Snowden and the Pulitzer

[Mumbles]

I'm not sure how much of that lamenting was legitimate, though. I know I made that comment once or twice, and it was entirely sarcastic. It was a way of pointing how useless the system seemed to be for its intended purpose. And if preventing things like the Boston Marathon bombing isn't its intended purpose, then... wtf?

Complete prevention is impossible, no matter how hard we try or what we do. Some lone enraged person with a gun can do quite enough damage, as we've seen. And there's no chance that the average person who works for any such group will go bragging to the press unless they're a designated spokesperson.

 

[Beth]

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/

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?

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.

I can't help but notice that you have failed to answer the question that was asked.

You seriously think that I might be working for the government? Or that if I was, I would admit it?

I don't give that possibility a very high probability. Whether or not you would admit if it was true, I don't know either. I like to play devil's advocate in all sorts of internet settings, so it doesn't bother me to take such positions just to explore the arguments and reactions on both sides of a question.

You were the one who first proposed that you were a shill, so please don't accuse me of making some sort of unreasonable accusation. I merely agree with your statement and asked if it was true or not. Your response was to take offense at the question and disparage those who disagree with you. I note that you have yet to reply with an answer even vaguely implying a 'no'. I think responses that deflect rather than directly reply can be an indication of not wanting to give an honest answer.

 

[Joey McGee]

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

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

Greenwald is full of **** too. He wants us to believe everything here refers to real tactics that the government is using this on "the people" mannnn and not the just the Taliban and Iran and legitimate tactics. With no evidence! What did they really actually do? What do these slides actually mean? We can't be sure. The closest he gets is a paper by Sunstein which merely suggests that the government prods experts to do more work debunking conspiracy theories! Wow what a threat to democracy... if you're Alex Jones! He's trying to tie it all together and suggest that the government could be engaging in all of this stuff against legitimate political dissidents... once again proving that they haven't exposed anything that the government IS doing or WOULD do but merely what they COULD do and are doing to people like the *********** Taliban.

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.

You didn't notice the article was written from a shrill, crank point of view?

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.

These people have an angle that is certainly ridiculous, you didn't notice the title of the article is "NSA Agents Infiltrating and Disrupting Alternative Media Online" LOL

 

[Joey McGee]

Your response was to take offense at the question

More like, laugh hysterically.

and disparage those who disagree with you.

What I can't mock the idea that people are concerned that the government is paying me to argue with them?

I note that you have yet to reply with an answer even vaguely implying a 'no'. I think responses that deflect rather than directly reply can be an indication of not wanting to give an honest answer.

The question is too stupid to dignify with a response.

I actually said that I must sound like a shill, meaning to conspiracist kooks who have already decided that everything the government says is a lie. If I use an argument or source of evidence that has touched government hands, it is used as evidence I'm working for them, hilarious. Earlier I made the point that there are literally people out there who think I'm working for the NSA because I have taken the time to debate these issues. I find this funny.

 

[Dragoonster]

I actually said that I must sound like a shill, meaning to conspiracist kooks who have already decided that everything the government says is a lie.

Pretty much every lie the NSA has told has been a proven lie a few days later after an expose/new release of documents. That isn't a conspiracy, it's a fact. And while not a fact per se, it's certainly an arguably correct view at this point to believe that whatever the NSA claims on any given day is 180-degrees of the actual truth.

P.S. Some conspiracy theories, such as Tuskegee syphilis experiments, COINTELPRO, Nicaragua death squads trained by the US, etc., are true. "Conspiracy Theory" does not 1:1 equate to "false". It's like "UFO". Well, Unidentified Flying Objects can indeed by unidentified even by no one who believes in aliens. Once identified, they are no longer Unidentified. Once legitimate conspiracies are identified, conspiracies are no longer theoretical, they're factual. Once mammals in Vietnam are discovered by biologists, they are no more "crytozoological" species purported by Vietnamese folks; they are factual specimens.

...once (or dozens of times) NSA spokespeople lie, then it isn't a "conspiracy" to think they'll continue to lie. It's both born of past facts, pragmatically a wise supposition, and also is indeed a conspiracy by the NSA spokespeople and at least one other (definition of conspiracy btw) in the administration (who did not immediately prosecute him for lying to Congress).

It's sad that 9/11 and Holocaust and JFK head-shot and whatever have made "conspiracy" into a bad word describing the impossible. Conspiracies do happen, and exist, and your government is engaged in it right now, Joey.

 

[Joey McGee]

Evidence?