And I keep messing up the html tags. Oh well.maybe this time Mav

Could you please name all of this obvious and equally large mainstream entity?

Does Fox-News Count? The Conservative Chronicles? The Wall Street Journal. The Chicago Tribune (or are they liberal now. So hard to keep up). US News and World Report? Talk Radio (Like Limbaugh?). The Gannett Chain? Look at who owns the media giants and who's on the Boards of Time Warner AOL, The Times Mirror Corporation and the like. Look at who's on the PBS Board, come to that.

Then why doesn't (David) Kendall seem to know about the rape testimony and evidence given to the House managers or the bombing of the Asprin factory designed soley to mask the news coverage of the Monica testimony?

Testimony isn't proof. At least not yet. (A hidden Republican Agenda, maybe. Mere acusation is all that's required?:-)) Which evidence apparently wasn't to convincing to the House Managers.

The bombing was " soley to mask the news coverage of the Monica testimony.

And the evidence of this is? Beyond Propter Hoc, of course.

He just declares me stupid, ignores the charge and otherwise flames..

Then respond with facts, not glaring generalities or flaming back. Or, like a coach I know used to say "Suck it up, Cupcake"

Once again thank you for validating my assertions

Please look up sarcasm. In the dictionary.

I'm not real crazy about that either, both having family and having spent quite a bit of time, on the Rosebud and Pine Ridge reservations (Sioux/Lakota) If you want to see REAL poverty look there.

And if you've spent time there then you should know that this statement Much of that happened during the Civil War times and the proper resolution has yet to occur.

Was my point. And Sec Norton doesn't have a real good history of dealing with Native Americans. And it was actively happening through the late 1800's.

I said "what the Allies did to Hamburg and Dresden" and you responded with My mother and grandmother were brought back from that hellhole by my GI father. We lost family in the holocaust for having consorted with Jews

Which doesn't exactly justify the firebombing that even apologists feel was simple terrorism. The point is that getting into a "man's inhumanity to man" ends up with a long, long list and no real heroes.

Well, if you knew the above facts, then you must also have seen the FOBs on the cable news programs and all of the congressional d's (especially the House members and algor) defending clinton's every action including his sexual foibles, the lying and perjury, money from the CHICOMS etc. knowing full well the full extent of his low budget amoral and criminal behavior

And this is somehow linked to being a democrat? Should I assume that the cover-up surrounding Iran/Contra or the defense of Nixon implies the same about Republicans?? Was that because of political orientation or lack of character?

My humble opinion seems fairly well backed up.

Which one. That Clinton was a scuzbag? Like I've said, I wasn't a fan. Where is the proof? Not opinions. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof. Anyone can spout charges and use the "everyone knows" argument. So far, various juries have found that there was "reasonable doubt" about a lot of the charges.. The rest still haven't been tried. Congressional Hearings and media circuses aren't trials, btw. You may not like it but that's the way our system works. I'm not claiming innocence or guilt. Just reminding you that "innocent until proven" is the standard.

As to the defenders, you may want to consider an alternate. That they truly believed Clinton was telling the truth. Or maybe wanted to believe real hard. Does that make them any more an avowed enemy of the Constitution than the apologists for Nixon or IranContra? Only if you've already decided that because they are democrats they have to be enemies. Which you seem to have done. Which goes back to the nature and implication of stereotyping I said And you never did answer my question about the Constitution and you replied Troll did so just fine.

No, Troll brought up the 10th amendment. I answered. My question remains. Original Intent, Liberal Interpretation complete with the penumbra of rights? Only the parts you like?

Another cute trick the fascists use is to accuse the opposition of exactly what they are doing to deflect the heat

Yes They do, don't they. Or to avoid answering the question with a non-responsive statement.

That "ends justify the means" concept is a Marxist adage and not likely to be used by patriotic Americans on the right.

Not just Marx. It's a common principal of most revolutionaries. As to the Right? Quoted, maybe not. Used? Arguable. How about "the profit justifies the means"? Is that really any better or all that much different? It is a principal of capitalism.

I said "What do you think W's doing with his faith based nonsense?" and you answered I think he's very seriously going to........

KILL PROGRAMS! and KILL DEPARTMENTS!

I think he's going to hurt faith based charities by overlaying a political agenda on their activities and have it dragged through the courts and the media. I don't think that's his intent, just the way it will happen. But by then, W will probably be history and won't really care. He can blame the failure on someone, anyone else. Which is statement about him as a politician, not as a Republican.

And he may kill departments. With apparently little regard to whether they are effective, provide a needed service or the services will be replaced by faith based groups. And since it will still be tax money funding the FB groups, it all ends up as smoke and mirrors.

I said "Mav can be irritating" And you said Why thank you, I do my best.

You're not all that irritating, relatively speaking. I've dealt with true pro's.

Geesh John, you're making me blush.

Don't let it go to your head. After all, watching an amoeba under a scope can provoke thought, too.

Keep up the good work (they think you're really a democrat)

Sort of cute.

Regards

John

PS to Troll: I notice that I've gone a number of posts without pointing out your multiple personality defects, the manifest errors in your opinions and such. No, I haven't forgotten you. Please stop sending me PMs wondering why I'm mad at you. I'm not as that would assume some level of concern for you on my part. I will try to notice you in future posts. All of the various yous except Jimmy-Ray, of course.