--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > > > <shempmcgurk@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > > > > [I wrote:] > > > > > > > Not only did you state the law incorrectly, but there > > > > > > > are vastly more differences than similarities. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and they are all -- embarassingly -- in Foley's favour. > > > > > > > > > > Um, no, to the contrary. > > > > > > > > > > Just for one thing, Clinton's affair with Lewinsky > > > > > was not illegal; she was 22 years old at the time, > > > > > a consenting adult (as has already been pointed out > > > > > to you, twice now). Had Foley's pages been 22 > > > > > years old, he would be in no legal trouble at all. > > > > > > > > > > And the law in question (the Violence Against Women > > > > > Act of 1994), a provision of which the Republicans > > > > > used to entrap Clinton into lying about his entirely > > > > > legal affair with Lewinsky by making him testify > > > > > about his past sexual behavior in an unrelated > > > > > sexual harassment lawsuit, was strenuously opposed > > > > > by Republicans when it was passed. > > > > > > > > Just the opposite of what you say is, in fact, the reality. > > > > > > Well, only with regard to the opposition of > > > Republicans. I was misled by a Wikipedia article. > > > > > > What the Republicans opposed (in the Senate; it passed > > > by voice vote in the House) was the Omnibus Crime > > > Control Act of 1994, the whole ball of wax, including > > > the Violence Against Women Act (Title IV of the bill) > > > and changes to the rules of evidence (Title XXXII, > > > Section 320935). > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > As to the article you quote (which I managed to > > > track down despite your not having provided a > > > URL), > > > > The reason I didn't provide a URL was because I FUCKING TYPED IT > > OUT BY HAND, YOU UNGRATEFUL WITCH. Notice my typo's and compare > > them to the article you say you found on the internet > > The article I "say" I found? You mean, the one I > *did* find, of course. > > Why did you type it out instead of cutting and > pasting?
Because I had the magazine article and did not know it existed on the net. And I resent your implication that I was hiding something from reader because: a) you say I didn't provide a URL; and b) I conveniently left out an additional paragraph, which you then went on to reproduce. > > > and you'll see they > > don't match. > > > > I did provide citations to it. > > To the print edition of The New Yorker from which > the Web version was taken. You didn't cite the > Web version. Because I didn't know there WAS a web version. Speaking of which, Miss you-didn't-provide-a-URL, why didn't you give the URL? > > > > here's an interesting paragraph you *didn't* > > > quote: > > > > I didn't quote it because I didn't have the time to also type that > > out. > > I don't understand why you thought you had to type > it out instead of cutting and pasting. > > Of course it adds and enhances what I am claiming...NOT what > > you are claiming. > > Well, no, to the contrary, Shemp. > > <snip> > > > Which confirms my original point: the Republicans > > > used provisions of the crime bill (Molinari's > > > amendments to the rules of evidence) to entrap Clinton > > > into lying about his entirely legal affair with Lewinsky > > > by making him testify about his past sexual behavior > > > in an unrelated sexual harassment lawsuit. > > > > > > That could hardly be more different than the > > > situation with Foley. > > > > My invoking of the Clinton/Lewinsky affair was to draw a parallel > > to what YOU YOURSELF invoked: the fact that Foley got foisted on > > the legislative petard he himself was largely responsible for > > becoming law. THAT is the parallel I was drawing and it still > > holds true: Clinton also got foisted on a petard of his own making. > > Yes, Shemp. It's a dumb parallel because, as I > said, the Clinton entrapment could hardly be more > different than the situation with Foley. You threw > it in as a gratuitous bash of Clinton. It didn't > contribute a thing to the Foley discussion. > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
