Liberal Forum

sunburn » 12 Aug 2023, 5:18 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 5:18 pm

no, but some whiney tranny will file a lawsuit, claiming being called a  "she" threatened his existence; and guess what, a stupid woke jury will find for the plaintiff!
hate speech crime!

so...you won't just admit you misspoke?

why am I not surprised?

cowardly pussies like you rarely do.

maineman » 12 Aug 2023, 5:25 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 5:25 pm

so...you won't just admit you misspoke?

why am I not surprised?

cowardly pussies like you rarely do.

no, I didn't mispeak.  It's coming IF DEMONRATS COMPLETE THE COUP.  Hell, they're trying it right now.  Hate crimes will be twisted to cover trannies, blacks, and Demonrats.
I prefaced my statements with and "if".  You just read what you wanted.
Will you admit you're a ******* that can't read?
 I know "if" is a big word for you, but you can look it up.
 

sunburn » 12 Aug 2023, 5:45 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 5:45 pm

no, I didn't mispeak.  It's coming IF DEMONRATS COMPLETE THE COUP.  Hell, they're trying it right now.  Hate crimes will be twisted to cover trannies, blacks, and Demonrats.
I prefaced my statements with and "if".  You just read what you wanted.
Will you admit you're a ******* that can't read?

Here is what you said:

"if you don't use the proper pronoun, it's gonna be considered "hate speech"."

That's clearly an opinion portrayed as a factual certainty.

And you also said:

"there will be thousands imprisoned for "wrong" speech just like they're starting to do to people than [sic] don't say the right pronoun."

That statement clearly requires that some people have already been imprisoned, if the imprisonment has already started.

You're out of your league here, little fella...lick your wounds, take an ESL class and, in the meantime, STFU.  

maineman » 12 Aug 2023, 5:58 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 5:58 pm

Here is what you said:

"if you don't use the proper pronoun, it's gonna be considered "hate speech"."

That's clearly an opinion portrayed as a factual certainty.

And you also said:

"there will be thousands imprisoned for "wrong" speech just like they're starting to do to people than [sic] don't say the right pronoun."

That statement clearly requires that some people have already been imprisoned, if the imprisonment has already started.

You're out of your league here, little fella...lick your wounds, take an ESL class and, in the meantime, STFU.

introducing the bill is the first step....STARTING.
FEDERAL LEVEL: At the federal level, hate crime laws include crimes committed on the basis of the victim’s perceived or actual race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.

sunburn » 12 Aug 2023, 6:01 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 6:01 pm

introducing the bill is the first step....STARTING.
FEDERAL LEVEL: At the federal level, hate crime laws include crimes committed on the basis of the victim’s perceived or actual race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.

In fact, no jurisdiction anywhere in America is STARTING TO IMPRISON people for using pronouns in their speech.  Isn't that correct?

 

maineman » 12 Aug 2023, 6:31 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 6:31 pm

In fact, no jurisdiction anywhere in America is STARTING TO IMPRISON people for using pronouns in their speech.  Isn't that correct?

no but Michigan STARTED OR IS TRYING TO START the process.            
still can't read. starting.......      
 
 

sunburn » 12 Aug 2023, 6:34 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 6:34 pm

no but Michigan STARTED OR IS TRYING TO START the process.            
still can't read. starting.......    

How can Michigan be "starting the process" to imprison people for saying pronouns when the word "PRONOUN" does not appear in the legislation that they are considering?

maineman » 12 Aug 2023, 6:41 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 6:41 pm

Child rape is not a big deal.  

I mean they probably enjoy it.
 

 

maineman » 12 Aug 2023, 6:41 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 6:41 pm

How can Michigan be "starting the process" to imprison people for saying pronouns when the word "PRONOUN" does not appear in the legislation that they are considering?

I'm not going to go in circles with you. see the word "expression" below?  right after gender identity?
part of the bill!
=19.2pxfollowing:=19.2px17
=19.2px(a) Race or=19.2px =19.2pxcolor=19.2px.=19.2px18
=19.2px(=19.2pxb)=19.2px =19.2pxReligion=19.2px.=19.2px19
=19.2px(=19.2pxc)=19.2px =19.2pxSex=19.2px.=19.2px20
=19.2px(d) Sexual=19.2px =19.2pxorientation=19.2px.=19.2px21
=19.2px(e) Gender=19.2px =19.2pxidentity or=19.2px =19.2pxexpression=19.2px.=19.2px22
=19.2px(f) Physical=19.2px =19.2pxor mental disability=19.2px.=19.2px23
=19.2px(g) Age.=19.2px24
=19.2px(h)=19.2px =19.2pxEthnicity=19.2px.=19.2px25
=19.2px(i) National=19.2px =19.2pxorigin=19.2px.=19.2px26
=19.2px(j) Association or=19.2px =19.2pxaffiliat

Garland didn't use and independent counsel, because he wanted the same guy that tried to sneak the Hunter Biden plea deal past a judge, to be in charge of the "special counsel" office. And that corrupt POS, will still be reporting directly to Garland.

BTW, didn't Garland already say that Weiss had all the authority he wanted/needed?
Why suddenly is he given new, special counsel powers?
 

sunburn » 12 Aug 2023, 6:53 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 6:53 pm

I'm not going to go in circles with you. see the word "expression" below?  right after gender identity?
part of the bill!
=19.2pxfollowing:=19.2px17
=19.2px(a) Race or=19.2px =19.2pxcolor=19.2px.=19.2px18
=19.2px(=19.2pxb)=19.2px =19.2pxReligion=19.2px.=19.2px19
=19.2px(=19.2pxc)=19.2px =19.2pxSex=19.2px.=19.2px20
=19.2px(d) Sexual=19.2px =19.2pxorientation=19.2px.=19.2px21
=19.2px(e) Gender=19.2px =19.2pxidentity or=19.2px =19.2pxexpression=19.2px.=19.2px22
=19.2px(f) Physical=19.2px =19.2pxor mental disability=19.2px.=19.2px23
=19.2px(g) Age.=19.2px24
=19.2px(h)=19.2px =19.2pxEthnicity=19.2px.=19.2px25
=19.2px(i) National=19.2px =19.2pxorigin=19.2px.=19.2px26
=19.2px(j) Association or=19.2px =19.2pxaffiliat

so... you admit that PRONOUN is not a part of the bill

and the bill is about  someone who intimidates or harasses another individual; causes bodily injury or severe mental anguish to another individual; uses force or violence on another individual; damages, destroys, or defaces any real, personal, digital, or online property of another individual; or threatens, by word or act, to do any of the above-described actions, if the person, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factors.  

The proposed law does not criminalize anyone for using a pronoun, it criminalizes someone as committing a hate crime by attacking someone because THEY THEMSELVES used a pronoun to describe themselves.  

The proposed law doesn't criminalize speech, it criminalizes causing bodily injury simply because someone else speaks about themselves using pronouns that "offend" the criminal.
 

maineman » 12 Aug 2023, 7:17 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 7:17 pm

so... you admit that PRONOUN is not a part of the bill

and the bill is about  someone who intimidates or harasses another individual; causes bodily injury or severe mental anguish to another individual; uses force or violence on another individual; damages, destroys, or defaces any real, personal, digital, or online property of another individual; or threatens, by word or act, to do any of the above-described actions, if the person, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factors.  

The proposed law does not criminalize anyone for using a pronoun, it criminalizes someone as committing a hate crime for attacking someone because THEY THEMSELVES used a pronoun to describe themselves.  

The proposed law doesn't criminalize speech, it criminalizes causing bodily injury simply because someone else speaks about themselves using pronouns that offend the criminal.

calling him a him when he identifies as her will be causing him great mental anguish!  people are already being fired for that, (and no, I'm not providing links you can read about them if you wish) and this bill is a step towards making it illegal to him a him if he identifies as a her.

enought, get lost. your arguments are repeating themselves and have been shot down. 

maineman » 12 Aug 2023, 4:33 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 4:33 pm

And here, you know.... as I sat there watching a mob of people storm the capitol building and smash through barricades and doors and windows, I was thinking the exact same thing.  What a bizarre coincidence, eh?

AND... YOU KNOW what else you should have thought about... AND be WORRIED about? 

