Why did it take a Democratic administration for Snowden to become a dissident?

[Savannahmann]

23. So I should reject ideals, principles, and positions based upon who agrees with it?

Actually I have several questions. First, how many people volunteered for the military in both Viet-Nam and Iraq and returned disillusioned and disgusted by what they saw? Many are now prominent people. Secretary of State John Kerry was but one person who came home disgusted by what he'd seen in Viet-Nam.

Iraq Vets against the War is a group of modern equivalence. They joined the military of their own free will, and went off with one image in their minds, an image that was destroyed by the reality of our invasion. These are not experts in international law, but people who believed what they would be doing was right, only to find the exact opposite reality.

Should we denounce them because over time they learned their mistake? Or should we embrace them for joining a position that many of us have always held in our hearts? According to the standard applied to Snowden, we should denounce them, reject them, and ignore anything they say because they were warmongers before they were not.

I can agree with Libertarians on a few, very few, issues. When I say that people immediately demand that I reject those principles because the Libertarians embrace them. Legalization of Marijuana for one narrow example. Opposition to an illegal and unconstitutional spying apparatus. They proclaim civil liberties. I proclaim individual rights and the constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure.

Let's say that we had a bill in Congress, one that would legalize Marijuana in this nation. We have some votes, but we'll need the Libertarian leaning members of congress to push it to the President's desk. Should we immediately denounce the effort to legalize the marijuana because the Libertarians are in favor of it? According to far too many party purists here, the answer is yes. They would rather see tens of thousands of people incarcerated for a bullshit crime than agree with a Libertarian on even one narrow issue.

By the party purity mentality that you are pushing, we should not agree with Libertarians ever. So we as a party must now oppose legalization of Marijuana and demand incarceration for anyone who uses it. If not, we could be strengthening the Libertarian position. The Libertarians are opposed to spying on the people, and so we as a party must be in favor of it.

If that is the situation, and those are the positions we are taking. Then the Democratic Party has just left me behind.

I believe in my ideals and principles because I believe that my conclusions are justified by logic, reason, and my core principled beliefs. If you believe in the same conclusions, I don't care how you arrived at that conclusion, I am glad to have a voice joining me in singing the praises of our ideals. If you denounce the omnipresent spying and invasions of privacy that I also denounce, then you are welcome to write your congressman and senator and letters to the editor and donate money and whatever else you want to do. If you do so because you believe the Federal Government should consist of eight employees and everything else should be left to the States, so be it. I don't care. We'll argue about the role of the Federal Government in taking care of the General Welfare later. Because in that situation, I'll argue against your position on the issues with all the determination and all the ability I possess to sway opinions I can muster.

But on those very few issues that we can agree on, I will happily, gladly take your vote assistance. Call it Civil Liberties if you want, I don't care. What I want is the spying to stop. I want the NSA/FBI/DHS/CIA/God alone knows who else spying to stop. I want the constitutional protections against this enforced with no exceptions because I believe that the rights of the people are being violated, and the Government is doing so in an unconstitutional manner.

The Supreme Court has ruled that many things are Constitutional that we continue to fight against. Citizens United is but one example. The Courts ruled that Net Neutrality was a violation of the Constitution. Yet we continue to fight against that. Why would we do that if the court says it's constitutional? Shouldn't we embrace those positions? I mean, the Libertarians always complain that the courts are changing the laws and usurping the constitution. Aren't we helping the Libertarians by opposing the power and wisdom of the courts?

Do you see the asinine position that these arguments take? It is a variation of the Kill the messenger mentality that has been promulgated by the Authoritarians since this mess began. We can't debate the substance of the issues because the guy who brought it to our attention is a jackass libertarian who dated a stripper, left the stripper, and is hiding in Russia who is anti GLBT rights. All of that is smokescreen, designed to cloud the real issue. Is the Government spying on us all?

Well, we can't discuss that because it will help the Terrorists and other awful people and besides Snowden is a Libertarian who was a big Bush accolade and nobody is allowed to change their minds or evolve on the issue.

So keep up the whole Snowden is an ass defense. It hasn't worked, it's transparently juvenile, and it is insulting as hell.

Because I am not going to start supporting maximum criminalization of Marijuana because the Libertarians are on the other side of the issue.

I am not going to support the NSA/FBI/insert all the fucking assholes here spying on us because the Libertarians are opposed to it.

I am going to reach my own conclusions based upon as many informed opinions as I can manage, and I am going to support those ideals with logic and rational arguments. If all you have to counter my arguments is character assassination, then we both know who has won the argument don't we?