Customize

Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by Anonymous, Dec 28, 2010.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

    See Biden’s comment in the post shortly before.
    If you are going to ignore what the US government is doing then it looks pretty silly to then claim the US government is doing nothing. It is asinine to do so.
    I hate when people feign ignorance when they get fact challenged. You took exception to Greenwald’s claim about the US government concealing the majority of its dealings, and then continue to ignore the documents that show that to be true. As more cables get leaked more about what the US government has concealed comes to light. This is pretty straightforward, so it is unsurprising you choose to feign ignorance rather than deal with point substantively.
    When you challenge the factually-supported things he said this is what you imply.
    And yet it was surprisingly in line with your previous commentary. Maybe that the joke wasn’t apparent is because your argumentation really is that piss-poor?
    You make a lot of comments like this, but never seem to substantiate them. Wonder why that is?
    I don’t see how misrepresenting Greenwald, and ignoring the body of evidence supporting what he said, constitutes saying the interview was a clusterfuck. I don’t see how conflating factually supported assertions with personal attacks is saying the interview was a clusterfuck.
    Profiting implies to make a profit, something Greenwald noted was not the case here due to the rising legal fees. That this needs to be repeated for you is testament to the deliberate cluelessness you trying to hide behind.
    How does pointing to the role of journalists in keeping the government honest, something recognised since the time of the founding fathers, get equated to ‘all-knowing’? That is pathetically strawmaning.
    A point that is further lost on her due to the means which Wikileaks has used to release the cables.
    Bollocks. You are simply trying to ignore the factual basis for the CNN comment in order to try pushing this false equivalency. Good luck with that, because pointing out the truth is only ‘hysterics and rhetoric’ if you are on the wrong side of the debate.
  2. Anonymous Member

    Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

    Bullshit ! you used 2,000 instances spread out over several years as "proof" that the US gov keeps 50- 75% of everything it does secret.

    I haven't challenged things factually supported, I did ask what the myraid of comments from people in power were. Particularly the only one that you mentioned (holder) which you were misrepresenting. He said nothing and you said he said he planned to take action.
    You mean things like Assange hasn't been charged, and that nobody with the ability to do anything about it has commented ? Frankly that is more your department than mine.
    You are trying not to understand. Clusterfuck status was given because nobody listened to each and nobody answered questions with anything that related to the topic of the interview.
    I'll tell you what, if you can show me where he will not have to pay taxes on the money changing hands over the book deal I will agree with you.
    Did you even realize I was agreeing with you on that point

    You know I am not a mind reader and the general statements you make only allow me to guess what you might be talking about by going back to my original comments. I don't think you take the time to do that because you are all over the place. You are arguing points you don't have all of the information on.

    I am not going to continue this when you are trying ever so hard to stick with you presumptions, and show no sign of wanting to look at the reality of the situation. You assume that because two senators write a letter to the DoJ that it changes the abilities of the DoJ.

    You choose to go out on a limb after only hearing one side of an issue, and let your mind fill in the blanks to justify your beliefs. You show prejudice in relation to the subject specified. (that is facsim btw)


    A) No charges = No trial in the US . meaning writing a book to pay for legal fees is rather silly.
    B) Getting over a million dollars for a book deal = Profit. This was the topic of the interview. In at least some states in the US it is not legal to get paid for writing a book about crime you were involved in. I am not saying that JA committed a crime, because at this time the government has not given any evidence of one. The laws are not designed to limit speech they are designed to limit the profit from the free speech on certain topics. For example it is illegal in Texas for MR to profit from a tell all book where he committed crimes.
    C) Nobody in the interview could stick to a single topic or address the issue at hand and I now believe that is why you liked the interview so much.
  3. Saberthrower Member

    Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

    They're not "exercising their rights". What they're doing is a violation of contract. In other words...

    the corporations are doing illegal stuff. If only Wikileaks could sue them in a fair court (NOT a U.S. court, that place is biased as fuck).
  4. Anonymous Member

    Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

    If they have violated a contract, your right, I have not seen it, however I do think that a US court would rule in favor of that contract, I doubt he would want to come to the US and sue them tho.

    Also with a book deal this could be interesting:
    The boom might be his defense instead of paying for one. The DoJ might offer a plea bargain in Assange's case because it is on such iffy territory with the first amendment. (hypothetical)
  5. Anonymous Member

    Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

    The 50%-75% came from a study cited during the judiciary committee hearings on Wikileaks, and I clearly stated this. I used the cables, and this reference, to support the claim that the US government keeps the majority of dealings secret. It is a pretty shallow tactic to try and compartmentalise this information in the manner you have, especially since you seem unwilling to research this stuff.
    Yes you have, and you continue to do so.
    Seems pretty accurate given his statements. Care to elucidate on this?
    See the both the Biden and Holder comments.
    Greenwald answer all the questions and innuendo directed at him. You should direct the blame where it is due, namely with the fucktarded interviewer. You switch to labelling the interview a clusterfuck is to disguise the fact you got caught talking shit about Greenwald. This is simply you trying to push that false equivalency again by any means necessary.
    This is third time you have tried this sidestep. It was clear from the piece that the intention of using the phrase ‘to profit from’ was to smear Assange as being a money-grabber who is using classified information to enrich himself. The legal fees was point out during the interview and in this thread, which squarely defeated this talking point. Wonder will you go for a fourth attempt at a sidestep?
    I fail to see how using a pathetically transparent strawman was ‘agreeing’. Greenwald’s point on the role of the press was pretty clear, and yet you challenged it. You got called on this, so how you envisage this as agreement is beyond me.
    The irony is dripping.
    There is a lot more comments to support my position on that. Why you expect others to do all your research, particularly given your dire track record on this, is beyond me. Moreover, why you assume that the totality of relevant information is in this thread is also beyond me.

    To put it this way, when folks like the vice-president are saying the DoJ is actively investigating ways to prosecute then I’d say it carries weight.
    See Biden’s comment.
    The legal fees. You can try pretending this isn’t relevant, but you are only trying to convince yourself.
    Still trying to push that false equivalency while trying to ignore the merits of the arguments presented by the three protagonists. Getting a little pathetic at this stage imo.
    While I’d like to agree with you, the possibility that wikileaks=/=press or trying to tie Wikileaks to the theft of materials worries me. There are issues here that the US may try to get him on other than mere publication.
  6. Anonymous Member

    Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

    I think the contract violated would be between the company and the donors, not between Wikileaks and the company.
  7. Anonymous Member

    Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

    If you have a link I will look at it.
  8. Seneca Member

    Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

    The interview was a TEXTBOOK case of one side (Greenwald) crushing the other.
    There is no point of continuing to point out how greenwald won the argument
    for the same reason you should stop arguing who won a game of chess with a
    person who claims the king can move 2 spaces instead of 1.

    In order to ever win any argument the person on the wrong side has to be able
    to see they are wrong and be willing to admit it. Anon2. you should admit you are wrong
    , its hard to do but , you grow as a person when you can muster the fortitude
    to do it. It only hurts for a second. :)
  9. Anonymous Member

    Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

    duty_calls.png
  10. Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

    Wow Glen really did well there he made if so obvious she was lying and her story's had no substance, I want him to give an interview on every news station! The people who watched that interview finally saw what we see here on WWP and I think the world need allot more of that.

    Glenn Greenwald you rock!
  11. Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

    To hell with putting him on every news station. Give him his own show instead, and take Nancy Grace off the air. He's like a saner, more intellectually consistent Rachael Maddow.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins