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

quiller

Quote from: Partisan62 on July 31, 2013, 05:22:03 PM
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.

What is wrong with honest profit, derived from supplying goods PEOPLE WANTED at an affordable price, where both sides came away satisfied with the deal? It wasn't like Romney worked at some odious outfit selling counterfeit goods, or robbing people. He made other people tons of money, paid tons in personal taxes, and since money mattered so much, Romney worked free with the Olympics.

Worshiping the almighty dollar can go two ways. You can inculcate a socialist society beholden to others (read, government) and therefore accepting less-than-best work in a society which would discourage incentive (read, Soviet 5-year plan)...

...or (option 2) you can stand back and let the thinkers and inventors and entrepreneurs and venture capitalists all bring us really really really neat stuff....like the monitor you're reading this on.

Compare that to waiting in line at a Soviet store, just to buy toilet paper.

Stryke

Quote from: Trip on July 31, 2013, 04:41:12 PM
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.

When did abuse for illegitimate reasons "already occur" and what court decision declared this unconstitutional?

QuoteI'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".

When I say "every time" I am speaking of this reflexive libertarian instinct to call anything they disagree with "unconstitutional" and "against the founding fathers." So what about the Alien and Sedition Acts and their continuation under Jefferson? Or will you just dismiss that too like you did his straightforward quote (which WAS about constitutionality and the acquisition of territory - prove that NOW or retract it)? How do you know what the founding fathers would say about PRISM or counter-terrorism methods today? Did you have lunch with them? No? Then don't sit here and act like you do. If anything is asinine, it is that. You can't compare the challenges they faced in the 18th, early 19th century and say "you know" based on "repeated statements" about such challenges. You libertarians sound like high school kids who went on thinkexist and ran with it - no critical thinking whatsoever.

QuoteGorka 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.

Funny - I knew you would claim the source was fabricated. Whatever. I'm not going to sit here and listen to you, a random forum poster, claim that you can be more credibly believed on the supposed non-existence of his source than Gorka himself, who has decades of U.S. national security research and expertise under his belt. The ease with which you dismiss his story just exhibits your massive cognitive dissonance. Like I'm supposed to believe Mr. "Terrorists Don't Use Hotmail" suddenly.

QuoteThere 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.

I guess in your universe:
-Russia and China aren't autocratic regimes
-has no adversarial relationship with the United States that benefits from these leaks and his fleeing
-leaking of classified information is not a crime according to the same laws you demand we hold ourselves accountable to.

QuoteI 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.

Tamerlan being "alerted" allowed him to evade being captured until after the attacks in the same way that other terrorists are able to evade better because of the Snowden leaks. Don't play stupid. As far as saying intelligence agencies have done nothing - you would know? I'm noticing a pattern here where any information inconvenient to you just gets handily dismissed and you just claim to know better than anyone else, whether they are alive or dead, regardless of their experiences, etc. Like you have some kind of wealth of special knowledge or experience that allows you to make these dismissals. You've demonstrated repeatedly you do not even know basic facts about the operating methods of terrorist organizations and you actually have the gall to claim people who work around the clock defending this country just sit with their thumbs up their asses. If anybody's a RINO it's you. Liberals talked that way for eight years, now you are.

Let me guess: All lies right? http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-leak-keith-alexander-92971.html

QuoteIf 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.

So you are one of those nutcases. That explains the lunacy behind the rest of the allegations you made against Dr. Gorka, the U.S. intelligence community, and your continued unsubstantiated claims of abuse.  :lol: You should have just said this at the outset so we didn't have to waste all this time and space, and hijack the intent of this thread.

Trip

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:25:09 PM
When did abuse for illegitimate reasons "already occur" and what court decision declared this unconstitutional?

You must have missed the recent misnomered "scandals" or the violation of the previous terms of FISA.


Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:25:09 PM
When I say "every time" I am speaking of this reflexive libertarian instinct to call anything they disagree with "unconstitutional" and "against the founding fathers."

When you say "every time", and then double down on it, you're only demonstrating your skill at trumpeting out your ***.  You don't know me, and only embrace the progressive status quo of the Republican party idiots that really don't have any idea of the Constitution, nor any real desire  to.  Unfortunately you don't seem to take a hint all too well, but fortunately I'm more than content with eviscerate idiots that are nothing but dead weight, and far too slow at picking up what's going on all around them.

I'm no Libertarian and there's actually nothing I enjoy abusing more than Libertarians, beyond the obvious exception of Progressive Marxists.  I'm actually a Constitutional Conservative, and if you had even any reasonable perspective of me at  "ANY time", you'd know that even today, on this very forum, I indicated my extreme dislike of people using  "unconstitutional!" like a magic word, and the scrolled-up Constitution as if it were some sort of wand.

And any time you want to go nose to nose, I'm more than capable of abusing your ignorance of the Constitution in this public arena.  However, at this point, you seem to have unwavering compulsion to address me on an entirely inappropriate  personal level, having no basis in any actual fact, and even undermined by my brief presence on this forum,  so frankly I consider that "flags up" to have  a field day with you.


Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:25:09 PM
So what about the Alien and Sedition Acts and their continuation under Jefferson? Or will you just dismiss that too like you did his straightforward quote (which WAS about constitutionality and the acquisition of territory - prove that NOW or retract it)? How do you know what the founding fathers would say about PRISM or counter-terrorism methods today? Did you have lunch with them? No? Then don't sit here and act like you do. If anything is asinine, it is that. You can't compare the challenges they faced in the 18th, early 19th century and say "you know" based on "repeated statements" about such challenges. You libertarians sound like high school kids who went on thinkexist and ran with it - no critical thinking whatsoever.

What about the Alien and Sedition Acts, or are you the sort of tool that imagines that a series of pointless questions serve as some sort of argument?  And HOW do you imagine this reference in any way serves your position?  This is a notorious leftist tactic, with that penchant unfortunately not being limited to the  Democrats.  It stems from having a failed understanding, a superficial analysis, and dwelling on iconoclastic preconceptions which have no real foundation and don't even stand up to any sort of verbal reference, even by the claimant themselves.

Prove WHAT now? And how do you imagine that the acquisition of territory was in any way unconstitutional? This is yet another argument implied but without any rationale to support it!

Beyond that, you seem to actually believe that my position somehow involves the government never having done anything unconstitutional prior to the current day, or perhaps even before the Civil War, yet nowhere is this anything I've stated, or even implied, making this reference an irrelevant deflection!

By the way, you're doing the very same thing that you ALLEGEDLY decry and dismiss -  calling things you evidently disagree with unconstitutional, without any reference to the Constitution itself on your part to establish how this "grievous" unconstitutionality might be so! ... which tends to display yourself as hypocrite in addition to a political ignoramus.  Perhaps you imagine that the "Constitution" somehow limits the country to being only the 13 original colonies, forever ignoring what might lay to the west!  However the founders weren't actually that myopic, nor ignorant.


Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:25:09 PM
Funny - I knew you would claim the source was fabricated. Whatever. I'm not going to sit here and listen to you, a random forum poster, claim that you can be more credibly believed on the supposed non-existence of his source than Gorka himself, who has decades of U.S. national security research and expertise under his belt. The ease with which you dismiss his story just exhibits your massive cognitive dissonance. Like I'm supposed to believe Mr. "Terrorists Don't Use Hotmail" suddenly.

That claimed source had no specifics, no reference as to severity, and offered nothing as support, just the idea the audience should accept it at face value, particularly when offered with the boogeyman reference to "Al Quada", while ignoring that Gorka cannot even competently reference the terms of the 1st Amendment, and entirely glossed over the fact that the greatest threat to this country is the government itself,  the archetypal enemy within.

I don't have be credible about his unspecified or unstated source! That's actually Gorka's own obligation. In the meantime his entire argument does not serve as justification to validate his obvious intent of grossly violating American's freedoms under the alleged threat of undisclosed boogeymen, when I can here and now put  names and faces to the greatest threats to this country, and our very lives.

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:25:09 PM
I guess in your universe:
-Russia and China aren't autocratic regimes
-has no adversarial relationship with the United States that benefits from these leaks and his fleeing
-leaking of classified information is not a crime according to the same laws you demand we hold ourselves accountable to.

I guess you haven't noticed that these United States are actually operating as an autocratic, Imperial regime, and that the media in Russia is actually far more reliable than is what we have in this country.

All of these references are nothing but vapid deflections, entirely irrelevant to what's going on, and deliberately needing to ignore the fact that our own government is consistently and deliberately acting in an illegitimate manner that in no way compels any sort of allegiance unto it!


Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:25:09 PM
Tamerlan being "alerted" allowed him to evade being captured until after the attacks in the same way that other terrorists are able to evade better because of the Snowden leaks. Don't play stupid. As far as saying intelligence agencies have done nothing - you would know? I'm noticing a pattern here where any information inconvenient to you just gets handily dismissed and you just claim to know better than anyone else, whether they are alive or dead, regardless of their experiences, etc. Like you have some kind of wealth of special knowledge or experience that allows you to make these dismissals.

I got news for you, Einstein, but Tamerlan wasn't being sought by our government....  "until after the attacks"! Unfortunately he thwarted our omnipotent government yet again by throwing himself under the wheels of an SUV.  Imagine that clever Islamic bastard actually thwarting the government a second time by throwing himself under a vehicle; I'm sure he's able to  thwart even Moose and Squirrel!   

But unfortunately even that is not exactly established fact.   Did it even occur to you how Dzhokhar managed to drive over his own brother, and evidently drove away from the scene, but there was no search for Dzhokhar's relocation in the vehicle that night, nor any announcement of having found the vehicle some distance away from that original altercation?  Actually that vehicle was strangely still at the location of the interaction, and Dzokhar actually drove over his brother, attempting to run over two cops firing at him, who allegedly had to dive out of the way to save their lives,  but then Dzhokhar decided to jump out of transportation able to whisk  him away from the barrage of police bullets, and instead chose to exit the vehicle and flee on foot, in an area already under a dragnet.  Somehow he decided to play "let's do a footrace and play hide-n-seek"?   While you ponder that, wipe the snail trail of drool from the front of your shirt.

In the meantime, the original "person of interest" is strangely intimately tied to the Obama administration, has visited the White House, has ties to Saudi, and the federal government is trying to whisk him out of the country until the media catches wind of what's going on.  Who knew that watching a bunch of people run a marathon was all that fascinating to attract such a diverse crowd!

The fact of the matter  is there ARE ZERO examples where this PRISM program, and mass data collection,  has actually protected Americans from even a hangnail!


Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:25:09 PM
So you are one of those nutcases. That explains the lunacy behind the rest of the allegations you made against Dr. Gorka, the U.S. intelligence community, and your continued unsubstantiated claims of abuse.  :lol: You should have just said this at the outset so we didn't have to waste all this time and space, and hijack the intent of this thread.

Dr Gorka, the guy who cannot even give an accurate rendition of the 1st Amendment, and then wants to validate the federal government's intrusion into every aspect of our lives by reference to boogeymen and utter disregard for the limits on that federal  government established by the Constitution, and does not even offer any pause in his doctoral examination of the concerns to even admit that, yeah, it seems that the government's intrusion on every aspect of American's lives might just be a tad too thorough.   Strangely "Dr Gorka" manages to avoid  specificity there too!   That spiel may fly with the simpleminded, but fortunately not all Americans.

The only reason these responses have gone so far afield in a thread that really seems to have no direction of its own, much less any sort of consistent rationale, is from your own deflections and hand-waving.


Stryke

This is a summary of your argument here:
-The intelligence community hasn't prevented a single attack, because I say so.
-The founding fathers would be against PRISM, because I say so.
-Dr. Gorka's example is a fabrication, because I say so.
-Gen. Alexander is a liar, because I say so.

Indeed, let's watch it pan out:

Quote from: Trip on July 31, 2013, 09:58:20 PM
You must have missed the recent misnomered "scandals" or the violation of the previous terms of FISA.

No examples of confirmed abuse of the PRISM program, no legal case declaring it constitutional, but you say so. Ok, next point:

QuoteWhat about the Alien and Sedition Acts, or are you the sort of tool that imagines that a series of pointless questions serve as some sort of argument?  And HOW do you imagine this reference in any way serves your position?  This is a notorious leftist tactic, with that penchant unfortunately not being limited to the  Democrats.  It stems from having a failed understanding, a superficial analysis, and dwelling on iconoclastic preconceptions which have no real foundation and don't even stand up to any sort of verbal reference, even on their claimant's part.

Prove WHAT now? And how do you imagine that the acquisition of territory was in any way unconstitutional? This is yet another argument implied but without any rationale to support it
!
Beyond that, you seem to actually believe that my position somehow involves the government never having done anything unconstitutional prior to the current day, or even before the Civil War, yet nowhere is this anything I've stated, or even implied!

Read this quote again:

"[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."

He was talking about the Louisiana Purchase and the possibility that the constitution would get in the way of it. Just think how stupid your proposition here is. Do you really think he would go into this much detail and say, "Oh, I didn't mean the constitution"? But then again you don't have any evidence for this, just like everything else, he meant whatever you think he meant because you said so. You cannot definitively prove that this statement did not apply to the constitution through any recorded history, period. The quote also refers to the country facing "danger," so this is not merely about some transaction.

If on the other hand you think this is solely about the constitution versus national security, then that is why I brought up the Alien and Sedition Acts (do you even know what those were?). It was a clear cut case of wartime powers being used to curtail civil liberties under the banner of "national security." It was carried out by one of these founding fathers you keep referring to, and was continued under another, both men whom you claim as the basis for opposing domestic SIGINT. One of the things that is so embarrassing about libertarians or "constitutional conservatives" or whatever you keep rebranding yourself to escape criticism is you demand an obedience to a history that you are a mile wide and an inch deep on when it comes to knowledge. You are no "conservative" of any kind. You are a national security left-libertarian along the same lines as Glenn Greenwald.

QuoteBy the way, you're doing the very same thing that you ALLEGEDLY decry and dismiss -  calling things you evidently disagree with unconstitutional, blah blah blah blah blah

This is as ridiculous as your claim that I was praising the Cato institute by criticizing it twice in the same sentence. You have serious comprehension problems. I never once said anything was unconstitutional, you are the one making that argument.

QuoteThat claimed source had no specifics, no reference as to severity, and offered nothing as support, just the idea the audience should accept it at face value, particularly when offered with the boogeyman reference of "Al Quada", while ignoring that Gorka cannot even competently reference the terms of the 1st Amendment, and entirely glossing over the fact that the greatest threat to this country is the government itself,  the archetypal enemies within.

I don't have be credible about his unspecified or unstated source! That's actually Gorka's own obligation. In the meantime his entire argument does not serve as justification to validate his obvious intent of grossly violating American's freedoms under the alleged threat of undisclosed boogeymen, when I can here and now put  names and faces to the greatest threats to this country, and our very lives.

