Ecuador tells the Obama to Piss Off

[Moonglow]

I'm sure that Ecuador will kill off Snowden when his value drops. same with the Wiki-leaks guy in Bolivia.

 

[Desperado]

But I thought Obama was supposed to strengthen our relationships with foreign countries.
Barrack is making W look like the gold standard in diplomacy.

 

[Interpol]

This is a funny thread because if George W. Bush was in power, the same trolls who attack Obama and side with Ecuador would be calling for its annihilation in order to get the traitor.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Is there any country that isn't giving Obama the finger at this point?

The only group of people not giving Obama the finger are Democrats in this country, their lips are firmly attached to his butt and they take bribes.

 

[Moonglow]

Where's my bribe monies?

 

[Lumpy 1]

Where's my bribe monies?

Mmm... check your panty's and sock drawer.

 

[Pogo]

But I thought Obama was supposed to strengthen our relationships with foreign countries.
Barrack is making W look like the gold standard in diplomacy.

That bar's set pretty high (read: low) yannow...

Gaa! There must be a way out of here... try the door, Dub...

A friendly reminder from the memory hole. Because the memory is the second thing to go....

 

[Lumpy 1]

Bush was a little too liberal for me...

 

[dblack]

How do I feel about it? I'll take the line that hannity and his ilk used regarding the PA and people's angst about that; "If you have nothing to hide, what is the problem?".

Yeah, that's where most of the Dems have gone, now that their guy is running the circus. Pathetic.

 

[Katzndogz]

How do I feel about it? I'll take the line that hannity and his ilk used regarding the PA and people's angst about that; "If you have nothing to hide, what is the problem?".

Yeah, that's where most of the Dems have gone, now that their guy is running the circus. Pathetic.

The kind of information being gathered has nothing to do with finding someone guilty of wrong doing or wrong thinking. The kind of trivia being gathered is for the purpose of being able to make filters to identify groups and how best to porpagandize them.

 

[Pogo]

How do I feel about it? I'll take the line that hannity and his ilk used regarding the PA and people's angst about that; "If you have nothing to hide, what is the problem?".

Yeah, that's where most of the Dems have gone, now that their guy is running the circus. Pathetic.

Can't agree with that. I think PO was being facetious anyway...

 

[dblack]

How do I feel about it? I'll take the line that hannity and his ilk used regarding the PA and people's angst about that; "If you have nothing to hide, what is the problem?".

Yeah, that's where most of the Dems have gone, now that their guy is running the circus. Pathetic.

Can't agree with that. I think PO was being facetious anyway...

I got that PO was being facetious, but sadly - it's not a joke. Most partisan Democrats are playing the same stupid games their jackbooted, neo-con cousins played under Bush's regime. Distracting the press, playing the "if you have nothing to hide ..." card, trying desperately to change the subject. If they had the slightest shred of integrity they'd be howling at the Obama administration and demanding change. But most of them aren't. Most of them are busy vilifying Snowden instead.

There are some, to be sure, who want change (Greenwald himself is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat) - but they're drowned out by the party regulars and the compliant press. The headlines now only mention the NSA spying in regards to Snowden's fugitive status or the charges of 'espionage' that have been brought against him. They skip right past the entire secret-surveillance regime that's still chugging along.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, that's where most of the Dems have gone, now that their guy is running the circus. Pathetic.

Can't agree with that. I think PO was being facetious anyway...

I got that PO was being facetious, but sadly - it's not a joke. Most partisan Democrats are playing the same stupid games their jackbooted, neo-con cousins played under Bush's regime. Distracting the press, playing the "if you have nothing to hide ..." card, trying desperately to change the subject. If they had the slightest shred of integrity they'd be howling at the Obama administration and demanding change. But most of them aren't. Most of them are busy vilifying Snowden instead.

There are some, to be sure, who want change (Greenwald himself is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat) - but they're drowned out by the party regulars and the compliant press. The headlines now only mention the NSA spying in regards to Snowden's fugitive status or the charges of 'espionage' that have been brought against him. They skip right past the entire secret-surveillance regime that's still chugging along.

Oh I doubt that's universal or even a majority. The same happens in the shreds of what's left of both political parties... the reasonable, thinking element is shouted down by the Sheeple of the Status Quo, i.e. those that are in power. But the buzz, not so much:

Netroots Nation: Nancy Pelosi Tangles With Snowden Defenders, Anti-NSA Hecklers

>> Pelosi tried to convince the crowd that the Democrats were working toward balance on security. This was the wrong thing to say. "It’s not a balance!" said Marc Perkel, a California blogger who's called for Obama's impeachment over the NSA revelations. "It’s not constitutional! No secret laws!"

"It's so important to subject this to harsh scrutiny," said Pelosi. "You should reject any notion that President Obama's actions have anything to do with what President Bush was doing."

Meanwhile, security guards were dragging Perkel away. "Leave him alone!" shouted a few activists. "No secret courts!" yelled Perkel as he moved out of the room. "No secret laws!" <<

Good for them for making noise. I would have liked to see video of this meeting but couldn't find any.

 

[dblack]

Can't agree with that. I think PO was being facetious anyway...

I got that PO was being facetious, but sadly - it's not a joke. Most partisan Democrats are playing the same stupid games their jackbooted, neo-con cousins played under Bush's regime. Distracting the press, playing the "if you have nothing to hide ..." card, trying desperately to change the subject. If they had the slightest shred of integrity they'd be howling at the Obama administration and demanding change. But most of them aren't. Most of them are busy vilifying Snowden instead.

There are some, to be sure, who want change (Greenwald himself is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat) - but they're drowned out by the party regulars and the compliant press. The headlines now only mention the NSA spying in regards to Snowden's fugitive status or the charges of 'espionage' that have been brought against him. They skip right past the entire secret-surveillance regime that's still chugging along.

Oh I doubt that's universal or even a majority.

Wanna bet that it's enough? Are you confident this issue will result in any change in policy? Do you think the press, or Democrat voters, will even remember this a month from now? They won't, they'll turn right around and vote for the same Republicrat stooges in the next election. And nothing will change.

 

[FA_Q2]

They're just mad b/c they have to live in Ecuador

You're just mad because they're standing up to a corrupt government.

Standing up to a corrupt government? I wonder how many points Ecuador's sparkly clean government will get for sticking it in the eye of big bad America.

And Snowden's no hero.

Then what is he?

He blew the whistle on a major intuitive in spying on Americans – something that most believe is contrary to the constitution. I feel much the same way as H. It is tough because what he did was illegal but I feel that it was also right. We need to know and more importantly, we NEED to stop it. Such is impossible if you demonize anyone that blows the whistle on illegal acts of the government.

 

[FA_Q2]

They didn't use those exact words, but they essentially sent the Obama administration a big "Fuck you."

We have all heard the rumors about Snowden possibly seeking asylum in Ecuador, and I imagine many of us have read or heard what State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said. If not here it is:

What would not be a good thing is them granting Mr. Snowden asylum. That would cause there to be great difficulties in our bilateral relationship. If they take that step, that would have very negative repercussions.

Of course, by this one could come to the conclusion that to grant Snowden asylum would result in the loss of $30 million a year in drug interdiction assistance as well as tariff benefits the U.S. grants Ecuador every year.

Well, not interested in being blackmailed, Ecuador announced today that they "unilaterally and irrevocably renounce" $23 million a year in lowered tariffs" they get from the U.S.

Ecuador heats rhetoric as Obama downplays Snowden


Well played Ecuador, well played...

Wow! You seem to be cheering on a country who may give refuge to an person who most likely committed espionage against Our country. That's pretty sad, I hope you feel good about yourself. I bet it's solely because you have a "pwoblem with obwomwa!".

His ‘espionage’ was telling our enemies how the government track AMERICANS. That is not espionage for enemies, it is for the American people.

How do you expect oversight by the people if the people are not allowed to oversee.

 

[FA_Q2]

As for Ecuador and the possibility of their granting Snowden asylum, that's up to them. I feel neither good nor bad. But I will say this, I find it somewhat reprehensible that my government would resort to blackmail to get what it wants. There are better ways to deal with this situation. Furthermore, I find it amusing that a country as small and as poor as Ecuador would come out and boldly thumb it's nose at the United States. Why do you think they would feel comfortable doing that? Standing up to what is, or once was, the most powerful country in the world?

Very astute observation. I don’t find that amusing though. I find that disturbing. Why are they so comfortable is a good question and I think not knowing the answer to that is VERY dangerous.

I would venture a guess though that they have found a better partner in another nation. Possibly China.

 

[Synthaholic]

They didn't use those exact words, but they essentially sent the Obama administration a big "Fuck you."

We have all heard the rumors about Snowden possibly seeking asylum in Ecuador, and I imagine many of us have read or heard what State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said. If not here it is:

What would not be a good thing is them granting Mr. Snowden asylum. That would cause there to be great difficulties in our bilateral relationship. If they take that step, that would have very negative repercussions.

Of course, by this one could come to the conclusion that to grant Snowden asylum would result in the loss of $30 million a year in drug interdiction assistance as well as tariff benefits the U.S. grants Ecuador every year.

Well, not interested in being blackmailed, Ecuador announced today that they "unilaterally and irrevocably renounce" $23 million a year in lowered tariffs" they get from the U.S.

Ecuador heats rhetoric as Obama downplays Snowden


Well played Ecuador, well played...

Why do you have such a hard-on for Obama?

If Ecuador is telling anyone to piss off, it's the The United States Of America.

Ecuador has no beef with Obama.

 

[FA_Q2]

So potentially (if it hasn't happened already) giving away Our secrets to other countries is not espionage to you? Oooook.............. wow.

I think the point is that is that it's irrelevant in light of what his 'espionage' revealed. Our own government has been running secret surveillance on its own people. Does that bother you at all? What should we do about it?

It's actually relevant because our enemies and potential enemies can now see how we operate intelligence wise. What they have been doing is nothing new, it definitely has been in effect since October 1997. How do I feel about it? I'll take the line that hannity and his ilk used regarding the PA and people's angst about that; "If you have nothing to hide, what is the problem?".
On a serious note, I am all about protecting Our Civil Liberties, we have the Bill of Rights for a reason.........

The bolded part and the underlined part are mutually exclusive. You cannot make the claim that you protect civil rights at the same time as trashing them.

 

[Pogo]

I think the point is that is that it's irrelevant in light of what his 'espionage' revealed. Our own government has been running secret surveillance on its own people. Does that bother you at all? What should we do about it?

It's actually relevant because our enemies and potential enemies can now see how we operate intelligence wise. What they have been doing is nothing new, it definitely has been in effect since October 1997. How do I feel about it? I'll take the line that hannity and his ilk used regarding the PA and people's angst about that; "If you have nothing to hide, what is the problem?".
On a serious note, I am all about protecting Our Civil Liberties, we have the Bill of Rights for a reason.........

The bolded part and the underlined part are mutually exclusive. You cannot make the claim that you protect civil rights at the same time as trashing them.

The bolded part was facetious. That's why the underlined part begins with "on a serious note".

It's hard to tell on the internets sometimes, I know.