User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:03:28 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not a surprising statement coming from you. By your flawless line of logic, I should be making all sorts of wild-ass assumptions about how the U.S. government uses its enormous theoretical surveillance capabilities against innocent Americans as well, right? I mean, I don't have any proof, but look at the history and circumstances here, right? I'm sure you'll respond with all sorts of bullshit reasons for why "that's not the same." 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He didn't change shit. The only thing he accomplished was giving the Russkies a shitload of information on US intelligence. People who don't like Snowden keep saying this, and yet I have not seen a single credible source for this claim. Unless you're just talking about the general stuff that he gave to EVERYONE by handing it over to the media. But that's not the same thing as "giving it to the Russkies." That proof is not necessary. Not a surprising statement coming from you. By your flawless line of logic, I should be making all sorts of wild-ass assumptions about how the U.S. government uses its enormous theoretical surveillance capabilities against innocent Americans as well, right? I mean, I don't have any proof, but look at the history and circumstances here, right? I'm sure you'll respond with all sorts of bullshit reasons for why "that's not the same."
Why would you snip out the stuff where he explains his statement? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:03:41 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting.........I would have assumed ALOT. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
............... Probably not as much as a Cold War vet might think. Interesting.........I would have assumed ALOT. That's because you're old and remember the dynamic as Capitalism vs. Communism. 
It still exists to a degree (see also, China/Russia influence in the U.N.) but China and Russia are more interested in expanding State interests than the global expansion of Communist ideology. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:04:57 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's because you're old and remember the dynamic as Capitalism vs. Communism.
It still exists to a degree (see also, China/Russia influence in the U.N.) but China and Russia are more interested in expanding State interests than the global expansion of Communist ideology. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
............... Probably not as much as a Cold War vet might think. Interesting.........I would have assumed ALOT. That's because you're old and remember the dynamic as Capitalism vs. Communism.
It still exists to a degree (see also, China/Russia influence in the U.N.) but China and Russia are more interested in expanding State interests than the global expansion of Communist ideology. Was China ever dedicated to the global revolution? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:05:15 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why would you snip out the stuff where he explains his statement? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He didn't change shit. The only thing he accomplished was giving the Russkies a shitload of information on US intelligence. People who don't like Snowden keep saying this, and yet I have not seen a single credible source for this claim. Unless you're just talking about the general stuff that he gave to EVERYONE by handing it over to the media. But that's not the same thing as "giving it to the Russkies." That proof is not necessary. Not a surprising statement coming from you. By your flawless line of logic, I should be making all sorts of wild-ass assumptions about how the U.S. government uses its enormous theoretical surveillance capabilities against innocent Americans as well, right? I mean, I don't have any proof, but look at the history and circumstances here, right? I'm sure you'll respond with all sorts of bullshit reasons for why "that's not the same."
Why would you snip out the stuff where he explains his statement? Strawman arguments don't work too well, otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:05:24 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another Snowden thread shitter. Its like an alert goes out and the same 5 people show up to shit in the thread. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Probably not as much as a Cold War vet might think. Another Snowden thread shitter. Its like an alert goes out and the same 5 people show up to shit in the thread. What I find interesting is that you're attacking people that are actually engaging in a rational discussion in this thread yet you accuse them of shitting in it. Seems to me you should be more introspective on that shitting claim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:05:40 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another Snowden thread shitter. Its like an alert goes out and the same 5 people show up to shit in the thread. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Probably not as much as a Cold War vet might think. Another Snowden thread shitter. Its like an alert goes out and the same 5 people show up to shit in the thread. Thread titles, how do they work? There's about 5 discussion topics that interest me at the moment. You're likely to find me in threads discussing them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:06:13 AM EDT
[#7]
How can you not admire this guy?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:06:17 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why would you snip out the stuff where he explains his statement? Because his "explanation" doesn't actually expand or explain anything. He just assumes that Snowden took information to Russia and then assumes that because he took it there (if he did), that he shared it. That's the full "explanation" he provides, which is about as coherent as assuming that I raped someone in London because I flew there and brought my penis with me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:06:21 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thread titles, how do they work? There's about 5 discussion topics that interest me at the moment. You're likely to find me in threads discussing them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Probably not as much as a Cold War vet might think. Another Snowden thread shitter. Its like an alert goes out and the same 5 people show up to shit in the thread. Thread titles, how do they work? There's about 5 discussion topics that interest me at the moment. You're likely to find me in threads discussing them. Sure thing buddy |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:06:31 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's because you're old and remember the dynamic as Capitalism vs. Communism.
It still exists to a degree (see also, China/Russia influence in the U.N.) but China and Russia are more interested in expanding State interests than the global expansion of Communist ideology. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
............... Probably not as much as a Cold War vet might think. Interesting.........I would have assumed ALOT. That's because you're old and remember the dynamic as Capitalism vs. Communism.
It still exists to a degree (see also, China/Russia influence in the U.N.) but China and Russia are more interested in expanding State interests than the global expansion of Communist ideology. Wait a minute, I might not have stated the question clearly................do China and Russia spy on each other very much is what I was asking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:07:07 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not a surprising statement coming from you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
People who don't like Snowden keep saying this, and yet I have not seen a single credible source for this claim. Unless you're just talking about the general stuff that he gave to EVERYONE by handing it over to the media. But that's not the same thing as "giving it to the Russkies." That proof is not necessary. If he had the information in his control, and he took it to Russia, it has to be assumed that he gave it to them, or that they ended up with it. ALL of that information must then be considered compromised. Just like when someone is taken prisoner in wartime, you HAVE to assume that everything THEY knew, then enemy now knows. If that included pending operations or sensitive capabilities, those ops are cancelled, and the capability if now worthless. Not a surprising statement coming from you. I'll put it back in, where it was. By your flawless line of logic, I should be making all sorts of wild-ass assumptions about how the U.S. government uses its enormous theoretical surveillance capabilities against innocent Americans as well, right? I mean, I don't have any proof, but look at the history and circumstances here, right? My statement is 100% factual. And yes, my logic IS flawless. It is not a "wild-assed assumption," to assume that the information he accessed and/or downloaded was subsequently compromised. That is responsible risk management and mitigation. To assume anything less would be irresponsible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:07:23 AM EDT
[#12]
Death by firing squad.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:07:33 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.............. Thread titles, how do they work? There's about 5 discussion topics that interest me at the moment. You're likely to find me in threads discussing them. Does a blue light go off at your work desk................wherever that is?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:07:53 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why would you snip out the stuff where he explains his statement? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
People who don't like Snowden keep saying this, and yet I have not seen a single credible source for this claim. Unless you're just talking about the general stuff that he gave to EVERYONE by handing it over to the media. But that's not the same thing as "giving it to the Russkies." That proof is not necessary. Not a surprising statement coming from you. By your flawless line of logic, I should be making all sorts of wild-ass assumptions about how the U.S. government uses its enormous theoretical surveillance capabilities against innocent Americans as well, right? I mean, I don't have any proof, but look at the history and circumstances here, right? I'm sure you'll respond with all sorts of bullshit reasons for why "that's not the same."
Why would you snip out the stuff where he explains his statement? Because he is dishonest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:08:19 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does a blue light go off at your work desk................wherever that is? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
.............. Thread titles, how do they work? There's about 5 discussion topics that interest me at the moment. You're likely to find me in threads discussing them. Does a blue light go off at your work desk................wherever that is? The quasi-intelligent search routine he has running in the background opens a prompt window for him. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:08:49 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russia's not a human rights paradise, eh? I imagine being an American in Russia right now isn't a desirable situation |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:09:17 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your not including the rest of my quote is nothing but a dishonest attempt at misinformation. I'll put it back in, where it was. My statement is 100% factual. And yes, my logic IS flawless. It is not a "wild-assed assumption," to assume that the information he accessed and/or downloaded was subsequently compromised. That is responsible risk management and mitigation. To assume anything less would be irresponsible. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
People who don't like Snowden keep saying this, and yet I have not seen a single credible source for this claim. Unless you're just talking about the general stuff that he gave to EVERYONE by handing it over to the media. But that's not the same thing as "giving it to the Russkies." That proof is not necessary. If he had the information in his control, and he took it to Russia, it has to be assumed that he gave it to them, or that they ended up with it. ALL of that information must then be considered compromised. Just like when someone is taken prisoner in wartime, you HAVE to assume that everything THEY knew, then enemy now knows. If that included pending operations or sensitive capabilities, those ops are cancelled, and the capability if now worthless. Not a surprising statement coming from you. I'll put it back in, where it was. By your flawless line of logic, I should be making all sorts of wild-ass assumptions about how the U.S. government uses its enormous theoretical surveillance capabilities against innocent Americans as well, right? I mean, I don't have any proof, but look at the history and circumstances here, right? My statement is 100% factual. And yes, my logic IS flawless. It is not a "wild-assed assumption," to assume that the information he accessed and/or downloaded was subsequently compromised. That is responsible risk management and mitigation. To assume anything less would be irresponsible. Do you assume that I rape someone every time I fly to another country with my penis attached? I cut out your "explanation" because it wasn't an explanation. It was an assumption without ANY factual support, which is my entire point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:09:23 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............... The quasi-intelligent search routine he has running in the background opens a prompt window for him. Damn you young guys are so much better at this stuff than I am.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:09:24 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was China ever dedicated to the global revolution? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
............... Probably not as much as a Cold War vet might think. Interesting.........I would have assumed ALOT. That's because you're old and remember the dynamic as Capitalism vs. Communism.
It still exists to a degree (see also, China/Russia influence in the U.N.) but China and Russia are more interested in expanding State interests than the global expansion of Communist ideology. Was China ever dedicated to the global revolution? China's an odd duck. It takes a lot of work learning to understand their culture, the way they think, and what motivates their decision making process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:09:24 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How can you not admire this guy? You need to get on the winning team son. Lets bring home a big victory. Snowden is a traitor because he helped the bogyman evil commies. If Snowden was good man, he wouldn't flee to Russia. Sure the government might of bent a few laws and violated the US Constituion, but they only did it to protect OUR FREEDOM. Why do you hate freedom? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:09:42 AM EDT
[#21]
Don't do it Snowden!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:10:46 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
........................... Do you assume that I rape someone every time I fly to another country with my penis attached? I cut out your "explanation" because it wasn't an explanation. It was an assumption without ANY factual support, which is my entire point. Damn that was a rather explicit example!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:11:27 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because he is dishonest. You have fucking balls to call ME dishonest, when you're here accusing someone of handing over information to the Russians without ANY factual basis whatsoever? OK, champ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:12:15 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Josh shitting in another Snowden thread. I can't help but wonder if Josh is paid by the feds to post. That would be a conspiracy theory, so its not possible. Or maybe he isn't a traitor loving moron who enjoys the site. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:13:00 AM EDT
[#25]
Let the traitor rot in Russia. He should visit a gulag in Siberia and check out the deluxe privacy suites. Prisons in America are vacation destinations in comparison. When Putin is tired of the useful idiot, he'll discover the glorious human rights of Russia from a new light all be it a very dim one. He dug his hole and he can spend the rest of his life in it for all I care.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:13:26 AM EDT
[#26]
I have no comment on his actions.
What I don't understand is why he wants to come back. Prison sucks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:14:22 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why would you snip out the stuff where he explains his statement? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He didn't change shit. The only thing he accomplished was giving the Russkies a shitload of information on US intelligence. People who don't like Snowden keep saying this, and yet I have not seen a single credible source for this claim. Unless you're just talking about the general stuff that he gave to EVERYONE by handing it over to the media. But that's not the same thing as "giving it to the Russkies." That proof is not necessary. Not a surprising statement coming from you. By your flawless line of logic, I should be making all sorts of wild-ass assumptions about how the U.S. government uses its enormous theoretical surveillance capabilities against innocent Americans as well, right? I mean, I don't have any proof, but look at the history and circumstances here, right? I'm sure you'll respond with all sorts of bullshit reasons for why "that's not the same."
Why would you snip out the stuff where he explains his statement? Because he is a lawyer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:15:32 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Or maybe he isn't a traitor loving moron who enjoys the site. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Josh shitting in another Snowden thread. I can't help but wonder if Josh is paid by the feds to post. That would be a conspiracy theory, so its not possible. Or maybe he isn't a traitor loving moron who enjoys the site. One mans hero is to another man a boot licking statist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:15:54 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have no comment on his actions. What I don't understand is why he wants to come back. Prison sucks. My guess is that he's stopped being of value to Russia and they're not treating him well any more. If they just dropped all his special treatment and told him he was going to have to find a job and work like a regular Russian citizenship, I can imagine going to an American jail would be better.
There's also the possibility that he just really misses home and his family. Even if he's in jail, he would still get to see his family during visits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:17:26 AM EDT
[#30]
I'm good with him coming back and doing life at Pelican bay.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:18:11 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you assume that I rape someone every time I fly to another country with my penis attached? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you assume that I rape someone every time I fly to another country with my penis attached? I cut out your "explanation" because it wasn't an explanation. It was an assumption without ANY factual support, which is my entire point. No, it is an accurate and factual description of how information is compromised. The only point you seem to be making is an announcement of your ignorance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:18:27 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because his "explanation" doesn't actually expand or explain anything. He just assumes that Snowden took information to Russia and then assumes that because he took it there (if he did), that he shared it. That's the full "explanation" he provides, which is about as coherent as assuming that I raped someone in London because I flew there and brought my penis with me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why would you snip out the stuff where he explains his statement? Because his "explanation" doesn't actually expand or explain anything. He just assumes that Snowden took information to Russia and then assumes that because he took it there (if he did), that he shared it. That's the full "explanation" he provides, which is about as coherent as assuming that I raped someone in London because I flew there and brought my penis with me. Uh, if you go to Russia and it is well understood you are carrying a giant trove of sensitive U.S. intelligence information, the Russians are going to end up with that information. The "how" part is the only question. It is an assumption on the same level as assuming that the sky will be blue tomorrow or that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow - there are certainly exceptions that might cause either one not to be true; but on the whole, historical data gives very high probability to those outcomes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:18:51 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure thing buddy Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Probably not as much as a Cold War vet might think. Another Snowden thread shitter. Its like an alert goes out and the same 5 people show up to shit in the thread. Thread titles, how do they work? There's about 5 discussion topics that interest me at the moment. You're likely to find me in threads discussing them. Sure thing buddy Would you like a list so you can avoid those threads? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:20:02 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
................ Would you like a list so you can avoid those threads? I would be more interested in your giving me your alert system provided at your work desk.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:20:16 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One mans hero is to another man a boot licking statist. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Josh shitting in another Snowden thread. I can't help but wonder if Josh is paid by the feds to post. That would be a conspiracy theory, so its not possible. Or maybe he isn't a traitor loving moron who enjoys the site. One mans hero is to another man a boot licking statist. One man's hero is another man's traitor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:20:40 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let me ask you a question, to help with that decision. If you had found those abuses and needed to do something about it, would you release information on how our allies spied on our enemies, such as the UK spying on Russia? Would you release information on how the NSA spies on other nations, which is exactly what they are supposed to do? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW, for you military guys who agree with him and think what he did was right, why don't you just do the right thing and go in tomorrow and tell your security manager you need to have your clearance revoked. I still haven't made my mind up about Snowden and it hinges on one thing, really. I like to think of myself as a "of the people, for the people" patriot and if I had knowledge about secret, sweeping constitutional abuses I know I'd feel a pressing responsibility to do bring them out in the open. My problem is that I don't know what different, realistic options he had at his disposal to accomplish that. Those of you critical of the man, how would you have gone about it differently? Or would you have just let it go? Let me ask you a question, to help with that decision. If you had found those abuses and needed to do something about it, would you release information on how our allies spied on our enemies, such as the UK spying on Russia? Would you release information on how the NSA spies on other nations, which is exactly what they are supposed to do? So, your answer is that you would have only released the information that pertained to domestic policies? I have no idea how that info was bundled....was that an option? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:20:46 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We need more Snowdens and less government stooges. There I said it. Statist despise him, but he put his life on the line to warn the American people that their government was collecting their emails and phone conversations, so he's OK in my book. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:21:13 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One man's hero is another man's traitor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Josh shitting in another Snowden thread. I can't help but wonder if Josh is paid by the feds to post. That would be a conspiracy theory, so its not possible. Or maybe he isn't a traitor loving moron who enjoys the site. One mans hero is to another man a boot licking statist. One man's hero is another man's traitor. How the fuck did we get to this level of discourse!!?? 
Calm down now children. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:21:19 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have fucking balls to call ME dishonest, when you're here accusing someone of handing over information to the Russians without ANY factual basis whatsoever? OK, champ. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because he is dishonest. You have fucking balls to call ME dishonest, when you're here accusing someone of handing over information to the Russians without ANY factual basis whatsoever? OK, champ. I stated that he had information which MUST now be assumed to be compromised, regardless of whether we know for certain that he gave it to them. We must assume that they have the information. To do otherwise would be stupid and irresponsible. The next time you lose your wallet, will you NOT cancel the credit cards, because you refuse to "assume" that whoever has them will use them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:21:30 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The thing is did he really change anything? No. As long as people are more concerned with their facebook account than their personal freedoms and the government, nothing with ever change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:22:01 AM EDT
[#41]
I wonder if he actually found the birth certificate?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:22:06 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uh, if you go to Russia and it is well understood you are carrying a giant trove of sensitive U.S. intelligence information, the Russians are going to end up with that information. The "how" part is the only question. It is an assumption on the same level as assuming that the sky will be blue tomorrow or that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow - there are certainly exceptions that might cause either one not to be true; but on the whole, historical data gives very high probability to those outcomes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why would you snip out the stuff where he explains his statement? Because his "explanation" doesn't actually expand or explain anything. He just assumes that Snowden took information to Russia and then assumes that because he took it there (if he did), that he shared it. That's the full "explanation" he provides, which is about as coherent as assuming that I raped someone in London because I flew there and brought my penis with me. Uh, if you go to Russia and it is well understood you are carrying a giant trove of sensitive U.S. intelligence information, the Russians are going to end up with that information. The "how" part is the only question. It is an assumption on the same level as assuming that the sky will be blue tomorrow or that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow - there are certainly exceptions that might cause either one not to be true; but on the whole, historical data gives very high probability to those outcomes. So in other words, it's an assumption. There are no specific facts to support the allegation that Snowden gave sensitive information to the Russians in particular. The information he took was "compromised" the moment he took it out the door at work. Before he even got on a plane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:22:19 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn, I could have sworn he gave some sort of "hard" data to the Russians.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
................. Nobody really knows what he did or didn't do, at least not that they're telling, beyond what's been released in the media. Damn, I could have sworn he gave some sort of "hard" data to the Russians. Some people make the assumption that he gave information to the Russians. That's based entirely on their view of his actions, not on any evidence. As we should all know by now, it's possible that he didn't have any information which the Russians (and the Chinese, and the government of Uruguay, for that matter) didn't already have. US information security is terrible. About the only people the US government manages to keep in the dark about these matters is the American people. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:22:46 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How the fuck did we get to this level of discourse!!??
Calm down now children. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Josh shitting in another Snowden thread. I can't help but wonder if Josh is paid by the feds to post. That would be a conspiracy theory, so its not possible. Or maybe he isn't a traitor loving moron who enjoys the site. One mans hero is to another man a boot licking statist. One man's hero is another man's traitor. How the fuck did we get to this level of discourse!!??
Calm down now children. We got here by certain people wanting to suck off a traitor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:23:26 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I stated that he had information which MUST now be assumed to be compromised, regardless of whether we know for certain that he gave it to them. We must assume that they have the information. To do otherwise would be stupid and irresponsible. The next time you lose your wallet, will you NOT cancel the credit cards, because you refuse to "assume" that whoever has them will use them? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because he is dishonest. You have fucking balls to call ME dishonest, when you're here accusing someone of handing over information to the Russians without ANY factual basis whatsoever? OK, champ. I stated that he had information which MUST now be assumed to be compromised, regardless of whether we know for certain that he gave it to them. We must assume that they have the information. To do otherwise would be stupid and irresponsible. The next time you lose your wallet, will you NOT cancel the credit cards, because you refuse to "assume" that whoever has them will use them? Of course, but that's not the same thing as making a specific statement that it was taken by my cousin and handed to the Russian mafia, in an effort to smear my cousin. Now is it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:23:51 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, your answer is that you would have only released the information that pertained to domestic policies? I have no idea how that info was bundled....was that an option? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW, for you military guys who agree with him and think what he did was right, why don't you just do the right thing and go in tomorrow and tell your security manager you need to have your clearance revoked. I still haven't made my mind up about Snowden and it hinges on one thing, really. I like to think of myself as a "of the people, for the people" patriot and if I had knowledge about secret, sweeping constitutional abuses I know I'd feel a pressing responsibility to do bring them out in the open. My problem is that I don't know what different, realistic options he had at his disposal to accomplish that. Those of you critical of the man, how would you have gone about it differently? Or would you have just let it go? Let me ask you a question, to help with that decision. If you had found those abuses and needed to do something about it, would you release information on how our allies spied on our enemies, such as the UK spying on Russia? Would you release information on how the NSA spies on other nations, which is exactly what they are supposed to do? So, your answer is that you would have only released the information that pertained to domestic policies? I have no idea how that info was bundled....was that an option? It is pretty clear from later interviews that the best case scenario is Snowden didn't even know he had such information because he was just kind of hoovering up whatever he could get and didn't have the knowledge or time to actually know important details of several of the programs he uncovered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:24:06 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
..................... Some people make the assumption that he gave information to the Russians. That's based entirely on their view of his actions, not on any evidence. As we should all know by now, it's possible that he didn't have any information which the Russians (and the Chinese, and the government of Uruguay, for that matter) didn't already have. US information security is terrible. About the only people the US government manages to keep in the dark about these matters is the American people. I realize I am probably wrong on the hard drives, etc., but "possible" is kinda remote in the context you are using IMHO. Otherwise why wouldn't they have told him "get the fuck out"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:25:57 AM EDT
[#48]
All I get from what started this whole Snowden thing is..
Snowden: "The NSA spys on everyone in the US" US Gov't: "GET ME SNOWDEN! ARREST HIM" What else am I missing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:27:09 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All I get from what started this whole Snowden thing is.. Snowden: "The NSA spys on everyone in the US" US Gov't: "GET ME SNOWDEN! ARREST HIM" What else am I missing? Snowden gave classified info to our enemies? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2015 11:27:11 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He went there first, remember? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Russia's not a human rights paradise, eh? He went there first, remember? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
