LOL, says the fool who proved himself entirely unable to put forward a rational position or even attempt to refute mine with anything but random screeching of meaningless epithets he heard on the idiot box. Truly you are both pathetic and laughable. You're a great example of the ever increasing level of noise in public discourse. you have no signal at all.
The simple fact is that your "reply" was so full of half-baked lies, misinformation, and outright untruths that it needs no refutation.
LOL. You have yet to be able to refute one single fact. Look, you're ignorant of the history of those terms in politics and you don't have the integrity to admit it, I get that.
Your lame attempt at a refutation was, in fact, nothing but a spouting of the same vitriolic nonsense and ad hominems I could hear from any of what passes for news organizations in this country. Truly, you're a credit to your beliefs, but a disgrace to this country and to thinking people everywhere.
Liberals, by definition, come at their argument pre-biased to the left and are therefore never "open minded."
No, you mean "leftists', not Liberals.
Liberalism is the center which you can be to the left or right *of* depending on how you want to use the government to screw the rest of the citizenry. Do you hate Blacks, Jews, commoners, or some other group and think the government should keep them in their place so you and the rest of whatever you consider the elite can profit off of their backs? You're a right wing nut. See Hitler for your archetypical hero. Do you think "We hold this truth to be self-evident: that all men are created equal", shouldn't be restricted to equality under the law, but should be enforced by the state against the individual? You're a left wing loonie. See Stalin for your archetypical hero.
Do you reject both of these idiotic ideas? Congratulations, you're a Liberal. Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and their like are your archetypical heroes.
Declaration of Independence: Liberal Constitution: Liberal.
Commies: Left Fascists: Right
Those are the opposite extremes. The middle ground of not having a big powerful government screwing people around is Liberalism.
The word is often misused in America, but since no other word has the meaning that it does, claiming that isn't what it means isn't going to help your argument. You will fail to have words to describe these 3 very different cases if you try to do that.
"Liberals" are people who are (at least) just as hateful and malicious towards anyone who doesn't fit their chosen groupthink, as what you probably would claim "conservatives" are like.
That is just ridiculous. It's "conservatives" who are working very hard to enact gay-hatred laws based solely upon their bigotry. It's not a question of being close minded. They have no justification whatsoever for their position except pure ignorant bigotry and religious based hatred. These are not at all symmetric positions and your attempt to portray them as if they are is deeply dishonest.
Being hateful and malicious to such people isn't close minded, it's called being a good citizen. If they want to live in a country where things are run that way, then they are welcome to move to Iran or Saudi Arabia where things are already run that way. This country was founded specifically on the idea that religious delusion has no place in the government of a free society. If you hate the fundamental basis of a society, and actively work to undermine and destroy it, then it's expected that the people who actually do like living in a free society won't like you.
He's lucky that's all he got. In my mind this person is probably wearing a white sheet over his head. It's exactly the same prejudiced bullshit, and it disgusts me when I see people make comments like, "All fundamentalists are a danger to society."
No, you're an idiot.
Fundamentalists *are* a threat to a Liberal, Secular, Rational, society. That's a fact and it's inherent to religious fundamentalism. It's not prejudice, it's called knowing what words mean.
If you don't think so, name *one* theocracy in the world you'd like to live in.
Thank you, Commodore64_love. I'm glad to see there are some people that understand what the word "tolerance".
No, "Tolerance" means we let the idiots live, and don't lock them in cages, or burn them at the stake as they have always been in the habit of doing. He's not promoting tolerance, he's promoting respecting their delusions to the point of destroying our society.
If you're an adult that still has imaginary friends, you do not deserve respect for that, you deserve contempt for that. It doesn't mean you should be held in contempt in general, but it's absolutely required if we're to save our country form these evil, delusional nutters.
Just look how Europe is getting screwed by catering to the delusions of their fundamentalist nutters. They can't even print cartoons. We're having the same issues and for the same reason. The only reason we've managed to hold back the fundie scum for as long as we have is the constitutional protections that were put in place for the specific purpose of stopping the freedom hating scum whose delusions you're claiming that we should respect.
Fixed that for ya. You see, I consider your views just as bigoted as one of "those" persons. I see no difference. Whether it's prejudice against a color, or a sex, or a believer, it's still prejudging an entire group as if they all think alike. It is wrong.
No, you didn't fix it for him, you are just dead wrong.
If you see no difference between an unchangeable physical characteristic and the failure to give up on imaginary friends as one grows up, then the problem isn't with the OP or his absolutely accurate assessment that fundies are a threat to society, it's with your abject failure at basic reasoning skills. The fundies are proud of proclaiming their goal of destroying American society, and are proud to be a threat to America, as they hate America. You can't like America and want to push religion into the laws, since America was explicitly founded to be secular and Liberal.
You quote Thomas Jefferson and then defend the very people he specifically set up barriers against, in order to what, demonstrate your complete inability to hold a rational thought in your head? I'm really curious how you think it's possible to promote TJ and the rabid anti-American scum who are actively working to destroy his creation.
Even if you're not a member you still should listen to their founder who said, "Whether my neighbor worships one god, many gods, or no gods, matter not to me. His belief does not harm my body, my property, nor my rights. I will allow my neighbor the liberty to worship as he pleases." Mr. Jefferson had enough intelligence to respect religious freedom, even if he did not agree with them. It's called tolerance. You might want to try emulating him instead of emulating a donkey's anus.
Of course, Thomas Jefferson lived in a time when Americans still respected their founding principles, so the religious loons to whom the previous poster was referring had the basic decency not to try and shove their delusions into the government and laws of this nation. They were all well aware that America is based entirely on the philosophy of Liberalism, and that religion has no place whatsoever in the government of a free society.
That attitude is reviled by the people you are defending, causing massive harm to this nation in the process.
Of course, you knew that though, didn't you who is so wise in the way of history.
So you knew that your entire objection was completely bogus and yet you still put it forward in order to intentionally attempt to deceive people. That's really sleazy behavior, and you should look into that if you're going to pretend to try and correct other people.
Considering that Libertarians believe in a free marketplace and goverment based solidly on our Constitution (their two primary principles), what do you find irrational about that?
Well, they have a religious belief in the free market. Religious beliefs are bad enough in general, but a religious belief in something which we know for a fact can't possibly ever exist is beyond irrational.
They like to pretend that unregulated markets will magically end up as free markets although that's obviously false.
So while I agree with them on most things, their total failure to address reality on that topic is why I wouldn't join the party although I do typically vote for Libertarians since I despise the big government Democrats and the even bigger government Republicans.
That's a way to keep oversight of executive branch in house and totalitarian.
No, the very fact that it is retroactive prevents any possibility of legitimate oversight. Hence the truth, "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission."
It was criminally treasonous before the change and it's still criminally treasonous now.
The hyperbole was obvious to those of us that understand its use. Go be bent out of shape over something that matters.
I'm not bent out of shape at all. Yes, it was obvious that he was lying in order to make his position look reasonable from the get go. Yes, he admitted having to do this. I'm stating simple facts, and trying to help the poor idiot understand that lying in order to try and sway people is a bad idea.
It's called giving helpful advice, not getting bent out of shape.
As much as I wish it weren't true, there is no free market. Some markets are freer than other but there is no free market,
That is true.
ie one without regulations or other government interference.
OK, you don't understand the topic you're trying to discuss at all. What you are describing here is not at all, in any way shape or form anything like a free market. You are describing an *unregulated* market. Unregulated markets never work anything like free markets.
You are correct that free markets don't exist, but that isn't because governments stick their noses everywhere, it's because a free market *can't possibly exist ever, under any set of circumstances.* It's an idealized abstraction, just like the frictionless planes of high school physics.
So attempting to approach a free market as closely as possible in reality is the best it's possible to do even theoretically. An unregulated market will never approach this at all closely.
Please learn this really simple fact. Unregulated markets are not free markets. They will never be because it's not possible for them to be. The people who fed you that stupid idea through the media hope to profit at all of our expenses by the ignorance they sow.
It is well known that in some markets regulation is the only thing that keeps the market even remotely resembling a free market, rather than an oligarchy.
This is not in some markets. This is absolutely true in every market. A "Free Market" can't possibly ever exist in reality. Approaching that theoretical ideal is the best we will ever be able to do in that arena. A completely unregulated market will always be far away from a free market. This is easy to prove absolutely.
Want to win in a market without being the best? Murder your competition. What's that, you'll go to prison? Wow, market regulation, It's everywhere and it is an essential requirement of a functioning market.
Over regulation is also bad, but the most commonly deluded types are the ones who not only believe that free markets are real, but they think unregulated markets and free markets are the same thing.
Free market evangelists know what they are talking about.
If they had even the foggiest idea what they were talking about, then they would know that a "Free Market" is only a theoretical abstraction which can't ever exist in reality under any possible set of circumstances.
What they actually are, though, is *unregulated* market evangelists. Unfortunately, an unregulated market will inevitably end up about as far away from the ideal of a free market as it's possible to get. This is, of course, their intention.
that bathtub drowning retard (what's his face again?)
You mean the guy who took the record for growth of the US government away from FDR, but only held it until Bush 2 took it away from him 3 presidents later, yet is still a saint to the "small government" Republicans because rational thought isn't their strong suit?
Personally I like the way FISA was set up in 1978 and feel that 72 hours to obtain a retroactive warrant from a secret classified court is sufficient latitude for intelligence gathering in the "war on terror." Eliminating oversight by the judicial branch completely is totalitarian.
Allowing any retroactive warrants under any circumstances necessarily eliminates any possibility of oversight by the judicial branch. If that isn't obvious to you, spend a few minutes thinking about it. If it still isn't obvious, please move to China. You are not capable of being a *citizen* of a free society. Sorry, but you just don't make the grade. Don't blame me, it's 100% your fault that you've failed to learn even basic reasoning skills or gain any sort of historical perspective. It's not that you're too dumb, it's a question of courage and ethics. You might not be dumb, but you are an unethical coward. You've proven that beyond the possibility of a doubt.
While I, and many others, may not agree with that stance, it does not mean that he's going to let the NSA do whatever the hell they want.
Yes, it does. Absolutely. Positively.
Your mistake, I think, is that you're basing your statement on pure logic. It is true that there isn't an imperative created that will logically force him to do so. However You are obviously missing even a vague understanding of reality.
There is no other reason to absolve those traitors for their willful acts of treason than to send the message that he wants more of the same treason out of them. He could gain tremendous amounts of political capital by the simple act of upholding his oath of office. The fact that he chose instead to piss right in the face of that oath, the constitution he swore to uphold and defend, and each and every citizen of this country who gives a shit about it (What is it like six of us now? Don't worry, you're obviously not one of them) *proves* that he feels he can gain more political capital by publicly sodomizing the constitution and supporting its most active and virulent enemies.
So, yes, when he says that traitors should be let off the hook because they helped the government (the previous one....that he's supposed to be the change from) commit treason, then he deserves nothing so much as a bullet hole where his face used to be.
the nuremberg defence isn't valid against charges of war crimes or crimes against humanity. that wiretapping constitutes a war crime or a crime against humanity isn't clear to me
It is clearly and obviously an intentional violation of the constitution by an official of the government and hence an intentional, malicious act of treason and therefore punishable by death.
Although, your failure to notice the blatantly obvious fact that spying on the private communications of free people by a government which is specifically, in so many words, forbidden from doing do is a war crime demonstrates a level of ignorance that is disgusting beyond belief. It is a crime committed in the act of waging war against the citizenry. There isn't any justification for it, no excuse, and no argument can be made that any person involved in any way in the perpetration of these vile acts should ever again see the light of day. I defy you to try.
When a parent tells a child to commit a crime there isn't really a point to punish the kid.
These aren't children, they are adults. You have failed at basic kindergarden level reasoning skills.
The government asked them to do something. Even if it is illegal the boss of the country asked them.
Not "even if". It is treason. It is a direct, intentional violation of the constitution and a willful violation of the oaths of office of everybody involved. There isn't anything to be debated, because there is no counter argument possible. It is treason. Everybody involved needs to be put to death or we need to admit that America has no respect for the rule of law or for its founding principles. Personally, I don't support the death penalty, but the law demands their deaths for their willfully chosen treasonous actions, so my statement is an absolute fact.
