Let's talk about Glenn Greenwald

[johnaries]

As if we haven’t talked about him enough, already! LOL!

Greenwald is a very emotional writer. I mean this in a disparaging way, since many portray him as an objective reporter. He uses very emotional keywords and phrases which does him credit as a persuasive writer, but he cherry-picks and leaves out important facts or twists the facts to dishonestly portray them in order to “prove” a falsified point. Never mind that the point itself is false - as long as he can twist the facts to make his false point appear true and thus achieve his ultimate purpose.

To anyone who has taken Persuasive Writing, OR participated on High School Debate Teams, OR is familiar with Orwellian and/or Rovian techniques AND has any “Google” skills whatsoever can easily see through his writings and realizes that he is not to be taken seriously and obviously has an alternative agenda.

However, what IS his alternative agenda? If this were a criminal investigation, we would have to establish “motive”.

What is his motivation? He is obviously “smearing” a President that the opposition has painted as being so Liberal/Progressive that they maintain he is a Socialist. Yet, Greenwald paints him as “Conservative” and actually claims that many Conservatives were more Liberal than Obama.

Why?

I have found out that Greenwald is Gay, and I know from a lot of posts here at DU that many of the LGBT community here at DU are disenchanted with Obama. I find that interesting, because all of the LGBT community outside of DU strongly - and I mean STRONGLY - support him! I have many friends and co-workers who are LGB ( I had two friends who were T in the past, but we have lost touch as happens so often with friends) and they are appalled at Greenwald’s portrayals of Obama’s policies.

Upon further investigation, I found that was married to a South American man. Wonderful for him! Under current American law, if he were married to a woman, she would automatically be a US citizen. However, because the US doesn’t recognize Same Sex marriage, his Mate is not privy to the same privileges.

This is a violation of Civil Rights! This is absolutely WRONG! It is unConstitutional!

BUT it was so before Obama took office. To BLAME Obama for it is, well, stupid!

To all my LGBT friends, remember that DADT was a victory at the time! Before that, anyone who was just accused of being Gay could be expelled. Obama worked diligently to make sure that LGBTs could serve OPENLY! He not only issued an XO that could easily be repealed by the next POTUS, he worked hard and long and with great PATIENCE to make sure that it was preserved forever IN LAW. He could’ve taken the easy way out and just done an XO - but he didn’t. He worked hard to make sure it was an irrevocable LAW.

Now, as for DOMA. OK, Obama originally said he was for Civil Unions but opposed to “Same-Sex Marriage” because of his religion, but he admitted that his views were “evolving”. He has also admitted since then that he believed that DOMA was a violation of Civil Rights.

Please, pay attention, because this is VERY IMPORTANT. The Justice Department is REQUIRED BY LAW to prosecute laws passed by the Congress. But, when pressed to support DOMA laws, the Obama Administration read INTO THE RECORD that this Administration believed that the DOMA law was unconstitutional and in violation of Civil Rights.

So, Obama is working towards equal rights for all, including LGBT civil rights. Obama is not concerned with “quick fixes” that can be easily over-turned, but with fixing the issue once and for all.

Yet, some people are not satisfied with that. Obama’s crusade would eliminate Greenwald’s concerns once and for all.

It appears that some people would rather have their cake now, and run the risk of losing it forever later.

I don’t have any evidence that this is what drives Greenwald’s vitriol - but nothing else makes sense. Frankly, it makes more sense than any of Greenwald’s accusations which have been all over the place and full of Rovian “spin”.

[RandySF]

1. I agree, but let's tone down the "stupid" remarks

Or you might get hauled in front of a jury.

[johnaries]

7. Thanks for the advice, but

I just can't think of another term that applies better. I can only hope the Powers that Be will agree that it is appropriate.

[Cameron27]

59. Waiting for the answer

to that too.

[dbackjon]

184. You agree? IT is a gay fucking conspiracy?

Wow - you are too much

[Bluenorthwest]

2. Just fyi, while in the Senate, the President did vote against the Uniting American

Families Act, which would address the injustice in immigration you speak of. Senator Kerry is still trying to get that done. So the fact is, the President has slowed progress on that with his vote in the Senate. To claim differently is simply incorrect.
I don't read Greenwald often at all, so I all I know is that the constant mention of his sexuality and the personal nature of what should remain a critique of ideas is not something I support.

[johnaries]

8. The correct answer is that the previous Senator

slowed progress with his vote. That was prior to his campaign for President, so I simply can't understand why people are now holding him to task for positions he held when they voted for him.

Like I say so often with Republican's - it's not the act, it's the hypocrisy.

Obama has done more for LGBT rights than any President in history. As I said previously, all of my non-DU LGBT friends recognize this and support him STRONGLY. It's only here on DU that I see such resistance.

So I have to ask, WTF?

[dsc]

3. actually it should be noted that the justice department refused

to enforce a law in regards to immigration. You see there was a law that said that if you were married to an American citizen and the citizen died within 3 years of the marriage then you had to be sent back as if the marriage never happened. That law wasn't enforced by the justice department pending Congress changing it. But I am one of those emotional gays you talk about so maybe I am must hysterically making shit up like all we gays do.

[johnaries]

5. Please don't put words in my mouth. I am your friend, not your enemy.

"emotional", "hystericallly", "making shit up". I never said any of those things.

Why are you pushing me away when I am trying to help you?

That's OK. Although you have tried your best to alienate me I have other friends that I will fight for.

[dsc]

6. Oh really?

Here is your second paragraph.

Greenwald is a very emotional writer. I mean this in a disparaging way, since many portray him as an objective reporter. He uses very emotional keywords and phrases which does him credit as a persuasive writer, but he cherry-picks and leaves out important facts or twists the facts to dishonestly portray them in order to “prove” a falsified point. Never mind that the point itself is false - as long as he can twist the facts to make his false point appear true and thus achieve his ultimate purpose.

words yours emboldening mine

That has two of the three. I admit, you don't use the word hysterical but it can be surmised. You used the words, you should own them.

And here is your linking that behavior to his being gay,

Why?

I have found out that Greenwald is Gay, and I know from a lot of posts here at DU that many of the LGBT community here at DU are disenchanted with Obama. I find that interesting, because all of the LGBT community outside of DU strongly - and I mean STRONGLY - support him! I have many friends and co-workers who are LGB ( I had two friends who were T in the past, but we have lost touch as happens so often with friends) and they are appalled at Greenwald’s portrayals of Obama’s policies.

[johnaries]

10. Oh, Puh-leezE!

If you actually READ my post, it is NOT that he is "gay", but it is because of a law implemented long before Obama's Admin that didn't recognize his marriage in the US and grant US Citizenship.

This is WRONG. BUT, it's NOT Obama's fault. It's existing law.

Please, in the future, recognize the true enemy. And please recognise the guys that are ON YOUR SIDE.

[Bluenorthwest]

160. Read here. Learn that the President, while in the Senate, voted against the bill that

would end the unfair immigration policies. It is in part, his doing that the law remains how it is. That is just the fact. He claimed teh gay people would commit fraud, and he cast a no. Senator John Kerry is still trying to get this law passed. Do you know who he is? He supported this all along, while the President and Senator Clinton opposed it. Just deal with that fact. Digest it. The man is an adult, he can deal with the owning his actions. He also went with the GOP on the Teri Schaivo thing, and he says he regrets that one, perhaps he also regrets this one. I do think he'd sign it if it passed, although he did reject it with his own Senate vote. Facts are facts.
With more facts, the hateful tone of the OP might seem less ignorant of the story you are trying to tell.
This immigration issue is not specific to Greenwald, it is something our entire community has deal with and fought for years and years.

http://queerbeacon.typepad.com/queer_beacon/uniting_american_families_act/

[johnaries]

15. I apologize to all on behalf of DSC.

Obviously, I touched a nerve. But I don't want anyone to base their opinions of the LGBT community on DSC's remarks. Most of my friends in that community I have found to be very reasonable despite the prejudice that has been leveled against them.

I salute my LGBT brothers and sisters, and I will celebrate the day when we all realize as a nation that Civil Rights includes ALL of us.

[MNBrewer]

24. Take your apology on behalf of dsc and

put it in the appropriate slot, please.

Glenn Greenwald makes impassioned, reasoned arguments against the slow-motion train wreck that is the Obama Presidency, just like he did against the Bush Presidency. He was lauded then, but as soon as he aimed his writing at the Beloved, THEN he became persona non grata here in DU.

[msanthrope]

42. I always thought he was an asshole--since he called the victims of Matt Hale 'odious and repugnant.'

"Hale's lawyer, New York attorney Glenn Greenwald, took a similar tact in responding to the suit. "It's all just guilt by association," said Greenwald, who isn't sure yet whether he will be representing Hale on this latest federal action.

He did, however, seem interested in taking the case on. He compared it to the first suit, which alleged Hale ordered Smith to target minorities.

"All they can say Matt Hale did is express the view that Jews and blacks are inferior, he said. "There's just no question that expressing those views is a core First Amendment activity."

Further, Greenwald said, "I find that the people behind these lawsuits are truly so odious and repugnant, that creates its own motivation for me.""

http://www.rickross.com/reference/hale/hale33.html

[MNBrewer]

54. What was the outcome of that particular case?

I looked but I can't find it. Was Matthew Hale found culpable for those shootings?

[msanthrope]

73. You have nothing to say about his calling teenagers 'odious and repugnant?'

Last edited Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Hale apparently settled this case, and the case against him with the CCR on behalf of Rev. Anderson.***

Of course, Hale then went to jail for 40 years, thanks to Pat Fitzgerald.


***On edit, I forgot to mention that the CCR/Rev. Anderson case was the one where good ole' Glenn unethically wiretapped a witness.

Yes. He did. You can look it up.

159 F. Supp. 2d 1116; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13001

[MNBrewer]

100. You're doing what Greenwald has been accused of doing by the OP.

[msanthrope]

174. Um, what?

I think Greenwald's defense of Matt Hale, and his disgusting choice of words has to do with his choices made as an attorney, not with his sexual orientation.

[Cameron27]

57. I'm not a lawyer

and I don't know anything about this particular case, but I do know that civil rights attorneys operate under the notion that the Bill of Rights applies to both the righteous & the most odious among us.

Before we pull out the torches & pitchforks & go after Greenwald, we need to know more about the principles involved in the case. There were times that I almost withheld my donation to the ACLU because of who they were defending, until I sat back & thought about it.

[msanthrope]

68. Tell me--can you recall the ACLU calling a plaintiff 'odious and repugnant' because they wanted

justice after being shot.

Greenwald used those words to describe two teenagers who filed suit against his client, Matt Hale. He chose his words.

[Cameron27]

71. I need to know a lot more

about the case before I answer. I can't judge what was said by anyone without knowing the full context.

[msanthrope]

74. Seriously? You think that 'context' might provide cover for calling teenage shooting victims

'odious and repugnant?'

Trust me--in context, the remarks look even shittier.

[Cameron27]

77. If I have time today,

I'll try to find some good sources and read through the whole case. If I'm wrong about Greenwald, I'll admit it, but right now that comment sounds completely out of character.

Do you have any other links?

[msanthrope]

87. Try the case where he wiretapped for Matt Hale--159 F. Supp. 2d 1116; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13001

That was the companion case to the two teenagers. Reverend Anderson was another shooting victim, and CCR took his case. Greenwald defended, and his conduct was later found to be unethical.

Yeah, you read it....he wiretapped for Matt Hale.

Ever wonder why he doesn't practice law any more? I wonder if this had anything to do with it.

[Cameron27]

97. Apparently he did wiretap,

and I won't defend him on that, but there's no evidence that this was linked in any way to his dropping his law practice.

What I really want to find out is what he meant by "I find that the people behind these lawsuits are truly so odious and repugnant, that creates its own motivation for me." It seems to me that that statement was not directed at the plantiffs themselves, but towards the people or organizations who represented them. I really want to know more, but I'm going to have to stop searching because google is taking me to sites that truly are beyond "odious & repugnant." If anyone has a link to a reputable site that covers this, please let me know.

[msanthrope]

98. CCR repped the Plaintiff in the Anderson case, Michael Ian Bender repped the teens.

Let us know if you find anything odious or repugnant about them.

[MNBrewer]

101. Did Hale shoot the "teenagers"?

[RainDog]

137. no. Benjamin Smith shot them

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2012, 04:26 PM - Edit history (1)

after Hale was denied a license to practice law in the state of IL because his views were considered outside the realm of acceptable discourse for an attn. in the state of IL.

later Hale was suspected of shooting a judge's family members who had ruled against him in a case. it turned out that some guy in Wisconsin, unconnected to Hale's hate group, was responsible.

Greenwald was involved in 1st amendment cases regarding Hale, never criminal cases.

[MNBrewer]

102. I find a lot of people using that quote who hate Greenwald

but I can't find it in context anywhere but in those articles. Where and when did he say that?

"I find that the people behind these lawsuits are truly so odious and repugnant, that creates its own motivation for me."

[Cameron27]

104. ditto

Post if you find something, because I still haven't found anything beyond the quote itself.

[EFerrari]

46. You couldn't be more wrong. Greenwald was honored this year by FAIR,

Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, by being selected to be one of their keynotes at the 25th Anniversary celebration and he received the iF Stone Award in 2009.

And now you need to apologize to dsc for calling him unreasonable on top of being wrong about Greenwald.

[msanthrope]

89. It's a shame that someone who wiretapped for Matt Hale would get any award.

159 F. Supp. 2d 1116; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13001

"Plaintiff moved to compel disclosure of these tapes, arguing that this conduct was unethical and therefore vitiated any attorney work-product privilege that may have attached to these recordings, and sought a protective order prohibiting any further recordings. The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;" and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating "a lawyer shall not … use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of [another] person."

That would be Anderson v. Hale, in which Mr. Greenwald was found to have tapped a witness for Mr. Hale. Naughty, naughty....

[jumptheshadow]

62. You do not need to apologize on behalf of DSC...

...He was offering an opinion, and a reasonable and valid one. Our fellow DUers will read it and will either agree or disagree with his perspective on their own. Your OP could easily be taken as insensitive. If you want to express your support of the LGBT community, then don't patronize and isolate one of DU's LGBT leaders when he objects to the wording of your post. It's a snarky way to try to undermine his point of view. Do your own apologizing for your own posts.

[Union Scribe]

125. That's a really obnoxious post.

dsc has nothing to apologize for. You, on the other hand, for that bit of patronizing and passive aggressive crap, might do well to offer one to him.

[sabrina 1]

148. You are clearly not familiar with Greenwald's writing. This description of him, as being 'emotional'

could not be further from the truth. If anything, he has been accused of being the opposite. Even by people who do not often agree with him. When he writes about issues he writes like a lawyer. Far from being emotional he is focused on facts and backs up his every contention with case law where possible.

When he is responding to screaming, emotional attacks on him, and I'm mostly accustomed to those attacks coming from the Right, he may appear to be emotional since in those posts he is addressing personal issues. But in all of the time I have been reading him, 'emotional' is the last thing I would call his writing. 'Passionate' would be a better word, he is passionate about civil rights issues and to me and to all of the Democrats who became familiar with him during the Bush years, that was one of his most admirable traits. Civil Rights after all, deserve passionate defenders.

What I find odd is that throughout the Bush years Greenwald was one of the most respected writers on the Left. He has not changed his positions one bit on Civil Rights issues and the Constitution. It was on sites like this that I discovered him. But now, while he has not changed, something has. Can you explain that? Can you, eg, point out one issue that he is now talking about that his position was different on during the Bush years when we on the left could not wait for his next column trashing Bush for his shredding of the Constitution.

[sabrina 1]

151. Oops, this post was intended for the OP. Apologies to dsc. n/t

[noise]

4. It's called propaganda

He is obviously “smearing” a President that the opposition has painted as being so Liberal/Progressive that they maintain he is a Socialist. Yet, Greenwald paints him as “Conservative” and actually claims that many Conservatives were more Liberal than Obama.

Greenwald is not relying on the opposition's nonsense and Democratic party talking points and instead has dared to look at Obama's conduct in office. That is why he doesn't buy the "socialist" rhetoric.

[johnaries]

12. As I point out, Greenwald does not rely on REALITY

at all. He only spins his own agenda.

This is obvious to all thinking people. My question was 'Why?"

[noise]

13. So the tea party

labeling of Obama as a radical socialist/communist is reality?

[johnaries]

14. Just as much as the lables of him as a Corporatist are.

In other words, NO.

[MNBrewer]

25. Why don't YOU take a look at reality, then?

[fascisthunter]

44. Um... look who he has in his admin and what how he has helped corporate America

while throwing crumbs at the rest of us... that's reality for ya.

[msanthrope]

85. Have you ever noted the irony of a Wachtell litigator accusing Obama of

being corporatist????

[quinnox]

9. I'm more interested in the motivations behind all the hyperbolic and dishonest attacks

that seem to be aimed at Greenwald. You would think he personally choked a bunch of peoples favorite pets or something, the way they react. Or that
Greenwald is some sort of political figure that they must defeat so their candidate can win. Greenwald is just a writer and political commentator after all. True, he is a brilliant and persuasive one, but still, just one voice out of many. He doesn't have a monopoly on this field, lol, that is, yet.

I don't understand what drives the over the top attacks against Greenwald, whether it be fear, hate, or maybe the guy just rubs a certain group the wrong way. <shrug> All I know is the more I read his work, the more impressed I become. The dude is on another level.

[johnaries]

11. Maybe it's because Greenwald himself indulges in "over the top"

hyperbolic and dishonest attacks.

He is a very dishonest "reporter" as i pointed out.

[EFerrari]

40. Greenwald is not a reporter.

He is a civil rights attorney. Of course he is going to be critical of the government. That's his training and his job.

[msanthrope]

92. A civil rights attorney cited for unethical behavior for recording witnesses.

I mean, the irony--he was dinged by the judge, and on appeal, for unethically recording witnesses without their knowledge and consent.

See, Anderson v. Hale, 202 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 2001)

Can you tell me where he is still licensed to practice law?

[RainDog]

138. as I have asked below, would you please edit your post

to remove the bigoted and homophobic parts that entirely undermine anything you want to say - unless what you want to say is that you are bigoted and homophobic, of course.

[JVS]

123. "You would think he personally choked a bunch of peoples favorite pets"

He's known as the pony slayer.

[Kolesar]

128. Greenwald's paragraphs are poorly linked to each other

His Salon.com essays are so poorly written that I have to keep restarting them because he wanders around the topic.

I have been reading Salon.com regularly since the 1990s. I even subscribed for $50/year when Salon was starting out.

[Kahuna]

16. +1. You nailed him perfectly. He's bitter.

[Kahuna]

63. Don't try to pysch me out. It won't work.

[Kahuna]

90. I don't owe you an explanation but if you want..

you can see my post a couple of replies down.

[quinnox]

32. let me guess,

you also have gay friends too.

[Kahuna]

65. No I do not. But I have a lot of gay relatives, and they still support the pres.

ETA, My gay and lesbian relatives, being black, living in urban areas that are the hardest hit and where black unemployment is double the national average, are concerned with survival and security, like the rest of us in my family. They could not care less about the issues glenn likes to squawk about.

[sabrina 1]

149. Bitter? About what?

Did you find him to be bitter when Bush was president? Because Greenwald has not changed one bit as far as his writing goes on the issues. When did he become bitter and over what?

[xchrom]

17. i find this OP exemplary of the anti-lgbtiq bigotry that's allowed on DU. nt

[msanthrope]

19. How is it bigotry? I ask that in all seriousness.

Can you cite what you think is bigotry? I really think DU3 benefits from respectful dialogue.

[xchrom]

21. this

'I have found out that Greenwald is Gay, and I know from a lot of posts here at DU that many of the LGBT community here at DU are disenchanted with Obama. I find that interesting, because all of the LGBT community outside of DU strongly - and I mean STRONGLY - support him! I have many friends and co-workers who are LGB ( I had two friends who were T in the past, but we have lost touch as happens so often with friends) and they are appalled at Greenwald’s portrayals of Obama’s policies. '

[msanthrope]

33. But how is that bigotry?

Glenn Greenwald is Gay.

His writings are strongly influenced by this fact.

Noting that Mr. Greenwald disagrees with the Administration over DOMA policy, and noting that he concurrently has a vested, personal interest in the policy is not bigotry.

Noting that a contingent of DU's LGBT community differs from the LGBT community as a whole is not bigoted.

[xchrom]

41. perhaps you could provide a link on LGBT poll numbers taken for the president?

because the OP is going on anecdote only -- and you're saying it's fact.

more -- what you're saying reminds of the arguments used about the judge hearing arguments on prop 8.

[msanthrope]

47. He's at 82% among Democrats. And his approval rating with gays continues to rise.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-approval-rating-soars



There's a state by state breakdown, here, including stats on gay support.--

Obama’s approval rating is higher in states with more foreign-born residents (.53) and more gays and lesbians (.55). As angry as the gay community has been at Obama for his caution and fence sitting on such issues as DADT and DOMA, the demise of both unpopular laws has helped him with that constituency. States with higher percentages of gays are more likely to approve of the president and less likely to disapprove of him than they were a couple of years ago in 2009.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2011/09/geography-obamas-tanking-approval-ratings/121/



As for Judge Walker, you do realize that had he a vested outcome in the case, he would have been thrown? For example, the appeals court noted that had there been any proof that he had undertaken a same-sex marriage, or otherwise availed himself of the process, that might have been enough to have him thrown--merely being gay was not enough.


As for Glenn Greenwald, merely being gay does not indicate a bias regarding DOMA. But Glenn has a vested interest, in that he cannot marry his partner, or reside with him*** in the US--and he has been vocal about his desire to do so. It is that additional step, if you will, that indicates his personal, vested interest.



***So Glenn claims. I don't see why the partner doesn't get a visa.

[xchrom]

53. so no specific links to lgbt people

you draw a generality from larger polls.

and the arguments made against walker were just that he was gay -- that made his ruling biased.

other people pointed that he didn't avail himself of the marriage laws.

you and the OP are making a bias claim against greenwald -- and the OP goes even further w/ what i consider bigoted when he claims he's being 'emotional'.

if this OP had been written critisizing a straight person of color -- the OP would be receiving a good deal less support for their views.
but that's how i find support for LGBTIQ people on DU. hypocritical and cynical.

*** i can make the claim that LBTIQ people i know think obama is a panderer when it comes to us.
that happens to be so -- but it's just anecdote.

[girl gone mad]

94. Substitute "black" or "a woman" in that post and see if you still think it's not offensive.

The OP is patently bigoted.

[G_j]

129. +1000

[msanthrope]

165. I see your point.

I don't think Greenwald being gay is relevant to his unpersuasive rhetoric, however.

[dbackjon]

185. It is obvious you don't have a clue

If you can not see the out and out homophobic bigotry in the OP, then you are probably on the wrong site.

[xchrom]

23. the OP even has LGB friends! nt

[Puglover]

26. No shit.

The old "some of my best friends" bullshit. One thing this OP is good for. I forgot to put it's author on ignore when I made the switch from DU2.

[msanthrope]

35. I think that if someone is gay, they do have a vested, personal interest in the DOMA policy.

This does not make someone an poor critic. But its personal effect is undeniable--the bias of the commenter is something to consider when reading their opinion pieces.

I have an interest in the overturning of DOMA, but I won't suggest that interest is the same as someone who cannot marry because of it.

[msanthrope]

164. Well, I'm not dismissing him because he's gay, but because he's unpersuasive. nt

[sabrina 1]

150. And yet, no one ever accused him of being bitter when he was writing about these

exact same issues during the Bush years. And I never saw anyone here refer to the fact that he was gay as a reason for his concerns for Civil Rights. As far as I knew, one does not have to be Gay or Black to care about Civil Rights, which is what Greenwald writes about and always has.

These attacks on Greenwald are not based on his writings, they are based on the fact that he refuses to change his mind on the issues that he has always written passionately about. And the search to justify them has now gone into his personal life. Is the ACLU bitter also? Are all the American citizens who are outraged over the loss of Constitutional Rights bitter also? Maybe be, but they are not ALL Gay are they? Or could it be that American Citizens, which Greenwald is, actually care about these issues? And that Greenwald is outraged as an American citizen, and it has nothing to do with him being Gay?

[msanthrope]

167. I'm not the poster who used the word 'bitter.' Perhaps you could direct your

post to them.

[sabrina 1]

178. I directed my comment to you because you have agreed with the OP and despite all the comments

denouncing these claims, I have not seen you back away from them. This thread, like all the others smearing Greenwald with mostly either half truths or ignorant claims from people who clearly are unfamiliar with his writing, all of them, are thoroughly disgusting. Your posting of half the story of the judge's ruling re Greenwald is a perfect example. Thankfully, someone else has provided that information.

And for stating my disgust about all of these disgusting threads regarding Greenwald I get a comment hidden, but this despicable thread remains standing.

Edit to add, I just saw that EarlG has taken care of this.

[msanthrope]

180. I think you should direct questions about comments to the posters who make them.

But if you have a specific question to me about about anything I wrote, please direct it to me.

[sabrina 1]

182. No, I do not. It is what it is. The OP is no longer here, and I think most questions have been

answered now.

[EFerrari]

37. Agreed. This is disgusting.

I don't know why DU is so concerned with Greenwald. He criticizes Obama but he has also said that he believes our political system is so corrupt that change cannot come from it. He is not principally concerned with electoral politics.

He doesn't care about the things that political DUers care about. He operates in a different sphere where Obama, Democrats and elections are not at the center, so trying to understand him in terms of Democratic electoral politics is a non-starter.

[kenny blankenship]

39. He is an enemy of the State!

He defiles and opposes everything decent, and all right thinking people utterly despise him.

This week's Two Minutes Hate has been extended indefinitely.

[EFerrari]

48. You are kidding but I have zero doubt that his name is on The List

for defending Wikileaks and Brad Manning.

[xchrom]

43. thank you. nt

[EFerrari]

50. Happy New Year, xchrom.

I hope this is a good one for us.

[sabrina 1]

152. Maybe it's not just DU. Remember he was a target of HB Gary/BOA before Anonymous took them down.

[QC]

67. But a jury voted 1-5 to keep it.

That says a lot, none of it good.

[xchrom]

70. +1

[EFerrari]

88. Good grief.

[QC]

95. But don't you dare suggest that DU has a homophobia problem!

That just wouldn't be nice!

[suffragette]

146. Agree with you xchrom

The OP's tone is condescending.

[Puregonzo1188]

170. Totally agreed, though this more blatant than usual.

[msanthrope]

18. Wait a second--is he actually married??? When did Brazil get same sex marriages?

If Glenn Greenwald wants to marry a partner 20 years younger and live in the US, then I say, more power to him---he should be able to.

BUT, if where he lives, Brazil, doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, I don't think he can fault the US for that.....

In fact, I'm still wondering why his partner isn't able to get a visa?

[Cameron27]

60. Probably because

"Brazil's Supreme Court has voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights as married heterosexuals."

snip: "The ruling will give gay couples in "stable" partnerships the same financial and social rights enjoyed by those in heterosexual relationships"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13304442

And why exactly is it noteworthy that his partner is 20 years younger?

[msanthrope]

64. He can do better in Massachusetts or NY State, or DC.

He can't get married in Brazil. He can register his partnership. I wonder if he has.

Why is it noteworthy that his partner is 20 years younger? Well, when a heterosexual man takes up with a 20-year younger, good-looking, poor woman, why is it noteworthy? Mr. Greenwald chose to speak publicly about his relationship. I get to comment on it.

[Cameron27]

66. Ahhh, gotcha

then I don't know the answer. Hopefully someone else can shed some light on his reasons.

[Bluenorthwest]

155. Brazil is a nation. NY, MA are States. The US is a nation. It does not allow gay couples

to come to the US when one of them is not American. The States of NY and MA can not control immigration matters. This is, just so you know, an issue that is not specific to the men in question, it is an ongoing long term fight for justice. Senator John Kerry, whom you might know of, is the champion of that law, and has tried to get it passed for ages. The President, when in the Senate, was a NO, along with the GOP, against Senator Kerry's legislation.
This is an issue that does harm to thousands of families, and causes others to separate. Many good people stand up to correct that injustice. Not you of course, others do. John Kerry. Do you know who he is?
Age of a partner who is of legal age is of no consequence at all. None. Also, I note that while we are speaking of long term committed couples, you equate that with 'taking up with' someone. The opponents of equality claim Sanctity for your kind. We just 'take up with someone' for in my case, 25 years so far. Yes, my partner also younger, want to come sue me? On what grounds? Smugness? Sanctity? What's your standing?
Jerry Senifeld met his wife when she was 17 and in High School. Had a hit show at the time. Did you wail on that? High School. Uh-huh.

[msanthrope]

166. I thought Jerry Seinfeld's taking up with a teenager rather pathetic.

I am sorry if that terminology is offensive to you--but what else would you describe the latest Karshdashian snafu? I apologize if it caused you offense.

On edit--I ask in all seriousness, is there a better term? I truly did not realize I was giving offense, simply because that would be term I would use for an identical heterosexual relationship.

[Cameron27]

176. Thank you,

I thought that was the problem, but wasn't sure enough on the details to post.

(saving for future ref.)

[TomClash]

22. Another OP ad hominem attack

Will you ask for GG's birth certificate next?

Being gay has nothing to do with anything he writes. He doesn't write often on LgBT issues. He writes generally on civil liberties and that's not strange since he worked for the CCR. It is his area of interest and he is passionate about it. Ascribing some unsupported motivation based on sexual preference is freeper-like and nauseating.

One noticeable similarity in all these anti-GG posts is the abject failure to discuss the issues and policies specifically discussed by GG.

The Department of Justice has prosecutorial discretion. It does not always have to prosecute laws pass by Congress.

[quinnox]

28. I didn't even think about that, great point

Using someone's sexuality as a weapon to use against them is pretty low, especially if they happen to be gay.

[msanthrope]

34. You are conflating two different things--

Prosecutorial discretion and the constitutional charge to enforce the laws Congress passes are not the same thing.

[TomClash]

76. No

There are many laws that are never enforced. And the constitutional charge is to execute the laws not enforce them. The Executive Branch has always had broad discretion in that execution; that's why it issues so many regulations and those regulations are generally accepted by the other two branches of government.

[msanthrope]

81. Again, you are conflating prosecutorial discretion with the constitutional mandate to

execute the laws. There's a difference, and your legal arguments would be stronger if you showed you could differentiate between the two.

[TomClash]

84. I read and answered your post the first time nt

[MNBrewer]

27. Please provide some examples of cases in which

"he cherry-picks and leaves out important facts or twists the facts to dishonestly portray them in order to “prove” a falsified point. Never mind that the point itself is false - as long as he can twist the facts to make his false point appear true and thus achieve his ultimate purpose."

[msanthrope]

36. Oh, that was easy-I did this one without breaking a sweat...

Glenn is famous for having to edit and re-edit, and 'update' his columns, as his pesky readers offer things like 'facts' and 'figures.'

For example--He first filed this column, editing President Obama's response to why Wall Street Bankers weren't prosecuted--

"I can’t, as President of the United States, comment on the decisions about particular prosecutions. That’s the job of the Justice Department, and we keep those separate so that there’s no political influence on decisions made by professional prosecutors."


After he got roasted in his comments section, he acknowledged that the President said this---

"THE PRESIDENT: I can tell you, just from 40,000 feet, that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal.

That's exactly why we had to change the laws. And that's why we put in place the toughest financial reform package since F.D.R. and the Great Depression. And that law is not yet fully implemented, but already what we're doing is we've said to banks, "You know what? You can't take wild risks with other people's money. You can't expect a taxpayer bailout. We're gonna ask you to set up a living will, so that if you are going down, we've already figured how to break it up, without without harming the rest of the economy.""

And President Obama is right--sub-primes, derivatives?? All perfectly legal at the time. Which is something that Greenwald forgets to mention. Of course, he spends the rest of that column bashing Tim Geithner for the repeal of G-S. Who of course, when Glass-Steagall was repealed, was working in Foreign Affairs....

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/12/obama_i_cant_comment_on_wall_street_prosecutions/singleton/


I think Greenwald also conveniently leaves out mentioning that he has a financial incentive to sell the OWS swag he touts in Salon....he makes money off of crap Hamsher's PAC sells.
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/17/ows_inspired_activism/singleton/

[MNBrewer]

55. perfectly legal is debatable.

[msanthrope]

61. Perhaps you could show us the statute you think debatable? On edit--

Last edited Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:09 PM - Edit history (1)

What say you to selling OWS swag he benefits from???

[MNBrewer]

103. Perhaps you could show all the behavior that led to the economic meltdown

and prove that it's all legal, with legal citations, please.

Why do you hate OWS?

[sabrina 1]

153. Maybe the President should read the Bi-Partisan Senate Committee's two year findings on whether or

not the causes of the financial meltdown were legal or not. That report was sent to the DOJ because 'there was evidence of illegalities' which the Senate does not have the authority to deal with. What happened to that report? Has the DOJ taken any action on it? Did the President read it? It's long and very detailed, with lots of references to law etc. I read it, it took a while, and I thought by now we would have heard something more about it.

Sub Primes and Derivatives unfortunately were and even more unfortunately, derivatives still are legal. That is not where the possible crimes occurred, it was in how they were used, that resulted in criminal activity.

Is Greenwald really that threatening? And if so, to whom?

I know he was targeted by the BOA's security firm, which was pretty chilling frankly. But they were exposed. Have they hired someone else? And what did he do to get these powerful people so interested in him other than write a blog?

And are you saying he has no right to make a living? What is your point about him getting paid for his work?? Do you donate your time to your area of expertise or do you take a salary for it?

I get paid for teaching. But I chose that profession out of all the others I could have chosen, not for the money but because I believe in education. However, I do have to eat, as I'm sure Greenwald does.

I would relax about the man getting paid for his work, there is no ulterior motive involved in earning a living. The President gets paid. Is he only doing it for the money too?

[msanthrope]

168. Do you have a cite for that report? Did it reccommend certain prosecutions?

I am all for prosecutions, if someone could please, with specificity, tell us, who, and what.

[got root]

31. classic

attack the messenger, not the message.

[fascisthunter]

45. Attacking the Messenger based on his Sexual Orientation

oh my.... rethink your argument.

[Oilwellian]

49. What a disgusting, fucking thread

My God.

[PA Democrat]

69. And this thread is a prime example of why the unrec is needed.

I'm not sure what sickens me more, the opening post or the fact that 7 other DUers actually recommended it.

This thread is not something I would want a visitor to see on the greatest page.

[QC]

105. No surprises on that list. n/t

[tabatha]

106. I would like to know why I was added to that list.

I do not support anti-gay bigotry. Ever. I have gay friends.

[tabatha]

116. For reasons other than you assumed.

[Bluenorthwest]

156. Reasons that you refuse to state? What are they, national security issues?

'Reasons other than you assumed'. Mysterious, unknown reasons? Why not state your reasons?

[Puregonzo1188]

173. It's 17 now. And while this is thread is allowed to stand, a post calling out people who support

this homophobic vitriol is disruptive.

Disgusting, disgusting, disgusting.

[Wind Dancer]

79. It's indeed a disgusting thread!

I'm so sick of the numerous posts bashing Greenwald's writings. Substance is never addressed and now we have a homophobic thread about him????? Geeeez!

[One of the 99]

51. Anatomy Of A Glenn Greenwald Smear Job!

"I’m not a huge fan of Glenn Greenwald. There are many reasons why I dislike the man and his writings, but the main ones are his dishonesty and hyperbolic rhetoric. I only read him when I’m tipped off to something particularly crazy.

....

I was searching Google one day and came across an article in The Nation titled “A Response to Glenn Greenwald“, written by Mark Ames and Yasha Levine. Of course, I had to click on it. In recent years, Greenwald has become an example of how — with the growth of the internet — people have been given platforms who don’t deserve it and don’t have enough integrity to wield such power. Glenn Greenwald has shown time and time again that he is vicious in his attacks on people and uses every sleazy rhetorical technique known to humans to push his narrative. He is completely anti-Obama, anti-government and anti-Democratic Party. He used to be anti-Republican Party during the Bush years and that is when he established some false credibility with the left.

I did a study of his posts on Salon.com for a period of just over a month. What I found was — out of 43 posts, 38 of them were anti-Obama and the remaining 5 were about something non political. There were zero posts that attacked Republicans. ZERO! I guess the GOP hasn’t done anything recently that has upset Glenn."

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/anatomy-of-a-glenn-greenwald-smear-job/

[Old and In the Way]

183. Too bad Johnaires didn't use this analysis to make his case that Greenwald

is an opportunist who will always play to the opposition, regardless of the party in power, because that's where the $ and visibility is

The OP is GUILTY! of using poor logic to make his case as to what motivates Greenwald to grind his ax. But a smear of an entire class of people? Nope...not close. He was simply making a flawed argument that Greenwald's anti-Obama screeds are based on his sexual orientation. Funny thing is, many here in this thread are making the case that Obama is anti-gay....but, of course, that has no bearing on why they oppose Obama. Go figure.

Anyways, the Obama-haters got their scalp by using faux outrage over a non-existent smear of gays. A job well done!

[ronnie624]

52. Incoherent, just like all of the attacks against Greenwald.

The only thing clear, is the ridiculous notion that an entire group of people, numbering in the millions, is motivated exclusively by their sexual orientation.

[MjolnirTime]

56. Greenwald feeds his own ego.

[HangOnKids]

80. Funny that, most people do. n/t

[EFerrari]

93. Greenwald has gotten awards from all kinds of human rights

and journalistic organizations.

[PA Democrat]

58. I'm glad that I'm not the only DUer disgusted by this post.

I RARELY read Greenwald and I don't understand the disgusting, over-the-top vitriol for the guy. In fact, I'd venture a guess that his writings will have just about ZERO impact on the results of the 2012 election.

Why is he such a threat that there are probably a dozen threads smearing the guy? Who sent out the memo that he's the #1 enemy?

[RainDog]

141. +1

my thoughts exactly. I rarely read Greenwald.

but that people defend homosexual bigotry as a valid argument is vile.

[Ikonoklast]

72. My beef with Greenwald is that he is a Libertarian pretending to be a Leftist.

He is a First Amendment absolutist who thinks Citizen's United is the best think since sliced bread.

For me, that is a deal-breaker. He is on the wrong side of history and so is that ruling. I put it right up there with Dred Scott v. Sanford decision in its odiousness.

If I now have the same rights as, say, GE, and Money = Speech, who has more SpeechMoney to get their way, GE, or me?

Greenwald is dependent upon presenting a contrarian view to make his living. If there is no real controversy to opine about, he will create one one using half-truths and leave out facts that are inconvenient to his thesis.

He can be somewhat less than truthful in his writings, you cannot accept that what he wrote is actually a criticism based on facts in evidence, or purely an opinion piece base on conjecture.

He tends to conflate the two.

As far as I am concerrned, his personal sexual history is none of my business.

[boxman15]

99. +100

[Enrique]

78. the funny thing about Greenwald...

is that he is the same kind of writer he was three years ago, and yet none of these very elaborate critiques appeared before January 2009. Well, maybe they did at Free Republic.

I'm saying this with the caveat that I might be wrong. It's possible that people were making the same criticisms of Greenwald back then and I just missed them.

[msanthrope]

83. Oh no--as I noted above, I always thought he was an asshole--

back in his Matt Hale days.

On edit--Greenwald got into pretty serious ethical trouble for--wait for it--wiretapping a witness while he was defending Hale. It's an interesting case....

[tabatha]

107. Your problems with Greenwald have been construed as anti-gay bigotry,

Just as mine were. In a post that has since been hidden.

I would like to know what anti-gay bigotry I have ever supported on DU.

I have problems with Greenwald, but I really do not care about his orientation one bit.

[Bobbie Jo]

109. I have the same question.

As I seem to have made "the list" as well.

Thank you to the jury for making the appropriate call.

[tabatha]

110. I was on that jury and could not believe it when I saw my name.

I have stated nothing. All I did was recommend the post for reasons I shall not go into - it had nothing to do with sexual orientation.

[tabatha]

115. Nope, only those who rush to the incorrect judgement.

And that was completely incorrect.

[tabatha]

120. You don't have to.

And I do not care. I know who I am, and I have never been a bigot. Ever.

[RainDog]

142. you were on a jury for a post that was about you?

you should have excused yourself from that jury.

and, just to note - to disagree with Greenwald is one thing. To promote this OP, with its attempt to try Greenwald's sexual orientation, along with an entire group here on DU, with something Greenwald writes, rather than critiquing the writing itself is supporting bigotry.

it's really clear to a lot of people here that this post contains repugnant rhetoric - even when those people are not Greenwald devotee or GBL or T.

[tabatha]

144. It was a list of people,

of which I was just one. If it was just me, I would have hot-tailed it out of there. But it concerned other people who were being maligned. I thought it was awful to call other people out for their views just because they recommended something. It was voted 6-0 to hide. It was that bad.

I never posted any comment on that thread (edit - about the OP content). I rec'd it because I thought that Obama has done more for GBLT than any other president. I have always supported the rights for GBLT. I have gay friends, both male and female. One of them is a very well known gay activist in South Africa. That is why I was shocked to see my name on the list.

What I find very disconcerting on this board is that people are attacked for things they do not say or attitudes they do not have. It happened over and over again during the war in Libya. I supported the NATO assistance not because I am pro-war (Tutu supported the UN action in Libya, but not Iraq/Afghanistan). I was strongly opposed to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars - I sent round tens of hundreds emails (600+) to acquaintances about that war and why it was wrong. I had many arguments with three people in particular about the Iraq war. I likened Bush's aggression to Botha's kragdagdigheid in South Africa - yet some people on this board belittled our support for the Libyans who were being slaughtered by a tyrant as being war-mongers.

People can post any thing they want. What people cannot and should not do is smear or characterize people. Which you have just done.

[RainDog]

147. you're wrong

about this OP and about me characterizing or smearing people - I said that indicating support for the post indicates support for bigotry. That's the impression, whether you want it to be or not.

Again, the simple way to put this is to change the group. If the OP had said... Glenn Greenwald is black. Because he's black, he and other black people who post on DU do not support the president because of x or y.

That would also be bigotry because it is making claims about an entire group here and one person simply based upon the color of their skin and not the content of their writing.

I don't think you mean harm - I'm just saying that when I read the OP, I thought... surely this person cannot think it's good political judgment to try to pretend that being gay is a reason to critique an issue.

In addition, since the person talks about rhetoric - here's another part of the post that plays into homosexual stereotypes - saying that Greenwald is an "emotional writer."

If someone wanted to talk about a woman's position on the issue of abortion - whatever her stance - to label her as an 'emotional' writer is the sort of rhetoric that is considered slimy.

It's called "hitting below the belt."

People cannot post anything they want. There are terms of service here and posted bigotry is not acceptable.

[Bluenorthwest]

157. What reasons? If you demand to do nasty stuff for 'reasons of my own' then just

deal with the fact that you are going to appear to support this hateful OP. It is hateful to the extreme. Attacking anyone on their sexuality is just wrong, nasty, ugly and right wing as it gets.
So. If you do not communicate, others will assume, and the fault lies with you. Period.

[Puregonzo1188]

175. WAIT--You were on that jury and did not see the need to recuse yourself?

That is unethical on your part.

[tabatha]

113. No, I did not recommend that sentiment.

[PA Democrat]

154. Well, you need to consider that that is how it will be interpreted by many- me included.

Because the OP was not an argument against Greenwald's views. Rather, it was an attempt to portray him as someone whose views were formed because of his "emotional" gayness. That's how a LOT of us interpreted the OP. and found it disgusting.

[msanthrope]

172. Oh, yes. I've noticed. nt

[Kolesar]

126. HE (Greenwald) only objects to Obama policies because he's GAY--where does johnaires say that?

In his original post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297376

[msanthrope]

171. So what if I recommended a thread? Are you suggesting DUers now

have to defend their recommendations?

Please.

As for the cite you posted, as I posted in the other thread, the court made a judgment of ethical rules, not character, as they should.

Greenwald broke two ethical rules. It was held on appeal.

[spanone]

86. let's not. t3

[brentspeak]

117. Alternate thread title: Let's Change The Subject Away From Obama's Sell-Out Presidency

[UTUSN]

119. R#10 & K for, thanks for the research and color commentary n/t

[DeathToTheOil]

121. All on the front page of GD right now. Do you see the futility?

[DeathToTheOil]

122. .

[JVS]

124. "I have found out that Greenwald is Gay..." Nice hard-hitting investigative journalism.

[piratefish08]

127. Greenwald's beef with Obama's policies are because he is gay? really?

[Kolesar]

130. HE (Greenwald) only objects to Obama policies because he's GAY--where does johnaires say that?

[EFerrari]

131. Right here in plain English:

I have found out that Greenwald is Gay, and I know from a lot of posts here at DU that many of the LGBT community here at DU are disenchanted with Obama. I find that interesting, because all of the LGBT community outside of DU strongly - and I mean STRONGLY - support him! I have many friends and co-workers who are LGB ( I had two friends who were T in the past, but we have lost touch as happens so often with friends) and they are appalled at Greenwald’s portrayals of Obama’s policies.

Upon further investigation, I found that was married to a South American man. Wonderful for him! Under current American law, if he were married to a woman, she would automatically be a US citizen. However, because the US doesn’t recognize Same Sex marriage, his Mate is not privy to the same privileges.

This is a violation of Civil Rights! This is absolutely WRONG! It is unConstitutional!

BUT it was so before Obama took office. To BLAME Obama for it is, well, stupid!

[MADem]

132. I realize you are quoting someone else's thread, but there's factual inaccuracy in the assertion

that "...if he were married to a woman, she would automatically be a US citizen."

Not any more. Not for awhile, either. There's a long, drawn-out process that starts with a visa and three years of residency.

I am not suggesting that the current law prohibiting same sex spouses from enjoying the immigrant visa route to citizenship is "OK," just pointing out that there's a factual error in the argument.

[Bluenorthwest]

159. Fun fact- Straight Couples get to make use of that process, and we don't.

So the accuracy is that your community gets special rights that your community denies to ours. What you are allowed to do, we are not allowed to do. You are correct that there is a process for your community, you are off the mark in insisting that this means we are not denied that same process. Equal means we get what you get. Yes, it is still a process. We'd like to join you in that long, drawn out process that is currently only for the 'Sanctified' such as Newt Gingrich.
Deal with it. We just want what others get, and we do not get that which YOU get. We get no long drawn out process. We get nothing. And thanks, for that, thanks for nothing.

[MADem]

163. I think you are trying to put words and attitudes in my mouth that I don't hold.

That's entirely unhelpful. I simply stated that there was a factual inaccuracy in a statement about the citizenship process and I never once said or even suggested that "this means we are not denied the same process."

I invite you to "deal with that," and don't work so hard to make me an enemy when I don't deserve that sort of characterization.

Thanks for nothing back at ya. Have a nice day.

[Rex]

133. He is the Pepsi to his detractors Coke.

Professional jelly too, imc.

[fishwax]

134. wow.

So Greenwald only opposes administration policies because he's gay? And that also explains why he, in your words, is "emotional," "twists the facts to dishonestly portray them," and so on?

[RainDog]

135. I would like to make a suggestion

since you are talking about rhetoric here - your post would be better if you removed this particular section that gets into sort of "conspiracy theory" talk about one specific person who happens to be gay and, in addition, talk about an entire group of people on this board who happen to be gay.

a standard way to check yourself to see if something is bigoted is to ask... what if I made these same remarks about African-Americans, for instance, or other groups that are designated as such based upon something like color of skin, sexual orientation or their particular reproductive organs.

he is not to be taken seriously and obviously has an alternative agenda.

However, what IS his alternative agenda? If this were a criminal investigation, we would have to establish “motive”.

What is his motivation? He is obviously “smearing” a President that the opposition has painted as being so Liberal/Progressive that they maintain he is a Socialist. Yet, Greenwald paints him as “Conservative” and actually claims that many Conservatives were more Liberal than Obama.

Why?

I have found out that Greenwald is Gay, and I know from a lot of posts here at DU that many of the LGBT community here at DU are disenchanted with Obama. I find that interesting, because all of the LGBT community outside of DU strongly - and I mean STRONGLY - support him! I have many friends and co-workers who are LGB ( I had two friends who were T in the past, but we have lost touch as happens so often with friends) and they are appalled at Greenwald’s portrayals of Obama’s policies.

[Iggo]

136. Some of my best friends are gay!

:rolleyes:

[MjolnirTime]

139. You're about to get burned alive.

Sad, but true.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

140. Let's not

He's about a exciting as Rick Santorum.

[Luminous Animal]

145. He's Gay. He's totally gay gay gay gay.

It's the only thing that makes sense. Gay!

[Bluenorthwest]

158. It's a witch hunt!

This disgusting OP is best read Mad Libs style...substitute the word 'gay' with the word 'Jew' or 'Mexican' and then read the piece out loud for the amusement of your fellows.....ie "I have found out that Greenwald is GAY, and I know from a lot of posts here at DU that many of the LGBT community here at DU are disenchanted with Obama."
Turns into "I have found out that Greenwald is a Jew, and I know from a lot of posts here at DU that many of the Jewish community here at DU are disenchanted with Obama." Proceed to do the same with the rest of this rant.
Try to get up to 21st Century speed. Let the game teach you how 19th Century you really, really are.

[Bluenorthwest]

161. Learn more here: Immigration Equality.org

http://www.immigrationequality.org/about/

[Cameron27]

177. Excellent.

TY

[Catherina]

162. EarlG took care of this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124021275#post121

Posted an OP that was highly insensitive to members of DU\'s LGBT community. After it was made clear to the member that many considered his remarks to be hurtful and insensitive, the member made no effort to address the concerns raised.
For more information see Terms of Service
EarlG


Thank you EarlG! I knew you guys were sincere and serious about this

[sabrina 1]

179. Thanks for that Catherina.

And thanks to EarlG.

[suffragette]

181. Glad to see this update

Thanks for the update and to EarlG

[Puregonzo1188]

169. Are you serious? Is this a joke? This is just homophobic and deeply disgusting.

I don't know about your "LGBT" friends, but I am gay and if I knew you I would most certainly want to have nothing to do with you.

Greenwald has, despite what some of the posters on DU think, been around since the Bush Administration and has been fairly consistent on a core set of issues since becoming a public commentator.

Yes, I know as many have pointed out that in his past his didn't vote and early after 9/11 he was supportive of Bush, what not, but he obviously he had an epiphany and rose to prominence as a public commentator CRITICAL OF BUSH'S POLICIES.

In fact, I first heard of Greenwald when he spoke at an ACLU event well before Obama was PResident.

Was his opposition to warrantless wiretapping and detention without trial really just because he was gay and bitter about it? And if not, why is it now?


As far, as "LGBTs" being supportive or unsupportive of Obama, being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender is not a monolithic group and contrary what you may believe do not all share the same opinion or political persuasion. I myself am gay and have known a fair share of LGBT people, all of which had a diversity of views and life experiences. Some of them were apolotical, some of them seemed supportive of Obama, and a lot of them were really very critical of him from a left perspective. They were generally anarchists or Marxists and most of their criticism had nothing to do with being gay, and everything to do with his economic, foreign, and domestic polices.

You might not be aware of this but not all LGBT individuals are concerned solely with one issues and have concerns about US foreign policy, healthcare, etc. that are not in anyway based on being gay or transgendered or what not.

Seriously, this is one of the most disgusting things I've ever read on DU.