General Discussion

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

303. There goes Michelle Bachman's false claim that MY records do not belong to ME. Wrong, and this

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 12:03 AM

Aug 2013

past week I proved it.

I have taken back my records from Verizon because they violated their own Privacy Agreement which I read to them on the phone. They had the nerve to tell me they had NOT shared MY RECORDS, note, they did not agree with Michelle Bachman, they agreed with ME, that those records are MINE. I refused to stay with them despite all their assurances that they respected MY privacy and their Privacy Agreement with ME.

So much for that Michelle Bachman talking point. At least she benefits from the lie, why anyone here is repeating it is beyond me.

Now Verizon doesn't have MY RECORDS anymore. Do you understand now, Michelle Bachman apparently doesn't, yet.

Now on to your claim that it is Constitutional for the Govenrment to obtain a MASS WARRANT on MIllions of people WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE.

I did ask what probable cause was there of wrong doing on MY part that caused a Warrant to be issued to go anywhere near MY RECORDS.

They tried to convince me I was misunderstanding, that there was NO WARRANT, not an individual one, not a MASS ONE (show me where in the Constitution such a thing even exists) because they so didn't want a customer to take HER records OUT OF THEIR HANDS because they cannot be trusted with them.

So, YOU say there was some kind of new fangled Mass Warrant on millions of Americans. Verizon tells me no, there was NO WARRANT.

Since EVERYONE seems to be lying, I have taken MY RECORDS out of their hands. AND to avoid all the lies and talking points and excuses for these Bush Policies, I rely on the US Constitution as MY guide.

Several lawsuits have already been filed, with more coming. We'll see if Michelle Bachman is right about who owns those records or if the US Constitution and the Privacy Agreement WE signed with Verizon trumps that Brilliant Mind or not.

Am I still posting on DU btw?

I am going to have to copy and paste this because it is UNBELIEVABLE to see anyone here trying to defend BUSH Policies with Michelle Bachman talking points. Unbelievable.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

309 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can someone tell me the reason for all the trashing of Glen Greenwald? [View all] GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 OP

You have just posted one reason, you know well there is a warrant, so if GG is saying there is not a Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #1

A blanket warrent that covers everybody is not a warrant truebluegreen Jul 2013 #3

A warrant is a warrant, does not have to meet your requirements. Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #15

. Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2013 #32

Things seized, would you think things is phone call records, BTW, the warrants are issued to the Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #43

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people msanthrope Jul 2013 #78

Sure. For the past 200 years warrants have been thrown out.... Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2013 #80

My point is that your argument is a bit thin when you try to claim that a search warrant for a msanthrope Jul 2013 #82

What are you saying, do you think warrants are only issued to search your home? No wonder so Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #144

Of course not. What I'm saying is that conflating different scenarios msanthrope Jul 2013 #146

What scenarios are being conflated? GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #244

If a "warrant" covers everyone, truebluegreen Jul 2013 #59

Try thinking about this, it is not a warrant issued to the individual, it is issued to the Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #61

OK. If we accept your premise, answer me this: truebluegreen Jul 2013 #67

It is not about the communication companies committing a crime, like when a crime is committed such Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #68

Honey, you need to get out more. truebluegreen Jul 2013 #74

I know what the Fourth amendment states, I know warrants are issued to communication Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #143

So, the communications companies are planning to kill someone? truebluegreen Jul 2013 #147

I don't think you are able to comprehend so you will just need to stay in your rut in life, Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #157

The 4th Amendment applies to individuals, not corporations. randome Jul 2013 #224

+ 10,000 n/t truedelphi Jul 2013 #154

Thank you.... midnight Jul 2013 #200

So, who committed the crime? Millions of Americans who are customers of sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #175

You don't need probable cause for third party business records. And you don't need a warrant for msanthrope Jul 2013 #72

warrants were never issued to individuals, so not sure what your point is. 'thinking HiPointDem Jul 2013 #98

In this case warrants are not issued to individuals, this thread has been about a post I responded Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #178

the warrants are to effectively search the records of 300 million people. fail. HiPointDem Jul 2013 #186

It has to meet Constitutional requirements though, which bulk surveillance does not. Waiting For Everyman Jul 2013 #96

Why why why truedelphi Jul 2013 #171

Where is your proof "mass" warrant is not constitional? How do you get "mass" in the first place. Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #180

Good grief. nt Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #251

Absolutely NOT a warrant under 4th Amendment. JackRiddler Jul 2013 #217

A legal order is a legal order if the state says so. JackRiddler Jul 2013 #218

A warrant by definition CANNOT be generic. Fearless Aug 2013 #264

It's not. It's specific to the telco provider Recursion Aug 2013 #285

Specific data, from a specific person, for a specific reason MNBrewer Aug 2013 #290

Actually "we want to search this specific house" happens all the time. Recursion Aug 2013 #291

I don't believe that, and if it does happen, it violates the 4th Amendment MNBrewer Aug 2013 #296

What part of "the places to be searched" is unclear Recursion Aug 2013 #297

ANd the items or persons to be seized. MNBrewer Aug 2013 #298

"Persons" mean people you want to arrest Recursion Aug 2013 #299

Bingo! Fearless Aug 2013 #300

^^^ THIS MNBrewer Jul 2013 #167

And you just stated the problem yourself. ONE warrant, issued AFTER THE FACT for millions of people sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #7

Warrants are renewed from time to time. Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #17

Please read the 4th amendment. Warren Stupidity Jul 2013 #8

I have read the Fourth amendment, it requires a warrant, warrants have been issued. Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #20

You either are lying Bradical79 Jul 2013 #45

I am not lying, you can reserve this for those who continue to insist warrants have not been issued Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #65

"When the secret court was created in 1978, it was meant to authorize targeted searches" GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #283

You must be getting your information from birds on a line, warrants for phone call records has Thinkingabout Aug 2013 #284

Let's call them Neo-Warrants Bragi Jul 2013 #46

This might actually be part of the problem: GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #247

So how many warrants have been issued against you? muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #151

What Greenwald is saying reflects poorly on President Obama. truebluegreen Jul 2013 #2

+1 forestpath Jul 2013 #5

+1 And... hlthe2b Jul 2013 #11

yes, you have nailed it n/t Psephos Jul 2013 #159

Astroturfing� AgingAmerican Jul 2013 #185

Lots of that kind of thing going on. nt laundry_queen Aug 2013 #287

This is EXACTLY the reason burnodo Jul 2013 #16

It doesn't reflect poorly on President Obama treestar Jul 2013 #28

Adoring! Limbaugh! Lies! Propaganda! Irrelevant! burnodo Jul 2013 #34

You nailed it! RC Jul 2013 #54

Exactly, once someone figures out a good way to blame ONLY the repukes for the NSA spying, hughee99 Jul 2013 #71

It can't just be that strictly partisan GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #203

For some people, I suspect it is. hughee99 Jul 2013 #204

Being a "team player" is not appropriate when great harm is being done GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #205

I agree completely. n/t hughee99 Jul 2013 #209

It seems that some people don't GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #210

Yes, in this case it is. delrem Jul 2013 #236

Spying on every communication of every citizen reflects poorly on the entire government GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #100

I agree--emended to "everyone in the government truebluegreen Jul 2013 #121

So it's personal? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #124

?? Sorry, you need to clarify: truebluegreen Jul 2013 #126

Ah. The trashing of Greenwald GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #131

It's extremely sad that a public servant has been elevated to the an icon of adoration Catherina Jul 2013 #106

Absolutely. truebluegreen Jul 2013 #125

Therefore, it must be a lie, a smear, personal animus or enemy action. Vanje Jul 2013 #196

lol's... KoKo Jul 2013 #211

...and Vanje Jul 2013 #213

Best post, so far. THAT is the crux of it. Everything else truth2power Jul 2013 #202

...said most wingers, looks funny here on DU though uponit7771 Jul 2013 #214

Or it reflects on Greenwald wanting a New York Times bestseller Life Long Dem Aug 2013 #242

Really? truebluegreen Aug 2013 #256

+100 RetroLounge Aug 2013 #258

The NSA has warrants to collect the meta data. JoePhilly Jul 2013 #4

No, the NSA had ONE warrant. How on earth did they get only ONE warrant to coolect and store the sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #12

SCOTUS ruled decades ago that the collection of phone bill type metadata pnwmom Jul 2013 #18

that was for one suspect, we are talking about massive suspicionless spying now, totalitarians wet d usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jul 2013 #193

How do you get one warrant, warrants are issued all the time, not one warrant. Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #21

Could you give us an example of ONE WARRANT being issued for 300 MILLION people sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #50

My goodness, after all this time and all the discussion on this subject and from your post I can see Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #57

My goodness but that is simplistic and wrong-headed. truebluegreen Jul 2013 #60

Apparently your are referring to yourself as wrong-headed, if you do want to change and get the Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #63

What warrants, no matter who owns something, warrants must be issued ONLY with sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #62

The meta dats belongs to the company that connects the calls. JoePhilly Jul 2013 #23

Really? So your Bank records are not yours, your medical records are not yours? This talking point, sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #31

You better call GMAIL or who ever else provides your email and JoePhilly Jul 2013 #33

Gmail has a privacy statement. Did you read it? You're spreading false information. The ONLY way sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #38

The government can get a warrant and GMAIL would have to JoePhilly Jul 2013 #44

Sometimes, I just want to send episodes of the "The Wire" to individual posters. Maybe it msanthrope Jul 2013 #81

You keep making my point without realizing it. If the data doesn't belong to us, sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #85

Where in the world did you get the idea the data belonged to you? Egnever Aug 2013 #255

Because it's personal data GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #282

That is utterly and completely incorrect. You claim to be a court reporter---have you never heard msanthrope Jul 2013 #79

Yes, I have heard of subpoenas and WARRANTS showing PROBABLE CAUSE sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #86

Subpoenas don't require probable cause. Your gmail records can be msanthrope Jul 2013 #94

It's going fine with Verizon, we are not being spied on by them anymore. Wish we had known sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #122

Good Lord, no wonder why there is so much disinformation out there regarding the 4th Amendment. neverforget Jul 2013 #168

Yes, that is what Michelle Bachman says, but we all know what to think of ANYTHING that sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #302

We have a business. We have customer records. Those records are between the customer and sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #305

Where are they getting the data from, you the individual? Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #58

Not any more, now that I know what they were doing with it. I have cancelled our Verizon sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #87

Surely if you do not use cell phones or the internet, and similar devices your records will be zero. Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #88

Thinkingabout:you have made claims here about the blanket warrant GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #99

The Constitution is a good document foryou to start with, in fact the Fourth Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #136

When you provide information I'll read your post GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #139

Well, it is not necessary for you to read my post, in fact it is not necessary for you to Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #142

If you were running for public office, Vanje Jul 2013 #197

I guess I need to restate myself a second time, I don't care if my phone calls, internet, etc Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #199

This is satire, isnt it? Vanje Jul 2013 #201

No, I think he means it. GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #241

The fact that you think reality is anything other than what he posted frightens me. Egnever Aug 2013 #257

The web logs for my hosting business most certainly belong to me and not my customers Recursion Aug 2013 #292

I believe I have addressed this Michelle Bachman talking point in several posts already. So here I sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #304

One per provider. They're taking the provider's data as permitted by a warrant Recursion Aug 2013 #286

There goes Michelle Bachman's false claim that MY records do not belong to ME. Wrong, and this sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #303

of course they still have your records Recursion Aug 2013 #306

Yes, they are desperately trying to humor all their customers now that the violated their own sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #307

Every call had counterparties. you have no right Recursion Aug 2013 #308

It doesn't matter, they cannot use those records other than according to their agreement with sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #309

Greenwald bad, bad. Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #22

It's amazing how people fall back on homophobia GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #191

Joe, do you have links on the actual substance of these warrants? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #101

Only the trashers can definitively answer Question #1: Smarmie Doofus Jul 2013 #6

Its not about Grrenwald ... except when it is about Greenwald. JoePhilly Jul 2013 #35

Because he is making the PTB and Dear Leader look bad. Arctic Dave Jul 2013 #9

Booz Allen needs a good laugh to cheer them up.... think Jul 2013 #10

Booz Allen will have 35 different ACA (Obamacare) contracts GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #102

