G. Greenwald is addicted to arguing, isn't he?

[MrScorpio]

It's not whether he right or wrong, it's about his personality.

If he think he's being challenged, he's really quick on the draw with a retaliation. People like that have to alway be right, even if they're initially wrong and are prone to burn bridges.

I can see while he's not exactly a sympathetic character in some circles.

[Gravitycollapse]

1. It's interesting how we tend to pathologize those with which we disagree.

[LordGlenconner]

138. Indeed it is

I've often thought the same thing as I read the anti-Obama and Hillary threads.

[quinnox]

2. I admire his tenacity

He is like a bulldog, he won't let any bullshit fly by without challenging it!

[AtlantaBlue]

5. The First Amendment

I think what he said about the first amendment was an important point. When governments become opaque, they become increasingly totalitarian. Sunlight is the best disinfectant - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. As for when he went after the other guest, I guess you would have to understand how a lawyer is taught to think in law school. Letting one's opponent get the upper hand is the one sure way to lose the case. I didn't find anything wrong with his zealous representation of his client, Ed Snowden. And lets not forget, today the US House voted to restrict the NSA's ability to spy on Americans without a warrant. Does anyone think that this would have remotely happened without the work of Ed Snowden, Laura Poitras, and Glenn Greenwald? I know that I don't.

[quinnox]

8. Agreed!

[msanthrope]

13. As GG has no license to practice law, ES is not his client. nt

[Vattel]

64. Like you, I seriously doubt that this would have happened without Snowden et al.

Obama tried to pretend that he called for a national discussion of NSA surveillance prior to Snowden's revelations, but if you look at the speech he referred to, it contains no such call.

[ancianita]

96. No, it would never have happened without them or their like. nt

[ancianita]

94. When bullshit in journalism is close to a media standard, no-bullshit journalist is subversive. nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

3. No he's not.

[hfojvt]

83. he may be addicted to love

you might as well face it

[bradla]

4. I would listen to Richard Clarke rather than GG

Clarke said on Bill Maher's show that Snowden went too far and it damaged this country.

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. have to agree with Richard Clarke...

[AtlantaBlue]

7. On some things...

First of all, I like Richard Clarke. However, Clarke admitted years ago that the intel on Saddam's mobile weapons labs and his WMD production capabilities were non-existant when Colin Powell went to the UN to make the case to the world. Clarke said that he "touched up" the intel. Sorry folks, good intel doesn't need touching up. When Adlai Stevenson went to the UN in 1962 to make the case to the world that the Soviets had missiles in Cuba and were setting up launching systems, he didn't have a cartoon, as Powell did, he had actual photographs of the missiles, the launchers, and the work that was being done to make them read to deploy. That's actual proof of a threat. We were all sold a bill of goods on Iraq, and Clarke was a part of that sale -- even though he knew at the time it wasn't true. That is where I draw the line on Mr. Clarke. He should have resigned right then and there and spoken out about the fraud being perpetrated. I honestly believe that it was his guilt over this fact that made him appear before the Congress and apologize to the American people. The fact that he did this, and that he alone did this, speaks volumes about the state of secrecy in the United States Government.

[billhicks76]

17. Clarke

Clarke shouldn't be worshiped just because he pointed out the obvious about Bush and Cheney. There is a lot he could've done better. Why isn't he criticizing NSA for spending inordinate amount of time combing through politicians, journalists, judges and other high profile figures emails, calls and texts. They aren't doing that to look for terrorists. Terrorism is now just the excuse to monitor and spy on people. Also, I believe it was Bush Sr who brought Clarke on board.

[msanthrope]

18. Clarke is like many smart posters on this board...able to decry government excesses while

realizing that Snowden is a lying tool.

[billhicks76]

22. Really?

I'm chuckling at that comment. The whistleblowers aren't the liars...and it's the bureaucrats that are usually tools.

[msanthrope]

24. Yes, really. nt

[billhicks76]

72. Totally Backwards

Last edited Mon Jun 23, 2014, 01:10 AM - Edit history (1)

I guess people do and say what's in their own interests. Mine is protecting our rights.

[1StrongBlackMan]

76. Snowden is/was NOT a whistle - blower ..

He DID, however, disclose information.

[Hissyspit]

91. Yes he is.

"A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who exposes misconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal activity occurring in an organization. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health and safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues)."

[1StrongBlackMan]

120. Not according to the whistle - blower law. eom.

[Hissyspit]

121. That shitty watered-down thing?

"Between 1994 and 2010, the court had ruled for whistleblowers in only three of 203 cases decided on their merits, GAP's analysis found."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-14-whistleblowers_N.htm

[1StrongBlackMan]

122. Be that as it may ...

It's the law.

[Cha]

10. Yeah, that would upset GG.. Snowden is his cash cow.

[billhicks76]

14. To Each Their Own

It surprising that Richard Clarke thinks terrorists were not aware of surveillance before Snowden. Wikileaks was revealing widespread wiretapping back in 2007. With all the corrupted, shallow, misleading journalists and pundits out there I find it incredulous and suspect when Greenwald gets all the attention. People who have it out for him could be spending their critical energies on those who sold us out.

[lumpy]

78. Clark knows a lot more about national security than Greebwald does. And the damage that

has done may not be over. If the documents that Snowden purloined should get into the hands of our enemies.......

[Maedhros]

134. If harm has been done, the NSA must prove it.

Speculating about what bad things might happen doesn't cut it.

[Hissyspit]

86. You mean he made an argument?

He must be an addict.

[Cha]

9. he's obsessed with it. he can dish out shit but don't try to point out he's wrong..he'll come after

you like a nasty hornet.

[billhicks76]

11. We Need People Obsessed With It

If you're not outraged then something's wrong.

[Cha]

12. Yeah, GG is vicious when he's wrong... never admits it. Self righteous a$$hole.

[billhicks76]

15. I Like When Journalists Get Vicious

Its the passive, vacuous stenographers who sell out for access and personal gain that alarm me.

[msanthrope]

20. And now that GG has sold out to Omidayar, that makes him Pierre's steno. nt

[frazzled]

23. Hey, but getting paid by a billionaire oligarch libertarian

is different. What is it you don't get about that?

[msanthrope]

25. Indeed.....the more Libertarian your money is, the cleaner! nt

[billhicks76]

27. The Message

The message is what's important to me. Not the messenger. Glenn is an actual journalist regardless of who he works with. I wish Michael Hastings was around too. But it's so true that if you don't have any haters you're doing something wrong.

[PragmaticLiberal]

16. This is the truth.

And I'm not even arguing the substance of Glenn's positions.

I'm talking about his reactions.

I've seen quite a few times where the interviewer challenges Glenn about a particular topic and dude just flys off the handle.


And it's not like person asking the question was ultra aggressive either...

[Cha]

19. Exactly PragmatricLiberal! Mr Scorpio is dead on.

[JDPriestly]

21. He is a lawyer. What do you expect? It's his job to argue. It's his job to think.

Socratic method:

Socratic method (also known as method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate), named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and discussion between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, thus strengthening the inquirer's own point.

The Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape opinion, and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize the general characteristics shared by various particular instances. The extent to which this method is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding, is called the method of maieutics. Aristotle attributed to Socrates the discovery of the method of definition and induction, which he regarded as the essence of the scientific method.

In the second half of the 5th century BC, sophists were teachers who specialized in using the tools of philosophy and rhetoric to entertain or impress or persuade an audience to accept the speaker's point of view. Socrates promoted an alternative method of teaching which came to be called the Socratic method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

The Socratic method is often used to teach law because it helps the student learn to argue both sides of a question. Glenn Greenwald is a lawyer so of course he is argumentative.

[AgingAmerican]

26. He argued and burnt bridges

...all the way to a Pulitzer prize, so he must be doing something right.

[Lint Head]

28. +1

[lumpy]

81. Greenwald did not receive a Pulitzer prize.

[Maedhros]

135. Yes - he was just the lead reporter for the Guardian

which DID receive the Pulitzer prize.

Way to split hairs. Do you ever have anything useful and informative to post, or do you just dribble this kind of nonsense about?

/ignore.

[lumpy]

80. Greenwald didn't win a Pulitzer prize. The British newspaper The Guardian that revealed

Snowden's 'revelations' received a prize. Look it up if you doubt.

[Lint Head]

97. I did. You an parse it any way you want.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/20/glenn-greenwald-pulitzer-reliable-sources_n_5182297.html

[lumpy]

131. Parse? Uh...OK

The fact remains The Guardian newspaper got the Pulitzer. Yes, Greenwald was a reporter, but it is incorrect that he has promoted the idea and has claimed winning any prize. Read

[Lint Head]

133. Read? I detect condescension.

Here is what one "reads" in the article.
"On Monday, Greenwald and other journalists at The Guardian and The Washington Post were awarded the Pulitzer for their reporting on the National Security Agency."

I don't "assume" when "reading" will suffice.

[Maedhros]

136. Ignore Lumpy. He's not arguing in good faith.

He's just trying to discredit an honest journalist with smears.

[Cali_Democrat]

29. I watched that and I must say....

Greenwald really has some anger issues. I actually feel sorry for him. I hope he gets his issues straightened out.

People with these kind of psychological issues rarely even realize it.

Do you remember how he treated his old business partner? In an email he called him a bitch and a whore.

Clearly there are underlying anger issues.

[grasswire]

33. here we go again

anger issues

Psychological issues

Sly allusions to instability and troubled past.

This kind of crap just keeps dribbling and dribbling from the keyboards of the NSA defenders. It's twisted and sick.

[elias49]

35. And the haters pretend to be so sorry for him

'the poor soul'. Ugh. How disingenuous.

[Cali_Democrat]

51. I've known some people with these kinds of anger issues...

It's actually something they can't control and usually it ends horribly.

I think a lot of people don't take psychological instability as seriously as they should.

Far too often people are just branded as "crazy" and written off without getting the help they need.

[grasswire]

87. Doctor Cali Democrat?

Just stop with the sly allusions and amateur diagnosing.

[Vattel]

119. She can't stop it. It's part of the smear campaign.

[lumpy]

84. Some of us are not 'defenders' of the NSA, just against a journalist who seeks glory by riding the

the shoulders of a thief who stole vital information from the US government to the detriment of US citizen security.

[Fawke Em]

118. I'm sorry. I must have missed that new 9/11.

Seriously, what's happened since these revelations that has hurt the US government or its citizenry? Other than hurting the secrecy the NSA hides in, that is.

[lumpy]

132. The fact that several news outlets/individuals have access to the remaining NSA documents

is worrisome. I'm alluding to the fact that if some of that document information falls into enemy hands, it could be to the detriment of the US. I am sure government officials are concerned about the possibility of that happening. Those having access to the documents are required to scan them for possible US security concerns according to Greenwald. Is that to be trusted? I guess that is why we haven't seen more documentation released.
Your snark is noted. Cute.

[Cha]

36. That's kind of you.. I don't feel sorry for him at all. He's his own worst enemy and

a libertarian a$$hole who's an enemy to America.

[tea and oranges]

77. Hmmm, I wasn't aware that you had the creds to diagnose over the tee vee, like the Ablow guy on Foox

One absolutely totally shocking example (he called someone a bitch & whore, OMG!) that's in no way backed up w/ a link or anything is more than enough for the already inclined.

If we could take the downright dirty personal crap out of politics, what would we ever do for fun?

[grasswire]

90. this armchair psychologist stuff is insidious and odious

Casting someone's righteous fervor for truth as "anger issues" and mental instability is just sick and twisted stuff.

[tea and oranges]

105. Fuckety fuck totally!

Tarring people w/ the brush of mental illness is so 1950's. And unenlightened.

[grasswire]

106. ^^^^^^^^^^^nt

[Vattel]

128. You really don't have a shred of decency, do you?

What amazes me about your smearing is how ham-handed it is. It's like you aren't even smart enough to realize how transparent your smears are.

[Cali_Democrat]

130. LOL...the ardent Greenwald defenders didn't like my post.

Sweet!

[Lint Head]

30. I can see that too. Especially at the NSA where the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals said "no"

this week to tracking your movements using data from your cell phone without a warrant when it declared that this information is constitutionally protected.
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/davis-undermines-metadata/

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Why would Greenwald feel challenged?

He is loved, we'll love him more when we lock his ass in a black prison. Must be paranoid, should be institutionalized.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

[QuestForSense]

32. He's an attorney.

It's what they do, and they do it well. They love it.

[Live and Learn]

34. Love those straw man arguments. nt

[Cha]

37. Mr Scorpio pointing out GG's "he always has to be right".. is a "straw man argument"?

How so?

[Live and Learn]

39. It is the, "even if they're initially wrong" part of the argument that made it invalid. nt

[Cha]

42. Nope.. just pointing out the facts. That's an especially valid point with Greenwald.

[Live and Learn]

45. No, that is your opinion, not a valid argument. nt

[Cha]

55. Oh Riiiiight! I forgot.. Greenwald's NEVER WRONG. LOL

[Live and Learn]

57. Another invalid argument.

I never argued either way. I simply stated that the OP's argument was invalid, as is your argument. Rational discussion should depend upon valid logic, in my opinion.

If you wish to state that Greenwald is wrong. don't forget to add the 'in my opinion' unless you can actually prove he is wrong.

[Cha]

58. Exactly. Because he's wrong quite often and refuses to admit it.

[Live and Learn]

59. And, you still forgot to use the 'in my opinion',

making your latest argument invalid too. Logic is not something I invented, btw.

[Cha]

61. I don't have to ..you keep kicking this thread to say it for me.

[Live and Learn]

62. No, I am betting that you keep kicking the thread because

based upon some flawed logic , you think a higher thread count makes your argument valid. Just a guess, on my part but I think it is a good one.

However, based upon our previous discourse, I think I can logically ascertain that you are not interested in presenting valid arguments and in all probability (which I expect will be shortly proven) simply wish to have the last word so I shall let this be my last response on this thread.

Have a great day/night (whichever the case may be).

[Cha]

63. LOL KICK!

[lumpy]

85. In your opinion? Live and learn.

[joshcryer]

38. His dismissal over "it's about Greenwald and Snowden" bugs me the most.

Greenwald is the single person pushing this personality meme as opposed to anything else. Dropping names as opposed to dropping secrets. We've seen maybe 1% of the files. What else is in those files? It's important to know.

Release the files Greenwald.

[Luminous Animal]

43. Why aren't you insisting that the NY Times, The Guardian, and Bart Gellman RELEASE THE FILES!

Greenwald has released more than any of all those combined.

[joshcryer]

44. I already said Gellman should release them.

I didn't know the NYT had them and I know for a fact that The Guardian was forced to dispose of them under lock and key (though there is the possibility that a third party made a copy of The Guardian files it's not clear).

BTW, even Greenwald agrees this is legitimate criticism, as I hold the same, if not a bit stronger position, as Wikileaks. More disclosure.

[Luminous Animal]

46. Pro Publica and the NY Times have them.

[joshcryer]

49. Then they should release them.

[Luminous Animal]

50. Indeed. Start OP after OP after OP after OP after OP after OP after OP after OP after OP after OP

advocating such.

[joshcryer]

52. Why would I spam the forum?

[lumpy]

93. Hopefully they won't release them for security reasons.

[ancianita]

98. How do you know. Prove it. Snowden forbid them originals; they could only get viralled copies

from the Guardian, Greenwald and Snowden. That's what Snowden and Greenwald say.

Any docs the NYT claims is original has been vetted and handed to them by the NSA per decades of agreement.

[Luminous Animal]

103. The Guardian gave what they had to them. You think the Guardian is lying?

There is no such thing as originals. What everyone has are copies of NSA docs that Snowden copied. It is true that the NY Times was definitely NOT Snowden's preferred venue, but once the Guardian retained their own set of of copied docs (and, they do not have the full set. Only Greenwald and Poitras do), they, apparently, felt free to do whatever they wanted with them.

[ancianita]

108. When did this happen? I'm going to ask Greenwald about this this coming Thursday in Chicago.

Of course everyone got copies from Snowden. But we'll see about how much got leaked to the NYT. Not all of it, I'll bet, since the NYT follows intel agency protocol about 'clearing' articles with them before publication.

[Luminous Animal]

137. August 2013 and nobody claimed the NY Times got all of it.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/23/guardian-news-york-times-partnership

[lumpy]

92. The documents are supposidly to be scanned for US security reasons, according to Greenwald's

Org, documents that might be damaging to US national security. That is probably why we haven't seen more. These documents have been passed around to some news agencies and it is worrisome that they could fall into the hands of our enemies whether inadvertently or deliberately. No wonder the government is coming down hard on Snowdon.

[Luminous Animal]

40. Horrors that someone argues politics. I suggest that DU shut its doors. SHUT IT DOWN.

[joshcryer]

41. Welcome back.

[Cali_Democrat]

47. What do you mean when you say DU should shut its doors?

[Luminous Animal]

48. It must be a very very very bad thing to arguing politics.

[joshcryer]

53. Greenwald's responses on Real Time were nothing but spittle.

He got so angry he couldn't even formulate his weak argument (as if we'd ever know if any secret damage occurred for 50+ years, even Bill caught on to that nonsense and shut it down with the Flip a District segue).

[ancianita]

99. You saw nothing of the kind. I watched the whole show and nothing of the sort happened. Why bullshit

or at the least distort such an easily verifiable fact?

[grasswire]

107. not according to the audience

They cheered Greenwald repeatedly. Bill probably shut it down because Greenwald was wildly more applauded even than Maher himself.

[joshcryer]

112. People cheered over Crossfire too.

Doesn't make the argument sound. Sound bytes work but lack substance

[Cali_Democrat]

54. Have you seen Real Time with Bill Maher before?

I've seen nearly every episode. They usually discuss politics in a calm and respectful manner and of course there are some exceptions, but never have I seen so much anger spewed forth by a guest. It just oozes from him and it's really unusual to see that on a fun show like Bill Maher's.

[Luminous Animal]

60. Anger expressed over our loss of our civil rights is so de classe.

[msanthrope]

69. I've seen Ann Coulter keep her shit together better. Wow....that was quite the display by GG. nt

[ancianita]

100. Saying "bullshit" after being rudely interrupted is not keeping your shit together? Bullshit.

[msanthrope]

104. Well, like your reply, it does seem to indicate a fair amount of heat that a more

reasoned debater would avoid.

Greenwald acquitted himself poorly in that exchange, although his fans will undoubtedly appreciate his performance.

I await the day when it is not all about Snowald.

[grasswire]

110. audience 100, msanthrope 1

the ratio of your opinion to that of the audience.

[msanthrope]

116. I'm okay with not being one of the "popular kids" grasswire. Nor do I care

what a studio audience thinks.

You could add this to your posts if you think it would liven them up.....


http://m.

[ancianita]

117. Heh. That was rhetoric, not heat.

Maher's HBO show isn't about debate. Those rules are not fairly applied to anything that Greenwald said.

I doubt that Greenwald has "fans" as much as he has supporters and readers.

We who get the issues are only reacting to those trying to make the messengers the issue by appropriately defending his intent and his job, not his youth, past politics, personality or anything else that seems fair game.

[Hissyspit]

126. Yes, we should all use Ann Coulter as a measurement for successful discourse.

[joshcryer]

56. Oh fucking hell, Greenwald just fawned over the GOP on Real Time.

"interesting division on the right"

No, Greenwald, that's the "Libertarian Right" who would replace government troops with private contractors. $140 billion. 160,000 contractors. More so than military deployed at the tip of the surge.

[randome]

65. Just you wait until August, MrScorpio!

I hear the grand finale fireworks from Brazil will be spectacular this year!


[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[MrScorpio]

67. I really stepped into it this time

I wasn't concerned about content, just format. What they were arguing about was less of a concern to me than how they were doing it. It looked to me as if Greenwald's anger came straight out of left field in order to throw a percieved challenger for a loop. No clarification, no elaboration, just straight confrontation.

I wonder if he ever apologizes whenever he says something wrongfully hurtful to someone else. No one is ever right all of the time That's what I meant about being right, even when he's wrong.

I get the feeling that he can never admit he's wrong. If everyone thinks he's right, no problem. I figure that one way to figure him out is to see what's he's like on a long trip together or to see how he deals with service workers.

Going straight to anger when detecting a challenge could be a sign of anger issues, it could also be a deliberate tactic to throw an opponent off guard. But if someone does that, they have to be perfectly cogent in their own message and perfectly clean on what they think is challenging them, otherwise it becomes a huge mess fairly quickly.

As an introvert myself, I've spent a lifetime avoiding confrontational personalities like that. Dealing with them is a huge problem for me, as they quickly drain the life out of a room. I call them Spiritual Vampires. I've got another introverted friend, whose opinions I trust implicitly. They know what I'm talking about, so I should get a second opinion.

[Cha]

74. I thank you for your post.. someone had to say it. It needed to be discussed..

don't care what the fans of GG have to say about it.

[Hissyspit]

124. Wow:

"I figure that one way to figure him out is to see what's he's like on a long trip together or to see how he deals with service workers."

You do realize you are proving his point with that, right?

[treestar]

66. I know some right wingers like that

They will start getting absurd rather than backtrack and admit they didn't have logic behind one of their statements earlier. They then come up with more and more twisted "logic" so as to keep on the same track.

[randome]

68. Treadmills only go in one direction.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[whatchamacallit]

70. This thread says way more about your mania than his

Simply start an OP like 'I don't like the way Greenwald ties his shoes' and watch the foaming haters come a runnin...

[MrScorpio]

71. I wrote an elaboration in post #67

It goes a little deeper than my initial impression about that exchange

[lumpy]

95. Just your opinion?

[KittyWampus]

73. What a very sharp observation.

[Hissyspit]

127. Satire, right?

Last edited Mon Jun 23, 2014, 12:36 AM - Edit history (1)

Actually, in numerous interviews he has calmly and reasonably explained his approach to public discourse.

I think he is quite sedate considering the ad Hominem tactics, like drug war language, that get tossed at him: "He's an addict," his partner is a "drug mule..."

[Blue_Tires]

75. I'd personally love to have a chat with him

I give as good as I get, and it would go a long way towards getting some resolution towards the unanswered questions I've had for the past year...

[UTUSN]

79. K&R, thank you, MrS. Before there was SNOWDEN, I had never heard of GREENWALD

and there was some kind of kerfuffle he was involved in, not knowing ANYTHING about him or who he was, and I came down on the "wrong" side of him, and I was totally lambasted here, fried, flamed and burned, especially by a DUer who will be nameless. It was the homophobic tag. I didn't even know he was Gay or that that was supposed to be a pass for everything he would ever utter. I told the DUer I refused to be bullied over opinions that had nothing to do with Gay. I think that DUer put me on Ignore.

[hfojvt]

82. unlike most of the rest of us

who are happy to be wrong all of the time.

2 + 2? 8
The capital of South Dakota? Aberdeen
The atomic number of carbon? 19
Avogadro's number? 2.718281828459

Ask me anything. I love being wrong!

[Hissyspit]

88. We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel on ad Hominem, aren't we?

Kind of funny, really. He's an argument addict?

"If he think he's being challenged, he's really quick on the draw with a retaliation." Imagine that.

[ancianita]

89. When you're the best informed, personally, by a whistleblower, it's tempting to respond to the

intent of those who presume the expertise to challenge you.

People who are trying to "sort things out" together discuss. Those who've got more than most already sorted out don't "discuss" with others as much as they will explain or argue.

[Cha]

101. Yeah, GG is over the top.. it's so obvious to not mention it would be sweeping it under the rug.

[Hissyspit]

125. And this isn't?:

"I figure that one way to figure him out is to see what's he's like on a long trip together or to see how he deals with service workers. "

Let's ask him if he has stopped beating his wife yet.

[AgingAmerican]

102. Naw

It's just a bunch of drama amongst his detractors. They endlessly try to pick apart every iota of his being looking for perceived flaws.

[grasswire]

111. it gets really old and smelly nt

[SidDithers]

109. Grennwald. LOL...

He's a fucking clown.

And his defenders are comedy gold.

Sid

[B Calm]

113. +1 Couldn't agree more! He's a right wing propagandist!

[elias49]

114. Aw. You must be one of those people who are scared of clowns!

Don't let it bother you. It's in your head. It's NOT REAL!

[SidDithers]

115. Like I said. Comedy gold...

Sid

[Hissyspit]

123. Actually, as I already pointed out...

Coming up with "Greenwald is an argument addict" as a new personal attack is pretty amusing.

[LWolf]

129. Kind of like most

DUers, and anyone who jumps into online or face to face political conversations.