To a certain extent.

Post #372,669 by hnick 3/19/13 8:39:19 AM Reply	To a certain extent. On the other paw, he does give a lot of examples. Take the sunshine article for example http://www.guardian....sta-sunshine-week Did Obama promise transparency and openness? Yes. Detailed examples. Did he deliver? No. Detailed examples. He does get a little strident and sometimes I think his high horse could use a little time alone in the stable, but as far as I can see, he's rarely objectively wrong. He's a little hard on cheerleaders and blind supporters. It's probably an acquired taste...
Post #372,670 by Another Scott 3/19/13 10:08:10 AM Reply	Purity trolls are pure. ;-) Greenwald is very good at presenting a strong case for his views. I think it's important that someone pushes them as there are many positions that don't get the public advocacy they deserve. But when it comes down to it, he's a purity troll. He would rather advocate for someone who spouts off about pure positions than have to choose between two candidates or two real options when one is clearly better than the other. (Don't forget that Greenwald previously worked for CATO.) It's rare for people to change. (Another example of this phenomenon is Ariana - I've always been suspicious of her positions and the way she frames her arguments given her history with her former husband and so forth - http://en.wikipedia....Huffington#Career .) Obama is not worse than Cheney. To even insinuate that, let alone say it, is trolling. He wants to drive up the poutrage to increase his visibility. And it causes me, personally, to wave off whatever good points he may have in the piece. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #372,676 by drook 3/19/13 11:42:13 AM Reply	"Poutrage" ... that yours? I'm stealing it -- Drew
Post #372,677 by Another Scott 3/19/13 12:06:14 PM Reply	Nope. Welcome to it. I probably saw it on Balloon-Juice. The earliest mention I have seen there in a quick search is here: http://www.balloon-j.../#comment-1380514 It's a great word, isn't it? :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #372,678 by drook 3/19/13 12:07:29 PM Reply	Yeah, pithy -- Drew
Post #372,680 by mmoffitt 3/19/13 1:00:20 PM Reply	Perhaps you can refresh my memory. I don't think I can be confused as someone who has ever supported Dick Cheney or any of his policy positions. But IMO it is ridiculous to suggest that anyone's perspective must be summarily dismissed merely because the person drew a parallel between Cheney and Obama. I do not recall Dick Cheney (as evil a bastard as he is) ever formally declaring it right and proper that he, and he alone, possessed a Constitutional right to kill anyone he saw fit. If he did, I missed it. Can you point me to a place where that occurred? If not, then I put it to you that it is not "trolling" to suggest that Obama is as bad, if not worse than Dick Cheney. For, if Obama genuinely believes he has a right to kill you if he wants to, then the differences in other policies don't matter much, do they? I do not now, nor will I ever want a homicidal maniac making any decisions on my behalf, thankyouverymuch.
Post #372,682 by drook 3/19/13 1:10:16 PM Reply	Which is worse? To claim that the law allows something which you don't, in practice, intend to do? Or to do whatever is expedient and retroactively justify whichever of those actions people seem to be bothered by? Yes, I'm presenting a false dichotomy, but I believe my phrasing is more like reality than unlike. -- Drew
Post #372,683 by mmoffitt 3/19/13 1:30:20 PM Reply	Really? Doesn't "in practice, intend to do?" Hmmmm....... Of the scores of people dubbed terrorists who have been targeted by American military drone strikes, three men -- all killed in the fall of 2011 -- were U.S. citizens. http://usnews.nbcnew...-controversy?lite
Post #372,684 by drook 3/19/13 1:42:38 PM Reply	So Americans count for more? -- Drew
Post #372,689 by mmoffitt 3/19/13 3:56:39 PM Reply	Um, no. Not my point at all. You said "has no intention of killing Americans" despite the fact that he'd already done it.
Post #372,690 by drook 3/19/13 4:45:11 PM Reply	No I didn't I said, "something which you don't, in practice, intend to do". The filibuster was about killing Americans in America with drones. Where those killings happen is as much a part of that as who is being killed, isn't it? I don't want armed drones flying over where I live. That's (one of the many reasons) why the AUMF needs to be scaled back or rescinded. I think it's much more likely I'll accidentally be in a place designated a "zone of interest" than that I personally will be declared a "person of interest". -- Drew
Post #372,685 by Another Scott 3/19/13 1:50:54 PM Reply	We all make choices in what we take the time to read. I haven't read much of Greenwald in many years. I got turned off by his writing and argument style long ago. I'm not simply dismissing him because of that paragraph cited by driftglass. I'm using that as an example of why it's not worth my time to dissect his arguments and to illustrate why I don't read him. YMMV. But to get back closer to the topic brought up by lincoln, to start a argument by saying that the "law is crystal clear" and it was "conclusively decided" is ridiculous. Nothing in the law is absolute under every circumstance for all time. We know this. He should know this. Legalistic arguments like this are little better than religion. His argument style forces the reader to accept his premises and see no shades of gray. It's not persuasive to me *even if he may have the better side of the argument on the merits. Clearer? Does that make me an apologist for Obama? I don't think so, but YMMV there too. To beat a dead horse some more, I'll say again: The way to end these questions about the terrible drones and whether Obama can kill Americans is to understand that that authority is based on the AUMF. End the AUMF or rein it in, and the issue goes away. No President is ever going to say that the US military cannot ever* be used to kill Americans without a trial. And if s/he does say that, s/he's lying. If you don't accept that, you don't know the history of the Whiskey Rebellion, the US Civil War, Little Rock, and on and on. http://www.nytimes.c...day/big/0925.html FWIW. I think I'm about done on this topic. Cheers, Scott.
Post #372,681 by hnick 3/19/13 1:03:55 PM Reply	Re: Purity trolls are pure. Understood. Annoyance and motivation aside, he does regularly highlight injustice and criminal behavior in our government. My takeaway from his articles is not that one side/person is better than the other, but that supposed fundamental principles of our society are being shredded with impunity by people who are supposed to be our leaders and representatives. It is my belief that such persons should be stopped and the practice discouraged. "But somebody else did it first" or "He's only doing it to bad guys", or "Meanies in congress made this happen" seem to be inadequate responses. If a bit of arrogance and stridency is necessary to get the country back on track, I can live with it. Unfortunately, I suspect that the majority of the citizenry will shrug it off and nothing will change, except, possibly, for the worse.
Post #372,686 by Another Scott 3/19/13 1:53:45 PM Reply	Thanks.
Post #372,703 by Ashton 3/19/13 7:53:05 PM Reply	My sentiments too re. his dogmatism, close enough.. That thing about 'The Law' (or referents to 'The Constitution') always beggars honest Belief!> There is nothing / NOTHING within the er, average day's maya? [that picture show which is so often imagined to be some sort of Reality] about which a sane person could say, that's a Certainty! At least that is the Issue-filter whence I start wading through (especially: All Chains of 'deductive reasoning'.) Mankind STILL ... lacks Scale and Relativity ..what, about 98.3% of the time? Maybe too many years at CATO {ugh} could fog anyone's Noticing of the day's actual surrealism?--for most homo-saps.

Welcome to IWETHEY!