WHY Do Liberals Hate Freedom ????-----------------------Re: Why post against Baja, Jafo, Ian, Tracy-L, et. al.????
Jeffrey E, Salzberg
trac...@swbell.net says...
> With the left is losing on every front, why do they resort to attacks
> against free speech, free assembly, etc.?
. . .for the same reasons as all the other things that
are happening only in your perverted, lying, hypocritical
little brain.
--
Jeff Salzberg
If G-d had intended for people to vote, He'd have given
us hands.
Real (ha! is *anything* real?) Email Address: replace
"killspam" with "salzberg"
TraceyLevin.
> "I launched a campaign to educate people. You, the
> community, need to let racists and terrorists know that you will not
> tolerate their actions."
With the left is losing on every front, why do they resort to attacks
against free speech, free assembly, etc.?
Every American has the right to speak their minds on any subject.
Racism and terrorism are not good, but what would be even worse would be
to remove the rights of the general public so that liberals could
control the tongues of those they disagree with. This is the approach
that liberals use agasint gun ownership: Remove all guns because someone
may misuse one. Now, liberals are not happy with other Constitutional
Rights which allow Americans to openly and loudly speak against the
agenda of the left.
If someone on the Right stated that the left must have their
Constitutional rights reduced so that they could no longer speak against
Conservatives, nor could they protest by marching down Main street,
myself, and many many Conservatives would be very oppossed to even the
serious consideration of such a move.
Freedom of Speech for all. Freedom is from God. Control is from man.
,
> http://www.ptconnect.com/news/index.html
--
Checkout this site:
NOT FOR HOMOSEXUALS, or LEFTISTS!
http://www.fortunecity.com/millennium/babar/125/rwconsp.htm
BseeingU5
>against free speech, free assembly, etc.?
They don't. At least, I don't. I just came back from a protest that's been
going for a month now, regarding a Liberal radio talk show host, who lost his
job due to telling his truth and letting everyone speak their versions of the
truth. The station now is 24 hours, conservative talk. Why does the right
continue to pull books from shelves due to content? The truth is it's not the
left resorting to attacks on free speech, etc., and it's not the right pulling
books off the shelves. It's the extremes of both parties.
>Every American has the right to speak their minds on any subject.
Couldn't agree more.
>Racism and terrorism are not good, but what would be even worse would be
>to remove the rights of the general public so that liberals could
>control the tongues of those they disagree with.
Again, I agree that they should be able to voice their views. At least you
know then where these people stand. Problem is: who are these liberals that
want to control free speech?
>This is the approach
>that liberals use agasint gun ownership: Remove all guns because someone
>may misuse one.
I'd love to do away with guns. Period and end of story. What is a gun made
for, other than killing? Don't say protection, don't say hunting. It's
killing. It's made with the intent to kill.
> Now, liberals are not happy with other Constitutional
>Rights which allow Americans to openly and loudly speak against the
>agenda of the left.
I speak all day about liberals and conservatives both being one side of the
same coin and I haven't once lost my right to say it.
>If someone on the Right stated that the left must have their
>Constitutional rights reduced so that they could no longer speak against
>Conservatives, nor could they protest by marching down Main street,
>myself, and many many Conservatives would be very oppossed to even the
>serious consideration of such a move.
>
>
At least you would do something. Far too many conservatives and liberals would
sooner hide and cheer their party on, all the while losing their rights and not
even knowing it. America is too much of "Let someone else do it" and not
enough of "They want to fuck me over? I'll show them how to fuck someone
over!"
>Freedom of Speech for all.
Again, I agree.
>Freedom is from God.
Too much reliance on God if you ask me, but that's your belief and I'm glad you
can share it.
>Control is from man.
Too much control in some areas.
---Chris Grant
Chuckg
BseeingU5 wrote in message
<199809120308...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>With the left is losing on every front, why do they resort to attacks
>>against free speech, free assembly, etc.?
>
>They don't. At least, I don't. I just came back from a protest that's
been
>going for a month now, regarding a Liberal radio talk show host, who
lost his
>job due to telling his truth and letting everyone speak their versions
of the
>truth. The station now is 24 hours, conservative talk.
Well, the day Rush Limbaugh gets a 3-hour time slot on National Public
Radio is the day I'll care about a liberal talk show host having to find
another station.
Why is it that only you guys get to have your own radio stations?
--
Chuckg
Willwork4food
Saturday, September 19, 1998
Lawyers Blast House Panel's Release of Clinton Grand Jury
Testimony
Scandal: In normal cases, proceedings are supposed to be
secret. Removing
that protection demonstrates how unusual president's case is.
By DAVID G. SAVAGE, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON--Upset by the House Judiciary
Committee's
decision on Friday, many defense lawyers and
ex-prosecutors
condemned as unfair and unwarranted the public
release of
secret grand jury testimony.
"This turns American justice on its head. You
gather all this
evidence in a secret, one-sided proceeding run by the
prosecutors and
then make it available to the entire world," said
Denver attorney
Larry Pozner, president of the National Assn. of
Criminal Defense
Lawyers. "In a normal case, nobody gets tarred like
this."
The latest development shows again that
independent counsel
Kenneth W. Starr's investigation of President Clinton
has been
anything but the normal legal case, Pozner said.
And now more than ever, the disposition of
Starr's criminal
investigation--and Clinton's presidency--is a matter
far more political
than legal.
In an ordinary criminal procedure, for instance,
the secrecy rule
is the only major protection for those who come under
investigation
by a grand jury.
Prosecutors and grand juries are required to
conduct their
inquiries in secret to protect the privacy and
reputation of the person
being investigated--who, after all, might be
innocent--as well as those
who are called as witnesses or others whose names are
mentioned in
a damaging light. It is a crime for investigators or
other court
employees to disclose what they have heard.
Beyond that, prosecutors hold all the power.
They decide what
will be investigated, who will be called as witnesses,
what questions
will be asked and when the inquiry ends. No judge or
defense lawyer
is in the room to object if the questions are out of
line.
The target of a grand jury investigation has
almost no rights. He
has no right to have a lawyer there each day observing
the grand
jury. He also has no right to ask questions, to call
his own witnesses
or to dispute what has been said against him.
Now, however, Clinton finds himself in a far
worse spot than a
normal criminal defendant. Having been investigated
for seven
months by an all-powerful grand jury, Clinton is
seeing the secrecy
rules waived by the House Republicans.
Last week, the House released Starr's 445-page
report, replete
with lurid details of Clinton's affair with Monica S.
Lewinsky. On
Monday, it plans to release 2,800 pages of material,
along with the
president's videotaped testimony.
"It twists the whole purpose of grand jury
proceedings if you are
going to collect all this in secret and then dump it
on the sidewalk,"
said former federal prosecutor E. Lawrence Barcella
Jr. "This is
obviously designed to drag this out and make it as
embarrassing as
possible for Clinton.
"In a grand jury, you just get the prosecutor's
case. It is bound to
be one-sided and unfair. In the normal case, you could
not release
this because of the problem of poisonous pretrial
publicity. How could
you pick an impartial jury?"
The House Republicans do not appear terribly
concerned about
the appearance of impartiality, said William Moffitt,
a criminal
defense lawyer in Washington.
"We spend a great deal of time in our society
protecting the
fairness of the process. Before you convict someone,
we want to
make sure the person got a fair hearing before a fair
tribunal. If the
process was fair, we accept the result as fair,"
Moffitt said.
"The ultimate question is going to be whether
this [impeachment
inquiry] is a fair legal proceeding or a partisan
political process. If the
people running this are not concerned about procedural
fairness, then
it becomes just a naked exercise of political power."
But others said impeachment is by its nature a
political process,
not a criminal proceeding, and the rules are bound to
be different.
"What is unique here is that this is an
investigation of the
president, and everyone agrees the president can't be
indicted," said
George Washington University law professor Stephen A.
Saltzburg, a
former assistant independent counsel.
"Everyone understood Congress would be the
recipient of the
evidence" if Starr found grounds for impeachment, he
said.
The mass release of Starr's evidence also may
have some
benefits for the president, he added.
"Defense lawyers always want to know everything
the
prosecutors have. Now [Clinton] will know everything
they have
found," Saltzburg said.
"It also lets the American people see for
themselves. They can
see who were the witnesses and what they said. The
people can
make their own judgment," he continued.
Unlike the usual grand jury witness, Clinton was
not forced to
appear in person at the courthouse. And his lawyer,
David E.
Kendall, sat with him during the questioning.
However, that advantage has been turned against
the president
because his testimony was videotaped. Ordinarily,
targets of grand
jury investigations are called to testify under oath.
Now Clinton,
having agreed to appear, will have his testimony shown
on television
Monday.
Having a secret legal proceeding that yields
televised testimony
struck many lawyers and ex-prosecutors as
fundamentally unfair.
"Why bother to have a secret grand jury
proceeding in the first
place if all of this was going to be fed to Congress
and the public?"
asked Laurie Levenson, associate dean of Loyola Law
School in Los
Angeles.
"We all knew who was the target of the
investigation. Why not
have public hearings in Congress from the beginning?"
Barcella said the mass release of grand jury
material Monday is
only the latest outrage in what has been for lawyers a
thoroughly
bizarre case.
"All we have learned from this is that if you
were expecting
prosecutorial restraint from Ken Starr or sexual
restraint from Bill
Clinton, you were going to be disappointed," he said.
Copyright Los Angeles Times
bayou...@hotmail.com
testimony.
It been done in many other cases, and going to be done again.
Its LEGAL, its DONE, get OVER IT.
Elwin Bullard II
>http://latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/REPORTS/SCANDAL/STORIES/lat_grand0919.htm
>
>
>Saturday, September 19, 1998
>
> Lawyers Blast House Panel's Release of Clinton Grand Jury
> Testimony
> Scandal: In normal cases, proceedings are supposed to be
>secret. Removing
> that protection demonstrates how unusual president's case is.
> By DAVID G. SAVAGE, Times Staff Writer
Dude,
Fix your line wrap.
Willwork4food
bayou...@hotmail.com wrote:
And the President had the legal right, THE LEGAL RIGHT, to say no when queried if
he had sex with Monica. Its LEGAL, its DONE, so GET OVER IT!
Willwork4food
Elwin Bullard II wrote:
> Willwork4food <work...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> >http://latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/REPORTS/SCANDAL/STORIES/lat_grand0919.htm
> >
> >
> >Saturday, September 19, 1998
> >
> > Lawyers Blast House Panel's Release of Clinton Grand Jury
> > Testimony
> > Scandal: In normal cases, proceedings are supposed to be
> >secret. Removing
> > that protection demonstrates how unusual president's case is.
> > By DAVID G. SAVAGE, Times Staff Writer
>
> Dude,
>
> Fix your line wrap.
its fine on my screen! Fix YOUR line wrap, change the size of the window you
view it in.