On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:55:41 -0700, Bill Bonde <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
>
>rightwing@nutty.com wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 14:54:31 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Jones lied, or at least her case was TOSSED out, Tarverloon
>> >
>> >No, Bennett lied before the Court, about a pattern of behavior on the part
>> >of William Jefferson Clinton III. That lie, under Arkansas Law, as
>> >practiced in Little Rock Federal Court, was Clinton's own perjury.
>> >Therefore Jones v Clinton was reinstated and Clinton was refered to the Bar
>> >and disbarred. Clinton settled with Jones for about 3 times the maximum she
>> >could have received from the Court.
>>
>> You dumb ****, Tarverloon
>>
>> Not only are your conclusions silly as shit, but your facts are all wrong
>>
>> a) Bennett has no "duty" to prove his Clients veracity one way or other, so even IF a
>> "pattern" was there, Bennett had nothing to do with it.
>>
>> b) A "pattern" of "behavior" has never been legally credible by having "multiple",
>> single-source allegations lumped together. If that were the case, Anyone could manipulate
>> a legal suit. The only accepted standard of evidence is multiple sources for every
>> single claim.
>>
>So it is OK to do what Clinton did to those women as long as he only
>does it one time to each one?

C'mon, BONDELOON

Even you can't put on such a disingenuous stupid act as that.

A Single, un-corroborated allegation isn't worth the paper it's written on.

>> c) The lawsuit was "reinstated" on appeal you ignorant asshole. That merely means the
>> higer court ruled a "jury", not a single judge was required. Wright accepted ALL of
>> Jones's testimony and claims and still ruled she lost. Clinton got to present NO
>> defense, no cross-examination, no rebuttal .........and STILL WON.
>>
>Clinton had to pay $700,000. Remember that?

Even a dumb half-wit like you wouldn't pay $2 million for what he can get for $700,000,
Would you?

Clinton didn't "have" to pay anything. He won in a judgment.

To try the case before a Jury would have cost millions.




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

On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:08:21 -0500, Christopher Morton
<chris01@ameritech.net> wrote:

>Sorry, I'm a pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action liberal.

No, MORTONLOON

All you are, or ever were, or ever WILL be is a
big, dumb, ass-kicked Gunwhoring chickenshit
usenet moron.

>Yes, and it pisses you off, you crossburning ignoramus.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:53:44 -0700, Bill Bonde <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
>
>rightwing@nutty.com wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:30:47 -0700, Bill Bonde <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> He didn't lie about why we needed to go to the "balkans", BONDELOON
>> >>
>> >The lie was FOR HOW LONG. He claimed a year when everyone knew that was
>> >a lie. This is fact. I heard his people give testimony and get questions
>> >by disbelieving congresspersons.
>>
>> But that's not deliberate deception for political gain, you fucking moron.
>>
>What are you talking about? Clinton wanted to send troops into the
>Balkans so he fudged about how long they'd be there.

That's not the Reason, you fucking idiot.
>
>> If "everyone knew" staying there for a year was a "lie", then it wasn't a secret, was it?
>>
>So it's OK for Clinton to lie because everyone knows that he lies every
>time he opens his mouth?

CLinton lied less than Reagan, who is considered gawd by conservatives.

You simply cannot apply shitty standards and "principles" that stink like that, BONDELOON

>> Do you think that NATO (who prosecuted the war) would have said, "okay", go ahead and let
>> Milosevic kill everyone because we know we won't be out in a year?
>>
>Milosevic is a two bit tyrant who couldn't hold a candle to Saddam.

But Clinton didn't lie about why he went there, BONDEIDIOT.

>Saddam has caused the deaths of MILLIONS of people. Why was it vital to
>deal with Milo and not Saddam?

Then why was your drooling turnip supporting him in the 80's, BONDELOON?

And it's got nothing to do with being a "bad guy", BONDTWAT

The issue is the IMMEDIATE threat of WMD which was a LIE
>
>
>> The issue is LYING about the reasons, BONDELOON. There were Militia and paramilitary
>> groups roaming around as death squads, 300 tanks massed on the border waiting for the
>> chance to attack any defending units, mass graves, rapes. Those were'nt lies, BONDELOON
>>
>> WMD in Iraq as a "45 min. availibility" and an IMMINENT threat was a fucking LIE.
>>
>The MILLIONS of dead people in Iraq by the hand of Saddam, the hundreds
>of thousands taken by his secret police, the torture, the rapes, the
>mass graves, all that means nothing to you, does it?

That has NOTHING to do with a "45 minute", IMMEDIATE threat of WMD, BONDELOON

Stay on task

If the moral imperative was to "rid the world of a bad guy", then why didn't your
rat-shit, coke-snorting, deserter/moron say THAT was justification enough?

Go ahead, BONDFUCK

Make yourself look more stupid


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

The Reagan Years:

How Soon We Forget Real Corruption Gleeful charges by Republicans
that Whitewater is comparable to Watergate and that the Clinton
Administration is more corrupt than any recent administration
are ludicrous when compared to the actual record of corruption
in the Reagan-Bush administration and when it is noted that the
charges against Clinton result from goings-on in Arkansas long
before he became President. With Reagan, scandals occured while
he was President. Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Haynes
Johnson's book, "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in
the Reagan Years" (1991, Doubleday), chronicles the U.S.'s
fall from dominant world power to struggling debtor nation
during the Reagan years. Johnson says "two types of problems
typified the ethical misconduct cases of the Reagan years,
and both had heavy consequences to citizens everywhere.
One stemmed from ideology and deregulatory impulses run
amok; the other, from classic corruption on a grand scale."
"By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had
been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject
of official investigations for official misconduct and/or
criminal violations. In terms of number of officials
involved, the record of his administration was the
worst ever." (P. 184).

"Reagan's customary response to instances of wrongdoing by aides
was to criticize those who brought the charges or to blame the
media that reported them." "Three great scandals stained the
Reagan record, and they all involved the age-old form of corruption
formed by the connection between money and politics. What
distinguished them in the Reagan years was the number of buyers
and sellers involved, and the amount of money there was to
be made. The sheer volume of both had multiplied beyond any
previous measure. Nothing better illustrated the problem
than a case that connected some of Reagan's closest associates,
a score of top government officials in several departments
and agencies,

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:04:38 -0700, Bill Bonde <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote:

>Clinton had his people lie to Congress under oath to let him wag the dog
>in the Balkans. You know it. Everyone does.

Not for the REASON, you dense idiot

>Reagan didn't lie.

So his testimony before the grand jury contained "no lies", BONDELOON?

That bit of silly revisionist crap is ludicrous

>> You simply cannot apply shitty standards and "principles" that stink like that, BONDELOON

Silence, I see

>>
>Actually, he did. It was yet another wag the dog distraction by Clinton.

No, BONDEFUCK, it's merely YOUR silly shit you've sucked up put out by
your whipped and beaten rightwing nazis......Named so because you poor assholes were
being decimated by his superior command of politics and issues, you chump/

>> >Saddam has caused the deaths of MILLIONS of people. Why was it vital to
>> >deal with Milo and not Saddam?
>>
>> Then why was your drooling turnip supporting him in the 80's, BONDELOON?
>>
>We tried to deal with him to prevent Iraq from being overrun by Iran.

So that when your rat-shit, coke-snorting, idiot needed to have a re-election, character
building issue, he "decided" not to "deal with him"? BTW, Saddam was NOT "overrunning"
Iran, with or without our help, you fucking marginal idiot.

>> And it's got nothing to do with being a "bad guy", BONDTWAT
>>
>> The issue is the IMMEDIATE threat of WMD which was a LIE
>>
>I'm not sure what you are referring to.

