Snowdon is a dummy

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

If the USA intercepted cellphones in Germany, they broke German law on German soil. Wiretapping is a crime. Who'd ever done it will get a fair trial.

I've heard analysts speculate that what Germany is really angling for is for the US to start trusting Germany the way we trust the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/10/an-exclusive-club-the-five-countries-that-dont-spy-on-each-other.html

If that is the case, you guys are doing it wrong.

Nonsense like the above only makes us wonder if you guys are secretly on the same side as the terrorists.

4 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

If that is the case, you guys are doing it wrong.

Nonsense like the above only makes us wonder if you guys are secretly on the same side as the terrorists.

LOL..........

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I could imagine that to "win a similar "no-spying" pact with the U.S. themselves" (quote from your above source) is one of the aims.

What makes me wonder is that and why you think, only the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are not on the side of terrorists - and that since 1946 respectively 1948 respectively 1956.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

What interest me about you is that you have taken the position on this website that the US second amendment rights are worth the cost of any deaths by so call gun violence in the US that might result but for some very very very strange reason the fourth amendment along with the imply constitutional rights to privacy that the SC have found over the decades to exist is not worth any added risks of terrorists attacks to keep in place.

Strange thinking indeed and in my opinion all our constitutional rights are worth the risk of shedding blood for if need be.

0 Replies

Let see if we can fairly sum up the position of Frank and others who support him.

First, no one in the world including US citizens have a right to have any secrets from the US government of any kind as who know what small bits of information might save us from the terrorists.

Second, the US government and a small fraction of it allies are the only governments that are allow to have secrets of any kind.

Third, the American people do not have any right to know what their government is doing in their name and to be sure of that we will have secret courts and even having government officers lying to congress at need.

Kind of hard to run any form of democracy government under those conditions so I must assume that Frank and people like him feel that giving up all our constitutional rights along with a working democracy government is the price we should be willing to paid in order to better deal with terrorist threats.

3 Replies

@BillRM,

For once I agree with you. It's not something I like to make a habit of, so please go back to talking nonsense.

3 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

For once I agree with you. It's not something I like to make a habit of, so please go back to talking nonsense.

LOL I will do my best to meet your desires in that regard.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Nonsense like the above only makes us wonder if you guys are secretly on the same side as the terrorists.

Mrs Thatcher, in her "oxygen of publicity" speech, was saying that everybody talking about terrorists was helping them.

A recent case here where a campaign to clamp down on pubs in areas of high level drunken disturbances was put to bed when the campaigners were reminded of the amount of police overtime and other benefits generated by the disorder.

A very great deal of uneconomic spending is due to talking up the Bogeyman. And uneconomic spending costs lives in other areas and slowly bleeds away a nation's wealth out of sight and out of mind.

If PRISM is efficient then it is a system which will reduce a large amount of uneconomic spending in other systems of detection.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Oh Izzy, I just been hearing that you got a new "sheriff in town" in the form of the NCA that for the last year or so have been having fun going around heavily arm and raiding people homes in the early morning hours just like we do in the good old US of A.

None of this unarmed and polite law enforcement nonsense of the past.

Congratulations on moving more to the American model of using a swat team and breaking down doors in the AM if given any excused to do so.

1 Reply

@spendius,

We cannot be safe and be free.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Let see if we can fairly sum up the position of Frank and others who support him.

This ought to be interesting. I have not seen you do any fair summing up of anything so far. But, who knows...you may actually do it here.

By the way, I cannot help but wonder who wrote this piece for you. The absurd grammatical mistakes you regularly make are not here...and either someone else wrote this...or you forgot to continue your act.

Which is it???

Quote:

First, no one in the world including US citizens have a right to have any secrets from the US government of any kind as who know what small bits of information might save us from the terrorists.

I have never said anything of the sort...and I defy you to find anything of that sort in a post of mine. This paragraph is neither fair nor accurate.

Not a very good start.

Quote:

Second, the US government and a small fraction of it allies are the only governments that are allow to have secrets of any kind.

I have never said anything of the sort...and I defy you to find anything of that sort in a post of mine. This paragraph is neither fair nor accurate.

Not a very good first follow-up.

Quote:

Third, the American people do not have any right to know what their government is doing in their name and to be sure of that we will have secret courts and even having government officers lying to congress at need.

I have never said anything of the sort...and I defy you to find anything of that sort in a post of mine. This paragraph is neither fair nor accurate.

So far...no fairness or accuracy that I see.

Quote:

Kind of hard to run any form of democracy government under those conditions so I must assume that Frank and people like him feel that giving up all our constitutional rights along with a working democracy government is the price we should be willing to paid in order to better deal with terrorist threats.

This is just plain absurd. It is not a conclusion...it is a straw man masquerading as a conclusion.

Who did write this for you, Bill?

Or has all the nonsense been an act.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

For once I agree with you. It's not something I like to make a habit of, so please go back to talking nonsense.

Since you agree with him, Izzy...my response to him applies to you also.

Are you wondering, as I did, why this post sounded so different from his usual posts? Or did that not even cross your mind?

1 Reply

@spendius,

We can certainly have neither, however.

We aren't safe regardless of how many freedoms we give up. We each have a line in determining when we've given up more in freedoms than the perceived benefit in increased safety. "Perceived" because how is "safe" measured?

My line was crossed ages ago.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

We cannot be safe and be free.

Quote:

“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.”
― Thomas Paine

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.”
― Thomas Paine

A family that prays together...stays together.

Slogans are easy to write.

Many of them are nonsense.

Of course, someone like you wants to think you get to choose which are nonsense...and which are not.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I have never said anything of the sort...and I defy you to find anything of that sort in a post of mine. This paragraph is neither fair nor accurate.

You should carefully go back and read your own postings and you will find that I am indeed being fair in summing up your positions on this subject.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Who wrote that earlier reply for you, Bill?

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I have never said anything of the sort...and I defy you to find anything of that sort in a post of mine. This paragraph is neither fair nor accurate.

You should carefully go back and read your own postings and you will find that I am indeed being fair in summing up your positions on this subject.

You are not even coming close, Bill...or at least the person who wrote that post for you is not even coming close.

Or has the laughable grammar and construction just been a lie?

By the way...there were a couple of mistakes in there...but not nearly the number we have to endure usually.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Slogans are easy to write.

Well Mr. Paine as a very important figure in not only the US revolution but the French revolution is well worth reading and quoting in my opinion.

Love his book "the Age of Reason" written while waiting his possible death in a French prison.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Slogans are easy to write.

Well Mr. Paine as a very important figure in not only the US revolution but the French revolution is well worth reading and quoting in my opinion.

Love his book "the Age of Reason" written while waiting his possible death in a French prison.

And???

Does that make slogans any more difficult to write?

Anyway...you were claiming to sum up my position fairly...and I have defied you to find anything in my writings that comport with this nonsense you call "fair."

Shouldn't you be working on that...rather than telling me that Paine was an important figure.

By the way, Nancy, I, and some friends visit Marie's Crisis...a bar in Greenwich Village built where Paine's house used to be. Legend has it that he wrote some of the "Crisis" here.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know