Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

W I D E B O D Y strikes again!
News 12, The American Spectator | 10-15-01 | Mia T

Posted on 10/15/2001 11:16:34 AM PDT by Mia T

W I D E B O D Y
strikes again
 

Clinton OK After Airport Incident

News/Current Events
Source:
News 12
Published: 10/14/01
Posted on 10/14/01 8:04 PM Pacific by
areafiftyone

YONKERS - A bizarre accident at Westchester County Airport involved Senator Hillary Clinton's entourage Sunday.

Sources tell News 12 Westchester that a vehicle in Senator Clinton's security team tried to bypass a mandatory check point at the airport, which has been under a heightened state of alert since the terrorist attacks. A county police officer attempting to stop the vehicle from getting through injured his shoulder. That officer was taken to Saint Agnes Hospital in White Plains, and his condition is not known.

Senator Clinton, who turned 54 Sunday, was en route to board a private jet to an unreleased destination. The former first lady could not be reached for comment.

IN HER GRASP FOR POWER, DEPRAVED WIDEBODY COWARD (WITH AN EXAGGERATED SENSE OF SELF-IMPORTANCE)
Pushy Dame

Online Prowler--The American Spectator

 
Sen. Hillary Clinton is losing fans by the day on Capitol Hill due to
her performance at last Tuesday's Bush address to Congress.
 
According to congressional reporters, Senator Clinton pushed fragile
Republican Strom Thurmond out of the way in order to get to the NBC New
York affiliate's camera crew. "Thurmond stumbled and nearly fell down,
but Sen. Ted Kennedy grabbed hold of him," says one of the reporter
witnesses.
 
Clinton has also further angered her own leadership. Her staff
presented Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle with a request that he
approve two additional positions for her office at salaries of $85,000
or more. "She wants to hire a permanent staff pollster and media
adviser," says a source in the minority leader's office. "She explained
that they would be available to all of her Democratic colleagues, but
they would work out of her offices."
 
The so-called "office expenses" indicate how naive Clinton is about
real-world politics. It would be next to impossible to hire a pollster
at a salary of $85,000, let alone cover the costs of polling out of a
Senate office. "She's thinking like a first lady, and not a freshman
senator," says the Daschle aide. "But no one has the nerve to tell her
where to get off."
 

(Updated 3/5/01 at 12:30 p.m.)

Q ERTY4
co-rapist's typo

The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.

Mia T

Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy

 

 
 
"Hillary's people are very bright," said a well-connected Democrat yesterday. "But they think everybody else is stupid."
Stupid is as stupid does, says Off the Record. . .

OFF THE RECORD: AN OLD DOG NEEDS NEW TRICKS

 
Don't lose
Your head
To gain a minute
You need your head
Your brains are in it.
--an old roadside ad, Pushme-Pullyou
 
 
 
 

HEY, HEY MARY JO!
by Mia T
 
So many pardons 4 sale.
 
So many rodhams & clintons to nail.
 
Hey, hey Mary Jo!
 
Can you spell R-I-C-O?



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-125 next last
To: Howlin
That missing W! Such talent.
81 posted on 10/15/2001 8:20:12 PM PDT by fone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Mia T. You keep up the good work. It is true that the major of us Freepers are Clinton bashers, but you, my dear, do it with a giant exclamation point!!
82 posted on 10/15/2001 8:22:12 PM PDT by One4Indictment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
W I D E B O D Y

Roaring with Laughter!!! I love it
I hereby nominate it has her offical name.

83 posted on 10/15/2001 8:23:26 PM PDT by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Good post. You an Wallaby have your own styles, too bad I don't have a better internet connection.
84 posted on 10/15/2001 8:26:58 PM PDT by Sawdring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: WhyisaTexasgirlinPA

The rapist rube never quite got the JFK finger right...At once too heavyhanded and effete...


85 posted on 10/15/2001 8:32:30 PM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

Comment #86 Removed by Moderator

Comment #87 Removed by Moderator

Comment #88 Removed by Moderator

Comment #89 Removed by Moderator

To: Mia T
If anyone needs to be stopped at all check points, it needs to be the bloody Traitor clintons. I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't have some of her red chinese and militant arab friends in her entourage that she is smuggling around the US.

The bloody Traitors are two of our greatest security risks. May they rot in everlasting h*ll. I think that our enemies not only thought we were weak because of what the clintons did, but because our government didn't go after the clintons after they were dragged out of the White House. That is a very real weakness through the eyes of our enemies.

90 posted on 10/15/2001 9:33:51 PM PDT by chantal7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Whoah! This is some good solid work here. A definite bookmark.
91 posted on 10/15/2001 9:38:35 PM PDT by SoDak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
I was just thinking about you yesterday - and today (Craack) "Upper deck - MiaT got alla that one!"
92 posted on 10/15/2001 10:04:52 PM PDT by 185JHP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: HoweverComma
"And these posts are...gosh, what's the tactful way to put it...to heck with it, I'll be honest...UGLY."

Then vote with your feet and don't read them. To make it short and to the point, Bill And Hillary fiddled while Rome Burned. They are below contempt. Is that short enough for you.

93 posted on 10/15/2001 10:09:05 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: HoweverComma
Appropriate screen name.
94 posted on 10/15/2001 10:11:47 PM PDT by Nephi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Ahhh Mia T... haven't been able to FReep for a while and with this blast of your work I'm renewed.

Whew, as always you're right on target on the widebody and the felon.

A pure FR treasure..... hmm.. so now I know real story on the fondly remembered NY bagels too! LOL

95 posted on 10/15/2001 10:15:18 PM PDT by catfur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: HoweverComma
So why are you on this thread? You've posted more on this thread than anyone else. Why don't you just go to another thread?
96 posted on 10/15/2001 10:43:40 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Great Post! Nice to have all of your work in one place. IMHO:

' 1. Your post is not disturbing--Hillary is!! I am GLAD you are "obsessed" about Hildabeast; I still think she may try to run for POTUS in 2004!
2. Your work is A+! BTW, I have taught business communications classes at a vocational prep. college.

97 posted on 10/15/2001 11:04:46 PM PDT by Freedom56v2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushwon
Correction: Great to have LOTS of your work in one place! (I did not see the "qwerty" post here).

"W I D E B O D Y strikes again" I am still ROFL!

98 posted on 10/15/2001 11:18:48 PM PDT by Freedom56v2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: WhyisaTexasgirlinPA
You're right about the hand. And the microphone looks like it is attached to one of those Mattel "You can be a Star" Karaoke machines.
99 posted on 10/16/2001 3:05:11 AM PDT by Cagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: bushwon; Howlin; fone
Q ERTY Series: The Inspiration

(Q ERTY4 is new and was inspired by the most recent spate of clinton-facilitated terrorism)

 
 
No Joke
 
Those who trashed the White House were vicious vandals, not merry pranksters.
 
BY TUNKU VARADARAJAN
Monday, January 29, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST
The Wall Street Journal
 
What is a "prank"? And when does a prank take on a darker hue and
merit, instead, a less indulgent label--such as "delinquency," or
"vandalism"?
 
These questions, whose answers are rooted in common sense, culture and
civilization, were raised last week by revelations first detailed on the
Internet by Matt Drudge, for whose insolent, frontiersman's approach to
newsgathering we continue to be grateful. He's not always right, and
he's not always elegant, but he bawls his tales from the rafters when
others, more timorous and more conventional, would only mince their
words, or whisper.
 
Although the mainstream press echoed the story only reluctantly, and
sought to draw its sting by downgrading it to the status of rumor, the
contents of the Drudge report seemed to be unquestionably consonant with
the tone, the oh-so-jarring tone, struck, in their departure from the
White House, by the Clinton cohorts--from the strutting
self-congratulation of the ex-president at Andrews Air Force Base (like
a weed, he'd taken root, and like a weed he called to be ripped from the
soil beneath him), to the stripping bare of the former Air Force One by
the ex-presidential locusts.
 
According to reports, outgoing Clinton-Gore staffers at the White House
performed a range of "pranks," including the prizing out from many White
House computer keyboards of the W (Dubya) key, the gluing shut of
drawers on office desks, the infecting of computers with viruses, the
recording of offensive reception messages on the answering machines, the
slashing (yes, slashing) of telephone lines, the loading of pornographic
images on printers and computers, offensive graffiti on corridors and
bathroom walls, the turning upside down of desks, and, as a valedictory
signature, the leaving of a trail of trash across the West Wing.
 
Mr. Drudge, the only one to quantify the damage publicly, has put the
monetary estimate--in terms of its cost to the taxpayer--at $200,000.
There is some speculation that this is a conservative estimate. Peggy
Noonan writes: "You just know when you read about it that it's worse
than anyone is saying--the Bush people being discreet because they don't
want to start out with complaints and finger pointing, the Clinton-Gore
people because it is in their obvious interests to play it down."
 
These actions have been characterized as "pranks" in the press, although
the Washington Post did, in a giveaway line, suggest that there was more
to the story than high jinks. Quoting Clinton(ian) sources, the paper
said:
"The Democratic officials said the actions were meant to be funny, or in
some cases were an outlet for frustration by soon-to-be-unemployed
staffers."
 
 
 
Were these actions "pranks"? Let's parse the situation, and start by
returning to my original question: What is a prank? I think most people
would agree that a prank is an impish action, intended by the prankster
to make the "prankee" feel momentarily sheepish, but not shell-shocked
or outraged. Classic pranks are intended to provoke a prankish payback,
not heated antagonism, or contempt. In other words, the prankster's
motivation lies in a sense of irreverent one-upmanship--in mischief, not
malice. The mental state, or mens rea, of the perpetrator is as central
to the definition of prank as it is to murder or assault.
 
To give you an example: In my days at Oxford, I was witness to a healthy
rivalry between my college, Trinity, and our insufferable neighbors,
Balliol.
Pranks were the currency in which this rivalry was traded. On one
occasion, some chaps from Balliol uprooted the rugby posts from the
Trinity grounds (some four miles away), brought them in a hired lorry to
college, and set them up on the lawns in front of the Trinity chapel.
They chuckled, and, yes, we chuckled too. In reprisal, a handful of
hearties from Trinity stole into Balliol in the pitch of night and
unleashed a sheep in the college library there, the stench of whose
droppings caused the Balliol librarian nearly to faint the next
morning. Again, we chuckled, and they chuckled back. These were
pranks, part of a sequential, good-natured rivalry. There was no malice
aforethought, only a juvenile sense of caper.
 
The other distinction between a prank and an act that exceeds a prank's
bounds is the causing of harm, or damage. In boarding school in India,
as a boy, I once threw a rock at a hive of wild bees that had grown,
high up, on the clock tower of the school's main building. My aim was
unerring, and the hive broke, discharging scores of furious bees in the
direction of my admiring friends. While I was able to scamper to
safety, two boys were stung so badly that they were hospitalized. My
act was not a prank, since it had caused damage. I was publicly caned,
and rightly, by the principal.
 
 
 
In the context of the White House, any harm or damage must be construed
to include the infliction of a burden on the taxpayer--not to mention
the interference, however temporary, with the business of government.
So the hanging up, here and there, of signs that said "Dept.
of Strategery"--a play on the president's bumbling way with words--was a
prank worthy of my confreres at Trinity or Balliol, or even of the frat
house at which our "frat boy" president earned his spurs.
 
But the slashing of phone lines? The gluing shut of desk drawers? The
gouging out from keyboards of the W key? The infection of computers
with viruses? The redirection of official phone lines, on which the
public and government rely? These, I fear, violate the prankster's
rulebook. They caused damage; lines, desks, computers and keyboards
needed repair and replacement. My money, and yours, was used for this
repair.
 
Most shabby of all, however, was the perpetrators' intent. A true
prank--a prank properly defined--is carried out in a jocular spirit.
Pranks are escapades, monkeyshines. They're not acts of venom or spite,
of resentment or ill-will. If the actor is malefic, he is not a
prankster but a vandal. He is, in truth, a delinquent.
 
That's what I learned in grade school, and I commend that interpretation
to you.
 
Mr. Varadarajan is deputy editorial features editor of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Mondays.

I would argue with Mr. Varadarajan's contention that mens rea must be considered and that the absence of malicious intent reduces the act to mere prank. Such an argument runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.

clinton hunt-and-peck
 

Q ERTY1

Q ERTY2

Q ERTY3

Q ERTY4


100 posted on 10/16/2001 4:07:12 AM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-125 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson