 | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) Didn't say he didn't. But you missed the point too. Clinton (slimeball that he is) decided to hide his behaviour because if he hadn't he would have lost the Jones lawsuit. I have no doubt he harassed her, none whatever. My point, and I'll (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | More Clinton (was Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this)
|
|
(...) Ok, I see now. (...) How is the sexual harassment law written? Why would Clinton's not 'believing' in that law make a difference? I can say I don't believe a wall is there and run in its direction and fall down and get a concussion. Just (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Clinton (was Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this)
|
|
(...) You agree with me later, I think. But I want to ensure this point is clear. You're using the wrong sense of belief here. The sense I meant is "believe == think it's a good thing and support as just" not "believe == be aware of, and accept, the (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <367D3775.E8CC6DCC@c...AM.com>... (...) True very true, ecspeccialy in California (...) Lewinksy I thought happened at the smae time he testified (...) Clinton has moral courage, I mean who could stand up to 250 (...) (26 years ago, 23-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) Ken Starr is a good man... I never used to believe this, but because of him, the eyes of the American people have been opened *WIDE*... This is not a conspiracy, the conspiracy was committed by the opposite side. And quite frankly, I'm sick (...) (26 years ago, 23-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
Matt Hanson <"mth8358"@NO SPAMwichita.infi.net> > wrote in message ... (...) there (...) Starr (...) until (...) No, any american who listned to the press, which had already tried and convicted him, already new he did the dirty with lewinsky, and (...) (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) Ken Starr's job was to dig up dirt on Clinton. In doing so, he may have changed the focus from the matter at hand to the present matter. No problem with me, I want the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If the guy is a sleaze (...) (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
A lot of people have been debating the impeachment issue here. I have an opinion, but because I am lazy, I am going to re-post something that I wrote for another discussion group. There are a couple of references to people who are members of that (...) (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) There was a brilliant advertising campaign here in the UK shortly after all of this became known. It was by Sketchley's, a big dry-cleaning company. It was a full page ad, with a picture of a dejected looking Clinton in the centre. Text (...) (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Clinton: Amoral?
|
|
Beaker wrote: <masterful essay, clearly delineating the key points about rule of law> Wow. Great job. Some key points I think need more amplification: - Jim feels, as I do, that the current sexual harassement laws are flawed, but that the president (...) (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
Beaker wrote: <alot of stuff cut out for obvious reasons> (...) You have more articulately described what I was hoping that I would not have to. I don't think there was a single word I disagreed with, other than the part about your seemingly (...) (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Clinton: Amoral?
|
|
Also sprach Larry Pieniazek: : Wow. Great job. <blush> ... thanks:) / _ _ / _ _ It's lonely at the top, but you eat better. ()(-(//((-/ ===...=== Jim Baker -- Weather Weasel Extraordinaire ===...=== (26 years ago, 25-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
Also sprach Matt Hanson: : You have more articulately described what I was hoping that I would not : have to. I don't think there was a single word I disagreed with, other : than the part about your seemingly condoning discreet extramarital : (...) (26 years ago, 27-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) You know, if Bill & Hillary have an understanding that it is "ok" for each of them them to sleep around, then I could understand what you're saying. If, however, they have the kind of marriage that the vast majority of people enter into, one (...) (26 years ago, 27-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote in message ... <snip> (...) Lying is probaly the most important part of leading a country I mean, you have to look the Chinese whatever in the eyes and say "No the American People want to trade with you, we don't think your a (...) (26 years ago, 27-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
Matt Marshall wrote in message ... (...) oops heres the footnotes (1) Absolutely no offense to any Chinese person out there, just communism in general(4) (2)Diplomacy is best backed by a large arsenal of weapons (3)Yes even Jesus has lied (...) (26 years ago, 27-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
Also sprach Mike Stanley: : So you either can accept that he's breaking his vows to his wife and : she doesn't mind, which makes sense, because if she doesn't mind why : should you? Or you're saying that you condone the violating of one : person's (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) That's really a pity. I think that if somebody has an affair, they should be punished, according to the oath they took at the altar. (or wherever) But if you enjoy living in a country where one's word means nothing, I guess that's your (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) Prosecute, no. Have faith in them to run the nation? Not me. (...) I'm not saying infidelitey ought to carry a criminal penalty, but infidelity, basically, is dishonesty and betrayal at its worst. I know people who have been unfaithful to (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Marriage and Law (was Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
Various people have been writing about what it means to be unfaithful. Now, I have no idea what deal Billary and Billary worked out, and this is kind of tangential, but I DID want to point out that in the US, the state has a monopoly on the ability (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
Also sprach Matt Hanson: : That's really a pity. I think that if somebody has an affair, they : should be punished, according to the oath they took at the altar. (or : wherever) Out of curiosity, what punishment do you have in mind? And on what (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) Divorce, in my opinion, ought to entail some sort of punishment on both sides, to discourage the practice, or to make people think harder about marriage. (another abused institution) (...) Well, you seem to have overlooked the part I wrote (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
Also sprach Matt Hanson: : Divorce, in my opinion, ought to entail some sort of punishment on both : sides, to discourage the practice, or to make people think harder about : marriage. (another abused institution) Yeek. What you are asking for has a (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) But a promise to do what? I agree, people should be held to promises they make of their free will. But the government has a monopoly on granting marriage and constrains who can be married and under what terms. I will not hold a group of people (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) I have no faith in our system of government... It serves those who serve themselves. I would much rather live under Hammurabi's code of Laws. (...) It's not a level of government. It's one of the flaws of our constitution. One that has been (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) I'm not sure that it's possible to write this and assure that it won't be taken the wrong way, and maybe since I'm responding to something a month old, I should just let it go, but as you've already guessed, I'm not going to. (I'm going to (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
Christopher L. Weeks wrote in message <36A7985D.6AF9AF4@cc...ri.edu>... (...) Spotted recently on a car: a "Darwin" fish getting eaten by a larger "God" fish. The saga continues. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for answers? Read the (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) What _is_ a Darwin fish? or a God fish, for that matter? Jasper (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <36a8aa9f.144815446@...et.com>... (...) I'll start this from the beginning, in case you don't know the whole story. Christians use a fish symbol to represent Christianity. It looks kind of like this: <>< if your (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
Jesse Long wrote: <good fish explanation> (...) Well, there are two kinds. That one, which makes me chuckle, and another one which substitutes TRUTH as the word in the middle on the larger fish. THAT one makes me steam. The first is clever. The (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) Thanks. (...) Oh yeah, right, I think I remember seeing that once or twice now. (...) We here in the Netherlands almost never have bumper-stickers, so I guess we missed out :) (...) Any bets on when we will see a darwin fish being eaten by a (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
Jasper Janssen writes: [[Sniped some stuff]] (...) [[snipped the rest]] Why don't we put all the fish in the Schrödinger-box[1] and wait till tomorow to see which fish has survived? Mark [1] This is the box in which you put a cat and some poison and (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) None and all.. I don't think the nerve gas used in S's box is very specific :) And when we open it, there'll be a collapse of waveforms to none or all. [4] Jasper (...) [4] No, I don't know what I'm talking about [6] [5] Yes, you can have (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) I don't know... I think it's pretty safe to say we don't need to wait until we open the box to determine the state of the fishies existence...just listen for the sound of a satisified cat. :) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) The box is sound, light & air proof. In fact, the material used is impervious to any Electromagnetic radiation. Otherwise, the first particle/photon that it emitted and that would happen to collide with either the observer, or cause something (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) we (...) for (...) Sigh..I should have taken it to .fun I am well aware of the various aspects of the Shroedinger theorum, I was merely attempting some humor. Mea Culpa, it won't happen again.(1) 1: if this sounds a bit snide, that's because (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) <stuff> (...) Ohwell. Why can't I try to keep a straight face? Jasper (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) merely (...) So...if we put YOU in this box and a cup of coffee, there is no way we can tell wether you drank the coffee or not? [11] B-) Follow-up set to .fun (I hope..never tried it before) [11] or can we assume you will drink it?[12] [12] (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) I couldn't help myself [14], I had to try this follow-upthing myself. Sorry for the inconvinience[15] Mark [14] Actually I could, but I don't want to.[16] [15] Hitchickers Guide to the Galaxy [16] Confused yet? (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) As far as I understand the bos thing, while the state of things inside the box is not determined, we may assume that universal constants will apply. So it can be taken as read that I will drink the coffee. ;) James caffeine buzz & Lego - a (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) Actually, its: "We apologise for the inconvenience.", IIRC. "What do you mean you've never been to Alpha Centauri? For heaven's sake, mankind, it's only four light-years away you know. I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
Jasper Janssen writes/wrote/has writen: (...) So sue me. :-) I read that book a couple of years ago and after my lsat move I can't find it anymore. (...) Okay, so YOU have my book? Greetsz, Mk (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
James Brown writes/wrote/has writen: (...) But now you just _asume_ you will drink the coffee. What if in the dark you can not find the cup or you spill the coffee? There are lots of possibilities possible in which you will not drink it (the (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) I dunno. I have a one volume editon of all five books, which can be had at (among others) V&D and Broese Wristers for about 25 guilders. I do seem to recall _buying_ my version, so I think it's not yours :) HTH. Jasper (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) Well, I got the same version. I didn't exactely buy it, though. A friend gave it to me (after he read it) (...) Okay, I'll believe you. Yes, I know, I am stupid that way...B-) (...) I know I shouldn't ask, but what the heck... What does HTH (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) Wow... I fooled him! <eg> (...) Hope this helps. (...) You a beta reviewer for Katmai? I didn't think it was officially out yet.. Jasper (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
Jasper Janssen writes/wrote/has writen: (...) Folled you in believing you fooled me! (if you can't convince them, confuse them!) (...) Yeah, this helps. Now just tell me what HTH means....wait..got it (shrinking myself in order to become invisible) (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Shroedinger and the coffee constant (was RE: something else)
|
|
(...) box (...) Ah, but it's not an assumption, except in the very extreme view that all theories are assumptions. Based on extensive empirical research, it has been determined that when a cup of coffee and I are placed in the same enclosed area (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) err... Yeah. wahtever you say. (...) Uhuh. (...) And you got to take them home? Cool! Wanna pass it on? I Think I'd really love a review sample of P-III. Not being multiplier-locked, and all. Anyway, what Motherboard do they use? I thought (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Shroedinger and the coffee constant (was RE: something else)
|
|
James Brown writes/wrote/has writen: (...) area (...) will (...) rule, (...) in (...) considered (...) Is this known as the Theorem_of_James ? (...) do (...) Cheers! (...) is (...) Sooo... this is the way for you to always drink coffee? I just get (...) (26 years ago, 28-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
