You know what would make me reconsider the Obama administration?

[Gravitycollapse]

I want to watch President Obama sit down with Edward Snowden, have a beer and talk.

No bullshit. No government agents waiting by to take him into custody. I just want the two to sit down and have a chat. That would help restore just a little bit of my faith in this presidency.

Call me crazy.

[Whisp]

1. crazy.

[Gravitycollapse]

2. This is not the thread you're looking for.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Hahahahahahaha

Keep drinking, dude

[Tx4obama]

4. Why on earth would President Obama want to sit down and have a beer with a felonious criminal...

... that is an enemy of Our Country?

Yep, crazy. Too funny!

[Agschmid]

5. +1.

[Gregorian]

6. -1

[morningfog]

7. When was he labeled an enemy?

[Bluenorthwest]

8. I remember him doing social activities with Tom Coburn, Cheney, Bush, Bush,

golfing with John of Orange.
Plus, Edward Snowden is an American citizen, it is not for you to declare him an enemy of our country and our country has not done so for damn good reasons involving international law and such trivial things as that.

[Gravitycollapse]

12. Snowden probably is an enemy of the state. However, that doesn't mean he's done anything wrong.

[pnwmom]

22. Sharing classified documents about our spying on Russia and China is wrong.

This is an entirely separate issue from his whistle-blowing on internal US spying.

The spy agencies are SUPPOSED to be spying on Russia and China, and it's WRONG to leak information about that.

[Gravitycollapse]

35. The entire premise of espionage is ridiculous and self-serving.

I know that these agencies are SUPPOSE to be spying. That's there job. And their job is both voyeuristic and laughable.

[pnwmom]

36. Your statement shows a profound lack of historical knowledge. Or even of current events.

China and Russia are hacking into our computer systems every day.

But here are some examples of how our spying has saved lives in the past.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/errors-edward-snowden-global-hypocrisy-tour

. . . But to decide that standard espionage activities are improper is a foolish, ahistorical belief.

N.S.A. surveillance has been beneficial repeatedly in American foreign policy. Although most instances remain secret, we already know that the N.S.A. listened to Soviet pilots during the 1983 shooting down of a South Korean airliner; used intercepted diplomatic messages to track a 1986 Berlin disco bombing to Libya; and used the cell phones’ SIM cards to track terrorist suspects after the 9/11 attacks.

But let’s take a more important example. In 1937—at a time when the United States was declaring neutrality in the emerging global tensions that fueled World War II—the Japanese government created a cipher for its military messages using a device called the “97-shiki O-bun In-ji-ki.” The Americans code-named it “Purple.”

The United States military was able to intercept Japanese communications (the very reason that Tokyo needed a code) but couldn’t decrypt the information sent through the Purple machine. William Friedman, the first American cryptography expert who tried to break the code, made some progress before suffering a nervous breakdown. Using that initial information, others managed to break more of the code. Once cracked, the United States could track Japanese naval-troop movements and even intercepted communications containing plans for the Pearl Harbor attack—information that was not properly used.

Would Snowden have been outraged that the United States was intercepting Japanese data at a time when the countries were not at war? It took years to crack the Purple code—would Snowden think the United States should have waited until after Pearl Harbor to tap into Japanese communication lines, and only then begin the arduous effort to break the code? And if not, then what is his point in turning over these kinds of secrets to the Chinese? All I have to say is, thank God Snowden was not around in 1937, four years before the United States joined the war—Lord knows how many Americans would have died if he had acted with whatever arrogance, or self-righteousness, or narcissism, or pure treasonous beliefs that drove him to his espionage on behalf of the Chinese.

SNIP

[sabrina 1]

13. That's not what the OP wished for. He wished that Obama would sit down with a Whistle

Blower who is viewed now by a majority of the American as such, a Whistle Blower who loved his country enough to risk everything to do his job as a citizen.

Where the OP mention a 'felonious criminal'?

[Tx4obama]

16. Snowden has been charged with three felonies.

If/when Snowden is brought back to The USA he will be headed to JAIL, not the White House.

[Gravitycollapse]

20. I like how you are so sure of yourself.

Really does a nice job conveying that subtle tinge of desperateness.

[Pholus]

41. Scooter Libby was convicted of four. But HE could have that beer by your criteria.

[sabrina 1]

45. See? You have confirmed the reasons why no Whistle Blower should ever again remain in this country

once they do their duty and expose corruption.

You have confirmed what the world now knows about this country, they will be convicted before there is even a trial as you just did.

Thanks for demonstrating perfectly his father's and lawyers' claims that 'he has no chance of justice in the US'.

One day, probably not too far in the future, when this country finally restores the rule of law, it will be War Criminals and Wall St. Criminals who do not go to the WH, it WILL be Whistle Blowers.

Seeing a war criminal like Bush eg, being honored in a Democratic WH is enough to make people give up all hope for this country.

However countries often go through dark periods such as the one we are in, when even ordinary citizens are blinded to justice for a while.

I am optimistic now that things have begun to turn around when I see the huge shift in the polls since early July on the issue of the Massive Surveillance exposed by Whistle Blower, Snowden. IT will take time, these serious issues always do, too much corruption and money involved for too long, but it will be resolved and the REAL CRIMINALS will eventually be brought to justice, even if it is post-humously.

[pnwmom]

24. LOL. Only 11% of Americans view Snowden in a positive light.

Sharing documents about our spying on China and Russia, and his lawyers' statements about him taking asylum in Russia are clearly taking their toll.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/07/24/wsjnbc-poll-most-americans-view-snowden-negatively/

In the poll, only 11% of respondents said they viewed Mr. Snowden in a positive light, while 34% said they viewed him negatively. Nearly a third said they didn’t know who he was.

SNIP

The WSJ/NBC News poll, which surveyed 1,000 adults from July 17-21, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

[Whisp]

28. The Blush is wearing off the Grate Hero.

Finally people are wising up, but it took too long. Too gullible, too long.

Some will stick to the bitter, hilarious end tho. I wonder how long Grayson will stand by his man? Silly man just jumped on the screamers bandwagon without thinking anything over.

[Scootaloo]

29. Popular opinion is your arbiter of right and wrong?

[pnwmom]

32. No, not mine. I was responding to someone who apparently thinks it is,

because that poster said the majority of Americans viewed him as "a Whistle Blower who loved his country enough to risk everything to do his job as a citizen."

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Of course they are! That's why thanks to the American public I now know that angels really do exist!

Poll: Nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe in angels

Angels don't just sing at Christmastime. For most Americans, they're a year-round presence. A new Associated Press-GfK poll shows that 77 percent of adults believe these ethereal beings are real.


Belief is primarily tied to religion, with 88 percent of Christians, 95 percent of evangelical Christians and 94 percent of those who attend weekly religious services of any sort saying they believe in angels.


But belief in angels is fairly widespread even among the less religious. A majority of non-Christians think angels exist, as do more than 4 in 10 of those who never attend religious services.


Beyond the religious gap, women are more likely than men to believe angels are real, and those over 30 are more apt than younger adults to think they exist.


The finding mirrors a 2006 AP-AOL poll, which found 81 percent believed in angels

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57347634/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/

[djean111]

31. Good thing this is not just a popularity contest, right?

That's pretty funny, almost equal numbers for negativity and dunno who he is.
Yes, the smears are working.
Don't understand why popular opinion of any kind is important - not going to change what happens. I guess there are a lot of sheep, though, evidently.

[pnwmom]

34. I was responding to someone else who asserted that popular opinion supported Snowden.

That may or may not have been the case earlier, but there's nothing that indicates that now.

[Pholus]

42. From the same poll....

Self-described liberals were more inclined to view Mr. Snowden favorably than were poll respondents overall, while conservatives were more inclined to view him negatively.

Doesn't fit in with the whole "Randroid" smear. Seems quite the opposite in fact.

[pnwmom]

65. With the overall level being only 11%, liberal support can't be very high. n/t

[Pholus]

67. Yes, dominated by "don't know, don't care" unlike some OTHER results in the poll...

Actually, reading the original poll it seems like the assertion in the article is not well supported by the actual poll itself which they link to. There must be some additional internals that were not released because the specific questions about Snowden are not broken down by political leanings.

Since you insist this poll's 11% is significant let's look at some of the OTHER eye opening results with higher significance:

Fun fact 1: For the generic question "Is the country heading in the right direction" 61% said no, only 29% said yes. That number is not good when compared to a later question where 44% of the respondents claim generally Democratic sympathies compared to only 32% claiming Republican sympathies.

Fun fact 2: Compared to 1992 and last April, more respondents felt the Supreme Court is "Too liberal" in its decisions.

Fun fact 3: More people disapprove of the president than approve, the numbers nearly matching the stated historic "lows" for the two terms. (Still better than Chimpy).

Fun fact 4: For the first time since 2011, more people are NOT saying they would prefer a Democratic Congress over a Republican one, though at least it is a tie.

Fun fact 5: Martin O'Malley, a locally popular governor with some national standing and stated 2016 ambitions only gets a 7% approval in the same poll -- 88% don't know/don't care though. Kinda like Snowden where 55% don't know/don't care.

I was prepared to get my "hair on fire" about this, then I realized it's a Wall Street Journal Poll.

Who owns the Wall Street Journal again?

[pnwmom]

68. Does NBC have the same owner?

[Pholus]

69. well seems like there are bigger problems than yer crush in there. nt

[99Forever]

62. What the fuck do "polls" have to do...

... with the ANTI-Constitutional SPYING exposed by this brave young WHISTLEBLOWER?

Screw the whole bunch of push polls and the people who do them and those that pretend they actually mean something.

[pnwmom]

64. I was answering a person who said that the majority of people supported Snowden.

Context is everything, with reading comprehension.

[msongs]

14. he sucks up to republicans, shakes hands with putin and promotes karzi, so why not snowden nt

[NuclearDem]

19. Indeed, why would he do that?

Collapsed the economy and lined their pockets.

Oh, and this guy too!

You were saying something about Obama sitting down with felonious criminals that are enemies of our country?

Though I do understand what you're coming from. Snowden's the only one that's actually charged with anything.

[Whisp]

26. +++

[Scootaloo]

27. Nobody's saying he has to shake hands with the guy...

[cantbeserious]

37. A Defender Of The 4th Amendment Could Never Be An Enemy

eom

[greatauntoftriplets]

53. Yes! Why indeed?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. But..but..Snowden is a really skeery Enemy of the Secret State and wants to embarrass the regime!!

[adirondacker]

10. it would seem reasonable that Snowden has plenty of dirt on the GOP that he

would be willing to share if given an ear.

[struggle4progress]

11. I think President Obama should go out for dinner with his wife. DC's a mean town,

and everybody there has an agenda

[quinnox]

15. That would be something

Obama could learn a thing or two from talking to a patriot of Snowden's caliber.

[Whisp]

30. lolz. Obama has more dignity in his toe nails clippings

than that idiot, Paul ass kissing theif and doofus.

[Cali_Democrat]

52. Sometimes I really don't think you even believe half the things you type. n/t

[reusrename]

17. I think that would burst his bubble.

I don't think Obama has the real story on the NSA stuff. He gets his info from the liars.

[dreamnightwind]

40. I think you're correct

Excellent point.

[mick063]

18. You got to see his beer and chat.

With Larry, Ben, and Penny.

"Heckuva job Larry"

[intaglio]

21. You're crazy

Why would the President sit down with a man who has "blown the whistle" on things already published? (Prism, Echelon and similar programs). Yes, all that information has been available before - all you had to do was use a search engine about it.

Why would he sit down with a man who has betrayed his country by telling competing countries about spying efforts?

Why would he sit down with a self publicist?

Why would he sit down with a man who has made it more likely that both House and Senate will be Republican controlled? (Check Nate Silver's blog)

Why is this meeting necessary before you give respect to a man who has extracted the USA from Iraq and ensured there are no permanent bases there?

Why not respect a President about to extract the USA from a second war?

Why is your respect not given to a President who has made healthcare more available to ordinary citizens than any other President?

Why is your respect not given to a President who has overseen the demise of DOMA and brought in the "Matthew Shepard" act?

Why do you not respect a President who has:

Allowed waivers from the appalling "No child left behind"?

Brought in early learning grants?

Brought in the credit card "bill of rights?

Started to remove exemptions for high tax payers?

Fully funded the VA?

Ended "Stop Loss"?

Ended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

Increased funding for National Parks?

And the EPA?

Funded the Violence against women act?

Increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts?

Saw to it that the rebuilding on the Gulf coast and New Orleans was funded?

Reformed the Patent system?

Modernised air traffic control?

[pnwmom]

25. Don't forget the ACA, which has already helped millions

even though it's not fully in effect.

[Laelth]

39. Hmm ...

Why is your respect not given to a President who has made healthcare more available to ordinary citizens than any other President?

