Should Clinton Resign?
Frank Swilling
step down so that Al Gore can step up to the plate, try to rebuild the
credibility of the concept of a Democrat in the office, and have a
stab at keeping the office in 2000.
obmotss: The way things are, with the Republicans screaming their
little blue noses off about morality all over every available airwave,
you know there's going to be a backlash against us. James Hormel can
pack his bags and come back home. No way is he ever going to get to
be an ambassador in this political climate. President Gore might be
able to get things back on track and re-establish a political climate
where GLBO issues have some chance of being advanced, but, barring a
miracle, things aren't looking good for us in the next two years if
Clinton stays in the White House.
obmotss2: Why is everyone suddenly shocked and outraged to discover
that our man Bill is *really*, *truly* a lying weasel? Every GLBO
person in the country knew it the day he took office and reneged on
his faithful promise to end discrimination against gays and lesbians
in the military.
Frank, not liking the view in his crystal ball
Robert S. Coren
Frank Swilling <fswi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I'm thinking that the President should hold on until January, then
>step down so that Al Gore can step up to the plate, try to rebuild the
>credibility of the concept of a Democrat in the office, and have a
>stab at keeping the office in 2000.
I don't like this scenario, although I don't like the most obvious
alternative either: that the lingering effects of the scandal render
him completely ineffective for the rest of his term.
I'm no great fan of Bill Clinton's, and I was not a happy camper when
it became obvious that he was going to win the nomination in '92, but
what I hate most about this whole business (and there are a lot of
things to hate about it) is that it looks like the tactics of Starr
and his cheering section are going to "work". If Clinton resigns, or
is impeached, or serves out his term irrelevant and powerless, it
means that any duly elected President can be removed or neutralized if
the opposition is sufficiently dedicated to the task. The materials
for "scandal" can be found on just about any public figure if you work
at it (especially if you have essentially infinite resources at your
disposal).
Also remember that there are fund-raising "scandals" waiting in the
wings for Gore.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"I once had a very surreal Marengo with Derik."
--Jeffrey William Sandris
Christopher B. Webster
party system. The only difference between the Dems and the GOP is the
Religious Right (the most evil political force in American history) agenda
is saddled in the GOP camp. Should Clinton resign? I do not think so. I
think that if he started to act like a leader, rather than a follower of the
polls, he might be able to fight the black cloud cast over the entire party,
Gore included.
The President is not yet gelded. He still has some very powerful tools. With
as much negative energy as is in the White House now, there is nothing he
can do to please the GOP and the Colorado Springs folks. He should not even
try. Clinton should recover the progressive voters and make some powerful
and needed, but unpopular, actions.
For example: Issue and executive order as Commander in Chief of all branches
of the military that discrimination based on sexual orientation, actual or
perceived, is no longer tolerated in any way, shape, or form. He should
evoke the second amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed."), stating that the same constitution that allows
M-16 hunting rifles also prohibits citizens from joining the militia (i.e.,
the armed forces).
Now is a huge opportunity for the Democratic party to get off their
compromising asses and start leading the fight for social justice.
I have more, but I think that I have communicated the direction I am
heading.
Regards and Take Care
Christopher Webster
Frank Swilling wrote in message <35ffda01...@news.mindspring.com>...
>I'm thinking that the President should hold on until January, then
>step down so that Al Gore can step up to the plate, try to rebuild the
>credibility of the concept of a Democrat in the office, and have a
>stab at keeping the office in 2000.
>
Tom Desmond
> On 16 Sep 1998 16:48:57 GMT, co...@ursolaris.spdcc.com (Robert S.
> Coren) wrote:
> >Also remember that there are fund-raising "scandals" waiting in the
> >wings for Gore.
> So far, those charges look ridiculously flimsy, but with just the
> right spin, who knows?
With a $40 million investigative budget, I'm sure the Republicans can
make it look like Al Gore accepted campaign funds from Satan and the
Ayatollah both.
I'm inclined to think that President Clinton should hang in and refuse
to resign. I think that if the Republicans try to impeach him, it could
back fire on them; otoh, if Clinton resigns, it sends the message to the
Republicans that the sleazy, trashy tactics that they've pulled on
Clinton can succeed. If that happens, they'll begin work immediately on
shreading and tarnishing Al Gore's reputation.
What's interesting is how the sex scandals involving Republicans do not
seem to be getting anywhere near the same attention and concern. I
guess we'll see what happens to Dan Burton and Helen Chenowith (sp?),
but let's face it--Newt Gingrich has obvious skeletons that have never
really even been questioned by the so-called mainstream media.
Tom Desmond, whose sister lives in Helen Chenowith's congressional
district
Frank Swilling
wrote:
>Frank Swilling (fswi...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
>> obmotss2: Why is everyone suddenly shocked and outraged to discover
>> that our man Bill is *really*, *truly* a lying weasel? Every GLBO
>> person in the country knew it the day he took office
>
>Every GLBO person in the country knows about "wiggle room"
>wrt questions about supposedly private and consensual sexual
>activity.
Wiggle room? Bill Clinton has gone way past wiggle and is deep into
something somewhere between Limbo and the Twist.
>
>> and reneged on
>> his faithful promise to end discrimination against gays and lesbians
>> in the military.
>
>He's not the king. Better to ask yourself about the significance
>of a professional military that sees no need to pay attention
>to the commander-in-chief when they don't feel like it.
He's the President of the United States. Do you recall that the
military was fully expecting to put into effect an Executive Order
ending harassment of gays and lesbians, and when that order never
came, when they got that ridiculous "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy
instead, they realized it was business as usual? You can't expect
them to pay a lot of attention to the words when the message is,
"Ya'll go ahead and do what ya'll have to do. Ya'll just remember
that ol' Bill Clinton wouldn't really do anything to upset the
military."
Sure, maybe Congress might have tried to overturn the EO with a law,
but Clinton never even tried to put it in effect. Six years later,
and my face is still stinging from that slap. I lost all faith in his
promises then, and even though I voted for him twice (the Republicans
are an option?), I have never gotten over that lie.
So it came as no surprise to me that he could wag his finger at the
camera and lie with all the sincerity of a wronged saint. My question
was, and is -- how could it come as a surprise to anyone?
Frank
Frank Swilling
Coren) wrote:
>In article <35ffda01...@news.mindspring.com>,
>Frank Swilling <fswi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>I'm thinking that the President should hold on until January, then
>>step down so that Al Gore can step up to the plate, try to rebuild the
>>credibility of the concept of a Democrat in the office, and have a
>>stab at keeping the office in 2000.
>
>I don't like this scenario, although I don't like the most obvious
>alternative either: that the lingering effects of the scandal render
>him completely ineffective for the rest of his term.
Well, they don't call him "The Comeback Kid" for nothing. A more
charming sociopath never walked the halls of the White House. If our
economy holds (while it continues to fail elsewhere), there's a good
chance that this mess is just going to stagnate without any real
resolution. Maybe not even a censure. But certainly the Republicans
will use every opportunity to stall and subvert and make him look
ineffectual, until in 2000, Gore might not even be the Demo
presidential nominee.
>I'm no great fan of Bill Clinton's, and I was not a happy camper when
>it became obvious that he was going to win the nomination in '92, but
>what I hate most about this whole business (and there are a lot of
>things to hate about it) is that it looks like the tactics of Starr
>and his cheering section are going to "work". If Clinton resigns, or
>is impeached, or serves out his term irrelevant and powerless, it
>means that any duly elected President can be removed or neutralized if
>the opposition is sufficiently dedicated to the task. The materials
>for "scandal" can be found on just about any public figure if you work
>at it (especially if you have essentially infinite resources at your
>disposal).
I agree with you completely; not to mention keeping the investigation
open if you don't find anything until your quarry does do something
you can nail him on. Yesterday, the Senator (I think it was) from
Alaska was on TV saying that Clinton should be presented with a bill
for the last seven months of the Starr investigation. Fine. But
first, let's present the Republican Party with a bill for the cost of
the rest of it from Day One, since it was a political witch-hunt from
the get-go.
>Also remember that there are fund-raising "scandals" waiting in the
>wings for Gore.
So far, those charges look ridiculously flimsy, but with just the
right spin, who knows?
Frank
Frank Swilling
<Prou...@usa.net> wrote:
>The last several years have convinced me that America no longer has a two
>party system. The only difference between the Dems and the GOP is the
>Religious Right (the most evil political force in American history) agenda
>is saddled in the GOP camp. Should Clinton resign? I do not think so. I
>think that if he started to act like a leader, rather than a follower of the
>polls, he might be able to fight the black cloud cast over the entire party,
>Gore included.
Not being saddled with the Religious Right makes a big difference, in
my book. And yes, it would be a fine thing if Clinton woke up
tomorrow and said, "If I'm going out, I'm going to make sure they
remember me for the right reasons," and started doing some of the
things you suggest below. But will he? I don't think so. He needs
to be liked too much. It's both the secret to his success and his
Achilles' heel. If he's suffering right now, I'd bet it is as much
because he can't stand the thought of so many people mad at him as it
is because he feels he's really done anything wrong.
>The President is not yet gelded. He still has some very powerful tools. With
>as much negative energy as is in the White House now, there is nothing he
>can do to please the GOP and the Colorado Springs folks. He should not even
>try. Clinton should recover the progressive voters and make some powerful
>and needed, but unpopular, actions.
>For example: Issue and executive order as Commander in Chief of all branches
>of the military that discrimination based on sexual orientation, actual or
>perceived, is no longer tolerated in any way, shape, or form. He should
>evoke the second amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
>the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
>shall not be infringed."), stating that the same constitution that allows
>M-16 hunting rifles also prohibits citizens from joining the militia (i.e.,
>the armed forces).
>
>Now is a huge opportunity for the Democratic party to get off their
>compromising asses and start leading the fight for social justice.
>
>I have more, but I think that I have communicated the direction I am
>heading.
>
>Regards and Take Care
> Christopher Webster
I agree that those would be wonderful things to have happen, and I
applaud your idealism for even imagining that they might. It would be
nice to believe that even now, in this bleak hour, our President might
be girding his loins to do battle against the forces of darkness and
bring justice, equality, and affordable health care to all Americans.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Frank
Gene Ward Smith
fswi...@mindspring.com (Frank Swilling) wrote:
>So it came as no surprise to me that he could wag his finger at the
>camera and lie with all the sincerity of a wronged saint. My question
>was, and is -- how could it come as a surprise to anyone?
More to the point than his political betrayals were his lies concerning
Jennifer Flowers. I don't actually think people are surprised, in any
case. It's just that they had hoped he had gotten over it, more or less.
Hard as it is to imagine, we are told that Hillary was of this school
of thought, and really believed that Mr. Bill would not, at least, lie
to *her*.
