insuffi

Because if they are "heavily" spying on the U.S., they already knew all what Snowden had, and more.

How many gov employees + contractors have top security clearances in the US? That's how.

The difference between "other countries" and the US is that the US puts up a show of "human rights", "scrutiny", and "court battles" in order to show that they "care", whereas the other ones just do not bother.

Where are the results? Better yet, public scrutiny? Everything's a fucking national secret.

You have a point. However, something really rubs me the wrong way about them having the ability to spy on every person. They are actively going out of their way to set up future channels of spying, without the consent of customers who bought the router in question.

And honestly, while your point is valid, there's plenty of discussion available online about rubber stamping warrants - and this sort of implanting of surveillance tools just makes it economically/logistically viable for them to spy on everyone.

The question is - do you feel OK about a foreign nation state embedding the ability to invade your privacy? Like you said, they don't have to use it, they just have to be able to use it when necessary. Honestly this sort of hairsplitting is just silly.

Excuse me? How is that somewhat OK? I don't give a damn about the NSA charter or even the constitution which so many people seem to bring up in hopes of justifying mass surveillance of civilians abroad - is mass spying on foreign civilians really OK at this point? Pre-emptively setting up infrastructure for surveillance without any warrants, in a sovereign state?

What about enterprise customers? Is it still "OK" if they carry out economic espionage?

Surely laws should only be considered if the situation in question relates to an american?

Alright, I stand corrected.

However, I must point out one important characteristic of these pseudo-wars the U.S. keeps having - it's always on foreign soil.

Please show me where the U.S. has officially declared war on these countries it continues to blow up civilians in e.g. Yemen.

You're delusional. There is plenty of evidence even operators of drones don't always have evidence that the people they're killing are "terrorists", they just "feel" it.

Without disclosing the rules, it opens us to moral hazard. There is no incentive to feel accountable, and as we've learned lately, the government does not do well without accountability.

I agree with you, but I don't know if you'll agree with me. In my experience, revolutions generally do not generate any sort of unbiased news. As a rule of thumb, it attracts extremist/opposition groups from both sides of the spectrum with their own agendas. Not to mention regular people themselves fall victim to bias.

How much can you really discern about the situation from a few tweets without context?

That's why I think regular investigative journalism should still be the norm.

I don't know if I would call it blatant guilt. The prosecution of insider trading in this case seemed to be very selective. How often do CEOs go to jail for that?

Crimea is a terrible example to illustrate that.

1)You stated that other country's governments would do at least as much surveillance. While not technically illegal, it certainly doesn't play out well for any system supposedly operating under the umbrella term "democracy". That's why I call it evil. That's something KGB/Stasi would do, and people don't exactly hold them to very high esteem?

2) I thought that everybody knows by now that the current surveillance apparatus is not for "potential security threats". If anybody who refuses to spy on their own people(e.g. telecoms) is considered a potential threat(whether it actually threatens national security or not), then, voila! We have arrived at a totalitarian government. The term threat has become very loose in its definition lately.

3)Correct, life isn't a snapshot. However, for the time being, the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. That's why companies need to be flexible and agile, and mitigate future threats on their livelihood e.g. switch to services in more friendly locales.

4) Still though. What makes you say that the governments of other countries would do at least what the US government is doing? That seems to imply some moral superiority that goes something like this - "we have this technology and we are spying on people, which is illegal, but other countries would do much worse things, given the opportunity". So it's corrupt, but somehow still above everyone else?

I'm sorry, but that's wishful thinking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojS4zGDc4JI - QWest

http://www.wired.com/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/

Does QWEST CEO going to jail for refusing to cooperate ring any bells?

I find it peculiar that you still imply the US government's moral authority by using the phrase at least. What gives? What makes you think the other governments are intrinsically more evil?

Besides, your argument is rather off-topic. The other governments probably don't have the tools, so they can't be at least as evil, so the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

EDIT: I'd prefer somebody to tell me why other governments are intrinsically more evil, instead of silently downvoting me.

You mean the same country where the word "social" is used as a slur? Or where if somebody receives welfare they are looked down upon and called lazy?[0]

Broadly speaking, no, foreign aid given by the US is barely top 30 per capita.

[0] http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2002/AmericanAttitu...

Except that's not what I'm doing at all.

I was trying to say that the inequality and "hatred" towards inequality and wealth(both claims unsubstantiated, with emotionally charged language)he is attributing to "socialists"(used as almost a slur in his text, also, wrong, social democracies are the wealthiest systems around) is in his head. You are the one misrepresenting my argument.

And just because we have it "better", doesn't mean everyone has at least a reasonable standard of living. Einstein should be earning a lot more, but a village idiot also deserves to not live in dire poverty.

Care to point out where exactly in my reply it was that I was demonizing him? I was drawing parallels with a news outlet that has a habit of engaging into similar misrepresentations of situations.

You have it all mixed up, my friend.

Some people want to think that a village idiot doesn't deserve to live a miserable life because he is a village idiot.

You're certainly pulling a lot of strawmen here. Come to think of it, almost reminds me of Fox News. They have a habit of demonizing the other group, just to make themselves feel better.

Except we're not talking about outsourced work, and not about unqualified work either. Great job misrepresenting and misunderstanding what the issue is about.

The only reason prices are so low is because it's all outsourced. If you want Americans to do the work of the SEA and China, then you're going to pay a lot more for your shit. Those low prices are the only thing that a lot of people rely on their livelihood for.

Alright, I stand corrected. Do you think it's worth the time/opportunity cost/H1B costs/lawyers as opposed to hiring a local worker, if there's not something else going on?

Are your universities free/cheap?

EDIT:to expand, the school costs are free. But where do the unis stand in terms of costs? For instance, a huge chunk of taxes go to subsidizing free education in a number of EU countries.

Since we're talking in absolute terms, you're basically saying all education acquired outside of the US is questionable.

If you look at the world ranking of universities top 100, you'll see a number of foreign universities on par with Ivies.

I don't see how not joining a field just because it consists of certain amount of foreigners is a healthy, normal instinct.

You do realize you're implying that Americans are xenophobic?

If there's nothing special about them, why are companies hiring them?

The usual "cheap workarz" angle is irrelevant. They all get market rates. Not to mention businesses having to sponsor relocation and the actual visas.

Surely you're not suggesting a business would bear H1B related overhead for no reason, unless they would be forced to do so.

How would that make the field more attractive? If the aforementioned Europeans and Asians left, and Americans moved in afterwards, aren't you essentially implying Americans cannot keep up with them?

Do you want to make a wild guess as to who supplied and supported the use of "bio" weapons?

Except her opinions have far reaching consequences, such as killing people.

Am I not allowed to blacklist her because of that? I'm sure the people she's indirectly killed would blacklist her. No?

Except she did know that there were no WMDs there, and so did the rest of the admin.

Even if the WMDs were there, that in no way posed a threat to the region or the World. If anything, that was just a charade. It's widely known the US had a close relationship with Saddam.

Expanding on her making a political statement, people would have every right to condemn her that political statement if it's a pure lie.

P.S. Political affiliation/beliefs, like I said, don't make you a bad person. Fucking shit up and holding a certain belief are not connected.

EDIT: Plus, following your logic, if you're a republican and you beat your wife, does that mean being a republican is bad?

Like I said below, this has nothing to do with her political beliefs. It has to do with actions she was directly involved in.

Describe what her political beliefs are and why people are objecting to them(and why they shouldn't object, as per your opinion), if you're so sure of your position. But you can't mention the words "war", "human rights", "surveillance". This leaves you with just the theoretical definition of her political beliefs.

Nope. In my world, morals matter more than political affiliation. Conservative or not, neither of those is inherently bad. What matters is how it's executed.

Oh, and by the way,I have observed this trend in the US where people who are liberals automatically disagree with conservatives just because. Sorry, I do like me some critical thinking, you know? You have that, right? I explained my case loud and clear. War is bad, regardless of whether you're conservative or liberal.

This has nothing to do with political beliefs or a conservative background.

You can be a conservative in all possible ways and still uphold moral principles. The last time I checked morality does not include lying, undermining human rights, waging foreign wars.