Subject:
|
Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Dec 1998 05:46:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
777 times
|
| |
|
|
Matt Marshall wrote:
>
> Matt Hanson <"mth8358"@NO SPAMwichita.infi.net> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > Matt Marshall wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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*...
>
> No, any american who listned to the press, which had already tried and
> convicted him, already new he did the dirty with lewinsky, and probaly
> others. He lied to protect his family. Ken Starr was the one who put him on
> the spot, and it was Starrs responsability to investigate WhiteWater, now if
> I remeber whitewater had nothing to do with sex. If starr opened your eyes
> wide open well then you must have been keeping them shut along with your
> ears.
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 ball, he should be investigated for
anything that he does wrong. I'm sorry if America at large doesn't want
that, too. Quite frankly, I think they ought to keep digging...
I hold my position that Mr. Starr did a good job, and is doing the right
thing.
And I assure you, my eyes and ears are not closed. But sometimes, it
takes a little convincing, you see... I had no idea about many of the
allegations against Clinton before the Starr investigation... There are
some pretty startling ones. My ears weren't shut, but I am an adult,
with full time responsibilities, and I don't have time to know
everything, as many Americans don't. So this trial gave me some
insight, and I find no shame in admitting it.
> >
> > This is not a conspiracy, the conspiracy was committed by the opposite
> > side. And quite frankly, I'm sick of (pardon me) people like you, who I
> > like to call "future lawyers," trying to help shitballs hide behind the
> > constitution. (or justify it, somehow) The president did wrong
> > repeatedly, and no matter what this trial is or was about, it is high
> > noon for Mr. Clinton.
> >
> > Ken Starr did his job, and nothing more. He is one of the few in our
> > gov't who has actually done us some good... that is, to help us see what
> > we let go on... if people are too blind to see it, that only professes
> > the evil in their hearts... how you could condone Clinton's actions
> > falls right in line with his lack of morality, and his sick antics. Why
> > don't we all just see who the bad guy really is, here?
>
> He did everything to get his name in the press and move up the washington
> power ladder.
Prove that statement. I challenge you to absolutely prove that.
You can't deny the fact that this was a high profile case, and was bound
to get the nation's attention. And if Mr. Starr used that to his
advantage, that's fine. One must bias the audience to sway the verdict,
you see. That's how it works.
he spent ton's of money flying all over the country
> investigating a entirely unrelated issue, not whitewater which he was
> supposed to investigate. Not to mention I'd place even money that Ken Starr
> had probaly lied, had sex with interns of his and done more stuff than
> Clinton. And what is the diffrenc between lying and lying in front of a
> judge?
Mr. Starr is not on trial here. If he was, then he should be thoroughly
investigated, as well. You really shouldn't go speculating about his
personal self. He may have as pure a heart as they come, for all you
know.
So, I will ignore that statement. It was rude and desperate.
It's quite obvious you are siding with Clinton, now, though. I know you
are a younger person, so I must ask you, do you consider Mr. Clinton to
be a role model of sorts? What do you see in him?
> > and when did Ken Starr tell his mom to stick the dress in the back of
> > the closet? (prove conspiracy before you cry wolf - I believe Ken Starr
> > knew this wouldn't make him popular... he was doing a job nobody else
> > wanted, for pretty obvious reasons)
>
> Lewinsky told her mom, Ken Starr didn't care if it made him popular with the
> voters, I mean very few politicians do, until election year. A lot of people
> wanted this job not just him
Not that I think it will matter to you, but Ken Starr was quoted as
saying that he wanted to someday pursue a career in the Supreme Court,
and he knew that this case would be the end of that dream...
I think he knew what a thankless job this would be. But I, as you did,
am now speculating. His reasons are his own, and that's fine. But I
still say that he is doing fine as a prosecutor. The Whitewater
dealings, in case you haven't heard, are just one in a line of Clinton's
dirty dealings, and finding the facts of those others *IS* the job of
the independent counsel, if the original matter is still open. There is
no reason he shouldn't investigate other evidence he finds along the
way... it's good that he can dig Mr. Clinton's hole a little deeper for
him. I hope he buries the sick fucker.
