Isn't it amusing to watch people who have called Obama-supporters 'worshippers'

[Summer Hathaway]

for years on this site now objecting to the use of the term when it comes to Snowden-supporters?

Of course, there is one glaring difference between the two groups:

Obama has been a known entity for a very long time - via the political offices he has held, the public statements/speeches he has made, the books he has written, and the positions he has taken.

Needless to say, once elected POTUS, Obama, like any other president, has been scrutinized by supporters and non-supporters alike. He has been questioned on every issue, every stance, every word he utters. The minutest details of his life have been laid bare.

Those who support him do so based on all of the above - which, I doubt anyone would disagree, is a rather substantial body of knowledge to be weighed and evaluated in coming to a decision as to whether one supports him or not.

Snowden, on the other hand, was deified by many here within forty-eight hours of his name being heard for the first time. They had no idea who he is, what he stands for, what his motives were in doing what he did, etc. He was simply hoisted on the collective shoulders of those who heard what they wanted to hear - accusations that the Big Bad Gov't was 'spying' on them, a statement that many saw as the "smoking gun" that could be used to bring Obama and his administration down in flames.

In other words, the Snowden-supporters based their support on the word of a man they knew absolutely nothing about.

As soon as details started to emerge about Snowden the man, his supporters were quick to insist that it's not about the man, it's about what he had to say. And the fact that what he had to say was (a) old news, and (b) assertions never proven to this day, was irrelevant. They had chosen their hero, and as that hero proved less than heroic, they refused to hear anything that might destroy the sainthood they'd already blindly conferred.

Any queries into Snowden "the man" were immediately characterized as "smears". Any facts brought to light about his past were labelled as "character assassination".

And one can't miss the irony in the fact that the same people who post every single detail they can find about every Obama appointee - in an effort to get all the facts about an individual on the table, usually in order to yell Is THIS the kind of man/woman who should be placed in this position? - are the same people who think Snowden should not be subject to the same scrutiny in order to assess his credibility.

The phrase "just ignore the man behind the curtain", oft-invoked by those who think there is something suspicious about the people behind every Obama administration position or decision, are now telling everyone that it is the curtain that we should all be focused on - while the man behind it is not to be so much as peeked at, lest he be proven to be something other than as advertized.

Those who jumped on the Snowden bandwagon without kicking the tires before hopping on board now have no valid argument but to admit they leaped before taking the time to look. And yet they continue to insist that they couldn't possibly have been wrong in their decision to do so - despite all mounting evidence to the contrary.

[sibelian]

1. So what do you think of the NSA surveillance programme, Summer?

[Summer Hathaway]

2. Which programme would that be?

The one that actually exists, or the one Snowden says exists, but has yet to prove?

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Snowden still has yet to prove the NSA has direct access to the servers of internet companies

The companies have flat out denied this, the NSA has denied this...yet we're supposed to take him at his word.

He also claimed to be able to tap the President's phone any time he wanted to.

He's provided absolutely no proof of this and all indications are that he's full of shit, yet we are supposed to worship him.

Screw that.

[truedelphi]

53. Are you serious?

For instance, the SSO celebrated on Dec 12 2012, the one trillionth gathering of email data.

I think you need to read up/listen up, on what is going on, rather than denouncing those of us who have researched all of this.

A good starting point would be with this informative speech by Greenwald, delivered Friday evening via Skype to an audience in Chicago:

http://new.livestream.com/accounts/4448875/GlennGreenwaldSpeaksOut

[flamingdem]

79. What did you learn from that? I thought it was like a timeshare pitch

pure promotion and insider comments meant to excite, no real substance or answers to questions that have been made to him in the media.

[dionysus]

122. Glen,the bastion of credibility......

[cantbeserious]

152. What Amazes Me Is The Willingness Of Many To Believe Government Denials As Absolute Truth

eom

[JustAnotherGen]

156. The phone tap of the President's phone

Is why I don't believe everything he says. I don't believe he could do that.

[cali]

10. What do you think of PRISM? Is that specific enough for you, dear?

[Summer Hathaway]

14. What do YOU think

of the OP I've posted? Is THAT specific enough for YOU?

Why do you find it necessary to change the topic? The topic of the OP is Snowden - why is it considered tabu to discuss him?

[cali]

17. hahahaaha. typical and ever so lame.

tabu to discuss him? bwahahahahahaha. Yeah, that's why Obama defenders and ignorers of the encroaching national security state have posted hundreds upon hundreds of anti-Snowden threads.

You are funny.



and I doubt YOU no the first fricking thing about PRISM or anything else regarding the intrusive and unconstitutional programs run by the NSA. You're far too busy slamming Snowden and defending the President.

[Summer Hathaway]

20. And I see

that you still can't discuss Snowden. And that speaks volumes.

[cali]

33. I've said all I have to say about Snowden

I don't give a shit whether he's a hero or the devil's spawn. really.

[DCBob]

137. You should "give a shit" if you care about the truth.

Some of his wild claims have not be verified or backed up with documentation. If he's a phony then those claims are certainly called into question.

[MADem]

30. You should start your own thread if you want to talk about PRISM, not hijack the thread

that's talking about the reaction to Snowden.

You could use the thread, that you start, to "educate" all of the people who don't "no" anything--never mind "the first fricking thing about PRISM" or any of your other driving concerns.

It beats being rude and combative, and hijacking the thread of another.

The subject here isn't roses--it's Snowden.

[dionysus]

124. it's taboo, not tabu. don't be nadine.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

166. What do you always call people "dear"? Is that supposed to be some condescending jab?

It's really tasteless. Stick to making arguments. When you name call or are unnecessarily nasty, you lose credibility. It shuts argument down.

[Maximumnegro]

5. You know that's not what the OP

is referring to, so why bother with the strawman. This is the new tactic - deflect from Snowden as though he doesn't exist and 'was never the point' - and pivot immediately to the person's view on the NSA.

What's next, 'So what did you think about J. Edgar Hoover?'.

If certain folks had just showed some patience and take the time to suss out the situation, there wouldn't be this division.

It's like the OBAMA FIRST DEBATE APOCALYPSE. When a whole bunch of people lost their minds, then starting talking about Obama 'better' do this and 'better' do that and were tearing their hair out how he was so close to losing, when in fact THEY were the ones responsible for the dip in the polls because of their freakout. Then of course Obama won by EXACTLY the margin his campaign had predicted months before, if only anyone actually listened instead of praying at the alter of St. Silver.

The NSA issue IS important but because a whole bunch of the BASE has puppy eyes for Snowden, the two separate issues are now conflated. So why people are like trying to pretend now like Snowden is not important AFTER THEY MADE HIM important is beyond me.

[Hekate]

120. Good points, Maximum

I'm still waiting for more information before making a definitive personal judgment on Snowden and his motives.

While I mull over what I do know, there are people here who proclaim I must worship Obama because I point out what Snowden is doing is hurting Obama's foreign policy. There are people who swear I must adore the Orwellian State because I point out that much of this NSA info is old news to those of us who were sentient during the period of the Bush Administration, and we didn't like it then, either.

Most hilariously, while I continue to await further developments, there are those here who accuse me of being on somebody's payroll. To which I still say: Where's my damn paycheck?

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Yup

And these same people will call you a paid operative or an authoritarian if you question Snowden or Greenwald in any way.

It is utterly fascinating to watch.

[JI7]

15. what's funny about the paid operative thing is

they accuse you of being that if you post positive things about democrats on a democratic site . like there is something suspicious about about it.

[Summer Hathaway]

27. Amen!

Being a Democrat on DemocraticUnderground is now equivalent to treason.

[treestar]

64. +1

and sound so bitter that we support Democrats!

[Whisp]

104. we can't be partisan now!

o, that one just cracks me up.

[Hekate]

123. That is particularly precious, isn't it? nt

[DCBob]

139. yeah, that would be funny if it werent so sad.

this place is psycho sometimes.

[Logical]

153. Wow, what a bunch of BS.....

LOL, you act like every positive post about Obama is attacked.

Very few are attacking the fake IRS scandal.

Very few are attacking the fake Bengazi scandal.

A MAJORITY are attacking the NSA shit.

Get it now? I doubt it.

Anyone who 100% defends Obama is no different that a brainwashed Bush supporter. Obama has made many mistakes. Some are just too infatuated to admit it.

[BlueCaliDem]

165. Exactly! And they do this without taking into account what site they're posting on.

It would be laughable were it not so tragic.

[MotherPetrie]

4. This is exactly the level of fantasy analysis on, say, IMDB actors' fan boards.

[quinnox]

8. lol, it is a bunch of gobbledygook

I see a lot of stuff made up and trotted out as if this was real. Your way of putting it was my reaction exactly.

[Summer Hathaway]

9. Please feel free to point out

what is "made up stuff trotted out as if it was for real".

[quinnox]

13. just about all of it

Let's put it this way, I think your mind reading skills need to be brushed up on. But don't be offended, I am saying this not to be mean, but in a good humor type way. To me, the OP reads like a soap opera plot, in other words, I can't relate to it in any way in terms of either what I think about all this, or how this saga has all unfolded.

[Summer Hathaway]

19. I never claimed to be a mind-reader

But I AM a DU reader.

Just go back to the DU threads about Snowden from the day his name was first identified. You will see MANY posts about what a heroic figure he is/was - posted by people who knew absolutely nothing about him, other than his name.

What my OP sets out DOES read like a soap opera plot - "Completely unknown man hailed as hero by people who don't know who the fuck he IS" - and that is the soap opera that's been played out on DU ever since.

[Whisp]

105. It was like a ticker tape parade for Neil Armstrong.

I'm too lazy and maybe not Quite mean enough to go check back on that date.

[mick063]

6. My response

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 04:27 AM - Edit history (1)

"Too big to prosecute" says Eric Holder
Chained CPI still on the table despite widespread opposition
Appointing a Romney clone billionaire to run Commerce
Including Goldman Sachs in the inner circle for determining economic policy
Blanket data collection and data storage of ordinary citizens
"Reaching out" to extremists
Secret trade deals that corporations are privy to, but not the legislative branch, the press, or the public.
Drone targeting based on profiling and not exclusively from specific, individualized intelligence.
Meetings/conferences with corporate/financial moguls at a much greater ratio than with Labor.
"Compromise" that allows for austerity (sequester), followed by piece meal perks (ie. FAA funding)
Campaign centered on transparency, Administration operated in secrecy.
Socializing, wining/dining, rubbing shoulders with the very same financial moguls that wrecked the world economy in 2008.
Dept. of Justice waging war on pot in states that have legalized/decriminalized it.


With respect to Snowden. Thank God he woke up the nation in time to have an important discussion.

[MotherPetrie]

11. Exactly. It's not the messenger, it's the message. Snowden's didn't make the Obama administration

Look good, and many of us have become so disenchanted with Obama because of all those things you mentioned that we had reason to listen and become even more disenchanted.

It doesn't mean scathing criticisms of Snowden bother me. I am not personally invested in him the way some are in ILoveMyPresident.

[Summer Hathaway]

12. Is it even remotely possible

for you to comment on the subject-at-hand, rather than wander off into topics you want to talk about?

Or is this just part of the "No, it's not about Snowden" argument we've been hearing for weeks now?

If you think he's the man who "woke up the nation", why can't you talk about HIM?

[kas125]

16. But WHY talk about him? It isn't about him, it's about our government and their spying on everyone.

Snowden is the least important part of the entire issue, so why focus on him instead of the real issue?

[Maximumnegro]

23. Wow. "I know you are but what am I"

is basically the new defense. Now it's like the pro-Snowden fervor never existed, the confaltion of he and Greenwald and the revelations were in fact finely nuanced and distinctly articulated arguments and the Snowden SKEPTICS are the ones who are making all the fuss in an attempt to distract from the main issue.

Wow.

FreeRepublic would be so proud of that pretzel logic.

[kas125]

31. I have no clue what you're talking about, you may as well have written that post in Chinese for

all the sense it makes to me. I have no idea what you're talking about, I really don't. And FreeRepublic? Wow, just wow. I don't think I've made many comments on this, or any other issue, I've made like 2,000 posts in six or seven years. But FreeRepublic would be proud of me? WTF??? I have never, ever ignored anyone here, but congratulations, you've finally made me rethink that ignore thing. Sheesh.

[SammyWinstonJack]

172. Holy crap!

[MADem]

38. This thread IS about him, and the amusing reactions of his acolytes as they realize, slowly,

that he isn't Saint Eddie.

If you don't want to talk about him, you can trash the thread and start an OP about the aspects YOU want to discuss--and then see how lively the discussion gets.

Snowden is a VERY important part of the entire issue, and that's fairly obvious if you count up the number of posts, like yours, anxiously insisting otherwise.

The quotation "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." comes from Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act III, scene II, where it is spoken by Queen Gertrude, Hamlet's mother. The phrase has come to mean that one can "insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what one is saying."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks

[Summer Hathaway]

48. The circular logic ...

It's not about Snowden, it's about what he said.

But he hasn't proven anything he's said.

Yeah, but he said it. That's all that matters.

Well, since he's offered no proof of what he said, maybe we should look into who Snowden is, to get a better idea of whether he's credible or not.

No, you can't do that.

Why not?

Because it's NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT WHAT HE SAID!!!

[Scurrilous]

91. My head hurts.

[jeff47]

127. It's about him because there is no independent corroboration.

Snowden chose what to leak. And since it's leaked, we can't see everything. We can only see what Snowden wants us to see.

That makes Snowden extremely relevant.

[Marr]

155. Because it really *isn't* about Snowden, and the only people

who seem to be fixated on that man are people who are also dismissive of all the issues that mick063 listed?

Don't you think that's a little revealing?

[Summer Hathaway]

188. Well, this OP is about Snowden.

If mick063 wants to discuss the issues he's listed, he is free to post his own OP about that, and invite discussion.

As I've said before, it was *all about Snowden* when he was being hailed as a hero. It was only after some very unpleasant facts about who he is started emerging that the hero-hailers attempted to change the subject.

Don't you think THAT'S a little revealing?

[Marr]

191. No, I don't-- because I didn't notice any Snowden worship.

Not saying it didn't exist, but I simply wasn't looking for it as others seem to have been.

[woo me with science]

18. WELL SAID.

It's time to stop pretending what we are dealing with here.

[truedelphi]

89. And is it not ironic, that Obama went all around the

World letting heads of other nations know that we in the USA didn't respect them for their spying on their citizens?!?

[dionysus]

125. lol

[chervilant]

184. Please add

Arne "I play basketball" Duncan, and the ongoing assault on public education, to that list.

I have been watching with grim fascination the brouhaha about Snowden's actions, and have reached the conclusion that most people are concerned about our government's blanket surveillance, and the myriad possible uses of this data, such as

~ tracking and stifling activists and protesters,

~ promoting reticence, secrecy and/or compliance among the Hoi Polloi,

~ generating propaganda to diffuse or eliminate legitimate concerns about dangerous or threatening issues, like fracking and GMOs (recall that our government lied to residents of Utah and Nevada about the "safety" of nuclear testing, and many of the folks who ate cinnamon rolls and drank hot chocolate as they watched the mushroom clouds later died of leukemia and other cancers caused by the fallout from those tests).

In short, if you're not concerned, you're not paying attention.

[Gravitycollapse]

21. This OP is truly warped.

It places its foundations upon premises that are partially or wholly untrue. For instance, if one is to build such a rosy image of President Obama and his administration for existing "long term," one must also consider the historical significance of covert and illegal operations and surveillance in the United States. Which not only gives creedence to the allegations, it all but guarantees that they pale in comparison to the true extent of government invasion into our private lives.

Have you pondered on the idea that in all I have said so far, I have not mentioned Snowden once? It's because I don't have to to substantiate his leaks. Neither do I consider him much of a hero or even a role model. I do not have heroes. And I have not glanced over the fact that the very same man worked for the government for years doing what he now condemns.

In my analysis and support of these leaks, I have not for a moment considered any sort of emotional or ethical connection to Edward Snowden. To allege otherwise is both disingenuous and profoundly ignorant.

[Summer Hathaway]

25. "To allege otherwise is both disingenuous and profoundly ignorant."

Where did I allege any such thing?

[Gravitycollapse]

34. Your entire OP attempts,unsuccessfully, to conflate the leaks with the leaker...

As is evidenced in the almost bitter attempt to shrug off these revelations, and to many if not most these are indeed revelations, as old news. As something not worth spending time or consideration on. That's absolutely ridiculous.

The popularity of the story now is not deflated because it is a rehashing. Do you understand how that is so?

And do you also see how you attempt to undercut the significance of the story on contradictory terms? If it is not new, then you admit the programs the leaks confront are real and have existed for quite some time. Yet in the very same sentence you write off the leaks as unsubstantiated. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

And this is why I don't trust the motivation behind your message. It is riddled with inconsistencies and failed attempts at villification. Which is exactly what you allege against supporters of the leaks or Snowden. This is an amazing example of projection. A truly exquisite example.

[MADem]

39. Gee whiz, whoever smelt it, dealt it! I didn't see your name in the OP...

why, then, are you taking it so personally?

[Gravitycollapse]

43. I am getting really tired of the circus act this has turned into.

Where we have one side who has become tabloid gossip against the leakers and another side chanting "fuck the system" in their smug little drum circles.

Let's have a real goddamn discussion on this for fuck's sake.

[MADem]

50. If you are really all that 'tired,' exercise a little self-control.

This OP has a subject and a theme. If you don't want to participate, don't. But telling people that they are wrong for discussing the postulated subject is what is really "lame."

Start your own thread, lay out your parameters for conversation, invite some "real conversation" as you term it....and see what you get.

It's certainly a better way of having a conversation than yelling "Shut up, shut up, shut up--don't say that!!!!" which is what many of the detractors to this OP seem to be doing.

[Summer Hathaway]

40. Having my cake and eating it, too?

" ... you admit the programs the leaks confront are real and have existed for quite some time. Yet in the very same sentence you write off the leaks as unsubstantiated. You can't have your cake and eat it too."

Actually, I can.

The disclosures about metadata collection has been known for some time.

The claims about someone in his position being able to easily access anyone's personal info - including the president's - has never been even close to proven.

I've seen this "can't have it both ways" argument raised over and over on this site in the last two days. The fact is that Snowden made MANY assertions about the NSA - and the insistence that they are either ALL true or ALL unproven is just the kind of black-and-white thinking that non-thinking people cling to.

[Gravitycollapse]

44. So how can you manage to justify your own clinging?

That is exactly what you're doing with this OP. Again, an exquisite example of projection.

[Summer Hathaway]

55. What is it I'm clinging to?

The Snowden adulation started on DU within hours of his identity being disclosed.

Don't take my word for it - do a Google search of the site. It's ALL there.

What I am 'clinging to', if anything, in this OP is the fact that a lot of DUers who claim to base their positions on the FACTS, the FACTS, the FACTS, were all too ready to base their opinion of Snowden on a complete absence of facts.

It is what it is - and a quick perusal of DU posts over the past few weeks demonstrates, without doubt, that many here were eager to throw their full and unwavering support behind a man they knew ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about.

[Gravitycollapse]

56. And where is your equal concern with those who have shilled for the administration?

Where is your anger with those people?

There's zero balance to your criticism.

[Summer Hathaway]

57. Do you understand the concept of

talking about one thing (as raised in the OP), instead of trying to change the subject?

If you have nothing to contribute to the topic-at-hand, you are free to post an OP about whatever it is that YOU would prefer to discuss.

[Maximumnegro]

26. Doesn't address some people's adoration

and conflation of Snowden, Greenwald, Assange, and the revelations. I mean are we now going to pretend like there were threads this whole time people calling Snowden a hero and micturating (to put it lightly) on those of us who were skeptical from the get go? Now those of us who call BS on all that are in fact ENABLERS and AUTHORITARIAN supporters?

That's amazing revisionism. It's fascinating watching this unfold in real time.

[Gravitycollapse]

36. I have seen little consideration on either extreme of the debate

And that is a problem. We have a few clowns on here on both sides turning this onto a circus act. And they are the loudest. Which means the reasonable folks, who have nonetheless posted many OPs and responses pointing out their belief in the truth of the leaks without idolizing Snowden or Assange or Wikileaks, are ignored when it comes time to weigh the responses. This OP we are posting in is part of the circus act. And it does absolutely nothing to resolve the problem or further the discussion.

[ProSense]

60. O.M.G.

"We have a few clowns on here on both sides turning this onto a circus act."

Irony! Irony!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122238

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3121960

LMAO

[Gravitycollapse]

61. That's not irony. That is me pointing out how you are part of the circus.

[ProSense]

68. And

"That's not irony. That is me pointing out how you are part of the circus."

...this is me laughing at even more irony.

[Gravitycollapse]

71. Laughing is good for your health.

Glad I can help. You've certainly helped me. At this rate, with what you post, I will live to be 120.

[MADem]

42. That's it. What you said! nt

[Number23]

84. + a stone cold million and I LOVE your user name!!

[dionysus]

126. bullshit. snowden\assange\manning are the sweet bebe jesus to many here.

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:07 PM - Edit history (1)

[DCBob]

140. Snowden has made claims of new capabilities and practices that are particularly disturbing if true.

That's why his credibility is relevant.

[JDPriestly]

22. I am grateful that Snowden has sacrificed so much of his life and freedom

in order to let us know about this very problematic program of surveillance.

I also supported Obama and worked very hard as a volunteer for his re-election in 2012.

I do not see a contradiction between being grateful to Snowden for raising questions and providing information about this very broad and vague surveillance program and supporting Obama. I don't understand why I can't do both.

Obama has invited public discussion about the surveillance program.

Snowden is a young man who has taken a huge risk in the interest of freedom. So far, neither Russia nor China has offered him asylum. So far he is a man without a country, rejected by the US and not welcomed elsewhere as far as we know.

In the first of Snowden's statements that I heard, Snowden said that he expected to be renditioned, arrested or maybe killed.

I had the impression at that time that he has no illusions about his likely fate but that he has found the inner peace to accept the inevitable.

Galileo spent years in enforced silence because he told the truth.

(Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[9] He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[11][12] It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he wrote one of his finest works, Two New Sciences, in which he summarised the work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials.[13][14])

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Such is the fate of those who dare to expose the truth.

Snowden may face worse than an inquistion for having told what he appears to have believed was the truth. Some quibble about his facts. But I don't have enough reliable facts to determine what is true or false about what Snowden has said.

All I know is that the government has now admitted that it collects pretty vast amounts of metadata. That in my view is probably constitutional although it will certainly take many years to finally get the decision that agrees with me (the Court is very cautious and very slow).

So far, the government has affirmed the essential fact of collecting metadata and occasionally more. To me, that is the most troubling and essential truth that Snowden has revealed although some argue that some of his details are wrong.

Whether he is a hero or not, time will determine. It may be that Americans are perfectly willing to sink into silence and lies in which case Snowden will not be viewed as a hero by future generations.

I do not blame Obama for this situation at all. We have been on this path since the end of WWII. It's time to rethink our views about enemies and security and ask questions. Security is an important value, but so is freedom. How do we find a balance? This collection of metadata is too repressive in my view.

The kind of either/or absolutism expressed in the OP, in my opinion, is a symptom of a person living in a conformist, repressed society. We are supposed to either see Obama as a hero or Snowden as a hero. There is no both, no neither, no some of the above, some of the below.

That kind of absolutist thinking is typical of dictatorships in which expressing an idea that is not approved by the government or the party authority is to be disapproved.

I respect and admire Obama. I also understand that what Snowden has done, even if imperfect, regardless of his personal flaws (which we all have) is an act of courage and selflessness.

[Maximumnegro]

28. Isn't it quite the coincidence that

so many PROGRESSIVE concerns like marijuana, gay rights, healthcare, privacy, etc. seem to be getting so much traction and scrutiny under CORPORATIST TOTALITARIAN SHILL OBAMA?

I mean, he's clearly so disappointing that it's amazing he was able to nominate Elizabeth Warren at all and support her for the Senate.

Meh, I'm sure all this would have happened under McCain and Romney, since they're all the same!

[JDPriestly]

32. I'm not sure what you are driving at.

My Obama-supporter credentials are beyond reproach.

Obama has reduced the excesses of the surveillance but he can't do it alone. We need to support the effort to insure the integrity of American journalism and other freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

This surveillance is in my view unconstitutional. It will result in and probably has already caused the oppression of our speech and limitations on our journalists.

It isn't either or. It isn't either you are for this surveillance or you are for Obama. I am against the surveillance and very pro-Obama. I'm not enthusiastic about some of the activities of the NSA in terms of surveillance.

[Buzz Clik]

149. "My Obama-supporter credentials are beyond reproach." This is a discussion board. Bullshit is king.

Beyond reproach.

[JDPriestly]

162. Are you trying to say that in order to qualify as an Obama-supporter,

you have to agree to the NSA's policy of collecting all you metadata, classifying and characterizing you based on that data, and then arbitrarily spying on you if your metadata puts you in a class the NSA doesn't like?

Are you trying to say that in order to consider yourself and Obama-supporter you have to praise, praise, praise Obama for everything his administration does?

[MADem]

47. And Saint Eddie is no fan of social security and medicare!

Throw those old people under the bus! Unemployment insurance? That's for suckers--get rid of it!!!

He's a real charmer when it comes to social safety net programs that most progressives hold dear....but hey, he was overjoyed about "legalized prostitution" so he must have his priorities in order....

I do think it was this article that started to tamp down the ardor!

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/

[JDPriestly]

163. Did anyone claim that Snowden was a Democrat?

I didn't hear them if they did?

[MADem]

169. They claimed he was for truth, justice and the American way!

Throwing seniors under the bus, gaming the stock market, and shooting leakers (the ones he doesn't like, apparently) in the gonads while praising the prostitutes of Switzerland certainly isn't a very values-based approach to life, to me.

But hey...he coulda been a MODEL!



So, what are you saying? That the people who like his shitty approach to life aren't Democrats either? That, maybe you could sell me on...

[JDPriestly]

171. How can a Democrat favor this kind of massive surveillance any more

than he or she can favor getting rid of unions or Social Security or gaming the stock market or shooting leakers?

Snowden was not a Democrat. That we have known from almost the beginning. My question is who said he was a Democrat?

I understood that he was a libertarian. When it comes to human rights, Democrats and libertarians agree on many things. That is my understanding. The things we disagree on determine whether we are Democrats or libertarians. Libertarians, seems to me, agree with Democrats on some things and Republicans on others.

I am a Democrat. I believe strongly in human rights, and I oppose government surveillance except in the case of an actual crime that has happened. Government surveillance to prevent crime should be done openly so that those under surveillance know they are being watched. That openness helps keep the government honest. Honest, innocent citizens should be watching the government, preventing corruption and crime in the government. The government should not be watching us.

[MADem]

175. He hasn't proven that such "massive surveillance" is actually happening.

He confounds the term "metadata" --- which is a fancy term for the information that used to appear, before the days of cellphones, before the days of computers and Skype, on every Americans' phone bill. These bills would run for page after short half page--a veritable book, they'd send you in the mail--I can remember bellowing stuff like "Who the hell called White Plains NY and talked for frigging thirty two minutes at nine o'clock at night?" when the bill was especially high. This was before the advent of nationwide calling plans where you get a flat bill, and none of that shit is listed anymore--he's conflating that information, which the phone company has always collected, with "listening in on everyone's conversations." Then he gives us a FISA warrant and misstates what's on it.

I've been a Democrat all my long life, and I know a bullshitter and an opportunist when I see one. His goal wasn't to reveal any great truths, his goal was self-aggrandizement. He miscalculated. Badly.

Sorry--I don't believe this guy ... if he's got something to say, he should back up his assertions. And he doesn't--he says he has all sorts of stuff, and his pal Greenwald of the CATO Institute says "Yeah, he has lots of stuff" but he's the guy who doesn't have the technical chops to explain what's going on here, either (another one who didn't get what metadata was).

He sure has gotten people to believe him without evidence, though...why, I wonder? Because he's "cuuuuuuuute" in an Emo-ish way, or something? No accounting for the tastes of the young folk!

Let's have him prove what he's saying before I set my hair on fire. I don't think he can, though. He can (and I believe, has already so done) screw us over by revealing specific espionage tactics, of the very same sort that PLA Unit 61398 has been using for over a decade, and that, I think, isn't 'on' as the saying goes. He's a stupid little man. He should have gone to the Paulbot's child, who is on the Senate Intel Oversight crew, and let it all hang out there--instead, he goes to two of the most repressive regimes in the world, that don't give a flying fig about that "human rights" and "government surveillance" you're going on about, and gives them tactical information that--face facts--they probably already know or suspected, but he sure gave them confirmation. He's an asshole.

[JDPriestly]

178. I'm talking about the metadata.

The government has been able to get metadata in a specific case for a long time, but that procedure is a far cry from what is being done now. They are collecting metadata, analyzing it and using it to "identify" suspects. They aren't looking for a criminal who has committed a crime. They are looking for networks of people, for spheres and individuals of influence. They are using this information to obtain a social profile of groups.

This use violates our basic human right to form associations. It violates the right of a journalist to collect news. It violates the rights of people using the internet to inform themselves, let's say, about demonstrations against various governments around the world.

The Obama administration may not be abusing this kind of procedure, but it is very dangerous and makes a mockery of our Bill of Rights.

It is social science taken to an extreme.

As for obtaining information beyond the metadata, Snowden and a couple of other whistleblowers are warning that is happening and rather arbitrarily.

Russell Tice (I think that is the name) stated that he held papers in his hands that authorized checking on the numbers related to Obama and that was in 2004. He also said he held the papers ordering a check on Alito's numbers. Why was that legal?

That was under Bush, but if that was possible then, it could be done now even if unofficially and rather surreptitiously.

Snowden worked in this program recently. No one has denied it. He does not strike me as a grandstander. Maybe we differ on that, but I am inclined to believe him when he says he could get into just about anyone's very specific data. I worked at the phone company at one time. I think that is quite possible. And today it would be even more possible than it was back when I was there.

[MADem]

181. How is your right to form associations being abrogated?

No one is telling you to not call anyone, and that data IS being collected by your phone provider even if NSA wasn't in the picture. It's how they roll.

You can't find a needle in a haystack without a haystack. The information is already there, the only difference is that these providers, instead of having their lives and workplaces disrupted when a request is made for information, put a copy of their shit off to the side so that NSA can access it with a warrant.

How much does Snowden even know? He spent less than four weeks--weeks, mind you--working at BHA. He showed up, started stealing shit, was told by personnel that there was a "problem" with his clearance, and he ran off to China.

I don't believe he could get into everyone's data, least of all the President's--on that score, I think he was talking himself up, sort of like he did in those chat rooms where he boasted about what a smart "stock shorter" he was, and his great life in Switzerland with the prostitutes.

I think I'd be inclined to take him more seriously if he were testifying before one of the Congressional Intel committees.

[Skittles]

24. there is a difference between supporters and worshipers

and that applies too both Obama and Snowden

[MADem]

29. When folks are reduced to using FauxSnooze, World Nut Daily and similar sources as

proof of their assertions, the horse has left the barn.

I couldn't believe how many didn't blink when his musings about social security and medicare were published. That whole pile really shone a bright light on his character, which could be summed up in two words -- "hubris" and "selfishness."

Nasty little man. No compassion. Too clever by half, though, wasn't he? Typical Paulbot, I fear. But people who like that sort of thing, well, they like that sort of thing.

[frylock]

90. you're fucking kidding, right? wapo and the guardian uk are now fox news and wnd?

really?

[MADem]

144. No--those guys haven't been 'on the story' for days now.

Opinion pieces from right wing web sites are being used as "justification" for Snowden's behavior--right here on DU.

[Union Scribe]

35. Get back to me when any Snowden supporter

posts dreamy pics of him on the beach. Or wishes his dog happy birthday.

[Summer Hathaway]

41. Well, to each his own.

If that's your criteria for how a man is to be measured, by all means go for it.

[Union Scribe]

45. It's my measure of how a man is adored by a fanbase

which was the entire concept of your OP.

[Summer Hathaway]

52. The concept of my OP

was to point out the fact that Obama-supporters (or adorers, as you would have it) based their support on a well-known track record.

The Snowden-supporters, in stark contrast, based their support on what the man SAID in a single statement, and asked no questions about WHO he was, what his motives were, and whether his assertions were credible or laughable.

It's been a classic example of those who denigrate Obama-supporters as being "blind followers" rallying behind a man they were completely blind to.

I KNOW who Obama is - his every move has been scrutinized, analyzed, repeated, tweeted, recorded, transcribed, etc.

Now tell me what the Snowden-supporters have based THEIR support on - other than a revelation of what was already known, and assertions that remain unsubstantiated?

[kiva]

88. Nope, the 'isn't he so handsome' pics

and adoring posts began while Obama was a candidate, well before he had a "well-known track record" and have continued, complete with swimsuit pics and cute dog stories, to the present.

I've seen every policy coming from his administration supported here by posters, including putting Social Security on the table, rejecting universal health care, gutting education, and a slew of policies counter to traditional democratic principles.

On the other hand, pretty much everyone I've seen posting positive OPs about Snowden have said repeatedly that it's his message, not Snowden himself, that's important.

So yes, a distinct difference.

[Summer Hathaway]

108. Go back to the DU posts

that started the night Snowden's name was mentioned for the first time. You'll find many, many posts about what a great American hero he was.

Then move forward in time and look at the posts when the details about Snowden, the man, started to emerge - and it became apparent that he wasn't such a great American hero after all.

That's when the cries of "It's not about the MAN, it's about the MESSAGE!" were the order of the day - not because deflection away from Snowden was in play along, but because that deflection became necessary.

[MADem]

146. That's horse shit! Obama introduced himself to the world giving a substantive

speech at the convention.

He had more to say out of the gate than Snowden has to this very date.

Snowden has made some accusations, but that's all he's done. He has a power point slide show and assertions, which have been denied vigorously by the parties he's accusing. So that's where he sits--in Moscow, up a creek, without a paddle.

[quinnox]

46. lol

Ain't that the truth!

[MADem]

49. You mean like THESE? That are all over the intertubes?

See? See? He coulda been a MODEL!

[treestar]

66. I recall a post on the first day of Eddie's known existence

saying he was "handsome."

[MADem]

145. In my neighborhood, he would .... er... not be regarded as such!

He wears a perpetual whine, he doesn't look fit, and he's way too pale. I don't think he'd get much play!

Of course, there's no accounting for tastes...is that "emo" thing the kids used to like still popular? I suppose if it were, you could pop one of those smurf hats on him and he might fit in...?

[Number23]

85. Sweet Fancy Moses... somebody get that boy a pork chop sandwich STAT!!

[MADem]

147. ... Stop!! Stop!! You're killin' me!!!

EAT, child!!! You gotta EAT something!!!!

[Whisp]

76. You really are comparing the two?

I can't help you son. If that is how you've wired yourself against the President there is nothing to be done.

but don't expect us to sit back and let you spew that shit at us.

[Union Scribe]

93. I'm not your son, and it's not my comparison.

It's the OP's. And if "you've wired yourself" so that anything anyone says is "against the President" then, "I can't help you son."

Now, when is Bo's birthday again? And will the BOG be serving cake?

[Whisp]

95. It must be so sad that your hero Snowden is a traitorass

Every day as new info comes in, it becomes clearer and clearer to you that the two of them scammed you.

don't worry, you have plenty of company.

Oh, and the BOG may be serving up some Humble Pie for visitors soon. I'll save you a piece.

[Union Scribe]

97. Not my hero.

I know this is difficult for someone such as yourself to comprehend, but one does not need to find someone their personal hero to generally favor their actions on an issue. I'm not a teenager and I don't do fanboi nonsense. I'm not into cults of personality. I hope you'll get there someday.

[Whisp]

98. His actions are not yet clear or known, and you favor them

with so little information.

What if he releases those agents names, and people die?

o, I know I know.

IT'S NOT aBOUT SnOWDEN!!!!@#!!

[Union Scribe]

99. They're apparently "known" enough

for the lot of you to be embarrassingly personally invested in him being hunted down and punished as a "traitorass"--whatever the hell that is.

[Whisp]

100. were you aware that China does cyberwarfare on Tibet?

I have a post around on that, called GhostNet.

You might want to read about that and reconsider your stance seeing that Snowden thinks China is 'free' compared to the U.S.

He is scamming you. Or whoever bought him.

[Union Scribe]

101. Once again...

Snowden's opinions on China, social security, the Pauls, sports, keeping boxes in garages, etc. do not matter a teensy tiny fuck to me. It is the veil that is crumbling away partly as a result of his actions that I'm interested in. I want Bush-era doctrines out of my government.

Snowden was just the first neutron. The chain reaction can't be stopped now. More leaks, more awareness, more sunlight. It's our chance to rid ourselves of irresponsible domestic and foreign policies before they become further entrenched in military/corporate precedent.

[DCBob]

141. sorry but even if this phony 2-bit hacker is the "first neutron"...

there is no critical mass to keep it going.

[MADem]

177. PLA Unit 61398--their job is to collect a lot more than "metadata"....on US.

It's all they do. They spy, they hack, and they steal--steal--steal US intellectual property.

Thousands of people, seven days a week.

But they're the good guys...?

[Whisp]

186. Yah, they are the good guys and the U.S. should just STOP!

Makes no sense at all. The teabaggers and Norquist are trying their darnest to drown the government in that bathtub and the gullible go along.

I have more faith in government than in the corporate world. I would like to know a lot more about Booz and their involvement in all this. There is a whole lot more story to unfold but not everything evil comes from government - that catshit crazy Bachman and Paulite talk.

But more about the spy thing - poor freedom lovin' China! The U.S. should just give up on cyberwar to be nice and all those sorts of problems will surely go away. yikes.

It's like if we changed the law on what side of the highway we travel. We all travel on the right and things go fairly smoothly but accidents do happen. The U.S. dismantling their surveillance while everyone else just motors along, is like changing the rules of the highway. We are now going to have all traffic on the left side, just like Britain. But we will start with only buses first, the rest will still be in the right lane.

[Scurrilous]

92. LOL

The dog, the beach.

That stuff really drives some people crazy.

[JNelson6563]

37. Oh but this is different!1!

"Standards" only matter when certain posters say they do and only on matters "they" decide standards should be applied to!

Seriously though, I just love all the irony.

Julie

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. I object to your abuse of the word 'fact'

"the fact that what he had to say was (a) old news, and (b) assertions never proven to this day"

This is the fundamental problem with your argument: that you blindly assert things that you wish were true as 'facts', and then spend all your time on the red herrings of how much other people, or you, like Snowden as a person.

This was a big story before we had any idea who had leaked the material. Because it is about the material, and not Snowden's 'assertions' - presentations that US and British intelligence use internally to explain what they do, and documents showing what FISA has been allowing them to do.

I have never been so disappointed in a section of DU - I see people here eager, even desperate, to make this like some reality TV show where it's all about whether you 'like' Snowden, or Greenwald, or The Guardian, or if you prefer Obama as a person. And when you, personally, come along and pretend that you are looking at 'facts', when you are instead muddying the waters, it sickens me. Whether that's because you have been hypnotised by reality TV into thinking that's how the truth is arrived at - the 'truthiness' that it's taken a comedy program to warn us against - or because you're just a supporter of an intrusive national security state who will use any means possible to attack its enemies, I can't tell.

[Summer Hathaway]

54. My position is rather simple.

When you claim that you "had the authorities" to access the personal information of anyone, including the president, you'd damn well better back it up with something more substantial than "just take my word for it".

The 'reality show' you're currently watching on DU is the reality that some people will swallow ANYTHING that fits their pre-concieved notions about the Big Bad Gov't "spying" on them - no proof necessary.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. When you claim there are people who amuse you by saying one thing then the

other, you should back that up with something more substantial than 'just take my word for it'.
But your OP is free of links.

[Summer Hathaway]

109. No, there are no 'links' ...

And I am amazed that anyone would find them necessary.

But if you want to pretend that no one on DU ever referred to Obama-supporters as blind hero-worshippers, you go right ahead and do that.

[Bluenorthwest]

167. That was not your assertion. Your OP claims that you are amused by a group of

people who called others worshipers and are now bothered by being called worshipers themselves. The amusement at this contradiction is the theme of your OP. I asked you to show me that these people who actually do this exist, you failed to do so. You now try to reword the question, but that is not going to work, Summer.
It is you who said a group of DUers exist who called others a name that they are now complaining about when they are called by that name. You are amused by them. Yet you are unable to show even a single example of that which was so amusing that you had to make an OP about it.
Foul tactic.

[Puglover]

65. Thank you.

Very well said.

[graham4anything]

58. This thread is back open after all day discussions on two equal threads on opposite opinions

as such this thread is back open.

[Whisp]

59. kick

[sheshe2]

62. Kicked and Recommending!

Brilliant, Summer. Absolutely Brilliant.

Thank you

[treestar]

63. +1 million

You nailed it. They were just happy to see something "bad" that they could assign to Obama and say "see we were right, Obama is evil personified." They don't even consider whether this nation needs security , then when confronted with that, they amazingly say we don't deserve security! They cheer on China and Russia. Just astounding.

[CakeGrrl]

67. Nailed it.

Don't try to insinuate that Snowden's motive is anything less than 100% nobility and love of country, or else you'll be namecalled for character assassination.

Meanwhile, the Obama = Bush morphing photo is clucked at with the "truth hurts" popcorn smilies.

[NYC_SKP]

69. K/R. (nt)

[backscatter712]

70. *PLONK*

More disgusting and despicable McCarthyist character assassination propaganda.

[ProSense]

75. More

"More disgusting and despicable McCarthyist character assassination propaganda. "

"disgusting and despicable" hypocrisy: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122696

[BlueCaliDem]

157. ZING!

Good find, ProSense.

[Melinda]

72. You lost me after "for years now on this site" when you've been here 18 months.

Really.



And for the record, I was with Jan Schakowsky waaaaaaaaaaaay back when.

[Starry Messenger]

113. It's a sock of a rather well known columnist here.

Not sure why she's allowed two accounts, but that's new DU for us.

[Melinda]

133. And they seem to be multiplying.

Like gnats.

[Buzz Clik]

150. Not necessarily referring to you, but I find it highly amusing ...

... when people who brag about their sock puppets cluck their tongues when speculating about someone else's sock puppet.

It's just really funny.

[Bluenorthwest]

168. I don't find dishonesty amusing out of anyone. So Summer is actually some other

poster and that is why she says 'for years' when 'Summer' has not been here for even 2 years?
Dishonest brokers are dishonest for a reason.

[Bobbie Jo]

180. "Dishonest brokers are dishonest for a reason."

You've summarized the issue with Snowden quite nicely here.

[MADem]

176. Who? We have a "well known columnist" here? nt

[Cha]

73. It's typical hypocrisy.. they have no clue why Pres Obama has supporters..

so they tried to write us off as "worshippers" and Obamabots(that's a Greenwald special)

Newsflash for Glenn.. I'd rather be an Obamabot than a Greenwald snot.

Thanks for the OP, Summer..

[cali]

77. such nonsense. I have every idea why people support the President and on

quite a few issues, I support him too, but not to the point of ignoring those of his policies that I consider to be detrimental.

And I don't even like Greenwald and have a long history of criticizing him.

[markpkessinger]

110. As usual, Cali, well stated! n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. Popcorn with butter

Or kettle corn?

[Bluenorthwest]

78. I have little interest in Pin Up Politics, but I would like to see an example or two of

actual DU posters who fit the description you claim to be so amused by. Granted 'amused' seems to be a term of art meaning 'bitter', but aside from that, is your assertion in any way factual and truthful? Or is this just some Meta Style characterization flinging?
"Isn't it amusing to watch people who have called Obama-supporters 'worshippers' for years on this site now objecting to the use of the term when it comes to Snowden-supporters? "

Can you show me that these people exist, the ones you watch for amusement? How can I answer your question when you offer no actual support that such amusing characters exist all over DU?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

80. Why waste time on this cult of personality stuff when the NSA is still spying on us? n/t

[Iggo]

81. Don't worry your pretty little head about the steroids.

Just remember that Canseco's an asshole.

[ZombieHorde]

83. I try hard to not call anyone a "worshiper," unless I'm talking about religion.

I think this type of name calling makes the debate about the debaters. First this was about the leaks, then it was about Snowden, then it's about the debate, then it's about some posts on DU.

And one can't miss the irony in the fact that the same people who post every single detail they can find about every Obama appointee - in an effort to get all the facts about an individual on the table, usually in order to yell Is THIS the kind of man/woman who should be placed in this position? - are the same people who think Snowden should not be subject to the same scrutiny in order to assess his credibility.

The phrase "just ignore the man behind the curtain", oft-invoked by those who think there is something suspicious about the people behind every Obama administration position or decision, are now telling everyone that it is the curtain that we should all be focused on - while the man behind it is not to be so much as peeked at, lest he be proven to be something other than as advertized.

Snowden has very little influence on policy, while the Obama administration has great influence on policy. This is a big distinction.

[Summer Hathaway]

107. "Snowden has very little influence on policy ...

... while the Obama administration has great influence on policy."

True.

What is also true is that when someone makes allegations as sweeping and as serious as Snowden's, it would seem that any thinking person would want (a) proof of those allegations, and (b) a knowledge of WHO is making those allegations.

In this case, Snowden has yet to prove what he has said. He was also a complete unknown when he 'disclosed' information about things like being able to access anyone's email or phone calls, including the president's.

And yet none of his supporters seemed the least bit curious as to WHO the man making these allegations is, or was. They simply swallowed whatever he said whole, and without hesitation.

