Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 101 through 150 (of 978 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Is trump really immoral #1834125
    klugeryid
    Participant

    still not “immoral”
    despicable? perhaps
    but “words have to have meaning in order for society to function.”
    immoral usually referrs to arayos related
    i wouldnt call making standeard goy comments “immoral

    in reply to: If you vote democrat #1834078
    klugeryid
    Participant

    I’d like to apologize to all the other readers of this thread here.
    What ubiq did, is classic democrat tactic.
    Mischaracterize something that is really simple, In such a way that to bring it back to what was originally meant requires long boring monologues which really add nothing to the conversation as they were really evident all along (its like if In middle of a conversation I say 2+2=4 and someone interjects no! It’s 3 . stop lying. So you need to go now and prove simple math. Thereby losing most of the audience. And I’m the process, people walk off thinking, maybe he is right, cause the other guy didn’t really prove him wrong.)
    So most of the time people just don’t bother to respond, and a clueless observer would walk away unsure who is correct.
    Here though, if that happened, someone would walk away thinking (as I read what he was saying) that ubiq has brought halachik sources to allow abortion on demand.
    So I spent the time and effort to show that his sources, and the conversation at hand are not the same topic.
    (yes of course also to back my position that the democrat party is a party of murder.)

    in reply to: If you vote democrat #1834077
    klugeryid
    Participant

    I’m stretching my mind trying to make this connection, youve lost me you are going t have to walk me through this leap slowly. When the Gemara says we execute a pregnant woman who is chayiv misah. Does that mean we also kill her children if she is chayiv misah?

    No.

    The Gemmara is not pro abortion, so it wouldn’t follow.
    That was a contention that only works if you are pro abortion.

    in reply to: If you vote democrat #1834075
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Oh maybe because the same party that supports a woman’s right to not deal with the fallout of her promiscuity”
    I thought this wasnt an anti-women thing? why “her promiscuity” wasnt he just as promiscuous?
    THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION!!!!!!!
    As a matter of fact it’s one that ”right to lifers ”are struggling to figure out.
    When the promiscuous dad strenuously objects to having GPS baby aborted, the ”pro life? ” democrat party says, sorry. It’s not your business. It’s a woman’s right to choose. It’s her health care now.
    So I have no answer to that question. As a matter of fact that question is part of my issues with the pro abortion position.
    Welcome aboard.

    in reply to: If you vote democrat #1834070
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Not sure why I can’t kill the guy … it’s just an abortion.”
    Its not. (and you say I’m confused? why can’t you defend your position without saying things that arent true? )

    So explain the difference between killing
    A fully healthy fetus a week before its due date
    A newborn
    A fifty year old person

    Maybe then I’ll be able to understand some of your posts.

    in reply to: If you vote democrat #1834069
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Nope. I was replying to Joseph’s question not yours

    Right, Josefs question to a participant of a conversation of which I was part of.
    True I had not responded to that interjection. But that’s not the start of a new conversation. Nor was it meant to change the conversation topic. Which is usually based on the op which you just agreed is more in line with what I’m claiming not your rendition.
    So yes I was part of this conversation before you.

    in reply to: If you vote democrat #1834067
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Wow.
    Tons to plod through
    Basically you are willfully Mischaracterizing the conversation.
    It’s about (based on the op) the evils of the democrat party line.
    Their position is all abortion is a woman’s right.
    Not halaachicly sanctioned abortion
    When r Eliezer expresses support for their position, that’s what he is supporting.
    Abortion for the sake of abortion means I want to have an abortion so I can say I had an abortion. Sort of like crossing it off a bucket list. That’s what r Eliezer said nobody does. (Thoth in not sure how he knows that, and that is legal and protected too, so it’s really part of the conversation anyway)
    Abortion for necessity in the context of this thread means that there is a rational for it
    Even as I mentioned that I should fit into my prom dress
    Remember this thread is not about halachik abortion it’s about democrats position on abortion rights.
    (according to you, r Eliezer dropped in an oblique reference to halachik abortion in middle of a conversation about the democrats position on abortion and he did it in code so only you would understand the reference)

    in reply to: Bloomberg or Trump? #1834045
    klugeryid
    Participant

    This is a perfect illustration of why we don’t rely on our own mind to decide which sin is worse.
    Here we have a usually bright cogent rational person, on two separate threads, misunderstanding the same blatant and obvious point of the conversation.
    Is it them a wonder that when we want a moral judgement, we check our own ideas at the door and look at what the Torah tells us?

    in reply to: Bloomberg or Trump? #1834042
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    Your a real outliner aren’t you,
    On the other thread here (what happens if you vote democrat) you are only willing to discuss abortion in cases of severe circumstances
    Now your claiming only to discuss post birth abortion.
    No. You are wrong on both counts.
    The discussion centers on the democrats position that abortion is a woman’s right to choose, for any reason she wants.
    Meaning she has a right to terminate a regular, healthy, full term even (not that that really is different than six months let’s say) , pregnancy, on a. Whim. Just because she is not in the mood to have the baby. We are pointing out the moral depravity of a party that champions the right to such depravity.

    Post birth abortion, while not legal yet, (it means that a mother has the right to kill her baby for a short while after the birth as well, an as yet undetermined amount of time, for what is really the difference between killing the baby when it’s inside her or killing it twenty minutes later when it’s outside her, a position who’s lomdus happens to be totally correct. Just reversed.)

    It was brought in to show how depraved the democrat leadership is, for these are those who have publicly con out in support of it.

    But it is not the main thrust of the argument, nor is it even a necessary component. It’s just a side point.

    The quotes are brought to show what the top candidates in the current presidential election hold in regards to the overall idea of abortion.

    in reply to: If you vote democrat #1834021
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    You seem a bit confused here so let me give you the relevant posts in chronological order as listed here. (you can always go back and check to make sure I’m not leaving out anything important or misrepresenting.

    Op.

    You are voting for a party that is actively advocating for abortion and tuvya marriages. There is no sugar coating the fact that you are the Hellenist b’zman ha’zeh…

    (note, no mention of abortion in extenuating circumstances. Not opening a discussion on the possibility of abortion in Jewish law. Rather a condemnation on voting democrat, specifically due to two of the parties platforms. One of which is abortion rights)

    I am the twelfth commenter on this thread. You are the twenty first. I’m not sure which number system has twenty one before twelve, but I never learned that one, so I would consider that you came into this conversation after me.

    Then came this
    As a response to a comment from r Eliezer
    50,000,000 slaughtered babies is far less moral
    The stupid policies of CLinton caused the mortgage crisis 10 years ago.
    The Republicans prefer school choice.

    To which r Eliezer responded

    February 19, 2020 6:58 pm at 6:58 pm#1833327REPLY
    Reb EliezerParticipant
    You are fooling yourself when it comes to abortion. No one does abortion for the sake of it. The rich will travel wherever it is allowed and the poor will endanger themselves.

    To which Josef responded

    Reb Eliezer, I’m really shocked that you support abortion being legal.

    Which engendered your comment that r Eliezers they is in line with the Torah, whereupon I asked where exactly do you have a basis for such an outlandish claim.

    Follow it through

    Op says democrats are awful because they glorify the right for abortions (which is clearly referring to all abortions not just fetal reduction ET Al)
    R E says republicans are worse because they don’t care about anybody

    To which mdg says 50,000 abortions (that’s fetal reductions?? 50,000?)are worse than whatever r e is claiming about
    republicans

    Upon which Josef expressed surprise that r e would support legalizing abortions (clearly, follow along now, the abortions we’ve been discussing, meaning ALL abortions including the majority of them which are just convenience)

    To which you said it’s the Torah view
    And that’s where I challenged you to provide a source.

    The abortion part of this thread clearly was discussing immoral abortion on demand, when you came barreling in claiming that’s the Torah position.
    If anyone changed the conversation it was you.

    in reply to: If you vote democrat #1834022
    klugeryid
    Participant

    The democrat party feels these are a woman’s right. And to stop her is anti woman.”
    Ok so?

