Snowden Situation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-07-2013, 02:50 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
Quote:Knowledge is power. Information is power. The secreting or hoarding of knowledge or information may be an act of tyranny camouflaged as humility. - Robin Morgan.

The gathering of information on such a scale, to have your digital finger on the internet pulse goes way beyond terrorism in my eyes. It allows you to see what the world is thinking (as they are collecting information on a global scale through the traffic that goes on through the internet)

The ramifications of this are staggering. Can I prove that they use this data for "other" purposes??? No I cannot, however to the naysayers I ask that you prove that they are not using it.

The law is the law, however it can be circumnavigated like in the country I was born and reside in (the UK) as has been accused here with regards to the NSA and Prism program.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/j...-challenge

To Elegant Atheist.... I would recommend through personal experience that if you wish to learn more and become active than the internet is just one of many ways. I am sure there are many likeminded individuals like yourself near you who are a part of many different groups and I would recommend joining them in there meetings if you can and to make social circles with these people. To those who think your age is somehow inflicting on your viewpoint as "naive" I say that we are all "naive" (including myself) and that like A2 has quite rightly pointed out it is through experience that we learn and until we all eventually die, learning is something we are all constantly doing (Unless Ego and self-centered importance leads you to believe otherwise)

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 02:54 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 02:32 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 02:27 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  Obama should be impeached for this NSA bullshit. He lied under oath and lied before his election when he said he would do away with the "illegal wiretapping done by Bush," when it turns out he didn't do anything but expand it.

Wrong. The Constitution IS the end all and be all of the US. The constitution and Bill of Rights combined with the declaration of Independence are the documents that make America the, land of the free and home of the brave.

I will not follow the Patriot Act, even though I am not able to know I am being spied on, whether YOU like it or not bud. Don't try and tell me what I have to do.

Snowden revealed classified information about "what should be illegal" government activities, therefore, any criminal charges are void in my book, or anyone that values privacy in their lives.

I don't think Obama should be impeached. Presidents promise all sorts of things all the time, and they often don't deliver. This is nothing new.

No, I am right about this. If not, things like slavery, DOMA, and the Patriot Act would not be passed, would they? In the end, the judicial branch is the end and be all. They decide what is "constitutional" and what is not, even if the bill may directly contradict it.

I have a hard time understanding why you are so incredibly defensive here. Consider Do you think that a person is justified in killing another, simply because they might disagree with the illegality of murder?

Just because something is normal/accepted, doesn't mean it is any less of an infraction. If any one of them lies about anything so specific they should be impeached.

Way to go, you just proved my point. What does the judicial system use to decide the nature of a law? The constitution, aka the end all and be all in determining the acceptableness of a law.

The law against murder does not directly contradict the constitution, plus it harms an innocent person. Not accepting to be spied on with no justified purpose does go against the constitution, and harms no one. Btw I am defensive because I don't want to see my country go from the United States of America to the Fascist States of America, because that is where we are heading if we don't condemn this unjust wiretapping and spying.

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 02:57 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 02:54 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 02:32 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I don't think Obama should be impeached. Presidents promise all sorts of things all the time, and they often don't deliver. This is nothing new.

No, I am right about this. If not, things like slavery, DOMA, and the Patriot Act would not be passed, would they? In the end, the judicial branch is the end and be all. They decide what is "constitutional" and what is not, even if the bill may directly contradict it.

I have a hard time understanding why you are so incredibly defensive here. Consider Do you think that a person is justified in killing another, simply because they might disagree with the illegality of murder?

Just because something is normal/accepted, doesn't mean it is any less of an infraction. If any one of them lies about anything so specific they should be impeached.

Way to go, you just proved my point. What does the judicial system use to decide the nature of a law? The constitution, aka the end all and be all in determining the acceptableness of a law.

The law against murder does not directly contradict the constitution, plus it harms an innocent person. Not accepting to be spied on with no justified purpose does go against the constitution, and harms no one. Btw I am defensive because I don't want to see my country go from the United States of America to the Fascist States of America, because that is where we are heading if we don't condemn this unjust wiretapping and spying.

Him "lying" (I don't know if he lied or not) during his campaign or during his presidency about a policy he may or may not present to congress is not legal grounds for impeachment.

