[Vision2020] uranium denial--GUTLESS DEMOS?
Tim Lohrmann
timlohr@yahoo.com
Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Donavan,
First of all you wrote:
"When are you going to admit you were wrong for
supporting that war? When are you
going to admit we have a stupid president that is
going kill everyone if he has another four years as
president?"
Well, Donovan, when are you going to stop assuming
and stereotyping?
I don't support this Iraqi invasion nor do I now or
ever. I don't know if Bush is stupid, but I didn't
vote for him originally and I don't intend to now.
But your responses are interesting. You immediately
assume that if someone questions the Democratic party
they are hard core Republicans. That's how the two
parties want you to think of courses. That's why these
two parties, which are in reality nothing but two
different conduits for cash from slightly different
groups of interests, refuse to allow any real
political dialogue by not allowing anyone but
themselves in the presidential debates and etc.
I disagree totally with you that a president should
be allowed to get away with committing the crime of
perjury, but I suppose that's the level we've sunk to.
Even the chief law enforcement officer of the US
should be allowed to be a criminal. At least the
Arkansas State Bar saw fit to disbar the creep. And as
I mentioned the original reason I even mentioned the
sexual stuff was to illustrate the total lack of
principle at the national political level. Your
arguments show that this political justification of
almost anything has sunk even down to the Moscow, ID
level.
Your sad swallowing whole the story about the
factory in the Sudan is just more evidence of your
apparent blind faith in whatever a Democrat says. Your
version has no evidence to back it up. Even the State
Dept. has admitted they made a mistake on that one.
And also you state that in Iraq they switch from one
kind of production to another rapidly.
So, are you saying you do believe there are or
probably have been dangerous weapons in Iraq, just
like Bush told us? Hmm...confusing.
--- Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Tim wrote:
>
> "You don't get it yet, do you? He wasn't lying about
> >a "sexual relationship" in the Jones matter. He was
> >lying about committing an actionable
> offense--sexual
> >harassment. If you believe sexual harassment is
> just
> >another sexual relationship, then your thinking is
> >behind even James Carville's."
>
> No, based on that statement you just don't
> understand. Clinton lied about
> his sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky while
> under oath testifying about
> the Paula Jones investigation. This is what is so
> irrelevant about the case.
> What does Monica have to do with Jones's case?
> Nothing! They were trying to
> use it as an established behavior. That is why the
> "blue dress" came into
> the picture. It was to prove that Clinton did have
> relations "with that
> women."
> Second, No, I do not think that sexual harassment is
> "just another sexual
> relationship". But I also happen to think that
> mutual consent is not sexual
> harassment. I also don't think that people that
> assume someone is "guilty"
> just because they are accused of it should leave the
> country because that is
> not what this country is about. Clinton was found
> "not guilty". Did the
> Repubcraps let it go. No!
>
> "HAD Clinton been a Republican then we
> >would have had the Democrat party and their
> apologists
> >doing everything in their power to convince us that
> >the second type of "blown" was equal importance to
> the
> >BIG BANG! i.e. the end all/be all event without
> which
> >the universe would not exist."
>
>
> Disagree, you were not around then. Playboy magazine
> and several others dug
> into the backgrounds of several other Republicans to
> find out that in fact
> they were or had been involved in extra martial
> affairs as well. Actually,
> quite a few of them. Helen Chenoweth, our US
> representative at the time,
> flat out said that Clinton should resign because of
> his adulterous affairs.
> Then two weeks later a man who had an affair with
> her came forward and
> reported his affair with her, evidence and all. Bob
> Livingston, running for
> speaker of the house, also had an affair and was
> exposed, as well as the
> leader in the effort of impeaching Clinton, Rep.
> Henry Hyde. Were any of
> these representatives charged with lying, under oath
> they were under when
> they were sworn in as elected officials? No, they
> were not, they let it
> slide. But not the Republicans they spent $23
> million dollars to find out
> that Bill Clinton got a blow job and lied about it.
> And nobody gave a damn!
> And they shouldn't. When a poll was taken most men
> said they would lie if
> asked the same question under oath.
>
>
> "Also, there's a very plausible theory that the SEX
> >stuff DID lead to some folks getting blown up. How
> >about Clinton lobbing cruise missiles at that
> aspirin
> >factory in the Sudan? Ever see Wag the Dog?"
>
> LOL, give me a break! That was a milk factory in
> Sudan that was producing
> chemical weapons. Often times many factories switch
> from one form of
> production to another in third words. Iraq does the
> same thing. Further,
> that story lasted about three days. Two Tomahawk
> missiles were fired and
> that was it.
>
> Yes, I have heard of Wag the Dog. And that is
> exactly what the President
> that was not elected by the people, like most
> dictators in the world, is
> doing in Iraq. We went there to A) Remove Saddam, B)
> Remove Weapons of Mass
> Destruction, C) Restore peace in the region. Which
> one of these have we
> accomplished? How many soldiers have died? How many
> Iraqi civilians have
> died? How many have been wounded? How many more will
> die or be wounded? When
> are you going to admit you were wrong for supporting
> that war? When are you
> going to admit we have a stupid president that is
> going kill everyone if he
> has another four years as president?
>
>
> Donovan J Arnold
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Tim Lohrmann <timlohr@yahoo.com>
> >To: Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com>
> >CC: vision2020@moscow.com
> >Subject: RE: [Vision2020] uranium denial--GUTLESS
> DEMOS?
> >Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >Donavan,
> > You write:
> >"I believe that Clinton did lie. I think he lied
> under
> >oath. I think what he did was wrong and unethical.
> I
> >also think that asking somebody about
> >sexual relationships with someone when they are
> under
> >oath is more unethical unless it is a murder trial
> >establishing a motive."
> >-----
> > You don't get it yet, do you? He wasn't lying
> about
> >a "sexual relationship" in the Jones matter. He was
> >lying about committing an actionable
> offense--sexual
> >harassment. If you believe sexual harassment is
> just
> >another sexual relationship, then your thinking is
> >behind even James Carville's.
> >
> >You also write:
> >"Second, There is a big difference between someone
> >lying about getting blown and someone lying and
> 6,000
> >people getting blown up."
> >
> >I couldn't agree with you more on that. War is
> worse
> >than committing perjury every time. BUT, and this
> is a
> >very big but, HAD Clinton been a Republican then we
> >would have had the Democrat party and their
> apologists
> >doing everything in their power to convince us that
> >the second type of "blown" was equal importance to
> the
> >BIG BANG! i.e. the end all/be all event without
> which
> >the universe would not exist.
> >
> >> TL
> >
> >
> >
> >--- Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Tim,
> > >
> > > First, ever hear of the fifth amendment? Why
> wasn't
> > > that brought up?
> > > Second, There is a big difference between
> someone
> > > lying about getting blown
> > > and someone lying and 6,000 people getting blown
> up.
> > >
> > > If you don't understand the difference between
> the
> > > two, then I don't know
> > > how else to explain it to you.
> > >
> > > I believe that Clinton did lie. I think he lied
> > > under oath. I think what he
> > > did was wrong and unethical. I also think that
> > > asking somebody about sexual
> > > relationships with someone when they are under
> oath
> > > is more unethical unless
> > > it is a murder trial establishing a motive. How
> many
> > > of 50%+ of married men
> > > would lie about an affair. That is why nobody
> cared.
> > > And it is not an
> > > impeachable offense. Spending $23 million to
> > > investigate a president for the
> > > sake of trying to find something is ludicrous
> and
> > > unethical when people are
> > > starving.
> > >
> > > To answer your other question the order of
> > > succession is:
> > > Vice President
> > > Speaker of the House
> > > Senate Pro-tempore
> > > Secretary of State
> > > Secretary of Defense
> > > Attorney General
> > > Secretary of Treasury
> > > Secretary of Interior
> > > Secretary of Agriculture
> > > Secretary of Commerce
> > > Secretary of Labor
> > > Secretary of HHS
> > > Secretary of HUD
> > > Secretary of Transportation
> > > Secretary of Energy
> > > Secretary of Education
> > > Secretary of Veterans' Affairs
> > > Sectary of Homeland Security
> > >
> > > After this, Martial Law is declared and the
> highest
> > > ranking military
> > > official takes control.
> > >
> > > Donovan J Arnold
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: Tim Lohrmann <timlohr@yahoo.com>
> > > >To: Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com>
> > > >CC: vision2020@moscow.com
> > > >Subject: RE: [Vision2020] uranium
> denial--GUTLESS
> > > DEMOS?
> > > >Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > > >
> > > >Donovan,
> > > >You wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Fifth, why didn't the Republicans impeach
> > > Lewinsky,
> > > >it was her that did the
> > > >act, not Clinton."
> > > >
> > > >Actually what you imply here, that the
> impeachment
> > > was
> > > >just about Lewinsky is incorrect.
> > > >
> > > >The two adopted articles of impeachment read as
> > > >follows:
> > > >
> > > >1st Article.The president provided perjurious,
> > > false
> > > >and misleading testimony to the grand jury
> > > regarding
> > > >the Paula Jones case and his relationship with
> > > Monica
> > > >Lewinsky.
> > > >
> > > >2nd Article. NOT ADOPTED
> > > >
> > > >3rd Article. The president obstructed justice
> in an
> > > >effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal
> the
> > > >existence of evidence related to the Jones
> case.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >While we're discussing it, can you imagine the
> > > >reaction of the supposedly feminist-minded
> Democrat
> > > >party if a GOP pres. had perjured himself
> > > concerning
> > > >of all things A SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAWSUIT in
> which
> > > he
> > > >himself was the defendant?
> > > >
> > > >I can hear it now.
> > > >Oooooh the nerve of that sexist lout.
> Ahhhh...the
> > > >chutzpah of that chauvinist!! Let's maul that
> > > >malicious misogynist!QQ
> > > >
> > > >BUT, when it was one of their own we heard
> barely a
> > > >peep of criticism against this fellow who has
> often
> > > >behaved as if women are little more than
> chattel
> > > for
> > > >his private pleasure. And not only that,
> committed
> > > the
> > > >crime of perjury when he got caught.
> > > >
> > > > NO, all we got from these pillars of profound
> > > >feminist virtue was James Carville's classist
> > > comment
> > > >about Paula Jones being "trailer trash," and
> cries
> > > of
> > > >"let's move on."
> > > >
> > > > Gee, I thought feminists considered sexual
> > > >harassment serious business that should be
> fully
> > > >investigated and litigated so that the rights
> of
> > > >women, especially women in subordinate
> employment
> > > >positions, could be protected.
> > > >
> > > > Well they do, as long as one of their
> buddies
> > > necks
> > > >isn't on the line. Oh, and it would help if
> the
> > > >alleged victim of this harassment is an elite
> Ivy
> > > >League type--one of them. If she's not
> terribly
> > > >refined, not too wealthy, and doesn't have many
> > > >connections when the alleged harassment took
> place,
> > > >well, that's not a big deal.
> > > > Just sweep it under the rug, lie about it,
> or
> > > "MOVE
> > > >ON," right?
> > > > TL
> > > >
> > > >--- Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dale wrote:
> > > > > "Would they impeach CIA Director George
> Tenet
> > > for
> > > > > allowing the uranium claim
> > > > > to be believed by the President? Or do they
> > > impeach
> > > > > the President for
> > > > > trusting the information coming from the
> CIA?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Dale, first, nobody on the planet except you
> > > > > believes that Tenet is really
> > > > > responsible.
> > > > > Second, Tenet did not provide the
> information
> > > alone,
> > > >
> > > > > the British, Cheney,
> > > > > Rice, Rumsfeld, and Powell did.
> > > > > Third, if the president can't even ask a
> > > question
> > > > > like "Which African
> > > > > Country?" should he also have control of
> nuclear
> > > > > weapons?
> > > > > Fourth, if Bush is not responsible for the
> words
> > > > > coming out of his mouth,
> > > > > who is?
> > > > > Fifth, why didn't the Republicans impeach
> > > Lewinsky,
> > > > > it was her that did the
> > > > > act, not Clinton.
> > > > > Finally, if Bush is not responsible for what
> > > comes
> > > > > out of his mouth, how can
> > > > > we trust him, they might have been put there
> by
> > > > > someone else that lied?
> > > > >
> > > > > Donovan J Arnold
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: "Dale Courtney" <dale@courtneys.us>
> > > > > >To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
> > > > > >Subject: RE: [Vision2020] uranium
> > > denial--GUTLESS
> > > > > DEMOS?
> > > > > >Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:54:34 -0700
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Tim wrote:
> > > > > > > Why DOESN'T the Democrat party launch
> and
> > > > > > > impeachment effort if they think it's
> > > warranted?
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Would they impeach CIA Director George
> Tenet
> > > for
> > > > > allowing the uranium claim
> > > > > >to be believed by the President?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Or do they impeach the President for
> trusting
> > > the
> > > > > information coming from
> > > > > >the CIA?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Confused,
> > > > > >Dale Courtney
> > > > > >Moscow, Idaho
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>_____________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > > > List services made available by First Step
> > > > > Internet,
> > > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse
> since
> > > > > 1994.
> > > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service:
> 2
> > > months
> > > >
> > > > > FREE*
> > > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
>_____________________________________________________
> > > > > List services made available by First Step
> > > > > Internet,
> > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since
> > > 1994.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > >
> > > > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >__________________________________
> > > >Do you Yahoo!?
> > > >SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > > >http://sbc.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
> > > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan
> Online
> > >
>
>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> > >
> > >
>
>_____________________________________________________
> > > List services made available by First Step
> > > Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since
> 1994.
> > >
> > > http://www.fsr.net
> > >
> > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> > >
>
>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> >http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months
> FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step
> Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>
> http://www.fsr.net
>
> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com