"What the Supreme Court Got Right" by Glenn Greenwald.

[msanthrope]

Just a little blast from the past, reminding us how Libertarians think money is speech, and just how Mr. Greenwald refused to discuss the corporate personhood concept....which means that if he is consistent, he's ok with McCutcheon and supports Hobby Lobby's First Amendment right to express its political viewpoint.

The Supreme Court yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, declared unconstitutional (on First Amendment grounds) campaign finance regulations which restrict the ability of corporations and unions to use funds from their general treasury for “electioneering” purposes. The case, Citizens United v. FEC, presents some very difficult free speech questions, and I’m deeply ambivalent about the court’s ruling. There are several dubious aspects of the majority’s opinion (principally its decision to invalidate the entire campaign finance scheme rather than exercising ”judicial restraint” through a narrower holding). Beyond that, I believe that corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture. But there are also very real First Amendment interests implicated by laws which bar entities from spending money to express political viewpoints.

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

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. Crickets from the peanut gallery....

[msanthrope]

2. Well--if corporations have a first amendment rights that can be expressed through political

choice, then explain why Hobby Lobby can't express its first amendment views???

If Greenwald is consistent, then he supports Hobby Lobby. I'd love to hear why he would not.

[VanillaRhapsody]

3. Absolutely! So would I!

I can already hear the "but but but's" coming from the "Friends of GG Society"

[msanthrope]

5. You will note that he refuses to discuss the corporate personhood issue----

As for the question of whether corporations possess “personhood,” that’s an interesting issue and, as I said, I’m very sympathetic to the argument that they do not, but the majority’s ruling here did not really turn on that question. That’s because the First Amendment does not only vest rights in “persons.” It says nothing about “persons.” It simply bans Congress from making any laws abridging freedom of speech.

That's a pretty neat sidestep....if corporations have First amendment rights, as he seems to be suggesting, then logically, wouldn't support of Hobby Lobby's First Amendment rights be in order?

[The Magistrate]

14. He Makes a Ludicrous Argument, Ma'am

What, after all, but a person, can speak?

The very concept of incorporation is to embody, to create out of some group of persons, whether a town or a guild originally, or later a group of investors pooling their money, a legal person which can have obligations and rights separate from the individuals who collectively constitute it. It is only as a 'person' a corporation has any existence at all.

But the idea that the legal embodiment of a group of persons, called into being to be a focus of rights of contract and to shield individual owners or members of it for its debts and liabilities, can have any opinion on any matter separate from the persons who own it, is nonesense. Worse then nonesense, it is an obvious impossibility, on simple physical grounds. Can anyone seriously imagine, say, the Caterpillar corporation disagreeing with its CEO, arguing with him on some point of social policy, and even going so far as to spend its money to rally public opinion against his view of the matter? To simply state the thing is answer it with 'Not just no but fuck no!'

Disallowing 'free speech rights' for corporations does not restrict the free speech of any citizen, or any actual person, in the slightest degree. All it does is require them to use their own resources to express their views, rather than the pooled resources of the corporation they own or direct, resources which are not theirs in the first place.

"The trouble with our modern corporations is they have neither bodies to be kicked nor souls to be damned."

[msanthrope]

16. Well said...we trump the rights of actual persons when we pretend that enities with money and power

have equal existence.

[dsc]

95. for the same reason that those who have a first amendment right to hate racial minorities

can't refuse to hire them if they own a business. I don't agree with Greenwald on this matter but the rights being given to corporations in Citizens United are wholly unlike what Hobby Lobby is asking for.

[msanthrope]

97. Explain that. I can't discriminate in hiring because of Title 7. So tell me the legal theory

underpinning your Hobby Lobby view.

[dsc]

98. the same legal theory that underlies title 7

or at least the gender equivalent, you can't discriminate against protected classes (by giving men better insurance benefits than women) simply because of your first amendment rights.

[msanthrope]

99. But no person would be entitled to birth control...male or female. nt

[dsc]

101. they cover things like penis pumps etc

It also should be noted that it isn't the 14th amendment that provided the rationale for the civil rights act it was the commerce clause which gives the feds wide rights to regulate interstate commerce, including what insurance plans do and don't cover and who does and doesn't have to provide insurance. But in any case, Citizens United gave a right to corporations that people had (unlimited spending on elections as long as the spending is independent) while Hobby Lobby would give corporations a right that people don't have (not following generally applicable laws because they don't like them).