I have not proven your point. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what is not. They are the ultimate authority as to the legality of something, not the constitution itself. Again, if the constitution was the ultimate authority, things like the Patriot Act would not be legal. You said you would stop being so stubborn, but I do not see that changing.

I am not saying it does contradict the constitution. I am asking that, if a person disagrees with the illegality of murder, should they be able to break the law? Does that give them the right?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 02:59 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 02:50 AM)bemore Wrote:  
Quote:Knowledge is power. Information is power. The secreting or hoarding of knowledge or information may be an act of tyranny camouflaged as humility. - Robin Morgan.

The gathering of information on such a scale, to have your digital finger on the internet pulse goes way beyond terrorism in my eyes. It allows you to see what the world is thinking (as they are collecting information on a global scale through the traffic that goes on through the internet)

The ramifications of this are staggering. Can I prove that they use this data for "other" purposes??? No I cannot, however to the naysayers I ask that you prove that they are not using it.

The law is the law, however it can be circumnavigated like in the country I was born and reside in (the UK) as has been accused here with regards to the NSA and Prism program.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/j...-challenge

To Elegant Atheist.... I would recommend through personal experience that if you wish to learn more and become active than the internet is just one of many ways. I am sure there are many likeminded individuals like yourself near you who are a part of many different groups and I would recommend joining them in there meetings if you can and to make social circles with these people. To those who think your age is somehow inflicting on your viewpoint as "naive" I say that we are all "naive" (including myself) and that like A2 has quite rightly pointed out it is through experience that we learn and until we all eventually die, learning is something we are all constantly doing (Unless Ego and self-centered importance leads you to believe otherwise)

Wow, thanks for the encouragement. I really appreciate it and will think about that suggestion. Smile

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 03:03 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 02:57 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 02:54 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  Just because something is normal/accepted, doesn't mean it is any less of an infraction. If any one of them lies about anything so specific they should be impeached.

Way to go, you just proved my point. What does the judicial system use to decide the nature of a law? The constitution, aka the end all and be all in determining the acceptableness of a law.

The law against murder does not directly contradict the constitution, plus it harms an innocent person. Not accepting to be spied on with no justified purpose does go against the constitution, and harms no one. Btw I am defensive because I don't want to see my country go from the United States of America to the Fascist States of America, because that is where we are heading if we don't condemn this unjust wiretapping and spying.

Him "lying" (I don't know if he lied or not) during his campaign or during his presidency about a policy he may or may not present to congress is not legal grounds for impeachment.

I have not proven your point. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what is not. They are the ultimate authority as to the legality of something, not the constitution itself. Again, if the constitution was the ultimate authority, things like the Patriot Act would not be legal. You said you would stop being so stubborn, but I do not see that changing.

I am not saying it does contradict the constitution. I am asking that, if a person disagrees with the illegality of murder, should they be able to break the law? Does that give them the right?

He lied, just google it.

The Supreme Court decides what is unconstitutional based on the constitution because lawmakers obviously can't be trusted to regulate themselves are they? Therefore, the constitution is the final authority, the Supreme Court just regulates the adherence to that rule.

I just refuted that murder illegality argument, read the last post.

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 03:10 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 03:03 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 02:57 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Him "lying" (I don't know if he lied or not) during his campaign or during his presidency about a policy he may or may not present to congress is not legal grounds for impeachment.

I have not proven your point. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what is not. They are the ultimate authority as to the legality of something, not the constitution itself. Again, if the constitution was the ultimate authority, things like the Patriot Act would not be legal. You said you would stop being so stubborn, but I do not see that changing.

I am not saying it does contradict the constitution. I am asking that, if a person disagrees with the illegality of murder, should they be able to break the law? Does that give them the right?

He lied, just google it.

The Supreme Court decides what is unconstitutional based on the constitution because lawmakers obviously can't be trusted to regulate themselves are they? Therefore, the constitution is the final authority, the Supreme Court just regulates the adherence to that rule.

I just refuted that murder illegality argument, read the last post.

I cannot say he lied. I don't know if he really did want to repeal it, but was cock-blocked by congress (like he always is), or if he just said that to get support. Either way, it is irrelevant.

No, the Supreme Court makes the final legal call on laws. The Patriot Act has been in effect for a decade and the Supreme Court still hasn't had a case over it. The constitution is not the final authority at all, because if it was the Patriot Act would not be in effect at all.

You didn't refute it. Now answer the question. Is the person justified because he disagrees with the illegality of murder?

And I hardly see your fear of the ultimate state of America as grounds to take what I say personally and lash out with emotional dribble.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 03:21 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 03:10 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 03:03 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  He lied, just google it.

The Supreme Court decides what is unconstitutional based on the constitution because lawmakers obviously can't be trusted to regulate themselves are they? Therefore, the constitution is the final authority, the Supreme Court just regulates the adherence to that rule.

I just refuted that murder illegality argument, read the last post.

I cannot say he lied. I don't know if he really did want to repeal it, but was cock-blocked by congress (like he always is), or if he just said that to get support. Either way, it is irrelevant.

No, the Supreme Court makes the final legal call on laws. The Patriot Act has been in effect for a decade and the Supreme Court still hasn't had a case over it. The constitution is not the final authority at all, because if it was the Patriot Act would not be in effect at all.

You didn't refute it. Now answer the question. Is the person justified because he disagrees with the illegality of murder?

And I hardly see your fear of the ultimate state of America as grounds to take what I say personally and lash out with emotional dribble.

Nothing about a president of a country lying is irrelevant.

If it went to the Supreme Court, it would be judged against the constitution therefore making it the final say. All we have to do is get it to that point.

I already said no because they are two totally different situations with totally different circumstances.

Of all things to lash out about and talk personally about it would be the state of your future country. That fascism hyperbole wasn't even really one at all, if you count that as dribble, because if this Patriot Act gets expanded even one more inch further, we would be officially living in a fascist state.

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 08:36 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 02:14 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 02:12 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I didn't know Nixon was impeached. Could have sworn he resigned..... Big Grin

He was impeached, he resigned before they could remove him from office. Just like Clinton was impeached, but he was never removed from office.

No, he resigned before they could impeach him.
Richard Milhouse Nixon

Quote:Nixon's second term saw a crisis in the Middle East, resulting in an oil embargo and the restart of the Middle East peace process, as well as a continuing series of revelations about the Watergate scandal. The scandal escalated, costing Nixon much of his political support, and on August 9, 1974, he resigned in the face of almost certain impeachment and removal from office.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 08:45 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 08:36 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 02:14 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  He was impeached, he resigned before they could remove him from office. Just like Clinton was impeached, but he was never removed from office.

No, he resigned before they could impeach him.
Richard Milhouse Nixon

Quote:Nixon's second term saw a crisis in the Middle East, resulting in an oil embargo and the restart of the Middle East peace process, as well as a continuing series of revelations about the Watergate scandal. The scandal escalated, costing Nixon much of his political support, and on August 9, 1974, he resigned in the face of almost certain impeachment and removal from office.

I'm sorry, I meant that the impeachment proceedings had begun.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 08:46 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 03:21 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 03:10 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I cannot say he lied. I don't know if he really did want to repeal it, but was cock-blocked by congress (like he always is), or if he just said that to get support. Either way, it is irrelevant.

No, the Supreme Court makes the final legal call on laws. The Patriot Act has been in effect for a decade and the Supreme Court still hasn't had a case over it. The constitution is not the final authority at all, because if it was the Patriot Act would not be in effect at all.

You didn't refute it. Now answer the question. Is the person justified because he disagrees with the illegality of murder?

And I hardly see your fear of the ultimate state of America as grounds to take what I say personally and lash out with emotional dribble.

Nothing about a president of a country lying is irrelevant.

If it went to the Supreme Court, it would be judged against the constitution therefore making it the final say. All we have to do is get it to that point.

I already said no because they are two totally different situations with totally different circumstances.

Of all things to lash out about and talk personally about it would be the state of your future country. That fascism hyperbole wasn't even really one at all, if you count that as dribble, because if this Patriot Act gets expanded even one more inch further, we would be officially living in a fascist state.

Lying is not grounds for impeachment, especially about campaign promises. Again because of the Patriot Act what they are doing is Legal so there is no crime to be impeached over. Plus even if you think the Republicans would try that again (it would be political suicide and the leadership knows it) the Senate Democrats have over a simple majority so nothing would come of it.

So I will again ask you, since you hate the Prism program so much. How would you change it, if you had the authority, keeping in mind that there are terrorists active right now.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: