General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAgain: Greenwald is not the left.
Greenwald is not the left.http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023321760
Repost:
Greenwald: Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100294827
Then he got defensive.
http://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/153169132471328768
Greenwald does exactly this: Hype Ron Paul based on soundbites. One can find any number of clips or writings contradicting these soundbites, as with the anti-war claim. You're opposed to the death penalty, but would let people die without health care?
Let's look at the numbers: There were less than 80 executions in the U.S. last year, the lowest in 40 years. Tens of thousand of people die each year without health care
Greenwald doesn't for a second consider that Paul's positions are propaganda.
"Endless War jeopradizes entitlements"?
What the hell does that mean? You know what jeopardizes "entitlements": getting rid of them and believing they're unconstitutional.
Is slavery an entitlement program?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100294914
Debunking the "Ron Paul Cares About Civil Liberties" Myth
<...>
http://angryblacklady.com/2011/12/28/debunking-the-ron-paul-cares-about-civil-liberties-myth/
Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022485711
Disappointing those who 'stand with Rand'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022742805
It's Greenwald Day!!!!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Last edited Fri May 9, 2014, 08:20 PM - Edit history (2)
Well, if that is what it takes.
I do NOT care what label you are trying to hang on him.
I support his stand on the NSA Over Reach and those trying to defend the NSA.
I am PROUD of that, but that doesn't make me a Libertarian.
I also support some of Ron Paul's positions.
I am GLAD that SOMEONE is out there saying we NEED to:
*Drastically cut Military Spending
*END our Foreign Occupations
*Bring out troops home & use them for DEFEND
*End the FAILED War on Drugs
and THAT doesn't make me a Libertarian.
I'll stand my 47 year straight Democratic Voting record for that.
Of course, you are free to keep making stuff up,
and attacking with innuendo and unsupported wishful thinking.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)Hekate
(90,708 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)the idea that they could split progressives from the Dems and turn them into third party voters. And, so far as I can tell, that's still Greenwald's agenda
Greenwald's libertarianism has manifested itself in his association with Cato, his enthusiasm for Ron Paul, his support for other libertarians like Julian Assange or Barrett Brown or Edward Snowden, &c&c
Libertarians are ideologues, and ideology is no substitute for either careful fact-based analysis or the hard organizing work. Because Greenwald promotes cynicism about government and the political establishment, he appeals to some people who consider themselves leftists, because they too are cynical about government and the political establishment. I myself think people can profit by cultivating a certain healthy paranoia when doing political work, and as a old hippy I think some skepticism appropriate. But in the end, we cannot win without looking at ever-changing conditions with realistic eyes, seeing the world as it is and plotting our course accordingly: mere cynicism or outrage cannot replace that. And it is there that I find Greenwald does the most damage, for he is an addict to noisy rhetoric and regularly abandons accuracy in order to satisfy other cravings
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Greenwald's libertarianism has manifested itself in his association with Cato, his enthusiasm for Ron Paul, his support for other libertarians like Julian Assange or Barrett Brown or Edward Snowden, &c&c "
...hate government.
CATO Institute - just a very active club of right wing extremist Ayn Rand fanatics
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024909152
Kochs to spend millions to convince people the answer to their economic problems is smallest gov't
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024929867
MADem
(135,425 posts)This is some weird shit: https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/libertarian-bum-fights/
The squabbling Edward Snowden suitors share more than their mutual adoration for the Paul dynasty. Last year, Glenn Greenwald and Bruce Fein did two major college campus tours together, one in winter 2012, and another in autumn 2012. The Greenwald-Fein tours were by sponsored by two pro-Ron Paul libertarian outfits: Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), a Ron PaulJugend outfit; and the Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF), a libertarian outfit specializing in publishing far-right "historical revisionism" about who's really to blame for the Civil War and World War II, along with the usual libertarian drivel attacking public schools, civil rights laws, social welfare programs, and regulations on the tobacco industry.
....Every traveling circus needs a good emcee, and the Greenwald-Fein-Hornberger "Monsters Of Libertarian Rawq Tour 2012" didn't disappoint: each of their college campus performances featured "moderator" Jack Hunter, a.k.a. "The Southern Avenger." Yes, that Jack Hunter Rand Paul's white supremacist staffer and ghost writer forced to resign in July after Hunter's bizarre pro-Confederacy puke ("John Wilkes Booth Was Right" was exposed. The "Southern Avenger" is a staffer at Young Americans for Liberty, sponsor of the Greenwald-Fein-Horberger college campus tour.
....Suddenly it doesn't seem so unlikely that the players on all sides of this epic spy scandal would share the same libertarian worldview, and the same cultish devotion to Ron and Rand Paul. Obviously Bruce Fein would turn on Glenn Greenwald. Obviously Julian Assange would undermine his own Australian political party and form an alliance with the anti-immigrant ex-neo-Nazis. Obviously Vladimir Putin would represent the heroic defense of the "powerless" victims against the "powerful."
....Ron and Rand Paul. Libertarianism. The Confederacy. Revisionist history. Paranoia and alarmist terror over Big Government drones watching your every move, reading your every word....The names and themes repeat themselves over and over, and at some point, if a journalist retains the proper skepticism, you have to wonder where the real story about government surveillance ends, and where the paranoid libertarian fantasies about drones hovering outside their bedroom windows begin, reality and fantasy each bleeding into the other... As our faith in the old 20th century liberal constructs have collapsed without anything to replace it, it's looking more and more like we've been sucked into a far weirder construct, someone else's paranoid reality, like in those early PKD novels with Ron Paul as our Palmer Eldritch, Rand Paul our Eye In The Sky.
I always wondered why these Libertarian types bothered screwing with Dems...this guy (he was with Taibbi on that hedonistic eXile publication in Moscow, so take from that what you will) has a theory:
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/lying-to-liberals/
...I wouldn't be the first to point out how embarrassingly easy it has been for rancid Koch libertarian front groups to convince those on the Left that they are all on the same team. As Salon writer Tom Watson wrote, the event is "fatally compromised by the prominent leadership and participation of the Libertarian Party and other libertarian student groups [who stand] in direct opposition to almost everything I believe in as a social democrat."
What hasn't been revealed until now, however, is how the libertarians got so good at fooling their lefty marks. For that you have to look back 35 years, to an amazing series of articles in the Koch brothers' REASON magazine in which prominent libertarians lay out to a new generation of followers a playbook of "tricks" to fool earnest leftists, liberals and hippies into supporting their cause.
One of the most shocking strategy articles comes in a REASON article headlined "Marketing Libertarianism" written by Moshe Kroy, and published in the February 1977 issue. The article begins by acknowledging libertarians frustrations:
A paradox most libertarians (if not all) are acutely aware of is the gap between the self-evidence of libertarianism, on the one hand, and the difficulty of communicating it to nonlibertarians on the other hand. The fact that the free market is the only economic-political system which makes human existence possibleas human existenceseems to be very easily demonstrable.
But alas, the sheeple are too thick to grasp what a wonderfully liberating experience the free market offers to non-millionaires. Heres where the marketing expert lays it all out on the table, reminding his libertarian followers that by its definition, libertarian politics will never catch on with a public brought up on majority rulenot unless you trick them:
This article may seem somewhat cynical and opportunisticbut if you read it closely you will see that it involves no falsity or deception. The point is that you can use tricksand you'd better, if you really want libertarianism to have a fighting chance.....
That they even had to run two articles in the space of a few months on how to trick Americans into accepting libertarianism shows what a hard time REASON was having selling such a counterintuitive political scam to a generation enamored with its idealism. It also shows a certain impatience on the part of the Kochs and the libertarian movement.....
