Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is the real situation. Kavanaugh went thru six (then seven) extensive FBI background checks. They found nothing of the sort. ZNP, zeek, and OBW conveniently leave this out. Kavanaugh had a stellar reputation for decades. Every one who knows him is willing to vouch for his integrity. Every person named by Lousy-Ford as a witness had no recollection of her story. No second witness. Caught lying on numerous occasions. No corroborative evidence. No I don't believe her. Kavanaugh maintains the presumption of innocence until evidence him accountable.

Read the book of Job. Read the book in light of the Kavanaugh hearings. Job was accused of sin, hidden sin, by his close friends and that's supposedly why he was under judgment. Read his responses. Not so pretty at times. An innocent man wrongly accused. An innocent man crying out for justice. In the end an innocent man vindicated by God.

Oh please. I agree that Feinstein's behavior was reprehensible, and that the Democrats bloviating during the hearing was all for political theater and I agree that many of the pundits and comedians have behaved despicably.

That said I do not agree that Kavanaugh should be sainted. He was a teenage basketball player who liked beer and parties. He might have done things that he is now ashamed of. I don't have an issue with Ford. I feel that she was right to send a letter with this complaint if it were true. She was forced to go public because of Feinstein's reprehensible behavior. If this had been handled properly, behind closed doors, it would have been better for everyone involved.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Oh please. I agree that Feinstein's behavior was reprehensible, and that the Democrats bloviating during the hearing was all for political theater and I agree that many of the pundits and comedians have behaved despicably.

That said I do not agree that Kavanaugh should be sainted. He was a teenage basketball player who liked beer and parties. He might have done things that he is now ashamed of. I don't have an issue with Ford. I feel that she was right to send a letter with this complaint if it were true. She was forced to go public because of Feinstein's reprehensible behavior. If this had been handled properly, behind closed doors, it would have been better for everyone involved.

Agreed. Sainthood?


The man has lived an exemplary life. He would qualify for elder or deacon using Bible criteria, and that's more than I can say for most.

[OBW]

The man has lived an exemplary life.

The "mostly" was left out. His life does include the drinking and partying, along with the rather sexist behavior that some of his HS and college friends recalled. Excusable after enough years of otherwise exemplary life? For me, probably. For others, that is their call.

And whether or not Feinstein followed the Senate's rules is still irrelevant in whether the charges were true or false, or should have been considered by anyone as a measure of qualification for a lifetime job on the highest court in the land. (Unless, of course, there is evidence of complicity on her part to conspire to push forward charges that were known to be false.) Don't forget that the "rules" are not determiners of truth, just of procedure. And sometimes rules reflect the desire of those who have the position to make the rules to keep their thumb on those who do not.

I am no fan of Feinstein or any of the recent Democrat leaders in the House or Senate. But I cannot presume that her actions reflected anything more than a desire to ensure that what she found as relevant information made an impact rather than just got buried in back-room strong-arming. It works both ways. If the Republicans do things I like it is "righteous," but when the Democrats do what I don't, it is despicable or illegal, then why do we find it so hard to understand those who see it the other way around? Do we presume that they are not working for the US? That they are enemies of the people and not patriots?

Have we been listening to Limbaugh, Beck, Savage — and even Trump — a little too much?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And whether or not Feinstein followed the Senate's rules is still irrelevant in whether the charges were true or false, or should have been considered by anyone as a measure of qualification for a lifetime job on the highest court in the land. (Unless, of course, there is evidence of complicity on her part to conspire to push forward charges that were known to be false.) Don't forget that the "rules" are not determiners of truth, just of procedure. And sometimes rules reflect the desire of those who have the position to make the rules to keep their thumb on those who do not.

I am no fan of Feinstein or any of the recent Democrat leaders in the House or Senate. But I cannot presume that her actions reflected anything more than a desire to ensure that what she found as relevant information made an impact rather than just got buried in back-room strong-arming. It works both ways. If the Republicans do things I like it is "righteous," but when the Democrats do what I don't, it is despicable or illegal, then why do we find it so hard to understand those who see it the other way around? Do we presume that they are not working for the US? That they are enemies of the people and not patriots?

