Posted on 10/10/2001 6:15:46 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
I'm with AmericainCanada on this one. What in the world is this about. Is there a thread here on FR about this?
Where possible he should name names and provide intricate details. The lady with the binder seems a good place to start. I'd sure like to get a load of what she's actually got.
Sorry we couldn't agree on this one right now, but who knows, we may come together on it later on.
Thanks for the comments. I wish you well.
Well, I, for one, can tell you that I learn something new practically everyday about the Clintons that I didn't know in 1998 and beyond. Believe me, I have had 20 plus years of dealing with them and it just never ends. So don't be too swift to start making up your mind on that reason alone.
But that's not the real issue here -- the question is, what have you learned about them since 1998 that has changed your mind about whether or not you would vote for him again?
So don't be too swift to start making up your mind on that reason alone.
That would be a valid point, except that I have not made up my mind for one reason or another. I am simply providing reasons for my suspicions about him, based not on one reason or another, but on a combination of several reasons.
The questions nobody has answered is: "Where were all these experts and sources of inside information on September 10th?"
By Edward Zehr
The question is being asked by many thoughtful people: "Is this guy sick, or what?" The secrets contained in those documents provided by the independent counsel that were so persuasive to wavering members of the House who viewed them at the Ford Building before voting to impeach President Clinton are leaking out. They paint a picture of a president with severe psychological problems. What was in those documents that left congressmen "horrified", according to Rep. Chris Shays, and "nauseated", in the words of Rep. Mike Castle? (Shays was able to keep his "horror" sufficiently under control to vote against impeachment and subsequently introduce a constitutional amendment that would allow the president a third term). NBC presstitute Tim Russert reportedly let it be known that watching the full five hours of the uncut Juanita Broaddrick interview had made him "physically ill," though obviously not so ill that he thought to mention it on his talking head "news" show the following Sunday. (It's only about sex, you know). What is it about President Clinton's "private" behavior that has such an emetic effect upon pols and press alike?
*snip*
Published in the Mar. 1, 1999 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1999 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)
==================================
You can find more in a concise keyword search if you so desire.
I read an interview and would like to find it again. Anyone have a link?
22cal
I would like to introduce you to a concept called capitalism.
Please, read up on it.
In a capitalist system, goods and services are bought and sold in a free market, and the producers are compensated according to demand for their output. Of course the producers take the risk that there will be sufficient demand such that their expenditures are recovered and that profit will be generated. Generally, the quality of the output is directly proportional to the output.
I hope this helps.
One thing you forgot to mention is that in a capitalist system, a producer who markets an item under false pretenses is guilty of fraud, though admittedly this does not seem to apply to the publishing industry these days. My original post is not an attack on David Schippers for writing a book, but a series of points about the veracity of his claims. While there is nothing wrong with writing a book for the purpose of generating a profit, you might want to ask yourself why someone who allegedly has all this inside information about terrorism hasn't come forward with it before now, when doing so may have saved many lives.
See post #22 in this thread for some clarification. I hope this helps.
I agree. You make my point. I am sure Schippers, being a former prosecutor, knows the law as well, and would not violate it. He has a ton to lose.
There was a case on Long Island, New York several decades ago in which a family that purchased a house filed a civil suit against a publisher or movie producer. They claimed that the book or movie rendered their home worthless because nobody would go near it (now that I think about it, it may have been the house that was the basis of "The Amityville Horror"). The plaintiff lose the suit because the defense was able to show that at no point in the book or movie did they ever say that the story was true. With that kind of burden of proof, you simply can't win a lawsuit (nobody, even those who make documentaries that are inherently "true," make an explicit claim that the book or movie is true).
In the publishing industry, the only real legal threat involves a libel lawsuit. Watch Schippers very carefully, and see if he makes any specific allegations involving actual names of real people. If he doesn't do so, then you know he is covering his @ss against such a suit.
BTW, I only posted the book item as point #1 because it specifically dealt with the "evidence" that had prompted all those Schippers threads yesterday.
So, it was your primary concern, because it dealt with "evidence".
Wait, which is it? hmmm
Oh I see, it is point one due to "evidence," but not a primary concern, because the assertion is empty because that is how a capitalist society works. Further it is point #1 because our jucicial system is unfair.
Thanks, clear as mud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.