General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRepost from March. Greenwald defends himself from those who say he supported Bush and Iraq.
Since there are so many assaults today on the character of Glenn Greenwald, it is time to repost his own words. He deserves to have his own words heard. Give him that much.
Before 2004, I had been politically indifferent. Believed govt insulated from real abuse.
Those are not my words. But that just about describes how I was politically before the Iraq invasion. So I understand someone who claims they were apathetic politically at the time.
What is interesting is that these are the words of Glenn Greenwald when he defended himself from so many of the attacks on him. Here are his words from the preface of his 2006 book "How Would a Patriot Act?"
Every time his name is mentioned here it is said he supported the Iraq invasion. Just like many other once respected lefty bloggers he is now condemned.
Our country is at a profound crossroads. We must decide whether we want to adhere to the values and principles that have made our country free, strong, and great for the 217 years since our Constitution was ratified, or whether we will relinquish those values and fundamentally change who we are, all in the name of seeking protection from terrorism. I genuinely believe that we are extremely lucky to be the beneficiaries of a system of government that uniquely protects our individual liberties and allows us a life free of tyranny and oppression. It is incumbent upon all Americans who believe in that system, bequeathed to us by the founders, to defend it when it is under assault and in jeopardy. And today it is.
I did not arrive at these conclusions eagerly or because I was predisposed by any previous partisan viewpoint. Quite the contrary.
....I never voted for George W. Bush or for any of his political opponents. I believed that voting was not particularly important. Our country, it seemed to me, was essentially on the right track. Whether Democrats or Republicans held the White House or the majorities in Congress made only the most marginal difference. . . .
I firmly believed that our democratic system of government was sufficiently insulated from any real abuse, by our Constitution and by the checks and balances afforded by having three separate but equal branches of government. My primary political belief was that both parties were plagued by extremists who were equally dangerous and destructive, but that as long as neither extreme acquired real political power, our system would function smoothly and more or less tolerably. For that reason, although I always paid attention to political debates, I was never sufficiently moved to become engaged in the electoral process. I had great faith in the stability and resilience of the constitutional republic that the founders created.
There was a post last year at Daily Kos which referenced a blog post in which Greenwald defended himself on many positions. I had been searching for that post, but that blog site apparently is defunct.
Here are some quotes of his from the DKos post.
Glenn Greenwald Responds to Widespread Lies About Him
These claim 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.
.....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.
You really should read the rest of the very long DKos post. It covers many areas in which he defends himself.
There is not any one single author or reporter who gets it right every time. I do not ever agree with any one person all the time.
But now it is hard to post any work of any writer who is or has been critical of President Obama's policies. I really never thought about that happening on Democratic forums.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)lol
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I don't always agree with him, but the attacks here are over kill.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I'm sure he appreciates you defending his honor here on DU.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)and advocates for them, and believes that elections should be 100% publicly funded.
Oh indeed. That kind of *libertarian*.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Tim Wise smacked him down pretty good: http://www.timwise.org/2012/01/of-broken-clocks-presidential-candidates-and-the-confusion-of-certain-white-liberals/
I mean, seriously, if raising important issues is all it takes to get some kind words from liberal authors, bloggers and activists, and maybe even votes from some progressives, just so as to shake things up, then why not support David Duke? With the exception of his views on the drug war, David shares every single view of Pauls that can be considered progressive or left in orientation. Every single one. So where do you draw the line? Must one have actually donned a Klan hood and lit a cross before his handful of liberal stands prove to be insufficient? Must one actually, as Duke has been known to do, light candles on a birthday cake for Hitler on April 20, before it no longer proves adequate to want to limit the overzealous reach of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms? Exactly when does one become too much of an evil fuck even for you? Inquiring minds seriously want to know.
Meanwhile, at what point do you stop being so concerned about whether a presidential candidate is pushing the issues Paul raises (so many of which do need raising and attention), and realize what every actual leftist in history has realized, but which apparently some liberals and progressives dont: namely, that the real battles are in the streets, and in the neighborhoods, and in movement activism? It isnt a president, whether his name is Ron Paul or Barack Obama who gets good things done. It is us, demanding change and threatening to literally shut the system down (whether we mean Wall Street, the Port of Oakland, the Wisconsin state capitol, Columbia University, a Woolworths lunch counter, or the Montgomery, Alabama bus system) who force presidents and lawmakers to bend to the public will.
You may agree with him on some things, but he's neither a liberal nor progressive: http://rootedcosmopolitan.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/glenn-greenwald-neither-a-liberal-nor-a-progressive/
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)you amuse me.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Not worth the time it takes to wade through your screeds.
/ignore.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)just kidding, i have no idea who you are
Crunchy Frog
(26,578 posts)and not what someone said about him?
I'm sure that his own words must be plenty damning enough, and we don't need to see them through the filter of some third party.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,578 posts)So I won't do your work for you. I will just take it as read that his actual words are not as damning as you're making them out to be.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)So I can only post a small part. He goes further and lists his stances that should show he is not of that mindset.
I'm a right-wing libertarian
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:
Can't post more because of copyright. Here's the link again.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)and illegally taped the man's victims? http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211
Oh, remember when Glenn Greenwald tweeted praise for the far right Oath Keepers militia? http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42504_Why_Is_Glenn_Greenwald_Promoting_an_Extreme_Right_Wing_Militia
Here's that same armed far right Oath Keepers militia defending armed white supremacist Cliven Bundy down on the Bundy Ranch (video): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/01/1296091/-Oath-Keepers-Bundy-Militia-Put-Their-Hands-On-Their-Guns-Told-Us-I-m-Gonna-Kill-you?showAll=yes
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)No matter how expressly you repudiate the distortions in advance, they will freely flow. Hence: Im about to discuss the candidacies of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and no matter how many times I say that I am not endorsing or expressing support for anyones candidacy, the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite. But since its always inadvisable to refrain from expressing ideas in deference to the confusion and deceit of the lowest elements, Im going to proceed to make a couple of important points about both candidacies even knowing in advance how wildly they will be distorted.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That piece of misinformation has been debunked dozens of times, yet it keeps getting re-posted.
At this point, one must be deliberately obtuse to keep repeating it.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Keep telling yourself that.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)MineralMan
(146,262 posts)You may have seen posts written by that screen name.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)directed toward Barack Obama).
Obnoxious_One
(97 posts)Unreasonable hate is progressive.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)and it will never make it through the hate-thickened skulls of the loyalists. They have lost all ability to reason when it comes to Greenwald.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)President or party before country is wrong be it a Republican or a Democrat that is guilty of the misplaced priorities.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Anything to get their licks in.
deurbano
(2,894 posts)I met Greenwald when he was speaking at a Salon event in San Francisco in 2011. The people in attendance were progressives. The intensity of the contempt for Greenwald by some here (at DU) is inexplicable (to me).
KoKo
(84,711 posts)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
jeff47
(26,549 posts)we should pay attention to, and which of his own words we should ignore?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)The fact is Greenwald never wrote anything in support of the Iraq War, not a single word. Greenwald was not a public figure at the time he believed the war was justified, he held a personal opinion that was wrong but he never spoke of that opinion until after he realized it was wrong. I don't know which words you think madfloridian is asking you to ignore considering Greenwald never wrote a single word in support of the war.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)to start making posts like this?
Apparently it's OK to say trying to find those girls is disgusting, because Greenwald doesn't know the difference between the FBI an an invasion force. Or something.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You may want to twist his words and pretend he said that, but anyone who read that tweet honestly knows it does not say what you claim it says.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If "no one could claim" such a thing, you'd think including what he said would be all you'd do. Or at least, you'd include what you think he meant. If you were correct, it would completely end the discussion. Yet you didn't.
Greenwald claimed that attempts to aid Nigeria in finding those girls is a prelude to an invasion. And thus, any attempt to aid Nigeria is disgusting.
He either thinks the FBI is an invasion force, or he thinks trying to find those girls is disgusting. Which bit of dumb would you prefer?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Go ahead and link to the Tweet yourself though, if you insist it says that finding the girls is disgusting then show us the Tweet and prove it actually says what you claim it says. If you don't then I will in a couple hours when I have something better than this phone to post it with.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)As everyone should be able to see, that Tweet does not say it is disgusting to look for the missing girls. It does not even say anything close to that.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)You are posting facts and actual quotes.
That is NOT what the small minority of malcontents deal in.
When confronted with his dishonest interpretation today,
one actually replied,
"I can have it any way I want it!"
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Well, their furious campaign to smear Snowden & Greenwald has failed miserably,
and after winning the Pulitzer for Public Service,
some may be confronting the unpleasant fact that they are standing on the WRONG side of History and Democracy.
For those without sufficient Ego Strengths to admit "I made a mistake" (that Greenwald has demonstrated),
that will have the effect of forcing a regression to a 4 year old stamping his foot and insisting he can have anything he wants,
and everybody else is just a Poopy Head.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)He's an Ayn Rand libertarian, which is very evident in his "ME FIRST!!!" behavior pattern.
I'd also like to hear Judge Joan Lefkow's opinion of Glenn Greenwald. Google it.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)He addresses the rightwing libertarian stuff, presents his own views and gives links. Here's the link from the OP again since most people have not bothered to read it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more
* 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);
To apply a "right-wing libertarian" label to someone with those views and that activism is patently idiotic. Just ask any actual libertarian whether those views are compatible with being a libertarian. Or just read this October, 2012 post - written on Volokh, a libertarian blog - entitled "Glenn Greenwald, Man of the Left", which claims I harbor "left-wing views on economic policy" and am "a run-of-the-mill left-winger of the sort who can be heard 24/7 on the likes of Pacifica radio" because of my opposition to cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
But you have a right to your scorn and hatred. I have a right to defend those with whom I do not agree all the time.....but whose journalism has given us much knowledge about our own government...stuff the govt would prefer we not have.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Nothing he says can be taken as anything other than a lie because he constantly contradicts himself whenever convenient, as demonstrated by his lies about his own stance on the Iraq War.
Get back to me after you find out Joan Lefkow's opinion of Greenwald, and of why he lost his license to practice law.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Greenwald supports publicly funded healthcare along with many other things Ayn Rand would hate. He may be a civil libertarian but he is most certainly not an Ayn Rand libertarian.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Ayn Rand railed against social security and medicare, yet depended upon both.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You claim Greenwald speaks out of both sides of his mouth but offer no evidence to support that claim. Can you cite a single example of Greenwald taking a position on Social Security which Ayn Rand would approve of?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I never trust grifting libertarians.
He's contradicted himself on multiple occasions, was unethical and violated the civil rights of wintesses while defending a neo-nazi who was eventually convicted for soliciting the murder of a federal judge and has been a grifter his entire life.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I claimed that Ayn Rand contradicted herself, just like Glenn Greenwald contradicted himself. I gave an example of Rand contradicting herself. Greenwlad's self contradictions are well documented.
Both are blatant liars.
That was the comparison I made. I cannot be held responsible for your reading comprehension.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Which his position on Social Security clearly proves he is not.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)His stated position on anything cannot be trusted as demonstrated by his constant lies.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Sorry, but you don't get to decide that Greenwald is an Ayn Rand supporter without providing any evidence to back up your claim.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)He's an Ayn Rand libertarian.
End of discussion.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I guess if someone is a public figure you don't need facts.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)That you ignore it is your problem, not mine.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)You are welcome.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...a number of people will believe it is true.
And that's all that counts, when it comes to plausible deniability, propaganda, and character assassination.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)And there's a lot of that going on here.
Did you see this post?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024930881
Makes one realize how widespread it is.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It will help me round out my ignore list.
That thread is why I will never register as a Democrat. If I have to be in the same party as that pack of hyenas, no thanks.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The day that happened, was the day I knew they were never posting here under sincere reasons of wanting to have an honest discussion. They just want this site to fail. Notice it is the same people that don't like DU anymore and can barely stand to post here. Funny how they have post after post after post...strange for people that can't stand this place anymore...because it is so different now (which means they lost their authoritarian purity battle).
I just laugh and laugh at their continuous failed attempts at making DU suck for the rest of us.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)He's a clown, and his sycophants are comedy gold.
Sid
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)You have much disdain for us sycophants. Sorry about that.
I have had respect most of my life, but posting here now means there is not any anymore.
We all have to decide if it's worth it. I am still deciding.
I have never called you a name, SidDithers, and I never will.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)is like living in an insane asylum.
Hordes of *real* nutjobs pointing and hooting and hollering at the few
people that have somehow managed to keep their heads.
Sad to see, but the warnings have been there.
It's like Rome circa 450 AD- the gates are falling.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)ˈsikəfənt,-ˌfant/
noun
a person who acts obsequiously toward someone important in order to gain advantage.
Do you think he reads DU and keeps track of who said what about him? He's making a list, and checking it twice?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)If you're going to go all Google Definition on me, include the synonyms.
Sid
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Coupons included.
randome
(34,845 posts)He wouldn't need to defend himself all the time if he didn't send out mixed messages and, let's say ill-advised tweets.
For a journalist, he doesn't seem to understand how words can be used by those who don't think he's anything special.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)So...since I know I am bright, have confidence in myself...I don't feel the need to prove it.
I can keep posting about the privatization of education under a Democratic president and not worry about the attacks.....or I can quit.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)"Not very bright" just won a Pulitzer Prize, and there's not a darned thing this tiny-but-loud group of detractors can do about it. For my part, I don't comment a lot on education-related threads, but I do read a good many of them, and I have a real appreciation for your advocacy.
randome
(34,845 posts)The Guardian won the Pulitzer. Yes, it was due to, in large measure, to Greenwald's reporting but he did not, like other journalists often have, win a Pulitzer personally.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)The "due in large measure" part does show progress on your part though.
Have a great weekend.
randome
(34,845 posts)I would think that's a topic deserving of a spirited debate.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)As long as they can cheer for him, they seem to be content.
Yet, here we are, almost 10 months later, and not much has changed.
wryter2000
(46,023 posts)Why in hell am I supposed to give a damn about anything he says?
JEB
(4,748 posts)to be the biggest asshole around. There are plenty around, many right here on DU. Like the ones who resort to name calling rather than actually considering issues.
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, the Dems who support the Dems who supported Bush's wars.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)So little of it these days...and thanks to the Archives for the Truth Seekers!
Obnoxious_One
(97 posts)Last edited Fri May 9, 2014, 09:39 PM - Edit history (1)
We love you! We hate you.
Everything you say is awesome! Everything you say is stupid!
It's all so very sad and twisted. If you're honest with yourself and your beliefs you don't have to twist yourself into a pretzel just to root for a team that loves their corporate donors more than you.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)you know that blind prejudice and celebrity politics trump facts and honest thought every time. Being rational will only get you flamed.