American Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
- Status
Because most, if not all, governments are doing something they shouldn't. If, for example, BP were dumping waste into some undisclosed lake somewhere and a BP employee had to steal information from their databases to reveal the crime, would you be so dismissive?
except BP is not a government....they are only interested in the bottom line and don't care about safety of human beings.....as has been proven.
Last edited:
So if a government was dumping waste in an undisclosed location, it would be okay because they apparently are not interested in the bottom line and care about human safety?
Most would probably have him tracked down and murdered via secret sauce in his lunch. Wouldn't be surprised if the US would go the same route to silence him.
sun_tzu... I'm curious on your opinion to the below segments. China counts building as part of their GDP yet vast majorities of new structures sit uninhabited/unoccupied.
The first two are from VICE (HBO investigative series) but I can't locate the full clip yet (I can if I log into hbogo but can't post to Caf in vid form).
The first two are from VICE (HBO investigative series) but I can't locate the full clip yet (I can if I log into hbogo but can't post to Caf in vid form).
you put forward a poor example. A government is less likely to do such things because it is accountable to its people......
the simple point is Snowden needs to put his money where is mouth is...He stole government secrets. If he was truly a patriot, he should have gone to the media with what he knew and faced the music. Going to a country like Russia does not enhance his credibility.
Apart from the fact that this was an example where 'accountable' government actually did something very dangerous and arguably unconstitutional in the US context. And why does being a patriot mean he has to go to suffer when he doesn't have to? He got the evidence and gave it to the media, be happy with that.
you can debate the US governments actions...to equate it to dumping waste in a lake is ridiculous.
Has no one on this forum ever heard of analogies? You have an institution, which protects itself through non-disclosure contracts/crimes and it doing something illegal/immoral/unconstitutional; which leads one of it's own employees to steal information to disclose the wrongdoing. There is no equating one with the other, just a similarity of circumstance.
Please tell me you are not dense enough to ignore that.
Please tell me you are not stupid enough to accept you put forward Another idiotic example.
It seems to me that all the govts in the world have secret intelligence services. So you have to believe that they are a necessary evil. What you are saying is that any member of any of those agencies should be allowed to publish whatever they think should be in the public domain. You can't run a secret service that way. People like Snowden are wankers, and self important wankers at that. He has harmed the security of his country and that will cost lives somewhere down the line.
Please try not to get too personal with each other. Nobody in this thread is stupid.
Yeah, my apologies. I started that one.
Now, I'm not saying what he did should be legal, I'm just saying it was the right thing to do. There's nothing wrong with the US government charging him for it, but there's also nothing wrong with him getting out of the country to avoid the punishment.
I also don't think agencies like the NSA/GCHQ are necessary at all. Even if we accept their stated purpose is 'security', the vast majority of their man-power and budget is directed towards collecting data from law abiding people. So who's going to bring security from the NSA then?
If they were not necessary then why do you think it is they exist in so many countries?
I suspect they are a force multiplier for defence, political and economic interests which are vital to successful states. Which is why almost all states have them and copy each other in that regard. There is a very obvious concern around how you have political oversight on assets which by their nature must remain secret, but pretending you can do without them or run them while the people in them are free to disclose anything they personally don't like. To me that’s a nonsense argument for an unworkable system.
I suspect they are a force multiplier for defence, political and economic interests which are vital to successful states. Which is why almost all states have them and copy each other in that regard. There is a very obvious concern around how you have political oversight on assets which by their nature must remain secret, but pretending you can do without them or run them while the people in them are free to disclose anything they personally don't like. To me that’s a nonsense argument for an unworkable system.
@Don't Kill Bill - I'm a libertarian: I believe most of what governments around the world do is unnecessary so saying to me that 'it exists in so many countries' isn't a particularly convincing argument to me; most governments in the world control the education system, doesn't mean they should be doing it, for example. I repeat: I never said what he did is legal, but disclosing something unconstitutional and evil like NSA spying on people is morally right.
Given the US's self-reflection on the issue after it came out, it's doubly weird to my eyes that he's still wanted. Obviously hiding out in Russia is ironic, but I don't blame him for wanting to stay out of jail. Didn't he originally intend to go somewhere Nordic anyway? Iceland I think?
Last edited:
spying on each other and listening in on its own citizens is nothing new...suppose we should not be so accepting of it.....but if say a terrorist did something when he had said something about it on a phone call or on internet conversation and was not caught? there would be hell to pay....
and if we going to talk about what is morally right...lets start with paying people a living wage for a start. People in the richest country in the world living in poverty...now that is morally wrong.
and if we going to talk about what is morally right...lets start with paying people a living wage for a start. People in the richest country in the world living in poverty...now that is morally wrong.
my apology too....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/connecticut-minimum-wage_n_5038782.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Malloy running in 2016......
Malloy running in 2016......
You're right, dumping things into a lake is a lot less questionable than what the US government does.
FAO njred
I'm enjoying your fat governor being roasted...man look at all that blubber falling off
I'm enjoying your fat governor being roasted...man look at all that blubber falling off
God bless America!
But they kept in place the limits on what you can give an individual candidate in an election cycle. Seems they are putting a price limit on what it takes to buy a candidate while also saying feel free to buy as many as you like.
It's just not that simple. He revealed everything he could get his hands on. That haphazard, scattershot approach has rendered some technical means obsolete that were great tools for keeping tabs on malign actors and firewalling their effect. He did a lot of harm.
If these 'great tools' had actually helped catch 'malign actors' or stop any would-be attackers (sans any FBI/NSA entrapments), then we'd have something to talk about - as it stands, the only function these tools have served is to amass data about average citizens. And eventually, it will happen that this information is used for nefarious purposes.
This isn't even a 'that only happens in dictatorships' thing too, you only have to look at the history of the FBI to see such information being used against people.
You may want to look a bit further into what he released. The NSA conducts far mor than domestic surveillance, so that's a specious characterization of the 'great tools'. A quick inventory of the international system shows 'malign actors' are hardly limited to non-state actors.
Snowden did a heck of a lot of damage to legitimate collection means and meathods for the bits of questionable activity he exposed. No personal indignation should be allowed to whitewash that.
He did a lot of damage, which I would view as a good thing. You don't need data centers within the US collecting information mundane information from everyone to counter state actors.
Well, you seem to have heard all you care to and have made up your mind. If that's not the case, message me and I can help you sort out the reality from the hype. If not, I'm moving on.
no he won't. He's too polarizing.
He is running for Governor in 2014. Is he too progressive? tbh any Democratic nominee will win in 2016.
Is anyone going to really run against Clinton though? Obama scraped by her and he was seen as transformative, I'm not sure anyone else has a hope. I realise that obviously other people will run, but I can't help but feel they'll all be half-hearted.
Biden will probably run, but I don't see him beating Clinton. Elizabeth Warren would be the best choice for resurrecting the middle class and putting a leash on Wall Street, but I don't know anything about her knowledge, experience and views on foreign policy and international affairs, and I'm under the impression that there isn't much to know, so that's obviously a bit of a question mark.
I don't like Clinton. A better choice than most (if not all) of the Republican candidates perhaps, but that says more about them than it does about her.
I don't like Clinton. A better choice than most (if not all) of the Republican candidates perhaps, but that says more about them than it does about her.
Elizabeth Warren would be great, if I was in yankland I'd be voting for and donating to her.
would love Warren to run...she is for ordinary people....and that is why Clinton will win. The kin SCOTUS made sure the money bastards have a stranglehold on the politicians. Honestly hope some of those conservative judges die fast.
Elizabeth Warren would be amazing, but it's unlikely to happen. I guess it pays to remember that Obama really wasn't that big a contender when he first entered the race, so we should be careful in making too sure statements. Still, I think it's quite likely that Clinton is the next president. Like JohnDoe I don't like her, at all. With her it really would be a case of the lesser evil, since most Republican candidates are even worse, and certainly the ones that can actually win.
Clinton would clearly be a pawn of the money people...but she would put forward some good welfare reforms to please the poor. Like Raoul said this country is controlled by big money....Even if someone like Warren gets in...she will one day be killed. Remember JFK?
But I still remember Obama being talked about a lot long before he even announced he was running, an outsider for sure but there was a buzz about him. I'm not hearing anything like that this time and I'm paying far more attention! Who knows though I suppose, maybe there's a Santos 2016 being dreamt up somewhere.
- Status