-=> Quoting John Sampson to All <=-
 JS> As I sit here and listen to the LIbEral pundits, like Geraldo, Charles
 JS> Grodin, and others, rejoicing in uncontrollable glee with the recent
 JS> dismissal of the Paul Jones lawsuit against the Unagroper, I think to
 JS> myself that they don't get it or don't WANT to get it.
They get it, John; they just don't want to admit it because it
would mean that their icon is a disgusting creep.  Besides, if
they publicly claimed that they disagreed with Judge Wright,
that would give some indication of their moral standards.
(Cheering Judge Wright's dismissal of the suit also gives an
indication of their moral standards, but they can always attempt
to weasel out if confronted on that.)
 JS> However, do I believe it didn't happen? No. I believe it DID happen
 JS> based not only on the deposition testimony of the Jones matter, but
 JS> also based upon the multitude of other allegations made by other women.
I'm satisfied that the encounter in the hotel room was much as
Mrs. Jones has said all along.  I am not, and never have been,
completely convinced that she was as offended at the time as
she now claims; nor am I convinced that Clinton even remembered
her well enough to hurt her chances for promotion afterward.
Put another way, I haven't decided if the act was anywhere near
as serious as Mrs. Jones and her attorneys have indicated all
along.  That's okay, because I'm not a juror in Jones v. Clinton
and don't have all the evidence that has been collected by both
sides.  But Judge Wright has acted to block _anyone_ from sitting
on that jury and examining the evidence -- and that is _not_ all
right.  I'm waiting for an appeal of her decision to be heard,
and I hope to see her overturned...which won't be the first time
that has happened in this case.
 JS> Add to this, Clinton's gleeful reaction to the case being tossed, and
 JS> one gets the impression that Clinton was RELIEVED he did not have to
 JS> go to court on this one. His reaction was NOT, IMHO, the reaction of an
 JS> innocent man. For if it had been me and I was innocent, I would have
 JS> DEMANDED my day in court and would be suing Ms. Jones into the next
 JS> century for defamation.
We already know Clinton has no sense of shame; apparently he
either is counting on Judge Wright's decision not being
overturned, or he lacks the intelligence with which even his
harshest critics echo have credited him.  This matter is not
over; even if he never has an opportunity to try to charm a
jury (and then claim they were biased against him if/when they
find him guilty anyway), the history books (well, some of them
anyway) will record him as a sleazeball and suspected criminal.
He clearly doesn't care about his party, but the longer this
goes without a resolution, the longer it will continue to will
hurt the electoral chances of all Democrats -- even those who
are actually good people at heart and merely disagree with us
conservatives on what gummint should and should not do.
 JS> During all of this nonsense, we've had LIbEral FOBs getting up on
 JS> national television saying that it didn't matter if Clinton committed
 JS> adultery, didn't matter if he lied about it under oath, didn't matter
 JS> if he suborned perjury, didn't matter if he obstructed justice.
They have to say that for the simple reason that some of them
know, and the rest certainly suspect, that he actually did all
those things.  They can't convince many people that he's not
guilty of the charges and allegations, so they have to try to
persuade the public that whatever he did is no more serious
than spitting on a sidewalk.
 JS> And the crowning statement was that of Gloria Steinhem saying that "IF
 JS> Clinton is guilty of what Jones alleges, so what?" The first grope
 JS> should be free. It wasn't sexual harassment."
Do you suppose we could find someone who would be willing to
grope her once, and then see if she changes her tune?  Mind
you, I am NOT volunteering for this myself.  Twenty years ago,
maybe....
 JS> What the FeminNazis have done is forsaken their sisters, Jones,
 JS> Willey, Flowers, et. al., in exchange for political power and money.
 JS> They've compromised their morality and their fundamental beliefs for a
 JS> guy who is, as William Ginsburg first labled, a misogynist 
I'm tempted to say, "Who cares?  There aren't enough of them to
matter," which would be true enough; but the FemiNazis have for
decades now claimed to speak for all women.  This is just
another self-administered blow to their credibility...and a
pretty damaging blow, at that.
 JS> They also cry "foul" when someone makes an allegation against their
 JS> guy Bill but laugh hysterically and cackle with glee when Carville and
 JS> the rest of the pack of dogs, destroy a person's reputation.
I frequently laugh at Carville myself, but not for the same
reason.
 JS> In short, they do not believe in right and wrong, black or white. They
 JS> are the ones who believe that there are simply varying shades of gray.
 JS> And they buy off on the old Crosby, Stills, and Nash song: "If you
 JS> can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with."
New lyrics, slightly more accurate:  "If you can't be with the
one you love, love anyone you can arrange to be with."
 JS> Anything goes. There is no morality. And they wonder why incidents
 JS> like the shooting in Jonesboro happen??
I was tempted to say you're reaching a bit too far here...but
perhaps you aren't.  No, not because Clinton comes from the
same state as those two prepubescent mass-murderers, but
because anyone who's in the public eye will inevitably be seen
by someone as a role model.  Clinton's only one influence, and
probably not nearly as powerful an influence on those two boys
as, say, Marilyn Manson; but he could have been a good
influence on today's youth, and instead chose to indulge himself
and ignore the responsibilities that go along with high elected
office.
 JS> I just watched Dee Dee Myers get on national television and say that
 JS> Clinton did not have a sexual relationship with Gennifer Flowers, that
 JS> he "merely groped her". As if this was acceptable behavior?
Do you suppose that Dee Dee wishes she could say the same about
herself?  (And mean it, that is.)
 JS> This illustrates the entire problem this country faces when the
 JS> President of the United States is allowed to grope at will with little
 JS> or no consequence.
Here's my idea of poetic justice.  If he somehow evades
impeachment (and he's very good at evading American justice,
the next President appoints Clinton ambassador to one of the
Middle Eastern states that is governed by strict adherence
to Islamic law.  Once he's actually on his way there aboard
an official VIP jet, let him know that his diplomatic
immunity does _not_ extend to sexual improprieties...the host
government already knows this...and the American women on
the Embassy staff have been carefully chosen by Hillary.
Is he most likely to: (a) take his chances and end up
suffering Islamic "consequences"; (b) be frightened into a
heart attack by the prospect of abstinence; or (c) be
convicted of skyjacking when he attempts to force the pilot
to go somewhere...anywhere...else?
Walter, Forked Deer River Ilks
wluffman@usit.net
... Honesty is the best policy...unless you can afford a Uncle Bob.
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------