Bill Maher decides to permanently entrench himself on the wrong side of history

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:28 AM, Bread said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 5:46 AM, disparaissant said:

no

what i am saying is that if greenwald really were the "hero" that ehrlichman says he is, he would have dumped the info and moved on with his career, instead of teaming up with another noted neoliberal capitalist opportunist to release the leaks for profit. that's not heroic, it's despicable.

 

i'm glad the info is getting out there, don't get me wrong. i just think that greenwald is a fink and omidyar is just straight up evil.

 

where is your evidence that greenwald is 'neoliberal'?

Also - who wouldn't take up a huge media venture offer, fully financed by a single source, which could potentially create the most interesting journalistic/whistleblower outlet on the net? Only a fool would turn that down. I'd love to see something beat the Guardian in terms of interesting scoops.

 

As far as I can tell, Greenwald has maintained a high degree of sincerity and passion for the cause of transparency.

 

i was just about to post this interview, beat me to it. The part where he says why he personally believes in maintaining privacy rights is so on point almost nothing more needs to be said.

i wonder what bill maher will choose when given the option to choose between 100 billion dollars and world peace

  On 1/21/2014 at 7:45 AM, delet... said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 7:32 AM, goDel said:

Not sure why Maher had to stick his Snowden-Ron Paul comparison.

 

He had to stick with it because he's a phoney left wing comedian. He is there for partisan talking points, jabs and jibes. When obama came to power and either continued or ramped up the bush era policy directions, maher swiched from anti-government moanmeister to pro administration apologist. It's all part of the partisan noise machine that never strays from it's objectives to misdirect and obfuscate, which is allowed to happen on american TV because it only ever attacks surface issues and doesn't get it's teeth into systemic failure.

 

exactly this, it must be pretty dirty feeling to go from one to the other. At least Stewart and Colbert don't call whistleblowers 'fucking nuts' even though they kinda did the same thing too. Colber never had the same 'spark' or cleverness after he shaved his head live on TV for Obama. Stewarts recent interview with Erik Prince (ceo blackwater) was also a pretty sad display, letting him essentially cover up for murder and war crimes without fundamentally challenging any of his lies

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:06 AM, triachus said:

i wonder what bill maher will choose when given the option to choose between 100 billion dollars and world peace

Very interesting question.

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:17 AM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:06 AM, triachus said:

i wonder what bill maher will choose when given the option to choose between 100 billion dollars and world peace

Very interesting question.

 

but you didn't answer it

 

seems you are deliberately ignorant and don't take life, this planet and humanity as serious as i do

I don't think either of you are taking this discussion very seriously.

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:30 AM, DerWaschbar said:

I don't think

well there's your problem

There's the quote right there, you can't take it back. What do you have to say to these accusations derwascbar? If you can think of an answer that is.

 

Be warned:

 

<---- This is what eating garbage does to you.

I'll tell you my biggest takeaway from that interview, not having heard Greenwald speak much (surprising I know, but I live under a rock), is how his inflections are kinda...gay. Yes, I know his sexual orientation, but it always sort of surprises me which guys let it show. Anderson Cooper doesn't, really. But I can actually see Greenwald in private saying "that's so fabulous!" or making three snaps in Z formation...

 

ok, PCers, you can kill me now

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:26 AM, triachus said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:17 AM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:06 AM, triachus said:

i wonder what bill maher will choose when given the option to choose between 100 billion dollars and world peace

Very interesting question.

but you didn't answer it

 

seems you are deliberately ignorant and don't take life, this planet and humanity as serious as i do

No no I care a lot. Huge fan of humanity. But there are also bad people you know. And I really dislike bad people. If there weren't any bad people I bet things would be really great. Edited January 21, 2014 by Friendly Foil

If you could have two bad people as friends or one good person which would you choose?

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:40 AM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:26 AM, triachus said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:17 AM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:06 AM, triachus said:

i wonder what bill maher will choose when given the option to choose between 100 billion dollars and world peace

Very interesting question.

 

but you didn't answer it

 

seems you are deliberately ignorant and don't take life, this planet and humanity as serious as i do

 

No no I care a lot. Huge fan of humanity. But there are also bad people you know. And I really dislike bad people. If there weren't any bad people I bet things would be really great.

 

You are still deliberately avoiding the question and you throw in a red herring that has nothing to do with the facts. These tactics are very typical of someone your sort, and it seems to me your real agenda is shinging through the cracks. The cracks in this demagogic logical fallacious facade you are trying to hold up.

Edited January 21, 2014 by triachus

maher has a good point about the danger of two delusional paranoiacs controlling the flow of government secrets. this whole snowden-greenwald ordeal is driven by this innate american libertarianist logic that the state is out to get you. this stuff would fade into irrelevancy much quicker in saner countries.

  On 1/21/2014 at 12:42 PM, triachus said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:40 AM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:26 AM, triachus said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:17 AM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:06 AM, triachus said:

i wonder what bill maher will choose when given the option to choose between 100 billion dollars and world peace

Very interesting question.

but you didn't answer it

 

seems you are deliberately ignorant and don't take life, this planet and humanity as serious as i do

No no I care a lot. Huge fan of humanity. But there are also bad people you know. And I really dislike bad people. If there weren't any bad people I bet things would be really great.

You are still deliberately avoiding the question and you throw in a red herring that has nothing to do with the facts. These tactics are very typical of someone your sort, and it seems to me your real agenda is shinging through the cracks. The cracks in this demagogic logical fallacious facade you are trying to hold up.

Well I agree that global warming is becoming an issue in this day and age. You know things are really serious when America is freezing over imho. There's no doubt that we need to look into our consumption of material goods and scary pollution. Why not more hybrids on the road? What will we do when the poles are gone? You're raising some very interesting points, triachus.

  On 1/21/2014 at 1:14 PM, eugene said:

maher has a good point about the danger of two delusional paranoiacs controlling the flow of government secrets. this whole snowden-greenwald ordeal is driven by this innate american libertarianist logic that the state is out to get you. this stuff would fade into irrelevancy much quicker in saner countries.

 

I often agree with you but on this I think you couldn't be more wrong.

 

It is irrelevant if the state is currently "out to get you" or not. The question is, do they have the power to get you at their whim, whenever, wherever, and for any reason at all?

 

But I imagine the benefit of a decentralized govt. with limited powers is lost on some...

Edited January 21, 2014 by lumpenprol

  On 1/21/2014 at 1:15 PM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 12:42 PM, triachus said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:40 AM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:26 AM, triachus said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:17 AM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:06 AM, triachus said:

i wonder what bill maher will choose when given the option to choose between 100 billion dollars and world peace

Very interesting question.

 

but you didn't answer it

 

seems you are deliberately ignorant and don't take life, this planet and humanity as serious as i do

 

No no I care a lot. Huge fan of humanity. But there are also bad people you know. And I really dislike bad people. If there weren't any bad people I bet things would be really great.

 

You are still deliberately avoiding the question and you throw in a red herring that has nothing to do with the facts. These tactics are very typical of someone your sort, and it seems to me your real agenda is shinging through the cracks. The cracks in this demagogic logical fallacious facade you are trying to hold up.

 

Well I agree that global warming is becoming an issue in this day and age. You know things are really serious when America is freezing over imho. There's no doubt that we need to look into our consumption of material goods and scary pollution. Why not more hybrids on the road? What will we do when the poles are gone? You're raising some very interesting points, triachus.

 

I feel you words are more and more trudging towards sub-ironic ad hominem attacks towards me. Too bad you're obviously deluded by your own biased leftist stockholm syndrome enablist proselytism.

  On 1/21/2014 at 1:28 PM, triachus said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 1:15 PM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 12:42 PM, triachus said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:40 AM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:26 AM, triachus said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:17 AM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:06 AM, triachus said:

i wonder what bill maher will choose when given the option to choose between 100 billion dollars and world peace

Very interesting question.

but you didn't answer it

 

seems you are deliberately ignorant and don't take life, this planet and humanity as serious as i do

No no I care a lot. Huge fan of humanity. But there are also bad people you know. And I really dislike bad people. If there weren't any bad people I bet things would be really great.

You are still deliberately avoiding the question and you throw in a red herring that has nothing to do with the facts. These tactics are very typical of someone your sort, and it seems to me your real agenda is shinging through the cracks. The cracks in this demagogic logical fallacious facade you are trying to hold up.

Well I agree that global warming is becoming an issue in this day and age. You know things are really serious when America is freezing over imho. There's no doubt that we need to look into our consumption of material goods and scary pollution. Why not more hybrids on the road? What will we do when the poles are gone? You're raising some very interesting points, triachus.

I feel you words are more and more trudging towards sub-ironic ad hominem attacks towards me. Too bad you're obviously deluded by your own biased leftist stockholm syndrome enablist proselytism.

Stockholm, socialist ignorance delusion truant. Socio-dynamic international business model and a rough sleeper pillow.

 

There is without a doubt something out there. On that, I can agree.

  On 1/21/2014 at 1:24 PM, lumpenprol said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 1:14 PM, eugene said:

maher has a good point about the danger of two delusional paranoiacs controlling the flow of government secrets. this whole snowden-greenwald ordeal is driven by this innate american libertarianist logic that the state is out to get you. this stuff would fade into irrelevancy much quicker in saner countries.

 

I often agree with you but on this I think you couldn't be more wrong.

 

It is irrelevant if the state is currently "out to get you" or not. The question is, do they have the power to get you at their whim, whenever, wherever, and for any reason at all?

 

But I imagine the benefit of a decentralized govt. with limited powers is lost on some...

 

they always did/do have the power to get you, even physically, i mean what prevents cops from shooting at random people or army launching an airstrike at your home ? exactly the same institutions/beliefs that prevent it from peeking at your gmail account. it was a matter of technological advance whether state will have such capabilities for spying, but it's a matter of proper functioning of the state whether it abuses such capabilities.

 

there's nothing more dangerous than weak, decentralized governments of the type paultards/greenwald/snowden are proposing in an era of globalization.

  On 1/21/2014 at 1:33 PM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 1:28 PM, triachus said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 1:15 PM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 12:42 PM, triachus said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:40 AM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:26 AM, triachus said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:17 AM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:06 AM, triachus said:

i wonder what bill maher will choose when given the option to choose between 100 billion dollars and world peace

Very interesting question.

 

but you didn't answer it

 

seems you are deliberately ignorant and don't take life, this planet and humanity as serious as i do

 

No no I care a lot. Huge fan of humanity. But there are also bad people you know. And I really dislike bad people. If there weren't any bad people I bet things would be really great.

 

You are still deliberately avoiding the question and you throw in a red herring that has nothing to do with the facts. These tactics are very typical of someone your sort, and it seems to me your real agenda is shinging through the cracks. The cracks in this demagogic logical fallacious facade you are trying to hold up.

 

Well I agree that global warming is becoming an issue in this day and age. You know things are really serious when America is freezing over imho. There's no doubt that we need to look into our consumption of material goods and scary pollution. Why not more hybrids on the road? What will we do when the poles are gone? You're raising some very interesting points, triachus.

 

I feel you words are more and more trudging towards sub-ironic ad hominem attacks towards me. Too bad you're obviously deluded by your own biased leftist stockholm syndrome enablist proselytism.

 

Stockholm, socialist ignorance delusion truant. Socio-dynamic international business model and a rough sleeper pillow.

 

There is without a doubt something out there. On that, I can agree.

 

Maybe we aren't so different after all.

 

Unless you're a planted crisis actor.

 

 

Anyway, global warming is pretty shitty, yes. Anyone know how to reverse it?

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:02 AM, lumpenprol said:

I'll tell you my biggest takeaway from that interview, not having heard Greenwald speak much (surprising I know, but I live under a rock), is how his inflections are kinda...gay. Yes, I know his sexual orientation, but it always sort of surprises me which guys let it show. Anderson Cooper doesn't, really. But I can actually see Greenwald in private saying "that's so fabulous!" or making three snaps in Z formation...

 

ok, PCers, you can kill me now

irrelevant.

  On 1/21/2014 at 1:39 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 1:24 PM, lumpenprol said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 1:14 PM, eugene said:

maher has a good point about the danger of two delusional paranoiacs controlling the flow of government secrets. this whole snowden-greenwald ordeal is driven by this innate american libertarianist logic that the state is out to get you. this stuff would fade into irrelevancy much quicker in saner countries.

 

I often agree with you but on this I think you couldn't be more wrong.

 

It is irrelevant if the state is currently "out to get you" or not. The question is, do they have the power to get you at their whim, whenever, wherever, and for any reason at all?

 

But I imagine the benefit of a decentralized govt. with limited powers is lost on some...

 

they always did/do have the power to get you, even physically, i mean what prevents cops from shooting at random people or army launching an airstrike at your home ? exactly the same institutions/beliefs that prevent it from peeking at your gmail account. it was a matter of technological advance whether state will have such capabilities for spying, but it's a matter of proper functioning of the state whether it abuses such capabilities.

 

there's nothing more dangerous than weak, decentralized governments of the type paultards/greenwald/snowden are proposing in an era of globalization.

 

so secret FISA courts launch air strikes, got it.

 

This may be hard to grasp for someone who has grown up in a place where a constant fear of attack and victim mentality has continually been used to justify a near police state, but it doesn't have to be that way.

 

" it's a matter of proper functioning of the state whether it abuses such capabilities." But the only way to prevent abuse is to have some level of accountability and a degree of transparency. We all know that govt. agencies in the US are required to get a court order for a wiretap, that's become common knowledge, is used in movies and TV shows like "The Wire". We may not know when it's done, or the particulars of each case, but we know that it's done, and are assured that in the fullness of time almost any record should become available through the Freedom of Information Act, if not through other means. But since 9/11 we've had the curtailment of the FOIA, the creation of secret courts which were hardly known about, let alone sanctioned by the general public/voters...that had the power to basically "batch stamp" en masse invasion of privacy...the mass culling of phone records and internet data...and most of this information was kept from members of congress...though we don't know to what degree this system has been abused yet, it's clear it is ripe for abuse, with little to no "checks and balances"...

 

Curious if you even buy the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"? If the state owns all data, they won't have to prove anything...In a democracy we should have the right to conceal things from the government...can you really not see this?

Didn't read the entire thread, but I watched this interview last night on HBO. I didn't really see much wrong with it. Maher seemed to be supportive of their efforts while at the same time maintaining a somewhat impartial stance and also asking questions that both lead the conversation in a good direction and touched on important nuances of the situation. I don't get why this interview would be offensive for anyone other than a conservative Maher hater.

 

Also, Greenwald's intentions are of a secondary significance to the results of the efforts of all involved. It only matters if his potential for personal gain somehow adversely affects the originally intented goal.

  On 1/21/2014 at 5:43 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Greenwald's intentions are of a secondary significance to the results of the efforts of all involved. It only matters if his potential for personal gain somehow adversely affects the originally intented goal.

Yeah, this. If people are profiting from making the world better, I support that.

 

Disp, this reminds me of an argument I recently had about Yahoo CEO Marissa Meyer. My sister hates her violently for taking away Yahoo's work-from-home policy and building a million-dollar-nursery in her own office for her kid. OK, fine, but I still think it's positive that she's a CEO of a fortune 500 company.

 

Just because something isn't 100% good doesn't mean it's 100% evil. Progress is slow and weird. Without Greenwald and his artful handling of the leaks I think the world would be immeasurably worse off. If he gets on bed with a capitalist you hate, it doesn't invalidate that.

  On 1/21/2014 at 5:43 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Didn't read the entire thread, but I watched this interview last night on HBO. I didn't really see much wrong with it. Maher seemed to be supportive of their efforts while at the same time maintaining a somewhat impartial stance and also asking questions that both lead the conversation in a good direction and touched on important nuances of the situation. I don't get why this interview would be offensive for anyone other than a conservative Maher hater.

 

Also, Greenwald's intentions are of a secondary significance to the results of the efforts of all involved. It only matters if his potential for personal gain somehow adversely affects the originally intented goal.

calling edward snowden 'fucking nuts' was an impartial stance?

 

it was offensive to me because Bill Maher used a typical normally right wing smear to attack somebodies character for trying to point out the dire nature of the situation. Instead of facing reality himself he decides to call someone who's faced it insane.

Edited January 21, 2014 by John Ehrlichman