Post here to admit you were wrong about Snowden and NSA

[UTUSN]

104. Since this thread is back p.1, I'll respond

I've only participated in the SNOWDEN/GREENWALD furor threads in a tip-of-the-iceberg way and haven't seen your DU-handle there at that summit, & don't expect anybody to know every DU member's peculiar policy position on everything, but your points (and rhetorical techniques) in your post #58 have been hammered endlessly.

"It isn't about Snowden"/GREENWALD. From the beginning, for me, it was totally about them. Their "revelations" were lacking in the relevatory department, which speaks to "All Snowden did was open the door. Did you want the door to stay closed?" - ho hum.

As for calling SNOWDEN/GREENWALD's personal history "propaganda," biographical facts CAN be, perhaps even OFTEN are, but for me the suspect behaviors and history of these two just trigger my intuitive red flag, as in "something does not compute." Something about both of them being histrionic and running and cashing in (GREENWALD, so far) with book and notoriety. End of "points".

On to the rhetorical gambits: SNOWDEN/GREENWALDaders appear to exhibit a strong desire to BE RIGHT. Many of them vociferously ATTACK those who DISAGREE (read, "have a different OPINION&quot , using loaded language. In your #58 you frame it as a enemy-against-enemy issue ("ANTI-snowden&quot , and dismiss anything and everything the opposing side says as "propaganda." In most of the furor, you all have flung the word "authoritarian" at those who disagree, name-calling all the time. I haven't read this thread, but saw one of those agreeing with you, downthread, saying, "Nothing will convince THOSE FUCKERS." Ever heard of attracting with honey instead of dousing with acid?!1 Although in my case with this issue and its cast of characters, I will not be swayed, so there's that, yet I have never personally attacked or name-called my fellow DUers in any disagreement. I *have* described their behaviors.

I will note that this form of contentiousness is not new, its being identical to that of Hugo CHAVEZ supporters. (I'm DESCRIBING!1) Notice in the second quote below how GREENWALD poses himself as the victim of ad hominem, while he is defined in his history of personally lashing out with ad hominem against anybody who has ever disagreed or criticized him.


*********QUOTE********

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023225969

[font size=5]If I could interrupt for a moment, how about... the Hate Mailbag![/font]

(by EarlG, DU Administrator)

[FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]Democratic Underground may be a contentious place at the moment, but thank goodness there are some common truths which still bring us together[/FONT] after all these years. For example, I think we can all agree that no matter which side of the Snowden vs. Obama debate you come down on, you're a right-wing ratfucking paid-to-post shill. Amirite?!?!

Anyway, [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]if you've been spending a little too much time scrapping with your fellow progressives[/FONT] in the DU bubble lately it may have slipped your mind that [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]there are real right-wing assholes out there who wish for nothing more than to see us all crucified and burned[/FONT] at the stake simultaneously. (Which I've got to admit would make for a pretty sweet heavy metal album cover).

So here's the Hate Mailbag to give you a taste of [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]what conservatives are saying out there in the real world[/FONT], sprinkled with a dash of good old-fashioned WTF. Enjoy!




http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

[font size=5]Frequently Told Lies (FTLs)[/font]

by Glenn GREENWALD

.... I'm a right-wing libertarian
Ever since I began writing about politics back in 2005, people have tried to apply pretty much every political [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]label[/FONT] to me. It’s almost always [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]a shorthand method to discredit someone without having to engage the substance[/FONT] of their arguments. It’s the classic [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]ad hominem[/FONT] fallacy: you don’t need to listen to or deal with his arguments because he’s an X. ....

*************UNQUOTE*************