General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: ‘Bullsh*t!’ Greenwald and Iraq Vet Blow Up on Real Time over Snowden Leaks [View all]NanceGreggs
(27,825 posts)... healthy.
When one decides that skepticism is only applicable when the gov't is speaking, and is never applicable when the likes of a Greenwald or Snowden are speaking, one can be appropriately described as a DUPE.
"You act as if one moment of not answering an interviewer is The Single Exception disproof that science disproves some hypothesis with. You show no patterns of credibility flaws in any of the documents that they've published, regardless of how they deal with 'gotcha' interviews by mediocre hacks."
That screed is so grammatically nonsensical, I am truly at a loss for words. Anyone who puts a question point-blank that is unanswerable is "a mediocre hack"? I'd say the fact that the question couldn't be answered is proof of who the "hack" is.
Asking the obvious question - "What illegal activities is the NSA engaging in?" - is a "gotcha" question? I haven't heard THAT excuse since Sarah Palin declared that asking what newspapers she reads was a "gotcha" question.
"Your "pertinent" questions are a substitute for reading the sources themselves for the answers." The "sources themselves" have yet to produce evidence of their allegations. So I should read them because ...?
When Eddie & The Cruiser come up with actual evidence to support their allegations, I will be all ears. So far, they have produced zero evidence of anything.
"People like me tell you to read more widely but you're simply too closed minded to bother." People like you have also told me to read the Bible in order to understand how Noah loaded dinosaurs onto the ark.
Believe what you want to believe - that's your prerogative. I require proof of allegations made - and thus far, Greenwald/Snowden have offered no proof whatsoever of their allegations. None. Zero. Nada.