Ron Paul's view upon Eric Snowden issue

[earlycuyler]

A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.[1] A fallacy can be either formal or informal. An error that stems from a poor logical form is sometimes called a formal fallacy or simply an invalid argument. An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not originate in improper logical form. Arguments committing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.

Fallacies of presumption fail to prove the conclusion by assuming the conclusion in the proof. Fallacies of weak inference fail to prove the conclusion with insufficient evidence. Fallacies of distraction fail to prove the conclusion with irrelevant evidence, like emotion. Fallacies of ambiguity fail to prove the conclusion due to vagueness in words, phrases, or grammar.[2]

Some fallacies are committed intentionally (to manipulate or persuade by deception), others unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.

Now you are saying since the NSA broke the law Snowden did not

You are a hoot !

The founders of this nation were outlaws. Go figure.

The founders had reasons, the right wing radicals do not. Consider these words by a founder:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Na, that only means that you shoot the bad guys with an AR-15.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well that's a ridiculous comment by Rep. Paul.

While sharing with the American People he also shared it with our friends and foes alike.

He's not a representative, first off. Second, Snowden revealed the information to the american public. The media is responsible for how they disseminate information. Otherwise, he didnt reveal anything to our "foes". Sounds like the NSA shouldnt have been conducting criminal behavior and the problem would have been avoided.

A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.[1] A fallacy can be either formal or informal. An error that stems from a poor logical form is sometimes called a formal fallacy or simply an invalid argument. An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not originate in improper logical form. Arguments committing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.

Fallacies of presumption fail to prove the conclusion by assuming the conclusion in the proof. Fallacies of weak inference fail to prove the conclusion with insufficient evidence. Fallacies of distraction fail to prove the conclusion with irrelevant evidence, like emotion. Fallacies of ambiguity fail to prove the conclusion due to vagueness in words, phrases, or grammar.[2]

Some fallacies are committed intentionally (to manipulate or persuade by deception), others unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.

Now you are saying since the NSA broke the law Snowden did not

You are a hoot !

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.

 

[dblack]

Hey, what did the Patriot Act allow? I've never read it ...

You should. It weakened the requirements for getting a warrant for wiretapping, or other surveillance of private communication:

Prior to the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the statute authorizing the use of "pen register" and "trap and trace" devices governed real time interception of "numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted on the telephone line to which such device is attached." Although the use of such devices requires a court order, it does not require a showing of probable cause. There is, in effect, no judicial discretion, as the court is required to authorize monitoring upon the mere certification by a government attorney that the "information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." Therefore, such procedures lack almost all of the significant privacy protections found in Title III, the statute governing the interception of the actual "content" of a communication (e.g., a phone conversation or the text of an e-mail message).

EPIC - USA Patriot Act

We argued at the time that this would be interpreted, by the state, to allow blanket surveillance of anyone and everyone the government decided to spy on. We were told we were paranoid. Obama proved us right.

Final question: What if Bush had "listened" in and arrested 19 terrorists in Boston on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001? Would you not be claiming him as a hero?

Probably a hero. But, like Snowden, he would have still been guilty of committing a crime. There's nothing contradictory about classifying certain practices as illegal as a matter of policy (because in general they are wrong and should not be accepted as SOP), yet lauding those willing to break the law to do what is right in extraordinary circumstances.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well that's a ridiculous comment by Rep. Paul.

While sharing with the American People he also shared it with our friends and foes alike.

He's not a representative, first off. Second, Snowden revealed the information to the american public. The media is responsible for how they disseminate information. Otherwise, he didnt reveal anything to our "foes". Sounds like the NSA shouldnt have been conducting criminal behavior and the problem would have been avoided.

Nice spin, silly, but the best you've got I suspect.

[When did Ron Paul leave the H. of Rep.?]

Hey, what did the Patriot Act allow? I've never read it, but it seems it gave the Gov't (NSA and other Gov't agencies)s a good deal of power to 'investigate' us citizens. Being stripped searched, patted down and X-Rayed seems pretty damn intrusive to me. So what was illegal in what was done?

Oh, and BTW, how many citizens have been sent to the "GULAG" during the Bush or Obama Administrations?

Final question: What if Bush had "listened" in and arrested 19 terrorists in Boston on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001? Would you not be claiming him as a hero?

if you've never read it, and you dont know who is and who is not a current congressional repsresentative, then I suggest you stop asking stupid fucking questions and start reading.

The rest of that tripe is irrelevant to the topic.

 

[dblack]

I just think it's pathetic that so many liberals, who in the past have prided themselves in standing up to such overreaching police state tactics, now offer distraction and excuses instead of holding their own leaders accountable.

Those of you doing this, whether in the name of partisan loyalty, or sheer idiocy, are a disgrace.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance | Mother Jones

Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance


In the midst of revelations that the government has conducted extensive top-secret surveillance operations to collect domestic phone records and internet communications, the Justice Department was due to file a court motion Friday in its effort to keep secret an 86-page court opinion that determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying.

This important case—all the more relevant in the wake of this week's disclosures—was triggered after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate intelligence committee, started crying foul in 2011 about US government snooping. As a member of the intelligence committee, he had learned about domestic surveillance activity affecting American citizens that he believed was improper. He and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), another intelligence committee member, raised only vague warnings about this data collection, because they could not reveal the details of the classified program that concerned them. But in July 2012, Wyden was able to get the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify two statements that he wanted to issue publicly. They were:

* On at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

* I believe that the government's implementation of Section 702 of FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Senators accuse government of using 'secret law' to collect Americans' data | World news | guardian.co.uk

A bipartisan group of 26 US senators has written to intelligence chiefs to complain that the administration is relying on a "secret body of law" to collect massive amounts of data on US citizens.

The senators accuse officials of making misleading statements and demand that the director of national intelligence James Clapper answer a series of specific questions on the scale of domestic surveillance as well as the legal justification for it.

In their strongly-worded letter to Clapper, the senators said they believed the government may be misinterpreting existing legislation to justify the sweeping collection of telephone and internet data revealed by the Guardian.

"We are concerned that by depending on secret interpretations of the Patriot Act that differed from an intuitive reading of the statute, this program essentially relied for years on a secret body of law," they say.

"This and misleading statements by intelligence officials have prevented our constituents from evaluating the decisions that their government was making, and will unfortunately undermine trust in government more broadly."

This is the strongest attack yet from Congress since the disclosures began, and comes after Clapper admitted he had given "the least untruthful answer possible" when pushed on these issues by Senators at a hearing before the latest revelations by the Guardian and the Washington Post.

In a press statement, the group of senators added: "The recent public disclosures of secret government surveillance programs have exposed how secret interpretations of the USA Patriot Act have allowed for the bulk collection of massive amounts of data on the communications of ordinary Americans with no connection to wrongdoing."

They said: "Reliance on secret law to conduct domestic surveillance activities raises serious civil liberty concerns and all but removes the public from an informed national security and civil liberty debate."

A spokesman for the office of the director of national intelligence (ODNI) acknowledged the letter. "The ODNI received a letter from 26 senators this morning requesting further engagement on vital intelligence programs recently disclosed in the media, which we are still evaluating. The intelligence and law enforcement communities will continue to work with all members of Congress to ensure the proper balance of privacy and protection for American citizens."

The Letter

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Misleading statements puts it rather lightly. Some of them, such as Diane Fienstein (or whatever that trolls name is) deliberately and unabashedly LIED to congress about it. But, govt. is above the law. They dont have to follow the letter like people like Snowden do, right?

 

[earlycuyler]

He's not a representative, first off. Second, Snowden revealed the information to the american public. The media is responsible for how they disseminate information. Otherwise, he didnt reveal anything to our "foes". Sounds like the NSA shouldnt have been conducting criminal behavior and the problem would have been avoided.

Nice spin, silly, but the best you've got I suspect.

[When did Ron Paul leave the H. of Rep.?]

Hey, what did the Patriot Act allow? I've never read it, but it seems it gave the Gov't (NSA and other Gov't agencies)s a good deal of power to 'investigate' us citizens. Being stripped searched, patted down and X-Rayed seems pretty damn intrusive to me. So what was illegal in what was done?

Oh, and BTW, how many citizens have been sent to the "GULAG" during the Bush or Obama Administrations?

Final question: What if Bush had "listened" in and arrested 19 terrorists in Boston on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001? Would you not be claiming him as a hero?

if you've never read it, and you dont know who is and who is not a current congressional repsresentative, then I suggest you stop asking stupid fucking questions and start reading.

The rest of that tripe is irrelevant to the topic.

Ya, they should just listen to you right ? And you Paultards know all about being irrelevant to the topic don't ya ?

 

[earlycuyler]

I just think it's pathetic that so many liberals, who in the past have prided themselves in standing up to such overreaching police state tactics, now offer distraction and excuses instead of holding their own leaders accountable.

Those of you doing this, whether in the name of partisan loyalty, or sheer idiocy, are a disgrace.

They cheered them on. Don't you remember Bush Jr. Had a real hard time with this to.

 

[dblack]

I just think it's pathetic that so many liberals, who in the past have prided themselves in standing up to such overreaching police state tactics, now offer distraction and excuses instead of holding their own leaders accountable.

Those of you doing this, whether in the name of partisan loyalty, or sheer idiocy, are a disgrace.

They cheered them on. Don't you remember Bush Jr. Had a real hard time with this to.

Not sure what you mean. Who cheered who on?

 

[freedombecki]

See Graphic:

...And that's why he's now holed up in Moscow with Putin's truth serum waiting to be administered...

 

[National Socialist]

He could always come back here and get water boarded.

 

[earlycuyler]

I just think it's pathetic that so many liberals, who in the past have prided themselves in standing up to such overreaching police state tactics, now offer distraction and excuses instead of holding their own leaders accountable.

Those of you doing this, whether in the name of partisan loyalty, or sheer idiocy, are a disgrace.

They cheered them on. Don't you remember Bush Jr. Had a real hard time with this to.

Not sure what you mean. Who cheered who on?

The dems cheered on those who leaked.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Nice spin, silly, but the best you've got I suspect.

[When did Ron Paul leave the H. of Rep.?]

Hey, what did the Patriot Act allow? I've never read it, but it seems it gave the Gov't (NSA and other Gov't agencies)s a good deal of power to 'investigate' us citizens. Being stripped searched, patted down and X-Rayed seems pretty damn intrusive to me. So what was illegal in what was done?

Oh, and BTW, how many citizens have been sent to the "GULAG" during the Bush or Obama Administrations?

Final question: What if Bush had "listened" in and arrested 19 terrorists in Boston on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001? Would you not be claiming him as a hero?

if you've never read it, and you dont know who is and who is not a current congressional repsresentative, then I suggest you stop asking stupid fucking questions and start reading.

The rest of that tripe is irrelevant to the topic.

Ya, they should just listen to you right ? And you Paultards know all about being irrelevant to the topic don't ya ?

Apparently your reading comprehension is as good as your debate skills. No one said listen to me. I said fucking read. Something you apparently need some help with yourself, unsurprisingly.

There you go calling people tards again, tard. Give us another logical fallacy and make your self useful. Entertainment seems to be your strong suit. Logic, reason and comprehension, you should leave to others with more in the intellectual coffer, buddy.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

They cheered them on. Don't you remember Bush Jr. Had a real hard time with this to.

Not sure what you mean. Who cheered who on?

The dems cheered on those who leaked.

Your brain is leaking out your ear. That has nothing to do with what dblack said. Again completely to no ones surprise.

 

[nodoginnafight]

See Graphic:

and releasing classified information to the U.S. public isn't the same as releasing it to our enemies.

'cause none of us are gonna tell 'em


What an idiotic statement.
All pander - no logic.

 

[RKMBrown]

Only for awhile. I linked three cases of whistle blowing done right. In all 3 cases no one felt the need to run to an enemy of this country and spill the beans.

Your three examples are not valid.

Daniel Ellsberg was 1971. (before the un-patriot act.)

Gary Webb Dark Alliance story was 1996. (before the un-patriot act.) Then after the 1996 outing of the CIA... in 2004 when he went after them again... he supposedly shot himself in the head "twice."



Jesselyn Radack - is the head of the whistle blower organization. She blew the whistle on one minor issue about one unlawful act by one FBI agent and an attempted coverup regarding whether the interrogated guy was mirandized. Hardly qualifies as an example.

And he was not endorsed by Ron Paul. Its fully valid. Snowden is nothing but a traitor who thought he was going to be taken under the wing of his communist brothers, instead, they took his bag of candy and booted his ass. After he saw that he was not the hero he hoped to be, and realizing that he will be snatched off a buss in some third world shit hole, he latched on to the Paultards and followers of the fat one. Dude is a punk. Nothing more.

Are you a raving lunatic? Who are these Paultards you keep talking about, who is "the fat one", and how did Snowden "latch on to them?" What makes you think he's a communist? That he took off to Hong Kong then Russia to avoid being killed in an "apparent suicide?"

 

[TakeAStepBack]

See Graphic:

and releasing classified information to the U.S. public isn't the same as releasing it to our enemies.

'cause none of us are gonna tell 'em


What an idiotic statement.
All pander - no logic.

Speaking of idiotic statements......

 

[dblack]

See Graphic:

and releasing classified information to the U.S. public isn't the same as releasing it to our enemies.

'cause none of us are gonna tell 'em


What an idiotic statement.
All pander - no logic.

If these tactics were only being used on our enemies, I doubt we'd be discussing them.