Missoula Poster

RoleModelsinBlood31 · August 2018

He didn’t get fired for his stupid text messages, he got fired because he made the fbi look like a bunch of idiots.

kenk · August 2018

Ledbetterman10 said:

Is it a violation of Strzok's first amendment rights? Those texts certainly show bias against Trump. Can't say I blame him, but doesn't that bias make him unable to fairly investigate either Trump or Hillary?

What democrat isn't biased towards republicans and vice versa. I like my candidate so i am biased against yours. Same way I am biased towards the scumbag Yankees as I am a Red Sox fan. That is natural. Doesn't mean it has to effect your job and how you carry it out.

Vedd Hedd · August 2018

Go Beavers said:

inhiding 1976 said:

A little disappointed. The Band who “cares about there fans” should understand there is a lot of fans that don’t agree with them politically. Causing a divide between the fan base isn’t good. I love the music, the shows etc. going to Wrigley both nights. Hoping for good music and not a political lecture.

Being critical of trump isn’t divisive. The reaction from trump supporters, who are intolerant of any criticism of him, is what’s divisive. People expecting the band to change in order to protect their feelings are who you should be disappointed with.

^^^^^

PJ_Soul · August 2018

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

He didn’t get fired for his stupid text messages, he got fired because he made the fbi look like a bunch of idiots.

I think the real idiots in all this were the Republican members of Congress during that so-called Congressional Hearing they subjected Strzok to. If you haven't actually watched the entire thing, I suggest you do that. It's absolutely stunning. I watched it live and I felt like I was living in some kind of weird dream.

Merkin Baller · August 2018

PJ_Soul said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

He didn’t get fired for his stupid text messages, he got fired because he made the fbi look like a bunch of idiots.

I think the real idiots in all there were the Republican members of Congress during that so-called Congressional Hearing they subjected Strzok to. If you haven't actually watched the entire thing, I suggest you do that. It's absolutely stunning. I watched it live and I felt like I was living in some kind of weird dream.

I felt the same way.

Party first, country second for those scumbags.

Ledbetterman10 · August 2018

kenk said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Is it a violation of Strzok's first amendment rights? Those texts certainly show bias against Trump. Can't say I blame him, but doesn't that bias make him unable to fairly investigate either Trump or Hillary?

What democrat isn't biased towards republicans and vice versa. I like my candidate so i am biased against yours. Same way I am biased towards the scumbag Yankees as I am a Red Sox fan. That is natural. Doesn't mean it has to effect your job and how you carry it out.

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Merkin Baller said:

Alex Jones getting banned from an internet platform that doesn’t want to be associated with his bullshit isn’t a violation of free speech. That’s a company exercising their rights. Even infowars has terms of service that if violated will result in being banned from their site; none of that violates anyone’s 1A rights. This isn’t complicated.

Peter Strzok, getting fired from the FBI for expressing a political opinion in a private text message IS a blatant and egregious violation of his constitutionaly protected first amendment rights. This isn’t complicated.

People should really educate themselves on what ‘freedom of speech’ does & doesn’t mean.

PS: there’s no such thing as true “freedom of speech” - you can’t yell fire in a crowded building, you can’t joke about murdering the president (I.e. Kathy Griffin)etc etc.

True freedom is speech is a myth.

Is it a violation of Strzok's first amendment rights? Those texts certainly show bias against Trump. Can't say I blame him, but doesn't that bias make him unable to fairly investigate either Trump or Hillary?

No. The bias doesn’t mean that it will effect how he carries out his job. This is the false narrative createD by the right to discredit the Mueller investigation. Prior to the election, what percentage of federal employees wanted trump to win? Probably not too many.

Merkin Baller said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Merkin Baller said:

Alex Jones getting banned from an internet platform that doesn’t want to be associated with his bullshit isn’t a violation of free speech. That’s a company exercising their rights. Even infowars has terms of service that if violated will result in being banned from their site; none of that violates anyone’s 1A rights. This isn’t complicated.

Peter Strzok, getting fired from the FBI for expressing a political opinion in a private text message IS a blatant and egregious violation of his constitutionaly protected first amendment rights. This isn’t complicated.

People should really educate themselves on what ‘freedom of speech’ does & doesn’t mean.

PS: there’s no such thing as true “freedom of speech” - you can’t yell fire in a crowded building, you can’t joke about murdering the president (I.e. Kathy Griffin)etc etc.

True freedom is speech is a myth.

Is it a violation of Strzok's first amendment rights? Those texts certainly show bias against Trump. Can't say I blame him, but doesn't that bias make him unable to fairly investigate either Trump or Hillary?

So should he have been fired, or taken off those assignments?

I don't think he should have been fired but yes, he shouldn't be on the Mueller team. Go Beavers said it was a "false narrative" created by the right to discredit the Mueller investigation. Isn't that a fair narrative to peddle if you're on the right? That one of the people investigating Trump has a bias against him? That what this country's justice system is all about if you're on the defensive: poking holes, even small ones, in the argument. Hell, that's how OJ walked free.

Go Beavers · August 2018

Bias needs to be proven. In this case that he fabricated some sort of evidence or did something intentional to sway the investigation some way. Thinking trump is a loser and not wanting him as president isn’t bias, it’s thinking normally.

SOLAT319 · August 2018

JP218404 said:

we know anything about the artist sale yet?

This is what I am wondering too.

BS44325 · August 2018

Merkin Baller said:

Alex Jones getting banned from an internet platform that doesn’t want to be associated with his bullshit isn’t a violation of free speech. That’s a company exercising their rights. Even infowars has terms of service that if violated will result in being banned from their site; none of that violates anyone’s 1A rights. This isn’t complicated.

Peter Strzok, getting fired from the FBI for expressing a political opinion in a private text message IS a blatant and egregious violation of his constitutionaly protected first amendment rights. This isn’t complicated.

People should really educate themselves on what ‘freedom of speech’ does & doesn’t mean.

PS: there’s no such thing as true “freedom of speech” - you can’t yell fire in a crowded building, you can’t joke about murdering the president (I.e. Kathy Griffin)etc etc.

True freedom is speech is a myth.

I'm with Rolling Stone on this

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/facebook-censorship-alex-jones-710497/

PJ_Soul · August 2018

Go Beavers said:

Bias needs to be proven. In this case that he fabricated some sort of evidence or did something intentional to sway the investigation some way. Thinking trump is a loser and not wanting him as president isn’t bias, it’s thinking normally.

Agreed. Maybe he kind of "needed" to be fired just for appearance's sake or whatever, or just to get that monkey off the FBI's back in the face of some serious Congressional and Presidential insanity, but I don't think he actually did anything wrong, and I think he explained his position very well on that, and his arguments were sound. I think it's wrong that he was fired, but I also think it was probably inevitable. It mostly bothers me because it makes those disgusting members of Congress and Trump look like the winners, when all they really are is pieces of shit who don't care about truth or reason, as long as it serves their sinister purposes. We have undeniable proof that they are more than happy to destroy members of the US Intelligence agencies to further their political/personal positions, and that is pretty scary.

Ledbetterman10 · August 2018

Go Beavers said:

Bias needs to be proven. In this case that he fabricated some sort of evidence or did something intentional to sway the investigation some way. Thinking trump is a loser and not wanting him as president isn’t bias, it’s thinking normally.

Yes you think that's thinking normally. I think that's thinking normally. But you understand why people that support Trump would jump all over this. Frankly, it's best he's gone so that they can't use this as a way to discredit the Mueller report. They will anyway, but it will be pretty baseless.

teskeinc · August 2018

kenk said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Is it a violation of Strzok's first amendment rights? Those texts certainly show bias against Trump. Can't say I blame him, but doesn't that bias make him unable to fairly investigate either Trump or Hillary?

What democrat isn't biased towards republicans and vice versa. I like my candidate so i am biased against yours. Same way I am biased towards the scumbag Yankees as I am a Red Sox fan. That is natural. Doesn't mean it has to effect your job and how you carry it out.

Really? I'm no Trump supporter but he literally said he was going to do something to stop Trump from being elected. It did affect his job and he worked to carry it out. That's extremely troubling if our FBI and CIA is using their political party affiliation to try to affect the election. Is that any different than colluding with the Russians? Or that's OK because he was an American citizen and you don't like Trump?

PJ_Soul · August 2018

It seems that some people need to look to Strzok for the definition of bias, because they really don't seem to understand, and he managed to define it very well during that hearing. Having an opinion is not the same as being biased folks.

Merkin Baller · August 2018

teskeinc said:

kenk said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Is it a violation of Strzok's first amendment rights? Those texts certainly show bias against Trump. Can't say I blame him, but doesn't that bias make him unable to fairly investigate either Trump or Hillary?

What democrat isn't biased towards republicans and vice versa. I like my candidate so i am biased against yours. Same way I am biased towards the scumbag Yankees as I am a Red Sox fan. That is natural. Doesn't mean it has to effect your job and how you carry it out.

Really? I'm no Trump supporter but he literally said he was going to do something to stop Trump from being elected. It did affect his job and he worked to carry it out. That's extremely troubling if our FBI and CIA is using their political party affiliation to try to affect the election. Is that any different than colluding with the Russians? Or that's OK because he was an American citizen and you don't like Trump?

If the FBI was in the bag for Clinton, they very easily could have let the public know Trump was being investigated.

Instead they kept it under wraps, and did the opposite: suggested they were going to re-open the Clinton investigation right before the election.

That's a real funny way of trying to sabotage Trump's campaign.

teskeinc · August 2018

Merkin Baller said:

teskeinc said:

kenk said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Is it a violation of Strzok's first amendment rights? Those texts certainly show bias against Trump. Can't say I blame him, but doesn't that bias make him unable to fairly investigate either Trump or Hillary?

What democrat isn't biased towards republicans and vice versa. I like my candidate so i am biased against yours. Same way I am biased towards the scumbag Yankees as I am a Red Sox fan. That is natural. Doesn't mean it has to effect your job and how you carry it out.

Really? I'm no Trump supporter but he literally said he was going to do something to stop Trump from being elected. It did affect his job and he worked to carry it out. That's extremely troubling if our FBI and CIA is using their political party affiliation to try to affect the election. Is that any different than colluding with the Russians? Or that's OK because he was an American citizen and you don't like Trump?

If the FBI was in the bag for Clinton, they very easily could have let the public know Trump was being investigated.
Instead they kept it under wraps, and did the opposite: suggested they were going to re-open the Clinton investigation right before the election.
That's a real funny way of trying to sabotage Trump's campaign.

But at that time everybody except Trump knew Clinton was going to win. You have to remember how wide of a margin Clinton was ahead in the polls. If it was a tight race, it would have never happened. My opinion is they were getting 2 steps ahead of Trump thinking about what Trump was going to do when he lost.
That's the kind of aholes we have in our government, it really sucks to think people are conspiring like that. Im sure Republicans were doing the same things but didn't send a blatant text message. smh

Merkin Baller · August 2018

teskeinc said:

Merkin Baller said:

teskeinc said:

kenk said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Is it a violation of Strzok's first amendment rights? Those texts certainly show bias against Trump. Can't say I blame him, but doesn't that bias make him unable to fairly investigate either Trump or Hillary?

What democrat isn't biased towards republicans and vice versa. I like my candidate so i am biased against yours. Same way I am biased towards the scumbag Yankees as I am a Red Sox fan. That is natural. Doesn't mean it has to effect your job and how you carry it out.

Really? I'm no Trump supporter but he literally said he was going to do something to stop Trump from being elected. It did affect his job and he worked to carry it out. That's extremely troubling if our FBI and CIA is using their political party affiliation to try to affect the election. Is that any different than colluding with the Russians? Or that's OK because he was an American citizen and you don't like Trump?

If the FBI was in the bag for Clinton, they very easily could have let the public know Trump was being investigated.
Instead they kept it under wraps, and did the opposite: suggested they were going to re-open the Clinton investigation right before the election.
That's a real funny way of trying to sabotage Trump's campaign.

But at that time everybody except Trump knew Clinton was going to win. You have to remember how wide of a margin Clinton was ahead in the polls. If it was a tight race, it would have never happened.

So in your previous statement, you said Strzok 'worked to carry it out' (stopping Trump that is). In what way did he work to achieve that?

I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely asking, as I have yet to hear or read about what he did to stop Trump from getting elected.

RoleModelsinBlood31 · August 2018

Oh my god people no one gives a shit. Let it go. I just woke up from a nap and opened this thread and ya’ll are carrying on still. Your lives aren’t going to change whether or not stzrok still has his job.

teskeinc · August 2018

Merkin Baller said:

teskeinc said:

Merkin Baller said:

teskeinc said:

kenk said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Is it a violation of Strzok's first amendment rights? Those texts certainly show bias against Trump. Can't say I blame him, but doesn't that bias make him unable to fairly investigate either Trump or Hillary?

What democrat isn't biased towards republicans and vice versa. I like my candidate so i am biased against yours. Same way I am biased towards the scumbag Yankees as I am a Red Sox fan. That is natural. Doesn't mean it has to effect your job and how you carry it out.

Really? I'm no Trump supporter but he literally said he was going to do something to stop Trump from being elected. It did affect his job and he worked to carry it out. That's extremely troubling if our FBI and CIA is using their political party affiliation to try to affect the election. Is that any different than colluding with the Russians? Or that's OK because he was an American citizen and you don't like Trump?

If the FBI was in the bag for Clinton, they very easily could have let the public know Trump was being investigated.
Instead they kept it under wraps, and did the opposite: suggested they were going to re-open the Clinton investigation right before the election.
That's a real funny way of trying to sabotage Trump's campaign.

But at that time everybody except Trump knew Clinton was going to win. You have to remember how wide of a margin Clinton was ahead in the polls. If it was a tight race, it would have never happened.

So in your previous statement, you said Strzok 'worked to carry it out' (stopping Trump that is). In what way did he work to achieve that?
I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely asking, as I have yet to hear or read about what he did to stop Trump from getting elected.

Same way that the Russians affected the election. Ive yet to find one person who voted for Trump that says they made a mistake and wish they can change their vote because of Russian influence. I don't know if he knew about the fake dossier, but if I see a member of the FBI texting statements about stopping a candidate, it just doesn't sit well with me. Try to look at it from an independent view instead of through your Trumphate glasses.

trees · August 2018

Spiritual_Chaos said:

I LOVE THAT PEARL JAM IS CAUSING A STIR AGAIN. Love it

I love it as well, you have nothing on pj for making art and that it lets roll

trees · August 2018

letsongsprotest said:

I never get posters from shows I don't attend, but I want this one. Hope some pop up in the 10 club storeyek i want one as well

Missoula Poster

Comments

Categories