General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Glenn Greenwald MUST be stopped. [View all]stupidicus
(2,570 posts)if so, it is a pleasure to finally meet you as a long time admirer of your prior work here.
I don't don't take what anyone says as gospel because of who's uttering or writing it either, and you'll find nothing in my posting record of either the explicit or implicit kind that suggests their claims must be true because of who they are. Furthermore, you appear to be promoting a bit of a false equivalence here, given that there's a large and substantive difference between giving those two the benefit of a doubt, and summarily dismissing anything and everything they allege because of who they are. Those are two diametrically opposed things, no?
And in credibility terms around which all these type thngs revolve, what does a tally of their claims versus that of their opponents and denouncers reveal in terms of who wins the discreditation blue ribbon? Am I supposed to be clapping for their adversaries winning top honors for lying before congress for example?
This BS about "sources" being used as the determining factor in what the truth and whole truth actually is has been a source of strife between me and righties and lefties alike for as long as I've engaged both on the "internets". It's a cop out no matter who does it in the course of determining what the truth is in any particular case, and an apparent fixture in adversarial debate in this court of public opinion. If you wanna impeach a witness in the manner and way seen in a fact finding forum like a court of law, fine, but let's not pretend that those ES/GG are battling would survive such an impeachment.