<OT>I'll apologize for going off topic too, but verbose small minded guy that I am, I have to let my hobgoblin have its say.
I don't really want to continue it. It's just very difficult letting provocative statements about something I care about slide without comment.
Something you care about Gerald? Could that possibly mean that you're arguing from feelings and emotions? Or do your feelings and emotions just motivate you to state the facts, just the facts, in a totally objective and rational manner?
Personally, I'm with another honest Republican of a sort on this. "Facts are stupid things", as Ronald Reagan said. Or, to paraphrase the old saw about computer standards, the nice thing about facts is that there are so many to pick from. I prefer to pick my own.
And a final word on the Starr report. Arguing about it is indeed a waste of time. I will repeat my modest proposal. There's an election in 6 weeks. The Starr report is plastered everywhere, in all its lurid detail. Personally, I think every candidate for Congress should state whether they consider the case presented in the public version of the Starr report grounds for impeachment. Or, for senatorial candidates, grounds for conviction. For mrknowitall, aka mrmisconstrual, I'd clarify that this is just asking the candidates for their current opinion. They can always change their minds, or lie, or weasel. Put up or shut up, I say.
Cheers, Dan. |
