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.
Probably because they do not want to get involved.
Or they disagree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimrob1
Who Knows.
Indeed. Assuming that they're going to conclude the conspiracy theorists' perspective isn't reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimrob1
Unfortunately these traits are in very large numbers of the population.
As are the traits indicative of excessive suspicion and irrational anti-government sentiment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimrob1
If the Gov't told many of these people, that they had to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge for the good of the country. They would be dumb enough to do so.
No they wouldn't and the fact that you believe that they would shows clearly how unreasonable the perspective you're advocating is.
The Government is guilty of espionage against its citizens.
No it isn't. First, a basic American principle is innocent until proven guilty. Second, there is absolutely no reasonable person outlining a sound legal argument showing that what Snowden revealed was any kind of illegal action on the part of the government. That's not to say that there weren't any violations, but the lack of reasonable people outlining a sound legal argument indicates that if there were violations they were pretty minor. Third, the boundaries of espionage are pretty clear and so your use of the term is indicative of either manic hyperbole that has gone over into outright falsity, or sheer ignorance of the actual meaning of the words that you're using.
No it isn't. First, a basic American principle is innocent until proven guilty. Second, there is absolutely no reasonable person outlining a sound legal argument showing that what Snowden revealed was any kind of illegal action on the part of the government. That's not to say that there weren't any violations, but the lack of reasonable people outlining a sound legal argument indicates that if there were violations they were pretty minor. Third, the boundaries of espionage are pretty clear and so your use of the term is indicative of either manic hyperbole that has gone over into outright falsity, or sheer ignorance of the actual meaning of the words that you're using.
Constitutional violations are never minor.
Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance
You keep on posting accusations as if they're proof. They're not. Stop repeating your failure over and over again.
The lack of reasonable people outlining a sound legal argument indicates that if there were violations they were pretty minor. Live with it. Stop trying to brow-beat reality out of existence because it doesn't feed your conspiracy theory.
You keep on posting accusations as if they're proof They're not. Stop repeating your failure over and over again.
The lack of reasonable people outlining a sound legal argument indicates that if there were violations they were pretty minor. Live with it. Stop trying to brow-beat reality out of existence because it doesn't feed your conspiracy theory.
You said that already. Many times as a matter of fact. I've already responded to that. Now go back and respond to what I wrote initially, without committing another failure of logic...
Stop trying to brow-beat reality out of existence because it doesn't feed your conspiracy theory.
You said that already. Many times as a matter of fact. I've already responded to that. Now go back and respond to what I wrote initially, without committing another failure of logic...
Stop trying to brow-beat reality out of existence because it doesn't feed your conspiracy theory.
The ruling will eventually get released and you'll find even more excuses to excuse it away.
Is that a fact? Nope but it's a reasonable assumption.
The courts have ruled that it can be released so it either soon will be or the administration will continue to argue against transparency.
Stop trying to brow-beat reality out of existence because it doesn't feed your conspiracy theory.
When there is a conviction for violating constitutional rights, THEN you can launch your tirade with impunity. Until then, it is just FUD designed to hide the fact that you're out on a limb.
Remember what I wrote, that you're struggling so desperate to post a cogent reply to:
First, a basic American principle is innocent until proven guilty. Second, there is absolutely no reasonable person outlining a sound legal argument showing that what Snowden revealed was any kind of illegal action on the part of the government. That's not to say that there weren't any violations, but the lack of reasonable people outlining a sound legal argument indicates that if there were violations they were pretty minor. Third, the boundaries of espionage are pretty clear and so your use of the term is indicative of either manic hyperbole that has gone over into outright falsity, or sheer ignorance of the actual meaning of the words that you're using.
Stop trying to brow-beat reality out of existence because it doesn't feed your conspiracy theory.
When there is a conviction for violating constitutional rights, THEN you can launch your tirade with impunity. Until then, it is just FUD designed to hide the fact that you're out on a limb.
Remember what I wrote, that you're struggling so desperate to post a cogent reply to:
First, a basic American principle is innocent until proven guilty. Second, there is absolutely no reasonable person outlining a sound legal argument showing that what Snowden revealed was any kind of illegal action on the part of the government. That's not to say that there weren't any violations, but the lack of reasonable people outlining a sound legal argument indicates that if there were violations they were pretty minor. Third, the boundaries of espionage are pretty clear and so your use of the term is indicative of either manic hyperbole that has gone over into outright falsity, or sheer ignorance of the actual meaning of the words that you're using.
When the courts rule there was violations, there was. I never claimed espionage. I claimed violations of the Constitution.
It's hopeless trying to get you to tell the difference between your accusations and reality.
Courts announce their rulings, when they intend them to be considered real by the general public. Until then, they're just conspiracy theories.
Regardless, even your conspiracy theories don't specifically exempt from prosecution the espionage that Snowden publicly admitted to.
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.
