General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUS Senate IP Caught Defacing Edward Snowden's Wikipedia Entry
SAT AUG 03, 2013 AT 09:56 AM PDT
US Senate IP Caught Defacing Edward Snowden's Wikipedia Entry
byaigeantaFollowforVoices on the Square
Republished from Voices on the Square by permission because I wrote it.
Usually the only wiki we associate with Edward Snowden is WikiLeaks. However, in a hilarious turn of events, an IP address linked to the United States Senate was caught defacing Edward Snowden's Wikipedia article last evening. The "less than neutral" edit was to change the lead sentence from this:
to this:
When this was discovered by Wikipedia staffers, it was quickly edited back, but the fact that a United States Senate staffer has the time to deface Wikipedia entries does not bode well for our democracy. Get back to work, Government, and stop spying on us when you should be doing your real jobs.
More:
http://www.voicesonthesquare.com/articles/2013/08/03/us-senate-ip-caught-defacing-edward-snowdens-wikipedia-entry
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/03/1228659/-US-Senate-IP-Caught-Defacing-Edward-Snowden-s-Wikipedia-Entry
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)It's been a busy morning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Snowden&action=history
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)snot
(10,520 posts)the Cloud and the "semantic Web."
treestar
(82,383 posts)funny how people think there are no bare facts, but just opinions!
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I really admire them, thousands of faceless people who really take care to hold other members to strict standards of fairness and accuracy.
I think this latest change will stick.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Wikipedia's paid staffers work on the technical end, on legal affairs, on fundraising, etc. Creation and supervision of article content is done by volunteers.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)They purged John Negropnte's involvement in Iran/Contra from his page.
snot
(10,520 posts)while the rest of us have to just volunteer.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)facts, that isn't one of them.
Hilarious, and the more they do petty stuff like this the better he looks. Sometimes I wonder if it isn't all reverse psychology.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)those that are certain about "bare facts" are closed-minded. Do you trust CNN as providing "bare facts?" Where does one get "bare facts?"
We know very few things for certain unless we are involved, and even then there is always doubt.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)well then thats his official title.
We can find out the Senate is hacking sites but we still don't know who changed the date in Texas on the Abortion ban to before midnight which is way more illegal. (the first vote)
brain dead...
mimi85
(1,805 posts)Please say you're kidding.
greiner3
(5,214 posts)Not in the way you mean.
A person must be alive when they accept any Nobel Prize and it seems to me that President Obama just may offer Putin 'an offer even Vlad can't turn down.
Let him hold his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize?
Unless he has missile coordinates from the ones they dropped on children in Pakistan on the back, of course.
AppleBottom
(201 posts)Fresh, how many secret court rulings do you need to get some respect around here.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)Obama gets in the threads that have nothing to do with him. We could start a thread about, oh I don't know, how about The Antique Road Show and someone will blame him for the loss in the values of Beanie Babies. Yep, I'd much rather have McCain as prez. No drones, just wars in at least Iran, maybe Syria while we're at it.
AppleBottom
(201 posts)I'm not sure how that leads to McCain, Syria, or Beanie babies. Did one of them get a peace prize for droning people?
AppleBottom
(201 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)I remember when people knew the correct definition of the term.
"A conscientious objector (CO) is an "individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service"[1] on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, and/or religion.[2] In general, conscientious objector status is only considered in the context of military conscription and is not applicable to volunteer military forces."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector
AppleBottom
(201 posts)con·sci·en·tious/ˌkɒnʃiˈɛnʃəs, ˌkɒnsi-/ Show Spelled [kon-shee-en-shuhs, kon-see-] Show IPA
adjective
1. controlled by or done according to one's inner sense of what is right; governed by conscience; principled: a conscientious judge.
Objector \Ob*ject"or\, noun. [Latin expression, an accuser.]
noun
1. A person who dissents from some established policy.[Wordnet]
2. One who objects; one who offers objections to a proposition or measure.[Websters].
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Maybe it does not fit the statute well. Using a government computer for this is very wrong!
mimi85
(1,805 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)You finish it.
Those people do not get fired.
Clapper lied to congress. Admitted it....Nothing happened.
Obama supported that asshole.
HipChick
(25,485 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)and far too many people depend on it as a sole source of "information".
partially why I sent mom to WebMD first. unfortunately we didn't find what we were looking for. So had to go to wikipedia. Boobpedia is just as inaccurate in spots With some being listed as real boobs and some as fakes while they aren't...
now whether I should be calling them boobs, breasts, boobies (british) uh 900 other slang terms or tater t*ts. is outside my hands. But when one's looking for back surgery medical terms. WebMD should be first. Unfortunately they have a lack of a dictionary
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)mwooldri
(10,303 posts)I would be very surprised if the Wikipedia entry for Mr. Snowden isn't on a watch list. Certain wikipedia entries are more closely monitored than others, so I'm surprised that this wiki edit even made its way through. I'm certain future edits will be much more closely monitored before even being published.
tridim
(45,358 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)How? In detail.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)No one is ignoring the possibility; it's simply that Occam's Razor works just about perfectly here.
leftstreet
(36,106 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)leftstreet
(36,106 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It does not allow you to choose an IP. It assigns one to you.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Faking an IP is easy. Faking an authenticated remote TCP session is slightly more complex.
The user was authenticated with Wikipedia, which means the session required a two way communication with the server - not one way.
That means the traffic had to get back to the client.
This means at best, the IP address could have been spoofed from someone along the path of travel - most likely someone on the same VLAN as the client.
Even if it was spoofed from the local vlan, (assuming a real local client - because otherwise whats the point?) the local client would almost certainly also receive the return packets and in response to the unknown spoofed session, kick out some reset packets to close the unknown session - thereby terminating the session with the server and the spoofer would get shut out anyways.
It's highly unlikely that just any old random hacker on the internet could just spoof this from his remote site without taking over some component of the traffic pathway. I also doubt that Senate security wouldn't detect someone spoofing IPs on their VLANs as it's a pretty basic signature to detect on just about every intrusion detection system around.
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)well, maybe more comforting that Wikipedia editors can instantly acquit them
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Cha
(297,180 posts)one who can fuck around on computers and get away with it?
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Hopefully that will CHANGE, and it will be in no small part because of Snowden.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Sorry, folks, but where was Snowden when Bush's second term was ending? And, why is Obama being blamed for most of the by the so-called "liberal" media, when in fact, Bush and Cheney started this B.S., and was WORSE than the current POTUS's administration.
Furthermore, why does Snowden's small, albeit seemingly devoted, fan club continue to ignore the fact that China, Germany, and several other nations have done the same things as Bush-Cheney did, and worse, in some cases(China's "Great Firewall" being a great example of such!), and that Obama's actually tried(if not always succeeded, I hate to admit) to make things better for ordinary American citizens?
It's times like this when I wonder if the heads of our press really are crooked; Bush-Cheney fouled up quite a bit worse and they weren't complaining then, for the most part. Why are they turning on Obama now?
C'mon folks, wake up and smell the damn coffee, please. I'm no fan of the NSA's overreach, I don't think anyone here IS, in fact. But let's not lose sight of the forest in the midst of this small grove of trees, as it were.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)....he had his political awakening when he noticed a black guy in the White House.
former9thward
(31,987 posts)He did it because he is a racist! And therefore anyone who supports him is a racist!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Vanje
(9,766 posts)There is no reason to think that Snowden is a racist.
Try something else.
You're getting desperate.
Otherwise, tell us about the racist proclivities of Senator Wyden, Jimmy Carter, Al Franken, Stuart Udall and John Conyers.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Vanje
(9,766 posts)what the intentions of another are ?
I heard Snowden's address at the Moscow airport. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. I'm inclined to take him at his word.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)he isn't the hero you may have sincerely thought he was.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)you characterizations of what you think others think. Your research showed that Vanje sincerely thought he was a hero? Seriously? What were your methods used to read Vanje's mind and soul?
Research, no facts to deliver, but you claim quite a big of apparently fruitless research.
Up thread you ask 'where was Snowden at the end of Bush's term and the answer is being 24 years old. Did your research uncover that tidbit? When Bush was elected he was 16- Why did he not stop it?!?!!
Pretension only goes so far.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)pales in significance when one contemplates the international dialogues motivated by his actions, and the increased awareness of the overreach of the NSA.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)....oh wait,...there's those newsletters.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Though I fear it may be worse than that. Been looking into this guy for a while, and he is definitely not the hero some thought he was, at the very least.....I've found a lot of stuff on the Web that's been pointing in a very odd direction, and perhaps I'll get around to posting some of them soon.....hopefully.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)....let me rephrase that....
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)At least Brad Manning sincerely thought he was doing everybody a favor(as far as can be seen, anyway); Snowden, on the other hand, has shown himself to be not all that he claims to be. His support of Ron Paul & the statements he's known to have made in prior years, are just the tip of the iceberg.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Don't get me wrong, infiltration is what we need to bring down a lot of the powers that be.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I find it very suspicious that these libertarian types only just started coming out of the woodwork when Obama was first elected president. During the Bush years, about the only ones who said anything were the small crowd of Alex Jones fanatics.....that was about it.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Liberals look at Conservatives as being a bunch of people that are just plain wrong and are confident the rest of America does too.
Conservatives look at Liberals as being a bunch of traitors that are such a threat that they should be eliminated.
Conservatives also project a lot.
They just ASSUME Obama is going to abuse the Constitution as much as Cheney.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I'm betting won't wins the day.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)The stuff is out there, it's only a matter of getting the time to actually post it. I'll admit I'm a bit of a procrastinator, but hopefully, I can start sometime soon(I've already linked to a few of these as is, in other posts).
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)while claiming they have no time to post facts to be straining credulity. Those who say 'if I could show you this list in my hands....but I can't so trust me' are almost always engaging in a bluff. Exaggeration of their materials, etc. If you had information that mattered, clearly you'd rush to the spotlight to shout it out. But you don't.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)b/c that's just cray cray.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)TBH, some of the stuff Dave says at times, does have to be taken with a dose of salt(he's convinced that the Arab Spring was pretty much entirely a BushCo op: I don't believe this is quite the case, though).....but he does seem to connect a lotta dots that others don't.....
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And pathetic.
the_sly_pig
(741 posts)Manning, Snowden, Rawley. Rather than look upon them as virtuous, they are portrayed as traitors. In my opinion, ultimately whistle blowers have a concern for the greater good and are willing to sacrifice for their beliefs. Making behaviors public has cost these people dearly. It could be that the timeline is contrived, but that shouldn't diminish what they have done.
Regarding * and Vader, after committing our country to war based on false pretense and greed, I find myself unmoved by the simple destruction of constitutional principles.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)While it is true that many of today's whistleblowers(Sibel Edmonds is a great example from a little while back, as was Valerie Plame) have indeed had noble intentions in mind, I am sincerely concerned that Snowden's intentions were far less than pure; and unfortunately, there are mounds of evidence that suggest that indeed, he had nothing but ulterior motives in mind.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/
Snowden was also a backer of Ron Paul in last year's elections:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-ron-paul_n_3414992.html
And that's just the tip of the iceberg that not all is as it seems with this Snowden fellow......not to mention that just 4 years ago, he was openly far-right and said that hackers oughta be shot...
the_sly_pig
(741 posts)Vanje
(9,766 posts)I may not like the actions of China, Germany, or Russia , but these are not my country. They do not act for me.
Bush-Cheney. Well, who at DU didnt imagine that Bush-Cheney was leading our country steeply into fascist territory.
But when MY candidate, MY president, continues Bush-Cheney's path, yeah. I'm pissed.
"Change we can believe in"?
I believed it.
I've been played. We've been played.
My only very thin hope for my country is that we have a REAL liberal candidate to select in 2016.
I think the people are ready for some real hope and change. ( We were ready back in 2008, but our elected leader failed miserably, to deliver.)
disidoro01
(302 posts)My kids act up and when I ask them to stop, I don't let them get away with the "he started it" argument. I don't care who started it, I expect it to stop. Whether it's name calling, fighting over the remote, torture, renditions, make faces at each other, killing innocent children, poking each other or regime change.
Know what I mean Joe?
By the way, you are full of crap when you say this: "Bush-Cheney fouled up quite a bit worse and they weren't complaining then, for the most part."
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And TBH, many of the fake-ass Randian/Paulite "libertarians" really DIDN'T have a problem with Bush & Cheney pulling their crap. It was only when the African-American Democrat got into the White House that they really started massing up, with the "Tea Party", and such.
It was only when the Democratic Party took back the White House......when this supposed uproar began amongst this group, when progressives had been genuinely concerned about this stuff for years.
disidoro01
(302 posts)thing you seemed concerned about Joe is covering for a President who failed to live up to many of his promises.
I think you have no argument so you throw out the standard racism and libertarians talking points.
Put up some facts.
Do you actually give a damn about the thousands we are killing in the middle east? The children? Or is it more important to cover for these deaths because the president is a Democrat?
Vanje
(9,766 posts)He has disturbing antisemitic and racist ties.
I don't like him at all.
Rand Paul, I know less about, but if the apple falls anywhere near the tree, then I dont like him either. Not a bit.
But you err when you assert that Ron Paul didnt have a problem with Bush-Cheney.
He was consistently strongly outspoken against the Bush administrations actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, the "not as bad" as Cheney and Bush is a piss poor excuse for what the NSA under Obama is doing.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)TBH, I'm not happy with the NSA, either. And believe me, I wish Obama HAD done a little better sometimes.
But at least he's made some efforts in that direction.....even if not always succeeding, and being cockblocked by McConnell, Boehner, et al.(look at what happened with Chuck Hagel!)
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, the regime's attempts to keep what it's been up to is damned fine indicator of how Big a picture it is.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Germany's had a lot of issues with this stuff, too. And so has China....in fact, perhaps only God knows just how deep the Chinese rabbit hole goes; we may only have just scratched the surface in that regard, I fear.....and what worries me is, the GOP will be all too happy to take us there: you think things are bad now? If a guy like Rick Santorum or Rand Paul wins in '16....we may have seen nothing yet....
Vanje
(9,766 posts)It will be because the Democratic party powers that be, are standing on the wrong side of the citizen surveillance issue.
When the BEST thing you can say about our party, is that they're less bad than the Bush Administration, you've got some bad PR problems.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)"Why is Obama being blamed..." I love it when the Obama Protectors give us what's really on their minds. It's not Edward Snowden. It's President Obama and how you're worried this might make him look bad.
President Obama is ten times removed from what's going on at NSA and other intel alphabet soup agencies. He's untouchable in this. How many times do we have to say it?
How many posts from Snowden supporters have even mentioned President Obama in the context of blaming him for anything at all? Not many, if any.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)President Obama is ten times removed from what's going on at NSA and other intel alphabet soup agencies. He's untouchable in this.
I'm glad to hear that. The truth is, though, some others haven't realized this just yet.
I do realize that the NSA needs to be talked about. That's not my problem. But too many folks out there don't seem to realize that they're not seeing the whole picture here: Why, exactly did Snowden do this in the first place? Why did he defect to China, and then Russia, with this information? This isn't something Bob Woodward pr Sibel Edmonds would've done, I suspect.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I've not seen that. Might it be it's simply the way President Obama's biggest supporters perceive the situation?
ancianita
(36,041 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Vanje
(9,766 posts)is what puts Obama into the mix.
Cha
(297,180 posts)It's all Pres Obama's fault.. everyone else is blameless.
snowden is Putin's libertarian, propaganda puppet now and .. greenwald?..
greenwald has an agenda.. "you can learn everything you need to know!!111" in his book coming out in March 2014.
Although, I can predict it will read like a mitt romney campaign speech.. laced liberally with invectives against PBO.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This notion you promote of 'heroes' is a bunch of idiocy. I think to even look for heroes shows a giant flaw in a person and I observe that it is a common flaw in the Centrist mindset, almost as if this is how they function, by selecting heroes to replace a set of actual principles.
indepat
(20,899 posts)United States? What moniker best fits those rascals?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)K&R
[center][/center]
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Character assassination is a deliberate and sustained process that aims to destroy the credibility and reputation of a person, institution, social group, or nation. [1]
Agents of character assassinations employ a mix of open and covert methods to achieve their goals, such as raising false accusations, planting and fostering rumours, and manipulating information.
Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. It may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_assassination
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts).....which I'm not so sure that he did.
At least Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein, the first of the modern leakers, didn't give state secrets to the enemy.....Snowden did, and guess where much of the non-NSA-focused outrage has been directed so far, outside of the progressive/liberal circle in which we sit? That's right, none other than Barack H. Obama.....the sitting President, instead of Bush & Cheney, who started this whole milieu.
At least many of US are able to see the whole story; but the conservatives and the so-called Paulite "libertarians" DON'T. You know why? Because of just who's in the White House, that's why....and I hope those of our fellows who've been misled by the disinfo can wake up, because we've got a pair of very crucial elections coming up in the next few years. And I mean crucial!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)For proving my point
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)attacks or criticisms to offer. The mere use of denigrating names and vague insinuations demotes your entire point of view to the gasp of panic. There is no 'there' in your posts.
The other comical aspect is your fear of Rand Paul, a man with a Nutria on his head, as a viable candidate for any office outside his regional zone of atavism. Rand could do twice as well as his Dad and still never win a Primary, much less get near the nomination of his own Party. I think the Nutria on his head could do better as a candidate without Rand.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Is he a fucking NASCAR driver now too?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)If he were a Nascar driver....I can imagine that he'd use some "Sneaky" tactics to get ahead.....ya know?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)have of this issue. Nicknames and emoticons. Oh, and lots of research but no time to post that!!!!!
Vanje
(9,766 posts)When you do produce you treatise, I'd be interested in reading it.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)we see it here, too.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)millennialmax
(331 posts)I'll throw them $5 during their next reelection.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Of course, in Russia, there's no worry about anyone doing any of that editing at all--the government takes care of that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/02/russia-enacted-its-own-sopa-the-day-it-granted-snowden-asylum/
Russia enacted its own SOPA the day it granted Snowden asylum
NSA leaker Edward Snowden left a Moscow airport Thursday after Russia granted him a year of temporary asylum. But Snowden should take note: the current regime has a very questionable record at respecting digital civil liberties.
....Russia has an Internet blacklist that is used to censor political speech. And the tech used to enforce it can be used for surveillance.
Interesting article....
Number23
(24,544 posts)Only 51% of Russians approve of Snowden's activities - http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/08/01/Most-Russians-approve-of-Snowdens-leaking-NSA-secrets/UPI-25781375372282/
If THAT don't say all that needs to be said, I don't know what will.
And here's one from The Guardian itself - "Edward Snowden's temporary asylum gets mixed reception among Russians" http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/02/edward-snowden-asylum-russia-reaction
The fact that Snowden can barely muster 50% support in Russia is mindblowing.
MADem
(135,425 posts)This quote from your second link is rather telling:
Former Pussy Riot lawyer Mark Feigin questioned whether Snowden would be safe in Russia. "Snowden doesn't fully understand that accepting asylum in Russia is about the same as agreeing to receive an inheritance from a lawyer in Nigeria by email," Feigin tweeted Thursday.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I was expecting to see 70+% and higher approvals of Snowy in Russia, of all places. This is stunning. And EXTREMELY telling.
MADem
(135,425 posts)(we know, whether he is PM or President, he calls the shots) but they're not stupid.
They know what game Pootie is playing, and they're smart enough to look down the road and question whether his ego-driven chain jerking is worth it!
To say nothing of the recent changes in internet law in Russia, making it far more difficult to see anything Pootie doesn't want you to see....
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Putin's no Stalin, but he IS a crook. Always has been. I've always figured him to be the equivalent of Dubya Bush with more charisma and cleverness.....but every bit as crooked.
Cha
(297,180 posts)Putin signed an Internet filtering law aimed at protecting the children from harmful content in July 2012. But Wired reported court decisions were extending the Single Register of banned sites created by that measure to include political speech by opponents of the Putin regime, and that Russia was relying on Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) to enforce the blacklist.
Russian politicians are currently considering whether to add swearing to the wont someone think of the children blacklist which would block websites that dont censor swearing. Now watch your fuckin mouth, or Edward may not be able to read this in the near future.
http://bobcesca.thedailybanter.com/blog-archives/2013/08/russia-grants-snowden-asylum-implements-sopa-on-same-day.html
Libertarian Leaker Snowden was just full of "denouncements" until he became Putin's Propaganda Puppet that is.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)that I simply will not read him anymore and those who cite him get credit for citing a buffoon who attacked LGBT activists constantly while we attempt to get full and equal right in this superstitious and hateful country. While we faced the likes of Fred Phelps, Cesca's method was to join in on the name calling 'from the center' and rather than defend us from attacks, he launched attacks of his own. He who did nothing for us jabbered and libeled us endlessly for having the guts to stand up and take what is ours.
Barf, barf and barf again.
libodem
(19,288 posts)unreadierLizard
(475 posts)robot defenders.
AppleBottom
(201 posts)These animals have no shame and will do or say anything to keep power.
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)and their true blue enabling apologists are even lower.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Someone changed something on the internet..Democracy!! Finished!!
KansDem
(28,498 posts)What a mess of corporate stooges and lackies...
on edit: In fact, RICO the House and Supreme Court, too!
ancianita
(36,041 posts)gulliver
(13,180 posts)...using guest wireless access or going through a shared proxy. This version of Snowden is the one who feels deeply in his or her conscience that Snowden is being unduly shielded from accurate criticism by anti-Constitutional forces.