Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: HUMOR: More Funny how things come back to haunt you[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: HUMOR: More Funny how things come back to haunt you
- From: Bill Polhemus <poly(--nospam--at)flash.net>
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 22:37:38 -0500
Dennis S. Wish PE wrote: > 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. Dennis, if you will stop to think about it, you might agree within your own mind, that if, a few months ago, you'd been told that the President was going to be hit with incontrovertible evidence that he had had an affair with a woman, with raunchy acts taking place right in the Oval Office, and that neither he nor his supporters would be able to deny it one iota, you'd have concluded that he was "done for." And if the same informant would have said, "Oh, no, his supporters will hold their own, and will nearly succeed in turning the debate from HIS actions, to the propriety of its having been discovered and reported in the first place," you would probably not have believed it! You'd have, indeed, thought the person's statements LUDICROUS at best. Yet, that is exactly where we are at this time, reduced to pointing out what not so long ago, would have been obvious, and being informed in return that it's just more "spin." I wonder if the ancient Israelites saw the Ten Commandments as just more "spin" on the part of G*d's handlers? > 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. Then substitute the phrase "your man." This is quibbling. > Again, you stated an opinion as though it were fact. If you > consider this a fact, then I would point out some flaws. If the president and his handlers are disputing the salient facts, I haven't heard it. You call it "spin" to state these facts. I think you are confused. The "spin" occurs when the established--and undisputed--facts are put forward as irrelevant and meaningless. > 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. He is the President, yes, although elected by 42% of the popular vote. Yes, the Electoral College is much at fault, as it does not take into account--ironically--the presence of fringe candidates like Mr. Perot. Yet, as you say, I bow to the inevitable, that he is the President. However, that is a political fact, not necessarily a moral one. > 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. Except that I'm not sure that a direct popular-vote would be better. I remain flexible on the question, however. > Secondly, you assume that his "minions" are wrong and that you are right. No. I assume that the facts are the facts, that adultery is still adultery--and while not considered criminal, it is reprehensible to the extent that no elected official, and certainly not the highest official in the land, could sustain politically viability having performed it on the public clock and in the public's house--and that perjury is still perjury, and (for that matter) that "is" still means "is," and "alone" still means "alone." Again, YOU see spin on both sides. I see simpy the facts, and the attempts on the part of the "minions" to insist that the facts are irrelevant. > However, since this has not been decided through the legal system you can > neither assume the "minions" are right or wrong. It WON'T be decided through the legal system, either, but through the political system known as the impeachment process. > 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). Was there ever any doubt that the motives of the Democrats in 1974 were not at least in part political? Yet, at that time, was that inevitability ever placed on the scales to "balance" the facts of Nixon's crimes? Why, then, should it matter now, when the facts are the facts? Do you think for ONE SECOND that the Democrats would hesitate if this were a Republican President caught with his trousers down? Do you think they didn't lick their chops as they swore in Oliver North? This is irrelevant. "Everyone knows" there is a large political element to all this, but those who are honest with themselves realize that, beyond that, there are people on both sides who would dearly like to see right prevail. Those are the people who will determine this thing, just as it happened in 1974. > 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. I find it fascinating that you refer to the release to the public of all the allegations, AND the supporting documentation, as a "blitz of obstruction." THAT, my friend, is "spin." > 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. Then you must ask yourself: In whose interest is that focus? In whose interest is it to "reduce in public interest" Clinton's crimes? > 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. I agree. However, when you consider that there are so many in that party, such as the Kennedys, and the Congressional Black Caucus--Maxine Waters even referred to the "alleged Starr Report"--that are actively SUPPORTING the President's position, then you conclude that a bit of public censure by way of the ballot box may be in order, and much hoped-for. > If this were the case,I > believe the Republican party would not long exist after Nixon. That WAS the case, and it DID happen. Check the results of the 1974 and 1976 elections, my friend. > 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. "Collusion" in what, and by whom? > 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. Yes, you're right. The Democrats have been very partisan, haven't they? Oh, wait, you mean the REPUBLICANS, don't you? After all, "everyone knows" that only the Republicans are partisan. Democrats are the very soul of objective demeanor. This is bosh. It is finger-pointing solely by Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media. > Mr. Hydes response is that there is a difference of > interpretation as to what is considered Bipartisan. I don't believe him. You don't believe that "biparisan," in the Conventional Wisdom, is conveniently defined as "agreeing completely with the Democrat point of view"? Then you must be the only one not affiliated with the Republican party that believes that way. > 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. Pardon my saying so, but..."Duh!" However, the crowing by Dick Gephardt this past March, to the effect that he was "convinced" the Dems were going to regain control of Congress--that was simply even-handed rhetoric, right? And it is ONLY nefarious partisanship when REPUBLICANS gleefully sense victory, right? Sorry, but your biases are showing much too clearly for me to swallow the "independent voter" disclaimer, above. > 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). I do not recollect, in my readings of Article I, Sections 2 & 3, nor in Federalist #65, the slightest mention of the polls in considering whether or not to impeach. It seems to me the only criteria were "high crimes and misdemeanors," the definition of which I leave as homework for you. > 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 find it fascinating that you consider the political leaders of this country simply akin to "infomercial and talk show hosts." It seems to me that Clinton has done his job, in dumbing down the electorate, if you are a typical example. > I only expect the people I elect to accomplish what I send them there to do in > the first place. Then perhaps you and I have a different expectation, and a different definition of "accomplish." I would love to think that Mr. Clinton was there to make sure the Federal government stays out of my life as far as possible, and to make sure the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. Since he has done neither, then my expectations are surely frustrated. > 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. MAYBE you should wait until the reports are published, hm? And as a side note: Sixteen indictments, thirteen convictions in the Whitewater matter, so far. This, after the newly-elected Pres. Bill Clinton fired EVERY SINGLE U.S. ATTORNEY--which has NEVER happened before--and replaced them all with his own selections, including the U.S. Attorney overseeing the Whitewater investigation that had been going on for two years before he got to the White House. Yes, that's all true--look it up--and it is very rarely mentioned in the "mainstream press." Why is that? And why did that U.S. Attorney abruptly end the investigation into Whitewater shortly thereafter? It was only after one of the three judges on the oversight panel convinced the others that an in-depth investigation was warranted based on information supplied in the former investigation, that Mr. Starr's office began business (just in case you think this all came out of thin air--or the fecund imagination of Mr. Starr himself). Only then, did the indictments and, ultimately, the convictions, begin to go down. Remember the Rose Law Firm billing records? Couldn't find 'em for two years, though under subpoena, then they showed up, mysteriously, in the White House, with Ms. Rodham's fingerprints all over 'em. Remember the big question of 1996: "Who hired Craig Livingstone?" Congress couldn't get an answer to that one, not even from Mr. Livingstone himself (Tom Lantos suggested he kill himself, but poor Mr. Livingstone didn't seem to take the hint). That, too, is being discovered as we speak, by Mr. Starr's office. There are a number of interesting, very difficult mysteries that are just now finally coming to light, thanks to Mr. Starr. I suggest you hold off on your FINAL opinion, until we hear it all. > You might > argue that this all started with Jennifer Flowers or Paula Jones Actually, I think this all very disgusting, but not nearly so vital as information that we hope can be provided by John Huang and Johnny Chung, et al. Let's not forget Charlie Trie. And I'm sitting on pins and needles wondering how Loral fits into all this. Who was it in the Commerce Department that authorized their troubleshooting team to go to China to help our communist friends there debug their strategic missile launches? And is it true that, shortly before he died in that unfortunate plane crash, Ron Brown had told Clinton operatives that he'd had enough, and wanted out? I find this much more fascinating than the skirt-chasing. > , however, > these incidences are civil matter (possibly criminal if he lied as well) and > are not worthy of the expense of federal funds. No, I'm sure that you feel ALL the above is not worthy of the expenditure of federal funds. Only if it is a conservative Republican, must we spare no expense to get to the bottom. > 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. Ridiculous. That money amounts to 57 cents out of ONE YEAR of the taxes of each tax payer. Chicken feed. > Most of those who want him impeached use his lie to the grand jury as > justification. Yes, and Al Capone went down on tax evasion. You were saying? > 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. It isn't "interpreted" within the constitution, it is "interpreted" by the Federalists and other writers and thinkers of that time. I invite you to become familiar with the terms, and their exact meanings. > 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. No, except to Democrats, who insist that, although no one can be absolutely sure exactly what constitutes a "high crime" or a "misdemeanor" in that sense, THEY are confident that the President didn't make the cut. > ...his interpretation or spin... So, in your opinion, then, when a distinguished former jurist gives his legal opinion when it has been solicited, it is "spin?" My, you are cynical. > ...will come down to a decision by the > Supreme Court which is the only final authority we have in this life. The Supreme Court has absolutely no say in this matter, except that the Chief Justice of the United States (did you know that is his precise title?) will preside over the removal trial. Please re-read your Constitution. There IS no "court of last resort" beyond the U.S. Senate for removal from office after impeachment. > 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. O.K. May we make a federal case out of lying under oath? I'm sure if you or I did it, the courts would be rather inclined to insist. > 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. Here's my opinion--or spin, if you will. She was still protecting Mr. Clinton. Mr. Starr's team messed up on her proffers. > 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? 1) It didn't "fail to make it" into the supporting evidence, did it, lest you think something nefarious is going on here. After all, it was in the evidence, and hardly buried, since her GJ testimony is on the top of everyone's hit parade. 2) Once again, your bias is showing. > I don't particularly believe in > coinsidence when it comes to sworn testomony disapearing. If it "disappeared," how is it that you know about it, less than two weeks after the Starr Report's appearance? Sloppy job on the part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, say you? > She was on record > when she made this statement, but the transcription fails to not it. This is not correct. > Inasmuch as Clinton has had no opportunity to refute the allegations > against him *in a court of law* I suspect he will have that chance. He can and should be removed simply for the nauseating way he conducts his personal life WHILE IN OFFICE (literally and figuratively). However, he will likely be facing indictment after he leaves, now or later. Then, he can have his day in court. Just so you'll feel better about it. > 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 love this. We have become a nation, not of laws, but of feelings, and of men. You mentioned the O.J. trial earlier. What happened there is EXACTLY what you declare YOU would be party to if given the opportunity. You're merely picking your "threshhold" a little lower than the O.J. jurors. Remarkable double-think! > I really believe we live in Grey areas - and much of our legal > arguments need interpretation. Don't worry about that. We have plenty of Lawyers who'll do that for you. > 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. "Of Late?" My friend, Bill Clinton has been manipulating the truth as a public man since he first weazled out of reporting for his draft notice in 1969. > 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. Oh, please. So you can be bought. You are a good example as to why an admitted felon is still occupying the White House. Do me a favor. Get hold of a short story by Ursula K. LeGuin, entitled "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas," and read it. Then tell me you don't see yourself and a whole lot of other Americans as inhabitants of Omelas. > [Democratic Campaign Ad Deleted] > Gee, why is it that I should be upset about this administration???????? You done good. Tell your party bosses that you're pretty sure you turned at least a few minds during this jag. Regards.
- RE: HUMOR: More Funny how things come back to haunt you
- From: Dennis S. Wish PE
- RE: HUMOR: More Funny how things come back to haunt you
- Prev by Subject: RE: HUMOR: More Funny how things come back to haunt you
- Next by Subject: HUMOR: Re: Cakes are round, Pie are square
- Previous by thread: RE: HUMOR: More Funny how things come back to haunt you
- Next by thread: RE: HUMOR: More Funny how things come back to haunt you