So women don't make up rape stories, but all of Clinton's many accusers are lying?
Yer question was:
Totally, women always making up rape stories, amiright?
In my view, a woman "making up" rape accusations is likely a rare event. So, as I answered, I'd say yer
not right, women are
not "always making up rape stories."
By the same token, I'm not entirely certain that Clinton was never involved in a sexual assault. So it may indeed be true that not "all of Clinton's many accusers are lying."
But where does that leave us? With a
long list of people, many of them with highly questionable motivations, accusing both Clintons of one serious crime after another. Like I said here before, and I'm certainly not the first to say it, this is an industry in this country —
Git the Clintons!
So if you'd be willing, please answer my question: did they murder Vince Foster and traffic in cocaine? What do you think of
this page?
Hillary is a parallel case. They say she's responsible for Ambassador Stevens' death, she's been a serious threat to national security with the way she handled emails, the Foundation is corrupt, Whitewater, FBI files inappropriately in the WH, travel office firings, cattle futures, and on and on.
The line is that they're serial criminals and they're so clever they keep getting away with it, or else they threaten/murder their accusers and/or any witnesses. Could it be that this is all a load of partisan/ideological rat-effing? Birth certificate, secret Muslim, communist, homosexual, …
Their prize is Lewinsky. And what came of that? An impeachment. How many millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted by Starr and all that nonsense? How much did it distract the government and the country from the business it should have been focused on? All for stuff that even many on the Right dismiss with JFK.
To be clear, the partisan in me welcomes this. It exposes the Right for what much of it is — destructive hacks and nuts. Moderates and Independents decide many elections, and they're largely turned off by this kind of maniacal, witch-hunt hysteria.
>>Well, ain't that a special kind of bias on your part!
I'd say it's no bias at all, just common sense.
LOL. It's in the Old Testament also (Leviticus 19:18)
But much more famously in Mark 12:31.
>>Have you ever read the Bible?
Yes, although not as much as you have I'm sure.
My point would be this: If the Bible is the inerrant, literal word of God, something we must adhere to, how can it be filled with clear contradictions? My answer is that the Bible was written by men, men who wrote down their
perception of God's truth, His will. I view its teaching in that context, and I then rely on my personal experience to decide what God wants me to do.
I grew up in a homophobic society. I'm sometimes uncomfortable around openly gay men. I figure that's a learned response, something learned from people whose judgement I've found I have no confidence in. My instinct tells me that God wants me to understand that His creation is imperfect, and that things like homosexuality, which can be confusing, are just a part of life I need to accept.
What part of "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" do you think remotely approves one to have slaves?
Why does the Bible say it's OK to buy and own slaves? Could it be that someone interpreted God's will in a way that you and I disagree with, and yet that belief is included in the Bible?
You seem to have a good of hostility toward "that corrupt gas-bag Hillary" and other characterless "Democrat candidates." ("Democrat" is not an adjective.) Is that a properly Christian attitude? I allow myself to feel that way about my political opponents, but I figure it must be sinful. Do you agree?
>>You can't be serious.
Oh, I am. And I'm not going to read through a list on some right-wing nut page. Give me an example of an Obama lie/iniquity.