--
Gene Ward Smith
gsm...@blazenetme.net
sh...@glib.org
fswi...@mindspring.com (Frank Swilling) on Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:27:54 GMT,
in Message-ID: <36006f31...@news.mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 16 Sep 1998 16:12:10 GMT, rzep...@netaxs.com (Anthony J.
> Rzepela) wrote:
>
> >Frank Swilling (fswi...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> >
> > obmotss2: Why is everyone suddenly shocked and outraged to
> > discover that our man Bill is *really*, *truly* a lying weasel?
> > Every GLBO person in the country knew it the day he took office
> >
While not specifically about Bill, this brought to mind a bumper sticker I saw
yesterday:
"You can trust the government. Just ask any Indian"
sh...@glib.org (Edward K Ricketts)
born with the gift of laughter, and a sense that the world is mad
- Rafael Sabatini -
Frank Swilling
wrote:
>Frank Swilling (fswi...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
>> >He's not the king. Better to ask yourself about the significance
>> >of a professional military that sees no need to pay attention
>> >to the commander-in-chief when they don't feel like it.
>>
>> He's the President of the United States.
>
>Whoop-de-doo. And we've got a military staffed by lifetimers
>and professionals with their own interests. Welcome to the
>Third World, baby.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. The military is
in control? The President is serves only as a puppet to a hidden
military regime in America?
>> Do you recall that the
>> military was fully expecting to put into effect an Executive Order
>> ending harassment of gays and lesbians, and when that order never
>> came, when they got that ridiculous "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy
>
>That's your recollection of the events? "The order never came"?
Yes.
>You seem to have forgotten a sickening and blatant display of
>homophobia, lots of grandstanding, and those festive committee
>hearings.
No, I think remember it fairly well. The Republicans said that if
Clinton dared give such an order that they'd fight it with every ounce
of their power. And so he never gave the order. Instead, he created
that horrible "compromise" and turned away while the military ran
amuck tossing gays and lesbians out.
>> instead, they realized it was business as usual? You can't expect
>> them to pay a lot of attention to the words when the message is,
>> "Ya'll go ahead and do what ya'll have to do. Ya'll just remember
>> that ol' Bill Clinton wouldn't really do anything to upset the
>> military."
>
>Why the "Y'all"?
That's just Bill being a Good Ol' Boy.
>> Sure, maybe Congress might have tried to overturn the EO with a law,
>> but Clinton never even tried to put it in effect. Six years later,
>> and my face is still stinging from that slap.
>
>Oh, please. The entire country is in a far-right frenzy,
>faggots have been persecuted for the lifetime of the Republic,
>and it's Clinton's fault you can't be Out in the Army. Get real.
All I fault Clinton for is making a promise which held such hope for
so many and then dropping it like a hot potato the second it became
inconvenient.
>Never all that interested in the military life, I had no
>idea it was so nutty. The message I walked away with after
>that mess in '93 was Back Away Slowly, as this is Not the
>Time. I don't know about you, but I always appreciate good
>advice.
I spent three years in the Army, '68 to '71; Vietnam-era vet, though
thank god I never got shipped off to Nam. When the country needed
young male bodies for cannon-fodder, nobody wanted to know that you
were gay or lesbian. You had to practically suck dick in your CO's
office to get out for being queer. Now they don't need bodies, so it
matters who you're sleeping with? Feh. The military is peopled by
folk who tend to be extremely conservative, yes. People who resist
change in the social order, yes. But people who are also very loyal
to their country and the principles it represents. Had the President
taken an unwavering position on ending discrimination based on sexual
orientation and stood firm to it, I believe that would have ended the
matter.
Bill Clinton is who he is. I do not want him run out of office,
because I really loathe what the Republican party has become, and I
don't want to see them gloating over the destruction of the man. But
I really do wish Clinton had had a stronger will to enforce his
promises. Imagine the force of all that charm coupled with a clear
vision of a better America and the will to bring that vision to
reality.
"All Clinton's fault"? No. But he is responsible for giving his
enemies the ammunition to destroy him with. Worse, he has given the
far-right religious zealots the opening they need to decry that not
only is "he* immoral, but that every social cause he has embraced,
including the end of discrimination against homosexuals, is immoral.
Even people who know better are likely to either get caught up in the
fervor, or, since it doesn't affect them personally, stand back and
avoid the flames while we burn.
Frank, happier now that it's out of his system
FJ!!
Frank Swilling <fswi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I spent three years in the Army, '68 to '71; Vietnam-era vet, though
>thank god I never got shipped off to Nam. When the country needed
>young male bodies for cannon-fodder, nobody wanted to know that you
>were gay or lesbian. You had to practically suck dick in your CO's
>office to get out for being queer. Now they don't need bodies, so it
>matters who you're sleeping with? Feh.
A more recent example of this is how under orders of Powell, people would
not be investigated end expelled for having same-sex attractions during
Desert Storm. He's supposed to be on record somewhere saying in essence
that during wartime the military doesn't care because they need you.
FJ!!
"I was bummed all day. That was before I heard about the million." - Bob Donahue
Exile on Market Street
(Frank Swilling) wrote:
> I spent three years in the Army, '68 to '71; Vietnam-era vet, though
> thank god I never got shipped off to Nam. When the country needed
> young male bodies for cannon-fodder, nobody wanted to know that you
> were gay or lesbian. You had to practically suck dick in your CO's
> office to get out for being queer. Now they don't need bodies, so it
> matters who you're sleeping with? Feh.
I've never served -- too young for the Vietnam draft, just old enough to
miss Carter's draft registration -- but based on the historical stuff I've
read about gays in the military, it seems that this is the way things have
gone since Americans discovered what homosexuality was. This certainly
echoes the situation described in _Coming Out Under Fire_, which describes
the world of WW2-era gay soldiers and sailors.
> The military is peopled by
> folk who tend to be extremely conservative, yes. People who resist
> change in the social order, yes. But people who are also very loyal
> to their country and the principles it represents. Had the President
> taken an unwavering position on ending discrimination based on sexual
> orientation and stood firm to it, I believe that would have ended the
> matter.
"America needs you, Harry Truman / Harry, you'd know what to do..."
Fifty years out, academics, reporters and pundits have come out with a
flood of stories, books and whatnot praising the military, and the Army in
particular, for being the most thoroughly integrated institution in
American society and for handling the challenge of incorporating blacks
into all levels of the organization in a fair and ultimately successful
manner. (Of course, we will for the moment ignore the fact that one reason
why the military was able to do this is because its central values are
obedience and respect for the hierarchy, something most civilian Americans
of whatever political coloration do not share.)
And it all began with a stroke of Truman's pen, over fierce Congressional
objection.
You are absolutely right about this much: had Clinton not waffled, the top
brass would have Gotten Used To It in a hurry, and the enlisted men and
women would have followed or else. Of course, there would probably have
been a Tailhook analogue or two on the way, but no doubt fifty years hence
we'd be reading similar enconiums about how well the military handled
sexual orientation.
--
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Associate Editor, _Pennsylvania Current_ 215.898.1423/fax 215.898.1203
I speak for myself here, not for Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
"In an effort to avoid the actual writing, one can accomplish almost
anything."
--Author, Penn English professor emeritus and Chuck's uncle Jerre Mangione
-------------------------------------------------------------(1909-1998)--
PETER C HARTIKKA
<35ffda01...@news.mindspring.com>...
> I'm thinking that the President should hold on until January, then
> step down so that Al Gore can step up to the plate, try to rebuild the
> credibility of the concept of a Democrat in the office, and have a
> stab at keeping the office in 2000.
Well, Clinton could resign today and Gore would still be able to run in
2000. However, he wouldn't be able to run for re-election in *2004*. If
Clinton were to resign after January, then Gore could potentially be
President for almost ten years. Or until the Family Values stormtroopers
unearth enough dirt on him to justify yet another Starr-fucking.
-Peter, who went to Al's high school (and hopes his cousin Gore Vidal has
the decency to keep his mouth shut about Al's various shortcomings)
mel...@yahoo.com
> I spent three years in the Army, '68 to '71; Vietnam-era vet, though
> thank god I never got shipped off to Nam. When the country needed
> young male bodies for cannon-fodder, nobody wanted to know that you
> were gay or lesbian. You had to practically suck dick in your CO's
> office to get out for being queer. Now they don't need bodies, so it
> matters who you're sleeping with? Feh.
I don't think you have to go that far back. As I recall, during
the Gulf brouhaha, the military suspended its Out With the Poofs
policy because it would undermine the efficiency of military
operations.
*X*
(Tangent: Those agencies which certify law schools adopted
a measure requiring the schools not to discriminate on the
grounds of, _inter alia_ (I love saying that), sexual orientation.
This extended to *employers* who wished to recruit on law
campuses. Schools which allowed discriminators to interview would
be *denied* *certification* (that's bad). Many schools, if not
all of the "illustrious" ones, kept the military out. As a
result, Congress flexed its spending power, and threatened that
it would deny Federal funding to educational institutions which
did not allow the military to recruit on campus (the Solomon
Amendment). As I understand it, most schools have caved in,
with the notable exception of Harvard. I should note that
poofery appears to be quite prevelant within the legal profession.)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Frank Swilling
wrote:
(Talking about the military being "in charge".
>I don't see how Clinton had any choice up against those
>assholes. He couldn't have the military out-and-out defying
>him (talk about a *weakened* *leadership*), which he would
>have had, had he pursued that.
Nothing like that has ever happened in the history of the United
States that I am aware of. Do you have different information? If
not, I think you are being just a tad paranoid.
>The idea that he could have set this injustice right with
>an EO that in reality would have been fought, ignored, overridden,
>etc. is delusional. It's pretty clear that what the generals want,
>the generals get. The longer that fight went on, the more
>jeopardy glob servicepeople would have been in, and the less able
>they would have been to perform.
I don't believe this for a second. There *might* have been a battle
in Congress, but there would never have been a battle in the military.
<SNIP>
>> Had the President
>> taken an unwavering position on ending discrimination based on sexual
>> orientation and stood firm to it, I believe that would have ended the
>> matter.
>
>You believe wrong.
We'll never know.
>> "All Clinton's fault"? No. But he is responsible for giving his
>> enemies the ammunition to destroy him with. Worse, he has given the
>> far-right religious zealots the opening they need to decry that not
>> only is "he* immoral, but that every social cause he has embraced,
>> including the end of discrimination against homosexuals, is immoral.
>This is beginning to sound like "Don't wear Totally
>Revealing Lethaer at Pride parades. It just gives them
>ammunition."
What it *should* sound like is, "Don't be waving your weenie at one
woman while testifying that you never waved your weenie at another."
None of this has anything to do with us directly. We're just innocent
bystanders likely to be fried in the fallout.
>> Even people who know better are likely to either get caught up in the
>> fervor, or, since it doesn't affect them personally, stand back and
>> avoid the flames while we burn.
>I agree. I think that any clown who can't put the business of
>running the country first should get the hell out. But that's
>probably just my naïvete coming through: just part of the thinking
>behind that silly little "No civil suits on sitting Presidents"
>thingy, which was so cute while it lasted.
To echo Robert Coren's sentiments: I don't want the GOP to chase
Clinton out of office because it sets a very bad precedent.
But neither do I want an ineffective Clinton hanging on for two years,
weakening Al Gore's chances (or those of any other promising potential
Demo candidate) for retaining the office come the next election.
So here we are, waiting.
My, don't we live in interesting times?
Frank
Frank Swilling
>In article <36014436...@news.mindspring.com>,
> fswi...@mindspring.com (Frank Swilling) wrote:
>
>> I spent three years in the Army, '68 to '71; Vietnam-era vet, though
>> thank god I never got shipped off to Nam. When the country needed
>> young male bodies for cannon-fodder, nobody wanted to know that you
>> were gay or lesbian. You had to practically suck dick in your CO's
>> office to get out for being queer. Now they don't need bodies, so it
>> matters who you're sleeping with? Feh.
>
>I don't think you have to go that far back. As I recall, during
>the Gulf brouhaha, the military suspended its Out With the Poofs
>policy because it would undermine the efficiency of military
>operations.
Showing, of course, that the military can be completely accepting of
homosexuality when it suits their purposes to do so.
Frank
Charlie Fulton
: (Tangent: Those agencies which certify law schools adopted
: a measure requiring the schools not to discriminate on the
: grounds of, _inter alia_ (I love saying that), sexual orientation.
: This extended to *employers* who wished to recruit on law
: campuses. Schools which allowed discriminators to interview would
: be *denied* *certification* (that's bad). Many schools, if not
: all of the "illustrious" ones, kept the military out. As a
: result, Congress flexed its spending power, and threatened that
: it would deny Federal funding to educational institutions which
: did not allow the military to recruit on campus (the Solomon
: Amendment). As I understand it, most schools have caved in,
: with the notable exception of Harvard.
<lockjaw>Of *course* Harvard isn't afraid of the Feds, dear Splat.
We feed the CIA, not the fucking military.</lockjaw>
--
Charlie Fulton---foultone@mtcc.com---http://www.mtcc.com/~foultone/
"Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun."
Montgomery Burns
Michael Thomas
> I don't see how Clinton had any choice up against those
> assholes. He couldn't have the military out-and-out defying
> him (talk about a *weakened* *leadership*), which he would
> have had, had he pursued that.
And that explains his now obviously valiant
attempt at Defending Marriage how, exactly?
Clinton is a shitbag. Just because he's a
shitbag at the business end of a witchhunt doesn't
make him stink any less.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
"I dunno, that's an awful lot of money."
Beavis
Frank Swilling
wrote:
>Now, what did the top brass say about Clinton's original plan?
I didn't get this directly from the horse's mouth, but I recall a
motsser writing at the time that while there was plenty of bitching
about it, Colin Powell and the other top brass at the Pentagon were
preparing to send out directives outlining procedure for enforcement
of the EO, and were caught by surprise when Clinton came up with DADT
instead. That seems like a likely scenario to me.
Frank
Clayton Colwell
: On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:12:46 GMT, mel...@yahoo.com wrote:
: >I don't think you have to go that far back. As I recall, during
: >the Gulf brouhaha, the military suspended its Out With the Poofs
: >policy because it would undermine the efficiency of military
: >operations.
: Showing, of course, that the military can be completely accepting of
: homosexuality when it suits their purposes to do so.
And remember the excuse given that folks who came out were only
doing it to get out of the firing line. Yep, them Joint Chiefs
have the nerve, all right.
****** Clay Colwell (aka StealthSmurf) ********** er...@bga.com ******
* "In the future, we will recognize software crashes as technologically *
* mandated ergonomic rest breaks - and we will pay extra for them." *
* -- Crazy Uncle Joe Hannibal *
Frank Swilling
>A more recent example of this is how under orders of Powell, people would
>not be investigated end expelled for having same-sex attractions during
>Desert Storm. He's supposed to be on record somewhere saying in essence
>that during wartime the military doesn't care because they need you.
Well, there you are. I suppose we Americans should be thankful for
terrorism and global political upheaval, as it presents more
opportunities for us to go to war, and thereby be discriminated
against less in the armed forces, at least for a little while.
Frank
Ellen Evans
Anthony J. Rzepela <rzep...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com) wrote:
>
>> And that explains his now obviously valiant
>> attempt at Defending Marriage how, exactly?
>
>that practically the whole country hates faggots
>(and doesn't see lesbians). He didn't create
>a world where you can fag-bash your way to success.
Yeah, but he bought into it bigtime, when it would have been perfectly
possible - in the case of DOMA - to slip his way out of it with talk of
state's rights, etc.
[]
>If you don't like him, you don't
>like him, but this ceaseless "He's an enemy of
>gays and lesbians." is utter and complete
>bullshit.
An enemy like Pat Robertson is an enemy? No. But he clearly finds us
completely expendable, and I find it hard to call him a friend.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@netcom.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Jessica
: <lockjaw>Of *course* Harvard isn't afraid of the Feds, dear Splat.
: We feed the CIA, not the fucking military.</lockjaw>
Is it possible to say "fucking" in (locust valley) lockjaw? I'm trying
but I just can't pull it off. Now, all of my models are from the
female set, but still...?
Jessica (who will trust you if you say it is.)
--
"That's not a relationship, that's a Hallmark card." -- Beth Linker
Ken Rudolph
>
> In article <6tspko$c...@netaxs.com>,
> Anthony J. Rzepela <rzep...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> >Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com) wrote:
> >
> >> And that explains his now obviously valiant
> >> attempt at Defending Marriage how, exactly?
> >
> >Again.... it's not Clinton's fault
> >that practically the whole country hates faggots
> >(and doesn't see lesbians). He didn't create
> >a world where you can fag-bash your way to success.
>
> Yeah, but he bought into it bigtime, when it would have been perfectly
> possible - in the case of DOMA - to slip his way out of it with talk of
> state's rights, etc.
It could make a great advertising campaign: A picture of Clinton
wielding a cigar like a sword with the caption: "while this man was
'defending' marriage, 40,000 loving gay couples were refused
marriage licenses and 4,000 gay teenagers committed suicide."
Clinton "defended" marriage (i.e. espoused [1] the DOMA) with all
the enthusiasm, read hypocrisy, of the religious reich.
And yet I somehow continue to rationalize being a Clinton apologist,
if not downright enthusiast.
--Ken Rudolph
[1] pun intended
Michael Thomas
>
> > And that explains his now obviously valiant
> > attempt at Defending Marriage how, exactly?
>
> Again.... it's not Clinton's fault
> that practically the whole country hates faggots
> (and doesn't see lesbians). He didn't create
> a world where you can fag-bash your way to success.
Oh, fuck you. He has the ability to veto
legislation he doesn't like. It would have been a
no-brainer: "states rights". But DOMA he signed
willingly, as if with relish, to prove that he's
no faggot lover to get reelected.
> Two severe wake-up calls, and faggots still can
> go "He didn't get us marriage!"
Pure revisionist history. He willingly signed
legislation which not only "didn't get us
marriage" but created a federal finger wagging
were any state to be so bold as to try to
legalize it. That's inexcusable.
Clinton _is_ a shitbag. Our new occupation is
sniffing the floaters in the bowl and deciding
whether we ought to fish one out before we flush.
amonra
Monica .
Kenneth Starr is guilty of political harrassment
Melinda Shore
Frank Swilling <fswi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Showing, of course, that the military can be completely accepting of
>homosexuality when it suits their purposes to do so.
"Completely accepting?" Are you out of your mind?
--
Melinda Shore - Cayuga Whine Trail - sh...@panix.com
Ken Starr is a pig.
If you send me harassing email, I'll probably post it
Melinda Shore
I-am-not-a-bigot-but-national-defense-requires-a-cohesive-
fighting-force-and-everybody-knows-that-homos-just-cause-problems.
Robert S. Coren
Ken Rudolph <ke...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>
>It could make a great advertising campaign: A picture of Clinton
>wielding a cigar like a sword with the caption: "while this man was
>'defending' marriage, 40,000 loving gay couples were refused
>marriage licenses and 4,000 gay teenagers committed suicide."
>Clinton "defended" marriage (i.e. espoused [1] the DOMA) with all
>the enthusiasm, read hypocrisy, of the religious reich.
>
>And yet I somehow continue to rationalize being a Clinton apologist,
>if not downright enthusiast.
I can deplore the tactics of his enemies, not to mention their measure
of success, without even being a Clinton apologist. He has done a
number of what I regard as unforgivable things -- signing DOMA, to be
sure, as well as signing the welfare "reform" bill -- and there's
little if any sign that he has principles he's willing to take any
risks in defense of; I just don't think screwing around with an intern
is one of those unforgivable things, and I cringe to think of his
being driven from office because of it.
--Robert, who has no particular reason to be excited at the prospect
of a Gore presidency either
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"Being eaten by a hyena is not as bad as it sounds."
George Leonard Herter, _George the Housewife_
Robert S. Coren
I think the real threat to the EO was that Congress would have passed
a law (probably veto-proof) mandating something as bad as DADT or
worse. Anyone remember Sam Nunn?
--
|-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------|
| Aw, well... I guess some of us talks too much, anyway. |
| --Rackety Coon Chile (Walt Kelly) |
|------------------Don't blame Steve for anything I post.------|
Charlie Fulton
:
: It could make a great advertising campaign: A picture of Clinton
: wielding a cigar like a sword with the caption: "while this man was
: 'defending' marriage, 40,000 loving gay couples were refused
: marriage licenses and 4,000 gay teenagers committed suicide."
I'm just happy now that I know the *real* reason Clittin has it
in for cigarettes. They're unversatile.
Todd Morman
Come on, the blackmail potential alone makes it our concern. Am I the
only one who's wondered if some of Clinton's decisions over the past few
years have been affected by someone threatening to expose one of his
little suck-and-fondle sessions?
What a shithead he is. The quote making the rounds from 1974, where Bill
called for Nixon's resignation to spare the country from a painful
impeachment process, is wonderful, doncha think?
todd waiting for the "this is the legacy of the 60's" commentaries to
start pouring in from conservatives morman
Exile on Market Street
wrote:
> <lockjaw>Of *course* Harvard isn't afraid of the Feds, dear Splat.
> We feed the CIA, not the fucking military.</lockjaw>
Thought that was *Yale.* (Skull and Bones and all that -- George Bush was
one...)
Brad Macdonald
[...]
> Clinton _is_ a shitbag. Our new occupation is
> sniffing the floaters in the bowl and deciding
> whether we ought to fish one out before we flush.
Browne's not your color?