Of course, as soon as details started to emerge about WHO Snowden really is, his fans immediately started yelling, "It's not about the MAN, it's about what he said."

They don't want anyone looking behind the curtain - because the man behind that curtain is not the heroic figure they were so quick to assume he was. And they refuse to admit they've been had.

[Number23]

86. K&R If I thought these folks had a conscience or a clue, I'd be upset by what they call

the president's supporters. As it stands now...

[HardTimes99]

87. I'm having trouble discerning what your central point is. Could you please state it

in 1-2 sentences? (Not being snarky, just trying to make sure I understand you properly and respond to what you mean, rather than to some hobgoblin or projection of my own imagination.)

[Summer Hathaway]

103. Sure.

The point of my OP is a simple one:

Obama supporters (myself among them) have been called hero-worshippers, who base their support solely on the man's charisma, personal charm, ability to dazzle with his speech-making skills, good looks, etc.

When an Obama supporter argues that we base our support on the man's past record, his actions, his priorities, his accomplishments and so on, we are are almost invariably met with, "Oh, you just idolize the man and, as such, you will believe anything he tells you."

The Snowden debacle has now shown that many of those same people who accuse others of hero-worship were quick to idolize Snowden as the Greatest American Hero - literally within days of learning his name for the first time.

Despite the fact that they had absolutely NO idea who Snowden was, and no track record on which to base any opinion of his trustworthiness, they immediately "believed anything he told them" - and still do, even though he has yet to prove his allegations about the NSA's vast "abuse of power".

The OP is just an observation that many DUers who dismiss Obama supporters as hero-worshippers were the quickest to fall for their own "hero" - and did so without raising a single question as to who their new-found idol is.

[HardTimes99]

158. Thanks. Without throwing your thread completely off its tracks, maybe

it comes down to differing definitions of the word 'hero'.

Without getting too deep into the nitty-gritty of my disillusionment with Obama, I would simply say that in 2007-08 I was one of those 'admirers' of him too, drawn to him by his opposition to the Iraq War at a time when opposing it publicly carried some real political risks (and contrasted with Hilary's repeated votes for the AUMF and subsequent unwillingness to show much remorse for her poor decisions). Then, too, the poet in me saw that there was something deeply fitting in electing a President like Obama to set the scales of history aright after the utter depredations of the Bush Junta.

So what is a hero? To me, a hero is one who sacrifices him- or herself for a higher cause. So, you could rightly say, I viewed Obama's opposition to the Iraq War as 'heroic,' in that at the time he uttered it, he risked sacrificing himself to stand against the tide of seeming popular support for the war. Flash forward to 2009-10 and Obama's efforts to close Guantanamo. Congress refuses, in a bi-partisan display of cravenness, to appropriate funds for the closure, effectively tying Obama's hands. Constitutionally, there was little Obama could do, since Congress used its power of the purse to check the Executive Branch.

So I ask you, in those circumstances, what would or should a 'hero' do at that point? Maybe the fault was and is mine for expecting Obama to act heroically. But all I know is that his opposition to the Iraq War back in 2002-03 led me to expect that he would do so.

As for Mr. Snowden, whatever one may think of his background, pedigree or politics, there should be little disagreement that he has thrown away something of substantial value in pursuit of what he perceived to be a higher cause. Now you may take issue with whether Snowden's perceptions were correct. But I don't think you can question that he has sacrificed a great deal.

My thoughts on this are seemingly constantly evolving and this is as close as I can get currently to where my current feelings stand.

[baldguy]

94. .

[Cha]

106. Pretty succinct there, baldguy. thank you. nm

[markpkessinger]

116. If there is no truth to Snowden's allegations . . .

. . . then how can he possibly be charged with leaking classified information? Or is false information now classified as well?

[Summer Hathaway]

118. I can't believe this BS is still going around on DU

The allegations made by Snowden about his being able to access anyone's personal information, phone calls, emails, etc. - including the president's - has never been proven. That's where the "no truth to Snowden's allegations" comes in.

With me so far?

He has been charged with leaking classified information because he stole classified information, by his own admission - and then generously shared it with the Chinese.

Two. Different. Things.

[markpkessinger]

119. Snowden's personal ability to access anybody's information . . .

. . . is secondary -- I mean WAY secondary -- to the broader issue of the government collecting and storing meta data of huge swaths of the American public who are under no particular suspicion of having done anything wrong. Likewise the content collection going on with PRISM. Whether his claims as regards his own ability to access such data are exaggerated or not -- and at this point neither you nor I know if in fact they are exaggerated or not -- that really isn't the primary focus of concern. I don't need for Snowden to be a good guy, or one whose ideological commitments are in line with my own, in order to believe that he has done the country a service by forcing us to have a conversation about the security/privacy trade-off that we have, for too long, avoided.

[DCBob]

142. "government collecting and storing meta data" is legal...

and most people could care less since it just the same information on our phone bills we routinely toss in the trash. Its the other stuff Snowden has claimed but not proven that is more troubling.

[Summer Hathaway]

187. The story so far ...

... according to DU:

Snowden is a great American hero! A truth-teller! A whistle-blower!

As facts emerged about Snowden, it became "It's not about the man, it's about what he said!"

And how we're in Stage 3: "It's not about what he said, it's about some of what he said."

It was Snowden's initial claim about being able to access anyone's info, up to and including the President's, that set off the firestorm in the first place. And now that claim is "WAY secondary" and it doesn't matter if it was "exaggerated or not"?

Sorry, but you've lost me completely.

[Hekate]

129. Succinctly put

[uponit7771]

183. +1

[SidDithers]

96. HUGE K&R...nt

Sid

[Life Long Dem]

102. Well said

I don't think some even look at the tires never mind kick them.

[zappaman]

111. Kick!

Great post!

[markpkessinger]

112. That isn't nearly as amusing as . . .

. . . watching the ideological contortions of people "support" of the President equates to unquestioning, uncritical acceptance of anything and everything that President does.

And congratulations on your mastery of Manichean dualism, by which you neatly divide people into the all-too-convenient categories of supporters versus non-supporters. Hmmm. . . where have I heard that kind of dualism expressed before? Oh, right, now I remember. It was that guy who said: "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

[Summer Hathaway]

114. Keep catapulting the propaganda

that supporting Obama "equates to unquestioning, uncritical acceptance of anything and everything that President does."

You are obviously under the delusion that if you post it enough times, it will somehow be true.

[markpkessinger]

115. I used a gross generalization . . .

. . . in response to a gross generalization. Sorry it went over your head.

[ucrdem]

117. Also amusing: watching the usual suspects suddenly become 4th amendment warriors.

Obama is spying on us and lying about it, you betcha!! 4th amendment 4-ever!!

[dionysus]

121. this is the best OP i've read in a while.

[Major Hogwash]

128. This thread should be pinned to the top of the forum.

There is no way that those people knew what they were talking about when they first started defending that traitor, Snowden.

[jeff47]

130. Isn't it amazing how well this right-wing plan is coming together?

Boy, 2014 is gonna go even better for them than 2010.

I mean, we've got tons of Democrats screaming "Greenwald says they're reading every email and listening to every phone call!!" when Greenwald hasn't actually said that.

So we get a lovely fractured party for 2014, the Republicans win big and set themselves up nicely for 2016.

And it's truly awesome how well their plan is coming together.

[muriel_volestrangler]

132. It's a bit harsh on Summer Hathaway to call her OP a 'right-wing plan'

though it's true that many of the people in the national security apparatus who are trying to get away with this (eg James Clapper) are right wing. Yes, SH is screaming all kinds of things, and doing her best to insult anyone with a worry about the extent of surveillance, but it's quite possible that's just because her understanding of how the truth is arrived at has been warped by years of watching personality-driven news reports. I don't think she wants a fractured party; she just wants one that agrees 100% with what she thinks.

The Republicans are, of course, split on this too - some of them are just as eager for a surveillance state as Summer Hathaway is (probably most of the senior people in their party, I'd reckon). Some of them see this as an issue to criticise Democrats on, but I can't see them getting a big electoral boost from it - a lot of Republican supporters are pro-snooping. The people who stand to win the most from OPs like this are the privatised surveillance industry - people like James Clapper. If he can get away with lying to Congress, and the firms he's worked for continue to get their contracts, they're in clover. And that's the right wing you need to watch out for.

[DCBob]

143. I think Summer just wants to inject some common sense and reality into this discussion.

BTW, the RW loves it when they can point to Democrats who get all riled up about non-sense.

[Logical]

154. What the clueless OP failes to realize is that it is not about Snowden. It is about the NSA. n-t

[Bluenorthwest]

160. Then why is Summer using hyperbolic characterizations of a class of DUer that

does not exist? Why does Summer claim to be 'amused at' a group of people that Summer does not prove exists?
The title is bullshit, falsehoods and common sense is truthful. Summer refuses to back up the wild assertions in the OP. Perhaps you would like to do that for Summer?
This thread is Meta Gossip and makes DU suck.

[jeff47]

182. I'm not. Her post is a symptom of the plan, not part of it. (nt)

[Summer Hathaway]

190. "SH is screaming all kinds of things ...

... and doing her best to insult anyone with a worry about the extent of surveillance."

Screaming? Hardly.

Can you point out where I "insulted anyone with a worry about the extent of surveillance"?

My OP is about Snowden, and the reaction of those DUers who elevated him to 'hero' status without any proof of his allegations, and without any knowledge of who he is/was.

How that is even remotely equivalent to insulting those concerned about surveillance escapes me.

[flamingdem]

131. k r

[lamp_shade]

134. It is amusing. I think "they" would worship ANYBODY who could possibly bring down Obama.

It ain't about Snowden.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

135. A short addition to your post

Its equally amusing how those who has criticized the people who support Obama on some issues with statements like 'words don't matter, actions do' or 'anybody can say something that sounds good, but I'll believe it when i see it', yet what do we have from Snowden(and Greenwald) if not words, words, and more words.

[FSogol]

136. Kick and Recommend!

[DCBob]

138. yeah, aint it the truth.

Excellent post. Thanks!

[Bluenorthwest]

164. I don't think it is the truth at all, can you show me these posters that 'amuse'

Summer? The ones who say 'worshipper' then complain about that? You say this is the truth. Prove it. Summer has failed to support her assertion. Why don't you support it, Bob?
A gossipy, mendacious slander. This tactic is definitive of the right and 'say anything centrists' as it is dishonest, furtive, vague and based on arch implications about unnamed others who dwell in great error.
Prove that this OP is true, Bob.

[LWolf]

148. Not really.

Those things don't connect the way you wish they would.

In the first case, Obama can do no wrong, and everything he does is justified, rationalized, or blamed on others by his loyal PR crew.

In the 2nd case, as has been explained again and again and again and again and again and again ad nauseum, only to be ignored by those who don't find this fact convenient, the issue is not about Snowden or his character, it's about the issue of privacy.

One group is about promoting and defending a personality. One group is about promoting and defending an issue.

Apples and Oranges, no matter how dogmatically that first group tries to re-frame the 2nd.

[Logical]

151. You are another DUer who is too clueless to realize this not about Snowden, it is about....

if we want the NSA/FBI/Gobvernment spying on us. It is that simple.

And the people 100% defending Obama on this topic and that think Obama has not continued the same shit Bush implemented are the ones to worry about.

[BlueCaliDem]

159. Excellent post, Summer! Kicking and Recommended.

This needed to be said to expose the hypocrisy among the anti-Obama swell putrefying this once invaluable Democratic Party supporting site.

[Bluenorthwest]

161. Can you point out this amusing group of people to me? Or is this just bullshit?

[TheKentuckian]

170. Deified? Really? Even if someone is considered a hero that doesn't make them a god

or one to be worshiped but rather acknowledgment of doing something considered heroic. No one gives a damn if a firefighters motivation is girls loving a man in uniform, a paycheck, continuing a family tradition, proving women can do anything a man can, camaraderie of share dangers, or learning to avoid prosecution for arson when they pull your ass out of the fire.

I worship a deity, lauding some man for a heroic action isn't even in the same continent, much less neighborhood.

Heroic doesn't mean saintly either. I have no idea why some have this idea that a person must be unblemished or even generally considered decent to be capable of heroism. The same person who wiped out an innocent village might in the very same day put his life on the line to save his platoon, you get the guy that he pulled out of the burning wreckage not to see him as a hero or the cousin of one of the villagers not to think of him as a devil and I'll consider you amazing.

That said many that oppose dragnet surveillance haven't gone even as far as calling Snowden a hero but they are just as likely to be accused of deifying Snowden as those that did and somehow all of those folks are made out to be making the man their god. According to your framing if one is pro-Fourth or anti-surveillance/Security state then they are by definition not just pro-Snowden (I guess he was loved before he was even known) but consider him God on Earth and are also racists, Paulittes, and traitors.

Also, I think there is some dishonesty built in to the whole premise which is anti-surveillance or pro-fourth Amendment equals Snowden fan (or worshiper which I've never seen in action) and I think that deceit is purposeful and used as a tactic to tie the issue to this one man as if it has no consequence before, aside from him, or after he is no longer news. Hell yes your tactics will be scoffed at, the fourth amendment long predated Edward Snowden as do our government's history of abuse, overreach, poor stewardship of power which are often defended by citing Obama wasn't President then but the same voices change the subject, threats to the family, who started it, or start crying about dirty nukes and shit when some says they expected THIS Administration to use its considerable discretion in these matters differently WHILE it worked to curtail the power for future Administrations permanently but if nothing else while our people held the reins there would be an end to the Bushshit and that if a future Executive wanted to go back to this well they would have to reboot it rather just keep on keeping on.

I also think that comparing the scrutiny to an elected official or appointee who will be making rulings impacting all of us, leading large pieces of the government, and actually instituting policy to this situation makes little to no sense, I just don't see what one has to do with the other. Snowden has no ongoing role, won't be hiring anyone, he won't be on the bench for life, he won't set policies, he won't negotiate treaties, he has no budget authority, no enforcement duties, no ability to provide influence for corporate interests.


Here our only test of importance is it possible and is it true and some of this had not only been admitted as fact but proudly stood behind there are other aspects that have been denied that have not been supported but they are possible and even probable technologically and some of us don't give secret programs that we oppose the benefit of innocent until proven guilty because we can't escape that the government was trying to prevent us from having any facts.

We must also account for where the money and the power lead and those paths demand a critical eye of what the government and private contractors are up to here not faith.
Snowden lying costs him far more than it benefits him, the government lying means billion dollar contracts, expanded power, increased census in private prisons.

Who has been fighting a generational war on self determination utilizing ever increasing encroachments on our individual rights (who thinks that information gathered "in error" won't be a boon for the drug war?)? I don't see compelling motivation and potential for reward for those on the other end of this on anywhere approaching the same scale.

[great white snark]

173. K&R for the truth worshipers.

summer, you

[Zorra]

174. Joseph Goebbels:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

[Apophis]

179. It's not about Snowden.

Good gawd.

[ucrdem]

185. It wasn't about Medea either, or about brave Rand when he stood up

for a load of horseshit. But that didn't stop the bashers from having a happy dance.

[bluestate10]

189. Look like more and more, Snowden will end up in a US courtroom.

I am no Snowden fan, but he should get the absolute best lawyers, paid for by taxpayers, to defend him.