-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 3/1/99 1:07:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< << The nuts have howled for 6 years about Clinton not being fit for the
> Presidency because he claims he didn't inhale. >>
>
> No, not true. It just makes him an IDIOT, if true. Just because G. Bush
and
> others who attack Clinton are evil incarnate (which I agree somewhat with
BTW)
> it doe not logically follow that Clinton is good by any means.
> Teo1000
>
This is an interesting observation. I have a friend who bases his
whole political philosophy on his belief that the Catholic Church is the
focus of evil in the world. So, any group that is opposed to the
Catholic Church is automatically good and anyone that has any good to
say of them is bad.
I once saw a pretty poor film called "Dick Tracy". It was pretty much
a live action cartoon. Seemingly not very deep. However, there was a
scene in which Dick Tracy (Warren Beatty) is trying to figure things
out. He is confused by the "moll" played by Madonna. He knows that she
is the enemy of the bad guys, but he can't quite figure out if he should
trust her. He says: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" a couple of
times with a sort of questioning sound in his voice. Then he realizes
"the enemy of my enemy, is my enemy". Pretty simplistic, but there are a
lot of people out there who still haven't figured that out. They figure
out that some group or person is their enemy (perhaps not wholly
accurately) and then base their whole philosophy around this
observation. Socialists think that everyone with money is there enemy.
Christians think anyone who is not born again. Republicans, democrats,
etc. It isn't always as simple as people would like. Recently I was in a
group who was protesting the use of fingerprints on driver's licenses.
The woman who was the real leader behind the protests was a long time
John Bircher. She told me she had a lot of trouble dealing with the fact
that the ACLU was one her staunchest allies in the fight.
Howard Davis >>
Thanks Howard, a good synopsis of my whole point. Also in the post that
Samantha sent to the list it was at least implied that Bush was one of the
ones out to get Clinton all these years. I think that is plain wrong, all one
has to do is look at the election, Bush handed over the reins to Clinton, he
didn't even try to beat him, and talk about kid gloves, they were worn by
both, because they each had a secret on the other that they could use to hurt
the other thus political blackmail (Mena Arkansas and other things to be
sure). During the whole mess with Clinton's sexual side show Bush has been
profoundly silent and unwilling to comment when the opportunity clearly
existed for him to spout rhetoric against Bill he never did.
Quite true, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend and may in fact
just be waiting for the opportunity to stab me in the back when the other guy
is out of the way.
Teo1000
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
