I mean, lets all be honest with ourselves here. Does Bill Clinton or any of those piece of shit politicians really give a fuck whats goin on on your block? Did you ever stop to think that maybe your following laws that were made by people that wouldnt have considered some of you human?

Thats all I got to say. Peace. Kamikazee.

Simple answer, no they don't. Bill Clinton is one of the biggest phony liars ever. Here's an example of his behavior. Nice guy to have in charge of a country!

Check this out:

BILL CLINTON: PARTY ANIMAL
by Brian Francis Redman, Editor-in-chief, Conspiracy Nation
Copyright (c) 1994 -- All rights reserved


*The Sunday Telegraph*, a London-based newspaper, carries the
following headline on page one of their July 17, 1994 edition:
"Clinton 'took cocaine while in office'".

The allegations were made to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard by several
witnesses in a series of interviews conducted by him.

Mention is made of "wild behaviour at nightclubs and private
parties," of drug use and abuse that occurred for more than a
decade, from 1972 to 1986.

The article questions how Clinton could have afforded an
apparently massive drug habit considering he was then earning a
somewhat modest $35,000 per year as Governor of Arkansas.

Remember how Clinton told us that he had puffed but never inhaled
marijuana? Well, as Gomer Pyle used to say, "Surprise, surprise,
surprise," Billie Jeff seems to have been, in fact, a real "party
animal."

Jane Parks, wife of the slain Jerry Parks, a former police
officer who was in charge of security for the Clinton-Gore
Presidential campaign, has recently decided to come forward and
tell what she knows. "She is in the advanced stages of multiple
sclerosis and she feels she no longer has anything to lose."

In 1984, Jane Parks managed an apartment complex in Little Rock.
During that summer, Roger Clinton, brother of Bill, resided
there. Because Roger Clinton's apartment was adjacent to Mrs.
Parks' office, and because there was only a "thin partition"
between her and that jolly buccaneer, Roger Clinton, she "got an
earful."

Jane Parks avers that Billie Jeff Clinton was a frequent visitor
at parties there, at Roger Clinton's apartment, during the summer
of 1984. She claims there was drug use at these get-togethers and
that she could hear our own Mr. President commenting on the
quality of the marijuana they were smoking and discussing the
relative strength of the cocaine they were snorting.

Mrs. Parks also expressed concern about the quite young girls
lured into Roger's swinging "pad." Was the man who now holds the
office once held by such great Americans as Jefferson and Lincoln
licking his chops in anticipation of nubile delights as he
snorted "lines" of cocaine off the coffee table there? Well, Mrs.
Parks testimony *is* backed up by other witnesses. As one witness
confirmed things: "Bill had his girlfriends in there. You could
hear them through the walls. Some of them looked like very young
girls to me."

Another witness told the *Sunday Telegraph* that on one occasion
Clinton hauled out a bag of cocaine and did up a "line" on her
living room table. Says Sally Perdue, "He had all the equipment
laid out, like a real pro."

If you are saying, "Well, so what," bear in mind that there are
thousands of persons doing very hard time at the moment for the
same sort of thing. Bear in mind that the government has been
spending a lot of your money fighting a so-called "War on Drugs"
that seems to be, in reality, more of a "War on the Bill of
Rights."

I am not going to go into the testimony of numerous witnesses
presented in the rather lengthy article. I wish I could just tell
you to read about it in your regular newspaper, but funny thing:
the American press is not covering these stories very well.

What I can tell you is that the article further states that the
mysteriously murdered Jerry Parks had the smarts to make extra
copies of the file that was stolen from his home. One set has
reportedly been passed on to a federal law enforcement agency.
Can we look forward to finally learning the contents of this file
during the upcoming congressional investigations into Whitewater?
Or is Billy Boy even now sliming the way so that would-be truth-
seekers will be thwarted? Will the fiske, excuse me, the fix, be
in on these upcoming hearings as well?

is the only politician I've heard in a while who actually has the balls to make a difference in this country. I'm voting for him this November. If you're sick of the Democrats and Republicans "representing" you by selling themselves to corporate interests and not enacting positive social programs, you should vote for him too. He isn't perfect, but if he could accomplish 1/10th of what he wants to, he'd be the best president we've had in a long time. And Winona LaDuke, a kick-ass Native-American environmentalist, is on the ticket as his veep. Putting the Green Party in power would send a helluva message to the Dems and Reps about overlooking the concerns of the people. Nader is the anti-politician!

peace,
murph

The people (masses) are only informed about politics through the media, and as a result, they are spoon-fed the alternatives and their choices are limited.
I feel that there is no "choose or loose" because we have no real choice.
What choice do we have when the media only presents us with 2 candidates, and the rest have been washed out?
What choice do we have when the candidates are selected just because of their "politicing"?

Like I said before, it's all a pawn used to decieve the masses into thinking that there is progression.
In 4 years from now, we'll be going through the same spew.

It's true that Bill Clinton doesn't know I exist and, if he did, he wouldn't care about me. Same is true of Bush. Nader doesn't know about me either, but from what a few people on this board have said, he might care about me as an individual.

So what do we do?

One thing is to take the first step toward making whatever changes we identify as the most important. I guess the first step toward that is to identify the goals, and then identify the steps that need to be taken.

And first steps are necessarily local in nature. We may not have to reform the entire U.S. government all at once. What, for example, would Nader be able to accomplish if we elect him as president and there isn't a single Green Party member of Congress? That won't accomplish his goals. Here's an example. The Green Party platform includes a plank of abolishing the U.S. Senate. That would take a Constitutional Amendment. So Nader as president could introduce the legislation, but then it still has to be approved by both houses of Congress and some percentage of the states -- I don't know whether it's a majority or a super majority. This is simply not going to happen if the only elected official who backs the proposal is the president. So let's think about what we can do to bring about the changes that we want.

But whatever we do, let's not just throw our hands up and say it's hopeless. It will only be hopeless if we do nothing.

Let's also try to stay in balance -- as Wise says, everything we hear is filtered through the media -- always always always ask yourself what SOURCE has provided you with a piece of information and what point of view that source has. Test a variety of sources against the opinions that you have formed for yourself. Don't take anyone's word for it. Also, take a look at how many layers of attribution a particular story has, and how many "weasel words." A good example of this is the article pasted into Genius' reply above. This is an article reporting on an article. So you've got lots of layers of attribution. If anyone's called on the story, they just point to the London Sunday Telegraph and say, "Hey, we're just reporting on their story -- we're not saying this is true." Notice that the Sunday Telegraph would not be subject to a libel lawsuit in the U.S., but Conspiracy Nation would be. So ask yourself why the story is written the way it is. Notice that the article says that the U.S. papers aren't rushing to report the same thing -- and implies that this means that the media is covering something up. Notice how that implication is made. Notice what the writer wants you to think. Ask yourself whether there are other credible explanations for the set of facts that the writer is using to raise his implications. Notice how many times the words "allegation" or "claim" or the like appear. Ask yourself why the reporter didn't interview the witnesses himself. Ask yourself why this isn't being pounced on by the Bush camp.

I'm not commenting on the truth or falsity of the article posted in here. I'm saying that these are the kinds of questions we should be asking of every article we read, in order to stay mindful of the power of persuasion of the written word, the power of suggestion, and the role that various media play in changing minds.

There's as much to be learned from what is left out of a story as there is from what is included.

So. What's the first step? What's the goal? Are we united on this or are we all working on different issues?

Peace.

Yoooo, ummmm, that shit you said about Nader wanting to do away with the congress, that sounds a little too much like communism to me homeboy. Anyways, man, politics can kiss my ass, but we do need to do something, because as anti-politics as I am, we need it to survive, period. Im at a total standstill, because I dont know whether I like politics or not, because, anarchy, well, thats ridiculous, then, not many other governments have allowed quite as much personal freedom as we have, but.....

Who do we believe? Its all too deep to even try to scratch the surface of understanding the multi-faceted universe that is politics. I say, I really dont believe in voting, but people should still do it. Hahahahahahaha, Im sounding like an idiot, Im hella tired.

Put it like this: Politics is needed to keep order, but the current state of politics needs some rearrangement to accomodate the changing of the world. I just cannot choose sides, as we all have different reasons for thinking what we think. So therefore, in my "opinion", a vote for Bush is the same as a vote for Clinton as is a vote for Nader, or whoever you want to say. Because its all opinion. And whatever the peoples opinions lead them to believe, which lead them to vote on, which lead it to possibly coming to fruition, must be right for the majority of (*voters*).

Hahaha, I need sleep, if you understand a damn thing Im sayin get it back, lets discuss this further, Id like to hear your opinions, hoping it will make me a better person, haha. Peace. Kamikazee



******Yo, ask me bout Societal Evolution. Any body want it keep in touch, Ill be finished soon...Kamikazee

Hit me up if you wanna trade or sell vinyl, E-mail me or IM me if Im ever on, haha, I need more!! MORE!!! Im addicted, get at me and well connect. One love to all my vinyl addicts, keep playin the real ish, peace.

"You cant spend time twice..."-me

"The second somebody dies, somebody else is born, somebody celebratin while other people mourn, home may be home to you, but to me its foreign, even the matador dont pull the bull by the horn, one mans enemy is another mans friend, one mans poison is another mans medicine......"-Aceyalone

AIM:Kamikazee101******

Well, I never heard anything about him wanting to abolish the U.S. Senate. I saw the man speak last night, and he outlined a VERY ambitious set of goals (made something like 14 points), but none of them involved taking apart our congress, or even amending our constitution.

But to reply to what you said, I think there are very real differences between Nader and the other candidates when you look at his platform. Here's one good resource for that info:
http://votenader.org/
His ideas are a little radical, but they I think they have a lot of substance, and they are nothing like the tired rhetoric Gore and Bush have been trying to sell us.

peace,
murph

I'm pretty sure that while Nader is supported by the Green Party, not all of the goals of their party agree with Nader's. Nader simply allied witht them because while differing on a few issues, overall they shared many of the same thoughts and concerns.

So what is on the Green Party Platform is not necessarliy what is on Nader's platform.

Ursus

I'm pretty sure that while Nader is supported by the Green Party, not all of the goals of their party agree with Nader's. Nader simply allied witht them because while differing on a few issues, overall they shared many of the same thoughts and concerns.

So what is on the Green Party Platform is not necessarliy what is on Nader's platform.

Ursus

Expertise kindly provided us with a link to the Green Party platform:

http://www.greenparty.org/Platform061100.html

But Ursus is right that the platform may not reflect the views of Nader. If that's true, though, what do we think about Gore's alignment with the Demo platform, or Bush & the Repub platform? Interesting to think about.

But I was really just using that as an example anyway.

Peace.

The Greens have an interesting idea there about abolishing the Senate. They want to form a single congressional body where representation is proportional to population. I don't think the people of this country would ultimately want that, but I can understand the motives behind proposing it. The Green party is too idealistic for its own good sometimes.

As for Nader's differences with the Greens, I think he's more independent than any of the other candidates. First of all, the Green Party actually sought out Nader - they wanted him to run on their ticket. He didn't ask to be their candidate.

Its all over their web site that "this is not Nader's platform", and for good reason. He is an independent who is running as a Green Party candidate because he agrees with them in a lot of areas, and because they have grassroots resources that he needs. His campaign is not swimming in money the way Gore's and Bush's are, so allying himself with the Greens is important to his success.

peace,
murph

You read way more closely than I did -- I just clicked in to see whether Expertise was exaggerating some stuff and then left. :-)

Peace.

Well, instead of looking at it as a "political" question, let's look at it as an "individual" question. What is important to you? You can make a list of everything that's important, or you can just name one or a few things, and then the place to start would be to ask yourself what the first step is to reach that goal. Thoughts?

Peace.