Edward Snowden: American Hero

#326
#326
82_VOL_83 said:
Why would we lose? You get upset when people label you for what you are. WTF do we call someone who assumes that we would lose a terrorist invasion? I know what I would call them but Freak would ban me in about 10 seconds.
Click to expand...

... it's a hypothetical situation in which the loss is guaranteed. Again, a hypothetical situation.
 
#327
#327
It is reasonable to believe that CIA was ordered to locate Snowden and bring him into custody. The Company certainly does have the capability to plant news stories for that purpose. But we are talking about Hong Kong. However autonomous it might be, I believe that the mainland government has jurisdiction over defense and foreign affairs. With cyber attacks at the forefront of Sino-American relations, it seems highly unlikely that Chinese officials would neglect the opportunity Snowden presented to them. They could play "good cop/bad cop" for a bit of cooperation and then do with him whatever they decide to do. jmo
 
#328
#328
The statements by the reporter and Snoweden are a little grandiose, self important, and otherwise "aren't we great martyrs" for my tastes. There's a lot of self-congratulating going on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#330
#330
notabed22 said:
Clutch conspiracy theory reaction. Definitely more plausible than Edward, our hero, doing something less than glowing.
Click to expand...

So he would go into hiding one day, and then resurface to make a random statement to some fishwrap 2 days later... jeopardizing his security?
 
#332
#332
Rasputin_Vol said:
Would be interested to know how a tall white man is able to disappear in Hong Kong, though.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is a large number of British ex-pats living in Hong Kong even after the Chinese took over. Easier than you might think.
 
#333
#333
Grand Vol said:
Actually, there is a large number of British ex-pats living in Hong Kong even after the Chinese took over. Easier than you might think.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that it might be one of the few modern places in the world that doesn't have facial recognition systems tied into their cameras. That's all over Europe, so he would be caught quickly there.
 
#336
#336
notabed22 said:
... it's a hypothetical situation in which the loss is guaranteed. Again, a hypothetical situation.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand California and some country called CB. I refuse to accept that as even being a possibility. Much like Danl's refusal to answer TRUT's question which is equally implausible. The real issue is why would the two of you even throw that out as a possibility? Should a force great enough to overwhelm the military and armed populace of the US land on our soil, no amount of secrets by the US government are going to stop that. You guys need to come up with a "more realistic" analogy or answer TRUT's question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#341
#341
Biden on the surveillance program:

I don’t have to listen to your phone calls to know what you’re doing. If I’m able to determine every phone call you made —[if] I’m able to able to determine every single person you talked to — I’m able to get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive. And the real question here is what do they do with this information that they collect that does not have anything to do with al Qaeda? And we’re gonna trust the President and the Vice President of the United States to do the right thing? Don’t count me in on that.


Of course, that was in 2006. I think I finally understand the transparency this administration promised. They meant they would be transparent about everything they knew would continue up until they took their oath of office. After that, it will be business as usual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#344
#344
#345
#345
#346
#346
therealUT said:
Negative. Your analogy does not hold. My ATM card is my ATM card. My government is my government. My ATM card does not belong to others. My government does belong to me. Further, my government professes to defend liberty above all else; my bank professes to defend my money.

Further, my government professes to be a representative government. By hiding information from me, a citizen, it is keeping me from being informed and making informed choices; thus, it cannot truly represent my interests.

As for the talk of tactics and strategy in war, this is not something about which I have not spent hours thinking. My ideals certainly commit me to thinking that any expeditionary wars are dubious, at best. However, fighting to protect one's life and liberty at and within the borders of one's country poses no theoretical difficulty. If the nation being attacked is truly representative (i.e., truly respects the liberty and autonomy of those within, and without, its borders), then there will be few, if any, enemies of said nation within the borders. Thus, knowledge of where the fighting is occurring and what tactics are being used is not necessarily destructive to the cause.

However, history demonstrates, time and again, that when liberties are given over from the people to the state in exigent situations in order to provide security, these liberties are never given back to the people from the state. This bears out as far back as Herodotus and Thucydides. When these liberties have been recaptured, they have been just that: recaptured. And, quite frequently, in more violent struggles than the original struggles which resulted in the surrender of said liberties.
Click to expand...

Right, so you agree that the defense of your money is a cooperative effort between you and the bank. So long as you secure your ATM card and Pin and the bank secures your account number and access then your money is secure.

Similarly, security of liberty is a cooperative effort between the people and the government. So long as you do your part, i.e. follow certain laws so that you don't impact on the liberty of others, and the government does its part, enforces those laws and provides for the common defense, then liberty should be secured.

In an ideal world where everyone truly respected and cooperated with each other, there would be no need for the bank to secure the account numbers, or even lock their vaults. We would each have our basket full of money and could walk in and retrieve it without question. Extend that to the free society and, sure, ideally there would be no enemies in the borders of that free country.

But, as you and I both know full well, we don't live in that world: there are thieves and there are enemies to our liberty. Consequently, banks need locks and we need to encrypt our communications.

Now, unfortunately, some of those enemies to liberty are in government. Even though they give the appearance of being friendly to liberty, what they really want is to have it for themselves while taking it away from others. That is where the partnership falls apart. If the bank didn't look after your interests by securing your money, you would replace it with another bank. So, if the government does the same...well, Herodotus was right.
 
#349
#349
myrobbins7 said:
Not sure, I don't follow the man that much at all.
Click to expand...

Beck is now saying that he has an insider who fears for his life, with leaked documents which will bring down everybody, Democrats and Republicans. It is probably another one of Beck's big nothings, but he is really playing it up. No, I am not one of his listeners, but this announcement is out on the interwebs.
 
#350
#350
Vol Main said:
Beck is now saying that he has an insider who fears for his life, with leaked documents which will bring down everybody, Democrats and Republicans. It is probably another one of Beck's big nothings, but he is really playing it up. No, I am not one of his listeners, but this announcement is out on the interwebs.
Click to expand...

When is this divulging supposed to occur?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top