General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGreenwald: Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies
Before the cherry picking begins, it would be helpful to read the entire article. It's interesting and points out the problems with progressives who declare Paul beyond the pale despite his embrace of positions advocated by progressives while embracing Obama who "holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested." Is Greenwald correct? Has Obama done all these things of which he's accused below? Are they heinous? At what point, if these actions have been taken, should progressives withdraw their support from Obama and seek a Democrat more in line with progressive beliefs?
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
Saturday, Dec 31, 2011 11:15 AM 13:02:12 EST
Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies
By Glenn Greenwald
<edit>
The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.
He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.
Most of all, America’s National Security State, its Surveillance State, and its posture of endless war is more robust than ever before. The nation suffers from what National Journal‘s Michael Hirsh just christened “Obama’s Romance with the CIA.” He has created what The Washington Post just dubbed “a vast drone/killing operation,” all behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy and without a shred of oversight. Obama’s steadfast devotion to what Dana Priest and William Arkin called “Top Secret America” has severe domestic repercussions as well, building up vast debt and deficits in the name of militarism that create the pretext for the “austerity” measures which the Washington class (including Obama) is plotting to impose on America’s middle and lower classes.
<edit>
The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views.
more...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)I don't give a shit what you imagine Obama did--and make no mistake, most of Greenwald's complaints are either exaggerated or imaginary. He's praising a guy who famously suggested that the black parts of New York City should be renamed "Zooville", "Rapetown," or "Dirtburg." He's praising a guy who insisted that a Jewish conspiracy was behind Waco and the first World Trade Center bombing. He's praising a guy who has insisted that "malicious gays" deliberately infect "normal" people with AIDS.
FUCK RON PAUL.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)exaggerated or imaginary"?
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)The repeated claims, with all evidence to the contrary, that Obama was secretly scheming to destroy Social Security via the deficit commission/debt ceiling deal/joint committee/panic of the month.
The claim that Obama supported and advocated for indefinite detention, when he was almost the only person in government who fought to limit that clause.
The claim that Obama secretly made a deal to kill the public option, which has been repeatedly debunked by actual journalists.
The ongoing claim that Obama was actually trying to extend the Iraq War and keep troops there indefinitely.
All of which have been proven not just exaggerated, but outright false. That's just off the top of my head.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Links or it didn't happen.
jaxx
(9,236 posts)
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)jaxx
(9,236 posts)It's a bunch of hooey, better known as Greenwald's usual spew.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)any factual inaccuracies that would lessen the persuasivenss of Greenwald's argument? Please point out why you think they're hooey and/or spew. Thanks.
jaxx
(9,236 posts)There is nothing convincing in what Greenwald wrote. It's his personal opinion, and it's so convoluted that it has people thinking he's right. That's just sad. Why Democrats would support this stuff is beyond me.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:43 PM - Edit history (1)
not presenting the information in those paragraphs as personal opinion. He's presenting them as facts. Is he wrong? Has Obama not done those things? Thanks.
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)
Rex
(65,616 posts)If people like Ron Paul get elected, say goodbye to public schools and social security.
Robb
(39,665 posts)
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Because we'll take a rational, focused, deep-thinker over a looney like Paul ANY DAY! We want PROGRESS, Paul wants to DISMANTLE.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)There are several areas where I would take Paul's position over Obama's position but that does not make them equivalent.
Obama and Paul are both sub-optimal. Agreed. That does not mean that it is hard to chose between the two.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)a tweet from Greenwald: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100294914
He's a bit on the defensive, huh?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)challenging the bipartisan elite consensus on foreign policy, and she has,
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
shouldn't ad hominem attacks be made against Katrina vanden Heuvel as well?
If ad hominem attacks are to be made against Greenwald, doesn't fairness require that similar such attacks be made against vanden Heuvel?
Paul has obviously been wrong on many issues, but the fact that a broken clock can be right twice a day is well recognized.
It seems sensible to oppose preemptive wars. It is good to see that a Republican candidate is opposed to preemptive wars, or at least says that he wants to do away with preemptive wars. If Obama is in favor of doing so, he can express himself on the issue. Paul does not own that issue. He only appears to own it because all other candidates either oppose such view or have remained silent.
If Candidate Obama publicly comes out in opposition to preemptive wars and says something favorable about Paul, are there those on this board who will then claim that Obama like Greenwald favors all of Paul's positions?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)challenging the bipartisan elite consensus on foreign policy, and she has,
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
shouldn't ad hominem attacks be made against Katrina vanden Heuvel as well?
...you actually believe that flawed logic is acceptable coming from anyone?
I saw a great tweet in response to that kind of logic, the one that says "he's horrible, but I agree with him on somethings!!! For example, he's a racist supported by racists who want blacks to acknowledge that they were better off as slaves, an anti-gay bigot supported by people who want to kill gays, but, hey, at least he wants to close U.S. bases in other countries and legalize weed":
"That's like saying the KKK has some good ideas on buying local."
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Is Obama horrible based on the actions cited by Greenwald?"
Greenwald's assessments objective? Is he prone to rigid thinking and spin?
Hiding behind Ron Paul is not admirable.
you going to answer the question or point out where Greenwald is making false claims about Obama's record in the material cited in the OP?
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Obama has a 50% approval rating, and an 84% approval rating among Libs/Progressives. Could he have done better? Sure. Could EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT have done better? Sure. I respect Greenwald, that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he does/says.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)he factually correct? If so, the point of his article is pretty compelling. If he's not, then we need to specify where he's not. There's nothing to be gained by appealing to authority, but there is something to be gained by appealing to facts. If Obama is as bad as the person described in the paragraphs in the OP, why should progressives be so quick to give him their support when it appears he's actually betraying progressives?
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)approval rating among Libs/Progressives.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Eg, I received a call asking my opinion on Obama a week ago. It did not ask me about issues, just 'would you support him' in the next election. Of course I said 'yes' but that does not mean I support him on many of the issues. Nevertheless, my 'yes' will counted as 'support' by a 'liberal'.
No democrat is going to answer that question with a 'no' so the poll, confined as it is to a list of Democrats, really does not tell what people are thinking. And since the number never changes much, it seems to be a list of people most likely to answer 'yes'.
It is not Democrats this party has to worry about, it is Independents many of whom are liberal but would not be receiving these calls.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)are some posters so agitated about those like Greenwald who have commented about some of the actions taken by Obama?
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)Issues just don't matter.
ProfessorGAC
(76,594 posts)To me, it sure seems like Greenwald is expressing an opinion and is not providing a recitation of facts.
You want people to prove that one of his opinions is false? Just how is anybody supposed to do that?
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)Greenwald has provided links for each assertion. I would say, based on the evidence he's provided, he's stating facts rather than expressing opinions. Feel free to point out if any of Greenwald's cited facts aren't factual. I'm pretty sure if you let him know, he would update with corrections.
ProfessorGAC
(76,594 posts)You're too busy, i guess, defending Greenwald instead of actually reading a reasonable question.
GAC
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)1. Click on the link and go to the part of the article quoted in the OP.
2. Click on the supporting links to see if the facts cited are, indeed, facts.
3. Report back to us if any of them are not facts.
4. Alternatively, continue to say, "You didn't answer the question, it's opinion, you didn't respond to my silly effort to distract from the litany of heinous actions Obama's taken blah, blah, blah."
5. Seriously, that list is terrible. I understand why you, or any Obama supporter, would have to try to deflect attention from it rather than defend it. Still, you should remember your efforts are pretty transparent and you're not fooling anyone.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)writer. Are there rules somewhere that a political commentator must not ever point out the pros and cons of Presidential candidates?
I'd like to see them. I know they have such rules in some countries, but here I was not aware of any. Enlighten us please.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Paul is a Republican candidate for president. Greenwald is a political writer."
...a political writer with an Obama obsession, or should I say an Obama supporter obsession. I mean, in his latest piece he calls out MineralMan. He apparently can't take criticism even by random posters on the Internet. It's not the first time, here he shows his disdain for people who like photos of the President.
He did apologize:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/05/925827/-Glenn-Greenwald-Apologizes,-and--
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I read Greenwald and have noticed no 'Obama obsession'. Did he have a 'Bush obsession'? Because he was accused of that also.
As for your link to this tweet, what has that got to do with DUers? I am not obsessed with Greenwald so I don't follow his every uttering on Twitter.
Again, are there rules for writers as to what they can and can not say about Politicians in particular, presidential candidates?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Again, are there rules for writers as to what they can and can not say about Politicians in particular, presidential candidates? "
No, there are no such rules. Are there rules that writers should ignore all facts to the contrary to hype the alleged pros of GOP candidates?
Paul's positions are bullshit, primarily myths created to sell him. Greenwald has invested a lot of time pushing Paul as genuine.
What's the point of creating the impression that these positions are real?
There are already signs on the campaign trail that the veneer is coming off and via Paul's own statements.
I mean, the guy was an anti-war hero, and now there is evidence that's complete bullshit, with his own campaign manager declaring that he's not anti-war.
All I have to do his look at his son, who has joined him on the campaign trail. Rand Paul not only proposed criminalizing "radical political protests," but he also created a budget that included billions more for defense than Obama's.
I want debate based on positions people actually hold, not propaganda to fool the masses. That has gone on too long with Paul.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The rest of your post is your opinion. Go to Greenwald's blog and provide him with the facts as you see them. I know he has always corrected errors when presented with evidence proving him wrong.
Trashing people on the internet does not accomplish anything, and it's doubtful anyone takes these attacks seriously and merely views them as childish, other than to cause a further devolution in political discourse and harden divisions already there.
I am aware of Rand Paul's positions on issues. But the personal attacks on him during the campaign, only worked to gain sympathy for him and look where he is now?? It would have been far better to avoid those personal and focus on his 'beliefs' and his incosistencies.
People have learned nothing from the Republican attacks on Clinton. Even ordinary Republicans ended up being disgusted by them.
Have all these 'I hate Greenwald' posts accomplished anything? Have they changed a single mind, educated anyone on the issues? All I see is childish 'I hate him' 'he's an idiot' etc. etc. and others responding as should be expected. If that is the goal, to just have food fight, then it has succeeded. But it has not accomplished anything else. Nothing worthwhile anyhow. Greenwald remains a highly respected political commentator and his detractors who are merely flinging mud simply cause people to roll their eyes and point to the internet as a discredited source of information.
"Go to Greenwald's blog and provide him with the facts as you see them. I know he has always corrected errors when presented with evidence proving him wrong. "
So you're implying that Greenwald is aware of MineralMan, but none of the reports of Paul's actual positions?
OK!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'aware of Mineral Man'. I doubt, even if he is, (and calling someone an 'asshat' won't make such a person appear to be very reasonable to anyone) that it is new to him. He has been attacked like this for ten years and often refers to his detractors who rarely confront him personally. But that was during the Bush years and all people did was laugh at them.
However, all that has done, if true, if these kinds of posts are what people find when they search for DU, is to diminish the credibility of this blog. It certainly won't affect Greenwald, if anything it helps him. Always has. So I would not be surprised if he took advantage of it as he has always done with such attacks.
But sad to think that this is what is now representative of DU. Name-calling and childish rants. Maybe it's time to do what other blogs who wanted to be taken seriously have done, require that OP headlines be credible and adult so they are not blocked from people at work eg. It's easy to get your post on Google using a famous name together with an insult. An old trick but not generally used by credible blogs.
But it's better to get respect for your blog with headlines that are not childish mud flinging. I hope this doesn't ruin the reputation of this blog, these kinds of headlines. Even DK eventually realizing what it was doing to their reputation, confined that kind of childishness to posts that were not going to end up on Google as representative of the blog.
Greenwald pointing it out won't help much either. If that is what he has done.
I guess you do not want to go to his blog then, and make your points. Fine, that is your choice.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)MichaelMcGuire
(1,684 posts)
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I vehemently disagree.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Lots of his other views are outright sociopathic. So?
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)I only care that his opposition is out in public. If you want to argue that he doesn't actually hold some of his stated views, that's silly. There is no way of winning one way or another.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)When someone says "I am anti war." I believe that they mean that they are against all forms of war, I don't assume that they're OK with war if private military contractors do it.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Mercenaries are about 30 times more expensive than regular armies.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Otherwise known as paramilitary groups.
eridani
(51,907 posts)This has what to do with Central America?
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)He is not against war.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Quite a different matter.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...are tax exempt.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--by US taxpayers? Evidence, please.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)You don't need an army to build a Cola factory in the middle of India which depletes their local water supplies. You don't need a MIC to build a chemical factory that blows up and affects thousands, never to pay them.
eridani
(51,907 posts)“The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist,” Friedman wrote approvingly in one of his explaining-the-world bestsellers. “McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the U.S. Air Force F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)All of which were either largely tax free, or paid for by bribes, which a corporate state that Ron Paul envisions would happily do.
Want to do business? Corporations have to pay the bribes. Simple.
eridani
(51,907 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...serve that role? It's training, to a corporatist that's a worthy investment.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Why continue the silly pretense that corporatism and the military industrial complex have nothing to do with each other?
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)And that ultimately even if the "government" didn't have a "military" funded by "taxes," it would still exist under the guise of something else.
Even if Ron Paul was magically elected with a majority and he removed ever military base on the planet you'd still have corporate hegemony and imperialism.
The MIC is not what is responsible for it, it's capitalism itself.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)views 'compelling and crucial'. Why do you doubt that? Go to any of the Independent boards and you will see many progressives, sick and tired of their party supporting forever war and the Great Wars on Drugs and Terror, and voting every time to support the Patriot Act etc. etc. etc. and you will see that Glenn Greenwald is simply stating a fact, and in a way, issuing a warning the Dem Party. They can ignore it, as you are doing, or risk losing not only Independents which are a huge part of Paul's support, but also many of their own democratic base.
The discourse here lately has been beyond foolish. To ignore a threat like this or to think you can illiminate by trashing the messenger is the same thing the party did in 2010. They did nothing to bring back the Independents and the young voters who had grown so disillusioned with them.
And if we end up with a Republican president and Congress I will blame those who are running around the internet and elsewhere trashing messengers rather than engaging those whose votes they seem to think they are entitled to. Someone in this party needs to reign them in before they drive even more voters away.
They learned nothing from 2010 and it is scary to see how many people are being turned away from this party by the hateful and inaccurate rovian tactics being used against anyone who even dares to point out some facts.
And if Democrats remain blind to what is happening and do not see the threat of someone like Paul at this particular time, they will be wholly responsible for the outcome. NOT the voters, NOT Paul but the Party who have allowed their operatives to make fools of themselves and the party and who are achieving the exact opposite of what is necessary to stop a Republican majority.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Click my sig. I do not know of any well informed liberals who aspire to Libertarianism or laissez-faire capitalism. Yet that is what Ron Paul is for.
I have been extremely reasonable in my critique of GG's Ron Paul appreciation.
I have used Chomsky's own arguments against Ron Paul.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)I've never thought that about Greenwald's writing and points.
That seems much more descriptive of many of your posts.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)so puzzling. They do not describe him at all. And I have been reading him for years now, although apparently not as much as his detractors.
These posts are totally misinterpreting him. He analyzes issues mostly from a legal pov, and then considers where political candidates stand on them.
Eg, he has been accused of 'supporting Citizens United' when nothing could be further from the truth. What he pointed out about it was that it doesn't make things that much worse than they already are, because the way our campaigns are financed, even without this ruling, is wrong.
And while analyzing the bill he pointed out something I did not know (and this is why he is so valuable as a writer). He pointed out that before CU, smaller organizations like the ACLU eg, were restricted from the money they could put into a campaign, but with this ruling many of these smaller organizations get the same privileges and are now 'people' also.
He wasn't praising the bill, just pointing out facts about it. But you would have to take the time to read his writings I guess, rather than just react to a few words. We need more analysis of our political system, not less but sadly he is one of the few who takes the time to do it.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)in his latest piece (the one that seems to have prompted the recent swarm of attacks).
Very good points raised in it and Connaughton was recently Chief of Staff to Senator Ted Kaufman.
But none of the substance of it , either in Connaughton's article itself or in the points Greenwald cites from it, are addressed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-connaughton/obama-wall-street-laws_b_1157915.html
Instead, it's all about going after Greenwald personally.
Thanks for the info about the CU piece. Good to look at the full context instead of the bits and pieces that have been quoted.
Happy New Year to you!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)That is usually the reason people end up resorting to name-calling, always was.
I haven't read the Huffpo piece so thanks for posting it, will do so now.
Interesting how many Democrats agree with Paul though yet none of them, including Barney Frank, Kucinich, Katrina Van Heuvel and others, have been targeted for 'supporting him'.
Happy New Year to you also 
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)There are those who want to attack Greenwald's positions with ad hominem attacks, the latest one being that he somehow implicitly supports and endorses all of Paul's positions. The latest ad hominem attacks involve guilt by association. Paul is guilty, therefor Greenwald is guilt, therefore no one should seriously consider Greenwald's positions. It's nutty, but that's the reasoning used by some.
Incidentally, it seems illogical to give up the idea of buying locally even if the KKK were to publicly take a position in favor of buying locally.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Paul is guilty of being a lunatic. Greenwald is guilty of being taken in by him.
Paul's positions are bullshit, primarily myths created to sell him. Greenwald has invested a lot of time pushing Paul as genuine.
What's the point of creating the impression that these positions are real?
There are already signs on the campaign trail that the veneer is coming off and via Paul's own statements.
I mean, the guy was an anti-war hero, and now there is evidence that's complete bullshit, with his own campaign manager declaring that he's not anti-war.
All I have to do his look at his son, who has joined him on the campaign trail. Rand Paul not only proposed criminalizing "radical political protests," but he also created a budget that included billions more for defense than Obama's.
I want debate based on positions people actually hold, not propaganda to fool the masses. That has gone on too long with Paul.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)to sell himself?
eridani
(51,907 posts)--I am surely NOT going to withhold my endorsement.
Ohio Joe
(21,898 posts)Looking only at the surface of Pauls statements leads one to believe they may be right but when taken in the context of his entire platform... It is simply batshit crazy. Paul is a very real danger and deserves no consideration, this pushing of him because he appears on the surface to be right about a few things is seriously fucked up. This asshole desreves zero consideration and should be rejected entirely.
Fuck Ron Paul and this pushing of him onto liberals. I don't want anything to do with this asshole.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)The things Paul has said about gays should make Glenn so sick that he wouldn't say Paul was right about the sky being blue.
Instead he turns on some stranger on the net who dared to question him, the Great Glenn Greenwald! Sad really. Defends a vile homophobe, attacks random Democrat. Makes me wonder if I really have any idea who this GG really is.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)Of course, it's publicity for being a place where positions are misrepresented and insult substitutes for thought, but there's no such thing as bad publicity, right?
BootinUp
(51,253 posts)
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)publicity than we normally get (which is just about none). Is publicity for misrepresenting positions and calling people "asshats" what we want? I certainly wouldn't think so, but I tend to be in the minority around here.
trumad
(41,692 posts)You've kind of gone off the deep end with this publicity shit.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)headlines. When it was discovered that this often caused them to be blocked by demographics they wanted to reach, such as some colleges, school staff etc, places of work eg, and was getting them a reputation for not being 'serious' some blogs changed their rules to requiring that headlines remain free of such language.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Instead he gets bent out of shape about being called an asshat. THAT's what he's mad about? Not that RP said gays deserve to get aids and it's their fault and they only want sympathy so they get sick on purpose. And that the preacher that RP liked and touted on his website is for KILLING GAY PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY'RE GAY.
No. Glenn, the gay "progressive" is mad about asshat. I'm sorry. But this is fucked up. Totally fucked up.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)you should email Greenwald. He seems to be laboring under the delusion he can write about all sorts of heinous actions taken by the Bush and Obama administrations. Somebody needs to get him back in line and writing only about the topics about which he's allowed to write.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)with him. After all, what's more personal than somebody wanting to kill him and all people like him, for who they ARE?
But no. He glosses right over that. I'm not buying any of what Glenn says he (glenn) thinks or who Glenn says he is at this point.
And this shouldn't even be about Glenn anyway. This is about the vilest homophobe who has run for office in my memory. This should have all of us pissed off as hell at RP.
So why the FUCK is someone who has an actual readership going after a poster on DU instead? I don't understand it and I call bullshit.
Edited damn spelling, chord for cord.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)influence his writing. And do you know that he has not addressed Paul on the issue of gay rights? It may be that he has not and intends to especially if he gets close to the nomination. I don't know, but I will look it up. Paul is a candidate for the WH. Which is the only reason GG is writing about him right now. He has written about ALL the Republican candidates, where they stand on the issues. Why was there no outrage over any of the others? This is one in a serious of articles covering the Presidential candidates.
As for him 'going after' someone on DU. It's too bad that he was able to find a perfect example of what he was describing about what goes on among some people during election season. I guess if that was my topic, I would have used it as it perfectly illustrated his point. Too bad it was on DU though.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)What is fucked up is the easy acceptance of such tactics in certain quarters.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)A little tale for you.
Starbucks does indeed charge a lot for their coffee. Too much. In fact it's highway robbery. But their latte is wonderful. And their cappuccino is to die for. And their employees are so nice. And no other coffee shop has their national appeal. And they have exciting drivethru service so you don't even have to leave your car! Their iced coffee is so strong and yummy.
Sure I like my local shop except their coffee is weak and cold and really is an insult to coffee lovers everywhere.
Which one did I endorse?
eridani
(51,907 posts)He dislikes others. What is so hard to understand? Those of us more concerned with issues instead of personalities get it.
BootinUp
(51,253 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)
dionysus
(26,467 posts)MineralMan was mean to meeeeee......
BootinUp
(51,253 posts)I will just remember that mental picture, lol.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)mindless attacks that pass for political discourse during election season and he used his pen, like a sword, to point it out. Too bad it was on DU. Anyone who knows him knows he has done this so effectively for years, mostly to rightwingers during the Bush years.
Personally if I wanted to attack him, I would refrain from giving him that kind of fodder. He is way too good at using it. Hopefully people have learned now why many blogs forbid the use of that kind of language in their headlines. It gets them very negative attention, and often gets them blocked from places they do not want to be blocked from. I thought everyone knew this as it was a big issue online a couple of years ago. No doubt GG knows it though.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Damn. Someone got served.
Spazito
(55,403 posts)I must say the innumerable number of Ron Paul video clips included within his hit piece on Obama was enlightening given Mr. Greenwald says he is NOT endorsing him. I loved this tidbit:
"I’m about to discuss the candidacies of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and no matter how many times I say that I am not “endorsing” or expressing supporting for anyone’s candidacy, the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite."
The old saying, "If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck" certainly fits here, imo.
This piece of tripe is one big endorsement of Ron Paul.
I have to say I found it quite humorous that Mr. Greenwald was SO incensed by a post on a forum he felt the need to call the poster "simple-minded". Gosh, thin skin much, Mr. Greenwald? (Obviously he reads here, how else would he have read the post by an anonymous poster on one forum among a whole host of them.
It is sad Mr. Greenwald has such little regard for those who may read his opinions he actually thinks because, in text he says he is not endorsing Ron Paul, while all the while does exactly that through video clips, highlighting what he sees as positive traits of Mr. Paul, etc., that readers of this piece cannot see the obvious.
I guess I, too, am a "simple-minded Manichean" in Mr. Greenwald's eyes, oh dear, I would be crushed were he to think so....or not.
BootinUp
(51,253 posts)my dear Spazito. And I agree with them.
Spazito
(55,403 posts)I really appreciate it!
MineralMan
(151,162 posts)And what I write is so important, too.
Spazito
(55,403 posts)in his opinion piece railing against President Obama while promoting Ron Paul. Yeah, you did call him an asshat, you Manichean, you!
I found his use of "Manichean" to be deliciously ironic given Mr. Greenwald's seeming fealty to Ron Paul in the very opinion piece in which he uses "Manichean" as a pejorative.
Number23
(24,544 posts)erudite member of the media would understand how INCREDIBLY thin-skinned, ridiculous and devoid of perspective he makes himself look by calling you "simpleminded" because you dared to call him an "asscarrot" on a freaking message board. And the dumbass actually included a link to your post!
Good Lord. With every utterance from this person, he looks more and more like a fool.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Had you been familiar with him, you would have known how effectively he has used these kinds of posts in the past. He knows the effect they have on the credibility of a blog. I would not be laughing if I were you. Unless of course you think DU doesn't want to be taken seriously as a political forum. GG and others like him throughout the Bush years very successfully destroyed the reputations of many rightwing boards where there was no shortage of these kinds of posts and a huge shortage of anything substantive.
You helped him make a point, not a flattering one to DU sadly, but if you feel that is amusing, you have a right to your opinion.
MineralMan
(151,162 posts)I stand my my statement. I'm quite familiar with Greenwald and his writings. I'm also familiar with some aspects of his past that do not encourage me one bit. I am not DU. I am one person, who writes on DU. My words and ideas are my own, and that's quite clear in every post I make.
My personal opinion, which is always expressed in my writings here, is that Greenwald is no asset to progressives. Rather, he is a divisive element who appears to wish to drive wedges between people who should be working together. In short, I believe he is an asshat. You may think he's wonderful, and that's your prerogative. I disagree.
Still, you're very kind to share your opinion with me.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I assume you are doing okay and there is no need for me to be concerned.
My concern is that GG linked to DU, a board that represents the Dem Party to demonstrate a point he made about the sorry state of political discourse and how low it has sunk on the 'left'. And it did not take much effort to find a perfect example.
My suggestion was, since this issue has come up before on other blogs when something like this has happened, that people refrain from using epithets in their subject lines especially if they are connected to a famous name. If you feel the need to call people names, you could do so in the body of the post, rather than in the subject line. For the sake of the Board and the rest of us who really do not want to be respresented by such childish behavior.
I understand that you feel you don't need to consider that. But you were not the recipient of the negative reaction by credible people whose opinions are valuable to a blog like this. DU was.
No one knows or cares who you are, to most people you are, like the rest of us, just one of hundreds of thousands of other anonymous posters on the internet flinging poo, an activity online that is as old as the internet. But blogs that do not want to be viewed as cesspools of the worst of the internet have taken pains to keep that kind of language out of their headlines so that they will be taken seriously.
Take it or leave it. If you don't care about DU's rep, sure you can do as you please. I would love to call a few people unprintable names, but it's not my blog and out of respect for those whose blog it is, I just have to control myself.
MineralMan
(151,162 posts)There is a difference. Each poster on DU is an individual, and what those individuals say in their posts reflects only on them, since those posts represent individual opinions. You needn't feel embarrassed by my posts. You make posts of your own.
You are correct that nobody knows or cares who I am. I don't expect them to. If I did, I'd be writing in another venue, and in another way, entirely. I'd also be using my actual name, rather than a screen name. Now, I don't aim for anonymity on DU. Since I know that nobody really cares who I am, or shouldn't, my identity is revealed in every post, should someone care to click one of the links in my signature line. Nobody bothers to do that much. When I look at the analytics of both of those URLs, I see that very few click-throughs come from here.
DU is a forum where people post their opinions about politics and other topics. I do that on DU. As far as I understand, that's the purpose of DU. As you say, there's no reason to be concerned about me. I'm doing OK, if not prospering. As long as that is the case, you can expect to find my opinions posted here. If they offend you in some way, you can easily not see those opinions.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts): a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer; also : the contents of such a site
A blog (a blend of the term web log)[1] is a type of website or part of a website supposed to be updated with new content from time to time. Blogs are usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Entries are commonly displayed in reverse-chronological order. Blog can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog.
Although not a must, most good quality blogs are interactive, allowing visitors to leave comments and even message each other via GUI widgets on the blogs and it is this interactivity that distinguishes them from other static websites.[2] In that sense, blogging can be seen as a form of social networking. Indeed, bloggers do not only produce content to post on their blogs but also build social relations with their readers and other bloggers.[3]
Many blogs provide commentary on a particular subject; others function as more personal online diaries; yet still others function more as online brand advertising of a particular individual or company. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, Web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability of readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs. Most blogs are primarily textual, although some focus on art (art blog), photographs (photoblog), videos (video blogging or vlogging), music (MP3 blog), and audio (podcasting). Microblogging is another type of blogging, featuring very short posts.
As of 16 February 2011, there were over 156 million public blogs in existence.
And here DU is mentioned specifically as a political blog:
Blogs are discussion boards.
As for anonymous blogging. I removed my personal information from the internet after being stalked by a predator and threatened with a visit from him. I do not get paid to blog and see no reason to have to deal with that kind of threat again or expose my family to dangers that are caused by my blogging. Women are targeted by online sexual predators at a far higher rate than men. I have met online friends personally so I am not entirely anonymous, but a lot safer than when I was not.
Your comments do not offend me, that would be difficult to do after ten years of the often toxic atmosphere of online political blogging. Surprise that grown adults behave the way they do sometimes, I suppose.
I see Glenn Greenwald received over 3,200 recs for his response to the nastiness aimed at him over the weekend. A record-breaking show of support for him. Normal recs are tops, 300 or so.
My advice to you was simply to say that name-calling tends to have the opposite effect of what is intended, as most people do not like it, especially when it is aimed at an individual who has earned respect even from those who disagree with him, and once again this is evidenced by the record-setting support GG received this week. DU though, didn't come off very well, nor did any of those who chose to be a negative part of it. And it reflected very badly on Democrats, making his point which I doubt was the intention, all of which is sad.
But to each their own. As you say, you are free to do as you wish.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Spazito
(55,403 posts)then, yes, I would say we disagree on the definition of the word.
One can state they are not endorsing something or someone but to then write an opinion piece with the positives of the something or someone complete with innumerable video clips showing the positives of the something or someone provides evidence there is endorsement occurring despite the protestations to the contrary, imo.
Mr. Greenwald stating he is NOT endorsing Ron Paul is all well and good but the material in his opinion piece contradicts his avowal in just about every way.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)You are literally saying that if you agree with a politician, ever or at least on a few points that you ENDORSE them.
I bet folks won't be declaring Greenwalds love of Obama if he highlights positions where he is superior to Paul and they shouldn't because it is stupid either way. Obama has some crappy positions and a handful where he let's a Lassiz Fare idiot run circles around him, instead of doing the right things for the right reasons he gives aid and comfort to someone arguably in the right places for all the wrong reasons by creating space for them to operate that you refuse to compete with.
Instead of worrying about this writer you should be moving Obama away from his stupid and anti-freedom positions which would kill the libertarian attraction in the crib.
Spazito
(55,403 posts)endorsing him I have no quibble. There is little measurable difference between the two inferences.
To me, it is not unlike the following:
Someone starts a conversation like this, "I do not endorse racism but...." and then goes on to spell out all the "positives" regarding Jim Crow, the 'good' reasons for the separation of the races, etc. with no mention of the negatives.
My take on that person is they DO endorse racism and are, in fact, racist.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Are people supposed to oppose what they believe depending on who else holds them? Or do they just have to cease advocating them when obstinate Democrats refuse to take the argument away from the otherwise absurd?
Spazito
(55,403 posts)It is interesting that the discussion regarding Mr. Greenwald's endorsement (support) of Ron Paul turns to more disparagement of Democrats and, as per your previous post, President Obama.
I am not into disparaging neither Democrats nor President Obama so I posit our conversation is at an end.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Greenwald could not have laid it out any more clearly.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I get the point Greenwald is trying to make, I really do. I have no time for partisan hypocrites who don't hold their own side to the same standards that they hold the opposition. That being said however the point I think Greenwald is missing here is that this is not just about Obama vs. Ron Paul, the real issue with Ron Paul is that he tries to fool people in to believing he is a peace candidate when in fact he is nothing of the sort. No true peace candidate would write a newsletter advocating the murder of black youth and giving tips on how to dispose the weapon without getting caught. While Ron Paul may say some great things once in a while he is the absolute last person I want representing the peace movement, sometimes the messenger damages the message and this is one of those cases.
While Greenwald is still one of my favorite writers and I think he does make a number of great points in this column, I really wish he would do more to confront Ron Paul's horrible positions and how these positions could actually damage the anti-war movement if he were ever considered to be one of the faces of that movement. My opposition to Ron Paul has nothing to do with Obama who I have also been quite critical of, to me it is not about Obama vs. Paul it is about justice vs. injustice and Ron Paul is on the side of injustice. I don't want him anywhere near the anti-war movement.
gulliver
(13,949 posts)I'm thinking Glenn may not actually be deluded or addicted to meth, despite appearances. He may just be pandering to those who are.
TomClash
(11,344 posts)Think they will get a better shake under Ron Paul's free market regime. Yeah, right. Good luck organizing. Union busting will reign supreme.
When poor folk get their services cut and real wages drop further, what do they do with their new libertarian life? Sell drugs?
Ron Paul's view of monetary policy is returning to the gold standard. Applying that today would make the Great Depression look like boom times. Does anyone really think that's better than Ben Bernanke's policy? Think again.
And I'm not even delving into the potty talk about jews and blacks.
I post a lot of Greenwald's articles here. I respect and agree with Greenwald when he lambasts Obama's foreign policy, but you have to swallow a lot just to begin to think about supporting Ron Paul. No thanks.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Or at least espouses to be and our guy is unapologetically wrong to his and our shame no matter how our guy is at least sane in areas where Paul is ideologically and/or personally in a corner.
Glenwald does not endorse Paul, he stands by his own positions which in those areas put him at odds with Obama. It can only be blamed on Obama that he allows Paul superiority is these areas, he is not in any apparent ideological or political bind, he is just wrong and seemingly knowingly wrong, intellectually.
Democrats are foolish to allow civil liberties to be owned by a bunch of anti-government zealots but too many support any and all government, bad included.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Yep.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)For fucks sake.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform — certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party — who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial.
No. Ron Paul is a little pipsqueak idiot Laissez-faire Libertarian whose ideas are detrimental to progressives and liberals alike. There is no commonality between what Ron Paul believes and what liberals and progressives believe. Ron Paul is a liar. He says he's anti-war, but he advocated sending mercenaries to kill Bin Laden, and would back any Banana Republic in the future under the guise of contract negotiation. That's what Laissez-faire means.
Any "commonality" you can find with Ron Paul and progressives is only on the surface, implementation and action are completely different animals, and Ron Paul is against progressivism in the end, full stop, on every single possible issue.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)populist campaign rhetoric but it is a fact that he does advocate them.
Nor does he claim that Paul is a progressive. You are arguing points never presented.
Rolling on the ground laughing!
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...is defending hollow populist campaign rhetoric.
It's just a shame you can't bridge the gap and realize that those views are incompatible with leftism when they are dissected. And it's deplorable that Greenwald apparently doesn't even understand that on a trivial level.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)He is stating an indisputable fact that Ron Paul is only candidate bringing giving these issues a national platform. Whether they are hollow campaign rhetoric is immaterial to the topic at hand (most campaign rhetoric is hollow). The meat of the matter is that these ideas are being expressed AT ALL.
Anti-drug war is utterly compatible with leftism.
Anti-surveillance is utterly compatible with leftism.
Anti-war is utterly compatible with leftism.
Again. That he may be insincere and hollow does not negate the fact that those ideas are being expressed.
Ideas that are not only important to the left but to the majority of U.S. citizens and that liberals have to look at that fact and face the reality that issues that they fought for or against during Bush's reign of terror are not only being largely unaddressed by the liberal establishment, but being expanded. And that, is the liberal's dilemma. That is the Faustian bargain.
That is GG's major point which he has defended and repeated over and over.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Ron Paul's anti-drug war views are only somewhat compatible with leftism (though he'd support drug cartels if they were done under the guise of "business" and no regulation).
Ron Paul's "anti-surveillance" views are completely incompatible with leftism (he doesn't believe in consumer protections and is completely behind businesses)
Ron Paul's "anti-war" view is incredibly opposed to leftism (he believes in contractor mercenaries which leads to a Banana Republic).
Ron Paul's views are not in large part compatible with the left. No how, no way.
These things can still be discussed, but Ron Paul is hardly a beacon of debate for this sort of thing.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)And candidate Paul is the creature that Greenwald is addressing. GG's focus on the rhetoric is very narrow because narrow is what is being expressed by the candidate. Now, in an electoral sophisticated world, candidate Paul would be challenged by the liberal establishment which purports to agree with the ends but not the methods to get there to explain the policy behind his advocacy.
But there will not be any such national dialog but rather nattering on internet discussion boards. There will be no such national dialog on these issues that are important to a near majority and the majority of U.S. citizens because the Democratic leadership agrees with the racist Drug Wars. It agrees with waging war. It agrees with expanded surveillance.
You said-
"These things can still be discussed, but Ron Paul is hardly a beacon of debate for this sort of thing."
Yes. And that is precisely Greenwald's point with the addition... not only CAN the be discussed but they SHOULD be discussed but if you notice they AREN'T being discussed and the only person who is bringing them up is an improbable person who is easily marginalized guaranteeing that these issues WON'T be discussed.
Still rolling on the floor laughing.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)And worrying about little poor Ron Paul is the least of progressive concerns.
Poor little GG having to come to poor Ron Paul's defense. Boo hoo.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)From any national platform from any candidate. He doesn't defend Paul the candidate but rather he is defending the inclusion of important civil rights issues in Presidential campaigns.
As GG points out, the GOP doesn't care that Paul is a racist homophobe. They care that his pro-civil rights rhetoric might resonate with voters.
Why the Democratic rank and file should expend so much energy on Paul is a mystery to me. They should leave the GOP to take care of him.
And then we can all go back and pretend that the racist drug war is unimportant. That bombing civilians with drones is a-okay. That spying on US citizens is normal.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)They're simply not the same fucking issue.
Why supposed "progressives" should expend so much energy on Paul is a mystery to me. They should leave the rest of Paul's mind bogglingly racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic, Homophobic fan club to take care of that.
Then we can all go back and pretend that drug cartels are appealing, that hiring mercenary contractors is a-OK. That allowing US citizens to be spied upon by corporations is normal.
Absolutely asinine.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Drug cartels are appealing, that hiring mercenary contractors is a-OK. That allowing US citizens to be spied upon by corporations is normal.
Absolutely normal. Rolling on the floor laughing.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)GG will make a few more pitiful posts about Paul and it'll be on to the next best thing. Wonder which right winger he'll post favorably about next.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)MichaelMcGuire
(1,684 posts)TomClash
(11,344 posts)You hit the mark. I have a hard time believing libertarians because, at long last, they will not hesitate an instant to use the enormous power of the State to protect wealth and property at all costs and by any means necessary.
That's not progressive in any sense.
I agree with some of what Paul says but only the policies I disagree with him on will ever see the light of day.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)So while it's not normal for me, I am not going to be reserved when it comes to his implicit deference to Ron Paul. It's over. Done. It's pure idiocy.
An continuous stream of Logical Fallacies, Personal Attacks, Evasions, Distortions, and Outright Fabrications
does NOT qualify as a "dissection".
At best, you can claim a 30+ minute Anonymous Opinionated Rant,
no matter HOW may little cartoon smilies you use.
Another FYI:
Most of us have been here long enough to know that when a poster overuses that particular cartoon smilie,
that particular poster is NOT really laughing,
but furiously hunched over their keyboard, angrily pounding away, trying unsuccessfully to divert focus from their failed arguments.
Like I said, FYI.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)If you disagree with those critics of Libertarianism then that's fine by me, but I'd appreciate a comprehensive counter, as opposed to diddling about without substance.
1) I'm not anonymous (unlike you and about 95% of DUers).
2) I wrote merely what people like Chomsky have been writing for decades.
3) I did not once personally attack anyone in my critique.
4) I did not evade, simply because there was no one who said I was wrong.
5) I did not fabricate, because everything I said is in line with Ron Paul's philosophy.
6) I did not distort, because everything I said is in line with Ron Paul's philosophy.
7) I did not use even one logical fallacy.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)You are wrong,
and every intelligent person who lives in the Real World agrees with me!
Hey. This "dissecting" stuff is EASY!
I should have tried this a long time ago!
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 31, 2011, 10:24 PM - Edit history (1)
that he campaigns on. He agrees with the campaign issues that are progressive but that it not his point. His point is that Paul is the only candidate airing these issues on a national level.
Critics of GG like to pretend otherwise but they are wrong.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)ranting in a news letter. Paul and I will vehemently disagree how to reach the end of the drug war but it is a fact that he is the only candidate talking about ending it at all.
I would heartily welcome a national dialog about the racist drug war and I would welcome a liberal champion that has the chops to take on Paul and counter his rhetoric with a substantive liberal agenda.
But, there won't be one because Democrats in Congress agree with the aims of the racist drug war. There will only be crickets and shrill screaming of lunatic at that little man in the room.
oops forgot to add...
Rolling on the floor laughing!
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...that businesses should be allowed to discriminate based upon drug use.
Meanwhile you slander Democrats when Democrats by in large are supportive of the legalization of marijuana:
Good old Barney Frank introduced HR 2306 to legalize marijuana: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-2306
Ron Paul followed.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)And I never said that democrats - small "d" (and the vast majority of the U.S.population) do not want to legalize pot.
Rolling on the floor laughing
I said that establishment Democrats DO continue the racist war on drugs and there is no national movement championed by Democratic leadership to cease the racist war on drugs.
In fact, the converse is true. Many Democrats, including this admin, continue to advocate and perpetuate the racist war on drugs.
.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)I couldn't have said it better. That's one of the biggest problems with libertarian philosophy. How would libertarians end corruption-caused problems if they oppose corruption fighting measures? Ron Paul can't ultimately end our war culture if the cause of our war culture is the corruption itself! Libertarianism is impossible on so many levels.
They haven't thought it all through, though of course, SOME libertarians do have their own ulterior motives.
We can't all agree with everything everybody believes in. We must make coalitions to solve each problem one at a time. Ron Paul is useful for fighting our war on drugs, our war culture, and in some civil liberty issues. We don't need to support his Presidency (or even like him as a person) to appreciate some of his messages.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Anyone who supports the Drug War IS a racist imho.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Mass-murder is the ultimate racism. That's racism brought to its final conclusion - nothing's worse. You still made a good point about our racist war on drugs policy that Obama supports.
I'm sure that the victims of our government's mass-murder would be far less hurt if they were only the victims of some very offensive newsletters from a couple decades ago. They would have the right to complain - but at least they would still be alive to complain.
Those may be the two worst criticisms of Paul and Obama from liberals. There are many more criticisms that could also be leveled at both of them by liberals. Supporting Ron Paul's outspoken criticisms of our government's extremely racist foreign policy is not endorsing everything that Ron Paul or libertarians support. Please stop with the selective memories and criticisms.
This shows how much the war-culture brain-washing infects our whole culture. People that are supposed to be liberals don't fully understand how evil our wars are and how important that there is someone who speaks out against wars.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)that are at least as antithetical to progressive policies as Paul's, and far more so in some cases. But Obama makes sure his anti-progressive positions can somehow be shoehorned into the mainstream. Paul's style is to advocate things that One Simply Does Not Say, like legalizing drugs, or not going to war somewhere. That's the reason some are glad he's around saying them -- no else will.
And then you've got the underlying crazy. The gold standard thing. And Paul is a hateful bigot, whatever his grandfatherly manners and present denunciations of all the crazy crap from his old newsletters.
And, of course, Paul has the luxury of just saying what he'd do, while Obama has to actually deal with the Senate and the public responding. If we were just comparing the talking game, I'd say Obama wins as a progressive hands down. Remember, this was the guy who wasn't going to prosecute medical marijuana, once upon a time.
Interesting, though. WOULD President Paul, (after distributing to all white male landowners their bags of gold dust with which to purchase groceries) end U.S. military aggression in the Middle East? Would he do something so egregious and repellent as sign a bill codifying Bush's illegal interpretation of the Constitution that says we're always at war, and therefore anyone can be thrown in a hole whenever the President says so?
Kind of funny, though, to see all the vicious, narrow-minded, partisan attacks, on the basis that Greenwald predicted vicious narrow-minded, partisan attacks. Guess there's some kind of anti-irony field around the site today.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Prepare to deploy Firm Grasp of the Obvious Deflector Shield.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)of Greenwald's charges in the OP. That's a pretty heinous list of accomplishments. No wonder they had to resort to attack, attack, attacking Greenwald.