Karma catches up to Mayor Daley

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message news:HtCdnfj-

Oh come on, Trent Lott is proof Republicans police their own.

Come on, Mr Tarver!!! I'm a Rep, but I think Trent Lott is proof of only two
things: A) some people stay really, really, stupid no matter how much
experience they have; and B) hair spray works.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message news:HtCdnfj-

Oh come on, Trent Lott is proof Republicans police their own.

Come on, Mr Tarver!!! I'm a Rep, but I think Trent Lott is proof of only
two
things: A) some people stay really, really, stupid no matter how much
experience they have; and B) hair spray works.

Juat saying something as stupid as Lott did will get you out of the Senate
Majority Leader's Office.

When Byrd said something stupid, it was not a problem.

In article ,
Tarver Engineering wrote:
Come on, Mr Tarver!!! I'm a Rep, but I think Trent Lott is proof of only
two
things: A) some people stay really, really, stupid no matter how much
experience they have; and B) hair spray works.

Juat saying something as stupid as Lott did will get you out of the Senate
Majority Leader's Office.

When Byrd said something stupid, it was not a problem.

Byrd has said a LOT of stupid things and people (most people) let it
slide. When a rep says something stupid about race it's normally front
page news. I think both parties are fairly corrput but the dems seem to
get away with more stuff. Mostly because they are more 'well liked' by
the media and people that normally complain about such things, IMHO

On 2004-02-07, John Gaquin wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message news:HtCdnfj-

Oh come on, Trent Lott is proof Republicans police their own.

Come on, Mr Tarver!!! I'm a Rep, but I think Trent Lott is proof of only two
things: A) some people stay really, really, stupid no matter how much
experience they have; and B) hair spray works.


I'm hoping your critique of Lott stems from his inability to get
anything done as Majority Leader, not for a casual remark at a birthday party.

If stupid comments or acts while not on duty are the criteria then
Robert "Sheets" Byrd (Tip O'Neil's characterization, not mine)
should get at least first runner up for playing a Confederate General in
"Gods and Generals."

I mean, hello! Regardless of what you think of Confederates
(I happen to believe in states rights) shouldn't the only member of the Senate
and (previously) the KKK be a bit more convincing about his rehabilitation?

For second runner up I nominate Senator Clinton for referring to Gandhi as
car wash attendant. Presumably no Democrats called for her removal because
Indians (as opposed to Native Americans) don't deserve Minority Protection.

"Doug Carter" wrote in message

I'm hoping your critique of Lott stems from his inability to get
anything done as Majority Leader, not for a casual remark at a birthday
party.

C) All of the above

If stupid comments or acts while not on duty are the criteria then
Robert "Sheets" Byrd (Tip O'Neil's characterization, not mine)
should get at least first runner up for playing a Confederate General in
"Gods and Generals."

Senator Byrd has said so many silly things on the Senate floor, no one
notices unless and until he actually says something reasonably intelligent
before he retires.

For second runner up I nominate Senator Clinton for referring to Gandhi as
car wash attendant. Presumably no Democrats called for her removal
because
Indians (as opposed to Native Americans) don't deserve Minority
Protection.

Very few people in Washington who are not Very High Profile dare seriously
cross swords with the Clintons. There are well over a hundred people
associated with the Clintons over the past twenty-five years who have done
so, and subsequently died in violent or questionable circumstances. I've
walked this earth for almost 60 years, and other than friends who died in
combat, I only know one person who died violently (car+booze), and none in
questionable circumstances.

"John Gaquin" wrote:
Very few people in Washington who are not Very High Profile
dare seriously cross swords with the Clintons. There are well
over a hundred people associated with the Clintons over the
past twenty-five years who have done so, and subsequently
died in violent or questionable circumstances.

I personally dislike the Clintons, John, but I just can't let this pass
unchallenged: are you seriously contending that they are complicit in
mass murder, and that many people in Washington fear to criticize them
for this reason?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"John Gaquin" wrote:
Very few people in Washington who are not Very High Profile
dare seriously cross swords with the Clintons. There are well
over a hundred people associated with the Clintons over the
past twenty-five years who have done so, and subsequently
died in violent or questionable circumstances.

