Discussion:
Trump hammers Obama hard over Russian interference in 2016 election.
(too old to reply)
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-07-07 23:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Trump was asked this morning by his favorite MSNBC reporter if
he would definitively say that Russia interfered in the 2016
election. In his response Trump did do that, but he also and
unspecifically suggested that other countries were involved as
well.
We heard that the Brits were sending "intelligence" that
pointed to Russia and in the end that was detrimental to TRUMP
NOT Obama or Hillary.
Were the Brits knowingly helping Obama or did Obama use that
Russia narrative to try to taint TRUMP.
In other words, were the Brits being used as chumps by Obama to
point the blame away from Obama?
You mean we should trust the Russians more than the Brits?
Pre-Trump we knew who are allies were. Now Trump is here, it's
suddenly all different. All our values and out historical
relationships are supposed to change on the word of an incompetent
and corrupt buffoon.
I trust the Russians more than I trust Hillary!
--
That's Karma
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-07-08 18:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
["""""Free Exercise Clause
The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ”
In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of
the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the
prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld
Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would
provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs,
including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said: "Congress
cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall
prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the
Constitution expressly forbids such legislation."[1] Of federal
territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of
actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and
opinions, they may with practices."[1]"""""""]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_clauses_of_the_United_States_Constitution
The Supreme Court can call polygamy "bigamy" but they can't ban polygamy
because it's a religious belief?

Isn't that the same as saying gay marriage is a religious belief that
can't be banned by the Supreme Court but they can ban marriage between
all but a man and a woman?

Above they upheld that marriage is between only two persons or it was
bigamy. Being between two persons of the same sex would be sodomy. So
any state with sodomy laws would be able to deny gay marriage.

It would seem that bigamy and sodomy are NOT based on any bigotry, if
one of them is then one of them will have to be changed.
--
That's Karma
Gunner Asch
2017-07-13 23:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 14:09:48 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
["""""Free Exercise Clause
The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ”
In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of
the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the
prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld
Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would
provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs,
including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said: "Congress
cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall
prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the
Constitution expressly forbids such legislation."[1] Of federal
territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of
actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and
opinions, they may with practices."[1]"""""""]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_clauses_of_the_United_States_Constitution
The Supreme Court can call polygamy "bigamy" but they can't ban polygamy
because it's a religious belief?
Isn't that the same as saying gay marriage is a religious belief that
can't be banned by the Supreme Court but they can ban marriage between
all but a man and a woman?
Above they upheld that marriage is between only two persons or it was
bigamy. Being between two persons of the same sex would be sodomy. So
any state with sodomy laws would be able to deny gay marriage.
It would seem that bigamy and sodomy are NOT based on any bigotry, if
one of them is then one of them will have to be changed.
I mentioned this a number of years ago, when getting flack for living
with 2 women. Seems its going to happen and not to far in the future.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Loading...