Do Not Read This If You're Sick of the Clinton Crap
Joel Rosenberg
Milt Stevens
Michael R Weholt wrote in message <6tr33t$mg_...@mrw.panix.com>...
>Yesterday I heard some Republican Congressman talking about the
>difference email was making in this whole mess. He mentioned how most
>of the email was expressing outrage over Clinton's behavior, how he
>should be impeached, etc. (This reinforced my completely
>unsubstantiated, completely anecdotally-based belief that most of the
>internet is conservative. Or, the congressman was bullshitting. I
>dunno.)
>
I believe that further investigation will reveal that most of our elected
representatives are the result of a sexual union. It's high time we do
something about this situation and get rid of the lot of them.
Alison Hopkins
Milt Stevens wrote in message ...
>I believe that further investigation will reveal that most of our elected
>representatives are the result of a sexual union. It's high time we do
>something about this situation and get rid of the lot of them.
>
>
Memo to self: Avoid drinking *anything* while reading one of Milt Stevens'
posts. So far, I have sprayed the screen every time! :)
Ali
Dave Locke
Over in alt.tv.homicide we call these "Windex moments."
--
Dave | dave...@bigfoot.com | http://www.angelfire.com/oh/slowdjin/
Dutch, Injun, Irish, Limey, Scotch | "Proud to be a mammal"
Joel Rosenberg
>
> I believe that further investigation will reveal that most of our elected
> representatives are the result of a sexual union.
Not Newt.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.winternet.com/~joelr Latest novel: The Silver
Stone
(see
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0380722089/joelrosenbergA)
Favorite Talk Show: Not Jerry Springer Turn-ons: Silk shirts
and BuckCote
------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Dravecky III
> Applause; well said.
<aol>Me too!</aol>
BTW, am I the only one who finds it deeply ironic that the
Republicans are blaming the release of all this damaging
information ona vast, left-wing conspiracy? :->
--
Ed Dravecky III <*>
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/2727/
Rusty Wallace
Please continue your work without regard for these chilling attacks on
you and your fellows. No one with an ounce of personal integrity can
fail to note the differences between you and Bill Clinton. I applaud
your handling of the serious issues before your committee and your
refusal to be intimidated. Our President is a disgrace and I hope
your actions will hasten the day when he is removed from office.
Sincerely,
James Wallace
I might add for the benefit of you guys here in rasf - anyone who
thinks the White House isn't trying to intimidate members of Congress
is a fool.
Rusty
Remove the 'xx''s to reply via emai...
Dave Locke
No, I think you're the fool.
As H.L. Mencken noted: "Under democracy one party always devotes its
chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to
rule -- and both commonly succeed, and are right..."
I would only hope that fewer of us were duped by outright scum into
believing that:
1. Failing to find anything in Whitewater, or in MailGate, or in the
Chinese connection, it is okay to investigate a person's sex life at
great public expense.
2. A blowjob between consensual adults is a bigger indicator of Bad
Things than the personal sins of the people who are wasting *our*
money in trying to find something, *anything* about a sitting
president which might cause someone, somewhere, to get the vapours.
I'd tell you who the *real* cocksuckers are in this whole matter, but
I wouldn't want to give anyone another case of the vapours.
Ed Dravecky III
> I might add for the benefit of you guys here in rasf - anyone who
> thinks the White House isn't trying to intimidate members of Congress
> is a fool.
...and the timing of the Lewinsky charges the *day* before the
State of the Union speech was coincidence? I suppose that the
fact that the House members are facing mid-term elections in a
few weeks makes the release of the Clinton videotape another
random coincidnce, right?
I love hearing from people who poo-pooed the "vast right-wing
conspiracy" theory whine about the "vast left-wing conspiracy"
that is to blame for every bad thing that happens to those nice
Republicans. I call it a "vast right-wing hypocrisy".
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: Mr. Chairman,
: Please continue your work without regard for these chilling attacks on
: you and your fellows. No one with an ounce of personal integrity can
: fail to note the differences between you and Bill Clinton. I applaud
: your handling of the serious issues before your committee and your
: refusal to be intimidated. Our President is a disgrace and I hope
: your actions will hasten the day when he is removed from office.
: Sincerely,
: James Wallace
Translation: "Please continue the double standard; it is irrelevant
to the issue of defeating the Democrats and becoming a one-party
system."
: I might add for the benefit of you guys here in rasf - anyone who
: thinks the White House isn't trying to intimidate members of Congress
: is a fool.
And anyone who thinks members of Congress aren't trying to intimidate
the White House is ... ?
-- LJM
Janice Gelb
>Mr. Chairman,
>
>Please continue your work without regard for these chilling attacks on
>you and your fellows. No one with an ounce of personal integrity can
>fail to note the differences between you and Bill Clinton. I applaud
>your handling of the serious issues before your committee and your
>refusal to be intimidated. Our President is a disgrace and I hope
>your actions will hasten the day when he is removed from office.
>
>Sincerely,
>James Wallace
>
>
>thinks the White House isn't trying to intimidate members of Congress
>is a fool.
>
Dear Ms. Lofgren:
As a northern California resident, I am writing to you as the
closest geographic representative on the House Judiciary
Committee to voice my opinion about the current matter of
the possible recommendation of impeachment of the President.
At no time has any investigation by the Kenneth Starr team
had anything to do with Mr. Clinton's activities as President.
The Whitewater issue occurred while he was Governor of Arkansas,
the Paula Jones issue also occurred while he was Governor of
Arkansas, and the Grand Jury testimony had to do with the
Paula Jones case.
Had Mr. Clinton done something *as president* that was an
abuse of presidential power (like, say, approving the sale
of arms to Iran and using those funds to aid anti-regime
forces in Nicaragua), or lied about a similar activity, then
I think the House might have grounds for impeachment. As it
is, while Mr. Clinton's actions have been cowardly, stupid,
and immoral, they have to do with his private life and are
*not* grounds for impeachment.
Sincerely,
Janice Gelb
---
********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with this
jan...@marvin.eng.sun.com | message is the return address.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8018/index.html
"Politics is show business for ugly people" -- James Carville
Rusty Wallace
>No, I think you're the fool.
Ha! You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
>
>As H.L. Mencken noted: "Under democracy one party always devotes its
>chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to
>rule -- and both commonly succeed, and are right..."
Nice quote. Too bad it isn't relevant to the issues at hand.
>
>I would only hope that fewer of us were duped by outright scum into
>believing that:
>
>1. Failing to find anything in Whitewater, or in MailGate, or in the
>Chinese connection, it is okay to investigate a person's sex life at
>great public expense.
Oh, we'll see alot more on these topics. Do you really believe
otherwise?
>
>2. A blowjob between consensual adults is a bigger indicator of Bad
>Things than the personal sins of the people who are wasting *our*
>money in trying to find something, *anything* about a sitting
>president which might cause someone, somewhere, to get the vapours.
Ah, yes 'just sex' and 'private life'! And when the blowjob happens
while the President is on the phone with a senator discussing troop
deployments to Bosnia? Is that still OK?
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: >No, I think you're the fool.
: Ha! You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
: >
: >As H.L. Mencken noted: "Under democracy one party always devotes its
: >chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to
: >rule -- and both commonly succeed, and are right..."
: Nice quote. Too bad it isn't relevant to the issues at hand.
Would you care to explain why you think it sin't relevant?
: >I would only hope that fewer of us were duped by outright scum into
: >believing that:
: >
: >1. Failing to find anything in Whitewater, or in MailGate, or in the
: >Chinese connection, it is okay to investigate a person's sex life at
: >great public expense.
: Oh, we'll see alot more on these topics. Do you really believe
: otherwise?
Yes.
: >2. A blowjob between consensual adults is a bigger indicator of Bad
: >Things than the personal sins of the people who are wasting *our*
: >money in trying to find something, *anything* about a sitting
: >president which might cause someone, somewhere, to get the vapours.
: Ah, yes 'just sex' and 'private life'! And when the blowjob happens
: while the President is on the phone with a senator discussing troop
: deployments to Bosnia? Is that still OK?
Why shouldn't it be, if it's okay at all? I haven't seen any
allegations that this was the case, however. This may be because I
was tired of the subject months ago.
-- LJM
Rev. Jihad Frenzy
Republican in the House or Senate, I would be VERY annoyed at the
leadership who opened the can of worms named Clinton.
And I would be in fear of my political life, too.
Although, I have to admit, having a front row seat at the self-immolation
of the Republicrats and Demopublicans is quite entertaining.
--
Rev. Jihad Frenzy
"Gadzooks!", quoth I, "But here's a saucy bawd!"
I, Libertine
by Fredrick R. Ewing
<A HREF="http://www.gis.net/~cht"/A>
Pierre Jelenc
> abuse of presidential power
Of course, had Janet Reno not done all she could to prevent the investi-
gation of money laundering and influence peddling, we might have by now a
report on the abuses of presidential power. One can't help but conclude
that the Lewinsky affair is a smokescreen thrown by the White House to
deflect the attention from the Chinese and Indonesians and Thai, not to
mention the FBI files, the looting of Vince Foster's office, and the
Travel Office prosecution.
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc
| The RAW Kinder CD "EP" is out!
The New York City Beer Guide | Home Office Records
http://www.nycbeer.org | http://www.web-ho.com
Joel Rosenberg
> of arms to Iran and using those funds to aid anti-regime
> forces in Nicaragua), or lied about a similar activity, then
> I think the House might have grounds for impeachment. As it
> is, while Mr. Clinton's actions have been cowardly, stupid,
> and immoral, they have to do with his private life and are
> *not* grounds for impeachment.
I agree, certainly.
But I don't think that only abuse of presidential power can be
properly impeachable. Hypothetically, assume that the President
was a serial murderer -- not of political opponents, just
ordinary folks.
That ought to, properly, be impeachable.
On the other hand, being a serial adulterer doesn't quite make
it.
Rusty Wallace
It's so nice to know that the Whitewater allegations, if true (yes,
dammit, I said *if*), are a matter of private life only that we
shouldn't trouble out little heads over. It's also nice to know that
it's OK for the President, *as President*, to have lied in the Paula
Jones case because it was a private matter.
P Nielsen Hayden
>Mr. Chairman,
>
>Please continue your work without regard for these chilling attacks on
>you and your fellows. No one with an ounce of personal integrity can
>fail to note the differences between you and Bill Clinton.
Let's see:
Rep. Hyde had an affair with a married woman, who had children, over a
period of several years. His affair broke up her family. And even now,
he's still lying about it, claiming he ended it some years before, according
to her, he did.
President Clinton had an affair with a single woman, who had no children,
over a period of two or three years. No family was broken up as the result
of the affair. And he's owned up to it.
You're right: No one with an ounce of personal integrity can fail to note
the differences between him and Bill Clinton.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Gary Farber
<xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: Ah, yes 'just sex' and 'private life'! And when the blowjob happens
: while the President is on the phone with a senator discussing troop
: deployments to Bosnia? Is that still OK?
Sure. Sounds like an excellent way to relax, to me, if you're having
consensual sex. Is there something wrong with getting a blowjob, Rusty?
Is there something wrong with getting a blowjob while on the phone, or
discussing something serious?
If so, what?
--
Copyright 1998 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US
Janice Gelb
>
>It's so nice to know that the Whitewater allegations, if true (yes,
>dammit, I said *if*), are a matter of private life only that we
>shouldn't trouble out little heads over. It's also nice to know that
>it's OK for the President, *as President*, to have lied in the Paula
>Jones case because it was a private matter.
>
If true, they are a concern of whatever agency would normally
investigate such a matter. I guarantee you that if any other
governor had been suspected of the Whitewater allegations,
there wouldn't have been a federal independent prosecutor
with unlimited subpoena powers. And I personally don't care
that the president lied in the Paula Jones case because it
was a case that never should have been brought in the first
place. (See my letter printed in Newsweek magazine at the
time for why -- it mentions many of the reasons the judge
in the case ended up citing when she threw the case out
of court.)
Daniel Blum
> Let's see:
This would have been a really good year for the Democrats here to mount a
really good effort to defeat Hyde, but who knew? Generally they don't try
all that hard, because it's been a hopeless effort for a long time now.
I still think I will call up the local committee Monday and see what can be
done in the next six weeks or so.
I still recall that I thought moving here from Phil Crane's district was
an improvement, albeit a slight one. I'm not entirely sure it wasn't, even
now, but that says more about Phil Crane than anything else.
____________________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum to...@mcs.net
"Friends, we have passed a night in hell; but now the sun is shining, the
birds are singing, and the radiant form of the dentist consoles the world."
____________________________________________________________________________
Joel Rosenberg
>
> In <3602a87d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> Rusty Wallace
> <xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> [. . .]
>
> : Ah, yes 'just sex' and 'private life'! And when the blowjob happens
> : while the President is on the phone with a senator discussing troop
> : deployments to Bosnia? Is that still OK?
>
> Sure. Sounds like an excellent way to relax, to me, if you're having
> consensual sex. Is there something wrong with getting a blowjob, Rusty?
>
> Is there something wrong with getting a blowjob while on the phone, or
> discussing something serious?
>
> If so, what?
>
Yes, there is something wrong with it. I certainly would hope
that the President would have an active and satisfying sex life
-- although I'd prefer more discretion than Bill Clinton has
demonstrated if that's going to include extra-marital stuff.
But when he's on the phone discussing important matters of policy
and/or state, I'd really rather he be giving his full attention
to the matters of policy and/or state. It's the same principle
-- although with less dramatic obvious possible consequences --
of having sex while driving.
If you can give your full attention to anything else while you're
having sex, you're doing it wrong.
Rich Horton
>At no time has any investigation by the Kenneth Starr team
>had anything to do with Mr. Clinton's activities as President.
It's easy enought to criticize Starr. It seems silly to get it so
wrong. Starr is also investigating Travelgate and Filegate, and
previously investigated Vince Foster's suicide. All these
investigations concerned Mr. Clinton's activities while President.
(And by the way, Starr has never investigated "The China Connection"
or anything to do with campaign finance. (Except to the extent some
theorized Whitewater may have had to do with financing his
gubernatorial campaigns.) In fact, as far as I know, those who have
investigate the Campaign Finance issues in the Justice Department and
the FBI have strongly urged that this is a case which really actually
does deserve an Independent Counsel investigation.) (This paragraph is
a non sequitor to Janice' response: sorry!)
--
Rich Horton | rrho...@concentric.net
"I am an excellent cook, and anyway when I am fifty I will probably
prefer the breakfast to the girl anyway." - W. M. Spackman
Daniel Blum
> Gary Farber wrote:
> >
> > In <3602a87d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> Rusty Wallace
> > <xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > [. . .]
> >
> > : Ah, yes 'just sex' and 'private life'! And when the blowjob happens
> > : while the President is on the phone with a senator discussing troop
> > : deployments to Bosnia? Is that still OK?
> >
> > Sure. Sounds like an excellent way to relax, to me, if you're having
> > consensual sex. Is there something wrong with getting a blowjob, Rusty?
> >
> > Is there something wrong with getting a blowjob while on the phone, or
> > discussing something serious?
> >
> > If so, what?
> >
> Yes, there is something wrong with it. I certainly would hope
> that the President would have an active and satisfying sex life
> -- although I'd prefer more discretion than Bill Clinton has
> demonstrated if that's going to include extra-marital stuff.
> But when he's on the phone discussing important matters of policy
> and/or state, I'd really rather he be giving his full attention
> to the matters of policy and/or state. It's the same principle
> -- although with less dramatic obvious possible consequences --
> of having sex while driving.
> If you can give your full attention to anything else while you're
> having sex, you're doing it wrong.
I agree with this, but on the other hand, if he did this it's just
something dumb he did, not something worth investigating and considering
impeaching him for. (I know, you didn't say or imply that it was, this
is in response to Mr. Wallace up there.)
I mean, maybe this caused him to make a really stupid remark on a major
policy issue. If that were an impeachable offense, Reagan would have
been out of office in about two weeks (and a good thing too).
Gary Farber
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: But when he's on the phone discussing important matters of policy
: and/or state, I'd really rather he be giving his full attention
: to the matters of policy and/or state. It's the same principle
: -- although with less dramatic obvious possible consequences --
: of having sex while driving.
Apparently you have greater faith than I that every conversation with
every rinky-dink Congressional representative is of critical importance to
the state of the nation than I do.
: If you can give your full attention to anything else while you're
: having sex, you're doing it wrong.
There are many ways of having sex, and a prescription for one way to
engage at one time in one act is not necessarily applicable to another.
And I don't see a need to give "your full attention" to every phone call a
President has to make. A lot of it is just *gas*, you know.
I'm certainly not prepared to criticize someone for having sex The Wrong
Way because they received oral sex while engaging in a phone call. I'm
not prepared to criticize someone who isn't my partner for having sex The
Wrong Way, so long as it is consensual, period.
Tom Galloway
>This would have been a really good year for the Democrats here to mount a
>really good effort to defeat Hyde, but who knew? Generally they don't try
>all that hard, because it's been a hopeless effort for a long time now.
I'm trying to recall; was it Hyde that Betty Hull (aka Fred Pohl's wife)
ran against in '96?
tyg t...@netcom.com
Avram Grumer
(Rusty Wallace) wrote:
> Mr. Chairman,
Does he reads Usenet at all, much less rass-eff?
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/
Information wants to be incorrectly formatted.
Daniel Blum
I think it was Phil Crane, but I won't swear to it. Palatine (where the
Pohls live) certainly seems as if it should be in Crane's district.
Ray Radlein
>
> Yesterday I heard some Republican Congressman talking about the
> difference email was making in this whole mess. He mentioned how
> most of the email was expressing outrage over Clinton's behavior,
> how he should be impeached, etc.
Ah yes. Of course. The Lurkers, it seems, Support Him in E-Mail.
- Ray R.
--
*********************************************************************
"To be flamed, be inflamatory." -- Ovoid, "Arse Usenetica"
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************
Steve Brinich
> But for you and your side to imply, without a shred of proof, that the
> White House is behind these revelations concerning your sexual
> misadventures is absolutely reprehensible.
You overstep a bit here. Given that the White House has 1)an obvious
motive and 2)a pile of illegally obtained FBI files, the inference is
perfectly logical.
--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example
Steve Brinich
> I believe that further investigation will reveal that most of our
> elected representatives are the result of a sexual union. It's high
> time we do something about this situation and get rid of the lot
> of them.
Are you *sure* that Jesse Helms wasn't created in a lab?
Steve Brinich
> 2. A blowjob between consensual adults is a bigger indicator of Bad
> Things than the personal sins of the people who are wasting *our*
> money in trying to find something, *anything* about a sitting
> president which might cause someone, somewhere, to get the vapours.
Do you think the rules should be changed so that it's OK in general for
the head honcho of an organization to get blowjobs from someone below him
in the organizational chain of command during office hours?