I would like to know CPF's thoughts on Rand Paul, and on my take regarding him.

Started by Stryke, July 30, 2013, 09:16:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Stryke

Since it's been assumed I am some sort of progressive libertarian or Rubiobamabot, or some democrat in disguise or some conspiratorial Pro-Paul supporter (that for some reason would sow doubts of his own candidate?) I thought I'd post who I think is a positive force in the Republican Party right now, and one I think many here would do well to keep an eye on going forward (see, you did get something out of this!  :cool: ):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cotton

He announced today he'll be running against Mark Pryor. I hope to see a President Cotton someday.

quiller

Well, at least you returned and did address a few concerns here. In fairness you could have mentioned your candidate a bit more prominently, to allay such comments.

Stryke

I don't currently have a candidate for 2016, it is way too early for that and I am hoping we will see a new face. I think something people should keep in mind is that many of the candidates being polled on for 2016 (Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Kelly Ayotte, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee etc) will likely not even run. The numbers don't tell us much and neither does the current lineup. The only "likely runs" are Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio. Somehow I don't think we will end up with a three-way primary from the beginning in 2016.

Though, I admit I don't have the same reaction to Christie that many tea party and libertarian conservatives have, and that feud is kind of what brought out my desire to know more about Paul's supporters. I don't like this idea that if you agree with counter-terrorism policies being managed more by the intelligence community than Obama, that somehow makes you a RINO.

quiller

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:43:29 AM
I don't currently have a candidate for 2016, it is way too early for that and I am hoping we will see a new face. I think something people should keep in mind is that many of the candidates being polled on for 2016 (Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Kelly Ayotte, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee etc) will likely not even run. The numbers don't tell us much and neither does the current lineup. The only "likely runs" are Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio. Somehow I don't think we will end up with a three-way primary from the beginning in 2016.

Though, I admit I don't have the same reaction to Christie that many tea party and libertarian conservatives have, and that feud is kind of what brought out my desire to know more about Paul's supporters. I don't like this idea that if you agree with counter-terrorism policies being managed more by the intelligence community than Obama, that somehow makes you a RINO.

I don't read everything here but I had not seen that said in those words here, or implied. I have seen plenty on making certain Obama doesn't run ANYTHING, since he's already run us into the ground.

Stryke

Sorry what I meant to say is I think the whole NSA PRISM / Snowden thing is becoming an inappropriate litmus test for whether someone is a "true conservative." I don't think it's a good idea to assert ideological purity over a legitimate national security power that, in my view, has become extremely demagogued.

Trip

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:32:16 AM
Since it's been assumed I am some sort of progressive libertarian or Rubiobamabot, or some democrat in disguise or some conspiratorial Pro-Paul supporter (that for some reason would sow doubts of his own candidate?) I thought I'd post who I think is a positive force in the Republican Party right now, and one I think many here would do well to keep an eye on going forward (see, you did get something out of this!  :cool: ):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cotton

He announced today he'll be running against Mark Pryor. I hope to see a President Cotton someday.
I'm glad that you've returned to post s'more.  I wasn't saying that you were necessarily a Troll, or even a troll at all.  I was just having a hard time figuring out  your overall point, or perspective. 

People post leading posts on forums for a whole array of reasons, some of them quasi-legitimate, but often not wanting ongoing membership in that forum community.

I guess President Cotton is more American than King Cotton.



Trip

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 12:31:32 PM
Sorry what I meant to say is I think the whole NSA PRISM / Snowden thing is becoming an inappropriate litmus test for whether someone is a "true conservative." I don't think it's a good idea to assert ideological purity over a legitimate national security power that, in my view, has become extremely demagogued.

Demagogued?

So you believe it is "legitimate national security" to collect and store every possible piece of information about every American, 24/7, in a mass data complex, and believe those who object are engaging in demagoguery?

I think those people would object to this perspective for a whole array reasons, not the least of which the idea they are in any way appealing to populist desires and prejudices.

You don't think it is an inherent and  widely understood right, under the Constitution, which once was at play, for Americans to not be tracked and traced by their government in everything they do?



