AOC Makes an Excellent Point About Impeachment
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/9/10/1884722/-AOC-Makes-an-Excellent-Point-About-Impeachment
I want to see every Republican go on the record and knowingly vote against impeachment of this president, knowing his corruption, having it on the record, so that they can have that stain on their careers for the rest of their lives. — AOC
Every Republican who votes against impeachment is voting in favor of obstruction of justice, profiting from the presidency, continuously lying to the American people, abuse of power, misappropriation of funds, etc.
And every Republican who votes against impeachment is voting in favor of family separation. They're voting to separate little children from their parents. That's genocide, y'all. UN definition:
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
They're voting in favor of genocide. White supremacy, and genocide.
@TheCobbler,
The CIA refutes the report and denies any of it is true. The CIA would know what is going on.
@TheCobbler,
Wouldn't you know it, the Times had to issue a retraction/correction on this story. If only the news would actually report the news and not BS, they might actually be trusted.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/461530-new-york-times-issues-correction-on-kavanaugh-story
@TheCobbler,
Quote:Insurance with no preconditions clauses/loopholes and lower affordable overall cost sure sounds underhanded to me... (cynical)
Especially the part where children can stay on their parents plan until they are 26! This reeks of corruption! (cynical)
If costs had actually gone down, instead of up. A vast majority of people who already had insurance saw their costs double. I'm still waiting on that $2500 check Obama promised us.
@Baldimo,
Quote:The CIA refutes the report and denies any of it is true. The CIA would know what is going on.
That, in a nutshell, illustrates how precious little you know about anything but your job, Baldimo. You are totally willing to live the propaganda, with never a thought given to reality or evidence.
======
US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, who is a former CIA director, has admitted to an audience that the American spy agency trains employees to “lie, cheat and steal.”
“I was a CIA director, we lied, we cheated we stole… like, we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment,” Pompeo recently told an audience in College Station, Texas.
Another fake hate crime:
https://time.com/5677968/nfl-player-arrested-fake-hate-crime-georgia/
Quote:A former NFL player was arrested Thursday after allegedly staging a fake “hate crime” by damaging property and painting racial slurs at his local business in Georgia.
Gwinnett County Police say Edawn Coughman created a “premeditated plan” to get money from his insurance company.
“It appears as though Edawn conjured a premeditated plan to damage his own property, attempt to make it appear as a hate crime, file a claim with his insurance company and sell off the undamaged appliances and electronics,” police said in a statement.
If hate crimes are so bad right now, why are people having to fake them?
@Baldimo,
Quote:If hate crimes are so bad right now, why are people having to fake them?
It explained why he is ALLEGED to have faked it, Baldimo, but here you are using it to support some nutty alt right meme.
@Baldimo,
And right after your last alt right meme about the trustworthiness of the cia.
@Baldimo,
Not at all an eye opener for those who aren't brainwashed, Baldimo, but for you and a lot of your fellow travelers, like Finn d'whatever, a REAL eye opener.
Racism and narcissism: America's original sin
The racist, narcissistic behaviour that characterises the Trump administration has its roots in US colonial history.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/racism-narcissism-america-original-sin-190809135036012.html
===========
Every bulls**t story y'all have been raised on is utter crap.
Arizona Supreme Court Greenlights Discrimination Against Same-Sex Weddings
Denying services to a gay couple is protected free speech, the court ruled.
By MARK JOSEPH STERN
SEPT 16, 20196:06 PM
The Arizona Supreme Court granted businesses a right to discriminate against same-sex couples on Monday. By a 4–3 vote, the court carved an exemption into Phoenix’s human rights ordinance to let businesses refuse to sell custom wedding invitations to gay customers. The decision is rooted in the Arizona Constitution and is thus effectively insulated from review by the U.S. Supreme Court. It also contains no clear principle limiting its reach to same-sex couples or to custom invitations—potentially giving Arizona wedding vendors a broad right to discriminate in the name of free speech.
Monday’s ruling Brush & Nib v. Phoenix revolves around a Phoenix ordinance that bars public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. (There is no analogous state law.) In 2016, the anti-LGBTQ law firm Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit against the ordinance on behalf of Brush & Nib Studio, a for-profit business that makes custom wedding invitations. No same-sex couple had requested Brush & Nib’s services. But the company’s owners, who are anti-gay Christians, were alarmed by the possibility that they might be compelled to serve a same-sex couple. So ADF asked a court to bar Phoenix from enforcing the law against any business that supported “one-man/one-woman marriage” through “custom artwork.” Its suit rested on the Arizona Constitution’s free speech clause as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (FERA).
The Arizona Court of Appeals unanimously rejected ADF’s argument and upheld the ordinance. But the Phoenix law did not fare so well at the state Supreme Court, which Republican Gov. Doug Ducey has recently packed, adding two new seats and manipulating the appointment process to fill them with Republicans. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to resolve the clash between free speech and nondiscrimination; in 2018’s Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court declined to decide whether businesses have a First Amendment right to refuse to sell custom goods to same-sex couples. So, on Monday, the Arizona Supreme Court barreled ahead under its own state constitution, handing same-sex couples a resounding loss in their quest for equality.
The right to discriminate trumps nondiscrimination whenever speech is involved.
Justice Andrew Gould, a Ducey appointee, wrote the majority opinion, a sweeping and orotund affirmation of religious business owners’ right to discriminate. Gould wrote that “no law, including a public accommodations law, is immune from the protections of free speech and free exercise.” Forcing Brush & Nib to create an invitation for a same-sex wedding, Gould held, would compel the business to “conve[y] a message celebrating same-sex marriage.” The ordinance therefore constitutes “compelled pure speech” and must survive strict scrutiny to pass constitutional muster. But to pass strict scrutiny, a law must further a “compelling government interest.” And “commandeering [the] creation of custom wedding invitations” does not further the interest of ending discrimination, because free speech is more important than “eradicating society of biases.”
Similarly, Gould wrote that the ordinance fails under FERA, which requires a substantial burden on the exercise of religion to be the “least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest.” Again, Gould held that guaranteeing same-sex couples equal access to all wedding goods is not a compelling interest. And he ruled that Phoenix’s ordinance was not the “least restrictive means” because it “overrides all conflicting individual rights and liberties.”
Throughout his opinion, Gould expresses deep sympathy for Brush & Nib. The justice took great pains to insist that Brush & Nib did not wish to discriminate against gay people but only to express its support for traditional marriage. He asserted that the case “about freedom of speech and religion,” not about “discriminatory conduct based on a customer’s sexual orientation.” In fact, according to Gould, Brush & Nib does not seek to discriminate against gay people at all but rather to avoid “convey[ing] a message celebrating same-sex marriage, for any customer regardless of sexual orientation.”
This claim is nonsensical. When a business discriminates against a same-sex couple because of their sex, it is inherently engaging in sexual orientation discrimination. The individuals affected by such discrimination are, by definition, not heterosexual; a heterosexual couple would not encounter the same problem. Gould’s analysis draws on the “status vs. conduct” distinction—the notion that one can discriminate against gay conduct without discriminating against gay people. The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected this fallacy, since all discrimination against gay conduct, including same-sex marriage, invariably burdens sexual minorities. But Gould revived it in a strange effort to deny the fact at the center of this case: Brush & Nib wants to refuse service to same-sex couples who wish to exercise their constitutional right to marry.
There is another curious component of Gould’s ruling: He barely acknowledged the harms inflicted on same-sex couples who are refused service because they are gay. Nor did he recognize Phoenix’s interest to shielding gay residents from discrimination. Gould framed Christian businesses’ right to discriminate as obviously more important than gay people’s right to live free of discrimination. He even ruled that safeguarding same-sex couples’ full and equal access to the market is not a compelling interest. In doing so, he dismissed the demeaning, stigmatizing effect of sexual orientation discrimination, suggesting that gay Arizonans must simply accept this stigma as the price they pay for free speech.
The dissenters pointed out these flaws in the majority opinion along with a few others. It is not at all clear, for instance, why a wedding invitation sold for profit qualifies as “pure speech” or why any restriction on this “speech” must survive strict scrutiny if it is a commercial activity. Moreover, the majority’s conception of the “least restrictive means” test leaves little room for nondiscrimination laws that implicate speech. Under Gould’s view, the less restrictive option is to carve an exemption for discriminators—defeating the very purpose of the law. The right to discriminate trumps nondiscrimination whenever speech is involved.
Finally, while Gould claimed to craft a “narrow exemption,” he laid down a rule that could be quite expansive. First, the logic of the decision is not limited to same-sex couples. A wedding vendor who opposes other kinds of marriage—interracial or interfaith marriage, for instance—would presumably have the same free speech right not to “endorse” those marriages by creating wedding invitations for them. The court can only restrict its decision to same-sex couples by ruling that gay people are uniquely undeserving of protection. It did not go that far on Monday, though given Gould’s cavalier repudiation of gay equality, it might be in the cards.
Second, Gould’s rule could apply to other wedding-related goods, like cakes or flowers. At a minimum, it would seem to apply to other wedding-related writing, like menus or table place cards. If an invitation for a same-sex wedding “endorses” that marriage, doesn’t a menu for the celebrants do the same? And what about other marriage-related activities, like engagement photos or a renewal of vows? Do those fall into Gould’s exemption?
The Arizona Supreme Court will have plenty of time to expand its decision. Although Gould drew on SCOTUS precedent, he rooted his decision solely in the laws and constitution of Arizona. It is essentially unreviewable. And it is unlikely that a future majority will overturn it, since Ducey just placed anti-gay advocate Bill Montgomery on his packed court. Ducey’s justices will no doubt ensure, for years to come, that the citizens of Arizona cannot eradicate discrimination against same-sex couples.
The C I A is not supposed to be active in the continental u s. They are supposed to spy and work in foreign countries and overthrow governments unfriendly to the u s. Not work toward overthrowing the u s government.
@RABEL222,
Quote:They are supposed to spy and work in foreign countries and overthrow governments unfriendly to the u s.
That is the usa definition of TERRORISM, Rabel. Don't you think it odd/amoral/evil just how comfortable Americans are with their terrorist governments?
@JTT,
When your K G. B quits interfering with other governments I will reply to your post.
@RABEL222,
Quote:When your K G. B quits interfering with other governments I will reply to your post.
Typical reply of a deeply brainwashed yank. And the big lie always has to be included - "your KGB".
The New Brett Kavanaugh Revelations Prove the Original FBI Investigation Was a Sham
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/brett-kavanaugh-revelations-prove-original-163632174.html
Yea, because Trump either fired or drove out the only people in the FBI with integrity...
@JTT,
You do know that a "yank" by definition is a person who fought against slavery...
When will Russia fight against it's own self-imposed dictatorial slavery?
@TheCobbler,
You do know that words have more than one meaning and that yank also means Yankee.
