Clinton Cigar-Sex Fetish Didn't Start with Lewinsky
John Crawford
Clinton Cigar-Sex Fetish Didn't Start with Lewinsky
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2000/1/6/235353
Friday January 7, 12:50 AM
It's not likely to have the impact of the top secret Paula Jones case
impeachment evidence still being witheld by Congress, but Jeff Toobin's
upcoming book A Vast Conspiracy does promise a few intriguing tidbits.
Advanced publicity trumpets the release of Clinton rape accuser Juanita
Broaddrick's initial November 1997 account to Jones' investigators Rick and
Beverly Lambert.
And we'll finally learn the contents of Jones' mysterious 1994 affidavit,
wherein the former Arkansas state employee describes the "distinguishing
characteristics" of the first phallus. (Jones case afficianados already know
the secret, since she immediately gave all the gory details to coworker
Debra Ballentine, who passed on the account to Jones' lawyers. They released
Ballentine's deposition long ago.)
But here's a little item we wonder if even Mr. Toobin is aware of.
Turns out, Monica Lewinsky wasn't the first Clinton staffer to become
acquainted with Bill Clinton's shockingly kinky cigar-sex fetish. In fact, a
full five months before cyber-sleuth Matt Drudge went public with news that
Clinton got his kicks by watching Monica simulate sex with tobacco products,
the president's perverted turn-on was described in a widely read supermarket
tabloid.
Flight attendant Shelia Swatzyna, who served aboard then-candidate Clinton's
1992 campaign plane, told the National Enquirer:
"[Clinton] loved to tell off-color jokes and make sexual remarks. It was his
way of telling the girls, 'The door is open.' There was always a sexual
innuendo. He would put his arm around one of the women and start whispering
in her ear. He loved to be up close with the stewardesses. One of his
favorite tricks was to take a cigar and lick it. He never lit the cigar. He
would just play with it in front of the women." (National Enquirer -- March
24, 1998)
Swatzyna's recollections are eerily similiar to Monica's own account of how
Clinton introduced her to his bizarre taste for cigar-sex:
"He was chewing on a cigar. And then he had the cigar in his hand and he was
kind of looking at the cigar in...sort of a naughty way. And so...I looked
at the cigar and I looked at him and I said, we can do that, too, some
time." (Lewinsky deposition -- The Starr Report)
Though at least one former Clinton flight attendant won a prestigious West
Wing post after apparently acquiescing to the candidate's advances, none has
yet come forward to claim she went the full Monica route, cigar and all.
But Cristy Zercher, a former campaign plane flight attendant who would later
allege that Clinton brazenly groped her while Hillary slept just feet away,
told NewsMax.com on Thursday that the soon-to-be president wasn't at all shy
about making his proclivities known.
"He did his cigar thing in front of the other girls and later they told me
about it. In front of me he did a lot of other things."
Zercher didn't elaborate, but her April 1998 account to Star magazine
alleged that Clinton repeatedly came on to her while she was on the job,
sometimes with his pants unzipped.
Riggs
I can't imagine why anyone would give one shred of credibility to Carl
Limbacher, let alone parrot his ludicrous ramblings. You'd think
people would have learned after the Danny Williams fiasco.
Buck
John Crawford <Craw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:858c8d$5jj$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Clinton Cigar-Sex Fetish Didn't Start with Lewinsky
In my opinion Clinton didn't personally show any fetish attachment to cigars
while putting the make on some gal, but quite the contrary used the cigar to
imply his intentions towards the gal he was pursuing at that moment. He
didn't need the cigar for his own gratification it was used as a invite.
This opinion is not in defense of his actions, but is intended to suggest
what was actually going on. Yes, it was used as a phallic symbol, but to
entice the female not to directly effect Bill's gratification. If he could
successfully convey his intentions in this manor he would no doubt use the
method repeatedly. There seems to be adequate proof that numerous women were
willing participants. Bill was and probably still is a skirt chaser, which
is not at all uncommon.
3. below is from the definition of fetish.
3. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body,
that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual
gratification.
Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further
reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright
Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
atwood
>
>Clinton Cigar-Sex Fetish Didn't Start with Lewinsky
>
>For the story behind the story...
>http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2000/1/6/235353
>
>Friday January 7, 12:50 AM
>It's not likely to have the impact of the top secret Paula Jones case
>impeachment evidence still being witheld by Congress, but Jeff Toobin's
>upcoming book A Vast Conspiracy does promise a few intriguing tidbits.
(snip the rest)
Hey John, are you jealous? Let's face it, no one cares about the sex!
Freedom4All
atwood wrote in message ...
>Let's face it, no one cares about the sex!
Not even Hillary or Chelsea?
--
"A friend invited me to come over for dinner."
- algore
"I suggest that one crucial issue for voters to ponder is this:
Whose finger do you want on the ALT-CONTROL-DELETE button?"
- algore in 'Slate'
"I would be very surprised if any adverse consequences flowed
from the Chinese running the canal."
- the Rapist in the White House
I think the President committed perjury.
- George Stephanopoulos - Nightline - January 15, 1999
NSA CIA BATF FBI USA USN USAF USMC USCG IRS DOD OKC NASA UFO
Waco Ruby Ridge Oklahoma City bomb Bill Clinton Al Gore
Janet Reno Horiuchi Koresh davidian posse comitatus
Randy Weaver special forces drug Hillary Delta Force whitewater
Vince Foster revolution people's freedom fighter militia tnt
nuclear top secret AK-47 AR-15 PPK M16 explosive fertilizer
fuel oil aircraft highjack drugs cocaine heroin marijuana
smuggle customs arson capitol terrorist HCI SPLC SS police
pipe bridge US Mail abortion draft board civil war
saren bubonic anthrax agent orange DDT minuteman Nazi LSD
assault rifle
1_nor...@my-deja.com
"Freedom4All" <UNDR...@Juno.com> wrote:
>
> atwood wrote in message ...
> >Let's face it, no one cares about the sex!
>
> Not even Hillary or Chelsea?
Hillary could have left him years ago if any of that were true! But she
didn't, and that makes me suspicious of any of the acounts. And
Chelsea, she's never spoken ill of her father, so why should you speak
for her?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
1_nor...@my-deja.com
made up her whole deal with the cigar? This is a girl that claimed to
be with the President on the same night he was actually in another
country! Not exactly reliable.
rose...@idt.net
>Did it ever occur to you that Monica may have heard of that story, and
>made up her whole deal with the cigar? This is a girl that claimed to
>be with the President on the same night he was actually in another
>country! Not exactly reliable.
Makes absolutely NO difference.
The "stories" are NOT designed to be factual, they are designed to "establish"
character and like supermarket tabloids need only to be in the realm of
"possibility" to be considered true.
rose...@idt.net
>In article <8593a5$3vji$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Freedom4All" <UNDR...@Juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> atwood wrote in message ...
>> >Let's face it, no one cares about the sex!
>>
>> Not even Hillary or Chelsea?
>
>Hillary could have left him years ago if any of that were true! But she
>didn't, and that makes me suspicious of any of the acounts. And
>Chelsea, she's never spoken ill of her father, so why should you speak
>for her?
More important is the fact that in 7 years, we've NEVER heard much about the
RECORD of Clinton.
EVERY political campaign researches the archives about a candidate to hold him
to the fire in PAST political offices. Whether he's a dogcatcher or Governor,
the statements, policies, programs and the hundreds of variations on his PUBLIC
record are open to attack, use as political tools and thousands of candidates
have literally been booted based on JUST THEIR PAST PUBLIC RECORD
But I'd be willing to bet that you can't find a researched position by any
conservative opponent of Clinton that has used PAST PUBLIC service as the basis
for attacking Clinton.
The ENTIRE attack on Clinton began with the "material" that Cliff Harris, an
Arkansas lawyer on the short end of a land deal, offered to the Bush Campaign,
and was later taken by Jerry Falwell and Emmett Tyrell jr to "research".
Witnesses were paid, articles written ALL with dubius accounts relating to
UNPROVEN ALLEGATION of Arkansas politics. The articles were later found to be
unsupportable by the evidence and testimony.
But NEVER has Clinton been judged by HIS past public record of Attny General, or
Governor.
rose...@idt.net
>This opinion is not in defense of his actions, but is intended to suggest
>what was actually going on.
And "what is going on" can easily be attributable to a concerted effort to use
allegation, insinuation, innuendo, theory, conjecture, rumor, stories and/or
lies to get a politial enemy.
NOT ONE of the aforementioned "character issues" have been either proven to
affect ANY portion of the operation of government, or the conduct of public
policy.........NONE.
And while "some" individuals and groups literally revel in the salaciousness of
a politically generated "scandalous" character, most people don't give a fig.
We didn't NEED to "know", and the ONLY reason we do, is because a failing
political enemy had NO OTHER way to do what they should have done with ideas and
issues.
>There seems to be adequate proof that numerous women were
>willing participants.
More to the point, is that there is NO credible evidence to suggest that any
were "coerced" other than someone "alleging". And since the "allegations" come
from nearly a tainted single source, or in some way are furthered by that
source, it's extremely dubious as to credibility.
It's VERY easy to understand if you sit down and theoritically "plot" a "smear
campaign" and list the things you need to "do" in order for a character
assasignation to succeed.
Lacking credible evidence, and using SOME "facts" the clearest way is to make
sure "NUMBERS" of allegations are used to support credibility
rose...@idt.net
>Hey John, are you jealous? Let's face it, no one cares about the sex!
Johns a hypocrite.
