General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLying sack of s*** of the week: Edward Snowden
http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/lying-sack-of-s-of-the-week-edward-snowden/Yes, we need to roll back and eliminate as many of the Bush-era domestic surveillance laws. That does not make Snowden a heroic figure, or even a very sympathetic one.
More at the link, including a link to a Vanity Fair article that pretty well lays his credibility out in Lavender.
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm concerned about the ever expanding national security state, not the messenger? Written anything about that in your little blog?
No? That figures.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)I certainly admire your impassioned dedication to the 4th Amendment
riqster
(13,986 posts)But go on ahead with the canonization of St. Edward. Meanwhile, the grownups can focus on ditching the Patriot Act and all of its bastard children.
Which, had you bothered to read the OP, i said in the OP.
And elsewhere, including in said blog. Many times.
Note: read beyond the headline before responding if you want to appear at least somewhat credible.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Appeals to Authority.. That's all you have.
"grownups can focus on ditching the Patriot Act"
Oh the grownups who double down on the Patriot Act every three years? those sensible pragmatic centrists?
"Note: read beyond the headline before responding if you want to appear at least somewhat credible. "
Yes, you certainly have that whole "credible" schtick down pat.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Snowden, but I see no statement in praise of him much less 'canonization'. Can you point out what you are whining about?
MH1
(17,686 posts)and click search.
Just sayin'.
(I didn't look at who posted those, and maybe Cali isn't among them, but maybe it was a more generalized thing. All I know is the "Snowden is a hero!!!1!" crap had me about to gag there for awhile. It does seem to have calmed down since more about the creep that he appears to be has come out. Now that's out of the way we can focus on the very real issue.)
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)A large part of them are like this:
Still think Snowden is a hero?
Snowden is a hero MY ASS.
Only a FOOL would think Snowden is a hero.
You might want to try it and see for yourself.
MH1
(17,686 posts)Of course the naysayers were there too. I didn't try to figure out the ratio.
My point was, yes there were several threads calling Snowden a "hero". Which seems kinda ridiculous, whatever the value (or not) of the information he presented.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Link that to the natural tendency some DUers have for hyperbole and voila... just about ANYONE can be a hero.
I don't think Snowden is a hero in any sense of the word and I won't be bothered if and when he's brought to justice. I am, however, thankful for the discussion he's started and pretty sure this isn't going away until major changes are set in motion.
TheKentuckian
(25,036 posts)I get that you don't agree with "hero" but it is extreme hyperbole to say that anyone sees a god. I haven't even one soul even elevate Snowden to prophet or messiah status. Hell, not even to leader of a movement. Not one person to my knowledge and certainly no number of consequence saying they are walking the path of Snowden or following the philosophy of Snowden. I've yet to see anyone modify a single policy position in light of where Snowden stands on it.
I've seen no one looking for insight on matters or what this man's opinions are on any unrelated matters or even in many cases, related ones.
Heroes are not always idols and one can think an action is heroic and still overall think little of the person that performed the action.
Maybe "hero" means too much and "deity" too little to you to get on the same page and by the same token some of us aren't going to whitewash the historic lack of credibility of the security apparatus, particularly covert apparatus turn on our own citizens with President Obama's charm and likability. Hell, I bet a significant portion of the people who really do trust the President don't trust the system in other hands, even perhaps many possible Democratic successors. I bet you that some folks may think the world of Obama and still distrust the system even under his direction too much not to be concerned.
Many that you accuse of at minimum, canonizing the guy, don't give a shit about him at all and most aren't much past appreciating the word getting out and forcing some passing thought on serious as a heart attack matters.
No matter how much you want to try to make this about Barack Obama and Edward Snowden it won't be, especially Snowden because he is a bit part with no power over policy or input on execution like the President does but this is bigger than any President. Obama will be long gone and this will greatly matter just as it did before most folks had ever heard of the man.
cali
(114,904 posts)I defy you to find one single fucking post of mine that even comes close to deifying Snowden. go ahead.
and I've wasted enough time reading your pathetic blog, my dear mrbandc.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Snowden. You claim cali has, but your claim is mendacious, you are lying. When asked to support your accusations with fact, you refuse to respond.
Smarmy behavior.
cali
(114,904 posts)I expect nothing more from the OP
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)of all ills, but if they can't - but-but-but-OBAMA! Or, HOLDER! These crybabies have to wail this loudly because no one with half a working brain believes their passionate defense of an anti-American sell-out like Snowden.
Your OP is spot on riqster. And the fact you're getting so much crap from the Snowden Fanclub says as much. Kudos!
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Where have I heard talk like that before?
This controversy is really bringing authoritarian, if not downright fascist, tendencies on this board into the daylight. it's ugly.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)who work to undermine Democratic Party power in our government. Why is that so hard for Snowden and GiGi fans to understand? It's in the TERMS OF SERVICE for chrissakes!
If that's too "authoritarian" for you, tough. Those be the rules. Get over it. Or better yet, create your own site. I even got a name for it: Libertarian Underground. You can pontificate and glorify Libertarians Snowden and GiGi to your heart's desire and never have to worry that some Democrat will call you on it.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Do you think anyone who disagrees with you on government surveillance programs is a Libertarian?
If so, you're hopelessly deluded. If not, you're just talking trash.
Some issues transcend partisan blinders. The rise of a totalitarian-leaning, overweening national surveillance state is one of them. Many of us bemoaned it under Bush. If you didn't, that's your prerogative. But if you bemoaned under Bush, but excused it under Obama, you're just a partisan hack.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)There's more going on here than Libertarianism, and little if any of it really belongs here. As long as we're self-reflecting it's worth reflecting on that.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)He seldom makes any sense.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I've got no problem if people wanting to discuss the legalities of the government surveillance program under President Obama - which is so much different than the one under Bush, and as a thinking, analytical, fact-based Democrat, I'm sure you know that - and those who feel uncomfortable with it have a right to "bemoand" it. But they don't have a right to defend Libertarians like Snowden and GiGi on this board, in accordance with DU's ToS, and I'm reading WAAAAAY too many posts doing that while these "Democrats" are simultaneously vilifying President Obama - even within the same post.
So, yeah, I bemoaned Duhbya's totalitarian national surveillance programs, but I know there's a HUGE difference between that of Duhbya's and that of President Obama. Surely, you do, too? So what's your beef with me?
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)is a libertarian who is working to undermine the Democratic Party in power?
Fool. Go ahead and dump on me because I find the NSA's activities suspicious. After all I only donated to, canvassed for and voted for Obama in the last two elections. You don't need people like me at all. I should just leave because you don't need my kind around.
Let me say it again. Fool.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Where in that post did I claim such a stupid thing? Did you even read my post before you bristled and posted your attack?
If you donated, canvassed, and voted for Obama in the last TWO elections {Wow. Two no less}, then what's your problem with my post? You claimed you've supported Obama - not once, but TWICE - so obviously my post, which was to remind some anti-Obama and anti-Democratic Party people, was NOT directed at you. Unless, of course, you know the shoe fits and you didn't donate, canvass, and/or vote for him as you claim, which could explain your personal attack on my person for defending the Democratic Party on a Democratic Party supporting site.
Be careful now. You're becoming transparent.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Yeah I supported Obama. But I don't support Drone attacks. I don't support arming Al-Quada in Syria, and I certainly do not support an all encompassing National Security data center that has only a rubber stamp court as it's "oversight". So on those issues I am ANTI-OBAMA (as you like to put it) so your "message" was for me.
The difference between you and I is that my faith in Obama is conditional that he do the right thing. If you expect me to just blindly follow him no matter what he does well, not going to happen. The other difference is I don't expect everyone to agree with me and I don't get upset and tell them if they don't think just like me they must be libertarian Snowden worshippers and should go form their own board/party/whatever. Whining is not my style.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)your entire post is a bunch of whining and in defense of a man who not only didn't vote for Obama, but who despises him, agreeing with another blogger who said that Obama supporters would "forgive Obama if he raped a nun on NBC."
In a particularly heated exchange on Twitter, a blogger named DrDawg tweeted about Gandy:
Obama could rape a nun live on NBC and youd say we werent seeing what we were seeing.
In response, Greenwald chimed in, No shed say it was justified [and] noble that he only did it to teach us about the evils of rape.
When twitter exploded in attacks on Greenwald for making a "rape joke," instead of apologizing for the comment, Greenwald doubled down, tweeting that the reference to rape was not a metaphor and in fact Obama supporters would defend the president in the face of "ANY evil: assassinations, child-killings: EVEN rape violent crime like rape."
And you still think this idiot is worthy enough to be defended on a DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTING SITE? Really? For the life of me, I can't understand such stupidity.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)doubling down on the surveillance state and proposing cuts to social security.
It is like we are all supposed to now praise whatever the Democrats in power do, no matter what we personally feel is right or wrong. In fact, it seems that most of the things Democrats used to stand for are now all contemptuously labeled as ponies.
It is like the Democratic party is a cult of personality, not ideals.
Astrad
(466 posts)Left-leaning would suggest one supports a greater role of the state in society, particularly economic, while libertarian generally advocates for less state involvement. So I think these people you speak of don't actually exist.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I'm quoting it to put in my journal:
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)I believe the state should stay out of my communications, my drug choices, and my sex life. I think we have too many cops of all stripes.
I believe the state--not uber-powerful corporations--should play a greater role in the economy. I want the state providing health care to all as part of the social contract, not insurance company parasites, Big Pharma, and for-profit health care designed to enrich a few off the misery of others. I want to see the state take a greater role in the provision of energy resources. I want the state to do more to protect the environment.
And what the heck, I'd like to see enterprises organized as cooperatives benefiting their members instead of corporations benefiting the few.
I used to say that I'm not a libertarian, just a libertine.
I exist. And I'm not the only one, by any means.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)I am sure someone will be here shortly to denounce both of us as trolls.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Political leanings are not a simple dichotomy between the "left" and the "right".
boilerbabe
(2,214 posts)rationalizing supporting the indefensible because Obama does. so who is "infesting" DU is in the eye of the beholder. i never would have used that childish word with people i disagree with but i had to respond to your silly and IGNORANT post. it's obvious which side is getting defensive and losing the opinions of thinking people. now please excuse me while i INFEST my kitchen for a bite to eat!. have a wonderful evening , sweetie!
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Dark forces are surely afoot.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Someone had the guts to say it. Snowden is not a saint and he is not coming up with a cure for cancer.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Apophis
(1,407 posts)sheshe2
(84,216 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)It is entirely about the technical details involved in the committing of the leaks and on *that* basis condemns Snowden.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)doing it now just helps the republicans and Rand Paul and the Paulites.
Unless you can show where Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts and Kennedy (plus possibly the others) would dismantle the entire thingy, then it is just political talking point hyperbole
When the hyperbole stops, then the adults can discuss exactly how to tailor it back a wee bit.
However, time and again, Americans themselves have voted they are NOT AGAINST this
and the president has put severe limits on Bush's doings.
So when the hyperbole stops, then rational discussion
because, there are bad people out there 24/7/365 and they do want to hurt us 24/7/365
and if we didn't exist, bad people will still be out there (see WW2 and note, the USA took way too long to enter,
and the bad people did just fine killing tens of millions without us as a part of it.
Remember, blaming the USA, is just blaming the victim.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)nah-nah-nah-nah.
They don't want to hear rational stuff like that G4A. They want everyone to conform! Conform! Conform damn it! To hell with details that prove that Obama is NOT like Duhbya in any way.
I guess they believe that punishing Democrats by giving the House AND Senate AND White House to the Republicans in 2014 and 2016 is the smartest thing to do - to teach Democrats a lesson, of course. {wink-wink}.