[msanthrope]

103. Indeed...but people do have the right to refuse under conscience laws. Why shouldn't Hobby Lobby

have the same right?

FYI....I think HL are cretins.

[dsc]

104. No they actually don't have that right

I don't know of any exemption that was given to owners of even sole proprietorships to opt out of either discrimination laws or commerce clause mandates. Now, they may not have enough employees to be covered (the employer mandate requires 100 employees before it is a mandate) but if one person, no matter how religious, owned a business (even unincorporated) that employed 100 or more employees he or she would have to provide the insurance.

[msanthrope]

107. But HL is arguing that their corporate personhood allows for First Amendment protections.

They aren't asking to be exempted out of Title 7. Nor CC mandates. They want their corporation to express its religious rights.

[dsc]

108. and use them to be exempt from a cc mandate (to provide insurance that complies with the ACA)

and no, businesses, even sole proprietorships, haven't been permitted to do that. This would be an entire new right crafted out of new cloth. Had this right existed in the 1960's the Civil Rights Law wouldn't have been able to be applied to many businesses which it most assuredly was.

[msanthrope]

110. Indeed...and when Libertarians like Mr. Greenwald make the argument that you do, I

will be less suspicious of their motives.

Seen any Libertarians looking to uphold Title VII or the CC over free market rules?

[dsc]

114. I have never heard Greenwald say the Civil rights law shouldn't apply

and I surely don't think the ACLU opposed the civil right act though they hold Greenwald's view on Citizens united.

[msanthrope]

116. Given his racist stance on immigration, and his decision to defend Matt Hale

who was being sued under Civil Rights law...calling the Center for Constiutional Right's Jewish and black litigants "odious and repugnant," I am not so sure.

[dsc]

121. I think you should cite his opposition if it exists not extrapolate from stances you don't like

Again, I disagree with this analysis of Citizen's United but I do think there is a huge distinction between these cases. I frankly think the major problem with Citizens United was Buckley which gave people the right to make the unlimited donations. But even if one concedes Buckley was correctly decided, to extend that to corporations still is wrong. But the Hobby Lobby case is an entirely different set of circumstances. There is no precedent giving people analogous rights meaning that the right hasn't been recognized for anyone.

[msanthrope]

124. Indeed...I've written on this before...

Glenn's racism.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2353888

Glenn's anti-civil rights stance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

[Capt. Obvious]

117. She set up another goal post for you

[polichick]

48. Do you ever contribute to a discussion...

other than to comment about what others are doing?

Why not comment on the op in some meaningful way?

[Capt. Obvious]

52. Signs point to no

[polichick]

66. Yep, kind of obvious I guess.

[MADem]

62. Well...aren't you (and I, speaking to you right now) doing just that? nt

[polichick]

65. Sure, but it's not what I normally do.

[MADem]

70. I don't think there's any shortage of pointing out hypocrisy on this board, or anywhere on the net.

It might not be your habit, but plenty engage in it. There's no law against it.

[polichick]

71. True dat.

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. Yes I have...are you keeping score?

[NOVA_Dem]

51. Using the OP's "logic" does that mean the ACLU is libertarian and should be distrusted? n/t

[pnwmom]

88. Does the ACLU agree with today's decision?

Has the ACLU, like Greenwald, said it's connected to the Libertarian party?

[dsc]

96. Does Greenwald

The ACLU certainly did agree with Citizens United.

[pnwmom]

105. Good to know. Then I'm not renewing our membership. n/t

[MADem]

61. Of course, because if they can't say "It's Obama's fault!!!" it's no damn fun, you see.

It's much more amusing to cry into one's beer, spread that fear, uncertainty and doubt, bash, trash and demotivate, say stupid shit like "They're winning, no matter what we do, they win" and "We can't stop them" ... and then hit the delete button if the pushback gets too fierce.

I'm a proud member of the ENOUGH!!!!!!!! Coalition. I'm not going to put up with FUD anymore, I'm not going to let snide, generic insults go unanswered, and I'm going to call out the Shake and Bakers who stand up next to Granny GOP and her big ass plate of Republican Phony Fried Chicken and bellow, proudly, on a progressive message board, to people who don't want to hear that crap, "An' AH hepped!!!"

