Worth pointing out here that Webster's definition of Patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country". Not love or devotion to one's government and not love or devotion to the constitution of any government. People can show that devotion in a variety of ways. Wanting to see their country be kept safe and secure is one. Wanting the government to be held to both the letter and spirit of all laws is another. That one person feels more strongly about one and another feels more strongly about the other makes neither more or less Patriotic.
Except spying on every American has nothing to do with keeping the country safe.
If you want to play up the possibility that these programs could be abused, go ahead. I will not argue to strenuously against you. To say, however, that these programs have NOTHING to do with keeping the country safe is an overstatement. This in a nutshell is why I have pushed back against the Snowden myth making machine. There is plenty of hyperbole and disinformation on both sides.
Without the constitution America would be a very different country and was prior to it when we operated under the Articles of the Confederation. The fact that you believe otherwise indicates to me that I may as well stop discussing this issue with you.
Also, I reiterate, I did not declare those who disagree with me as being unpatriotic. That was something you conjured up and applied to my statement. I understand that many will disagree with me. What actually occurred; however, is I declared and commended one individual who I felt was displaying a good amount of Patriotism and lamented that all too many from this country and in this thread are not; that all too many don't question things. This is the key difference between what I actually said and what you believe I said.
You declared that someone whose opinion you agreed with was showing more U.S. Patriotism than others in the thread, the flip side being that those who disagree are showing less. You then repeatedly refused to identify who these others were. If you did not intend to attack their Patriotism, fine, but you did and that is the danger when one sinks to Rovism. Much easier to end the discussion than to own up to that I imagine.
Of course America would be quite different without the Constitution. Nowhere did I argue otherwise. However, as has now been mentioned repeatedly, love of Constitution is not the definition of Patriotism. My point - that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge - is that it is quite possible to love America just as much as the next person and to hold a different opinion about what is best for America. This is over and above the NSA issue. It applies in every instance and is exactly why we should be able to disagree without attacking each others Patriotism.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
If you want to play up the possibility that these programs could be abused, go ahead. I will not argue to strenuously against you. To say, however, that these programs have NOTHING to do with keeping the country safe is an overstatement. This in a nutshell is why I have pushed back against the Snowden myth making machine. There is plenty of hyperbole and disinformation on both sides.
Then go ahead and tell us how they've kept the country safe?
Of course America would be quite different without the Constitution. Nowhere did I argue otherwise. However, as has now been mentioned repeatedly, love of Constitution is not the definition of Patriotism. My point - that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge - is that it is quite possible to love America just as much as the next person and to hold a different opinion about what is best for America. This is over and above the NSA issue. It applies in every instance and is exactly why we should be able to disagree without attacking each others Patriotism.
He didn't say that love of the Constitution was the definition of Patriotism. You really need to quit putting words in peoples mouths in order to try and win an argument.
Of course America would be quite different without the Constitution. Nowhere did I argue otherwise. However, as has now been mentioned repeatedly, love of Constitution is not the definition of Patriotism. My point - that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge - is that it is quite possible to love America just as much as the next person and to hold a different opinion about what is best for America. This is over and above the NSA issue. It applies in every instance and is exactly why we should be able to disagree without attacking each others Patriotism.
He didn't say that love of the Constitution was the definition of Patriotism. You really need to quit putting words in peoples mouths in order to try and win an argument.
Thank you. It is hard to acknowledge a person's points when said person continues to make leaps of logic when addressing your own points.
Of course America would be quite different without the Constitution. Nowhere did I argue otherwise. However, as has now been mentioned repeatedly, love of Constitution is not the definition of Patriotism. My point - that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge - is that it is quite possible to love America just as much as the next person and to hold a different opinion about what is best for America. This is over and above the NSA issue. It applies in every instance and is exactly why we should be able to disagree without attacking each others Patriotism.
He didn't say that love of the Constitution was the definition of Patriotism. You really need to quit putting words in peoples mouths in order to try and win an argument.
Thank you. It is hard to acknowledge a person's points when said person continues to make leaps of logic when addressing your own points.
Your response to the definition of Patriotism I posted was:
Ah! You did eventually look it up. "Love for, or devotion to one's country": Excellent and absolutely correct. The government of this country is but one facet of the country. The definition is not "love for, or devotion to one's government".
The Constitution is the document that lays out the protections in place the citizens of the country are supposed to have from the government. It is the chain that is supposed to bind the government, the law of the land. It is basically the blueprint for our country. The government swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around. It would be more correct to give more credence to this document than to a government that is continually caught lying regardless of the political affiliation of the person in power.
