4 ms·

Not sure what this context adds, but ok.

• dredmorbius 3y ago
  What the context adds is that the quote comes from a political attack against the intelligence services, rather than attempts to legislate restrictions (the context in which the quote was submitted in this thread), requirements, regulations, of regulatory actions through the executive, or court decisions through the judiciary. Of which there is ample history of each.
  • b59831 3y ago
    [dead]
  • bhk 3y ago
    Oh, so disagreeing with their conclusions might trigger vengeful retaliation, but actually threatening their power will not?
    • dredmorbius 3y ago
      In Comments Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html> I was curious about the quote: was it in fact legitimate, and when and in what context did it originate. And shared what I found. Otherwise my comment stands for itself. But thanks.