• 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]

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.

I'll take that as a 'no'.

So then I am forced to assume that do not have link(s) to unbiased, factual (not hearsay) proof that un-Constitutionally obtained data/information directly stopped 'multiple attacks'.

Then, with respect, your previous words will be taken accordingly...a personal opinion presented without unbiased facts/data to back it up.
 
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 see zero proof that he was lying from you.

If there is SO MUCH...then posting a link to it should be simple.

Yet, you fail to do so.


You accuse someone of lying...and when I ask for proof, you produce nothing to prove your accusation.

Noted.



And remember, the only way to prove he was lying, by definition, you have to prove he intended to deceive when he typed the words in question.



Have a nice day.
 
I see zero proof that he was lying from you.
And you're one of the last people I'd expect to be honestly looking for it. *shrug*

You accuse someone of lying...and when I ask for proof
I direct you where to go. Just because you're too lazy to go look, or don't want to find it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 
And you're one of the last people I'd expect to be honestly looking for it. *shrug*

I direct you where to go. Just because you're too lazy to go look, or don't want to find it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You posted no link or post number.

I cannot read your mind.


You accuse someone of lying...and when I ask for proof, you produce nothing to prove your accusation.

Noted.



Have a nice day.
 
You accuse someone of lying...and when I ask for proof, you produce nothing to prove your accusation.

You ask for proof, and when told where to find it, you simply choose to ignore it.

Noted.



Have a nice day.
 
You ask for proof, and when told where to find it, you simply choose to ignore it.

Noted.



Have a nice day.

You posted no link or post number.

And I have not the foggiest idea what posts you are referring to.

And you call that telling me where to find it?

Okaaaaaay.


So, the fact remains:


you accuse someone of lying...and when I ask for proof, you produce nothing to prove your accusation.

Noted.



I imagine the mods are going to tell us to cool it soon...so I will let this go, for now, unless you show a link, post no./thread name to this supposed 'proof' you have.

Which, unless he admitted he lied...proves nothing.




Have a nice day.
 
You posted no link or post number.
But you know what thread and who the poster is. You only have 23 posts of mine to search through (well, 24 now), and if you're too lazy to do that, that's your problem now mine.

Have a nice day.
 
: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.
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.

Strange how you ran from addressing this...

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.
 
Strange how you ran from addressing this...
Because it was irrelevant. Either you're talking about their actions before declaring their independence (which was the action equal to Snowden's) or you're talking about the method they chose to stand up to the British. Either way, it's irrelevant to our discussion, because what they DIDN'T do was declare independence and run away.

I'm sorry for not exposing the irrelevant portion of your post for the waste of time it was earlier.
 
But you know what thread and who the poster is. You only have 23 posts of mine to search through (well, 24 now), and if you're too lazy to do that, that's your problem now mine.

Have a nice day.

24 posts...whatever.

You made the accusation...it's up to you to prove it.

Oh...jeez...

Simple questions...Did he admit he lied, yes or no?

And if he did, what post number?

Because I don't believe virtually anything you say/type without proof...no offense.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, their logic doesn't make any sense at all. Apparently the "manly" thing to do is turn yourself in without a fight. Even our own military is taught SERE, survive, escape, resist and evade. Snowden is doing all 4. We should let our soldiers know about the change in policy.

"If you've attacked the enemy, be sure to turn yourself in and suffer the horrible consequences of your actions when they torture and kill you. It's the manly thing to do!"



It came from you and the others saying it's cowardly to not turn yourself in to the government that's trying to hurt you. It's completely irrational.

If he'd have a fair, prompt and public trial, you MIGHT be right. But he won't. He'll be held in solitary for years like Manning, refused access to the press, and given a secret trial. There is absolutely zero benefit to his cause by turning himself in. He will disappear. Better to resist and evade, while still fighting.

Why do I think I won't be reading those same people explaining how those of the "Boston Tea Party" were cowards and hypocrites for not turning themselves over to the British Crown to "own up to what they did" and to justify their actions to British authorities?

