On Glenn Greenwald's 'Bigotry'... What Somebody Forgot To Tell You...

[WillyT]

<snip>

Saturday, November 19, 2005
The GOP fights itself on Illegal Immigration

GG note: This post was written in 2005, one month after I began blogging. It was recently dug up by some Obama cultists trying to discredit my criticisms of the President (to understand what I mean by "Obama cultists," see this 2006 post I wrote about Bush cultists: exactly the same mentality). http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/do-bush-followers-have-political.html As my subsequent writing reflects over the next many years, this post does not remotely reflect my views on immigration. My response to someone who recently asked about it is here:

That was a 6 yrs ago: 3 weeks after I began blogging, when I had zero readers. I've discussed many times before how there were many uninformed things I believed back then, before I focused on politics full-time - due to uncritically ingesting conventional wisdom, propaganda, etc. I've written many times since then about how immigrants are exploited by the Right for fear-mongering purposes. I'm 100% in favor of amnesty, think defeat of the DREAM Act was an act of evil, etc. That said, I do think illegal immigration is a serious problem: having millions of people live without legal rights; having a legal scheme that is so pervasively disregarded breeds contempt for the rule of law; virtually every country - not just the U.S. insists on border control because having a manageable immigration process is vital on multiple levels. But that post is something I wrote literally a few weeks after I began blogging when nobody was reading my blog; it was anything but thoughtful, contemplative, and informed, and - like so many things I thought were true then - has nothing to do with what I believe now.

That's why Obama cultists have to dig back 6 years into my archives to try to find things to discredit me.

<snip>

Link: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html

[AgingAmerican]

1. Because there is nothing in recent history that sticks

nt

[EOTE]

2. Does that mean I can now go back to being against the surveillance state?

Because just this morning I was convinced that GG was bad and therefore warrantless surveillance was just gravy. Now I see all these shades of grey and I just don't know what to think. Can't someone just tell me that Greenwald kicked a puppy at some point so I can go back to loving Big Brother?

[WillyT]

3. LOL !!!

[villager]

4. Who needs a 4th Amendment if you have a dreamy President!?

You Paulite, malcontent harsher-of-mellows!

[EOTE]

9. I need to remember that one.

That seems like something to come out of a modern-day Shakespeare insult generator

Your "dreamy" comment and the reaction to Snowden I so often see around here gave me a vision of Obama on the cover of "Teen Beat" or other teensploitation mags. I see the captions "Is your boyfriend an Obama or a Snowden? Take our quiz to find out!" and "Bo Obama full color foldout inside!"

If anything makes me wish for the days of Bush 43, it's the fact that at least we could generally agree on the definition of 'evil' then.

[cui bono]

12. There are "Teen Beat" (did you mean Tiger Beat?) threads in the BOG.

It's quite sickening to see given that this is supposed to be a board of adults discussing serious political topics. For the most part anyway, there's the obligatory silliness of course.

[EOTE]

18. That's probably what I was thinking of.

All those vapid teen magazines run together in my mind. And yes, it's rather depressing to see here of all places.

[rhett o rick]

30. I must disagree. It's not "supposed" to be a board of adults discussing serious

political topics. It's a safe haven for those that have nothing but loyalty for the President. Discussion of issues is forbidden.
Ask one of them how they stand on the TPP, chained CPI, indefinite detention, and hear the crickets.

I have no problem with the BOG, but some times the pure adulation spills out into GD. Now why would they do that when they have their safe haven? Are they baiting for the wrath of the politically liberal so they can lash back with self-righteous indignation? Those are rhetorical questions.

[cui bono]

35. Yeah, I was talking about DU, not specifically the BOG.

And actually, I understand that's what it's supposed to be and I completely disagree with that idea. Especially since the first time I peeked in there one of the first things I saw were posts by BOGgers conspiring against the general DU, talking about how they were winning the war or something like that. Much like the Tea Party and confederates inside of the USA. Crazy shit that I don't think should be allowed. Especially since they discriminate and kick out anyone without good reason, because of any criticism, however slight it may have been.

Groups like that don't belong on DU imo, there are plenty of adoration sites for various topics that the various topic nuts on DU can go to.

[rhett o rick]

48. I dont have a problem with them conspiring or kissing each other's posteriors

in the BOG. I agree that it isnt "politically liberal" but that criteria is very loose. What I object to is when they post their pure adulation posts in GD. That clearly is flamebait and disruption.

Put them on ignore.

[Aerows]

60. What is hilariously funny, is your user name.

cui bono.

Who benefits?

Are you just rubbing it in the faces of everyone now, or was this just accidental?

[cui bono]

71. Not sure what you're getting at?

I've always thought you need to look at why things are done and who they benefit. I remember hearing a talk by Michael Parenti back in the early 90's I think, about following the dollar. I think it's probably the only way to know why things are being done.

[Aerows]

79. Of course you don't n/t

[cui bono]

87. What? I'm serious...

[zeemike]

96. I only peeked in there once.

And I saw a post where there were about 8 people posting each taking turns repeating each others points, and then came along someone else who posted something diferent...it was alerted on and hidden...then there were three of them that bragged that they were on the jury and were laughing about it.

And I asked myself what are the odds that three out of eight people in that thread would be selected for the jury in a random manner?
And I wondered how they did that...is there some way to pack a jury?

[truedelphi]

129. That is quite intersting information. n/t

[rhett o rick]

133. When they first started it I accidentally stepped in it (it was on the latest threads or something)

and I immediately was banned. I am curious how they manage to pack a jury.

[zeemike]

137. I made that mistake before in another group.

Now I pay more attention to what it is posted in.

But I wish I knew...the only thing I can figure out is if them have multiple accounts all open at the same time and when one alerts the others are ready for the jury call.
But I am not computer savvy so I don't really know.

[rhett o rick]

138. Well you arent the first to mention that some juries seem to be packed. nm

[VanillaRhapsody]

132. NO its supposed to be about Democrats....the President just so happens to be one of them

Instead some want to turn this into a game of Whack a Mole on them...

abd don't try to play the victims as if YOU don't act cultish or cliquish....every thing you just said was insulting to OTHER Democrats!

[Rex]

160. It is just sad that not ALL Obama supporters can post in the BOG.

Sadly their safe haven is not for ALL Obama supporters...just those the will never criticize him in any way, shape or form. THAT is not a safe haven, it is just an echo chamber and the posts there reflect exactly what I am saying. It is just basically the hosts of the group replying to each other.

In regards to your rhetorical questions - of COURSE that is what they are doing in GD...it has to get boring with everyone agreeing with you all the time.

[sabrina 1]

139. Lol! n/t

[Aerows]

39. I'm convinced now

If GG is against the surveillance state, that means I can't think for myself.

Oh, there's a pool. I think I'll dive into it. It's called The Nile.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. So you are saying that a person's view can 'evolve' and chage for the bettter? So an anti gay

homophobe shouting about Sanctity and God in his trail mix, for example, could grow to become an advocate for equality, even after spending years giving detailed and calmly delivered summations of his personal and religious objections to equal rights?
Hmmmmmm.

[WillyT]

7. Pretty Much...

[Doctor_J]

40. well the president has "evolved" on gay marriage very recently

I guess it could be a political calculation?

[Aerows]

41. "Sanctity and God in his trail mix"

has to be one of the most fantastically funny things I've ever read.

[TheMathieu]

6. "Cultists"

Disparaging remark no credible, professional journalist would make about their critics.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. But he's making the remark about cultists, not critics. Critics are intelllectually honest.

nt

[Aerows]

50. You were expecting

Sycophants to be honest? They would sooner go on a hunger strike than admit a policy flaw.

[cui bono]

14. But that's what they are. He's talking about specific types of people. We saw the Bushies...

same thing now with Obamabots.

If someone wants to make a reasonable criticism of GG they can refute what he says. Those who only attack his credibility and ignore his message clearly have an agenda. That agenda is to defend Obama at all costs. Even their principles. That's pretty much what peple do when they join a cult.

[rhett o rick]

34. "Those that choose loyalty over principles, have no principles." Flip Wilson.

[pkdu]

8. So , he makes the case that his beliefs/thoughts/words mean nothing now because...

That was 2005: was he a juvenile at the time? I think not.
That he'd only been blogging 3 weeks: Please , spare me.
That he had zero readers: laughable as an " excuse"

He then went on to hint "Illegal Immigration " is a serious problem because it " breeds contempt for the rule of law" ...by the so called " illegals" ...nice. Any evidence of that GG? Oh sure, he meant everyone , not just " illegals"

[SomethingFishy]

11. So if what you say is true then why not print GG's retraction of the story

when using it to denigrate him? Why did this little piece that Willy posted, which was at the very top of GG's page, which means you had to read it before you got to the "illegal" story, get left out of the post he's responding to? If none of his "excuses" are valid then why be afraid to post it?

When Obama changed his mind on Gay Marriage, he was "modifying his position based on new thoughts and new information" when Greenwald does it he's... what? A liar? A traitor? A criminal?

[Cali_Democrat]

15. BINGO!!!

Utterly laughable indeed!!

The Greenwald cultists are really squirming.

[SomethingFishy]

17. Wow you live in some kind of fantasy world...

You made that post, you purposefully left out the retraction then you march around laughing saying "the cultists are squirming"? Seriously?

Can you explain exactly why you left the retraction out of your post? Did you not see it right there at the top of your page in the link?
Or are "You reporting while I decide".

[cui bono]

19. Why so defensive?

Is the answer I predict in 3... 2... 1...

This poster seriously could not answer a simple straightforward question about why they think that Libertarians salivate at the thought of war. Tried to turn it around by insinuating I was being defensive because I'm a Libertarian. I asked them about 7-8 times to just answer the question. Finally tired the poor little thing out, into silence of course, never got an answer.

[SomethingFishy]

20. LMAO.. I'm in the "no answer" mode in the thread she started

on this topic... Answer a question with an insult or another question..

[Aerows]

56. Folks are better off

noting when a person has Molly Ivins as their avatar. If you ever came at her with shining eyes and adoration ...

[SomethingFishy]

68. That woman was a goddess...

I had the opportunity to meet her a couple of times. I was the projectionist at a LGBT film festival a few years running and she was always one of the guests. Quick story...
The first year there was a film about gay rights in Texas. In the film Texas had just voted "sodomy" to be illegal. When the two Senators who put the bill up for a vote laughed and shook hands after it passed, Molly said in the voice over "That's the last time a dick is going to touch an asshole in this state for awhile". I laughed so loud people actually turned and looked up at the projection booth.. When the film was over and I came out of the booth Molly was standing there to thank me and shake my hand. We chatted for just a moment and she was gone... Every year after that Molly would always come by the booth to thank me for doing my part. Which was really just my job but hey.. it was Molly!

[Aerows]

73. OMG!

That is perfect .

I'm speechless, and that doesn't happen too often.

[WillyT]

117. Thank You For That !!! - Seriously... That Was Fantastic !!!

[SomethingFishy]

125. It's always a pleasure to tell that story...

and to kick your thread

[Cali_Democrat]

22. The retraction is what makes it all the more laughable

His excuses are laughable just like his excuse for why he supported Bush and the war on terror.

[SomethingFishy]

23. Yet you will not answer why it's ok in your book for other people to

change but not Greenwald.

And you don't have any excuses laughable or not, you just don't answer. What should I make of that?

[Cali_Democrat]

24. Greenwald hasn't actually changed. His goal remains the same. nt

[SomethingFishy]

28. Ahh so now you are psychic.. and still not answering the question..

You do realize you are just embarrassing yourself now. This isn't even a debate, it's you bashing Greenwald for something you praise Obama for doing, and calling anyone who questions your ass backwards logic, names.

You still have 2 major questions in the air. Why didn't you post the retraction(or are you taking lessons from FOX new's fair and balanced act?) when you posted the story?

And why is Greenwald the only person not allowed to change his position or mind about something. And your psychic emanations don't count, take that load of bullshit to John Edwards.

[Cali_Democrat]

33. You want me to post that pathetic retraction?

His excuse that he just started blogging and didn't have a lot of readers?

[SomethingFishy]

36. Still no answer. Speaking of pathetic...

Why do you give Obama a pass and Greenwald a post on what a bigoted fuck he is?

Why is Obama's retraction real and Greenwald's not?

I'll keep asking and you can keep avoiding. It just shows what kind of person you really are. You can't even comment on the retraction without leaving out the parts that don't fit into your narrative. Fox news has taught you well.

[Cali_Democrat]

37. Still trying to bring it back to Obama. Distract...distract...distract....

[SomethingFishy]

42. Yes that's it. I'm not using a comparison that directly relates to you

and trying to understand why you give one a pass and not the other. I'm just trying to distract.

If you'd like I could post the names of 1000 people who changed their position on one thing or another and we can use them as comparison instead.

Problem is I still wouldn't get an answer. Because you don't have one. Your hypocrisy is laid bare for all to see and now all you can do is run around screaming "ODS, CULTIST, DISTRACTION... BLUE MEENIES!!!!!!

Oh and Greenwald says thanks for all the traffic on his website...

[mythology]

126. I also don't buy that as an explanation.

Maybe he never believed the way he talked about undocumented immigrants, but then that colors his integrity. I would think if he actually believed what he said and had a legitimate change of heart, he'd have a more sincere sounding apology.

Instead he uses insults like cultists.

[Maedhros]

59. What is his goal?

[bobduca]

131. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil!!111111

[riderinthestorm]

108. Hillary supported Bush and the war on terror too. She "evolved" on Gitmo and gay marriage too

I guess she also can never be able to change her positions? She'll always be a bigot too for you?

So if she's the Dem nominee you'll work as hard at smearing her with her past positions as you are Greenwald I presume?

[Hissyspit]

135. No, they are not. BTW, did you call Sen. Robert Byrd

a racist when he stood up against the Iraq War because he was involved with the Ku Klux Klan as a youth and did not support the Civil Rights Act - despite the fact that he had disowned his early ignorance and denounced racial intolerance? Right-wingers constantly dishonestly used it as an attack on him because of his speaking up against the war.

Pure dishonest character assassination on your part in failing to include Greenwald's later response.

And all the stupid fucking ROFL smilies in the world won't change that.

[Doctor_J]

51. so do you continue to hold Obama's opposition to gay marriage against him?

He has changed his stance recently and a little suspiciously. Is that ok with you?

[Hissyspit]

134. Because he doesn't believe it anymore?

And the OP this post is responding to left that part out, being fully aware of it?

Pure dishonest character assassination.

[arely staircase]

164. 2005 you know back before racism was bad. nt

[pa28]

13. They don't care if Greenwald is a "bigot" or not.

The real point is to establish one more handy epithet for the next smear campaign.

[SomethingFishy]

16. I just posted this in "the other thread"

I couldn't believe when I clicked on the link that this retraction was there but the NSA supporters didn't bother to post it with the rest of the article.

That's one sure way to swing minds over to your side, don't tell the full story. Seems quite... Republican.

[randome]

21. So he's 'evolving', huh?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Progressive dog]

25. Glen's views depend on what sells

and keeps him in the 1%.

[villager]

26. unlike, you know, any politicians we'd ever support!

[SomethingFishy]

31. ROFLMAO... Yeah Journalists make a fortune... They live high on the hog in the 1%

Seriously that's your argument? THat GG is a 1%'er?

[Maedhros]

63. Do you have evidence to support the claim that Greenwald's income

places him in the top 1% of Americans?

[Progressive dog]

104. You are joking, 3 of 4 books

are NY Times bestsellers vs not much over $250k for 1% status. Probably easily .1%.

[Maedhros]

105. So, um, "no" then. [n/t]

[Progressive dog]

106. Yes it is obvious unless

he's donating his royalties to charity, which we know he isn't.

[Maedhros]

107. The argument that Greenwald is unmasking the activities of the NSA

in order to protect his wealth doesn't bear up under scrutiny, however.

[Progressive dog]

109. That isn't an argument that I made.

Read what I wrote and give it a little thought.

[Maedhros]

124. You imply that Glenn has changed his position on the NSA in order to milk the popularity

of an anti-NSA stance.

That doesn't jibe with his long-standing objection to security/surveillance state over-reach. Glenn was a ferocious opponent of Bush's warrantless wiretapping policy, and has maintained that opposition to such policies even when the Presidency changed hands. This directly counters your supposition that he changes his views depending upon what's popular.

[Progressive dog]

141. Again, you still don't get it

Glen is in it for the money, and he does whatever is required to make it.

[HangOnKids]

142. You know this how?

Until you provide a link or cite a CREDIBLE source this is speculation on your part.

[Progressive dog]

143. Observation

[HangOnKids]

144. Gotta take a pass on that one

Your observation is swirling down the drain. How about some evidence, you know of the empirical variety. It is hard, I get it, but throwing out "observations" is akin to a group of 12 year olds discussing who has a crush on who.

[Progressive dog]

145. Empirical evidence of what exactly?

[HangOnKids]

146. Your claim that Glenn is in it for the money

The claim that you then said is based on your observation.

[Progressive dog]

147. Absolutely, simple observation

is all that is necessary. There are lots of people like him in the "media."

[HangOnKids]

148. That is your opinion

Fine to have one, but to state it as a fact, like you did is quite disingenuous. You know NO more about Glenn then I do about my local grocery clerk. Go on your way dog, I have no need to converse with you. Bye.

[Progressive dog]

149. Bye

What did you think I stated as fact?

[Maedhros]

151. So what? He's a professional journalist.

Making money from one's profession is a time-honored tradition. Hell, I even do it myself!

So, instead of focusing on why he decided to report on what Snowden leaked to him, let's try and focus on what he reported. It just makes so much more sense.

[Progressive dog]

152. What?

LOL

[L0oniX]

155. OFFS LMFAO ...EPIC FAIL!

[Progressive dog]

156. Oh, you have an opinion

which you express in cliches.

[L0oniX]

158. "keeps him in the 1%" Yeah here's my opinion. That is bullshit!

[Progressive dog]

159. You made that plain before,

you're just repeating yourself.

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. It is a crappy state of affairs when heros aren't perfect.

When they have inconvenient truths in their lives.
When their histories don't live up to their image.

[unblock]

29. lol! 2005, fuggeddaboudit. but 2006! yes, 2006, look that up, yes!

[tridim]

32. When someone has to retract their life to appear respectible...

They usually aren't worthy of respect.

A good rule to live by.

[EOTE]

43. Why would you say such an awful thing about President Obama?

Why is DU filled with such homophobes and bigots as of late? It's seriously icky and creepy.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

49. his attack of Greenwald had nothing to do with homophobia. why are you saying that?

oh yeah. because it's fun to make stuff up.

[EOTE]

53. No, I'm talking about Obama's refusal to support marriage equality. Did you miss the link?

There are quite a few people on this very board ACTIVELY supporting a noted bigot and homophobe. Doesn't that make you kind of sick?

I'm not making anything up, but the Snowden haters certainly are full of shit.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

55. If that is what you're calling homophobia...well, I got news for you

You are wrong.

[EOTE]

57. You're right, how could I suggest such a thing?

It's only homophobia when republicans try to deny equal rights for others. When democrats do it, it's rainbows and sprinkles. Deerrrrppp.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

61. you can call it discrimination if you like....but the word homophobia is overused. same with

misogyny. Because they are such loaded, powerful words....people overuse them. I have no problem with the notion that someone says Obama discriminated against gays and lesbians regarding right to be married under state law. Because that was actually his position. But he didn't have fear of or hate gay people. He even discussed a need to remove some of the unfair practices of the time such as not allowing gay partners to visit one another in the hospital, etc.

There are settings between zero and 11 in rhetoric.

[EOTE]

72. Funny how so-called democrats support homophobia and bigotry when it benefits them.

Bush said pretty much the EXACT SAME WORDS with regard to gay marriage, but I suppose you think he was just a progressive waiting to bloom as well, right? The hypocrisy is truly mind-blowing. Just because your guy said it doesn't make it any less abhorrent, okay? You think the GLBT community feels any better when they hear a politician say "Hey, I may not think you're deserving of the same rights that straight people have, but I don't hate you so I'm not a homophobe, don't even think of saying that!" You bring up rhetoric and that's nothing but 100%, grade-a prime bullshit rhetoric. Also funny that you could far more easily apply your same defenses of Obama to Greenwald, yet you completely fail to do that. It could be that you forgot, or it could be that you're displaying incredible amounts of hypocrisy. I'm going to go with the latter.

[Aerows]

75. It's ok if Obama supports it n/t

[EOTE]

80. Or anyone else with a (D) next to their name, it seems.

I've got to imagine the response around here would be the same if this happened under a Clinton or Biden presidency as well. It's like civil liberties only mean a damn under republican administrations.

[Aerows]

83. If this was under Bush, you couldn't hear yourself think

for the screaming, gnashing of the teeth and rattling of the pitchforks.

[QC]

118. By the way, the person lecturing you here on homophobia was banned from DU

a few years back for referring to LGBT equality as a "fabulous pink pony."

Just thought you might like some context for this discussion.

[EOTE]

153. Makes a lot more sense now.

Thanks for the heads up.

[SomethingFishy]

76. Call it whatever you want. The defense of Obama changing his mind

while Greenwald is not allowed that same option is hypocrisy.

Then for some odd reason when the question is posed everyone becomes a psychic and knows what Greenwalds "plot" is, what he is thinking and where and when he is lying, "see it's not hypocrisy because we know Greenwald is really lying"..

Is it not reasonable to think someone can change their mind or position after 6 years? You seem to think it is reasonable for Obama to change his, can you tell me why Greenwald is not allowed that same perogative, without using your psychic powers to tell me what he's thinking?

[cui bono]

78. But he was willing to speak out against equal rights for all

until it was politically expedient for him not to.

Whatever way the wind is blowing I guess... unless it comes to SS cuts and other stuff that a huge majority of citizens support.

The point is the hypocrisy of giving your favorite person a pass while vilifying someone else for a change of heart or opinion. Selective forgiveness/open mindedness.

[Bluenorthwest]

99. Hilarious! 'It's a love based sort of discrimination he advocated'.

That's what they all say. 'We don't hate them, we just don't want them to be our equals'.

[Scootaloo]

127. Well, given DU's own rules regard lack of support for marriage equality to be homophobia...

[WillyT]

45. I Feel Your Pain...

Timeline of Obama’s ‘Evolving’ on Same-Sex Marriage: Link: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/timeline-of-obamas-evolving-on-same-sex-marriage/

[Pretzel_Warrior]

52. A rightwing site like redstate couldn't have done better

way to go, WILLY! Go git that Obama. GIT HIM GOOD!!!



I hope you realize how sad it is that you are attacking Obama in this way.

Who else ya got that can beat back the GOP majority in the House very likely to stay the same for the time being? No one. You got no one.

[EOTE]

54. Stormfront couldn't have done any better.

Well, Stormfront probably wouldn't have taken your same logical leaps, but the gist would overall be the same.

I hope you realize how sad it is that you are attacking liberty and basic decency in this way.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

58. liberty? hahahha. RELEASE ALL THE DOCUMENTS, GLENN!!! WE believe in LIBERTY! and a right to KNOW!

why is Glenn Greenwald acting such an authoritarian and not letting Americans know all of what Snowden gave him? Oh yeah. Money and attention. His primary motivating forces.

[EOTE]

66. Your logical inconsistency is hilarious.

Without Greenwald and Snowden we wouldn't know ANY of this. And because they choose to not give up all their chips in the first few hands you lambaste them some more. How about this? Those two risked their freedom and liberty enough already and don't owe the likes of you a fucking thing? Christ, you and the other child-like Snowden haters would just move on to yet another distraction/insult if he did ever release the rest. Or, you'd say he's a super-duper traitor for releasing the rest. There is NOTHING either of them could do that would earn your support, so your silly insults really don't come across as too good intentioned.

[WillyT]

119. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[WillyT]

62. So Obama Gets To 'Evolve' And Glenn Greenwald Does Not ??? - Is That what You're Saying ???

[Pretzel_Warrior]

65. no. I'm saying characterizing Obama's previous stand on the issue as bigoted and homophobic

is wrong. The image you used was also purposefully meant to inspire dislike of Obama. Out of thousands of images you chose that one. Interesting.

[WillyT]

90. He Used To Be A Stoner... Nothing Wrong With That, So Did I... More Pictures Here:

A User’s Guide To Smoking Pot With Barack Obama: http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/a-users-guide-to-smoking-pot-with-barack-obama

[riderinthestorm]

111. Hillary too, I guess is a bigot. She also supported Bush and the war on terror.

Guess her evolution on same sex marriage means she's always a bigot as well. And a Bush supporter.

So you'll campaign as hard against her, with the same smears you're using against Greenwald I presume when she's our Democratic nominee?

[Doctor_J]

121. That's exactly what they're saying. The OP's description of them as a Cult is deadly accurate

and they refuse to answer that question.

[cui bono]

82. ABC news timeline list is a hit piece? What's wrong about it?

How is a list of Obama's position "attacking" and what do you mean by "in this way"?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

88. I'm referring to WillyT's editorializing.

not abcnews article. His chosen picture and post title, etc. is pretty purposefully perjorative.

[cui bono]

89. And what do you think about the timeline of Obama's positions?

You know, the substance?

[neverforget]

136. silence for the the inconvenient truth

[msanthrope]

150. Where is Greenwald's evolution? At the minimum, can you point to the column that

indicates his evolved view on immigration???

[riderinthestorm]

110. So I presume you won't be supporting Hillary when she's our Dem nominee?

Since she also was a homophobe too about same sex marriage. Supported Bush and the war on terror as well. Gitmo and all the rest....

She's never respectable now according to you?

[rhett o rick]

38. Those that put loyalty above all else are given too much attention here. They need to

be put on "ignore". I dont mind if they want to live in their comfortable authoritarian bubble, but when they think they can tell others what to do, then it's too much. IMHO they are not "politically liberals" but strict conservatives. Put them on ignore and we can have an great DU.

[randome]

46. Oh, rhett, come on, do you really want to converse with only those who agree with you?

I mean, where's the fun in that? Or the learning process?

If some want to put Greenwald on a pedestal as the 'face' of the 1st Amendment, it's fair game to present an alternative viewpoint.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

67. You dont have a clue about liberals do you? We always argue. But what we dont do and

some of us cant stand, are those that have an agenda of disruption. Ask any of the loyalists how they stand on the TPP and all you get is bullshit and ridicule. That's not discussion. The agenda of the loyalists is to defend Pres Obama at all costs. They put loyalty above principles.

But yes there are some things that I believ. Power can be corrupting and must be monitored closely. Even if they have a nice family and a nice smile. I tend to believe whistle-blowers because I know that power can corrupt. I believe that those that try to bully discussions with self-righteous ridicule, dont belong in the discussion. And I believe if you put loyalty before principles, you have no principles.

[Rex]

162. +1

Right on the money!

[cui bono]

85. Learning process?

What do you learn from gibberish followed by ? That's the extent of the apologist's "conversations".

I really thought that was sarcasm until I read that last line and vaguely recognized your user name.

[reusrename]

116. I cannot help but be suspicious of your professed interest in conversation.

I am really trying not to be too insulting here, but trying to have a meaningful dialog with some folks feels like trying to have a discussion with a big cheer-leading squad.


For example:

How is it that you seem to condone certain behavior when done by a member of your team and then ridicule that same behavior when done by someone who is not a member of your team?

If you do not wish to respond to this particular question that's perfectly fine with me; I'm not trying to bait you or anything. Really. I am just curious about how you make the connections that you make between someone's behavior and their beliefs.

I am sincerely curious about it. Have been for a while.

[Maedhros]

69. Have you noticed that many of these propagandists put words like

"progressive", "liberal", or "democrat" conspicuously in their user names, when the stances they take are anything but liberal or progressive?

[rhett o rick]

74. Yes and I find it interesting. Are they too embarrassed to call themselves conservatives?

Are they trying to fool others or themselves.

[QC]

123. That's always a dead giveaway. The more ostentatiously "lefty" the user ID,

the more conservative the poster, as a general rule.

If they also choose the Che avatar, then you know you really have a live on on your hands.

[bobduca]

128. yeah blue*, progressive* liberal* or *dem

when they should all have conserva* as a prefix to their names.

[L0oniX]

154. ^^^this^^^

[Pretzel_Warrior]

44. Obama cultists? Glenn Greenwald is smoking crack. He's just as authoritarian as GOP

and doesn't want to cop to it now since he's been deployed as the assymetric warfare against Obama. See??? He's not the Bush-loving immigrant-hating guy working for CATO institute....He's just a civil liberties super progressive guy. THAT'S why he has nothing good to say about Obama oh yeah.

Glenn Greenwald, you are pretty much full of shit.

Even now, you disavow what you wrote back then but then circle around to say...oh, and I pretty much believe the same thing today.

Whatever, Greenwald. You big tool.