It would be silly for the boss to then punish the kid for doing as told.
No, you are just a fucking deeply ignorant fool. Look up the Nuremberg trials, you pea brained, lying douche.
. It would be like punishing your router for sending emails to the wrong person when you typed in the wrong name.
Your router isn't a human being. It is probably smarter than you are though. That applies to pretty much everything though, given the utter stupidity of that statement.
am i missing any metaphors?
No, you're missing common sense, basic reasoning skills, any knowledge of history, any understanding of logic, ethics, morals, and pretty much everything that puts people above insects.
That is what you have chosen to make yourself into. Far, far worse than useless.
"No, it's privileged. but I can point you to a judge who will assure you that this legal authorization is legitimate.
It is not possible, under any conceivable set of circumstances, for such a thing to be legitimate, so pointing me to a judge who is willing to commit treason isn't helping your indefensible, cowardly, treasonous, attempt at a point.
You're just demonstrating that you and some judge somewhere despise living in a free country.
You should move to China or Saudi Arabia or Iran rather than stay here where you hate every decent thing this country ever claimed to stand for. Seriously, how did you get so broken that you'd rather work to destroy decent things instead of moving to where people like you hate the same things you do?!?
Vile worms like you've absolutely proven yourself to be (absolutely, it's a fact) are the bottom of the barrel of our species. Please go die before you do more damage. You've proven yourself incapable of doing anything but harm.
Whatever man. Have as happy a life as your world view will permit.
Which means that inside yourself you know I'm right but you're too weak and cowardly to man up and deal with the consequences of reality. Color me unsurprised. I pity you. A coward is the lowest form of humanity.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not suffer fools gladly, or long.
Consider yourself no longer suffered.
LOL, says the fool who proved himself entirely unable to put forward a rational position or even attempt to refute mine with anything but random screeching of meaningless epithets he heard on the idiot box. Truly you are both pathetic and laughable. You're a great example of the ever increasing level of noise in public discourse. you have no signal at all.
The simple fact is that your "reply" was so full of half-baked lies, misinformation, and outright untruths that it needs no refutation.
LOL. You have yet to be able to refute one single fact. Look, you're ignorant of the history of those terms in politics and you don't have the integrity to admit it, I get that.
Your lame attempt at a refutation was, in fact, nothing but a spouting of the same vitriolic nonsense and ad hominems I could hear from any of what passes for news organizations in this country. Truly, you're a credit to your beliefs, but a disgrace to this country and to thinking people everywhere.
I would write a response, but you're too busy chewing on your own foot to listen.
So a meaningless non sequitor is your only response?
I suppose that's one alternative to thinking, but hardly what I'd consider a good one.
Liberals, by definition, come at their argument pre-biased to the left and are therefore never "open minded."
No, you mean "leftists', not Liberals.
Liberalism is the center which you can be to the left or right *of* depending on how you want to use the government to screw the rest of the citizenry.
Do you hate Blacks, Jews, commoners, or some other group and think the government should keep them in their place so you and the rest of whatever you consider the elite can profit off of their backs? You're a right wing nut. See Hitler for your archetypical hero.
Do you think "We hold this truth to be self-evident: that all men are created equal", shouldn't be restricted to equality under the law, but should be enforced by the state against the individual? You're a left wing loonie. See Stalin for your archetypical hero.
Do you reject both of these idiotic ideas? Congratulations, you're a Liberal. Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and their like are your archetypical heroes.
Declaration of Independence: Liberal
Constitution: Liberal.
Commies: Left
Fascists: Right
Those are the opposite extremes. The middle ground of not having a big powerful government screwing people around is Liberalism.
The word is often misused in America, but since no other word has the meaning that it does, claiming that isn't what it means isn't going to help your argument. You will fail to have words to describe these 3 very different cases if you try to do that.
"Liberals" are people who are (at least) just as hateful and malicious towards anyone who doesn't fit their chosen groupthink, as what you probably would claim "conservatives" are like.
That is just ridiculous. It's "conservatives" who are working very hard to enact gay-hatred laws based solely upon their bigotry. It's not a question of being close minded. They have no justification whatsoever for their position except pure ignorant bigotry and religious based hatred. These are not at all symmetric positions and your attempt to portray them as if they are is deeply dishonest.
