Glenn Greenwald ain't no Libertarian, Part 1: Defending Social Security and Medicare

[MannyGoldstein]

(The first in a series on pervasive lies spewed on the Internet)

Glenn Greenwald is on record as opposing Obama's attempts to cut Social Security and Medicare, e.g.:

Reports: Obama pushing for cuts to Social Security, Medicare

Obama and progressives: what will liberals do with their big election victory?

Defending entitlements: does that sound like a Libertarian? I don't think so.

Greenwald is a strong advocate for civil liberties, not a Libertarian.

So why do I care? Am I just a Greenwald fanboy?

I care because truth is important. Only the truth will get the 99% out of the crater we've allowed ourselves to get stuck in. When people on the Internet write that Greenwald is a Libertarian, know that they're either lying or ignorant. Either way, they are not truth tellers, and all information they supply should be treated with great skepticism.

By the way - this info comes from a DailyKos article, which was linked by madfloridian.

[morningfog]

1. They've always got their fallback, racist!

[uponit7771]

123. Racist is what racist says and " it was my early days" (sic) != a changed mind

[kfreed]

234. Glenn Greenwald's "Liberty Tour" with White Supremacists...

... yep, he's a Koch Libertarian, racism is a by-product of a Koch addiction:

Libertarian Glenn Greenwald's "Liberty Tour" sponsored by "Young Americans for Liberty": http://www.yaliberty.org/tour/fall2012

His cohorts were Hornsberger (a white supremacist) and Bruce Fein (old time GOP sleaze bag neocon) and the moderator is Jack Hunter, Rand Paul's "Southern Avenger" - they took their "liberty tour" to universities on the West Coast. Here's the video:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42436_The_Convergence_of_Glenn_Greenwald_and_Rand_Pauls_Southern_Avenger

Let's not forget that the Libertarian triumvirate of Greenwald, Snowden, and Assange are all professed Paultards (the Fraud Pauls also have a long history of white supremacism).

I don't know about anybody else, but I have a real problem with taking "civil liberties" tips from avowed white supremacists.

"Progressive" Glenn Greenwald explains his motivation (video): http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

Which reminds me of this guy: White Supremacist serial killer airs pet peeves at sentencing "Israel, drones, and torture":
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/white-supremacist-defiant-at-sentencing-for-killing-spree

P.S. What Rand Paul is trying to sell to young techies in Silicon Valley )sponsored by Koch): "Homophobia, racism and the Kochs: San Francisco’s tech-libertarian “Reboot” conference is a cesspool"
http://pando.com/2014/07/18/homophobia-racism-and-the-kochs-san-franciscos-tech-libertarian-reboot-conference-is-a-cesspool/




How can this be??? Look at who/what the Libertarian Titans of industry, that Greenwald never misses a chance to defend. are funding: "The Koch Brothers’ Fake Libertarianism: War, Forced Pregnancies, and Homophobia"
http://www.vice.com/read/the-koch-brothers-fake-libertarianism-war-forced-pregnancies-and-homophobia-729

Liberals, step away from the Libertarian sewer.

Know when you're being conned by the right: Libertarians lying to Liberals:

"something to keep in mind if you find yourself getting all dewy-eyed as you take your place on the bottom of the "strange bedfellows" at the StopWatching.us rally, topped by such rancid libertarian outfits as FreedomWorks, the Kochs’ climate denial front Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Kochs’ new anti-Obamacare Astroturf front Generation Opportunity, Students For Liberty (funded by CIA/NSA contractor Peter Thiel), Ron Paul’s Young Americans For Liberty, the Libertarian Party....
Anyway, just in case "Marketing Libertarianism" hadn't got the rulebook out widely enough, REASON ran a second article later in 1977 headlined "How To Get Converts Left & Right: Political Cross-Dressing Is The Answer."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/found-libertarians-lying-t184312/index.html?t=184312

[kfreed]

235. Explain why Libertarin Greenwald consistently attacks reporters covering the Koch cartel

Greenwald attacks Lee Fang of The Nation: "Fang has written extensively about conservative billionaire businessmen Charles and David Koch, portraying them as nefarious GOP puppet masters—a charge that even “some liberals reject as an overly simplistic caricature,” according to Politico."
http://freebeacon.com/politics/high-times-at-the-nation/

RW Free Beacon jumps for joy.

Glenn Greenwald attacks Mark Ames and Yasha Levine for implicating the Koch cartel in TSA hysteria mongering (as employees were looking to unionize) - turns out Greenwald had been coaching John "Don't Touch My junk" Tyner:
http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/

Glenn Greenwald attacks Make Ames again for an article outlining the ACLU Libertarian faction/Koch contribution explaining why "proponents of campaign finance reform" would side with the Kochs on Citizens United allowing for a corporate fire sale on Congress critters (as does Libertarian Glenn Greenwald): http://www.futureofpando.com/2014/04/17/uh-huh/

Ames' original article on Koch/Libertarian ACLU doings:
http://thedailybanter.com/2012/06/the-quiet-extermination-of-labor-rights-from-human-rights/

The internet is littered with progressive bloggers, left-wing activists, and reporters that Greenwald has attacked... many of them shocked as his attacks tend to come out of the blue.

And why exactly would "progressive Glenn Greenwald" tweet a link to right-wing militia nutters, Oath Keepers, who joined Cliven Bundy for his armed and violent anti-government Christian Identity white supremacist patriot militia hoedown in Nevada?

http://thedailybanter.com/2012/06/the-quiet-extermination-of-labor-rights-from-human-rights/

And while Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Cato Institute would have us believe that Koch-funded Cato is a staunch defender of civil liberties, the reality is that Cato Institute operatives wrote the legal justification for the 'War on Terror,' warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, torture, etc.:
http://thedailybanter.com/2012/06/the-quiet-extermination-of-labor-rights-from-human-rights/

However, Libertarian Glenn Greenwald insists that Koch donated millions to the ACLU to "fight the Patriot Act" (Bwwwahahahahaha) - yeah right:
http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth

As to is actually assaulting Social Security and Medicare, the Koch cartel that Greenwald insists on defending at all costs: http://www.futureofpando.com/2014/04/17/uh-huh/

"ALEC Exposed: The Koch Connection": http://www.thenation.com/article/161973/alec-exposed-koch-connection

None of this sounds "progressive" in the least.

Liberals, pull your heads out of Greenwald's rear end and stop playing footsie with Libertarians.

[ProSense]

2. So

"Glenn Greenwald is on record as opposing Obama's attempts to cut Social Security and Medicare, e.g.: "

...before the election he was defending "Social Security and Medicare" by claiming that Ron Paul was the most "anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war" candidate and hyping Rand Paul?

Seems this title at the OP link says it all:

"Obama and progressives: what will liberals do with their big election victory?"

Greenwald seems to be pushing a new angle after his election speculation FAIL.

Ron Paul wants to eliminate corporate taxes and preserve oil subsidies. Did you know he's really a RW Republican? Greenwald's favorite politicians are frauds, and the fact that he doesn't know that means he's clueless. Anyone backing these frauds or making excuses for Greenwald support of them is trying perpetrate the fraud.

Ron Paul Calls For 'Nullification' Of Obamacare: 'Pretty Soon ... We're Just Going To Ignore The Feds'
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ron-paul-calls-for-nullification-of-obamacare

"Ron Paul hates govt intervention, likes mandatory vaginal ultrasound probes"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002161152

Rand Paul backs bill that could lead to crackdown on states where voters legalized weed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024663470

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024945439#post33

Greenwald is not the left.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023321760


Greenwald: Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100294827

Then he got defensive.

@Wolfrum Thanks: of course Obama = better than Paul on those issues for progressives - though I do say Endless War jeopradizes entitlements

http://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/153169132471328768

Greenwald does exactly this: Hype Ron Paul based on soundbites. One can find any number of clips or writings contradicting these soundbites, as with the anti-war claim. You're opposed to the death penalty, but would let people die without health care?

Let's look at the numbers: There were less than 80 executions in the U.S. last year, the lowest in 40 years. Tens of thousand of people die each year without health care

Greenwald doesn't for a second consider that Paul's positions are propaganda.

"Endless War jeopradizes entitlements"?

What the hell does that mean? You know what jeopardizes "entitlements": getting rid of them and believing they're unconstitutional.

Is slavery an entitlement program?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100294914

Debunking the "Ron Paul Cares About Civil Liberties" Myth

Last week Glenn Greenwald won the Dumbest Tweet of the Week award with this beauty, about Ron Paul:



<...>

http://angryblacklady.com/2011/12/28/debunking-the-ron-paul-cares-about-civil-liberties-myth/

Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022485711

Disappointing those who 'stand with Rand'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022742805

It's Greenwald Day!!!!






http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024931733

[MannyGoldstein]

3. $10 if you produce a Greenwald endorsement of Paul

as the best candidate for any office.

[ProSense]

4. "the best candidate for any office."

But what makes the media most eager to disappear Paul is that he destroys the easy, conventional narrative — for slothful media figures and for Democratic loyalists alike. Aside from the truly disappeared former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (more on him in a moment), Ron Paul is far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party. How can the conventional narrative of extremist/nationalistic/corporatist/racist/warmongering GOP v. the progressive/peaceful/anti-corporate/poor-and-minority-defending Democratic Party be reconciled with the fact that a candidate with those positions just virtually tied for first place among GOP base voters in Iowa? Not easily, and Paul is thus disappeared from existence. That the similarly anti-war, pro-civil-liberties, anti-drug-war Gary Johnson is not even allowed in media debates — despite being a twice-elected popular governor — highlights the same dynamic.

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/16/elections_9/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024931733#post164

The OP commentary is a trip. It's Greenwald moving from his election speculation FAIL to his Social Security speculation fail. IOW, he wasn't defending it, he was using it as part of his anti-Obama talking points. Greenwald:

STEP SIX: Once the deal is enacted with bipartisan support and Obama signs it in a ceremony, standing in front of his new Treasury Secretary, the supreme corporatist Erskine Bowles, where he touts the virtues of bipartisanship and making "tough choices", any progressives still complaining will be told that it is time to move on. Any who do not will be constantly reminded that there is an Extremely Important Election coming – the 2014 midterm – where it will be Absolutely Vital that Democrats hold onto the Senate and that they take over the House. Any progressive, still infuriated by cuts to social security and Medicare, who still refuses to get meekly in line behind the Party will be told that they are jeopardizing the Party's chances for winning that Vital Election and – as a result of their opposition - are helping Mitch McConnell take over control of the Senate and John Boehner retain control of the House.

FAIL LOL!

h/t Cha and Tarheel_Dem

[Cali_Democrat]

5. Greenwald was certainly concern trolling in that video

Epic fucking fail.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Fail. No ten bucks for you. nt

[ProSense]

7. Never wanted it, and the denial was expected.

Greenwald FAIL.

[sheshe2]

8. You got that right!

Manny doesn't want facts De Nile De Nile. And Greenwald fails once again.

thanks PS.

[ProSense]

9. The comments at

the second link in the OP are hilarious.

Comment:

Why do you care, Mr. Greenwald? You did EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to discourage the left from voting for him in your articles leading up the the vote. I am sorry if you are unhappy the right wing did not score a victory. That certainly was your goal in such a tight election. Tougher to write nasty articles on someone half your readers care about, versus getting someone elected who could easily start another war, forget about ending another one. You could have has a president who opened up the western parks and forests to the control of their local state governors, who would have sent in the drilling and clear cutting crews. Then you could have double up on your high horse prose.

Greenwald's response:

That certainly was your goal in such a tight election.

You should take your mind-reading abilities on the road - you could make a lot of money performing with it a cricuses and carnivals.

Tougher to write nasty articles on someone half your readers care about, versus getting someone elected who could easily start another war, forget about ending another one.

Yeah - Obama would never start wars - he hates bombing and killing people.

If you don't like someone criticizing your Beloved Leader, you could always move to North Korea.

[sheshe2]

11. Oh noos! Greenwald haz a sad.

Now where have I heard this before?

If you don't like someone criticizing your Beloved Leader, you could always.....

Your Beloved leader....

[Whisp]

16. He sure isn't the genious some think he is. Nor the wordsmith.

That was as pathetic a response as an angry 9 year old with a runny nose.

[sheshe2]

18. The petulant child...

Oh nooos~

[Number23]

29. "If you don't like someone criticizing your Beloved Leader, you could always move to North Korea."

Is there an echo in here???

[sheshe2]

42. Wait What?! An echo!?

Yes, yes there is! Holy S..........................!

[billhicks76]

26. Nope

I've watched this ganging up by the same tandems on anyone defending GG or Snowden. My opinion? It's vile, uninformed and deceptive. But keep trying.

[sheshe2]

45. So the ganging up on posts that support ...

Women/ President Obama / AA/ LGBT/ White Privilege is okay with you? Cause I've watched this ganging up by the same tandems every single time. My opinion? It's vile uninformed and deceptive. But keep trying.

Hey Bill you are crying out for the support and defense of two men. GG and ES. They are not the patriots that you seem to believe.

What's vile, where is your support of the issues I stated above.

[billhicks76]

48. You Are Making Up Lies Now

As any skilled disrupter does. I support all the issues you stated but please don't use them as camouflage for establishment talking points regarding surveillance. FOX News takes your position on Snowden and Greenwald...I do not. I don't know a single person for white privilege, who is against LGBT etc. But I also don't know anyone who supports NSA or the Drug War anymore and are personally offended by all those getting rich off spying on Americans, locking them up and wars abroad. Please don't ever suggest because I support Snowden that I must be against all our core issues.

[sheshe2]

55. Look, it's late here and I am tired...

Yet I have no clue what you just posted. Well ya I got

"You Are Making Up Lies Now As any skilled disrupter does."

The rest is ...word salad...

"I supplier tall the issues you stated but please don't use them as camouflage for establishment talking points regarding surveillance. FOX News takes your position on Snowden and Greenwald...I do not. I don't know a single person for white privilege, who is against LGBT etc. But I also don't know anyone who supports NSA or the Drug War anymore and are personally offended by all those getting rich off spying on Americans, locking them up and wars abroad.

What the hell does this mean!?!

[billhicks76]

57. Spelling Corrected

.

[sheshe2]

63. Thank you so much for correcting your spelling.

In a way it makes it easier to understand.

However first of all I am not a Fox News Viewer. So I for one would not know what positions they take on anything. I only have seen the jokes about them.

As for your ...

"I don't know a single person for white privilege, who is against LGBT etc.

What does white privileged have to do with LGBT rights!? What are you saying here?

And this...

But I also don't know anyone who supports NSA or the Drug War anymore and are personally offended by all those getting rich off spying on Americans, locking them up and wars abroad.

Well I don't support NSA, Nor do I support GG or ES. They are not patriots. GG does it for money. Eddie he just took off and seems to have sold his soul. What that has to do with the drug wars, or are you talking about supporting legalization of pot? Or is it the pipeline to prison that AA boys are subject to. And to toss into your word salad..wars abroad? What wars, Bushes?

[kfreed]

237. Clue: Australian Wikileaks Party (Assange) preferences fascists, mens righters, and gun humpers...

Here's another clue as to what Libertarian Paulbots Greenwald and Assange are up to: http://ausopinion.com/2013/08/18/the-wikileaks-party-lurches-to-the-right-preferences-fascists-mens-righters-and-gun-lovers-above-the-greens/

And Glenn Greenwald's "principled" BFF, Ron Paul:

"As James Kirchick reports in The Daily Beast, the institute’s board is stocked with all manner of 9/11 truthers, supporters of authoritarian regimes, anti-Semites, neo-Confederates, and more. Among others, Paul’s associates now include:..."
http://www.nationalmemo.com/ron-pauls-nutty-think-tank-presents-a-problem-for-his-son/

Ron Paul fanster, Snowden's anti-Social Security tirade:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/would-you-feel-differently-about-snowden-greenwald-and-assange-if-you-knew-what-the

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/would-you-feel-differently-about-snowden-greenwald-and-assange-if-you-knew-what-the

As to attacking the "messenger"... we said Greenwald was full of it for a reason (he's been trying to pin the crimes of Bush on President Obama):

"Board says spying measures are 'reasonable' and within constitutional limits" http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/1.2693735

[kfreed]

236. Hmm... actual progressives outing Libertarian Glenn Greenwald. Yeah.

[MADem]

46. You're owed ten bucks. JMO and I'm stickin' to it! nt

[Whisp]

14. You lost, Manny!

The evidence is strewn all over the internet on the fact that Greenwald is a Ron Paul freaking Libertarian.

Greenwald spews his Ron Paul garbage, retracts when caught, makes irrelevant, excuses as ignorance, rejects time and space continuums when handy, and even laughs at jokes about Obama raping nuns -- and IT'S OUT THERE ON RECORD.

He said what he said, he is what he is.

[sheshe2]

22. Snort~

[grasswire]

28. why does Rachel Maddow say he's on the left, then?

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow called Greenwald "the American Left’s most fearless political commentator". Filmmaker Michael Moore said: "The first thing I do when I turn on the computer in the morning is go to Glenn Greenwald’s blog to see what he said. He is truly one of our greatest writers right now." And Bill Moyers described him as "the most important voice to have entered the political discourse in years."

All Libertarians, I guess?

[Whisp]

32. GG does appear to be fearless. And he's also a Ron Paul loving Libertarian.

I mean, you'd have to be fearless to say some of the vile shit he does.

As for Moore's and Moyers comments, they're entitled to their opinion. They have their reasons to say these things and I don't have to hate them because of that because most of their body of work is on the good side of the balance sheet.

[grasswire]

39. very revealing nt

[eridani]

53. Give me an example of a Libertarian who is against cutting Social Security

If you say "Greenwald," then that's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

[msanthrope]

93. Let's not forget the Three Libertarians tour he took.with Bruce Fein right before

the 2012 election. Libertarian-funded and controlled.

Nor the white paper he wrote for CATO, nor thr fact that he toured on behalf of CATO, or was part of the donor benefits.

[grasswire]

158. Bruce Fein was acting as counsel at that time.

He may have been hired by Snowden's father, IIRC. But he was not there as a political allly. He was there as an attorney.

[msanthrope]

159. In 2012? Who the frak was Fein representing in 2012? nt

[kfreed]

238. Because they are mistaken, having taken him at face value...

Like a whole lot of others on the so-called professional left who rarely bother to investigate the doings of Libertarians and apparently because Glenn Greenwald once wrote a book: http://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/glenn-greenwald

And because gullible. "Independent and Principled? Behind the Cato Myth:

The battle between the Cato Institute and the Koch brothers for control over the conservative think tank has further entrenched the risible notion that the group regularly defies the Republican party line"

http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth

Why real progressives keep telling you all to stop schmoozing with Libertarians:

"Found: Libertarians 'Lying to Liberals' Guide Book"
http://www.revleft.com/vb/found-libertarians-lying-t184312/index.html?t=184312

Libertarians (like Greenwald, Snowden, and Assange) are not our pals nor are they interested in preserving civil liberties:

"The Wikileaks Party Lurches To The Right: Preferences Fascists, Mens-righters and Gun-lovers above the Greens"
http://ausopinion.com/2013/08/18/the-wikileaks-party-lurches-to-the-right-preferences-fascists-mens-righters-and-gun-lovers-above-the-greens/

I would be nice if lefties stopped being tools: http://pando.com/2014/07/18/homophobia-racism-and-the-kochs-san-franciscos-tech-libertarian-reboot-conference-is-a-cesspool/

[MannyGoldstein]

68. I think that post is filled with lies

Let's start with "laughs at jokes about Obama raping nuns". I don't think that happened. Prove it.

[aimeemb24]

241. Here's your proof:

It's quite Googable but I included a link for you from The Grio to make it easy.

http://thegrio.com/2012/01/02/glenn-greenwald-defends-obama-could-rape-a-nun-attack/

[The Magistrate]

242. Damn, Ma'am: I Knew The Fella Had Problems, But What Is At that Link Is Way Over The Top

http://thegrio.com/2012/01/02/glenn-greenwald-defends-obama-could-rape-a-nun-attack/

[MannyGoldstein]

243. I don't see anything about Greenwald laughing at a joke about Obama raping a nun

Greenwald's analogy wasn't brilliant - it was actually pretty dumb, in my opinion - but it was a much different thing than laughing at a joke about Obama raping nuns.

Given that Rachel Maddow, Michael Moore, and Bill Moyers all feel that Greenwald is one of the most important Liberal voices on the planet, I feel that I'm in good company in believing that Greenwald is, in fact, a Liberal.

[SidDithers]

76. They just love Greenwald over at The Daily Paul...

They claim him as one of their own.

Sid

[MADem]

173. I found it rich that Greenwald trashed Sen. Warren during her tough campaign against Scott Brown.

Of course, once you connect the dots, it makes sense:

Greenwald got his money from the CATO Institute--he was on a stipend while he prepared that Drugs in Portugal "paper," and he was given fees to appear at lectures and fundraising parties.

Who funds the libertarian Cato Institute?

Why the Koch boys, that's who!

And who was funding Scott Brown's reelection campaign in a big, big way? The KOCH boys, that's who!

They sent out their little attack dog to "attack from the left" and he did their bidding.

Shame on GG. It didn't work, though, now, did it? But he did what his master told him:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/194950895761502208



Glenn Greenwald Verified account
‏@ggreenwald
Hopefully, Elizabeth Warren will re-consider her careless and rather extreme campaign positions on Iran: http://is.gd/M1WiOG


See Nude Boy--Warren's opponent, who eventually LOST his bid for reelection (and now he's trying his luck in NH) --begging David Koch for some scratch to battle EW:

So...yeah. Follow the money!!!!! Who's the nexus there, between Greenwald and Scott Brown? Koch ... and his billions!

[MannyGoldstein]

178. "Trashed" Sen. Warren?

One slightly-hyperbolic tweet that's consistent with everything else he's said in the last decade about starting wars, and that counts as trashing her?

Wow.

[MADem]

179. Manny, GG and Scott Brown have one thing in common.

And that one thing is David Koch.

Follow the money.

[kfreed]

239. The Pattern: Greenwald also attacked "neocon" Hillary Clinton

When the neocons beating the drums for war actually reside on the right side of the aisle, but never mind your own eyes and ears, listen to Kochbot Libertarian Glenn Greenwald, he's an equal opportunity ratophile:

"Glenn Greenwald Bashes 'Neocon' Hillary Clinton, 'Americans love to mock the idea of monarchy, and yet we have our own de facto monarchy.'”
http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2014/05/glenn-greenwald-bashes-neocon-hillary-clinton-americans-love-to-mock-the-idea-of-monarchy-and-yet-we-have-our-own-de-facto-monarchy/


Meanwhile, Greenwald gets in bed with the architects of the 'War on Terror': http://www.futureofpando.com/2014/04/17/uh-huh/


Funny how some of us have a memory as to who exactly was behind the Patriot Act (Koch Cato minions) http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth

[uponit7771]

121. Proof of Greenwald Produced...

[Luminous Animal]

13. Apparently, the man doesn't get to define himself when DU's clairvoyances' are on the hunt!Tally ho!

[grasswire]

15. Carnac the Magnificent

The envelope please.

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. It's even worse than that.

You have to hand it to him, he don't hang out with poor folk.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Stay tuned... more to come! nt

[Whisp]

23. Pierre, Pierre, the Billionaire:

Pierre Omidyar is a Punahou school alumnus who holds a bachelor's degree in computer science. He is also the multibillionaire philanthropist behind Hawaii-based Civil Beat, a Right-Libertarian, pro-business, pay-walled media website that focuses its critique on the shortcomings of democratic governance and the public sector. Omidyar's Civil Beat offers analysis which seems to exist in a strange land without class conflict, where the ruling-class and the working-class struggle shoulder to shoulder against the forces corrupting liberal democracy. As a result, the editorial slant is marked by a distinct disconnect from the every-day lives of non-billionaire philanthropists, those who don't stand to gain from the schemes of Omidyar, the "classless angel."

--

One of Omidyar's "value creating" projects has been to invest heavily in the micro-loan industry, through groups like Kiva which allows investors to profit off of loans to the poor, especially in impoverished regions of India. The ideology behind this business venture saw free markets magically lifting all boats where government funding did not. The actual results were often financial collapse, leaving the borrowers prey to lenders demanding repayment. "It is tough to find a household in this village in an impoverished district of Andhra Pradesh that is not deeply in debt to a for-profit microfinance company."

https://libcom.org/library/pierre-omidyar-giving-until-it-hurts

Hawaii, eh? Sounds like an asshole too. A friggin parasite. What are the chances that this group of Omidyar, Snowden, GG, Poitras, Assange are all Libertarians. JUST COINCIDENCE!

[Tarheel_Dem]

70. Damn good find Whisp. Lot of egg on quite a few faces. Anonymous, Sibel Edmonds,

and some other transparency groups have a HUGE problem with this "association".

[MADem]

194. But..... but...... but......!!!

GG doesn't LIKE those Libertarians....he just takes, ya know, PAYCHECKS from them!!!!!!

[Jim Lane]

172. The statement that Ron Paul was an anti-war candidate was, in fact, accurate.

On the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, taken up by the Congress in October of 2002, Representative Ron Paul voted Nay.

I believe that a Ron Paul Presidency would have been an absolute disaster for the United States. That conclusion doesn't force me to deny the objective fact that he voted against a foolish imperialistic war. Subjectively, that vote reasonably supports the description of him as anti-war.

The OP reports, accurately AFAIK, that Greenwald supports Social Security and Medicare. Your attempt at response is to say that Greenwald made a factually accurate statement about the foreign policy views of a legislator who does not support Social Security and Medicare. You have hit the Latinate Any2 with a post that's both a non sequitur and an ad hominem.

I choose not to repeat this exercise for the other statements Greenwald made about Paul, inasmuch as they are equally irrelevant to the thread topic of Greenwald's attitude toward Social Security and Medicare.

Incidentally, if you would like me to match your ad hominem with an ad feminam, I'll note that, over in the Senate, a certain former Goldwater Girl representing a populous Eastern state voted Yea on that resolution. Maybe you should be going after her numerous supporters on DU. By comparison, the chance that Glenn Greenwald will seek the Democratic nomination in 2016 may safely be regarded as minimal.

[JEB]

10. Greenwald does a lot of solid reporting.

We would all be the poorer without his voice. And Rand Paul is an insipid, spoiled brat and the old man is pretty looney sometimes as well. But even a dead clock is right twice a day.

[DeSwiss]

12. Manny, you sure he's not just another one of those ''fake liberals?''

Because I hear they're everywhere now. You can't trust ANYBODY!!! They say that we've been infiltrated with 'em and once they get in -- they're like cooties.

- They never go away!

K&R

Here's some more TRUTH:

[Maedhros]

17. Those who claim Greenwald is a Libertarian are clueless fools.

Clueless, because they are clearly, demonstrably ignorant of the body of Greenwald's work.

Fools, because they are obviously parroting an argument made by others who are equally as clueless.

[ProSense]

19. Ron Paul distortions and smears

"Those who claim Greenwald is a Libertarian are clueless fools."

Maybe that label applies to those trying to pass Greenwald off as anything but.

Ron Paul distortions and smears
http://www.salon.com/2007/11/12/paul_3/

[grasswire]

31. Rachel Maddow is a clueless fool?

Bill Moyers?

Michael Moore?

[Enthusiast]

61. +1 a whole fucking bunch.

[uponit7771]

124. Nope, they have their opinion and their conclusions on the racist bastard is wrong

[AgingAmerican]

38. They are trying to change the subject

They don't want to address the issue, so they attack the messenger.

"Attacking the messenger" is a subdivision of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

A logical fallacy is an a misleading or logically unsound argument.

[Bobbie Jo]

151. Sorry, your "messenger" has issues

Credibility being at the top of the list.

[AgingAmerican]

152. You are attacking the messenger

Your argument is logically unsound and thus fallacious.

[Bobbie Jo]

156. Horse shit

Pick better messengers, this one has credibility issues.


Take your wiki on down the road and win the day with someone who finds this repetitive nonsense insightful.

[AgingAmerican]

157. More of the same

nt

[MannyGoldstein]

71. Or they're being purposefully deceptive.

Hopefully not, but since contrary evidence has been presented for a year, at this point..l

[zeemike]

24. It is amazing how quickly they pounce on you

With long cut and paste posts...do you give them a heads up or have they hacked your computer and watch you post?

[billhicks76]

30. Stalking

Looks like Manny is being followed closely. These folks who are obsessed with libertarians or Ron Paul seem to prefer a place like Putins Russia. No thanks. To those who fight for civil rights and freedom from oppressors keep it up and don't let the propagandists keep you down. I've been around a long time and these types have always been around. Just because they've been given a keyboard doesn't mean much in the real world. Fight for what's right.

[Whisp]

34. good lordies!

whew!

lolz

[fascisthunter]

43. Not really... it gets old

[fascisthunter]

49. You are being Politically Correct to Stay on DU

They are full of shit! Ron Paul is a major distraction and an attempt to get people banned. It's obvious and shouldn't be tolerated. It's obvious.

[billhicks76]

52. I Agree

I don't fall for the Ron Paul trap. These folks remind me of Joe Lieberman. We all saw what a rat he turned out to be. We should all label them Joe Lieberman supporters.

[fascisthunter]

56. It's all Bullshit! When you take time off especially

and come back to see the same tactics, you know it's coordinated somehow, and it's bullshit. And yes, it should NOT be tolerated but it is! So no, DU is not a liberal or progressive site even though the site claims to follow the party itself, which will say it is so. They are Third Way corporatist molding the party under the guise of "progressivism" or "liberalism", but they are not!

[billhicks76]

58. Commondreams.org

A much more progressive site. I'm sure when they get more comments activity the troops will be sent in.

[fascisthunter]

59. Maybe, but it doesn't solve the Problem Here

But thanks for the link... I'm tired of the bullshit, and hope there is another competitor out there. Some site that truly stands for Progressive and liberal ideals. Hell., why not even socialist ideals! This place has become a breeding ground for corporatist right wing thinking. Good luck!

[reddread]

73. long string of site disruptions, takeovers, shut downs when things get too liberal elsewhere

Gut feeling says to me right wing whacko sites dont get the same treatment.
Media Whores Online was too dangerous to the process.
only the beginning.

[bobduca]

75. somehow coordinated

tolerated, nay encouraged... to move overton rightward.

[MADem]

175. The one who visits "Putin's Russia" on a regular basis is Greenwald.

He was there visiting the guy from whom he received his "for profit" NSA secrets quite recently, in fact.

I think your facts are out of order. The Libertarians are visiting/living in "Putin's Russia."

[billhicks76]

190. Lol

The Great Libertarian Scare Of 2014.

[MADem]

191. Not going for a "scare." But that's just simple fact. nt

[ProSense]

36. Well,

"With long cut and paste posts...do you give them a heads up or have they hacked your computer and watch you post?"

...it's really hard work finding and reposting stuff.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100277632

I mean, would you like people with opposing views to give the thread say 30 minutes before responding? LOL!

[Capt. Obvious]

66. This thread is amazingly short to me

It's awesome.

[sheshe2]

25. Wow!

This just part 1!

OMG!

How many parts will we see, I need more popcorn! Holy Moly! I need to stock up!

[Whisp]

27. I don't really want to see Manny parts, do you?

[sheshe2]

33. Whisp!

It's late here. Stop making me laugh! Stop it now!

[fascisthunter]

50. Durrrrrr

5th grade. Oooops. But tolerated on DU, so it's ok.

[Cha]

62. Seems they're admitting they're ashamed of GG being a libertarian, she..

Trying to rebrand him as anything but..

Libertarians are poisoning the left and trying to undermine it.

Libertarians are posing as liberals and trying to RATFUCK the left.Their primary goal is to undermine the Democratic Party and hand elections to Republicans.Their strategy consists of...
1) ingratiating themselves with the progressive media
2) Pushing the meme that Democrats are just as bad (or worse) then Republicans
3) Dismissing Racism as "identity politics"
4) Promoting far right wing politicians as "true progressives"
5 convincing disgruntled progressives to vote 3rd party or not vote at all
6) Attack traditional Democratic Voters & their issues

snips//

At a talk given the day after the 2010 election — one that was a disaster for Democrats — “progressive” writer and civil liberties lawyer Glenn Greenwald gave a talk at the University of Wisconsin, and expressed the hope that Democrats might suffer the same fate in 2012.

...the idea that taking money from the Koch brothers for a one-year drug-decriminalization project shouldn’t be disclosed each time Greenwald attacks progressives while defending the Kochs’/libertarians’ pet projects—as when Greenwald defended Citizens United, much to progressives’ confusion, or when Greenwald attacked our article in The Nation about the Koch-funded libertarians leading the anti-TSA union campaign—is plain wrong and ridiculous. Payoffs and influence-peddling usually come in more subtle forms than payments marked “BRIBE.”

dkos

Glenn Greenwald Unethically Taped Witnesses While Working for Matt Hale, White Supremacist.

snip..

"Mr. Hale, for his role in the shootings, was sued by a number of survivors. This included a case filed by two teenage Orthodox Jewish boys. And another case filed by a Black minister. These people were selected by Benjamin Smith because they looked like the religious/ethnic minorities they are.

And Glenn Greenwald called them 'odious and repugnant' for suing his client--"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

Only it's Greenwald who is "odious and repugnant".. whatever he's posing as.. here he is now trying to keep himself relevant and suppressing the vote in 2012.. when he "expertly previewed the 2012 election"..

[sheshe2]

64. Seems to be true indeed.

The supporters have to keep evolving and yes re-branding themselves as their hero's change their language.

Amazing Cha. Great post. Thanks.

[MannyGoldstein]

72. I'm not ashamed that Greenwald's a Libertarian, nor that I am a Nazi

Because neither is true.

[MADem]

174. I think one of them is. And I'm not throwing any Godwin at you when I say that, either.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/194950895761502208

You don't get much more libertarian than this:

http://wonkette.com/548653/youll-never-believe-which-inhuman-monster-doesnt-care-to-find-nigerian-schoolgirls-its-glenn-greenwald

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/05/quote-of-the-day-greenwald-says-supporting-the-effort-to-find-270-kidnapped-nigerian-girls-is-horrifying/

He's just not well regarded. He loses cachet with each and every passing day. He's a "for profit" journalist who works for rich guys like Koch and Omidyar.

His 'act' is getting stale:

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/12/glenn-greenwald-vs-mark-ames-on-the-privatization-of-the-edward-snowden-leaks/

[MannyGoldstein]

176. I guess Rachel Maddow, Bill Moyers, and Michael Moore are chumps

Like me, they think that Greenwald is a screaming Liberal and one of the most important truth-tellers of our time.

[MADem]

182. Two of the three on your list (at least) aren't even Democrats.

Do you always let talking heads tell you what to think, Manny?

[elias49]

187. When they're more informed than me, I listen.

Don't you?

[MADem]

193. And when they aren't--like in this case--perhaps you shouldn't waste your time.

I'd also advise you to check that claim yourself, personally, just to make sure there's no overstatement happening.

You can do what you'd like, though.

[elias49]

196. You are seriously full of yourself!

I'd love to hear a little about your creds/education.

[MADem]

197. No I'm not. You're just angry because I don't see things the way you do.

That's why you're refocusing your conversational efforts towards me (in a disparaging fashion, too, I might add) instead of sticking to the topic.

This happens on message boards. People disagree. You shouldn't take it personally and you shouldn't lower yourself to lobbing petty insults.

Why would a recitation of my degrees or life and work experience make a difference to you? Do you "like" people more as a consequence of their educational and professional credentials? Is a Harvard degree better or worse than an Oxford one? How about someone who has both? Do they get bonus points? Is working in government a plus or a minus?

I can see not wanting to take medical advice over the internet from just any old bozo, but I'm not playing a doctor, here.

I'll take a good idea from someone with a fourth grade education, over someone like W with a Harvard Business School sheepskin...but that's just me. It's the quality of the argument that compels me, not where the debater went to college or graduate school.

[elias49]

200. 'nuf said.

[MannyGoldstein]

189. Um... One of us has a reading comprehension issue.

I'm having trouble finding the part where I said that I believe anything because of those three - I just said we all believe the same thing.

So do you think those three just hate Obama? Or they're not Liberals? Or they're fooled by Greenwald? Or do they claim Greenwald's a screaming Liberal for some other reason?

[MADem]

192. Then why did you even bring them up? Hmmmm?

You threw out the names of three niche media personalities like I'm supposed to be impressed that they're on "your" libertarian team.

I'm not.

I don't care what they think. Your trying to suggest that you have to be right, because these people I don't particularly care about or follow share your view. You're making an argument based on cheesy cable media "fame." Tsk, tsk!

I'd say you have a "cogent argument" issue.

[MannyGoldstein]

198. Well, I think we agree on one thing:

Your logic is as impeccable as your reading comprehension.

[MADem]

199. Ah, Manny gets personal. Surprise, surprise!

I notice that you do that when you don't have a respectable argument.

That kind of behavior says more about you than perhaps you intend to reveal.

Not your finest hour, yet again.

[MannyGoldstein]

201. So you don't agree with that statement?

Sheesh.

[MADem]

203. Manny, you can toss not-so-clever insults all day if you'd like.

At the end of it, they say way more about you than you realize, and what they say doesn't acquit you well at all.

[AgingAmerican]

35. you'd think the OP was about them

...the way they are reacting to it.

[villager]

40. They think everything's about them. Seems to be part of the cult/fusion thing

...that has them vociferously defending the shredding of their own rights...

[grasswire]

160. heh nt

[billhicks76]

37. Just Had A Great Idea!

I'm going to sign up at Politico and FOX, create a Jeb Bush avatar and attack people who don't support weakening environmental laws. I'll be against Obamacare, I'll act like I'm against gay marriage, I'll defend the .01%, I'll support the NSA and I'll oppose food stamps so they all know I'm one of them. BUT I'll comment prolifically at every turn attacking environmental laws. Even when there are catastrophes and everyone seems to want to protect their air and water even on conservative sites I will sow the seeds of doubt and make my mission going after this one issue so I can have an effect. No one will ever see what I'm doing. Maybe I can get a friend to help too.

