Lying sack of s*** of the week: Edward Snowden
http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/lying-sack-of-s-of-the-week-edward-snowden/Yes, we need to roll back and eliminate as many of the Bush-era domestic surveillance laws. That does not make Snowden a heroic figure, or even a very sympathetic one.
More at the link, including a link to a Vanity Fair article that pretty well lays his credibility out in Lavender.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I certainly admire your impassioned dedication to the 4th Amendment 
I'm quoting it to put in my journal:
I am sure someone will be here shortly to denounce both of us as trolls. 
Dark forces are surely afoot. 
nah-nah-nah-nah.
They don't want to hear rational stuff like that G4A. They want everyone to conform! Conform! Conform damn it! To hell with details that prove that Obama is NOT like Duhbya in any way.
I guess they believe that punishing Democrats by giving the House AND Senate AND White House to the Republicans in 2014 and 2016 is the smartest thing to do - to teach Democrats a lesson, of course. {wink-wink}.
They have absolutely NO idea how easily pro-Republican GiGi is playing them like a fine-turned instrument, and they actually believe if we ask nicely our deadly enemies will stop trying to kill us. Because fifty plus years of pro-war Republican presidents and Congresses against the people of foreign countries will be forgiven if only we ask them to perty please forgive us for bombing their families, kids, and countries to smithereens. And, of course, these people will look into their hearts, smile, and tell us with a gushing tone of sweet love, "Okay. You're forgiven. We'll stop trying to kill your people because you asked sooooo nicely."
See? If only OBAMA would stop wiretapping people - to show good faith, of course - then the leaders of our enemies will sigh with sweetness and promise us that there won't be another 9-11-2001. Honest. So they believe we don't need no stinkin' protection, or to try and stop an attack from happening.
<edit>
On Tuesday, some of this behind-the-scenes drama broke out into the open, during a Twitter battle between Greenwald and Vanity Fair writer Kurt Eichenwald — a debate that throws into sharp relief some important differences between the Guardian writer and some of the others writing about the NSA story.
The argument started when Eichenwald, who has written a number of books about political and social issues, said the NSA program had been around for 10 years and asked when “the fearful” thought it had been used against them (these are excerpts from a Storify collection, which is here, but embedding the Storify widget here doesn’t seem to be working at the moment):
Eichenwald’s tweet got a response from Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute — who tweets under the handle @normative — and then Greenwald responded to them both (in a comment clearly aimed at Eichenwald), questioning the fact that some writers call themselves “journalists” and then demand secrecy:
more...
so to speak: 
http://www.examiner.net/news/quick5/x415876600/Quick-5-questions-for-Barbara-Starr-leader-of-Compassionate-Friends-in-Independence#axzz2XdBafBxn
But frankly that's the first I've heard of Barbara Starr so maybe there's someone else you had in mind.
And thank DAWG for that! 
But when they take "girl" out!? That was the whole point!! 
Tell me again why should we give a damn what the CATO crowd thinks of their boy?
who tweets under the handle @normative, and @normative is the first addressee in GG's tweet:
Right after I win the Publishers Sweepstakes, if that dog isn't dead yet.
a link that goes into some detail why your claim is, to be polite, misguided:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#
Frequently told lies (FTLs)
by Glenn Greenwald
January 26, 2013
<edit>
I work/worked for the Cato Institute
I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed by the Cato Institute. Nor have I ever been affiliated with the Cato Institute in any way. The McCarthyite tone of the denials is appropriate given the McCarthyite nature of the lie.
In seven-plus years of political writing, I have written a grand total of twice for Cato: the first was a 2009 report on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, and the second was a 2010 online debate in which I argued against former Bush officials about the evils of the surveillance state.
I not only disclosed those writings but wrote about them and featured them multiple times on my blog as it happened: see here and here as but two examples. In 2008, I spoke at a Cato event on the radicalism and destructiveness of Bush/Cheney executive power theories.That's the grand total of all the work I ever did for or with Cato in my life. The fees for those two papers and that one speech were my standard writing and speaking fees. Those payments are a miniscule, microscopic fraction of my writing and speaking income over the last 7 years. I have done no paying work of any kind with them since that online surveillance debate in 2010 (I spoke three times at Cato for free: once to debate the theme of my 2007 book on the failure of the Bush administration, and twice when I presented my paper advocating drug decriminalization).
I have done far more work for, and received far greater payments from, the ACLU, with which I consulted for two years (see here). I spoke at the Socialism Conference twice - once in 2011 and once in 2012 - and will almost certainly do so again in 2013. I'll speak or write basically anywhere where I can have my ideas heard without any constraints. Moreover, I'll work with almost anyone - the ACLU, Cato or anyone else - to end the evils of the Drug War and the Surveillance State. And I'll criticize anyone I think merits it, as I did quite harshly with the Koch Brothers in 2011: here.
The very suggestion that there is something wrong with writing for or speaking at CATO is inane and childish. The claim that it means I "worked at CATO" is just an obvious lie. If writing for or speaking at CATO makes one a right-wing CATO-employed libertarian, then say hello to the following right-wing libertarian CATO employees, all of whom have been writers for or speakers at the CATO Institute in the past:
Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas (Writing for CATO's Unbound: here and here);
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (speaking about surveillance issues at CATO in January, 2011, speaking again at CATO in July, 2012 about FISA, and favorably citing CATO);
Democratic Rep. Jared Polis (defending CATO as "a leader in fighting to end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and helping to end the War on Drugs"
.
the ACLU's Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson (speaking at the CATO Institute's 2011 event on FISA);
Brown University Professor Glenn Loury (writing for CATO's Unbound);
liberal blogger and Clinton Treasury official Brad DeLong (writing for CATO's Unbound);
Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig (writing for CATO's Unbound);
liberal blogger and GWU Professor Henry Farrell (writing for CATO's Unbound); and
Wall Street critic and securities professor William Black (writing for CATO's Unbound).
Trying to judge someone for where they write or speak - rather than for the ideas they advocate - is about as anti-intellectual and McCarthyite as it gets. CATO has a far better record of advocacy than the mainstream Democratic Party on vital issues such as opposing the Drug War, secrecy abuses, the Surveillance State, marriage equality for LGBT citizens, anti-war activism, and reforming the excesses of America's penal state. They were attacking Bush and Cheney for power abuses (see here) and aggressive wars (see here) far earlier, and far more loudly, than most mainstream Democratic politicians
As is obvious, all sorts of liberals, progressives, and even leftists have written for or spoken at CATO. It's a think tank devoted to debate and discussion of public policy, and invites a wide range of speakers to participate.
I'm proud of all the advocacy work I've done against the evils of the Drug War and surveillance abuses -- whether it's at the ACLU, CATO, the Socialism Conference or anywhere else. That's why I write openly about all of that work. But the claim that I've ever worked at CATO or was in any way affiliated with them is just an outright lie.
In which case I move that all future Greenwald threads be posted in the religion forum.
I didnt see you lose your job and loved ones for exposing the truth! What are you trying to do, flame bait us??
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of the news that Tyranny is coming!
and there were three of them that they've successfully hidden.
They've labeled me a homophobe {which is patently UNTRUE, because I never referred to GeeGee as "her", so it was a transparent attempt by the thin-skinned GeeGee brigade to try and deliver me a pizza} and then they alerted and successfully made my post go bye-bye.
On the other hand, a poster makes fun of my gastritis and alludes to it being "just desserts", and that's totally okay with them. His post hasn't been alerted on and it still stands {I think}. Just as long people don't have the unmitigated gall to criticize GeeGee, they're ok with direct personal attacks on a DUer.
Now one GeeGee fanatic is trying to label me a homophobe again for using "GeeGee". These people are a sad lot. No wonder no one listens to their griping. I won't put up with it anymore. I simply put them on full ignore now. If I want to read criticism of Obama, I'll go to Redstate or the Freepers.
But thanks, flamingdem.
They must work hard to read every post, including our conversation about Joy and your health!
In a zillion years I never thought of geegee as homophobic, more just a variation like we see when getting bored of a term or name such as using Snowdenista, hong kong eddie, Pootie for Putin, I could care less about his personal schtick (oh and now I'm anti-Semetic !
I don't like this tagging and tracking of DUers. I have discussed this with some of them to simply let them know they're being over the top. It's either that or ignore.
Hope your tummy is better!
Sid
