131–140 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be arguing that we have a system where theft and bribery are necessary in some way, and therefore we shouldn't prosecute it aggressively. Wouldn't we rather reform the system such that it makes theft and bribery less attractive?
> You seem to be arguing The sarcasm is positively dripping from that post
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s gotten to the point that high government officials can’t afford to be lobbied. This is just nonsense, most members of congress take lobby money. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-recipients
Members of congress are a small subset of government officials. That they get away with corrupt behavior doesn't mean that people in the civil service should have to be anxious about trivial things. If a government employee can be influenced by something as minor as a pen or lunch, they are in the wrong line of work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would prefer a government that investigates all the bad acts of LEOs. I would prefer a government that investigates the rich. I would prefer a government that investigates wage theft.
I would prefer a government that enforces the law blindly. Our legal system is fundamentally broken as long as we consider wealth, career, politics, personal connections, etc before filing charges and trying a case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are they? Sounds like a BS theory, promoted to make them sound secretly more competent than they are ("we're great and stop a lot of attacks, we just aren't telling you". Yeah, right). The truth is that even a minor succesfully stopped attack they'd advertise till the end of time, to score political and press points.
You don't burn your methods and systems for some political points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't burn your methods and systems for some political points.
LOL, "methods and systems"... from the people who couldn't see the collapse of the USSR, 7/11, and countless others failures...
I didn't say they're perfect methods or systems. Intelligence operations have mixed outcones partially dependent on adversarial actions such as ops sec or counterintel. This isn't a new or unique phenomenon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't tell you because they don't feel the need to justify it to you. They do tell some of it individuals with the proper clearances who hold some level of power over them (comittees etc). Here is a small list of the ones that were publicized. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrori...
> they don't feel the need to justify it to you Yes, that is the primary problem with spy agencies - that they don't feel accountable. They SHOULD be.
The current paradigm is that agencies generally are accountable to congressional committees and the courts. I'm not sure how we would make them accountable to the public when there's very little accountability for elected representatives even.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are allowed to be mad at a ruling you cannot change. Just don’t drag me into your feelings. Maybe it is overruled someday, that’s pretty rare. Maybe you can point to another amendment that made it almost 250 before being interpreted to say something, it does not?
I'm not mad at all. I have no feelings on the issue whatsoever, honestly. But you're also wrong if you think there's meaningful precedent. And BTW the entire Bill of Rights is the same age. All are subject to interpretation by the sitting Court. ... FWIW, I would place 2A lowest on my list of important entries in the BoR though. They're all important because if one is threatened then they are all threatened, but I th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems perfectly reasonable for someone from the 1700s to think "hmm, muskets, yeah, that's something everyone should have on hand", but then get sent forward to the 2000s, have modern firearms shown to them, and say "oh whoa, yeah, no way, that seems like a terrible idea". It also seems perfectly reasonable for someone from the 1700s to think that freedom of speech and the press is a good idea, and then get sent f…
It's worth mentioning that individuals could legally (and some did) own cannons and warships back then as well - it wasn't limited to muskets. The reference in the Constitution to "letters of marque and reprisal" refer to government licenses to attack and capture ships, ie a government license to be a pirate. > And regarding 2A, it'd also be reasonable to expect that same person from the 1700s didn't actually think e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth mentioning that individuals could legally (and some did) own cannons and warships back then as well - it wasn't limited to muskets. The reference in the Constitution to "letters of marque and reprisal" refer to government licenses to attack and capture ships, ie a government license to be a pirate. > And regarding 2A, it'd also be reasonable to expect that same person from the 1700s didn't actually think e…
Look up the relationship between mass adoption of SSRIs and mass shootings. It seems to me like there is clearly some relationship there.