Democrats new slogan: "We support adultery & crime" (n)
Walt Horning
The Democrats fought "tooth and nail" to defend Clinton's alleged
adultery and alleged crimes to cover up the adultery, it implies
that Democrats support infidelity and the destruction of the family
by adultery and worse still, parents lying under oath and
obstructing justice so that they can go to jail, insuring a lack of
financial support for the children, not to mention the love these
children need.
So you can see how many Democrats support "family values". (They
don't.)
Also, their support of women who get ahead in the work place on
their knees is also obvious, since Bill seemed to support this and
Democrats still support Bill.
Now we know what N.O.W. really stands for, having supported Clinton's
adultery and lawbreaking. It stands for
National Organization of Whores.
I know there's the "forgiveness" aspect of all this. But if the
president does not resign, then he sends a message that adultery and
lawbreaking is OK for the entire country, despite the harm it does to
families. His lack of resignation is a clear sign he is not repentant.
Jesus said, "Do works that show you truly repented."
This is absolute proof that this man is a complete narcistic, selfish
person with no other considerations for anything but himself, unless
he resigns.
If he resigns, he would send a clear message to the rest of the
country that adultery, followed by lawbreaking, is not appropriate
behavior for fathers and mothers. Otherwise, its says adultery
followed by crime is OK.
Also, while some Democrats say "the president's behavior is
deplorable", in the next breath they want him to be excused for
commiting crimes that attemted to defraud Paula Jones in her lawsuit
and block a criminal investigation of the same. This contradiction is
hypocritical. If it were only the adultery, it would not be so bad.
The crime part is not excusable just because he was "embarassed" to
tell the truth.
Criminal defendants who judges give lighter sentences to are people
who go to trial, do not put up a defense, plead guilty, make no
excuses and put themselves at the mercy of the court. Clinton seems
incapable of sincerely doing this. Hence, trial and removal seems to
be the only solution.
However, if the truth is that there are a slew of indictments waiting
for Bill and Hillary, then its likely they will "worm and squirm"
rather than "repent" and "fight tooth and nail" in the Senate to stay
away from indictments once out of office for as long as possible.
Where-Was-George ?
George Bush still hasn't asked State Senator Brown, who molested his 20-
year-old aide, to resign.
Family Court Judge Slut is still in office.
State Senator Nixon who solicited a prostitute and served jail time
hasn't been asked to resign.
--
"Bush is taking a political party along on his ride.
He and it will care if on Nov. 7, 2000, people think
of Al Gore or Bill Bradley as an unexciting but serious
professor and of him as an amiable fraternity boy, but a boy."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
online
of everyone else's most precious commodity: time. He also supports pollution
of cyberspace with inanity and the dumbing of America by articulating
stupidity. He also discredits freedom of speech.
Walt Horning wrote in message <38484aff....@news.pipeline.com>...
>Say mothers and wives, just wanted to drop you all a thought:
>
Bill Mechlenburg
the inference that Bush has condoned illegal acts or are you conducting a
campaign of deception and innuendo?
Bill
wm...@att.net
For info on politics, taxes, education etc., go to
http://home.att.net/~wmech
Where-Was-George ? <where_wa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:822nha$v9f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38484aff....@news.pipeline.com>,
> whor...@pipeline.com wrote:
> > Say mothers and wives, just wanted to drop you all a thought:
>
Dr. Roger M. Firestone
Where-Was-George ? <where_wa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <38484aff....@news.pipeline.com>,
> whor...@pipeline.com wrote:
>> Say mothers and wives, just wanted to drop you all a thought:
>
>George Bush still hasn't asked State Senator Brown, who molested his 20-
>year-old aide, to resign.
The state Senate is an independent branch of government. The governor
has no business asking a state senator to resign. That is the
responsibility of the senator's colleagues in the legislature.
>Family Court Judge Slut is still in office.
The judiciary is a branch of government separate from the executive.
The governor would have no business denouncing a judge or asking him to
resign. There are doubtless mechanisms in Texas for removing a judge
who is guilty (has this judge been prosecuted in court successfully?) of
crimes from the bench. I'm sure that the governor is _not_ part of such
mechanisms. They either involve other parts of the judiciary or the
legislature.
>State Senator Nixon who solicited a prostitute and served jail time
>hasn't been asked to resign.
Who would ask him to resign? Not the governor. As noted above, state
senators do not report to the governor. Why haven't his fellow senators
asked him to resign? Or begun some kind of removal process?
---
In other words, none of the above is relevant to the performance of
George W. Bush as governor of Texas. It's just random mud-slinging. If
there were some aide to the governor or executive branch employee who
were guilty of serious infractions of the law, one might be justified in
asking why that employee had not been fired (and not just "asked to
resign"), and criticizing the governor for not seeing that his
administration was run cleanly. But the governor has no responsibility
for nor authority over the judiciary or legislature.
In Texas lingo, "that dog won't hunt."
Mathew
On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Dr. Roger M. Firestone wrote:
> In article <822nha$v9f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Where-Was-George ? <where_wa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <38484aff....@news.pipeline.com>,
> > whor...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >> Say mothers and wives, just wanted to drop you all a thought:
> >
> >George Bush still hasn't asked State Senator Brown, who molested his 20-
> >year-old aide, to resign.
You mean George W could not have some moral integrity in him and at least
suggest this person to resign?Well I guess American citizens who are not in
the govt.and have protested in front of the White House have no business doing
so either?
Flip Flop
john q public
this out to him as he
repeatedly said that the president should resign?
Dr. Roger M. Firestone <rf...@chele.cais.net> wrote in message
news:cXS14.2486$6k2.4...@newsie.cais.net...
> A private citizen, especially one who is a direct constituent of an
> officeholder who appears to have engaged in improper behavior, has much
> _better_ standing than the governor to demand that a state legislator
> resign. Because of the American doctrine of separation of powers, it is
> an infringement for the governor to go about suggesting that this or
> that state senator resign his position. It is the job of the state
> senate to police its own ranks, or, if the state constitution permits,
> the province of the voters to demand a recall of the offending official.
> Sorry that these distinctions are too subtle for you...
Mathew
That he could not stand for having this person in his office?
Another flip flop
Where-Was-George ?
100...@saba.kuentos.guam.net>,
Mathew <m...@kuentos.guam.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Dr. Roger M. Firestone wrote:
>
> > In article <822nha$v9f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Where-Was-George ? <where_wa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >In article <38484aff....@news.pipeline.com>,
> > > whor...@pipeline.com wrote:
> > >> Say mothers and wives, just wanted to drop you all a thought:
> > >
> > >George Bush still hasn't asked State Senator Brown, who molested
his 20-
> > >year-old aide, to resign.
>
> You mean George W could not have some moral integrity in him and at
>least suggest this person to resign?Well I guess American citizens who
>are not in the govt.and have protested in front of the White House
>have no business doing so either?
>
> Flip Flop
The Universal Translator doesn't seem to be working so I'll have to
take a guess at what you mean.
Nah, forget it. My point is that Bush talks the talk about morality,
character, and personal responsibility. He promises to use the "bully
pulpit" of the presidency to force the American public to comply some
pie-in-the-sky moral code dictated by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
However, when push comes to shove and a member of his own party fails
to meet that same litmus test he would force on us all, he stays silent
and pretends nothing ever happened.
--
"Bush is taking a political party along on his ride.
He and it will care if on Nov. 7, 2000, people think
of Al Gore or Bill Bradley as an unexciting but serious
professor and of him as an amiable fraternity boy, but a boy."
-George F. Will-
Where-Was-George ?
"Bill Mechlenburg" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> This has the distinct smell of political mud slinging.
If anyone knows about "political mud slinging" it would be you. I'm
surprised though, that your sense of smell still works, what with you
having been so immersed in turd slinging the last couple of years.
> Can you substantiate the inference that Bush has condoned illegal
>acts or are you conducting a campaign of deception and innuendo?
>
> Bill
I don't see how you can infer, solely by my posting that Bush has
failed to condemn illegal and immoral acts by members of his own party,
as a declaration that he has actually condoned those actions.
But then, I guess I have to consider the source.
But getting back to the topic at hand, do you believe that Bush should
or should not condemn the actions of members of his own party as
vigorously as he has condemned the actions of Democrats ?
Where-Was-George ?
rf...@chele.cais.net (Dr. Roger M. Firestone) wrote:
> In article <822nha$v9f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Where-Was-George ? <where_wa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <38484aff....@news.pipeline.com>,
> > whor...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >> Say mothers and wives, just wanted to drop you all a thought:
> >
> >George Bush still hasn't asked State Senator Brown, who molested his
20-
> >year-old aide, to resign.
>
> has no business asking a state senator to resign. That is the
> responsibility of the senator's colleagues in the legislature.
Bush claims to be the "leader" of Texas and claims that he will use
his "leadership" through the presidential bully pulpit to affect the
moral character of the entire country. If the twit can't or won't even
attempt to influence members of his own party in the state he's the
governor of, what does that say about his ability to influence the
entire country ?
On top of that, Bush has comment on Clinton' character. He refused to
condemn the use of the Confederate Battle Flag in South Carolina
stating that the issue should be decided only by the citizens of S.
Carolina.
He then turned around and condemned the art display in Brooklyn.
The reality of this is he doesn't want to offend his "investors" as he
called them once, and by ignoring those issues, keeps them off the
radar of the voters outside the state of Texas.
> >Family Court Judge Slut is still in office.
>
> The judiciary is a branch of government separate from the executive.
> The governor would have no business denouncing a judge or asking him
>to resign. There are doubtless mechanisms in Texas for removing a
>judge who is guilty (has this judge been prosecuted in court
>successfully?) of crimes from the bench. I'm sure that the governor
>is_not_ part of such mechanisms. They either involve other parts of
>the judiciary or the legislature.
Then he has no business commenting on anyone else's morality. I believe
that many Americans agree, since they voted out Lauch Faircloth and Al
D'Amato.
> >State Senator Nixon who solicited a prostitute and served jail time
> >hasn't been asked to resign.
>
> Who would ask him to resign? Not the governor. As noted above, state
> senators do not report to the governor. Why haven't his fellow
>senators asked him to resign? Or begun some kind of removal process?
Why hasn't Bush used the "bully pulpit" of the governor's office to
persuade his fellow Republicans, who currently hold all the state-wide
elective offices in Texas, to begin that process ?
> In other words, none of the above is relevant to the performance of
> George W. Bush as governor of Texas. It's just random mud-slinging.
It IS relevant as long as Bush portrays himself as the "leader" of
Texas. Were I using falsehoods and innuendo rather that stating the
actions of those people I mentioned, then you would have grounds for
accusing me of "mud-slinging".
>If there were some aide to the governor or executive branch employee
>who were guilty of serious infractions of the law, one might be
>justified in asking why that employee had not been fired (and not
>just "asked to resign"), and criticizing the governor for not seeing
>that his administration was run cleanly.
As a matter of fact, there was the incident of his appointees to the
Teacher Retirement System selling an office building at a loss, during
the current land boom in Austin, to a Bush supporter. No bids for the
sale of the property were solicited.
We never heard a peep from Bush.
> But the governor has no responsibility for nor authority over the
>judiciary or legislature.
There is such a thing as moral authority over members of his own
political party.
> In Texas lingo, "that dog won't hunt."
Bush couldn't hunt either. During the first campaign in '94, he decided
to show that he was a macho as Ann Richards, a life-long dove-hunting
enthusiast.
He shot a protected species of bird, paid the fine, and apparently
hasn't picked up a firearm since.