Sick of the bullshit!

And I KNOW I'm not alone...!!!!

[Capt. Obvious]

69. Heroes every one of you

[msanthrope]

118. Hey...greenwald's getting a medal for courage...how timely of you!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024768467

[Capt. Obvious]

119. You deserve it more

You're a portrait in courage.

[msanthrope]

120. Poor Glenn...if he only had a brain...nt

[Capt. Obvious]

122. My 10 year old laughed

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

75. Thank you

[Marr]

4. Did they teach logic at your school?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

If two people agree on one topic, it does not mean they agree on all topics. You could show me a picture of Glenn Greenwald putting puppies on a spit and it wouldn't go even an inch towards discrediting his stories on NSA domestic spying.

It's not about personalities-- it's about issues.

[msanthrope]

8. Well, I would never post pictures of puppies on a spit. But we aren't talking about two different

people--we are talking about a line of cases that discuss corporate personhood and the First Amendments rights of corporations.

If Mr. Greenwald is consistent, then CU, McCutcheon, and Hobby Lobby should all be decided the same way---although I'd love to hear why he would distinguish Hobby Lobby,

[Jackpine Radical]

26. Greenwald's opinions--however idiotic--are irrelevant to his role

in exposing the secrets of the Deep State.

[daleanime]

28. +1

[msanthrope]

31. To fail to take into account the messenger means you've failed to critically

Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

assess the message. Sources matter.

[Marr]

33. Ok, that settles it. They didn't teach logic at your school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[msanthrope]

42. In an actual logic class, using Latin terms incorrectly only invokes laughter.

You've committed the Argumentum Ad Hominem fallacy fallacy---wherein you've been unable to correctly identify an ad hominem attack, and have presumed that saying "ad hominem" means something. To merely state that something is a logical fallacy without proof is, of course, a formal fallacy in and of itself.

My suggestion is that you stop using Latin phrases from Wikipedia. (Wikipedia for logic? Really?)

FYI--I was taught Logic by a Jesuit. In sermo humilis. So if you wanna go, I'm gonna suggest you bring more than the Wikipedia knife to this gunfight.

[Marr]

49. Oh my! A Jesuit, you say??

Straight to an oblique sort of appeal to authority. You're like a logical fallacy smorgasboard.

I thought your last error needed no additional explanation, but apparently I was wrong. It was an ad hominem because you're using details about an individual (Greenwald's position on campaign finance) to reject his argument on an unrelated topic (his NSA domestic spying articles).

It might not be too late to get a refund from that Jesuit-- you could even request it in sermo humilis!

[msanthrope]

53. That's not what an ad hominem is. I'm not discussing his views on the NSA. Haven't mentioned them,

in fact. What you've done is assumed an argument that simply isn't there. That is also a formal fallacy.

I'm talking about his execrable views on corporate personhood. You are conflating that with the NSA. Why? I have no idea. I would suggest reading more closely.

I would suggest that before you accuse someone of a logical fallacy, you actually read what they wrote---and I would suggest to you that it is entirely logical that one might disagree with Mr. Greenwald about CU without feeling the need to shout "NSA" in every thread that concerns him.

[Marr]

55. Of course you did. Glance up the thread.

Jackpine Radical referenced it most recently, and you responded with "to fail to take into account the messenger means you've failed to critically assess the message".

Denying it is just silly.

And by the way, that is what an ad hominem is; using an irrelevant detail about an author to discredit their argument. It's not name calling.

[msanthrope]

84. No...I never mentioned the NSA, only a general comment that one should take a messenger into account

when looking at their message. That's not specific to anyone, or any message. Nor did Jackpine Radical offer an argument.

An ad hominem is not the use of an irrelevant detail about an author to discredit their argument. Further, you seem confused--am I accused of making an ad hominem against Jackpine Radical? Or Glenn Greenwald? Like I said, try figuring out what you are accusing me of (without Wikipedia, seriously!) before you accuse me of it. And heck....please be specific about WHO I am making an ad hominem against.

[msanthrope]

91. Marr--I'm going to reply to your deleted post, since I had the window open....

87. This is silly.


I'm going to do you the favor of assuming you're being intentionally obtuse, and just wish you a nice day.

I understand that you might wish to back down, but I would like a clarification--am I accused of an
ad hominem against Mr. Greenwald? Or Jackpine Radical?

Would you kindly,

1) Post the argument I am countering. (you would do this by posting what you think either party is suggesting as an argument.)

2) Post what you found to be an ad hominem. (you would do this by posting what you think I wrote that qualifies.)

3) Post your proof that it is an ad hominem. (you would do this by posting proof that what was offered is an attack on the person's arguments. This is what makes ad hominems actually quite rarer than you would think. A personal attack is not necessarily an ad hominem, and this is where most people who think that Wikipedia will teach them logic fall down. You must do more than conflate a perceived personal attack with an attack on an argument.)

[Number23]

100. "So if you wanna go, I'm gonna suggest you bring more than the Wikipedia knife to this gunfight."

Oh, this subthread was just a thing of beauty. BEAUTY.

[msanthrope]

102. The blue links stopped after that, didn't they? Maybe one day I'll get told who I actually

ad hominemed.

[Ed Suspicious]

109. How do you know she's a witch? Build a bridge out of her!

[msanthrope]

111. Sloppy....you know it's a disservice to us all without the video. Bad form...

http://m.

[BlueCaliDem]

34. BINGO. eom

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

77. Yes but that's not the topic at hand.

[Jackpine Radical]

79. It's the subtext of the topic at hand.

[msanthrope]

85. It's not the subtext of the OP--I thought GG was an asshole long ago....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

Perhaps that is the subtext for you. But you cannot decide what is the subtext of my OP.

[Jackpine Radical]

89. So, why are you bringing up this old quote now, as opposed to--

say--quoting Boner or Rinse Penis on McCutcheon?

[msanthrope]

92. Because I am rather interested on what a media conglomerate head has to say about corporate

personhood, given his past support of CU, and his interesting take on the first amendment.

Since Glenn now runs a corporation, his legal views might be biased, no?

[ucrdem]

83. GG's "secrets" = 1 FISA warrant + 1,000 tweets of FUD.

And supposedly the FISA warrant was Snowball's contribution.

[Puzzledtraveller]

11. it makes for easy flame bait I suppose.

[Blue_Tires]

20. Actually, Glenn has been discrediting his stories without anyone's help

[Hissyspit]

6. "I believe that corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses

afflicting our political culture."

Shocking!

[ProSense]

7. "But there are also very real First Amendment interests implicated by laws which bar entities ...

from spending money to express political viewpoints."

Corporations are people, my friend.

[Hissyspit]

21. Yeah, that's highlighted in the OP

I don't agree with Greenwald on Citizens United, as I've said many times.

[msanthrope]

13. So that's why he wants a billionaire to run????

He would also be happy to see a billionaire run without the help of either party, to disrupt the two-party stranglehold.

http://www.out.com/news-commentary/2011/04/18/glenn-greenwald-life-beyond-borders?page=full

He doesn't have a problem with money in politics, as long as it's the "right" kind.

[Rex]

128. IKR!?

Tell us something we didn't learn back in the 80s! That is not really a secret to anyone that pays attention.

[Nye Bevan]

10. Should be possible to ban a corporation from publishing a book during an election campaign

if that book happens to say mean things about one of the candidates in the election? I don't think so, and neither does the ACLU, or Glenn Greenwald, which is why we support the Citizens United decision. Publishing a book, making a movie, or engaging in other forms of speech should be protected by the First Amendment whether it's an individual person or a corporation, union, or any other body engaging in the speech.

However, I do disagree with today's SCOTUS decision as I do not see that contributing money to a campaign (as opposed to spending it yourself) is equivalent to speech.

[msanthrope]

15. I see your point, but I think CU is a travesty. I think the pushing of corporate personhood

is a danger to democracy, not an enhancement of it.

I'd like to hear Greenwald's view of Hobby Lobby.

[The Magistrate]

18. Actually, Sir, It Certainly Should Be Banned From Doing So

The owner of the corporation, or its managing directors or chief executive officer, etc., should certainly be free to publish anything he or she or they please at any time, using their own resources and in their own names. There is not a shadow of substance to any claim the corporation has views separate from those of its owners and directors and managers, and they have no right to pretend it does in order to magnify the resources at their command for promulgating their views. The resources of the corporation are not theirs, legally, just as its debts and liabilities are not theirs.

[Nye Bevan]

27. So Charles or David Koch should be permitted to publish anything they like in an election campaign,

without any kind of limits or restrictions, but 1000 people or 10,000 people of more modest means should not be allowed to pool their resources so they can disseminate a countervailing opinion?

A lone billionaire who opposes abortion should be allowed to flood the airwaves to his heart's content, but an organization such as Planned Parenthood (because it is not a "person&quot should be constrained by strict spending limits if it wants to put out an opposing point of view?

[ProSense]

29. What does publishing a book have to flooding the political process with money?

"So Charles or David Koch should be permitted to publish anything they like in an election campaign,

without any kind of limits ore restrictions, but 1000 people or 10,000 people of more modest means should not be allowed to pool their resources so they can disseminate a countervailing opinion?"

You think this decision is about people of "modest means"?

How many people of "modest means" can max out the individual contribution limit on more than one candidate?

What I find bizarre are the responses basically saying, "Yes, this is a bad decision. I don't agree with it but, here's an excuse for it."

[Nye Bevan]

30. This thread is actually about the Citizens United decision, as opposed to today's ruling.

I agree with the Citizens United decision but not with today's decision.

[The Magistrate]

41. In Point Of Fact, Sir, That Is Pretty Much What Happens

What has to be avoided is allowing the business war chest to rest on the pooled money of corporate treasuries. There is no remedy for inequality of condition under our system, and allowing business types to tap even greater sums which are not theirs to spread their personal viewpoints is no remedy for inequality of condition. There are a number of means by which citizens banded together can give voice to their views, even with pooled money, which do not allow a CEO to use the funds of the business he directs to amplify his voice further. In point of fact, corporate donations, now that they are allowed, far outweigh donations from unions and social activist groups on the left. The unhappy fact is that that will continue.

[m-lekktor]

12. oh please.

Greenwald isn't even a politician i would have to decide to vote for or not. anyway it is so obvious what you are attempting to do in this post. Obama is for privatizing education, fracking, kill lists , drones, and harassing whistleblowers, should i discount everything good and that i agree with that he is for as well?

[msanthrope]

17. Welcome to DU!! nt

[Bragi]

19. Serious question

Are you some kind of professional anti-Greenwald campaigner?

I ask because it just doesn't seem normal for someone to respond to a new horrid SC ruling by dredging up an obscure, 4-year-old quote from Glenn Greenwald of marginal or zero relevance.

[whatchamacallit]

22. Pretty fucking pathetic, huh

Some serious derangement syndromes on this board.

[msanthrope]

23. I thought I was a cryptofascistcorpratistauthoritarian? Or something? Stasi, maybe? nt

[Capt. Obvious]

24. Performance art

[ProSense]

25. People dig up old "quotes" all the time.

"of marginal or zero relevance."

Greenwald does it often, using other people's quotes to shield himself from criticism.

[Hissyspit]

35. Yes, but they don't imply Greenwald is a member of the Libertarian Party as the OP does,

despite the fact that that there is no evidence he is and has has stated that he is no, nor does he classify himself as a libertarian.

[msanthrope]

44. Oh--I'm not implying. I'm stating forthrightly that Mr. Greenwald is a Libertarian.

I think his tour with two other Libertarian stars (Jacob Hornberger and Bruce Fein) pretty much sealed it. Though that tour was a sad, horrible example of what happens when you give overprivileged, disaffected white males a microphone and space to whine, I note that NONE of the Greenwald cheerleaders on DU ever like to talk about his Libertarian speeches on that tour.

Watch the videos available on the net. It's the Three Libertarians Crusade of impotent complaining....

[Hissyspit]

73. Yes, I get that you don't care what the truth is.

The tour was advertised as about civil liberties: "Topics to be covered include habeas corpus, the PATRIOT Act, extraordinary rendition, torture, regime change, and a general discussion about how the war on terrorism has infringed upon the rights of U.S. citizens in the name of making us safe," and Greenwald was advertised as a Liberal.

