Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Nsa

  1. #1
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,069
    Like
    97
    Liked 339 Times in 193 Posts

    Nsa

    Thoughts?

    To me, there is a major problem if this guy is charged with a crime. I understand the importance of having consequences for people revealing national security secrets, but the evidence he is providing indicate just how worthless all the conventional steps to solving the problem actually are. They have a token, rubber-stamping "court" overseeing it and they are rampantly lying to congressional oversight.

    If not whistleblowing....how does one voice concerns over government practice?

    Also, I'm very upset that both liberal and conservative congressional members are attacking Snowden already. Fact is, there are deeply held lefty and righty beliefs that should be 100% opposed to this, I'd like Congress to act it's part as a balancing arm of the government. Don't rush to condemn, go get answers and hold the other branch accountable.

  2. #2
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    4,605
    Like
    496
    Liked 214 Times in 147 Posts
    He did not reveal some great national secret......

    Whatever happened to "give me liberty, or give me death"? Do people not understand what they are "fighting" for? Supposedly, we are fighting for freedom and democracy, as ideals, not to keep the USA in existence as a shadow of its former self.

    YMMV, of course......

    As for Congress, it is 100% broken, imo. We should seriously reconsider our entire system of governing ourselves. The world is a very different place than 200+ years ago, while what ideals we are tying to live by should not change, how we do that probably should.
    Lighten up Francis....

  3. #3
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,069
    Like
    97
    Liked 339 Times in 193 Posts
    Whatever you want to call it, he is exposing something they will try to hold him criminally accountable for. I agree with some of your sentiment but I worry the political spin will win out.

  4. #4
    Senior Member All-Star PseudoSABR's Avatar
    Posts
    1,755
    Like
    131
    Liked 106 Times in 64 Posts
    The type of data-collection that is being reported is very troubling to me--so is the access to that data-collection (evidently); I just don't like the idea of troves of data with which the government (or their agents or, I guess, some GED dipstick) could mine at some later time for whatever ends.

    Lots of liberals and libertarians still have trouble with the whole idea of whistle-blowing--some regard it as a betrayal--but really, for me, the greater betrayal is to go against one's principals. And in my opinion one can still be a patriot for their country, even if they betray their government.

    Snowden seems to be going it about it in a somewhat honorable way, he's not really revealing secrets so much as secret programs--the secrets are still secret--just not the mechanism through which they were obtained. It may have been a mistake for him to out-himself, as he becomes the story, and his motives become part of the equation with which the publicly will decide where justice actually lies.

    The old adage, if you sacrifice freedom for security, you will have neither, seems appropriate.

    Fun fact: Amazon's sale of Orwell's 1984 has significantly gone up.
    Last edited by PseudoSABR; 06-12-2013 at 03:23 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member All-Star Shane Wahl's Avatar
    Posts
    3,776
    Like
    4
    Liked 67 Times in 50 Posts
    Blog Entries
    63
    I like that fun fact, SABR. That book should be required reading to get a high school diploma.

    By the way, I love how Greenwald smacked MSNBC the other day on Morning Joe. Mika is nothing more than a Democratic Party shill.

  6. #6
    Super Moderator All-Star ChiTownTwinsFan's Avatar
    Posts
    3,319
    Like
    693
    Liked 772 Times in 484 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PseudoSABR View Post

    The old adage, if you sacrifice freedom for security, you will have neither, seems appropriate.
    It was a Benjamin Franklin quote: "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

  7. #7
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,069
    Like
    97
    Liked 339 Times in 193 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Shane Wahl View Post
    the way, I love how Greenwald smacked MSNBC the other day on Morning Joe. Mika is nothing more than a Democratic Party shill.
    Could you elaborate please? I'm curious what happened but didnt see it due to ranking MSNBC only slightly above Animal Planet on the pantheon of news options.

  8. #8
    Senior Member All-Star PseudoSABR's Avatar
    Posts
    1,755
    Like
    131
    Liked 106 Times in 64 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiTownTwinsFan View Post
    It was a Benjamin Franklin quote: "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
    I changed it around some, so it's my quote now.
    Last edited by PseudoSABR; 06-12-2013 at 03:26 PM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member All-Star Shane Wahl's Avatar
    Posts
    3,776
    Like
    4
    Liked 67 Times in 50 Posts
    Blog Entries
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    Could you elaborate please? I'm curious what happened but didnt see it due to ranking MSNBC only slightly above Animal Planet on the pantheon of news options.
    Mika Brzezinski (you know who her daddy is) made some comment on how no content was actually being spied on, but it was really just innocent overseeing of things. Greenwald then replied something along the lines of "yes, that is your White House talking point" etc. etc.

  10. #10
    Senior Member All-Star Shane Wahl's Avatar
    Posts
    3,776
    Like
    4
    Liked 67 Times in 50 Posts
    Blog Entries
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by PseudoSABR View Post
    I changed it around some, so it's my quote now.
    The "deserve" part is pretty important though.

