I guess the word of a woman, Juanita Broaddick, combined with Clinton's refusal to deny her claim, is not good enough for you.

Better put some ice on that, Kevin.

I guess the word of a woman, Juanita Broaddick, combined with Clinton's refusal to deny her claim, is not good enough for you.

Correct. Simply put:

Did Ms. Broadderick (note spelling) have any incentive to falsely claim that she was raped by a man who was, at the time she publicized this claim, president of the United States? Would this give her fame and notoriety? Could it lead to financial remuneration of any kind, e.g. appearances on talk shows, or book contracts, or even settlement payments?

Did Mr. Clinton have any incentive not to deny the statement, assuming it was false? Would denying it publicly draw more attention to it, provide fodder for those determined to bring him down, and create the impression of "where there's smoke there's fire"?

You figure it out.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I guess the word of a woman, Juanita Broaddick, combined with Clinton's refusal to deny her claim, is not good enough for you.

Correct. Simply put: Did Ms. Broadderick (note spelling) have any incentive to falsely claim that she was raped by a man who was, at the time she publicized this claim, president of the United States? Would this give her fame and notoriety? Could it lead to financial remuneration of any kind, e.g. appearances on talk shows, or book contracts, or even settlement payments?

Did Mr. Clinton have any incentive not to deny the statement, assuming it was false? Would denying it publicly draw more attention to it, provide fodder for those determined to bring him down, and create the impression of "where there's smoke there's fire"? You figure it out.

What I had a real tough time figuring out was how Anita Hill was called to testify before the Senate Judicary Comittee, during the Clarence Thomas comfirmation hearings, and on national television virtually assainsinated the character of Thomas, with unsubstaniated claims of "sexual harrassment."

The feminists of the National Organization of Women saw to it that Hill got to tell her story to America: a story she told of mere mentions of such harrassing things like talk of "pubic hairs on Coke cans" and porn flicks like Longdong Silver.

No such demands were made of the Senate when it came to not only Broadderick, but other "women" as well, during the Clinton impeachment hearings. No, the NOW gals were nowhere to be seen or heard at all during this public trial.

Which, of course, served to betray the true motives of the feminists and NOW: It revealed for all America to clearly see, that they were first, and foremost political hacks for the Democratis Party. Equal Rights for Women came secondary to ideology and the pursuit of power.

It twas, such a wicked way for the feminazis to die, but for this I do thank Billy Clinton, and that crooked thing named "Willie" he never learned to say no to. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I guess the word of a woman, Juanita Broaddick, combined with Clinton's refusal to deny her claim, is not good enough for you.

Correct. Simply put: Did Ms. Broadderick (note spelling) have any incentive to falsely claim that she was raped by a man who was, at the time she publicized this claim, president of the United States? Would this give her fame and notoriety? Could it lead to financial remuneration of any kind, e.g. appearances on talk shows, or book contracts, or even settlement payments?

Did Mr. Clinton have any incentive not to deny the statement, assuming it was false? Would denying it publicly draw more attention to it, provide fodder for those determined to bring him down, and create the impression of "where there's smoke there's fire"? You figure it out.

What I had a real tough time figuring out was how Anita Hill was called to testify before the Senate Judicary Comittee, during the Clarence Thomas comfirmation hearings, and on national television virtually assainsinated the character of Thomas, with unsubstaniated claims of "sexual harrassment."

Occassionally, you have a point, albeit a minor one. More on that later.

Unlike politicians who run for office, get all their dirty linen fully aired by the media and the opposition and THEN get elected, judicial nominees have a few short public hearing and then receive a lifetime appointment. When and how would you suggest that this information be raised and reviewed?

Oh, and on the minor point: the judiciary committe did a poor job of vetting the witness and managing the process, so both Thomas and Hill got roasted by the counter-partisans on the committe and no one actually learned much.

The feminists of the National Organization of Women saw to it that Hill got to tell her story to America: a story she told of mere mentions of such harrassing things like talk of "pubic hairs on Coke cans" and porn flicks like Longdong Silver.

No such demands were made of the Senate when it came to not only Broadderick, but other "women" as well, during the Clinton impeachment hearings. No, the NOW gals were nowhere to be seen or heard at all during this public trial.

I can't speak for NOW, but the record of continuous Clinton bashing from the early primaries through his last days indicates to me that politics was at play - not justice. Even some honest Republicans admitted that the whole process was more demeaning to them than Clinton. Perhaps the leadership of NOW felt the same. Perhaps they opted for politics, too. One thing is certain, the impeachment was bogus.

Which, of course, served to betray the true motives of the feminists and NOW: It revealed for all America to clearly see, that they were first, and foremost political hacks for the Democratis Party. Equal Rights for Women came secondary to ideology and the pursuit of power.

It twas, such a wicked way for the feminazis to die, but for this I do thank Billy Clinton, and that crooked thing named "Willie" he never learned to say no to. :wink:

You know MArc, if you would just try a better laxative, you might solve this anal retentive problem of yours.

Again, energy spent on the Clinton sex scandals to me shows that some of us at least are still in the 3T. Yes, the conservative faction will be attempting to keep the Victorian morals of the prior cycle alive. The progressive faction is apt to go with the free love approach of the more recent awakening. I suppose some are into that aspect of cultural shift quite sincerely... but there is a strong element of stalemate and stagnation in the dialogue. While the personal scandals are being rehashed, other issues are not being addressed. People are seeing the sex scandals more through personal values than through the lens of cyclical changes.

The more critical element of the Clinton - Bush transition is again that Clinton attempted to ease and resolve spirals of violence, while Bush is escalating the violence, believes use of force can be used to resolve issues and resolve problems. Again, this is reminiscent of the transition from the great compromisers (Douglas, Webster) of the early 19th Century and the abolitionist secessionist generation that brought us into war. One can only attempt compromise so long before the mood and power shifts to those who shun compromise.

The question is whether Bush's preemptive doctrine is a conservative attempt of the establishment to cling to power and privilege, or a positive adaptation to a new era? I very much fear the former. New millennial wars will have to deal with terrorist delivered weapons of mass destruction. Can borders be secured? Can all nations who oppose the establishment be invaded, occupied, and be convinced that they like it? Can the "underlying causes" of terror be left unaddressed indefinitely? Will an "On to Richmond" style use of force to cleanly solve problems without addressing serious social, economic, religious, political and security issues work?

To me, the answer seems quite obvious. To me, arguing about Clinton's sex life might become akin to fiddling while Rome burns... :x

Frogs of all species:

What a situation we have here!

Tittering on the brink of WW III.

Diplomatic riff amongst the most important powers of the world.

Purchase orders for body bags lift plastics stocks on Wall Street.

Most other stocks going down a black hole.

Economy going south like Argentina.

Fuel prices going north like El Nino.

Social security growing more and more anti-socially insecure.

Domestic terror on the rise in the form of peer-raised youth (much scarier than Saddam!).

Religious fanaticism on the rise: ?Jihads, Crusades,? ?under Gods,? ?Revelation,? ?Armageddon,? ?Enron,? ?Martha Steward,? and rap music right out of motherfuckin? slavery.

Amphibians, we are gambling at an Indian casino, somewhere out there where Black Elk croaked, and we don?t even know it. I?ll call it Crazy Horse?s Final Revenge. Oh, yes, and Neil Young recalls it so beautifully in ?Cortez The Killer?:

?HE CAME DANCING ACROSS THE WATER
WITH HIS GALLEONS AND GUNS
LOOKING FOR A NEW WORLD
AND THE PALACE IN THE SUN
?
CORTEZ CORTEZ
WHAT A KILLER.?

And so I must ask you now, my froggie friends: Are you any better off than you were three years ago? Or is it all just as predictable as snow falling on any great Winter of Discontent.

This 4T winter really scares me!

--Croaker

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

And so I must ask you now, my froggie friends: Are you any better off than you were three years ago? Or is it all just as predictable as snow falling on any great Winter of Discontent.

This 4T winter really scares me!

--Croaker

I hate to be contrarian, but I am better off than three years ago. I had just asked my angry, bitter, and depressed ex to move out (and yes, we tried counseling first) and had not bought my townhouse or met the wonderful Kevin Parker '59 (indeed, I was a few months away from discovering the forum), so I am better off.

But I still believe we be 4T. And I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Originally Posted by Jenny Genser

But I still believe we be 4T. And I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Jenny, concerning the other shoe dropping, we may not have much longer to wait, if you've checked AOLNews or Headline News today. As I see it, we MOST DEFINITELY be 4T now. And the start of the Regeneracy may not be as far away as some think. (Perhaps later this year?)

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Frogs of all species:

etc..

Croaker, didn't you know that you should wait at least an hour after eating psilocybin before you're safe to get in the pool?

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

And so I must ask you now, my froggie friends: Are you any better off than you were three years ago? Or is it all just as predictable as snow falling on any great Winter of Discontent.

This 4T winter really scares me!

--Croaker

Croaker, at this particular moment, I am better off than I was three years ago. I'm in better health, and I have a better job.

However, I don't think my financial situation is going to improve, and it's a better than even chance that it will get worse by the end of 2003.

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

Originally Posted by Jenny Genser

But I still believe we be 4T. And I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Jenny, concerning the other shoe dropping, we may not have much longer to wait, if you've checked AOLNews or Headline News today. As I see it, we MOST DEFINITELY be 4T now. And the start of the Regeneracy may not be as far away as some think. (Perhaps later this year?)

It does indeed look as if the other shoe will drop.

The Brits have suggested giving Iraq until March 17 (I heard that directly and live during lunch). France is going to stonewall this--at least that is how it looks. (I heard that driving to lunch).

And it sure sounds like we will go to war in about 10 days. I am basing that on Mr. Bush's talk last night and what Powell said at the UN today (I heard that driving to the bank so that I could get lunch).

And I do think the beginning of the regeneracy is coming...the news today shows how seriously members of institutions are at odds with one another and how ineffective they are becoming.

However, I think there will be lots more small shoes dropping between now and the climax. Iraq is (as others have said more eloquantly than I) like Bleeding Kansas or the Spanish Civil war. This is not the beginning of WWIII.

Is George W. Bush the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? I ask in these later hours.

Well, dang, if I can remember which Roman emperor was warned about the Ides of March. And, ding dong, if I can remember whatever happened to him and his old schumcky empire. Barbarians at the gate, wasn?t it? Gaudy auditoriums? Blowjobs for the senators? Back in the days when slavery was the only decent occupation.. And then didn?t some radical nailbender from Nazareth show up with big claims and start a lot of trouble? About those moneychangers, wasn?t it?

And then this other guy, later, he writes about it. Saint John the Divine, wasn?t he? He reveals more violence than a Hell?s Angel?s brawl at WrestleMania with Marilyn Manson and The Perfect Storm.

And then the seeds from pods of angels, come shrieking out of the sky like bottle rocket?s red glare, bombs bursting in air. Body parts on the ground. Yeah, it scares an old atheist frog like me.

Maybe it?s time to take the psilocybin, or eat a holy wafer, flesh of Christ, Mother of God, George of the Jungle, kiss the earth, and say goodnight.

Goodnight.

--Croak

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Is George W. Bush the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? I ask in these later hours...Maybe it?s time to take the psilocybin, or eat a holy wafer, flesh of Christ, Mother of God, George of the Jungle, kiss the earth, and say goodnight.

Goodnight.

--Croak

And goodnight to you, FrogMaster. If it's to be psilocybin, then all may yet be well .. or appear so, at least.

Maybe appearances are all we get right now.

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

And so I must ask you now, my froggie friends: Are you any better off than you were three years ago? Or is it all just as predictable as snow falling on any great Winter of Discontent.

This 4T winter really scares me!

--Croaker

Scared? Me too. Wish that I could say otherwise, but no I most certainly am NOT better off today than i was three years ago. Three years ago I had stable employment with the State of Washington, I owned my own home, my father was not in the hospital dying and I wasn't worried about my relatives in L.A. being nuked by North Korean filth.

Enough said.

Actually, my family's lives have improved over 3 years.

Me in 2000: I was an unpopular kid in Middle School. I only had a mediocre sense of good fashion, and had the same ugly hairstyle as I had in Kindergarten, when that hairstyle was "in". I also had zits all over my face, and I was getting mostly Cs and Bs on my Report Card.

Mom in 2000: She was working at a company doing secretarial work. The pay was decent but she didn't like the job or some of her coworkers.

Dad in 2000: My dad was working at a company as a production manager, making $40,000 a year. Since he doesn't follow rules to the book, he got in trouble sometimes at work.

Us in 2000: We were living in a small 1400 square foot house that cost $120,000. We could only buy used cars and had to save money. We didn't seem to be experiencing the boom of the 1990s, although we were much better than we were in 1997...

Me in 2003: I have an up-to-date haircut. I wear normal clothes. I'm not unpopular (or popular, but its an improvement). I only have a zit or two on my face. I have a GPA of 3.98 in High School. I'm in a sport now, Track.

Mom in 2003: She is back working in the same career she's had for most of her life. She makes about $5000 less per year, but she likes working there and likes her coworkers.

Dad in 2003: He is back working as a courier, which he has done since about 1991, except for 1999-2001. He makes $60,000 a year. He likes this job much more because there aren't as many rules, and the rules that do exist he can easily follow without incident.

Us in 2003: We are living in a house with 2500 Square Feet that cost $220,000. The yard is 3.5 times as big. We were able to afford a new snowmobile and a new car. We don't seem to be experiencing the effects of the recession at all.

So yes, our lives have improved over 2000, with the real turning point for us being in 2001 when we moved, I started high school, and they got their new jobs.

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Is George W. Bush the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? I ask in these later hours.

And then this other guy, later, he writes about it. Saint John the Divine, wasn?t he? He reveals more violence than a Hell?s Angel?s brawl at WrestleMania with Marilyn Manson and The Perfect Storm.

And then the seeds from pods of angels...

Croaker, being the eldest here, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

What was it Strauss and Howe determined as the chief elder endowment of an Artist generation? Anybody recall the word guilt? Well, Croaker is reeking of it in all that he does, says, and writes. And his guilt contains more destructive power than all the anthrax Saddam could ever dream of manufacturing. Guilt is the opposite of faith, And without faith you are dead.

Cheer up folks, you all just lived during The Greatest Century That Ever Was. And all the whining and complaining and defeatism ain't gonna do a blasted thing to make sure future generations get to enjoy an ever better life than we did.

Now, damn it, get a grip. :wink:

Here's some great news!

Originally Posted by DRUDGE

A report declassified by the UN yesterday contained the revelation that inspectors have recently discovered an undeclared Iraqi drone with a wingspan of 7.45m, the TIMES OF LONDON is reporting Saturday.

US officials are outraged that Hans Blix did not inform the Security Council about the remotely piloted vehicle in his oral presentation to Foreign Ministers and tried to bury it in a 173-page single-spaced report distributed later in the day.

The report also says there is 'credible information' indicating that 21,000 litres of biological warfare agent, including some 10,000 litres of anthrax, was stored in bulk at locations around the country during the first Gulf War and was never destroyed. IMPACTING///

The clear implication would be that the U.S. led coalition arrayed against Saddam will grow as a result of this Blix blax. And as it grows more and more united, the more it becomes possible that Saddam may leave Iraq without a fight!

Cheer up, folks!

Fiddle-dee-dee on a toadstool!

Right now, I'm more scared about Bush's messianic behavior. Jesus!

Don't know where you're hiding out, Lamblet, but there's a whole lot of talk about George of The Jungle actually believing it.

"...Watch out for that tree!"

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Fiddle-dee-dee on a toadstool!

Right now, I'm more scared about Bush's messianic behavior. Jesus!

Don't know where you're hiding out, Lamblet, but there's a whole lot of talk about George of The Jungle actually believing it.

"...Watch out for that tree!"

They really believe this stuff, they really do.

It looks like the Democrats are aligning themselves with the French on this U.N. and Iraq deal. My bet is that you all are undoing yourselves, right now. And with pretty longlasting consequences, too.

Question Croak: Did ya have all these fears about Clinton when he suddenly started showin' up for church, carrying a fifty pound Bible, during the Lewinsky deal?

Or did ya know he was lying. :wink:

Gosh, no, I forgot about that. It changes everthing. Thanks.

What's a little funbling around in the back hallway, up against an important war like this? Honestly!

Clinton's foolishness is nothing compared to the hijinks of your monkey. He think's he's the chosen One to lead us away from The Axis of Evil.

Am I a fool for seeing this emporer in his underware, or worse?

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

And so I must ask you now, my froggie friends: Are you any better off than you were three years ago? Or is it all just as predictable as snow falling on any great Winter of Discontent.

This 4T winter really scares me!

--Croaker

Scared? Me too. Wish that I could say otherwise, but no I most certainly am NOT better off today than i was three years ago. Three years ago I had stable employment with the State of Washington, I owned my own home, my father was not in the hospital dying and I wasn't worried about my relatives in L.A. being nuked by North Korean filth.

Enough said.

But at least you've got a honey. Can't wait until next weekend! Anyway, lets hope that as the 4T deepens, your fortunes turn contrarian and improve. :wink:

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Gosh, no, I forgot about that. It changes everthing. Thanks.

What's a little funbling around in the back hallway, up against an important war like this? Honestly!

Clinton's foolishness is nothing compared to the hijinks of your monkey. He think's he's the chosen One to lead us away from The Axis of Evil.

Am I a fool for seeing this emporer in his underware, or worse?

So what was Clinton doing when he bombed the hell out of Iraq in December, 1998? Making friends with Arabs, or something? Croaker, does the word "metastasize" mean anything to you?

And yes, you, Georgie Anne and the rest of ya are looking pretty foolish, imho.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

It looks like the Democrats are aligning themselves with the French on this U.N. and Iraq deal. My bet is that you all are undoing yourselves, right now. And with pretty longlasting consequences, too.

Well, I found the reason why. This is too much fun! :wink:

From The London Times comes an unlocking of the mystery of why the Democrats like the French position:

The misery of being a French man

March 07, 2003

By Charles Bremner

FOUR decades of feminism have turned middle-class French men into miserable creatures who are intimidated by women and losing their way in an increasingly matriarchal society, a study says.

Men aged 20 to 45 believe that they have paid a heavy price for the social, legal and professional empowerment of women since the onset of the Pill and women?s liberation in the 1960s, according to the analysis for Elle, an upmarket women?s magazine.

?Men of all generations are suffering,? it said. ?They feel diminished, devalued in a society where things feminine are perceived as positive and all-powerful values.?

Men under 35 in particular felt that they were being treated as sexual objects by predatory young women.

I really don?t think America is prepared for The Ides of March.

As a nation we have no real clue to our standing in world opinion, which truly matters. But we are, after all, a nation under God. So who would question THAT? And still we have no clue. We went to the moon on nearly nothing once, but we can?t even shape world attitude anymore fer squat.

Being an American is like having a father everybody hates. They all think he?s a bully, so they hate you, too. Besides, we say our god is better than there?s?everybody?s going to hell ?cept us holy Christians, we say--John 3:16; they?ve heard it all. If you?re a kowtowing Muslim or a down-sitting Buddhist well, ferget it. We know where you?re going. Neener, neener, neener.

And so now we?re going to war?preemptively, too. I?m telling you?America ain?t ready for it. And Saddam is!

Wait ?til they discover that the contents of those body bags are mostly from descendents of old dead slaves and other poor people. Charles Rangel will be counting. And please tell me: How many rich men?s sons and daughters are driving PT boats in hazardous waters these days, or eating sand in their oatmeal to assert our fierce domination all over the globe?

Is it wrong to ask?

I think America is about to write another page of world history. It?s Hollywood, isn?t it? B movie? Phony Western? Definitely bad acting, with too many gimmicks and explosions. What would Ronald Reagan think?

Ha, what do you suppose Bonzo would think?

--Scared Croakless

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

I really don?t think America is prepared for The Ides of March.

As a nation we have no real clue to our standing in world opinion, which truly matters.

Here's a sample. I have no idea how true this is, but it's from the Daily Mirror in London:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews...l&siteid=50143

BUSH: CLAP ME OR NO EU SPEECH
Mar 8 2003

By Paul Gilfeather

GEORGE Bush pulled out of a speech to the European Parliament when MEPs wouldn't guarantee a standing ovation.

Senior White House officials said the President would only go to
Strasbourg to talk about Iraq if he had a stage-managed welcome.

A source close to negotiations said last night: "President Bush agreed to
a speech but insisted he get a standing ovation like at the State of the
Union address.

"His people also insisted there were no protests, or heckling.

"I believe it would be a crucial speech for Mr Bush to make in light of
the opposition here to war. But unless he only gets adulation and praise,
then it will never happen."

Mr Bush's every appearance in the US is stage-managed, with audiences
full of supporters.

It was hoped he would speak after he welcomed Warsaw pact nations to Nato in Prague last November. But his refusal to speak to EU leaders face-to-face is seen as a key factor in the split between the US-UK coalition and Europe.

The source added: "Relations between the EU and the US are worsening fast - this won't help."