Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

Not much, I take it you were not car jacked or set on fire in Mexico last night?

 

I want one because I do not believe you guys can produce one that is not inherently biased against views that do not strictly conform to Democrat left's "Political correctness" and "Identity politics" agenda.

What many people have come to expect from the Democrat left is an insistence that they are exempt and immune from "hate speech," while speech that does not comply with the "Politically correct" Democrat left orthodoxy is very likely "hate speech".

Needless to say, that is a standard that is offensive, biased, unfair, prejudiced and just plain wrong.

 

Then start a new thread about it. It can be right above threads on global warming being fake news and South American refugees storming the castle.

 

No but I was killed when I returned to Texas.

 

Sucks being a jerk ain't the same anymore?

Amirite?

 

I guess I will have to take your word for that.

 

I mean that's your issue right? You can't be a jerk to the full extent of your pleasing? What am I missing here?

 

It is the "Political correctness" and "Identity politics" dipshits who are the jerks.

 

Remember when identity politics was just enslaving people, disenfranchising them, and ruining their lives? Ah... the good ole days.

 

I do not remember anything like that. But it sure sounds like you do.

 

Oh you would have loved it. Your paranoid stuff would have played BIGLY. Of course you would been advocating for identify politics but whatever.

 

Because you may get fired because of a post on social media?

 

perhaps appropriate in light of the turn this thread has taken. I believe it is possible to be bigoted against people holding religious beliefs

excerpt:

". . . But the deeper problem is a certain type of liberal thinking that seeks to declare secular ideas the only valid basis for public engagement. A neutral public square, in this view, must be a secular public square. Because religious ideas and motivations are fundamentally illiberal, they must be contained entirely to the private sphere.

"This is a thin and sickly sort of pluralism. It is permissible, in this approach, to advocate human rights because John Locke says so, but not because of a theological belief that the image of God is found in every human being. If your views on a just society are informed by John Stuart Mill, they are allowed to triumph in politics. If your views on a just society are informed by your deepest beliefs about the cosmos, you can never prevail, because this represents the imposition of religion. This is hardly 'neutrality.' It is a conception of pluralism that silences millions of people and reaches back into history to invalidate the abolition movement, the civil rights movement and many other causes informed by boisterous religious belief."​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...1076f6d6152_story.html?utm_term=.ee4d9337e129

 

...I was actually wondering just what exactly might the Special Prosecution in this Russian election-meddling business have found so important that it redacted about 3/4 of its sentencing filing for Michael Flynn and suggested a light sentence with possibly no jail time...

...anybody around here know of a place where I could ask about that...?

 

deserves its own thread

 

Well, he's been a serious proponent of Bible prophecy so there's that. Someone who believes in prophecies and then lectures people on common sense probably deserves the criticism.

 

Of course it is possible to be bigoted against people with religious beliefs. Indeed often someone with strong religious beliefs are bigoted against someone else with different strong religious beliefs.

I personally have no problem with someone basing their opinions and likes and dislikes and even politics on a dogma that tells them what to think and believe and what is good and bad. Everyone has the right to believe what they want. However if one chooses to go that route they better recognize it doesn’t have an objective basis and instead is a matter of faith. Accordingly do not call out others for not being objective when your entire basis for belief is subjective.

I don’t think anyone is saying that it is impossible to be bigoted against religion. Likewise it is possible to be bigoted against atheists or agnostics. It isn’t a one way transaction.

Further I don’t know anyone that believes that nothing beneficial has comes out of various religions at a societal level.

If your whole point is “you guys can do it”, then I won’t disagree, liberals or atheists are certainly capable of bias. Where does personal preference end and bias begin, it depends on who you ask I suppose.

None of this is relative to the point I was making.

 

As a former prosecutor, I can tell that it is all speculation at this point. We can try to work backwards and get an idea of what we think “it must be” but it is still speculation.

I will say that I find it very interesting that Mueller is pushing for no jail time for Flynn. The common position you will hear is that Mueller received full cooperation from Flynn and Mueller wants to individually reward Flynn.

While that is possible, I think there is more to it than that. I think this is a way for Mueller to appeal to others with information to come forward believing they too can avoid jail time. Imagine you had pertinent information and it would implicate high level Trump officials... but it also implicates you. You may choose to not come forward to avoid length criminal jail time. With Flynn now likely getting no time, someone may decide to come forward... especially with Mueller seeking hard time for those that haven’t been truthful.

 

Or maybe trying to keep church and state as separate possible?

This is from the Wapo... impossible as they are a Bezo's liberal propaganda front.

 

I think you are more offended by the "anti-dumbass" people.