Edward Snowden - Patriot or Traitor? · Page 7

Yeah... saw that.

Kinda f-ed up when one of our political parties is backing the same policies as russia, and the other is backing the same policies as china.

no real winning here, is there.

bloody spaniard
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#123

I'm still upset over Poossy Riot getting a 3 year sentence!
They should have gotten life for their music alone.

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#124

I picked 30 because 40 years ago would have put us at Watergate- so that would have been problematic. 30 years ago, it was Morning in Reagan's America. The feeling was there was a shiny house on the hill.

The IRS, CIA & FBI were digging through garbage and following people around. But there was no NSA, collection data sites, and people and computers sifting through our lives.

You are right about it being a both sides of the aisle. The writing is on the wall. Probably has been for decades. But when a Democrat touting transparency is deepening the dive into the mire, and a crying, left wing, liberal nut like Diane Feinstein is promoting more curtailing of people's rights, it is game over, man..... Game over.

8trackdisco wrote:

how can I argue with you if you insist on being right?

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#125

^ Frank.

Cap lock
Big font
menacing red letters

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#126

^ Frank.

Cap lock
Big font
menacing red letters

ZRX1200 wrote:

I thought that was just for men of a certain age?

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#127

No.

Everyones doing it.

Do it in the road if it feels good!

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#128

Just don't get

OUTRAGEOUS !!!!!!!!

😎

8trackdisco
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#129

how can I argue with you if you insist on being right?

frankj1 wrote:

If it is any consolation, I wish I was wrong.

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#130

looks like frank just can't quit you.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#131

Actually, Adroomi was the original drama queen. He was upset by how it affected HIM and used himself as an example of being victimized in order to spin more tales about how important he was. Again, the guy is a liar so we can never know how much of what he said was true. Fiction is fiction. Adroomi was the forum equivalent of the Da Vinci Code. People knew it was fiction, yet believed it anyway.

Back on subject, the goal of the Patriot Act was to catch the bad guy (funny how it's easy to simplify bills that were initiated by Bush, isn't it?).
The Patriot Act allowed for the good guys to wire tap the pesky A-rabs without waiting for a warrant.

At the time, there was no need to worry about the government spying on individual law abiding citizens because the government wasn't using the IRS to target political enemies. And they weren't confiscating our weapons en-mass. Nor did they want to own the auto industry nor the healthcare industry. And they hadn't yet deployed their weather machine.
So it wasn't that we "trusted" the governement. We just didn't think the American people would be so foolish as to rubber stamp the power transfer to Pennsylvania Avenue.

And now we are debating if this guy is a traitor. For revealing the evils for all to see, he should be celebrated.
He's not a hero, but he is certainly a Patriot.

tailgater wrote:

Tail... who cares if Adroomi was only concerned how it would affect HIM? Ultimately, it will affect all of us, I don't give a damn if he's selfishly motivated by some false image he has of himself, or if he's the most altruistic patriot around. He was right. The law had the potential to be abused, and was likely to be abused. We're seeing now that it's expanded well beyond what it originally was claimed to be used for. I don't think abuse is far away.

yeah... it was designed to help bush catch the bad guy. Kinda like that shelter in place **** in boston, right? just stand there and let us finger your b&tthole to make sure there's no bomber hidden in there...

I remember specifically stating back then that it didn't matter whether you thought bush was the worst or greatest ever, the law was being put in place and was going to be available for any future jackass elected to use it. Eventually it was going to be available for someone you thought was bad. I do see the irony in the broad support this "patriot act" had (jesus christ, how can you not see something called "patriot act" and not know you're about to get shafted???? seriously??) on these boards... right before a president was elected who everyone was convinced is satan himself... does no one have any foresight? Can't anyone see past a year?

anyway... I'm done ranting about this. We're f-ed. This will not change.

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#132

It's sort of like line item vetos et al. When in power it seems like a good idea to increase power. The argument against is often but what about when you are not in power? You may be the most upstanding great summich ever to walk the planet but the next guy may not be.

Lets pretend Bush was great and only wanted to get the bad guys.... and of course his plan here was much more measured..... the next guy may very well suck and not be so measured. Short term vision vs. long term vision both blinded by partisan my party is better than the other fog.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#133

Here's how this provision of the Patriot Act was sold to us:

We know who the bad guys are over seas. We know they're talking with terrorists in our borders. We can't legally arrest them until we have proof, but to do so we need a court warrant each time. This is inefficient, after-the-fact and therefore too late.
This provision of the Patriot Act allowed the feds to listen without waiting for the warrant.

In hindsight, this was the slippery slope.
But NOBODY, not even the Bush haters, ever suggested that the government would require Google and AT&T, et al, to hand over information on the general population.

That's like saying we shouldn't allow the sale of fertilizer because someone might make a bomb and take down a building.

This current situation is so friggin extreme that even the paranoid among us couldn't predict it.
Adroomi was concerned because he had Arab friends and could therefore be suspect. (supposedly)
Now we have to be concerned if we search Google for the wrong term. And we've lost any semblance of privacy on our own cell phones, including our geo-tag location.

We have one-sided laws used in law enforcement that have been effective for years. This act was attacked because it was Bush. Now it's being attacked because it's being abused.

If you can't see the difference then I can't help you.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#134

The Line Item veto is only necessary because our government has become a fking JOKE.

We write and vote and enact laws that include absurd provisions unrelated to the intent of the original bill.

We should require signatures next to every line item, detailing who added it.

So when we look back at a "save the children bill" and learn that line item #798 says that all senators get lifetime free haircuts, we'll know which bozo thought of it.

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#135

Folks suggested both. You just didn't listen. Now go shelter in place where it is safe.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#136

In hindsight, this was the slippery slope.
But NOBODY, not even the Bush haters, ever suggested that the government would require Google and AT&T, et al, to hand over information on the general population.

That's like saying we shouldn't allow the sale of fertilizer because someone might make a bomb and take down a building.

tailgater wrote:

bs. I specifically posed the question to someone (can't remember who) how they would feel about this law once the "evil democrats" came to power again.

This current situation is so friggin extreme that even the paranoid among us couldn't predict it.
Adroomi was concerned because he had Arab friends and could therefore be suspect. (supposedly)
Now we have to be concerned if we search Google for the wrong term. And we've lost any semblance of privacy on our own cell phones, including our geo-tag location.

We have one-sided laws used in law enforcement that have been effective for years. This act was attacked because it was Bush. Now it's being attacked because it's being abused.

If you can't see the difference then I can't help you.

This isn't extreme. This is the problem. This is all legal. This is all covered by the law. Ass-clowns gave carte-blanche to our politicians because it was too much effort to draw limitations on the power.

I didn't attack it because it was bush. I said VERY CLEARLY that this was a bad idea because eventually a politician was going to come by who was going to abuse the ever loving sh$t out of it. Didn't expect it to happen under obama, but I definitely expected it to happen eventually.

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#137

spying on americans has been a concern since the Pats Act was passed.

Is that a chechnian in your pocket or are you just glad to see me. Either way you must succomb to a search.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#138

Victor, this IS extreme.

Like most laws, they are passed with a certain intent.
If the wording is vague, we get some who question it and others who will test it to see where it breaks.

This bill was designed for protection but has become a legal means to keep tabs.
Just because the government can legally do these things does not make it any less extreme. And what makes it worse is the cloak and dagger secrecy. Snowden is being chased just for exposing it. Yet we sit here and discuss how it's completely legal.
If it's no big deal, then Obama's transparent government should have no problem with us knowing about it.

This is dirty and un-American.

And those who hated Bush screamed bloody murder even when it was being used as per the original intent. Yet they now want Snowden to burn at the stake for exposing the ABUSE under Obama that far exceeds the original intent.

We don't need "I told you so".
We need outrage that results in a changing of the guards in DC.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#139

Just because I thought I'd pull this up:

http://www.cigarbid.com/FORUM/c/posts/62536/p/3/NSA-has-massive-database-of-Americans-phone-calls

Post 109:
Follow the link posted by someone earlier. That site has done a good job of drawing parallels between Bush's words and those of budding facists.
As for actions, well the most interesting how it seems he doesn't care to involve congress in most of his actions (I believe the presidential memos, or whatever they are called, is a good example of his disregard for congress). The US is supposed to be run by three branches. Bush has the other two stacked in his favor, and yet seems uninterested in including them anyway. It worries me.

But, like I said, he is no longer powerful enough to pull anything off. The only worries I have now are:
1) he's an embarassment
2) his actions create a precedent which a more popular president may take advantage of to do just what I fear.
3) he's an embarassment

Post 112:
Bush has done a lot towards concentrating power in the presidential position. This power isn't going to go away even after bush leaves the seat. So, like it or not, we may find ourselves in a real bad position later in history.

Post 114:
The difference is that Bush and his group are actually changing the scope of the position and setting precedents which a smarter, more popular politician may exploit in the future. I read somewhere (a law website, but I am assuming left leaning) an idea which struck a chord with me, "the expansion of power never rolls backward". This basically suggests that Bush is changing the role of the president irreversibly.

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#140

I don't think it exceeds Bush's original intent. I also hate the program. That said if three branches state it is legal, and it carries a security clearance, I can't just disclose it because I disagree with it and not expect repercussions.

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: