Am I the only one who notices that the main mode of discussion here, of a substantial majority of the "remove Clinton" crowd seems to be nasty attack on the other side's proponents? While the "leave him in office" crowd tends more towards making fun of the other side, as well as towards a significant number of extensive arguments drawing on history, law, and foreign perspectives? (There have been some flat out nasty attacks coming from our side too, but nearly always in response to being attacked. As opposed to nasty attacks being a starting response to a considered argument from the other side. I really don't think I've seen that much, if at all, from our side.)
For instance, I have yet to see any step by step argument from the "dump Clinton" crowd that charges X,Y and Z from the Starr report are iron clad, and amply supported by evidence A,B and C in the following ways. And that the specific arguments which Mr. Y makes in rebuttal are wrong for the following reason j,k and l.
I for one have certainly made such arguments on the "let Clinton go" side, with respect to parts of the Starr report. Except that I've only had Starr, rather than any reasoned supporter of his arguments here, to rebut. Responses to these arguments has tended to be of the caliber of: "so which perjury does our federal law say is not a crime."
I really think the difference overall (while not pure or 100%), is pretty stark.
Comments anyone?
Doug |
