sighs..nevermind man.
the fact that you thought i was throwing ad-homs at ya or calling you names is all i need to know.

you argue like someone who has found religion.
the vernacular is different but the style is the same.
hence my light hearted evangelical reference.
sorry you thought that was a dig at you.
already told ya i respected and admired you.

discussions to me are always about understanding.i learned a ton from you and truly appreciate the time.

but you didnt convert me.

and its not just you that never wants to address the dark side of capitalism.
disciples of free market capitalism never want to talk about their deformed child locked in the upstairs bedroom.out of sight..out of mind.

every system has its flaws.
both positive and negative.
and no system is a rigid single dimension but rather varying layers of slight differences.
this includes every political and economic system thought of or just living in the realm of dreams.

it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed and grow.
this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.
instead i get a sermon.

hope has two daughters.
anger and courage.
anger at the way things are,and courage to change them.

i foolishly believed that you and i could have a conversation that would ignite the spark of ideas.
that through discussion and debate something new and exciting could be born.
capitalism has its problems.
as does socialism.
we need something better.

but you are blinded by dogma.
and i am just an old fool.
a silly old dreamer who really should have known better.

i sincerely apologize that you felt i was calling you names.

i havent had a beer in ten years.
gonna go grab me a beer or two.
what a silly,sad old man i have become.
old men should stop dreaming.....

OK, so it's not very good and they need to be a little more self aware. At least they had the courage to create something and put it out there.

Um. No? Should I? Or is this more of that "courage of your conviction" stuff? Just saying.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Washington post also blasts Gregory for this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/23/david-gregory-whiffs-on-greenwald-question/

David Gregory’s logic has a cursory appeal. Why wouldn’t Greenwald have the courage to take on the issues swirling around his reporting? Shouldn’t a Sunday talk show host have the latitude to pose tough questions to another journalist?
Of course. Too bad, however, Gregory didn’t do that. Rather, he seeded his question with a veiled accusation of federal criminal wrongdoing, very much in the tradition of “how long have you been beating your wife.” To repeat the question: “To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?”

@skinnydaddy1
the ignorance of your commentary is staggering.
it reveals a total lack of understanding in regards to:history,the fourth estate and the importance of whistleblowers.

you state that he betrayed an oath.
but what was that oath in regards to?
the government? or the citizens and constitution of the united states?

manning has stated quite clearly he felt the american people needed to know what was being perpetrated in their names.

he honored his oath.

as for HOW he released that information i disagree with as well.he should not have just dumped massive amounts of data,unlike snowden who vetted the information,manning just dumped it.

he gave this information to wikileaks.
a notorious and well-known site for whistleblowers to retain anonymity.
your accusation that this site "lies" is unfounded and has no basis in truth.

maybe in your mind wikileaks lies but that is speculation and conjecture.better known as "wishful thinking".

which brings me to my next point in regards to your willfully ignorant commentary.
you state:
"He gave information to a a group of people that used it to lie and put people at risk for nothing."

and yet in your ad hominem swipe at @Asmo you state:
"What secret did he give away that was damning to the US government? Oh thats right Nothing Other than information that gave away procedures on how informants were handled and oh! some of their names."

well?
which one is it?
were people put at risk or werent they?

you make an argument in one comment where manning is a traitor and had put people lives at risk and in your very NEXT commentary you state that nothing of value was revealed.

you literally negated your first position by YOUR OWN COMMENTARY.

you postulated the our opinion of our government is irrelevant.
i totally agree.
our opinion of our government is irrelevant in these matters.

the fourth estate was put in place to be the watchdog of the powerful.
it is VITAL to this estate that they be able to glean information on the inner workings of governmental processes.for this to work whistleblowers who uncover government malfeasance be allowed to reveal the glitches in the system.

a government by the people for the people should be informed on the goings on of a government enacting policies in THEIR name.

manning saw a glitch in the system and revealed some of the working of our government and by YOUR OWN COMMENTARY,did not reveal anything of significant value.

manning stood up to the most powerful institution on the planet and has suffered three years in prison (wheres the speedy trial?).has been sleep deprived,forced nudity and been subjected to loud music for hours on end (all forms of torture).

he has suffered all this because he felt the american people had the right to know.

manning has shown a courage and a set of balls that has become painfully obvious you do not own.

manning is not only a hero but has a brass set.

What secret did he give away that was damning to the US government? Oh thats right Nothing Other than information that gave away procedures on how informants were handled and oh! some of their names. But don't let that get in the way of your oh so holy rambling of utter bullshit. You go on about how the government broke its oath so thats your excuse for someone breaking theirs. Good to know that you'll use any excuse not to keep one. I find it takes far more courage to keep an oath when everyone else is tossing theirs aside.

@lantern53

i think the only thing manning did that could be considered "wrong" is the pure data dump he performed.

unlike snowden,who sifted and vetted the information and then forwarded the information to a journalist (glenn greenwald at the gaurdian),manning just dumped massive amounts of information to wikileaks.

but manning is also paying a high price and he is willing to pay that price.
so while i may disagree with his methodology i admire his courage to face the full force of the united states federal government.

its interesting that you find people who criticize the federal governments practices as being confused.
let us look at the definition of terrorism shall we?

from the FBI:“the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

now the key word here is "unlawful".
which can be translated as being "when THEY perform acts of violence against a population it is "terrorism" but when WE perform acts of violence against a population it is "counter-terrorism" because WE made it lawful".

the arguments is about distinctions and it is flimsy when you question the validity coming from a government which performs drone strikes on a daily basis on brown people.

when a person straps a bomb to their chest and walks into a cafe and detonates themselves in a crowd they are a terrorist.
when the US government sends drone strikes and bombing runs to a village in yemen they are terrorists.

there is no distinction.
just because the government proclaims otherwise or your desire for the US to be standing on moral ground are irrelevant.

they are,by definition,both terrorists.

and when you consider the guidelines put forth by the nuremberg trials after WW2,in which it was the UNITED STATES government which implemented the majority of those guidelines both bush and obama and consequent participatory members of those administrations should be (and ARE in the international court of law) war criminals.

but the united states government conveniently ignores just about everything outside their own interest.even if that interest after the second world war was to diminish the practices our very own government engages in on a global scale every day.

it is the height of hypocrisy and reveals a moral bankruptcy that is staggering.
when they do it =terrorism
when we do it=counter-terrorism

i call bullshit.

@lantern53
navy here.

and i agree.actions have consequences.
manning knew that as did daniel ellisberg and a litany of other people who revealed classified information but they did it anyways because they felt the truth should be known.
that the truth was more important than their own safety and security.

this is why i use the term "courage".
to act on ones own sense of morality and conscience KNOWING the full weight of an entire government will be pressing down on you when it all comes out.

the days of woodward and bernstein are gone i think.i could be wrong but i read the governments reaction as a strong signal to those who would seek to undermine its absolute authority.
see:the godfather principle

reporters being wiretapped and emails and phone records confiscated.
whistleblower status has been denied more than any other time in americas history.
its an old tactic.
create a climate of fear to intimidate anyone who challenges the narrative.

we shall see where this goes because i feel it will be a strong indicator of things to come.
interesting times my friend.

as for social programs.
i guess i would rather see my taxes go to infrastructure and the old lady down the street rather than bail out corrupt bankers and bomb brown people in a distant country.

but empire is expensive and we need those bombs.
or so they say.
i tend to disagree.

anyways.thanks for replying my friend.

@Confucius

thank you so very much for taking the time to clarify your position.
but i think we are in a fundamental disagreement.
and here is why:

1.manning approached wikileaks.not the other way around.
2.is manning a traitor or patriot? i guess it depends on the perspective.
but manning was quite clear his reasons behind revealing those documents and none of those reasons were of being naive' or subverted by a third party.

when you consider the oath of military responsibility,an i oath i took over 25 years ago,the line that stands out is "to protect from enemies both foreign and domestic".
could those documents be seen as subverting the american people?
and if so,would that not make revealing those documents a patriotic act?

again,perspective and i guess we disagree.

conversely, if we use your premise then we would have to view this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg
as a traitor.
now the 70,000 plus documents HE revealed exposed the gulf of tonkin AND extremely sensitive data concerning the vietnam war.i would go as far to say that without this mans courage (yes..courage) to expose the lies of our government,vietnam may have lasted for a much longer time.ellisberg fascillitated the beginning of the end of the vietnam war

the documents manning revealed just left the american government red faced and embarrassed but nothing of strategic value.ellisberg on the other hand revealed much MUCH more.

traitor or patriot? by your definition:traitor and a far worse one than manning.

and on that we disagree.

what we agree on is that governments lie.
we are in unison on this point but we diverge on how to deal with the situation.

you suggest to work within the bounds of journalism or becoming a politician.
now who is being the naive one?
this implies that the 4th estate is in perfect functioning order and that politicians are informed on all matters.

i submit that neither is the case.
a corporate run new media which engages mainly in sensationalism and hyperbolic opinion rhetoric and a legislature that is mostly subserviant to their financial backers( basically wall street) are not the institutions to tackle and uncover government malfeasance and outright lies.

they have been corrupted.see:iraq war

so i find it disturbing when the government hi-jacks 200 ap reporters emails and phone records.

or when a low level private reveals low level ambassador documents.

or my government's justice department prosecutes SIX people under the espionage act but not ONE indictment concerning wall street.

the message is clear:we are the US government.fuck with us and we will fuck you up.citizen or non-citizen.
there will be no journalism.
there will be no leaking of anything.
sit down and shut up.

or we will ruin you.

government by the people for the people right?

I'll try a point by point and then I'll probably lose track.

-I wouldn't say courage. I would say naivety (the two are confused alot....maybe you need one for the other...idk). He was used by wiki-leaks and the gang as a suicide bomber and now he will be raped in jail for the rest of his life...and nothing will change except that wiki-leaks gained notoriety. I bet he would take it back if he could.

-He was and is a traitor to his country (it's sad because I get the feeling he didn't fully understand what he was doing...prob. blinded by wiki leaks and gang). You don't release gobs of state secrets like that. Why couldn't he just release the helicopter video or other choice things? (still bad even then).

-He was a soldier. He swore an oath. Anyone even remotely connected to the military understands what I'm getting at. If he wanted to be a champion of truth he shouldn't have gone into the military. Become a reporter, a politician. There are plenty of more legitimate (effectiveness aside) ways to do what he did.

-The concept of total transparency as applied to states is stupid. Every state since the beginning of time has functioned because of its ability to have secrets. Try it on an individual level....go around 1 day and tell everyone everything.

-You talk about the absolute hypocrisy of this administration? Every administration in the history of mankind (excluding Camelot, the Magic Kingdom, and/or Castle Greyskull) to a greater or lesser has done the same thing. To think otherwise is naive. Thats how States function....by not telling, lets say, North Korea that we dropped off patriot missiles in Japan or that we have a secret agreement to to attack them with China should anything happen.

-Am I saying that we should be able to hush up the deaths of innocent civilians and etc......no. I'm just saying that there are more responsible ways to ensure that stuff like that doesn't happen.

@Confucius
maybe i am reading your comment wrong.
i feel this is important because manning had the courage to expose the hypocrisy and malfeasance of the state department.

i feel this is important because it brings to light how the obama administration has used the espionage act 6 times.which is more than any other administration combined in the 100 yrs of precedent.

my hope is that this trial will illuminate the absolute hypocrisy being practiced by an administration that speaks of liberties and constitutional rights but in actuality does everything within its power to squash those very rights it pretends to champion.

so..yeah.while it may be sad it is very important.

@lantern53 i dont understand you man.
you profess to be all about smaller government and more liberty but are absolutely fine with an authoritarian governmental style.
government social programs are bad but fascism is ok?

you are a walking contradiction my friend.

@bareboards2
my comment was not really directed at you my dear.i painted my premise with a broad brush that expanded from this thread and addressed something i have found to be more and more practiced on the sift.

you posted your reasons why you used the ignore.
to get rid of the "rabble" and make it easier to read posts you enjoy.
now if that means posts that you agree with or dont find offensive ..well..that is kind of my point.

and you are so right.we all have a right to our opinion and in my opinion to sequester posts you disagree or find offensive is intellectually weak.

@VoodooV you literally just made my entire point by your post and i dont know if that was on purpose or by freak accident.

while i agree with your assertion that @shinyblurry tends to wade in the copy/paste waters and he dwells in circular logic land.you have to give the boy props for lending a perspective of a christian fundamentalist on a mainly secular left site.

that boy can rile you all up like a stick to a hornets nest.which is endless entertainment for me.

but lets change that paradigm shall we?
why dont you head down to your nearest baptist church and hand out fliers concerning evolution to the congregation and tell them god doesnt exist.

then maybe you would know what it feels like to get blasted by all sides at once.while shiny lacks in clear debate skills.you gotta admire his courage.

as for @chingalera seeking attention.
i dunno.
maybe you are right.
but the real question is how did you come to that conclusion?
by what means did you discern his intentions?motivations?
crystal ball? black magic? a little fairy come by and whisper in your ear?

no.
you used your OWN subjective understanding.your OWN experiences to presume the motivations of another sifter.
thats weak sauce and you better than that.

and then..finally..you ask for a daddy to come in straighten out the people who you:disagree with.argue in a way you dont find constructive (but may be they do).derail threads that maybe you would have enjoyed more if those pesky kids hadnt messed everything up.

the world dont revolve around you so get over yourself man.for fuck sakes!

i was sincere when i said i love your commentary because i truly do.
smart,witty and you usually have something to say.i ADORE your commentary but you are being self righteous on this thread.

i did something very similar last week to @renatojj and he called me out.he was right and i was wrong.

stop trying to impose your ideals of what constructive participation is based solely on your own and limited understanding.
this is not your sift but rather OURS and things will become chaotic at times.

the sift is organic.
allow it to metamorph into whatever it will become.
we do not need a big daddy to direct where it goes and thats the beauty of this site.

the irony in all this exchange between you and i is that i feel you have something to say and have always admired that about you.
allow other people to have their say as well.

what a profoundly sad thread this has become.

i am not referring to the most excellent posts by @Chairman_woo and his discourse with @shinyblurry.

no.

it is the ignore function use i am talking about.
what an intellectually weak and vapid excuse to not engage with those who you may disagree with or (gasp) not actually like.

are your tender sensibilities so fragile as to not survive scrutiny of one who may disagree? or is it the manner in which they disagree?
is THAT the measure of how you judge anothers ideas?
words?
and you find this to be a valid reason?
this makes sense in your world?

well allow me to point out that without the dissenting voice challenging your preconceptions and only allowing those that parrot the same homogenized,pastuerized vanilla-same cloned vomit will only serve to create a stagnant pond of lifeless banality.

but as long as you are safe in your little bubble world in which you are always right and the circle-jerk perpetuates a lackluster and flaccid worldview.then thats ok right? as long as the echo chamber reflects how RIGHT you are.

@chingalera offends you?
good! because maybe you needed to be offended.

@VoodooV we have to apologize to @bareboards2 for derailing her thread?
no we fucking dont.
human discourse is by its very nature an ugly evolving creature.so get over yourself.love your commentary,hate your high horse..so get the fuck off it.

@bareboards2 is a very nice and sweet woman,and sometimes can be sensitive but she is a big girl and i dont think we will find her weeping in a dark,curtains drawn room.in fact i am willing to bet she loves the fact her video got such a great discussion going.so who are you to judge? or tell us what we should or should not do for that matter?

this brings me all back to my main point.
the sift used to have a vibrant community that discussed,argued and debated.the arguments were legendary and we still see old skool sifters refer to these people with fondness,even if they disagreed with them vehemently.
they were passionate and had something to say.
the list reads like a funeral march to those great voices who have passed and no longer engage in the sift:@MINK,@rougy,@choggie,@thinker247,@joedirt

what do we have now?
bunch of panty waist pussies who will only jump on the band wagon because other people join in the carnage.jumping on @BoBknight,@shinyblurry,@Lantern.
its like a bully convention with free crystal meth.
these folks might as well be black living in mississippi in the 1800's.
look! a chrsitan fundamentalist!
a conservative right winger!
lets lynch em......

and those tired pussies dont even have the courage to choke on their own hypocrisy.
wont even acknowledge that those in the minority have some serious balls to post comments on a secular left site.
this hasnt become a self-masturbatory thread.
its one big circle jerk.

so to those old skool peeps that i know still lurk here on the sift.
please come back.
for the love of god come back.
because these pussies are to busy sucking each others dicks.

im going to get some fresh air because you fuckers have sucked all the vibrance out of the air and left it stale with your own hubris.

and for the love of christ.get the fuck over yourself.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Le-Grand-Journal-de-Canal-a-Cannes-coups-de-feu

I still didn't hear any shots on a second viewing, but did see the courageous Michel Denisot take refuge under the table.

This made my courage sack feel icky.