HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So Greenwald weighs in......

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:55 AM

 

So Greenwald weighs in...telling us to read Kennedy's concurrence, noting that Ginsburg is incorrect

in her dissent and dodging the question as to whether he supports this decision, given his prior support of Citizen's United and McCutcheon.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/483630735266689025

I called GG an asshole, years ago. I was not wrong....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

197 replies, 12891 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 197 replies Author Time Post
Reply So Greenwald weighs in...telling us to read Kennedy's concurrence, noting that Ginsburg is incorrect (Original post)
msanthrope Jun 2014 OP
CherokeeDem Jun 2014 #1
msanthrope Jun 2014 #2
CherokeeDem Jun 2014 #10
msanthrope Jun 2014 #11
CherokeeDem Jun 2014 #13
msanthrope Jun 2014 #14
CherokeeDem Jun 2014 #20
joshcryer Jun 2014 #51
Justice Jun 2014 #22
uponit7771 Jun 2014 #36
JI7 Jun 2014 #61
frazzled Jun 2014 #3
msanthrope Jun 2014 #6
MohRokTah Jun 2014 #4
msanthrope Jun 2014 #7
MohRokTah Jun 2014 #8
msanthrope Jun 2014 #9
joshcryer Jul 2014 #170
Fawke Em Jul 2014 #132
BootinUp Jun 2014 #5
el_bryanto Jun 2014 #17
pnwmom Jul 2014 #173
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2014 #12
Dawson Leery Jun 2014 #15
msanthrope Jun 2014 #16
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jul 2014 #195
grasswire Jun 2014 #18
msanthrope Jun 2014 #19
bettyellen Jun 2014 #23
msanthrope Jun 2014 #25
Bobbie Jo Jun 2014 #63
hugo_from_TN Jun 2014 #78
Tarheel_Dem Jul 2014 #84
hugo_from_TN Jul 2014 #87
JI7 Jul 2014 #90
msanthrope Jul 2014 #97
MADem Jul 2014 #131
pnwmom Jul 2014 #194
uponit7771 Jun 2014 #37
Wait Wut Jun 2014 #46
grasswire Jul 2014 #96
otohara Jun 2014 #64
VanillaRhapsody Jul 2014 #104
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jul 2014 #196
woo me with science Jul 2014 #146
pnwmom Jul 2014 #172
Andy823 Jul 2014 #193
dsc Jun 2014 #21
msanthrope Jun 2014 #24
dsc Jun 2014 #41
msanthrope Jun 2014 #54
bluesbassman Jun 2014 #39
dsc Jun 2014 #40
bluesbassman Jun 2014 #42
dsc Jun 2014 #43
bluesbassman Jun 2014 #45
dsc Jun 2014 #47
bluesbassman Jun 2014 #58
dsc Jun 2014 #59
bluesbassman Jun 2014 #60
nolabels Jul 2014 #126
joshcryer Jun 2014 #48
dsc Jun 2014 #49
joshcryer Jun 2014 #50
bettyellen Jun 2014 #72
OilemFirchen Jul 2014 #86
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2014 #26
BootinUp Jun 2014 #28
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #29
BootinUp Jun 2014 #30
CherokeeDem Jun 2014 #31
Dawson Leery Jul 2014 #111
NCTraveler Jun 2014 #27
geek tragedy Jun 2014 #32
NCTraveler Jun 2014 #33
geek tragedy Jun 2014 #34
uponit7771 Jun 2014 #38
Chan790 Jul 2014 #80
uponit7771 Jun 2014 #35
joshcryer Jun 2014 #44
JI7 Jun 2014 #52
Cali_Democrat Jun 2014 #53
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2014 #57
LadyHawkAZ Jun 2014 #55
msanthrope Jun 2014 #56
VanillaRhapsody Jul 2014 #106
freshwest Jul 2014 #91
Cha Jun 2014 #62
TriplD Jun 2014 #65
elias49 Jun 2014 #70
Cha Jul 2014 #79
Chan790 Jul 2014 #82
woo me with science Jul 2014 #144
Marr Jul 2014 #150
leftynyc Jul 2014 #184
alcibiades_mystery Jun 2014 #66
woo me with science Jun 2014 #67
Electric Monk Jun 2014 #69
woo me with science Jun 2014 #71
snooper2 Jun 2014 #73
Number23 Jun 2014 #74
Bobbie Jo Jul 2014 #105
bobduca Jul 2014 #138
snooper2 Jul 2014 #139
bobduca Jul 2014 #140
snooper2 Jul 2014 #148
bobduca Jul 2014 #153
snooper2 Jul 2014 #154
bobduca Jul 2014 #155
snooper2 Jul 2014 #156
DisgustipatedinCA Jul 2014 #157
snooper2 Jul 2014 #158
randome Jul 2014 #160
bobduca Jul 2014 #168
joshcryer Jun 2014 #76
woo me with science Jul 2014 #99
joshcryer Jul 2014 #121
nolabels Jul 2014 #127
woo me with science Jul 2014 #141
joshcryer Jul 2014 #178
nolabels Jul 2014 #182
msanthrope Jul 2014 #128
Marr Jul 2014 #152
msanthrope Jul 2014 #98
bettyellen Jul 2014 #100
SidDithers Jul 2014 #102
Cali_Democrat Jul 2014 #116
Bobbie Jo Jul 2014 #120
joshcryer Jul 2014 #125
leftynyc Jul 2014 #185
msanthrope Jul 2014 #107
bettyellen Jul 2014 #108
joshcryer Jul 2014 #124
bettyellen Jul 2014 #164
joshcryer Jul 2014 #175
bettyellen Jul 2014 #176
joshcryer Jul 2014 #122
Cali_Democrat Jul 2014 #114
bobduca Jul 2014 #136
woo me with science Jul 2014 #142
Marr Jul 2014 #151
woo me with science Jul 2014 #163
Tikki Jun 2014 #68
Jim Lane Jun 2014 #75
joshcryer Jun 2014 #77
pnwmom Jul 2014 #174
OilemFirchen Jul 2014 #83
joshcryer Jul 2014 #92
OilemFirchen Jul 2014 #94
sheshe2 Jul 2014 #81
Post removed Jul 2014 #85
OilemFirchen Jul 2014 #88
reddread Jul 2014 #89
joshcryer Jul 2014 #93
bobduca Jul 2014 #137
woo me with science Jul 2014 #143
joshcryer Jul 2014 #169
Vattel Jul 2014 #110
woo me with science Jul 2014 #147
freshwest Jul 2014 #95
lostincalifornia Jul 2014 #101
SidDithers Jul 2014 #103
Vattel Jul 2014 #109
msanthrope Jul 2014 #112
Vattel Jul 2014 #113
msanthrope Jul 2014 #115
Vattel Jul 2014 #117
msanthrope Jul 2014 #118
Vattel Jul 2014 #119
joshcryer Jul 2014 #123
Vattel Jul 2014 #134
joshcryer Jul 2014 #171
Vattel Jul 2014 #192
woo me with science Jul 2014 #145
Vattel Jul 2014 #161
woo me with science Jul 2014 #162
Vattel Jul 2014 #165
woo me with science Jul 2014 #166
Vattel Jul 2014 #167
woo me with science Jul 2014 #177
stevenleser Jul 2014 #129
MADem Jul 2014 #130
randome Jul 2014 #133
bobduca Jul 2014 #135
randome Jul 2014 #149
Cha Jul 2014 #181
bobduca Jul 2014 #186
Cha Jul 2014 #188
flamingdem Jul 2014 #190
Cha Jul 2014 #191
TheNutcracker Jul 2014 #159
TheKentuckian Jul 2014 #179
arthritisR_US Jul 2014 #180
phleshdef Jul 2014 #183
bobduca Jul 2014 #187
flamingdem Jul 2014 #189
randome Jul 2014 #197

Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:57 AM

1. He's always been an a**h***.


Not saying that the NSA shouldn't have been exposed but he is an asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CherokeeDem (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:00 PM

2. The thing is....I agree the NSA should be exposed, but as Cryptome has pointed out, GG's

 

rate of exposure will take over 30 years.

Also....he still has yet to expose anything illegal. I've asked numerous posters to describe a single criminal act, and no one....no one has been able to list one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:11 PM

10. I know.....

Personally, I think GG is using this situation for his own ego... I have doubts the release of documents were done for the good of the people.... but that's my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CherokeeDem (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:13 PM

11. You can read GG's book for free on the Cryptome site...it's pretty apparent

 

Greenwald is in it for the lulz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:31 PM

13. His appearance on Bill Maher's show....

was enough for me. I wish the entire NSA situation had credible spokespersons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CherokeeDem (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:34 PM

14. Ask yourself why it doesn't. Personally, I think we are watching internecine

 

intelligence agency fighting, with GG and ES being used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:38 PM

20. That could be true...

with GG and ES serving as the patsies. What I don't know but need to find out is when did Snowden meet Greenwald, before or after he decided to take this step. I've never read about that timeline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:05 PM

51. Yep.

Greenwald makes the perfect spokesman too, because he makes everything about himself, as opposed to the issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CherokeeDem (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:40 PM

22. Well said. I have thought that myself and agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CherokeeDem (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:23 PM

36. He's using it to sell books and shit too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:23 PM

61. that's what all of this is mostly for him

just a business , way to make money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:01 PM

3. We are not surprised.

Neither are we amused.

I'd like to hear ONE person come to his defense on this worship at the Temple of private freedom for business. Freedom, bitches!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:04 PM

6. That sweet, sweet Omidayar money, coupled with being of the 'owner' class, undoubtedly

 

influences his writing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:01 PM

4. This ought to be good.

 

Can't wait to see the justifications for Greenwald being such an idiot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:05 PM

7. I expect to be accused of smearing GG by quoting GG. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:07 PM

8. The BEST way to smear GG is t let GG speak.

 

He makes the case against himself nearly every time he opens his mouth or types a tweet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:08 PM

9. "Let an asshole be an asshole." nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MohRokTah (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:29 AM

132. I adore him, but don't agree with him on this issue.

Why do I need to justify everything he does?

I'm not his keeper, not do I consider him a god.

He's wrong on this issue, but correct on others.

Anyone who has that 1 percenter corporate queen as an avatar needs to put their popcorn and their stones away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:03 PM

5. Good. any day is a good day for a FUCK GREENWALD thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:32 PM

17. Well - we could have just ignored his statements - would that have been preferable? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:08 AM

173. No, not any day.

Just any day he opens his mouth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:27 PM

12. He probably jizzed himself just like his worship for the Citizens United decision. Fuck him. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:38 PM

15. Glenn Greenwald has offered nothing of value to this world.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one of the greatest assets we have as a nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawson Leery (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:29 PM

16. He's a weasel.....a Libertarian one. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawson Leery (Reply #15)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 04:11 PM

195. This^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:32 PM

18. the visceral hatred on this thread is shameful...

Greenwald's opinion (whatever it may be) on this issue has no impact. It's no more important than, say, Bill Maher's opinion (whatever it may be).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:37 PM

19. Yeah...I fucking hate overprivileged white Libertarians who could give two

 

shits about the rights of women as they serve up checkbook journalism.

I fucking hate nihilistic assholes who tell me I need to ignore a brilliant dissent by a Jewish female and read the conservative Catholic male concurrence for the "correct" viewpoint.

How fucking paternalistic is that, grasswire?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #19)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:43 PM

23. Incredibly fucking paternalistic-thank you!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:47 PM

25. Yeah...if you read the white male opinion on your reproductive rights, bettyellen, you'll

 

understand the incredibly complex legal argument that GG and his ilk are pushing.

Namely...support of the owner class while standing on your uterus.

Don't read the opinions of women....because then you won't get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #19)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:39 PM

63. Damn.....what she said.

Amen, sister.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #19)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:57 PM

78. You seem to judge a lot of people by their gender, race and religion.

This is not productive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hugo_from_TN (Reply #78)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:31 AM

84. Ya know what's even less "productive"? GG.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #84)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:38 AM

87. I'm no Greenwald fan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hugo_from_TN (Reply #78)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:47 AM

90. this has a lot to do with gender, race and religion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hugo_from_TN (Reply #78)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:18 AM

97. Well, between the liberal woman who sued the military, and the Libertarian who defended a Nazi,

 

I know who I listen to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #19)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:24 AM

131. Right on! Well said!

I think GG got the fax with the talking points direct from the Koch boys. "Here's what you say, Glennie, and here's how you say it..."

But hey, Greenwald can do no wrong--David Koch told me so!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #19)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 04:06 PM

194. +1000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:25 PM

37. What's shameful is GGs overt hackery and the reflexive support for it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:48 PM

46. It's no more important than...

...Palin's, Limbaugh's, Coulter's or any FAUX News hack, yet we still discuss them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wait Wut (Reply #46)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:59 AM

96. I haven't seen anyone discuss Palin's, Limbaugh's or..

....Coulter's analysis of the SCOTUS decision today. But even they, as pundits, would be , would be more appropriately discussed than an investigative journalist focused on the surveillance state, on this matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:44 PM

64. He's Not A Likable Guy

 

unlike Bill Maher who is quite likable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #18)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:46 AM

104. so GG is just a comedian now...

 

Good I always saw him as a Court Jester..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #104)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 04:13 PM

196. Isn't that the excuse the ditto heads use everytime Limbaugh jumps the shark?

"Rush is just an entertainer"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #18)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:23 AM

146. +10000 Typical propaganda tactic. Deliberately trying to incite visceral emotion to override logic.

I believe that tactic is specifically mentioned in the papers Snowden released re: the propaganda machines. Every stop is being pulled out to distract from the revelations of criminal government spying and to try to create visceral disgust re: the messengers.

I can't remember who posted that extremely long list of vile, highly emotional adjectives deployed against Snowden and Greenwald by the smear brigade.

That was a very telling thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #18)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:06 AM

172. Why? It's the same outrage that is being directed at everyone who supports this

reprehensible decision.

GEG doesn't deserve an exception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #172)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 03:24 PM

193. Exactly

But some here worship the ground that GG walks on, don't know why, but they do. Funny thing is that many of them are the same ones that try and paint anyone supports the president as "Obama bots who can't think for themselves. They claim that supporting the president equals blind loyalty and that these people NEVER disagree with the president of the party, even though I have never seen on poster say "Obama can do no wrong". Yet these same anti Obama posters seem to prove that for "THEM", there is NOTHING that GG can do wrong. Kind of says it all if you ask me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:40 PM

21. In fairness he only is discussing whether corporations have religous rights

and one wonders what would happen if a state passed a law banning kosher slaughtering on grounds of animal cruelty, would an incorporated slaughterhouse not have a right to sue? I would be uncomfortable with a blanket statement that no corporation could ever sue under the act. I think no one, other than an explicitly religious institution (ie a church or a religious order) should be exempt from this mandate but I can see a few rare instances where both corporations and people should have a right to sue for religious infringement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:44 PM

24. No...in fairness, he's pushing the idea that the religious rights of the owner class allow them to

 

deny their employees basic human rights and services, based solely on their particular mysticism.

The owner class has more religious freedom than you....that's what he's pushing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #24)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:54 PM

41. I notice you didn't answer my examples

could you be doing what Greenwald did and you found so bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #41)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:45 PM

54. I didn't answer your examples because I didn't want to be rude and point out to you that

 

the SCOTUS case you are referencing really isn't on point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:32 PM

39. Any ruling or law that further transfers "human" rights to corporations is wrong.

Corporations are not people, they are legal entitities who's purpose has been twisted to the point that we are now seeing them being granted the same "rights" as we do for our people.

This is going beyond a slippery slope and we are in the midst of an avalanche.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluesbassman (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:53 PM

40. so the Congress could pass a law banning corporate owned newspapers from

endorsing candidates? Or maybe a city could close any corporate owned clinic which performs abortions? If corporations have no rights under the Constitution why couldn't the government pass those laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #40)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:19 PM

42. Much as your "kosher" analogy is false these are too.

You are conflating the ability of a corporation to work within the framework of existing (or enacted) laws and ordinances with the SC's decision today that conferred upon the corporations the ability to frame their activities around "religiously held beliefs". Now I have no problem with controlling members of a corporation praying to whatever god/s they choose too, or living their own personal lives according to the tenets of their faith, but when they project those beliefs onto other citizens and deny them equal protection through the guise of a corporation, that extends a "right" to a corporation that was never intended by the authors of the Constitition, nor should it be embraced by the SCOTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluesbassman (Reply #42)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:22 PM

43. If a jurisidiction passed a law banning kosher slaughtering

it would be, by definition, an existing law. If you don't like that example, try a law banning the sale of goods designed for Muslims? I think it would be easy to see a community doing exactly that. If the shop was incorporated under your theory they couldn't sue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #43)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:32 PM

45. again your analogies are assuming the laws were passed to restrict religious freedom.

Wherein a law passed banning the kosher slaughter of animals based on the fact the it is inhumane would have to stand up to that assertion if challenged.

I can only imagine the spurious rationale that would have to be used to enact a law banning the sale of goods designed for Muslims, but I doubt those reasons would survive a legal challenge unless there were mitigating legitimate health and safety issues. Of course if it got to the current SCOTUS, they're activist enough that they might just find a way to uphold something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluesbassman (Reply #45)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:49 PM

47. there would be no court hearing under your theory that is my point

If corporations have no right to religious expression at all, then they can't sue over it no matter what reason existed or didn't exist for the law being passed. That is what not having a right means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #47)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:04 PM

58. Of course there would be court hearings.

If a company (corporation) was engaged in an activity that was adversely affected by a law or ordinance restricting said activity and it could prove that the law or ordinance was put into place not as the result of improved health, safety, zoning or other related public good issues, but for any other reason, then they have every right to sue for redress regardless of the company's (corporation's) motive for engaging in the activity. That is called "restraint of trade".

But the SCOTUS ruling today went well beyond that. What it did was to say that a company (corporation) can refuse to provide goods or services (medical care) to a element of our population based solely on their "sincerely held" religious beliefs. By your logic, if Hobby Lobby refused to employ or sell products to homosexuals citing Leviticus 18:22 as their "sincerely held" religious belief, that would be fine with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluesbassman (Reply #58)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:25 PM

59. I really don't know what else to say to you

you clearly either can't or won't read. I will try one more time, very slowly, to say I am saying. First, to be crystal clear, I THINK THE COURT WRONGLY DECIDED IN FAVOR OF HOBBY LOBBY. That said, I do think, that it is a fair point, to say that having corporations have no rights in this arena at all, which is what Ginsburg said, has problems of its own. If corporations don't have rights under RFRA and that is what Ginsburg's dissent says, then they can not sue if a law that is generally applicable is applied to them and that application serves to harm their religious practice. So no, if you and Ginsburg, had your way, then an incorporated slaughterhouse couldn't sue under RFRA, no matter what a jurisdiction did. That is what standing, which this was all about, means. Now if you still don't understand my position, then I frankly haven't a clue how to make you understand it.

I think any religious exemption should be very narrow when it is being applied in the commercial sphere. Only churches or bonified religious orders should have them when their application runs counter to the rights of other people. Thus I felt that the exemption Obama granted was overly broad and I said so in real time. But I do think that if the application of an exemption doesn't impact the right of other people, say the slaughterhouse example, then such an exemption should be granted to both individuals and incorporated businesses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #59)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:56 PM

60. You know, it's sad when a debater resorts to insults.

Clearly I can read in that I have repeatedly addressed your points with my counter arguments. You have your opinion and I have mine, but to reduce the discussion to an insult does in fact mark the end of it.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluesbassman (Reply #60)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:41 AM

126. Someone injecting imaginary facts into a debate about reality is where i try to jump off also.

Hope you have a nice day too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:51 PM

48. HHS already exempted non profits.

This ruling says privately held corporations get to have those rights extended to them, even though they are for profit.

Your example has no baring here. Women working for Hobby Lobby now may not be covered for contraceptives for the insurance they already pay for.

How you consider this acceptable, I dunno.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #48)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:56 PM

49. and how you never learned to read, I don't know

I don't know what part of there should be no exemption was unclear. Was it the no, the there, the exemption? Please tell me so I can avoid confusing you in the future. As to the central point, if no corporation ever can sue over religious freedom that means that no corporation can ever sue over religious freedom. Again, that would mean that a kosher slaughter house couldn't sue if a town passed a law banning such slaughter if they were incorporated. It would mean that a law banning a muslim book store couldn't be challenged by an incorporated bookstore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #49)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:03 PM

50. This isn't about the corporation, it's about the employees.

No corporation should have the right to express it's ideology on it's employees.

Your Muslim bookstore shouldn't be able to force employees to pray to Mecca every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #49)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:19 PM

72. can you think of a single hypothetical case that would actually make it to court?

 

Because so far, they are non starters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #72)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:34 AM

86. I'll help!

I posted this earlier today on Facebook:

I believe the tort you're seeking would involve a "closely-held" Jewish-owned business disallowing insurance coverage for any illness related to ingestion of treif.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:51 PM

26. Paul Reikoff destroyed him on Maher's show the other day! Totally destroyed him!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:55 PM

28. Greenwald loses one on one arguments all the time.

He has never impressed me as a supposed spokesperson for the liberal point of view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #28)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:03 PM

29. That's probably because he does not represent the "Liberal PoV." eom.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #29)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:05 PM

30. Yes, there is that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:08 PM

31. Absolutely...

It was very clear that Greenwald had no rebuttals to Reikoff's points, other than the standard ilk he spews all the time. In this case, I believe while the message is valid, the messengers are suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #26)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:14 PM

111. Nothing against Reikoff (he has done excellent work for veterans)

but Greenwald is what is known as a "bombastic blowhard" who can easily be corrected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:52 PM

27. Assholes can still do a lot of good.

 

Very few here would be willing to say Grayson isn't a complete asshole. Just about every one of those would also vote for him in a heartbeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:11 PM

32. Grayson is an abrasive liberal, Greenwald is a libertarian

 

who was a a borderline white nationalist xenophobe less than a decade ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #32)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:15 PM

33. What is a "borderline white nationalist xenophobe"

 

Does that mean that he isn't a white nationalist or a xenophobe? Strange way to phrase that. He isn't really "x", but I want to call him "x", so I will just say he is borderline and not all the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:20 PM

34. He used the same tropes about how illegal immigration

 

was destroying our culture that the Pat Buchanan/David Duke crowd used and still use, but studiously avoided any explicit mentions of brown people or those who hablan Espanol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #32)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:29 PM

38. No no no... that was "before I had a major blog" ... so ... that GG racism doesn't count /sarcsm

... cause that's needed around here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #38)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:15 AM

80. It must be a Libertarian thing.

 

Ron Paul used a similar argument to explain why white-nationalism articles in his newsletters didn't reflect his views or mean he was a white supremacist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:22 PM

35. BUT WAAAAAAAAAAAIT... he and Snowden repeated what Obama said just louder and with stolen docs

... so he's a good guy and shit / <----sarcasm ... casuse that's needed around heree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:24 PM

44. All hail corporations!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:29 PM

52. but he is attending a socialist event and took a pic with a member of the socialist party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:30 PM

53. Greenwald is a right winger

 

It's pretty damn obvious at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #53)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:53 PM

57. And there are those who insist otherwise. If Citizens United weren't enough, they defend even this.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:49 PM

55. Snowden, though!!!1! NSA!!11! LOOK AT ME I'M SUCH A LIBERAL LOOK AT ME LOOK!!!1!

LOOK AT ME I HEART FREEEEDUMB PRIVACY RIGHTS AND STUFF LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME!!elevens!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LadyHawkAZ (Reply #55)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:52 PM

56. Such a liberal, except when it comes to women and minorities. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #56)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:51 AM

106. just another self loathing Republican.....

 

Too ashamed to admit it so they try to sugar coat it by calling themself libertarian

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LadyHawkAZ (Reply #55)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:05 AM

91. OMG, you got me ROFLMAO here! You crack me up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:31 PM

62. Thank you, msanthrope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:46 PM

65. The mere mention of Greenwald turns some here into adolescent idiots

I try to avoid these threads because they give me middle-school flashbacks.

The petulant anti-Greenwald clique here is just sad. DU used to be a much better site without all the hate you all bring here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TriplD (Reply #65)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:59 PM

70. Agreed! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TriplD (Reply #65)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:02 AM

79. It's Greenwald who acts like an "adolescent idiot". He's such a "petulant hater".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TriplD (Reply #65)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:23 AM

82. DU would be better again...

 

if we'd start showing Greenwald apologists the door. The guy's a misogynistic RW libertarian that pals around with Matt Hale...his ardent defenders legitimately should have no place here at DU.

Just because he happens to hold the same position on the NSA as them, they're willing to forgive him all faults and attack those who would criticize a RWer for being a RWer. Rand Paul also holds the same dim view of the NSA...but if anybody posted cult-of-adoration apologia about Rand Paul like they post about Glenn Greenwald, they'd be summarily banned by the Admins as a troll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TriplD (Reply #65)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:13 AM

144. It's all very serious business, the smear.


The vehemence of the swarm/smear machine is directly proportional to the seriousness of the government criminality revealed by the journalist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TriplD (Reply #65)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:35 AM

150. +1, they're embarrassing, I agree.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TriplD (Reply #65)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:29 AM

184. I'm sure everyone who

 

has been here over a decade appreciates the lecture by someone with just over 100 posts about how great the site "used" to be. Don't like it? Door swings both ways. Greenwald is an asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:50 PM

66. What a giant turd he is

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:51 PM

67. Fuck the smear machine. Seriously.

How low and pathetic, to use what was done today to women across the country as an excuse to spew vitriol toward the journalist who exposed massive government abuse of power against the American people. How ironic that this new, despicable step into slavery to the whims of corporations would be perverted for use as a tool in the relentless, smearing *defense* of the NSA's abuses of power against us.

As though Greenwald's opinion on this has even the slightest significance here to what the SC did *or* to the mass spying still being perpetrated on Americans despite baldfaced lies to our faces.

Here's what's important: Women across the country today lost control over their own bodies. And the NSA is STILL abusing its power and spying on all of us.

Every single day the NSA smear and apologism machine proves how much lower it can go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #67)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:58 PM

69. Also, notice how they're conspicuously absent from Octafish's TISA thread?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #69)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:01 PM

71. +100000 Isn't that remarkable?

Isn't it pathetically predictable.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #67)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:21 PM

73. I wish you could take the science part out of your handle LOL

 

please!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #73)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:44 PM

74. Could probably take out the bit about "wooing" too...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #73)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:50 AM

105. This. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #73)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:51 AM

138. USA NSA USA NSA USA NSA n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #138)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:00 AM

139. now on the other hand, your sig line you sport is perfect

 

LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #139)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:04 AM

140. yup just like your username

surveillance-state-funded-poster says what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #140)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:28 AM

148. Says I got paid $11.23 this last quarter to denounce your posts

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #148)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:42 AM

153. Nah we both know i'm referring to your day job, not your hobby

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #153)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:46 AM

154. day job has been boring lately, just working on some PCI compliance issues

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #154)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:53 AM

155. SOX compliance eh?

Sounds like the lucrative and oh-so-very-legal and also-very-constitutional work of tapping phones has dried up! how sad for you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #155)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:02 PM

156. We use a trusted third party and only get relatively small x number of warrants a year

 

Most companies actually follow the law. Also, PCI compliance (payment card industry) is totally separate from Sarbanes/Oxley. Just like HIPPA compliance is as well. Snowy and Greeney really need to educate their audience better. Oh wait, they can't since they don't understand technology, rules and regulations either


Also, and it's not 1973 anymore, you don't actually "tap" the phone. Luckily I'm in the know so I have the capability to laugh when Snowy says "they is being recordin' all you phone calls ma!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #156)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:20 PM

157. You and me, we're network plumbers

 

We've compared notes before. We're both accomplished network engineers, with something like ~20 years experience each. But we're still putting together glorified Lego pieces, after all is said and done. My knowledge helps me to understand technical elements that are presented in news stories, but it in no way confers some special knowledge of how the NSA works behind closed doors. We count on Snowden and Greenwald for that information.

You're right about PCI compliance, but I'd add that if you can get your environment up to PCI levels, SOX and HIPPA would be trivial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #157)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:31 PM

158. I think the NSA spends 90% of their time mining the public intertubes from all the slides-

 

getting even on-net phone calls from every ma and pa, small, medium and large telco in the US much less the World would put a whole SHITLOAD of people "in the know"...

On the PCI stuff I'm looking at some network vs premise based call recording software solutions and it is a must for a lot of companies. Now somebody is going to read this and say LOOK! Call Recording Software!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #158)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:59 PM

160. They're not going to like this: the NSA review team says the NSA is doing a good job.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/nsa-internet-monitoring-found-legal-study
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #156)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:21 PM

168. Ah Mr Roffle Waffles, the mark of quality for any pro-nsa post!

nice faux-ebonics BTW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #67)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:27 PM

76. The OP is ardently against the spying machine.

So what you're talking about makes absolutely no sense.

How in the fuck is the OP part of some "NSA smear and apologism machine"?

My frank takeaway from this is simply that Greenwald allowed the NSA issue, which Wyden and Udall were bringing to the forefront, to become a spectacle, and no reform has happened. This was perhaps Paul Rieckhoff's most important point, Greenwald made the issue about him, Snowden, Assange, wikileaks, rather than about the American people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #76)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 09:09 AM

99. War is Peace!

And the OP is "ardently" against the NSA spying machine. That's why her entire career here is devoted to discrediting and smearing anyone who challenges the Stasi and defending anything it does. That's up to and including gleeful smearfests like this OP, *and* implying deliberate falsehoods about the law, as in this thread where she really, really tried to insinuate, without directly claiming it, that NOT extending the FISA court order for data collection would be illegal or unconstitutional: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025134715 . Now that's shamelessness and dishonesty well beyond the amateur leagues from someone who claims to be a lawyer.


But you know what is the saddest thing of all about this? The chocolate ration crap, and the 2+2=5, and the constant, ugly smear jobs, and the utterly ludicrous denials like you just attempted?

There are more reputable occupations. The TISA hasn't destroyed them all yet (although check again in a few years...). There are ways to earn a living that don't require the gutting of conscience and human decency.

There really, really are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #99)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:31 AM

121. Lies are Truth!

Lying about other DUers is OK!

Of course, leave it to the apolitical left to advocate for illegal practices by the executive, such as ignoring laws, which at that link you provided, the OP was for upholding the law but advocated overturning the law.

Funny how that works. In the link I provided you, I showed you how the ignorant apolitical left cheered on a "defunding of the NSA" which quite literally did absolutely nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #99)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:20 AM

127. I think you are correct, the OP seems rather shameless in the link you provided

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabels (Reply #127)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:08 AM

141. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabels (Reply #127)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:37 AM

178. What's shameless about their comments there?

People think EO's are way more powerful than they are. They aren't. You can direct an agency how to do a certain activity but you cannot direct them not to do a certain activity. In fact, if you were to do that, the agency's head would ignore that directive. If you put in an agency head that did the illegal directive they would be removed from power.

The separation of powers are a fickle thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #178)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:16 AM

182. The exent of the post was to the OP's veracity

Not to what is or isn't worth being parsed in a debate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #99)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:13 AM

128. Are we back to using "Stasi?" I've missed that! Again....I'm still waiting for.you

 

to cite an illegal.action of the NSA I've defended.

So far, you've failed.

At the link yo provided, I advocated the executive doing their job by upholding the law.... well at the same time advocating that the 2015 fight for section 215 is coming and it needs to be overturned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #99)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:42 AM

152. +1, wow-- hadn't seen that one.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #67)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:28 AM

98. Kindly cite a single post where I've 'defended' illegal actions by the NSA. I'll wait. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #98)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:21 AM

100. I had a host tell me I must support spying because I never post in NSA threads!

 

If it's not the #1 issue you post about, some here imagine you the enemy. And they are keeping lists. It is bizarre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #100)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:29 AM

102. I bet I can guess which Host it was...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #102)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:20 PM

116. LOL. I think I know that host

 

He once demanded that I show up in a thread about the TPP. My failure to post in that thread was apparently an indication that I'm a third way DLC dem who wants to crush the 99%.

These people are....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #116)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:27 PM

120. Yep

I got the same finger-wagging nonsense from this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #102)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:30 AM

125. Name drop, please.

It'd important to know these things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #125)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:31 AM

185. It's against DU rules

 

to call out another poster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #100)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:36 AM

107. Obviously, since I've never posted about my dislike of NAMBLA, I must be a member. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #107)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:38 AM

108. that is the level of paranoia and hatred here. and it's fucking up DU.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #100)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:38 AM

124. That's basically the idiotic sentiment.

Because you don't wind up in some threads hanging on to every word of some personality, you must clearly and obviously be against what they believe to be true.

I can be against NSA spying and Greenwald's profiteering and failure to truly drop any bombshells about it. NSA spying is one isssue. Greenwald's checkbook clickbait journalism is an entirely different issue.

What we do know for a fact is that Greenwald has led to absolutely zero reforms. By design.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #124)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:31 PM

164. tell me about it- I got a why don't "you people" meaning feminists and POC post on Snowden/ GG

 

threads? Gee, I dunno- maybe because their a shit show of people insulting each other, and it doesn;t interest me as much as other issues? But according to some hosts, you are then the enemy. I think calling out Manny for making fun of AA's bothered by watermelon jokes raised a few paranoid eyebrows. I actually got some weird PMs begging me to give him a chance because he's so great. Kind of cultish behaviour , I thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #164)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:11 AM

175. Worse is when it's some issue not covered by the media.

Suddenly they start accusing you of bandwagoning. For example, Syria, when people were talking down about the gassings there then others pulled up stuff about other atrocities in Africa and then said stuff like "why weren't you concerned about X conflict!" Erm, maybe because the news wasn't covering it and we're on a discussion board and we discuss generally what the news covers? Then you go and find maybe one or two threads about X conflict and ask them why they didn't post about it, it's a silly circle of irrationality.

You only have so much time to post, and things you're interested in, such as in this case I am interested in debunking clickbait journalism that at its core is anti-activist and anti-reform as it acts to subdue people (see Chomsky's Manufacturing Dissent).

Yet I have made many posts against the NSA, in one post woo me with science thanked me for my contribution. It's really just two faced-ness. Why can't we damn have different opinions on different things? Geez.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #175)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:20 AM

176. yeah, feminists get the why do people ignore or get mad when I post about women having X happen in Y

 

country, huh? And I'm like, it's probably because it was OT- and you were derailing the conversation? Pls send me a link if I am wrong. They never have that link. Trolling and disrupting with phony concerns. As if DU isn't on to that shit.

Never seen so much of it here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #98)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:33 AM

122. You have been on record overturning these laws.

I think it is fucking preposterous that you are somehow an NSA apologist. Advocating justice, the law, the legal system (as opposed to outright anarchy and cronyism) is somehow a bad thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #67)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:18 PM

114. So Greenwald is smearing himself

 

Greenwald admits to supporting the Citizens United decision which gave huge amounts of power to the 1%.

Pointing our this support is not smearing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #67)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:43 AM

136. Machines don't smear people, personas do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #136)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:09 AM

142. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #67)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:38 AM

151. +1, the only reason the usual crew cares about Greenwald's thoughts on this issue

 

is because he made the government look bad.

It's so transparent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #151)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:25 PM

163. +1

The vehemence and persistence of the smear machine is directly proportional to the level of seriousness of the government abuse of power being revealed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:54 PM

68. You were not wrong...

not even a bit wrong...


Tikki

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:19 PM

75. A question about what Greenwald ACTUALLY SAID (if we can stop flinging poo for a moment)

 

The linked tweets include these statements from Greenwald about the decision:

* "None of the justices - even the liberal ones in the Citizens United dissent - disagree that corps have constitutional rights"

* "both Kagan & Breyer accept corporate personhood yet still dissented"

* "Kagan & Breyer refused to join the part of Ginsburg's dissent that argued that RFRA does not apply to for-profit corporations"

I haven't read the decision. Perhaps someone who has can answer a simple question: Is Greenwald correct in his characterization of the opinions?

Call me naive, but I still think truth matters. Greenwald could be a libertarian xenophobe whose analysis of this decision is correct. He could be a brave exposer of NSA abuses whose analysis of this decision is incorrect. To me, the points in the above quotations are more interesting than deciding whether Glenn Greenwald is going to Heaven (especially since I don't even believe in the place).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #75)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:47 PM

77. This is an appeal to authority.

The court did not decide whether the RFRA applied to all claims, merely the contraceptive claim. Therefore the appeal to authority falls flat on its face, because it is irrelevant that Kagan and Breyer did not join part of Ginsburg's dissent.

Ginsburg's dissent explicitly refers to the potential for the RFRA to apply in a more broad and damaging sense, and in that case Kagan and Breyer would almost assuredly agree. It's clear that they did not join that part of the dissent because they want to leave themselves open to future interpretations of the RFRA and how it is implemented. ie, say a corporation requires people to wear veils or something or only agree to a given religion, Kagan and Breyer could then go and be against it while maintaining the RFRA, but Ginsburg's dissent requires her to be against such an action, as she makes a blanket case against all for-profit corporations having that power.

The RFRA is not supposed to be discriminatory, ie, compelling people to act a certain way (in this case, you may not use your company provided insurance to pay for contraceptives). It was meant to allow for free exercise of religion so long as it did not harm other employees (so you couldn't invent a religion that allows you to scream at the top of your lungs for an hour a day in the library or something).

What Ginsburg is saying is that the RFRA is being applied in a broader corporate personhood sense, and of course, since Greenwald supports corporate personhood, he disagrees with her and wants us to read the conservative analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #77)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:10 AM

174. You set this out very clearly. Thanks. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #75)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:30 AM

83. His observations are a mix of sophistry, lies, and presumption.

Do the liberal justices "agree" that corporations have constitutional rights? Of course they do:

The courts have long treated corporations as persons in limited ways for some legal purposes. They may own property and have limited rights to free speech. They can sue and be sued. They have the right to enter into contracts and advertise their products. But corporations cannot and should not be allowed to vote, run for office or bear arms.

Do Kagan and Breyer "accept corporate personhood"? Of course they don't:

In an exchange this month with Chief Justice Roberts, the solicitor general, Elena Kagan, argued against expanding that narrowly defined personhood. “Few of us are only our economic interests,” she said. “We have beliefs. We have convictions.” Corporations, “engage the political process in an entirely different way, and this is what makes them so much more damaging,” she said.

(Both quotes from The Rights of Corporations)

Breyer, to the best of my knowledge, has avoided opining on this court's twisted concept of corporate "personhood". Nonetheless, his dissenting opinions on all Roberts' Court cases relative to the subject would strongly suggest that he disagrees with the notion. It would be incumbent on Greenwald to cite statements or opinions to the contrary. Has he?

As to Kagan and Breyer's "refusal" to join Ginsburg's strident proclamation about the RFRA vis a vis for-profit corporations, joshcryer's response above eloquently explains its irrelevance.


