-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 07/04/1999 10:26:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Are you saying Clinton did not lie at that particular time or has not lied
at all? I remember his saying that if a score card had been kept, he would
have gotten a pretty good score because he had told the truth to the
American people more than he had lied to them. His own words. That may be
just peachy with you but for some of us, it is not good enough. Some of us
are against lying all the time. >>
I'm against anyone lying at any time. I'm against anyone fudging the truth
any time. If you look at the definition of sodomy, you will see that
"technically" Clinton did not lie (at that time). That seems to be what our
country is now all about. All politicians seem to lie, and most of them lie
all the time. It has never been my contention that Clinton is a "good guy."
He's no better than any other politician, and that's where the rub lies. The
Press has jumped him over and over for the very same thing that every other
president has done, and has acted as though it's a terrible thing because
Clinton did it, but when the others did it, it was just "one of those
things." It's the sheer hypocrisy that boils me. It doesn't seem to bother
anyone else. Clinton's mistress was a sin against humanity, but Bush's was
just a nice lady he knew exceptionally well. Clinton's possible pot smoking
was the worst thing that ever happened, but Kennedy's was just a little
relaxation. The firing of Billy Dale was the most heinous act ever
committed, and he was perfectly innocent. Okay? But if the people you work
for let you take the funds home and put them into your personal bank account,
then you have a very unusual employer. I don't personally like Clinton. As
I said, I'm a Democrat. I don't think he is. I just don't see why he should
be held accountable for things that have been winked at and are still being
winked at for everybody else.
Do you remember when he put out the fire in the little girl's hair? It
happened the first Christmas that he was in office. He did it quickly and in
a very nice way. I just happened to be watching television when it happened.
The Press never said a word about it, and it sure didn't make the papers.
Why, probably because they had already signed the agreement that they would
never say a good word about Clinton. I guess I do pan the Republicans, but
they're in charge, and it's my right as an American. Do I prefer Sheila
Jackson Lee to Helen Chenoweth? I sure do. Do I prefer that someone pays
a little attention to the welfare of children after they have been born (as
well as during gestation); I sure do. Do I think medical attention for
everyone at a price they can afford is more important than a tax break for
anybody? I sure do. Do I believe that people should be paid enough when
they work all day to be able to feed, clothe, and house their families? I
sure do. Do I think that the Republicans have been working on getting the
Government off our backs? No, I don't. Big corporations can pollute at
will, but if someone decides your money might have some illusive connection
with drugs, they can just take it from you without a word. The cops didn't
do that in third world countries where I have lived. Our establishment press
doesn't seem to protect us from that sort of thing at all. They never take
sides in any issue that really means lasting harm to us.
What's really funny is that now that they've joyously spent eight years
digging into every possible facet of Clinton, publishing Tabloid garbage and
frothing at the mouth over such horrific unknowns as "adultery" in the White
House, they are beginning to say, "Oh, we shouldn't be doing this, let
bygones be bygones." That because there is an actual photograph out there of
Gov Bush standing on a bar, mooning the crowd. "We shouldn't discuss things
that happened before." This because everybody knows that the guy who has
become their "fair haired boy" was mostly known for being a hard drinking
drug addict. He says he has been faithful to his wife. Why should I believe
him? Not that I care. It's a business that only counts between him and his
wife. I really don't have a need to know, but for eight years the press has
been telling me I do. Jack Kemp wrote a book telling me I have a need to
know and should be "outraged" that such a thing could happen. So if it has
been so important for eight years--why shouldn't it continue to be important?
I'm sure the more ethical and less biased press will want to give coverage
equally to Democrats and Republicans. And I'm sure the ethical and less
biased public will want to be as outraged over Republican behavior as that of
Democrats. Prudy
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
