Free Republic

“But nothing was done before or after the election fraud.”

I was SO disappointed that Trump failed to take decicive action when it counted most. Where was his trademarked “You’re Fired!” or his campaign promise to drain the swamp?

If a human had come into your house and started helping himself to whatever he could find in your refrigerator, wouldn’t you shoot him? I see a double standard here...

If he put up a sign, that proceeds from the sale of each same-sex wedding cake will go to “The Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity” an organisation devoted to helping people overcome same sex attraction, I bet they would leave him alone

The message of the movie was that African people can’t build a shining city or develop advanced technology unless a magic rock falls from the sky and lands in their backyard.

Very racist, the people excited about the movie are clueless.

bookmark

Foster didn’t kill himself.

Never trust CNN.

The Congressmen defending the President are dedicated and talented but I marvel that nobody has addressed the primary issue in the two inquiries so far.

I refer to President Trump’s INTENT or MOTIVE. Why did he ask the favor?

The Democrat Congressmen and every witness so far were allowed to assert that the President was asking a favor of a foreign head of state in order to help him defeat a political rival, Joe Biden. Not once have I heard any Republican challenge this “BIG LIE.” Instead, they trot out the same weak arguments about whether there was a “quid pro quo” over and over and ignore the more relevant issue of intent.

To illustrate the point, consider the following two hypotheticals:

1. The President asks Ukraine’s President for help in defeating Joe Biden at the ballot box, there is no conditionality, arm twisting or “quid pro quo” associated with the request. Even though the President didn’t establish a “This for That” transaction to get the favor he requested, most would agree that the President would be guilty of something that might indeed be impeachable.

2. Conversely, envision that the President asks for help investigating some US corruption involving Ukraine. He attaches all sorts of conditionality, and whatever sort of arm-twisting he has at his disposal but the President’s motive was a reflection of his belief that US laws were broken in a fraudulent effort to reverse the 2016 election. Further, he felt that a former US official had behaved very corruptly and felt that justice needed to be done. In this scenario, the President’s motive remains the same whether his belief is accurate or not. His motives aren’t corrupt and there is no crime.

These two scenarios highlight that the presence or absence of a “quid pro quo” arrangement is irrelevant in determining the President’s guilt.

INTENT IS ULTIMATELY ALL THAT MATTERS!!

I’m waiting for Jordan to say “You clearly believe you can read the President’s mind. BUT isn’t it conceivable that the President was acting on his belief that he was the victim of a fraudulent and corrupt conspiracy and was keeping his promise to ‘Make sure that this doesn’t ever happen to another President?’ On the campaign trail, President Trump promised repeatedly to ‘Drain the swamp!’ When he sees a video of Joe Biden who seemed to be bragging about engaging in corrupt behavior, weren’t the President’s motives possibly free of corrupt intent since ensuring that US laws are obeyed is part of his job description? Is Biden above the law now that he is a candidate? Is a person free to rob a bank as soon as he runs for Sherriff?”

In the first hearings before the Intelligence Committee, only Democrat Rep. Castro even touched on intent when he mentioned the 2016 Ukrainian/DNC rationale as a “debunked conspiracy theory.” Nobody picked up on Castro’s backhanded defense of the President there, Clearly, If President Trump believed a “debunked conspiracy theory” and wanted it investigated, then the President wasn’t asking for help fighting a political rival. Right or wrong, his motive was virtuous.

The Congressmen defending the President are dedicated and talented but I marvel that nobody has addressed the primary issue in the two inquiries so far.

I refer to President Trump’s INTENT or MOTIVE. Why did he ask the favor?

The Democrat Congressmen and every witness so far were allowed to assert that the President was asking a favor of a foreign head of state in order to help him defeat a political rival, Joe Biden. Not once have I heard any Republican challenge this “BIG LIE.” Instead, they trot out the same weak arguments about whether there was a “quid pro quo” over and over and ignore the more relevant issue of intent.
To illustrate the point, consider the following two hypotheticals:

1. The President asks Ukraine’s President for help in defeating Joe Biden at the ballot box, there is no conditionality, arm twisting or “quid pro quo” associated with the request. Even though the President didn’t establish a “This for That” transaction to get the favor he requested, most would agree that the President would be guilty of something that might indeed be impeachable.

2. Conversely, envision that the President asks for help investigating some US corruption involving Ukraine. He attaches all sorts of conditionality, and whatever sort of arm-twisting he has at his disposal but the President’s motive was a reflection of his belief that US laws were broken in a fraudulent effort to reverse the 2016 election. Further, he felt that a former US official had behaved very corruptly and felt that justice needed to be done. In this scenario, the President’s motive remains the same whether his belief is accurate or not. His motives aren’t corrupt and there is no crime.

These two scenarios highlight that the presence or absence of a “quid pro quo” arrangement is irrelevant in determining the President’s guilt.

INTENT IS ULTIMATELY ALL THAT MATTERS!!

I’m waiting for Jordan to say “You clearly believe you can read the President’s mind. BUT isn’t it conceivable that the President is acting on his belief that he was the victim of a fraudulent and corrupt conspiracy and was keeping his promise to ‘Make sure that this doesn’t ever happen to another President?’ On the campaign trail, President Trump promised repeatedly to ‘Drain the swamp!’ When he sees a video of Joe Biden seems to be bragging about engaging in corrupt behavior, Weren’t the President’s motives possibly free of corrupt intent since ensuring that US laws are obeyed is part of his job description? Is Biden above the law now that he is a candidate? Is a person free to rob a bank as soon as he runs for Sherriff?”

In the first hearings before the Intelligence Committee, only Democrat Rep. Castro even touched on intent when he mentioned the 2016 Ukrainian/DNC rationale as a “debunked conspiracy theory.” Nobody picked up on Castro’s backhanded defense of the President there, Clearly, If President Trump believed a “debunked conspiracy theory” and wanted it investigated, then the President wasn’t asking for help fighting a political rival. Right or wrong, his motive was virtuous

Whoops!!! correct scenarios 1 & 2 favors to be worded just like Trump’s requests but let him state different intents for each.

The Congressmen defending the President are dedicated and talented but I marvel that nobody has addressed the primary issue in the two inquiries so far.

I refer to President Trump’s INTENT or MOTIVE. Why did he ask the favor?

The Democrat Congressmen and every witness so far were allowed to assert that the President was asking a favor of a foreign head of state in order to help him defeat a political rival, Joe Biden. Not once have I heard any Republican challenge this “BIG LIE.” Instead, they trot out the same weak arguments about whether there was a “quid pro quo” over and over and ignore the more relevant issue of intent.

To illustrate the point, consider the following two hypotheticals:

1. The President asks Ukraine’s President for help in defeating Joe Biden at the ballot box, there is no conditionality, arm twisting or “quid pro quo” associated with the request. Even though the President didn’t establish a “This for That” transaction to get the favor he requested, most would agree that the President would be guilty of something that might indeed be impeachable.

2. Conversely, envision that the President asks for the same favor using the same words but he also attaches all sorts of conditionality, whatever sort of arm-twisting he has at his disposal but the President’s motive was a reflection of his belief that US laws were broken in a fraudulent effort to reverse the 2016 election. Further, he felt that a former US official had behaved very corruptly and felt that justice needed to be done. In this scenario, the President’s motive remains the same whether his belief is accurate or not. His motives aren’t corrupt and there is no crime.

These two scenarios highlight that the presence or absence of a “quid pro quo” arrangement is irrelevant in determining the President’s guilt.

INTENT IS ULTIMATELY ALL THAT MATTERS!!

I’m waiting for Jordan to say “You clearly believe you can read the President’s mind. BUT isn’t it conceivable that the President is acting on his belief that he was the victim of a fraudulent and corrupt conspiracy and was keeping his promise to ‘Make sure that this doesn’t ever happen to another President?’ On the campaign trail, President Trump promised repeatedly to ‘Drain the swamp!’ When he sees a video of Joe Biden seems to be bragging about engaging in corrupt behavior, Weren’t the President’s motives possibly free of corrupt intent since ensuring that US laws are obeyed is part of his job description? Is Biden above the law now that he is a candidate? Is a person free to rob a bank as soon as he runs for Sherriff?”

In the first hearings before the Intelligence Committee, only Democrat Rep. Castro even touched on intent when he mentioned the 2016 Ukrainian/DNC rationale as a “debunked conspiracy theory.” Nobody picked up on Castro’s backhanded defense of the President there, Clearly, If President Trump believed a “debunked conspiracy theory” and wanted it investigated, then the President wasn’t asking for help fighting a political rival. Right or wrong, his motive was virtuous

The Congressmen defending the President are dedicated and talented but I marvel that nobody has addressed the primary issue in the two inquiries so far.
I refer to President Trump’s INTENT or MOTIVE. Why did he ask the favor?
The Democrat Congressmen and every witness so far were allowed to assert that the President was asking a favor of a foreign head of state in order to help him defeat a political rival, Joe Biden. Not once have I heard any Republican challenge this “BIG LIE.” Instead, they trot out the same weak arguments about whether there was a “quid pro quo” over and over and ignore the more relevant issue of intent.
To illustrate the point, consider the following two hypotheticals:
1. The President asks Ukraine’s President for help in defeating Joe Biden at the ballot box, there is no conditionality, arm twisting or “quid pro quo” associated with the request. Even though the President didn’t establish a “This for That” transaction to get the favor he requested, most would agree that the President would be guilty of something that might indeed be impeachable.
2. Conversely, envision that the President asks for the same favor using the same words but he also attaches all sorts of conditionality, whatever sort of arm-twisting he has at his disposal but the President’s motive was a reflection of his belief that US laws were broken in a fraudulent effort to reverse the 2016 election. Further, he felt that a former US official had behaved very corruptly and felt that justice needed to be done. In this scenario, the President’s motive remains the same whether his belief is accurate or not. His motives aren’t corrupt and there is no crime.
These two scenarios highlight that the presence or absence of a “quid pro quo” arrangement is irrelevant in determining the President’s guilt.
INTENT IS ULTIMATELY ALL THAT MATTERS!!
I’m waiting for Jordan to say “You clearly believe you can read the President’s mind. BUT isn’t it conceivable that the President is acting on his belief that he was the victim of a fraudulent and corrupt conspiracy and was keeping his promise to ‘Make sure that this doesn’t ever happen to another President?’ On the campaign trail, President Trump promised repeatedly to ‘Drain the swamp!’ When he sees a video of Joe Biden seems to be bragging about engaging in corrupt behavior, Weren’t the President’s motives possibly free of corrupt intent since ensuring that US laws are obeyed is part of his job description? Is Biden above the law now that he is a candidate? Is a person free to rob a bank as soon as he runs for Sherriff?”
In the first hearings before the Intelligence Committee, only Democrat Rep. Castro even touched on intent when he mentioned the 2016 Ukrainian/DNC rationale as a “debunked conspiracy theory.” Nobody picked up on Castro’s backhanded defense of the President there, Clearly, If President Trump believed a “debunked conspiracy theory” and wanted it investigated, then the President wasn’t asking for help fighting a political rival. Right or wrong, his motive was virtuous

The biggest lie is being repeated over and over by all the Dems but nobody on the Republican side ever challenged it.

They say that the REASON Trump asked the favor was to help him in the election against Joe Biden. That is false and it is the central issue in the hearing. The inept Republicans have yet to challenge the assertion.

I’m waiting for someone to ask:

“Given the President’s repeated assertion that the Mueller Investigation was corrupt from the get go, that there was a cadre of corrupt individuals who started it, and given that President Trump made repeated promises to get to the bottom of it and make sure that ‘This never happens again to another president’ and given that the President promised repeatedly to ‘Drain the swamp!’, isn’t it possible that the President thought he was rooting out US corruption as part of his duty to ensure that US laws are enforced when he asked the favor rather than pursuing a corrupt, self-serving political agenda?”

Only the Democrat Castro even raised this point as he tried to dismiss the 2016 anti-Trump coup as a debunked conspiracy theory. Castro was actually arguing in defense of the President but nobody noticed. Even if the notion of Ukraine’s involvement in opposing Trump back in 2016 is a debunked conspiracy theory, President Trump believed it so his wanting to have an investigation was intended to be in the national interest and not an impeachable offense.

I’m so frustrated by the failures of the good guys to get a clue.

What does the commandment actually say? What does “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain” mean?

If I were to invoke God’s name falsely by saying “Thus sayeth the Lord, “ after some pronouncement that came out of my own imagination, wouldn’t that be a sin? It seems an oversight on God’s part if it isn’t. Indeed, I offer that you proclaiming that Trump saying G.D. is what the commandment refers to is itself dangerously close to violating the commandment.

The interpretation of falsely invoking God’s authority as what the commandment is about is definitely in keeping with the adjacent commandments. Things like worshiping no other God’s, not worshipping any graven images, honoring the Sabbath day, and not accusing people falsely are all very much in keeping with the notion of not claiming to speak for God when you aren’t.

Then there is the matter of what the Name of God actually is. Clearly “God” isn’t the Name of our God. We might differ on that question. I have a favorite answer: His Name is what He supplied to Moses when asked for His Name. He said “I am ‘I AM’” just like I might answer “I am Bob” if someone asked for my name. I believe the name supplied to Moses was “I AM”

I agree with you though. Trump’s use of profanity was coarse and unpresidential, and Trump should mind his tongue.

“That’s gotta change.”

Lieing under oath, coaching someone how to lie under oath.

Bearing false witness against thy neighbor.

All crimes punishable before a judge.

I am ashamed to say that I voted for that fool. Then a friend gave me Gilder’s “Wealth and Poverty” and I’ve been conservative ever since.

Still amazes me that an Evangelical, ostensibly born again Christian like Carter could align himself with the Pro-death anti-Israel,demon filled party.

Was that bit in “The Martian” about the stranded astronaut being the first to grow crops on Mars thereby qualifying him as a colonist based on real law?

Perhaps that cotton seed sprout gave Chine legal ownership rights to the moon.

After an appropriate slap on the wrist, the perp will sue for and win his parental rights.

I think Mrs. Conway is in the same boat as a lot of evangelical Christian women, the Bible tells them to hang in there in the hope of saving their husband. She is being a good soldier in God’s Army. For her faithfulness, God will give her the victory one way or another. It isn’t our place to weigh in on this matter other than praying for her.

The belief that a “point-of-no-return” even exists assumes that the climate of the Earth is dominated by positive feedback mechanisms and that we are forever on a precipice or delicate balance that could result at any moment in a catastrophic latch-up condition that will destroy all life.

The strongest argument against that idea is that latch-up hasn’t happened yet. There were times when atmospheric CO2 was TEN TIMES current levels and latch-up didn’t happen back then.

Clearly global climate is more dominated by negative-feedback mechanisms which tend to stabilize the system and help it recover from perturbing events like volcano eruptions, asteroid impacts and solar flares which were MASSIVE events that occurred without causing the Earth to fall off its “delicate” balance.

Algore is a lying flim-flam man who is scaring people just to line his own pockets.

Boric acid is effective against roaches. It’s fairly harmless to humans and pets but kills roaches residually for a long time.

Use a tomato duster to inject boric acid powder into crevasses around your home esp. your kitchen. Takes about a week but works very well for at least 6 months. Used that method when I lived in New Orleans when I lived in some very “porous” houses. Had kids and pets so roaches were impossible to stop through housekeeping efforts alone.

Another way to apply it is to make a super-saturated solution by adding boric acid to boiling water then squirting the still hot liquid into all the hidey holes.

Another product that works well is Cimexa. It’s non poisonous and has a 10 year residual action against all creepy crawlies. It works mechanically like ground glass in the joints of any terrestrial arthropod so they become dehydrated and die. Cimexa is one of the few ways to wipe out bedbugs since they can’t be poisoned because they never eat anything but you.