Hi, Neocon. Welcome to the world of "substantive debate", as the dear departed mrknowitall would say. A while back I referred to an old dialog I had, on the subject of the Nov. Congressional campaign and candidate's stands. I won't try to summarize, but if you'd like a little light entertainment, you can start with
www2.techstocks.com, message 544 www2.techstocks.com and work backwards up to www2.techstocks.com , message 530 in that moribund thread, where I more or less started the debate with:
As to the vote thing, what I am saying, precisely, is that candidates in the November election should make clear how they intend to vote on the impeachment issue, before the election, given the information available at that time. The voters have the right to know, given the magnitude of the issue, wouldn't you say? Is there perhaps some more important issue likely to face the next Congress? Direct answer, please.
Mostly a 2-party discussion, and fairly polite, but also fairly absurd. You'd get enough of the flavor of it reading just the first and last messages.
Quick aside on St. John's: I'm impressed, St. John's was held in awe among certain people at the Chicago School. The spirit of Robert Maynard Hutchins living on, long after it was watered down to not much more than a normal liberal arts breadth requirement at Hutchin's home base. My mother-in-law actually went through the U. of C. in Hutchin's time, but she doesn't remember much.
Hope you hang around here, I've enjoyed your participation anyway.
Cheers, Dan. |
