Tiberius Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 And they would've lost if they went against the 2015 government. Oh really, if they had the internet to use as a tool? No, they would have won easier, probably
FireChan Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 Oh really, if they had the internet to use as a tool? No, they would have won easier, probably The internet would also be used against them. How do you get people to a rally if you're afraid to send them an email? Or afraid to call them on the phone?
Tiberius Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 The internet would also be used against them. How do you get people to a rally if you're afraid to send them an email? Or afraid to call them on the phone? So we don't have rallies anymore? You guys are paranoid nuts
FireChan Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) So we don't have rallies anymore? You guys are paranoid nuts No, you stupid mother!@#$er. Use your brain for once. Edited April 24, 2015 by FireChan
Tiberius Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 No, you stupid mother!@#$er. Use your brain for once. You guys are not making any sense at all. I just got to the incredibly brilliant Edward Snowden and his "Dick Pics" and how serious of a problem this is! Seriously!
FireChan Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 You guys are not making any sense at all. I just got to the incredibly brilliant Edward Snowden and his "Dick Pics" and how serious of a problem this is! Seriously! Okay, I'm going to try again. Like you said, governments went to war to defend things like slavery. To defend continuing that practice. Now imagine they have the technology and lack of privacy of 2015. Do you think folks would rise up to rally to end slavery in that country? Do you think the government, that went to war to maintain slavery, wouldn't hunt through their emails and brand them traitors?
Chef Jim Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 So you are using the Constitution just to make a cheap political point. Wow So you ARE ok with the government not following the Constitution? I don't consider that a cheap political point.
Tiberius Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) Okay, I'm going to try again. Like you said, governments went to war to defend things like slavery. To defend continuing that practice. Now imagine they have the technology and lack of privacy of 2015. Do you think folks would rise up to rally to end slavery in that country? Do you think the government, that went to war to maintain slavery, wouldn't hunt through their emails and brand them traitors? So this is what you guys are afraid of, we won't be able to end slavery? I told you, the gay marriage people and marijuana legalization people have all made progress is this supposedly Gestapo like environment, right? So social movement are possible and this paranoia you guys have is just that, paranoia. That Snowden comes across as a real idiot in the interview. The gun pointed at our heads to begin with and after Oliver attempts to get him to explain it ends up with penis pics and Snowed joins in on that! Wow! So you ARE ok with the government not following the Constitution? I don't consider that a cheap political point. I'm confused, what part of the Constitution is the government violating by going after terrorists in another country? Edited April 24, 2015 by gatorman
FireChan Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 So this is what you guys are afraid of, we won't be able to end slavery? I told you, the gay marriage people and marijuana legalization people have all made progress is this supposedly Gestapo like environment, right? So social movement are possible and this paranoia you guys have is just that, paranoia. Do you think gay marriage/marijuana legalization fronts are drawing as much government opposition as slavery/civil rights?
Tiberius Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 Do you think gay marriage/marijuana legalization fronts are drawing as much government opposition as slavery/civil rights? Of course not, there's too much freedom today because of the Internet and tv media.
FireChan Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 Of course not, there's too much freedom today because of the Internet and tv media. So the freedoms allowed by those things has limited the government, who would do evil if we gave them too much power?
Deranged Rhino Posted April 24, 2015 Author Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/21/jeb-bush-praises-obamas-expansion-nsa-surveillance/ Medved: If you were to look back at the last seven years, almost, what has been the best part of the Obama administration? Jeb Bush: I would say the best part of the Obama administration would be his continuance of the protections of the homeland using the big metadata programs, the NSA being enhanced. Edited April 24, 2015 by GreggyT
Chef Jim Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) I'm confused, what part of the Constitution is the government violating by going after terrorists in another country? Hey look everyone gator's confused. This terrorists is an American citizen. Article III Section 3 states: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. I would have zero problem with an amendment that states if you partake in any terrorist activities you forfeit your citizenship. Then we can bomb the **** out of them. Edited April 24, 2015 by Chef Jim
Tiberius Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 Hey look everyone gator's confused. This terrorists is an American citizen. Article III Section 3 states: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. I would have zero problem with an amendment that states if you partake in any terrorist activities you forfeit your citizenship. Then we can bomb the **** out of them. But you would have let this terrorist recruiting scum go about his business of organizing murderers and thugs until Congress passed an amendment killing him, just to go by the letter of the law, right? No thanks So the freedoms allowed by those things has limited the government, who would do evil if we gave them too much power? You need to re-phrase this so it makes sense
FireChan Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 You need to re-phrase this so it makes sense You are the one who said it. Our freedoms prevent the US government from opposing its citizens. That is something they have done when left unchecked, yes?
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 But you would have let this terrorist recruiting scum go about his business of organizing murderers and thugs until Congress passed an amendment killing him, just to go by the letter of the law, right? No thanks An Amendment? What? No. The Rule of Law is more important than any result of an extra legal act, no matter how favorable.
Chef Jim Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 But you would have let this terrorist recruiting scum go about his business of organizing murderers and thugs until Congress passed an amendment killing him, just to go by the letter of the law, right? No thanks What the?!? So the Constitution is meaningless to you? I see why you worship Obama so much.
OCinBuffalo Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) See? Gator is at it once again...getting his pudding, without eating his meat. Well, to be fair, I see GreggyT and Chef at least trying to force their meat down his throat. And, if I may, I think the "Congress passes an Amendment killing him" is my fault. He bastardized what I said elsewhere, completely. Also, I said that incorrectly as a troll. We all know states have to ratify an Amendment and Congress doesn't even have to be involved for it to be adopted and sent to the states for ratification, by the state houses themselves. Congress can adopt it, but its not the only way. There's my pudding for gator, once again without forcing him to eat meat. Edited April 25, 2015 by OCinBuffalo
Deranged Rhino Posted April 25, 2015 Author Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) But the Germans were apparently not supposed to know everything their partners in the "tin can" were doing. The Americans weren't just interested in terrorism; they also used their technical abilities to spy on companies and agencies in Western Europe. They didn't even shy away from pursuing German targets. The Germans noticed -- in 2008, if not sooner. But nothing was done about it until 2013, when an analysis triggered by whistleblower Edward Snowden's leaks showed that the US was using the facility to spy on German and Western European targets. On Thursday, though, SPIEGEL ONLINE revealed that the US spying was vastly more extensive than first thought. The revelations have been met with extreme concern in the German capital -- partly because they mark the return of a scandal that two successive Merkel administrations have never truly sought to clear up. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-intelligence-agency-bnd-under-fire-for-nsa-cooperation-a-1030593.html Edited April 25, 2015 by GreggyT
Azalin Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 See? Gator is at it once again...getting his pudding, without eating his meat. Well, to be fair, I see GreggyT and Chef at least trying to force their meat down his throat. What I'm enjoying is watching Gator defend such a right-wing position as domestic surveillance. Raging lefties should be vehemently against such intrusions into personal privacy by the state, not defending it. Despite the endless entertainment his insipid contributions provide, the real laugh I'm getting out of all this is that he's completely willing to sell out his own supposed 'values' just to argue, which makes this just about the funniest thread in PPP history.
Recommended Posts