That's just bits and pieces...but the whole thesis lays out the whole libertarian movement as a ponzi scheme and a con job. Libertarians are some creepy, fucked up, racist people....damn!!!!!! Stop Koching Us, indeed!!!
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)What were Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher doing with their curious PAC?
Back in 2008, Greenwald and anti-union anti-healthcare activist Hamsher set up a little Federal PAC, for which Hamsher was the treasurer in 2008 and Greenwald was the treasurer in 2008
They seem to have mostly fund-raised in 2008, but in 2010 they spent over $285K. Nevertheless, the PAC reported no contributions to Federal candidates, a small donation to Ryan for Congress seems to have been refunded. Money did flow to Hamsher and to Firedoglake, as well as to Greenwald's DMDM Enterprises, and to groups such as BreakTheMatrix, which seems to maintain a Twitter account and links to a libertarian free marketeer site breakthematrix.com that currently features Ayn Rand on a revolving front-page marquee. We know that at the end of the 2010 election cycle, Greenwald was encouraging libertarians to try to strip progressives away from the Dems by pushing the idea that there was no difference between Ds and Rs and by pushing the idea of voting third party or not voting
... Greenwald fails to mention that he stands to financially gain from donations to FDL, as the treasurer of FDL's PAC, Accountability Now, and his company, DMDM Enterprises, is used to taking money for "administrative expenses" from Accountability Now. An examination of FEC reports shows that Greenwald's DMDM Enterprises received more than $40,000 from FDL's Accountability Now from 2008-2010, and of course, we have no idea how much more he has received as salary as Treasurer ...
Glenn Greenwald, #Occupy, Glass Houses and Stones
Monday, November 21, 2011 | Posted by Spandan C at 12:29 PM
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/11/glenn-greenwald-occupy-glass-houses-and.html
The question is: what were they doing with this PAC?
==
That poll indicates they were scamming and cramming their own pockets with that PAC.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Cha
(297,275 posts)Thanks for retrieving that OP of struggle's, Whisp~
Spazito
(50,349 posts)I'm not at all surprised he was working with Hamsher, the one who had the notorious 'black face' photo on FDL and had also partnered with Grover Norquist on more than one occasion, Greenwald and Hamsher are twins in so many ways.
"The question is: what were they doing with this PAC?"
Excellent question.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Fucking disgrace because she did it with a self satisfied smile all the while.
Spazito
(50,349 posts)she failed miserably.
She is every bit as despicable as Greenwald, no wonder they are bosom buddies.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)for themselves. They aren't interested in anything except themselves.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)his minor league grifting helped him attract the attention of a billionaire, who can now buy him anything he wants. He's one helluva businessman.
"Glenn Greenwald, NSA Documents & Checkbook Journalism & Leaking to the Highest Bidder"
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Which Clinton did she support?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)Cha
(297,275 posts)brer cat
(24,571 posts)Well said, s4p.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)That Manny is offering everyone!!
Hekate
(90,708 posts)I thought the guy was a flaming asshole, and while our paths never crossed again, I have to confess that further exposure to the philosophy has not made me more tolerant of it.
Number23
(24,544 posts)so many days I don't bother. But this little tid bit was interesting http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/rons-conversation-glenn-greenwald-pt-1-2/
I didn't know if you guys had discussed this already and I missed it. The fact that so many here are blasting Prosense for supporting Democrats while they cheer a man whose many connections to Libertarianism grow by the second is nothing short of flabbergasting. This type of jarring disconnect should be setting off red flags to any thinking person.
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)GG and RP were often singing exactly the same song, and in pursuit of the same goals, so I'm really not surprised that GG was willing to sit for an interview with RP
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)and is a libertarian, not a lefty, or a progressive, but Obama isn't a lefty either. He is conservative democrat, who advocates a more neoconservative foreign policy and neoliberal economic policies. As it happens the real left aligns with libertarians more on issues involving foreign policy and atleast some banking issues.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,742 posts)"fuck Ron Paul".
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)run a mile from the states' rights, laissez-faire capitalist bullshit that passes for libertarianism. I agree with Thom Hartmann, "libertarians are just republicans who want to get laid, and smoke dope".
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)True liberals don't align with neoconservatives are neoliberals either, yet our party elected such a person. I think it is called bipartisanship.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)This can't be said enough. He's fooled so many.
Sid
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Libertarian bullshit gets posted here constantly.
Cha
(297,275 posts)"..would be fascinating.. :silly".
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)He barely has to say a word and your souls roil like spit on a griddle. It's disturbing to witness. Really.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It's crazy how he consumes you people He barely has to say a word and your souls roil like spit on a griddle. It's disturbing to witness. Really."
Not as "crazy" as the "disturbing" launch into defense of Greenwald as if saying anything negative about him is sacrilegious.
I mean, call him out on something he said, and there will be countless thread, always including one from a newly arrived poster, stating that he didn't say what he clearly said. The defenders are even offering lessons in sentence structure. LOL!
Fuck Wonkette
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024927704
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)"you people", his unhinged haters.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)fawning, defending and worshiping him?
you people; pot meet kettle.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)us silly little you people daring to question the Grate Greenwald.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...used by Ross Perot in the '92 election. He was referring to black people. It didn't go over well.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Some cowardly innuendo play?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Fucking pathetic.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)You finally get it.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)some people (there's that word again) lack the character to own their insinuations, and prefer to hit and run. Like I said, pathetic.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)But are easily seen through.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)bullshit innuendo I'm talking about. I guess if that's all you've got, that's the level you operate on.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)So telling.
As I thought.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Well said.
Sid
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Let's see just how fucked this is...
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/you_people
Noun[edit]
you people (plural only)
(pejorative) Any outsiders of a clique.
Members of a particular group, collectively.
Usage notes[edit]
In the United States, this expression, however intended by the speaker, has been interpreted as indicative of racism when used in discourse with those of a race different from the speaker's, or of discrimination on an ethnic or religious basis in analogous situations.
So... did someone post a chart showing that the "people" I was referring to collectively (Greenwald haters) are predominantly people of color? Pro, have we ever discussed your background or ethnicity? Is it common knowledge? Is it something I should know? Because I honestly don't have a clue. What this means of course is that when I used the phase "you people" I couldn't have meant it in the the way you insinuate. Yet that didn't stop you from going there without hesitation or reservation. You thoughtlessly reached into your bag of cheap tricks and tossed it right out. I know the bickering in here gets really intense and the desire to win an argument or score points is strong, but this kind of shit is really fucking horrible. It's beneath you.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)... that's even more strange.
At least Bundy is trying to claim he's not a racist, GG on the other hand said it was a long time ago so his racism is ok
that's stupid
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Good stuff, as usual.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The get into things in the dark, but they scurry away when you shine the light on them.
Greenwald is a Libertarian.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)but they are easy as hell to spot when you know what to look for.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023067394
The Dems are starting to wake up and smell the coffee.
We should join forces.
Don't mention Ron Paul on DU you will get eviscerated (they are still brainwashed over that).
Just mention his policies - the ordinary Dems love lots of them.
Anti bankster
Anti war
Anti Corporatism
etc. etc.
http://www.dailypaul.com/290123/one-rule-for-the-rich-and-one-rule-for-the-rest-banksters-snowden-nsaTake a look on Democratic Underground
They have the gov't paid trolls out, trying to limit the outrage & rebellion on there.
If that is the reaction of hard core Dems to the news stories on the NSA, I want to stoke up some more of it.
Lots of traffic on DU.
It's the most popular Dem internet site, except for Huffy Po - where everything meaningful gets censored.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It's easy for childlike minds to be converted to the pie in the sky idiocy spewed by the Paulites.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Welcome.
JohnnyRingo
(18,635 posts)ie: It's just another way of saying Republican without suffering through the offputting stigma that is being a Newt Gingrich clone. Nothing shuts down a guy's chances faster than saying "Well I'm a Republican, and...".
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)... then claiming they don't like people expounding on the notion of white privilege.
Greenwalds only change of mind from his xenophobia was "it was in the past" stupid ass'd excuses as if that means he's changed his mind on the subject.
GG is an asshole
elias49
(4,259 posts)and you brought your friends!!
MisterP
(23,730 posts)just like how the Honduran "Liberals" said that if they'd lose the Moonies and death squads of 1981-4 would come back (under "Liberal" regimes)
that's when everyone knew the party was bankrupt
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Leave Greenwald alone.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Go ahead. Tie yourself into a pretzel-like knot.
It doesn't really matter because the issue is NSA spying.
This ceaseless distractivism is extremely tiresome.
Even if Greenwald ate kittens for breakfast, that wouldn't make the NSA's flagrant affront to our Constitution any less outrageous.
In the past, Greenwald has also been very courageous and vocal in condemning predator drones. That made him an unlikely ally of both Medea Benjamin and Rand Paul at the same time. Careful your head doesn't explode as you try to fathom that one.
It's ironic that people who accuse others of being pony-seeking purists can't handle legitimate Pulitzer-caliber criticism when it doesn't come from a dues-paying card-carrying, status quo-worshiping member of their club.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #30)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)now that Eddie has made a conspicuous idiot of himself on Russian TV. Just in time for his book release too.
Convenient.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Leading otherwise good-intentioned & intelligent progressives into the destructive embrace of libertarians like Rand Paul.
Hekate
(90,708 posts)...goes whither he wants. Pied Piper, indeed.
Being a whistleblower is a dangerous enough thing to engage in, but there has to be a better way than spilling your guts to GG.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)I'd never say this: "I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration."
Also, I've never been against immigration.
Leave Greenwald alone!!!
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Carry on.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Response to scarletwoman (Reply #39)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)LOL!
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Short, sweet, and right on target.
QC
(26,371 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)That is all I intend to offer. Anything more would be a waste of time and energy.
The elaborate false narrative that has been constructed by the anti-Greenwald camp is no more permeable to rational argument than the false narratives about Kenyan Socialist Obama constructed by the Right.
Number23
(24,544 posts)his belief that helping the Nigerian school girls is as "horrendous" as a military campaign, his really bizarre support for Bush and his equally bizarre dislike of Obama is somehow on the same par as Kenyan Obama the socialist? That's something right there.
And the fact that all of that stuff is absolutely true just means... what to you and his other defenders?
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)quotes taken out of context, deliberate misinterpretations, and other assorted bullshit - all swirled together in a self-reinforcing swamp of outrage.
It's this creation of your swamp that I equate with the right wing swamp of outrage over Kenyan Socialist gun-grabbing Constitution-shredding Obama. They also firmly believe that their false narratives about Obama are "absolutely true". THAT'S the equivalence I'm talking about.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Like I said, your camp has constructed an elaborate false narrative, consisting of quotes taken out of context, deliberate misinterpretations, and other assorted bullshit - all swirled together in a self-reinforcing swamp of outrage."
...taken out of context:
But what makes the media most eager to disappear Paul is that he destroys the easy, conventional narrative for slothful media figures and for Democratic loyalists alike. Aside from the truly disappeared former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (more on him in a moment), Ron Paul is far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party. How can the conventional narrative of extremist/nationalistic/corporatist/racist/warmongering GOP v. the progressive/peaceful/anti-corporate/poor-and-minority-defending Democratic Party be reconciled with the fact that a candidate with those positions just virtually tied for first place among GOP base voters in Iowa? Not easily, and Paul is thus disappeared from existence. That the similarly anti-war, pro-civil-liberties, anti-drug-war Gary Johnson is not even allowed in media debates despite being a twice-elected popular governor highlights the same dynamic.
It is true, as Booman convincingly argues, that the bigfoot reporters move like a herd and put[ their] fingers on the scales in elections all the time. But sometimes thats done for petty reasons (such as their 2000 swooning for George Bushs personality and contempt for Al Gores); in this case, it is being done (with the effect if not intent) to maintain simplistic partisan storylines and exclude important views from the discourse.
However much progressives find Pauls anti-choice views to be disqualifying (even if the same standard is not applied to Good Democrats Harry Reid or Bob Casey), and even as much as Pauls domestic policies are anathema to liberals (the way numerous positions of Barack Obama ostensibly are: war escalation, due-process-free assassinations, entitlement cuts, and whistleblower wars anyone?), shouldnt progressives be eager to have included in the discourse many of the views Paul uniquely advocates? After all, these are critical, not ancillary, positions, such as: genuine opposition to imperialism and wars; warnings about the excesses of the Surveillance State, executive power encroachments, and civil liberties assaults; and attacks on the one policy that is most responsible for the unjustifiable imprisonment of huge numbers of minorities and poor and the destruction of their families and communities: Drug Prohibition and the accompanying War to enforce it. GOP primary voters are supporting a committed anti-war, anti-surveillance candidate who wants to stop imprisoning people (dispropriationately minorities) for drug usage; Democrats, by contrast, are cheering for a war-escalating, drone-attacking, surveillance-and-secrecy-obsessed drug warrior.
The steadfast ignoring of Ron Paul and the truly bizarre un-personhood of Gary Johnson has ensured that, yet again, those views will be excluded and the blurring of partisan lines among ordinary citizens on crucial issues will be papered over. Thats precisely the opposite effect that a healthy democratic election would produce.
- more -
http://www.salon.com/2011/08/16/elections_9/
He is hyping Johnson and Paul as the best candidates (yes, "far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war" = best, that is unless you think these qualities make them not the best) and implying that "progressives" who find Paul's positions "disqualifying" are being hypocrites.
"Ron Paul hates govt intervention, likes mandatory vaginal ultrasound probes"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002161152
Ron Paul also wants to eliminate corporate taxes, keep oil subsidies, and he isn't anti-war. He's a fraud.
Greenwald is either clueless or a Ron Paul supporter, but I repeat myself. LOL!
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)The excerpt in your post is all about what ideas are being given attention by the Corporate Media, and how the media constructs their own narrative "to maintain simplistic partisan storylines and exclude important views from the discourse."
This piece is an analysis of how the public is being served by the way the media maintains its "simplistic partisan storylines" - in the context (your camp constantly leaves out context) of the Republican Primary candidate debates.
Glenn is pointing out the ways in which the media covers, or ignores, the views of two of the Republican Primary candidates - Ron Paul and Gary Johnson - because their views do not fit the media's "partisan storyline".
He also poses a question to progressives:
"Included in the discourse" is NOT advocacy for a candidate, it's advocacy for widening the parameters of debate.
Glenn is supporting the inclusion of these positions in our political discourse:
Because your camp is so blinded by your intent to demonize Glenn Greenwald, you've constructed a ridiculous distortion of this piece of political analysis; twisting it into advocacy for Paul and Johnson, rather than the pointed media critque and objective discussion of partisan politics that it actually is.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Thanks. Perfect example of your camp's deliberate misinterpration in service to your false narrative"
I posted a four-paragraph excerpt, verbatim, and you decide that your cherry picking and interpretation of the piece is a more accurate representation. You want to deny that Greenwald stated:
He then goes on to state:
His views on Ron Paul are delusional.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)You can't even see the words right in front of your eyes.
Here, I'll do the same two paragraphs:
This is a discussion about what the media is doing. And what Glenn is saying about Ron Paul's and Gary Johnson's positions is factual.
The next paragraph poses a question to progressives, as I already said:
"included in the discourse" - that means we should welcome a discussion of these policy postions, NOT that we should vote for Ron Paul, but that we should also make a case for those ideas on the Democratic side.
Sure, he makes a slam on Obama for being "a war-escalating, drone-attacking, surveillance-and-secrecy-obsessed drug warrior.", but that's nothing different from what many of us on the left were dismayed about in regard to Obama - back in 2011 when this was written.
You say, "His views on Ron Paul are delusional." How? He is accurately re-stating Ron Paul's own stated policy views. And he is careful to note his "anti-choice views" and acknowlwdge that "Pauls domestic policies are anathema to liberals". He's not being "delusional", he's just stating the facts.
The delusions are all in your camp.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You can't even see the words right in front of your eyes."
Did you "see" these words, and are you claiming I'm responsible for his words:
He then goes on to state:
His views on Ron Paul are delusional.
Wait...
The delusions are all in your camp.
...are you saying that his piece is about how the media isn't pushing Ron Paul's BS? So in "re-stating Ron Paul's own stated policy views," why is he claiming that progressives should be open to accepting Paul, who he is comparing to Harry Reid?
He's delusional.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)It's fixed now, if you'd care to go back and see what I was attempting to emphasize.
Anyway, from your reply - sadly made before I could fix my post - it's clear that you are obsessed with making this about the person, Ron Paul, rather than about his policy positions, which is what Glenn is actually discussing.
"Ron Paul is far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party. How can the conventional narrative of extremist/nationalistic/corporatist/racist/warmongering GOP v. the progressive/peaceful/anti-corporate/poor-and-minority-defending Democratic Party be reconciled with the fact that a candidate with those positions just virtually tied for first place among GOP base voters in Iowa?" What is untrue about that? That's what happened in the Iowa GOP Primary.
And you conveniently ignore the sentence that immediately follows in answer to the question being posed in the preceding sentence about "the conventional narrative": "Not easily, and Paul is thus disappeared from existence."
That entire paragraph is about the MEDIA, and how they sustain their "conventional narrative". You just refuse to see it.
He is NOT "claiming that progressives should be open to accepting Paul", he is stating that progressives should welcome DISCOURSE about those policy views.
The comparison to Harry Reid and Bob Casey is strictly about the fact that, like Paul, both hold anti-choice views - which is a fact.
There's nothing delusional about this piece political analysis, it's factual and on point. You're simply twisting and spinning it into something it's clearly not.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The comparison to Harry Reid and Bob Casey is strictly about the fact that, like Paul, both hold anti-choice views - which is a fact.
There's nothing delusional about this piece political analysis, it's factual and on point. You're simply twisting and spinning it into something it's clearly not.
You can't deal with the fact that the entire piece is Greenwald lamenting that Ron Paul isn't taken seriously. Greenwald believes that Paul holds the views he claims and that "progressives" should be willing to give him the same benefit as Harry Reid.
The fact that you're adopting his spin about being "anti-choice" is beyond absurd.
Ron Paul isn't remotely comparable to Harry Reid.
"Ron Paul hates govt intervention, likes mandatory vaginal ultrasound probes"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002161152
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)There's nothing to "deal with", the piece is clearly about the media coverage of the 2011 Republican debates, what the media leaves out and why.
Greenwald is merely recounting some of Ron Pauls' stated policy views: "anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war". It's not a matter of "belief, it's a matter of record.
No, he's pointing out a very specific issue - anti-choice - as one reason why progressives would rightly NOT want Ron Paul, while pointing out (factually) that there are also anti-choice Dems that progressives DO support. This is part of the larger context of Glenn's analysis of what policies are given space in our national discourse: "shouldnt progressives be eager to have included in the discourse many (as in, not all) of the views Paul uniquely advocates?"
Nor is Greenwald making a comparison, he is only pointing out one particular position that is common to both of them.
As Greenwald states: "Pauls domestic policies are anathema to liberals"
Again, the context in which these statements appear is a paragraph wherein the overall thesis is about what policies are allowed to be voiced in our national "dsicourse", and Greenwald's stated opinion that progressives should welcome the inclusion of "positions, such as: genuine opposition to imperialism and wars; warnings about the excesses of the Surveillance State, executive power encroachments, and civil liberties assaults; and attacks on the one policy that is most responsible for the unjustifiable imprisonment of huge numbers of minorities and poor and the destruction of their families and communities: Drug Prohibition and the accompanying War to enforce it." into the national discourse.
Greenwald is advocating for certain specific POLICIES, not for Ron Paul himself. Your interpretion is not supported by what he actually wrote, and anyone who is not possessed of your irrational hatred of Greenwald can clearly see that.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)If Greenwald thinks that the "record" shows that Ron Paul is the most anti-all those issues, he's delusional. The "record" shows Ron Paul is a fraud and a RW hack.
Your spin attributed to Greenwald. His point was that progressives should consider Ron Paul because they consider Harry Reid and Barack Obama. His statement is basically: Yeah, sure progressives find Paul's "anti-choice views to be disqualifying" and while his "policies are anathema to liberals" they give Reid and Obama a pass on equivalent or worse views.
Then the clincher, which blows the ridiculous attempt to spin his views out of the water, he claims Paul's views are "genuine." After that bit of delusion, he concludes that Paul and his "genuine" views would good for minorities and the poor.
In context:
I mean, why are Democrats "cheering for a "war-escalating, drone-attacking, surveillance-and-secrecy-obsessed drug warrior" when they could be "cheering" the genuine Ron Paul?
Greenwald is delusional, and your spin doesn't work. He holds Democrats in contempt and spends a lot of ink defending Ron and Rand Paul against criticism from Democrats.
Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022485711
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)I stand by what I've already posted. You'll think what you want regardless.
Number23
(24,544 posts)(seriously, can you get more NON-PROGRESSIVE than a man that supports Bush's wars, Ron Paul and white supremacists??) is not a camp that I want any part of.
And the fact that his behavior is far more right wing than anything else on this web site and yet so many are so willing to suckle at his teat (and I'm sure it's a coincidence of the highest order that the ones doing so are almost never people of color, and are usually the ones that are most hostile to this current administration) seems to me that this is far more indicative of who is right wing around here than anything else. I also find it interesting that his staunch defenders work so hard to deny all of this when in most cases, it is public knowledge and he has retracted some, though not all of these positions.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Since none of this is actually true, and is just the dishonest spin given to Greenwald's statements by your camp, I don't have to defend any of it. These sins of Greenwald exist only in your minds.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)I've merely pointed a few of the distortions and deliberate minsinterpretations that have gone into the construction of your false narrative.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)in addition to publicly supporting him http://www.salon.com/2010/05/28/crazy_10/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100290723 as has been documented in MANY different resources http://www.plutocracyfiles.com/2012/01/glenn-greenwald-on-ron-paul-why.html
http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/12/should-glenn-greenwald-have-to-own-the-ron-paul-blue-plate-special/
http://my.firedoglake.com/jbade/2011/12/31/videoglenn-greenwald-explaining-ron-paul-to-progressives/
If you don't want to acknowledge any of this, that's your choice. But pretending that you are up in the ivory tower of truth trying to explain to the peons why the billion documents that show that GG has supported RP over the years are ALL wrong is kind of stupid.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Is that a sin, to sit down and talk with a politician with whom he agrees on certain issues?
In any case, I never claimed that Greenwald "disliked" Ron Paul, only that he wasn't advocating for Ron Paul in that piece, he was advocating certain of Ron Paul's positions.
As for your links:
The Salon article is another analysis of which policy positions are allowed in "mainstream" political discourse, and which are considered outside the pale, or "crazy". As Greenwald states at the end of the piece:
Regarding these two links: http://www.plutocracyfiles.com/2012/01/glenn-greenwald-on-ron-paul-why.html & http://www.plutocracyfiles.com/2012/01/glenn-greenwald-on-ron-paul-why.html - how is Greenwald responsible for someone else's opinon/interpretation of what he writes? It's dishonest in the extreme to present links to other people's opinions as some sort of "proof" of Greenwald's positions.
As for your last link - sorry, I'm on dial-up and can't do video. But this quote, from the small amount of text at that link, strikes me as absolutely true: the anger (Paul) inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview. In any case, I'm thinking that it's probably safe to assume that the video itself is no more "proof" of Greenwald advocating for Ron Paul - as opposed to advocating for some of Paul's policy positions - than anything else you've presented.
Look, I'm well aware that nothing I say is going to change your mind. None of you are going to own up to the fact that your arguments are dishonest and based on your self-reinforcing bubble of false narrative.
You're not going to change my mind, either. And just to be clear, my main interest isn't in defending Glenn Greenwald per se, my main interest has been in pointing out how your false narrative about him has been built of dishonest spin, deliberate misinterpretations and deliberate omissions of context.
Number23
(24,544 posts)completely disagrees with your assertion that Greenwald has not and never has support Ron Paul, George Bush's war in Iraq and has never represented white supremacists in courts. These are all well documented and no amount of passionate denial is going to change any of that.
And the fact that this well documented proof comes from a variety of resources, many of them supposedly liberal such as Fire Dog Lake, belies your inaccurate assumption that everyone but you "understands" that he's not really one of Ron Paul's biggest cheerleaders. You'll have to own that by yourself.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)But do carry on, as I know you will.
Good night and good luck.
Number23
(24,544 posts)See ya.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)an IP case was a despicable decision.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)... would you stay put just to spite him?
Thought so.
Well, guess what? Our house is on fire.
And even the Pulitzer committee is level-headed enough to acknowledge the guy who's been sounding the alarm.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)See for yourself:
http://www.pulitzer.org/awards/2014
ProSense
(116,464 posts)In response to criticism of Greenwald about his disgusting tweet, his defenders keep mentioning the Pulitzer.
Maureen Dowd and Judith Miller both won Pulitizers. Does that mean they can't be criticized?
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)David O. Selznick did.
(Pathetic. But keep trying.)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If an asshole burst into your living room to tell you that your house was on fire... would you stay put just to spite him?"
If the "asshole" is Greenwald, it's probably an excuse to "burst" into my living room. I'm sure if told that the smoke he saw was boiling water, he'd claim he didn't say "your house was on fire." He'd likely claim that he was simply warning that if the water boils out, there could be a fire.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)What territory does that put you in?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Who are you, and why do you feel the need to defend Greenwald by basically agreeing with the OP, and then saying "you're not the left either"?
I didn't agree with the OP. I rarely agree with your OP's.
I said "You're not the left either".
Yes, I am the left. Some describe me as "the last of the bleeding heart left".
I asked what territory you were in. I didn't expect an answer. Much less a truthful one.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Yes, I am the left. Some describe me as 'the last of the bleeding heart left'.
I asked what territory you were in. I didn't expect an answer. Much less a truthful one."
Sure you are "bleeding heart left"/Greenwald defender. Just call me Che!!!
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Oh, and as much as I have an aversion to it
It is easy and doesn't take much thought. Much like your replies.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Now, that was exactly the response I was expecting"
...think that I was "expecting" you to claim to be 'the last of the bleeding heart left'?
LOL!
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)You delivered. You are too easy.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Greenwald is still not the left.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)neither are you. What is your point?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"What is your point?"
..."point": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024931733
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Circles have no points. Neither do you.
Good night Pro.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Apparently, you believed you had a point.
I mean, does one have to be a Democrat to point out the Elizabeth Warren is a Democrat? Does one have to be on the left to point out the she's on the leff?
Your point is silly deflection worthy of circling back to the original point: Greenwald is not on the left.
Regardless of where you believe I fall on the political spectrum, which is to the left of Greenwald and his BS about the Pauls, the point stands: Greenwald is not on the left.
Oh, and the brilliant comment was snark.
LOL!
WillyT
(72,631 posts)redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)flamingdem
(39,313 posts)JI7
(89,250 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)an insult given the way they conduct themselves on this web site and the people and groups they support.
JI7
(89,250 posts)they are saying prosense isn't the left because she usually supports democrats(on a dem board) ?????
while they are defending a guy who thinks benghazi needs to be investigated.
it's just stupid grade school level attacks because they have nothing and they can't stand that she is posting just what is out there.
Number23
(24,544 posts)while they are defending a guy who thinks benghazi needs to be investigated.
It would be absolutely hilarious if it wasn't so incredibly stupid and ass backwards. The DU Libertarian Club is claiming the left with Glen "I Heart Ron Paul" Greenwald as their mascot while trashing every single Democrat they can get their hands on and barely making a fucking peep about the Republicans. And what's really funny is that they honestly believe that they are fooling people.
Was there any discussion around here about this? Rons Conversation with Glenn Greenwald, Pt. 1 http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/rons-conversation-glenn-greenwald-pt-1-2/
JI7
(89,250 posts)i know people have brought these things up before but they mostly just ignore it and you get responses like in this thread with "you aren't the left either" .
it wouldn't be so bad if they just ignored or admitted greenwald fucked up with that tweet concerning the missing girls in nigeria. but they just have to attack anyone who crticizes him for it.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)on vital issues that need to be heard, and so his candidacy generates important benefits."
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/
Let me guess,"important benefits" like getting the IRS of the backs of tax cheats like Greenwad, perhaps?
Pholus
(4,062 posts)given it's general use as a dismissive perjorative by the third wayers.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Ever since I began writing about politics back in 2005, people have tried to apply pretty much every political label to me. It's almost always a shorthand method to discredit someone without having to engage the substance of their arguments. It's the classic ad hominem fallacy: you don't need to listen to or deal with his arguments because he's an X.
Back then - when I was writing every day to criticize the Bush administration - Bush followers tried to apply the label "far leftist" to me. Now that I spend most of my energy writing critically about the Obama administration, Obama followers try to claim I'm a "right-wing libertarian".
These labels are hard to refute primarily because they've become impoverished of any meaning. They're just mindless slurs used to try to discredit one's political adversaries. Most of the people who hurl the "libertarian" label at me have no idea what the term even means. Ask anyone who makes this claim to identify the views I've expressed - with links and quotes - that constitute libertarianism.
I don't really care what labels get applied to me. But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the "libertarian" label applies:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#
You're a real DUzy.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Originally posted here:http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134060
Glenn Greenwald Responds to Widespread Lies About Him (on Cato, Iraq War, and more)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#
These claim [sic] are absolutely false. They come from a complete distortion of the Preface I wrote to my own 2006 book, How Would a Patriot Act? That book - which was the first book devoted to denouncing the Bush/Cheney executive power theories as radical and lawless - was published a mere six months after I began blogging, so the the purpose of the Preface was to explain where I had come from, why I left my law practice to begin writing about politics, and what my political evolution had been..
The whole point of the Preface was that, before 2004, I had been politically apathetic and indifferent - except for the work I was doing on constitutional law. That's because, while I had no interest in the fights between Democrats and Republicans, I had a basic trust in the American political system and its institutions, such that I devoted my attention and energies to preventing constitutional violations rather than political debates. From the first two paragraphs:
When the Iraq War was debated and then commenced, I was not a writer. I was not a journalist. I was not politically engaged or active. I never played any role in political debates or controversies. Unlike the countless beloved Democrats who actually did support the war - including Obama's Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - I had no platform or role in politics of any kind.
I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication.
At the time, I was basically a standard passive consumer of political news: I read The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic: the journals that I thought high-end consumers of news would read and which I assumed were generally reliable for getting the basic truth.What I explained in the Preface was that I had major objections to the Iraq war when it was being debated:
During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11.
Nonetheless, because of the general faith I had in political and media institutions, I assumed - since both political parties and media outlets and journalists from across the ideological spectrum were united in support of the war - that there must be some valid basis to the claim that Saddam posed a threat. My basic trust in these institutions neutralized the objections I had and led me to passively acquiesce to what was being done ("I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country." .
Like many people, I became radicalized by those early years of the Bush administration. The Preface recounts that it was the 2002 due-process-free imprisonment of US citizen Jose Padilla and the 2003 Iraq War that caused me to realize the full extent of the government's radicalism and the media's malfeasance: "I developed, for the first time in my life, a sense of urgency about the need to take a stand for our country and its defining principles."
As I recount in the Preface, I stopped practicing law and pursued political writing precisely because those people who had an obligation to act as adversarial checks on the Bush administration during the start of the war on civil liberties and the run-up to the Iraq War - namely, Congress, courts, and the media - were profoundly failing to fulfill that obligation.
I wasn't a journalist or government official during these radical power abuses and the run-up to the Iraq War, and wasn't working in a profession supposedly devoted to serving as watchdog over government claims and abuses. I relied on those people to learn what was going on and to prevent extremism. But I quickly concluded that those who held those positions in politics and journalism were failing in their duties. Read the last six paragraphs of the Preface: I started writing about politics to bring light to these issues and to try to contribute to a real adversarial force against the Bush administration and its blind followers.
It is true that, like 90% of Americans, I did support the war in Afghanistan and, living in New York, believed the rhetoric about the threat of Islamic extremism: those were obvious mistakes. It's also true that one can legitimately criticize me for not having actively opposed the Iraq War at a time when many people were doing so. Martin Luther King, in his 1967 speech explaining why his activism against the Vietnam War was indispensable to his civil rights work, acknowledged that he had been too slow to pay attention to or oppose the war and that he thus felt obligated to work with particular vigor against it once he realized the need ("Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam" .
I've often spoken about the prime benefit of writing about political matters full-time: namely, it enables you to examine first-hand sources and not have to rely upon media or political mediators when forming beliefs. That process has been and continues to be very eye-opening for me.
Like most people who do not work on politics or journalism full-time, I had to rely back then on standard political and media venues to form my political impressions of the world. When I first began writing about politics, I had a whole slew of conventional political beliefs that came from lazy ingestion of the false and misleading claims of these conventional political and media sources. Having the time to examine political realities first-hand has led me to realize how many of those former beliefs I held were based on myth or worse, and I've radically changed how I think about a whole slew of issues as a result of that re-examination.
The purpose of the Preface was to publicly explain that evolution. Indeed, the first sentence of this Preface was this quote from Abraham Lincoln: "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday." When I still trusted and relied upon the claims of the political and media class - when I was basically apolitical and passive - I tacitly accepted all sorts of views which I've come to see are warped and misleading. I've talked often about this process and am proud of this evolution. I have zero interest in hiding it or concealing it. Quite the contrary: I want readers to know about it. That's why I wrote the Preface.
But anyone using this Preface to claim I was a "supporter" of the Iraq War is simply fabricating. At worst, I was guilty of apathy and passivity. I did nothing for or against it because I assumed that those in positions to exercise adversarial scrutiny - in journalism and politics - were doing that. It's precisely my realization of how profoundly deceitful and failed are American political and media institutions that motivated me to begin working on politics, and it's those realizations which continue to motivate me now.
Think about this claim from above:
At the time, I was basically a standard passive consumer of political news: I read The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic: the journals that I thought high-end consumers of news would read and which I assumed were generally reliable for getting the basic truth.What I explained in the Preface was that I had major objections to the Iraq war when it was being debated:
He claims he never wrote in support of the war and that he was "a standard passive consumer of political news" who thought "high-end consumers of news" was "reliable."
Really? That's intended to debunk the claim he supported the war? He was clueless and gullible?
From the preface Greenwald links to.
<...>
Soon after our invasion of Iraq, when it became apparent that, contrary to Bush administration claims, there were no weapons of mass destruction, I began concluding, reluctantly, that the administration had veered far off course from defending the country against the threats of Muslim extremism. It appeared that in the great national unity the September 11 attacks had engendered, the administration had seen not a historically unique opportunity to renew a sense of national identity and cohesion, but instead a potent political weapon with which to impose upon our citizens a whole series of policies and programs that had nothing to do with terrorism, but that could be rationalized through an appeal to the nation's fear of further terrorist attacks.
<...>
The 9/11 attacks were not the first time our nation has had to face a new and amoral enemy. Throughout our history, we have vanquished numerous enemies at least as strong and as threatening as a group of jihadist terrorists without having the president seize the power to break the law. As a nation, we have triumphed over a series of external enemies and overcome internal struggles, and we have done so not by abandoning our core principles in the name of fear but by insisting on an adherence to our fundamental political values.
So if the war was a legitimate defense against the "threats of Muslim extremism," it would have been OK?
Maybe this explains why he's so touchy about other people supporting President Obama.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=95092
Afghanistan and Iraq wars and Citizens United?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100293141
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)and it says that you are a very untruthful poster.
"I've already read that, and it says that you are a very untruthful poster."
...you decided that you should keep pushing Greenwald's lame spin? Can you point the "untruthful" parts of what I posted? I mean, how caught up in Greenwald do you have to be to get so defensive that you're calling me a liar simply because you can accept my opinion and Greenwald's own words?
Did Greenwald say: "I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration."
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)* opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);
* repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);
* advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);
* condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);
* attacking 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 (here);
* arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);
* criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here);
* repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);
* using my 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;
* co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardim [sic], JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here);
* co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#
Your posts lie through highly selective excerpts, as well as by omission, in an attempt to push a point of view that is demonstrably false. Anyone who is not too lazy to actually read them, and do some of their own searching, can clearly see this. You are currently posting to someone who loves to dig for the truth.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the "libertarian" label applies: "
Are you Glenn Greenwald? Who called you a "libertarian"?
You're being highly defensive in trying to defend his lame spin, which you posted at gain. LOL!
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)that you can't be bothered to click on anyone's links but your own, or those of posters who agree with you. You are the ONLY poster here, who I have ever considered using the ignore feature on.
Pro"Sense" indeed.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Proof positive, that you can't be bothered to click on anyone's links but your own, or those of posters who agree with you. You are the ONLY poster here, who I have ever considered using the ignore feature on."
...are you advancing a separate conversation with yourself?
You posted one link, which was to a post hyping Greenwald's lame spin.
Please, use the "ignore feature," it will save me from these Twilight Zone-like comments. LOL!
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Please, take your own advice and use the ignore feature if you can't stomach criticism of Greenwald.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)issues on which Greenwald and I disagree. My problem is with people who don't reply to issues, but instead attack ad hominem and play fast and loose with the truth. You are one such poster here, but I decided quite some time ago, that I would not put you or anyone else on ignore. I like to read peoples opinions, even if they are a bit on the irrational side, like yours.
I have to go shopping for Mothers Day now, before I go to work. I'll be seeing you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"There are, no doubt, issues on which Greenwald and I disagree. My problem is with people who don't reply to issues, but instead attack ad hominem and play fast and loose with the truth. You are one such poster here, but I decided quite some time ago, that I would not put you or anyone else on ignore. I like to read peoples opinions, even if they are a bit on the irrational side, like yours."
...issue is the OP, which you're attempting to deflect attention from with your alternative comments and personal attacks.
Feel free to start a thread about the "issues" unrelated to the OP that you want to discuss.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)as long as I remain within the boundaries established by the owners of this website, but thank you for your let, anyway.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)things like Free Trade Agreements, Toll Interstates, and anti-union companies like Wal-Mart.
Good thing we don't know where to find any more of those, eh?!
"He's a libertarian, and they're awful because they support things like Free Trade Agreements, Toll Interstates, and anti-union companies like Wal-Mart.
Good thing we don't know where to find any more of those, eh?!"
...you pegged liberatarians.
CATO Institute - just a very active club of right wing extremist Ayn Rand fanatics
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024909152
Kochs to spend millions to convince people the answer to their economic problems is smallest gov't
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024929867
Libertarians are Republicans perpetrating a fraud, spending millions to help their fellow Republicans kill the CFPB, EPA and NLRB.
CFPB, hard at work
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024877283
EPA Hails Big Victory At Supreme Court
http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/10024885861
NLRB accuses Wal-Mart of retaliating against protesting workers
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/15/1269930/-NLRB-accuses-Wal-Mart-of-retaliating-against-protesting-workers
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)In seven-plus years of political writing, I have written a grand total of twice for Cato: the first was a 2009 report on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, and the second was a 2010 online debate in which I argued against former Bush officials about the evils of the surveillance state.
I not only disclosed those writings but wrote about them and featured them multiple times on my blog as it happened: see here and here as but two examples. In 2008, I spoke at a Cato event on the radicalism and destructiveness of Bush/Cheney executive power theories.That's the grand total of all the work I ever did for or with Cato in my life. The fees for those two papers and that one speech were my standard writing and speaking fees. Those payments are a miniscule, microscopic fraction of my writing and speaking income over the last 7 years. I have done no paying work of any kind with them since that online surveillance debate in 2010 (I spoke three times at Cato for free: once to debate the theme of my 2007 book on the failure of the Bush administration, and twice when I presented my paper advocating drug decriminalization).
I have done far more work for, and received far greater payments from, the ACLU, with which I consulted for two years (see here). I spoke at the Socialism Conference twice - once in 2011 and once in 2012 - and will almost certainly do so again in 2013. I'll speak or write basically anywhere where I can have my ideas heard without any constraints. Moreover, I'll work with almost anyone - the ACLU, Cato or anyone else - to end the evils of the Drug War and the Surveillance State. And I'll criticize anyone I think merits it, as I did quite harshly with the Koch Brothers in 2011: here.
The very suggestion that there is something wrong with writing for or speaking at CATO is inane and childish. The claim that it means I "worked at CATO" is just an obvious lie. If writing for or speaking at CATO makes one a right-wing CATO-employed libertarian, then say hello to the following right-wing libertarian CATO employees, all of whom have been writers for or speakers at the CATO Institute in the past:
Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas (Writing for CATO's Unbound: here and here);
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (speaking about surveillance issues at CATO in January, 2011, speaking again at CATO in July, 2012 about FISA, and favorably citing CATO);
Democratic Rep. Jared Polis (defending CATO as "a leader in fighting to end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and helping to end the War on Drugs" .
the ACLU's Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson (speaking at the CATO Institute's 2011 event on FISA);
Brown University Professor Glenn Loury (writing for CATO's Unbound);
liberal blogger and Clinton Treasury official Brad DeLong (writing for CATO's Unbound);
Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig (writing for CATO's Unbound);
liberal blogger and GWU Professor Henry Farrell (writing for CATO's Unbound); and
Wall Street critic and securities professor William Black (writing for CATO's Unbound).
Trying to judge someone for where they write or speak - rather than for the ideas they advocate - is about as anti-intellectual and McCarthyite as it gets. CATO has a far better record of advocacy than the mainstream Democratic Party on vital issues such as opposing the Drug War, secrecy abuses, the Surveillance State, marriage equality for LGBT citizens, anti-war activism, and reforming the excesses of America's penal state. They were attacking Bush and Cheney for power abuses (see here) and aggressive wars (see here) far earlier, and far more loudly, than most mainstream Democratic politicians
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Leave Greenwald alone!!!
LWolf
(46,179 posts)how many people who are "not the left" love to define the left, characterize the left, and decide who is and is not "the left."
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It's interesting to me how many people who are 'not the left' love to define the left, characterize the left, and decide who is and is not "the left."
...that you think Greenwald is on the left, and that's the best response you could come up with.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I said anything about what I think about Greenwald being "the left."
You can't, because I didn't. Your psychic abilities are experiencing a malfunction.
Or you like to establish your "authority" over what others think or say.
"Please show me where I said anything about what I think about Greenwald being "the left.'"
...so you don't disagree with the point, but decided that making an unrelated comment attacking someone imaginary was necessary? Who were you referring to when you said:
"It's interesting to me how many people who are 'not the left' love to define the left, characterize the left, and decide who is and is not 'the left.'"
LWolf
(46,179 posts)The point is not whether or not I consider Greenwald to be "the left." That's unanswerable, because I haven't said one way or another; it's irrelevant to me. "Left" can be subjective depending on where one stands. If you are standing on the farthest right, everyone is "the left." If you are far left yourself, not many are "the left." And if you try to measure from the center, you need to define the center of WHAT...the globe, or just the capitalist U.S.?
So whether I, or anyone else, thinks Greenwald is "the left" is not a "point" at all. Who is "not the left?" Most of the U.S., to start with, from a more global perspective, and anyone from the U.S. center to the right IN the U.S., which means most of those in the U.S. who like to pontificate about "the left" as a group they don't belong to. That's not "imaginary," and it includes a bunch of DUers as well as the rest of the nation.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)So whether I, or anyone else, thinks Greenwald is "the left" is not a "point" at all. Who is "not the left?" Most of the U.S., to start with, from a more global perspective, and anyone from the U.S. center to the right IN the U.S., which means most of those in the U.S. who like to pontificate about "the left" as a group they don't belong to. That's not "imaginary," and it includes a bunch of DUers as well as the rest of the nation.
It's "irrelevant" and "subjective," but your initial response to the OP is:
"It's interesting to me how many people who are 'not the left' love to define the left, characterize the left, and decide who is and is not 'the left.'"
LWolf
(46,179 posts)either an inability to comprehend the point, or a deliberate misdirection. No surprise.
"Yes. Your interest indicates either an inability to comprehend the point, or a deliberate misdirection. No surprise."
...after making your comment about who is "not on the left," you declared it "irrelevant" and "subjective." Apparently, you believe that "subjective" means only your opinion.
I stated mine: Greenwald is not the left.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Were he a politician, it would be another matter.
Personally, I can't stand pols who say they are "left of center" to one crowd then govern to the right of Reagan as president.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So what? He's not supposed to be anything other than a reporter."
...if that's the case, he sucks as a "reporter."
Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022485711
He's not a "reporter." He's writes political commentary.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Greenwald's reporting helped exposed massive NSA spying. While that might not be news to DU, it was news to the nation.
Know your BFEE: Spying on America Isnt Just Business, Its Tradition.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Know your BFEE: Spying on America Isnt Just Business, Its Tradition."
...that have to do with Greenwald?
Greenwald wrote articles based on leaked information, that doesn't make him a "reporter." It makes him a writer, some say "journalist."
He's a political commentator with a singular focus, except when it comes to the Pauls.
This year's award for Investigative Reporting goes to Chris Hamby, The Center for Public Integrity
http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2014-Investigative-Reporting
That's an impressive "reporter."
Octafish
(55,745 posts)If there were more reporters with integrity, like Glenn Greenwald, maybe Americans would enjoy a strong democracy.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If there were more reporters with integrity, like Glenn Greenwald, maybe Americans would enjoy a strong democracy."
...people wth the alleged "integrity" of Glenn Greenwald supporting Citizens United and hyping Ron Paul would create a "strong democracy"?
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)There's no way you can get around that without admitting it.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)You should try it. It will create and informed foundation for one's opinion.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You should try it. It will create and informed foundation for one's opinion."
..."informed" as a "foundation for one's opinion," Greenwald supports Ron Paul.
But what makes the media most eager to disappear Paul is that he destroys the easy, conventional narrative for slothful media figures and for Democratic loyalists alike. Aside from the truly disappeared former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (more on him in a moment), Ron Paul is far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party. How can the conventional narrative of extremist/nationalistic/corporatist/racist/warmongering GOP v. the progressive/peaceful/anti-corporate/poor-and-minority-defending Democratic Party be reconciled with the fact that a candidate with those positions just virtually tied for first place among GOP base voters in Iowa? Not easily, and Paul is thus disappeared from existence. That the similarly anti-war, pro-civil-liberties, anti-drug-war Gary Johnson is not even allowed in media debates despite being a twice-elected popular governor highlights the same dynamic.
It is true, as Booman convincingly argues, that the bigfoot reporters move like a herd and put[ their] fingers on the scales in elections all the time. But sometimes thats done for petty reasons (such as their 2000 swooning for George Bushs personality and contempt for Al Gores); in this case, it is being done (with the effect if not intent) to maintain simplistic partisan storylines and exclude important views from the discourse.
However much progressives find Pauls anti-choice views to be disqualifying (even if the same standard is not applied to Good Democrats Harry Reid or Bob Casey), and even as much as Pauls domestic policies are anathema to liberals (the way numerous positions of Barack Obama ostensibly are: war escalation, due-process-free assassinations, entitlement cuts, and whistleblower wars anyone?), shouldnt progressives be eager to have included in the discourse many of the views Paul uniquely advocates? After all, these are critical, not ancillary, positions, such as: genuine opposition to imperialism and wars; warnings about the excesses of the Surveillance State, executive power encroachments, and civil liberties assaults; and attacks on the one policy that is most responsible for the unjustifiable imprisonment of huge numbers of minorities and poor and the destruction of their families and communities: Drug Prohibition and the accompanying War to enforce it. GOP primary voters are supporting a committed anti-war, anti-surveillance candidate who wants to stop imprisoning people (dispropriationately minorities) for drug usage; Democrats, by contrast, are cheering for a war-escalating, drone-attacking, surveillance-and-secrecy-obsessed drug warrior.
The steadfast ignoring of Ron Paul and the truly bizarre un-personhood of Gary Johnson has ensured that, yet again, those views will be excluded and the blurring of partisan lines among ordinary citizens on crucial issues will be papered over. Thats precisely the opposite effect that a healthy democratic election would produce.
- more -
http://www.salon.com/2011/08/16/elections_9/
He is hyping Johnson and Paul as the best candidates and implying that "progressives" who find Paul's positions "disqualifying" are being hypocrites.
"Ron Paul hates govt intervention, likes mandatory vaginal ultrasound probes"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002161152
Ron Paul also wants to eliminate corporate taxes, keep oil subsidies, and he isn't anti-war. He's a fraud.
Greenwald is either clueless or a Ron Paul supporter, but I repeat myself. LOL!
Feron
(2,063 posts)Whether or not Greenwald likes the Pauls/is a libertarian/hates Spam doesn't invalidate his spot-on criticism of Obama and the NSA.
As with Snowden, exposing the darker side of the Obama administration means that you must be destroyed at all cost by a certain contingent of the so-called left. The same so-called left that celebrates drone killings and crushing government whistleblowers when it's their party in charge.
Obama is a neoliberal and hardly a left-wing figure. Get over it.
Finally it's quite possible to enjoy someone's reporting/columns and disagree with the author on certain issues.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Whether or not Greenwald likes the Pauls/is a libertarian/hates Spam doesn't invalidate his spot-on criticism of Obama and the NSA....Obama is a neoliberal and hardly a left-wing figure. Get over it. Finally it's quite possible to enjoy someone's reporting/columns and disagree with the author on certain issues."
So you thing criticism of Greenwald is "spam," but Greenwald's criticism of Obama is "spot-on"? Apparently, you believe Greenwald should be above criticism.
I'd say the people who get defensive in response to criticism of Greenwald need to "get over it."
Marr
(20,317 posts)The endless character assassination of anyone who makes the administration look bad is tiresome and transparent.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)And I don't care that you criticize Greenwald in particular-- I care that you make a career of smearing anyone who highlights information that makes the administration look bad.
I understand this must be a very difficult concept for personality-focused types to grasp, but many people really don't care about the personalities.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"And I don't care that you criticize Greenwald in particular-- I care that you make a career of smearing anyone who highlights information that makes the administration look bad."
Translation: Leave Greenwald alone. It's not that I care that you criticize him, just leave him alone. In fact, leave Greenwald alone because you criticize others, and Greenwald shouldn't be among them. Please, leave Greenwald alone.
LOL!
Marr
(20,317 posts)But just typing "Translation:", and then stating the point that you *wish* the other poster would make is just lazy.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Feet to the fire.
...
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)I'd sure love for more prominent liberals to say that the NSA should get a fucking warrant before they read peoples' e-mails.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I don't understand the point of the OP. Please explain.
If I like a certain politician, does that make everything I say or think about every topic wrong?
Do I have to agree with every position a person takes?
Pro Sense, I agree with many of your posts. I disagree with others. So?????
You agree with me sometimes but not others. I don't understand why that is even noteworthy. It's life. It's freedom of thought.
I don't like Rand Paul. I like some but not all of what Greenwald writes and says. That's normal.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
You strangely seem obsessed with GG
So many of these Greenwald posts of yours remind me of an attention starved pet grounded by a lease, just dying for the chance to bit the mail carrier.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"
You strangely seem obsessed with GG
So many of these Greenwald posts of yours remind me of an attention starved pet grounded by a lease, just dying for the chance to bit the mail carrier. "
...thanks for sharing that version of: Leave Greenwald alone.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
we have this constant cut and paste response.
Thank you for cutting and pasting again
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Thank you for cutting and pasting again
"
..."cut and paste": Greenwald is not the left.
You're welcome.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Response to ProSense (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed