|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Lol, your country is run by Jews.
The enjoined law, enacted last year by the Kansas legislature, requires all state contractors — as a prerequisite to receiving any paid work from the state — “to certify that they are not engaged in a boycott of Israel.” The month before the law was implemented, Esther Koontz, a Mennonite who works as a curriculum teacher for the Kansas public school system, decided that she would boycott goods made in Israel, motivated in part by a film she had seen detailing the abuse of Palestinians by the occupying Israeli government, and in part by a resolution enacted by the national Mennonite Church. The resolution acknowledged “the cry for justice of Palestinians, especially those living under oppressive military occupation for fifty years”; vowed to “oppose military occupation and seek a just peace in Israel and Palestine”; and urged “individuals and congregations to avoid the purchase of products associated with acts of violence or policies of military occupation, including items produced in [Israeli] settlements.”
A month after this law became effective, Koontz, having just completed a training program to teach new courses, was offered a position at a new Kansas school. But, as the court recounts, “the program director asked Ms. Koontz to sign a certification confirming that she was not participating in a boycott of Israel, as the Kansas Law requires.” Koontz ultimately replied that she was unable and unwilling to sign such an oath because she is, in fact, participating in a boycott of Israel. As a result, she was told that no contract could be signed with her.
In response to being denied this job due to her political views, Koontz retained the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the commissioner of education, asking a federal court to enjoin enforcement of the law on the grounds that denying Koontz a job due to her boycotting of Israel violates her First Amendment rights. The court on Tuesday agreed and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the law.
Source
Why did this law exist in the first place?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Democrats would be singing a different tune if the FBI mislead judges to spy on an African American citizen, or an incoming Democratic administration.
Then they’d suddenly remember it’s important for law enforcement to disclose any ties that might make one doubt the authenticity of the accusations. Civil rights, officially less important for Republicans and any citizens with Russian connections.
|
Elephants are known for super memory, you sure you meant that?
|
So where did you pull this "lying to the courts" out of? Because I have seen less than nothing to substantiate that. Please, share with the class, senor danglars.
|
On February 03 2018 04:58 a_flayer wrote:Lol, your country is run by Jews. Show nested quote +The enjoined law, enacted last year by the Kansas legislature, requires all state contractors — as a prerequisite to receiving any paid work from the state — “to certify that they are not engaged in a boycott of Israel.” The month before the law was implemented, Esther Koontz, a Mennonite who works as a curriculum teacher for the Kansas public school system, decided that she would boycott goods made in Israel, motivated in part by a film she had seen detailing the abuse of Palestinians by the occupying Israeli government, and in part by a resolution enacted by the national Mennonite Church. The resolution acknowledged “the cry for justice of Palestinians, especially those living under oppressive military occupation for fifty years”; vowed to “oppose military occupation and seek a just peace in Israel and Palestine”; and urged “individuals and congregations to avoid the purchase of products associated with acts of violence or policies of military occupation, including items produced in [Israeli] settlements.”
A month after this law became effective, Koontz, having just completed a training program to teach new courses, was offered a position at a new Kansas school. But, as the court recounts, “the program director asked Ms. Koontz to sign a certification confirming that she was not participating in a boycott of Israel, as the Kansas Law requires.” Koontz ultimately replied that she was unable and unwilling to sign such an oath because she is, in fact, participating in a boycott of Israel. As a result, she was told that no contract could be signed with her.
In response to being denied this job due to her political views, Koontz retained the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the commissioner of education, asking a federal court to enjoin enforcement of the law on the grounds that denying Koontz a job due to her boycotting of Israel violates her First Amendment rights. The court on Tuesday agreed and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the law. SourceWhy did this law exist in the first place?
where does that even come from... like.. who thought of that?
|
Schizophrenia in two tweets.
I'm not sure Paul Gosar got the memo.
|
On February 03 2018 04:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 04:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Wait wait wait...
So, if I'm reading the House Intelligence Committee report correctly, their problem is that the Dossier was omitted from the FISA renewal application? As in the application that provides probable cause to justify a continuation of surveillance?
So basically a judge received probable cause that did not rely on the Dossier, approved the FISA renewal, and Nunes doesn't like that they didn't present the evidence that he wants to discredita? It said almost the exact opposite. It’s only four pages long. Yeah, misread the first couple lines. The bullet point starts with "material and relevant information was omitted", and the first point says "The dossier compiled by Christopher Steele". So the entire complaint is that the FISA application doesn't say that sources of evidence could be biased. Which, um, duh? They didn’t say multiple grounds they had (at the time) to doubt the information in the dossier. The FBI instead brought up at least one false means of corrobation and concealed conflicts of interest and credibility gaps. According to the memo. xDaunts already said three different ways why that matters, so I suggest you read him.
They were presenting probable cause to continue investigating, not giving evidence to prove guilt. (Of course, if this was court, it still wouldn't be the job of the investigators/prosecutors to provide the doubt)
|
On February 03 2018 05:03 Velr wrote:
Elephants are known for super memory, you sure you meant that?
No, I goofed. :D
|
On February 03 2018 05:03 hunts wrote:
So where did you pull this "lying to the courts" out of? Because I have seen less than nothing to substantiate that. Please, share with the class, senor danglars.
You need to take the memo written by a politically biased Trump supporter at face value that the FBI is biased against Trump and lied to the court.
|
On February 03 2018 04:54 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 04:47 Nebuchad wrote:
How do people find the energy to care about this, I swear The frenzy from the right-wing media on how this could sink and discredit the investigation deserves an equally strenuous reaction from the left to refute it or say how it's a big nothingburger.
I don't know that I agree. It's not like people who are undecided are going to inform themselves on all of the details, if they were, they'd be decided by now. So they're just going to see two sides shouting over an issue - and it's going to sound important. Which is the main goal every time people attempt to control the conversation.
|
On February 03 2018 03:09 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 03:06 On_Slaught wrote:
Am I crazy or is this whole thing one big fallacy? Who cares if he is biased? The FBI and FISA judge are evidence based parties and would look to confirm the information, which is what it seems the FBI did. They found that some of it was inaccurate/unknown and some corroborated what they had found.
Why does it matter WHO and WHY the information was given? Hell, Hillary herself could have gone to the FBI and it wouldn't change the validitity of any facts presented. Because we live in a post facts nation. Remember what Newt said during one of the debates. People feel like crime is up and the economy is worse... And when the reporter said but those things just are not true. The economy is better and crime is down Newt said it did not matter because thats how people felt. It's like the tax cuts and people thinking that a large majority of people are not getting them. Facts don't matter anymore, it's only how you feel about things that matters
I found his response flat-out chilling. I believe he said 'Well, you have your facts, but I'll go with people's feelings'.
Pretty much stating 'Yes, you're right. I don't care.'
On February 03 2018 04:07 On_Slaught wrote:
If y'all want a good laugh now is the time to check out Breitbart.
Also based on CNNs coverage it seems likely Trump will use this to fire Rosenstein.
I can't look at Breitbart. Let me guess, crowing about 'treason deep state' or something like that?
|
On February 03 2018 04:41 Logo wrote:
Like I said right as it was being released. Without primary sources this whole thing is a whole lot of nothing.
Curious to see the follow-up on this. If true, the memo basically is dead. This was the strongest argument for why all the other points in the memo matter. If they were going to get the warrant anyways, then who cares.
Also, if that's a blatant lie then you can't trust a single other word in the memo anyways. Should be simple to verify if this was said or not. There is a transcript somewhere.
|
On February 03 2018 05:07 On_Slaught wrote:Curious to see the follow-up on this. If true, the memo basically is dead. This was the strongest argument for why all the other points in the memo matter. If they were going to get the warrant anyways, then who cares. Also, if that's a blatant lie then you can't trust a single other word in the memo anyways. Should be simple to verify if this was said or not. There is a transcript somewhere.
I'm waiting for someone with a name to confirm those tweets. Schiff has already given his two cents, and he certainly didn't mention it.
|
On February 03 2018 05:07 On_Slaught wrote:Curious to see the follow-up on this. If true, the memo basically is dead. This was the strongest argument for why all the other points in the memo matter. If they were going to get the warrant anyways, then who cares. Also, if that's a blatant lie then you can't trust a single other word in the memo anyways. Should be simple to verify if this was said or not. There is a transcript somewhere.
The memo was always a MacGuffin, it was never really alive or all that important in the first place.
|
On February 03 2018 04:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 04:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Wait wait wait...
So, if I'm reading the House Intelligence Committee report correctly, their problem is that the Dossier was omitted from the FISA renewal application? As in the application that provides probable cause to justify a continuation of surveillance?
So basically a judge received probable cause that did not rely on the Dossier, approved the FISA renewal, and Nunes doesn't like that they didn't present the evidence that he wants to discredita? It said almost the exact opposite. It’s only four pages long. Yeah, misread the first couple lines. The bullet point starts with "material and relevant information was omitted", and the first point says "The dossier compiled by Christopher Steele". So the entire complaint is that the FISA application doesn't say that sources of evidence could be biased. Which, um, duh? They didn’t say multiple grounds they had (at the time) to doubt the information in the dossier. The FBI instead brought up at least one false means of corrobation and concealed conflicts of interest and credibility gaps. According to the memo. xDaunts already said three different ways why that matters, so I suggest you read him.
Show your work. I get that because you are Conservative that it is an article of faith that the entire Steele Dossier is false. But for those of us who don't swallow everything Dear Leader gives us, how about you show some work? Show something that is wrong in the memo.
Here is the dossier.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html
Here is a summary of the allegations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trump–Russia_dossier_allegations
Steele himself thinks that his memo detailing his research was about 70-90% accurate. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/christopher-steele-trump-russia-dossier-accurate A good amount of the memo comports with what we have seen with Page (under surveillance since 2013), Manafort (under indictment for exactly the behavior described in the memo), and Trump (what do you know, the sanctions fell through just like the memo said). Hell, Trump's bodyguard confirms that Trump was offered 5 prostitutes just like the memo said. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-bodyguard-testifies-russian-offered-trump-women-was-turned-down-n819386 That is the most salacious part of the memo and Bodyguard Keith Schiller puts Trump and the prostitutes at the time and place described by the memo.
EDIT: yes to the above. The Nunes memo is at best trying to monday morning quarterback the FISA court granting the warrant on Carter Page. But is Papdoulous led to page ... then who cares about the Steele Dossier? And Page had been under surveillance previously. The Nunes memo intentionally omitted any of the other evidence submitted to the FISA court, yet be damned if team Conservative isn't leaping all over the Nunes memo like it is serious.
|
Someone should remind Gosar that Page has admitted the dossier was correct about him meeting with Rosneft.
|
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic.
|
On February 03 2018 05:07 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 03:09 IyMoon wrote:On February 03 2018 03:06 On_Slaught wrote:
Am I crazy or is this whole thing one big fallacy? Who cares if he is biased? The FBI and FISA judge are evidence based parties and would look to confirm the information, which is what it seems the FBI did. They found that some of it was inaccurate/unknown and some corroborated what they had found.
Why does it matter WHO and WHY the information was given? Hell, Hillary herself could have gone to the FBI and it wouldn't change the validitity of any facts presented. Because we live in a post facts nation. Remember what Newt said during one of the debates. People feel like crime is up and the economy is worse... And when the reporter said but those things just are not true. The economy is better and crime is down Newt said it did not matter because thats how people felt. It's like the tax cuts and people thinking that a large majority of people are not getting them. Facts don't matter anymore, it's only how you feel about things that matters I found his response flat-out chilling. I believe he said 'Well, you have your facts, but I'll go with people's feelings'. Pretty much stating 'Yes, you're right. I don't care.'
there's some meaning behind that if we would want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If people REALLY feel that way despite it being wrong that's an issue that should be adressed and not just ignored by sayig "but those are the facts"
Now obviously, he didn't care about it and instead of adressing the issue planned to abuse it but there's that.
|
|
|
On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic.
People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight.
There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
