Bob in Mich

Please, can you explain why you like to put his name out there more than it is already if not to further endanger the guy? You missed that question apparently

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/16/president-trump-has-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/

Yeah I will acknowledge you are getting annoying. If you want to claim Trump doesn't lie by orders of magnitude more than any of our previous leaders I would say you are blind or stupid or, possibly I missed the point of one of your stupid jokes. Enjoy the evening.

What ya drinking? lol This is getting funny at this point. You state that I posted the following: "Would you want your name and address exposed even on this board ? There are enough borderline posters here that I think you would be in some greater danger. " Then you state that is a poor way of wording a point about increased danger? That is kinda amazing even for here, Foxx. The other point is still unanswered. It is that if the name is known to many and the point of publicizing it further is not to increase danger to the guy, why keep repeating it? What is being gained by that effort if not to endanger?

Ok.. but, you were implying that it appeared that I always took the same, Dem, side and that I didn't care about FISA abuse . I was pointing out that I am in favor of looking into the Fisa abuse and haven't always taken the Dems side.

For no good reason I am still trying to understand this. I asked b-man if he would want web identification, noting that even in this small space that could increase risk to him. That was my point From there you brought up the Public figure vs private person difference. I tried to tell you that difference, while true to an extent, was immaterial in the point I was making of increasing danger. If that is a correct take, and that is a big if, you are off base. It is my comparison and I get to dictate what I was trying to point up. You don't get to say that my point was public vs private after I told you the point was about increased danger.

Well, I lobbied all along to continue the Mueller investigation and to look into any FISA issues. I have posted if those FISA investigations lead to anyone that should be brought to justice, then do so. Not that you should know that but that is the case. A few pages ago I posted my take from 1999 on the Clinton impeachment. I thought he should have been convicted and removed. Didn't match up with the Dems then.

Yeah, Ok. Good idea to avoid your posts then. Can do. Even though I just told that you make these broad hand waving dismissals and don't point out specific problems, you do the exact same thing in the next post. In addition, someday, look into your need to insult. Apparently the need is there. Insecure much? Moved goalposts, 1+1 very specific lol Ok, Foxx Out

What is this spectrometer of which you speak? Don't recall that. You aren't the only one that views news from multiple sources and decides on the likely truth. Others do that too. The primary reason we come to different conclusions is because in spite of every reason not to, you are willing to believe the words of a notorious liar, while I am much more skeptical of Trump's tales. You are willing to believe that when under pressure to protect himself, he tells the truth. That is not logical

I get your point and to an extent, I agree that most zealots know by now. Why keep repeating it then and trying to get it more publicity ?

Can you comprehend that my comparison was not about public figure vs private individual? The point is exposing an individual's identity on the web exposes that individual to possible retaliation from anyone on the web that may have beef. Period. Before your stroke, let me state that I realize that public figures have less expectations of privacy What is your purpose of ensuring the guy's identity is pushed further into the light, allowing that is not necessary in order to push for any investigation?

I am just trying to understand, if not to bring greater danger to the guy, why try to make sure his identity is exposed? One can push for all mentioned investigations but in this climate I find it hard to understand that you think he would not be a bigger target. Recall that guy that mailed those bombs to dozens? BTW, I never knew you didn't want replies. Going forward I can do that.

I have limited exposure to your posting style but I have noticed a pattern. You do these broad hand waving dismissals of posts claiming, posters are disingenuous, or dishonest, or an idiot, etc. Ironically, that is disingenuous of you. What, specifically is so illogical? Where? And, what is with the constant need to insult? We covered this I thought. If at a bar a few chairs away, would you keep insulting the conversation partner? Likely not I suspect. Why here? It is not necessary and uncalled for. I can insult too and surely have but you keep firing opening shots for no good reason that I see. And the point is NOT public figure or not. The point is trying to get greater publicity on his identity endangers the guy and family and is unnecessary to do any investigation. What you have so far are accusations of bad behavior.

Stop with the talking points BS. It is tiring. I give my own opinions on this board as much as anyone and I do think for myself. You don't like my thoughts, fine but they are my opinions. How come if you say something generally agreed to by your side it is OK but if the other side does similar, they read it from the talking points? I recall getting accused of using Elijah Cummings words in a post that I put up about 5 hours before Cummings spoke. Sometime people can see the same situation and come to the same conclusion independently. So your whistle blower point is no one should be put in more danger but this guy probably would be (as much as modern day watergate) and he deserves it. Yeah, and my reasoning skills are faulty. sure thing Foxx

No greater danger by publicizing it more? Are you sure? OK, then why are you doing it? What is gained by publicizing him/her? Would you want your name and address exposed even on this board ? There are enough borderline posters here that I think you would be in some greater danger.

Question: I see you like to push to publicize this whistle blower's name. Do you think doing so could make him or his family a bigger target to some unstable political zealot? Is that really fair or, do you think he and his family should be attacked for being a whistle blower? I mean even if you think he is a political operative, which I have not seen proven but if he was, should he be put in increased danger?

T.L., mornin. Slept well I expect. Upon reflection and time....and, no, actually given what now passes for no prob, the fact that Bill lied, seems like, eh, so who doesn't? Times have changed on lying for sure. In 1999 my buddy was a big deal in Human Resources. It stuck when he opined that the Pres would be fired from any large public company if that behavior with an intern and subsequent lying became public. He thought any board would replace the guy pronto. I kept thinking that BillC should be held to higher standards. Apparently you too thought the perjury too much. Again though, times have changed that we were aghast at lying.. Seems today if the Pres did it, we likely would not agree as to how 'bad' that was. Sure, I can see the McCarthy angle from the hyper prosecution angle. I just don't agree that holding Trump accountable for the Ukraine scheme is hyper. I realize too that you see it differently. The lying thing, c'mon Len, Trump can not be trusted to tell the truth every day of every week. He lies so much more so than (on my honor) than any politician I have ever heard speak. His only rivals are his staff. Holy crap that Kelly Ann Conway can spit out 3 lies before any normal person could interrupt or interject. But I digress.....To say there is any level of equivalence cuz you can find a lie for them is not being sincere, imo. Question: Can you tell his lies from his truths when they happen? If so, what is the tell or the clue? If Trump were impeached of course Mr Pence is in the wings. He is possibly worse than Trump on several issues from my perspective. His 'faith' may guide him and that, if it wasn't fake, would be an improvement but the separation of church and state issues concern me. This 'overturn the election' seems less outrageous though when you consider it was Trump/Pence and it would become Pence

That is funny. I am certain it was because I recently watched some Lord of the Rings but when I saw those two side by side marching the Impeachment docs to the Senate, I was struck with short, Gimli and the Lanky Legolis grimly taking on their quest. Nadler must put double face tape around his 'waist' to hold those pants up

Morning, Hank. Can I call you Hank or do you insist on Henry? lol It is about 2 minute but if short on time, the 1 minute 40 second mark approximately is kinda funny given where they have gone after that point.

Got so busy trying to reply to posts yesterday and I didn't take time to watch this. Pretty funny. The name change though.....I may consider it. I have thought of that before but then I have seen others get jumped on as trying to hide from past identities. Given that 'much revered' cannabis thread that I began, I don't want to lose all that good will and board admiration that I had ...er, I mean, I think I would never hear the end from the 'running away are ya?' idiots. So, probably stuck with this handle and , btw, I see we have similar taste in avatars. Did ya get that brain rest last night? lol

Lacy, that take is a bit unfair, especially if you read any of that 1999 email I posted a page or so back. Given that I have been for impeaching both Clinton and Trump, that last sentence is a little odd. You may think I am too naive for expecting a higher standard but my views have been consistent as I have opposed misdeeds in both Presidencies. I have not heard many here that stated they were either for impeaching both times or acquitting both but I have more respect for those that can be consistent and see right and wrong, in spite of the party of the President. What were your 1999 impeachment thoughts......for or against removing BillyC? Why or why not? http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/a-matter-of-principles-keeping-the-new-joe-mccarthys-at-bay-by-learning-the-lessons-of-our-past/

The above reference to McCarthy reminded me of an article I read years ago in the Ann Arbor News. I think it applies a bit today as I think the Senate today failed us. Robert Faber wrote a terrific piece recently in which he states that McCarthy’s reign ‘was an embarrassment to our constitution, to our traditions and to the high moral code we like to believe is inherently ours’. He goes on to say ‘We shall always have our fools and ideologues in positions of power, but our system of laws and logic, of checks and balances, is designed to guard against the abuses of ..power, to protect the weakest from the more powerful... If the elected of our democracy, for reasons of greed or power or cowardice, fail in that task, that is the more troubling threat. It was McCarthy’s colleagues who let us down, by failing in their obligation to uphold the spirit and intent and integrity of our democratic system.’

I am not going to do that. I understand that it is too long for most. It wasn't written for this board but was sent to a friend in 1999. I thought some folks might find the parallels to be interesting. If you are not interested though, don't force it. It won't hurt my feelings and we don't need to discuss.

Remember that time in the cannabis thread when I apologized for implying you were an #######? That was easily the posting I regret the most. Undoubtedly you are a colossal ####### and I was as wrong as possible.

