Well, sure. But I meant it in this context. Which was the proper thing for Manning to do, if he felt those two things were in conflict?

I wasn't suggesting a dichotomy, necessarily, but I was certainly suggesting a conflict.

The problem with that argument, as I see it, is that I have yet to see anybody present a "legal" way to do it. I might agree if I knew of one, and thought it was reasonably possible for him to do.

Well, you have a point, but I will nitpick a bit. It is not reasonable to expect him to do that, for the simple reason that it probably wasn't possible. I may or may not agree with the law, but it has to be reasonable.

On the other hand, it might have been reasonable for him to only release those things which he had reviewed, and suspected to be in violation of the Constitution. I am basically agreeing with you, but there is a subtle difference. And maybe that's what you meant.

Did he? I could be wrong, but I understood that the data was easily and readily available due to the nature of his job. That may be wrong, but that was what I read in the news.

I think it's a great and wonderful embarrassment to the government, too. And I'm a citizen of the United States.

Many of the documents made it very clear that our government was working covertly in ways that were not necessarily in the actual interest of The People of the United States. I applaud those revelations.

Remember that real treason is disloyalty to your country and your people, not disobedience toward your government. That was the fundamental error made by the people who brought the Nazis to power.

You are (conveniently?) leaving out the things he said first! Sorry, you can't have that both ways.

Look, this is really simple: he could have written, in a civil manner: "Hey... wait a minute! That's wrong! Did you mean what this seems to mean?" And then I could have responded, in a manner equally civilly: "Hey! You're right! I wrote that hastily and the choice of words was unfortunate. I agree with you about the legal issue. Let me amend my badly-worded comment."

But no. He jumped in aggressively with both feet, insulted me, disparaged my character, and even tried to intimidate me with comments about "practicing without a license". Then, when I tried to explain, he didn't listen.

And you expect me to respond politely to that? Really? Wait a minute here... who is being unreasonable?

(P.S. I suspect sock puppetry here, but I'm not going to accuse anybody. It's just an opinion.)

But this ignores the larger question: which "promise" is paramount? His promise to protect that information, or his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States?

Repeat: I did start with trying to respond politely. He quickly made polite conversation pretty darned difficult his attitude and insults. No, I did not then continue to be polite; why should I?

And I will make this other point: there is nothing "secret" about my mind. I simply worded a couple of comments badly, which I have explained to you twice now.

On the other hand, I tried to explain it to you politely, which you then made pretty much impossible with your arrogant, abusive, and baldly insulting manner. The only reason I might be "done" is because I am loathe to voluntarily have conversations with assholes.

As I already told you, this was a reference to the general principle of "a meeting of the minds", without which the very concept of "contract" is meaningless.

And I already told you that this was a badly-worded reference to the point that they can't expect others to be bound by a contract they didn't read, then turn around and expect themselves to not be bound as well.

And I admitted to you that it was badly worded, and that I should not have stated it in such a confusing way.

And I already told you, specifically that I did not mean what it seems to imply. I used those very words!

And now, you're saying that my explanation was "TL;DR", but yet you're arguing about the things I explained to you at length anyway. Which illustrates another thing I wrote before: you seem to have difficulty with the concept of logical argument.

So let's take it again, short and sweet:

Yes, as I already admitted to you, those comments are confusing and badly written. However, the interpretation you gave them -- while probably reasonable if those words are taken alone -- makes absolutely no sense in the context of the whole discussion. How many times do you need this to be repeated?

Let me give you MY interpretation of this: (A) you are angry with me for daring to argue with you, and (B) you're desperately hunting for some way to prove me wrong, in order to soothe your ego.

This is an absolute statement. In fact, it is about as absolute as they get. Yet you wrote it about (I'm not going to count) 2 sentences after you denied that you were making an absolute statement.

Certainly there are "extra words" there, and they might mean something, and you might have written them "in reference" to something, but that is 100% irrelevant to the point I made, which was that you have contradicted yourself, and which seems to have sailed straight over your head.

The central bank of the united states is The Federal Reserve.
From Wikipedia:

and

So we have a central bank, that is for the most part, run by the banks themselves.

uh, not that I like apple or anything but Ford had teams of thugs that would inspect your home to make sure you were "American" enough to work there...