Snowdon is a dummy

@Moment-in-Time,

Corruption goes far deeper than the 20th century.

Corruption expands far wider than one system.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Quote:

What in the hell are you talking about.

Rabel, your question is cracking me up!!!!!

0 Replies

@One Eyed Mind,

Quote:

Corruption goes far deeper than the 20th century.

Corruption expands far wider than one system.

Tell me about it!

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

OK I wont talk rot. When Russia violates someones sovereignty you point the U S of A consists of a bunch of ass holes.

You have cause and effect totally arse about tit. America was caught spying on its allies. And Britain was in cahoots. Russia's action is completely separate to all this. I condemn America's (and Britain's) actions, but they have absolutely nothing to do with Putin's actions in the Ukraine.

All you need to do is ask yourself one question, "Are America's interests best served with a resurgent, confident, sovereign territory violating Putin?"

At the end of the day it all boils down to what's in America's interest. At least your country acts accordingly. My country, on the other hand, can't distinguish between America's and its own interests.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

Oh, I see. You post BS posts that mean absolutely nothing. Carry on.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Yes I noticed. We seem to have the same kind of government.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

It's not wise to call someone's posts BS, when your own posts are not constructive or universally inclined to come to conclusions based on out of sight; out of mind analysis which correlate with the behavioral patterns and functions of the Universe, but instead insulting another's work of literary art; especially when your posts harbor hatred and personal bias.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

Whats your problem. I said you could continue your BS so carry on.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

If I told a child he was a fool, but he could continue on, would that change the fact I just call the child a fool? No.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

I agree with MIT, your question is funny. I have read a few post from this poster, it's interesting and I can't quite make out what he means in any of them or even if I agree or disagree.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

Yeah, but the difference in izzythepush's mind is that they are only accommodating the US's interest, not their own when they do their spying.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

That's not exactly what I said, some things are in both UK's and US's interests, other things, like the 1986 bombing of Tripoli, may (arguably,) have been in America's interest, but it definitely wasn't in Britain's.

0 Replies

The hard fact is...in the international espionage game...

...there is almost no way to determine what bit of spying might benefit whom.

In some instances...some intelligence gathered benefits damn near everyone affiliated...and there was absolutely no way to know beforehand that it would happen.

I suspect...I am damn near certain...that a lot of significant intelligence factoids were the result of pure blind luck...and any of those may have benefited several parties who became receivers of the information.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I too was speaking figuratively, Frank. I don't mean that your mouth is actually larger than average; "big mouth" was a figure of speech meaning you like to brag a lot... And you speak about my balls so often that your mouth is already full of them.

Figuratively, OF COURSE...

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I have bought the book. If I hate it it will be your fault... Smile

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I too was speaking figuratively, Frank. I don't mean that your mouth is actually larger than average; "big mouth" was a figure of speech meaning you like to brag a lot... And you speak about my balls so often that your mouth is already full of them.

Figuratively, OF COURSE...

Try developing some class, Olivier...and then deliver your rationalizations. It works better that way. The comment as you delivered it was beneath even you.

As for me "bragging a lot"...I simply do not do that.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Yes he did break the law. But in some cases, this can be justifiably done for a greater good.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

My guess is that almost none of the items your hero, Edward Snowden, revealed will be found to be illegal or unconstitutional.

Which does not mean that they are constitutional or legal, just that the US legal system is unable to recognize it as such.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Yes he did break the law. But in some cases, this can be justifiably done for a greater good.

And YOU are the determiner of whether or not it is justifiable or not?

Edward Snowden is the determiner of whether or not it is justifiable or not?

The courts of the United States are the determiners of whether or not it is justifiable or not?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
My guess is that almost none of the items your hero, Edward Snowden, revealed will be found to be illegal or unconstitutional.

Which does not mean that they are constitutional or legal, just that the US legal system is unable to recognize it as such.

Incorrect.

They determine what is legal and constitutional. Not YOU or public opinion...or some moral code you want to intrude into the process.

0 Replies

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know