Bookmarks

Yahoo Gmail Google Facebook Delicious Twitter Reddit Stumpleupon Myspace Digg

Search queries

Crane hersteller, why did Scabbers bite goyle, fuldataler mineralwasser, bikemate fahrradcomputer t52434 anleitung, frank zappa iq 172 liam gallagher 164, "heartbroke kid" "previous episode references", bikemate t52434 anleitung, marietta edgecombe cop out, kaufland autobatterie, nasi goreng in dosen kaufen

Links

XODOX
Impressum

#1: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-13 21:08:58 by kilroy

It has been said by some people that because Michael Moore's movie
"Farenheit 9/11" had so much in it that was just crazy awful about
President Bush, it may actually have *helped* Bush get re-elected in
2004. Had Moore simply stuck to a cold and direct display of the bare
facts, the movie wouldn't have been as alarmist -- but it would have
been much more effectively politically. (Of course, Moore may not care
about that so much as he cares about making a profit, and ranting may
have been his best way to get people to see the film.)

I find much recent political discussion in the USA reminds me more and
more of the most lunatic fringe of religious evangelism. It is not
enough that others are mistaken -- they are beyond merely mistaken, they
are EVIL! If the state something which isn't true, it's not because
they made a mistake: either it was a deliberate lie, so they're EVIL!,
or it was the result of willful ignorance, and negligent study, because
they don't care what's true, and the reason they don't care what's true
is because they're EVIL!

And once your invested your religious faith in the other side being
evil, you become invested in the notion that nothing your guys do is all
that bad. So, the exact same thing done by two different people means
one is a draft-dodging coward, and the other honorably served his
country. Whether it's Clinton or Bush who abused his position to avoid
serving in Vietnam depends on whether your religion is Republican or
Democrat. (FWIW, I predicted the outcome in 2004 because the last five
times I could think of with a quasi-draft-dodger against a veteran, the
quasi-draft-dodger won. Clinton/Kerrey and then Clinton/Bush in 1992,
Clinton/Dole in 1996, Bush/McCain and then Bush/Gore in 2000, and so
Bush/Kerry in 2004 seemed likely to continue the streak.)


For a recent example, here's a comparison of Ken Lay and Bill Clinton:

> Clinton is a serial murderer, a serial rapist and a serial traitor.
> He is a purjuror too. Lay was none of those.
>
> The US suffered a net loss with Clinton. The employees of Enron
> received a net gain. Those who mamaged their stock sold early when it
> first began to fall, and they literally made fortunes.

Completely insane ranting. There are valid complaints to be made
against Bill Clinton, but no sensible and rational discussion can go on
in an environment when this kind of shrill and psychotic nonsense drowns
out anyone sensible. He's a serial murderer! He's never been charged
with murder because of a conspiracy among the Republicans who control
Congress to protect Bill Clinton at all costs! The Republicans are so
loyal, they'll never let anyone bring charges against their man Clinton!

And while Ken Lay wasn't the horrible evil person some painted him to
be, many Enron employees were not permitted to sell their stock, even
while Lay and Skilling and others were dumping their own. How does that
get left out of a paragraph about Enron employees? Well, because it's
a comparison with Bill Clinton, who is the MOST EVIL PERSON EVER, and so
anyone else compared to him gets described as some sort of hero.


Meanwhile, someone else wrote:
> However getting in front of a judge, swearing to "tell the truth, the
> whole truth, and nothing but the truth", and then proceeding to flat
> out lie, and for the purpose of depriving another woman of her civil
> rights.
>
> Pretty disgusting, loathsome behavior, any of us would go to jail for
> doing the same thing, and we would deserve it.

The same year Bill Clinton lied about sex with Monica Lewinsky, James
Allchin of Microsoft presented -- in court, under oath, as evidence -- a
faked video in the Microsoft antitrust trial. He was caught, and it was
unmistakable, undeniable perjury, intentionally planned out in advance
(it takes a while to get a fake video ready). No one at any time even
suggested that Mr Allchin would face any penalty whatesoever.

Perjury in civil cases is basically never persued. If Bill Clinton had
been an executive at a Fortune500 company, nothing would have happened.
If Bill Clinton had been a Republican, the Republican majority in
Congress wouldn't have even spoken a whisper about censuring him, let
alone impeaching him.

They postured and propounded as if they were defenders of morality and
integrity of government, but that was even more dishonest than Bill
Clinton's untrue testimony. They didn't have any principles; they just
had a convenient excuse to attack a Democrat, so they took it. Had the
situation been reversed, the Democrats would do the exact same thing to
a Republican.

Neither party stands for anything except keeping themselves in power.
Either one would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.


Darren Provine ! <a href="mailto:kilroy&#64;elvis.rowan.edu" target="_blank">kilroy&#64;elvis.rowan.edu</a> ! <a href="http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy" target="_blank">http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy</a>
&quot;There is no act of treachery or meanness of which a political party is
not capable; for in politics there is no honour.&quot;
-- Benjamin Disraeli, &quot;Vivian Grey&quot;

Report this message

#2: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-14 01:15:04 by Jeff DeWitt

Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
&gt; It has been said by some people that because Michael Moore's movie
&gt; &quot;Farenheit 9/11&quot; had so much in it that was just crazy awful about
&gt; President Bush, it may actually have *helped* Bush get re-elected in
&gt; 2004. Had Moore simply stuck to a cold and direct display of the bare
&gt; facts, the movie wouldn't have been as alarmist -- but it would have
&gt; been much more effectively politically. (Of course, Moore may not care
&gt; about that so much as he cares about making a profit, and ranting may
&gt; have been his best way to get people to see the film.)
&gt;
&gt; I find much recent political discussion in the USA reminds me more and
&gt; more of the most lunatic fringe of religious evangelism. It is not
&gt; enough that others are mistaken -- they are beyond merely mistaken, they
&gt; are EVIL! If the state something which isn't true, it's not because
&gt; they made a mistake: either it was a deliberate lie, so they're EVIL!,
&gt; or it was the result of willful ignorance, and negligent study, because
&gt; they don't care what's true, and the reason they don't care what's true
&gt; is because they're EVIL!
&gt;
&gt; And once your invested your religious faith in the other side being
&gt; evil, you become invested in the notion that nothing your guys do is all
&gt; that bad. So, the exact same thing done by two different people means
&gt; one is a draft-dodging coward, and the other honorably served his
&gt; country. Whether it's Clinton or Bush who abused his position to avoid
&gt; serving in Vietnam depends on whether your religion is Republican or
&gt; Democrat. (FWIW, I predicted the outcome in 2004 because the last five
&gt; times I could think of with a quasi-draft-dodger against a veteran, the
&gt; quasi-draft-dodger won. Clinton/Kerrey and then Clinton/Bush in 1992,
&gt; Clinton/Dole in 1996, Bush/McCain and then Bush/Gore in 2000, and so
&gt; Bush/Kerry in 2004 seemed likely to continue the streak.)
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; For a recent example, here's a comparison of Ken Lay and Bill Clinton:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Clinton is a serial murderer, a serial rapist and a serial traitor.
&gt;&gt;He is a purjuror too. Lay was none of those.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;The US suffered a net loss with Clinton. The employees of Enron
&gt;&gt;received a net gain. Those who mamaged their stock sold early when it
&gt;&gt;first began to fall, and they literally made fortunes.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Completely insane ranting. There are valid complaints to be made
&gt; against Bill Clinton, but no sensible and rational discussion can go on
&gt; in an environment when this kind of shrill and psychotic nonsense drowns
&gt; out anyone sensible. He's a serial murderer! He's never been charged
&gt; with murder because of a conspiracy among the Republicans who control
&gt; Congress to protect Bill Clinton at all costs! The Republicans are so
&gt; loyal, they'll never let anyone bring charges against their man Clinton!
&gt;
&gt; And while Ken Lay wasn't the horrible evil person some painted him to
&gt; be, many Enron employees were not permitted to sell their stock, even
&gt; while Lay and Skilling and others were dumping their own. How does that
&gt; get left out of a paragraph about Enron employees? Well, because it's
&gt; a comparison with Bill Clinton, who is the MOST EVIL PERSON EVER, and so
&gt; anyone else compared to him gets described as some sort of hero.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Meanwhile, someone else wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;However getting in front of a judge, swearing to &quot;tell the truth, the
&gt;&gt;whole truth, and nothing but the truth&quot;, and then proceeding to flat
&gt;&gt;out lie, and for the purpose of depriving another woman of her civil
&gt;&gt;rights.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Pretty disgusting, loathsome behavior, any of us would go to jail for
&gt;&gt;doing the same thing, and we would deserve it.

I was the someone else that wrote that, and I stand behind it. If James
Allchin really did what you said of course he should have been
prosecuted, however there is a BIG difference. As the President of the
United States Clinton was also Commander in Chief and through his
surrogates the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.

Because of his position and authority that makes his perjury far more
serious than that of a corrupt businessman.

Jeff DeWitt

&gt;
&gt;
&gt; The same year Bill Clinton lied about sex with Monica Lewinsky, James
&gt; Allchin of Microsoft presented -- in court, under oath, as evidence -- a
&gt; faked video in the Microsoft antitrust trial. He was caught, and it was
&gt; unmistakable, undeniable perjury, intentionally planned out in advance
&gt; (it takes a while to get a fake video ready). No one at any time even
&gt; suggested that Mr Allchin would face any penalty whatesoever.
&gt;
&gt; Perjury in civil cases is basically never persued. If Bill Clinton had
&gt; been an executive at a Fortune500 company, nothing would have happened.
&gt; If Bill Clinton had been a Republican, the Republican majority in
&gt; Congress wouldn't have even spoken a whisper about censuring him, let
&gt; alone impeaching him.
&gt;
&gt; They postured and propounded as if they were defenders of morality and
&gt; integrity of government, but that was even more dishonest than Bill
&gt; Clinton's untrue testimony. They didn't have any principles; they just
&gt; had a convenient excuse to attack a Democrat, so they took it. Had the
&gt; situation been reversed, the Democrats would do the exact same thing to
&gt; a Republican.
&gt;
&gt; Neither party stands for anything except keeping themselves in power.
&gt; Either one would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Darren Provine ! <a href="mailto:kilroy&#64;elvis.rowan.edu" target="_blank">kilroy&#64;elvis.rowan.edu</a> ! <a href="http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy" target="_blank">http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy</a>
&gt; &quot;There is no act of treachery or meanness of which a political party is
&gt; not capable; for in politics there is no honour.&quot;
&gt; -- Benjamin Disraeli, &quot;Vivian Grey&quot;

Report this message

#3: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-14 04:20:12 by kilroy

&quot;Jeff DeWitt &lt;<a href="mailto:JeffDeWitt&#64;nc.rr.com" target="_blank">JeffDeWitt&#64;nc.rr.com</a>&gt;&quot; wrote, of Bill Clinton's perjury:
&gt; Pretty disgusting, loathsome behavior, any of us would go to jail for
&gt; doing the same thing, and we would deserve it.

When I noted that James Allchin committed a far more egregious act of
perjury, and nobody even talked about getting him in trouble for it,
Mr DeWitt replied:

&gt; If James Allchin really did what you said of course he should have
&gt; been prosecuted, however there is a BIG difference. As the President
&gt; of the United States Clinton was also Commander in Chief and through
&gt; his surrogates the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
&gt;
&gt; Because of his position and authority that makes his perjury far more
&gt; serious than that of a corrupt businessman.

I wasn't talking about what should happen, or even &quot;What does Jeff
DeWitt think should happen?&quot;

I was talking about what *actually* happens, and what actually happens
in nearly every case of civil perjury is &quot;nothing&quot;. You wrote that &quot;any
of us would go to jail&quot;, which is just silly.


Darren Provine ! <a href="mailto:kilroy&#64;elvis.rowan.edu" target="_blank">kilroy&#64;elvis.rowan.edu</a> ! <a href="http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy" target="_blank">http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy</a>
&quot;Anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.&quot; -- CS Lewis

Report this message

#4: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-14 04:28:54 by information

Please visit the newly updated www.kenlayisalive.org (as seen in the
Washington Post), an informative website devoted to tracking the
movements of the &quot;late&quot; Kenneth L. Lay, convicted felon and former CEO
of Enron Corporation.

You may send all of your reports to <a href="mailto:sightings&#64;kenlayisalive.org" target="_blank">sightings&#64;kenlayisalive.org</a>

Americans for Equal Justice is providing this site as a public service
for all of those who demand that Ken Lay and other white-collar
criminals be brought to justice. We welcome and will publish any and
all relevant information on the whereabouts of Kenneth L. Lay.
Americans for Equal Justice strongly suggests that you not only report
your findings to us, but most importantly, to your local news outlets.
Please send any links to news outlets reporting your sightings to our
organization as well.

If you were personally affected by the collapse of Enron or the
California Blackouts, we want to post your story. We at Americans for
Equal Justice would like to make your story available for the world to
read so we may all know the true costs of greed and corporate crime.

Please send your stories to <a href="mailto:information&#64;kenlayisalive.org" target="_blank">information&#64;kenlayisalive.org</a>

We here at Americans for Equal Justice feel strongly that the
possibility exists that Mr. Lay, like Hitler, Elvis, and Tupac before
him, has faked his own death in order to avoid any more unwanted public
scrutiny. If this is true, then it is our responsibility as good
Americans to bring this criminal to justice by reporting his
whereabouts to the proper authorities.



Thank you for your support,

Americans for Equal Justice

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001107.html" target="_blank"> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07 /10/AR2006071001107.html</a>

<a href="http://www.wsbtv.com/money/9513207/detail.html" target="_blank">http://www.wsbtv.com/money/9513207/detail.html</a>

<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/11/blogophile/main1790141.shtml" target="_blank"> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/11/blogophile/main179 0141.shtml</a>

<a href="http://blogs.dfw.com/startle_grams/2006/07/who_knew_that_k.html" target="_blank"> http://blogs.dfw.com/startle_grams/2006/07/who_knew_that_k.h tml</a>

Report this message

#5: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-14 05:58:26 by Jeff DeWitt

Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
&gt; &quot;Jeff DeWitt &lt;<a href="mailto:JeffDeWitt&#64;nc.rr.com" target="_blank">JeffDeWitt&#64;nc.rr.com</a>&gt;&quot; wrote, of Bill Clinton's perjury:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Pretty disgusting, loathsome behavior, any of us would go to jail for
&gt;&gt;doing the same thing, and we would deserve it.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; When I noted that James Allchin committed a far more egregious act of
&gt; perjury, and nobody even talked about getting him in trouble for it,
&gt; Mr DeWitt replied:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;If James Allchin really did what you said of course he should have
&gt;&gt;been prosecuted, however there is a BIG difference. As the President
&gt;&gt;of the United States Clinton was also Commander in Chief and through
&gt;&gt;his surrogates the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Because of his position and authority that makes his perjury far more
&gt;&gt;serious than that of a corrupt businessman.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I wasn't talking about what should happen, or even &quot;What does Jeff
&gt; DeWitt think should happen?&quot;
&gt;
&gt; I was talking about what *actually* happens, and what actually happens
&gt; in nearly every case of civil perjury is &quot;nothing&quot;. You wrote that &quot;any
&gt; of us would go to jail&quot;, which is just silly.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Darren Provine ! <a href="mailto:kilroy&#64;elvis.rowan.edu" target="_blank">kilroy&#64;elvis.rowan.edu</a> ! <a href="http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy" target="_blank">http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy</a>
&gt; &quot;Anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.&quot; -- CS Lewis

OK, I got curious and dug into this. Mr. Allchin did testify at the
Microsoft antitrust trial like you said, and he did present a badly
cobbled together video, however his testimony did not rise to the level
of perjury.

Why? Because he was testifying about the difficulty of separating
Internet Explorer from Windows and how Windows performance would suffer
if that could be done. While the video might have been fake Mr. Allchin
believes that what he testified was true.

Mr. Allchin got on the witness stand and told the truth as he understood
it, Mr. Clinton got on the witness stand and lied.

THAT is why Clinton got into trouble for perjury and Mr. Allchin did not.

<a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.12/allchin.html" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.12/allchin.html</a>

(scroll down toward the bottom of the first page, where it starts
&quot;Allchin never sought the spotlight.&quot;

There was another point you brought up that I totally agree with. We
have far too many people running around claiming that their political
opponents are evil and traitors. That not only cheapens the terms but
then what do call people who really ARE evil and traitors?

An example, I don't much like France but they are hardly evil, however
the Mad Mullah's that run Iran and that little gargoyle ruling North
Korea ARE evil.

Jeff DeWitt

Report this message

#6: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-14 05:59:59 by Jeff DeWitt

Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
&gt; &quot;Jeff DeWitt &lt;<a href="mailto:JeffDeWitt&#64;nc.rr.com" target="_blank">JeffDeWitt&#64;nc.rr.com</a>&gt;&quot; wrote, of Bill Clinton's perjury:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Pretty disgusting, loathsome behavior, any of us would go to jail for
&gt;&gt;doing the same thing, and we would deserve it.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; When I noted that James Allchin committed a far more egregious act of
&gt; perjury, and nobody even talked about getting him in trouble for it,
&gt; Mr DeWitt replied:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;If James Allchin really did what you said of course he should have
&gt;&gt;been prosecuted, however there is a BIG difference. As the President
&gt;&gt;of the United States Clinton was also Commander in Chief and through
&gt;&gt;his surrogates the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Because of his position and authority that makes his perjury far more
&gt;&gt;serious than that of a corrupt businessman.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I wasn't talking about what should happen, or even &quot;What does Jeff
&gt; DeWitt think should happen?&quot;
&gt;
&gt; I was talking about what *actually* happens, and what actually happens
&gt; in nearly every case of civil perjury is &quot;nothing&quot;. You wrote that &quot;any
&gt; of us would go to jail&quot;, which is just silly.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Darren Provine ! <a href="mailto:kilroy&#64;elvis.rowan.edu" target="_blank">kilroy&#64;elvis.rowan.edu</a> ! <a href="http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy" target="_blank">http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy</a>
&gt; &quot;Anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.&quot; -- CS Lewis

OK, I got curious and dug into this. Mr. Allchin did testify at the
Microsoft antitrust trial like you said, and he did present a badly
cobbled together video, however his testimony did not rise to the level
of perjury.

Why? Because he was testifying about the difficulty of separating
Internet Explorer from Windows and how Windows performance would suffer
if that could be done. While the video might have been fake Mr. Allchin
believes that what he testified was true.

Mr. Allchin got on the witness stand and told the truth as he understood
it, Mr. Clinton got on the witness stand and lied.

THAT is why Clinton got into trouble for perjury and Mr. Allchin did not.

<a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.12/allchin.html" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.12/allchin.html</a>

(scroll down toward the bottom of the first page, where it starts
&quot;Allchin never sought the spotlight.&quot;

There was another point you brought up that I totally agree with. We
have far too many people running around claiming that their political
opponents are evil and traitors. That not only cheapens the terms but
then what do call people who really ARE evil and traitors?

An example, I don't much like France but they are hardly evil, however
the Mad Mullah's that run Iran and that little gargoyle ruling North
Korea ARE evil.

Jeff DeWitt

Report this message

#7: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-14 06:28:54 by Jeff DeWitt

Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
&gt; &quot;Jeff DeWitt &lt;<a href="mailto:JeffDeWitt&#64;nc.rr.com" target="_blank">JeffDeWitt&#64;nc.rr.com</a>&gt;&quot; wrote, of Bill Clinton's perjury:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Pretty disgusting, loathsome behavior, any of us would go to jail for
&gt;&gt;doing the same thing, and we would deserve it.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; When I noted that James Allchin committed a far more egregious act of
&gt; perjury, and nobody even talked about getting him in trouble for it,
&gt; Mr DeWitt replied:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;If James Allchin really did what you said of course he should have
&gt;&gt;been prosecuted, however there is a BIG difference. As the President
&gt;&gt;of the United States Clinton was also Commander in Chief and through
&gt;&gt;his surrogates the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Because of his position and authority that makes his perjury far more
&gt;&gt;serious than that of a corrupt businessman.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I wasn't talking about what should happen, or even &quot;What does Jeff
&gt; DeWitt think should happen?&quot;
&gt;
&gt; I was talking about what *actually* happens, and what actually happens
&gt; in nearly every case of civil perjury is &quot;nothing&quot;. You wrote that &quot;any
&gt; of us would go to jail&quot;, which is just silly.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Darren Provine ! <a href="mailto:kilroy&#64;elvis.rowan.edu" target="_blank">kilroy&#64;elvis.rowan.edu</a> ! <a href="http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy" target="_blank">http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy</a>
&gt; &quot;Anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.&quot; -- CS Lewis

OK, I got curious and dug into this. Mr. Allchin did testify at the
Microsoft antitrust trial like you said, and he did present a badly
cobbled together video, however his testimony did not rise to the level
of perjury.

Why? Because he was testifying about the difficulty of separating
Internet Explorer from Windows and how Windows performance would suffer
if that could be done. While the video might have been fake Mr. Allchin
believes that what he testified was true.

Mr. Allchin got on the witness stand and told the truth as he understood
it, Mr. Clinton got on the witness stand and lied.

THAT is why Clinton got into trouble for perjury and Mr. Allchin did not.

<a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.12/allchin.html" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.12/allchin.html</a>

(scroll down toward the bottom of the first page, where it starts
&quot;Allchin never sought the spotlight.&quot;

There was another point you brought up that I totally agree with. We
have far too many people running around claiming that their political
opponents are evil and traitors. That not only cheapens the terms but
then what do call people who really ARE evil and traitors?

An example, I don't much like France but they are hardly evil, however
the Mad Mullah's that run Iran and that little gargoyle ruling North
Korea ARE evil.

Jeff DeWitt

Report this message

#8: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-14 06:30:00 by Jeff DeWitt

Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
&gt; &quot;Jeff DeWitt &lt;<a href="mailto:JeffDeWitt&#64;nc.rr.com" target="_blank">JeffDeWitt&#64;nc.rr.com</a>&gt;&quot; wrote, of Bill Clinton's perjury:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Pretty disgusting, loathsome behavior, any of us would go to jail for
&gt;&gt;doing the same thing, and we would deserve it.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; When I noted that James Allchin committed a far more egregious act of
&gt; perjury, and nobody even talked about getting him in trouble for it,
&gt; Mr DeWitt replied:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;If James Allchin really did what you said of course he should have
&gt;&gt;been prosecuted, however there is a BIG difference. As the President
&gt;&gt;of the United States Clinton was also Commander in Chief and through
&gt;&gt;his surrogates the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Because of his position and authority that makes his perjury far more
&gt;&gt;serious than that of a corrupt businessman.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I wasn't talking about what should happen, or even &quot;What does Jeff
&gt; DeWitt think should happen?&quot;
&gt;
&gt; I was talking about what *actually* happens, and what actually happens
&gt; in nearly every case of civil perjury is &quot;nothing&quot;. You wrote that &quot;any
&gt; of us would go to jail&quot;, which is just silly.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Darren Provine ! <a href="mailto:kilroy&#64;elvis.rowan.edu" target="_blank">kilroy&#64;elvis.rowan.edu</a> ! <a href="http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy" target="_blank">http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy</a>
&gt; &quot;Anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.&quot; -- CS Lewis

OK, I got curious and dug into this. Mr. Allchin did testify at the
Microsoft antitrust trial like you said, and he did present a badly
cobbled together video, however his testimony did not rise to the level
of perjury.

Why? Because he was testifying about the difficulty of separating
Internet Explorer from Windows and how Windows performance would suffer
if that could be done. While the video might have been fake Mr. Allchin
believes that what he testified was true.

Mr. Allchin got on the witness stand and told the truth as he understood
it, Mr. Clinton got on the witness stand and lied.

THAT is why Clinton got into trouble for perjury and Mr. Allchin did not.

<a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.12/allchin.html" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.12/allchin.html</a>

(scroll down toward the bottom of the first page, where it starts
&quot;Allchin never sought the spotlight.&quot;

There was another point you brought up that I totally agree with. We
have far too many people running around claiming that their political
opponents are evil and traitors. That not only cheapens the terms but
then what do call people who really ARE evil and traitors?

An example, I don't much like France but they are hardly evil, however
the Mad Mullah's that run Iran and that little gargoyle ruling North
Korea ARE evil.

Jeff DeWitt

Report this message

#9: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-14 13:02:22 by Marat

Dr Nancy's Sweetie ha scritto:

&gt; Neither party stands for anything except keeping themselves in power.
&gt; Either one would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.


non vorrei essere inospitale
ma avete anche un tantino rotto le palle,eh?

almeno scrivete in italiano! :D

stop xpost!





mrt^^

Report this message

#10: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-14 16:14:30 by Jaxtraw

Jeff DeWitt wrote:

&gt;&gt; Meanwhile, someone else wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; However getting in front of a judge, swearing to &quot;tell the truth,
&gt;&gt;&gt; the whole truth, and nothing but the truth&quot;, and then proceeding to
&gt;&gt;&gt; flat out lie, and for the purpose of depriving another woman of her
&gt;&gt;&gt; civil rights.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Pretty disgusting, loathsome behavior, any of us would go to jail
&gt;&gt;&gt; for doing the same thing, and we would deserve it.
&gt;
&gt; I was the someone else that wrote that, and I stand behind it. If
&gt; James Allchin really did what you said of course he should have been
&gt; prosecuted, however there is a BIG difference. As the President of
&gt; the United States Clinton was also Commander in Chief and through his
&gt; surrogates the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
&gt;
&gt; Because of his position and authority that makes his perjury far more
&gt; serious than that of a corrupt businessman.
&gt;

Speaking as a non-American- the general view out here in the outside world
watching the whole thing was that the US had gone barmy. What Clinton lied
about was a personal matter- an extra-marital affair- and while that isn't
particularly worthy behaviour, what was incomprehensible was that it was a
matter for the law in any way. Of course it wasn't incomprehensible if you
took into account what was really going on- the Republicans were mounting a
ferocious campaign, turning over every stone in desperation in the hope of
finding something, *anything*, and in the end all they could find was that
Clinton had an affair with an intern, something that most people accept as
pretty routine in the corridors of power. Despite the most rigorous
investigation into a president in modern times, not a single substantive
allegation was shown to have any substance at all- the supposed financial
irregularities evaporated into thin air.

Should he have lied about his affair? Ideally, no. But people who have
affairs lie about them, and in the stultifying puritanical atmosphere of
America, it's quite understandable.

Anyway, it was a matter for the Clintons and Lewinsky- that it was dragged
out into the public eye as it was was the most disgusting, loathsome
behaviour from most outsiders' POVs. Sex is, after all, a personal matter.
I'm not ashamed of anything I've ever done sexually, but I can't say I'd
want one of my exes describing everything in lurid detail while a special
prosecutor surreptitiously rubs himself beneath his desk.

It's hard to see exactly what civil rights Monica Lewinsky was being denied
at any point. Her right to parade a semen stained dress on TV???

All one can say is that while a corrupt businessman might do enormous real
harm- destroying jobs, destroying honest rival companies and so on, Bill
Clinton avoding telling the world about a blow job harmed a sum total of
zero persons. His perjury was utterly inconsequential.

Ian

Report this message

#11: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-14 16:28:05 by kilroy

[ Followups restricted. Sorry for not noticing earlier how far out this
was going. ]

&quot;Jeff DeWitt &lt;<a href="mailto:JeffDeWitt&#64;nc.rr.com" target="_blank">JeffDeWitt&#64;nc.rr.com</a>&gt;&quot; wrote:
&gt; OK, I got curious and dug into this. Mr. Allchin did testify at the
&gt; Microsoft antitrust trial like you said, and he did present a badly
&gt; cobbled together video, however his testimony did not rise to the level
&gt; of perjury. [...] While the video might have been fake Mr. Allchin
&gt; believes that what he testified was true.
&gt;
&gt; Mr. Allchin got on the witness stand and told the truth as he understood
&gt; it, Mr. Clinton got on the witness stand and lied.

Says you. Mr Clinton believes it hinges on, as he so famously said,
&quot;what the meaning of `is' is&quot;.

A prosecutor who wanted to go after Allchin could and would have done
so, same as for Bill Clinton. The main difference is that Clinton was a
political target, and Allchin wasn't.


This isn't to *defend* Bill Clinton, or to endorse his (or any other)
political party. But lots of actions that are technically illegal never
see the inside of a courtroom, because the harm involved doesn't merit
the time or expense to prosecute it.

Clinton's status as a political target made him worth going after, no
matter WHAT the offense, because it was politics, not law, that put him
under the microscope.

Clinton's behaviour, on a number of occasions, has been disgusting,
offensive, and immoral. But some things that are disgusting, offensive,
and immoral aren't harmful enough to justify spending time and money on.

If you had been given $80million dollars in 1994, and told to spend it
in a way that would benefit the country, is the Ken Starr investigation
the best you could have come up with?


Darren Provine ! <a href="mailto:kilroy&#64;elvis.rowan.edu" target="_blank">kilroy&#64;elvis.rowan.edu</a> ! <a href="http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy" target="_blank">http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy</a>
&quot;I am convinced that cross-posting is an evil Satanic plot.&quot;
-- Eugene Miya

Report this message

#12: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-14 17:30:19 by DaffyDuck

On 2006-07-14 07:14:30 -0700, &quot;Jaxtraw&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jax&#64;knickersjaxtrawstudios.com" target="_blank">jax&#64;knickersjaxtrawstudios.com</a>&gt; said:

&gt; All one can say is that while a corrupt businessman might do enormous real
&gt; harm- destroying jobs, destroying honest rival companies and so on, Bill
&gt; Clinton avoding telling the world about a blow job harmed a sum total of
&gt; zero persons. His perjury was utterly inconsequential.

NOT IN THE EYES OF JESUS!

(at least that's what most people that try to make a big deal out of
this non-event will try to convince you of. You're spot-on with your
analysis, especially since the vast majority of those that dscribe the
Clinton as Earth shattering appear to have cleaned up the driveway
leading to their own house, themselves - i.e. they have done far worse.)

Report this message

#13: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-14 17:45:47 by spam

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:14:30 +0100, &quot;Jaxtraw&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:jax&#64;knickersjaxtrawstudios.com" target="_blank">jax&#64;knickersjaxtrawstudios.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;Clinton had an affair with an intern, something that most people accept as
&gt;pretty routine in the corridors of power.

The think that disturbed most people is we expected him to exhibit
better taste in women.

In reality, that whole pudgy whore episode was staged to misdirect
attention from the ensuing Bosnian war. At about the time the whore
shows up, NATO went on a shock and awe campaign to end the
Yougoslavian debacle. The Clinton administration and the military did
not want any criticism of their actions so they staged the fiasco in
the Whore House.

The wild thing is it actually worked, just like magicians use
misdirection to pull off their tricks. After the saga ran its course,
we wake up to the rather amazing fact that the Bosnian affair had
miraculously fixed itself.


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#14: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-14 18:01:28 by Jaxtraw

Bob wrote:
&gt; On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:14:30 +0100, &quot;Jaxtraw&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:jax&#64;knickersjaxtrawstudios.com" target="_blank">jax&#64;knickersjaxtrawstudios.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Clinton had an affair with an intern, something that most people
&gt;&gt; accept as pretty routine in the corridors of power.
&gt;
&gt; The think that disturbed most people is we expected him to exhibit
&gt; better taste in women.
&gt;
&gt; In reality, that whole pudgy whore episode was staged to misdirect
&gt; attention from the ensuing Bosnian war. At about the time the whore
&gt; shows up, NATO went on a shock and awe campaign to end the
&gt; Yougoslavian debacle. The Clinton administration and the military did
&gt; not want any criticism of their actions so they staged the fiasco in
&gt; the Whore House.
&gt;
&gt; The wild thing is it actually worked, just like magicians use
&gt; misdirection to pull off their tricks. After the saga ran its course,
&gt; we wake up to the rather amazing fact that the Bosnian affair had
&gt; miraculously fixed itself.

Um, so let's get this straight. According to you Clinton went through all
that, and had an impeachment process started against himself by his
political enemies, orchestrated a reputation-destroying attack upon himself
by an ultra-right wing prosecutor, and they all went along with this
conspiracy to avoid some minor political fallout from a little war in a
faraway country?

Can you send me some of what you're smoking?

I bet you've got proof that a jet airliner didn't hit the Pentagon as well,
right?


Ian

Report this message

#15: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-14 19:40:05 by spam

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:01:28 +0100, &quot;Jaxtraw&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:jax&#64;knickersjaxtrawstudios.com" target="_blank">jax&#64;knickersjaxtrawstudios.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;I bet you've got proof that a jet airliner didn't hit the Pentagon as well,
&gt;right?

I bet you don't have proof that one did.


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#16: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-17 05:23:04 by Jeff DeWitt

Jaxtraw wrote:
&gt; Jeff DeWitt wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Meanwhile, someone else wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;However getting in front of a judge, swearing to &quot;tell the truth,
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;the whole truth, and nothing but the truth&quot;, and then proceeding to
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;flat out lie, and for the purpose of depriving another woman of her
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;civil rights.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Pretty disgusting, loathsome behavior, any of us would go to jail
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;for doing the same thing, and we would deserve it.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;I was the someone else that wrote that, and I stand behind it. If
&gt;&gt;James Allchin really did what you said of course he should have been
&gt;&gt;prosecuted, however there is a BIG difference. As the President of
&gt;&gt;the United States Clinton was also Commander in Chief and through his
&gt;&gt;surrogates the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Because of his position and authority that makes his perjury far more
&gt;&gt;serious than that of a corrupt businessman.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Speaking as a non-American- the general view out here in the outside world
&gt; watching the whole thing was that the US had gone barmy. What Clinton lied
&gt; about was a personal matter- an extra-marital affair- and while that isn't
&gt; particularly worthy behaviour, what was incomprehensible was that it was a
&gt; matter for the law in any way. Of course it wasn't incomprehensible if you
&gt; took into account what was really going on- the Republicans were mounting a
&gt; ferocious campaign, turning over every stone in desperation in the hope of
&gt; finding something, *anything*, and in the end all they could find was that
&gt; Clinton had an affair with an intern, something that most people accept as
&gt; pretty routine in the corridors of power. Despite the most rigorous
&gt; investigation into a president in modern times, not a single substantive
&gt; allegation was shown to have any substance at all- the supposed financial
&gt; irregularities evaporated into thin air.
&gt;
&gt; Should he have lied about his affair? Ideally, no. But people who have
&gt; affairs lie about them, and in the stultifying puritanical atmosphere of
&gt; America, it's quite understandable.
&gt;
&gt; Anyway, it was a matter for the Clintons and Lewinsky- that it was dragged
&gt; out into the public eye as it was was the most disgusting, loathsome
&gt; behaviour from most outsiders' POVs. Sex is, after all, a personal matter.
&gt; I'm not ashamed of anything I've ever done sexually, but I can't say I'd
&gt; want one of my exes describing everything in lurid detail while a special
&gt; prosecutor surreptitiously rubs himself beneath his desk.
&gt;
&gt; It's hard to see exactly what civil rights Monica Lewinsky was being denied
&gt; at any point. Her right to parade a semen stained dress on TV???

It wasn't about a &quot;private affair&quot; (in the Oval Office!), it was about
Clinton commiting purjury, and it wasn't about Lewinsky's rights, it was
about Linda Trips, who was suing Clinton for
&gt;
&gt; All one can say is that while a corrupt businessman might do enormous real
&gt; harm- destroying jobs, destroying honest rival companies and so on, Bill
&gt; Clinton avoding telling the world about a blow job harmed a sum total of
&gt; zero persons. His perjury was utterly inconsequential.
&gt;
&gt; Ian
&gt;
&gt;

Report this message

#17: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-17 13:06:53 by Jaxtraw

Jeff DeWitt wrote:
&gt; Jaxtraw wrote:
&gt;&gt; Jeff DeWitt wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Meanwhile, someone else wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; However getting in front of a judge, swearing to &quot;tell the truth,
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; the whole truth, and nothing but the truth&quot;, and then proceeding
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; to flat out lie, and for the purpose of depriving another woman
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; of her civil rights.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Pretty disgusting, loathsome behavior, any of us would go to jail
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; for doing the same thing, and we would deserve it.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; I was the someone else that wrote that, and I stand behind it. If
&gt;&gt;&gt; James Allchin really did what you said of course he should have been
&gt;&gt;&gt; prosecuted, however there is a BIG difference. As the President of
&gt;&gt;&gt; the United States Clinton was also Commander in Chief and through
&gt;&gt;&gt; his surrogates the chief law enforcement officer of the United
&gt;&gt;&gt; States.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Because of his position and authority that makes his perjury far
&gt;&gt;&gt; more serious than that of a corrupt businessman.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Speaking as a non-American- the general view out here in the outside
&gt;&gt; world watching the whole thing was that the US had gone barmy. What
&gt;&gt; Clinton lied about was a personal matter- an extra-marital affair-
&gt;&gt; and while that isn't particularly worthy behaviour, what was
&gt;&gt; incomprehensible was that it was a matter for the law in any way. Of
&gt;&gt; course it wasn't incomprehensible if you took into account what was
&gt;&gt; really going on- the Republicans were mounting a ferocious campaign,
&gt;&gt; turning over every stone in desperation in the hope of finding
&gt;&gt; something, *anything*, and in the end all they could find was that
&gt;&gt; Clinton had an affair with an intern, something that most people
&gt;&gt; accept as pretty routine in the corridors of power. Despite the most
&gt;&gt; rigorous investigation into a president in modern times, not a
&gt;&gt; single substantive allegation was shown to have any substance at
&gt;&gt; all- the supposed financial irregularities evaporated into thin air.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Should he have lied about his affair? Ideally, no. But people who
&gt;&gt; have affairs lie about them, and in the stultifying puritanical
&gt;&gt; atmosphere of America, it's quite understandable.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Anyway, it was a matter for the Clintons and Lewinsky- that it was
&gt;&gt; dragged out into the public eye as it was was the most disgusting,
&gt;&gt; loathsome behaviour from most outsiders' POVs. Sex is, after all, a
&gt;&gt; personal matter. I'm not ashamed of anything I've ever done
&gt;&gt; sexually, but I can't say I'd want one of my exes describing
&gt;&gt; everything in lurid detail while a special prosecutor
&gt;&gt; surreptitiously rubs himself beneath his desk.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; It's hard to see exactly what civil rights Monica Lewinsky was being
&gt;&gt; denied at any point. Her right to parade a semen stained dress on
&gt;&gt; TV???
&gt;
&gt; It wasn't about a &quot;private affair&quot; (in the Oval Office!),

Of course it was a private affair. That it happened to some degree in a
public building is not relevant, any more than two local council workers
snogging in the stationery cupboard of the town hall is a public matter.

