NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden charged with Espionage

[jbombelli]

Name a single specific way he put anyone's safety at risk.
Your logic would justify an ever expanding and unchecked police state. Knowing there are bad guys who want to hurt us doesn't justify changing the fabric of who we are.

He makes up a lot of BS.

He does it just "... to annoy." See his sigline. He himself admits he's nothing but a troll.

 

[LEaSH]

Feinstine thinks he's a traitor too.

She just complained that Snowden took an oath and broke it. I nealy spat out my coffee after hearing her say that.

 

[DragonGunner]

Feinstine thinks he's a traitor too.

She just complained that Snowden took an oath and broke it. I nealy spat out my coffee after hearing her say that.

I would like to learn more before I decide on Snowden.....but the above tends to make me lean Patriot.....regardless....if a high school dropout can do this...then it should show that we have major problems and the government should be thanking Snowden for showing it.

Actually I just wanted to post to say hello to the NSA.......

 

[YoungGunLover]

Just got CNN and Fox News updates that Snowden will see asylum in Ecuador.

 

[mrjarrell]

Dick Gregory tried to intimidate Glenn Greenwald and insinuated that he wasn't a "real" journalist. Glenn gave it right back to his Obama loving butt.

http://youtu.be/wTR7Xjw1pAc

 

[mrjarrell]

From Facebook. This was ironic and too funny.

Radley Balko


Just saw on Fox that the State Department says it can't comment on revocation of Edward Snowden's passport in order to....

wait for it....

....protect his privacy.

Now they're just trolling us.

 

[Classic]

FWIW Snowden's passport has been revoked.

Gregory - no surprises here.

 

[Classic]

From Facebook. This was ironic and too funny.

That is a hoot.

 

[Bunnykid68]

If this same guy had come forward with this information in Bush's last year it would be a completely different story. He would be a hero, Senator Barack Obama would have been praising this man for having the courage to do what needed to be done

 

[Kutnupe14]

He makes up a lot of BS.

He does it just "... to annoy." See his sigline. He himself admits he's nothing but a troll.

...and yet, even from under my bridge, you read my posts. And I'm going to call you out and ask where (or when) it is that I made up something. "Made up," meaning I posted something as "fact," that was false, and didn't frame it as an opinion?

 

[jbombelli]

...and yet, even from under my bridge, you read my posts. And I'm going to call you out and ask where (or when) it is that I made up something. "Made up," meaning I posted something as "fact," that was false, and didn't frame it as an opinion?

....andZ being punched in the nose 25-30 times, yet no inuries or blood on T's fists, palms, wrists, fingers, or thumbs? That makes sense to you, or anybody else?

Autopsy shows Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles: report - NY Daily News

Autopsy results reportedly indicate Trayvon Martin suffered injuries to knuckles | Fox News

Trayvon Martin Shooting: Autopsy results say slain teen had injuries to his knuckles - Crimesider - CBS News


You got called out on this previously and then ran away and didn't address the falseness of your repeated claim.



And I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim from a few months ago that the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution that they thought background checks prior to gun ownership would be a good idea.

Remember this conversation:

Please let me know in what document they wrote

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of those people of acceptable moral character based on a background check to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except in such manner as the legislature, courts or law enforcement deem appropriate."

Please point out where they wrote that, or where they explained that this is what the 2nd Amendment *actually* means.

I'll be waiting. And good luck.

Obviously, that would be found in the Constitution. My question for you, is was this, and the whole concept of rights, understood by our early American Founders, in 1776 (Declaration), 1787 (Constitution), or much earlier?

How about you post the verbiage then? If it's so obvious and all, that the founders intended the phrase "...shall not be infringed" to actually mean "...may be infringed in such way as the government sees fit" you should be able to quote it.

So QUOTE IT.

Don't tell me what you THINK they meant. Quote them. I have the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to back my position. Find something in there that confirms your position. Don't just tell me it's in there. Quote it.

Quote the Constitution. Not some incorrect Court decision. The Constitution itself. You said it's in there, now prove it.

Patience padawan, I'm on it. I'm simply putting the information together. And, I'm not putting down "thoughts," but rather actual laws and the actions carried out.

I don't expect you to actually provide an answer, because what you claimed is in there isn't in fact in there. You "... did it to annoy." You're a troll, nothing more. We both know it. And you even admit it in your sig line.

 

[87iroc]

From Facebook. This was ironic and too funny.

Man...this beat me. I thought it was ironic that Hong Kong said the request for extradition didn't comply with their laws exactly.

So the gov't got thwarted by red tape....funny...or Ironic.

 

[Kutnupe14]

1. Autopsy shows Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles: report - NY Daily News

2.Autopsy results reportedly indicate Trayvon Martin suffered injuries to knuckles | Fox News

3. Trayvon Martin Shooting: Autopsy results say slain teen had injuries to his knuckles - Crimesider - CBS News.

Ok, let's address these point by point.

1. Originally article is from May, 2012 the article states the autopsy report advises that Martin had "broken skin on his knuckles, according to WFTV." Unfortunately no link is given to the autopsy report, so the reader must simply take the media's word that their story is correct.

2. Another article, originally from May 2012... the article is essentially the same as #1, as it references it's source material from WFTV.

3. This article, origianally form May 2012, doesn't use source material from WFTV. The article references "A responder at the crime scene told CBS News that he and others saw wounds on the knuckles of one of Martin's hands as he lay dead on this lawn." A "responder," no mention is made of what type of "responder" his medical training, nor his ability to discern what were the extent of the injuries he supposedly saw.

What is known, is that NONE of the article you posted provide any official documentation to the extent of Trayvon's injuries. Zero, zip, nada.

However, being as critical as I am. I dug and found the Daily Kos article:

Daily Kos: DNA Report does NOT support Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin caused his injuries#

...and posted a link to it refuting all claims made by this mysteriously absent "autopsy" that had injuries on Trayvon's knuckles. And then to boot, here's the actual, real deal, OFFICIAL DNA report....

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/...t_5_Gorgone_FDLE_complete_report_7_26_12_.pdf

Which of course makes reference only to a small cut on Martin's ring finger. So explain to me how you 3 examples, 2 from the same MEDIA source (who apparently always gets it right), and the third from a "responder," minus any supporting documentation from the phantom autopsy report has even the same credibility of the bonafide, real mccoy, OFFICIAL DNA report that conflicts with all of your "sourceless" examples?"

Further, this little lesson I'm giving you started with your claim that I "make(s) up a lot of BS." I think most have a clear understanding that to "make up," something means that I peronally generated a belief and set it forth as my own personal thought.
Even if I ALL of the information I presented was incorrect... it can't be attributed to me "making up" stuff, because I a gathered it from the Daily Kos source. So on that account, you fail quite throughly.

You got called out on this previously and then ran away and didn't address the falseness of your repeated claim.

Nah, I didn't run away, I just didn't want to have to do what I'm doing now. But here, I am putting the record strait. All the info you incorrectly accused me of making up (ya know the part of mine you quoted) is ALL found in the Daily Kos page. So maybe they made it up, and then I'd be guilty of making up stuff second-hand?

And I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim from a few months ago that the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution that they thought background checks prior to gun ownership would be a good idea.

Remember this conversation:

I don't expect you to actually provide an answer, because what you claimed is in there isn't in fact in there. You "... did it to annoy." You're a troll, nothing more. We both know it. And you even admit it in your sig line.

Ok, and now you're misrepresenting my posts. I never indicated that at the drafting of the Constitution the founders thought, or even discussed, background checks. Actually, I'm quite certain the idea would be quite alien to them.
However, I indicated that I wouldn't be so sure that if they were aware of the concept, that they would reject it, as I don't believe a background check is an infringement on rights. And even if, keeping in mind what the founders we're believed were "rights," they did a damn good job of denying "rights" to millions of people. If the founders were happy with the enslavement of scores, the second class citzenry of women, it's doubtful, IMO that they'd view a background check as an "infringement."

But that doesn't even get to the crux of the matter. The BoRs ONLY referred to the Federal Govt during that time, meaning that the states could do whatever the hell they pleased (which they did), concerning a wide variety of things. If the idea of rights was so clearly understood, why at the very dawn of our nation, did this not hold universally true? Why did state court after state court after stat ecourt directly contradict the BoRs, unlike the federal courts, until incorporation? Oh that's right, because the BoRs didn't apply to states. Why didn't one of the drafters, who I would assume would be keeping a watchful eye on the development of this new system of govt, stand up and say "Hey! You're doing it wrong?" Meh, perhaps they didn't want to rock the boat, or maybe their concept of rights wasn't as strong as many a mislead to believe.

Just a theory

 

[jbombelli]

Ok, let's address these point by point.

1. Originally article is from May, 2012 the article states the autopsy report advises that Martin had "broken skin on his knuckles, according to WFTV." Unfortunately no link is given to the autopsy report, so the reader must simply take the media's word that their story is correct.

2. Another article, originally from May 2012... the article is essentially the same as #1, as it references it's source material from WFTV.

3. This article, origianally form May 2012, doesn't use source material from WFTV. The article references "A responder at the crime scene told CBS News that he and others saw wounds on the knuckles of one of Martin's hands as he lay dead on this lawn." A "responder," no mention is made of what type of "responder" his medical training, nor his ability to discern what were the extent of the injuries he supposedly saw.

What is known, is that NONE of the article you posted provide any official documentation to the extent of Trayvon's injuries. Zero, zip, nada.

However, being as critical as I am. I dug and found the Daily Kos article:

Daily Kos: DNA Report does NOT support Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin caused his injuries#

...and posted a link to it refuting all claims made by this mysteriously absent "autopsy" that had injuries on Trayvon's knuckles. And then to boot, here's the actual, real deal, OFFICIAL DNA report....

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/...t_5_Gorgone_FDLE_complete_report_7_26_12_.pdf

Which of course makes reference only to a small cut on Martin's ring finger. So explain to me how you 3 examples, 2 from the same MEDIA source (who apparently always gets it right), and the third from a "responder," minus any supporting documentation from the phantom autopsy report has even the same credibility of the bonafide, real mccoy, OFFICIAL DNA report that conflicts with all of your "sourceless" examples?"

Further, this little lesson I'm giving you started with your claim that I "make(s) up a lot of BS." I think most have a clear understanding that to "make up," something means that I peronally generated a belief and set it forth as my own personal thought.
Even if I ALL of the information I presented was incorrect... it can't be attributed to me "making up" stuff, because I a gathered it from the Daily Kos source. So on that account, you fail quite throughly.




Nah, I didn't run away, I just didn't want to have to do what I'm doing now. But here, I am putting the record strait. All the info you incorrectly accused me of making up (ya know the part of mine you quoted) is ALL found in the Daily Kos page. So maybe they made it up, and then I'd be guilty of making up stuff second-hand?





Ok, and now you're misrepresenting my posts. I never indicated that at the drafting of the Constitution the founders thought, or even discussed, background checks. Actually, I'm quite certain the idea would be quite alien to them.
However, I indicated that I wouldn't be so sure that if they were aware of the concept, that they would reject it, as I don't believe a background check is an infringement on rights. And even if, keeping in mind what the founders we're believed were "rights," they did a damn good job of denying "rights" to millions of people. If the founders were happy with the enslavement of scores, the second class citzenry of women, it's doubtful, IMO that they'd view a background check as an "infringement."

But that doesn't even get to the crux of the matter. The BoRs ONLY referred to the Federal Govt during that time, meaning that the states could do whatever the hell they pleased (which they did), concerning a wide variety of things. If the idea of rights was so clearly understood, why at the very dawn of our nation, did this not hold universally true? Why did state court after state court after stat ecourt directly contradict the BoRs, unlike the federal courts, until incorporation? Oh that's right, because the BoRs didn't apply to states. Why didn't one of the drafters, who I would assume would be keeping a watchful eye on the development of this new system of govt, stand up and say "Hey! You're doing it wrong?" Meh, perhaps they didn't want to rock the boat, or maybe their concept of rights wasn't as strong as many a mislead to believe.

Just a theory

You didn't present anything as a "theory" or as an "opinion." You presented it as fact. Then ran away. You're not putting any record "straight." You're confusing facts with bull*** you pull from DailyKOS. DailyKOS? Really???

You might as well quote moveon.org. You might as well quote Trayvon's parents.

And I'm not misrepresenting your posts. I posted your exact words, which were in reply to my exact words, as posted.

You're not teaching anybody a lesson here. You're just trolling like usual.

 

[88GT]

I am not convinced he did for his own benefit either, but I can think of a few people in media I may have reached out too maybe. You have to remember he was assuming any and all conversations he was having with anyone were being monitored. How do you contact someone in news media in the position he is in without a spook picking you up shortly after having had said conversation with them?

