Good Bye
Posted by TruthFreedom1 11 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
argumentum ad hominem: Passing judgement on a perception of character. I have never passed character judgement on a person on this site or at any time unless I have first been attacked in such a way. I did not come here to engage in this way. I have come to believe that you might not have an objective bone in your body. Leonard Peikoff says the Objectivist movement is "a closed system and not open to change." I think he was right. I am open to change which is why I came here. That was obviously a mistake. People who have closed minds to the opinions of other and who don't show respect for those opinions (agreed or not) are destined to wallow in a stagnant world, but hey who am I to pass judgement. Its to bad the moderators of this site don't do something about such things. And now I bid you adieu... Probably to a loud chorus of cheers... Phhht
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
You?
"...adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
I see no evidence that Snowden "adhered" to enemies. Nor that he gave "aid and comfort". One might argue that he's given some "aid" - but clearly no more than was necessary to reveal the treason of the CIA.
Treason? Yes. Treason. The person who spies on me is my enemy. The CIA has not only given these enemies "aid" and "comfort", but it has paid them a paycheck. And when faced with the truth, did the CIA back down? No. It "adhered" to these enemies and tried to shield them.
I think you've got it all backwards. Snowden has released only a tiny portion of the files he took - and he's been careful about not doing things like releasing entire lists of US agents abroad (which it's probable he could have done.) If his goal were to give "aid and comfort" and "adhere" to enemies of America, he could simply have headed off to China, or Russia or North Korea with his treasure trove, sold it all to the highest bidder (no doubt for many millions of dollars) and never even have risked exposure. Instead, he has risked his future to inform the American people how traitors within the government have sorely abused their power.
Because, if I find I'm wrong, I change my mind.
I also used to say that I used to have an open mind, until I discovered too many people mistaking it for an open garbage can.
Revealing treason against the United States... *to the citizens of the United States*... is not treason.
Revealing it to the rest of the world, gives aid and comfort to our enemies. That's treason.
I keep saying that non-citizens are not protected by the Constitution, and people seem to keep reading, nodding, and moving on, still in complete disagreement.
I couldn't think of a better way to demonstrate the reality involved. The issue for me was not any immoral, unethical, distasteful behavior on the part of my government, no matter how horrific, but was the government exceeding its Constitutional mandates against *citizens*.
No secret Snowden might have revealed to a foreign power, not even the one I made up, would be as bad as him betraying the country by revealing it to foreign powers.
On the other hand, he's a pukka hero for revealing *to the citizenry* what Constitutional violations the government was performing *against us*.
Yes, I'm dead certain they were offensive to a normally reasonable audience. The idea is offensive. It would not have served its purpose had it not been.
And no, I don't drink, I don't do drugs. I don't like not being in control of myself. I control so little else.
I go to work, I come home, I sit at the computer until I can't stay awake anymore, then I lay on my dilapidated loveseat and try to sleep until my alarm clock tells me it's time to repeat the cycle all over again. I don't have the money to waste on a movie, let alone booze or drugs or tobacco.
As much as khalling probably shouldn't have asked you to leave, your response back is exactly what this thread is discussing.
So, do I thumbs down you to signify spam, or do I thumbs up you for contributing to the conversation?
No.
"Hope and Change"? Bad. Bad. BAD!
You "get them all".
You want censorship.
Ever wonder what you do to attract that kind of attention from other members of the Gulch?
Is it possible that it's not "everyone else", but you who are the problem?
That being the case, is revealing treason… treason?
Load more comments...