"Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k3tci0p6sd0hqmfj2e17f3ia7rc0c51v0l@4ax.com...

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:44:32 GMT, "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:47:36 GMT, "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:33:39 GMT, "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:

Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:16:07 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:

In article <pc78i0592gsimcff10bdo9sen5olfotu0h@4ax.com>, Mayor of
R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:11:46 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:

In article <zROUc.9727$rd5.2406@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
MuahMan <MuahMan@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklowicz24@hotmail.com>
wrote in message
news:2de3419.0408181141.4247db14@posting.google.com...

If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything
Kerry will bring back the draft.

If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.

John Kerry is against abortion.

John Kerry is against gay marriage.

John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.

John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.


Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better
than Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise
Kerry, even though there is no difference between them. Why?

To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think
we have a real
choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is
any politician at this level.

And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the
fscking media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer
of trivia and nit picking that every politician gets examined
through a magnifying glass you wouldn't want to be put under
yourself.

Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and
answers are expected, regardless whether the subject is of any
real concern or even has an effect on the matters at hand.
Think about Clinton's ***** for a moment. Why in the world
did ANYONE give a ***** whether he got one or not? Men in power
ALWAYS attract young women.

Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury,
Lloyd? One only hopes you figure it before you're called to
testify in a trial, lest you find it being explained you by a
large hairy man who calls you 'Mary'.

Quit playing the political ***** game, Mayor.

I've got the facts on my side, Lloyd. All you have is political
*****.

I actually think you are smarter than that. The entire fiasco
was a simple vendetta that perjury ended.

WTF are you talking about? The perjury got things rolling big
time. If Clinton had gone into that deposition and said 'Yeah, I
fucked her.' there would have been a bit of a furor for a couple
of weeks and then it would have died down and gone away.

He didn't. She gave him a BJ.

Either way you get my point, right?

Yes.

Had that not happened, those idiots would still be
investigating on my and your dime!

You know it and I know it.

His lies are what made the investigation necessary in the first
place. They had to be able to prove that he lied. That's what the
investigation was all about. If he'd told the truth there would
have been no investigation.

No, this was brought in from a fishing expedition from the Paula
Jones case.

Actually its a bit more complicated than that. Discovery rules in
sexual harrassment caes allow investigations into the accused's
sexual history. Clinton and Lewinsky had long been rumored to have
something going on so they were both questioned. Both denied it. At
that point Linda Tripp turned her tapes over to Kenneth Starr which
launched the investigation into the perjury charge.

Down below, you admit that case was weak, not even worth bringing to
trial.

Not true. I say that IMO it wasn't anything that should have been
actionable. Unfortunately, the legal system has not seen fit to avail
itself of my wisdom. Under the current system Paula Jones had a very
good chance of winning.

Yet they didn't win even with the Lewinsky stuff thrown in. I disagree
they had any case at all.

The fact that the judge was a pet student of Clinton's when he taught
law probably had a lot to do with that.

I don't remember such things being brought up during the trial. Was the
proscecutor a slacker, or did this not play a part? I ask for information
only.

They couldn't prove that one, so they brought in this stuff about
Monica. Clinton should have never had to answer questions about
Monica in the first place.

Personally I don't think that anything Paula Jones ever said Clinton
did rose to the level ofanything that should have been actionable in
the first place. While she claimed that he retaliated against her
the evidence behind those claims was underwhelming at best.
But as George has pointed out we don't get to pick and choose which
laws we want to obey.
The main problem is the way sexual harrassment law has spun out of
control. Saying 'My you look pretty today' is punished the exact
same way 'Sleep with me or lose your job is'. We even have Third
Party Sexual Harrassment now that requires no interaction of any
kind between the parties. Its ridiculous.

I think they knew they couldn't win the Paula Jones case before it
even started. IMHO, they brought that to trial anyway so they
could use the "discovery rules" to go after the Lewinsky rumors,
something they could have never gone after in and of itself.

I don't think so. The thing that turned the Lewinsky matter into a
legal case were Lind Tripp's tapes. I don't think anyone knew about
those except Linda Tripp until she made them available.

I Linda Tripp was part of a Republican conspiracy against Clinton.

I wasn't aware that you were Linda Tripp. 8)

The word "think" should have followed "I."

I have yet to see a good explanation why she wasn't prosecuted for taping
her conversations with Monica.

She was. Ultimately the immunity given to her in exchange for coming
forward protected her and the case was dropped.

So she was protected from prosecution, not prosecuted.

Ken Star and the Republicans holding his leash wasted a lot of
taxpayer money, generated montains of wasted paper, and put the
country to shame, IMHO.

I disagree. What would have put the country to shame would have been
to allow the President to very publicly get away with pissing on the
law. Even though the Democrats put party above justice Clinton still
got the dressing down he deserved to put him back in his place.

Yet you're all for the way Republicans "pissed on the law" to put Clinton
in
that position in the first place.

In what way did the Paula Jones case '***** on the law'?

In that it was used as a tool to bring down political enemies, which is not
the purpose for which it was created.

They set up the Paula Jones trial just as a means to go after the
Lewinski affair, and they used illegally obtained
evidence from Linda Tripp.

I doubt it. Jones brought her case forward on her own and only
recieved help later.

Yes, she received help from those who saw this as a weapon to use against
Clinton.

You seem to assuming waaay more planning than any
politician has shown the capacity for.

The "politicians" are only the front men for the political parties, and
Republicans have been trying to demolish the Federal Government from at
least the time of Calvin Coolidge. Remember Newt Gengrich and the
"Republican Revolution," that sought to break down the branches of
Government, by having the Speaker of the House literally usurp the powers of
the President?

Republicans and their Watergate/Ollie North/Ken Starr bag of dirty tricks
bother me far more than Clinton getting a B.J. from Lewisnky.

No one cares about the *****. It was the lying while under oath that
made Clinton unsuitable for office.

Any married man would lie about that. He should have never had to answer
such a question in the first place.

All Republicans accomplished was to waste time and money that would have
been better spent elsewhere, and to make a laughing stock of the USA.

Again, I'm far more concerned with those who have the power to manipulate
the legal system of the USA to destroy anyone of their choosing, than I am
about someone not confessing he got a BJ.

In article <k3tci0p6sd0hqmfj2e17f3ia7rc0c51v0l@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

No one cares about the *****. It was the lying while under oath that
made Clinton unsuitable for office.

Hmm.. If nobody cared about the *****, why was Clinton dragged into
court and questioned about it?