Were you thinking of something along these lines? Exclusive: Hastings Sent Colleagues Email Hours Before Crash | KTLA 5

 

[Jludo]

Were you thinking of something along these lines? Exclusive: Hastings Sent Colleagues Email Hours Before Crash | KTLA 5

I don't see why this isn't all over the news, well I do see why, but this seems like a huge deal.
Reads like a political thriller.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You didn't present anything as a "theory" or as an "opinion." You presented it as fact. Then ran away. You're not putting any record "straight." You're confusing facts with bull*** you pull from DailyKOS. DailyKOS? Really???

You might as well quote moveon.org. You might as well quote Trayvon's parents.

And I'm not misrepresenting your posts. I posted your exact words, which were in reply to my exact words, as posted.

You're not teaching anybody a lesson here. You're just trolling like usual.

What does "theory," "opinion," or "fact" have to do with this? I'll remind you again of what we are discussing.

He makes up a lot of BS.

One can "make up" "theories," "opinions," or "facts" can they not? So I'm not exactly clear why you are trying to steer the convo away from your claim. You stated I made up something, and I provided a source to refute. So I'm asking you, how is it possible to "make something up," when it is taken directly from a provided source.

And riddle me this wise one, how on earth are you going to, in one breath, accuse me of making stuff up, and then in the next attack the source???

You're confusing facts with bull*** you pull from DailyKOS. DailyKOS? Really???

You might as well quote moveon.org. You might as well quote Trayvon's parents.

The validity of the source, truthful or not, has ZERO bearing on what started this interaction. What is of note, is that there was a source behind what I posted, which soundly renders your claim of me "making stuff up" (at least in this instance) completely false.

Why don't you man up and admit you were (in this instance) wrong. It happens, even to me. I think youre a smart guy, so I know you aren't having an issue connecting the dots as to what I'm saying.

 

[Trigger Time]

I think he's a traitor too. Let's be honest, our security agencies have LOTS of secrets that the American public would appreciate, and more importantly, understand.

I look at Obama and how he was when he first ran. He said all the right things, and I think he planned on delivering on those promises.... all the promises that he made prior to becoming president. And then he was elected. From that point forward, he might as well been named Barack Bush. So what changed? Well for one, he's in the "know" now. Each day he receives national security reports about the plans and activities of our enemies. How are we to discern how large these threats loom on the horizon? Well get a puzzle piece here and there, but one or two pieces won't tell you what the picture is. And a lackey working for a contractor isn't going to be privy to the "big picture" either... he's given a sliver of info that's used within part of a whole system. He may extrapulate what he likes, but in the end, he may have done nothing more than put our safety at risk.

Or here's what I think. He got a taste for true power for the first time in his miserable track record and doesn't want to lose it. Especially to whistleblowers who woul challenge the great and powerful OZ! The biggest threat to this govt is the people standing up for their natural rights which the govt has systematically dismantled under the ruse of it being legal because judges and lawyers say so. I always hear people reference the courts and how at least they keep the govt in check. HA! They ARE also the govt! If you want to kill a frog you put him in a frying pan and gradually turn up the heat. When he finally realizes what's happening its too late he's dead.
The govt gives us small victories and makes us think there's still a chance for liberty. But it's still turning up the heat slowly.
It will be too late before long and the outcome won't be pretty. People thought the nazis were bad, well I think this govt will make them look like amateurs.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Or here's what I think. He got a taste for true power for the first time in his miserable track record and doesn't want to lose it. Especially to whistleblowers who woul challenge the great and powerful OZ! The biggest threat to this govt is the people standing up for their natural rights which the govt has systematically dismantled. I always here people reference the courts and how at least they keep the govt in check. HA! They ARE also the govt! If you want to kill a frog you put him in a frying pan and gradually turn up the heat. When he finally realizes what's happening its too late he's dead.
The govt gives us small victories and makes us think there's still a chance for liberty. But it's still turning up the heat slowly.
It will be too late before long and the outcome won't be pretty. People thought the nazis were bad, well I think this govt will make them look like amateurs.

I don't think he will go that far. He disliked by way too many people.

 

[Trigger Time]

I don't think he will go that far. He disliked by way too many people.

Eh, him or the next one. There's no different anymore. The govt is too far gone no matter who the leader is. I truly don't know why this phone spying thing was such a big story other than a distraction. I and many other have said on INGO before that it was happening. It wasn't a secret. So now because he shows paperwork it's such a new development? Na, this took people's eyes off Benghazi and other things.