All I can really come up with is that he is an attention whore.

He falls in the middle of both categories for me, but a lot of what he has done thus far is to promote himself.
I don't like what the government is doing, and I think he created a warped image of what is currently being done due to exaggeration.

So, what is one that exaggerates to bring attention? Attention whore.

Eta: by the way, Ed Snowden provided PROOF that our government is blanket seizing the communications of ALL Americans. That is a very big, previously unknown contribution to the public knowledge bank.

Are you looking for reliable data or are you just screwing around?

No prizes for guessing which one I'm doing.

I'll have to be content with my own reward.

I can take what he said and look in to it, but I am happy enough to sit back and watch the proceedings and how the debate would turn out.

If anything, he did start up a public debate which is important but I also question his motives. So he is mid-ground for me.

would have gotten you a seat in one of those infamous groups of "undecided voters" that the media polls after a debate. But what Snowden did isn't up for debate...he is the first whistle-blower to provide PROOF that the NSA has been seizing the communications of ALL American citizens.

With that proof, we no longer had to decide if we should trust the inevitable statement of denial from some government spokesperson, like we had to in the past..in fact any such spokesman now had no leg to stand on. The govt's confirmation, after the reveal, was like a little child admitting he'd eaten the cookie when the crumbs are all over his face and he's swallowing the last bite.

It is a great thing to KNOW something and not just suspect it. Knowing empowers future corrective action.

The debate is a good thing.
I just don't know if the way he presented the information is a net positive or negative due to his initial exagerrations, by doing so, makes some of his disclosures suspect and creates far more speculation than needed, which makes it harder to sift through it all.

I mean, I don't trust whatever the government will say in regards to denials. However, since they haven't denied the program's existence. They did mention that it is well known in congress and they have been briefed. They also mentioned some of the terms of it. I just think it should be discussed more in terms of the actual program than the personalities and what has been said. So that it is more of a factual accounting.

I guess it took off the heat on the other supposed "scandals" like the IRS, Benghazi and others, which I guess could be considered a positive, but it just propagates this sensationalism that is counter productive.

Reminds me, Iron Man 3, the Mandarin comes to mind.

Well, what can I say? I actually feel limited in how much I can be mad about things.
Like, I can see where he's coming from but I also see some necessity. Given the 3 choices, I can't really say much more.

This is a program that has been up and running for a while now.

I do think the debate is necessary.
Thing is, even if I don't trust the government, nor do I trust the guy who sensationalized this. Yes, I don't consider it actual whistleblowing since much of what is disclosed is public knowledge. Especially if one pays attention in C-Span and other such media.

I just think he exagerrated, and him going off saying that if he wanted to, he could look in to someone just like that was a blatant lie.

I really think it is necessary to figure out what is going on, but the guy did not do whistleblowing. He just sensationalized the story with mistruths that caused immediate outrage which only serves to make the situation muddy and more complicated than it should have been.

I don't agree with what the government is doing, but the problem is, what he said made it harder to figure out what they are doing to begin with. So, he did a disservice in that sense.

Only thing is, I don't know if he did more harm than good. I am still debating between the two.

He's not a hero or patriot. I do think he has greatly exaggerated what the government is doing. Running off to China - that bastion of freedom - doesn't help my opinion of this at all.

I'm expecting a Lifetime movie.

Other than that, I am content to just watch to see what else I can figure out about it.

I think the debate though is important to see how far things go.

than actual facts. I'm not jumping on the Snowden the Wonder Guy bandwagon.

Guy basically just sensationalized the story which makes it harder to figure out what is exactly going on.

So like I mentioned to someone else, I don't know if he did more bad than good.
I think the debate is necessary but I have to wonder if he exagerrated too much that it stopped the ability to look at this logically and practically.

If we just have speculation and a bunch of tall tales, there's not much left to debate.

Other two options don't quite fit.
It is also why I can't really get in to this whole thing.

focused on the shiny new toy the Sandy Hook anniversary passed, people could lose food stamps, reproductive rights may erode....

I dumped 'snowden' into my key word trashcan.

I can't believe they are cutting food subsidies while giving a bunch more in the Farm Bill.

I suspect the reason you are here is the same as everyone elses...because the implictions and repercussions of the government seizing ALL American citizens' communications are a hugely, enormously, giganticly worrisome invasion of privacy.

The repercussions from this loss of liberty are vastly more troublesome than Sandy Hook, or a decrease in food stamps, because they affect ALL of us, are far reaching, and maximally invasive.

ridiculous proliferation of these threads that has taken over GD.

More troublesome than dead kids (gun control), more troublesome than people going hungry? Sorry, but people blasting the fuck out of one another concerns me far more than Hong Kong Eddie right now. So do people who don't know where the next meal is coming from.

but I can't quite put my fingers on exactly what it is right now if you know what I mean'
Sometimes I feel like an old violin like I did in another place another time.

anyhow, nice to talk to you.

has in his bag of tricks? He could have taken pictures of stuff on the desks of others. We just don't know.

I also don't understand why he felt his first choice was to run to China, dump everyone and everything in his life, and give an interview that sounds like he's reading, poorly, from a teleprompter. It's almost as if he's striving to sound like a Manchurian Candidate!

His speaking voice certainly doesn't sound a thing like his written "voice" on sites like Ars Technica.

Like I mentioned, I don't know enough, and what he has been doing is creating more speculation than anything else.
Mostly by showing off the most objectionable parts of known programs which then lacks context.

Like I said, I don't like what the government is doing, so we'll see more later.

Let's see if he can push the response he wants...

it's DU not Rasmussen

whereever they are found.

I give you that.

So don't take em so seriously.

it's the info being pushed in this poll. But I know what you mean. I rarely participate let alone pay attention to them.

where a lot gets pushed.

If so, I missed it. However, if his goal is indeed to publicize an illegal abuse of power by government surveillence apparatus, then that can't be accomplished by avoiding the media. In just this short time, he has raised public awareness more than the other whistleblowers combined. And those other whistle-blowers have commended him for raising public awareness. So its a pretty silly poll...of course putting the spotlight on something means you have to be in the spotlight.

My poll quickly confirmed the answer to: "Is Jeff_in_Milwaukee an ATTENTION WHORE?" is a resounding "yes".

I

Why Snowden did it, what he's like, whether his neighbors like, or if he has a girlfriend in Hawaii, is totally irrelevant. What's important is what he revealed.

Wouldn't that be something?

...he's an attention whoring Traitriot.

Well played, Rev.

Just sayin'.

of the NSA snooping on us all.

I hope even more whistle-blowers provide us with irrefutable PROOF (like Ed Snowden did) that the U.S. govt is seizing, en masse, ALL American citizen's communications.

On the strength of Dickwad Cheneys condemnation of Snowden,I'm immediately inclined to think he's a patriot...Despite the fact that almost anything that riles Cheney,is almost always a good thing,for us,I haven't absorbed enough information about Snowden,what he did,why he did it,how he did it,to be comfortable,yet,with any opinion on exactly what Edward Snowden is...

So...Pass.

I don't know what to think about the guy, and the reporting on the subject has been highly useless. I just think it's odd that a guy on the lam would do something so highly visible.

Maybe he's all three...

Bush reign comes back in 2016 due to the careful plan of Dick Cheney and BushPaulfamilyinc.

We're ALL attention whores. But few of us are patriots.

>>>We all come into this world with our little egos, equipped with individual horns. Now if we don't blow them, who else will?>>>>> All About Eve

Cut Snowden a break; he's earned it.

... "I don't really care about personal bull shit attempted smears of that guy, just about the information of what the spooks in our government are doing in direct violation of our Constitution" option?

If you are looking at the person and not the Unconstitutional actions , you are being played for a fool.

And I think it's safe to say that no other person here or anywhere can either, except Mr. Snowden himself. And even that may not be true as he may be so caught up in the repercussions that he may not be making rational decisions.

That's not to say that I believe that either. But it is a possibility.

Other than that, I am unwilling to ascribe any intent to Snowden other than the equally plausible and possible explanation that he thinks he very well may be doing something he thinks is good.

Whether that's true or not, at this point maybe Snowden himself can no longer respond.

Human psychology just isn't that simple. I have to just

Reduce each thing to it's basic premise, and you'll see that the true question has little or nothing to do with Snowdon, it's the question that we have all been distracted from. Is the NSA spying on everyone? The answer is yes.

The next question is do we intend to sit back and ignore that central question?

You don't need millions of people, and a $2 Billion dollar facility, one of many facilities, to cull a little data out of the mass they are collecting. You don't need outside security consultant companies employing an estimated half million people with Top Secret Clearances to cull a little data from the herd.

Nuts.

all leaks require plumbers and it goes without saying Watergate had plumbers.

the sleight of hand was two fold in Watergate.

People only seem to remember Deep Throat and John Dean.
They seem to forget the far more important occurences with that sleight of hand.
at least three far more important things, but that is for another time.

At using the Jedi mind trick. Remember it only works on the weak minded. If the person is shrewd, or has at least average intelligence, it doesn't work.

Let's review shall we? I pointed out that the questions about Snowden were the distraction from the real question, and that question was and is the same. Is the NSA spying on everyone. The answer is yes they are. You said that they were culling, which was totally different, and I begged you not to insult my intelligence. Again, you throw another distraction out hoping to divert the main question, which is exactly the same. Is the NSA spying on everyone? The answer remains yes.

Those are too the Droids I'm looking for.

In the original Invasion of the Body Snatcher (not the remake)


all the character played by Kevin McCarthy needed really was to sleep.

There was no conspiracy.
He just needed sleep.
No pods.
No change in people.

Just a good nights rest.

Now, in the remake, the creative team (can there be a creative team on a remake? How creative is it) however
they KNOW what the people felt about the original.

therefore, wink, wink, people go into the remake in a totally different frame of mind.

So, in the remake, of course it was a conspiracy.

It's no different than Gilligan's Island.
OF COURSE the professor could from minute one actually have gotten all of them off the island.
But why would he? He was something of a loner, and now had some really good friends with him, who wouldn't think he was an oddball and would freely talk with him any day of the week.
(and that is what made the Spoof Brady Bunch movie so funny when at the end it was revealed the Professor was actually
Carol Brady's first husband and the father of the three all of them had hair of gold, like their mother, the youngest one in curls.)

The only reason this issue is seemingly so important in 2013, when the whole world knew about this for specifically years,
but in general decades is-

You all watched the original, and now are going in there with to this, with having seen the original.
The kids think they are onto the greatest thing.

But the parents have already seen the original and there really is NOTHING that can beat the original, and definitely nothing
new here.

Think about it.

(btw, when 9-11 happened, live time, first thought in my mind, as I was watching tv, livetime Channel 7 in NYC a few minutes to 9am
to watch the inane bantering of Regis starting at 9, when they broke in saying the first plane hit,
My first instinct was a small plane
When they live time showed live the 2nd plane, 100% true, my first instinct was this was the script of Bruce Willis's Part Two of Die Hard, the one where at the start, they control the power over the airplanes, and the pilots thought they were in a different place
than they were.
And 9-11 ended up (of all things) playing out like the first Die Hard.
While we looked up, all that was happening was actually happening below.

Or, in Get Smart terms
This is the old make them think it is so bad, that they turn on the President and the party that brought them out of the
deep badness that pervaded and of which, 9-11 was the central focus, solely to bring back the person who made it so bad to begin with trick.

And is it working? You tell me. That would be telling.

(btw, mock this if you want, this entire piece wrote itself. Fifteen minutes ago, I didn't even know I was going to write this,
NOR did I know how it would end. It wrote itself).

(and if you say ???what is this mishmash, well, everything I have to say at 445am in NYC area on 6/18/2013 is clearly in this post.
Back in two hours going to the gym.)

change surveillance to monitoring.

paraphrased from Dean Wormer

In defense of Snowden's tactics--

People HAVE been saying what he's saying, but nobody was listening much. except groups like EFF and people who read Wired.

NOW PEOPLE ARE LISTENING.

Sometimes it takes a dramatic act to do that, y'know? Sometimes it takes a conspicuously shocking act to get people off their Lazy-boys.

But nnnnooooooo...."attention whore", "drama queen," "self-important"-----Whatever.

Future generations will honor these spying/data mining whistle blowers as we were taught to think Paul Revere was a hero. A rare few among us are bold enough to take a stand when they just can't take it anymore. These are the true patriots, not people who sit around grumbling while they're being slowly boiled. "Profiles in courage" y'know. As Snowden said today, "This country is worth dying for."

What is being done in this NSA situation is an outrageous betrayal of public trust and an insult to all Americans & sets a dangerous precedent. Everyone should be concerned about it.

Who will have to do the dance for the Chinese unless he gets asylum elsewhere

That the Chinese spy on their citizens more than Americans? That working for the Chinese might be worse than working for Americans?

Is he gonna start complaining about Hong Kong?

He wants to be another Julian Assange, but I think he's going about it the wrong way.