@MrMazda said in When libs lecture right-leaning Christians:
When people say "I'm Christian" I can't help but ask "Classic Jesus, or Republican Jesus?" LOL
@MrMazda said in When libs lecture right-leaning Christians:
When people say "I'm Christian" I can't help but ask "Classic Jesus, or Republican Jesus?" LOL
@blablarg18 said in When libs lecture right-leaning Christians:
@hubrys You're the guy in the cartoon, aren't you? Not knowing the first thing about Christianity.
LOL! I was born and raised in Pentecostal, evangelical, charismatic protestant church. I've been both Bible camper and Bible camp counselor. When I was a teen, I used to travel to other states to attend Christian conventions. My first college degree involved a focus in the Philosophy of Religion. Unlike some other people who say, "I read the Bible," but only mean they've read some select portions of the Bible, I have in fact read the whole thing. That's everything between "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." and "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.”
My debates (and occasional shouting matches) with the street preachers on my college campus pulled such crowds that there were magazine articles written about it. Heck, even though I was Atheist by college, sometimes, for the hell of it, I would get up on the stage next to the street preacher and preach a sermon better than them just to embarrass them.
But, @blablarg18, you're never wrong so I guess I don't know the first thing about Christianity.
So your argument is that those who by covenant and conviction have dedicated themselves to being Christ-like shouldn't be called out for being un-Christ-like? If you have to act un-Christ-like to support your politics or lifestyle, then, I'm sorry to inform you, but you're not a Christian. There's no such thing as "Christian When Convenient."
Sorry, but you chose to be a Christian, and we will judge your hypocrisy.
@raphjd said in Is this the smoking gun? Letter from Michael Cohen claiming Donald Trump did NOT reimburse him for hush money paid to Stormy Daniels appears to fly in the face of the star witness's grand jury testimony:
So on one side you are saying that Cohen is a convicted liar and on the other you are saying he should be believed, but only if his testimony is what you want him to say.
That's a nice Catch-22 you've created. Anyone involved in a conspiracy of dishonesty cannot be convicted based on the guilty admissions of their co-conspirators, because those co-conspirators are self-admitted liars.
@blablarg18 said in Douglass Mackey case: USA criminalizes memes. Literally.:
First, you are literally a conspiracy theorist.
No, he was charged with criminal Conspiracy Against Rights. Wow, you are a monumental dumbass! He was literally charged with, and convicted of, C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y!
I don't have to be a conspiracy theorist--he was convicted of it. No theory necessary.
"Cadre"? Really? OK what about them? Why aren't they prosecuted?
The criminal complaint listed four co-conspirators, but only by their Twitter ID# (long alpha-numerical string).
So far, journalists have been able to determine that co-conspirator #1 was an alt-right, neo-Nazi and QAnon botmaster only known by his Internet handle "Microchip."
Co-conspirator #2 is Anthime "Baked Alaska" Gionet; a white nationalist arrested for storming the Capitol on Jan.6 and known for having participated in the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, VA.
Co-conspirator #3 is a pro-Trump far-right activist and propogandist who goes by the Internet handle "Nia."
I don't think the fourth co-conspirator has been identified yet.
The fact that Mackey was successfully prosecuted for Conspiracy likely means that the co-conspirators will be prosecuted as well, since their trials will be easier after the first conviction.
If I had to guess, I'd guess that Gionet would be the next to be prosecuted because they know their identity. Who Microchip and Nia are offline may not yet be known by the government. I believe the government only knew who Mackey was because his real name was outed in a Gab post by white nationalist GOP candidate Paul Nehlen after they had a disagreement.
Prosecution could not show EVEN ONE SINGLE voter whose legit ballot had been affected. Not one.
First, he wasn't charged with altering or tampering with ballots; he was charged with Conspiracy Against Rights, meaning they were alleging his misinformation interfered with people exercising their right to vote. So, why would the prosecution need to present altered or tampered with ballots?
Second, the government could charge Mackey with Conspiracy even if his whole group had failed to achieve any results. Conspiracy does not require a completed or successful other crime in order to be prosecuted. You are being prosecuted for conspiring to commit the other criminal act, not the other criminal act itself. The actus reus that constitutes the crime is the conspiring with others.
Sorry @blablarg18 but Tucker Carlson can try to spin this (and you can continue to mindlessly parrot him) all he wants, but Carlson's just wrong on this one, as he is about a great many things.
He wasn't convicted for posting a single meme or Twitter post. He was convicted for conspiring with a cadre of other online users to "destroy Hillary" by affecting the election with dirty tricks. They worked together to disseminate voluminous false and misleading posts and false information, even working very hard to use the same fonts as legitimate Hillary advertisements. According to the evidence presented during the trial, 4,900 unique phone numbers attempted to vote by text message to the numbers included in his fake political advertisements.
This is no different than groups in previous years being prosecuted for posting physical media, mailers, and signs directing people to wrong polling places or telling them to vote on the wrong day. He just did his rat-fucking digitally instead of analog.
@raphjd Employers are held vicariously liable for the damage caused by drunken employees all the time. Whether the DUI crime itself can be imputed to the business would depend on the language of the specific DUI statute. And employer property is routinely seized by the government and sold, even when the employee isn't the owner of the vehicle, the employer is. Just Google DUI, civil forfeiture, and Nasua and Suffolk County, NY if you want to read horror stories of people's vehicles being taken away because of DUI. Those are probably the two worst counties in the country, followed closely by some counties in Texas.
@raphjd said in Investigation Launched Into Alvin Bragg’s ‘Abusive and Partisan’ Pursuit of Trump:
Are you guilty of drunk driving because one of your employees got a DUI?
Depending on the jurisdiction, the company and its executives can and are held vicariously liable for the criminal acts of the employee. Not only that, but also the local municipality often also seizes the employee's company vehicle via civil forfeiture, arguing that it was the instrumentality of a crime. The local government then sells the car at auction and keeps the proceeds.
Welcome to America!
@raphjd Which of her posts caused the Trump Org's CFO to commit tax fraud? Was he tricked by one of her Twitter memes into giving out untaxed employment benefits?
@raphjd said in Disney is smarter than Ron DeSantis:
I'm anti-Disney controlling things as if it was the government.
Special tax districts are created all the time across the nation, some by the local residents and others for business purposes. It's a common part of Local Government Law practice. There's very little unique about Disney's Reedy Creek District other than the money involved because Disney's revenue and value is so high.
I assure you, Walmart cheats local governments across the country much more than Disney ever could.
@raphjd The contracts Disney had with the district were agreed upon with the local and state government.
These new contracts signed by Disney were done after a public notice and public hearing. Disney gave notice to the local community. Disney even provided legal service of process to the Governor. Ron DeSantis knew that the meetings within which these new contracts were negotiated were happening.
Instead of sending any of his office's legal representatives to represent his administration at the meetings, DeSantis ignored the entire process and focused his attention on his public persona and his Iowa polling numbers.
In other words, the politician that a great many of you and your conservative brethren have been whooping and hollering your support for...fucking failed you. He chose prancing and preening around like a peacock as opposed to doing the actual work to protect you conservatives' political priorities.
Clearly it was 100% politically motivated. I mean, they did procure a guilty plea from the Trump Org's Chief Financial Officer for tax fraud and secured his testimony admitting the Org provided untaxed benefits. And I mean, they did procure a guilty verdict from a NY jury convicting the Trump Organization of years of tax fraud...
But you know, it clearly was politically motivated and there were no possible legitimate motivations for the investigation.
@raphjd said in Disney is smarter than Ron DeSantis:
No corporation deserves the power that Disney had.
The Reedy Creek District was created by elected officials and done in the sunlight. Disney generated $125 million in revenue for the local government each year.
If DeSantis had dissolved the district as he originally threatened, then he would have saddled the two counties around the district with $1.7 Billion of debt, since in exchange for its freedom, Disney had been providing all public services for the entire district as if it were the government.
Disney is central Florida's biggest taxpayer, and the deal the State had with it was a good deal. DeSantis was just a pissed off snowflake who wanted to cancel the big bad Mouse that dared to disagree with him.
@raphjd said in Disney is smarter than Ron DeSantis:
unless they disagree with you, then they should be canceled.
Oh, the irony of this statement.
Disney disagreed with DeSantis "Don't Say Gay" law; therefore, he tried to cancel Disney by revoking its special district status. Disney disagreed with his anti-woke administration, and he tried to cancel Disney.
But you keep pretending that only liberals have a Cancel Culture.
While Ron DeSantis was busy doing TV interviews, beating his chest and pretending to be a macho Conservative male, Disney was busy doing actual things. Specifically, Disney negotiated contracts with the then-existing Reedy Creak district board which, for all intents and purposes, ceded to Disney near-absolute control of its property in Florida. These contracts are perpetual, or at least will be in effect for the entire life (plus 21 years) of any existing descendants of King George III of England. Seeing as how one of those descendants was just born in 2021, it will be a long time before these contracts come up for renewal.
The panel installed by DeSantis have no power at all. They cannot do anything. The panel is as limp, flaccid, and ineffectual as DeSantis dick.
@raphjd said in SCOTUS makes extremely rare 9-0 decision (education case):
Overall they make a lot of them, but this is due mainly to technical issues (ie is a specific type of defense allowed) that have to do with a trial, which they send back down to the trial courts.
When they make a final decision (ie Roe v Wade), they make very few of them.
This is how you tell me you're not a lawyer without telling me you're not a lawyer.
The SCOTUS is an appellate court (since it rarely uses it original jurisdiction powers); therefore, it doesn't generally render "final decisions" in the way I suspect you're thinking.
For example, the SCOTUS didn't render the final judgment and orders in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org. After the SCOTUS made its determination that the lower court's ruling was incorrectly decided, it remanded (i.e., transferred) the case back to the Fifth Circuit for that court to further review the case and render the final judgment.
Again, 9-0 decisions are not extremely rare. They aren't extremely rare because most of the cases heard by the SCOTUS are mundane, boring cases where the Court is merely resolving conflicting judgments between and amongst the lower district courts on mundane, boring elements of the law.
9-0 SCOTUS decisions are not "extremely rare." In fact, most years 9-0 decisions represent the majority (or largest plurality) of cases. Most SCOTUS cases are about mundane elements of the law, about which the justices are often in agreement.
5-4 decisions are almost always the rarest decisions, but they often get the most media coverage because of the subject matter of those decisions.
Regardless of the facts involved in the case, the legal argument in the case sparking this post was rather esoteric and boring to non-attorneys. It dealt with the legal doctrine of "exhaustion of administrative remedies. Plaintiffs generally must exhaust all administrative (i.e., executive branch) avenues for resolution of their dispute before being able to avail themselves of the judicial branch. It's a separation of powers concept, but also, and more importantly, a judicial economy issue (i.e., shoving as many litigants as possible off to administrative law judges makes more room on judicial branch judges' dockets for other litigants).
Here, the plaintiff brought suit under both the IDEA and ADA acts with a list of requested remedies to redress his harm; amongst those requested remedies was compensation and lost income. If all of the requested remedies were recoverable under the IDEA act, then the plaintiff would have had to exhaust all administrative methods of resolving his claim before bringing suit in federal court; however, since compensation and lost income are not remedies available under the IDEA act (but possibly recoverable under the ADA), the plaintiff was not required to exhaust all administrative avenues before filing suit.
Again, most SCOTUS decisions are as boring as you probably found reading the above synopsis.
The modern Democratic Party is not the same party as the pre-1970's Democratic Party due to shifting demographics. For a better explanation, see:
History Channel Article Explaining How the Parties Changed over Time