When you accuse someone of a fabrication, the burden is on you. The burden is doubly on you when you went out and showcased your ignorance by saying "terrorists don't use social media." I notice you clammed up about that one. It's obvious by what you avoid and what you've talked around that you know you are wrong here.

QuoteTamerlan wasn't being sought by our government "until after the attacks".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311953/FBI-interviewed-Boston-Marathon-bombing-suspect-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-26-possible-extremist-ties-years-ago-incriminating-information.html

Despite writing a book about how you think there was a false-flag component to Boston, you apparently didn't even know this basic fact.

QuoteThe fact of the matter  is there ARE ZERO examples where this PRISM program, and mass data collection,  has actually protected Americans from even a hangnail!

I'll post this again, hopefully you don't ignore it again. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-leak-keith-alexander-92971.html

And once again, ZERO EXAMPLES where this PRISM program, and mass data collection, was abused and used for some other purpose than counter-terrorism.

But hey - you say so!

Trip

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
This is a summary of your argument here:
-The intelligence community hasn't prevented a single attack, because I say so.
-The founding fathers would be against PRISM, because I say so.
-Dr. Gorka's example is a fabrication, because I say so.
-Gen. Alexander is a liar, because I say so.

I already addressed these.

I stated that PRISM has not thwarted a single attack.

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
No examples of confirmed abuse of the PRISM program, no legal case declaring it constitutional, but you say so. Ok, next point:

Seriously, are you really this obtuse and shallow, when the government  is playing "Where's Snowden" because of his exposure of PRISM, that there might actually be "legal cases" involving a clandestine program?  I'd be near  speechless  if not for the fact that this is so thoroughly representative of the braindead that ply the infertile nonsense of the Republican party.


Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
Read this quote again:

"[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."

He was talking about the Louisiana Purchase and the possibility that the constitution would get in the way of it. Just think how stupid your proposition here is. Do you really think he would go into this much detail and say, "Oh, I didn't mean the constitution"? But then again you don't have any evidence for this, just like everything else, he meant whatever you think he meant because you said so. You cannot definitively prove that this statement did not apply to the constitution through any recorded history, period.

Uh, I know what Jefferson's talking about. The concern here is whether or not you have "a clue" what you're talking about.    This is actually an "are you ****ing kididng me?" moment.

You first introduce the Jefferson quote, as if it made some broad, profound point about the law, which one would assume is somehow applicable to the discussion of sacrificing individual liberty for alleged national security,   which might be relevant to Gorka's statements. But you failed to specify anything at all.

Then it's suddenly about the Louisiana Purchase itself, and then the Alien and Sedition acts ..... as if these somehow justify sacrificing individual liberty for alleged national security.  But again you failed to specify how this might be relevant to the the original discussion.

This is like following an ADHD Squirrel in a desperate search for a nut, any nut.  BUt, oh no, it doesn't stop there!  After all this pointless rambling far afield without any clue of a valid point,  you have the nerve to accuse *me* of derailing the thread!

The "funny part" is nowhere have I argued that the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional, and In fact I've not seen any sort of coherent argument why such a purchase might be unconstitutional.  Which draws into question your statement, "Just think how stupid your proposition here is."  What proposition?  What stupid?  Do you actually imagine that there's any correlation whatsoever, no matter how obscure, between the public purchase of Louisiana, and the clandestine violation of every aspect of person's lives to allegedly gain some sort of "national security"? It's really not hard to find a whole slew of constitutional provisions this violates, not to mention no existing authority  for such a massively intrusive endeavor anywhere implied by the constitution, and less so while the federal government is deliberately refusing to secure our borders, has unchecked visa and citizenship entry into this country, and itself is acting in an entirely illegitimate fashion.

And your screwball idea that I might have to actually have "any evidence for this" (what 'this'?) when it is your own half-baked excursion into squirrel territory is mind-boggling.


Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
If on the other hand you think this is solely about the constitution versus national security, then that is why I brought up the Alien and Sedition Acts (do you even know what those were?). It was a clear cut case of wartime powers being used to curtail civil liberties under the banner of "national security." It was carried out by one of these founding fathers you keep referring to, and was continued under another, both men whom you claim as the basis for opposing domestic SIGINT. One of the things that is so embarrassing about libertarians or "constitutional conservatives" or whatever you keep rebranding yourself to escape criticism is you demand an obedience to a history that you are a mile wide and an inch deep on when it comes to knowledge.

The Alien and Sedition acts were NOT any sort of legitimate reference to wartime powers!  The were the gross tyrannous abuse of federal authority to prohibit criticism of the government, particularly the Executive, as well as to demand unflinching compliance with other unsupported federal legislation.  There's nothing at all "clear cut" about the A&S acts, and this is why you're the poster child of the blithering Republican party.

Do you imagine the founding fathers were individually somehow angelic? Jefferson was such an idiot that he didn't recognize the profound difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution, and it damn near got him killed. 

Unlike halfwit Republicans, I don't have to re-brand anything, and what I stand for is a straight and clear path.  The only thing here that is an "inch deep" is your grasp of the Constitution and this country's history.


Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
This is as ridiculous as your claim that I was praising the Cato institute by criticizing it twice in the same sentence. You have serious comprehension problems. I never once said anything was unconstitutional, you are the one making that argument.

Curiously you introduced the Cato Institute as the possible fill for Rand Paul's cabinet, and somehow people are supposed to intuit this as criticism, when it would be an implied criticism of your own construct -- yet another strawman, and halfwit logic.


Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
When you accuse someone of a fabrication, the burden is on you. The burden is doubly on you when you went out and showcased your ignorance by saying "terrorists don't use social media." I notice you clammed up about that one. It's obvious by what you avoid and what you've talked around that you know you are wrong here.

No, when Gorka is making a drawn-out assertion by vague reference to some 2nd hand event, with the burden of legitimacy of that assertion resting entirely with him.  However the fact remains that his reference to a corrupt application of the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion does not serve any sort of valid rationale for the justification of an all-intrusive police state, violating every aspect of our lives.   In point of fact, Gorka's entire argument is nothing but a thin attempt to validate that which is without any validity.



Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311953/FBI-interviewed-Boston-Marathon-bombing-suspect-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-26-possible-extremist-ties-years-ago-incriminating-information.html

Despite writing a book about how you think there was a false-flag component to Boston, you apparently didn't even know this basic fact.

What fact is that? ONce again you fail to specify, and I'm not about to play go-fish for some unstated fact.  If you actually made an effort to express a coherent thought, not just superficial allusions, you might have a hope of recognizing just how asinine your whole argument is.

The idea that Tamerlan was actually examined by the FBI?  Yes, we know that. It's common knowledge to anyone remotely familiar with the events. You still don't recognize that this is really not any sort of point whatsoever.  There's nothing there that serves as any sort of argument.   And somehow this is supposed to have bearing on "false flag", when that term really isn't at all applicable to the consideration.   

Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
I'll post this again, hopefully you don't ignore it again. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-leak-keith-alexander-92971.html

Suddenly the clandestine, top secret program, PRISM, that is so secretive it has the federal government playing "Where's Snowden" across the globe, is now responsible for stopping the 2008 bombing attempt of the NYSE, and the 2009 bombing attempt of the NY subway.

And we're expected to believe this wasn't actually from SIGINT going back to the 60's, and not from its successor Echelon, it was certainly NOT from any sort of field intelligence, and wasn't from the Patriot Act! Nope, it was "all PRISM!" 

Somehow we're supposed to accept these claimed successes were ENTIRELY the result of the federal government's shotgun method of gathering, collating, cross-referencing and storing every piece of available data on every American, and every possible foreigner. 

And yet somehow,  in revealing this program's existence, this program which is nothing but a shotgun method, Snowden has revealed an enormous piece of national security, a thorough traitor,  which will actually have this nation's 'real'  enemies concluding "Don't do ANYTHING! PRISM is watching everthing!" And this is an enormous breach of national security? 

And you just lap this up without a question. "Just sit back and enjoy the Orwellian ride!"

I want to thank you for being the poster child as to why so many halfwit Republicans are such an extreme hazard to themselves, killing that party, gave us McCain and Romney (who you 'enthusiastically supported'), and are such a direct threat to our essential freedoms.

You want to talk Constitution? Do you have any idea whatsoever why Romney's rendition of the 10th Amendment as "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" is such a gross corruption?




Stryke

QuoteI stated that PRISM has not thwarted a single attack."

Ohh, you "stated."  :lol: So I guess that makes it true. Your word over Gen. Alexander's, I see. The problem with you calling BS on what the intelligence community says is it leaves us nowhere. If you won't accept their word, then there's really nothing anyone can do to prove anything to you. Nobody is going to give you an invitation to Ft. Meade.

QuoteAlien and Sedition acts ..... as if these somehow relate to sacrificing individual liberty for alleged national security.

"Constitutional conservative" and you really *don't* know what the Acts were. Indeed, an "are you fucking kidding me?" moment, and one that informs this next response:

As I look over your incoherent responses, I get what is going on here now. You can't accept the idea that maybe what the founding fathers believed isn't opposed to PRISM and it's not unconstitutional. You can't accept that you know less on counter-terrorism than actual professionals. You can't accept the idea PRISM prevented terror attacks and actually is constitutional. Why? Because all of these things deconstruct the grade-A bull you've posted. You have nothing left in this conversation if you accept those truths, and that explains your evasive responses.

We're on a public forum and I understand you've built yourself a little rep here posting ten times a day about the same thing. You have to save face, I get it. But I've given you the facts here. When you turn off the computer, or maybe when you become a mature adult, you can accept them or stay blind. Your choice.

I yield the floor to Tom Cotton, who can explain this whole thing better than I possibly could and in less time: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cotton-nsa-amendment-do-not-take-tool-away-our-warriors_740949.html

Unlike you, he has actually fought and bled against the enemies of our country, fought for the freedoms that you disgracefully disregard as worthless when you say our country is no better than the Putin regime.

Trip

Quote from: Stryke on August 01, 2013, 12:22:49 AM
As I look over your incoherent responses, I get what is going on here now. You can't accept the idea that maybe what the founding fathers believed isn't opposed to PRISM and it's not unconstitutional. You can't accept that you know less on counter-terrorism than actual professionals. You can't accept the idea PRISM prevented terror attacks and actually is constitutional. Why? Because all of these things deconstruct the grade-A bull you've posted. You have nothing left in this conversation if you accept those truths, and that explains your evasive responses.

I've got a simple question here.   The founders stated what the sole purpose of government is.  Do you have any idea what this purpose was, and where it is stated?


Quote from: Stryke on August 01, 2013, 12:22:49 AM
We're on a public forum and I understand you've built yourself a little rep here posting ten times a day about the same thing. You have to save face, I get it. But I've given you the facts here. When you turn off the computer, or maybe when you become a mature adult, you can accept them or stay blind. Your choice.

You have not provided facts; you evidently don't know what facts are. What you've done is regurgitate the government line, nothing more, and without any thought process whatsoever, much less any coherent rationale.

I don't worry about rep. I gave up being a populist created many years ago, and sometimes have chosen to pay a price rather than kowtow  in compliance.   


Quote from: Stryke on August 01, 2013, 12:22:49 AM
I yield the floor to Tom Cotton, who can explain this whole thing better than I possibly could and in less time: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cotton-nsa-amendment-do-not-take-tool-away-our-warriors_740949.html

Unlike you, he has actually fought and bled against the enemies of our country, fought for the freedoms that you disgracefully disregard as worthless when you say our country is no better than the Putin regime.

I guess having been shot somehow endows one with an innate understanding of the appropriate balance between government and freedom.  Evidently my sticking myself with pencil lead is what puts me so far ahead of you.

I really don't think you have any clue at all what sort of government we're living under right now. You're just assuming that everything is status quo, and we're sailing right along as usual, meanwhile the rocks are looming and we've got no one competent at the helm.     

Two years ago I was shadowed for at least 36 hours by two federal agents in a black SUV.  I say "at least 36 hours" because I have no idea how long they'd been there when I happened to notice them in a window reflection.  They reason they were following me is that I'd taken publicly available scientific data from Yellowstone,  done my own current and historic analysis, and recognized that there was a considerable threat from that volcano.  Two days later I got confirmation of my analysis through indirect contact with a Ph.D volcanologist dedictated to Yellowstone, as he headed out the door to do an unscheduled emergency seismic refraction survey of the chamber's volume and explosivity, all with 8 feet of snow on the ground in the middle of winter.

The problem wasn't what I published.  The problem wasn't any sort of national security.  The problem was a government that has so thoroughly corrupted the scientific process with bureaucratic filtering that scientists can no longer make statements about their conclusions that might conflict with the political determination. 

(Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity, Obama, 2009)
( Application of Scientific Integrity to DOI, 2010)
(Yellowstone Hazard Response Protocols instituting Scientific Integrity)

There's a problem with this Orwellian "Scientific Integrity" when it is filtered by political bureaucracy, not just in the thorough corruption of the scientific process itself, but also in removing the public from any Right to Know.  But it too is justified under "national security."  Yes, they've actually created a Police State for science as well. 

The use of PRISM is no different.  When it's not done in the full light of day, it quickly becomes corrupt.

Incidentally, I finally got rid of that federal tail by sending an attractive young lady out to their SUV with two coffees, creamers and sugar, along with the tip "get a life".   They were quite pissed.   One small victory for the good guys.

That isn't America, and I'm quite certain we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.  Things are too far advanced for you to not recognize the problems on your own, much less be cocky in your ignorance.








Solar

Quote from: Reality on August 01, 2013, 03:25:09 AM
Pit time!
Why?
I'm waiting for someone to post actual proof one way or the other.
In most minds, having the govt spying on it's citizens crosses the line, but sadly most have become used to it because most own cars and have made the disconnect between actual freedom as compared to privilege, privilege is obtaining a license with the stipulation that it is not an extension of the person and does not come with the same Rights afforded the person, so getting pulled over and having ones vehicle searched, by annex they have become accustomed to authority over privilege and connect this as a loss of freedom.

The same thing is happening with the NSA and FISA, and the fact that we have an administration usurping the law and using a Govt entity to effect the outcome of a Presidential race, is evidence alone that the Fed needs to be hamstrung and remove it's stolen power over the privacy of our lives.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

TowardLiberty

If you associate libertarianism or the CATO Institute with progressive or statist thought then there is something seriously wrong with you.

I am no fan of CATO but they are not progressives. That is just silly.



quiller

Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2013, 07:17:04 AM
If you associate libertarianism or the CATO Institute with progressive or statist thought then there is something seriously wrong with you.

