Random Politics & Religion #30

Muller has found a fair bit of crime. He will indubitably find more.

I would remind you that collusion is not a crime.

Over 9 pages!

Actually it does. Specifically it prevents coerced speech.

The US Government can not order an atheist painter to paint a Christian mural, for the same reason it can't order a christian painter to paint an anti-Christian mural.

It's the 1st and not the 15th Amendment for a reason, the protections against coerced speech are vital to the functioning of a free society.

Neo-natzi's are free to say whatever they want to say and are enjoy protections from the government against coercing them to say things they don't want to say. The Government can not force someone to commit speech they don't want to commit. This is a fundamental part of free speech and something liberals now hate with passion.

The question presented was if the act of custom cake making is "speech". The US Supreme Court has long held that art is considered speech and therefor protected in the exact same way speech is. The cake baker is claiming their custom made cakes are works of art and therefor protected the same way all other works of art are. That the state can not force the baker to create a specific work of art.

Colorado is attempting to cite discrimination, and the media has outright lied to create public support for them. The baker has claimed there is no discrimination because they had a previous business relationship and would sell them and non-custom cake or a custom made cake with a message the baker felt comfortable making. Your news media lied to you and omitted these facts to manipulate your emotions. The cake baker had no problem providing service to the homosexual couple, he had a problem creating a work of art with a message that he disagreed with.

If you actually read the Arguments you can see these exact arguments being made.

So welcome everyone to the People's Republic of Canada where the government tells you what you can and can not think and say.

Manafort and Gates have been charged on events that occured before this election even happened. No relation to Russia what-so-ever. Zero.

Flynn and Papadopoulos, are charged with "lying to the FBI" which also has nothing to do with the premise of the investigation.

Do you even understand what it takes to get charged with "lying ot he FBI". An agent can ask you what you ate for dinner one night during an interview, and 2 months later at a follow-up interview he can ask you what you ate for dinner again. If you waver in your story at all, you can be charged with "lying to the FBI"

Re Popadopolous. Lying about your contacts could mean you told the FBI the contact's last name was spelled with a silent E in one interview, and then not in another interview. Considering the leaks in this investigation are politicized and Mueller's team is full of anti-Trump hacks, The fact that you don't know what the extent is, is NOT an indication that there is anything here. In fact, quite the opposite.

See, look at all the ***you don't/didn't know...

See response to Shiroi above.

The false statement charges are process crimes, Crimes occurred during an investigation. If there was no investigation, there would be no crime. This does not justify the investigation

This is different than if there was no investigation, there would be no justice.

Welp, looks like Franken is out.

Better yet, he denies the allegations (of which there is irrefutable evidence for) but is resigning anyway. Makes it an entirely political and not rational move. No even attempt at holding the moral high ground.

When is a crime not a crime? When it is committed by a Republican perhaps?

What you should have said was evidence of collusion.

Problem right now is that Dems are bowing to court of public opinion drummed up by a vocal portion of their own supporters who were going to keep supporting them no matter what and it's *** stupid because there's proof right across the isle that there's no need to do that because...you're not going to loose any supporters because no one is going to change their ideals just because a bad person happens to agree with them.

SJWs/Alt Right and everyone in between doesn't seem to get this idea. When both parties have *** leading them, no one is going to switch to support things they don't believe in just because you point out their leaders are *** because they can see yours are *** too!

We're just going in circles here. Fone, give us a new philosophical topic. The last one didn't seem to stick.

You mean gay or out out ?

I think Al Franken should go back to SNL they need some decent people. And he is probably a better SNL cast member than Senator.

Bill Clinton didn't get in trouble lying under oath, I don't see why anyone else would.

The problem here is that no one caught it when the Republicans sneakily set precedent 20 years ago. Everyone who disliked Clinton who wanted him punished thought the GOP just "bungled" the handling of the Clinton case. Ken Starr did them a favor.

*** I'll discriminate if I want to and I'd like to see you try and stop me !

In fact I'll discriminate against the entire country of Canada and you won't do a damn thing about it !

Is it still the Al Franken Decade?

Fact Check: Franken states that some claims aren't true but previously admitted to some.

The Franken-Huffington pictures are staged from a photo shoot after the two were in a skit involving sexual harassment on Real Time with Bill Maher. They aren't evidence of wrongdoing, though some have presented them as such.

--

I said before, I like Franken, I've liked him since SNL, but he needed to step down.

I asked OJ when a crime is not a crime...he said only if the glove fits.

I do what I can. Who has the audacity to tell me what I can hate and not hate. This is America I'll hate what I damn well please.

Chanti, you just dont get it.

Since when is someone holding true to their religious convictions considered hating ? Do you even understand the concept of religious freedom ?

When it's a Christian.

At the end of the day couldn't you find something else to *** about...it's a damn cake after all this isn't denying someone a house or a job.

Those religious views are an impediment to the cause and thus should be illegal anyway.

And no he doesn't understand the 1st amendment, he's from the People's Republican of Canada who passed a law that forces people to only use government approved speech. I wish I was bullshiting on this one, but no they seriously passed a law that makes it illegal to use offending language the government doesn't approve of.

As for this case, it made it to the Supreme court due to a combination of the original court being a kangaroo court and the sheer social outrage from Colorado's experimentation with coerced speech. The Supreme Court is extremely keen on hearing such cases because of how immense their effects can be.

Colorado was arguing that the state could force, under threat of prison, anyone to commit any speech they wanted provided it was in the name of "fighting discrimination". Their key argument was that the homosexual couples right to "not feel oppressed" was more important then the christian bakers right to freedom of religion and speech. They actually spelled that out, which is why the Supreme Court picked this up. The same thing happened with Trumps immigration policy.

Lets be accurate here, he said he WOULD step down in the upcoming weeks. I would bet money that if Moore is elected, Frankin will stay.

Actually I'd also bet (a slightly smaller amount) that Frankin will stay if Moore isn't elected.

It always amazes me the people preaching about first amendment don't even understand it.