Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Edward Snowden In 2009: Leakers Should Be 'Shot In The Balls' [View all]Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)75. "Snowden's personal info is being released ...
... in a manner calculated to make him look like a person with no moral compass."
You've totally lost me there. Snowden made himself 'the story' by his own actions, and his current behavior speaks for itself. And based on those actions and behavior, his 'moral compass' seems to be rather lacking.
By making sweeping allegations without evidence to support them, Snowden invited scrutiny. And whatever facts about his past emerge as a result thereof are not a matter of calculation, but a matter of natural curiosity about who he is as a way of assessing his credibility.
"I care about whether there are proper safeguards in place to keep our government from obtaining our personal information without a well scrutinized warrant. The answer to that question should be what we all want to know."
I don't disagree. The problem here is that it's been stated over and over, since this whole debacle started, that the proper safeguards are in place to prevent unnecessary access to whatever personal information the gov't currently holds - and the response from the Snowdenites has been consistent: "Oh, sure, they're saying that, but they're lying."
Again I must say that I savor the irony of those here who steadfastly refuse to believe anything they are told that is contrary to what they want to believe, while concurrently swallowing every word Snowden has said without demanding the proof of his words - or even thinking that proof might be even remotely relevant to the case at hand.
You've totally lost me there. Snowden made himself 'the story' by his own actions, and his current behavior speaks for itself. And based on those actions and behavior, his 'moral compass' seems to be rather lacking.
By making sweeping allegations without evidence to support them, Snowden invited scrutiny. And whatever facts about his past emerge as a result thereof are not a matter of calculation, but a matter of natural curiosity about who he is as a way of assessing his credibility.
"I care about whether there are proper safeguards in place to keep our government from obtaining our personal information without a well scrutinized warrant. The answer to that question should be what we all want to know."
I don't disagree. The problem here is that it's been stated over and over, since this whole debacle started, that the proper safeguards are in place to prevent unnecessary access to whatever personal information the gov't currently holds - and the response from the Snowdenites has been consistent: "Oh, sure, they're saying that, but they're lying."
Again I must say that I savor the irony of those here who steadfastly refuse to believe anything they are told that is contrary to what they want to believe, while concurrently swallowing every word Snowden has said without demanding the proof of his words - or even thinking that proof might be even remotely relevant to the case at hand.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
105 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I have to wonder how evolved this guy's views on women are, based on some of his comments.
MADem
Jun 2013
#72
I guess he gave his balls up and is not worried about getting shot in the balls.
Thinkingabout
Jun 2013
#4
The day we found out he snuck off to Hong Kong was the day he has no ball to shoot at!
George II
Jun 2013
#26
Galraedia we already have a thread on this story that You already posted on in General Discussion.
avaistheone1
Jun 2013
#5
Gives money to a slavery apologist and neo-confederate and thinks he is a champion of liberty
Major Nikon
Jun 2013
#12
So if we let you shoot Snowden in the balls can we look into the information on domestic spying?
last1standing
Jun 2013
#11
The two aren't mutually exclusive you know. There's a pro & con side to every issue. Snowden is no
Tarheel_Dem
Jun 2013
#18
Alright, let's compromise. Let's look into both Snowden AND what he said.
last1standing
Jun 2013
#23
I'm fine with not agreeing on how Snowden's personal information is being uncovered.
last1standing
Jun 2013
#76
We're coming in from different angles but it looks like we agree on the basics.
last1standing
Jun 2013
#80
"the White House is allowing the NSA and other groups to use his past to personally smear him"?
Tarheel_Dem
Jun 2013
#41
You definitely misunderstood. I was making the point that the thought of Obama directing some....
Tarheel_Dem
Jun 2013
#92
Aha! I suspect some of us knew something like that (maybe not so graphic) already.
George II
Jun 2013
#24
Probably none. The media is having a field day--he's better than the "best" Kardashian. nt
MADem
Jun 2013
#50
Maybe the US should stop violating the sovereignty of country with which it is huge a trade partner?
Ash_F
Jun 2013
#58
This crap isn't what its about. Get off the Snowden Circus bandwagon! It's the invasion of privacy
marble falls
Jun 2013
#54
Maybe thats why he cut and run. Maybe "shot in the balls" is policy and not just his opinion.
marble falls
Jun 2013
#56
Well, if hypocrisy is a disqualifier, I have a pretty big list you can include
askeptic
Jun 2013
#57
Yep. Maybe he was covering for what he was really up to? Who knows? Keep your eye on the ball,
silvershadow
Jun 2013
#87