[fascisthunter]

41. Funny how the bullshit defense here against what you are saying....

...is allowed(free speech my ass). This is a controlled web site. Even if it is serial. It's why I don't come here anymore... you are one poster I hope to meet one day, just so I can shake your hand(we live close by), but this site, has become a haven for paid propagandists by both democrats and republicans(ooops, shouldn't have stated the truth). The kind that wants to mold the democratic Party itself to become more corporate, more right wing in fact. It's obvious and pathetic because it will hurt the democratic party as a whole in the end. Good on those of you who fight the true fight for real democracy, truth and liberty.

[billhicks76]

44. Weapons Of Mass Distraction

Come back. I don't get paid lol. I'm on your side for sure as are most people I know.

[fascisthunter]

47. Well, I'll try

I'm just sick of the bullshit.

[billhicks76]

51. Today a guess What These Frauds Suggested?

They suggested that people like me and me personally must not support gay rights and are racist for defending Snowden. If that doesn't sound like someone who doesn't know what these issues are then I don't know what is. They sound like Republicans trying to sound liberal to get in with liberals to have credibility bashing Whistleblowers. I've been on the front lines defending equality...in the streets and in the halls and I've never been this disgusted with a topic before. I can guarantee you I never had anyone like these tricksters fighting beside me. Maybe a couple narcs that's got outed later but never real activists. They just don't talk or think like that.

[fascisthunter]

54. No, It sounds like a good Defense to get that Fucker Banned

You want this site to be liberal or progressive or even honest?! Then put them through the same scrutiny they do you! PM me if you feel like it.

[kfreed]

240. Let's scrutinize: "THE RIGHT HAND OF OCCUPY WALL STREET: FROM LIBERTARIANS TO NAZIS..."

Political Research Associates:

"THE RIGHT HAND OF OCCUPY WALL STREET: FROM LIBERTARIANS TO NAZIS, THE FACT AND FICTION OF RIGHT-WING INVOLVEMENT"
http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/02/23/the-right-hand-of-occupy-wall-street-from-libertarians-to-nazis-the-fact-and-fiction-of-right-wing-involvement/#

Will the left ever learn?

P.S. "The Wikileaks Party Lurches To The Right: Preferences Fascists, Mens-righters and Gun-lovers above the Greens"
http://ausopinion.com/2013/08/18/the-wikileaks-party-lurches-to-the-right-preferences-fascists-mens-righters-and-gun-lovers-above-the-greens/

[Enthusiast]

60. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

[JoeyT]

65. The sure fire sign of a libertarian

is support for privatizing a bunch of shit that was previously public like education, and support for free trade. If Greenwald supports those, chances are pretty good he's a libertarian.

I wonder where we could find other people that support those kind of things.

[bobduca]

74. http://www.ed.gov/

[Maedhros]

142. I have been reading Greenwald since the Bush years.

He's never written in favor of privatizing schools or free trade agreements such as NAFTA, GATT or the TPP.

[Mnpaul]

165. They don't want to talk about those libertarian policies

for some reason.

[Capt. Obvious]

67. This rec's for you

[woo me with science]

69. Smear and distract, smear and distract.

Last edited Thu Jun 5, 2014, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

It really is all they have.

Thank you for exposing the lies.

[ucrdem]

77. Yes, "entitlement" sounds EXACTLY like a Cato Libertarian.

And yes, Greenwald uses the word in his rant:

That's the language of the "grand bargain": very modest tax increases on the rich in exchange for cuts to entitlement programs.

Doesn't matter that Wapo uses it too. Social Security is not an "entitlement;" it's a self-funded retirement insurance program administered by the USG. Trust a CATO man to call it that. Greenwald is basically reaching for any stick he can find to beat the President with on the night of his reelection in a typical display of nasty, mean-spirited and inaccurate ODS.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. That word you keep using

Does not mean what you think it does.

This is what entitlement program means. It has meant that since social security was created by the way.

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-an-entitlement-program.htm

[ucrdem]

80. Read your link. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. I have my dear

It was a bad choice 70 years ago

We should ask Emmett till to help


But until then...the term was used for that long. Time you recapture the language. Because it was designed as an entitlement program it was also created as an insurance program

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n1/v66n1p1.html

I am sure you will tell me the horse also got it wrong. And it was originally in conception a program that originated outside the Democratic Party as well, but was cooped by the party

As I said, you keep using that word...and it is purposeful. Next you will accuse me of being a Cato institute lib...funny shit, it is them who have been at the change of word meaning business for years. Why are you doing their bidding?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

81. Really? The word Entitlement sounds Libertarian to you?

Thanks for the demonstration about how much clue you possess.

Social Security is an entitlement program, period you don't get to throw a little his say fit because you had the deep thought that the word entitlement was somehow a libertarian term. It's not, you're wrong, astoundingly wrong. Correct yourself.

[ucrdem]

83. Yes. SS is an earned benefit.

You are not "entitled" to it if you don't pay into it. In that respect it's different from Medicare and lumping them together under that heading makes SS sound like a welfare program which it is not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Funny how you keep using Cato institute language

[ucrdem]

85. Funny how your message doesn't have a message. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. Because I addressed the issue above

And it is you who is using the definitions from Cato. I must admit, sleek.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

88. It's an entitlement program. It's not up for negotiation.

It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. Social Security is an entitlement program, and is referred to as such by the everyone.

[ucrdem]

90. No it really isn't, except in virtual Pulitzer land. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

97. OK, Ace. Let's make it fun. $200 donation to DU from the loser.

Let's find out how many times each President has used the word Entitlement in relation to Social Security. Let's check other Democratic officials' utterances about entitlements. Let's look up the term entitlement program and see how it's applied. Let's look at how the mainstream press uses the word entitlement. Then let's take all that information and ask an impartial judge to weigh in. I would respectfully request a few minutes of Skinner's or Earl G's, or Elad's time to impartially judge the question. Let's see what they say about whether or not entitlement is a libertarian word. The loser donates $200 to DU, and everyone's a winner.

You seem very certain of your convictions, and I'm sure you'll put your money where your mouth is. Let's do this thing!

[ucrdem]

99. Be my guest but ask your parents for the allowance. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

102. I can cover the cash. Are you in, or aren't you?

[ucrdem]

106. Do what you like. You don't need my permission. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

110. No, I definitely need your permission to get $200 from you for DU.

You can choose to accept the wager, signifying that you stand behind your repeated claim.

You can choose not to accept, indicating something else entirely.

Or you can ignore this or post more snark, indicating the same thing indicated in 2, above.

[ucrdem]

111. Your donation is between you and PayPal. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

113. Option 3 holds sway. Now, do you have what it takes to withdraw your claims?

No, no you don't, but I'll leave this space open if you want to surprise me.

[ucrdem]

116. Sorry, I lost interest about 5 replies ago. Have a great day. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

119. Perfect.

Thank you for the entire display. I'm glad the subthread is right here for all to peruse.

[ieoeja]

126. Entitlement has a legal definition.

A long time ago Rightists started saying, "they think Welfare is an entitlement." The point of that statement was that Welfare was *not* an entitlement, but that "those people" acted like it was.

Somewhere along the line Hate Radio dropped "they think" from that statement. So now people unaware of the true, legal definition of the word believe a false definition of the word. This actually works out great for the Right. They can campaign on "cutting entitlements", and people will vote for them never realizing the person they just voted for promised to cut Social Security.

Words have a legal meaning. And knowing that meaning is important. If they passed a law tomorrow which simply read:

"All entitlement spending will be cut 5% in fiscal year 2015 from their equivalent spending levels for fiscal year 2014."

Social Security would be cut 5%. Medicare would be cut 5%. Welfare would not be cut a single penny.

Because the legal definition of entitlement includes Social Security and Medicare. It excludes Welfare. It doesn't matter what Hate Radio says. It doesn't matter what some idiot journalist writes. It doesn't matter what some politician says, particularly since I imagine 99% of the elected teabaggers don't know the actual meaning of the word! They can say blue cheese from the moon is an entitlement, and it does not change the real, legal definition of the word.

It is important that you understand the real, legal definition of these words. Otherwise, you will end up enabling your enemies.

[ucrdem]

127. It does but Greenwald isn't using its legal definition.

He's using a popular definition which is intended to obscure the actual nature of the Social Security program. That's the short answer, but I appreciate the thought you put into your response!

[muriel_volestrangler]

138. He used it as a compliment: "the crown legislative jewels of American liberalism"

Consider the very first controversial issue Obama is likely to manage, even before the glow of his victory dims, literally within the next couple of weeks. It is widely expected - including by liberals - that Obama intends (again) to pursue a so-called "Grand Bargain" with the GOP: a deficit- and debt-cutting agreement whereby the GOP agrees to some very modest tax increases on the rich in exchange for substantial cuts to entitlement programs such as social security and Medicare, the crown legislative jewels of American liberalism.

[ucrdem]

139. Points for poetry but it's a hack CATO gotcha, period.

Maybe it's a U.S. thing but he's as transparent as glass.

[muriel_volestrangler]

140. You're in a deep hole. Stop digging.

You think that using the word 'entitlement' to describe Social Security is somehow a Bad Thing. Plenty of people have shown you it's not. But you're covering your ears and shouting the old "la-la, I'm not listening". I think the problem is you assume that Republicans get to define words as Good or Bad. They don't. Just because they try to sound as if they're spitting when they say it, it doesn't mean we have to as well.

