AG Garland appoints special counsel

[cannabineer]

They are all countries that limit the freedoms of the people the government represents. Now every human
still maintains the same rights that we all should. The government restricts the freedom of them to exercise those rights.
In every country I mentioned the right to bear arms and the right to free speech are both severely limited.

In the United States we see the right to free speech being limited by the federal government. We also see people trying to take away our Second Amendment rights. Nobody here or at least the majority , want to be like Canada , Russia, China , North Korea or Iran. There are too many other countries to mention.

Your first paragraph is an ode to the incorrect concept of natural rights.

Your second paragraph is being contradicted by Democrats pulling together more than they have since FDR — in order to combat the full-court press (gerrymandering, gutting voters’ rights, attempting overthrow by subverting legal elections) staged by the GOP in order to establish minority rule … and slowly gaining ground. The party shouting freedom is being unmasked as freedom’s enemy, and Democrats are holding the line against their unrestrained efforts to impose a corporatist authoritarian state.

Btw nice dig at Canada, which unlike the fascist states with which you’ve grouped it, is as nice a place as the US was before the whole maga embarrassment.

 

[Hotrod2]

Your first paragraph is an ode to the incorrect concept of natural rights.

Your second paragraph is being contradicted by Democrats pulling together more than they have since FDR — in order to combat the full-court press (gerrymandering, gutting voters’ rights, attempting overthrow by subverting legal elections) staged by the GOP in order to establish minority rule … and slowly gaining ground. The party shouting freedom is being unmasked as freedom’s enemy, and Democrats are holding the line against their unrestrained efforts to impose a corporatist authoritarian state.

You sound like you're a person that believes people do not have rights inherently. It also seems you believe the government has the right to control people ,the citizens.

 

[cannabineer]

You sound like you're a person that believes people do not have rights inherently. It also seems you believe the government has the right to control people ,the citizens.

Of course people have no inherent rights. All rights in a republic are a product of the consent of the governed. They are treasured artifacts, easily undone by careless or malicious governance, and believing otherwise is part of why libertarian ideology is such an excellent gateway to fascism.

The Libertarian to Fascist Pipeline is Shorter Than You Think

Though opposing ideologies, Libertarians can swing toward Fascism quickly

medium.com

Your second sentence does harm to the fact that in a well-regulated state the government is ultimately the citizens. As such, government is given the power to exercise its duty of saying No to corporate empire builders who would balk at, say, environmental law. You don’t get to build a refinery or a papermill next to my neighborhood. A libertarian would grouse at such obviously beneficial restriction. Then there is taxation, but that’s a whole ‘nother brawl to be enjoyed at a later date.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

Nobody here or at least the majority , want to be like Canada , Russia, China , North Korea or Iran. There are too many other countries to mention.

Canada is more free than America according to international studies, we rank second in the world in terms of freedom, three Scandinavian countries are tied for first place. So pigeon holing Canada with Russia, China , North Korea or Iran, means your consuming some pretty intense propaganda and don't really know what's going on in the world, or your own country.

As for guns, I see there was yet another mass shooting in America last night. Federal gun restrictions are coming, the republican party is circling the drain, the demographics are changing and America will move into the future. Hate speech is hate crime and should cause someone to be put on the domestic anti terrorism watch list and have their guns taken away, that's coming too.

It is hard to admit you've been conned, even to yourself and that your own fear and character flaws have been used against you to control you.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

You sound like you're a person that believes people do not have rights inherently. It also seems you believe the government has the right to control people ,the citizens.

The only rights you have are those the constitution and law give you, without either, you have no rights at all. There is no such thing as inherent rights, for dogs, cats and you, rights are a social construct in large societies. The people in your community and country give you your rights, assuming they have them themselves.

 

[CunningCanuk]

They are all countries that limit the freedoms of the people the government represents. Now every human
still maintains the same rights that we all should. The government restricts the freedom of them to exercise those rights.
In every country I mentioned the right to bear arms and the right to free speech are both severely limited.

In the United States we see the right to free speech being limited by the federal government. We also see people trying to take away our Second Amendment rights. Nobody here or at least the majority , want to be like Canada , Russia, China , North Korea or Iran. There are too many other countries to mention.

It’s very hard to take anyone seriously if they claim Canada is the same as Russia, North Korea and China. Either you are trolling or you don’t know anything about any part of the world except the backwoods holler outside of buttfuck Arkansas you’ve probably never left.

I’m thinking it’s both.

You are happy living in the country you live in, for the reasons you believe and I’m happy living in the country I live in, for the reasons I believe. I’m also happy you are living where you are as long as it continues to be in a different place than I am living.

 

[Rob Roy]

The phrase “open, fair and free markets” just caught my eye. A unicorn. It seems to me that open and free (unregulated) markets are the antithesis of fair. Their natural end stage imo is as absolutely powerful, and thus absolutely corrupt, monopolies.

I don't think you grasp the regulatory aspect of how consumer feedback in a voluntary free market works. Your words imply this and I find they are self contradictory.

For instance with prohibition, a regulated market if there ever was one, prices were astronomical, you were forced to pay a monopolistic enforcer and dogs got shot. Did that catch your eye ?

Could you give me an example of how a regulated market instituted by a forcible monopoly is not an "an absolutely corrupt" monopoly?

 

[cannabineer]

I don't think you grasp the regulatory aspect of how consumer feedback in a voluntary free market works. Your words imply this and I find they are self contradictory.

For instance with prohibition, a regulated market if there ever was one, prices were astronomical, you were forced to pay a monopolistic enforcer and dogs got shot. Did that catch your eye ?

Could you give me an example of how a regulated market instituted by a forcible monopoly is not an "an absolutely corrupt" monopoly?

View attachment 5251306

I see you added an intimate portrait of yourself on a voluntary free market.
That is where your argument breaks down. You invoke something from fantasy’s bestiary and build your model on it as a foundation.

But none of this is news.

 

[CunningCanuk]

You’d be surprised. In a putative George Lucas cosmology, some folks have extraordinary levels of midignorians in their bodies. The resultant Force is entirely Dark Side.

 

[cannabineer]

Now I’m trying to remember in which episode Spock wears Uhura’s ear dildo.

 

[Hotrod2]

It’s very hard to take anyone seriously if they claim Canada is the same as Russia, North Korea and China. Either you are trolling or you don’t know anything about any part of the world except the backwoods holler outside of buttfuck Arkansas you’ve probably never left.

I’m thinking it’s both.

You are happy living in the country you live in, for the reasons you believe and I’m happy living in the country I live in, for the reasons I believe. I’m also happy you are living where you are as long as it continues to be in a different place than I am living.

I agree I would not be happy in Canada where I had so many freedoms restricted

 

[Fogdog]

I agree I would not be happy in Canada where I had so many freedoms restricted

That right there is the logical fallacy known as the logical extreme. You focus only on a few narrow "freedoms restricted" while ignoring the whole. Logical fallacies are used when a person has no good argument to make, so they make a bad one and dare others to knock them off the podium.

Consider yourself shoved.

Getting back to the original post, it seems that Trump is agitated about this subject. If there was no evidence of wrongdoing on his part, why would he do that?

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

I agree I would not be happy in Canada where I had so many freedoms restricted

We dropped a bit, but are well ahead of America in terms of freedom, when properly measured and defined.

Canada Is No Longer Among The 10 Most Free Countries, A New Ranking Finds

Canada may rank as one of the most powerful countries in the world, but its freedom score is apparently slipping. The Human Freedom Index, which measures global personal and economic freedom, found that over 94% of the world has seen a decline since the onset of COVID-19. Canada, in particular...

www.mtlblog.com

Canada Is No Longer Among The 10 Most Free Countries, A New Ranking Finds

Canada may rank as one of the most powerful countries in the world, but its freedom score is apparently slipping. The Human Freedom Index, which measures global personal and economic freedom, found that over 94% of the world has seen a decline since the onset of COVID-19. Canada, in particular, has dropped six places over the past three years.

The latest data, gathered by the Libertarian-leaning Fraser Institute, puts Canada in 13th place, behind Australia (11) and Norway (11), and ahead of Taiwan (14), Latvia (15) and Japan (16). The U.K. (20) and U.S. (23) also saw sharp declines.

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 represents more freedom, Canada ranked 8.95 for personal freedom, 7.81 for economic freedom and 8.47 for human freedom. Freedom of movement took the biggest hit, going from a consistent 9.8/9.9 over nearly a decade to a startling 6.5 amid the pandemic.

The Index analyzed over 165 nations based on rule of law, safety and security, assembly, freedom of moment, freedom to choose a romantic partner, speech and religion. It also took economic freedom and the ability to make financial decisions into account.

Switzerland, New Zealand and Estonia took the top three spots, while China (152), Saudi Arabia (159), Iran (162), Venezuela (163) and Syria (165) took the bottom five.

"Jurisdictions in the top quartile of freedom enjoy a significantly higher average per capita income ($48,644) than those in other quartiles; the average per capita income in the least free quartile is $11,566," found the Index.

The countries that ranked among the top 10 most free were:

1. Switzerland
2. New Zealand
3. Estonia
4. Denmark
5. Ireland
6. Sweden
7. Iceland
8. Finland
9. Netherlands
10. Luxembourg

The full study can be found here.

 

[cannabineer]

I agree I would not be happy in Canada where I had so many freedoms restricted

List them. I’m curious how many you perceive beyond a fundamentalist read of 2A. I’m wagering that is the holy enchilada.

 

[CunningCanuk]

I agree I would not be happy in Canada where I had so many freedoms restricted

 

[CunningCanuk]

List them. I’m curious how many you perceive beyond a fundamentalist read of 2A. I’m wagering that is the holy enchilada.

You could argue the absence of something like a 2A makes us more free.

 

[cannabineer]

You could argue the absence of something like a 2A makes us more free.

It’s a weird and thorny topic.

 

[printer]

Speaking of SC's,

Senate Judiciary mulls action amid fallout from Durham probe
The Senate Judiciary Committee is pledging to review the actions of former special counsel John Durham following reports of inappropriate handling of his probe into the investigation of former President Trump.
Recent reporting from The New York Times detailed ethical concerns during the probe that prompted numerous staff departures, including concerns over former Attorney General Bill Barr’s involvement in the investigation as well as the decision to proceed to trial with insufficient evidence.

The report also revealed that the Justice Department obscured the nature of the criminal aspect of the probe, failing to disclose that it concerned Trump’s financial dealings rather than misconduct related to the initial investigation into the former president’s ties to Russia.

“These reports about abuses in Special Counsel Durham’s investigation — so outrageous that even his longtime colleagues quit in protest — are but one of many instances where former President Trump and his allies weaponized the Justice Department,” committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said in a statement.

“The Justice Department should work on behalf of the American people, not for the personal benefit of any president. As we wait for the results of ongoing internal reviews, the Senate Judiciary Committee will do its part and take a hard look at these repeated episodes, and the regulations and policies that enabled them, to ensure such abuses of power cannot happen again,” he added.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to request for comment, and Durham and Barr did not respond to the Times story.
According to the report, after connecting with Italian officials who denied any involvement in relaying information for the Russian investigation, Barr expanded Durham’s authority to include criminal prosecution powers after receiving a credible tip about possible financial crimes related to Trump.
But Barr’s vague commentary left it unclear that the criminal component of the investigation was not focused on those who initiated the probe of the former president.

In other cases, subordinates questioned Durham’s efforts to gain evidence on the leader of a George Soros-connected organization and Barr’s public comments about the investigation.

“The evidence shows that we are not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness. There is something far more troubling here,” Barr said in April of 2020.
Staff also bristled as Durham prepared to prosecute Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who represented Democrats as they met with the FBI during the probe into Trump’s Russia dealings. Two employees said Durham didn’t have enough solid evidence to bring charges, and ultimately left the team. Sussmann would later be acquitted in a court defeat for Durham.

Senate Judiciary mulls action amid fallout from Durham probe

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the status of special counsel John Durham’s appointment. The Senate Judiciary Committee is pledging to review the actions of special coun…

thehill.com

 

[Budley Doright]

It’s a weird and thorny topic.

So it would seem :0!

 

[Hotrod2]

The only rights you have are those the constitution and law give you, without either, you have no rights at all. There is no such thing as inherent rights, for dogs, cats and you, rights are a social construct in large societies. The people in your community and country give you your rights, assuming they have them themselves.

So no one in the world has an inherent right to life liberty or the pursuit of happiness?
So my government is the one who gives me my rights? So my community can tell me what I can and cannot do? Who wants to live in a world where a government dictates to the people? That's just back asswards. The government is subservient to the people.