Snowden

In case you failed to understand the topic of this threAD let me recap it for you.
Snowden tried to go the whistle blower route but was told to stfso, Snowden took the prooof from the NSA and made it public. I never disputed this. I said he went too far revealing foreign operations. Also military information.

So you do not want to believe it so here it is straight from your favorite news source......CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/justic...-court-ruling/


There you go mastermanmuncher. The emperor has no clothes. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

So what's your point?

The emperor has no clothes? He's wearing the same clothes as the emperor before him.

From my first post on the thread.
"Right. None of these programs existed before Obama was president?

And his status is clear. He is a traitor to America and the American people.
If he had only revealed the programs an incorrect argument could be made that he was equal our non-grazing fee friend out west.
But he revealed international files mostly. Detailing foreign operations and endangering our intelligence officers around the world."

From wiki.

"Snowden has said that in the 2008 presidential election, he voted for a third-party candidate. He has stated he had been planning to make disclosures about NSA surveillance programs at the time, but he decided to wait because he "believed in Obama's promises." He was later disappointed that Obama "continued with the policies of his predecessor."[61]

In March 2014, Army General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee, "The vast majority of the documents that Snowden...exfiltrated from our highest levels of security, the vast majority had nothing to do with exposing government oversight of domestic activities. The vast majority of those were related to our military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques and procedures."[128]"

You do so like being impaled on your own stupidity, don’t you, MasterDickMuncher? Here’s the “proof”, MasterDickMuncher: Originally Posted by I B Hankering

To repeal a law takes 2/3 of the House and the Senate. 290 and 67
To over-ride a Presidential veto is the same.
To stop a filibuster in the senate takes 60.

Here is the complete quote on that portion.
The Patriot Act is probably the single most horrible act ever imposed upon the citizens of this United States and it was signed into law by President G.W. Bush. The Democrats have had many opportunities to repeal this horrible act and have not done so.. Signed into law by Bush and written by conservatives and some democrats as well. Correct.
Remind me, when did the democrats have a congress with the votes to over ride a veto or make it past a filibuster needed to repeal a law? That would be 290 and 67 for repeal or over-ride a veto, 60 for cloture.
That's right. They didn't.
You lied again.

The statement replied to said dems have had many opportunities to repeal this act.
Not let it expire. Not amend it.
Repeal it. Like 2bitches and I both said.
I replied they didn't have the votes to do so.

So IBStupid, when did the dems have a congress with the votes to over-ride a veto 290, 67(for when Bush was President) or the votes for cloture 60 (for when Obama is President)?

How does quoting a fact I posted prove I'm a liar?
This took a while to answer. I kept thinking I must be missing something. I made a simple statement that 5 minutes of research confirms.
At no time, since being enacted, have the dems had 290 and 67 or 60 to repeal the act. The word "repeal" has been pointed out many times. Then it clicked. What I had missed.

I underestimated the level of stupidity, dishonesty and how far IBStupid will go to avoid personal responsibility by at least a magnitude of 4.

A douche-bag of astronomical size.

Uh, IBIdiot? When did the Democrats last have sufficient numbers in Congress to override a veto or stop a filibuster? Rather than calling statements a lie, why not prove them wrong.

Oh, that's right. You don't do proof. You don't do truth. And you don't do fact.

You just do do.
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Correct. He does do do.

Uh, Munchie. I hate to burst your fragile little ego, but it only takes a simple majority and the signature of the President to repeal a law. If the Democrats really wanted the Patriot Act repealed, why don't they say so? Seems to me they continue to vote for its extension.

You are sounding stupider than usual. Cut down on the caffeine.

Uh, Munchie. I hate to burst your fragile little ego, but it only takes a simple majority and the signature of the President to repeal a law. If the Democrats really wanted the Patriot Act repealed, why don't they say so? Seems to me they continue to vote for its extension. Who said they wanted it repealed, dumb ass. I didn't. Try and keep up without plopping your fat ass on the tracks. It does seem that they continue to vote for it. But that's not the point here.

You are sounding stupider than usual. Cut down on the caffeine. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

As your death approaches, like most of those who also die from advanced dementia as you are, things you hear and read will make less sense to you. And of course that's my fault, right? What happened to your own personal responsibility? Other than you never having any?

There are several different methods to repeal a law. Repeal is usually done by canceling out the old law with a new one. I could only find amendments that had actually been repealed. You're welcome to find actual numbers given for a straight repeal without contentious bills being used.

I admit a cite I used is unconfirmed. I first used it in Post #62. The statement that repeal takes 2/3, 2/3 being the answer that came from wiki answers, is moot.

And I hate to kick you when you're down (like anyone could put a hole in your "arrogance of ignorance" inflated ego) on the ground as you have been there so long but my original post, without the repeal needs 2/3s, is still more than adequate.

For the same reasons I said before. When Bush was President, the dems could not get 2/3 of both chambers to over-ride a veto of any laws that that would repeal the Act. With Obama as President, the dems have not had 60 senate votes for cloture to force a simple majority vote on any bill that countered the Act.

This isn't a question of wanting to or not. Predictions and guesses etc. about intentions are nothing but opinions. I'm not concerned with that now. This is about facts. The difference between "can" and "may", mister attorney.

"May/may not" are an opinion and "can/can't" are facts.

So fuck off self admitted #2 dipshit. It looks like you're due a promotion.

Because of what you said, you double talking asshole. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

What do you think Anti Hero would have to say, JLHomo?

What military secrets did he reveal??
Name the people that were harmed by his releasing the information other than Obama.
I do not believe that you can mastermanmuncher.

Once again, I have never been a supporter and have always claimed the Patriot was wrong. It does not matter that wrongs were committed during a past administration when the current President can stop the crime and fails to do so and in fact increases the illegal actions of the NSA.

Why was Snowden told to keep his mouth shut when the NSA was violating the Constitution rather than protected as a whistle blower.

It is evident that you did not watch the interview of which this threAD was about.

Uh, IBIdiot? When did the Democrats last have sufficient numbers in Congress to override a veto or stop a filibuster? Rather than calling statements a lie, why not prove them wrong.

Oh, that's right. You don't do proof. You don't do truth. And you don't do fact.

You just do do.
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

When the dim-retards passed Odumbocare, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

Uh, Munchie. I hate to burst your fragile little ego, but it only takes a simple majority and the signature of the President to repeal a law. If the Democrats really wanted the Patriot Act repealed, why don't they say so? Seems to me they continue to vote for its extension.

You are sounding stupider than usual. Cut down on the caffeine. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

+1

To repeal a law takes 2/3 of the House and the Senate. 290 and 67
To over-ride a Presidential veto is the same.
To stop a filibuster in the senate takes 60.
Here is the complete quote on that portion.
The Patriot Act is probably the single most horrible act ever imposed upon the citizens of this United States and it was signed into law by President G.W. Bush. The Democrats have had many opportunities to repeal this horrible act and have not done so.. Signed into law by Bush and written by conservatives and some democrats as well. Correct.
Remind me, when did the democrats have a congress with the votes to over ride a veto or make it past a filibuster needed torepeal a law? That would be 290 and 67 for repeal or over-ride a veto, 60 for cloture.
That's right. They didn't.
You lied again.

The statement replied to said dems have had many opportunities to repeal this act.
Not let it expire. Not amend it.
Repeal it. Like 2bitches and I both said.
I replied they didn't have the votes to do so.

So IBStupid, when did the dems have a congress with the votes to over-ride a veto 290, 67(for when Bush was President) or the votes for cloture 60 (for when Obama is President)?

How does quoting a fact I posted prove I'm a liar?
This took a while to answer. I kept thinking I must be missing something. I made a simple statement that 5 minutes of research confirms.
At no time, since being enacted, have the dems had 290 and 67 or 60 to repeal the act. The word "repeal" has been pointed out many times. Then it clicked. What I had missed.

I underestimated the level of stupidity, dishonesty and how far IBStupid will go to avoid personal responsibility by at least a magnitude of 4.

A douche-bag of astronomical size.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

The dim-retards had the votes to repeal the Patriot Act when they jammed Odumbocare through Congress, MasterDickMuncher: stupid, ignorant cock-sucker of astronomical size.

Correct. He does do do. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Twist and whine, MasterDickMuncher. You're impaled on your own cock-sucking lies, MasterDickMuncher!

When the dim-retards passed Odumbocare, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.





+1




The dim-retards had the votes to repeal the Patriot Act when they jammed Odumbocare through Congress, MasterDickMuncher: stupid, ignorant cock-sucker of astronomical size.






Twist and whine, MasterDickMuncher. You're impaled on your own cock-sucking lies, MasterDickMuncher! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That wasn't the question and you're not telling the truth. It was when did the Democrats have enough votes in Congress to override a veto or stop a filibuster. You didn't answer that question. You sidestepping, deflecting and flinging feces again, IBIdiot.

Exactly what is a "cocksucking lie," IBIdiot? Would that be you answering the question, "Do you suck cock, IBIdiot?"

That wasn't the question and you're not telling the truth. It was when did the Democrats have enough votes in Congress to override a veto or stop a filibuster. You didn't answer that question. You sidestepping, deflecting and flinging feces again, IBIdiot.

Exactly what is a "cocksucking lie," IBIdiot? Would that be you answering the question, "Do you suck cock, IBIdiot?" Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The dim-retards passed Odumbocare despite Republican resistance, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM; thus, proving that the dim-retards had the votes to repeal the Patriot Act, jackass!

The dim-retards passed Odumbocare despite Republican resistance, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM; thus, proving that the dim-retards had the votes to repeal the Patriot Act, jackass! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

There were not enough votes to override a veto or stop a filibuster. That was the question. You're not answering it, IBIdiot. You're just deflecting, for a change.

Gotta suck to be you.

I know it sucks to read you...

Munchie. It doesn't matter how angry you get, or how much "bold" you put in your text. You're clearly wrong, and either too proud to admit it, or too stupid to realize it. I'm guessing the latter.

Uh, Munchie. I hate to burst your fragile little ego, but it only takes a simple majority and the signature of the President to repeal a law. If the Democrats really wanted the Patriot Act repealed, why don't they say so? Seems to me they continue to vote for its extension. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It's easier than that. Parts of the Patriot Act would have expired. Obama signed extensions.

Yep, Obamatons, it's true.

And don't forget the NDAA.

What military secrets did he reveal??
Name the people that were harmed by his releasing the information other than Obama.
I do not believe that you can mastermanmuncher.
I don't have to. I cited an article that had that information (reveal military secrets) in it' They didn't provide the info you seek.

Once again, I have never been a supporter and have always claimed the Patriot was wrong. It does not matter that wrongs were committed during a past administration when the current President can stop the crime and fails to do so and in fact increases the illegal actions of the NSA.
Once again, I don't care whether you support it or not. And those "crimes" you're talking about have to be identified as crimes for anything you just said to be valid. They weren't. Snowden could have gone public when Bush was President. He didn't. He wanted to see if Obama would change the previous administrations policies (policies, not crimes). The policy didn't change because it wasn't determined to be a crime.
Why was Snowden told to keep his mouth shut when the NSA was violating the Constitution rather than protected as a whistle blower.
If you don't know, why are you asking me? If you do know, why are you asking me?
Well if you're going to play stupid, I'll give you an opinion. He was told to shut up because they were secret. Neither he or his chain of command can say that something is Constitutional or not. The Supreme Court has final say in that. And you know as well as I do they had not been declared to be unconstitutional at that point in time. Right? By sending his concerns up the chain, he performed due diligence. His ass was covered. He decided to go further. Since he is not an expert in Constitutional law, he made what appears to be an educated guess. It is on it's way though the courts to find out one way or another. Once the Supreme Court rules on this, and if they rule in his favor, you can say they violated the Constitution and it will be a fact. Until then, it's just another one of your opinions.

It is evident that you did not watch the interview of which this threAD was about. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

It was an interview that basically shows one side of the story that had no cross examination by the other side. NBC may not even know exactly what questions to ask that could change the entire perspective of the case. No big deal. I don't know what to ask and don't pretend that you do. I can read the transcript in 10 minutes. No real reason to watch it.
Notice I didn't say he lying or telling the truth. And to be honest it isn't really fair of me to call him a traitor. That's just an opinion. He has a right to face his accusers.
(The following are opinions and conjuncture. Not being an attorney of any type I'm not offering this up as fact. Funny, I haven't seen anyone else put up a statement like this. Facts are thin picking on any side of this right now.) But he has to return to do that. If he thinks that he is in danger, even with the public spotlight on this and guarantees for that safety, what does that tell us? It appears he violated laws to expose this abuse. Worst case is that the exposer may mitigate his sentence but not his guilt. It also appears he is afraid to go to jail for his convictions. Not quite a Patrick Henry type of patriot, is he?
Anyway, we'll see how this all plays out.