I wonder if Lan Di realizes that Obama's office is president of the United States of America, not president of the low-income black population of Chicago.
Printable View
I wonder if Lan Di realizes that Obama's office is president of the United States of America, not president of the low-income black population of Chicago.
Of course I realize that. The point I'm making is that over 90% of blacks voted for Obama TWICE, and this is an example of a black president failing the demographic that supports him as a whole more than anyone else on the face of the planet. They would have to be gay, feminist, or illegal immigrants to have any chance at achieving the "Hope And change" and "Yes We Can" promise. And what you just said about "not the president of the low-income black population of Chicago" is brutally accurate. In fact that statement mirrors what Obama told Black Enterprise Magazine when asked what were his plans for the black community. Link---->http://www.blackenterprise.com/news/...ent-exclusive/Quote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
That statement is like a pimp slapping a prostitute complaining about fair treatment.
I don't agree with this tribalistic view of politics. I'm black, or I'm gay, or whatever, and therefore I want X. The president should do what's best for the whole country. Now, you may or may not agree that he's doing that. I certainly don't agree with everything Obama has done. But what Obama should not be doing is dividing the population into groups and then giving different groups special consideration based on how much they voted for him. That's not a good way to govern. "Group X voted overwhelmingly for me, so now they get a kickback."
You said before that people should have personal responsibility for themselves and not rely on the government. But now you don't seem to believe that anymore, if you're demanding that Obama "do more" to help the poor. Actually, scratch that, you're not concerned about the poor, only poor blacks within the city limits of Chicago, Illinois. Apparently. Because seriously that is all you ever post about.
The whole "what has Obama done for the black man" argument is a load of bull. It's disingenuous, criticise him for the many valid reasons to do so, not why a certain segment of the population voted for him. What has Obama done for the white man? And for that matter what has he done for the Native American, still an inordinant amount of diabetes here brotha, da fuq?
I'm not demanding that Obama "do more". I'm exposing the deceit, control and manipulation that Obama and the DNC has cast over the black community. And the part about "you're not concerned about the poor, only poor blacks within the city limits of Chicago, Illinois" is a gross misinterpretation of what I'm stressing. I desire for the poor of all races and cultures to have the same opportunities in this great country of ours, and to achieve empowerment, not government entitlements. The demographic that voted for him the most collectively are the main ones suffering the most due to leftist policies and agenda. Don't you find that as odd? How come when gays, immigrants, feminists, and environmentalists demand government intervention it is granted? I'll tell you why because they fit Obama's political narrative. Poor blacks can to only one thing for the DNC and that's to stay poor, entitled, and enslaved on government assistance. Obama knows full well that the vast majority blacks will vote for him irregardless of their economic, financial, or quality of life status. Keep them in the "we shall overcome" state of mind instead of the "free at last " state of mind is the leftist agenda when it comes to the poor black communities. The DNC owns the black vote and I'm doing what I can to expose the Obama entitlement plantation for what it really is.Quote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
"Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...el-peace-prize
The Nobel peace prize has become a joke, but it will be interesting to see how this will unfold.
Indeed it will. Snowden may be foolish, but I admire his bravery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottino
The thing I think people overlook is that the Unites States includes the low-income black population of Chicago. I see his failure of them as a small part of his greater failure as a president for all of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lan Di
Why foolish?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lan Di
I will say this though: Snowden deserves every praise that he gets, but the Nobel peace prize doesn't deserve Snowden.
Politricks suck to many lobbyist and SIG have way to much power these days.
I don't think he's brave at all. He got into where he shouldn't have been. Made a little bit of noise but wasn't exactly all over the front page with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lan Di
So instead he secreted away top secret files into a cache, left the country, then dumped a bunch through 3rd parties while threatening to release heavily damaging information should anything happen to him.
I agree the dialog that came about had to happen, but he is no hero, nor is he particularly brave. He made sure he was well out of the area with a bunch of blackmail material before he had someone else pull the fire alarm for him.
Do I think he deserves to be put up for treason or shot, or any other such nonsense? No, but he absolutely committed several criminal acts for the sake of keeping himself out of any/all harms way, and he's been riding the media circus for all it is worth since then.
He deserves to be praised for bringing up the dialog, but also deserves some jail time, just not a huge amount. And he certainly doesn't deserve the Nobel peace prize (and neither did Obama when he got it either).
I had to re-read your text to make sure that i understood you correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by EclecticGroove
What exactly you expected him to do? To stay in the USA and get a death penalty or something? He did something that very few people had the balls to do; in fact, if more people stood up against like him or Assange did/do, i'm sure the world would be a much better place.
And if we're talking doing some jail time, i expect to see day where Obama, Bush sr. and jr., Putin, Castro, Tony Blair and many other "leaders" will finally pay for their war crimes.
Also, the Nobel peace prize means shit. Hitler got nominated in 1938 and Henry Kissinger won in 1973 ( as Obama won in 2009). It's a joke.
Like i said before, the nobel doesn't deserve Snowden.
Why? Because he hurt the government's feelings by outing their dirty secrets? When did whistleblowing become a crime anyway? We saw what happened to Bradley Manning.Quote:
Originally Posted by EclecticGroove
I wish there were more like him.
He could have quit, taking his story to the public, ensuring media was blitzed with the information.
He raised some concerns through "appropriate" channels and got stone walled. It sucks to be sure, but he remained employed, which means he wasn't raising much of a stink about it at all. He would have quickly found himself unemployed or moved to a very mundane task.
Contractors like him are a dime a dozen, and they don't want you there if you cause problems. His employers would have moved him yesterday if the contract mentioned even the slightest problem.
He stayed under the radar, collecting information (some of which he was not supposed to be able to access) and sequestering it away for his own use later.
He knew he was doing things he was going to take a LOT of heat for, because he swore not to do them, and are, in fact, illegal to do.
That other people were guilty does not absolve him of all wrong doing, nor does it make him a complete saint. Perhaps he figured he could talk his way out of it using the information he'd taken, maybe he just didn't think that far in advance aside from "flee to countries that won't extradite me". No one knows that except for him.
The types of data he may have been privy to (authorized or not) can have some pretty heavy shit in it, and stuff that can risk the lives of many, many people. Just look at the international shit storm that's been thrown around because of it. Every major nation spies on each other, and many on their own citizens... it's "accepted" but not talked about. A dirty little secret that everyone knows about and just nods, like politicians lying and famous people having affairs.
It's a joke, and people laugh about it until it hits home... Is it right? Not at all, but people accepted it out of ignorance. All he did was shine a light on what so many already "knew", and gave some examples. No longer out of sight, no longer out of mind, and ignorance was no longer bliss.
I also find it laughable that he is hiding in Russia, a country notorious for spying on their own people as well as being one of the most infamous countries in the world for spies in general.
So yes, what he did was, in some way, needed. A wake up call, some proof to what people knew already for them to get worked up over.
You can call me what you life for thinking he should risk his life and his freedom, but if his ideals were really that important he would have done so. He would have stuck to the rules and raised bloody hell within the company, being thrown off the project he was on, and likely fired. Then he would have taken the pertinent information to any big news outlet, they DROOL over stuff like this, and he would have gone out to the public with it. When he was served his warrant, he would have had a huge media circus around him and likely a good number of people looking to defend him for free, or at least foot one hell of a bill in his favor. He would have made headlines for weeks with it.
Instead he gathered blackmail material and contingency plans to ensure that he would have leverage for years to come, if not indefinitely. How many countries have approached him about this information? Offering trades for safe harbor? What IS the data he still holds? And how many lives are at risk from it? The NSA doesn't even know for sure, because it goes above his clearance level and he obtained it via illegal means, so who knows what he got his fingers into.
So to me, the dialog he kicked off is completely a separate topic from him as a person and the actions he took.
It isn't. But he didn't just act as a whistelblower. He circumvented his privileges and legal access to obtain information he should have never gotten access to in the first place, then exfiltrated that to his own personal files.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metalwario64
He is more akin to anonymous than a whistleblower, as he basically broke the law to find information. And what the government did... as shady as it was, wasn't illegal.
Making it illegal is essentially the entire debate. But he didn't like what he saw, he complained a little, but it wasn't illegal. If you worked in a store and complained a little that you didn't like the price you charged for something... but it was a perfectly legal price... would you expect them to change anything? I wouldn't.
He chose to kick the debate off in a way that I don't agree with, and is also involving a number of illegal actions in and of itself. The scale of the bullshit he uncovered is certainly well beyond his minor infraction. But if someone broke into a house to steal things and uncovered a murder scene... should they be let go without any charges simply for reporting it?