Stryke

The purpose of the PRISM program was two fold:

1.) To not allow terrorists to use social media services such as hotmail, yahoo (both of which were used by the 9/11 hijackers)

and

2.) Make sure that anybody domestic - citizen or not - who was calling a terrorist flagged number outside the U.S., from the U.S. could be traced.

The alternative would be to force NSA analysts to turn the machine off whenever a homegrown terrorist called a number overseas. I happen to believe U.S. citizenship means less than it should if it can be used as a shield against counter-terror methods - we should all be against that practice. If not, I direct you to this video - go to 16:01 in the video and listen to his description of what an FBI agent has to do when a terrorist walks into a mosque: Sebastian Gorka: Threat Denial in the Obama Administration

I agree with Dr. Gorka in the video - the constitution can be over-interpreted when it comes to national security.

When radio and telephone was invented, SIGINT services took advantage of it. The same is going to happen for cyberspace no matter who is in office.

Moreover, I think Snowden has undermined internet freedom globally. Because of these revelations, now everybody wants a PRISM, and any dictator anywhere can claim they need one because "the Americans are listening" - whether that is true or not.

As far as the abuse of this - I guess this disagreement I have on this issue with libertarians is more philosophical than legal. I don't believe many of the worst-case scenarios that critics claim will come to pass realistically will. I think the intelligence community has earned our trust after over a decade of war and keeping the homeland safe from terror attacks.

As for the criticism of, "why didn't this stop Boston?" Great question. It didn't stop Boston because an FBI agent sat down with Tamerlan in late 2011. He got spooked and refined his strategy. He got careful. The "mistakes" made by Richard Reid and the underwear bomber did not happen in the case of the Tsarnaevs because they knew they were being watched. We can be sure that thanks to the Snowden leaks, now terrorists won't make the "mistake" of using gmail or facebook to communicate, where they could be intercepted with a program like PRISM.

So when I say "demagogued" I say that because I think the above isn't being considered in this debate. Any national security perspective whatsoever seems to be just written off as control-freak authoritarianism.

Trip

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 01:33:06 PM
The purpose of the PRISM program was two fold:

1.) To not allow terrorists to use social media services such as hotmail, yahoo (both of which were used by the 9/11 hijackers)

and

2.) Make sure that anybody domestic - citizen or not - who was calling a terrorist flagged number outside the U.S., from the U.S. could be traced.

The alternative would be to force NSA analysts to turn the machine off whenever a homegrown terrorist called a number overseas. I happen to believe U.S. citizenship means less than it should if it can be used as a shield against counter-terror methods - we should all be against that practice.

Given your two points, quite obviously PRISM and whatever other SIGINT program have grossly exceeded their purpose.

And perhaps you've come to notice that "homegrown terrorists" has been modified  to ignore Islam, which praises, extols, demands and institutionalizes terrorism,  and expanded to include those who call for legitimate government guaranteed by the Constitution.

The problem is that the federal government is not just listening in to anything, and everything, but collecting, cataloging and storing everything 24/7.   

Under those terms it is  rather easy for the government to accuse virtually anyone of pretty much anything, certainly something, and creates a system of implied guilt wherein a person must prove their innocence, which is technically impossible, rather then that their guilt must be proven -- a Police State.

You have heard the various attributions to the founders about those willing to give up Freedom for security (safety), right?

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 01:33:06 PM
If not, I directs you to this video - go to 16:01 in the video and listen to his description of what an FBI agent has to do when a terrorist walks into a mosque: Sebastian Gorka: Threat Denial in the Obama Administration

=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElrsqMMOnuU#ws

I agree with Dr. Gorka in the video - the constitution can be over-interpreted when it comes to national security.

Gorka, at that 16 minute mark,  is using a hypothetical situation, not even one stated to have actually occurred,  involving a corruption of the Constitution, to argue for a further corruption of the Constitution, and claiming it is all legitimized by the Constitution.

There is no "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution, not even implied by the Constitution. 

In the only place where that  "(wall of) separation between church & state" occurred, Jefferson's 1801 letter to the Danbury Baptist church,  that "wall of separation" does not prohibit religion from free expression, is not a wall imprisoning or limiting religion in any way,  but only walls off government from intrusion on religion, a one-way wall,  and not intrusion in any way shape or form, but specifically addressing government not enacting any law to institutionalize any particular religion.

Gorka is not arguing in favor of national security; he's arguing in favor of national insecurity, and the intrusion of a police state without bounds.

If we had any real regard for national security, then we would actually limit admission to the country, actually follow up on expired visas, actually close our borders,  and limit citizenship applications, particularly to exclude those who embrace ideologies entirely in conflict with this nation's ideals of freedom, such as Islam.

The very idea presented by Gorka, that this nation's  Founders would in any way support this idea of all-intrusive data collection is not just nonsense, but is a gross anathema to that Constitution and entirely contrary to the primary overriding purpose of our form of government - securing  individual freedom. 

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 01:33:06 PM
When radio and telephone was invented, SIGINT services took advantage of it. The same is going to happen for cyberspace no matter who is in office.

We're not just talking about the data being available through the Internet, or the airwaves, but the government collecting, cataloging, cross-referencing, and storing every piece of data available to be used for whatever purpose government-connected persons might choose, often entirely outside of national security, as we've seen repeatedly in recent exposures.

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 01:33:06 PM
Moreover, I think Snowden has undermined internet freedom globally. Because of these revelations, now everybody wants a PRISM, and any dictator anywhere can claim they need one because "the Americans are listening" - whether that is true or not.

HOW could Snowden at all undermined so-called "Internet Freedom" when it generally recognized, and you yourself recognize SIGINT being back to the 60s, that there is no real Internet freedom whatsoever!

What you evidently mean by "Internet freedom" is the inaccurate perception of Internet freedom, which is really  irrelevant and false  in the first place, by your own admission. What' you're doing is arguing in, in false terms, for Snowden being a traitor,  when by your own statement that freedom didn't exist beforehand. You're arguing a non-existent condition to pursue an preordained conclusion involving unbound statist intrusion into every aspect of our lives!


Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 01:33:06 PMAs far as the abuse of this - I guess this disagreement I have on this issue with libertarians is more philosophical than legal. I don't believe many of the worst-case scenarios that critics claim will come to pass realistically will. I think the intelligence community has earned our trust after over a decade of war and keeping the homeland safe from terror attacks.

Those attacks haven't been stopped by any sort of prevalent Internet security, and in fact the were often overlooked by government, even as occurred with the Boston Marathon Bombing.   

And in fact the "intelligence community" has given us far more cause to distrust that group's actions and motivations, than to imagine that it's acting for our own benefit.

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 01:33:06 PM
As for the criticism of, "why didn't this stop Boston?" Great question. It didn't stop Boston because an FBI agent sat down with Tamerlan in late 2011. He got spooked and refined his strategy. He got careful. The "mistakes" made by Richard Reid and the underwear bomber did not happen in the case of the Tsarnaevs because they knew they were being watched. We can be sure that thanks to the Snowden leaks, now terrorists won't make the "mistake" of using gmail or facebook to communicate, where they could be intercepted with a program like PRISM.

The funny thing in your reference to those things like the Boston Bombing and others, is that there is significant evidence that those cases involve government spook agency complicity!

The underwear bomber wasn't even stopped by the intelligence agencies, but rather by people actually on the plane.

And if terrorists didn't know not to use Facebook, Yahoo and Gmail before Snowden, then they're not really terrorists.

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 01:33:06 PM
So when I say "demagogued" I say that because I think the above isn't being considered in this debate. Any national security perspective whatsoever seems to be just written off as control-freak authoritarianism.

When you say "demagogued" I believe you're actually applying an inappropriate word, since no one is actually using populist appeal as any sort of rationale anywhere in the "non-debate" that has occurred entirely behind the scenes, and without any legitimate authority whatsoever.



Stryke

Quote from: Trip on July 31, 2013, 02:30:44 PM
Given your two points, quite obviously PRISM and whatever other SIGINT program have grossly exceeded their purpose.

And perhaps you've come to notice that "homegrown terrorists" has been modified  to ignore Islam, which praises, extols, demands and institutionalizes terrorism,  and expanded to include those who call for legitimate government guaranteed by the Constitution.

The problem is that the federal government is not just listening in to anything, and everything, but collecting, cataloging and storing everything 24/7.   

Under those terms it is  rather easy for the government to accuse virtually anyone of pretty much anything, certainly something, and creates a system of implied guilt wherein a person must prove their innocence, which is technically impossible, rather then that their guilt must be proven -- a Police State.

This is a straw man argument. I am not for 'redefining' homegrown Islamic terrorism, if you watched the full length of the video I posted you wouldn't have brought that up. There is still no evidence - from Snowden or anyone else - that PRISM has been used for any other purpose besides counter-terrorism. You say populism hasn't been applied here but to do so, you'd first have to deny the hysteria-filled rhetoric (what you call "populism" and I am calling demagoguery) out there suggesting that PRISM has indeed been used for other purposes. Nope, there is no evidence of that. Further, you conflate collection with the actual use of the information. The information can't be used unless someone is under investigation: http://tamutimes.tamu.edu/2013/06/12/nsa-surveillance-is-legal-and-not-targeting-average-americans-says-texas-am-professor/

QuoteYou have heard the various attributions to the founders about those willing to give up Freedom for security (safety), right?

You should know that the founding fathers were not monolithic regarding that Ben Franklin quote. Furthermore, Franklin died -one year- into Washington's presidency. He never had to face any responsibilities of national security governance, as John Adams and Jefferson did. Consider this quote from Jefferson:

"[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

Every time you use the mantle of "the founders" you undermine them because they rarely agreed on anything except the need to fight the Revolution. There is no "platform" for "the founders."

QuoteGorka, at that 16 minute mark,  is using a hypothetical situation, not even one stated to have actually occurred,  involving a corruption of the Constitution, to argue for a further corruption of the Constitution, and claiming it is all legitimized by the Constitution.

There is no "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution, not even implied by the Constitution. 

In the only place where that  "(wall of) separation between church & state" occurred, Jefferson's 1801 letter to the Danbury Baptist church,  that "wall of separation" does not prohibit religion from free expression, is not a wall imprisoning or limiting religion in any way,  but only walls off government from intrusion on religion, a one-way wall,  and not intrusion in any way shape or form, but specifically addressing government not enacting any law to institutionalize any particular religion.

Gorka is not arguing in favor of national security; he's arguing in favor of national insecurity, and the intrusion of a police state without bounds.

If we had any real regard for national security, then we would actually limit admission to the country, actually follow up on expired visas, actually close our borders,  and limit citizenship applications, particularly to exclude those who embrace ideologies entirely in conflict with this nation's ideals of freedom, such as Islam.

The very idea presented by Gorka, that this nation's  Founders would in any way support this idea of all-intrusive data collection is not just nonsense, but is a gross anathema to that Constitution and entirely contrary to the primary overriding purpose of our form of government - securing  individual freedom. 

You misunderstood this in so many ways I don't even know where to start:

1.) It wasn't a hypothetical. This was a first-hand experience by an FBI agent.
2.) Gorka wasn't defending the excuse of 'separation of church and state.' He was pointing out that bureaucrats were using constitutional stances in absurd ways that would only end up impeding intelligence operations.
3.) He didn't argue what the founders "would have wanted" in this situation - none of us know that, not even you. Instead, he was arguing what they did not mean.

QuoteHOW could Snowden at all undermined so-called "Internet Freedom" when it generally recognized, and you yourself recognize SIGINT being back to the 60s, that there is no real Internet freedom whatsoever!

What you evidently mean by "Internet freedom" is the inaccurate perception of Internet freedom, which is really  irrelevant and false  in the first place, by your own admission. What' you're doing is arguing in, in false terms, for Snowden being a traitor,  when by your own statement that freedom didn't exist beforehand. You're arguing a non-existent condition to pursue an preordained conclusion involving unbound statist intrustion into every aspect of our lives!

These programs didn't come into existence until recently. Not every government had them. Now that it has become an issue of global concern, they will. Less people will have privacy on the internet - it's that simple.

I don't need to "argue" Snowden is a traitor - he disclosed sources and methods of counter-terrorism methods, and fled to a major adversary of the United States. His actions speak for themselves.


QuoteThose attacks haven't been stopped by any sort of prevalent Internet security, and in fact the were often overlooked by government, even as occurred with the Boston Marathon Bombing.   

And in fact the "intelligence community" has given us far more cause to distrust that group's actions and motivations, than to imagine that it's acting for our own benefit.

The funny thing in your reference to those things like the Boston Bombing and others, is that there is significant evidence that those cases involve government spook agency complicity!

The underwear bomber wasn't even stopped by the intelligence agencies, but rather by people actually on the plane.

I notice you just completely chose to ignore what I brought up about the FBI interview alerting Tsarnaev. And if you really believe that Boston was "false-flag," well, let's just say I've wasted enough time discussing this with you. We're not going to get anywhere if you believe that.

QuoteAnd if terrorists didn't know not to use Facebook, Yahoo and Gmail before Snowden, then they're not really terrorists.

Oh? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30530283/ns/world_news-terrorism/t/document-alleged-planner-used-hotmail/

BILLY Defiant

I'm not a fan of libertarianism, but just when I  give them a plus on the scoreboard they come along and say something stupid that pisses me off....like supporting Snowden...and that little weasle Manning.

That said I have been developing a steady respect for Rand Paul, I admire his cojones, I liked his Dad, agreed with a lot of what he said...until he starts saying stupid crap about Islamic terrorists and Iran being "so far away".

I see more common sense in the Son, he is younger and will appeal to the younger generation.

That said, I don't like politicians...I have always wanted to see a BUSINESSMAN run this country, we are a country that runs by and are successful because of capitalism. That is why I have in the past supported Forbes, Voted for Ross Perot and most recently Romney.

I see Rand as a politican rather with a lack of a business background...that said at this point, if he runs, either GOP or Independant...he has my vote.

Billy
Evil operates best when it is disguised for what it truly is.

Trip

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 03:05:53 PM
This is a straw man argument. I am not for 'redefining' homegrown Islamic terrorism, if you watched the full length of the video I posted you wouldn't have brought that up. There is still no evidence - from Snowden or anyone else - that PRISM has been used for any other purpose besides counter-terrorism. You say populism hasn't been applied here but to do so, you'd first have to deny the hysteria-filled rhetoric (what you call "populism" and I am calling demagoguery) out there suggesting that PRISM has indeed been used for other purposes. Nope, there is no evidence of that. Further, you conflate collection with the actual use of the information. The information can't be used unless someone is under investigation: http://tamutimes.tamu.edu/2013/06/12/nsa-surveillance-is-legal-and-not-targeting-average-americans-says-texas-am-professor/

Your accusation of a strawman on my part is a itself a misplaced strawman accusation.

I never indicated that you were redefining "homegrown Islamic terrorism", and never even addressed "homegrown Islamic terrorism", but rather indicated the fact that homegrown terrorists has been redefined to IGNORE Islam, and suggested that you might have noticed this.

I don't conflate collection with actual use of the information. I reject that actual collection as illegitimate intrusion, and suggest that it will be abused for illegitimate reasons, as has already occurred.

There's no hysteria-filled rhetoric; there's legitimate outrage over what our government is doing without any legitimate constitutional authority, or even authority under law, to do so.

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 03:05:53 PM
You should know that the founding fathers were not monolithic regarding that Ben Franklin quote. Furthermore, Franklin died -one year- into Washington's presidency. He never had to face any responsibilities of national security governance, as John Adams and Jefferson did. Consider this quote from Jefferson:

"[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

Every time you use the mantle of "the founders" you undermine them because they rarely agreed on anything except the need to fight the Revolution. There is no "platform" for "the founders."

I'm pretty certain that at 8 posts on this forum you're ill-equipped to speak on "every time" I use the mantle of the founders. And I'm quite certain that you yourself, and Gorka, have grossly abused those founders with any reference to the Constitution at all.   

The idea that the founders rarely agreed on anything except the Revolution is long past asinine.  They agreed on quite a lot, and that agreement bore fruit that is the Constitution. In fact the founders all but unanimously rejected the sort of statist authoritarianism that is the totalitarian sovereignty of the federal government, when they rejected Madison's Virginia Plan in its entirety at the onset of  Constitutional Convention.

The further asinine idea that the founders did not agree on Franklin's quote about essential liberty, is refuted by the  Federalist papers, and the totality of those founders expressions on the matter, which resulted in a federal government limited exclusively to enumerated powers, prohibited from any legislation upon the state territories themselves, and involving a interwoven system of checks and balances that entirely intended to totally prohibit this sort of federal government intrusion into the lives of freemen. 

It is extremely obtuse to claim that Franklin had no idea of national security when he endured that Revolutionary War,  witnessed the inefficiency of the Articles of Confederation, and was influential in the structure of the Constitution and that Bill of Rights. 

And you're taking that reference to Jeffersion involving "scrupulous adherence to the written law" grossly out of context, when it really has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. The Constitution's establishment of the sole terms of legitimate government authority are not merely "written law".

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 03:05:53 PM
You misunderstood this in so many ways I don't even know where to start:

1.) It wasn't a hypothetical. This was a first-hand experience by an FBI agent.
2.) Gorka wasn't defending the excuse of 'separation of church and state.' He was pointing out that bureaucrats were using constitutional stances in absurd ways that would only end up impeding intelligence operations.
3.) He didn't argue what the founders "would have wanted" in this situation - none of us know that, not even you. Instead, he was arguing what they did not mean.


Gorka was fabricating an unnamed source, involving a tail on an unknown person, for unspecified reasons,  and then claiming that the surveillance  was broken off for as a result of entry into a mosque.  Do you really believe that any agent would have cut off surveillance on anyone who was highly suspected of being involved in terrorism? 

Gorka precedes this irrelevant and unsupported reference, while allegedly decrying the distortions of the 1st amendment protection of religion,  with his own corruption of the 1st Amendment, stating that "all it means is that there can be no state religion in America, nor can any group be persecuted for who they are. That's it, Period."
While the first half of that statement is true, the second statement is not at all true.

I did not state that Gorka was "defending the excuse for the separation of church and state", but that he was using that abuse of the Constitution, to further his own abuse of the Constitution, and to promote an agenda of unquestioned statist intrusion in disregard of that Constitution.

It does not take any sort of clairvoyance to know what the founders wanted (not "would have"), and what they actually deliberately enacted, nor any sort of mind reading, nor conversations with the dead.  Fortunately what the founders wanted, and instituted, can be known simply by reading their own repeated statements.


Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 03:05:53 PM
These programs didn't come into existence until recently. Not every government had them. Now that it has become an issue of global concern, they will. Less people will have privacy on the internet - it's that simple.

Ours is not a concern of "every government" but rather our own government, which is a fiction that was brought into existence solely on limited terms, so as to protect individual freedoms, with this recognized as the entire purpose of every form of government.   It's not merely about some vague chivelet of privacy, but rather the intrusion of a federal government, that has shown it's willingness to abuse authority, disregard the Constitution, and engage such vile forms of tyranny that it makes those complaints tendered against George in the Declaration of Independence pale by comparison.


Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 03:05:53 PM
I don't need to "argue" Snowden is a traitor - he disclosed sources and methods of counter-terrorism methods, and fled to a major adversary of the United States. His actions speak for themselves.

Your analysis of Snowden is as superficial as your grasp of the founders and this country's Constituiton.