They have absolutely NO idea how easily pro-Republican GiGi is playing them like a fine-turned instrument, and they actually believe if we ask nicely our deadly enemies will stop trying to kill us. Because fifty plus years of pro-war Republican presidents and Congresses against the people of foreign countries will be forgiven if only we ask them to perty please forgive us for bombing their families, kids, and countries to smithereens. And, of course, these people will look into their hearts, smile, and tell us with a gushing tone of sweet love, "Okay. You're forgiven. We'll stop trying to kill your people because you asked sooooo nicely."
See? If only OBAMA would stop wiretapping people - to show good faith, of course - then the leaders of our enemies will sigh with sweetness and promise us that there won't be another 9-11-2001. Honest. So they believe we don't need no stinkin' protection, or to try and stop an attack from happening.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)RedstDem
(1,239 posts)actually, i have yet to hear anything from the guy that i didn't know already, also, i know he's not lying, they basically came out and told us the same stuff during the reign of the boy king.
get over yourself.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Easily manipulated, aren't you?
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Pay no attention to the ever-increasing surveillance state instituted by the Bush family after they stole a presidential election. Thar's distractions tuh be had! YEE HAW!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Bluster at Snowden, bad boy! Bad!
Excuses for abuses.
What does this sentence fragment mean, OP? "Yes, we need to roll back and eliminate as many of the Bush-era domestic surveillance laws."
As many as what? As possible? As many as we know about? As many as Daddy lets us know about?
Can not even manage to type a full sentence against abuses of the Constitution, but plenty of words for the Pin Up star of the show as you want the show to be seen.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)More stinkin' lameosity.
Bwahahahahhahah.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)you refuse. Intellectually absent and ethically craven.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Where is the Derp Derp gif when you need it.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I should remind people to read it, which was the point at the link:
http://m.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/errors-edward-snowden-global-hypocrisy-tour
Instead, those who cry the loudest about people focusing on the messenger (Snowden) rather than the issues have chosen to cast aspersions at the blogger (mr. blunt and cranky) who merely posted a link. They don't really want to read the article or consider it on its merits. Oh, DU, thy name is hypocrisy.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)It basically just says "China and those other countries are at least as bad as the US, so Snowden is bad."
Galraedia
(5,032 posts)They're a cult. They scream and whine about the "mainstream media" and then post links that are pro-Snowden from the same mainstream media they say can't be trusted.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)<edit>
On Tuesday, some of this behind-the-scenes drama broke out into the open, during a Twitter battle between Greenwald and Vanity Fair writer Kurt Eichenwald a debate that throws into sharp relief some important differences between the Guardian writer and some of the others writing about the NSA story.
The argument started when Eichenwald, who has written a number of books about political and social issues, said the NSA program had been around for 10 years and asked when the fearful thought it had been used against them (these are excerpts from a Storify collection, which is here, but embedding the Storify widget here doesnt seem to be working at the moment):
Eichenwalds tweet got a response from Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute who tweets under the handle @normative and then Greenwald responded to them both (in a comment clearly aimed at Eichenwald), questioning the fact that some writers call themselves journalists and then demand secrecy:
more...
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)GG is no journalist whatever else he might be.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)so to speak:
http://www.examiner.net/news/quick5/x415876600/Quick-5-questions-for-Barbara-Starr-leader-of-Compassionate-Friends-in-Independence#axzz2XdBafBxn
But frankly that's the first I've heard of Barbara Starr so maybe there's someone else you had in mind.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)would know her if you had the expertise to determine who is and isn't a journalist. My bad.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And thank DAWG for that!
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)If that means "journalist" to you, fine.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)sheshe2
(84,216 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)But when they take "girl" out!? That was the whole point!!
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)to criticize other journalists?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And I've seen no evidence in the heaps of boring GG-rata I've been asked to slog through in the last few weeks to suggest otherwise.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)or a blogger, it's because he's a dishonest attorney, now and forever?
Some kinda crystal ball you got there, dude.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Welcome to ignore.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Tell me again why should we give a damn what the CATO crowd thinks of their boy?
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)did the article simply refer to a Cato tweet responding to Eichenwald?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)who tweets under the handle @normative, and @normative is the first addressee in GG's tweet:
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)responded to them both, although the excerpt notes the tweet was directed at Eichenwald. What's the significance of your pointing this out? Just wondering. Is there something in the @normative tweet that reflects poorly on Greenwald?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)But that's just my humble opinion.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)connection, why do you say it reflects poorly on him? I'm thinking of an answer that would involve some factual content and not one of your ad hominem attacks.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And the Kochs object to everything DU says it stands for and supports. So the Kochs and their clients should be given no quarter here, and that includes GG.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)for its uppity tone in its defense of GiGi?
Left-Libertarians are no different than rightie-Libertarians. Arrogance is strong with them. Humility is nonexistent. That's why, and the vast majority in this country, don't take them seriously.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Right after I win the Publishers Sweepstakes, if that dog isn't dead yet.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)a link that goes into some detail why your claim is, to be polite, misguided:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#
Frequently told lies (FTLs)
by Glenn Greenwald
January 26, 2013
<edit>
I work/worked for the Cato Institute
I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed by the Cato Institute. Nor have I ever been affiliated with the Cato Institute in any way. The McCarthyite tone of the denials is appropriate given the McCarthyite nature of the lie.
In seven-plus years of political writing, I have written a grand total of twice for Cato: the first was a 2009 report on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, and the second was a 2010 online debate in which I argued against former Bush officials about the evils of the surveillance state.
I not only disclosed those writings but wrote about them and featured them multiple times on my blog as it happened: see here and here as but two examples. In 2008, I spoke at a Cato event on the radicalism and destructiveness of Bush/Cheney executive power theories.That's the grand total of all the work I ever did for or with Cato in my life. The fees for those two papers and that one speech were my standard writing and speaking fees. Those payments are a miniscule, microscopic fraction of my writing and speaking income over the last 7 years. I have done no paying work of any kind with them since that online surveillance debate in 2010 (I spoke three times at Cato for free: once to debate the theme of my 2007 book on the failure of the Bush administration, and twice when I presented my paper advocating drug decriminalization).
I have done far more work for, and received far greater payments from, the ACLU, with which I consulted for two years (see here). I spoke at the Socialism Conference twice - once in 2011 and once in 2012 - and will almost certainly do so again in 2013. I'll speak or write basically anywhere where I can have my ideas heard without any constraints. Moreover, I'll work with almost anyone - the ACLU, Cato or anyone else - to end the evils of the Drug War and the Surveillance State. And I'll criticize anyone I think merits it, as I did quite harshly with the Koch Brothers in 2011: here.
The very suggestion that there is something wrong with writing for or speaking at CATO is inane and childish. The claim that it means I "worked at CATO" is just an obvious lie. If writing for or speaking at CATO makes one a right-wing CATO-employed libertarian, then say hello to the following right-wing libertarian CATO employees, all of whom have been writers for or speakers at the CATO Institute in the past:
Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas (Writing for CATO's Unbound: here and here);
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (speaking about surveillance issues at CATO in January, 2011, speaking again at CATO in July, 2012 about FISA, and favorably citing CATO);
Democratic Rep. Jared Polis (defending CATO as "a leader in fighting to end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and helping to end the War on Drugs" .
the ACLU's Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson (speaking at the CATO Institute's 2011 event on FISA);
Brown University Professor Glenn Loury (writing for CATO's Unbound);
liberal blogger and Clinton Treasury official Brad DeLong (writing for CATO's Unbound);
Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig (writing for CATO's Unbound);
liberal blogger and GWU Professor Henry Farrell (writing for CATO's Unbound); and
Wall Street critic and securities professor William Black (writing for CATO's Unbound).
Trying to judge someone for where they write or speak - rather than for the ideas they advocate - is about as anti-intellectual and McCarthyite as it gets. CATO has a far better record of advocacy than the mainstream Democratic Party on vital issues such as opposing the Drug War, secrecy abuses, the Surveillance State, marriage equality for LGBT citizens, anti-war activism, and reforming the excesses of America's penal state. They were attacking Bush and Cheney for power abuses (see here) and aggressive wars (see here) far earlier, and far more loudly, than most mainstream Democratic politicians
As is obvious, all sorts of liberals, progressives, and even leftists have written for or spoken at CATO. It's a think tank devoted to debate and discussion of public policy, and invites a wide range of speakers to participate.
I'm proud of all the advocacy work I've done against the evils of the Drug War and surveillance abuses -- whether it's at the ACLU, CATO, the Socialism Conference or anywhere else. That's why I write openly about all of that work. But the claim that I've ever worked at CATO or was in any way affiliated with them is just an outright lie.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)thinking you won't be able to, but maybe you'll prove me wrong.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)if you follow
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)For the Iraq War. Against the Iraq War {when it became unpopular}. Spoke with Snowden in February. Didn't know Snowden until he landed in HK.
With flip-flopping like that, how can any Liberal take this bald-faced lying Libertarian seriously? I mean, those who still have more than half a working brain, that is.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)In which case I move that all future Greenwald threads be posted in the religion forum.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)He would be so happy to know his philosophy still has adherents & his legacy lives on.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Cut from the same cloth you might say.
Demit
(11,238 posts)You were given a long list of public figures who have spoken at the Cato Institute elsewhere in this thread. If that constitutes association with the Cato Institute, then you must condemn them as well.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)That would be Glenn "McCarthy on crank" Greenwald.
Galraedia
(5,032 posts)He just follows up with an insult accusing his opponent of being for "govt secrecy", being an "Obama worshiper"..etc. It's like debating a child.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)eom
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)To perfume the shit they left behind -- you'll never disguise the true stench, but everyone needs a hobby.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I didnt see you lose your job and loved ones for exposing the truth! What are you trying to do, flame bait us??
riqster
(13,986 posts)Pretending that China and Russia are bastions of liberty and freedom of speech, not so much. Look up "Pussy Riot " on the Internet to see what I mean.
He could have done a lot of good if he had stuck to our revolting domestic surveillance program. But he fucked up, and has lost the trust of a lot of people.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Galraedia
(5,032 posts)He admitted that himself. And the information he stole is worth a lot more than the job he had.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Galraedia
(5,032 posts)American foreign intelligence gathering operations in their country. That's crossing the line from whistle-blower to espionage.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Do you not want American people to know what's happening in our own country?
Galraedia
(5,032 posts)Wtf does leaking documents about American foreign surveillance have to do with domestic surveillance?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Some things that maybe should've been kept secret came out. So what! Do you think other countries don't spy on us???
Im talking about the surveillance on Americans, without probable cause.
Now we know its happening. Too bad you has the sadz that the truth came out.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)He is now hiding out. That smells awfully treasony and spyish to me.
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)All he did was tell people what we already knew since the Patriot Act.
But that is all he says he has. Since he's a liar, he has more and is out there to make a buck! Why else run to places where he could/ might sell it?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Too bad his fans on this board can turn a blind eye to what he's actually doing while not affording the same "leniency" to President Obama.
Oh, and they LOVE to alert on posts they don't agree with. They constantly break ToS rules but you make one post they don't agree with and they blow out of proportion, and you get posts hidden. This place has gone to the dogs.
Galraedia
(5,032 posts)...and to expose America's foreign surveillance operations on their countries. I'm sure he's making the anti-government libertarians really proud by stirring up anti-American sentiment.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
riqster
(13,986 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of the news that Tyranny is coming!
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)be very afraid.. don't go outside! Big Brother is watching!
flamingdem
(39,352 posts)Or the one in your mind that is somehow less insidious?
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)Never trust a Republican.
flamingdem
(39,352 posts)even Bernie likes that!
Luv Bernie! (even though he might think I'm an "authoritarian" about Snowden!)
GeorgeGist
(25,329 posts)McCarthy would be proud.
sheshe2
(84,216 posts)to read it rigster, thanks
http://m.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/errors-edward-snowden-global-hypocrisy-tour
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Meet the Canadians who busted GhostNet
It was March 6, 12:33 p.m., and Nart Villeneuve was getting frustrated. The 34-year-old international relations student and part-time tech geek had tried everything to track down a piece of malicious software that had infected computers around the world, including those in the offices of the Dalai Lama.
==
A team of Canadian researchers revealed this weekend a network, dubbed GhostNet, of more than 1,200 infected computers worldwide that includes such "high-value targets" as Indonesia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Indian Embassy in Kuwait, as well as a dozen computers in Canada.
==
Indeed, it's hard to believe that what has now been revealed as a massive cyber breach began just a few months ago in a room at the foothills of the Himalayas, with a Canadian researcher watching a 'ghost' steal a file from the Dalai Lama.
==
Mr. Walton recorded the activity and eventually returned to Toronto with some 1.2-gigabytes of raw data - countless lines of often-incomprehensible code - for Mr. Villeneuve to sift through.
The researchers at the Citizen Lab weren't new to this kind of thing. Last year, they revealed the logging of millions of text messages sent by users of a Chinese Skype service. Mr. Villeneuve had learned some tricks during that endeavour, such as searching for improperly configured servers and sifting through their directories for useful files.
snips
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)is a sell-out, a coward, a spy, AND a hypocrite - yet he's hailed as a hero on a Democratic Party supporting site where Democrats' posts are hidden by the closeted Libertarians that have infested this site.
DU ain't what it used to be.
flamingdem
(39,352 posts)for using the term "gigi" in a post about Greenwald!? If you want to see it let me know, it was our conversation about Joy Reid and Pub Generis, not sure of the name, posted the results.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and there were three of them that they've successfully hidden.
They've labeled me a homophobe {which is patently UNTRUE, because I never referred to GeeGee as "her", so it was a transparent attempt by the thin-skinned GeeGee brigade to try and deliver me a pizza} and then they alerted and successfully made my post go bye-bye.
On the other hand, a poster makes fun of my gastritis and alludes to it being "just desserts", and that's totally okay with them. His post hasn't been alerted on and it still stands {I think}. Just as long people don't have the unmitigated gall to criticize GeeGee, they're ok with direct personal attacks on a DUer.
Now one GeeGee fanatic is trying to label me a homophobe again for using "GeeGee". These people are a sad lot. No wonder no one listens to their griping. I won't put up with it anymore. I simply put them on full ignore now. If I want to read criticism of Obama, I'll go to Redstate or the Freepers.
But thanks, flamingdem.
flamingdem
(39,352 posts)They must work hard to read every post, including our conversation about Joy and your health!
In a zillion years I never thought of geegee as homophobic, more just a variation like we see when getting bored of a term or name such as using Snowdenista, hong kong eddie, Pootie for Putin, I could care less about his personal schtick (oh and now I'm anti-Semetic !
I don't like this tagging and tracking of DUers. I have discussed this with some of them to simply let them know they're being over the top. It's either that or ignore.
Hope your tummy is better!
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)That palm seed oil really works, but it takes time. I was in real suffering last eve and this morning. I couldn't sleep last night, either, because I was tossing and turning. I guess the 105 degree heat during the day hasn't helped, but I'm feeling much better today. Thank you.
Well, as for tagging and tracking DUers, I guess I'm on their enemies list, just like Mineral Man. Someone forwarded a post he wrote about GeeGee and GeeGee responded. Mineral Man is actually flattered. lol
But to be clear, GeeGee was never meant to be derogatory, especially not in a homophobic sense. But I'm pretty sure they know it. I just loathe the man so much that I can't bring myself to address him either by his first or last name, and GG just doesn't cut it for me {looks too much like "giggles" for some reason, and I don't giggle for GeeGee}. Anyway, I agree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with writing GeeGee although a few have already disagreed with me and are trying to play the homophobic card again. *sigh*
riqster
(13,986 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Galraedia
(5,032 posts)but can anyone provide proof of him being able to wiretap "anyone from a federal judge to the president" like he claims? This is a ridiculous claim that neither Snowden or his fanbase have actually proven.
riqster
(13,986 posts)...of attacking the messenger if the messenger is not 100% pro-Snowden.