>Nope. The fact that Clinton has been unfairly attacked in the past
>only means that those who didn't complain then have no grounds
>whatsoever to whine now about the Hydes and the Barrs of the
>world coming under similar attacks.
Do you hear me complaining? I personally think it's kind of funny,
and I enjoy politicians OF ALL STRIPES having their hypocritical
positions exposed.
By the way, I can turn the same argument on you... Those who
never complained in the past about corporate executives being
intimidated by sexual harassment laws *SIGNED BY CLINTON HIMSELF*
should not whine now when Clinton comes under the same scrutiny...
>Nope. The fact that the vast majority of the lay people in this
>country (at one end of the "knowledge spectrum") and 900
>constitutional scholars (at the other end of the spectrum) regard
>that the allegations, even if proven true, are not worthy of
>impeachment, means that people like you have nobody for company
>other than those religious right-wing nuts who wanted Clinton to be
>impeached the moment he became President.
This statement is so absurd, that it's too good to be true!
Hmmm... where do I begin?
So, am I to assume that there are only 900 "constitutional
scholars" in this country? Just because 900 people believe
something, that is enough to make it so?
Your second statement about "people like me" (you don't even
know me!) is the most laughable... Taken at face value, I can
disprove your statement by coming up with just *one* counter-
example (besides me) of a non-right-wing-nut who also agrees
Clinton should be removed. I know several personally, and I can
even point to the Republican's counsel (a life-long Democrat
who voted for Clinton). So, your statement is absurd!
However, discussing the law requires some logical thought,
which many Clinton defenders (and you specifically) seem to
have trouble with. |