Ever wonder why Greenwald's legal resume' is so thin?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #83)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:14 AM

92. Yeah, it's obvious their dissent on RFRA is for flexibility.

If they agreed completely then they would not be able to opine differently on similar but different cases. Say, for example, a Morman business owner required their employees to wear special underwear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #92)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:28 AM

94. Or...

An Opus Dei coffee shop chain (Fat Tony and The Parrot) demanding self-flagellation during lunch?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:15 AM

81. KnR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #85)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:43 AM

88. If it helps...

you'll find several sympathetic wankfests to your right and down the hall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #85)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:43 AM

89. a good day for ignore

 

put these wankers in the closet.
this place is going to look so much different tomorrow.
for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #85)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:16 AM

93. "unhinged"

Nice choice of words. Stay classy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #93)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:44 AM

137. Alert Swarming for the win!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #93)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:10 AM

143. Well, that was ironic

in a smear thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #143)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:29 PM

169. Facts aren't smears.

Calling other users stasi, third way, authoritarian, NSA apologists, which aren't facts, which are lies, are smears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #85)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:47 AM

110. You understate your point, but you are correct.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #110)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:25 AM

147. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:57 AM

95. That's expected. Libertarians are the architects of the coming Kochstitution, so they oppose Obama:



The First Feminist President, Barack Obama

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110212801

The quote also applies to churches, corporations, theocrats and Supreme Court injustices. Their new uniforms arrived earlier this year:



to ashling:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024770080#op

Please note just whose agenda they follow:

BERNIE SANDERS Uncovers 1980 Koch Agenda- "What Do the Koch Brothers Want?"


“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”

Just one item on their list to dissolve the elected government of the USA:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a7980koch

to kpete:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024806298

Top GOP gangsters will follow the Koch agenda:

Justices Scalia And Thomas's Attendance At Koch Event Sparks Judicial Ethics Debate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9357129

Scalia, Thomas have attended Koch bros. 'very private', 'secretive' meetings

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x482956

What Role Have Scalia And Thomas Played In The Koch Money Machine?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x483212

Note Scalia and Thomas went to Koch's political meetings, while on the Supreme Court

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x354438

Justices Scalia and Thomas promoted and attended a Koch brother event

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4753880

Scalia, Thomas & the Kochtopus

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9381109

Lookee, the gang's all there together:




Just-us: Flushbo, Slappy Thomas and a Heritage Foundation fellah.

Ju$tice, a Division of the Kochtopus. Like Demo¢racy.


to Octafish.

Welcome to your life under the Kochstitution!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:27 AM

101. No glen, Ginsburg is not correct. This ruling is specifically against women. In fact it says

everything else such as vaccines and blood transfusions cannot be used on religious grounds, but only applies to contraception. Besides the discrimination, it also allows companies to make medical decisions for their employees.

Yes, GG is an asshole

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:38 AM

103. DU rec for pissing off all the right people...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:43 AM

109. OMG, Greenwald didn't directly answer a tweeted question. He is so evil!!!!!

 

And he disagreed with Ginsberg on something!!! OMG my hair is on fire!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #109)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:14 PM

112. Thank you for mansplaining to me why I shouldn't worry. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #112)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:18 PM

113. yw

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #113)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:20 PM

115. What does "yw" mean?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #115)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:21 PM

117. you're welcome

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #117)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:23 PM

118. Do I not rate full words? Capitals? Punctuation? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #118)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:24 PM

119. lol, IMHO prolly u do

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #109)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:35 AM

123. The OP's linked post doesn't link to where he linked the conservative reading.

If you go on his twitter you can find it. GG did in fact say that Ginsburg wasn't correct and that the conservative justice was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #123)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:37 AM

134. The question he didn't directly answer was whether he agreed with the ruling.

 

Did he address that elsewhere?

(Btw, I agree with him on the specific part of Ginsberg's opinion that he objected to.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #134)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:34 PM

171. It doesn't matter whether he says he agrees.

He said Justice Kennedy's concurrence was a good overview and irrelevantly appealed to authority to shut down Ginsburg's more staunch view on RFRA not applying to corporations because frankly it absolutely does not. RFRA is about religious non-profit organizations. There is nothing in the RFRA committee notes or the legislation history that indicates it applies to for-profit corporations.

Anyone who rebuffs Ginsburg's objective view of the RFRA legislative history has an agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #171)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 07:37 AM

192. The text makes no such distinction. The law applies to the free exercise of religion by persons.

 

Trying to carve a distinction between religious non-profits and for-profits is bogus. The question is whether the law infringed on the free exercise of religion by the owners of Hobby Lobby. I don't think it did, but not because Hobby Lobby is a for profit corporation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #109)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:16 AM

145. +10000 Any smear will do

when the journalist is revealing mass government abuse of power, the targeting of our own government spy agencies against ordinary Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #145)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:02 PM

161. I guess, but here is my puzzle.

 

So many of these smears are so ham-handed and transparent and ridiculous that it seems that they would be counterproductive. So why do people bother posting them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #161)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:16 PM

162. Well,

is there a maxim that, if you are going to do something as deeply ugly and unethical as deploy a lying propaganda and disinformation machine against the very people you claim to represent, that it's better to go all the way and be as insulting and outrageous and dishonest as possible?

Obviously part of the goal is to disrupt and make liberal discussion gathering places as unpleasant as possible, so that people will give up and stop trying to have these discussions. Basic psy-ops says to disorient and anger, so that people feel as angry and helpless as possible and don't know how to respond. What do you say when a whole group of aggressive personas surround you, bellowing that the sky is green?

The psy-op tactics make sense, because their arguments aren't logical. They don't make sense, and if they tried to present them rationally and as though they did, they would be out-argued easily, and shamed for their attempts to deceive. Instead, they go all out and bombard with this Orwellian garbage, attacking incessantly, proclaiming lies as truth, mocking and belittling even when they are clearly in the wrong, and, most importantly, deploying swarms of personas who all agree on the insanity so that actual posters feel overwhelmed and either leave in disgust or start to doubt their own senses. Bombarding is a big part of it, I think. Orwell knew that.

A lot of these tactics are in the slides that Snowden released, that describe the propaganda/smear/cognitive infiltration programs the government is targeting at us. It's ugly, ugly stuff and reveals just how corrupt, manipulative, and aligned against us these political entities that claim to represent us have really become.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #162)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:26 PM

165. Some of it might be an organized attempt at disinformation and disruption, but

 

I find it hard to believe that most of the "swarm" is a part of any such project. Many of them seem to me to have some sort of cultish attachment to Obama and so they lash out at anyone who opposes their leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #165)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:25 PM

166. Oh, I'm sure there's some of that, too.

I read your question as specifically about organized efforts, and I wasn't even specifically implying broad involvement by the particular project that Snowden's slides revealed, although I don't doubt that one of the largest and most popular political boards on the internet would be a target. Other groups, DLC or Third Way-type groups or political campaigns or representatives of particular corporate politicians already in office, also would have plenty of motivation to use DU and control the messaging here. But the tactics, and the inherent corrupt ugliness and dishonesty of them, would be the same.

IMO there's a definite organization happening on DU, though. There is a constant influx of new corporate personas (or reanimation of previously dormant accounts), and their numbers have risen steadily at a rate that is entirely unnatural compared to the influx of other posters. Recs for posts blatantly endorsing the corporate line have increased weirdly and gradually; whereas such posts used to get only a handful of recs at DU, the average number of recs grew steadily to the 20's, then the 30's, then the 40's and now reliably top 50 or even more. This on a liberal board, during a time when polling reliably shows the mood of the country going in the opposite direction. The personas themselves are remarkably consistent in their tactics, and they work together, following a consistent set of rules for engagement. They swarm when threads become particularly damaging to the corporate line. They post threads far out of proportion to their presence in the community, they maintain a 24/7 presence, and they never let certain types of threads go by without a response. They reliably target the most eloquent and persuasive liberal posters here with personal smears and alerts. And they almost always continue to respond until the other person tires and goes away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #166)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:38 PM

167. You may be right. Be that as it may, the stupidity of most of the smears never ceases to amaze me.

 

Just for fun, here are just two of many, many examples:

Example 1: “Edward Snowden sure seems to have a problem with the truth. Summer 2013: ‘I’m not a spy.’ May 2014: ‘I was trained as a spy’ . . .”

Notice that the first quote is from the Summer of 2013. That was when some were accusing Snowden of spying for China. He said “I’m not a spy for China,” abbreviated in the post as “I’m not a spy.” In May of 2014 Snowden told Brian Williams that he was trained as a spy (in the sense of working undercover) for the CIA. Could anyone really think that there was an inconsistency here between his remarks in 2013 and his remarks in 2014? Of course not, but nevertheless the two remarks were offered as evidence that Snowden is dishonest.

Example 2: “Did Snowden offer proof that he could see every purchase crossing his computer screen? This is a pretty explosive accusation in my opinion. Everybody makes purchases: ‘When you make a purchase, when you buy a book. All of that is collected,’ Snowden said. ‘I could see it at my desk, crossing my screen.’ . . . Could somebody please provide me a link to the evidence that every purchase crossed his screen? And remember folks, it's not about Snowden. It's about the information he is disclosing. That's why it's important to understand exactly how he was able to see every purchase cross his screen as he sat at his desk.”

No one could really be moronic enough to think Snowden was claiming that he saw every purchase made by every person cross his screen. Or could they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #167)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:25 AM

177. Bwah. Yeah, you're right.

That's some blazing stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:29 AM

129. Again we see his agenda isn't to do the right thing, it's to promote Libertarianism and...

 

...hurt Democrats/Liberals/Progressives.

Everything he does has to be viewed in that context.

It's like if something Ted Cruz said seemed to be a good thing. Knowing what he is about you have to question it.

What's the real motive?

Is what he said true or an exaggeration or an outright lie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:18 AM

130. But...but....but...! Snowden!!!

Never mind that he has monetized "the news" by selling national security secrets in book form, in the hopes of profiting personally...!

He's carrying water for the CATO Institute--they probably told him what to say, and when and how to say it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:35 AM

133. This thread has more fireworks in it than what Greenwald promised.

 



First it was August then it was end of June. And now? We're waiting, Mr. Greenwald.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:42 AM

135. HATE GREENWALD RAWR ARGLE BARGLE

Can I be in the kewl kids club now? I just know I can muster the required scornful attitude!

I bet Putin and Greenwald are pen pals!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #135)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:32 AM

149. Okay! You're in!

 

What's your ring size?


[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #135)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 01:42 AM

181. GREENWALD IS HIS OWN WORST FUCKING ENEMY. I can lock my caps, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #181)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:46 AM

186. you be nice now, as you can see I'm now a member of the kewl kids club

Secret decoder ring and everything.

RAWR! GREENWALD, SNOWDEN AND PUTIN AND COMMIES ARE TRYING TO STEAL MY VITAL PRAGMATIC FLUIDS!!111

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #186)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 07:46 PM

188. Don't be paranoid.. I see no club.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #181)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 08:11 PM

190. Dang if it doesn't work for him

Greenfinger still has mega fans on the left even after this!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #190)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 08:21 PM

191. Ha, like the cult of GG gives a shit what he does.. he could go out and defend a misogynistic

pornographer against torture charges and they'd still support him.. oh wait they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:45 PM

159. How stupid of him to jump forums and speak! Now, WOMEN won't give a crap about Snowdon.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 01:19 AM

179. Uhmm...your link doesn't say what you claim.

Direct copy and paste - None of the justices - even the liberal ones in the Citizens United dissent - disagree that corps have constitutional rights

How is this not true? All you have to do is show just one of them saying companies never have constitutional rights.

How isn't it logically necessary for such legal constructs to function at all? I think there is an argument to be had about having them at all because of perverse incentives to commit actions toxic to the communities and broader societies such constructs were originally designed to SERVE while to ones doing the dirt take the money and run but if they are going to be then yes they need at least limited and circumstantial rights.

DU needs 1st and 4th amendment rights. Unions need speech and assembly rights. Companies have to be able to make contracts as well. The press needs freedom of the press.

What we need to do is get some damn sense and really at least seriously look at charter history and law and define and limit which rights corporations have under what circumstances according to their primary mission.

Some rights like the 2nd and 5th perhaps should be completely banned for such constructs but I don't get the idea that corporations can never have any rights for any reason, it is silly and fewer are less friendly to such entities than myself but you can't skip out on logic.

Hell, to be honest I don't think Citizens United is some crazy interpretation of the Constitution, I totally see where the ACLU is coming from on the portion they support BUT it is absurdly poor judgment which is why put supposed to be thinking minds in such positions because in the current real life environment such law is dangerously toxic to our Republic and drowns out and negates the rights of people by the hundreds of millions. Law devoid of justice.

The ACLU is a watchdog, it is not their role to make a balance. They acted according to their function, the court did not because they must consider that balance and concern themselves with all of our rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 01:41 AM

180. There is much about him that bothers me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:22 AM

183. Greenwald continues to be the snotty, self serving, CEO fellating little prick he has always been.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #183)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:50 AM

187. that that... fellator!1111

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 08:09 PM

189. Ugh

Unsurprising asshatery from GG

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 04:27 PM

197. It's The S&G Show! Now in its second exciting season!

 

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread