The newest smear attempt: A picture of Snowden with pants pulled down

[DesMoinesDem]

to his thighs... while he's wearing boxers. I just don't know how anyone can care about any of these leaked documents knowing now that the person that leaked them had a picture taken of him 11 years ago with his pants pulled down slightly showing his boxers!

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/picture-shows-edward-snowden-2002-pulling-down-pants-photo-195217802.html

[emulatorloo]

1. I think it makes him look fun, to be honest

[Downwinder]

2. They are the experts and that is the best they can do?

[Monkie]

3. does this not prove his point, they had the data, they now have probable cause

and all they had to do was hit the "rewind" button on his life.
this is how they can do a end run around the law and say without lying that they dont access individuals data without probable cause and a warrant.

[sabrina 1]

51. Yes it absolutely proves his point. Where did they get that photo? And what photos of the rest of

us do they have ready to publish IF we should 'get out of line'??

Good point, this absolutely proves his point and makes him even more credible.

I like guys in their boxer shorts btw, just for their information.

Is the this what is called 'intel' that we spend billions of dollars on?

How pathetic. They are making him look better and better which I'm sure was not the intention.

[avaistheone1]

54. Yup.

[one_voice]

4. Meh...who cares...

he was doing what young people do.

Even a full moon wouldn't have bothered me...young folks are gonna be silly and have fun.

I'm finding the newer revelations about his 'relationship' with the Chinese much more interesting and relevant...

[Summer Hathaway]

5. Contrary to what seems to be your own belief

no one here is particularly interested in this bullshit - or the idea that he wasn't a friendly neighbor, or didn't clean up after his dog.

You, along with some others here, seem to want to pretend that this kind of trivial BS has been the focus of those who questioned Snowden's credentials and his credibility. It's not.

We understand that those who jumped on the Snowden-is-the-Greatest-American-Hero bandwagon - literally within 48 hours of hearing his name for the first time, and without any FACTS on which to base their hero worship - are now embarrassed in the extreme. Posting bullshit like this isn't going to wipe the egg off their faces - in fact, it only humiliates them further.

[russspeakeasy]

7. +1

[JI7]

8. yup

[DesMoinesDem]

9. Please

Most of the discussion here has been about Snowden not the leaks, and THAT is the bullshit. This picture, or not talking to neighbors, is no different than him not graduating high school or other attacks on his credentials. It's all an attempt to distract from the actual issues of the leaks. It's from the same old playbook. The only people that should be embarrassed about anything are the people attacking him in order to distract from the issues of the leaks. Why are they trying to create a distraction? Because it is IMPOSSIBLE as a progressive to defend the massive spying operation of the NSA. They know it is wrong to be arguing for the Patriot Act and NSA with Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove, and Lindsey Graham. They will never be able to get the egg of their face after this.

[Summer Hathaway]

13. Are you really that naive?

OF COURSE the discussion has been about Snowden as the leaker. It has also been about what he leaked, and why. One discussion does not in any way impede the other. I think most people here are fully capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time - well, some people anyway.

The Snowden hero-worshippers have, from the beginning, attempted to shut down any conversation about the man himself, insisting that who he is - along with his background, resume, experience - is of no import. In other words, they didn't want their instantly-embraced hero to be tarnished and, as more and more information came to light about him, they kept yelling "don't look there, look over here instead".

To say that a leaker's past and his truthfulness (or lack thereof) is of no consequence is equivalent to saying "It doesn't matter if he is a proven to be a pathological liar, because I have already chosen to believe him." And that is EXACTLY what the Snowden fan club did - much to their chagrin, as things are turning out.

Just how dumb do you have to be to insist that someone's background and motives are not germane to how credible they are, or, more importantly, how trustworthy they are? How stupid do you have to be to throw your undying support to someone whose name you only heard forty-eight hours before you decided to deify him?

"The only people that should be embarrassed about anything are the people attacking him in order to distract from the issues of the leaks."

Raising questions about Snowden's veracity is NOT attacking him, nor is it an attempt to distract. Or do you think that no one should ever ask any questions about anything, but should just accept whatever they are told - with no regard to who's doing the telling?

Would you blindly accept the word of a RW politician without regard to who he is, his past statements and actions, or his motives? Or would you simply dismiss those concerns and swallow whatever they were saying at the moment, with absolutely no regard to their character, anything else?

The next time you're ready to jump on a bandwagon, you might want to check to make sure it has wheels first - otherwise you're going to be dragged along this same unpleasant road of complete humiliation.

[Cha]

43. I can't thank you

Enough, Summer!

[Summer Hathaway]

48. And now I'm the one

who can't thank you enough.

[Cha]

50. Ah,

[Canuckistanian]

15. +100

This is getting ridiculous.

[delrem]

17. Do you care about the nature of the *facts* that were leaked? nt

[Summer Hathaway]

23. I listened to what was leaked.

It came as no surprise to me that the gov't has been gathering and storing metadata. It didn't come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

Do I care that the gov't is storing my phone records (not my conversations) along with millions and millions of other phone records? Not at all.

[delrem]

24. OK. Got it. But the right to privacy isn't a small thing.

I hope that you realize that these precedents are defining our future.

eta: the issue isn't confined to "just" metadata. metadata can also be helpful in trawling through data, on top of all else metadata is can be used for.

[Summer Hathaway]

31. The right to privacy isn't a small thing.

But storing my phone records, along with millions of others, is.

[delrem]

32. You say: "storing my phone records, along with millions of others, is" a small thing.

I strongly disagree.
I also reemphasize that "metadata" isn't the only thing intercepted and stored.

However, clearly you don't give a shit about any of this. You're "pro-Obama", and that's it.

[Summer Hathaway]

33. Here's a clue ...

For a while now, but especially over the past few days, I (along with many others) have constantly been met with this "clearly you don't give a shit", "apparently you don't care", "it's obvious that you don't concern yourself with", etc.

These soundbytes are invariably used when the poster has nothing of substance to say, and attempts to draw attention away from that fact. You have decided I "don't give a shit about any of this" based on what? Certainly NOT based on anything I've said - but based solely on what you want to pretend I said.

As I said to a poster yesterday in a similarly ridiculous exchange: If you want to have a conversation between yourself and what you want to pretend I said, why don't we cut out the middle-man (being me), so that you can have your one-sided discussion without any interference.

"You're "pro-Obama", and that's it."

Yes, I am staunchly pro-Obama. The fact that you think "that's it", as though it sums up my opinions about everything from economic policy to international diplomacy, is reflective of the fact that you've bought into the whole "all Obama supporters agree with his every action, and they all think alike" bullshit that is served here on a silver platter, day after day.

You might want to try thinking outside the box your ilk insists on operating in, where one's support of this president defines their every opinion on every issue.

If you honestly think that all Obama-supporters agree with him, or each other, all of the time, you are either ignorant of the facts, stupid in the extreme, or too naive to be taken seriously.

[delrem]

35. No, I say you don't give a shit because it's a fact proved by your assertion:

"storing my phone records, along with millions of others, is" a small thing.

[Summer Hathaway]

41. And I still don't care about storing my phone records.

But to say that because I don't care about that means "clearly you don't give a shit about any of this" is an utterly ridiculous assertion.

If I don't care about whether my vegetables are sold in plastic bags as opposed to shrink-wrap, that doesn't mean I don't care about food inspections, food safety, GMO products, misleading labeling information, etc.

Feeling that one aspect of something is not of great consequence does not immediately equate to "not giving a shit" about all aspects of the same topic.

But I don't expect you to understand that. Living in a black-and-white world, where shades of gray are too confusing to be understood, no less considered, is a simple life. That's probably why the simple-minded feel comfortable living there.

[delrem]

44. So you think constitutional protections are akin to "whether vegetables are sold in plastic bags..."

There's nothing I have to say to you, Summer. We speak different languages.

[Summer Hathaway]

46. Please refer to my response to you at Reply #33

about people responding to what they pretend to have been said, because they have no response to what was actually said.

Yeah, I think constitutional protections are akin to vegetables sold in plastic bags. That's exactly what I said, right?

[delrem]

47. You said your privacy was a "small matter", and go out on a limb defending GWB's program.

What else can I say about a person like that?

[Summer Hathaway]

49. Again you seem intent

on responding to what I didn't say, instead of what I did say.

Can you point out where I said that my privacy was a small matter?

Oh, that's right, you can't - because I didn't say that.

Could you try - I know it's hard, but at least TRY - to respond to what I actually say, instead of your own rather mindless interpretation of what I said?

Oh, again - that's right, you can't. And you've proven that beyond all doubt.

[delrem]

52. Maybe you don't understand what "privacy" means.

[Summer Hathaway]

55. Maybe you don't understand

what the English language means.

Actually, there's no 'maybe' about it, being as you have repeatedly taken what I've said - in very plain, simple-to-understand language - and translated it into what you want to pretend was said.

I repeat: If you want to have a conversation between yourself-as-you and yourself-as-me, go to it.

[delrem]

56. You say: "storing my phone records, along with millions of others, is" a small thing.

[Summer Hathaway]

57. Again, your comprehension is lacking.

This discussion is over. I thought I made that abundantly clear - but then you're not too quick on the uptake, are you?

You are still free to converse with yourself, of course, and act as though there is someone responding to you in the way you pretend they do.

[delrem]

58. OK, you've certainly convinced me of the worthiness of your opinion!

[Summer Hathaway]

59. The sarcasm might have worked

had you actually read my opinion.

But you didn't - you were too busy divining what you thought my opinion was, in complete contradiction to what I was actually saying.

But go in peace. I hope you really do get some kind of satisfaction talking to yourself, while pretending you're conversing with someone else.

[Union Scribe]

36. Lol.

I'm sure it's a coincidence that the same names are always defending everything controversial the administration does like they were defending a family member. Or that they have a clubhouse here that has banned an astonishing number of DUers, more than any other group. Or that they travel in packs into threads to whisper loudly among themselves about the motives and intelligence of anyone critical of the administration. It must be because they're so independent. I can't imagine why anyone would conclude they think alike!

[Summer Hathaway]

53. I'm sure it's a coincidence

Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2013, 04:39 AM - Edit history (1)

that the same names are always vilifying everything the administration does.

I'm sure it says a lot about an alleged Democratic-supporting website that those who support a Democratic president are relegated to a 'clubhouse' - and are constantly admonished for venturing out of their restricted zone in order to post in GD or other forums.

I'm sure it says a lot about that "Democratic" website's posters when the 'clubhouse' has had to continually ban DUers who can't stand the thought that Obama supporters are allowed even a small corner of DU to themselves, and insist on posting their anti-Obama rhetoric there, despite having the rest of the entire website in which to post the same things.

"They travel in packs and into threads to whisper loudly among themselves about the motives and intelligence of anyone critical of the administration."

And as we all know, the anti-Obama crowd NEVER does anything like that!

The self-proclaimed True Progressives (TM) use the same talking points, deify the same people, demonize the same people, quote the same journalists (when convenient), dismiss those very same journalists (when convenient), and jump on the same poutrage-de-jour bandwagons.

I can't imagine why anyone would conclude THEY think alike!

[SidDithers]

18. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[Whisp]

19. yeeeeehaaaaaa!

[Union Scribe]

34. Then why was that shit posted?

It certainly wasn't as a joke. Those were real attempts to discredit the guy.

[Summer Hathaway]

37. I think you need to ask

DesMoinesDem.

They're the one who posted it.

[Union Scribe]

38. I refer to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022983957

I think the club cares more about these details than you realize.

[Summer Hathaway]

39. If you take the time

to read the many replies on that thread, you will note two things:

The replies of the Snowden supporters focus on the irrelevant trivia contained in the 'list', in an attempt to imply that these were the things the Snowden non-supporters were interested in.

However, the replies from "the club" focused on the pertinent facts in the 'list', and asked the pertinent questions. e.g.: How does someone with only a GED land a $200,000-a-year job when people with far more education, expertise and experience would be more than happy to have that job at that rate of pay? Snowden didn't finish community college, and his first job at NSA was as a security guard. He then went to CIA as IT security. How did he go from security guard to IT security at the CIA without a degree?

