• 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!

Edward Snowden Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:271]

So I assume none of the Founding Fathers were an inspiration to you? (Not that you would admit it now)

I have always been very frank about how I feel about the founders.
 
I have always been very frank about how I feel about the founders.

Well, I have not read every post you have ever written. Please explain.

And what libertarians inspired you, my friend?
 
Gathering information on most US citizens is not a warranted search.

No, you are wrong. These searches were all pursuant to lawful warrants.

no evidence?
Leaking classified security information is per se harm to national interests.
 
No, you are wrong. These searches were all pursuant to lawful warrants.

Proof? I have read otherwise. Are these warrants granted by the secret courts as described under the Patriot Act?


Leaking classified security information is per se harm to national interests.

Yeah, thats what the government is saying a lot. With no proof of harm.
 
Well, I have not read every post you have ever written. Please explain.
That's ok, nobody's perfect. As i have stated many times before, I despise the founders as slave holding, oath breaking plutocrats.
And what libertarians inspired you, my friend?
Rothbard, hayek, nozick, Heinlein, to name a few. Also Jesus, the greatest libertarian of them all.
 
Proof? I have read otherwise. Are these warrants granted by the secret courts as described under the Patriot Act?




Yeah, thats what the government is saying a lot. With no proof of harm.

You can't just demand proof when the burden is on you to show that these searches were warrant less (it is well known that there were warrants), and when leaking classified information is well known to cause harm to national security.
 
Obama is the one who tortures his own citizens via drone attacks.
 
you make some good points and I have NOT been a Snowden fan.
 
That's ok, nobody's perfect. As i have stated many times before, I despise the founders as slave holding, oath breaking plutocrats.

Well, I agree on the slaveholding. However, some of the Founders clearly opposed slaveholding. I have no problem breaking an oath to a government that is not representative of the citizens. It is like breaking a contract with someone who already broke the contract themselves.

Rothbard, hayek, nozick, Heinlein, to name a few. Also Jesus, the greatest libertarian of them all.

And you think any of them opposed breaking oaths to the govt?

Bb later. Got some errands to run.
 
Well, I agree on the slaveholding. However, some of the Founders clearly opposed slaveholding. I have no problem breaking an oath to a government that is not representative of the citizens. It is like breaking a contract with someone who already broke the contract themselves.



And you think any of them opposed breaking oaths to the govt?

Bb later. Got some errands to run.
I certainly don't think Jesus would approve of any oath breaking. If you can't keep your word then don't give it, even to the government.

Enjoy your errands!
 
Do you have link(s) to unbiased, factual (not hearsay) proof that un-Constitutionally obtained data/information directly stopped 'multiple attacks'?

Yes or no, please?

That's what I'd like to see. We've been told that we are more at risk. But they give no information on the statistically significant increase in our mortality probabilities. They said X number of attacks have been prevented, but there's no evidence of it. All the defense thus far has been nothing more than unsubstantiated claims on part of the government. But we should trust them :roll:
 
Indeed. Sad but true.

This is revealing a very ugly side of some of my fellow libertarians. It seems that there are many who oppose autthatts own sake, not out of principle but merely because they like rebellion. But a true Libertarian should loathe Snowden because fundamental to Liberty is Responsibility. So many libertarians forget that liberty is a double edged sword. It doesn't just mean doing what you please, it means taking personal responsibility for the harm you cause.

Liberty indeed requires responsibility. We are responsible for the government. We are the sovereigns, and we must be diligent in watching the government and reporting its actions to the people so that we may best control it. And it is for that reason that Snowden upheld his duty and did what was right and what is necessary. Snowden is a hero.
 
I certainly don't think Jesus would approve of any oath breaking. If you can't keep your word then don't give it, even to the government.

Let me ask you this: As a Christian, do you feel it is appropriate to lie if the circumstance warranted it? I agree that, in general, oathbreaking is wrong. The same thing with killing. And yet, I have met few Christians who believe that killing in self defense is wrong.

Enjoy your errands!

Thank you. Kinda difficult to enjoy it with the crazy humidity today. :bright:
 
Obama is the one who tortures his own citizens via drone attacks.

It is interesting how one man who breaks an oath is reviled by the media but another who breaks it (and people are actually killed) is revered.
 
You can't just demand proof when the burden is on you to show that these searches were warrant less (it is well known that there were warrants), and when leaking classified information is well known to cause harm to national security.

The government was obtaining information from billions of calls. Were they obtaining billions of warrants?
 
Originally Posted by Occam's Razor
If he were detained he would lose free access to the press and ability to defend himself in the press and court of public opinion.
Nonsense.

That's it? Nonsense? Sounds authoritative, yet lacks credibility. and, Oh right, because Bradley Manning has had lots of access to the press.

If your aim is to stop the gov't abuses
...you run away to another country? THAT'S how you fight government abuses? That's ridiculous.

That's your opinion.

So the second our founders were charged with treason by the crown, we should have all laid down our arms, filed back to England and first stood trial? Where was Ben Franklin during the revolution? If your aim is to continue to put pressure on the US to be more transparent in matters that directly affect it's citizens, to continue to work toward that end... you don't turn yourself in. Kinda hard to do that from jail.
 
Lol...a common, chat forum, figure of speech?

Whatever pal.

Have a nice day.
Amusing how quickly you're no longer worried about exact meaning of words. It's almost as if you really didn't care, and were merely trolling before...interesting...
So, apparently, the answer is you can't prove he is lying
No, the answer is I already have. Just because you seem to really struggle with comprehending the written word, it doesn't give you license to dishonestly misinterpret what is said. Once more, I cannot help but wonder if you're simply trolling.

I guess that would make Albert Einstein and Saul cowards then.
Perhaps...I honestly don't know to what you refer.
That's it? Nonsense? Sounds authoritative, yet lacks credibility.
I've already explained it multiple times throughout the thread. Go search for my previous posts.

and, Oh right, because Bradley Manning has had lots of access to the press.
I've already addressed this as well. While you're searching for the argument I made for your previous statement being nonsense, you can search for this as well.

That's your opinion.
It makes a lot more sense than your statement. What exactly is he doing on the run that he could not have done when he first came out with his claims? Is Snowden still gathering intelligence? Is he still discovering more information? The answer to both of those questions, we can logically assume, is no. So how exactly is Snowden fighting government abuses?

So the second our founders were charged with treason by the crown, we should have all laid down our arms, filed back to England and first stood trial? Where was Ben Franklin during the revolution?
I've already addressed this argument as well. But I'll cut you some slack on this, because while I've already posted it once, this will be the first time I repeated it.

If you're wanting to compare our founders to Snowden, then our founders would have signed the Declaration of Independence, mailed it to England and then hightailed it down to Mexico. Our founding fathers didn't run and hide, they stood up for what they believed in, even if it meant giving up their own lives to do so.

You could not have picked a worse example than our founding fathers to compare with Edward Snowden. They stood up before what they thought was an oppressive government and were willing to fight, and even die, for what they believed in. Edward Snowden ran away to hide.

If your aim is to continue to put pressure on the US to be more transparent in matters that directly affect it's citizens, to continue to work toward that end... you don't turn yourself in.
But he's not doing that. He's not putting any pressure on the US to be more transparent, he's running and hiding. If anything, he's doing more harm than good to his own cause. Unlike our founding fathers, he's not willing to stand before what he considers oppressive government and give whatever it takes to initiate change. No, he ran and hid.

I do not have a problem with the interview he gave to the Guardian, though as I've mentioned before, he didn't really say anything which wasn't already known. What he did when he revealed what he knew was a courageous act. But instead of standing up for his actions, he ran...which is not courageous.
 
Do you have link(s) to unbiased, factual (not hearsay) proof that un-Constitutionally obtained data/information directly stopped 'multiple attacks'?

Yes or no, please?
Since you will simply discount the people who were actually involved and took part in doing so as propaganda lies by the government? You cannot disprove a non-falsifiable conspiracy theory.
 
Or in this case, a dude has to whistleblow on the government and run off so that he can continue to get his message out.

