-Caveat Lector-
On 18 Dec 98 , KA wrote:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, William Hugh Tunstall wrote:
> >I respectfully disagree with your idea that the nation was founded upon
> >LIBERTY. first disagreement: Liberty for whom? White males? Blacks?
> >Women? Native Americans?
>
> It WAS founded on liberty, albeit a flawed one...
>
> But what other country in 1776 (or 1783) gave social and political
> liberty to blacks, women, or native populations?
>
> At least the founding fathers gave us a document whereby we could
> peacefully and legally alter the government via the amendment process, so
> that we COULD at a later date include these populations in the
> electorate...
>
> And they gave us a document that spells out the peaceful and legal
> process whereby the electorate (thru their elected representatives) are
> able to remove officials in public office who are guilty of misconduct in
> office, including the President...
It is absolutely clear, June, that no one is going to change your
mind. Just as it was clear today, despite reasoned, impassioned
statements and even pleas from the Democrats for fairness and the
consideration of a vote to censure, that no one is going to change
the mind of the Republicans.
So where does it go from here?
It did occur to me that a trial in the Senate might lead to
exoneration. Where as a censure does apparently involve
admission of guilt. So perhaps censure is not in Clinton's
best interests, although he has agreed to accept it.
But you could hear the deep division between people deeply committed
to social problems and social concerns that would be shelved in the
event of the Senate trial and the people who frankly don't give a
damn for anything but what they call the "law"? There was also a
good deal of condemnation against the Republicans for their adamant
refusal to address social issues and their enthusiasm to cut social
programs.
If it broke down and we were thrust into a civil war, would you know
who to trust? Do you know which "militias" are not racist. Which are
not infiltrated and corrupt? Would you know who are the
real "patriots"?
Funny--the question of our time is who is "real." Who are the REAL
Jews? Who are the REAL Christians? Who are the REAL Patriots?
And all this questioning of who is "real" only makes things
absolutely surreal.
So where does this lead? I sense it is NOT a good
direction. And as much as we do get the Big Picture, are we going to
get to just sit back and enjoy it. Somehow, I don't think so. Not
unless you've already arranged a spread in Patagonia for yourself,
along with Jane Fonda and Henry Kissinger.
sno0wl
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
