41
   

Snowdon is a dummy

Forums: Politics, Snowden, Asylum, Nsa, Snowdon
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 05:26 pm
@Frank Apisa,
We are in the prelim stages, and I wouldn't be surprised what transpires from all this wire-tapping. If there's no purpose, why do they do it? Logic 101.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 07:35 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

We are in the prelim stages, and I wouldn't be surprised what transpires from all this wire-tapping.


Neither would I, ci. In fact, a great deal of vital information MAY come from it.

Quote:

If there's no purpose, why do they do it? Logic 101.


Because lots of very knowledgeable members of the intelligence community feel that there is a VERY NECESSARY PURPOSE to it. Logic 101...repeated in Logic 102, 105, 203, 204, and 301 again!
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 10:24 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
In fact, a great deal of vital information MAY come from it.

That's not a fact. That's a guess...

What vital information has come from it so far?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 11:02 am
@Olivier5,
Some people's guesses becomes their facts. Therein lies the problem. There has been no evidence shown that mass data collection of American citizens is effective, and it certainly isn't cost/benefit proven. We already have the CIA, FBI, and other military intelligence agencies working against terrorists. We don't need our own government to be spying on Americans citizens.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 11:02 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
In fact, a great deal of vital information MAY come from it.

That's not a fact. That's a guess...




A great deal of vital information MAY come from it.

And a great deal of vital information MAY NOT come from it.

Not sure what you see as a guess here, Olivier.

Quote:
What vital information has come from it so far?


Beats the hell out of me. I do not know...and I suspect you do not know either. And I also suspect that the people who DO KNOW...are never going to tell us either way.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 11:04 am
@Frank Apisa,
"May" doesn't give our government permission to spy on Americans under our Constitution.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 12:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

"May" doesn't give our government permission to spy on Americans under our Constitution.


No...the Constitution does, though. Or at least it does until the Supreme Court says it doesn't.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 12:45 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Which of course is one of the reason I suggest that it is not your interpretation of the Constitution...nor Edward Snowden's interpretation that matters.

The interpretation of the SCOTUS trumps all of that.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 01:21 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Quote:
What vital information has come from it so far?

Beats the hell out of me. I do not know...and I suspect you do not know either. And I also suspect that the people who DO KNOW...are never going to tell us either way.

Your guess is therefore totally unverifiable. It's metaphysical, like saying: God MAY exist (or He MAY NOT exist).
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 01:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I don't trust the supreme court or our president. The supreme court intruded into our elections when GW Bush would have lost Florida.

Obama retained the power to imprison Americans without the right to legal council - with no charge of any crime. I don't trust him.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 01:35 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
What vital information has come from it so far?

Beats the hell out of me. I do not know...and I suspect you do not know either. And I also suspect that the people who DO KNOW...are never going to tell us either way.

Your guess is therefore totally unverifiable. It's metaphysical, like saying: God MAY exist (or He MAY NOT exist).


Not sure what "guess" you are talking about.

Either information will be obtained...or it will not.

What is your problem?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 01:37 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I don't trust the supreme court or our president.


I understand that, ci. But that does not change the dynamics of our system of government.

The SCOTUS will decide if the activities of the NSA are constitutional or not...not you...nor Frank Apisa...nor Edward Snowden.



Quote:
The supreme court intruded into our elections when GW Bush would have lost Florida.


Could be...but that ruling holds.

Quote:
Obama retained the power to imprison Americans without the right to legal council - with no charge of any crime. I don't trust him.


I understand that you do not trust Barack Obama.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 01:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
From Florida State University.
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/292/Gey.pdf
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 01:40 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You,
Quote:
I understand that, ci. But that does not change the dynamics of our system of government.


You seem to ignore the simple fact about right and wrong. Your acceptance of our legal system only proves your ignorance. You have the capacity to overlook their overstepping the boundaries of our Constitution. I'm not.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 02:14 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Not sure what "guess" you are talking about.

Either information will be obtained...or it will not.

What is your problem?

Since when should billions be spent on dangerous, totally unproven ideas which pose severe privacy and democratic issues?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 02:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You,
Quote:
I understand that, ci. But that does not change the dynamics of our system of government.


You seem to ignore the simple fact about right and wrong. Your acceptance of our legal system only proves your ignorance. You have the capacity to overlook their overstepping the boundaries of our Constitution. I'm not.


Sorry we have to get into my ignorance, ci...but calling people ignorant or stupid seem to be a part of your form these days.

If you want to think you, or I, or Edward Snowden have the right to decide if something is Constitutional or not...rather than the SCOTUS...that is something you will have to deal with.

I will stick with "the SCOTUS decides if something is constitutional or not."
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 02:20 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Not sure what "guess" you are talking about.

Either information will be obtained...or it will not.

What is your problem?

Since when should billions be spent on dangerous, totally unproven ideas which pose severe privacy and democratic issues?


What does that have to do with "either information will be obtained or it will not be obtained?"
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 02:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You have that "freedom" to believe the decisions by SCOTUS are the correct ones; I don't, and I've already explained why.

Quote:
ig·no·rance
ˈignərəns/Submit
noun
1.
lack of knowledge or information.
"he acted in ignorance of basic procedures"
synonyms: incomprehension of, unawareness of, unconsciousness of, unfamiliarity with, inexperience with, lack of knowledge about, lack of information about;


I've yet to hear from you why you believe what our government does that's illegal under our Constitution to be the correct ones.

Also, please explain to me why you don't fit the definition?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 02:41 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You,
Quote:
What does that have to do with "either information will be obtained or it will not be obtained?"


That's not even relevant! What's relevant is their breaking the laws established by our Constitution.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 02:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You have that "freedom" to believe the decisions by SCOTUS are the correct ones; I don't, and I've already explained why.


It doesn't matter whether you "believe" they are or not. They are the law of the land. Not sure why you think we should defer to you...but I, for one, will not.

Quote:

Quote:
ig·no·rance
ˈignərəns/Submit
noun
1.
lack of knowledge or information.
"he acted in ignorance of basic procedures"
synonyms: incomprehension of, unawareness of, unconsciousness of, unfamiliarity with, inexperience with, lack of knowledge about, lack of information about;



Whatever the definition, ci, what I said earlier is correct. You seem to call people stupid or ignorant way, way too frequently these days.


Quote:
I've yet to hear from you why you believe what our government does that's illegal under our Constitution to be the correct ones.


I do not do "believing", ci. If the government does something...and the SCOTUS does not rule it unconstitutional...I deem it to be constitutional.

So should you.

Quote:
Also, please explain to me why you don't fit the definition?


Don't fit the definition of what...ignorant?

I am far from ignorant, ci. If you do not realize that (or are unwilling to acknowledge that) without explanation...I doubt any explanation will help you.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 225
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 06:57:38
▲ ▼