Will Glenn Greenwald say or do a particular thing?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

Simple decision tree


Is money involved?------> No. .............. Is Fame involved? ------> No. (Greenwald will take no action).
..|
..| Yes...........................................................V Yes
..|
..|
..V

Glenn will say or do it.

[FSogol]

1. You forgot, "Is bashing the Obama Administration involved" or "Is

an US Official visiting a foreign country at the moment."

[Pretzel_Warrior]

2. I may add that.

But he's usually bashing Obama for the notoriety and possibly for backroom money from Kochs and their allies.

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. Sibel Edmonds eludes to that very point. She calls it "Checkbook journalism". GG's cultists went..

after her with reckless abandon. She doesn't seem to be as initimidated by GG as some others.

"Glenn Greenwald, NSA Documents & Checkbook Journalism (Boiling Frogs Post-Sibel Edmonds)"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017165892

[Whisp]

71. That's what it is. Checkbook journalism: Pay to Say

[Fumesucker]

3. Will it give Greenwald haters/lovers something to groan/cheer about?

Planaria could do this decision tree.

[rhett o rick]

4. "Even if Greenwald ate puppies, the National Security State is excessively intrusive"

I am curious why some that call themselves "politically liberal" would go to such lengths to distract from the potential problem of an out of control NSA. I think we have enough evidenceto show that there is a problem. We dont know how serious it is. Now why would some so-called "politically liberal" posters go to such extreme lengths as using ridicule to shut down discussion?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024461441

[Pretzel_Warrior]

7. I don't have a problem with dealing with the NSA and spying on US Citizens, allied leaders, etc.

What I do have a problem with is Greenwald's selfish and self-aggrandizing way of handling this whole thing. Did you ever notice he always behaves like a dick toward pretty much anyone interviewing him?

He thinks he's got the one true viewpoint of the world and pounds that viewpoint religiously. He is a 100% Obama-obsessed and deranged NOT-journalist. He's a writer of screeds and an opportunist.

That is why I loathe the man. His the libertarian version of fake news that FoxNews spews every day. And he's just getting warmed up.

[EOTE]

8. The world is literally FILLED with self-aggrandizing assholes.

Yet you feel compelled to incessantly attack the only (ones you consider) self-aggrandizing assholes who are actually exposing the many crimes of our government. I would say that's funny, but it's actually sad and all too predictable. Authoritarian worship is sickening.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. people who use authoritarianism as a ephithet don't know what they are saying

by the way, it was Snowden who stole the documents. Glenn is just using him to launch his career to the next level. There's a lot more evil afoot with Glenn than has come out yet. His sordid history with right wing and support of Bush's Iraq war tell me his constant haranguing of Obama and his administration is not coincidental.

No one is entirely authoritarian or entirely libertarian. We all recognize we need some level of government and regulation of society. To pretend otherwise really opens oneself up to be seen as completely naive.

[EOTE]

12. Ahhh, so you think authoritarianism is a grand thing.

Certainly no surprise there, but it is nice to hear you come out and say it. Tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, but I still think authoritarianism is awful and the Snowden-haters are the worst kind of authoritarian, they're the right-wing authoritarian worshippers. They do their job so dilligently and joyfully that some of them actually aren't aware that they're willing servants of the corporatocracy. Believing in a good, working government is NOT AUTHORITARIANISM. This is coming from someone who is pretty damned far from a libertarian. The sooner you realize that the better.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

14. lololol. I'm glad you think you have the 1 single truth.

you know very well I did not promote authoritarianism. I'm just saying we are all somewhere on the spectrum between lock down authoritative rule and free flowing anarchy. Most of us are closer to each other on the spectrum than we are to either extreme.

There are valid points on both directions of this debate. I'm sorry you're unable to admit at least that much.

By the way, good working government does entail some need for authority to back up such governance. In case you weren't aware.

[EOTE]

19. Actually you did. And do you want to throw in some emoticons there as well?

You said that people who throw around "authoritarian" as an epithet don't know what they're talking about. As if it shouldn't be used in a negative fashion. The only one who would say something like that is someone who doesn't think authoritarianism is a bad thing. You DO realize that words mean things, right? Then again, I am trying to explain these rather simple concepts to someone who doesn't understand the difference between "authority" and "authoritarian", so I very well may be wasting my energy.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

30. enjoy your refusal to take my point. You call people on DU authoritarians for one narrow band of

opinion they may hold on a single issue or a single instance within a single issue. That would be like me judging another poster and labeling them based on one single opinion they expressed.

I am aware authoritarianism and authority are different things. You do grant me they come from the same origin word, yes?

So someone believing in some authority is too quickly labeled authoritarian. Got it? GLad I could spell it out for you.

[EOTE]

31. Yes, I refuse to accept the ignorant point you're attempting to make

Funny how I don't see eye to eye with a person who thinks that authoritarian is a compliment.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

32. your purposeful failure to comprehend what I actuall wrote is duly noted by all

[LeftyMom]

38. It's clear that you've missed out on a seminal work in political philosophy.

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

Go read it. Come back when you know what you're talking about.

Then let the rest of us know where you went to school so we can avoid sending our kids there.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

41. Hahahahaha!!! Highly in favor back in the 50's. Read your own link

As it discusss the many flaws with that study and philosophy. The school I went to suggested citing research references not more than 5 years old.

Yours is...uhmmmm...a bit of a laugher.

[LeftyMom]

42. It's a foundational work in Political Science.

Not knowing it while discussing politics is like trying to discuss psychology while being wholly unfamiliar with Freud.

In short, you're embarrassing yourself.

[EOTE]

44. Yeah, my failure to comprehend that authoritarianism just ain't all that bad.

Keep trying and soon you'll be that shining faced representative of authoritarianism that this country so desperately needs. You know who doesn't think authoritarianism isn't so bad? Authoritarians. You have nothing of substance or intelligence to add to this conversation.

[Rex]

63. It is sheer desperation at this point imo.

The OP is actually a good insight into the way they think and make decisions about practically everything. There is no critical thinking involved.

[EOTE]

64. I never thought I'd live to see the day where authoritarianism is so heartily defended on DU.

I've certainly seen my share of authoritarians here but none that would actually go out of their way to defend authoritarianism. Now it's like they can't even bear to hear it denigrated. It's rather sick.

[Rex]

65. They absolutely detest hearing that word!

I've even seen some pretend that being 'anti-authoritarian' is a bad thing, while they promote their fascist lifestyle like it was a coke ad!

[rhett o rick]

9. I am not at all surprised that disparaging GG is more important to you than challenging

our authoritarians leaders like General Clapper. Personally I dont give a shit about GG, Justin Beber, or Mili Cyrus. I am more worried about our government that is supposed to be working for us, might be violating our Constitution. I know that's not a big deal to the authoritarian conservatives, but it is to me.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

11. the name calling never ceases because someone dares speak out against a self-promoting hack

who happens to be using Snowden and also having virtually zero% good to say about this president. His generally combative attitude in any interview I've seen leads me to believe he is a gigantic dipshit of with ego of galactic proportions.

We can deal with the spy agency AND Snowden AND all of the rest at the same time. Greenwald needs to be continually exposed for the absolute lack of integrity he possesses.

[EOTE]

15. Sure, we can deal with the NSA while simultaneously making sure that no more

of those pesky whistle-blowers forget their place like Snowden did. Do you have any idea how insane that sounds? This is the same hypocrisy coming out of the mouths of all the rest of the Snowden haters here. Now that Obama has held hearings on the NSA, they HAVE to admit that that's a good thing, but they still have to hate Snowden. So, the only "logically consistent" argument they can make is that we can focus on these issues that only came about by whistle-blowing while simultaneously making the lives of those whistle-blowers a living hell so no other whistle blowers will dare to come forward. There's no words to describe how incredibly warped that kind of "thinking" is.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

17. Snowden did not behave like a whistle blower. He behaved like a spy who absconded with the

crown jewels of national security interests and headed first to Communist China-controlled HK and then to Russia.

[EOTE]

20. Ahhh, so he should have gone the Chelsea Manning route, then?

So he's not a whistle-blower because he's not currently sitting in jail being tortured. Got it, champ.

[EOTE]

21. Oh, and you DO know that there have been more charges under the Espionage Act during the Obama

administration than in all other presidencies combined? Rhetorical question of course, I very well know you had no idea. Nor will it make any difference now that you know it.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

22. I didn't know that. But it makes sense considering the dramatic shift in a number of areas

more private contractors involved in government national security
much greater ubiquity of secrets available and easily downloaded from digital format
a younger generation who feels it is somehow their right to unleash millions of documents without consideration of the consequences.

[EOTE]

23. MORE THAN EVERY OTHER PRESIDENCY COMBINED.

And Snowden is amongst them. But in your mind, there aren't enough. Yessir, the problem with this country is that it's not authoritarian enough, right? Christ, I don't know how to deal with someone who thinks that authoritarian is a compliment.

[EOTE]

24. And I forgot that the internet and digital formats weren't around under Bush.

So much so that Obama has 8 times the number of Espionage Act prosecutions as Bush. It's simply because people only gained the ability to commit Espionage around 2009 or so. Before then, it just wasn't feasible. You guys really crack me up. Is there anything you WON'T justify?

[struggle4progress]

35. You didn't know that because it's a blatant falsehood. See my post

#34

[struggle4progress]

34. Paranoid hallucination is not a substitute for fact-based analysis

And your claim that" there have been more charges under the Espionage Act during the Obama administration than in all other presidencies combined" is shameless bullshit

The Espionage Act, and its various amendments such as the Sedition Act and the McCarran Act, have been used repeatedly

There were about 2000 Espionage Act prosecutions during and immediately after WWI: resistence to this produced the modern ACLU

The post-WWI Palmer raids were based on the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act -- and led to about 500 political deportations, before public outcry terminated the raids and forced repeal of the Sedition Act

Nothing remotely comparable has occurred under the current administration

[EOTE]

45. Wow, what an incredible load of lies.

You can push lies all you want, but that doesn't make them any closer to the truth.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/

Amazing the shit I see justified here on a day to day basis.

[pkdu]

52. This link refers only to Journalists charged , your post up thread made no such distinction...

Talking past each other on this one?

[EOTE]

54. I should have made that distinction.

Regardless, it's a horrendous distinction for this administration to be noted for. I was referring to whistleblowers and I thought that was assumed. Whistleblowers have been treated horrifically by this administration.

[rhett o rick]

18. Disparaging GG is a distraction from the more important problems with the NSA. You say,

"We can deal with the spy agency AND Snowden AND all of the rest at the same time." Maybe I missed it but havent seen you "dealing" with the NSA illegal spying.

[EOTE]

25. There will be plenty of time for that after the insults.

Or hopefully we'll have forgotten about this whole NSA deal by then and we can get back to American Idol.

[Maedhros]

36. Attacking the character of Greenwald and Snowden

only provides cover for the powers-that-be who want to expand the national security state.

It achieves no beneficial end, other than to stifle discussion of the NSA's abuses.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

47. no, you have to watch the watchers. always look for agendas

I believe Snowden and Greenwald have agendas other than the pure ones ascribed to them by their fans.

[Maedhros]

48. I'm more worried about the NSA's agenda,

and the agendas of those who so fervently defend their activities.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

49. nobody here is denying the NSA needs changing. we can be worried about NSA and scam artists

like Greenwald at the same time.

[Maedhros]

50. Attacking the character of a source in order to discredit the information provided by the source

Last edited Mon Feb 10, 2014, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)

is counter-productive in every argument, and is an agenda in its own right.

[11 Bravo]

46. If Greenwald ate puppies he'd be in Sochi, making a few bucks and mugging for the cameras.

[Whisp]

72. Class Act GG at work:

After President Obama signed the NDAA, Glenn Greenwald took to Twitter to highlight the ACLU's response statement. Blogger Angry Black Lady took issue with Greenwald and Emptywheel's characterization of the law.

When a Greenwald fan interjected with a horrific statement suggesting that Angry Black Lady would defend the president if he raped a nun on TV, Greenwald joined in and amplified that disgusting and offensive imagery instead of ignoring it or rebuking it.

A wide range of Twitter users were outraged at the offensive tweets about the president raping a nun, but Greenwald dodged accepting any responsibility for participating in such vile conversation, and several of Greenwald's most ardent admirers doubled down and insisted the statements were perfectly acceptable, while attacking Angry Black Lady for not being able to take a joke. Repellent.

[TheMathieu]

5. Something like promoting Oathkeepers, a dangerous RW-extremist group?

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statuses/377787818619064320

[SomethingFishy]

13. Actually that was Oathkeepers promoting Snowden...

But don't let that get in the way... There is still plenty of "ammunition" to fire across the bow of people who still respect that quaint document known as the Constitution.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

16. so someone who believes revealing of national security secrets to an amateur writer is a crime

somehow doesn't believe in the Constitution? lol. Oh boy.

[SomethingFishy]

26. So now Greenwald who someone just told me is in the 1%

which must make him the most highly paid journalist on the planet, is actually an amateur writer.

And since you brought it up, I said no such thing. People who support the NSA's collection of Meta-Data "for future use against terrorists" don't believe in the Constitution. Do you fall under that category? Or do you fall under the category of "It's ok because everyone in the government is honest and would never do anything bad with information they gathered secretly and illegally. Oh wait.. it's legal now.. sorry, my bad.

[TheMathieu]

28. Oathkeepers is a dangerous group.

And so is anyone that would associate with them.

I don't care if they put up pictures of cute kittens.

Content from them is not going up on my social media accounts.

[SomethingFishy]

70. Well I can't argue with that.

I mean cute kittens and all.. I'll just ignore it, I'm sure the NSA won't do anything, illegal, un-Constitutional or incredibly stupid.

[Aerows]

6. *Points*

that guy has a copy of an Ayn Rand text, right next to his copy of Dostoyevsky! He knew we were going to beat him and his horse. Charge!!!!!

[Union Scribe]

27. Lol, you guys are in full meltdown.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

39. Just the occasional Greenwald hate & spittle spasm. I think Merck is working on a cure. nt

[riderinthestorm]

33. Its kinda hilarious how much it irritates you all that he's a successful journalist and you're...?

I mean because journalists should never try to like, SELL their stories or anything?

They should all work for FREE?



Crazy eh?

[Maedhros]

37. Pretzel Warrior reveals the TRUE nature of Glenn's transgressions in a post above:

...(Greenwald has) virtually zero% good to say about this president.

That's it. That's the source and depth of their objections to Greenwald's journalism, and why they are so desperate and rabid to try and bring him down, somehow.

[Autumn]

51. We need to send Greenwald lots of pictures of Obama.

Pictures of Obama coming out of the ocean with water running down his body. Pictures where Obama looks damn good. Greenwald will start swooning and concentrate on posting cool pics of Obama and presto.... that will do away with any and all objections to Greenwald.

[Rex]

61. YEP.

Amazing what one can read on DU these days.

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. AMEN! if Glenn Greenwald was a REAL journalist he would be supporting our government and defending

it - NOT criticizing it and always finding fault

[ljm2002]

43. Pathetic, content-free flame-bait. n/t

[Capt. Obvious]

53. 2 members have recommended this thread (displayed in chronological order):

flamingdem Cali_Democrat

[Pretzel_Warrior]

55. and? there. I rec'd my own thread.

make it 3 recs.

[Bobbie Jo]

56. Here's another....

Please notify the official scorekeeper.

Thanks!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

58. will do. :D

[Cali_Democrat]

59. Oh no! You caught me!

[Capt. Obvious]

60. Indeed

*The is trademarked by the BOG. Any use of the without expressed written permission and implied permission is prohibited.

[Rex]

62. ...

[Cali_Democrat]

66. Uh Oh...I'm in TWOUBLE

I think I've posted once or twice in the BOG a few years ago. I was unaware of this latest revelation that the rofl smiley is now trademarked by the folks that post there.

Skinner never informed DU and I never asked for permission.

I hope this can be settled out of court.

Oh, one more thing.....

[Rex]

67. I didn't know you had anything to do with the BOG, but I will put it on my chart.

Red crayon bad, blue crayon good.

[Capt. Obvious]

68. They should get money whenever someone else uses the :rofl:

[Rex]

69. You know what makes me mad?

I STARTED THE ROFL ON DU1!!!!

I hate copycats!

[Whisp]

57. K&R