5 ms·

I agree, that most probably, Snowden broke the law (I am no expert in US laws). But again: US gov. has double standards. When Snowden breaks a law, he will mos

I agree, that most probably, Snowden broke the law (I am no expert in US laws). But again: US gov. has double standards. When Snowden breaks a law, he will most likely be hung (or worse), but if members of Us agencies breaks hundred, thousands, even million times laws of human rights and the US constitution, they will be either promoted or get an automatic pardon from the president (as Obama did directly after election). That stinks and is a SHAME for the whole "western world".

mpyne 13y ago
> When Snowden breaks a law, he will most likely be hung (or worse). The U.S. has already declared that the death penalty is off the table...
- Datsundere 13y ago
  but the patriatic rednecks in washington all want to kill him. I keep hearing in tv about how he 'needs to be shot'
  - Zancarius 13y ago
    I suspect I'd be one of those you'd label a "patriatic [sic] redneck" because I'm right of center and live in a part of the country where so called patriotic rednecks frequent. And I support most of what Snowden has done for the reason that a true patriot upholds the letter of the Constitution, which does not hold true for a majority of the people in power. I would instead appeal to you that they should therefore be considered false patriots.
    - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
      Good point! The world is often times more complex than "left" and "right".
      - Zancarius 13y ago
        I wish more people understood this. It's fairly easy to condense simple matters into left or right biases but easier still when the purpose is to appease our tribal nature as a species (us versus them). Of course, the latter serves political interests quite nicely and in a manner that helps keep the coffers overflowing. That's not to say that I don't treat some matters as black or white (I do because of my own biases--and when I do, I think I'm right :) ) but it bugs me more than it probably should whenever I see this notion repeated that anyone who shares my political persuasions must, by virtue of our "patriotism," secretly desire a police state. It seems to me that the police state and the true patriot ought to be at odds with each other. Perhaps my understanding is skewed, but I can't think of a patriot who would wish for fewer freedoms, excluding for a moment Orwellian-esque double-speak like the PATRIOT Act... The problem isn't necessarily any one political group as much as it is to do with politicians. The majority of which have been so insulated inside the echo chamber that is Washington DC and so far detached from their constituency for so long that it seems they (and any agency you can imagine that they interact with) feel separate from--and probably above--oversight. If I were in a real conspiratorial mood, I might suggest that the divisive nature of US politics is entirely intentional and serves to keep us apart so that we may not work together to toss the bums in power out onto the street. Sadly, though, I think I've already said enough to invite trollish remarks so I ought to stop while I'm ahead. ;)
        PythonicAlpha 13y ago
        I think, there would be plenty to discuss, about the things you said. But not being from the US, I can't say to much about it. I think, names like "patriotism", "freedom", "homeland" or even "solidarity" are grandly misused by politicians today. I think, today politicians are just show-men of the real class in power. What should be decided, is not discussed openly, but by people that are not shown on cover pages. The task of the show-men is, to put the decisions (how bad they might be!) in some sound sounding words (like "Patriot Act") so that the masses will agree or at least don't disagree with the things that shall take their freedom, their work-power, their money, their land ... and give it to the new lords, which are no nobles. And of course, left and right are also instrumented a lot. Because giving a clear "foe" is good to mobilize the own side (even for the wrong things).
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    There are no rednecks in Washington unless they are mowing the lawns. Redneck implies doing some actual work.
  - giardini 13y ago
    I read an article about that tonight too: http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/americas-spies-want-edward-snowden-dead http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/americas-spies-want-edw... But I believe you aren't talking about rednecks, but about Washington contractors and possibly a rather limited set of military/civilian special ops people. As usual, one should be careful what one suggests to the media. For every fantasy Snowden shooter there are likely _scores_ of citizens who fantasize about doing the same thing or worse to those who put monitoring systems into place. There is some possibility that pitchforks and torches might become de rigeur political dress in the near future. A true redneck would likely be in the crowd, torch in hand.
- PythonicAlpha 13y ago
  In this case, "worse" applies! How courteous they are!

mpyne 13y ago

> When Snowden breaks a law, he will most likely be hung (or worse). The U.S. has already declared that the death penalty is off the table...

Datsundere 13y ago
but the patriatic rednecks in washington all want to kill him. I keep hearing in tv about how he 'needs to be shot'
- Zancarius 13y ago
  I suspect I'd be one of those you'd label a "patriatic [sic] redneck" because I'm right of center and live in a part of the country where so called patriotic rednecks frequent. And I support most of what Snowden has done for the reason that a true patriot upholds the letter of the Constitution, which does not hold true for a majority of the people in power. I would instead appeal to you that they should therefore be considered false patriots.
  - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
    Good point! The world is often times more complex than "left" and "right".
    - Zancarius 13y ago
      I wish more people understood this. It's fairly easy to condense simple matters into left or right biases but easier still when the purpose is to appease our tribal nature as a species (us versus them). Of course, the latter serves political interests quite nicely and in a manner that helps keep the coffers overflowing. That's not to say that I don't treat some matters as black or white (I do because of my own biases--and when I do, I think I'm right :) ) but it bugs me more than it probably should whenever I see this notion repeated that anyone who shares my political persuasions must, by virtue of our "patriotism," secretly desire a police state. It seems to me that the police state and the true patriot ought to be at odds with each other. Perhaps my understanding is skewed, but I can't think of a patriot who would wish for fewer freedoms, excluding for a moment Orwellian-esque double-speak like the PATRIOT Act... The problem isn't necessarily any one political group as much as it is to do with politicians. The majority of which have been so insulated inside the echo chamber that is Washington DC and so far detached from their constituency for so long that it seems they (and any agency you can imagine that they interact with) feel separate from--and probably above--oversight. If I were in a real conspiratorial mood, I might suggest that the divisive nature of US politics is entirely intentional and serves to keep us apart so that we may not work together to toss the bums in power out onto the street. Sadly, though, I think I've already said enough to invite trollish remarks so I ought to stop while I'm ahead. ;)
      - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
        I think, there would be plenty to discuss, about the things you said. But not being from the US, I can't say to much about it. I think, names like "patriotism", "freedom", "homeland" or even "solidarity" are grandly misused by politicians today. I think, today politicians are just show-men of the real class in power. What should be decided, is not discussed openly, but by people that are not shown on cover pages. The task of the show-men is, to put the decisions (how bad they might be!) in some sound sounding words (like "Patriot Act") so that the masses will agree or at least don't disagree with the things that shall take their freedom, their work-power, their money, their land ... and give it to the new lords, which are no nobles. And of course, left and right are also instrumented a lot. Because giving a clear "foe" is good to mobilize the own side (even for the wrong things).
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  There are no rednecks in Washington unless they are mowing the lawns. Redneck implies doing some actual work.
- giardini 13y ago
  I read an article about that tonight too: http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/americas-spies-want-edward-snowden-dead http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/americas-spies-want-edw... But I believe you aren't talking about rednecks, but about Washington contractors and possibly a rather limited set of military/civilian special ops people. As usual, one should be careful what one suggests to the media. For every fantasy Snowden shooter there are likely _scores_ of citizens who fantasize about doing the same thing or worse to those who put monitoring systems into place. There is some possibility that pitchforks and torches might become de rigeur political dress in the near future. A true redneck would likely be in the crowd, torch in hand.
PythonicAlpha 13y ago
In this case, "worse" applies! How courteous they are!