Packwood & Reynolds

David Bell DBELL at SYSUBMC.BMC.COM
Thu Sep 7 15:23:50 MDT 1995


I think we have discussed this one to death. I have strong feelings
about this, as apparently do you. I again want to state that I believe
Packwood is culpable for his behavior. I also feel however, that
if he took the steps necessary to reform himself, then he did the
right thing. If that is unacceptable, he must go on.
 
Of course, we all know there is more to Packwood and the dilemma than
Boxer and her ilk would indicate. This is from the ethics issues which
I have not addressed in this communication.
 
As far as I am concerned, there are far less ethical people in the
Senate than Packwood. I would start with Teddy and go right down the
line. Boxer however is a hypocrit.
David
On Thu, 7 Sep 1995 13:29:20 -0700 Robert Ostrea said:
>I wrote (in jabbing with David):
>
>
>>>Sorry David, but STARTING to drink is ALSO a matter of will, which
>>>proves my point that one is ultimately responsible for his
>>>actions,drunk or not.  If you disagree with this, I have a classified
>>>ad in the LA Times announcing an open position with the ACLU that I
>can
>>>send you :)
>>
>
>Dave responds:
>
>>I am not even going to remark on this ludicrous statement above. You
>>
>
>
>Please allow me to apologize for my crass comment.  I did indicate a
>:), however, after reading it again I realize it is insulting.  I meant
>no personal offense, just trying to be a smartass :)
>
>David writes:
>
>
>
>>Agreed. But, I think you misunderstand me. I think Packwood is
>culpable.
>>I also think you are willing to run him off due to the trumped up
>>charges from the left. I also think you do not understand what
>>alcoholism is and does. Let it suffice at this time to say we
>>disagree on this. I have explained why.
>>
>
>
>I think we disagree with the alcoholic concept, but agree with the
>political ramifications of the Packwood issue.  I personally don't
>think Packwood did anthing criminal.  I am NOT calling for his
>dismissal nor impeachment.  I wouldn't mind, however, if he would have
>resigned back in 1992.  I am only stating my frustrations at what
>happened in 1992 and how it has escalated today.  I am 100% AGAINST
>what the left is trying to do to Packwood, because I don't believe that
>they are really interested in the harrasment charges, rather they only
>wish to gain publicity and take credit for Packwood's demise (if that
>becomes the case).  I strongly believe that MOST left-wing
>organizations, such as the NOW, NAACP, Greenpeace, etc. don't care
>about who they are supposedly there to represent.  They only care about
>increasing their membership ($) and advancing their political agenda.
>I think we both agree on this.
>
>As far as alcoholism goes, I will defer to your knowledge of the
>biological effects of alcoholism as I have no reason nor personal
>expertise to disbelieve your position.  I still strongly believe,
>however, that one is ALWAYS responsible for one's actions, regardless
>of physical and/or mental state.  True, the person may not have had
>control of his actions under certain states of mind, yet in the case of
>alcoholism, he still must face the consequences for them...
>
>----------------
>Robert A. Ostrea, Jr.
>North Hollywood, CA
>RAOstrea at ix.netcom.com
>
>Dodgers go to Pittsburgh today....
>
>GO DODGERS!!!



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list