(Continued from previous message)
The problem is that these are the same people who visciously excoriated
Clarence Thomas and Bob Packwood for similar, if not identical alleged
conduct. Although I've hear the feminazis claiming that what Bob
Packwood did was "different" from what Billy Jeff has been accused of
and that Packwood admitted his complicity in these sordid matters.
WL> JS> And the crowning statement was that of Gloria Steinhem saying that 
IF
WL> JS> Clinton is guilty of what Jones alleges, so what?" The first grope
WL> JS> should be free. It wasn't sexual harassment."
WL>Do you suppose we could find someone who would be willing to
WL>grope her once, and then see if she changes her tune?  Mind
WL>you, I am NOT volunteering for this myself.  Twenty years ago,
WL>maybe....
What would be really interesting to see is a criminal trial somewhere in
this country where the accused stands before the court on virtually the
same charges as El Presidente and calls all of the folks involved in the
Jones, Lewinsky, Willey, et al, "matter" and have them explain to the
jury why the President of the United States should be allowed to commit
these acts with impugnity while he is being criminally charged
for the same alleged behavior.
WL> JS> What the FeminNazis have done is forsaken their sisters, Jones,
WL> JS> Willey, Flowers, et. al., in exchange for political power and money.
WL> JS> They've compromised their morality and their fundamental beliefs for 

WL> JS> guy who is, as William Ginsburg first labled, a misogynist 
WL>I'm tempted to say, "Who cares?  There aren't enough of them to
WL>matter," which would be true enough; but the FemiNazis have for
WL>decades now claimed to speak for all women.  This is just
WL>another self-administered blow to their credibility...and a
WL>pretty damaging blow, at that.
WL> JS> They also cry "foul" when someone makes an allegation against their
WL> JS> guy Bill but laugh hysterically and cackle with glee when Carville 
nd
WL> JS> the rest of the pack of dogs, destroy a person's reputation.
The bottom line to all this is that LIbEralS are hypocrites and no one
is calling them on it.
WL>I frequently laugh at Carville myself, but not for the same
WL>reason.
Carville is tenacious enough to be dangerous. He's been wildly
successful in attacking Starr. In short, you can't knock success.
WL> JS> In short, they do not believe in right and wrong, black or white. 
hey
WL> JS> are the ones who believe that there are simply varying shades of 
ray.
WL> JS> And they buy off on the old Crosby, Stills, and Nash song: "If you
WL> JS> can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with."
WL>New lyrics, slightly more accurate:  "If you can't be with the
WL>one you love, love anyone you can arrange to be with."
Dick Armey said it best. This man's credo is that he's ENTITLED to do
whatever he can get away with. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling about the
Unagroper Commander in Cheat. Gloria Steinhem has stated that El
Presidente is at best, guilty of being immature and irresponsible. ie.
He's guilty. And B. do YOU want someone immature and irresponsible in
charge of the country with the power to start a war, send American men
and women into harms way, and the power to use nuclear weapons? I don't.
And THAT is why character matters. But try telling that to someone who
depends on Uncle Sugar to give 'em a welfare check. They're more
interested in daily survival and not what is in the national interest.
This is a direct result of "diversity". Division of the society into
little groups competing for government dollars. Great. What a unifying
concept. Divide and conquer is what it is. And it too, like Carville,
has been wildly successful.
WL> JS> Anything goes. There is no morality. And they wonder why incidents
WL> JS> like the shooting in Jonesboro happen??
WL>I was tempted to say you're reaching a bit too far here...but
WL>perhaps you aren't.  No, not because Clinton comes from the
WL>same state as those two prepubescent mass-murderers, but
WL>because anyone who's in the public eye will inevitably be seen
WL>by someone as a role model.  Clinton's only one influence, and
WL>probably not nearly as powerful an influence on those two boys
WL>as, say, Marilyn Manson; but he could have been a good
WL>influence on today's youth, and instead chose to indulge himself
WL>and ignore the responsibilities that go along with high elected
WL>office.
What I was alluding to is that instead of aportioning blame where it
obviously belongs, namely at the feet of the two "juvenile delinquents",
we have the LIbEralS in the country calling for more gun control, for a
change in the juvenile justice system, for blaming the kid's grandfather
since it was HIS guns that did the nasty deed, and anything and anyone
else BUT the two who actually pulled the trigger.
In that manner, I believe we've degenerated to an "anything goes"
(Continued to next message)
___
 X OLXWin 1.00b X ... I'm sorry, I didn't intend to confuse you with facts.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------