I completely disagree. Making Ford's letter pubic was a disservice to Ford and to Kavanaugh. Feinstein had the information for months and sat on it. She could have raised the issue in the closed door sessions, she could have appealed for an FBI investigation then. She could have asked for Ford to come and testify in a closed door session. She could have asked Kavanaugh for his response. In short everything that she ultimately did do she could have done in a closed door session. If the hearing is going to hear any and all accusations regardless of merit and since we know many of those will have a political axe to grind it is prudent to perform this in a closed door session. Now if she felt she had been strong armed and the Republicans had not acted in a responsible way then she still could go public as she did. Since that is her option you would expect the Republicans would act responsibly. You are talking about an allegation that is 36 years old, he said/she said, and about a teenager who is not fully matured. There was no corroborating witness, and there was no subsequent behavior consistent with a sexual abuser. No DA would have ever taken this. Finally, Ford had asked that this be kept confidential -- i.e. closed door. Feinstein's actions were reprehensible and she should be held accountable.

Finally, there was always the possibility that Kavanaugh would be confirmed and become a Supreme court justice. Therefore her behavior has damaged the Supreme court. Hence it was irresponsible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

The "mostly" was left out. His life does include the drinking and partying, along with the rather sexist behavior that some of his HS and college friends recalled. Excusable after enough years of otherwise exemplary life? For me, probably. For others, that is their call.

Those who accused him were apparently just alive in the same state in the same decade. None of BK's friends said his partying crossed the line. I'm not buying the line that all basketball stars are sex-crazed abusers. Look at LaBron James. He has always been an example of decent behavior. Some may be bad, but there is no evidence Kavanaugh did anything like he was accused of. Methinks you are watching the wrong news outlet!

[OBW]

I completely disagree. Making Ford's letter pubic was a disservice . . . .

Yes. The mode of releasing the information was a grandstand of the worst kind. But you mistake mode of release for veracity, or lack thereof.

All of the claims of lies you make are without merit. You didn’t like how it played out so she was lying. She didn’t want to come forward so her reluctance proves lying. She doesn’t like to fly, so the delays are evidence of lying. She didn’t make any charge at the time, so she is lying. What a load of manure.

No DA would have ever taken this.

Not now. There is a statute of limitations. You have absolutely no idea about what might have happened then. If it were brought forward at the time, you might never have heard of Brett Kavanaugh. And you may be right that it would never have been filed. But as so often happens in those kinds of cases, the woman is embarrassed that she allowed herself into the situation. She blames herself. And so on. So never files the charge. Never speaks of it to anyone, so no contemporaneous knowledge by anyone else.

Yes, that is a minefield for false accusations later. But it is interesting how many such false accusations are quickly discovered to clearly be false. Not all, but many. Yet this is one of those that only opinions concerning whether current factors are evidence of lying are actually available. They could only assert that BK did not appear to be lying. Probably enough to say that it is not worthy of further consideration (to me). But not sufficient to question whether the circumstances surrounding the environment in which the charges could reasonably be considered possible might themselves disqualify.

I mean, it is not like there are no other highly qualified people to put on SCOTUS. Just move on. But no. It was going to be BK or else. And despite it all, that is what we got. Probably be a good judge. I will just roflmao if he is part of the SCOTUS majority that rules that his executive order to deny citizenship based solely on place of birth is unconstitutional.

Imagine that! Just what I have been saying for two years!

You take a poll of the American people as evidence of the truth? Surely you don’t accept the opinion of others as the truth. Or do you?

“Clinton is now leading Trump in the polls.” Well I guess that means I should vote for Hillary!

They shouldn’t allow the use of polls for much of anything. It does not prove truth. It does not provide reasons to vote one way or the other. It just shows where the lead cow is moving so that we can get a mouthful of cud and blindly follow along. MOOOOOOOOOOO!

For the American people to accept these types of accusations on face value alone is extremely dangerous.

But to accept everything that Trump says at face value is not? Like declaring the caravan to be murders, rapists, and illegal immigrants. There is no evidence for the first two, and at this point there are no illegal immigrants among them. They have not entered the US at all, therefore are neither immigrants nor illegal. They have been poled by reporters (from both sides, I believe) and all say that they are coming to American to seek asylum. If they do that, they are not illegal unless (und until) their request is denied and they stay in country anyway without being allowed to under other provisions. Asking for asylum is not illegal.

And for all the troops stationed at the border, the law requires that anyone who arrives at a point of entry that requests asylum be allowed to make that request. And until the courts (not a presidential edict) says their request is denied, they are not illegal, therefore, no basis for any action by the military. Maybe we can (and should) keep them somewhat contained near the border so that they can be around when their hearing actually occurs and can then be sent out if denied. But otherwise the show of force along the border is just window dressing for the loyal Trump supporters.

You made some snarky comment about me not having any spine. Your answer is to just make stuff up and build a wall. My response is to enforce existing laws, and work on better ones. Trump blames the Democrats for a lack of improved immigration laws. But the Republicans have controlled the entire process for most of two years and can’t do it. They have abdicated and need to legally work with what we have, not just declare a limited form of martial law and ignore it. The spineless are those who just blame everyone else for the problems while doing nothing constructive themselves. At this point in time, that is the Republican party. They have absolute control and can’t get their thumbs out of their backsides. And I am embarrassed to admit that I am still somewhat labeled by their name.

To do as you suggest, not only borders on insanity, but would end our Constitutional Republic.

No. It would only end the banana republic of Trump. This republic is greater than a fight over who is qualified for SCOTUS. Just not being chargeable for a felony is not sufficient. Even being a fine upstanding citizen for years is not. If I assume that you have been just such upstanding citizen (and I have no reason to think otherwise) I still would not likely think you qualified for the Supreme Court. At the same time, just because you got through law school and even got a seat on an important Federal court bench does not make you the best choice. While it might be enough to say that there is no evidence in your rulings that you have a leaning toward positions that are inconsistent with the Constitution, it might also be relevant to consider the kind of depth with which you researched and wrote when you ruled and how fully you considered all factors. There is a lot to it. Just being someone that anyone wants to be on the court that has had a significant judgeship previously and lived a good life is not necessarily sufficient. So if it is hard to make a decision, then a weak charge against someone who was more than once drunk when under age for drinking, and was later described by someone who appears to have had basis for opining, that he was a “mean drunk” could be relevant. Not chargeable. But relevant. And all your personal bases for determining the charges to be false do nor rise to the level of proof, therefore not sufficient to rail upon anyone for giving them at least some weight.

You are correct that the proper way to dispose of it would have been quietly, behind closed doors. At that point it would have been easier to just declare that it wasn’t worth the trouble and withdraw from consideration. No actual harm to reputation. But Feinstein made the charge public rather than behind closed doors. That was poor in terms of going against the wishes of the one who made the charge known to her. And it is against in-house rules in terms of the Senate. None of them are prosecutable. Even if she should be censured in some form, it does not detract from the veracity of at least part of what came forward, and does not make any of it incorrect or a lie.

You do realize that with the possibility that the Senate could become Majority Democrat next year (slim chance, but still a chance), the Democrats as minority are not really much more dishonorable than the Republicans who simply refused to consider anyone until they at least were forced by a different Democrat president (2 years ago). The tools may have been more troubling in the present case, but the actions in both cases were equally troubling.

Trump was framed by the highest levels of our intelligence.

As claimed by Trump and his supporters, and supported by writings of conspiracy theorists. No real proof. And his actions since have given a lot of reason to believe anything that might be found. His brown-facing (got more than his nose involved) with Putin in Moscow was reprehensible. If my opinion was worth anything, he would have been jailed for treason. While I don’t think highly of Pence anymore, I do believe he would actually undertake the office of the President with the kind of demeanor it should require. But I’d take Kasich in 2020 in a heartbeat.

Reminds me of how both Bush #41 and #43 were silent on Obama, and then came forward to condemned Trump.

You confuse disagreement on politics with disagreement on the actual execution of the job. The speaking out against Trump is not about his political positions. It is about his lies and demeanor. And they are too numerous. How do you tell he is lying? His lips are moving while not reading the teleprompter. And when it is on twitter.

I don’t like Obama’s politics. But I do not think he is anything like the reprehensible character that Trump is. I think that some of Trump’s proposed policies might be good. But it would be much better if someone of character were the one proposing them. I applaud all Republicans who have the backbone to stand up against the bully that currently holds the office of President.

Those who accused him were apparently just alive in the same state in the same decade. None of BK's friends said his partying crossed the line.

Keep shoveling manure. If they think the stink is from the manure, they may miss the dead body it is covering.

[awareness]

A wall, a pidgin, a snake, the Messiah, and the end days :

Biblical prophecy COMES TRUE as live snake wriggles out of Israel’s Western Wall

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/wei...l-western-wall

[Ohio]

For the American people to accept these types of accusations against Kavanaugh on face value alone is extremely dangerous.

Originally Posted by OBW

But to accept everything that Trump says at face value is not? Like declaring the caravan to be murders, rapists, and illegal immigrants. There is no evidence for the first two, and at this point there are no illegal immigrants among them. They have not entered the US at all, therefore are neither immigrants nor illegal. They have been poled by reporters (from both sides, I believe) and all say that they are coming to American to seek asylum. If they do that, they are not illegal unless (und until) their request is denied and they stay in country anyway without being allowed to under other provisions. Asking for asylum is not illegal.

Nice switch, but I'll respond here.

Trump has 80% of the media against him, so no one takes anything at "face value." You hate our Prez, and I get that, but I would like to think someone like you could look behind the curtain to get some facts.

Trump never said that every migrant in the caravan is a murderer and a rapist. That is pure BS you are regurgitating from the media. Have you also read about who is sponsoring these caravans? What is the demographic composition of the caravan? The violence inflicted upon the communities in their path? The violent outbreaks with the police? The child smuggling? The drug cartels? The incidence of rape and abuse along the way? Obviously not reported by your media sources.

Seeking asylum? There may be some, sure. But they must do that legally. Mexico offered this to them, but most turned it down. That should make all fair-minded people wonder.

Like I always say -- your views depend on the source of your news. Better get that right. Mainstream media no longer reports actual news, rather they are like the serpent in the garden sowing seeds of suspicion with every report. Otherwise you will believe that Trump colluded with the Russians and caused that Trump-hating murderer to shoot up the Synagogue.

Have you forgotten that the god of this age has blinded the minds of the many?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For the American people to accept these types of accusations against Kavanaugh on face value alone is extremely dangerous.


Nice switch, but I'll respond here.

Trump has 80% of the media against him, so no one takes anything at "face value." You hate our Prez, and I get that, but I would like to think someone like you could look behind the curtain to get some facts.

Trump never said that every migrant in the caravan is a murderer and a rapist. That is pure BS you are regurgitating from the media. Have you also read about who is sponsoring these caravans? What is the demographic composition of the caravan? The violence inflicted upon the communities in their path? The violent outbreaks with the police? The child smuggling? The drug cartels? The incidence of rape and abuse along the way? Obviously not reported by your media sources.

Seeking asylum? There may be some, sure. But they must do that legally. Mexico offered this to them, but most turned it down. That should make all fair-minded people wonder.

Like I always say -- your views depend on the source of your news. Better get that right. Mainstream media no longer reports actual news, rather they are like the serpent in the garden sowing seeds of suspicion with every report. Otherwise you will believe that Trump colluded with the Russians and caused that Trump-hating murderer to shoot up the Synagogue.

Have you forgotten that the god of this age has blinded the minds of the many?

How much of the media seems to (or is) against him is really not a cause for lying. But for Trump, it makes him want to double-down and talk about how to simply shut them up.

As for the caravan, Trump is intentionally vague. But the verbiage is intended to imply that it is some significant part, not just somerun-of-the-mill number. Just like his declaration that 63,000 of the people in prison are illegal aliens who have committed heinous crimes.

That claim has been fully debunked. It has actually been demonstrated that there is less crime among new immigrants — legal or illegal — than the general population and that it starts moving toward the mainstream stats in the second generation.

The 63,000 is a general number of non-US citizen incarcerations (without reference to legal/illegal status). And it ignores that of the illegals there, the majority have simply committed the crime (a felony) of being in the U.S. illegally. While still a crime, it makes a lie of trying to imply that the percentage of citizens in prison for murder, rapes, etc., applies to the whole of the illegal aliens.

As for our little disagreement here, I have no problem with the bare fact that you support Trump. I don't. You haven't lowered yourself to "ignorant" status in my eyes. But you ask whether I am being critical in my thinking. I can assure that I am. Long before Trump and the current fiasco (in my eyes), there has been a march toward madness in the rhetoric of the people who speak the loudest about the positions that I generally support. Now I must say that I do not hold them as strongly or extremely as is expected of a "good" Republican. Sanity prevailed when someone definitely on the conservative side of the center could co-author a bill with Ted Kennedy. Now having a Republican as near the center as McCain (God rest his soul) working with a Democrat as near the center as Lieberman is generally anathema for a Republican. And probably the same for the Democrat. And the result is deadlock and venom. From both sides. But right now, while the rhetoric from both sides is too strong, I see the hollow claim of truth in what is coming from the "right" and it is sickening. Trump is as didactically false as was Lee. All he has to do is say it and it is heralded by his loyal parrots from the FTT in DC.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes. The mode of releasing the information was a grandstand of the worst kind. But you mistake mode of release for veracity, or lack thereof.

All of the claims of lies you make are without merit. You didn’t like how it played out so she was lying. She didn’t want to come forward so her reluctance proves lying. She doesn’t like to fly, so the delays are evidence of lying. She didn’t make any charge at the time, so she is lying. What a load of manure.

Really? Please show me the post where I said any of this? You have confused me with Ohio.

Originally Posted by OBW

Not now. There is a statute of limitations. You have absolutely no idea about what might have happened then. If it were brought forward at the time, you might never have heard of Brett Kavanaugh. And you may be right that it would never have been filed. But as so often happens in those kinds of cases, the woman is embarrassed that she allowed herself into the situation. She blames herself. And so on. So never files the charge. Never speaks of it to anyone, so no contemporaneous knowledge by anyone else.

I was not speaking about hypotheticals as to what might have been. I was pointing out that no DA would act on these claims today, when Feinstein got them. She knew this. She knew he had gone through 6 FBI background checks. She knew that the only value this would have is if she used it at the 11th hour to delay the confirmation. You have obviously not read all of my posts on this topic. I have made it very clear that there is a lot of evidence that the police can find to help verify these claims if they are made in a timely manner.

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, that is a minefield for false accusations later. But it is interesting how many such false accusations are quickly discovered to clearly be false.

Are you talking about your own false accusations? 1. I have never once said that I thought Ford was lying. 2. I have never once mentioned or responded to her not wanting to fly. 3. I have never once said that her not making a charge 36 years ago should be a basis to think she is now lying. 4. I have never said that a DA would not have responded to her claim had she made it 36 years ago. Those are 4 accusations made by you in just a paragraph or two, all of which can easily be verified as false by looking at my posts.

Originally Posted by OBW

You made some snarky comment about me not having any spine. Your answer is to just make stuff up and build a wall.

No I didn't. This is another false accusation. Is anything in this post true or is it all lies? Once again you are referring to a Post by Ohio, not me.

Originally Posted by OBW

My response is to enforce existing laws, and work on better ones.

The only response I'm interested in is an apology.

Originally Posted by OBW

You confuse disagreement on politics with disagreement on the actual execution of the job. The speaking out against Trump is not about his political positions. It is about his lies and demeanor.

Really? Please direct me to the post where I am confused on this? Once again you are the one who has confused me for Ohio.

In the future do not delete the name of the person you are posting. You mingled quotes from me and Ohio, deleted the names, and pretended we were the same person. This is not a simple task to delete the name in each quote and had to have been done intentionally.

[Ohio]

The Story of Robert Mueller and Whitey Bulger

Back in 1976, as we were celebrating the 200th birthday of this republic, Congress passed a law limiting the tenure of the FBI director to 10 years. This was done because, after the scandalous findings of the Church Commission, Congress realized that letting J. Edgar Hoover serve as director of the bureau from its founding in 1935 until his death in 1972 had only confirmed Lord Acton’s maxim that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Hoover was a power unto himself, and the FBI that was created very much in his image sometimes acted more like the secret police of the totalitarian regimes Hoover regularly denounced: running rogue wiretaps, harassing political dissidents, using illegal means to collect evidence. Hoover’s FBI wasn’t accountable; it was untouchable.

So now, just weeks after the FBI’s worst nightmare, a gangster and FBI informant by the name of Whitey Bulger came strolling back into town, Congress is about to ignore its own wisdom and let Bob Mueller, the FBI director and former US Attorney in Boston, stay on an extra two years. President Obama says he needs Mueller to stay because there’s been so much turnover in the national security teams at the CIA and Pentagon, and that’s all well and good.

Mueller has wide, bipartisan support in Congress. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, I know Bob Mueller and he’s no J. Edgar Hoover, though the folks at the ACLU might take exception to that. The recent FBI targeting of antiwar and labor activists in the Midwest has a disturbing echo of the days when the bureau considered Martin Luther King Jr. a sinister threat to national security. But Mueller’s a Marine veteran and tough enough to take a question or two before Congress gives the president what he wants, and Mike Albano is just the guy to ask it: What did you know about Whitey Bulger, and when did you know it.

Back in the 1980s, when he was serving on the Massachusetts parole board, Albano expressed some sympathy for a group of men who had always maintained they had been framed for the 1965 gangland murder of a hoodlum named Teddy Deegan in Chelsea. The FBI had been instrumental in seeing that the men - Peter Limone, Henry Tameleo, Joe Salvati, and Louis Greco - were convicted. The FBI contended that Tameleo was the consigliere of the Mafia in Boston, and that Limone was a Mafia leader. There is no question that both men were bad actors, and Mafia players, but the evidence showed that neither had anything to do Deegan’s murder. So in 1983, after Albano indicated he might vote to release Limone, he got a visit from a pair of FBI agents named John Connolly and John Morris. They told Albano that the men convicted of Deegan’s murder were bad guys, made guys.

"They told me that if I wanted to stay in public life, I shouldn’t vote to release a guy like Limone,’’ Albano said. “They intimidated me.’’ Turns out that Connolly was Whitey Bulger’s corrupt handler and Morris was Connolly’s corrupt supervisor. When they weren’t pocketing bribes from Bulger, they were helping him murder potential witnesses who were poised to expose the FBI’s sordid, Faustian deal with the rat named Whitey Bulger.

Albano was messing with the FBI’s national policy of going after the Mafia and the Mafia alone. That was the justification the FBI gave for making deals with devils like Whitey Bulger and his partner in crime, Stevie Flemmi. They were supposedly giving up their pals in the Mafia. The problem with the FBI’s national policy is that it didn’t take into account that the most vicious, murderous gangsters in Boston were Whitey Bulger and Stevie Flemmi.

After Albano was elected mayor of Springfield in 1995, he soon found the FBI hot on his tail, investigating his administration for corruption. The FBI took down several people in his administration, and Albano is convinced that the FBI wasn’t interested in public integrity as much as in publicly humiliating him because he dared to defy them.

In 2001, the four men convicted of Teddy Deegan’s murder were exonerated. Turned out the FBI let them take the rap to protect one of their informants, a killer named Vincent “Jimmy’’ Flemmi, who just happened to be the brother of their other rat, Stevie Flemmi. Thanks to the FBI’s corruption, taxpayers got stuck with the $100 million bill for compensating the framed men, two of whom, Greco and Tameleo, died in prison.

