A Glenn Greenwald Survey

[Algernon Moncrieff]

Glenn Edward Greenwald (born March 6, 1967) is an American lawyer, journalist and author. He was a columnist for Guardian US from August 2012 to October 2013. He was a columnist for Salon.com from 2007 to 2012, and an occasional contributor to The Guardian. Greenwald worked as a constitutional and civil rights litigator. At Salon he contributed as a columnist and blogger, focusing on political and legal topics. He has also contributed to other newspapers and political news magazines, including The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times,The American Conservative, The National Interest, and In These Times. In February 2014 he became, along with Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill, one of the founding editors of The Intercept.

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

26 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired
	I have a generally favorable opinion of Glenn Greenwald
	15 (58%)
	I have a generally unfavorable opinion of Glenn Greenwald
	8 (31%)
	I have a generally neutral opinion of Glenn Greenwald
	3 (12%)
	Being completely honest, I have little to no idea who Glenn Greenwald is
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Major Hogwash]

1. This is NOT Glenn Greenwald Underground!!!!

I don't know how many times we have to say that!

[Algernon Moncrieff]

2. DUers seem to like to discuss him a lot.

And who is this "we"?

[wildbilln864]

3. must have a mouse in their pocket!

[merrily]

131. And you thought he was just happy to see you.

[QC]

11. We are not amused.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

12. Oh...that "We"

My apologies, your majesty.

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. the "we"?

Democrats....not Democrat Leaning Independents or support the Libertarian Glenn Greenwald.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

36. So Democrats don't want to discuss Greenwald?

A survey of GD posts seems to suggest otherwise. Perhaps we're talking at crossed purposes?

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. most of them...nope...but he is an obsession for the Dem Leaning Indies!

a survey mostly THEY answered...

[whatchamacallit]

60. How many Greenwald OPs and posts have you made?

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 08:31 PM - Edit history (1)

A quick DU search will likely point out where the obsession lies.

[VanillaRhapsody]

61. easy...NONE

go ahead and search!

I haven't written a single OP that is for sure...

[whatchamacallit]

63. Don't know about OPs, but you've made plenty of posts

just like the one above. I'd be willing to bet OPs from Greenwald detractors far outnumber OPs from supporters. Hell, Prosense alone must have made a hundred.

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. so? Its all some people talk about on DU!

I just respond to what is being discussed....

I've made plenty of posts about a lot of other things too....

[whatchamacallit]

66. Yes, mostly on your side of the issue

You dislike the "Greenwald obsession"? Talk to your pals.

[VanillaRhapsody]

67. that is bullshit and YOU know it...

Democrats don't give a shit about him!

NOW how did you feel about that latest CT coming from the Intercept that claimed NC homeless were being taken to FEMA camps and are being microchipped against there will!

Please enlighten us!

[whatchamacallit]

68. So ProSense and the others with GDS are not Democrats?

Interesting! As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you're babbling about.

[Luminous Animal]

84. Wanna supply a link to that totally fabricated FEMA allegation?

Here, let me help you out.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/?s=FEMA

[Algernon Moncrieff]

73. Fair enough.

It's probably why I stay out of most of the Greenwald threads.

[sabrina 1]

144. What do you mean by 'obsession'? If someone has respect for another person who

done something outstanding to benefit this country and DARES to say so, is that what you are calling 'obsession'??? Really?

Why does it bother YOU so much that Greenwald has gained so much respect, not just among Democrats but all over the world. He was just a blogger less than ten years ago, like many others. But he was SO GOOD at exposing the TRUTH about BUSH/CHENEY that he gained a whole lot of respect from Dems, and a huge amount of HATRED from the Right. Who on EARTH would any DEM join that right wing army that hates Greenwald???

Can you explain that?

I've never seen a constructive criticism here from those who hate Greenwald, just personal, silly, childish attacks with no substance regarding what the issues he has always focused on. .

Greenwald has turned out to be a fantastic journalist, courageous and truthful, and no matter how much the haters try to discredit him, they simply cannot. THAT must be frustrating, but should not be unexpected, because what he is doing is what ALL the press should be doing, what WE said we wanted them to do.

[JDPriestly]

65. The Times they are a'changin.

People who haven't read Greenwald's book and only listened to the mainstream trash media and the sold-out politicians don't like Greenwald.

Wait until the movie, Citizenfour is really out there. A lot of hearts and minds will change.

Citizenfour grossed $125,172 from five cinemas in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington D.C. for a screen average of $25,034, the best showing for any documentary since Waiting for Superman in 2010 ($34,758).

Radius-TWC, a division of The Weinstein Co., is handling the controversial film in the U.S. Until this weekend, Harvey Weinstein, a longtime supporter of President Obama, has remained silent on the subject of Citizenfour. He had previously been critical of Snowden's actions.

. . . .

Speaking Saturday at a PGA conference in New York, Weinstein said Citizenfour changed his view of Snowden. He then went on to praise Radius-TWC co-presidents Tom Quinn and Jason Janego for buying the doc.

. . . .

"This film is unlike any I've worked on and is as paranoid-inducing as any movie I've ever seen. It's totally exhilarating," Quinn said in an interview Sunday. "It will ignite a response and haunt you for a long time. A door has been opened that is never going to be closed again. Look at Harvey; he had said before that Snowden was a traitor."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/harvey-weinstein-edward-snowdens-citizenfour-744007

Harvey Weinstein's opinion counts. He has shown over and over that he gauges the reception of the American public to ideas, art and film pretty accurately.

[sabrina 1]

146. Thank you, I can't wait to see it.

[Luminous Animal]

153. I saw it on Monday and I want to see it again.

It is a work of art. A wonderful film. Featured most prominently, of course, is Snowden but Binney makes significant contributions. In the credits, 3 people are featured at the top, Snowden, Greenwald, and Binney. You can tell Poitras has a deep respect for him.

[sabrina 1]

175. Thanks, these are true heroes, and a clear threat, as we can see, to the corrupt powerful elite who

have so much to hide. They need all the support they can get.

[Logical]

81. Stop worrying, Glenn will not hurt Hillary's chances! nt

[Capt. Obvious]

14. This is the first Greenwald thread I've seen in ages

[Algernon Moncrieff]

15. I know, right

However, I've largely stayed out of the Greenwald threads, and I like to survey.

I've tried to keep the selection options straightforward.

[markpkessinger]

97. By your apparent criterion . . .

. . . the only poll that could ever be posted here is one in which the subject is DU itself.

[rhett o rick]

136. Why don't you stop saying that?

This is intended to be a politically liberal message board. Liberals in general don't disparage whistleblowers and investigative journalists.

This is a thread just for you http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025726338

[shenmue]

4. I like pie

Also, trees.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

5. I like pie too, but I have some bad news

I just tried to go to the link in your sig line, and my anti virus said that it tried to download a Trojan to my PC.

[shenmue]

6. Not me

But I will see if I can switch it with a different one.

[shenmue]

7. Okay, I erased the linky part. Maybe that will help.

Sorry.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

8. No need to be sorry. Not your fault their server was hacked

..which is the most probable cause. I just thought you should know.

[shenmue]

9. Thank u

[dionysus]

10. pompous, ego inflated douchebag. nt

[rhett o rick]

161. Always count on some here to sling the mud. It is easier than actually entering into a discussion.

And I understand the abject fear of whistleblowers and investigative journalists. They disrupt the comfort of some people's denial bubble.

[dionysus]

171. no,no it's not specifically about that. i think that he is, from reading his stuff, a pompous douche

bag. it's not the content that makes him so.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. A pompous, ego inflated douchebag who is doing more to save our country from tyranny and putting

breaks on the surveillance state than just about anyone else alive. He is also someone that those here on DU who are attacking now would be giving standing ovations to if there was a Republican in the White House.

[truebluegreen]

26. +100

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. to a Libertarian....DOUBT IT!!!

[YoungDemCA]

16. There are serious questions about Greenwald's motives

Read the following:

Back in September, I documented some of the web bugs embedded within the pages of The Guardian, including bugs from companies that allegedly provided information to the National Security Agency’s PRISM database. Bugs from Google and Facebook, to name two, appeared on NSA articles by Glenn Greenwald and Bruce Schneier.

Last month, Greenwald published an article on The Huffington Post, featuring another document from Edward Snowden about how NSA exploited the internet porn habits of six suspected terrorists. The Huffington Post, of course, merged with AOL, another corporation accused of supplying data to PRISM.

And now we’ve learned through former FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds that Pierre Omidyar’s PayPal also provided customer data to NSA. As has been widely reported, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras have partnered with Omidyar to form a $250 million news outfit.

An undisclosed retired NSA official apparently contacted Edmonds, who runs a news site called Boiling Frogs Post, and tipped her off that the documents stolen by Edward Snowden and handed over to Greenwald and Poitras contain information about PayPal’s cooperation with NSA surveillance and data collection.

snip:

For someone who routinely hectors others, demanding unequivocal ideological purity, Greenwald seems to be knee-deep in lucrative business relationships that run contrary to his lofty standards, and which also represent obvious conflicts of interest.

Indeed, Greenwald has accused anyone who merely voices an opinion about a few of the positive benefits of NSA signals intelligence and data collection — or how the law permits it and oversight supervises it — of being drooling shills for the vast and pernicious security state. Even if that opinion is prefaced with a desire to implement some reforms, it’s simply not good enough for Greenwald and his supporters.

But meanwhile he himself is taking money, a lot of money, from corporate entities who reportedly operate in direct conjunction with NSA SIGINT operations he claims to loathe.

Read more at http://thedailybanter.com/2013/12/paypal-owned-by-greenwald-partner-pierre-omidyar-handed-over-customer-data-to-nsa/#tdGfSKEAkBx7UDHa.99

[Andy823]

18. There you go again

Inserting all those "facts" into the discussion. You should know by now that those who "idolize" him are going to be awful upset with you sine they will never see the truth about this man no matter what the facts show.

Good post by the way.

[riderinthestorm]

21. Damn the man for making a living!1!11 He should be working for free!!1!!!1

And living in abject poverty. Only then are his reports worthy of attention...

[YoungDemCA]

45. Yes selling state secrets to the highest bidder is a truly noble pursuit!

[riderinthestorm]

55. Link to Greenwald selling state secrets?

[merrily]

132. Really? He auctioned them off?

[AgingAmerican]

23. The Strawman

...rides again

[baldguy]

88. Showing that GG earned his living in part

by doing exactly the same thing he's excoriated others for doing is a "strawman"?

[merrily]

133. Right. "Wholly irrelevant" probably would have been more precise than "straw man."

But the important thing to get across is that making it about Greenwald is laughable.

[baldguy]

139. More like "precisely relevant"

Your hero has feet of clay - not to mention a heart of stone and a head full of rocks.

[merrily]

145. He is not and has never been my hero. You will not fnd one post of mine praising him, so

please don't try to pull that babyish smear tactic on me.

I just don't like fact free posting, to put it kindly.

But no, Greenwalds motives are not relevant. Yes, they are wholly irrelevant

Either what gets published under his name is true or it isn't. That is what is relevant

A lot of the attacks on him here are a direct result of his publishing Snowden's revelations about the NSA, which no one here would have criticized, except he did it while your hero was President Those were true. Trying to make the story about Greenwald and his motives is a transparent attempt to deflect from the real story, which is what our government is doing to us, on our dime and in violation of our Constitution.

DUers can try to make it about Greenwald all they want. It isn't.

[baldguy]

156. So, if I accuse you of stealing candy from a a baby

It's not relevant that I've absconded with confections belonging to infants myself? That statement is beyond bizarre.

There's an old saying that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Greenwald has been throwing bricks.

[merrily]

157. If you accused me of stealing candy from a baby, you'd be a liar.

[rhett o rick]

160. Why do conservatives all hate investigative journalists and whistleblowers?

Of course, they shake the authoritarian foundation.

Shoot the messenger and all will be well.

[baldguy]

163. You understand that GG is the conservative in this scenario, right?

Being that he gets his support from RW libertarians in attacking a sitting Democratic President.

[rhett o rick]

168. I suppose you think Pres Obama is not conservative. I suppose you think his stand on

domestic spying isn't conservative as is his economic policies that bail out banks and spit on people that have lost their homes.
I think that Brennan, Clapper and Alexander are very conservative as are almost all of Pres Obama's appointments.

I think the president's pro fracking is conservative as is his promotion of Free Trade and the TPP. And how about his continued drone killing and war in the middle east.

Seems to me that those that try to disparage Greenwald just don't like his message.

[baldguy]

169. 'Spose you think Ron Paul is a liberal.

[rhett o rick]

173. Ah the lame libertarian deflection. "Hey, look there's a libertarian."

What does Paul have to do with Pres Obama's conservativeness?

Not that you don't know, I am not a libertarian and don't support libertarians.

I think if we don't get someone besides conservatives like Obama and H. Clinton in the presidency, the middle class will be dead by 2020.
But I am guessing that isn't important to the conservatives here that apparently support the trickle-down theory.

[baldguy]

179. The point is that Glenn Greenwald the libertarian whines claiming Obama & Clinton aren't liberal.

That he gets any support on the DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND is appalling.

The fact is Obama & Clinton are moderate, center-left mainstream Democrats in the moderate, center-left mainstream Democratic tradition, and always have been. They appeal to the moderate, center-left mainstream Democratic majority. And most of all THEY WIN ELECTIONS! No amount of RW lies coming from the likes of GG will change that.

GG's guy Ron Paul is a RW nutcase who would sell public institutions off to the highest bidder, totally eliminate any social safety net, and allow the corporatocracy to run rampant over civil liberties.

If you promote GG you **ARE** supporting libertarians.

[rhett o rick]

180. While Obama and H. Clinton are liberal related to social issues, they are definitely

not liberals when it comes to environment, Free Trade, defense spending, wars in the middle east, the economy, etc. Even in the areas of social issues Pres Obama is reluctant. His DEA is still persecuting marijuana users and what the hell is Arnie Duncan doing to our schools? If this message is presented by a libertarian, it doesn't mean it isn't true. It looks to me like some don't like this message. They don't like to think their Democratic leaders are strongly conservative so they disparage those that try to say so.

I don't promote Greenwald. I will defend him against the hate spewed by the Ruling Oligarchs, their Corp Media, and followers. I promote transparency, liberty, and freedom. I don't echo the hatred against investigative journalists, whistleblowers, protestors, and others that dare to stand up to the Oligarchy.

If one doesn't like the message, and has no reasonable argument to counter, then the messenger is attacked.

[grasswire]

186. well said, well said. nt

[Bobbie Jo]

183. Nailed it.

What a bunch of twisted, tired nonsense.

Well said, and I agree.

[rhett o rick]

190. Yes he nailed it. Winning elections is more important than maintaining Democratic Values.

It doesn't do any good to win if your candidate continues supporting the conservative values like fracking, the TPP, the XL Pipeline, Wall Street dominance, continuous war, high defense spending, and an unregulated Security State. These values are killing the middle class and our democracy whether it's Republican or Democratic Conservatives.

[Bobbie Jo]

191. I refuse to respond to yet another

litany of strawman arguments.

The 2,546th version of the same post.

Yes, he nailed it. Reread his post and respond to what he actually said instead of dragging out the same old, tired strawman.

[rhett o rick]

192. Of course not. Pres Obama and H. Clinton are strongly conservative in the

areas of foreign policy, environmental, and economics. They might be left-center on some social issues, but not on education and the war on drugs.

How can you call someone "moderate" that kowtows to Wall Street, supports fracking, supports Free Trade, supports a strong defense budget and continued war in the middle east? That's not moderate.

You won't respond because it's far easier to kill the messenger. To attack journalists, whistleblowers, protestors, OWS, and all that dare to speak truth to power. It's far easier to have ad hominem attacks on Greenwald than discuss what he says.

[Bobbie Jo]

193. No, I won't respond because

of the reasons I just gave.

Add another....putting words in my mouth.(or keyboard, as it were).

Annoying beyond belief.

[baldguy]

194. Right, Liberals shouldn't soil themselves by actually running for office.

It's best to be ideologically pure & stay apart from the hoi-polloi & the unwashed masses.



You're exactly the kind of "liberal" the GOP loves. Thankfully Elizabeth Warren isn't - and she's supporting Hillary for Pres in 2016.

[rhett o rick]

195. Liberals have a hard time running for office because the Ruling Oligarchs put their money

behind the Conservatives.

"It's best to be ideologically pure & stay apart from the hoi-polloi & the unwashed masses." I would say this statement is pure projection. I stand with the masses while the conservatives of our party stand with Wall Street.

If standing against fracking and Free Trade is trying to be "ideologically pure" then I am guilty. What do you stand for other than whatever Obama says?

Funny how the conservatives disparage the left for wanting a better life for the masses. The conservatives will say it's pragmatic for the masses to live in poverty while the 1% get their "trickle up."

H. Clinton is a candidate for Goldman-Sachs and not for the people.

[baldguy]

196. Liberals run for office all the time - and they win.

Last edited Fri Oct 31, 2014, 08:52 AM - Edit history (1)

The fact that they can't get legislation passed to fix your pet issues - mainly because of obstruction by the very same people Greenwald supports - doesn't stop them from being liberal.

Can you see how this works? You support Greenwald; Greenwald supports Republicans; Republicans obstruct any real efforts to help people; then Greenwald attacks the Democrats & you follow right along. Rinse. Repeat. This is the kind of shit Republicans just LOVE.

Just what is Greenwald's position on fracking, BTW? Or the TPP? ACA? Min wage? Voter suppression? Hmmm? You're assuming he agrees with you but you really have no idea. That's what projection really is. So stop falsely accusing others of what you're guilty of yourself.

This is the problem with Greenwald: He has no foundational values other than his own narcissism. He's convinced himself that throwing spitballs at the people who do the hard work is constructive & meaningful instead of vacuous & destructive. And he's seduced a few low-information bomb-throwers into believing the same. Again: Republicans just LOVE this shit.

And Elizabeth Warren thoroughly disagrees with you about Hillary:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she hopes Hillary Rodham Clinton runs for president in 2016 — the latest in a series of declarations of support by the Massachusetts Democrat..."All all of the women — Democratic women I should say — of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific"

More projection from you. Warren's loudest supporters on DU don't seem to be listening to her. She understands that to be able to get any sort of progressive legislation enacted into law, we need to have Democrats in office. Period. To that end, she will be supporting the Democratic nominee for President in 2016, no matter who she may be - no hedging, no equivocation, no spoiling any candidates before the primaries even start - and Warren sees the best candidate right now is Hillary.

