Subject: Let the games begin
Bart,
It has occurred to me that back when we had the
"most corrupt administration in American history,"
the Supreme Court made a landmark decision on
the Jones v Clinton case. This ruling, handed down
on such a funky-ass case, established that it
was OK to try a sitting POTUS for allegations of wrongdoing
that occurred before his election. So now
we the people were able to get the wicked evildoer on the
stand and really grill him in public about his
horrible misdeeds. Wasn't this a great thing for America?
Well, now, thanks to the Supreme Court, we still
have that same weapon, don't we?
Despite all the arrogant protestations of the
smirking chimp, his case at Harken was never tried.
It was dropped by the SEC while his dad was President.
Fortunately, too, some angry staffer
at the SEC wrote a letter of apparent disapproval
of this failure of justice, making it clear that
this action (or, more precisely, IN-action) in
no way clears G.W. Bush of anything, and is
no guarantee against future legal actions.
Monkeyboy has been going around accusing those
who think it's time to air this grievance of playing
"old-style" politics (as in anti-Clinton politics).
He is even LYING that he's been "cleared" of any wrongdoing.
Again, he was never "cleared." It is quite
apparent that G.W. Bush committed the crime of insider trading
and lied all over the place about it. The
Supreme Court gave us the tool (Jones v Clinton ) to depose him
in public about it. I say let the games
begin.
..."Well," says the dittohead contingent, "is
insider trading r-e-a-l-l-y a crime?" You bet.
It bothers me a lot more than a blow job -- oh,
wait! -- it wasn't about the blow job, was it?
It was about the lying. Remember?
Exactly.
Like I said: Let the games begin.
--pipe
Pipe - you watch.
This whore court will rule that in THIS case,
the president can't be bothered "because we're at war."
They didn't install this fraud just so we could take him out.
They will protect their boy at all costs, and screw the law.
When the Supreme Court is crooked, there is no justice.
How
to be a right wing pundit in 12 easy lessons
by Matt Osborne
Excerpt:
"And "family" is the RWP's patented formula for
success, because it spins
every part of your agenda into a coherent
whole. In lean times like these,
we can't expect Americans to simultaneously
accept agriculture subsidies
for corporations, tuition vouchers for
creation "science" education, AND more
free-trade agreements unless these things
are all "good for American families."
Today, rub hard and let Steps 6 - 10 soak-in deeply
click
From a reader of the MakeThemAccountable website:
Clothodi
Yes, it's true. Must be. I keep hearing it from right wing types.
In executive suites across the nation, indeed
the world, the word came down.
"We have no choice. We have to cook the books,
loot the company,
lie to our employees and stockholders, lay off
thousands, wreck the economy,
but mostly steal as much as we can.
“We don't want to, but Clinton had extramarital sex so we have to."
How powerful is the Clinton Sex Effect (CSE)?
Will it continue into the future,
forcing poor impressionable CEOs to behave badly?
Does it have a ripple effect
that goes backward in time, thereby explaining
Dubya’s criminal behavior?
Perhaps even the crimes of the Bush I and Reagan
administrations were caused by it.
Can the CSE be harnessed for the good of humanity?
Did I read too many comic books in my youth?
I just don't know.
I'm so old, I remember when the GOP used to squawk about "personal responsibility."
Now they just blame every crime and every failuire on Bill Clinton,
and the self-appointed
morality harpies like Bill Bennett and Laura the Unloved are the worst
of the bunch.
Feedback
on Howie (the Bush supporter) at CNN
by Hoppe
Excerpt:
The truth of the matter, Mr. Kurtz, is
that the SEC, then headed by Daddy Bush's hand-picked toadie
simply neglected to pursue the investigation
(gee, I wonder why in the world not??). Your own paper
has reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15500-2002Jul2.html)
that the
Dallas Morning News has quoted a 1993 letter
from the SEC to Bush's lawyer, Robert Jordan, who is
now the ambassador to Saudi Arabia (gee
I wonder what in the world qualified Mr. Jordan for that job??),
emphasizing that it's decision "must be
in no way construed as indicating that (Bush) has been exonerated."
Speaking of the Dallas Morning Whore, I remember a quote from
their editor from 1998.
The DMW ran a story about a Secret Service agent "walking in
on" Bill and Monica.
When asked if they had any proof or if they'd cite a source, the
editor said,
"We didn't know if it was true or not,
so we ran with the story."
...and that was the day they became known as The Dallas Morning Whore.
But now that the B.F.E.E. is raping the Treasury and executing
"undesireables," with impunity,
everybody is bending over backwards to be extra, extra fair to
the thug who stole the election.
Special Baseball All Star Game Report
Sunday
- Futures Game/Legends Softball Game
by Gary Rehfeltd
I was right.
Yesterday, Rush opened the show with that Howie
Kurtz clip quoting the vulgar Pigboy.
That's why Howie quotes Rush, because he likes to hear his name
on the E.I.B.
Even tho he has to turn whore and praise a fraud to get that
mention, he still does it.
And then he has the GALL to claim he's taking "a critical look" at the media.
Howie, thy name is whore.
Subject: Bush speech
BC,
Yesterday during the press conference Bush was
asked why he has never
addressed the NAACP convention. HIs answer was
something like,
"When I'm sittin' around the table with world
leaders and then I look over and see Colin and Condi."
Some of my best friends are black?
What a fuckin' moron.
Too bad no one asked him about JC Watts.
Eric
There
he goes again...
The vulgar Pigboy earns his name every day.
A non-sheep caller slipped thru Rush's defensive line Monday.
"Rush, you're so upset about this Bush investigation,
but it's just a few thousand.
But you supported the seventy million
dollar Whitewater investigation with Clinton
and that proved to be a dry hole. Can
you explain yourself?"
The answer was classic Rush. First, he said,
"I refuse to answer that because the
host doesn't answer trick questions from liberals."
The caller said, "Sounds like the host
is stumped," and for that, Rush turned off his microphone.
Rush has to be the worst debater in political history (next
to Alan Colmes, of course.)
After he turned the caller's microphone off, he started SCREAMING
like a Dornan.
"Clinton was a scheming, guilty SOB and everybody knows it. Bush is a man of honor!"
Then, sibnce he had no real answer, because the truth would screw
him silly,
Rush went here, asnd I swear to Koresh on this.
"Clinton was getting BJ's in the Oval
Office while our dead Rangers were
being dragged headless
thru the streets of Somalia," he screamed, again and again.
Uh, Rush, do you realize there's a difference between 1993 and 1995?
Somalia was in October 1993, and Clinton met Monica during Newt's
government shutdown
which was in 1995. But since Rush can't debate on the facts,
he just starts lying and he gets
away with it because 1) there's nobody there to correct
him and 2) sheep believe him.
Sidebar: How many times has Rush said Clinton killed Randy Weaver?
Then, the poor bastard kept lying and kept stumbling into self-contradictions:
"The reason we got our head handed to us was
because we didn't go in with overwhelming
force because Clinton doesn't believe
in the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force."
Then, (it was kinda funny) he realized that his idol's daddy
sent those troops to Somalia without
the equipment they needed, so he did what he always does,
he went to a commercial.
ha ha
What a fraud this Pigboy is.
If he was being paid based on accuracy he couldn't earn minimum
wage.
There's a reason why, after six and a half years of searching,
I haven't been able to find anyone who will defend the
horseshit that Rush spews every
day..
...and shame on EVERY political pundit for not calling him on it.
Subject: Juliefest video review
BC - sat down yesterday and watched the
video.
I was surprised at the quality of the video
- very good, with excellent editing.
Carville and Conason were great, as was
Julie herself. It was good to see the number
of people there to support her. Congrats
on a job well done - ya did goodly, Bart.
I hope the Vegas-fest is bigger and better!
MKD
We have some Juliefest2002-DC tapes left.
Please, won't you let one live with you?
Free - with a donation of $25 or more...
PayPal to bartcop@bartcop.com
or
PO Box 54466....
Tulsa, OK 74155
I went to Blockbuster Sunday and almost rented Jay
& Silent Bob Strike Back,
but at the last minute I decided to buy it, instead.
It was the right move.
click to order
There are two CDs, and the second CD consists of outtakes and stuff!
Edition Details:
• Commentary by director Kevin Smith, producer Scott Mosier,
and Jason Mewes
• 42 deleted scenes with intros by Kevin Smith and guests
• The Secret Stash with intros
• Gag reel with intro
• Internet trailers with intro
• TV spots
• Comedy Central's Reel Comedy: Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
• Cast and crew filmographies
• DVD-ROM: Open-mic commentary, screenplay viewer, cast and crew
filmographies,
• Number of discs: 2
I think everyone would agree that Jason Mewes has the foulest
mouth in Hollywood.
It's so unusual to see Jay rehearse lines with 8-10 severe
curse words in every sentence.
Like a lot of things, this is love-it or hate-it stuff.
I'd rate it a "good buy."
One thing, tho...
Eliza Dushku was the real star of the film,
but they don't even show her on the cover.
Doesn't Kevin Smith know how to market a video?
Hey Bart!
Just wanted to send in my deposit for JulieFestWest
2002.
I'm PayPalling you $200 to hold the deposit for:
2 tickets to JulieFestWest 2002
1 (Saturday) night at the Rio
2 $20 fajita bar
2 $38 tequila bar
I can't believe this deal - $485 for two for
an unbelievable night of fun!
This is what fundraisers are supposed to be about
- people having fun
and helping one another in the process! As always,
lot of kudos for thinking
about this and being the conduit for all of this
positive karma.
I look forward to meeting you and Julie in Vegas
in September!
Tom from Michigan!
Tom, we're there, Dude!
...and if you need to, you can do it on the cheap, too.
Subject: The Pledge of Allegiance and flag worship
Personally, I like the idea of "pledging" allegiance
to the country, but I
am not really sure what the flag has to do with
it. Pledging allegiance to
the flag is a military gesture, that has no purpose
except in times of war.
A note of explanation:
The earliest flags were military standards.
Gaius Marius, the Roman general,
forced each element of his legion to carry standards
that the soldiers could rally around.
Instead of carrying totems, like the Celts, he
gradually allowed the centurions and
standard bearers to carry small sails with letters
and symbols on them. The sails
were easier to carry and easier to see.
Since the standard bearer was expected
to lead the group, the standard became a matter
of honor. (The hastati carried
the letter "H". The princepes carried the letter
"P", and the triarii carried the eagle.
The triarii were the oldest and strongest, and
the eagle flag became the most loved,
and most important symbol of the foot soldiers.
As a result the eagle was adopted
as the national symbol of many countries, including
yours truly.)
If the Celts captured your standard, they could
cause all sorts of
disorganization, including defeat. To prevent
this sort of thing, the
Romans pledged that if the standard bearer fell,
they would not allow the
flag to fall into enemy hands, or even to touch
the ground. This was purely
practical. If the flag dipped near the
ground, or came up soiled, the troops
might suspect that it had fallen into enemy hands.
If you suspected that the
Celts had a hold of your flag, then you were
a lot less likely to follow it.
The whole military standard system was very useful,
and with a few minor
changes, remained in use until the invention
of the radio. From time to
time, when the military conquered a whole region,
the king would decide that
the region was a country, and would adopt the
military standard as the flag
for his entire country. This let the citizens
feel that they were on the winning
side of the war effort, and it made the fat kings
feel like they were military men.
Over the years, flag worship became an integral
part of nationalism.
People will say that the flag is just a matter
of "national pride", as if
the seven deadly sins are somehow easier to swallow
if they are preceded by
the word "national". (Maybe I am the one
who is out of touch. "National
Sloth" doesn't seem to be frowned on. "National
Greed" is the motto of the
Republican Party, and it doesn't seem to have
cost them any votes.
"National Gluttony" is a new SUV by General Motors,
and "National Lust" is a
Brittney Spears album. The war against
Afghanistan could is called
"Operation National Wrath", and no one would
have a problem with it. I will
have to think more on that. If "National
Envy" ever gets to be popular,
then I may have to rethink the whole Seven Deadly
Sins angle.)
But let's be honest. Congress has tried
several times to pass laws to put
people in prison for burning and American flag.
That isn't just patriotism,
or even pride. It is flag worship, pure
and simple. When stupid people
defend the flag they think they are being patriotic.
But the flag is just a
symbol. The flag is just a piece of cloth,
and does not need or deserve
allegiance. The country for which is stands
is the important part. But the
same guy who would fight all day to defend the
flag wouldn't cross the
street to defend the right to a grand jury.
The right to a grand jury is in the 5th amendment
to the Constitution. The
Constitution needs and deserves allegiance.
The Constitution is separates
us from Cuba. (Not the flag, the Constitution.)
No one is ever a patriot
just because they pledge allegiance to the flag.
Unless you also pledge
your allegiance to the Constitution, then you
are just a flag worshipper.
People also need to understand the difference
between "pledge" and "swear".
I am uncomfortable with the whole concept of
"swearing allegiance",
especially in the name of God. Virtually
every religion that recognizes
God, prevents you from swearing in his name.
In the Beatitudes, (Matthew 5), Jesus himself
is reported to have said:
(33) "Again, you have heard that it was said
to the people long ago, 'Do not
break your oath, but keep the oaths you have
made to the Lord.' (34) But I
tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven,
for it is God's throne; (35) or by
the earth, for it is his footstool; ... (36)
And do not swear by your head, for you
cannot make even one hair white or black. (37)
Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,'
and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes
from the evil one.
I am not sure I agree that all oaths come from
the evil one, but that is in the Bible.
If you have a red letter edition, then it is
practically highlighted.
A lot of people think the whole concept of God
is a silly superstition.
These people usually don't mind swearing an oath,
because oaths to God are
meaningless to them. To a true atheist,
an oath before God carries less
ideological weight than a handshake agreement.
A true atheist shouldn't
give a rat's ass whether God is mentioned in
the Pledge of Allegiance or not.
I don't necessarily think the whole concept of
God is stupid. I just don't
think it should be in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The concept of God, in
fact, is so complex that two people rarely agree
on the exact nature or
definition. Some of the understandings
are pretty sophisticated, and many
are very personal. It is unfair to dismiss
all of them. Many people have a
relationship with God that has nothing to do
with what "everyone else" needs to do.
But when you say that we are one nation "under
God", you are implying that
all of our power comes from a divine being, or
that all of our resources
should be put at the disposal of that being.
It sounds fine in theory, but
in actual practice, we always end up with kings,
judges, Pharisees, or
attorney generals telling us what "God's will"
is for each particular
circumstance. Our constitution recommends
a separation of church and state,
and, incidentally, so does the new testament.
In Matthew 20, and again in Mark 10, Jesus hinted
that God didn't want his
followers running things: "You know that those
who are regarded as rulers of
the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high
officials exercise authority
over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever
wants to become great among you
must be your servant, and whoever wants to be
first must be slave of all,
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served,
but to serve."
The followers were upset by this. They thought
Christians should be rulers
and Attorney Generals. At absolute least,
they thought they should be above
the law, and that the state should give them
special treatment. But Jesus
repeatedly made his point of view clear.
In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus
insisted: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and
to God what is God's."
The bible goes on to say what is important about
this quote: "They were
unable to trap him in what he had said there
in public. Astonished by his
answer, they became silent."
Lots of people were astonished. At the time,
you could hardly cross the
street without having to pledge allegiance to
the Emperor, the governor, or
some other such temporary jackass. Virtually
every one of the other "new
messiahs" that came along demanded an oath of
loyalty. Jesus didn't figure
oaths were worth very much. It is no accident
that oaths and pledges play a
very small role in the teachings of Jesus.
But, of course, they played an
increasingly large role in Rome.
At the height of the Roman Empire, members of
the military were required to
swear loyalty to the Emperor. At first,
the pledge included the same
complex addendum that we use today when we take
an oath of office. (They
said "Sic [me] deus adjuvat", or roughly,
"so help me God". Later, the
Emperor demanded to be worshipped as a God, and
the oath to the Emperor
became a lot more simple.) Virtually
everyone swore an oath to defend
Rome, but Rome is long gone. Hardly anyone
spoke an oath to defend
Christianity, but Christianity is still going
strong.
In case anyone is interested, the Constitution
does not contain the "so help
me God" part: Article II, section 1 of
the Constitution says: Before he
enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall
take the following Oath or
Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will faithfully
execute the Office of President of the United
States, and will to the best
of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United
States." The other part is usually added
by the person taking the oath, but
it isn't in the Constitution.
It isn't in the Bible, either.
Jesus understood that all men are fallible, and
didn't want governors
interpreting the will of God for their subjects.
Even if the religion were
flawless, the implementation is subject to the
same greed and mismanagement
as government. Islam, as represented in
the Koran, for instance, is a
complex code of behavior that defines the human
responsibilities for justice
and mercy. As taught in the schools, it
is a dress code for women.
Christianity, as represented in the book, is a
collection of stories and
letters teaching that love is not just about
faith, but also forgiveness and
tolerance. As represented in the schools,
it is a code of behaviors,
including the rote use of the word "God" in an
outdated Pledge of Allegiance
to a flag. Ethics are mentioned in schools,
in passing, but like Islam,
they are not given the attention they deserve.
Is that what Christianity and patriotism have been reduced to?
I am a Christian. I believe that God is
the ultimate source of all truth,
all justice, all mercy, and all power.
But the people who corrupted
Christianity and Islam have no place running
our country.
I am also a patriot. I get all misty eyed
when I think of all the good
things America has done. We fought Nazi
aggression, we stood up to the
Soviet Union, we put a man on the moon, and through
it all we cared enough
to feed the millions of poor and care for thousands
of mentally ill.
Who is it that is telling me now that to be a
patriot, I have to pledge
allegiance to a flag? Who is telling me
that to be a Christian, I have to
say "One nation under God", instead of "One nation"?
These people don't speak for me.
