Edward Snowden

[p m]

A great point, Dan, despite its fading relevancy to the original subject.
I'd love to see the father take CnC to the court with illegal killing.

 

[kennith]

That's just the same story told through different journalists. None of it speaks to any horrible conspiracy.

He was immersed in terrorism, according to the information we have. That doesn't mean he was a terrorist. It simply means he was in an environment that included people that were indeed terrorists, whether he was aware of their activities or not.

I know you're on about the problem of him being an American citizen, though, so let's consider a related scenario.

I'm not sure about killing an American citizen, but he wasn't in America at the time.

Some of us have spent time in places where Uncle Sam won't come save you. If you're there, your generally either up to no good, or you're pissing off others that are up to no good. In the end, it really doesn't matter. You could be feeding the homeless for all they care. If something happens to you in a place like that, no amount of planning ahead will sort things out.

Log your travels all you want. Hell, tell your entire city where you're going. It's pointless. No matter how much you or your companions back home whine and cry about the state of things, no government entity will so much as pick up a phone; not even to ask you about the weather.

It's your ass. Your own government will let you be drawn and quartered without batting an eye. Now, I'll admit it's a terribly far cry from being on a hit list, but they will let an American citizen die without argument. That's been the case for years, and nobody complained.

That is, of course, assuming they know you're in trouble at all. Most likely, our assumed to be all powerful government doesn't know you're there, and couldn't track you down using five trillion dollars, half the armed forces, Chuck Norris, a paper bag (may as well try it), and every damned satellite in orbit.

Is it such a surprise, then, that when we toss a missile from a radio control airplane at a mud brick shack halfway around the world, in an attempt to kill a guy that we're pretty sure was there a little while ago, we occasionally hit someone we weren't aiming at?

Yeah, it could be some wild conspiracy. We could have popped his kid just to be thorough (Why not? As log as you're killing Americans, you may as well go full-on Pokemon...), but that's pushing the limits of sense.

We deliberately killed his dad. Unless you've got a rack of tinfoil hats, that's the thing to debate.

So, let's consider only his father, just to be fair. The kid was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It happens. His father, however, was right in the cross-hairs.

As I said, I'm not sure how I personally feel about targeting an American citizen overseas. So far as I've seen, though, as soon as you enter international waters as a civilian, you're cannon fodder unless you've already made the front page of USA Today. If your somewhere particularly nasty, not even the newspaper will help.

That's just been my observation. Whether or not it's proper behavior for a government such as ours is another story entirely.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[mgreenspan]

Spoon feed. Got it.

Here's some back story. I hope these media outlets are legitimate enough for a serviceman.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16856963-american-drone-deaths-highlight-controversy?lite

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...h-certificate/2011/10/18/gIQA9zycuL_blog.html

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/7/exclusive_nasser_al_awlaki_to_obama

The part you're failing to grasp, for some reason, and I do not understand why since you are retired military, is that this boy was a US citizen. You, of all people, above and beyond everyone else, should understand this. Yet, you assume the military makes no mistakes, and you assume this kid was up to no good or something. Actually, I don't know what you think so I'll stop guessing. It just blows my mind that you pick-and-choose who the Constitution applies to.

Thanks. I wasn't sure what to google since the only thing I could think of to describe the situation was cover up and conspiracy and that wouldn't give the type of results I wanted. I think the second half of that post is for somebody else?

 

[D Chapman]

I typically do not even read your post - rather, just skip right over them. Now I remember why.

He was immersed in terrorism, according to the information we have. That doesn't mean he was a terrorist. It simply means he was in an environment that included people that were indeed terrorists, whether he was aware of their activities or not.

So how do you come to this conclusion? Because of who his father was? That's crazy! That's like saying anyone related to James Holmes should have a drone fly over and drop a bomb on their heads. This kid did not live with his father. Just because he may have had family member who may/was involved in terrorist activities does not mean he's a terrorist or have terrorist ties.

And what kind of environment was this kid in that makes you think he could have had terrorist links? Because he was in Yemen? Because he was sitting at a restaurant? So should we kill all Americans in Yemen who are out to get something to eat?

I know you're on about the problem of him being an American citizen, though, so let's consider a related scenario.

I'm not sure about killing an American citizen, but he wasn't in America at the time.

WTF?!