What's clear from the article is that Greenwald likes the Social Security program, and Medicare, and thought that Obama would negotiate cuts in them. You can argue about how much Obama was bluffing about it, but he did propose using the chained CPI, in 2013. Greenwald's fear had some justification.

[ucrdem]

141. Sorry, all the king's horses etc can't change the obvious. nt

[MADem]

202. He's right. It's one of those dog whistle words.

"What, you think you're 'entitled' to free government money?" is the sense they are trying to convey. The "Shrink the Government " crowd want to get RID of ""entitlements,"" and make those "entitled assholes" have to work until they die. They have successfully equated ANYONE getting a government check, be it welfare, or social security, or any other "safety net" assistance, with being a "moocher," a 47 percenter (to reference rMoney) who is a "taker" and not a "maker." Of course this isn't true, but why let accuracy get in their way while they're disparaging a goodly portion of the population?

And that "crown jewels" remark was not laudatory. That was snark of the first order.

Separated by a common language, I fear, in this instance.

[muriel_volestrangler]

204. You're wrong, if you think Greenwald, or Manny, are in that 'they' you've conjured up

The 'crown jewels' remark is laudatory. We can tell, because Greenwald calls the negotiating away of liberal programs a "depressing ritual". The whole article is about wanting to keep social security and Medicare at decent levels, but expecting them to be negotiated down. He doesn't trust Democratic politicians (by and large - he does like Elizabeth Warren).

Like ucrdem, you are allowing the Republicans to define political language. Just like 'liberal' got demonised, 'entitlement' has been turned into an evil word, and you just let it happen with a shrug.

As far as the 'common language' - he's writing in a British publication, and there's no indication it's snark at all. I think you are letting your prejudices about Greenwald colour your perception. You assume he's a Libertarian (because that has been said endlessly on DU by the anti-Greenwald group), and proceed from there. Try re-reading the article pretending you've never seen the author before. How would you end up categorising them?

Can you point to any time Greenwald has said he wants lower social security or Medicare payments? That he takes any sort of Libertarian line on them?

[MADem]

205. What? I'm not "allowing" anything. I have ears and I can hear.

Over the last three decades and then some, I've heard the sneer when GOP jerkwads use the "entitlements" word like an expletive. This isn't even a topic for debate.

It's like the way they play the game with the word "Democrat." Then, when you call 'em on it, they play the innocent.

Not buying it.

My comments toward you were about the use of the 'entitlement' word, principally.

As for Greenwald, he has NEVER been a fan of Obama, and the tone of his writing reflects that. And the Guardian? It has a US edition--it's not "just" a UK publication. Look at their menu, there's US right up there in massive letters...

[muriel_volestrangler]

206. We have audio from Democracy Now from a week later, so you can literally hear

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/11/14/glenn_greenwald_starting_with_fiscal_cliff

The section in the transcript starts about 36:30 in the audio. He's not using it like an expletive:

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, of course, I mean, Social Security is something that people have paid into their entire lives, not just people who are on the verge of receiving those benefits, but even workers who have been in the workforce for some time.

And what is truly extraordinary about this moment, to me, is that what really defined President Obama’s first term, from a domestic and economic perspective, is that the recovery from the financial crisis was one that was a recovery for the wealthiest in America. Corporate profits boomed. Wall Street and the stock market increased, at the time when the foreclosure crisis continued to worsen. Very little attention was paid to that. Very little has been done about unemployment. And so, the income gap, the rich-poor gap, in the United States is the highest that it’s been in four decades, since 1967. People are still suffering, as President Obama, when he was campaigning and had an interest in saying so, continuously emphasized. And so, now, to approach this crisis by targeting the very few programs left that provide a civilized safety net to the people who need it the most is obscene.

And so, I think that if you see the Democratic Party, whether in the name of principle, as I think President Obama will pursue it, that it’s the right thing to do, or simply even necessity of compromise, which some partisans ultimately will invoke in order to defend it, target those programs, even in minimal ways and symbolic ways—but I think it will be much more than that—I think that would really be an assault on everything that progressives not only claim to believe in, but claim was the primary reason they were for voting for President Obama, which was to protect entitlement programs.

No, he doesn't support Obama. He's on the left of Obama - he doesn't trust him with civil liberties, and he doesn't trust him to keep these programs ("a civilized safety net" that it's "obscene" to target). The point is that he is not 'Libertarian'.

[MADem]

214. He takes paychecks from Koch and Omidyar, and specializes in "from the left" attacks.

How many times has Obama cut social security? How many times do you think he'll cut it before he leaves office?

It's like a Seinfeld episode. A great to-do about nothing. And way too many people eat it up with a spoon.

[muriel_volestrangler]

225. We've had the Koch stuff dealt with already

In this thread? Another of the "We Must All Hate Greenwald" threads? Who knows. Here it is:

I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed by the Cato Institute. Nor have I ever been affiliated with the Cato Institute in any way. The McCarthyite tone of the denials is appropriate given the McCarthyite nature of the lie.

In seven-plus years of political writing, I have written a grand total of twice for Cato: the first was a 2009 report on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, and the second was a 2010 online debate in which I argued against former Bush officials about the evils of the surveillance state.

I not only disclosed those writings but wrote about them and featured them multiple times on my blog as it happened: see here and here as but two examples. In 2008, I spoke at a Cato event on the radicalism and destructiveness of Bush/Cheney executive power theories.That's the grand total of all the work I ever did for or with Cato in my life. The fees for those two papers and that one speech were my standard writing and speaking fees. Those payments are a miniscule, microscopic fraction of my writing and speaking income over the last 7 years. I have done no paying work of any kind with them since that online surveillance debate in 2010 (I spoke three times at Cato for free: once to debate the theme of my 2007 book on the failure of the Bush administration, and twice when I presented my paper advocating drug decriminalization).

I have done far more work for, and received far greater payments from, the ACLU, with which I consulted for two years (see here). I spoke at the Socialism Conference twice - once in 2011 and once in 2012 - and will almost certainly do so again in 2013. I'll speak or write basically anywhere where I can have my ideas heard without any constraints. Moreover, I'll work with almost anyone - the ACLU, Cato or anyone else - to end the evils of the Drug War and the Surveillance State. And I'll criticize anyone I think merits it, as I did quite harshly with the Koch Brothers in 2011: here.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more

So, no, he doesn't "take paychecks from Koch". He has had 2 articles, both on civil liberties, published by Cato. Yes, he is now employed by Omidyar; explain how that makes him a Libertarian, when his political views are clearly not Libertarian. Yes, he makes attacks from the left; that's my whole fucking point - he's not Libertarian.

Obama offered the chained CPI social security; the Republicans were too right wing (and/or dumb, from their point of view) to take it. A huge number of DUers were really worried about it. Are you saying they were all secret Libertarians, 'specializing in attacks from the left'?

[bobduca]

207. A Dog Whistle specially designed to enrage Willfully Ignorant Curs

[MADem]

217. It causes the GOP pack to bark with glee, when used with the right "tone." nt

[bobduca]

218. To deny that there are two meanings of the term is par for the course

Feign ignorance about a term's original meaning, validate republican frames, ignore context, outrage, rinse repeat.

[MADem]

220. I don't think that's the problem, really. We all know the original meaning of the term.

We even know the narrow, limited meaning of the term (the "accountant's definition" if you will).

But anyone who hasn't been in a coma for the last forty years also knows about the Ronald Reagan-Newt Gingrich-Ron Paul-Frank Luntz-Mitt rMoney meaning of the term, as well. The term that is said with a sneer, that implies that that social security you paid into for your whole damn life is somehow "undeserved." That it's on a par with "welfare" or a handout, something that the "hard working people" are giving to the slackers, the 47 percent, the "takers"....and all of the "makers" who do the work are bearing the brunt of the burden.

That's the GOP subtext when they use the word.

[bobduca]

224. So you agree there are two meanings of the term

By claiming there is only one pejorative meaning now, you have validated the Republican frame.
your post title: "the original meaning of the term"

Due to your mind reading ability you know that Greenwald intends to impugn all entitlement programs and actively advocate for their abolishment, right? Despite being shown ample evidence that that is a lie you all carry on. Repetition is the key.

[muriel_volestrangler]

228. But Greenwald is not a GOP supporter, and you've *heard* him say the word

You know he doesn't say it with a sneer, an implication, or a subtext. You know that he thinks the programs are good and necessary. So why are you continuing to pretend that he doesn't like them? Why are you wasting everyone's time?

[AgingAmerican]

149. Unless Obama himself uses the term

...in which case it's Democratic, not Libertarian.

[MADem]

195. Libertarian and Reagan Welfare Queen Republican--it's one of Frank Luntz's favorite digs.

It is a word that is used by people who want to shrink the federal government down to the size of a bathtub.

It has been used as a pejorative for over THIRTY years, for heaven's sake. You need to correct YOUR self, frankly.

You're seriously saying you're not aware of this? Never heard of Frank Luntz? Never saw any of Rove's machinations with regard to phrasing? Never heard Ronald Reagan smirk about "entitlements" as though it were a synonym for "government handout to the lazy?"

http://www.lettingthedataspeak.com/entitlement-the-word-2/

http://www.politicususa.com/2012/08/14/fight-epic-gop-lie-social-security-medicare-entitlements.html

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/02/the-war-over-entitlements/

By referring to programs like Social Security and Medicare as “entitlements,” conservatives were able to evoke notions (and suspicions) of people unworthy of support, guzzling at in the public trough. Just as important, if one could be “entitled” to something, one could arguably be “unentitled.”

[DisgustipatedinCA]

209. I said exactly what I meant to say and I was correct.

Go learn what an entitlement program is. I have neither the time nor the inclination to conduct another remedial training session for someone who wants to play games.

[MADem]

210. And I said exactly what I meant. No games whatsoever.

I'm not inclined to conduct a "remedial training program" on what most of us have seen on the nightly news for the past three or four decades, either. The Republicans deliberately, with mendacious intent, appropriated that term and have changed its meaning. That does happen with the lexicon on occasion, even if you refuse to acknowledge it and pretend it didn't happen.

If you insist upon being willfully obtuse, as well as stunningly and childishly rude, when presented with clear evidence to the contrary, do be my guest.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

211. Do you have the courage of your convictions?

You get the deal offered in post 97. That scared one noisemaker off--let's see what you've got. I'm tired of the games. Get your $200 ready and get back to me. Or go play games with someone else.

[MADem]

212. Ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!! I provided you with three links. I proved what I was saying.

What the hell are you talking about with the two hundred bucks? Do you realize how stupid and childish you sound? What makes you think that "CASH" makes you "right?"

I don't HAVE a spare two hundred bucks to throw around. If I did, I sure as heck wouldn't waste it gambling, even on a sure bet.

I drive a 1986 subcompact and I am very frugal. I support a LOT of people. So why in hell would I, to satisfy your sorry little macho fantasy, take money that could buy groceries for this one, or gasoline for that one, or even pay a cable bill, a vet bill, or a property tax obligation, and use it to place a DUMBASS bet just to make you feel like an internet tough guy with a big fat...wallet?

Are you completely out of touch with reality, that you think you can solve disputes by boasting about how much money you have to waste? Courage of convictions? What HOOEY! What does spending money like a moron have to do with courage?

Talk about "playing games." Look at MEEEEEEE!!! I'm TOUGH!!! I toss THROWDOWN BOASTS!!! I bet you TWO HUNDRED BUCKS!!!!! Two HUNDRED!!!! Do you hear me?? Put up or shut up!!! MONEY!!! TWO HUNDRED!! WAAAAH!!!! MONEY MAKES MEEEEE BETTER!!!!!!

What else can I say, but....

I mean ... really.




You need to do a little growing up--this entire exchange has NOT been your finest hour. I'm not intimidated by your posturing, and I think you are making an ass of yourself. So no--you don't get to try to BUY your way out of an argument. YOU either put up some facts, or shut up--how do you like them apples, Tough Guy?

Money isn't a substitute for discussing issues. Spending money foolishly doesn't impress anyone but a foolish person. But hey, knock yourself out--you win the Internet Tough Guy of the Month Award!!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

213. I NEVER offer a wager unless I'm dead certain.

Let me know if you change your mind and want to be taken seriously. I'll be around.

[MADem]

215. Oh yeah, I'm sure you don't!!!

Thank you for my Laugh of the Day! You are unintentionally hilarious!

Because people who don't bet with the Internet Tough Guy of the Month "aren't taken seriously."

And make no mistake....he'll BE AROUND!!!!!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

216. Your "point" has been thoroughly discredited.

You were smart not to take the bet, but your hubris got you to a bad place. You may wish to think on that.

[MADem]

219. No it hasn't. I provide links and cites---you wave virtual money around.

And you actually think that makes you "right."



Here, some travelling music for you:

[DisgustipatedinCA]

221. No. Being right makes me right.

Of course, I'm talking about one thing and you're trying to twist that into something else. Republicans do attempt to make the word "entitlement" a bad thing, but the word itself is used to describe Social Security and other programs. It always has been used, and it always will be. That was the original argument that got the other poster shamed and running. If you want to argue that point, I'd dearly love to take your money and give it to DU. Take the deal or scurry.

[Autumn]

86. Guess what, Obama uses the word "entitlement" so is the president beating

himself with a stick? Obama has used that word a lot when talking about SS so is it your opinion that Obama sounds EXACTLY like a Cato Libertarian?

Your post is without a doubt the most awesome post I have ever seen.


this just happened to be the first one that popped up.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/entitlement_is_a_republican_word_20110714#

[MannyGoldstein]

87. Bad news: are you sitting down?

President Obama must be a "CATO man", too:

"Now, I am willing to work with anybody who wants to have a serious conversation about our fiscal future. I’ve demonstrated that by putting forward serious reforms to tax and entitlement programs that would bring down our long-term deficits. I have said in the past, and I will continue to say, that I’m willing to make a whole bunch of tough decisions, ones that may not be entirely welcome by my own party."

[ucrdem]

89. Who says he's talking about Social Security there?

Medicare is an entitlement; SS is not.

[Autumn]

91. How about this link ? Please do tell Obama SS is not an entitlement.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/12/928273/-Obama-calls-SS-an-entitlement-and-links-to-deficit

[ucrdem]

92. Doesn't change the meaning of the word. nt

[Autumn]

94. Good grief.

[ucrdem]

95. I feel your smiley. nt

[Autumn]

101. You dug yourself into a hole with that. Obama uses that word about SS

and he is not a Cato Libertarian. That's why so many people here were encouraging we use the word entitlement, because Obama uses it when he talks about SS.

[ucrdem]

104. Yes, entitlement is a CATO meme and Greenwald is a CATO man.

At least we've got that straight.

[Autumn]

107. By your logic that makes Obama a CATO man.

So yeah that's straight, Obama and Greenwald are CATO men.

[ucrdem]

109. The thread is about Greenwald, who is a CATO man, yes. nt

[Autumn]

115. The thread is about Greenwald, who is a CATO man, yes. Your post

Yes, "entitlement" sounds EXACTLY like a Cato Libertarian.

And yes, Greenwald uses the word in his rant:

That's the language of the "grand bargain": very modest tax increases on the rich in exchange for cuts to entitlement programs.


Doesn't matter that Wapo uses it too. Social Security is not an "entitlement;" it's a self-funded retirement insurance program administered by the USG. Trust a CATO man to call it that. Greenwald is basically reaching for any stick he can find to beat the President with on the night of his reelection in a typical display of nasty, mean-spirited and inaccurate ODS.

Obama is beating himself with a stick and sounds EXACTLY like a Cato Libertarian since Obama uses that word.

SS is an entitlement, we are entitled to it, so I have been told

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Every President since FDR has referred to SS

As both insurance and entitlement. Great Scott! FDR was a Cato libertarian before Cato was founded. Quick, call Dr. Emmett Till, we really must warn FDR.

[ucrdem]

114. We're talking about Greenwald and I provided a quotation. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. No my friend

We are talking about a definition. I will be nice...you were not aware of the linguistic games CATO has been playing. But you are still pushing their crap.

Option number two this is quite on purpose.

[Autumn]

117. Now it has been settled. Obama IS a CATO libertarian

"Trust a CATO man to call it that.: see post 77

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. And FDR, which is quite Impressive,

He was a Cato man before Cato was founded.

[Autumn]

122. Very impressive then.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

100. Ucrdem and I are going to settle this question to the benefit of DU

I've issued a $200 challenge to him above so that he can demonstrate the courage of his stated convictions. The money is going to DU. My hope is that Skinner will use it to fund an online dictionary.

[ucrdem]

105. You go right ahead. nt

[Autumn]

108. Try to collect

I don't think you will get it.

[uponit7771]

125. Sophistry, no mention of social security... Most GG support is packed with sophistry

[MannyGoldstein]

128. What else is an "entitlement" and when did Obama offer to cut any of them?

Nah, don't even bother:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5042781

[uponit7771]

150. no mention of social security in that statement no matter what pretzel logic is used...

... it disingenuous to pose that statement as such

[ucrdem]

129. Very much so and incidentally the KOS link is silly.

Using the term in a radio interview is utterly undeterminitve. Obama didn't change the definition but he has to make his meaning clear in as few words as possible to listeners who at this point don't understand the difference. Writing a column is something else altogether.

[bobduca]

78. Kick for the same 5 fucking NSA circle-knee-jerk apologists

aka the morning shift.

[Generic Other]

96. And some of the rest of us have day jobs

in real places besides the internets, so must return later to see what damage has been done while we were gone.

[MineralMan]

130. Who would those be, Mr. duca?

Do tell...

[bobduca]

134. Figure out it, Genius

[MineralMan]

135. No, thanks.

It's easy to call out people if you don't use names, isn't it? Your nameless call-out was easy, but ineffective. Your choice.

[Whisp]

145. o my...

we have tempers rising.

[bobduca]

153. Project much?

cool as a cucumber here...

[Bobbie Jo]

154. Internet tough guys

Don't hafta tell you nothin, pal.

[MineralMan]

155. Damn! I was hoping for a list I could

use as a reference in the future.

[carolinayellowdog]

98. the false equivalency of "Libertarian" and "libertarian" turns the ACLU into Ayn Rand groupies

which is extremely useful to authoritarians trying to throw dust in our eyes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025042494

[MineralMan]

131. Very true. IMO, any post using the word libertarian,

capitalized or not, should include the poster's definition of the term. It has as many definitions as it has people using it. "Libertarian" has become meaningless, through misuse and varying definitions over time and place.

[ucrdem]

133. I think the meaning is clear. The upper case-lower case distinction though

to me seems spurious and basically a distinction without a difference. It's the same toxic principle whether it's expressed in Thames English or with an Appalachian accent.

[Maedhros]

143. It's become an empty pejorative here on DU. [n/t]

[MineralMan]

144. Yes, like many others.

Oh, well...

[Whisp]

146. When I use Libertarian, I mean the Fuck Ron Paul kind. Let it be on record. n/t

[MineralMan]

148. Yes, me too, along with those who praise him and his son.

[Teamster Jeff]

132. K&R

What I'd like to know is why everyone hates Librarians.

😚

[NCTraveler]

136. No matter how many times I am told that it isn't about GG....

It is always brought right back to GG. The obsession about this one individual is amazing. How many parts is this series going to be? If it is as obvious as you say, shouldn't one part be enough. Or is it simply about obsession. Or is someone just wrong on the internet and they need to be scolded and educated.

[grasswire]

161. the fuss validates his importance, I guess

And since I learned last night that Bill Moyers checks Greenwald's twitter feed FIRST every morning, I do so too, now.

Because I trust Bill Moyers more than any other person in the whole world.

[840high]

177. I will, too.

[ucrdem]

180. The first one didn't go so well.

And if anyone bothers to slap down any of tonight's hollow hoo-haw, you can expect this long-dead horse to make a fresh appearance in Part III.

[ucrdem]

183. oops this IS the first one

Hard to tell them apart. . .

[Babel_17]

137. The truth

"My father once told me that respect for the truth comes close to being the basis for all morality. "Something cannot emerge from nothing," he said. This is profound thinking if you understand how unstable "the truth" can be."

[treestar]

147. Obama did not attempt to "cut" anything

Glenn has ODS. Normally he would not be in favor of the existence of any government program.

[bvar22]

162. Aww, Manny. There you go again!

Trying to ruin the Conservative Talking Points
and spoil today's Two Minutes of HATE for the uninformed.


How can they get a good Hate On with you blowing up their BS Talking Points?

*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.

*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.

You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.

[DCBob]

163. Why is it that Greenwald does his defending by criticising Obama and Democrats but not Republicans??

Makes you wonder.. doesn't it.

[MannyGoldstein]

164. What makes me really wonder

is why you believe that.

[rhett o rick]

167. Not in the least. I criticize Democrats more than Republicans because I hold Democrats

to a higher standard. I was not happy when Georgie the Dim-Son Bush took us to war, but it was expected. What really pissed me off was when Democrats, that were supposed to know better, Democrats that were to offset the insanity of the Republicans, when they betrayed me and kissed the Emperor's ass and voted to give him authority to kill 1.5 million innocent Iraqis.

[RufusTFirefly]

166. OMG! Greenwald must be some sort of double agent!

Why else would he have spoken at the annual Socialism conference several times? He's scheduled to speak there again, later this month.

[MannyGoldstein]

168. No doubt to mask his TRUE intentions.

Greenwald sux!!!

[RufusTFirefly]

171. Whoa! I'd love to see Greenwald in a 3-D chess match with the Master!

(And I don't mean Mr. Spock.)

It would be, like, awesome!

[davekriss]

169. Standard tactic against opponents of power

When any of the rascal multitude threaten power the next step is tear them down. Trap them in sexual escapades; accuse them of rape; accuse them of being financially self-interested Libertarians. When that fails, have them commit suicide by shooting two bullets into their head, like Steve Kangas (an early radical pioneer of the internet). Steve's words:

CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins." Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.

The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an "American Holocaust."

It's standard operating procedure. The only difference today is the U.S. has dropped the pretense of proxy.

Available here: www.korpios.org/resurgent/CIAtimeline.html

[scarletwoman]

170. Excellent post. Thank you.

Love the term, "rascal multitude"!

[ucrdem]

181. Opposing cuts that didn't happen. Yeah he's a real true blue.

Why bother to point out Greenwald's hypocrisy for the 1,000th time you ask? Well, to borrow a phrase, "I care because the truth is important."

[neverforget]

184. Yeah why be against cuts when they're floated/proposed? I mean, why fight to stop the cuts?

Then, if you oppose the cuts, you're a no good libertarian!

[ucrdem]

185. Hack CATO gotcha.

That's about the the best I way I can describe it.

[neverforget]

186. Thank you for the deep analysis!

Oppose cuts to Social Security? Libertarian!

[struggle4progress]

188. And let's not forget to thank Greenwald for singlehandedly turning back the invaders from Mars!

Of course, the hero-worshipping authoritarian apologists here always try to pretend there never was any coming Martian invasion, because a Martian invasion threatened to make Obama look bad ...

[MannyGoldstein]

223. My bad, good catch.

Messrs. Simpson and Bowles were from Mars.

Actually...

[bobduca]

208. Smear Merchants are a protected species here

[Capt. Obvious]

222. I think you misspelled

compensated

[Whisp]

227. He should change his name to Glenn Greenbacks. n/t

[bobduca]

231. Herp Derp

Derpety derp.

[ozone_man]

230. He's a left libertarian

not a right libertarian as typified by Ron Paul, who has been associated with the Libertarian party. Both left libertarians and right libertarians have similarities and differences. In general they are both anti-war, against government spying on it's citizens, against corporate fraud, e.g., the too big to fail banks, and other issues. They differ on social programs, healthcare, environmental regulation, corporate welfare, etc.

The first part of this thread seems like an attempt to confuse what is a left libertarian (Glenn Greenwald in this case) with being a Libertarian like Ron Paul, who by the way is one of the few to speak out our military industrial complex, and criminal banking system.

Like Michael Moore, there are many left libertarians who would identify Greenwald as one politically close to their own ideals.

A few left libertarian writers. They may refer to themselves simply as liberals, or socialists.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/libLeftBooks

A few right libertarian writers, not necessarily who would call themselves "big L" Libertarians, as in Libertarian Party, but that judgement can be made from their writings:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/libRightBooks

[kfreed]

232. Glenn Greenwald's "Liberty Tour" with white supremacists

... yep, he's a Koch Libertarian, racism is a by-product of a Koch addiction:

Libertarian Glenn Greenwald's "Liberty Tour" sponsored by "Young Americans for Liberty": http://www.yaliberty.org/tour/fall2012

His cohorts are Hornsberger (a white supremacist) and Bruce Fein (old time GOP sleazebag neocon) and the moderator is Jack Hunter, Rand Paul's "Southern Avenger" - they took their "liberty tour" to universities on the West Coast. Here's the video:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42436_The_Convergence_of_Glenn_Greenwald_and_Rand_Pauls_Southern_Avenger

Let's not forget that the Libertarian triumvirate of Greenwald, Snowden, and Assange - all professed Paultards (the Fraud Pauls also have a long history of white supremacism).

I don't know about anybody else, but I have a real problem with taking "civil liberties" tips from avowed white supremacists.

"Progressive" Glenn Greenwald explains his motivation (video): http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

Which reminds me of this guy: White Supremacist serial killer airs pet peeves at sentencing "Israel, drones, and torture":
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/white-supremacist-defiant-at-sentencing-for-killing-spree

P.S. What Rand Paul is trying to pass off as to young techies: "Homophobia, racism and the Kochs: San Francisco’s tech-libertarian “Reboot” conference is a cesspool"
http://pando.com/2014/07/18/homophobia-racism-and-the-kochs-san-franciscos-tech-libertarian-reboot-conference-is-a-cesspool/

Liberals, step away from the Libertarian sewer.

[kfreed]

233. Glenn Greenwald's "Liberty Tour" with White Supremacists...

... yep, he's a Koch Libertarian, racism is a by-product of a Koch addiction:

Libertarian Glenn Greenwald's "Liberty Tour" sponsored by "Young Americans for Liberty": http://www.yaliberty.org/tour/fall2012

His cohorts were Hornsberger (a white supremacist) and Bruce Fein (old time GOP sleaze bag neocon) and the moderator is Jack Hunter, Rand Paul's "Southern Avenger" - they took their "liberty tour" to universities on the West Coast. Here's the video:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42436_The_Convergence_of_Glenn_Greenwald_and_Rand_Pauls_Southern_Avenger

Let's not forget that the Libertarian triumvirate of Greenwald, Snowden, and Assange are all professed Paultards (the Fraud Pauls also have a long history of white supremacism).

I don't know about anybody else, but I have a real problem with taking "civil liberties" tips from avowed white supremacists.

"Progressive" Glenn Greenwald explains his motivation (video): http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

Which reminds me of this guy: White Supremacist serial killer airs pet peeves at sentencing "Israel, drones, and torture":
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/white-supremacist-defiant-at-sentencing-for-killing-spree

P.S. What Rand Paul is trying to sell to young techies in Silicon Valley )sponsored by Koch): "Homophobia, racism and the Kochs: San Francisco’s tech-libertarian “Reboot” conference is a cesspool"
http://pando.com/2014/07/18/homophobia-racism-and-the-kochs-san-franciscos-tech-libertarian-reboot-conference-is-a-cesspool/




How can this be??? Look at who/what the Libertarian Titans of industry, that Greenwald never misses a chance to defend. are funding: "The Koch Brothers’ Fake Libertarianism: War, Forced Pregnancies, and Homophobia"
http://www.vice.com/read/the-koch-brothers-fake-libertarianism-war-forced-pregnancies-and-homophobia-729

Liberals, step away from the Libertarian sewer.

Know when you're being conned by the right: Libertarians lying to Liberals:

"something to keep in mind if you find yourself getting all dewy-eyed as you take your place on the bottom of the "strange bedfellows" at the StopWatching.us rally, topped by such rancid libertarian outfits as FreedomWorks, the Kochs’ climate denial front Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Kochs’ new anti-Obamacare Astroturf front Generation Opportunity, Students For Liberty (funded by CIA/NSA contractor Peter Thiel), Ron Paul’s Young Americans For Liberty, the Libertarian Party....
Anyway, just in case "Marketing Libertarianism" hadn't got the rulebook out widely enough, REASON ran a second article later in 1977 headlined "How To Get Converts Left & Right: Political Cross-Dressing Is The Answer."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/found-libertarians-lying-t184312/index.html?t=184312