    So, so the democrat party is a party that supports and glorifies murder. That’s all. Not a big deal. Not sure why I can’t kill the guy who smashed an old yid with a huge brick, in crown heights, a few months back. I mean it’s just an abortion.
    Oh maybe because the same party that supports a woman’s right to not deal with the fallout of her promiscuity,by killing her innocent unborn baby, also supports the rights of all criminals to end the life of all innocents.
    Keep voting for these guys. Cause they give food stamps Reb Eliezer. Real Tzadiks.

    in reply to: Bloomberg or Trump? #1833991
    klugeryid
    Participant

    You can also Google it just type a name and abortion position.
    It’s not hard to find

    in reply to: Bloomberg or Trump? #1833854
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Bloomberg criticized abortion-rights supporters who support abortion-rights opponents in elections, saying that supporters must “exercise vigilance” so that lawmakers do not “try to nuance themselves away from that commitment in the interest of political expediency.” Some analysts say Bloomberg’s comments signal a condemnation of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other abortion-rights supporters who are supporting candidates who oppose abortion rights. Schumer heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which recruited Bob Casey (D) as the only way to beat Sen. Rick Santorum (R) because Pennsylvania voters are split on the issue of abortion. Casey opposes abortion rights with exceptions for cases involving rape or incest or to save the life of the woman and supports family planning programs. Bloomberg said, “Reproductive choice is a fundamental human right, and we can never take it for granted,” adding, “On this issue, you’re either with us or against us.”
    Source: Website MedicalNewsToday.com , May 2, 2006

    in reply to: Bloomberg or Trump? #1833850
    klugeryid
    Participant

    “I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat,” Sanders replied. “By this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added.

    in reply to: Bloomberg or Trump? #1833845
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Believes abortion is between a woman and her doctor.
    Klobuchar views abortion as a decision between a woman and her doctor.
    In 2006, Klobuchar said that “we need to start talking about common ground, and about reducing the number of abortions–making them safe and making them rare.”
    Klobuchar co-sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act. The legislation prohibits states from setting restrictions on abortion.

    in reply to: Bloomberg or Trump? #1833841
    klugeryid
    Participant

    It is, however, significant that a centrist Democrat like Biden has now come out against Hyde. That shows that calling for a repeal of the amendment has become a mainstream position in the Democratic Party, something that was hard to imagine even five years ago. ”vox” (whatever that website is)

    The Hyde Amendment, first passed in 1976, bans federal funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the pregnant patient. The exceptions for rape and incest were added in 1993, when Bill Clinton was president.

    in reply to: Bloomberg or Trump? #1833835
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    ”Oh definitely not. Its very much not ok”
    THANK YOU!!
    This is what we are talking about
    This is what the democrat party demands you glorify.
    This is why I and others here call them murderers.
    Thank you.
    I’m not interested in exceptional cases .
    The point is they don’t just allow exceptional cases.
    They want total approval for abortion on demand with no limits

    in reply to: If you vote democrat #1833811
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq are you ‘collecting exceptions ”again?
    THE QUESTION HERE IS ABOUT ABORTION ON DEMAND. not fetal reduction
    Not danger to mothers life.
    We’re talking
    ”abortion because being pregnant will not allow me to fit into my prom dress ”
    Abortion because I want to go to Cancun in a month and don’t want to deal with morning sickness
    Abortion because I don’t like my boyfriend anymore so I don’t want his baby
    Abortion because I’m not in the mood of being tied down to a baby and changing diapers.
    Does rsza allow these???
    ציץ אליעזר? נשמת אברהם? Other פוסקים ?
    Yes? Name them
    No?
    Guess what
    The democrat party feels these are a woman’s right. And to stop her is anti woman.
    And that’s what we are against here.
    I don’t know how many more times I need to write this.
    Stop coming back with
    Fetal reduction
    Mothers life at risk
    Unviable fetus
    Severely deformed fetus
    We know there are those who allow them. Wonderful. You can do all sorts of otherwise איסורים,
    במצב של שעת הדחק
    THAT’S NOT THE QUESTION HERE!!!!!!

    in reply to: If you vote democrat #1833791
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Dy
    Trump is very far from a bastion of morality. And to answer Joseph before he starts making lomdishe chillukim, Trump proudly admitted to arayos which are included in the sheva mitzvos b’nei Noach.
    Really? Which did he admit to?
    Touching by a goy ,is not arayos.

    in reply to: If you vote democrat #1833790
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Wow ubiq hope you didn’t hurt yourself stretching there.
    The Torah allows coffee too.
    Only thing is that’s not the conversation we are having here.
    The conversation is not if abortion is EVER OK. It’s about if abortion is ALWAYS OK.
    So far you keep talking about some random times that it’s allowed.
    No the Torah does not allow abortions
    It allows saving a life.
    It allows eating pork to save a life
    It allows certain abortions to save a life
    It allows fire on shabbos to save a life
    So what.
    The opposition to the democrat party in this thread is due to the blanket allowance of abortion without cause.
    Please respond to that

    in reply to: Bloomberg or Trump? #1833689
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Infanticide
    Killing of infant
    Democrat party supports post birth abortion.
    Post birth a fetus is called an infant
    Besides you know good and well that I meant aborting a full term baby which is legal is basically infanticide.
    But if you want to be a stickler, have it your way.
    Change it to supports murder.
    Killing a fetus in late stage because it’s not in my plans to have it, is murder.
    And the democrat party champions the right of every woman to do so unmolested.
    You won’t find any mainstream posek who says that killing a fetus in the ninth month because the mother is not interested in having a baby, is OK.
    You will find all kinds of talk in various outliner cases
    That’s not the discussion and you know it. The discussion is quite simple
    If a woman eight months pregnant reader she doesn’t want the fetus just because she is not in the mood to deal with having a baby. can she kill it?
    The democrat party says it’s her God given right
    I say that’s murder
    I’m wrong?
    Show me the source
    Don’t jump on my phraseology
    Don’t show me scenarios

    in reply to: If you vote democrat #1833684
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    Mishna Ohalos 7:7
    There are only 6 mishnayos in that perek.
    But OK
    The sixth one says
    והָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא מַקְשָׁה לֵילֵד, מְחַתְּכִין {יח} אֶת הַוָּלָד בְּמֵעֶיהָ וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ אֵבָּרִים אֵבָרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחַיֶּיהָ קוֹדְמִין לְחַיָּיו. יָצָא רֻבּוֹ, אֵין נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ, שֶׁאֵין דּוֹחִין נֶפֶשׁ מִפְּנֵי נָפֶשׁ:
    In other words
    When the fetus is still inside and the mothers life is threatened you can kill the fetus
    Once the fetus is mostly out aka partial birth abortion and certainly post birth abortion, you must let the mother die for we don’t push aside one life for another.

    So not sure how this is germane. Any honest poster here knows we are discussing abortions of convinience .
    It’s telling that you have to resort to underhanded sleigh of word to back your position here. You usually are much more honest in your postings

    in reply to: Bloomberg or Trump? #1833585
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    Though who supports “infanticide” ?
    Anyone who supports abortion except in cases of danger to someone’s life.
    Duh!
    Have you been smoking legal damnocrat weed lately?
    You feel better if we call it fetalcide?
    Once it’s a viable fetus forty days after conception, by all accounts, it’s murder to ”terminate ”
    And you know that.
    Not sure what your game is, but I fell straight into your trap, so you can spring the clincher on me. I’m ready.

    in reply to: If you vote democrat #1833576
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    Where is it permitted in Torah sources please?

    in reply to: Bloomberg or Trump? #1833477
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq I think you side stepped his point.
    Trump for all his many failings does not ADVOCATE living his lifestyle.
    Sure he enjoys it and flaunts it. But he doesn’t claim ”it’s the proper way to live ”he just says I’m trump so I can do whatever I want. And get away with it.
    You know what ”get away with it”means?
    It means ”sure I know it’s wrong, but I enjoy it and nobody can stop me so I’m going to do it anyway ”
    As opposed to
    ”if you don’t support gay marriage you are a closed minded evil discriminatory person.
    If you don’t support infanticide, you are anti women and a misogynist. ”

    Both are statements that this is the correct way to live.
    I can support a candidate who joys he is a pleasure glutton even though it’s wrong for him.
    I can’t support someone who makes the worst activities into a ”positive lifestyle ”

    in reply to: Going local for Mesivta versus out of town #1833426
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Sam Hashem decides it all anyway except יראת שמים.
    So who cares where you send your kid

    in reply to: Can the severity of a sin be learned from the severity of the punishment? #1833427
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Bump

    in reply to: If you vote democrat #1833383
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Mdg,
    Perfect.
    Most posters here seem to have a hard time with that concept

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    I came across this quote this past מוצש”ק
    חובת השמירה פתיחה אות ו
    (נכתב ע”י החפץ חיים)

    ולמשל, אם יפתנו היצר מחמת כעסו על פלוני שילך ויגנהו בפני אנשים ויוציא עליו שם רע, יתבונן בנפשו אלו היה היצר מפתהו לילך לבית הזונות, האם היה שומע לו? בוודאי היה גוער בו: לך מעלי מלפתני בעון, שאהיה עבור זה מתועב בעיני ה׳. ותדע אחי, שהעון של מוציא שם רע חמור יותר, כדאיתא בערכין: “נמצא האומר בפיו חמור מן העושה מעשה”‏[7] [שאונס ומפתה צריך ליתן חמישים שקלים כסף, ומוציא שם רע צריך ליתן מאה שקלים לבד המלקות שמקבל על זה]

    How does the Chafetz Chaim know that מוציא שם רע is worse than being מאנס a woman (shockingly not agreeing with ubiq’s moral scale, )?
    By seeing what the punishment is!!
    (again arguing on ubiq )

    in reply to: Drinking fountain soda in NYC #1833340
    klugeryid
    Participant

    The fountain dispenser doesn’t have a filter?

    in reply to: Bloomberg or Trump? #1833104
    klugeryid
    Participant

    CT for a lawyer obsessed with technical accuracy this last post was misleading at best and probably faulty as well.

    Noahide laws?
    Outlaw abortion (it’s called murder)
    Outlaw gay activity (arayos)
    So yes as a practising Jew you should do all you can to make sure the secular government doesn’t transgress these two.

    Your statement that the Supreme Court that legalized abortion was ”under a republican president ” is total obfuscation.
    That’s like saying the car accident took place under johns window.
    Presidents can’t remove (or change) justices. And you know that good and well. They can only fill vacancies. So the question is who appointed the justices that ultimately legalized murder and debauchery.
    Not in which presidential calendar cycle did it take place.
    Some of us are not so easily fooled by barrages of well made sentences. (aka we are republicans not damnocrats)

    in reply to: Bloomberg or Trump? #1832994
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Little froggie
    Yes
    Is that the guy who banned all sorts of creature comforts because they are bad for the environment but then left his limos running all day so they would be cool when he steps into it?
    Yes
    Mr know it all

    in reply to: He who lives in glass houses shouldn’t throw roger stone #1832951
    klugeryid
    Participant

    As I’ve been saying all along the man can pardon who he wants when he wants without any limits so stop getting bent out of shape when he helps his friends to get off

    in reply to: He who lives in glass houses shouldn’t throw roger stone #1832809
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Totally true
    And therefore??

    in reply to: He who lives in glass houses shouldn’t throw roger stone #1832756
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Reb you.win.
    Lots of words. Looks smart and sharp. I have no idea what your point is

    in reply to: The top two dems are either a sodomite, or a communist #1832419
    klugeryid
    Participant

    בשביל שזה געל נפש

    in reply to: Mitt Romney is now persona non grata #1832323
    klugeryid
    Participant

    But why should ”the pan American Highway should extend through the Darién Gap”?

    in reply to: Wedding Costs….In Law Chutzpah #1832259
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ctl true it’s got to be in the contract. But you also need to grasp every possible meaning of what’s written in said contract or you will quickly find yourself embroiled in a court fight as you battle out which meaning was meant

    in reply to: Why do you support trump #1832170
    klugeryid
    Participant

    And that’s why he is hated

    in reply to: Wedding Costs….In Law Chutzpah #1832031
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ctl
    I keep forgetting that you will respond to my choice of words over the substance of my post. So I’ll try again
    ”Bernie Sanders ” was shorthand for

    You consistently support ”higher taxes on those that have more ”
    Even though the people who are being taxed have no control in how that money is spent (if Bernie, as one of 100 is called ”can’t force you to do anything ” then my lone vote even in NYC is just one of 8-9 million, certainly fair to call it ”no say ”)
    So I’m not sure why your getting bent out of shape that someone is ASKING you to give money to a cause that you presumably support.
    Whether they need it or not is irrelevant.
    Your ire is directed at the asking.
    I’m not mixing politics in.
    I’m using your political statements to gauge your personal positions.
    I didn’t ask who your voting for nor do I care

    in reply to: Why was trump impeached??? #1832025
    klugeryid
    Participant

    C A
    I call that the Martha Stewart offense
    Congress had no business making a public investigation about a private ”affair” of his.
    You can’t back a guy into a corner where he needs to publicly embarrass himself or lie, and then wham now we got the crime we needed so we can impeach you.
    Similar to the obstruction charge here, (though the obstruction is even weaker it’s like saying or president we are investigating you. Please hand over anything we want, roll over and play dead, or we will call you obstructionist and slam you for that too.)
    If they asked him under oath what he ate for breakfast and he said yogurt and they have witnesses that he did not ,so you should impeach him too?
    If they had no business asking the question in the first place, in my opinion, they can’t use his answers.
    Why don’t they start every trial asking the accused, under oath, did you do this crime?
    Then every time someone is found guilty they can add jail time for lying under oath too!
    That is pure lunacy. If you think someone did something wrong it’s your business to find it out. Don’t ask the guy. And if you do, you have no right to expect the truth.
    So yes he lied. It’s not even an offense in my book.
    And I hate Clinton.I think he brought down the morals of this country.
    Whereas trump, if Hollywood would portray trumps moral level it would be a step up, and they probably would have a hard time selling those movies. So I don’t think his morals are impacting the country negatively.

    in reply to: shreds of decency #1832026
    klugeryid
    Participant

    As long as he has the power to pardon, he is not subverting justice by helping someone get off, provided what he does is not outright illegal

    in reply to: The top two dems are either a sodomite, or a communist #1832012
    klugeryid
    Participant

    G H
    That has got to be from the richest posts.
    I’m the same sort you call a liar yet you believe what he clearly has to say for political expediency!!!
    If you believe trump would vote for a gay man….

    in reply to: Wedding Costs….In Law Chutzpah #1831904
    klugeryid
    Participant

    CTL
    I personally think it’s way out of line.
    But you, as someone who sees nothing wrong with Bernie Sanders asking me to hand over more of my money to help some guy I never heard of, do something I don’t agree with, what could possibly be wrong with your grandchild ‘s future new grandfather asking you to kick in a bit of cash?

    In other words, if Bernie Sanders forced me to kick in cash to help John marry Jim that’s OK. But for the new grandfather to ask you to give cash to your own grandkid to help they do something that presumably you are shepping nachas from, you have an issue??

    in reply to: The top two dems are either a sodomite, or a communist #1831834
    klugeryid
    Participant

    C A
    Thanks I second your post

    in reply to: He who lives in glass houses shouldn’t throw roger stone #1831832
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Harav.
    You totally lost me
    חזל say one thing
    You mistranslated it on purpose because you know better? Is that what you are saying?
    Nice. I’ll keep חזל ‘ס version if you don’t mind.
    I can’t be positive but I just have this feeling that they were a drop smarter than even you.
    Hope I’m not being to חוצפא to say that

    in reply to: Why was trump impeached??? #1831828
    klugeryid
    Participant

    No. Nixon was impeached for cause. That’s why he stepped down.
    Clinton you are correct. It was just hate. Same like here. Both worthless impeachments. It’s just a badge that you got under the other parties skin.

    in reply to: He who lives in glass houses shouldn’t throw roger stone #1831679
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Harav

    klugeryid, change your name. איזהו חכם הרואה את הנולד a smart person looks in the past. We don’t want a dictator who controls the Justice Dept. Next, any person can be investigated by the president, if he does’t like him.

    What are you talking about?
    It means who sees the future.
    At least translate correctly before criticizing.
    He does not control it any more than any president before or after him. He has not seized power. He UTILIZED his power. And we see which way he enjoys utilizing it. To help his friends. Big issue there.
    Maybe say, next boy of his cronies can do any crime and get away with it. At least then the issue you bring up would make sense. Although in my post I already answered that he already has that power. It’s called PARDON

    in reply to: Why was trump impeached??? #1831678
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Catch yourself
    You are correct
    I totally misunderstood your post. Thought you were supporting impeachment.
    Sorry
    Being as your writing is as a damnation on the dems I agree 100%

    in reply to: Why was trump impeached??? #1831602
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Cute they impeached him for obstructing their impeachment investigation.
    The dens are a real know it all party
    They knew Biden would be the eventual nominee so they know trump pressured
    They knew he would obstruct so they started the impeachment before he actually obstructed
    Fortunately it seems they are fast becoming the know it All wrong party

Viewing 50 posts - 101 through 150 (of 978 total)