The purpose of our form of government is not the protection of sources and methods, but rather protection of individual liberty.  These methods exposed are not "counter-terrorism" methods at all, but counter freedom methods, and have been used to attack and impugn lawful individuals, along with other gross abuses of the Constitution itself,   Snowden fled to those places unable to be coerced by this tyrannous and criminal government, yet still that coercion and bribery has been repeatedly attempted. There is no evidence whatsoever that Snowden is in league with those countries against the United States government, nor intending to harm what  legitimacy of that government that still might exist.

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 03:05:53 PM
I notice you just completely chose to ignore what I brought up about the FBI interview alerting Tsarnaev. And if you really believe that Boston was "false-flag," well, let's just say I've wasted enough time discussing this with you. We're not going to get anywhere if you believe that.

I didn't have to ignore your comment about the FBI, as it was covered by my reference to the fact that the intelligence agencies have not curtailed real attacks on the American people. when the problem was the fact that people like Tamerlan should never have been admitted to the country in the first place. except for PC ideology incapable of accurately identifying the actual threat.  Tamerlan's being "alerted" to being watched has no bearing whatsoever on the intrusion of data collecting by the federal government regarding every aspect of our lives.


If one is not concerned about the fact that a bomb drill was scheduled in the midst of the Boston Marathon,  and people were told to not be alarmed by an explosion, and that the media even commented on this notice,  and that prior amputees were undeniably seen to be present on site as part of that drill, then that's your choice.    However this is not the first time that such amazing coincidences have occurred, with these happening disturbing regularly. I don't buy into Alex Jones hysteria, but when I repeatedly have information brought before me, I do check it out on my own.   I'm not implying that the Tsarnaevs are innocent, nor that they are even ignorant dupes. I'm just stating that things are not at all  as clear-cut as your conveniently idealized perspective wants, and actually needs, to imagine in order to support this obscene degree of government transgression upon its citizens.  The Boston Marathon Bombing, and the events thereafter, involve numerous widespread evidences providing real cause for Americans to be extremely alarmed about the conduct of their government. But then this should be no surprise given the other undeniable evidence that should also cause extreme alarm, such as the declaration that the federal government has de facto ownership over each and every American citizen, ...

... Or the military drills being methodically engaged in cities across the country to practice the institution of Martial Law, with the police being federalized, and these unannounced drills being exercised in reckless disregard to the life and limb of the people there,  without any prior warning, and no real explanation offered after the fact:

Los Angeles Jan 26 2012,
Chicago April 17 2012,
St Louis July 3 2012,
Minneapolis Aug 28 2012,
Miami January 24, 2013,
Houston January 28 2013,

If the American military is training for mountainous terrain they go to the mountains, if they are training for desert terrain, they go to the desert, if they are training for coastal terrain they go to the coasts. The reason they are going to American cities, is they plan to operate in American cities.  Not only are they training the military to act against American citizens on American soil, and desensitizing the citizens to the military command, they are also militarizing the police, and training them to accept directions from the military, and to not protect the citizenry.

Yeah, sure, the founders would have "no problem" with any of this.

But this is all far-afield from the real fact that government has no authority, nor legitimate purpose, to be collecting and storing this enormous volume of information.

By all means, return your head to the sand and pretend none of this is going on around you. After all, you've a "Constitutional right" to your own opinion ... at least for the moment.   :wink:


Partisan62

Neo-cons hate him; that alone puts him at the top of my list so far.  However, his stance on illegal immigration is troubling; such a pro illegal, pro amnesty stance is why Rubio is probably not going to get my support, at least early on. Would love to see a Paul/Cruz ticket (or Cruz/Paul)

I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries in past elections despite his more libertarian leanings.  Rand Paul is more socially conservative than his father, making him more acceptable to the social conservative base.

We'll have to see how the neo-cons and the big business types (neither are real conservative, by the way) react to a real conservative like Paul.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm


Partisan62

Quote from: Yawn on July 31, 2013, 04:53:57 PM
The Democrat Party is the party of big business.

Yes they are, but I would also suggest that both parties have prostituted themselves for corporate money, to our detriment.  There is a certain element in the GOP that claims to be conservative, but who really worship the almighty dollar above all other ideology.  I submit that our last two GOP presidential candidates trended this way.