Does smearing Snowden and Greenwald count as right-wing propaganda?

[MannyGoldstein]

There was a poll yesterday in which DUers voted overwhelmingly (6 to 1!) that "promotion of rightwing propaganda is a per se violation of community standards", and thus offending posts should be hidden. And this makes sense to me - right wing nonsense should not be tolerated on DU.

My question: should sustained attacks on the messengers who carry important truths to us also be considered as right-wing propaganda? In particular, I'm thinking about the stuff that hijacks virtually every thread about Operation Spy on Everyone™, e.g., "Snowden sux!!! and should be in jail!" , and "Smearmaster Greenwald is a smearing Libertarian Paulite greed-head who was once in favor of the Iraq war***" After all, isn't this a standard right-wing technique to distract from discussing substantive issues?




***so were some, but by no means most, Congressional Democrats. But the same folks don't complain about that - instead we get a handful of "oh grow up" tossed at our heads.

18 votes, 3 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Unless it makes sense within the context of the thread, "attacking the messenger" is a right-wing tactic and should be dealt with as such
	18 (100%)
	Attacking the messenger is fine.
	0 (0%)
	3 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[sheshe2]

1. Well....

And I quote you.

My question: should sustained attacks on the messengers who carry important truths to us also be considered as right-wing propaganda?

Should sustained attacks on the messengers such as President Obama who carry important truths to us also be considered as right-wing propaganda? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm~

Thoughts? Just asking~

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Why don't you link to an example and we can take a look?

Thanks!

[sheshe2]

6. Sure, we can take a look!

Ah Manny don't kid with me, you read DU. I know you do.

However since you have no clue what I am talking about I will give you one...you can find the rest.

One word will give you a clue to an OP...here ya go, POS. On DU that's what a sitting Democratic President was called. President Barack Obama, first elected African American President was called a pos on DU. Sad that!

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Still waiting for your link to an example

Thanks!

[bigtree]

42. nice try!

. . . blue links were invented by the DLC!

[Ikonoklast]

52. Manny is in to you!

He knows the DLC gets $0.0015 for every Blue Link® clicked on here at DU!

[bigtree]

81. ^ this ^

[Caretha]

77. That must make

DU's biggest blue linker DLC....;


hehe

[sheshe2]

51. And you want me to do a call out...

so that you can alert in me? I don't think so!

[AgingAmerican]

90. No link forthcoming

nt

[egduj]

3. Right-wing propaganda is determined by the ears that hear.

[kelliekat44]

4. Does disagreeing with how they did what they did count as "smearing?" nt

[joshcryer]

5. Is it an attack when you post the truth?

Because that's what most people call "attacks" when it comes to Snowden or Greenwald.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. The truth is not an attack, of course.

Half-truths, as are so popular with the Defend NSA crowd, *are* attacks. For example, "Greenwald is on the Koch's payroll" is garbage, and "Greenwald is a Conservative" (as I just read in another thread) is utter nonsense.

[sheshe2]

54. Do you have links that prove

Greenwald is not on the Kochs payroll and proof that Greenwald is not a conservative?

TIA!

[BillZBubb]

58. Wow, and you pull out another right wing trick!

Make or cite an outrageous claim and expect the other person to prove it isn't true! Amazing. Classic right wing.

[sheshe2]

63. Bingo! You just hit the nail on the head!!!

See Manny's posts here~ # 2 and 25....mine are #1, 6 and 51 Read Read Read!

You certainly made my point on this one!!!!!

BillZBubb
58. Wow, and you pull out another right wing trick!

Make or cite an outrageous claim and expect the other person to prove it isn't true! Amazing. Classic right wing.

You just called Manny Classic Right Wing! Those are your words, not mine!








http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025036211#post1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025036211#post2

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025036211#post6

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025036211#post25

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025036211#post51

Classic!

[MannyGoldstein]

66. Can you provide proof you're not cloned from Mao Tse Deng?

I didn't think so.

You're busted.

[sheshe2]

70. Actually no I am not busted.

Good try though.

This thread is not going as you expected, is it?! the poster below~

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025036211#post58

[Whisp]

65. I see what you did there.

Facts are:

"Greenwald is on Omidyar's payroll", and "Greenwald is a Libertarian (and so is Omidyar)"

No need to thank me, I am glad to be of service.

[AgingAmerican]

92. So it's logical to conclude...

...that domestic NSA spying under a Democratic administration is justified?

[frazzled]

7. 80-90% of DU'ers disagree with the premise of this question

There is no such thing as "smearing" if opinions are being put forth, based on the facts at hand. Some people have one opinion of the facts, some have another.

It's no more "smearing" (indeed, probably far less so) that people posting things about, say, Obama being a Third Way corporatist effing used car salesman. I think that's juvenile, overwrought, misinformed opinion. But others see the facts and believe otherwise.

We might as well ask if posting postive things about G and S represents right-wing propaganda, since many of their beliefs coincide with right-wing libertarianism. Citizen's United, for example. Deal with it. People have differing opinions.

[treestar]

12. +1

They are actually demanding that two Libertarians be followed in lockstep on a message board for Democrats. Any criticism of them is "smearing." But our Democratic elected officials need to be criticized all day over everything.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Your post is a perfect example of the attack method I'm referring to

Greenwald is certainly not a Libertarian, and nobody said anything about following anyone lockstep.

[Whisp]

67. Of course he's a Libertarian.

Last edited Mon Jun 2, 2014, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

As is his rich boss Omidyar, his partner in crime Snowden, his other partner Poitras and his side kicks Ronny And Randy.

on edit:
and Julian Assange. He's in that soup mix too, and he loves him some Ron Paul.

[MannyGoldstein]

69. $10 if you produce a quote where Greenwald labels himself as a Libertarian

Otherwise, please stop lying.

[Whisp]

71. Snowden donated money to Ron Paul. documented, no lie. find your own link.

NBC had a timeline of Snowden's and the donations were listed there. That's all I'm giving you. Go blue link hunting yourself.

Snowden is a Libertarian, admitted one. Sorry about that. No Lie.

Would Snowden 'trust' a Democrat or a Progressive with his stolen stash? Nah, he'd go for kin, a Libertarian. A fair conclusion, not a lie.

GG is no Democrat, nor a Progressive (altho some insist he is). Progressives generally don't support Citisens United and don't think of Bush the WarChimp as an 'eloquent' speaker when talking up the Iraq war nor do they laugh at raped nuns jokes.

[MannyGoldstein]

73. Now you're changing the topic

You claimed Greenwald is a Libertarian, and that is a lie. Either produce evidence, or stop ^&*#ing with people.

[Whisp]

74. Are you getting upset, Manny.

Say it ain't so! I hate to see you like this, you are usually so calm and seem to enjoy yourself so much here, doing what you do.

GG is a Libertarian, the Capital L kind, the stinky, selfish Ron Paul kind. Sorry about that.

[MannyGoldstein]

78. So you attack Greenwald as being a Libertarian, can present no evidence,

try to change the subject...

Try telling the truth, instead. Much easier.

[Whisp]

79. I'm kind of dissapointed at your weak arguments, Manny.

Really.

You seem to be floundering.

I best say goodnight before you say something that you will regret.

[AgingAmerican]

93. Thank you for that cogent proof

...of your claims. We are now all thoroughly convinced.

[uponit7771]

40. +1

[Skittles]

8. no, because here it is mosty the Tiger Beat crowd

who would never tolerate NSA overreach from a republican

[Whisp]

10. Latest issue of Tiger Beat:

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[bobduca]

36. If a democratic president ever loses

He or she just needs to sign a bunch of executive orders their last day in office, so that the mean nasty republicans don't abuse all the good and benevolent spy agencies!

problem sovled!

[L0oniX]

47. +1

[Whisp]

9. No. But smearing the President should be considered so. n/t

[Egnever]

11. A professional push poll couldn't have done it any better!

You are going places!

[BillZBubb]

60. How is this a push poll?

[OilemFirchen]

13. My favorite Mannypoll to date!

All but one of the responders completely contradicts the results. It's fucking magic!

Oh, and fuck Ron Poll.

[Number23]

16. You gotta admit, this particular "not even trying to be subtle" push poll is inspired.

"Mannypoll" has a nice ring to it.

And a whopping 31 votes to boot! I'm waiting for the Mannypoll fans to put this one in their signature blocks as they've done with others.

Edit: Whoops. It's gone from 31 votes to 30. That's... something right there.

[joshcryer]

17. Note, "within the context of the thread."

In other words, it's perfectly fine to "attack the messenger" if it "fits within the context of the thread."

The poll is a joke. How many who voted yes still think "attacking the messenger" is OK?

And I'll note the OP didn't address whether posting the truth or facts constituted an "attack." I see people posting the truth and facts called "attackers" all the time here. Quite literally posting Greenwald's own words means you're attacking him. Snowden, I just feel bad for. I support Snowden but I think shit is going on that is beyond his control at this point. I honest to goodness think he got played hard.

[Number23]

18. Of course it's a joke, josh. It all is.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Can you please provide an example

Where posting a relevant whole-truth regarding Snowden or Greenwald was called an attack?

Thanks.

[joshcryer]

45. Greenwald and his "irrelevant" tweet.

People literally posted his own words and were accused of attacking.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Can you link to an example?

I really don't recall this.

Thanks.

[joshcryer]

56. Will later, on phone now.

[joshcryer]

75. This thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025026645

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5029326

The OP literally quotes Greenwald word for word. The entire thread devolves into sly attacks against anyone who dares to criticize.

[MannyGoldstein]

76. The OP compares apples and oranges

Greenwald said that the big deal is that communications existed between Snowden and NSA on legal issues when NSA has claimed that none existed. The existence of the email is the bog thing here. The content's not a huge deal - Snowden maintains that was just one of a number of emails. NSA should release the rest, or they'll continue to look like liars.

[joshcryer]

80. The NSA did not deny that Snowden sent emails.

The NSA denied that Snowden raised specific concerns. Snowden's email was a generic procedure question. It really had nothing to do with specific concerns, as Greenwald claimed.

So by saying "the contents of the email" are irrelevant you're saying it doesn't matter if "specific concerns were raised, only that an email was sent." You've moved the goal posts from Snowden writing concerns to Snowden sending an email.

The contents of the email are completely relevant as they show that Snowden did not raise concerns.

There is a lot of logic contorting going on in that thread, it's kind of embarrassing.

[MannyGoldstein]

82. Before we continue... do you agree that Clapper lied to Congress?

If we can't agree on that, we've no chance of reaching agreement on the emails.

[joshcryer]

84. Clapper waffled, lying, but the record was corrected.

So in the final result was not a lie, as he corrected the record. However, his original lie was because Wyden asked a rhetorical question he couldn't legally answer.

If you believe the final result of the record Clapper submitted was a lie, well, of course we can't reach an agreement on anything, as that's the reality. Everyone talks about Clapper lying when he could, you know, risk going to jail for divulging state secrets, but no one acknowledges that Clapper corrected the record.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with the discussion at hand. I explained quite clearly Greenwald's original response and how the contents of the email are absolutely relevant to the original claim.

[Whisp]

68. poll dancing is in vogue. n/t

[AverageJoe90]

14. TBH, the answer to the OP is.....no. nt

[woo me with science]

15. Cannot rec highly enough.

Thank you.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. Sheesh!! Come on Manny you know perfectly well that YES it would be rightwing propaganda IF

there was a Republican in the White House. But smearing Greenwald and Snowden is the duty of every true liberal and progressive if a Democrat is in the White House. That is just common sense. Does someone really need to explain this to you?

[randome]

20. I see the same type of vitriol on DU as I saw when OWS crashed and burned.

I can only draw the conclusion that Snowden and Greenwald's recent dumb statements have pushed many of us firmly into denial. The realization that these 'heroes' are not what they seem is slowly settling in like an infection.

And like an infection, you try to fight it off. But sometimes there is no 'medicine' or 'antibodies' to do the job.

Sometimes you just have to accept the inevitable. Keep in mind that there is nothing we do on DU that will change the outcome. So it's best to dip your toe into that pool of disappointment now so you can get used to it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Which dumb statements are those?

I need to read the news more, I guess.

Or was your post precisely the kind of smear I refer to in the OP?

[randome]

28. You seem incapable of understanding other opinions.

To many, Snowden's pointing to his email about a training question is so lame it begs the question, "What are they smoking over there in Russia?"

To many, Greenwald saying he is saving the 'truth' for his 'grand finale' fireworks display begs the question, "What is this guy really up to?"

I don't care about being 'right' about anything. In fact, there is a special 'high' about saying "I'm wrong" that makes me feel all tingly and superior-like.

And the more often one says "I'm wrong" or even "Maybe I'm wrong", the easier it becomes to say it the next time.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

29. How often have you posted that you're wrong on DU?

I certainly have.

[randome]

31. I've used the phrase "Maybe I'm wrong" often enough.

The thing with being willing to say "Maybe I'm wrong" is that I'm rarely wrong since my position can shift quite nimbly under changing circumstances.

Another way I like to put it...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

I don't mean this post to imply that I'm perfect. I have biases, preconceptions, etc. We all do.

I 'predicted' we would not hear from Snowden again. I was wrong about that.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. Well @#$% me.

While looking up examples of when I've admitted I was wrong, look what I found:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021531209#post10

[karynnj]

62. Snowden saying he didn't speak out on Russian abuses because he did not speak the language

This insults the intelligence of those who would excuse him because he really can't without getting himself in trouble with his host -- and he has nowhere else to go.

(Not to mention - he's been in Russia for a year. Why is he binge watching TV rather than taking a Russian immersion class? He's a bright guy - in a year he could have actually learned a lot and that would have allowed him to actually see Russia and its culture. It could have been a worthwhile experience. )

[MannyGoldstein]

64. If not for Russia, Snowden would likely be tortured and/or imprisoned for life

I'm thinking he's not gonna' rattle that cage.

[Whisp]

72. actually he would be chopped up in little pieces and the President

would feed him to Bo.

On live Television.

[betsuni]

21. Depends on what you smear on them

I like anything smeared with a nice smoked salmon spread.

[whistler162]

22. Are you saying Snowden and Greenwalds smearing

of themselves is really a rightwing plot?

'cause they are doing a heck of a job at it.

[UTUSN]

30. Loaded language in both premise and in poll options: Pffft!1 & the word "smear"

appears to be very popular this morning, just a step away from O'LOOFAH's go-to "smear merchants."

[SidDithers]

33. Depends...

Posting a Scott Stantis toon that smears GG or ES would be a right-wing smear. Posting an article from a site like Newsbusters, that smears GG or ES, would be a right-wing smear.

Posting an article from counterpunch, or commondreams, that smears GG or ES wouldn't be a right-wing smear. It would be a left-wing smear.

Sid

[bobduca]

34. what is your position on outsourcing

propaganda?

[SidDithers]

35. What is your position on recycled propaganda?...

Old propaganda with a new name?

Sid

[bobduca]

37. 0.92 US Dollar * your base rate = adjusted rate

[SidDithers]

38. Nationalism is a poison...nt

Sid

[bobduca]

39. Annexation or Bust!

Are you holding out for an executive order?

[bigtree]

41. no, but smearing those you disagree with is propaganda (who knows what your motivation is)

. . . like in this desperate, attention-seeking op of yours.

[Capt. Obvious]

43. right

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025030258

[bigtree]

44. obviously

. . . two wrongs don't necessarily make a 'right'.

[MrScorpio]

49. True, true...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018623565

[MrScorpio]

48. My own issues with Greenwald and Snowden are pretty much well explained

Until they concentrate on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5037555

I feel as if they have a political agenda to only target one side of the problem.

That's my problem

[Orsino]

50. No.

There are reasons to suspect their (Snowden's and Greenwald's) motives, if doing so seems much less productive than following up on their message.

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. But concerted attacks on the Democratic twice elected by majority vote is AOK right?

that's not rightwing AT ALL!

Not to mention the FACT that neither Snowden or GG are Democrats....So WGAF?

[Mnpaul]

85. Not RW at all

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

When said President goes against the party platform, he deserves to be attacked. Are you saying that criticizing the President for adopting RW policies makes you RW?

[VanillaRhapsody]

86. So supporting the Twice elected BY majority Democratic President is RW?

This is the most ridiculous thing I have EVER heard on DU!

[Mnpaul]

87. Who else are we going to vote for?

Another gem from this admin.

How did that Alan Simpson pick work out?

If you want ridiculous, you may want to check your own posts. The President aligns himself with the far right and you criticize Greenwald for admiring Paul's principles?

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. if you dont like the decisions your fellow democrats

Make in tbe party primary...you are welcome to start your own!

[Mnpaul]

89. What's the matter?

Don't want to address the fact that Obama actually appointed a RW libertarian. And the TPP is a libertarian wet dream. I guess your Obama blinders prevent you from seeing that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

91. told you....didnt expect him to mirror me.....he is a moderate just left of Bill Clinton

question is..why didnt you know that

[Mnpaul]

94. According to your reasoning he must be a secret Libertarian

promoting Libertarians and Libertarian legislation

[VanillaRhapsody]

96. no i dont hear him constantly bashing fellow democrats

On a democratic forum

[winter is coming]

55. Right-wing? Not necessarily. Intellectually lazy and likely to undermine the poster's credibility?

Hell, yes.

[Whisp]

57. do RWingers smear GG?

I don't think I've heard much of that!

Can you provide me some links, I'm sure you are prepared.

[karynnj]

59. The problem is suggesting that Snowden did anything illegal is considered a "smear" rather than

highly likely.

Before people label anything negative said of Snowden, who is neither a Democrat or a progressive, but a Ron Paul supporter --- ask yourself if the level of negative comments rises to the level of invective routinely directed towards the Democratic President of the United States.

Not to mention, any attempt made to speak of the issue -- from either side (not just the Snowden fans) -- is completely buried in attacks.


It is hard to argue for a higher standard to protect 2 libertarians than the Democratic President.

[baldguy]

61. Promoting Snowden and Greenwald counts as right-wing propaganda.

[Aerows]

99. No, it doesn't

I can disagree with a person's political leanings and still think they have something worthwhile to say. Heck, a broken clock is right twice a day.

[MisterP]

83. naw, they're just motivated by concern for the gay marraige support Greenwald's destroying--somehow

[War Horse]

95. Congrats on an extremely impartial poll...

[randome]

97. All this endless typing and casting of aspersions...you already know the result.

Snowden will either spend the rest of his life in Russia or will return to face trial in America.

These posts accomplish nothing and will affect the outcome not one tiny bit.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

98. Quit calling it smearing as if they are victims

They put themselves out there, why can't they be criticized like anyone else who puts themselves out there?