Brad
Frank Swilling
>In article <36039f7f...@news.mindspring.com>,
>Frank Swilling <fswi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Showing, of course, that the military can be completely accepting of
>>homosexuality when it suits their purposes to do so.
>
>"Completely accepting?" Are you out of your mind?
Haven't I ever told you of my torrid affair with General W*stm*r*l*nd?
Now there's a man who knew what to do with his privates.
Frank, suggesting that the un-drama queens replace "completely
accepting" with "grudgingly tolerant"
Charlie Fulton
:
: Marriage is probably not the best issue to use as a litmus test, because for
: some reason -- and I really don't understand this -- it makes a lot of
: straight people get really weird. There are a lot of generally pro-gay
: politicians -- including Clinton -- who just freak out, personally and
: politically, over it.
Marriage is the very essence of being straight, in their eyes. Our
wanting marriage is analagous to their co-opting the rainbow flag
as a symbol of heterosexuality, given that mindset. A thousand times
over.
: I don't know why they do; I don't know why they have so much invested in
: this particular institution. Maybe it's because it brings us into a very
: personal realm, as opposed to more emotionally neutral areas like employment
: or housing.
John, you're a very strange person. You don't know why straight
people have so much invested in marriage as an institution. I just
don't know what to say to that except, "Welcome to Earth."
[]
: A hero? Nope. But hardly the scoundrel you paint him as, either.
I just wish he had more of that Nixonian Weltanschauung, rather than
just following his dick and short-term ambition.
Tim Wilson
> Well, Clinton could resign today and Gore would still be able to run in
> 2000. However, he wouldn't be able to run for re-election in *2004*. If
> Clinton were to resign after January, then Gore could potentially be
^
20
> President for almost ten years. Or until the Family Values stormtroopers
> unearth enough dirt on him to justify yet another Starr-fucking.
>
> -Peter, who went to Al's high school (and hopes his cousin Gore Vidal has
> the decency to keep his mouth shut about Al's various shortcomings)
You're from Carthage, Tennessee?! Oh right, Gore grew up in a hotel
room in the District.
--
Tim Wilson http://www.ee.memphis.edu/~tim/ mailto:tawi...@memphis.edu
Daniel Chase Edmonds
: Frank, suggesting that the un-drama queens replace "completely
: accepting" with "grudgingly tolerant"
Yes, how terribly melodramatic, to actually take something
*literally*.
Dan, who likes splitting infinitives, damn it
John Whiteside
>> The military is peopled by
>> folk who tend to be extremely conservative, yes. People who resist
>> change in the social order, yes.
>
>Gee, I wonder who advances in an organization like that.
Thanks to assorted reshuffling of people around the cubicle farm, a coworker
and I sit a few feet from a department made up almost entirely of
ex-military guys. It's really fascinating. They are nice enough, and seem to
be quite good at their jobs, but it's really amazing to me how rigid they
are. They tend to look for "the way" to do things, and when there's an
obstacle, they get really frustrated, and can't seem to every take a step
back and think creatively about how to take a different approach to a
problem and find a way to get to their goal.
Oh, yeah, and they tend to make really racist comments and then be really
surprised that anyone thinks that such comments are completely inappropriate
in the workplace. And everyone conversation winds around to "The way we did
it in the Navy was...."
Individually, nice guys, but they leave me more convinced than ever that the
military is just a really bad thing.
John Whiteside
Anthony J. Rzepela wrote in message <6tspko$c...@netaxs.com>...
>Two severe wake-up calls, and faggots still can
>go "He didn't get us marriage!" "He didn't
>get us in the army." Sickening and disholest, if
>you ask me. If you don't like him, you don't
>like him, but this ceaseless "He's an enemy of
>gays and lesbians." is utter and complete
>bullshit.
I think these kind of debacles are also pretty much inevitable as long as we
(gay and lesbian Americans) act as though big incoherent masses of rage are
the same thing as political involvement. Say what you will about the right,
they know how to organize.
I'm amazed we've managed to get as far as we have.
John Whiteside
> Pure revisionist history. He willingly signed
>legislation which not only "didn't get us
>marriage" but created a federal finger wagging
>were any state to be so bold as to try to
>legalize it. That's inexcusable.
Marriage is probably not the best issue to use as a litmus test, because for
some reason -- and I really don't understand this -- it makes a lot of
straight people get really weird. There are a lot of generally pro-gay
politicians -- including Clinton -- who just freak out, personally and
politically, over it.
I don't know why they do; I don't know why they have so much invested in
this particular institution. Maybe it's because it brings us into a very
personal realm, as opposed to more emotionally neutral areas like employment
or housing.
But there are so many pro-gay politicians who have problems with gay
marriage that if you use it as the issue to determine someone's general
stance on gay issues, you're going to get a very distorted world view.
Which is probably why it's hard for a lot of us to share your loathing for
Clinton. I can't get too mad at him about the military stuff, because I
think he started out with good intentions and basically bungled the whole
thing, and I think we as a community failed to mobilize in any meaningful
way, and there was a lot of cultural baggage to deal with there (as Tony has
pointed out). With the marriage thing, his intentions sucked and he was just
plain wrong.
At the same time you're talking about a man who did a hell of a lot to
extend protections for gay and lesbian federal employees, and who has said a
lot of the right things and shown up in a lot of the right places, and while
that's no substitute for results, it does count for something.
A hero? Nope. But hardly the scoundrel you paint him as, either.
You can launch into your standard "you stupid apologist" response; for
convenience sake, you might just want to cut and paste it out of an old
post.
John Whiteside
Charlie Fulton wrote in message <6tvdvb$8...@fasolt.mtcc.com>...
>John, you're a very strange person. You don't know why straight
>people have so much invested in marriage as an institution. I just
>don't know what to say to that except, "Welcome to Earth."
I know they have a lot invested in it. I'm still surprised that this can
lead otherwise rational people to take total leave of their senses. It seems
to me that a lot of "supportive" straights are wrapped up in this "gay
people are like us" thing, and letting us get married would play right into
that. But suggest it and they freak out. It's weird.
Brad Macdonald
> Well, Clinton could resign today and Gore would still be able to run in
> 2000. However, he wouldn't be able to run for re-election in *2004*. If
> Clinton were to resign after January, then Gore could potentially be
> unearth enough dirt on him to justify yet another Starr-fucking.
>
> -Peter, who went to Al's high school (and hopes his cousin Gore Vidal has
> the decency to keep his mouth shut about Al's various shortcomings)
excerpted from that mean Salon Magazine website:
Q. What are your thoughts on the possibility of a Gore in the
White House?
A. I would accept, of course. Unfortunately, my cousin Al is
the wrong Gore. And though I'm the right one, time's winged
wastebasket is scurrying near.
-- Gore Vidal
Timothy F. Mulligan
disclosure. I'm white, 35, male, gay, a lawyer/librarian, and an
independent libertarian (note the lower case "l") who only once in his
life has voted for a Democrat (Chris Bell, a Houston councilman, who
voiced his support for libraries).
I don't want Clinton to resign. I was horrified yesterday to find out
that Pat Robertson holds the same view I do: resignation is too good for
Clinton. I want this thing to go all the way to an impeachment trial in
the Senate, and then I want to see Clinton convicted, and all but kicked
out of office.
While I don't buy much of the "abuses of power" argument that Starr makes
in his report (since I think Clinton was entitled to defend himself in
court), I find all the other grounds of impeachment compelling,
particularly the perjury grounds. It's pretty clear that Clinton
committed perjury. On those grounds alone, I think he needs to go.
I've written to my super-liberal congresswoman, Sheila Jackson Lee,
telling her about my views and urging her to at least keep an open mind.
However, I'm sure she'll vote against impeachment, taking her marching
orders from the Black Caucus. I find it amusing that, for all intents and
purposes, I'm represented in the House of Representatives by the Black
Caucus.
I'm definitely going to vote in November. Probably for the Republican,
who will probably lose. But lots of people angry at Clinton will go to
the polls on Nov. 3d, while the "who cares" crowd, who seem to be behind
the "who cares" poll results we've been seeing of late, will stay home on
their fat asses. That means political death for Slick Willy.
Tim Mulligan
tmul...@central.uh.edu
Frank Swilling wrote:
> I'm thinking that the President should hold on until January, then
> step down so that Al Gore can step up to the plate, try to rebuild the
> credibility of the concept of a Democrat in the office, and have a
> stab at keeping the office in 2000.
>
> obmotss: The way things are, with the Republicans screaming their
> little blue noses off about morality all over every available airwave,
> you know there's going to be a backlash against us. James Hormel can
> pack his bags and come back home. No way is he ever going to get to
> be an ambassador in this political climate. President Gore might be
> able to get things back on track and re-establish a political climate
> where GLBO issues have some chance of being advanced, but, barring a
> miracle, things aren't looking good for us in the next two years if
> Clinton stays in the White House.
>
> obmotss2: Why is everyone suddenly shocked and outraged to discover
> that our man Bill is *really*, *truly* a lying weasel? Every GLBO
> person in the country knew it the day he took office and reneged on
> his faithful promise to end discrimination against gays and lesbians
> in the military.
>
> Frank, not liking the view in his crystal ball
Melinda Shore
Timothy F. Mulligan <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
>I don't want Clinton to resign. I was horrified yesterday to find out
>that Pat Robertson holds the same view I do: resignation is too good for
>Clinton. I want this thing to go all the way to an impeachment trial in
>the Senate, and then I want to see Clinton convicted, and all but kicked
>out of office.
What would be "all but kicked out of office?" Would being
branded with a big "A" in a public ceremony do the trick
for you? And if you think that lying about sex in a civil
trial counts as a high crime, would you agree that Oliver
North should have been executed for treason after having
been convicted of selling arms to US enemies in order to
fund right-wing revolutionaries in a war in which the US
Congress deliberately chose not to involve us? What about
Presidents Reagan and Bush, who also had a hand in that
particular piece of illegality (subverting the will of
Congress)?
>I find it amusing that, for all intents and
>purposes, I'm represented in the House of Representatives by the Black
>Caucus.
I do, too. It helps ease my mind in these troubled times.
Timothy F. Mulligan
Defender: It's all about sex.
Impeacher: No, it's about perjury (including perjury before a grand jury),
obstruction of justice and witness tampering. Sex is just the factual
predicate. This is about sex like car theft is about driving.
Defender: Perjury in a civil trial that was thrown out is not impeachable.
Impeacher: You can't downplay the relevance of sex questions in a sexual
harrassment case, and still be in favor of sexual harrassment laws and their
enforcement.
Defender: Well, anyway, Bush and Reagan did far worse things.
Impeacher: If there were evidence of impeachment in their cases, you can be
damned sure that the Democratic Congress would have impeached them. They
didn't.
Defender: The American people have spoken. The polls show they still support
Clinton.
Impeacher: Ours is a republican (representative) form of government, not a
plebiscitarian democracy. Political decisions are not decided by any other
polls besides elections. Congresspeople took an oath to uphold the
Constitution, and while they should listen to their constituents, they need
also to examine the legal merits of the impeachment case against Clinton.
Defender: Ken Starr is a pig.
Impeacher: Shut up.
Defender: No, you shut up.
Impeacher: Come November 3rd, the American people will vote once again for a
Republican Congress. And the "who cares" crowd, who have been responding
oh-so-lackadaisically to the pollsters, will be sitting home on their fat
asses. And that will mean political death for Clinton.
Defender: You and all Republicans are mean spirited.
Impeacher: Kiss it.
Tim Mulligan
tmul...@central.uh.edu
Robert Hansen
> In article <36040312...@central.uh.edu>,
> Timothy F. Mulligan <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
> >I don't want Clinton to resign. I was horrified yesterday to find out
> >that Pat Robertson holds the same view I do: resignation is too good for
> >Clinton. I want this thing to go all the way to an impeachment trial in
> >the Senate, and then I want to see Clinton convicted, and all but kicked
> >out of office.
>
> What would be "all but kicked out of office?" Would being
> branded with a big "A" in a public ceremony do the trick
> for you? And if you think that lying about sex in a civil
> trial counts as a high crime, would you agree that Oliver
> North should have been executed for treason after having
> been convicted of selling arms to US enemies in order to
> fund right-wing revolutionaries in a war in which the US
> Congress deliberately chose not to involve us? What about
> Presidents Reagan and Bush, who also had a hand in that
> particular piece of illegality (subverting the will of
> Congress)?
>
With all the change going on in the world, it's reassuring to know Melinda
Shore stays the same. Her response to criticism of Democrats is to criticize
Republicans. She'd do well in Congress.
Robert, who had the good sense to register Libertarian when he came back to
Oregon.
Robert Hansen
> > obmotss2: Why is everyone suddenly shocked and outraged to discover
> > that our man Bill is *really*, *truly* a lying weasel? Every GLBO
> > person in the country knew it the day he took office and reneged on
> > his faithful promise to end discrimination against gays and lesbians
> > in the military.
That *late*? I knew it the night I saw him on "60 Minutes" during the '92
campaign, lying through his teeth about his affair with Gennifer Flowers.
Robert
John Whiteside
Timothy F. Mulligan wrote in message <36042309...@central.uh.edu>...
>(sigh) Maybe I should have posted the predictable dialog at the outset:
>
You got the dialog wrong. Melinda asked you some questions, which you didn't
answer.
John Whiteside
Robert Hansen wrote in message <360425F7...@uswest.net>...
>With all the change going on in the world, it's reassuring to know Melinda
>Shore stays the same. Her response to criticism of Democrats is to
criticize
>Republicans.
Well, no. I think she was pointing out that we've had presidents do some
really horrifying things in recent times, and been largely ignored, often by
the same people who now want Clinton's blood. I wouldn't call it a
right-wing conspiracy (heck, I wouldn't want to sound like a nutcase like
Tom DeLay) but I do think what we're seeing has a lot to do with general
hatred of Clinton and a willingness to do anything to get him. Which was, I
suspect, Melinda's point.
Topic of the day: Are Republicans bad losers?
Timothy F. Mulligan
> Topic of the day: Are Republicans bad losers?
LOL. Did you see the spectacle of Barney Fwank, Maxine "Dances with Gang
Members" Waters, et al., whining that they were voted down time after time in
the House Judiciary Committee? Talk about bad losers!
We've got the Congress, pal. And our hold on it will be even tighter after
November 3rd. Then we'll see who weeps.
Frank Swilling
<tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
>We've got the Congress, pal. And our hold on it will be even tighter after
>November 3rd. Then we'll see who weeps.
Let's say this turns out to be true. As a gay person, how could it
possibly give you any satisfaction?
Frank, getting out his hankie
Melinda Shore
(sigh), indeed. And perhaps I should have posted my
working assumption: libertarians (big l or small l), are,
by definition, not particularly bright.
You said "all but kicked out of office." Now, what the heck
does *that* mean? Again, branded with a big "A" in a public
ceremony?
There's been a concerted effort to get Clinton ever since
he was elected. Starr was unable to nail him on
Whitewater, on the FBI files, on the travel office mess, or
anything else until he was found to be lying about
committing adultery. The black helicopter crowd even tried
to pin Vince Foster's suicide on him. Anybody who knows me
will tell you that I am *no* fan of Bill Clinton and that
I'd like to see him out of office. I'm absolutely
appalled by this vendetta, and by the fact that the
opposition party can hound him out of office and, it seems
to me, destabilize the government and subvert the balance
of power over something like the President having lied
about his adulterous activities. What's even *more*
appalling is that these self-styled guardians of public
morality have their own collection of skeletons and are
absolutely unwilling to have the standards that they've
asked us to apply to the President applied to them.
Reagan and Bush never faced impeachment because Reagan was
1) a very popular president, and 2) clearly not firing on
all 8 cylinders and hence was treated gingerly by the
media. Nevertheless, the Iran-Contra business was CLEARLY
illegal and equally clearly treasonous. It concerns me no
small amount that most of the major players in that mess
got off with small slaps on the wrists while Clinton is
being pilloried after having been subjected to a protracted
search for something naughty which, after a number of years
and millions upon millions of dollars, turned up nothing that
had anything to do with his ability to perform the duties
of his office. So, is Kenneth Starr a pig? Yes he is - a
great, big, filthy, cannibalistic one.
I think this kind of witch hunt is bad for the US and is
pretty much guaranteed to cause highly-qualified people
not to seek office because they've committed some kind of
indiscretion in their past. I also think that the tripartite
form of government has value, and that the kind of nonsense
to which we're now being subjected eliminates, for all
intents and purposes, the system of checks and balances
which is supposed to protect us from abuses of power by
the government. To have the presidency held hostage by a
hostile Congress does not fill me with great cheer for the
future.
--
Melinda Shore - Cayuga Whine Trail - sh...@panix.com
Ken Starr is a pig.
Melinda Shore
Frank Swilling <fswi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:47:00 -0500, "Timothy F. Mulligan"
><tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
>>We've got the Congress, pal. And our hold on it will be even tighter after
>>November 3rd. Then we'll see who weeps.
>Let's say this turns out to be true. As a gay person, how could it
>possibly give you any satisfaction?
Or a librarian, for that matter.
Ken Rudolph
>
> On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:47:00 -0500, "Timothy F. Mulligan"
> <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
>
> >We've got the Congress, pal. And our hold on it will be even tighter after
> >November 3rd. Then we'll see who weeps.
>
> Let's say this turns out to be true. As a gay person, how could it
> possibly give you any satisfaction?
What I want to know is by what miraculous mental double think does
Mr. Log Cabin Mulligan imagine that he is "an independent
libertarian (note the lower case "l") who only once in his life has
voted for a Democrat"?
--Ken Rudolph (independent libertarian who has never once in my life
voted for a Republican.)
Ellen Evans
>Impeacher: You can't downplay the relevance of sex questions in a sexual
>harrassment case, and still be in favor of sexual harrassment laws and their
>enforcement.
This wasn't a sexual harassment case. Nobody has asserted that this
relationship was anything but consensual. And if Starr had $40 million
and all the leeway in the world to investigate *you,* I imagine he could
come up with *something* eventually.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@netcom.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Michael Siemon
>> Topic of the day: Are Republicans bad losers?
>We've got the Congress, pal. And our hold on it will be even tighter after
>November 3rd. Then we'll see who weeps.
Oh, goody! A nasty, vindictive Repub., eveidently eager to stomp on
anything that doesn't pamper his self-indulgences. As Melinda pointed
out, there was a *hell* of a lot of hanky-panky at the highest levels
of government, specifically done to *undermine* Constitutional arrange-
ments. None of it was in any way punished (though North *almost* got
some, before the judge let him off). Whereas against Clinton, all you
desperate witch-hunters can do is to pursue a private sleaze factor
in a manner that makes you look even sleazier than Prez. Willie.
--
Michael L. Siemon "We honour founders of these starving cities
m...@panix.com Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
They built by rivers and at night the water
Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Michael Pettersen
: obmotss2: Why is everyone suddenly shocked and outraged to discover
: that our man Bill is *really*, *truly* a lying weasel? Every GLBO
: person in the country knew it the day he took office and reneged on
: his faithful promise to end discrimination against gays and lesbians
: in the military.
One of the many many horrible, horrible ironies in all this is that when
Clinton bungled the gays-in-the-military thing, the Republicans largely
used the resulting backlash to fuel their Congressional victory in '94. Had
the Republicans not captured Congress, they would not now have the power to
conduct the present witch hunt.
--
Mike Pettersen
Scott Safier
> This wasn't a sexual harassment case. Nobody has asserted that this
> relationship was anything but consensual. And if Starr had $40 million
> and all the leeway in the world to investigate *you,* I imagine he could
> come up with *something* eventually.
Ellen Evans for Supreme Court Justice! [hey, I like it better when she says
it rather than, well, you know]
Scott
---
"Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick
people that he thinks he should get, rather than cases that need to be
prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a
prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation
of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a
question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the
man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then
searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some
offense on him. It is in this realm -- in which the prosecutor picks some
person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of
unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger
of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement
becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with
the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political
views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor
himself." Justice Antonin Scalia, in dissent, in Morrison v Olson, where
the Court upheld the Independent Counsel Law
Michael Pettersen
: Ellen Evans wrote:
: >
: > In article <36042309...@central.uh.edu>,
: > Timothy F. Mulligan <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
: > []
: > >Impeacher: You can't downplay the relevance of sex questions in a sexual
: > >harrassment case, and still be in favor of sexual harrassment laws and their
: > >enforcement.
: > This wasn't a sexual harassment case.
: I think he was talking about the Paula Jones civil trial.
For what it's worth, the judge in the civil trial ruled that testimony
concerning Monica Lewinsky was not germane to Paula Jones's case, even
before the case itself was thrown out.
It is another horrible, horrible irony that Clinton should probably never
have been asked the question to which it is alleged he gave a perjured
response.
It's like a Greek tragedy. I can't wait for the Peter Sellars-John
Adams-Alice Goodman opera, to find out how it all ends.
--
Mike Pettersen
Scott Safier
> For what it's worth, the judge in the civil trial ruled that testimony
> concerning Monica Lewinsky was not germane to Paula Jones's case, even
> before the case itself was thrown out.
>
> It is another horrible, horrible irony that Clinton should probably never
> have been asked the question to which it is alleged he gave a perjured
> response.
