[Vision2020] uranium denial--GUTLESS DEMOS?
Donovan Arnold
donovanarnold@hotmail.com
Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:24:24 -0700
Tim wrote:
"You don't get it yet, do you? He wasn't lying about
>a "sexual relationship" in the Jones matter. He was
>lying about committing an actionable offense--sexual
>harassment. If you believe sexual harassment is just
>another sexual relationship, then your thinking is
>behind even James Carville's."
No, based on that statement you just don't understand. Clinton lied about
his sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky while under oath testifying about
the Paula Jones investigation. This is what is so irrelevant about the case.
What does Monica have to do with Jones's case? Nothing! They were trying to
use it as an established behavior. That is why the "blue dress" came into
the picture. It was to prove that Clinton did have relations "with that
women."
Second, No, I do not think that sexual harassment is "just another sexual
relationship". But I also happen to think that mutual consent is not sexual
harassment. I also don't think that people that assume someone is "guilty"
just because they are accused of it should leave the country because that is
not what this country is about. Clinton was found "not guilty". Did the
Repubcraps let it go. No!
"HAD Clinton been a Republican then we
>would have had the Democrat party and their apologists
>doing everything in their power to convince us that
>the second type of "blown" was equal importance to the
>BIG BANG! i.e. the end all/be all event without which
>the universe would not exist."
Disagree, you were not around then. Playboy magazine and several others dug
into the backgrounds of several other Republicans to find out that in fact
they were or had been involved in extra martial affairs as well. Actually,
quite a few of them. Helen Chenoweth, our US representative at the time,
flat out said that Clinton should resign because of his adulterous affairs.
Then two weeks later a man who had an affair with her came forward and
reported his affair with her, evidence and all. Bob Livingston, running for
speaker of the house, also had an affair and was exposed, as well as the
leader in the effort of impeaching Clinton, Rep. Henry Hyde. Were any of
these representatives charged with lying, under oath they were under when
they were sworn in as elected officials? No, they were not, they let it
slide. But not the Republicans they spent $23 million dollars to find out
that Bill Clinton got a blow job and lied about it. And nobody gave a damn!
And they shouldn't. When a poll was taken most men said they would lie if
asked the same question under oath.
"Also, there's a very plausible theory that the SEX
>stuff DID lead to some folks getting blown up. How
>about Clinton lobbing cruise missiles at that aspirin
>factory in the Sudan? Ever see Wag the Dog?"
LOL, give me a break! That was a milk factory in Sudan that was producing
chemical weapons. Often times many factories switch from one form of
production to another in third words. Iraq does the same thing. Further,
that story lasted about three days. Two Tomahawk missiles were fired and
that was it.
Yes, I have heard of Wag the Dog. And that is exactly what the President
that was not elected by the people, like most dictators in the world, is
doing in Iraq. We went there to A) Remove Saddam, B) Remove Weapons of Mass
Destruction, C) Restore peace in the region. Which one of these have we
accomplished? How many soldiers have died? How many Iraqi civilians have
died? How many have been wounded? How many more will die or be wounded? When
are you going to admit you were wrong for supporting that war? When are you
going to admit we have a stupid president that is going kill everyone if he
has another four years as president?
Donovan J Arnold
>From: Tim Lohrmann <timlohr@yahoo.com>
>To: Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com>
>CC: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] uranium denial--GUTLESS DEMOS?
>Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Donavan,
> You write:
>"I believe that Clinton did lie. I think he lied under
>oath. I think what he did was wrong and unethical. I
>also think that asking somebody about
>sexual relationships with someone when they are under
>oath is more unethical unless it is a murder trial
>establishing a motive."
>-----
> You don't get it yet, do you? He wasn't lying about
>a "sexual relationship" in the Jones matter. He was
>lying about committing an actionable offense--sexual
>harassment. If you believe sexual harassment is just
>another sexual relationship, then your thinking is
>behind even James Carville's.
>
>You also write:
>"Second, There is a big difference between someone
>lying about getting blown and someone lying and 6,000
>people getting blown up."
>
>I couldn't agree with you more on that. War is worse
>than committing perjury every time. BUT, and this is a
>very big but, HAD Clinton been a Republican then we
>would have had the Democrat party and their apologists
>doing everything in their power to convince us that
>the second type of "blown" was equal importance to the
>BIG BANG! i.e. the end all/be all event without which
>the universe would not exist.
>
>> TL
>
>
>
>--- Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Tim,
> >
> > First, ever hear of the fifth amendment? Why wasn't
> > that brought up?
> > Second, There is a big difference between someone
> > lying about getting blown
> > and someone lying and 6,000 people getting blown up.
> >
> > If you don't understand the difference between the
> > two, then I don't know
> > how else to explain it to you.
> >
> > I believe that Clinton did lie. I think he lied
> > under oath. I think what he
> > did was wrong and unethical. I also think that
> > asking somebody about sexual
> > relationships with someone when they are under oath
> > is more unethical unless
> > it is a murder trial establishing a motive. How many
> > of 50%+ of married men
> > would lie about an affair. That is why nobody cared.
> > And it is not an
> > impeachable offense. Spending $23 million to
> > investigate a president for the
> > sake of trying to find something is ludicrous and
> > unethical when people are
> > starving.
> >
> > To answer your other question the order of
> > succession is:
> > Vice President
> > Speaker of the House
> > Senate Pro-tempore
> > Secretary of State
> > Secretary of Defense
> > Attorney General
> > Secretary of Treasury
> > Secretary of Interior
> > Secretary of Agriculture
> > Secretary of Commerce
> > Secretary of Labor
> > Secretary of HHS
> > Secretary of HUD
> > Secretary of Transportation
> > Secretary of Energy
> > Secretary of Education
> > Secretary of Veterans' Affairs
> > Sectary of Homeland Security
> >
> > After this, Martial Law is declared and the highest
> > ranking military
> > official takes control.
