Jump to content

Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?


Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor  

40 members have voted

  1. 1. In your opinion, is Snowden an American Hero or Traitor to his country?

    • Hero
      11
    • Traitor
      15
    • Not enough information
      14


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 322
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

It's the standard response when you're being intentionally obtuse to the point of belligerence.

 

I know you're passionate about what you post, but you haven't really expanded the depth of your discussions beyond sloganisms and austrian catch phrases like mercantilism, fiat currency and freed markets. If you want to be treated seriously, then add some meat to the answers beyond jingoism.

Edited by GG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know you're passionate about what ugly post, but you haven't really expanded the depth of your discussions beyond sloganisms and austrian catch phrases like mercantilism, fiat currency and freed markets. If you want to be treated seriously, then add some meat to the answers beyond jingoism.

 

How dare you talk to your superiors like that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I'll simplify.

 

The intangible is not private property. In fact, it's not property at all, as I cannot physically remove it from your possession by possessing it myself. The intangible, in it's natural free-market state, is absolutely unquanifiable, and limitlessly abundant.

 

Only by removing freedom from markets can scarcity of the intangible be generated.

 

Just admit that you don't respect the concept of free markets and we can be done here.

 

Tell this to Nike or Apple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you're passionate about what you post, but you haven't really expanded the depth of your discussions beyond sloganisms and austrian catch phrases like mercantilism, fiat currency and freed markets. If you want to be treated seriously, then add some meat to the answers beyond jingoism.

 

His bearded professor told him he doesn't need to talk to anyone; just at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lolololololololololololol

 

Here's a trick. Type "Freed markets" into Google. Click the list for videos.

 

Why did I do that? Because I knew exactly what would pop up. A douche commie with a beard telling you to oppose capitalism:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6PO4i-3xmw&list=PLo9tClC_YhUKRZGYaHTGLpgjXMc4zph5I&index=1

Edited by 4merper4mer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, no ****. Remember way back, several whole posts ago when I said this:

 

Your ignorance is astounding. The etymology of the term "freed markets" can be traced to libertarian philosophy and classical economic capitalism. The term, at its core, means to set markets free from intrustion and manipulation by governments and central banks. The term was popularized to make the distinction between the steered market's of today's neo-mercantilist corporatism and an actual state of market place freedom, which we do not have. Hence, market's that have yet to be "freed" from central control.

 

The term was later co-opted by nitwit intellegensia intellectuals who insisted that markets, once freed, should reject capitalism and immediately reliquish their freedom in favor of even more onerous direction. This, of course, is nothing more than red revolutionary talk, and is both regressive and impractical; as it relies on the abolishment of tangible private property. A concept which an ageing Max Eastman addressed most eloquently:

 

"It seems obvious to me now- though I have been slow, I must say, in coming to the conclusion - that the institution of private property is one of the main things that have given man that limited amount of free and equalness that Marx hoped to render infinite by abolishing this institution. Strangely enough, Marx was the first to see this. He is the one who informed us, looking backwards, that the evolution of private capitalism with its free market had been a precondition for the evolution of all our democratic freedoms. It never occurred to him, looking forward, that if this was so, these other freedoms might disappear with the abolition of the free market."

 

In other words, go back to eating crayonz. You're out of your depth here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three words: J. Edgar Hoover. What's going on today (legally, whether we like it or not) pales in comparison.

 

It's not so much having/obtaining the info. It's how it's used.

 

In my job I can look at all kinds of records, and I can see information that people would prefer I not see. I'm a trustworthy person and it wouldn't occur to me to do anything dastardly with it.

 

Snowden on the other hand used his position to access info he had no right to see in the first place. I'm sure he signed a confidentiality agreement as well.

 

If he'd wanted to be a patriot there are ways to tip off the media, who could then have done a little digging AND would have gone to jail to protect Snowden. Snowden is in this for Snowden. I hope he likes Russian airports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, no ****. Remember way back, several whole posts ago when I said this:

 

Since you ran back here after the Red Sox pwnage in the other thread do you want to admit you were wrong yet or should I continue to administer a beating to your bearded mentor's irrational mindset?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you ran back here after the Red Sox pwnage in the other thread do you want to admit you were wrong yet or should I continue to administer a beating to your bearded mentor's irrational mindset?

If you consider yourself being laughably wrong "pwnage"...

 

A roster spot, by definition, is a place on a physical list. The physical list isn't representitive, it is the actual thing. Furthermore, the actual players who fill the roster spots on the list, and comprise the team are naturally scarce; which is why they have value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you consider yourself being laughably wrong "pwnage"...

 

A roster spot, by definition, is a place on a physical list. The physical list isn't representitive, it is the actual thing. Furthermore, the actual players who fill the roster spots on the list, and comprise the team are naturally scarce; which is why they have value.

 

And sheet music is also a physical thing you doofus. And the players are not naturally scarce. There are 23 spots because the number 23 has been artificially required in order to create scarcity. There are literally thousands of people available to play, including yourself by your own admission.

Edited by 4merper4mer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right after you watch a baseball game by staring at the Red Sox and Yankee's rosters sitting at your kitchen table.

Two different things. The roster is defined simply as a list, and it is not a representation. The Red Sox are the physical entity.\

 

Sheet music is a representation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...