Now, to shed further light on the sex scandal, let's take an officer in
the Armed Forces... what do you think happens to them, if they are
caught having an affair? Well, let me tell you what I have learned...
There was a person local that committed suicide because he was receiving
a dishonorable discharge, for committing adultery as an officer of the
USAF. Now, why is it that the president, the *COMMANDER IN CHIEF*
should walk away scott-free, and not be accountable in the same manner
as his subjugates? To me, it may not be a felony, but it *should* be a
punishable crime... But, then again, I believe in lead by example,
which most Americans don't seem to appreciate. And the office of the
president needs to command a certain amount of trust with the American
public.
The White House is not a brothel.
So, you see, the dirt he dug up *is* pertinent. It would not have been
so serious if Mr. Clinton had not perjured himself, but I think Ken
Starr knew that Clinton would do this... he gave him a rope, for which
to hang himself... good strategy, if you ask me. If you can destroy
the credibility of a good liar, you have blown his cover.
>
> >
> > >
> > > (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/
> >
> >
> > You don't know the story behind that dress any more than you know if
> > you'll be alive tomorrow. I think it's silly, but it *is* real, and
> > whether it be to propagate some sick fantasy of Ms. Lewinsky, or just
> > because it wasn't dry cleaned, is irrelevant. If that DNA matches that
> > of Clinton, he has had his no-no in the wrong place, end of story.
> > (unless that dress was Hillary's, and that's just sick to think about)
>
> well considering that lewinsky said she told her mom to hide it..... As I
> said before I'm sure that Starr had his no-no in the wrong places to.
You really need to stop pointing fingers. Stick to the subject at
hand. We have not seen any evidence to support the notion that Mr.
Starr's character should come under fire in that manner. To do so, is
juvenile, and again, desperate. Leave his sexual behavior out of it. I
haven't heard any legitimate allegations towards him, and I don't think
you have either. Facts only, please.
Really the dress is disgusting, but it *is* evidence. Whether you like
it or not. Bill's uh... you know, got on that dress somehow, and there
is no reason to think that he didn't put it there personally...
>
> > And as for the Jones case, you evidently didn't get the whole story...
> > it is alleged that she was more than just casually "invited."
>
> So, she still knew why she was being invited, and yet she chose to go
Let me say it one more time: (perhaps more articulately) SHE WAS NOT
JUST CASUALLY INVITED, according to allegations. She was brought there
by Arkansas state troopers, as in led there.... so say the reports.
In any case, that was no excuse for that behavior. If that was the
case, perhaps I could start a newsgroup called rec.murder.waitinglist,
and invite everybody that showed up to let me kill them. If I did, even
though they accepted my invitation, would I be any less of a murderer?
HELL NO!
>
> > I can't believe you can't see the pattern of behavior... It's scary what
> > people will support these days.. You should give Mr. Starr a round of
> > applause. His work might have been expensive, but I think of it as a
> > good long-term investment.
>
> I see a pattern where people are trying to get more power anyway possible,
> I'll give starr a round of appluase when he gives us all the money he wasted
> on this stupid investigation. There is a diffrenc between expensive and
> what-a-godwaful-waste-of-money. I thinks it's around 2 million on somthing
> that mosta mericans think has no impact on his job.
So you'd rather waste countless more billions on a hypocritical waste of
flesh bastard who can't keep it in his pants? Just where do you think
the prez's priorities lie in being so? I would say it's probably the
same place your alleging Mr. Starr comes from, and Mr. Starr is a lot
cheaper than Clinton. Think about it...
>
> Nice quote, glad I'd seen your other posts before this, almost thought it
> was an insult, of course it can be applied to Starr and 90% of congress.
It isn't directed at anyone who doesn't deserve it. I actually came up
with it after a guy I work with found a voice clip from the wizard of
oz... we thought it fit the majority of our co-workers, so we made it a
point to play it often... I have to be honest, I use it as my sig
because I think it is tailored for the masses...
--
=======================================================================
"What would you do with a brain if you had one?"
- Dorothy (from The Wizard of OZ)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove "NO SPAM" when replying.
ICQ #11674715
=======================================================================
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