I would think they MUST think that "Deep Throat" in Watergate was the ultimate hypocrite and coward for not "owning up" to exposing the White House.
 
24 posts...whatever.

You made the accusation...it's up to you to prove it.

you accuse someone of lying...and when I ask for proof, you produce nothing to prove your accusation.

Noted.
You ask for proof, and when told where to find it, you simply choose to ignore it.

Noted.



Have a nice day.

This is why I consider you a troll. I'm now done with you in this thread as well.
 
Or maybe because we have extradition treaties with Germany, legally obligating them to turn him over.

Extradition can legally be denied if political asylum is granted. France ALWAYS does so in cases with a death penalty unless the USA agrees not to seek death - as one example.
 
Why do I think I won't be reading those same people explaining how those of the "Boston Tea Party" were cowards and hypocrites for not turning themselves over to the British Crown to "own up to what they did" and to justify their actions to British authorities?

I would think they MUST think that "Deep Throat" in Watergate was the ultimate hypocrite and coward for not "owning up" to exposing the White House.

No, they only like to use hyperbole like "traitor", "coward" and "terrorist" when it's against someone they don't like. To the neo-con brain, nothing is more important than security. They don't care what it costs, either financially or in liberties.

I believe it comes from an innate sense of fear. They believe Snowden has opened them up to the big bad terrorists the politicians were keeping at bay with their heroic measures.
 
This is why I consider you a troll. I'm now done with you in this thread as well.

LOL, no, you just called me a liar for paraphrasing your position. He called you on it, asking for proof, and you just continued on with your hyperbole.

You've made it very clear that you believe:

A) Anyone who breaks the law should stand trial, no matter how righteous the cause
B) Snowden would have an open, public trial where he could plead his case to the American people

A is just ridiculous. If something is morally wrong, it shouldn't be a law. To go back to the 'killing kids in dark rooms' scenario. If that program were secret, and someone whistleblew it, they should not be tried because they were reporting illegal activity.

B is even more ridiculous. Since when has the government allowed trials involving top secret government programs be public? Manning's trial is even less sensitive in nature and it's completely on lock down.

There is no chance of fair, open trial for Snowden.

Not me. I hope he's brought back to the United States and put on trial. Running away and hiding is cowardly. If he feels this strongly about the wrongs the government was doing, then he should be willing to stand up and fight them.
 
LOL, no, you just called me a liar for paraphrasing your position. He called you on it, asking for proof, and you just continued on with your hyperbole.

You've made it very clear that you believe:

A) Anyone who breaks the law should stand trial, no matter how righteous the cause
B) Snowden would have an open, public trial where he could plead his case to the American people

A is just ridiculous. If something is morally wrong, it shouldn't be a law. To go back to the 'killing kids in dark rooms' scenario. If that program were secret, and someone whistleblew it, they should not be tried because they were reporting illegal activity.

B is even more ridiculous. Since when has the government allowed trials involving top secret government programs be public? Manning's trial is even less sensitive in nature and it's completely on lock down.

There is no chance of fair, open trial for Snowden.

You nailed it.
 
LOL, no, you just called me a liar for paraphrasing your position.
No, I called you a liar for deliberately twisting my position to better suit your own agenda (also for claiming you were quoting exactly what I said when you now admit you were paraphrasing). I very clearly explained, multiple times even if I remember correctly, what my position was. You turned that into me saying if someone doesn't voluntary submit to being thrown in a cage and tortured/solitary confinement for life they are a coward. It was a blatant misrepresentation of what I said, and could have only been done intentionally, with you providing even further proof of this in this particular post when you were much closer to my position when listing A and B below. That is why I said you lied and it's also why I made up that ridiculous assertion about you being a traitor plotting to overthrow the government.

He called you on it
He was trolling. He all but admitted as much in other thread that he's been trolling me today.

you just continued on with your hyperbole.
No, I told him exactly where he could find it. He was a troll, I did not feel the need to explain myself to him. I have already done so to you, because while we obviously disagree heartily, your intentions in this thread are at least honest (even if your words aren't always so).

You've made it very clear that you believe:

A) Anyone who breaks the law should stand trial, no matter how righteous the cause
Yes. This is not hard to understand and has absolutely nothing to do with voluntarily submitting to the government or caged torture. Just because you're willing to stand trial doesn't mean you aren't willing to fight for your freedom. Going back to my example of kicking the crap out of a child abuser, I assure you I would fight with all I have to be acquitted of a crime, but I would do so in a courtroom (or through the proper legal channels).
B) Snowden would have an open, public trial where he could plead his case to the American people
Close, but not quite. While you did not accurately state my position here, it at least is an understandable mistake.

I made it very clear that everything Snowden has said, he could have said all at one time while not leaving the country. I also said the media around Edward Snowden, media who is always desperate for a story, especially a big one, would constantly be investigating this case. With Snowden being such a public interest story, the government would be hard pressed to try any of the dirty tricks (jailed for years without representation, tortured, etc.) to which you claimed he would be subjected.

A is just ridiculous. If something is morally wrong, it shouldn't be a law.
They are not mutually exclusive. But until it's no longer a law, it should be followed or should be broken with the expectations of consequences. Arbitrary enforcement of laws based upon political preference is an incredibly dangerous path upon which to start.

To go back to the 'killing kids in dark rooms' scenario. If that program were secret, and someone whistleblew it, they should not be tried because they were reporting illegal activity.
They should go through the legal process. If the district attorney chooses not to bring charges, then I would agree with that attorney. But the legal process should play out, and it should not be subverted based upon one individual's personal morals or ethics, and certainly never their politics.

B is even more ridiculous.
Considering you didn't quite understand what I was saying, perhaps you'll reconsider.

Manning's trial is even less sensitive in nature and it's completely on lock down.
And as I've already pointed out to you, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are in completely different situations.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps...I honestly don't know to what you refer.

Einstein fled Nazi Germany. Saul fled Damascus. Neither are considered 'cowards.'
 
No, I called you a liar for deliberately twisting my position to better suit your own agenda (also for claiming you were quoting exactly what I said when you now admit you were paraphrasing).

Where is your proof that he 'deliberately twisted your position'?

You can believe someone 'deliberately' does something.

But unless they admit to it, it is impossible to know...that's just obvious.

He was trolling. He all but admitted as much in other thread that he's been trolling me today.

WRONG

I said I did not see your original response, which I apologized for.
 
Last edited:
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.

And I cannot see how any oath to a govt that abhors its own Constitution could be considered 'sacred.'

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.

How are we to end such programs if they are all top secret and everyone decided that their oath to the almighty govt was too 'sacred' to break? Sometimes it takes a person to break the rules to expose it for what it is.

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

We briefly discussed such a circumstance: Nazi Germany.

I remember watching The Boy In The Striped Pajamas with some of my students and when the mother found out about what the gassing of the Jews and asked her husband how he could go along with such a horrible program he stated, "I took an oath!"

Oaths are just a tool for the State to coerce normally moral people into doing immoral and sometimes downright horrible things.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Knock off the personal attacks.
 
Re: Edward Snowden Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:

I think that all this surveillance is about the civil unrest which the futurists see on the horizon.

Don't forget that it was Bill Clinton who first introduced the Patriot Act and appointed a “domestic military czar”.

Google:
Presidential Decision Directive 62, Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Overseas, dated May 1998, and Presidential Decision Directive 39.

The Occupy Movement is the largest threat faced by the Ruling Class since the 1960's.

The establishment also realizes that the minority population has suffered the greatest during this economic collapse, (43% unemeployment among black youth) and that the main reason why the Occupy Movement has not enjoyed "feverish" support by the minority population is because they don't want to destroy the first black presidency.

It is also important to introduce and pass immigration reform and thus give illegal immigrants something to lose and to discourage them from participating in the Occupy Movement. We can't forget the Latino protests in 2006 and where they shut down major cities with peaceful protests.

The tensions within society are gonna be huge on the day after Obama leaves office.

The Republican Party (The Corporatist Party) has decided to walk away from the Christian Right. The Republicans know full well that as the economy worsens, people like Billy Graham and The Boys will begin to ask "What Would Jesus Do?" and not be so much concerned about cultural issues such as abortion and whatever.

The Republican Party needs to rebrand itself from the "Religious" brand and become a "Personal Security - Law and Order" brand.

As the economy continues to crumble, it will become a battle between the Occupy Folks and the Law and Order Folks.

And in the meantime, both political parties will use the remaining time left in the Obama presidency to get all the ducks in order and introduce all the necessary anti-terror legislation required for the battles which lay ahead.

Calm
 
Last edited:
Re: Edward Snowden Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:

No, I called you a liar for deliberately twisting my position to better suit your own agenda (also for claiming you were quoting exactly what I said when you now admit you were paraphrasing). I very clearly explained, multiple times even if I remember correctly, what my position was. You turned that into me saying if someone doesn't voluntary submit to being thrown in a cage and tortured/solitary confinement for life they are a coward. It was a blatant misrepresentation of what I said, and could have only been done intentionally, with you providing even further proof of this in this particular post when you were much closer to my position when listing A and B below. That is why I said you lied and it's also why I made up that ridiculous assertion about you being a traitor plotting to overthrow the government.

He was trolling. He all but admitted as much in other thread that he's been trolling me today.

No, I told him exactly where he could find it. He was a troll, I did not feel the need to explain myself to him. I have already done so to you, because while we obviously disagree heartily, your intentions in this thread are at least honest (even if your words aren't always so).

Yes. This is not hard to understand and has absolutely nothing to do with voluntarily submitting to the government or caged torture. Just because you're willing to stand trial doesn't mean you aren't willing to fight for your freedom. Going back to my example of kicking the crap out of a child abuser, I assure you I would fight with all I have to be acquitted of a crime, but I would do so in a courtroom (or through the proper legal channels).
Close, but not quite. While you did not accurately state my position here, it at least is an understandable mistake.

I made it very clear that everything Snowden has said, he could have said all at one time while not leaving the country. I also said the media around Edward Snowden, media who is always desperate for a story, especially a big one, would constantly be investigating this case. With Snowden being such a public interest story, the government would be hard pressed to try any of the dirty tricks (jailed for years without representation, tortured, etc.) to which you claimed he would be subjected.

They are not mutually exclusive. But until it's no longer a law, it should be followed or should be broken with the expectations of consequences. Arbitrary enforcement of laws based upon political preference is an incredibly dangerous path upon which to start.

They should go through the legal process. If the district attorney chooses not to bring charges, then I would agree with that attorney. But the legal process should play out, and it should not be subverted based upon one individual's personal morals or ethics, and certainly never their politics.

Considering you didn't quite understand what I was saying, perhaps you'll reconsider.

And as I've already pointed out to you, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are in completely different situations.

1) You're not upset that I misrepresented your position (because I didn't), you're upset about the inevitable conclusions drawn from your position. Snowden has ZERO chance of winning a trial. He's guilty, plain and simple. Turning himself in will be volunteering to be locked in a cage forever. So YES, that's EXACTLY what you are saying: "If you don't want to get locked in a cage for the rest of your life, you're a coward". Just own your position. If it upsets you, change your position.

2) LOL, "With Snowden being such a public interest story, the government would be hard pressed to try any of the dirty tricks" You're out of your mind. The media had an equal amount of interest in Manning, and yet there have been no interviews, trial was delayed for years, he was tortured, and his trial is secret. I'm offering legitimate case studies here of where we've seen how the government handles whistleblowers, and you are providing no evidence whatsoever. Plugging your ears and saying "Nuh, uh! Nuh uh! My government wouldn't do that!" is not an argument.

3) Manning and Snowden were in very similar situations. They both worked for the government with confidentiality agreements, and they both violated those agreements in the interest of the American people. Just because you don't want to admit it because it damages your viewpoint, isn't my problem.
 
Re: Edward Snowden Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:

And I cannot see how any oath to a govt that abhors its own Constitution could be considered 'sacred.'


The sacred obligation rests with the grantor of the oath.

How are we to end such programs if they are all top secret and everyone decided that their oath to the almighty govt was too 'sacred' to break? Sometimes it takes a person to break the rules to expose it for what it is.

There are proper channels for congressional oversight.



We briefly discussed such a circumstance: Nazi Germany.

I remember watching The Boy In The Striped Pajamas with some of my students and when the mother found out about what the gassing of the Jews and asked her husband how he could go along with such a horrible program he stated, "I took an oath!"

Oaths are just a tool for the State to coerce normally moral people into doing immoral and sometimes downright horrible things.

First, oaths are voluntary, not coercive. Second, I think the word for what you are doing is "godwinning." Snowden is no Oscar Schindler. It is frankly disrespectful to holocaust victims to compare their plight to the "plight" of Verizon having its phone logs searched by a computer program.

If a government has become as corrupt and evil as Nazi Germany then one should be willing to betray that government and be willing to own up to the fact that they have defected. You certainly couldn't claim to still be a loyal citizen of Nazi Germany, nor would you want to. Yet that is what Snowden is doing. He has neither the courage to face US justice nor the courage to repudiate the US.

So the comparison to the Nazis is wrong. Genocide renders a government illegitimate but espionage does not.
 
Last edited:
Re: Edward Snowden Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:

Einstein fled Nazi Germany. Saul fled Damascus. Neither are considered 'cowards.'
Why did they do so? The context is important. Because after just reading a little bit on Wikipedia about Einstein, it doesn't appear as if he fled at all, so much as renounced his German citizen in protest/anger after deciding not to return to Germany after traveling to the US. Snowden knowingly broke the law for reasons he claimed were patriotic, but then left the country so as to not face the American justice system.

Again, I don't know much about either of those situations, I'm just going by what I read on Wikipedia, which is not always the most credible or thorough of sources. Could you explain further?

WRONG

I said I did not see your original response, which I apologized for.
And you simply could have gone back to look for it, or you could have looked for the time I re-posted it (in a post you quoted, no less) and you didn't. No, instead you repeatedly asked a question you later claimed you wouldn't have read even if you had gone back over the thread because:
I doubt it.

Why waste time reading posts from people you don't respect much?

Deny it if you want, but I am not wrong. Now quit bothering me please.
1) You're not upset that I misrepresented your position (because I didn't), you're upset about the inevitable conclusions drawn from your position.
Except those are NOT the inevitable conclusions drawn from my position, which, by default, means you are misrepresenting my position.

Snowden has ZERO chance of winning a trial. He's guilty, plain and simple.
He committed the acts. It would be up to a jury of his peers to decide if he was guilty. That's the process.

Turning himself in will be volunteering to be locked in a cage forever.
No, it won't. First of all, I never said for Snowden to turn himself in, I said to stay in America and face the justice system, however it plays out. There is a difference, even if Snowden would be charged with crimes, which I agree he would. Second of all, it would be up to him and his attorney(s) to convince the jury that what he did was right, and thus, should not be penalized for his actions which benefited all Americans.

So YES, that's EXACTLY what you are saying: "If you don't want to get locked in a cage for the rest of your life, you're a coward".
And, once more, you are deliberately misrepresenting my position. And, this time, you have no excuse.

Just own your position.
I do. I own MY position, not the position you erroneously keep ascribing to me.

If it upsets you, change your position.
My position doesn't upset me at all. Your intentionally dishonest representation of it, even after I've clarified multiple times, does.

2) LOL, "With Snowden being such a public interest story, the government would be hard pressed to try any of the dirty tricks" You're out of your mind.
No, I'm not.

The media had an equal amount of interest in Manning
Manning was in the army at the time of his arrest and is being tried in a military court. You can bring Manning up 234532758023475896732405280973 more times and it won't change the fact he and Snowden are in different situations.
 
Back
Top Bottom