You think I’m lying about making that assumption? I love how you convince yourself of nonsense. It seems so easy.

Wow. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Grenell, just declassified the list of officials who “unmasked” Michael Flynn. Included are ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, James Comey, Obama’s chief of staff Denis McDonough, and none other than Vice-President Joe Biden. I assume Obama was aware, and if not, he was an idiot. Either way, this has political hitjob written all over it.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020-05-13%20ODNI%20to%20CEG%20RHJ%20(Unmasking).pdf

Well, this is a new concept. I spoke with three State Supreme Court attorneys, and they all agreed it had never been said before, so Im not suprised youd find it novel. It is only one sentence.

Shooting Anyone to Death Infringes on their 2A Rights

cheers )

That’s true, I’ve never heard it before. I don’t know why anyone would bother saying it.

Oh dear. You’re going to wag your finger because I posted a tweet and asked a question? What an odd waste of effort.

It’s not out of the question to suspect that the most powerful man in the universe is privy to more information than you or I.

I think it revolves around what you think the Self is. What is at the center of this universe? Who or what perceives it? Where does the Self end and where does the universe begin? It seems to me these questions are either unanswerable or completely avoided.

I cannot for the life of me see how solipsism is even tenable. The solipsist must make the silly assumption that he, The Self, is the center of the universe, which is of his own mind’s creation. Meanwhile others, who are the features of his universe, can watch him grow old and die, bury him, while the universe remains unaffected.

I wasn’t aware the second amendment gave anyone the right to shoot whatever they want. Either way it just isn’t true that the second amendment infringes on another’s right to bear arms. In fact it’s the opposite.

How did I display sensitivity?

I believe in "natural rights", but only as moral reminders or as easily digestible concepts for every day conversation, not as a features of the natural world. I believe it is just and moral to refrain from harming someone, censoring him, and stealing from him, but I do not believe he possesses any set of objects called "rights" that I shall not infringe upon.

This gives an opening to anyone who would seek to undermine these and other moral commitments to our fellow man, so I think the believer of "natural rights" should also ground them in tradition and trial and error, as commitments that have withstood the test of time.

Yes, you guys are over-sensitive to whatever phrases the media sensationalizes for you, and utterly forgetful or blind to anything else he says. I am not.

Strange thing. Attorneys who dont know very much often say the DoI is not a legal document, and insist it is true, which just goes to show how awful the USA education system is. In preface, it should be stated, it was violation of rights that was the justification of declaring the USA independent, specifically, right to life by not supplying enough drinking water in Boston, leading to the Boston Tea Party (even the current 'Tea Party' is grossly unaware for this). Thus the DoI is a legal document, firstly, because it defines the authority the USA has to rule itself.

It is a clam of separation, sure, but not an act of constituting a government. It is a statement of ideals, not law. It’s not just attorneys who say this, but also Supreme Court judges. “ The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts” (Scalia).

Sounds plausible to me.

No, I just have no clue what you’re talking about.

It would be under the guise of impeaching a former officer.

I’m not sure.

Sure they can.

I mean, I agree. I believe in natural rights. But the problem is governments can and do limit these rights. So perhaps grounding rights on some solid ground might be a more practical approach to seeing them adopted and protected rather than infringed.

Wouldn’t that be something? If trump can be impeached for next to nothing, something of a watergate magnitude would warrant Obama’s impeachment.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document, so I think it had less to do with law and more to do with refuting the power of the British parliament in the rhetorical style of the time. I do agree that it was a mistake to ground rights in theology.

Mere presence, then, as excuse and justification for anything, is hollow and a sham.

I agree. He did nothing wrong. I was just saying how his actions could be construed as worthy of investigation, which could account for the length of time it took to lay charges.

Trump knows something. More info soon?

I don’t know. She was one of the shooter’s boss. But the DA rightfully recused herself. The other DA who recused himself thought the father/son were innocent, claiming citizens arrests were legal. The guys filming from the dash cam were also in hot pursuit of Aubrey, suspecting Him of burglary. But yeah it needs to be investigated by the DOJ because there are too many relationships there.

Yeah the father worked as a DA investigator for over 20 years and retired in 2019. Conflict of interest.

I suspect that it just takes a while to investigate these things, for instance the video of Aubrey snooping around a construction site, which is odd for a jogger, and the shooting, which could be construed as self-defense. A hate crime and cover-up? I doubt it. More likely just stupidity.

Though there may have been “missed opportunities”, unlike some countries, these volunteers didn’t sign bad contracts or purchase any crap.

What year did those masks expire in?

Only human beings can shut down such services. I think it’s a grave error to blame a virus for the choices only human beings can make.

Humans create purpose. Meaning and purpose does not arrive by any other force. So you’ll have to create a purpose for your own life or adopt someone else’s.

taking the asymmetry into account, the lack of joy or pleasure isn't inherently bad. You may disagree with this premise.

I suppose the presence of suffering isn’t inherently bad either. Running a marathon or getting a tattoo aren't necessarily pleasurable experiences.

Either way one cannot prevent the suffering of those not born like he cannot prevent the suffering of those who are dead—they do not exist.

Basically a repeat of side 1 of the debate I posted a video of just above your post. Not surprising seeing as it's the same person who wrote this paper.

Yeah I didn’t see that. You outlined the opposing ideas accurately, I think, and it’s a very interesting dichotomy. It’s just a bloody shame the stakes are so high.

I just think the unintended consequences could be far greater with the lockdown approach, for instance they are predicting an extra 1.5 million TB deaths due to lockdown (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-lockdown-could-lead-nearly-15-million-extra-tb-deaths/), and famines of “ biblical proportions.

It is also a fact that Flynn has been trying to withdraw his guilty plea citing government vindictiveness. Given newly released documents this appears to be the case. You would condemn a war hero for treason premised on selective information.

The author suspects that there is no stopping the virus, and any lockdown is simply kicking the can down the road so to speak. He speculated that in a year no matter what the measures taken the figures will be similar.

Flynn replaced his legal team last year and has been trying to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing he is the victim of misconduct by prosecutors. In light of new documents this appears to be the case. His treatment by the Mueller team is an utter disgrace.

That might be the case, though I believe the case against Flynn was politicized, not the other way about.

An interesting piece in The Lancet.

The Invisible Pandemic

Many countries (and members of their press media) have marvelled at Sweden's relaxed strategy in the face of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: schools and most workplaces have remained open, and police officers were not checking one's errands in the street. Severe critics have described it as Sweden sacrificing its (elderly) citizens to quickly reach herd immunity.1 The death toll has surpassed our three closest neighbours, Denmark, Norway, and Finland, but the mortality remains lower than in the UK, Spain, and Belgium.2

It has become clear that a hard lockdown does not protect old and frail people living in care homes—a population the lockdown was designed to protect.3 Neither does it decrease mortality from COVID-19, which is evident when comparing the UK's experience with that of other European countries.
• View related content for this article

PCR testing and some straightforward assumptions indicate that, as of April 29, 2020, more than half a million people in Stockholm county, Sweden, which is about 20–25% of the population, have been infected (Hansson D, Swedish Public Health Agency, personal communication). 98–99% of these people are probably unaware or uncertain of having had the infection; they either had symptoms that were severe, but not severe enough for them to go to a hospital and get tested, or no symptoms at all. Serology testing is now supporting these assumptions.4

These facts have led me to the following conclusions. Everyone will be exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and most people will become infected. COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire in all countries, but we do not see it—it almost always spreads from younger people with no or weak symptoms to other people who will also have mild symptoms. This is the real pandemic, but it goes on beneath the surface, and is probably at its peak now in many European countries. There is very little we can do to prevent this spread: a lockdown might delay severe cases for a while, but once restrictions are eased, cases will reappear. I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in 1 year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken.

Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect, but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future —it will not prevent them. Admittedly, countries have managed to slow down spread so as not to overburden health-care systems, and, yes, effective drugs that save lives might soon be developed, but this pandemic is swift, and those drugs have to be developed, tested, and marketed quickly. Much hope is put in vaccines, but they will take time, and with the unclear protective immunological response to infection, it is not certain that vaccines will be very effective.

In summary, COVID-19 is a disease that is highly infectious and spreads rapidly through society. It is often quite symptomless and might pass unnoticed, but it also causes severe disease, and even death, in a proportion of the population, and our most important task is not to stop spread, which is all but futile, but to concentrate on giving the unfortunate victims optimal care.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31035-7/fulltext#%20

He was railroaded. This was just the first domino to fall.

Wow. The case against Michael Flynn has been dropped! Finally some justice.

https://apnews.com/ae1ad252bb13490db2ceffc5d17b6d92

Incoming meltdown.

I get the unattractive part, but shameful?

Perhaps some people are proud when they get caught in a sex act or must speak of their sex life in any detail, but I wager the common response is shame and embarrassment.

SAGE? I bet they came up with the acronym before they came up with the name. Such is the hubris of experts.

More often than not sex is unattractive and shameful for anyone but the participants. Therefor it should be a private affair.