 | | Re: Impeachment
|
|
Jim, I do find your argument fairly convincing, at least in the abstract. We shouldn't lie under oath. We should be punished for lying under oath. That assumption should hold. (...) I guess this is a point where we disagree. I would argue based on (...) (26 years ago, 2-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
Also sprach Lee Jorgensen: : What is actually meant by "High crimes and misdemeanors"? Is it : a grandiose crime that is considered a felony? Or is it a crime by : an official in a high office ... Like the President? Here's a point: Clinton's crime (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) The latter. high is a modifier of "crimes and misdemeanors" and refers to the office held by the alleged perpetrator. See the Federalist Papers. Once, long ago, I even posted a URL to an online version. The other parsing doesn't make much (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here we go again
|
|
(...) The judges are having trouble deciding if you answered correctly. :-) Thomas Paine wrote some great stuff but Ol' Poor Richard was who I had in mind all right. (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here we go again
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <368BD1ED.FA123C08@c...AM.com>... (...) Ben Franklin?? or was ti Thomas Paine? (...) Matt Marshall $%#$% Vacuum Cleaners Always get my pieces!!! Matt's Lego Page (URL) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
What is actually meant by "High crimes and misdemeanors"? Is it a grandiose crime that is considered a felony? Or is it a crime by an official in a high office ... Like the President? Should there be two sets of laws? You or I would be prosecuted (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here we go again
|
|
Beaker wrote: <snip> Yup. Tangential but appropros: "those who would give up a little freedom in exchange for security are doomed to soon have neither" is a paraphrase of a famous quote. For 100 points, who said that? (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
Also sprach John Cromer: : I would not say "testimony under oath must be truthful" is a throw-away : issue. It is not, however, in my opinion, the cornerstone that underpins : our legal system. I am convinced that people lie under oath every day in (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here we go again
|
|
Also sprach Matt Hanson: : much. I think that is what the real issue is. Some people just aren't : willing to give up their cozy lifestyle for a better *quality* : society... Now we get to the heart of the issue. You want others to change their (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Impeachment
|
|
Well, Jim, I have read your long post regarding the impeachment. I have read it several times. It is well-reasoned and argued. Still, I disagree. Let me explain, and I hope to do it without the name- calling, labeling and slander that seems to (...) (26 years ago, 30-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
