Hi everyone, I want to take a minute to thank all of you before you go on your way. I've been lurking this board off and on for several months, sometimes reading every post for weeks, and sometimes missing entire weeks completely. I've often thought about participating but I found the conversation, like our national debate, too polarized. I'm a social liberal by an older definition, and a fiscal conservative. I've learned that you don't ask a child what they want to wear, you ask them if they want the Barney shirt or the Teletubbies shirt, and I often feel that our two party system gives us the same kind of treatment.
But enough about that. I want thank all of you for being such well read news hounds. My distaste for the press, and the pandering and propaganda that they spew, has grown so immesurably during this past year that I began to read this thread for my impeachment coverage. The web links to your sources, the always biased but well reasoned analysis, and the depth of your searches far surpassed the swill that was available on the TV. The only way TV could surpass you would have been a series with Rush and Geraldo on the Jerry Springer show. Again, thank you.
I think Clinton was guilty on both counts and believe every sane person who saw the evidence knows it as well. the difference being that he truly had a jury of his peers. They are primarily lawyers (nuf said) and all politicians (see prev). I wonder at the precident this sets at as it filters down to the local level. For example, two recent local trials here in central Pennsylvania; one involved a retired professor who was busted for possesion of marijuana during his regular Thursday smoke-in for the repeal of marijuana laws. Another involved a student riot one Saturday night last summer. Will future juries feel more freedom to treat the defendant as they see fit regardless of the rule of law? Will the legal establishment let them? The future of this will be interesting.
Anyway, I would be remiss if I didn't close this with a mention of PA's own 'hoser of the day', Arlen Specter. Happy 69th, and congrats on the perfect bookend to a truly unique career. After achieving notoriety with the 'Magic bullet' theory that convieniently closed out the Warren Commission, he comes up with "Not proven" on this one. I do want to thank him for not trying to explain the spot on the blue dress, but I believe history would be better served if he had put the 'Not proven' on the Warren Commission report, and found a 'Magic bullet' for Clinton.
Thanks, and have a good night.
|