:shrug: sure. and in this case said dude should stop whining about the consequences off his decisions. The government isn't your mommy, if you break the rules it doesn't give that I'm-so-disappointed-look and then forgive you with a hug and a plate of cookies.
 
If you're wanting to compare our founders to Snowden, then our founders would have signed the Declaration of Independence, mailed it to England and then hightailed it down to Mexico. Our founding fathers didn't run and hide, they stood up for what they believed in, even if it meant giving up their own lives to do so.

They didn't have to, THEY WERE ALREADY IN ANOTHER COUNTRY! The seat of power and practical extent of their jurisdiction was in Briton. Not here. The hypothetical you're looking for, or the accurate one anyway, was if the founders assembled in LONDON, signed the DOI, delivered to the press... then high tailed it back to america.

As for the founders courage, I think you would find some Officers of the Crown that would disagree with you. Was dressing up like Indians and sneaking aboard a ship in the dead of night hiding? or standing up?

Snipers were considered unethical in open combat, yet without them, we'd have never lasted the first year.

Same goes for guerrilla warfare.

Prior to open revolution, the founders scurried about from one secret meeting to the next, secret communiques, false fronts, espionage and treason, hiding behind pen names like "Constance Dogood" while writing seditious pamphlets...

I think you'd better take a closer, more honest look at our history. And I support what they did... because it's not cowardice if you know up front that YOU CAN'T WIN PLAYING THEIR GAME... it's very smart. And that's the same reason I support Snowden.
 
Liberty indeed requires responsibility. We are responsible for the government. We are the sovereigns, and we must be diligent in watching the government and reporting its actions to the people so that we may best control it. And it is for that reason that Snowden upheld his duty and did what was right and what is necessary. Snowden is a hero.

One of my favorite heroes, a TRUE hero of libertarian principles, is Martin Luther King. When he violated the law out of principle he didn't flee to the USSR to escape punishment, he went to jail. The law was unjust but he respected the institution of government and worked from with into change it, like a man of principle.
 
They didn't have to, THEY WERE ALREADY IN ANOTHER COUNTRY!
:lol:

No, they weren't. They were in a colony belonging to England. They wished to better their lives and the lives of those who lived there, so they stood up for what they believed and fought for what they believe. They didn't proclaim to believe it and then run from it.
The hypothetical you're looking for, or the accurate one anyway, was if the founders assembled in LONDON, signed the DOI, delivered to the press... then high tailed it back to america.
That makes absolutely no sense. We're talking about reality, not hypotheticals.

It's really simple. The founding fathers did not run to Mexico. They stood right where they were and fought the fight they knew needed to be fought. They didn't start a war with England and then run from England. Snowden, on the other hand, ran away from the country he claimed he was doing it for. That's not courageous.
 
Let me ask you this: As a Christian, do you feel it is appropriate to lie if the circumstance warranted it? I agree that, in general, oathbreaking is wrong. The same thing with killing. And yet, I have met few Christians who believe that killing in self defense is wrong.

Kant asked this question once, and I don't necessarily agree with his strict interpretation that a lie cannot be appropriate in certain extreme circumstances. But a broken oath is not a lie, an oath is a sacred obligation. I cannot imagine a situation so extreme where perjury, a lie under oath, would be acceptable.

In any case, this is not so extreme. No human life is at stake, this is about a nosy government being nosy. Big surprise! Nobody cared when the duly elected legislature wrote the Patriot Act that made this possible. If Snowden didn't like it he should have kept his oath and worked to effect change in other, constructive and moral ways.

But even if there is so extreme a circumstance that requires oath breaking, then the morally correct course afterwards is to accept the punishment.

Thank you. Kinda difficult to enjoy it with the crazy humidity today. :bright:
 
The government was obtaining information from billions of calls. Were they obtaining billions of warrants?

I think they were obtaining individual warrants to searh millions of calls at a time.
 
You can assume anything you want. When you want an actual discussion, try reading what I wrote and actually formulating a response based on it instead of running away.

I don't really care what you have to say on this.

I only care what you can prove using link(s) to facts/data from unbiased sources.

Which is, so far as I have seen, nothing.

So noted.


Have a nice day.
 
Back
Top Bottom