[ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
spike66 at att.net
Wed May 11 02:53:55 UTC 2016
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 7:05 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:42 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:
>> …You answered my question John. You are OK with the president having the ultimate security clearance.
>…Who in the world wouldn't be OK with that? In a finite population somebody has to be at the end of the security granting chain…
Everyone must answer to the law. We have a review process. If laws are broken, a review takes place, a recommendation from an agency such as the FBI can recommend indictment of anyone, including a sitting president. The senate takes action.
> By that reasoning Nixon was justified in gathering intelligence on possible rivals.
Don't be silly. No security clearance no matter how
high authorizes you to commit crimes…
>… it just authorizes you to hear secrets…
And keep them? From the government?
>… And burglary is a crime but getting a blowjob is not, or at least it shouldn't be…
It isn’t. Perjury is. John do you think it was Ken Starr who outed Bill? It was Monica who did that.
>>…The Senate a ACQUIT TED Bill Clinton of perjury…
> I see. Does that mean he didn’t lie?
>…It means the Senate didn't give a shit if he lied or not
because he never should have been asked the question…
OK so what should have happened when the blue dress had Bill’s DNA then? He was a top clearance holder. You give up a lot of privacy rights when you hold one of those. John you are aware of who it was who revealed Bill’s activities to start with, ja? Monica was talking to at least five of her girlfriends in public places about the incident. The National Enquirer ilk “news” agencies were already reporting it. Bill denied it, that was the end of it. Until… she said she had DNA evidence. So again please, what did Ken Starr do wrong? How was this not his business? Would not he be part of a coverup had he done nothing? What of those who did the DNA test? By this time, perhaps a moderate roomful of people knew what happened.
Pretending this was about a blowjob is really getting tiresome John. Clinton went on trial for perjury. There was at that time no exception that I know of for a particular topic.
>… It means the Senate was acting like a jury just as the constitution says it should and it means the Senate was OK with the idea of Jury Nullification. I'm OK with Jury Nullification too, I though all Libertarians were…
I am OK with that too John. No worries. I don’t agree Bill shouldn’t have faced impeachment for perjury however. We need to keep reminding presidents that if they commit a crime, the senate outranks them.
>… I said "well yes, I believe in Jury Nullification because..." John K Clark
That’s what I would have said too. If pressed I would give the example of some states which have laws against using firearms in self-defense. Of course those laws are absurd, and if I were on a jury where someone gave some sleazy perp half a round of ammunition delivered at faster than the speed of sound, of course I would vote to dismiss that case, vote to acquit the defendant, regardless of what stupid unconstitutional state or local law felt the homeowner was at fault.
I would probably be dismissed, which is not the goal. I have always wanted to be on a jury, but I always answer their questions honestly and completely, speaking in grammatically correct sentences. For some unknown reason, the defense attorney always dismisses me first.
If I may return to the relevance of this entire discussion, I had a theory to share which you might find entertaining, one which might explain everything that happened.
Do let me start it in a new post, since it has more to do with a current relevant situation however. Stand by please.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat