Edward Snowden: NRA supporter who loved domestic spying when it was Bush and hated it when it was Obama

Apparently, Edward Snowden supported NSA domestic spying programs when President Bush was in office, but abruptly changed his mind when Barack Obama became President. He bragged of his support for the NRA, Ron Paul and domestic spying programs, and his hatred of liberal social policies.

Edward Snowden, NSA whistleblowers

It now appears that when Bush was president Edward Snowden SUPPORTED domestic spying programs and thought leakers of classified information should be shot, but when Obama became president he suddenly changed his mind.

Chat room transcripts reveal (detailed here) that Snowden was a big Ron Paul supporter and no fan of liberal policies.

He wrote of people who leaked classified information, “those people should be shot in the balls”

He revealed his Ayn Randian philosophy of old people and Social Security with these types of comments: “save money? cut this social security bullshit …. Somehow, our society managed to make it hundreds of years without social security just fine… Magically the world changed after the new deal, and old people became made of glass… they wouldn’t be fucking helpless if you weren’t sending them fucking checks to sit on their ass and lay in hospitals all day”

And then had this to say about the second amendment: “See, that’s why I’m goddamned glad for the second amendment. Me and all my lunatic, gun-toting NRA compatriots would be on the steps of Congress before the C-Span feed finished.”

If these stories are true, Edward Snowden is, in the end, just another nutty teabagger and nothing more than a right wing hypocrite.

About these ads

46 Comments

Filed under News, Teabaggers

46 responses to “Edward Snowden: NRA supporter who loved domestic spying when it was Bush and hated it when it was Obama

  1. Im not suprised one bit. When Conservapedia said Snowden was a hero I immediately was suspicious.

  2. Reblogged this on NYVOICE and commented:
    It’s not often that Iquote Ronald Reagan… but here we are: Trust, but verify, my friends.

  3. Stingy Dingus

    Tell yourselves whatever narrative protects the image of Obama for you.
    About your conclusion:
    “If these stories are true…” It doesn’t matter. Randian, libertarian, liberaltarian, liberal, whatever, it doesn’t change the substance of that which he released. Attacking the credibility of rhetor doesn’t get you anywhere, in this particular case, because the actual ‘rhetor’ with all of these documents is the U.S. government you all trust so very much.

    • manchmom

      “If we find evidence that the White House is behind the IRS scandal, and we’re looking for that right now”….said that douchebag Darryl Pyromaniac Issa.

      I guess THAT’S OK, tho?

    • Kevin Kretz

      First smart post I’ve seen here. Shoot-the-messenger is always stupid, and discrediting ES is only happening because it’s impossible to defend the government – regardless of the party affiliction of the President.

      • Hieian

        Why don’t you read the link about those chat room transcripts under his handle instead of being another uninformed idiot spouting BS?

    • YEL

      I agree, to a certain extent. The main issue here is that the media is not paying much attention to the extent of NRA surveillance – they’re instead focusing on Snowden himself. I don’t think we should glorify him, make him into a celebrity, or call him a hero. That’s not what’s important here.

  4. Stingy Dingus

    I just wanted to note the rather thick irony of the fact that this article is likely written (and being commented on) by a person/persons who were very upset about warrantless wiretapping and other abuses of the Bush administration, but are now unpreturbed by the very same type of (if not worse) civil liberties abuses of the Obama administration.

    • Hieian

      The difference is that this had been revised after Bush was found guilty of warrantless wiretaps and he failed to protect this country when he received intel of an attack months before 9/11.

  5. You know the old saying, what happens when you ASSUME. If you took a course in how to read minds, you need to ask for your money back.

  6. Stingy Dingus

    If you took a course in snark and burns, I’d recommend the same. You got grifted, friend-o.

    Which assumption am I wrong on?

    The assumption that, as a self-identified person who is on the Left, you would/should have been in opposition to the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping and the general abuses of the A.G.’s office? Or, is it the assumption that at least some, if not most, would/should be opposed to the expansive reads of the Patriot Act? Or, was it thinking that Democrats were any different on civil liberties issues and not just giving lipservice to civil liberties concerns when they needed to win an election in 2006 and 2008?