Read the replies, and note who posted those replies. It become glaringly obvious who was interested in discussing the trivia, and who was interested in discussing the facts-at-hand.

[Union Scribe]

40. How could that nonsense not be mocked?

Can you blame someone for making fun of such an insanely stupid attempt at a smear? All of it, including the nefarious insinuations about his career path, is trivia. All of it. And all a diversion from the issues. We now have lawmakers talking about this, talking about being lied to by the NSA. It's moved so far beyond the man people are trying so hard to implicate as some bizarre combo of Chinese spy and Rove operative. It's out of the barn now. They're not going to be able to make this go away, regardless of whether Snowden is a hero, a villain, or anywhere in between.

[Summer Hathaway]

42. No, I don't blame anyone for making fun of

the irrelevant trivia contained in 'the list'.

But the fact remains that the people who were completely focused on the trivia were the Snowden supporters.

I don't think questioning how a GED holder landed a $200,000 a year job which, according to Snowden's own resume, he had neither the qualifications or experience for is a "nefarious insinuation about his career path."

"It's moved so far beyond the man ..."

Well, of course that's what the egg-facers who jumped on the Snowden-Greatest-Hero-Ever-Born bandwagon want to happen - now that 'the man' they deified has turned out to be not exactly as advertised.

[Catherina]

6. Next week, a waitress who'll say he didn't tip her or some other garbage.

They're pathetic.

[Summer Hathaway]

30. More likely,

next week a waitress will claim that Obama has been accessing the phone record database every night since elected, in order to place orders for twenty COD pizzas to be delivered to unsuspecting phone number holders.

Within 48 hours of this news going public, she will be hailed as the next Greatest-American-Hero by a certain contingent on DU - who, ironically enough, will be the same egg-on-their-faces contingent who deified Snowden.

[nobodyspecial]

10. I don't see why this is necessarily an attempt to discredit

It *is* an attempt to feed the "celebrity," machine, just like all of the other disclosures. A person no one knows much about suddenly springs to international attention and so there is a rush to find out and publish as much information as possible about the person. If these things come to light, would it not be equally wrong to squash them in an attempt to portray a heroic picture? If it's out there, it's fair game as anyone has seen.

You may not like it because it does not live up to your idealized version of the man, but if it's out there, it's fair game. If you have photos or stories from neighbors that portray him in a favorable light, feel free to share them.

[kentuck]

11. If they can find a photo of him holding a gun over his head, like Saddam Hussein...

..then the people will be ready to hang him.

[panader0]

12. Boxers? Not in construction is he? A sit down job.

[LittleBlue]

14. Wow, a 20 year old acting like a 20 year old

I'M SHOCKED! SHOCKED!

Desperation so thick you could cut it with a knife.

[catnhatnh]

16. I don't care if they are pulled down to his knees...

...and he's plugging Mother Teresa. Discuss the information he released.

[backscatter712]

20. The authoritarians are even more desperate.

The plebes aren't buying into their McCarthyist smear campaign! Quick! Find more dirt! ANYTHING!!!

[Whisp]

21. BOrGers are now responsible for what gets posted on yahoo?

hmmm, verrrry interesting. but ......... (I will leave a blank because trigger fingers are out in hordes tonight!)

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. frankly I find this picture reassuring. Now we don't have to worry about the surveillance state

[JaneyVee]

25. PRIVACY! PRIVACY! PRIVACY! Now here's a picture of Edward Snowden in boxers!

[dkf]

26. I think it's funny anyone would consider this a negative against Snowden.

Lol.

[think]

27. Fuck Snowden. Follow the court proceedings

because that's what he'd want you to do if his videos mean anything......

[Half-Century Man]

28. You have the proof

that, at least at one point in his life, he had possession of a buttocks AND underwear.

.............uh...oh the humanity.....

[Poll_Blind]

29. CBS: Snowden, whistleblower, also has great ass. CIA sources claim implants.

PB

[HiPointDem]

45. shocking