51–60 of 96 posts
They wanted to send a message. Just like mobsters tripping on power do.
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When 1% of the nation has similar levels of access as these two, I don't know that it's reasonable to exclude the sneakernet vuln.
3 million people have equivalent security clearances as Bradley Manning or even Edward Snowden? I'm going to guess that's a little high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When 1% of the nation has similar levels of access as these two, I don't know that it's reasonable to exclude the sneakernet vuln.
3 million people have equivalent security clearances as Bradley Manning or even Edward Snowden? I'm going to guess that's a little high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Urrm, you seem to be under the impression that impeachment does something more than remove someone from office (technically it doesn't even do that, if the House impeaches then the Senate holds a trial, which happened with Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's VP, and Bill Clinton). All Ford's pardon did was to prevent vengeful Democrats, some holding grudges going as far back as 1950, from criminally prosecuting him. It allowed…
>All Ford's pardon did was to prevent vengeful Democrats, some holding grudges going as far back as 1950, from criminally prosecuting him. So while we're in agreement that Nixon was a criminal, you're saying he should not have been prosecuted...because people had other reasons to dislike him beyond his criminal acts? I fail to see how allowing Nixon to escape justice allowed the country to Move On. It demonstrated to…
Therefore prosecuting him because he was an anti-Communist Republican would not have been good. While this doesn't address my greater point, look at all the bogus prosecutions of Reagan Administration officials.
My greater point is about the arena that Ford decisively closed off with his pardon. Historically, when a Republic degrades to the point where leaders don't dare lose power, because they'll lose their freedom and frequently in time past their lives, that Republic dies an ugly death.
Perhaps you weren't alive/politically aware back then, but the country did Move On, Nixon and Watergate, which had consumed it, often to the exclusion of very important external issues, just stopped being a, let alone the top issue of the day. We Moved On to the supposedly clumsy Gerald Ford (he did have a bad knee from college football, but this was greatly exaggerated), Whip Inflation Now, Swine Flu, but seriously, the general business of the nation.
So why not download from Harvard, instead of abusing guest access at MIT?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>All Ford's pardon did was to prevent vengeful Democrats, some holding grudges going as far back as 1950, from criminally prosecuting him. So while we're in agreement that Nixon was a criminal, you're saying he should not have been prosecuted...because people had other reasons to dislike him beyond his criminal acts? I fail to see how allowing Nixon to escape justice allowed the country to Move On. It demonstrated to…
No, we're not at all in agreement that "Nixon was a criminal" (details on request ... although, it's been 4 decades in general, and a couple decades since I read Silent Coup ). Therefore prosecuting him because he was an anti-Communist Republican would not have been good. While this doesn't address my greater point, look at all the bogus prosecutions of Reagan Administration officials. My greater point is about the a…
I'm sorry, I had no idea that you were this far out there. There's not much point in debating you if we're not on the same page about the realities of his actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, we're not at all in agreement that "Nixon was a criminal" (details on request ... although, it's been 4 decades in general, and a couple decades since I read Silent Coup ). Therefore prosecuting him because he was an anti-Communist Republican would not have been good. While this doesn't address my greater point, look at all the bogus prosecutions of Reagan Administration officials. My greater point is about the a…
> No, we're not at all in agreement that "Nixon was a criminal" I'm sorry, I had no idea that you were this far out there. There's not much point in debating you if we're not on the same page about the realities of his actions.
If you can't see the danger of changing the rules of the game and throwing people into jail based on that....
I wouldn't even be 1% surprised if they forced Swartz into committing suicide, by threatening to harm his loved ones if he didn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_suicide
can you share some of your reasoning behind this (quite extreme) belief?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
can you share some of your reasoning behind this (quite extreme) belief?
If I remember correctly, Aaron was convinced that the way things were going with the trial it would bankrupt his family by defending him. It's not too hard to imagine that "protecting" them involves taking yourself out of the equation there.
I'm all for piling on the malefactors in the Aaron Swartz case, but I wouldn't bet a nickle on anything that comes out of PJ Media.