Page 1 cliffs:

Glenn Greenwald is awesome, Klinker is terrible.

I really want to know when the hostilities are going to end, so I can mark my calendar.

BAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA at the existence of this thread

Here's Glenn hot on the trail defending the civil liberties of....



...CORPORATIONS!!!! YAY!!!!

btw, Fly, ABL is a UVA Law grad and former practicing corporate law attorney with clients like JP Morgan Chase, Reebok, Lloyd's of London, Zurich American Insurance, and the Coalition for Internet Transparency (CFIT). Yup, total hack! You might want to "focus" and offer a shred of evidence, a "point", and a "conclusion" that ABL is a "hack", beside just your word. I'll even take an off-brand rightwing site.

Forgot to post this other Wall Street criminal fraud case, to which the defendants pleaded guilty earlier this month:


Two Credit Suisse traders plead guilty to falsifying subprime documents, fraud

Seems they are taking a deal in exchange for whistleblowing their boss: Ex-Credit Suisse CDO Chief Charged With Falsifying Prices to Boost Bonuses
And, no Fly, no one has said that Obama's admin is the same as Bush's in regard to Wall Street enforcement, except Greenwald and other Firebaggers.

Meh, here's another case settled recently, due to whistle-blowing, wherein the defendants settled but did not get immunity from criminal prosecution: Star Players in a Big Citi

That's not what happened tho. GG's "writing":

See how "fact" is not in quotes? See how Greenwald added "fact".

Is it the sole proof that GG is a hack? Hell nah. GG goes on to take BHO out of context. Worse, GG just truncates the full reply. All in the first paragraph. Awesome article guyz!!

This, aside from the FACT that a competent journalist is required to check FACTS, and not take the word of some TV personality, proves that Glenn is a dishonest hack.

Can't let you get away with this. Just admit GG was wrong, and let's move on.

Doesn't the fact that 'Kroft speculated' directly proceeds fact mean that this is Kroft's general idea but not exactly verbatim with what he said?

FMP JFC

Klinker- I have no idea who wrote:

Because you didn't provide a link. But Greenwald is right about that, too. Citizens United was a perfectly reasonable legal decision.

My God, if Greenwald had represented JP Morgan you'd be furiously posting walls of oddly formatted text about that as conclusive proof he's a corporate whore.

One minute I provide too many links; the next, I provide too few. One minute you want "points", "conclusions set out", "conclusions proved"; the next, you complain about walls of text. You should try to pick one, and let me know what you want, but you can't pick "I want you to stop posting mean stuff about Glenn "Paul" Greenwald!!" (Glenn's words are the 1st paragraph, the rest are the author's. It's a simple matter to google a whole paragraph if you are looking for its source.)

Funny that you would complain about walls of text and too many links. Have you ever actually read all of any of Glenzilla's 3,000 word screeds? And you have some sort of problem with the "formatting"? WOW. You are pulling out all the stops now.

JP Morgan > White Supremacist Matt Hale and the Church of the Creator. Not so bad that Glenn defended a murderous scumbag, but you should hear what Glenn called the plaintiff -- "Vile" and "odious" -- for having the temerity to file civil charges against someone who ordered their execution.

Do you think certain libertarian/WN groups took notice of that trial and Glen's hard work and all, and, well, you know?

Also, what's your opinion on Glenn's support of an author who defended the massacre of ~70 civilians in Kazakhstan? Glenn supports this scumbag: Failing Up With Joshua Foust: Meet The “Evil Genius” Massacre-Denier Who Shills For War Profiteers

And strange that you call non money-making blogs "off-brand". That's rich. What happened to the democratization of the internets? The dissemination of information, wide and far and free? Do you feel more comfortable with the work of a paid or unpaid author? Sounds like you think it's no good if it's free?

Lastly, did you miss the article by the Harvard Law Prof I posted earlier itt? It was free tho, so prolly off-brand crap you won't read. In it he calls out a bunch of Glenzilla's gibberish and falsehoods. You should read it.

What about the Wired.com editors that call Glenn a nutjob liar or w/e for Glenn's nonsense about Bradley Manning? Have you read that? LOL

Really, it's pretty funny how awful Glen's work is and you can't see it. Classic fingers in the ears and lalalalalala all day long.

Cheerio ol Chap! LOL

Did GG break up with you?

yeah, you should take a look at the synonyms and antonyms for "indefinite" so that you might understand what it means. I can't help you anymore, as I am on a definite time schedule, meaning "until I get some other stuff done".

OMG! I'm so pissed...

-- Totally Reporting From Brazil!!

klinker,

lol, GG comes off well in that video. He has nuanced positions about corporate speech. The both of them seem to be in agreement about the situation. They agree that there are problems with corporate dominance of the political landscape. GG is just, reasonably, worries about the solutions to the problem.

Hahaha if you ask Google to define indefinite check out the example:

in·def·i·nite/inˈdefənit/
Adjective:
Lasting for an unknown length of time: "indefinite detention".
Not clearly expressed or defined; vague: "their status remains indefinite".

Probably just some Firebaggers tho

Fair point. And Kroft does, in fact, say "fact" in the video.

That does not remove Glenzilla's responsibility for his false and dishonest reporting.

There is no way Glen did not know that wasn't a fact, which is most likely the reason he tried to attribute it to someone else. I mentioned that already itt.

Any goofball should know that wasn't a fact. Funnier still; this is how Glenn describes Kroft in the article:

ok, GG again attributes to another person, but he seems to agree with this assessment, so you'd think he'd check things that Kroft claimed as "fact", if Glen views Kroft as "vapid", no?

We've been through already itt. Length of time is not unknown: it's "until the end of hostilities".

Try Merriam-Webster, it's better than google imo.


gotta go. have fun. give glenn a kiss for me. lol

oops, one more thing.

why do you think Glenn never talks about this law: Non-Detention Act

"until the end of hostilities" is an indefinite about of time though.

I have no idea what sort of point you think you're making here. Or anywhere else, for that matter? You are really bad at focusing your thoughts and explaining what relevance each random thing you mentions has to any other thing you mention.

LOL that you're sticking to your guns on indefinite. Klinker, would you say that "the prisoner will be confined until someone decides to release him" is indefinite? I mean, clearly the detention is defined as ending when it ends. What would actually qualify as "indefinite"?

What goes through your head to jump from that tweet to the idea that GG supports Foust re Kazakhstan? Foust wrote an article on a completely different subject (that, at a skim, seems reasonable) and GG tweeted that it was a good article. So what?

James Dobson is a worthless ****bag, but if he ever accidentally got something right, and I said so, that hardly means I'm supporting all of his other nonsense.

Aka Wired.com editors getting defensive after GG called them out.

Journalist Fails to Properly Vet Author of Article He Read before Tweeting About it!

We don't know how long the hostilities are going to last, though.

Klinker has established on page 1 that the magic word "until" renders a time period definite. In case you still don't get it, here's an illustrative example:

We won't release you until we do

Notice how "until" causes the duration of detention to be definite!