They have attacked him long before the NSA/Snowden story broke, often using his Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #13

A single poster since banned for his views is not "attacks.". Greenwald deserves scorn msanthrope Jul 2013 #40

That was just the worst, not the only attack. The question was 'why the trashing' Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #42

If you think particular posters are homophobic, I think you should use the jury system and other msanthrope Jul 2013 #77

So you think homophobia is playing a part here? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #103

He's a grandstanding self-promoter who made a big splash pnwmom Jul 2013 #14

How do you explain the homophobic attacks on him back in 2011? Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #24

There's no excuse for them and no connection to this issue. pnwmom Jul 2013 #27

The OP 'issue': Can someone tell me the reason for all the trashing of Glen Greenwald? Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #36

Probably because Greenwald has been trashing Obama since Obama first took office. pnwmom Jul 2013 #92

However, Mr Snowden actually held off on truedelphi Jul 2013 #152

You forgot about the documents he shared pnwmom Jul 2013 #158

You are repeating propaganda from our MIC and its tightly controlled media - truedelphi Jul 2013 #170

No, he's relying on people like you to not understand that he's making a false distinction pnwmom Jul 2013 #176

What some media states that Snowden gave to the Chinese newspapers truedelphi Jul 2013 #189

Now he is claiming that his computers were hacked? What did he expect pnwmom Jul 2013 #190

How do you know who did the hacking? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #206

I don't know, but it's not really relevant WHO did it, assuming it was done. pnwmom Jul 2013 #212

So we don't know that it was done at all, and we don't know who if anyone GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #216

You're right. We could assume Snowden is lying when he says he was hacked. pnwmom Jul 2013 #220

We can't assume anything really. We just don't know. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #221

No, the previous poster in this thread claimed that Snowden says he was hacked. pnwmom Jul 2013 #222

Or the Chinese got the information from some other source GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #226

But Snowden supposedly thinks they hacked him. pnwmom Jul 2013 #229

Snowden might not know who hacked him, or if anyone did GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #233

I've always believed that nothing I put online is secure. pnwmom Jul 2013 #234

The problem is where are all being forced to do everything online GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #245

Why would you resist that? Egnever Aug 2013 #263

I want control over when and how my money leaves my account GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #271

People supporting that thread are right here in this thread, trashing away. Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #37

I'm not going to read every thread looking for whoever you're talking about. pnwmom Jul 2013 #93

Just read that thread and read this one. RetroLounge Aug 2013 #260

Did you know how much was being collected on you several years ago? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #104

I think because he was not properly licking some boots The Straight Story Jul 2013 #19

Greenwald is an opportunist, not a journalist. Avalux Jul 2013 #25

What You Said otohara Jul 2013 #64

You have this opinion because he once felt he should support Dubya after 9/11? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #105

I don't form an opinion from one fuck up. Avalux Jul 2013 #163

There was a post last night with a whole list, but these were apparently lies GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #183

You use out of context quotes but Greenwald is the opportunist? last1standing Jul 2013 #135

If I was an opportunist, I'd be in the headlines like Greenwald. n/t Avalux Jul 2013 #164

I'm sure you have a tremendous amount of talent in journalism... last1standing Jul 2013 #165

. laundry_queen Aug 2013 #288

I think there is a difference between what a journalist does and what an author does. reusrename Jul 2013 #172

We don't know what he'd do, that's the point. Avalux Jul 2013 #179

Opportunists can still be journalists. Greenwald is definitely a journalist Recursion Aug 2013 #293

Is no one allowed to disagree with him? treestar Jul 2013 #26

I assume that's a rhetorical question GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #107

"He is not a reporter" RetroLounge Aug 2013 #261

I can tell the difference between a news story and an editorial treestar Aug 2013 #268

Yeah, okay. RetroLounge Aug 2013 #269

He's a complete douchebag and attention whore. Is that reason enough? MjolnirTime Jul 2013 #29

you know this how? ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2013 #52

Do you have links that support your opinion? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #108

Gee I thought looking at the profile of the poster might give an answer HangOnKids Jul 2013 #116

Because neither he nor Snowden have shown that the NSA is doing anything illegal. randome Jul 2013 #30

What kind of evidence would convince you that the NSA was in fact doing something illegal? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #109

How would I know what kind of proof to look for? randome Jul 2013 #119

It might help to look up various legal interpretations of the 4th amendment GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #120

Any attempts to discuss the Fourth Amendment here treestar Jul 2013 #128

So NSA went to the FISA court and asked for a blanket warrant on all Americans? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #130

This is exactly what they do treestar Jul 2013 #132

Then explain where I got it wrong GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #133

Metadata phone records are not part of your personal effects. randome Jul 2013 #137

The phone records are considered to be property of telecoms, not the person who makes the call GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #140

No problem changing the law here. randome Jul 2013 #141

You and I will vehemently disagree here. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #145

"When we are on the phone, we assume who we are calling is a private matter" Egnever Aug 2013 #265

Yes! He does plenty of "trashing!" treestar Jul 2013 #114

Links and evidence please. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #123

In a dysfunctional family system, there is usually a lot of rage aimed at those villager Jul 2013 #39

B. I. N. G. O. laundry_queen Aug 2013 #289

very textbook indeed, Laundry Queen villager Aug 2013 #295

He's a hypocrite.... msanthrope Jul 2013 #41

Well if he is then he is in good company with this fucking country and government. n/t L0oniX Jul 2013 #49

Interesting. Thank you. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #127

You are quite welcome. I cannot speak to other people's knowledge, but his racist postings msanthrope Jul 2013 #134

I don't actually care about his opinions on other matters GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #138

Because he's making it clear that "the land of the free and the home of the brave" is neither. Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2013 #47

It's a nonsense agenda. n/t L0oniX Jul 2013 #48

Sock-puppetry, probably. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #51

Because he's a gadfly. People tend to dislike gadflies Pretzel_Warrior Jul 2013 #53

Mind Reading for fun and profit! bobduca Jul 2013 #181

Character Assassination - If The Message Is Disturbing - Shoot The Messenger cantbeserious Jul 2013 #55

It is not what he said nadinbrzezinski Jul 2013 #56

Greenwald doesn't do anything that doesn't help Greenwals. He's a grandstanding little putz. OregonBlue Jul 2013 #66

"He was mean to my boyfriend and makes him look bad!" Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #69

Some of it is because he is gay. The Link Jul 2013 #70

Homophobia is against the TOS. If you think a particular poster is being homophobic, I encourage msanthrope Jul 2013 #76

So you think homophobia is playing a part in this? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #110

The various posters that thought it was cute to call him "Geegee". n/t backscatter712 Jul 2013 #174

Ah. So it's there GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #182

He is gay? Egnever Aug 2013 #266

Kill the messenger, kill the message. Iggo Jul 2013 #73

Fascinating thread Fumesucker Jul 2013 #75

It's actually interesting to see how widely people diverge GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #111

It boils down to this Marrah_G Jul 2013 #162

I haven't been around long enough to isolate both groups GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #184

There's always pushback against an activist embellishing his 'cause'. railsback Jul 2013 #83

So Greenwald has attacked skeptics. Do you have links? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #112

People are trashing Greenwald felix_numinous Jul 2013 #84

So it's basically a disagreement over the interpretation of the 4th amendment GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #113

OH BS treestar Jul 2013 #115

Because he is a poor journalist intaglio Jul 2013 #89

You know, I didn't know about Eschelon until 10 years ago when I went on an odd little site GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #118

The reason? It's an organised campaign, that's why Bragi Jul 2013 #90

He makes some main-stream elected Democrats look bad. nt LWolf Jul 2013 #91

Fear and Loathing. nt bemildred Jul 2013 #95

Why do you assume anything he says is a lie? Coyotl Jul 2013 #97

The moderate-right wing of the party hates lefties. Rex Jul 2013 #117

because he keeps pursuing this loony idea that if something is wrong when the Republicans do it Douglas Carpenter Jul 2013 #129

Authoritarian "Democrats" reflexively attacking anyone undermining the surveillance state. n/t backscatter712 Jul 2013 #148

Fear! Truth tellers always get this response. All the more reason to support him. sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #149

Orwell said that this way: truedelphi Jul 2013 #153

Yes, very well put by Orwell. But he could not in his wildest predictions,, have predicted how sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #156

Didn't he also say- eilen Jul 2013 #177

Oh, I like that quote. Don't truedelphi Jul 2013 #188

That needs to be on my car GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #207

It isn't President Barack Obama that said it Aerows Jul 2013 #150

because pesky libertarian do-gooders are going to stop the government from keeping! us! safe! Warren DeMontague Jul 2013 #155

Please understand: If they make it about Greenwald, then we won't pay attention to the spying! Th1onein Jul 2013 #160

Why would anyone on DU not be concerned about the NSA? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #215

You got me. I don't know. Th1onein Jul 2013 #223

It's also legal for cops to taser people GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #225

THAT'S what I'm saying. I couldn't agree with you more. Th1onein Jul 2013 #231

Now, how do we get people to understand that? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #232

I don't think we do need to get them to understand. I think they already do. Th1onein Jul 2013 #238

You think the NSA sends trolls in here? GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #246

They are recording and storing every piece of info you send or search for on the net Th1onein Aug 2013 #267

Yeah, I guess GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #270

He helped Snowden "make Obama look bad" - ? Skip Intro Jul 2013 #161

No, they wanted to.. but ended up making themselves look like Cha Aug 2013 #249

The reason is that they are pathetic losers with no lives kenny blankenship Jul 2013 #166

"...it's all about just one guy." Scurrilous Jul 2013 #187

There are official NSA sponsored trolls that have joined the conversation in the last month. Kablooie Jul 2013 #169

They don't work for the NSA... backscatter712 Jul 2013 #173

Have joined DU? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #192

There are some posters who joined in the last month and post almost exclusively... Kablooie Jul 2013 #194

Wow. It's quite a sophisticated operation. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #195

Yes - noticeable dipsydoodle Jul 2013 #219

a lot of it has to do with his fans, I think ecstatic Jul 2013 #198

I don't know anything about his fans GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #208

And nothing that S&G stole and printed points to illegality or abuse by the NSA. randome Jul 2013 #230

Greenwald could be more properly described as "pro government" rather than "pro Bush" Fumesucker Jul 2013 #237

You might start by reading the endless other threads that have been posted in the last month. OregonBlue Jul 2013 #227

Too much vitriol on those to read for long GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #228

It mostly has to do with the fact that Greenwald is a nasty arrogant jerk. He's a Libertarian OregonBlue Jul 2013 #240

+1 Life Long Dem Aug 2013 #243

I started reading threads after this OP delrem Jul 2013 #235

I think there is a fuzziness in FISA too GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #248

Excessive secrecy mixed with dubious ill-founded semantics is creepy. delrem Aug 2013 #254

I wish I could rec your post GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #281

Again, no. The Telco warrants are targeted to the telco providers, who own the data Recursion Aug 2013 #294

Because he dared to point out the emperor's unclothed state n/t markpkessinger Jul 2013 #239

Sounds about right. dipsydoodle Aug 2013 #250

signing the book deal was is my reason madrchsod Aug 2013 #252

A book deal on the NSA info? GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #253

I've disliked him since 2006 frazzled Aug 2013 #259

This surveillance sh*t has been going on for a very, very, very long time... Tikki Aug 2013 #262

What's your best guess about how long it has been going on? GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #272

At least since the Eisenhower Administration. I lived a while in a Government town... Tikki Aug 2013 #273

That far back! GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #274

The Wiki says 1952 for the NSA...sounds about right. Tikki Aug 2013 #275

What was that Frank Zappa quote about opening the curtain GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #276

Today the NSA is that shiny object, the new gray, the OMG it's all about me... Tikki Aug 2013 #277

Suggestions? GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #278

Study the History of the NSA, how it has been used throughout the whole 60 years of it's existence.. Tikki Aug 2013 #279

Interesting. GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #280

Because many are Tories soul deep others collect a check to TheKentuckian Aug 2013 #301