I certainly am interested in talking about this intellectually, and presumably so were you when you just said "We can talk all day about politicians lying in front of congress. Would you like to?"
Yes, I would like to. Why do you think I'm not interested in talking about this intellectually? Do you not believe me when I say that? When I asked you a direct question in response to an accusation you made, and you dodged the question by trying to go meta. Did you not mean what you said when you invited me to talk about lying politicians all day?
To me, it appears that you are the one who is not interested in talking about this intellectually, so you tried to change the subject to attacks on Snowden's personality, then when that didn't work, you avoided answering a simple question by going meta, then when that didn't work, you projected your own disinterest in having an intellectual discussion onto me.
If that's the best line of argument that NSA apologists can come up with, it's no wonder they're having problems recruiting honest intelligent people.
You claimed that "They changed the ending, and flipped the protagonist and antagonist. The story is not accurate." Who do you mean, exactly? Please explain your accusations, or withdraw them if you're unwilling to support your unsubstantiated claim that the story is not accurate.
All you've offered as evidence against the story so far are your ad-hominem attacks against Snowden, right out of the US Government's playbook to demonize him and distract from the real story, just as Snowden himself predicted.
To continue having an intellectual discussion, please answer my question:
Is James Clapper a protagonist or antagonist for lying to congress?
You're not interested in talking about this intellectually. Have a good evening!