XPost: alt.impeach.clinton, alt.society.liberalism, talk.politics.misc   
   XPost: alt.atheism   
   From: tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk   
      
   Nicklas@Click.com wrote:   
   >   
   > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:04:30 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi   
   > ho' )"  wrote:   
   >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >Nicklas@Click.com wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:50:50 GMT, linder.one@osu.edu   
   > >> (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >>And, according to police witnesses, TWO bullet wounds in the back of   
   > >> >>the head.   
   > >> >   
   > >> >Really?  What witnesses were those?  Do you have a name?  A police   
   > >> >report?  Or are you just quoting some other loon who heard it from   
   > >> >some other loon?   
   > >>   
   > >> Tell ya what, Linderloon   
   > >>   
   > >> Give us the names of all those "witnesses" who ever saw   
   > >> or heard the Clintons do anything criminal, immoral   
   > >> (more than reagan)   
   > >>   
   > >Wait a minute. First you want anything criminal and now you want "more   
   > >than [R]eagan".   
   >   
   > ??   
   >   
   > Reagan lied--   
   >   
   > "Lying" is the underpinning of all conservative whining   
   > about Clinton.  Yet when Reagan lied, that was okay.   
   >   
   When did Reagan "lie"?   
      
      
      
   > Reagan stopped Congress from oversight of Foriegn   
   > Policy in the conduct of illegally selling arms to   
   > Iran--which is subversion of Constitutional government   
   >   
   Reagan didn't know about the diversion to the Contras. The Iran effort   
   was within his powers as president.   
      
      
   > Reagan funneled arms, weapons to murdering dictators   
   > all over the globe---reducing our moral authority to   
   > the very people he said he was helping----for his   
   > personal aggrandizement.   
   >   
   You are a kook.   
      
      
      
   > Reagan then was called before a Grand Jury and   
   > committed Perjury----another conservative "principle"   
   > that was used to smear clinton (Clinton never did lie   
   > in the Jones Deposition, ya know)   
   >   
   Really? So when Clinton said that he'd never been alone with Lewinsky,   
   that was true?   
      
      
      
   > So what is it that I'm letting Clinton "off the hook   
   > for" calling Reagan worse?   
   >   
   I was making fun of the levels of response you were making, you wanted   
   to be shown one thing Clinton did, and then you wanted to be shown what   
   he did that was worse than that evil Reagan.   
      
      
      
      
   > >Since you believe that Reagan was an arch criminal, what   
   > >does that say for your view of Clinton?   
   >   
   > You Still haven't offered ANY credible evidence that   
   > Clinton committed ANY crime---other than "unproven   
   > allegation, rumor, story and lie"   
   >   
   You haven't done that for Reagan.   
      
      
      
      
   > >How about does that fit in with   
   > >your claim to not believe anything at all criminal was done by the   
   > >Clinton. Oh, BTW, the witness was a Tyson Foods pilot who personally   
   > >delivered bribe money to the Clintons. That's illegal, you know.   
   >   
   > ONE (1) Accusation cannot be used to credibly   
   > substantiate a crime.   
   >   
   He testified that he delivered the bribes from Tyson Foods to the   
   governor's mansion. What do you want? I know Socks the Cat was on the   
   take, but I don't think he got into the trough back in Ark Kansas.   
      
      
      
   > "Multiple SINGLE accusations" cannot (in our legal   
   > system) be used as evidence to supprt any criminal   
   > indictment.   
   >   
   What are you talking about?   
      
      
   > No matter how many "Single accusers" flock to   
   > accuse---they cannot lend credence to bolster a   
   > "theory".   
   >   
   Can you cite the law on this one? People who know that something   
   happened don't count?   
      
      
      
   > That doctrine has been the basic  underpinning of our   
   > rule of law for a long time----which is why those   
   > Scaife paid "accusers" didn't pass the laugh test   
   > against Clinton(s)   
   >   
   Really? So is that why Clinton paid $850K?   
      
      
   --   
   "What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their   
   nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in   
   because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my   
   appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no   
   single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?   
   Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your   
   Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a   
   bitch got over the wall."   
   -+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)