Everyone is under surveillance now, says whistleblower Edward Snowden

[NanceGreggs]

39. You just don't get it, MADem!

Whatever Eddie says is to be accepted as 100% truthful and accurate.

Snowden says he could have accessed Obama's email. Proof offered - zero.

Snowden says he could have watched what people were posting on the internet as they typed it. Proof offered - zero.

Snowden says that he could monitor people's on-line purchases, and other internet activities. Proof offered - zero.

Snowden said he couldn't go to his superiors with his 'knowledge' of wrongdoing. Almost a year later, he suddenly remembered that he DID alert them via emails on the topic. Proof offered of having done so - zero.

Snowden now says that "entire populations, rather than just individuals, now live under constant surveillance. It's no longer based on the traditional practice of targeted taps based on some individual suspicion of wrongdoing. It covers phone calls, emails, texts, search history, what you buy, who your friends are, where you go, who you love.” Proof offered - zero.

Snowden felt compelled to disclose details of domestic spying - and the fact that he disclosed our country's spying tactics when it came to other countries was just innocent inadvertentance.

Snowden passed on hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to third parties without ever knowing what those documents contained, and what the consequences of those disclosures might be - because a "true patriot" doesn't give a shit about those kinds of details, or what's at stake.

Snowden "risked his life and his freedom" to inform his fellow citizens - including those SS and welfare moochers whom he openly despised, and those 'leakers' who deserved to be shot in the balls - of all of the wrongdoing he has yet to prove.

Above all, remember that it's not about the messenger, it's about the message - despite the fact that the "messenger" himself must be protected and defended at all costs - especially when the "message" turns out to be nothing more than unprovable generalities. i.e. "It's not about Snowden, it's about what he said." "But why should I believe him?" "Because he said so." "But who IS he, and where is his proof of what he's saying?" "It's not about him, it's about what he said."

It's the ultimate chicken-and-egg argument, played out on DU on a daily basis.

It's a game that can't be won. The Snowden Adoration Society is convinced that the Big Bad Gov't is collecting information on their every move, thought, word, and action - what they can't tell you is WHY such data is being scrutinized, by who, how, and for what purpose.

They can only tell you that they BELIEVE this kind of endless 'spying' is going on. And what they've learned from their hero Snowden is that no actual proof of anything is necessary. The only thing that IS necessary to be believed is to offer up an endless array of never-been-proven 'facts' and watch the truly gullible swear that those 'facts' are actual reality.

Why do they believe unproven asertions? Because Snowden said so. Who IS Snowden, and why should he be believed? "It's not about the messenger, it's about the message."

And the chicken-and-egg cycle goes on...