Off topic question

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

HELEN

>I think he could have simply said that even by Clinton's limited definition 

>of sex, Ms Lewinsky's recollections of these events would contradict him, 

>perhaps with a footnote saying she remembers several instances of him kissing 

>her, touching her breasts, and other private parts with a reference the 

>direct testimony which they could have then not released. As I understand it 

>perjury can not be proven if it is merely a matter of he say not A and she 

>says A, there must be a third witness to the actual act that the charge of 

>perjury is based upon. So unless someone walked in on them there can be no 

>legal charge of perjury over these issues. So all the careful descriptions of 

>sex acts was basically unneeded. 

>

>It doesn't relate to this list, or maybe it does, but my whole feeling about 

>Starr was he probably believes pornography should be against the law. Now 

>that it seems he is a devout member of the Church of Christ, Nancy e-mailed 

>me privately that his father was a minister, I am very confused about why he 

>inflicted this unnecessary pornography on us. It would have been pornography 

>if he had given us the same level of detail of Hillary and Bill sex life and 

>that would have been completely legal. He does seem to be partly upset with 

>Clinton for being a sexual creature. Somehow I suspect that the C of C 

>ministers we have had on this list in the past might easily done the same 

>thing if they were in the same place as Starr, but I don't understand the 

>reasoning. 

ACHILLES
Sorry, but I really doubt Starr is doing any of this for "religious"
reasons, and whatever faith he professes I really doubt that he is any more
serious about it than Clinton is. The apparent discrepency between wanting
to outlaw private pornography and wanting to make sure EVERYONE sees the
official stuff is explained by the actual religion both these men subscribe
to, the cult of the omnipotent state. Private gambling is illegal almost
everywhere, but that doesn't mean there is no gambling - the state itself
sponsors the lottery, and encourages wall street style gambling as well. The
illegality of gambling is merely a ruse to supress private competition to
these state-supported versions. Similiarly, private pornography is railed
against, because it dulls the impact when the state publishes pornography. 

The whole supposed conflict between Starr and Clinton, and indeed between
the Republicans and Democrats in general is nothing more than a punch and
judy show - a "pro wrestling" match if you will - to keep the public
distracted from what's really going on. Starr has done a lot more covering
up for Clinton than exposing (which is really no surprise when you realize
that Starr was in fact apointed by Janet "Waco" Reno herself) - Starr
himself worked hard to sweep all the more serious charges under the rug,
coming out in the end only with this pornography - our modern equivelant of
the roman bread and circuses. 

• Previous message: Off topic question
• Next message: Off topic question
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]