Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: HUMOR: More Funny how things come back to haunt you

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I have refrained from comment, but this particular statement causes me to
respond:

Bill Polhemus states:
"You must know that the vast majority of "reasonable people" find you quaint
and silly when you do."

There is no evidence of this and therefore unless you can substatiate this
comment you are doing the same thing the Republican party, Democrates, Media
and even your own neighbors are doing - putting your own spin on the issue.
If you wish to state it as an opinion, I would not argue with you.

You also stated:
"You do not serve your cause nor your president very well by continuing to
obfuscate the facts of this case as he and his minions have continued to
do."

Unless you have given up your citizenship in this country, this president is
yours as well.  Again, you stated an opinion as though it were fact. If you
consider this a fact, then I would point out some flaws. First, as I stated,
this is *your* president as well and if you choose to deny this, I believe
you do as you claim his minions are at fault for - obfuscate the political
system in this country by doing whatever it takes to undermine the will of
the people that elected him OR the constitutionally protected process of
using the Electorial College in the election process. If you do not want to
accept this, you should, I believe, either help institute change in the
legal system by working to eliminate (what I agree is archiac) the
Electorial College.
Secondly, you assume that his "minions" are wrong and that you are right.
However, since this has not been decided through the legal system you can
neither assume the "minions" are right or wrong. I happens to be my opinion
that his "minions" identify the actions of the Republican party as being
malicious and an act intended to distroy the Democratic party for political
gain (the motive). It is also my opinion that the only real concern of the
Democrates are that the process of government be appropriately reported to
the public and not obstructed as this "blitz" as done. The problem is that
the focus is so much on the Republican attack (even the act by Clinton has
started to reduce in public interest) that the daily activities in
Washington are not being reported as it has in the past to the people by the
press. This leaves the public to believe that nothing is being done in
Washington.  I believe that it is incorrect to associate guilt of a
individual to any political party he belongs to. If this were the case,I
believe the Republican party would not long exist after Nixon.  If, however,
you or anyone within the Republican National Party can prove collusion, I
would welcome the unrefutable evidence. However, I would not want this
hunting party started at my expense.

What gets me on this issue is the claim to the American people that this is
a Bipartisan act when, clearly, it is a very Partisan act - just check the
distribution of votes. Mr. Hydes response is that there is a difference of
interpretation as to what is considered Bipartisan. I don't believe him.

For your information, I am not a Democrate or Repbulican, but an independent
willing to vote for whomever satisfies what I feel are viable issues. Still,
it is obvious to me that there is a definite spin on this issue and that
there is also a motivation for the Republican party to persue this issue -
political control of Congress in the next election.

I believe that if you were so concerned about what the the Impeachment
process will do to the American people (and you seem more concerned than I
or those whom I've spoken to) you would agree that trying to impeach is a
waste of taxes payers money when the opinion polls (which the Republicans
hoped would turn the tides against Clinton and even stated publically would
guide their decision as to an appropriate course of action), still support
him 66% to 34% (CNN Pole).

Personally, I never expected a politician to be honest - I also don't place
actors, sports figures, TV Evangelists, Infomercial and talk show hosts on a
pedistal that I would want my children to use as a role models. I have
recognized that the perception of a moral family role is tainted by the
media (I recommend the biography on A&E of Ozzie Nelson and Rick Nelson as
an example of America's most favorite family). I only expect the people I
elect to accomplish what I send them there to do in the first place. I
realize it is a sorry state in our history when we decide to chose the
lessor of two undesirables, but as far as I am concerned, this has been our
choice for quite a while. To not vote is considered Unamerican, yet to vote
for the lessor of two evils is what we have begun to expect from society. We
are expected to comprimise in order to protect our those values which we
consider most important to the future of our families (jobs, homes, social
security, national security etc).

Rather than get into a long discussion, my anger does not stem from an
adulterer, I have known a few in my time and they all lie for the same
reasons. My anger is spending 4.4 million dollars to justify 40 million
wasted in deadend, unsubstantiated, Partisan claims - none of which were
proven to be indictable or which started with sexual scandle. You might
argue that this all started with Jennifer Flowers or Paula Jones, however,
these incidences are civil matter (possibly criminal if he lied as well) and
are not worthy of the expense of federal funds.
44 Million dollars which could have been used in other area's of government
for disaster relief, low income loans, education, tax incentives in the
private sector and much more.

Most of those who want him impeached use his lie to the grand jury as
justification. I agree that it is a reasonable claim. I believe, that the
majority of Americans believe that there is a degree of severity which needs
to be assessed as to whether this was considered a "High Crime" as
"interpreted" within the Constitution. Listening to the legal systems best -
law professors like Alan Dershewitz (sorry for the spelling) and former
Supreme Court nominee, Judge Bork - this issue is not clear. The
Constitution leaves room for interpretation as Bork pointed out in his
argument in favor of impeachment on MSNBC a few days ago. His argument was
made upon his opinion as to the limited meaning of certain words drawn from
the Constitution text. It was pointed out by the comentator (Marsha Clark
Esq.) that this was his interpretation or spin which was also done by every
lawyer in court, trying to prove the innocence or guilt of an accused. I
believe this one will take years and will come down to a decision by the
Supreme Court which is the only final authority we have in this life.

What can we do? Stop spending needlessly on this issue, wait until he gets
out of office and let the public decide without the mud-slinging who the
next president should be. Let the Civil courts take action, but don't make a
Federal Case out of sex.

One question which puzzles me. Just prior to the end of Lewinsky's grand
jury testimoney, she was asked if she had anything to add. She clearly and
undeniably stated that She was neither told or coericed to lie, nor did
Clinton, to her knowledge, try to cause others to lie under oath. This is
well documented and was the same question asked on CNN last evening. Why,
out of over 2,200 pages of testimony, did this one important statement fail
to make it into the Starr report? I don't particularly believe in
coinsidence when it comes to sworn testomony disapearing. She was on record
when she made this statement, but the transcription fails to not it.
Personally, I beieve in our system of justice (most of the time) even though
I don't agree with the outcome of many cases (the Simpson trial as one of
them). Inasmuch as Clinton has had no opportunity to refute the allegations
against him *in a court of law*, I would be hard pressed to draw judgment
until which time everything is laid on the table. I do know that if I were
sitting in the jurist box, the judges instructions had better be damn clear
before I would convict a man of lying about an affair, if I believed he did
so to protect his wife and family from the humiliation he or the media would
caused them. I really believe we live in Grey areas - and much of our legal
arguments need interpretation. If laws were meant to be adhered to by the
letter, there would not be the number of manipulations of the truth we have
seen of late.

As a parting note, I did not vote for the man. However, I have an abundance
of work which was not there during past administrations. Since he raised
public consciencness about Health Care, my families premiums have dropped
more than 50%. New parents are allowed to spend quality time with the newly
borns. Welfare has been reformed to place recipients on a time limit to
return to the work place. Unemployment is the lowest in decades (albeit
putting back to work people caught in the "downsizing" trend of the Eighties
and Nineties at lower wages), Mortgages are the lowest in decades (and a
promise of even lower rates occured today). I have seen the fall of the
Soviet Union (which I do not give credit to any one party). The final
topping to the cake is that for the first time in decades we are paying back
the deficit - and at an amount this year (as reported by the Republicans on
CSPAN) of $84 Billion Dollars when the budget was set at $25 Billion.
Capital Gains tax revision has made more money available by the wealthy to
be spent on luxuries like vacation homes which seed the industry with work
for professionals and builders. Peace has been maintained in most area's of
the world and the Majority of Americans as reported by CNN approve of
Clinton's handling of foreign affairs.
Gee, why is it that I should be upset about this administration????????

For what it's worth.....
Dennis Wish PE

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:poly(--nospam--at)flash.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 1998 5:20 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: HUMOR: More Funny how things come back to haunt you


I suspect that if you were to question Judge Starr about this, he would
stand
by the statement.  I wonder if Pres. Clinton would say the same thing.

I find it interesting that there are those who try to paint the information
in
the Starr Report as somehow "titillating."  I consider myself in the
normative
range as far as libido is concerned, and I found the accounts to have all
the
arousal effect of a gynecologist's report.

If your vaunted President chooses to engage in conduct such as this, on
public
time and on public property, then to lie about it, and send others out to
lie
about it, and encourage others to lie about it, and to lie about it in legal
proceedings while under oath, and finally, to try and characterize such
conduct as "not sex as a reasonable person would define it," then you're
going
to have to live with the fact that the information had to be provided in the
report.

I have sat as a juror in two sexual-assault trials.  In each, the
information
given to the jury was very explicit, and graphic, and INCLUDED PHOTOGRAPHS.
It would never have occurred to any of the jurors present that the
prosecuting
attorney was thus "peddling pornography."

You do not serve your cause nor your president very well by continuing to
obfuscate the facts of this case as he and his minions have continued to do.
You must know that the vast majority of "reasonable people" find you quaint
and silly when you do.

Rlfong(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote:

> And the quote of the day:
>
>    "Public media should not contain explicit or implied descriptions
>    of sex acts. Our society should be purged of the perverts who
>    provide the media with pornographic material while pretending
>    it has some redeeming social value under the public's
>    'right to know'."
>      -- Kenneth Starr, 1987, "Sixty Minutes" interview with Dianne Sawyer.
>
> In a message dated 9/23/1998 9:27:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> Resengin(--nospam--at)aol.com writes:
>
> >  > Quote:
> >   > "Yes, the president should resign. He has lied to the
> >   > American people, time and time again, and betrayed
> >   > their trust. Since he has admitted guilt, there is no
> >   > reason to put the American people through an
> >   > impeachment.
> >   >
> >   >  He will serve absolutely no purpose in finishing out
> >   > his term, the only possible solution is for the
> >   > president to save some dignity and resign."
> >   >
> >   > >From Congressional District Hopeful
> >   > William Jefferson Clinton
> >   > During the Nixon investigations.
> >
> >   _____________
>
> Ron Fong
> Fremont,  CA
> slightly embarrassed to add to the molasses of stuff on this issue.
>