At the risk of nit-picking, I would say this honor goes to Lyndon Baines Johnson, not Barack Obama.

Otherwise, carry on with the election campaign (for a man who will never again be elected to a public office).

-Laelth

[intaglio]

43. When did Johnson introduce the ACA?

when did Johnson expand Medicaid and Medicare?

Your point is what ... ?

[Laelth]

44. Johnson gave us Medicare and Medicaid.

In so doing, Johnson "made healthcare more available to ordinary citizens than any other President."

That was my point. Credit where it is due.

-Laelth

[intaglio]

47. Agree to differ?

I knew about M'caid and M'care but thought that the people it did not cover perhaps made it a less complete package.

[treestar]

49. Exactly. The FDR/LBJ argument is quite flawed.

The same people would have been angry that SS and or Medicare/caid did not apply to all. It's ridiculous. They should not be using those Presidents against President Obama. Rather he is just like them and has filled in some of the gaps they left.

[Laelth]

50. I see your point.

I'm not sure we will be able to tell how many people gain coverage until the ACA is fully implemented, but I suspect that Medicare and Medicaid allowed more people who lacked coverage to gain it than the ACA will. I hope, of course, that I am wrong about this, but only time will tell.

-Laelth

[Violet_Crumble]

23. I think most problems can be solved by sitting down and having a beer...

I suspect Obama the President would never sit down for a beer with someone, while Obama the person would be a really good person to have a beer with

[Fire Walk With Me]

38. They want Snowden dead (after they drug him to learn to defuse the information bombs he's

sent around). They caused an international incident by forcing down the plane of the president of another country for twelve hours, demanding to search his plane. They are attempting to bully any country which might help him.

This is about a trillion dollar a year industry and the Bush/neocon take-over of the country. This is far larger than sitting down and having a beer. They NEED to kill him. Yet "they" are the ones who must be stopped.

[intaglio]

46. How do you live every day with the depth of paranoia this post shows

They caused an international incident by forcing down the plane of the president of another country for twelve hours

That is a lie

A despicable falsehood based on the rantings of a Bolivian President known to despise the USA.

The Bolivian aircraft had clearance from Russia through to Portugal, if it had not it would never have taken off on that flight path. European airspace is incredibly restricted

The Bolivian 'plane developed a fault with one fuel gauge.

Because if that fault the pilot asked to vary the flight plan. Italy refused, Spain and Portugal refused, France granted provisional clearance but did not confirm. European ATC directed the aircraft to land in Austria have have the problem investigated.

The plane landed without incident.

The Austrians, as is normal, asked for pro forma access to the aircraft to check passports; this was granted - as is normal. This is done because diplomats do not like waiting in queues after disembarking. There was no "demand" to search the 'plane and the passport check was a brief walk-through by 2 officers. If Snowden had been on board he would have had a Bolivian passport, probably diplomatic, and as such would have been immune to sanction as the aircraft is Bolivian territory.

The aircraft was grounded for the duration of the work and after that had to file a new flight plan. This plan was cleared. A new plan could not be made prior to the repair and European airspace is very restricted.

What part of this is unusual except for the demand for apology for normal procedure made by the Bolivians?

All else in your post is just addled.

[Cali_Democrat]

51. Thank you. Good summary.

I mean, we have a recording of the pilot's voice saying the plane landed because of fuel gauge issues.....yet somehow his plane was forced down.

[RobertEarl]

61. No. Not proven to be a lie at all

You have nothing but conjecture and your know-it-all attitude belies some hidden agenda.

I have not seen any official US statement except those that back up the Bolivian presidents claims that the US was behind the denial of airspace.

Surely, you have other evidence? If not, you should be more circumspect of your elaborations and stretching of the evidence.

Most of your post is just blather of the type one might find on Fox news.

[intaglio]

66. I have a knowledge of ATC that you lack

You never take off in a commercial or even a private aircraft without clearance in Europe. Clearance has to be point of departure to destination.

Flying in a multinational airspace like Europe is not like going down to your local 7-11 for milk and cookies which is what the conspiracy theorists who have commandeered this minor event seem to think.

At take off the host airport has to provide an altitude and corridor for the aircraft. This height and corridor has to match the approved entry point into a transit country's airspace. The transit country has to know, in advance, where the aircraft is headed to match so that it can match height and corridor for the next entry point and so on for each country the aircraft is supposed to overfly. Because this is so complex this is never done whilst the aircraft is in the air unless there is an engineering problem or an emergency.

Because the Bolivian aircraft had a minor engineering problem it alerted ATC, this type of alert always carries the possibility of a later emergency and the certainty of an amended flight plan and an amended schedule. Any amendment of flight plan or schedule over Northern Italy, the French Riviera, Spain and Portugal causes huge problems for the aircraft carrying normal human beings and messes up their flights and can cause knock on effects as far afield as LHR, CDG and DTM.

Therefore the Italians, Spanish and Portuguese denied the Bolivian aircraft the amended flight plan and schedule. The French gave provisional approval but did not confirm (this last is what is stated in the French apology).

In other words my evidence is the fact that the Bolivian aircraft was allowed to take off and that Bolivian complaints were not made until after the diversion back into Austria.

[treestar]

48. That shows hero worship of Snowden

And that anything he does is right because he's Snowden.

President Obama has the job, elected by the people, of enforcing the law.

And you are saying that just having a nice conversation with him, I assume, would mean of course Snowden could convince President Obama that the law should not apply to him, right?

Just like a monarchy. If you or a friend could get the King's ear, you could get him on your side. But that would mean he was the law.

[RobertEarl]

54. Snowden is very successful

He has altered the course of the spying, already.

Has made a great impact and he is still free, enjoying the Russian girlfriends. Why indeed would he want to meet Obama? Obama can't do anything to him, but he sure has made Obama look bad.

Obama can fix it, only by making sure all the facts are told. First thing he should do is invite Grayson to have a beer and listen to him. Take Grayson's advice and change things.

[treestar]

55. So it's Grayson now who if he could just get the King's ear

would be so persuasive?

How is Snowden "free?" He's in Russia. There is no bill of rights to apply to him there. This grand concern with the Constitution by people calling Russia "free" is mysterious.

[RobertEarl]

56. Yes. Grayson

Grayson is about the smartest man in DC these days. Do you know any smarter? Why Obama does not make Grayson a confidant is a good question.

Snowden is free in Russia, compared to the US where he would be held in solitary and kept awake as a mild form of torture, or worse. Just look at the mean angry people here who it seems would lynch him on sight.

Yes, Ed is more free in Russia, and getting lots of sex, I would imagine.

[treestar]

57. "free" in terms of the Constitution is not the freedom of one man?

Talk about going off the rails in support of your hero Snowden! Good grief. So the fact your precious is not living under a Bill of Rights does not bother you? I thought that was what he was defending? And what's up with the vicarious gloating about his alleged sex life?

It sounds like you are more concerned with Snowjob's comfort than anything else. Not the alleged spying on Americans (which he could have better stopped by facing the charges), nor the American Constitution, not our freedoms (allegedly under attack) seem to matter as long as Snowjob is happy. And yet his happiness can be withdrawn by Pootie Poot at any time he feels like it.

He is stuck in a transit lounge! If he gets out various descendant agencies of the KGB will be following him!

[RobertEarl]

58. The Snowden hate is obvious?

Why are you attacking me? I am just reporting what is going on, and supporting Grayson, who Obama is snubbing.

I rather think that Snowden knows where he is most free and I doubt he cares one whit what you think. Heck, would you be willing to give Snowden bail and a free trial?

At 30, having lots of sex is very important for a man. I quite remember those days.

[treestar]

59. You're still doing it

You are most concerned about whether your boy is having a good time, and overlooking that he is living in a place where he is trapped there. That's freedom? And he will be followed by KGB types if he gets out of there.

What would I give him? What does it matter? This country would give him a trial under the bill of rights - Russia would not.

There is sex in every country, I think it's pretty freely available in America. What has that got to do with such lofty things as the Bill of Rights? This is laughable.

[RobertEarl]

60. Are you upset?

You sound very upset and angry.

If Snowden were here, he'd be in jail and not having any sex. Which, as a man at 30, would be awful. Like torture.

Snowden knows where he is most free at this time. And it's not here where so many are frothing at the mouth wanting him to be subject to gitmo and waterboarding.

The angry Snowden haters are a scary bunch. Try not to let anger consume you. Have some sex, it cures a lot of ailments.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

63. Very funny. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent.

Snowden should never be allowed near President Obama

[arely staircase]

70. Maybe he could smoke a doobie wih Aldrich Ames after that nt