Sen. Clinton

**kjw1231** · 03-05-2002, 09:36 AM

Good old Hilliary...I didn't vote for her or her hubby...

This is a forwarded message...

Gold Star Mothers

You really should be sitting down when you read this one. Gold Star Mothers is an organization made up of women whose sons were killed in military combat during service in the United States armed forces. Recently a delegation of New York State Gold Star Mothers made a trip to Washington, DC to discuss various concerns with their elected representatives.

According to published reports, there was only one politician who refused to meet with these ladies. Can you guess which politician that might be? Was it New York Senator Charles Schumer? Nope,
he met with them. Try again. Do you know anyone serving in the Senate who has never showed anything but contempt for our military? Do you happen to know the name of any politician in Washington who's husband once wrote of his loathing for the military? Now you're getting warm! You got it! None other than the Queen herself, Hillary Clinton. She refused repeated requests to meet with the Gold Star Mothers. Now -- please don't tell me you're surprised. This woman wants to be president of the United States ------------ and there is a huge percentage of voters who are eager to help her achieve that goal.

Sincerely,
Cdr. Hamilton McWhorter USN (ret)

Think about this one !!!

Don't forget, our girl, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York Senator, now comes under this fancy Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan. It's common knowledge that, in order for her to establish NYS residency, they purchased a million+ dollar house in upscale Chappaqua, NY. Makes sense. Now, they are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense. Here is where it becomes interesting. The mortgage payments hover at about $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residency had to be built within the acreage in order to house the Secret Service agents. The Clinton's now charge the Secret Service $10,000 monthly rent for the use of said Secret service residence and that rent is just about equal to their mortgage payment, meaning that we, the tax payers, are paying the Clinton's mortgage, their transportation, their safety and security, their 12 man staff, and it's all perfectly legal.

**Steve Machol** · 03-05-2002, 11:17 AM

I have as much disdain for Sen. Clinton as anyone, but I need to point out that this is another one of the Internet/email urban legends:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blgoldstar.htm

**MVEYES** · 03-05-2002, 12:50 PM

:cheers: You mean Hillary is an urban legend.:D We can forget about her Whitehouse furniture caper? I'm glad that is cleared up I really didn't want to beleive that the first family of our country would do something like that.

Just joking. I guess we should forget just like we did with Ted Kennedy at Chapaquidic (sp?).

:shiner: :hammer: :cheers: Jerry

**chip anderson** · 03-05-2002, 04:08 PM

Steve:

This urban legend is for real. You should listen to dem ultra right wing folks like G. Gordon Liddy more often. This came out before they defrocked The White House.

Chip

**shanbaum** · 03-05-2002, 04:16 PM

chip anderson said:
Steve:

This urban legend is for real. You should listen to dem ultra right wing folks like G. Gordon Liddy more often. This came out before they defrocked The White House.

Chip

http://www.goldstarmoms.com/index.htm

**chip anderson** · 03-05-2002, 07:29 PM

Shanebaum:

Don't know what the gold star mothers (unless it's really the gold star muthas) has to do with Hillary.

What I ment is the Clinton really did trash The White House, and arrange to charge the secret service enough rent for thier "hut" to pay the Clinton's morgage.

**JennyP** · 03-06-2002, 01:50 AM

Steve,
I used your link and came up with a general page that we "gullible types" should check. I have a friend in PA who is always sending me stuff that later turns out to be slightly hoakie. ;)

For anyone who wants:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/c/esntl.htm

jP

**Steve Machol** · 03-06-2002, 02:00 AM

Thanks Jenny. I always check that page when I hear the latest rumor floating around the Internet. The last time it was about the alleged bill in Congress to impost a tax on email. That, of course, was another hoax.

**Darris Chambless** · 03-07-2002, 02:00 PM

You know what I find scary?

With all the information out on the net it can be difficult to authenticate much of what's out there. So who's to say that something doesn't get moved over to a page that allegedly researches and dismisses an item but doesn't have their facts straight? Who's to say what criteria they use to dismiss or prove any of these items?

I've seen some pretty impressive sites that looked pretty real but weren't. I've even seen some very official looking "documents" that were "created". Shoot, I've even created some of my own just for kicks. Just like most science, for every piece of "proof" you can get just as much disproof from just a reputable sources; so who do you believe?

I'm not saying one way or the other if any of this is true or not because I have no clue (mainly because it's pretty insignificant to other things that have been done up close and personal by the Clintons so this one pales in comparison) I will say that as far as "the Clintons" trashing the White House I would have to say that's not true. To the victor go the spoils but to the losers already in occupation vendication can occur. Peoeple that worked in the Whitehouse employed by the Clintons or the administration may have done some things but it was of their own accord I'm sure. I may have no love in my heart for the Clintons, I may even think that if brain cells were dynomite they wouldn't have enough to blow their collective noses, but I really don't think they did any trashing of the White House.

But again there are probably sites out there that have all kinds of information supporting this allegation, but is it true or someones "impression" of the whole thing or biased opinion? You just never know sometimes. Kind of like Joe lieberman and Enron contributions. According to Roberts link Joe only recieved $2,000.00 in contributions from Enron, but (and I'm still trying to locate where I saw it) I read on a site that he recieved $200,000.00 plus and it was an exact dollar figure to boot. But again one site says one thing and another said something to the contrary so which one is the true figures since we're not getting to see the actual Enron or candidate books?

Well, that's my take on the whole thing.

Take care (another one down ;)

Darris C.

**John R** · 03-07-2002, 03:10 PM

The internet can be far more missleading than anything you read in the papers.....
Lets face it anybody can put a site up saying diddly do did diddly squat.... but at least the press have to justifey what they print.... even if its not true. :finger: