What is this "Glenn Greenwald Left" bullshit?

[kentuck]

If you don't agree with the NSA collecting information on everyone, are you a "Glenn Greenwald leftist"?

If you criticize the Executive Branch for continuing and expanding the spying program, are you one of those leftists?

If you think the people have a right to know what their government is doing, does that make you a "Glenn Greenwald leftist"?

If you oppose so much secrecy in our government, does that make you one of those?

If none of the above, please explain what a "Glenn Greenwald leftist" is? I might be one?

[NoOneMan]

1. Its a derogatory synonym for "Civil Libertarian" or "ACLU Member"

I think. Or sarcasm. Not sure.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Adolph-Hitler Vegetarians

Margaret Thatcher Feminists

This could be a fun game!

[bunnies]

116. Hitler was a vegetarian?!

Oh shit! I AM a Nazi!!!

[neverforget]

3. I've lost track. I thought they were Paulbots? Is leftist the new term used as a derogatory

adjective to describe those who oppose NSA surveillance of Americans?

[leveymg]

18. In the confused view of the blogger who came up with this, the Left are Paulbots.

The guy thinks that everyone outside the sensible center that supports universal NSA surveillance and profiling are communist Nazi racist fruitcakes, or something like that. The guy's name is Bob something.

[MisterP]

23. Boudelang? n/t

[leveymg]

32. No, not that creative or outrageous. Name rhymes with Fresca, sorta.

The carbonated soft drink that tastes like mouthwash.

[Divernan]

39. Whatever happened to the delightful Bob Boudelang?

[leveymg]

61. Will Pitt posted a 10th year rememberance (of a sort) about him last year. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002348728

[hfojvt]

62. he jumped the shark

as I understand it Boudelang was written by the DUer MrBenchley who, at some point, got the axe.

So stop saying that! (wasn't that one of his catch phrases?)

[roguevalley]

72. I hope not. I have always been a far left flaming liberal. I could become an anarchist

over this stuff. Thank you god I am old and don't have forty years of this shit ahead of me. The last 12 have been the worst of my life.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

121. Never too late to become an anarchist!

We've got cookies!

[roguevalley]

123. SOLD! :D:D:D

[Fantastic Anarchist]

124. Welcome aboard!

[AgingAmerican]

79. It worked for the Bushies in 06

nt

[last1standing]

4. I'm more offended by the "leftist" part of the insult.

Did you ever think you'd live to see your own party insult you for being a liberal? For wanting to protect the Constitution? For expecting safeguards against intelligence abuses?

Did you ever think you'd be McCarthy'd by Democrats for actually being a Democrat?

[Bluenorthwest]

8. I'm not as certain as you are that these folks are Democrats.

This is not a proven fact but simply an assertion they make themselves.

[last1standing]

10. I believe most of them consider themselves Democrats.

They just don't seem to understand what it means to actually BE a Democrat.

[frylock]

14. worse than that, they're self-described liberals

[last1standing]

16. I like to describe myself as tall, dark and handsome.

We all have our fantasies.

[leveymg]

22. It's like 1948 again with the Truman Cold War "liberals" trying to purge the Progressives

who went on to support a Henry Wallace Third Party. The result was that Thomas Dewey came within a whisker of the White House. That didn't stop the Cold War, Loyalty Oaths, McCarthyism, and the Korean War, of course.

[kath]

60. +1000.

Shows just now far gone the Democratic Party is - would be utterly recognizable to my union-organizer grandfathers.

[Mojorabbit]

94. I know. that is why I made a post in another thread saying I thought the op was

insulting the majority of the board. I am amazed that these people are allowed to constantly post this type of BS on a supposed Democratic board. This is not what the party I grew up with was for.

[joshcryer]

5. If Greenwald ever comes out against corporate datamining...

...you can call me a Greenwald leftist.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

21. You mean he hasn't written any articles on WALMART'S data centers?

Hmm....

[leveymg]

27. Don't confuse them with facts.

It makes their toes curl up, like having a house dropped on them.

[joshcryer]

37. Do you have a link to this?

I can find nothing regarding Greenwald criticizing Wal-Mart.

[leveymg]

41. Lee Fang at The Nation references it in his article about the hack attack by HB Gary

http://www.thenation.com/blog/174741/how-spy-agency-contractors-have-already-abused-their-power#

By December in 2010, the attorneys from Hunton & Williams approached the three contractors about developing a similar plan to go after WikiLeaks on behalf of Bank of America, which was concerned that many of their private documents were about to be published by the whistleblower website. HBGary Federal’s Aaron Barr discussed his reasoning on why it was especially critical to take down Glenn Greenwald, noting in one e-mail: “I think we need to highlight people like Glenn Greenwald. Glenn was critical in the Amazon to OVH data center transition and helped WikiLeaks provide access to information during the transition. It is this level of support we need to attack. These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals. Without the support of people like Glenn WikiLeaks would fold.” The team of contractors created a similar proposal for Hunton & Williams, again suggesting the idea of planting a false document and launching cyber attacks.

The contractors looked forward to the private sector money. One Palantir official wrote: “We are the best money can buy! Dam it feels good to be a gangsta.” However, they never had a chance to launch either attack plan.

The proposal fell apart when HBGary Federal’s Barr attracted the attention of LulzSec, a splinter group of Anonymous hactivists. LulzSec hacked into HBGary’s e-mail system and dumped thousands of private messages online, including the e-mails detailing the plan to go after both the Chamber’s perceived opponents and supporters of WikiLeaks. (A timeline of the scandal can be found here.)

Twenty House Democrats called for an investigation into the scandal, but the Republican-held chamber did little to look into the story. However, Congressman Hank Johnson did manage to briefly question NSA officials about the three defense contractors.

In the wake of the scandal, HBGary Federal shut down, but its sister firm, HBGary, was later sold to another military contractor, ManTech International for $23.8 million. Berico retained an influential DC lobbyist; Palantir increased their spending on lobbyists. Both companies managed to escape much scrutiny.

This references the attack by the US Chamber of Commerce, its law firm, and several private sector security firms on GG for his role in helping Wikileaks. BoA was also funding the attacks on Greenwald and Wikileaks. There's reference in the statement of the HBGary guy to a data center, which I believe refers to Greenwald's assistance in a transfer of Wiki's database from a legacy server to a new one. While this does not actually refer to WalMart, I think it's well established that some major corporations view GG as a major pain in the ass, a big enough nuisance that they planned to ratf-ck him.

I'm beginning to think that some people on this board would like to go after one of these Chamber of Commerce scholarships.

[joshcryer]

48. I don't see anything about Wal-Mart there.

And in fact interpreting the words, "Amazon to OVH data center transition" it's obvious that Glenn simply helped Wikileaks transition away from the Amazon cloud (which may have been susceptable to warrants) to a server host in France:

In December 2010 WikiLeaks installed itself on the servers of OVH in France.[17] France's Industry Minister Eric Besson said in a letter to the CGIET technology agency, that WikiLeaks "violates the secret of diplomatic relations and puts people protected by diplomatic secret in danger" and was therefore "not acceptable" that the site was hosted on servers based in France. The minister asked for measures to bar WikiLeaks from France.[18] In response, OVH referred the topic in emergency to a judge[19] in order to get a clear and definitive answer about whether hosting WikiLeaks is legal.

On December 6, 2010, the judge decided that there was no need for OVH to cease hosting Wikileaks.[20] The case was rejected on the grounds that such a case required an adversarial hearing.[21]

OVH managing director Octave Klaba commented that: "OVH is neither for nor against this site. We neither asked to host this site nor not to host it. Now it's with us, we will fulfill the contract."[22]

I don't know why HBGary felt that Greenwald was "critical" to that transition, though, because I can't find anything about how Greenwald did that.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

51. The libertarians won't say much about private data gathering.

Someone might dredge up an article or two, but nothing on the level we've seen against the NSA.

[joshcryer]

53. Of course.

And, when those companies hand that data over to the government, they don't care so much, either. It's mentioned in passing but the focus is how the government is doing all the bad shit when in reality it wouldn't be possible for the government to get that data if corporations didn't compile it.

[leveymg]

58. You guys are totally offbase, as usual.

See the Postscript or my comment below.

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. Of course the government can get the data without corporations compiling it

See the 'upstream' stuff, which NSA employees should use, along with PRISM?

And the data that people object to the government copying and retaining - the numbers you call, how long the call is - are part of the billing information. Which many people want available to them, to check their bill. what they don't want is dubious NSA personnel poking around it trying to tie you to some poor immigrant they have falslely marked as a 'terrorist'.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

122. The government and corporations work in tandem.

It has become pretty much indistinguishable. When I critique the government, I'm pretty much critiquing corporate hegemony, too. It's just simpler to use government as one over-arching and general entity.

In today's world, corporate hegemony and government are pretty much synonymous.

[Maedhros]

59. Will you people stop with the disingenuous smearing?

Glenn Greenwald has:

Opposed ALL cuts to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare:

http://www.salon.com/2011/07/07/social_security_19/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/07/obama-progressives-left-entitlements

Repeatedly called for the prosecution of Wall Street:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/5/zero_accountability_glenn_greenwald_on_obamas

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/10/20111026151321967970.html

Advocated for robust public financing to reduce and eliminate the influence of money on political campaigns:

http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2012/11/konczal-and-kessler-on-citizens-united.html

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/

Condemned income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/10/20111026151321967970.html

http://blog.case.edu/singham/2011/12/21/book_review_with_liberty_and_justice_for_some_by_glenn_greenwald

Attacked oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans:

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/27/koch_2/

Repeatedly argued in favor of a public option for health care reform:

https://www.google.com.br/search?q=glenn+greenwald+why+everyone+should+want+public+option&hl=en&newwindow=1&tbo=d&ei=PAMEUYDkDJSI9gSQn4CYCg&start=10&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=598

Criticized the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power:

http://www.salon.com/2009/04/04/summers/

http://www.salon.com/2009/10/16/goldman_3/

http://www.salon.com/2009/07/13/goldman/

Repeatedly condemned the influence of corporate factions in public policy making:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/05/obamacare-fowler-lobbyist-industry1

http://www.salon.com/2010/03/29/mcconnell_3/

Used his blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks:

http://www.salon.com/2010/09/14/feingold_7/singleton/

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/29/3_congressional_challengers_very_worth_supporting/

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/10/dennis_kucinich_and_wackiness/

[kath]

63. Thank you for this. Great post!

[Maedhros]

75. It's been posted many, many times by a number of different people.

Yet the "Greenwald is a Libertarian Paul Bot" hyena pack continues to just ignore it because it doesn't fit their warped narrative.

[joshcryer]

69. I don't see how any of that disagrees with what I said.

[leveymg]

71. Are you being willfully obtuse?

On second thought, maybe not willfully. Some people are just set up differently.

[joshcryer]

83. Care to contribute anything other than a snide remark?

[progressoid]

87. ...

[Maedhros]

74. You are insinuating that Greenwald is some kind of pro-corporate Libertarian.

He is not. While he may not have specifically written an article about WalMart data mining, it's dodgy to use the lack of such an article to reach the conclusion that he somehow approves of corporate malfeasance. He doesn't, and has been very vocal about the need to limit corporate power.

[joshcryer]

81. "vocal about the need to limite corporate power"

You have absolutely not established that at all. What Greenwald is against is corporate influence directly in government, and then it's wishwashy at best. Rather than condemning Booz Allen for becoming a security giant in defense he blames the US government. Who is responsible? The corporation lobbying to make inroads into contracts or the US government, led by ignorant lying politicians who take whatever corporate payout they can in order to keep playing the game? Or the ignorant, pitiful politicians who play the game to begin with, even after promising not to do so?

Most of the things you listed, in fact, can easily be attributed to Libertarian positions on corporations. Even the public option could be attributed to that.

We are living in an information age where everything is gray, there's no black and white, and where people hold a myriad of opinions on things that aren't simple to decipher. I cannot say that I disagree with Greenwald on everything, but I know damn well some advocacy positions he holds are not what they appear to be.

[Maedhros]

105. The electorate can effect change in the government.

The electorate cannot effect a change in a corporation unless they have a government willing and able to do so.

To that end - putting a stop to and beginning to reverse the bad policies spawned by the Bush Administration - it seems prudent to be as informed as possible about what our government is doing. I can't begrudge Greenwald for focusing on the goverment.

As for positions attributed to Libertarianism, is it not true that there is a large amount of overlap between Libertarianism and Liberalism - namely, the "Left" or "Civil" Libertarians? On issues regarding Constitutional rights, one would expect Liberals and Libertarians to make common cause. This kind of coalition-building politics is common in parliamentary democracies.

As for the suspicion that his advocacy has an ulterior motive, all I can say is that I don't see it.

[joshcryer]

107. The first step is to oust corporations.

And you need to elect politicians that will do that.

I did not say Greenwald has an ulterior motive.

I am merely saying policy positions may not appear as they seem. (Note: not attributing Ron Paul's positions to Greenwald here, simply pointing out that what someone says is not the literal translation of what they believe.)

[D23MIURG23]

118. Thanks. You should make this into an OP. n/t

[flamingdem]

103. Interesting point

in fact there isn't the same outrage over that, and I bet many people on this thread allow their data to be collected by not signing out of gmail, etc.

[leveymg]

56. Go back and read the post-script at the bottom. WalMart isn't the point, it's that private

sector spooks were funded by the US Chamber of Commerce and Bank of America to ratf-ck Greenwald, and screw with his computers, because he's viewed as a threat by these same RW corporate assholes.

So much for your notion that GG doesn't do enough to go after private-sector spying and dirty tricksters.

[joshcryer]

76. That fits exactly what I said. And GG wasn't the only target.

What is clear is that they felt that their corporate secrets couldn't be spilled. Of course, we know the BoA leak never happened, why is that, I wonder?

Obviously corporations don't want their secrets to be spilled and so far, with the exception of HBGary and Stratfor (both tech security companies, both hacked by anon) they haven't. We don't know shit about Booz Allen still.

I'm unconvinced.

[leveymg]

91. Doesn't fit your suggestion that GG is a corporate stooge, at all. Just the opposite.

That Greenwald hasn't been acting alone (monopolizing the attention of the Wall Street meanies) simply suggests that he's well connected, organized and effective working in groups. Not altogether bad things for an activist, or do you think otherwise?

The BoA leak never amounted to anything because, as the article you linked to says, Assange concluded that there wasn't enough material there that he could understand to be truly scandalous to justify release. That sounds pretty responsible of Julian, doesn't it, or do you think otherwise?

Your suggestions that Greenwald is a Rightwinger and the support you offer for them are simply absurd.

[joshcryer]

33. Not that I can find.

As far as I can tell he doesn't really have any critical insight on corporate data mining, corporate profiling, corporate ad targeting, corporate copy testing, corporate spying, corporate selling of personal data. I can find none of that anywhere.

What's even more interesting is rather than chastise Booz Allen for taking over the government he blames the government for spying. Hello? Booz Allen's entire existence is to spy on people, corporate spying, except that they were one company that managed to get hired by the government, likely through lobbying for the very crap that we're against.

I see no substantiative difference between being a data mining contractor for FaceBook and one for the government. The government can always ask FaceBook for the data, and FaceBook will willingly hand it over.

[leveymg]

35. The difference is, corporations don't arm their drones, they just overpay them.

[joshcryer]

38. Well, he does think corporations are people.

So there's that.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

50. Yes. If we're going to have an honest conversation about privacy...

it should include the private sector as well.

You won't see that in an "Amash" amendment.

[sabrina 1]

77. You're wasting your time there.

[rhett o rick]

120. I love your method of insinuation by question then the "Hmmm" is a nice added touch.

You got nothing. Hmmmm

[Bonobo]

55. Josh, you shouldn't need to be lectured on the difference

between the State's relationship to the citizenry vs. the relationship between the private sector and consumers.

[joshcryer]

67. You shouldn't need to be explained their similiarity.

[sabrina 1]

80. I think Bonobo is quite clear on the topic.

You otoh, appear to not quite understand. If you need any help, I'll be happy to oblige.

[joshcryer]

84. Please leave me alone.

I do not place much credibility in your understanding of the corporate oligarchy and how it is controlling the country.

[sabrina 1]

86. Use your ignore feature. Airc, I requested that you leave me alone at one time, but I don't recall

you complying with that request.

Now I remember why I made the request.

[joshcryer]

89. Actually, I fully complied with that request.

It is you who are addressing me with snide remarks on this issue and you have since you made that request.

Again, I cannot find you credible on this issue at all, but if you address me (even after asking me not to address you; which btw is really weird), I have no reason not to respond to the comments being made.

That being said I have not once instigated a conversation with you since your request.

[sabrina 1]

92. Good, then let's return to you leaving me alone.

[joshcryer]

102. Your call.

[Bonobo]

93. There is no social contract that exists per se between consumers and corporations.

Neither do corporations have the power, directly, to enforce laws, imprison people.

They are governed by a different system, that of the market.

If a company oversteps or behaves badly, there can be economic consequences and usually are.

A government, on the other hand, exists based on a social contract between itslef and the electorate and all its powers are derived by that and flow FROM the electorate.

Those differences are what matters here.

Greenwald is a political reporter, not a consumer advocate.

[Progressive dog]

119. You said: Corporations are governed by the market

Did you really mean that? Corporations are governed by the market.
Teddy Roosevelt, over 100 years ago, knew that corporations being governed by the market was a recipe for disaster.

[Luminous Animal]

85. If ever Greenwald writes about something that I want him to write about...

Forget what his specialty is... I want him to write about what is important to ME ME ME!

Though, I doubt that you give two flying fucks about corporate datamining.

You just think you have a Sara Palin "gothya".

[joshcryer]

90. No, there is a direct contrast here.

This is about having a double standard and until it is addressed then ones credibility on an issue must be in question.

Is Greenwald really against datamining and spying in general or only when governments do it? That is unclear. And no one responding to me has convinced me otherwise.

[Skittles]

6. it's just the swooners

no one credible

[LWolf]

7. It's a win/win.

One attack on two fronts: the left, and Greenwald.

By combining them repeatedly, they are linked in people's mindset, along with negative connotations for both.

A win/win for those who want to protect the status quo no matter what.

[Mnemosyne]

70. Branding is their specialty. nt

[limpyhobbler]

9. 50% coordinated propaganda, 50% low-information Obama devotees *

* percentages not accurate

[snot]

15. +1

[leveymg]

28. +2. I'll remember that recipe. ;-)

[L0oniX]

42. ^^^^this^^^^

[Change has come]

52. + 3

[DeSwiss]

73. +1000!!!

[adirondacker]

95. you left out the 1%

[Mojorabbit]

97. They are looking for stuff that "sells"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=132770
I think it is an odd term to use.

[limpyhobbler]

98. LOL wtf $1.95 per retweet?

[Mojorabbit]

100. More like catapulting the propaganda I think. nt

[carolinayellowdog]

125. 50% authoritarian sadists, 50% authoritarian masochists

aggressive propagandists, submissive propaganda consumers

[forestpath]

11. It's just yet another desperate attempt at deflection. Didn't work with

the previous pathetic insults, won't work with this one. Civil liberties are more important to me than any double-talking politician could ever be.

[Zorra]

12. I think it's a term made up by teenagers who don't know what real Democrats are. nt

[msongs]

13. right wing democrats don't like criticism of the developing police state so they lash out with derog

atory accusations of racist, paulite, libertarian, etc

[railsback]

17. I believe the "Glenn Greenwald leftist" is the equivalent to

those who shall not be named on the other side, who wear funny hats with bags of leaves hanging off them, and who also like to jump to conclusions.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

19. People with way too many libertarian leanings, often devoid of reality...

with a paranoid and unhealthy aversion to anyone with authority.

Rather than illogically making an appeal to authority, they make an appeal that because someone is in authority they MUST be lying.

[burnodo]

24. They usually are

One way or another

Maybe libertarian means not simply trusting the people you elect to do the right thing.

[Marr]

31. But you have no bias concerning authority, right?

If everyone to your left seems to have an unnatural distrust of authority, it may be partially because you yourself are too trusting of it.

[burnodo]

20. You ARE one!

[Catherina]

25. WTF is this? Did Cheney come out of his Bat Cave again? Glenn Beck? Hannity? WTF? n/t

[emulatorloo]

30. Because somebody posted a dumbass opinion piece from The Daily Banter

and DU is having some kind of massive reaction over it rather than letting it sink.

[Number23]

65. Really? I'm surprised that you think that!

I don't think it could have encapsulated this forum better if it had been written by EarlG himself.

[sabrina 1]

82. No, DU is having fun with all these feeble attempts to insult the Left. One after another

they have failed. You would think they would just give it up and try actually discussing the issues, but so long as they want to play these games, DUers are very good at playing along.

[sabrina 1]

26. It's just another feeble attack on the Left. The Third Way hates the Left almost, or maybe more

than the Right. I agree with Greenwald on Civil liberties issues so I don't know why anyone thinks that 'accusing' people of being a 'Greenwald Leftist' is supposed to be an insult. Shows how little they know about the Left. I am proud to stand by ANYONE who stands up for our Civil Rights.

Go Greenwald!! Lol!

[MisterP]

34. they hate the Kochies & co. only insofar as they can be used to beat on anyone to the left of Franco

as the "secret puppetmasters of the radical left using MSM fake scandals to drum up 4TH-AMENDMENT RACE HATE against Our Commander-in-Chief: the true revolutionaries are us Chicagoesque cogs in the Party machine who don't vote above the brainstem"

Republican POLICIES they have no problem with, of course: just RepublicANS: that is their true great secret, more precious than knowing where Koshchei hid his soul

but I still can't understand where all their self-righteous anger comes from--it's still quite out of the blue, especially since none of their trumpeted unmaskings and unravelings have ever come true

not in 13 years

[Marr]

29. The center-right around here has been trying to alienate liberals for several years now.

It's always been pathetic, because there are only 30-40 of them and the names they come up with don't tend to strike any normal people as insulting. They just seem sort of ridiculous.

[JAbuchan08]

36. What's the old one they had for liberals of principle?

Some play on Firedoglake? The more things change....

[copperearth]

40. My concern with Greenwald is this-

he said that the four countries in the world who were good with Human Rights are China, Russia, Bolivia, and Venezuela. HUMAN RIGHTS??!! Human rights in these countries is a bad joke, a very bad joke! I frankly do not trust either Snowden and Greenwald or Julian Assange. I feel that Snowden is some kind of plant. Someone is using him to discredit Obama. Some of his allegations may be true but I think the US Government wishes to thwart future 911s and Boston Bombings. If this makes me a bad me Democrat ... well, I know I'm not!!

[kentuck]

43. You have a link to that...

don't you?

[gtar100]

49. Damn it, if that's true, then I'm not a Glenn Greenwald leftist.

Just when I thought it was a good thing.

Damn it. Can't anybody label me with something that sticks for more than a few minutes?

[PSPS]

57. And don't forget that Greenwald said that satan was his idol

Of course, it's not surprising since he regularly gets real drunk and then goes around beating up kids. I heard he killed a few too, just like that Bill Cosby incident. Did you ever hear anything more about that mass grave in his basement? Or maybe that was the secret tunnel to Area 51.

[gtar100]

44. Another attempt at labeling to suppress the argument.

If you just defined what a "Glenn Greenwald leftist" is, I might be one of them too.

And I don't even know who Glenn Greenwald is. I must have been put on an email list.

**Power to you, Glenn! You're the man! ** Or, er... you're, uh, sticking it to the man. Yea, Stick it to the man, Glenn!!

[Union Scribe]

45. I wish they'd stuck with "emo-progs"

I was gonna grow my bangs really long and whip them around as I typed, but only when I am "hating on" Obama.

[Mojorabbit]

99. !

[Fire Walk With Me]

46. Are you now or have you ever questioned the President!?

If you are capable of individual thought and discrimination and trend perception (as well as rejecting any continuation of the Bush/neocon surveillance state which is designed to go ever further in the direction of providing them unConstitutional powers), you are a "glenn greenwald leftist". Mighty nice to meet you. You may have noticed that there are only a small number of us here.

[L0oniX]

47. This is the result of multiple dozens of compulsive obsessive anti Greewald / Snowden ops.

There is medication for this.

[Bonobo]

54. Same as DUers that use the phrase "Professional Left" un-ironically. nt

[PSPS]

64. Was this a label used by someone on DU?

I've been here since the beginning in, what? 2001? Wow, how time flies. Anyway, over these long 12 years, there has always been a concerted effort by republican political operatives to establish identities here and try to steer opinion "the right way." At the beginning, it was fairly easy to spot them and weed them out. By now, though, there are more than a few high-post identities who try to shape opinion. And at least some of them are paid to do so.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. It's just the latest version of "Reds", "Commies", "Pinkos", and "Hippies".

Same song now sung by the new breed of "Patriots", "Pragmatists", and Woodchucks the Democratic Party has always been infected with.

[copperearth]

68. Amazing...

The Tea Party and the Leftist Democrats signing off the same page! Truly amazing!
What a wonderful way to bring the entire country to a complete halt!

[Marr]

88. Sock puppets are against the rules.

Just fyi.

[woo me with science]

115. There's a steady stream of new names coming in,

and has been for quite some time now.

In-your-face right wing posts that used to garner 5 or 10 recs at most now routinely get 40 or 50.

Expect it to keep climbing. The system is being gamed, and it's transparent as hell.

[AgingAmerican]

106. Oh?

The Tea Party are afraid of some idiotic "One world big government" conspiracy. The left wants the government to stop spying on us. False equivalence fail.

[AgingAmerican]

78. There is a group who agree with the NSA data collection

But cannot put up a coherent defense of it...so they lash out at people instead. It's pretty sad watching them worm and squirm and twist in the wind over it. I really don't understand their point.

[dtom67]

96. I think it is the opposite of....

"I'm a Moderate Republican" Democrats.

[Common Sense Party]

101. I'm more of the Clark Griswold left persuasion.

[Oilwellian]

104. Kentuck, you forgot to include Alex Jones as well

The Greenwald left has joined the Alex Jones right. Get with the program!

[liberal_at_heart]

108. I'll give them credit for creativity. They never seem to run out of new derogatory names.

[PDittie]

109. I still prefer "Sanctimonious Purists"

That's Robert Gibbs' everlasting legacy, as far as I'm concerned. The day he said that might mark when the worm first turned for me.

[ProSense]

110. Greenwald is not the left.

Greenwald is not the left.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023321760

I don't care if Hitler liked vegetables.

Criticism of Greenwald for his bullshit is justified.

[AgingAmerican]

114. Why do you bother pushing this idiotic meme?

Seriously, it only makes you look desperate. Why don't you try engaging this sort of issue on an intellectual level instead of engaging in fallacies?

How does this sort of meme pushing and fallacy pushing help Obama or the Democrats? It's as if you folks are intentionally trying to drive people out of the party. What is the point of it? What is the desired end result of this?

[Zorra]

117. Consider this a possibility:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
~Joseph Goebbels

[Le Taz Hot]

111. Wait, I thought I was a Paulite.

And a tea-leftist (yes, somebody on DU actually used that term). I'm confused.

[Wilms]

112. ^