    • redwolf68

      Dude, you’re an idiot. How do you know any of us on the left support wiretapping under Obama? I, for one, disapproved of the Patriot Act and of this. And I’m seriously rethinking my prior support for Snowden. It seems the same guy who was likely supported by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks would have had Assange arrested and summarily executed for doing essentially the same thing he did. How very interesting. Only against it when it benefits him to be so, same thing you accuse us of. Hypocritical much?

    • I see. So you’re one of those who think that everyone on each side thinks exactly the same about everything. Okay. Go join Sean Hannity on Fox News who LOVED domestic spying when it was under Bush, and HATES it when it’s under Obama, just like the now untrustworthy Edward Snowden.

    • Jeff M

      Were YOU against the Patriot Act and unaccountable warrantless wiretapping, then and now? Were YOU? YOU? Answer the question. I am willing to bet $100 you were not — just another party-politicking, loudmouth, ignorant HYPOCRITE.

    • Craig

      Stingy Dingus, where were you when the neo-cons and Bush/Cheney forced through the Patriot Act which had been waiting in the wings for a “New Pearl Harbor”? I fought it then and now.

      You’re naive to think that any President, including Obama, would willingly give up any Executive expansion of powers by their predecessor. That’s never happened in the nation’s history. I predicted then that no matter who was elected the next President, they would use the Patriot Act rather than give it up. Do you honestly believe that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have done the same as Obama if not worse?

      Your misguided blame of Dems/Obama is misplaced as well as too little too late. The time to have protested the Patriot Act came and went over a decade ago and those responsible did it with impunity because people like you sat on their hands and let it happen.

      Snowden is a traitor that, in the name of patriotism, told us what we already knew and in the process handed over even more info than that to two totalitarian countries whose record on civil rights, privacy, free speech etc. are abysmal. That alone puts to the lie his pretense at patriotism. He’s nothing more than another member of the Reagan generation who was taught to hate their government. Now he will have to pay the consequences.

      • Sonny Haguewood

        as far as i’m concerned he is a traitor, just like Bush ,Cheney, Boahner and the idiot senator from Ky! I said when Bush pushed it, that it was aginst the constitution and say it today,

      • Don’t forget Hillary and Kerry both voted for the patriot act.

  7. Esther

    Is Snowden likely a hypocritical asshole?

    Yeah, sure he is.

    But the focus on this man instead of the content of the leaks is incredibly disappointing — you’re feeding into the continuation of these programs by vilifying the leaker rather than focusing on what’s been disseminated by the leaker.

  8. The honesty and integrity of the leaker is at issue when it comes to trustworthiness.

  9. If Snowden were really as courageous as some made him out to be, he would have stayed and faced the legal issues head on. Once the information was leaked, it’s out there. He could have then stayed, had his day in court, and continued embarrassing the president he hates.

  10. Snowden isn’t the story. Snowden is the oldest distraction in the art of damage control. Snowden revealed the truth that our president authorized illegal spying on US citizens and lied about it. Apparently we are supposed to forget the truth he revealed because he likes Ron Paul. How big a tool are you Jeremy Martin?

    • Craig

      Wrong Kevin, it was Bush/Cheney and their neo con allies who authorized illegal spying on U.S. citizens by forcing through the law, Patriot Act, that gave all subsequent Presidents that power. No President in history, including Obama, has ever relinquished an expansion of Executive power by their predecessor. Do you think Mitt Romney would have given up that power? The time to have protested the Patriot Act was when it was being forced through Congress. Of course if you had done so, like Leahy and Daschle did, you would have been intimidated into supporting it by being sent anthrax in the mail, like Leahy and Daschle were. But you’ve obviously forgotten the history of how this came about based on your comment.

    • Well said! And I voted for BO twice. I am disappointed by him on many issues. Sure, he’s light years ahead of McCain and Romney but that doesn’t give him a free pass for Monsanto, the tax breaks for the super rich that he said he was going to get rid of and spying on the American People. Shame.

  11. Eric Uhm

    If a man does something heroic that benefits society because of politics that don’t align with your politics, he’s still a hero, right? I think your politics have gotten in your eyes.

  12. That’s quite a stretch to say that Snowden “benefited society.” If he’s not trustworthy, why accept his claims? He should have stayed in the US after leaking and had his day in court. That would have been true courage. Instead, everything he says must be questioned now that we can see his true intent was not to reveal something in order to benefit us, but to tell a story to spite a president he hates. To me, that makes him as trustworthy as Sean Hannity, who loved it when Bush did something, but hates the same thing if Obama does it. Hypocrites are not a trustworthy source of information, at least, not to me.

    • Eric Uhm

      I accept his claims because they are obviously true. Him highlighting gross abuses to our rights isn’t benefiting society? Name one thing is your life that you have done that is more courageous then what Edward Snowden did? I think it was pretty courageous myself. Be courageous, turn yourself over to life imprisonment/torture! Yeah right, here’s my info, deuces. Bravo Snowden.

      • Snowden hasn’t revealed anything that wasn’t known back in 2005 and 2006, when Bush got nabbed collecting this information without warrants. Snowden should have stayed after leaking. He’d remain in the public eye and have all the opportunity in the world to continue his fight against the president he hates. Then, when a Republican gets back into the White House, he could rejoin the NSA and support domestic spying and call for leakers to be shot, just like he did before.

  13. Lordrag wrote-“Hypocrites are not a trustworthy source of information, at least, not to me.” Oh really? Like President Obama who said he would put an end to this program? That kind of hypocrite?Or perhaps you are referring to all my fellow democrats who once defended the 4th amendment but abandoned it in a day to protect what? LOL Now you stand for nothing and you’re still being spied on. No one is protecting our rights. The democrats are now the republicans and the supreme court just trashed the voting act. What is Obama worth to you guys? Sacrificing everything?

    • This all reminds me of my Facebook pal who screeches about how hates government tracking our every move, and then he checks in everywhere he goes on Foursquare, utterly oblivious.

      • PM

        Yeah, although one occurs by consent and one doesn’t. Once you get past the use of force, they’re almost identical!

  14. Snowden seems to have a pretty eclectic set of politics. If he is now a libertarian, that would be consistent with opposition to, and exposure of, massive government spying (viz. Rand Paul’s filibuster). Regardless, the real question is whether what he revealed is true and whether it should be opposed. I answer yes to both. In that sense, even if they have very different politics, he is facing the same repression, for the same reasons, as Bradley Manning. Finally, who is the more dangerous hypocrite — Snowden for his selective opposition to government spying or Obama, who now wants to have an open discussion about the merits of a program he chose to keep secret and who wants to prosecute the guy whose actions engendered the debate he claims to want?

  15. rexedie

    life is about growth….. sometimes you can be told things…and believe things…until one day you awaken and realize they are the wrong things. what snowden finally did was grow a conscious. and exposed some BS. the only real information that should never be compromised, is that revealing ongoing military operations in a hot zone…troop movement…locations….logistical intentions…. revealing how numbers and emails are chased, is not life and death. 40 years ago…the CIA NSA were run by the government, with some civil hires. now they are operated by private companies, who have to have reasons to continue to validate the outrageous money they are paid. they overclassify everything. the higher the classification, the more money it costs to protect it…. they are wasting billions…. but……”whats new” ?

  16. Snowden does not matter. People from all walks of life, and with all viewpoints need to come together on this issues and say no.

  17. When you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones. Do you not recognize your own hypocrisy, as you likely objected to the government spying programs under Bush, but seem to be backing Obama here?

  18. Pingback: Smoking Hot Politics | The Snowden Debate: Liberal v. Liberal

  19. And Valerie Plame wasn’t really a CIA agent, right?

  20. Em

    I’m in awe at the sheer number of average citizens who are convinced that the Government is reading their emails, and Facebook posts, and any other potential ways to spy. Seriously?! Think about how many people live in the US alone, not too mention, the population of the World. Even if the NSA wanted to, they don’t have the capability of spying on EVERYONE. And especially simultaneously. For Pete’s sake, people. The Government/NSA couldn’t give a crap about spying on anyone but those who have given them reason. Like Ted Nugent, or any of the other idiots who have, or will, make public/terrorist threats against specific leaders, or our Country. This whole paranoid delusion, that the Government is, apparently, watching EVERYBODY, is so insanely and unequivocally stupid. Get a grip, People. Unless you’ve given them reason, the Government/NSA doesn’t care about you or what you’re having for dinner, or even whether or not you support Snowden. Geez…Think about it, folks.

  21. Pingback: Snowden Good or Bad

  22. Pingback: Edward Snowden says he didn’t give information to the Chinese or Russians | Pulling to the Left