Support NeoGAF

[Diablos]

tane' tachyon Dec 30 1989, 1:19 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: tach...@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (tane' tachyon) - Find messages by this author
Date: 30 Dec 89 17:19:56 GMT
Local: Sat, Dec 30 1989 1:19 pm
Subject: Re: Black hawk attacks white hawk
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

Here's another such item, from Monk Magazine #8:

"Drugstyles of Arkansas' Rich, White and Famous"

"Farrell Eugene Faubus, son of the former governor, died of an
apparent drug overdose; a federal grand jury in Fayetteville indicted
Roger Clinton, Governor Bill Clinton's brother, and charged him with
selling cocaine to an undercover State Police Officer; Dan Lassiter,
Little Rock bond daddy and prime contributor to Governor Bill Clinton,
got caught with 3 associates for trafficking cocaine (did one year in
a condo luxury prison in Fort Worth); George Locke, another bond
daddy, colleague of Lassiter's and former state senator, also busted
for coke (spent some time at the Fort Worth prison condo). In
contrast, Terris Lynn Taylor, a 19-year-old black man, received a 100
year sentence without parole for a similar drug-related offense."

(I can't cross-post to any of the other groups the message I'm
replying to appeared in, because alt.drugs is the only one of them
this site carries.)

http://groups-beta.google.com/group...&q=bill+clinton&rnum=1&hl=en#3f2bbae856862653

 

[ToxicAdam]

Since the economy was good during the Clinton years, he is absolved of any wrong doings. Past or present. He's our loveable crooked politician.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Since the economy was good during the Clinton years, he is absolved of any wrong doings. Past or present. He's our loveable crooked politician.

:lol :lol :lol

Yeah, well...he has charisma, and is contrite, so there!

 

[xsarien]

Since the economy was good during the Clinton years, he is absolved of any wrong doings. Past or present. He's our loveable crooked politician.

Ah, I see. Now the activities of Bill Clinton's brother reflect on him. Let me ask you something, is there anything that Clinton can't be blamed for by the right?

 

[Diablos]

Seriosuly Toxic. I asked a simple question and I want a more simplistic than complex answer.

 

[DarienA]

Ah, I see. Now the activities of Bill Clinton's brother reflect on him. Let me ask you something, is there anything that Clinton can't be blamed for by the right?

^^^ What he said.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Ah, I see. Now the activities of Bill Clinton's brother reflect on him. Let me ask you something, is there anything that Clinton can't be blamed for by the right?

You can also blame Clinton's legacy for allowing GWB to be elected. How you like them apples?

 

[Diablos]

You can also blame Clinton's legacy for allowing GWB to be elected. How you like them apples?

Too bad Gore won the election fairly and Bush cheated.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Seriosuly Toxic. I asked a simple question and I want a more simplistic than complex answer.

No offense, but I read it and thought, "Big shocker! Rich, white wealthy people with connections serve less jail time. No shit."

OJ Simpson proved that you don't need to be white either. Just famous and rich.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Clinton's brother probably sold cocaine to Dubya. ITS THE CIRCLE OF LIFE!

 

[xsarien]

You can also blame Clinton's legacy for allowing GWB to be elected. How you like them apples?

You mean it was Clinton's fault that his own VP won the popular vote, or it was Clinton's fault when Bush scared Evangelicals into the booths by trotting out gay marriage?

 

[ToxicAdam]

You mean it was Clinton's fault that his own VP won the popular vote, or it was Clinton's fault when Bush scared Evangelicals into the booths by trotting out gay marriage?

Actually it was his fault that his own Vice President was afraid to mention his name during campaign stops. The fact that Gore had to work hard to make people FORGET about the previous administration instead of REMINDING them, is one of the reasons why he lost.

A good example of someone running on the coattails of a successful administration is Bush Sr. The blueprint for Al Gore to win was already there. He chose not to use it, for obvious reasons.

 

[xsarien]

Actually it was his fault that his own Vice President was afraid to mention his name during campaign stops. The fact that Gore had to work hard to make people FORGET about the previous administration instead of REMINDING them, is one of the reasons why he lost.

A good example of someone running on the coattails of a successful administration is Bush Sr. The blueprint for Al Gore to win was already there. He chose not to use it, for obvious reasons.

Someone's forgetting who got the popular vote in 2000.

 

[siamesedreamer]

......or it was Clinton's fault when Bush scared Evangelicals into the booths by trotting out gay marriage?

Nope, you can put that one squarely on the shoulders of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I slept through alot of classes, but I must have missed the day where winning the popular vote means you become president.

(cue: OMG FLORIDA WUZ RIGGED!!! crowd)

 

[scorcho]

Actually it was his fault that his own Vice President was afraid to mention his name during campaign stops. The fact that Gore had to work hard to make people FORGET about the previous administration instead of REMINDING them, is one of the reasons why he lost.

A good example of someone running on the coattails of a successful administration is Bush Sr. The blueprint for Al Gore to win was already there. He chose not to use it, for obvious reasons.

i believe that's more an indication of Gore's tactical error than on Clinton.

 

[xsarien]

Nope, you can put that one squarely on the shoulders of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Actually, I put it squarely on the histrionics of the GOP who declared the decision the end of the world as we know it. The right used it as a political football to stir up votes; and I think any rational human being should be disgusted by it.

Notice how in a non-election year, rulings just as big regarding gay rights are just a footnote in the news.

I slept through alot of classes, but I must have missed the day where winning the popular vote means you become president.

(cue: OMG FLORIDA WUZ RIGGED!!! crowd)

No, but apparently you missed out on the discussion on the relevance of the electoral college in the 21st century.

 

[Incognito]

I really don't see the point in debating what a president's brother did or didn't do 16 years ago. If we want to go down that road, then let's strike up a discussion about the current president's wife and the day she ran a stop sign which resulted in the death of a friend of hers.

 

[Diablos]

I really don't see the point in debating what a president's brother did or didn't do 16 years ago. If we want to go down that road, then let's strike up a discussion about the current president's wife and the day she ran a stop sign which resulted in the death of a friend of hers.

Please do.

 

[AB 101]

Too bad Gore won the election fairly and Bush cheated.

Where is that rolleyes smilie. :/

 

[GamerShu]

Since the economy was good during the Clinton years, he is absolved of any wrong doings. Past or present. He's our loveable crooked politician.

:lol

 

[siamesedreamer]

It might have been a political football to stir up votes, but the DEMs brought it all upon themselves. It was way too easy. Especially, when all 11 of the resolutions passed by big margins. Obviously, its not something people want around.

 

[APF]

Actually, I put it squarely on the histrionics of the GOP who declared the decision the of the world as we know it. The right used it as a political football to stir up votes; and I think any rational human being should be disgusted by it.

Personally I'm disgusted by the representatives of both parties for their behavior WRT gay rights/marriage. It was used as a "football" by both Democrats and Republicans, with neither candidate taking a clear stand.

Notice how in a non-election year, rulings just as big regarding gay rights are just a footnote in the news.

Didn't the MA debate start in 2003?

 

[Regniws]

Good ol bill... Only if his taste in women was better, nobody ever had a problem with JFK having relationships with various women.. but his were with women and not girl dogs

 

[iapetus]

Please do.

Good old Snopes...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

 

[xsarien]

Personally I'm disgusted by the representatives of both parties for their behavior WRT gay rights/marriage. It was used as a "football" by both Democrats and Republicans, with neither candidate taking a clear stand.


Didn't the MA debate start in 2003?

It started in 2003, rolled well over into 2004, and by the time the elections came around every state with "morals" had put constitutional amendments onto the November 2004 ballot. Complete with a Republican-driven campaign to make it the election year issue.

 

[APF]

It started in 2003, rolled well over into 2004[...]

The point is, it wasn't a media footnote; it was pretty big. Of course, I live there so it may not have been as big wherever you are. Still, what Gay-rights-landmarks-as-media-footnotes are you talking about in your previous post? Gay marriage in the US is a pretty big deal, I think all will agree.

 

[xsarien]

The point is

I said that it's a media footnote now.

 

[AssMan]

I slept through alot of classes, but I must have missed the day where winning the popular vote means you become president.

Don't forget he lost to his own state, too. :lol :lol

 

[APF]

I said that it's a media footnote now.

LOL! I love how unresponsive you are, even though we probably agree on the core issue here.

"Notice how in a non-election year, rulings just as big regarding gay rights are just a footnote in the news."

Wasn't the decision in 2003?

"It started in 2003, rolled well over into 2004."

The point is, it wasn't a 'media footnote,' it was a big deal in 2003 even though it wasn't an election year.

"I said that it's a media footnote now."

Buh?

Anyway, what rulings are you talking about?

 

[xsarien]

LOL! I love how unresponsive you are, even though we probably agree on the core issue here.

Dude, what part of "now" are you not getting? The present. 12:55 p.m., PST, 3:55 p.m, EST. August 4, 2005. Now. Now.

"Notice how in a non-election year, rulings just as big regarding gay rights are just a footnote in the news."

Wasn't the decision in 2003?

This year. For the webmonkeys among us, this.year.

"It started in 2003, rolled well over into 2004."

The point is, it wasn't a 'media footnote,' it was a big deal in 2003 even though it wasn't an election year.

See above.

"I said that it's a media footnote now."

Buh?

Ditto.

Anyway, what rulings are you talking about?

A few days ago, the CA Supreme Court ruled that any company doing business in the state needed to treat domestic partners exactly the way they would married couples. The case stemmed from a lawsuit against a San Diego country club. In 2004 the "Family" organizations would've been up and arms, planning to literally put Pelosi's head on a pike. But nope, Missing White Girl: Day 60 and John Bolton were pretty much the news of the day.

 

[FortNinety]

I love how the right still want his blood. They just can't stand the fact that he was a great leader who was not only very popular, but also united the country and did some very good things. Yeah the man is not perfect, no shit. Like our leader is any better? Cuz he most definitely is not.

 

[ronito]

Right now I'd settle for any president that had proper grammar.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

Yeah he was crooked so what...atleast he was hone...err handled it in stride, come now people we should be used to this since watergate.

 

[APF]

Dude, what part of "now" are you not getting?

The part where you didn't say "now" then, but are saying now now. You said "non-election year" then. Now you're saying now, because it had little to do with being an election year, as evidenced by the fact that the original decision, and the firestorm around it, wasn't in an election year. Do you want me to string this out further, timestamp it, make it an Object()? I can italicize more words if it makes things clearer for you.

A few days ago, the CA Supreme Court ruled that any company doing business in the state needed to treat domestic partners exactly the way they would married couples.

And it may generate a little debate, but how can you compare the reactions to the two? There are far more confounding variables at work than with the MA decision, which was *huge.* I mean, gay folks I know aren't even talking about this. Maybe the lack of debate is actually showing how much the country has shifted?

 

[xsarien]

The part where you didn't say "now" then, but are saying now now. You said "non-election year" then. Now you're saying now, because it had little to do with being an election year, as evidenced by the fact that the original decision, and the firestorm around it, wasn't in an election year. Do you want me to string this out further, timestamp it, make it an Object()? I can italicize more words if it makes things clearer for you.

It really is not my problem if you need everything spelled out. If I was talking about 2003, I would've used the past-damned-tense.

And it may generate a little debate, but how can you compare the reactions to the two? There are far more confounding variables at work than with the MA decision, which was *huge.* I mean, gay folks I know aren't even talking about this. Maybe the lack of debate is actually showing how much the country has shifted?

In 2003-2004, the mere thought of gays having any rights that even resembled what a married couple was eligible for from the state governments or the federal government was enough to get conservative panties in a bunch. The only difference between then and now is that the GOP isn't dragging it into the news at every opportunity.