Comment: Conversing with you raises my reception

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Useful "idiot" (see in situ)

Conversing with you raises my reception

> Entertainment, not science, not art, not facts, except a few that I may know.

I don't know if you saw my reply to you in the thread where I was reaching out for writers. The mods removed it for unauthorized soliciting. I said I have a lot of respect for you. You went out there and did your best to get Ron Paul the nomination. Naturally, it was downvoted. So far on this thread, where I'm debating you, whatever you say is downvoted while whatever I say is upvoted. I wonder if the downvoter(s) attended all of their local GOP meetings to fight for Ron Paul or just preached to the choir on the internet.

> I never read anywhere that Snowden gave RP anything. Do you have a link? I never read who Snowden voted for.

Google: snowden ron paul supporter

I'm not sure who reported it first. I'll give you this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06...

> I wouldn't even care too much about this IF it were not for the fact that when it began, Ron Paul was mentioned.

It is a fact that public campaign finance records indicate Snowden donated to the campaign.

It is also a fact that some white supremacists support Ron Paul and I'm sure some of them even donated to his campaign.

Just because someone endorses Ron Paul doesn't mean Ron Paul endorses them in return. What does Paul say about Snowden?

"My understanding is that espionage means giving secret or classified information to the enemy. Since Snowden shared information with the American people, his indictment for espionage could reveal (or confirm) that the US Government views you and me as the enemy."

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/national-blog/ron-paul-on-...

Paul said Snowden has “done a great service for telling the truth”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/ron-paul-edward-snowde...

"We should be thankful for individuals like Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald who see injustice being carried out by their own government and speak out, despite the risk"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06...

It sure sounds to me like Ron Paul endorses Snowden (and Greenwald) for revealing this information to the public.

I was wrong in my last remark about Greenwald only agreeing with Paul on foreign policy. While Greenwald stated he didn't endorse Paul (or Obama) he said Paul's views on the following issues "desperately need to be heard"

- Endless War and Terrorism
- Due Process
- The Drug War
- Whistleblowers
- Drone Assaults
- Patriot Act/Surveillance State
- US policy towards Israel
- US policy towards Iran

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_pau...

Sadly, Greenwald doesn't realize how many of these problems are made possible by monetary policy, nor does he seem to understand how much financial damage the Fed is inflicting on Americans. Other than that, I like and respect Greenwald. Nobody's perfect.

> As a RP GOP (now Rand) I would never go to a guy like Greenwald, IF I was in Snowden possition.

As you pointed out, Snowden isn't part of the GOP. There's a big difference between donating $500, equivalent to a few grocery runs to Costco, and active engagement in the political process.

> I would have gone to The Judge Napolitano, or someone who I felt KNEW Constitutional law, and ask them what to do.

Snowden knew that defending himself with the constitution would be pointless. He'd be arrested and held incommunicado just like Manning because... national security. His show trial would be held mostly in secret behind closed doors because... national security.

I agree that Napolitano would have been a great choice to go to as a journalist.

> This is why I feel, and what I know of Liberals, they mislead, bait, "chum", and this is why I feel that Snowden didn't think this up by himself, he was baited into it, and left to hang in Russia, where Rand Paul warned him to NOT go.

Careful with these labels. "Liberals", "conservatives", and "progressives" take sides on distracting wedge issues. In our times these labels mean almost nothing when it comes to fundamental issues of civil liberties.

Snowden might not have made any plans beyond Hong Kong when he left and may have had no other option but Moscow. There's scant public information in this area with which to form an opinion.

> If he's a Ron Paul supporter, why is he going to globalist liberals, and not taking the advice of those who defend the Constitution?

We know he contacted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barton_Gellman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Poitras

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-glen...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-barton-...

I can only assume Snowden went to Gellman because he writes on digital privacy and security for Time and thus had the technical ability to establish a secure communication channel where Snowden could communicate anonymously. Because it's so difficult for non-technical people to get this software working properly, the burden on Greenwald's time would have been higher to even get the system running so that some anonymous person can tell him why he should care.

Of the three, Gellman seems like the best choice on paper, but when Snowden decided to act Gellman faltered by failing to guarantee timely publication. Obviously Gellman involved Poitras, as they share the by line in the initial Washington Post story.

Snowden must have asked Poitras to vouch for him with Greenwald. (eg. "Hey Glenn, you really need to take the time to get the security software this guy wants to you have working. Let me show you how it works..."

Details on this point are sketchy. The journalists are withholding key information, but those details just don't matter at all compared with what Snowden released.

> I don't know what I said that indicated to you that I said Snowden support of Ron Paul is what caused him to "expose" (he has not exposed anything, GREENWALD has).

I thought the pronoun "him" referred to Snowden. And really, Snowden exposed the information. If Greenwald failed to publish it then he simply would have found someone else.

> Greenwald is GUILTY of talking to Snowden

That's not a crime.

> before he accepted classified documents he had NO LEGAL BAISES to accept.

Neither is this. You don't need a legal basis to accept some documents offered to you.

> Then Greenwald threatened the USA.. just search Greenwald threat and you will get many links.

He said, "Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had. The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare."

That's not a threat, it's merely a statement of fact and his opinion about that fact. In order for this statement to be a threat by Greenwald he would have to have the capability to make the information revelation the US government's worst nightmare. There's no evidence Greenwald has such capability.

It is Snowden who has put in place a mechanism to release the damaging information upon his death. There are cryptographic protocols for protecting data that require a specific threshold of key holders to agree before the information can be unlocked. Given the way Snowden setup his communication channels with Greenwald, and his technical background, it's highly likely that kind of mechanism has been deployed. The damaging stuff could actually be information which if release would get US assets killed.

Greenwald has denied having any role in it or even knowing the details of how it works.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/13/us-usa-security-sn...

> EVERYTHING I AM SUGGESTING IS PURE SPECULATION.

I agree. So far I haven't seen even the thinnest thread of evidence that Snowden is anything other than what he appears to be: A legitimate whistleblower.

> You and I don't agree on what a journalist's business is.

It sounds like your view is that a journalist's business is to report on anything except what the journalist's government doesn't want reported.

> You say there is a lot of risk to Greenwald traveling in the USA? Really? Why is that? Because the USA is a bad evil empire that needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth and Greenwald is a good man simplty doing a great job to preotect all people of Earth?

If Greenwald traveled to the US there's no doubt he would be detained and interrogated. He would be followed by spies constantly. I don't believe that it would be in the government's interest to murder him, and I think the odds of him being arrested and charged are low. After all, he's only a messenger, but why tempt fate?

I don't believe the United States is a bad evil empire and I certainly don't want to see any mass damage inflicted on it much less see it "wiped off the face of the Earth."

The government of the United States, including all of the private sector entities known as the Military Industrial Complex that are for all intents and purposes part of it, are running an empire.

That makes the United States an empire and it is true that empires do evil things. I would like to see the empire scaled back before something really bad happens.

Whether Greenwald is a good or bad man is irrelevant. He's doing his duty as a journalist. Snowden is protecting the weak from the strong and paying a high personal price for doing so.

> It's not good news to the evil bad corporations to the USA?

Other than the revelation of tyranny, the worst aspect of this is how this particular instance of government intervention has destroyed trust in so many awesome companies that have given so much to the world.

> Maybe the USA wou;ld be much better if the global government ran things?

The US government is the global government and it is running things.