If it is not plain to most of you out there that Democrats are the most vile and digusting hypocrites and that America is a filty rotten stinking pest hole then read what Senator Byrd has said out of his own mouth. If it is not apparent that the rule of law is gone, read Byrd's own words. If it is not apparent that America has now been led into an abyss by Clinton, from which it can never extract itself, you are dead from the neck up. Clinton has immeasurable and irreparably injured this country single handedly.

============================

Democrat Byrd: Clinton Guilty, But Suggests He Stay Reuters [OL] Sunday, February 07, 1999 4:55PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The senior Senate Democrat said Sunday he is convinced President Clinton is guilty of ``high crimes and misdemeanors,'' but suggested he would join colleagues in an expected acquittal of the president later this week.

Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, one of the most respected members of Congress, said the Senate, in deciding whether to oust Clinton from office on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, must also consider the good of the nation and the will of the people.

``I have no doubt that he'd given false testimony under oath and that he has misled the American people,'' Byrd said on ABC's ''This Week.'' ``There are indications that he did indeed obstruct justice.''

But ``I can turn my back on this'' and let Clinton finish the final two years of his second four-year term, he said. ``I think we all ought do that and think of the healing of the country.''

===========================

Here you have it. Senator Byrd FULL WELL recognizes that Clinton is GUILTY as sin but he will NOT convict him of his crime.

THIS is unbearably unconscienable.

It would have been an altogether different thing had Byrd said that he did not believe Clinton guilty. But to come out and MAINTAIN that Clinton is guilty and STILL refuse the constitutional duty to convict is a CRIME against EVERY AMERICAN. It is a crime. Byrd took an OATH. he did not take an oath to stick with his buddies, He took and oath before God to do Justice according to the law, according to the Constitution.

America is gone. There is no hope for its reformation. The Senate is populated with vile filth and vermin like Senator Byrd. He is no Senator at all. He is a disgusting piece of filth. Clinton is guilty and he will NOT convict. HE HAS A CONSTITUTIOAL OBLIGATION TO CONVICT IF HE BELIEVES CLINTON GUILTY. He ADMITS that he DOES find him guilty and REFUSES to convict. He will not break political ranks even though he KNOWS that Clinton is guilty. He will ABROGATE his CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY in order to 'join' his friends.

Damn what is left of this pathetic country. Damn it to hell. Like I said before, the sooner this PATHETIC remnant of a constitutional republic crashes and burns, THE BETTER. We can have no responsible government when those in the Senate utterly abrogate their duty and ADMIT they are abrogating it as they thumb their noses at the population.

IS there YET adoubt in your mind that Byrd is a CRIMINAL?

"Byrd, 81, a 40-year Senate veteran, said: ``The question is does this rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. I say yes. No doubt about it in my mind. "

"Still, he said, ``It will be very difficult to stand and say not guilty ... I will have to live with myself, my conscience."

No, that scumbag bastard will not have to live with it, we will. We will have to live with the fact that a scumbag Senator KNOWINGLY refused to convict a man that he has admitted is guilty. KNOWINGLY, FLAGRANTLY AND HIGHANDEDLY ****refuses***** to convict.

This is America. Rule of law is absolutely meaningless. And now they stand up and openly admit that they will flaunt the law. There is NO POSIIBLE excuse for Senator Byrd. He says that he "can turn his back on this". He a disgrace to every American who ever lived or died in sacrifice to this country.

***F*ck*** America. There is No America. There are only vile, disgusting and putrid Senators who squash the rule of law for their own political purposes while the WHOLE time ADMITTING the crimes were committed.

http://companies.newspage.com/item.cfm/c0207165.500?heads=yes Paul Milne If you live within five miles of a 7-11, you're toast.

-- paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), February 07, 1999

Answers

Right on Paul!! But you are damning with faint praise. Far as I'm concerned, every high official of American government of the past 50 years is a war criminal by the standards of Nuremburg, and should be treated accordingly. Cf. voluminous documentation assembled and reported by Noam Chomsky.

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), February 07, 1999.

I've never responded to one of Paul's posts, preferring instead to lay in the weeds and watch the fun. I will now, however. What a great country this once was. It is no more. We have come to the government we deserve. Perhaps not you, Paul, or me, or RC, or many of those who post here. But, as a nation, we are, indeed, getting what we deserve. We have sacrificed our greatness for a piece or pork from the barrel; we have looked the other way as an amoral, unprincipled piece of Arkansas white trash has further corrupted our Republic and what it stands for... all because Wall Street is booming and unemployment is under 5 percent. Cyberterrorism is only available as a stalking horse because the United States of America has pissed off most of the Middle East in our ungodly support of the state of Israel. This country is a mere hollow shell of the great nation created and crafted by the Founding Fathers. We are going to get exactly what we deserve.

"What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? ...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), February 07, 1999.

Fully realizing that they're going to come and drag you off for saying such things, you post them anyway?

So long as we have citizens willing to display this kind of courage, all is not lost.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 07, 1999.

Last night on Saturday night live they had a skit on the distruction of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. The last four presidents of this country were the destroyers. They even had a part in the skit about abolishing the two term provision of the president. At the end of the skit all four Presidents were laughing at how they manipulated the distruction of the Constitution. I could not beleive they had this type of comedy on national T.V.

Everyone is starting to take notice and wake up to whats really happening in our world of politics. Its just a matter of time before the house of cards fall. The elected leadership knows their days of manipulation and greed are almost over.

I tremble for my country when I reflect that GOD IS JUST.

Mike

-- flierdude (mkessler0101@sprynet.com), February 07, 1999.

For Senator Byrd, who has carried a copy of the constitution in the breast pocket of his suit coat all of the years he has been a Senator to make this statement is incredulous to me. I still have faith that justice will be served in this process.

Stay tuned.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), February 07, 1999.

flint, I do not give a rat's ass what those damnable sons of bitches see or not.

Did John Freaking hancock care? No. And neither do I. I have broken no law. but, Senator Byrd will break his Constitutional oath.

I have spoken the plain unvarnished truth. If and when they come, I will be here waiting for them. And if they do, I will repeat what Nathan Hale said.

All manner of pollyannas have acused me of ridiculous things like cowardice. And then they acuuse me, in the same breath of being 'too public'.

I am not in the least afraid of the tyrants. What can they take from me? My life. HA! There is something far far far more important than life. And that is the principals by which you live that life.

America has sunk to its lowest level yet, as if it were possible to sink any lower. Now we have a Senator that high handedly refuses to caryy out his sworn Consittutional obligation KNOWING AND ADMITTINGthat Clinton is guilty.

If you think it is worth living in a country like that without raising your voice in defiance of that crime against every American, then remain silent.

I'll gladly be the FIRST one they execute.

Screw Byrd and Screw what America has now become, the rule of men in place of the rule of law.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), February 07, 1999.

Although I agree with your view of where Democrats are dragging the US, I really think they have an agenda (World Socialism) and are not all just Clinton-style criminals. Here is the home-page for the Democratic Socialists for example:

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

...and here are the members of Congress trying to help them:

http://www.dsausa.org/pc/pc.members.html

They may be seeking goals in direct opposition to the US Constitution (and in that sense criminals), but they are not all just Clinton- style creeps. At some level, they have some well-meaning people who think that Marxism is the best way.

Being a die-hard, conservative nationalist, I personally, share your anger. Sadly, anger tends to grow out of a feeling of helplessness. Barring some sort of civil-war, my money is on the Socialists.

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous.com), February 07, 1999.

er, folks...I think we have a Milne imposter here...

-- a (a@a.a), February 07, 1999.

Paul, like you I'm hardly silent. And like you, I don't hide behind a fake name or address.

I meant what I said. The courage you display is the bedrock of this country. Don't ever back off, or all is truly lost.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 07, 1999.

Once upon a time there was a group of people who decided to get together and form a family. This family was formed of members who volantarly agreed to the association with one another.

As will happen in all families sooner or later, a squabble broke out. Some to the family members wanted to withdraw from the family. The rest said NO you can't do that. A fistfight broke out. The members that wanted to withdraw were beaten rather severly by the rest of the group. The loosers were locked up. The winners pretty much pillaged most of the stuff that the loosers owned. End of Fable.

Now, Is this group of people still a family?

If not, WHEN did the family cese to be a family?

I contend that it ceased to be a family when some of the members wanted to withdraw and were refused "permission". At that point the relationship between the members became something else - exactly what is beyond the point I am makin here.

This thinly disguised story is an oversimplified (and suffers thereby) approch to my understanding of what America is or isn't.

I contend that "America" as invisioned by the founding fathers ceased to exist about 140 years ago.

THAT is the point that I mark as the beginning of the end of freedom.

Now we ALL have to pay the piper.

-- Greybear

- who is not some flag waving rebel who wants the "South to rise again". He is just trying to crank the microscope up a bit in analysing the loss of freedom.

- America as it is toady is the WORST possible place to live imaginable, except for all the others.

- The IDEA of the REAL American is still alive and doing well, unfortunately it's not living any where in the vicinity of DC.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 07, 1999.

The people of a given country always get the kind of politicians and government they deserve. Bill Clinton is the perfect president for America in the 1990's: selfish, irresponsible, untruthful, phony, and possessed of no substance whatsoever.

-- cody varian (cody@y2ksurvive.com), February 07, 1999.

Does seem a bit ridiculous doesn't it!?!

I still don't get the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors". I always thought that phrase contained two separate parts 1) high crimes such as a felony being one of the gravest crimes consisting of treason, murder, or rape, etc. and 2) misdemeanor which is any offense less serious than a felony.

But whenever I hear it now it is rattled off at such speed with an implication that it only means a high crime. They then say that Clinton's crimes don't rise to the level of impeachment.

I think that if the framers only meant high crimes then they wouldn't have included the double-barrel phrase of "high crimes and misdemeanors". I think they included the double-barrel phrase because they envisaged the leader of America as being above reproach.

I certainly don't think they envisaged someone that is a prime candidate for the 'Jerry Springer" show being the leader of the greatest nation on earth.

I think that this sets a very dangerous precedent for the future.

If the President can get away with it then everyone else can too.

We are sinking dangerously close to that lowest common denominator.

-- Concerned (aboutmessage@youth.com), February 07, 1999.

Two points: (1) I am afraid that Clinton is more or a symptom than a cause. (2) Despite the repulsion that most of us feel when we think of Clinton and others of his ilk, I'm not sure that current political leadership is much lower than the historical standard. Clearly, we do not live in a time of great statesmen, but it seems that most generations are destined to be served by a sorry lot. Don't give up on the US just because of a handful of pathetic ego-imbalanced politicians. If I recall right, Clinton has never gotten a majority of the vote for President. Everyone in know is on to his act.

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), February 07, 1999.

Paul - you are correct, and Bravo for saying what needs to be said.

This is a game that has been played since the Brits first arrived to set up "England West."

Clinton was "selected" long ago.

There is an agenda for Clinton to complete.

Byrd and his ilk are not fools - scumbags one and all yes - not fools. They are playing the endless game.

Clinton getting off was a foregone conclusion.

You thinks this is bad??? Wait and see Paul.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 07, 1999.

Please someone explain to me why Clinton is any worse than Bush or Reagan (you remember, the guy whose administration was involved with BCCI, Ollie North's plan to round up political dissidents, the Attorney General's indictment, etc. )?

A little sex scandle and the whole country become polarized. What a bunch of crap. You people need to wake up.

-- a (a@a.a), February 07, 1999.

to 'a'

Nope. It is not a Milne imposter. It is me. Proof: You e-mailed me a couple weeks ago and identified yourself to me. Enough proof?

to flint;

There is an utter lack of courage in America. We are a paltry people. Bereft of conviction except to pillage from each other through 'social programs' rather than being responsible for ourselves.

America CAN NOT be reformed. Senator Byrd is UNDYING proof of that. It is the Zenith of the putification of what once was a Constitutional Republic.

Make no mistake about it. I LOVE America. But, I Abhor this imposter that has usurped its place. This IS NOT AMERICA. It is not possible that this is America in ANY SENSE of the word when a vile disgusting 'man' like Byrd can high handedly abrogate his constitutional duty in full display by not convicting Clinton when he ADMITS that he is guilty. his reasons are 100% irrelevant.

And I despise everything about what is left in this dungheap of a country. There is no GOOD in it left. It is evil and it needs to be burnt out with fire. It needs to be purged of every last vestige of the vermin that is the present government.

After this newsreport, I will bet that you will hear NOTHING about Byrd's comments to abrogate his constitutional duty that will in any way sway the population. Even the staunchest Clinton supporter should recognize the malfeasance, blatant hypocricy, and criminality on Byrd's part. And they will say NOTHING.

Thomas Jefferson made very plain that when this situation obtains, that the people had and obligation to revolt. No, A **DUTY** to revolt.

This is not our Constitutional republic. It is a sham and a digrace. And I am not in the least bit afraid of putting my imprimateur on the fact that we should burn DC to the ground.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), February 07, 1999.

to 'a'

Nope. It is not a Milne imposter. It is me. Proof: You e-mailed me a couple weeks ago and identified yourself to me. Enough proof?

to flint;

There is an utter lack of courage in America. We are a paltry people. Bereft of conviction except to pillage from each other through 'social programs' rather than being responsible for ourselves.

America CAN NOT be reformed. Senator Byrd is UNDYING proof of that. It is the Zenith of the putification of what once was a Constitutional Republic.

Make no mistake about it. I LOVE America. But, I Abhor this imposter that has usurped its place. This IS NOT AMERICA. It is not possible that this is America in ANY SENSE of the word when a vile disgusting 'man' like Byrd can high handedly abrogate his constitutional duty in full display by not convicting Clinton when he ADMITS that he is guilty. his reasons are 100% irrelevant.

And I despise everything about what is left in this dungheap of a country. There is no GOOD in it left. It is evil and it needs to be burnt out with fire. It needs to be purged of every last vestige of the vermin that is the present government.

After this newsreport, I will bet that you will hear NOTHING about Byrd's comments to abrogate his constitutional duty that will in any way sway the population. Even the staunchest Clinton supporter should recognize the malfeasance, blatant hypocricy, and criminality on Byrd's part. And they will say NOTHING.

Thomas Jefferson made very plain that when this situation obtains, that the people had and obligation to revolt. No, A **DUTY** to revolt.

This is not our Constitutional republic. It is a sham and a digrace. And I am not in the least bit afraid of putting my imprimateur on the fact that when this disgraceful situation has occurred, we no longer have a legitimate government.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), February 07, 1999.

Impeach 'em all. They are all guilty of high crimes against humanity.

-- Other Lisa (LisaWard2@aol.com), February 07, 1999.

To puddintame:

This is not about Clinton. It is about the legitimacy of our government. Our government is to be a rule of law, not a rule of men. Senator Byrd has utterly abrogated his sworn oath to uphold the constitution. He is anathema.

The issue is that Byrd refuses to uphold hie SWORN obligation for extra-constitutional considerations. Nothing more.

When our alleged leaders flagrantly do so, we have no legitimate government. Especially, since you will see that none of the other 99 Senators will squawk about what Byrd is doing. Not One of them will recognize that Byrd has Flagrantly violated his oath. And when you are in a country when a senator can do that and NONE of the others recognizes it or does anything about it, the country is finished.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), February 07, 1999.

PS "High crimes and Msdemeanors" refers to crimes at the level of President (actually refers to higher levels of royalty, in english law , but.....) Misdemeanors has NO RELATIONSHIP to the current definition oif laws as felonies and misdemeanors.

CR

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 07, 1999.

You know, "a," you make my point for me.

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), February 07, 1999.

OK, Paul, then take may challenge:

Please explain to me why Clinton is any worse than Bush or Reagan (you remember, the guy whose administration was involved with BCCI, Ollie North's plan to round up political dissidents, the Attorney General's indictment, etc. )?

A little sex scandle and the whole country become polarized. What a bunch of crap. You people need to wake up.

-- a (a@a.a), February 07, 1999.

It makes me sick to my stomach to watch this whole fiasco. Both parties are running around waving the constitution when it is apparent that no living Democrat has ever read the sedcond amendment, and the Republicans don't seem to understand that the Federal reserve is flagrantly Unconstitutional. Now if they are just going to drag out the constitution when it happens to support some position they are taking and operate their offices daily in 99% non compliance to it aren't they all guilty of High Crimes and misdemeanors? Or should we just charge them with the treason they are so obviously guilty of?

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 07, 1999.

Vic,

>I've never responded to one of Paul's posts,

... and you may not yet have ...

- - - - - - - - - -

a (a@a.a),

>er, folks...I think we have a Milne imposter here...

I'm inclined to agree.

- - - - - - - - - -

Concerned,

>I still don't get the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors"

It's from hundreds-of-years-old English law. In this phrase, "misdemeanor" means failure to perform official duties and responsibilities, not "any offense less serious than a felony". That older meaning of "misdemeanor" is little-used in modern times, other than in that particular phrase applying to impeachment. You're not alone in this misunderstanding -- many, many folks are mistakenly thinking that impeachment can be based on minor crimes (i.e., "misdemeanors" in the common current legal sense).

In the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors", the adjective "high" applies to both nouns. "High crimes". "High misdemeanors" (i.e., serious violations of official responsibilities, duties, or norms).

>But whenever I hear it now it is rattled off at such speed with an implication that it only means a high crime.

... because it _does_ mean only high crimes or high misdemeanors/misbehaviors, in the context of impeachment.

>I think that if the framers only meant high crimes then they wouldn't have included the double-barrel phrase of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

As I said, the adjective "high" applies to both nouns, "crimes" and "misdemeanors".

>If the President can get away with it then everyone else can too.

Many impeachment-mongers don't want to remind you that after Clinton's term of office ends, _he can be brought to trial_ on charges such as perjury or obstruction of justice just like anyone else for whom there is evidence of those crimes. And at such trial, if convicted he can be sentenced to imprisonment, just like anyone else convicted of those crimes.

Many of those crying for conviction on the charges of impeachment don't want to remind you that Clinton could be tried for those crimes later because they want you to think that Clinton will "get away" with them if he is not thrown out of office right now. If they reminded you of all the alternatives, you might decide that it was reasonable to wait until Clinton was out of office to bring him to trial.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), February 07, 1999.

'a'

You are behaving like an idiot. The issue is not Bush or Reagan. It is about charges brought against the President of the US for Perjury and Obstruction of justice. In this case, Senator Byrd has stated The he BELIEVS that Clinton is GUILTY. THAT is the issue. Senator Byrd took an oath to convict upon finding of guilt. He HAS found Clinton Guilty out of HIS OWN mouth and refuses to uphold his sworn duty.

I don't give a rat's ass what you think. The ISSSUE is otherwise. Byrd PUBLICALLY stated that CLINTON IS GUILTY of HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. It does not make any diffence what YOU think. BYRD HAS SAID THAT HE ***IS*** GUILTY and refuses to convict. That is a violation of his SWORN duty to CONVICT upon finding of guilt. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF CLINTON IS GUILTY OR NOT. BYRD ***SAID** that he is guilty upon an examination of the evidence. He has ONLY one option if he upholds his oath and that is to CONVICT upon a finding of guilt.

What BYRD is doing is NOT ethical or moral or constitutuional. He can ONLY vote on guilt or NOT guilty. But he does not do that. Byrd is a criminal now as well. And if you are so stupid as to not see this then you are as much a aprt of the problem as Clinton and Byrd.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), February 07, 1999.

To the idiot 'no spam' who has not the guts to post under his real name,

It is not amater of being tried later. he has commited a crime. he lied under oath. It matters not what for. He lied under oath. he is a criminal. Perhaps you think it just fine to have a criminal in the white house and you excuse the crime.

But that is not the ISSUE here.

The issue is that senator Byrd publically declared he believes Clinton guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors and yet refuses to obey his sworn obligation to vote guilty. He is a liar and a criminal.

And he is one of your kind.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), February 07, 1999.

To Paul Milne:

I was depressed earlier today when I read Senator Byrd's comments after logging onto cnn.com. His admission made no sense to me. This is a sham and disgrace. I want my country back!

What fowl is this Senator Byrd? Cuckoo? Loon? Turkey?

Steven

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), February 07, 1999.

This is a very interesting thread. Paul I could not agree with you more. This has been my opinion for some years now. Does anyone reading this thread have any reason why it is not time to get out of Dodge ASAP. I have been out of Dodge for some years now. It meant a lower salary but I have no regrets. I truely do undersatnd why many of you can't and I pray for you. For those of you who do have this option don't debate; act and act fast.

-- Ed (ed@terraworld.net), February 07, 1999.

What Byrd has said is so unbelievable to me that I cannot believe he can vote other than guilty. If he really believes Clinton is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors how can he ever live with his conscience?

I agree with Ray. Byrd may be up to something. Stay tuned. I can't believe he will allow himself to look foolish throughout history by his mistaken motion to dismiss. I don't think he likes Clinton. If I'm wrong, this country is doomed.

I was one of fifty pastors who prayed in the senate building all day on Thursday. Maybe Byrd turning to remove will be an answer to our prayers.

Waiting for the vote that will determine our nations destiny, Pastor Bob

-- BBrown (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), February 07, 1999.

Yes, America used to be much a better place:

" Little brother and I arrived in Everett, Washington, at four o'clock on a Sunday morning. We had slept only fitfully that night, feeling elation and trepidation. When we got off the train, some of our relatives were waiting for us on the station platform. There were two aunts, two uncles and several cousins. My skinny six feet towered above them.

"Oh, what big boys!" exclaimed Aunt H.

"Strong enough to shovel cowshit," thought Uncle F.

"Ja, groote boys," echoed her sister Aunt H., mixing low German with English. Cousin F. raised her arm to greet me.

"Wo geiht Di denn?" she asked confidently.

"Gaut," I replied. I did not expect to hear Low German in America. I looked her over like a youngster looks at a circus clown. F. was a dwarf.

What compressed her? And heavy weights are compressing F. also.

After introductions and handshakes everyone got into two cars.

What a racy car! I want to be an American. They are generous. Oh no, our aunts and uncles came from Germany! I hope they are Americans. They dont look American...

...On the hillside, the house was wrapped in darkness. I wanted to explore my new home, but my adrenaline was spent and soon asked to go to bed.

"I'll show you to your room," suggested H. Follow me. We built it especially for you. It's not quite finished yet."

I felt a twinge of guilt.

Somebody built a room just for me. I have kind relatives!

H. led me outside to a room in the attached woodshed. I climbed into bed and fell asleep. ***

What is that knocking?

"Ja?"

"Rise and shine!" came from the door. I obediently crawled out of bed. It was still dark outside and I did not understand why I had to get up so early, especially since I had slept only a few hours. In the past we had risen at night only when the sirens warned us.

Is there an emergency? Robbers or Indians? Will there be a gunfight?

I dressed, looked in the mirror, straightened my hair and went back to the house.

"Good morning," H. greeted me with artificial cheer while handing me a bundle of faded cloth.

"Here, you can wear these for now."

I took them back to my room and unrolled my present. I held up the pair of torn pants with a flap and suspenders. As I put them on, I discovered that they belonged to F. for the limbs were far too short and two of me could fit side by side. I wondered why I was asked to wear these rags; I had never seen clothes as threadbare as I was asked to wear now.

Cowboys wear this? In the movies they always wear boots with spurs and big hats.

I tiptoed back to the house in my stocking feet, quiet with embarrassment. H. also wore overalls, a flannel shirt and rubber boots. I had never seen a woman in men's clothes before either. And they were so shabby. She handed me a pair of boots, F.'s; they pinched my toes severely. H. and I were a team.

"Let me show you our cows," she said gleefully.

OK.

I wondered why I had to wear rags to look at cows. To herd cows we needed horses and you didnt ride horses with rubber boots and without hats. She led me down the hill across the highway to a barn. There she turned on the lights and walked through the barn that had a row of stanchions on each side. She opened a pair of big doors and a waiting herd of Holsteins came rushing in. They were black and white on top, plastered with mud and cowshit on the bottom. They stuck their heads through the stanchions to feed on the hay and grain that had been laid out for them. We locked them in.

Only now did I realize that Little Brother and I had traveled ten thousand kilometers to milk cows. Dirty cows. We had arrived in greener pastures in the Evergreen State but our future did not look rosy any more. It was green. Cowshit green. To milk I had to bow down between warm, wet bellies and wash the filth off the udders with a rag soaked in chlorinated water. This quickly transformed into a potpourri of major barnyard products, cowshit, cowpiss, and mud with organisms. Now I could be a scientist having my hand in the proverbial primordial soup.

I fastened a belt around a blimp, suspended a vacuum extraction pail from it and sucked four teats into its rubber-lined cups. These massaged out the barnyard by-product, milk. I used two such machines. In the meantime H. sat in between cows on a stool and milked by hand. She also stripped the remaining milk after the milk machines had already emptied the udders.

When the cow bags felt empty, I removed the milking machines and poured their contents into the open buckets waiting in the middle of the barn. All the cows aimed their backs to this area. Intermittently they took turns decorating these pails and everything around them with the color theme of this state. I realized why we had to wear rubber boots and not cowboy boots. Rubber boots were much more practical here. When these buckets were full, full of milk that is, I carried them, two at a time, up the hill to the milkhouse where I emptied them into big cans to be picked up by the creamery. Then I returned to the barn to service more cows until they were all clean and empty. "

-- Not Again! (seenit@ww2.com), February 07, 1999.

Very confusing because just heard on news that Byrd said he's considering breaking ranks and voting to convict Clinton. Not watching news these days, but pt's dtr was, but she wasn't particularly paying attention, so don't really know. Any updates?

I used to be a Democrat, but now am a None Of The Above. {NOTa;^}
Seems totally surreal, grade-school circus, disgustingly laughable. Those ppl have not grown up and do not know why they are on the planet. If you want to keep your sanity, do not dwell on DC antics or take it too seriously. They should be marooned on an island to play their games in isolation.

I am totally against burning down anything. The ppl naturally pass and die, and the structures, which cost && in time, labor, capital, and materials, should stand. They are beautiful. Destruction of well-built physical structures is short-sighted and stupid. Not enough old-growth timber to replace. Craftmanship declined. Keep the buildings!

When looking at old war newsreels, always saddened at wanton destruction of beautiful cathedrals, monuments, villages. What a waste.

About Clinton, don't have time to wade thru the muck and try to ascertain what's true or political backbiting infighting, but do know this:
His judgement and behavior are flawed and too stupid to be leading our country. He should have resigned. I'm old-fashioned enough to strongly believe leaders should exhibit constant moral strength and good behavior. If they want to give in to their weaknesses and forestall evolution, they should do it as private citizens (not that I'm advocating private perversion ;-)

I love America. I want to see it go back to worshipping goodness in word, thought, deed, and leadership. I love reading the founding documents. I'm just a little person and get turned off by the games, turf wars, and deceit in government. I have more faith in the people than the government at this point. Have watched normal ppl become corrupt and go on ego trips and better-than-others smugness once they get involved with government. Ugh. However, I don't have good feelings about the people should the power, water, sewers, food distribution, jobs, money flow, etc. tank for any length of time (over 2 weeks).

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 07, 1999.

To "paul" or "Paul" Milne,

Clean your keyboard. :-)

>To the idiot 'no spam' who has not the guts to post under his real name,

Gee, why don't you say that to all the anonymous posters?

If I posted as "A.B.Smith (absmith@someEmailservice.com)", how would you decide whether my first initial were really "A", middle initial really "B", or last name really "Smith"?

With "No Spam Please", you know that I'm not pretending to post under a real name. With "A.B.Smith", you wouldn't, would you?

I've explained my reason for anonymity in an earlier thread with my handle in the title. Look it up.

And you can call me "Mr. Please" from now on.

>It is not amater of being tried later.

Really? According to your remarks at the top of this thread, I would think that you respected the Constitution and the rule of law. In that case, I would expect you to be knowledgeable about at least the basic difference between an impeachment trial and a criminal trial.

Haven't you ever read the part of U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 3 that says, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office ... but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law." ????

>he has commited a crime.

If so, then impeachment does not indict, try, convict, or punish him for that crime. It says so in the Constitution (see above).

>he lied under oath. It matters not what for.

So -- indict and try him on charge of perjury, in accordance with U.S. law, which you seem to respect.

(And ... you _do_ understand the temporary immunity from arrest, and reasons for it, that the Constitution affords to certain federal officials, don't you? So you know why the trial on the perjury charge would have to take place after Clinton left office, don't you?)

>He lied under oath.

I read it the first time you wrote it. (And clean that keyboard.)

>he is a criminal.

Oh? Did I miss the trial and conviction? Or could this be labeled as your opinion rather than established legal fact?

>Perhaps you think it just fine to have a criminal in the white house and you excuse the crime.

... and perhaps pigs will fly ... but, no, in either case.

>But that is not the ISSUE here.

Why'd you bring it up?

>The issue is that senator Byrd publically declared he believes Clinton guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors and yet refuses to obey his sworn obligation to vote guilty.

... perhaps because he has no sworn obligation to vote guilty. R(er)ead your Constitution.

>He is a liar and a criminal.

Byrd? In addition to Clinton? Or ... which is the antecedent for your pronoun here?

>And he is one of your kind.

How so? Have I lied under oath? Have I committed a crime? Have I refused to obey a sworn obligation to vote guilty? Please be more specific so that others in the forum may decide how emotionally upset you are as you write this.

(And ... same question about the antecedent.)

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), February 07, 1999.

Correction to my preceding post:

Where I wrote:

If so, then impeachment does not indict, try, convict, or punish him for that crime.

I meant:

If so, then the impeachment and impeachment trial do not indict, try, convict, or punish him for that crime.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), February 07, 1999.

It is with interest that I have read the ravings of Mr. Milne. The unfortunate fact is I fundamentally agree with his position.

But, the Senators, Congressman, Judges, and President we are "laboring" under are in fact a reflection of ourselves.

We have elected these people over and over again, like sheep, as long as we feel content. Senator Byrd did not become moral hypocit this morning. But I bet that he has certainly brought home the bacon to West Virginia. IN A DEMOCRACY YOU GET THE GOVERMENT YOU DESERVE, that is until the goverment takes your liberties one by one.

I have watched the steady erosion of individual liberty over the last twenty years, from FEMA Directives, to gun control, to cigarette law suits, to invasion of privacy. Everyone has an agenda and as long as my views are getting promoted I don't care about yours. Remember the next time your so willing to limit someone else's liberty that you are in fact losing your own.

Alexis de Toucquevile wrote that the strength of America was not in its leaders, but in the natural "goodness" of its people. Well, have you listen to what it takes to be POLITICALLY CORRECT in this country. We are increasing led by an elitist internationally oriented group of people who are naturally anti-America because they favor international government, no civil liberties and they will tell everyone what good for them. The native goodness in America is gone because WE ARE LETTING IT SLIP AWAY.

What is the driving force-GREED! It was rampant materialism that contributed to the fall of the Roman Republic, and it will get us. We want the money, the power, and it doesn't matter how we get it. Business screws the employee-need to reduce costs, the employee screws the company, everyone screws everyone because YOU GOT TO HAVE THE BUCKS. Problem is that when that mentality is the basis for government you will end up losing your liberty. TO A GREAT DEGREE CLINTON AND BIRD ARE US-AND IT SHOULD BE FRIGHTENINGWHAT IS FRIGHTENING IS THAT NOT TOO MANY OF US ARE FRIGHTENED

I would like to have someone name the level of government that a person could place their faith in. The courts, the Congress, name one.

We are approaching the cliff and the majority is running like lemmings after the money. So you give up a few liberties, we must be safe, protected, secure to indulge in more greed.

As Edmund Burke said-ALL EVIL NEEDS TO SUCCEED IS THAT GOOD PEOPLE STAND BY AND DO NOTHING-WELL THERE ARE FEW GOOD PEOPLE LEFT AND THEIR STANDING BY WATCHING THE STOCK IN AMAZON.COMM

-- PUBLIUS (robin@icubed.com), February 07, 1999.

Why would the learned senator from West Virginia say such a thing? As usual, all politics are local.

The answer is: steel, unions, political contributions and votes.

President Clinton made a deal with the 2 senators from West Virginia. The other senator is Jay Rockefeller. They would support him in the impeachment proceedings and he, in return, would bring anti-dumping action against Japan and other steel exporters to the U.S. In addition, Super 301 ( a clear violation of WTO rules and furiously opposed by Europe and Asia)was brought back by the stroke of a pen by President Clinton.

Most major American steel producers decided years ago to stop fighting Japan and formed joint ventures in America to import Japanese advanced steel-making technology. These factories and joint ventures added 20,000 American steel industry jobs. Japanese investment of cash and technology made this happen except for two major steel makers: Bethleham Steel and Weirton Steel. They tried, but were unable to find any Japanese steel partners because of their own failings. They are both sucking wind on their P& L's because of the steel orderedby from overseas their competitors in the U.S. That's right, the steel companies ordered< /b> all the steel imported to the U.S. Steel is not shipped on speculation.

Weirton Steel is an important employer in West Virginia. Labor negotiations with the United Steelworkers are due this summer and Weirton Steel needs a "threat" to help its bargaining position with union. West Virginia needs the jobs. Rockefeller and Byrd need the votes and positive press about 'action' to support their constituency. The Unions will support the Democrats (Clinton) with money because they came to the rescue of American jobs (they think).You certainly don't hear the auto industry complaining about cheap steel.

So... Rockefeller and Byrd are supporting Clinton because they were promised U.S. government action to support an important employer in the great state of West Virginia.

Conscience has nothing to do with it. It is only business in their view. The business of politics and power.

-- PNG (png@gol.com), February 07, 1999.

click...

-- PNG (png@gol.com), February 07, 1999.

America lost when the political process became a popularity contest. When "polls" determine the outcome of trials, the rule of law is lost. Clinton is just what the non-voting public deserve. Sen. Byrd doesn't want to be the "Christopher Dardin" of his Democratic Party. In all his years of whoring, Byrd is now the worn out wind bag he never thought he would become.

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), February 07, 1999.

"His judgement and behavior are flawed and too stupid to be leading our country. He should have resigned. I'm old-fashioned enough to strongly believe leaders should exhibit constant moral strength and good behavior. If they want to give in to their weaknesses and forestall evolution, they should do it as private citizens (not that I'm advocating private perversion ;-) "

You forget that back in the old old days, the media was very limited and there was a sort of code that prevented them from airing dirty presidential lundry of semen stained dresses. I don't believe for a minute that any president before Clinton had higher moral values when it came to sex, only that they were lucky to live in a time with less media frenzy and no internet. And perhaps less bi-partisan pitbull fights.

So to me, asking from him to resign over this sex scandal is ridiculous. Which politician is sexually "pure" and "moral" enough to wistand the scrutiny Clinton did, as I'm sure this is now a precedent all future presidents will have to submit to? If he should resign because he lied under oath at having had immoral sex with another woman, should the next unfaithful presidents admit willingly and very publicly when they've been discovered? If a president should be treated like any other citizen, are we all willing to have our private lives scrutinized and made public this way?

He should be impeached for the real wrongs that he caused the citizens of this nation, not for his sexual antics which doesn't affect you or me, if we were left in the dark.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 07, 1999.

Sorry about the posting mistakes. Sometimes I just can't coordinate fingers and brain.

The right to bear arms was to keep those that govern afraid of those they govern. Plain and unvarnished truth. The Constitution of the United States and its first 10 amendments are one of the finest examples of clear thinking ever written. The best principles of mankind are balanced by understanding the realities of mankind.

King George could have taken a few lessons from the current American monarch and ruling class.

-- PNG (png@gol.com), February 08, 1999.

To Chris;

He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Crimes that land ordinary people in jail.

It doen't matter that it was about sex or are we now supposed to have a certain set of exceptions to certain laws.

As to other Presidents, with the exception of Kenedy very few have risen to the level of deviant behavior he has. Few have lied so often and so well. If "others have done it" is that the standard for administering the law. It certainly is his standard.

As to the press, they report what we want to hear, and in the cade of the Kennedy's they didn't report what we didn't want to hear.

I wonder how TED KENNEDY will vote.

It's the beginning of the end when the ELITE's not only feel they are above the law, BUT THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW.

-- Publius (robin@icubed.com), February 08, 1999.

Paul Milne. Wow! Your lightening rod sure has taken some hits tonight. Not spam- just SPLAM ( Suffering People Lament Another Mess ). Maybe you could post one every night. You awaken a whole bunch of folks real fast on this site. Congratulations for increasing our blood circulation!

-- Watchful (seethesea@msn.com), February 08, 1999.

Welcome back Chris! Refreshed and ready to tan our hides too ;-D

The Prez knew ppl were out to get him. He knew the scrutiny would be intense. It was reckless endangerment to himself, his family, his agenda, and his country to give in to whatever weaknesses he has and engage in behavior he surely should have known would DISTRACT the country from serious business (including Y2K). *That* was stupid. It also could leave him vulnerable to blackmail. It's not a question of sexual purity but behavioral purity.

I don't care what any other politician did in the past. There are certain eternal high ideals that I feel any leader should exemplify at all times, in all climes and ages and circumstances. And yes, a potential leader should be considered partially on his/her past actions, which are an indicator for future reactions under duress. A truly effective leader would conduct him/herself along sound ethical lines.

Clinton should have resigned a year ago to spare the nation the wasted time and drivel and injurious distraction from Y2K. His foul is boggling stupidity, arrogance, lawyer-think-warp, evasion, and distraction. I don't even think sex was really the issue. By dictionary definitions it wasn't even sex. But it was tawdry enough and scandal-waving enough that the media has been titillatedly obsessed with it ad nauseum to the exclusion of more imperative issues.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 08, 1999.

The bottom line is that they either convict him, on grounds of perjury and remove him, or the rule of law has ceased in that it is no longer evenly applied. Why he lied is irrelevant. What he lied about is irrelevant.

On the other hand I will take issue with Paul on his statement that there is no America. To the contrary, my friend, America still exists! Only after the last resistance is crushed, only after the last resister is shot or brainwashed could anyone claim that America had ceased to exist, and even then they can never, ever entirely be sure.

The question each individual has to ask him/herself is this: are you willing to be a revolutionary?

oh and despite what some of you tell yourselves, if you've already begun serious preparations, then you've also already become a part of the revolution.

Welcome to the Revolution Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 08, 1999.

I might mention that Sen. Robert Byrd was once a member of the KKK.

-- Joe O (ozarjjoe@yahoo.com), February 08, 1999.

Senator scumbag Byrd Publically stated that his main reason for not convicting was for the good of the country and to obey ther 'will' of the people.

His reasons are irrelevant. They are explicitly contrary to what a republican form of government was established for in the firat place. And this from a man who is alleged to carry a copy of the constitution in his pocket every day.

Ina republican form of government 'the will' of the people is expressed through a VOTE. Then, the congress DELIBERATES. It is supposed to be a deliberative body. It was set up that way so that it would SPECIFICALLY **NOT** be affected by public pressure. They were suppose to do what is RIGHT and not bend to public whim.

In this case we have the PERFECT example of why we NEED a republican form of government. The population, the public 'whim' is to ease up on Clinton. Byrd RECOGNIZES that Clinton committed a crime but BOWS to public whim when morally and ethically he should not. He is a coward and a traitor of the 'lowest order'.

It is not the job of the Senate to decide if Clinton's actions are 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. THAT heas already been decided by the House. THEY IMPEACHED HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. It is already decided. They ONLY decide guilt or innocence NOT whether it is a high crime or misdemeanor.

And Byrd has declared Clinton is guilty in his mind, but refuses to convict. He violates the very principals upon which our country was founded. He is a criminal himself. And a worse one than Clinton at that. Clinton lied under oath. Byrd is BREAKING HIS OATH TO DO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY.

Byrd has NO choice in the matter. It is one issue , If not guilty then VOTE not guilty. But if guilty, VOTE guilty. He can not lawfully say , "I think he is guilty, but I'm not gonna vote guilty for various and sundry other reasons." That is BEYOND his authority to do that. He can not say, "Others will vote not guilty, so I will side with them ." That is a violation of his oath. It would make no difference what the 99 others would do. That is NOT to be part of his contemplation and deliberation. The house has already impeached him for high crimes and misdemeanors. He is guilty or not guilty and NOTHING ELSE.

Byrd is a liar and a traitor and a criminal if he votes not guilty while having publically stated he believes Clinton to BE guilty.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), February 08, 1999.

The bottom line is that he lied about SEX. This is a sex scandal, not a constitutional crisis.

The people have spoken. They do not want Ken Starr in their bedrooms REGARDLESS OF THE CRIME OR WHO COMMITS IT. The support that Clinton now garners is the equivalent of jury nullification, whereby jurors can disregard the law if the circumstances don't fit the punishment.

Here is an analogy: my city has installed cameras at some intersections that photograph cars that run red lights. Most people support this as it's claimed to reduce accidents. My question is, how much longer before they insist on having a chip in your car record every time you break the speed limit? Now I read in the paper that they are implementing a curfew for teenagers. Get the picture yet?

If we continue onward, a police state is the inevitable outcome, and we will be building new prisons to house the new "criminals". For the life of me I can't understand how those of you on this forum who are so opposed to the loss of civil liberties are so virulent in their persecution of Clinton and support for the Republican witchhunts now underway.

-- a (a@a.a), February 08, 1999.

"The bottom line is that he lied about SEX. [snip]"

...again, and again, and again. On TV, in front of the American public. In the Paula Jones case. In front of a Grand Jury. To his friends. To his co-workers.

Personally, I don't care if he sleeps with farm animals, but this slime-ball should be removed from office.

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@anonymous.com), February 08, 1999.

Once again it's possible to agree w/ Milne's premise w/out agreeing with his conclusions and solutions.

Also, keep in mind Milne that Byrd hasn't voted yet.

-- ... (.@...), February 08, 1999.

to 'a' who is becoming a reprehensible idiot:

The bottom line is that he lied about SEX.

(Wrong. The subject matter of the lie is irrelevant. He lied to a grand Jury.)

This is a sex scandal, not a constitutional crisis.

(It is not a sex scandal OR a constitutional crisis. The issue is NOT about sex in the least . read the indictment against him. Do you find sex in there? No. So why do you set up a straw man and put it there? Second, no constitutional crisis at all. The path was clearly laid out how to deal with a criminal in office.)

The people have spoken.

(No, shit for brains. apparently you have NO idea what a constituional republic means. The people SPOKE when they VOTED. Now, the congress is to DELIBERATE. They ARE NOT supposed to be blown about by popular opinion. THAT was the whole purpose of a constitutional republic in the first place, to ENSURE that public opinion would NOT motivate deliberation.)

They do not want Ken Starr in their bedrooms REGARDLESS OF THE CRIME OR WHO COMMITS IT.

(Clinton's crimes were NOT committed in his bedroom. Another straw man put forth by the weak of mind.)

The support that Clinton now garners is the equivalent of jury nullification, whereby jurors can disregard the law if the circumstances don't fit the punishment.

( No, popular opinion is 100% irrelevant. That is the purpose behind a constitutional republic. Read about it sometime. You might learn something. In the Federalist papers, you can find some lovely discussions on these issues. )

Here is an analogy: my city has installed cameras at some intersections that photograph cars that run red lights. Most people support this as it's claimed to reduce accidents. My question is, how much longer before they insist on having a chip in your car record every time you break the speed limit? Now I read in the paper that they are implementing a curfew for teenagers. Get the picture yet?

9 Yes. public oipinion is irrelevant except in the voting booth. We have a 'representative' form of Goivernment. YOU get to vote for who represents you. You can voice your opinion to him if you wish. he is OBLIGATED to fullfill his constitutional obligation regardless of the fickle whims of popular opinion.)

If we continue onward, a police state is the inevitable outcome, and we will be building new prisons to house the new "criminals". For the life of me I can't understand how those of you on this forum who are so opposed to the loss of civil liberties are so virulent in their persecution of Clinton and support for the Republican witchhunts now underway.

( No, bozo, the police state is the result of YOUR mentality. Name the civil liberty of Clinton that was violated. That was NEVER brought up by a single one of his lawyers. Surely they would recognize a violation of his 'civil' rights.)

-- a (a@a.a), February 08, 1999.

a,

You are so full of shit your eyes are brown. The subject matter of the LIE is irrelevant. In this case, NO ONE has violated ANY right of Clinton's. He has violated our trust and repeatedly lied to us. Even your own hero Senator Byrd says he is guilty as sin. Now we have a country where even the guilty go scott free, supported by verminous like yours.

Clinton is a vulgar liar, perjurer and obstructor of justice. That you can not see this is a testimony to the depths which this country has sunk. That you think it is just about 'sex' is another testimony to you utter lack of morals.

You are the EXEMPLAR of precisely what is wrong with this counrty.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), February 08, 1999.

I feel sorry for his daughter.

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), February 08, 1999.

One (hyphenated) word for all you hypocrites (you know who I'm talking about):

IRAN-CONTRA.

Of course, we could add Teapot Dome, Checkers, HUD, Watergate, Brookings break-in, wiretaps on common Americans... just to name a few... but I think you get the point.

You people don't like Clinton and never have, so you mold this scandal to fit your fantastical delusions about the New World Order and the death of America. (That's right, Paul, I'm yakkin' to you.)

For the record, I think Clinton has disgraced his office and should have resigned in September. But you folks take all that to mean he's the epitome of all political evil. What nonsense. "There is nothing new under the sun."

scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), February 08, 1999.

I agree that this country has become a shithole. I could puke at the sight of Clinton. I change channels when I see that creep.

I don't this this country will ever be the same.

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), February 08, 1999.

Those of you who think Clinton simply lied about sex need to do some more thinking. True Clinton had mutually consenting sex with a young (very young) intern. But he tried to cover it up when ask under oath to a sexual harassment case. Sexual harassment does not have to be blatant. When someone's job depends on sexual favors it doesn't matter if it mutually consenting. Yes this is about sex and the head of our country abusing his power as pres to get a blow job. I truly feel for his daughter not his wife. Unfortunately we can't choose our parents. Hillary knew about his little problem and agreed to "stick with him" because of her being blinded by the white house. She wanted the white house as much as he. They were on the verge of divorce when he promised her Washington life style and she stepped up to the plate.

Now if you don't like what's going on in America, you're free to live some place else. Please leave. The problem is most other countries won't let you in if you don't have some meaningful profession to peddle. Most of you don't.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 08, 1999.

If you will all back off a click or two and re-read this thread to this point, you should be able to clearly see what E. Coli has been trying to say about the power structure manipulating events to play different parties against each other for their own purposes.

If you side with the, "it's only a sexual issue and I don't want to set the precedent of letting them into anyone's bedroom", you are forced to let go of the, "lied under oath, lied to the American people, obstructed justice" end of things.

If you pick the other side, you must let go of the, "don't want them in my bedroom" issue.

Who is winning here? Could this be a "false" or contrived dilemma?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 08, 1999.

Hardliner, Apparently it is YOU who can not read,

The issue as stated in my original post is that BYRD has said that he believes Clinton to be guilty of High Crimes and misdemeanors and will refuse to convict any way. That is the ONLY issue here.

In my book, that make Byrd an even BIGGER criminal than Clinton.

He took an oath to uphold the constitution and do his duty. Instead he looks around to see who else is doing what before voting. Like an idiot who will not buy candy at the movies until he sees if hos date is buying something he would like better.

It does not matter in the least what orin Hatch will do, or Lott, or Gphardt or any one else. His duty is clear. The minute he said that he believed that Clinton was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors he has no other ethical option BUT to convict.

And I will personally seek a way to file charges against Byrd if he does not vote to convict.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), February 08, 1999.

Hardliner, know what you mean. Sometimes it seems too dumb to be real. Don't they see how ridiculous it is? What a sick show. It *can't* be for real. Makes one suspicious because nobody in their right mind would willingly participate in such a low circus.

Can't we have another Constitutional Convention and impeach all of them?

Will Y2K do that for us? I'd like to see a peaceful change without the infrastructure screeching to a halt. Yeah, yeah, dream on. Anybody else on this forum desire peace, harmony, love, collective moving forward to a better time?

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 08, 1999.

Paul Milne,

I can read quite well, thank you.

Although I agree with you re: Byrd, oath, etc., that is only part of what's going on both with the "impeachment" and with this thread.

Your original post simply lit off a string of responses, some on one side and some on the other, which clearly demonstrates the manipulation that E. Coli speaks of.

My suggestion to "back up" and take another look, referenced all the postings on this thread, not simply yours.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 08, 1999.

a. - You typify what and why we are doomed as a nation. You are bereft of the ability to discern facts, you are a criminal apologist, you are an enabler of evil and an idiot. You use the Constitution as toilet paper to serve your own political/personal vices, regurgitating White House/media vomit as a mantra of vindication for a leader climbing the steps towards elitist dictatorship. You sicken me.

Paul, THANK YOU for saying what needed to be said.

Whether Y2K or not, this nation is on the verge of a serious spanking of the likes no nation on earth has probably ever seen. We will have done it to ourselves. We all allowed this to happen.

We all closed our eyes to responsibility, preferring instead to foister it upon others and blaming everyone else for our own failings. We are divided. We are a plastic people, easily manipulated to the pit of our own doom. We are seekers of pleasure and profit, not seekers of justice or righteousness. We hate morality. We demonize those that desire decency. We side with the fringe elements of the debased and evil, to appear "good". We favor "tolerance" over judgement, and cannot discern wickedness anymore. Our children have become princes over us. We demand "rights" at the cost of others' freedoms. We want a king.

All this and more in the face of the blessings we have been bestowed as a nation, condemn us to our punishment.

Whether it will be an economic collapse, a domestic or foreign terrorist attack (or an incident like the Reichstag fires to instigate total goverment control), a biological or chemical attack, a military conflict in Kosovo, Israel/Palestine/Jordan, China/Taiwaan, Korea, Iraq, Bosnia etc. - the world is a time-bomb waiting to explode due to our indifference as a nation and the selfishness of this president.

I think impeachment was a test of our national character. We have failed, as the polls have shown.

My fear is the people will gladly yield their freedom for promised security and preservation in the face of calamity. I fear this is how soft we have become.

I can only pray that - after what is left of us - we are not consigned to captivity by a power that dominates our birthright blessings of freedom, and leaves us crying for deliverance - ashamed and yearning for the greatness we once had.

Let us all pray we may escape these things.

Unless of course you believe the lie. Then you will perish.

May God have mercy on us all.

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), February 08, 1999.

Milne quacked:

"And I will personally seek a way to file charges against Byrd if he does not vote to convict."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Go get 'em, Batman!

scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), February 08, 1999.

Leska, I agree with your opinions you expressed after my first post. The prez was/is dumb, couldn't control his sex drive and jeopardized not only himself but everything around him including soiling the office's image and the country. The past year has been disgusting and mind-boggling. But I still hold the same view I expressed also.

Hardliner, I understand E.'s dilemma, and it's troubling. We're little ants, pawns, helpless creatures in the scheme of things. Being aware of it is torture. We're so pitted against each other here, were they to read this forum they'd smile contentedly. As long as we remain divided, they retain the power to keep on manipulating us as idiot dispensable objects.

We wasted all this time following this sex scandal and arguing over it, many people taking even a perverse pleasure in the absurdity of it all, when we should have been honorable citizens and demand that the momey and the time be spent on investigating real matters affecting THE PEOPLE, like Y2K or whatever.

Paul Milne, you're a self-righteous derriere.

a. has it right, the majority decided that the manipulative sharade has gone on too long, and figuratively as a jury decided that the crime is not worth the punishment. Tuff Milne, you're not the majority. You'll just have to swallow hard and shut up, like the rest of us do when the majority goes against our opinions and wishes. Democrats or Republicans they're all politicians masters of manipulation with an agenda, all dishonorable at some level. The rest of us are the dumb ones for arguing over this impeachment/sex scandal and letting it go for so long. What's more, Clinton knew how it would end all along, he's the creme de la creme, the master of the master manipulators. That's why he never stopped smiling and acting in control.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 08, 1999.

to scott:

Buddy, when all there is out there is "Joker's" and "Penguins" like you, someone HAS to be Batman.

You haven't got the stones for it.

-- Paul Milne (fedifo@halifax.com), February 08, 1999.

Invar

Ive bitten my tongue thus far, but man you is a real WACKO.

I think impeachment was a test of our national character. We have failed, as the polls have shown.

Aint you the one who wrote the Bagga Sagga? What does a story about a troll being hung upside down by his balls say about YOUR character?

To the rest of you

Hardliner gets my vote for astute observation of the day. This scandal, like so much else in politics today, is a game played by those who wish to keep us from focusing on how badly we are governed. Another Red Herring dragged across the path in order to keep us off trail.

Last thought, I do SO much enjoy seeing Bill Clinton, friend and champion of the trial lawyers lobby, being tormented by other trial lawyers. Poetic justice.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), February 08, 1999.

Milney-poo... you're the one who's "stoned." Go back to reading your "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and don't forget to take your medication...

[for the rest of you... I've been holding back from flaming this jackass for months, so pardon me if I get a little rude...]

scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), February 08, 1999.

Chris,

It's good to see you back. Your last post at one and the same time defines our (not just E.'s) dilemma and shows us the way out of it.

"We're little ants, pawns, helpless creatures in the scheme of things. Being aware of it is torture. We're so pitted against each other here. . .As long as we remain divided, they retain the power to keep on manipulating us. . ."

Even ants can be irritating singly, with their salivating, formic acid containing bites. Army ants on the other hand, leave only naked rock and soil in their wake and fire and technology are (as far as I know) the only things that can halt their progress.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 08, 1999.

Clinton is a puppet. The impeachment proceedings are pure political spectacle. They are sexually/emotionally charged, so they "hook" people of every opinion. Stage magicians know the principle being exploited here. It is called the "principle of misdirection," i.e., get the mark to look at something -anything- while you are pulling a card from your sleeve, selling military technology to the Chinese, planning martial law, whatever.

Greybear hit the nail on the head with the Civil War/family analogy. And this is the dilemma: the more corrupt things get, the more the American family will split apart. The more egregious violations of the Constitution/Bill of Rights (such as gun confiscation), the more the head of the family wants now to imprison ALL it's members, the more we will see acts of "terrorism," regional governments declaring autonomy, etc.. This may become magnified with Y2k, as the Feds try to hold it all together, and seizure and rationing become part of martial law; the tighter the grip, the more resistance will be bred, and the more America risks real balkanization. This plays into the hands of the globalists, because it is NATIONAL, not regional, resistance that can stop the one-world-socialist superstate we're being conditioned for, in which we are all, essentially, property. Militia folks tell me they're having a hell of a time with "agents provocateurs," infiltrators who attempt to provoke the groups to violence and fraud, misrepresent them, spread disinformation, etc.. I expect that the globalist camp WANTS a conflict between constitutionalists and federalists. They WANT the U.S. Govt. to violate the constitution and treat it's citizens' sacred liberties with contempt; and they WANT militias and other aware, freedom-loving citizens to over-react, and commit acts of terrorist violence against civilians (but if they don't, it's easy enough to simulate, as in OK). This divides us nationally and reduces our awareness of, and resistance to, the globalist/socialist agenda. As with the outcome of the first "family" dispute, the power of States will be weakened, and the Federal "daddy" strengthened, when the dust clears. This will grease the wheels in the process of assimilating America into the global socialist superstate.

We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. My solution, for the time being, is to educate myself and others about the threat of globalism/socialism. We have to turn off the t.v.. We have to start reading some history. We have to get wise to the propaganda, the techniques of stage magic that are being used here. We have to question even and especially the groups and organizations we love most, and ask whether they have been infiltrated by agents provocateurs (This is a routine practice of the FBI and other, lesser known secret police. It's been used against student groups, black groups, and environmental groups, and now it's being used against militias and constitutionalists. Do a WWW search for it under it's 60s codename, COINTELPRO). Question the authority that is questioning authority - they may just be the other horn of the same devil. And lastly, we do need to keep our powder dry. If they take our guns away, there will be no need for them to play these stupid games anymore - they'll just roll right over us and devour us like chocolate-covered cherries.

Some call it "paranoia." I call it "historical consciousness."

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 08, 1999.

Every single one of you who agree with Milne ought to be saying it to the man himself.

http://www.senate.gov/~byrd/

email Senator Byrd at the bottom of the page, but try to keep it mature.

Due to the nature of mass media manipulation, most Americans have involuntarily been kept in the dark about the truth happening all around us. If you know the truth, then speak it, don't just complain that it's too late to change things. Is that what you are going to tell your children when they ask you about it? Sorry, honey but I decided not to waste my time. ????

-- (mass@delusions.com), February 08, 1999.

to a@ The sex, what about white water, what about Vince Foster - dead, what aboutMena Arkansas, what about Ron Brown - dead, what about the FBI files, what about the selling of nuclear missle information to communist China, and the 50+ other dead x-partners of Clinton etc,etc Clinton does not do anything that does not undermine this country and its constitution. Yes I believe he was hand picked because he is the perfect one for the job no shame or morals, along with 95% of the other politicians we supposedly elected.

-- moose (tkh@earthlink.net), February 08, 1999.

Read this thread, the naivety, the knee-jerk emotional responses, the name calling, the egos, etc. and then re-evaluate the original premise posted by Milne: Why America is Finished. Is it any wonder?

-- Other Lisa (LisaWard2@aol.com), February 08, 1999.

Well Mr. Milne has certainly stirred things up this time.

I think some of the posting illustrate the "Balkanization" of American politics.

For starters, I have supported some of the President's positions on some issues. I am not a gun toting rabid survivalist, nor am I am leftist liberal, or a "right wing Christian" (although I am a Christian and not afraid to admit it-oops possible kook)

The fact that so many people can blindly refer to this proceeding as a "SEX" scandel illustrates the success the White House has had in spinning this issue.

Good old "American Common Sense" tells anyone that his President has lied to a Grand Jury and Obstructed Justice. The machnations of lawyers and the twisting of the truth by politicians on both sides mean nothing.

The "facts" tell me that this is not a man I want to lead my country. He has used his office to lie to me, to destroy the lives of innumerable people.(Just the legal bill alone!) All for his own self-preservation. I am not in Congress and I am not in a Gran Jury, by conclusion are based on what I have read and what I see.

"Common Sense" again would show me that this man has made a practice through out his career of lying, parsing, and womanizing. Remember Jennifer Flowers in 1992. But he makes us "feel good", as his latest State of the Union Address shows he has something for everyone.

He can undermine the legal system, he can disregard the rights of litigants in a civil suit, he can lie to the American people but by God the economy is good.Feminists stand silent, democrats refuse to look at the facts, and many Republican want it over so they are scared.

Iam sorry but the references to Paula Jones as "trailer trash" and Linda Tripp as a "dog" and Monica Lewinsky as a "stalker" illustrates the elitist nature of many people. Is Paula Jone entitled to less justice because she lived in a trailer park. Can I assume that Linda Tripp's actions would be viewed differently if she looked like a model, probably. This elitism is not reserved for Democrats alone there is plenty to go around.

The House Managers have been criticized for ,"being white, male, southern, and worst of all CHRISTIAN". Do these labels illustrate a problem in this country? Do these labels preclude the ability to be fair and honest? Ken Starr's has been maligned as a "sunday School Teaching Christian".

The legacy of these proceedings will be the erosion of what little respect is left for goverment institutions. There will be an increase in the polarization of politics.

How does this relate to our present Y2K situation?

I am genuinely concerned about the civil liberties implecations of not only Y2K but the possible economic aftermath.

Guess who will be president during the initial phases of Y2K. Read the FEMA Edicts. In a martial law situation the Constitution is suspended. Who will protect your civil liberties? Bill Clinton? The elites in Congress, I seriously doubt it. Martial Law almost by definition is a process that protects THE STATE not the individual.

Posting at this site point out that there is a lot of extremism out there. The problem with extremist is the very fact that they are EXTREME!!. Revolution sounds romantic, but I suggest you read about the French Revolution or the revoltion in England that established the rule of Oliver Cromwell. The problem with revolution is that by its nature the result is unpredictable. Only one revolution has resulted in a viable democracy and talk of "revolution" should be tempered with some idea of it consequences. Any references to Thomas Jefferson are being taken out of context. Read any good biography of Jefferson.I have read several.

I believe in a representative democracy as a valid check on the excesses of the people as well as the government. We have unfortunately over the last 30 years come to a point where those institutions we used to place our faith in have fallen into disrepute. Why, BECAUSE WE LET THEM. Low voter turn out, a lack of civility and tolerance in our day to day lives, greed, ect. Anyone embracing"trditional" values is automaticly a kook. Yet some how it seem a great numbr of us long for those days, but lack the fortitude to live that way. Do not misunderstand me, I dislike extremism on the right as well as the left.

Equality and liberty are to an extent mutually exclusive terms. Lberty without limit is license and unchecked equality is tyranny. To an extent we can not all be equal, but in certain critical areas the Founding Fathers want equality, In Life , Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Many on this site are obviously more gifted than myself, I accept that nature has given them gifts I do not myself possess. It is there right to maximize thoses gifts, but they do not have the right to prevent me from exercising the few gifts granted me.

I am glad that site was posted because there are very seroius issues at hand other than "lines of code" and "survival". The quality of life in this country is at stake and these dicussion are a good way to resolve the issue.

I am ready to

-- Publius (robin@icubed.com), February 08, 1999.

OtherLisa: America was *founded* on name-calling and pettiness (e.g. the Boston Tea Party), not to mention genocide, economic nationalism, and the list goes on. Agreed that in general, it's nice to be nice... but psycho dippity-dips like Paulie need to be bitch-slapped every now and again, especially when they trivialize a genuinely crucial issue like Y2K by nastiness, partisan distractive nonsense and lunacy like wanting to burn down DC (and we all know why you *really* want to do that, don't we Paul?).

scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), February 08, 1999.

Paul - need a sidekick with a cape? Holy Political Hypocritical Horseshit Batman! Is there an Assylum big enough to hold these assailers of our Freedoms once we put a stop to them? Talk about a political Two-Face!

Uncle Deedah,

WACKO huh? Interesting that those that believe in standards and right and wrong are intolerant WACKOs by YOUR definitions. I suppose if I were an adulterating lying sack of treasonous shit, I'd be a hero in your book. Pretty sad commentary about yourself there pal.

I said>>>>I think impeachment was a test of our national character. We have failed, as the polls have shown.

You wrote>>>> Aint you the one who wrote the Bagga Sagga? What does a story about a troll being hung upside down by his balls say about YOUR character? <<<<<<<<

I'M NOT IN ELECTED OFFICE!!!! A saga I wrote has NO BEARING on national policy, or the Constitution. My character is not in question while in a leadership position you imbecile!!!! I never lied under oath to a grand jury, usurped Constitutional authority, obstructed justice or renigged on my marriage vows!!!!! What I write doesn't affect the stock market, the courts, or the judicial system!!!

Of course, a forum troll being creatively applied to an obvious work of fun fiction relieves much tension for the rest of us. The Bagga Saga was an act of unselfish public service. So give my character analysis a rest would ya?

As far as this scandal being a "game" to distract us - you are WAY off the mark. The "game" Clinton plays is the game of scapegoating and dividing (can you say Right-Wing conspiracy?) to distract us from HIS bigger sins. He got caught plain and simple, then used his power and influence to SILENCE JUSTICE. This whole thing was HIS ATTEMPT to derail a civil rights court case period. End of sentence. This guy is evil, he is dangerous and the mere fact that we as a people don't care or want him to be left alone, indicts us all as complicit in this affront to justice and freedom.

The character of our media-annointed king is to destroy the Republic to save his ass than to do the honorable thing- like resign.

Who's really WACKO here?

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), February 08, 1999.

INVAR: "Who's really WACKO here?"

My vote is for a Milne/INVAR ticket in THAT election... :)

-- HAHA MCGILLICUDDY (younutz@getalife.losers.com), February 08, 1999.

moose: after spending $50 million, Chief Inquisitor Starr found no evidence of wrong doing by Clinton in ANY of the alleged crimes you mention. NONE. That's why they had to wire some dizzy sleazeball and entrap his mistress. So don't any of you give me this crap, "its not about sex" - you stupid asses, that ALL its about. WHAT CANT YOU UNDERSTAND??? IF IT HAD NOT BEEN FOR HIM LYING ABOUT HIS FORNICATION HABITS THERE WOULD BE NO IMPEACHMENT TRIAL!! Jesus Christ man, use your fucking head.

You may also like to know that the DNA test on his alleged black son was negative. And to fuel your conspiracy seeking little mind, check out the fact that the guy who has been serving as Clerk of Court for the impeachment proceedings was RUN OVER AND KILLED BY AN AUTOMOBILE LAST WEEK!!!! Let's spend some more of my hard earned tax dollars chasing our tail on that one...

Clinton is, at times, a lying, cheating, self-centered, adulterous bastard. To a greater or lesser degree, so were many of our presidents. You people that are so opinionated about Clinton seem to think he should have the moral integrity of Jimmy Carter. LOL Clinton is just the figurehead for the powers that be, continuing the arms sales to the Chinese that were begun in the BUSH administration, warring with Sadaam, which was begun in the BUSH administration, continuing the FED's monetary shell game, and tweaking the Executive Orders, which was begun WHO KNOWS HOW MANY ADMINISTRATIONS AGO, etc etc etc etc.

E Coli: you are a very smart person. But I think you are over analyzing this situation. Of course there is a movement underway to achieve global domination. But most of the leaders are not as smart as you think, probably nowhere near as intelligent as yourself. They are sloppy, and a lot of things that seem like conspiracy are actually coincidence. That's not to say conspiracies don't exist; the history of the world is indeed the history of conspiracy. But remember what Scott Adams of Dilbert fame suggests as the reason for the humor and absurdity, yet realism, in his comics: We are all idiots, its just that only when we find ourselves in the tightly regulated controls of an office environment do we see how silly our behaviors really are.

Milne: you too are a very smart person. But you are on record as saying that oral sex and homosexuality is immoral and should not be tolerated in society. That right there disqualifies you to pass judgment on this case. The majority of America does not want its morals legislated, even if its by their properly elected officials. We want less HATE, not more.

BTW, let me say that I really like all you guys...I hope we can have disagreements but still remain cyberfriends.

-- a (a@a.a), February 08, 1999.

America is not finished. It is going to be changed in the next few years, and people will wake up to reality. Clinton is not the first President to wipe his butt with the Constitution or to have affairs, but he IS one who has done so in a very incompetant, bumbling way. Kind of like the kid who got stuck with his hand in the cookie jar when seeing the others get away with same.

Whether or not Clinton is impeached will ultimately make little difference. The larger forces at work continue to erode at our privacy and basic freedoms. I don't think that it is an organized Consiracy--just everybody "in it for themselves" and their Bottom Line so they can smugly pump gas into their shiney new beamers.

Material prosperity obscures this gradual erosion of freedom, just as this Congressional Circus is a likely smokescreen for the true crimes of our government that include Clinton, Bush, Reagan...all the way down the line. If Kenneth Starr had truly done his job, he would have brought down both the Republican AND Democratic parties (but we all know how Starr brings home his bacon).

When hard times come along (and they WILL), people will realize that all was not well when they were ignoring all these issues that lurked below the surface. We will wise up and do what is right. When I say "we," I mean Blacks and whites, rich and poor, men and women, young and old; a new sense of common purpose will prevail and bring us together as we have never been before. I am convinced of that. There are too many positive things about America for things to utterly fall apart...and if they do we will have the best head start in rebuilding. We are not a cesspool.

-- django (coprolith@rocketship.com), February 08, 1999.

Invar,

Sounds like you are pretty hypocritcal yourself there pal, you spew words like "righteousness", "blessings" and "God have Mercy on Us" and yet you use such foul language to make your point. YOU are one of the reasons this country is in such bad shape. Clean up your mouth pal!

-- Jane (justwatching@sneak.apeek), February 08, 1999.

a.- You wrote: Milne: you too are a very smart person. But you are on record as saying that oral sex and homosexuality is immoral and should not be tolerated in society. That right there disqualifies you to pass judgment on this case."

Ehh, WRONG! Because Paul has not relinquished the act of judgement to the PC scrap pile, HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO JUDGE. There is no disqualification, and the fact he has a set of principles based in morality GIVES HIM THE RIGHT TO JUDGE. Moreso than those of you who have no balls to pass judgement to somehow show us how compassionate, tolerant and understanding you are. You are nothing more than an enabler of debauchery. We are commanded to judge good from evil, life and death, and to hold fast to that which is good. So stuff your PC bullshit.

"The majority of America does not want its morals legislated, even if its by their properly elected officials. We want less HATE, not more. "

This is EXACTLY why this nation is doomed and why God fearing folks like Paul would WANT DC to be toast. Paul isn't advocating the passing of a morality legislation, he is requiring those that swore an oath to uphold it!!! But you are right a., America definitely doesn't want to be told right from wrong. She would rather wallow in what feels good, and for everyone to do what is right in their own eyes. Except of course for those that have standards and believe in right and wrong. They are the true evil in this new nation you call Amerika.

And as far as you wanting less hate not more, I've heard nothing but HATE from the Libs, the Dems and the elitists in society that think they are the good, and we little folk that have standards, the bad.

Stuff your elitism. Don't tread on me.

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), February 08, 1999.

Just want to say we ROFL at the Bagga Sagga and it helped us get thru some difficult situations with the gift and relief of laughter.
INVAR, we consider you a great blessing to this Forum.
And this was before we became privvy to some *truly noxious* govt-issue hideous attempts that Diane has recently uncovered but has not yet posted. If she can come to terms with bringing it out to the YourDoneEres, it will make this thread seem like the good old innocent days.
We will see how INVAR has done us all a favor by standing up to the trolls and fighting back.
My fellow posters, we all do have a common enemy, a completely odious, no-scruples enemy; and that enemy will fail because it underestimates all of us, and has no sense of humor or honor.
Thanks to all of you who think and share; all opinions are worth mulling.

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx x

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 08, 1999.

a: >> But most of the leaders are not as smart as you think,

You can't see the real leaders. "I have seen them; they are intrepid and cruel." Their intelligence is formidable. You and Scott Adams rely on the stupidity of the average person; so do they.

django: >>Material prosperity obscures this gradual erosion of freedom

Astute observation. And I would add that this erosion is largely in preparation for the inevitable economic downturn, the unrest and resulting control of mass thought and behavior.

You are optimistic about our ability to wake up and lead ourselves. I agree that we are not a cesspool - we're just doing a fair imitation of one lately. I have a favorite quote:

"The palmy days of prosperity are not the most favorable to the display of public virtue or the influence of wise and good men. In hard, doubtful and unprosperous times, the disinterested and patriotic find their way, by a species of public instinct, unopposed, joyfully welcomed, to the control of affairs." EDWARD EVERETT 1794-1865

I read this whenever I am tempted to indulge myself in depair. Let's hope you and E.E. are both right this time.

E.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 08, 1999.

Hey Jane-

I'M THE REASON THE NATION IS IN SUCH BAD SHAPE?????!!!! Over the use of LANGUAGE???!!! ARE YOU MAD, DAFT OR SIMPLY AN IDIOT???!!!

We got a leader screwing with young girls, screwing with the judicial system, tampering with a civil court case, intimidating witnesses, a globe about to explode in chaos, an apathetic populace more concerned with it's 401k than the erosion of our freedoms- AND YOU'RE GOING TO WIG OUT ON ME OVER MY USE OF LANGUAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! **&%#@#@!!>?<##%*+-##@!!

This is another reason we are finished folks.

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), February 08, 1999.

to a

Let me guess you voted for Clinton..... TWICE!!!!!!

You need to stop watching the nightly news and read something that has some truth to it do you actually believe all of that horseshit

-- moose (tkh@earthlink.net), February 08, 1999.

Invar

I do believe in standards of right and wrong. For instance:

I believe that it is wrong to peek into the bedroom windows of others to see if they are having immoral sex.

I believe that lying is lying is lying. Whether before a Grand jury or not.

I believe that selling military secrets to China is treason.

I think that Clinton is a socialist, and an enemy of our Constitution.

I believe that you are a WACKO, who rants and raves excessively about the moral failings of others, while ignoring his own.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), February 08, 1999.

Just for the record I agree with everything Paul Milne, INVAR. and E- coli have stated so eloquently.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 08, 1999.

Deedah, Deedah, Deedah, (sounds like the opening tune to a song),

Ignoring my own moral failings? You know nothing of me except through my posts, so STUFF IT you pompous ass. I can judge others based on their FRUITS. As a matter of fact, it is our God-given duty to do so.

We ALL have a right to demand justice be done to the Constitution and our freedom REGARDLESS of our own personal pecadillos. We have a RIGHT to demand our leaders are upstanding and trustworthy to carry out their sworn and sacred oath to uphold and protect the laws that keep our freedom granted in the Constitution.

I think wackos are folks like you who ignore the glaring examples of "moral failings" of our leadership and attack those of us that simply point it out.

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), February 08, 1999.

Invar

You're fun to tease, push the button, get the expected response.

Hee Hee

Are your posts not the "fruit" of your mind?

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), February 08, 1999.

I'd like to point out that T.M.'s post in this thread contained several valid points concerning sexual harassment - points which have yet to be adiquately addressed by any of the clinton appologists.

I might also point out that a close friend whose legal practice includes such things as sexual harassment cases is wondering, should the prez not be convicted, how they will manage to convict anyone else.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 08, 1999.

Hey INVAR, you ready to torch some of those witc...er, homos?

Arlin, I can address all of Troll Marias concerns quite succintly: a person's sex life is none of your damn business.

-- a (a@a.a), February 08, 1999.

Too many americans have paid with their lives protecting the very freedoms that most of us enjoy on these forums. No matter how bad things appear now, they could get a lot worse -- just look at the lack of freedom in other countries.

How many of you lashing out, voted in the last election? Byrd's position IS unacceptable. So West Virginians if you don't like what you hear, vote him the hell outa there.

I don't have a lot of patience for hand-wringing. If you don't like today's politics, GET OUT THERE AND DO SOMETHING TO CHANGE IT.

-- Roger Altman (RogAltman@AOL.com), February 08, 1999.

Nice try Deedah....no cigar. Once again, I'm not an elected official entrusted with an oath to uphold the laws of this land. No one is counting on my character to lead them. I"M NOT ON TRIAL HERE. KLINTON IS. Just love how folks seek to absolve Willy by condemning everyone else. Whoaa baby!! Can't wait to watch all these fissures in our society crack wide open upon the effects of Y2K! And some wonder why Paul Milne says if you live within 5 miles of a 7-11 you're toast!

a., thank you no. Let's leave the torching to God. Alrighty then? By the by, that doesn't mean I sit back silent and condone that behavior as "normal"- 'cause it 'aint, no matter what you or anyone else thinks.

Funny how once you show a belief in Right and Wrong how folks immediately jump out of the woodwork to exclaim you are an intolerant homophobe. Oh well. I'll brandish the title gladly.

Don't push my buttons.

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), February 08, 1999.

He had improper relations with an intern.

He lied about it under oath.

He is guilty of perjury at minimum.

He lied to the American public.

Members of his own gang say he is guilty and say "so what if he's guilty? You all like him, so let's let him stay in office".

What a sad state of affairs. Shame on America. How do you explain that to your 10 year old? The President did something bad and lied about it, but he is to well liked to be punished for his bad behavior. Explain that to your kids. When Sen. Byrd says he is guilty, but I will vote not guilty, all hope is lost in the rule of law. If you don't have kids, pretend you do. How would you explain Clinton's actions and punishment? Please let me know.

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), February 08, 1999.

Invar

I'm not condemning you. I'm just pointing out the fact that you're a goofy borderline psycho. Hee Hee

"No one is counting on my character to lead them"

That is true, but why are you foaming at the mouth over the sex angle? That is the least of the man's sins.

Getting so worked up over someone else's sex life speaks VOLUMES.

PS, I'm NO fan of Billy Bob Clinton, just in case you are wondering. But I think it is a shame that he was too slick to be nabbed for anything else. Ya see, I don't want you, him, the FBI, the CIA, or the FRL worrying about who I'm "doing" or how I'm "doing" them.

Getting it yet?

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), February 08, 1999.

Damn it Deedah!!! IT'S NOT ABOUT SEX!!! It's about fixing a civil court case!! It's about perjury, obstruction and the rule of law! And that's just about the Articles themselves, not counting the usurpation of power, the politicization of every independent agency in the government, the funneling of Chineese Red money into an election campaign for missle technology etc., etc., etc., etc., etc! It's about: Do you trust this bozo to lead our nation during a time of strife???

Borderline Psycho??? At least give me full-blown credit where psychosis is involved!

Hell I'm responding to you fer chrissakes!

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), February 09, 1999.

Invar

Let me try this a point at a time.

"Damn it Deedah!!! IT'S NOT ABOUT SEX!!! It's about fixing a civil court case!!(Which was about sex)

It's about perjury (in a case based on sex),

obstruction (*of justice* in a case based on sex)

and the rule of law! (in a sex case)

And that's just about the Articles themselves, not counting the usurpation of power, the politicization of every independent agency in the government, the funneling of Chineese Red money into an election campaign for missle technology (I'm with ya there 100%, he is a traitor in my book, so why not try him for those crimes, instead of looking like the Bedroom Nazis? This effort was doomed from the start because folks think it's about sex. Stay the F out of our bedrooms is the thinking among the masses, and I agree.)

etc., etc., etc., etc., etc! It's about: Do you trust this bozo to lead our nation during a time of strife??? (of course not, I don't trust any of those bozos, well, maybe Ron Paul)

Borderline Psycho??? At least give me full-blown credit where psychosis is involved! (I didn't want to hurt your feelings, but OK, full blown it is)

Hell I'm responding to you fer chrissakes! (and rather nastily I might add, were are your manners?)

;)

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), February 09, 1999.

Well Deedah, we're almost on the same page -- about a chapter and a half apart.

Do we ignore all breaks in the law if they entail sex? Does a man get a free pass for shoplifting because he stole a necklace for a woman he had an affair with to keep her from telling his wife?? After all that is about sex.?

I hate to differ with ya pal, but the law is the law, and there are folks sitting in jail for perjury in sex cases and lying about sex in civil court cases. But that's not important now, what is important is that do we have one set of laws for the king---er I mean Prez, and another for the rest of us? Or are we all equal under the law? Is a Democrat President above the law if it's only about sex?

And importantly: if this guy can't keep a wedding vow, how can you expect him to keep a vow to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States?"

Think we can close this book yet?

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), February 09, 1999.

Again I ask, is it any wonder?

-- Other Lisa (LisaWard2@aol.com), February 09, 1999.

Is there anyone out there who would like to respond to:

1) Troll Maria's post regarding sexual harassment. Those of you who keep droning on and on, "it's about sex... it's about consenting adults ...," please respond to the material action in this whole mess, Paula Jones' civil case regarding sexual harassment. I don't recall her ever consenting to Clinton's perversion.

2) Bill's post about explaining this to your kids. I'm having a tough time with that one, too.

Jeannie

-- jhollander (hollander@ij.net), February 09, 1999.

I do agree with Paul. I've not posted along time, but TRUTH is TRUTH..Our President LIED under oath and to US, the taxpayers, the ones who voted him in, how are they feeling? Those who are in the military? How are they feeling? May God open up the blinded eyes of America. Think on this, If any of you or I for that matter where to be a CEO of a company who received oral gratification on COMPANY TIME, and it were to be found out, Would we still be employed? NOT...neither should Bill...No morals, all lies, attempts to redefine the dictionary, What does IS mean? Come on, WAKE up, he should have done the 'honorable' thing and resigned. Instead he has brought shame on our Country. Saddest of all is that America and Mr. Byrd, is keeping him put, due to the love of money. TRUTH IS TRUTH, who can fight it?

-- consumer (private@aol.com), February 09, 1999.

...and it ain't about bedrooms either...he did it in the Oval Office w/ Monica and he sent the Arkansas state troopers out to get Paula...not exactly kept in the bedroom

-- ... (.@...), February 09, 1999.

Hmmmmm....

I started out poking Invar through the bars on his cage, and somehow ended up sounding like a Clinton apologist. I'm not. I don't like him one little bit. OTOH, foaming at the mouth over the moral failings of others raises a red flag in my mind. Or as the Bard stated in "MacBeth":

"Methinks she doth protest too much"

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), February 09, 1999.