<< Robert: It was little, threatened and self-interested minds like yours that made it possible for the Soviet Union and The People's Republic of China to engage in the wholesale slaughter of ... >>
Hey, you left out the Cambodian slaughters under Pol Pot, Germany's slaughters under Hitler, the China/Indochina slaughters by Japan.
After all, if you are going to blame me for mass murders, please be thorough.
What a bunch of crap. First, you neatly failed to quote my entire statement, which was that pinheads like you made it possible for the gov'ts in question to murder intellectuals. That was based on your accusation that halfscot, apparently because he disagreed with you and felt that our justice system should not be poll-driven, was contemptuous of the limited intelligence of the people. It is specifically that sort of "the intellectuals all hate you" thinking that was the justification for the Soviet attacks on the "intelligentsia" and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. But apparently you didn't have a response to that, so you just quoted half of my statement and responded to that.
And why am I being charged with these heinous atrocities? It's because I think that a man is innocent until proven guilty. President Clinton is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!
Again, crap. As I already stated, my post wasn't even about "these atrocities," that was just something you added to suit your argument. And I certainly didn't make the criticism I did (as outlined above) because you believe Clinton is innocent until proven guilty. That's ridiculous. Of course he's innocent until proven guilty! That's what this Senate trial is all about.
You're damn right that I fail to grasp that you can impeach a democratically elected President just because he has been "charged" with a felony.
And you're proud of it, too. Okay, listen carefully. A sitting president cannot be charged in a criminal court. Instead he goes through the impeachment process, the first part of which is the House impeachment vote. This vote is not, nor was it ever meant to be, a conviction. It is more in the manner of an indictment. And for that reason, it is not necessary to prove anything, other than that there is enough evidence of wrongdoing to warrant a trial. So, impeachment can only happen as a result of someone simply being "charged." It is then up to the Senate to "try" him, and if they choose, to "convict" him.
Bob, your superior intellect overwhelms me...
Obviously.
You, OTOH, are willing to throw justice out the window and find someone guilty without due process.
This isn't just crap, it's erroneous and disingenuous crap. I have been fighting all along for justice against those who would have found Clinton not guilty without due process. All I've wanted all along is due process.
I've said before that I really don't care how this Senate trial turns out. The important thing was that it be allowed to happen. If Clinton is found not guilty, that's okay by me. I personally don't believe that that's the verdict that the evidence seems to warrant, but it's not my decision. You keep shouting about "innocent until proven guilty," I'll be curious to see if you, along with most (if not all) of the Senate Democrats will be so agreeable if the evidence of his guilt mounts to the point that it can no longer be ignored. Then will he be "innocent despite proven guilty?"
-BLT |