Errr... The legal definition of perjury is that the testimony must be germane
to the case. This is one of the "problems" with trying to pin the crime of
perjury on Clinton. The other two problems are that perjury never goes
forward with only one other witness (in this case, the he-said, she said
thing) and that it is rarely used in a civil trial and never when it is a
peripheral matter as this was. Sure Clinton lied, but the lie probably didn't
amount to legal perjury (at least, according to the lawyers I have heard on
this subject)
Charlie Fulton
: In article <360435a3...@news.mindspring.com>,
: Frank Swilling <fswi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
:
: >>We've got the Congress, pal. And our hold on it will be even tighter after
: >>November 3rd. Then we'll see who weeps.
: >Let's say this turns out to be true. As a gay person, how could it
: >possibly give you any satisfaction?
: More Republican assholes in Congress for him to tongue.
Courageously working to create change from the inside.
--
Charlie Fulton---foultone@mtcc.com---http://www.mtcc.com/~foultone/
"Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun."
Montgomery Burns
Ken Rudolph
>
> In article <36042309...@central.uh.edu>,
> Timothy F. Mulligan <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
> []
> >Impeacher: You can't downplay the relevance of sex questions in a sexual
> >harrassment case, and still be in favor of sexual harrassment laws and their
> >enforcement.
>
> This wasn't a sexual harassment case.
I think he was talking about the Paula Jones civil trial.
> Nobody has asserted that this
> relationship was anything but consensual.
The Lewinsky-Clinton affair, yes.
> And if Starr had $40 million
> and all the leeway in the world to investigate *you,* I imagine he could
> come up with *something* eventually.
Ultimately it was the SC's decision to allow the Jones civil suit
against a sitting President (a truly dreadful decision) which has
caused the destabilization of the US government and made a shambles
of the Constitution's separation of powers clauses. This is one
precedent which events have proven should be overturned.
Starr exceeded his mandate, with the help of a partisan 3-judge
panel, under the tacit control of Chief Justice Rehnquist. I only
wish that the parties playing so cavalierly with the American system
(including the out-of-control media) would get what they deserve;
but I fear that it is the country as a whole which will suffer the
consequences.
--Ken Rudolph
Eric Holeman
>>We've got the Congress, pal. And our hold on it will be even tighter after
>>November 3rd. Then we'll see who weeps.
>Let's say this turns out to be true. As a gay person, how could it
>possibly give you any satisfaction?
More Republican assholes in Congress for him to tongue.
--
--------
Eric Holeman Chicago, Illinois USA
"You just don't do the wave at Wrigley. You deserve to get locked up and
get beaten up by the cops."
Ellen Evans
Scott Safier <cor...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>Ellen Evans wrote:
>
>> This wasn't a sexual harassment case. Nobody has asserted that this
>> relationship was anything but consensual. And if Starr had $40 million
>> and all the leeway in the world to investigate *you,* I imagine he could
>> come up with *something* eventually.
>
>it rather than, well, you know]
I should have cited the, uh, honorable, etc.
David W. Fenton
: . . . It's pretty clear that Clinton
: committed perjury. On those grounds alone, I think he needs to go.
It's pretty clear to me that Clinton lied, somewhere along the line.
But the perjury charge is based entirely on the uncorroborated testimony
of a single witness, because the basis for it is the claim that Bill and
Monica did things sexually that Clinton has denied. However much Clinton's
claims that he never touched her in the ways defined in the definiton in
use in the Jones deposition may lack credibility, the only contradition of
them is Monica's testimony. They were the only two present, and they are
the only two who actually can say what went on. He-said, she-said.
Legally, you can't get someone for perjury in those circumstances.
For Clinton to go down for these kinds of sins seems to me to be a
disaster for the Republic. Can't really stand the man, but we're better
off with him than with any of the alternatives the Republicans have
offered.
And whether or not I like him is simply irrelevant. He was duly elected
and there's simply no grounds for hounding him from office. He lied in
answering questions that never should have been asked in the first place,
and I can't get too upset about that.
I think the Republican moves to release the video and Monica's testimony
are going to backfire on the Republicans big time. I also think it will
force Clinton out of office.
All this wouldn't have happened, I'd say, if the Democrats had stood
behind Clinton in '93-'94 when he put forward his health care plan. That
was the pivotal event that eventually brought the Republicans into power,
and if they weren't in power, none of this would have happened.
The American people are really sick and tired of this. They show that in
_all_ the polls. The Republicans are determined to wallow in it for three
or four months because they think they'll get political advantage out of
it. I think the public is going to see what's going on and the Republicans
are going to pay for it.
In all the wallowing, though, I suspect Clinton's going to end up so
dirtied and discredited that he'll have to leave office.
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
David W. Fenton
: With all the change going on in the world, it's reassuring to know Melinda
: Shore stays the same. Her response to criticism of Democrats is to criticize
Pardon me, but the discussion of impeachable behavior by presidents
always brings the Iran-Contra scandal to mind. Agents of the president
knowingly flouted the laws passed by Congress. That's a constitutional
crime of the _highest_ order, and pales in comparison to anything Clinton
has done.
That no impeachment took place is probably due to the political climate
of the time.
But if Ken Starr had been the Special Prosecutor instead of Lawrence
Walsh, who knows (of course, it's Reagan who ought to have been impeached.
. .).
David W. Fenton
: Ellen Evans wrote:
: > In article <36042309...@central.uh.edu>,
: > Timothy F. Mulligan <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
: > >Impeacher: You can't downplay the relevance of sex questions in a sexual
: > >harrassment case, and still be in favor of sexual harrassment laws and their
: > >enforcement.
: > This wasn't a sexual harassment case.
:
: I think he was talking about the Paula Jones civil trial.
Well, Ken Starr was not investigating that.
If Mr. Mulligan can't keep _that_ straight in his mind, I doubt that any
of the rest of his "logic" can be relied upon.
Gene Ward Smith
mspe...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Pettersen) wrote:
>It is another horrible, horrible irony that Clinton should probably never
>have been asked the question to which it is alleged he gave a perjured
>response.
"Probably"? I think Judge Wright acted in a way which was clearly
improper; if that is the law, then I spit on that law. When I hear
how Clinton's perjuries bring the law into disrepute, I wonder how
they expect me to respect an immoral law in the first place.
The greatest irony I see in this case is that Clinton did many
things badly, yet it is one of the things he did well for which they
most clamor to remove him. His critics are not on the moral
high ground when it comes to the charge of perjury. Do we respect
more the people more who named names for Joe McCarthy, or those who
lied? Should we respect the people who name their homosexual partners
when the law demands it of them? Gay people, of all people, should
know better than to fall into that peculiar and oftentimes fanatical
religion, the belief in the supremacy of the law, right or wrong,
moral or immoral.
--
Gene Ward Smith
gsm...@blazenetme.net
Gene Ward Smith
>Impeacher: You can't downplay the relevance of sex questions in a sexual
>harrassment case, and still be in favor of sexual harrassment laws and their
>enforcement.
You can't downplay the relevance of sex questions in a rape case, and
still be in favor of prosecuting rapists. Since the defendent may be
facing serious jail time, his attorneys surely have the right to question
his alleged victim on her sexual history, in excruciating detail, and
possbily to put the result out on the Internet afterwards.
Don't like that idea? It certainly makes a great deal more sense in
a criminal case, in respect to someone connected to the case, than
it possibly could in a civil case in connection with someone not
connected to the case in any way. Free clue: what did Monica Lewinsky
have to do with Paula Jones? Answer: nothing. What moral right therefore
did her lawyers have to depose Lewinsky? By what right did they
harass and humiliate other women in a way much worse than Jones alleges,
especially considering Jones was probably lying about many aspects of
what happened herself? If you want an example of sexual harassment in
action, I suggest you take a look at the Jones lawyers and Ken Starr.
It may not fit the statutory defintion, but it fits the reality.
By focusing on Clinton, whose failings *should* have been obvious
all along, you miss more important issues; in particular, you fail to
ask the question of whether this use of the legal system to attack
Clinton is legitimate at all, and what it means that people have
gotten away with hijacking the legal system to political ends. Where
will that lead? What will we do about the damage already done?
This all could have, and should have, been left to the media. Lewinsky
had a big mouth, and even without Starr and his tricks, it would have
come out. This way, the political process itself has been poisoned.
Tom Hawk
>
> This all could have, and should have, been left to the media. Lewinsky
> had a big mouth, and even without Starr and his tricks, it would have
>
> --
> Gene Ward Smith
> gsm...@blazenetme.net
"Big Mouth" in more ways than one.
It seems that Monica has been trying to peddle her Memoires with an
asking price of $2 to $10 Million. Since the Starr report is being
distributed for free by the Congress, with all of the juicy parts, it
seems that she has nothing to add worth her asking price. The immature
star-f**ker is finally getting screwed.
Tom
Ken Rudolph
> : > Timothy F. Mulligan <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
> : > >Impeacher: You can't downplay the relevance of sex questions in a sexual
> : > >harrassment case, and still be in favor of sexual harrassment laws and their
> : > >enforcement.
> : > This wasn't a sexual harassment case.
> :
> : I think he was talking about the Paula Jones civil trial.
>
> Well, Ken Starr was not investigating that.
What are you talking about, David? Most of the perjury that Starr
alleges occurred in Clinton's sworn deposition in the Jones case
when he was asked about Lewinsky. All of it moot, in my opinion
anyway. The lurid sexual details are supposedly justified by
showing how his answers in that deposition were lies instead of
legalistic obfuscations.
The intriguing question that remains is whether there is still the
sense that Clinton was lying to the Grand Jury in the August 17th
videotaped testimony, which would be far more damaging than what he
did in the Jones deposition. That's probably why the Republicans in
Congress are rushing to release the tapes. Since I'm boycotting the
media frenzy on the entire topic, I'll pass on watching those
tapes. If it were in my power, I'd like to *punish* the media for
their irresponsible conduct. What I'd like to do to Judge Starr and
the lynch mob in Congress is literally unspeakable.
> If Mr. Mulligan can't keep _that_ straight in his mind, I doubt that any
> of the rest of his "logic" can be relied upon.
Well, we agree about that, anyway.
--Ken Rudolph
John Whiteside
David W. Fenton wrote in message <6u249b$9or$1...@news.nyu.edu>...
>For Clinton to go down for these kinds of sins seems to me to be a
>disaster for the Republic. Can't really stand the man, but we're better
>off with him than with any of the alternatives the Republicans have
>offered.
Today's (Sunday's) Washington Post has some interesting stories about the
Christian Coalition's conference, which is happening right now at the
Washington Hilton (conveniently located near Dupont Circle), and the HRC's
conference, happening simultaneously across town.
At the CC shindig, several GOP presidential hopefuls are sucking up.
Ashcroft gave a fire-and-brimstone talk about the evils of Bill. Steve
Forbes has apparently gone from not having a whole lot to say about abortion
to being a hard-line pro-lifer. Quayle apparently spoke to them Friday.
Lamar Alexander, to his credit, declined to attend.
Over at HRC, there was a lot said about how gay and lesbian people should be
really wary of sexual witch-hunts, having had more experience with them than
the average American.
I can't wait to see the Log Cabinet contortions to explain how whomever
their party selects is really good for gay people.
On a lighter note, I saw a car with the Virginia tag GORE 2K zipping through
a local gay hangout/cruising area (it's one part sex in the bushes, one part
hang out in the park and socialize, so any assumption that a Gore staffer is
showing Clinton's judgment is questionable). I just wondered how fast this
person can get a new plate from DMV if Gore doesn't get the nomination, or
does and then loses the election. That's the trouble with topical vanity
plates...
Scott Safier
>
> In article <360450AD...@telerama.lm.com>,
> Scott Safier <cor...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
> >Ellen Evans for Supreme Court Justice! [hey, I like it better when she says
> >it rather than, well, you know]
>
> I should have cited the, uh, honorable, etc.
Hey, it could be a wonderful career move! You work from October-June with 3
months off to lecture and teach. You have a great office in a nice,
relatively new marble building. You'd get to hobknob with the powerful-elite.
OK, so you'd have to move to Washington DC, but nothing is perfect.
:-)
--
Frank Swilling
>You said "all but kicked out of office." Now, what the heck
>does *that* mean? Again, branded with a big "A" in a public
>ceremony?
I think he meant to emphasize the word "kicked," as in "all but
literally kicked out of office." I can just imagine certain members
of the GOP strapping on their jackboots for the job.
Frank
David W. Fenton
: > : > In article <36042309...@central.uh.edu>,
: > : > Timothy F. Mulligan <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
: > : > >Impeacher: You can't downplay the relevance of sex questions in a sexual
: > : > >harrassment case, and still be in favor of sexual harrassment laws and their
: > : > >enforcement.
: > : >
: > : > This wasn't a sexual harassment case.
: > :
: > : I think he was talking about the Paula Jones civil trial.
: >
: > Well, Ken Starr was not investigating that.
:
: What are you talking about, David? Most of the perjury that Starr
: alleges occurred in Clinton's sworn deposition in the Jones case
And this has exactly _what_ to do with the sexual harassment alleged by
Jones? That the Jones testimony about Lewinsky is relevant, I did not
dispute. But it is the Clinton-Lewinsky relationship that Starr was
investigating, not the Clinton-Jones relationship.
: . . . What I'd like to do to Judge Starr and
: the lynch mob in Congress is literally unspeakable.
I've got to agree with you on that one. It seems to me that someone ought
to try to get a restraining order to try to prevent Congress from
releasing the grand jury testimony. I know that it's not prohibited, but
it's certainly not customary to release the proceedings of a grand jury.
In this case, the damage is potentially so great that it seems there
really oughtn't be such a rush to put it out in public.
Unfortunately, there's probably no question of law involved there.
It just stinks to high heaven, and the only hope I have is that the
public will see this for what it is -- a massive political lynching, and
vote accordingly in November.
PETER C HARTIKKA
<w4rzpbx...@banquo.csp.ee.memphis.edu>...
> You're from Carthage, Tennessee?! Oh right, Gore grew up in a hotel
> room in the District.
One assumes he also did a fair amount of growing up at St. Albans School,
from which cousin Gore Vidal had fled in horror some years earlier, and
which figures prominently in GV's latest novel ("The Smithsonian
Insitution").
-Peter, now happily ensconced in the other Washington
Jeffrey William McKeough
Melinda Shore <sh...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>What would be "all but kicked out of office?" Would being
>branded with a big "A" in a public ceremony do the trick
>for you?
I just had a flashback to Sarah Ferguson's wedding dress.
--
Jeffrey William McKeough san...@shore.net
"Have I mentioned that I don't have a TV? At the moment I'm working my
way through the complete and original radio broadcasts of 'Our Miss
Brooks' [...] Can you find an example from there?" -Kathryn Burlingham
Jeffrey William McKeough
Ken Rudolph <ke...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>
>--Ken Rudolph [...] who has never once in my life
>voted for a Republican.
That phrase in Massachusetts generally has an "except for Weld, of
course" attached to it these days. You'd be surprised what people
will do when the Democrats can't even scrounge up a yellow dog.
sh...@glib.org
mspe...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Pettersen) on 19 Sep 1998 20:42:15
-0400, in Message-ID: <6u1j17$8...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
> Ken Rudolph (ke...@thegrid.net) wrote:
> : Ellen Evans wrote:
> : >
> : > In article <36042309...@central.uh.edu>,
> : > Timothy F. Mulligan <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
> : > []
> : > >Impeacher: You can't downplay the relevance of sex questions
> : > >in a sexual harrassment case, and still be in favor of sexual
> : > >harassment laws and their enforcement.
> : >
> : > This wasn't a sexual harassment case.
>
> : I think he was talking about the Paula Jones civil trial.
>
> For what it's worth, the judge in the civil trial ruled that testimony
> concerning Monica Lewinsky was not germane to Paula Jones's case, even
> before the case itself was thrown out.
>
> It is another horrible, horrible irony that Clinton should probably
> never have been asked the question to which it is alleged he gave a
> perjured response.
>
> It's like a Greek tragedy. I can't wait for the Peter Sellars-John
> Adams-Alice Goodman opera, to find out how it all ends.
Many years ago, I ran across a booklet "THE ILLUSTRATED KINSEY REPORT." It
had some interesting porn photography, and very little of the text of the
original report. (I seem to recall that there were several "volumes." The one
I saw concentrated on gay male matters.)
Rest assured, however, that I am not waiting with 'bated breath' for a copy of
THE ILLUSTRATED STARR REPORT.
sh...@glib.org (Edward K Ricketts)
born with the gift of laughter, and a sense that the world is mad
- Rafael Sabatini -
Frank Swilling
Edmonds) wrote:
>Frank Swilling (fswi...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
>: Frank, suggesting that the un-drama queens replace "completely
>: accepting" with "grudgingly tolerant"
>
>Yes, how terribly melodramatic, to actually take something
>*literally*.
I want a front-row seat so as not to miss a breathtaking moment of the
unfolding melodrama of you taking something seriously.
Frank, hoping that thunder-stealing thespian wannabe realizes that it
was *he* who was being dramatic, not *him*
Frank Swilling
Edmonds) wrote:
>Frank Swilling (fswi...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
>: Frank, suggesting that the un-drama queens replace "completely
>: accepting" with "grudgingly tolerant"
>
>Yes, how terribly melodramatic, to actually take something
>*literally*.
I want a front-row seat so as not to miss a breathtaking moment of the
unfolding melodrama of you taking something literally.
Frank, hoping that the thunder-stealing linguistic-thespian wannabe
Leith Chu
> On 18 Sep 1998, Michael Thomas wrote:
> > Clinton _is_ a shitbag. Our new occupation is
> > sniffing the floaters in the bowl and deciding
> > whether we ought to fish one out before we flush.
> Browne's not your color?
Browne isn't a colo(u)r at all.
Leith
Leith Chu
> John Whiteside wrote:
> > Topic of the day: Are Republicans bad losers?
> LOL. Did you see the spectacle of Barney Fwank, Maxine "Dances with Gang
> Members" Waters, et al., whining that they were voted down time after time in
> the House Judiciary Committee? Talk about bad losers!
> We've got the Congress, pal. And our hold on it will be even tighter after
> November 3rd. Then we'll see who weeps.
Isn't your Congress supposed to be "gotten" by the citizenry of the USA
(who live in the 50 states, to be precise), rather than by political
parties?
And when Congressional "bipartisan" committees are bogged down in
sectarian disputes, isn't it the citizenry who are the losers?
Leith
Scott Safier
>
> Isn't your Congress supposed to be "gotten" by the citizenry of the USA
> (who live in the 50 states, to be precise), rather than by political
> parties?
Oh, that premise died 200+ years ago when the Democratic-Republicans (ie the
Democrats) and the Whigs formed the two primary opposition factions. The
johnny-come-lately Grand Old Party came about 70 years later with Abe Lincoln.
> And when Congressional "bipartisan" committees are bogged down in
> sectarian disputes, isn't it the citizenry who are the losers?
Don't you think we here AMERICANS are depressed enough by this heterosexual
sexual witch-hunt without you furn'rs rubbing it in?
Kevin Michael Vail
> Many years ago, I ran across a booklet "THE ILLUSTRATED KINSEY REPORT." It
>had some interesting porn photography, and very little of the text of the
>original report. (I seem to recall that there were several "volumes." The one
>I saw concentrated on gay male matters.)
>
> Rest assured, however, that I am not waiting with 'bated breath' for a copy of
>THE ILLUSTRATED STARR REPORT.
According to a piece in the Style section of the Post a couple of weeks
ago, Screw magazine is going to take photos of porn actors, paste on the
appropriate heads, and produce basically just that.
I think I'll skip that one.
--
Kevin Michael Vail | I would rather have a mind opened by wonder
ke...@vailstar.com | than one closed by belief. -- Gerry Spence
Daniel Chase Edmonds
: On 18 Sep 1998 19:01:18 -0400, ded...@emory.edu (Daniel Chase
: Edmonds) wrote:
:
: >Frank Swilling (fswi...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: >
: >: Frank, suggesting that the un-drama queens replace "completely
: >: accepting" with "grudgingly tolerant"
: >
: >Yes, how terribly melodramatic, to actually take something
: >*literally*.
:
: I want a front-row seat so as not to miss a breathtaking moment of the
: unfolding melodrama of you taking something literally.
Huh? The point is you were accusing people of being 'drama queens'
for taking what you had said-- that the military became completely
accepting of gays during wartime-- literally.
: Frank, hoping that the thunder-stealing linguistic-thespian wannabe
: realizes that it was *he* who was being dramatic, not *him*
Um, yeah, whatever. I usually like non-sequitors, but I think you
think this actually follows from something.
John Whiteside
<6u3jed$8...@northshore.shore.net>...
>That phrase in Massachusetts generally has an "except for Weld, of
>course" attached to it these days. You'd be surprised what people
>will do when the Democrats can't even scrounge up a yellow dog.
I thought Weld would be my one and only GOP vote. Then I moved to DC, and
found myself voting for David Catania.
If I were still in the District, I'd almost certainly be voting for him
again, and be seriously considering voting for Carol Schwartz for mayor,
even though her "I'm your Aunt Carol" schtick is annoying.
I was starting to worry that this voting Republican thing could be one of
those things you swear you'll only do once, then find yourself doing again,
until you're hooked (Republicans as heroin I guess). But then I moved to
Virginia; in Virginia, the Republicans are not the cute little toned-down
version you find in Massachusetts and DC. They're the real thing. So I think
this GOP thing has been nipped in the bud.
--
John Whiteside
Arlington, Virginia
Michael Palmer
<corwin...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>Ellen Evans wrote:
>>
>> In article <360450AD...@telerama.lm.com>,
>> Scott Safier <cor...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>
>> >Ellen Evans for Supreme Court Justice! [hey, I like it better when she says
>> >it rather than, well, you know]
>>
>> I should have cited the, uh, honorable, etc.
>
>Hey, it could be a wonderful career move! You work from October-June with 3
>months off to lecture and teach. You have a great office in a nice,
>relatively new marble building. You'd get to hobknob with the powerful-elite.
You forgot the best part: you can assign all the boring work to
clerks and *NT*RNS!!
It's almost as good as being a graduate school professor.
---
Michael Palmer
Famous Bovines International
Claremont, California
mpa...@netcom.com
Bethany
> That phrase in Massachusetts generally has an "except for Weld, of
> course" attached to it these days. You'd be surprised what people
> will do when the Democrats can't even scrounge up a yellow dog.
But notice Weld couldn't win over an established Democrat - but
you must admire his guts for even trying.
--
"pluck me and I'll vibrate for a couple of minutes." - Arthur
"Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph Wiggum
"No, not butterflies!" - Oscar the Grouch
Word of the Month: "flutage"
Gregory L. Havican
> Michael Thomas wrote in message ...
>> Pure revisionist history. He willingly signed
>>legislation which not only "didn't get us
>>marriage" but created a federal finger wagging
>>were any state to be so bold as to try to
>>legalize it. That's inexcusable.
> Marriage is probably not the best issue to use as a litmus test, because for
> some reason -- and I really don't understand this -- it makes a lot of
> straight people get really weird. There are a lot of generally pro-gay
> politicians -- including Clinton -- who just freak out, personally and
> politically, over it.
> I don't know why they do; I don't know why they have so much invested in
> this particular institution. Maybe it's because it brings us into a very
> personal realm, as opposed to more emotionally neutral areas like employment
> or housing.
While it may be a simplistic answer, I've become more and more convinced
that the reason straight people get so antsy about the topic is not
because they don't want gay people to get married, but they don't want the
topic of marriage to be discussed or too closely examined. By doing so,
we find a lot of "cheating", etc that goes on in straight relationships,
which kinda negates the charge that homosexuals are promiscuous.
Greg
Gregory L. Havican
> Since I'm boycotting the
> media frenzy on the entire topic, I'll pass on watching those
> tapes. If it were in my power, I'd like to *punish* the media for
> their irresponsible conduct. What I'd like to do to Judge Starr and
> the lynch mob in Congress is literally unspeakable.
I'm boycotting it too. I'm truly sickened by the way the media has
handled this (although not at all surprised by it), and have practically
no outlet to which I can turn to for news.
As for Judge Starr, is he still an appointed Judge? If so, then he's the
one who should be impeached.
Greg
Robert S. Coren
Melinda Shore <sh...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>I think this kind of witch hunt is bad for the US and is
>pretty much guaranteed to cause highly-qualified people
>not to seek office because they've committed some kind of
>indiscretion in their past. I also think that the tripartite
>form of government has value, and that the kind of nonsense
>to which we're now being subjected eliminates, for all
>intents and purposes, the system of checks and balances
>which is supposed to protect us from abuses of power by
>the government. To have the presidency held hostage by a
>hostile Congress does not fill me with great cheer for the
>future.
Melinda, don't you *dare* go away again. I read something like this
and I think "Why do I bother to express my views on this topic when
Melinda says ti so much better?"
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"My homosexuality is neither strange, surprising, unusual, or silly."
--FJ!! van Wingerde
Charlie Fulton
: Ken Rudolph <ke...@thegrid.net> wrote:
:
: > Since I'm boycotting the
: > media frenzy on the entire topic, I'll pass on watching those
: > tapes. If it were in my power, I'd like to *punish* the media for
: > their irresponsible conduct. What I'd like to do to Judge Starr and
: > the lynch mob in Congress is literally unspeakable.
:
: I'm boycotting it too. I'm truly sickened by the way the media has
: handled this (although not at all surprised by it), and have practically
: no outlet to which I can turn to for news.
I certainly hope the people at "Screw" Magazine consider the
possibility of a full-fledged movie and not just a photo spread. We
could start with Bill's account, using today's footage, supplemented
by Oval Office scenes with digitally-fucked-with porn actors.
No, fuck that. Start with Betty Currie's testimony. Then Bill's.
And end with Monica.
I like this: make it a pornographic, non-fiction update of RASHOMON.
And so much cheaper than making a real movie and shelling out
bucks for the likes of Neve Campbell.
--
Charlie Fulton---foultone@mtcc.com---http://www.mtcc.com/~foultone/
"Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun."
Montgomery Burns
Melinda Shore
Gregory L. Havican <g...@shore.net> wrote:
>Ken Rudolph <ke...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>> Since I'm boycotting the
>> media frenzy on the entire topic, I'll pass on watching those
>> tapes. If it were in my power, I'd like to *punish* the media for
>> their irresponsible conduct. What I'd like to do to Judge Starr and
>> the lynch mob in Congress is literally unspeakable.
>I'm boycotting it too.
I, for one, am wallowing in it.
The big culprit here is NBC, I think - their broadcast
coverage has been bad, but far more mild than the
piggy-fests going on on cable brethren CNBC and MSNBC.
Nevertheless, I don't see how it's possible to develop
a visceral understanding of what the GOP is doing to our
government without following the whole thing fairly
closely, even if it requires watching that nauseating
Marcia Clark.
--
Melinda Shore - Cayuga Whine Trail - sh...@panix.com
Ken Starr is a pig.
If you send me harassing email, I'll probably post it
Scott Safier
no outlet to which I can turn to for news.
>
> one who should be impeached.
No, he had to resign when some Republican appointed him to something (Bush --
FBI director?)
What I want is Congress to censure him. If that is what will probably happen
to Clinton, that it should happen to Starr too. While Clinton lied about his
taudry little affair, it was Starr who jumped on it like a flea on a dog (is
that a texan enough metaphore?). Starr went on a witch hunt, which is
something Congress should not tolerate under "the ethics in government act".
As for the media, to me, that is a market driven business. If people didn't
watch, they wouldn't show it.
--
Scott
John Whiteside
>That's very important, I think. Nearly all Republicans are
>hopeless drug addicts, with a power jones that just doesn't let
>go, once it gets you. Even once perfectly fine citizens have been
>known to succumb to the allure of incipient fascism cloaked as
>Family Values, though just now I can't conjure any examples.
My dilemma is that there are some good Republicans, but then there's that
Republican baggage. Carol Schwartz, for example (GOP candidate for DC mayor)
makes a point of saying that she's a Republican primarily because she thinks
DC's one-party rule has hurt the city. She's got a point, though I don't
find it particularly compelling. I like her because she's a smart,
articulate woman who's got a track record in city politics. I think she's be
a good mayor. But so would Anthony Williams, the Democrat, although he's a
very different kind of candidate. I'm a bit relieved not to have to decide;
and I'm also relieved that DC faces a can't-lose choice.
I've also been impressed at how well David Catania (At-large DC Council) has
avoided the Log Cabinet nonsense, despite being one. I have never heard him
excusing the idiocy of his national party. I voted for him despite
disagreeing on two substantive issues (school vouchers and the death
penalty) because I still thought he was better than the options, and because
I knew it was highly unlikely he'd get anywhere on those issues. And he has,
in fact, been one of the most active members of the DC City Council -- a
body whose members usually resemble comatose hospital patients.
It occurs to me that it's a lot easier to deal with "good Republicans" when
they're running for local offices. Weld as governor didn't bother me because
he was still going to be playing in the realm of Massachusetts politics.
Weld as Senator was far more problematic; I was no big fan of John Kerry,
but I would not have voted for Weld had I remained in Massachusetts simply
because I did not want to see one more Republican in the Senate. Because in
Congress, party affiliations matter a great deal, because the majority party
has such influence over how its houses are run.
Ironically, had we had a Democrat-controlled Senate, Weld would probably be
the ambassador to Mexico today.
Virginia spares me these choices; the Republicans are, to a person, utterly
horrible (and, sadly, on the rise).
Kevin Michael Vail
<john_wh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>My dilemma is that there are some good Republicans, but then there's that
>Republican baggage. Carol Schwartz, for example (GOP candidate for DC mayor)
>makes a point of saying that she's a Republican primarily because she thinks
>DC's one-party rule has hurt the city. She's got a point, though I don't
>find it particularly compelling. I like her because she's a smart,
>articulate woman who's got a track record in city politics. I think she's be
>a good mayor. But so would Anthony Williams, the Democrat, although he's a
>very different kind of candidate. I'm a bit relieved not to have to decide;
>and I'm also relieved that DC faces a can't-lose choice.
This is certainly a switch over past years! I think it's too bad, in a
way, that these two can't work together. As you pointed out, they are
very different, and it might be something worthwhile. --If it could
happen, which it can't.
>I've also been impressed at how well David Catania (At-large DC Council) has
>avoided the Log Cabinet nonsense, despite being one.
One of the things I like best about him is that he caused the Washington
Times to endorse an openly-gay candidate. (Isn't that one of the signs of
the apocalypse, or something?)
Gregory L. Havican
:> In article <2ewN1.378$_c5.37...@news.shore.net>,
:> Gregory L. Havican <g...@shore.net> wrote:
:> >Ken Rudolph <ke...@thegrid.net> wrote:
:> >> Since I'm boycotting the
:> >> media frenzy on the entire topic, I'll pass on watching those
:> >> tapes. If it were in my power, I'd like to *punish* the media for
:> >> their irresponsible conduct. What I'd like to do to Judge Starr and
:> >> the lynch mob in Congress is literally unspeakable.
:> >I'm boycotting it too.
:>
:> I, for one, am wallowing in it.
:>
:> The big culprit here is NBC, I think - their broadcast
:> coverage has been bad, but far more mild than the
:> piggy-fests going on on cable brethren CNBC and MSNBC.
:> Nevertheless, I don't see how it's possible to develop
:> a visceral understanding of what the GOP is doing to our
:> government without following the whole thing fairly
:> closely, even if it requires watching that nauseating
:> Marcia Clark.
Perhaps I should clarify my statement. What I'm boycotting is
watching the broadcast of Clinton's testimony and reading the Starr
report in detail. I have been following the developments pretty
closely and have read capsilations of the Starr report and of the
White House's preliminary reply.
While I think releasing the Starr report was important, I don't think
the level of sexual detail he went into was in anyway germain to the
issue of impeachable offenses, just as I don't think releasing the
videotape of Clinton's testimony itself was necessary.
Greg
Greg Havican |
------------------|---------------------------
g...@havican.com | http://www.havican.com
Tim Wilson
> When I think of real Republicans, the ones who come to mind are
> Dick Armey and Orrin Hatch and that toad from Indiana....
WHICH ONE?
--
Tim Wilson http://www.ee.memphis.edu/~tim/ mailto:tawi...@memphis.edu