The Right Side of the News

There is a lot more that I could say - that you deserve - but I will be restrained.

quote:

---

Perhaps I should be disciplined for losing my temper so extremely at times, but I don't think anyone could say I haven't been extremely provoked.

---

You are “extremely provoked” by people telling obvious truths and disagreeing with your obvious falsehoods. Phat’s point is at the least understandable in that light.

quote:

---

Sorry but I do believe that being called a racist is a huge offense that deserves some kind of extreme denunciation.

---

And yet what you say raises justifiable suspicions. When you say that you are only against illegal immigrants - but your judgement of their legal status considers neither the law nor the relevant facts - there is clearly some other objection. When you don’t even want to hear about the law and the facts it’s pretty obvious that the legality is not something you even care about.When you defend people like Laura Ingraham without addressing the remarks that give strong evidence that she is racist.As for Marc, he has already used out-of-context quotes to defend Lee against charges of racism which are clearly true. And he is arguing in defence of the Confederacy - also less than honestly.
It is only the general incoherence of his arguments that saves him from worse judgement.Both of you need to understand that unthinkingly making excuses (and often making them up) without concern for the truth or for the implications of what you say is a foolish and risky thing. And yet you both keep doing it and never accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

And there you go again, getting angry because someone told the truth.

So you can’t take truthful criticism. Again you just demonstrate why Phat said what he said,

And yet you complain that you are being punished for hurling abuse at people for daring to say things you don’t like. Even when what they say is true.

quote:

---

They are false and they are **** and they are evil.

---

No to all three - there is even valuable advice in there for you.In fact it seems you are getting very angry about a calm, reasoned judgement.

quote:

---

HOWEVER, it would have been FAR better for me to be suspended for my screaming all caps meltdown than this ridiculous censorship Percy has imposed instead.

---

That you would have preferred suspension rather makes the point that it was a good idea. If you can manage to cut out the abuse Percy will lift the sanction.

Over 650 former prosecutors say Trump would be indicted if he weren't presidentAnd no, they aren’t all “leftists”

quote:

---

They may not be Ltfsts but they are certainly Anti-Trumpers.

---

Or just respecters or the law.

quote:

---

I'd lke to see somebody try to make an issue of obstruction which Mueller clearly tried to provoke with the second part of his report. That part reflects nothing of a true investigative report but only a collection of innuendoes that have no legal value whatever since Trump didn't obstruct anything and didn't DO anything that COULD be obstructive anyway.

---

In some cases he avoided obstruction only because his staff refused to follow his orders.And no, there is nothing clear about your assertions about the Mueller report - other than your desire to whitewash Trump.

quote:

---

It's all the usual partisan empty accusation with no substance to it. A version of Fke Nws.

---

In other words, truths you want suppressed.

Probably there are other acts they want to cover up. We know that material that related to other offences was passed on to the relevant authorities. We know that material was redacted. We know that Trump and his supporters would want that kept as quiet as possible.There might be more, but I don’t think there is good reason to assume that there is.

quote:

---

The evl at EvC is overwhelming

---

Don’t flatter yourself.

quote:

---

Sorry but I do. My frame of reference is Reformed and the Reformation itself is an important influence in my thinking. Not Lutheran, but Reformed. I don't know what you consider to be "the traditional church" but to me it's based on today's Reformed theologians. R C Sproul, John MacArthur, lots more

---

Christianity is nearly 2000 years old. The Reformation is about 500 years old and Sproul was only born 80 years ago.You have an odd idea of the “traditional church”.

quote:

---

It's something I've heard more than once and if I hear it again i'll track down the source

---

In the presence of a long standing policy of not indicting a sitting president you are going to need really good sources to show that Mueller really did intend to indict.

quote:

---

The quote you give is convincing, however, but it gives me a completely different view of things: how cleverly devious of them to imply there are causes for criminal indictment but they aren't going to pursue them because of that sitting President policy. Yuck.

---

I am sure you think that is a “deviously clever” smear, Faith. It’s one of your standard tricks. But it’s hardly convincing. In fact they did exactly what they should in the case of the existing policy given the fact that there is evidence supporting obstruction.

quote:

---

Your lists I'm going to ignore because I know there are other interpretations of all that which of course doesn't interest you.

---

Contacts with the Russians are still contacts with the Russians no matter how you “interpret” them.

quote:

---

There is no evidence supporting obstruction. It's all things that didn't happen, it's stuff Trump said but didn't do

---

You mean Trump ordering obstruction, but his subordinates refusing to carry out those orders ? Surely you see that isn’t a good thing.

quote:

---

And the things he did do didn't obstruct anything.

---

In fact we know that Trump’s refusal to testify hampered the collusion investigation, to at least some degree.

quote:

---

You say I have to prove Mueller did intend to indict but I don't believe he intended to indict,

---

Then why do you keep saying otherwise ?

quote:

---

....I don't think he found anything criminal so there was nothing to indict Trump for

---

That isn’t the question at all. The question is whether Mueller intended to indict Trump if he could find the evidence to do so. You say he did, Mueller says he didn’t. I see no reason to disbelieve Mueller on this point.

quote:

---

The bulk of the second part of his report is all the usual innuendo intended to feed the ravenous Trump maligners, not even anything that should have been in such a report.

---

In other words evidence that justifies charges of obstruction.

quote:

---

I hope Barr's investigation of the investigation finally gets at the truth in all this phony stuff aimed at bringing down Trump.

---

In other words you want a cover-up and persecution of any potential whistle-blowers. Another move in the destruction of liberty. Just as I expected from you. And why not when you try to smear anyone pointing out that Barr is a dishonest Trump partisan ?

quote:

---

Sorry, there was a thousand-year hiatus along the main path of the Church from the seventh century on, in which the Roman pagan superstition had the political power to impose its false version of Christianity on the public.

---

Aside from the bias you are completely ignoring the areas beyond Rome’s control.

quote:

---

The traditional church did exist in the earliest years, and also continued in pockets of believers outside the RCC, but it took the Reformation to fully recover its doctrines.

---

Oh no, the Reformation may have been presented that way and did roll back some things but it wasn’t really a return to a previous state at all.

quote:

---

There have also been deviations since then but in recent years we've been having a revival of reformed teaching. Sproul and the other modern followers of the Reformation continue to support and define what the Reformation said.

---

We’re back to your weird view that modern writers define the “original” view while the people who lived at the time are just “revisionists” are we ?

quote:

---

Where did I say he intended to indict? I had no intention of saying any such thing.

---

Message 1882
Message 1883
Message 1887

quote:

---

"cover up" indeed. The cover up was the whole Mueller report itself, designed to overturn the election of Trump and to put suspicion on Trump to deflect it from Hillary who richly deserves to be prosecuted for collaborating with Russia and for obstruction of justice in actually destroying evidence of her misuse of classified information.

---

Given the Russian meddling in the election in Trump’s favour it would be pretty weird to investigate his opponent for collusion.And the absence of evidence for charges is not proof of obstruction even when applied to people you want jailed.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You seem to be using my quotes to mean the exact opposite of what they say. I'm saying he did NOT bring charges because there were none to bring

---

No, that is exactly how I am using them. The whole point of this is that you have not defended the quoted assertions even though Mueller has explicitly denied any intent to indict Trump, no matter what the evidence showed.

quote:

---

The point of the investigation would have been to do that...

---

Mueller says otherwise. Aside from your usual smears is there any reason to disbelieve him ? That is the whole point we’re arguing about here.

quote:

---

He had nothing to do with the Russians' efforts, which didn't succeed anyway

---

You are actually claiming that Trump LOST the election ?

quote:

---

But Hillary DID collude with Russians against Trump in buying that bogus "dossier" and using it to try to defame him in an effort to destroy his run for President.

---

Buying a dossier from a US company is “colluding with the Russians” ?