|Hooker - 2013-07-17 |
I love how the official line from the government sounds like something a cheap mobster would say.
|Nikon - 2013-07-17 |
George Mason lays it out.
|baleen - 2013-07-17 |
"He's forfeited his right to freedom of speech?"
Conservatives everywhere agree on this point.
Not really. This issue has divided many people along both sides of the political spectrum.
I think that oversight of FISC is a great thing. I don't believe the NSA is doing anything terribly horrible at this point. I find it interesting that Snowden's leaks have extended beyond simply exposing the vast expansion of NSA's reach in reason years into the territory of who we're spying on in other countries. Surely everybody knows that we spy on one another. I just assume it's because he's taken it upon himself to destroy our intelligence apparatus, but you'd expect that from a Ron Paul supporter.
Hendrik Hertzberg wrote a little piece that kind of sums up my feelings in this whole thing.
My point is that it is inherently unliberal to assert that a whistle-blower loses his/her right to free speech because a law had to be broken in order to blow the whistle.
And it is inherently conservative to assert that the state can limit the bill of rights so long as there is the chance of very slightly increasing public safety.
The Bill of Rights doesn't include any qualifications. The notion that the 4th Amendment could possibly allow for peeking at the private information of hundreds of millions of people all over the world, so long as no one gets hurt and it's done with the intention of making us safe from statistically unlikely events, is the very antithesis of the purpose of the amendment in the first place.
It is a perfect example of conservative authoritarianism. And the left is frequently just as conservative as the right when it comes to authoritarianism.
The article linked to asserts not only the nonsense that "harmless" peeking at private info might be okay if it protects us from dangers less harmful than cops or bathtubs, but it assumes that the current administration isn't "malevolent." By any definition of the word, our current administration - which has prosecuted more whistle blowers than all administrations combined; which has declared the right to choose who will be imprisoned indefinitely without trial; which has declared the right to kill an individual based on secret evidence and without due process; which is presently using force feeding techniques described by the U.N. as torture; which is presently holding in prison individuals who have been cleared by courts; which is presently operating a secret military campaign that regularly results in the violent deaths of innocent men, women, and children - certainly is malevolent.
"Authoritarians everywhere agree on this point" fixed it for ya
authoritarians can be liberal or conservative, especially if you're talking about those words in the american context.
"And it is inherently authoritarian to assert that the state can limit the bill of rights so long as there is the chance of very slightly increasing public safety."
there ya go.
american political lingo is pretty silly
Honestly, baleen. This is where you want to compromise? Couldn't you just go pro-life or anti-immigration or something and maintain a liberal view of privacy?
Privacy and lawful obedience, I guess. When I hit submit, I didn't consider the idea that you might be compromising on the idea of liberal disobedience, which is so much worse.
That is tricky, zerdzer. I used "conservative" because I think "liberal" (as traditionally defined) is the opposite of "authoritarian." Lately, we associate the word "liberal" to mean "leftist." But while I don't think a true liberal can be authoritarians or conservative, leftists frequently are. And authoritarian leftists really hate to be called conservative.
But I think you're right that "authoritarian" is a much less ambiguous word and I really should have used it instead of "conservative."
|mon666ster - 2013-07-17 |
You think she'd want to distance herself from the term "propaganda platform".
|jangbones - 2013-07-17 |
3:42 is the best non-verbal response ever
it sounds like a receptionist confirming that there is leftover sheet cake in the break room
except it involves "grave consequences" to countries that would consider offering asylum to a dissident
I actually feel bad for this woman, a little...
|THA SUGAH RAIN - 2013-07-17 |
In review: Jen is a little plain jane but she has it in her to be a would. The @ 8min was once a would but is now a woman who has done a lot of journalism work. She is the future version of the woman at 14:40 who is the most certain would of the video.
|memedumpster - 2013-07-17 |
I like how everyone talks to her, rightfully, like she's a criminal minded pathological liar, and the whole process is "right, that was a lie, is THIS what you really meant? Okay, that too was bullshit, perhaps you're covering up for THIS..."
Since she wont say anything true, the game is guessing what she's hiding and catching her lying about it.
|exy - 2013-07-17 |
Horrendously beautiful to watch reporters hold a talking head's feet to the fire. May she have curled into a sobbing ball in the utility closet the minute after the cameras were switched off.
|zerdzer - 2013-07-17 |
|dairyqueenlatifah - 2013-07-17 |
This combined with the LoL kid being thrown in jail really make me want to move to a fictional nation where corruption of law doesn't exist.
THA SUGAH RAIN
"Le Pays Maudit" had a pretty reasonable system going. But the only way to get there is to travel through dense forests, deep marshes, a scorching desert and a high mountain range. Then you've got to pretend to be a smurf to fit in.
he just got released
| Register or login To Post a Comment|