Being hateful and malicious to such people isn't close minded, it's called being a good citizen. If they want to live in a country where things are run that way, then they are welcome to move to Iran or Saudi Arabia where things are already run that way. This country was founded specifically on the idea that religious delusion has no place in the government of a free society. If you hate the fundamental basis of a society, and actively work to undermine and destroy it, then it's expected that the people who actually do like living in a free society won't like you.
He's lucky that's all he got. In my mind this person is probably wearing a white sheet over his head. It's exactly the same prejudiced bullshit, and it disgusts me when I see people make comments like, "All fundamentalists are a danger to society."
No, you're an idiot.
Fundamentalists *are* a threat to a Liberal, Secular, Rational, society. That's a fact and it's inherent to religious fundamentalism. It's not prejudice, it's called knowing what words mean.
If you don't think so, name *one* theocracy in the world you'd like to live in.
Game over.
Thank you, Commodore64_love. I'm glad to see there are some people that understand what the word "tolerance".
No, "Tolerance" means we let the idiots live, and don't lock them in cages, or burn them at the stake as they have always been in the habit of doing.
He's not promoting tolerance, he's promoting respecting their delusions to the point of destroying our society.
If you're an adult that still has imaginary friends, you do not deserve respect for that, you deserve contempt for that. It doesn't mean you should be held in contempt in general, but it's absolutely required if we're to save our country form these evil, delusional nutters.
Just look how Europe is getting screwed by catering to the delusions of their fundamentalist nutters. They can't even print cartoons. We're having the same issues and for the same reason. The only reason we've managed to hold back the fundie scum for as long as we have is the constitutional protections that were put in place for the specific purpose of stopping the freedom hating scum whose delusions you're claiming that we should respect.
Fixed that for ya. You see, I consider your views just as bigoted as one of "those" persons. I see no difference. Whether it's prejudice against a color, or a sex, or a believer, it's still prejudging an entire group as if they all think alike. It is wrong.
No, you didn't fix it for him, you are just dead wrong.
If you see no difference between an unchangeable physical characteristic and the failure to give up on imaginary friends as one grows up, then the problem isn't with the OP or his absolutely accurate assessment that fundies are a threat to society, it's with your abject failure at basic reasoning skills.
The fundies are proud of proclaiming their goal of destroying American society, and are proud to be a threat to America, as they hate America. You can't like America and want to push religion into the laws, since America was explicitly founded to be secular and Liberal.
You quote Thomas Jefferson and then defend the very people he specifically set up barriers against, in order to what, demonstrate your complete inability to hold a rational thought in your head? I'm really curious how you think it's possible to promote TJ and the rabid anti-American scum who are actively working to destroy his creation.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Even if you're not a member you still should listen to their founder who said, "Whether my neighbor worships one god, many gods, or no gods, matter not to me. His belief does not harm my body, my property, nor my rights. I will allow my neighbor the liberty to worship as he pleases." Mr. Jefferson had enough intelligence to respect religious freedom, even if he did not agree with them. It's called tolerance. You might want to try emulating him instead of emulating a donkey's anus.
Of course, Thomas Jefferson lived in a time when Americans still respected their founding principles, so the religious loons to whom the previous poster was referring had the basic decency not to try and shove their delusions into the government and laws of this nation. They were all well aware that America is based entirely on the philosophy of Liberalism, and that religion has no place whatsoever in the government of a free society.
That attitude is reviled by the people you are defending, causing massive harm to this nation in the process.
Of course, you knew that though, didn't you who is so wise in the way of history.
So you knew that your entire objection was completely bogus and yet you still put it forward in order to intentionally attempt to deceive people. That's really sleazy behavior, and you should look into that if you're going to pretend to try and correct other people.
Considering that Libertarians believe in a free marketplace and goverment based solidly on our Constitution (their two primary principles), what do you find irrational about that?
Well, they have a religious belief in the free market. Religious beliefs are bad enough in general, but a religious belief in something which we know for a fact can't possibly ever exist is beyond irrational.
They like to pretend that unregulated markets will magically end up as free markets although that's obviously false.
So while I agree with them on most things, their total failure to address reality on that topic is why I wouldn't join the party although I do typically vote for Libertarians since I despise the big government Democrats and the even bigger government Republicans.
That's a way to keep oversight of executive branch in house and totalitarian.
No, the very fact that it is retroactive prevents any possibility of legitimate oversight.
Hence the truth, "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission."
It was criminally treasonous before the change and it's still criminally treasonous now.
The hyperbole was obvious to those of us that understand its use. Go be bent out of shape over something that matters.
I'm not bent out of shape at all. Yes, it was obvious that he was lying in order to make his position look reasonable from the get go. Yes, he admitted having to do this. I'm stating simple facts, and trying to help the poor idiot understand that lying in order to try and sway people is a bad idea.
It's called giving helpful advice, not getting bent out of shape.
Really? I destroyed my credibility?
Obviously. You admitted to knowingly lying in order to attempt to "prove" a point you are incapable of doing without lying.
What lesson is it that I am supposed to have learned?
That when you have to lie to convince somebody you're right, you're probably wrong.
As much as I wish it weren't true, there is no free market. Some markets are freer than other but there is no free market,
That is true.
ie one without regulations or other government interference.
OK, you don't understand the topic you're trying to discuss at all.
What you are describing here is not at all, in any way shape or form anything like a free market. You are describing an *unregulated* market. Unregulated markets never work anything like free markets.
You are correct that free markets don't exist, but that isn't because governments stick their noses everywhere, it's because a free market *can't possibly exist ever, under any set of circumstances.* It's an idealized abstraction, just like the frictionless planes of high school physics.
So attempting to approach a free market as closely as possible in reality is the best it's possible to do even theoretically.
An unregulated market will never approach this at all closely.
Please learn this really simple fact. Unregulated markets are not free markets. They will never be because it's not possible for them to be.
The people who fed you that stupid idea through the media hope to profit at all of our expenses by the ignorance they sow.
It is well known that in some markets regulation is the only thing that keeps the market even remotely resembling a free market, rather than an oligarchy.
This is not in some markets. This is absolutely true in every market. A "Free Market" can't possibly ever exist in reality. Approaching that theoretical ideal is the best we will ever be able to do in that arena. A completely unregulated market will always be far away from a free market.
This is easy to prove absolutely.
Want to win in a market without being the best? Murder your competition. What's that, you'll go to prison? Wow, market regulation, It's everywhere and it is an essential requirement of a functioning market.
Over regulation is also bad, but the most commonly deluded types are the ones who not only believe that free markets are real, but they think unregulated markets and free markets are the same thing.
Free market evangelists know what they are talking about.
If they had even the foggiest idea what they were talking about, then they would know that a "Free Market" is only a theoretical abstraction which can't ever exist in reality under any possible set of circumstances.
What they actually are, though, is *unregulated* market evangelists. Unfortunately, an unregulated market will inevitably end up about as far away from the ideal of a free market as it's possible to get. This is, of course, their intention.
that bathtub drowning retard (what's his face again?)
You mean the guy who took the record for growth of the US government away from FDR, but only held it until Bush 2 took it away from him 3 presidents later, yet is still a saint to the "small government" Republicans because rational thought isn't their strong suit?
What was his name.. Adolph Bonzo or something?
I admit that "6 times as long" was an exaggeration to make the point.
Yet instead of making a point all you accomplished was destroying your credibility.
I hope you learned a lesson from that.
Personally I like the way FISA was set up in 1978 and feel that 72 hours to obtain a retroactive warrant from a secret classified court is sufficient latitude for intelligence gathering in the "war on terror." Eliminating oversight by the judicial branch completely is totalitarian.
Allowing any retroactive warrants under any circumstances necessarily eliminates any possibility of oversight by the judicial branch. If that isn't obvious to you, spend a few minutes thinking about it. If it still isn't obvious, please move to China. You are not capable of being a *citizen* of a free society. Sorry, but you just don't make the grade. Don't blame me, it's 100% your fault that you've failed to learn even basic reasoning skills or gain any sort of historical perspective. It's not that you're too dumb, it's a question of courage and ethics. You might not be dumb, but you are an unethical coward. You've proven that beyond the possibility of a doubt.
While I, and many others, may not agree with that stance, it does not mean that he's going to let the NSA do whatever the hell they want.
Yes, it does. Absolutely. Positively.
Your mistake, I think, is that you're basing your statement on pure logic. It is true that there isn't an imperative created that will logically force him to do so.
However You are obviously missing even a vague understanding of reality.
There is no other reason to absolve those traitors for their willful acts of treason than to send the message that he wants more of the same treason out of them. He could gain tremendous amounts of political capital by the simple act of upholding his oath of office. The fact that he chose instead to piss right in the face of that oath, the constitution he swore to uphold and defend, and each and every citizen of this country who gives a shit about it (What is it like six of us now? Don't worry, you're obviously not one of them) *proves* that he feels he can gain more political capital by publicly sodomizing the constitution and supporting its most active and virulent enemies.
So, yes, when he says that traitors should be let off the hook because they helped the government (the previous one....that he's supposed to be the change from) commit treason, then he deserves nothing so much as a bullet hole where his face used to be.
The alternative is slavery.
the nuremberg defence isn't valid against charges of war crimes or crimes against humanity. that wiretapping constitutes a war crime or a crime against humanity isn't clear to me
It is clearly and obviously an intentional violation of the constitution by an official of the government and hence an intentional, malicious act of treason and therefore punishable by death.
Although, your failure to notice the blatantly obvious fact that spying on the private communications of free people by a government which is specifically, in so many words, forbidden from doing do is a war crime demonstrates a level of ignorance that is disgusting beyond belief.
It is a crime committed in the act of waging war against the citizenry. There isn't any justification for it, no excuse, and no argument can be made that any person involved in any way in the perpetration of these vile acts should ever again see the light of day. I defy you to try.
When a parent tells a child to commit a crime there isn't really a point to punish the kid.
These aren't children, they are adults. You have failed at basic kindergarden level reasoning skills.
The government asked them to do something. Even if it is illegal the boss of the country asked them.
Not "even if". It is treason. It is a direct, intentional violation of the constitution and a willful violation of the oaths of office of everybody involved. There isn't anything to be debated, because there is no counter argument possible. It is treason. Everybody involved needs to be put to death or we need to admit that America has no respect for the rule of law or for its founding principles. Personally, I don't support the death penalty, but the law demands their deaths for their willfully chosen treasonous actions, so my statement is an absolute fact.
It would be silly for the boss to then punish the kid for doing as told.
No, you are just a fucking deeply ignorant fool. Look up the Nuremberg trials, you pea brained, lying douche.
. It would be like punishing your router for sending emails to the wrong person when you typed in the wrong name.
Your router isn't a human being. It is probably smarter than you are though. That applies to pretty much everything though, given the utter stupidity of that statement.
am i missing any metaphors?
No, you're missing common sense, basic reasoning skills, any knowledge of history, any understanding of logic, ethics, morals, and pretty much everything that puts people above insects.
That is what you have chosen to make yourself into. Far, far worse than useless.
"No, it's privileged. but I can point you to a judge who will assure you that this legal authorization is legitimate.
It is not possible, under any conceivable set of circumstances, for such a thing to be legitimate, so pointing me to a judge who is willing to commit treason isn't helping your indefensible, cowardly, treasonous, attempt at a point.
You're just demonstrating that you and some judge somewhere despise living in a free country.
You should move to China or Saudi Arabia or Iran rather than stay here where you hate every decent thing this country ever claimed to stand for. Seriously, how did you get so broken that you'd rather work to destroy decent things instead of moving to where people like you hate the same things you do?!?
Vile worms like you've absolutely proven yourself to be (absolutely, it's a fact) are the bottom of the barrel of our species. Please go die before you do more damage. You've proven yourself incapable of doing anything but harm.
http://kemptechnologies.com/
Happy customer.
Whatever man. Have as happy a life as your world view will permit.
Which means that inside yourself you know I'm right but you're too weak and cowardly to man up and deal with the consequences of reality. Color me unsurprised.
I pity you. A coward is the lowest form of humanity.
Why does she have to be hot? You can't see all that well in a broom closet anyway...
You want to come out of the closet to cheers, not jeers ;-)