Fact-checking Hillary Clinton's comments on Edward Snowden and the NSA

For one, she has said she’s not running. Secondly, she’s already been warned about not criticizing Democrat insiders. If by some strange happenstance she does get in, which I believe she never will, because of right leaning Democratic voters, how much could she accomplish? I really think what is needed is an alternative party, who, no question, will lose, but who has fresh ideas outside of the system. I don’t know how we go about doing that. I don’t want to run, and I know no one else who does. With the big money system in place, no one will see the national stage, unless they sign over their souls. Sorry, I’m just very disheartened, and I do need some inspiration and perhaps more sleep.

To get rotational energy we would have to love one and hate one.

We are missing someone lovable in that partnership.


Actually I was thinking about how boingers are going to have to spin the fact that they are voting for Clinton. Who says there’s no such thing as a free source of unlimited, non-polluting energy??

Of course there are reasons to keep things secret. No one would suggest that we all get an informational newsletter from the NSA detailing their daily activities. But when our elected representatives can’t get that information, even when they get off their lazy asses and finally ask for it, something is dead wrong.

When even the legal opinions that the secrecy state uses to justify its own programs are themselves kept hidden, it’s hard to believe that is somehow necessary. The reality is that we (all of us) are the enemy to the secrecy apparatus. We are all suspect, therefore we all need to be kept in the dark.
When we can’t challenge secrecy state actions through the courts because we can’t prove that the illegal actions are taking place (secrecy, don’t you know?), something is dead wrong.

Secrecy has become the apparatus to hide illegality and unconstitutionality, and that is dead wrong. Until the power to hide illegality is completely torn away, I am all for tearing down the existing system. There is no sense building anything until the system recognizes who is the real enemy. It ain’t the citizens who value our rights.


The same way as always, I’d imagine.

The least worst option who can win.

I don’t know how marginal it would have to get before a significant amount of people try anything different.

1 Like

Valerie Plame is the Obama birth certificate of the left.

This is exactly what I’d expect Hillary or Obama to say. They are as much a part of the problem as the Republicans.

I can only hope the Democrats will nominate somebody more on the line of Bernie Sanders or that somebody we thought Obama would be.

to be fair, libya wasn’t our deal. NATO ( mostly france ) dragged us into that. We only really provided some logistical support.

They’re giving whistleblowers involuntary sex change operations now too?

It actually doesn’t matter anymore if he is right or wrong, he knew he was throwing his life away and said so from the very beginning, what matters is, now that you know what he told you, what do you do?

Attacking Snowden at this point does not even amount to trolling, it amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “LA LA LA LA LA LA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”


My astroturf spidey-sense is tingling!

Ray-gun? That’s who you hold up as a bastion of heroism and hard work? Sweet Jesus, man, are you a comedian?

So you want to convince people based on what then?
If you don’t want to convince people, then what are you doing?
You can reply saying its not your job but you can’t reply why you believe what you say you believe?


How so? Obama’s birth certificate is legit and there is no secret Kenyan version. OTOH, Valerie Plame’s identity was indeed leaked.

Granted, the leak wasn’t such a big deal to national security as some on the left make it out to be.

But still, we have one issue that’s completely bogus (Obama’s birth certificate) and one that’s at most half bogus (the Plame leak).

Or are you trying to say the left’s conspiracy theories are more coherent than the right’s?

1 Like

Look, if you’re trying to convince anyone of anything you should cite some facts supporting your case. What you’re doing in this thread indeed looks a whole lot like trolling. It’s not “calling names” to point out that someone who makes an assertion and then refuses to back it up when asked repeatedly is a troll. That’s typical troll behavior.

It’s like wearing white face makeup and complaining that people are “calling names” when they refer to you as a mime. That would be pretty stupid, right?


Not really, since I’ve repeatedly clarified my statement; it’s not exactly my problem if people don’t choose to read what I say.

Let me clarify once again, however: the author of this article positioned it as a “fact-check”, but it’s incredibly biased and only shows one side of things – from the perspective of someone who holds Snowden up as a hero of freedom. Since this is the author’s own opinion, but he positions it as ‘fact’, it’s full of half-truths and heavily biased opinions. This is poor journalism at best.

You seem every bit as prone to “half-truths and heavily biased opinions” as the author. So why should I believe you over the author?

Perhaps if you substantiated your claims with some evidence and carefully reasoned argument there’d be some reason to prefer your case to the OP’s. As it stands, you just keep repeating your opinion without justifying it. The OP actually cites evidence backing up his opinion.

This is poor journalism at best.

Perhaps you need to look up the term “editorial”? This isn’t reportage, it’s commentary and commentary is not held to the same “neutral POV” standards that straight journalism tries but always fails to achieve.

Slinging shit without backing up your assertions is a good way to alienate people from your opinion. Are you actually trying to convince people that the OP is right and you are random internet rant-bot? Because you’re making a better case for that than the opposite.

If you’re going to respond, please try to include some substance. I have nothing else to say to you if you’re unable to defend the claims you’re making.


What a bizarre response. I’m not saying anything that needs to be backed with evidence.

This isn’t an ‘editorial’. It’s a “Fact-Check”, which in my mind tells me that the author is presenting facts, not opinions. Opinions are not facts. This is really, really straightforward, but you’ve missed it, yet again.

But now you’re again throwing around insults, so you’re clearly not interested in reason.

  1. Nowhere in my comment did I insult you. A rhetorical question is not an insult.
  2. You’re not really in a position to talk about “reason” because you’re not employing any.

Do you want to convince me that your opinion has any merit? Or do you want to convince me that your argument has no merit and that is why you can’t defend it? You’re doing a much better job of the latter.

Being so quick to react to “insults” where there are none is not a good sign. It suggests that you’re trying to distract from the substance of the discussion which, in turn, suggests that you don’t have any substance to contribute to the discussion.


But you haven’t given reasons, just assertions that there are lies. Half-truths aren’t truth. You’ve responded how many times now to other commenters in this thread? And yet you make it sound like you are put upon to do research for everyone else by presenting what is your claim of the truth, and you keep responding with nothing new. Why not just ignore it? To me, you now appear to fall into the category of someone who wants to implant negative inferences, because you don’t share the opinion of the author, but you don’t really have any substantial backing for that opposing opinion, other than that it pisses you off, for whatever reason: political bent, irrational dislike of the author, irrational dislike of Snowden, a love affair with Hillary, you feel like starting a fight while not presenting a cogent argument or any other number of possibilities.

It’s silly.