Here Is Edward Snowden's Christmas Message

[babsbunny]

http://www.businessinsider.com/snowdens-christmas-messgae-2013-12

Michael Kelley

Dec. 25, 2013, 6:39 AM

Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden has given a short Christmas address, broadcast on the UK's Channel 4 news, from his temporary asylum in Russia.

The 30-year-old American is wanted for taking hundreds of thousands of classified documents and is credited for starting a necessary debate about government surveillance in the digital, post-9/11 world.

His basic message is against mass surveillance, and he goes full Orwell: "A child born today will ... never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves."

Here's the transcript:

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/snowdens-christmas-messgae-2013-12#ixzz2oUr5gFxp

[RKP5637]

1. And very well said!

[ProSense]

2. This is

Think about what this means for the privacy of the average person. A child born today will grow up with no conception of privacy at all. They'll never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves -- an unrecorded, unanalyzed thought. And that's a problem, because privacy matters. Privacy is what allows us to determine who we are and who we want to be.

...ridiculous.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024223859#post10

[sabrina 1]

3. Why is it ridiculous? The part that says 'privacy matters' or the part that says children born

today won't know what it means?

I agree with both parts of what he said. Look how people have simply accepted even today, their privacy being invaded in order to 'fight terrror' or the 'drug war' which previous generations would have been horrified by.

Just wondering what part of what he said you think is ridiculous.

[ProSense]

4. No,

"Just wondering what part of what he said you think is ridiculous."

...it's cartoonish absurd:

They'll never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves

[FreakinDJ]

6. Not absured at all

Many scientist are concerned about that exact same thing

[ProSense]

10. It's absurd. n/t

[niyad]

13. "methinks he doth protest too much"

[Warren Stupidity]

38. Well that settles it, although a blue link would have sealed the deal.

[sabrina 1]

7. 50 years ago it would have seemed cartoonish and hyperbolic for someone to say

that the Government would be reading people's mail, listening to their phone conversations, collecting and storing data on every single American.

Who would have thought it possible in a Democracy for such a thing to happen back then?

[ProSense]

12. Are you

"50 years ago it would have seemed cartoonish and hyperbolic for someone to say that the Government would be reading people's mail, listening to their phone conversations, collecting and storing data on every single American."

...saying his statement is prophetic?

It's gibberish.

I mean, anyone with a brain can have thoughts about the future. The notion that a "child born today" will "never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves" is a silly statement in light of his focus.

The other day he was declaring mission accomplished.

[sabrina 1]

18. He doesn't need to be prophetic to read the writing on the wall. There are huge profits

for Private 'Security Corporations', coming from tax dollars, in the spying on everyone business. His statement is no more gibberish than Orwell's was back then. I'm sure people viewed his opinions as just a good story at the time. And anyone who might have predicted that he was right, was probably told it was gibberish also.

Are you saying that what has been going since Bush started these policies, using fear to get approval for them, is normal in any democracy?

[ProSense]

23. Now

"His statement is no more gibberish than Orwell's was back then....Are you saying that what has been going since Bush started these policies, using fear to get approval for them, is normal in any democracy?"

...you're equating Snowden gibberish to Orwell's novel. Where was Snowden during the Bush era?

As for this: "He doesn't need to be prophetic to read the writing on the wall."

Again, the notion that a "child born today" will "never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves" is a silly statement.

In five years, "a child born today" will be on the potty having a a private moment.

[sheshe2]

71. Your last line, priceless! nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

99. Perhaps not. Mom and Dad may post to social media about the blessed event...

complete with pics and videos. Not much privacy for those poor kids.

http://www.stfuparentsblog.com/tagged/Bathroom%20Behavior

[NuclearDem]

15. The only substance you're going to get in response

involve the words "absurd", "ridiculous", and "gibberish."

No actual content, just reductio ad absurdum. And when an argument is formed entirely around cult of personality and logical fallacies, it's not even worth engaging.

[Egalitarian Thug]

20. The Rule of Law: 1. If the facts are against you, argue the law.

2. If the law is against you, argue the facts.

3. If the facts and the law are against you, call the other lawyer names.

That's the biggest problem they have in their attempts to defend the indefensible, and excuse the inexcusable. It's all they've got.

[burnsei sensei]

36. +1

When there is no argument to be made, look for the ad hominem, look for the name-calling.
It is indeed, all-- they've-- got!
And I have no sympathy.

[bvar22]

88. +2

...and it is old, lame, transparent,... and more than a little embarrassing.

"When there is no argument to be made, look for the ad hominem, look for the name-calling.
It is indeed, all-- they've-- got!
And I have no sympathy".

[Aerows]

111. Well said, ET n/t

[ProSense]

29. "Substance":

[NuclearDem]

39. More about Glenn Greenwald and Snowden's characters and methods.

I never said I was a diehard fan of either of them. But how does any of that change the content of what was leaked?

It doesn't. You can argue methods and motivation all you like, but Snowden still did the right thing leaking the information. It should have been unnecessary, but the incompetence of the intelligence and oversight committees as well as the intelligence community's culture of sweeping problems under the rug made it the only viable course of action.

I'm not going to be erecting a statue of Snowden any time soon, and I don't necessarily care for him as a person, but as the person who exposed this overreach, he was right. Which is exactly why the ad hominems and attempts to poison the well are completely irrelevant and only useful for cultists of personality and those who can't separate the person from the action.

[ProSense]

44. "I never said I was a diehard fan of either of them..."

"I never said I was a diehard fan of either of them. But how does any of that change the content of what was leaked?"

It doesn't. It calls into question the motives, and many have called this into question since the beginning. Still, the fact that it doesn't change the "content," also doesn't mean the "content" released is worth jack.

I mean, the point is that Greenwald has release a bunch of document substantiating what others have released and discussed for years.

Every so often between these hyped leaks, they claim they have so much more damaging information that they can't release.

Release the information, not gibberish disguised as a "Christmas message."

"I'm not going to be erecting a statue of Snowden any time soon, and I don't necessarily care for him as a person, but as the person who exposed this overreach, he was right. Which is exactly why the ad hominems and attempts to poison the well are completely irrelevant and only useful for cultists of personality and those who can't separate the person from the action."

LOL! He sucks, but...

Clearly, it's possible to criticize Snowden and not support NSA overreach.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024202440#post20

[NuclearDem]

85. Given the uproar and the administration's own attempts to reign in the NSA

It's quite apparent someone thought the leaks' contents were worth something. The ACLU certainly did at least.

It apparently didn't matter that this had all been discussed before, because it was still happening and hadn't been taken care of.

[ProSense]

86. "The ACLU certainly did at least." Here:

ACLU Comment on President’s Remarks on NSA Surveillance

WASHINGTON – At a news conference today, President Obama said that his administration was evaluating the recommendations of the panel he appointed to review government surveillance policy. The panel has recommended major changes for the NSA and its programs.

Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, had this reaction:

“We welcome the willingness of the president to consider ending the government’s bulk collection of Americans’ call records. Many other reforms are necessary to bring these programs in line with the Constitution, including the passage of the USA Freedom Act. We continue to believe that Edward Snowden should be applauded, not prosecuted, for initiating this historic debate about surveillance and privacy. Revisions to the NSA’s sweeping surveillance authorities are necessary and a long time coming.”

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-comment-presidents-remarks-nsa-surveillance

Report and Recommendations of The President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf

USA FREEDOM Act Draws Bipartisan Praise
http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/usa-freedom-act-draws-bipartisan-praise

Not everyone believes that Snowden should be "applauded": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024202440#post20

Also posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024209532

[zeemike]

50. Funny how you use a libertarian Youtube channel to make your point.

And then call Snowden a libertarian.

[ProSense]

53. So

"Funny how you use a libertarian Youtube channel to make your point.

And then call Snowden a libertarian."

...this is infighting?

[OnyxCollie]

57. Speaking of checkbooks,

an objective monetary incentive seems to be motivation behind Obama's lying and support for illegal domestic surveillance.

In 2007, Obama was going to filibuster any bill that gave retroactive immunity to the telecoms that helped the Bush administration illegally spy on US citizens.

Obama's wiretapping flip-flop? Yes
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jul/14/obamas-wiretapping-flip-flop-yes/

In October 2007, Obama spokesman Bill Burton issued this unequivocal statement to the liberal blog TPM Election Central: "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

But Obama knows how to drive a hard bargain, making both he (and Rahm) the top recipients in the Senate and House of 2008 campaign contributions from AT&T employees and PAC.

Obama: $270,191
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000076&party=D&chamber=S&type=P&cycle=2008

Rahm: $50,650
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000076&chamber=H&party=D&cycle=2008&state=&sort=A

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jul/14/obamas-wiretapping-flip-flop-yes/
Obama supported an amendment that would have stripped telecom immunity from the measure. But after that amendment failed, Obama declined to filibuster the bill. In fact, he voted for it. It passed the Senate, 69-28, on July 9. The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would sign it soon. (McCain missed the vote because he was campaigning in Ohio, but he has consistently supported the immunity plan.)

In a message to supporters, Obama defended his position, citing a phrase Democrats fought to include that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the "exclusive" means of wiretapping for intelligence. The bill "is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year... (because it) makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court."

That's the FISA court, hand-picked by by the man who went to Florida in 2000 to fight for bush/cheney, George W. Bush's Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee, John Roberts.

[ProSense]

58. LOL!

"Speaking of checkbooks, an objective monetary incentive seems to be motivation behind Obama's lying and support for illegal domestic surveillance."

I guess your claim about Obama's "monetary incentive" is reason to ignore Greenwald's?

[OnyxCollie]

63. Greenwald doesn't have the same authority as the POTUS, now does he?

Speaking of Presidential authority, how are those torture investigations coming? Under the Geneva Convention, the US is obligated to investigate torture claims and provide assistance to other state's investigations.

What was Obama's motivation to ignore an international treaty signed by President Reagan and ratified by Congress?

[ProSense]

65. So ignore the point about Greenwald? n/t

[OnyxCollie]

67. Journalists get paid to write.

According to DiFi, getting paid to write is an essential requirement to be a journalist.

[ProSense]

69. Got it: It's OK to sell out for money if you're a "journalist."

Good to know where you stand.

[OnyxCollie]

70. Got it: It's OK to protect torturers and criminal telecoms if you're a "Democrat."

Good to know where you stand kneel.

[ProSense]

76. I made no such case. You, however, justified a "journalist" selling out for money. n/t

[OnyxCollie]

83. If you have displayed any criticism for Obama's actions

regarding the lack of investigations of torture committed during the Bush administration, or for lying about a filibuster and support for retroactive immunity for criminal telecoms, here's your opportunity to provide a blue link.

You should be able to do that. Right, ProSense?

Silence equals consent.

[Number23]

103. Prosense, your time would be much better spent if you ignored your stalkers. And I'm serious

Fighting gibberish with logic is a losing position. Let them talk amongst themselves which as the above sub-thread proves, they are absolutely excellent at doing.

Merry Christmas.

[nolabels]

21. Back in days of Joe McCarthy some thought it was important for such

As far as i can see it can mostly only really be a benefit to the 1%. Other than prevention of someone using remote explosives (which proven that it doesn't work anyway) the only real real reason if for intimidation of the populous. Spying on the public is not any type of elixir that promotes positive effect on society.


(snip)
How McCarthyism Worked

by Alia Hoyt

Mass hysteria has reared its ugly head for as long as humans have existed. Adolf Hitler worked enough people into a frenzy to justify the murder of millions of Jews. Jesus Christ, known by all as peaceful, if controversial, was brutally nailed to a cross because a few high-ranking officials felt threatened by him. Although one would hope that people would learn a lesson or two from the mistakes of the past, it seems that history, as the old cliché goes, is forever doomed to repeat itself.

Enter Senator Joseph McCarthy. While he may not have caused genocide or murdered a prophet, he was able to whip up hysteria in America in the early 1950s. McCarthy's issue of choice?
(snip)
http://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/mccarthyism.htm

[Logical]

73. I have never seen anyone despise a person so much. Wow, do you have a hard time admitting...

you were wrong.

[ProSense]

81. Again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024202440#post20

[Luminous Animal]

8. "WTF? LOL!" And I quote, in it's entirety, the original content from your link.

[ProSense]

14. More gibberish:

Together we can find a better balance, end mass surveillance and remind the government that if it really wants to know how we feel asking is always cheaper than spying.

[Logical]

74. Ignore her...

She was so totally nuts against snowden for about 6 weeks. Posting up to 200-300 links a week to anti-Snowden stories. Because of her obsession that Obama can do nothing wrong so the NSA must be OK also.

Then as the story grew legs and she went into hiding.

She is back doubling down now. Hates being proven wrong I guess.

[ProSense]

91. Words

"Ignore her...She was so totally nuts against snowden for about 6 weeks. Posting up to 200-300 links a week to anti-Snowden stories. Because of her obsession that Obama can do nothing wrong so the NSA must be OK also. "

...you should never use: "totally nuts" and "obsession"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022592785#post6

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022831006#post57

[Logical]

102. LOL, you mean like this one.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2833842

[BeyondGeography]

26. Yes, it is

[HipChick]

5. Fuck Snowden..

Who the fuck does he think he is? The Queen?

[sabrina 1]

9. He's probably more popular than the Queen around the world.

[cantbeserious]

30. Is One Expressing Disgust Or Desire

eom

[Logical]

75. LOL, classic no answer. n-t

[Cha]

92. With dead

eyes.

[gulliver]

11. Was he sitting by the fireplace clutching a Taser?

"And even now, I continue my watch for the children's sake. If I can capture Santa Claus, then the world will finally have a discussion about telepathic spying. Children will no longer have to fear someone peering into their every thought and action, and judging them without due process. Then I will move on to Mount Sinai to confront an even greater threat to privacy. "

"And you're welcome."

[sabrina 1]

17. I wouldn't be surprised if 30 years from now he is sitting by the fire place in the WH giving the

Christmas address. And for anyone who thinks that is 'gibberish', could anyone have believed that a second rate actor from Hollywood could possibly have made it to that position?

I could definitely see someone who had that courage to expose government corruption during this sad era in our history, ending up in politics and maybe even making it to the WH.

He would probably be more likely to be 'clutching the Constitution' than a taser considering his views.

Clutching the Constitution is not popular among those who support the 'Security State' I have noticed in recent years.

Stranger things have happened. Traitors who rose up against the King made it to the newly established WH eg. Washington, Jefferson, Adams. Who would have thought that anyone could escape the clutches of the British Empire back then and go on to become leaders of their own newly established Democracy?

[ProSense]

25. Talk about

"I wouldn't be surprised if 30 years from now he is sitting by the fire place in the WH giving the Christmas address."

...cult of personality

"He's probably more popular than the Queen around the world."

He's "probably more popular" that the Queen, the Pope and Jesus combined.

[sabrina 1]

40. Cult of personality is definitely what gets presidents elected, don't you think?

So is it a good thing or a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view.

[ProSense]

54. So you admit it?

"Cult of personality is definitely what gets presidents elected, don't you think?"

Do you think "cult of personality" is a "good thing"?

[sabrina 1]

112. I stated a fact. It IS a fact, isn't it?

How about you? Since it is a fact that there is often someone with enough charisma, and enough people who will be attracted to that, to develop such cults, it IS part of what gets people elected. Why else are most of our top politicians chosen partly because they are attractive, have 'perfect' families, wives and children and promoted almost like movie stars? It's actually encouraged.

Bush eg, was presented as a 'tough cowboy'. They even bought him a ranch. The man was afraid of cows and horses and was born in the North East, went to Ivy League schools and couldn't have been further from the 'image' they presented him with if he tried.

Yet people fell for it and he developed such a devoted fan club they were impossible to reason with. i know, I tried.

And if anyone doubted that this persona wasn't developed for that very purpose, he got rid of the ranch as soon as he could, and has anyone seen him in a cowboy hat, boots out in wilds clearing brush since he left office?

I could not care less how attractive or charismatic a politician is, I care about their positions on issues.

I think it's a VERY bad thing that people become so personally attached to politicians that they become blind to and are willing to overlook their flaws.

But it IS part of our culture now for a politician to have as devoted a fan club as any movie star unfortunately.

Surely you are aware of that??

[gulliver]

27. Your loyalty to Snowden is admirable.

But he didn't do himself any favors with this address. It's completely juvenile and over-the-top. He tries to curry favor with Britons by invoking Orwell and sympathy by invoking children. This is nothing but classic manipulation by a smart, thoughtful boy with a screw on the loose side.

I actually sympathize with that aspect of Snowden. I want to see him in prison for putting down our country and creating such a fuss over nothing, but I also feel sorry for him. The self-aggrandizer wants to be a hero and has a vision that makes him one. This isn't Orwell. It's Cervantes or Salinger.

[cantbeserious]

33. Your Opinion Only - Others Would Disagree

eom

[Warren Stupidity]

37. So you want to see him in prison for wrecking your country

and he has a vastly inflated opinion of his importance. Do you alternate those thoughts or hold them concurrently?

[gulliver]

56. There's no contradiction.

If he parked his car next to a fire hydrant and claimed he was preventing flying saucers from refilling their water tanks I would still think he deserved a ticket.

[sabrina 1]

46. Do you want to see Bush, who instituted these spying in prison, or just those who exposed the

unconstitutional law-breaking in jail?

[gulliver]

55. Bush can go to hell.

I don't see him going to prison. As president, he was given the power to do what he did by the democratic process.

Bush was a mistake of the democratic process, and it can't be put in jail. Some things are too big for jail. What Snowden did is not. It's a perfect fit. Divulging state secrets when he swore not to do so merits prison. Putting down his country to try to get asylum in other countries makes his imprisonment more deserved.

[NuclearDem]

96. "Some things are too big for jail."

Which is why this shit will be allowed to continue.

[stupidicus]

59. loyalty to ignorance is pitiable

or in the alternative, service to dishonesty is abominable, whether intentional or not.

I want to see him in prison for putting down our country and creating such a fuss over nothing,

If "putting down our country" alone is sufficient to justify incarceration, maybe we shoulda started that practice with MLK and ended it with Reverend "God Damn America!" Wright.

And I suppose it will have to remain a mystery as to why a judge would declare some NSA efforts unconstitutional, and BHO's own panel would call for changes, "over nothing".

Consider the events of the last two weeks. Judge Richard Leon of the District Court for the District of Columbia, a Republican appointee, held that the National Security Agency’s massive metadata-collection program “likely” violates the Fourth Amendment. (To my students: In the procedural posture of this case, “likely violates” is a lawyer’s code word for “@#$%ing-A right it violates!”) A few days later, the president’s advisory board recommended significant reforms to the extent and structure of the same programs. The tech sector, civil libertarians, a Republican judge, America’s foreign allies, and, I suspect, the vast majority of the American people, now agree that government surveillance has overreached. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/how-obama-can-save-his-legacy-by-reining-in-the-security-state/282568/

As I've noted and argued from the beginning of all this, none of the attacking the messenger efforts are gone erase BHO's slate in terms of his role and responsibility in this matter, but I do find it highly amusing that all those shrieking "absurd!!!" etc, here in this thread were the very same ones who mounted absurdly silly defenses of this from the beginning, the attacks on ES included.

The "over nothing" is hands down the most absurd of the defenses offered, and most refuted at this point, and should rightly serve as an accurate measure of the intelligence and integrity of those still clinging to it.

[gulliver]

72. I anticipated this response.

He belongs in prison for his formal crimes.

And again, it is over nothing. A lot of sound and fury over nothing. As yet, no one has shown harm to a single person by the things that Snowden exposed about the NSA. This is what I mean by nothing. No one harmed. Elected executive, Congressional, and Constitutionally provisioned court oversight in the loop. Nothing.

On the other hand, we are seeing huge spasms of paranoia and anti-government sentiment on the left. Yes, on the left, the very side of the political argument that needs to sell the (correct) idea that increasing government and public sector modes of economic security are better for the general welfare than anti-government mania and austerity. Yet here we have some on the left attacking the "government." We have the spectacle of Snowden saying he defected from "the government" to something called "the public." Grover Norquist now has accomplices in his efforts to get the government down to bathtub drowning size.

The usual democratic process should have prevailed. The Presidency, the Congress and the courts are the Constitutional mechanisms for change. I really don't like the idea that some low level sys admin can simply do billions of damage to democratic process-created institutions and the U.S. economy with impunity. We don't need to go there. That's plain scary as a matter of principle.

And, yes, I'm human and very much pro-American in this particular version of reality. I hate to see some kid putting down our country to the citizenry of other countries, using a platform he earned through crime and deceit. Rubs me the wrong way.

[NuclearDem]

97. There's a difference between police powers and economic regulation.

In fact, the left has traditionally been advocating expanded government regulation of the economy while curtailing its invasion of privacy. The two aren't positively correlated.

[stupidicus]

115. nothing new there

as I recall, I posted about the negative impact this would have on the much needed "trust in government" what seems like a long time ago now.

Exactly who the hell are you to be telling all those who've been illegally/unconstitutionally surveilled whether they've been "harmed" or not, whether that be criminal defendents http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304069604579158331267987204 or those who simply find the privacy violations intolerable? http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/invasion+of+privacy http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/national-security-agency-phones-judge-101203.html That's merely a variation on the "well, if you have nothing to hide..." theme that seeks to undermine the rights of the innocent and guilty alike by suggesting that ONLY the guilty need fear it, making all that "fear it" guilty of something, which in this case the only thing feared and what we agree with ES over, is the loss of something we all thought guaranteed -- privacy.

Nobody is to blame for the erosion in trust that has occurred but those who betrayed it. What you appear to be basically arguing for is a preference that none of this had been revealed by the only means it ever would have been -- by a Snowden-like individual. To say that some kinda "democratic process" should have been relied upon in the face of the now known history of NSA spying getting "worse and worse" as was the silence -- forced and otherwise if you've read Udall, Wyden, etc -- is laughable. You'll have to excuse those of us who have no doubts whatsoever, that had the "Snowden" materialized in a repub admin and been a liberal as opposed to a libertarian with a pole-dancing girlfriend and a lot of boxes in his garage, we'd be seeing a different reaction. And whatever remedies are sought and enacted to reign in the NSA ONLY serve the case your opposition has been making, and refutes yours. Who and what ES is and the means he used to achieve the now accomplished mission really has no bearing on the constitutionality issues his input revealed.

That's why many of us have contended from the beginning that he isn't "the issue". Hell, based on what you're saying, I should almost expect you to object to whatever remedial measures are forthcoming, no? Why not since it was all "harmless" prior to his revelations?

[sabrina 1]

113. Lol, there's that 'tactic' again. I would think that by now the pro

security state contingency would have learned that the jaded 'you're in love with' or variations thereof talking points have zero impact on rational people.

They started with Right Wingers against Liberals during the time they were obsessed with Clinton. Whenever someone defended Clinton, they resorted to the, now, very the old 'you're such a loyal fan of Clinton' etc etc. I remember one of them 'accusing' me of 'being in love with' Clinton. They were so stupid it was hard to believe.

Reusing old Right Wing attempted 'insults' should be embarrassing for any democrat. We USED to pride ourselves with being smarter than they are.

I wonder how much money was spent developing these failed 'tactics'. I hope it cost them a lot, so long as it wasn't tax dollars. I resent MY money being spent on failure.

Now back to the topic. You support Bush's policies then? And you support Bush's old frined, Clapper and all the other Bush appointees in the NSA who are responsible for these violations of our rights?

That's interesting. Obama should have fired all Bush loyalists and replaced them with Democrats and he might not be getting the blame for BUSH'S policies right now.

I love the fact that even Republicans who ONCE SUPPORTED all of Bush's anti Constitutional policies, are now criticizing them. I never thought I'd see it happen.

So, did you always support Bush's destruction of the Consititutional rights of the people or have you changed your mind for some reason?

I love seeing his polices and his Loyal appointees finally being exposed for what they are. That's what we longed for while he was in the WH. It took a while, but finally it is happening.

Oh and Snowden is a hero.

Now, let me help you with those old right wing talking points:

'In love! Fangirl! Cheerleader! Loyal follower! Schoolgirl Crush! etc. etc.

Need any more? I spent years arguing with Right Wingers, I know them all!

[gulliver]

114. Actually my position on loyalty is no tactic.

I honestly admire people who stick, even if it is to someone unworthy like Snowden. You have misjudged him, in my opinion, but sticking with him isn't the worst thing someone could do. The people who are behind him usually have good intentions. He had good intentions himself, apparently, at least in the beginning.

Unfortunately, some Snowden backers may be mere revolutionaries at heart who simply love to see a blow struck against government. They feel oppressed by the United States government in some way. But it is mostly in their heads. Sure, the government does bad things when Republicans run it. But that's why Republicanism (at least as currently practiced) needs to be stamped out. The government is a very very good thing for humanity by and large. People who think it is "the problem" or want to "drown it in the bathtub" are just as bad as the people who wear Fawkes masks.

The latest actions by Snowden are very revealing. He has had a chance to settle into the fight a bit, and now the adrenaline is probably deserting him. "Damn the torpedoes" turns into "I'm cornered."

[sabrina 1]

117. Whatever it is it could not be more misguided and just plain wrong. It doesn't matter who the

person is who has the courage to tell the people when they find out that their Government is violating their rights. And this Government has been exposed, starting with Bush using 9/11 to do so, with violating people's rights, which is a CRIME under our laws, and not only was it NOT stopped when WE elected Democrats to do just that, it has ESCALATED.

Ron Wyden has tried to warn us but was constrained by his position in the Senate. And I TRUST Wyden who has ALWAYS stood up for our rights, often a lonely voice during the Bush administration.

And I trust Snowden's revelations because there are backed up with EVIDENCE and confirm Wyden's warnings.

But what else could you expect when most of Bush's Loyal Buddies in Private Security Corps who were then appointed to high ranking Intelligence positions in our Government, talk about revolving doors, are STILL THERE, five years later.

When you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas. And I'd much rather do that than associate with, in any way, ANYONE connected to those War Criminals. But here we are and now we see what happens when you leave such people in power especially after it was clear that the people wanted them GONE.

But that's why Republicanism (at least as currently practiced) needs to be stamped out.

I thought we did that in 2008! Of course they need to be stamped out ESPECIALLY anyone remotely connnected to the Criminal Bush Administration. But despite all the work it took to stamp out of power, we were to be very disappointed as now we know so many of them are still in power.

This is not a question of loyalty to any person, it is a question of loyalty to THIS COUNTRY. It is about issues, serious issues, not about any individual. But we DO owe a debt of gratitude to all those Whistle Blowers, going back to 2001 who desperately tried to warn us, all of them risking their OWN freedom.

I asked, but didn't get an answer, did you support these policies under Bush?

But what you are defending THEIR policies. Which unfortunately are still in place.

Democrats SHOULD be outraged, BY THE REVELATIONS, not by the messenger.

We are learning an awful about our Party and by defending Bush policies, you are certainly NOT 'stamping out Republicanism', you are doing the opposite, you are promoting it.

[99Forever]

16. An excellent message from a True American Patriot.

Kudos for posting it.

Edward Snowden, what the USA used to stand for.

[zeemike]

19. Here is the You tube for those that want to see it.

And those that don't can just ignore it and pretend it is just gibberish.

[RC]

28. It has been blocked from viewing in YouTube

[ProSense]

32. LOL!

[RC]

60. Censorship is funny?

Yeah, you would think so.

[ProSense]

61. Who is responsible for this "censorship"?

Irony is funny.

[RC]

64. It happened because channel 4 wanted to keep control of their precious video.

Do your own ironing.

[zeemike]

45. No shit?

I just watched it there...but I guess we should not be surprised.

[itsrobert]

48. yeah, the content provider blocked it

not youtube/google

[Oilwellian]

22. TVs that watch us?

Is that new information?

[OnyxCollie]

87. Is your TV watching you? Latest models raise concerns

Is your TV watching you? Latest models raise concerns
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002442687

Samsung’s 2012 top-of-the-line plasmas and LED HDTVs offer new features never before available within a television including a built-in, internally wired HD camera, twin microphones, face tracking and speech recognition. While these features give you unprecedented control over an HDTV, the devices themselves, more similar than ever to a personal computer, may allow hackers or even Samsung to see and hear you and your family, and collect extremely personal data.

While Web cameras and Internet connectivity are not new to HDTVs, their complete integration is, and it's the always connected camera and microphones, combined with the option of third-party apps (not to mention Samsung's own software) gives us cause for concern regarding the privacy of TV buyers and their friends and families.

Samsung has not released a privacy policy clarifying what data it is collecting and sharing with regard to the new TV sets. And while there is no current evidence of any particular security hole or untoward behavior by Samsung's app partners, Samsung has only stated that it "assumes no responsibility, and shall not be liable" in the event that a product or service is not "appropriate."

Samsung demoed these features to the press earlier this month. The camera and microphones are built into the top if the screen bezel in the 2012 8000-series plasmas and are permanently attached to the top of the 7500- and 8000ES-series LED TVs. A Samsung representative showed how, once set up and connected to the Internet, these models will automatically talk to the Samsung cloud and enable viewers to use new and exciting apps.

http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/your-tv-watching-you-latest-models-raise-concerns-483619

[NuclearDem]

93. That would be a really dick Move. Though I imagine it doesn't Kinect for some yet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. Newer models can

happy thoughts heh? Telescreens are here.

[snappyturtle]

24. Edward Snowden is right on. Glad he made this statement. To those

naysayers, maybe you will think differently when some day you are
exposed for having private thoughts and the audacity to say them
outloud. Gibberish? I don't think so.

[arcane1]

35. They're not really private if you say them out loud.

I think that's what people are calling "gibberish": the implication that the government can read minds.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Nice try. Nobody has claimed mind reading powers.

[arcane1]

43. Nevertheless, that's how "a private moment to themselves" is being interpreted

by the ones using terms like "gibberish".

[Warren Stupidity]

47. that is not what was meant. There was no argument made regarding mind reading.

And that is not what was being referred to a gibberish. The facts are as Snowden stated, we now live in a world where privacy has been effectively abolished. This has nothing to do with mind reading, and those claiming "gibberish" other than you were not misinterpreting that statement to refer to mind reading.

As I said, nice try.

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. They are actually working on the reading minds devices

Creepy? Absolutely.

Imagine your memories being read on orders of a court, or worst, without the orders of a court.

[arcane1]

100. Creepy, and impossible. Nothing to lose sleep over.

Reading my email, snooping on my browsing habit, listening to my phone calls, monitoring my debit card use? Yes, those are worth losing sleep over

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. You can tell the Stanford folks that they are engaged in impossible research

http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2013/october/parvizi.html

Hell, the mind control chip I came up in a sci fi setting ten years ago is also under development.

[arcane1]

105. There's a huge chasm between that research and reading memories in court.

Fortunately, nothing in that link contradicts my original claim

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. Unfortunately when they start doing things like this

I expect to see it in my lifetime. At the twilight of it, but I expect to see it. So what I wrote is true too. IT IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT. In fact, let me quote myself on this

nadinbrzezinski (128,468 posts)
95. They are actually working on the reading minds devices



Creepy? Absolutely.

Imagine your memories being read on orders of a court, or worst, without the orders of a court.

One thing I have learned from writing sci fi, what today is fiction tomorrow will be real in some form. So these days writing has become an exercise in trying not to predict the future. Or for that matter, dealing with the social consequences of crap like this.

What I expect is this to be done with or without court orders. Alas I am not the only one.

[JaneyVee]

31. You'll have plenty of private moments in private.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Yes sure, just make sure you are in a farraday field, have infrared sheilding, and

That you haven't used your cell phone or any other communications device recently, and the government won't have a record of your location and contacts nor have the ability to collect current information on you.

[JaneyVee]

82. Cell phones use public infrastructure. I'm refering to face time.

[Warren Stupidity]

89. you aren't paying attention.

The technology exists to snoop on you right now in your home or any other "private" location. The courts have pushed back on some law enforcement usage, but the snowden documents establish that the security state does not believe it is constrained by constitutional strictures, and is operating on that theory.

[hootinholler]

90. Cell phones do not use public infrastructure.

Those towers are owned by private corporations.

[Warren Stupidity]

109. shhh...

public, private, its all one big security state kleptocracy. Verizon is the government, the government is verizon. Besides if you had nothing to hide you would just shut the fuck up, so what is it exactly that you are hiding? huh?

[hootinholler]

110. The real question in your scenario is

Who owns whom?

And wouldn't you like to know what my freak flag looks like!

[Warren Stupidity]

34. "Full Orwellian" but indisputably true. Nt.

[Scurrilous]

42. The guy is an fucking dumbass and his message is total bullshit.

[Oilwellian]

49. Perhaps you could be more convincing if...

you learned the phonetic rule when using the word "an."

[stupidicus]

62. lol

eom

[Logical]

79. LOL, like your post? Typical Snowden hater. Nothing but emotion! n-t

[Fantastic Anarchist]

52. Today, we are all Snowdens. nt

[SoapBox]

66. Merry Christmas, Traitor Eddie

Such a good American...Opps, not American anymore.

Go back to being Russian or Chinese or whatever, because you are NEVER coming back here.

[Logical]

77. Ahh, an NSA employee I assume. He kicked the NSAs ass. It was GREAT! n-t

[stupidicus]

68. well, as you can see, there was some real and/or percieved hyperbole

used, which of course the Snowden detractors will pounce on and use as much needed salve for their still open, self-inflicted wounds that have been mounting from the beginning. It's almost like they see this stain on BHO's legacy as their own or something, which is why they so stridently continue to take ownership of it in the various ways that they do.

It may be years before they come to grips with the fact that BHO was a big "brother" as the term has been traditionally used and understood, whereupon they will likely lie to their family and friends in "private" -- assuming that can still be found then, lol -- that they opposed his efforts as such from the beginning, kinda the way former Bushbots in large numbers opposed him vociferously from the beginning on this and that.

Continuing efforts to belittle and shame Snowden merely meet the need to hide from their own growing shame from being on the wrong side of this issue from the start.

[bobduca]

78. Someone should make A Venn Diagram

... of Snowden detractors and these guys:

[stupidicus]

116. lol

methinks the overlap would be minimal

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. God Bless him for standing up for our freedom

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. Snowden gave the world a better gift than any found under a tree.

[GliderGuider]

98. +100! nt

[Number23]

104. Channeling Julian Assange who had a widely derided Christmas message last year

People really should leave these things to the Pope and the Queen.

[JI7]

107. he sounds like a fucking idiot

[randome]

108. Buyer's remorse.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[yurbud]

118. "If it really wants to know how we feel asking is always cheaper than spying."

I have a feeling they don't do this because they would have less excuse to keep the results secret, and therefore we might see how many people agree with us and the government might be compelled to act on that agreement.