Should be interesting to see if his flight from Moscow to Cuba drifts into US airspace without proper papers :devil2:

-spence

I think the NSA should find the KGB agent that likes to use thallium and hire him. Just for the day of course.

probably make an outstanding liberal college professor some day at a major United States University with tremendous knowledge and life experience to impart to the undergrads :uhuh:

People in the previous thread were recognized for what they did AFTER their transgressions.

If you're going to try and play a witty gotcha at least get your fundamentals right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

People in the previous thread were recognized for what they did AFTER their transgressions.

If you're going to try and play a witty gotcha at least get your fundamentals right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right...let's engage in fantasies of him dead so there is no "AFTER"....nice fundamentals:devil2:

and you not only commended the individuals for what they did "after" but you excused and defended their actions at the time for various reasons....fundamentals...:)

Back on task... While Snowden supposedly made us weaker according to the bigger government types, he did an important thing for the opressed. At least there is some dicussion about big brother violating the Constitution and collecting evidence against the people without their knowledge..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it funny that this happened under the most liberal of settings. I always have said a democrat will vote to strip you of your rights before anyone else will. This is minor considering that we even no about it. Consider what we dont know about what our government does. Obama has given this, and many other scandals lately another big "ho hum", pass the toast.

Obama has given this, and many other scandals lately another big "ho hum", pass the toast.

Yes and at his own and the libs political peril. His trust # has dropped to 45% within the last month.
It's always a lick and a promise and hope for the best, whatever he is facing as he leads from behind.

He should go to jail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He should go to jail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ditto on above sentiment
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He should go to jail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is also claiming this was his motive all along, not that he stumbled on to some program and exposed it. He went into the job with an agenda...

I'm Glad he did it !
~
cloaking technologies
surveilance drones
RFID chips
ultra miniature listening devices
ultra miniature video devices
your PC hacked
ALL calls recorded
it's a very long list....
but you get my POINT

you forgot chemtrails

and you not only commended the individuals for what they did "after" but you excused and defended their actions at the time for various reasons....fundamentals...:)

Only in your mind.

-spence

Back on task... While Snowden supposedly made us weaker according to the bigger government types, he did an important thing for the opressed. At least there is some dicussion about big brother violating the Constitution and collecting evidence against the people without their knowledge..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
At what cost?

-spence

Obama has given this, and many other scandals lately another big "ho hum", pass the toast.

That's because most of these "scandals" are media driven.

Look at the IRS conspiracy, seems like after all it was just bad management.

-spence

I'd happily let the gubmint snoop in my emails to prevent future terrorist attacks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd happily let the gubmint snoop in my emails to prevent future terrorist attacks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know, you have a lot of girl on donkey porn on that IPad of yours.... might not want someone in Langley knowin9 that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw

and you not only commended the individuals for what they did "after" but you excused and defended their actions at the time for various reasons....fundamentals...


Only in your mind.

-spence



To be honest I find it more impressive that these people shed their violent past to be productive members of society. In some regards they're more model citizens than many.

-spence

The actions of Ayers and others were more violent protest than anything else.

I don't think Ayers was ever even convicted of any crimes.

Oh I do believe that bombs did indeed go off. They didn't kill people because the targets were warned in advance.

that they used small bombs hidden in out of the way locations (I've read a bathroom vent was the most common) with the threat phoned in advance...clearly shows the intent was not to kill as much as make a very dramatic statement.

I'm just curious, but you do realize there was a pretty big counter culture movement in the 1960's don't you?

I think that has to be evaluated in the context of the tension during the Vietnam era where frustrations over inaction or complicity with many issues (like the War and racial inequality) reached a boiling point. Some looked to more violent means to make a statement as peaceful methods didn't appear to be working. That's not to say it was right, but to ignore the societal climate these events were surrounded by would be irresponsible.

The war was the engine behind the radicalization. This wasn't a bunch of communists looking for a cause, their behavior was a by-product.

While Boudin was certainly implicated in the murder, she also didn't pull the trigger and was able to plea bargain a lesser sentence..

He was motivated by the war and racism in college.

Reading Ayers own writing it's clear that the shift to violent protest the war and race issues was precisely because more conventional means weren't getting a response.

-spence[/QUOTE]

That's because most of these "scandals" are media driven.

Look at the IRS conspiracy, seems like after all it was just bad management.

-spence

wow....so quick to dismiss....I suspect Snowden would be a whistleblowing National Hero hailed by the left and the media had he made his revelations during the Bush years....probably wouldn't be hiding in fear for his life either....your excuse making, context providing, dismissal and what you deem acceptable for whom and by whom travels down a remarkably consistent one way political/idealogical highway

I'd happily let the gubmint snoop in my emails to prevent future terrorist attacks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd love to go back and see what you had to say about gubmint "wire tapping" when Bush and Cheney were the ones "reading and listening" :uhuh: ..I'm curious because I think there was quite an uproar then.....in fact, the President had an entirely different view of these things back in 2007...funny how thing change

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized

Pretty clear cut, no wiggle room there as that is the way it was meant to be.

Should be interesting to see if his flight from Moscow to Cuba drifts into US airspace without proper papers :devil2:

-spence
Why should the government be concerned about his having proper papers if he drifts into US airspace? It hasn't been very concerned about 11 million (or much more) aliens drifting into US landspace without proper papers.

What is "interesting" is the effort to go after this guy for exposing the depth of what most of us, and the terrorists, assume--that the government is spying on us, but the effort pales to go after and prevent those "undocumented" folks from residing here and having a far greater effect on our economy, government expenditure, health care and educational facilities, and even our security, than Snowden's little gambit.

Pretty clear cut, no wiggle room there as that is the way it was meant to be.
That is the rub, there is wiggle room. If the Govt makes a shadow copy of data, but they can only access is via a proper warrant are they really snooping?

-spence

Why should the government be concerned about his having proper papers if he drifts into US airspace? It hasn't been very concerned about 11 million (or much more) aliens drifting into US landspace without proper papers.

What is "interesting" is the effort to go after this guy for exposing the depth of what most of us, and the terrorists, assume--that the government is spying on us, but the effort pales to go after and prevent those "undocumented" folks from residing here and having a far greater effect on our economy, government expenditure, health care and educational facilities, and even our security, than Snowden's little gambit.
More than quite a few economists believe that the illegal immigrants who participate in the workforce have a net positive impact on the US economy. More growth with lower inflation...

To compare this with a single person breaking the law to expose what are known as lawful programs and doing some pretty serious harm to US interests doesn't make a lot of sense.

-spence

That is the rub, there is wiggle room. If the Govt makes a shadow copy of data, but they can only access is via a proper warrant are they really snooping?

-spence

Yes, they are collecting our papers without our knowledge, can get a warrant and now go back and sift through them to fabricate a case. Seems like a 4th ammendment violation to me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More than quite a few

Wow . . . :cheers: Congrats on creating a new locution (or one I don't remember hearing) meaning . . . well, I'm not quite sure . . . a whole lot? Scads? Gazillions? Just so many that it must be true?

economists


Oh yeah . . . economists . . . those "experts" who can't all agree on economic predictions, outcomes, or realities. Unless, perhaps, if more than quite a few say so.


believe that the illegal immigrants who participate in the workforce

Ah . . . let us ignore the millions who don't and who tap into various welfare schemes subsidized by the rest of us, and the more than quite a few who participate in various forms of crime and havoc.

have a net positive impact on the US economy. More growth with lower inflation...

Hmmm . . . illegals have a positive (more positive?) impact on the US economy than legal folks? And more than the 50 million that were aborted could have had? Oookay . . . now I get it. Create a welfare state where legal citizens can comfortably choose to be a drag on the "economy" by not "participating" in the workforce and make it easy and accessible to get abortions, then encourage illegals to take their and the aborted children's place, at a suppressed wage and this will have net positive results.

And then the second and third generations born to the illegals can catch on to the subsidy train and not participate in the workforce and even larger waves of illegals will be necessary to create enough growth to subsidize the more than quite a few more non-participating population.

Gotta love the great insights of the economists that have helped us to create more than quite a few trillions of dollars in debt.

