XPost: alt.politics.conservative, alt.politics.republican, alt.p   
   litics.usa.misc   
   From: 1984to911@gmail.com   
      
   Frank Pittel wrote:   
      
   > Let me see if I've got this straight. Reagan is guilty because you know he's   
   > guilty even though there's no proof that he's guilty. That's ok with you   
   > because the reason that there's no proof is that it was destroyed but you   
   > can't prove that either.   
   >   
   > Is there anything that you can prove??   
   >   
   >   
      
   It was G.W. who said "we don't need any evidence, we know he's guilty"   
   so you shouldn't have any problem with the application of the principle.   
      
   Personally I have my doubts that he knew anything about what was going   
   on when he made the speech in question, but I'm equally comfortable with   
   the suggestion that he was a fascist (government doing the bidding of   
   big business IE union busting etc.) liar.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)