• 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!

Ron Paul Launches Clemency Petition For Edward Snowden

Care to tell all the information they can gather from metadata. Keep in mind I know what it is.

I highly doubt you actually do lol. Can you tell me what they can gather if they can't put a person with an account without a warrant?

Also keep in mind I don't care one way or the other.

Hahahaha and this is why no one serious (and no, Rand Paul isn't serious) is going to care about what you think: if you don't care at all about national defense, no one is going to consider anything that you have to say. It's really just that simple. So sit back and let the adults do what they do. You can complain here about it, on debatepolitics.com.
 
I don't agree we have been harmed.

Because you don't know

And I believe that Mrs. Merkel should be able to send an intimate text to her husband PRIVATELY.

lol what? You just don't like intelligence agencies! And, much like Henrin, that's why no one is going to take you seriously. You don't think countries should be spying on each other. That's incredibly naive, ignorant, and utopian. Real decision makers and policy makers are never going to listen to people like you.

US foreign policy creates enemies, if not for that, we shouldn't be worried about it. And, not all spying on countries is about security.

It's a horrible shame that you know absolutely nothing about foreign policy or international relations. Read a book. Just one book, please.
 
I highly doubt you actually do lol. Can you tell me what they can gather if they can't put a person with an account without a warrant?

I have no idea what you're trying to ask me since you jumbled up the wording of your question in such an elementarily stupid way. I did however notice you didn't provide me with any sort of information on metadata.
 
I have no idea what you're trying to ask me since you jumbled up the wording of your question in such an elementarily stupid way. I did however notice you didn't provide me with any sort of information on metadata.

Are you mad or something? Lol read it again, it's pretty simple.
 
Very impressive.

Because you don't know



lol what? You just don't like intelligence agencies! And, much like Henrin, that's why no one is going to take you seriously. You don't think countries should be spying on each other. That's incredibly naive, ignorant, and utopian. Real decision makers and policy makers are never going to listen to people like you.



It's a horrible shame that you know absolutely nothing about foreign policy or international relations. Read a book. Just one book, please.

You guys like to claim that Snowden harmed us, yet you can't articulate how. You just project the accusation because you don't like having been exposed.

I don't think anybody on this board, now or ever will be influencing policy makers. Don't flatter yourself.

Books are written by people espousing their opinions. Opinions that are influenced by ideology. In neither party is there any consensus on foreign policy goals. Experienced and educated people debate vigorously over this and the parties, well just look at the way the right treats Obama right here on this board, with regard to his foreign policy. Every bit of it. There's nothing in Obama's foreign policy they agree with. Who's right, and who's wrong? That depends on who your asking.

There's great economists, qualified and educated. One follows the Keynesian model and one follows the Friedman. The two models are worlds apart, and yet they will both argue that theirs is right and the other is destructive. Who's right.


I have no problem with intel or any other agencies that operate inside of US/constitutional law and international law. But the testimony of the Church committee to congress on the NSA has more importance to me than anything you could ever say.
 
You guys like to claim that Snowden harmed us, yet you can't articulate how.

I articulated exactly how. I said that by sharing means and methods (details) of US intelligence operations, he harmed future ones. Because targets will adapt their means of communications and the US will be less knowledgeable and operate on less information. I know you enjoy being ignorant, but it actually is harmful to not know things. In the Monte world, it's good to be uninformed, I know. But thankfully, serious people don't share your belief on this matter.

You just project the accusation because you don't like having been exposed.

lol what?

I don't think anybody on this board, now or ever will be influencing policy makers. Don't flatter yourself.

lol I think you're absolutely wrong. Because you're unimportant, you think everyone else is? But no, not through this board.

Books are written by people espousing their opinions. Opinions that are influenced by ideology. In neither party is there any consensus on foreign policy goals. Experienced and educated people debate vigorously over this and the parties, well just look at the way the right treats Obama right here on this board, with regard to his foreign policy. Every bit of it. There's nothing in Obama's foreign policy they agree with. Who's right, and who's wrong? That depends on who your asking.

This is astoundingly ignorant.

There's great economists, qualified and educated. One follows the Keynesian model and one follows the Friedman. The two models are worlds apart, and yet they will both argue that theirs is right and the other is destructive. Who's right.

It depends on the circumstance.

I have no problem with intel or any other agencies that operate inside of US/constitutional law and international law. But the testimony of the Church committee to congress on the NSA has more importance to me than anything you could ever say.

Yes, you do have a problem with them, if you think it's wrong that intel organizations seek to know what heads of state are communicating about. You have absolutely no understanding of it, and that's why I'm happy no one important listens to you.
 
You guys like to claim that Snowden harmed us, yet you can't articulate how. You just project the accusation because you don't like having been exposed.

I don't think anybody on this board, now or ever will be influencing policy makers. Don't flatter yourself.

Books are written by people espousing their opinions. Opinions that are influenced by ideology. In neither party is there any consensus on foreign policy goals. Experienced and educated people debate vigorously over this and the parties, well just look at the way the right treats Obama right here on this board, with regard to his foreign policy. Every bit of it. There's nothing in Obama's foreign policy they agree with. Who's right, and who's wrong? That depends on who your asking.

There's great economists, qualified and educated. One follows the Keynesian model and one follows the Friedman. The two models are worlds apart, and yet they will both argue that theirs is right and the other is destructive. Who's right.


I have no problem with intel or any other agencies that operate inside of US/constitutional law and international law. But the testimony of the Church committee to congress on the NSA has more importance to me than anything you could ever say.

Why are you quoting me in this post? I support what Snowden did.

Or were you just referring to the other guy's post?
 
Because you don't know



lol what? You just don't like intelligence agencies! And, much like Henrin, that's why no one is going to take you seriously. You don't think countries should be spying on each other. That's incredibly naive, ignorant, and utopian. Real decision makers and policy makers are never going to listen to people like you.



It's a horrible shame that you know absolutely nothing about foreign policy or international relations. Read a book. Just one book, please.

You keep using words like 'never' and 'you know absolutely nothing about...'.

It is not possible that you can know what 'ever' holds. And you cannot possibly know what anyone does or does not know.

So to make statements like this not only does not further your cause...it makes you look - IMO - uninformed and somewhat desperate.

Advice...stick to what you know and not to what you cannot possibly know.
 
You keep using words like 'never' and 'you know absolutely nothing about...'.

It is not possible that you can know what 'ever' holds. And you cannot possibly know what anyone does or does not know.

So to make statements like this not only does not further your cause...it makes you look - IMO - uninformed and somewhat desperate.

Advice...stick to what you know and not to what you cannot possibly know.

Okay, since I have approximately 15 years working in military intelligence and intelligence, I'll stick to this topic. Are you gonna stick around, too? Or are you going to have to leave, because...this isn't what you know. That's kinda obvious.
 
Okay, since I have approximately 15 years working in military intelligence and intelligence, I'll stick to this topic. Are you gonna stick around, too? Or are you going to have to leave, because...this isn't what you know. That's kinda obvious.

- right over your head -

Whatever pal...I tried.

Good day.
 
- right over your head -

Whatever pal...I tried.

Good day.

Figured. See ya. Hopefully everyone else that doesn't know anything about this also stops spreading uninformed opinions, too.
 
...but you cannot make him think
 
Why are you quoting me in this post? I support what Snowden did.

Or were you just referring to the other guy's post?

Very sorry. I have no idea why your post showed up in that, and if I had seen it soon enough, I would have edited it out, sorry dude!!
 
I articulated exactly how. I said that by sharing means and methods (details) of US intelligence operations, he harmed future ones. Because targets will adapt their means of communications and the US will be less knowledgeable and operate on less information. I know you enjoy being ignorant, but it actually is harmful to not know things. In the Monte world, it's good to be uninformed, I know. But thankfully, serious people don't share your belief on this matter.



lol what?



lol I think you're absolutely wrong. Because you're unimportant, you think everyone else is? But no, not through this board.



This is astoundingly ignorant.



It depends on the circumstance.



Yes, you do have a problem with them, if you think it's wrong that intel organizations seek to know what heads of state are communicating about. You have absolutely no understanding of it, and that's why I'm happy no one important listens to you.

That articulates nothing. Total supposition on your part. You cannot prove that. You have absolutely no idea who I am outside of this board, nor any idea who I communicate with or what influence I have. And why you continue to think that anything productive can come from this board is funny.

No Keynesian would ever think there could be a circumstance for Friedman, and vise versa.

And you continue to twist Americans criticisms of the National Spy Agency. Our fourth amendment is not negotiable. Americans will push back until the NSA gets that.
 
That articulates nothing. Total supposition on your part. You cannot prove that. You have absolutely no idea who I am outside of this board, nor any idea who I communicate with or what influence I have. And why you continue to think that anything productive can come from this board is funny.

No, it's not supposition. But I like how you flip flop between not caring and claiming it's not true lol. And it's pretty obvious who you're not, Monte: you're not someone who's involved in any type of intelligence operations whatsoever. It's astoundingly clear.

No Keynesian would ever think there could be a circumstance for Friedman, and vise versa.

And you continue to twist Americans criticisms of the National Spy Agency. Our fourth amendment is not negotiable. Americans will push back until the NSA gets that.

Stop crying. Stop being so afraid. Stop being so ignorant.
 
Very sorry. I have no idea why your post showed up in that, and if I had seen it soon enough, I would have edited it out, sorry dude!!

No biggie - I assumed it was a mistake.
 
No, it's not supposition. But I like how you flip flop between not caring and claiming it's not true lol. And it's pretty obvious who you're not, Monte: you're not someone who's involved in any type of intelligence operations whatsoever. It's astoundingly clear.



Stop crying. Stop being so afraid. Stop being so ignorant.

Your ignorance of the Church committees warning of the NSA is funny. I realise though that you were either not yet born, in diapers or perhaps aloof at the time.
 
Your ignorance of the Church committees warning of the NSA is funny. I realise though that you were either not yet born, in diapers or perhaps aloof at the time.

There's no ignorance, lol. Do you think intelligence employees don't have to do manual legal training (among other things) often? Of course you don't- you don't know anything about it. lol you sure do talk about it a lot though.
 
There's no ignorance, lol. Do you think intelligence employees don't have to do manual legal training (among other things) often? Of course you don't- you don't know anything about it. lol you sure do talk about it a lot though.

I would assume that employees would have extensive legal training. As with all the intelligence agencies. It's just a matter of fact that this one is the largest, with the least oversight, and there's pressure for reform because of it. Police, attorneys, DA's, judges, hell, even presidents have legal training and they all swear an oath. An oath that is sometimes violated. I've yet to see anybody (in a serious fashion anyway) suggest that the NSA be eliminated, but reformed, with more oversight as well. It's a given that you and anyone else currently or formerly associated with the NSA would be opposed to that though.
 
I would assume that employees would have extensive legal training.

Then why do you think they wouldn't know more about the Church Committee than, indeed, you? Especially because they would have access to classified portions of it that you, frankly, don't.

It's just a matter of fact that this one is the largest, with the least oversight,

No, you just don't like the oversight.

I've yet to see anybody (in a serious fashion anyway) suggest that the NSA be eliminated, but reformed, with more oversight as well.

Really? Didn't you say you don't care about NSA's foreign intelligence operations? Didn't you say you don't think the US should be spying on foreign leaders? What do you think it is the NSA should do, Monte, because you seem to either "not care" about what they do or actively oppose it.

It's a given that you and anyone else currently or formerly associated with the NSA would be opposed to that though.

Funny how people that have firsthand information would be against it, while people that clearly don't know much of anything are for it. Interesting, isn't it?
 
You're factually wrong about the oversight. And you also are unaware of the "declassified" portions of senator Church's report. If you have something from his report that negates his warning then produce it.

And no, I don't care about the NSA's foreign intelligence gathering, AS LONG AS its strictly for security, but you and I both know it goes well beyond that. But obviously, my primary concern is with domestic spying outside of the restrictions of the fourth amendment, and you know that Old.

And your wrong again that people with first hand knowledge are against it, if you mean all such people.
 
You're factually wrong about the oversight.

This is just deplorable. You should be ashamed at the abhorrent level of your critical thinking. It's a fact there's oversight. That is nonnegotiable. United States Intelligence Community Oversight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It's a fact you don't think there's enough. You've said it yourself. So no, absolutely nothing I said was factually wrong. Learn what words mean. Learn how to think. Because this is just pathetic. Nothing you say bears any weight because you're so wildly wrong, so often, while acting so sure of yourself. It's laughable.

And you also are unaware of the "declassified" portions of senator Church's report.

Again, no wonder you come to such nonsensical conclusions: your critical thinking skills are atrocious! You flat out said I didn't know about the Church Committee (funny). I asked you if you thought intelligence agency employees had to undergo legal training. You responded yes, so I told you that the Church Committee findings are very much included in that, including portions that you yourself have never seen (because we both know you don't have the clearance for that, and never have). That all led you to the conclusion that I was "unaware" of the rest of it? Seriously, Monte: critical thinking. Join lumosity or something, man!

If you have something from his report that negates his warning then produce it.

Critical thinking: no one needs to negate a ****ing WARNING.

And no, I don't care about the NSA's foreign intelligence gathering, AS LONG AS its strictly for security,

You have absolutely no basis to judge that one way or another, so just football, man. Or educate yourself. But don't do what you're doing now.

but you and I both know it goes well beyond that.

lol, so they're doing things other than for security? For what, then?

But obviously, my primary concern is with domestic spying outside of the restrictions of the fourth amendment, and you know that Old.

And I just don't care. And no listens to you, because your critical thinking is horrendous.

And your wrong again that people with first hand knowledge are against it, if you mean all such people.

This sentence makes no sense, try again.
 
Screw that.....he is a traitor.

No, he is not.

Treason is the only crime specified in the Constitution, and here is what our founding document says about it, from Article Three, Section Three:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that no one can commit treason unless it's with a country against whom our Congress has declared war. This means that neither the Vietnam War nor the Korean War nor the War on Terror can yield treasonous Americans, as none of these wars were declared by Congress.
(Lawrence O'Donnell: Why Edward Snowden cannot be a traitor | MSNBC)
 
Back
Top Bottom