Newsgroup: it.fan.startrek
Titolo: Insane Political Rants (was Galactica)

 doing the same thing, and we would deserve it.
The same year Bill Clinton lied about sex with Monica Lewinsky, James
Allchin of Microsoft presented -- in court, under oath, as evidence -- a
faked video in the Microsoft antitrust trial.  He was caught, and it was
unmistakable, undeniable perjury, intentionally planned out in advance
(it takes a while to get a fake video ready).  No one at any time even
suggested that Mr Allchin would face any penalty whatesoever.
Perjury in civil cases is basically never persued.  If Bill Clinton had
been an executive at a Fortune500 company, nothing would have happened.
If Bill Clinton had been a Republican, the Republican majority in
Congress wouldn't have even spoken a whisper about censuring him, let
alone impeaching him.
They postured and propounded as if they were defenders of morality and
integrity of government, but that was even more dishonest than Bill
Clinton's untrue testimony.  They didn't have any principles; they just
had a convenient excuse to attack a Democrat, so they took it.  Had the
situation been reversed, the Democrats would do the exact same thing to
a Republican.
Neither party stands for anything except keeping themselves in power.
Either one would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.
Darren Provine ! 
kil...@elvis.rowan.edu
 ! 
http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"There is no act of treachery or meanness of which a political party is
 not capable; for in politics there is no honour."
                                -- Benjamin Disraeli, "Vivian Grey"


I was the someone else that wrote that, and I stand behind it.  If James 
Allchin really did what you said of course he should have been 
prosecuted, however there is a BIG difference.  As the President of the 
United States Clinton was also Commander in Chief and through his 
surrogates the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
Because of his position and authority that makes his perjury far more 
serious than that of a corrupt businessman.
Jeff DeWitt


 serious than that of a corrupt businessman.
I wasn't talking about what should happen, or even "What does Jeff
DeWitt think should happen?"
I was talking about what *actually* happens, and what actually happens
in nearly every case of civil perjury is "nothing".  You wrote that "any
of us would go to jail", which is just silly.
Darren Provine ! 
kil...@elvis.rowan.edu
 ! 
http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about." -- CS Lewis

Please visit the newly updated 
www.kenlayisalive.org
 (as seen in the
Washington Post), an informative website devoted to tracking the
movements of the "late" Kenneth L. Lay, convicted felon and former CEO
of Enron Corporation.
You may send all of your reports to 
sigh...@kenlayisalive.org
 Americans for Equal Justice is providing this site as a public service
for all of those who demand that Ken Lay and other white-collar
criminals be brought to justice. We welcome and will publish any and
all relevant information on the whereabouts of Kenneth L. Lay.
Americans for Equal Justice strongly suggests that you not only report
your findings to us, but most importantly, to your local news outlets.
Please send any links to news outlets reporting your sightings to our
organization as well.
If you were personally affected by the collapse of Enron or the
California Blackouts, we want to post your story. We at Americans for
Equal Justice would like to make your story available for the world to
read so we may all know the true costs of greed and corporate crime.
Please send your stories to 
infor...@kenlayisalive.org
We here at Americans for Equal Justice feel strongly that the
possibility exists that Mr. Lay, like Hitler, Elvis, and Tupac before
him, has faked his own death in order to avoid any more unwanted public
scrutiny. If this is true, then it is our responsibility as good
Americans to bring this criminal to justice by reporting his
whereabouts to the proper authorities.
Thank you for your support,
Americans for Equal Justice
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001107.html
http://www.wsbtv.com/money/9513207/detail.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/11/blogophile/main1790141.shtml
http://blogs.dfw.com/startle_grams/2006/07/who_knew_that_k.html

Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:

OK, I got curious and dug into this.  Mr. Allchin did testify at the 
Microsoft antitrust trial like you said, and he did present a badly 
cobbled together video, however his testimony did not rise to the level 
of perjury.
Why?  Because he was testifying about the difficulty of separating 
Internet Explorer from Windows and how Windows performance would suffer 
if that could be done.  While the video might have been fake Mr. Allchin 
believes that what he testified was true.
Mr. Allchin got on the witness stand and told the truth as he understood 
it, Mr. Clinton got on the witness stand and lied.
THAT is why Clinton got into trouble for perjury and Mr. Allchin did not.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.12/allchin.html
(scroll down toward the bottom of the first page, where it starts 
"Allchin never sought the spotlight."
There was another point you brought up that I totally agree with.  We 
have far too many people running around claiming that their political 
opponents are evil and traitors.  That not only cheapens the terms but 
then what do call people who really ARE evil and traitors?
An example, I don't much like France but they are hardly evil, however 
the Mad Mullah's that run Iran and that little gargoyle ruling North 
Korea ARE evil.
Jeff DeWitt

Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:

OK, I got curious and dug into this.  Mr. Allchin did testify at the 


Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:

OK, I got curious and dug into this.  Mr. Allchin did testify at the 


Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:

OK, I got curious and dug into this.  Mr. Allchin did testify at the 


 Either one would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.
non vorrei essere inospitale
ma avete anche un tantino rotto le palle,eh?
almeno scrivete in italiano! :D
stop xpost!
mrt^^


Speaking as a non-American- the general view out here in the outside world
watching the whole thing was that the US had gone barmy. What Clinton lied
about was a personal matter- an extra-marital affair- and while that isn't
particularly worthy behaviour, what was incomprehensible was that it was a
matter for the law in any way. Of course it wasn't incomprehensible if you
took into account what was really going on- the Republicans were mounting a
ferocious campaign, turning over every stone in desperation in the hope of
finding something, *anything*, and in the end all they could find was that
Clinton had an affair with an intern, something that most people accept as
pretty routine in the corridors of power. Despite the most rigorous
investigation into a president in modern times, not a single substantive
allegation was shown to have any substance at all- the supposed financial
irregularities evaporated into thin air.
Should he have lied about his affair? Ideally, no. But people who have
affairs lie about them, and in the stultifying puritanical atmosphere of
America, it's quite understandable.
Anyway, it was a matter for the Clintons and Lewinsky- that it was dragged
out into the public eye as it was was the most disgusting, loathsome
behaviour from most outsiders' POVs. Sex is, after all, a personal matter.
I'm not ashamed of anything I've ever done sexually, but I can't say I'd
want one of my exes describing everything in lurid detail while a special
prosecutor surreptitiously rubs himself beneath his desk.
It's hard to see exactly what civil rights Monica Lewinsky was being denied
at any point. Her right to parade a semen stained dress on TV???
All one can say is that while a corrupt businessman might do enormous real
harm- destroying jobs, destroying honest rival companies and so on, Bill
Clinton avoding telling the world about a blow job harmed a sum total of
zero persons. His perjury was utterly inconsequential.
Ian

 it, Mr. Clinton got on the witness stand and lied.
Says you.  Mr Clinton believes it hinges on, as he so famously said,
"what the meaning of `is' is".
A prosecutor who wanted to go after Allchin could and would have done
so, same as for Bill Clinton.  The main difference is that Clinton was a
political target, and Allchin wasn't.
This isn't to *defend* Bill Clinton, or to endorse his (or any other)
political party.  But lots of actions that are technically illegal never
see the inside of a courtroom, because the harm involved doesn't merit
the time or expense to prosecute it.
Clinton's status as a political target made him worth going after, no
matter WHAT the offense, because it was politics, not law, that put him
under the microscope.
Clinton's behaviour, on a number of occasions, has been disgusting,
offensive, and immoral.  But some things that are disgusting, offensive,
and immoral aren't harmful enough to justify spending time and money on.
If you had been given $80million dollars in 1994, and told to spend it
in a way that would benefit the country, is the Ken Starr investigation
the best you could have come up with?
Darren Provine ! 
kil...@elvis.rowan.edu
 ! 
http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"I am convinced that cross-posting is an evil Satanic plot."
                                                 -- Eugene Miya

 zero persons. His perjury was utterly inconsequential.
NOT IN THE EYES OF JESUS!
(at least that's what most people that try to make a big deal out of 
this non-event will try to convince you of. You're spot-on with your 
analysis, especially since the vast majority of those that dscribe the 
Clinton as Earth shattering appear to have cleaned up the driveway 
leading to their own house, themselves - i.e. they have done far worse.)

pretty routine in the corridors of power.
The think that disturbed most people is we expected him to exhibit
better taste in women.
In reality, that whole pudgy whore episode was staged to misdirect
attention from the ensuing Bosnian war. At about the time the whore
shows up, NATO went on a shock and awe campaign to end the
Yougoslavian debacle. The Clinton administration and the military did
not want any criticism of their actions so they staged the fiasco in
the Whore House.
The wild thing is it actually worked, just like magicians use
misdirection to pull off their tricks. After the saga ran its course,
we wake up to the rather amazing fact that the Bosnian affair had
miraculously fixed itself.
-- 
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!


Um, so let's get this straight. According to you Clinton went through all
that, and had an impeachment process started against himself by his
political enemies, orchestrated a reputation-destroying attack upon himself
by an ultra-right wing prosecutor, and they all went along with this
conspiracy to avoid some minor political fallout from a little war in a
faraway country?
Can you send me some of what you're smoking?
I bet you've got proof that a jet airliner didn't hit the Pentagon as well,
right?
Ian

right?
I bet you don't have proof that one did.



It wasn't about a "private affair" (in the Oval Office!), it was about 
Clinton commiting purjury, and it wasn't about Lewinsky's rights, it was 
about Linda Trips, who was suing Clinton for


 was about Linda Trips, who was suing Clinton for
For what? For having an affair. She claimed what? Lewinsky asked her to
conceal Lewinsky's affair with Clinton. Big fucking deal, y'know? Tripp was
hoping for the big bucks, the book deal, the movie even "Meryl Streep as
Linda Tripp!" and a good thing she didn't get any of that. As Lewinsky said,
"I hate Linda Tripp". So does everybody else of good character, too.
Ian
-- 
www.jaxtrawstudios.com
science fiction comics with shagging in