Brees, with a rest and a reconsideration, I conclude that our culture, especially evidenced on these boards, is madness within insanity.
First, Clinton was setup from the beginning by bloodless assassins who twisted the Law to their personal, political-power purpose. The crap the man pulled was in self-defense to this tort from the Book Depository. Self-defense covers a lot of crap with me. I would debate this, but Starr has inadvertently [?] covered the tracks and everyone's talking only into their pockets anyway. My posts have only attempted to see method in the crap. The stuff itself has already been excused, as mentioned. What I got was a lot of repetition of the obvious and trite, without context but to prove the tired point: Clinton is a sociopath. The good guys didn't lose; everybody lost. "Everyboby Knows", Leornard Cohen.
Second, You were more clever than most, disguising that same tired point behind an unique approach. You were willing to put off the insulting and antagonistic posts long enough to tell me what I thought, ignore what I told you I thought, tell me I have a choice to believe what you believe, when is the time you want me to do what you want done, tell me Clinton has control of our thinking, that I must make a decision that I've made, that my decisions count for nothing, that my long post from thinking to Clinton is less than trivial. Then you reserve to yourself the decision to act independently. The thinking I see is characteristic of being anti-clinton--and larger, all leaders. It is the need, and an unspoken assumption of the right, to control others at every level of their being. By my way of thinking, as posted, you've got agency in an intimate contact with a body and a complete connection to every nuance of the universe. The desire to be, and follow, leaders and the need to trust dead things--materials and institutions--more than the living, brings us to pointless activity, such as this PJ matter, brutalizations and genocides, and reversed interests and priorities as an inexorable matter of course.
Third, The coupe de etat was my conclusion long before Hilary’s outburst. But the means, opportunity, motive and circumstantial evidence just mounts. How wide open was the disclosure process. How the President filed objection after objection, to be overruled, and later to be reconsidered to his viewpoint. How the entire case lacked evidence, only the wish for some. How that became reversed. How Paula's embellishment of any recollection is consistent, with the years and with her job dissatisfaction. How her attorneys had their interest, and the skill to embellish more. How the President's enemy was bankrolling the case. How the lawyers hired were not case law lawyers, but dedicated anti-clinton Constitutional law experts. Direct evidence? Not likely in an assassination by corruption of law. Doubtless compelling, I wonder how you can lend active and enthusiastic support to such a monstrous plan.
Fourth of Four, << So even I must make a decision, which I have. It is engaging in a struggle for the freedom of individuals to think and act for them selves on any given idea, issue, or circumstance.>> The brief outline you've shown me, of your struggle for freedom of individuals, simply guarantees new masters for old, bondage to something else, not more power to a single person. [except yourself, which, likely, is the power that comes from bondage to a greater master.]
You turn a nice phrase, and seem well adjusted. Good. Me, as Leonard Cohen says, I'm still "Waiting for the Miracle". |
