This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Nathanyal
Nope. I no where see where it says he was reprimanded. It just says so in the titles to get people to read the article.
There was even a copy of the letter the pricipal wrote in the Blaze article.
Post by
Sagramor
He betrayed the country he served.
See:
He didn't betray his government, the government betrayed the people. What he did was legitimate defense. The whole concept of "classified materials" is flawed, given that the government is nothing but the emanation of the will of the people.
Personally, I think our whole government is flawed, with few exceptions. Its no longer Republican v. Democrat. The entire system has grown to be too big, and the politicians are more concerned with power than governing.
Yes.
Obama just seems to have made a bad situation worse, mainly because he is just excessively arrogant and "out of touch" with what America is supposed to be. I have said before, I have never "hated" a president like I do Obama, even when they have been on opposite sides of the political spectrum as me. Obama just literally "grinds" on me.
Seems kind of personal, but
The latest thorn in my ass is his upcoming vacation to Africa. At a time where our economy is so "bad" that they have had to cancel public tours of the White House, because of budget issues, Obama, and his family are going to take what will be the single most expensive, non-political trip in history. Estimated cost for their 8 day trip is somewhere between 65 and 100 million dollars. 14 Limos, as many as 75 other support vehicles, bulletproofing the glass at the hotels they will be staying in....and even parking a freaking aircraft carrier with a fully staffed hospital off the coast!
Had no idea about this; but this isn't that an uncommon occurrence, at least in American (as in, the continent, not the country) governments. I do agree that this type of spending is ridiculous, and has a lot to do with what I previously quoted you on. Elected representatives don't realize anymore that they are nothing but
public servants
, and feel entitled to the best treatment. Not that he shouldn't go to Africa, always good to connect to other countries, but he should be traveling with minimum possible spending.
That precedent already exists though. People are already prosecuted for violating non disclosure agreements and their equivalents. Prosecuting him will only reinforce the already existing precedent.
That example is a completely different situation; non-disclosure agreements, are, well, agreements. Signed contracts in which both parties agree to not divulge some information, and in most cases they are informations (? - does this word exist in English?) related to private relations, not public scrutiny.
Let's say there is a cop, who has a man in custody that kidnapped a little girl and buried her underground somewhere with 24 hours worth of oxygen. The cop tortures the kidnapper to find out where the child is, and uses that information to go save her. This police officer is of course a hero, but he also broke the law and for that he should be prosecuted.
This might seem like insane logic, but when you make exceptions for people that are doing the morally right thing, the law loses it's power. Then maybe you have cops who beat down suspects that they only suspect might have information, and they get let off because of the previously established precedent set down by not prosecuting the first guy who did it.
Now I am not saying that Snowden should be convicted. Absolutely since the government broke the law in the first place, I think he was doing the right thing and merely exposed a greater injustice. However by not prosecuting we are saying that his actions go beyond scrutiny itself.
The law should be morally concise, your cop example isn't. It doesn't matter what the supposed man did, there is a thing called due process, which is morally right because no one person can have certainty of the facts without methodological analysis. Torture also, morally wrong, ends don't justify the means, etc. That cop isn't a hero, he is a power-abusive &*!@#$%.
Adamsm just sourced The Blaze.
There goes the neighborhood.
Hah!
Post by
Monday
See:
You obviously missed the fact that I disagreed with your words.
Post by
Sagramor
See:
You obviously missed the fact that I disagreed with your words.
Yeah, I thought you hadn't seen them...
But, well, don't be so laconic; defend thyself Mr. Benzene!
Post by
Gone
The law should be morally concise
It's impossible for a law to be universally morally concise. There will always be some situation that goes against the law, but can still be considered morally just. That's why we have a trial. Let's say that a law is morally just 99% of the time, but excusing the 1% you take away the law's power. Hence the trial. Snowden violated a non disclosure agreement. The letter of the law says he get's prosecuted. At trial, you can look into mitigating circumstances, such as the government violating the constitution.
Post by
Squishalot
Had no idea about this; but this isn't that an uncommon occurrence, at least in American (as in, the continent, not the country) governments. I do agree that this type of spending is ridiculous, and has a lot to do with what I previously quoted you on. Elected representatives don't realize anymore that they are nothing but public servants, and feel entitled to the best treatment. Not that he shouldn't go to Africa, always good to connect to other countries, but he should be traveling with minimum possible spending.
I'm not sure how much of this spending is due to his feeling of entitlement, and how much is the national agencies insisting that he has to be followed and protected.
There will always be some situation that goes against the law, but can still be considered morally just. That's why we have a trial. Let's say that a law is morally just 99% of the time, but excusing the 1% you take away the law's power. Hence the trial.
No trial that I know of will uphold a judgement that is not in line with the law, even in the 1% of the time that the actions were just, but were black/white illegal. The judge may exercise discretion in sentencing, but the crime will be upheld.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Monday
I'm actually going to withdraw my original statement. It was made rather rashly.
I'm going to reserve judgment until I learn at what level the documents he leaked were classified at. The Guardian reports that they were "top-secret" but a lot of people misuse that statement and don't realize that "top secret" is actually a legitimate level of classification.
However, he released documents which had not been declassified to the general public, which is a crime. He should be prosecuted. Whether the government's actions were moral is irrelevant.
Post by
Magician22773
I'm not sure how much of this spending is due to his feeling of entitlement, and how much is the national agencies insisting that he has to be followed and protected.
Its a little bit of both.
Because of the way government spending works, nearly everything gets excessively inflated when it is part of a government expense. And because of some of the almost insane security practices that are provided to the president, the costs go from excessive, to downright absurd quickly. I have seen it estimated that it costs the country as much as a million dollars every time Obama plays a round of golf, and that when he and Michelle went to New York for a "date", the cost was as much as 10 million dollars.
I don't expect him to not enjoy some perks of the office, and I don't expect him to be unguarded either, but somewhere there has to be a line drawn. Does he really need 14 Limos, 75 support vehicles, the windows in the hotels refitted with bulletproof glass, and an aircraft carrier complete with a fully staffed hospital, just for a "vacation"?
And more importantly, does he need to take this kind of vacation when the government is supposed to be "sequestered" into spending cuts? I mean, we have air traffic control towers that are unmanned because there are no funds for them. We have cut off public tours of the White House because there are no funds.
I don't know the exact math here, but I am guessing that Obama could skip this vacation, and we could fund a whole bunch of air traffic controllers for a few years at least on 100 million dollars. And how damn much could it cost to pay a tour guide for the White House?
Seems kind of personal, but
Unfortunately, it kinda has got to that point.
I didn't exactly "like" Clinton, but I respected him as the President, and there were many things he did that I supported. I still recognize that he had one of the best economies of any current president, even if it was inflated a lot by the now-failed "tech-bubble", and that he had one of the most "peaceful" 8 years in office.
With Obama, I honestly believe that he is "Un-American". He said it himself, that he wanted to "fundamentally transform" the American government, and he has set that plan in motion quite well. I don't think he cares at all what he does to the country, as long as he gets what "he" wants done.
I think it is just the fact that I am sick and tired of wondering what he is going to do, or try to do, next.
Post by
Squishalot
I don't expect him to not enjoy some perks of the office
More my point is that I don't think this is him 'enjoying some perks of the office', but rather, being railroaded down this path, just to take a short break from work. I don't think he wants an aircraft carrier parked off the coast of his holiday destination. Even the British royal family don't have that level of protection when they go around, nor do they need it.
I don't think it's fair to say that he shouldn't get a holiday, but rather, I think it stems more from an issue of the protection agencies and what they feel is necessary / required, compared to what is reasonable. And, of course, the corruption inherent in the provision of government contracts that occurs due to anything government related in any part of the world.
With Obama, I honestly believe that he is "Un-American". He said it himself, that he wanted to "fundamentally transform" the American government, and he has set that plan in motion quite well. I don't think he cares at all what he does to the country, as long as he gets what "he" wants done.
I don't know that it's a bad thing. The new Iranian president-elect wants to fundamentally transform Iran. Transformation, in and of itself, isn't bad.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Gone
just 99% of the time, but excusing the 1% you take away the law's power. Hence the trial.
No trial that I know of will uphold a judgement that is not in line with the law, even in the 1% of the time that the actions were just, but were black/white illegal. The judge may exercise discretion in sentencing, but the crime will be upheld.
In situations like this there are exceptions. The fact that the government is breaking the law for example.
Post by
Sagramor
Orwell would weep.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Q&A with Edward Snowden
Being called a traitor by @#$% Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American.
Boom goes the dynamite!
Post by
Sagramor
Being called a traitor by @#$% Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American.
I love this guy.
Post by
Magician22773
If only the
donations
could go to bulldozing the WBC headquarters, I would have gave more than $10.
Post by
Monday
Despite some of its shady practices, things like
this
are what make me love Google.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Despite some of its shady practices, things like
this
are what make me love Google.
Except that's nowhere near the amazing feat of wonder that the article makes it out to be. 99.99% of child porn distribution happens in the deep web. All Google is doing is really doing is cleaning up their search results. And don't get me wrong, that is a good thing, but it's hardly anything significant as far as eradicating child porn.
Post by
Nathanyal
Scientists figure out a way to fit 1,000 terabytes on a DVD.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Scientists figure out a way to fit 1,000 terabytes on a DVD.
A slight misnomer in the terminology: it wouldn't be a DVD anymore than a Blu-ray is a DVD or a DVD is a CD.
Post by
Nathanyal
What would you call it then? They didn't give a new term, so I just put DVD.
Post by
Gone
What would you call it then? They didn't give a new term, so I just put DVD.
A disc?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.