ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
If that's the narrative you've crafted in your head, go with it. Had Obama given a serious indication that that's why he now supports such programs, then my opinion would be different. In fact, as someone who voted for Obama, I gave him a significant benefit of the doubt before he responded to the concerns of people like me with arrogant and dismissive BS.Or, because he started receiving daily briefings showing how horrible the world really is, he changed his notion of what needed to be done to protect the homeland?
This occurs to me when stuff like this happens, but... is being naive to how the world really is a legitimate defense? Is that a forgivable qualification for the office? Which leads me to...Or, because he started receiving daily briefings showing how horrible the world really is, he changed his notion of what needed to be done to protect the homeland?
Back as far as I can remember Presidents and Congresspeople claim that they can't do what they promised because the situations were more complicated than they realized. Really? Are they that naive? Are we?I think Obama did what all candidates do when running for office, say what people want to hear to get elected, then do what it takes in their estimation to effectively run the gov in the real world. I'm not saying they always make the right decisions when they get in but when they promise the moon and the stars who's being naive?
It's a shame, especially for Obama. He had a chance to be much more than he's turned out to be. He really squandered an opportunity.
If that's the narrative you've crafted in your head, go with it.
as someone who voted for Obama, I gave him a significant benefit of the doubt before he responded to the concerns of people like me with arrogant and dismissive BS.
It has to be. Just as a kid who says they'll never do this or that later does just that because the reality of the adult world makes their principled objections unworkable, so too we must understand that people who don't know...don't know...is being naive to how the world really is a legitimate defense? Is that a forgivable qualification for the office?
I don't follow. Are you claiming that Obama's arrogant and dismissive response was a narrative crafted in my head? That would be an odd claim since Obama's press conference happened outside of my head whereas your hypothesis about Obama's actions is exclusively in yours.So you say:
But then you say:
...so what about the narrative you crafted in YOUR head? Or can we dismiss with the petty putdowns?
He broke the law and violated his oath, but then again so did top obama administrators.
Snowden broke the law and should have to pay for what he did, but under the Obama administration the law is subjective.
This occurs to me when stuff like this happens, but... is being naive to how the world really is a legitimate defense? Is that a forgivable qualification for the office? Which leads me to...
Back as far as I can remember Presidents and Congresspeople claim that they can't do what they promised because the situations were more complicated than they realized. Really? Are they that naive? Are we?
Maybe I'm getting too cynical in my old age, but I've seen the same scenario happen so often that I have to conclude they make these promises on purpose because we fall for it.
That's actually what Obama said. Spoiler Alert: He was elected.Any candidate that tells people it's going to be tough and we won't get all our objectives achieved may be telling the truth but it won't get them elected.
That's actually what Obama said. Spoiler Alert: He was elected.
So what if Snowden was more selective? They both made public top secret information, and, as employees of the state, had an oath of confidentiality, no?
NSA leaker holed up in Hong Kong hotel, running low on cash - CNN.com <-- clicky
So, is he a hero, or traitor?
Would you put him in jail? Or throw him a parade?
Or, because he started receiving daily briefings showing how horrible the world really is, he changed his notion of what needed to be done to protect the homeland?
If found guilty, he needs to serve his time. What he did was a very serious crime, and his actions make it impossible to trust that he'll keep other information he has disclosed.
I think there's a pretty big difference between the two.
Manning had a gripe against the U.S. government and started leaking information he knew nothing about mostly to hurt it whereas Snowden identified an immoral practice being done by the U.S. government and told the world.
Snowden didn't act as a patriot, he skeedadled to Hong Kong instead of facing up to what he did. Hell, I don't think his intentions were as an enemy of the U.S. either. He wanted to get famous and live the good life. Like Manning, I don't think he really understood what he was getting in to. I wish him luck.
Is his crime more serious than the crime he exposed?
I thoroughly disagree with this.Snowden is the equivalent of Dennis Rodman, looking for a well-heeled donor to give him a life of ease as a symbol of resistance to American hegemony.
Snowden didn't act as a patriot, he skeedadled to Hong Kong instead of facing up to what he did. Hell, I don't think his intentions were as an enemy of the U.S. either. He wanted to get famous and live the good life. Like Manning, I don't think he really understood what he was getting in to. I wish him luck.
Unfortunately for Snowden, that is entirely irrelevant, and for his own safety, he should expedite himself for trial.
I am a firm believer in the concept of "civil disobedience", but I firmly agree with this. One should be willing to take their punishment if they have to, and there are select times where it even furthers the cause, but I don't blame people for also wanting to remain free.You don't need to accept your punishment in order to be a patriot. I seriously advise you take a moment and consider exactly what a patriot is and seriously consider how silly it is to claim that if we are to be a patriot we must in turn give up our freedom. I would think someone like yourself would understand what a patriot actually fights for and why your statement is absurd on its face.
I thoroughly disagree with this.
The good life? Really? Country hopping? Always looking over your shoulder? Forgoing a $200K/yr job? I question you definition of the good life.
Because of Manning, and how he has been squirreled away and is now basically invisible and certainly mute, I think he knows exactly what he is doing. Skipping out to another country is what allows him (for the time being) to tell his side.
I am a firm believer in the concept of "civil disobedience", but I firmly agree with this. One should be willing to take their punishment if they have to, and there are select times where it even furthers the cause, but I don't blame people for also wanting to remain free.
I didn't say that he "made no other promises". I didn't say that he "kept them all." I said that he told people "it's going to be tough and we won't get all our objectives" and then got elected contrary to your assertion that one cannot say those things and also get elected. Get it yet?He made no other promises? He's kept them all? Transparency? Fact Alert: Nope.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?