🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <F4LIpo.37K@news2.new-york.net>,
  Chris Mauritz <ritz@ritz.mordor.net> wrote:

> It's not any more irrational than your silly insistance that anyone
> who takes the man to task for making a fool of himself, his family,
> and his office is simply doing so because they "hate him."

If I indeed were so insisting, you'd have a point.

Hint: you don't.

There are 4 types of people ho are pro-removal:

I. Some people honestly believe that there is sufficient evidence to merit
such action.  They are sincere in their beliefs and, tragically, history will
lump them in with the Clinton-haters, much as all of 1868's advocates of
impeachment are now considered to have been power-hungry demogogues (In the
50's, American Heritage ran a great article called "When Congress Tried to
Rule").

2. Some people are so ignorant that they honestly think that "I don't like
him" is sufficient grounds for removal.

C. Some (Tom DeLay springs to mind) are cynical demogogues who are willing to
traumatize the country in order to achieve their political goals.  To these
people, the ends justify the means; they are unable to see the damage they're
doing.  This is as good a definition of "extremist" as any other.


The people in group [I] should be respected, as they are voting their
conscience.  The members of the other 2 groups were pushing for impeachment
long before there was anything even remotely resembling evidence of
impeachable offenses (as opposed to now, when there IS something that
*remotely* resembles evidence of impeachable offenses).  They are beneath
contempt.

--
Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer
http://www.flash.net/~salzberg

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own