• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Greenwald says 'low-level' NSA workers can tap into phone, Internet records

Go back and read all 40+ pages of posts before you assume you know what I've said...

I know what you said to me, and that is what I'm responding to. If you want me to accept gross expansion of government power and Big Brother tactics, I need more than fear mongering.
 
If you want me to accept gross expansion of government power and Big Brother tactics, I need more than fear mongering.

Now I know you haven't read he entire thread: there is no "expansion"
 
Now I know you haven't read he entire thread: there is no "expansion"

Yet they're doing things now they didn't in the past. But this aggressive force against our privacy and obvious Big Brother tactics to watch and monitor us all, again if you want me to accept it I need more than fear mongering.
 
What are you taking about? You think that because you said "weed" someone is going to knock on your door? Be serious..

The NSA has been providing information from their surveillance activities to the DEA. It is probably up to the DEA to decide who is worth prosecuting.

Does that mean that they are going to bust everyone who mentions smoking a joint or taking a pill? Probably not, but they have the information and power to do so if they feel like it. We know that the DEA is willing to bust people involved with non-profit medical cannabis facilities in states where they are legal and regulated, so we can't count on them having reasonable priorities.
 
The NSA has been providing information from their surveillance activities to the DEA. It is probably up to the DEA to decide who is worth prosecuting.

Does that mean that they are going to bust everyone who mentions smoking a joint or taking a pill? Probably not, but they have the information and power to do so if they feel like it. We know that the DEA is willing to bust people involved with non-profit medical cannabis facilities in states where they are legal and regulated, so we can't count on them having reasonable priorities.

That's because if they can charge people with drug crimes, they can steal their property.
 
The NSA has been providing information from their surveillance activities to the DEA. It is probably up to the DEA to decide who is worth prosecuting.

Does that mean that they are going to bust everyone who mentions smoking a joint or taking a pill? Probably not, but they have the information and power to do so if they feel like it. We know that the DEA is willing to bust people involved with non-profit medical cannabis facilities in states where they are legal and regulated, so we can't count on them having reasonable priorities.

Remind me again, but isn't marijuana illegal?? PS Federal Law trumps State Law
 
Remind me again, but isn't marijuana illegal?? PS Federal Law trumps State Law

Not really. 9th and 10th amendments reserved anything not specifically granted to the federal government to the People and the States. In a Republic, federal law doesn't always trump state.
 
Not really. 9th and 10th amendments reserved anything not specifically granted to the federal government to the People and the States. In a Republic, federal law doesn't always trump state.

I understand that; my point was about federal drug laws.
 
I understand that; my point was about federal drug laws.

But only because the Federal government contrived some excuse about interstate commerce.
 
But only because the Federal government contrived some excuse about interstate commerce.

That's a debate for a different threat btw.
 
That's a debate for a different threat btw.

Perchance. However, the general point is that just because the federal government claims ownership doesn't necessarily mean that ownership is just or right.
 
You just can't wrap your head about a representative government not promoting what you believe, can you?
I am no longer represented. Am I? Who speaks for those of us who believe that governments must be constrained by written constitutions?

Slumber on...
 
I am no longer represented. Am I? Who speaks for those of us who believe that governments must be constrained by written constitutions?

Slumber on...

You just can't wrap your head about a representative government not promoting what you believe, can you?
 
You just can't wrap your head about a representative government not promoting what you believe, can you?

You cannot come to terms with the fact that the federal government is NOT a representative government. The people do not control this government, special interests do. You may love being in denial about it, as ignorance is bliss many times, but there are many of us that know exactly what Jimmy Carter was talking about last month--there is no operative democracy in this country.
 
You cannot come to terms with the fact that the federal government is NOT a representative government. The people do not control this government, special interests do. You may love being in denial about it, as ignorance is bliss many times, but there are many of us that know exactly what Jimmy Carter was talking about last month--there is no operative democracy in this country.
He (or she) is a lost cause.
 
You cannot come to terms with the fact that the federal government is NOT a representative government. The people do not control this government, special interests do. You may love being in denial about it, as ignorance is bliss many times, but there are many of us that know exactly what Jimmy Carter was talking about last month--there is no operative democracy in this country.

Stop. You're a conspiracy theorist.
 
Stop. You're a conspiracy theorist.

So are you sir.

You are one who believes the official theory as fervently as one believes in church dogma.

I believe that some OTHER theory must be true, because this one has been invalidated, years ago.
 
Back
Top Bottom