 sj |
||
|
||
NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts
|
|
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Jim Dixon Date: 31 Oct 00 - 05:09 PM Whether I "buy" Clinton's definition of sex is immaterial. It's just that when a definition is vague, a defendant in a criminal case ought to be allowed to use any reasonable interpretation that is in his favor. It's part of the presumption of innocence that is the basis of our civil liberties. |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: mousethief Date: 31 Oct 00 - 05:11 PM I don't know about irreparable harm. The office is bigger than one man's sperlonga. I think it's funny that people can't imagine that one could really dislike Clinton, and think he's a moral reprobate, a disgusting slimeball who gives all men a bad name (not unlike Mark Hatfield) -- but still not think that getting your wally wetted in the oval office (or even lying about getting your wally wetted) is an impeachable offense. I'm sure that's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind with the impeachment clause. I'm just sure of it.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Date: 31 Oct 00 - 07:04 PM I'm equally confident that the Founding Fathers never dreamed that anyone elected to that high office would do such a think, Alex. Only my opinion, of course. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Troll Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:21 AM That the America Public did not rise up in a body and demand his resignation is, to me, the most saddening and disgusting thing of all. troll |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: kendall Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:29 AM Why Troll? do you really think that what he did was that much worse than "The Actor" on TV lying about Iran-Contre AND Arms for Hostages? Fact is, they are ALL self serving bastards except, maybe, Nader, and he cant win. |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Troll Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:55 AM Yes, Kendall, I do.Regan was wrong, but I believe that he felt that what he was doing was right for the country.HE certainly got nothing out of it. But Clinton broke his marriage vows for something that was PURELY personal and then lied about it even under oath. Had he said "Yes, I did it. And It's between me and Hillary and no one else.", then it would have been over. Regan could have done the same thing.Why neither of them didn't, I don't know. But my question was, and is, WHY did not the public react with enough indignation at the shaming of the Office of the Presidency to force his resignation? troll |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: GUEST,Stackley Date: 01 Nov 00 - 09:40 AM The virulent hatred of both Clintons by certain segments of the population stems largely from envy. Simple political differences of opinion or moral indignation would NOT by themselves produce the hysterical, foaming-at-the-mouth response conservatives display. There's personal jealousy operating here- and these folks need psychiatric help. Its also amusing to see the same folks prattle on about the 'sacredness of the constitution' and then equate Nixon's and Reagan's clearly criminal acts and subversions of it with fellatio. Cheers |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:39 AM Envy? Guest, Stackley, surely you jest! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: kendall Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:40 AM Its our Victorian attitude. A blow job is far more serious than subverting the constitution, lying to congress and the American people, making a deal with the Iatollah to keep the hostages until after the election. I dont understand why the people didnt rise up and demand Ronald Ray-Guns resignation. Clinton gets tarred and feathered, Ray-Gun gets an airport named after him. No wonder foreign people dont understand us. |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: mousethief Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:48 AM I think you're deluding yourself, Doug. We know that Ben Franklin, one of those precious Founding Fathers, wrote a very popular underground pamphlet on how to have a successful extramarital affair. And Jefferson was boinking his "negro" maid. I don't think they'd be quite as shocked as you think about the Lewinski thing -- except maybe that it was made so public and such a big stink was made about it. Kendall, don't forget the deal Nixon did with the Viet-Cong to scuttle the peace talks until after the 1968 election! That's not nearly as bad as getting a blow-job, of course, but it was pretty low.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Troll Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:02 PM Kendall, I don't either.Lying under oath is a serious business and I'm glad that you feel that it should be dealt with harshly. As for "hysterical foaming-at-the-mouth" responses,check your posting of 27-oct-oo @ 6:33pm, Stackley. I guess that you are not used to people having strong opinions that run counter to yours. I happen to believe rather strongly in a philosophy of individual responsibility and of a government that does not interfere too much in the everyday lives of the people. I am JUST as opposed to corporate welfare and the greed that seems to be the big corporations main reason for existance. Just because I beleive these things does not mean that I am a wild-eyed right-wing reactionary nor does it mean that I am necessarily a Republican. As for MY remarks about Hillary, I simply reported on what I heard said on a talk show by a man who knows both Clintons. If you feel that disagreements with your views constitute a need for psychiatric care, you may be a litle TOO involved in the election. I would suggest a rest. Take a walk in the park. Play some music. Relax. troll |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Date: 01 Nov 00 - 02:13 PM Mousethief: I am not opposed to blow jobs. The fact that Franklin, Jefferson, anybody else you want to name, had extra-marital affairs has nothing to do with what Clinton did. Perhaps Jefferson fooled around with his maid in the oval office, it might be so. If so, though, history has not recorded it else I'm sure some apologist for Clinton would have dug it up during the impeachment proceedings (JEFFERSON DID IT! WHAT'S WRONG WITH BILL DOING IT? THEY WERE BOTH PRESIDENTS!) Obviously, Jefferson did not look directly into a television camera and tell the American people, I did not have sex with that woman ...Sally Hemmings! I'm surprised, however, some Clinton supporter hasn't suggested that TJ stepped out on the front porch of the White House, and screamed a similar message to the passer-by. Clinton looked squarely into the camera, however, and said most ernestly, well, you know what he said. Now he wants an apology. Have those of you who feel he was wronged, sat down and penned your note of apology to him yet? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: GUEST,Stackley Date: 01 Nov 00 - 02:41 PM Whoa,there, Troll buddy! You need to take your own advice."I would suggest a rest. Take a walk in the park. Play some music. Relax." I never suggested your observations on Hillary were hysterical; clichéd and childish, maybe. Of course if you feel you were foaming at the mouth, I'll have to defer to your opinion. "...check your posting of 27-oct-oo @ 6:33pm..." Just did- what's your point? Cheers - |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: kendall Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:03 PM Been looking for that thread Troll, dont see anything on the 27th..was it in another thread? |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:03 PM Kendall: Guest Stackley may be having some difficulty finding the thread on the 27th, because Guest Stackley, in my humble opinion has some problems. Vision? Don't know. Judgement, possibly. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Troll Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:45 PM Guest Stackley, since mine was the last anti-Clintons post before your posting and the only anti-Hilary posts that I could find on this thread were from me and DougR, I figured that it was a pretty good bet that you were talking about one of us. Your posting of 27-Oct-00 @6:33pm was, in my opinion, hysterical and foaming-at-the-mouth. Don't look for the mote in your neighbors eye until you have first removed the beam from your own. troll |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Tinker Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:46 PM Talk about thread drift.... As the nation drifted from Ozzie and Harriet, and Jack and Jackie on to Ricki Lee and Jerry Springer and Bill and Hilary. What was known and what was concidered appropriate to report has changed. Political power, money and sex have been bedfellows through out history. It's the distribution of information that has changed the game, not the game itself. The demand for public officals to be above any appearance of reproach and to be willing to expose their families to the microscopic scrutiny of todays media will continue to cost us untold lost opportunities as highly qualified people refuse to run rather than go through the muck. Tinker |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Troll Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:49 PM Kendall, that posting was on the Government...Bigger and Better thread. Sorry for any confusion. troll |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:05 AM Tinker, you are right. It takes a bold person (or a very amtitious one) these days to run for public office. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:13 AM Troll, I don't want you to feel too exclusive. Guest Stackley (or whatever other name Guest Stackley chooses at the moment) has taken pto shots at me for quite a spell. Perhaps his therapist told him he was getting too wound up! "Get rid ...I say get rid, of those pent up emotions! They backing up on you!" I can just imagine his therapist counseling him thus. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Troll Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:27 AM DougR, far be it from me to horn in on your territory. But I disagree about the therapist. I don't believe he needs one.I think he does need a good dose of manners but if he hasn't learned them by not, it's probably too late. When I checked him out on forum search, I found that he only goes back about a week. I'd say he'll disappear after the election. I'd like to say that dealing with him has been fur but really he's too easy; no real challenge. It's almost all flame and, while he's ok at it, he's no expert. troll |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Date: 02 Nov 00 - 01:21 AM Aw, Troll, don't sweat it. What's his/her name is just having fun. Thanks, though, for your comments. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Troll Date: 02 Nov 00 - 07:23 AM It's not a problem. It's just that I like a good challenge and Stackley is becoming boring. troll |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: GUEST,Stackley Date: 02 Nov 00 - 07:45 AM Well, Doug, that's just one narrow-minded old man's opinion. But thanks for your comments, though. |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: GUEST,Stackley Date: 02 Nov 00 - 08:19 AM Troll, if you'll back up a little more in the thread, you'll see postings about the unreasonable hatred for the Clinton's, pre-dating the Monica business. That's what I was referring to. Is Douger's paranoia contagious? Take care. Cheers |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:40 PM You're welcome, Guest, Stackely. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Nov 00 - 01:33 PM But in spite of all this, I've been reading that polls indicate that if Cliton were able to run for President this time, as well, he'd probably walk it.
Which suggest that most Americans don't think it such a big deal. What amazes me is that everyone doesn't crack up with laughter everytime he appears in public. That's what would guarantee that, for example, Tony Blair couldn't get away with an equivalent frolic. I can just imagine Question Time in the House of Commons. Every time anyone said "Does the Honorable Member..." it would reduce the place to hysterics. |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Date: 02 Nov 00 - 02:10 PM Interesting comments, McGrath. I'm not sure that I agree with the polls, though. There are certainly lots of people who would vote for Clinton again, if he could run (and he would if he could). Those that think the whole thing he got himself into was like a little boy's prank would probably be in that group. He is very popular with the African-American community and would certainly get their vote. Whether he could draw enough to win the election, though, is debatable in my opinion. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: kendall Date: 02 Nov 00 - 03:43 PM This thread has become too personal for me.. I'm out of here. |
|
Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Devilmaster Date: 03 Apr 01 - 01:08 PM I know this is a dead thread, but I'd just like to mention that I ran in the windsor municipal election, nobody really knew me, and I had signs vandalized also. I do believe its happens to anyone who puts up signs. I lost 10% of my signs to vandalism. I don't know about anyone else's amount, but when I was paying for my own election, I was understandably dissapointed. |
| Share Thread: |