THOSE people were IRATE because they felt that the 2020 election was STOLEN... YES, there was: 1) Election fraud, there was 2) Ballot Harvesting, there was 3) Late night ballot Box STUFFING, 4) NO verification of signatures or identification... IT ALL HAPPENED... although PROVING it was more difficult.

WELL... NOW, WE KNOW that:

1) Hillary CREATED the Russian Collusion HOAX !

2) The FBI FAKED FISA warrants to SPY on Donald Trump... and then USED the information to EMBARRASS his Presidency for 4 YEARS !

3) The FBI USED the FAKE Dossier as Justification to launch the TWO YEAR MUELLER Investigation, and STILL PROVED NOTHING !

4) The Democrats launched TWO IMPEACHMENT trials, on evidence that Joe Biden COULD have been GUILTY (and CONVICTED) OF... but Donald Trump was NOT !

5)  The FBI COVERED UP the Hunter Laptop information, calling it "Russian Disinformation", and got 51 Deep State PUPPETS to SWEAR it was true... EXCEPT NOW we know IT WAS NOT !

6)  AND, NOW... the FBI is stacking ONE FAKE indictment, on top of another, on a another, and another.. and TRYING to CONVICT Trump of things Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden did an were NEVER arrested OR EVEN QUESTIONED over !!

ALL of THAT and MORE was: 1) Election Meddling, 2) Weaponization of Federal Government, 3) ABUSE of POWER, and 4) FRAUD... and WE KNOW that it started during the 2016 election, CONTINUED thru the 2020 election, and NOW is STILL GOING ON ahead of the 2024 Election... WE KNOW that people who HAD EVERY RIGHT to be ANGRY after the 2020 election were arrested because of Jan 6... and are STILL being PUNISHED... WHILE MILLIONS of Democrats who RIOTED, Burned, Looted and pillaged... during the 2020-2021 RIOTS... and were NEVER even QUESTIONED...

SO... WHAT DO YOU think is going to happen NOW... if ALL of this happens AGAIN in 2024, and the Election is STOLEN from Donald Trump AGAIN... and the Democrats Get AWAY with it AGAIN... and PAY NO PRICE... AGAIN? 

I DON'T think it will be pretty !  AND YOU, should THINK about THAT !
 

ConservativeWave » 12 Aug 2023, 7:55 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 7:55 pm

AND... YOU KNOW what else you should have thought about... AND be WORRIED about? 

THOSE people were IRATE because they felt that the 2020 election was STOLEN... YES, there was: 1) Election fraud, there was 2) Ballot Harvesting, there was 3) Late night ballot Box STUFFING, 4) NO verification of signatures or identification... IT ALL HAPPENED... although PROVING it was more difficult.

WELL... NOW, WE KNOW that:

1) Hillary CREATED the Russian Collusion HOAX !

2) The FBI FAKED FISA warrants to SPY on Donald Trump... and then USED the information to EMBARRASS his Presidency for 4 YEARS !

3) The FBI USED the FAKE Dossier as Justification to launch the TWO YEAR MUELLER Investigation, and STILL PROVED NOTHING !

4) The Democrats launched TWO IMPEACHMENT trials, on evidence that Joe Biden COULD have been GUILTY (and CONVICTED) OF... but Donald Trump was NOT !

5)  The FBI COVERED UP the Hunter Laptop information, calling it "Russian Disinformation", and got 51 Deep State PUPPETS to SWEAR it was true... EXCEPT NOW we know IT WAS NOT !

6)  AND, NOW... the FBI is stacking ONE FAKE indictment, on top of another, on a another, and another.. and TRYING to CONVICT Trump of things Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden did an were NEVER arrested OR EVEN QUESTIONED over !!

ALL of THAT and MORE was: 1) Election Meddling, 2) Weaponization of Federal Government, 3) ABUSE of POWER, and 4) FRAUD... and WE KNOW that it started during the 2016 election, CONTINUED thru the 2020 election, and NOW is STILL GOING ON ahead of the 2024 Election... WE KNOW that people who HAD EVERY RIGHT to be ANGRY after the 2020 election were arrested because of Jan 6... and are STILL being PUNISHED... WHILE MILLIONS of Democrats who RIOTED, Burned, Looted and pillaged... during the 2020-2021 RIOTS... and were NEVER even QUESTIONED...

SO... WHAT DO YOU think is going to happen NOW... if ALL of this happens AGAIN in 2024, and the Election is STOLEN from Donald Trump AGAIN... and the Democrats Get AWAY with it AGAIN... and PAY NO PRICE... AGAIN? 

I DON'T think it will be pretty !  AND YOU, should THINK about THAT !

Ooooh...they were angry because they lost?  Awww.  I guess that gives them all the reason they need to attempt an insurrection.  

I don't recall Democrats smashing through barriers and doors and windows at the capitol in January of 2017...do you?

golfboy » 12 Aug 2023, 7:15 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 7:15 pm

Garland didn't use and independent counsel, because he wanted the same guy that tried to sneak the Hunter Biden plea deal past a judge, to be in charge of the "special counsel" office. And that corrupt POS, will still be reporting directly to Garland.

BTW, didn't Garland already say that Weiss had all the authority he wanted/needed?
Why suddenly is he given new, special counsel powers?

Weiss asked Garland for the appointment.
 

Bruce » 12 Aug 2023, 8:13 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 8:13 pm

Weiss asked Garland for the appointment.

But we were told Weiss had all the authority he needed. 

The IRS whistleblowers said that Weiss was blocked from prosecuting Hunter. 
Weiss responded to those claims, saying he had the "ultimate authority" to prosecute. 
If that were true, why now is he being given more authority... but still not the "ultimate authority", because as a "special counsel", he still answers to Garland.

Oh yea, and that's a violation of the Special Counsel law:
Section 600.3 of the regulations states without ambiguity:  "the Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government."
 

maineman » 12 Aug 2023, 8:05 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 8:05 pm

Ooooh...they were angry because they lost?  Awww.  I guess that gives them all the reason they need to attempt an insurrection.  

I don't recall Democrats smashing through barriers and doors and windows at the capitol in January of 2017...do you?

they didn't have the FBI egging the on.

golfboy » 12 Aug 2023, 8:20 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 8:20 pm

But we were told Weiss had all the authority he needed. 

The IRS whistleblowers said that Weiss was blocked from prosecuting Hunter. 
Weiss responded to those claims, saying he had the "ultimate authority" to prosecute. 
If that were true, why now is he being given more authority... but still not the "ultimate authority", because as a "special counsel", he still answers to Garland.

Oh yea, and that's a violation of the Special Counsel law:
Section 600.3 of the regulations states without ambiguity:  "the Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government."

Oh God  Damn **** **** Suck a Dick!

Once again


Section 28 CFR 600.3 applied to that time Bill Clinton had Monica Lewinsky give him a blow job in the Oval Office while Jesse Jackson was on the phone, and the INDEPENDENT SPECIAL COUNSEL Kenneth Star refused to file any criminal charges.

That regulation does not apply to today’s modern replacement for the worthless Independent counsel.

Bruce » 12 Aug 2023, 8:31 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 8:31 pm

That regulation does not apply to today’s modern replacement for the worthless Independent counsel.

No wonder you're a liberal. 
You get embarrassed in public and you just start making **** up. 
Is this law still on the books, or is it not?

How can Garland appoint a man to a job, that no longer exists?
 

golfboy » 12 Aug 2023, 8:35 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 8:35 pm

No wonder you're a liberal. 
You get embarrassed in public and you just start making **** up. 
Is this law still on the books, or is it not?

How can Garland appoint a man to a job, that no longer exists?

JESUS **** DAMN ****  !!!!

OOOOHHHHH!!!

As many more times as it takes.

Maybe Garland COULD HAVE SAID  no, Mr Weiss, you were assigned this case by Bill Barr, who was Trump’s Attorney General, in 2018.  Since you’ve been at this five years already, it now looks like you are on a witch hunt against Hunter Biden and President  Biden, so go **** yourself Mr Weiss.

And by the way, your *** is fired, get your **** out of your desk and the nice policeman will escort you to the curb.

Instead Garland could have chosen Harvard Law school graduate Michelle Obama as Independent Special Counsel under 28 CFR 600.3

Shall I repeat?

That **** used to happen under Republicans