The Snowdon Controversy on DU

[redstatebluegirl]

is making me a bit uncomfortable. Rather than seeing a dialog on the issue, it is a "think like me or you aren't a true DUer".

I have never belonged to an organized political party, I've been a Democrat all my life. Am I a "true progressive", no, do I agree with every Democrat I talk to, no, but in the end, I vote in every election, state, local, school board and almost always vote straight ticket.

I think this Snowden/privacy thing is something we should be discussing, but I think there is room for both opinions on here. I have been concerned about my privacy every since the internet took off running with no real regulation on privacy issues. On the other hand, after 9/11 I knew that we would need to give up some of our privacy for national security. The debate is over how much do we give up and are we made aware of what we are giving up.

This Snowden guy makes me a little nervous, not because his GF is a pole dancer or whatever she is, that isn't the issue. What is the issue is his following of Ron Paul and his love affair with China, a place I distrust more than the Tea Party and Dick Cheney. There are lots of unanswered questions about this guy, what was his motivation, did he just want his 15 minutes of fame? Is he a nut job who just happened on to one of the biggest dividers of the Democratic party in years? I'm not sure why he makes me nervous he just does.

I've posted before about this and I beat myself up for being to "in your face" with it. Now seeing how people I respect on DU are going after each other it worries me for the party at large. 2014 is huge for us as a party, if a bunch of Democrats stay home or vote Republican over this we could lose big.

If all of this stuff is over an issue this complex I may not belong here. I like having policy discussions with people who have another opinion, sometimes you can learn something in the process.

[blue neen]

1. Well said.

IMHO, a lot of people feel the same way.

[hopemountain]

103. yes, i am one of those who

feels the same as restatebluegirl.

[mimi85]

132. Very well said. nt

[randome]

2. If you bring much-needed objectivity to the issues, then you DO belong here, IMO.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[HappyMe]

3. I agree.

[Lint Head]

4. There is no debate when people attack each other. Debate is a give and take thing and all sides

must be able to openly give their opinion for the debate to be worthwhile.

[warrprayer]

5. welcome to the jungle

... and your post is great. I may not agree, but the respectful manner in which you state it encourages others to at least consider what you are saying!

[Life Long Dem]

6. From what I see here on DU.

If people really wanted to debate this, they would skip the hyperbole and stick with the facts. It's the facts that need fixing not the exaggeration of the facts.

[Squinch]

7. .

[still_one]

8. This is exactly what I would expect from a board that encourages a diversity of views no matter

What direction it takes

[BlueStreak]

88. I don't believe the pro-privacy people have objected to an open debate.

What we have objected to is the continuous character assassination on the whistle blower.

That is a dialog that is beneath DU, and I will continue to call people out whenever they try to do ad hominem attacks on Snowden or his girlfriend instead of discussing the issues. That is bullcrap and it doesn't belong here.

The OP on this thread is the closest thing I have seen to some kind of reasonable discussion in opposition to the pro-privacy argument, and I appreciate that. But those who are arguing in favor of what amounts to, at minimum, a slippery slope toward a police state should expect a great deal of push-back from a forum that has "democratic" in its title.

Most of the population of this world lives under totalitarian or at least highly authoritarian regimes, and the US is sadly among those. The only beacons of light at this stage are some of the European/Scandinavian countries, Iceland, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand and maybe Brazil, Chile, and South Africa on a good day. So this is not some vague, academic moot exercise. This is for real.

[still_one]

91. Who is to judge what is "beneath" du?

[BlueStreak]

115. The same ad hominem attacks we despise of the teabaggers are beneath DU.

That's my opinion, anyway. We can't have it both ways. We cannot criticize the teabaggers for making BS arguments and then do exactly the same thing ourselves.

If anybody thinks we have too much privacy in our society, they are welcome to make that argument, but they are not welcome to make ad hominem attacks on other DU members, and I believe that same standard should apply to Snowden, considering he can't be here to defend himself.

Criticize the issues, not the person.

[still_one]

117. Of course, that is what opinions are for. The argument that Snowden isn't here to defend himself

does not hold salt. He has come out and made comments and statement, including today, and by making those views public, just like any public figure who makes public statements, they all are subject to criticism or praise.

It comes down to this, some take him at his word, and others don't, either way, he went public, and he is free game for discussion, and or argument, depending how people view it

[BlueStreak]

121. His STATEMENTS are subject to criticism. No question about that.

But his education, his lifestyle, his girlfriend, his clothing choices, his manner of speech etc etc etc.

Those are just petty personal attacks that make all of us smaller by association.

And I am not saying you have ever done that. But there is a rather small but belligerent cohort trolling these waters that do nothing but ad hominem attacks on the man and never speak of the issues. Surely you must have noticed them.

[backscatter712]

126. A-men! The character assassination should indeed be beneath DU. n/t

[Enrique]

9. ok, Snowden makes you a little nervous

how does James Clapper make you feel? Snowden might have followed a politician you don't like, Clapper lied to Congress under oath, in the capacity of Director of National Intelligence, in which position he now remains. Which makes you more nervous?

[graham4anything]

20. wrong question. How does President Eric Cantor/Paul Ryan 2015 sound if the repubs win senate/house14

That is the question

and that is the only question I myself care about.

because we all know THIS SCOTUS isn't going to change anything, however, if the repubs steal the house and senate again in 14
then they WILL impeach Obama/biden and oust Boehner and put in either Cantor or Ryan for the two years

and then in 2016 it will be two SCOTUS too late to do anything for another two decades

Because the first two SCOTUS to retire will be democratic SCOTUS and SCOTUS is everything

like the book says "don't sweat the small stuff, because it is all small stuff' except for SCOTUS, which is big stuff.

everything else will handle itself itself.

IMHO.

and

there are TWO mega important senate races one JUNE 25 in Mass, Markey vs. Gomez and one in August with Booker vs. Lonegan
and it is imperative that Markey and Booker win, in fact 2014 senate depends on each winning NOW.

because if they lose, the spin will be ultra bad.

and this is all about guns/immigration/and the control of the senate/house in 14.

[Enrique]

25. the OP didn't say she was acting as a Democratic operative

she didn't even mention Obama. I found that omission disingenuous but I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt. You apparently assume she is a fellow volunteer Democratic Party flack. Maybe you're right, maybe when every single person on DU who makes any anti-Snowden argument, what they're really saying is "Support the Democrats no matter what, or else!"

[graham4anything]

34. I am answering your post. I am wary of history repeating itself. And I no longer assume anything.

and I only care about turning the US Supreme Court. We do nothing if the next President is not a democratic president.

BTW, since my post here, that great post just added about President Obama directly correlating the people who are
saying Obama=Cheney was posted.

He hit the ball out of the park with that answer.

Call me any name you want, it does not matter to me. I am giving you MY opinion and I am sticking to it, even if no other
person anywhere agrees with me.

and sorry, but it does not strike me as imperative that this specific issue needs to be decided before the 2014 elections, let alone the two special elections coming up.
(besides, SCOTUS won't take any new cases til September and won't decide anything til June 2014 anyhow.

I do not see how any of this helps THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY in Mass. or New Jersey special senate elections
but I can see this helping the BushPaulfamilyinc. by having people in the democratic party out of protest, anger or whatever,
stay at home and not vote.

Can't we at least wait til Markey wins on the 25th? And Booker wins in Oct? And the other state/local elections in Nov?

[marble falls]

71. I think you're on to something. Why is this issue about Snowden and not the facts? And why in the...

world would we allow this thing to turn into a wedge issue and allow Teabillies who can hold their noses and vote however the Teapublicans tell them to regardless of the stink their candidates produce elect if not Ryan/Canter someone else as crazy?

The real fight is 2014 when we can fix the House and get rid of big brother.

[redstatebluegirl]

42. Now I am laughing, I am not any type of operative :-)

I did not mention the President, it seems that this is beyond even him at this point. So many people are against him I try not to fan that fire. I support him, not everything he says and does, but I don't expect that I would. I have my own mind and like to use it. I do not volunteer for the party, I volunteer for candidates I support. Most of them are Democrats I cannot imagine a Republican here in my state I could or would work for. Nothing more nothing less. Enrique thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt instead of damning me to DU hell .

Do you guys really think there are boogey men and women under every tree .

[zeemike]

41. Just remember this,,,

Bad cop is in the next room and if I am not here to protect you ....well you know how bad cop is when he don't get his way...
Here....you better sign off on this permission slip to let us stick our fingers up your ass and prob around for things...you don't want bad cop to do it do you?

I mean, what can you do?

[okaawhatever]

44. You're absolutely correct. I, myself wonder how this whole privacy thing has taken on a life of it's

own. All this outrage, all this Obama bashing, and yet few are publicly insisting we do something about it. The tea partiers love a rally. They haven't come up with anything yet. It seems to me there is genuine concern, but the outrage is limited to online and anonymous discussion groups. Just based on the outrage you see here on DU, why aren't there people taking other steps? Where's the call your congressperson campaign? Where's the "rage against the machine" so to speak? This whole incident is short on fact and long on outrage. It sounds more like a political operation than a populist reaction to government overreach.

[patrice]

114. Inability to honestly consider the negatives of having freelancing 20-somethings decide what risks

the rest of us take seems to strongly suggest "political operation".

Q. What political operation(s)?

[rhett o rick]

123. LOL. You are such a card. The Republicans will not impeach Pres Obama because he believes

exactly what the Republicans believe. He choose Clapper and Mueller, two ex-Boosh Republicans to be in charge. He loves Republicans.

[OilemFirchen]

23. Dear redstatebluegirl,

As you can see, you must pick a side, and you must pick your allies. If you doubt someone, you cannot doubt his adversary.

There are other rules, but perhaps this will provide a good starting point.

[Wait Wut]

37. At least someone gets it.

Awesome response.

[timdog44]

53. Dear redstatebluegirl,

you pick your own side, or pick none such as fits your beliefs. There are many here who very are argumentative and very clever at making you seem to look silly or dumb with out saying anything of substance. If you doubt, you doubt. It does not put you in anyone else's camp. I have found that standing up for your beliefs, but leaving your self open to being educated, if they can do it, is the way to do things. And civility is paramount. I only get uncivil when people get ignorant with me. I suppose that is why I have about 16 people who have me on ignore. Their loss. I do not like to use acronyms or contractions or swear, but a well place curse sometimes can elevate the way you feel. There are rules, but it is the unwritten ones that people will try to trip you up on.

I am a fairly new person here too, and wish you good luck. I try to have genuine discussions and learn things. And I have done so. To my benefit. Sometimes I learn that what I say and believe are correct, regardless of what some say.

Sorry, the most important thing about your post. It is the spying, in my opinion, that is the issue. Although I think Snowden a little too - too.

[giftedgirl77]

93. I tried to explain this before & got jumped

how do you expect someone to discuss not just a classified program but a Top Secret program that is highly compartmentalized in a public hearing? No, he couldn't have declined to answer, there isn't an option to allude to a program with any classification such as this.

Even if everyone in the room has a TS clearance doesn't mean you are cleared to be privy to all TS info. That's not the way clearances work, so jumping on the talking points is trivial.

[RobertEarl]

98. Right

So how can all these people who are telling us that NSA is not tapping everyone even find the grounds to say that?

The NSA can tap everyone. And they keep it all a secret. All we can go on is common sense and that common sense yells :: Tapped!

So.... all the naysayers are just blabbing.

[giftedgirl77]

100. What I'm saying is

they may very well be collecting the call logs or meta data whatever you want to call it but when it comes to straight up investigating a US citizen or even a suspected US citizen there is very clear laws & guidance put forth outside of the FISA nonsense that makes it very difficult to do so.

Not to mention my initial response was in regards to the Clapper lied bullshit that is flying around. It's amazing how everyone becomes an expert or a cynical louse when things don't go their way or someone attempts to provide professional experience into the debate.

[RobertEarl]

105. Not quite

They are capable of recording every phone call.

Are they doing so? Yes, they are recording every phone call they want.

Is it against the law?? No.

Can they use a recording as evidence in court without a proper warrant? No.

Now, if you are claiming to be an expert and can refute what I just wrote, go ahead.

[giftedgirl77]

109. I'm calling bs

1st & foremost like I said before the initial post was in regards to Clapper's statements in front of the panel.

2d it is hilarious that you want to throw crap out there that is completely false as it was repoted by CNET & was mentioned previously today. When the federal gov or especially an analyst wants to investigate a US Citizen they must obtain a clearance for search & or authorization from much higher of an entity than just their corp. Furthermore, if personal info is obtained & not used for a case it must be destroyed with 60 days & that's not just hard copies.

Not to mention the insane amount of storage it would take to maintain all of those files.

[RobertEarl]

112. That's just what I thought you'd say

I told you the truth and you say it is hilarious.

So you must be an expert? Yet, in your first post I responded to, you said this: "..how do you expect someone to discuss not just a classified program but a Top Secret program"

So how can you be telling me what is going on when you are not in the top-secret program?

You were just caught being two-faced. You are no expert, so I don't expect you to discuss this ,and you just showed you can't. So why continue?

They can and do tap anything and everything they want, and it is legal, because it is a secret! Don't you get that? Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[giftedgirl77]

144. no I didn't

I gave you an oversight of the laws & rules governing the gathering of intel on us persons. As far as these programs you are failing to use any kind of logic & reason, it's down right childish.

Don't try to twist someones words because you don't like the answers you are getting. I never said I was an expert, I said I have the professional experience to understand the law.

You saying something is legal because it's secret, really that's the logic? Keep spreading your illogical bs.

[ismnotwasm]

10. Well said

[BeyondGeography]

11. Josh Marshall, wise man, compares it to the OJ trial

Like the OJ Simpson trial almost twenty years ago, there are some public events which not only divide people but divide you against people you didn’t expect to be divided against. As a Republican you may be used to disagreeing with Democrats and vice versa. But with these other kinds of public events you have the shock of realizing you had very different sets of assumptions or even values than people you were used to agreeing with.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/06/like_the_oj_simpson_trial.php

[randome]

87. DU and TPM are pretty much all the news sources I need. Josh is good.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[babylonsister]

108. Thanks for that sanity. nt

[Downtown Hound]

12. Sorry, but I'm not trading my privacy for ANYTHING or ANYBODY

There is no room for both sides here in my book. You are either on the side of unrestricted government surveillance or you're against it. And those that are for it or have no problem with it are not people I call my friends, comrades, or allies. They are people I oppose, and I will oppose them vigorously.

[OilemFirchen]

28. Dear redstatebluegirl,

There is only one side to a debate. If you pick the wrong one, you have sided with the bad guys. If you are conflicted, you have sided with the bad guys. If you are fairly sure, but have a doubt or two, you have sided with the bad guys. Though you may be Democrat, you must not allow nuance to pollute your thinking.

Hoping these tips help,

Uncle Oilem

[Wait Wut]

38. Hmmmm.

I think I like this one better than the first. Whatever, you're on a roll!

[Number23]

58. Yep. Summed it nicely.

[BrotherIvan]

29. ^^This!^^

There is no room for compromise on this issue. Please note all the authoritarians who rec this post.

[Blue State Bandit]

33. With or against. Black and white. This is the type of absolutism that that does not belong...

in healthy debate.

And just so we are clear, corporations have bigger dossiers on more Americans than any US Intelligence Agency.

[zeemike]

45. You are right about absolutism

But corporations do not have the power to break down your door, arrest you, through you in jail for the rest of your life or execute you to death....at least for now.

That could change though as we merge the corporation with the state....(like revealed that 70% of NSA budget goes to corporations)...in the future perhaps Wackenhut or Blackwatter will do the arresting, and Exxon hold the trial, and Brain lock you up.

But first we need to give them the power, And I feel like this is the step by step process to do just that...conditioned to accept ever increasing restrictions on your freedom one step at a time, so you don't see it all at once and freak out.

[jeff47]

49. While they do not have literal arrest power, they have plenty of power to ruin your life.

If Equifax says you're a deadbeat, your life is going to be much more difficult.

If State Farm says you're a terrible driver, you are going to have a much more difficult time getting around.

Either of those can cost you your job, and thus your house, and eventually your freedom or your life.

Only a small part of the debate we need to have is over government access to information. We also need a debate about what companies can do with our data. But we can't have any debate when one side is insisting it's their way or the highway.

[zeemike]

83. Well I am on the side of no compromise with evil.

So with me it comes down to whether this is an evil or not...and it seems to be clearly evil to me.
The merger of the corporation and the state is what Fascism is...and now that they have the technology it can be all encompassing and fatal to democracy and freedom.
A combination of Brave New World and Big Brother...

[Downtown Hound]

51. I don't give a flying fuck about healthy debate

Because any "debate" about the erosion of our privacy and our liberties is inherently unhealthy.

[OilemFirchen]

62. Dear redstatebluegirl,

Because SHUT UP, that's why.

[Art_from_Ark]

63. What Downtown Hound said

[truebrit71]

146. x2

There is no nuance here...you can't be a little bit pregnant...

[sibelian]

162. "healthy debate"....

so people who don't agree with you aren't engaging in "healthy debate"? I'm not sure there's any arbiter with the power to describe any debate as "healthy" or otherwise.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

13. This is a global controversey, do not be afraid, and rejoice that you are able to participate

These issues are serious, and passions are high, as they damn well should be since we are talking about our very LIBERTY.

Remember this famous quote?
Frederick Douglass, “If There Is No Struggle, There Is No Progress”

Time to join the battle for our freedoms!

[Major Hogwash]

14. Good common sense comment.

The fact is the Tea Party coalition within the Republican party is dividing that party in two as we speak.
In real life.

But then, Snowden steals some NSA laptop computers, accuses Obama of being "over the top", and using Greenwald as his mouthpiece, they both are now trying to divide the Democrats on the issue of national security.

Ain't ever going to happen.

We've got Obama's back in 2014, just like he had our back in 2012.

[sheshe2]

27. +1!

Well said, Major.

[flamingdem]

15. Thanks for a sane comment

I kind of laugh it off as being DU but it has been very intense lately

For instance Big Ed Shultz took the skeptical stance. Usually people here like him and don't tear him down as being an Big Brother type.

You made the key point, we don't know who he is and we may never. There are a lot of skeezy issues that surround the Snowden Affair, and many on DU want to deny it and say it's not about him.

I think they're entirely to quick to jump on his bandwagon. Greenwald is a known anti-Obama guy and we see the Paulite connection, none of this should be swept aside yet one is attacked here for even bringing those factors into the discussion.

This is Democratic Underground. We are supposed to support Democrats and Obama.

Beyond that you have to be pretty rabid to enjoy the US losing out to countries like China and Russia. Or an old school Communist maybe!

[Cha]

19. It actually crossed my

mind..how Ed Schultz was viewing this.. "Skeptical" you say? Thanks, flamingdem.

[flamingdem]

24. Cha, I actually wrote some of what he was saying yesterday!

Kind of obsessive I know.. I commend him for having two more left people on to discuss this.
His face was like: ya gotta be kidding me about this Snowden guy

here:
Ed: Do we believe a guy who goes to China, Potus or congress?

Ed: are we going to believe a rouge employee or Potus - Rep Mike Rogers backed this up today - that they only have numbers, don't record calls

Greene: NSA lied to congress "finally we have a debate" - Elizabeth Warren

Hartmann: He thinks that Snowden has forced an important conversation. Up until 2001 we had secret courts that were a part of judicial system. Bush / Cheney stopped that and Obama put them back into place.

[Cha]

32. Thank you so much, flamindem.

Needless to say.. I believe POTUS.. not some guy who says this.. from Charlie Pierce..

2) All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.

Aaaannnnnd...SCENE!

If he had stopped at "jailing me," I would have been all right with what he said. I have no doubt that the US government has every intention of jailing him if it ever gets its hands on him. But it is beyond silly to believe that the US government intends to murder him. I mean, really. Honky, please.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Snowden_Effect_Rolls_On

[flamingdem]

39. haw!

[okaawhatever]

52. ROFL Yep! nt

[Number23]

106. "Honky please"????

Errrrr...

[pacalo]

16. I don't like the division that this (& other controversial topics) creates, & I don't participate

in the labeling or name calling at all. After 8 years of the most dishonest, underhanded administration since Nixon, my focus is on the difference between right & wrong & I'm going to call it like I see it without offending other DUers.

Ignore the comments that attack individuals who have a different point of view, & stay focused on learning more about what you believe.

[HooptieWagon]

17. Has given up privacy made you more secure?

Did it make the Bostonians more secure? If the NSA program was being used as advertized, catching the bombers beforehand should have been a lead-pipe cinch...they even were warned by the Russians!
OTOH, if the program wasn't being used as advertized, lets say to monitor Occupy, Keystone and Monsanto protestors, then that distraction makes us LESS safe. It seems logical that if the program was being conducted legally, the administration would be forthright and transparent about it. Instead, we have a massive degree of secrecy, and even lies, that naturally make people suspicious. The numerous whistle-blowers, and the governments harsh response to them, further fuel the suspicion.
This is an $80 billion per year operation...almost twice the budget of the CIA, and 70% of it is sourced out to private contractors. I think we need more transparency...especially since Obama promised to be "the most transparent administration, ever".

[1StrongBlackMan]

104. I don’t know …

We do not know what, or if any, plots were stopped, But I do know that this “giving up of privacy has not affected my life in any tangible way, that I can tell.
Please tell me (inform my ignorance) as to how this “giving up of privacy” has affected your life … without using the terms, “slippery slope”, “alex jones/glen beck/infowars” or referencing that Ben Franklin quote.

Thank you, in advance.

[patrice]

118. Thanks for asking that question. I'm trying to figure this out.

I taught high school and got into the habit of never saying anything I would not say publicly if necessary, so I'm confused about this issue.

The controls on this program aren't perfect, but they also are not nonexistent, so they don't even look at the phone numbers and who called whom without a FISA warrant.

So what privacy is anyone, except those who relate to national security risks somehow, losing?

The problems would have to do with how "related to national security risks" is identified; this is what we need to know more about, especially if private contractors are performing the work of investigating.

[1StrongBlackMan]

120. I have asked this same question ...

I three different forums ... each with 100+ posts ... of people that I see as being very opinionated (and condescending) on this "giving up of liberty/Freedom" thing; and I have yet to get a response.

Go figure?!?

[HooptieWagon]

171. Of course you don't know.

The govt doesn't tell you if they're accessing your meta-data, or if a warrant has been issued to retrieve your ph call content or internet usage.
However... have you been in contact with any family or friends who are activists... Occupy, Keystone XL protests, anti-Monsanto activists, etc? If so, you may have already come to NSA's attention. For all we know DU participation is monitored...after all, DLC/Third Way views liberals as greater enemies than they do Republicans. Since only one surveillence warrant has been rejected since 2009 out of thousands of requests, it is pretty clear the threashhold is very low...doesn't take much to get on their watchlist. Remember that next time you're pulled out of line at airport for extra scrutiny.

[bornskeptic]

110. I think you mean $8 billion, not $80 billion.

That's the number given in this Salon article.
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/10/digital_blackwater_meet_the_contractors_who_analyze_your_personal_data/
Most estimates I've seen put it about $10 billion, though.

[HooptieWagon]

170. NSA's annual budget is $80 billion, 70% goes to private contractors.

Compare to CIA's annual budget of $56 billion. NSA's budget has approximately doubled since Obama took office.
The construction cost of the new Utah facility has been reported as $2 billion...I expect its much higher, but we'll probably never be told the actual cost. There have been other facilities constructed also, under Bush and Obama, to intercept communications on fiber-optics cables and the like. Probably similar to intercept sat-coms.
Also, it should be mentioned the Utah facility has storage capacity of over a yottabyte, that is a huge number, thousands-fold larger than needed to simply store meta-data....leading to the obvious conclusion its to store content.
Taking into account the vast spending, the secrecy, the lying, the re-defining of words....its pretty obvious the Obama Admin is on a headlong rush to build a vast security state. Yes we scan.

[Blue_Roses]

18. thank-you

[Cha]

21. Mahalo redstatebluegirl!

[wandy]

22. We are pretty much doing what we should be doing. If this were a right wing.......

blog where everyone parroted the party line, I wouldn't be here.
Were hammering this out.
Even if we do occasionally hammer on each other's heads.
It's what that whole freedom of assembly thing is about.
Do you think that the founders didn't squabble?
We are doing exactly what we are trying to defend.

[zeemike]

47. Yes we are.

And it is not a bad thing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

107. I guess, we will see …

Come 2014, huh?

And I guess it depends on what we are supposed to be doing … are we to debate/hash out a controversial governmental policy/practice (note: very little of this is occurring); Or, arguing amongst ourselves, calling everyone that doesn’t agree with you a {insert slur here}, and threatening to never, ever, ever, ever, ever vote for a Democrat candidate again (note: something that IS going on in every single thread on this topic).

As it is, I suspect if I’m a republican strategist, I’m waking up to DU with smiles and bells, as reading here provides a far more and better hope for republican candidates’ success, than the republican candidates themselves, or their platforms.

[zeemike]

111. So you are willing to give up your rights to win an election?

What do you think that we here on DU that don't like this shit at all and feel betrayed by the Dems are going to vote for a right wing republican for spite?....do you really think we are that shallow and childish?

No what we WILL do though is try to challenge our Dems that turned our back on us in the primary if that is even possible any more... and it may not be because money rules it all and now they can stop any descent even before it starts just like they did with Occupy.

