Many posters in this forum have posted remarks saying that they were stunned by Snowden's revelations about the scope of the NSA's surveillance efforts. They claim that Snowden is a "hero" because he exposed a reprehensible act that wasn't publicly known.
Many posters in this forum have posted remarks saying that they were stunned by Snowden's revelations about the scope of the NSA's surveillance efforts. They claim that Snowden is a "hero" because he exposed a reprehensible act that wasn't publicly known.
Yes many people already figured that the US government was spying on them and everyone else in world. But if you don't have any evidence then what you already figured doesn't mean dick.
Many posters in this forum have posted remarks saying that they were stunned by Snowden's revelations about the scope of the NSA's surveillance efforts. They claim that Snowden is a "hero" because he exposed a reprehensible act that wasn't publicly known.
I'm curious about how these same posters would react to these other allegations. . .
1) The US government is the largest sponsor of terrorist activity in the world, in terms of money spent and civilian lives claimed.
2) All federal politicians routinely accept bribes.
3) Uruguay ranks above the US in terms of press freedom.
All of these above statements are true, and to people like me, they're no more news than the NSA's blatant disregard for the 4th Amendment.
Betcha they're shocking to those same posters that believe Snowden had exposed something terrible, though.
Amazing how we liberals/libertarians keep saying how hyopcritical US rhetoric about its moral authority in the world is--how grossly inaccurate its claims about standing for freedom are, only to be rebuffed repeatedly by mainstream Americans (notably conservatives) who just accuse us of being America haters. And only when such news becomes popular (i. e. reported in the mainstream press), does it finally hit them on the head.
If these same people would just listen to us from day 1, then wouldn't be so shocked.
You seem to have a problem with this.Many posters in this forum have posted remarks saying that they were stunned by Snowden's revelations about the scope of the NSA's surveillance efforts. They claim that Snowden is a "hero" because he exposed a reprehensible act that wasn't publicly known.
They all appear to be BS, so my guess is that they'll call it so.I'm curious about how these same posters would react to these other allegations. . .
What do you consider "terrorist activity?" If we went by the actual definition that would be Iran.1) The US government is the largest sponsor of terrorist activity in the world, in terms of money spent and civilian lives claimed.
Do you have proof of either of these claims?2) All federal politicians routinely accept bribes.
3) Uruguay ranks above the US in terms of press freedom.
One could make the argument campaign contributions are a form of bribes, since they are usually given to a candidate who will support the position the donor believes in.I would like you to prove "ALL" federal politicians routinely accept bribes. Without proving that you lose every ounce of credibility there is so please post your evidence on "ALL" federal politicians or perhaps you should repent your position.
In the last ten years, we've invaded multiple countries, overthrown multiple governments, stationed our soliders in those countries with no concern how those countries felt about it, spy on our own citizens and other countries including our allies, killed targets with drone strikes (and sometimes civilians), all the while continuing to spend roughly half the amount of military spending in the world by ourselves...What do you consider "terrorist activity?" If we went by the actual definition that would be Iran.
One could make the argument campaign contributions are a form of bribes, since they are usually given to a candidate who will support the position the donor believes in.
In the last ten years, we've invaded multiple countries, overthrown multiple governments, stationed our soliders in those countries with no concern how those countries felt about it, spy on our own citizens and other countries including our allies, killed targets with drone strikes (and sometimes civilians), all the while continuing to spend roughly half the amount of military spending in the world by ourselves...
I'm not passing judgment on the USA for any of those, but I think we both know if Iran did all of what we've done, Americans would be horrified at the amount of terrorism coming from Iran...
But they're only getting your money because you agree with your position, right? And if they stopped believing your position, you would cease financial support, correct? In other words, you're paying them to vote a certain way.You are entitled to the belief but its not the fact. I give to politicians who believe like I do quite often; so how can I be bribing them - they already agree with my position.
Many posters in this forum have posted remarks saying that they were stunned by Snowden's revelations about the scope of the NSA's surveillance efforts. They claim that Snowden is a "hero" because he exposed a reprehensible act that wasn't publicly known.
I'm curious about how these same posters would react to these other allegations. . .
1) The US government is the largest sponsor of terrorist activity in the world, in terms of money spent and civilian lives claimed.
2) All federal politicians routinely accept bribes.
3) Uruguay ranks above the US in terms of press freedom.
All of these above statements are true, and to people like me, they're no more news than the NSA's blatant disregard for the 4th Amendment.
Betcha they're shocking to those same posters that believe Snowden had exposed something terrible, though.
Amazing how we liberals/libertarians keep saying how hyopcritical US rhetoric about its moral authority in the world is--how grossly inaccurate its claims about standing for freedom are, only to be rebuffed repeatedly by mainstream Americans (notably conservatives) who just accuse us of being America haters. And only when such news becomes popular (i. e. reported in the mainstream press), does it finally hit them on the head.
If these same people would just listen to us from day 1, then wouldn't be so shocked.
But they're only getting your money because you agree with your position, right? And if they stopped believing your position, you would cease financial support, correct? In other words, you're paying them to vote a certain way.
To be clear, I'm not saying campaign donations are a bribe, I'm merely stating one can make the argument they are.
Many posters in this forum have posted remarks saying that they were stunned by Snowden's revelations about the scope of the NSA's surveillance efforts. They claim that Snowden is a "hero" because he exposed a reprehensible act that wasn't publicly known.
I'm curious about how these same posters would react to these other allegations. . .
1) The US government is the largest sponsor of terrorist activity in the world, in terms of money spent and civilian lives claimed.
2) All federal politicians routinely accept bribes.
3) Uruguay ranks above the US in terms of press freedom.
All of these above statements are true, and to people like me, they're no more news than the NSA's blatant disregard for the 4th Amendment.
Betcha they're shocking to those same posters that believe Snowden had exposed something terrible, though.
Amazing how we liberals/libertarians keep saying how hyopcritical US rhetoric about its moral authority in the world is--how grossly inaccurate its claims about standing for freedom are, only to be rebuffed repeatedly by mainstream Americans (notably conservatives) who just accuse us of being America haters. And only when such news becomes popular (i. e. reported in the mainstream press), does it finally hit them on the head.
If these same people would just listen to us from day 1, then wouldn't be so shocked.
Many posters in this forum have posted remarks saying that they were stunned by Snowden's revelations about the scope of the NSA's surveillance efforts. They claim that Snowden is a "hero" because he exposed a reprehensible act that wasn't publicly known.
I'm curious about how these same posters would react to these other allegations. . .
1) The US government is the largest sponsor of terrorist activity in the world, in terms of money spent and civilian lives claimed.
2) All federal politicians routinely accept bribes.
3) Uruguay ranks above the US in terms of press freedom.
.....
All of these above statements are true, and to people like me, they're no more news than the NSA's blatant disregard for the 4th Amendment.
Hardly shocking. The guy's still a hero for standing up to the corrupt, authoritarian regime though. Many people simply do not understand that the best interests of the government and the best interests of the people are entirely different things. Snowden stood up for the latter.
No you donate to them because you agree with their ideological vision and you want them to get elected so that MAYBE they can legislate your ideological vision. Your donation does not guarentee that they'll be elected or that they'll be an effective legislator. A bribe is when you pay someone to do a specific action which will benefit you, knowing for certain that the person whom your paying has the authority to do that specific action. It's completely different.But they're only getting your money because you agree with your position, right? And if they stopped believing your position, you would cease financial support, correct? In other words, you're paying them to vote a certain way.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?