[rhett o rick]

197. How very scary to think that H. Clinton is the "best" Democratic candidate

for the presidency. Just how low have we sunk to accept someone that supports most conservative issues like fracking, Free Trade, the XL Pipeline, Wall Street bail outs, deregulating banks, continuous war in the middle east. And of course she chose to openly stab Democrats in the back when she chose to back the Iraq War. She has no integrity.

Of course Sen Warren says nice things about H. Clinton. She isn't an idiot. It's politics.

"Just what is Greenwald's position on fracking, BTW? Or the TPP? ACA? Min wage? Voter suppression? Hmmm? You're assuming he agrees with you but you really have no idea. " I DON'T CARE WHAT HIS STAND IS. He isn't running for president. But I think it's very important to recognize that H. Clinton's stand on these issues is the same as the conservatives.

"The fact that they (liberals) can't get legislation passed to fix your pet issues " There are very few liberals in Congress. People that support "fracking, Free Trade, the XL Pipeline, Wall Street bail outs, deregulating banks, continuous war in the middle east" ARE NOT LIBERALS.

My pets issues? What issues do I support that you don't support? Single payer health insurance? Making SS and Medicare stronger? Reducing defense wasting? Making corporations and the 1% pay their fair share? Ending legislation that gives tax dollars to corps that move jobs to China? What are my pet issues that you don't agree with?

[baldguy]

198. And you have no clue about Greenwalds positions on any of those.

I'm sure he'll let you know as soon as Rand Paul gives it to him.

[rhett o rick]

199. How sad that you are so fixated on Glen Greenwald.

He isn't part of our government. You worry about him but turn a blind eye to those in our government that support fracking.

[rhett o rick]

174. Why do conservatives all hate investigative journalists and whistleblowers?

Why do conservatives hate OWS and Code Pink? Do they upset the conservative denial bubble?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

24. I appreciate your feedback

Interesting post

[grasswire]

40. the Daily Banter?

The Daily Banter and Cesco have been discredited as legitimate sources. Citing a gossip sheet is pretty lame.

Laughable, even.

[merrily]

129. Greenwald's motives don't change what the NSA did and still does to us.

[Luminous Animal]

150. Sibel Edmonds has provided ZERO evidence that any of the documents copied by

Snowden had any information about PayPal.

Going by the documents that we have seen to date and going by the articles that have been written by ALL news sources from around the world, it appears that the information that Snowden copied was about spying through our communications systems not through our financial systems. That may be the only kind of data that he had access to and other NSA facilities deal with finance.

Greenwald has stated that he has no doubt that PayPal has co-operated with the NSA (and, as William Binney states, all major financial companies have, so likely PayPal has, as well) but Greenwald has also stated that the documents in his possession contain nothing about PayPal.

So Edmonds is making these accusations on pure speculation. She also speculates that Snowden must be livid over Greenwald's association with Omidyar but apparently Snowden is not as both Laura and Greenwald have visited with him after the announcement of the venture.

I really appreciate the work that Edmonds has done over the years but she is losing my respect by basing her conclusions on speculation rather than fact. AND she has said some rather vile homophobic things to and about Greenwald via twitter. People have called her on it.

[rhett o rick]

162. Rationalization is apparently the key to your happiness. nm

[Marr]

17. People who hate him now had no problem with him when Bush was in office.

I think that says it all.

[Andy823]

19. Really?

I always thought he was an arrogant ass, then and now.

[Marr]

31. Yeah?

Can you cite any posts of yours from that era where you were expressing such a sentiment here?

[Andy823]

69. Nope

But then again he wasn't being held up as some kind of "hero" by so many back then. Now it's like idol worship around here whenever someone disagrees with loyal followers about how great he is, they get attacked for daring to speak out against the great one!

Is it some kind of a requirement that one has to have voiced disagreement with him during the Bush years, and posted that here, before they can claim he has always been an arrogant ass?

[Marr]

77. Well, I could easily cite the opposite.

It wouldn't take much searching to find posts from people who now pooh-pooh the topic of NSA abuses, who were livid about it at the time.

Greenwald's articles were regularly cited here on DU during the Bush Administration on that topic and the Plame outing, but no one called that "hero worship". The change has been in the people who suddenly stopped caring about NSA abuses when their guy got into the White House.

[stevenleser]

20. He was a non-entity when Bush was in office. nt

[Marr]

28. That's not true. He wrote a lot of high profile pieces during the Bush Administration and was

regularly cited around here without drawing a crowd of attackers.

[stevenleser]

110. He had zero impact. nt

[Marr]

111. Is it really that hard to just say, "I was incorrect"? /nt

[stevenleser]

112. Well, since you are incorrect, I don't know, is it? nt

[Marr]

113. What you're doing is embarrassingly juvenile.

I realize you don't like Glenn Greenwald, and that's fine-- but let's at least acknowledge simple reality and not exist in some comfortable, fantasy bubble the way Conservatives do.

Greenwald had more than two bestsellers on political/foreign policy issues during the Bush Administration. That's not a "non-entity", which is what you claimed.

[stevenleser]

114. Nope. The guy had no impact on politics at all until he attacked a Democratic President.

That is his contribution, that's what made him famous and it is what he continues to do.

[cherokeeprogressive]

178. WHOOP! They it is! "...until he attacked a Democratic President." So predictable.

Party over everything.

[Luminous Animal]

121. I chalk it up to professional envy. There is not one whistle blower in the world that would

approach Steve Leser.

[wavesofeuphoria]

188. I've heard of him ...

dude is on Fox News a lot ... right?

[Luminous Animal]

54. Yep. That's why his first 2 books, critical of the Bush admin, were on the NY Times Best Seller list

[stevenleser]

109. Big deal. 9000 books sold in one week gets you on the best sellers list.

Out of 300 million people that isnt making a particularly big impact. As I said, he was a non-entity who had no impact on politics at all.

[Luminous Animal]

116. Looking forward to your best seller book and when Foreign Policy magazine names you one of the

top 100 thinkers.

And I am looking forward to your posting that you have sell out crowds in venues all over the world when you speak.

And I am looking forward to when your journalistic endeavors win top prizes.

