Leaking v. Heroism

[Lord Larehip]

I don't see much debate here about all this leaking stuff going on. I don't know if most Americans even understand what the govt is or why they are so against it. That realization came to me after Obamacare was passed and these old geezers were protesting with signs that read "Govt keep your hands off my Medicare!" ???

Do they understand what smaller govt means? Say an F5 tornado or 9.5 earthquake hits you and destroyed everything for miles around. Or take what happened when Katrina hit New Orleans. When Bush didn't respond for 4 days, the country was outraged!! And yet, folks, there's your small govt in action! That's what it means. Yes, it would be great if there were no taxes but that also means no disaster relief, no road/bridge repairs, no police to call when some armed crankhead is robbing your house, no medicare, no social security when you get too old to work, etc. Small govt means that no matter what happens--save a direct threat to national security such as 9-11--you are on your own so deal with it. Well, hellfire, these aren't the pioneer days when you could throw up a little cabin with a sod roof in the space of an afternoon. A tornado that wipes out most of your town is just too big for you to handle on your own. If you think I'm lying, try it sometime. Without federal aid, you have no idea how much of a disaster it really is.

So all this anti-govt s-hit people keep spouting off today makes me believe that most of these jerks don't have any idea what the hell they are talking about. I'm no fan of big govt but I would be scared s-hitless to live in these people's idea of a democracy--loonies and conspiracy nuts who think a Mad Max future is just around the corner--talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. Look how many states are legalizing pot now. Doesn't sound that oppressive to me. Sure, I get fed up with the bureaucracy and the red tape and corruption and the gridlock and the stupid laws that don't do any good and Monsanto is an evil that needs to be eradicated. Yeah, I got it, thanks. But it's part of the price you have to pay to have infrastructure and I don't feel like going back to 1871, thank you very much.

So I'm disturbed at how people are cheering on these govt leakers, making heroes of them. Bradley Manning--I mean, was this guy a study in arrested development or what? Er, I mean Chelsea, sorry. What do his supporters say? "He showed us the truth about what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan!"

Jesus F-uck! Where were these idiots when George W. Bush LIED to the whole world about the Iraq's intentions and weapons capabilities?? What were they doing when photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib were splashed across the news for weeks and weeks? What episode of "Survivor" were they too wrapped up in to notice all the stories about American soldiers raping Arab girls and killing their entire families, shooting innocent civilians and then planting guns or bomb parts on them?? Where was the outrage when Bush made the Blackwater mercenaries his own secret police force above the laws or both Iraq AND America???? They said nothing!!!!!

Now here comes this pathetic sexually confused soldier with a bunch of diplomatic cables he stole and turned them over to Wikileaks that exposed the WHOLE SORDID STORY OF U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!! Except what SHOULDN'T these morons have already known about that war that Manning's subterfuge provided to them??? That the war was dirty?? REALLY???? You don't say!!!

Do any of them remember the contractor scandal? Do you? Right after the war, the US sent in corporations and entrepreneurs to rebuild the infrastructure we had stupidly destroyed in Iraq and these people did nothing but fleece the American taxpayer for BILLIONS of dollars for works that was NEVER DONE (often billing the taxpayer several times over the actual cost NUMEROUS times for the same job and never actually doing the work even once) or done so badly that they should have gone to prison (these include showers that electrocuted soldiers, wounded soldiers housed in crumbling, condemned buildings and giving soldiers contaminated water--that last one was done by Halliburton, the corporation run by Dick Cheney, the vice-president of the United States who used that war to feather his own nest and where was the outrage?? To this day, BILLIONS of dollars have disappeared in Iraq and has never been nor will ever be recovered. Where is the outrage of American people?

So, folks, what exactly did ol' Chelsea-baby tell you that you shouldn't have known YEARS AGO!!!

Then there's Edward Snowden. I hardly know where to begin with this guy. He stole so many classified documents most of them TOP SECRET that the NSA isn't even sure how much of it he got. He left no tracks to follow because he was an IT guy. All I hear from too many Americans is what a hero he is for revealing this dastardly New World Order plan to the American people. Yessir, if not for him we all would have been herded into concentration camps by now and had all our guns taken away.

Once again, what the hell did Edward Snowden tell you that you shouldn't have known years ago? We knew as early as 2006 that Bush was intercepting emails and phone calls. Bush wasn't even getting warrants from the FISA court--which is ILLEGAL!!! What did these Snowden hero-worshipers say about that when it came to light? Here's what they said---NOTHING!!! When polled, most Americans said it was a necessary thing. Was this the same American people currently inhabiting the United States today?? I hardly recognize them.

Here's what Edward Snowden did: he told the whole world how the US govt collects intelligence to assess terrorist threats. In so doing, he told any and all terrorist groups out there exactly how to avoid detection. Those programs, for which YOU spent billions to put in place, are ruined. Now YOU will pay billions more to get new programs put in place because, whether you like it or not, they are necessary. We MUST have them or we are sitting ducks. In fact, we are currently at great risk because of this guy's bulls-hit.

"But he was a whistleblower and he should have whistleblower protection!" A whistleblower is someone who reveals an ILLEGAL operation. The administration's program was NOT illegal. It was reviewed and approved by the FISA court. Snowden didn't have to approve of it but he was bound by his job duties to shut his big mouth about it.

Now, I know many of you are not convinced. I don't care. But ask yourself this: What if Snowden had killed someone to get that information out of the country? Would you regard him as a hero then? Think carefully before you answer. If you say no, then you can't really believe he is a hero now. Why? Well, of course, he didn't kill anybody but what he did was still a crime by any application of the law in this country or any civilized nation. He assumed the logins and passwords of other high-ranking officials and got access to material he otherwise was not privy to and downloaded it onto thumb drives--something no one else was allowed to do unless they had administrator privileges. Basically, he lied his way into that material and then stole it by deliberately misusing protocols. That's no different than me telling you I need to read your water meter and then swipe your money or jewelry while I'm in your house. Deception is deception, thievery is thievery. And thievery is always a crime in the eyes of the law.

So what it boils down to is this: Do the means justify the ends? If you say yes, then you must still support Snowden even if he had killed someone to steal that information. If you say no, then he had no justification.

So are these men heroes in the end? No. Both did what they did out of some insane, self-destructive drive to be someone important. Manning did it because he was so confused over his sexual identity that we can only be thankful he didn't get his hands on something truly damaging because it doesn't look like he cared. Whatever he got, he was going to reveal and consequences be damned. You can't tell me he read all 700,000 documents he filched. Snowden? What can you say about someone who betrays his country claiming he wanted to liberate his people and then goes off to live in Russia (where he may very well never leave)?

It comes down to trustworthiness and how much of your sensitive information would you trust to either of these people? Both gave their word to not to reveal anything classified and both went back on their word. When all is said and done, if you don't have your word then what do you have?

[hip hop bunny hop]

Originally Posted by Lord Larehip

I don't see much debate here about all this leaking stuff going on. I don't know if most Americans even understand what the govt is or why they are so against it. That realization came to me after Obamacare was passed and these old geezers were protesting with signs that read "Govt keep your hands off my Medicare!" ???

Well, this first paragraph sets up the rest pretty well.

The elderly were upset by Obamacare because it's largest "cost saving" provision was just making massive cuts to Medicare. As in, you know, hundreds of billions. Your ignorance of this leaves me questioning the rest of this long, rambling post.

Now, that the people who receive this entitlement would change their voting behavior to accommodate whichever candidate promises to protect/expand the relevant entitlement is nothing new. This tendency was noted and discussed by economists at the beginning the last century; if you want to look into it, read up on Moral Hazard and, to a lesser extent, Rent-Seeking.

[Trollheart]

Just some constructive criticism here.
You haven't written an introductory post inviting debate, as far as I can see . What you've written is a diatribe, a rant, which makes it crystal clear on which side of the argument you stand, and from previous conversations I know you don't take a contadictory opinion onboard well. It seems to me then that there will be few who will take the time to argue with you, as you've made your stance way too clear from the beginning.

I feel a shorter opening post would have been better; this is just too detailed and would certainly make me at any rate feel that there would be no point debating with you.

So I won't be. But good luck with it.

[Lord Larehip]

Well, I'm glad you're not agreeing with me as I think the whole thing is simply too big for much agreement. It's a very complex situation. My opinions are just that. I could be wrong about a lot of things because it would be impossible for any one person to be right about it all.

The elderly were upset by Obamacare because it's largest "cost saving" provision was just making massive cuts to Medicare. As in, you know, hundreds of billions.

Oh, yes, you mean the $716 billion, right? Ok, let's tally it up: Medicare money comes in a trust fund made up of premiums, payroll taxes and sundry other revenue. That money is then doled out to providers. We already know that part of that trust fund will be bankrupt by 2016--pretty much the rationale for the healthcare overhaul in the first place. So Obamacare will cut about $196 billion in payments to these providers. Started doing it in 2010, in fact. The providers agreed to these cuts because they stand to gain due to the individual mandate--if everybody has to have health insurance then you stand to profit if you're there to provide it to them. Medicare taxes on the wealthy are going to be raised providing $210 billion in revenue. Lastly, some $145 billion will be phased out of Medicare Advantage. These are overpayments that need to be trimmed regardless if we want to keep Medicare Advantage costs comparable to traditional Medicare costs. Then there are going to be about $165 billion of administrative costs cut out of the budget simply by streamlining the process. So there is your $716 billion and, if you look carefully, none of it is actually being chomped out of Medicare itself.

