Just a quick not today since I have a ceremonial and its snowing. Harry, you were born in a society that makes distinctions. Perhaps you believe that we don't here, but we do. There is a distinction between the polite, the common and the vulgar. What offended me the most in all of this "rule of law" crap that was passed around by the neo-conservatives, and that they are infiltrating the courts with, was that they are not a part of the American cultural structure. In Europe polite, common, vulgar means some sort of class structure that is both familial and economic. Here people use it as a style. So Bush is basically common and vulgar in his affect but is upper class polite in his family. Clinton was the reverse. I'm sure that Clinton was as much an annoyance to the upper class with his Oxford education and his airs as Bush is to me. All of the sex stuff was a put down on Clinton's class. I find the drug and alcohol use with Bush, and what it does to the brain, much more frightening since I know people with fetal alcohol syndrome and what was Barbara Bush's habit? Alcohol seems to run in that family even down to the twins. 60 million dollars and a hostile Democrat prosecutor would turn up? What do you think Harry? As for Clinton lying? Not according to anything referred to politely in the English dictionary. Penetration is and has been the rule for sex for as long as a thousand years. Just because Hollywood calls foreplay sex doesn't mean that it is so. But rewriting the dictionary and the lawbooks IS the issue to me and that is that. As for turning on Monica, how about Megan Marshack, Rockefeller's girl who was "with" him when he had the heart attack and died? It was OK that Happy didn't embrace her at the funeral right? The difference here is money purely and simply. The Clinton's didn't have it, gave it away and didn't seem to care much about not making it on their political watch. You can drag up your stories, but they are about foreplay and finanancial peanuts. Nothing to compare to a Bush or "Cheney like" venality.
So drag a President into the court and make them tell the truth or hang them on a technicality? How about Reagan and the murder of 150,00 Guatemalan Indian people in Iran Contra not to mention El Salvador and Equator. Or Ollie North that old war criminal running around on the networks. He's OK but a Black Muslim isn't? What did Reagan say? "I don't remember". What did North and Poindexter say? Like OJ they had immunity. One politically and the other with his money. This is crap Harry and you know it. But it is all a matter of class and America is supposed to be but isn't a classless society and the use of language is supposed to be clear enough that you know the difference between speaking in the polite, common or vulgar forms. The law is the last bastion of the elite and they hate it that OJ used it against them. Today they use it against us all. I apologize for not reading this but I have to go. You can fill in the blanks and spell check. REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] GOP vs Democrats :: Starr Chamber proceedings again > Harry Pollard wrote: > > [snip] > > > Clinton lied in a court of law. That was his obvious crime. > > > > However, something I disliked immensely was the way they turned on > > Monica, intending to destroy her. She became the local whore until > > something changed. > > [snip] > > Clinton would not have lied had he not been checkmated by the > SELFRIGHTEOUSCONSERVATIVEHYPOCRITESWHOSTILLRESENTFDRFORTHENEWDEAL.... > and who play off the fact that many Americans' greatest > sexual gratification comes from Pruditanically frustrating the sexual > pleasure of others. > > Had Clinton been able to say, without fear of any > consequences beyond the dry cleaner's bill he seems > to me ethically obligated to pay for Ms. Lewinsky: > > Yes, I had sex with that woman. So what? > > --Had Clinton *not even needed to say *that**, he would > not have felt the need to lie. > > A person who is asked a question which the > questioner has not business asking but which the > person asked does not have the power to directly > rebut, is left with only the alternative of > giving a "false" answer. But the BIG LIE > is in the question, which escapes scrutiny > like a big red [OK: white, since these are > anti-communists...] herring. > > Bush, since his transgressions are economic and not > sexual, feels no such compunctions in telling the > Senate and the American people he is "screwing" them. > And -- mirabile visu! -- they *swallow* it whole. > > History has seen other similar cases. The one > that sticks in my mind is J Robert Oppenheimer who > betrayed his friend Haakon Chevalier because he was > afraid of the anti-Communist witch-hunters. General > Lesley Groves was apparently pretty decent, but > he should have come to Oppy's defense and told > the anti-Communist witch hunters to go take a hike > on the beach of Tinian or Iwo, where they could have helped > prepare the way for the delivery of the a-bomb. > > Just because you, Harry, are not now nor have ever been, > does not mean that you might not have been, or that, > one day, something you did or which you didn't do > but which somebody decides to accuse you of, may not become the > rallying cry of some new self-appointed plague of > Harpies (AKA "patriots"). Sometimes decent persons get > "framed". > > \brad mccormick > > -- > Let your light so shine before men, > that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) > > Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) > > <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