&gt; it was about Clinton commiting purjury, and it wasn't about Lewinsky's
rights, it
&gt; was about Linda Trips, who was suing Clinton for

For what? For having an affair. She claimed what? Lewinsky asked her to
conceal Lewinsky's affair with Clinton. Big fucking deal, y'know? Tripp was
hoping for the big bucks, the book deal, the movie even &quot;Meryl Streep as
Linda Tripp!&quot; and a good thing she didn't get any of that. As Lewinsky said,
&quot;I hate Linda Tripp&quot;. So does everybody else of good character, too.

Ian


--
www.jaxtrawstudios.com
science fiction comics with shagging in

Report this message

#18: Re: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

Posted on 2006-07-18 01:35:10 by Jeff DeWitt

Jaxtraw wrote:
&gt; Jeff DeWitt wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Jaxtraw wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Jeff DeWitt wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Meanwhile, someone else wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;However getting in front of a judge, swearing to &quot;tell the truth,
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;the whole truth, and nothing but the truth&quot;, and then proceeding
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;to flat out lie, and for the purpose of depriving another woman
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;of her civil rights.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Pretty disgusting, loathsome behavior, any of us would go to jail
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;for doing the same thing, and we would deserve it.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I was the someone else that wrote that, and I stand behind it. If
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;James Allchin really did what you said of course he should have been
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;prosecuted, however there is a BIG difference. As the President of
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;the United States Clinton was also Commander in Chief and through
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;his surrogates the chief law enforcement officer of the United
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;States.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Because of his position and authority that makes his perjury far
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;more serious than that of a corrupt businessman.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Speaking as a non-American- the general view out here in the outside
&gt;&gt;&gt;world watching the whole thing was that the US had gone barmy. What
&gt;&gt;&gt;Clinton lied about was a personal matter- an extra-marital affair-
&gt;&gt;&gt;and while that isn't particularly worthy behaviour, what was
&gt;&gt;&gt;incomprehensible was that it was a matter for the law in any way. Of
&gt;&gt;&gt;course it wasn't incomprehensible if you took into account what was
&gt;&gt;&gt;really going on- the Republicans were mounting a ferocious campaign,
&gt;&gt;&gt;turning over every stone in desperation in the hope of finding
&gt;&gt;&gt;something, *anything*, and in the end all they could find was that
&gt;&gt;&gt;Clinton had an affair with an intern, something that most people
&gt;&gt;&gt;accept as pretty routine in the corridors of power. Despite the most
&gt;&gt;&gt;rigorous investigation into a president in modern times, not a
&gt;&gt;&gt;single substantive allegation was shown to have any substance at
&gt;&gt;&gt;all- the supposed financial irregularities evaporated into thin air.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Should he have lied about his affair? Ideally, no. But people who
&gt;&gt;&gt;have affairs lie about them, and in the stultifying puritanical
&gt;&gt;&gt;atmosphere of America, it's quite understandable.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Anyway, it was a matter for the Clintons and Lewinsky- that it was
&gt;&gt;&gt;dragged out into the public eye as it was was the most disgusting,
&gt;&gt;&gt;loathsome behaviour from most outsiders' POVs. Sex is, after all, a
&gt;&gt;&gt;personal matter. I'm not ashamed of anything I've ever done
&gt;&gt;&gt;sexually, but I can't say I'd want one of my exes describing
&gt;&gt;&gt;everything in lurid detail while a special prosecutor
&gt;&gt;&gt;surreptitiously rubs himself beneath his desk.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;It's hard to see exactly what civil rights Monica Lewinsky was being
&gt;&gt;&gt;denied at any point. Her right to parade a semen stained dress on
&gt;&gt;&gt;TV???
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;It wasn't about a &quot;private affair&quot; (in the Oval Office!),
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Of course it was a private affair. That it happened to some degree in a
&gt; public building is not relevant, any more than two local council workers
&gt; snogging in the stationery cupboard of the town hall is a public matter.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;it was about Clinton commiting purjury, and it wasn't about Lewinsky's
&gt;
&gt; rights, it
&gt;
&gt;&gt;was about Linda Trips, who was suing Clinton for
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; For what? For having an affair. She claimed what? Lewinsky asked her to
&gt; conceal Lewinsky's affair with Clinton. Big fucking deal, y'know? Tripp was
&gt; hoping for the big bucks, the book deal, the movie even &quot;Meryl Streep as
&gt; Linda Tripp!&quot; and a good thing she didn't get any of that. As Lewinsky said,
&gt; &quot;I hate Linda Tripp&quot;. So does everybody else of good character, too.
&gt;
&gt; Ian

Sorry, my ISP has been acting weird and I sent this before it was ready,
it wasn't Linda Tripp, it was Paula Jones, the woman that was suing
Clinton for sexual harassment.

It was in sworn testimony involving the Paula Jones case that Clinton
committed perjury.

Jeff DeWitt
&gt;

Report this message