To impeach, or not to impeach

[pbrower2a]

(10-07-2019, 10:41 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-07-2019, 02:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You tend to make these general statements and it's hard to know specifically what you refer to, especially since I don't see things the same way you do. I don't know about any Democrats who break laws and continue their presidential campaigns while losing support. I don't know who you refer to. Certainly not the Clintons. Hillary didn't break any calls and all the charges against her are false. I checked the whole email nonsense out carefully and there's nothing there. Bill's affair was his own business and should never have been investigated. It was a partisan trap. He believed that sex was intercourse, and that therefore he didn't have a sexual affair with that woman. To impeach Bill for that was not only stupid but was a ridiculous example of how you guys behave. I know Bill was slick, but if you guys don't have anything you can nail down against him you should have left him alone.

Trump is asking other governments to invent conspiracy theories in order to smear his political opponents. He uses the office for his own financial gain. He should be carted out of the oval office and taken to jail.

How did you come up with seeing general statements when you were looking at more specific information with details? Dude, I don't care if you end up  dead on some street, starving or learning to make due living in a tent on tent space because you refuse to see and acknowledge truth relating to fellow Democrats and Democratic run areas. I got news for you, Jesus died a couple thousand years ago and we haven't seen a human  exactly like him ever since.

 

Dude, the powers-that-be in the Republican Party are mirror-image Marxists, people who want capitalism to behave as the nightmare that Marx and his successors depict. They want the common man to suffer for the economic elite of tycoons, rural magnates, and executives who live like kings in the midst of mass fear and suffering. Their dream is one in which workers have forty-year lifespans and seventy-hour workweeks yet recognize that survival is a privilege to be earned but suffered. They would send children through economic realities to mines and factories if their parents died of commonplace industrial accidents or (even more likely) got worn down due to the incessant toil by age 35 and could no longer work. Try to impose that sort of world in America and you would see lots of red flags around -- the ones with hammers and sickles. 

Before you try to get Jesus into the argument -- I can imagine someone far more desirable than someone who can absolve us from sins, some of those monstrous. How about someone who delivers us completely from the desire to commit grave sins? Jesus came into the world, yet people professing to be Christians have involved themselves in grave injustices: the murderous Crusades, the medieval witch-hunts, the Inquisition, the Atlantic slave trade, and the annihilation of First Peoples. People brought up as Christians have become gangsters, fascists (some extremely militant in expressing their Christian affiliation), and Communists (among those, Lenin, Stalin, Ceausescu, Castro, and Kim il-Sung). Did Christianity improve humanity? Maybe not. Maybe people can be less in fear of eternal damnation if they face the noose if they repent before they are hanged, but it would be better if people did not murder, rape, or commit robberies. 

Cheap grace is a huge fault in Christianity and Islam. As someone with cultural ties to Germany, I love Bach and hate Hitler. I can say this of Germany: one thing would have solved all the most dangerous moral pathology of the German people between 1933 and 1945. Judaism, which offers no cheap grace. 

Quote:Lets see, Bill lied under oath (other people have gone to prison or looking at prison time for doing it today) and then lied to us about having a sexual relationship/sexual fling with an intern that occurred in the Oval Office inside the White House of all places. Hilary must have forgotten there was a federal law (American Law) that prohibited her from using  private servers/ computers in their homes before she had one installed in her and Bills home for personal and work related use while she was Secretary of State and must not have been aware of  the federal  law that prohibits tampering and destroying  evidence pertaining a criminal investigation and didn't realize she did twice by having the hard drives white washed   and  ordering  her team to destroy their hand held devices before the FBI seized them.  I'm pretty sure there was a federal law against lying on official applications pertaining to federal grants for special programs about being an American Indian when actually being a caucasian woman with higher cheek bones as well. Oh, then there's Anthony Wiener, the pervert who sent pictures of his junk to his young adolescent girlfriend. The dude had a history of being suspected of doing it too.

In practice, lying under oath applies to people for attempting to trick law enforcement and thus making a travesty of justice on a non-trivial matter. Consensual sex is a trivial matter, and America was much more tolerant of sex involving people in the workplace than is the case now. 

Washing a hard drive? The trick for someone involved in an illegal activity such as the creation and dissemination of child pornography is to destroy a hard drive, which is easy to do. Of course if one buys an inordinate number of hard drives and is suspect in the criminal activity, having a large number of transactions that purchase hard drives might draw suspicion  much like buying huge quantities of sinus medicine. So if you are in southeastern Missouri and buy sinus medicines in places such as Cairo, Illinois; Paragould or Blytheville, Arkansas; Wickliffe, Kentucky; and Dyersburg, Tennessee you might get on the federal meth-watch list and get a visit from the DEA at some point. Nothing says that suspicious behavior is exempt from legal scrutiny.

As for Elizabeth Warren -- I have said enough already. Being wrong about facts is not the same as deliberate lying. If anything, finding out that one is wrong and admitting such is about as strong an assertion of truth as one can do.