General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGlenn Greenwald tells the truth, and makes many uncomfortable
He's precisely who the Founders had in mind when carving out freedom for the press.
I agree with Rachel Maddow, Michael Moore and Bill Moyers: Greenwald is a Liberal treasure, we are very fortunate that he does what he does.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
sic
uhnope
(6,419 posts)It was over for me here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/09/1229963/-Report-Indicates-Snowden-Greenwald-Lied-About-Key-Claims
and then
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
I'm no fan of Israel's occupation of Palestine, btw.
But this creepy move proves to me the final resolution of the bizarre segment of the anti-American left that will side with Russia, Syria and Iran just because they are currently in conflict with the US. Russian/Iranian anti-Semiticism begins to be an influence.
Greenwald is OVER
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6068879
elias49
(4,259 posts)
navarth
(5,927 posts)So, no such luck.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)[IMG]
[/IMG]
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)
City Lights
(25,787 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)appreciate Greenwald and the few other real journalists we have left.
Must be hard trying so hard to undermine someone who has earned the respect of people in this country as well as many others.
He IS, as Manny says, exactly the kind of journalist the FFs envisioned, not allowing his personal politics to interfere with the facts.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)but most people have no idea who Greenwald is. His one trick pony schtik is tiresome - the US is behind every single thing that happens in the world - every single thing. He even blamed Charlie Hebdo on the US and France for standing along with the US. Everyone else gets a pass. He's a narcissistic twit and what he does bears zero resemblance to journalism (I also 100% blame him for the fact that Snowden is stuck in Russia - he made the mistake of trusting a slug like Greenwald).
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Do you have his scores on one of the validate narcissism scales?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)He had a perfect score.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)DOES have to worry about the wealthy, powerful corrupt individuals he exposes. He has already been targeted by them as we learned from Anonymous' leaks from that so-called Private Security Corp. Scary to think they actually get paid to smear people like Greenwald, who was a blogger at the time.
'Narcissistic'. That HAS to be one of the talking points they included in the smear campaign they were bidding for a contract on. It can't be a coincidence that it has appeared several times in this thread alone, and always appears whenever Greenwald is mentioned.
All public figures are narcissists by that standard. So save the insults, especially ones that appear to be from some think tank. They are meaningless.
He's a Pulitizer Prize winner, so I think he's well known to people who matter, who want to know the facts rather than turn a blind eye.
And if only they had left him alone, not tried to smear him, he'd probably still be just a blogger. That outraged people when they learned about it, even some who were not overly fond him. Because Powerful People being willing to pay a Security Contractor to try to dig up dirt on bloggers, SHOULD scare people.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)only a blogger - that media empire he and HIS wealthy pals were envisioning is a complete bust. I live in the media capital of the world and on the scale of well known journalists, he's a nobody. That he thought our government was gunning for him and he was risking his life or freedom by coming here was hilarious.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Journalist now. And of course you won't hear about him on the Corporate Media. The few times they DID have him, during the Snowden affair, he made mince meat of them and was applauded on Social Media across the Globe for the way he was able to take them down and expose their lies.
Naturally they can't talk TO him again. He made them look like the fools and tools they are.
To use the Corporate Media as a gauge for a real journalist's worth, is setting the bar so low I'm not sure it can get much lower to be honest.
Talk to intelligent people, not the stenographers on the MSM. Their ratings are so low at this point as people turn to real journalists like Greenwald they are beyond insignificant.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)world - your own little bubble. It's pretty funny.
2banon
(7,321 posts)you never miss an opportunity to go on and on about what a terrible person/journalist he is etc.. in every Greenwald thread that I've ever seen posted (as if repeating your same tiresome screed makes it more credible) makes me wonder if all you do is just lurk around for Greenwald OP's to trash.
I hate to break this to you.. your attempts to discredit Greenwald by way of character assassination is a BIG FAIL. What's the matter? Can't get your stuff published? Getting ignored by The Nation, The Guardian, Democracy Now? Is that what the sour grapes is all about?
Just curious.. sort of lookin' that way to me.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)This is the only thread I've commented on GG in months. I'm not a journalist so have no idea what you're whining about with my stuff not getting published. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else. Whether that's the problem or not, your hero worship is pretty amusing.
2banon
(7,321 posts)There's a certain element of admiration for those who dare to expose corruption etc, knowing they'll be quickly targeted by the character assassination goon squad the instant their work goes public.
It seems to be an occupational hazard. That's partly why other actors posing as "journalists" who aren't a direct hire recruited by the Ministry of Disinformation decide to be come fawning whores rather than truth tellers.
That's just an observation of course.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and didn't blame every thing that happens in the world on the evil US, he would have a much larger following. For instance, he never writes about what's going on in Brazil - where he lives, he never writes about putin and Russia (even though I blame him 100% for Snowden being stuck there). It's always the same shit - US sucks, blah, blah, blah. He caters to a very small segment of Americans which is why only a very small segment of Americans even know who he is.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
2banon
(7,321 posts)got it. 
lark
(26,068 posts)Getting tired of people hating on him because he backs Snowden who outted Obama for systemic privacy violations. Truth is truth and needs to be known, regardless of who's doing it, or tolerating it.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,674 posts)Do you notice that there are always the the same few that sit at their computers waiting for the first pro-Snowden/Greenwald thread to pounce on it to be the very first to post? Its very telling. I'm always encouraged though as these threads expand that its shown that the vast majority of DUers are not chickenshit authoritarian anti-freedom of information sheep who seemingly welcome the corporate-guided Washington bubble using the NSA to mass gather all their correspondence and search histories for later "use".
I really don't understand why those people would even join a more liberal site like DU. I can only guess they must be so frightened they want to make sure they start early denouncing their neighbours so that in the future when the unfettered wiretapping goes into overdrive because there wasn't enough outrage early on despite the bravery of whistleblowers and journalists like Snowden and Greenwald, they can plead "but but but I was defending it all along...I called Snowden a traitor and Greenwald a hack like forever!"
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)contradict the propaganda about Whistle Blowers and good Journalists. How do they get there so fast? Many times I would have missed threads if it hadn't been for their rush to try to discredit the OP. So I guess they do serve some purpose.
I learned about this one because of a ridiculous alert on Manny.
I'm with you, I have no idea why people who obviously despise the left (the anti-American Left I saw it called in THIS thread) are here. And they definitely do. They share the same hatred for everything and everyone they perceive to be Left as many on the Right.
2banon
(7,321 posts)This isn't new.. I've seen jealous media personalities go after the "divas" of the day with bloodthirsty vengeance. It's very weird to observe.
City Lights
(25,787 posts)
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Not that anyone even cares about what the latest diatribe Greenwald has put out recently.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Sid rushed to Manny's thread to keep it from arriving DOA!
Response to bahrbearian (Reply #42)
840high This message was self-deleted by its author.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Oh, and
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)...and he said Warren sounded like Netanyahu?
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/28/elizabeth-warren-speaks-israelgaza-sounds-like-netanyahu/
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)either. Not sure of your point, unless you are trying to suggest that we should either always agree or never agree. Greenwald isn't afraid to expose a naked emperor, which bothers those that don't want to know what's behind the curtain.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Crazy FDR-huggers.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Boy, the Founders thought of everything.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)drone killing that kills 10 innocent people (some times children) for every "suspect"? I don't like it if Republicans do it and I don't like it when Democrats do it. We have children going to bed hungry and yet we spend billions on killing people in the Middle East. But seems to me like you'd rather not know anything bad about the USofA and so you attack the messengers.
As far as Manny, I don't really know him but he seems kind of obstinate if you ask me.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I agree with Greenwald on drone attacks.
Any other questions?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)strongly disagreed at other times, and these other opinions might not exist on DU any longer, e.g.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5293474
Now you can post that thing you post, and I'll post that thing that I post when you post that thing you post.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Oh that's right...you are!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3995915
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Every few thousand posts, I write something that I believe at the moment but don't usually believe. When I do, unless I think better of it within a few minutes, I leave it up rather than self-deleting, because it is what it is. In the case of the one post - out of tens of thousands of mine - that you reference repeatedly, it's pretty clear what's going on in my head.
You, by contrast, when found to be posting things that were utterly contradictory, ran way back in time and self-deleted inconvenient posts en masse - until it turned out that while your posts were deleted on DU, they lived forever in the Internet Archive:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5293474
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023688801
And, indeed, it's pretty clear that you make stuff up out of whole cloth just to be belligerent:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4624205
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)As you posted here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3995915
But you also like to post stuff from Rupert Murdoch's New York Post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025333469
The author of that story you posted is Ed Klein...the birther who thinks Chelsea Clinton was conceived through rape.
But it's ok, because at least ur intellectually honest?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that he said something he did not.
He was pretty clear and extremely HONEST in his response to you. So why are you trying to twist what he said?
I notice certain people here do that a lot. THAT is intellectually dishonest, and worse, it doesn't work. People who matter here, which leaves out trolls and right wingers who visit the site, actually READ what people say.
I read Manny's response to you, and I read your comment which has ZERO to do with what he said. Why are you doing that?
And Grown Ups read every source they can find. That's another thing that makes me wonder. Why do you object to people expanding their knowledge rather than sticking only to 'safe' reading matter? How on earth can someone know what is going on in the world if are too afraid to read anything other than the material they know won't upset them?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts) Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)...but you don't.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)no, let me change that to "Very Nicely put". Greenwald speaks truth to power. Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable. ISIS setting a pilot on fire is barbaric, but ordering a drone attack on innocent Pakistanis is also barbaric. Plus a Constitutional law lecturer should be at least a little familiar with International Law and what it says about unprovoked attacks.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Surely we all have the right to comment on something you post.
stonecutter357
(13,045 posts)I think you found a sock.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I have agreed with on everything. That would be kind of cultish, wouldn't it?
Intelligent people tend to look at a person's overall contributions to whatever field they are in.
And Greenwald's contributions to our Democracy will probably earn him a place in history, especially during a time when it has been under assault.
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)So yeah, you're probably correct.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)BTW, I do realize that there were a few who may have actually advocated restricting the franchise(such as James Madison), but from all I've read over the years, it was generally agreed by the majority that voting rights should be available for all free citizen men(and notice, too, how there were no Federal attempts to force states that already had universal male suffrage to revoke that!).
Of course, it can be admitted that the political realities of the day definitely got in the way of the original intent of the Constitution, something that was not fully rectified until the 1860s.....similar, in a way, to how the Civil Rights bills were unable to entirely end institutionalized discrimination.....but we cannot forget how it was intended to be; Lincoln knew this, and so did many others who fought the righteous fight to save the Union.
Autumn
(48,950 posts)and I fucking like him.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I've asked repeatedly to be added to the distribution list.
frylock
(34,825 posts)scraping the shit from my shoes now.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)keeps it real.
This last article is very sobering and forces many Americans to take a look in the mirror.
Naturally, the hate swarm is not happy.
In addition, because the Hellfire missiles fired from drones often incinerate the victims’ bodies, and leave them in pieces and unidentifiable, traditional burial processes are rendered impossible.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/04/burning-victims-death-still-common-practice/
xocet
(4,431 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts).. during Shock & Awe.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)if the man in the WH were a Republican.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)
Skittles
(171,544 posts)to if the man in the WH was ANYONE BUT OBAMA
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the comment was to point out that they would NOT hate Greenwald, if Obama was NOT in the WH and it was a Republican who was there.
And that is a fact, because there were few if any Greenwald haters here when Bush was in the WH.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)obxhead
(8,434 posts)are lovers of the standard set by Republicans of this century. They can deny it, but they're full of shit.
George II
(67,782 posts)Autumn
(48,950 posts)as one who considers himself to be aligned with ... say moderate republicans. 
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)obxhead
(8,434 posts)Or does he align himself with an ideology that demands the people are more important than the powers that be?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the entire cabal of War Criminals, Republicans hated Greenwald, and still do.
And considering he wrote a book exposing the hypocrisy of the Right, which he despises, he made no friends on the Republican side of the aisle.
He was always very popular with Dems during that time, and still is. Except for a few who loved him when he was telling the truth a bout Bush et al, but hate him now because he continues to tell the truth.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)I was an early follower of his blog before he was well known and picked up by Salon. He did a great job exposing the criminal Bush administration, and oddly, not one single DUer thought ill of him at the time. In fact, he was revered around here.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to berate him, smear and attack him, much like we see here since Bush left the WH. He seemed to enjoy eviscerating them and never stopped them from commenting.
They didn't realize it, but the more they went there and then back to their lairs to bash him some more, the larger his audience grew.
I first encountered him posting on Daily Kos. I always read his writings as he had a way of taking issues apart and explaining the law wrt what Cheney/Bush were doing.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)if treasure was shit.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I personally place Mr. Greenwald in the same category as I would folks like Ta-Nehisi Coates, Chauncey De Vega, etc.: overrated, undercriticized, and just plain mediocre journalism over all.
As for Maddow & Moyers? I respect them, but they're wrong on this call.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...are far more valuable than their mediocre corporate counterparts who won't.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,674 posts)But what I don't get with you and those two posters who agreed with you, is why exactly you hold this disparaging opinion?
You "personally" place him in some overrated or mediocre category. Does that mean you "personally" know him? Of course not. So what is it? A gut feeling? Reminds me of Colbert's "truthiness".
As far as journalism goes, you must also disagree with the whole Pulitzer Prize organization for awarding him the Pulitzer prize for public service based on his articles on Snowden and the revelations.
I mean, what is it? I'd really like to know. Because without any explanation, I'm sorry, but it seems like you and those who also share this knee jerk reaction shared by all Republicans and Dinos, are saying you actually support the idea that Americans should remain uninformed on this topic. That Americans would be better off with their heads in the sand and just accept that the government (whether D or R) will have greater and greater access to our personal communications, and be able to store all of our data and use anything against us in the future if we happen to be at the "wrong" protest, or join the "wrong" group or write the "wrong" thing on a message board.
And please don't insult your own intelligence by replying "no no no..its not that I agree with what the NSA is doing or that even Obama has kept this from us until it was exposed....its just that I don't "personally" like the messenger(s) for reasons I cannot explain"
dissentient
(861 posts)Orwell said something like that too, that often the truth will be hated by those in power.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)dissentient
(861 posts)I think its pretty close though.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But it is gone from the news and therefore gone from our minds...insted we have more important things like what someone said about something we suport...controversy clouds up our view and in that smoke screen the world happens.
Hell we are in a new cold war with Russia and we are worried about what someone said?...WTF?
Perhaps we received the curse "May you live in interesting times"
George II
(67,782 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)and spend years in solitary confinement, like Chelsey Manning.
Greenwald is much more useful and valuable to We the People when he is OUT of prison.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts) 99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)is indeed bogus.
Just ask Daniel Ellsberg.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)that he was soooooo afraid to come back to the US because Pres Obama was going to personally arrest him. So what happened? He came here and nobody gave a shit. It broke Greenwald's heart that authorities consider him a nobody.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)have to go, to find something to hate on him about.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)He's a walking disaster who agrees with you that America is the worstest evah!! That's reason enough to have nothing but contempt for him.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)You should reserve that for the real perps, like those who wage endless wars driven by greed, or those who torture, brutalize, imprison and/or vaporize innocent people with drones, or those who endlessly snoop on us, etc.
But no, you appear to reserve your contempt for someone brave enough to stand up to the PTB by exposing their over-reach & corruption.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)you can point out where I said I reserve my contempt for this person alone. What a ridiculous charge to make. I'm quite capable of handling more than one thought in my brain at a time.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)You do actually seem to have an over-abundance of contempt. my bad.
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,457 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)often here you wonder how anyone would still try to use it. Being Gay and unable to marry his partner was not a bogus claim. THAT is why he left.
He has been back here, fairly recently I believe, and was greeted warmly wherever he went.
I'm sure the Big Banks and the MIC and Torturers were not happy to see him here, and he cleverly anticipated a possible attempt to arrest him very publicly, making it difficult to do if they had any intention of doing so.
Don't forget HB Gary was bidding on a contract to smear anyone, mostly Left organizations, who were writing about BOA corruption. They included Greenwald in a possible smear campaign.
He was just a blogger at the time and was very surprised when he learned through Anonymous leaks, that he was a target of these corrupt criminals.
So he knows what they are capable of. And he took the precaution of publicly stating they might go after him when he arrived, as they after Whistle Blowers.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Just because a du'r may have the root word "left" in their addy, does not a genuine Leftist make. 
I've noticed a number of posters feigning "Left" id's but the content of their posts betray their actual political inclinations/philosophy. their reactions to GG, Snowden, Manning, Scahil, Seymour Hersch, Taibbi, et al is quite telling.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)respect him, the courage he showed even after he found out that some very powerful people were trying to silence him.
So I take those who participate in the attempted smear campaign, with a huge grain of salt. Still, the lies they tell have to be countered. And no matter how often they are shown the FACTS, they come again with the same lies, meaning it is necessary to continually refute them with the facts.
2banon
(7,321 posts)propaganda wars and all that.
reminds me of an article on the current situation wrt to Ukraine, negotiations (such as they are) between Russia and Germany and France. actually it was a separate "related" article focusing on the anti-American sentiment in Russia - being ginned up by way of Russian Propaganda - Totally ignoring the fact that the U.S. is just as engaged in the exact same thing as the Russians are.
I wanna pull my hair when I see shit like that.
I mean, oh the Russian people hate us because Putin is lying to them about us.. . really?
I'd say that was about on par with anti-Russian sentiment here vis a vis the same kind of propaganda.
The truth is the people in both countries are being lied to. TPB in both countries manufacture their news information, they both engage in serious historical revisionism consisting of half truths or outright lies..and TPB of both are corrupt, greedy, imperialistic, narcissistic, human rights violators, blood thirsty war mongers.
I could go on and on, but I'm going to go practice my fiddle and finish a sewing project, and besides I know you agree with me! 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)How about the people of the world, dispense with their leaders? All most of us normal people around the world want, is to be left alone to live our lives. I don't view the people of any country as enemies. But according to our leaders, we are supposed to hate and want revenge.
We used to talk to people from the ME and all over the world, on a big Liberal forum around 2002-03. We and they, were curious about how the people actually felt about their own leaders and extremists.
It was amazing how similarly they felt about their leaders. And all of them, except maybe for one, but he did change his mind after interacting with us here, eventually, wanted PEACE.
So since a vast majority of the world's people want PEACE, why can't they get it?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)times, so there really is no excuse for using THAT one.
Greenwald is gay and could not marry his partner here, so he left rather than have his partner live in a situation where he did not feel 'equal'.
He did not flee, and was here recently on a trip and will be here again.
I guess to some, being gay, wanting to make the one you love happy, is a 'bogus' claim. I thought we got over that at least on this forum.
Bohunk68
(1,455 posts)Most of the problems that some alleged "liberals" have with him is that it is homophobia writ large all over their foreheads. We have seen it time after time from the same people.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I vaguely remember his name.
Response to arely staircase (Reply #30)
Post removed
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)the more refreshing and helpful I find Greenwald's journalistic contributions.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)So inspiring...
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Glenn Greenwald was correct in writing what he did. This is an excellent time to mention the terrible effects of US war making. The horrible death of the Jordanian pilot should remind people of the realities of war. If anyone doesn't like it: tough shit.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)is not a liberal, is not a Democrat, and is not a morally reputable human being.
And, yes, you accurately convey the main idea of the article, no matter how relentlessly some morally bankrupt propagandists may try to misrepresent it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)there would be no way this group would have gained the footing and power they now have, had it not been for that illegal war.
Anyone who promoted it, who supported it, who attacked those of us, who were not blinded by the ginned up hatred, (and they're doing it again re Russia and Iran) who waved their flags and yellow ribbons (what happened to those yellow ribbons, the troops are home, many have killed themselves, others are homeless, but the yellow flags are gone) ALL of those who supported that massive crime are responsible for every death, including those that are again being used to get support for doing MORE of what caused it all in the first place.
They hate Greenwald, because they KNOW he is telling the truth, and ruining the propaganda we are constantly exposed to.
No Iraq War, no ISIS. Destroying Iraq's infrastructure destabilized the entire region. Which for the neocons, is just fine.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)The region's a mess which is giving them more excuses to create more wars. That is their goal. The racists don't care.
The lives of some random people on the other side of the world are too much of an abstraction to them. They lack the intelligence to consider them as worthy human beings such as themselves.
Historic NY
(39,997 posts)when did that happen.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)and DU has been infiltrated with a bunch of neoliberals who have benefited from third way policies.
They are feeling threatened by having the truth exposed.
It's been infiltrated with a bunch of "libertarian" loving Greenwald worshipers, and they just keep coming in!
malokvale77
(4,879 posts) Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Just because not all Dems are corporate neocons afraid of what might expose their flawed death loving ideology does not make them libertarians.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Thank you.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)Libertarians are not liberals? I really do know that and I am not sure what you are getting at by that comment. You also need to realize that all so no agree on things. Those who don't agree with Greenwald are not all a bunch of corporate neocons either. Just like all those who do think he is so great are may not be libertarian trolls. I do believe however that we do have a lot of libertarian trolls posting on this board trying their best to push the idea that both parties are the same and that means democrats should find other third party candidates to vote for, or as some have said don't vote at all.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Yet it does seem as if you are coming down a bit from your excited state. There are no doubt one or two that get past MIRT, but very few IMO. You were by all appearances attempting to imply that all those in this discussion who support the free press exposure of illegal and or reprehensible acts are the result of an infestation.
Neocons have always hated Greenwald and you are in agreement with them, I gather for the same reason- for what he exposes as a journalist, or perhaps his sex life bothers you.
To be fair however, I think you just reflexively hate what has been exposed about this latest incarnation of a presidency steeped in illegal spying and questionable tactics of aggression against non combatants in countries we are not even at war with. It is hard to pretend it is not business as usual even under a better President when the same things get reported. (best to sweep the truth under the rug and see a God where a flawed man exists)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)are. And very public.
Btw, he has a lot of friends in Congress, Democratic friends. Guess they too are 'Libertarians'.
So far in this thread, we are seeing all the talking points that must have been concocted from whoever got the contract HB Gary had to drop when they were exposed, bidding on a BOA contract to smear mostly Left Wing critics of Wall St corruption. Greenwald was on that list.
I used to wonder if anyone else would try for that contract. Looks like they did, same lame talking points. Hope BOA didn't pay too much for them.
They sure didn't get what they paid for. Greenwald was just a blogger with a small, mostly Liberal readership when they decided to target him for a smear campaign. He was speaking to the choir as Liberals knew that Cheney/Bush were liars and criminals..
Then Anonymous exposed the plot to smear people on the Left, and Greenwald became famous. Talk about something back-firing.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Says the guy who just showed up in 2012?
Quite the historian....
Oh we've been "infiltrated," alright.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I'm not a guy.
Do you think joining as a member has anything to do with reading a site?
Lame 
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Just struck me as highly presumptuous (and highly ironic) coming from a short-timer.
Infiltrators, heh.
Keep reading....
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)like myself to get the giggles of so many here thinking Greenwald matters. He was so hoping to get arrested when he came to the US - he was picturing himself playing the martyr and had to have been so disappointed when he was completely ignored by authorities. Ask any hundred people who he is and 95% will have no idea.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)One, preferably, with utter tone deafness to issues of racism and misogyny?
"The Founders" were rich white men who created a society for people like their own kind. I guess you're quite comfortable with that. Some of the rest of us disagree.
PS: No one has a monopoly on "the truth." Least of all, self-important self-promoters like Glenn Greenwald.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)about tying the Founders' race, gender and bank accounts to freedom of the press being bad.
Or is citing the Founders at any time simply tone deaf?
Or are you just looking for a way to take a shot at me?
Help me out here, I'm a little confused by your post.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)when Bush started violating the Constitution and Liberals would point it out. So his followers decided they couldn't argue with the facts, so began attacking the Founders.
Many of the founders were NOT rich, nor did they want a country to represent the rich. Some of them were killed and didn't make it to enjoy their victory.
Apparently you are only familiar with a few of the founders.
Most were young, very young, several abhorred slavery, see John Adams eg, who called it a 'great evil', but he knew if they were to win against the British, they would not get the South on board if they included slavery in the DOI. He first wanted to kick the British out, then establish an Independent nation, then help it grow. And eventually secure equal rights for all Americans. But he knew it couldn't happen overnight.
Btw, why didn't Obama change our HC System to a National Healthcare System like every other developed country?
Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #50)
Post removed
Puglover
(16,380 posts)favorite DU posters! 
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)DU rec for this OP and for Glenn Greenwald. the conscience we all should have.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Is not truthful, his reporting is questionable. Lie to me once, shame on you, lie to me again and you are just a liar.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Perhaps you could elaborate for those of us that can not read your mind.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Confidence in his reporting. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, to me his reports are not repeatable.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)He wasn't lying, sorry if he hurt your pal Georgies feelings, but just claiming someone is lying is itself a lie when you can point to nothing to show anyone else.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Or did not do for your pal Georgie but changing the story or the "reason" this it that happened does get a vote of confidence from me, you can continue to read his tales, believe what you want but don't expect everyone to believe his changing stories.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)You appear to be quite butt hurt that he exposed such things and claim he is a liar "because! so there".
Better think about it some more
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Talking about in exposing George, don't care what he exposed about George so perhaps you can drop that portion of your replies to me. What has caused the loss of confidence in Greenwald is the stories I have read in the past couple of years. I am sorry if you can not see the changes in his tales, this is something you need to deal with, Greenwald has exposed himself, no one had to do this for him. It is like reading RT, you may get a glimpse of the news but don't count on their reports being factual.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Not put any confidence in what he says. You can continue back and forth but it is not changing what he has said and then in a few days he changes the story. This is not my fault, you should tell him to be truthful all the time, using his lawyer excuses does not change facts.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Do you plan on providing an answer?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I do however think you are being influenced by a false meme meant to smear and thus invalidate reporting that would embarrass some. You can point to nothing rational to exclude what has been reported and I find it regrettable that you would hide your head in the sand rather than learn some unfortunate truths about our government.
The people that wish to hide these things from the public believe misinformation and smear campaigns are admirable tactics to use against reporters that dare publish the truth.
It is your right, so continue to not read what they wish to hide, if only you realized it is largely a right wing anti-truth campaign you might see how unfortunate it is that you succumb to their efforts to hide the truth.
No hard feelings, I do not believe you are complicit, simply a bit too trusting of those that would deceive you.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)What you could do is post a sentence describing one of Greenwald's assertions that he has changed. You could provide links to"before" and "after".
If you're right, then you're right. You could show us.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'stories'? Never saw that in almost ten years.
What I did see and admired him greatly for, was how he would use updates to correct something as soon as he got more information on a subject. So many refuse to do that.
And being that he isn't GOD, he occasionally made an error, but once he realized it, he would correct it immediately. Too bad the 'Professional MSM journalists' never do that.
And what is this 'loss of confidence' you speak of? He is far more widely read TODAY and trusted, including btw, by some Dems in Congress, than he was several years ago.
Oh, you mean by the Big Banks and their enablers, whose corruption he has exposed on a regular basis, and the Neocon war mongers?
But that is a GOOD thing. THEY admire and trust FOX, so it is a compliment to him that they don't trust him, and confirmation of how trustworthy he is on the issues.
You can tell as much about a person by who their enemies are as you can by why their friends are.
Greenwald has all the right enemies and all the right friends.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I'd like to see what you have 
elias49
(4,259 posts)Maybe that poster is still thinking about it?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Andy823
(11,555 posts)Greenwald and truth, two words that should never be used in the same sentence!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You donate $100 if you're not able to verify Greenwald lying in print. Courage of your convictions, etc. ready to work this deal out?
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)
leftstreet
(40,473 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Yes, Greenwald is a treasure. It takes courage to be a real journalist these days.
Ramses
(721 posts)and that is precisely why he is so hated by the few that condone and encourage it.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I hadn't made the connection before but now that you have, I see it is the same exact tried and true tactic.
nikto
(3,284 posts)I saw the quote by LBJ and (with a little modification) it just seemed to fit.
As you can tell, I like irony.
Trouble is, I'm finding a bit too much of it lately, in the world.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)nikto
(3,284 posts)Works just about every time.
Bohunk68
(1,455 posts)I even have a pic of Snowden on my laptop wallpaper. I can relate to him very well.
Works for me...
Getting really tired of the RW screed on this board.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts) nikto
(3,284 posts)...How frikkin' indispensable the disclosures are to a so-called "free-society".
Nobody has to LIKE Snowden.
But what he DID, he did for The People (against scary, vengeful elites, with the full-force of corporate media on their side).
I guess some folks just can't think of the world in such complex terms,
and need everything to be black or white.
Then, they know for sure.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)They must lurve them some horrific killing.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)He's better than the average reporter. Of course, that's a bar so low that the average ant could trip over it. He's a narcissistic, self-promoting, axe-grinding, annoying sack of shit. He's also willing to take on stories that the "legitimate" press wouldn't touch, for fear of endangering their precious access to the power teat. For all his faults, I'd rather have him than not, but let's not rush to canonize him just yet, ok?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)MFrohike
(1,980 posts)It's my impression of him, based on his writings and interviews. The point of it is not to discredit his work by pointing out that I don't like him, it's just to give a full picture of what I think of him. You don't have to like someone to appreciate their work.
Now, I have a question. Your question about rationale made sense, but I don't get the entitlement part. Were you questioning the fact I offered an opinion or was it something else?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)over and over again, by the few Greenwald haters we know. They are repeating what they have seen others say. The original source is probably a think tank.
How would you know what kind of person he is? Do you know him personally?
His interviews and writings are always about issues. And he sets his critics on the Right, straight. Which he is very good at, because he generally has FACTS on his side.
Those who do know him personally, say he is extremely nice in person. Strangers on the internet don't have a clue what public figures are like, yet act as if they live with these people.
So how would you know from that, what kind of person he is?
If THAT is the standard for 'narcissism' etc, then what about Politicians? Presidents? Public Figures?
He appears to be very intense about the topics he mostly writes about, our Civil Rights and how there are being eroded. How is that narcissistic? I guess the entire staff at the ACLU are narcissistic also.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Because anyone with a negative impression of someone you like is obviously "in on it", "bought", or has been "corrupted".
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in a contract bid from HB Gary, (security contractor) bidding on a contract for Bank of America, in order to silence those who were exposing the corruption of the Wall St Banks that collapsed the World's economies.
We know that because Anonymous leaked the emails in which the Congract Bid to smear Left organizations to the internet.
Greenwald was discussed in those contract negotiations as someone who needed to be silenced. How to do that was discussed.
A disgusting exposure of what we only suspected up to then, that the smearing of those who were telling the truth was organized and deliberate.
How did they plan to smear Greenwald? 'Find out about his family, see what schools his children go to, what church his wife attends' were a few of the suggestions made by HB Gary.
And if they couldn't find anything concrete to smear him with, then smear his character.
The contract bid had to be dropped after it was exposed. However it is clear someone else got it. The tactics are recognizable, thanks to Anonymous's revelations.
'Narcissistic' is a repeated talking point used, in an effort to smear the character of Greenwald.
So when it continues to be used with zero foundation, naturally people roll their eyes, knowing that a reprehensible smear campaign WAS planned against him, even though at the time, he was just a blogger.
THAT should send chills down the spines of Americans, and it did. That there are Security Contractors out there, NOT looking out for our security, but watching what we say and working to smear anyone who dares to tell the truth about those who PAY them, to be HIT MEN for corrupt, Wall St Banks.
So now that you are informed about the origins of these attempted smears, hopefully you will use your own words, not the paid for words of Think Tanks, to criticize someone for whatever reason.
'Narcissistic' talking point has been over used at this point re Greenwald and is easily recognized for what it is. Iow, because of what we KNOW now, it is more damaging to the users than to Greenwald.
navarth
(5,927 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I'm right there with him on Snowden and Wall Street, but he's made an ass of himself elsewhere.
Shit, he's a regular target of criticism on The Professional Left. Are you gonna accuse Driftglass and BlueGal of being dupes?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the Left. I wonder why the Left is always a target of those with so much to hide? Both from the DLC/Third Way and from the Right, which are pretty much one and the same.
Of course people can diverge from ANYONE who is a public figure. On ISSUES. When they ignore issues but attack the person, that is not diverging, or disagreeing, it is an attempt to smear the person in order to try to discredit them, most often because that person is telling the truth.
We have these Corporate Tools on the Right and on the Left. Greenwald is a regular target of Corporate Tools.
And what does 'making an ass of himself' mean? What, even if true, does it have to do with the issues he refuses to remain silent about?
Everyone makes an ass of themselves, especially when they feel safe behind their computer screens. He at least is contributing something to this democracy by risking the anger, and he knows now that he is a target of some very powerful and dangerous people, of the powerful whose secrets they will protect at all costs.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)There would have been a good place to stop.
The Professional Left Podcast.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Anything using the Third Way epithet for Liberals, 'Professional Left' won't get much attention from Liberals. See above link.
I'm not seeing anything on their podcasts or FB page or Utube accounts (2 comments?) that tells me I am missing anything by not knowing who they are are. I see a lot of photos of kitty cats, which are nice.
Just spent 30 minutes looking them up. Didn't find anything remarkable. Podcasts are a dime a dozen as are Utube clips.
If they are bashing Liberal Bloggers, and I wasn't going to spend any more time trying to find out if they are, then I have no interest in them frankly.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)My opinion of him is based solely on his writing and the few interviews I've seen. I offered my opinion of the tone of his articles, nothing more. It's entirely possible to read and appreciate someone's work without being a personal fan. Matt Taibbi, as an example, comes off as an asshole, but he's one of the best writers on financial shenanigans out there. What I think of him or Greenwald, based on their writings, is beside the point of what they write. It may be a rare thing, but my personal opinion of someone's character can be separated from their public work.
Politicians and public figures are generally ridiculously narcissistic. Of course they're narcissists! I have no idea why you'd bother to ask. The concern with them isn't whether they're good people, but whether they're doing good work. Good work would be defined, at a minimum, as work that doesn't make life miserable for most people. If he or she is a good person, good for him or her. It really doesn't matter to me, so long as that person isn't screwing up my life, my country, my world, etc.
The ACLU? I don't know if they're narcissists or not. Maybe, maybe not.
I wasn't trying to start a holy war over Glenn freaking Greenwald. He's usually a valuable resource, but he's not the be-all, end-all of reporting. A lot of people on this board get hung up on personalities and whatnot and I find it just ridiculous. It's a fanboy mindset and it's just pathetic. Greenwald is not on my team, he's a reporter that I read to get a better view of the world. I find his style of writing to often be annoying and self-centered, but that's obviously not as important to me as the story. Part of life is ignoring the stuff that irritates you because what you're hearing is important. I hope that clears it up.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Apparently you do.
It's an opinion based on his writing style. If you don't like it, don't. I don't get why people are getting hung up on my opinion of his character and completely failing to note what I said about the actual story he's writing. I can read the guy without falling in love. I'm starting to wonder if others are incapable of doing the same.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Doesn't really matter who the target is.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Character attacks are used to tear down when one can't answer an argument. I commented on his style, while giving him credit on the substance. That is a world away from a character attack.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)MFrohike
(1,980 posts)A person's writing tends to reveal things about the person. What I said is all true, though the "sack of shit" bit was bad rhetorical flourish. I couldn't think of a way to end the sentence, so I was lazy about it. Strike that, which I should have done in the first place, and the rest can be easily spotted in his articles.
If this is a character attack, it's by far the nicest one he's ever had. I didn't use my opinion of the writer to judge the merits of the articles. I separated the two and commented on each. I understand that sort of thing bothers people for some reason, but, to be blunt, that really isn't my problem. I have no need to love, or even like, reporters.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... not at the top of the list of people I'd put on point
Throw in kinda of a racist asshole too
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)but I agree that he's the kind of outspoken type the founders had in mind.
nikto
(3,284 posts)But if so, then Snowden, is a necessary dipshit.
The kind of dipshit who is essential to Liberty.
Now, that's a balanced view.
Generic Other
(29,080 posts)everywhere! Even here on DU.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)And he's Progressive.
It's so suspect that people hate on him here at DU. I'd expect that at a RW site.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/staff/glenn-greenwald/
reddread
(6,896 posts)until then, he should probably be ignored for our own good.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)He criticizes politicians ang governments who promote tyrannic practices, even when they are Democrats. Doesn't that make him a poo-poo head? 
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Autumn
(48,950 posts) 
LWolf
(46,179 posts)about DU that I've reached the point, reading this thread, that I'm not sure about which Greenwald attacks are sarcasm, and which are serious?
With the exception of a few dithering fools, of course.
Autumn
(48,950 posts)With the exception of a few dithering fools
xocet
(4,431 posts)One Fool to Rule Them All, One Fool to Find Them,
One Fool to Bring Them All and With Some Nonsense Bind Them
In the Land of Morons Where The Puppets Lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Ring
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... before it was bought up by Al Jazeera.
Greenwald and Michael Hastings were regular analysts going after the right, or the corporatist Dems when they needed to be called out.
Unfortunately Michael Hastings trying to do his work as a real journalist probably is what got him killed at that time... I'm glad that experience of one of his colleagues hasn't stopped Greenwald from taking on tough and perhaps similar life-threatening reporting jobs.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michael-hastings-rolling-stone-contributor-dead-at-33-20130618
rtracey
(2,062 posts)And yet Brian Williams of NBC lies his ass off about being shot down in a helicopter during the Iraq war, and it seems like he gets a pass. Hey Brian Williams... Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, and Eric Sevareid are rolling in their graves and giving you the FU finger dude... I have lost all respect for ANY journalist who lies. Politicians, are equally to blame......
Kaleva
(40,342 posts)I've seen he's been the topic of many a thread but I skip over them. I read this OP which doesn't tell me much. If I cared, I could do some reading up on him but I most likely won't. He'll remain a mystery.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)However, he does seem to have somewhat of a cult following around here.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_following
uhnope
(6,419 posts)It was over for me here. Why follow liars?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/09/1229963/-Report-Indicates-Snowden-Greenwald-Lied-About-Key-Claims
and then
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
I'm no fan of Israel's occupation of Palestine, btw.
But this creepy move proves to me the final resolution of the bizarre segment of the anti-American left that will side with Russia, Syria and Iran just because they are currently in conflict with the US. Russian/Iranian anti-Semiticism begins to be an influence.
Greenwald is OVER
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6068879
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It's quite revealing the way Greenwald went from hero to zero among a certain clique on DU on Jan 20, 2009.
jimruymen
(22 posts)Greenwald is not a liberal, he is a unabashed libertarian who trashes liberals; sometimes our position overlap - do your homework
Jakes Progress
(11,213 posts)you are a hero and a beacon of light in a dim world.
If you tell the truth about Obama, you are a racist and a servant of evil.
See how easy life can be if you just don't bother to think.
Years ago, my brother told me why he became a Baptist. He said it was hard to know how to figure out the right and wrong of things. But in his new religion, he didn't have to decide. The preacher just told him what to think.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts) sibelian
(7,804 posts)That's about as far as I'd go.