Snowden and the Pulitzer

Beth said:
Why would the NSA need to be covered up as a source if what they were doing was legal?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: They aren't "covering up" the NSA as a source, they are protecting "the source" as in the source of the information such as an informant or an ongoing investigation... common in all levels of law enforcement apparently.
Thanks for answering that question.
Click to expand...
I said yes and here's why, you're trying to make it look like I don't respect the fact that people are concerned, I don't respect the reasons they are concerned and the fact that they are assuming without evidence that there was an "intent to deceive" But tell yourself whatever you like.
You still didn't answer this question. Why should I answer your questions when you didn't answer mine?
Click to expand...
It's a stupid question... do I think that people should be punished for lying to congress? Who doesn't? You need to be able to prove someone lied though...
 
Last edited:
Gee, I guess it must sound like I'm a shill, most of what I'm doing is in effect explaining what the government legal and philosophical positions are to people who are unwilling to do their own research!

Luckily the intelligence community is reaching out to everyone, they have their own blog! Enjoy!

http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/
 
Joey McGee said:
:rolleyes: They aren't "covering up" the NSA as a source, they are protecting "the source" as in the source of the information such as an informant or an ongoing investigation
Click to expand...
Yes, it's not hard to understand protecting informants who are personally entangled with the suspects during an on-going investigation. But it's not exactly an analogous situation. It's more like not letting it be known that the Sheriff's office gave you a heads up. Which is only a problem if it's against to rules to be communicating the information under the circumstances. So why does the NSA require protection of that sort?
... common in all levels of law enforcement apparently.I said yes and here's why, you're trying to make it look like I don't respect the fact that people are concerned, I don't respect the reasons they are concerned and the fact that they are assuming without evidence that there was an "intent to deceive"
Click to expand...
I disagree that they are assuming without evidence. But we've had this discussion before. Bottom line, you think the congress people complaining are 'hysterical whiners for getting upset'. I disagree.

But tell yourself whatever you like.It's a stupid question... do I think that people should be punished for lying to congress? Who doesn't? You need to be able to prove someone lied though...
Click to expand...
I was actually wondering about how you felt. I'm glad to hear you think he should be punished if was a deliberate deception on his part then.
Joey McGee said:
Gee, I guess it must sound like I'm a shill, most of what I'm doing is in effect explaining what the government legal and philosophical positions are to people who are unwilling to do their own research!

Luckily the intelligence community is reaching out to everyone, they have their own blog! Enjoy!

http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/
Click to expand...

You do sound like a shill. Are you? If yes, how can I get a gig like that? I don't mind switching sides on an argument. I'm perfectly willing to argue on the internet for big money instead of just whiling time away.

I clicked on the link and read some if that helps. Do shills get more money for click-throughs?
 
Beth said:
Yes, it's not hard to understand protecting informants who are personally entangled with the suspects during an on-going investigation. But it's not exactly an analogous situation. It's more like not letting it be known that the Sheriff's office gave you a heads up. Which is only a problem if it's against to rules to be communicating the information under the circumstances. So why does the NSA require protection of that sort?
Click to expand...
There are two dozen other agencies that give information in this way. Again, you're assuming that the reason the sources aren't given is to cover up illegal NSA spying on citizens, and that isn't evident anywhere.
I disagree that they are assuming without evidence. But we've had this discussion before. Bottom line, you think the congress people complaining are 'hysterical whiners for getting upset'. I disagree.
Click to expand...
What you'll accept as "evidence" is what we disagree with. You probably agree that you have no proof.
I was actually wondering about how you felt. I'm glad to hear you think he should be punished if was a deliberate deception on his part then.
Click to expand...
He didn't do anything wrong. Wyden was the one who was cowardly trying to get Clapper to talk about a classified program which he knew damned well was illegal...
You do sound like a shill. Are you?
Click to expand...
The people who go around spreading paranoia and fear about the government, these are the people who have something to be ashamed of. Questioning the government is good citizenship. Attacking the government based on belief and paranoia is just sad.
 
Monketey Ghost said:
Is it possible, do you think, that the POTUS knows more than you and is given more information? That he's better equipped to make the calls we make from the comfort of our armchairs?
Click to expand...

Personally I think it's entirely possible. But even so, it doesn't follow from that mere possibility that, if we had access to the same information, that we'd agree with him. He does have an incentive to support programs like this, beyond their purported usefulness.
 
Joey McGee said:
I don't think it's possible to have a discussion about these things I guess, nothing that is ever offered through the hands of the government or the intelligence community can be trusted, they could have fabricated all of it.
Click to expand...

Your words, not mine. Your constant strawmanning, cheerleading and obfuscating is what's making the discussion impossible.
 
Reading the "arguments" of certain posters reminds of something else that Snowden leaked, for example:

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/

Funny that ....

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: Of course this also means that pretty much nothing of what the intelligence folks, and those outside who want to keep it up, is to be taken as true. The default position must be that they only tell lies, or, at best, a massively distorted version of any "truth".
 
Last edited:
Joey McGee said:
Beth said:
You do sound like a shill. Are you?
Click to expand...
The people who go around spreading paranoia and fear about the government, these are the people who have something to be ashamed of. Questioning the government is good citizenship. Attacking the government based on belief and paranoia is just sad.
Click to expand...

I can't help but notice that you have failed to answer the question that was asked.
 
Beth said:
I can't help but notice that you have failed to answer the question that was asked.
Click to expand...
You seriously think that I might be working for the government? Or that if I was, I would admit it?

Good luck exposin da twoof!
 
Joey McGee said:
Cause the government pays me to mock people who dare to criticize them obviously....

You're right I should take accusations of being an NSA plant seriously, so dreadfully sorry...

:boggled:
Click to expand...
Oh, no apology necessary. Being a shill doesn't mean that you're an NSA plant, though. Maybe that's where the disconnect lies.
 
Beth wants to know if I take money to post here! It's in plain English, is the dictionary a conspiracy to take away your intelligence?
 
Joey McGee said:
Beth wants to know if I take money to post here! It's in plain English, is the dictionary a conspiracy to take away your intelligence?
Click to expand...
Oh, sigh. Might want to quit trolling for a change, though I doubt your ability to do so.
 
Christian Klippel said:
Reading the "arguments" of certain posters reminds of something else that Snowden leaked, for example:

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/
Click to expand...
Wow that site is really ripping the lid off it! Sandy Hook was a conspiracy, Hitler escaped to Argentina, Brittney Murphy was murdered... top notch journalism! So impressed :) I wonder why the rest of the media hasn't taken the angle this site has? I mean look there are a bunch of powerpoint slides! Wait, are they talking about what they do, or what other people do?

Is this a favorite site of yours?

They really have an interesting community of commenters over there!

Do they illegally enter your home and gas you take things from your home and stalk you in an effort to destroy you? Do they also try to drive people crazy when they talk about it and get doctors to diagnose you as being crazy like they do here in Canada especially to Black and minority immigrants?

Maxine Smith
Click to expand...
I think Maxine is talking about herself here... The poor woman!
I have been a victim/target of GCHQ and the NSA since 2001 when I started using the BBC Today forum.

Carl Jones
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ Carl! You need to contact Glen Greewald or something...
ETA: Of course this also means that pretty much nothing of what the intelligence folks, and those outside who want to keep it up, is to be taken as true. The default position must be that they only tell lies, or, at best, a massively distorted version of any "truth"...
Click to expand...
Everything is evidence your conspiracy theories are true! Wow that's a shock
 
Joey McGee said:
Wow that site is really ripping the lid off it! Sandy Hook was a conspiracy, Hitler escaped to Argentina, Brittney Murphy was murdered... top notch journalism! So impressed :) I wonder why the rest of the media hasn't taken the angle this site has? I mean look there are a bunch of powerpoint slides! Wait, are they talking about what they do, or what other people do?
Click to expand...

Well there is an NBC link too.
 
jimbob said:
Well there is an NBC link too.
Click to expand...
Where we see that they go after the ************* Taliban and Iran and we get some balance.
“All of GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework,” said the statement, “which ensure that our activities are authorized, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All of our operational processes rigorously support this position.”
Click to expand...
Sorry what is the problem with this? If they were doing this against a legitimate or innocent party, wow you might have a point. If you read that other crank article one might feel that they are coming after YOU (and sadly, some very disturbed folk are already convinced they have been)
 
jimbob said:
Well there is an NBC link too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's on firstlook.rog as well, directly from Greenwald:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

I just took the first result when i searched that yesterday (lost the bookmark), and didn't care what type of site it was, as long as the content about this was the same, since i have seen that before.

Goes to show where some folks have their priorities: Deride the content because of the site, after all, it's sooo hard to Googlle for that stuff and cross-check it. When government people defend that stuff, it's OK because it's all government people and such, but when some of those people criticize it, well, then it's suddenly only an opinion. Etc, etc.

Could be really funny if it wasn't so sad.

Greetings,

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom