42
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 08:50 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Countries spy on each other.
You think that our Federal Intelligence Service had bugged Obama's phone and is listening what other leading US-politicians talk?


No you haven't bugged Obama's phone, but your country is trying very hard to do just that. This isn't a slap in the face to Germany, every other Government of other countries are also trying to do the same thing.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 08:58 pm
By the way Spendius, you must be very young to have such limited knowledge of what happened in England during the Blitzkrieg. As much as I thought Ronald Reagan was a senile President, he said one thing I can agree with, "trust, but verify".
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 11:09 pm
@glitterbag,
More news on the FISA court and information gathering.
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-defense-terror-case-see-secret-docs-201753300.html
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 05:16 am
@cicerone imposter,
I gather that Eddie has been put up for the Nobel Peace prize.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 07:45 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
The alternative, as I have mentioned, is to restrict their intelligence gathering only to people who intend harm to us...or to other countries around the world.

Is that what you suggest they do???


At first I thought, yes, but then I rethought it, and I can see the logic behind going through lots of data and picking up on code words in order to gather information on possible terrorist. However, it is still an awful lot of information to shift through.

But on this spying on other governments, and those we consider our allies. How is that keeping our country secure? I suppose it is true its been done forever, just not sure why.
revelette2
 
  1  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 07:50 am
@cicerone imposter,
Well, the prosecutors were poorly prepared for the arguments by simply saying, it's never been done before. They should have said why it would compromise security.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 07:56 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

Quote:
The alternative, as I have mentioned, is to restrict their intelligence gathering only to people who intend harm to us...or to other countries around the world.

Is that what you suggest they do???


At first I thought, yes, but then I rethought it, and I can see the logic behind going through lots of data and picking up on code words in order to gather information on possible terrorist. However, it is still an awful lot of information to shift through.

But on this spying on other governments, and those we consider our allies. How is that keeping our country secure? I suppose it is true its been done forever, just not sure why.


The other problem, of course, is how does one know who "the people are who intend to harm us or others."

That is a big part of what the intelligence agencies are trying to determine with the intelligence gathering.
spendius
 
  2  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 10:26 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
That is a big part of what the intelligence agencies are trying to determine with the intelligence gathering.


Not as big a part as determining the amount of Federal funding through secret back channels which only a chap with nerves of steel would question. In the absence of the questioning it gathers momentum as is the way with all bureaucracies if left to themselves.
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 10:31 am
@spendius,
I gather some budget cuts were proposed in the State of the Union speech. Other bureaucracies being trimmed that means.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 01:32 pm
Talking about climate change seems to be really dangerous for the US-security as well!

Snowden revelations of NSA spying on Copenhagen climate talks spark anger
Quote:
Documents leaked by Edward Snowden show how the US National Security Agency (NSA) monitored communication between key countries before and during the conference to give their negotiators advance information about other positions at the high-profile meeting where world leaders including Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel failed to agree to a strong deal on climate change.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 02:39 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Oh that's great! So now US national security resources are highjacked to sabotage the future security of the US... and of the rest of the world. Absolutely great! Let's use the brightest minds and all the resources at our disposal to DESTROY OUR KIDS' FUTURE !!!

Criminals...
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 02:41 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Oh that's great! So now US national security resources are highjacked to sabotage the future security of the US... and of the rest of the world. Absolutely great! Let's use the brightest minds and all the resources at our disposal to DESTROY OUR KIDS' FUTURE !!!

Criminals...


Great reasoning, Olivier. Where did you take your logic classes...at KMart?
Olivier5
 
  2  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 02:42 pm
@Frank Apisa,
What exactly don't you understand, Frank?
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 02:57 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

What exactly don't you understand, Frank?


How you arrived at where you arrived...using the information given as a vehicle.

Your comment, Olivier, is so far from logical, I felt a pang when I used the word logic in my reply.
spendius
 
  2  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 03:36 pm
@Olivier5,
He might understand, Olivier, that man-made global warming has not been proven. As Apisa might say--"it's a guess". Then your logic falls to the ground.

GW might be a conspiracy to slow the US down in its bid for Glory which does require it to pump **** out at an accelerating rate. As for its competitors. The accelerating rate is a manifestation of cheap energy. Hence shale gas. What Obarmy meant by bragging about the US being more self-sufficient in energy was that gas would be cheaper. Or at least not dearer. Taxation of gas being irrelevant in economic terms. In ordinary terms it is as relevant as a conductor is to an orchestra.

The recent decline in sun spots, which is said to be the MC for the performance of the Ice Age trick, God's way of making a fresh start when mankind fucks up, would suggest, using the tree-hugger's own logic, that we pump out as much **** as possible, as quickly as possible and give God the stiff finger salute. Setting fire to the Siberian perma-frost being a last fling if we need it.

We won't go quietly I can assure you.

In which case it makes sense to bug that meeting to find out what the buggers were up to to stop the US saving mankind. The crude oil was no use for that as the last Ice Age proved. Which is only about 400 generations back.

A slightly thicker mist of **** for an atmosphere might be the equivalent of the lush greenery said to have covered the earth in by-gone days when the organism that could digest any of it, from cacti to clover, got so big that it couldn't get it on anymore and the females were not hard-wired to do deals with "smaller".

The only argument that I have is that it is unsporting, ungentlemanly, not done in well educated circles, too clever by half. Attracts the wrong sort of people. It's fair enough shinning up drainpipes and planting bugs in flowerpots in the dead of night. Or having the night-porter boxed off.

It's tele-spooking and not the real thing. I know it helps get a blocking vote at the UN together.

Olivier5
 
  2  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 03:42 pm
@Frank Apisa,
A little historical background won't hurt. That summit was a resounding failure, and it appeared that the US and China had entered the discussion for one reason only: to make sure that they could snip in the bud any attempt by Europeans and others to reach an agreement.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 03:46 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
He might understand, Olivier, that man-made global warming has not been proven.

It's proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in spite of the longstanding US' efforts to muddy the waters, promote fake science and disparage perfectly valid science.

The US used to be the leader of the free world. Now it has become its undertaker.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 03:46 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

A little historical background won't hurt. That summit was a resounding failure, and it appeared that the US and China had entered the discussion for one reason only: to make sure that they could snip in the bud any attempt by Europeans and others to reach an agreement.



Perhaps that is true, Olivier...I honestly do not know.

But the conclusion at which you arrived in the post that I challenged...

...is not arrived at as a result of applying logic to the post for which it is a response.

In fact, your conclusion defies logic!

That’s all I was saying.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 03:48 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I don't understand what you are saying either.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 04:05 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

I don't understand what you are saying either.


Okay...fair enough. I get that. It was complicated...and I recognized that when I wrote it.

Let me see if I can make it less complicated.

You wrote:

Quote:
A little historical background won't hurt. That summit was a resounding failure, and it appeared that the US and China had entered the discussion for one reason only: to make sure that they could snip in the bud any attempt by Europeans and others to reach an agreement.


I replied:

Quote:
Perhaps that is true, Olivier...I honestly do not know.


There should be no problem understanding that, Olivier. I am conceding that YOU MAY BE RIGHT…and I am acknowledging that I DO NOT KNOW.



I then wrote:

Quote:
But the conclusion at which you arrived in the post that I challenged...

Here is that conclusion:

Quote:
Oh that's great! So now US national security resources are highjacked to sabotage the future security of the US... and of the rest of the world. Absolutely great! Let's use the brightest minds and all the resources at our disposal to DESTROY OUR KIDS' FUTURE !!!

Criminals...



And I said about that conclusion:

Quote:
...is not arrived at as a result of applying logic to the post for which it is a response.

In fact, your conclusion defies logic!


It does not arrive as a result of applying logic to what Walter posted, Olivier.

Here is the “post for which it is a response”


Quote:
Documents leaked by Edward Snowden show how the US National Security Agency (NSA) monitored communication between key countries before and during the conference to give their negotiators advance information about other positions at the high-profile meeting where world leaders including Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel failed to agree to a strong deal on climate change.

There is absolutely NOTHING in there that indicates anything is being done to sabotage the future security of the US…or the rest of the world. Nothing whatever. The comment, “ Let's use the brightest minds and all the resources at our disposal to DESTROY OUR KIDS' FUTURE !!!” seems to indicate that is what you think they are doing…but it simply does not derive from Walter’s post.


Quote:
That’s all I was saying.


That’s all I was saying!
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 255
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 01:21:25