Barr affirms Mueller found no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion; report release at 11 a.m.

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
7,737
3,694
743
49
The Socialist utopia of Venezuela says Hi!
Please enlighten me as to how recognizing and allowing our coequal branches of government to function could lead to that.
It's funny how liberals love to try to quote the Constitution and talk about its principles only when it suits them rather than upholding whole document similar to the way atheists and others try to quote the Bible only when they want to try and make Christianity look bad but rather than read the whole document.

I mean when it comes to the Constitution how can you take a liberal seriously when they scream of basically doing away with the second amendment and they want to give the federal government unending power over your life totally ignoring the restraints placed on it by the Constitution but oh no no we mustn't have an attorney general defend Robert Mueller's decisions when it comes to the fact that there was no evidence found of any collusion. In fact collusion was only shown to have occurred by the Democrats who went out of their way to fabricate links to create the fisa warrant and then constantly work with Russians to try and make up evidence against Trump that didn't even exist.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
6,968
6,540
1,743
Tulsa
It's funny how liberals love to try to quote the Constitution and talk about its principles only when it suits them rather than upholding whole document similar to the way atheists and others try to quote the Bible only when they want to try and make Christianity look bad but rather than read the whole document.

I mean when it comes to the Constitution how can you take a liberal seriously when they scream of basically doing away with the second amendment and they want to give the federal government unending power over your life totally ignoring the restraints placed on it by the Constitution but oh no no we mustn't have an attorney general defend Robert Mueller's decisions when it comes to the fact that there was no evidence found of any collusion. In fact collusion was only shown to have occurred by the Democrats who went out of their way to fabricate links to create the fisa warrant and then constantly work with Russians to try and make up evidence against Trump that didn't even exist.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Please don't try to explain double standards to a liberal. Because in their minds the law never applies to them in the first place.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,740
24,025
1,743
Tulsa, OK
Does anybody have the right to come on your property, climb the roof of your house and yell hateful crap from it? No. But that's in effect what you're asking Facebook to do by allowing Alex Jones on it. I'd be far more concerned about President Trump talking press censorship or suing the press.
That's a poor analogy....if I let everybody else in the world go up on my roof and say any damn thing they wanted to, but I said that StillwaterTownie couldn't because I have deemed that legalizing marijuana is hate speech, you'd be ticked off. AND, I'm not even saying I want facebook to be forced to do anything, they are a private company....all I said was that I personally don't want anybody censored, whether it's actual hate speech or just dissenting opinions that liberals want silenced (and neither would anybody else who claims to believe in the constitution).
 
Last edited:

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,765
2,185
743
Where else but Stillwater
That's a poor analogy....if I let everybody else in the world go up on my roof and say any damn thing they wanted to, but I said that StillwaterTownie couldn't because I have deemed that legalizing marijuana is hate speech, you'd be ticked off. AND, I'm not even saying I want facebook to be forced to do anything, they are a private company....all I said was that I personally don't want anybody censored, whether it's actual hate speech or just dissenting opinions that liberals want silenced (and neither would anybody else who claims to believe in the constitution).
NO, really I made quite an excellent analogy. Once again, it's about property rights. It's your full right to order anybody off your rooftop shouting crap you don't appreciate. Anybody ordered off is free to shout from their own rooftop as Alex Jones freely does on his InfoWars. It's not much different from your very strong belief that when one is gay and the baker refuses to make a gay wedding cake, than go to another baker. Don't file a lawsuit.

And once again, vbe a heck of a lot more worried and opposed should the government say Jones has to stop.
 
Last edited:

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,765
2,185
743
Where else but Stillwater
So you don't mind other people deciding what speech is "hateful" or not? Maybe your gmail account should be scrutinized and "hateful" emails you send deleted? It is, afterall, a product of a private company.
Maybe you don't mind it, but I mind a lot more the government scrutinizing speech out there and deciding what is hate speech. If you don't like how a private company deals with your email, nobody is stopping you from going with another company that does email. That is in part what capitalism is about.

Sometimes I wonder just how much people on the authoritative right want the government to control their lives and most of all how much to control other people's lives.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,547
239
193
77539
Maybe you don't mind it, but I mind a lot more the government scrutinizing speech out there and deciding what is hate speech. If you don't like how a private company deals with your email, nobody is stopping you from going with another company that does email. That is in part what capitalism is about.

Sometimes I wonder just how much people on the authoritative right want the government to control their lives and most of all how much to control other people's lives.
Who said anything about the government? I said "other people". "Other people" would be anybody other than yourself.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,740
24,025
1,743
Tulsa, OK
NO, really I made quite an excellent analogy. Once again, it's about property rights. It's your full right to order anybody off your rooftop shouting crap you don't appreciate.
Did you just not read my whole post or just not comprehend it? Because I stated VERY clearly that a private company has the right to do exactly what you are saying....I in no way implied differently.

It's not much different from your very strong belief that when one is gay and the baker refuses to make a gay wedding cake, than go to another baker. Don't file a lawsuit.
Yes there are some similarities.....which is funny to see you bring up immediately after stating private companies have rights........because where I don't want the government to intervene in either case, you still DO want the government to intervene with the baker. Your hypocrisy is showing.
 

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
6,968
6,540
1,743
Tulsa
Trump's bad for shining light on the loonacy of liberal policies and daring to actual dismantle some of them. And he is also the first person to actually fight back and not rollover like Mitten the Kitten in his debate with Obozo. One little comment from the CNN moderator, and Mitten obediently slunk back even though Mitten was correct. Trump fights for people, for Americans, and to restore this country to greatness. Obozo fought against American exceptionalism, bowed to Saudi kings, and gave away the idea that we can be that shining city on the hill. Liberals HATE that idea
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,268
50,117
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
If Trump is as bad as the Democrats seem to think, isn't it odd that they don't ever wonder about the Clintons close relationship to him for so long? Birds of a feather right?
Oh, he was a Democrat when he had a close relationship with them. He only became bad when he became a Republican. That's why no one worried about the pussy-grabbing tape for years and years... until he became a Republican, because he was a Democrat at the time he said all that stuff.