General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Glenn Greenwald MUST be stopped. [View all]stupidicus
(2,570 posts)well, just to clarify, my use of "old" in this case wasn't in reference to your actual chronological years, but rather those you've logged here on DU. I don't know about you, but I plan on being 59 for at least another decade.
I don't think it would be productive for the sake of the initial arguments posed here, to either question or attempt to undermine in any way the many things in terms of conduct of those two men you've taken exception to. As you noted in your parting/concluding remark, it will only serve to broaden the discussion/debate into areas neither of us likely has the time or interest in.
As you rightly noted as well, once caught in a lie, then there's nothing unreasonable about the assumption that others preceded it and will follow it, which is why in the fact-finding forum a perjurer is silenced. It doesn't work that way in this court of public opinion, which is why we're all always stuck with Raygun's "trust, but verify" standard that I always use when I select the more credible party, and my opinions/conclusions are always based on the totality of the known, incontrovertible facts available at the point in time I share/argue it.
In the case of ES and GG, while I can see why they may want to "sex up" this and that for the motivational purposes you find atrocious, it's hard for me to put a finger on what motive they'd have for deliberately lying when the truths they've shared are more than damning enough as seen in the result we've all seen in the form of the public debate since revelation number one. On the other hand, the many lies told by the NSA defenders http://boingboing.net/2013/12/10/tally-of-obamas-lies-about-t.html http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/nsa-claims#collection https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/top-5-claims-defenders-nsa-have-stop-making-remain-credible all of which could be dated and in need of an updating by now, suggests a much darker motive -- like preservation of what those of us find objectionable about it all. https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/nsa
The "meme" that evolved and crystallized around here from the beginning in my recollection nance, is that the two of them are BHO-hating libertarians with assorted questionable personal behavioral characteristics like having boxes in their garage, or political povs that have absolutely no bearing on nor provide any foundation for undermining the facts they alleged about NSA policy and practices. That's what prompted my response to the top post here.
It's unclear to me what specific "lies" you're referring to of any substantive consequence even remotely comparable to http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/government-lies-nsa-justice-department-supreme-court those his revelations have revealed on the part of big brother. I'd suggest in the interest of knowing and understanding the big picture here, which is the more than likely negative ramifications maintaining the status quo has on regaining and maintaining our civil liberties, that we all refrain from injecting personalities into it. They are little more than diversions that the status quo wants and have thusfar exploited quite energetically and successfully as evidenced by the "debate" having devolved into it in the measure that it has.
Again, it's been nice to finally meet your pixel self, regardless of the circumstance underwhich it occurred. I'll remain an admirer regardless.