Gun control advocacy, arguments against the 2nd amendment, “war on terror” (while simultaneously financing and arming terrorist groups), is about the business of security companies.

The security business requires that individuals and citizen militias cannot protect themselves.

“Government” has essentially grown to become “Security Corp” and it only wants to grow more. Consequently it loves school shootings and terrorist attacks probably to the point of enabling and manufacturing such events.


Unrestrained “government”, therefore, is essentially a manufacturing industry. More recentlly, the last 3 decades, it has been trying to manufacture your consent to disarm yourselves by the dirtiest means possible. It has no more interest in protecting an American citizen than a foreign citizen.

For an unrestrained security manufacturing industry government Corp any citizen of anywhere is expendable towards those ends.

It does not discriminate. In fact an armed private American citizen is it’s greatest threat. The Consitution itself is it’s greatest threat just as the ‘freeman’ principals of the Magna Carta is and once was.

Every dictatorship has always found ways and flavours to disarm it’s own citizens prior to progressing its interests.

Well obviously “conspiracy to commit fraud against the people” does not fit the bill because every president has lied about many many things.

So the precedent against your claim has been long set.

What's the underlying source of all this fear and paranoia? — Posty McPostface

Ask George Orwell.

Now what was the crux of '1984'?

Was it as Hillary Clinton said in her book that it's crux was the danger of not trusting your government?

Now why would she get that so wrong by flipping it on it's head? I suggest she hoped the younger population would have been too lazy to look it up for themselves and therefore should have blindly trusted her for the leadership role.

It does make one sigh with a certain amount of relief, however, that she is not president.

It is yet to change. It needs to change. I'm prepared to give this new administration the benefit of the doubt at this point.

If Trump's narcissism actually takes the form whereby he wants to be regarded as an historic sort of hero president, so therefore maybe just to personally bathe in his own glory, then it is a better outcome than the previous narcissistic war mongering presidents.

I don't believe a non-narcissist would ever become, or want to strive to be, a national leader. Humanity on the whole is not evolved enough for it.

You're lost brother. Go pick on someone smaller. I'll kick your ass. That's my MO. As I've already said, your posts are an exercise in spotting fallacy in the wild. — creativesoul

Oh dear. You just lost IT right there by pretending to be threatening. Don't look now, your consciousness is showing.

Nope. I'm barely breaching the idea. Is there a problem with your reading comprehension? — creativesoul

Call it "breaching" if you must but for intellectual honesty, therefore personal responsibility for one's proposed ideas, saying "the idea", rather than owning your expressions and instead referring to them as your ideas, just doesn't cut it. It's merely evasiveness in order to form an attack from the shadows.

But your form, your modus operandi, is easily distinguishable regardless.

Disappointed or delighted or merely mildly entertained. Whichever. Mine is category 3.

Keep watching. Be prepared for disappointment.

Facts have not been produced. If Herr Muller had facts that fitted their collusion narrative he wouldn't have lost interest in it and gone instead looking into alleged consensual sex with a hooker.

Müller's investigation has so far resulted in 22 plea deals and indictments. Hardly a farce. — Benkei

That is how thuggery works. Family members are threatened and incomes are threatened.

It is the old mafia tricks.

Right. So suspicious behaviour should be ignored because we cannot link a specific crime with it? I really hope you never get into law enforcement with that idea of what investigations are supposed to accomplish. — Benkei

Yes I am right. That is how it is supposed to work.



Keep watching. You'll see.

He is fumbling all about the place because he knows he is caught. The whole investigation is falling apart and has been for some time.

Ii has been a case of investigating a person rather than investigating a crime.

No crime has been identified.

Crime is what is supposed to be investigated which goes for every individual.

This whole farce, remember, is an "insurance policy" in case Hillary lost the election.

I see what you are mired within now.

No confusion my friend. I've not argued for anyone in particular to pursue anything in particular. You're either dishonest or wrong. Neither is acceptable. The discussion with you is an exercise in spotting fallacy in the wild... I've been ignoring them out loud. — creativesoul

So you have not argued for the legal pursuit of the former candidate in question for fraud?

I would strongly argue that that candidate has committed fraud against the American people. — creativesoul

I see.

I see. So it exists in the ether?

Maybe they will put it before an ethereal judge in an ethereal court supported by ethereal witnesses.

Maybe Trump will be put in an ethereal jail.

yeah right. The testimony, which the then Director of National Intelligence, Clapper, also gave under oath, is a baseless assertion.

Keep it up.

it’s all just a bit inconvenient really, eh. You guys are grasping at hope your bogey man falls.

Poor lot.

Chuck Todd, NBC News; "Does intelligence exist that can definitely answer the following question, whether or not there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?"

James Clapper, Former Director of National Intelligence; "We did not include any evidence in our report, and when I say our, that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report."

Todd; "I understand that but does it exist?"

Clapper; "Not to my knowledge."

My knowledge on history isn't so good but I doubt that early scientists were ''pretending'' to believe in God — TheMadFool

I can see your history is wanting by the reply you had from Πετροκότσυφας.

You doubt that I I don't doubt that. Well that's that covered then.

If I may say so, their works were considered as deciphering the word of God. — TheMadFool

Yeah sure. Their works were considered, therefore by others, as deciphering those same other's already belief-in-god club-minded view. It's to be expected.

And it appears to work insofar as that they don't appear to want to spread their form authoritarianism abroad.

Maybe by respecting their own culture they respect other cultures. If they had no respect for other cultures they may wish to invade beyond Japan.

Does an Imam, for example, generally respect the West?

Merkel's reception of it merely reveals that she is fully on board with Maoism "going forward". (I hate that new expression, used everywhere, "going forward". To disguise backwardness presumably).

However, the same people who once claimed Trump campaign colluded with Putin to impact on the election have since stated no evidence of such has been found.

Bit of a waste of time you posting that, then, really. The same people you thought were telling you the truth have had to retract.

Will you only believe what they used to say and choose to not believe what those same ones are saying now?

How inconvenient, eh!

It maybe interesting to realize that Zuckerberg has never invented anything.

If one googles "lifeLog", which was a program under DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), one may begin to understand why the source code patent was essentially stolen from the actual code writers by the defense department. Zucks has had steady military employment since helping this occur.

LifeLog began in 2002 or 2003 and was cancelled within a month before facebook's launch in Feb 2004.

I think the facebook model would have been seen to be easier to sell publicly and by getting people to willingly subscribe to their own surveillance and state control.

One needs to look into which entities and people ran and run the US patent office. The military and it's various complexes apparently have some wartime inspired right to steal away any patent it itself can use.

It is as if we have never really not lived under anything else other than martial law. I think Facebook is just a pretty face of martial law.

Evil genius, I suppose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_LifeLog

https://www.wired.com/2004/02/pentagon-kills-lifelog-project/

Since Obama received one for simply being black and successfully reading the auto cue that was written of ideals that that administration didn't follow then we all should receive a Nobel peace prize.

I want mine in the form of chocolates. You know? Something useful.

What would be more dangerous than racism would be criminalizing it.

I think the God club was just bigger back then. I think the penalties for not at least pretending to be in the club were quite severe..

I doubt there is such a thing as objectivity.

I just think some folk are cleverer than others at portraying objectivity.

I have to admit to being drawn more towards the cleverer ones when it comes to reading something. Not so important for day to day interactions because other's particular skills become useful for me for carrying out, on a practical level (maybe saving some money in the process), certain actions.

This should not necessarily suggest I am just a user because people usually love explaining to others what they know about something, so it all works out mutually beneficial.

I may have to rewrite my book in order to clear up any misunderstandings.

Regards,

God

This whole "awareness" thing. It is an elusive concept. It appears, from double split experiments involving firing atoms rather than light, that "awareness" still merely produces effects we expect.

This, therefore, does not give any validity to there being any such thing as us being aware.

It appears we really don't have awareness. It appears to be impossible to be objective about experience.

We aren't actually aware. Just some stuff arises. What is the stuff? I don't know.

I would argue that there ought be, if there is not already, laws governing a candidates' behaviour; particularly... laws governing their sincerity in speech. There ought be laws against a candidate knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting their own thought and belief. That would be to misrepresent themselves, their motives, and hence their actual intentions. Misrepresenting oneself to the public, when you're a candidate for public office, is a clear case of committing fraud against the American people. — creativesoul

You do not even know there is such a law and then you argue for a government agency to legally pursue something you acknowledge you do not even know whether it is something they can legally pursue.

That's confusion right there.

You're missing something very very important to consider. Voters do not write the laws which govern political behaviour. Voters could change the entire landscape and end up with the same problem if the laws are not changed accordingly. — creativesoul

Are you advocating for law change with regard to this thread topic?

If so, then it is really an admission that a law body should not be involving itself into this circumstance. If law somehow requires change to fit one's argument as it stands now then in as it stands now should not involve the law.

It's politics. That is all it is. It is political strategy to sway voters for the midterms and usurping state powers for this purpose.

There are no laws that I'm aware of that are enforced when a candidate lies to the American people. There are laws that are enforced when banks lie, when retailers lie, when manufacturer lie, when drug companies lie, when investment firms lie, etc. In short, there are all sorts of laws regarding committing fraud against people. There used to be more. There are no such laws concerning a lying candidate.

There ought be — creativesoul

But there is no law, I think, that makes a case of a bank worker's or bank executive's consensual sex life PRIOR to them even becoming a bank worker or bank executive. That is the only equivalence I see there. Again possibly inconvenient of me. A bank executive has the right to more or less indicate "f**k off" to any law body looking into such personal and private matters. A way to say "f**k off" is to obfuscate. I recommend obfuscation to nosy Stalinist tactics.

The thread is not about how laws apply to extra-marital affairs - in general. It is not about a consensual sexual relationship involving Trump. It is about the effects/affects of language use - in general - with particular attention being paid to cases where candidates deliberately and knowingly misrepresent their own thought and belief as a means to lead the public to believe things about them that are not true. That is committing fraud against the American people. The people are buying into false pretense. The extra-marital affair part was invoked by you. While it is covered by what I've been discussing, it's not the only thing that is. — creativesoul

The thread is about what is introduced into the thread. What is introduced IS the thread. There is the opining post. But the opening post is not the thread.

The "effects/affects" of language use is predicated upon whether it was ever legally appropriate for a government agent to involve themselves, for public consumption using the force of special powers, to look into the consensual sexual affairs of a private citizen. Not a president. Not a person holding any public office.

Consequently no answers are appropriate to be heard. And I argue that wrong answers are AS appropriate as no answers, and I think this will be how it gets legally resolved because this "case" (it is not a "legal" case, remember) is merely about a negative popularity contest of usual partisan political strategy.

It is not a "legal case" because no law has been identified.

This will be my only attempt to get this conversation going in the direction it ought be, according to the main thrust of the thread. Laws governing the behaviour of folk running for public office are not applicable to those who are not. "Equal under the law" is irrelevant to the thread. That is about laws that apply to everyone's behaviour. In particular, it is about applying those laws to everyone equally. We are not discussing those laws. — creativesoul

Well, how convenient. And how inconvenient it was of me to press you on what you yourself introduced regarding the different laws for different circumstances. This is a law argument, after all. Lawyers are involved with this case.

So now, apparently, it is NOT about a different law for a different circumstance but about "laws" plural that apply to "everyone's" behavior.

So what is this "everyone's" laws that are applied to ONE area of behavior? You know? The behavior which is the discussion point of this entire thread?

"We", however, are apparently not discussing law or laws now. Need I inconveniently remind you that even within this thread's title is the name Giuliani. Yes, that is a LAW-yer.

Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, and James Comey, come to mind when they let HSBC Bank off the hook in 2013 with a fine estimated to cost HSBC bank 5 weeks profit. They were fined for laundering money for Islamic Terrorist organizations and for laundering money for Mexican drug cartels.

This profiteering extinguished hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and brought whole countries to their knees.

To be more accurate: not make one's empathy also their politics.

Well yes.

This also brings to mind the ideal that states one should not make empathy one's politics.

Say a candidate says 'X', but does not believe that 'X' is true. Further suppose that 'X' is something that a very large swathe of the population holds as of the utmost importance regarding which candidate will get their vote. The candidate is quite aware of all this, and in fact, s/he has asserted 'X' for no other reason than to acquire the votes of the people in question here(of those particular voters).

I would strongly argue that that candidate has committed fraud against the American people — creativesoul

When placed with my immediately prior response this appears therefore to suggest every candidate and holder of any political office has committed fraud and is committing fraud.

For example, many folk hold moral values, such as abortion and other civil rights of the utmost importance. If a candidate for office holds contradictory values to a voter, then that voter has every right to know about that, for those are the kinds of things that many people use to decide how to vote. — creativesoul

This has never stopped any politician from saying one thing and then adopting the opposite position when it comes to agreements with other official players.

There is also no law against this. So, as I have already alluded, leave things to voters and keep politicians and government agents from weaponizing their politics through usurping the laws which are supposed to treat all citizens equal under them.

On a personal level, one could argue that it's none of anyone's business if someone running for office has had multiple extra-marital affairs replete with non-disclosure agreements as a means to keep them secret. On another level, one could argue that it is most certainly the business of the American people to know about the people running for office. How else does the public form their opinion about them? — creativesoul

The public "forms opinions" also from mere opinions and falsehoods. It is very common that falsehoods come from government agents involving themselves in partisan politics.

If all you meant was "equal under the law" then we've no disagreement. Keep in mind here that not all law applies to all people. Some laws apply to the financial district. Others apply to business owner responsibility. Others still apply to elected officials. — creativesoul

Feel free, then, to define which actual law it is under which an agent of the government demands answers for the allegation that we have been discussing.