Your so totally biased in your viewpoint Don. You know that an extraordinary amount of money was spent trying to "get Clinton". The special prosecutor remember? Whitewater? etc etc etc etc. Years of attempted distortions and abuse of the legal system. Finally they "got him" in one of the oldest traps in the books - its called a honeypot - they trapped him with a woman.
Now you can tell this is true by reflecting on one point and one point alone. What woman do you know, who after getting a cum stain on her dress during a blow job, will, instead of rapidly getting it cleaned, preserve the stain? What possibly would make her do that? There is only one possible explanation. She wanted evidence. That was what she was there for. This was an operation conducted by Linda Trip running her operative Monica. Now Clinton was trying to evade this massive trap and cornered tried to evade with semantics under oath... so now you "got him" ... suddenly you don't care about sex because you don't need it.... you got him on perjury... or so you thought....you masked your shame in your audacity... you went for impeachment... it was a "high crime or..." Right? I am not distorting here. This is the truth. A blind man could see it. And you accuse *him* of distortion? Talk about taking a splinter out of someone else's eye when you have a log in your own! What you are saying is just such a complete distortion. You want to see a liar or a bullshitter, guy? Just look in the mirror. The real problem is the destruction of peoples lives that you have cost and the weakening of the ideals we require to remain free. This stuff has had consequences. Line the innocent dead up and drive by them in a car on a highway and you will take hours to pass them. Many of them children. But the worse has been the contamination of our ideals and the prostitution of bravery. You should be ashamed of yourself and what your "distortions" have caused. ... and still it goes on.... On Nov 30, 3:20 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > That was pretty cool. Not sure if you're implying Rummy is lying here > 'cause if that's your point I'm totally missing it. I remember the > Glass Box. We had one at the local Jo Jo's which became a Denny's > about ten years ago. It was fun to watch the kids try for the stuffed > monkey banging the cymbals together. The image is a good analogy for > the global warmist's efforts to keep alive their failing 'science.' > Keep chasing that monkey or dragon or whatever if you want to I say. > It is wise to remember hope is a fragile thing. > > I think i just went Gabbyly enigmatic there. > > -Don > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:53 PM, ornamentalmind > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > The Poetry of D.H. Rumsfeld > > Recent works by the secretary of defense. > > > By Hart SeelyPosted Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 1:03 PM ET > > > Rumsfeld's free-speaking verseSecretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is > > an accomplished man. Not only is he guiding the war in Iraq, he has > > been a pilot, a congressman, an ambassador, a businessman, and a civil > > servant. But few Americans know that he is also a poet. > > > Until now, the secretary's poetry has found only a small and skeptical > > audience: the Pentagon press corps. Every day, Rumsfeld regales > > reporters with his jazzy, impromptu riffs. Few of them seem to > > appreciate it. > > > But we should all be listening. Rumsfeld's poetry is paradoxical: It > > uses playful language to address the most somber subjects: war, > > terrorism, mortality. Much of it is about indirection and evasion: He > > never faces his subjects head on but weaves away, letting inversions > > and repetitions confuse and beguile. His work, with its dedication to > > the fractured rhythms of the plainspoken vernacular, is reminiscent of > > William Carlos Williams'. Some readers may find that Rumsfeld's gift > > for offhand, quotidian pronouncements is as entrancing as Frank > > O'Hara's. > > > And so Slate has compiled a collection of Rumsfeld's poems, bringing > > them to a wider public for the first time. The poems that follow are > > the exact words of the defense secretary, as taken from the official > > transcripts on the Defense Department Web site. > > > The Unknown > > > As we know, > > There are known knowns. > > There are things we know we know. > > We also know > > There are known unknowns. > > That is to say > > We know there are some things > > We do not know. > > But there are also unknown unknowns, > > The ones we don't know > > We don't know. > > —Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing > > > Glass Box > > > You know, it's the old glass box at the— > > At the gas station, > > Where you're using those little things > > Trying to pick up the prize, > > And you can't find it. > > It's— > > And it's all these arms are going down in there, > > And so you keep dropping it > > And picking it up again and moving it, > > But— > > Some of you are probably too young to remember those— > > Those glass boxes, > > But— > > But they used to have them > > At all the gas stations > > When I was a kid. > > —Dec. 6, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing > > > A Confession > > > Once in a while, > > I'm standing here, doing something. > > And I think, > > "What in the world am I doing here?" > > It's a big surprise. > > —May 16, 2001, interview with the New York Times > > > Happenings > > > You're going to be told lots of things. > > You get told things every day that don't happen. > > It doesn't seem to bother people, they don't— > > It's printed in the press. > > The world thinks all these things happen. > > They never happened. > > Everyone's so eager to get the story > > Before in fact the story's there > > That the world is constantly being fed > > Things that haven't happened. > > All I can tell you is, > > It hasn't happened. > > It's going to happen. > > —Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing > > > The Digital Revolution > > > Oh my goodness gracious, > > What you can buy off the Internet > > In terms of overhead photography! > > A trained ape can know an awful lot > > Of what is going on in this world, > > Just by punching on his mouse > > For a relatively modest cost! > > —June 9, 2001, following European trip > > > The Situation > > > Things will not be necessarily continuous. > > The fact that they are something other than perfectly continuous > > Ought not to be characterized as a pause. > > There will be some things that people will see. > > There will be some things that people won't see. > > And life goes on. > > —Oct. 12, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing > > > Clarity > > > I think what you'll find, > > I think what you'll find is, > > Whatever it is we do substantively, > > There will be near-perfect clarity > > As to what it is. > > And it will be known, > > And it will be known to the Congress, > > And it will be known to you, > > Probably before we decide it, > > But it will be known. > > —Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing > > >http://www.slate.com/id/2081042/ > > > On Nov 30, 2:28 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> regarding claims about global warming: are they really liars? Or > > >> > mere bullshitters? > > >> A bit of both probably. Even the most egregious departures from truth > >> can, and often are, rationalized. Here's my personal favorite. > > >> "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if > >> 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If > >> it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, > >> if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual > >> relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the > >> present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely > >> true." > > >> Chutzpah, ladies and gentlemen, has no limits. > > >> -Don > > >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > On Nov 29, 7:58 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> We can bleat forever about the nature of truth. I generally prefer a > >> >> limited notion of truth and honesty against lies and deception. > > >> > "Truth" says Aristotle, "is saying of what is that it is, and of what > >> > is not that it is not". A liar, according to Mortimer Adler, is one > >> > who willfully displaces his ontological predicates: he says of what is > >> > that it is not, or of what is not that it is. You say people lie and > >> > deceive about "global warming". The first thing to know about lying is > >> > that it is not the same as speaking falsehood. The liar knows he's > >> > lying. This means a) he knows the truth b) he speaks otherwise > > >> > The the liar, like the honest man, respects the truth. The liar knows > >> > he is lying. This is in stark contrast to the bullshitter > >> > (http://tr.im/GcDf). > >> > Now, regarding claims about global warming: are they really liars? Or > >> > mere bullshitters? > > >> > -- > > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> > Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. > >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> > [email protected]. > >> > For more options, visit this group > >> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
