Kudos to Al Gore!
gareth hanrahan
Bokman7757 wrote in message <20000521233129...@ng-ci1.aol.com>...
>"Put those dice away before I take them away."
>
>Very funny stuff- I even picked up on the art on the 1st edition Monster
>Manual. The makers of this show did their homework.
Or, more likely, the makers of the show are Geeks Like Us....
Gar
Doug Berry
flapped its wings, causing Scott Mayne <s.m...@sympatico.ca> to
write:
>And jeers to Mr. Gygax for offering such a paltry magic item for
>a crucial mission . . . a +1 mace would be of limited use against
>robot monsters of the future! Has the Supreme Dungeon Master
>gone senile . . . ?
Gary is just a cruel DM. The mace was obviously cursed, with a
high Ego. It possessed Fry and made him smash the sleep chamber.
Seperated at birth: Gary Gygax and the comic-shop guy from The
Simpsons
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"We are GURPS. You will be assimilated. We will add
your distinctive setting and background to our own. |
Resistance is futile."
Bryan J. Maloney
> Cheers to the Vice-President for his selfless efforts to safeguard
> the Space-Time Continuum! 10th level? I think not, Mr. Vice-
> President . . . more like 37th with maximum Intelligence, Wisdom
> and Charisma. Godspeed in your quest to vanquish the evil troll-
> lord of Texas.
You know utterly nothing about right-winger for life Al Gore, do you?
This guy's senate seat was bought for him by the big tobacco interests.
He was picked for the Clinton ticket to counterbalance Slick Willie's
leftist slant. Al Gore is as "liberal" as George W. Bush. He just counts
on ignorant morons forgetting that little fact.
--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."
DocCross
>This guy's senate seat was bought for him by the big tobacco interests.
>He was picked for the Clinton ticket to counterbalance Slick Willie's
>leftist slant. Al Gore is as "liberal" as George W. Bush. He just counts
>on ignorant morons forgetting that little >fact.
And interestingly, one of the ignorant morons he fooled was George W. Bush:)
Doc
Doc Cross
Official Roleplaying Gamer of the New Millenium
Insert witty or profound saying here
Justin Bacon
>In article <3928C52A...@sympatico.ca>, s.m...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>
>> Cheers to the Vice-President for his selfless efforts to safeguard
>> the Space-Time Continuum! 10th level? I think not, Mr. Vice-
>> President . . . more like 37th with maximum Intelligence, Wisdom
>> and Charisma. Godspeed in your quest to vanquish the evil troll-
>> lord of Texas.
>
>This guy's senate seat was bought for him by the big tobacco interests.
>He was picked for the Clinton ticket to counterbalance Slick Willie's
>leftist slant. Al Gore is as "liberal" as George W. Bush. He just counts
>on ignorant morons forgetting that little fact.
I read through Mayne's message several times looking for some reference to the
Vice President being liberal... and utterly failed to find it. So, Bryan, could
you explain what relevance your little political spiel has in regards to Gore's
appearance on FUTURAMA on Sunday? Or are you just being your typically
obnoxious self?
(I, unfortunately, missed the episode in question thanks to our friends at the
cable company.)
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Bokman7757
I call him the lesser of two evils- at least he knows the Taliban isn't a rock
group.
Frank T. Sronce
They're a jazz band, right?
Kiz
SD Anderson
> a crucial mission . . . a +1 mace would be of limited use
> against robot monsters of the future! Has the Supreme Dungeon
> Master gone senile . . . ?
Robots aren't magical. They aren't alive. They have the basic
saving throws of hard metal. Gygax should have provided a wand of
polymorph others and suggested they turn a cat into a rust
monster.
Alan Kellogg
Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
Have you ever seen what happens to anything a cat pees on?
Alan
Terry Austin
>He was picked for the Clinton ticket to counterbalance Slick Willie's
>leftist slant.
Gore was picked to counterbalance Willie Brown? In _what_ election?
There's only *one* Slick Willie, my friend, and Bill-Jeff Clinton isn't it.
In point of fact, he pales by comparison. So to speak.
--
Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> http://www.hyperbooks.com
Sluggy Freelance watches - now available!
"Terry's an artist and a master chemist; he can set fire to water."
--Sea Wasp, rec.arts.sf.written
Bryan J. Maloney
tas...@hyperbooks.com wrote:
> bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
>
> >He was picked for the Clinton ticket to counterbalance Slick Willie's
> >leftist slant.
>
> Gore was picked to counterbalance Willie Brown? In _what_ election?
Slick Willie: The liar from Arkansas who currently may face disbarment.
night_fly...@juno.com.invalid
<s.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Cheers to the Vice-President for his selfless efforts to
safeguard
>the Space-Time Continuum!
the same Al Gore that tried to muzzle the music industry because
of its eViL influences? just what do you think would have been
next if he succeeded?
Then you have that pansy-assed Twisted Sister (who were on Al
and Tipper's hit list) endorsing him...blah
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Doug Berry
flapped its wings, causing bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
to write:
>Slick Willie: The liar from Arkansas who currently may face disbarment.
As opposed to that greasy Richard Nixon who faced prison?
Anyway, our Slick Willie is much better! Da Mayor is da Bomb!
Dan Bongard
>On Tue, 23 May 2000 13:29:15 -0400, a butterfly in Costa Rica
>flapped its wings, causing bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
>to write:
>>Slick Willie: The liar from Arkansas who currently may face disbarment.
> As opposed to that greasy Richard Nixon who faced prison?
Richard Nixon didn't face prison. He wasn't even impeached,
which is more than can be said of Clinton.
Which is not to say that Nixon wasn't just as bad as Clinton
is, of course.
-- Dan
Andrew Hackard
>Richard Nixon didn't face prison.
. . . because he was the recipient of a presidential pardon.
>He wasn't even impeached,
. . . because he buggered out and ran away (cf. Sir Robin). You can't
impeach someone who isn't in office.
>which is more than can be said of Clinton.
The impeachable offenses which Clinton may or may not have committed
(depending on one's respective humble opinion) were not (in my own not
terribly humble opinion) the ones for which he was actually impeached. The
difference between the impeachments of Johnson and Clinton was that
Johnson's opponents sincerely wanted him out of office, and came within a
single Senator of getting their wish. Clinton's foes wanted to embarass him
in front of the nation and the world, and easily got *their* wish.
I really think that everyone knew going in that Clinton probably would be
impeached and then probably would be acquitted, because the votes were
there in the House and weren't there in the Senate. Therefore, there must
have been a motive behind the impeachment other than removing Clinton from
office.
Here's the difference, as I see it, between Nixon and Clinton. The only
inaccuracy in calling Nixon a criminal is that he was pardoned before he
could be charged. I think Clinton is sleazy, manipulative, unethical, and
quite possibly the validation of the punch line to every lawyer joke ever
written -- but I can't honestly say that I think his acts have risen to a
criminal level.
--
Andrew Hackard /\ "My money and my
Promotional Writer /()\ [CENSORED] go to
Steve Jackson Games / \ Illuminati University"
and...@sjgames.com /______\
Dan Bongard
>>Richard Nixon didn't face prison.
>. . . because he was the recipient of a presidential pardon.
No charges were ever brought against him. You can claim that
they would have been, but since you can't possibly _know_
that, any such claims would basically amount to blowing hot air.
Ford pardoned Nixon simply to get the entire thing over with;
the nature of the pardon amounted to "whatever you've done,
you can't be prosecuted for it". That doesn't imply Nixon
_would_ have been prosecuted otherwise.
>>He wasn't even impeached,
>. . . because he buggered out and ran away (cf. Sir Robin).
He wasn't impeached. Ergo he faced no criminal charges. ergo
he didn't face prison. Ergo your claim that he DID face
prison is nonsense.
>>which is more than can be said of Clinton.
>The impeachable offenses which Clinton may or may not have committed
>(depending on one's respective humble opinion) were not (in my own not
>terribly humble opinion) the ones for which he was actually impeached.
Fascinating, but irrelevant. Clinton was impeached, and
criminal charges brought against him. He faced prison.
Richard Nixon was not impeached, and criminal charges were
not brought against him. He did not face prison.
> I really think that everyone knew going in that Clinton probably
> would be impeached and then probably would be acquitted, because
> the votes were there in the House and weren't there in the Senate.
> Therefore, there must have been a motive behind the impeachment
> other than removing Clinton from office.
Your conclusion only follows if your premise is correct, which
it almost certainly isn't. Take a look at the Republicans'
campaign strategy during the elections -- they clearly thought
that the American people really wanted Clinton to be punished.
This turned out not to be the case.
The three possibilities are (a) the Republicans thought they'd
be able to come up with the votes for impeachment on at least
one of the charges, (b) the Republicans wanted to commit
political suicide, or (c) the Republicans felt they had no
choice other than to impeach Clinton, since he had flagrantly
broken the law.
