₦airaland Forum

damosky12:
Come on go and read for your jamb dear. Even your punctuation are in shambles and you're forming smart.

tctrills:
You are not getting it. I don't care if Trump is a Christian or an Ogun worshipper. By the way our last vice president in Nigeria was a pastor and that was the worse administration Nigerians have ever witnessed that's if this one doesn't beat it.
The debate here is not about Trump or how you and I feel about him. It is about this particular executive order and how it affects the American people. Even if you feel Trump is a bad man, bad men sometimes make good laws. So forget the man and look at the law and it's impact on his people.
We can't criticize a law without understanding it.

MrRichmond:
The western civilization was built on Christian principles.

If they want to survive they must preserve what made them great.

No surprises here.

helinues:
Toh

Touching religion won't be easy for Trump

helinues:
Toh

Touching religion won't be easy for Trump

TheDevilsBride:
I think you're missing the forest, for the trees here, as executive orders like this are almost wholly inseparable from the political context, in which they are given. Maybe if you could shed some light, and demonstrate the existence of this supposedly rampant "anti-Christian bias" in a nation where Christianity has always been, and remains the dominant cultural and political force, then we will not be having any misapprehensions about "understand[ing] the law", as you say.

So, can you properly enumerate, what are those specific protections Christians are currently lacking in America, that this executive order should meaningfully address? I'd love for you to fill me in on this, as I need to be sure exactly what is being contended here.

FuckYeyeMods:
Christian principles of deception..
Tell us why US invaded Iraq, tell us why US is actively involve in destabilising Middle East.
Has he ever address or admit US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as wrong and shouldn't have happened.
They killed millions of fathers, mothers and children unjustly. And inturn, US want peace at home. Thousands of years to come, that act will continue to hunt USA.

tctrills:
Clearly, you are acting in bad faith

You began by saying that I am missing the forest, for the trees then you went ahead to ask me to enlighten you on the subject.

Now to the answers you asked for.

In 2023, a leaked FBI memo revealed that the agency was monitoring traditionalist Catholics, particularly those who attend Latin Mass, under the justification that they could be linked to "radical traditionalist" ideologies. The memo suggested that so-called "radical-traditionalist Catholic ideology" could be a breeding ground for extremism. Many saw this as a blatant attempt to criminalize deeply held religious beliefs, while similar scrutiny was not applied to other religious groups.

Christian prayers and symbols removed: While other religious and secular symbols (such as LGBTQ pride flags) are widely permitted in schools and public institutions, Christian symbols like crosses, nativity scenes, or even voluntary public prayers have been repeatedly challenged.

Students punished for faith expressions: Cases such as high school students being reprimanded for praying before football games or wearing Christian symbols highlight what many see as an unfair suppression of Christian beliefs.

The Biden administration has aggressively prosecuted pro-life activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, while at the same time, many attacks on churches and pro-life pregnancy centers have gone largely ignored.

After the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, dozens of churches and crisis pregnancy centers were firebombed or vandalized, yet few arrests were made.

When churches were attacked during the 2020 riots, many of the perpetrators faced little to no consequences. However, when a protest occurs outside of an abortion clinic or drag show, law enforcement often responds with heavy-handed arrests.

During the pandemic, many state and local governments imposed harsher restrictions on churches than on secular businesses:

In states like California and New York, churches were forced to close or limit attendance, while casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs were allowed to remain open.

Pastors who defied restrictions were fined or even arrested, while large-scale protests and other gatherings were often exempted.

Military chaplains have been disciplined or forced out for refusing to perform same-sex weddings or for sharing traditional Christian teachings on gender and sexuality.

Government workers have been fired or sued for refusing to use preferred pronouns or declining to participate in LGBTQ-related activities that contradict their faith.

You are welcome.

SalamRushdie:
A man after God's heart

TheDevilsBride:
My dear, it's very possible to understand the broader context, while still seeking specific examples. They're not mutually exclusive, you know. I'm not sure what you were expecting, but this isn't the "gotcha" moment you seem to think it is.
You always choose to misunderstand. I was not looking for a gotcha moment. My only purpose is to inform you and others on the thread. Learn not to assume.


