It has been glaringly obvious since September 11, 2001. It was confirmed on November 5, 2002. The Democrat party is in the throes of death.
It suffers from terminal obsolescence, intractable vacuity, a vertiginous, egocentric spin, and spontaneous corruption--that is to say--the Democrat party suffers from malignant clintonism.
From this it follows--no post hoc reasoning this--that the clintons and clintonism are dead. The only question left is whether a decent burial is in the offing...
|
||
By Mia T, 3-3-02
It is obvious to anyone who bothers to remove his political blinders. It is so patently obvious that even those whose political blinders are a permanently fixed fashion statement -- that is to say, even Hollywood -- can see it. (Just ask Whoopie Goldberg...or Rosie O'Donnell...) Bush's poll numbers are a reflection of this self-evident truth.
What is manifestly obvious and confirmed on a daily basis is the plain fact that Democrats are, by definition, constitutionally unfit to navigate the ship of state through these troubled, terrorist waters. Democrats were unfit pre-9/11, but few could see it then. It was 9/11 and its aftermath that made this truth crystal clear even to the most simpleminded among us.
The unwashed masses, the uninformed, the disinformed can see it now. All America can see it now. Self-preservation is kicking in, trumping petty politics at every turn.
And this is why Democrat demagoguery and stupidity and sedition are achieving new lows...
We are witnessing the last gasp of a political relic. The Democrat party is not merely obsolete. As 9/11 and clinton-clinton-Daschle action and inaction have demonstrated, the Democrat party is very dangerous.
We must now make sure that this fact, too, is obvious to all... |
||
|
"The most important thing I have to say to you today is that hair matters. This is a life lesson my family did not teach me [and] Wellesley and Yale Law School failed to instill: Your hair will send significant messages to those around you. What hopes and dreams you have for the world - but more, what hopes and dreams you have for your hair. Pay attention to your hair, because everyone else will."
|
||
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-peckQ ERTY1 |