Albano was appalled that, later that same year, Robert Mueller was appointed FBI director, because it was Mueller, first as an assistant US attorney then as the acting US attorney in Boston, who wrote letters to the parole and pardons board throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies.

Of course, Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset. “Before he gets that extension,’’ Mike Albano said, “somebody in the Senate or House needs to ask him why the US Attorney’s office he led let the FBI protect Whitey Bulger.’’

I called FBI headquarters in Washington and tried to do just that. The nice lady who answered suggested I talk to one of the FBI’s “public affairs specialists.’’ But my call was not returned.

Four years ago, when questioned about the FBI’s corruption in Boston, Mueller told the Globe, “I think the public should recognize that what happened, happened years ago.’’ That’s true. And we still don’t know what really happened

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Really? Please show me the post where I said any of this? You have confused me with Ohio.

Actually, I did not attribute the quotes at all. You are the lame brain to jumped to make them into being about you.

All from the smartest man in the room.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

But you mistake mode of release for veracity, or lack thereof.

This "you" is referring to me.

Originally Posted by OBW

All of the claims of lies you make are without merit.

This "you" is referring to Ohio, yet there is no hint at all in the post of this.

Originally Posted by OBW

Not now. There is a statute of limitations. You have absolutely no idea about what might have happened then.

Ditto -- again reference to Ohio's post

Originally Posted by OBW

You take a poll of the American people as evidence of the truth?

Ditto -- again reference to Ohio's post

Originally Posted by OBW

You made some snarky comment about me not having any spine. Your answer is to just make stuff up and build a wall.

Ditto -- again reference to Ohio's post

Originally Posted by OBW

You are correct that the proper way to dispose of it would have been quietly, behind closed doors.

This also is referring to my post.

Originally Posted by OBW

You confuse disagreement on politics with disagreement on the actual execution of the job. The speaking out against Trump is not about his political positions. It is about his lies and demeanor. And they are too numerous.

This is now referring to Ohio

Explain why you were so vague? What was the point for deleting every attribution and confusing posts by me and Ohio?

[ZNPaaneah]

Trump's new acting attorney general already has a plan to stop Mueller probe

Time for Mueller to play his cards.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Explain why you were so vague? What was the point for deleting every attribution and confusing posts by me and Ohio?

You fail to note that I did not specifically argue that you or Ohio were anything. All of the things the two of you passed on are essentially found in the public media, mostly in Republican/conservative rhetoric, therefore nothing truly new for either of you.

And I spoke to the content of the items I quoted. It was easier to retain a "you" narrative than trying to reformat into an isolated comment on the content only. If you think that all of it was pointed at you because one or two of the quotes came from one of your posts, then get over yourself. There was nothing vague about the posts quoted or the response supplied.

"You" is easily anyone who thinks that nit-picking over rules, disparaging the "others" that might actually make it to the border to claim asylum (while the majority of true danger comes from angry white males and other second-or-beyond residents/citizens), and/or buying any of the bald-faced lies that spew forth from the well of the mouth of Trump, is more important than dealing with all of the facts and truth that is not convenient to the religion of American exceptionalism and every effort being made to make it more "exceptional."

The world sees that we are exceptional. Exceptionally stupid to place such an incompetent person in charge of the storehouse. Exceptionally blind to think vilifying the nature of poor civilians seeking a better life is evidence of our love for our neighbor.

And so on. That some churches — Like First Baptist Dallas — feel compelled to worship at the altar of a flag of red, white, and blue and sing religious songs about the country shows how lost the conservative right has become. I am proud to have a flag outside my house on many days. But I do not want one included as part of my worship to God. He is a jealous God and the flag is an idol in a house of worship.

It is so hard to understand how Bill Clinton could be so vilified when he as a professed Christian, and Baptist, at least tried to hide the shame of his failures of moral character while we praise an rally around someone who is openly worse — and proud of it — and herald him as our preferred leader over so many much more qualified candidates.