I personally dislike the Clintons, John, but I just can't let this pass
unchallenged: are you seriously contending that they are complicit in
mass murder, and that many people in Washington fear to criticize them
for this reason?

Complicit, or circumstantial?

It could be that they merely run with a dangerous crowd. That crowd, to
protect it's base, could infer a complicity that isn't really present.

On the other hand, a bunch of presents under the tree on Christmas morning
IMPLIES Santa Claus, but ....

Recall that in the entire history of gangland murder, prosecutors were never
able to directly pin a murder to an order of the mob bosses. They know how
to avoid such blatant directness.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message

.....are you seriously contending that they are complicit in
mass murder, and that many people in Washington fear to criticize them
for this reason?

I can make no unequivocal accusation, because there has never been broad
documentary evidence to provide hard linkage, but certain points hold true:
A) the circumstances I've described are a matter of public record. B) I
stopped believing in repetitive coincidence many years ago. What you (or
anyone else) believe is up to you. When the same type of thing repeatedly
occurs around the same group of people, only a blind man would fail to make
some connection.

How many people in your circle of acquaintances, Dan, have died in such a
manner? Ten? Thirty? Count 'em.

"John Gaquin" wrote:
I can make no unequivocal accusation, because there has never been
broad
documentary evidence to provide hard linkage, but certain points hold
true:
A) the circumstances I've described are a matter of public record.

Interesting. Is there a site where these collected records may be
viewed?

How many people in your circle of acquaintances, Dan, have died
in such a manner? Ten? Thirty? Count 'em.

Fewer than twenty that I can recall offhand. Nevertheless, to kill so
many people whom the Clintons found objectionable would require a
conspiracy that was ruthless, marvelously efficient and 100% leakproof.
The last item is the achilles heel of many conspiracy theories. For
instance, consider the theory that Flight 800 was shot down by the U. S.
Navy. The idea seems at least superficially plausible when one hears the
eyewitness accounts that support it, but imagine the sheer number of
people who would have to keep absolutely silent to cover up such a
thing.

The idea of an airtight cabal capable of murdering a hundred people in
complete secrecy - and making most of the murders look like accidents -
strains my credulity to the breaking point. Plus, I just don't think the
Clintons could be that good at *anything*. Still, I'd like to read the
record.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"John Gaquin" wrote:
I can make no unequivocal accusation, because there has never been
broad
documentary evidence to provide hard linkage, but certain points hold
true:
A) the circumstances I've described are a matter of public record.

Interesting. Is there a site where these collected records may be
viewed?

How many people in your circle of acquaintances, Dan, have died
in such a manner? Ten? Thirty? Count 'em.

Fewer than twenty that I can recall offhand. Nevertheless, to kill so
many people whom the Clintons found objectionable would require a
conspiracy that was ruthless, marvelously efficient and 100% leakproof.

Consider the history of prosecutions of gang leaders in the last 50-75
years...and that's with the prosecutors pulling out all stops.

The last item is the achilles heel of many conspiracy theories. For
instance, consider the theory that Flight 800 was shot down by the U. S.
Navy. The idea seems at least superficially plausible when one hears the
eyewitness accounts that support it, but imagine the sheer number of
people who would have to keep absolutely silent to cover up such a
thing.

Whole different context in terms of numbers. Criminal conduct is, be
necessity, restricted to very few numbers. Consider, too, how many people
jumped off an ethical cliff to protect Bubba.

The idea of an airtight cabal capable of murdering a hundred people in
complete secrecy - and making most of the murders look like accidents -
strains my credulity to the breaking point.

It does mine as well, but the lack of scrutiny tends to overwhelm that
credulity.

Plus, I just don't think the
Clintons could be that good at *anything*. Still, I'd like to read the
record.

If you do, take note of how many "incidents" got a very quick pass over.