Mike Smith <mws@no-spam> wrote in message news:<8uuefv05kc0lgucalvntuvfqo7vrpru4rl@no-spam>...
> Wonderful....... Dumb and Dumber patting each other on the back, while
> completely forgetting about the "Party before Nation" Democrats that
> let a lying, cheating, dirty old man (and rapist) stay in our White
> House 5 short years ago.
Feel free to post the proof and/or criminal conviction that
would lead you to conclude that Clinton was a rapist.
Otherwise, cut this shit out. Thank you for your attention.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 04:32:14 -0500, Mike Smith <mws@no-spam> wrote:
>Delusional..... truly delusional.........
>
>No wonder you buy into all the lies the DNC puts out.
>You're a mullet.
There you go again, calling your opponents names instead of addressing
their arguments.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:54:49 -0500, "LarryG" <gilstrap@no-spam>
wrote:
>"Mike Smith" <mws@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:9a4hfvglacv27o7c0but8vbtk2pabudkv4@no-spam
>> On 24 Jun 2003 07:30:48 -0700, eris@no-spam (Clay Colwell) wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Smith <mws@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:<8uuefv05kc0lgucalvntuvfqo7vrpru4rl@no-spam>...
>> >
>> >> Wonderful....... Dumb and Dumber patting each other on the back, while
>> >> completely forgetting about the "Party before Nation" Democrats that
>> >> let a lying, cheating, dirty old man (and rapist) stay in our White
>> >> House 5 short years ago.
>> >
>> >Feel free to post the proof and/or criminal conviction that
>> >would lead you to conclude that Clinton was a rapist.
>> >
>> >Otherwise, cut this shit out. Thank you for your attention.
>>
>> http://www.warroom.com/clintonrape.htm
>> The materials, stored in D.C.'s General Ford Building, are said to
>> include evidence on Clinton's alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick, the
>> intimidation of other women and , according to one source, the sexual
>> harassment of up to three female Secret Service agents.
>>
>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33006
>> Juanita Broaddrick, who claimed on a nationally televised network
>> interview that Bill Clinton raped her in 1978, will be the guest on
>> Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" show tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern,
>> 6 p.m. Pacific.
>> Known as "Jane Doe Number 5" in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's
>> impeachment report to Congress, Broaddrick first went on the record in
>> a 1999 interview with the Wall Street Journal, claiming Clinton
>> sexually assaulted her when he served as attorney general of Arkansas.
>>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89153,00.html
>> HANNITY: You described a scene that he was biting on your lip and
>> then when it was all over and he was leaving said, "You better put
>> some ice on that."
>> JUANITA BROADDRICK, CLAIMS BILL CLINTON RAPED HER: Yes. And casually
>> put on his sunglasses and walked out the door. And I told my friend
>> who came back and found me that I was sitting there crying and so
>> upset at the time. And I felt like somebody, that the next person
>> would be somebody coming through the door to get rid of the body.
>> That's just about how I absolutely couldn't believe what had happened
>> to me.
>>
>> How much more info do you need, Clay?
>> (I'll assume you have no problems with the "lying cheating dirty old
>> man" part.)
>>
>> Mike Smith
>
>At least you offer something in the way of corroborating evidence.
>However, accusations do not make convictions. If there was rape,
>Clinton would have left behind DNA, not to mention a slew of
>Secret Service Agents as circumstantial witnesses.
>
>But then again, you believe everything the Republicans say,
>most recently falling for the Weapons of Mass Destruction
>lie.
>
>Cheers,
>Larry G.
>
>
Larry,
You will find that Mike 'the biological ventriloquists dummy' Smith
posted the crap that was quite nicely explained in Blumenthals' 'The
Clinton Wars'. The woman was one of the Scaife buys from Arkansas.
remember those two retired state police that swore they had brought
hookers and other stuff to the Governors mansion? Well, it was
PROVEN, even to Starrs' satisfaction that they had been PAID to lie.
The 'I wuz raped broads' were also shown to have been paid, all by
Scaif. ...and YES Blumenthal references the proofs, in this instance
they are to be found in that asshole Starrs investigation records. For
the edification of and to shut the dumb bastards up immediately, I
will note that EVERY time Blumenthal makes an assertion or rebuttal of
the New Republicans he backs it up with REAL existing data. Why do
you suppose that no charges were ever brought up about rapes, dope
smuggling etc etc, BECAUSE every single goddamn one of those charges
was based upon lies told by people Scaif PAID to tell.
The REAL question is why the goddam hell wasn't that rich sonofabitch
and all two main flunkies prosecuted as well as the inbred jackasses
from Arkansas who told the lies.
Oh, and Smith you ignorant jackass go out and BUY the book, I won't
stoop so low as to furnish you one single scrap.
Why do you even provide a sounding board for Smith, he is completely
off the wall 100% of the time. I am constantly surprised not to read
that the New republicans/neoCONS have not sent out someone to kill the
bastard, he does them more damage than a thousand detractors.
$50 million dollars plus WASTED by Starr on New Republican BULLSHIT!
So all you fucking Clinton haters can go plumb straight to hell, this
country has a much more serious a problem. Namely a group presidency
that is responsible for two wars, 200 plus American soldiers dead,
more dying everyday, $300+Billion yearly deficit, lies to cause a war,
and OSAMA, alAzawhiri, Omar and Sadaam&family still on the loose and
shooting. Feel safe at night motherfuckers? Your heroes with the
worlds best military and so-called best intelligence can't even find a
one-eyed Afghani Mullah.
So Bush kissers you can kiss my ass.
-=Monte=-
The solution is simple, send pretzels to the Whitehouse!
In austin.general Monte <SendGeeDumbya@no-spam> wrote:
: Why do you even provide a sounding board for Smith, he is completely
: off the wall 100% of the time. I am constantly surprised not to read
: that the New republicans/neoCONS have not sent out someone to kill the
: bastard, he does them more damage than a thousand detractors.
He is a perfect mouthpiece for the Scaife crowd, though,
who subscribe wholeheartedly to the Goebbels method of
propaganda. This method has two main tenets:
1. Lie so much and so blatantly that nobody knows the
truth anymore.
2. Accuse anyone who calls you on your bullshit of being
a liar himself. In general, accuse your opponents of
using the tactics you are using, while maintaining the
fiction that your side is as pure as snow.
The point of all this is to confuse the debate to such
an extent that the masses become numb to the noise. At
that point, extremism becomes possible.
The scary part is that so far, it's working for them.
cb
[culling the xpost]
Mike Smith <mws@no-spam> wrote in message news:<9a4hfvglacv27o7c0but8vbtk2pabudkv4@no-spam>...
> On 24 Jun 2003 07:30:48 -0700, eris@no-spam (Clay Colwell) wrote:
>
> >Mike Smith <mws@no-spam> wrote in message news:<8uuefv05kc0lgucalvntuvfqo7vrpru4rl@no-spam>...
> >
> >> Wonderful....... Dumb and Dumber patting each other on the back, while
> >> completely forgetting about the "Party before Nation" Democrats that
> >> let a lying, cheating, dirty old man (and rapist) stay in our White
> >> House 5 short years ago.
> >
> >Feel free to post the proof and/or criminal conviction that
> >would lead you to conclude that Clinton was a rapist.
> >
> >Otherwise, cut this shit out. Thank you for your attention.
>
> http://www.warroom.com/clintonrape.htm
> The materials, stored in D.C.'s General Ford Building, are said to
> include evidence on Clinton's alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick, the
> intimidation of other women and , according to one source, the sexual
> harassment of up to three female Secret Service agents.
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33006
> Juanita Broaddrick, who claimed on a nationally televised network
> interview that Bill Clinton raped her in 1978, will be the guest on
> Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" show tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern,
> 6 p.m. Pacific.
> Known as "Jane Doe Number 5" in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's
> impeachment report to Congress, Broaddrick first went on the record in
> a 1999 interview with the Wall Street Journal, claiming Clinton
> sexually assaulted her when he served as attorney general of Arkansas.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89153,00.html
> HANNITY: You described a scene that he was biting on your lip and
> then when it was all over and he was leaving said, "You better put
> some ice on that."
> JUANITA BROADDRICK, CLAIMS BILL CLINTON RAPED HER: Yes. And casually
> put on his sunglasses and walked out the door. And I told my friend
> who came back and found me that I was sitting there crying and so
> upset at the time. And I felt like somebody, that the next person
> would be somebody coming through the door to get rid of the body.
> That's just about how I absolutely couldn't believe what had happened
> to me.
I asked for proof, not hearsay. And a criminal conviction to boot.
If what you presented is acceptable to you, then let's just talk
about Shrub's substance abuse problems and other "indiscretions"
while we're at it, OK? You don't seem to have a problem with a
lying draft-dodging druggie in the White House (to use your
posting style -- oops, I forgot the requisite "CONSERVATIVES
HAVE TO LIE! IT'S THEIR FUNDAMENTAL NATURE TO DO SO!" schtick).
Let me guess: you believe the Clintons masterminded Vince Foster's
death, too?
In article <9a4hfvglacv27o7c0but8vbtk2pabudkv4@no-spam>,
Mike Smith <mws@no-spam> wrote:
>are said to include evidence on Clinton's alleged rape
>Juanita Broaddrick, who claimed on a nationally televised network
>interview that Bill Clinton raped her in 1978, will be the guest on
>How much more info do you need, Clay?
I'd like to hope that simply alleging and claiming aren't
considered an automatic conviction. Especially as DNA evidence seems
to be exonerating quite a few actually convicted rapists lately...
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:36:10 GMT, Larry Kessler
<l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@no-spam> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 04:32:14 -0500, Mike Smith <mws@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>Delusional..... truly delusional.........
>>
>>No wonder you buy into all the lies the DNC puts out.
>>You're a mullet.
>
>There you go again, calling your opponents names instead of addressing
>their arguments.
LarryG had NO argument. All he was doing was giving us his best DNC
parrot routine.
I'm wondering why you snipped his post.... I'll guess you didn't want
to confront the lies he posted about our President?
Mike Smith
On 24 Jun 2003 14:22:05 -0700, eris@no-spam (Clay Colwell) wrote:
>[culling the xpost]
>
>Mike Smith <mws@no-spam> wrote in message news:<9a4hfvglacv27o7c0but8vbtk2pabudkv4@no-spam>...
>> On 24 Jun 2003 07:30:48 -0700, eris@no-spam (Clay Colwell) wrote:
>>
>> >Feel free to post the proof and/or criminal conviction that
>> >would lead you to conclude that Clinton was a rapist.
>> >
>> >Otherwise, cut this shit out. Thank you for your attention.
>>
>> http://www.warroom.com/clintonrape.htm
>> The materials, stored in D.C.'s General Ford Building, are said to
>> include evidence on Clinton's alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick, the
>> intimidation of other women and , according to one source, the sexual
>> harassment of up to three female Secret Service agents.
>>
>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33006
>> Juanita Broaddrick, who claimed on a nationally televised network
>> interview that Bill Clinton raped her in 1978, will be the guest on
>> Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" show tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern,
>> 6 p.m. Pacific.
>> Known as "Jane Doe Number 5" in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's
>> impeachment report to Congress, Broaddrick first went on the record in
>> a 1999 interview with the Wall Street Journal, claiming Clinton
>> sexually assaulted her when he served as attorney general of Arkansas.
>>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89153,00.html
>> HANNITY: You described a scene that he was biting on your lip and
>> then when it was all over and he was leaving said, "You better put
>> some ice on that."
>> JUANITA BROADDRICK, CLAIMS BILL CLINTON RAPED HER: Yes. And casually
>> put on his sunglasses and walked out the door. And I told my friend
>> who came back and found me that I was sitting there crying and so
>> upset at the time. And I felt like somebody, that the next person
>> would be somebody coming through the door to get rid of the body.
>> That's just about how I absolutely couldn't believe what had happened
>> to me.
>
>I asked for proof, not hearsay.
Hearsay? Juanita was an eye witness.......
Or do you mean that Juanita or BJ would have to personally come to
your house and state that he raped her before you'd believe it?
Maybe with a picture or two? A pair of old, dirty underwear?
[.....]
>And a criminal conviction to boot.
Hmmmmm... Think back to 1978. How would a woman accuse an Attorney
General of rape?
DNA? Nope, wasn't available.
A witness? Nope, no one else was in the room.
Tell her husband? Yea.... Right.........
Clay, you have proven, in the past, to have some analytical abilities
(unlike the sycophants; LarryG, Monte, and Chris). Use some of that
ability. How would she accuse a powerful person in Arkansas of raping
her without any corroborating witnesses? What would be the "smart"
thing for her to do?
>If what you presented is acceptable to you, then let's just talk
>about Shrub's substance abuse problems and other "indiscretions"
>while we're at it, OK?
OK. Which one of his frat buddies have come forth and stated that he
did drugs with him?
>You don't seem to have a problem with a
>lying draft-dodging druggie in the White House
He's gone and I did have major problems with his defecation of our
White House. He left in January 2001. His brother, Roger, has stated
publicly, that he had a nose like a Hoover when it came to coke. We
already know he is a liar, and we know he dodged the draft.
>(to use your
>posting style -- oops, I forgot the requisite "CONSERVATIVES
>HAVE TO LIE! IT'S THEIR FUNDAMENTAL NATURE TO DO SO!" schtick).
All you have to do is read the sycophants that post here. It is
crystal clear that they MUST lie to present any type of an opinion.
Hell... read the imbeciles posting in this thread.
>
>Let me guess: you believe the Clintons masterminded Vince Foster's
>death, too?
That is a mystery.
I don't know if they had something to do with his murder, or
accidental death; but it is clear that his body was dumped in the
park, and it is clear that his office was ransacked by Hillary right
after his body was dumped in the park.
Read Unlimited Access. It's an eye witness account.
Mike Smith
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:50:25 GMT, SendGeeDumbya@no-spam (Monte)
wrote:
>The REAL question is why the goddam hell wasn't that rich sonofabitch
>and all two main flunkies prosecuted as well as the inbred jackasses
>from Arkansas who told the lies.
>
>Oh, and Smith you ignorant jackass go out and BUY the book, I won't
>stoop so low as to furnish you one single scrap.
>
>Why do you even provide a sounding board for Smith, he is completely
>off the wall 100% of the time. I am constantly surprised not to read
>that the New republicans/neoCONS have not sent out someone to kill the
>bastard, he does them more damage than a thousand detractors.
>
>$50 million dollars plus WASTED by Starr on New Republican BULLSHIT!
>
>So all you fucking Clinton haters can go plumb straight to hell, this
>country has a much more serious a problem. Namely a group presidency
>that is responsible for two wars, 200 plus American soldiers dead,
>more dying everyday, $300+Billion yearly deficit, lies to cause a war,
>and OSAMA, alAzawhiri, Omar and Sadaam&family still on the loose and
>shooting. Feel safe at night motherfuckers? Your heroes with the
>worlds best military and so-called best intelligence can't even find a
>one-eyed Afghani Mullah.
>
>So Bush kissers you can kiss my ass.
>
>
>-=Monte=-
Folks, I could not have pointed out monte's delusional ignorance
better that he just did.
Thanks, monte.
Mike Smith
(FYI, the only truthful thing in Blumenthals book is the name of the
author, and I wouldn't bet on that.........)
Mike Smith <mws@no-spam> wrote in message news:<thlhfv4ij438kllosepep9vg6bfakvd6sf@no-spam>...
> On 24 Jun 2003 14:22:05 -0700, eris@no-spam (Clay Colwell) wrote:
>
> >[culling the xpost]
> >
> >Mike Smith <mws@no-spam> wrote in message news:<9a4hfvglacv27o7c0but8vbtk2pabudkv4@no-spam>...
> >> On 24 Jun 2003 07:30:48 -0700, eris@no-spam (Clay Colwell) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Feel free to post the proof and/or criminal conviction that
> >> >would lead you to conclude that Clinton was a rapist.
> >> >
> >> >Otherwise, cut this shit out. Thank you for your attention.
> >>
[I deleted the excerpts for space concerns, keeping the URLs]
> >> http://www.warroom.com/clintonrape.htm
[...]
> >>
> >> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33006
[...]
> >>
> >> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89153,00.html
[...]
> >I asked for proof, not hearsay.
>
> Hearsay? Juanita was an eye witness.......
But, as she herself noted, this case is predicated on her word
against his. There is no direct physical proof, and the little
circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to declare him a rapist.
Susan Smith comes to mind. I cannot say if Mrs. Broaddrick is
telling the truth, is deluded and thinks she's telling the
truth, or is trying to play Clinton with a blatant lie. Neither
can you, which is why calling him, unequivocally, a rapist is
a Big No-No, just like my calling Shrub, unequivocally, a druggie
would be a Big No-No. Yeah, I hate the guy, but that hatred
would not excuse my behavior. You shouldn't be letting your
hatred excuse yours.
> Or do you mean that Juanita or BJ would have to personally come to
> your house and state that he raped her before you'd believe it?
> Maybe with a picture or two? A pair of old, dirty underwear?
Don't act like a moron.
Engage your brain and think on what constitutes "proof" in our
criminal justice system. Work from there.
> [.....]
>
> >And a criminal conviction to boot.
>
> Hmmmmm... Think back to 1978. How would a woman accuse an Attorney
> General of rape?
> DNA? Nope, wasn't available.
> A witness? Nope, no one else was in the room.
> Tell her husband? Yea.... Right.........
Which makes the allegations, now, on top of two sworn affidavits
from Broaddrick testifying to the contrary, that much more pro-
blematic, whether or not she's telling the truth. Deny that fact
at your peril.
> Clay, you have proven, in the past, to have some analytical abilities
> (unlike the sycophants; LarryG, Monte, and Chris). Use some of that
> ability. How would she accuse a powerful person in Arkansas of raping
> her without any corroborating witnesses? What would be the "smart"
> thing for her to do?
And what would be the "right" thing? C'mon, Mike, aren't you
going to own up to your self-professed conservative viewpoint
and ask her why she didn't take responsibility right away and
talk from the start to do the right thing?
I will repeat: I don't know the facts of this story. The problem
is that, effectively, only two people do. And it's never a wise
thing to take one's person's words wholesale, at face value,
without some critical examination, let alone presume a serious
crime. Otherwise, we'd all be ready to accept any con that came
our way.
Or are you going to call Clinton a murderer now, like Falwell
supports but will not say himself?
> >If what you presented is acceptable to you, then let's just talk
> >about Shrub's substance abuse problems and other "indiscretions"
> >while we're at it, OK?
>
> OK. Which one of his frat buddies have come forth and stated that he
> did drugs with him?
"Well, gee whiz, going after a powerful guy like that, with no
DNA evidence....."
But others have come forth and claimed to have seen him snorting
cocaine. Whether those reports are true are not, it's insufficient
to unequivocally declare him a druggie.
But let's talk about that DWI conviction, shall we?
> >You don't seem to have a problem with a
> >lying draft-dodging druggie in the White House
>
> He's gone and I did have major problems with his defecation of our
> White House. He left in January 2001. His brother, Roger, has stated
> publicly, that he had a nose like a Hoover when it came to coke. We
> already know he is a liar, and we know he dodged the draft.
You can't^Wwon't read for content, eh?
Let me put on my Mike hat:
George W. Bush is a lying draft-dodging druggie in the White House.
And Mike doesn't have a problem with it.
There. That about covers it.
> >(to use your
> >posting style -- oops, I forgot the requisite "CONSERVATIVES
> >HAVE TO LIE! IT'S THEIR FUNDAMENTAL NATURE TO DO SO!" schtick).
>
> All you have to do is read the sycophants that post here. It is
> crystal clear that they MUST lie to present any type of an opinion.
>
> Hell... read the imbeciles posting in this thread.
And sweeping generalizations are stupid. Or do you not think that
I'm a liberal?
You claim to have respect for me and my reasoning skills, and I'm
not "the exception that proves the rule", so what does that leave?
You lying. Simple as that. Of course, it's just your hyperbolic
"discussion" style, but it doesn't make your claims of superior
reasoning skill very credible.
On 25 Jun 2003 11:23:48 -0700, eris@no-spam (Clay Colwell) wrote:
>Mike Smith <mws@no-spam> wrote in message news:<thlhfv4ij438kllosepep9vg6bfakvd6sf@no-spam>...
>> On 24 Jun 2003 14:22:05 -0700, eris@no-spam (Clay Colwell) wrote:
>>
>> >[culling the xpost]
>> >
>> >Mike Smith <mws@no-spam> wrote in message news:<9a4hfvglacv27o7c0but8vbtk2pabudkv4@no-spam>...
>> >> On 24 Jun 2003 07:30:48 -0700, eris@no-spam (Clay Colwell) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Feel free to post the proof and/or criminal conviction that
>> >> >would lead you to conclude that Clinton was a rapist.
>> >> >
>> >> >Otherwise, cut this shit out. Thank you for your attention.
>> >>
>
>[I deleted the excerpts for space concerns, keeping the URLs]
>> >> http://www.warroom.com/clintonrape.htm
>[...]
>> >>
>> >> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33006
>[...]
>> >>
>> >> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89153,00.html
>[...]
>
>> >I asked for proof, not hearsay.
>>
>> Hearsay? Juanita was an eye witness.......
>
>But, as she herself noted, this case is predicated on her word
>against his. There is no direct physical proof, and the little
>circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to declare him a rapist.
OK< Let's just state that he is an accused rapist. That's factually
accurate.
>
>Susan Smith comes to mind. I cannot say if Mrs. Broaddrick is
>telling the truth, is deluded and thinks she's telling the
>truth, or is trying to play Clinton with a blatant lie. Neither
>can you, which is why calling him, unequivocally, a rapist is
>a Big No-No, just like my calling Shrub, unequivocally, a druggie
>would be a Big No-No. Yeah, I hate the guy, but that hatred
>would not excuse my behavior. You shouldn't be letting your
>hatred excuse yours.
I hate how he disgraced our Nation, true enough, however, the
circumstances described by Juanita fit his standard MO with women.
That makes her story credible.
>
>
>> Or do you mean that Juanita or BJ would have to personally come to
>> your house and state that he raped her before you'd believe it?
>> Maybe with a picture or two? A pair of old, dirty underwear?
>
>Don't act like a moron.
>Engage your brain and think on what constitutes "proof" in our
>criminal justice system. Work from there.
If she had "proof" as constituted by our judicial system, he'd be
locked up serving his time. How old was she at the time she claimed
that BJ raped her? 20 something? How smart were you when you were 20
something?
>
>
>> [.....]
>>
>> >And a criminal conviction to boot.
>>
>> Hmmmmm... Think back to 1978. How would a woman accuse an Attorney
>> General of rape?
>> DNA? Nope, wasn't available.
>> A witness? Nope, no one else was in the room.
>> Tell her husband? Yea.... Right.........
>
>Which makes the allegations, now, on top of two sworn affidavits
>from Broaddrick testifying to the contrary, that much more pro-
>blematic, whether or not she's telling the truth. Deny that fact
>at your peril.
Again...... you liberals LOVE to "feel someone's pain", put yourself
in her position. It is a logical progression for a liberal to swear it
didn't happen, just to shield herself from the media attention. I
could speculate till the cows came home, but it would just be
speculation. Gifted Liars are persuasive, so it is feasible that she
was "persuaded".
>
>
>> Clay, you have proven, in the past, to have some analytical abilities
>> (unlike the sycophants; LarryG, Monte, and Chris). Use some of that
>> ability. How would she accuse a powerful person in Arkansas of raping
>> her without any corroborating witnesses? What would be the "smart"
>> thing for her to do?
>
>And what would be the "right" thing? C'mon, Mike, aren't you
>going to own up to your self-professed conservative viewpoint
>and ask her why she didn't take responsibility right away and
>talk from the start to do the right thing?
Absolutely, but I wasn't around to advise her back then. I would have
advised her to tell her husband and hope he was man enough to go kill
the piece of shit. It would have saved our nation a decent amount of
grief and about a half billion dollars in vacations for the perv.
>
>I will repeat: I don't know the facts of this story. The problem
>is that, effectively, only two people do. And it's never a wise
>thing to take one's person's words wholesale, at face value,
>without some critical examination, let alone presume a serious
>crime. Otherwise, we'd all be ready to accept any con that came
>our way.
Not really. When you have a known liar and someone else, a normal
rational person would believe the other person, not the known liar.
>
>Or are you going to call Clinton a murderer now, like Falwell
>supports but will not say himself?
If you are talking about BJ, no way... he's too much of a mamma's boy.
However, PIAPS seems like she would be capable of it...........
>
>
>> >If what you presented is acceptable to you, then let's just talk
>> >about Shrub's substance abuse problems and other "indiscretions"
>> >while we're at it, OK?
>>
>> OK. Which one of his frat buddies have come forth and stated that he
>> did drugs with him?
>
>"Well, gee whiz, going after a powerful guy like that, with no
>DNA evidence....."
Couldn't find anything except the idiot bloggers, could you......
Couldn't verify that at all, could you.........
>But others have come forth and claimed to have seen him snorting
>cocaine. Whether those reports are true are not, it's insufficient
>to unequivocally declare him a druggie.
Others? Like Mc Auliffe? Carville? Begala? Roger Clinton?
>
>But let's talk about that DWI conviction, shall we?
What? That traffic ticket he received in Maine?
From http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html
Bush, who was 30 at the time, was popped over the Labor Day weekend
near his family's Kennebunkport summer home. Bush pleaded guilty to
the misdemeanor DUI charge, paid a $150 fine, and had his driving
privileges briefly revoked in the state of Maine.
In case you missed it, Bush has told us that he did have a drinking
problem, but he matured. What's to talk about?
Surprise!! He's not perfect.......... <sarcasm>
>
>
>> >You don't seem to have a problem with a
>> >lying draft-dodging druggie in the White House
>>
>> He's gone and I did have major problems with his defecation of our
>> White House. He left in January 2001. His brother, Roger, has stated
>> publicly, that he had a nose like a Hoover when it came to coke. We
>> already know he is a liar, and we know he dodged the draft.
>
>You can't^Wwon't read for content, eh?
>
>Let me put on my Mike hat:
Take it off, you aren't relying on known facts. You are believing the
misinformation published by known liars.
>
>George W. Bush is a lying draft-dodging druggie in the White House.
>And Mike doesn't have a problem with it.
Two sentences and 4 lies. Yep, you're a liberal, Clay.
Produce a Bush lie. Produce proof that he "dodged the draft"
(enlisting in the National Guard is not dodging the draft). Produce
proof that he did drugs. (Oh wait..... You've already tried to find
that one) Produce anything that I've posted that states I would not
have a problem with your lies, if they were facts.
>
>There. That about covers it.
>
>
>> >(to use your
>> >posting style -- oops, I forgot the requisite "CONSERVATIVES
>> >HAVE TO LIE! IT'S THEIR FUNDAMENTAL NATURE TO DO SO!" schtick).
>>
>> All you have to do is read the sycophants that post here. It is
>> crystal clear that they MUST lie to present any type of an opinion.
>>
>> Hell... read the imbeciles posting in this thread.
>
>And sweeping generalizations are stupid. Or do you not think that
>I'm a liberal?
You're a liberal that has shown some form of logic and common sense.
That does not mean that you are showing logic and common sense right
now. Sweeping generalizations fit this situation, therefore I used an
obvious one.
>You claim to have respect for me and my reasoning skills, and I'm
>not "the exception that proves the rule", so what does that leave?
You possess more than the vast majority of liberals. That's all my
statement means.
>You lying. Simple as that. Of course, it's just your hyperbolic
>"discussion" style, but it doesn't make your claims of superior
>reasoning skill very credible.
Except no one ever has produced facts backing up statements such as
yours. I don't think you liberals can tell the difference between
facts and lies. It's been proven in multiple posts by multiple
liberals.
Nowhere in your 139 line post do you present any fact that proves me
to be lying, nor is there an implication of a lie, except for your one
sentence.
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:53:54 -0500
Mike Smith wrote:
>>I cannot say if Mrs. Broaddrick is
>>telling the truth, is deluded and thinks she's telling the
>>truth, or is trying to play Clinton with a blatant lie.
>
> the
> circumstances described by Juanita fit his standard MO with women.
> That makes her story credible.
The NBC journalists who interviewed Broaddick were convinced
it was true. Clinton's response when the accusation was made
public was "talk to my lawyer." Everything surrounding the
story was pretty convincing, but then so was O.J., and it
turned out he was innocent, so maybe Clinton didn't rape her
after all.
spdf <gotspam@no-spam> wrote in message news:<nNOdnRar39Dg9majRTvUqg@no-spam>...
> Mike Smith wrote:
>
> >>I cannot say if Mrs. Broaddrick is
> >>telling the truth, is deluded and thinks she's telling the
> >>truth, or is trying to play Clinton with a blatant lie.
> >
> > the
> > circumstances described by Juanita fit his standard MO with women.
> > That makes her story credible.
>
> The NBC journalists who interviewed Broaddick were convinced
> it was true. Clinton's response when the accusation was made
> public was "talk to my lawyer." Everything surrounding the
> story was pretty convincing, but then so was O.J., and it
> turned out he was innocent, so maybe Clinton didn't rape her
> after all.
I've seen noted in other places that it's true that Clinton's
a pretty horny goat, but that violence and coercion do NOT
seem to be part of his "standard MO".
I'll settle for "accused rapist" until more evidence is presented.
Clay Colwell <eris@no-spam> wrote:
: spdf <gotspam@no-spam> wrote in message news:<nNOdnRar39Dg9majRTvUqg@no-spam>...
:> Mike Smith wrote:
:>
:> >>I cannot say if Mrs. Broaddrick is
:> >>telling the truth, is deluded and thinks she's telling the
:> >>truth, or is trying to play Clinton with a blatant lie.
:> >
:> > the
:> > circumstances described by Juanita fit his standard MO with women.
:> > That makes her story credible.
:>
:> The NBC journalists who interviewed Broaddick were convinced
:> it was true. Clinton's response when the accusation was made
:> public was "talk to my lawyer." Everything surrounding the
:> story was pretty convincing, but then so was O.J., and it
:> turned out he was innocent, so maybe Clinton didn't rape her
:> after all.
:
: I've seen noted in other places that it's true that Clinton's
: a pretty horny goat, but that violence and coercion do NOT
: seem to be part of his "standard MO".
:
: I'll settle for "accused rapist" until more evidence is presented.
I accuse George W. Bush of raping me when I was a
teenage boy.
There, now he can wear that epithet, too.
cb
(sheesh, will rightwingers stop at nothing?)
Republicans ok rule allowing leader to keep post if criminally
indicted
WASHINGTON : Republicans in the US House of Representatives closed
ranks around their beleaguered leader Tom DeLay, approving a rule that
would allow him to maintain his top post even if indicted on criminal
charges.
DeLay is being investigated by a Texas grand jury on charges of
illegal fundraising and money laundering. Three DeLay associates
already have been indicted on related charges...
"JOE" <qwertyu@no-spam> wrote in message
news:eicop05ss839v8s3g9jmfualgst593kg1j@no-spam
> Republicans ok rule allowing leader to keep post if criminally
> indicted
>
> WASHINGTON : Republicans in the US House of Representatives closed
> ranks around their beleaguered leader Tom DeLay, approving a rule that
> would allow him to maintain his top post even if indicted on criminal
> charges.
>
> DeLay is being investigated by a Texas grand jury on charges of
> illegal fundraising and money laundering. Three DeLay associates
> already have been indicted on related charges...
>
>
>
MORON! INDITED AIN'T CONVICTED, INNOCENT 'TIL PROVED GUILTY. DELAY IS AS
HONEST AS ANY POLITICIAN, SO SHUT YER GOB! YOU LIBS STARTED THE IRAQ WAR
AND ARE FOR GAY WEDDINS' SO HERE IS MY MASSAGE TO YOU!
http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov
...................................................BILLY BOB
In article <eicop05ss839v8s3g9jmfualgst593kg1j@no-spam>,
JOE <qwertyu@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>Republicans ok rule allowing leader to keep post if criminally
>indicted
>
>WASHINGTON : Republicans in the US House of Representatives closed
>ranks around their beleaguered leader Tom DeLay, approving a rule that
>would allow him to maintain his top post even if indicted on criminal
>charges.
>
>DeLay is being investigated by a Texas grand jury on charges of
>illegal fundraising and money laundering. Three DeLay associates
>already have been indicted on related charges...
Note that the Democrats removed the rule of "removal on indictment" many
years ago.
How come its such a big deal when the REPUBLICANS do it, but the Democrats
can have the EXACT SAME RULE and there's thunderous silence?
Gee, nothing like a double-standard!
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@no-spam Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind
"JOE" <qwertyu@no-spam> wrote in message
news:eicop05ss839v8s3g9jmfualgst593kg1j@no-spam
> Republicans ok rule allowing leader to keep post if criminally
> indicted
>
> WASHINGTON : Republicans in the US House of Representatives closed
> ranks around their beleaguered leader Tom DeLay, approving a rule that
> would allow him to maintain his top post even if indicted on criminal
> charges.
>
> DeLay is being investigated by a Texas grand jury on charges of
> illegal fundraising and money laundering. Three DeLay associates
> already have been indicted on related charges...
I think that when such charges are obviously the result of political
motivation that Delay ought to be given the benefit of the doubt and I
believe the rules change now matches the current rules that the Democratic
party has.
Bill Clinton was technically "indicted" by the House as part of the
impeachment proceedings. No rule required that he step down.....and
although he probably was guilty of purjury, the political backdrop
surrounding the charges played a role during the impeachment process.
>
>
>
"Billy Bob" <roanoke@no-spam> wrote in message
news:10pos1l8bnrqd6c@no-spam
>
> "JOE" <qwertyu@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:eicop05ss839v8s3g9jmfualgst593kg1j@no-spam
> > Republicans ok rule allowing leader to keep post if criminally
> > indicted
> >
> > WASHINGTON : Republicans in the US House of Representatives closed
> > ranks around their beleaguered leader Tom DeLay, approving a rule that
> > would allow him to maintain his top post even if indicted on criminal
> > charges.
> >
> > DeLay is being investigated by a Texas grand jury on charges of
> > illegal fundraising and money laundering. Three DeLay associates
> > already have been indicted on related charges...
> >
> >
> >
>
> MORON! INDITED AIN'T CONVICTED, INNOCENT 'TIL PROVED GUILTY. DELAY IS AS
> HONEST AS ANY POLITICIAN, SO SHUT YER GOB! YOU LIBS STARTED THE IRAQ WAR
> AND ARE FOR GAY WEDDINS' SO HERE IS MY MASSAGE TO YOU!
>
>
>
> http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov
>
>
>
>
> ...................................................BILLY BOB
>
>
A. Unless you've been underground for the past 2 years or are as stupid as
you sound, the INVASION of Iraq is all Bush's/Neocon's doing. Not the
"Libs".
B. It's spelled INDICTED, Gomer.
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:16:04 GMT, karl@no-spam (Karl
Denninger) wrote:
>
>In article <eicop05ss839v8s3g9jmfualgst593kg1j@no-spam>,
>JOE <qwertyu@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Republicans ok rule allowing leader to keep post if criminally
>>indicted
>>
>>WASHINGTON : Republicans in the US House of Representatives closed
>>ranks around their beleaguered leader Tom DeLay, approving a rule that
>>would allow him to maintain his top post even if indicted on criminal
>>charges.
>>
>>DeLay is being investigated by a Texas grand jury on charges of
>>illegal fundraising and money laundering. Three DeLay associates
>>already have been indicted on related charges...
>
>Note that the Democrats removed the rule of "removal on indictment" many
>years ago.
>
>How come its such a big deal when the REPUBLICANS do it, but the Democrats
>can have the EXACT SAME RULE and there's thunderous silence?
The Republicans put the rule in place to prove they were better than
the Democrats.
The removal of the rule proves that they are no better than the
Democrats.
"Karl Denninger" <karl@no-spam> wrote in message
news:E82nd.1090$wa1.308@no-spam
>
> In article <eicop05ss839v8s3g9jmfualgst593kg1j@no-spam>,
> JOE <qwertyu@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Republicans ok rule allowing leader to keep post if criminally
>>indicted
>>
>>WASHINGTON : Republicans in the US House of Representatives closed
>>ranks around their beleaguered leader Tom DeLay, approving a rule that
>>would allow him to maintain his top post even if indicted on criminal
>>charges.
>>
>>DeLay is being investigated by a Texas grand jury on charges of
>>illegal fundraising and money laundering. Three DeLay associates
>>already have been indicted on related charges...
>
> Note that the Democrats removed the rule of "removal on indictment" many
> years ago.
>
> How come its such a big deal when the REPUBLICANS do it, but the Democrats
> can have the EXACT SAME RULE and there's thunderous silence?
>
> Gee, nothing like a double-standard!
MSM captures the moment. Let's watch as MSM cameras follow the filthy
Republican Senator into the restroom.
"Hey, get that camera out of here!", says the Senator.
"Why? You've got nothing to hide!", says the commie reporter with rapier
wit.
In article <E82nd.1090$wa1.308@no-spam>,
Karl Denninger <karl@no-spam> wrote:
|
| Note that the Democrats removed the rule of "removal on indictment" many
| years ago.
Devastating, but simply not true. The Democrats still have that rule
on the books.
| How come its such a big deal when the REPUBLICANS do it, but the Democrats
| can have the EXACT SAME RULE and there's thunderous silence?
In the parallel world where this was so, I'm sure the parallel me is
worrying over this question.
| Gee, nothing like a double-standard!
Mmm.
| --
| --
| Karl Denninger (karl@no-spam Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Abbey jonabbey@no-spam
Applied Research Laboratories The University of Texas at Austin
GPG Key: 71767586 at keyserver pgp.mit.edu, http://www.ganymeta.org/workkey.gpg
JOE <qwertyu@no-spam> wrotenews:eicop05ss839v8s3g9jmfualgst593kg1j@no-spam
> Republicans ok rule allowing leader to keep post if criminally
> indicted
>
> WASHINGTON : Republicans in the US House of Representatives closed
> ranks around their beleaguered leader Tom DeLay, approving a rule that
> would allow him to maintain his top post even if indicted on criminal
> charges.
>
> DeLay is being investigated by a Texas grand jury on charges of
> illegal fundraising and money laundering. Three DeLay associates
> already have been indicted on related charges...
>
>
>
>
What part of our laws, jurisprudence and the constitution are you having a
hard time understanding?
You know, the part about "innocent until proven guilty"?
Fucking socialist facist liberals.
You would abrogate the constitution and enact anarchy and dictarship in
your religious fervor to bring down any republican or "conservative" in
your blind hatred and slavering self-indulgent, uneducated, low rent
stupidty.
Je te acuse'!!!!
A la Laterna!
--
---Mapanari---
m h <m.h.@no-spam> wrotenews:c5mpp05g3ki7v726a6f12u28abcgit0lig@no-spam
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:16:04 GMT, karl@no-spam (Karl
> Denninger) wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <eicop05ss839v8s3g9jmfualgst593kg1j@no-spam>,
>>JOE <qwertyu@no-spam> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Republicans ok rule allowing leader to keep post if criminally
>>>indicted
>>>
>>>WASHINGTON : Republicans in the US House of Representatives closed
>>>ranks around their beleaguered leader Tom DeLay, approving a rule that
>>>would allow him to maintain his top post even if indicted on criminal
>>>charges.
>>>
>>>DeLay is being investigated by a Texas grand jury on charges of
>>>illegal fundraising and money laundering. Three DeLay associates
>>>already have been indicted on related charges...
>>
>>Note that the Democrats removed the rule of "removal on indictment" many
>>years ago.
>>
>>How come its such a big deal when the REPUBLICANS do it, but the
Democrats
>>can have the EXACT SAME RULE and there's thunderous silence?
>
>
> The Republicans put the rule in place to prove they were better than
> the Democrats.
>
> The removal of the rule proves that they are no better than the
> Democrats.
>
>
>
>
Which only goes to prove that they're all asshole, not to be trusted, out
for only themselves, not representative of the people and should all be
thrown out of office.
Didn't we have a revolution one time because we, the people of America,
were not represented in government?
--
---Mapanari---
In article <cnj11t$4ts$1@no-spam>,
Jonathan Abbey <broccol@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>In article <E82nd.1090$wa1.308@no-spam>,
>Karl Denninger <karl@no-spam> wrote:
>|
>| Note that the Democrats removed the rule of "removal on indictment" many
>| years ago.
>
>Devastating, but simply not true. The Democrats still have that rule
>on the books.
No they don't. They have the same rule the repub's do now - if you're
indicted then it gets referred to the caucus, who determines if removal is
warranted.
The previous rule was automatic removal - that was dropped by the 'Crats
several years ago.
And, I note, it generated no fanfare when it was changed by them.
Nor should it. Indictments are not proof of guilt, and can be brought for
political reasons. Until you try the guy by 12, you have proved nothing.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@no-spam Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind