[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Painless, Thomas, Psycho, Starr Wars




> and the video featured Roger stumbling around a boxing ring looking
pretty out of
> it.

Howard:

That's the video all right. I like the album, but it was among Rog's
weakest efforts.

> I bought the dialogue version from Mark when visiting
> Myrtle Beach a couple of years ago, and he did indeed
> give me a good price on it.

Dave:

Hi! I'm glad you were happy with the disc and price! And I should have been
clearer; I have the dialogue version NOT the music only version. Sorry.

> I disagree with Mark on the Clinton stuff, however.

You're not alone!

> bad. However, I'm not happy that a 16-year-old boy is in
> charge of running our country, because IMHO, Clinton is
> acting exactly like a horny teenager who cannot control

I don't think anyone approves of his behavior in that matter, but I also
don't think impeachment is the proper punishment (in fact it's not meant to
punish, but to "protect the country"). Instead, Hillary should have been
the one who to deal with it, unless it affected his job (and I don't see
how it did).
BC is the son of an alcoholic, and if you know anything about that you will
understand why he did it AND why he has trouble admitting anything. For
more insight, get a booklet called "The children of alcoholics" from your
local AA.

> I certainly can't say this is a wrong interpretation, but I do prefer my
> own :-).

Alan:

I can see that. I don't know what prompted me to imagine a violent end,
except perhaps the picture on the lyric sheet which has the buildings torn
down.

> But many can.  I don't see that they should be punished with a loss of
> freedom for the sake of those who lost the gamble.  By that reasoning
cars
> should be illegal.

You're right 100%, in theory. And mostly in practice, IMHO. However, the
unfortunate reality is that some people are unable to use moderation (OK,
Dave, Clinton is one) and therefore must be forbidden things they cannot
control. I don't like it, but I accept it.
But every single law on the books is punishing the innocent for the deeds
of the guilty.

> >I can try! My point is that if all of the above is illegal because of
> >they're harmful,
> 
> I don't believe all-of-the-above are illegal because they're harmful.  Do
you?

No, as you can see I said "if." I believe they're illegal for purely
financial reasons. Usually, when you look closely at the opponents of
something you can see the real reason they oppose it.
After all, it's hard to argue Pot is morally wrong while Liquor isn't. The
"brain cells" argument is misleading, since walking down a city street
kills as many or more, and as for "leading to harder drugs"...that's just
ridiculous.

> I agree, but I come down in favor of legalizing everything, rather than
> criminalizing everything.

That's another approach. I don't know that it would work, but it certainly
fits in with my "survival of the fittest" way of thinking.

> I've seen the videotape, at least of the statement Carolyn's referring
to.
> She has quoted him word for word: "I have never had sexual relations with
> that woman, Miss Lewinsky".

I've seen it as well, about 1000 times now plus the times I've heard it on
Stern, and I remember it being "...a sexual relationship with..." But I
could be wrong.

> net somewhere.)  So you can continue to like the job he's done without
> worrying about that particular asterisk.

I never cared if he lies about this, because it has nothing to do with his
job. When he lies about that, it's another matter. However, I'm sure he has
(as has every President).

> sex life should be investigated in the first place, but since it was, he
> should not have lied under oath.

Sam:

IF he lied under oath, it was ONLY during the Jones testimony. Which was
ruled irrelevant, and therefore not meeting the legal definition of
Perjury. During the Grand Jury testimony, he squirmed and ducked and dodged
but he did not lie.

> (and I don't give a rat's ass how you define sex).

I wouldn't either, except in this case it is the point under which he
either lied or not. The Jones attorneys defined "sexual relations" and the
judge approved it, and by that meaning (purely legal as it is) Clinton did
not have them. However, the GOP is playing on what they hope is the
ignorance of the population concerning legal meanings vs real meanings, and
pretending to be outraged when most of them are lawyers and understand
exactly what went on is to my mind the more outrageous act. THAT is why
they don't want him tried in a court of law after he's out of office;
Clinton would win there easily. They can ONLY get him in a forum in which
it is allowed to create their own rules.