[rhett o rick]

70. You left out, "and God bless Herr General Clapper. I love all Republican Generals." nm

[Aerows]

77. All Republican Generals serving under President Obama

are excluded from any talk in this. Because, well, Obama.

[rhett o rick]

84. Ah yes, I get it. Pres Obama chooses Republicans instead of Democrats and then convinces the

Republicans to not be Republicans. Wouldnt it be simpler to appoint Democrats?

[Aerows]

91. It would

but President Obama likes to walk uphill in the snow, both ways, and ..mumbling about President Obama's astonishing greatness ... ... mumble...

See, that's why he appointed those guys! He's Bipartisan, exceptional, awesome and if you don't believe it, just look. He is amazing.

[rhett o rick]

94. Bipartisan would mean he appointed equally progressive and conservatives. That aint the

case. He is certainly partial to conservatives

[Aerows]

95. I apologize

I forgot the sarcasm tag. I kind of thought that was obvious.

[Armstead]

102. And this has to do with whether the government has taken domestic spying too far, how?

[truedelphi]

130. Good question, but one that individual will probably be

Unable to answer.

[Rex]

163. Nothing, it is just word salad from desperate people.

They long ran out of excuses for the NSA.

[SixString]

64. DU Rec

[Bette Noir]

81. I love that his excuse for a bigoted post is that he had no readers.

Glenn Greenwald has been a jerk for years.

[EOTE]

86. So what's the president's excuse?

And I'll note that nowhere in that piece did Greenwald attempt to excuse what he said back then, just noted that he has changed his mind since. But then again, Greenwald isn't aspiring to higher office.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

92. the horse is dead. you can stop waling on it.

[cui bono]

93. Why? Obama held a contrary opinion much more recently than GG did.

So you must have posted the same thing in response to the OP then... I guess I just missed it. Can you give me a link?

[Bluenorthwest]

98. Pretz is one of thousands of married, straight men who think they get to explain what

is and is not homophobic when married, straight men say it. 'It's not hate or bigotry when we promote discrimination against a minority group and explain that God agrees with us, it's just not!'

[QC]

114. Only a straight man who dismisses equality as a "fabulous pink pony"

can truly know what is and is not in fact homophobic.

[riderinthestorm]

112. So Hillary is a "jerk"? She supported Bush as well. She's also a "bigot"

around here too because she similarly was against same sex marriage.

Nobody is allowed to change their mind here correct? And you'll denigrate her the same way as Greenwald?

[great white snark]

97. Even if you lose the bigot he's still a GOP enabling Libertarian 1%er.

Among many other traits you'd crucify any Democrat for having.

[Thinkingabout]

103. Agreed, Greenwald is what he is, it has been making Obama look bad, someday it will become plain

What the motives are. I don't understand how this bunch thinks this is going to help but larger elementary motives have happened before.

[WillyT]

120. ROFLMAO !!!

Yeah... that's the ticket...

It's Glenn Greenwald that's making President Obama look bad.

[Maedhros]

115. How is he enabling the GOP? [n/t]

[Historic NY]

100. Apparently no one told him the internet land is like forever....

[Phlem]

101. K&R!

-p

[TheKentuckian]

113. Did Greenwald deport more unauthorized migrants then the Reich winger Bush?

Also, when did we decide that the expression of concerns about illegal immigration is automatically bigotry and/or racism, lot a Democratic racists it would seem.

Plus, it seems to me the guy has "evolved" a long way over time (quicker than some folks will be urged to vote for soon) and it would seem that would be appreciated to some degree rather than excuse for another shit flinging assault on the guy from folks very comfortable with "evolving", even with open and active TeaPubliKlans jumping from sinking ships due to Teabagger primary assaults and fierce defenders of epiphanies within our own ranks.

Of course only those with no clue would give much credence to the folks who brought us "boxes in his garage", "emotarians", and "firebaggers" who will ramble around the observable universe before discussing policies save as boilerplate advertising and/or testaments of faith.

All of that aside, who cares because the reported issues remain the heart of the matter so killing the messenger is pointless as can be and is automatically desperate and a deflection.

[WillyT]

122. THANK YOU !!!

[grahamhgreen]

140. Whoopsie:)

[L0oniX]

157. Excellent!

[arely staircase]

161. so he had just begun writing

and learning what words mean?