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.
He identified the computers which were being monitored by US intelligence. He even gave them the IP addresses. I think this had been repeated some 40-50 times already.
I am listening to Giuliani saying the exact same thing I have been saying. He crossed the line when he broke his oath and especially when he leaked classified info to the Chinese. The Snowden sympathizers are running on pure emotion. Giuliani agrees the guy is a complete phony pretending to be a 1st amendment knight while touring through countries which have the least respect for free speech.
I am listening to Giuliani saying the exact same thing I have been saying. He crossed the line when he broke his oath and especially when he leaked classified info to the Chinese. The Snowden sympathizers are running on pure emotion. Giuliani agrees the guy is a complete phony pretending to be a 1st amendment knight while touring through countries which have the least respect for free speech.
Giuliani the man from the land of stop and frisk simply because you are the wrong color.
I don't know if I believe this, b/c I don't trust our government, and they want him badly....so, perhaps this has been all conjured up to make American's angry and turn against Snowden?
Of course they're trying to get everyone's attention on Snowden to hopefully draw it away from the actual issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cremebrulee
If he told them? How does America know what Snowden told the Chinese? Do your really believe the Chinese are going to tell our Government, what Snowden is sharing with them? I don't think so....
I think b/c so many people claimed Snowden a hero, that threatened our government, therefore, their trying to turn people against Snowden, so they look better.
And people, I'm not tring to defend this Administration, believe me, I am no fan of it, but all this stuff was bought about by other Presidents in the past....people are blaming Obama only, and the blame needs to go as far back as Clinton, or even further? Obama didn't create this procedure, he isn't that smart...? He is however, cunning, sneaky and surely not working for the American people....
No government that he's talked with will admit what they've heard. As for what the other Admins have done? Not the same thing, it was never so broad as it is now, nor was it so intensely pointed inside the U.S..
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Well let me tell you what I'm NOT going to do.
I'm NOT going to leave the country that gave me and my family EVERYTHING. My parents came here with nothing and became wealthy business owners that are extremely grateful to this country and active citizens in the political process, all 7 of their US born children have graduate degrees and are living the American dream. Many raising their own families now.
Some of you have been here too long that you have forgotten where you came from and how blessed you are.
As far as what I wouldnt do,
I'm NOT going to seek asylum and protection from countries that are atrciously MORE CORRUPT than the country I'm running from.
Bottom line:
He broke the law. Period.
He fled the country because he does not want to face the punishment his illegal acts have warranted. Period.
He is now revealing confidential US govt secrets to foreign govts. Period.
Whatever flowery imaginations you've come up with to rationalize what Eric Snowden has done DOES NOT make him above the rule of law.
PERIOD.
I've not forgotten how good we've got it, in fact it is just exactly the reason I'd like to see it returned to it's greatness that it's fallen from over the last many years. That's got absolutely NOTHING to do with anything when discussing Snowden or his acts. It does have everything to do with how those that we're supposed to trust with our day to day lives act though.
Just because we're lucky (yes the luck of being born here) enough to live here doesn't mean we allow those in power to do as they wish and/or turn a blind eye to those that would deface or diminish what this country is supposed to be not matter what their title.
Here's the thing, the first thing that the Administration came out with was "Snowden didn't have access to anything important. Then it was "well maybe a little". Then it was "well he might have had others working with him or he is a spy". Then the story went to "he's gotten information that will cripple us". Then it went to "we have no idea what he's taken or is in possession of". Now we're back to "he's going to do irreparable harm to the nation".
Bull puckey. All of it is Yack Squeeze.
The only damage he's doing is to the feelings of the voters and how they now see this government that's worried about elections next year.
If there programs were "oh so great" then explain Boston bombing,Shoe bomber etc,etc etc.
One other point,
A while back in this thread it was said that (paraphrase) Obama enjoyed way better relations with foreign leaders than leaders in years past. Really? How's that going with Russia,China,Hong Kong etc?
Still believe these other governments hold Obama in such high esteem? Certainly doesn't seem so by their actions now does it?
I am listening to Giuliani saying the exact same thing I have been saying. He crossed the line when he broke his oath and especially when he leaked classified info to the Chinese. The Snowden sympathizers are running on pure emotion. Giuliani agrees the guy is a complete phony pretending to be a 1st amendment knight while touring through countries which have the least respect for free speech.
He may have crossed a line but as many on here are so fond of saying (pointing at others) "well so did Obama,Holder,Clinton and Bush" so it's justified. Right?
Or, is it only justified if it's the other team?
I'm of the opinion he's done the right thing the wrong way.
Simple as that.
I am listening to Giuliani saying the exact same thing I have been saying. He crossed the line when he broke his oath and especially when he leaked classified info to the Chinese. The Snowden sympathizers are running on pure emotion. Giuliani agrees the guy is a complete phony pretending to be a 1st amendment knight while touring through countries which have the least respect for free speech.
And we are supposed to listen to Giuliani because?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
He identified the computers which were being monitored by US intelligence. He even gave them the IP addresses. I think this had been repeated some 40-50 times already.
Why are you so angry? I am pro-life, against SMS, against drug legalization etc because of my Christian faith. So, I have an authoritarian streak in my views and I don't think it is a bad thing. The problem here is that you do not seem to understand the meaning of the word, and you try to associate it to your political opponents, but the truth is that you are probably more authoritarian than them. Try to pick a different word, and better luck in the future. This waaaaayyyy off topic, but if you open the thread, I might stop by.
I'm disgusted ... not angry. There is a big difference. Furthermore, there is nothing ... I repeat, nothing authoritarian about the defense of innocent life. Despite the fact that humans have been killing each other, and everything else they can kill for as long as humans have been on this planet, it has still been recognized as wrong to kill the innocent and defenseless. Even in war, there is a moral prohibition on killing women and children. So there is nothing remotely dictatorial-authoritarian in such a stance.
Aside that ... I am for the legalization of drugs, because no form of prohibition has been successful, or has led to anything other than black market criminal activity. That, along with the fact that I don't believe anyone has the right, nor the capability to protect someone from themselves.. As for being against SSM ... again, nothing authoritarian about observing traditional marriage as the only legitimate form because the benefits sought by the SSM crowd (and that is what they are after ... the benefits) were never intended for the benefit of the adult partners, but were designed to protect the security of the family for the sake of the offspring, which does not apply to homosexuals .. last time I checked the status of biology. Personally, I don't believe government should have any say in who marries whom, nor should there be any special benefits or privileges offered to married couples at all. Why should single people be required to subsidize such benefits that they are not entitled to receive? The authoritarian element here is in the government deciding who can and cannot marry whom, along with forcing everyone else to accept these decisions, and also forcing everyone to subsidize through their taxes, behavior that they might find morally offensive. It's the left that is constantly demanding government intervention in all matters private and to wit government has no constitutional power to interfere in. That's authoritarianism.
The fact is, you seem to have it all backwards, while assigning a great deal of rather basic, legitimate and desirable governance to the status of authoritarianism. I suppose in a very broad interpretation, such a claim has an inkling of truth, since laws are enforced by "authorities". But we're now dealing with semantical argument rather than legitimate debate. My definition of authoritarianism is obviously different than yours, and is not reflected in legitimate governing and basic laws prohibiting such things that are harmful to the interests and rights of every other individual member of our society ... which includes not allowing them to be killed for someone else's convenience .... among a few other things.
I really wish some of the Snowden apologists would address this.
I'm only happy to oblige you. 1) This all began as a whistle blower informing the public about government being engaged in illegal surveillance of them. Now, the claim is he's divulging classified material to enemy governments, but given the track record of lies already exposed, why should anyone believe a word that comes from these crooks? 2) Why would you expect someone to stay and be locked away as a political prisoner by the very criminals this person exposed? That makes ZERO sense.
How many times does everything need to be repeated????? He didn't just tell them we are spying on them, he gave them detailed information of our clandestine operations. Do you understand the difference?
Its like a guy steals money from a drug lord or a mafia don. Its technically a crime but you still want to see the dug lord and the mob boss lose the money and get screwed.
In this case, the feds are the drug lord and the mafia don. Its sad its come to this, but we can't trust the feds to handle this, its a conflict of interest.
WE THE PEOPLE have to start to step up to decide these cases as well as to determine national policy. The government and judicial system are no longer capable of doing it, they're compromised. They aren't working for our best interests, only they're own. That and they just seem to be incompetent.
So what do the people say? Right now the majority say that Snowden shouldn't be prosecuted. I'm comfortable with that.
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.