  11. #11
    Pixel Monkey MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    6,677
    Like
    32
    Liked 743 Times in 415 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    As for Congress, it is 100% broken, imo. We should seriously reconsider our entire system of governing ourselves. The world is a very different place than 200+ years ago, while what ideals we are tying to live by should not change, how we do that probably should.
    I've loudly proclaimed for years that if meaningful campaign reform were to happen, 75% of our problems would be fixed within two election cycles. I still believe that to be the case. Remove the money, remove duplicitous incentive to screw the American public.

    The problem is that no one in charge has any incentive to cut off their own personal cash cow. This idea has to come from the bottom up and I don't see it happening. We're just too damned dumb.

  12. #12
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,650
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    I've loudly proclaimed for years that if meaningful campaign reform were to happen, 75% of our problems would be fixed within two election cycles. I still believe that to be the case. Remove the money, remove duplicitous incentive to screw the American public.

    The problem is that no one in charge has any incentive to cut off their own personal cash cow. This idea has to come from the bottom up and I don't see it happening. We're just too damned dumb.
    I think "campaign reform" is kind of a fantasy. Money will get in one way or the other. The best move would be to scrap the income tax incentives that give companies and individuals incentives to donate such large amounts.

    I would be in favor of unlimited donations. I think under the current setup it is the only way a true third party candidate could get funded.

  13. #13
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    4,605
    Like
    496
    Liked 214 Times in 147 Posts
    I'm cool with unlimited donations, as long as they are publicly disclosed.

    Term limits, ranked voting, different congressional processes, an updated constituion.....lots of options.
    Lighten up Francis....

  14. #14
    Senior Member All-Star PseudoSABR's Avatar
    Posts
    1,755
    Like
    131
    Liked 106 Times in 64 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    ranked voting
    ranked voting?

  15. #15
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,650
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PseudoSABR View Post
    ranked voting?
    Maybe instant runoff?
    Papers...business papers.

  16. #16
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    4,605
    Like
    496
    Liked 214 Times in 147 Posts
    Sorry, I always forget that what used to be called ranking is called instant runoff. I wonder when that happened. I recall reading articles 10 years ago, where probably both terms were used.

  17. #17
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    233
    Like
    3
    Liked 24 Times in 12 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by drjim View Post
    Maybe instant runoff?
    The concept when used in past elections would get a lot of people the results they want, but if they actually put that system in place instead of working towards middle ground it would actually push the ballot to the extreams (not a bad thing in my opinion). The end result wouldn't be much different then the end result we get now.

    For example if this system was in place in 2012 Mitt Romney would make sure Ron Paul also was on the ballot, Obama would have to find a high profile Green candidate, and some moron like Michael Bloomberg would think he had a chance and take 4% of the vote at random. In the end it would be a close race between the highest profile best funded Republican and Democrat endorsed candidate. Every once in a while a Ross Perot type could have a chance, but that candidate would have to be flawless and get lucky on election day.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    233
    Like
    3
    Liked 24 Times in 12 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    Sorry, I always forget that what used to be called ranking is called instant runoff. I wonder when that happened. I recall reading articles 10 years ago, where probably both terms were used.
    Two separate but similar things. I think the difference is in how you eliminate candidates, something that in my opinion would never create a statistically meaningful difference (could flip results in a statistical tie such as Coleman Franken Barkley ect.)
    Last edited by mikecgrimes; 06-14-2013 at 04:46 PM.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    233
    Like
    3
    Liked 24 Times in 12 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    I've loudly proclaimed for years that if meaningful campaign reform were to happen, 75% of our problems would be fixed within two election cycles. I still believe that to be the case. Remove the money, remove duplicitous incentive to screw the American public.

    The problem is that no one in charge has any incentive to cut off their own personal cash cow. This idea has to come from the bottom up and I don't see it happening. We're just too damned dumb.
    20 years ago money ruled, the internet has taken over. Fundraising beyond a certain level is for show. Usually fundraising will be a good predictor of results but that's like saying the price of homes in a neighborhood will predict the income level of citizens.

  20. #20
    Super Moderator All-Star
    Posts
    3,400
    Like
    161
    Liked 303 Times in 180 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    You'll never be able to keep money out, the issue becomes leveling the playing field. Contrary to what the politicians will tell you, it's pretty much setup to allow a handful of elites to control the playing field. They get to do so through PACs to which the corporations/elite can give a nearly unlimited amount of dollars. The easiest way to keep money out is to say that there's a limit (say $2500) on what each person or corporation can give to any part of the political process as well as limit a PAC to that same donation to a politician. Right now, you may as well as them to wear sponsor patches like NASCAR drivers.

    Back to the topic at hand though, if what Snowden is saying is true, he should not be prosecuted. It won't happen though. We've come to the day where telling the truth is equivalent to treason.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.