In fact a religious hypocrite that uses SHAM "moral outrage" as a poltical tool
Then whines because his religious beliefs are attacked in a POLITICAL forum.
rose...@idt.net
>
>atwood wrote in message ...
>>Let's face it, no one cares about the sex!
>
> Not even Hillary or Chelsea?
That would be a PRIVATE matter, don't ya think?
Bill B.
--
nasa...@ev1.blah,blah.net
(remove blah,blah. to respond to e-mail)
<rose...@idt.net> wrote in message news:3878a0d3....@news.idt.net...
William D. Allen Sr.
lecher already convicted in a court of law by a federal judge!!!!
WDA
end
<rose...@idt.net> wrote in message news:3878a0d3....@news.idt.net...
> "Buck" <heid...@slonet.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>[snipped]
>>
> And "what is going on" can easily be attributable to a concerted effort to
use
> allegation, insinuation, innuendo, theory, conjecture, rumor, stories
and/or
> lies to get a politial enemy.
>
>
>[snipped]
>
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
> "Freedom4All" <UNDR...@Juno.com> wrote:
>> atwood wrote in message ...
>> >Let's face it, no one cares about the sex!
>> Not even Hillary or Chelsea?
>Hillary could have left him years ago if any of that were true! But she
>didn't, and that makes me suspicious of any of the acounts.
>>>>
You got to be kidding...Swilly is Billary's ticket to "public
service" (i.e. swindling and bullshitting)...she'll stick around
as long as he's useful and dump him as soon as he isn't...
sort of just like what is happening right now.
-----------------------------------------------------
D.G. Porter
>
> John Crawford <Craw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:858c8d$5jj$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net..
> >
>
> supermarket
> > tabloid.
"Perverted"?
Before the internet these bluenoses could stigmatize fetishists, but it
seems that there are more guys out there who share this "perversion"
than there are repressed clowns who get all atwitter over it.
> > "He was chewing on a cigar. And then he had the cigar in his hand and he
> was
> > kind of looking at the cigar in...sort of a naughty way. And so...I looked
> > at the cigar and I looked at him and I said, we can do that, too, some
> > time." (Lewinsky deposition -- The Starr Report)
Now, if she had been able to use up a whole box of stogies at the same
time instead of just one... THAT would be something to bother writing
about....
Joke time!
A woman is starting her first day at the Adult Novelty and Toy Shoppe.
She has one customer who comes in to buy a dildo. The woman sells her a
thin black one. The next customer comes in also wanting to buy a dildo.
The woman sells her a thick white one. A thir customer comes in
wanting to buy a dildo. The woman shows her another white one, but the
customer asks, "I dunno, don't you have something bigger?" "Well," the
woman replies, "We do have this plaid one." "Oh, good! I'll take it!"
She buys the object and leaves happy and awaiting carnal pleasure.
At the end of the day the woman's boss (another woman if anyone cares)
asks her how her day went. "Oh it went fine. I sold a thin dildo to
one woman, a thick dildo to another, and a thermos to a third one."
[The original version of this jibe included racial stereotyping which I
have deleted a unnecessary and in poor taste.]
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
>> > Clinton Cigar-Sex Fetish Didn't Start with Lewinsky
>> > the president's perverted turn-on was described in a widely read
>> supermarket
>> > tabloid.
>"Perverted"?
>Before the internet these bluenoses could stigmatize fetishists, but it
>seems that there are more guys out there who share this "perversion"
>than there are repressed clowns who get all atwitter over it.
>>>>
So, finally, an open admission of the basis of Swilly's
"popularity": He represents fetishists, perverts and
criminals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fletch F. Fletch
<rose...@idt.net> wrote in message news:3879290f....@news.idt.net...> And YOU still can't explain why "I" should change if you continue to argue
using
> unfactual claims.
>
Because it should be obvious to you by now that people discount your
opinion.
Fletch
Dave Hazelwood
Clinton has spend too much time in the sewer and in the courts lieing
about it to have a political record!
UNLESS of course you mean his PROMISE on day one to fix Social
Security?????? WHERE IS IT???????
UNLESS of course you mean his PROMISE to provide HEALTH CARE for ALL
Americans ????? WHERE IS IT?????
Seems like he had no time for the former since he was getting BLOWN on
the job????
And Hillary made sure she FUCKED that latter!!!!
Yeah...some record Rosell!!!!!!!!
There is NO record because all Clinton did was watch movies, entertain
his Hollywood buddies and his Chinese benefactors in between NOT
having sex!!!
a ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
rose...@idt.net wrote:
>1_nor...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>In article <8593a5$3vji$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
>> "Freedom4All" <UNDR...@Juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> atwood wrote in message ...
>>> >Let's face it, no one cares about the sex!
>>>
>>> Not even Hillary or Chelsea?
>>
>>Hillary could have left him years ago if any of that were true! But she
rose...@idt.net
rose...@idt.net
>The "Ceasar's wife" defense won't work any longer for First Pervert, a lying
>lecher already convicted in a court of law by a federal judge!!!!
So it isn't "lying" that "bothers" you, it's the getting "convicted"??
That logic leaves one to assume that IF you can "get away" with a lie, then it
doesn't count?
Which means it's REAL convenient for you to say mcreagan is okay because no one
took HIS lies to task, spent millions on a PERSONAL investigation, or PROVED his
lies about subversion of government was impeachable/removable.
But, I'll take a "lie" about sex, FINED OR NOT, above the subversion of
government, lying to congress about foriegn policy under THEIR constitutional
jurisdiction, and LYING to Americans about the economy.
Conservatives "principles" are about as phoney as it gets.
rose...@idt.net
>Political record! WHAT political record!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You ARE one stupid sonofabitch, aren't you?
A "political record" that is LEGITIMATE measurment for political argument is
"past political record".
That MEANS, you ignorat fuck, that Whatever Clinton's public record was in
Arkansas, whether Attny Genral, Governor is susceptible to scrutiny by a
political opponent.
What is NOT acceptable is his private, personal life.
And in the conservative smear against Clinton, NOT ONE, single, solitary issue
in PAST PUBLIC SERVICE was EVER illicited to contain anything shady. The
Whitewater fiasco discovered NOTHING.
>Clinton has spend too much time in the sewer and in the courts lieing
>about it to have a political record!
What a stupid fuck.
That entire matter came up AFTER his Arkansas political days, prior to running.
The issue YOU want to talk about has NOTHING To do with PUBLIC POLICY.
>UNLESS of course you mean his PROMISE on day one to fix Social
>Security?????? WHERE IS IT???????
How do you "fix" something in oppositon by a political enemy who wanted it
destroyed?? You DO remember "wither on the vine" by your guru Gingrich.
>UNLESS of course you mean his PROMISE to provide HEALTH CARE for ALL
>Americans ????? WHERE IS IT?????
Shot down by republicans, OF COURSE.
>Seems like he had no time for the former since he was getting BLOWN on
>the job????
YOu can't even get a time line straight, can you moron?
>And Hillary made sure she FUCKED that latter!!!!
But NOW we are talking Health care aren't we?
Check your archives and see how much time the california turnip devoted to it.
>Yeah...some record Rosell!!!!!!!!
BETTER than lying about selling arms to enemies, subversion of constitutional
goverment, and lying about the failing economy.
>There is NO record because all Clinton did was watch movies, entertain
>his Hollywood buddies and his Chinese benefactors in between NOT
>having sex!!!
You really have "sex" on the brain, don't you pervert?
Fletch F. Fletch
<rose...@idt.net> wrote in message news:3879741e....@news.idt.net...
> "Fletch F. Fletch" <fletch_...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >You are truly a broken record.
>
> >> And YOU still can't explain why "I" should change if you continue to
argue
> >using unfactual claims.
>
> >opinion.
>
>
> If "I" continue to "say the same things", it's because the same things are
said
> by those I answer .
>
> 1 Clinton did NOT commit perjury
>
> 2. Clinton did not commit "impeachable offenses"
>
> 3. Clinton did NOT commit a moral "sin" in a public forum, (it took
millions to
> prove it)
>
> 4. No evidence exists to support that in ALL the allegations, in ALL the
> "scandals" any wrongdoing (which makes him a lot more squeeky clean that
> mcreagan who WASN'T investigated in the same manner)
>
> 5. Clinton has committed NO acts or behavior that affected public policy
>
> The ENTIRE range of allegations, insinuations, innuendo, theory,
conjecture,
> rumor storis and lies are connected to a "moral" objection, Which cannot
be
> successfully used to measure ANY of the acts of mcreagan without puttin
HIM in
> the same light
>
> The ENTIRE range of legal objections to any of the allegations against
clinton
> do not rise to the level of the illegalities that mcreagan/bush committed
in
> IRAN-CONTRA.
>
> Clinton got a blow job, tried to hide it, lied about it and got fined.
>
> There are NO other allegations, moral, legal, or ethical, that surpass
the
> seriousness of those comitted by mcreagan.
>
> Until you right wing dolts stop saying there are, all I ever need to be
is a
> "broken record".
>
>
Don't bother typing the litany again. It doesn't matter. Your credibility
as an a objective, level-headed person is in tatters. I suspect this is at
least part of the reason that you repeat your arguments often and yet
convince no one. It's not necessarily what you write; it's the way you
write it. Perhaps just a little tweak in the tactics would get results. It
couldn't hurt.
Fletch
Dave Hazelwood
promises he made to the American people. Social Security and Health
care. His agenda was a total failure.
You can't blame it on Congress. It was Clinton who made the promise
and if he had worked more with Congress instead of wagging his willy
at every skirt he passed maybe he could have achieved something.
From what I can see he achieved nothing but signing Executive Orders
that undermine our privacy and freedom as well as our system of
government.
He has done plenty to undermine the rule of law as well and poison the
character of our youth. Yeah, some record all right.
The one thing and the only thing that has gone well during his years
is the economy and that was not his doing! That foundation was built
during the Reagan years and akkowed to bloom thanks to Greenspan not
Clinton. Clinton did diddleysquat to bring about this economy.
Nothing...Name me one just one major bill that was Clinton's idea that
benefitted the American people? There are none.....nada.....zilch.
His record lies mostly in the sewer. This is where all the rats belong
anyway.
Kilo Foxtrot
>4. No evidence exists to support that in ALL the allegations, in ALL the
>"scandals" any wrongdoing (which makes him a lot more squeeky clean that
>mcreagan who WASN'T investigated in the same manner)
No evidence? I'd say the DNA was pretty conclusive.
Over the New Years weekend, the local news ran a series
of video clips to summarize the last century. It included one
clip of each of these presidents:
Nixon: "I am not a crook."
Reagan: "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with THAT woman..."
You can blast Reagan and praise Clinton all day long,
but those sound bites reflect the public perception of
those three presidents. Nothing you can say will change
that. <G>
>5. Clinton has committed NO acts or behavior that affected public policy
How about his blowjob while on the phone with
military leaders discussing American troops abroad?
Or making foreign leaders wait while he was getting
head?
--
I've developed a new philosophy... I only dread one day
at a time.
- Charlie Brown
1_nor...@my-deja.com
"Henry Glenworthy" <Henry Glenw...@xteleport.com> wrote:
> 1_nor...@my-deja.com <1_nor...@my-deja.com> wrote in message .
> >> atwood wrote in message ...
>
> >> >Let's face it, no one cares about the sex!
>
> >> Not even Hillary or Chelsea?
>
> >Hillary could have left him years ago if any of that were true! But
she
> >didn't, and that makes me suspicious of any of the acounts.
>
> >>>>
>
> service" (i.e. swindling and bullshitting)...she'll stick around
> as long as he's useful and dump him as soon as he isn't...
> sort of just like what is happening right now.
Sounds like a whole lot of assuming to me. But, go ahead, believe
whatever you want.
1_nor...@my-deja.com
So, to summarize, you say it isn't true, but you think it's close
enough. Well now blow me down, that'll go over well with a judge!
1_nor...@my-deja.com
Dave Hazelwood <the_big...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> Cut to the quick Rosell. Clitnon failed to deliver on BOTH of the two
> promises he made to the American people. Social Security and Health
> care. His agenda was a total failure.
>
He spearheaded bills on both accounts. Both were shot down by congress.
He delivered, the congress screwed us all!
> You can't blame it on Congress. It was Clinton who made the promise
> and if he had worked more with Congress instead of wagging his willy
> at every skirt he passed maybe he could have achieved something.
How do you know he "wags his willy at every skirt" where's the
indisputable physical evidence? Even if he was, what does that matter?
He has brought several bills to the forefront on those two issues.
Besides his number one promise in the 1992 campaign was to fix the
economy. Which he did!
>
> From what I can see he achieved nothing but signing Executive Orders
> that undermine our privacy and freedom as well as our system of
> government.
>
See above
> He has done plenty to undermine the rule of law as well and poison the
> character of our youth. Yeah, some record all right.
>
How did he ruin the rule of law? Oh, that perjury charge that wasn't?
Allegations of witness tampering that I could have argued him out of?
And Franklin Roosevelt, and Eisenhower admitted to affairs. Did that
destroy us?
> The one thing and the only thing that has gone well during his years
> is the economy and that was not his doing! That foundation was built
> during the Reagan years and akkowed to bloom thanks to Greenspan not
> Clinton. Clinton did diddleysquat to bring about this economy.
>
Wrong, Reagan deregulated the banking industry, saddling the country
with a $500,000,000,000 debt in the savings and loan disaster. That
helped put us in the recession. Reagan mobilized to keep the minimum
wage down, and goverment spending up. It's a wonder he didn't bankrupt
the country entirely.
> Nothing...Name me one just one major bill that was Clinton's idea that
> benefitted the American people? There are none.....nada.....zilch.
>
His bill for nationalization of Health care would have been great, if
congress had passed it.
He also delivered on balancing the budget. Now we have a surplus, or
are you gonna give that credit to Reagan too?
> His record lies mostly in the sewer. This is where all the rats belong
> anyway.
Where's this evidence again, oh that's right, there is NONE!
rose...@idt.net
>rose...@idt.net wrote:
>
>>4. No evidence exists to support that in ALL the allegations, in ALL the
>>"scandals" any wrongdoing (which makes him a lot more squeeky clean that
>>mcreagan who WASN'T investigated in the same manner)
>
>No evidence? I'd say the DNA was pretty conclusive.
Well, here we go again.
What did the DNA "prove" that was either legally or morally pervasive enough to
suggest that a legitimately TWICE elected president either be impeached or
resign?
>Over the New Years weekend, the local news ran a series
>of video clips to summarize the last century. It included one
>clip of each of these presidents:
>
>Nixon: "I am not a crook."
Which we KNOW not to be true.
>Reagan: "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
And SHOULD have been; "we did not sell arms to enemies"; "we didn't conduct
covert foriegn policy in the White House"; "the economy is fine" Which were
HIS LIES.
A contrived photo op, scripted and shameless is hardly a legacy.
>Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with THAT woman..."
According to the JONES definition, he didn't.
>You can blast Reagan and praise Clinton all day long,
>but those sound bites reflect the public perception of
>those three presidents. Nothing you can say will change
>that.
Well, you see THAT"S the problem
It may well BE public perception, but it doesn't necessarily reflect the truth
simply because it's a "perception".
rose...@idt.net
>> The "stories" are NOT designed to be factual, they are designed
>to "establish" character and like supermarket tabloids need only to be in the realm
>of "possibility" to be considered true.
>So, to summarize, you say it isn't true, but you think it's close
>enough. Well now blow me down, that'll go over well with a judge!
But this isn't "before" a judge, it's fodder for right wing idiots to soothe
themselves.
Which is the point. There is NO legal basis for it.
My "point" is that simply based on a loosely connected set of facts, you can
assemble a theory and argue as if true. Itls fallacy argument, but it works as
long as no one calls them on it. t.
Rodney Small
any one else get the feeling that this was just
a sham? I'll start believing that is the
Clinton's real next home when their daughter
celebrates her birthday next month there...
instead of the ski slopes of Utah...or some
other Rocky Mountain Resort. JS
King Pineapple
Clinton's character. He can't defend Slick on his own merits, so brings
in the same tired song and dance he's used for months when backed into
a corner: invoking the name of someone who left office 12 years ago.
Not relevant, I'm afraid. Let's see if you can defend Clinton on his
own. I doubt you can. Leave Reagan out of it. After all, he cannot
defend himself, can he?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
King Pineapple
<fletch_...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Don't bother typing the litany again. It doesn't matter. Your
> credibility
> as an a objective, level-headed person is in tatters.
You mean he actually *had* credibility? bwhahahahaha
I suspect
> this is at
> least part of the reason that you repeat your arguments often and
> yet
> convince no one.
Ever notice the multiple postings aimed at "divinfart" coming at all
times of the day and well into the night? The majority of these elicit
exactly NO responses. People see the header, see who wrote it, laugh,
then move on to read something worthwhile.
It's not necessarily what you write; it's the
> way you
> write it. Perhaps just a little tweak in the tactics would get
> results. It
> couldn't hurt.
Yeah, robot19 should lose the childish name-calling and toss the
swear-words. Every time somebody posts something to disagree with him,
he throws a childish temper tantrum, calling them "stupid twats",
fucking netloons" or the like. Straight out of second grade.
It would also help to start defending his hero on his *own* merits (if
he has any) instead of dragging Ronnie Reagan into his arguments. I'm
not a Reagan fan by any means, but it gets old real quick to hear
robot19 go "Reagan was worse, nyah nyah" every five minutes for a lack
of credible defense of his hero's record. If robot19 could *truly*
defend Clinton on his own, he wouldn't have to drag someone who left
office 12 years ago into every rant and rave.
King Pineapple
>
> How do you know he "wags his willy at every skirt" where's the
> indisputable physical evidence?
There's the matter of a blue dress with *his* DNA on it....
Reagan deregulated the banking industry, saddling the
> country
> with a $500,000,000,000 debt in the savings and loan disaster. That
> helped put us in the recession.
Clinton has FURTHER deregulated the banking industry (I'm in the
business, so know what I'm talking about), and HIS deregulation will
see similar dire results a few years down the road. Such as NOT
requiring property appraisals on residential home mortgages-now the
banks, instead of hiring qualified and licensed real estate appraisers
to inspect houses for mortgage purposes instead hire a realtor for $50
to get an "opinion of value" without even going inside the house...or
use "artificial intelligence" to determine the property's value. One
such case saw an abandoned house "appraised" for a value of $150,000.
Fletch F. Fletch
<rose...@idt.net> wrote in message news:3879e818....@news.idt.net...
> "Fletch F. Fletch" <fletch_...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Don't bother typing the litany again. It doesn't matter. Your
credibility
at
> >least part of the reason that you repeat your arguments often and yet
> >write it. Perhaps just a little tweak in the tactics would get results.
It
> >couldn't hurt.
>
>
> The right wing uses unproven allegations AS IF they were truth to argue a
series
> of psuedomoral, and semilegal positions.
>
> The "facts", aren't seriously in dispute, but the CONCLUSIONS drawn from
them
> are beyond reasonable credibility. The "facts" cannot support the
stretch in
> the conclusions, but you think that's legitimate argument?
>
> The "allegers", in your thinking, are NOT required to be "levelheaded",
> "credible" in their conclusions, but I am?
>
> The "allegers" are free to use that "litnany" as argument and you see that
as
> acceptable?
>
> The "allegers", who have never proven a credible link between fact and
> conclusion, are deserving of someone being "objective"?
>
> Exactly which alternate reality did you dream up all this stuff?
Why does the Right Wing appear at all in your response to me? What have
they got to do with your behavior?
If you want to be taken seriously by level-headed people, then you too must
be level-headed. Being an objective observer is not a gift to the Right
Wing. Your rants are so easily dismissed precisely because they lack
objectivity.
The real irony is that you continually complain about the partisan nature of
Clinton's attackers, but you never seem to see that you are just as partisan
a defender. Serious, deliberative people will take what you or Klayman say
with the same grain of salt.
In short, your postings may be cathartic for you, but that's where their
efficacy ends.
Fletch
rose...@idt.net
>> >You are truly a broken record.
>> And YOU still can't explain why "I" should change if you continue to argue
>using unfactual claims.
>Because it should be obvious to you by now that people discount your
>opinion.
Ya lost me there, letch.
If "I" continue to "say the same things", it's because the same things are said
by those I answer .
1 Clinton did NOT commit perjury
2. Clinton did not commit "impeachable offenses"
3. Clinton did NOT commit a moral "sin" in a public forum, (it took millions to
prove it)
4. No evidence exists to support that in ALL the allegations, in ALL the
"scandals" any wrongdoing (which makes him a lot more squeeky clean that
mcreagan who WASN'T investigated in the same manner)
5. Clinton has committed NO acts or behavior that affected public policy
The ENTIRE range of allegations, insinuations, innuendo, theory, conjecture,
KC
Fletch, you must realize that rosie still thinks the infamous blue dress
of Monica's was a right wing lie.
--
Never believe anything the government says until
it is officially denied three times.
--former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli
Kilo Foxtrot
>kilo.f...@killthis.att.net (Kilo Foxtrot) wrote:
>
>>rose...@idt.net wrote:
>>
>>>4. No evidence exists to support that in ALL the allegations, in ALL the
>>>"scandals" any wrongdoing (which makes him a lot more squeeky clean that
>>>mcreagan who WASN'T investigated in the same manner)
>>
>>No evidence? I'd say the DNA was pretty conclusive.
>
>Well, here we go again.
>
>What did the DNA "prove" that was either legally or morally pervasive enough to
>suggest that a legitimately TWICE elected president either be impeached or
>resign?
You said there was no evidence to support the allegations.
So I pointed out there is irrefutable evidence. Whether or not
they are grounds for impeachment is debatable.
>>Reagan: "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
>
>And SHOULD have been; "we did not sell arms to enemies"; "we didn't conduct
>covert foriegn policy in the White House"; "the economy is fine" Which were
>HIS LIES.
>
>A contrived photo op, scripted and shameless is hardly a legacy.
KNBC thinks you're wrong, they're the west coast flagship for
NBC. Like it or not, that's what he will be remembered for.
>>Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with THAT woman..."
>
>According to the JONES definition, he didn't.
Perhaps you can suggest a better sound bite from Clinton's
presidency that Americans will instantly recognize and
remember?
That finger shaking lie he told is burned into the memory of
every American for a long, long time.
>>You can blast Reagan and praise Clinton all day long,
>>but those sound bites reflect the public perception of
>>those three presidents. Nothing you can say will change
>>that.
>
>Well, you see THAT"S the problem
>
>It may well BE public perception, but it doesn't necessarily reflect the truth
>simply because it's a "perception".
I suppose that means you're in a different reality than
most of the country!
--
We're family, we're going to do lots of dumb things together.
- Chris Farley, Tommy Boy
The American People
You need to pray a lot harder.
rose...@idt.net wrote:
>
> "Fletch F. Fletch" <fletch_...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >> >You are truly a broken record.
>
> >> And YOU still can't explain why "I" should change if you continue to argue
> >using unfactual claims.
>
> >Because it should be obvious to you by now that people discount your
> >opinion.
>
> Ya lost me there, letch.
>
> If "I" continue to "say the same things", it's because the same things are said
> by those I answer .
>
> 1 Clinton did NOT commit perjury
>
> 2. Clinton did not commit "impeachable offenses"
>
> 3. Clinton did NOT commit a moral "sin" in a public forum, (it took millions to
> prove it)
>
> 4. No evidence exists to support that in ALL the allegations, in ALL the
> "scandals" any wrongdoing (which makes him a lot more squeeky clean that
> mcreagan who WASN'T investigated in the same manner)
>
The American People
rose...@idt.net wrote:
>
> kilo.f...@killthis.att.net (Kilo Foxtrot) wrote:
>
> >rose...@idt.net wrote:
> >
> >>4. No evidence exists to support that in ALL the allegations, in ALL the
> >>"scandals" any wrongdoing (which makes him a lot more squeeky clean that
> >>mcreagan who WASN'T investigated in the same manner)
> >
> >No evidence? I'd say the DNA was pretty conclusive.
>
> Well, here we go again.
>
> What did the DNA "prove" that was either legally or morally pervasive enough to
> suggest that a legitimately TWICE elected president either be impeached or
> resign?
It proves the same thing for a TWENTY SEVEN or ONE time elected
president.
>
> >Over the New Years weekend, the local news ran a series
> >of video clips to summarize the last century. It included one
> >clip of each of these presidents:
> >
> >Nixon: "I am not a crook."
>
> Which we KNOW not to be true.
>
> >Reagan: "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
>
> And SHOULD have been; "we did not sell arms to enemies"; "we didn't conduct
> covert foriegn policy in the White House"; "the economy is fine" Which were
> HIS LIES.
>
> A contrived photo op, scripted and shameless is hardly a legacy.
>
> >Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with THAT woman..."
>
> According to the JONES definition, he didn't.
WELL! The DNA didn't get on monica's dress because Hillary was setting
on her lap.
>
> >You can blast Reagan and praise Clinton all day long,
> >but those sound bites reflect the public perception of
> >those three presidents. Nothing you can say will change
> >that.
>
> Well, you see THAT"S the problem
>
> It may well BE public perception, but it doesn't necessarily reflect the truth
> simply because it's a "perception".
> >
> >>5. Clinton has committed NO acts or behavior that affected public policy
> >
> >How about his blowjob while on the phone with
> >military leaders discussing American troops abroad?
Why not reply to this?
> >
> >Or making foreign leaders wait while he was getting
> >head?
Or this?
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>"Fletch F. Fletch" <fletch_...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
snip
>
>
>2. Clinton did not commit "impeachable offenses"
By definition, he did.
snip
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>In article <9c0j7sohpsg7u555o...@4ax.com>,
> Dave Hazelwood <the_big...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>> Cut to the quick Rosell. Clitnon failed to deliver on BOTH of the two
>> promises he made to the American people. Social Security and Health
>> care. His agenda was a total failure.
>>
>
>He spearheaded bills on both accounts.
Please name those bills and who introduced them in Congress so that I
might find them.
>Both were shot down by congress.
>He delivered, the congress screwed us all!
I don't think so.
>
>
>> You can't blame it on Congress. It was Clinton who made the promise
>> and if he had worked more with Congress instead of wagging his willy
>> at every skirt he passed maybe he could have achieved something.
>
>How do you know he "wags his willy at every skirt" where's the
>indisputable physical evidence? Even if he was, what does that matter?
>He has brought several bills to the forefront on those two issues.
Now its several? Name two each.
>Besides his number one promise in the 1992 campaign was to fix the
>economy. Which he did!
The "economy" was already in recovery.
>>
>> From what I can see he achieved nothing but signing Executive Orders
>> that undermine our privacy and freedom as well as our system of
>> government.
>>
>See above
>
>> He has done plenty to undermine the rule of law as well and poison the
>> character of our youth. Yeah, some record all right.
>>
>How did he ruin the rule of law? Oh, that perjury charge that wasn't?
He interfered with the right of someone to seek a fair trial. Ask the
judge.
>Allegations of witness tampering that I could have argued him out of?
>And Franklin Roosevelt, and Eisenhower admitted to affairs. Did that
>destroy us?
No. Clinton denied the obvious and it almost cost him his presidency.
It has certainly sealed his legacy.
>
>
>
>> The one thing and the only thing that has gone well during his years
>> is the economy and that was not his doing! That foundation was built
>> during the Reagan years and akkowed to bloom thanks to Greenspan not
>> Clinton. Clinton did diddleysquat to bring about this economy.
>>
>
>Wrong, Reagan deregulated the banking industry, saddling the country
>with a $500,000,000,000 debt in the savings and loan disaster. That
>helped put us in the recession. Reagan mobilized to keep the minimum
>wage down, and goverment spending up. It's a wonder he didn't bankrupt
>the country entirely.
Oh dear.
>
>> Nothing...Name me one just one major bill that was Clinton's idea that
>> benefitted the American people? There are none.....nada.....zilch.
>>
>His bill for nationalization of Health care would have been great, if
>congress had passed it.
What bill was that? Who introduced it and in what House?
>
>He also delivered on balancing the budget. Now we have a surplus, or
>are you gonna give that credit to Reagan too?
He delivered on a balanced budget? Which one was that?
>
>> His record lies mostly in the sewer. This is where all the rats belong
>> anyway.
>
>Where's this evidence again, oh that's right, there is NONE!
The irony.
JSL
