eve Posted July 12, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 203 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/19/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted July 12, 2004 Interesting article - Hollywood's useful idiot: Michael Moore's jihad against America http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_4299.shtml ................................................................................ ..................................... (On Bill Clinton) From: http://www.rfsafe.com/tributes/modules.php...ll+clinton#5384 Character Counts Period! It's what we teach our children and at the very least Americans have the right to have a President with the highest moral standards! He's an example for us all. Big Deal you say!!! EXAMPLE: IF CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE 8 YEARS AND WENT AFTER TERRORISM SO FERVENTLY, WHY IS IT MOST AMERICANS HAD NO IDEA WHO BIN LADEN & AL QAEDA ARE? YOU'D THINK THAT IN 8 YEARS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF SUCH VILE CREATURES WHO THREATENED OUR BELOVED COUNTRY AND HATED US SO MUCH! THANKS FOR PROVIDING FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE OF AMERICA!!!!! "PERHAPS IF PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS IN THE OVAL OFFICE DOING THE JOB ALL AMERICANS WERE PAYING HIM TO DO INSTEAD OF THE HALLWAY GETTING A "JOB". HE COULD HAVE DONE MORE TO PREVENT 911 FROM HAPPENING. I'D SAY CHARACTER COUNTS PRIVATE OR PROFESSIONAL, I'M PRETTY SURE MOST OF THE VICTIMS OF 911 WOULD AGREE" OH AND HERE'S A LITTLE INFORMATION FOR ANY FUTURE PRESIDENT; YOU WILL LIVE IN THE WHITE HOUSE, THE MOST REVERED HOUSE IN AMERICA, HELD TO THE HIGHEST STANDARDS, HONORS & TRADITIONS. "IT'S NOT A BROTHEL, I REPEAT, IT'S NOT A BROTHEL." RESPECT IT OR GET OUT! GOOD RIDDANCE CLINTON TOO BAD THE IMPEACHMENT THING DIDN'T WORK OUT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The mainstream media had no interest and was FORBIDDEN in the bombshell allegation: Clinton RAPED a 14 yr old girl high on COCAINE!!!!! As told to Lambert, the 14-year-old was rendered unconscious by a deliberate overdose. When she came to she was half-naked, with the governor of the state of Arkansas on top of her. The incident is said to have happened in 1984, at a party hosted by then-Little Rock bond dealer Dan Lasater, who later went to jail for supplying cocaine to underage girls. In exchange they were supposed to agree to have sex with men he invited to his soirees. By numerous accounts, Lasater was one of Clinton's closest associates in the 1980s. According to Lambert, the young assault victim fled Arkansas when Gov. Clinton won the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination. The private detective, along with several reporters, traced the woman to California. After a stakeout that lasted several days, they concluded she had been tipped off and fled town, never to be seen or heard from again. When investigator Lambert first revealed his story about the elusive 14-year-old to NewsMax, Bill Clinton had just been acquitted of Sexgate impeachment charges. But unlike the story of JFK's intern, the mainstream media had no interest in the bombshell allegation. Now that reporters have chased down Mimi Fahenstock in a thinly veiled attempt to repair Bill Clinton's image, it's worth remembering the story about the president and the teenager they weren't interested in telling Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Miss America 1982, told the Toronto Sun on September 17, 1998, that Clinton had threatened her and her family and had her house staked out. She said she feared for her life. On NBC's Dateline, Gracen admitted that she had had sex with Clinton but tried to stay out of the US for fear of Clinton. Her story is evolving - she told the Toronto Sun, "I couldn't have told you this a month ago." Her hotel room has been ransacked by someone who left a Rolex watch and two thousand dollars alone. A friend told Jones lawyers that Elizabeth had broken down in tears in the mid-1980s when she talked of the incident with Clinton. Judy Stokes said Gracen was in tears when she described Clinton's approach in the back seat of a limo and revealed that the sex they had was something Gracen "did not want to happen." Gracen told Michael Isakoff of Newsweek (see his book UNCOVERING CLINTON) that Clinton had severely bitten her lip. She revealed that long before the Broaddrick interview and it is documented in his new book. Gracen had been married at the time. Gracen has steadfastly avoided testifying under oath about it. If she says it was consensual, why does she avoid saying that under oath? What's the problem? The White House reaction to Gracen's Dateline interview is interesting. If they were so worried that she would finger Clinton in a consensual relationship, taking the extraordinary measure of surveiling her every move -- then why the nonchalant reaction when Gracen finally said the encounter was consensual? (as opposed to trashing her as they had every other woman from Flowers to Jones) The logical inference is that they were afraid she would say something else. (When Clinton admits to raping women, the feminists will decide he is entitled to one free rape per On April 25, 1978, Clinton invited himself to her Little Rock (Camelot) hotel room, allegedly to discuss her nursing home business. There was another woman at that hotel that day, a nurse and friend of Jane Doe No 5, Norma Rogers-Kelsay, who says she iced her friend's face immediately after Clinton raped and beat her. In a telephone interview with NBC News aired March 28, 1998, Kelsay said Juanita was 'distraught' and in 'quite bad shape,' her 'lips were swollen, at least double in size.' She told me they had 'intercourse against her will.'" Kelsay