[msanthrope]

74. "Advertised as a Liberal." I wouldn't call that truth in advertising. Three Libertarians, on a

tour.

[BlueCaliDem]

37. Yes, but according to his loyal flock around here at Democratic Underground,

Libertarian Greenwald is privileged and above criticism. Everyone else, especially this Democratic president and Democratic supporters, to them are NOT.

[Cha]

94. Well, that sucks for them, then.. because ol greenwald is not above anything.

[BlueCaliDem]

140. And yet they continue to try.

It would be amusing if they weren't so serious about it.

[joshcryer]

106. It is the most appropriate time to distinguish from Libertarians.

[ucrdem]

32. Courageous to the core.

The Koch corps.

[msanthrope]

36. Mr. Greenwald taking Koch money for writing whitepaper, and appearing at their

benefits is indeed troubling.

[flamingdem]

39. I'd prefer that he was simply being mercenary

but sadly it's also a part of his ideology.

[joeybee12]

38. He was wrong, and guess what, so was the ACLU which filed a brief in favor...

So....where's your ACLU-bashing thread????

[msanthrope]

46. When the ACLU accepts billionaire money to run a media conglomerate, I'll be more

interested in where their political/economic interests lie. I think it rather interesting that the head of a media conglomerate take such a corpratist position.

[Jamaal510]

40. K&R

[BlueCaliDem]

43. K&R!

And although plenty of Libertarian Greenwald sympathizers are going to screech that "he's changed his position!", fact of the matter is, he did write an article with Salon in support of corporatism in our country. If these Greenwald-fans want to nitpick every single thing President Obama does, then they should be fair (which is a tall order) direct that same microscope on Greenwald as well.

An enthusiastic and rec'd!

[Larry the Cable Dude]

45. For those who don't get why this is being brought up

This decision by Greenwald on Citizens United (I am against Greenwald's view on it) is meant to be the premise for the argument that Greenwald sucks and he therefore did not deserve a medal for courage regarding his work on an issue not related to Citizens United (The NSA leaks).

[msanthrope]

47. Larry the Cable Dude is a republican who has appeared on Hannity to speak against the ACA.

Why did you choose that name?

FYI--someone's giving Greenwald a medal for courage? How special. Is it this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Medal001.jpg

[Larry the Cable Dude]

50. Larry the Cable Guy is a funny comedian

Your logic:

Glenn Greenwald doesn't deserve the courage medal because if we examine political preferences of a comedian whose his (non-political) comedy a DU'er finds funny.

This all boils down to one thing: The award to Greenwald made you angry. Now you're bringing up non-NSA articles and political views of a comedian.

[msanthrope]

54. Larry the Cable guy is an unfunny, sexist, racist, and homphobic Republican. As for Mr. Greenwald,

I simply don't care about all his medals. If I did, I might have posted in your thread.

[Bobbie Jo]

56. Git Er Done!

[msanthrope]

64. Greenwald and Larry the Cable Guy. I love DU. nt

[Larry the Cable Dude]

58. Disagree

I disagree that Larry the Cable Guy is not funny. However, I disagree even more with the assertion that you do not care about Greenwald's medals. His Courage medal prompted you to post this thread.

Commenting on my thread would have gotten you less attention. Threads get more views than comments, obviously.

[msanthrope]

59. How fortunate for you that McCutcheon was decided today. Welcome to DU! nt

[SomethingFishy]

57. So you disagree with this statement:

"I believe that corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture".??

[msanthrope]

60. I don't think it was utterred in truth. nt

[SomethingFishy]

63. Well I guess you win then

it's pretty hard to debate a psychic who can read minds from afar. It's also hard to have a civil discussion with someone who, when confronted with an opinion that they agree with, coming from a person that they don't, just throws up the whole "they must be lying" argument.

Good luck with your crusade.

Edit: I find it interesting that you found an issue that we should all be able to agree on (The SCOTUS Decision) and decided that your contribution would be to start a thread you knew would cause friction.

[msanthrope]

82. I'm sorry, but you seem rather upset that I answered your question outside of the binary

way you phrased it.

I do think that sentence was a sop. I don't find Greenwald truthful.

[Hissyspit]

80. Seriously?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4611304

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4579243

[msanthrope]

81. Yes...I don't think Greenwald was telling the truth when he wrote that. I think he has no problem

Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 05:41 PM - Edit history (1)

with money in politics, thus his comments upthread about wanting a billionaire running. As long as it's the right kind of money, I think Greenwald is fine with it.

And thank you for again reminding us about the financial link between Mr. Greenwald and some DU posters.

[Capt. Obvious]

115. I'm glad you didn't hold your breath

And wow! Just throws shit out there with no shame and no retractions.

[Rex]

129. You know it is amazing how much people on DU know about this guy!

You would think one of them would want to write a book about it or something!

[Spazito]

67. I am constantly astounded how many people he still can dupe...

into believing his vitriolic tripe. It proves the phrase, "There's a sucker born every minute" true.

[msanthrope]

86. DU was on to him a long time ago---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

I find very few posters of note here are fooled by him.

[Spazito]

125. I agree, there are very few posters of note who are fooled...

and the few that are fooled do not understand the vast difference between liberal and libertarian, they believe they are liberal but actually support libertarian views which are antithetical to liberal views.

[BlueCaliDem]

123. I'm just as flabbergasted, Spazito.

These same people excoriate President Obama and Democrats if they so much as blink their way, but they have zero problem with Greenwalds flip-flopping while taking corporate cash as the Libertarian lackey he is for the Koch Bros. They are A-OK with that. Makes you wonder just how much of a Democrat they really are? I would say, based on their vitriol against this president and Democrats who aren't "pure enough", not very much.

[Spazito]

126. I agree, I think a few actually do not recognize the cognitive dissonance associated with

aligning liberal with libertarian but most are libertarian trying to convince liberals they are one and the same, a deliberate fallacy promoted with intent.

[BlueCaliDem]

139. I wouldn't give them that much deference. They damn well know the difference.

They're just hoping we don't. And that's what pisses me off. They actually believe, in their infinite arrogance, that we're stupid. And as they've done with President Obama, they underestimate us at their peril.

[Capt. Obvious]

142. " they underestimate us at their peril."

I wouldn't worry about that

[Douglas Carpenter]

131. EXACTLY!! how do you reason with people who think it is okay to criticize a Democratic

Administration? Who are these nuts who think that just because something is wrong when the Republicans do it - it is also wrong when the Democrats do it? That is crazy talk!! And when we have left-wing extremist nuts like, Al Gore, Gary Hart, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame Wilson and Jimmy Carter and crackpot hate groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the ACLU giving this talk credence and credibility - what can you expect.? Those freaks can take their U.S. Constitution, their Bill of Rights and their Rights to privacy and cram it up their ass as far as I'm concerned. When they learn to put party first - then they can have a seat at the table of respectable opinion.

And - Smearmaster Glenn Greenwald's smear campaign against George W. Bush

AS they say - haters are going to hate and smearers are going to smear. Glenn Greenwald did not begin his smear career with President Obama - he was doing it way back before Obama came to the White House. It seems that he thinks that just because someone is in powerful position - that they are supposed to be criticized - Imagine that!~!


2008 Bill Moyer interview with Glenn Greenwald about the George W. Bush legacy

http://billmoyers.com/content/glenn-greenwald-on-the-george-w-bush-administration-and-the-rule-of-law/

He also wrote three books about the George W. Bush Administration; The New York Times-bestsellers How Would A Patriot Act? (2006) and Tragic Legacy (2007), and his 2008 release, Great American Hypocrites.[/blockquote

]

[BlueCaliDem]

138. Your attempt at being cute failed, Dougie. So did your "reasoning" in your defense of a Libertarian

and narcissist on a DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTING site. Jeezus! Do I need to remind you "Democrats" of this glaring fact in each and every one of my posts??

Take a good hard look at the dates of his books. Bush was selected president in 2000 and re-selected in 2004. Greenwald only became critical of Bush when it was profitable and popular to do so, jumping on the "I hate Bush, too!" bandwagon, and not before. Big whoop. Almost every Republican who voted and re-voted for Bush disliked him by 2006, too. And you want to give his credibility high marks for that? What a low bar you set.

But you go on ahead and continue to give this Libertarian hypocrite credence, because despite his "criticism" of Bush LONG AFTER he voted for Duhbya, he was 200% on Duhbya's side - and all his blogs reflect that. And I would've happily accepted his BEEP-BEEP-BEEP backtracking as legit had he not pontificated on getting Republican and TeaBagger favorite Ron Paul elected as president - and that was in 2008. So, you want to buy that oil from that particular salesman? FINE. But don't expect other people to be as stupid.

The others you listed are just more attempts by Greenwald-apologists to defuse and distract from that Libertarian charlatan who, had he the power, we'd be in more dire straits today than under "his president" Bush. And just in case you've never heard of that idiom, with Greenwald, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

[Douglas Carpenter]

141. I don't know what you are talking about? We need to expose all the frauds!! From Gary Hart and Jimmy

to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch!! Anyone who would ever defy the party!! People like all of us who belong on bended knees to the Party and its leader!! How dare anyone question the right of the state to control the people?? "The people MUST speak! But criticizing the Party and its leader is NEVER acceptable!!

Because the Party is the organized will of the people and its leader is its articulated voice. To criticize the Party is to criticize the people and to thwart the will of the people. To criticize the Party's leaders is to hamper the voice of the people. Anyone studied in the science of the dialectic should already know this. "

[Octafish]

72. That was 2010.

Citizen's United.

What's he say about today's ruling?

[msanthrope]

76. Thus my point--if he backed CU, he's going to be just fine with today's ruling if he's held

on to his execrable corporate personhood position.

[Vattel]

78. I am glad that Greenwald has an appreciation of the issues here.

You obviously do not.

[Pholus]

90. Hey thanks!

I missed this one a few years back. Once you get done ignoring your out-of-context and emo interpretation and your strawman EXPLICITLY REFUTED in the actual link, the rest of the article is quite good!

[msanthrope]

93. I am sorry--are you suggesting that Greenwald didn't support the CU decision? nt

[Ed Suspicious]

113. I know I'm stating who the fuck cares. George W Bush supports sending money to Africa to fight

aids. Do I need to vote for that liberal?

[Pholus]

134. I guess your dogma demands "deeply ambivalent" means something else..

Certainly I am personally on the edge of my seat to see you attack the following statements from the article as untruths, because that is the ONLY way you can call this article "support" for the decision is to shoot down it's premise that nothing fundamental actually changes:

1) "Corporations find endless ways to circumvent current restrictions — their armies of PACs, lobbyists, media control, and revolving-door rewards flood Washington and currently ensure their stranglehold — and while this decision will make things marginally worse, I can’t imagine how it could worsen fundamentally."

2) "There’s not much room for our corporatist political system to get more corporatist. Does anyone believe that the ability of corporations to influence our political process was meaningfully limited before yesterday’s issuance of this ruling?"

3) "If anything, unlimited corporate money will be far more likely to strengthen incumbents than either of the two parties"

4) " But as Eliot Spitzer noted when urging the Supreme Court to strike down this law (h/t David Sirota), what possible justification is there for allowing News Corp. and GE to say whatever they want about our elections while banning all other corporations (including non-profit advocacy groups) from doing so?"

5) "Isn’t it far more promising to have the Government try to equalize the playing field through serious public financing of campaigns than to try to slink around the First Amendment — or, worse, amend it — in order to limit political advocacy? "

[Vashta Nerada]

112. Hey guess what? Hitler and I both like dogs.

I guess that means I support his treatment of Jews during WWII?

[U4ikLefty]

127. Oh shit...now I love the NSA!!!

[Rex]

130. The NSA is cool, they have an indoor theme park!

Free unicorns for the first 100 customers!

[U4ikLefty]

132. I prefer ponies.

[msanthrope]

135. Tell me what the NSA has to do with this? I am bemused at those who think

any discussion of Mr Greenwald's positions that is not laudatory is an attack.

[Tarheel_Dem]

133. Oh, he loves billionaires, proving that money really is speech in GG's case.

Just ask the folks over at Fox News. How is what GG doing any different than the well funded propagandists over at Faux?

"Glenn Greenwald, Pierre Omidyar and the Dangers of Billionaire Journalism"

[cprise]

136. That Obama NSA climbdown really stung. Didn't it ->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024773921

[msanthrope]

137. What does Greenwald's views on the NSA have to do with CU? nt