Snowden

[CuteOldGuy]

We have a right to know when the government is acting outside its authority. We have a right to know when the government is gathering information about us covertly without a warrant. Snowden did us a favor, and paid a big price. I hope Obama pardons him before he leaves office.

[Guest123018-4]

The people should control the government rather than to be controlled by the government.

We have a bureaucracy that is and has been out of control for far to long.

Creating agencies that work outside of the legal imits of our Constitution do not make this nation a safer place. the fact is that this is a threat to our individual liberty and freedom.

[Old-T]

"is it? did or did not Clapper lie about the depth of the surveillance? he did. that's perjury in the face of a congressional appearance. and you think they'd pay any attention to a low level analyst's complains when they were prepared to lie to congress and the public about it?"
If Clapper lied, that in no way means that Snowden told the truth.

"what other things? don't you know now how the controlled media spins whatever narrative their political masters demand? they "say" he gave other items yet the reporters he contacted say otherwise."
Let's see: according to you, the media spins with no guilt. EXCEPT when you WANT to believe these particular reporters. And when you WANT to believe that Snowden told them the truth. Rather selective and subjective in who you believe.

The fact that the gov't was wrong does not make Snowden right.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

actually .. it does make him right. the fact that the government was breaking the law and lying about it shows the very agencies in question were not open to discussion of their illegal activities, by anyone .. especially a low level it geek, and of course not Congress and the public either.
No, both can be wrong. And in this case are. Amazing how some folks want to trash Congress as bloated incompetents EXCEPT when they want to say Congress are the paragons of truth and justice. Sadly, Congress and the White House have a long and injurious history of leaking important intelligence.

here is my ultimate rebuttal Old-thing ..


Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That quote often comes up in the context of new technology and concerns about government surveillance.Mar 2, 2015

and if you dig around, you'll find this quote doesn't mean what most take it for today. has more to do with oppressive taxes. but it fits this narrative quite well whether Franklin intended it to or not.
Quotes like that are so incredibly overly simplistic. You CAN NOT have near complete security without sacrificing some liberty. It IS a trade, and the question is where to balance it. When people throw that quote around they usually mean "Don't take away any of MY freedoms, but feel free to stop and frisk others (as an example) that don't live and look like me."

[/COLOR]

[Old-T]

.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

"is it? did or did not Clapper lie about the depth of the surveillance? he did. that's perjury in the face of a congressional appearance. and you think they'd pay any attention to a low level analyst's complains when they were prepared to lie to congress and the public about it?"
If Clapper lied, that in no way means that Snowden told the truth.

"what other things? don't you know now how the controlled media spins whatever narrative their political masters demand? they "say" he gave other items yet the reporters he contacted say otherwise."
Let's see: according to you, the media spins with no guilt. EXCEPT when you WANT to believe these particular reporters. And when you WANT to believe that Snowden told them the truth. Rather selective and subjective in who you believe.

actually .. it does make him right. the fact that the government was breaking the law and lying about it shows the very agencies in question were not open to discussion of their illegal activities, by anyone .. especially a low level it geek, and of course not Congress and the public either.
No, both can be wrong. And in this case are. Amazing how some folks want to trash Congress as bloated incompetents EXCEPT when they want to say Congress are the paragons of truth and justice. Sadly, Congress and the White House have a long and injurious history of leaking important intelligence.

here is my ultimate rebuttal Old-thing ..

[/COLOR]
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That quote often comes up in the context of new technology and concerns about government surveillance.Mar 2, 2015

and if you dig around, you'll find this quote doesn't mean what most take it for today. has more to do with oppressive taxes. but it fits this narrative quite well whether Franklin intended it to or not.
Quotes like that are so incredibly overly simplistic. You CAN NOT have near complete security without sacrificing some liberty. It IS a trade, and the question is where to balance it. When people throw that quote around they usually mean "Don't take away any of MY freedoms, but feel free to stop and frisk others (as an example) that don't live and look like me."

[Guest123018-4]

So the bureaucrats lied. What else is new. This is a big part of the problem and one of the reasons things seldom change with each election.
Violating the Constitution is far worse than revealing the fact that it is hap;pening.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

So the bureaucrats lied. What else is new. This is a big part of the problem and one of the reasons things seldom change with each election.
Violating the Constitution is far worse than revealing the fact that it is hap;pening.

True dat!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Your assumption is that what this person has written is the truth.

I don't assume anything. The author did his own homework. He tells us exactly what he bases his conclusion on for each Snowden lie. Which points do you challenge and why?


The real issue is that the NSA was in violation, the man made multiple attempts to whistle blow and was shot down, he did what any true patriot of the Constitution would do and exposed it.

If that was ALL he did, we wouldn't be having this convo. You left out the rest of what he did. Why did he download 1.5 million documents, including the most sensitive NSA secrets, when only a tiny fraction of them had anything to do with domestic surveillance? I think he was a fucking spy who tried to cover his tracks by masquerading as a whistle-blower. Someone obviously told him exactly what to copy. The sequence in which he copied those docs is also revealing. Why are you in denial? Are you ok with him handing over the NSA's Level 3 toolkit to our adversaries? Why can't you just say you support his disclosure of what you view as NSA wrong-doings - but you ALSO condemn all those other things he did which severely damaged our nation's security?


Just because the government does it, does not make it right, lawful, or within the framework of our Constitution. It is not the right, responsibility, or even legal for our government to collect the information on the people of these United States of America. At some point somebody has to take a stand.

I'm not sure what information you are so uncomfortable with being in the government's hands. Telephone meta-data showing who we call and the duration of each call? Your phone carrier has long kept those records so they can bill you correctly. If we catch a terrorist, I want the government to know who he was talking to. Don't you?


Isn't Epstein one of those people that believe there was a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK?

He has written extensively on the JFK assassination, but I am not familiar with his views. If he is a conspiracy-monger, that should give him more credibility with you and COG, right? The article I posted appeared in the WSJ last week. It echoes what has been written by numerous other investigators.


I think he also has an issue with journalism and fiction.

Ok then, what exactly in his article do you regard as "fiction" - and why?

.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Quotes like that are so incredibly overly simplistic. You CAN NOT have near complete security without sacrificing some liberty. It IS a trade, and the question is where to balance it.

+1

If you guys understood a few basic economic concepts, we could have much more productive discussions on this and many other topics.

Old-T is talking about what economists refer to as a "trade-off". Everyone values both security and liberty, but in different degrees. Some of us derive greater utility from security, others from liberty. But few, if any of us, would demand 100% of one if it meant 0% of the other. Each of us has an indifference curve indicating those trade-off points at which our individual utility is maximized. If we mapped and combined everyone's indifference curves, we could theoretically plot SOCIETY'S indifference curve and use it to guide legislation accordingly.

Ok, sorry about the diversion... CARRY ON!

[CuteOldGuy]

Trading Liberty for security results in tyranny. Every time. We can be secure without giving up Liberty. It is NOT a "balancing act" because once we give government a little Liberty in return for phony "security, they will always take a little more, then a little more, until finally, we are a police state. We become the country we are trying to protect ourselves from. It's happening now.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Trading Liberty for security results in tyranny.

Broad statements like this are of little value in reality. Platitudes regarding some belief that we can have "absolute, unfettered "Liberty" in our society ignores the reality that to enjoy Liberties we must also have security to assure we can exercise those Liberties.

Freedom of Speech is not "absolute" and "unfettered" for instance. Neither is the Freedom to Assemble. We should have the "Freedom" in this country to begin a business of our own and earn money without being tied to an "employer," which offers an opportunity to be "independent" of the whims of such employer. But that "Freedom" must be protected from vandals, robbers, arsonists, or other persons who are in competition with the business we may seek to establish....and for that we need security.

The same with Cyber attacks on our business data bases and software with which we conduct our businesses, as well as the financial institutions upon which we rely to manage our funding and profits.

[CuteOldGuy]

You're an idiot. I'm talking about government. Not private contracts. And no one supports anyone's attempt to to infringe on another's right to life, Liberty or property without due process of law. If you can't understand my comment, STFU.

[Guest123018-4]

It is very simple. the problem is that we are being fed this bullshit that it is not simple.
The Constitution is very clear on this matter. What is unfortunate is that some justices have encroached in favor of the government against the people. The courts duty is to the people and not the government.

I personally feel much less secure knowing that my government is spying on me, collecting data on me, has access to my bank accounts, has access to my medical records, has possession of my personal communications, I could go on and on. this is not what this nation was founded to do. It was founded and the Constitution written to prevent this type of government tyranny over the people.

The reality that some of you fail to see is that if the government had not been violating the Constitution we never would have heard a word from Edward Snowden.

Lusty, I think that you want me to read the authors points which are not your points other than you agree with him.

Another reality is that this government is and has been out of control. Fast and furious is just one small example, the NSA collecting phone records of people that were not under any suspicion of contacting overseas terrorists is but another. I personally do not feel any safer because a new government organization looks at my plane ticket, compels me to prove who I am so that I can travel, xrays my body, and then pats me down. What I do feel is violated.

[Guest123018-4]

I would think that some of you believe that people are guilty until proven innocent as well.

[rexdutchman]

CUTEOLDGUY +1000% You CAN have liberty & security at the same time , The Liberal Bullshit is that free people can't

[The_Waco_Kid]

BUMP!!

FREE EDDIE SNOWDEN! bahaaa

this thread's over 3.3 million views. hey Assup are the Russkies hacking us? bahhaaa