Denton Taylor wrote:
>
> At 07:46 AM 1/14/00 +0800, you wrote:
> >This is interesting, seems like nobody on this list has a good word for
> >Clinton. The impression I had previously (as an observer from the distant
> >land of Oz) was that the American public were quite accepting of his wrong
> >doings. Is it just the composition of the list, are his supporters too meek
> >to voice their praises for him ?
>
> Why the list seems mostly anti-Clinton is an interesting question, since as
> you point out the majority of Americans are not.
Two untruthful statements in one. First, Wayne did not point out most
Americans support the Liar-in-Chief, he said it was his **impression**
that they did. Second, you say it's true that most Americans are not
anti-Clinton. I challenge you to back up that statement. Start from the
fact that he was never even elected by a majority of voters, who
themselves make up a paltry 20 or 300f the population.
Stop to consider that perhaps it's our MEDIA which portrays the
impression that you now claim as fact? Here, I'll name for you most of
the right-leaning papers in the entire country right now: Manchester
Union-Leader, Washington Times, er... ah... well, I'm sure there are a
few more.
> I voted for him twice yet there are a number of things I do not like about
> him. Although I disliked Reagan intensely I admit he had certain viewpoints
> that he stuck to even if they were unpopular.
This is a key truth. Reagan (who incidentally WAS supported by a LARGE
majority of voting Americans. TWICE - and I'll bet you and joseph were
pissed about THAT!) was a man with principles. He was a man of morality
and he stuck to his beliefs thruout his presidency.
> Clinton is too much a
> president of the polls, too willing to abandon his positions if the polls
> do not support him.
Also very true. You're 2 and 2 now.
> His health care plan was a perfect example. A plan with
> no grand vision, merely a pastiche of ideas-du-jour that would never work.
Wasn't even his plan. It was Hillary's. You'll soon have another chance
to vote for a Clinton, Denton. Have you learned your lesson *yet* ?
BTW, she came out against gay marriage the other day. Another slap at
one of their core supporting groups. Hey, speakin of which, how about
the release of the Puerto Rican terrorists? Did you support that?
Perhaps you didn't know any of the cops who were killed or maimed by
these gentle nationalists. But, hey, there's a large Puerto Rican vote
in NY, isn't there?
>
> As far as what I liked about him, the first thing that struck me is that he
> was young enough to actually share some of my problems.
First thing I noticed was his silly grin and his obviously phony empathy
for welfare mothers et al. How *anyone* could be taken in by this man
is beyond me. Except that a common answer when I ask women what they
think of Clinton is "He's good-looking". Just personal experience.
Perhaps this explains something?
> He was the first
> president to have a working wife, at least in my lifetime, and therefore
> his struggles would be the same as mine,
You must be joking. Their struggles are like yours? He hasn't worked a
day in his life except on the government teat. She worked hard to
apparently defraud elderly investors and others in Arkansas. She will
someday be proven to be a common thief. (just where *did* those billing
records disappear to now?) She, of course, is also a struggling investor
who turned $1000 into $100,000 in what, a week or a month. Based on
"luck". A working wife? What the hell has she worked at since she's
been in Wash?
>trying as they must to wrestle
> with dual careers and raising a daughter.
I am sure you're showing your daughter much more love and respect than
our selfish President does to his. Playing around with a bimbo just a
couple years older than Chelsea! In the White House where Chelsea lived!
Laughing and getting a BJ while talking state business on the phone with
a Congressman. IS THIS YOUR IDEA OF A PRESIDENT? A FATHER? A HUSBAND?
I had hoped that would translate
> into better policy. The fact that he actually had sex was also a plus,
> altho subsequent events have proven that he has it just a bit too much, lol.
Yes, isn't it humorous. He's brought the level of the nation down
quicker and farther than FOX TV. And of course Republicans never have
sex.
>
> In any event the fact that some bimbo persuaded him
Truly pathetic. That's how you see it isn't it? The poor man was
**victimized** by the Siren's Song.
to accept half a blow
> job is so meaningless as to be absurd. As we know many heads of state and
> other powerful men routinely have mistresses and affairs.
Name them. And then, name the ones who've also been accused of sexual
harrassment by several women, accused of RAPE by a very credible woman,
and been so bloody STOOOPID about how he did his dirty deeds. At least
some of the names you come up with will have operated with discretion
above the level of a juvenile.
> Almost half of
> all married men have been unfaithful to their wives, so as they say let him
> who is free from sin cast the first stone.
It's bible time, eh? Where do you get these statistics, BTW? How many
women are unfaithful? How many gay partners? How does it break down by
race? These are all important statistics, don't you agree? Knowing
these, we can have a sliding scale of how much forgiveness to dole out,
depending on which group(s) the offender can be placed in. Or, perhaps
it's a free-for-all, anything goes, based on the logic that some have
already done it so we might as well. Perhaps next, you'll apply that
logic to murder.
> It's so fascinating to watch all
> these family values types like Gingrich, etc etc with their righteous
> indignation when they themselves are divorced.
I'm not going to defend the indefensible. (BTW, why do you?)
>
> Sure, he lied under oath about it. So what? I would too.
Here we are - another forgettable crime. This time PERJURY. Hey, what
the hell, everybody lies. So what if he's the president. I wonder if
you'd dare to say the same about Nixon's actions? How about Mark
Fuhrman? How did you feel about his lies. Oh, different story, huh? I
thought so.
Oh, and I'll bet you believed Anita Hill, too.
No one had a right
> to ask him about his little shindigs--it's not relevant to policy or
> national security.
It was relevant for Clarence Thomas though, huh? Where oh where ARE the
womens' libbers this time around?
> Many may disagree with me but again most Americans saw
> it as a which hunt.
Again, your 'facts' are made up of whole cloth. And, even if it was a
witch hunt (which your ilk laid on Reagan for 8 years as well) *this*
time they found a witch. A lying, perjuring, perverted, unfaithful,
distrustful, dishonest SOB of a witch. Oh, and her husband too.
> Clinton has been continually under investigation so
> some may say where there's smoke there's fire but the things he's been
> investigated for are fairly trivial and blown out of proportion.
Yeah, like illegal campaign contributions from representatives of a
foriegn government which calls the USA their sworn enemy and has nukes
aimed at us this very second. Nukes which can now get here (well, to the
West Coast, I guess you're safe in NY, huh?) in large part because of
lax supervision and bending of export laws by this corrupt
administration. Ever hear of the Manchurian candidate? Do you have ANY
fears for your childrens' future? Trivialities? I don't think so.
Let the
> investigators vote for campaign finance reform if they want real change.
Agree 100%
>
> While Clinton takes the heat for every conceivable thing his harassers will
> not give him credit for an economy that's the envy of the world.
That's because he has virtually no effect on the economy. I challenge
you to present any evidence to the contrary. The ONLY thing he's done is
leave Greenspan in office, which was a no-brainer. BTW, any idea who
first appointed Greenspan???? I'll give you a hint - it wasn't Jimmy
Carter, George Bush or the Pervert-in-chief.
> Watch and
> see. While the President does not directly set interest rates, by
> appointing people like Rubin and Greenspan (he could have replaced
> Greenspan had he chosen) and making it clear that he was serious about
> deficit reduction, he set the tone in the bond market for the fall in
> long-term interest rates which is in large part responsible for the current
> national prosperity. Reagan used to talk that shit,
Do you not understand that Reagan's policy set in motion the wheels that
are spinning so well today? In fact, his tax cuts have surely put
thousands, maybe tens of thousands of dollars in YOUR pocket over the
last 12 or 13 years, helping you buy into your Contax system and stoke
the economy. Would you rather have let the Democrats spend those
$$$thousands? Do you remember what the economy was like when Reagan
took over? Do you recall 20% mortgage interest rates? Do you recall an
entity called the Soviet Union? The Cold War? The Berlin Wall? Do you
realize that Reagan was president during a time when HUGE military
budgets were an absolute necessity? And that deficit spending was
brought about by the military portion of the budget **combined with the
excess spending of the Democratic-controlled congress**?
The Soviet Union, The Cold War, The Berlin Wall. No more. Gone.
History. And who gets much of the credit for their demise? Jimmy
Carter? Tip O'Neil? WJ Clinton? Do you recall the Strategic Defense
Initiative? The former Soviet military men do, I'm sure. It BROKE
them. It directly caused them to throw in the towel. It was a
*brilliant* bluff. How about this quote, spoken in harsh, firm language
"Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THAT WALL!" Do you really think ANY of this
would have happened if a pussy-footing, mealy-mouthed appeaser like
Clinton had been in office in the 80s???
> In fact Clinton is accused of being a liberal, but he's about as
> centrist as you can get, if not rightist.
You must be high. Either that, or you just don't comprehend what's going
on.
I'm real curious to know if you'll support Hillary over the mayor who's
finally turned that rat-hole of a city around to where it may soon be
fit for human habitation.
> His support of welfare reform
> made him no friends on the left.
Just another example of him abandoning his friends when it's politically
expedient.
>
> Anyway, add me to the meek minority!
Maybe that makes me part of the Moral Majority?
Lastly, I already regret writing this, because I really respect your
work as an artist. But I can't let these fatuous claims go by without
comment.
One more thing - I've been a registered Democrat most of my life. Turned
Independent in the 80s. Have never registered as a Republican. Sorry to
dissappoint you and joseph.
george
>
> ________________________________
> Regards,
> Denton Taylor
>
> Photogallery at www.dentontaylor.com.
> Panoramas and Immersive Imaging at
> www.threehundredsixty.com
> Join the RolleiSLR list at www.rolleislr.com
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|