obsessing about how evil Snowden is: Still a fucking fool's errand

[cali]

and lord only knows there are a plethora of fools.

It's the mass surveillance, stupid.

[MotherPetrie]

1. BINGO. K&R.

[chimpymustgo]

2. Mass surveillance, secret courts, secret laws, journalists and whistleblowers being prosecuted

A government saying it's all legal and constitutional and can't be challenged - BECAUSE THEY SAY SO!

That infuriates - and frightens - me.

[99th_Monkey]

8. +100 SPOT ON! eom

[Matariki]

13. It would frighten EVERYONE here if we had a Republican President

It SHOULD frighten everyone regardless. We should be working to reel this in before it becomes too late. Not be fighting over bs 'issues' like Snowden's merit or personality.

[A Simple Game]

38. And that partisan thinking is what is wrong.

It's not a Republican problem, it's not a Democratic problem, it's an American problem. And all of us as Americans must decide to fix these problems. This is not a party issue, it's an American issue.

Party first is wrong no matter which party you belong to.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. But …

Isn’t this site named DEMOCRATICunderground?

I think you’d have a great point if this were “Non-partisanUnderground” or “Third-PartyUnderground.”

[A Simple Game]

54. I would be ashamed to say I was a Democrat before I was an American.

Not that I am a Democrat, haven't been for at least 20 years. I have never tried to hide that fact. I have not voted for a Republican in over 20 years and don't plan to ever vote for another. I have been lucky enough to not have to vote for a Democrat in close to 10 years. I may never vote for a Democrat again. I voted third party for President in the last two Presidential elections and my candidate won both times. I voted for the Working Party candidate. If President Obama had gotten more votes on Working Party or Liberal lines than the Democratic line do you think that would have sent a message for change?

Go to the bottom of any page on DU and read the about section, this would be the section where DU explains to the world what the site is about.

Here is the first line under the first heading which is the Mission Statement:

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

The bold is mine. Normally you make a list in descending order of importance. Helping elect Democrats is the fourth bullet point. Now I do help elect Democrats I just don't vote for Democrats if I can help it. Luckily everyone in New York runs on multiple parties so it is easy to do.

I am what you would call one of them there politically liberal people and proud of it. I believe I was born liberal and I plan to be a liberal when I die.

So, do you put party before country? Please have the balls to answer. And if you don't put party before country, why did you question my patriotism? Because as far as I am concerned that is what you did!

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. Did you miss this part ...

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Question: Since you haven't voted for a Democrat in 10 years, what do you after the primaries?

[truebluegreen]

68. Read it again.

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. Okay ...

Now what?

[truebluegreen]

73. Are you familiar with the way NY lists candidates on the ballot?

A candidate can be listed several times, for several different parties: Democratic, Socialist, Green, whatever.

So it is possible to vote for "Obama" on the Green Party line, and have your candidate win. It is a way to send a message as to how the electorate actually feels. Would they prefer their candidate pursue greener or more socialist policies, or are they happy with his present policies?

I believe that is what the poster was saying. It is kind of a version of Instant Runoff Voting.

[1StrongBlackMan]

76. Oh ...

Okay.

Thank you for educating me.

[A Simple Game]

79. No I didn't miss that part.

That would be covered when I mentioned the fourth bullet point. And I normally do vote for Democrats, I just will not vote for the Democratic Party. My first consideration is for which candidate is more liberal, which is in line with DU principles.

I didn't think you had the courage to answer my question. Here it is again: Do you put party before country? You question my loyalty, let us know where yours lies.

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. I guess ...

our fundamental disconnect is ... I do not believe the Democratic Party, its policies or its individual candidates are anti-America or anti-democratic. So my support of the Democratic party and its candidates is not putting party before country.

Further, even when I disagree with a particular policy position of a candidate, on the whole, I am pretty comfort in my support.

[A Simple Game]

85. And my guess would be

that you don't agree with my statement in the first post you replied to:

It's not a Republican problem, it's not a Democratic problem, it's an American problem. And all of us as Americans must decide to fix these problems. This is not a party issue, it's an American issue..

So no matter what, you support the Democrat, right or wrong? Do you agree that we have problems in this country and that part of those problems is the loss of our freedoms? And do you know that a Democratic President now supports the loss of our freedoms to the point of actually accelerating that loss? Do you support President Obama in his efforts to take away our freedoms?

In my statement I wasn't promoting any party I was pointing out the fact that All Americans have common problems regardless of who is in power.

Party should never come before country and until 2008 that is one of the main faults we found in Republicans and rightly so.

I do consider your reply a roundabout way of saying you put party before country. And it seems we are so far apart on this that calling it a disconnect is like comparing a blade of grass to a redwood.

I am an American first, period! I'm old enough to remember when the Democratic party felt the same way. I haven't thought that was true since President Carter was in office. And it seems from his recent statements that President Carter agrees with me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

86. Let me break this up to answer ...

that you don't agree with my statement in the first post you replied to:
It's not a Republican problem, it's not a Democratic problem, it's an American problem. And all of us as Americans must decide to fix these problems. This is not a party issue, it's an American issue..

Yes, I agree that this is an "American problem"; however, I have more confidence that Democrats will resolve it in a manner that I would support ... I have no faith that the modern gop will resolve it in a manner that I would support.

So no matter what, you support the Democrat, right or wrong?

The short answer is "Yes", I support the Democrat over every republican or libertarian.

Do you agree that we have problems in this country and that part of those problems is the loss of our freedoms? And do you know that a Democratic President now supports the loss of our freedoms to the point of actually accelerating that loss? Do you support President Obama in his efforts to take away our freedoms?

No. No. And, No. because I do not agree that "part of those problems is the loss of our freedoms."

In my statement I wasn't promoting any party I was pointing out the fact that All Americans have common problems regardless of who is in power.

I agree with this statement. I guess where we differ is that I am more confident that my supporting/voting for Democrats will resolve these problems far better than my supporting/voting for republicans or libertarians AND I am more confident that my supporting/voting for Democrats will resolve these problems far better than my with-holding my support/vote from Democrats.

I do consider your reply a roundabout way of saying you put party before country.

Again ... I believe that my support of Democrats is what is best for the country because the alternatives are so much worse.

I am an American first, period! I'm old enough to remember when the Democratic party felt the same way. I haven't thought that was true since President Carter was in office. And it seems from his recent statements that President Carter agrees with me.

So am I ... But, I think you have a romanticized memory of history and/or the Democratic party.

[A Simple Game]

89. If you don't believe we are losing freedoms then there is no need to

continue this conversation.

I'm sorry but I consider that voting a straight party line allows you to be lazy. You need to do your homework for every candidate or don't vote for that office. Voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us into our present predicament. But then you don't see the predicament so never mind.

I hope where ever you live there are more than three parties, you don't have a liberal or conservative party, how about working family or right to life, communists? In New York we must have a hundred parties. We do have a lot of variety. There are often better alternatives. You honestly don't believe there could be a bad Democratic candidate?

I'm glad you see all Americans have common problems.

You think I have a romanticized memory of the Democratic Party! Does that mean you think they are better now than they used to be? Try this on for size, I'm old enough to remember when there were good liberal Republicans and I wish we still had some! One of them even warned us about probably the biggest problem we have today, the military-industrial complex.

Part of my problem with our lesser of two evils options we have today is because I can remember when our options were between good and better and the third party candidates were kooks, now the major candidates are often the kooks. Candidates actually used to put country first not themselves or their party.

It used to be better and it can be again, the two party system is broken, we now have two branches of the same party, the corporate party.

[Blanks]

91. Could you be more specific?

When you say 'loss of our freedoms' and the president is 'accelerating that loss' - can you give me an example of how your freedoms are affected.

I'm not looking for some kind of vague outrage statement like 'look around' or 'haven't you been paying attention' etc.

Give me an example of a freedom that you had before, but don't have now. A freedom that has been effected since 'Obama has been accelerating the loss of our freedoms'.

At this point, it really seems like a vague slam without any substance. A regularly repeated cliche around here lately.

[1StrongBlackMan]

106. Thank you ...

It IS only a vague alarm that only becomes real "if this, that and the other might occurs,then we really could lose our freedoms."

At the beginning of this NSA thing, I asked ... repeatedly ... for someone/anyone to tell me know any of this is effecting/has effected their real life (without referencing the Ben Franklin quote or linking to alexjones/infowars) . Not surprisingly, there were no takers.

[Blanks]

107. I guess we just need to keep after them. eom

[Hydra]

57. It would help if the Democrats were acting like Democrats

I came here with Democratic Principles, not to support DINOs.

This is not DINOunderground either. And the Partisans almost killed this site a few years ago with their crap, so don't start that again.

Skinner asked people to be here, be active and be lefty if we were. I took it as an invitation back, and I haven't regretted it and I haven't regretted keeping my principles and keeping the pressure on the people in office.

If you have a problem with that...well, that's your problem.

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. You mean ...

it would help if everyone thought like you. Newsflash ... the Democratic Party represents a broad spectrum of thought. You do not define what is, and is not, Democratic principles.

And the Partisans almost killed this site a few years ago with their crap, so don't start that again.

So it's better to let the "progressive" left, i.e., libertarians, that are not tied to, or have any love for, Democrats or this Democratic President, kill the site?

Skinner asked people to be here, be active and be lefty if we were. I took it as an invitation back, and I haven't regretted it and I haven't regretted keeping my principles and keeping the pressure on the people in office.

Skinner invited people that openly express distain for Democrats and this President, by thinly veiling it as keeping the pressure on people in office, to his site?

Skinner, please confirm this here or PM me; because I do not believe this is what you intended.

If you have a problem with that...well, that's your problem.

Is this where you stick your tongue out, spike your imaginary ball and high-five your "crew"?

[Hydra]

60. I'll take that as your vote for Party over principles

And that you'd rather not have anyone stick to rule of law, because, well...The Republicans might win!

Of we don't have rule of law and principles...we have Republicans.

Really not hard, here.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. In vote party over republican ...

period. No. Let me be clear ... I vote Democratic party over republican, green, libertarian or any other party.

What are you talking about "rule of law"? You seem to confuse "rule of law" with "rule of how I want it to be."

[JoeyT]

65. War crimes are against the law no matter what you want.

And double tapping is a war crime.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. Okay ...

what are you talking about?

[JoeyT]

75. The practice of

circling a drone back around and hitting a target again a few minutes later so you can kill people trying to help the injured is called double tapping.

[Hydra]

87. I'll make this as clear as I can

The Obama Administration is facilitating the violations of the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution. All but a few (D)'s in congress are going along with it. Their oaths are to defend and protect the Constitution above all other things.

Violation of their oaths of office.

The Constitution is the Highest law of the land. Violating it is a Treason level High Crime.

This happened during the Bush Admin. We voted in record numbers to put a stop to it. We gave the (D)s the White House, The House and the Senate...and they squandered it.

It's none of your business, but I always vote Dem. I'm seriously reconsidering that stance considering that people like you and the (D)s demand my vote but then we get no Dem agenda with it. As soon as there is a viable Progressive party, you can have the party that was stolen by money. Until then, it's mine too, and I will speak up from the Left when they do something wrong.

[1StrongBlackMan]

104. Okay let me be equally clear ...

The Obama Administration is facilitating the violations of the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution. All but a few (D)'s in congress are going along with it. Their oaths are to defend and protect the Constitution above all other things.

NO President Obama isn't and no the Democrats aren't.

This happened during the Bush Admin. We voted in record numbers to put a stop to it. We gave the (D)s the White House, The House and the Senate...and they squandered it.

Really? Wow. If that is the most clear example of revisionist history or applying a desired meaning to a particular out come, I don't know what is.

Oh, I get it ... you're saying LIBERTARIANS voted in record numbers to stop it. There is no other way to rationalize/make sense or truth out of your claim.

It's none of your business, but I always vote Dem. I'm seriously reconsidering that stance considering that people like you and the (D)s demand my vote but then we get no Dem agenda with it.

Thank you for sharing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. Okay ...

I did alert on this post because I just wanted to see/draw attention to your invoking the name of Skinner to suggest that on this site ... DEMOCRATICunderground ... the Left trumps Democrat.

Apparently, 5 of the 6 jurors have no problem with that.

Now I know.

[truebluegreen]

69. Principles trump party.

As it should be.

[1StrongBlackMan]

78. Oh goodie ...

isn't that what we are seeing in the modern gop?

I just can't wait for the Democratic party to follow suit ... then, we'll have a really, really functioning government!

[Hydra]

88. lol wat?

The Republicans have 1 principle- Money/Power. They've always been true to that. The rest is for show.

The fact that you don't seem to think principles and laws are important bothers me more than a little. What is a society without laws and values that they hold dear? I guess we're going to find out...

[1StrongBlackMan]

105. Okay ...

n/t

[forestpath]

3. K&R.

[Downtown Hound]

4. Happy to rec this.

[Hydra]

5. Let them obsess

And keep digging deeper.

Michael Hayden (accidentally?) confirmed that Snowden did in fact have access the the NSA's private network and they have people trying to figure out what he stole.

Morales Plane WAS grounded by a combined effort of EU members.

The NSA IS spying on most/all of us.

The Obama Admin is defending it. Rigorously.

The more they shout, lie and misdirect, the more the truth comes out and has a spotlight.

They are their own worst enemies

[flamingdem]

20. Don't forget John Kerry is threating the Venezuelans!

Just in case you missed that one

[Hydra]

24. Well, considering the State Dept can't even figure out which plane Snowden is on

It might be a little hard for them to figure out which South American country that they need to bully is. Maybe they'll just threaten all of them for good measure?

[flamingdem]

29. I think they should lob a few to show who is boss

money where mouth is and all o' that.

And then Obama should have a beer, burp.

[Hydra]

42. Nah, the President said he wouldn't "scramble jets" for Snowden

...but then again, it's just a bunch of Brown Socialist Commie Bastards(TM)...maybe a few deliveries of Democracy(TM) will do them some good!

[flamingdem]

47. It's long overdue

[bvar22]

6. Concise and Direct.

DURec!

[cali]

7. Maybe I should have gone for putting it in Haiku form

[Mojorabbit]

52. They are looking for stuff that "sells"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=132770 which I find to be an odd term to use

[woo me with science]

66. Nice catch.

[SomethingFishy]

9. The "debate" about our privacy or lack thereof has been reduced

to people yelling about how "this person I hate loves Snowden" or "this group I don't support loves Snowden".

The "debate" never really existed anyway. We lost this one from the start. And it's not any better since Snowden revealed what he knew. Our privacy is under attack. There is a mountain of evidence to support that. The only "evidence" anyone has that it isn't is "the government promises it's not violating your 4th amendment rights".

The Patriot Act is safely in place, the data center is nearing completion, with virtually unlimited storage space, Snowden is a wanted fugitive, it makes you wonder why the supporters of the NSA spying programs feel the need to continually rub it in... Seems like a bit of overkill.. or as my mom would have put it, poor sportsmanship...

[Civilization2]

10. Seems some folks are too dense to have a debate, childish name calling and sides is all they grok.

It is sad the level of ignorance and willful ignorance at that!

Does in fact seem that the corporate-military is indifferent to any opposition,. they obviously have a plan, a strategy, a pogrom if you will. Unfortunately, it does feel like this plan is to issue a "special order 66" and just claim eternal martial law at some point. They keep inching towards it, absorbing any little backlash, and then plunging ahead further. it is the same Problem Reaction Solution technique that has been working for decades,. only uglier and more aggressive.

People do need to keep pointing out the BS, and educating everyone we can about the alternatives to this rising corporate-military terror-state we see birthing before us.

[OilemFirchen]

11. Another Snowden thread.

What is this, your 400th?

[ProSense]

15. .

[cali]

23. considering you've posted several hundred ops about snowden that little

smilie of yours is carrying an awful load of unintentional irony.

[ProSense]

27. "several hundred"?

[hootinholler]

40. DUZY!

[bluestate10]

17. To the point of being boring. nt

[cali]

21. No, honey. it's my fourth. I'm not obsessed like the person who's posted 400

now that's really something, don't you agree?

[OilemFirchen]

33. No. But here's REALLY something:

I'm not your honey.

[Scootaloo]

39. Good lord. It's nowhere NEAR four hundred!

[hootinholler]

41. BWA!

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. But, "It's not about Snowden".

[randome]

12. What other kind of errand would you expect for a fool?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[flamingdem]

19. .

[ProSense]

14. Snowden has no crediblity, and deserves no thanks.

Snowden has no crediblity, and deserves no thanks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023288332

Opinions may vary.

[Matariki]

16. This thread isn't about Snowden. It's distinctly not about Snowden.

you've really kind of gone off the rail in a way that seems kind of unbalanced.

[ProSense]

18. "obsessing about how evil Snowden is: Still a fucking fool's errand "

Surprise, it's about Snowden.

"you've really kind of gone off the rail in a way that seems kind of unbalanced. "

Your bullshit characterization is...well...bullshit.

I think it says more about you than me.

[cali]

28. funnier and funnier, Pro

this one's for you:

[randome]

22. I feel like Sheldon Cooper asking, "Sarcasm?"

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

25. +1 no kidding.

[Matariki]

32. Seriously.

It's like watching a computer program get corrupted by a virus or something. Does not compute. Etc.

[ProSense]

35. Speaking of

"It's like watching a computer program get corrupted by a virus or something. Does not compute. Etc."

..."program"

U.S. court renews surveillance program exposed by Snowden
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023298585

[KittyWampus]

31. Right, it's about someone being a Board Nanny,

[Matariki]

26. "It's the mass surveillance, stupid."

right on all counts.

[KittyWampus]

30. So start a thread about mass surveillance instead of calling DU'ers posting about Snowden a fool.

Board Nanny.

[cali]

45. go do a frickin' search and you'll see I posted about 10 threads on

mass surveillance.

As for this op, I'm sick of the freaky obsession that some people have with him. Don't like it? sorry, but I'll post what I want.

[Blanks]

93. You can post what you want - with some restrictions...

I expect you know that - given the large number of posts that you have had hidden.

[cali]

95. lol and so, dear?

I'll say what I want and if it gets hidden, so be it. but I fucking well say what I think. don't like it? too, too bad.

[Blanks]

98. I expect that's true...

... an if using abusive language toward other folks is what floats your boat - I'm certainly not in a position to do anything about it.

Still, when I see other people having calm intelligent discussions; something about that is more persuasive, but I guess if the folks who run this place don't have a problem with your tone and language; then who am I to complain?

[ZombieHorde]

34. I think this situation is about whatever each individual wants it to be about.

Each individual will use her or his own values and priorities to examine and judge the situation. Like you, I am more concerned about the surveillance than I am about labeling Snowden, but that doesn't mean my concerns are more right than other people's concerns.

[shawn703]

36. Then why all the hero worship?

If it's all about the mass surveillance, why all the threads about how great he is?

[cali]

46. as I've never posted a thread about that, you'll need to ask someone else.

[shawn703]

49. I'm just suggesting

That the title of your thread be modified to add the phrase "or great" to it, just to be consistent in your message that it's all about mass surveillance.

[intaglio]

37. I have never refered to Snowden as "evil" just a publicity seeker

What is more a publicity seeker without the guts to stay and take what was due to him - no matter what the rights or wrongs of the NSA's actions.

Oh, and have you noticed Alan Grayson has had to introduce an amendment to a bill to make the currently legal actions of the NSA illegal? I do not have a problem with that except, of course, it will have no effect on foreign agencies intercepting metadata and more on behalf of the USA.

[Progressive dog]

48. Obsessing!!!!!

about Snowden

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. If we …

Just say “Okay” … Will you stop posting threads about snowden? Because didn’t you say this is not about snowden?

[HangOnKids]

62. Who Is We?

Why should cali stop posting threads about ANYTHING? This is a public message forum, do you not understand that?

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. Yes ...

We understand that this is a public message forum.

And we, also, understand the duplicity of posting "you people are so stupid because you question/are not sufficiently supportive of snoiwden" AND posting "it's not about snowden" posts.

And "we" is those of us that notice the duplicity of posting "you people are so stupid because you question/are not sufficiently supportive of snoiwden" AND posting "it's not about snowden" posts. I take it we cannot count you among that number.

[nolabels]

108. Snowden is the football

Much like any other football game there is all kind of crap gets said and in the real world done, but none the less, Snowden is the football that everything gets focused on for this time being. So no we will not go peacefully into the night forgetting we are kicking ass with the Snowden football. We knew for a long time before Snowden got on the scene that this kind of crap was going on but now we got a Snowden football and some people just don't like that fact.

