re: #180 Heywood Jabloeme

Funny how when someone wants to make a comment like yours that they invariably include people whom they know have little credibility with the crowd to which they are making the comment and not including others that would have great credibilty. Sort of like a cross of the rhetorical tactics of “poisoning the well” and “Strawman”.

Not trying to “poison the well”, just pointing out that you guys have a lot of common on these issues; you can interpret that any way you want.

You attempt to poison the well by including Snowden, Greenwald and Assange because you know that the LGF crowd doens’t think much of them. I aggree more about Assange but not totally but in the case of Snowden and Greenwald the case outside of the LGF community both have greater credibility on the subject than do President Obama, many in his adiminstration and much of the Domestic Intelligence agencies. Proof? The article to which we are commenting. This NYT article placed Snowden in a postive place and if you actually read the article very subtly yet strongly begins to excoriate the programs and the parts of the US Govt that run them to INCLUDE President Obama, the Congress that helps perpetuate this mess and the Kangaroo Court that legitimizes it.

And as far as Greewald goes, outside of LGF and a few other closed gardens of opinion, he is seen as a flawed but brillant conduit for these leaks.

Like run-on sentences much? My best attempt to parse this part of your post indicates that you are supportive of Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange in all of this, that you don’t give Charles or anyone else here hardly any credibility on the subject, and that you heart the NYT on one article about this stuff. Am I wrong?

You’re damn right that I don’t particularly care for Greenwald, Assange, or Snowden, because they went into all of this cloak-and-dagger shit with an agenda, one that doesn’t necessarily have the best interests of America, her citizens, or her allies at heart. In fact, Greenwald and Assange are egotistical bastards that would sell their mothers if there were any favorable press in it; Greenwald used Snowden much like how Assange used Bradley Manning.

Then you leave out the 24 Dem Senators plus Wyden and Udall do seem to have another course in mind. And I would suggest that anyone that took the time to actually understand the facts might have good ones to. But not doing anything because you think that there are other problems that may need to be fixed first is not what these others, who do know alot, have chosen to do.

Pray tell, what was the vote of any of the other “24 Dem Senators” you point to on that 2008 FISA restructuring that put it on steroids (I know that Wyden voted nay on it)?