> >
> > Donovan J Arnold
> >
> >
> > >From: Tim Lohrmann <timlohr@yahoo.com>
> > >To: Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com>
> > >CC: vision2020@moscow.com
> > >Subject: RE: [Vision2020] uranium denial--GUTLESS
> > DEMOS?
> > >Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > >
> > >Donovan,
> > >You wrote:
> > >
> > >"Fifth, why didn't the Republicans impeach
> > Lewinsky,
> > >it was her that did the
> > >act, not Clinton."
> > >
> > >Actually what you imply here, that the impeachment
> > was
> > >just about Lewinsky is incorrect.
> > >
> > >The two adopted articles of impeachment read as
> > >follows:
> > >
> > >1st Article.The president provided perjurious,
> > false
> > >and misleading testimony to the grand jury
> > regarding
> > >the Paula Jones case and his relationship with
> > Monica
> > >Lewinsky.
> > >
> > >2nd Article. NOT ADOPTED
> > >
> > >3rd Article. The president obstructed justice in an
> > >effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the
> > >existence of evidence related to the Jones case.
> > >
> > >
> > >While we're discussing it, can you imagine the
> > >reaction of the supposedly feminist-minded Democrat
> > >party if a GOP pres. had perjured himself
> > concerning
> > >of all things A SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAWSUIT in which
> > he
> > >himself was the defendant?
> > >
> > >I can hear it now.
> > >Oooooh the nerve of that sexist lout. Ahhhh...the
> > >chutzpah of that chauvinist!! Let's maul that
> > >malicious misogynist!QQ
> > >
> > >BUT, when it was one of their own we heard barely a
> > >peep of criticism against this fellow who has often
> > >behaved as if women are little more than chattel
> > for
> > >his private pleasure. And not only that, committed
> > the
> > >crime of perjury when he got caught.
> > >
> > > NO, all we got from these pillars of profound
> > >feminist virtue was James Carville's classist
> > comment
> > >about Paula Jones being "trailer trash," and cries
> > of
> > >"let's move on."
> > >
> > > Gee, I thought feminists considered sexual
> > >harassment serious business that should be fully
> > >investigated and litigated so that the rights of
> > >women, especially women in subordinate employment
> > >positions, could be protected.
> > >
> > > Well they do, as long as one of their buddies
> > necks
> > >isn't on the line. Oh, and it would help if the
> > >alleged victim of this harassment is an elite Ivy
> > >League type--one of them. If she's not terribly
> > >refined, not too wealthy, and doesn't have many
> > >connections when the alleged harassment took place,
> > >well, that's not a big deal.
> > > Just sweep it under the rug, lie about it, or
> > "MOVE
> > >ON," right?
> > > TL
> > >
> > >--- Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dale wrote:
> > > > "Would they impeach CIA Director George Tenet
> > for
> > > > allowing the uranium claim
> > > > to be believed by the President? Or do they
> > impeach
> > > > the President for
> > > > trusting the information coming from the CIA?"
> > > >
> > > > Dale, first, nobody on the planet except you
> > > > believes that Tenet is really
> > > > responsible.
> > > > Second, Tenet did not provide the information
> > alone,
> > >
> > > > the British, Cheney,
> > > > Rice, Rumsfeld, and Powell did.
> > > > Third, if the president can't even ask a
> > question
> > > > like "Which African
> > > > Country?" should he also have control of nuclear
> > > > weapons?
> > > > Fourth, if Bush is not responsible for the words
> > > > coming out of his mouth,
> > > > who is?
> > > > Fifth, why didn't the Republicans impeach
> > Lewinsky,
> > > > it was her that did the
> > > > act, not Clinton.
> > > > Finally, if Bush is not responsible for what
> > comes
> > > > out of his mouth, how can
> > > > we trust him, they might have been put there by
> > > > someone else that lied?
> > > >
> > > > Donovan J Arnold
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: "Dale Courtney" <dale@courtneys.us>
> > > > >To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
> > > > >Subject: RE: [Vision2020] uranium
> > denial--GUTLESS
> > > > DEMOS?
> > > > >Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:54:34 -0700
> > > > >
> > > > >Tim wrote:
> > > > > > Why DOESN'T the Democrat party launch and
> > > > > > impeachment effort if they think it's
> > warranted?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Would they impeach CIA Director George Tenet
> > for
> > > > allowing the uranium claim
> > > > >to be believed by the President?
> > > > >
> > > > >Or do they impeach the President for trusting
> > the
> > > > information coming from
> > > > >the CIA?
> > > > >
> > > > >Confused,
> > > > >Dale Courtney
> > > > >Moscow, Idaho
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >_____________________________________________________
> > >
> > > > > List services made available by First Step
> > > > Internet,
> > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since
> > > > 1994.
> > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > > > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2
> > months
> > >
> > > > FREE*
> > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >_____________________________________________________
> > > > List services made available by First Step
> > > > Internet,
> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since
> > 1994.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > >
> > > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> > > >
> >
> >ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >__________________________________
> > >Do you Yahoo!?
> > >SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > >http://sbc.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>_________________________________________________________________
> > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> >
>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> >
> >
>_____________________________________________________
> > List services made available by First Step
> > Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >
> > http://www.fsr.net
> >
> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> >
>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>http://sbc.yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail