Ed Snowden is a traitor

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yet, if the Americans had known that we had already broken the Japanese Naval code, if they knew that we were purposely locking them out of resources in Asia, if they knew we were refusing to consider a peaceful negotiated settlement? If they knew our bankers were funding the Nazi's? If they knew our industrialists were helping the Nazi war machines? Who knows? You do know, the majority of Americans overwhelmingly opposed involvement, the covert ops and the government engineered things to get the nation involved.

Who knows - maybe Hitler would have stopped at Great Britain?

But the American public was as ignorant and conditioned by the Rockefeller and Annenberg controlled media as it is today. They were as hive minded as they are now.

That's right. Tell the men who stormed the beaches at Normandy they were ignorant.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There is no reason for another 9/11

There wasn't a reason for the 1st one. Are you saying its OK if 3000 Americans die as long as its for nothing?

, your mind is already completely mentally conditioned. If you actually believe those towers were brought down by air planes, it is quite obvious, you don't read books, and you aren't a critical thinker.

Yes, because everyone who reads books is a conspiracy theorist.

Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to plant explosive in sky scrappers like that again?

My fuck you're an idiot. Sorry. I didn't know.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Did Ed Snowden not take an oath of secrecy?

Did Obama not take an oath to uphold the Constitution?

Which is the greater crime?

non-sequitor


Did Ed Snowden not take an oath of secrecy?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Edward may have broken the law, but he blew the lid off of a major unconstitutional spying ring known as the National Security Administration.

If this happened under Bush, would you say the same thing?

Seriously? Would ya..huh...would ya...Dixie chick.

non-sequitor + ad hominem

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Anyone that exposes the wrong-doing of the Hussein is considered a traitor to liberals, that's the only reason libs are upset over Snowden. They could care less if he broke the law.

If this had happened under Bush, you fools would be screaming bloody murder.

Fuck off with your hypocrisy.

non-sequitor, ad hominem



It DID happen under Bush, BTW. SOMEONE in the White House leaked the identity of a secret agent to Robert Novak. I was against the leaking of top secret information then as much as I am now.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Um, no. That lid was blown off in 2006. Snowden just informed us it was still going on after the torch was passed from Right to Left.

Oh bullshit.

You want to whack your little partisan pee-pee about BOOOOOOSHHH

You leftist fucknuts were whining that Bush was intercepting cell phone calls on the public airwaves that were flagged to terrorist countries.

That is a HUGE fucking way from what your little tin Messiah® is doing by monitoring ALL phones, cell and land line, as well as email and SMS.

The Bush justifications that the public airwaves dissipate an expectation of privacy has some merit, you can't expect privacy when chatting on a CB - and let's face it, a cell phone goes over the public airwaves, just like a CB. But your god is going WAY beyond the open airwaves and listening in on everything - as is the way of Big Brother.

Poo Poo bitch seems to be programmed to think the Obozo regime will ferret out all of the left's enemies, and still make sure religious zealots from the middle east will be unable to attack us.

That's his actual concern, that the moonbat messiah and his regime are unencumbered from their persecution of the people he's programmed to hate.

non-sequitor ad hominem straw man

 

[dblack]

You're not doing a very good job explaining yourself, instead you'd prefer to rely solely on the personal attack.

I try really hard to avoid personal attacks on here. But you don't offer anything other than an asinine personality to attack. You certainly don't maintain anything like principled positions. As most people here - even those nominally on your 'side' - have come to recognize, you're nothing but a partisan cheerleader, and every single thing you post is disingenuous crap. You're only concerned about 'national security' and secrets when your fearless leader is caught with his pants down. No one buys the faux conservative angle, it only makes you look like a weasel.

You are very hard to have a conversation with. You speak of vague notions like "principled positions" and slogans like "partisan cheerleader" rather than the specifics of the discussion at hand. You would prefer the topic of discussion be who is on whose side and why rather than actual substance, much like a reality television show.

Yeah, I hear ya. And I realize I'm not 'playing by the rules'. But neither are you, and that's what I'm calling you out on. I can't get interested in a conversation with someone with whom I have no common interest. That doesn't mean I have to agree with you, but we need to share some kind of common goal that I can respect (to persuade, to understand, etc...). And your goal - near as I can discern - is just to piss off conservatives. You adopt this phony 'security hawk' POV, presumably because you think it will tweak the nose of authoritarian Republicans. But it doesn't ring true.

It's like the bullshit games Starkey plays. You're not here to make your case, to persuade, or to engage in intelligent debate. You're just trying to 'get someones goat'. Whatever. But it does make it impossible for me to take your posts seriously.

I am waiting for you to explain to me precisely under what conditions ...

Yeah. Like you pointed out, I'm not interested in discussing the details with you, because I don't think your argument is genuine or meaningful in any way. You're here to get attention and (at best) score empty partisan points. And that's frustrating because the issues you pollute are often very important and deserve genuine discussion.

 

[DarkLion]

Unconstitutional according to what authority?

The Constitution (hence the usage of the term "unconstitutional)

Snowden is a patriot; and he never claimed he just "stumbled" across the information. In fact, he was quite clear from the beginning that he took a paycut from $200k per year to $120k just so he'd have access to this type of thing.

He knew something was rotten to the core here, and he sacrificed basically everything but his physical life to reveal it (and even that is in jeopardy till the day he dies). Unlike most Americans, who are either ignorant or see what's going on and do nothing, he actually took action, was proactive and look what he's done; his actions have led to public awareness and dissension to NSA invasion of privacy for the first time.

Nobody cared until now. Now, the NSA is caught with its pants down and is on its heels. All thanks to Snowden. He's no traitor; we should be thankful he did what he did and should hope more people grow a set like him.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I try really hard to avoid personal attacks on here. But you don't offer anything other than an asinine personality to attack. You certainly don't maintain anything like principled positions. As most people here - even those nominally on your 'side' - have come to recognize, you're nothing but a partisan cheerleader, and every single thing you post is disingenuous crap. You're only concerned about 'national security' and secrets when your fearless leader is caught with his pants down. No one buys the faux conservative angle, it only makes you look like a weasel.

You are very hard to have a conversation with. You speak of vague notions like "principled positions" and slogans like "partisan cheerleader" rather than the specifics of the discussion at hand. You would prefer the topic of discussion be who is on whose side and why rather than actual substance, much like a reality television show.

Yeah, I hear ya. And I realize I'm not 'playing by the rules'. But neither are you, and that's what I'm calling you out on. I can't get interested in a conversation with someone with whom I have no common interest. That doesn't mean I have to agree with you, but we need to share some kind of common goal that I can respect (to persuade, to understand, etc...). And your goal - near as I can discern - is just to piss off conservatives. You adopt this phony 'security hawk' POV, presumably because you think it will tweak the nose of authoritarian Republicans. But it doesn't ring true.

It's like the bullshit games Starkey plays. You're not here to make your case, to persuade, or to engage in intelligent debate. You're just trying to 'get someones goat'. Whatever. But it does make it impossible for me to take your posts seriously.

Well what are you here for? To repeat the above statement in as many variations as possible, all the while actually avoiding having to think and tell me how we can objectively determine when it is and when it is not legal for a man like Snowden to violate his security oath? Or will you respond with yet another list of ad hominem attacks?

I would bet the latter, though I hope for the former.

Yeah.

Yep.

Like you pointed out, I'm not interested in discussing the details with you, because I don't think your argument is genuine or meaningful in any way.

Then shut the fuck up and post in another thread you little shit.

 

[dblack]

You are very hard to have a conversation with. You speak of vague notions like "principled positions" and slogans like "partisan cheerleader" rather than the specifics of the discussion at hand. You would prefer the topic of discussion be who is on whose side and why rather than actual substance, much like a reality television show.

Yeah, I hear ya. And I realize I'm not 'playing by the rules'. But neither are you, and that's what I'm calling you out on. I can't get interested in a conversation with someone with whom I have no common interest. That doesn't mean I have to agree with you, but we need to share some kind of common goal that I can respect (to persuade, to understand, etc...). And your goal - near as I can discern - is just to piss off conservatives. You adopt this phony 'security hawk' POV, presumably because you think it will tweak the nose of authoritarian Republicans. But it doesn't ring true.

It's like the bullshit games Starkey plays. You're not here to make your case, to persuade, or to engage in intelligent debate. You're just trying to 'get someones goat'. Whatever. But it does make it impossible for me to take your posts seriously.

Well what are you here for? To repeat the above statement in as many variations as possible, all the while actually avoiding having to think and tell me how we can objectively determine when it is and when it is not legal for a man like Snowden to violate his security oath? Or will you respond with yet another list of ad hominem attacks?

I would bet the latter, though I hope for the former.

Yeah.

Yep.

Like you pointed out, I'm not interested in discussing the details with you, because I don't think your argument is genuine or meaningful in any way.

Then shut the fuck up and post in another thread you little shit.

Or, I can continue to point out the hypocrisy of your idiocy. I'll probably do both.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yeah, I hear ya. And I realize I'm not 'playing by the rules'. But neither are you, and that's what I'm calling you out on. I can't get interested in a conversation with someone with whom I have no common interest. That doesn't mean I have to agree with you, but we need to share some kind of common goal that I can respect (to persuade, to understand, etc...). And your goal - near as I can discern - is just to piss off conservatives. You adopt this phony 'security hawk' POV, presumably because you think it will tweak the nose of authoritarian Republicans. But it doesn't ring true.

It's like the bullshit games Starkey plays. You're not here to make your case, to persuade, or to engage in intelligent debate. You're just trying to 'get someones goat'. Whatever. But it does make it impossible for me to take your posts seriously.

Well what are you here for? To repeat the above statement in as many variations as possible, all the while actually avoiding having to think and tell me how we can objectively determine when it is and when it is not legal for a man like Snowden to violate his security oath? Or will you respond with yet another list of ad hominem attacks?

I would bet the latter, though I hope for the former.


Yep.

Like you pointed out, I'm not interested in discussing the details with you, because I don't think your argument is genuine or meaningful in any way.

Then shut the fuck up and post in another thread you little shit.

Or, I can continue to point out the hypocrisy of your idiocy. I'll probably do both.

Your basis for calling me a hypocrite is that my opinion on this manner is inconsistent with what other liberals would have thought under Bush. Its also the same basis all the teabag morons are using.


That's kinda retarded.

 

[Billo_Really]

Did Ed Snowden just happen to stumble across information he felt like the public needed to know?

"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."

Doesn't sound like it to me! Sounds like he sought out the job with the intent all along of violating his security agreement and U.S. law. That's how SPIES behave - not whistle blowers.

Snowden sought Booz Allen job to gather evidence on NSA surveillance | South China Morning Post

So you think it's okay for the NSA to spy on American's in violation of the US Constitution?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Unconstitutional according to what authority?

The Constitution (hence the usage of the term "unconstitutional)

Where does the Constitution say the NSA is unconstitutional?

Snowden is a patriot; and he never claimed he just "stumbled" across the information. In fact, he was quite clear from the beginning that he took a paycut from $200k per year to $120k just so he'd have access to this type of thing.

Don't be ridiculous. He didn't take a NET pay cut. The secrets he holds now in his possession are, to the right buyer, worth far more than the 80k annual cut he took.

He knew something was rotten to the core here

And how did he know that, exactly?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Yes, G-d forbid that Alex Jones uses the free market to sponsor his journalism, instead of taking a salary from a corporate overseer.

 

[DarkLion]

Where does the Constitution say the NSA is unconstitutional?

Not the NSA itself. Some of the activities of the NSA, namely PRISM, are unconstitutional

Don't be ridiculous. He didn't take a NET pay cut. The secrets he holds now in his possession are, to the right buyer, worth far more than the 80k annual cut he took.

There is no indication that he plans on selling anything. In fact, going public, in the way he did, seems to indicate the exact opposite.

And how did he know that, exactly?

By being privy to classified documents over the course of his career.

Serious question: Have you actually read his interviews?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Where does the Constitution say the NSA is unconstitutional?

Not the NSA itself. Some of the activities of the NSA, namely PRISM, are unconstitutional

Where does the Constitution say PRISM is unconstitutional?

Don't be ridiculous. He didn't take a NET pay cut. The secrets he holds now in his possession are, to the right buyer, worth far more than the 80k annual cut he took.

There is no indication that he plans on selling anything. In fact, going public, in the way he did, seems to indicate the exact opposite.

I didn't say he plans on selling anything. I said the secrets in his possession are worth far more than his cut in salary. If he doesn't sell them he will probably eventually be killed for them, by Russian or Chinese spies, or worse.

And how did he know that, exactly?

By being privy to classified documents over the course of his career.

Such as?

Serious question: Have you actually read his interviews?

I don't really care what admitted criminals have to say.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Where does the Constitution say PRISM is unconstitutional?

It's under the fourth amendment, retard. Are you going to continue to ask stupid questions simply to draw attention to your stupid fucking questions?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Where does the Constitution say PRISM is unconstitutional?

It's under the fourth amendment, retard.

The 4th amendment doesn't say anything about PRISM.

Are you going to continue to ask stupid questions simply to draw attention to your stupid fucking questions?

I'm only asking you to explain your position. You've only dodged and hurled insults.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Where does the Constitution say PRISM is unconstitutional?

It's under the fourth amendment, retard.

The 4th amendment doesn't say anything about PRISM.

Are you going to continue to ask stupid questions simply to draw attention to your stupid fucking questions?

I'm only asking you to explain your position. You've only dodged and hurled insults.

It's been explained already, retard. I even gave you links to rulings, the law itself and the reason that the NSA programs are unconstituttional. There is no 2nd grade, Sesame Street Elmo type answer for you, Poop. You have to actually use that small pebble crumsily tumbling around in your skull.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's under the fourth amendment, retard.

The 4th amendment doesn't say anything about PRISM.

Are you going to continue to ask stupid questions simply to draw attention to your stupid fucking questions?

I'm only asking you to explain your position. You've only dodged and hurled insults.

It's been explained already, retard. I even gave you links to rulings,

No you haven't. You've given me links to people talking about rulings.

And you've yet to show me the court that ruled that Snowden is exempt from his secrecy agreement.

the law itself and the reason that the NSA programs are unconstituttional. There is no 2nd grade, Sesame Street Elmo type answer for you, Poop. You have to actually use that small pebble crumsily tumbling around in your skull.

You've given no explanation. You can't even tell me how the property of the ISP is somehow the not their property, but the property of their customers.