If you criticize Greenwald and Snowden you are

[ProSense]

a sockpuppet spreading Government propaganda.

10 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	True
	3 (30%)
	False
	7 (70%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[JJChambers]

1. What's wrong with government propoganda?

[onehandle]

2. Onehandle is a government lackey. nt

[Whisp]

3. From October 1 through 16, 2013,

the United States federal government entered a shutdown and curtailed most routine operations after Congress failed to enact legislation appropriating funds for fiscal year 2014, or a continuing resolution for the interim authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2014. Regular government operations resumed October 17 after an interim appropriations bill was signed into law.

I guess someone has to search which regular sockpuppet spreading Government propagandists were missing in that space of time.

[ProSense]

4. .

[greatauntoftriplets]

12. ...

[AceWheeler]

5. Let this NOT be a false dichotomy

Criticizing Greenwald and Snowden does not preclude criticizing the NSA.

[Octafish]

6. ''You might be.''

Which would be another option. Needed, too, as there's no way of telling, other than taking the poster's word, what the person's motivations for posting are.

[Enthusiast]

7. I agree. We have no way to determine the intent of the poster.

They might be an honest broker that feels the President can do no wrong regarding the NSA surveillance overreach. They also might be a sockpuppet employee of the NSA.

[Whisp]

10. or a sockpuppert for Fuck Ron Paul. Guess that's possible too!

[ProSense]

9. ''You might be.''

A RW sockpuppet if you criticize Obama.

"Which would be another option. Needed, too, as there's no way of telling, other than taking the poster's word, what the person's motivations for posting are."

No, that's not another option. That's speculating and leaving room for a cop out.

Since one doesn't know a "person's motivations," labeling someone a "sockpuppet" because you (generic) don't like the fact that they criticize Greenwald and Snowden is a bullshit attempt to discredit people who have a different opinion from those who approve of the two.

[Ichingcarpenter]

39. Or as Upton Sinclair said

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair,

[sufrommich]

8. I still can't believe that thread was allowed to stand.

Apparently accusing DUers of being shadowy government plants sent to silence the very important opinion crafters at DU is to be taken seriously as opposed to the much more obvious reaction of "that's nuts".

[ProSense]

13. What

"Apparently accusing DUers of being shadowy government plants sent to silence the very important opinion crafters at DU is to be taken seriously as opposed to the much more obvious reaction of 'that's nuts'."

...you don't approve of the alleged anti-authoritarians employing McCarthy-like tactics to shut down opposing views?

[sufrommich]

16. I like to believe that someday their inflated sense of

self importance will be recognized,but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Whisp]

19. Now that made me laugh, anti-authoritarian McCarthyites. Like jumbo shrimp.

and it's true! That is what is being said. omgLOLzGalore.

[ProSense]

22. Well, the proud are standing up!

[Number23]

30. Not only allowed to stand but got tons of recs and posts saying what you said were hidden!

But that thread was valuable for one reason and that was NanceGregg's posts within. She freaking hit it OUT OF THE PARK. Oh, it was beautiful.

[JI7]

11. i think some like the thought of "govt" thinking they are so important

that they are being spied on . and they are one of the few who knows what is going on and they are battling it everyday on an internet site by posting threads and getting recs and accusing others of being from the govt.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

14. One more time, the tactic is "poisoning the well".

It's a species of ad hominem attack. Any thread accusing others of being spies for the government simply for the stand they take should be shut down without question, and the person posting it should get, say, four out of five hides' worth as a penalty. This way they're not stopped from posting for a time if they do it, but the penalty is steep enough that no one will do it frivolously, as that one did.
I used to go to a forum where if someone attempted this that person was called out without mercy, even by people who were on the same side in whatever debate was taking place. It's a sad commentary on the culture here that it doesn't happen here. It's even sadder that very few people seem to think it's even wrong, or know what the tactic is and why it's so despicable.

[sufrommich]

17. I still post on forums where OPs like that would result

in much laughter and many WTFs. The only place I see this egotistical conspiratorial head nodding is here.

[Whisp]

20. There are the Privileged here that can get away with some pretty miserable shit. n/t

[greatauntoftriplets]

15. Do you like my latest selfie?

[sufrommich]

18. Lol! nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. Nope. I'd hate 'em with or without the government. Smarmy bastards. Cliven Bundy(s) with a better

barber.

[mylye2222]

23. This is almost the same when you backs a certain SoS.........

[MattBaggins]

24. Joe

.... momma

[winter is coming]

25. It depends. When I encounter a post liberally sprinkled with emotionally laden words like "coward"

and "thief", I stop reading. Sockpuppet or not, it's propaganda.

[KamaAina]

26. ...critical of Greenwald and Snowden.

[Blue_In_AK]

27. If you criticize Greenwald and Snowden,

I disagree with you. That is all.

We really don't need more push polls.

[treestar]

33. that's odd

I thought people in public needed to be criticized? Why shouldn't their feet be held to the fire too?

[Blue_In_AK]

38. No need for me to do that.

You guys are doing a fine job.

[treestar]

40. What can be wrong with it?

But I'm not the one taking the position these people must be criticized. Those who say that of the President and others need to find something to criticize here, too, after all, people should not be blindingly followed. And supporting the president or other Dems is blind following, unless you criticize at every opportunity. No one is perfect they say. So when are they going to examine these other individuals for flaws?

[hrmjustin]

28. People have honest disagreements and I wish it would not get personal here.

[bahrbearian]

29. Fly Paper , are you making a list?

[ProSense]

36. Why

"Fly Paper , are you making a list?"

...would I need a list?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025036592

What attracted you to this thread?

[Jim Lane]

31. Most or all of the DUers on BOTH sides of the debate are sincere.

A few of the DUers on EACH side of the debate have descended into personal attacks.

People who disagree with Greenwald shouldn't be wildly accused of sockpuppetry. On the other hand, I learn absolutely nothing about the practices of the NSA when someone goes off on a rant about some completely unrelated aspect of Greenwald's prior work as a lawyer.

Maybe I should start a poll about that, just to make sure that we keep our focus on internecine bickering rather than on the issues. Nah, on second thought, that front seems to be pretty well covered already.

[treestar]

32. An authoritarian fascist!

[hobbit709]

34. Yet another attempt at stirring the metabolic byproduct container.

[LanternWaste]

35. Both the criticisms and the defense of the individual are worthy of a really swell gossip column

Both the criticisms and the defense of the individual are worthy of a really swell gossip column, accurately sandwiched between the Hollywood Reported and Entertainment Tonight. However, I do realize the visceral compulsion to do either one... we're creatures of scandal, and individuals make for juicy copy.

The actual stories regarding policy though, are quite eye-opening and fascinating.

[Bobbie Jo]

37. ROFL

Rec!

[Spider Jerusalem]

41. Nah, you're probably a jackbooted authoritarian type...

who has no problem at all with the troubling growth of the surveillance state as long as it can be called "legal" on the flimsy grounds of authorisation by secret courts (never mind that some of those same courts, and others, have raised issues regarding the constitutionality of such surveillance). Patriotic Americans don't worry about the erosion of their Fourth Amendment rights in the name of fighting terrorism; after all, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!