After all, I suspect he made MUCH more milage out of YOUR comments than you did out of his and YOURS combined.

if being fired by Jerry Zeifman for unethical behavior had anything to do with changing her?

"After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader “Tip” O’Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O’Neill’s statement that: “To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series.”

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon

representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee’s then most recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff — where they were no longer accessible to the public."

Wonder how THIS affected her???

Unless you care to trace the phone records down to see if there was in fact a call - which by the way would be difficult to do, even if you could obtain a warrant to do so, because this was quite some time back - there really is no way to determine which one is telling the truth.

I actually find it fascinating that they can ignore the evidence of their own eyes, as seen in the written blog of the man who fired her...who SAYS she's untrustworthy...who shows what her character is like.

The lack of logic in knowing that character matters is astounding!

BTW, the prototype for her plan is STILL with Tennessee. At one point, it took up 48% of that state's budget! It is now down to a more comfortable 35% or so...but it is not working and everyone there knows it.

Now imagine if it had been instituted on a NATIONAL scale as was!!! Her plan at that time was not a viable one.

Simple.

Reverse it on her...let her lose her son, his wife and her grandchildren by not visiting, by not allowing her to visit YOU and by making sure they know they are NOT welcome in your home OR your life.

I suspect if you set this up right, SHE will be coming to YOU asking to see the kids etc. You see, when SHE refused to accept YOU, your husband should have told her she then refuses to accept HIM or your CHILDREN...hence your family will no longer accept HER!

Simple solution, but difficult to carry out. I think it would work though. And even if it doesn't, would you be worse off if you didn't see someone who constantly refuses to accept you as family...and in front of your husband and kids, no less???

Now what everyone should be asking themselves is, if she's going to do this when something tanks when she's NOT President...just how do you think she'll handle it if she IS President?

Can't run from your own failures and it's hard to blame the Republicans for everything!

Ah...ok then Karen. You want to be specific. Alrighty then.

Hillary did NOT lie...she PERPETUATED a lie due to her lack of researching a story before stating it was true.

Linda Weiss, a spokeswoman for the hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff's deputy in late February.

I can tell you the fascination is with the rebellion against authority and the sexual freedom that fascinates us now. The rebellion continues to this day, abeit a bit more subdued. The sexual freedom is also continuing, subdued more by disease than by anything else.

Depends on who you ask.

Porn is porn and is not going to change for anyone, really. It is what it is and has been for decades.

The question is, can feminists deal with porn...the answer is, some can, some can't - some think it's degrading to women, others think it's ok.

Point is moot actually because porn is here to stay and will not go away. It was outlawed years ago and still survived.

to let history be the judge. There is NO WAY we can tell how someone's actions will be judged in the future.

When Ronald Reagan was in office, many people thought history would be unkind to him...turns out they were wrong. The same could be said of JFK as well.

Others thought Jimmy Carter's time in office would be judged kindly and see how it is judged today.

No, we need to just sit and watch and wait for history's judgment.

Isn't calling your Dad too old to vote about the same as:

1. Women being too unintelligent to vote (said prior to 1920)

2. African-Americans being too uneducated to vote (said prior to the Emancipation Proclaimation)

Seems to me, we don't have the right to tell someone they can't vote UNLESS they are determined by a court of law to be mentally incompetent to do so.

It's the Pope's loss. I understand meals in the White House are outstanding!

If the shoe fits!