The Convergence of the ‘Glenn Greenwald Left’ and the ‘Alex Jones Right’

alex_jones_googly_eyesOn Monday, a link circulated through Twitter about a new product that capitalizes on the current anti-government, anti-NSA paranoia.

The product is an iPhone accessory called the OFF Pocket. The manufacturer claims that if we stash our phones inside an OFF Pocket it can block NSA operatives from eavesdropping on us via “radio waves in the 2.4GHz spectrum.” The inventor claims that it takes too long to turn off our phones (or, apparently, to enable the Airplane Mode) so, hence, the OFF Pocket tricks NSA spies into thinking our phones are turned off when they’re really not.

I hope they make one in silver fabric. You know, to match the tinfoil hats.

But wait a second. I heard on The Young Turks and elsewhere that NSA can eavesdrop on us even if our phones are turned off. Evidently there’s a way for NSA to use our phones as a listening device, and it’s totally going to use it against you personally. So this OFF Pocket thing is pretty much useless.

Seriously, anyone who buys a special iPhone cozy that blocks NSA spy-beams doesn’t get to make fun of Alex Jones any more.

The noticeable upswing in Alex Jones style anti-government paranoia on the left of all places has reached epidemic proportions, and if you haven’t been infected yet you’re regarded as either an unthinking Obama administration automaton or you’ve fully embraced the worst Bush-era transgressions. There’s never been room for nuance with this crowd; it’s a pervasive intransigence that happens to be a feature of their paranoia. If you’re not screeching about the conspiracy, you’re clearly part of the conspiracy.

It’s not surprising, then, to discover that Alex Jones’ dual websites, Prison Planet and Info Wars, are loaded with all of the same breaking news stories and bombshells about Edward Snowden and NSA that are also found at The Guardian, Salon and elsewhere. In keeping with recent outrage-porn from writers such as Salon‘s David Sirota and The Atlantic‘s Conor Friedersdorf, as well as activist Cornel West, there’s even a post on Prison Planet in which the death of Trayvon Martin was compared with the killing of Adbulrahman Al-Awlaki, the son of terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki. Naturally, there’s also plenty of stuff about how President Obama is clearly a war criminal worthy of prosecution and imprisonment, just like we’ve heard from Glenn Greenwald and the rest.

Yes, the Summer of ’13 has witnessed the inking of the merger between the Glenn Greenwald Left and the Alex Jones Right.

The paranoia and conspiracy-mongering is truly bizarre coming from the same crowd that loudly blasted President Obama for not including a single-payer system in his healthcare reform legislation. Single-payer, naturally, would be run by the federal government and so a government agency would have access to our medical histories and decide whether we could receive certain forms of medical treatment. Every sexually transmitted disease, every erectile dysfunction prescription and every colon X-ray would be gathered and processed by the government, and since the program would be financed via our tax returns, the IRS would provide an investigative and potentially punitive aspect to it. If you don’t pay your taxes, you’re punished for it. In fact, I remember how we laughed at paranoid Republicans who insisted that the IRS would toss people in jail for not abiding the individual mandate.

But now we’ve discovered that the government is potentially gathering metadata from Facebook and this is suddenly cause for a collective nervous breakdown.

The government, they say, is sucking up millions of gigabytes every day, and sifting through your phone calls and your emails. We’re led to believe that simply because NSA is collecting electronic data it automatically means that NSA is gathering your data and doing something with it. We don’t know what, but it’s something creepy and sinister.

This is Alex Jones territory.

The truth of the matter is that NSA doesn’t care nor does it have the capacity to spy on you. But there’s an obvious tendency in the age of social media self-aggrandizement to believe that we’re each important enough for the government to care about what we’re saying online and then to perhaps use this information against us to either blackmail us, to wrongfully imprison us or to extrajudicially kill us.

And all of this began with a man, Snowden, who’s nestled very close to the fringes of the political spectrum, so it’s no wonder we’ve arrived at this intersection. Working primarily in conjunction with Greenwald, this story was crafted to incite fear, outrage and paranoid delusions in people who were already predisposed to such reactions. This kind of manipulation is the centerpiece of Alex Jones’ strategy: take something that’s hugely complicated and difficult for people to fully understand, then design the impression that it’s something other than what it is — something to be feared. Snowden also convinced people who ought to know better that the U.S. government might actually have him assassinated. Alex Jones also thinks the government is targeting him, Jones, for assassination. In Snowden’s case, it was an idea that was legitimized by Greenwald and supplemented by none other than Snowden’s presidential choice, Ron Paul, who said that such an assassination might take place using a predator drone.

Or maybe the government will think a drone is too obvious and go with chemtrails instead, while also distracting us with a false-flag operation planned by the Illuminati, Raytheon, IBM and Trilateral Commission.

Bob Cesca is the managing editor for The Daily Banter, the editor of BobCesca.com, the host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Huffington Post contributor.

  • Reilly

    Re: YesMan4Greenwald’s opening comment from yesterday:
    “Greenwald’s “benefit of the doubt” period for Bush represents when he was first becoming politically aware.”

    This is Greenwald’s defense and I’ve seen it parroted many times by his minions. I just want to offer a few points about it:

    Greenwald was close to 40 years old when Bush and co. began the invasion of Iraq, and yet Greenwald was only just then a political hatchling? At 40? And the run-up to that unjustified bullshit war of choice was the most transparent con-job in modern American history, yet Greenwald’s excuse is that his eyes were only beginning to open? Does it take practice to see through a farce like that? People half his age, without the benefit of an education based on argumentation and parsing controversies, saw through it easily.

    Of course the same people who pimp the “he hadn’t politically evolved yet” line for Greenwald also think he’s been right about everything since then, which is reminiscent of the claim that Bush kept us safe after 9/11. As long as you start measuring after the major fuck-up, your guy can look like a hero.

    Aside from that, how does a gay man not become politically aware before the age of 40? Isn’t the question of gay rights measured in the political sphere? And perhaps most importantly, how can you trust the judgment of a constitutional litigator who didn’t become politically aware in 2000 with the Supreme Court ruling Bush v. Gore?

  • he_who_scoffs_at_danger
  • he_who_scoffs_at_danger

    The left, generally speaking, merged with the “Alex Jones right” back in and throughout the Bush era. They only snapped out of it recently in 2010-11 when they suddenly realized that this Ron Paul character they had been dry humping had the potential to steal Democrat votes. Since then, they’ve tried to transfer this sudden awareness of Bircherite populism’s not-leftwing-ness into making Alex Jones a strawman for Romney voters and obscuring the fact that most Democrats are 911 Truthers.

  • Fat Pierre

    Here is a list of some more RATFUCKERS who, like libertarian RATFUCKER-in-chief Glenn Greenwald, are connected to the Cato Institute. Help me to expose these extremist Koch suckers!

    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).

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      Wait a second, Bob (and most of us here) didn’t say that anyone who was worried about NSA surveillance and spoke publicly about it are ratfuckers. Most of us here, including Bob, were against the new spying laws from the very first day that the Patriot Act and these spying programs were proposed after 9/11 (and have been saying so publicly online and in our daily lives). I think every liberal on here, regardless of whether they consider themselves progressives or not, believe the Patriot Act and the FISA set up is an abomination that needs to be gotten rid of. What we take issue with is 1) the timing of Greenwald’s conversion to being a supposed protector of liberty, 2) his support of Ron Paul and libertarian causes that, if they have their way, would essentially destroy the liberty of women, minorities and the poor in this country, and 3) the factual basis for his recent freakout. There’s all kinds of legitimate reasons to be worried about domestic spying. The reasons that Greenwald has given via Snowden are misleading and old information that wasn’t helpful in achieving the goal of getting rid of the laws in the first place. Add this on to the pile of unfair accusations against the Pres (e.g., like holding him responsible for closing Guantanomo when Congress repeatedly refused to fund the closing process and refused to let prisoners be housed and tried on US soil). If the President could do most of the things Greenwald wants him to do, he’d be a dictator. And then Greenwald would just bitch about that.

      Putting all those things into context and seeing the level of paranoid hysterics that Greenwald generates in his followers is VERY reminiscent of Alex Jones’ schtick. Bob’s original point is correct. Greenwald is a disingenuous hack who is taking advantage of the very naive libertarian Snowden and idealistic liberals to get rich and famous. And his freak outs aren’t helping us get any closer to getting rid of the Patriot Act and are instead giving ammo to the President’s opponents (not to mention making it harder for REAL whistle blowers in future). Would that Greenwald had used his vast audience to actually do something constructive such as forcing Congress to take action instead of something destructive like tearing down the person who is least able to affect change in this regard. People bitch about the Prez not using the bully pulpit….well Greenwald had a great bully pulpit, he just used it in the wrong way for the wrong reasons targeting the wrong people.

    • kfreed

      It really isn’t our fault that some of these people are clueless and don’t realize that Cato was behind the Patriot Act and pushing for war in the first place.

      However, Gleen Greenwald has deeper ties to Cato than just a ill-conceived appearance:

      Glenn Greenwald: Rat-Fucker:

      “4. Glenn Greenwald claiming he only wrote “2 freelance articles” for the Cato Institute is offensive it’s so utterly absurd. We know it. Glenn knows it. For one thing, one of those “free-lance articles” was nothing resembling a “freelance article”—it was a major policy whitepaper, a one-year massive report that included numerous speaking engagements on behalf of the Koch-founded Cato Institute. And let’s not forget, the Cato Institute was originally founded as The Charles Koch Foundation of Wichita. We merely copied the phrase “Glenn Greenwald of the libertarian Cato Institute” from the description used by numerous mainstream media outlets across the country over the past few years. For example:

      Here: http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/will-republicans-take-lessons-from-british-conservatives-1.169415

      “Glenn Greenwald of the libertarian Cato Institute, endorsing the California measure, notes that…”

      Or here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8207584/Politicians-should-say-what-they-really-think-about-drugs.html

      “Judged by virtually every available metric,” says Glenn Greenwald of the Cato Institute, a libertarian US think tank, “the Portuguese decriminalisation framework has been a resounding success.”

      Moreover, as Greenwald himself knows better than anyone, his ties to the Cato Institute and the Koch-funded libertarian nomenklatura go deeper than this. For example, Glenn Greenwald was one of the keynote speakers at an elite “Cato Benefit Sponsors” event, featuring Glenn and Cato fellow P.J. O’Rourke and winger Michael Barone. Who among progressives is invited as a top entertainer for the elite Cato Institute Benefit Sponsors event? Glenn Greenwald, that’s who.

      [Photo/Newspaper Write-up] Glenn Greenwald, “freelancer,” entertains more than 100 Cato Benefactors…”

      Also in this article, Glenn Greenwald parroting Koch’s “Money = Speech” Citizens United defense.

      http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/

      • kfreed

        Oh yeah, then there’s Glenn Greenwald of Cato Institute dry humping Koch with votes:

        “At a talk given the day after the 2010 election — one that was a disaster for Democrats — “progressive” writer and civil liberties lawyer Glenn Greenwald gave a talk at the University of Wisconsin, and expressed the hope that Democrats might suffer the same fate in 2012.

        Greenwald’s speech mainly focused on civil liberties and terrorism policy “in the age of Obama.” But it was his approach to politics that got members of the Young Americans for Liberty — a Paulite Libertarian group that co-sponsored the event — excited:

        Paulites: ‘The speech was stellar with too many good points to touch on in a single blog post. I would like to point out that in the Q&A at 38:00 Greenwald specifically addresses a possible alliance between progressives and Ron Paul libertarians. He also mentions Gary Johnson as a unique candidate with possibly the best chance of bringing this coalition together in a 2012 run for president.'”

        http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

        • kfreed

          BTW, Here’s the “anti-war” Cato under Bush:

          “John Yoo, author of the notorious “torture memo,” served on the Cato editorial board for Cato Supreme Court Review during the Bush presidency. At the same time, Yoo was writing the Bush administration’s legal justifications for waterboarding, Guantánamo, warrantless wiretapping and more. Yoo also contributed articles to Cato Supreme Court Review and a chapter to a Cato book titled The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton criticizing President Clinton’s “imperial presidency.”

          The “Cato Policy Report” attacked progressive critics of Bush’s “War on Terror” as “Terrorism’s Fellow Travelers“ in its November/December 2001 issue. Former Vice President of Research Brink Lindsey wrote, “Most of the America haters flushed out by September 11 are huddled on the left wing of the conventional political spectrum.”

          Another Cato executive, Ted Galen Carpenter, former VP for defense and foreign policy studies, enthusiastically supported Bush’s “war on terror” and called on Bush to invade Pakistan.

          The Cato Institute advised the 2002–04 Republican-dominated Congress to commence military strikes in Pakistan in its Cato Handbook for Congress arguing, “Ultimately, Afghanistan becomes less important as a place to conduct military operations in the war on terrorism and more important as a place from which to launch military operations. And those operations should be directed across the border into neighboring Pakistan.”

          Another Cato Institute executive, Roger Pilon, vigorously supported Bush’s attacks on civil liberties. Pilon, Cato’s VP for legal affairs and founding director of the Cato Institute’s “Center for Constitutional Studies,” supported expanded FBI wiretapping in 2002 and called on Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act as late as 2008.

          While it’s true that compared to other pro-Republican think-tanks, Cato did have periods when it was critical of Bush’s wars and attacks on civil liberties, those attacks weren’t consistent and showed every sign of being subordinated to the Cato Institute’s political demands. The most obvious example of this came in 2005, when Cato suddenly called a halt to its growing criticisms of Bush’s “war on terror” and fired one of its most ardent anti-interventionists (another resigned), sparking a backlash from some prominent non-Cato libertarians like antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo, who wrote: “Now that the majority of Americans have turned against this war, the Cato bigwigs are lining up with the neoconservatives who want to ‘stay the course.’” In 2006, with Bush’s presidency in tatters, Cato restarted its criticism in earnest.”
          http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth#

          • kfreed

            Oh, and let’s not forget Greenwald’s Wall St. lawyering gig:

            “After listening to Chris Hayes and reading that one of his references to the story about Obama assassinations was Glenn Greenwald, I perused many of Greenwald’s anti-Obama articles cleverly disguised as “civil libertarian” and wonder how anyone in the progressive movement can take Glenn Greenwald seriously. Greenwald admits to being a civil libertarian, much in the mold of Ayn Rand, Rand Paul and most libertarians on the far right. After doing a stint at a Wall Street corporate law firm (Wachtel, Lipton) he strikes it out on his own by representing white supremacist Matthew Hale, who was the leader of the World Church of the Creator, and is now doing forty years in prison for authorizing a hit on a federal judge. Greenwald has not written a single article that has been favorable toward the Obama Administration, and he was one of the leading voices pushing this disproven idea that Obama is “the same as Bush” to try to undermine Obama’s support in his progressive base. The conservative magazine < emForbes indicates Greenwald is “one of the 25 most influential liberals in the media,” despite his libertarian views and admission that he is not a liberal.”

            http://www.thenation.com/letter/greenwald-conservativelibertarian-mole#axzz2aYjvTudw

          • kfreed

            A whole lotta rat-fuckin’ goin’ on.

  • Fat Pierre

    Here is a partial list of “libertarian RATFUCKERS” who have expressed serious concerns about NSA spying (in no particular order). Please help me expose these well-known right wing extremists by adding names to this list. Fucking RATFUCKERS:

    Al Gore
    Jimmy Carter
    Thomas Drake
    Michael Ratner
    Tammy Baldwin
    Ron Wyden
    Mark Udall
    Jerrold Nadler
    John Conyers
    Patrick Leahy
    Bernie Sanders
    Daniel Ellsberg

    • kfreed

      None of these people have extensive ties to Koch. Not to mention, they’re basing their opinions on Greenwald’s misreporting. Not unusual these days for people to go off half cocked before getting ALL the facts.

      Some of them were also convinced that the IRS was “targeting” the Tea Party on the say so of con artist tea bag Darrell Issa. Not our fault that they’re gullible.

      Today we receive evidence that a cabal of high level tea bags colluded with the leaders of the GOP (John/BoehnerDarrell Issa) to create fake scandals in order to undermine the Obama administration for shits and giggles (just as we had all been saying all along). Here’s the recording:

      http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/who-are-two-big-donors-liberty-central

      Even the unassailable ACLU fell for the bullshit:

      Even the supposedly unassailable ACLU fell for the contrived bullshit:

      “Strange bedfellows: ACLU, GOP unite over IRS scandal”
      http://www.wtop.com/41/3321600/Strange-bedfellows-ACLU-GOP-unite-over-IRS-scandal-

  • Schneibster

    Yes, I have been informed multiple times that I’m an Obama-bot because I don’t believe in Greenwald Claus. And that I’d believe when the drones come for me.

  • TakaT

    Alex Jones…I’m not even going to go there. I can feel the bile already.

  • D_C_Wilson

    But now we’ve discovered that the government is potentially gathering
    metadata from Facebook and this is suddenly cause for a collective
    nervous breakdown.

    Or they could just, you know, read our Facebook posts.

    • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

      But then the CIA will see my family photos and my friends.
      Oh my! ;-)
      Great comment DC

    • Schneibster

      On Earth.

  • http://twitter.com/TeekeeMon/ TeekeeMon

    Bob Cesca 2013:
    “Ugh. The president signed a four year extension of the USA PATRIOT Act. This is one of those moves that just baffles me. When Rand Paul is on the correct side of this issue and the president is on the wrong side… Ugh.”

    Bob Cesca 2013:
    “The truth of the matter is that NSA doesn’t care nor does it have the capacity to spy on you.”

    NUANCE!

  • Fat Pierre

    For the second time in two days, I’ve had conversations with readers here that have revealed a fundamental ignorance of important facts that are central to the debate at hand. Yesterday, in the middle of a back and forth about the death of Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki it came out that my opponent was under the impression that Abdulrahman had been killed in the same strike as his father, Anwar. Obviously, this isn’t the case.

    Today, I was arguing with someone who was under the impression that the FISA Court did not exist under George Bush. I don’t think that DB readers are stupid, but many of them seem to be ignorant of the terms of debate. I have the strong impression that many commenters here have never read the Greenwald articles that Bob has been criticizing. It’s very difficult to have a productive conversation with people who quite clearly have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

    • kfreed

      For the umpteenth time today, I’ve coe had “conversations” with readers here who parrot Greenwald verbatim without the slightest nod to an honest discussion. Which is fairly normal with the Greenwald fan club.

  • http://www.telescreen.org Vidiot

    “The truth of the matter is that NSA doesn’t care nor does it have the capacity to spy on you.”

    How do you know that NSA doesn’t have the capacity to spy on US citizens? Do you have citations for this? Because regardless of one’s opinion on the programs under discussion, I haven’t seen anyone present this as fact, and the NSA or intelligence apparatus hasn’t responded in these terms.

    • first last

      He’s referring to their budgetary and staffing limits. You have to agree, they really don’t have the people and the money to waste time spying on random US citizens.

      • http://www.telescreen.org Vidiot

        Well, we don’t know how many people work for NSA, nor how big their budget is, because it’s all classified. Or, how many contractors, such as Booz Allen, they’ve hired as non-governmental employees.

        One can assume NSA capabilities without being paranoid or assuming that they’re using them to the fullest extent.

        • first last

          Nope, we actually do know with complete assurance that they have nowhere near enough people to even begin to monitor even a single day’s worth of verbal and written communications of over 300 million domestic civilians. It’s really just a matter of basic math.

          • http://www.telescreen.org Vidiot

            Well, they are already apparently sucking down metadata for all domestic cellphone calls. I didn’t say that they were capable of monitoring all communications — I don’t know what the capabilities are, and NSA isn’t saying — but there’s a lot of data collection that’s automated. I suspect that they are building a ginormous database and only querying it for non-US persons’ data, in the service of investigations approved by FISC — which would be consistent with their statements — but we just don’t know. I do know that it’s awfully hard to prove a negative, though.

          • first last

            It seems weird that they would make such an expensive plan that presumes the warrant for domestic cell metadata would always be re-upped, given that FISA has in the past up and decided to discontinue entire forms of collection (contrary to the frequently-voiced but incorrect allegation made elsewhere that they always approve every request and act solely as a rubber stamp court).

            I think it much more likely that the hundreds of math PhDs that they employ have a scheme that is only storing the info that is relevant to them and discards the other 99.99999999% of it, which they could suddenly be blocked from obtaining at regular intervals anyway.

            In the case of domestic Internet records, we know that FBI does this collection. We know that they validate the FISA warrants for non USPERS before any collection is done, and then we know that none of the various intel agencies they then stream it to has the capacity for doing any form of meaningful analysis on anything approaching a mass scale for the data-intense protocols they are collecting against.

            And of course, all of this presumes that their primary mission is focused on the domestic US while they cavalierly ignore the other 6.8 billion people on the planet.

          • kfreed

            “Sucking down metadata” which describes the relationship between communications data points, not the content of said communication.

            Here’s a general idea of what those data sets look like:
            http://liberalbias.com/post/2277/obama-nsa-spying-privacy-wiretapping-omg-freak-out/

            Here’s the man who wrote an entire book about PRISM and the NSA’s surveillence capabilities years ago: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal
            This is why cooler heads cannot get as hot and bothered over Greenwald’s allegations as some would like.

            Suspicions are a dime a dozen, especially if we’re calling people on the carpet based on assumptions.

          • nasani

            Yet all the people attacking the NSA and the President were absolutely certain that their privacy rights were being violated! Glenn Greenwald resorted to peddling fear and in so doing undermined the counterterrorism efforts.

        • nasani

          So you want people to viciously attack the NSA and the Obama administration based on assumptions and not on hard facts? And while you are it damage the counterterrorism efforts?

    • Fat Pierre

      One small correction: The NSA has claimed that they lack the technological capacity to spy on American citizens. Whether or not you believe them is another question.

      • http://www.telescreen.org Vidiot

        Thanks — I hadn’t seen those claims from NSA. It seems that the Snowden claims, taken at face value, would argue that NSA would at least have the technological capacity to collect metadata if not message contents themselves.

        • Fat Pierre

          Do a youtube search for Rep. Hank Johnson questioning Keith Alexander. Alexander also repeated these claims at the BlackHat conference earlier this week, if I’m not mistaken.

          I also have a very hard time believing these claims. And, as we all know, anyone who thinks that the government would ever lie about these things is nothing more than a narcissistic anarcho-nihilist emoprog or something.

          • first last

            We know for an independent fact with complete assurance that the NSA doesn’t and never will have the capacity to effectively spy on the ever-growing data footprint exuded by over 300 million US civilians. That would take more than their annual budget and leave no room for any monitoring of the other 6.8 billion people on the planet, no room for decryption, analysis, simulation, etc etc. They are trying to ignore your texts to your girlfriend, not sweep them up.

            I have noticed that there’s this assumption without evidence that NSA officials are always lying, even when it’s likely that they are telling the truth and in some cases even when it’s established beyond argument that they are telling the truth (eg when they pointed out that Prism didn’t give them direct access to domestic commercial data centers).

            Correspondingly, there’s this refusal to admit that Libertarian Curveball is a delusional crank, no matter how batshit insane his bragging gets or how directly his claims are contradicted by the evidence he himself provided.

            And Greenwald is only slightly better, his penchant for dishonesty, glaring omission, and sock-puppetry was well-established before this latest episode. But at least he’s not running around claiming he’s resistant to torture and can outsmart the entire Chinese intelligence system on their home soil.

          • Fat Pierre

            Sorry, we seem to have a misunderstanding here. I’m not claiming that the NSA can or does monitor the content of all communications or even a very large percentage of them. I don’t take that position. Greenwald hasn’t taken the position. I doubt Vidiot would take that position. As you’ve said, the manpower required to do that far exceeds the NSA’s capabilities.

            What we are talking about is whether or not the NSA has the capacity to target an American citizen’s communications on their own without the intercession of a court or the assistance/knowledge of a tech firm. The NSA says they can’t. I’m skeptical of these claims, but I don’t claim to know they’re false.

            And the reason why people don’t trust what the intelligence community says is that they’ve lied again, and again, and again for decades.

          • first last

            “What we are talking about is whether or not the NSA has the capacity to target an American citizen’s communications on their own without the intercession of a court or the assistance/knowledge of a tech firm. The NSA says they can’t.”

            We know they are telling the truth about the warrants because we know they (the various agencies involved, for example NSA depends on FBI to acquire domestic Internet records) kept going to judiciary to get the warrants.
            We also know that the firms have knowledge because one of them tried to argue with them about it (Yahoo) and several others have requested release of the number of times that they were issued warrants.
            We also know they necessarily would have to have the assistance of the firms storing the data because it’s technically not really feasible to do this otherwise. You’re talking about spending tons of money to reverse engineer and replicate a bunch of heavily-customized retrieval functionality that the provider can and will change-up at regular intervals, when you already have the legal power to issue a warrant and have the tech firm assemble and hand over the data you want in one convenient package.

          • nasani

            Glenn Greenwald reported this as a certainty! NSA was spying on every single American. That’s why people had their hair on fire! That was dishonest reporting aimed at scaring people. Attacking the President based on skepticism was malicious.

          • kfreed

            “Libertarian Curveball”… apt.

          • nasani

            Assuming that the government may lie in the future is not proof that the government is lying now.

        • nasani

          A serious person does not take “at face value” assertions by a self serving leaker of classified information who runs away to countries that are adversaries.

  • villemar

    The Anarcho-Nihilist plan? Even more insane and pointless than Libertarianism or Classic Anarchism from 100+ years ago:

    1. Overthrow the U.S. Government!!!!
    2. ?????
    3. ?????

    • Lady Willpower

      Don’t worry, it’ll all work out… somehow.
      Because LIBERTY.
      And you’re all shills!

      • villemar

        LOUD NOISES!!!11!

  • villemar

    Meanwhile, Chris Hedges is basically calling for a violent uprising against the U.S. government. This anarcho-nihilism is getting way out of hand.

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/rise_up_or_die_20130519/

    • Lady Willpower

      That’s one of YesMan’s heroes right there.

    • kfreed

      Chris Hedges, author of “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America [2006]” is now echoing the Religious Right and Koch-funded, ALEC Tea Party Libertarians on overthroing the presidency of a Democratic president after Bush 2 created the corporatist mess he goes on about?

      What a brainless tool.

      I’ve been suggesting for some time now that Hedges go back and read his own book.

      Not to mention, the fact that Hedges doesn’t appear to realize that Ron Paul the “Constiutional Rights” guy is both a religious fundamentalist AND not that into consitutional rights in the least…

      Hedges on Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8rSQ4e596A

      Then let’s read Ron Paul’s theocratic legislation:

      About.com Civil Liberties: “6 Rights You Could Lose Under President Ron Paul”
      http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/tp/6-Rights-Lost-Under-Ron-Paul.htm

      Ron Paul and the Ludwig von Mises crowd:

      “Ron Paul’s Christian Reconstructionist Roots”
      http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/02/ron-paul-s-christian-reconstructionist-roots.html

      “Ron Paul Curriculum Launched by [Christian] Reconstructionist Gary North and Neo-Confederate Thomas Woods”
      http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/4/9/124434/9216

      “Theocratic Libertarianism: Quotes from Gary North, Ludwig von Mises Institute Scholar”
      http://www.talk2action.org/story/2012/1/6/14215/07913

      The fact that these supposed geniuses have no idea who Ron Paul is boggles the mind. How hard is it to do a few Google searches?

      • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

        Thanks for linking to that CSPAN video. Hedges says that you can serve power and privilege or truth and justice. Which side do you take?

        • kfreed

          You’re welcome. Hedges also says that Ron Paul is “good in terms of Constitutional Rights”…

          I’m guessing you didn’t click the link AFTER the YouTube video re: the accounting of the civil liberties Ron Paul would have no problem legislating away… including the right to privacy.

          So my question is: to what “truth” is Hedges referring if he managed to miss the truth about Ron Paul’s lack of concern for the our constitutional rights? To what truth are you referring for that matter?

          • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

            I hadn’t, because I expected it to be low quality commentary. Now I know I was right. Disagreeing with Supreme Court decisions and proposing Constitutional amendments does not mean someone is bad on the Constitution. Waging war without a Congressional declaration of war is being bad on the Constitution. Eviscerating the 4th amendment is bad. Cracking down on freedom of the press is bad. Killing American citizens without due process is bad. Etc.

          • kfreed

            How is linking directly to Ron Paul’s legislation “low quality commentary”?

            Since you’re too lazy to actually click on the link…

            Civil liberties to be abolished under Ron Paul:

            1. Your right to privacy.In 2005, Rep. Ron Paul sponsored the We the People Act (H.R. 539), a bill intended to limit the power of the Supreme Court. While the law would appear to be a prima facie violation of the separation of powers (necessitating a constitutional amendment for enforcement), Paul took it seriously and made it a centerpiece of his legislative policy agenda.

            The law’s primary function was to eliminate the right to privacy as it had been defined in past Supreme Court cases. Section 3 explicitly states that (emphasis mine)…

            The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–
            (1) shall not adjudicate–
            (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
            (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
            (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
            (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).”

            2. Your right to have sex.It’s no secret that Ron Paul’s political future hinges on the Religious Right, which has controlled the Republican base for thirty years. And few things upset the Religious Right more over the past decade than Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court ruling that struck down anti-gay sodomy laws on the basis of the implicit right to privacy.

            Ron Paul hated this ruling, writing in an essay that “there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution” and that “the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex.”

            So it’s probably not a coincidence that Rep. Paul wrote the We the People Act while the ink was still drying on Lawrence, and specifically included a clause pertaining to privacy-rights rulings having to do with “any issue of sexual practices…” If put into effect, the We the People Act would overturn Lawrence and – especially coupled with the general prohibition on privacy rights described above – give the bedroom police more power than they have ever had before. And it would destroy federal circuit court rulings based on Lawrence’s privacy standard, which have overturned archaic laws banning everything from cohabitation to sex toys.

            And if you do only have the heterosexual, missionary, married sex that would be permitted in Ron Paul’s America, that could spell trouble, because Ron Paul would also eliminate…

            3. Your right to purchase and use birth control.It’s no secret that Ron Paul wants to ban abortion; he’s said so since at least 1981, when he infamously compared abortion to the Holocaust and described Roe v. Wade (1973) as “the ultimate state tyranny.” Sadly, that’s pretty standard rhetoric for a national Republican candidate – and his decision to join with other Republican candidates in support of a federal Human Life Amendment banning abortion is consistent with that fairly common position. But his radically authoritarian views on birth control are much more eccentric.

            The right to privacy as we currently understand it was defined not in Roe, but eight years earlier in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). It was there that the Supreme Court defined bodily autonomy as implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, establishing the very right to privacy that the We the People Act would overturn. And because the We the People Act would prohibit new privacy-related federal court cases on issues dealing with “sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction,” the federal court system would be helpless to prevent future state-level bans on birth control. Ron Paul has also attacked U.S. Department of Health funding for birth control on dozens of occasions, referring to reproductive health funding as a series of “government family-planning schemes.”

            And be careful how you protest in Ron Paul’s America, because one of the first things to go would be…

            4. Your right to show a lack of respect to the U.S. flag.Many Ron Paul supporters have taken to using a modified U.S. flag as their online profile picture – upside down, crossed out, burning, or otherwise indicative of protest. But if their candidate was actually elected, his history indicates that this would become illegal in many states.

            Ron Paul doesn’t get much flak on this issue because he has consistently opposed federal constitutional amendments banning flag burning, most recently – and persuasively – in a 2003 speech. But pay special attention to how he closed that speech:
            We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.He wasn’t kidding. In 1997, Rep. Paul had already proposed a constitutional amendment:
            SECTION 1. The States shall have power to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and Congress shall have the power to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.And if you’re familiar with the history of flag desecration statutes, you know that they have historically been enforced on a state level anyway. Ron Paul is fine with laws banning flag burning; he just wants to be sure they’re not enforced by the federal government, and he wants to be sure the federal court system doesn’t interfere with their enforcement.

            And this isn’t the only First Amendment issue where Ron Paul runs right of center. No, he would also eliminate…

            5. Your right to exercise your own religious beliefs.You may have noticed section 1(A) of the We the People Act above, which would have eliminated all federal court precedents “relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion.” Does this make you nervous? It should, regardless of your religious beliefs (or lack thereof), because it allows any state to target minority faiths and uncommon religious practices. It also allows states to marble the distinction between religious doctrine and secular law – exactly the sort of theocratic policymaking that has done so much damage in the Middle East and elsewhere.

            The federal court system is the sole mechanism of enforcement for the U.S. Bill of Rights. By removing questions of religious free exercise and church-state separation from federal judicial consideration, Ron Paul would be, in effect, repealing those parts of the First Amendment. This is no accident. According to a December 2003 speech, he sees himself as a leader in what he appears to see as a Dominionist struggle against the perpetuation of a secular, “collectivist” state:
            “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers … Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion … The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage.”
            And all of these rights either follow naturally from, or exist in connection with, a fundamental right with which Ron Paul is not in sympathy…

            6. Your right to equal protection under the law.His radical commitment to a state’s rights agenda has given him a Dixiecrat’s civil rights platform. He has worked against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the application of Brown v. Board of Education. He has proposed amending the Constitution to retroactively strip citizenship from native-born Americans based on their parents’ immigration violations.

            Does this sound like a civil libertarian to you?

      • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

        On Hedges calling Paul good on constitutional rights, Paul is admittedly bad on the establishment clause. But what else? Because he’s good on separation of powers, federalism, and other core constitutional principles. Hedges was most likely thinking of these and the other first amendment clauses, and especially the fourth through eighth amendments. I disagree with his reading of the 2nd and 10th amendments, but I can’t call him bad on them. On balance, Paul is good on the Constitution.

        And for those that won’t bother with watching the video, Hedges trashes libertarianism. To suggest Hedges is echoing ALEC, the Kochs or the Religious Right is asinine. He is deeply opposed to all of those.

        • kfreed

          “Admittedly bad on the establishment clause” and you wave it away as if dispensing with the constitutional principle of separation of church and state is an inconsequential matter.

          No, Ron Paul isn’t “good” on the contitution. What else? The link is right there in my previous comment: “6 Rights You Could Lose Under President Paul.”

          So, Hedges and his violent uprising against the “corporate state” will occur in tea party controlled states where the massacre of the middle class, the poor, labor unions, public education, regulation of industry, property rights, and basic civil liberties is proceeding without pause via ALEC? Doesn’t sound like it to me. He sounds exactly like these unhinged right-wingers with a hate-on for this particular president:

          RW Christian Nationalists: “Revolution”: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/search/node/revolution

          Right-wingers in general call for “Revolution”: https://www.google.com/#output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=Right+wingers+call+for+revolution&oq=Right+wingers+call+for+revolution&gs_l=hp.12..0i22i30.2948.2948.0.6625.1.1.0.0.0.0.166.166.0j1.1.0….0…1c.2.22.psy-ab..0.1.152.2PTDfhqIUHQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49641647,d.aWc&fp=e183b32c3ec7f780&biw=1393&bih=640

          I find this laughable beyond belief. The trickle down economics and deregulation espoused by the right is what brought us to this sad state, yet they’re calling for civil war over health care, gay marriage, small tax increases on the wealthy, efforts to address climate change, and what again?
          Truly absurd. As is Hedges for aping them.

    • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

      No. He is calling for peaceful resistance to corporate power. You obviously either don’t know what anarcho-nihilism is or haven’t read the article. Or possibly both.

  • Fat Pierre

    One of Cesca’s central points has been that Greenwald and Snowden’s “hysteria” has actually set back efforts to constrain the growth and power of the surveillance state. That seems to me to fly directly in the face of the facts. On Wednesday, the House of Representatives will vote on an amendment that would substantially limit the NSA’s ability to use the business records provision to collect phone records of all American citizens. Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging NSA practices that would have been dismissed due to lack of standing just a few months ago.

    How anyone can argue that any of this would have been possible (or that meaningful reform of the surveillance apparatus was on the horizon) without Snowden’s revelations and Greenwald’s articles about them is beyond me.

    • first last

      Most of the lawsuits I’ve seen probably won’t survive first-contact with a robust counter-argument, and will require a pretty substantial reworking of the 4th Amendment if they do win out.

      • Fat Pierre

        You might be right, but it’s far from clear how the courts will respond to this. I think this is one area where we really just have to wait and see.

        That being said, I can’t think of a single moment since Barack Obama’s election in 2008– when I honestly thought that we’d see a real effort to roll back the Bush administration’s sweeping claims of executive authority– when I’ve been more optimistic about the prospects for meaningful reform.

        • first last

          It’s never a given of course. There’s an outside chance the courts will engage in overt judicial activism in order to craft a radical new interpretation of the 4th Amendment that lets you treat public metadata that you are actively sharing with half the planet as somehow magically off-limits to law enforcement and only law enforcement but not anyone else, and all towards the practical end of rendering it impossible to serve search warrants involving packet-switched telecommunications and letting thousands of child porn swappers to go free and organized crime to openly coordinate online and in direct opposition to the laws passed by Congress. But it’ll be a surprise if this happens, the plaintiffs really are walking into a meat-grinder here. But I suspect their goal isn’t so much to win as just to force the government to declassify more information.

          • Fat Pierre

            I don’t believe that a “radical new interpretation of the 4th Amendment” is necessary.

            If you actually read the ruling in Smith v. Maryland, you’ll see that the majority emphasized the very limited character of the data that a pen register collected. The obvious implication is that technology that was more invasive might be subject to more stringent restrictions.

            While it may have been true in 1973 that such “metadata” revealed very little about a target’s personal life, that’s undoubtedly not true in 2013. The combination of multiple databases tracking different kinds of data and the availability of sophisticated social network analysis software allows for the government to arrive at a very detailed picture of an individual’s personal life.

            The issue of this data having been voluntarily transmitted to third parties is a bit more thorny. However, there’s plenty of indication from recent rulings that the court wouldn’t necessarily excuse the government’s use of this information on that basis. As Orin Kerr demonstrates here http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/111/3/Kerr.pdf , there are indications that the court is moving towards a “mosaic” theory of the Fourth Amendment. As Kerr writes, “Under the mosaic theory, searches can be analyzed as a collective sequence of steps rather than as individual steps. Identifying Fourth Amendment searches requires analyzing police actions over time as a collective ‘mosaic’ of surveillance; the mosaic can count as a collective Fourth Amendment search even though the individual steps taken in isolation do not.”

            Kerr cites US v. Maynard and US v. Jones as cases that indicate a movement in this direction.

            In any case, the Supreme Court revisits past precedent all the time. To cite just one example, it used to be legal to execute people for rape. It no longer is.

          • first last

            It’s actually *more* true that TCP/SMTP data is public info than it is with the old crossbar-style phone system.

            Packet-switched metadata isn’t just shared with one third party but with potentially as many third parties as there are hops to get to/from its destination, this includes foreign governments as well as private companies. And it is done with the assumption that those third parties will read it, act upon it, filter it, store it, etc.

            And it is absolutely necessary that law enforcement be able to look at that metadata to determine whether it’s part of a transmission to which they have access or not.

          • kfreed

            I think I’ll rely on facts presented by people who have an intimate understanding of how the various systems wok and interact, rather than on a high school drop out and his incompetent handler.
            http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal

    • kfreed

      Like the hysteria laden NDAA lawsuits that crashed and burned?

  • Gunnut2600

    I just wish the US would fly the missile firing drones on your own country and leave us alone. I mean you spent so much on locking people up, why not just kill them from above?

  • Fat Pierre

    If you want to talk about wild-eyed conspiracy theories, get a load of this guy. He argues that we are sliding down a slippery slope into totalitarianism (can you say “Godwin?”), that the President might “disappear” and “torture” citizens,” and that he might institute martial law and cancel elections. This guy really is a nutbag conspiracy theorist. His name is Bob Cesca, and he wrote this in 2006.

    —————————————————————————————-

    “Even though the Democrats have triumphantly regained control of Congress, the Military Commissions Act and the USA Patriot Act remain on the books.

    On the same day he killed habeas corpus with the MCA, the president signed the John Warner Defense Authorization Act which strips control of the National Guard from state governors and allows President Bush and Secretary of Defense-Designate Bob Gates to move the Guard anywhere in the country. You know… to protect us from ourselves… with martial law. As per usual, the congressional Republicans snuck this into an appropriations bill that included a pay raise for the troops, forcing the hand of anyone who would oppose it…

    So the president has both the legal tools and the other “tools”: Fox News anchors, executives, producers and contributors; right-wing radio hosts; and right-wing terrorists. Tools. All of these tools are soldiering on, working in conjunction to form one big tool. The endgame of this coitus of tools could rapidly lead us to a situation, not unlike the dark days of 1800 and 1918, in which President Bush can use his flight suit sized meta-tool to stop an increasingly vocal and powerful opposition. When those who oppose the president or those who have dark skin or legal immigration status can effectively be painted as a threat to national security, our democracy ceases to be merely endangered but rather is rendered, in effect, dead. (The corporate murder of democracy is an issue for another day.)…

    This is the president who thinks holding elections in a time of war isn’t a sure thing
    which is only slightly more loopy than, I don’t know, Bill O’Reilly and John Gibson believing that Christmas isn’t a sure thing.

    When elections are no longer a given in the mind of the president, it stands to reason that the possibility of somehow canceling future elections might’ve crossed his mind. And why wouldn’t it? He has the tools. He has the National Guard positioned in every state under his control. He can legally disappear and torture anyone he chooses. He can use legal (yet unconstitutional) means to gather information about political opponents to smear and shame them. The president has unprecedented power to do almost anything he wants and the unwavering
    support of both a major cable news network and, on the fringe, would-be
    domestic terrorists…

    …For me, it’s on this issue that I will judge our new Congress. Iraq, energy, global warming, ethics and election reform, and the economy (the debt and middle class tax cuts) are, in tandem, gathered in a close second place. But none of these issues can be addressed until the democratic balance of power is wrested from the hands of the totalitarian tools in the White House and beyond.

    • Fat Pierre

      I must say that I do like the line “a coitus of tools.”

      • kfreed

        Me too.

    • kfreed

      “Legally disappear and torture” is a reference to Gitmo (which Obama has attempted to close. Republicans, however, continue to obstruct his efforts. A quick Google search on the order of “Republicans obstruct Gitmo closure” will bear that out nicely. Another thing Glenn Greenwald fails to mention.
      Try to get hold of yourself.

      Next, it certainly is true that Bush dispensed with FISA court oversight and did what he wanted. Again refering to his ILLEGAL warrantless wiretapping scheme. It certainly is true that Republicans dispensed with the electoral process as he was appointed to office in 2000 by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, he lied us into war with Iraq and enabled the economic crisis, among other things. None of which applies to President Obama… the false equivalency here is staggering.

      But then again, having access to facts and a memory does kind of put some serious dents in the “Obama is Bush” meme Greenwald continues to peddle.

  • Fat Pierre

    I have a question: Bob has mentioned his opposition to the PATRIOT Act on numerous occasions. If it’s so incredibly insane to think that the government would ever abuse its surveillance power, then why would he have opposed the PATRIOT Act in the first place?

    • missliberties

      It’s not incredibly insane to think that government or business, or a journalist or a private contracter with the NSA would abuse their power.

      What is insane is suggesting that the government is always after you. They aren’t. And comparing Zimmerman to Obama is beyond the pale.
      Bob is saying the left has jumped the reality code into Alex Jones land.

      • Fat Pierre

        Can you quote a single line from any of Greenwald’s articles on the NSA that suggests that “the government is always after you?”

        • missliberties

          Can you quote a single line from any of Greenwald’s articles that suggests that the NSA isn’t always after you?

          • Fat Pierre

            No. Nor can I quote a single line from Greenwald’s articles that suggests that the Martian-Venutian alliance isn’t preparing an imminent attack on Luxembourg. By your logic, he must believe that this is the case.

        • kfreed

          Oh please, let’s play dumb, huh? That’s productive.

          • Fat Pierre

            No, let’s play “If you make a claim, explain what actual evidence you have for making said claim.” If, as Cesca claims, Greenwald has been relentlessly arguing that the NSA is spying on YOU personally, it should be incredibly easy to prove.

          • kfreed

            You’re the one claiming Cesca’s fact-checking of Greenwald is not to your liking. You’re on his blog, so I’m sure you can go about locating his pieces correcting Greenwald on his various fact-free claims.he even quote Greenwald verbatim. A simple click of the mouse will get you to Cesca’s debunkings.
            Or did you want me to copy/paste his articles for you in the comments section?

          • Fat Pierre

            Ok, let’s take a recent example. On July 17, Cesca printed an article on Greenwald’s piece on Microsoft’s collaboration with the NSA.

            Cesca quoted Greenwald: “Microsoft has collaborated closely with US intelligence services to allow users’ communications to be intercepted, including helping the National Security Agency to circumvent the company’s own encryption,
            according to top-secret documents obtained by the Guardian.”

            Here’s Cesca’s reaction to that quote: “Once again, we’re being duping into believing that Microsoft is handing over all user communications, including content, without any warrants or oversight.”

            This was a complete non sequitur. Absolutely nothing in the text that Cesca quoted or anything else in that article even came close to suggesting that “Microsoft is handing over all user communications.” Greenwald meant exactly what he said: “Microsoft has collaborated closely with US intelligence services to allow users’ communications to be intercepted…” How you get from “MS has collaborated with the NSA” to “MS is turning over all user data to the NSA” is completely beyond me. It’s a complete misreading of the original article that fabricates a claim that quite simply isn’t there.

          • kfreed

            It’s you parsing language is what it is. Anyone who read Greenwald’s entire screed on “direct access” noted how that was walked back. Ther are pleanty of examples of Greenwald’s word play: making unsubstantiated claims, refuting his own claims, then having to walk back his claims…
            http://blog.reidreport.com/2013/06/greenwald-and-the-guardian-try-again-only-this-time-theres-warrants/

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            You’re the one here making the claim. So support it. The quoted bit from an old Cesca article doesn’t fill the bill.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      I still believe the PATRIOT Act needs to be rolled back. But I prefer that it be accomplished in a productive way, without hysteria. No one takes screeching and conspiracy theories seriously.

      • Fat Pierre

        Would this qualify as “screeching” and “conspiracy theories?” You wrote it in 2006:

        “All of these tools are soldiering on, working in conjunction to form
        one big tool. The endgame of this coitus of tools could rapidly lead us
        to a situation, not unlike the dark days of 1800 and 1918, in which
        President Bush can use his flight suit sized meta-tool to stop an
        increasingly vocal and powerful opposition. When those who oppose the
        president or those who have dark skin or legal immigration status can
        effectively be painted as a threat to national security, our democracy
        ceases to be merely endangered but rather is rendered, in effect, dead.”

        In any case, I haven’t seen any evidence that Greenwald has actually been doing what you say he has: arguing that the NSA is surveilling every American personally. As far as I can tell, you just keep on insisting that this is what he his implying with no real evidence at all.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          In Bob’s quote, he said “could” lead us to that kind of situation–one where our own government is surveilling us in order to use it against us. Greenwald is saying we are already at that point. There is BIG difference.

          • Fat Pierre

            “In Bob’s quote, he said “could” lead us to that kind of situation–one
            where our own government is surveilling us in order to use it against
            us. Greenwald is saying we are already at that point.”

            I haven’t seen a single shred of evidence that suggests that Greenwald is claiming that the government is routinely using its surveillance powers against ordinary citizens and using the information that they gather against the citizenry. Not a single shred. If this is the dominant theme of Greenwald’s commentary, as has been claimed, it should be trivially easy to prove it. No one seems to want to do that.

          • kfreed

            You haven’t read a single such claim? Thought you read Glennwald religiously.

          • Fat Pierre

            I read him regularly. If you want to call that “religiously” that’s fine with me.

            And no, I can’t recall reading any claims that the NSA routinely spies on ordinary citizens or uses the contents of our communications against us.

            I have, however, asked DB readers to provide evidence that Greenwald has made these claims. No one has even attempted to cite a single instance, which is strange, given that such claims are allegedly central to his argument.

          • kfreed

            Of course you “can’t recall.” Neither can Glenn Greenwald.

            We’re not particularly interested in sifting through Greenwald’s tripe for the unmpteenth time simply for your entertainment. If you’re late to the party or can’t remember, that’s on you.

          • Fat Pierre

            I’m sorry, but it’s really hard to take you seriously when you actually believe that the FISA court didn’t exist under President Bush. That’s truly a shocking degree of ignorance about something that is absolutely central to this debate.

          • kfreed

            You know perfectly well that Bush didn’t bother ith the FISA court during his reign… the something absolutely central to this debate and to which I was referring.
            Yet it surpirses me not at all that you’d dismiss certain inconvenient factoids which are equaly central to this “debate”.

          • Fat Pierre

            I’m so sorry that I read your reference to the time “under Bush, before the FISA court was established” as meaning what it said

          • kfreed

            My fault… I’ve already addressed it.

          • kfreed

            Could as in did, under Bush, before the FISA court was established. These days warrants are required.
            The point you appear to be missing is that Greenwald’s agenda-laden misreporting is unreliable, not just in this case, but in the case of NDAA, Hoder’s letter to Rand Paul on drones, the fact that he continues to claim Obama refuses to close Gitmo, even though his right-wing pals in Congress contiue to block his efforts to do so. We can have these discussions without Greenwald’s Ron Paul/Alex Jones inspired anti-govrnment hysterics or the daily Obama two-minutes hate.

          • Fat Pierre

            Hahahahahaha! You seriously think that the FISA court didn’t exist under George Bush??? How am I supposed to have a conversation with people who are so shockingly ignorant of the facts?

            Newsflash:The FISA Court was created in 1978. I honestly cannot believe that you didn’t know that.

          • Fat Pierre

            Seriously, who down voted this? Does that person also believe that FISA didn’t exist under Bush?

          • kfreed

            We’re all aware that the FISA court has been around for ages… I clarified my comment up top to reflect the OVERSIGHT of the FISA court that was ABSENT under Bush throughout his illegal warrantless wiretapping crusade:)

          • kfreed

            Pardon me… FISA court OVERSIGHT was established… or shall we say re-established? I’m referring here to the Bush warantless wiretapping program, remember that? The end run around the FISA court and the resultant abuse right here at home:
            http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-02-11/news/36928278_1_nsa-program-surveillance-program-temporary-surveillance-law

            Good question, how ARE you supposed to have a decent conversation when your information is gleaned from Ron/Rand Paul pusher Glenn Greenwald?

            Here’s the problem with attempting to herd actual progressives into the #StandWithRand pit:

            FISA Amendments Act of 2008: “A group of netroots bloggers and Representative Ron Paul supporters joined together to form a bipartisan political action committee called Accountability Now to raise money during a one-day money bomb, which, according to the Wall Street Journal, would be used to fund advertisements against Democratic and Republican lawmakers who supported the retroactive immunity of the telecommunications company.”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008

            Which on the surface sounds swell to people who actually care about privacy.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008

            Except that Ron Paul doesn’t give a rat’s arse about privacy as is clear from his decidedly anti-civil liberties legislation:

            “6 Rights You Could Lose Under President Ron Paul”
            http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/tp/6-Rights-Lost-Under-Ron-Paul.htm

            Fast forward to 2013, Junior Paul takes a page from Senior Fraud Paul’s book:

            “Spot What’s Wrong With Rand Paul’s NSA Fundraising Email – In an appeal for donations filled with whoppers and conspiracy theories, the senator exploits the surveillance scandal.”

            http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/rand-paul-nsa-fundraising-lawsuit

            I’d sooner shoot myself in the head than align myself with Glenn Greenwald and his Koch-sucking wingnut band of tea baggers against a Democratic president over something that is both legal (as it currently stands) and not exactly news, no matter what my feelings about reforming our surveillance laws:

            “Ron Paul Curriculum Launched by [Christian] Reconstructionist Gary North and Neo-Confederate Thomas Woods”
            http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/4/9/124434/9216

            “Theocratic Libertarianism: Quotes from Gary North, Ludwig von Mises Institute Scholar”
            http://www.talk2action.org/story/2012/1/6/14215/07913

            Meanwhile, let’s all conveniently overlook the nationwide onslaught of Tea party sponsored atrocities courtesy of the Koch Libertarian American Legislative Exchange Council and the Christofascists the Tea Party elected to office.

          • Fat Pierre

            Since when is Greenwald a “Paul Pusher?”

            He didn’t endorse either of the Pauls. His economic philosophy is completely at odds with theirs. What he did was praise one of Rand Paul’s positions.

            You know who else did? Bob Cesca. “The president signed a four year extension of the USA PATRIOT Act. This is one of those moves that just baffles me. When Rand Paul is on the correct side of this issue and the president is on the wrong side… Ugh.”

            Greenwald has also praised Obama for his “evolution” on gay marriage. Does that make him an Obama pusher?

          • kfreed

            You’ve forgotten Greenwald’s Ron Paul pushing even though you claim to have read his stupidity for years? Case of selective memory? Feel free to ignore this as well.

            Glenn Greenwald on the merits of Ron Paul: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/

            Glenn Greenwald shilling for Paul again:

            “Greenwald’s speech mainly focused on civil liberties and terrorism policy “in the age of Obama.” But it was his approach to politics that got members of the Young Americans for Liberty — a Paulite Libertarian group that co-sponsored the event — excited:

            The speech was stellar with too many good points to touch on in a single blog post. I would like to point out that in the Q&A at 38:00 Greenwald specifically addresses a possible alliance between progressives and Ron Paul libertarians.”
            http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

            Glenn Greenwald: “Ron Paul distortions and smears”
            http://www.salon.com/2007/11/12/paul_3/

            Glenn Greenwald pushing Ron Paul again:
            http://www.salon.com/2010/05/28/crazy_10/

            Overlooking severe anti-civil liberties legislation proposed by Paul:

            “6 Rights You Could Lose Under President Ron Paul”
            http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/tp/6-Rights-Lost-Under-Ron-Paul.htm

            Because, you know, Ron Paul is so principled. LOL>>>

            The Nation: “Ron Paul Wants to Abolish the CIA; His Largest Donor Builds Toys for It”
            http://www.salon.com/2007/11/12/paul_3/

            And private mercenary armies to fight terrorists abroad, paid for out of the community chest to private contractors are okay too, according to Ron Paul legislation:

            “H.R.3076 — September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (Introduced in House – IH)”

            http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.+3076:_blank

            But you wouldn’t want to know any of that.

          • Fat Pierre

            You should really read the articles that you link to:

            1. The first article you linked to in order to prove that Greenwaldis a “Paul pusher” was this one: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/

            If you had read it carefully, you’d have noticed this paragraph towards the beginning:

            ” I’m about to discuss the candidacies of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and no matter how many times I say that I am not “endorsing” or expressing support for anyone’s candidacy, the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite. But since it’s always inadvisable to refrain from expressing ideas in deference to the confusion and deceit of the lowest elements, I’m going to proceed to make a couple of important points about both candidacies even knowing in advance how wildly they will be distorted.”

            2. The second article you linked to referred to a speech that Greenwald gave that was enthusiastically received by a group of Paul supporters. That’s not surprising. It’s no secret that GG and Rand Paul see eye to eye on most civil liberties issues. The ACLU and Center for Constitutional rights do too. Does that make them Paul pushers?

            3. The third article begins with the line “I’m not trying to be Ron Paul’s advocate…”

            Boy! That sure is some strong support. He goes on to debunk a demonstrably false claim that Paul believed that flag burning should be criminalized. He then points out that the odious position that Democratic operatives had wrongly flayed Paul for supporting was actually held by Hillary Clinton.

            4. The last Greenwald column you linked to contains some very strong advocacy indeed:

            “There’s no question that Ron Paul holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious… My point isn’t that Ron Paul is not crazy; it’s that those who self-righteously apply that label to him and to others invariably embrace positions and support politicians at least as ‘crazy.’

            Your intellectual dishonesty truly knows no bounds.

          • kfreed

            I read it carefully, more than once in fact, when I first came across it back in 2011… because I couldn’t believe Greenwald could actually be so clueless as to opine that progressives should give Paul a closer look. Just as I read all the other instances of Greenwald’s Ron Paul pushing carefully. I don’t think your disingenuous denial of Greenwald’s well established Ron Paul love will succeed in creating doubt for anyone who reads those links objectively. And of course there’s the Google – not that difficult to operate once you get the hang of it.

          • first last

            “He didn’t endorse either of the Pauls.”

            He actually did endorse them, directly, followed by Johnson/ He has many instances where he directly advocated for third-party voting in swing states as a strategy to throw elections to the GOP as a way of punishing the Democrats for not being sufficiently Greenwaldy. That he elsewhere denies that he did exactly this is just another instance of him lying.

            I participated in an online conversation with him in which this exact point was brought up, he denied doing this, then the person he was debating started linking to the many instances in which he did exactly that. I think Greenwald fled soon after that.

            It was pretty funny.

      • http://twitter.com/Cody_K/ Cody

        When? By the time were deep into another debt ceiling fight?
        Brilliant.

        Care to mention any support for those efforts now?
        http://t.co/FCTpbQEFtQ

  • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

    Speaking of nuance, you still haven’t mentioned Ron Wydens name in regard to NSA spying on Americans. He gave a news worthy speech. http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/blog/post/wyden-on-nsa-domestic-surveillance care to cover it?

    • Fat Pierre

      Or, for that matter, John Conyers, who is certainly no Republican shill or conspiracy theorist. There are many, many respected people on the left who are deeply opposed to these programs, but Bob doesn’t ever seem to even acknowledge that they exist.

      • missliberties

        Bob’s point was that some Greenwald/Snowden fans are descending into tinfoilhat land, just like Alex Jones. That was the point of his article.

        To monitize this fear, someone decided to sell phone shield boxes that prevent the big bad scary all seeing gummint from tracking you wherever you are. It’s a conspiracy theory and it is idiocy.

        • Fat Pierre

          Yes, that was the argument in this particular column. However, it seems reasonable to debate this point in the context of the multiple columns that Bob has written. He has consistently portrayed those who are concerned about these programs as conspiracy theorists or naive fools who have been duped by said conspiracy theorists.

          The fact that he’s completely ignored reasoned liberal opposition to these programs is a major flaw in his approach.

          • missliberties

            That is your point. You keep making it over and over. Bob has a right to express his thoughts on his blog without regard to your deep and grave concerns.

            Comparing Obama to Zimmerman is tinfoil hat land, over the cliff and down the river.

          • Fat Pierre

            Of course he has the right to do so. No one is contesting that right. I have the right (or rather the privilege, since this is a private space) to register my objection to what I see as the flaws in his argument. And you have the right to completely ignore the substance of my complaints and resort to snarky insults and name-calling.

          • missliberties

            Thank you for your permission.

          • Fat Pierre

            Thanks for a very productive discussion of the issues at hand.

          • nasani

            Stop lying! You have an agenda and you try to pretend that you are interested in productive discussion.

          • nasani

            Your complaints have no substance!

          • kfreed

            Being a reasonal liberal himself, he doesn’t refute other reasonable liberals on the subject. He sticks to correcting misinformation (Greenwald) and points out that the hysteria amongst certain factions coupled with outlandish conspiracy theories could use a few checks and balances offered up by reasonable people without a political ax to grind.

    • missliberties

      That wasn’t the thrust of Bob’s post. It is how the far right and far left are getting married in conspiracy theory land.

      • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

        I don’t care about Bob’s thrusts other than that they prove he is an agenda driven opinion writer who mostly swings at such low fruit as wacky consumer products. Not since Seinfeld has something been so much about nothing.

        • missliberties

          Thanks for showing your respects.

          ~bye

        • kfreed

          That wold be because Bob hapens ot be on to something that doesn’t jive with the “principled Libertairian” BS.

        • cinesimon

          You don’t care so much, you’re obsessed.

    • first last

      I’ve read this already. I agree with him to some degree on declassification of the legal rationale and decisions of FISA/FISC, though I notice that he makes a few somewhat self-contradictory statements on that topic here (for one example at one point he claims FISC never rules against the legality of a surveillance practice, then goes on to cite exactly such a ruling). There’s several other statements he makes here that I know aren’t exactly fair presentations of the facts but I can’t go into detail on them.

      But his position and his claims seem significantly different and more nuanced than the truly paranoid fever-dreams of the Jones/Greenwald/Libertarian Curveball nexus. For one example he defends the Prism program as necessary and wants to make sure it is continued. For another he doesn’t try to claim that ubiquitous eavesdropping of phone conversations is possible or is occurring. And he makes sure to defend the personal and professional integrity of the members of the intelligence community in general and the NSA, which is consistent with anyone who’s had dealings with them. They really, really aren’t out to get your civil liberties and people comparing them to the Stasi really are dicks.

  • Fat Pierre

    I’m a Greenwald reader and fan, so my perspective may have some relevance to this discussion. I want to make it clear that I don’t believe that I have personally been targeted by the NSA, nor have I inferred that from anything Greenwald has written. I don’t put it outside the realm of possibility, but it’s not a real fear for me at this point.

    I do think, however, that if I were a Muslim who had ever expressed opposition to American foreign policy or attended a mosque where others had that it would be quite reasonable to assume that I had been subjected to surveillance. If I were a journalist or activist who was deeply involved in studying, for example, drone strikes, then I think it would be reasonable to assume that I was on their radar. For me, one part of being a progressive is being concerned about that sort of thing, even if it doesn’t affect me personally at this very moment.

    • missliberties

      There is concern about abuse, but believe it or not there are protections. Which is EXACTLY why they did not throw the Boston Bomber in jail, before he actually committed a crime. They watched him, and he was still free to murder and maime innocent US citizens.

      • Fat Pierre

        But that’s just the thing– I don’t believe that there are meaningful protections. I certainly haven’t seen any evidence that there are.

        Edit: Just to make it clear: the fact that there are laws in place that criminalize abuse of these systems doesn’t reassure me. There are also very clear laws banning torture, but the intelligence and military communities had absolutely no problem breaking them. We looked forward, not back, and let them off scot free. It’s really incredible to compare the government’s treatment of Snowden to their treatment of Robert Lady, the CIA station chief who was convicted of abducting and rendering a Muslim cleric.

        • missliberties

          As we see your identity on the internet is easily discovered. That’s just life in the digital age. You will just have to adjust.

          I can not think of one single person who was targeted and persecuted unfairly can you.

          You can argue war causes death and we should change the definition of the endless war on terror (which Obama did), but in any world their will always be battles and collatoral damage.

          If you are concerned for your privacy then you should really JUST STAY OFF THE INTERNET. PERIOD.

          Like it or not that is just the way it is.
          Clearly bin Laden understood this, which he why he never called anyone, or used the internet. He had to do things the old fashioned way with couriers.

          I am not planning any major terrorist attacks so I am not really worried. I am much more concerned about the vast myriad of voter surpession efforts going on around the country.

          • Fat Pierre

            It seems to me that your argument has shifted. First you claimed that there are protections in place. Then, instead of actually identifying what those protections might be, you mocked my desire to keep my internet communications private as fundamentally naive and unrealistic.

          • missliberties

            As usual. The argument is always shifting with the Greenwald fans. Just like the tea party you can never be pinned down. I have no interest in spending days trying to convince you of something you don’t believe and ending up with both of us being right back where we started.

            As a heads up that crazy Obama apologist, Markus Moulistas expressed his opinion that he doesn’t give two shits about Snowden or Greenwald and considers the non stop concern about the NSA a white privileged view. There are other on the ground real issues that affect our daily lives much more directly, especially if you work for nine dollars an hour or can’t find a job, because purity is so important that people had to vote for Ralph Nader and now the hysterical Greenwald/Snowden fans insist that Obama is just like George Zimmerman, because, well that actually makes zero sense, yet the hard left is running with it. Quite disgusting.

          • Fat Pierre

            So you can’t actually identify any meaningful protections against abuse?

          • missliberties

            a thousand comments later….. just like the everready battery

            You haven’t changed my mind, and I am positive I won’t change yours.

          • Fat Pierre

            Ok, let’s just ignore each other then. I

          • kfreed

            I bet if you were to look it up FISA/FISC yourself, you could manage it.

          • kfreed

            You’re commenting in a public forum, what privacy are you expecting? Twitter? Facebook? Not private. Email? Nobody is reading your email, not even the people you intend to read it, I’ll wager.

            Protections in place, here they are:
            http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal

          • 624LC .

            Fat Pierre stay off the internet? Then who would he have to bore?

  • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

    Anonymous coward and self-identified “socialist” YesMan4 is an employee at Fidelty Investments in Boston (IP: 192.223.243.6). Because socialism!

    And he’s also been banned.

    • missliberties

      Thank You Bob. Don’t these people have actual work to do? Or do they get paid to target you because you are a threat to their investments! ? :)

    • Fat Pierre

      Would you mind telling us how you figured that out? I’m just interested.

      • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

        NSA.

        • Fat Pierre

          LOL. But seriously, how did you find that out? If you’re not willing to say so, that’s ok.

          • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

            In WordPress admin, every comment has an IP address.

          • Fat Pierre

            I see. Thanks. Although I suppose he could have just been sitting in the lobby, no?

          • missliberties

            Or hacking into Fidelity’s System from an airport terminal in Russia.

          • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

            HA!

          • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

            Nah. He’s been using the same IP for days and days.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Do you mean you’re saying he’s using their wireless? An investment company doesn’t provide an open wireless to the public. He’d have to have their encryption key and he’d still have to be an employee. So, no, odds are not very good he’s sitting in the lobby.

          • Fat Pierre

            I was joking.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Sorry, we need a sarcasm emoticon. My bad.

          • missliberties

            His friend at work noticed that he wasn’t working and is a friend of Bob’s and sent him a quick e-mail alerting him to the treachery of pretending to be an investment banker while actually trolling blogs that denigrate Snowflakebots.

          • Lady Willpower

            And then they black-bagged him.

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            Twice.

    • blackdaug

      He used to comment at I think?..Rolling Stone’s blog (pre Disqus), using his actual name, job title and company. Because liberty isn’t free, at Fidelity.

      • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

        Real socialists work for investment bankers.

        • blackdaug

          You know, I wonder if he got paid for all that?
          350 odd posts at say $5 a hit?
          Pocket change to a Koch brother.
          I’m calling Soros…be over at The Blaze.

          • missliberties

            1mrt1 as in paid shills? who knows

          • blackdaug

            You would have to pay me to be that relentless.
            I posted a comment, went out and worked a full day, came back and he had spent the day crapping all over the place.
            …but I don’t really get trolling anyway.

          • 1mrt1

            My work is to point out your lies..LIB

          • william trent

            If nothing else, he’s obsessive.

      • villemar

        I would have taken him for an Old Glory man. Because they’re made of metal, and robots are strong.

    • Bubble Genius

      I’m sure Fidelity Investments would love to know what YesMan4 is doing on their dime.

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      Hallelujah! Just found this site and am so happy to have found it; but the troll poop was getting deep, as in knee-deep in troll shit, not as in what a profound troll.

    • Lady Willpower

      Here all this time I thought YesMan was what he was calling us. Turns out it’s actually what HE is.
      Maybe he’s a self-loathing capitalist who just wishes he could be socialist?

    • http://twitter.com/Cody_K/ Cody

      I think we’re seeing a trend.
      You know who else bans their opponents?

      “Wahhh! Greenwald and Sirota blocked me by applying the same ridiculous criteria for defining trolls that I do! Wahhh!” ~ Bob Cesca

      • 624LC .

        You know who needs to step off if you don’t like it? YOU! Go stroke Greenwald’s ego then. You fanboy bullies stink up every site there is with your cultist bullshiit.

      • kfreed

        I think the sheer volume of comments was justifaction for banning. Normally, ya’ll can rant on. Like you’re doing now.

  • missliberties

    May I just suggest not engaging with these trolls. Particularly, Mr. Look at me YesMan4. The more you feed him the more his bloated ego thrives.

    Yessie isn’t ever going to be reasonable, even though like Greenwald, (btw, is that you?) he carries on and on and on with intellectual sounding rationale for why it is so important for ‘it’ to insult you.

    Please IGNORE the Trolls.

    • 1mrt1

      Right…like you arent a troll. miss high and mighty

      • missliberties

        Yes Man a friend of yours. Look how quick you come to his defense.

        Aint that interesting since you spend all your time hunting libruls comments on blogs, because other opinions threaten your very existence, er something.

        ~bye

        • 1mrt1

          bye? no Im right here for you. My existence is never in doubt

          • nasani

            What’s in doubt is your sanity if you chose to support a deranged person.

    • kfreed

      Absolutely disagree. Feed the trolls facts until they choke on them. It’s called push back. Besides, he replied to every new comment that appeared, whether he was engaged or not.

  • TehMinx

    Don’t forget Radio Shack– they’ve been flying under the radar for too long.

  • Fat Pierre

    This column was really offensively stupid.

    I’ve been a Glenn Greenwald reader for years. My opposition to the NSA’s overreaching can be summarized as follows: There has never been a spy agency with anything approaching the capabilities of the NSA that, without rigorous legal oversight and checks, hasn’t used its power abusively. I’m more than willing to debate this proposition. What I’m not willing to do is concede that this comes anywhere close to Alex Jones conspiracy land.

    Perhaps I am concerned about the NSA because of my family’s long involvement in progressive causes. When I say “progressive” I don’t mean Bob Cesca style “OMG, did you just hear what Anne Coulter said!” progressivism. Nor do I mean Che Guavara-praising calls for a violent revolution. I mean actual advocacy work: working to help striking laborers, working to implement social security laws, and working to achieve the goal of equal treatment under the law for racial minorities.

    As a result of this actual, meaningful progressive activism, family members were targeted by the FBI. This isn’t wild-eyed speculation. I have the records to prove it thanks to the Freedom of Information Act. The FBI followed members of my family. Members of my family were called in for questioning and asked about their affiliation with “subversive organizations.” One of my father’s earliest memories is picking up the phone and hearing a gentle-voiced man tell him that his parents were communists who hated this country. I’m sure that none of these things has ever happened to Bob Cesca, because Bob Cesca is a threat to no one.

    There seems to be a certain group of so-called “progressives” who have reasoned that since A) The Tea Party is always railing against the government; and B) We oppose the Tea Party; then it follows that C) it is our responsibility to support whatever the government is doing. That seems to me to be a deeply mistaken approach to these issues.

    It would be good if we could have actual conversations about these things. Those conversations cannot begin with, “You’re just like Alex Jones.” They simply can’t.

    • YesMan4

      Bob’s multiple buttboys will be insulting you in 3…
      2…
      1…

      • Fat Pierre

        I find that they more often just ignore long, substantive points.

      • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

        Buttboys? How enlightened! Wait, “enlightened” is the wrong word. Homophobic is a better one. Weird for a Greenwald disciple.

    • kfreed

      This column hit it out of the park. Your problem may be that you’ve been “reading Greenwald for years”.

      • Fat Pierre

        Would you care to actually respond to any of the things I actually said? Or should I expect another dose of substance-free snark?

        • kfreed

          What, you claiming to have been followed by the FBI? Um… no.

          This blog post is about the tinfoil hatters out there spouting misinformation and conspiracy theories. We don’t need authoritarians like Ron/Rand Paul lecturing us about privicy… something they don’t actually believe in. Nor do we need to engage with Greenwald’s fact-free “reporting” nor his #StandWithRand dog and pony show for the benefit of Rand Paul – which is what this anti-government hysteria is all about.

          If we want to have conversations about the FBI and who they may or may not have followed and at who’s behest, we can do it without hanging it on Obama. There are other forces at play here. The point is to extract fact from fiction. Again, the TOPIC of this blog post is how we go about that. Listening to Greenwald is not the way to do it.

          • Fat Pierre

            I never claimed to have been followed by the FBI. I know for a fact that members of my family were. I have the files to prove it.

          • kfreed

            I’m not interested in claims made by anonymous in a comment thread. Does that answer your question?

          • Fat Pierre

            Sure. You’re not interested in having a conversation about these issues that acknowledges our undeniable history of surveillance abuses.

          • kfreed

            No, I’m not interested in “having a conversation” with dishonest brokers like Greenwald or his fan club. I think my comments throughout this piece adequately make my case.

  • Jack Carlton

    Bob,
    I haven’t even read your post yet, but just from the title – you nailed it again. I don’t know if you caught this, but last year (maybe early 2013), Cenk actually did some cross-over promotions with Alex — each appearing on the others’ show and treating the other very respectfully. (This was shortly after Alex Jones threatened to start a civil war (i.e., killing liberals en masse) on Piers Morgan, so I guess that places it around late-December or January.

    Anyway, they were explicit that they had a lot of the same fans on their two shows and should try to foster more of a relationship. This was around the time Cenk was pimping the “Stand with Rand” obscenity, and attacking Obama daily over drones. Pre-NSA stuff.

    I just could not take it anymore. The interesting thing is that when I was quitting Cenk, other people were quitting you and Driftglass/Blue Gal. They read some angry letters on their podcast, and there have been hoardes of them in Driftglass’ comments. It appears that we have reached that point that the left always reaches, with the emoprogs and purity trolls declaring their own party a haven for war criminals, and their own erstwhile allies “Obamabots” and “paid shills for the New World Order.”

    • YesMan4

      It’s usually best to stop at Bob’s titles. It’s just downhill from there…

      • Lady Willpower

        Uh, so stop coming here?

    • sam stone

      The name calling goes both ways, and none of it is very helpful. The hatred in the comments on this site directed at anyone who questions the policies of this administration from the left is worse than anything you’ll see towards Republicans. Worse, many seem to think that criticisms from the left are not even possible and that all such critics must be RATFUCKING LIBERTARDIANS. This is false and, frankly, disingenuous, but it seems to be an effective way to deflect criticism around here.

      • YesMan4

        Agreed, and the fish rots from the Bobble head.
        Just don’t pretend it’s “effective.”

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        As long as commenters stay civil, we do too. If they act like a jerk, they’ll get as good as they give. This guy was insulting right off the bat.

        • sam stone

          That’s bull. I’ve seen enough of these posts and comment sections to know that honest, frank discussion cannot occur here. Whenever someone raises even the slightest concerns about NSA spying or defends an action of Greenwald or Snowden in any way, the reaction is the same every time: 1. Go away, you’re a troll, 2. F-you, Paultard, 3. Why do you hate our black president, huh? 4. The tin-foil-left is so naive 5. RATFUCKERS. Seriously, the level of discourse here is about the same as over at The Gateway Pundit or one of those other RWNJ sites. You folks do shame to the party you claim to support.

          • kfreed

            What honest, frank discussion can occur when you begin with a false premise and fact-free misreporting?

          • sam stone

            Please identify the false premise here:

            1. Greenwald’s reporting of Snowden’s leaks revealed that the NSA is engaged in bulk collection of metadata from the cell phones of US citizens.
            2. Prior to the leaks, National Security Director James Clapper explicitly denied in testimony to Senate Intelligence Committee that the NSA was involved in bulk collection from US citizens.
            3. Clapper has since apologized for providing “erroneous” information to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
            4. It follows that we (and the Senate Intelligence Committee) learned something new from these leaks.

            What we have learned deserves public debate and discussion, and a growing number of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle agree. Yet, the only discussion of these issues that occurs here is ridicule of the messengers and of people who express concerns. It’s good to be skeptical and check facts, but that’s not what’s happening here. This is a whitewashing of real problems because they are perceived as politically inconvenient.

          • kfreed

            1) Metadata does not constitute spying on the contents of phone calls or email as Greenwald originally claimed.

            2/3) Glenn Greenwald’s interpretation of bulk collection and Clapper’s interpretation are two different things and still do not imply that the NSA is listening to our calls and reading our email via PRISM as Greenwald originally claimed.

            Greenwald claimed that the NSA had direct access to communications industry servers. They don’t.

            Greenwald also claimed that no warrants were required and had to backtrack after bein assigned a handler at the Guardian:

            “Well now, we’re finally getting some clarification from the Guardian, which seems to have given Greenwald a minder — reporter James Ball. Together, they’ve posted a rather clarifying new piece, in which they reveal that no, the govmint isn’t grabbing “everyone’s” phonecalls after all, and if they do sweep up Americans in their bulk data collection, they need a warrant to use it, or they have to destroy…”
            http://blog.reidreport.com/2013/06/greenwald-and-the-guardian-try-again-only-this-time-theres-warrants/

            The individual who wrote about PRISM years ago will have better insight as to what the NSA does with the program than clueless Greenwald and even more clueless Paulbot Snowden.

            “PRISM Isn’t Data Mining and Other Falsehoods in the N.S.A. “Scandal”
            http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal

            Several false premises here. Not to mention the Greenwald/Ron Paul inspired hysterics about the government being out to assassinate dim bulb Snowden:)

            4) The Senate Intelligence Committee, eh? The INTELLIGENCE committee knew nothing about PRISM? Is that what you’re telling me? Even though it’s been a known-known for years?

            “members of Congress on both sides of the aisle agree” – Republicans, who were happy with the Patriot Act (even before the FISA court was established to provide oversight) and defended it to the death are now opposed to it? No political machinations there, huh?

            None whatsoever: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/12/sean-hannity-on-nsa-surveillance-then-and-now/194437

            If liberals are willing to be lead around by the nose by Paul and son, much as they were all in a tizzy just a while ago over the fake IRS scandal, I can’t do anything about it.

            I can, however, choose not to join them into being conned by “Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Cato Institute”…

            THIS Cato Institute:

            “Another Cato Institute executive, Roger Pilon, vigorously supported Bush’s attacks on civil liberties. Pilon, Cato’s VP for legal affairs and founding director of the Cato Institute’s “Center for Constitutional Studies,” supported expanded FBI wiretapping in 2002 and called on Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act as late as 2008.”

            http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth#

            And, coincidentally, we have Greenwald’s BFF, Rand Paul (#StandWithRand) fundraising off the NSA “controversy”:
            http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/rand-paul-nsa-fundraising-lawsuit

            Nothing at all fishy about that, eh?

            NO, I am not joining this circular clusterfuck:) Much as I didn’t join the last one, or the one before that, or the one before that.

          • sam stone

            I made specific claims concerning NSA metadata collection from cell phones that Clapper lied to the Intelligence Committee about before the leaks. If those claims are true, then there is a story here. You’re additional concerns about the accuracy of various other claims concerning direct access and the PRISM program are beside the point. The fact that there have been problems with the reporting (which shouldn’t too surprising considering that it’s reporting on secret programs) doesn’t mean that there’s no there there. I get that you might not want to take it seriously, but outside of this little blog, serious people are.

          • kfreed

            Clapper “lied”? Or did his reversal have something to do with declassification of previousy classified material?

            ““While my staff acknowledged the error to Senator Wyden’s staff soon after the hearing, I can now openly correct it because the existence of the metadata collection program has been declassified,” Clapper said.”

            http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/308979-clapper-apologies-for-erroneous-statement-to-congress-on-us-data-collection
            Meta data is collected on phones, cell or otherwise, which does not constitute listening in on our calls or reading our emails as Greenwald and Snowden claimed. You want to get all haired out, go right ahead. I’m not that paranoid.
            No, PRISM is not beside the point, nor are the other instances of Greenwald’s false reporting beside the point.
            If “other people” are taking Greenwald, Snowden, the Pauls, and the suddenly “anti-NSA” authors of the Patriot Act seriously, then they’re just not that bright.

          • Fat Pierre

            “lapper “lied”? Or did his reversal have something to do with declassification of previousy classified material?

            ““While my staff acknowledged the error to Senator Wyden’s staff soon after the hearing, I can now openly correct it because the existence of the metadata collection program has been declassified,” Clapper said.

            Yes, he lied. Whether the program was classified or not makes absolutely no difference.There were many, many ways that he could have responded to that question without revealing the existence of a classified program. For example, he could have repeated Alberto Gonzales’ response to a very similar question: “The programs and activities you ask about, to the extent that they exist, would be highly classified.”

            The fact that I’m citing AG Gonzales as a model to follow shows just how far down the rabbit hole we’ve fallen.

          • kfreed

            Declissification makes ALL the difference. The fact that the info was declassified and Clapper then presented it doesn’t amount to governement conspiracy.

            How far we’ve fallen down the rabbit hole is evidenced by the fact that clueless people are taking Glenn Greenwald of Cato Institute at face value: http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/

            I’m sure I’ve mentioned this, but for your edification:

            THIS Cato Institute:

            “Another Cato Institute executive, Roger Pilon, vigorously supported Bush’s attacks on civil liberties. Pilon, Cato’s VP for legal affairs and founding director of the Cato Institute’s “Center for Constitutional Studies,” supported expanded FBI wiretapping in 2002 and called on Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act as late as 2008.”
            http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth#

            Feel free to be a tool for these people. Don’t insist that others join you.

          • Fat Pierre

            “Declissification makes ALL the difference. The fact that the info was
            declassified and Clapper then presented it doesn’t amount to governement
            conspiracy.”

            Declassification makes NO difference. The fact that the program was classified meant that Clapper couldn’t discuss it. It in no sense permitted him to make false statements about it. This wasn’t the first time that a government official has been asked about classified programs that they weren’t allowed to speak about. There are a number of ways that he could have answered the question, and he chose to lie.

          • kfreed

            Couldn’t discus it… so classification DOES make a difference. Which was the point I was making.

          • missliberties

            Beautifully done! Thank you.

          • Fat Pierre

            Also fundamentally inaccurate. Please see above.

          • Fat Pierre

            Do you know what’s really fascinating about this comment, Mr. “There was no FISA court under Bush?” Virtually none of it is accurate.

            1)”Metadata does not constitute spying on the contents of phone calls or email as Greenwald originally claimed.”

            Greenwald made no such claim. In fact, if you actually go back and read the original article on the collection of Verizon metadata, you will find this sentence (it’s in the fourth paragraph): “Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered.”

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

            That article also included the court order itself.

            2) “Greenwald claimed that the NSA had direct access to communications industry servers. They don’t.”

            Neither part of this is accurate. Greenwald quite clearly made three claims:

            1)Documents from the NSA clearly referred to collection of data “directly from US providers.” That’s absolutely and undisputably true. We have the slide that says it.

            2) An NSA insider (later revealed to be Edward Snowden) had claimed that the agency has the capacity to perform extremely invasive searches of the content of Americans’ private communications. Absolutely no claim was made or reported that suggested that the NSA was legally authorized to do so or that they routinely used these capabilities to spy on the content of domestic communications without a warrant.

            3) The tech firms identified by the NSA’s own slides vehemently denied the claims of direct access. These denials were prominently featured in the very first articles about PRISM.

            Since then, anonymous sources have indicated that PRISM, contrary to what the NSA’s own slides say, does not work through “direct access.” That means that the claims of direct access have been disputed, not that they have been disproven. It’s still not at all clear precisely how PRISM works or what “direct access” even means. Anyone who is claiming that they “know” that Snowden’s claims have been debunked is ignorant of the facts.

          • kfreed

            Greenwald’s original claim on NSA’s PRISM program prior to corrections:

            “The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information.

            Companies are legally obliged to comply with requests for users’ communications under US law, but the Prism program allows the intelligence services direct access to the companies’ servers. The NSA document notes the operations have “assistance of communications providers in the US””
            http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42134_Greenwald-_We_never_claimed_direct_access_was_true

            Cesca adequately addressed Greenwald’s fact-challenged claim of “direct access” and then we have WaPo walking back the claims gleaned from Greenwald:
            http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/

            http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/
            From the man who wrote the book on PRISM long before Greenwald’s non-revelation:

            Eichenwald: PRISM Isn’t Data Mining and Other Falsehoods in the N.S.A. “Scandal”
            http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal

            Your turn to read the information presented in my replies to you. Feel free to continue misrepresenting both Greenwald’s original fact-free claims and Cesca’s corrections thereof. And Eichenwald. And anyone else in the habit of throwing a wrench in the government conspiracy narrative.

            Knowing Greenwald as I do, this will end up blowing up in his face much like the rest of his agenda-driven tripe.

            I’ll be having my dinner now as I could really care less what Greenwald has to say about anything:)

          • Fat Pierre

            “”The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information.”

            That is true. Further documents have shown that PRISM is used to intercept, among other things, video and audio from Skype calls.

          • kfreed

            Link.

      • kfreed

        Ratfucking Libertardians… if the shoe fits.

  • william trent

    It seems as if the lunatics always cluster at either end of the ideological spectrum.

    • YesMan4

      Yes, much better to have no discernible values like O-bot Cesca. That way, literally no one can call you an idealogue, because, yaknow, having political values is the worst thing when you’re trying to shill for Power… such a drag…

      • william trent

        And self-righteous, arrogant Greenwald groupies are pretty insufferable.

      • 624LC .

        Let me guess – those farts you made while propelling yourself off the sofa in search of food – they are for freedom, right?

        • YesMan4

          That’s a Paultard slur, you’re still confused…

  • YesMan4

    Meanwhile in actual News/Opinion worth your time of day:

    On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, Chris Hedges says The Democratic Party used to watch out for the interests of labor and even for the poor. But that all changed under Bill Clinton. Although Clinton, like Obama, continues to speak in that feel-your-pain language of traditional liberalism, they’ve completely betrayed the very people that they purport to represent and defend.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10468

    • Badgerite

      Well, I know, let’s just all go back to the day when the Democratic candidate for president managed to win one state in the electoral contest. Things will just get better then because the repression will be soooooo much clearer to see the we will rise up in revolutionary zeal and …….or maybe not!

    • kfreed

      Here’s another interesting book by Chris Hedges:

      “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America” circa 2006:
      http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/19/chris_hedges_on_american_fascists_the

      It’s got a section on Tea Party “Prosperity Gospel” even – the very bassackward ideology Paul Ryan uses to defend his backassward Tea party budget:)

      Hedges: “I do believe that the radical Christian Right is a sworn and potent enemy of the open society. In the event of a crisis, in the event of another catastrophic terrorist attack, an economic meltdown or huge environmental disaster, the movement stands poised to manipulate fear and chaos ruthlessly and reshape America in ways that have not been seen ince the nation’s founding…”

      We have arrived.

      I recall a global economic crisis occurring in 2008 and with it the rise of the Christo-fascist Tea Party. Hedges should probably read his own book.

      Glenn Greenwald’s BFFs Ron and Rand Paul:
      “Theocratic Libertarianism: Quotes from Gary North, Ludwig von Mises Institute Scholar”
      http://www.talk2action.org/story/2012/1/6/14215/07913

      Our “Godly” Tea Party/ALEC congress critters even made a Christo-fascist video calling on the “Supernatural hand of God” to govern the nation:
      http://vachristian.org/Current-Events/Virginia-Call-to-Prayer-Day-has-Been-Declared-April-6-2011.html

      Yet Glenn Greenwald (and even Chris Hedges) appears oddly unconcerned…

      “Ted Cruz, Rand Paul Rally Right-Wing Pastors in Iowa”
      http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-rallies-right-wing-pastors-iowa

      “Ron Paul Curriculum Launched by Reconstructionist Gary North and Neo-Confederate Thomas Woods”
      http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/4/9/124434/9216

      This is what you bozos are aiding and abetting:) Now if you’ll excuse me, I have better things to do than further waste time on clueless Paulbots.

      • YesMan4

        Your long unlettered ranting and list of links isn’t getting you anywhere.

        • kfreed

          Well, certainly not with the likes of a Paultard like you. However, it’s nice when clueless dunces provide the opportunity to add some dimension to the discussion – for the benefit of inquiring minds who like to know these things:)

          • YesMan4

            Socialist != Paultard.
            How embarrassing.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Except he just showed you how Greenwald’s stance (which you purport to share) is totally in in line with Paul’s stance(s). Thus they are pretty damn equivalent. Logic, you should try it some time.

          • YesMan4

            Just no. Are Daily Banter readers really this dumb?

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Haha, you are such a funny little person. I shit smarter turds than you.

          • YesMan4

            Cool story, bro.

          • nasani

            You think you are so hip, buy you are not.

          • first last

            Libertarian == Ideology is more important than truth.

            Socialist == Ideology is more important than truth.

            Realist == Establishing the truth is prerequisite to coming to any value-induced conclusions.

            I’m a realist. Sorry but we don’t really fit into the primitive social/economic authoritarian/libertarian dual-axis diagram that constrains the political thought of so many people.

          • YesMan4

            Whatever Bob Cesca is, it isn’t a realist.

          • first last

            Pretty sure I’m not Bob Cesca.

          • YesMan4

            I know, his sock-puppet today is Bubble Butt

          • Bubble Genius

            Riiiiiiiight. You’re so smart. Gold star for figuring it out. Next, try to figure out how Bob grew a vagina.

          • blackdaug

            Haaaaa! Been waiting for that one!!

          • YesMan4

            No girls on the Internet, Bob.

          • first last

            It’s not surprising that Libertarians and Socialists, who tend to rely on external authorities to tell them what to think, and aren’t normally charitable to the notion that well-meaning, independent thinkers might occasionally come to conclusions that don’t fit their preconceived dogmas, would resort to accusing people of sock-puppetry and Obatism.

            Just remember, if I point out some glaring factual holes in the Freakout Du Jour, I’m either a sock-puppet, a robot who can’t think for himself, or a shill for the “DC elite establishment”. It can’t possibly be the case that I looked at the evidence, thought about things rationally, and came to a different conclusion than the one you were spoon-fed.

          • YesMan4

            What extant external political party do Socialists get their talking-points from? This is hilariously obvious projection.

          • kfreed

            You’re not a socialist. The fact that you choose to ignore some rather inconvenient facts about Greenwald’s BFFs, the twin Fraud Pauls, tells me all I need to know:)

            Bottom line, your purpose here is to junk up the comment thread like any Paultard worth his weight in Greenwald crackers.

          • YesMan4

            There are no “facts” here. Do you really think your little screeds and guilt-by-association games would convince a disinterested reader? Pathetic…

          • kfreed

            How would you know? You haven’t bothered to read any of it. Endorsing Ron Paul for President isn’t “guilt by association” – Greenwald is on record lying about Ron Paul, thus there is no reason on earth for people to take his word for anything. Not to mention, Cesca does a superb job of constantly correcting Greenwald’s misreporting – which is why you’re here:)

            Has it dawned on you that people who read comment threads are anything but “disinterested”?

          • YesMan4

            That’s another falsehood, never “endorsed” Paul.

          • kfreed

            Sorry. I forgot about the non-endorsing endoresment.

  • kfreed

    P.S. Thank you, Bob Cesca, for pointing out the obvious so blatantly that even a Greenwald Paulbot can understand it. .

    • YesMan4

      THANK YOU BOB FOR RESTORING MY FAITH IN THE MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION EVER™
      (I had a moment of independent thought but you successfully repressed that with your snarky guilt-by-association argument)

      • kfreed

        You see… you’ve already been reduced to typing ALL CAPS… afraid that boredom with your parrot routine is setting in around these parts, are you?

        • YesMan4

          I was just translating your apologia into English.

          • kfreed

            I have little faith in your understanding of the English language.

          • YesMan4

            I have little faith in your overuse of gerunds (look it up).

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            You work so very hard to sound educated……if you want to prove you’re smart why don’t you use facts and logic. Using ten dollar words and trying to insult people in multiple languages makes you look like an insecure immature jerk. Also, too, try to stay on topic.

          • YesMan4

            I use facts on people as a starting place. A casual perusal of my earlier comments confirms that. If people reply with venom, I follow suit.

          • 624LC .

            And so scary are you. Funny, hadn’t picked up on any facts presented by you. Just a lot of hot air and cutting and pasting of Greenwald crap.

          • YesMan4

            Interestingly, that’s exactly what I didn’t do. It’s actually Cesca copy/pasting anything he can distort from its original context in a vain attempt to slur the greatest journalist of this decade, Glenn Greenwald.

          • 624LC .

            Wow, that dick is that good, huh?

          • YesMan4

            So good.

          • kfreed

            Here’s something you didn’t do: read critically, either Greenwald or Cesca.

          • YesMan4

            Close reading Bob Cesca sounds like the most profound waste of time conceivable to sentient man.

          • kfreed

            “sentient”… not your cup of tea, obviously.

          • nasani

            Then you must be a total idiot because you can’t seem to stop coming to his blog.

          • nasani

            Admit it, YesMan! You are a Greenwald cult member. You thought you could come here at Bob Cesca blog and recruit converts who would buy into your cult’s delusion that Glenn Greenwald “is the greatest journalist of this decade.” Obviously you’ve failed miserably. This explains why you had to resort to insults.

          • kfreed

            What facts. Aping the opinions of Greenwald and Hedges doesn’t cut it.

          • YesMan4

            Dismissive comments don’t earn you respect or a reasonable response.

          • kfreed

            So, your fallback position is to consult an online thesaurus? LOL.

          • YesMan4

            What’s the relation between a thesaurus and the word “gerund?” It has no synonyms…

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            synonym is gerundive….just give it up dude

          • YesMan4

            That’s not a word used by anyone in the past 50 years, nice try though. The English word is “gerund.”

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            It’s a word though so I just proved you wrong. So you’re not omniscient. Admit it….come on….you’ll feel much better if you do. And maybe they’ll loosen the restraints and let you have a room with a window.

          • Bubble Genius

            Ahhhh. It makes more sense if one pictures him typing with his teeny peener.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            I bets it’s so tiny it gets stuck between the keys…..

          • Bubble Genius

            Must hurt. No wonder he’s so cranky.

          • YesMan4

            Clever discourse, bros.
            The English is still “gerund,” you’re getting confused by a Latin grammatical term which is not a common noun. Besides, since when is two forms of the same word considered synonyms? A for effort, though…

          • blackdaug

            I don’t know. It’s big enough for him to trip over 347 time in 2 days….
            Christ, he is making a career out of it!
            Another thought, maybe he’s Glenn’s hubby?
            GG is over in China, blathering on about himself as usual.
            Hubby is home in Rio, bored..gets out the laptop, Googles his significant other, does some coke ..and starts typing like a crazed gerbil.
            …or maybe he is a crazed gerbil. Again, hard call…

          • YesMan4

            If I was gonna defend hubby’s honor why would I start with an O-bot blog that gets 300 views?

          • Lady Willpower

            “apologia” definitely earns a BINGO point.

      • nasani

        I doubt you’ve ever had an independent thought in your life. All you do is to come on this blog to parrot Greenwald and Cenk!

  • first last

    Bob: Here’s one of the most dishonest articles you will read all day:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/23/are-you-reading-my-emails-former-state-dept-official-asks-the-nsa.html

    This individual is stating that monitoring his communications in/out of formally-declared active war zones where thousands of US soldiers have been killed and terror attacks routinely kill dozens of people is exactly the same thing as Big Brother George Orwell 1984 Police State.

    What he doesn’t mention is that he was briefed that this surveillance would take place when he was deployed to an active war zone (where thousands of US soldiers have been killed and terror attacks routinely kill dozens of people) as does every person at State who gets deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq.

    • YesMan4

      Every word you shills type, e.g. “at State,” reveals your elite position in the DC machinery, further proving that this blog is useless except for the comfort it provides the DC criminal class.

      • first last

        I don’t work in DC. And I’m only elite in my own mind. And we were exactly the people warning you not to trust the original Curveball and getting called Enemies of Freedom back then, too.

        So, yeah, just ignore everything I’m saying if it doesn’t fit with your preconceived, one-sided Outrage Porn WMD Democracy Must Be Saved Narrative.

        Libertarian Curveball can withstand torture, hack the most hardened systems, outsmart the entire Chinese intel community, tap any phone, read any email, access any datum in any SIGINT database, access any record at any commercial database in the US and store it in the NSA’s yottabyte scale data farm they built in Utah for less than $2 billion.

        Because that’s all totally plausible and it’s your duty as a patriot to unquestionably believe this stuff. For liberty!

        • YesMan4

          Again, I’m not a Paultard, I’m a socialist, but it’s rather menacing the way you Obots now openly dismiss the word “liberty.” You ever take a moment for self-reflection?

          • first last

            Yeah, I heard this same argument back in 2002. Anyone who employs critical thinking or takes all of the evidence into account is a part of the DC liberal elite intelligence establishment but George Bush will force us to finally tell the truth about Saddam. I hate freedom and I’m an unthinking knee-jerk partisan if I don’t open wide and uncritically swallow every bullshit claim I see on TV. Sure thing fella. Nobody has ever used the cause of ‘liberty’ to blind you to basic facts, nah.

          • YesMan4

            Where was Bob on the Iraq War by the way?

          • 624LC .

            Where were you? Sleeping off a binge?

          • YesMan4

            Sleeping with yo moma

          • 624LC .

            Hey, everybody! Yesman4 younger brother has taken over now. Work release program ended early today, apparently.

          • YesMan4

            Hey, everybody! This idiot’s still trying…

          • 624LC .

            Everybody know that you are the idiot still trying…and failing. Just go back to sleep and dream of Glenn, m’kay? You might get to spoon him before you wake up.

          • kfreed

            Not cheerleading the invasion of Iraq like Glenn Greenwald was, that’s for sure:)

            Greenwald: “I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.”

            http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297462

          • YesMan4

            That’s “cheerleading the invasion?”
            Pathetic…

          • kfreed

            Yep.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            You just can’t read and understand what people are saying to you…..we love liberty. We just don’t feel like running around telling lies and shouting non sequiturs actually gets us any closer to liberty. In fact, it hurts the liberal cause.

          • kfreed

            You certainly are a Paultard: “liberty!”

            Who else runs around quacking”Liberty!” constantly?

          • YesMan4

            Not me, for sure.

          • kfreed

            Weak. You running out of steam?

      • Badgerite

        Che Guevera says what now?

        • YesMan4

          que paso, pinche cabron?

          • Bubble Genius

            hijo de puta.

          • Kitty Smith

            Okay, I laughed.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Wow, you’re just a man of many languages aren’t you! I bet Google translation is your best friend. No sabes tu culata desde un agujero in el suelo. What a leathcheann……

          • YesMan4

            are you sure you’re using “desde” correctly there?

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Actually, no I’m not. My Spanish is rusty. But see how I can admit when I might be wrong and you can’t. You ought to try it sometime.

          • YesMan4

            I’m never wrong; not my fault, bro.

          • Bubble Genius

            Dr. Hfuhruhurr strikes again.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            So you’re omniscient? Okay, that means you’re batshit crazy and everything you’ve said in these comments just became useless. You just destroyed yourself. Congrats!

          • blackdaug

            ding! ding! ding!

          • kfreed

            YesMan is brilliant. He’s learned to operate Google translate:)

          • YesMan4

            What languages do you know, smartee?

          • kfreed

            All of them. I, too, canz operate Google Translate:)

          • YesMan4

            OK, but do you have any actual skills like me (I know 5 languages in addition to my native English)?

          • kfreed

            Really? I’m supposed to post my resume? ROFLMAO.

            Says every Paultard on the Internetz: Me so smart.
            Yet the cluelessness is breathtaking.

          • YesMan4

            I’ll take that as you’re monolingual.

          • kfreed

            You can take that any way you like:)

          • Badgerite

            Well, that is a reeeeeally RATIONAL argument, right there. No name calling at all. Oh, that’s right. It is just name calling.

      • 624LC .

        Sound like somebody who couldn’t get hired as a dog catcher in DC. Too crazy…

      • nasani

        It’s might funny you’ve spent hours and hours on a useless blog.

  • YesMan4

    To all the 90 IQs who think Greenwald is a wingnut and Bob Cesca is rational and collected, behold this 2011 piece in which paranoid idiot Bob Cesca reveals his delusional persecution complex:

    http://bobcesca.thedailybanter.com/blog-archives/2011/03/paying_wingnut.html

    • Bubble Genius

      Boring troll is boring.

      I’m not generally for banning people but I really am tired at looking at your endless drivel. Don’t you have anything better to do, Glenn?

      • YesMan4

        Ban away, you’ll just lose 1/300th of your readership, Bob.

        • Bubble Genius

          I have no banning privileges, it is merely a suggestion.

          All I know is that you’re so repetitively tedious that I’d rather read Barbara Cartland’s entire oeuvre before reading another one of your posts. You are more boring, and I daresay more prolific.

          • YesMan4

            When in Rome…

          • Bubble Genius

            I especially like the way you come back as another empty avatar to up-vote yourself. Well, up-vote yours.

          • YesMan4

            Oh, do I?

          • kfreed

            And obviously so..

          • YesMan4

            Cute theory but Disqus uses IP assignments, not Username assignments, so no…

          • kfreed

            So you have a twin up-rating your stupidity? You can use your Disqus account, or connect right in with Facebook, Twitter or your Google account.

            Sock puppetry isn’t rocket science.

          • Badgerite

            Well, he is good for a laugh. I believe he lobs what they call in tennis a ‘sitter’.

          • YesMan4

            No, that’s what people use during Acid Tests.

          • blackdaug

            At this point, it is like a denial of service attack. He is filling the threads up with garbage. I think that constitutes abuse.

          • YesMan4

            It’s not my fault O-bots keep replying to my Truth with their garbage.

          • blackdaug

            Rave on raver. I don’t see anything past your insipid handle.

          • YesMan4

            That’s what happens to those in The Cave. Can’t handle the Light of Day.

          • Badgerite

            Ahh! Your TRUTH! Not your opinion. Or, to put it more bluntly,
            Your opinion = truth
            Anyone who disagrees with you = a bot, a shill, Dr. Laura, etc.
            What a fine world you would craft.

          • Aaron Litz

            He called us Obots AND speaks of The Truth.

            Outside of some kind of philosophical discussion, capitalizing truth automatically marks one as a zealot who is spreading his Truth as Reveled to him from On High, and not particularly open to clear, critical thinking.

          • kfreed

            You mean truthiness

          • Lady Willpower

            Ooooh, you capitalized “Truth.” That must make it, like, extra true.

        • kfreed

          The worst that will happen to you here is that the novelty of your special brand of stupid will soon wear off and your future utterances will be met with collective yawning. I mean, really, how often can you repeat Glenn Greenwald verbatim and expect people not to fall asleep?

          • YesMan4

            You can claim it’s boring to lose arguments to me all you want…

          • kfreed

            What arguments?

      • formerlywhatithink

        Y’know, I’m starting believe a little that this might actually be Glenn. He’s been caught running sockpuppets before and I don’t put it above him to do so again.

        • YesMan4

          More paranoia from the Power shills.

        • Bubble Genius

          I hope he’s Glennzilla, because if he isn’t, he’s even less interesting.

      • blackdaug

        I hear ya. Positively manic and paranoid….and he does kind of sound like Glenn. Or just another troll off his meds.. Really hard to tell the difference.

        • YesMan4

          Do you really think:
          1. The most famous and successful journalist of this decade would waste his time trolling 5 idiots on a blog read by 300 Obots?
          2. I am mentally ill or some other tasteless slur against me is true?
          3. Anyone who disagrees with you is a “troll?”

          • blackdaug

            I think number 2 is pretty evident to everyone here.
            Like I said …I am out. Go get some help.

          • YesMan4

            Good riddance to boring rubbish

          • Bubble Genius

            Are you from the UK or are you just being pretentious?

          • Bubble Genius

            1. HAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA. “The most famous and successful journalist of this decade” – you ARE Glenn. Surely nobody else could be that wankishly hyperbolic. You are Dr. Hfuhruhurr to me from now till the end of time.

            2. I’d buy that.

            3. Oh, irony. Anyone who disagrees with you is a DC-funded O-bot, so sure, you’re just a troll because you “disagree” with us. Not because you’re an asshole.

          • blackdaug

            Shh…maybe he’s Eddie!
            I hear he has outdoor privileges these days….and he is the only one who worships Glenn as much as Glenn does.
            Nutcase, Eddie, or Glenn….not much difference either way you pick.

          • YesMan4

            You shills do tend towards delusion when someone defeats you with arguments.

          • blackdaug

            Yesmam troll says what??????

          • nasani

            Calling Greenwald “The most famous and successful journalist of the decade” is an argument? Man, You need serious help.

          • YesMan4

            You can always tell when cognitive dissonance hits home because it manifests in obnoxious deflections like “HAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA.”

          • kfreed

            I don’t know… in your case, “HAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA” pretty much covers ” most famous and successful…”

            I nearly broke a rib over that one.

          • kfreed

            “1. The most famous and successful journalist of this decade would waste his time trolling 5 idiots on a blog read by 300 Obots?”

            Why not, he’s well known for his sock puppetry. Not so much for his “journalistic” prowess… as the facts continue to bear out.

            I think the word you’re looking for is “infamous”:)

          • nasani

            “The most famous and successful journalist of this decade …”

            What exactly are you smoking? Or is this another you lame attempt to be funny?

    • kfreed

      Speaking of Greenwald of Wingnut Farms and a persecution complex: “Mean fact-checkers are attacking meeee!”

      • YesMan4

        I know, Cesca’s such a sad putz… I agree…

    • Badgerite

      Behold? You have accepted the Snowald as your personal Lord and Saviour!

      • YesMan4

        Thou hast worn out thy welcome. This be mine area hitherforth.

        • Badgerite

          Sure!

        • Bubble Genius

          Well, who else wants to be here after you’ve so befouled the place?

  • kfreed

    Because this just can’t be said often enough…

    “The Convergence of the ‘Glenn Greenwald Left’ and the ‘Alex Jones Right’”

    Well yeah. That WAS the plan, after all:

    “Glenn Greenwald’s third party dreamin’ **UPDATE: on Libertarianism”

    “At a talk given the day after the 2010 election — one that was a disaster for Democrats — “progressive” writer and civil liberties lawyer Glenn Greenwald gave a talk at the University of Wisconsin, and expressed the hope that Democrats might suffer the same fate in 2012.

    Greenwald’s speech mainly focused on civil liberties and terrorism policy “in the age of Obama.” But it was his approach to politics that got members of the Young Americans for Liberty — a Paulite Libertarian group that co-sponsored the event — excited:

    [Quote] The speech was stellar with too many good points to touch on in a single blog post. I would like to point out that in the Q&A at 38:00 Greenwald specifically addresses a possible alliance between progressives and Ron Paul libertarians. [Unquote]”
    http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

    Once again, “Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Cato Institute” is not “left” or “progressive”.

    Here’s right-wing Cato-style Libertarianism (which, BTW, has nothing to do with civil liberties): http://www.billionairesteaparty.com/koch/#!lightbox11/2/

    By the way, speaking of so-called “lefties” (Koch/Cato libertarians, “former” righties, or the simply brain dead), here’s a perfect example of how the lines get blurred. This man is now writing for “progressive” Alternet alongside Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Cato Institute(apparently, Alternet isn’t particularly discerning when it comes to contributors):

    Paul Craig Roberts on Alternet:

    July 15, 2013 | “The American people have suffered a coup d’etat, but they are hesitant to acknowledge it. The regime ruling in Washington today lacks constitutional and legal legitimacy. Americans are ruled by usurpers who claim that the executive branch is above the law and that the US Constitution is a mere “scrap of paper.”

    Sound familiar? So, who is Paul Craig Roberts?

    “CounterPunch Gives Platform to White Nationalism, Paul Craig Roberts” http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2009/03/17/counterpunch-gives-platform-to-white-nationalism/

    Ahem: AlterNet contributor RW Paul Craig Roberts writing for white supremacist
    V-DARE: http://www.vdare.com/users/paul-craig-roberts

    SPLC on V-DARE: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/peter-brimelow

    Paul Craig Roberts: Looky here: Past Cato institute fellow… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts

    Important to note is that the Libertarians of Cato Institute are the original war mongers, not the anti-war avant-garde they now claim to be:

    “Another Cato executive, Ted Galen Carpenter, former VP for defense and foreign policy studies, enthusiastically supported Bush’s “war on terror” and called on Bush to invade Pakistan.

    The Cato Institute advised the 2002–04 Republican-dominated Congress to commence military strikes in Pakistan in its Cato Handbook for Congress arguing, “Ultimately, Afghanistan becomes less important as a place to conduct military operations in the war on terrorism and more important as a place from which to launch military operations. And those operations should be directed across the border into neighboring Pakistan.”

    Another Cato Institute executive, Roger Pilon, vigorously supported Bush’s attacks on civil liberties. Pilon, Cato’s VP for legal affairs and founding director of the Cato Institute’s “Center for Constitutional Studies,” supported expanded FBI wiretapping in 2002 and called on Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act as late as 2008.”

    http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth#

    Are we getting the picture? Notice the links to Cato? Are the Ron/Rand Paul lubbers “progressives” or do they just play progressives on TV?

    In other words: actual lefties need to STOP schmoozing with Libertarians if they have any sense of self preservation what.so.ever.

  • sam stone

    If you think that being concerned about government spying on civilians is paranoid you obviously don’t have much knowledge of history. Do yourself a favor and review the finding of the Church Committee in the 1970s to see how government surveillance, unchecked by proper oversight, was abused to go after Civil Rights leaders and other peaceful activists. Sure, I don’t think Obama’s worried about me, but what about the next administration? I hope you’ll regret your full-throated defense of domestic spying next time the other team is in power.

    • YesMan4

      All history not relevant to the Democratic Party’s immediate electoral prospects is ignored here.

      • 624LC .

        Oh, goody, you’re back. Another day, another person to laugh at you while they are walking away fast, huh?

    • kfreed

      We can argue over oversight without joining up with Glenn’s Rand-waldian cult of fact-free hysteria mongering which incidentally is generated by Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Cato Institute for the purpose of Rand Paul’s future electoral prospects, thanks.

      • YesMan4

        That’s what they claim but if you lurk here long enough you’ll find that ANYONE who criticizes Obama’s official party line is immediately denigrated à la Greenwald.

        • kfreed

          If you actually read the material under which you post your asinine comments, you’ll discover that the disagreement lies in Greenwald’s fact-free “reporting”… and yes, some of us actually support President Obama… as we have a tendency to read shit that doesn’t involve Glenn Greenwald or Alex Jones.

        • nasani

          You are a member of the Greenwald cult! Any one who thinks Greenwald Is “the greatest journalist of this decade” has to be deluded.

    • Badgerite

      Yes, and as you can plainly see, the Civil Rights Movement had NO victories AT ALL , after that. Edger’s campaign against MLK was soooo successful that King was awarded the Nobel Prize, has a national day named after him, has a memorial in Washington, DC and we now have an African American president. Oh, and by the way, Edger’s also used all his devious methods to go after the KKK in the south and finally bring actual law enforcement to bear on their murderous activities there. I’m just saying, there are two sides to the same coin.

      • YesMan4

        Stop using “Edger,” It’s “Hoover” or “J Edgar.” MLK was exactly the sort of idealist that Bob Cesca would have tirelessly ranted against, just like party-line hacks did back then. Remember that JFK was furious at the Freedom Riders…

        And soon hero whistle-blower Ed Snowden will join MLK in receiving the Nobel (and all without launching a global assassination program):
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/edward-snowden-nobel-peace-prize_n_3607407.html

        • william trent

          It’s an insult to the memory of MLK to compare him to this flaky man-child.

          • Bubble Genius

            Ed “Croissant” Snowden.

          • YesMan4

            What’s wrong with man-childs?
            Buster Bluth is more a man AND more a child than the typical O-bot…

        • Badgerite

          Well, ya got me. It is a quirk I have. I loved the movie Men in Black and when I refer to “J Edgar” I like to use what the lady in the movie called her husband who was taken over by the alien. But if I typed ‘E’gger’, nobody would know what I meant. By the by, free country, will call someone by any name I want.

        • nasani

          Stop insulting the memory of MLK! MLK was not a coward! He did not run off to find protection in China and Russia. Although FBI put him under surveillance that did not stop him from carrying on his work. He stayed here and confronted the unjust system. I repeat, Edward Snowden is a coward and a traitor! You don’t even understand the meaning of “whistle-blower.” Snowden did not reveal an illegal system or any government abuse. By the way, you entitled to your delusions about Snowden “receiving the Nobel.” It ain’t gone happen! Except may be in your delusional dreams.

  • Jeff Cramer

    This kind of left-right paranoia is a shower and a shave away from the local crackpot on the street corner.

    If Jones thinks the government is really after him, why haven’t they killed him yet? I mean if they are SO EVIL, why are they taking their time and continuing to let him speak?

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      That just goes to show how sneaky they are.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      It’s the “long game”…..just long enough for asshats like Greenwald and Jones to get rich and famous

      • Badgerite

        Ain’t that the truth. And they accuse everybody else of ‘shilling’.

        • Bubble Genius

          Seriously, Yes”Man” has the biggest walnuts in the room.

  • mk3872

    It’s always been true that paranoid crazies can have both a right-wing as well as a left-wing ideological view. I’m happy to see that they’ve found bipartisanship agreement around these spying fantasies.

    • YesMan4

      Yup, I’ve always lived my life denouncing anyone who complains about government overreach, like MLK, Jr. and Edward R. Murrow. It’s so much more easier than facing any difficult tasks that you might not win.

      • 624LC .

        You’ve spent your life on your parents’ sofa trying to explain “Ren and Stempy” to anyone unfortunate enough to walk by you.

      • mk3872

        LOL! Did you just try to put Snowden and Greenwald in the same category as MLK & Murrow?? You’re funny, thanks for the chuckle!

        • YesMan4

          Yuk it up.

          • kfreed

            If you insist on providing the entertainment, who are we to pass up free yuks.

        • Badgerite

          Cannot improve on that!

      • nasani

        You have absolutely nothing in common with MLK! Nothing!

  • js hooper

    I’m just glad the we can finally stop pretending that these MF’ers are Democrats & liberals…or interested in progressive causes.

    These assholes are libertarian RATFUCKERS. They are all workin off the same playbook.

    President Obama gave a passionate and insightful speech about the perspective of black men and youth in America….and their response was to trash him and compare him to fuckin Zimmerman. Salon called Obama & Holder Nigg#rs. Cornel West said black people who support the President are on “Obama’s Plantation”…and Obama is “Re-Nigge#rizing” them. Everyone knows about Sirota’s bullshit.

    All of these muthafuckas are spewing this bullshit on “Democracy Now”….which has become nothing but an outlet for Paultard racist Obama hating libertarians who like masquerading as outraged leftists.

    A real progressive would have no tolerance for racially divisive language and offensive hyperbole….Libertarian Paultards can’t communicate without it.

    • YesMan4

      Typical Daily Banter reader, thanks for being you! XOXOXO

      • js hooper

        STFU paultard troll. Go back to Salon, The Guardian or InfoWars

        • YesMan4

          I’ve got a napkin for when you drool…

          • 624LC .

            Wring it out first. We know you have been using it non-stop.

          • YesMan4

            Make sense.

          • 624LC .

            Just two words – what’s wrong? Hamster in wheel sleeping?

          • YesMan4

            What be wong wit chu?

          • 624LC .

            Seriously, not even hiring at McDonalds? Oh, i forgot! You were occupying wall street and the Man shut you down.

          • nasani

            You mean you enjoy licking someone else spit?

      • Badgerite

        ‘Daily Banter readers’ must really bother you or you wouldn’t be here screeching so much. Would you? Truth hurts!

        • YesMan4

          The sort of “Truth” dished out by Dr. Laura hurts too. Sanctimonious appeals to Power are worthy of my scorn.

          • Badgerite

            What ‘sanctimonious appeal to power’? I merely point out that you spend a lot of time at a blog you belittle as inconsequential. You don’t do that if you actually think the blog, or what is said there, is inconsequential.

          • YesMan4

            If you could convert half of Dr. Laura’s audience into rational humans, wouldn’t you try?

          • Badgerite

            So, it is not so inconsequential then, is it? Or you would not be here.

          • YesMan4

            It’s still pretty inconsequential, though.

          • 624LC .

            Wait… we are not talking about you or your appeal to the ladies. We are talking about this blog – of which you seem obsessed by. It cannot be that inconsequential to you.

          • Badgerite

            Well, then why are you here?

          • nasani

            Poor you! You are pretty clueless as to what your goal is here. I must, however, give you some credit for being a gluttony for mockery.

          • RenoRick

            He’s super sore due to the fact he has to carry around that HUGE brain of his. I shall apologize on his behalf if he is short with anyone. He hasn’t had this many people pay attention to him since he came out of his mother’s womb, and it’s quite overwhelming…

          • nasani

            You Screen name fits you perfectly! What ever Greenwald, Snowden and Cenk say you dutifully support.

    • kfreed

      Perfection:) About time people learned the term “ratfucker” and more importantly, learned how to use it.

      Thank you.

  • YesMan4

    The crux of Bob Cesca’s latest pro-establishment pablum:
    They’re not going to use it against you personally.
    Can you imagine how dead inside you’d have to be to consider anything Cesca writes “original opinion.” I can predict it before he writes it.

    • first last

      You just made a bunch of irrelevant comparisons between J/G, but the article lists a series of convergences that aren’t irrelevant. What’s up with that?

    • Razor

      The crux of his argument is that the surveillance state needs to be rolled back, but this being regarded as the “THE THING THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING!” is silly. All these things you’re throwing a fit about now, nobody seemed to care about until Glenn Greenwald told them to. And a bunch of people ignorant to the reality of the situation being led by a huckster like Greenwald is a recipe for disaster, as illustrated by the alliance with the shack-dwelling, manifesto-typing loonies on the right.

    • Badgerite

      What ‘principle’ exactly is that? The principle, ‘I will believe anything I want regardless of the evidence or real world conditions because I am so amazingly GOOOOOOOD’. That principle? Let me tell you, Che, I believe in Democracy, warts and all, and wouldn’t want to live in the ‘paradise’ people like you and Greenwald would create because it would be more seriously fucked up than anything we have now. You would round everybody up who didn’t agree with you and put them in prison. If you could.

      • YesMan4

        That’s a cute theory, but I believe in Social Democracy, the type which has raised living standards in Scandinavian nations to global zeniths. You’re just a shill for corporatist Dems like Eric Holder and Robert Rubin who hate Democracy and want to continue gutting the country and converting it into an Argentinian-style fascist state, che.

        • Badgerite

          Yes, and where would we be now without those Scandinavian countries who faced down, Hitler, Stalin and Mao and helped rebuild Europe and Japan? Oh, that’s right. That wasn’t them, was it?

          • YesMan4

            1. The Soviets faced down Hitler; the UK and US were just playing colonial games in the 3rd World at the time.
            2. The Russian people faced down Stalin, who was our ally until about 48, and later officially.
            3. Mao was feted at the White House by the establishment. Bob would have cheered that as a brave breakthrough in diplomacy.
            4. The Marshall Plan was more about domination that rebuilding.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Where the hell did you go to school? Your little historical list there is total bullcrap. You need to stop reading historical fiction.

          • YesMan4

            Yea, maybe too much Wikipedia for me.. I’ll stick to Presidential Daily Briefings in the future, bro.

          • Badgerite

            No, not Wiki anything. There was a Chinese scholar, last name of HU, who served about 20 years in one of Mao’s camps during the famine. He eventually made it to the United States and wrote a book about his life. An actual book. Go figure. And isn’t China the place that Snowden ran to to escape the big bad USA spying on him and maybe taking away his computer. That bastion of civil rights. You want to know what real repression looks like, read this man’s autobiography. Its been a while, but I believe his name was Hu Wang.

          • YesMan4

            None of that is news to me. Why are you ranting about history? Go read some Zinn, you clown.

          • Reilly

            No, that historical counter-narrative you attempted wasn’t from Wikipedia. You’re a good YesMan4Greenwald and when he touted Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States you ran to subscribe to Showtime, suspended all critical thinking and accepted that as a new gospel.

            BTW, it’s amusing that you would hold forth on the topic of “original opinion.” Just out of curiosity, who was your intellectual crutch prior to Greenwald?

          • nasani

            I think YesMan4 had no clue until 2005 when he read Greenwald’s blog and became a born again Progressive and a dedicated follower of St. Greenwald. I doubt he even knows the history of the Progressive movement.

          • kfreed

            He’s home schooled. Bet me.

          • Badgerite

            The Soviets made a pact with Hitler, pre-war, in the vain hope that he would be satisfied by gobbling up western Europe. And, I suppose, to stall for time In the pact, I believe that divided up the eastern part of Poland which went to Russia. According to Stalin’s daughter, Stalin once envisioned wistfully what he and Hitler could have accomplished together, if only. Scandinavia, without the US help would now be speaking Russian or German, but certainly not any Scandinavian languages. Nice work, if you can get it, but the US was the indispensable nation to fighting and winning a war against Hitler, during WWII and the stopping the expansionist take overs of the Soviet Union from gobbling up all of Europe.
            Mao never went to the White House. The White House went to Mao. Richard Nixon was the one who was feted in China by Mao. He was actually there, figuratively speaking, to accept China’s surrender to the capitalists, since Mao had devastated the country to the tune of 30 million Chinese dead by famine and then the ravages of the cultural revolution. No one feted Mao. The Marshall Plan allowed western Europe to survive as democracies.

          • villemar

            “The Marshall Plan was more about domination that rebuilding.”
            What a cunty, hateful thing to say. Spoken like true Randroid. Fuck those European Takers, starvation is a great way to cull the herd, right?

          • villemar

            (So sayeth the banned Fidelity Investment Banker. Makes sense now).

          • nasani

            Mao was at the White House? When was that? Or is this another of your delusional dreams?

        • Badgerite

          Yeah, your all about the Democracy. You can’t even handle a contradictory opinion to your own without claiming it is somehow motivated by ‘shilldom’ as opposed to just an opinion. Can you? Your response is to attack. Not to reason. You are a fine representative of the Snowald. By the way, one of my favorite Social Dems of all time was Christopher Hitchens. But, of course, he argued from reason and later in life when his ideas didn’t match what he saw in the real world, he moderated them and became and American citizen, calling America the most revolutionary country in the world. I agree with him.

          • YesMan4

            Yea, I know Daily Banter shills would love the bloated drunkard neo-con Hitch, who is currently an unimportant carcass.

          • Badgerite

            He would have eaten you for a snack before breakfast.

          • YesMan4

            That’s what you’d think given your idiotic preference for UK accents, but if you go back and watch his Iraq war debates, Galloway and Hedges, for example, he actually lost them. You might be confused with his atheism debates, which he obviously won, since atheism is true.

          • Reilly

            I don’t know if you had the misfortune of reading Greenwald’s piece at Salon after Hitchens’ death. It was a showcase for the shoddy, dishonest writing and the cheap rhetorical tricks that Greenwald is known for. I laid it bare at http://www.counter-dominance.com, if you’re interested.

        • nasani

          Didn’t you hero Snowden apply for assylum in some of those fascist states like China and Russia?

    • kfreed

      Rand-waldian Yes Men… Liars for Libert-ay united in collective drooling… Precious.

      • YesMan4

        Usually I’m called a collectivist, being a socialist… get your slurs right.

        • kfreed

          Sure.

          • YesMan4

            Exactly, no evidence for your main “argument” against me.

            LOL

          • Bubble Genius

            You’re hoisting yourself by your own petard, ducky.

          • YesMan4

            Nice sentence, relevance?

          • Bubble Genius

            I’ll simplify it for you. I forget I should use little words so you’ll understand. You’ve shit your drawers, and everyone smells it but you.

          • YesMan4

            Are you from the UK or just using an affectation because you don’t know you’ve already long lost this debate?

          • blackdaug

            You dropped this again….

          • Bubble Genius

            This is a debate?

          • YesMan4

            Yes, Bob.

          • Bubble Genius

            You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

          • YesMan4

            I think we know what it means, Bobble Genius.

          • nasani

            Who are we? You and Greenwald?

          • kfreed

            Your actions here speak volumes:) I don’t need to know how many hours you’ve spent schmoozing Paul.

  • blackdaug

    It’s not even just that the NSA and other intelligence communities don’t care about your interactions with the digital world, it’s that those interactions are the mind numbing frustrating mass keeping them from finding the things they do care about.
    You are the noise obscuring the signal.
    The signal they know they will be blamed for missing when the next attack occurs.
    Remember the Cheny administration’s stock line about how 9/11 was a “massive intelligence failure?” How the intel community had all the info out there, but failed to “connect the dots”? “Who” said Condi ” could possibly foreseen the use of planes as weapons?” (Other than the people who produced the reams of briefings, virtually laying out the plan…. being handed to the administration every day)
    Hell, Richard Clark, who had been screeching to anyone who would listen in the administration about precisely that threat, from precisely that enemy, ended up being the only one to apologize to the american people. “We failed you”.
    He should have said, we (the intel community) failed to convince a criminally incompetent administration, that there was a real threat.
    They know damn well who will be blamed if they miss another “signal”, and the noise gets louder every day.

    • YesMan4

      Greenwald’s “benefit of the doubt” period for Bush represents when he was first becoming politically aware. Has nothing to do with race you painfully impaired facile thinker.

      • http://www.dlancystreet.com reginahny

        What the? Has nothing to do with race? I should say not since there is not one word about race in blackdaug’s comment. Reading is fundamental.

        • YesMan4

          It is of note also, that the time frame of this “massive intelligence failure” coincided with what GG now refers to as his “giving Bush the benefit of a doubt” period. If only he had been around with his careful analysis of intel overreach at that time (and we had elected our first black president earlier)…. the additional smoldering ruins we could be commemorating.

          I know his writing style is barely coherent, but there it is…

          • blackdaug

            Well, it was written in plain English, so I can see where that may have tripped you up.
            But seriously, these people are mopping the floor with you!
            For someone who goes after this like vocation, you sure don’t seem to mind having your ass repeatedly kicked!
            Must be a sad remnant from being bullied in school…huh?
            ….and they wouldn’t even quit when you transferred to another community college?
            Poor baby….bless your heart.
            Go tell mama you have a boo boo…

          • YesMan4

            That’s an interesting version of reality you have…

      • soleri

        I talk to angels like you all the time. Everyone else is impure, compromised, and partisan. Only someone like you can see through all the bullshit in order to prescribe the worthy political remedies, which depending on your mood might be a third party or revolution.

        The problem here is that you’re Karl Rove’s wet dream. You want to peel off the 1 or 2% of lefties who think like you do, which further helps Republicans, which pushes the Overton Window even more to the right, which then makes Democrats even less of a factor in a national debate already haywire with culture-war crapola. .And the sorry truth is that you’re not that different from Tea Party wackadoodles. The very idea that you have to accept a process that entails compromise and partial success frustrates your inner adolescent. How dare I have to compromise! Moi!

        Grow up. It’s not about you and how good you are. It’s about us and how effective we can be. If you want to preen your purity in blogs like this, go right ahead. You’re obviously too wonderful for the real world.

        • YesMan4

          I talk to party-line hacks like YOU all the time. Cheering at every move to the center, every Dick Morris-inspired and Wall St.-dictated triangulation. Cheering every modern Democrat travesty (thank God a Republican wasn’t responsible!), from Clinton’s DOMA, DADT, Telecommunications Act 96, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, No Child Left Behind, vouchers, “Era of Big Government is Over,” to Obama’s ramping up the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the War on Immigrants, bank bailouts, smashing Occupy Wall St, codifying “Too Big to Fail,” etc. etc. etc.

          If Obama’s political philosophy was that of a moderate Republican from the 90s (it is), you wouldn’t have noticed that shift to the right. You’re too busy cheering, and then lecturing those of us who noticed. How wonderful it must be to have no discernible values except for being on the winning team! I’m guessing you’re a sports fan.

          • trgahan

            FYI, No Child Left Behind was Bush…

          • YesMan4

            My point was it was supported by the Democratic Party, including Ted Kennedy.

          • nasani

            All you do is whine about Democrats, but you’ve yet to tell us how your “holier than thou progressives” are going to bring about change.

          • JozefAL

            “If Obama’s political philosophy was that of a moderate Republican from the 90s (it is), you wouldn’t have noticed that shift to the right.”
            Well, then, perhaps you can enlighten us as to where the MODERN Republicans are, if–as you affirm–Obama’s philosophy is a 90s moderate Republican.
            When Obama proposed his Affordable Care Act, people on the left complained that it was nothing more than what the Republicans offered (after being written by the Heritage Foundation) as their counter to “Hillarycare.” And yet, please remind me which group have spent the last FOUR YEARS trying to repeal Obamacare because the plan was “too radical” and would “cost too much.”
            And most of the people so vehemently (and publicly) objecting now to all this “government spying” were not only silent when DUBYA and his cabal first proposed and enacted these programs but were conspicuously silent when the story was FIRST reported back in 2007.
            But, yes, let’s only bring up *history* when it’s convenient for the argument while ignoring the history that’s INconvenient for the argument.
            And if you really think this site cheers on “every move to the center,” I’m not sure you really know where you are. And, what’s worse to me is the fact that you think all these things you rant against are some sort of “move to the center.” The unfortunate reality is that the far-right (the Alex Jones and Ron Paul nutcases) have helped to move the center further right and the so-called lefties (I’m not sure that Greenwald was ever really any sort of lefty) have helped enable them.
            In fact, this current confluence of right-wing paranoid nuts and left-wing paranoid nuts reminds me of the 1980s anti-pornography crusade that united the right-wing conservative prudes who denounced porn for “glorifying sex” and the left-wing feminists who denounced porn for “debasing women.” The problem was that the feminists failed to recognize that they were being used by the prudes who didn’t want women to have any control of their own bodies; the prudes just wanted to keep sex behind closed doors and women in just as subservient a role as the “debasing” porn the feminists were denouncing. When push comes to shove in any marriage of convenience between right and left, the left loses–every single time. And the left who are complaining/whining about how bad Obama is are doing nothing but giving ammunition to Obama’s right-wing opponents.
            But if you’d like to REALLY complain about disappointing “liberals,” take a few minutes out of your busy day and think on Dennis Kucinich. The man was the paragon of the anti-Iraq War movement while in Congress and look where he is now–a “contributor” to FoxNoise (whose only job there is, apparently, to show how “liberals hate Obama too but the lamestream media won’t tell you that”–of course, I’d like to know how the network which routinely boasts about how popular it is manages to convince the viewers that the network is NOT part of the very “lamestream media” they complain about).

          • Lady Willpower

            Please find me a progressive, ANYWHERE, who cheered for DOMA and DADT.
            Go ahead. I’ll wait.

          • nasani

            Do you even know which party Gram and Leach belonged to? By the way how do you propose to institute ” a holier than thou progressive” agenda if you don’t win elections? Or do you think if you spew half baked progressive ideas and attack Democrats, then change will happen automatically.

        • kfreed

          There’s no “us” as far as YesMan is concerned. He’s a Paulbot, not a progressive. Most of Greenwald’s fan club belongs to the Ron Paul tea bag wing.

          • YesMan4

            I am not a “Paulbot,” you O-bot. Here is what Greenwald’s fanbase actually sounds like:
            http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/07/glenn-greenwald-spoke-via-skype-to-the-socialism-2013-conference-in-chicago-on-june-27/

          • kfreed

            Yet… you “coincidentally” quack like one:)

          • YesMan4

            Not really, I think you’re just a PolySci 101 C-student and don’t know much about American politics.

          • JozefAL

            And I think you’re an idiot who doesn’t know how to spell PoliSci. (Unless, of course, you think the “poli” refers to “polytechnic.”)

          • Lady Willpower

            Polyamory?

          • nasani

            YesMan is one of those “born again progressive” followers of Greenwald and Cenk Uygur. Both Greenwald and Uygur voted for George W. Bush in 2000. But now they think they are more progressives than all of us; just because they hate President Obama.

      • first last

        “Greenwald’s “benefit of the doubt” period for Bush represents when he was first becoming politically aware. ”

        Status: False. Greenwald was plenty ‘politically aware’ when he was hating everything done by Clinton/Gore and supporting Bush and the neo-con pro-war agenda. Instead of admitting we were right all along he just lies about it, and for some weird reason lectures us like we don’t know better than him.

        “I challenge you to find someone else more consistent on civil
        liberties issues during different presidents”

        Easy peasy. Greenwald was opposed to warrantless domestic surveillance consolidated administration officials and demanding they go through FISA. When classified Prism documents were presented to him showing the surveillance process ran directly through FISA and no longer were consolidated under one office or agency he moved the goalposts to complain about that, too.

        • YesMan4

          Greenwald has claimed he privately supported the Iraq war, but that’s not “support” in any public way that you could cite for me. Remember, the blog started c. 2005, and he focused on NSA/FISA developments from a legal perspective. Don’t attempt to distort the truth when it’s so easily available. Further, try to remember who exactly moved the goalposts: Bush, in signing the Protect America Act 2007, which destroyed the 30-year precedents on domestic spying. Obama voted for it too.

          • first last

            I love how you, just like your hero Greenwald just moved the goalposts over from ‘show me where he’s been inconsistent’ to ‘show me where he was inconsistent after he became a blogger’.

            Nobody outside of Cato was interested in his opinion until he came out as a former Bush-supporter-turned-opponent. This was his original claim-to-fame and the only reason anybody paid attention to him for finally catching up to what people like me had been saying for years.

          • YesMan4

            That’s a wild distortion of what “consistent” means. I’m obviously talking about the period of time when he was a public figure. I once thought The Mask was a funny movie, wanna call me out on that too? But even if your half-baked and desperate nit-picking were true, I would still be correct. Because you can’t point to anyone comparatively more consistent when it comes to these issues with respect to the party in power. And you still haven’t attempted it…

          • first last

            YesMan4: “I’d challenge you to find someone else more consistent on civil liberties issues during different presidents, but you don’t want consistency. ”

            First Last: “Okay, here’s where he supported the neo-cons in 2001 and here’s where he flipped over and decided to join those of us in the Reality-Based Community.”

            YesMan4: “Greenwald has claimed he privately supported the Iraq war, but that’s not “support” in any public way that you could cite for me. ”

            I guess there’s no arguing with logic like that.

            Greenwald wasn’t a blogger in 2005 (which would have been late to the party anyway). Rather he was given a column on Salon, which he got solely on the grounds that he had renounced his former support for the Cheney-Ashcroft nexus that the rest of us had been pointing out from Day One were a threat to domestic civil liberties. Whoopi Goldberg was swifter on the uptake than him.

            You’re clearly very young and probably aren’t old enough to remember all of this, but those of us who were around back then remember who was saying what, when.

          • YesMan4

            Hey, idiot.

            Some of us actually know something about Greenwald. He started a BLOG (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_archive.html) in 2005. Salon hired him as columnist a few years later, then Guardian US/CiF. There was no public or citable “neo-con” behavior in 2001, when he was still an overworked lawyer. As for CATO, he gave a speech there on liberalizing drug laws — I thought Daily Banter readers, as mentally challenged as they obviously are, supported nuance? — and never worked there. I notice you’ve still failed to name someone more consistent than Greenwald, so it’s understandable that you’ve dipped into fantasy here to cover that up.

          • RenoRick

            It must be nice to never be wrong…your neck must ache carrying that HUGE brain around. Thank you for teaching us the GG gospel. My life is now complete!

          • YesMan4

            Where’s VegasVince? Go drown in Lake Tahoe…

          • RenoRick

            That’s all you have? A person of YOUR intelligence? Shame…

          • 624LC .

            Hey, DUMBASS…

            Find yourself another chinless ex-pat to love. He is not into you…

          • YesMan4

            Cool story, bore.

          • 624LC .

            Title of your autobiography?

          • YesMan4

            Failed one-liner to seem cool.

          • 624LC .

            Title of a chapter in your book?

          • kfreed

            Some of us also know a bit about Greenwald:

            Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Cato Institute: http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/

            The war-mongering Libertrian Koch-funded Cato Institute that is:
            http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth#

            Glenn Greenwald’s Tea Party shiling:
            http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

            Glenn Greenwald’s Ron Paul shilling (the same Ron Paul who voted yes on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in the War on Terror (and who is okay with private mercenary armies “extra-judicially” killing people overseas):
            http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/12/ron-pauls-princples-and-glenn.html

          • YesMan4

            That is so sad. Mark Ames is the only one in that compilation worth reading but he’s simply wrong about Greenwald. Greenwald responded to the claims, some of which are just false.

          • nasani

            Admit it! You are Greenwald groupie! You are not at interested in TRUTH.

          • nasani

            So Greenwald who is in his mid-forties started his life as a progressive in 2005, when he was in mid-thirties, and he is now more Progressive than all of the Progressives in the country?
            Please don’t insult our intelligence by asking us to name someone who is more consistent than Greenwald if you are going to exempt an examination of his actions before 2005.

          • kfreed

            Being a consistently fact-challenged douchebag consistently doesn’t impress me much.

          • YesMan4

            Another O-bot failing to name someone.

          • nasani

            How about Mickey Mouse!

          • nasani

            Yep! You, like Greenwald, act as some of the “born again Christians” who sinned all their lives until they found Jesus. All of a sudden they pretend to more Christian than everyone and go around harshly judging other people. Greenwald is nothing but a hypocrite! And so is Cenk! And so is Arriana Huffington. They all voted for Bush over Gore.

          • first last

            “Further, try to remember who exactly moved the goalposts: Bush, in signing the Protect America Act 2007, which destroyed the 30-year precedents on domestic spying. Obama voted for it too.”

            So…Obama voted for something and then implemented it. Then Greenwald got documents showing the same thing and freaked out about it? (to be fair, neither Libertarian Curveball or Greenwald had even a rudimentary understanding of the Prism slides, so I guess they can get a pass)

          • YesMan4

            I can guarantee Greenwald has a better understanding of the “PRISM slides” than the entire readership of Daily Banter combined. Why? Because they’ve been explained to him directly by an insider. The best Bob Cesca’s got is Lawfare blog’s regurgitated talking-points/domestic propaganda.

            Regardless, you attempted to point out an instance of “moving the goalposts.” I corrected you: the law itself changed (deteriorated), and therefore so did Greenwald’s position.

          • formerlywhatithink

            I can guarantee Greenwald has a better understanding of the “PRISM slides” than the entire readership of Daily Banter combined.

            No, he doesn’t and he proved it by clinging onto the “direct access” lie. I am an IT contractor, and when I am hired, I tell them I need direct access to their servers. Depending on what I was hired to do, I get either access to relevant servers (limited direct access) or I get confidential data sent to me, ether directly through a secured communication or the client sets up “direct access” to a dedicated server which only contains the data I need (which turns out to be the case here).

            Greenwald still refuses to refute the direct access claim.

          • YesMan4

            What “lie?” The term “direct access” was printed on those slides, and that’s what Greenwald reported. According to people who have a single clue about what’s going on, the NSA most likely sits on top of splitters installed at Tier 1 providers, but they do in fact need a company’s help to defeat the public-private key encryption for the various web services. After that (often flimsy) legal access is granted, it’s direct access and a roving wiretap.

          • Badgerite

            “Most likely”/? Sounds like his reporting style as in “the NSA claims” based on that phrase in a training slide. The NSA and the various companies listed as involved in the program do actually deny this and “claim” no such thing. Greenwald and his supporters are the ones who claim this.

          • YesMan4

            No, Greenwald is a reporter, I’m just discussing my theories on Obama’s illegal domestic surveillance program without much first-hand knowledge… sorta like Bob.

          • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

            If Glenn Greendrone is a reporter, then I’m the Queen of fucking England!
            He’s two bit hack libertarian writer with an agenda who exaggerates and plays loose with the truth as all lawyers do when they are slanting their arguments.
            Snowden’s starting to realize it too.

          • YesMan4

            If Glenn isn’t a reporter/columnist, then what the hell is Bob Cesca???

          • 624LC .

            Someone who you are obviously terrified about or else why have you taken the time from Greenwald gonad worship to stop by and visit?

          • Badgerite

            Smarter than you!

          • YesMan4

            Takes a lot to make me cry…

          • 624LC .

            “Without much first-hand knowledge”…take out “first-hand” and that about sums you up.

          • YesMan4

            I lost you after you started talking about math…

          • 624LC .

            Don’t be so modest – You would get lost in an empty room.

          • YesMan4

            Make sense.

          • 624LC .

            When are you going to do that? We are waiting….

          • YesMan4

            Keep waiting.

          • nasani

            In other words, never!

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            I think the phrase, “couldn’t tell his ass from a hole in the ground” fits this troll as well.

          • YesMan4

            Pog ma thon

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Actually it’s Póg mo thóin — amateur

          • YesMan4

            I was using the Munster dialect, but thanks for using Google and teaching us all this important lesson.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Haha, sure you were! You really are pathetic.

          • nasani

            As they say, ignorance is bliss! You’ve truly demonstrated the truth of that saying

          • Bubble Genius

            Kish mein tuchus.

          • YesMan4

            juste si vous voudriez, dites-mois comment votre mere le fait…

          • nasani

            And where did Greenwald earn his journalism degree?

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            I’m an IT professional with over 15 years experience and you’re spot on. Greenwald either didn’t have a clue what direct access meant or he was purposely vague (as was Snowden). Either way, he mislead the American public. So much for honest, thorough and factual reporting. Greenwald is a hack and always has been.

          • first last

            “I can guarantee Greenwald has a better understanding of the “PRISM slides” than the entire readership of Daily Banter combined. Why? Because they’ve been explained to him directly by an insider. ”

            Status: False. Neither Libertarian Curveball nor Greenwald understood (as did I within 5 minutes of looking at the slides) that it didn’t allow the NSA to just grab user records from domestic US servers willy-nilly. They didn’t understand that it was primarily an FBI program for issuing warrants, and CIA/NSA were just recipients on the back-end of the data stream, either, even though this is spelled out clearly. They didn’t notice that the whole thing involves processing through FISA, even though that’s right here in black and white. They seemed to have missed the ‘$20 million dollar annual budget’ part for the entire program, which precludes even starting to do what they originally claimed the program did.

            The last statement we heard from Libertarian Curveball, he was claiming he could withstand any form of torture (nobody who’s been through SERE would claim that), could keep some flash drives and laptops safe inside China from the entire Chinese intel community (Rule One of data retention in a hostile environment is ‘don’t take critical data into a hostile environment’), and was the expert responsible for training military intelligence officers on data security on top of all the other totally different skill-sets he’s claimed to possess. This was after claiming the US government might try to assassinate him.

            If you still find him a credible insider after all the various falsehoods he’s spewed, I can’t help you. Nobody I know in intel or in domestic security doubts that he’s a kook.

          • YesMan4

            1. Your representation of PRISM is nonsense. Just read the Wikipedia entry, for God’s sake.

            2. All Snowden said was “[he] cannot be coerced into revealing that information, even under torture.” That refers to a technical solution — not having the password, not that he’s some sort of X-Man. Embarrassing distortion.

          • kfreed

            Or we could just read the down-low on PRISM from the guy who wrote a book about it years ago:

            “PRISM Isn’t Data Mining and Other Falsehoods in the N.S.A. ‘Scandal'”

            http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            Just glanced at some of the comments after that article. What a lot of white male privilege it is to busy oneself with all this imaginary sword-play and purity posturing.

            Dicks. Dicks. Dicks.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Please tell me you did NOT just try to use Wikipedia as an authoritative source in a debate. Really? You’re going to have to do better than that!

          • YesMan4

            Wikipedia has things called sources, you can dispute them easily, bro.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            LOL, only trolls like you sit around and “correct” wikipedia articles to fit your pre-conceived narrative. I prefer peer reviewed and statistically significant studies. Not drivel and “sources” from schmucks like you.

          • YesMan4

            Oh please, what political works do you read that are “peer reviewed?” Half of scientific studies aren’t even peer-reviewed. What a pompous bro you are!

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Pompous? You’re the one trying to impress people with insults in various languages and using words like “gerund”. Pot meet kettle then.

          • nasani

            Face reality, Snowden is a coward! Otherwise he would be right here defending civil liberties instead of freeing to China and Russia where the idea of civil liberties is a joke.

          • nasani

            A guarantee from a Greenwald cult member isn’t worth shit!

          • nasani

            This is lame! private support is still support, fool!

      • Jeff Cramer

        “Greenwald’s “benefit of the doubt” period for Bush represents when he was first becoming politically aware. ”

        Glenn has been politically aware long before W. became president, he even ran for city council in 1985 while he was 17 years old: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2013/07/columnist-glenn-greenwald-gay-man-who-broke-nsa-leaks-story-grew-up-in-lauderdale-lakes.html

        • YesMan4

          Ya got me!

      • Badgerite

        “First becoming politically aware”
        And you accuse others of being ‘facile thinkers’? As a lawyer, you are always and forever politically aware. It comes with the territory. Law/Politics. They kind of go together. No, he just changed his mind. But you can’t say that because he would then not be ‘principled’ or ‘consistent’. And might even be, (oh, save me Jesus) WRONG!

        • YesMan4

          You speak as a JD, no doubt, and not a Junior College Communications student?

          • Badgerite

            Well, not YOU, no!

      • 624LC .

        He’s not leaving his brazilian hottie for you. Quit trying so hard.

      • Badgerite

        “When he first became politically aware”

        Is that like when you first ‘accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour’?

        • YesMan4

          I already replied to your snark.

          • Badgerite

            Well, I just wanted to make sure you were being morally and ethically and politically “consistent’.

      • nasani

        So supporting the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq under Bush qualifies him as being consistent? I have a problem with a lawyer who begins to be politically aware in his 30’s but now all of sudden acts like “a holier than thou” Liberal/Progressive.