!THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE?

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE? Mmhm. It’s the disease that i first noticed when Reagan was in office. I presume that it has been around for longer than that. It’s sort of like an ad hominem attack. First you make one of the words associated w/ political philosophy into an evil word, and then just associate anything you don’t like w/ I noticed it before. In 1979, the far right was Whoops, there it is. Yep, truth. Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority, Gopac, yeah, you remeber those guys. Made negative campaigning a central part of gettingrEagan elected and were not ashamed of it, even bragged of it.

I think you missed the subtle but oh so exquisitely made point that you, subgenius, immediately began to engage in the dastardly behavior that you upstanding hypocrites were lamenting. Yup. There it is. Truth. Of course I might be off on the dates a little, perhaps it was late 1978 that they far right started up this organized hate campaign that still goes on today.

Oh, I think it started way before that, subgenius. Tell someone who has some sense of modern history to tell you about the LBJ ad that featured a picture of a nuclear explosion over an audio of Barry Goldwater. You don’t like truth much, do you wimpy?

It’s not to like or dislike. It is, the same way self-serving bullshit is self-serving bullshit even if it comes from Clintonistas. Why do you hide behind a pseudonym?

Why don’t you? Afraid to take credit personally for your posts?

Sorry. Tactic doesn’t work. Tell the others in the Begala brigade that it isn’t working. from the Progressive Review’s WWW site Checkbook plagiarism Having inveighed against political ghostwriting for over thirty years, it comes as no surprise that Hillary Clinton’s book-like substance was produced with significant editorial aid — in fact, $120,000 worth. My position has been that the standard for politicians in such matters should be at least as high as that for college freshmen. If the latter were to pay someone to write their papers, the full weight of academia would come crashing down upon them. At the higher levels of society, however, such behavior is considered normal and even admirable. At the very least, however, politicians should be required to list the names of their ghostwriters on the ballot and to resign from public office should their scribes decide to change clients. What is amazing is that Ms. Clinton should actually have tried to conceal the assistance she received, adding to this deception the absurd claim that she wrote her bookoid long-hand in six months. If true, it would have been the greatest literary feat since Alexander Dumas wrote three books in one year. When he finished The Count of Monte Cristo, he drew a line on the sheet of paper, and immediately commenced The Three Musketeers. Twice I have written books — real ones — in six months (one on a typewriter and one on a computer) and I can assure you it is only barely possible even with mechanical aids. If Ms. Clinton is to make the claim — unsupported by any excerpts I’ve seen — that she is a writer as well as a lawyer, then I think she should adhere the rules of our trade as closely as those of the ABA. Ours are not as well codified, but they include the notion that one does one’s own work, that if you are unable to do so, you hire a real writer and give them decent credit, and finally that you observe what Thoreau called the first rule of exposition, which is to speak the truth. — Sam Smith Prediction of the decade: "The public will never believe the innocence of the Clintons & their loyal staff." – author unknown

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : John Q should be committed. He’s stark raving loony. : Give it up, JQP, you moronic loser. It’s so good to see Mr. Fraizer living up to his very own standards. He would never say *anything* to make USENET a viscious hostile place. Gary, have you whined at people that they aren’t adding anything to a conversation lately? Well, I thought there was some hope for you. JQP, OTOH, has demonstrated again and again that he’s utterly closed minded; Foster was murdered, the Clintons did it, and everyone who says otherwise is part of the conspiracy.

OK, here’s your chance to open my mind. Q1. Who forged the "suicide note?" Q2. Who murdered Jerry Parks? Q3. Who killed Kathy Ferguson? Q4. Who threatened to break Sally Perdue’s legs? Q5. What did the bitch do with the money?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "In the bureaucracy, the identity of state interest and particular private aim is established in such a way that the state interest becomes a particular private aim over against other private aims." — Karl Marx Amen. Congratulations, Johnnie! You take one of my replies, edited it to twist the context and even add some remarks from Karl Marx to garnish your lie. Have I misrepresented you, Hanson?

I am so very sorry. Please tell all of usenet which part of Marx’s statement you disagree with, and illustrate your valuation of individual freedom over state interests. Again, I am sorry, and I’m glad you have this opportunity to set the record straight about your personal views, especially since you’ve stated that your posts have revealed nothing about what you believe.

Response:

My goodness! I’ve compounded my thoughtless error with a formatting miscue, which I have corrected below. To make up for this, I’ve added some material to the end of the post, gratis. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "In the bureaucracy, the identity of state interest and particular private aim is established in such a way that the state interest becomes a particular private aim over against other private aims." — Karl Marx Amen. Congratulations, Johnnie! You take one of my replies, edited it to twist the context and even add some remarks from Karl Marx to garnish your lie. Have I misrepresented you, Hanson? I am so very sorry. Please tell all of usenet which part of Marx’s statement you disagree with, and illustrate your valuation of individual freedom over state interests. Again, I am sorry, and I’m glad you have this opportunity to set the record straight about your personal views, especially since you’ve stated that your posts have revealed nothing about what you believe.

And now, to make up for both transgressions, I humbly offer this, from the 2/27/95 Washington Weekly: THE MOST CRIMINAL AND CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY Editorial The following partial list of alleged crimes and ethics violations of the Clinton Administration says it all: BILL CLINTON: (1) Used State Police for personal purposes. (2) Directed State Police to fabricate incriminating evidence against political opponents: Steve Clark, Terry Reed, and Larry Nichols. (3) Conspired to defraud the Small Business Administration. (4) Was complicit in the shipment of drugs through Arkansas. (5) Laundered drug money through ADFA. (6) Protected incompetent State Medical Examiner to protect Clinton’s Mother (7) Has never accounted for his actions during 40 days behind the Iran Curtain during the Vietnam War. (8) Tipped off Governor Tucker about upcoming criminal referral. (9) Violated Arkansas campaign finance laws. (10) Violated his oath of office to uphold the Constitution by signing into law an ex post facto law, a retroactive tax increase. (11) Fired RTC chief Albert Casey to allow his friend Roger Altman to monitor and block Whitewater investigations. (12) Fired FBI director William Sessions to prevent an autonomous FBI from investigating the Foster suicide and other scandals. (13) Fired all U.S. Attorneys to allow Paula Casey to prevent Judge David Hale from testifying against Clinton. (14) Offered State Troopers federal jobs in return for their silence about Clinton’s crimes. (15) Blocked Justice Department indictments after Inspector General Sherman Funk found "criminal violations of the Privacy Act provable beyond reasonable doubt" when former Bush employee files were searched and leaked to the press. (16) Had Whitewater criminal referrals quashed in the Justice Department. (17) Blocked the criminal trial of Representative Ford, a Tennessee Democrat. Bill Clinton is under investigation by an Independent Counsel. HILLARY CLINTON: (1) Took a $100,000 bribe, camouflaged as futures trades, from Tyson Foods Inc. (2) Speculated in Health Care industry futures while overseeing legislative reform of same. (3) Failed to correct false testimony by co-defendant Ira Magaziner in Health Care trial. (4) Obstructed justice by ordering the shredding of Vince Foster’s documents. (5) Ordered members of the Health Care Task Force to shred documents that were the target of a court probe. Hillary Clinton is under investigation by an Independent Counsel. WEBSTER HUBBELL: (1) Convicted for defrauding the federal government (FDIC and IRS). (2) Executed obstruction of justice ordered by Bill Clinton. IRA MAGAZINER: (1) Lied in court about the composition of the Halth Care Task Force. Under investigation by U.S. Attorney. BERNARD NUSSBAUM: (1) Obstructed justice in the Foster suicide investigation by blocking access, removing documents, lying about his removal of documents, and by retrieving Foster’s pager from Park Police. (2) Attempted to quash a Whitewater investigation at the RTC through White House liaisons. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: (1) Took a $600,000 loan below market interest and with insufficient collateral from NationsBank, a bank having business before the Clinton Administration. (2) Lied to Congress. (3) Attempted to have Whitewater investigator Jay Stephens at the RTC fired. MIKE ESPY: (1) Took bribes from Tyson Foods Inc., which was under regulatory control of his Agriculture Department. Espy is under investigation by a Special Counsel. ROGER ALTMAN: (1) Lied to Congress. (2) Lied to Congress about having lied to Congress. (3) Instructed Ellen Kulka and Jack Ryan at the RTC to block the Whitewater investigation by L. Jean Lewis. RON BROWN: (1) Has taken bribes from almost everybody. Says it is part of the way Washington works. Under investigation by Justice Department. LES ASPIN: (1) Through criminal negligence was responsible for the death of Army Rangers in Somalia. Has never been held accountable in public hearings. WILLIAM KENNEDY, DAVID WATKINS, PATSY THOMASSON: (1) Fabricated charges against White House Travel Office personnel to have the business taken over by Clinton friends. (2) Coerced FBI and IRS agents into complicity with this scheme. CATHERINE CORNELIUS: (1) Removed documents from White House Travel Office. Because those documents later became the subject of a trial against Office Director Billy Dale, that could amount to obstruction of justice. PATSY THOMASSON: (1) Lied to Congress about the composition of the Health Care Task Force and the size of its budget. JOSHUA STEINER: (1) Lied to Congress. LLOYD CUTLER: (1) Lied to Congress about the contents of redacted documents. (2) Attempted to withhold vital information from Congress. MACK MCLARTY: (1) Conspired with Democratic Congressional Leadership to block access to vital documents in a Congressional hearing. HAROLD ICKES: (1) Broke into New York Republican headquarters in 1970. Has never been indicted for this crime which was similar to what the Watergate Plumbers spent time in jail for. (2) Worked for Mafia-controlled labor unions. MARIAN BENETT: (1) Covered up credit-card fraud by USIA Inspector General staff. FEDERICO PENA: (1) State contracts on Denver Airport were awarded to companies in which he had a financial interest. HENRY CISNEROS: (1) Lied to the FBI about payments to former lover. Under investigation by Justice Department. JANET RENO: (1) Fabricated charges of child molestation against the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. (2) Ordered the use of military equipment against citizens of the United States (3) Ordered the use of chemical agents against citizens of the United States. In addition to the above allegations, it is alleged that a substantial fraction of White House personnel has been unable to pass FBI criminal background checks. Unsubstantiated allegations of murder, treason, and conspiracy have been omitted from the above list. I Rest My Case. (Sources: published accounts in The Washington Weekly) Copyright (c) 1995 Informatics Resource Prediction of the decade: "The public will never believe the innocence of the Clintons & their loyal staff." – author unknown

Response:

"In the bureaucracy, the identity of state interest and particular private aim is established in such a way that the state interest becomes a particular private aim over against other private aims." — Karl Marx Amen.

Congratulations, Johnnie! You take one of my replies, edited it to twist the context and even add some remarks from Karl Marx to garnish your lie. AND YOU EXPECT ANYONE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE TO SAY? I’d say this little stunt alone pretty much zeros out whatever credibility you ever thought you had. I expect you to be angry, but frankly I gave you more credit than this. It’s the kind of stunt we all grew to expect from Discipio. Not that I’m not delighted. You’ve always been a flaming liar. Thank you for being so moronic as to prove it. RH "And the people—ah, the people— They that dwell up in the steeple— All alone— And who tolling, tolling, tolling, In that muffled monotone, Feel a glory in so rolling On the human heart a stone— They are neither man nor woman— They are neither brute nor human— They are Ghouls— And their king it is who tolls:—" Edgar Allan Poe "The Bells" 1849 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s what I’m doing here. RH

Response:

: John Q should be committed. He’s stark raving loony. : Give it up, JQP, you moronic loser. It’s so good to see Mr. Fraizer living up to his very own standards. He would never say *anything* to make USENET a viscious hostile place. Gary, have you whined at people that they aren’t adding anything to a conversation lately? You Kennemur worshipers are all the same.

Willie. As the High Priest you should know. You post my icon everywhere. Login: voltai29 Name: Jim KennemurXAXX Directory: /u/u9/voltai29 Shell: /usr/local/bin/tcsh No Mail.

And I respond to my worshipers by recognizing their existence. Your Personal Gawd and Savior! Jim (415)968-6330 Would you like my home address for your .sig too? I’ll gladly give it to you.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE? Mmhm. It’s the disease that i first noticed when Reagan was in office. I presume that it has been around for longer than that. It’s sort of like an ad hominem attack. First you make one of the words associated w/ political philosophy into an evil word, and then just associate anything you don’t like w/

I noticed it before. In 1979, the far right was openly threatening to use negative campaigning and openly bragging about dragging it’s opponents down. After the election of Reagan, many of these creeps bragged about their effectiveness at name calling and ad hominem attacks. These kind of things are very fugitive when one begins to examine them. Gingrich was rabid Reagan fan, and his "memo on names to call Democrats" is a classic, containing advice like ‘refer to all Democrats as "liberal," go on the attack early,’ and so on. But then you start looking further back and you see Pat Buchanan’s memos to then Attorney General John Mitchell on ‘tearing the country in two’ and Paul Weyrich’s early methods.

Does anybody have any copies of such things? We need a FAQ, a list of such things so the world knows exactly just who is responsible for the ideological warfare we see that is tearing this country down. The Neocons started this, quite openly, cold bloodedly, and purposefully. They did it openly and often, even bragged about it. Kevin Phillips admitted he started the politics of resentment and saw it degenerate into racism. We just saw here an article that showed that teh far right Republicans have a plot going to hamper government agencies from doing her jobs by hampering them with requests for large amounts of paper work. This should be found and posted. All of this shit should be put into a FAQ and widely circulated. This should be available for posting on any and all websites interested in makimg our political system work again. The insidious plots and petty tricks of the reactionaries need to be exposed. From Newt’s unacceptable demogogury to Stockman’s admission that Reaganomics was a known fraud from 1979. From Kevin Phillip’s admissions to the brags of Jerry Falwell about the effectivness of of brutally unfair negative campaigning. I guess I need to write Babbit and ask if I can get copies of the memo to hamper government agencies with various dirty tricks like demanding vast quantities of paper work specifically for choking the system. Pope Charles SubGenius Pope Of Houston Slack!

Response:

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE? Mmhm. It’s the disease that i first noticed when Reagan was in office. I presume that it has been around for longer than that. It’s sort of like an ad hominem attack. First you make one of the words associated w/ political philosophy into an evil word, and then just associate anything you don’t like w/ I noticed it before. In 1979, the far right was Whoops, there it is.

Response:

Yep, truth. Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority, Gopac, yeah, you remeber those guys. Made negative campaigning a central part of gettingrEagan elected and were not ashamed of it, even bragged of it. Yup. There it is. Truth. Of course I might be off on the dates a little, perhaps it was late 1978 that they far right started up this organized hate campaign that still goes on today. You don’t like truth much, do you wimpy? Why do you hide behind a pseudonym? Afraid to take credit personally for your posts? Pope Charles SubGenius Pope Of Houston Slack!

Response:

Well, I thought there was some hope for you. JQP, OTOH, has demonstrated again and again that he’s utterly closed minded; Foster was murdered, the Clintons did it, and everyone who says otherwise is part of the conspiracy. This is the JPQ mindset, and it’s locked in granite. He’s beyond redemption, frankly. He’s a moron and is obviously telnetting into the Internet from an alternate universe. You Kennemur worshipers are all the same.

Cripes, Bill, you’re the one with his .sig file in your< .sig file. — Gary Visit my web page! http://www.efn.org/~gfrazier

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE? April 17, 1996 Today I did something I almost never do. I called in to a local talk show to respond to a caller that was advocating victims of the OKC bombing and the unibomber suing the militias and American environmentalist groups for damages. Who forged the "suicide note?" "Are you now, or have you ever been a member…..?" John Q. continues his Joe McCarthy imitation. RH

Prediction of the decade: "The public will never believe the innocence of the Clintons & their loyal staff." – author unknown

Response:

Can you grasp the sheer irony of this post, which admonishes me to "give it up" and the contents of your web page, which allege that you stand up for the first amendment? One of the biggest stories of the late 20th century continues to be suppressed by the major U.S. media, and you’re backing them up, all the way. Prediction of the decade: "The public will never believe the innocence of the Clintons & their loyal staff." – author unknown

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -rhanson wrote (a great deal snipped for clarity’s sake): Get the idea? Once upon a time, in a rational universe far away, people presumed that other people were innocent until they were proven guilty. People assumed that common sense and logic prevailed unless someone could prove otherwise. In those days, the burden of proof always fell on the shoulders of whoever was making the accusation. Now, it’s: "Hillary is a lesbian. Prove that she isn’t!" (NOTE: if you ever ask the accuser for proof what you get is "sure, I’ve got proof. ‘_____’ said so." Fill in the blank with the name of some other person or columnist who made the same unsubstantiated accusation.) And it goes beyond that. Once you successfully demonize the individual with an unsubstantiated accusation, you can effectively ignore any idea coming from that source, as in: "why should we believe that Bill Clinton would be a good president? After all, he had Vince Foster murdered." or "health care from Hillary—but she’s a socialist!" I suppose the above at least points out the futility of argument with those who have made up their minds, but it goes still further. These days, even when a charge is disproved it can be used as a basis for continued attacks. Right now there is a poster using an innocent comment by Donna Shalala as "evidence" that the liberals ar a world where the speaker of the house blames the unspeakable murder of two children in South Carolina on all liberals everywhere(2.) — in this

Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.newt-gingr ich,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.activism,alt.fan.rush-l imbaugh – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -rhanson wrote (a great deal snipped for clarity’s sake): Get the idea? Once upon a time, in a rational universe far away, people presumed that other people were innocent until they were proven guilty. People assumed that common sense and logic prevailed unless someone could prove otherwise. In those days, the burden of proof always fell on the shoulders of whoever was making the accusation. Now, it’s: "Hillary is a lesbian. Prove that she isn’t!" (NOTE: if you ever ask the accuser for proof what you get is "sure, I’ve got proof. ‘_____’ said so." Fill in the blank with the name of some other person or columnist who made the same unsubstantiated accusation.) And it goes beyond that. Once you successfully demonize the individual with an unsubstantiated accusation, you can effectively ignore any idea coming from that source, as in: "why should we believe that Bill Clinton would be a good president? After all, he had Vince Foster murdered." or "health care from Hillary—but she’s a socialist!" I suppose the above at least points out the futility of argument with those who have made up their minds, but it goes still further. These days, even when a charge is disproved it can be used as a basis for continued attacks. Right now there is a poster using an innocent comment by Donna Shalala as "evidence" that the liberals ar a world where the speaker of the house blames the unspeakable murder of two children in South Carolina on all liberals everywhere(2.) — in this kind of world anything is possible. Anything but sado with rational

debate among citizens over questions of a politicians fitness to hold office if part of that fitness involves criminal guilt. The problem with your logic is that you are assuming guilt and using that assumption as a basis for debate. We have defined justice and it presumes innocence. If we had all the facts, we could make a judgment, but we do not and I do not believe that even you would presume to know all the facts. If you want to debate the issues, debate the issues but to debate criminal guilt issues on presumed guilt is sleazy, corrupt, immoral and lacking in honor. If the debate over fitness to hold office assumes guilt, then logically and rationally the debate would include past and present office holders and their presumed guilt of like crimes. To have a debate about Clinton and Whitewater is fine but when you presume guilt and expand the debate to fitness to hold office, you had better be ready to take what you dish out. I take you last two sentences as an admission that this WWNG serves your political motives more than it does any discussion about Clinton

Filed under: Activism Politics

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism