Wow, Greenwald in a new light

[BlueCaliDem]

81. You are supporting

him on DU, just as I've pointed out, so whether or not you support him in private and with your vote is not relevant. Reread your own post. Your defense of Ron Paul and GG means you support their p.o.v. If that isn't the case, I missed the sarcasm icon in your post.

No one says you have to march in lockstep. Everyone has his/her own opinion and as a Progressive I'd be the last person to deny anyone that right.

But when the Left's passion for kvetching shifts power in government to more rightwing control and it affects me and my family personally, it becomes seriously self-defeating of my progressive principles and hopes for this country, and it upsets me.

Greenwald has so keenly hidden his true agenda from the less astute. The fact he praises Bush the lesser, is "keeping an eye on Gary Johnson", a two-term rightwing Republican Governor of New Mexico, and misrepresents President Obama's speeches and policies, should be the red flags that wake you up. And if you really want to get to know this brilliant strategist and Ron Paul/Gary Johnson Republican propagandist posing as a progressive, you need to read this analysis: http://rootedcosmopolitan.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/glenn-greenwald-neither-a-liberal-nor-a-progressive/

As for Ron Paul NO PROGRESSIVE should ever support or defend him. Period. He's not worth a Progressive's defense with his proven racism as the deal breaker. According to Bill White, a prominent member of the American Nazi Party, Paul and his congressional staffers use to meet regularly with him and others on the racial right at a Thai restaurant in Alexandria.

And a few years ago, Gollum Paul held a congressional hearing on economics which may have gone well with the exception that the economic expert he invited had extensive ties to white supremacists organizations.

He's a racist and being openly racist - which ties in with his hatred for the Civil Rights Act - should be the No. 1 deal breaker why Democrats should denounce not defend him. Period. Unless, of course, they secretly agree with him.

As for your question, I didn't answer it because it wasn't serious nor educated. You're conveniently forgetting one major detail here . . . had Bush not been pResident - thanks to a lot of kvetching by other prominent Liberals like Michael Moore and Nader supporters - and had he not invaded the M.E. and stirred this hornet's nest, do you actually believe his successor, President Obama, would've?

That's all you need to ask to see why I didn't take your query seriously.