told Foxnews on 2/2/99 - "(Broaddrick) was hysterical - her lip was blue and bleeding and her hose were severely torn in the crotch area..." NBC's Lisa Myers reported (3/9 that Broaddrick, now 54, recently denied under oath that such an assault occurred. But Jone's lawyers claim she had told their investigator that she had suffered a quote 'horrible thing' at the hand of Clinton, and did not want to relive it. "You know, it was just a horrible, horrible thing for me, and I wouldn't relive it for anything." She told them it had 'turned her life upside down.' And NBC News has talked to four other people from Arkansas who say Broaddrick told them of such an assault years ago. Broaddrick, who calls Clinton "a cold bastard", told the NY Post - "If my husband had his way at the time he would have killed him." "If as governor of Arkansas he had not been so well-protected, I shudder to think what my husband would have done or what would have happened." After very brief small talk, Mr. Clinton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted July 12, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 86 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 624 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 12, 2004 I fail to see what any of this has to do with Michael Moore. Everyone knows Clinton was a crook, and personally I think he should currently be rotting in prison, but most of what I read had to do with Clinton. Read This: July 4, 2004 NEW YORK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodSamaritan Posted July 12, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 146 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/10/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 12, 2004 My question is why would you waste such time and effort on Bill Clinton? He's 4 years out of office and irrelevant to the current political landscape. Oh, there will be many who will try to turn him into the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan but they will fail. I would seriously question much of the information you posted but, in reality, it means nothing to me. Clinton made our nation weaker and morally worse, IMO. Bush has not raised us up nearly enough and Kerry will plunge us further because he has no regard for human life. Michael Moore is to the democrats what Rush Limbaugh is to the right--an addictive, sweet tasting but utterly unredeeming mass of rhetoric and partisanship. Politicians are impotent because they have no clue what authority the Constitution affords them. I'd venture a guess that all have read it but a precious few did so with zeal, understanding, and conscience. It's our duty to provide them with the political will to drive this thing we call a Republic efficiently and effectively, not into a ditch and stalling it time after time. Focus your attention to the present. Clinton is gone but there are many like him just waiting to enter the Democratic machine. GS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eve Posted July 12, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 203 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/19/2002 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 12, 2004 I put the below link but I guess it wasn't conspicous enough LOL. Anyway, I meant this link, regarding Michael Moore, thus the title of this thread:- http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_4299.shtml (In the above link, there was a line that states how some media were...."glossing over Bill Clinton's adulterous and extremely graphic sex life......", hence the reason I excerpted the above post on Clinton sourced from a different link) More on Michael Moore and his movie:- http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns...col20040701.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted July 12, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 86 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 624 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 12, 2004 I've read plenty from from the left and right either supporting or condemning Michael Moore for his film, yet neither side seems to want to address the issues he has put forth in his film. The right refuses to answer any of the hard questions he asks and the left does the same. While I don't agree with Moore on a lot of subjects, he's spot on when it comes to the "War on Terror" and the war in Iraq. I'd like to hear a reasonable explaination why the war in Iraq was justified, especially in constitutional terms. I've yet to see anyone disprove anything Moore put forth in his film. While it was a politically slanted film, I've seen far worse come out of both political parties. Both sides seem far more interested in slinging mud than they do at addressing and solving our issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Both sides seem far more interested in slinging mud than they do at addressing and solving our issues. Now you don't need Michael Moore, Kennedy, Clinton (Hilary), Kerry or other liberals to think for you because you can create your very own conspiracy in minutes! George Bush Conspiracy Generator! http://www.buttafly.com/bush/index.php ============================= I honestly...and with all truthfulness and objective analysis only see one side "slinging mud" Democrats (for the most part) have done nothing but lie, imply, accuse, and impune George Bush and yet have not a shred of evidence that he is like them. When that bounces off of him they start on any person in his administration. When that bounces off they start on the military. When that bounces off they start back on Bush with a new lie/accusation/implication. All they can say is that they hate him....but can't give a factual basis for this except he represents a view that is very different from theirs. On the other hand, Republicans (for the most part) are being deed specific about the actions of John Kerry. The sheer amount of material he gives us is overwhelming! Most Americans are closer to Bush's views and you will find that out in November if you don't know it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Way Posted July 15, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 728 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/10/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 15, 2004 I've read plenty from from the left and right either supporting or condemning Michael Moore for his film, yet neither side seems to want to address the issues he has put forth in his film. The right refuses to answer any of the hard questions he asks and the left does the same. While I don't agree with Moore on a lot of subjects, he's spot on when it comes to the "War on Terror" and the war in Iraq. I'd like to hear a reasonable explaination why the war in Iraq was justified, especially in constitutional terms. I've yet to see anyone disprove anything Moore put forth in his film. While it was a politically slanted film, I've seen far worse come out of both political parties. Both sides seem far more interested in slinging mud than they do at addressing and solving our issues. Great summation, Steff. I couldn't agree with you more. Do I like Michael Moore... not particularly. But, that isn't the issue. I've been made privy to the issues that Moore puts forth in Farenheit 9/11. You should check out www.infowars.com Farenheit 9/11 is just the footnotes. www.infowars.com and Alex Jones' video 9/11, The Road to Tyranny is the encyclopedia. But, as long as the People continue to put all trust in their benevolent government, who wants nothing more than to see us all smile, they will get their way. Why is it such an unbelieveable concept that the government would attack, or allow an attack, on its own people for their own gain? Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen. Even the History Channel admits this now. Why? Because FDR needed a dastarly deed committed against the US for the people of the US to endorse getting in to the war. Why is it such a far cry to imagine the same thing could have happened here? Look at what happened to Bush's approval rating immediately after 9/11. And look at what we've done since. We've paved the way for the pipeline through Afghanistan, ummm. I mean we've conquered the "Taliban," we've take out Saddam, because we *know* he had WMDs.... yet we cannot find them. BTW, so what if he had WMDs. We have WMDs. Russia has WMDs. Many nations have WMDs. Why aren't we invading them? Oh, because it was for "the innocent Iraqi people." Well, last I checked there was plenty of persecution and inhumanity in the Sudan and in China. Guess what, China has "most favored nations status." Why? Money. Just like the "war on terrorism." OK... enough with my rant. :sweating: :sweating: :sweating: If anyone wants a copy of 9/11, The Road to Tyranny on DVD, PM me and we'll take care of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 oh bruuuuuthaaaaaaa Anyone who doesn't know the factual errors of this Communist propoganda film is intentionally blind with their eyes sqeezed shut. It takes about 15 seconds to find out.....why not try? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted July 16, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 86 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 624 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 16, 2004 Why don't you explain it to us then Yod? How it a communist propaganda film? Explain to me why the War in Iraq was necessary as granted by the constitution, and why the govenment has to put laws in place to watch its own citizens? Read the constitution and you'll find there isn't any justification for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 Why don't you explain it to us then Yod? 1. I don't believe you want to know the truth or you would already. 2. It is easy to find the truth if you really want it. 3. My experience with Bush-haters is that they only want to muddy the waters. Why should I do all the work of explaining the facts to them? How it a communist propaganda film? Michael Moore is a communist. Explain to me why the War in Iraq was necessary as granted by the constitution, and why the govenment has to put laws in place to watch its own citizens? Read the constitution and you'll find there isn't any justification for it. The President of the United States is THE leader against foreign threat. That is why they call him "Commander in Chief". I'm not sure if you were watching the news on September 11th, 2001 but we were attacked and many people died. Our enemy has been hiding in state-sponsored camoflauge for over 50 years and we have been impotent because of the political risk it would take to go after EVERY NATION who harbors/trains/supports terrorists who have already declared jihad against us. Bush was extremely courageous to decide our course based on right/wrong instead of legal/illegal issues. This is why liberals hate him. He can do nothing without Congressional approval....which Bush got overwhelmingly. The only reason you hear complaints out of the Democrats now is because this is an election year and they can't get any traction for their candidate. All the noise will stop once Bush wipes the floor with Kerry. I can hardly wait for December.... If John Kerry really thinks we shouldn't be in Iraq, then let him SAY SO! I'm sure he's taken both sides of the issue a few times already... But he'll lose in a huge landslide if he ever hints that we should pull out...... But take note that he hasn't...and won't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts