4 ms·

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).
      - Zancarius 13y ago
        > I think, names like "patriotism", "freedom", "homeland" or even "solidarity" are grandly misused by politicians today. I feel you hit the nail on the head right here. While you state you're not from the United States, you have a clear understanding that a ridiculously large (and embarrassingly so) percent of our population doesn't possess. Not that it surprises me: My mum isn't from here, though she's now a naturalized citizen, and she has a far greater understanding of US politics than the natives! But then, I also think there's a certain amount of similarity among politicians the world over, or as you stated "the real class in power." To illustrate one particular sore point that meshes well with your description, many bills drafted by the US Congress are seldom these days drafted by politicians and are instead written by their staffers or, through lobbyists, by other entities that have a keen interest on influencing the bill's content. When former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated regarding the ACA that "We have to pass it before we can know what's in it," she wasn't joking. Many of us laughed, more still called her stupid, but she--perhaps unwittingly--provided an insight into Congress few of us are fortunate enough to experience. After all, of those who do read the bills or are instrumental in their construction, they effectively have free reign to inject what they wish. With partisan politics being such as it is, mobilizing your compatriots to vote on a bill isn't especially difficult. I don't know what the solution is, because when you have laws fabricated by organizations with deep pockets who, by virtue of their expenditure can effectively select those who win elections, any attempt to effect change will be toothless. Anyway, I deeply appreciate this conversation and would like to thank you for the exchange we've had. It certainly made my morning. :)
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.

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).
    - Zancarius 13y ago
      > I think, names like "patriotism", "freedom", "homeland" or even "solidarity" are grandly misused by politicians today. I feel you hit the nail on the head right here. While you state you're not from the United States, you have a clear understanding that a ridiculously large (and embarrassingly so) percent of our population doesn't possess. Not that it surprises me: My mum isn't from here, though she's now a naturalized citizen, and she has a far greater understanding of US politics than the natives! But then, I also think there's a certain amount of similarity among politicians the world over, or as you stated "the real class in power." To illustrate one particular sore point that meshes well with your description, many bills drafted by the US Congress are seldom these days drafted by politicians and are instead written by their staffers or, through lobbyists, by other entities that have a keen interest on influencing the bill's content. When former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated regarding the ACA that "We have to pass it before we can know what's in it," she wasn't joking. Many of us laughed, more still called her stupid, but she--perhaps unwittingly--provided an insight into Congress few of us are fortunate enough to experience. After all, of those who do read the bills or are instrumental in their construction, they effectively have free reign to inject what they wish. With partisan politics being such as it is, mobilizing your compatriots to vote on a bill isn't especially difficult. I don't know what the solution is, because when you have laws fabricated by organizations with deep pockets who, by virtue of their expenditure can effectively select those who win elections, any attempt to effect change will be toothless. Anyway, I deeply appreciate this conversation and would like to thank you for the exchange we've had. It certainly made my morning. :)

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.