People can be opposed to changes in marriage for reasons which are not religious.

That doesn't make any sense. I haven't actually said I believe that the corrupt piece of trash known as the NSA keeps other spying agencies in check, and you haven't explained how destroying them means they're beneficial.

The facts present themselves otherwise, so if you believe something different, you're the one who's going to have to explain things.

Trustworthy or not is basically irrelevant in a discussion about whether the NSA provides any benefit. Foreign spy agencies can only be assumed to be less trustworthy than the NSA is, especailly if you think they are already cooperating. Disbanding the NSA while allowing the existence of foreign spy agencies means they're cooperating against you without you.

It's not doublespeak at all. Mutual spying creates trust, because without mutual spying, there will most likely be unilateral spying.

Without actual capital-i Intelligence, there can be only speculation. If you think transparency is a good thing and information asymmetry is a bad thing, then mutual spying is something you desire.

Seriously. There will be no weapons on the planet before there is no eavesdropping.

I don't gladly reap any benefits; I want the NSA destroyed. It must be nice to pretend that I love the NSA and believe it's beneficial in your delusions, but please try to remain in reality and not tell other people what they believe.

The NSA keeps other nations' spy agencies in check, so if you want them destroyed, then the NSA therefore must be beneficial.

You reluctantly reap the benefits, then? You shamefully reap the benefits? You self-flagellatingly reap the benefits?

Adverb it however you wish, but reaping in the NSA's benefits isn't a matter of belief.

Iraq in 2002 and 2003 is a pretty good example where a lack of good intelligence from spying increased the chances of a war.

The invasion eventually happened because weapons inspectors weren't allowed to do their jobs, remember?

If you want the NSA to be destroyed, then, by extension, you must wish for every other national espionage systems to also be destroyed simultaneously.

But how would you ever verify that happened without a means of extracting secretive information from other nations?

The poster you replied to is correct -- you don't care so much about the NSA, you care about the NSA potentially spying on you while gladly reaping the benefits of the NSA spying on other people for you.

All of diplomacy is a theater in which everyone is forced to take part as a means of nation-states being polite to each other.

Funny story about the Zimmerman telegram: the British actually read it before anybody, and then had to come up with an elaborate scheme to leak it to the Americans without letting on the fact that they were spying on the Americans.

The Cold War being so recent colors the history of spying to make it look as if it was primarily a strategy used by the USA and the USSR, but the UK has one of the most notorious (and notoriously successful) spying programs since the dawn of history. They spy on absolutely everybody, absolutely all the time, and do it in a very British way in which they're terribly ashamed of it but still simultaneously make slight nods of acknowledgment to each other behind the curtain.

The French aren't far behind in terms of skill and scope, although maybe not quite as much in recent history.

Previous to that, in earlier times, Vienna was for a long time the crypto-capital of the world, being in such a central and important location in Europe.

Mutual spying creates trust.

Anyone who thinks the US government should be hamstringed in its spying efforts by conflating it with surveillance of its own citizens just wishes for a weakened America relative to other nations who would gladly accept a spying advantage with even less trustworthy ambitions.

Anyone who is actually involved in diplomacy and expresses outrage over this is either a total fool or is acting for personal gain.

Thanks for posting this. When I first read his comment, I assumed I was reading a post by an authoritative source who had actually witnessed Napoleon's speech.

That actually dis-incentivizes the Russians from doing that, since that would give everyone access to the files.

That is, of course, assuming that granting him asylum didn't include the precondition of having access in the first place. They want the information, they just don't want everyone to have the information.

While I would have loved to receive an advanced education for free, I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. I worked my way through debt-free and received my "4 year" degree in 5.5 years by going to a state university and living a reduced lifestyle.

so.... you went through subsidized ("free") scooling, and you're wondering why everyone can't do this?

you're insane. You think cabbies should be able to sue if you call and then try to cancel? Do you want to pay upfront for taxi service? if it's such a great loss, why don't you pay for livery service?

Taxis have their drawbacks, but their unrealiability in this sense is actually one of their positives -- their desire to stick to the major routes and highly trafficked areas are what contribute to their flexibility, general availability, and cheap service. If car service were restricted to "verbal contracts" which, if broken, would send them to jail or the target of a civil lawsuit, the prices would go through the roof or they would not be in business.

The dispatcher didn't lie to you, by the way. The dispatcher relayed information to you. If you think the taxi driver lied then lodge a complaint and it should be investigated or he should be reprimanded.

Except he wasn't following the kid for dubious reasons, there had been a large number of break-ins in that complex by blacks.

Zimmerman didn't know what color he was. In any event, the reasons were obviously dubious, because Trayvon was living there and had not broken into anything.

Zimmerman didn't get lost, he doubled back trying to find him and couldn't. Martin laid in ambush for him, instead of continuing the 700ft to his fathers place.

Zimmerman claims to have gotten lost, and committed a pretty serious crime (lying to police, obstructing a murder investigation) if you think he didn't. I mean, everyone KNOWS he was following Trayvon, but that's not what he claims. So he either lied to police or he's absolutely incompetent. We're basically forced to accept that he's incompetent.

True, then again Martin could have kept walking, or called the police himself. Instead he took matters into his own hands and paid for it with is life. Zimmerman on the otherhand, did what any reasonable person would have done if they were looking out for suspicious behavior, and a person fit the profile of those who had already committed criminal actions in the area.

of course he could have, as I said in my post. But you go off the rails right after that -- no reasonable person would allow a person they are suspicious of to introduce their presence and approach close enough to try to grab the reasonable person's loaded weapon.

Zimmerman is either incompetent or a liar, did a bunch of stupid things, ended up shooting someone, and was put on trial for it. Martin was a 17 year old who did a stupid thing and was shot and killed for it.

Neither of their actions excuse the others.