[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Mac,
>moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> Hi Mac,
>> >It seems like there is more than meets the eye and when you look at as a
>> whole >there appears to be a machine fueling the allegations. This makes me
>> suspicious >of the accuser and of the story they have to sell/tell.
>>
>> Do you see your problem?
>
>No, enlighten me if you can.
I don't ordinarily go back to old posts to show something but you edited out
what is most material and you asked. This was the critical portion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>I have steadfastly reserved judgement until the facts come in.
And skipping on down:
>It seems like there is more than meets the eye and when you look at as a
whole >there appears to be a machine fueling the allegations. This makes me
suspicious >of the accuser and of the story they have to sell/tell.
Do you see your problem?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said, like others, you are "reserving judgment" and then you turn around
and say "there appears to be a machine fueling the allegations." You have
obviously bought the line about the famous vast rightwing conspiracy. Kind
of like giving the lying bitches a fair trial before hanging them. Your
objectivity is very dubious IMO.
>PJ has told many stories
Paula Jones has told one story. The efforts to find discrepancies are
laughable, e.g. how far did Clinton run his hand up her leg?, was it the
crotch or pelvic area?, why didn't she describe a certain deformity in
Clinton's anatomy to her first lawyer? Her story may, in fact, have been
massaged to have Clinton blocking her way in leaving but her very first
affidavit is little different from any story she has ever told.
>and her complaint took on a life of its own.
? Her complaint has remained the same and quite consistent.
>There is onlyone truth and there is no need to change it. The president
denied >these allegations
Now there is a person who has told varying stories even when answering
briefly. He can't remember but he can remember he didn't do it. His stories
have wandered all over the lot. His story about Gennifer Flowers is the
funniest. He would never have been nominated without his steadfast denial
about ever having an affair with Gennifer. She was the "woman he never
slept with" during the campaign. Then he admitted under oath one time
bedding her but now the latest spin is that he really didn't, it was just
one of those awful things that
the lawyers included as sex acts. Nailing this piece of jello to the wall
is not easy.
>and IMO is listening to good advice. His adversaries have done him more
good >than harm.
ROTFL!
Those Lewinsky tapes are going to put him right up there with Howard Stern.
>They have tried to use sex as a weapon and have failed in the eyes of the
>people. So far the double standard still lies with you.
I have no double standard. I don't think women should be molested. Period.
Adultery? I don't condone it but I leave it to the people involved. I am
against covering up crime. Where is your double standard. What the hell
are your standards?
>> >> Nixon, after all this time, has been exposed as a crude
>> >> amateur compared to the current occupant of the White House.
>> >
>> >I think Nixon was a pro and hardly crude.
>>
>> There were a lot expletives deleted as I recall.
>
>What are you referring to?...Mac
The "pro" Nixon taped himself committing crimes and showed himself to be a
boorish, foulmouthed idiot. The tapes were unfit for family audiences.
Surely you must remember the numerous expletives deleted.
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