For decades this story has been building, the other side is the people who see Snowden as foreboding character because of everything they have been brainwashed into thinking. This reality is too much for their brain and or pocketbook so that is why that some of them show up here, because the people that hang on this board told many others that these are the kind of things will happen and go on and that was just so long ago.

And the game is, we the un-indoctrinated, take the Snowden football and shove that football back down the throat with another dose of moral equivalency. Someone can now post thousands of times and the real world can do thousands of stories and actions but it will only take a few on the other side to turn them upside down if they were duplicitous.

We didn't chose the game, that game chose us, can you deal with it?

[CakeGrrl]

53. I believe "evil" is your word

There is ample opinion that he may not be the Paul Revere beacon of nobility that people laud in portraits, and apparently relaying those opinions drive people bugshit and into fits of defensiveness, claiming that people "hate" Snowden and think he's "evil".

Nope. I just want to see if he lands in jail for the laws he broke. No more or less.

But the great thing about this eeeevil Totalitarian Surveillance Empire? Free speech still seems to be in effect for ALL to express their opinions here.

The namecalling of fellow forum posters speaks for itself.

[Android3.14]

84. I'm sorry

You have no more credibility than Ronald McDonald explaining how a Happy Meal is a nutritious meal.

[madinmaryland]

55. obsessing about Snowden is: Still a fucking fool's errand

nuff said.

[Marr]

58. Don't you see how deeply Snowden has damaged this country by

publicizing that information we all knew about and also isn't true?

[GoneFishin]

82. +1000

[Apophis]

64. Yet, one or two posters always make it about Snowden's character.

And spam GD with OPs every goddamn day. It's pitiful, really.

[pnwmom]

67. Right. Like this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3291580

[treestar]

70. Straw man

He faces three felony charges. That's all.

[great white snark]

74. You don't get to decide what it is or isn't about for anyone other than yourself.

"Board nanny" summed it up perfectly.

[cali]

96. yeah, but I get to say what i belive and you don't get to do a thing about it

except weakly echo "board nanny".

[snappyturtle]

81. K&R Thanks cali. I think the anti-Snowden drum beaters fall

under the category of those who can't see the forest for the trees. They loyally elevate a government that doesn't give a damn about them and robs them of their treasures and privacy while they dance on the Constitution. In the meantime, the secret court renews the secret surveillance.

[Android3.14]

83. It's a crowd-sourced litmus test

Those who defend NSA spying with the sheer individual energy that some of these folks put forth in the unending game of uh-huh/uh-uh have made it so obvious they are either mentally unstable/trolls or part of a psyops operation that has sacrificed the credibility of key accounts in a failed attempt to misdirect this discussion away from NSA spying.

[Blanks]

94. There's a difference between being critical of how Snowden handled this...

and defending NSA spying.

You do understand that, don't you?

[Android3.14]

101. Get this straight.

This.
Is Not.
About Snowden.

[Blanks]

102. Just so we're clear.

Being critical of the one is not saying that the other is ok.

I see a lot of odd conclusions being drawn that would indicate that some folks find the two to be of equal magnitude and opposite direction.

For example.

Snowden bad = NSA surveillance good.
Snowden good = NSA surveillance bad.

This is an oversimplification of a complex issue. It really shouldn't be about Snowden, but he is mentioned in the OP and some are accused of thinking that he is 'evil'.

I'm not the one making it about Snowden.

[carolinayellowdog]

90. putting offensive people on the defensive is a talent of yours

I reluctantly admire, wish wasn't necessary, can't do at all myself, glad someone can!

[cali]

97. I'm not quite sure how I feel about that

but thanks I guess. Sometimes it just seems like the emperor's new clothes, if you know what I mean.

[carolinayellowdog]

99. synchronicity- I just referred to that tale in a post about Helen Thomas

re the compliment, I think the reason you rack up such consistently high rec counts is because of all the people who want to say the things you do, but don't have the nerve, so thanks for all of us!

[avaistheone1]

92. k&r

[SidDithers]

100. Obsessing about what a hero he is...

just as fucking stupid.

Sid

[AZ Progressive]

109. The Anti-Snowden people should be criticizing the NSA's lack of strict security, NOT Snowden

If not Snowden, it could (or probably already would be) Chinese and Russian spies...