OF COURSE YOU DON"T, you stupid shit

Because you're a fucking idiot that merely accepts propaganda as it's given out by a less
than intellectual halfwit.......must be why a halfwit like you does

The issue is LYING about the reasons, BONDELOON.

WMD in Iraq as a "45 min. availability" and an IMMINENT threat was a fucking LIE.

>What are you talking about? We didn't know what Saddam had exactly

Christ, BONDELOON, where have you been

Your moron-in-charge promoted the fact that no further UN inspections could take place
because of the IMMEDIATE/IMMINENT threat that Saddam had a "45 minute" capability of
unleashing everything from anthrax to an atomic response"

He said that before the UN, send Powell to the UN to insist that an Attack was NEEDED to
prevent that "45 minute, IMMEDIATE/IMMINENT" threat from taking place.


>> Stay on task
>>
>> If the moral imperative was to "rid the world of a bad guy", then why didn't your
>> rat-shit, coke-snorting, deserter/moron say THAT was justification enough?
>>
>Because we really were and are concerned about WMDs.

So was all the fucking world, you stupid asshole

That's why we had sanctions, no-fly zones, we bombed suspected targets, and "contained" at
every opportunity

But Bush said there were "Tons of Chemical weapons IMMEDIATLEY ready,", ---That an
IMMINENT (that means immediate, Bondeloon)attack by Saddam was possible, and unless we
attacked "IMMEDIATELY" Saddam was going to use them.

Just like everything you've argued around here, BONDELOON, you merely spout the false,
unproven, crap that the GOP issues as propaganda.

That's why you always look like a dumb asshole, BONDE
---------------------------------------------------------

"I was stubborn in my pursuit of a policy that went
astray." (August 12, 1987)
Ronnie Raygun

In the summer of 1987, Congress held forty days of
public hearings on the Iran-Contra affair; during
which time they listened to twenty-eight witnesses
give more than 250 hours of testimony.

The most memorable witness was Colonel Oliver L. North of
the National Security Council (NSC), who had, in violation
of the Boland Amendments passed by Congress in 1984,
directed NSC efforts to fund the anticommunist
Contras fighting in Nicaragua.

The funding had come from a variety of domestic and foreign sources,
including, most controversially, the proceeds of secret
arms sales to Iran. Reagan admitted to having given
acit approval to the Iran arms sales (to bring about
the release of American hostages in Lebanon), and to
the Contra aid (to prevent the spread of communism in
Central America), but denied knowledge of the Iran-Contra
connection or of the scope of the NSC's wrongdoing.
During the congressional hearings, most witnesses,
including NSC head John M. Poindexter, held up Reagan's
passive role in his administration's Iran-Contra activity.

Oliver North was one of the few to directly implicate
the president, but his portrayal of his own conduct
and of the Iran-Contra operation itself as patriotic
and logical did much to strengthen public support for
the administration's well-meaning, if illegal, activities
abroad.

The final congressional report on the Iran-Contra
affair condemned President Reagan for failing in his
constitutional duty and said he bore the "ultimate
responsibility" for the wrongdoing of his aides.
However, the president was not among the thirteen
White House, State Department, and intelligence officials
indicted on charges ranging from perjury to conspiracy
to defraud the United States. North and Poindexter
were both convicted on conspiracy charges, but
eventually had their convictions overturned because
prosecutors had used testimony that they had given
to Congress under immunity.

rightwing@nutty.com wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:04:38 -0700, Bill Bonde <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
> >Clinton had his people lie to Congress under oath to let him wag the dog
> >in the Balkans. You know it. Everyone does.
>
> Not for the REASON, you dense idiot
>
For the duration which is a bit bigger of a deal. And the reason that
Clinton used is much more strongly relevant in Iraq.




> >Reagan didn't lie.
>
> So his testimony before the grand jury contained "no lies", BONDELOON?
>
What lies?


> >Actually, he did. It was yet another wag the dog distraction by Clinton.
>
> No, BONDEFUCK, it's merely YOUR silly shit you've sucked up put out by
> your whipped and beaten rightwing nazis......Named so because you poor assholes were
> being decimated by his superior command of politics and issues, you chump/
>
Clinton was an amazing liar. The Monica stuff though was too much for
most people.



> >> >Saddam has caused the deaths of MILLIONS of people. Why was it vital to
> >> >deal with Milo and not Saddam?
> >>
> >> Then why was your drooling turnip supporting him in the 80's, BONDELOON?
> >>
> >We tried to deal with him to prevent Iraq from being overrun by Iran.
>
> So that when your rat-shit, coke-snorting, idiot needed to have a re-election, character
> building issue, he "decided" not to "deal with him"? BTW, Saddam was NOT "overrunning"
> Iran, with or without our help, you fucking marginal idiot.
>
Iran was going to overrun Iraq. Learn to read.


> The issue is LYING about the reasons, BONDELOON.
>
> WMD in Iraq as a "45 min. availability" and an IMMINENT threat was a fucking LIE.
>
I don't know who claimed the 45 minute availability. We can't know if
that was true or not because Saddam chose not to use WMDs.



> >What are you talking about? We didn't know what Saddam had exactly
>
> Christ, BONDELOON, where have you been
>
> Your moron-in-charge promoted the fact that no further UN inspections could take place
> because of the IMMEDIATE/IMMINENT threat that Saddam had a "45 minute" capability of
> unleashing everything from anthrax to an atomic response"
>
I know you are lying about the atomic response. No one from the
administration claimed that Saddam had nuclear weapons.



--
"So if you want these horses, I sell them to you. Did you bring some
gold with you?"
"Nope."
"Silver?"
"Just lead."
-+John Wayne, "Chisum"

rightwing@nutty.com wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:55:41 -0700, Bill Bonde <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >rightwing@nutty.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 14:54:31 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Jones lied, or at least her case was TOSSED out, Tarverloon
> >> >
> >> >No, Bennett lied before the Court, about a pattern of behavior on the part
> >> >of William Jefferson Clinton III. That lie, under Arkansas Law, as
> >> >practiced in Little Rock Federal Court, was Clinton's own perjury.
> >> >Therefore Jones v Clinton was reinstated and Clinton was refered to the Bar
> >> >and disbarred. Clinton settled with Jones for about 3 times the maximum she
> >> >could have received from the Court.
> >>
> >> You dumb ****, Tarverloon
> >>
> >> Not only are your conclusions silly as shit, but your facts are all wrong
> >>
> >> a) Bennett has no "duty" to prove his Clients veracity one way or other, so even IF a
> >> "pattern" was there, Bennett had nothing to do with it.
> >>
> >> b) A "pattern" of "behavior" has never been legally credible by having "multiple",
> >> single-source allegations lumped together. If that were the case, Anyone could manipulate
> >> a legal suit. The only accepted standard of evidence is multiple sources for every
> >> single claim.
> >>
> >So it is OK to do what Clinton did to those women as long as he only
> >does it one time to each one?
>
> C'mon, BONDELOON
>
> Even you can't put on such a disingenuous stupid act as that.
>
> A Single, un-corroborated allegation isn't worth the paper it's written on.
>
> >> c) The lawsuit was "reinstated" on appeal you ignorant asshole. That merely means the
> >> higer court ruled a "jury", not a single judge was required. Wright accepted ALL of
> >> Jones's testimony and claims and still ruled she lost. Clinton got to present NO
> >> defense, no cross-examination, no rebuttal .........and STILL WON.
> >>
> >Clinton had to pay $700,000. Remember that?
>
> Even a dumb half-wit like you wouldn't pay $2 million for what he can get for $700,000,
> Would you?

But all he could have gotten away with was an apology. Too bad clinton was too stupid to take
advantage of the offer and be done with it. By being a retard, he trashed his presidency. Poor
bubba.

> Clinton didn't "have" to pay anything. He won in a judgment.

Btw, the judgement came down BEFORE clinton wrote the check...but he wrote it anyway. And you
wonder why, Rosell, we laugh at your coconut clinton defenses. Hilarious.

Jim

rightwing@nutty.com wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:53:44 -0700, Bill Bonde <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >rightwing@nutty.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:30:47 -0700, Bill Bonde <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> He didn't lie about why we needed to go to the "balkans", BONDELOON
> >> >>
> >> >The lie was FOR HOW LONG. He claimed a year when everyone knew that was
> >> >a lie. This is fact. I heard his people give testimony and get questions
> >> >by disbelieving congresspersons.
> >>
> >> But that's not deliberate deception for political gain, you fucking moron.
> >>
> >What are you talking about? Clinton wanted to send troops into the
> >Balkans so he fudged about how long they'd be there.
>
> That's not the Reason, you fucking idiot.

It's certainly what he did.

> >> If "everyone knew" staying there for a year was a "lie", then it wasn't a secret, was it?
> >>
> >So it's OK for Clinton to lie because everyone knows that he lies every
> >time he opens his mouth?
>
> CLinton lied less than Reagan, who is considered gawd by conservatives.

You can't defend clinton (don't feel bad, no one can) so you introduce Reagan into the
conversation seeing equivalence. I can't believe what a complete retard you still are.

> You simply cannot apply shitty standards and "principles" that stink like that, BONDELOON

Rosell, the only thing that stinks are you witless, hapless clinton defenses. They're so stupid
they're funny...just like you.

> >> Do you think that NATO (who prosecuted the war) would have said, "okay", go ahead and let
> >> Milosevic kill everyone because we know we won't be out in a year?
> >>
> >Milosevic is a two bit tyrant who couldn't hold a candle to Saddam.
>
> But Clinton didn't lie about why he went there, BONDEIDIOT.

He had no case at all, Rosell. Yugoslavia wasn't a NATO member and it wasn't attacking another
NATO member (NATO charter requirements for using NATO armed forces). Yet he called NATO in
anyway.

> >Saddam has caused the deaths of MILLIONS of people. Why was it vital to
> >deal with Milo and not Saddam?
>
> Then why was your drooling turnip supporting him in the 80's, BONDELOON?

Because he was fighting the Iranians, stupid. It was in our interest then to do so and we did.

> And it's got nothing to do with being a "bad guy", BONDTWAT

Sure it does, stupid.

> The issue is the IMMEDIATE threat of WMD which was a LIE

Wrong. The issue was Saddam's possession, continued acquisition and past use of WMDs. In
addition, it was his refusal to allow weapon's inspectors as well as his refusal to destroy his
WMD stock (both matters already the subject of UN sanctions).

> >> The issue is LYING about the reasons, BONDELOON. There were Militia and paramilitary
> >> groups roaming around as death squads, 300 tanks massed on the border waiting for the
> >> chance to attack any defending units, mass graves, rapes. Those were'nt lies, BONDELOON
> >>
> >> WMD in Iraq as a "45 min. availibility" and an IMMINENT threat was a fucking LIE.
> >>
> >The MILLIONS of dead people in Iraq by the hand of Saddam, the hundreds
> >of thousands taken by his secret police, the torture, the rapes, the
> >mass graves, all that means nothing to you, does it?
>
> That has NOTHING to do with a "45 minute", IMMEDIATE threat of WMD, BONDELOON

See above.

> Stay on task

Practice what you ask of othes. Oh that's right, you can't.

> If the moral imperative was to "rid the world of a bad guy", then why didn't your
> rat-shit, coke-snorting, deserter/moron say THAT was justification enough?

You have to quit talking about clinton like that Rosell. He might cut off your HUD-subsidized
housing that you call home.

> Go ahead, BONDFUCK
>
> Make yourself look more stupid

You're the one (as always) who looks stupid, Rosell. Know why? You ARE stupid.

