.....
Dear Mr. BartCop,
If I read you right, you are out of your
mind with hatred and anger for the Bush's because
Clinton's penis ejaculated and Gore's peninsula
emasculated. Do I read you correctly ?
ha ha
Not sure I would've used that phraseology
This IS your disfunctional attitude and allow
me to explain why you are irrational and wrong
in your anger and hatred regarding these, your
two main issues.
Take your best shot...
1) On Clinton: Lying under oath, regardless
of the relevancy questions of perjury, cuts to the heart
of our justice system. We must demand that witnesses
tell the truth or else we have no justice system.
There must be the harshest possible penalty against
any person who willfully corrupts our most-basic
institution: a fair trial.
ha ha
You think Clinton's impeachment had anything
to do with fairness?
For the chief executive himself to violate our
trust in this way, a person sworn to
uphold and DEFEND every aspect of our Constitution,
for him to do it is absolutely unforgivable.
Were you awake during impeachment? Did you follow
it at all?
There was no reason to get inside Clinton's pants.
This was a coup in progress, and Clinton was doing
everything he could to stay in power, which is
what a fighter does. Maybe you think quitting is more noble?
And so your accusation that the Republicans were only interested in Clinton's zipper is irrational.
One of us is crazy, that's for sure.
Even now, can you explain how Paula Jones is
relevant to Whitewater, which was always a dry hole?
You, like most Americans, forget that the GOP
decided to impeach Clinton, then they looked for a crime.
Neither the Republicans nor the Bush's made him lie.
The entire charade was fabricated by white-supremicists
to punish Clinton for being a friend to the black man.
I'm certain you haven't read David Brock's book.
he points out in clear detail how the entire fraud was created
and nursed and watered and shaped to fit whatever
lies they could get the eager press to print and report.
There was NEVER any wrong-doing, until the Republicans
illegally went after Clinton.
One other thing: Were you as tough on Bush 41
when he committed perjury about selling arms
to a terrorist nation? Or was that "different?"
The nexus for their interest is rooted (excuse the pun...ha-ha !)
Pun? I saw no pun...
...in the insistence of the radical feminists
and liberal democrats to have a law making so-called
sexual harrassment a crime. A law Clinton himself
signed and then broke.
That's horseshit
of the highest order.
You are clearly insane.
To assume that a money-grubbing slut searching
for a Hollywood job has no reason to lie when she's
blackmailing the most powerful man on the planet
is goofy even for a ditto-head. Where is your evidence, Sir?
Your evidence is the word of Paula Jones?
A trailer tramp to whom $20 means a lot?
What a hoot!
Remember the facts: Paula's single witness,
Trooper Ferguson, testified Paula asked if she could
be Clinton's regular whore. This is the woman
on who's testimony your house is built? The woman who
told her family, "Either
way, this smells like money?"
If I'm ever arrested for a serious crime, I hope
you're in charge of the case against me.
Can you grasp the thread leading to his impeachment now ?
You know nothing of Clinton's impeachment.
You must be a stone-cold ditto-monkey, getting
your "facts" from Rush and Fox News.
To continue harping on this topic is irrational. You're wrong.
Let's try it this way:
If a mobster kidnaps your kids the day you are to testify at his trial,
is it wrong to lie?
I say no, because saving your kids is more important than convicting the
mobster.
The entire pretext for getting Clinton was based on a lie and everybody
knew it.
There was no legit reason to ask him about his sex life. The ptretend
excuse was Starr said
he wanted to be sure there wasn't a pattern there, but no pattern ever
existed - they made it up.
He had an out-of-control religious-freak/tobacco whore breaking laws
to unelect the president.
Starr was backed by a crooked court (we saw proof in Dec 2000) and
in those circumstances
Clinton was right to do what he did. To say it's ALWAYS wrong to lie
under oath is the same
as saying "No swimming" when your kid is drowning.
I am not wrong.
Clinton was right to do what he did.
You think a democrat should roll over and quit when attacked?
Well, you'll fit right in with the core beliefs of today's Democratic
party, that's for sure.
2) Al Gore's loss of the election is not Bush's
"fault", per se. He and the Republicans merely played
hardball politics and beat Gore and his thugs
in a cut-and-shoot alley fight, where Gore was shown
to be the sissy-boy that we always knew
he was. There is no provision in our Constitution for the
winner of the popular vote to be elected president,
so the Court's hands were tied. Gore played a
bad game and got beat and he alone should
be blamed for that. Attacking Bush for winning is irrational.
Your man lost because he played badly, no
matter how much cheating was involved - - and both sides
cheat, as you know. To continue beating this
dead horse is irrational. You're wrong.
Since you claim both sides cheated, Bush's victory is legitimate?
Blocking the counting of votes is your idea of Democracy?
You belong in the Bush administration.
Hating someone for beating you is in a way, understandable.
But to fixate on it and feed the hatred
day after day after day is childish. The admonition
to "get over it" is good advice. You should take it.
ha ha
I have no idea how an irrational fool with no
facts and no understanding of recent history
could garner this much ink on bartcop.com
I gotta stop being so nice to the insane.
Many of your friends and readers already have and have moved on.
Oh, really?
Could you provide me with that list?
How are you tracking my friends and readers?
Are you getting help from the Mother Ship?
But then again there's James Carville, Lanny Davis,
Paul Begala, Ron "those-are-our-planes-now" Silver,
Terry McCauliff, and all the other members of
the permanently infantile extreme-left-wing, along with yourself,
who seem to be in a perpetual state of denial.
You are hurting yourselves and your cause by your behavior,
which is, again, irrational. You are wrong.
You seem to think that repeating that which is goofy lens it credibility.
Well, I've got some news for you, Sunshine. Bush stole the White
House, and the majority who voted
against his crooked and ignorant ass have not forgotten and won't be
getting over a goddamn thing.
If not for his best friend Osama, Bush's approval rating would probably
be in the 30's.
Other than that you're doing okay.
ha ha
Besides the gunfire, did you enjoy the play,
Mrs. Lincoln?
You think you can waltz in and declare Clinton
guilty of all charges, then tell me to "get over"
the biggest theft in American history and get
off with an "other than that...?"
Your status as an ignorant ditto-money is secure.
It's a little too late to pretend you make sense.
The economy is a legitimate complaint.
Well, Gee, thanks for that.
I have your permission to say Bush handles the
economy like he handles everything else?
You're far too generous.
To argue foreign policy is legitimate. You
have some other good points to make.
But you should restrict your arguments to
subjects which you can do something about
or else be seen to be irrational....and wrong.
Thats all.
sincerely,
Aaron O
Perhaps you're right, but I would need to be bested by someone who can
build a case.
Until that happens, I'm sticking with the facts I know to be true.
I suggest you work on the foundations of your allegations before you
attempt another attack.
You might try reading Brock's book, "Blinded by the Right."
He tells the story from the inside, and it's the same story I've been
telling for hundreds of issues.
Religiously-insane, gun-toting tobacco whores and white-power freaks
decided to impeach Clinton
long before anyone ever heard the name Monica. Until you accept those
facts, you're hopeless.
You can begin your education here:
.....