placeholder

Well, in fact there are all sorts of limitations on speech. For some, criminal penalties apply. One such summed up example is, "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater" Another limitation is fraudulent commercial claims. Here civil penalties apply. Or libel or slander. Members of Congress are protected from any sort of penalties in regards to their speech so long as they say it while actually physically present in the Senate or House. Outside of those precincts they operate under the same limitations as does any other citizen. There are other ways free speech is limited. For instance wealthy parties can stifle criticism or unpleasant revelations by bringing lawsuits against those with more limited financial means. I can think of one particularly prominent party who has a history of abusing the legal system by this method. Against those persons who persist anyway despite the attempt at discouragement, his lawsuits have a history of repeatedly failing.

There's specific evidence in this article that these so called "whistleblowers" are just purveyors of conspiracy theories. They were not privy to inside information. Yet you offer no evidence to contradict the claim that this is a fake investigation.

We have hard proof provided by Fox itself that its hosts lied about 2020 election fraud. And Fox News is the best? Are slogans and catchphrases all you've got?

First off, especially for people who drive only short distances daily, the battery will almost certainly outlast their ownership. In addition, as battery prices come down, and we're already seeing that with sodium based batteries, longevity should improve as we;;. And there's this: HOW LONG SHOULD AN ELECTRIC CAR’S BATTERY LAST? The bottom line here is that if it’s properly cared for, an electric car’s battery pack should last for well in excess of 100,000 miles before its range becomes restricted. Consumer Reports estimates the average EV battery pack’s lifespan to be at around 200,000 miles, which is nearly 17 years of use if driven 12,000 miles per year. https://www.myev.com/research/ev-101/how-long-should-an-electric-cars-battery-last

As an organization NATO isn't involved. But individual nations that happen to be members of NATO are, as is their right. There's no rule saying that a member of NATO can't give aid to nations that aren't NATO members.

Why the "quotes"? Are you claiming that the documents showing that Fox News Hosts didn't believe the claims of voting fraud are counterfeit. Not even Fox News, which produced those documents, is claiming that. You seem to be operating on automatic pilot.

Because Russia is clearly a likely future threat to Nato members as well.

Another mind reader who knows Thunberg's motivation.

There may be more to this story but if you had bothered to read the story you would have your answer.

These so-called whistleblowers have only conspiracy theories to peddle. No first hand testimony to relate about alleged private information or classified information.

Utterly false. The Durham investigation was a criminal investigation. It was founded to look for a criminal conspiracy in the Justice Dept. against Donald Trump in the Russia investigation.. Both William Barr and John Durham explicitly stated that they weren't satisfied with Inspector General Horowitz conclusion that while there was certainly evidence of foul-ups in the Justice Dept. investigation of the Russia investigation, no criminal intent or activity was found to be at play. Barr authorized Durham to re-investigate. Durham utterly failed to come up with any evidence of criminal activity or intent at the Justice Dept. even though the pair of them even went to such extreme lengths as traveling to Europe to personally pressure foreign intelligence services into revealing criminal evidence they Durham and Barr contended they were concealing in the case. A criminal prosecutor is supposed to find evidence of crimes and prosecute according. . Was any member of the Hillary Clinton campaign convicted or even indicted by Durham's team in respect to conspiring with the Justice Dept. The only indictments of any sort that were brought against the Clinton team failed utterly. In fact, the cases were judged to be so weak, that members of Durham's team quit rather than continue. As for the Russia-Trump connection being invalid, this is not the case. Both a Republican's Senate Committee disagreed and the Mueller investigation never concluded this was the case. William Barr was actually castigated by a Federal judge for misrepresenting the findings of the Mueller investigation.

Of course, the lack of serious witnesses shouldn't be surprising at all. After all, William Barr lent John Durham an extraordinary level of support in his quest to unearth a deep state conspiracy in the Justice Dept against Donald Trump. His quest continued unimpeded under the Biden administration. His search for evidence to support that conspiracy theory ended in utter failure. Do Republican members of this committee truly believe that they can unearth facts not found by a professional prosecutor who had been given the funds and time to investigate this issue? As for Hunter Biden, the United States Attorney for Delaware, David Weiss, who was appointed by Trump and is in charge of the investigation of Hunter Biden, was one of the few prosecutors retained by the Biden administration. What sort of cover-up can he rationally be accused of in this case? To deflect from their failure on these fronts, the Republicans have already made noises about demanding that the Justice Dept. share what evidence they have amassed in their investigation of Donald Trump. And, if it happens, the Justice Dept would certainly refuse. It would be strange if the courts were to side with the Republicans in this case since it would clearly encroach on the executive branches ability to conduct criminal investigations. But despite their probably failure in the courts, it would certainly generate lots of charges of a cover-up.

From the Iranian point of view, possessing nuclear weapons has a big benefit: warding off major attacks on its territory. I'm sure it hasn't been lost on them that Ukraine, by surrendering all its nuclear weapons, left itself vulnerable to a Russian invasion.

I guess you can't blame the EU for plundering that particular treasure. The UK left itself wide open. On the other hand, if most of those financial types abandon London, maybe house and rental prices might decline to more reasonable levels?

This would show the Trump team in what markets the Biden campaign is making purchases and concentrating its efforts. In other words, Murdoch revealed a piece of Biden's strategy which he had no right to reveal.

So long as Croatia doesn't experience some sort of economic crisis peculiar to itself, the Euro won't make much difference to its economy. I don't think even 20 years ago the convenience of one currency was worth the potential damage it could cause. And did cause in the wake of the 2009 (2010?) financial crisis. Which it's clear you well recognize since you have noted that its problematic at the macro level. And now with digital wallets and payments, I think even the relatively weak justification of convenience no longer is valid.

And another childish comment.

Maybe because the US is heading backwards?

More evasion.

Do you understand that this is the Obamacare Medicaid program. The one for which that the Federal govt pays 90% of the cost? That one that 10 republican states including Texas and Florida still refuse to implement?

Does the EU finance military purchases? The Finns are net contributors to the EU. Finland’s per-capita net payments to EU nearly doubled last year to €105 As one of the bloc's wealthier member states, Finland has been a net payer into the EU since 2001. https://yle.fi/a/3-11033686

Well, it looks like the European Court of Justice will still be adjudicating and the Tories are going to accept it.

Anyway, just because the FInns built it, that doesn't make it a good idea. If conditions in Russia grow desperate enough, and no other exits are available, I'd guess that fence won't do much good.

If you are a French person, I'm not surprised that you are pleased with the Euro. France gets the benefits and disregards the rules France routinely has a budget deficit more than the 3% allowed by the EU Euro treaties. How France gets away with breaking EU rules on its budget deficit every year. "The European Commission then writes to the French finance minister to express its concern and ask for corrections. The finance minister replies by apologizing profusely, swearing that he or she agrees wholeheartedly with Brussels, but that this year - this year only - France will have to break the rules because of some exceptional circumstances, whatever they are. Then it’s on to the next year, for a routine repeat." https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-france-gets-away-with-breaking-eu-rules-on-its-budget-deficit-every-year-2019-10-25

If you're referring to this comment from RayC', "Bit narrow-minded and self-defeating don't you think? I quite often have a glance at 'The Mail' and 'The Express'. Doing so, almost invariably confirms that my initial thoughts were correct!" which you only partially and misleadingly quoted, I don't know how the word "vague" applies.