Okay, so this is the first example you've presented. Now, I don't know how much research you actually carried, to verify all the information you've posted here, because firstly, the memo you mentioned was quickly disavowed and rescinded by the FBI itself. Not only that, but the memo wasn't even targeted towards Catholicism as a whole in the first place, but [b]potential extremist elements within the faith, particularly from one specific group which, get this, separated itself from the Catholic Church after the reforms of the Vatican ll Council.[/b]
When you claim that I am spreading misinformation, You should provide sources if not, we only end up accusing each other of misinformation. Now Here are a few sources.
Let's begin with a video of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. No evidence is better than video evidence
[url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zruwkoj040o
[/url]
[url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6m4_F22CZc
[/url]
Also, I have an article from the mostly WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbi-and-radical-catholics-a2021275

But this is a blatant [b]false equivocation you have committed. Smh, I already had my suspicions that a vast majority of your examples, will be chock full of misplaced outrage and aggression -- a very perfect illustration of the privileged mindset that right-wing glazers have. FYI, since some of you love to be ignorant, even in the face of available information, this is simply an enactment, of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, preventing the government from endorsing any particular religion, at the expense of another. I'm sure you can define terms for yourself, so please enlighten me, since when did LGBTQ+, become a religion? You mean you can't tell the simple difference between religious symbols, and civil rights symbols, lmao?[/b]

Same thing here. My dear if you are here to say I am wrong, you need to show that. Anyone with an internet connection and the ability to write some words can take the path you have chosen. I expect more from you. the First Amendment, preventing the government from endorsing any particular religion, at the expense of another but nowhere does the First Amendment prevent individuals from publicly displaying their religious symbols or from prayer. So when you talk about false equivocation you are the guilty one here.
I read the rest of your defense and it's all the same you are wrong I am right argument without you coming up with any substance. You can do better.

You added that as a Christian whose religion is against Gay marriage, I should be forced to marry gay people? Make that make sense? Have you heard about freedom of religion? wow

Righteousness2:
GOD BLESS you Mr. President.
GOD keep you and Power you to continue in this Might.

As the Wailers keep wailing, you keep SOARING.

TheDevilsBride:
This is not a full response to your latest comments, but I just thought I should note a few things down, as I haven't failed to observe that you're still wielding denial like a paper shield in a thunderstorm, while every fact I've presented to you sits readily available on the internet. I've only refrained from pepper-spraying you with the relevant links, because I don't want to trigger the crazy spam-bots, just in case.

Each point I made in my last response stands on its own merit, but if you really want to pretend as though I didn't do my due diligence, well, I'm happy that people reading will get to read for themselves, and be the judge/s.

I have seen your video manifestos by the way, and I've briefly skimmed through them. I'm already disappointed after watching a couple of minutes, but I'll reserve further judgement until I get home, and watch properly from beginning to the end.

MrRichmond:
Relax mr.man.

Trump is the only US president that has condemned the US for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars publicly several times.

Your statement is completely wrong; with a simple youtube search you can find video evidence countering this

What Obama did to Libya is inexcusable.

But No country is perfect.

However, USA as the dominant global super power remains the best case scenario for the world, considering their competition.

FuckYeyeMods:
You ain't talking to a baby you g man..
Why is he proposing evacuating all Gaza resident to other countries. What is the meaning of that.
Trump is just a bully and arrogant.

tctrills:
You always choose to misunderstand. I was not looking for a gotcha moment. My only purpose is to inform you and others on the thread. Learn not to assume.

When you claim that I am spreading misinformation, You should provide sources if not, we only end up accusing each other of misinformation.

Re: YOUTUBE VIDEOS

Same thing here. My dear if you are here to say I am wrong, you need to show that. Anyone with an internet connection and the ability to write some words can take the path you have chosen. I expect more from you.

the First Amendment, preventing the government from endorsing any particular religion, at the expense of another but nowhere does the First Amendment prevent individuals from publicly displaying their religious symbols or from prayer.

So when you talk about false equivocation you are the guilty one here.

I read the rest of your defense and it's all the same you are wrong I am right argument without you coming up with any substance. You can do better.

You added that as a Christian whose religion is against Gay marriage, I should be forced to marry gay people? Make that make sense? Have you heard about freedom of religion? wow

tctrills:
It's seems this is vol 1 of your response. Let me wait for vol 2. But I hope it would not be shallow. The goal here isn't to make me look bad, it is to share and exchange ideas even when we disagree. I advise you spend more time selling your ideas and addresses that writing about me.

And don't just say I am wrong, show it.

Again, I remember you claim it's perfectly in order to force a clergyman to perform a marriage that is an abomination in his religion could you explain a bit better?
Is it ok to force a Muslim Imam to marry 2 men?

TheDevilsBride:
Who exactly, appointed you the Grand Illuminator of this thread, hmmm? Maybe instead of pontificating over my supposed shortcomings, you can actually just stick to providing the substantive information you're aiming to provide, alright?



Okay, so here are my findings on the FBI case. The very memo you cited, and are so exercised about, originated from the investigation of a kid named Xavier Lopez, who allegedly held extremist ideologies with religious elements. He described himself as a "Catholic clerical fascist", and was found with Molotov cocktails and illegal firearms, expressing intentions to "make total war against the Satanic occultist government". Plus, he was also a member of the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) -- a group that claims traditional Catholic ideologies, but are kept at arm's length, by the Vatican itself.

Early in 2022, the report says, he [Lopez] began attending a church that “associated with an international religious society that advocates traditional Catholic theology and liturgy but is not considered by the Vatican to be in full communion with the Catholic Church.” The “religious society,” identified as “Organization 1,” is clearly the Society of St. Pius X, or SSPX. The local church is identified only as “Church 1.” Our Lady of Fatima Chapel in Richmond, which is affiliated with SSPX, declined to comment and referred me to James Vogel, U.S. spokesman for SSPX. He didn’t return an email and phone messages.
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/anti-catholic-memo-wasnt

From this information, I believe we can parse that the FBI's involvement with the church was specifically targeted to Lopez's activities, not a broad surveillance of the SSPX, and definitely also not a broad surveillance of traditional Catholics, as a whole. Quite unfortunately, the subsequent memo's analytical failures created the unfortunate appearance of religious targeting, which is probably why the FBI's national office removed it promptly, and without further ado, then explicitly stated that it failed to meet their standards.

The F.B.I. has said numerous times that the intelligence product did not meet our exacting standards and was quickly removed from F.B.I. systems,” it said. “We also have said there was no intent or actions taken to investigate Catholics or anyone based on religion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/us/politics/catholic-extremists-fbi.html

So I think we can conclude that this was NOT a deliberate, "anti-christian" witch-hunting, but simply a bureaucratic snafu that got corrected.



I have watched the two videos you presented, tedious and boring as they were. I hope you watched them too, as I have a few things to contribute to the discourse therein. I'll start with the first one. Now, I want to begin by highlighting the fact that Josh Hawley's performance (and yes, I'm calling it a performance, because over the years, that's precisely what these congressional hearings seem to have devolved and regressed into), practically centers around a memo that:
1> Was created independently by one field office (Richmond, Virginia).
2> Was immediately rescinded after discovery, and...
3> Was explicitly disavowed by the FBI leadership.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I'd argue that the very fact that the memo was immediately rescinded, after it was discovered by FBI leadership, has already undermined the bizarre narrative of institutional bias that Hawley was desperately trying to construct throughout the video. The memo, as flawed as it was shown to be, was particularly focused on a splinter group that even the mainstream Catholic Church itself, is wishy washy on, towards their worldview, so his righteous indignation about "targeting Catholics" is about as authentic, as a three-dollar bill, lol. Also, maybe it's me, but I don't understand the outrage behind the use of undercover agents to investigate. As long as they're not inducing members of the society to commit criminal offenses, what is wrong with interviewing people who might have relevant information about potential extremist, or criminal activities? Abi is it only an issue if the people involved are wearing religious pendants round their necks?

The second video was about Jim Jordan, on his jacket off, sleeves rolled up, ready to tackle down the deep state persona, doing pretty much the same thing Hawley was doing. Pretty much the same submissions were made, absent the self-awareness to understand the fact that even the FBI had disavowed the memo. So, again I ask, what gives? Kilo shele gan gan?

Only thing I can see being clearly demonstrated here, is what I would simply term political transmutation, frantically trying to turn a corrected mistake into evidence of what you think systemic persecution is. Basically a tiny little molehill, being conflated with a gigantic mountain of inconceivable proportions.



It seems you're forgetting who has the burden of proof here? I'm not the one alleging anti-christian bias, you are. So far, you haven't really substantiated your allegations with concrete evidence.



The Establishment Clause is quite clear: the government does not have the power to endorse any particular religion, and my dear, that includes displaying any form of religious symbol/s on public property, as well as leading public prayers on behalf of a specific faith. So don't even bother trying to spin this, because the law is definitely not on your side, lmao.



Perhaps you can demonstrate to all of us, which category the LGBTQ+ symbols fall under: religious or civil rights? Let's find out who's falsely equivocating here.



I provided constitutional law, and you came back round, empty handed. No counterarguments, no evidence, no logic, no coherent thought process. Just complaints and misapprehensions about everything I've been saying. So you better appraise your own position more properly, before you start waffling about "substance".



You've either misunderstood my statements, or worse yet, intentionally twisted and misrepresented what I said to craft a spurious narrative. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume it's the former. Now, please go back and read my original post. When I submitted that military chaplains and government workers should "respect and serve all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or identity", I was saying that they have a professional obligation, as public servants, to provide services, and support, and respect to virtually all individuals, including all those who identify as a member of the LGBTQ+ community.

It's just a basic expectation rooted in the principles of a democratic society like the US, which promote equality and justice. Same expectations are placed on government workers, so I don't see what calls for your outrage here. Stop pretending you're a victim, because you're not. You're just someone trying to justify and defend discrimination, and bigotry. By the way, I hope your "freedom of religion" extends to Muslims and Hindus, who respectively, refuse to serve alcohol, or handle beef, because if not, then you'd be a sanctimonious hypocrite. The First Amendment guarantees you, all the rights to practice your religion, but not to use it as a cudgel to vilify others, and deny them the very same rights, that you blissfully enjoy.

tctrills:
You and I just watched a video where the FBI director says he is repulsed by the actions of his men that alone destroys all the argument you made in red.

If the FBI director under probe agreed that his boys were wrong then you clearly don't have a point here. We both can agree right?

Now you write that this was not deliberate? According to you, the FBI mistakenly investigated Catholics? How does that sound.

The FBI's Richmond Field Office memorandum painted so-called certain "radical-traditionalist Catholics" (RTCs) as violent extremists and proposed opportunities for the FBI to infiltrate Catholic churches as a form of "threat mitigation.

If the FBI director in public says he regretted the action of his boys but you and the people you choose to quote from say the FBI did no wrong, clearly something is not making sense here.

When you say you have no issue with the FBI actions, I find that funny.

Anyway Trump's executive order will ensure that such action will not go unpunished next time.

Remember, the officers involved went unpunished, it will not be so next time.

So explain why you think such officers shouldn't be punished even when their boss is ashamed of their actions?

About the LGBT, the job of the Chaplin is both official and religions. It is clearly an abuse if a Chaplin who's religion is against gay marriages is forced to conduct such.

There are many clergyman who allow and accept gay marriage so why punish one who it is against the principles of his religion to do such. Make that make sense.

Is the army a place that forces men to go against their religion? Think about that for a moment.

In your words, it is a professional obligation, as public servants, so judging by that, will you count it wise to ask an Imam to perform a gay marriage?

Should the professional obligations of the army have zero regard and respect for religious beliefs?

You seem to be saying that once we join the army, we need to forget those beliefs we held dear.

But then you forget that religious beliefs are protected by the constitution.

The US constitution is so heavy on religious freedom that Jehovah witnesses are not drafted into the army because their religion is against war. Their religion is protected.

People with your school of thought will make us go against our religion to please LGBT.

Let's go back to your words.

You claim that your argument is rooted in the principles of a democratic society. But your argument is clearly going against it.

If a democratic society will force people to go against the dictates of their religion, how is that rooted in the principles of democracy. That's what you expect from china and north Korea.

Finally you brought in an unnecessary argument asking if these freedoms extends to Muslims and Hindus. I say it's an unnecessary argument because you are simply against religious freedom be it christian or Muslim.

You believe that Muslims should be made to perform gay marriages in the army so don't act like you are advocating for them.

I will hate the day I see a Muslim being forced to conduct a gay marriage in the army. It's evil and should not be celebrated.

On there other hand, you will celebrate the day Muslims are forced to wed gay men. While I will see it as a failure for democracy, you will view it as a great democratic success.

To qualify for a religious marriage, you need to meet the religions requirements. We shouldn't lower or change religious standards in the army and gay men have plenty of options.

I am a Christian, I don't qualify for a Muslim marriage. And the army should not force me on them. Under Trump's executive order no religion with be forced to perform gay marriages if it doesn't align with their standards.

I love your brilliant arguments, I respect them but I don't agree with them.

I don't agree that the actions of the FBI officers should go unpunished and I don't agree that any religion should be forced to marry gay people that's why I support the executive order.

I understand you don't want to see a law that would have made the FBI'S action a crime or that would make any religion reject gay marriage so you can never accept the executive order. Fair enough.

TheDevilsBride:
Is it out of the realm of possibility, for a leader to be repulsed by his subordinates' poor judgement, but still maintain, with his ten toes down, that there was no anti-Catholic crusade being staged? I'm sorry, but nothing was destroyed here. You just seem to be having a hard time, making nuanced distinctions between certain positions.



Actually, the FBI director acknowledging wrongdoing on his agents' part, only reinforces my point in spectacular fashion, as it inherently demonstrates pure evidence of institutional accountability, as opposed to institutional bias. When you can identify a specific problem, honestly admit it, and take wilful steps to correct it immediately, that is the very definition of responsible governance, and that's why I scoff at any narrative/s of persecution, being peddled with this case.



This is a drastic oversimplification, lmao. You are committing reductio ad absurdum. The only mistake those FBI chaps made, was to take a legitimate investigation into one specific individual with extremist ties, and broaden the scope too widely. I hope you can understand the distinction here.



Okay, and this is exactly why the memo was immediately rescinded. The FBI recognized this overreach and killed it asap, so no matter how many times you wish to quote it, it's not the smoking gun you want it to be. Which part of "promptly removed and disavowed" isn't registering for you here?



The only thing "not making sense here", is your odd interpretation of what organizational accountability is. When a leader acknowledges a mistake and corrects it, then it exemplifies honesty and integrity. Just because I recognize the situation as an error that was rectified, instead of some sinister plot, doesn't conflict with the director's regret, at all.



I'm sorry, I don't follow. Do you also find it "funny", that firefighters use waterhoses to put out fires? The method of investigating is not the problem here, it was their framework of analysis. Are you familiar with research methodology?



No wahala. But don't forget that executive orders don't solve problems instantly and/or magically overnight, and they can be modified, or reversed faster than you can turn your head.



Stop being dramatic. A policy mistake is not a criminal act.



Because the "punishment" has been meted out already, via institutional correction and revision of policy. Do you lock up your kids in their rooms, or toilets, and deny them food for days, when they mop your kitchen, without sweeping it first? Must everything be a witch-hunt with you lot?



Again, you're not getting the full picture. Yes, the role of a military chaplain's role is indeed both official AND religious, and it is precisely for this same reason, that they must serve ALL service members, without exception! If indeed, they struggle to fulfill both aspects of their duty, then I'm sorry, but they might as well consider a different career path. It's the bitter truth. You surely don't expect waltz right into the military, and decide to pick and choose which soldiers deserve your service, as if it's a buffet of religious beliefs.



You're having way too much fun, with this merry-go-round logic, lol. Some clergy WILL perform same-sex marriages, but it doesn't justify discrimination by those who won't. You folks need to understand, that the military has never been, and can never be your local church potluck. It is a federal institution with equal service requirements, and it will remain that way.



Honestly, I don't think the army has any fúcks to give about your religious feelz. Like I noted earlier, if your religious beliefs prevent you from treating ALL soldiers equally, then beat it. Find another job that will cater to your religious needs. It's really not that complicated, my dear.



If an Imam happens to join the military chaplaincy, then he is agreeing to serve ALL soldiers, as it is literally in the job description. Lobatan!



The military accords due respect to every, and all religious beliefs, of individual service members practicing their faith. That being said, the moment you put on that uniform and accept that government paycheck, you have implicitly agreed, without hesitation, to serve the entire military family. Your religious freedom doesn't trump the rights of other soldiers to fair and equal treatment under the federal law.



If you wilfully joined the military, knowing that it requires equal service to all, then act all surprised when you're simply asked, to serve everyone equally, then I'd just tell you to grow a pair of balls and suck it up. It's like joining a swimming team, and crying about getting wet. Like, duh... what did you have in mind lmao?



...in the First Amendment. You forgot about equal protection being covered in the Fourteenth, lol.



Yes, JWs are exempted from military service entirely, because their beliefs actually prevent them from fulfilling any military duties. But they don't join, and then turn around, to demand special treatment. That's the fundamental difference you missed. Perhaps you should have left JWs out of this, because you've started scoring own goals against your own position in this debate.



Mate, just do your job without having to discriminate against other people. If serving all Americans equally feels like persecution, perhaps public service should not be your calling.



Go back? Have I left my position?



In what way? I must confess, I'm thoroughly unimpressed with your weak grasp of democratic principles, as you've demonstrated thus far. Do you think democracy is just about majority rule? What about the protection minority rights? What about ensuring equal treatment under the law?



This is such a terrible, and unnecessary hyperbole. Demands for equal service, being likened to North Korea? What ?!



I'm pretty sure you're the one who's been trying to justify selective discrimination against other members of your society, not me. So the only thing I'll say in response to you here is, go get a mirror, smh, lol.



This habit of you constantly putting words in my mouth, is so blatantly dishonest, I'm starting to wonder if you have an ulterior motive in this discussion. For the avoidance of doubt, I never said Muslims "should be made to perform gay marriages". What I said, was that IF any individual/s voluntarily join the military chaplaincy, they have agreed to serve ALL service members equally. Observe the word "voluntarily". It's like you're deliberately missing my point, and I'm wondering to what end. What's the goal here, hmmm?



For the 99,997th time today, nobody is being forced to do anything, however they're being asked to fulfill the duties they VOLUNTARILY signed up for. If that's what qualifies as "evil" to you, then maybe consider, that your moral compass needs recalibrating rather desperately.



Smh, more nonsensical strawmen fallacies, coupled with mind reading.



Religious requirements in a government institution, lol? Can you even listen to yourself? Military chaplains only serve in an official capacity, not running their own private congregations. The only standards they are required to meet here, are federal.



Irrelevant. Once again, nobody's forcing anybody to do anything.



I appreciate your attempts at having a civilized conversation, inasmuch as you kept twisting and turning my statements every which way, lol.



Well, <1> You're still hammering away at the drum of "punishment" for an administrative error, that has already been corrected, and <2> You're just championing an executive order that essentially serves to codify discrimination. But what more can I say? Do you, bro.



Of course, it's only fitting in a debate, where you've consistently taken my words, and re-arranged them to conjure up an entirely different argument, that you would conclude your post, with yet another strawman fallacy, smh. Let's make one thing clear: I do NOT oppose accountability in any government agencies, and neither do I oppose religious freedom. What I oppose, without remorse or pity, is turning religion, in particular, into a weapon for discrimination, but then again you've demonstrated countless times, that you have a remarkable talent for missing that particular distinction, with the precision of a blindfolded archer.

ovieigho:
It's not criticism! It's reality on ground...

tctrills:
Let me summarize

You see the FBI"s action as a simple misjudgement and I see it as bias and feel it should be punished.

You believe that Chaplind who volunteer and sign up must go against the dictates of their religion while I believe that religious beliefs must be protected even in the army.

I understand why someone with you point of view sees nothing wrong in forcing people to go against their religion just because they are volunteers but I hope you also understand why I believe in the protection of religious standards even in the army.

Like must human beings faced with the same facts, you and I are persuaded differently.

You are wrong but I perfectly respect your opinion.

TheDevilsBride:
Hopefully, your summary won't miss the point as well.



So it seems, however, there is a compelling difference: I rely on evidence and institutional response; you rely on persecution fantasies.



Smh, I can still detect some subtle misunderstanding with this summary, but I'd rather not keep flogging the poor, dead horse.



I understand your position perfectly. Doesn't make it any less incorrect.



Again, so it seems.



Like I told you before, I appreciate the attempt at civility. It's a refreshing experience in this website filled with trolls, bigots, and overly sentimental folks.

tctrills:
Let me rely to one one of your points. You rely not on evidence, but on a narrative.

The same evidence was provided to us but you decided to run along with the narrative that suites your argument.

Was the action of the FBI wrong? Yes. Was it bias? Yes it most certainly was.

But you chose to be defender in chief of the FBI nothing more. You did not depend on evidence or institutional response.

A little bit more on institutional response. The instruction of the presidency has responded with an executive order and you are clearly not depending on it. You choose your institutions.

So let's be honest about one thing, you only depend on your emotions and your argument.