And I am looking forward to the day when you can report that a whistleblower trusts you with the information that they have.

[merrily]

130. Nonetheless, being on the best seller list with 2 books does not equal "non entity"

and the non-entity claim was the one being addressed.

Don't know about you, but I'll hold off scoffing at having two books on the Best Seller list after I've managed that and found it unimportant.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. and GREENWALD had no problem when Bush was in Office....funny that!

[Marr]

33. You missed his work on the Plame outing?

He was also covering NSA warrantless surveillance at the time.

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. and that's it?

that is all???

Are you saying their were no other surveillance of regular citizens going on under Bush?

[Marr]

39. Just admit your claim was incorrect.

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 07:36 PM - Edit history (2)

I don't even know what you're trying to say there.

[VanillaRhapsody]

48. I am saying that his biggest pet peeve is SUPPOSEDLY spying on Americans...

are you trying to tell me that Bush didn't and that is why he didn't?

Or was it because he ACTUALLY supported President Bush's policies?

[Luminous Animal]

49. He wrote regularly about Bush's illegal surveillance while he was in office.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22glenn+greenwald%22+surveillance&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2005%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2008&tbm=#q=%22glenn+greenwald%22+surveillance&rls=en&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2005,cd_max:12/31/2008&start=20

[Marr]

75. Do you only read titles? I literally wrote one sentence in the body of that post, and all it said

was that Greenwald was covering NSA warrantless spying during the Bush Administration.

[Luminous Animal]

50. She's pretending that you didn't also write: "He was also covering NSA warrantless surveillance"

[Luminous Animal]

47. Lots of articles between 2005 and through the end of 2008 about surveillance

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22glenn+greenwald%22+surveillance&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2005%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2008&tbm=#q=%22glenn+greenwald%22+surveillance&rls=en&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2005,cd_max:12/31/2008&start=20

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. thanks I found THIS....thans for the trip down memory lane..

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/glenn-greenwalds-hilarious-denial-about-his-support-for-iraq-war/

[Luminous Animal]

52. And? Yes. A preface to his highly critical book about the Bush admin.

Then he went on to write two more books highly critical of the Bush admin and Republicans in general.

Are you still going to deny that he wrote numerous articles critical of the surveillance state while Bush was in office?

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. hahahaha keep trying....

"his support for the Iraq war"


I thought that was the bain of y'all's existence!!!

[Luminous Animal]

59. So, are you suggesting that I don't vote for Hillary?

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)

[whatchamacallit]

71. Clotheslined!

Haha nice play!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

98. VR typically setS up about 20 of her own clotheslines to run into.

I've never seen anyone post quite the way she does.

[VanillaRhapsody]

137. so?

Wtf does that even mean?

[VanillaRhapsody]

138. are you going to?

[Luminous Animal]

140. If she runs and has an opponent in the primary,

I'll likely vote for the opponent.

[grasswire]

117. Daily Banter is not a credible source.

Shame on you.

[Enrique]

80. i don't expect a correction from you

it's just not in the nature of the Greenwald smear team.

I'm just posting this for the people who have some regard for truth

[Marr]

83. That's the irritating part to me.

The smear squad never, ever acknowledges their own... I'm going to be generous and call them "mistakes", though that seems a bit kind given that they only repeat those same "mistakes" over and over.

[Ykcutnek]

22. I just see him as a name I have to scroll past way too much to read things of actual substance. nt

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 06:37 PM - Edit history (1)

[ReverendDeuce]

25. Very much APPROVE of his work!

n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

32. Too late to vote neutral.

I don't know why Greenwald generates so much hate among some people. He seems like a regular human to me. He has some things worth saying, he says some stupid things. He does some useful things, he does some useless things.

He generally seems to be on the 'left' of the political spectrum, but he gets as much hate from the center-left of the political spectrum as he does from the center-right or the far right.

[deutsey]

34. Generally favorable here

I know little about him as a person, but in general I have appreciated his reporting and publishing.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. My opinion of his opinions varies with the opinion, but my strongest feelings are around his

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 07:36 PM - Edit history (1)

detractors. I never paid much attention to him until some DUers went on the attack against him. The community of his detractors is for me utterly without merit due to their embrace and use of attacks on him based on his sexuality, which at times extend to attacks on other gay people. Not only was that done many times, but the larger 'anti Greenwald community' stood by and allowed it without a word of criticism. It is very easy indeed to say 'I hate his guts but attacks about his sexuality are not relevant nor fair' but they did not.
When they were forced to stop the direct anti gay language they went with GiGi, because that's just the thing to do to sound less homophobic.....
So I watch myself around the big Greenwald haters, just as I would around any other group with a known propensity toward bigoted views and homophoiba.

[grasswire]

41. I have tried, myself, to understand the bitterness of the hate toward Greenwald.

I don't believe it is explained simply as politics, or even as cult worship of someone Greenwald criticizes.

It is a deep gut hatred-- the deepest we currently see on DU. Deeper than hatred for everyone except even Cheney or Bush. Not explained by Greenwald's actions. If it is not homophobia, what is it?

[Marr]

43. I think it's what you first mentioned.

It follows from cult worship of people Greenwald criticizes. These people have a lot of emotional investment in the idea that Obama is infallible, or at least unerringly on their side. Not unlike the Bushies of a few years ago, they have a whole mythology built around that one assumption. If someone shines a light on a crack in that story, they freak out.

[2banon]

44. Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding! Ladies and Gents, We Have a Winner!

[grasswire]

46. I think that is true of some.

I believe that some others are exploiting that cult worship -- some cynical others whose objective is simply to protect the surveillance state. They exploit the true believers in Obama's greatness.

But there could be an undercurrent of homophobia in some. The visceral gut hatred comes from somewhere, and it isn't from a place of reason or thoughtful response.

[woo me with science]

57. I think all of this is true to some extent, but

I think nashville-brook hit the nail on the head when talking about the propaganda machine overall:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5688165
37. eggsactly -- the hope is to keep us in our lower brain functions - limbic systems rather than cerebral cortex.

This is the Two Minutes Hate, updated for 2014. Corporatists and their mouthpieces hope to orchestrate a visceral reaction to what Snowden did, to drown out any thinking response.

The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.

-Orwell, 1984

The real reason a very loud few are posting hostility toward Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden at DU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025036592

[KoKo]

70. Thank you for that Re-Post/Refresher....so true.....

How people live with that much hate for even their Orwellian 2 Minutes is beyond me. And, that some Dems even buy the "Corporate Produced Hate" when we all raged here for so long against Bush Policies that we unfortunately have seen repeated in many ways. Whether it's through coercion or poor policy judgement--when Dems join that way of thinking and it gets cheerleaded because it's "Our Party" doing it......it doesn't help our Party move forward. We end up with malaise.

[merrily]

135. +1. You should teach a course on posting and seeing through message board bullshit tactics.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. I don't know if the homophobia motivates them, but clearly they are willing to employ such tactics

and no one among them feels compelled to stop them. It's been going on for years on DU.

[YoungDemCA]

72. Hate? No, I don't hate Greenwald.

I just think he's a cynical self-promoting opportunist and a hypocrite who is willing to expose state secrets (selectively, I might add-why is he the guardian of this treasure trove of state secrets that low-level corporate/government contractors have obtained for him?) but isn't willing to be transparent about his own connections to secretive tech company billionaires.

Notice that Google, Facebook, et.al are up to their eyeballs in collecting data on people and tracking them for marketing purposes? Many if not most or all of the tech companies have actively and willingly cooperated with the NSA. Why should these private, unaccountable corporate entities be trusted any more with Big Data than the US government?

Believe it or not, but it is possible to oppose NSA spying without succumbing to the selfish libertarianism of Snowden-and Greenwald, apparently. I don't trust Greenwald, or anyone else in this saga with ulterior motives. If it sounds too good to be true-it very likely is.

[sabrina 1]

147. What do you mean by 'self promoting opportunist'. I see that talking point aimed at

Greenwald so frequently that I am certain it is part of the Smear Campaign that was being prepared by one our 'Security Contractors' for BOA to try to discredit him, when it was exposed by Anonymous.

But no one ever explains it. That is how you recognize talking points. They are repeated and repeated and repeated so that others will pick them up and repeat them over and over again. But no one ever explains them.

If I have a criticism of someone I don't repeat someone else's talking point. I criticize them in my own words.

So could you explain that talking point so that we finally know what it is supposed to mean and maybe actually DISCUSS something rather than simply throw out baseless, and they are baseless without something to back them up, talking points.

As for why the people need to know what the NSA was doing, They are DOING IT IN OUR NAME, paid for by OUR TAX DOLLARS, BILLIONS OF THEM. The people have a RIGHT TO KNOW what their government is up to and what they are doing with OUR MONEY.

Google, FB are not the government, they are private entities and NO THREAT TO OUR RIGHTS, since we DON'T have to participate in private businesses if we don't like their practices. '

Surely you know the difference between the power of a private corp and that of the Government?

Greenwald is an exceptional journalist, he was from the day he began blogging about Bush/Cheney's lies when he was merely an obscure blogger, hated by the Right, loved by the Left.

I wondered if he would be discovered back then when our media like today, merely dishes out propaganda and bloggers like HIM were who we turned to for FACTS. I am thrilled to see his success and the respect he has now all over the world.

How any democrat could possibly join the smear campaigners from the right wrt Greenwald is a mystery to me.

[dionysus]

184. i think that's kind of a cheap shield to hide behind. sure, maybe RWers hate him for being gay.

I don't like the guy because he's a pompous jerk, but I could care less if he's gay. It doesn't figure into my equation at all.

[grasswire]

185. then why do so many here gut-level DESPISE him?

You say "I don't like him because he's a pompous jerk". But even Bill O'Reilly, the most pompous of jerks, does not attract the same kind of HATRED. The only possible explanations have been cited here. Either it's protection of the surveillance state or this administration, paid protection of the surveillance state, ignorance, or homophobia.

[dionysus]

189. or... his arrogant personality plus disagreement with his politics makes him easy to dislike.

you don't need to pay people to not like him. His personality alone is bound to draw ire. I think hatred is too strong a word.

your mileage may vary, and I can only speak for myself.

[JEB]

42. Shines light where few other journalists look.

A very valuable voice.

[julio_maracas]

53. The haters are few

but vocal.

As shown in the poll.

[bigwillq]

82. Hello

Welcome to DU!

[Bobbie Jo]

182. Just about as "few" as the

vocal worshipers.

As shown in the poll.

I didn't get a chance to vote, but I don't particularly care for him or his tactics. So...put me in the "hater" column, I suppose.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. “News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.” Lord Northcliffe

See Ellsberg, Snowden, Assange, and Manning for precedents.

[Rex]

74. I neither like nor dislike him, it is what he does that either gets praise or criticism from me.

Same with Snowden, same with the CIA, same with the WH and Congress and the SCOTUS. Same with X, Y and Z. Depends on the circumstances.

[AtomicKitten]

76. Too late for me to vote, but

put me down for not giving a crap. I am so sick of the infighting about this one person and losing sight of the topic in dispute. Feh.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

78. 72 hours seemed like enough at the time

Sorry

[AtomicKitten]

79. no worries

I'm in and out of the place so I just didn't get to it in time.

Cheers.

[bettyellen]

85. this, I think making it always about HIM overshadows anything important.

but did his blog really publish that crap about fema camps- if so- WFingF?

[AtomicKitten]

87. I've stayed clear of those threads so long,

my opinion is confined to the admission that he's a colorful guy. Occasionally he writes some provocative stuff that invites buzz, good and bad. Greenwald is certainly entertaining.

[bettyellen]

92. good way of looking at it, and better than mine, LOL.

there are such cultish and rabid reactions to him, it's kind of fascinating to watch. it's like he is either a messiah or a charlatan depending on who is talking around here. maybe he's a bit of both. I just don't get the fandom, and accusations of Obama worship or homophobia if you distrust him. I don't trust or worship anyone, LOL. So, fo rme- it is all pretty strange stuff!

[AtomicKitten]

94. okay then, scoot over

[bettyellen]

96. put your feet up!

[AtomicKitten]

100. cheers

[Number23]

176. "I just don't get the fandom, and accusations of Obama worship or homophobia if you distrust him."

All you have to do is consider the source of those comments, bettyellen. Lord knows every other thinking person does.

[bettyellen]

181. As much as it seems like GG has a fan club here, it seems like they are more about

hating on Obama and fellow DUers, than they are about loving GG. Perhaps those two things go hand in hand, but the rabid anger seems to be there and overwhelm the discussion. I think it doesn't serve anyone well.

If anyone made homophobic remarks, that is really fucked up and I hope they got hidden here. However I see quite a few of the "hide nothing" or ignore racist and sexist stuff complaining about it here, and I wish they gave a shit when it came to sexism or racism here.

[Luminous Animal]

90. No it did not. In fact, it has published nothing about FEMA. Zero, nil, zilch.

but now that the lie has been told, look to it being spread far and wide.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/?s=FEMA

[Luminous Animal]

119. Now that you know that The Intercept did not report the homeless RFID lie, do you

have any suggestions on how to shut those lies down on DU? Especially that you were willing to buy into the lie with doing no research on your own.

[bettyellen]

125. Asking a question about something just mentioned in the same thread is "buying in"? LOL.

No, it's just asking a question. That is how I usually get answers around here if I'm not invested enough to do my own research. And I wasn't.

If you think it's a wide spread misconception, why don't you start a thread on it?

[merrily]

128. Which is why DU loves to make it about him and Snowden and not about

massive, secret violation of our rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States by the government whose bills we pay.

[Luminous Animal]

123. I defended Ellsberg when I was 14 years old. I gave a crap when the full force of the U.S.

government tried to raise its fist against him. And I defended those who were reporting the story at the time. I did similar when Woodward and Bernstein reported on Watergate.

I refuse to allow the propagandists and the apathetic drive the narrative.

I fought it then and I fight it now.

[merrily]

127. I welcome the information about the NSA, but that seemed a different issue to me than

whether I had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of him.

He is a journalist. He has a responsibility to publish. Also, it probably made him richer and more desirable to his publisher--not that there's anything at all wrong with that.

Do I know, though, if he is generally a kind person or not? No clue. Do I know how much he gives to charity? No clue. Those are the kinds of things that would cause me to have a favorable or unfavorable general impression of him.

Was I glad to get the information he published? YES.

[baldguy]

86. GG hates Democrats, Loves Republicans, supports Ron Paul

All he does is criticize The President. And people who post his dribbles of excrement here, claiming to be "liberals" are no liberals.

[Luminous Animal]

91. Indeed, that is why he raised money for a Democratic candidate and endorsed Rush Holt.

[baldguy]

101. From RonPaulForums: "Good Ron Paul Article by Glenn Greenwald"

Glenn Greenwald made a great blog entry today regarding Ron Paul and the money bomb. He blog is very widely read and his books are best sellers and highly rated. He also praises Paul's constitutional positions and appears to be getting a lot of flack from it. GG practiced constitutional law so I knew it would only be a matter of time before he published something positive regarding Ron Paul.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?32833-Good-Ron-Paul-Article-by-Glenn-Greenwald

Funny that GG's fans seem use the same arguments to support him as the Paulites do.

[merrily]

134. Absolutely none of that is true, of course.

[baldguy]

141. When was the last time GG praised anything Obama or the Democratic Party has done?

ACA? Supporting gays rights? Pulling the troops out of Iraq? Anything?

And when was the last time he actually deigned to find fault with any Republican?

[merrily]

142. Now, you're backpedaling.

[baldguy]

143. If he has, show it.

The fact is he hasn't.

[merrily]

149. Sorry, but it's still your turn. Prove what YOU said in your original post, before you backpedaled

to beat the band.

You said he hated Democrats, loved Republicans, etc. remember? That is what I said was untrue. In other words, I called bs. So, you go ahead and prove what you first posted before you demand that I prove to you something I never said in the first place.

[baldguy]

152. All you need to do is post something from GG that disproves it.

Extra points if one of his worshipers posted it here on DU. Given his vast body of work, that should be a rather easy task for you if I'm lying.

I won't be holding my breath for an actual reply, though.

[merrily]

154. Wrong. All I need to do is wait for you to prove what you posted in Reply 86 and what I called BS on

That's how it works. you say something, someone calls bs and the ball goes straight to your court to prove what you said.

Instead, you backpedaling and started challenging me to prove things I never said.

But, I wasn't holding my breath waiting for you proof. As for you, you're probably just out of breath from backpedaling so much.

[baldguy]

158. So you've got nothing. Thank you for proving my point.

[merrily]

159. No, thank YOU for proving my bs call on your reply 86 was 100% spot on. It was obvious, but it's

always nice to have confirmation. Have a great evening.

[riderinthestorm]

165. You got pnw3d...

[baldguy]

167. What, are you 12?

The poster is demanding (DEMANDING!) that I prove a negative. To do so I'd need to refer to every article, interview, book, blog post & random tweet he's ever done. This is logically impossible. All I have is a preponderance of evidence.

All the poster needs to do to prove me wrong is to present something - anything - in which GG says something positive about Obama or the Democratic party. Should be a rather simple proposition, wouldn't you think?

But of course, you're one on the side championing GG. You aren't required to think.

[riderinthestorm]

170. Lol. Nope in my 50s but still have kids at home and you are screwn...

Go ahead, try to figure that one out too...



You clearly lost the train of thought on this thread.

Good luck with that.

[Blue_Tires]

89. After that bullshit with Matt Taibbi today, my opinion is lower than "unfavorable"

Everytime I think Greenwald can't set his hypocrisy bar lower, he outdoes himself! What a shameless shifty lowlife piece of money-grubbing shit

[Luminous Animal]

93. Greenwald has zero to do with Matt's position or work with First Look.

Matt's project is just that... Matt's project. And in fact, Glenn retweeted Matt's frustration with Paul Carr.

[Blue_Tires]

102. Taibbi's "work" with First Look?

What work? Where are his Wall Street expose stories that we knew and loved at Rolling Stone? Taibbi's been there since February, and what has been accomplished?

Are you saying Greenwald doesn't run the show at First Look? He is indisputably the public face and most-frequent public spokesman...And even if GG technically isn't Taibbi's "boss", his bullshit about how "transparent" and "independent" his little clubhouse was going be has been exposed as a lie...

I've asked Taibbi for a response to that tweet and he has been silent -- Carr has some serious, legit allegations which ought to be addressed, and he isn't the only one asking about them...Given how much shit Greenwald gave Carr over Sirota leaving, he really isn't in a position to complain...

But then I remember that Glenn Greenwald has always been one of those dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it type of cowards...

[Luminous Animal]

104. No. Greenwald does not run the show at First Look and you should know that.

Greenwald doesn't even run The Intercept. He, Jeremy, and Laura were tasked to build their reporting team for their particular division of First Look.

Matt is tasked for building the reporting team for his particular division of First Look called "The Racket."

Are there problems going on at First Look? It appears so for Matt's division and I hope that Matt lands on his feet spectacularly.

Are there problems going on at The Intercept? Doesn't appear so as articles are being published regularly by more than one person.

[Blue_Tires]

106. I realize Cook is the ME at the Intercept

but if you think for one second that Greenwald actually takes orders from Cook (or is paid less), I've got a bridge to sell you...

[Luminous Animal]

108. But if you think for one second that Greenwald has any authority over Tiabbi's division...

I've a bridge to sell you.

[Blue_Tires]

115. Someone has some authority over Taibbi

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2021, 10:49 AM - Edit history (1)

if the allegations are true about FLM trying to control what he wrote, and he's pissed off to the point of walking away like Jay Rosen...

[Luminous Animal]

118. And you would think that is Greenwald why? From the beginning it has been clear the Greenwald

et. al., has been only tasked with building his media team for his particular division of First Look... The Intercept.

Greenwald has no authority over Tiabbi because he has nothing to do with Tiabbi's division of First Look.

[Blue_Tires]

120. Because Greenwald was tasked with setting the whole thing up

He was the *first* person ever hired for the new venture...And if Greenwald is THAT hands-off with other "divisions" (for all practical purposes there are no other divisions since Taibbi, you know, has yet to WRITE something), then he shouldn't be commenting on the situation, even in his little trademark passive-aggressive manner on twitter...

Either way -- If it is proven that all of Greenwald's bullshit about Pierre not interfering with editorial content was a lie, then FLM has been indisputably exposed as a fraud, and Greenwald knew it...Because this would be the second domino to fall, since Greenwald's claims about openness and transparency were pretty much destroyed in the first month (you'll notice that "transparency" isn't something he boasts about anymore)-- FLM is easily the MOST secretive, insular and incestuous big-budget media organization I've ever seen...In the irony of ironies, they have more in common with the intelligence services than they'd care to admit...


But the bottom line is it will all come out...It always comes out sooner or later...The really fun part is the writers at New York magazine said that today was the tip of the iceberg and they will be revisiting this story in the very near future -- Can't wait...

[Luminous Animal]

122. He was/is tasked with no such thing. Greenwald's role is a reporter not an administrator.

How you can declare otherwise is a mystery because, from the beginning, the relationship has never been described, outside the right-wing-nuts, otherwise.

[Blue_Tires]

124. Fine...So if Greenwald is a lowly peon blogger with ZERO administrative input whatsoever

He needs to start acting like one...

Please tell me what kind of "reporter" has the authority to make hiring decisions as Greenwald does?? I'd have thought FLM's board of directors might have taken offense at Greenwald speaking for the entire company all those times like he's running things...

[sabrina 1]

172. You missed it. It already came out, thanks to the hubris of Aaron Barr

who was working on a contract to SMEAR GLENN GREENWALD and PROGRESSIVE GROUPS, pitching his contract to such wonderful 'allies' (thanks for helping them) as the Chamber of Commerce and BOA.

The world knows what happened, thanks to Anonymous, who exposed where these smear campaigns COME FROM.

For once, thanks Anonymous, the GOOD GUYS, that would be Progressive Orgs and people like Greenwald, WON. We KNEW that the sudden smearing of people like Greenwald, was suspicious, the same old talking points repeated over and over again.

It's useless to keep it up. Greenwald is where he should be, but might not have been, had Aaron Barr not been so sure of himself that he challenged Anonymous leading to them posting all of his emails online for the world to see.

And what we saw confirmed the suspicions of many that there was more to the sudden attacks on Greenwald than just a few disgruntled online right wingers.

It's astounding though that ANYONE on the LEFT is still trying so hard to continue that smear campaign when the FACTS are out there.

Why did they want to smear Greenwald?? Because he is a REAL JOURNALIST, NOT on the payroll of the Corporate Media, determined to TELL THE TRUTH no matter what.

Snowden and Greenwald are heroes. The majority of the American people now support Snowden, despite the desperate attempts to smear him and the courageous journalists who have refused to be intimidated by LIES and SMEARS.

[markpkessinger]

95. For some reason, I am unable to click on any of the "Vote" buttons . . .

. . . but count me as among those who hold a generally favorable opinion of Greenwald!

(But if anyone can tell me why I can't vote, I'd love to know).

[Luminous Animal]

99. He put a 72 hour time limit on it.

[markpkessinger]

103. Thanks . . .

. . . I realized that after I had posted my message.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

105. Cause = dumbass survey taker

72 hours - like all dumb things - seemed like a good idea at the time.

[clg311]

107. Favorable NT

[merrily]

126. I suffer from voter apathy on this issue, so no vote. Will just enjoy the show.

[sabrina 1]

148. The poll is not working for me. Has it been deleted?

[Luminous Animal]

151. It was a 72 hour poll.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

155. The idiot who posted this thought 72 hours would be sufficient

In the spirit of Halloween, this thread rose from the dead, but the poll ended.

[adirondacker]

166. If you change the clock back one hour for daylight savings will it reappear?

[rhett o rick]

164. I find it interesting that those that disparage whistleblowers and investigative journalists

seem to agree with the corporate media on the subject.

Of course I understand those that dont like Greenwald and Snowden, they are conservatives that don't like anyone that speaks out against the authoritarian leaders. They disparage whistleblowers and investigative journalists, protesters like OWS and Code Pink.

[Drunken Irishman]

177. I think he's a slimy tool with a very punchable face.

[grasswire]

187. there it is

visceral

[DisgustipatedinCA]

200. You use what you've got.

My dog largely interacts with the world using his mouth--no opposable thumbs. Similarly, our drunken Irishman here appears to interact by focusing on violent fantasies. It's not my dog's fault that he isn't possessed of opposable thumbs--he's just a dog.