-=> Quoting John Sampson to Walter Luffman <=-
 JS> What would be really interesting to see is a criminal trial somewhere
 JS> in this country where the accused stands before the court on virtually
 JS> the same charges as El Presidente and calls all of the folks involved
 JS> in the Jones, Lewinsky, Willey, et al, "matter" and have them explain
 JS> to the jury why the President of the United States should be allowed to
 JS> commit these acts with impugnity while he is being criminally charged
 JS> for the same alleged behavior.
If only someone would actually do this, in a high-profile case
the news media can't ignore....
[Re: FemiNazis]
 JS> The bottom line to all this is that LIbEralS are hypocrites and no one
 JS> is calling them on it.
A few people are -- Rush, Liddy, a few columnists and Fox New
commentators, most of us in this echo -- but it's hard to be
heard over the other side's shouting.
 WL>I frequently laugh at Carville myself, but not for the same
 WL>reason.
 JS> Carville is tenacious enough to be dangerous. He's been wildly
 JS> successful in attacking Starr. In short, you can't knock success.
I laugh at the sight of a dancing bear...but that doesn't mean
I want to cuddle it.
 JS> Dick Armey said it best. This man's credo is that he's ENTITLED to do
 JS> whatever he can get away with. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling about the
 JS> Unagroper Commander in Cheat. Gloria Steinhem has stated that El
 JS> Presidente is at best, guilty of being immature and irresponsible. ie.
That's quite an admission for Ms. Steinhem.  Funny thing, I used
to think she had a backbone; but now I see she's "flexible." 
 JS> He's guilty. And B. do YOU want someone immature and irresponsible in
 JS> charge of the country with the power to start a war, send American men
 JS> and women into harms way, and the power to use nuclear weapons? I
 JS> don't. 
I'd sooner trust Eddie Haskell to babysit The Beaver.  (And if
you want to make up your own joke, be my guest.)
 JS> And THAT is why character matters. But try telling that to someone who
 JS> depends on Uncle Sugar to give 'em a welfare check. They're more
 JS> interested in daily survival and not what is in the national interest.
To many who never completely let go of the "Me Decade", their
daily survival _is_ in the national interest.
 WL> JS> Anything goes. There is no morality. And they wonder why incidents
 WL> JS> like the shooting in Jonesboro happen??
Shhh!  The gun-grabers are about to go one step too far, I think.
It seems the underage perps stole their weapons from the home of
the older boy's grandfather...a game warden.  Some anti-gunners
are now saying that even law-enforcement officers should be
limited to some minimum weaponry.  And remember, in their eyes
one LEO is exactly the same as any other.  Clearly, they'd
outlaw "holdout" weapons, keep shotguns and rifles locked in
armories instead of inside patrol cars, even ban use of anything
greater than a .38 Special revolver as a duty sidearm.  They'd
probably authorize more powerful radio transmitters, though...as
if that would accomplish anything.
Walter, Forked Deer River Ilks
wluffman@usit.net
... Feather by feather the goose is plucked.
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------