"Progressive Hero" Glenn Greenwald Promotes Racist, Anti-Government Hate Group

[michigandem58]

It should come as a surprise to exactly no one who's been paying attention to Glenn Greenwald's relentless posturing against the United States and specifically his venom against President Obama that he would do this. To mark the 12th anniversary of 9/11, Greenwald decided to grace is followers on Twitter with a piece in the far-Right Ayn-Randian magazine Reason, and to boot, that article just happens to promote a racist group named the "Oathkeepers."

Here's the twit's tweet:

[URL=][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

And here's the ad it was promoting:

[URL=][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

The "Oath Keepers" are an extremist right wing, anti-government militant organization that earned a prominent mention in the Southern Poverty Law Center's report on militia hate groups in their opening year, and the SPLC reported this year that the Oath Keepers, for their conference, hosted such lovely groups as the John Birch Society and the invitation adorned with conspiracy theories and racist code-words all over itself...

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/09/glenn-greenwald-promotes-racist-anti.html

[SidDithers]

1. IMO, Greenwald is a ratfucker...nt

Sid

[el_bryanto]

6. What evidence do you have to support this opinion?

Other than, obviously, he's saying things you don't like.

Bryant

[msanthrope]

12. Um...promoting a racist hate group, as identified by the SPLC, while claiming to be

"progressive" is a prime example. Remember what Donald Segretti said--dirty tricks against real Democrats/progressives are accomplished by attacks from the fake "Left." Remember the "Canuck" letter?

If you want to attack the "progressive" brand, what better way than to align yourself with it and then dilute its meaning? Do actual progressives align themselves with trash like the Oathkeepers? No...they don't.

That--and taking CATO/Koch brother's money to tour, showing up at their donor dinners, and writing policy papers for CATO is pretty much an indication that you are not a progressive. Don't conflate that with speaking 'at' CATO--those are three significant actions that go beyond mere 'speaking at' CATO.

[el_bryanto]

51. When were those actions taken?

I remember in the run up to the Iraq war the CATO institute was pretty opposed to the war. They wrote good articles on it.

Bryant

[msanthrope]

67. After the election of the Democratic President. nt

[el_bryanto]

70. Was he praising Libertarian principals or opposing the surveillance state? nt

[msanthrope]

75. The former. Although you'll have to ask him personally about the donor's dinner for

CATO. Rifraff like me don't get invited to the parties of the 1%.

[el_bryanto]

79. Interesting

Visiting the website it looks like he presented on Drug Decriminalization. Discovering this website took under a minute; what research did you do to determine that Greenwald was allied with the Cato Institute.

When was the donor's dinner?

Bryant

[msanthrope]

93. He wrote white paper on decriminalization--that's a policy paper, not a mere presentation.

ExiledOnline keeps a pretty close tab on Koch money---here what they do--
http://exiledonline.com/vanity-fair-profiles-the-exile/

Here is only one expose they've written about Mr. Greenwald, and they have pics of him in 2008, hobnobbing with the CATO donors, (go down to #5)
http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/

His Ron Paul tour was just last year....sponsored, of course, by two libertarian organizations. Interestingly, it was with Bruce Fein, of Snowden fame.

[SidDithers]

95. That's where I'd seen Fein's name!...

He and his wife are representing Snowden's dad, aren't they.

Sid

[msanthrope]

101. Why yes--yes they are. Interesting how a scion of the Libertarian Party and Greenwald were

touring last year during election season? And that scion just happened to end up representing Snowden????

[el_bryanto]

99. I take it you are opposed to Drug Decriminalization? nt

[msanthrope]

103. I am opposed to Koch-funded studies of any law enforcement issue. You wanna read their

position on gunz??? As for drug decriminalization, I am a criminal defense attorney. Yes....not only do I support decrim, I think we finally need to get right in this country and start doing massive paroles of non-violent offenders.

[el_bryanto]

107. Ah - so you are a purist?

You only work with someone if you agree with 100% of their opinions?

Bryant

[msanthrope]

111. No--I distrust anything coming from the Koch brothers. CATO was founded and funded

by Charles Koch. Why would I trust them on any law enforcement issue?

[el_bryanto]

112. So you condemn Greenwald because he wrote a paper supporting a position you agree with

because he did it with an organization you condemn?

Have you read Greenwald's paper - the one he did for the CATO institute?

Bryant

[msanthrope]

115. I condemn Greenwald because he took Koch money when he could have taken money from

someone who isn't a racist nutjob. And his paper isn't exactly groundbreaking, nor is the Portuguese standard of 10 doses is 'personal use' one that is going to fly here.

Should I take money from Stormfront to fund my study on reforming prison gangs? No? Why not?

[el_bryanto]

117. the CATO industry isn't the same as Stormfront. If you see them as equivalent than

maybe we are looking at things differently.

Bryant

[msanthrope]

120. no--unlike Stormfront, Charles Koch has billions at his disposal to spread racism.

You know, I'm surprised you don't know that family's links to the John Birch Society.

[el_bryanto]

125. I do know about those links

But I suppose they don't interest me that much in this context (the context of condemning Greenwald on the basis of guilt by association). If you are asking me if I support or endorse the CATO institute I don't. But I do agree with them when they talk about a few issues - like drug Decriminalization or the Iraq War.

Bryant

[Rex]

155. The blog owner of 'thesheeplesview' refused to vote for Obama.

Funny, all he has to do is bash progressives and some here are ALL OVER IT. Guess they only have principles when it is convenient.

[Tigress DEM]

183. Hello! You had me at "bought and paid for" by association. I get it.

I'd RATHER that Greenwald were NOT doing what he's doing, but just like Ralph Nader went from defender of the consumer and the middle guy to the guy who siphoned off votes at a bad time. Greenwald is either being manipulated, bought and paid for or drinking the Kool Aid. My guess is all three.

[karynnj]

131. True, but they denied climate change - or at least that it was man made

and they are against things that they call the "welfare state".

This is just like Ron Paul haing been genuinely against the wars, but also unacceptable on and economic issue - and, in his case, civil rights.

[kfreed]

192. Cato fellows wrote the legal justification for the War, Torture, Warrantless Wiretapping...

The Nation: "Independent and Principled: Behind the Cato Myth"

"Cato Claim #1: The Cato Institute was one of the earliest and most principled critics of the Bush Administration’s wars abroad and attacks on civil liberties at home (here and here).

Fact: The Cato Institute’s actual record during the Bush administration years was anything but principled and far from heroic.

John Yoo, author of the notorious “torture memo,” served on the Cato editorial board for Cato Supreme Court Review during the Bush presidency. At the same time, Yoo was writing the Bush administration’s legal justifications for waterboarding, Guantánamo, warrantless wiretapping and more. Yoo also contributed articles to Cato Supreme Court Review and a chapter to a Cato book titled The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton criticizing President Clinton’s “imperial presidency.”

The “Cato Policy Report” attacked progressive critics of Bush’s “War on Terror” as “Terrorism’s Fellow Travelers“ in its November/December 2001 issue. Former Vice President of Research Brink Lindsey wrote, “Most of the America haters flushed out by September 11 are huddled on the left wing of the conventional political spectrum.”

Another Cato executive, Ted Galen Carpenter, former VP for defense and foreign policy studies, enthusiastically supported Bush’s “war on terror” and called on Bush to invade Pakistan.

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

The Cato Institute advised the 2002–04 Republican-dominated Congress to commence military strikes in Pakistan in its Cato Handbook for Congress arguing, “Ultimately, Afghanistan becomes less important as a place to conduct military operations in the war on terrorism and more important as a place from which to launch military operations. And those operations should be directed across the border into neighboring Pakistan.”

Another Cato Institute executive, Roger Pilon, vigorously supported Bush’s attacks on civil liberties. Pilon, Cato’s VP for legal affairs and founding director of the Cato Institute’s “Center for Constitutional Studies,” supported expanded FBI wiretapping in 2002 and called on Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act as late as 2008.

While it’s true that compared to other pro-Republican think-tanks, Cato did have periods when it was critical of Bush’s wars and attacks on civil liberties, those attacks weren’t consistent and showed every sign of being subordinated to the Cato Institute’s political demands. The most obvious example of this came in 2005, when Cato suddenly called a halt to its growing criticisms of Bush’s “war on terror” and fired one of its most ardent anti-interventionists (another resigned), sparking a backlash from some prominent non-Cato libertarians like antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo, who wrote: “Now that the majority of Americans have turned against this war, the Cato bigwigs are lining up with the neoconservatives who want to ‘stay the course.’” In 2006, with Bush’s presidency in tatters, Cato restarted its criticism in earnest."
http://www.thenation.com/article/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth/

[snooper2]

15. I have video

It's about ready to get leaked

[michigandem58]

10. ...

[KittyWampus]

27. OMG! You homophone.

[Cali_Democrat]

141. LOL

[kfreed]

193. Glenn Greenwald's Fact-Challenged Libertarian Talking Points, Koch-approved

Dec. 31, 2009: Libertarian Party Website (the mantra dutifully parroted by brain-dead "progressives" at the behest of Libertarian bottom feeder, Glenn Greenwald, ratfucker):

Press Release:

Press Release
For Immediate Release
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Libertarians release top 10 disasters of 2009 Obama administration

Note similarities to previous administration

Top 10 disasters of the 2009 Obama administration (in no particular order):

1. Cash for Clunkers
2. War escalation in Afghanistan
3. Giant government health care expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus package
6. Expansion of "state secrets" doctrine
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Geithner as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits

Top 10 disasters of the 2001-2008 Bush administration:

1. Cash for Car Companies
2. War in Iraq
3. Giant Medicare expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus "rebate" checks
6. PATRIOT Act
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Paulson as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits

Wes Benedict, Libertarian Party Executive Director, commented, "Republicans and Democrats keep expanding government and creating more and more problems. We're encouraging as many Libertarians as possible to run for Congress in 2010. In Texas, the state with the earliest filing deadline, Libertarians have already filed for 31 of 32 Congressional seats."

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP executive director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website."

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-release-top-10-disasters-of-2009-obama-administration

[Scuba]

2. So there is no NSA spying?

I have no love for Greenwald, but his opinions - however wrong - don't change the information he has released.

[snooper2]

16. that's like their job LOL

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. Good one!

made me crack up!

some seem surprised by that!

[whatchamacallit]

55. What do we expect from a DUer named snooper

[lark]

98. Snappy answer

But it's not the "truth". The truth is they are breaking the constitution by spying on all Americans communications - that is not their job. They are supposed to protect us from terrorist, monitor them, not us.

[snooper2]

102. 117K targets, we learned that thanks to Snowy!

No, they aren't "spying" on all your communications LOL...

I have posted many OP showing how ridiculous that would be. When is the last time you set up a mirror port?

[quakerboy]

185. Thats like, not their job, man.

I dunno.. maybe you read the executive order that established their directive differently. I'd love to see you quote the bit where spying on all aspects of American citizens electronic communications at whim is part of the NSA's "job"

As Wikipedia sets it forth, the "job" of the NSA is "to collect information that constitutes 'foreign intelligence or counterintelligence' while not 'acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons'."

I will even provide the link to the document.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html


I will eagerly await your answer disproving of the common theory of the nsa's "job" and your proof, with citations, that their job is to spy on me. and you. And anyone else they please.

[Shemp Howard]

38. Give credit where credit is due.

You make a very good point, Scuba. Greenwald did much to advance the cause of freedom with his reporting on the NSA. He was tenacious, like a bulldog. And he did it while almost every other major news source was either ignoring or minimizing the story.

As for his associations as described by the OP, that perplexes me. But I will still give Greenwald credit where credit is due.

[Vinnie From Indy]

40. That seems to be the main focus of OPs like this.

I guess the usual suspects still hold very tightly to the idea that if they just throw enough shit people will somehow forget about the NSA spying issue. These folks put on quite a show here on DU!

Now, bring on the singin' cats!

[dotymed]

77. Amen eom

[iandhr]

88. Or the OP could be saying...

... if we wan't to fight NSA spying we need a better spokesman then Greenwald.

The fact that he deals with people like this damages his future credibility.

[rhett o rick]

170. First of all the source for the OP is an anit-left hate sight. Secondly, now that the curtain

been pulled back revealing the NSA's naked spy programs, Greenwald is yesterday's news. Those here that get in a circle and spew hatred at him, do so because they cant have a decent conversation and are only here to disrupt. When was the last time you saw any of the Group enter into a meaningful discussion?

[SidDithers]

187. ...

"the source for the OP is an anit-left hate sight"

What a pantload.

Sid

[rhett o rick]

188. Most likely funded by the Koch Bros. Why would Democrats try to split the party

by spewing anti-left hatred?

[leftstreet]

46. Obama To Leno: 'There Is No Spying On Americans'

Obama To Leno: 'There Is No Spying On Americans'

by Greg Henderson
August 07, 201312:44 AM


President Obama defended the US government's surveillance program, telling NBC's Jay Leno on Tuesday that: "There is no spying on Americans."

"We don't have a domestic spying program," Obama said on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. "What we do have is some mechanisms that can track a phone number or an email address that is connected to a terrorist attack. ... That information is useful."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/06/209692380/obama-to-leno-there-is-no-spying-on-americans

There ya go!

[Scuba]

49. Another in a long list of reasons why I find BHO to be the most disappointing Prez of my lifetime.

Not the worst - I had low expectations for the others and they didn't disappoint.

[Supersedeas]

84. you are not alone there...but I too had high expectations

especially with respect to the Justice Department under the Obama Administration...

[quakerboy]

186. I think thats a key point

The reason so many of us are having issues is that we expected more of Obama. We knew the others were out to screw us, so when they did we weren't surprised.

Its like buying a used car. If you go to a car lot and some shyster salesman sells you a lemon, its sucks, but you kinda expected it to start with, and you haggled accordingly. But if you buy grandmas old car, and she dumps a lemon on you, its on. You might even "forget" to invite her to your parents anniversary party.

[hobbit709]

3. Take # 683 of the Greenwald hate.

[Whisp]

4. What's going on?

There will be representatives from the John Birch Society — a primary proponent of the Agenda 21 conspiracy theory, the idea that fluoridation of water is a Communist plot, and the charge that President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a Communist agent. Also scheduled to attend are Sheriff Richard Mack, a long-time darling of the antigovernment “Patriot” movement who has been encouraging county sheriffs to resist federal gun laws, and Chuck Baldwin, a far-right pastor and “constitutionalist” who moved to Montana several years ago to battle the incursions of the federal government.[...]
...
"Perils facing our American heritage" is an unmistakable and recognized code phrase for "them black and brown folk are taking over", and of course the "Judeo Christan way of life" is the most prominent code phrase referring to the Muslims and gays (and gay Muslims! Nooooo) recruiting your children.

It is no shock then that someone like Glenn Greenwald - a worshiper of Rand and Ron Paul (both racists) and a nasty Obama basher - would promote this hate group. No surprise at all.

This, the PutinLurve, and Grayson quoting the Quitta from Wasilla, re; Let Allah Sort them Out.
Do they have secret meetings to decide what idiotcy they will spout next or what steaming piles they are willing associate with if it means a swipe at the President?

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. Exactly...lie down with dogs...

wake up with fleas...my grandmother always said.

Seems to me Greenwald would sidle up to anyone with a buck to toss at him....wonder if he is doing table dances for the John Birch Society this weekend?

[iandhr]

65. Precious Bodily Fluids

[Enrique]

5. i might have "promoted Oathkeepers" here at DU

I saw that poster back when it went up and found it interesting and might well have posted it here to DU. I don't know if I did.

[MineralMan]

7. Greenwald is not a progressive.

That is all.

[tallahasseedem]

8. +1

Certainly doesn't surprise me!

[woo me with science]

9. Here we go again. The Call to Stupid.

The new propaganda Call to Stupid
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3652852

[alsame]

11. "The Peoples View" is always a

very loud call.

[oberliner]

17. Or the converse to your little theory

You wrote: We hate Glenn Greenwald; therefore, NSA spying is unimportant

How about: We think NSA spying is important; therefore, we can't say anything bad about Glenn Greenwald.

That seems to be your approach - equally troublesome, in my opinion.

[woo me with science]

37. Now *that's* some doubling down on the Call to Stupid.

Not only does the Call to Stupid insist that smears against a reporter make a monstrous, unconstitutional surveillance state irrelevant..

...but the Call to Stupid *also* insists that pointing out the ABSURDITY of that argument somehow equals being prevented from "say{ing} anything bad about Glenn Greenwald."

It's impossible to keep up with the bids to stop thinking.

[stupidicus]

48. well, the plague of stupid requires

that its victims remain oblivious to their plight until their immunity to logic and reason are achieved. Illogic and unreasonability must come in heavy doses so as to avoid that cure.

It spreads and grows in a petri dish like DU quite quickly because of these kinda efforts and the positive reinforcement exuded by those already in its grasp

[woo me with science]

135. I swear, stupidicus..

I used to consider your screenname just a bit of flippancy. These days, it seems downright wise.

We live in creepy times.

[stupidicus]

177. lol

it has it's origin here

I chose it better than a decade now when joining "The Fray" which Slate through the WP hosted, and largely to give the cons/repubs I battled an easy out when they ran outta ammo. The number of lefties here that have sought to make hay outta it has been a bit amusing as well.

You know it woo. "Creepy" is a good way of describing it. I'd say what we're looking at and battling here is due to the absence of the common enemy in the WH, and the lack of focus on that, as well as the actions and inaction of the current occupant, has given rise to the awareness that the "D" he has doesn't necessarily make him our preferred/ideal kinda friend. Those of us feeling a sense of unease/being "creeped" out is totally understandable and expected under the circumstances, because near unanimity has been replaced with much discord, and quite the schism as a result. I'd say there's a real correlation between how "creeped out" one is about the current political conditions and issues, and the level of awareness and understanding one has of them.

To be quite honest and frank with you, while I find all the demands for tribalism and the rhetorical products, suspension of reason and logic, etc, of it pretty "creepy" given the remarkable similarlity it has to the Bushbotism I battled for so long, I find great encouragement in the number of those around here who don't seem to be afflicted by it, and who are prisoners of their long held or newly discovered principles instead. While battling those cons/repubs for so long, I was also making the case to my fellow lefties that the enemy of our enemy wasn't necessarily our real friend, so what this board has been embroiled in -- the battle for the heart and soul of the left, and who gets to determine what we stand for -- is not something new to me, nor are the dynamics of it all.

I'm inclined to think that he's unintentionally performed a great service for those of us on the left, insomuch as he's shown on several issues, and raised awareness as a result, as to how little separation their truly is between what I've long characterized as the faux duopoly in DC. They no longer compete as much as they try to sell the same product under a different brand name. The dems these days and for quite some time, have been the party that dispenses the occasional bone seasoned heavily with the fear of our only alternative, while the rightwingnuts have increasingly provided ample reasons for that fear.

That imo, is the truth and realization many around here seek to avoid with their strident defense of all things BHO.

sorry for the rant. As an armchair social psychologist I thought maybe it would be nice to provide an encouraging prognosis for the creepy pathogen our many mosquitos are spreading around here.

[woo me with science]

181. The rant is much appreciated. :)

Especially this:

I'm inclined to think that he's unintentionally performed a great service for those of us on the left, insomuch as he's shown on several issues, and raised awareness as a result, as to how little separation their truly is between what I've long characterized as the faux duopoly in DC.

I think you're absolutely right, and I appreciate the reminder. Thanks for this wonderful post.

[oberliner]

78. I disagree

You wrote "smears against a reporter" which is not what I am referencing. I am suggesting accurate items about Greenwald that might at least be worth being aware of.

I also am not suggesting what I wrote equals anything else. I just think it is unfair to suggest (as some see to be doing, yourself included if I may say so) that anyone who posts anything negative about Greenwald is doing so as part of your "Call to Stupid" construct.

I am suggesting that no matter how you feel about the importance of the NSA spying details, there should be no objection to posting accurate (and unrelated) information about Greenwald, who is certainly a lot more than simply a reporter - he often shares his opinion in op-ed pieces and on his website.

