Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Post proof of Glen Greenwald's scandalous lies here [View all]sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)34. He asked for proof of lies. What we are getting is the same old now long ago debunked
links for the nth time. Which is WHY he asked for proof in the first place.
Still waiting for an answer to the OPs question. Won't be holding my breath.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
50 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Thanks for the input. Unfortunately, none of it constitutes any proof of anything.
DisgustipatedinCA
Jun 2013
#12
If that mattered to the effect of propaganda upon discourse, there would be no Fox News. nt
patrice
Jun 2013
#26
It's beyond belief tht you would repost that list of links all of which have been successfully
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#32
The answers to your repetitive questions have also been posted many, many times.
baldguy
Jun 2013
#42
He asked for proof of lies. What we are getting is the same old now long ago debunked
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#34
I like it here just fine, being that I AM a Democrat. Got anything on actual substance to offer? I
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#41
You forgot Freeperville not that any of that is relevent to the current discussion
think
Jun 2013
#43
So you are siding with the Corp-Media on this? Shoot the messangers when it looks bad for
rhett o rick
Jun 2013
#23
People-power wins thru usable fact-based analysis and good goals -- not thru ideological purity
struggle4progress
Jun 2013
#27
You dont want facts. You want to disparage Snowden and ignore the facts related
rhett o rick
Jun 2013
#28
The OP invites discussion of Mr Greenwald, whom I dislike, more or less precisely because IMO
struggle4progress
Jun 2013
#30
You side with the Republicans. You side with Clapper and Mueller, both Republican liars. How
rhett o rick
Jun 2013
#31
You're blowing smoke out your ass: you can't produce a link showing I've praised either of them, and
struggle4progress
Jun 2013
#38
Good, I agree with that. Fact based being the operative words there. Documentation is key to
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#37
Please list the names of liquor store robbers that have been attacked by drone strikes.
baldguy
Jun 2013
#16
I'm talking about the oft-alleged lies of Greenwaldand not about liquor stores.
DisgustipatedinCA
Jun 2013
#17