Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
no he should not......George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were "traitors" as well. Some enemies of the state are friends of the people. Whistleblowers are heroes
Other than General Arnold (Old Ben) I don't recall Washington, Franklin or Jefferson cutting and running to our adversary. Maybe I missed the history redo by the USMB's Minister of Truth, CrusaderFrank or others who see the history they want to see.
Lol, who exactly do you think we[/B] we're at the time?
Clue: British subjects
So Washington, Franklin and Jefferson did run to the adversary, that being the Treasonist rebels.
What would be due diligence in protecting our country from terrorist threats?
48 of you believe what is in effect today is a greater threat to liberty than what occurred on 9-11. I don't. Since 9-11 I've -as have many of you - waited in long lines at airports and border crossings; had my body scanned and backpacked searched at ball parks and was patted down with 50,000 others on Sundays when the Niners play. Of course such is a minor loss of privacy when the consequences of a terror attack frame them, but the explanation of how the NSA is protecting us seems to me to be less intrusive than the everyday inconveniences at Airports, museums,sporting events, public building, etc.
This entire brouhaha seems more in line with the birthers and the dozens of other false outrages to flood the INTERNET for since August of 2008. I wonder why Donald Trump hasn't tried to jump on the bandwagon?
Other than General Arnold (Old Ben) I don't recall Washington, Franklin or Jefferson cutting and running to our adversary. Maybe I missed the history redo by the USMB's Minister of Truth, CrusaderFrank or others who see the history they want to see.
Lol, who exactly do you think we[/B] we're at the time?
Clue: British subjects
So Washington, Franklin and Jefferson did run to the adversary, that being the Treasonist rebels.
Don't be ridiculous. Washington, Franklin and Jefferson renounced their allegiance to the Crown with the Declaration of Independence. Did CrusaderFrank help you with this redo of history? Of course so did "old Ben" who later turned on his former comrades.
no he should not......George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were "traitors" as well. Some enemies of the state are friends of the people. Whistleblowers are heroes
Other than General Arnold (Old Ben) I don't recall Washington, Franklin or Jefferson cutting and running to our adversary. Maybe I missed the history redo by the USMB's Minister of Truth, CrusaderFrank or others who see the history they want to see.
Lol, who exactly do you think we[/B] we're at the time?
Clue: British subjects
So Washington, Franklin and Jefferson did run to the adversary, that being the Treasonist rebels.
What would be due diligence in protecting our country from terrorist threats?
48 of you believe what is in effect today is a greater threat to liberty than what occurred on 9-11. I don't. Since 9-11 I've -as have many of you - waited in long lines at airports and border crossings; had my body scanned and backpacked searched at ball parks and was patted down with 50,000 others on Sundays when the Niners play. Of course such is a minor loss of privacy when the consequences of a terror attack frame them, but the explanation of how the NSA is protecting us seems to me to be less intrusive than the everyday inconveniences at Airports, museums,sporting events, public building, etc.
This entire brouhaha seems more in line with the birthers and the dozens of other false outrages to flood the INTERNET for since August of 2008. I wonder why Donald Trump hasn't tried to jump on the bandwagon?
None of which stopped the Boston Bombers who, any dime store agent should have been able to stop.
The point is, the loss of freedom in the vain attempt to secure a minimal amount of security is a joke. Liberty cannot and never should be restrict because a maniac wishes it to be so.
Ok, that has nothing to do with my post. Let's try again.
-- What could Senator Rand Paul, or any Senator really, have done differently, had Snowden gone to him rather than the Guardian, than Senators Wyden and Udall who were not permitted to discuss the program publicly?
-- What difference would it have made had it been Senator Rand Paul putting this information out, after having hypothetically received it from Edward Snowden, rather than Snowden himself?
My point being Rand Paul is all talk and a classic demagogue. Beyond that we don't know where in the process the Congress may have been 'distraught' over the project. I suspect Congress, in general, wanted to keep America safe (some, like Rand Paul might put their ambition over the good for the nation) and decided the means might have been extreme but the end without the program was too awful to ignore. I suspect the safe guards to civil liberty were also detailed to those in the know. BTW, NSA must be circumspect, as such I doubt Rand Paul would have gotten a call back.
Ok, but you're not addressing the issue at hand. You said, "He [Rand Paul] could stand before the American People and AQ, telling the world what the NSA was doing."
So answer the questions:
-- What could Senator Rand Paul, or any Senator really, have done differently, had Snowden gone to him rather than the Guardian, than Senators Wyden and Udall who were not permitted to discuss the program publicly?
-- What difference would it have made had it been Senator Rand Paul putting this information out, after having hypothetically received it from Edward Snowden, rather than Snowden himself?
If you want to remove Rand Paul from the hypothetical and substitute him for a Senator of your choosing then feel free. I only use Rand Paul because somebody else brought him up.
I've heard reporters say Snowden could have shared concerns w/Members of Congress. Not true. Whistleblower protections are limited for #NSA.
no he should not......George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were "traitors" as well. Some enemies of the state are friends of the people. Whistleblowers are heroes
Whistleblowers don't preen about and then hide and that's exactly what this guy did. There are many, many ways he could have raised grievances to stop a wrong and it appears he didn't use any of them.
Name them? And remember this is an administration that chooses who wins and who loses. Take it to a Senator or Congressman and face the very real possibility that the people who have printing presses printing money 24/7 might distribute a few minutes of that run to have you silenced.
This administration, and we only know a few of the stories so far, has givin Farmers information to environmental radicals, tea party information to leftist groups and likely more.
We have obamacare about to glean health information from hundreds of millions of people but we are to believe that it all will be held IN STRICT CONFIDENCE, Like the Farmers and the Tea Party members were assured?
All the information gathered by this is no more safe than that info gathered by EPA or the IRS.
He was both a Patriot and a Criminal, but like Cereal-Killer pointed out, some of our greatest American hero's fall into the same category.
What would be due diligence in protecting our country from terrorist threats?
48 of you believe what is in effect today is a greater threat to liberty than what occurred on 9-11. I don't. Since 9-11 I've -as have many of you - waited in long lines at airports and border crossings; had my body scanned and backpacked searched at ball parks and was patted down with 50,000 others on Sundays when the Niners play. Of course such is a minor loss of privacy when the consequences of a terror attack frame them, but the explanation of how the NSA is protecting us seems to me to be less intrusive than the everyday inconveniences at Airports, museums,sporting events, public building, etc.
This entire brouhaha seems more in line with the birthers and the dozens of other false outrages to flood the INTERNET for since August of 2008. I wonder why Donald Trump hasn't tried to jump on the bandwagon?
None of which stopped the Boston Bombers who, any dime store agent should have been able to stop.
The point is, the loss of freedom in the vain attempt to secure a minimal amount of security is a joke. Liberty cannot and never should be restrict because a maniac wishes it to be so.
What Liberty is restricted? And, tell the victims how someone like you who believes he's smarter than a dime store agent would have prevented the Boston Bombing. I get that you're an ideologue, and maybe if lives were not wasted I might agree with you. But I'm a pragmatist and recognize life ain't easy and hard choices need to be made.
What would be due diligence in protecting our country from terrorist threats?
48 of you believe what is in effect today is a greater threat to liberty than what occurred on 9-11. I don't. Since 9-11 I've -as have many of you - waited in long lines at airports and border crossings; had my body scanned and backpacked searched at ball parks and was patted down with 50,000 others on Sundays when the Niners play. Of course such is a minor loss of privacy when the consequences of a terror attack frame them, but the explanation of how the NSA is protecting us seems to me to be less intrusive than the everyday inconveniences at Airports, museums,sporting events, public building, etc.
This entire brouhaha seems more in line with the birthers and the dozens of other false outrages to flood the INTERNET for since August of 2008. I wonder why Donald Trump hasn't tried to jump on the bandwagon?
None of which stopped the Boston Bombers who, any dime store agent should have been able to stop.
The point is, the loss of freedom in the vain attempt to secure a minimal amount of security is a joke. Liberty cannot and never should be restrict because a maniac wishes it to be so.
What Liberty is restricted? And, tell the victims how someone like you who believes he's smarter than a dime store agent would have prevented the Boston Bombing. I get that you're an ideologue, and maybe if lives were not wasted I might agree with you. But I'm a pragmatist and recognize life ain't easy and hard choices need to be made.
My point being Rand Paul is all talk and a classic demagogue. Beyond that we don't know where in the process the Congress may have been 'distraught' over the project. I suspect Congress, in general, wanted to keep America safe (some, like Rand Paul might put their ambition over the good for the nation) and decided the means might have been extreme but the end without the program was too awful to ignore. I suspect the safe guards to civil liberty were also detailed to those in the know. BTW, NSA must be circumspect, as such I doubt Rand Paul would have gotten a call back.
Ok, but you're not addressing the issue at hand. You said, "He [Rand Paul] could stand before the American People and AQ, telling the world what the NSA was doing."
So answer the questions:
-- What could Senator Rand Paul, or any Senator really, have done differently, had Snowden gone to him rather than the Guardian, than Senators Wyden and Udall who were not permitted to discuss the program publicly?
-- What difference would it have made had it been Senator Rand Paul putting this information out, after having hypothetically received it from Edward Snowden, rather than Snowden himself?
If you want to remove Rand Paul from the hypothetical and substitute him for a Senator of your choosing then feel free. I only use Rand Paul because somebody else brought him up.
I've heard reporters say Snowden could have shared concerns w/Members of Congress. Not true. Whistleblower protections are limited for #NSA.
- Rep. Justin Amash
https://twitter.com/repjustinamash/status/344519481520971776
Another nail in the coffin of this nonsense about how he could have gone to Senator Paul, or any other member of Congress.
Ok, but you're not addressing the issue at hand. You said, "He [Rand Paul] could stand before the American People and AQ, telling the world what the NSA was doing."
So answer the questions:
-- What could Senator Rand Paul, or any Senator really, have done differently, had Snowden gone to him rather than the Guardian, than Senators Wyden and Udall who were not permitted to discuss the program publicly?
-- What difference would it have made had it been Senator Rand Paul putting this information out, after having hypothetically received it from Edward Snowden, rather than Snowden himself?
If you want to remove Rand Paul from the hypothetical and substitute him for a Senator of your choosing then feel free. I only use Rand Paul because somebody else brought him up.
I've heard reporters say Snowden could have shared concerns w/Members of Congress. Not true. Whistleblower protections are limited for #NSA.
- Rep. Justin Amash
https://twitter.com/repjustinamash/status/344519481520971776
Another nail in the coffin of this nonsense about how he could have gone to Senator Paul, or any other member of Congress.
Rand Paul could have put forth a bill and sought out sponsors to end the paractice he and other radical republicans oppose, now that a Democrat is in the White House. He could have found others of his extreme politics easily in the H. of Rep to also put forth a bill.
Of course Speaker Boehner call Snowden a Traitor as have a number of US Senators. Face it, we are a nation of laws and most members of The Congress believe Snowden committed TREASON. Only radicals believe he is a hero.
Ok, but you're not addressing the issue at hand. You said, "He [Rand Paul] could stand before the American People and AQ, telling the world what the NSA was doing."
So answer the questions:
-- What could Senator Rand Paul, or any Senator really, have done differently, had Snowden gone to him rather than the Guardian, than Senators Wyden and Udall who were not permitted to discuss the program publicly?
-- What difference would it have made had it been Senator Rand Paul putting this information out, after having hypothetically received it from Edward Snowden, rather than Snowden himself?
If you want to remove Rand Paul from the hypothetical and substitute him for a Senator of your choosing then feel free. I only use Rand Paul because somebody else brought him up.
I've heard reporters say Snowden could have shared concerns w/Members of Congress. Not true. Whistleblower protections are limited for #NSA.
- Rep. Justin Amash
https://twitter.com/repjustinamash/status/344519481520971776
Another nail in the coffin of this nonsense about how he could have gone to Senator Paul, or any other member of Congress.
Rand Paul could have put forth a bill and sought out sponsors to end the paractice he and other radical republicans oppose, now that a Democrat is in the White House. He could have found others of his extreme politics easily in the H. of Rep to also put forth a bill.
Of course Speaker Boehner call Snowden a Traitor as have a number of US Senators. Face it, we are a nation of laws and most members of The Congress believe Snowden committed TREASON. Only radicals believe he is a hero.
- Rep. Justin Amash
https://twitter.com/repjustinamash/status/344519481520971776
Another nail in the coffin of this nonsense about how he could have gone to Senator Paul, or any other member of Congress.
Rand Paul could have put forth a bill and sought out sponsors to end the paractice he and other radical republicans oppose, now that a Democrat is in the White House. He could have found others of his extreme politics easily in the H. of Rep to also put forth a bill.
Of course Speaker Boehner call Snowden a Traitor as have a number of US Senators. Face it, we are a nation of laws and most members of The Congress believe Snowden committed TREASON. Only radicals believe he is a hero.
And as Nuremburg taught us ILLEGAL ORDERS, OUGHT NOT BE FOLLOWED.
- Rep. Justin Amash
https://twitter.com/repjustinamash/status/344519481520971776
Another nail in the coffin of this nonsense about how he could have gone to Senator Paul, or any other member of Congress.
Rand Paul could have put forth a bill and sought out sponsors to end the paractice he and other radical republicans oppose, now that a Democrat is in the White House. He could have found others of his extreme politics easily in the H. of Rep to also put forth a bill.
Of course Speaker Boehner call Snowden a Traitor as have a number of US Senators. Face it, we are a nation of laws and most members of The Congress believe Snowden committed TREASON. Only radicals believe he is a hero.
Oh no, don't call us radicals.
Congress has no authority over this program, obviously. As evidenced by the failure of Senators Wyden and Udall being able to do anything to stop the program, or even acknowledge that it exists publicly. Rand Paul would be constrained in exactly the same manner. Nor would, according to Congressman Amash, Snowden's actions have been legal had he gone to Senator Paul rather than Glenn Greenwald.
Rand Paul could have put forth a bill and sought out sponsors to end the paractice he and other radical republicans oppose, now that a Democrat is in the White House. He could have found others of his extreme politics easily in the H. of Rep to also put forth a bill.
Of course Speaker Boehner call Snowden a Traitor as have a number of US Senators. Face it, we are a nation of laws and most members of The Congress believe Snowden committed TREASON. Only radicals believe he is a hero.
And as Nuremburg taught us ILLEGAL ORDERS, OUGHT NOT BE FOLLOWED.
That's true. But to equate the extermination of 6 million human beings (Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, Children) with today's outrage is beyond hyperbole and into absurdity.
FWIW, I think he should be charged with treason, and given a fair trial. It won't happen, of course, because it would be huge embarrassment to the administration.
It's not gonna happen because he's hiding like a little bitch.
Like a little bitch?
Maybe he should put a target on, tell Obama where he can send the drones.
I agree with your point of view.The classified information that Snowden revealed was the extent of data collection that the government is doing to the entire American people. The "enemies" Snowden gave aid and comfort to, are the American people. The reason this is classified information is because the government never wanted the people to know what was being done to them. They might object to having such massive data collection by a government driven insane by paranoia.