To compare this with a single person breaking the law to expose what are known as lawful programs and doing some pretty serious harm to US interests doesn't make a lot of sense.

-spence

Yes, to compare all the above, and more than quite a few consequences of illegal immigration on U.S. interests doesn't even begin to calculate the net positive on the U.S. economy.

Snowden, "the single person breaking the law" (which, I believe, every single person among the illegal immigrants did) and who exposed "what are known" as "lawful programs" (which run counter to the Constitution) is obviously a far greater, more than quite far, danger to U.S. interest.

Ergo, bring in the illegals, and fry the poor slob who exposed the State's methods. The treatment the State gives to one as opposed to the other exposes another of its "secret" agendas.

If the Govt makes a shadow copy of data......are they really snooping?

-spence

yes

More than quite a few economists believe

-spence

you concocted a new lame(variation) Spencism...congratulations :buds:

sorry, I hadn't read Detbuch....

More than quite a few economists would also tell you that legal citizens who participate in the workforce rather than collecting welfare, foodstamps, disability have an even greater net positive impact on the US economy than illegals who don't pay taxes and send a large portion of their income out of the country and drain our medical system resources, safety nets and live in many cases unaccountable to society .

Why should the government be concerned about his having proper papers if he drifts into US airspace? It hasn't been very concerned about 11 million (or much more) aliens drifting into US landspace without proper papers.

What is "interesting" is the effort to go after this guy for exposing the depth of what most of us, and the terrorists, assume--that the government is spying on us, but the effort pales to go after and prevent those "undocumented" folks from residing here and having a far greater effect on our economy, government expenditure, health care and educational facilities, and even our security, than Snowden's little gambit.

"As I say, just another day in the life of the republic: a corrupt bureaucracy dispensing federal gravy to favored clients; a pseudo-legislature passing bills unread by the people’s representatives and uncomprehended by the men who claim to have written them; and a co-regency of jurists torturing an 18th-century document in order to justify what other countries are at least honest enough to recognize as an unprecedented novelty. Whether or not, per Scalia, we should “condemn” the United States Constitution, it might be time to put the poor wee thing out of its misery."

National Review Online | Print (http://www.nationalreview.com/node/352350/print)

To compare this with a single person breaking the law to expose the excesses of an administration's misuse of what are perceived as lawful programs after berating the previous administration for claimed abuses that were far less in scope and size and possibly doing some harm to US interests doesn't make a lot of sense although it does highlight the distraction that the administration seems to have in monitoring and controlling the lives of ordinary law abiding citizens while turning a blind eye and/or a helping hand to the not so law abiding non-citizens.

-spence

fixed it



c'mon...more than quite a lot of a few related to many are almost positively certain nearly all of the time that the Snowden accident is little more than a media created and driven scandal that is almost certainly as ascertained by nearly every expert in the field as the result of a little "poor management" by someone(s) who has no ties whatsoever to the administration or it's superlative in every way officials with impressive resumes appointed and guided by an infallible President and it's nothing more than that....move along.....pfffftttt:uhuh:

"As I say, just another day in the life of the republic: a corrupt bureaucracy dispensing federal gravy to favored clients; a pseudo-legislature passing bills unread by the people’s representatives and uncomprehended by the men who claim to have written them; and a co-regency of jurists torturing an 18th-century document in order to justify what other countries are at least honest enough to recognize as an unprecedented novelty. Whether or not, per Scalia, we should “condemn” the United States Constitution, it might be time to put the poor wee thing out of its misery."

National Review Online | Print (http://www.nationalreview.com/node/352350/print)

It is becoming a common observation and refrain that the Constitution is all but dead as a viable blueprint of governance--it is no longer even living and breathing. For our politically stupefied populace who still have some vague notion that the Constitution is "the law of the land," it is paraded as the legal basis for federal legislation and judicial decisions which are connected to it by subterfuge and which are actually in opposition to and destructive of it. Take the latest SCOTUS decision striking down DOMA. In the above article, Steyn points out Kennedy's moral or personal or intellectual reasoning (as well as thoroughly revealing its idiocy), but he doesn't mention the Justice's faulty and inconsistent constitutional reasoning. Kennedy, somehow, invokes the constitutional notion of equal protection. Sure, if a state makes gay marriage legal, thereby defining marriage to include that status, it deserves equal protection and due process. But what, in the Constitution, gives the Federal Gvt. the power to distribute benefits to people who get married that it does not to people who don't? What is the equal protection and due process available to single people to either get Federal benefits that married people get, or protects them from having their income redistributed to the married? And where is this vaunted equal protection when it comes to the progressive income tax? Why must some pay at higher rates than others rather than at the same rate? And where is this equal protection when the Fed decides winners and losers? When it subsidizes one and not another? When it artificially protects farm income (actually making it more feasible to promote big agra and more difficult to maintain small farms) but not mom and pop stores? When it bails out big business (which it more easily can regulate and from whom it can garner larger chunks of easier collectible revenue as well as large campaign contributions) but not the little guy, or other big businesses that fail as well? And on, and on, and on.

Justice Kennedy's opinion is, as Steyn says "just another day in the life of the republic . . ." It is rule by personal whim and opinion. The Constitution has nothing to do with it other than as a twisted cover for decisions and legislation. And the Snowden incident, and the immigration fiasco, etc., are all part of this bureaucratic system rather than constitutional governance.

It is amazing how the redefined "We the People" demand (or are convinced to demand) guarantees on every product we buy, or health care we get, and insist that government enforces those guarantees . . . but we have lost the guarantees against government overreaching power . . . and we seem to think and trust that such power is, and always will be, to our benefit. It is, historically, this growth of government size and power that has led to the tyrannies from which the Constitution protected us. It was the guarantee which we, for convenience, have decided to forego. The progressive administrative State has been growing, now at a faster rate, and is coming to a fruition that even its founders did not envision . . . but which our founding fathers did . . . we are becoming ripe for the domination of central power . . . call it dictatorship (benevolent or not), oligarchy, monarchy, socialism, or whatever name you wish. We are at that state and about ready to be plucked.

More than quite a few economists believe that the illegal immigrants who participate in the workforce have a net positive impact on the US economy. More growth with lower inflation...


-spence

This is off topic here, but the thread seems to have died anyway-- Spence, I've wondered if you subscribe to the belief of these economists, and if so does that correlate to lower wages creating lower prices--lower inflation? I recall a previous thread where you disagreed with that correlation.

Or is it just a context thing--lower wages garnered by illegals within an economy being different contextually, than lower wages earned by legal citizens?

This is off topic here, but the thread seems to have died anyway-- Spence, I've wondered if you subscribe to the belief of these economists, and if so does that correlate to lower wages creating lower prices--lower inflation? I recall a previous thread where you disagreed with that correlation.

Or is it just a context thing--lower wages garnered by illegals within an economy being different contextually, than lower wages earned by legal citizens?
I'm not sure I understand the question. There are many variables here...

-spence

I'm not sure I understand the question. There are many variables here...

-spence

Most questions have many variables as well as answers which differ dependent on context and perception. Therefor, I suppose, most questions might be difficult for you to understand.

Different contexts and variables also apply to the understanding of statements as well as questions. Your statements, especially those many which are one or two line quips with little to no direct expositive content, are fraught with numerous contextual variables making it difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend in a definite, meaningful way . . . . . . . . . .

But that is the problem with relativistic discourse . . . . . .

Everything is relative, there are no absolutes, ideas shift in diverging ways and cannot coalesce in concrete agreement . . . . . . . .

I tried to restrict the question within the confines of your stated context of illegal immigrants having a net positive impact on the U.S. economy--MORE GROWTH WITH LOWER INFLATION. And I queried if there would be a difference if legal citizens worked under similar conditions that illegal immigrants do in creating more growth and lower inflation. Or if there was something intrinsically different about legal vs. illegal in the context of creating more growth and less inflation if they both worked for the same pay . . . . . .

If there is no difference on the economy whether the work is done by legals or illegals if done for the same pay, is there then, a correlation between prices and wages in such a way that overall lower wages would demand overall lower prices? I recalled a previous thread where you seemed to disagree with such a correlation . . . . . . .