XPost: alt.impeach.clinton, alt.society.liberalism, talk.politics.misc   
   XPost: alt.atheism   
   From: tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk   
      
   Nicklas@Click.com wrote:   
   >   
   > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:59:59 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi   
   > ho' )"  wrote:   
   >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >Nicklas@Click.com wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:12:58 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi   
   > >> ho' )"  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >You think his website shows him to be anything but a radical?   
   > >>   
   > >> What would you call someone who went after Hitler?   
   > >>   
   > >I'm at a loss as to what you mean. Maybe you could just explicitly say   
   > >that you support killing people who disagree with your political views.   
   >   
   > You're saying that anyone, at anytime should  be   
   > allowed to subvert the constitution, fund smears,   
   > promote lies, stories, rumors, conjecture to take over   
   > a government   
   >   
   > That's what Hitler did.   
   >   
   So you think that the attempted hit was justified? (Before you answer,   
   remember that this is public and the person you are threatening is a   
   well known figure. I can't believe you want to waste the government's   
   time)   
      
      
      
   > >> First of all you can't prove he went there to kill   
   > >> him---you only "surmise"   
   > >>   
   > >Why would he go there?   
   >   
   > Unless  you can answer that----your entire claim is   
   > "theory".   
   >   
   He took a gun. He ended up killing himself. You explain why he did what   
   he did.   
      
      
   > >> Which is why you dumb bastards lost EVERY allegation   
   > >> you ever made against the Clintons.   
   > >>   
   > >How can I prove that Clinton took bribes from Tyson Foods if Reno won't   
   > >let me investigate even though I've got a witness with personal   
   > >knowledge of the money transfer?   
   >   
   > Because in THIS country, a mere allegation---without   
   > passing a legal threshold level---is worthless.   
   >   
   An eyewitness who was clearly at the scene of the crime and says that he   
   was used to transfer proceeds for the crime isn't competent to even   
   justify an investigation? What would it take?   
      
      
      
   > It's a   
   > civil libery and legal protection that has always been   
   > maintained.  Not one allegation ever contained any   
   > significant amount of EVIDENCE to support the initial   
   > allegations.  Every one was predicated on "looks like"   
   >   
   > In the case of "filegate"----Everything was predicated   
   > on "LOOKS LIKE"....when it was discovered some   
   > low-level functionary "had raw FBI files".  The initial   
   > investigation turned up nothing----the files were only   
   > 'in possession"---and never used.   
   >   
   I'm talking about the investigation by Smaltz that was quashed by Reno   
   when he showed he had people who were there who would testify. That   
   seems like a smoking gun.   
      
      
      
      
   > House Republicans then elevated "having files" into a   
   > full blown "looks like" investigation that presupposed   
   > that by "having files" they MUST HAVE done something   
   > with the files.   
   >   
   I think having those files warranted an investigation, don't you? I   
   don't know if crimes were committed, but why they had them is something   
   important because of the threats from such files.   
      
      
   > No Evidence of any wrong doing---except "having files"   
   > wasn't legal.   
   >   
   > Couple that with a Dozen OTHER allegations,   
   > insinuations, innuendo, conjecture, rumors, theories,   
   > stories and lies that were  used to smear the   
   > Clintons---it became apparant that ALL were nothing   
   > more than a political smear campaign----highly   
   > suspicious because of WHO was paying for it (or in the   
   > case of the "Smear by investigations", those who   
   > appropriated it)   
   >   
   I wanted it investigated and the person you hate so wasn't paying me.   
      
      
   --   
   "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)