RE: Why Bush Should Be Impeached, #84

I'm *not* pro-Bush, nor am I anti-Bush.  I think he's good some things,
but bad at others.  Nearly everything I read on this mailing list is
about how Israel is bad, Bush is bad, etc.  Not a peep (from the usual
contributors, anyway) about any other point of view.  So there *is* a
bias here. 
I'd like to hear the other arguments so I *can* make my own judgement,
and I obviously will not hear them here.  
And I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't insult me... I am, at
least, *trying* to be reasonable and non-judgmental. The fact that I
question some of what I read here should be enough to make that clear.
Geez.


-----Original Message-----
From: bparsia [mailto:bparsia-vEoVa6Jh+/J4piUD7e9S/[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 4:42 PM
To: bonobos
Cc: bparsia
Subject: RE: [Bonobos] Why Bush Should Be Impeached, #84


On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> I don't understand why you're so offended.

This lack of understanding is a pattern, I notice.

>  The way I see it,

If you would back up your assertions with arguments rather than covering
them with disclaimers, I'd be more impressed. If you didn't couple your
bald assertions with dismissals of evidence and argument grounded in
smears of other people's honesty and competance, I wouldn't get
offended.

It's easy, see?

> there are
> arguments to be made on either side

Then make some. If you have them and smugly hoarding them, then please
smugly hoard your opinions as well.

> (or many sides) of this issue.

Since you keep *shifting* the issue, it's not surprising that different
refutations of your assertions are required.

To reiterate: You claimed that one, by the "rules" *couldn't* impeach a
president for crimes committed prior to being president. You offered *no
evidence* for this. Evidence was supplied. *Asided* from expert opinion,
sections from the constitution were posted. Unless you think that
devious
Bible scholar Kendall, logic chopper me, and slick Lawyer Mikey Zara can
somehow superselectively quote all 15 or so lines which discuss
impeachment so as to turn the plain meaning of the text into its
opposite,
I don't see where bias *could* enter.

Bias has to have an *opportunity* to affect things for it to be a
problem,
dude.

Now, if you have difficulty finding a copy of the consitution and
reading
it, then that's a different story. 

> Since so many in this community are clearly anti-Bush,

Yes, pro-Bush man?

> how can you claim
> to be impartial?

Well, just because "so many" are anti-Bush, doesn't mean we all'd be. So
your inference is bogus. But second, so what if we're anti-Bush? How
does
anti-Bush bias sway our interpretation of the law? It's not like we
could
*act* on it. C'mon.

Finally, I don't have to claim that *I'm* impartial. I just claim that
my
argument is correct. It's correct (or not) *regardless* of my
bias. Evaluate the argumetns Jack! Don't wait for some "other person" to
*tell* you what to think, just *think*. It's not all that hard if you
just
try.

It's sad that instead of doing a bit of thinking and research, and
instead
of extending the slightest courtacy to those who do, that you need to
find an "impartial" person to *tell* you what the "definitive
opinion" *is*. I'm truely surprised that you need to yield your own
powers
of judgement to an outside arbitrator, espeically on so simple a matter.

NoCheersJustBemusedSaddness,
Bijan.

_______________________________________________
Bonobos maillist  -  Bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
http://monkeyfist.com/mailman/listinfo/bonobos

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 7/1/2002

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 7/1/2002