What you seem to want is us to be just like the right...stick by your man no matter what....party loyalty above substance...the end justify the means.
Well that is not me, and if I don't fit in your democratic party then the party has left me not me left the party, because that is what the Dems always used to stand for...not all this authoritarian bullshit and the cult of personalities that some seem to be caught up in.

[1StrongBlackMan]

116. Well ...

So you are willing to give up your rights to win an election?

What "rights" have I given up? ... That the government has collected my e-mails and telephone records; things that I never fell within my expectation of privacy.

But to answer your question ... yes, I am willing to "give up" that abstraction, many call "liberty" or "freedom", in order to win an election(s) that have a direct effect on my daily life, e.g., electing candidates that vote to fund the social safety net, will vote to enact legislation that protects worker rights, will vote to end DOMA (well, that doesn't affect me directly), will vote to re-enact the VRA, and other "on the ground" issues.

What do you think that we here on DU that don't like this shit at all and feel betrayed by the Dems are going to vote for a right wing republican for spite?....do you really think we are that shallow and childish?

I really don't know; but my greater fear is Democrats (or Democratic-leaners) will stay home or do what the tea-party is forcing the gop into doing ... putting forward an unelectable general election candidate.

What you seem to want is us to be just like the right...stick by your man no matter what....party loyalty above substance...the end justify the means.

No ... What I want is to win general elections with progressively more progressive candidates. What I do not want is to be "ideologically correct" and having to live with a republican Congress.

Well that is not me, and if I don't fit in your democratic party then the party has left me not me left the party, because that is what the Dems always used to stand for...

Amazingly, that's exactly what the republicans are saying about their party ...

[zeemike]

137. Well tell us...how has that worked for you in the past?

We still have a permanent state of war...we are hated around the world because we act like a big bully and have killed hundreds of thousands of brown people in just the last 2 decades....need I tally them all up for you?...I can if you have forgotten.
And there has been no change to speak of...we are still killing men women and children with drones...and there is no end in sight and no one but Sanders and a couple of others who even try to stop it or change it...

Well that way of winning elections by being right wing light is not working... and if we join the GOP in sporting this invasion of privacy because we are afraid to take a stand against it we will indeed lose the next election...because it turns off a significant number of people who will just give up on elections and say fuck it let them tear this country apart...like you do with alcoholics, you have to let them hit bottom before they will change.

Sorry but I am tired of fear, and tired of being told to fear bad cop...that shit gets old with me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

149. Well ...

Well tell us...how has that worked for you in the past?

For me, very well. And since you have the time and resources to post your thoughts on-line, I would guess it has worked well for you, as well. We may not be happy with everything this administration has done/is doing, or what Democrats have done/are doing; but we can be pretty certain that we will be less happy with a republican House, Senate and Whitehouse.

Yes, we are in a permanent state of war; but I think you are confusing this administration with the previous one ... this is something this administration is attempting to back away from; though world events (e.g., Syria and the entire middle east), sometimes work to frustrate this objective. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june13/obama_05-23.html
And, this administration enjoys the best international relations ratings in at least a decade.

Well that way of winning elections by being right wing light is not working... and if we join the GOP in sporting this invasion of privacy because we are afraid to take a stand against it we will indeed lose the next election...because it turns off a significant number of people who will just give up on elections and say fuck it let them tear this country apart...like you do with alcoholics, you have to let them hit bottom before they will change.

I suspect you are speaking for yourself (and the current crop of idealistic "progressive libertarian left"; more so than, mainstream Democrats ... this administration only represents "right wing light" to the most left of the Democratic party; but moreso to the progressive libertarian left, that has no affection for the Democratic party ... they only play so on the internets because that own forums get very little traffic.

Sorry but I am tired of fear, and tired of being told to fear bad cop...

So be tired ... but recognize that the bad cop is someone to fear. The only solution, in this political system, is to work your ass off to elect a Democratic (or, if you are feeling particularly ambitious, a progressive) House, Senate and Whitehouse ... then, and only then, we the policies and laws move in the direction that you would like to see (though I doubt, at the speed you would like to see it ... thereby giving you another basis for crying "right wing light" and threatening to give up/stay home.

[zeemike]

152. Well I am glad it has worked out well for you.

I take it you made some big bucks in the stock market and are thinking of buying a vacation home at the beach or something...but that is not the case for millions of Americans...
And I should be thankful I am still alive because I can't afford the medical things I need and and must beg for charity if I want to stay alive...but that is a good thing for the few who have stock in the HMOs or drug companies...our health care system is working very well indeed for them.

Yep, it is all good and we should not complain and we should just obey and everything will work out well.

But then I can be blown off as "far left"or "progressive libertarians" or put in some category that can be easily dismissed as out of the mainstream...Cause we all should be in the mainstream...otherwise Bad Cop will take over, and you know how bad cop is...

Hey if this is the kind of world you want to live in then have at it...my time is limited and I had some good years where I was pretty free to think and act without all this shit...but if you want a totalitarian world then go for it...I am sure you will have no problem convincing the others to submit...especially with bad cop standing there waiting to get you.

And yes, I speak for myself...I always have.

[1StrongBlackMan]

156. No ...

I haven't made big buck in the stock market (though, all things are relative), nor am I thinking of buying a vacation home; but I, like you, have sufficient resources to ponder abstractions on the internets.

And I should be thankful I am still alive because I can't afford the medical things I need and and must beg for charity if I want to stay alive...but that is a good thing for the few who have stock in the HMOs or drug companies...our health care system is working very well indeed for them.

Part of my good fortune, and that of millions of Americans comes from the passage of the ACA. While it is not perfect and does not help everyone, it was passed by the "right wing light" Congress ... while continuing to be attacked by the "right wing for real" that your resignation will empower.

Yep, it is all good and we should not complain and we should just obey and everything will work out well.

Not what I have said at all ... quite the opposite. I am saying don't get discouraged and fight (i.e., support and vote for the congress that'll provide you with at least some of what you want ... and recognize that NO party or politician will give you 1005 of everything you want. Further, it amazes me that it not occur to you that your resignation, has the effect of saying just that.

Cause we all should be in the mainstream...otherwise Bad Cop will take over, and you know how bad cop is...

Well ... Hate to break it to you; but that IS how society works ... policies and laws governing society reflect the mainstream, not the extremes ... and I thank the Universe for that.

Hey if this is the kind of world you want to live in then have at it...my time is limited and I had some good years where I was pretty free to think and act without all this shit...but if you want a totalitarian world then go for it...I am sure you will have no problem convincing the others to submit...especially with bad cop standing there waiting to get you.

So dramatic, you are. I do not wish to live in a totalitarian world and don't see one on the horizon.

Ponder this: You have spent this entire string imputing fear to me; yet you are the only one using fear language ... doom, gloom, death, and totalitarianism, none of which is real (well, maybe death ... but we all die); only perceived. So tell me, who is afraid?

[patrice]

119. zeemike, there ARE competing principles; those with different opinions from yours are not

all and only about winning elections.

Whatever value I place on a given principle, I do not expect others to suffer and/or die for that principles unless they personally and freely choose to do so. Please tell me, how many human lives is your being wrong on this issue worth to you? - or - are you really trying to tell us that there are no risks to ending these kinds of intelligence efforts?

If you had the ideal president,
If that president implemented your principles in policies as perfectly as possible, and . . .
If some people suffered and died because of those policies,
How many such deaths would you regard as "Unfortunate, but unavoidable ...."
Compared to how many such deaths would you consider "too many",
Where is that line, please?

I really do understand the critique of NSA; I agree to some extent.

I would just like some clarity on this point.

[zeemike]

136. Life itself is a god damn risk.

From the day you pop out of the womb...if that is your lucky fate...you take a risk when you toddle of on two feet...life if full of risk....if you think you can eliminate them they you want a world not worth living in.

But you ask a lot of questions of me....do you really want the answers?....

I don't believe in the ideal president...it is a fucking illusion because this is not a book of fiction where you can just make up supermen that do supper things...I am not an ideal person and neither are you , and we don't live in an ideal world.

And I don't want him to implement my polices as perfect as I can imagine...nor do I want him to implement anyone policies....I just want him to keep his oath, to uphold and protect the constitution....because that constitution is the only thing standing between us and rule by force where the ones with the most guns and gold make the rules....nothing more than that and nothing less.

When Fascism wanted to rule the world Thousands of Americans died or were wounded to preserve this one principle of the rule of law...and we did not back down because someone might get hurt...and we did it to prevent that kind of police state where everyone had to show their papers and were watched all the time for signs of disloyalty.
That is not the kind of word I want to live in and that is the kind of world we will have without the protection of the constitution.
And if we let them just turn it into a piece of paper in a museum then Franklin had it right....we deserve neither freedom or security.

Did I make myself clear enough?

[OneGrassRoot]

26. K&R for a thoughtful post. :) n/t

[giftedgirl77]

30. I feel your pain & understand where you

are coming from. I have tried to relay my experience being not only JAG but having experience in Intel to try & explain the law in the best way that I can without jeopardizing the clearance I do have & some people have been just plain nasty.

I joined DU because I thought it was going to be somewhere to have rational discussions without the spitefullness of being called unamerican or hearing the same old nonsense of living under a regime, etc.

I have stayed out of these dicussions for the most part simply because people don't want to have adult conversations about this matter & just want to trot out the Tea Party's favorite label for everyone now "patriot" & everything is a fight.

[Number23]

56. Great post.

I have stayed out of these dicussions for the most part simply because people don't want to have adult conversations about this matter & just want to trot out the Tea Party's favorite label for everyone now "patriot" & everything is a fight.

I think alot of people have followed your lead. I saw a mildly interesting OP yesterday about some other whistle blowers but I lost interest from damn near the first post which was immediately "OH, the apologists aren't going to like this!!" and post after post after post of that kind of close-minded stupidity despite the fact that NO ONE who disagreed with the OP had even posted in the thread.

And the people that have declared the BOG and anyone who supports the president of being "un-American" have just about done it for me. That's the kind of garbage people like Michelle Bachmann say about THEM and they're trying to stupidly use it against others. This place has gone all kinds of stupid over the last few weeks. Even worse than usual.

[giftedgirl77]

77. Thank you

I know I only joined recently but I had read the posts & discussions for a long time before joining at this point it just seems like there are a lot of people that have gone off the deepened for whatever reason.

Logic & reason is gone for the time being & for whatever reason there is an attitude of you are either with us or against us. I'm not feeling that one bit, I'm going to sit my happy butt right here with my solid knowledge of the law & wait for the storm to blow over.

[Number23]

79. LOL! Mind if I sit with you??

I'm going to sit my happy butt right here with my solid knowledge of the law & wait for the storm to blow over.

[giftedgirl77]

86. not at all

Might as well enjoy the show together.

Cheers!

[Bobbie Jo]

84. Two great posts...

Not to mention the latest AUTHORITARIAN fetish that accompanies almost every divisive name-calling diatribe.

Pretty much kills any prospect for honest discussion.

[Number23]

85. "Pretty much kills any prospect for honest discussion." Bobbie Jo, I think that's actually the plan

I really do.

[giftedgirl77]

90. Thanks, I can't tell you

how many times I have stated my piece been "shouted" at for being an Obama worshiper for just providing insight.

That's when I just say screw it & throw up my dueces.

[sheshe2]

31. K&R!

Well said, redstatebluegirl.

Thank you.

[LWolf]

35. I was trying to figure out why the "trash"

function wasn't working with this thread, since "snowden" was the key word I exercised this nifty perk on. Then I realized that it's spelled wrong. So this is the first "snowden" thread I've had to see for several days.

Without diving back into the "snowden" mess, I'll say this:

DU has always been a place of tension, with opposing agendas. From the beginning, DU identified itself as "a left-wing discussion board," AND as a board supportive of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is not left-wing. Therefore, those with a left-wing viewpoint and agenda on issues were naturally going to conflict with partisans. It's a partisan board, so partisan support has always taken precedence, at least, when it comes to advocating for parties or for candidates.

The election of Obama caused a shift for DU. First of all, the partisan agenda became, not to speak out or act on issues, but to support the elected Democratic President. Regardless of his stance on issues. Those of us who were left-wing first, and Democrats second, learned to censor ourselves in '08 and '09, or to expect a stoning from the DU mob. Also, since the '08 election season, we have gained more "centrists," and lost quite a few actual left-wing DUers; some left in disgust, some were tombstoned because they didn't censor themselves enough when it came to discussing Obama and his not-so-left-wing policies.

Finally, since the transition to DU 3, DU no longer self-identifies as "left-wing." That term has been dropped in favor of "liberal." For Obama's first term, the majority of DU was very supportive. He came in for some criticism, which was blitzed with heavy attacks. Towards the end of his first term, there was a little more criticism, and his defenders, while still hard at work, did not blanket every issue quite as thoroughly. DU got in line to support him during the '12 campaign season. Then all hell broke loose. You see, many supporters expected that, as a lame duck, he would do a better job fighting for left-of-center positions. The months since November 2012, though, have seen him increase his growing efforts to give Republicans what they want, and step all over various Democratic sacred cows. The blinders have been painfully ripped from many eyes, and more and more DUers not only stand in opposition to many of his policies, but they are angry. His defenders, while dwindling, have had to get louder and louder and louder in their efforts to make everything he says and does "right."

The Snowden war is not really about Snowden. It's about supporting and defending this Democratic administration against critics, and, especially now, against criticism from within the party itself. For one side, it's about cleaning house, and maintaining some integrity. For the other, it's about the legacy of this administration, and the damage done to the party's image going into the next campaign season.

That's why I "trashed" Snowden, so threads about him don't show up for me anymore. I know where I stand, and I've spent enough time reading and responding to the hard-core defenders that I know they will not change their position. Engaging them simply urges them to further defense, since that's their primary goal.

As has been repeated so often recently, even for those still fighting about it, snowden isn't the issue. For one side, it's about privacy, the constitution, and civil liberties. For the other, it's about defending the administration, and their favorite way to do that is attack the messenger and distract from the message. It's also about the identity of the board, and it mirrors the upheaval in the identity of the Democratic Party as a whole: old Dem, or "New" Dem? DLC, or not? "Centrist," "progressive," "3rd way," all of those terms which basically mean the same: neo-liberal. Will the neo-liberals cement their ascendancy, or will "old" Democratic principles, and Democrats, wake up, rise up, and take the party back?

To be honest, the hottest debates and battles at DU all come down to that same question.

[patrice]

122. This board has been to some significant extent dedicated to attacking PO ever since Robert Gibbs'

remark about "the professional Left" early in PO's first term.

There is a great and very dangerous assumption in thinking that everyone who disagrees with the anti-Obama cohort is a blind robot in love with Barack Obama and heedless of the necessity of fundamental change in this country. To me that change so far exceeds party that it can only be approached culturally and reactionary divisiveness distracts and delays that process. We mustn't confuse the labels, any of the labels, with the thing that we need to engage, because if we do we are very likely just to repeat the same OLD mistakes.

Some of us are working on broader cultural changes, for which we have some rational justifications for expectations that this administration could still, directly or indirectly, advance. I guess you could say we are more about process and less about the person than many people give us credit for.

I'm very tired of being categorized as a hostile by people with whom I actually do agree to some extent and they don't even ask or engage in any kind of exploration of someone they don't apparently understand. I know that I ask for that to the extent to which I engage in any negative analysis, but if we're going to change anything we NEEEEEEEED to be honest. There are positives and negatives to everything, so it does no more good to idolize Manning or Snowden or ____________ than it does to idolize Obama.

I think we should be less about abstractions, especially those so divorced from concrete effects; it takes more than calling something a "principle" to make it worthwhile for as many people as possible. This is why we should be more about what is happening and how things are accomplished and what might be possible if we agreed to lay off of the divide and conquer behaviors.

[LWolf]

158. "There is a great and very dangerous assumption in thinking

that everyone who disagrees with the anti-Obama cohort is a blind robot in love with Barack Obama and heedless of the necessity of fundamental change in this country."

I agree. Of course, I never said anything about "blind robots" "in love with" Barack Obama.

[patrice]

169. Glad to have you on record about that. Maybe I should just ask that question more often. nt

[Logical]

36. Well, the Dems can only go so far with the "We are better than the GOP" as their motto. n-t

[Demo_Chris]

40. I respectfully disagree. Either you support the constitutional rights of the people or you do not.

Beyond this there is nothing to discuss. There is no nuance, no middle ground, and no exceptions.

[jeff47]

46. Except opinions differ on the details of those rights.

For example, lots of people feel the "metadata" issue is a horrific invasion of privacy. Yet that "metadata" doesn't even belong to the individual - it belongs to the phone company, according to the SCOTUS.

It's difficult to call it an unconstitutional invasion of privacy when the information doesn't even belong to the people involved.

As a result of that issue and other issues raised by the current events, there is a debate we should have. And it's not necessarily "how much privacy should we lose?". We could also revisit questions like "who owns the data?".

But your position does not allow that debate to proceed.

[Demo_Chris]

55. Using that logic a "search warrant" of Fed Ex allows the government to open every package...

But packages do not belong to Fed Ex, they belong to the individual who's name is on them. In the same way a bank does not own your bank account, and an indivual search warrant is required to access the details. This applies as well to phone and internet companies.

Think it through. Do you think a search warrant for an property management company allows the government blanket authority raid every home and apartment managed by that company? Hardly. But that's the power the government is now claiming.

That said, the outrage over this particular program is a bit ludicrous. President Obama just announced that he believes he has the authority to KILL anyone, American or not, anywhere he wants, in secret, with absolutely no judicial or Congressional review, no due process, no oversight, no nothing, on his whim. He has announced a new Presidential power to kill -- something that no President in history has even dreamed of.

And we're worried about our phone records

[jeff47]

70. Not at all. FedEx does not own the packages. AT&T owns the metadata.

This applies as well to phone and internet companies.

Not according to the SCOTUS 1979 decision that declared the metadata belongs to the phone company.

Do you think a search warrant for an property management company allows the government blanket authority raid every home and apartment managed by that company?

There are additional protections on someone's residence, even if they rent. Those protections arose out of the debate on the issue you describe.

But that's the power the government is now claiming.

Nope. Again, our homes have extra protections beyond ownership.

President Obama just announced that he believes he has the authority to KILL anyone, American or not, anywhere he wants

Nope. They have to be outside US jurisdiction. So it's not "anywhere he wants".

And almost everything outside US jurisdiction falls under the executive branch. The only exceptions I can think of are declarations of war and ratification of treaties (not even negotiation of those treaties).

So again, there are debates we should be had. But one side is saying "absolutely no debate!", and then adding their own "spin" on what is going on.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

57. meta-data is a red-herring as the whistle blowers, and now the NSA's OWN TOP SECRET DOCS have shown

FYI

[JoePhilly]

61. Blasphemer!!!!

Hope I don't need the sarcasm thing ...

Your point about the meta data is spot on, and totally ignored on DU, and in the media.

The meta data is owned by the phone company. Now, we could be having a debate about how it can and should be used, or NOT be used. But any such discussion gets shouted down around here.

One approach we could be discussing is the approach used to prevent the credit card companies from selling your data. Those companies are now required to keep certain aspects of the data they collect secret. And to get it, the government needs a warrant.

Same basic model applies here, but no one seems to be talking about how or where those lines should be drawn. Nor are they willing to move past the hyperbole and discuss details.

Its far to easy to post an OP (while using the free wifi an the local coffee shop), that claims we all live in a police state that is minutes from becoming Nazi Germany.

[sibelian]

163. "But your position does not allow that debate to proceed."

That's a beauty. To where? To where YOU want it to go? Elegantly done.

[jeff47]

166. IMO, the data should be stored by an entity that has no incentive to misuse it.

So if I could wave a magic wand and make it happen, I'd create an entity under Congress to store the data.

Since they're not directly involved in prosecution nor spying, it should be more difficult to pressure these custodians to release the data without proper due process.

As an example of what could go wrong, an over-zealous executive branch could order the NSA to hand over the information to the DoJ without due process....also known as what happened during W's administration.

Another example of what could go wrong would be to create a law requiring the phone companies to store the data for a period of time. Those companies could go ahead and hand over the data without due process under pressure from the Executive branch....also known as another thing that happened during W's administration.

If the people storing the data don't answer to the President, the President will have a much harder time making them give up the data without a warrant.

Since it's the Executive branch that has the greatest incentive to abuse the data, that is the branch that should not be storing the information. In addition, we should have those custodians reporting to people who face election regularly, so the people conducting oversight could be easily thrown out by the people.

But instead of talking about ideas like this, we have a large group screaming "UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!! INVASION OF PRIVACY!!!! WE DEMAND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES BE THROWN FROM THE PARTY!!!!"

[patrice]

124. How many dead people is your version of the constitution worth, Chris? We NEED to know &

I think we have a right to know what, exactly, you are proposing.

[Demo_Chris]

129. Millions. That's how many have already died for the rights some choose to flush...

And if it is so required in the future, millions more.

My hope is that it will not come to this. I believe that the internet is changing everything, and that people everywhere are waking up to the fact that their governments and religious leaders are not telling them the truth and do not serve them. I believe that as time passes people will discover and internalize that they are citizens of the world, not subjects of their governments or gods.

They will look at other nations and other ways of doing things through the lens of reality, they will reject the ignorance and propaganda, and they will insist on change. We can already see this happening today. Look at who is resistant to change and who is embracing it. You think it's young people demanding the government spy on them or excusing it? Hardly.

That's what I believe anyway.

[patrice]

130. And you don't think those deaths will make your hopes less likely not more? Those deaths won't

oppress rather than liberate?

Do you think all of that lost human potential and opportunity will matter 0 to us or to humanity?

[Demo_Chris]

133. I would hope the millions who have already died are enough...

How about you? You want to give away the freedoms that millions of Americans have died for? And if so, WHICH ones?

It's a rhetorical question. You don't get to decide. Paul Ryan or Rush Limbaugh or Barack Obama will decide that for you.

[patrice]

131. Do you think each one of those millions should be asked if they choose to die for "the principle"?nt

[Demo_Chris]

135. I suspect they will know and accept the risk...

Millions of Americans have already died to secure our rights. MILLIONS. Not in some theoetical sense, but in an absolute practical one. Some don't care. They place their own personal safety and comfort ahead of everything else, including their children. It's all well and good to talk about equal rights, but slavery didn't end itself. People died for that. And if you don't care about that, Women died to so that other women might have the chance to vote. They were tortured and killed. Other heroes died so you could join a union and have representation. Still others died so we could have a Constitution at all.

And now some are saying that these things don't matter because we were attacked on 9-11 and they are super scared we might get attacked again. Myself, I don't care. If that's the price of freedom then so be it.

[patrice]

138. Accepting and choosing can be 2 extremely different things. & That difference matters to the

REAL -ization of whatever principle, as I said earlier, human value and potential are lost, in this case lost to the principle manifested in those destructive circumstances. I don't think people value constructive circumstances enough.

There are many things that could happen, things we haven't even though of, or that have not presented themselves yet, if it weren't for such a strong predeliction for death and dying over other solutions that have a different price, require more longitudinal strength, some un-certainty, other kinds of risks.

I, for one, am trying to live for my principles as best I can, every second of my life, now, not just when ____________________ , which never seems to come, btw, . . . . probably because it is sometime else, rather than now.

[Samantha]

43. I think there are disturbing points on both side of the aisle

I have not posted an opinion yet because I believe there are more facts that will surface which will influence my final decision one way or another.

I have been here since 2001, and believe me, I have had my fair share of extremely negative, pointed feedback. In all sincerity, when one posts his or her true feelings on an issue and receives horrendous personal insults as a result, I think the poster should ignore that response. We have a handful of people that can be extremely offended by views contrary to their own. This is a website where issues should be debated, not a place where posters attempting to express their honest misgivings about a situation should be personally insulted. So keep your chin up and learn when to ignore that which is out of place in an honest debate.

Sam

[redstatebluegirl]

164. Thanks Sam, I need to remember this!

I enjoy a good debate of issues. I also agree with many of the posters who say it is "who owns the data" we should be discussing. I don't believe that Snowden should have his character impuned but...when he put himself out there, leaking what some people consider state secrets when he signed a document saying he would not do this makes one pause about his character.

Just an aside, I had surgery a few years ago and had to pay up front. I did not have that kind of cash sitting around and had to use my credit card for the "down payment". Ever since I am on all these "spinal surgery" lists, get email, voice mail and snail mail for products related to that issue. Now that does bother me....

As I said above, maybe I should be more concerned than I am about what is going on now with the NSA but I am still on the fence. Some have suggested I am not "progressive enough", not really a "democrat"...ok, I can take that. I could counter, but why pour fuel on that fire when people are so angry.

I am thankful for the people who have been kind in their posts, even those who disagree. I agree with one post, it does make using the ignore button easier. I have a few since posting this, so be it. I get ignored by lots of people, I live in a really red state!

[Coccydynia]

48. With all due respect

I always worry when people believe that 9/11 had anything to do with lack of information and that we need to give up freedom for security.

9/11 was about dismissing and ignoring information, not about having a lack of information.

I also worry about the automatic "concern" about China. What about China, in today's reality, is all that worse there versus here? What has China done in the last thirty years that is demonstrably worse than what America has done?

Let us focus on what Snowdon has released, and what our government has released in support of the denials.

[jeff47]

65. Well, on China

What has China done in the last thirty years that is demonstrably worse than what America has done?

Well, there's the whole running-over-protesters-with-tanks thing.

There's also "The Great Firewall of China" - China literally captures every bit of Internet data sent from or received by everyone in the country.

Let us focus on what Snowdon has released, and what our government has released in support of the denials.

The problem is Snowden has many claims that are beyond what he has released. For example, there's nothing that Snowden has released that indicates the NSA is snooping on the Internet activities of US persons. It's just asserted by Snowden and his supporters.

Thus Snowden is quite relevant. He has not backed up all of his claims, so we have to evaluate those claims based on Snowden, the man. And his decision to flee to China is quite relevant to doing so - He fled to a country that is WAAAY beyond what he is claiming the NSA does.

[Coccydynia]

82. Let's review your counter examples:

I remember an individual stopping a tank column twenty four years ago, but not actually being run over. I may have missed something.

Again, I speak to what Snowdon has released, not what else he has claimed or not claimed.

And I don't see a comment regarding what our government has relieved to support their counter claim. Was that an oversight?

[jeff47]

89. They covered the gates to Tiananmen Square first.

Survivors have claimed a wide variety of abuses, including running over people with vehicles.

Again, I speak to what Snowdon has released, not what else he has claimed or not claimed.

That's nice. I'm talking about the large number of people taking about Snowden's claims that have not been backed up by documents. They seem to be the vast majority of his supporters.

And I don't see a comment regarding what our government has relieved to support their counter claim. Was that an oversight?

Well, perhaps you could first explain how they could prove a negative. I'm fairly confident that US policy on endangered species is not driven by reptilian space aliens. But a government document saying "we don't do that" is actually not proof.

[Coccydynia]

127. I'm not asking the government to prove a negative

I'm asking them to prove that data vacuuming has protected us even once, which is the general refrain we get from the government, and from those who have decided to give up my freedom for their false sense of security.

Regarding Tienanmen Square, I'm going to assume the lack of links and the lack of ever hearing such an occurrence as an inability to back up your assertion with evidence. Also, OWS responses by the our government stands on near equal footing.

And again, let us focus on what Snowdon has released, and what the government has released.

The messages are the issue, not the messengers.

[Number23]

50. K&R I've been saying that for a while. That DU needs to drop this subject altogether

because anyone interested in the story and not a bunch of BS will be drowned out.

This is a very complex issue and this place is so damned one-sided it's ridiculous. There has not been ONE story/article that questions Snowden on the home page of this web site despite the fact that nearly half of Americans (INCLUDING DEMOCRATS) are disturbed by what he's done. And the fact that the "charge" here is as usual being lead by a group of posters that have accused the Obama administration of coordinating attacks on Occupy protestors without a shred of credible proof and of proposing any second now to cut SS and other myriad BS just takes the cake.

I heard about Snowden's interview on the Guardian web site from the BBC and ABC (Australian Broadcasting Company) which is a news org constantly accused of being too left wing. Both BBC and ABC paint a completely different picture from what you see here. The reporter on the ABC said that the online interview was "intense" and "theatrical" but he also noted that Snowden was very vague on things he'd bragged about before and straight out fabricated other things (ie his claim that the US government has accused him of treason when that has not yet happened). He noted (rightfully) that Snowden's credibility is the only thing he has right now and he may have compromised that with his interview. But sure enough, you come to DU and everyone's acting as though the man is going to be canonized any day now.

Some of these folks really need to get out of the echo chamber. And the fact that most of these folks are the same ones that accuse Obama supporters of being "swooners" and "apologists" as they plug their ears against anything less than glowing said about Snowden is just an extra bit of delicious irony.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

60. Silencing passionate debate on this matter is just what a totalitarian would do, too

[Number23]

64. Thanks for agreeing. I say the same thing every time an article from an opposing position

get screamed at/shot down/minimized/ignored by the same people who scream the loudest about how they and only know what's right.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

66. I am strongly disagreeing with the subject of your post

Assuming you are poster Number23 who wrote this "DU needs to drop this subject altogether".

[Number23]

67. That was a post, dear. Not an OP.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

73. And I still strongly disagree with it, dollface.

[Number23]

74. That's your prerogative to do so. Just as it's mine to not really care all that much if you do

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

75. see, now your getting it ;)

[Number23]

76. There was nothing to ever "get". Done here.

[Bobbie Jo]

97. Totalitarian!!11one

Talk about "silencing" debate.

[bobduca]

69. Wow

I think the proper response for me to this is ...

PLONK

[Number23]

72. I'll use my flowing tears to season my sandwich...

[Number23]

101. Correction: I just remembered that Mr. Scorpio had a great piece questioning Snowden

and the people shocked by this news and it made it to the Greatest page. So that's one article or piece from a different perspective as far as I know that has made it to the Greatest.

[harun]

54. Sorry, hard for me to have a discussion with someone with no critical thinking or

critical reading skills whatsoever.

The guy, Snowden, is completely IRRELEVANT. It shouldn't matter if the whistle blowing came from Bozo the Clown, Adolf Hitler or Gallagher.

The one and only question is if the spying violates our right to privacy. You are stating your willingness to give up privacy to gain security. How do you measure that? What are you afraid of? Is it more of a threat than a lighting strike? Are you afraid of getting struck by lighting? How do you know your security hasn't gotten worse? etc.

[blue neen]

68. Conversely, it could have been Bozo the Clown, Adolf Hitler, or Gallagher

answering Glenn Greenwald's questions today in the online interview.

Snowden tells us we should not trust the government....fair enough, but why should we give him our blind trust?

[harun]

148. Shouldn't give anyone our blind trust. We should look at what he has and make up our minds.

I mean a number of members of Congress came out of close door meetings and said what Snowden revealed was only the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread953315/pg1

[blue neen]

161. That is what I will be doing, making up my own mind.

Thank you.

[redstatebluegirl]

168. Do you feel bigger insulting people?

You do not know me I would never imagine insulting someone that way!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. I vote issues, not party or politician.

I will not vote for those candidates who support government spying on American citizens.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

[DrewFlorida]

78. Thank you for voicing something that goes unsaid too often here.

I like you vote Dem straight ticket for a couple decades now, although I am a registered independent. I don't agree with all Democrats on every issue as I see some grey area in many issues, but am almost always frustrated with the inability of posters here to have civil dialogue. On a number of occasions I have been educated by DUers on issues which I was not too familiar, but the education comes with the vilest aggression and abuse, it leaves me feeling like a TeaParty gathering. As a result I have curtailed to a great degree, my participation on DU, I would certainly like to see more people behaving with civility rather than using this forum as their outlet for aggression.

[sulphurdunn]

80. The only relevant point

regarding Snowden is whether or not he is telling the truth. Not anything about him. That's a diversion; even if it is entertaining

[MotherPetrie]

81. Did Obama's appt. of Rahm Emmanuel as his first Chief of Staff make you nervous?

Does Obama's frequent nominations of Wall Street and Monsanto-type CEO's to head various entities in his administration make you nervous?

Does Obama's continued support for the Chained CPI make you nervous?

Does Obama's support for the Syrian rebels make you nervous?

Just wondering what your nervous threshold is because they all preceded Snowden's revelations, and I find them infinitely more troubling than Snowden's opinion of Ron Paul.

[ozone_man]

92. Why should you distrust following Ron Paul in this case.

I don't think there is any politician out there who is more against government intrusion into our private lives. Civil liberties is one of the foundations of our democracy. If that is destroyed, what have we left?

Your post seems like an ad hominem attack, as in I like this discussion, but this guy ... The issue is not about Snowden.

[Bobbie Jo]

99. I don't "follow" racists in any case.

Period.

[patrice]

128. Rand, and therefore I would assume Ron, Paul is protecting wide-open PRIVATE assault weapons

markets all over the world and has been seeking a Grover Norquist style oath from all Senators http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.2205.IS: that they will in no way support or vote for any UN treaty that seeks to control the flow of private, make that SECRET, arms sales into some of the most troubled countries on Earth.

So the Pauls are materially contributing to destabilizing violence of the sort in which people like Saddam Hussein set down the roots of his career as the CIA's man in Iraq.

And you ask why anyone would doubt a Paul's opinion on the matter of the kinds of intelligence by means of which terrorism is investigated?

also:

I wish we could ask Valerie Plame how it was that she developed her intelligence about yellow-cake for which she was outed by Dick Cheney. Do you think phone records might have been involved?

[cprise]

94. "Both" opinions?

Which ones would those be? Liberal and Conservative?

I would much rather see a range of opinion on this topic, *and* still see apologists for the police state having their *sses handed to them.

[ThoughtCriminal]

95. Clearly DU has become the Snowdon Discussion Board

hard to find ANY threads about ANYTHING else for what? - two freaking weeks.

Double Plus Mission Accomplished!

[DRoseDARs]

96. Meh, these kerfluffles flare up on DU from time to time. Thicker skin lets you get past them.

We don't goose-step with each other, so opinions and tempers will flare. Debate and discussion do actually occur underneath the haze of petty squabbling, if you look close enough. Many opt to retreat to the relative calm of the on-topic forums until things blow over.

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. I agree with most of what you have written …

Particularly, your concern regarding this being probably the single issue that would divide the Democratic party … just in time for 2014!

I completely understand that a topic of utmost importance to one person (say “Liberty” or “Freedom”, in this case), is not so big a deal to another (because of the secrets for security/secrets infringing on privacy divide, or maybe, why be worked up over something that is utterly useless, in a tangible sense … until it’s gone).
But whatever one’s position, on this particular issue; do people on this DemocraticUnderground site, really believe that it’ll get any better under a republican House and Senate (from 2014-2016) and possibly the hat-trick from 2016 and beyond?

I know some would consider my analysis simplistic and naïve; but on balance, the American people have far and above benefited from this Democratic administration, than we have under any republican administration, and most other democratic administrations as well.

[reusrename]

140. If we had a clue of how to run a political party this would not divide us.

Spying on law-abiding citizens should be a litmus test for the primaries, IMHO, followed by focusing on other issues in the general. It could could be effective.

[1StrongBlackMan]

151. Democrats do a pretty good job ...

at running the political party of "cats", who (as of late) feel the need to demonstrate their fierce independence ... by breaking from THIS preisdent at every possible opportunity (See: gun control).

But I disagree ... Democrats should be as silent as possible on this NSA thing in the primaries ... It would only serve to enable our own tea-party left, as primary hopefuls (making this an issue) will use the seating Democrats' over-sight failure to boost their numbers.

No ... I, and I suspect a significant portion of the American electorate, would far rather any litmus test be: "What is your jobs program; what will you do about getting me back to work in a job that pays a living wage?"

See, I think us here ... despite the frequent cries of poverty ... forget that the typical American household does not have the luxury of spending much time, if any, pondering the "loss of liberty/freedom" that is dividing this board ... they are too focused on keeping their house and eating every day.

[reusrename]

154. That sounds like the tactics that got us here in the first place.

I think the jobs argument will win general elections against Republicans. Especially now.

What I'm talking about is trying to weed out the fascist-state enablers before we get to the general election. What good does it do to have more corporatists with a big D behind their names running things?

Neo-liberals are equally as bad as neo-cons when it comes to helping workers. They honestly believe that more cooperation with the "job creators" will bring about prosperity.

[1StrongBlackMan]

157. More reason ...

for JOBS to be the litmus test; rather than this "liberty/freedom" abstraction, ... No?

[reusrename]

159. Not really.

We really don't need more Dems who want to create jobs. That is not a specific enough solution.

We need to elect folks who actually understand how to create jobs.

Many Dems in Congress just don't understand how to get it done. They believe in dogma rather than arithmetic, as the Big Dog might say.

There should be a litmus test during a primary race in order to tell which candidates are living/thinking in the real world versus some fantasy where the wealthy are motivated by increasing their income while the working poor just become lazier if you increase their pay.

[1StrongBlackMan]

160. Agreed ...

But I would prefer that litmus test be something "real" like Jobs and bottom-up growth; rather than, some abstract like the "liberty/freedom" argument, that the vast majority of working class folks don't have the luxury of pondering.

[Vinnie From Indy]

113. What about the fuckin' boxes!

The MoFo has god damn boxes in his garage! WTF? How can we even begin to debate the 4th Amendment knowing this jerk is just laughing at us with his garage filled with boxes! Hell, I bet the SOB even has a few boxes in his underground lair!

What's in those boxes Mr Snowden!!!!!

[backscatter712]

125. What really disgusts me is the character assassination.

It's the smear campaign. Joe McCarthy lives.

We didn't even know his name a few days ago, and now we've got a coordinated group of people spamming DU with these vicious attacks on this man's character.

It's disgusting. It's despicable, and seeing it here on DU has brought out my own inner asshole in a counterattack.

You're wondering why you're seeing so many Klingons here lately, this is why.

The kind of people who would engage in a smear campaign of a person they only read a few paragraphs about on the Internet are the kind of people I want completely out of my life.

So yeah, I've been jumping hard on the cases of the character assassins. I'm absolutely disgusted by their behavior. They can kiss my ass.

[patrice]

134. We agree about that. The first and strongest turn-off for me in most cases (except

in regards to Cheney, perhaps) are these personal attacks. Character assassination is the single biggest thing that makes me think the person engaging in it is a troll of somesort.

We are on the internet. Most of us do not use our real names. The opportunities to present one's self as an advocate of ________________________ or a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ supporter, and NOT really be anything of the sort, or even actually to intend harm on ________________________ or to damage _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , are practically infinite.

Really, think about it; I bet you would never seek to convince strangers that they should consider this or that, or do the other thing, or care about issue ___________________ or have a moment's positive regard for _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ by being ugly and dismissive and hostile. When people act in a way that harms their case, I think it more likely than not that they are not what they purport themselves to be.

There's a time and place for more offensive action. It's so completely indiscriminate and un-inquisitive here that I am very skeptical that it's honest.

Don't you find it a little puzzling that almost everyone here appears to pretend that all others are exactly whatever they claim to be, even though in so doing they hurt their own cause? Q. Who would behave that way? A. Actors.

[Corruption Inc]

139. The controversy is over losing privacy, not some guy named Snowden

The people "discussing" Snowden are not addressing the issue of spying, storing the information gathered from spying and then using that information against anyone the government or its contractors choose.

The people "discussing" Snowden aren't talking about any of the spying, data storage or usage of it, they are, as you seem to be, worried about some single person's character.

What about the personal characteristics of the 5 million people with security clearances? Do you actually think they and all their contractors can be trusted with massive and easily manipulated files of personal data that may or may not even be real?

No one in the world likes the idea of hidden personal files being kept on them by proven corrupt governments and private firms -- that's the issue -- NOT SNOWDEN!

[HangOnKids]

141. Giving up privacy after 9/11, pole dancing, and his love affair with China?

This post reads like pulp fiction. I have yet to see anyone post anything remotely like "think like me or you aren't a true DUer". Where is your link to such a statement?

[sibelian]

142. Snowden glows in the dark.

Soem say he had his eyes replaced with night vision goggles when he was ten years old.

Many have reported that looking at his face from certain secret angles sends peculiar shivers down their spines - "as if someone was trying to pull the wool over my eyes"

His former math teacher described an incident in class when Snowden insisted that 2 + 2 = 5 repeatedly, for about half an hour until even the school bully was screaming at him to shut up.

His house is painted in cheery, loony hues like a Disneyland ride, but none of the doors have handles and there are eyes painted on the windows, surrounded with creepy, witchy looking symbols, so faintly painted that you can only se ethem if you look really close.

Some people have postulated that he doesn't exist at all and is a crowd-sourced CGI experiment.

The day Snowden announced his revelations three seperate cases of kittens with two faces being born were reported simultaneously in Siberia, Brazil and New Zealand. If you join the locations of these births together on a map, it makes a triangle.

Nobody can find his birth certificate.

Nobody can find his birth certificate.

NOBODY CAN FIND HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

[Vinnie From Indy]

145. Fuckin' A brilliant!

Very funny!

Cheers!

[randome]

150. Grant Morrison fan?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[boilerbabe]

143. party/presidential loyaly trumps the truth. remember the freepers with bush?

[truebrit71]

147. I will say this though, it has made filling up my ignore list alot simpler....

...a lot of folks that were on the cusp have now been put on fully ignore over the last few days...there is no way you can be a progressive liberal democrat and agree that losing "a little bit of privacy" is okay if the government promises that it's only in order to "keep you safe"...

This topic falls squarely under the Einstein quote about simultaneously preventing and preparing for war..You are either free, or you aren't. The 4th Amendment applies, or it doesn't. There is no middle ground.

DU has become a place full of surveillance-state apologists and paid shills trying to shout down the objections of the rest of us, because it's "our" guy in the WH, without apparent care that one day it might be President Cruz, or Rubio that they've demolished the Constitution for..

[Gothmog]

153. Good OP

Thank you for your views.

[asjr]

155. You've been reading Will Rogers.

[rhett o rick]

165. Snowden isnt the important issue. He just opened the box. We need to look into the box to see if

our spy agencies are in fact spying on us. That has nothing to do with Snowden. Some are using Snowden to distract. "Dont look in the box, look at Snowden."

I am fine with "looking" at Snowden, but let's look in the box first.

[Vanje]

167. +1