>Here's the difference, as I see it, between Nixon and Clinton. The only
>inaccuracy in calling Nixon a criminal is that he was pardoned before he
>could be charged. I think Clinton is sleazy, manipulative, unethical, and
>quite possibly the validation of the punch line to every lawyer joke ever
>written -- but I can't honestly say that I think his acts have risen to a
>criminal level.
What criminal activity did Nixon engage in, that Clinton
didn't? Both violated finance laws, both perjured themselves,
both used government agencies to investigate political
enemies (which technically isn't illegal, actually), both
stole and/or destroyed evidence to hinder investigators...
what, exactly, did Nixon do that was moe "criminal" than
what Clinton has done?
-- Dan
SD Anderson
wrote:
>
> > Cheers to the Vice-President for his selfless efforts to safeguard
> > President . . . more like 37th with maximum Intelligence, Wisdom
> > and Charisma. Godspeed in your quest to vanquish the evil troll-
> > lord of Texas.
>
> You know utterly nothing about right-winger for life Al Gore, do you?
> This guy's senate seat was bought for him by the big tobacco
interests.
counts
> on ignorant morons forgetting that little fact.
There is NOTHING in Mayne's post indicating he is not aware of what
you've just said. There is also NOTHING in Mayne's post indicating
that he is aware of it either.
Reason? There's nothing of a truly political nature in his post
unless you count 'evil troll-lord of Texas', but given the overall
context of Mayne's post, praising the Cartoon character who appeared in
Futurama, that's not likely to be the case.
In short, your injection of RL politics into this thread is off
topic though I suppose you could have done it topically by exploring
whether the 'troll-lord of Texas' was or was not evil. ;)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SD Anderson
dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
> Doug Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >On Tue, 23 May 2000 13:29:15 -0400, a butterfly in Costa Rica
> >flapped its wings, causing bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
> >to write:
>
> >>Slick Willie: The liar from Arkansas who currently may face
disbarment.
>
> > As opposed to that greasy Richard Nixon who faced prison?
>
> which is more than can be said of Clinton.
Nixon only escaped impeachment by losing his nerve to tough it out
and resigned in order to keep the pension and other perks. And had he
been impeached by the House, conviction in the Senate was pretty
certain. IIRC, Barry Goldwater's nose count had the Senate's likely
vote at 84 to 16 to convict. And Goldwater would have been one of the
votes to convict, which in itself says a fair deal about the case
against Nixon.
Bokman7757
what Clinton has done? >>
Try to sabotage an election?
<< Both violated finance laws >>
Then why wasn't Clinton prosecuted for that? No, better to go after him for a
less serious offense.....
Lizard
<tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
>
>>He was picked for the Clinton ticket to counterbalance Slick Willie's
>>leftist slant.
>
>Gore was picked to counterbalance Willie Brown? In _what_ election?
>
>There's only *one* Slick Willie, my friend, and Bill-Jeff Clinton isn't it.
>In point of fact, he pales by comparison. So to speak.
And I live in direct sight of the Taj Ma Willie. I will concur with
you on that. Next to OUR Willie, Clinton is as slick as sandpaper.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
Terry Austin
>On Tue, 23 May 2000 13:29:15 -0400, a butterfly in Costa Rica
>flapped its wings, causing bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
>to write:
>
>>Slick Willie: The liar from Arkansas who currently may face disbarment.
>
>As opposed to that greasy Richard Nixon who faced prison?
>
>Anyway, our Slick Willie is much better! Da Mayor is da Bomb!
He does seem to have calmed Critical Mass down a little. And his opinions on
cell phones in public places actually (gag) make sense.
Terry Austin
>and...@sjgames.com (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>>dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
>
>>>Richard Nixon didn't face prison.
>
>>. . . because he was the recipient of a presidential pardon.
>
>No charges were ever brought against him. You can claim that
>they would have been, but since you can't possibly _know_
>that, any such claims would basically amount to blowing hot air.
Perhaps, child, you would benefit from a little history reading. Those of us
who lived through it remember that no charges were brought because he'd been
given a blanket pardon peremptorily specifically to prevent criminal
charges.
>
>Ford pardoned Nixon simply to get the entire thing over with;
>the nature of the pardon amounted to "whatever you've done,
>you can't be prosecuted for it". That doesn't imply Nixon
>_would_ have been prosecuted otherwise.
Heh.
>
>>>He wasn't even impeached,
>
>>. . . because he buggered out and ran away (cf. Sir Robin).
>
>He wasn't impeached. Ergo he faced no criminal charges. ergo
>he didn't face prison. Ergo your claim that he DID face
>prison is nonsense.
Ergo, you're still the fucking moron you've always been, waving your dick at
the world over something you clearly no nothing about.
Ever clean that $1,000,000,000,000,000 printer of yours, that prints as
shitty as the cheap-ass inkjet?
>
>>>which is more than can be said of Clinton.
>
>>The impeachable offenses which Clinton may or may not have committed
>>(depending on one's respective humble opinion) were not (in my own not
>>terribly humble opinion) the ones for which he was actually impeached.
>
>Fascinating, but irrelevant. Clinton was impeached, and
>criminal charges brought against him.
What criminal charges were those, Bonehead?
>He faced prison.
>Richard Nixon was not impeached, and criminal charges were
>not brought against him. He did not face prison.
Because he made sure he wouldn't when picking his successor.
>
>> I really think that everyone knew going in that Clinton probably
>> would be impeached and then probably would be acquitted, because
>> the votes were there in the House and weren't there in the Senate.
>> Therefore, there must have been a motive behind the impeachment
>> other than removing Clinton from office.
>
>Your conclusion only follows if your premise is correct, which
>it almost certainly isn't. Take a look at the Republicans'
>campaign strategy during the elections -- they clearly thought
>that the American people really wanted Clinton to be punished.
>This turned out not to be the case.
Horseshit. Some of the Republican leaders _said_ they knew they couldn't bet
a conviction, and were doing it for political reasons. And they _certainly_
knew that the public didn't give a flying shit. Clinton's approval rating
went _up_ every week of the entire fiasco.
>
>The three possibilities are (a) the Republicans thought they'd
>be able to come up with the votes for impeachment on at least
>one of the charges, (b) the Republicans wanted to commit
>political suicide, or (c) the Republicans felt they had no
>choice other than to impeach Clinton, since he had flagrantly
>broken the law.
Or (d) the Republicans take advice from Dan Bonehead.
>
>>Here's the difference, as I see it, between Nixon and Clinton. The only
>>inaccuracy in calling Nixon a criminal is that he was pardoned before he
>>could be charged. I think Clinton is sleazy, manipulative, unethical, and
>>quite possibly the validation of the punch line to every lawyer joke ever
>>written -- but I can't honestly say that I think his acts have risen to a
>>criminal level.
>
>What criminal activity did Nixon engage in, that Clinton
>didn't? Both violated finance laws, both perjured themselves,
>both used government agencies to investigate political
>enemies (which technically isn't illegal, actually),
Yes, actually, it is. Try looking up malfeasance sometime. Pity it's never
enforced.
>both
>stole and/or destroyed evidence to hinder investigators...
>what, exactly, did Nixon do that was moe "criminal" than
>what Clinton has done?
>
He pissed off the public. Which is the only crime that matters.
Terry Austin
>In article <oe6kisslfrfafhvk9...@4ax.com>,
>tas...@hyperbooks.com wrote:
>
>> bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
>>
>> >He was picked for the Clinton ticket to counterbalance Slick Willie's
>> >leftist slant.
>>
>> Gore was picked to counterbalance Willie Brown? In _what_ election?
>
>Slick Willie: The liar from Arkansas who currently may face disbarment.
Nope. Willie Brown, former God-King of the California legislature, currently
mayor of San Francisco. He's been Slick Willie for at least as long as
Bill-Jeff has been in politics.
Clueless easterners.
Terry Austin
>In article <3928C52A...@sympatico.ca>, Scott Mayne
><s.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>Cheers to the Vice-President for his selfless efforts to
>safeguard
>>the Space-Time Continuum!
>
>the same Al Gore that tried to muzzle the music industry because
>of its eViL influences? just what do you think would have been
>next if he succeeded?
Er, that wasn't Al. That was Tipper. Who has apparently had a stainless
steel muzzle installed since.
Jerry Stratton
>And I live in direct sight of the Taj Ma Willie. I will concur with
>you on that. Next to OUR Willie, Clinton is as slick as sandpaper.
People keep saying this without giving examples. If you're ever playing
in a Byzantine-style political campaign, you'd do well to read up on
Willie Brown's political career (and Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas '72,
but that's a digression).
Here's an example of Willie Brown putting Bill Clinton to shame: Willie
Brown was the speaker of the California House for 15 years, from 1980 to
1995. For all practical purposes, the speaker of the house, same as for
the federal house, is a party position: it is held by a member of the
party in power. In the 1994 elections, the Republicans gained control of
our House. In 1995 when they moved in and elected a speaker, they
elected... Willie Brown. He (a) retained power, and (b) ensured that
everyone was laughing at the Republicans. He held the post until June
(partly to campaign for Mayor); and then pretty much chose his
"Republican" successor, although this was less successful as Doris Allen
already had a recall going against her, and her 'defection' only added
to her enemies' stature--she lost her recall; I wouldn't personally be
surprised if Brown didn't expect that. It added to the Republican
turmoil that year. The Republicans were fairly ineffective throughout
1995.
Terry Austin
Willie Brown left his position as God-King of the legislature for one
reason, and one reason only: Proposition 27, Term Limits. Which was put on
the ballot almost entirely to force Slick Willie out of the legislature,
because nothing short of an amendment to the state constitution would pry
him loose.
If you want an example of Slick-Willie-ness, try to visit Treasure Island
sometime. It's been turned into a private reserve for you-know-who, with his
own personal goons to patrol the grounds.
SD Anderson
>> the same Al Gore that tried to muzzle the music industry
>> because of its eViL influences? just what do you think would
>> have been next if he succeeded?
> Er, that wasn't Al. That was Tipper. Who has apparently had a
> stainless steel muzzle installed since.
Al was involved. He and 4 other Senators rode Tipper's crusade
long enough to confront Frank Zappa and Jello Biafra in hearings
much to their loss of face because they weren't READY to face
Frank or Jello. ;) Zappa was interviewed a few months later,
pissed off because he didn't know at the time that all 5 senators
were members of the PMRC.
Bryan J. Maloney
Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
Reminds me of some late night CNN show where Zappa and Tipper went
head-to-head. Tipper started with a typically DRONING position speech.
Zappa began with "Hey, Kiddies! Censorship is BAD for you!"
A great moment:
Tipper: ...and some of these lyrics are about masturbation--
Zappa: So what's wrong with masturbation?
Ham Salad
Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>If you want an example of Slick-Willie-ness, try to visit
Treasure Island
>sometime. It's been turned into a private reserve for you-know-
who, with his
>own personal goons to patrol the grounds.
And let us not forget Prop G, the new football mecca for the
49ers, where Willie's people made sure the polls opened late and
closed early in the less sympatheric areas, and used the fine
old Chicago technique of having dead people vote! You know
Willie's luxury box was taken care of...
It's a sorry day in the USA when the Big Two parties can't give
us better than Al "The Senator's Son" Gore, the Wooden Nickel,
and Dubya "The President's Son" Bush, the Happy Fascist. I was
hoping Jesse Ventura would run ;-}
RJM Hughes
and...@sjgames.com (Andrew Hackard) wrote:
>dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
>>Richard Nixon didn't face prison.
>
>quite possibly the validation of the punch line to every lawyer
joke ever written -- but I can't honestly say that I think his
acts have risen to a criminal level.
>
True, although it is extremely likely that Clinton committed
rape (of Juanita Brodderick---I may have that name incorrect)
while he was Governor of Arkansas. I'm not sure about the
relevant statute of limitations, but that alone seems reason
enough to both impeach and disbar him.
Bokman7757
rape (of Juanita Brodderick---I may have that name incorrect) >>
Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Karen J. Cravens
B><< although it is extremely likely that Clinton committed
B>rape (of Juanita Brodderick---I may have that name incorrect) >>
B>
B>Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Actually, not for purposes of disbarment/impeachment, unless I blinked and
those *are* criminal charges. Civil charges have a different standard of
evidence (q.v. O.J. Simpson).
--
Karen J. Cravens sil...@phoenyx.net
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> << although it is extremely likely that Clinton committed
>
Had this discussion the other day.
And was remonded that it's _presumed_ innocent and that it's a
legal standard.
So he may be guilty but not by legal standards (yet) and therefore
he cannot legally be punished for this alleged criminal action.
(Again the civil courts monkey wrench things though...)
Bokman7757
legal standard. >>
I happen to think that standard should apply outside the legal system. Don't
presume someone's guilty of a crime unless there's incontrovertible evidence.
How'd you like it if you were put on trial for a crime you didn't commit and
found not guilty, but everyone in your community assumed you were guilty
anyway?
Walt Smith
bokma...@aol.com (Bokman7757) wrote:
> How'd you like it if you were put on trial for a crime you didn't
>commit and found not guilty, but everyone in your community assumed
>you were guilty anyway?
>
Granted.
You would want your young adult daughter to work for Bill Clinton,
right? In a private secretary position?
A sufficient quantity of accusations indicates poor judgement on
Bill Clinton's part, if nothing else. He has a habit of getting
himself into suspicious situations, just barely matched by his
ability to get out of such situations. It should be noted that he
tends to leave disenchanted people behind him wherever he goes...
and much of his escaping from scrapes seems to involve getting
elected to a position that oversees the departments that have him
under investigation.
Is his current escape technique to have his wife go from Senate to
Presidency?
Walt Smith
--
Firelock on DALNet
Walt Smith
> legal standard.
>
> he cannot legally be punished for this alleged criminal action.
>
> (Again the civil courts monkey wrench things though...)
Add to this that a disbarment proceeding is *not* a criminal
trial. There are things that can get you disbarred that aren't
crimes, and Bar Associations can make decisions based on such
ephemera as reputation and public behavior. Bill Clinton may
never go to trial for anything he has allegedly done, but the
Arkansas Bar can decide that he makes the legal profession look
bad and kick him out.
Michael T. Richter
news:20000601141109...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
> I happen to think that standard should apply outside the legal system.
> Don't presume someone's guilty of a crime unless there's
> incontrovertible evidence.
Yes. I think, for example, that the police should use this. They shouldn't
investigate to find evidence of a crime unless there's incontrovertible
evidence of one....
> How'd you like it if you were put on trial for a crime you didn't commit
> and found not guilty, but everyone in your community assumed you were
> guilty anyway?
I'd rather be found not guilty of a crime I *DID* commit and have the
community think I'm guilty anyway. You know, the O. J. Simpson approach to
life.
Bokman7757
Bill Clinton's part, if nothing else. He has a habit of getting
himself into suspicious situations, just barely matched by his
ability to get out of such situations. It should be noted that he
tends to leave disenchanted people behind him wherever he goes... >>
Doesn't make him a rapist.
Sea Wasp
>
> << All this just goes to show that when the world you are supposedly
> trying to satirize is funnier and more self-aware than your comic
> strip, it's time to hang up the pen. >>
>
> Nah- Doonesbury's still great.
It's a pale, pale shadow of what it used to be. At least Watterson,
having had half the fun beaten out of him by legal battles, knew enough
to kill off Calvin and Hobbes BEFORE it started degenerating into a
parody and eventually into even less than that, like Bloom County did.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
SD Anderson
> have him
I'm reminded of the number of charges laid against Ray Buckey,
of the McMartin Pre-school. The secret doors that were proven not
to exist when it torn down, the visibility of the classes from the
outside...
In Clinton's case we have accusations like 'murdering' Vince
Foster, and personally overseeing a drug operation based from a US
Military base. There are a lot of accusations flying and a lot of
accusers who made money from Clinton's enemies.
under investigation.
Neel Krishnaswami
>
> BTW: Next person to call her a carpet-bagger will be reminded that
> George Bush claimed three different states as his home state in the
> 1988 election.
IIRC, Gary Trudeau ran an "official Texas residency application" as
part of his _Doonesbury_ strip (mocking George Bush for this very
claim), and when people tried to mail them in to the Texas state
government, they one-upped him by mailing back "official residency
certificates," with the comment that of course they understood why
people wanted to be Texans.
All this just goes to show that when the world you are supposedly
trying to satirize is funnier and more self-aware than your comic
strip, it's time to hang up the pen.
Neel
Bokman7757
trying to satirize is funnier and more self-aware than your comic
strip, it's time to hang up the pen. >>
Arbane the Terrible
<tatters9...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>True, although it is extremely likely that Clinton committed
>rape (of Juanita Brodderick---I may have that name incorrect)
Why, oh why oh why oh WHY did she have to wait until after his
RE-election to spill the beans, if this was true?
One nasty rumor with even a shred of fact to back it up back in 1992,
and the DMC would have dropped him like a hot rock...
But, this belongs on talk.politics.bill-clinton.is.the.antichrist, not
rec.game.frp.misc.flaming....
---
"How different would Usenet be if, instead of a 'Send'
button, your news reader had a 'Do you think anyone
really cares?' button?"
Arbane the Terrible
wrote:
> Bill Clinton may
>never go to trial for anything he has allegedly done, but the
>Arkansas Bar can decide that he makes the legal profession look
>bad and kick him out.
His crowning achievement--making _LAWYERS_ look bad.
