Subject:
|
Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Dec 1998 04:21:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
646 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <367D3775.E8CC6DCC@ctp.IWANTNOSPAM.com>...
> Tim Courtney wrote:
> > However, you missed the point above. Starr
> > found things like perjury and tampering with witnesses, not sex.
>
> 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 repeat it more carefully, is that I don't
> think:
>
> 1. the law against sexual harassement, as currently written, is valid
> (1)
True very true, ecspeccialy in California
> 2. the rulings that force people to testify about affairs, past AND
> future (Lewinsky was a future affair), are valid. • Lewinksy I thought happened at the smae time he testified
> 3. Clinton has any moral courage. If he doesn't believe in that law, he
> should come out and say so. If he does believe in that law, he should
> have testified honestly.
Clinton has moral courage, I mean who could stand up to 250 million
aemricans and say that"I never inhaled" He denied it simply becuase he
wanted to try and spare Hillary some pain and suffering.
> Myself, I would NOT have testified honestly. When asked, I would have
> said: "I'm not answering this question because I don't grant your basis
> to ask it, and I am prepared to take the contempt charge, which I will
> appeal." But that takes courage to do, and he doesn't have any.
Actully clinton couldn't do that, mostly because since it was an accusatory
question he could only take the fifth, and no contempt charge could be
handed out becuase he is the president.
> See the distinction? This impeachment isn't about sex, it's about
> behaviour to avoid having an unjust law apply to you. He's a coward, he
> tries to wiggle out of stuff he doesn't agree with instead of taking a
> stand.
The thing is not about sex, but it isn't about what you say it is, it is
about Starr getting more power and a conspiracy(1) I mean who tells there
mom, Mom stick this dress in the back of the closet make sure you never
clean it and oh, well don't think about those stains, then leaves it there
for a year and suddenly it pops up just in time. Not to mention that Starr
actully went outside the bounds of his investigation without approval until
a month after he had circumstantila evidence.
> > Do you mean no paint on elements, like minifig torso markings, decorated
> > elements, etc. Or figures like www.sweet-peas.com?1
>
> No paint or markings unless TLG put them there.
Does that include the nasty paint on the aqaushark stuff?
> >
> > > 3 - >>>>>> -Lar <Darwin>< :-)
> >
> > That's another thing that's hard for me to stomach. There's a debate, • but it
> > should be kept to email. :)
>
> What?? you find it hard to stomach that someone rejects the creationist
> rejection of causality? Tell me more. Or was that not what you meant?
>
> 1 - Sexual harrassement is a BAD THING, and we should have something in
> place that helps people defend against abuse of power by government
> officials. However, I suspect (2) that if we looked carefully at the
> common-law body we had in place in 1900, we could find what we need
> instead of using this horribly flawed law we have now.
>
> 2 - This is congruent to my pollution stance.
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
> For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
> - Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
> - Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
> - This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
(1) Yes I said conspiracy, and it was I mean someone saves a dress for a
year, and Paula Jones didn't know why she was invited to a sleazy hotel on
the outskirts of town where several hookers had been busted before.
Matt Marshall
$%#$% Vacuum Cleaners Always get my pieces!!!
Matt's Lego Page
http://rapturesoft.hypermart.net/mlego/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
