Ron Paul's view upon Eric Snowden issue

[earlycuyler]

Show us your proof that snowden revealed information or stfu. Your insults aren't impressing me. They only show how fucking stupid you are. Because you can not argue from any other place.

I think the burden of proof lies with the government. Why do we as individuals have to prove our opinions? Give him his day in court and make the government prove their case. I'm open to the possibility that he did nothing wrong but at this point his own actions make him look guilty in my eyes.

The government is already proven to be guilty of criminal activity. Yet you want to focus on the guy who exposed them. What does this say about you or anyone else that argues from this point of view? Who are the real traitors here?

You Paultards are. If Snowden really gave a fuck, he would not have ran off to China. Well, at least this guy here didnt-

Daniel Ellsberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or this guy-

Gary Webb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or her-

Jesselyn Radack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thees are patriots and hero's. They did not run off to China, and beg Russia and other nations that are considered unfriendly to the very people he claims to be looking out for. Typical Paultard, easily distracted by the memes and purty lights.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I think the burden of proof lies with the government. Why do we as individuals have to prove our opinions? Give him his day in court and make the government prove their case. I'm open to the possibility that he did nothing wrong but at this point his own actions make him look guilty in my eyes.

The government is already proven to be guilty of criminal activity. Yet you want to focus on the guy who exposed them. What does this say about you or anyone else that argues from this point of view? Who are the real traitors here?

You Paultards are. If Snowden really gave a fuck, he would not have ran off to China. Well, at least this guy here didnt-

Daniel Ellsberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or this guy-

Gary Webb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or her-

Jesselyn Radack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thees are patriots and hero's. They did not run off to China, and beg Russia and other nations that are considered unfriendly to the very people he claims to be looking out for. Typical Paultard, easily distracted by the memes and purty lights.

Snowden would have been thrown in a cell and had the media spin his story for you low information people who would be saying the same thing. The fact he felt the need to run from the govt in the first place ought to be your first inicator that the US is both criminally liable and obviously above the law.

I dont see you complaining about the criminal activity of the govt. You're far more interested in your witchhunt because you believe things you cant prove. You're also taking Paul's statement out of context. He's saying that if it is a crime to expose criminal activity of govt., then the govt. views the american people as the enemy. Which it obviously does. You just want to throw dirt because you're a few cards shy on a full deck and have some serious sycophant tendencies.

How many times are you going to say paultard? Does this make you feel better about your own shortcoming?

 

[earlycuyler]

So you have proof that snowden revealed information to china or russia? Link?

Its a given Paultard. At the very least, he facilitated them getting it. And he is naught but a skinny little nerd. What would stop them from just taking it ? Oh, and do us a favor, stop editing my quotes. Its just silly and confusing and doesn't help you hide the fact that
insignificant politician is insignificant, which is the opposite of what the OP was trying to say with the stupid Paul meme, not that Snowden was so.e type of hero.

So you have no proof. Shocking!

It's not a give - in, dullard.

If exposing the crimes of the government is criminal, then the government views the american people as the enemy. Afterall, they were spying on us and unconstitutionally (criminally) stealing our data. You can go on and on about how snowden did something you cant prove, but it's irrelevant to what Paul is saying (not that is shocks me your'e too stupid to grasp that).

The govt. is the one caught in a crime, not snowden.

Oh, and this is that paultarded thinking again. How bout you prove he did not give it to them ? Oh, you can't. Guess that makes you an irrelevant dullard.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Its a given Paultard. At the very least, he facilitated them getting it. And he is naught but a skinny little nerd. What would stop them from just taking it ? Oh, and do us a favor, stop editing my quotes. Its just silly and confusing and doesn't help you hide the fact that
insignificant politician is insignificant, which is the opposite of what the OP was trying to say with the stupid Paul meme, not that Snowden was so.e type of hero.

So you have no proof. Shocking!

It's not a give - in, dullard.

If exposing the crimes of the government is criminal, then the government views the american people as the enemy. Afterall, they were spying on us and unconstitutionally (criminally) stealing our data. You can go on and on about how snowden did something you cant prove, but it's irrelevant to what Paul is saying (not that is shocks me your'e too stupid to grasp that).

The govt. is the one caught in a crime, not snowden.

Oh, and this is that paultarded thinking again. How bout you prove he did not give it to them ? Oh, you can't. Guess that makes you an irrelevant dullard.

You're a serious dumbfuck.

Negative proof - RationalWiki

A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

With that, I'm done. I'm not going to argue this with complete fuckign morons anymore that dont even understand how not to envoke logical fallacies into their arguments, and then have the audacity to call someone a "tard".

the only tard I see here is you and your failed logic.

 

[earlycuyler]

The government is already proven to be guilty of criminal activity. Yet you want to focus on the guy who exposed them. What does this say about you or anyone else that argues from this point of view? Who are the real traitors here?

You Paultards are. If Snowden really gave a fuck, he would not have ran off to China. Well, at least this guy here didnt-

Daniel Ellsberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or this guy-

Gary Webb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or her-

Jesselyn Radack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thees are patriots and hero's. They did not run off to China, and beg Russia and other nations that are considered unfriendly to the very people he claims to be looking out for. Typical Paultard, easily distracted by the memes and purty lights.

Snowden would have been thrown in a cell and had the media spin his story for you low information people who would be saying the same thing. The fact he felt the need to run from the govt in the first place ought to be your first inicator that the US is both criminally liable and obviously above the law.

I dont see you complaining about the criminal activity of the govt. You're far more interested in your witchhunt because you believe things you cant prove. You're also taking Paul's statement out of context. He's saying that if it is a crime to expose criminal activity, thent eh govt. views the american people as the enemy. Which it obviously does. You just want to throw dirt because you're a few cards shy on a full deck adn have some serious sycophant tendencies.

How many times are you going to say paultard? Does this make you feel better about your own shortcoming?

Hm, your paul got made fun of and your only response was irrelevant dullard, which is common among the pseudointellectual Ron Paul supporter. Your whole post is a typical response and very predictable. Read the wiki's. Then you will get an idea of how a patriot does it, and that if they are asking third world countries for a place to live, they are looking for book deals and not a better America.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Derp de derp derp derp, dullard.

 

[earlycuyler]

Oh, and since you only read your daily paul talking points, here, educate your self some-
Trial and mistrial
On June 28, 1971, two days before a Supreme Court ruling saying that a federal judge had ruled incorrectly about the right of the New York Times to publish the Pentagon Papers,[6] Ellsberg publicly surrendered to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts in Boston. In admitting to giving the documents to the press, Ellsberg said:

I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision.[6]
He and Russo faced charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 and other charges including theft and conspiracy, carrying a total maximum sentence of 115 years. Their trial commenced in Los Angeles on January 3, 1973, presided over by U.S. District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr.

On April 26, the break-in of Fielding's office was revealed to the court in a memo to Judge Byrne, who then ordered it to be shared with the defense.[22][23]

On May 9, further evidence of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg was revealed in court. The FBI had recorded numerous conversations between Morton Halperin and Ellsberg without a court order, and furthermore the prosecution had failed to share this evidence with the defense.[24] During the trial, Byrne also revealed that he personally met twice with John Ehrlichman, who offered him directorship of the FBI. Byrne said he refused to consider the offer while the Ellsberg case was pending, though he was criticized for even agreeing to meet with Ehrlichman during the case.[23]

Due to the gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering, and the defense by Leonard Boudin and Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, Judge Byrne dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973 after the government claimed it had lost records of wiretapping against Ellsberg. Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case."[23]

As a result of the revelation of the Fielding break-in during the trial, John Ehrlichman, H R Haldeman, Richard Kleindienst and John Dean were forced out of office on April 30, and all would later be convicted of crimes related to the Watergate scandal. Egil Krogh later pleaded guilty to conspiracy, and White House counsel Charles Colson pleaded no contest for obstruction of justice in the burglary. "The court concluded that Nixon, Mitchell, and Haldeman had violated the Halperins' Fourth Amendment rights, but not the terms of Title III. The Halperins were awarded $1 in nominal damages in August 1977."[25][26]

Ellsberg later claimed that after his trial ended, Watergate prosecutor William H. Merrill informed him of an aborted plot by Liddy and the "plumbers" to have 12 Cuban-Americans who had previously worked for the CIA to "totally incapacitate" Ellsberg as he appeared at a public rally, though it is unclear whether that meant to assassinate Ellsberg or merely to hospitalize him.[27][28] In his autobiography, Liddy describes an "Ellsberg neutralization proposal" originating from Howard Hunt, which involved drugging Ellsberg with LSD, by dissolving it in his soup, at a fund-raising dinner in Washington in order to "have Ellsberg incoherent by the time he was to speak" and thus "make him appear a near burnt-out drug case" and "discredit him". The plot involved waiters from the Miami Cuban community. According to Liddy, when the plan was finally approved, "there was no longer enough lead time to get the Cuban waiters up from their Miami hotels and into place in the Washington Hotel where the dinner was to take place" and the plan was "put into abeyance pending another opportunity

That's what the Govt was going to do about a REAL patriot, and American hero. Snowden is not but a whiny little bitch.

 

[earlycuyler]

Derp de derp derp derp, dullard.

^ Typical Paultard. Listless now that their master ain't got no juice, and is fading into obscurity.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Derp de derp derp derp, dullard.

^ Typical Paultard. Listless now that their master ain't got no juice, and is fading into obscurity.

Derp? I dont debate with intellectually bankrupt retards, fella. You envoked logical fallacy as a piont of yoru contention. Not once, but twice and even praised another poster who initially envoked the fallacy. You've already lost the debate. You're just too fucking stupid to realize it.

Good day, dullard.

 

[dblack]

I think the burden of proof lies with the government. Why do we as individuals have to prove our opinions? Give him his day in court and make the government prove their case. I'm open to the possibility that he did nothing wrong but at this point his own actions make him look guilty in my eyes.

The government is already proven to be guilty of criminal activity. Yet you want to focus on the guy who exposed them. What does this say about you or anyone else that argues from this point of view? Who are the real traitors here?

I focus on him because his possible crimes are easy to understand. I leave it to those much smarter than me to determine the governments wrong doings. I do not know the constitution like many of you do. I do however know enough to know that two wrongs don't make a right. And as I stated I have an open mind to all possibilities.

The tricky thing, under the circumstances, is distinguishing between criminal and wrong-doing. The Patriot act, arguably, authorizes the NSA to conduct the kind of surveillance in question. This is something civil libertarians have been screaming about since it was passed. Most people didn't believe us, or didn't get the message, but Snowden's revelations raise the issue once again, now with proof that we were right.

 

[J.E.D]

With that, I'm done. I'm not going to argue this with complete fuckign morons anymore that dont even understand how not to envoke logical fallacies into their arguments, and then have the audacity to call someone a "tard".

the only tard I see here is you and your failed logic.

^^butthurt tard

 

[earlycuyler]

Derp de derp derp derp, dullard.

^ Typical Paultard. Listless now that their master ain't got no juice, and is fading into obscurity.

Derp? I dont debate with intellectually bankrupt retards, fella. You envoked logical fallacy as a piont of yoru contention. Not once, but twice and even praised another poster who initially envoked the fallacy. You've already lost the debate. You're just too fucking stupid to realize it.

Good day, dullard.

Your surrender is accepted. But don't come back with memes and quotes off Ron Pauls facebook. It only makes you look stupid. No run off and sulk.

 

[earlycuyler]

With that, I'm done. I'm not going to argue this with complete fuckign morons anymore that dont even understand how not to envoke logical fallacies into their arguments, and then have the audacity to call someone a "tard".

the only tard I see here is you and your failed logic.

^^butthurt tard

Ya. It was either that, or melt down. Its all the tard knows.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Surrender? No, you have it all wrong. Both of you two pea brains morons.

Have fun with the fallacies!

 

[J.E.D]

With that, I'm done. I'm not going to argue this with complete fuckign morons anymore that dont even understand how not to envoke logical fallacies into their arguments, and then have the audacity to call someone a "tard".

the only tard I see here is you and your failed logic.

^^butthurt tard

Ya. It was either that, or melt down. Its all the tard knows.

He was definitely on the verge of paultard meltdown. He had to slink away before he embarrassed himself even more than he already had.

 

[earlycuyler]

Surrender? No, you have it all wrong. Both of you two pea brains morons.

Have fun with the fallacies!

^Yet you felt the need to respond. Paltard explosion. Soon to follow.

 

[J.E.D]

Surrender? No, you have it all wrong. Both of you two pea brains morons.

Have fun with the fallacies!

I stand corrected

 

[earlycuyler]

^^butthurt tard

Ya. It was either that, or melt down. Its all the tard knows.

He was definitely on the verge of paultard meltdown. He had to slink away before he embarrassed himself even more than he already had.

Ya, and the rep/PM comments are golden to. The butt hurt is flowing fo sho.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So you have no proof. Shocking!

It's not a give - in, dullard.

If exposing the crimes of the government is criminal, then the government views the american people as the enemy. Afterall, they were spying on us and unconstitutionally (criminally) stealing our data. You can go on and on about how snowden did something you cant prove, but it's irrelevant to what Paul is saying (not that is shocks me your'e too stupid to grasp that).

The govt. is the one caught in a crime, not snowden.

Oh, and this is that paultarded thinking again. How bout you prove he did not give it to them ? Oh, you can't. Guess that makes you an irrelevant dullard.

You're a serious dumbfuck.

Negative proof - RationalWiki

A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.