popsjumper 2 #551 March 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think there needs to be some oversight. In theory, Congress has oversight over the Executive Branch through the Intelligence Committee and other channels. In reality, Congress seems to let the Executive do whatever it wants. . . . If this sort of think has been done to avoid paying out death settlements, think what else has been covered up by claiming state secrets? I get the feeling that you are not going to get many rebuttals here. Good stuff. My only problem is finding someone trustworthy enough to BE that oversight of the hen house. They're ALL foxes. Perhaps it should be the people. In fact, I think that's the (general) idea of WL. The problem with that is that the people would have to know about everything in order to oversee it. There are a few here who are flipping their lids arguing against just that.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #552 March 2, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote I think there needs to be some oversight. In theory, Congress has oversight over the Executive Branch through the Intelligence Committee and other channels. In reality, Congress seems to let the Executive do whatever it wants. . . . If this sort of think has been done to avoid paying out death settlements, think what else has been covered up by claiming state secrets? I get the feeling that you are not going to get many rebuttals here. Good stuff. My only problem is finding someone trustworthy enough to BE that oversight of the hen house. They're ALL foxes. Perhaps it should be the people. In fact, I think that's the (general) idea of WL. The problem with that is that the people would have to know about everything in order to oversee it. There are a few here who are flipping their lids arguing against just that. So what would you propose to do? Publish everything and let people vote on what can stay secret and what can't? Yep, that'll work. Thank God the decision isn't up to you and your kind.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VincePetaccio 0 #553 March 2, 2011 Quote So what would you propose to do? Publish everything and let people vote on what can stay secret and what can't? Yep, that'll work. Thank God the decision isn't up to you and your kind. You raise a valid point: it would not work. It would be a dismal mess, resulting in huge disaster. I think the disconnect here between you and I is that you seem to be viewing this as how we can change the current system to work better. Clearly if the CIA instituted an open-door policy, the results would be disastrous for our nation. I'm viewing it as how the system should be, and what a good system would look like. In a perfect world, our foreign policies would eliminate the need for secrecy, our communications would be appropriate for release, and we wouldn't need to have secrets at all. In this case, then an open-door policy at the CIA would not only work, but would probably not be very interesting to many people. Of course, this isn't a perfect world, and the CIA will never have an open-door policy. But hey, I can dream, can't I? Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 504 #554 March 2, 2011 QuoteSo what would you propose to do? Publish everything and let people vote on what can stay secret and what can't? Yep, that'll work. Thank God the decision isn't up to you and your kind. One possibility would be that freedom of information was altered or amended such that the judiciary could provide independent scrutiny of government actions. The problem with the Military, politicians and the Civil servants is that it is in their interests to be overly secretive. It is naive to think that in modern society there should be no secrets, but it is equally naive to believe that politicians are "well intentioned". Everyone is focused on WL, but if you want to look at a leak in modern times that nearly destroyed a government (in my view it did destroy them) look at the UK expenses scandal. Our politicians spending habits were blown open by a newspaper, there are about 600 members of parliament and there have been charges and convictions for 4.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #555 March 2, 2011 Quote Quote So what would you propose to do? Publish everything and let people vote on what can stay secret and what can't? Yep, that'll work. Thank God the decision isn't up to you and your kind. You raise a valid point: it would not work. It would be a dismal mess, resulting in huge disaster. I think the disconnect here between you and I is that you seem to be viewing this as how we can change the current system to work better. Clearly if the CIA instituted an open-door policy, the results would be disastrous for our nation. I'm viewing it as how the system should be, and what a good system would look like. In a perfect world, our foreign policies would eliminate the need for secrecy, our communications would be appropriate for release, and we wouldn't need to have secrets at all. In this case, then an open-door policy at the CIA would not only work, but would probably not be very interesting to many people. Of course, this isn't a perfect world, and the CIA will never have an open-door policy. But hey, I can dream, can't I? I think you hit the nail right on the head.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #556 March 2, 2011 Quote It is naive to think that in modern society there should be no secrets, but it is equally naive to believe that politicians are "well intentioned". Yet once again, Nigel comes through with clear-headed thinking. Quote Our politicians spending habits were blown open by a newspaper, there are about 600 members of parliament and there have been charges and convictions for 4. ...and without the leak, it is business as usual as some bozos would have it. There's a reason why we call it "leaks". The container of under-handed, selfish, all-about-me, screw-the-public goobermint activity gets punctured and exposed to the air. And some wiseguys wouldn't have it any other way and bad-mouth the guys that leaked even to the point of wanting to hunt him down and hang him. Sorry, misguided people they are.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 806 #557 March 2, 2011 Interesting that Assange is all about leaking other's info...and yet seeking to protect his own Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #558 March 2, 2011 Quotetrivial? You took that notion and then linked it to bombing.... Reading is fundamental..... You are confusing the two areas. 1. He said he went to a Church with a certain pastor for 20 years -- That is not a big deal and could easily be taken at his word. Same with him being friends with Ayers. He said he is friends. That is evidence enough to support the claim. 2. That pastor has a history of anti-American rants and Ayers did terrorist bombing. Taking #1 at the Presidents word is easy. That does not justify #2. Quotedo advocate HC for all, but not under the current system which would require us to pay some $10000/month in insurance costs to achieve what could be had for 40% of that amount in income tax for everyone Yes, you want something, but not bad enough for YOU to pay for it (even though you clearly can). Instead, you want ME to pay for the things YOU want. QuoteAssange is my hero And your hypocrisy is quite clear. QuoteYes I am fine with it. A lot of people lie about their Christian faith just to fit in or score points with their peers, and in this case the electorate. Ah, so honesty is not important to you.... We could actually already tell that from your history BTW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #559 March 2, 2011 Quote Interesting that Assange is all about leaking other's info...and yet seeking to protect his own huh? trademarking has nothing to do with protecting information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VincePetaccio 0 #560 March 2, 2011 Quote Quote Interesting that Assange is all about leaking other's info...and yet seeking to protect his own huh? trademarking has nothing to do with protecting information. True. Although, if Assange WERE fighting to protect his own privacy, I wouldn't really see that as being entirely hypocritical. Assange claims to have an interest in protecting the individual, and in only exposing as much information as necessary to complete a "task." Of course, it's hard to say whether he's been successful or not in this goal (most would probably say that no, he has not), but at least his formally stated intentions are to protect individuals. I'd say that's in line with protecting his own personal information.Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 806 #561 March 2, 2011 "It's a bizarre thing for someone associated with freedom of information to do," London law firm Preiskel and Co's David Allen Green told The Guardian." "It's not that he's out there trying to make huge amounts of money. It's about protecting himself from being associated with things he doesn't know about or approve of." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #562 March 2, 2011 Quote"It's a bizarre thing for someone associated with freedom of information to do," London law firm Preiskel and Co's David Allen Green told The Guardian." "It's not that he's out there trying to make huge amounts of money. It's about protecting himself from being associated with things he doesn't know about or approve of." so again, what does this have to do with protecting one's information? WL isn't, to anyone's knowledge, releasing falsely attributed documents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 806 #563 March 2, 2011 It would appear to me that he is trying to provide himself with a layer of protection when he takes advantages of other entities lack thereof. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #564 March 2, 2011 Quote It would appear to me that he is trying to provide himself with a layer of protection when he takes advantages of other entities lack thereof. Ya think? (See bolding, below) From December: Quote LAWYERS for Julian Assange have expressed anger about an alleged smear campaign against the Australian WikiLeaks founder. Incriminating police files were published in the British newspaper that has used him as its source for hundreds of leaked US embassy cables. In a move that surprised many of Mr Assange's closest supporters on Saturday, The Guardian newspaper published previously unseen police documents that accused Mr Assange in graphic detail of sexually assaulting two Swedish women. One witness is said to have stated: "Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent." Bjorn Hurtig, Mr Assange's Swedish lawyer, said he would lodge a formal complaint to the authorities and ask them to investigate how such sensitive police material leaked into the public domain. "It is with great concern that I hear about this because it puts Julian and his defence in a bad position," he told a colleague. "I do not like the idea that Julian may be forced into a trial in the media. And I feel especially concerned that he will be presented with the evidence in his own language for the first time when reading the newspaper. I do not know who has given these documents to the media, but the purpose can only be one thing - trying to make Julian look bad." Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #565 March 2, 2011 QuoteYes, you want something, but not bad enough for YOU to pay for it (even though you clearly can). Instead, you want ME to pay for the things YOU want. That is ABSOLUTELY 100% correct - and you make it sound like a bad thing...... Instead of "YOU" though, I would substitute "THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PEOPLE". And instead of "ME", substitute "EVERYONE" and since this is a democracy, it would be nice if the government got the fuck to work making it happen. When you personalize as one 'me' you make it sound like you and I are standing here alone. When that is far from the truth. ANYWAY - back to Assange being my hero......and that upcoming Nobel prize which will put us in the rankings of China if we prosecute him...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #566 March 2, 2011 QuoteIt would appear to me that he is trying to provide himself with a layer of protection when he takes advantages of other entities lack thereof. seems like you have to dress it up in vague language - sorry, it's just not applicable. Mike gave a much more legitimate one - though there's no question that defendants' rights to a fair trial are compromised by these intentional leaks to the media. Wikileaks released information that nations and corporations would like kept hidden, not information pertaining to an open legal proceeding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #567 March 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteYes, you want something, but not bad enough for YOU to pay for it (even though you clearly can). Instead, you want ME to pay for the things YOU want. That is ABSOLUTELY 100% correct - and you make it sound like a bad thing...... So, why didn't you get your employees the health insurance they wanted? After all, you're saying it's perfectly fine to have someone else pay for something that you want... QuoteInstead of "YOU" though, I would substitute "THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PEOPLE". Um, no - the majority don't support Obamacare.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #568 March 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteYes, you want something, but not bad enough for YOU to pay for it (even though you clearly can). Instead, you want ME to pay for the things YOU want. That is ABSOLUTELY 100% correct - and you make it sound like a bad thing...... Instead of "YOU" though, I would substitute "THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PEOPLE". And instead of "ME", substitute "EVERYONE" and since this is a democracy, it would be nice if the government got the fuck to work making it happen. When you personalize as one 'me' you make it sound like you and I are standing here alone. When that is far from the truth. ANYWAY - back to Assange being my hero......and that upcoming Nobel prize which will put us in the rankings of China if we prosecute him...... Why should I, a single man, pay for the health care of your children when they do stupid shit they see on "Jackass" movies? Why should i pay for your health care when you break your neck jumping out of an airplane and swooping?HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #569 March 2, 2011 Quote Why should I, a single man, pay for the health care of your children when they do stupid shit they see on "Jackass" movies? Why should i pay for your health care when you break your neck jumping out of an airplane and swooping? Hey - I'm not paying if that horse kicks you in the head either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #570 March 2, 2011 Quote Quote Why should I, a single man, pay for the health care of your children when they do stupid shit they see on "Jackass" movies? Why should i pay for your health care when you break your neck jumping out of an airplane and swooping? Hey - I'm not paying if that horse kicks you in the head either. I'll bet you'd pay to see it....both my Belgians died a couple years ago. Besides, when those big boys kick you in the head there is only a funeral to pay for. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #571 March 2, 2011 Sorry to hear that... and agreed on the 'post-kick' thing...that much muscle pushing a hoof the size of a dinner plate does a LOT of damage.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #572 March 2, 2011 QuoteSo, why didn't you get your employees the health insurance they wanted? After all, you're saying it's perfectly fine to have someone else pay for something that you want... In Reply To Instead of "YOU" though, I would substitute "THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PEOPLE". Um, no - the majority don't support Obamacare. Once again, you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. I do nto want to buy my employees health insurance. I want to supply them with heath care. there is a huge difference, but feel free to try and say there is not. And the majority do not support Obamacare and neither do I . I support universal health CARE for all, paid for by the tax system. forcing everyone to buy insurance is doomed to fail. and the sooner the better, so we can get onto the next step - Medicare for all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #573 March 2, 2011 QuoteI do nto want to buy my employees health insurance. I want to supply them with heath care. there is a huge difference, but feel free to try and say there is not. The only difference is that your wallet stays fatter. You didn't seem to have any problems buying insurance for YOURSELF. QuoteMedicare for all. Great idea - let's put everyone on the system with the most denied claims and payments so low that doctors can't afford to see the patients.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #574 March 3, 2011 QuoteQuoteYes, you want something, but not bad enough for YOU to pay for it (even though you clearly can). Instead, you want ME to pay for the things YOU want. That is ABSOLUTELY 100% correct - and you make it sound like a bad thing...... Actually it sounds a lot like stealing. It reminds me of a poster here that returned a tent and camping supplies when he was done with it. Is that the kind of person you like to be? I mean it benefits him to not have to pay for the tent, right? So what if the rest of the country has to pay for higher prices because he wanted to not have to pay for what he used.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #575 March 3, 2011 >Actually it sounds a lot like stealing. Well, as much as paying for veteran's hospitals, highways and wars is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
