before.

Do you vote Republican essentially because of the one issue then?

> You're welcome to mail me here at my DN account, heat...@my-dejanews.com

I could never be bothered to get my deja-news account working for
e-mail.

caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
In article <79vclm$eaj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
davi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>So do you think that it would have been a bad thing if Clinton
>had been removed? Since it was so clearly against the will of
>the people?

Is the country run now solely by the will of the people? Ok - then Partial
birth abortion will be banned - what? You don't agree? The will of the people
say so - over 70% favor that but the bill to ban it was vetoed.

It's interesting how this issue has made everyone forget that we live in a
represenative republic.

>This seems to be one of the two differences I've noticed between
>Republicans and Democrats; Republicans don't believe in representing
>the people.

Really? How so? Is that why the PEOPLE of the nation elected the Republican
congress? Or was that not the "will of the people"?

>They are - well - anti-democratic. The other thing is
>that they pretend to be moral and law abiding while being immoral
>and lawless.

Excuse me? Are you referring to the fact that soem Republicans had affairs.
Your statement would make sense if Clinton was impeached for adultery - but
guess what! he wasn't. Also, the attitude here is that only perfect people
can ever bring charges against anyone and that people's personal info should
be made public knowledge if they accuse someone of something. Clinton lied
under oath? Fine - let's air everyone's dirt laundry to show that they aren't
perfect - but let us apply this new standard equally. David - if someone
robs your house - be prepared for us to know all of your personal business if
you press charges! After all - you aren't perfect either. How dare you bring
charges against someone who comitted a criminal act when you yourself are not
perfect? Sound ridiculous - well, that is what people are suggesting.

Am I excusing any wrongdoings by Republicans. Nope. But their wrongdoings do
not exonerate Clinton.

>I guess this was a most unfortunate year for me to come
>to the states and have to assess the two parties. I expect the
>Republicans have never looked this bad in their history ever before.

A shame, since the investigation went as far as it did because of the OIC law
which the DENMOCRATS always favored and the REPUBLICANS fought against. Oh -
the Dems sure liked the OIC during the HUD investigation and Iran Contra! But
when the tables are turned they can't stand it - so now the OIC law will be
revised to how the Republicans wanted it IN THE FIRST PLACE except the
Democrats will get credit. Clinton lies under oath and it's the Republicans
who look bad. It is a shame. And a shame that people of this country apply
SUCH double standards - if Clinton had been a Republican he would have been
ousted long ago. The Republicans have followed the Constitutionand what was
supposed to be done - Ken Starr did NOTHING illegal or Reno would have ousted
him. Everyone wants to place blame on EVERYONE except the person who is to
blame- and that is Clinton.

If you think this is a Republican vendetta you are wrong. Do you think the
Republicans WANT Gore in? Don't you think they know that this makes them look
bad and they could have just ignored the Constitution to look "popular"? They
did what they were supposed to do. A shame that people are too blind to see
that.

stephani...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/12/99
to
davi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> The republicans seem to be attempting a coup of sorts. They are
> deliberately removing the popularly elected president [well,
> trying anyway...]

According to your logic, NO president could ever be removed from office
following impeachment, because they are ALL "popularly elected." Funny,
though... I see no evidence of your logic in the constitution at all. :)

caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/12/99
to
In article <7a09st$85c$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

stephani...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> According to your logic, NO president could ever be removed from office
> following impeachment, because they are ALL "popularly elected." Funny,
> though... I see no evidence of your logic in the constitution at all. :)

In addition, placing Al Gore in office is hardly a coup!!


http://www.gargaro.com
http://www.rightgrrl.com

davi...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/12/99
to
In article <79vn82$o3t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

Sorry that my impression of the Republican party is so negative.
But consider: I came to the US knowing nothing about them except
they were the vaguely-right to the other party's vaguely-left.
This year has probably been the worst ever for the Rebuplican
party, but it's the only time _I've_ seen them in action at
all. They seem thoroughly corrupt to me. Sorry - I didn't mean
this as a personal reflection on _you_.

> >So do you think that it would have been a bad thing if Clinton
> >had been removed? Since it was so clearly against the will of
> >the people?
>
> Is the country run now solely by the will of the people?

So you think that its good to oppose the will of the people too?
I think you are just proving my point about republicans as
being anti-democratic.

> >This seems to be one of the two differences I've noticed between
> >Republicans and Democrats; Republicans don't believe in representing
> >the people.
>
> Really? How so?

By simply ignoring them.

> >They are - well - anti-democratic. The other thing is
> >that they pretend to be moral and law abiding while being immoral
> >and lawless.
>
> Excuse me? Are you referring to the fact that soem Republicans had

> affairs. Fine ... let us apply this new standard equally.

Yes. Let's apply the moral standard to all people who make a big
deal of their morality and family values equally. Let us take
politicians at their own word and judge them by their self-imposed
standards. Do you think Clinton has promoted himself as such?
Do you think Clinton's supporters feel surprised and betrayed
at the news of his latest?

> >I guess this was a most unfortunate year for me to come
> >to the states and have to assess the two parties. I expect the
> >Republicans have never looked this bad in their history ever before.
>
> A shame, since the investigation went as far as it did because of
> the OIC law which the DENMOCRATS always favored and the REPUBLICANS
> fought against.

Yes I've heard that the law may have been the "target" not so much
Clinton, because Republicans tend to get investigated more - not
a happy situation for the party of supposed law and order. But
this isn't something we can know about.

> Clinton lies under oath and it's the Republicans
> who look bad.

Yes, Clinton looks good next to them.

> Ken Starr did NOTHING illegal or Reno would have ousted him.

Really? What did the previous investigator to Starr do wrong then?
I heard his main failing was that he wasn't biased enough for
the tastes of the Republican party.

> If you think this is a Republican vendetta you are wrong. Do you think the
> Republicans WANT Gore in? Don't you think they know that this makes them look
> bad and they could have just ignored the Constitution to look "popular"? They
> did what they were supposed to do. A shame that people are too blind to see
> that.

They have opposed the law and the constitution throughout IMO. And
I think I am a lot less biased and "blind" than you. If they had
not acted against the constitution I'd have granted them sincerity
in their anti-democratic beliefs. I suspect a vendetta _because_
the political reasoning isn't there - I guess Clinton just pissed
them all off over something I don't know about. Also I think what
started out as a piece of workaday constitutional vandalism in the
name of rallying supporters [like the falg burning stuff] became
something beyond their control when it began to backfire so badly.

heat...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/12/99
to
In article <79vclm$eaj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
davi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <79v13f$37p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

> heat...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > You think there is sufficient evidence of purjury to convict him?
> > > I disagree. I don't think he'd be so foolish.
> >
> > Well, let's just say that I think that he's been intelligent enough
> > to testify in terms that he knew would be sufficiently obtuse.
>
> Ok. We agree then. The evidence to convict isn't there.
>
> > I think that this is one of the key problems. This isn't a normal situation,
> > and he isn't just anyone. The process should be just as fair and just for the
> > president as anyone. But the process should be more expedient
>
> That's why I said you seemed to want an extra-legal method. You
> want a method which goes beyond the law and is political.
>
> >Clinton's actions though, were not trivial.
>
> They are compared to the abuse of the law by the Republican
> party. Perhaps they should be impeached. Clinton's activities
> were trivial because they had no effect on the government
> and no long term effect on anything. The Republicans have
> done both these things. Don't you think that screwing the
> constitution is more serious than screwing an intern?
>
> But it seems that Republicans like screwing the constitution
> in general - I think of the flag burning proposed ammendments.

I'm not interested with comparing the two. It's not a competition to see
whom is the more corrupt. The issue right here, right now is Clinton. Even
if his terms were obtuse, the evidence against him is still extremely
compelling; it is well within the definition of perjury to give technically
correct answers that are intended to deceive, which he did in his Paula Jones
testimony. He plied Betty Currie with false statements, he encouraged Ms.
Lewinsky to hide the gifts he had given her and stepped up job search
proceedings for her to keep her from revealing incriminating evidence against
him to prosecutors. All of these actions fit well within the category of
obstruction of justice. I am disgusted by the moderate Republicans who have
moved to the other side because they want to remain popular with the voters.
They don't care about justice, only their political behinds.

>
> > Well I'm sorry if I'm "inflicting" my standards upon anyone ; ) Just because
> > the majority wants it doesn't make it right, but that is the system and all
> > political systems are flawed, it's inevitable.
>

> So do you think that it would have been a bad thing if Clinton
> had been removed? Since it was so clearly against the will of
> the people?

A CBS news poll released this week found that 84% Americans believe that he
is guilty. So what is the true will of the people?

>
> This seems to be one of the two differences I've noticed between
> Republicans and Democrats; Republicans don't believe in representing

> the people. They are - well - anti-democratic. The other thing is


> that they pretend to be moral and law abiding while being immoral

> and lawless. I guess this was a most unfortunate year for me to come


> to the states and have to assess the two parties. I expect the
> Republicans have never looked this bad in their history ever before.

I think your viewpoint is a little myopic. If there has been any
manipulation of the constitution it's been by Clinton and his spin-doctoring
lawyers. This whole process has been made into a political circus. People
aren't voting with their consciences, their voting in respect to future
votes. IMO, the Republicans that stuck to their guns have much more
character than the spineless Benedict Arnold's who floated to the other side.
After watching the vote today, I'm left with the sinking feeling that
irreperable damage has now been done. Here's a quote from the Orange County
Register editorial section on 2-11, "Without a reasonable expectation of
truth being told during legal proceedings, our system of justice, which
remains the bedrock of US liberties, weakens and falters....If the chief law
enforcement officer is allowed to lie under oath and use powers that are his
alone to protect himself, then that system will be irrevocably damaged. We
don't know at the moment how deeply or exactly in what way, but absolving the
president is not a neutral event." Amen and Amen.

>
> Do you vote Republican essentially because of the one issue then?

No I don't, but it is a major contributing factor.


>
> > You're welcome to mail me here at my DN account, heat...@my-dejanews.com
>

> I could never be bothered to get my deja-news account working for
> e-mail.

I'm going to be checking out for the next few days, my family has a four day
weekend. I'll be checking posts but I won't be doing any responding until
Tuesday. I'll e-mail you after that. Have some questions for you.. Happy
Valentines Day!!!!

davi...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/12/99
to
In article <79vn82$o3t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <79vclm$eaj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> davi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >So do you think that it would have been a bad thing if Clinton
> >had been removed? Since it was so clearly against the will of
> >the people?
>
> Is the country run now solely by the will of the people? Ok - then Partial
> birth abortion will be banned - what? You don't agree? The will of the people
> say so - over 70% favor that but the bill to ban it was vetoed.

I would say that on such an essentially ethical matter [as with the
impeachment thing], yes, the majority should decide. This is not
a matter requiring any expert knowledge. Neither was impeachment.
It seems odd to suggest that the best way to decide matters of
ethics is to let a bunch of people like Clinton and the hypocritical
republicans decide what they are going to do. People may turn a
blind eye to their misdeeds but that hardly means they should
be thought of as morally [ha] superior.

Presumably you also feel this way or you wouldn't care how many support
your position - it would be an irrelevence. So why do you feel that
you can ignore public opinion on impeachment, but that it shouldn't
be ignored on this matter?

caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/12/99
to
In article <7a1s79$jl0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

davi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <79vn82$o3t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <79vclm$eaj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > davi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > >So do you think that it would have been a bad thing if Clinton
> > >had been removed? Since it was so clearly against the will of
> > >the people?
> >
> > Is the country run now solely by the will of the people? Ok - then Partial
> > birth abortion will be banned - what? You don't agree? The will of the
people
> > say so - over 70% favor that but the bill to ban it was vetoed.
>
> I would say that on such an essentially ethical matter [as with the
> impeachment thing], yes, the majority should decide. This is not
> a matter requiring any expert knowledge. Neither was impeachment.

I think both require knowledge.

> It seems odd to suggest that the best way to decide matters of
> ethics is to let a bunch of people like Clinton and the hypocritical
> republicans decide what they are going to do.

Well, that is how a representative republic is run. if the people don't liek
the policies, they vote the people out.

>People may turn a
> blind eye to their misdeeds but that hardly means they should
> be thought of as morally [ha] superior.

Following the Constitution doesn't mean that one considers themself morally
superior.

> Presumably you also feel this way or you wouldn't care how many support
> your position - it would be an irrelevence. So why do you feel that
> you can ignore public opinion on impeachment, but that it shouldn't
> be ignored on this matter?

It shouldn't be ignored on what matter?????


http://www.gargaro.com
http://www.rightgrrl.com

caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/12/99
to
In article <7a1hrn$9kl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

davi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <79vn82$o3t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <79vclm$eaj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > davi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Sorry that my impression of the Republican party is so negative.
> But consider: I came to the US knowing nothing about them except
> they were the vaguely-right to the other party's vaguely-left.
> This year has probably been the worst ever for the Rebuplican
> party, but it's the only time _I've_ seen them in action at
> all.

I can understand how you feel as you do.

> They seem thoroughly corrupt to me. Sorry - I didn't mean
> this as a personal reflection on _you_.

I know.

> > Is the country run now solely by the will of the people?
>

> So you think that its good to oppose the will of the people too?

No - but what I am saying is that we don't take a poll and then decide what
to do. Sure - politicians will follow what they think the people want or they
won't get re-elected. But the impeachment process is something that has
strict rules - it's just a unique process.

> I think you are just proving my point about republicans as
> being anti-democratic.

Why are the anti-democrat? Because they followed the Constitution? Do you thin
that the Dems are anti-Republican - you could argue that very easily

> > >This seems to be one of the two differences I've noticed between
> > >Republicans and Democrats; Republicans don't believe in representing
> > >the people.
> >

> > Really? How so?
>
> By simply ignoring them.

They don't ignore them - or if they do they don't do it any more tha the Dems
do. If the Republicans ignore the people so much then why was the congress not
tirned over to the Demsa this past election process? Why were more Republican
governors elected?

> > Excuse me? Are you referring to the fact that soem Republicans had
> > affairs. Fine ... let us apply this new standard equally.
>
> Yes. Let's apply the moral standard to all people who make a big
> deal of their morality and family values equally. Let us take
> politicians at their own word and judge them by their self-imposed
> standards. Do you think Clinton has promoted himself as such?

This is NOT about moral purity - this is about felonies. And if you want to
talk about people acting like something they are not - Clinton does that all
the time!

> Do you think Clinton's supporters feel surprised and betrayed
> at the news of his latest?

What are you referring to?

> > A shame, since the investigation went as far as it did because of
> > the OIC law which the DENMOCRATS always favored and the REPUBLICANS
> > fought against.
>
> Yes I've heard that the law may have been the "target" not so much
> Clinton, because Republicans tend to get investigated more

I guess that couldn't have been because the congress was controlled by
Democrats for over 40 years

>- not a happy situation for the party of supposed law and order.

I guess you didn't hear Clinton's claim of having the "most ethical
administration in history"


> > Clinton lies under oath and it's the Republicans
> > who look bad.
>
> Yes, Clinton looks good next to them.

So you think perjury is no big deal? What have the Republicans done that is so
heinous except not turn a blind eye to Clinton and what he did?

> > Ken Starr did NOTHING illegal or Reno would have ousted him.
>
> Really? What did the previous investigator to Starr do wrong then?
> I heard his main failing was that he wasn't biased enough for
> the tastes of the Republican party.

Were you aware that until this case Democrats saw Starr as UNBIASED? he was
called in to help with the Packwood case because he was seen as UNBIASED. He
just suddenly was seen as "biased" this year


> > If you think this is a Republican vendetta you are wrong. Do you think the
> > Republicans WANT Gore in? Don't you think they know that this makes them
look
> > bad and they could have just ignored the Constitution to look "popular"?
They
> > did what they were supposed to do. A shame that people are too blind to see
> > that.
>
> They have opposed the law and the constitution throughout IMO.

HOW??????? People say this but they don't back it up! What was
unconstitutional?

>And
> I think I am a lot less biased and "blind" than you. If they had
> not acted against the constitution I'd have granted them sincerity
> in their anti-democratic beliefs. I suspect a vendetta _because_
> the political reasoning isn't there -

You ignore the fact that the Democrats spent most of the time in the house
blasting Ken Starr and not defending Clinton - and you say Republicans have a
vendetta? They at least made a case - so, do you think that Clinton didn't
commit perjury and obstruct justice or is it that you just don't believe such
actions are high crimes and misdeameanors? Do you know what a high crime and
misdeameanor is? (just asking! Some people don't)

http://www.gargaro.com
http://www.rightgrrl.com

davi...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/13/99
to
In article <7a2991$vhe$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > So you think that its good to oppose the will of the people too?
>
> No - but what I am saying is that we don't take a poll and then decide what
> to do. Sure - politicians will follow what they think the people want or they
> won't get re-elected. But the impeachment process is something that has
> strict rules - it's just a unique process.

What special knowledge do you think it takes to figure out
whether someone should be a president? If only congress
has what it takes and ordinary people are saps, then why
elect the president? Why not get congress to elect it?
Or make the electoral college work as it originally did?

Most people _assumed_ he was guilty and wanted him as president
_anyway_.

> > I think you are just proving my point about republicans as
> > being anti-democratic.
>
> Why are the anti-democrat?

Because they deny the wishes of the people - which is democracy.
You seem proud that the US is _NOT_ a democracy but merely
an approximation by 18th century necessity. You are therefore
anti-democratic. I don't mean it as a feeble insult.

> They don't ignore [the people] - or if they do they don't do it


> any more tha the Dems do.

They do indeed do it more. That is the main reason for the
partisan split. [or do you think they are all doing it
because of how they feel about Clinton? all 500+ congressmen?]

> This is NOT about moral purity - this is about felonies.

Check the context then!

> > Do you think Clinton's supporters feel surprised and betrayed
> > at the news of his latest?
>
> What are you referring to?

The immoral and unlawful republicans are pracising political
fraud. Clinton is not.

> > Yes I've heard that the law may have been the "target" not so much
> > Clinton, because Republicans tend to get investigated more
>
> I guess that couldn't have been because the congress was controlled by
> Democrats for over 40 years

I don't know why. Under the circumstances though, it seems to
me that it fits right in with the idea that republicans are
less lawful. But I'm sure if the Democrats had as much chance
to prove their worth....

> I guess you didn't hear Clinton's claim of having the "most ethical
> administration in history"

LOL
Presumably he meant in terms of graft, etc.

> > Yes, Clinton looks good next to them.
>
> So you think perjury is no big deal?

Compared to an attempted coup? Duh!

> > Really? What did the previous investigator to Starr do wrong then?
> > I heard his main failing was that he wasn't biased enough for
> > the tastes of the Republican party.
>
> Were you aware that until this case Democrats saw Starr as UNBIASED? he was
> called in to help with the Packwood case because he was seen as UNBIASED. He
> just suddenly was seen as "biased" this year

I'd like to see some evidence of that because I've heard the
opposite - and in view of what happened that seems far more
likely.

> > They have opposed the law and the constitution throughout IMO.
>
> HOW??????? People say this but they don't back it up! What was
> unconstitutional?

Abuse of the impeachment process.

> so, do you think that Clinton didn't
> commit perjury and obstruct justice or is it that you just don't believe such
> actions are high crimes and misdeameanors?

The latter.

> Do you know what a high crime and
> misdeameanor is? (just asking! Some people don't)

Like the US congress you mean?

David

stephani...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/13/99
to
davi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> [Carolyn:] Presumably you also feel this way or you wouldn't care how many


> support your position - it would be an irrelevence. So why do you feel that
> you can ignore public opinion on impeachment, but that it shouldn't
> be ignored on this matter?

The key word here being "presumably." Carolyn doesn't feel (based on anything
I've heard her say) that public opinion should directly dictate the outcome
of impeachment <b>or</b> PBA legislation. She has been using the
PBA-poll-numbers-argument only as an attempt to illustrate liberal hypocrisy
-- liberals will paint poll data as the word of God if it benefits them, but
fail to do so when something like abortion is involved.

The fact that a majority of Americans oppose PBA is one mitigating factor in
the PBA debate. But it's not the sole factor, and lawmakers should be looking
at its legality and constitutionality, as well as the popular consensus, when
addressing any issue. In my considered opinion, Carolyn would no more support
banning PBA based simply on poll data anymore than she would have supported
slavery in the early 1800s, which would have also received high poll numbers.

lea...@hiwaay.net

unread,
Feb 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/13/99
to
In article <7a1s3t$jjv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

> > But it seems that Republicans like screwing the constitution
> > in general - I think of the flag burning proposed ammendments.
>
> I'm not interested with comparing the two. It's not a competition to see
> whom is the more corrupt.

Uh - it was the Republicans both times? Over impeachment, and again
with the flag burning thing. Both acts of constitutional vandalism.

> I am disgusted by the moderate Republicans who have
> moved to the other side because they want to remain popular with the voters.
> They don't care about justice, only their political behinds.

Well I think that's a _good_ thing. What you mean by 'justice' of course
is simply what you interpret justice to be in this case - which is
simply your opinion by another name. Well, everyone else has opinions
and ideas about justice too, and 2/3 of the American public don't
want Clinton removed.

I think you'd have more reason to be angry if Clinton was aquited
and 2/3 were _against_ it.

> > So do you think that it would have been a bad thing if Clinton
> > had been removed? Since it was so clearly against the will of
> > the people?
>
> A CBS news poll released this week found that 84% Americans believe that he
> is guilty. So what is the true will of the people?

2/3 to aquit.

There is a difference between thinking someone is guilty and
thinking he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Again there
is a difference between his being guilty of perjury or
obstruction, and it being an impeachable offense.

I understand the other impeachment trial was also politically
motivated. The one in 18XX.

> I think your viewpoint is a little myopic. If there has been any
> manipulation of the constitution it's been by Clinton and his spin-doctoring
> lawyers.

What manipulation?

> This whole process has been made into a political circus.

Which is the Republicans fault. No one else wanted this to happen.
I can't see how Clinton can be criticised for simply *defending*
himself no matter how badly. Once you start saying it's
illegal to defend yourself in law then things are really bad.
I thought that was what 'taking the 5th' was about.

> IMO, the Republicans that stuck to their guns have much more
> character than the spineless Benedict Arnold's

I imagine all this has had a negative effect on Republican voter
turn out.

> After watching the vote today, I'm left with the sinking feeling that
> irreperable damage has now been done.

To the idea of not lying? Maybe. That wasn't just Clinton's fault either.
President's lie. Even in the UK we heard the "Read my lips. No new
taxes" lie that Bush used to get elected. Without the coniving of
the Republicans no-one would have known.

Or maybe you mean lying under oath only?

I wouldn't worry about the state of the US - like Billy Graham said
God'd have to appologise to Soddam and Gomorah first... It'll
just make _you_ look better.

> > Do you vote Republican essentially because of the one issue then?
>
> No I don't, but it is a major contributing factor.

It's a shame you can't vote for them only on that issue and - well
actually have a chance to have your vote count or something. Oh
well.

lea...@hiwaay.net

unread,
Feb 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/13/99
to
In article <7a1bnb$42m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

> > According to your logic, NO president could ever be removed from office
> > following impeachment, because they are ALL "popularly elected." Funny,
> > though... I see no evidence of your logic in the constitution at all. :)
>
> In addition, placing Al Gore in office is hardly a coup!!

Well, a very quiet coup obviously!

But what else do you call an illegal attempt to remove the head
of state? Treason?

caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/13/99
to
In article <7a3p87$5rb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

lea...@hiwaay.net wrote:
> In article <7a1bnb$42m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <7a09st$85c$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > stephani...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > According to your logic, NO president could ever be removed from office
> > > following impeachment, because they are ALL "popularly elected." Funny,
> > > though... I see no evidence of your logic in the constitution at all. :)
> >
> > In addition, placing Al Gore in office is hardly a coup!!
>
> Well, a very quiet coup obviously!

A coup means you throw the other party out of power - Al Gore is not a
Republican

> But what else do you call an illegal attempt to remove the head
> of state? Treason?

Oh please - did you think trying to impeach Nixon was treason? If you RECALL
the Democrats voted for an impeachment inquiry! It wasn't just the
Republicans - so your little conspiracy theory does not hold up.

Treason is doing something like - oh, I don't know -exchanging US weapons
techology for foreign campaign money?


http://www.gargaro.com
http://www.rightgrrl.com

caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
In article <7a2k7i$906$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
davi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7a2991$vhe$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

> caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > So you think that its good to oppose the will of the people too?
> >
> > No - but what I am saying is that we don't take a poll and then decide what
> > to do. Sure - politicians will follow what they think the people want or
they
> > won't get re-elected. But the impeachment process is something that has
> > strict rules - it's just a unique process.
>
> What special knowledge do you think it takes to figure out
> whether someone should be a president?

There are many many constitutional issues that have to be addressed. Are you
implying that impeachment is a simple process?

> If only congress
> has what it takes and ordinary people are saps, then why
> elect the president? Why not get congress to elect it?

Why would you not want the people to elect the President? I never suggested
that the people shouldn't be the ones to elect President.

> Or make the electoral college work as it originally did?

I actually would prefer that the Pres was elected by popular vote and not the
electoral college

> Most people _assumed_ he was guilty and wanted him as president
> _anyway_.

Now what if the tables were turned and everyone thought he SHOULD be removed
when he had done nothing wrong. Should we throw out someone withoutproper
process just because "the people" want it?

> > > I think you are just proving my point about republicans as
> > > being anti-democratic.
> >
> > Why are the anti-democrat?
>

> Because they deny the wishes of the people - which is democracy.
> You seem proud that the US is _NOT_ a democracy but merely
> an approximation by 18th century necessity.

What I pointed out was the this is a representaive republic, and I think that
works well, though as I said I would prefer that the pres be elected by
populr vote and not the electoral college. What other country's political
system would you prefer that we follow?

>You are therefore
> anti-democratic. I don't mean it as a feeble insult.

I believe there are many DEMOCRATS who are not against the current political
system - are you saying that all the Democrats want to change the current
political system? If so, why wasn't ti doen when the congress and the
presidency was controlled by Democrats.

> > They don't ignore [the people] - or if they do they don't do it


> > any more tha the Dems do.
>

> They do indeed do it more. That is the main reason for the
> partisan split. [or do you think they are all doing it
> because of how they feel about Clinton? all 500+ congressmen?]

If the Dems follow the will of the people so much then why did most of them
vote against the will of the people regarding PBA? Hmmm?

> > This is NOT about moral purity - this is about felonies.
>

> Check the context then!

So perjury is ok when it's about sex. Ok - are you going to lobby to release
the people who are in jail for lying about sex under oath? I guess we can
never have sexual harassment cases, adultery cases, or any pther case
involoving sex brought to trial - after all the people could just lie under
oath and it would be just fine

> > > Do you think Clinton's supporters feel surprised and betrayed
> > > at the news of his latest?
> >
> > What are you referring to?
>

> The immoral and unlawful republicans are pracising political
> fraud. Clinton is not.

What are you talking about (not being a pain - I really do not know)

> > > Yes I've heard that the law may have been the "target" not so much
> > > Clinton, because Republicans tend to get investigated more
> >
> > I guess that couldn't have been because the congress was controlled by
> > Democrats for over 40 years
>

> I don't know why. Under the circumstances though, it seems to
> me that it fits right in with the idea that republicans are
> less lawful.

I see - when Democrats are investigated it's a witch hunt, but when
republicans are invesigated it's because they are less lawful. This is a very
hypocritical and inconsistent attitude

> But I'm sure if the Democrats had as much chance
> to prove their worth....

They had 40 years now didn't they?

> > So you think perjury is no big deal?
>

> Compared to an attempted coup? Duh!

IMPEACHMENT IS NOT A COUP. If it is COUP then Gore would be throw out. Why
did almost ALL of the Democrats vote in favor of an impeachment inquiry if
this is a COUP? Did you think the Nixon case was a coup? Please answer these
questions.

> > Were you aware that until this case Democrats saw Starr as UNBIASED? he was
> > called in to help with the Packwood case because he was seen as UNBIASED. He
> > just suddenly was seen as "biased" this year
>

> I'd like to see some evidence of that because I've heard the
> opposite - and in view of what happened that seems far more
> likely.

Sheesh.

1. Reno appointed him. Are you saying Reno appointed a biased prosecutor? 2.
Starr also had to be approved by a 3 judge panel. I guess that panel was all
biased also. 3. In 1993, the Senate Ethics committee during the Bob Packwood
case, chose Judge Starr to determine which parts of the Packwood diaries were
relevant to the case and which should be kept private 4. Arthur Spitzer,
legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has said if he
hadto be investigated, he'd prefer Starr over almost anyone else he could
think of.


I am sure if I spent more than 1 minute I could find more info Would you be
as interested in gathering evidence about the OIC when they investigated
Republicans. Probably not since all of your thoughts here have been highly
hypocritical.

> > > They have opposed the law and the constitution throughout IMO.
> >
> > HOW??????? People say this but they don't back it up! What was
> > unconstitutional?
>

> Abuse of the impeachment process.

Be specific. What abuses?


> > Do you know what a high crime and
> > misdeameanor is? (just asking! Some people don't)
>

> Like the US congress you mean?

Oh for crying out loud - can you QUIT with your snide comments? You didn't
answer the question. Can you? Or do you find your snide answers clever?

caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
In article <7a2nmb$bp4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
stephani...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>In my considered opinion, Carolyn would no more support
> banning PBA based simply on poll data

Yes Stephanie, you are correct.


http://www.gargaro.com
http://www.rightgrrl.com

lea...@hiwaay.net

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
In article <7a536r$6hn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> A coup means you throw the other party out of power - Al Gore is not a
> Republican

LOL. So a regime without parties cannot have a coup?

> > But what else do you call an illegal attempt to remove the head
> > of state? Treason?
>
> Oh please - did you think trying to impeach Nixon was treason?

Do you think that attempt was illegal?

> If you RECALL
> the Democrats voted for an impeachment inquiry! It wasn't just the
> Republicans - so your little conspiracy theory does not hold up.

Is there no difference between thinking about impeachment and
impeaching then? Also, who said anything about a
conspiracy? Republicans must like that word. I can see why.

> Treason is doing something like - oh, I don't know

... trying to illegally remove the head of state?

lea...@hiwaay.net

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
In article <7a54am$7f4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> > What special knowledge do you think it takes to figure out
> > whether someone should be a president?
>
> There are many many constitutional issues that have to be addressed. Are you
> implying that impeachment is a simple process?

Yes, I am. It's how you get rid of a president that is so
bad he is a threat to the country. Now, once again. Do you
think people are able to tell if a president is crap, or
do you think only congress should elect the president?
Which is it? Are the public capable or incapable of choosing
their own president?

> > Most people _assumed_ he was guilty and wanted him as president
> > _anyway_.
>
> Now what if the tables were turned and everyone thought he SHOULD be removed
> when he had done nothing wrong. Should we throw out someone without proper
> process just because "the people" want it?

Yes, when the elections come around. It's the republicans, not
me, who want to abuse the impeachment system. Four years is such a
short time anyway.

> > > > I think you are just proving my point about republicans as
> > > > being anti-democratic.
> > >
> > > Why are the anti-democrat?
> >
> > Because they deny the wishes of the people - which is democracy.
> > You seem proud that the US is _NOT_ a democracy but merely
> > an approximation by 18th century necessity.
>
> What I pointed out was the this is a representaive republic, and I think that
> works well

Do you think it works well when it is least democratic? Which
is what we are talking about here. Are you, or are you not in
favour of democracy in principle? You seem to *want* congressmen
to be unrepresentative.

> If the Dems follow the will of the people so much then why did most of them
> vote against the will of the people regarding PBA? Hmmm?

Uh?
Again you seem to think two wrongs make a right. You seem
to think that an attack on the Democrats is a defence of
the Republicans. Why is that?

The impeachment process took over a year. Public support for Clinton
never fell to below 50% at any point. Generally it was about 2/3
all the way, with a slight increase as time went on. Is the
public support for <whatever PBA is> as well attested?

> So perjury is ok when it's about sex.

You might think that way, I don't.

> > The immoral and unlawful republicans are pracising political
> > fraud. Clinton is not.
>
> What are you talking about (not being a pain - I really do not know)

When someone is commiting adultery and presents himself as a familly
man he is fraudulently tricking voters. Do you think anyone who
voted for Clinton thought they were voting for a man of high
personal moral standards? Clinton is not being a hypocrite because
he hasn't *claimed* to be Mr Clean. You don't want an immoral
president? Fine. Vote for the other guy. I assume you did. You lost.
Now live with it. But instead you try to shout foul as if he
ought to have been the type of president you wanted but most
people didn't want.

> I see - when Democrats are investigated it's a witch hunt, but when
> republicans are invesigated it's because they are less lawful. This is a very
> hypocritical and inconsistent attitude

LOL. If it was not based on any other facts, I'd agree.

> IMPEACHMENT IS NOT A COUP.

Correct. An abuse of impeachment is.

> Why did almost ALL of the Democrats vote in favor of an
> impeachment inquiry if this is a COUP?

Perhaps they wanted to be seen as fair. But an inquiry into the
possibility of impeachment is not impeachment is it?

> Did you think the Nixon case was a coup?

No.

> 1. Reno appointed him. Are you saying Reno appointed a biased prosecutor? 2.
> Starr also had to be approved by a 3 judge panel. I guess that panel was all
> biased also. 3. In 1993, the Senate Ethics committee during the Bob Packwood
> case, chose Judge Starr to determine which parts of the Packwood diaries were
> relevant to the case and which should be kept private 4. Arthur Spitzer,
> legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has said if he
> hadto be investigated, he'd prefer Starr over almost anyone else he could
> think of.

I'm afraid I just don't believe you. You are clearly very aligned to
the Republican party. A highly biased source. It's apparent that Starr
is extremely biased _now_ even if you are correct that he somehow
wasn't seen that way before.

What kind of justice is it to have an open ended witch hunt that
just jogs along for *years* in search of any possible sleaze
that can be used for political purposes? This guy eventually gets
around only this year to admitting he never found anything on the
original case he was supposed to investigate? He employs tactics
against the president that against any low crook would be thrown
out as "entrapment".

> I am sure if I spent more than 1 minute I could find more info Would you be
> as interested in gathering evidence about the OIC when they investigated
> Republicans. Probably not since all of your thoughts here have been highly
> hypocritical.

I'm just not _that_ interested I suppose.

> > Abuse of the impeachment process.
>
> Be specific. What abuses?

Trying to remove the president despite the conditions for
impeachment not being present.

> > > Do you know what a high crime and
> > > misdeameanor is? (just asking! Some people don't)
> >
> > Like the US congress you mean?
>
> Oh for crying out loud - can you QUIT with your snide comments? You didn't
> answer the question. Can you? Or do you find your snide answers clever?

You actually started the snide comments Carolyn. You seem pretty up
tight on this topic. I suppose I should have guessed you would be...
Ok, ok.... sorry.

"misdeameanor" has a special meaning in the US but not in the
UK where it means pretty much what it meant in the states 200
years ago still. It just mean something bad; you could use
it to describe bunking off school. In the context in question
of course it means something much more serious. That's what the
"high" bit does. I guess they were not quite satisfied with
"high crimes" alone and wanted the possiblity of removal in the
event of something that was technically not a crime but still
very serious for the country.

I assume then you don't think Clinton commited a high "crime".
If what he did was so bad then I wonder what would count
in your mind as lesser? Perhaps if they had impeached him for
picking his nose in public?

If the Republican party had impeached Clinton for picking his nose
in public would that constitute an abuse of the impeachment
process in your opinion?

David

caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
In article <7a56ik$978$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

lea...@hiwaay.net wrote:
> In article <7a536r$6hn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > A coup means you throw the other party out of power - Al Gore is not a
> > Republican
>
> LOL. So a regime without parties cannot have a coup?

What I am saying that this impeachment attempt was not a coup. You apparantly
are not familiar with the true meaning of "coup"

> > > But what else do you call an illegal attempt to remove the head
> > > of state? Treason?
> >
> > Oh please - did you think trying to impeach Nixon was treason?
>
> Do you think that attempt was illegal?

Nope. I don't Clinton's impeachment was illegal either. Funny - I don't think
impeachment can BE illegal since it isn't a legal process - it's political.

> > If you RECALL
> > the Democrats voted for an impeachment inquiry! It wasn't just the
> > Republicans - so your little conspiracy theory does not hold up.
>
> Is there no difference between thinking about impeachment and
> impeaching then?

You are saying that the whole impeachment process was wrong. If you say that
"Well, the inquiry was ok but anyone who voted for impeachment was wrong"
then you REALLY don't know a lot about the impeachment process. If you don't
think he should have been impeached - fine. You have a different opinion. But
don't give me this "oh it was a coup" because people voted a way you don't
agree with. That's like me saying the Democrats were being unconstitutional
because I thought they ignored impeacheble offenses. I disagree with those
who say the offenses are not impeachable but I don't think it was some kind
of "plan" to "make Republicans look bad."

>Also, who said anything about a
> conspiracy? Republicans must like that word. I can see why.

YOU are the one who is implying a conspiracy theory - or do you just like
throwing the word "coup" around? Does that make you feel important? Or do you
think it will make it look like you know what you are talking about?

> > Treason is doing something like - oh, I don't know
>
> ... trying to illegally remove the head of state?

Impeachment is not illegal - and it is a political process - not a leagl
process. DUH. You still fail to explain you point - what was "illegal"? Why
was this illegal and the Nixon impeachment (if it actually had been followed
through) not illegal? What was done that made this process "illegal"? You
ignored most of my questions. Figures. You like throwing accusations around
but you don't back them up. What an utter waste of time.

http://www.gargaro.com
http://www.rightgrrl.com

Grunion

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to

lea...@hiwaay.net wrote in message <7a5ull$s2p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>In article <7a54am$7f4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> > What special knowledge do you think it takes to figure out
>> > whether someone should be a president?
>>
>> There are many many constitutional issues that have to be addressed. Are
you
>> implying that impeachment is a simple process?
>
>Yes, I am. It's how you get rid of a president that is so
>bad he is a threat to the country. Now, once again. Do you
>think people are able to tell if a president is crap, or
>do you think only congress should elect the president?
>Which is it? Are the public capable or incapable of choosing
>their own president?

The public doen't elect the prez, the Electoral College does.

>> > Most people _assumed_ he was guilty and wanted him as president
>> > _anyway_.
>>
>> Now what if the tables were turned and everyone thought he SHOULD be
removed
>> when he had done nothing wrong. Should we throw out someone without
proper
>> process just because "the people" want it?
>
>Yes, when the elections come around. It's the republicans, not
>me, who want to abuse the impeachment system. Four years is such a
>short time anyway.


But so many more Asprin factorys can be bombed in four years! Four years of
abuse of presidential power can cause so much damage to the country and the
office.

>
>> > > > I think you are just proving my point about republicans as
>> > > > being anti-democratic.
>> > >
>> > > Why are the anti-democrat?
>> >
>> > Because they deny the wishes of the people - which is democracy.
>> > You seem proud that the US is _NOT_ a democracy but merely
>> > an approximation by 18th century necessity.

Here's a list of various issues that "the people" wanted and Democrats have
DENIED.

-Late term abortion ban

-Illegal immigration restrictions (prop 187)

-Affirmative action ban

-School prayer

-Welfare Reform

-Prop 209 and 187 were passed by popular vote and BLOCKED by Democrats.

Can we say stinking hypocrites?

>>
>> What I pointed out was the this is a representaive republic, and I think
that
>> works well
>
>Do you think it works well when it is least democratic? Which
>is what we are talking about here. Are you, or are you not in
>favour of democracy in principle? You seem to *want* congressmen
>to be unrepresentative.


Huh?

The Republican majority in the senate represents the Republican majority in
this country. The "polls" have NEVER shown a consistent trend, remember
before the Lewinsky mess turned serious a majority wanted him to resign "if
it was true". Now supposedly 80% of Americans believe he commited perjury
and obstruction of justice, and they think that these are "impeachable", but
they want to keep him in office because it's "too much trouble". This
fickleness of the majority is why representatives are needed.

Remember the equal rights amendment?

>
>> If the Dems follow the will of the people so much then why did most of
them
>> vote against the will of the people regarding PBA? Hmmm?
>
>Uh?
>Again you seem to think two wrongs make a right. You seem
>to think that an attack on the Democrats is a defence of
>the Republicans. Why is that?
>
>The impeachment process took over a year. Public support for Clinton
>never fell to below 50% at any point. Generally it was about 2/3
>all the way,

I don't get this defense either... Popularity should exonerate a leader's
crimes, huh? What a concept! Hitler should still be Chancellor of Germany,
I guess. All those Roman Emperors, practically every "people's dictator"
from prehistory on used this defense to justify their crimes. The abuse of
our unique political system by ideologs protecting their prez is disgusting.
The man politicized the JUSTICE department fer Christ's sake!

with a slight increase as time went on. Is the
>public support for <whatever PBA is> as well attested?


Certainly more so than Clinton's "popularity" has been manufactured, with
the agonizingly leading polls NBCnews et al spin out.

>
>> So perjury is ok when it's about sex.
>
>You might think that way, I don't.
>
>> > The immoral and unlawful republicans are pracising political
>> > fraud. Clinton is not.
>>
>> What are you talking about (not being a pain - I really do not know)
>
>When someone is commiting adultery and presents himself as a familly
>man he is fraudulently tricking voters. Do you think anyone who
>voted for Clinton thought they were voting for a man of high
>personal moral standards?

Sure! Remember, Clinton was supposed to have "the most ethical
administration in history", that's what he said to the media.

Clinton is not being a hypocrite because
>he hasn't *claimed* to be Mr Clean.

Then why did he smear Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Willey, Lewinsky, and
all the other "Jane Does", if not to to protect his image as a "family
oriented guy"? Perhaps because he wouldn't have been elected?


You don't want an immoral
>president? Fine. Vote for the other guy. I assume you did. You lost.
>Now live with it. But instead you try to shout foul as if he
>ought to have been the type of president you wanted but most
>people didn't want.


Come on! The guy commited de-facto sexual harrassment and exploitation
while publicly presenting himself as a feminist, he fought Republicans for
the McCarthyist legislation that was later used against him in the Jones
case. He's the ultimate hypocrite attempting to live beyond his own laws.

>
>> I see - when Democrats are investigated it's a witch hunt, but when
>> republicans are invesigated it's because they are less lawful. This is a
very
>> hypocritical and inconsistent attitude
>
>LOL. If it was not based on any other facts, I'd agree.
>

-Packwood

-Thomas

-Bork

-Tower

-Gingrich (recently exonerated by the IRS)

You're a fool.

>> IMPEACHMENT IS NOT A COUP.
>
>Correct. An abuse of impeachment is.


But you can't elaborate on this "abuse", of course... It's just bad cause
you say so.

>
>> Why did almost ALL of the Democrats vote in favor of an
>> impeachment inquiry if this is a COUP?
>
>Perhaps they wanted to be seen as fair. But an inquiry into the
>possibility of impeachment is not impeachment is it?


Certainly doesn't make a good case for "abuse" though, huh?

>
>> Did you think the Nixon case was a coup?
>
>No.
>
>> 1. Reno appointed him. Are you saying Reno appointed a biased prosecutor?
2.
>> Starr also had to be approved by a 3 judge panel. I guess that panel was
all
>> biased also. 3. In 1993, the Senate Ethics committee during the Bob
Packwood
>> case, chose Judge Starr to determine which parts of the Packwood diaries
were
>> relevant to the case and which should be kept private 4. Arthur Spitzer,
>> legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has said if
he
>> hadto be investigated, he'd prefer Starr over almost anyone else he could
>> think of.
>
>I'm afraid I just don't believe you. You are clearly very aligned to
>the Republican party. A highly biased source. It's apparent that Starr
>is extremely biased _now_ even if you are correct that he somehow
>wasn't seen that way before.


But you're highly aligned the other way, so we should believe you?

>
>What kind of justice is it to have an open ended witch hunt that
>just jogs along for *years* in search of any possible sleaze
>that can be used for political purposes?

The Dems investigated Reagan for 7 years and found nothing. They even
investigated a story involving Bush flying an SR-71 to Iran to cut a deal
for American hostages!

The investigations against Clinton are NOT frivolous. Many of Clinton's
buddys have FLED THE COUNTRY. 12 have been convicted by Starr, and some
would rather rot in jail than talk...

This guy eventually gets
>around only this year to admitting he never found anything on the
>original case he was supposed to investigate?

Yes, like with Al Capone he couldn't find anyone who would "talk" about the
boss. Starr did find 900 FBI files "accidentally" in the White House
computer database, and Chinese arms dealers "accidentally" given top-secret
clearance, and Chinese money "accidentally" being funneled to the Clinton
camp, etc.

He employs tactics
>against the president that against any low crook would be thrown
>out as "entrapment".


How can you entrap someone who -offers- you a blatent lie under oath?

>
>> I am sure if I spent more than 1 minute I could find more info Would you
be
>> as interested in gathering evidence about the OIC when they investigated
>> Republicans. Probably not since all of your thoughts here have been
highly
>> hypocritical.
>
>I'm just not _that_ interested I suppose.
>

Vote stupid! Vote Democrat!

>> > Abuse of the impeachment process.
>>
>> Be specific. What abuses?
>
>Trying to remove the president despite the conditions for
>impeachment not being present.


Whoops, the Dems voted for an inquery! Whoops he was impeached by the
Congress!

Even Robert Byrd said impeachable charges were present.


"High Crimes", by the intended 18th century definition, are any crimes
commited by any elected official of "high" office. Obviously, in a
Democracy we have to take any crime commited by a "high" official very
seriously.

Now quit whining and admit what 80% of the country already knows.

_G_

caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
In article <7a5ull$s2p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

lea...@hiwaay.net wrote:
> In article <7a54am$7f4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> > There are many many constitutional issues that have to be addressed. Are you
> > implying that impeachment is a simple process?
>
> Yes, I am.

Then I dare say that you MAY not know (and of course I could be wrong) a lot
about the impeachment process. It is far from simple. Even those you look up
to so much - the wonderful Democrats never suggested that this is a simple
process.

>It's how you get rid of a president that is so
> bad he is a threat to the country. Now, once again. Do you
> think people are able to tell if a president is crap, or
> do you think only congress should elect the president?

The people elect the President for crying out loud. To an extent - it's still
not popular vote. However, to decide whether or not he should be REMOVED is a
more complicated process AND it must go through additional stages (as seen in
this impeachment). That is how it was set up by the founding fathers.
Electing a President is much simpler than removing one. If you are against
the people electing representatives in congress to deal with tough issues,
then this is not the country for you because this is how our politcal system
works. You act like this is some system the Republicans made up and the poor
Democrats are just victims of it. Tell me - if they are such victims of this
system, why did they not change it in the 40 years they controlled the
congress?

> Which is it? Are the public capable or incapable of choosing
> their own president?

The public is capable of choosing a President.

> > Now what if the tables were turned and everyone thought he SHOULD be removed
> > when he had done nothing wrong. Should we throw out someone without proper
> > process just because "the people" want it?
>
> Yes, when the elections come around. It's the republicans, not
> me, who want to abuse the impeachment system. Four years is such a
> short time anyway.

GIVE ME EXAMPLES OF THE ABUSE - well, ok, you mention this later.... I am
SURE you would defend Nixon the same way - correct? Are you as upset with
the Democrats for going after Nixon? Or is this another one of your famous
double standards?


> > What I pointed out was the this is a representaive republic, and I think
that
> > works well
>
> Do you think it works well when it is least democratic? Which
> is what we are talking about here. Are you, or are you not in
> favour of democracy in principle? You seem to *want* congressmen
> to be unrepresentative.

I never said that. The people elect the congress. People elect people who
will do what they want. If the people REALLY REALLY hated the impeachment
thing then WHY DIDN'T THEY OUST THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS???? And, if people
are THAT PISSED then, in the year 2000, the congress will be run by the
Democrats again. And then you can smile and be happy.

So David - what do YOU suggest? Shall we get rid of congress and just put
things up for popular vote? Or do you just not like the system when the
congress doesn't agree with YOUR point of view?

> > If the Dems follow the will of the people so much then why did most of them
> > vote against the will of the people regarding PBA? Hmmm?
>
> Uh?
> Again you seem to think two wrongs make a right. You seem
> to think that an attack on the Democrats is a defence of
> the Republicans. Why is that?

I was not attacking. I was making a point to show your hypocrisy.


> The impeachment process took over a year. Public support for Clinton
> never fell to below 50% at any point. Generally it was about 2/3
> all the way, with a slight increase as time went on. Is the
> public support for <whatever PBA is> as well attested?

Yes. For the past FEW YEARS all polls have shown (or at least most polls - I
should say most or someone will find a poll somewhere that shows otherwise)
that over 70% of the people want PBA BANNED. It has never gone down (the
numbers)

> > So perjury is ok when it's about sex.
>
> You might think that way, I don't.

Then why are you saying perjury is ok in this case?

> > > The immoral and unlawful republicans are pracising political
> > > fraud. Clinton is not.
> >
> > What are you talking about (not being a pain - I really do not know)
>
> When someone is commiting adultery and presents himself as a familly
> man he is fraudulently tricking voters.

So you think that anyone who has an affair and then has a strong family
afterwards shouldn't be in office - either that or he should not have a
family? or are you suggesting that all politicians admit to affairs? In
addition, you are acting like Republicans are the only ones to have affairs -
do you really think all the Democrats are pure?

Clinton did this. You say "you knew what he was" - well GUESS WHAT. He went on
60 Minutes before he was elected, LIED about Gennifer Flowers (guess you think
that is ok too) but hinted that he had "caused pain in his marriage" them
basically made it look like he wasn't like that anymore - that he had changed.
Is THAT not tricking voters? Or are you going to have double standards again?

> Do you think anyone who
> voted for Clinton thought they were voting for a man of high
> personal moral standards?

See above. And then he went on about how he was going to have the most ethical
administration, yadda yadda yadda. Clinton has talked many times of "family
values". He gave wonderful little speeches like this:

"The other thing we have to do is to take seriously the role in this problem
of...older men who prey on underage women...There are consequences to
decisions and...one way or the other, people always wind up being held
accountable." ( Bill Clinton, June 13, 1996, in a speech endorsing a
national effort against teen pregnancy. )

" Every time Bush talks about trust it makes chills run up and down my spine.
The way he has trampled on the truth is a travesty of the American political
system." - Presidential candidate Bill Clinton, describing his opponent
(Federal News Service, 10/28/92)

So - do you think Clinton is a hypocrite for talking about Family values and
chiding other people for "lying"? Or is this another double standard?

>Clinton is not being a hypocrite because
> he hasn't *claimed* to be Mr Clean.

LOL! OHH!! So if everyone comes forward and says "Hi I am a scum" they can get
away with whatever! Ok.

"Hi. I'm Carolyn. I really suck. I'm horrible and I am just a nasty evil
person."

Ok. Now I can go break the law and it's ok!

And, I will argue that Clinton tried to make everyone think that NOW he was
Mr. Clean.

>You don't want an immoral
> president? Fine. Vote for the other guy. I assume you did. You lost.

Are you like, really obsessed with sex or something? This is about perjury and
you want to turn it around to talk about sex. sex sex sex sex sex! Clinton was
not impeached for sex - it had to do with breaking the law.

> > I see - when Democrats are investigated it's a witch hunt, but when
> > republicans are invesigated it's because they are less lawful. This is a
very
> > hypocritical and inconsistent attitude
>
> LOL. If it was not based on any other facts, I'd agree.

So you DO think that perjury and obstruction of justice are excusable when
related to a case involving sex? If not, then what do you mean by


"If it was not based on any other facts"

> > IMPEACHMENT IS NOT A COUP.


>
> Correct. An abuse of impeachment is.

Good job throwing words around. Bad job backing them up.

> > Why did almost ALL of the Democrats vote in favor of an
> > impeachment inquiry if this is a COUP?
>
> Perhaps they wanted to be seen as fair. But an inquiry into the
> possibility of impeachment is not impeachment is it?

So let's hear what these abuses were.

> > Did you think the Nixon case was a coup?
>
> No.

That about says it all.

> > 1. Reno appointed him. Are you saying Reno appointed a biased prosecutor? 2.
> > Starr also had to be approved by a 3 judge panel. I guess that panel was all
> > biased also. 3. In 1993, the Senate Ethics committee during the Bob Packwood
> > case, chose Judge Starr to determine which parts of the Packwood diaries
were
> > relevant to the case and which should be kept private 4. Arthur Spitzer,
> > legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has said if he
> > hadto be investigated, he'd prefer Starr over almost anyone else he could
> > think of.
>
> I'm afraid I just don't believe you.

OH. So now I am a liar because I am a Republican?? How dare you. The above
are FACTS. Go look them up. GO AHEAD. Look them up. And then come back and
take back what you said about me being a liar. But I guess when you can't
argue a point you just whine "you're a liar. you're biased".

>You are clearly very aligned to
> the Republican party. A highly biased source.

OH! But the Democrats AREN'T BIASED? You are unbelieveable. Who is blasting
Starr? DEMOCRATS. Are you really THAT blind that you think they aren't biased?
You take facts and say I am lying about them. GO LOOK THEM UP YOURSELF.
And then, when you are done, take back what you said about me being a
liar.


>Starr is extremely biased _now_ even if you are correct that he somehow
> wasn't seen that way before.

But you'll believe all these "unbiased" Democrats. I guess Carville isn't
biased either.

> What kind of justice is it to have an open ended witch hunt that
> just jogs along for *years* in search of any possible sleaze
> that can be used for political purposes?

Ask Reno. Ask the Democrats who were the ones WHO SUPPORTED THE OIC. Ask the
OIC which investigated Reagan for SEVEN YEARS in the HUD case.

>This guy eventually gets
> around only this year to admitting he never found anything on the
> original case he was supposed to investigate?

Is that his fault? Or should when Reno appoints him, he should say "Gosh - I
can't investigate this". Can you explain why it was the DEMOCRATS which
wanted the OIC and why you weren't wailing about all the other OIC
investigations? Oh that's right! According to an earlier post from you, if a
Republican is investigated it is because Republicans are corrupt, but it's a
witch hunt if the Democrats are investigated.

This is just really sad.

> > I am sure if I spent more than 1 minute I could find more info Would you be
> > as interested in gathering evidence about the OIC when they investigated
> > Republicans. Probably not since all of your thoughts here have been highly
> > hypocritical.
>
> I'm just not _that_ interested I suppose.

Right, you are only interested, it seems, when it is the poor vitimized
Democrats who are investigated.

> > > Abuse of the impeachment process.
> >
> > Be specific. What abuses?
>
> Trying to remove the president despite the conditions for
> impeachment not being present.

Why are they not impeachable? What about all the people who testified (MANY
WHO WERE DEMOCRATS) who explained why these WERE impeachable offenses? Are
they all part of your little coup conspiracy too?

Oh yes - and abuse of impeachment is not a coup as you claim. A coup would
require the Republicans to take over the Presidency. Are you suggesting that
Gore is a Republican?

> > Oh for crying out loud - can you QUIT with your snide comments? You didn't
> > answer the question. Can you? Or do you find your snide answers clever?
>
> You actually started the snide comments Carolyn.

Oh yes. I supposed you'll be upset now that I was not too happy with you
essentially calling me a loar either.

>You seem pretty up
> tight on this topic. I suppose I should have guessed you would be...

I get agrravated when people call me a liar and are hypocritical. But then, I
should have guessed you would be. So sorry.

> "misdeameanor" has a special meaning in the US but not in the
> UK where it means pretty much what it meant in the states 200
> years ago still. It just mean something bad; you could use
> it to describe bunking off school. In the context in question
> of course it means something much more serious.

Yes. It has a totally different meaning. In fact, a pres can be guilty of a
high crime and misdeameanor that wouldn't even be considered illegal for a
regualr citizen. Yep. That's right. A high crime and misdeameanor doesn't
even have to be an illegal activity.

>That's what the
> "high" bit does. I guess they were not quite satisfied with
> "high crimes" alone and wanted the possiblity of removal in the
> event of something that was technically not a crime but still
> very serious for the country.

Correct.

> I assume then you don't think Clinton commited a high "crime".

A "high crime" doesn't even have to be a "crime." I believe that perjury and
obstruction of justice - whether the Pres is a Republican or a Democrat, is a
high crime and misdeameanor. I'd be arguing the same thing if Clinton were a
Republican. Of course, you'll probably just say I am lying.

> If what he did was so bad then I wonder what would count
> in your mind as lesser? Perhaps if they had impeached him for
> picking his nose in public?

Nice snide comment there. You are getting good.

> If the Republican party had impeached Clinton for picking his nose
> in public would that constitute an abuse of the impeachment
> process in your opinion?

I would have very high reservations about mental state of those in congress.


http://www.gargaro.com
http://www.rightgrrl.com

lea...@hiwaay.net

unread,
Feb 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/15/99
to
In article <7a6g6g$mls$1...@remarQ.com>,
"Grunion" <a...@iu.com> wrote:

> The Republican majority in the senate represents the Republican majority in
> this country

Interesting. My information is that the Republican part has never had
more supporters than the Democrats this century [and no doubt last
either] and that the Dems have usually had quite a lot more,
even so they've never had half.

> "High Crimes", by the intended 18th century definition, are any crimes
> commited by any elected official of "high" office.

Surely this is either tautalogical or oxymoronic depending
on whether the impeached person held a "high" office or not?

Sorry - short on time for the rest of the post.

proli...@hotmail.com

unread,
Feb 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/15/99
to
lea...@hiwaay.net wrote:
>
> In article <7a54am$7f4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > What special knowledge do you think it takes to figure out
> > > whether someone should be a president?
> >
> > There are many many constitutional issues that have to be addressed. Are you
> > implying that impeachment is a simple process?
>
> Yes, I am. It's how you get rid of a president that is so

> bad he is a threat to the country.

Which this president clearly is: Perjury TWICE, once to a federal grand jury,
the other in a sexual harrassment claimant civil case. Which undermines the
integrity of the legal justice system upon which freedom in a Representative
Republic depends, as the Constitution is backed up to be ostensibly more than
a paper document by the court system. He then obstructed justice, denying it
to a citizen Paula Jones, due on some level to his lying under oath. If the
nations highest official cannot be expected to tell the truth in any court of
law, our system is worthless. This individual has done more harm to this
country than can be imagined. He has lowered the bar of decency and justice
so far, it is frightening. I'd say that qualifies as a threat to the country.
The fact is, when a president takes the PRESIDENTIAL OATH OF OFFICE, he is
swearing to uphold the constitution. Clinton clearly violated BOTH his office
oath AND our constitution, making it IMPOSSIBLE for him to remain in office.
Obviously, if the oath of the presidency does not have to be followed, what
is the use in taking it? Clearly, if a president violates so blatently the
presidential oath of office, he must be fired. There is no question at all,
whatsoever of Clintons guilt, and that of his deserving of removal from
office, and, arguably, conviction in regular court and imprisonment on these
same charges for several years. He should be indicted while in office, he
deserves no special favors.

>Now, once again. Do you
> think people are able to tell if a president is crap, or
> do you think only congress should elect the president?

That is irrelevant. This procees is wholly sanctioned by our Founding Fathers
and intended for use on presidents who abuse their power as this one has. We
dont live in a democracy. We never have. We live in a Representative Republic,
we use elected officials to handle cases like these and have since day one.


> Which is it? Are the public capable or incapable of choosing
> their own president?

This is NOT overturning an election! Stop pretending it is. Its removing an
abuser. That is all. We failed, and thats a shame, but the presidents poll
numbers are not factors in his excisement and cannot be. We live under LAWS
thats the whole point of America. To safeguard key RIGHTS regardless of
public opinion fickleness. Thats why slavery was overturned as
unconstitutional. And womens suffrage. If we followed popular opinion we
might still have those! The public has no rights to stop this constitutional
process of fair charges whatever. They are not involved. Its a political
process with constitutional backing. Thats life in a repesentative republic
not a democracy. Get used to it.


> > > Most people _assumed_ he was guilty and wanted him as president
> > > _anyway_.
> >

> > Now what if the tables were turned and everyone thought he SHOULD be removed
> > when he had done nothing wrong. Should we throw out someone without proper
> > process just because "the people" want it?
>
> Yes, when the elections come around.

No. We use impeachment and removal for abusers like Clinton to prevent them
from making a mockery of our system. And we should. The bar should be HIGH
not LOW. It has to be. That the Chief Law Enforcement Officer is not expected
to obey fundamental laws is scary. It makes no sense that people are not
enraged that anybody in this high of a position would do this and expect to
determine his own punishment, if any. We have a smirky, two year old in the
WH who is enabled as an abuser of the political system integrity by our own
stupidity of not eradicating him with conviction. He is also a sex addict who
brings that into OUR HOMES and in front of our children and the best thing
for him is punishment. He will never get the treatment he needs unless he is
called on his excesses and stopped. By letting him go, the country is only
hurting this sick man. He needs mental help, and we denied it to him by
letting him go free.

> It's the republicans, not
> me, who want to abuse the impeachment system. Four years is such a
> short time anyway.

Are you serious? In WHAT WAY have the republicans abused the impeachment
rocess, besides not following the constitution in witnesses being live, which
our FF obviously intended, in the main? Their only abuse is not going far
enough and failing to vote 100% to convict. The persons abusing the process
are the democrats, who were determined no matter the evidence to not do
anything to this rapist of justice and arguably women. So, a criminal is in
the WH, and its okm we can wait until he gets out of office, whats four
years? Thats not justice. If he is guilty he needs the same treatment as you
or I. He cannot be given special favors. Hes not supposed to be a king. Hes
not above the law.

> > > > > I think you are just proving my point about republicans as
> > > > > being anti-democratic.
> > > >
> > > > Why are the anti-democrat?
> > >
> > > Because they deny the wishes of the people

They do not. They are elected, like dems, by people to REPRESENT the peoples.
This is not a democracy. its a representative republic. Thats been proven to
be the best form of government in history. Its based on LAWS. Thats better
than pop opinion, thats too fragile and subject to emotional outbursts like
this one is-the people who defend this ill man over his economy or favorable
poll numbers. Laws defend basic inalienable rights. Like free speech for
unpopular at the present time groups. Would you agree to silence them based
on current poll numbers? Those are only protectable representative republics.
The John Birch Society on C-span discussed this, they did so brilliantly, I
suggest you and all others supporting this abuser watch that tape about
government formats.

>>>- which is democracy.

Which we dont live in and never have done so.


> > > You seem proud that the US is _NOT_ a democracy but merely
> > > an approximation by 18th century necessity.
> >

I hope, if Gargaro is smart, she IS proud of EXACTLY that. Representative
Republics, as opposed to pure democracies, are OPTIMUM. Because is LAW based,
not pop opinion spit in wind stick finger up and see the direction of the
spray to decide KEY issues, like womens suffrage, slavery, etc. Whats popular
isnt always right. Like abortion. Most want it to remain legal we ar told. It
should not be. It violates RIGHTS under law for the unborn AND the childs
father. In representative republics, we have a shot to pass LAWS to beat that
kind of stuff, if following public opinion, we dont as long as the public,
acting abusively, for whatever reason, decides not agree. Put it like this.
Women are 54% of the vote. Men are now the minority. Suppose women, en masse,
decide that this is a democracy and since men can vote and women can, and
PURE numbers of votes are the deciding issue, and they put up and use their
natural majority rules forced status to decide MEN no longer have any rights
execpt the ones women say they have. Like womens suffrage woes of yesteryear,
its time for payback. What then? By not having a Rep republic based on LAWS
and inailenable rights not based on current poll numbers, the men are safe.
But with pure democracy, the women, who outnumber men, could pass insane laws
against men and it would be perfectly legal. Would this be right? Does might
make right? The same would have happened once upon a time in slavery days.
RIGHTS in law based societies, which depend on representive republics like
ours, prevent this.

> > What I pointed out was the this is a representaive republic, and I think
that
> > works well
>
> Do you think it works well when it is least democratic?

It works against me and Gargaro in PBA. We accept that Bull Klintoon has a
RIGHT under the system, even if morally questionable, to use his veto to
override. This is a representative republic. The public wants PBA gone. But
Clinton is under NO specific obligation to not veto. Its all law. Its
perfectly legit. I dont like it. But I realize LAWS must be followed. We also
have an electoral college system. We dont live in a democracy. Stop
fantasizing that we do.

> Which
> is what we are talking about here.


No. On the contrary, the Founding Fathers wanted impeachments and Senate
trials like this. Many whined about the witnesses being LIVE, when it appears
that should have happened to please our framers. Its not easy being a good
citizen. People today are so lazy they forget whats involved to have the
priviliges and freedoms we take for granted. Now weve undermined our whole
system by not following through with eradicating this menacing pest. We
should be ashamaed not at the republicans, but with ourselves for selling our
framers visions downs the river for a cheap buck and laziness.

> Are you, or are you not in
> favour of democracy in principle?

Democracy is limited in use if PURE. Again, the John Birch Society examined
this on C-Span. True democracies fail. Representative Republics are best.
They coe as close as possible to a democracy without the extremism of one man
one vote that as been tried and found wanting.

> You seem to *want* congressmen
> to be unrepresentative.

No. They ARE representing us. They were elected and trusted by us SO they
COULD USE THEIR OWN judgments in cases just like these! You fail to
understand the principles of our system. Its meant to be EXACTLY like this!
Thats why its called representative government. The congresspersons represent
us, using their appraisals from afar. They are trusted with details, not us.
We dont up down vote each thing, they do it on our behalf for us. If we dont
feel they repesent us well, as thats the purpose of REPRESENTIVE republics,
we fire em in the next election cycle. Funny how you misuse this concept to
*free* Slick Willy when its OK to the framers to oust him as in this case,
but overlook its correct use in this example! Recall your "four years is
short, let him serve and leave naturally, even if guilty" argument...

> > If the Dems follow the will of the people so much then why did most of them
> > vote against the will of the people regarding PBA? Hmmm?
>
> Uh?
> Again you seem to think two wrongs make a right.

Oh! So you agree we should ban PBA? So Clinton was WRONG in vetoing it against
the will of the people? What if you were proabortion?


>You seem
> to think that an attack on the Democrats is a defence of
> the Republicans. Why is that?


She doesnt think two wrongs equal right. Otherwise shed favor clinic bombing
and she doesnt. She is pointing out the hypocrisy and condridiction, thats
all. The reality is, she doubtless agrees with me on the veto ability of
clinton, while sickening from a moral and prolife viewpoint, is LEGALLY and
constitutionally sound in our REPRESENTATIVE republic. We dont get one man
one vote and thats shown in just this case beautifully. Thats another example
of the representative type government working against the right thing, which
we see in PBA vetoes by Clinton. But its correct and within Slick's powers as
prez, and he can do it as our representative. Sorry, but thats just the way
it is. Deal with it.


> The impeachment process took over a year.

Beig a good citizen isnt easy. It didnt take long enough. this trial was WAY
TO FAST. It should have went on for many more moons. We should have had live
witnesses. We should not worry abot time, but about doing the right thing. We
saw all the reps and dems relieved its "over". They shirked and shortened
their duties, IMHO, to save themsleves the trouble of really dealing with it.
Thats not what our framers would have wanted. These politicians now are
weaklings.

>Public support for Clinton
> never fell to below 50% at any point.

Thats not a reason not to convict. Objective guilt is. And he was guilty as
sin. The public opinion is irrelevant here, as in PBA. What I think is
meaningless. What the LAWS (remember we live in a representative republic
based on laws) say is the only relevant factor. Stop equating his guilt or
innocence based on whether or not some proabortion women swoon over him.

>Generally it was about 2/3
> all the way,

So? That is meaningless. He could have 99% approval. If hes guilty, we should
remove him, case closed.

>with a slight increase as time went on.

People got dumber and bought the medias "its all about sex" lie. Its about
perjury and obstructing justice. What the case *originally* was about has
NOTHING to do with clintons crimes against the state. Remember that.

> Is the
> public support for <whatever PBA is> as well attested?

Some would say alot more of the public opposes THIS abortion method. But thats
not relevant as far as his veotes are concerned. Hes got that right. No matter
what the public thinks. It works both ways, like the Rolling Stones say "you
cant always get what you want!" At least until you get a republican president!


> > So perjury is ok when it's about sex.
>
> You might think that way, I don't.

All your BS up until this point excuses this psycho from his abuse of law and
sexually predatorial behavior.

> > > The immoral and unlawful republicans are pracising political
> > > fraud. Clinton is not.
> >
> > What are you talking about (not being a pain - I really do not know)
>
> When someone is commiting adultery and presents himself as a familly
> man he is fraudulently tricking voters.

So Clinton is a bastard, we know it, so that make it ok???

> Do you think anyone who
> voted for Clinton thought they were voting for a man of high
> personal moral standards?

If they did and knew that fully, its pretty sad...

> Clinton is not being a hypocrite because
> he hasn't *claimed* to be Mr Clean.

He in fact promised I recall "the most ethical administration in history"-
obviously he hasnt lived up to that one! He claimed to be clean, and we got a
sewer instead...

> You don't want an immoral
> president? Fine. Vote for the other guy.

Shes not complianing about morals. Neither am I. We know hes a sack of
dogcrap. But even dogs cannot lie under oath and obstruct justice. remember
that. or break their presidential oath and live to tell about it. stop making
this about sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, etc. Its not. it never was. Having
an affair is not impeachable or removable from office offense. Lying under
oath and thus threatening the republics integrity and obstructing justice and
denying it to a citizen (Paula Jones) is!

> I assume you did. You lost.

> Now live with it. But instead you try to shout foul as if he
> ought to have been the type of president you wanted but most
> people didn't want.

He is a criminal. Its not sour grapes. If hed never committed crimes, we would
not be talking about this now. No matter what the public thinks, we have an
obligation to remove abusers like clinton.


> > I see - when Democrats are investigated it's a witch hunt, but when
> > republicans are invesigated it's because they are less lawful. This is a
very
> > hypocritical and inconsistent attitude
>
> LOL. If it was not based on any other facts, I'd agree.

You are proclinton and likely proabortion. you see only what you want to see
and defend your boy. Repblicans like gargaro and myself will turn on our own
if they are sickos. Like most of did to Bob Packwood. It shows the difference
between the intergity of the two parties and their rank and filers. The reps
WILL decry their own if they feel the guy objectively deserves it, the dems
wont. That speaks volumes.

> > IMPEACHMENT IS NOT A COUP.
>
> Correct. An abuse of impeachment is.

And where was impeachment abused here? Where do people like you get this
stuff? I agree the reps didnt do ENOUGH, failed on witnesses, but other than
that, your claim is senseless. This is and is meant to be a political
process. The whole thing was a great example of our representative republic
in action. I am happ with most except the senate trial result. But even that
outcome has to be respected under our laws.


> > Why did almost ALL of the Democrats vote in favor of an
> > impeachment inquiry if this is a COUP?
>
> Perhaps they wanted to be seen as fair. But an inquiry into the
> possibility of impeachment is not impeachment is it?

Oh! So, no matter the evidence we should make a "show" of caring about
possible abuse, which is why we have an inquiry, but we shouldnt actually
impeach as his poll numbers are too high-damn his guilt nonwithstanding,
which the reps PROVED beyond ANY reaosnable doubt in a landslide in the
inquiry! I feel so bad-NOT!


> > Did you think the Nixon case was a coup?
>
> No.
>

Of course. That was "real" high crimes and misdemeanors. Do EITHER of you know
that obstruction of justice, one the articles against Clinton, WAS ALSO one of
the ones against Nixon? Yup, Tricky Dick was about to be articled on that same
charge before resigning. This Bozo didnt have the decency to do so himself. In
both cases, impeachment and removal should have happened. Note how I, a rep
am again going against my own guy where appropos.

> > 1. Reno appointed him. Are you saying Reno appointed a biased prosecutor? 2.
> > Starr also had to be approved by a 3 judge panel. I guess that panel was all
> > biased also. 3. In 1993, the Senate Ethics committee during the Bob Packwood
> > case, chose Judge Starr to determine which parts of the Packwood diaries
were
> > relevant to the case and which should be kept private 4. Arthur Spitzer,
> > legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has said if he
> > hadto be investigated, he'd prefer Starr over almost anyone else he could
> > think of.
>
> I'm afraid I just don't believe you.

Funny, you have little trouble believing Clinton even when a mountain of
evidence is against him! Could it be YOU are the ideologically inflexible one?


> You are clearly very aligned to
> the Republican party.

So am I. A republican that is. It has NOTHING to do with my cool appraisal of
either Nixons or Clintons guilt in these cases. I dont look at crimes like
these guys cleary did, and excuse them or exonerate them based on the "R" or
"D" next to their name. But the same cannot be said of dems in Senate or
House or many rank and filers Ive found, and possibly of you-its about left
wing liberalism and especially proabortionism, which colors many persons
perceptions of this guy and his right to be in office or not in light of
these charges. I have not sen ONE person yet whose proabortion thats said
Clinton should go. Not one. Telling.

> A highly biased source.

The reps are biased???? Have you looked at the partisan dems??? Didnt SOME
reps break ranks and vote against removal? Dindt ALL the dems vote for
keeping him? I am not sure on the vote breakdown, but I'd bet it was more
lockstep on the dem side than on the rep.

> It's apparent that Starr


> is extremely biased _now_ even if you are correct that he somehow
> wasn't seen that way before.

Starr did his job. Really, no amount of evidence would make the PARTISAN dems
convict Slick. Period. They were determine to make a politically safe vote
against justice in light of their opinion of the polls. Thats gutless. I am
at least a bit proud to be a rep given they tried-not hard enough, but at
least they did. How the dems can sleep with themselves at night I dont know.
I couldnt if I had no moral fiber...

> What kind of justice is it to have an open ended witch hunt

witchhunt? Do you watch alot of CNN (Clinton News Network)? The IC did his
job. Thats what hes for. Clinton committed crimes, nobody forced him to cheat
on his wife and lie about it under oath and obsruct justice. He did that to
himself stop painting this criminal as a victim-hes a victimizer.

> that
> just jogs along for *years* in search of any possible sleaze
> that can be used for political purposes?

Or a semen stain on a dress? Yeah, hes so persecuted I feel bad for him to
get caught breaking his marriage vows. NOT! Poor Clinton cannot keep it in
his pants or not lie about it when asked several times in and out of court.
Hes no victim. Hes a person who got himself in his own mess 100% Stop blaming
Starr...

>This guy eventually gets
> around only this year to admitting he never found anything on the

> original case he was supposed to investigate? He employs tactics


> against the president that against any low crook would be thrown
> out as "entrapment".

Come on. The old "they asked questions they shouldnt have asked" trick?
Please. If the sicko hadnt have committed any offenses against first his
wife, and next against the state and Paula Jones, wed not be discussing it.
Why do you guys keep painting this dork as a victim? Hes an abuser. Wake up!

> > I am sure if I spent more than 1 minute I could find more info Would you be
> > as interested in gathering evidence about the OIC when they investigated
> > Republicans. Probably not since all of your thoughts here have been highly
> > hypocritical.
>
> I'm just not _that_ interested I suppose.

Yes. Thats the problem with most persons about this affair. They dont care
about the rule of law. They dont care about upholding the constitution, it
might take effort. It might take time. They are too easy going. Being a good
citizen is never easy. I understand that. I wish wish more people did. These
are serious offenses against the state. We all should care, but too many of
us dont.

> > > Abuse of the impeachment process.
> >
> > Be specific. What abuses?
>
> Trying to remove the president despite the conditions for
> impeachment not being present.

They were present in a LANDSLIDE. If Perjury and Obstructing justice dont meet
the bar, we need to raise it. If violating his own oath of office is ok and
doesnt mean firing, we need to change that. You gotta be kidding me.

> > > > Do you know what a high crime and
> > > > misdeameanor is? (just asking! Some people don't)
> > >
> > > Like the US congress you mean?
> >

> > Oh for crying out loud - can you QUIT with your snide comments? You didn't
> > answer the question. Can you? Or do you find your snide answers clever?
>
> You actually started the snide comments Carolyn.

No. She's not snide. Just irritated at the lack of caring of people over
SERIOUS SH#T! It floors her that people can be so unconcerned about justice
and ethical conduct of their own president, who people think can break the
law and walk and folks dont care or worse, paint CLINTON as a victimized
person when hes the abuser!

> You seem pretty up
> tight on this topic. I suppose I should have guessed you would be...

> Ok, ok.... sorry.

Yeah, crimes against the state the rule of law and innicent people are pretty
serious. I'm pretty uptight too...

> "misdeameanor" has a special meaning in the US but not in the
> UK where it means pretty much what it meant in the states 200
> years ago still. It just mean something bad; you could use
> it to describe bunking off school. In the context in question

> of course it means something much more serious. That's what the


> "high" bit does. I guess they were not quite satisfied with
> "high crimes" alone and wanted the possiblity of removal in the
> event of something that was technically not a crime but still
> very serious for the country.
>

And Clintons crimes ARE VERY SERIOUS for the country, amazing you dont think
so...

> I assume then you don't think Clinton commited a high "crime".

I assume he committed impeachable and removable offenses. More than one to
the evidence. Hes met and exceeded the grounds to do both of these to his
sorry rear end. No president can remain so and violate flagently his oath of
office. And the constitution. And the law. And obstruct justice. Incredible
ANYONE would even QUESTION this at ANY time as being excessive, given the
evidence of Clintns guilt being to clear.


> If what he did was so bad then I wonder what would count
> in your mind as lesser?

Lying but *NOT* under oath, for starters...that might not be impeachable. But
the minute he perjures himself (thats been impeached and removed before in
judges) then hes met the mimimum standards already. He also violated his oath
of office and obstructed justice and denied Paula Jones her rights.

> Perhaps if they had impeached him for
> picking his nose in public?

Thats not impeachable. Nobody would do so for that. Stop trivializing the
vlaid nature of the rep case against this sicko. By taking these cheap pot
shots at the VALID rep and IC case, you imply the reps were just looking for
an excuse.

> If the Republican party had impeached Clinton for picking his nose
> in public would that constitute an abuse of the impeachment
> process in your opinion?

It would in mine. No rep would argue for that in such a case, or even for
cheating on his wife. Clinton made a private issue public with his lying in
two different court proceedures. its not about sex. its about lying under
oath. remember that. The circumstances prefacing the perjury are not
material. The fact that he DID lie under oath as the president is. You must
really think lowly of Gargaro's perception of the facts of cases like these
to expect that shed go for removal on that weak basis, you imply shes out for
Slick's blood with no ability to discern for what is and isnt impeachable
offenses-thats not true and I suspect you know this. When you lose the
argument its off to ad hominem...

PLM

lea...@hiwaay.net

unread,
Feb 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/15/99
to
In article <7a735c$o18$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

A bit rushed... no time to read ahead first...
[but I had to scroll back to say I *really* didn't mean to imply
you were a liar - I have a high opinion of you]

> In article <7a5ull$s2p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> lea...@hiwaay.net wrote:

> Then I dare say that you MAY not know (and of course I could be wrong) a lot
> about the impeachment process. It is far from simple.

I don't doubt you know more both about the impeachment process
and all these details. I admit I may have made an incorrect
judgment. Even so... though the process may have complexity
the purpose is simple - to get rid of a bad president in extreme
circumstances. Now are the citizens capable of judging who
is a good president, or not? Ok. The whole legal process is
irrelevent because a majority figures he's guilty but wants him
*anyway*.

> The people elect the President for crying out loud. To an extent - it's still
> not popular vote. However, to decide whether or not he should be REMOVED is a
> more complicated process AND it must go through additional stages (as seen in
> this impeachment). That is how it was set up by the founding fathers.
> Electing a President is much simpler than removing one.

But where is this relevent? Why should the process ever have started?

> I am SURE you would defend Nixon the same way - correct?

No, as far as I know he was caught manipulating the government itself
wasn't he? Screwing the government is impeachable, screwing an
intern is not.

> >You seem to *want* congressmen
> >to be unrepresentative.
>
> I never said that. The people elect the congress. People elect people who
> will do what they want.

Absurdity. They at best *try* to.

> If the people REALLY REALLY hated the impeachment
> thing then WHY DIDN'T THEY OUST THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS????

Most people didn't vote at all. I think this is telling you
something about the system. I beleive the return by
sitting house members was 99% wasn't it? In reality the public
has very little influence on the election process in the US.
The result *was* the worst since 18 something for a party
in opposition to the pres. 6 years into term wasn't it?

That's the best the electorate can do in the US. It's
a crap system.

> And, if people
> are THAT PISSED then, in the year 2000, the congress will be run by the
> Democrats again.

True in a *democracy* not in the US.

> So David - what do YOU suggest? Shall we get rid of congress and just put
> things up for popular vote?

Certainly impeaching the president when 2/3 of the public oppose
is wrong. But I guess it's your country....

> > Uh?
> > Again you seem to think two wrongs make a right. You seem
> > to think that an attack on the Democrats is a defence of
> > the Republicans. Why is that?
>
> I was not attacking. I was making a point to show your hypocrisy.

Have I said I like the Democrats?
I don't follow your line of thought.

> > The impeachment process took over a year. Public support for Clinton
> > never fell to below 50% at any point. Generally it was about 2/3
> > all the way, with a slight increase as time went on. Is the
> > public support for <whatever PBA is> as well attested?
>
> Yes. For the past FEW YEARS all polls have shown (or at least most polls - I
> should say most or someone will find a poll somewhere that shows otherwise)
> that over 70% of the people want PBA BANNED. It has never gone down (the
> numbers)

Well, unless there's something I'm missing, I'd say you were robbed.
Ironically you disagree. Ha.


> > > So perjury is ok when it's about sex.
> >
> > You might think that way, I don't.
>
> Then why are you saying perjury is ok in this case?

I didn't.

> > When someone is commiting adultery and presents himself as a familly
> > man he is fraudulently tricking voters.
>
> So you think that anyone

No. anyone who "presents himself as a familly man"

> ...who has an affair and then has a strong family


> afterwards shouldn't be in office - either that or he should not have a
> family? or are you suggesting that all politicians admit to affairs? In
> addition, you are acting like Republicans are the only ones to have affairs -
> do you really think all the Democrats are pure?
>
> Clinton did this. You say "you knew what he was" - well GUESS WHAT. He went on
> 60 Minutes before he was elected, LIED about Gennifer Flowers (guess you think
> that is ok too) but hinted that he had "caused pain in his marriage" them
> basically made it look like he wasn't like that anymore - that he had changed.
> Is THAT not tricking voters?

Well, you obviously weren't tricked ;-)

I'm simply pointing out the obvious here. Clinton's supporters
don't care that he's had an affair. It's not part of why they voted
for him. OTOH the republicans [some anyway] _do_ stress that
angle and their supporters [eg you] _do_ care about it. For
a republican to do what Clinton did would be a political fraud.

> > Do you think anyone who
> > voted for Clinton thought they were voting for a man of high
> > personal moral standards?
>
> See above. And then he went on about how he was going to have the most ethical
> administration,

Ethical meaning no bribery you mean?

> Clinton has talked many times of "family
> values". He gave wonderful little speeches like this:
>
> "The other thing we have to do is to take seriously the role in this problem
> of...older men who prey on underage women...There are consequences to
> decisions and...one way or the other, people always wind up being held
> accountable." ( Bill Clinton, June 13, 1996, in a speech endorsing a
> national effort against teen pregnancy. )

LOL
That's a good one. Unfortunately it's not me you have to sell
it to, it's the 2/3 of US citizens who think he's A-Okay.
Hmm. Ok on re-examination he says "underaged women". Presumably
this means the age of consent, yes?

> " Every time Bush talks about trust it makes chills run up and down my spine.
> The way he has trampled on the truth is a travesty of the American political
> system." - Presidential candidate Bill Clinton, describing his opponent
> (Federal News Service, 10/28/92)

If he was refering to "Read my lips. No new taxes" I would agree.
That was political fraud. But Clinton never had a manifesto of
"no interns" and it would have been a very minor point anyway.
Taxes are big on people's priorities.

> So - do you think Clinton is a hypocrite for talking about Family values

Sure - if he did.

> >Clinton is not being a hypocrite because
> > he hasn't *claimed* to be Mr Clean.
>
> LOL! OHH!! So if everyone comes forward and says "Hi I am a scum" they can get
> away with whatever! Ok.

They are not being a _fraud_. They might still be charged with crimes,
of course. honesty doesn't protect you from _that_.

> "Hi. I'm Carolyn. I really suck. I'm horrible and I am just a nasty evil
> person."

Vote for Carolyn!!
But if you said that then you would be lying and therefore a fraud.

> And, I will argue that Clinton tried to make everyone think that NOW he was
> Mr. Clean.

Mr Teflon maybe....
Hell - he even plays a sax. He's not Mr Clean. No way!!

> Are you like, really obsessed with sex or something? This is about perjury and
> you want to turn it around to talk about sex. sex sex sex sex sex! Clinton was
> not impeached for sex - it had to do with breaking the law.

Well that brings us to the other half of the thread then. the impeachment.
=======================================

> > LOL. If it was not based on any other facts, I'd agree.
>
> So you DO think that perjury and obstruction of justice are excusable when
> related to a case involving sex?

Excusable, no, impeachable, no.

> > > IMPEACHMENT IS NOT A COUP.
> >
> > Correct. An abuse of impeachment is.
>
> Good job throwing words around. Bad job backing them up.

I'd have thought it obvious. If you can't see that removing the head
of state illegally is a bad thing I cannot see any argument that
will persuade you.

> > > Did you think the Nixon case was a coup?
> >
> > No.
>
> That about says it all.

I think the other guy's in 18xx was though, from what I hear. Another
bunch of republicans they say..... what do you think of _that_ case?
Do you know the background?

> > I'm afraid I just don't believe you.
>
> OH. So now I am a liar because I am a Republican?? How dare you.

Sorry. But if i was to trust you that much I wouldn't need
an opinion of my own, would I? Are you really saying there
is no room for honest disagreement on this issue?

> The above
> are FACTS. Go look them up. GO AHEAD. Look them up.

I'm sure they are, but it's the *context* I mistrust. I'm
just skeptical. You *do* run a right wing NG and club. It
seems a fair bet you might be just a tad biased to the
republican view.

> And then come back and
> take back what you said about me being a liar.

I didn't call you a liar. Did I?

> >Starr is extremely biased _now_ even if you are correct that he somehow
> > wasn't seen that way before.
>
> But you'll believe all these "unbiased" Democrats. I guess Carville isn't
> biased either.

The bald imp? He's ... interesting.

> > What kind of justice is it to have an open ended witch hunt that
> > just jogs along for *years* in search of any possible sleaze
> > that can be used for political purposes?
>
> Ask Reno. Ask the Democrats who were the ones WHO SUPPORTED THE OIC. Ask the
> OIC which investigated Reagan for SEVEN YEARS in the HUD case.

HUD?

> >This guy eventually gets
> > around only this year to admitting he never found anything on the
> > original case he was supposed to investigate?
>
> Is that his fault?

Er.. yes? Who else's?

> This is just really sad.

I can see it's going to be a frustrating year for you. I imagine
a large number of people out there have come to the same conclusions
I have. More frustrating in as much as you see it as an incorrect
judgement. I think this could be really bad for the republicans.
OTOH once you're in congress you're in for life so if they weather
the storm [and they aren't too old] they should be ok.

> > I'm just not _that_ interested I suppose.
>
> Right, you are only interested, it seems, when it is the poor vitimized
> Democrats who are investigated.

I'm really not a Democrat. I don't even know any *policy* differences
between the parties. Republican = lawless hypocrite, Democrat = ???
is as far as it goes. *Are* there any policy differences other
than abortion?


> > > > Abuse of the impeachment process.
> > >
> > > Be specific. What abuses?
> >
> > Trying to remove the president despite the conditions for
> > impeachment not being present.
>
> Why are they not impeachable? What about all the people who testified (MANY
> WHO WERE DEMOCRATS) who explained why these WERE impeachable offenses?

Ok, what's the argument then?

> Oh yes - and abuse of impeachment is not a coup as you claim. A coup would
> require the Republicans to take over the Presidency.

I don't think so. Anyway talk about nit-picking. What exactly *would*
you call the illegal removal from office of the head of state?

> > You actually started the snide comments Carolyn.
>
> Oh yes. I supposed you'll be upset now that I was not too happy with you

> essentially calling me a liar either.

Sort of; I'm upset that you're upset.

> I get agrravated when people call me a liar and are hypocritical. But then, I
> should have guessed you would be. So sorry.

<ouch>

> > "misdeameanor" has a special meaning in the US but not in the
> > UK where it means pretty much what it meant in the states 200
> > years ago still. It just mean something bad; you could use
> > it to describe bunking off school. In the context in question
> > of course it means something much more serious.
>
> Yes. It has a totally different meaning. In fact, a pres can be guilty of a
> high crime and misdeameanor that wouldn't even be considered illegal for a
> regualr citizen. Yep. That's right. A high crime and misdeameanor doesn't
> even have to be an illegal activity.

Well, I guess the "crime" part would be ;-)

> >That's what the
> > "high" bit does. I guess they were not quite satisfied with
> > "high crimes" alone and wanted the possiblity of removal in the
> > event of something that was technically not a crime but still
> > very serious for the country.
>
> Correct.
>
> > I assume then you don't think Clinton commited a high "crime".
>
> A "high crime" doesn't even have to be a "crime."

Isn't that twisting the natural meaning of the word "crime" to mean
it's very opposite?

> I believe that perjury and
> obstruction of justice - whether the Pres is a Republican or a Democrat, is a
> high crime and misdeameanor.

I would say that they could _possibly_ be, depending on what
was at stake. Actually obstruction could easily be. But it
wasn't in this case.

> > If what he did was so bad then I wonder what would count
> > in your mind as lesser? Perhaps if they had impeached him for
> > picking his nose in public?
>
> Nice snide comment there. You are getting good.

No, seriously. Or how about a parking ticket? Is that a high
crime? You need to say where you draw the line. Your
whole line of argument is that lying about sex is vitally important
to the national interest. I'm asking you what would *not*
be vitally important. It seems you've reduced impeachment to
an arbitrary vote of no confidence. That is abuse.

> > If the Republican party had impeached Clinton for picking his nose
> > in public would that constitute an abuse of the impeachment
> > process in your opinion?
>
> I would have very high reservations about mental state of those in congress.

Yes. But would you say it was an abuse of impeachment? Would
you say they were deliberately abusing the system to get rid of
the president unlawfully?

In fact, do you think it is *ever* possible to abuse the impeachment
process, or do you think Congress can do what the hell it likes?
Even if it flagrantly ignores the constitution?

David

davi...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/15/99
to
In article <7a8grj$s6k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
proli...@hotmail.com wrote:

I'll see if I can properly reply to your long post....

> lea...@hiwaay.net wrote:

[Impeachment]:


> > Yes, I am. It's how you get rid of a president that is so
> > bad he is a threat to the country.
>

> Which this president clearly is:...
> ...He has lowered the bar of decency and justice


> so far, it is frightening. I'd say that qualifies as a threat to the country.

Well you're wrong.
Setting a bad example is not a threat to the country.

> The fact is, when a president takes the PRESIDENTIAL OATH OF OFFICE, he is
> swearing to uphold the constitution. Clinton clearly violated BOTH his office
> oath AND our constitution, making it IMPOSSIBLE for him to remain in office.

That's a better argument.
But I don't see that he _did_ break his oath.

> There is no question at all,
> whatsoever of Clintons guilt

Guilt of *what* though? Lying? I agree. Purjury? I disagree - he's
probably guilty, but there's not enough evidence. "High crimes"?
No way.

> and that of his deserving of removal from

> office, and, arguably, conviction in regular court ...

Only "arguably" ??!

> This is NOT overturning an election! Stop pretending it is.

Obviously it *is* overturning an election. Perhaps you *meant*
to say that it is justified / legal. IMO it wasn't.

> We live under LAWS
> thats the whole point of America.

And the Republicans ignored those laws. I agree this is the issue.

>...To safeguard key RIGHTS regardless of


> public opinion fickleness. Thats why slavery was overturned as
> unconstitutional. And womens suffrage. If we followed popular opinion we
> might still have those!

LOL.
That's very funny. You think these things came about despite
popular opinion, and because of the constitution then? If so
how do you explain that the constitution had to be changed to
accomodate them? What did all the abolitionist people do?

> No. We use impeachment and removal for abusers like Clinton to prevent them
> from making a mockery of our system. And we should. The bar should be HIGH
> not LOW. It has to be.

Well then change the constitution to say "low crimes and misdemeanors".
Or simply make it a vote of no confidence.

> It makes no sense that people are not
> enraged that anybody in this high of a position would do this and expect to
> determine his own punishment, if any.

Makes sense to me. Normal people have zero trust in the system.

> He will never get the treatment he needs unless he is
> called on his excesses and stopped. By letting him go, the country is only
> hurting this sick man. He needs mental help, and we denied it to him by
> letting him go free.

That's a good one! Impeachment was a humanitarian effort then?

> ... to not do


> anything to this rapist of justice and arguably women.

arguably women?

> So, a criminal is in
> the WH, and its okm we can wait until he gets out of office, whats four
> years? Thats not justice.

It's a compromise born of necessity because charging a president
with petty offences can shut down the government - the supreme
court were wrong to allow the PJ case.

> This is not a democracy. its a representative republic. Thats been proven to
> be the best form of government in history.

Oooh It's "proven".

> > > > You seem proud that the US is _NOT_ a democracy but merely
> > > > an approximation by 18th century necessity.

> I hope, if Gargaro is smart, she IS proud of EXACTLY that. Representative
> Republics, as opposed to pure democracies, are OPTIMUM.

Really...
I guess that having the biggest Civil War in history with 100
years of independence is "optimum" too then?

>...Put it like this.


> Women are 54% of the vote. Men are now the minority. Suppose women, en masse,
> decide that this is a democracy and since men can vote and women can, and
> PURE numbers of votes are the deciding issue, and they put up and use their

> natural majority rules forced status to ...

We get the idea. Problem: what you describe is much easier in the
current state. For example less than half the people vote, so
right off you only need 1/4 of the people. But it's *much*
worse than this because of the way candidates are picked. You
could decide the elcetions with less than a tenth of one percent
of the population.

And guess what? That's what happens pretty much.

> What then? .... could pass insane laws
> ... it would be perfectly legal. Would this be right?

You tell me. Is it right? It's happening.

> This is a representative republic. The public wants PBA gone. But
> Clinton is under NO specific obligation to not veto. Its all law. Its
> perfectly legit. I dont like it.

Why not? You said these people represent our interests. Ergo,
you must be in favour of abortion? Here's where you say it:

> No. They ARE representing us. They were elected and trusted by us SO they
> COULD USE THEIR OWN judgments in cases just like these! You fail to
> understand the principles of our system.

Obviously...!

> If we dont
> feel they repesent us well, as thats the purpose of REPRESENTIVE republics,
> we fire em in the next election cycle.

Not impeach them, then?

> this trial was WAY
> TO FAST. It should have went on for many more moons.

Given that there was one at all, I suppose so.

> >Public support for Clinton
> > never fell to below 50% at any point.
>
> Thats not a reason not to convict. Objective guilt is.

Again, guilt of *what*?

> You are proclinton and likely proabortion.

[I guess I'm vaguely pro-abortion but I think I'd go against
this late term abortion thing, but I'm not sure what it is]

> > > Did you think the Nixon case was a coup?
> >
> > No.
> >
> Of course. That was "real" high crimes and misdemeanors.

Well, DUH.

> Do EITHER of you know
> that obstruction of justice, one the articles against Clinton, WAS ALSO one of
> the ones against Nixon?

It's not the specific title of the activity, but whether it is "high"
or not. Lying could be an impeachable offence even without purjury
if you lie about the right thing.

> ... Poor Clinton cannot keep it in


> his pants or not lie about it when asked several times in and out of court.
> Hes no victim. Hes a person who got himself in his own mess 100% Stop blaming
> Starr...

Isn't it possible to think both?

> > I'm just not _that_ interested I suppose.
>
> Yes. Thats the problem with most persons about this affair. They dont care
> about the rule of law.

Well, mostly I meant simply the bit about Starr....

> > > > Abuse of the impeachment process.
> > >
> > > Be specific. What abuses?
> >
> > Trying to remove the president despite the conditions for
> > impeachment not being present.
>
> They were present in a LANDSLI