Are you serious, Kenneth? So what you're saying is that American's lose their rights the minute they cross the border? Is this truly what you think? Many people feel George Zimmerman is guilty of murder - so if he was shot dead by one of our military the second he crossed over into Canada or Mexico, it's okay to shoot or drop a bomb on him?

Or how about Snowden, should it be okay to blast his plane out of the sky when he leaves Russia? How about the pilots, just "collateral damage"?

Some of us have spent time in places where Uncle Sam won't come save you. If you're there, your generally either up to no good, or you're pissing off others that are up to no good. In the end, it really doesn't matter. You could be feeding the homeless for all they care. If something happens to you in a place like that, no amount of planning ahead will sort things out.

Log your travels all you want. Hell, tell your entire city where you're going. It's pointless. No matter how much you or your companions back home whine and cry about the state of things, no government entity will so much as pick up a phone; not even to ask you about the weather.

It's your ass. Your own government will let you be drawn and quartered without batting an eye. Now, I'll admit it's a terribly far cry from being on a hit list, but they will let an American citizen die without argument. That's been the case for years, and nobody complained.

That is, of course, assuming they know you're in trouble at all. Most likely, our assumed to be all powerful government doesn't know you're there, and couldn't track you down using five trillion dollars, half the armed forces, Chuck Norris, a paper bag (may as well try it), and every damned satellite in orbit.

Is it such a surprise, then, that when we toss a missile from a radio control airplane at a mud brick shack halfway around the world, in an attempt to kill a guy that we're pretty sure was there a little while ago, we occasionally hit someone we weren't aiming at?

Ahhhh, there we have it, buried deep in the my dick is bigger than yours because I've been in places Uncle Sam has dropped me off in that really has nothing to do with this story other than showing off how big my dick is fluff.

In other words, Kenneth, you do know a fucking thing as to what you're talking about.

Where did the "brick shack" come from? The kid was killed at an outdoor restaurant while eating dinner. He was not in a suspected terrorist hide-out; he was not in a terrorist training camp; he was not with his father; he was not buying materials to build bombs with. He was eating dinner at a public place.

Yeah, it could be some wild conspiracy. We could have popped his kid just to be thorough (Why not? As log as you're killing Americans, you may as well go full-on Pokemon...), but that's pushing the limits of sense.

Who's calling this a conspiracy except you? Our very own government, including Obama himself, has admitted to this killing. What the government can't do is tell us why he was killed. They cannot link him to terrorist groups. They cannot tell us he was holding a rocket launcher. They cannot even tell us he was suspected of anything. In fact, if you would have read the articles I posted, you would have seen where the White House said the kids was not a suspected militant.

We deliberately killed his dad. Unless you've got a rack of tinfoil hats, that's the thing to debate.

So, let's consider only his father, just to be fair. The kid was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It happens. His father, however, was right in the cross-hairs.

Please explain to me how being in a restaurant is "being in the wrong place at the wrong time".

As I said, I'm not sure how I personally feel about targeting an American citizen overseas. So far as I've seen, though, as soon as you enter international waters as a civilian, you're cannon fodder unless you've already made the front page of USA Today. If your somewhere particularly nasty, not even the newspaper will help.

That's just been my observation. Whether or not it's proper behavior for a government such as ours is another story entirely.

Cheers,

Kennith

Well fuck, man. Let's start blowing up boats right-and-left as soon as they cross into international waters! Or hell, lets set up at the Mexico border and start picking off folks as they run across! According to Kenneth, that's perfectly okay to do.

 

[Devildog01]

Or hell, lets set up at the Mexico border and start picking off folks as they run across!

Finally a good idea comes out of this thread.

 

[Durt D1ver]

Finally a good idea comes out of this thread.

Except that you were in the military, which means you are a mindless minion, and will shoot U.S. college kids crossing the border for cheap pills and booze, instead of drug smugglers and coyotes. And since you are an emotionless killer without the ability to think for yourself, you will see no problem with this.

 

[bri]

Of course the information can be used for things other than national security, but the primary purpose of it isn't for the Democratic Party to go after adversaries-after all this is a bipartisan affair here that spans the last two administrations.

A percentage of the American people believe 9/11 was a hoax, that the President is a Muslim, and any number of other things. The IRS targeting conservative groups hiding under 401C and not going after liberal ones doing the same is problematic (as they should have gone after all the groups wholesale who were in violation of the code, not on a partisan basis no matter how annoying the Tea Party is), the Justice Dept thing doesn't really bother me but I'm biased there. Moreover if you want to talk about grand manipulations of intelligence for the nefarious purpose it's not as though we can cast aside invading Iraq-or 9/11 for that matter (if we hold that responsibility belongs to the person in charge at the time of occurrence.

My point is that the damage that Snowden has done to the country is greater than the service provided by his optic on the leaked programs. By an order of magnitude in fact.

Abdul should have had better parents. Yemen is a dangerous place.

How do you get better parents. Iam happy with mine, but just curious.

I think he is a traitor, but to say that he has done damage and classify the degree is pretty much telling the future.

Although difficult for me to stomach the apparent facts that conspiracy theorists have on 911 is substantial and not all that far fetched. Have a look and the shows on netflix if nothing else, entertaining.

 

[kennith]

So how do you come to this conclusion? Because of who his father was? That's crazy! That's like saying anyone related to James Holmes should have a drone fly over and drop a bomb on their heads. This kid did not live with his father. Just because he may have had family member who may/was involved in terrorist activities does not mean he's a terrorist or have terrorist ties.

And what kind of environment was this kid in that makes you think he could have had terrorist links? Because he was in Yemen? Because he was sitting at a restaurant? So should we kill all Americans in Yemen who are out to get something to eat?

I really don't think you are following me, here. If, as an example, members of my family were part of a criminal organization of some variety, I would suffer an increased risk of harm as a result of those activities.

The police might keep a closer eye on my behavior, or perhaps rival entities would consider using my affiliation against the organization. That doesn't mean it's my fault, nor does it mean I'm a criminal. It doesn't even mean I know what's going on.

It simply means I'm in an environment that's more likely to expose me to danger.

WTF?!

Are you serious, Kenneth? So what you're saying is that American's lose their rights the minute they cross the border? Is this truly what you think? Many people feel George Zimmerman is guilty of murder - so if he was shot dead by one of our military the second he crossed over into Canada or Mexico, it's okay to shoot or drop a bomb on him?

Or how about Snowden, should it be okay to blast his plane out of the sky when he leaves Russia? How about the pilots, just "collateral damage"?

I'm not saying it's the way things should be done or shouldn't be done. It's just the way things are done. You've got to accept reality before you can change it.

Observation and approval are different.

Ahhhh, there we have it, buried deep in the my dick is bigger than yours because I've been in places Uncle Sam has dropped me off in that really has nothing to do with this story other than showing off how big my dick is fluff.

In other words, Kenneth, you do know a fucking thing as to what you're talking about.

It's simply an example, Dan. There's no reason to get all bent out of shape. Sooner or later, someone has to bring a bit of personal observation into a debate revolving entirely around what people have read in electronic newspapers of their own choosing.

I'm simply pointing out that writing off citizens is nothing new, and doing so in as factual a manner as possible. I'm by no means unique in that experience, and the only time I'd be concerned about the size of your dick is if I was next in line for a prostitute I've already paid for.

I'm far too lazy to care about such things.

Where did the "brick shack" come from? The kid was killed at an outdoor restaurant while eating dinner. He was not in a suspected terrorist hide-out; he was not in a terrorist training camp; he was not with his father; he was not buying materials to build bombs with. He was eating dinner at a public place.

I made up the brick shack, because I thought it added somewhat of a punchline to that little illustration. "restaurant" didn't jive as well with the intent. The whole related paragraph was outrageous, and it was designed to be, but the point was quite clear.

None of this stuff is magic. Hell, it's a wonder any of it works at all.

Who's calling this a conspiracy except you? Our very own government, including Obama himself, has admitted to this killing. What the government can't do is tell us why he was killed. They cannot link him to terrorist groups. They cannot tell us he was holding a rocket launcher. They cannot even tell us he was suspected of anything. In fact, if you would have read the articles I posted, you would have seen where the White House said the kids was not a suspected militant.

I know this already.

Please explain to me how being in a restaurant is "being in the wrong place at the wrong time".

Dude. If you are in a restaurant that's blown to hell by a missile with another person's name on it, you were clearly in the wrong place at the wrong time.:rofl:

Well fuck, man. Let's start blowing up boats right-and-left as soon as they cross into international waters! Or hell, lets set up at the Mexico border and start picking off folks as they run across! According to Kenneth, that's perfectly okay to do.

No, according to other people it's perfectly okay to do. I'm not patting anyone on the back about the affair.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[kennith]

Except that you were in the military, which means you are a mindless minion, and will shoot U.S. college kids crossing the border for cheap pills and booze, instead of drug smugglers and coyotes. And since you are an emotionless killer without the ability to think for yourself, you will see no problem with this.

No, he's a Marine. His job is to pick up all the fat chicks the second they walk into the club so the rest of us get the good stuff.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[brian4d]

So parsing that out a bit-to get past rhetoric and something closer to facts:
-The IRS, which appears to be a group of staffers taking exception to conservative organizations who routinely lament their very existence, go after groups wrongfully hiding under provisions of the tax code that don't apply (i.e. specifically political groups using non-profit status to not pay taxes even though that very status is explicitly for non-partisan groups). Was it from the top down, or did the IRS just say F the Tea Party. My issue with it is that they didn't do it for liberal groups that also hide under those provisions. Done evenly it would be nothing more than the proper administration of the tax code. As it is, it gives the rightful appearance of partisan allegiance from an entity that should enforce the law evenly. That being said there is no evidence that it was done at the high level of the administration and the fact is the groups shouldn't have been using that portion of the tax code to hide under (looking past that overlooks the context which is convenient on Fox but since we're going to pull the thread and think about this objectively you have to start there.)
-What about Benghazi, specifically, is the great conspiracy here? I'm interested to hear what the facts are that concern you. Is it the Dept of State culture that doesn't want to overplay threats as it undermines their ability to work with other countries-the same culture that found the Ambassador going to an unstable city despite knowing it was a high threat environment? What I'd stipulate here is most people don't actually know what happened that day-what they think is a scandal is the talking points issue afterward which is a faux scandal perpetuated by the media. That doesn't do justice to the tragedy and sacrifice the 4 Americans paid that day and isn't helpful in making things safer down the road. Nor does it have a damn thing to do with infringing on anyone's freedoms here in the US.
-AP wiretaps involve an active investigation into the leaking of classified information to an unauthorized source. Ironically this administration actually investigates those (most don't) and now its a scandal because the government is trying to stifle free speech. In truth do I agree with it; absolutely not-the juice isn't worth the squeeze in my opinion. The potential gain of who the leaker was doesn't outweight the perceived infringement on freedom of the press and the AG should resign but I don't spend a lot of time focused on the domestic side of things so I defer to others who may know more.
-PRISM actually has precious little to do with US citizens. What I want to hear is someone explain exactly what privacy is invaded by the collection of metadata too; when someone can articulate how their rights are actually violated by it I'll be impressed. Regardless the overarching reality is that PRISM and the other programs PRIMARY reason for being is to collect intelligence against non-domestic entities on behalf of national security priorities. What most people seem to lose track of is the government really doesn't give a rat's ass what you do, how you communicate, etc. The metadata allows for the establishment of a comprehensive baseline to detect patterns and anomalies for further exploitation. Name one substantive usage of that violates a USPER's rights. At this point the hysteria is just that, a lot of loud talk with no substance behind the concerns. Hypothetically elements could be used against people but there is no evidence of it. What there is ample evidence of, despite your comment, is its frequent use as part of the greater collection of intelligence against our adversaries but that's just dismissed out of hand because it doesn't fit your narrative.

For what it's worth, I can't stand Fox News-nor CNN. Most of my news is from reading (not watching the TV) and from a broad base of sources with a variety of positions on the political spectrum. Parsing out fact from opinion is a critical aspect of this; unfortunately a lot of facts in some of these things are still classified and thus to discuss them beyond Dweb deep commentary is not really an option.

All that being said, I found this story to be a good potential illustration of some of the differences in thoughts between folks like me sitting inside the beltway and inside the gov't who do this and people fortunate enough to not be close to DC:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...s-out-of-step-with-america-on-snowden/277670/

I realize we won't agree on most any topic you've mentioned. To write a long post back (thanks for yours by the way) would not prove fruitful. I can tell your mind is made up and my effort to shed a different light simply won't happen. You did put time into your post and I will hint at a few things. Remind you I will be drawing my own conclusions here, they might not be proven facts but I try to read between the lines.

Benghazi:

After hearing testimony there were absolutely no facts promoting a 'video' protest, actually just the opposite. We do know what happened, second by second from Gregory Hicks and Eric Nordstrom. However, Americans got fed this load of shit right before the elections. Draw your own conclusions.

AP Wiretaps: If you think this doesn't violate our constitution I will not be the one to convince you.

Prism (Snowden): You may want to do some more research on the allegations of Snowden, it's a bit more than metadata. If you say hysteria and none of it's true Mr. Snowden would disagree. Fact is your talking points seem to come from a government drone of some sort. If every American thought just like you it would be the perfect US Government Utopia. I'm a realists, things aren't that simple, conditions aren't that great.

How have I changed because of this? I have deleted my facebook page, not deactivated it, deleted it. This can be done by searching 'delete my page' at the top of facebook. Other than that I don't have anything to hide so not much as has changed. The thought of some creepy NSA employee looking at my Wedding Aniv. pictures was to much to stomach. Facebook did say it would authorize the government to spy on a users Facebook page if the request came through. A bit more than metadata.

Facebook: "We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers. When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we carefully scrutinize any such request for compliance with all applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by law."

Extent required by law? Oh, you mean the prism law, gotcha.

 

[kennith]

I realize we won't agree on most any topic you've mentioned.

At least you've learned that it's a silly idea to give every detail of your continuing life story to a some frat boy in a black hoodie. You two should be able to agree on that.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[Ballah06]

No, he's a Marine. His job is to pick up all the fat chicks the second they walk into the club so the rest of us get the good stuff.

Cheers,

Kennith

Now, now. I resent that statement. Other services induldge in fat chick picking up as well. Let us stick to the facts of life. atriot:

 

[1920SF]

I realize we won't agree on most any topic you've mentioned. To write a long post back (thanks for yours by the way) would not prove fruitful. I can tell your mind is made up and my effort to shed a different light simply won't happen. You did put time into your post and I will hint at a few things. Remind you I will be drawing my own conclusions here, they might not be proven facts but I try to read between the lines.

Benghazi:

After hearing testimony there were absolutely no facts promoting a 'video' protest, actually just the opposite. We do know what happened, second by second from Gregory Hicks and Eric Nordstrom. However, Americans got fed this load of shit right before the elections. Draw your own conclusions.

AP Wiretaps: If you think this doesn't violate our constitution I will not be the one to convince you.

Prism (Snowden): You may want to do some more research on the allegations of Snowden, it's a bit more than metadata. If you say hysteria and none of it's true Mr. Snowden would disagree. Fact is your talking points seem to come from a government drone of some sort. If every American thought just like you it would be the perfect US Government Utopia. I'm a realists, things aren't that simple, conditions aren't that great.

How have I changed because of this? I have deleted my facebook page, not deactivated it, deleted it. This can be done by searching 'delete my page' at the top of facebook. Other than that I don't have anything to hide so not much as has changed. The thought of some creepy NSA employee looking at my Wedding Aniv. pictures was to much to stomach. Facebook did say it would authorize the government to spy on a users Facebook page if the request came through. A bit more than metadata.

Facebook: "We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers. When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we carefully scrutinize any such request for compliance with all applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by law."

Extent required by law? Oh, you mean the prism law, gotcha.

What I think would be awesome is to get a chance to sit down sometime over beer and talk about this stuff; I think at that point a lot of the nuance would come out better and quite frankly it would be a lot easier to explain the position my perspective is borne from.

The shit show that was the political aftermath of Benghazi honestly isn't all that compelling to me; I care about the folks that were on the ground during and those that are in that area now-the way policy wonks drive what is said on Sunday am talk shows is honestly not all that interesting. Truth be told every administration plays that game; if we want to start playing partisan math the current administration is doing far better with regard to lost American lives for dumbass reasons than the last one.

AP Wiretaps; I'm not domestic LE so I'm not sure if it actually violates the constitution or not-as I alluded to the sniff test from afar tells me that what they got wasn't worth the effort nor the possibility that it was unconstitutional-in short it gives the appearance of being an overstep and I don't understand what kind of teflon surrounds Holder but he probably should have stepped down awhile ago.

Regarding Snowden and the leaks, I'm not sure anyone has provided a substantive example of the violation of privacy. Sure there is intimation of the hypothetical, but no real 'X happened and thus it is a violation'. Snowden's comments about the access that people have writ large are patently false, and he's not really in a position to know because he never had access-B/C he was the IT douche and not someone really doing the job.

Moreover if you're on (or were on) facebook, but want privacy, I think there is some internal contradictions right there to cope with before worrying about the 4th Amendment-but that's just me.

Regarding fat chicks and Marines...all I know is everybody's gotta eat...

r-
Ray

 

[Devildog01]

No, he's a Marine. His job is to pick up all the fat chicks the second they walk into the club so the rest of us get the good stuff.

Cheers,

Kennith

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

 

[D Chapman]

It's funny that Ray took an oath to protect our Constitution, but he doesn't even know what's constitutional. Oorah!

 

[brian4d]

Moreover if you're on (or were on) facebook, but want privacy, I think there is some internal contradictions right there to cope with before worrying about the 4th Amendment-but that's just me.

Negative. My facebook page was private (or at least I thought it was). No one could add me or even search for me for that matter. Most importantly I opted for GOOGLE not to crawl or index my page. So as I sit here and take the last sip of my virtual beer I'll say this conversation has run its course. Good talk. Sorry I couldn't convince you our Constitution is being walked on just a little bit. I knew I'd never convince you of a full blown tap dance.

 

[1920SF]

It's funny that Ray took an oath to protect our Constitution, but he doesn't even know what's constitutional. Oorah!

Hmmm, I didn't take an oath as a Supreme Court Justice and while you've got more than a passing familiarity with the legal system I'm not sure it's as a Constitutional scholar Dan so by all means, explain your interpretation of it as you see fit but recognize that its just that-your interpretation-neither factual nor necessarily accurate.

 

[1920SF]

Negative. My facebook page was private (or at least I thought it was). No one could add me or even search for me for that matter. Most importantly I opted for GOOGLE not to crawl or index my page. So as I sit here and take the last sip of my virtual beer I'll say this conversation has run its course. Good talk. Sorry I couldn't convince you our Constitution is being walked on just a little bit. I knew I'd never convince you of a full blown tap dance.

Our Constitution has been walked on since its inception; I'd offer that is what it's for-to guide the nation as a path of sorts. It certainly isn't absolute nor was it intended to be; thus subject to interpretation over time. At present the fact is nothing we're talking about has been proven to be unconstitutional. That's just your interpretation of it.

Will it shake out that way? Maybe, but in the case of the Snowden stuff it was done with the provisions of law in mind since the outset and with the participation of all three portions of the federal government-so as the Constitution sets the ground work for the day to day administration of these United States, those actions were (are) within it.

If you don't like it, vote people into office that will change it. I'm guessing you sit solidly right of the center; but that's supposition-if so it's worth noting thus far voting hasn't proven too effective-but if we keep going further right maybe we'll get there. If we create enough scandals I'm sure the mid-terms will go well enough.

Maybe we'll even pass a budget!

 

[brian4d]

Our Constitution has been walked on since its inception; I'd offer that is what it's for-to guide the nation as a path of sorts. It certainly isn't absolute nor was it intended to be; thus subject to interpretation over time. At present the fact is nothing we're talking about has been proven to be unconstitutional. That's just your interpretation of it.

Will it shake out that way? Maybe, but in the case of the Snowden stuff it was done with the provisions of law in mind since the outset and with the participation of all three portions of the federal government-so as the Constitution sets the ground work for the day to day administration of these United States, those actions were (are) within it.

If you don't like it, vote people into office that will change it. I'm guessing you sit solidly right of the center; but that's supposition-if so it's worth noting thus far voting hasn't proven too effective-but if we keep going further right maybe we'll get there. If we create enough scandals I'm sure the mid-terms will go well enough.

Maybe we'll even pass a budget!

Thing is it's not up to the executive or legislative branch to interpret the constitution, we leave that to the judicial branch. I'd argue I'm not very impressed with decisions they've made lately. As you know changes to justices is a slow process and simply switching out the other two branches have proved useless in regards to the topic at hand... Specifically the last 13 years.

Create scandals? Are you implying the topics mentioned are all made up? That doesn't sit well with me, but, goes a long way in knowing the mentality of the person I'm dealing with.

 

[D Chapman]

Hmmm, I didn't take an oath as a Supreme Court Justice and while you've got more than a passing familiarity with the legal system I'm not sure it's as a Constitutional scholar Dan so by all means, explain your interpretation of it as you see fit but recognize that its just that-your interpretation-neither factual nor necessarily accurate.

That's probably the lamest post yet.

Do you even know the difference between right and wrong?