but Queen Elizabeth wrote about how she and her Father the King were nearly killed during one of the strike — Maw

Elizabeth always sticks to her script. Have you not noticed that?

Now why is it, do you think, that Royal family members never appear as soldiers on the front line? Or any Rothschild family member for that matter (actual surname Bauer).

OK so what of the people who voted for Trump? "Tremendous?"

The right to have an opinion and then expressing it is what is meant by freedom of speech. — raza

I my opinion, the words 'without interference' in article 19 in the universal declaration of human rights means without being insulted for doing so, like being called a 'clueless idiot', hence the confusion.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

like being called a 'clueless idiot — FreeEmotion

Saying this doesn't interfere with another saying something else.

Being "insulted" doesn't interfere with your speech. And anyway, "insult" is a personal sensation or feeling of the one whom apparently feels insulted.

Now why is it, do you think, that Royal family members never appear as soldiers on the front line? Or any Rothschild family member for that matter (actual surname Bauer). — raza

You said a few posts ago that Buckingham Palace should have been heavily targeted in order to destroy British morale. Now you are saying that the Royal Family should have been on the front line? You don't see the conflict around those two positions?

And Jack Bauer is always on the front lines.

At 9 He Lost His Mom to Gang Violence. At 12 He Lost His Dad to Trump’s Immigration Policies.

When Brayan was 9 years old, in 2016, his mother was brutally raped and murdered in Honduras. Her body was found in a septic tank. When Brayan saw her in the coffin, she was so disfigured that he couldn’t recognize her. She had been seven months pregnant. That’s when his nightmares began, his fear of the dark. His mother’s boyfriend had abused her and was arrested in the killing, but he claimed it was a gang killing and was set free. He threatened Brayan and his father, José, so José vowed to bring Brayan to safety in the United States. The opportunity to travel there safely arrived this year.

Border Patrol officers refused to even glance at the notarized letters from lawyers making his case, José said. He was jailed for 20 days, asked to sign papers in English he did not understand and was deported to Honduras. Brayan was flown to a shelter for children in Maryland.

Brayan is now one of the more than 2,000 children — a conservative estimate — who have been separated from their families as part of the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance crackdown on undocumented immigration. On June 26, a federal district judge in San Diego ordered that those families must be reunited within 30 or fewer days — even though a Justice Department lawyer acknowledged there was no formal procedure to reunite families.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Being "insulted" doesn't interfere with your speech. And anyway, "insult" is a personal sensation or feeling of the one whom apparently feels insulted. — raza

Being insulted, and do not mean "insulted" does interfere with free expression of opinions. You are discussing a public figure among his supporters and haters. You call the public figure an idiot. Do you think his supporters will speak freely? When I feel that my views are going to be attacked, and in a most impolite way, I no longer feel free to speak. That is just my opinion.

I would like to make sure anyone could express their opinion without having to feel insulted at the response, in any case in any group that I am in. Because they are in the minority, Trump supporters will not be speaking freely, but I thought the idea was not to make minorities extremely uncomfortable.


Insult is a personal sensation? Sure, but once we know that what we say causes a certain personal sensation in another person, we are expected to stop.

When I feel that my views are going to be attacked, and in a most impolite way, I no longer feel free to speak. That is just my opinion — FreeEmotion

You merely feel you no longer feel free to speak. If you no longer speak then that is an action you choose.

You choose to continue to speak or you choose to discontinue. You are exercising free speech either way.

And "public figures" should not be immune from being referred to as idiots merely because they appear on media.

but I thought the idea was not to make minorities extremely uncomfortable. — FreeEmotion

There is no group rights and nor should there be.

Of course a so-called "member" of a "minority" group should not be protected from merely feeling uncomfortable about someone else's words.

There should be no such special rights for someone just because of their skin color or religion or ethnicity within a nation's laws.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence — Benkei

More fake news from those wretched Republicans.

There should be no such special rights for someone just because of their skin color or religion or ethnicity within a nation's laws. — raza

I think the minority member's argument would be that they ought be protected from discrimination based upon their minority status and laws need to be passed to that effect.

I think the minority member's argument would be that they ought be protected from discrimination based upon their minority status and laws need to be passed to that effect — Hanover

In what way is he or she a "minority member" of this forum anymore than I am based on my views?

In what way is he or she a "minority member" of this forum anymore than I am based on my views? — raza

Hanover is referencing what you said here: "Of course a so-called 'member' of a 'minority' group should not be protected from merely feeling uncomfortable about someone else's words," you goober.

Russian company indicted by Mueller shows up in court

Mueller served Concord Management.

Concord Management responded by showing up.

Mueller's team was forced to argue that their service of the indictment was improper in order to delay proceedings.

Mueller never expected this Russian company to respond and now Mueller is trying to step away from the case he invented.

A federal judge denied Mueller’s request to delay the court date, so he decided not to show up.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/05/mueller-would-prefer-not-to.php?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=sw&utm_campaign=sw

Hanover is referencing what you said here: "Of course a so-called 'member' of a 'minority' group should not be protected from merely feeling uncomfortable about someone else's words," you goober — Maw

Are you his keeper? Is this the goon squad?

Maybe do a better job of comprehending what members in this forum are saying, especially when they are directly replying to what you write?

Maybe do a better job of comprehending what members in this forum are saying, especially when they are directly replying to what you write? — Maw

Your opinion on this matter is noted and dismissed. Thanks for your time.

That's hilarious coming from a goober who claimed that the Nazi's did not bomb Buckingham Palace due to some idiosyncratic conspiracy theory, and who then adjusted his argument several times only to eventually fall silent after being proven wrong multiple times.

As long as you're having fun. That's the main thing.

So what do you conclude from that?

So what do you conclude from that? — Benkei

My conclusion is that an indictment isn't a guilty verdict.

There's a saying that says you can indict a ham sandwich,

I don't think anyone ever argued that being the case though, which would make your post uninteresting. Fortunately, there was something interesting there that made me agree that it was a tactical error to indict these parties due to opening up the possibility for discovery procedures that could interfere with ongoing investigations.

Nevertheless, there's consensus within the US intelligence community and GCHQ that the Russians interfered in the US elections. Since we're not privy to the details, we have to decide whether to trust that narrative. Considering the FBI, CIA, DHS, ODNI and the (Republican controlled) Senate that checks them all agree that Russia did meddle the likelihood of a conspiracy spanning all these different organisations becomes too small to seriously maintain.

That's not to say that there aren't a lot of open questions left as to who did what and why.

Fortunately, there was something interesting there that made me agree that it was a tactical error to indict these parties due to opening up the possibility for discovery procedures that could interfere with ongoing investigations — Benkei

Therefore, what you are effectively saying, is that following the law is not necessary as a way of getting to the truth as to whether any laws were broken,

and that what IS necessary is the employment of "tactics" toward getting a result of an impression someone is guilty of something.

A verdict without DUE process seems to be the goal of these tactics.

Therefore, what you are effectively saying, is that following the law is not necessary as a way of getting to the truth as to whether any laws were broken, — raza

That's not what I said at all. I said indictments of persons related to an ongoing investigation can interfere with that investigation due to the possibility of discovery procedures. So it's a tactical error to indict to early when there are still aspects of your investigation that you want to keep hidden until the investigation is finished.

For instance, if an undercover agent manages to collect information allowing the investigation to progress, then indicting persons too early could reveal the use of an undercover agent through discovery procedures (not directly but it can usually be inferred). Revealing his existence could make that method of investigation useless. So it's tactically unsound and seems to be the reason Müller's team is trying to delay the court case.

and that what IS necessary is the employment of "tactics" toward getting a result of an impression someone is guilty of something.

A verdict without DUE process seems to be the goal of these tactics. — raza

This is just baseless conjecture. In fact, it's so incomprehensible to get from the article you linked to this, I don't even know where to point where you're going wrong.

It seems you've decided Trump is not guilty of consorting with the Russians and that anything suggesting the opposite is political manoeuvring. Even if the Müller investigation was politically motivated, that doesn't change the fact Trump could be guilty. Think about it, starting something that has no merit whatsoever for purely political reasons will backfire. It doesn't make political sense to investigate if there isn't a reasonable ground to start doing so. And given the consensus the Russians did meddle in the elections, it is important to get to the bottom of it and it is logical to start looking in the parties that - assuming the meddling was successful - benefitted from that meddling. That's not to say they are guilty. I think it's quite possible the Russians decided they'd rather have Trump than Clinton and acted independently or at least didn't collude with Trump directly.

And even if there were collusion we also need to ask ourselves to what extent it's illegal? I mean, if I hire a bunch of whizzkids to influence people through advertisements, stories and (fake) news, I'm not doing anything illegal. Replacing "whizzkids" with "KGB" doesn't make it prima facie illegal, it just doesn't play well with patriotic Americans if this were the case I suppose.

In the meantime, the Müller investigation has already uncovered illegal acts by several people that surround Trump and this certainly reflects badly on him. So that's a win by itself regardless of whether this eventually leads to Trump or not. And we shouldn't be enticed by this to think Trump is guilty by association either.

What other facts Müller will unearth remains to be seen and we'll see how his cases will hold up in court. So really, the only sensible thing to say with regard to the Müller investigation is: wait and see. And that goes for both sides of the aisle.

Now why is it, do you think, that Royal family members never appear as soldiers on the front line? — raza

Pretty sure Prince Harry did.

I said indictments of persons related to an ongoing investigation can interfere with that investigation due to the possibility of discovery procedures — Benkei

How on earth could such a well resourced make such a tactical error merely for those reasons?

They know what is due process therefore would have taken discovery into account.

It appears that the tactic was employed because they were confident the indicted party would not bother to respond on account of the fact they know they cannot be physically got at.

Pretty sure Prince Harry did. — Michael

You forgot to add lol at the end there.

I don't even know where to point where you're going wrong — Benkei

Can't point to where I am wrong?

A true statement indeed.

Also, if Mueller's tactic was merely some technical error then he can hardly be trusted as to his competence.

One requires due process to also protect from the dangers of incompetence.

Incompetent law enforcers is a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands.