moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> I don't ordinarily go back to old posts to show something but you edited out
> what is most material and you asked. This was the critical portion:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >I have steadfastly reserved judgement until the facts come in.
>
> And skipping on down:
>
> >It seems like there is more than meets the eye and when you look at as a
> whole >there appears to be a machine fueling the allegations. This makes me
> suspicious >of the accuser and of the story they have to sell/tell.
>
> Do you see your problem?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You said, like others, you are "reserving judgment" and then you turn around
> and say "there appears to be a machine fueling the allegations." You have
> obviously bought the line about the famous vast rightwing conspiracy. Kind
> of like giving the lying bitches a fair trial before hanging them. Your
> objectivity is very dubious IMO.
No I have come to my own opinion as to who has fueled the allegations. The factssupport
that opinion. Look into the history of the case and see where and how it began
and follow the trail from there. It's a nasty political battle and many are being used
as
pawns to advance an agenda. You can dance all around it but it doesn't go away.
> >PJ has told many stories
>
> Paula Jones has told one story. The efforts to find discrepancies are
> laughable, e.g. how far did Clinton run his hand up her leg?, was it the
> crotch or pelvic area?, why didn't she describe a certain deformity in
> Clinton's anatomy to her first lawyer? Her story may, in fact, have been
> massaged to have Clinton blocking her way in leaving but her very first
> affidavit is little different from any story she has ever told.
I believe it started out as the hem of her skirt then she was wearing coulottes andthe
hand went higher. Massage the truth? Is that like embelishing...adding to..etc.
Your whole arguement and credibility just went down the toilet. Don't forget to
jiggle the handle.
>
>
> >and her complaint took on a life of its own.
>
> ? Her complaint has remained the same and quite consistent.
Wrong again Terry. How about that little addition in the end about her adversion to
sex?That didn't come out until very late...two kids late..and from an unqualified
doctor.
>
>
> >There is only one truth and there is no need to change it. The president
> denied >these allegations
>
> Now there is a person who has told varying stories even when answering
> briefly. He can't remember but he can remember he didn't do it. His stories
> have wandered all over the lot. His story about Gennifer Flowers is the
> funniest. He would never have been nominated without his steadfast denial
> about ever having an affair with Gennifer. She was the "woman he never
> slept with" during the campaign. Then he admitted under oath one time
> bedding her but now the latest spin is that he really didn't, it was just
> one of those awful things that
> the lawyers included as sex acts. Nailing this piece of jello to the wall
> is not easy.
Try super glue.
>
>
> >and IMO is listening to good advice. His adversaries have done him more
> good >than harm.
>
> ROTFL!
Stay down.
>
>
>
> Those Lewinsky tapes are going to put him right up there with Howard Stern.
Maybe.. but I think not. The whole mess is already on a long decline and willfizzle
away
in due time.
>
>
> >They have tried to use sex as a weapon and have failed in the eyes of the
> >people. So far the double standard still lies with you.
>
> I have no double standard.
BULLSHIT!
> I don't think women should be molested. Period.
Neither do I
> Adultery? I don't condone it but I leave it to the people involved
Good one!
> . I am against covering up crime.
It must be hard living up to your double standards.
> Where is your double standard.
I never had one.
> What the hell are your standards?
Alot higher than yours obviously.
>
>
> >> >> Nixon, after all this time, has been exposed as a crude
> >> >> amateur compared to the current occupant of the White House.
> >> >
> >> >I think Nixon was a pro and hardly crude.
> >>
> >> There were a lot expletives deleted as I recall.
> >
> >What are you referring to?...Mac
>
> The "pro" Nixon taped himself committing crimes and showed himself to be a
> boorish, foulmouthed idiot. The tapes were unfit for family audiences.
> Surely you must remember the numerous expletives deleted.
I didn't hear what was deleted...someone must have deleted them.
>
...Mac
" Idiot wind...blowing every time you move your mouth..." --Bob Dylan
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