I am no fan of CATO but they are not progressives. That is just silly.

Since both involved here are relative newcomers, I'm not going to brand either one a crackpot, progressive, or (*shudder*) a statist. (*ritual spit*) And at the risk of slavishly clinging to Solar's leg here, I agree it's nice to just wait for either party above to present a little more support for their case.

Those lovable bomb-chuckers in 3-piece suits and powdered wigs over at CATO are so progressive....NOT. Deep in their heart of hearts, they're Whigs.

Trip

Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2013, 07:17:04 AM
If you associate libertarianism or the CATO Institute with progressive or statist thought then there is something seriously wrong with you.

I am no fan of CATO but they are not progressives. That is just silly.

I'm just flying blind here, but my telepathy is saying you're addressing me.

There is such a thing as progressive libertarianism, and it pretty much sums up a lot of what's coming from the current populist Libertarians.  The idea that contemporary popular Libertarian ideology, entirely too libertine in focus,  actually resembles this country's founding principles is nonsense.    I mean, gay marriage, and somehow it being a right to redefine a principle as old as human society, stemming from the fact of mankind's biological reproductive necessity, is not at all congruent with the founder's principles, is not exactly a concept the founders would support, and for good reason. 


Did you actually read  Alex Nowrasteh's article,  "In Praise of Birthright Citizenship"?   If one ignores what he's advocating, and the open borders. and just focuses on the alleged statements of fact he offers, it's a gross misrepresentation of those facts and history.

His opening statement is utterly false, that the 14th Amendment provides for the grant of birthright citizenship to the American-born children of unauthorized immigrants and lawful immigrants.  It nowhere did that, and was never intended by the its authors, nor the Congress.  Anchor babies only came about 30 years afterwards, and there are even statements from Congress only 6 years afterwards that recognized that the country has never recognized dual allegiance, thereby making citizenship to those born of both authorized and unauthorized foreigners an impossibility.

Nowrasteh indicates that during the debate, it was understood that the citizenship clause would extend to the children of immigrants who were, under the existing immigration law, unable to naturalize, such as Asians and other nonwhite immigrants. No it was not understood, as those immigrants actually owed allegiance to another country. If they were unable to naturalize, such as Chinese, that was actually resolved by a treaty, not the 14th Amendment.

Nowrasteh then provides a quote from Senator Jacob Howard, "will not, of course, include persons in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Evidently Nowrasteh is parsing that statement made the floor the floor by Howard, failing to recognize that each comma represents a different class of citizens, and not just making a run-on statement excepting only ambassadors or foreign ministers, which would not need to be indicated anyway.

Senator Howard also indicated,: "I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."

The statement from Trumbull which Howard a was agreeing with was specifically, "The provision is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." What do we mean by "complete jurisdiction thereof?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." 

Once again we have the consideration of those with dual allegiance, as those who are born of alien  parents,  are not subject to the complete jurisdiction, do owe allegiance to the country of the parents, and would not be citizens of the United States.

I could dissect  the entire nonsense written by Nowrasteh and demonstrate it as corrupt nonsense, as well as provide a long history of supporting references.

Contrary to Nowrasteh's claim, this country never provided birthright citizenship to those born on American soil,  not until after the corruption of the Wong Kim Ark ruling.


Solar

Quote from: Stryke on August 01, 2013, 12:22:49 AM
Ohh, you "stated."  :lol: So I guess that makes it true. Your word over Gen. Alexander's, I see. The problem with you calling BS on what the intelligence community says is it leaves us nowhere. If you won't accept their word, then there's really nothing anyone can do to prove anything to you. Nobody is going to give you an invitation to Ft. Meade.

"Constitutional conservative" and you really *don't* know what the Acts were. Indeed, an "are you fucking kidding me?" moment, and one that informs this next response:

As I look over your incoherent responses, I get what is going on here now. You can't accept the idea that maybe what the founding fathers believed isn't opposed to PRISM and it's not unconstitutional. You can't accept that you know less on counter-terrorism than actual professionals. You can't accept the idea PRISM prevented terror attacks and actually is constitutional. Why? Because all of these things deconstruct the grade-A bull you've posted. You have nothing left in this conversation if you accept those truths, and that explains your evasive responses.

We're on a public forum and I understand you've built yourself a little rep here posting ten times a day about the same thing. You have to save face, I get it. But I've given you the facts here. When you turn off the computer, or maybe when you become a mature adult, you can accept them or stay blind. Your choice.

I yield the floor to Tom Cotton, who can explain this whole thing better than I possibly could and in less time: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cotton-nsa-amendment-do-not-take-tool-away-our-warriors_740949.html

Unlike you, he has actually fought and bled against the enemies of our country, fought for the freedoms that you disgracefully disregard as worthless when you say our country is no better than the Putin regime.
Stryke, are you actually claiming precedent precedes Constitution as proof that spying on all citizens is Constitutional?
From your link....

"Some of you heard the analogy that if you want to have a search for a needle in the haystack, you have to have haystack. This takes a leaf blower and blows away the entire haystack. You will not have this program if this amendment passes and does so despite all of the safeguards you have already heard. This program is constitutional under Supreme Court precedent--not recent precedent--it goes back to 1979, just two years after I was born, the year that one of the young sponsor's of this amendment was born.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cotton-nsa-amendment-do-not-take-tool-away-our-warriors_740949.html
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Trip on August 01, 2013, 07:53:55 AM
I'm just flying blind here, but my telepathy is saying you're addressing me.

There is such a thing as progressive libertarianism, and it pretty much sums up a lot of what's coming from the current populist Libertarians.  The idea that contemporary popular Libertarian ideology, entirely too libertine in focus,  actually resembles this country's founding principles is nonsense.    I mean, gay marriage, and somehow it being a right to redefine a principle as old as human society, stemming from the fact of mankind's biological reproductive necessity, is not at all congruent with the founder's principles, is not exactly a concept the founders would support, and for good reason. 


Did you actually read  Alex Nowrasteh's article,  "In Praise of Birthright Citizenship"?   If one ignores what he's advocating, and the open borders. and just focuses on the alleged statements of fact he offers, it's a gross misrepresentation of those facts and history.

His opening statement is utterly false, that the 14th Amendment provides for the grant of birthright citizenship to the American-born children of unauthorized immigrants and lawful immigrants.  It nowhere did that, and was never intended by the its authors, nor the Congress.  Anchor babies only came about 30 years afterwards, and there are even statements from Congress only 6 years afterwards that recognized that the country has never recognized dual allegiance, thereby making citizenship to those born of both authorized and unauthorized foreigners an impossibility.

Nowrasteh indicates that during the debate, it was understood that the citizenship clause would extend to the children of immigrants who were, under the existing immigration law, unable to naturalize, such as Asians and other nonwhite immigrants. No it was not understood, as those immigrants actually owed allegiance to another country. If they were unable to naturalize, such as Chinese, that was actually resolved by a treaty, not the 14th Amendment.

Nowrasteh then provides a quote from Senator Jacob Howard, "will not, of course, include persons in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Evidently Nowrasteh is parsing that statement made the floor the floor by Howard, failing to recognize that each comma represents a different class of citizens, and not just making a run-on statement excepting only ambassadors or foreign ministers, which would not need to be indicated anyway.

Senator Howard also indicated,: "I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."

The statement from Trumbull which Howard a was agreeing with was specifically, "The provision is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." What do we mean by "complete jurisdiction thereof?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." 

Once again we have the consideration of those with dual allegiance, as those who are born of alien  parents,  are not subject to the complete jurisdiction, do owe allegiance to the country of the parents, and would not be citizens of the United States.

I could dissect  the entire nonsense written by Nowrasteh and demonstrate it as corrupt nonsense, as well as provide a long history of supporting references.

Contrary to Nowrasteh's claim, this country never provided birthright citizenship to those born on American soil,  not until after the corruption of the Wong Kim Ark ruling.

I can't say I have read his article. My interests are more in the direction of economic theory and ethics rather than
political policy.

I take issue with the characterization of libertarians as supporters of a libertine philosophy. Indeed the libertarian philosophy is based on a very strident system of ethics- that of individual self ownership and the illegitimacy of aggression.

Typically libertarians support individual liberty and freedom of association.

The libertarian could not support forcing others to recognize gay marriage no more than they could support forcing people to pay taxes. With that said it would also be inconsistent with libertarian thought for one group to prevent others from entering into whatever contracts they wished, providing the participants are freely consenting adults.

In the case of immigration, free association necessitates that anyone who could freely contract for a job and a place to stay, in another land, should be free to act on this opportunity.

Indeed this is impossible to characterize as progressive or statist, even if it may seem to be in harmony with certain progressive view points. This is because progressive thought champions collective action and political decision making, with an eye toward improving the alleged deficiencies found in a free society. Freedom is held to be incompatible with social justice, progress and human welfare. So the progressives use the state to improve society. The collective is held to be more important than the individual. And in the process their politics becomes their religion.

So it is clear that anything that lifts up the individual and minimizes the role of the state cannot be progressive or statist. Indeed it is the opposite.

And that is exactly what an open borders perspective does- it minimizes the role of the state in determining who can live where, or what rights people have and which associations they may enter into.

It follows from this that those who champion a larger role for political or collective decision making as it regards the movement of people are the true progressives!

Stryke

Quote from: Trip on August 01, 2013, 01:03:57 AM
I guess having been shot somehow endows one with an innate understanding of the appropriate balance between government and freedom.  Evidently my sticking myself with pencil lead is what puts me so far ahead of you.

Nice to know how you feel about veterans' sacrifices.

QuoteTwo years ago I was shadowed for at least 36 hours by two federal agents in a black SUV.  I say "at least 36 hours" because I have no idea how long they'd been there

^ This. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

When I went to bed you were still online, and you're still online now. Should I assume this means you've been on for 36 hours? And ---- hey! It's a second hand story. I thought you didn't like those?