Jim

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:10:30 -0700, jiml <jiml@nospam.com> wrote:

>> CLinton lied less than Reagan, who is considered gawd by conservatives.
>
>You can't defend clinton (don't feel bad, no one can) so you introduce Reagan into the
>conversation seeing equivalence. I can't believe what a complete retard you still are.

What a fucking moron you are JAKLOON

Reagan LIED.

Either "lying" is bad or it is not.

If only the "lies" by your political enemies are bad, and the ones you agree with are
'good", then there is no ethical or moral principle involved, merely a political
expediency


>> You simply cannot apply shitty standards and "principles" that stink like that, BONDELOON
>
>Rosell, the only thing that stinks are you witless, hapless clinton defenses. They're so stupid
>they're funny...just like you.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The great JAKLOON 'says so" .............which is worth about as much as your ass-wipe
"principles".

>
>He had no case at all, Rosell. Yugoslavia wasn't a NATO member and it wasn't attacking another
>NATO member (NATO charter requirements for using NATO armed forces). Yet he called NATO in
>anyway.

European "peace" is a primary responsibility of NATO. The threat of war affecting Europe
and some of the NATO countries was legitimate.


>> Then why was your drooling turnip supporting him in the 80's, BONDELOON?
>
>Because he was fighting the Iranians, stupid. It was in our interest then to do so and we did.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Then there is no "principle" involved, you fucking loony

Supporting murder, rape, mayhem, is okay to you under some conditions?


>Wrong. The issue was Saddam's possession, continued acquisition and past use of WMDs.

What WMD, you fucking loony?

Show me any.

And, BTW, your rat-shit bastard said unequivocally, that he had IMMEDIATE capabilities to
use them and because of the IMMINENT threat, needed to unilaterally attack.

That was a LIE


>> >> WMD in Iraq as a "45 min. availibility" and an IMMINENT threat was a fucking LIE.

Ahhh, the silence from you is deafening, JAKLOOON.

>
>> If the moral imperative was to "rid the world of a bad guy", then why didn't your
>> rat-shit, coke-snorting, deserter/moron say THAT was justification enough?
>
>You have to quit talking about clinton like that Rosell.

Wow, another deflection.

Answer the question, JAKLOON

>
>You're the one (as always) who looks stupid, Rosell. Know why? You ARE stupid.

And after whipping you day after day that makes you.......what?


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

The Reagan Years:

How Soon We Forget Real Corruption Gleeful charges by Republicans
that Whitewater is comparable to Watergate and that the Clinton
Administration is more corrupt than any recent administration
are ludicrous when compared to the actual record of corruption
in the Reagan-Bush administration and when it is noted that the
charges against Clinton result from goings-on in Arkansas long
before he became President. With Reagan, scandals occured while
he was President. Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Haynes
Johnson's book, "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in
the Reagan Years" (1991, Doubleday), chronicles the U.S.'s
fall from dominant world power to struggling debtor nation
during the Reagan years. Johnson says "two types of problems
typified the ethical misconduct cases of the Reagan years,
and both had heavy consequences to citizens everywhere.
One stemmed from ideology and deregulatory impulses run
amok; the other, from classic corruption on a grand scale."
"By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had
been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject
of official investigations for official misconduct and/or
criminal violations. In terms of number of officials
involved, the record of his administration was the
worst ever." (P. 184).

"Reagan's customary response to instances of wrongdoing by aides
was to criticize those who brought the charges or to blame the
media that reported them." "Three great scandals stained the
Reagan record, and they all involved the age-old form of corruption
formed by the connection between money and politics. What
distinguished them in the Reagan years was the number of buyers
and sellers involved, and the amount of money there was to
be made. The sheer volume of both had multiplied beyond any
previous measure. Nothing better illustrated the problem
than a case that connected some of Reagan's closest associates,
a score of top government officials in several departments
and agencies,