Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (11641)	2/12/2006 4:29:29 PM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541024

Change the law if you don't like the law. This is a fine sentiment, one with nearly universal appeal. Now if only a journalist or Congress critter would refer GWB to it, as regards the NSA surveillance.

To: KLP who wrote (11641)	2/12/2006 6:05:38 PM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 541024

Such a standard deviation - any lack of support for any fraction of a national security policy means the person wold never do anything to protect anyone anywhere. Why do you need to make up this fantasyland stuff to justify a position? Why not just accept that others have differences, and the public is sharply divided between the two sides? Read this again and think about it. Hopping and skipping from one extreme absurdity to another with no regard for how Washington actually works. I should stick to my rule not to debate partisans. It just goes in predictable, exaggerated circles. If you think that the media has every right to all classified info, then why do we have classified info in the first place? I DIDN'T SAY THAT. If we carry that extreme to the final resting place, why are we trying to protect the US and others against aggression of any kind? I DIDN'T SAY THAT. Maybe kumbaya is the way to go....literally. I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

To: KLP who wrote (11641)	2/13/2006 2:13:38 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 541024

No, Dale, I said all those things and asked all those questions of you. From your comment here... >>>>>"I'm sure your next post will be how awful it could be for the wrong classified information to get into enemy hands. In fact, the top editors have a pretty good record for not printing troop movements and stuff like that. I know your partisan point of view will not let you concede that so spare me the whole emotional argument."<<<<< .... I read that you THINK my next post (because I am a quote "partisan" would be how "awful it would be...etc. " Because you said that, I assume you think it would be OK for classified information to get into enemy hands. If you didn't mean that, how else could that sentence be interpreted???? And in addition, you said that "top editors have a PRETTY good record, etc...." Great...good on them. Big of them. Did you think any of the editors, whether or not they are "top" editors, SHOULD tell where the troops are moving? I certainly don't think that the enemy needs to know that, and I'm surprised anyone in the US would think they should. And further...."stuff like that" should probably noted in advance, so that it would include which leaks are good leaks and help out our Country, and which leaks are bad leaks and lead to the killing of our Soldiers, and perhaps our citizens. Sorry if that's a partisan statement. It used to be called 'a statement from a caring citizen' and that is the way it is intended to be....