The Mad Doctor
I'm not sure about impeachment (although it seems unlikely, as
impeachment hearings were made vs. Clinton without even a charge being
laid)
however disbarring would be the purview of each states Bar
Association, which is very similar to Bar Associations in Canada and
Medical Colleges in Canada and the US. In these cases the
association/college will have a set of rules under which loss of
licence can occur. For instance in BC a physician MAY lose his licence
if found guilty of an indictable offence (a felony conviction in the
US) but not for a guilty verdict in a summary convictio (US
misdemeanor) as well a not guilty verdict may not cost a physician his
licence.
There are other internal investigations that may come to bear as well,
i.e consensual sex between a doctor and patient is not a criminal
offence in BC, but can be taken to court civilly, because there is no
outside jurisprudence that can be used then the college has it's own
investigation and system of fines/suspensions and expulsions in this
case.
I would think most bar and college associations would work under the
same type of rules (i.e. follow criminal court rulings in a criminal
case, and use their own investigation in work related impropriety that
only has civil implications.)
regards,
Grant
The Mad Doctor
><< And was remonded that it's _presumed_ innocent and that it's a
>legal standard. >>
>
>
>I happen to think that standard should apply outside the legal system. Don't
>presume someone's guilty of a crime unless there's incontrovertible evidence.
>
>How'd you like it if you were put on trial for a crime you didn't commit and
>found not guilty, but everyone in your community assumed you were guilty
>anyway?
Hey, it happened to me, it's not nice, and the media makes a big show
of it if you happen to be the local Doctor in a small town (the media
presumes guilt until innocent because it sells better)
I had my profession, age, name, wife's name, address all pointed out
in the paper. I withdrew from my career for a year, to have the
charges dropped with an apology, that, of course, is not newsworthy.
Had to pack up and move, start all over again, poorer several thousand
bucks in lawyer fees, all because my good reputation could not be
restored once the public had doubts about me.
regards,
Grant :)
Walt Smith
bokma...@aol.com (Bokman7757) wrote:
> << A sufficient quantity of accusations indicates poor judgement on
> Bill Clinton's part, if nothing else. He has a habit of getting
> himself into suspicious situations, just barely matched by his
> ability to get out of such situations. It should be noted that he
> tends to leave disenchanted people behind him wherever he goes... >>
>
>
Reread, please. My post deliberately did *not* accuse him of being
a rapist. I accused him of having bad judgement.
If you make of habit of being charged with sexual misconduct,
and leave strings of disgusted people behind you wherever you go,
it shows bad judgement on your part - in choice of paramours,
in how you run your work environment, in how you treat people.
Having bad judgement isn't, in itself, a crime. It's also not a
crime to take someone's history of bad judgement into account when
making future decisions about trusting them.
One episode is an accident. Decades of epsiodes is a pattern.
Walt Smith
SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> I'm reminded of the number of charges laid against Ray Buckey,
> of the McMartin Pre-school. The secret doors that were proven not
> to exist when it torn down, the visibility of the classes from the
> outside...
I'm tempted to think that running a preschool, in the then-climate
of pedophile witch hunts, was evidence of bad judgement.
I'm always astounded by the McMartin case. In Clinton's embroglios,
questions arise because the Clintons and their people have usually
had control over alterable evidence. In the McMartin case,
tunnels and secret rooms that could never have existed were treated
as if they were valid parts of evidence chains. The therapists who
taught those interrogation techniques should be used for medical
experiments, right next to the recovered memory frauds.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> << And was reminded that it's _presumed_ innocent and that it's a
> legal standard. >>
>
> I happen to think that standard should apply outside the legal system. Don't
> presume someone's guilty of a crime unless there's incontrovertible evidence.
>
> How'd you like it if you were put on trial for a crime you didn't commit and
> found not guilty, but everyone in your community assumed you were guilty
> anyway?
On the other hand:
When _everything_ available points to an individuals guilt, but the jury
sympathizes and lets him go, or the law enforcers mess up and he's free
on a technical point, or many other reasons why someone doesn't get
convicted...
Are we completely wrong to exercise _appropriate_ caution around such an
individual even though they have never been proven _legally_ guilty?
The
state loses it's right to use such caution, but in a free society
individuals
should not.
Plus you added the word "assume".
No we should not _assume_ someone is guilty. Ever.
But given reasonable proof, even if the reasonable proof doesn't result
in
a _legal_ conviction, it is reasonable to believe the accused is
actually
guilty of the alleged action.
Example: If you kill someone in plain view of fifty witnesses but the
jury
will not convivt due to social or political consideration, do you really
expect to walk back into society as though noting happened? Do you
think
everyone should accord you the same treatment as anyone else even though
they KNOW you committed murder?
The legal standard is very important in preserving liberty but asking
that
all people use it as a personal standard would actually reduce liberty.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> BTW: Next person to call her a carpet-bagger will be reminded
> that George Bush claimed three different states as his home state
> in the 1988 election.
Hillary is a carpet bagger.
What's that?
Excuse me?
Oh.
George Bush is a carbet bagger too.
(Neither has read the Bill of Rights either...)
Bokman7757
sympathizes and lets him go, or the law enforcers mess up and he's free
on a technical point, or many other reasons why someone doesn't get
convicted... >>
In that case, an individual wouldn't see reasonable doubt in the case and would
be free to treat the person as guilty. I'm talking in cases where there is
clearly room for doubt.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
Granted.
Doug Berry
flapped its wings, causing Walt Smith <fire...@my-deja.com> to
write:
>In article <8h6tnd$8hm$6...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
> SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>> I'm reminded of the number of charges laid against Ray Buckey,
>> of the McMartin Pre-school. The secret doors that were proven not
>> to exist when it torn down, the visibility of the classes from the
>> outside...
>
>I'm tempted to think that running a preschool, in the then-climate
>of pedophile witch hunts, was evidence of bad judgement.
Walt, under that logic running for President in the current
political environment is evidence of bad judgement.
>I'm always astounded by the McMartin case. In Clinton's embroglios,
>questions arise because the Clintons and their people have usually
>had control over alterable evidence. In the McMartin case,
>tunnels and secret rooms that could never have existed were treated
>as if they were valid parts of evidence chains. The therapists who
>taught those interrogation techniques should be used for medical
>experiments, right next to the recovered memory frauds.
You said it yourself: in that environment. People were caught up
in a mania.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"We are GURPS. You will be assimilated. We will add
your distinctive setting and background to our own. |
Resistance is futile."
Walt Smith
Doug Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Walt, under that logic running for President in the current
> political environment is evidence of bad judgement.
There are many people who have run for the US Presidency who would
tell you that was true. Some of them have been elected. ;-)
Dan Bongard
>In article <8h6tnd$8hm$6...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
> SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>> I'm reminded of the number of charges laid against Ray Buckey,
>> of the McMartin Pre-school. The secret doors that were proven not
>> to exist when it torn down, the visibility of the classes from the
>> outside...
>I'm tempted to think that running a preschool, in the then-climate
>of pedophile witch hunts, was evidence of bad judgement.
There was no "then-climate of pedophile witch hunts". The McMartin
fiasco was the _start_ of the witch hunts.
> The therapists who taught those interrogation techniques should
> be used for medical experiments, right next to the recovered
> memory frauds.
You obviously haven't heard the punchline; social workers are
immune to lawsuits stemming from malpractice.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
>On Wed, 31 May 2000 14:42:50 -0700, RJM Hughes
><tatters9...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>True, although it is extremely likely that Clinton committed
>>rape (of Juanita Brodderick---I may have that name incorrect)
>Why, oh why oh why oh WHY did she have to wait until after his
>RE-election to spill the beans, if this was true?
Because she ran a state-licensed and state-regulated business,
on the one hand, and on the other hand was currently cheating
on her husband.
This put Clinton in a position to crush her like a bug, if he
had felt like it. Given the Clintons' well-documented
willingness to slander and/or blackmail women who accuse
Bill of wrongdoing... well, you do the math.
> One nasty rumor with even a shred of fact to back it up
> back in 1992, and the DMC would have dropped him like a
> hot rock...
The rumor DID come up in 1992. Broderick (I don't recall
the correct spelling either) refused to talk to the press
at the time.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
>
> << And was reminded that it's _presumed_ innocent and that it's a
> legal standard. >>
>
> I happen to think that standard should apply outside the legal
> system. Don't presume someone's guilty of a crime unless there's
> incontrovertible evidence.
There is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence of guilt,
first of all. Secondly, the law does not require incontrovertible
evidence of guilt; it requires that the jury consider there
to be no reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt.
There are plenty of things Clinton has been accused of, for
which there is a reasonable doubt of guilt. Those people who
accuse him of having Vince Foster killed, for example, really
haven't got a case.
On the flip side, however, one cannot reasonably believe that
Clinton is not guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice,
or sexual assault.
-- Dan
Bokman7757
Clinton is not guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice,
or sexual assault. >>
When was he proven guilty of sexual assault? None of those cases ever went to
trial, no physical evidence was ever produced.
Bokman7757
political environment is evidence of bad judgement.
>>
Isn't it?
Dan Bongard
> << On the flip side, however, one cannot reasonably believe that
> Clinton is not guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice,
> or sexual assault. >>
> When was he proven guilty of sexual assault?
When was OJ Simpson proven guilty of murder? Answer: he was never
proven guilty of murder. But what reasonable person could
honestly think he's not guilty?
> None of those cases ever went to trial, no physical evidence
> was ever produced.
Yes, yes. Now comes the part where you explain why a person
has to actually be brought up on trial in order to be guilty
of a crime.
- Dan
Richard Pace
> bokma...@aol.com (Bokman7757) writes:
>
> > << On the flip side, however, one cannot reasonably believe that
> > Clinton is not guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice,
> > or sexual assault. >>
>
> > When was he proven guilty of sexual assault?
>
> When was OJ Simpson proven guilty of murder? Answer: he was never
> proven guilty of murder. But what reasonable person could
> honestly think he's not guilty?
You're white, aren't you? I'm guessing, of course -- I do know some
blacks who would agree with you, but the majority of those I've
encountered who would say that are white.
More than a few of my reasonable friends honestly believe he was
railroaded into that court room and can argue the case far better than I
as they followed with great concern the details of that case. They
can't convince me he's truly innocent no more than I can convince them
he's guilty. They're not being unreasonable, they're just used to a
different standard of treatment for being black
Richard
--
I've added over twenty more images of my artwork to my gallery for your
viewing pleasure!
- http://webhome.idirect.com/~rpace/
SD Anderson
Walt Smith <fire...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8h6tnd$8hm$6...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
> SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> > I'm reminded of the number of charges laid against Ray Buckey,
> > of the McMartin Pre-school. The secret doors that were proven not
> > to exist when it torn down, the visibility of the classes from the
> > outside...
>
> I'm tempted to think that running a preschool, in the then-climate
> of pedophile witch hunts, was evidence of bad judgement.
>
> questions arise because the Clintons and their people have usually
> had control over alterable evidence. In the McMartin case,
> tunnels and secret rooms that could never have existed were treated
> taught those interrogation techniques should be used for medical
> experiments, right next to the recovered memory frauds.
When the case was first made public, people treated it as true. The
charges were too horrifying to be made unless the authorities had an
air tight case.
Around the time (then) District Attorney Philobosian had a vacant
lot dug up and came up empty, mood changed a bit. By this time, for
the charges to be true, several THOUSAND people in the South bay area
would have had to be involved.
Because they charged Buckey in a manner to (unsuccessfully) get him
to cop a plea, he wound up being dragged through a hellish trial even
after everyone else had had the charges dismissed.
One of the most appalling examples of official persecution I've ever
had to see.
Bokman7757
proven guilty of murder. But what reasonable person could
honestly think he's not guilty? >>
Okay- so where's the Clinton DNA evidence in the Paula Jones and Kathleen
Willey cases?
Eric Tolle
>
> Dan Bongard wrote:
> > When was OJ Simpson proven guilty of murder? Answer: he was never
> > proven guilty of murder. But what reasonable person could
> > honestly think he's not guilty?
> More than a few of my reasonable friends honestly believe he was
> railroaded into that court room and can argue the case far better than I
> as they followed with great concern the details of that case. They
> can't convince me he's truly innocent no more than I can convince them
> he's guilty. They're not being unreasonable, they're just used to a
> different standard of treatment for being black
One of the major elements for skepticism about OJ's innocence would
be that his innocence would have had to involve a conspiracy of
perjury and falsification of evidence on the part of the police. Of
course relatively few people would believe that police officers would
stoop so low as to falsify evidence to convict an innocent man.
Things change of course. Looked in light of the Rampart scandal,
one can't help but wonder if everything OJ said was true. Of course
to the minority Los Angelinos I know, none of this is exactly news.
--
Eric Tolle sch...@silcom.com
People tend to underestimate the impact of scientific progress.
Why just fifty years ago, only a few people had even heard of DNA,
and now everybody who is somebody uses it!
Dan Bongard
>Dan Bongard wrote:
>> bokma...@aol.com (Bokman7757) writes:
>>
>> > << On the flip side, however, one cannot reasonably believe that
>> > Clinton is not guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice,
>> > or sexual assault. >>
>>
>> > When was he proven guilty of sexual assault?
>>
>> When was OJ Simpson proven guilty of murder? Answer: he was never
>> proven guilty of murder. But what reasonable person could
>> honestly think he's not guilty?
>You're white, aren't you? I'm guessing, of course -- I do know some
>blacks who would agree with you, but the majority of those I've
>encountered who would say that are white.
Skin color has nothing to do with it; only ability to appraise
the available evidence impartially. It is an unfortunate fact
that bad experiences with racism prevent many black people from
making that kind of objective appraisal.
> More than a few of my reasonable friends honestly believe he was
> railroaded into that court room
Your friends are ignorant morons. That's really all that can be
said of them. They rank up there with "reasonable" people who
believe the world is flat, or "reasonable" people who believe
the earth is only 6000 years old.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
><< When was OJ Simpson proven guilty of murder? Answer: he was never
>proven guilty of murder. But what reasonable person could
>honestly think he's not guilty? >>
> Okay- so where's the Clinton DNA evidence in the Paula Jones
> and Kathleen Willey cases?
Please cite a post in which I claimed there was DNA evidence in
the Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey cases.
-- Dan
Bokman7757
>proven guilty of murder. But what reasonable person could
>honestly think he's not guilty? >>
> Okay- so where's the Clinton DNA evidence in the Paula Jones
> and Kathleen Willey cases?
Please cite a post in which I claimed there was DNA evidence in
the Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey cases. >>
You miss the point. You compared Clinton not being convicted of sexual assault
to OJ not being convicted of murder. But there was quite a bit more evidence
against OJ than against Clinton- DNA being a piece of that evidence.
Richard Pace
>
> Skin color has nothing to do with it; only ability to appraise
> the available evidence impartially. It is an unfortunate fact
> that bad experiences with racism prevent many black people from
> making that kind of objective appraisal.
Sadly, skin colour has everything to do with it -- and you explain why
within your response as well as imply that OJ should have been tried by
an all white jury as they would be more impartial.
Black Americans' bad experiences with racism creates a situation where
the belief that the LAPD could rush to judgement and falsify evidence
becomes reasonable.
Knowledge of the LAPD's record in other corruption matters makes this
reasonable as well.
> > More than a few of my reasonable friends honestly believe he was
> > railroaded into that court room
>
> Your friends are ignorant morons.
There's a difference between being railroaded into the courtroom and
being innocent. There was a rush to judgement by both the LAPD and the
prosecutor's office -- such a rush that they bungled the trial. The
railroaded comment wasn't an assertion of his possible innocence but an
example of how reasonable people could look at the proceedings.
A sad fact is that if OJ were a rich white wife beater the LAPD would
have taken more time in the knowledge that everything was going to be
subjugated to scrutiny by expensive lawyers. They never even fully
explored the possibility of OJ's son (with his previous violent
behaviour, lack of alibi and rumoured dislike of Nicole) may have been
involved even after OJ made sure he had a top criminal lawyer who
specialized in death penalty cases on hand for his only LAPD interview.
The LAPD dropped the ball at almost every opportunity, as did the
coroner's office -- leaving very little for the prosecution to hold
together as a strong and inviolable case against Simpson.
There was enough for the defence to get reasonable doubt and it's enough
for more than a few people to feel saying OJ is innocent is reasonable.
> That's really all that can be
> said of them. They rank up there with "reasonable" people who
> believe the world is flat, or "reasonable" people who believe
> the earth is only 6000 years old.
Sure . . . .
Brett Evill
>
> In article <20000601141109...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
> bokma...@aol.com (Bokman7757) wrote:
> > How'd you like it if you were put on trial for a crime you didn't
> >commit and found not guilty, but everyone in your community assumed
> >you were guilty anyway?
> >
>
>
> You would want your young adult daughter to work for Bill Clinton,
> right? In a private secretary position?
If I had a young adult daughter whom I expected to flash her panties at
her boss in the hall and then make a very strong come-on I wouldn't want
her working as a private secretary to anybody. I would find it
embarrassing to be known as the father of such a tramp. And If she were
to keep semen-stained souvenirs of her sexual encounters and use the
threat they represented as leverage to get an undeserved recommendation
from her boss I would expect to see her in gaol for blackmail.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Bokman7757
to keep semen-stained souvenirs of her sexual encounters and use the
threat they represented as leverage to get an undeserved recommendation
from her boss I would expect to see her in gaol for blackmail. >>
Actually, I'm tempted to belive Lewinsky's story on this part. She didn't
notice the stain and didn't wear the dress on any sort of regular basis, and by
the time she did notice it she didn't fit into it so why bother? Seems
downright plausible (unless the stain was 2 centimeters in diameter and
EVERYONE noticed it as she was walking out of the White House.)
Brett Evill
>
> << And If she were
> to keep semen-stained souvenirs of her sexual encounters and use the
> threat they represented as leverage to get an undeserved recommendation
> from her boss I would expect to see her in gaol for blackmail. >>
>
> Actually, I'm tempted to belive Lewinsky's story on this part. She didn't
> notice the stain and didn't wear the dress on any sort of regular basis, and by
> the time she did notice it she didn't fit into it so why bother?
Call me a cleanliness fanatic if you will. I would wash out a stain from
such a garment even if I consigned it to the rag-bag. To do otherwise
would encourage the growth of mold and bacteria, smell bad, and be
*really gross*. Keeping semen-stained clothes because you are too lazy
to wash them is slovenly. And there is a hard word for a slovenly woman.
Monica Lewinski is at best a slut, and worse, probably a blackmailer.
Besides, she told other people about keeping it. That's just tacky.
Regards,
Brett Evill
A.F. Simpson
> Of
> course relatively few people would believe that police officers would
> stoop so low as to falsify evidence to convict an innocent man.
Whereas in the UK, after the many and various police scandles were
exposed in the past decade or so, you might have difficulty finding
people who believe there are many police officers who _wouldn't_ falsify
or conceal evience to convict people. Even people thay knew perfectly
well were innocent.
> Eric Tolle
love
Anna
Walt Smith
Brett Evill <b.e...@nospam.tyndale.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Walt Smith wrote:
> > You would want your young adult daughter to work for Bill Clinton,
> > right? In a private secretary position?
>
> If I had a young adult daughter whom I expected to flash her panties
> at her boss in the hall and then make a very strong come-on I
> wouldn't want her working as a private secretary to anybody. I would
> find it embarrassing to be known as the father of such a tramp.
Why would it embarass you to have such a daughter...oh, wait, I get
it...her pattern of prior poor judgment would make you think she'll
act in such a way that would embarass you in the future.
Poor judgment affecting one's reputation is what I've been talking
about.
BTW, I just love the "evil seductress" angle. Poor Bill Clinton,
helpless before her feminine wiles...LOL!
Walt Smith
--
Firelock on DALNet
Frank T. Sronce
>
> Skin color has nothing to do with it; only ability to appraise
> the available evidence impartially. It is an unfortunate fact
> that bad experiences with racism prevent many black people from
> making that kind of objective appraisal.
>
> > railroaded into that court room
>
> said of them. They rank up there with "reasonable" people who
> believe the world is flat, or "reasonable" people who believe
> the earth is only 6000 years old.
>
I dunno- Didn't that trial have several cops doing the "Um... you're
asking me if I knew that any of the evidence was being faked? Uh... I
refuse to answer on the grounds that I might incriminate myself." bit?
My personal perspective is that OJ probably was guilty... but since
there was definitely _some_ evidence that was faked, you have to throw
the whole case out. As soon as a cop is caught falsifying evidence, the
accused usually has to be set free- the whole case against them is
tainted. If OJ hadn't been rich, the faked evidence never would've been
spotted... and if the cops hadn't been crooked, there wouldn't have
_been_ any faked evidence to be spotted.
Of course, I paid as little attention to the OJ case as possible, so
I'm definitely not an expert. :-)
Kiz
Frank T. Sronce
>
> Bokman7757 wrote:
> >
> > << And was reminded that it's _presumed_ innocent and that it's a
> > legal standard. >>
> >
> > I happen to think that standard should apply outside the legal
> > system. Don't presume someone's guilty of a crime unless there's
> > incontrovertible evidence.
>
> There is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence of guilt,
> first of all. Secondly, the law does not require incontrovertible
> evidence of guilt; it requires that the jury consider there
> to be no reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt.
>
> There are plenty of things Clinton has been accused of, for
> which there is a reasonable doubt of guilt. Those people who
> accuse him of having Vince Foster killed, for example, really
> haven't got a case.
>
> Clinton is not guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice,
> or sexual assault.
>
I tend to agree, with the caveat that I don't think you can reasonably
believe that he IS definitely guilty, either. The evidence isn't certain
enough. You can have an opinion either way, but there should be at least
a little doubt in your mind, because the evidence isn't overwhelming.
We know that he had a consensual sexual relationship; he's been accused
of rape, but it hasn't really been proven (and probably never will be,
it was too long ago). We know that he lied in court about Monica... but
my understanding is that 'perjury' doesn't really apply to testimony
given in civil court. Judge Wapner does not send embittered ex-spouses
to jail if he catches them in a lie. :-)
Obstruction of justice is the probably the most provable one... so
either there's a bunch of people covering up for him, or he didn't do
it... or he did it in such a clever manner that no actual proof exists.
There was such a morass of corruption and deceit on both sides during
the impeachment stuff that I'm perfectly willing to believe that both
sides were probably breaking the law. Too bad we couldn't have them all
locked up and hold a new election. :-)
Kiz
-mind you, I'm not against things like disbarring him. Sure, a 'typical'
lawyer couldn't get disbarred for something like that, but I'll readily
accept that the President _ought_ to be held to a higher standard that
the 'typical' lawyer.
Doug Berry
sat down on Mon, 05 Jun 2000 17:40:04 GMT to write:
>Why would it embarass you to have such a daughter...oh, wait, I get
>it...her pattern of prior poor judgment would make you think she'll
>act in such a way that would embarass you in the future.
>
>Poor judgment affecting one's reputation is what I've been talking
>about.
no, you've been portraying the man as some sort of slavering
monster. What he is yet another politician who can't keep his
pants zipped. Ask Henry Hyde about that.
>BTW, I just love the "evil seductress" angle. Poor Bill Clinton,
>helpless before her feminine wiles...LOL!
Not helpless, but I ask what you'd do if you were in your fifties
and a twenty-something woman made it clear that she wanted to
have sex with you.
SD Anderson
> but since there was definitely _some_ evidence that was faked,
> you have to throw the whole case out. As soon as a cop is caught
> falsifying evidence, the accused usually has to be set free- the
> whole case against them is tainted. If OJ hadn't been rich, the
> faked evidence never would've been spotted... and if the cops
> hadn't been crooked, there wouldn't have _been_ any faked
> evidence to be spotted.
Absolutely. Using the football analogy that prosecutors have
to start at their goal line and get to the other one to convict,
they racked up a good 130 yards, but took 33 yards in deserved
penalties after a detective admitted taking the blood sample he
took from OJ directly to the crime scene and preservative was
found in another blood sample etc.
Ross W. Maker
>
> Walt Smith <fire...@my-deja.com>, in a burst of mad inspiration,
> sat down on Mon, 05 Jun 2000 17:40:04 GMT to write:
>
> >BTW, I just love the "evil seductress" angle. Poor Bill Clinton,
> >helpless before her feminine wiles...LOL!
>
> Not helpless, but I ask what you'd do if you were in your fifties
> and a twenty-something woman made it clear that she wanted to
> have sex with you.
From personal experience, tell her "Thanks for the compliment, but no
thanks."
RWM
Walt Smith
Doug Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> no, you've been portraying the man as some sort of slavering
> monster. What he is yet another politician who can't keep his
> pants zipped. Ask Henry Hyde about that.
I think that's a much more extreme view than what I've presented.
> >BTW, I just love the "evil seductress" angle. Poor Bill Clinton,
> >helpless before her feminine wiles...LOL!
>
> Not helpless, but I ask what you'd do if you were in your fifties
> and a twenty-something woman made it clear that she wanted to
> have sex with you.
Ask me again in 16 years? Assuming that I'm still married, that
my wife and I have (or at least want people to think that we have)
traditional views at that point on extra-marital sex, and that
the younger woman's attentions are hazardous to my professional
reputation, and we may be able to give you a better answer to that
question.
I still think Bill Clinton and America would have been better off
in the Lewinski case if he'd bragged instead of lied.
Terry Austin
>Walt Smith wrote:
>>
>> In article <20000601141109...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
>> bokma...@aol.com (Bokman7757) wrote:
>> > How'd you like it if you were put on trial for a crime you didn't
>> >commit and found not guilty, but everyone in your community assumed
>> >you were guilty anyway?
>> >
>>
>> Granted.
>>
>> You would want your young adult daughter to work for Bill Clinton,
>> right? In a private secretary position?
>
>If I had a young adult daughter whom I expected to flash her panties at
>her boss in the hall and then make a very strong come-on I wouldn't want
>her working as a private secretary to anybody. I would find it
>embarrassing to be known as the father of such a tramp. And If she were
>to keep semen-stained souvenirs of her sexual encounters and use the
>threat they represented as leverage to get an undeserved recommendation
>from her boss I would expect to see her in gaol for blackmail.
>
You don't know much about American politics, do you?
--
Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> http://www.hyperbooks.com
Sluggy Freelance watches - now available!
"Terry's an artist and a master chemist; he can set fire to water."
--Sea Wasp, rec.arts.sf.written
Terry Austin
>bokma...@aol.com (Bokman7757) writes:
>
>> << On the flip side, however, one cannot reasonably believe that
>> Clinton is not guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice,
>> or sexual assault. >>
>
>> When was he proven guilty of sexual assault?
>
>When was OJ Simpson proven guilty of murder? Answer: he was never
>proven guilty of murder. But what reasonable person could
>honestly think he's not guilty?
Quite a few, actually. What evidence did you _personally_ see? What evidence
have you seen that has not come through the news media? Do you _trust_ the
news media? Do you actually think they _always_ tell the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth?
Yeah, you probably do.
But we're talking about _reasonable_ people, not morons.
>
>> None of those cases ever went to trial, no physical evidence
>> was ever produced.
>
>Yes, yes. Now comes the part where you explain why a person
>has to actually be brought up on trial in order to be guilty
>of a crime.
>
Because guilty is a specific legal term with a very specific legal
definition. And Clinton isn't.
Moron.
Terry Austin
>Example: If you kill someone in plain view of fifty witnesses but the
>jury
>will not convivt due to social or political consideration, do you really
>expect to walk back into society as though noting happened? Do you
>think
>everyone should accord you the same treatment as anyone else even though
>they KNOW you committed murder?
Having lived in places where that sort of thing _does_ happen, yes, that's
exactly what I'd expect. And exactly what happens.
You might try an example that actually has some bearing on reality.
Terry Austin
>Walt Smith wrote:
>> A sufficient quantity of accusations indicates poor judgement on
>> Bill Clinton's part, if nothing else. He has a habit of getting
>> himself into suspicious situations, just barely matched by his
>> ability to get out of such situations. It should be noted that
>> he tends to leave disenchanted people behind him wherever he
>> goes... and much of his escaping from scrapes seems to involve
>> getting elected to a position that oversees the departments that
>> have him
>
> I'm reminded of the number of charges laid against Ray Buckey,
>of the McMartin Pre-school. The secret doors that were proven not
>to exist when it torn down, the visibility of the classes from the
>outside...
>
One of the guys in the Little Rascals case was given 269 years for firing
babies into space. Really. It's in the transcript.
Terry Austin
>Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com> writes:
>
>>Dan Bongard wrote:
>
>>> bokma...@aol.com (Bokman7757) writes:
>>>
>>> > << On the flip side, however, one cannot reasonably believe that
>>> > Clinton is not guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice,
>>> > or sexual assault. >>
>>>
>>> > When was he proven guilty of sexual assault?
>>>
>>> When was OJ Simpson proven guilty of murder? Answer: he was never
>>> proven guilty of murder. But what reasonable person could
>>> honestly think he's not guilty?
>
>>You're white, aren't you? I'm guessing, of course -- I do know some
>>blacks who would agree with you, but the majority of those I've
>>encountered who would say that are white.
>
>Skin color has nothing to do with it; only ability to appraise
>the available evidence impartially.
What evidence would that be? Be specific.
> It is an unfortunate fact
>that bad experiences with racism prevent many black people from
>making that kind of objective appraisal.
It is also an unfortunate fact that racism prevents many white people from
doing the same. You, for instance, come to mind.
>
>> More than a few of my reasonable friends honestly believe he was
>> railroaded into that court room
>
>Your friends are ignorant morons.
You'd know, being one yourself.
>That's really all that can be
>said of them.
And you. Ever fix that fucked up dye sublimation printer?
>They rank up there with "reasonable" people who
>believe the world is flat, or "reasonable" people who believe
>the earth is only 6000 years old.
Or people who have actually seen the evidence themselves.
But then, reasonable people don't believe everything they're spoon fed by
the news media, like you do.
Terry Austin
>Richard Pace wrote:
>>
>> Dan Bongard wrote:
>> > When was OJ Simpson proven guilty of murder? Answer: he was never
>> > proven guilty of murder. But what reasonable person could
>> > honestly think he's not guilty?
>
>> More than a few of my reasonable friends honestly believe he was
>> railroaded into that court room and can argue the case far better than I
>> as they followed with great concern the details of that case. They
>> can't convince me he's truly innocent no more than I can convince them
>> he's guilty. They're not being unreasonable, they're just used to a
>> different standard of treatment for being black
>
>One of the major elements for skepticism about OJ's innocence would
>be that his innocence would have had to involve a conspiracy of
>perjury and falsification of evidence on the part of the police.
A conspiracy of exactly two. Furhman and Van Atter tainted every single
piece of evidence used during the trial. The DA had other evidence, mind
you, but didn't present it.
Oddly enough, both those cops did actually plead guilty to perjury.
Funny how some people think OJ's guilt is not all that proven.
>Of
>course relatively few people would believe that police officers would
>stoop so low as to falsify evidence to convict an innocent man.
>
>Things change of course. Looked in light of the Rampart scandal,
>one can't help but wonder if everything OJ said was true. Of course
>to the minority Los Angelinos I know, none of this is exactly news.
Indeed. The only surprise about Rampart is that they're actually doing
something about it. They've nearly topped a hundred overturned convictions
already, and it's still going strong.
Terry Austin
>Probably. It seems to work for the French. But what sort of man brags
>about having sex with a woman after she has denied they did it?
A typical one. Didn't you go to high school?
Terry Austin
>Dan Bongard wrote:
>>
>> Skin color has nothing to do with it; only ability to appraise
>> the available evidence impartially. It is an unfortunate fact
>> that bad experiences with racism prevent many black people from
>> making that kind of objective appraisal.
>>
>> > More than a few of my reasonable friends honestly believe he was
>> > railroaded into that court room
>>
>> Your friends are ignorant morons. That's really all that can be
>> said of them. They rank up there with "reasonable" people who
>> believe the world is flat, or "reasonable" people who believe
>> the earth is only 6000 years old.
>>
>> -- Dan
>
>
> I dunno- Didn't that trial have several cops doing the "Um... you're
>asking me if I knew that any of the evidence was being faked? Uh... I
>refuse to answer on the grounds that I might incriminate myself." bit?
> My personal perspective is that OJ probably was guilty... but since
>there was definitely _some_ evidence that was faked, you have to throw
>the whole case out. As soon as a cop is caught falsifying evidence, the
>accused usually has to be set free- the whole case against them is
>tainted.
That's not true. Only the evidence that the bad cop had access to. The DA
actually had a fair amount of evidence that wasn't tainted by perjury. She
just didn't use it. Even after her star witnesses were caught red handed in
perjury, tainting every single piece of evidence she had presented. It
wasn't just the cops who fucked up.
Terry Austin
>arb...@soho.ios.com (Arbane the Terrible) writes:
>
>>On Wed, 31 May 2000 14:42:50 -0700, RJM Hughes
>><tatters9...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>True, although it is extremely likely that Clinton committed
>>>rape (of Juanita Brodderick---I may have that name incorrect)
>
>>Why, oh why oh why oh WHY did she have to wait until after his
>>RE-election to spill the beans, if this was true?
>
>Because she ran a state-licensed and state-regulated business,
>on the one hand, and on the other hand was currently cheating
>on her husband.
So naturally you lap up every word she spews like a thirsty dog. Obviously,
such a person would never tell a lie. Unless you don't like him, of course.
>
>This put Clinton in a position to crush her like a bug, if he
>had felt like it. Given the Clintons' well-documented
>willingness to slander and/or blackmail women who accuse
>Bill of wrongdoing... well, you do the math.
Well documented where? Be specific. Or not. We both know you have no
documentation.
>
>> One nasty rumor with even a shred of fact to back it up
>> back in 1992, and the DMC would have dropped him like a
>> hot rock...
>
>The rumor DID come up in 1992. Broderick (I don't recall
>the correct spelling either) refused to talk to the press
>at the time.
And you tiny little mind can only think of one reason why, and that because
you were spoon fed that reason by the all beneficent news media who would
never lie about a single thing ever.
Terry Austin
>Walt Smith <fire...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>>In article <8h6tnd$8hm$6...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
>> SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>>> I'm reminded of the number of charges laid against Ray Buckey,
>>> of the McMartin Pre-school. The secret doors that were proven not
>>> to exist when it torn down, the visibility of the classes from the
>>> outside...
>
>>I'm tempted to think that running a preschool, in the then-climate
>>of pedophile witch hunts, was evidence of bad judgement.
>
>There was no "then-climate of pedophile witch hunts". The McMartin
>fiasco was the _start_ of the witch hunts.
Bullshit. There's several other cases before it with over a hundred charges
(none of which got a single conviction either), and smaller cases going back
decades.
But then, I'm use to you being utterly clueless.
>
>> The therapists who taught those interrogation techniques should
>> be used for medical experiments, right next to the recovered
>> memory frauds.
>
>You obviously haven't heard the punchline; social workers are
>immune to lawsuits stemming from malpractice.
>
Until someone challenges the constitutionality of the immunity. Which is
happening. Take a look at www.cpswatch.com sometime.
Brett Evill
>
> In article <mf2ojsk1u95euohje...@4ax.com>,
>
> > Not helpless, but I ask what you'd do if you were in your fifties
> > and a twenty-something woman made it clear that she wanted to
> > have sex with you.
He ought to have had security (White House Police? SS Uniformed Branch?)
escort her out of the building, and given her a month's pay (she was
unpaid, right?) in lieu of notice. The thing is that that must have
seemed harsh at the time, and it is only in retrospect that we see how
dangerous it was to let her act like that. The knickers were (as all too
often) the thin end of the wedge.
> I still think Bill Clinton and America would have been better off
> in the Lewinski case if he'd bragged instead of lied.
Probably. It seems to work for the French. But what sort of man brags
about having sex with a woman after she has denied they did it? She
really put him is an invidious position. Was she a Republican _agent
provocateur_?
Regards,
Brett Evill
Brett Evill
>
>Brett Evill <b.e...@nospam.tyndale.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>>If I had a young adult daughter whom I expected to flash her panties at
>>her boss in the hall and then make a very strong come-on I wouldn't want
>>her working as a private secretary to anybody. I would find it
>>embarrassing to be known as the father of such a tramp. And If she were
>>to keep semen-stained souvenirs of her sexual encounters and use the
>>threat they represented as leverage to get an undeserved recommendation
>>from her boss I would expect to see her in gaol for blackmail.
>>
>You don't know much about American politics, do you?
Nope. I don't have a young adult daughter, either.
But I think that *if* I had a young adult daughter, and if she had been offered
an internship in the White House, I wouldn't have had any qualms about her
accepting it. Monica Lewinski wasn't raped or even seduced. She started what
happened, did only what she wanted to do, and got into only trouble of her own
making.
Clinton's errors, as far as I can make out from the other side of the world,
lie in accepting a blowjob from a groupie, and in supporting a woman in her
attempts to protect her reputation. Unwise, no doubt. But not 'high crimes and
misdemeanours'.
Regards,
--
Brett Evill
(The opinions expressed above are not those of the Bureau of Transport
Economics, the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services, or the
Australian Commonwealth Government.)
Brett Evill
>
>Brett Evill <b.e...@nospam.tyndale.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>>Probably. It seems to work for the French. But what sort of man brags
>>about having sex with a woman after she has denied they did it?
>
An unusual one, perhaps. We were expected to behave as becomes gentlemen. And
most of the time we did. The notable exception was that the prefects of the
year before mine got into a food-fight at an afternoon tea withthe prefects of
a comparable girls' school. Those prefects were expelled from the school.
A.F. Simpson
> An unusual one, perhaps. We were expected to behave as becomes gentlemen. And
> most of the time we did. The notable exception was that the prefects of the
> year before mine got into a food-fight at an afternoon tea withthe prefects of
> a comparable girls' school. Those prefects were expelled from the school.
Wheras at our school they cut lunchtime down to 30 minutes so there
wouldn't be time for the pupils to get into massed punchups with the
neighbouring school.
> Brett Evill
love
Anna
Michael T. Richter
news:8hkp96$9bs...@cook.dotrs.gov.au...
> Clinton's errors, as far as I can make out from the other side of the
> world, lie in accepting a blowjob from a groupie, and in supporting a
> woman in her attempts to protect her reputation. Unwise, no doubt. But
> not 'high crimes and misdemeanours'.
First, last I heard perjury was considered a pretty high crime.
Second, Bill Clinton demonstrated to all that his own family cannot trust
him. Why should his electorate?
A.F. Simpson
> Second, Bill Clinton demonstrated to all that his own family cannot trust
> him. Why should his electorate?
Well, politicians kiss babies to make themselves look caring, they
ostentatiously use national products to appeal to manufacturing
employees and they hang out with films stars to try and impress movie
fans.
Maybe there are enough adulterers out there to constitute an important
segment of the electorate? (After all, I'll bet more people commit
adultery than grow broccoli.)
love
Anna
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> "Richard D. Bergstresser Jr." <rich...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >Example: If you kill someone in plain view of fifty witnesses but the
> >jury
> >will not convivt due to social or political consideration, do you really
> >expect to walk back into society as though noting happened? Do you
> >think
> >everyone should accord you the same treatment as anyone else even though
> >they KNOW you committed murder?
>
> Having lived in places where that sort of thing _does_ happen, yes, that's
> exactly what I'd expect. And exactly what happens.
You lived in a place where fifty or more witnesses saw a murder, yet
the community welcomed the killer back as any other citizen?
Can I ask where in the hell people are that forgiving?
>
> You might try an example that actually has some bearing on reality.
A) I did.
B) Using a real example would be mind-numbingly stupid, as you could
easily
argue nit-picky extenuations.
RE: The OJ spawn thread.
Bryan J. Maloney
BEv...@nospicedham.email.dot.gov.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
> In article <0nhrjs0itj8q3e9n8...@4ax.com>, Terry Austin wrote...
> >
> >Brett Evill <b.e...@nospam.tyndale.apana.org.au> wrote:
> >
> >>Probably. It seems to work for the French. But what sort of man brags
> >>about having sex with a woman after she has denied they did it?
> >
> >A typical one. Didn't you go to high school?
>
> An unusual one, perhaps. We were expected to behave as becomes gentlemen. And
> most of the time we did. The notable exception was that the prefects of the
> year before mine got into a food-fight at an afternoon tea withthe
prefects of
> a comparable girls' school. Those prefects were expelled from the school.
Prefects?
Girl's school?
You did go to a very unusual school. So is it pinky up when typing?
--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."
Bryan J. Maloney
BEv...@nospicedham.email.dot.gov.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
> Clinton's errors, as far as I can make out from the other side of the world,
> lie in accepting a blowjob from a groupie, and in supporting a woman in her
> attempts to protect her reputation. Unwise, no doubt. But not 'high
crimes and
> misdemeanours'.
Actually, perjery is a "high crime" in the USA, regardless of the subject
matter.
Frank T. Sronce
> > I dunno- Didn't that trial have several cops doing the "Um... you're
> >asking me if I knew that any of the evidence was being faked? Uh... I
> >refuse to answer on the grounds that I might incriminate myself." bit?
> > My personal perspective is that OJ probably was guilty... but since
> >there was definitely _some_ evidence that was faked, you have to throw
> >the whole case out. As soon as a cop is caught falsifying evidence, the
> >accused usually has to be set free- the whole case against them is
> >tainted.
>
> That's not true. Only the evidence that the bad cop had access to. The DA
> actually had a fair amount of evidence that wasn't tainted by perjury. She
> just didn't use it. Even after her star witnesses were caught red handed in
> perjury, tainting every single piece of evidence she had presented. It
> wasn't just the cops who fucked up.
>
> --
> Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> http://www.hyperbooks.com
Well, I'd still have to go with 'He should be found innocent,' then, at
least as far as the jury goes. The jury is not responsible for evidence
that they never saw. Of course, that makes the DA look worse, which I
think was your point. :-)
Kiz
Frank T. Sronce
>
> "Brett Evill" <BEv...@nospicedham.email.dot.gov.au> wrote in message
> news:8hkp96$9bs...@cook.dotrs.gov.au...
> > world, lie in accepting a blowjob from a groupie, and in supporting a
> > woman in her attempts to protect her reputation. Unwise, no doubt. But
> > not 'high crimes and misdemeanours'.
>
>
True, and if it hadn't been a civil case (where lying to the judge may
technically be perjury, but it's never prosecuted) they probably
could've nailed him for it. Unfortunately, he's very aware of what he
can get away with and sticks to it religously. I suspect it also helped
that it was a sex-case. A decent portion of the general public thinks
that someone's sex life is their own business, and that he was within
his rights to lie if he wanted to... especially when Monica was denying
it, too. So his popularity didn't suffer as much as his accusers had
hoped.
Personally, I wouldn't object to modifying the law so that the
President (AND the members of Congress, let's be fair now) is held to a
higher standard for perjury... but you ain't gonna see THAT law passed
anytime soon.
> Second, Bill Clinton demonstrated to all that his own family cannot trust
> him. Why should his electorate?
TRUST him? Who TRUSTS him? I wouldn't TRUST him as far as I could fling
'im. It's just that, sad to say, his unethical behavior was actually
LESS unethical than that of some of his accusers. And it wasn't enough
to merit a jail term (at least not the parts they could prove) or get
him kicked out of office. I consider the whole thing a sideshow of how
corrupt and messed up the government has gotten.
Kiz