Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clearly Snowden has extreme hatred for the US and clearly wants to weaken it internationally. Funny thing is that the US isn't doing anything that China and Russia aren't doing, and probably the UK and a few other countries.
I don't get it. It seems as if all my liberal friends think Snowden is a criminal who belongs in jail, while all my conservative friends think he's some hero.
What I don't get is that most liberals have praised other people for exposing sensitive information, while the conservatives condemn such action.
Maybe someone can clear this up for me.
Doubtful, since your message made no sense from the outset. Either you have very weird friends, or you just made up a trolling thread.
Quote:
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) left little doubt Tuesday as to how he thinks NSA leaker Edward Snowden should be dealt with: as an enemy of the state.
“He’s a traitor,” Boehner said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “The disclosure of this information puts Americans at risk. It shows our adversaries what our capabilities are. And it’s a giant violation of the law.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday said National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
McConnell acknowledged worries about the NSA surveillance of telephone and Internet data, but said they were lawful.
The name of the person on the warrant is searched against the database of millions of phone records. Without the database there would be nothing to search. They’re not searching the database against itself. They don’t need a warrant to include names in the database.
It is the existence of the database that is both unconstitutional and in violation of the USAPATRIOT Act.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
The government does indeed require a court-issued warrant, or probable cause, to collect information on anyone. The government cannot collect information on anyone they please in order to search for a specific individual at a later date.
I don't get it. It seems as if all my liberal friends think Snowden is a criminal who belongs in jail, while all my conservative friends think he's some hero.
What I don't get is that most liberals have praised other people for exposing sensitive information, while the conservatives condemn such action.
Maybe someone can clear this up for me.
Since January of 2009, conservatives have cheered every American difficulty and backed China, Russia, and terrorists rather than support the president.
They've been remarkably consistent in this behavior. And they're in lockstep. Meanwhile, they complain of a partisan divide.
If Snowden had any evidence of actual wrong-doing, and a modicum of honor, he'd return to the US to stand trial, using such evidence as proof of his innocence.
If Snowden had any evidence of actual wrong-doing, and a modicum of honor, he'd return to the US to stand trial, using such evidence as proof of his innocence.
Because our system is so unswervingly committed to justice?
Since January of 2009, conservatives have cheered every American difficulty and backed China, Russia, and terrorists rather than support the president.
They've been remarkably consistent in this behavior. And they're in lockstep. Meanwhile, they complain of a partisan divide.
You have that backwards. It President Obama who threw his lot in with the terrorists, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt since 2009, and now the al Qaeda Syrian rebels. Democrats have always been the biggest supporters of international terrorism since Carter was President.
You have that backwards. It President Obama who threw his lot in with the terrorists, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt since 2009, and now the al Qaeda Syrian rebels.
A few things you've omitted from your "analysis":
1. The US has always maintained diplomatic relations with Egypt and has supported them with financial/military assistance since the 1977 peace accords between them and Israel.
2. It was the Egyptians who elected Morsi in free elections, their first ever. Looks like now maybe they're having second thoughts. And maybe democracy takes awhile to get settled in a country that has thousands of years of history as a totalitarian state.
3. The loudest voices calling for a bigger US commitment in Syria have been Republicans.
Quote:
Democrats have always been the biggest supporters of international terrorism since Carter was President.
Look up which party was in power and decided to re-open diplomatic relations with Qadaffi in 2006.
1. The US has always maintained diplomatic relations with Egypt and has supported them with financial/military assistance since the 1977 peace accords between them and Israel.
You are quite right. Because Carter was unable to broker a peace between Israel and Egypt, he bought one with US taxpayer money. Which we have been paying ever since due to Carter's incompetence.
However, you are mistaken in one respect. Obama started his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood in 2009, while the "Arab Spring" did not occur until December 2010. So Obama was not supporting the Egyptian government, he was supporting the terrorists who were hell-bent on overthrowing the legitimate Mubarak government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo
2. It was the Egyptians who elected Morsi in free elections, their first ever. Looks like now maybe they're having second thoughts. And maybe democracy takes awhile to get settled in a country that has thousands of years of history as a totalitarian state.
By "free elections" I presume you meant free to vote for terrorists, like Morsi. The outcome was predictable, a Sharia dictatorship, also known as a Caliphate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo
3. The loudest voices calling for a bigger US commitment in Syria have been Republicans.
Look up which party was in power and decided to re-open diplomatic relations with Qadaffi in 2006.
Yet it is Obama who is arming the al Qaeda Syrian rebels, without authorization from Congress. As far as Gaddafi is concerned, he was fighting for his life against al Qaeda. Obama's continuing support of al Qaeda is what got Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans killed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