This might help too:

Here are five myths and facts surrounding Medicare and the ACA.

Medicare is ending. False. Obamacare is not replacing Medicare. In fact, AARP representatives say that Medicare will become stronger once the ACA is fully in effect. "Medicare's guaranteed benefits are protected in ways they hadn't been protected in the past," says Nicole Duritz, AARP's vice president for Health Education and Outreach.

Medicare beneficiaries must buy more health insurance to comply with the ACA. False. This stems from misunderstandings about the individual mandate, a key ACA provision requiring people who are currently uninsured to buy coverage or pay a penalty. Medicare is health insurance, so beneficiaries do not need to buy anything during the ACA enrollment period that starts on Oct. 1, when the state-run health insurance marketplaces open for business. Medicare beneficiaries can change their plans and prescription drug coverage during the Medicare open enrollment period, which is Oct. 15 through Dec. 7. Medicare beneficiaries who are satisfied with their current plans don't have to do anything.

Medicare beneficiaries will pay more for their medications under Obamacare. Partially true. Under the ACA, higher-income Medicare beneficiaries – those who earn more than $85,000 per person or $170,000 per couple – pay slightly more for their prescription drug coverage, or Medicare Part D. But this only affects about 5 percent of beneficiaries, AARP's Duritz points out. The vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries will see their drug costs go down as the ACA begins to close the "donut hole," a coverage gap that forces Medicare beneficiaries to pay 100 percent of their prescription drug costs up to a certain amount. This gap is expected to be fully closed by 2020, but those who fall into the gap this year will get a 47.5 percent discount on certain brand-name drugs and a 21 percent discount on generic drugs until they reach the out-of-pocket limit. In 2012, roughly 3.5 million Medicare beneficiaries saved an average of $706 each, the federal Department of Health and Human Services reported in March. As the donut hole closes, the savings will increase.

Medicare beneficiaries won't be able to see their current doctors. False. Nothing in the ACA expressly changes which doctors Medicare patients can see. Hospitals, physicians, pharmacies and other health care providers make routine business decisions and may choose to withdraw from the Medicare program, but no master switch is flipping on Jan. 1 requiring Medicare beneficiaries to leave their current doctors and choose new providers.

Medicare premiums are rising. Partially true. Medicare premiums are calculated by a complicated formula established long before the ACA, and those premiums rise annually. "Medicare premiums are rising because health care costs rise each year, but less rapidly than premiums for private health insurance, and less rapidly than previously projected," explains Paul Van de Water, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Those who earn more than $85,000 per person or $170,000 per couple will continue to pay more for their Medicare Part B coverage, as they have since 2007 – that increased cost is not related to the ACA.

Amid rhetoric of an impending Medicare train wreck caused by Obamacare, Van de Water emphasizes: "Medicare faces financial challenges, but it is not on the verge of 'bankruptcy' or ceasing to operate."

Dr. Mark Pauly, a professor of health care management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, affirms that "there will always be a subsidized insurance program for the elderly," but explains that it is a malleable policy subject to political will.

"What it will pay for and how much of it will be paid by non-poor seniors is, however, highly uncertain and will depend on politics as much as economics," he says.

Full article here:
Will Obamacare Affect Medicare? Myths and Facts - US News and World Report

[Lord Larehip]

Originally Posted by Trollheart

Just some constructive criticism here.
You haven't written an introductory post inviting debate, as far as I can see .

So what do you want? It's my thread, I fired the first shot. Am I to invite debate and then wait for you to start it? Then you'd be whinging about that.

So I won't be. But good luck with it.

Thank you and thank you.

[Burning Down]

I thought debate is what you wanted?

[butthead aka 216]

i agree that 'small government' is sort of a rallying cry from ppl who dont really understand what it means

as for outrage, that isnt going to come until society is at the point where enough ppl are literally starving. you can claim there is outrage now that the whistleblowers have done their thing but its largely internet outrage. how many ppl rioted or really did anythin when the nsa stuff broke?? ppl just complained because in the large scheme of things in didnt change their situation in life one bit. our government has always been well calculated liars. for the record i believe the jfk conspiracy too

some day once our society keeps goin down this self destructive path, in the likely distant future, a small group of ppl will do somethin extreme. bomb some political buildings or something. their message and reasoning will be distorted and they will be almost universally hated in death because of the collateral damage.

not even sure what im talkin about or where im headed here tbh


i try to put any war related issues into historical context because its easy to forget the centuries of heinous war acts. its much more savage than the current societal climate suggests i think.

[Lord Larehip]

Originally Posted by Burning Down

I thought debate is what you wanted?

Did I say no one can debate this? HHBH did. Did I bite his head off?

TH thoughtfully came here to say he has no intention of participating, am I supposed to beg him stay?

Jeesh.

[Burning Down]

Originally Posted by Lord Larehip

Did I say no one can debate this? HHBH did. Did I bite his head off?

TH thoughtfully came here to say he has no intention of participating, am I supposed to beg him stay?

Jeesh.

Nope. However I don't understand why people bother going into a thread saying they're not going to participate either. Why bother.

[Lord Larehip]

Originally Posted by butthead aka 216

i agree that 'small government' is sort of a rallying cry from ppl who dont really understand what it means

as for outrage, that isnt going to come until society is at the point where enough ppl are literally starving. you can claim there is outrage now that the whistleblowers have done their thing but its largely internet outrage. how many ppl rioted or really did anythin when the nsa stuff broke?? ppl just complained because in the large scheme of things in didnt change their situation in life one bit. our government has always been well calculated liars.

What worries me about the NSA-leakers thing is not the spying programs themselves which are overblown by internet bloggers but it demonstrates that we are turning into a conspiracy-based society. Virtually everything we learned from the leakers we should have already known. It was truly old news. But people are acting like this is some explosive new info. Why is that? Well, it appears to me that the nature of the way of the info came out is what interests them, not the info itself. A news reporter or network uncovering the US's spying operation some 7 years ago didn't interest people because it wasn't leaked by a govt worker. Somehow it being leaked makes ALL the difference. Ah ha! PROOF! We caught 'em with the pants down! Unless news is released like a conspiracy has been uncovered, people don't care. Our lunatic fringe isn't a fringe anymore. We think in terms of conspiracies now.

Look how many people believe in stupid stuff like chem trails. I know intelligent people who believe this stuff. I know reasonable people who think the Twin Towers were blown up from the inside despite how ridiculous the notion is.

for the record i believe the jfk conspiracy too

Well, there ARE questions to be asked there, I think. Isn't it odd, for example, that two people up to their eyeballs in the JFK thing were also intimately involved in the UFO craze in the late 40s? Fred Crisman was believed by Jim Garrison to be one of the three hobos. While it's not likely that he was, it was interesting that his name came up. Why? Well, if you look up the Maury Island UFO story from '47, he was the supervisor of the guy on the salvager who saw the UFOs--and Crisman was military pilot in the OSS/CIA!! Look it up. Then there was the deputy director of the CIA, General Charles Cabell, who was fired by Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, was also the guy who released the memos to military pilots authorizing the use of deadly force against UFOs back in '47 or '48! Weird that these two guys would be connected by two entirely different events some 20 years apart, isn't it? Then remember that Cabell's brother, Earle, was mayor of Dallas at the time JFK was killed. Strange, eh? Could all be coincidence but is it?

some day once our society keeps goin down this self destructive path, in the likely distant future, a small group of ppl will do somethin extreme. bomb some political buildings or something. their message and reasoning will be distorted and they will be almost universally hated in death because of the collateral damage.

Buddy, if you only knew how easy it is. Let me give a scenario that's so easy, it's amazing it hasn't already happened: You can order anthrax from laboratories or go to Mexico and collect it yourself from cattle. You can bring it back to the US and set up an anthrax factory in your apartment. You can order the equipment off the internet, no questions asked. You can make an anthrax slurry, fill a super-soaker with it and cruise around areas with truck stops and what not looking for pigs, chickens, cows on their way to market. Pull up next to it and just start wetting them down with your slurry and then take off and find another. These animals are sold in huge sale barns and will come in contact with thousands of other animals spreading the disease. By the time they show symptoms, a lot of these animals will have already been sold and butchered and that meat on the shelves in stores. Thousands, hundreds of thousands of people could be infected before anyone figured it out.

not even sure what im talkin about or where im headed here tbh

I only wish you didn't what you were talking about. It's probably going to happen.

i try to put any war related issues into historical context because its easy to forget the centuries of heinous war acts. its much more savage than the current societal climate suggests i think.

I think America is hurtling towards another civil war. The Reds against the Blues. The hatreds are out of hand.