
Petro wrote:
At 11:50 AM -0500 9/21/98, Michael Motyka wrote:
Starr's base approach to justice is the opening shot of what I hope turns into an all-out scorched-earth battle. Let 'em all fall down. I'm just afraid that when it's over the only people who will be willing to run for public office will be truly dangerous people who have no respect for liberty not of their own definition.
Which is different from today how?
In spite of their <numerous?> shortcomings, many of today's politicians in both parties seem to be fairly pragmatic, 'middle of the road' types. If the only people who can pass muster under the emerging standards are religous fundamentalists then we will have a Bill of Rights under attack problem that is another order of magnitude greater than we have right now. Scares me because while I'm pretty much a live and let live sort, some of the fundamentalists I've known are not very tolerant.
Mike
I know it's a mistake to reply to this stuff but it would be nice for someone to maintain the context. Clinton was on trial for sexual harrassment. When giving testimony under oath he chose to lie in order to cover his own ass. I don't much care about the private lives of politicians but I do care how they behave in public places like courts of law. That is what he is trouble for, not for his filandering proclivities which were public known before he became president. Just to help the Clintonites understand: "It's about perjury, stupid!" Steve Bryan Vendorsystems International email: sbryan@vendorsystems.com icq: 5263678 pgp fingerprint: D758 183C 8B79 B28E 6D4C 2653 E476 82E6 DA7C 9AC5