Edward Snowden..saint or sinner?

[Zoo]

I think he is in a world of shit for he will be looking over his shoulder the rest of his life. For what he did I personally think he is a hero just like Bradly Manning, Aaron Swartz, and a hundreds others who do what is right no matter the cost to their selves. The people in power will always make the so called whistle blowers into traders, criminals, and monsters so they can maintain there power. Tell recently we had little to fight this; now we have groups who make it their fight to bring knowledge to the people. The ones in power hate the fact that they can't hide all their secrets anymore and I for one love this and will keep fighting with my brothers and sisters to bring knowledge to all! Not only is this man a hero he is what I consider to be a true American Patriot who has risked everything to show that the US Government has trampled on it's people and their rights. Ask this question "Why does a hacker get more Federal time than most murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and even child molesters?" the reason is to stop people from asking questions or telling the truth(Knowledge)!!1   

[PB the Deplorable]

From a Google+ poster:

"Edward Snowden should seek asylum in the only place on the planet that is completely beyond reach of U.S. law enforcement: Wall Street."

Or the Oval Office

[Jfredmuggs]

Snowden is neither a saint nor a sinner.  He is a nihilist.

[Sardondi]

Snowden is neither a saint nor a sinner.  He is a nihilist.

I think you're on to something.

[onan]

Snowden is neither a saint nor a sinner.  He is a nihilist.

I think a large number of US citizens are some form of nihilist. Either with a mentality of bowing to no one, following no specific rules other than what is pleasant at the moment, or severe skepticism to any significant knowledge base. Many seem to believe that there is little to no connection to others and people are responsible only for themselves.


I think Snowden was motivated to stop what he saw as an injustice. I think he was incredibly short sighted. I think he is a better man than a majority of the legislators crying for his head, including Obama and I voted for that fuckstick first time.

[Sardondi]

I think a large number of US citizens are some form of nihilist. Either with a mentality of bowing to no one, following no specific rules other than what is pleasant at the moment, or severe skepticism to any significant knowledge base. Many seem to believe that there is little to no connection to others and people are responsible only for themselves.....

That's not what I understand as nihilism. True, there is alienation, but what you describe smacks more, it seems to me, of narcissism and self-interest. Which certainly may motivate Snowden. But if those are his chief characteristics, I would call it narcissism.

I truly don't know what to call him. I'm think I'm coming around to narcissism. But as for "patriotism", in my world, patriots don't go looking for succor to countries which, notwithstanding post-Cold War labels and all kinds of make-nice talk, are still no friends of America. But then neither do I think that the Obama Administration is a friend of America.

[onan]

That's not what I understand as nihilism. True, there is alienation, but what you describe smacks more, it seems to me, of narcissism and self-interest. Which certainly may motivate Snowden. But if those are his chief characteristics, I would call it narcissism.

I truly don't know what to call him. I'm think I'm coming around to narcissism. But as for "patriotism", in my world, patriots don't go looking for succor to countries which, notwithstanding post-Cold War labels and all kinds of make-nice talk, are still no friends of America. But then neither do I think that the Obama Administration is a friend of America.

Nihilism comes in several forms. I am pretty sure I covered it correctly. MMV.

[PB the Deplorable]

... in my world, patriots don't go looking for succor to countries which, notwithstanding post-Cold War labels and all kinds of make-nice talk, are still no friends of America. But then neither do I think that the Obama Administration is a friend of America.

You are right about our little punk-ass dictator wannabe and his cronies.  But we already have extradition agreements in place with nearly all friendly governments, so when someone blows the whistle and tells us what is going on behind the scenes now, his choice of exile is limited.  Notice he isn't going anywhere that can be considered a future threat to us - he didn't stay in China, and he isn't trying to stay in Russia.

A few positives for Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, or Nicaragua:  those girls are hot, it's fairly close by so his family can easily visit, nice climate, each of them may be more free than the US after 8 years of Obama let alone 8 more of Hilary - especially if they can get their undocumented Democrat voters documented.  We may be joining him down there at some point.

[FightTheFuture]

I truly don't know what to call him. I'm think I'm coming around to narcissism.

Ding; ding; ding! Give that man a fat Romeo y Julieta cigar!!


Look, Snowjob is a clear "wannabe".  He screams it. I still think there is MUCH  about this dude we are yet to learn. He`s an accomplished --  if not motivated and crafty --  thief. I`m not sure who he blew to get the position he had with that contractor, but I assure you, heads will (are going to) roll in the intel community.   

[Yorkshire pud]

Ding; ding; ding! Give that man a fat Romeo y Julieta cigar!!


Look, Snowjob is a clear "wannabe".  He screams it. I still think there is MUCH  about this dude we are yet to learn. He`s an accomplished --  if not motivated and crafty --  thief. I`m not sure who he blew to get the position he had with that contractor, but I assure you, heads will (are going to) roll in the intel community.   

Well, that confirms it then. Thief? What has he stolen? His own knowledge? His own misgivings about governments past and present who are spying on you under the guise of 'war on terror'?


No, he's no traitor, although that is how he's painted no doubt by his former paymasters. He hasn't in my view been a traitor to his country, only those who are trecherous towards who have bestowed that power...


I think it quiet amusing the usual right wing anti Obama crowd are coming down on Snowden; yet for all the blustering about keeping the government in check, using arms if necessary, the fact that Snowden has shown real balls in doing this, giving the finger to (amongst others) Obama is seen by some as showboating and an ego trip..At least he's done something to let you know. It's similar to what the Vatican did to those who said the earth wasn't the centre of the solar system, persecute those who tell the truth.

[ACE of CLUBS]

Maybe Snowden had the balls to be true to himself.  Maybe he's done something that we'd like to do ... if we had the balls.


Maybe Snowden knew that the odds weren't in his favour and said 'fuck it' and picked up the dice.  Maybe bully governments around the world need a kick to the nuts once in a while.


Like Snowden or not ..... a lot of folks are pulling for him. 
[size=78%] [/size]

[PB the Deplorable]

Like Snowden or don't like Snowden?  We don't even know the guy.

What we do know now is the Obama Administration was recording every phone call, taking front and back photos of every piece of mail, tracking everyone's move on the internet, saving all of it - and for what?  They have ruled out 'Muslim Terrorism', and seem to think terror is going to come from the Tea Party.  Last time around, they ignored several warnings from Russia and even from the Saudis to pay attention to the Tsarnaevs, and even ignored the family's coming and going between here and Chechnya.  After the Boston attack, Obama sent his flunkies out on the Sunday shows do suggest it was 'tax protestors'. 

It wasn't that long ago that Bush II was being vilified for intercepting phone calls coming from abroad to suspected terrorists phones here, with oversight by Federal judges after the fact so they could listen in before the call ended.  We also knew there were computers monitoring the flow communications for certain words and groups of words, which was anonymous until there was a significant 'hit'.  These actions are far from what Obama is doing, yet Bush was crucified and Obama apparently gets yet another pass.  Remember that the next time the ACLU, the Media, the senate Democrats, and the rest of them are wrapping themselves up in the flag pretending to be defending the Constitution when they think they can score points against the Rs - for them it's really just all about politics.

Some right-wingers instinct is to always support the Federal government when it comes to the military, espionage, or surveillance.  But people that despise the US are in power now, it's not business as usual, don't be confused, Snowden is a hero.

[onan]

best explanation for Snowden fleeing I have heard.


Why Snowden is really fleeing the U.S.

[ACE of CLUBS]

Good film clip ..... your thoughts Onan?

[onan]

Good film clip ..... your thoughts Onan?

I always scratch my head when liberals do an about face. There was a time when privacy was paramount. There was a time when liberals thought the government needed regulation and limits.


So when I see some of our ranks decry Snowden broke the law... I want to scream.

[West of the Rockies]

I concur, Onan.  It is very dismaying when I see liberals (among whom I count myself) suddenly supporting something that under Bush was the devil's work (domestic surveillance, the use of drones, et cetera).  It is a bit like how conservatives had no problem with Bush running gigantic deficits with an unpaid-for war who suddenly have focused on the scary, no-good, very bad deficit under Obama.

Both sides want to win, want to retain/gain power.  If being less-than-true to their values is part of the deal to maintain/obtain power, so be it.  We see the erosion of basic principles.  Anyone who thinks that the Democratic party is more pure and good and based on true honor and such is deceiving themselves.  Power corrupts.  It doesn't matter if one is wrapped in a red-state flag or a blue-state flag.

That's my cynical view.  Nor do I think things would suddenly be all sunshine and bunnies under a Green Party administration (or Tea Party Patriot administration). 

[onan]

I concur, Onan.  It is very dismaying when I see liberals (among whom I count myself) suddenly supporting something that under Bush was the devil's work (domestic surveillance, the use of drones, et cetera).  It is a bit like how conservatives had no problem with Bush running gigantic deficits with an unpaid-for war who suddenly have focused on the scary, no-good, very bad deficit under Obama.

Both sides want to win, want to retain/gain power.  If being less-than-true to their values is part of the deal to maintain/obtain power, so be it.  We see the erosion of basic principles.  Anyone who thinks that the Democratic party is more pure and good and based on true honor and such is deceiving themselves.  Power corrupts.  It doesn't matter if one is wrapped in a red-state flag or a blue-state flag.

That's my cynical view.  Nor do I think things would suddenly be all sunshine and bunnies under a Green Party administration (or Tea Party Patriot administration).

I get it... that two sides, sometimes diametrically opposed are going to fight. I also understand that not all principled fights are by necessity drawn along party lines.


But sometimes, how we want to solve problems does involve a fight. So, even if everyone of em is an asshole, we have to pick a spot to sleep.

[PB the Deplorable]

... It is a bit like how conservatives had no problem with Bush running gigantic deficits with an unpaid-for war who suddenly have focused on the scary, no-good, very bad deficit under Obama...

I hear this line of reasoning a lot.  Conservatives point out some massive failure or underhanded action by a Democrat, and the response is 'well, your guy did it too', even when 'our guy' did it at a very much lower level.  It's almost never even close to being comparable, whatever the 'it' is.

So in this case it becomes ok that Obama runs $1.5 trillion dollar annual deficits because the deficit hit $400B twice during the Bush II years.  Then we hear "it's the same, they all do it, lets move on". 

And by the way, the Conservatives did complain about that at the time.


Ok, that's my gripe.  On to the facts.  Congress (specifically the House) is in charge of the budget.  By law, all tax and all spending bills originate in the House.  So the question becomes which party controlled the House when the budget deficit was building in the Reagan years (the D's), who finally got control of the House and began passing balanced budgets in the Clinton years (the R's), who re-took the House and started spending and blowing up the deficit again in the Bush II years (Pelosi and the D's).

And who has been getting absolutely trashed lately when they try to cut some of this spending?  The Republicans in the House. 


You will never hear anything about any of this from Big Media though.  The sleight of hand is to blame (or credit) whoever was the President (instead of the Congress, where blame and credit actually belong) because it muddies the waters and makes it seem like there is no difference between the D's and R's when it comes to spending.

And to go further, when the Congress passes a budget, and the President refuses to sign it, obviously it's the D's on one side and the R's on the other.  When the R's have the Congress the Media blames them for the shutdown.  When the President is an R, he is the one blamed by the media for the shutdown.   The D's are never blamed for government shutdown, regardless of whether they are holding the Congress or the Presidency.


Here is a anecdote about how it works when an R is President.  As a traditional courtesy, the President starts the process by sending a budget over the Capital Hill.  Guess what happens to that.  You may be old enough to remember House Speaker Tip O'Neill declaring the Reagan budgets 'dead-on-arrival' every year.  The Media makes a deal about that and takes the opportunity to trash Reagan.  Time passes and the House sends a bloated budget over to be signed.  Reagan doesn't like the new additional pork and threatens to veto it.  The D's and the Media go nuts, start lying about Reagan hating poor people, cutting programs, being racist, etc, etc.  They blame him for any confrontation or shutdown.  Time passes, eventually Reagan gets and signs a compromise budget that is still way of out whack and full of pork - he needs to get the government funded and the D's know that and aren't going to budge further.  Time passes, and the Media and D's attack the 'Reagan deficits'.


Here's how it worked under Clinton.  The House under Gingrich passed a balanced budget and sent it to Clinton.  He refuses to sign it, and the D's and Big Media trashed the R's for hating poor people, cutting programs, racism, etc, etc.  Without funding, the government shuts down for a few days, givng the Ds and the Media another chance to trash the R's.  A compromise is reached and the bill goes through.  Later after memories dim, the R's get the blame for the shut down, and Clinton gets the credit for the balanced budget.


What's happening now?  Those nasty R's are shutting down the government by demanding deficit reduction and by not agreeing to ever higher debt levels, and the massive deficit is ok because Reagan and Bush had them too.

By the way 'cut's in DC mean reductions in planned increases, not actual reductions in spending.

[PB the Deplorable]

... That's my cynical view.  Nor do I think things would suddenly be all sunshine and bunnies under a ... Tea Party Patriot administration...

Maybe not, but that is the only route to getting the country back on track.  Anything else furthers the decline.  Assuming there is anything left after Obama and the Progressives leave office.

[Yorkshire pud]

I always scratch my head when liberals do an about face. There was a time when privacy was paramount. There was a time when liberals thought the government needed regulation and limits.


So when I see some of our ranks decry Snowden broke the law... I want to scream.

There are parallels to be drawn with the previous thirty odd years in the UK...Thatcher was elected (Conservative party) in 79. She was elected on a landslide and promised the world after the previous disastrous few years under a Labour government. (Labour as you know had it's origins from the formation of trade unions and received a great deal of it's funding from the unions)..Thatcher having such a massive a majority in the House of Commons, could pretty much introduce any legislation she wished, and have it voted through; and did.


The country was tired of the last few years, strikes had been common, the nationalised steel and coal industries were hemorrhaging money. So Thatcher decided to kill several birds in one go. She brought in legislation that made unions almost impotent, she withdrew funding to the steel industry, almost overnight throwing 60000 people, just in the area I live, out of work. (If you've seen the original film 'Full Monty' that is what happened, it's painfully accurate; I could even take you to the locations where it's filmed)..She closed coal mines, forcing a miners strike in 83-84, and almost all coal mines are now non existent. So now we import at far higher cost coal from abroad!


Anyway...Thatcher was kicked out by her own party (We don't have a limit to how many times a party leader can stand, as long as the party is elected into office-elections every four years or before) and the Conservatives had a new leader. John Major. He was Prime Minister when the atrocity in Dunblane took place, he was also one of the architects of the peace deals in Northern Ireland. Anyway...Everyone was pissed off with what the Conservatives had done the previous 18 years and voted in Labour in 97. Only it wasn't the Labour Party of old. It was the instrument that was to be the model of the race to the centre ground. Tony Blair come in like the Pied Piper and boy could he play the pipe. His engaing smile, his confident, charm offensive won him fans here and abroad; especially the USA. He'd distanced himself and the party from it's roots, and re-christened the project 'New Labour' whilst Labour was in opposition and he had been elected leader after the tragic death of the very fine and decent Scot, John Smith. He painted a picture of everyone having the opportunity to be whatever they wished to be (As did Thatcher back in 79), he embraced enterprise (Ditto), invested in education (Thatcher didn't do that so much), in other words, he'd stolen the rug under what the Torys (Conservatives) stood on. They almost imploded, but like Thatcher, he had a landslide and wasn't going to have much opposition when it came to voting through legislation. He had a good relationship with Clinton-they were almost aligned ideologically, even if it couldn't be made so back in their respective countries' legislature.
The rest is history. Bush Jnr came in 2000/2001,  Blair went over to DC and told him what he wanted to hear. Blair had a new best friend..The atrocities in september of that year made Blair an even bigger friend to Bush. War on Iraq based on a lie, blanket bombing on Afghaistan..Blair was facing outrage in the UK, we had protest marches against the war. He was now seen not so much a pied piper, but more a mendacious, manipulative, sock puppet to Bush; who famously humiliated Blair at a conference by calling (on a mic he didn't know was switched on) "Yo Blair!"..Yo Blair? A guy who had risked his political present and future for a phoney war to a dick head was seen as no more than being referenced by his surname by said dick head. So much for the "Special relationship"!


Ultimately politicians say what they need to say to get what it is they want at that particular time' but keep sharp, because tomorrow it will change..There is no 'right/left/ liberal/ progressive/ conservative' or whatever label you want to hang on their Pinocchio nose. They like those who will be voting them in think that of course, but they simply hold that notion in contempt. 


So present day we have a Democratic government that is far far right of whatever we've had in the UK (Including Thatcher) and our present one is seen as more right wing than it's ever been, go figure that one! . Obama can't spell liberal let alone know what it means.

[PB the Deplorable]

... So present day we have a Democratic government that is far far right of whatever we've had in the UK (Including Thatcher) and our present one is seen as more right wing than it's ever been, go figure that one! . Obama can't spell liberal let alone know what it means.

I think I have this figured out.  Everyone in the world wants a massive bloated fascist government to decree what they want decreed - we're all just fighting over who gets to run it.  Anything Pud doesn't like is 'right wing', and anything Pud does like is 'Liberal'.   Simple as that.

The idea that there could be people out there that don't want a large bureaucratic government to force people to do things their way doesn't occur.  Just can't imagine it.  But they do exist and that is the true 'right wing'.  Everyone that wants a big greedy intrusive government to rule over us is, by definition, The Left.  Regardless of what specific policies they say they want implemented.  And of course that includes Obama and his Marxist-Progressive cronies.



So - big government has all the answers and should always be expanding and increasing taxes = left wing.  Small limited government focused on the few things government handles best = right wing.   It's not possible for Obama, with his annual $1.5 trillion deficits, to be anything but a left wing hack.

[Yorkshire pud]

I think I have this figured out.  Everyone in the world wants a massive bloated fascist government to decree what they want decreed - we're all just fighting over who gets to run it.  Anything Pud doesn't like is 'right wing', and anything Pud does like is 'Liberal'.   Simple as that.

Simple? No PB, you see it simple. Anything you perceive as liberal equals fascist equals commie equals well, pretty much anything you're not. I see the world as much more complex than that, because maybe I've seen more of it than you have, and not just what I see on the news. But that's only my considered view; the knee jerk view that I can also subscribe to, would be very right wing and involve having a Utopian island in the sun, where I was the supreme dictator and surrounded by pretty much whatever I desired, and have slaves to do my bidding.

The idea that there could be people out there that don't want a large bureaucratic government to force people to do things their way doesn't occur.  Just can't imagine it.  But they do exist and that is the true 'right wing'.  Everyone that wants a big greedy intrusive government to rule over us is, by definition, The Left.  Regardless of what specific policies they say they want implemented.  And of course that includes Obama and his Marxist-Progressive cronies.

No it isn't; but carry on. I've tired of trying to educate you, as you're clearly willingly blinkered to whatever it is you want to think.

So - big government has all the answers and should always be expanding and increasing taxes = left wing.  Small limited government focused on the few things government handles best = right wing.   It's not possible for Obama, with his annual $1.5 trillion deficits, to be anything but a left wing hack.

Or no government? What would that be? Seems following your logical progression it would save even more money? AND, give the citizens more freedom to do as they wish with their own money; yes?

[PB the Deplorable]

... Or no government? What would that be? Seems following your logical progression it would save even more money? AND, give the citizens more freedom to do as they wish with their own money; yes?

Umm, no.  No government is referred to as anarchy.  No one but a few whackos are advocating that.  But thanks for trying to confuse things.  The whole point is government is a necessary evil.  Just as the Founding Fathers realized and stated.  Many many times. 

Necessary, because there are some things only a government can do, and other things that the government does best.  Just as I noted in my post.  Evil because - being run by flawed humans with certain unpleasant traits like greed, power lust, and extreme self interest - it's power will grow beyond what is wanted and interfere with the Liberty of honest citizens who have done nothing wrong.

[Yorkshire pud]

Umm, no.  No government is referred to as anarchy.  No one but a few whackos are advocating that.  But thanks for trying to confuse things.  The whole point is government is a necessary evil.  Just as the Founding Fathers realized and stated.  Many many times. 

No it isn't necessarily anarchy; It's communism..Who is to say the US founding fathers were right? Civilisation didn't start in the USA. You hang on to that premise as if it's year zero.

Necessary, because there are some things only a government can do, and other things that the government does best.  Just as I noted in my post.  Evil because - being run by flawed humans with certain unpleasant traits like greed, power lust, and extreme self interest - it's power will grow beyond what is wanted and interfere with the Liberty of honest citizens who have done nothing wrong.

That's the nub; not all citizens are honest, some don't deserve liberty, and all politicians are drawn from the population. Those self same politicains introduce the legislature, some of which they were voted in on, some not. Some of it because of the expediency of real world V opposition promises, and some because of the larger picture, some of it simply to push an agenda..All of them do it.

[PB the Deplorable]

No it isn't necessarily anarchy; It's communism...

The only place that's true - or ever will be true - is in a textbook.  Or some small farm somewhere.

... Who is to say the US founding fathers were right? Civilisation didn't start in the USA. You hang on to that premise as if it's year zero

In a way it WAS year zero for Liberty and self rule.  The independence of America and the establishment of the new government was incredibly brilliant.  Very experimental.  It's a fascinating story, you might enjoy reading up on it.

[Yorkshire pud]

The only place that's true - or ever will be true - is in a textbook.  Or some small farm somewhere.

Yes; and a collection of small self sufficient ecumenical homesteads or simple co-operatives, who make the decisions that pertain to their circumstances and needs.. But it's still communism.
 

In a way it WAS year zero for Liberty and self rule.  The independence of America and the establishment of the new government was incredibly brilliant.  Very experimental.  It's a fascinating story, you might enjoy reading up on it.

For YOU, not the rest of the world.. You've heard of Greece, Egypt, China, Romans I take it? You didn't even have the first instance of elected representatives. You're not the only country in the worked that is 'free', in fact it hasn't been a shining example of that for the last twenty years.

[PB the Deplorable]

... in fact it hasn't been a shining example of that for the last twenty years.

And finally, agreement

[Juan]

The Bush years drove me crazy because people who claimed to be in favor of limited government (Sean Hannity is always a good example of conservative idiocy) instead supported bloated budgets and trampling the Constitution.

There was, however, opposition.  A group of conservative and libertarian bloggers formed Porkbusters and decried the budget increases. 
Perhaps liberals (and conservatives and libertarians) need to form a similar loose organization to publicize the current rights abuses.
[attach=1]

[Yorkshire pud]

Perhaps liberals (and conservatives and libertarians) need to form a similar loose organization to publicize the current rights abuses.

Yep; bury the differences for the common cause/ good. I've been to a few countries and you know the over riding commonality? People are people.  I've enjoyed incredible hospitality from those who had nothing to give, I mean dirt poor. I've had philosophical chats with people of quite disparate political persuasions, in the same room , and we've all had a beer together. No-one wants hassle, they just want to get on and choose their own friends.

[Juan]

Yep; bury the differences for the common cause/ good. I've been to a few countries and you know the over riding commonality? People are people. 

Yep.  I haven't traveled extensively, but in just my city, I've met people from about 90-countries.  Most have been nice and interested in the same thing - a better future for themselves and their children.