Printable View
I seriously doubt you read the article, or in anyway are familiar with Mr. Greenwald's writing if you believe he is outraged by the current leaks. I'd also love to see his Breitbart articles, can you provide a link, Loki?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Edward Snowden leaked tens of thousands of files.
Trying to draw some kind of equivalence between what he did and the Flynn leaker, who leaked one piece of information, and then claiming that anyone who offered any kind of criticism of Snowden even if it's just "leaking [X] was OK, but leaking [Y] was not because it put real agents in danger" is a hypocritical if they don't also outright condemn the Flynn leak, even though it put no operations or confidential sources in danger and is an unambiguous public good, is just outright dishonest.
I have no interest in further discussion with people who are here simply to play these kinds of childish word games. If that's all you're bringing to the table, you just aren't worth the key strokes.
Pardon, it seems Breitbart just keeps on citing him favorably:Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...nt-right-lack/
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/...warfare-trump/
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/0...pletely-false/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-donald-trump/
Ditto. Absolutely no regard for either democracy or facts. Disgraceful when coming from people who claimed to care about both for their entire time on this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I'm guessing this is directed at me, but it's hard for me to parse given my actual position. If it was, let me be more clear. The comparison was never between Edward Snowden and the Flynn leaker, the comparison is between James Clapper and Michael Flynn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
This is rich coming from someone who was just blatantly caught in a lie. You are shameless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't read Breitbart. I saw the Greenwald name in large letters and assumed it was the author. A lie is an intentionally false statement. You need to borrow Lewk's dictionary when he gets around to buying one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Fuzzy: https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/stat...70813553295360 Are we still supposed to believe there will be an investigation?
And what is the dictionary definition of a fact, Loki? Or democracy for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's what you tried to turn the point into once it was clear the original one in the article you posted wasn't going to fly, which was contrasting the reaction to the leaks under the Obama administration and the person who leaked what Flynn had been up to - the whole article was pointing out that everyone was all about throwing the first lot in jail while calling the second guy a hero.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I pointed out the differences between, e.g. Edward Snowden and the Flynn leaker and instead of either conceding the point or coming up with some argument showing why they actually are the same after all, you tried to turn it into some ridiculous contest between whether Clapper or Flynn were worse - a rhetorical technique first noted and dissected nearly 70 years ago.
How about being slightly more outraged at a president who's a pathological liar than at those calling out those lies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
When you claimed that Greenwald was "outraged" by this current leak which part of the article did you base that on? The headline that says in big letters "wholly justified"? Or was it when he said the leak should be "celebrated"? Or was it the part where he wrote that we should "protect those who undertake" such leaks? Perhaps it was when he wrote that "great good" had been "achieved" through these leaks that you thought he was outraged?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'm really struggling to parse this.
Are you somehow reading support for Trump into something I've written, or perhaps something I have not? If there is any doubt about that, I'd be happy to dispel that now. I didn't vote for Trump. I did not, and have never supported him. I think he's a thin-skinned, sexist liar, who goes out of his way to be offensive, is incredibly naive, and a massive blowhard. And those are some of his better qualities. Now that I've done my bit of virtue signaling, let me be clear. No amount of stupid Trump or the Republicans can do makes any other stupid more palatable for me. Stupid is stupid, regardless of its source. And that includes stupid from Loki. You volunteer what little credibility you had left by complaining about posters having no regard for facts when moments prior you tried to create them from whole cloth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I am genuinely confused. I posted the link to the article, then in my next post I responded directly to you with my comparison of Flynn to Clapper. I'm not certain where the missing posts are that describe the conversation you seem to have had are, but I don't recall them.Quote:
That's what you tried to turn the point into once it was clear the original one in the article you posted wasn't going to fly, which was contrasting the reaction to the leaks under the Obama administration and the person who leaked what Flynn had been up to - the whole article was pointing out that everyone was all about throwing the first lot in jail while calling the second guy a hero.
Again, I am having trouble deciding if this is some bizarre straw man, (I haven't compared Edward Snowden to the Flynn leaker once in this thread - or ever for that matter, that is strictly an argument of your own creation) or if you have deeply misread something into a post of mine that I am just not getting.Quote:
I pointed out the differences between, e.g. Edward Snowden and the Flynn leaker and instead of either conceding the point or coming up with some argument showing why they actually are the same after all, you tried to turn it into some ridiculous contest between whether Clapper or Flynn were worse - a rhetorical technique first noted and dissected nearly 70 years ago.
Or are you making an argument against the content of the article? If so, perhaps I can clear that up. I also don't agree that the Snowden leak and the Flynn leak are identical, or even that similar. One could very logically be against the Snowden leak, for whatever reason, and not necessarily be against the Flynn leak. Likewise, someone might have a compelling, non-hypocritical argument that the Flynn leak was somehow worse than the Snowden leak. I can say these things because I am not the author of the article, and I don't have the interest, or likely the capability to defend the entirety of its contents.
Give me real sources and not social media soundbytes and we'll talk. I don't get my news and analysis from the RealDonald and I'm not going to pay any more attention to any other Twit. Off the top of my head, I don't see what the House Judiciary Committee has to do with the Senate Intelligence Committee, particularly not when it comes to evidence in the form of classified signal intercepts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
James who? Last time I checked Obama's presidency was a refreshingly a "scandal free administration." Clearly this never happened. Must be fake news. /sQuote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
The twit is a congressman who sits on the House Judiciary Committee...and this is a different investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Trump's tax-returns are fake news and Republicans won't be complicit in spreading that plague:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...m_source=atlfb
The bold part is frankly that's one of the few appealing things about Trump to me. The guy who literally called a US senator "Pocahontas" has someone call him on that and he sarcastically says "I'm sorry about that" and then calls her Pocahontas again. So tired of the thin skinned SJW PC police in this country. On a cultural level Trump is doing a hell of a job on bringing some sanity back to the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
That all being said - Trump has already fulfilled the major campaign promise that I desperately hoped he would do. He nominated a good judge to the Supreme Court. That will have a larger impact on future generations than whatever else Trump is likely to do during his term in office. I'm inclined to be more supportive of his administration and rebut the over the top assertions by our crazy lefties on the board.
/yawnQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
It is pretty clear by now that there is something embarrassing in Trump's tax returns that Democrats will make political football out of. Why would the Republicans help them do that?
Good to see your priorities once again, Lewk. Avoiding embarrassment to Trump > finding out if Trump has inappropriate connections to the mafia or Russia.
http://www.vox.com/2017/2/15/1461609...tive-privilege
This makes sense in light of Paul's recent remarks about how it doesn't make sense for Republicans to investigate one another :o
:bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Yeah, I seem to recall Jesus being an insensitive prick who went out of his way to be offensive too. I sure am glad Trump is walking in his foot steps, aren't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
And the other twit is the president of the United States. So? A) it's social media. B) it's social media structured such that the only communications are in the form of headlines. I don't get my news from just reading headlines, I'm kind of appalled you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
In the house which matters less for this sort of thing, by a committee which was never going to be addressing the matter due to the sources involved, on a topic where your castigating the entire party because NO ONE is going to investigate which means I only need one investigation, not 20. Spin harder Lewki.Quote:
...and this is a different investigation.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that it's unnecessary and excessive to insist the public disclosure of all Trump-related tax materal. It's a large business operating in multiple countries across the world as competitive business ventures and the disclosure is effectively punitive. But I find the idea that it must be wholly disclosed to Congress (rather than the public at large) to be an acceptable compromise. Even though it means all those Dem party figures get to see 'em and make gleeful use of the material.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Well, all fall short of the glory of God so if you'd like to name another leader who emulates Jesus perfectly I'd like to see what you got.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
As it is I think I quite clearly indicated I don't personally like the guy but one particular quality *as a counter point to the rampant overly political correctness in society* that is doing some good in the public sphere is hardly high praise or a suggestion that he's Christ like.
Reading the recent posts and articles on Russiagate, I must confess I feel that the talk of the Logan Act and scornful dismissals of "Manchurian candidate"-type conspiracy theories kinda miss the point. You don't need to break a nearly-defunct law or be a Russian plant or even be blackmailed to raise serious concerns. It's concerning enough that an influential member of the administration of one of the most important stabilizing actors in the world has demonstrated extremely poor judgement and unreliability in his approach to dealing with one of the most dangerous agents of destabilization. The possibility that he may have acted with the knowledge and blessing of other more influential members of the administration, including the president, is even more concerning. How the US deals with Russia may prove to be the most important foreign policy issue of our time and right now it looks like we'll all be telling the story (if we live :o) of how the US fucked that up thanks to a bunch of dangerously incompetent zealots who were left unchecked by congress and the public both.
By the way, while everyone has been going doom and gloom and being appalled by the actions of this new administration (and I will acknowledge they've been appalling, short-sighted, and not done well), I think I'd like to point out some of what has happened in his first month in office.
He has had a nominated secretary withdraw from consideration
He has had his first major policy blocked by the Courts
His confirmed choice for NSA has been forced into resignation by a leaky
Intelligence branch is fighting against him and providing ammunition to
Senators of his own party calling for investigations into figures and actions by his administration
Forget the "100 day" honeymoon period, the Trump administration didn't make it two weeks. I find this heartening. I also find it an opportunity for "I told you so" since I recall mentioning a number of those things as being factors which would stop a Trump Presidency from destroying the country. Make it a laughing stock like Italy under Berlusconi sure, all kinds of annoyances and aggravation, but not the catastrophe various posters were carrying on about.
Look, this is a Conservative presidency (all the wrong kinds of conservative, unfortunately) and no, we're not going to like it. Not liking it is what happens when the side we like loses an election. And it adds insult to injury that the loss was to a clown. But the system of checks and balances doesn't appear to have been dismantled or brushed away into irrelevance. The American public could force it to be over the next few years, I suppose, but it would be a striking break from patterns where we identify those in Washington AS Washington and lower our support for them over time in consequence.
As for the investigations, it's debatable whether or not the issues raised by the latest scandals will fall within the scope of the intelligence committee's investigation, and it also seems unclear what we can expect from that investigation--or from the several separate investigations that are scheduled to be undertaken by various congressional committees. It might be better to have a independent committee and an independent counsel who can undertake a broad and comprehensive--and impartial--investigation.
Fuzzy seems to be confusing unprecedented incompetence with some kind of push back from the GOP or the GOP-controlled media.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Since when were all "checks and balances" controlled by the GOP?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The judiciary doing its job is a check and balance not a push back from the GOP. Fuzzy claimed it was the former not the latter.
Checks and balances don't work if the courts are in a corner by themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Courts, media, intelligence and Senate is a bigger corner though.
What Senate? The one that confirmed all but one Trump nominee (and that one for hiring an illegal immigrant as a nanny)? The one that refused to do anything about the immigration ban? Give me a break.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
A) The president's power can expand greatly if Congress doesn't challenge his usurpation of congressional powers.
B) The president can simply ignore court decisions unless Congress threatens to do something about it.
As for the media, all the Trumpists are in their own world. They don't give a damn about the mainstream media is reporting. They still don't think Flynn did anything wrong (other than "lying to Pence").