Knowing all that should tell you that being more devoted to the blueprint of the country is more along the lines of Patriotism than to a government that continually breaks its oath. Again, it does not say "love your government". How can one love it's country and the ideas the country was founded on without being able to healthily question its government?
You talk about this notion of safety and security. The greatest potential for safety and security to exist is when our personal liberties are protected to their fullest extent. That includes protecting those facets of our society from an overbearing government as well! Liberty and freedom is perhaps the greatest potential form of safety and security there is. Look at what we have today, under the guise of safety and security we have a tyrannical aspect in our government. We have people who are arrested for victim-less crimes all in the name of safety. Sure our government says it keeps us "safe", but who is going to keep us safe from our government?
The NSA's operations simply use "security" as a guise to operate under, when the real goal is information gathering on a wide scale. It is security theater. The best interests and security of American citizens is not actually what is at heart here.
It almost immediately becomes a battle between government and constitution. Despite the fact that nowhere in my post did I allude to love of government having anything to do with the definition of Patriotism. You chose to make it a question of government vs. constitution. I have put no words in your mouth.
If you want to play up the possibility that these programs could be abused, go ahead. I will not argue to strenuously against you. To say, however, that these programs have NOTHING to do with keeping the country safe is an overstatement. This in a nutshell is why I have pushed back against the Snowden myth making machine. There is plenty of hyperbole and disinformation on both sides.
Then go ahead and tell us how they've kept the country safe?
No, the overstatement was yours, not mine. The obligation to back it up is also yours and not mine. As the overstatement was yours, perhaps you can go ahead and, in your own words, tell us how these surveillance programs have nothing to do with keeping the country safe?
If you want to play up the possibility that these programs could be abused, go ahead. I will not argue to strenuously against you. To say, however, that these programs have NOTHING to do with keeping the country safe is an overstatement. This in a nutshell is why I have pushed back against the Snowden myth making machine. There is plenty of hyperbole and disinformation on both sides.
Then go ahead and tell us how they've kept the country safe?
No, the overstatement was yours, not mine. The obligation to back it up is also yours and not mine. As the overstatement was yours, perhaps you can go ahead and, in your own words, tell us how these surveillance programs have nothing to do with keeping the country safe?
Well, considering they have thwarted zero terrorist attacks, including the Boston bombings, then it's fair to say that they have nothing to do with keeping the country the safe. If they wanted to prevent terrorism, then they'd focus on terrorists, or suspected terrorists, instead of spying on 300 million Americans, and millions of citizens of other countries.
Then go ahead and tell us how they've kept the country safe?
No, the overstatement was yours, not mine. The obligation to back it up is also yours and not mine. As the overstatement was yours, perhaps you can go ahead and, in your own words, tell us how these surveillance programs have nothing to do with keeping the country safe?
Well, considering they have thwarted zero terrorist attacks, including the Boston bombings, then it's fair to say that they have nothing to do with keeping the country the safe. If they wanted to prevent terrorism, then they'd focus on terrorists, or suspected terrorists, instead of spying on 300 million Americans, and millions of citizens of other countries.
Not fair to say that at all. You can prove they have thwarted zero terrorist attacks? How?
The Boston bombings should have been prevented, yes. That they were not is a failure, yes. But in no way does one attack succeeding prove that these programs have nothing to do with protecting the country.
sooo ... if everyone needed to be stripped search or finger printed at every major transportation hub (airports, train stations, bus terminals, etc.) - would everyone be ok with it? ... if it was meant to prevent terrorist attacks?
sooo ... if everyone needed to be stripped search or finger printed at every major transportation hub (airports, train stations, bus terminals, etc.) - would everyone be ok with it? ... if it was meant to prevent terrorist attacks?
I would not be surprised if the NFL gets to that level in the next several years.
sooo ... if everyone needed to be stripped search or finger printed at every major transportation hub (airports, train stations, bus terminals, etc.) - would everyone be ok with it? ... if it was meant to prevent terrorist attacks?
I definitely would not be okay with that. I haven't flown since around 2008 due to the current "search" methods. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be okay with it if it was sold to them as you describe though. I know a few that I work with, unfortunately.
Terrorists or suspected terrorists are not always easy to find. Especially America's home grown terrorists. They don't have signs on their front door that says "hey, I'm a terrorist."
I applaud the government for being proactive and aggressive with their surveillance programs.
Nothing works 100%, but the government owes it's Americans, attempts to lessen and in some cases stop terroristic activity.
Byrnzie, you can't tell me that these surveillance progams have contributed zero effort in making arrests of terrorists in America. I would bet my life they have contributed to arrests.
Byrnzie, you can't tell me that these surveillance progams have contributed zero effort in making arrests of terrorists in America. I would bet my life they have contributed to arrests.
Fine. So what terrorists are you referring to here?
Not fair to say that at all. You can prove they have thwarted zero terrorist attacks? How?
Because we'd know about it if they had. Especially since Snowdens revelations. You think the government wouldn't have tried to justify their massive spying operation with such a scenario. But they haven't, because it never happened.
The massive spying operation against the Worlds citizens has nothing to do with protecting anybody from terrorism.
Not fair to say that at all. You can prove they have thwarted zero terrorist attacks? How?
Because we'd know about it if they had. Especially since Snowdens revelations. You think the government wouldn't have tried to justify their massive spying operation with such a scenario. But they haven't, because it never happened.
The massive spying operation against the Worlds citizens has nothing to do with protecting anybody from terrorism.
Or in other words, JimmyV, his opinion is based on of the Guardian and Edward "Incapable of Lying" Snowden. :roll:
Just messin with ya, Byrnzie, , but like I said before, just because the media doesn't report it and whether Snowden said it or not doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Over the years once in a while I hear about a terrorist plot foiled. How do you know it wasn't foiled by the NSA? It is very possible the NSA was behind it, but the gov't didn't say how because they wanted to protect their strategy. (don't give me the "terrorists know the strategy" talk again, I know what the Guardian put. :roll: )
But at the same time I understand and wouldn't doubt your opinion.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Or in other words, JimmyV, his opinion is based on of the Guardian and Edward "Incapable of Lying" Snowden. :roll:
All we know so far is that James Clapper committed a felony by lying to Congress, yet nobody here gives a fuck about that. You'd all rather cast doubt on the words of someone who sacrificed his life to reveal the U.S governments lies and illegal spying program instead.
Kind of amazing to me really. But not really. I mean, why should we not all have 100% faith in a government that lied to the people and took them into two bullshit wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why should we not have 100% faith in a government that lies to the American people and spies on them in violation of the Fourth Amendment? Why should we not have 100% faith in a government that is basically just a mouthpiece and rubber stamp for the 1% of the rich and powerful?
Let's just cast doubt and suspicion on Edward Snowden instead. After all, he told us the truth, therefore he must be suspect.
But that's the World we live in, right? A World where liars are honored and respected, and where truth-tellers are demonized and sent to prison for the rest of their lives.
Or in other words, JimmyV, his opinion is based on of the Guardian and Edward "Incapable of Lying" Snowden. :roll:
All we know so far is that James Clapper committed a felony by lying to Congress, yet nobody here gives a fuck about that. You'd all rather cast doubt on the words of someone who sacrificed his life to reveal the U.S governments lies and illegal spying program instead.
Kind of amazing to me really. But not really. I mean, why should we not all have 100% faith in a government that lied to the people and took them into two bullshit wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why should we not have 100% faith in a government that lies to the American people and spies on them in violation of the Fourth Amendment? Why should we not have 100% faith in a government that is basically just a mouthpiece and rubber stamp for the 1% of the rich and powerful?
Let's just cast doubt and suspicion on Edward Snowden instead. After all, he told us the truth, therefore he must be suspect.
But that's the World we live in, right? A World where liars are honored and respected, and where truth-tellers are demonized and sent to prison for the rest of their lives.
i don't think anyone here has said they 100% faith in the government. I don't think anyone here doesn't know that the 1% is living pretty and is very powerful.
Speaking for myself, I don't think Snowden is a bad guy, but I have learned not to trust anybody (including gov't) so I naturally am suspicious of anyone, including Snowden. He could be someone who has complete hatred towards America, which is why he did what he did, and he could have possibly gave intelligence to other countries and then went on to say he did no such thing. Or maybe that is not him at all, which I do not think he is anything I just said, but it doesn't mean he isn't. Anyone can do anything and then lie up their ass to save face.
Once again, I am just saying you can't believe every word and every person in a newspaper or the media in general.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Not fair to say that at all. You can prove they have thwarted zero terrorist attacks? How?
Because we'd know about it if they had. Especially since Snowdens revelations. You think the government wouldn't have tried to justify their massive spying operation with such a scenario. But they haven't, because it never happened.
The massive spying operation against the Worlds citizens has nothing to do with protecting anybody from terrorism.
No, it is far from a sure thing that we would know about it if they had. Particularly if releasing such information compromised other ongoing operations. Declaring such things to be fact when there is no proof - and when common sense dictates a very good reason why that might be true - to me weakens the right and justifiable case against the NSA. The claim that these programs have NOTHING to do with keeping the country safe is a bridge too far.
Yes, much like the baseless overstatement you made is according to you.
Arguments such as this are not helping Edward Snowden.
How do you know it's an overstatement? You don't.
Carry on.
Which is why I asked you to backup your words with proof. You have so far been unable to.
The proof is in the fact that if the surveillance operations had prevented any acts of terrorism, we'd know about it, especially in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
Which is why I asked you to backup your words with proof. You have so far been unable to.
The proof is in the fact that if the surveillance operations had prevented any acts of terrorism, we'd know about it, especially in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
Except, as that is only your opinion, it proves nothing. If you have no other actual proof I will conclude that you were indeed making an outlandish overstatement and we can end this particular exercise.
Except, as that is only your opinion, it proves nothing. If you have no other actual proof I will conclude that you were indeed making an outlandish overstatement and we can end this particular exercise.
You can conclude what you like. And your belief that these programs have prevented terrorism is just your opinion - Totally baseless, and somewhat ludicrous in the face of the intelligence agencies complete failure with regards the Boston bombings.
Except, as that is only your opinion, it proves nothing. If you have no other actual proof I will conclude that you were indeed making an outlandish overstatement and we can end this particular exercise.
You can conclude what you like. And your belief that these programs have prevented terrorism is just your opinion. Totally baseless, and somewhat ludicrous in the face of the intelligence agencies complete failure with regards the Boston bombings.
Ah, but that is not what you said nor what I called you out on. Whether or not I believe these programs have prevented terrorism is beside the point. You stated that these programs have NOTHING to do with protecting America. With that I disagree as nothing is a rather absolute term. Keep on trying to change the argument though.
Whether or not I believe these programs have prevented terrorism is beside the point. You stated that these programs have NOTHING to do with protecting America. With that I disagree as nothing is a rather absolute term. Keep on trying to change the argument though.
What argument am I trying to change? I stated that these programs have nothing to do with protecting Americans from terrorism. You disagree with me, though you're unable to provide any evidence that these programs have protected America. Then in your desperate attempt to appear smart, you claim that whether or not you believe these programs have prevented terrorism is beside the point.
Let me know if you have anything constructive to add to the thread topic.
Comments
If you want to play up the possibility that these programs could be abused, go ahead. I will not argue to strenuously against you. To say, however, that these programs have NOTHING to do with keeping the country safe is an overstatement. This in a nutshell is why I have pushed back against the Snowden myth making machine. There is plenty of hyperbole and disinformation on both sides.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
You declared that someone whose opinion you agreed with was showing more U.S. Patriotism than others in the thread, the flip side being that those who disagree are showing less. You then repeatedly refused to identify who these others were. If you did not intend to attack their Patriotism, fine, but you did and that is the danger when one sinks to Rovism. Much easier to end the discussion than to own up to that I imagine.
Of course America would be quite different without the Constitution. Nowhere did I argue otherwise. However, as has now been mentioned repeatedly, love of Constitution is not the definition of Patriotism. My point - that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge - is that it is quite possible to love America just as much as the next person and to hold a different opinion about what is best for America. This is over and above the NSA issue. It applies in every instance and is exactly why we should be able to disagree without attacking each others Patriotism.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Then go ahead and tell us how they've kept the country safe?
He didn't say that love of the Constitution was the definition of Patriotism. You really need to quit putting words in peoples mouths in order to try and win an argument.
Thank you. It is hard to acknowledge a person's points when said person continues to make leaps of logic when addressing your own points.
Your response to the definition of Patriotism I posted was:
It almost immediately becomes a battle between government and constitution. Despite the fact that nowhere in my post did I allude to love of government having anything to do with the definition of Patriotism. You chose to make it a question of government vs. constitution. I have put no words in your mouth.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
No, the overstatement was yours, not mine. The obligation to back it up is also yours and not mine. As the overstatement was yours, perhaps you can go ahead and, in your own words, tell us how these surveillance programs have nothing to do with keeping the country safe?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Well, considering they have thwarted zero terrorist attacks, including the Boston bombings, then it's fair to say that they have nothing to do with keeping the country the safe. If they wanted to prevent terrorism, then they'd focus on terrorists, or suspected terrorists, instead of spying on 300 million Americans, and millions of citizens of other countries.
Not fair to say that at all. You can prove they have thwarted zero terrorist attacks? How?
The Boston bombings should have been prevented, yes. That they were not is a failure, yes. But in no way does one attack succeeding prove that these programs have nothing to do with protecting the country.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I definitely would not be okay with that. I haven't flown since around 2008 due to the current "search" methods. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be okay with it if it was sold to them as you describe though. I know a few that I work with, unfortunately.
I applaud the government for being proactive and aggressive with their surveillance programs.
Nothing works 100%, but the government owes it's Americans, attempts to lessen and in some cases stop terroristic activity.
Byrnzie, you can't tell me that these surveillance progams have contributed zero effort in making arrests of terrorists in America. I would bet my life they have contributed to arrests.
Fine. So what terrorists are you referring to here?
Because we'd know about it if they had. Especially since Snowdens revelations. You think the government wouldn't have tried to justify their massive spying operation with such a scenario. But they haven't, because it never happened.
The massive spying operation against the Worlds citizens has nothing to do with protecting anybody from terrorism.
Or in other words, JimmyV, his opinion is based on of the Guardian and Edward "Incapable of Lying" Snowden. :roll:
Just messin with ya, Byrnzie,
But at the same time I understand and wouldn't doubt your opinion.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
All we know so far is that James Clapper committed a felony by lying to Congress, yet nobody here gives a fuck about that. You'd all rather cast doubt on the words of someone who sacrificed his life to reveal the U.S governments lies and illegal spying program instead.
Kind of amazing to me really. But not really. I mean, why should we not all have 100% faith in a government that lied to the people and took them into two bullshit wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why should we not have 100% faith in a government that lies to the American people and spies on them in violation of the Fourth Amendment? Why should we not have 100% faith in a government that is basically just a mouthpiece and rubber stamp for the 1% of the rich and powerful?
Let's just cast doubt and suspicion on Edward Snowden instead. After all, he told us the truth, therefore he must be suspect.
But that's the World we live in, right? A World where liars are honored and respected, and where truth-tellers are demonized and sent to prison for the rest of their lives.
i don't think anyone here has said they 100% faith in the government. I don't think anyone here doesn't know that the 1% is living pretty and is very powerful.
Speaking for myself, I don't think Snowden is a bad guy, but I have learned not to trust anybody (including gov't) so I naturally am suspicious of anyone, including Snowden. He could be someone who has complete hatred towards America, which is why he did what he did, and he could have possibly gave intelligence to other countries and then went on to say he did no such thing. Or maybe that is not him at all, which I do not think he is anything I just said, but it doesn't mean he isn't. Anyone can do anything and then lie up their ass to save face.
Once again, I am just saying you can't believe every word and every person in a newspaper or the media in general.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
No, it is far from a sure thing that we would know about it if they had. Particularly if releasing such information compromised other ongoing operations. Declaring such things to be fact when there is no proof - and when common sense dictates a very good reason why that might be true - to me weakens the right and justifiable case against the NSA. The claim that these programs have NOTHING to do with keeping the country safe is a bridge too far.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
According to you.
Yes, much like the baseless overstatement you made is according to you.
Arguments such as this are not helping Edward Snowden.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
How do you know it's an overstatement? You don't.
Carry on.
Which is why I asked you to backup your words with proof. You have so far been unable to.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The proof is in the fact that if the surveillance operations had prevented any acts of terrorism, we'd know about it, especially in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
Except, as that is only your opinion, it proves nothing. If you have no other actual proof I will conclude that you were indeed making an outlandish overstatement and we can end this particular exercise.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
You can conclude what you like. And your belief that these programs have prevented terrorism is just your opinion - Totally baseless, and somewhat ludicrous in the face of the intelligence agencies complete failure with regards the Boston bombings.
Ah, but that is not what you said nor what I called you out on. Whether or not I believe these programs have prevented terrorism is beside the point. You stated that these programs have NOTHING to do with protecting America. With that I disagree as nothing is a rather absolute term. Keep on trying to change the argument though.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
What argument am I trying to change? I stated that these programs have nothing to do with protecting Americans from terrorism. You disagree with me, though you're unable to provide any evidence that these programs have protected America. Then in your desperate attempt to appear smart, you claim that whether or not you believe these programs have prevented terrorism is beside the point.
Let me know if you have anything constructive to add to the thread topic.