moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Mac,
>
> >> 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
> facts support 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.
>
> Thank you. You proved my point better than I could.
I believed I proved a point but it wasn't yours.
> >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.
>
> The last is not Jones' story. The story about Clinton's sexual assault has
> not changed. I don't blame you for trying to drag in specious additions.
Even the word sexual assualt is a new addition. It wasn't me who dragged themin. So,
again
you are wrong. At least your consistent
> Doesn't work well on greasy surfaces surfaces.
Wash your hands first.
...Mac
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
