Comey willing to testify before Intelligence Committee in public

a reply to: knoxie

I wonder what god given rights he thinks are being infringed? what are God-given rights? lol

Wow... I'm not sure how to even answer that? You think rights come from... where? The government?

As far as infringement... every single gun control law or ordinance that has ever been implemented inside the United States is in violation of the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't believe in God, so it's a real problem to say I have God given rights. It essentially says that my rights are backed by nothing.

We could take it literally, that we're endowed with rights by our creator, which would be our parents. But if we walk that backwards, eventually we end up at humans who weren't born from humans, in which case they wouldn't have rights. Also, if my parents endow me with rights, they can also take them away, which would authorize the concept of the older generation being allowed to infringe on the younger generation.

Having rights could simply be a property of being alive, but our government only recognizes limited rights (and many seek to make it no rights) for citizens of other countries. That would imply that your nation has some say in what rights you have.

If the nation can determine what is and isn't a right, then it means rights come from government. And exist on a whim. It's nothing more than a law for self protection.

a reply to: Aazadan

You can look at rights as being inherent, or you can look at them as being God-given. But to laughingly ask what a 'God-given right' is implied to me he felt the government gave out rights. As you so aptly post, if the government gives them, the government can take them... and they become a privilege instead of a right.

TheRedneck

Is Comey's public testimony still a "go"? If so, when?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I wasn't aware god was at the writing of the constitution. Nor does it say anywhere in the bible that God's children have the right to blow holes in each other with fully automatic rifles.

In fact I don't believe god gave us any rights just rules to live by. Then the government's of the world took those rules and made laws around them.

It was man that decreed that we have the right to bare arms in order to defend ourselves against the creation of a tyrannical government. God's rules had no part in that and if I'm not mistaken the son of god was against violence of any kind or am I missing something.

a reply to: Aazadan
ur American right? Lol shows what u know about ur own country...the FBI director has a 10 year term so that he remains independent and outside of politics. Obama didn't fire W Bush's FBI director...no Trump is just entirely outside of normal governing behavior.

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
a reply to: Aazadan
ur American right? Lol shows what u know about ur own country...the FBI director has a 10 year term so that he remains independent and outside of politics. Obama didn't fire W Bush's FBI director...no Trump is just entirely outside of normal governing behavior.

Clinton fired his in 1993....the only other president to have done such.

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
a reply to: Aazadan
ur American right? Lol shows what u know about ur own country...the FBI director has a 10 year term so that he remains independent and outside of politics. Obama didn't fire W Bush's FBI director...no Trump is just entirely outside of normal governing behavior.

en.wikipedia.org...

Comey - 4 years
Mueller - 12 years
Freeh - 8 years
Sessions - 5.5 years
Webster - 9 years
Kelley - 4.5 years
Hoover - Lets not go there.

Just because the appointment is made for 10 years doesn't mean that that's what they're going to serve. They've all either retired, been asked to resign, or been fired, which are all ultimately the same thing... the President asking them to go.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
You can look at rights as being inherent, or you can look at them as being God-given. But to laughingly ask what a 'God-given right' is implied to me he felt the government gave out rights. As you so aptly post, if the government gives them, the government can take them... and they become a privilege instead of a right.

TheRedneck

I think we need to settle on one or the other as part of defining rights.

Are they internal? Something innate to humans (or perhaps more broadly, all living creatures)
Are they external? Something that only exist due to a collective agreement?

I would say that rights have to be external, because rights only exist when they're recognized. Furthermore, there is no special classification of any benefit that defines it as a right or privilege. The only real definition is that a right is harder to take away legally. Not that it can't be done by oppressive regimes, but that our courts make it harder to do.

If rights were internal, it would be something we could naturally observe as a part of the human condition. Yet rights exist outside of merely ourselves. Our right to privacy for example protects documents we've written (or it's supposed to), yet those documents are just collections of bits and pieces of paper.

The flip side of this, is that rights which are internal are automatically finite. There are only so many pieces of humanity which we are all supposed to be able to partake in. Not out of any have/have not hierarchy, but because there are only so many things you can describe. Privacy, protection, property, procreation, etc... but if rights are external, then in theory any action in the world could be a right... while codified rights are limited, the potential for greater human rights in the future is infinite.

Of course, this also means that if rights are external... they're coming from somewhere. In my previous post I ruled out a creator due to belief in God, and parents due to it implying we can lose rights arbitrarily. I think my answer is that rights are simply the basic consensus on which we build a society. That can expand or contract over time, but it should generally expand. They express the basic desires of the citizens. In turn, those citizens form government and enforce those rights. If a right is taken away, it's not the government taking it away, but society in general.

I think we're seeing this in action right now with the 4th where people are truly apathetic towards information security. For as much press as the 2nd gets, that it's going to be taken... they have a large vocal community of supporters. I believe the 4th won't last nearly as long and the 1st isn't far behind.

Comey's not stupid, even if he pretends to be so he doesn't have to do his job. He's doing this to protect himself, its a veiled threat to those he has dirt on.... Trump but even more so Clinton and a number of DC politicos on both sides of the aisle all in league with each other. I think he's worried and is saying that if he goes down, he's taking everybody with him. The guy is compromised and needs to be in jail and I wish he would spill the beans and start ratting everyone out. And he should be worried, because Trump was smart to take him down the way he did and that took him off guard.

a reply to: TheRedneck>>>. Comey is puzzling. I believe he re opened the Clinton investigation at the end of the campaign, or at least went through the motions pretending to because he was forced to and there were those who thought the case would explode and Hillary was toast. Before then he covered for her and again went through the motions of making an actual investigation. So he never wanted to see Hillary exposed and then he went along with this sham of a story of Trump colluding with the Russians and the Russians somehow hacking our election. That right there is reason enough to have him be thrown out of his office and tossed down the FBI steps head first. Its the deep state protecting their own and reacting harshly to an outside like Trump who they see as a threat or at least an annoyance and an obstacle to their own plans. I say Comey is puzzling because he seems to play both sides of the fence, is not stupid but acts awfully dumb and incompetent. Make this creep a martyr for getting fired? LOL, no. The more you look at him and into his dealings, the less you like him and the less you trust him. Say what you want about Trump, but his firing Comey was actually smart and a positive.

a reply to: conscientiousobserver

I wasn't aware god was at the writing of the constitution. Nor does it say anywhere in the bible that God's children have the right to blow holes in each other with fully automatic rifles.

You're trying to inject religious dogma into a philosophical issue.

'God-given' as opposed to 'government-given' does not mean alliance with the Bible. It means the rights are inherent in man existing and cannot be removed by others. I, for example, believe I have a God-given right to speak my opinion. That means no government can take that away from me, because no government gave it. The right of free speech is mine simply for being born human.

I do not have a right to drive a car. I have the privilege to drive a car at the pleasure of the DMV. At any time, that privilege can be revoked by suspending my drivers license.

Also, nowhere does anyone have the right to 'blow holes in each other.' That's a false narrative. The right to keep and bear arms is not the same as a right to attack others either those arms.

In fact I don't believe god gave us any rights just rules to live by. Then the government's of the world took those rules and made laws around them.

Then you are owned by the government, and are at their mercy.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Kali74

Hillary's emails are in the public domain now aren't they? How many people do you suppose are combing through them? Months later and... crickets.

I think you are referring to the Podesta emails.

Her private server emails are not in the public domain.

Wednesday May 31, 2017

James Comey has been given the "green light" by special council Robert Mueller to testify in open (public) session next week.
Source: www.nbcnews.com...

As a civilian, I wonder if he'll "let it all hang out"? One thing's for sure.. One side will believe him, and one side won't.

a reply to: carewemust

He still cannot talk about anything that is of a classified nature.
Part of what they talked about no doubt.

Agreed... side will believe him one won't.