Reposting Posted October 30, 2019 On 5/8/2019 at 2:37 PM, Bob in Mich said: Thought I would re-post this here. If we do actually get into impeachment it might be interesting to see how the backpedaling from today's Repubs follows the Dems actions from the Clinton impeachment in the 90's. Obviously the details are different but if we go down the path there will be similarities I would guess too. The other day I found a 1999 email I wrote to a friend expressing frustration with the Dems and their constant backpedaling with respect to Bill Clinton's impeachment. I recall too at that time my golf partner calling me the Raging Republican. You may think I am now a Raging Democrat but I view myself as Independent and have voted for plenty of Dems and Repubs and will likely continue that pattern. I wouldn't want anyone convicted of non-existent crimes but I also don't think we should ignore misdeeds just because of our party affiliation. I think we citizens should be more like jurors and less like the lawyers I see around here. Here is the 99 email: > I think I'm finally starting to put together some clues on this ... > > Many Clinton supporters view all of the Republicans as the Religious > Right Wing, therefor the enemy. They feel that for many years the > Religious Right has been trying to take away more and more personal > freedoms in the name of morality. They want the government to stay out of > their personal lives. That feeling is at the root of this Clinton > support. They see Ken Starr as one who has pried into the President's > personal life. They feel that the Republicans (aka Christian Coalition) > now are trying to throw him out of office because of 'immoral behavior in > his private life'. Many have decided that regardless of the facts, they > are not giving any more ground to this morality craze. > > Also, most people that liked Bill (before all of this) knew he had > told lies in the past and they accepted him anyway. Many of us that > didn't like him because of his lying felt that his backers just couldn't > see how dishonest the guy was. In reality the backers saw the dishonesty > and liked him for his other fine leadership qualities. When he is finally > caught red handed in these lies, his detractors say 'See, we told he was > dishonest. Look at the evidence we have on him.' While his supporters > say, 'What's the big deal? He told a lie about sex. The economy is > great. Get over it.' > > This is the backstepping I've seen in protecting our buddy Bill. It > seems so many points have been conceded, yet there's always another > position to fall back to ... > > 1. The story breaks... He did not have an affair with this > 'gold-digger'. She is just trying to smear the President or just out to > get a book deal for her self. The Whitehouse says that she was stalking > the President and that the FBI is investigating her. > 2. Talk of the stained dress surfaces. Now the stance is 'I > doubt he had any affair, but even if he did, so what if he committed > adultery, it's strictly a personal matter between himself, his family, and > his God. The damn Republicans probably planted this woman in there to try > to get Clinton'. > 3. He lied about sex, so what, everybody lies about sex. Who > hasn't lied about sex? Obstruction of Justice! Get real. > 4. He didn't have any obligation to do the job of the Jones' > attorneys. He wasn't forthcoming and he was evasive. He can be > misleading without committing perjury. There's nothing illegal just > because he didn't offer up answers to questions he wasn't asked. Besides > he had to protect Hillary. > 5. OK, maybe he lied, but it was a civil matter and the case > was eventually thrown out. Everybody lies in civil cases. It's not a > serious matter to commit perjury in a civil case. Besides, that Ken > Starr spent how many millions of dollars? He was appointed to investigate > Whitewater and then it became Travelgate and blah, blah, blah ... That > Betty Curry thing? He was just helping to refresh his memory, that's all. > 6. Well, he had to lie to the Grand Jury. What was he going to > do, admit to perjury in the Jones case - that would have been stupid. He > had to deny that he lied earlier or Ken Starr, that no good, rotten, > bastard .... would be able to indict him for perjury when he leaves > office. He has to maintain that he never lied now, or Starr will get him. > > 7. Look, perjury is just not that serious of a matter. It's > certainly not a 'high crime or misdemeanor like treason or bribery'. > There's no way they could make any case for Obstruction of Justice. The > obstruction case is purely speculation. He says- She says case - could > never be proven. Even if, for the purposes of argument, you suppose all > allegations are true, these are not 'high crimes or misdemeanors'. > 8. The House prosecutors show that a few Federal Judges have > been removed by the Senate for just such deeds (The Senate labeling the > perjury a 'high crime or misdemeanor'). Ok, in some cases perjury could > be grounds for removal, but not in this case. This case is only about sex > and lying about it and if that pervert Starr wasn't peeping into > everybody's bedroom... Would you want to be asked sexual questions under > oath? > 9. The Senators are not just jurors, you know. They are trying > the case. They need to consider more than just the facts, the rule of > law, and the Constitution. They also need to consider what's in the best > interests of this country. The House managers may have made a pretty good > case, but it is not in our best interests to remove the president even if > he committed perjury and obstruction of justice. > 10. And then the latest to my ears ... They had no business > asking him personal, private questions in a grand jury setting where he > couldn't plead the fifth (the protection from self incrimination). That > f***er Ken Starr. It was a witch hunt. Any evidence against Clinton has > to be discounted because of the 'illegitimate' means that were used in > acquiring it. It doesn't really matter what they found out because of the > way they went about it.