[woo me with science]

123. So now the faux complaint of being prohibited from "saying bad things about Glenn Greenwald"

is reworded to express Very Serious Dismay that anyone might construe as a "Call to Stupid" the mere posting of information "worth being aware of" and certainly unrelated to any attempt to smear the journalist and discredit the revelations of mass government criminality.

That's quite an argument to attempt in a thread entitled:
""Progressive Hero" Glenn Greenwald Promotes Racist, Anti-Government Hate Group."

Putting the actual NSA revelations alongside the clownish, disingenuous content of the OP, one might even call the attempt breathtaking. You pretend to argue for the right to post information. You instead argue for the right to be free from having stupid arguments called stupid.

I expect you will be at bat again here. Swing away, and let the Call ring out; I think this thread is already very illustrative of the game. As for myself, I am going to watch a tape of the US Open Final. As Will Pitt already pointed out in his expose of the Call to Stupid re: Syria....

Bids for stupidity are boring.

[oberliner]

137. Can't we just have a reasonable exchange of ideas?

Question: Do you think people are given a hard time if they post anything negative about Greenwald?

I believe there is evidence that they do.

I am trying to make a reasonable case that it isn't stupid to make such posts, and I don't feel like you are making an attempt to be open minded and consider this point of view.

You seem more keen on defaulting to saying things are stupid.

My core assertion is that not everyone who posts articles that present Greenwald in an unflattering light are doing so to distract from the significance of the NSA story.

Will you agree with me on that?

[Capt. Obvious]

153. Reasonable exchange of ideas

Like why do people here defend Greenwald having tea with the Grand Dragon of the KKK?

[The Link]

13. How does a conservative know who a "progressive hero" is?

[truebluegreen]

116. Bingo!

[djean111]

14. Calling Greenwald a "progressive hero" is a bit of hyperbole.

I believe we are just supposed to hate him and therefore discount any information about NSA spying. And that only because Obama happens to be president at this point in time.
Funnily enough, this reminds me of how pissy Greenwald got when Christopher Hitchens died and some people were recalling what they liked about him. Greenwald said Hitchens was being unfairly elevated or something like that.
Just let it go. No one can be the Thought Police.

Whatever else Greenwald says or does, he is right about the NSA. Just because I believe the NSA stuff doesn't mean I have a need to make Greenwald some sort of hero, or buy into everything else he has ever said and done.

There seems to be such stark and un-nuanced thinking from some here at DU at times - we must HATE Greenwald, and therefore discount everything he says. if we don't like an Obama policy, we then of course HATE Obama and be racist and a paulite or some other bullshit.
That is what Freepers do, IMO.

[oberliner]

20. Similar un-nuanced thinking happens in reverse

We think the NSA spying story is very important - so we are not allowed to say anything bad about Greenwald.

That's also not right.

[maddezmom]

25. Agree with you

His NSA reporting is important at the same time it is sad to see him promote a RW hate group. IMO, it hurts his cause. Others may see it differently I am sure.

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. Some wouldn't care if he was having beers with the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan...

they would still call him a "progressive hero".

[KamaAina]

113. Or representing him in court

oh, wait a minute...

[djean111]

31. I understand what you are saying.

But - there is no need to be saying anything about Greenwald, himself, really.
What is the point of saying bad things about Greenwald at all, except to deflect from the NSA story? Perhaps those who (weirdly, IMO) adore and elevate politicians are worried that others might feel the same about a journalist? Is it just his turn in the barrel? No, the point of saying bad things about Greenwald is to deflect from the NSA story.

I elevate no one. I just see what they actually do, and if they report something that is true, I think it silly to dig back through their other reporting to find something I don't like in order to discount that which is true. If they do something I consider bad, it is not excused because they did some other good things. I never bought into the lockstep thing for politicians and journalists. Don't see the point - it is not as if what they do, good or bad, does not affect other people.

Politicians have become personalized, and IMO that is always a mistake. The only important thing should be their policies - not the ones they say they have, but the ones they enact. Or ignore.

[jeff47]

36. Because Greenwald is a filter.

We don't get to see everything. We get to see what Greenwald and Snowden want to release. The fact that they are libertarians colors their decisions about what to release. Heck, it colors the decisions on what to collect.

So while Greenwald reports something that is true, he isn't necessarily reporting everything that is true.

[djean111]

54. Well, the government is not going to tell us anything at all.

In fact, they have not successfully disputed anything he has said so far, and what he has said has turned out to be true.
Are you saying he is hiding things that will make the NSA look good?
I agree about the filter, and agree that he can filter what suits him. But what he has said so far is true, and the bad-mouthing doesn't change that. What are we to do, pretend we don't know some of what the NSA is doing? Believe the attempts at marginalizing what is being done? Like saying that of course the NSA has not got the manpower to listen to all calls or read all emails, you silly thing! - when all the NSA has to do is store that stuff and search through at leisure and upon request. Request from seemingly anyone but the public, as far as I can tell.

Not arguing with you, just saying that criticizing Greenwald accomplishes nothing. Looks rather silly and petulant, really.

[jeff47]

143. Just because you think someone is hiding more doesn't mean he isn't.

Are you saying he is hiding things that will make the NSA look good?

I don't have evidence either way. But human nature would mean he probably is passing over things that do not contribute to the story he wants to tell.

But what he has said so far is true, and the bad-mouthing doesn't change that. What are we to do, pretend we don't know some of what the NSA is doing?

What we are to do is not assume that he tells us the entire story. He tells us the story he wants to tell.

And part of the problem is embodied in the end of the last sentence: "NSA is doing". A large quantity of what has been leaked about the NSA are activities that took place before 2009. And the leaks do not indicate that those bad programs continued into the new administration. It's just assumed that they are. Because that's the story Greenwald wants to tell.

Like saying that of course the NSA has not got the manpower to listen to all calls or read all emails, you silly thing! - when all the NSA has to do is store that stuff and search through at leisure and upon request.

If they don't have the manpower to listen to all of it in real-time, they don't have the manpower to listen to it after-the-fact.

Not arguing with you, just saying that criticizing Greenwald accomplishes nothing.

That's because you're trying to construct it as an attack on Greenwald in defense of the NSA. I trust neither.

I distrust Greenwald more because of his actual, verifiable history. But that doesn't automatically make everything he reports wrong. It means everything he reports should be read very carefully and double-checked when possible.

[djean111]

156. If they don't have the manpower to listen to all of it in real-time, they don't have the manpower to

listen to it after-the-fact.
They don't need to listen to it at all unless it has key words or phrases that they are interested in, or are connected to a case they are working on. Then of course they have the manpower to listen to selected conversations.
You can buy a product yourself that searches through recorded phone calls for any key words or phrases you specify; I would be astonished if the NSA did not have something like that on steroids. Argosearch is one product.

[jeff47]

163. Well, there's the other minor problem

in that nothing that has been leaked indicates they are recording everything.

Again, it is asserted by people who want to tell a story about the NSA. The actual documents only show the program collecting metadata. (Assuming you're just referring to US persons.)

[djean111]

164. I am not saying I know they are collecting actual calls. Not believing we have seen all the

documents, either, but that is beside the point. Although it seems to me that if they can, they will do. All kinds of massive amounts of data are collected and stored - credit card transactions, stock market trades - telephone calls are not that unbelievable or out of the question.
All I am saying is that those who blandly insist that NSA is not collecting actual phone conversations because there are not enough people to listen to them are either being disingenuous or misinformed. Any data collected is for rummaging through after the fact and working backwards. Start with a not-very-granular search and NSA can weed out most calls and then drill down into what is left with more detail. That's the way I would do it.

[jeff47]

165. So....if you pull it out of the air, it must be true?

All I am saying is that those who blandly insist that NSA is not collecting actual phone conversations because there are not enough people to listen to them are either being disingenuous or misinformed.

As opposed to those who simply assert something must be true, because it fits the narrative they have about the NSA? Such as insisting calls are being recorded despite a complete lack of evidence?

Start with a not-very-granular search and NSA can weed out most calls and then drill down into what is left with more detail. That's the way I would do it.

Try using Siri or any other "voice control" application for very long. They don't do all that well. They do even worse if you have an accent.

Speech-to-texting every phone call is not anywhere near as easy as you claim. And it's also not supported by anything Snowden or anyone else has leaked. So we should just assume it's true?

And you're complaining about reporting the truth up a few replies?

[djean111]

166. Again, I have not said it was true. I am saying it is possible.

I don't know why you are so intent on insisting I am saying it is true.

In any event, you can buy calltrunk for as little as 5.99 or so a month, record phone conversations, and then search through them with argosearch. You search the recorded audio, not a text. If you hit on a key word, you can then listen to the whole call or order a transcript. Or, perhaps, use Dragon. I saw a review for argosearch that said it leaves Siri in the dust, dunno how accurate that is.

Why would anyone speech-to-text every phone call? Just speech-to-text (or listen to) the ones where key words or phrases are used.
Anyway, again and again, I am not saying calls are recorded, I am saying the reasons giving for the impossibility of that are incorrect.

And you're complaining about reporting the truth up a few replies?
Stop conflating my saying it is possible to search through phone conversations with my saying the NSA actually does this, please........

[jeff47]

168. No, you aren't.

Go back and read your own replies in this sub thread. You occasionally mention "it's possible", but then leap directly into writing as if it is already happening.

Which is my primary complaint about Greenwald - he leaps from possible to writing as if it's already happening. A typical article will have a sentence or two of "possible" followed by paragraph after paragraph written as if it is happening. Result: People assume Greenwald says it's happening, because 98% of his article says it is.

Or, perhaps, use Dragon. I saw a review for argosearch that said it leaves Siri in the dust, dunno how accurate that is.

I've used Dragon, Siri, and several other such applications. They do well a significant portion of the time if you speak slowly, do not slur your words, do not run your words together, do not use much slang, and do not have a strong accent. Which means in the real world with real people talking on the phone, they suck.

Why would anyone speech-to-text every phone call?

Because that's the argument you were making.

Just speech-to-text (or listen to) the ones where key words or phrases are used.

And you find those keywords how? Upthread you were claiming you find them by speech-to-text'ing every call.

And if you're going to claim "just record everything", that's going to take about 90% of the worldwide output of hard disks to record every conversation in the US, if you capture the audio at a very low bitrate.

Stop conflating my saying it is possible to search through phone conversations with my saying the NSA actually does this, please........

A one-sentence disclaimer in every 3rd post, followed by many paragraphs describing how it's done, leaves readers believing it is happening.

[djean111]

169. Argosearch searches through recorded conversations.

If you cannot grasp that, than that would explain your replies to me.
I am not saying calls are recorded, I am saying if they are, than the NSA can search through them without changing them into text files, and explaining how that could happen.
I am sorry if "the readers" cannot understand this.
Good grief.
End of conversation.

[frylock]

57. Greenwald is NOT a libertarian..

he himself has stated that he is NOT a libertarian.

[zeemike]

85. It does not matter

Anyone who makes a tweet that anyone else can interpret as libertarian is guilty of being one...that is how the game is played.
And that game is played all the time on the right wing sites...I think they invented it.

It is just kind of disappointing to me that too many fall for it here.

[jeff47]

146. And Pat Buchanan has stated that he is NOT a Republican.

Doesn't matter if he wants to use some other label. I'm talking about his writings during the Bush administration, where he was definitely a libertarian. He has not renounced those writings.

[robinlynne]

104. Who is out there doing better or more?

[jeff47]

150. It's not something that will ever be perfect

It's not a case where we will ever get the full story. Or at least in any reasonable timeframe.

All I'm saying is we should read his reports carefully, and compare them to other sources when possible.

For example, we should not assume that the NSA is still doing things that Greenwald reports they did in 2007 - other sources have reported a large number of reforms and increased oversight since then. That doesn't mean the NSA didn't do it in 2007. It means we should not follow Greenwald's implied story that they are still doing it, absent some actual evidence that it continued.

[robinlynne]

184. I've been reading about DECREASED oversight since 2011. here, besides other places.

[jeff47]

190. You've been reading things that aren't backed by evidence.

People are making claims of decreased oversight. They don't provide evidence to back up those claims.

If I write a story that says the NSA is using amazing machines to control Obama and other world leaders, I had better provide a lot of evidence to back up that claim.

But a significant portion of people will believe that story is true without evidence, because it fits with their worldview. And if multiple people write about my story, those same believers will claim the additional stories are backing up mine and prove it true. Then the story is "everywhere", so it must be true.

Just like Cadillac-driving welfare queens that all Republicans are sure exist, despite no one ever managing to identify a single one. We are not immune to the same groupthink. We just have different targets.

[robinlynne]

191. court cases. not claims. court cases.

[stevenleser]

127. And as we see with his friend Assange, what he is saying may well be untrue or disinformation

Assange's collateral murder video turned out to not be what he said it was. http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2013/08/full-transcript-for-my-segment-on.html

My take from the beginning was that the NSA scandal is not what it was portrayed to be either. http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2013/08/repost-transcript-of-nsa-surveillance.html

[VanillaRhapsody]

63. I rest my case....

[djean111]

69. What case was that?

[VanillaRhapsody]

71. that some would defend him even if he sidled up to the Ku Klux Klan....

My grandmother also taught me "judged by the company you keep".

[djean111]

83. Nobody is "defending him", as far as I can see.

What I am saying is that even though he may be having beers with the KKK, what he says about the NSA is true.
Simple as that.
It seems that not caring what else Greenwald is up to, or not ignoring what the NSA is up to, has been falsely equivocated to "hero worship".
I don't even think it reflects on Obama, because it looks to me like the NSA is in charge no matter who is president.
Who happens to be president is, IMO, irrelevant to Greenwald's reporting on the NSA.

[oberliner]

82. Thanks for this response

Your comments make sense to me. However, I don't know if I agree that "the point of saying bad things about Greenwald is to deflect from the NSA story." Greenwald has a lot of opinions on a lot of topics, and shares them in various op-ed pieces and on his website. One can disagree with him - and/or take issue with some of his political stances - independent of the NSA story.

[hfojvt]

158. that sorta begs the question though

How do you know what they are reporting is TRUE? How is it verified?

Don't you kinda start with
1. a trusted source
a. one with knowledge
b. one with connections/sources

There are SOME places where I have "my own expertise" because of my education, research and/or experience. Thus, if somebody is writing about taxes or the budget, I can, myself, evaluate what they are saying.

Which is all well and good, but does not really help me to convince anybody else http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2225110

In the real world, people do not bother to evaluate the logic or facts of an argument. In the Krugman vs. hfojvt debate, they quickly settle it by status. Krugman - PhD, Professor, author, writer for the NY Times wins by a knockout over hfojvt - MA (so he says), janitor, obscure blogger. Nobody takes the little guy seriously.

Now when it comes to the NSA and computer firewalls and encryption and such, my knowledge base is diddley-squat. Nor am I all that motivated to do a lot of research. And finally, like some of the Obama critics, I do not think of the USA as a malevolent force in the world.

[hfojvt]

157. isn't there a point to this?

Start with the trouble in River City. First you have somebody, Professor Harold Hill, telling a crowd of people "I am upset about this pool table, and you should be too." However, in the musical it is made clear that Harold Hill, who is not a Professor, nor even named Harold Hill, is NOT really upset about pool tables. His purpose is "get the people riled up, so I can sell them band instruments."

In a similar way, there are certainly some people who write, blog, tweet, appear on TV, etc. who have one or more agendas when they write.

Certainly I have an agenda when I write, several agendas
1. To advocate for the bottom 60% in America
2. to refute spin which favors the top 20%
3. to look at the big picture
4. to argue against hate, greed, selfishness, and cruelty and in favor of love, sharing, understanding, reason, and kindness

Now any pundit out there may claim some sort of ideals for themself that they are trying to promote, but they may also be trying to promote themselves - that is, read my articles, buy my books, look at my website, and so on. One primary objective - make me money, give me power and influence.

But it still seems like a fair question when somebody writes "I am upset at Obama, and you should be too" or "I am upset about NSA spying and you should be too" to want to know "what is their motive?" and "what is their agenda?" Or you could find yourself paying a lot of money for a band instrument you did not really want for a band that does not really exist.

[treestar]

18. Right wing libertarians!

What's not to like?

[cascadiance]

50. I guess those of us who hated cointelpro and spying on us in the sixties must have been RIGHT WING!!

... Libertarians that the "nice" Richard Nixon, government, and our intelligence agencies must have been so much more concerned for our welfare then.

Oh we must hate EVERYTHING the libertarians like to not be considered evil like them.

We MUST have to love war mongering and not wanting any civil liberties.

I guess I can see why so many of this younger generation might be thinking the libertarians are more interested in their future than some here do...

[KG]

19. Spandan: scholar on social policy and barrista.

[Enrique]

32. ha ha ha

i get it.

[Peacetrain]

21. wow.. there are fleas in that bed

Mr Greenwald might want to take a step and separate himself from groups like that. I am a member of SLPC and the Oath Keepers are ugly buisness..

Edit for dyslexia..

[BainsBane]

22. Back to our regularly scheduled programming

[SwampG8r]

23. oh a peoples view link?

so a steaming pile of shit from a anti Obama blogger
nice to see you still link to hate sites

[robinlynne]

24. It is one sentence long with no adjectives. There is no promoting. There is a statement of news. of

fact. The short tweet could easily be the headline of an article here. or anywhere. It is news that a group, a progressive group or a rightwing group bought a large ad for Snowden.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. "As long as they agree with me on X, what's the difference?????"

I suspect many neo-Nazis might agree with me the need to curb telemarketers, but I don't link to their wackadoo websites on that basis. Greenwald is, at best, a fool.

[michigandem58]

28. His NSA reporting is key

Do you trust it?

[OregonBlue]

29. The Koch brothers are principal funders of the Reason Foundation and Reason magazine.

[cascadiance]

52. And were also big funders and part of the leadership of the DLC infection of the Democratic Party

http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html

[zeemike]

87. Well that does it then

The DLC is a libertarian organization...

[OregonBlue]

138. Are you a supporter of Koch and Reason? The Koch brothers father was one of the 5 founding members

of the John Birch Society. That Greenwald is throwing his hat in with them says a lot.

[Capt. Obvious]

30. Why did you alter the image?

[maddezmom]

34. It isn't the one Reason used but it is an actual ad put in the Metro by the Oathkeepere

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/08/16/pro-snowden-ad-near-white-house-targets-unrepentant-obama

[Capt. Obvious]

59. Thanks

[SidDithers]

39. Why are you posting an altered image as if it were real?...nt

Sid

[madrchsod]

33. "when you lie down with dogs ...

you arise with fleas"

[Cryptoad]

35. Please don't lump all us progressives in with that bunch, thx!

[baldguy]

41. Glenn Greenwald posts something that displays his ignorance, deceit and/or hypocrisy?

Must be Thursday.

[stonecutter357]

42. I think Glenn and comrad eddie are communist spies.

No surprise at all.

[Taverner]

43. And this invalidates the evidence so far because?

[iandhr]

72. They are separate issues.

[Taverner]

74. Exactly eom

[iandhr]

76. I don't the OP is saying that the NSA isn't spying on Americans.

I think he/she is saying that Greenwald is dealing with whackos. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Octafish]

44. Bullshit.

No where does Greenwald "promote" Oathkeepers.

Why do you hate journalism so much, michigandem58? It's what democracy craves.

[Scuba]

45. +8,749

[tblue]

64. Oh Octafish,

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. so you are saying...even if he WAS having beers with the Grand Dragon so what?

[Capt. Obvious]

73. Can Mighty Mouse beat up Superman?

[zeemike]

89. Grand Dragon?

Nice straw man...I am sure some will take inspiration from that one.

[Maedhros]

126. Yes - pointing out the existence of something is now "promoting" it.

People will make of it what they will, but it won't change the facts on the ground: the NSA is operating a dangerous, unconstitutional surveillance program.

[woo me with science]

133. It's amazing to watch, isn't it.

The constant flinging of horseshit onto the flingers' own credibility...

[stonecutter357]

47. Snowden is a coward and a Thief.

Glenn is no Progressive Hero!

[truebluegreen]

119. Why does anyone give a rip about either of them?

I care about the spying, not the personalities--including Obama's.

[frylock]

58. i don't think you know what "promote" or "progressive" means..

you're just here to "promote" your piece of shit blog, spandan.

[Capt. Obvious]

60. Piece of shit blog is way too generous a discription

[Kolesar]

159. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3655024

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3655024

[iandhr]

61. You can oppose NSA violations of the constitution...

... AND think Greenwald is befriending wackos.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[FSogol]

66. K & R. n/t

[L0oniX]

80. Even if your framing is true ...we have learned a lot from far worse people ...like Joseph Goebbels.

[last1standing]

81. So we're back to the Pro-NSA propaganda from bullshit blogsites?

That site has no shame and no love for liberty.

'nuff said.

[iandhr]

96. You don't know thats what the OP is saying

The OP could be saying is that he is dealing with some very bad people. Dealing with people like this damages his credibility in the future.


Seriously the SPLC designates this organization as a hate group. That is FACT not propaganda.

If you REALLY want to oppose NSA spying you need a better spokesman then Greenwald.

[last1standing]

100. So you support guilt by association? Joe McCarthey would have been proud.

His team used guilt by association quite a bit when they were blacklisting all those nasty "communists."

[iandhr]

106. People are always judged by the company they keep.

Greenwald of his own free will is choosing to associate himself with these wacko hate groups.


Its not an unreasonable question to ask why.

If a Republican politician had a beer with the Grand Dragon of the clan everyone on DU would use guilt by association to call for his resignation (myself included).

Greenwald helped at first but dealing with people like this he does damage to his own cause.

[last1standing]

109. That's a bullshit comparison.

One would obviously expect that a republican politician would know it if he was having beer with the Grand Dragon. Expecting Greenwald to memorize every group that's ever been labeled a hate-group or check every list of them before sending a tweet is asinine.

Even on the very off chance Greenwald knew they were listed as a hate group, this "revelation" does absolutely nothing to change the fact that our government is illegally spying on us and that some people don't care so long the object of their cult worship is protected.

The only purpose for this OP and for that hate site it links to is to subvert liberty in the cause of idolizing the man who is subverting them.

[iandhr]

114. One many Republicans would be dumb enough not to know...

... EG Michelle Bachman

Greenwald can back out of dealing with these groups and say "wow these people are crazy." I would give him the benefit of the doubt however that is not happening.


You saying "nothing to change the fact that our government is illegally spying on us" Thats like saying Ron Paul voted against the war in Iraq so his racists newsletters don't matter.

[last1standing]

118. Ok, you win. We should look at guilt by association.

Since you've decided guilt by association is so important, how about this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023654100

I know you'd never be a hypocrite and suggest that this is somehow different.

[truebluegreen]

121. Touche!

Nicely done.

[last1standing]

139. Thanks. You'll notice the backflips to find a difference.

[iandhr]

124. I was pissed when I found out.

And and indeed he was guilty of associating himself with the scum of the earth.

However is possible to improve and transform as a person.

Greenwald can renounce these wackos. If he does in the future I might reconsider my opinion of him.

Robert Byrd started out as a KKK member but renounced racism and ended up voting for the first.

The President went from inviting Warren to being the first President to endorsee marriage equality.

[last1standing]

129. Lol! Not even close to a win.

So Greenwald gets less than a day to denounce this group while Obama got five years? I don't think so.

[iandhr]

130. This not the only thing in my mind against Greenwald

His association with the Ron and Rand Paul's of the world also are on mind.

[last1standing]

132. Again, far less connection than Obama with Warren or McClurkin.

But I know that's "different."

[iandhr]

134. Ok then

I willing to wait a bit longer until he screws his head on straight.. But in the mean time we should find someone different. My original Greenwald does damage to his own cause by associating himself with these people.

[last1standing]

136. Did we need another president when Obama supported homophobes?

Warren supported laws to exterminate gays and Obama asked him to give the inaugural prayer. Should we have supported impeachment until he denounced him?

By the way, has Obama denounce Warren in no uncertain terms? My Google search came up empty. If that's the case, do you support impeaching Obama for his support of Warren and his anti-gay views?

[iandhr]

140. At that time...

...the President-elect appointed more LGBT people to political position then anyone else.

Obama on gay rights used the same philosophy that LBJ did on civil rights.

LBJ wanted the civil rights movement to create the environment where signing the civil and voting rights act was the right thing to do.

I think Obama wanted the gay rights movement to create the environment where supporting marriage equality was the right thing to do.


The electorate is always faster then politicians.

[last1standing]

142. And Greenwald has supported the civil rights of many, many minorities and other groups.

But that's 'different,' right?

LOL! Any more backflips coming?

[iandhr]

145. Then why does he pal around with Ron Paul?

I don't care out anti-war or anti-NSA you are.

[last1standing]

147. Why does Obama pal around with Warren, a man who supports killing gays?

n/t

[iandhr]

148. He doesn't anymore.

[last1standing]

151. You sure? I can't find anywhere that Obama denounced him.

Do you have proof they don't pal? Do you have proof that Greenwald and Ron Paul are buddies?

You really seem to be trying hard to find a difference so that you can push your agenda. Why is your agenda more important than simple truth?

[AverageJoe90]

172. "Why is your agenda more important than simple truth?" I could ask the Greenwald fanatics...........

the same darn thing. End. Of. Message.

[U4ikLefty]

175. fail

[AverageJoe90]

179. Not at all. To the contrary, in fact.

Why are so many people defending this man's seeming *promotion* of a group known to have various problems with extremism, and even outright racism?

I mean, I understand the SPLC may not be *perfect*, but Morris Dees and Co. have done a pretty damn good job over the past 30 years blowing the covers off of guys like these.

[Blue_Tires]

86. Has there been any further Greenwald comment on this?

It's not like he can play dumb on not knowing who they really are...

[flamingdem]

90. Figures that Eisenhower was a commie

[raindaddy]

91. Larry Summers

If we're going to question someone's integrity over their associations.... we could also speculate about Obama's association with misogynist, deregulator Larry Summers. He actually wants to pass over more progressive Vice Chair Janet Yellen to make Summers Chair of the Fed. Who honestly would've believed this from the man who promoted hope and change?

I voted for Obama I didn't vote for Greenwald. I had some expectations that Barack Obama would represent my interests. Why? Because he campaigned as a populist. So far there's a whole lot of broken promises and peculiar decisions coming from this administration that doesn't sit well with me.

I trust Glenn Greenwald to provide me with truthful information as a journalist a hell of a lot more than I trust Obama to represent my interests. There will always be those who can't suspend their attachment to their idealized view of the President long enough to at the very least realize that there are many of us who voted for Obama who have legitimate reasons to be disenchanted.

[Scurrilous]

92. @#$% Glenn Greenwald.

[leveymg]

94. Another Ten Minute Hate.

[Sand Wind]

97. K&r

[bowens43]

105. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.....etc

[Douglas Carpenter]

108. you really must find other sources to work with then a crackpost conspiracy theory hate site, REALLY

[MNBrewer]

110. Bullshit

Stop lying! As someone else pointed out regarding this "scandal", that's how Twitter works. Learn something!

[DirkGently]

122. Why make such a dishonest argument?

Truly, if you disagree with Greenwald, why not attack the content of his argument, instead of citing a nakedly dishonest attempt at guilt by association?

Your argument here is no different than trying to associate Obama with terrorism on the basis he served on a board with Bill Ayers.

It's not going to fool anyone not inclined to a general hatred of Greenwald -- the reply posts make that clear.

So what's the point?

I'd also advise against citing that particular website. It's comprised of nothing but the same sort of rabid propaganda. It makes Obama supporters look like assholes, which surely cannot be your intent.

Right?

[DesMoinesDem]

128. Wow. What a sad pathetic post. Have you ever even tried to make a rational argument?

[bunnies]

144. "The Peoples Spew" spews again.

What got you pizza last time, deaniac?

[Rex]

149. Why did 'the peoples view' blog owner refuse to vote for Obama?

More crap from a RWing blogger.

[AgingAmerican]

152. The second I read the thread title

I had a sinking suspicion that it was from that wacko "Peoples view" propaganda website.

My intuition was correct.

[Douglas Carpenter]

154. Glenn Greenwald Speaks Out at Socialism 2013 Conference with intro by Jeremy Scahill

I post this primarily for the sake of the eloquent introduction by Jeremy Scahill:

[Kolesar]

160. frylock:"you're just here to "promote" your piece of shit blog, spandan"

That's how the DU wants to be these days, apparently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3653426

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: it insults a blog - it is an opinion. it can stay....it is just another part of the fracture of Dems on DU, which is sad.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: I agree with the alerter: this is an abusive insult, and it makes DU suck. HIDE.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Directed at the blog, quite accuarately, IMHO, and not at an individual...considering everything being thrown the past few days, can't see this getting hidden.

[TBF]

161. I'd categorize this under "flogging your blog" -

but that is just me.

[freshwest]

162. It's not his blog, though.

[Scurrilous]

167. K & R

[rhett o rick]

171. You finally found a website that will feed you anti-left hatred. nm

[shenmue]

173. Wow!

Egg on whose face now, huh?

[99Forever]

174. Wll your latest lame, cheesy attempt at character assassination...

... stop the assholes at the NSA from their Unconstitutional spying on law-abiding American citizens?

If not, I really don't give a flying fuck about anything you have to say.

Tool.

[Cha]

176. Greenwald's his own worst hatemongering enemy.

No one has to assassinate his charactor.. he does it all himself.

[rug]

178. "Good riddance, Barack Obama."

Obama Lost My Vote - General Election, Too

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 | Posted by Spandan C at 10:49 PM

Obama recently made a very pointed decision about the LGBT community - that he wouldn't take renowned anti-gay pastor Donnie McClurkin off his gospel tour across the south, despite repeated warnings of McClurkin's feelings about gays, who ended up telling the crowd from Obama's campaign platform that "God delivered" him from homosexuality. Nice. By the way, if you want to know more about the flap, start with this open letter from "pastordan" on Daily Kos, and do a Google or Yahoo news search on "Obama McClurkin anti-gay." Obama made a decision to pander to some in the African American religious community in order to surrender his principled support for equal rights for all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. So I made a decision too. And I wrote to the Obama campaign telling them my decision. Here is the letter, verbatim:

Dear Sen. Obama:

I am writing you today with a heavy heart. But I am not writing you with a request, or even a demand. I am writing you today to inform you of a decision that I made as a citizen and a voter. I am a proud Democratic activist. I am also gay. I'm 24, and an American of Indian descent. There was a point in time when your message against homophobia in African American churches was inspiring. Painfully, however, that lasted only until your political fortunes gave you wind of another reality: that the rift between the African American religious community and the LGBT community could be exploited for your political gain. You went on tour with Rev. Donnie McClurkin, a known homophobic activist, who declared on YOUR campaign stage, "God delivered me from homosexuality."

This culmination came after you rejected calls from the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities and proponents of tolerance from all walks of life to take Rev. McClurkin off your campaign tour. I believe your actions to be pure political pandering. You believed that pandering to the homophobia that exists in certain corners of the African American religious community would net you more votes than you would lose in LGBT support from this act. Perhaps that is true, perhaps that is false. But that is NOT right. You choose to open our wounds instead of choosing to bringing us together. Bringing a homophobic person on stage with a gay pastor does not help the situation. If your message was unification and tolerance, you have utterly failed to deliver it. You should have chosen African American religious leaders who rejected homophobia and rejected anyone that espoused it. You did not just offend me politically. You didn't even just offend me. You hurt me. You hurt me at a very personal level. At a time when the California NAACP is fighting in the California state legislature to pass marriage equality into law and standing side by side with the LGBT community, at a time when black religious leaders are denouncing homophobia in increasing numbers, the person you, the most prominent African American politician in the country, chose to headline your gospel tour is not someone who fights on the side of justice but on the side of homophobia.

You say that while you disagree with McClurkin's position, you would not exclude him because many African Americans believe the same as he does. Well, isn't your job as a leader to lead for justice and against those bigotries? That is a pathetic excuse, Senator, and you know it. You are trying to claim that a big tent has to include bigotry, and that is preposterous. And so, I have come to a decision. And that decision is that I cannot vote for you, and not just in the Democratic primary. I cannot vote for you in the general election either - even if you become the Democratic nominee for President. I cannot - I will not - support a candidate who knowingly promotes a homophobic religious figure on his campaign platform.

Lest you think this is because I was personally offended as a gay man, you are right. But it wasn't only because of that that I made this decision. I draw the line in the sand when politicians pander to any group and sacrifice their stated goals of equal dignity under law and associate themselves, willingly, with known bigots of any kind, be they racists, sexists or homophobes. This is such a line. Obama has crossed it. Good riddance, Barack Obama.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2008-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=17

Spandan must have changed his mind.

[Th1onein]

180. Same old posters, same old tactics: Shoot the messengers.

Greenwald helped to expose the spying. He is the messenger, NOT THE MESSAGE. How many times do we have to say it?

I'll try, one more time: THIS IS NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN. THIS IS NOT ABOUT GREENWALD. THIS IS ABOUT OBAMA SPYING ON AMERICANS.

[cui bono]

182. Still threatened by Greenwald I see.

[Progressive dog]

189. Greenwald allies himself with anyone who helps

promote Greenwald. There is no low to which he will not sink or has not sunk.