-Caveat Lector-
Well, too bad Clinton did not "put out the fire" in the hair of the little
girls at WACO that his Henchbitch Reno burned to death while spraying them
with a cyanide substance. Oh, but their mothers were supposed to run
outside (and be shot!) with them, weren't they? To the "mooning" (keep in
mind this is a religious compound) BATF agents! Some were shot running out
the back according to recent reports.
Could that be why they decided not to make too much of his heroic efforts
for the cameras? It begs for the glaring comparison.
Amelia
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Stokes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [CTRL] "Press is more ethical and less biased than ever?" (fwd)
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> In a message dated 99-07-05 07:46:00 EDT, you write:
>
> << 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). >>
>
> sod*omy (noun)
>
> [Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom;
from
> the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11]
>
> First appeared 13th Century
>
> 1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
>
> 2 : noncoital and esp. anal or oral copulation with a member of the
opposite
> sex
>
> -- sod*om*it*ic or sod*om*it*i*cal (adjective)
>
> Seems to me that definition number 2 is sodomy and Clinton is guilty of
this
> with Monica and dozens of other females, some of which did not do this act
> willingly, and some of which are now dead.
>
> <<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.>>
>
> Don't you see that the press is on Clinton's payroll, they work for
him.
> They hide his truly despicable behavior behind his sexual escapades.
They
> tried to hide the fact that he took campaign contributions (bribes) from
the
> Red Chinese (our enemy) and in return he gave them super computers, access
to
> satellite communications, cryptographic information, etc, then he tried to
> cover it up ... if this was not wrong why did he try to hide it? Not only
> that, but he has tried to give the Red Chinese a base on US soil. What
about
> the files (over 700) some FBI files, some IRS files that was in his
> possesion, one person in the Nixon administration went to jail for
possesion
> of just one file, is Clinton above the law? Moreover Clinton has reduced
the
> military to a skeleton force ... Is he setting us up for an
attack/invasion
> by his Communist buddies in Red China? And, why did Clinton dishonor this
> country by renting out the Lincoln bedroom to people that donated to his
> campaign, this person (I wouldn't call him a man) abuses the office of the
> President every chance he gets.
>
> << 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.>>
>
> Bush didn't have his mistress give him blowjobs in the oval office.
> Bush didn't force innumerable females to have sex with him against their
> will. Why is it all the Clintonites have to bring up someone else and
change
> the subject when the discussion is about their beloved Zipperboy? You
can't
> defend him, that's why! As I remember I challenged the Clinton supporters
to
> give me five, only five things that he had done that were good for the
> country. The answers I got were "he wasn't a Republican," a pregnacy
leave
> (one good thing), and silence ... silence because he hasn't done any good
in
> the 6 1/2 years he's been in office.
> Read, learn, the Republicans and Democrats are the same party, we
are a
> one party system ... the rich enslaving the poor and the less rich through
> the use of corporate empires and highly restrictive government regulations
on
> the people of this country and small business to further their corporate
> empire. Behind it all is the filthy rich bankers that control our very
lives
> and control little wimps like Clinton and Bush. Money talks and these
> bankers control the Federal Reserve and issue money only to those
corporate
> interests that will further their enslavement of the world
>
> << 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 didn't see that, I was in Germany at the time where we only had one
> channel, the military channel where all we got to see was sports and
Clinton
> speeches and the only paper we had to read was the Stars and Stripes which
> supported Clinton no matter what he did, but the paper wasn't run by
Federal
> authorities (yeah right).
>
> << I guess I do pan the Republicans, but
> they're in charge, and it's my right as an American.>>
>
> Clinton is in-charge, he rules by executive orders, but as I say the
> Demo's and Repub's are the same party because the Republican's never say
much
> about his EO's. And yes, everyone does have a right to their own
opinion,
> but if you disagree with Clinton you may be putting your life on the line.
> Better to be his enemy than his friend, look at Ron Brown and Vince Foster
> and a hundred other lesser known people who have been eliminated and their
> death covered up such as being decapitated and ruled as death by natural
> causes. It is the responsibility of the "electorate" to educate
themselves.
>
> << 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. >>
>
> People that cannot afford to have children should not have them. The
> one thing Clinton did that was correct was to try to eliminate welfare,
but
> he didn't take it far enough. Corporations as well as individuals should
be
> weaned from the tit of government that enslaves them. Let workers keep
their
> wages and everyone would feel rich, nearly half my wages go directly to
the
> government to pay for "social" programs to support unworthy Corporations
and
> lazy individuals. I work 50-60 hours a week to improve my lot in life,
but
> the government through taxation takes my money to give to people who
oppress
> me, like Clinton, Reno and Albright ... public servants my ass!
>
> << 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.>>
>
> Just a reminder, asset stealing grew during Clinton's watch, did he veto
it?
> Pollution control laws were passed (not to prevent large Corporations from
> polluting) to put small businesses out of business. A ten billion a year
> corporation can afford to spend 20 million to install pollution control
> devices in their factories or to pay a $25,000 a day fine for failure to
> comply to do so, however a small company that grosses 6 million a year
cannot
> afford to install this equipment and cannot pay such a fine for very long
...
> as a result they get bought-up by the large corporation. And yes, even in
> South Korea and Turkey they do not steal your property if you are
suspected
> of a drug related crime, I've been there.
>
> << 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. >>
>
> I do not watch much TV news, it is all bullshit to me, but I have not
> heard of this. I've been saying for a year and a half that Bush Jr will
be
> the next President. This is what the Elites want that run the country.
Bush
> should not be allowed to run for office because of his dealings with
> Silverado Savings and Loan. He stole money from the public, huge sums of
> money. I don't think we can do anything about this because I really don't
> think our vote counts, although I will vote, not for a Republican, not for
a
> Democrat, but for a candidate of another party, which doesn't have a
chance
> in hell of being elected, but to me this tells the "one party" to stick it
> where the sun don't shine ... I'll not fall prey to their agenda
willingly.
> Someone posted an article titled "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid"
concerning
> the Bush dynasty coming back to power in the whitehouse. They are
correct,
> very correct. The Bush clan has the media in their back pocket,
connections
> to the CIA, a nearly unlimited pocket book and support from foreign heads
of
> state. I can only hope they overstep their bounds and make a mistake and
try
> to push things too fast ... then, and only then will the citizens of these
> united States rise up and put government in it's place ... a servant, not
a
> Master.
>
> Best Regards,
> Bob Stokes
>
> 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
>
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
