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: Only AFTER the Iraq War became an unpopular clusterfuck did Greenwald begin to back away from Bush [View all]geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)14. He was also a Tom Tancredo- style xenophobe.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/yelling-racist-as-argument-in.html?m=
So, theres Willis' self-satisfied decree, in its vapid entirety. According to Willis (and many of Drum's commentators, if not Drum himself), anyone who believes that its important for a nation to be comprised of citizens who have at least some joint national allegiance and a minimal common foundation -- never mind a common language in which they can communicate with one another -- is a White Supremacist bigot.
Leave aside the political stupidity of labeling as bigots and racists a huge portion of the electorate which is becoming increasingly concerned about illegal immigration and which agrees with Tancredos sentiments. More important than the political self-destruction, Willis cheap name-calling -- a crude tactic wielded by many like him -- is substantively vacuous.
...
Current illegal immigration whereby unmanageably endless hordes of people pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate, and who consequently have no need, motivation or ability to assimilate renders impossible the preservation of any national identity. That is so for reasons having nothing whatever to do with the skin color or origin of the immigrants and everything to do with the fact that what we end up with are segregated groups of people with allegiences to their enclaves, an inability to communicate, cultural perspectives incompatible with prevailing American culture, and absolutely nothing to bind them in any way to what we know as the United States.
There are ways to have the debate about what to do about this growing problem, and there are even reasonable grounds for disagreeing with the view that illegal immigration is a serious problem either generally or in terms of its impact on a common "national identity."
But if the approach of pro-illegal-immigration advocates is going to be to follow the example of people like Willis and Drum's commentators and simply scream "racist" at anyone who expresses concerns about the impact of the vast numbers of illegal immigrants pouring into the United States, then their loss in this debate will be as inevitable as it will be well-deserved.
Leave aside the political stupidity of labeling as bigots and racists a huge portion of the electorate which is becoming increasingly concerned about illegal immigration and which agrees with Tancredos sentiments. More important than the political self-destruction, Willis cheap name-calling -- a crude tactic wielded by many like him -- is substantively vacuous.
...
Current illegal immigration whereby unmanageably endless hordes of people pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate, and who consequently have no need, motivation or ability to assimilate renders impossible the preservation of any national identity. That is so for reasons having nothing whatever to do with the skin color or origin of the immigrants and everything to do with the fact that what we end up with are segregated groups of people with allegiences to their enclaves, an inability to communicate, cultural perspectives incompatible with prevailing American culture, and absolutely nothing to bind them in any way to what we know as the United States.
There are ways to have the debate about what to do about this growing problem, and there are even reasonable grounds for disagreeing with the view that illegal immigration is a serious problem either generally or in terms of its impact on a common "national identity."
But if the approach of pro-illegal-immigration advocates is going to be to follow the example of people like Willis and Drum's commentators and simply scream "racist" at anyone who expresses concerns about the impact of the vast numbers of illegal immigrants pouring into the United States, then their loss in this debate will be as inevitable as it will be well-deserved.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
145 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
Only AFTER the Iraq War became an unpopular clusterfuck did Greenwald begin to back away from Bush [View all]
Cali_Democrat
May 2014
OP
The question is why the obsession? Arent there better things to discuss? Like the TPP or
rhett o rick
May 2014
#35
So you are saving humanity from the lies of Greenwald? I doubt that you really believe that. nm
rhett o rick
May 2014
#94
That's what I thought, you are saving us from ourselves. Talk about condescending.
rhett o rick
May 2014
#145
Funny how that works, huh? One minute you're trashing others for a "cult of personality",
Tarheel_Dem
May 2014
#106
Well, you're going after Greenwald for "jumping ship" when Iraq became a clusterfuck
Scootaloo
May 2014
#6
It's cool because those others aren't saying bad things about daddy ...er .. I mean Barack Obama.
GoneFishin
May 2014
#90
Oh my God. You win the Internet. That was a sorely needed smack on the ass that was just too precise
Number23
May 2014
#52
Yes, it does. Greenwald's very naughty for being against the war after he was for it.
Scootaloo
May 2014
#26
You seem desperate to avoid a topic of ethical standards and internal consistency
Scootaloo
May 2014
#33
Stop trying to deflect from the OP. This is all about an inability to stomach criticism of Greenwald
ProSense
May 2014
#78
Exactly. Poor Greenwald can't take it and neither can his fans. But, they're right there
Cha
May 2014
#121
And in 2002. And in 2003. Including unwavering support for the Patriot Act.
OilemFirchen
May 2014
#125
The obsessive trashing of Greenwald is impressive, though not in a good way.
Comrade Grumpy
May 2014
#21
Are you trying to interject sense in this hate swarm? Seems like at least two per day.
rhett o rick
May 2014
#39
They will continue to disparage Greenwald and Snowden until the next victim comes along.
rhett o rick
May 2014
#129
The only thing "twisted" is trying to defend your leave-Greenwald-alone "rationalization"
ProSense
May 2014
#59
Prosense, you are responding to someone using a Manny Goldstein push poll as "proof" of...
Number23
May 2014
#56
The only "argument" more bizarre is the insistence that somehow, the Pulitzer win is troubling
Number23
May 2014
#88
Really?? I'll give it a go... 100% of the people sitting in my chair right now think that poll is
Number23
May 2014
#81
LOL, when I saw that poll in the post, I laughed so hard, I swear I almost broke a rib!
Spazito
May 2014
#91
You are right, laughter is a gift and on DU, at times, it is a gift that just keeps on giving!
Spazito
May 2014
#104
That puts him a lot of steps ahead of Hillary and Kerry and the other politicians who voted for it.
Tierra_y_Libertad
May 2014
#61
Well it is much better than the OP you rec'd which was a response to mine
Cali_Democrat
May 2014
#89
Yup. The post you rec'd and referred to as "accurate" is now non-existent...
Cali_Democrat
May 2014
#117
So if what Glenn Greenwald thinks about a subject is critical to which side you fall on,
GoneFishin
May 2014
#87
I don't care if he is a turd from Satan's spawn's ass. Keeping on reporting on the NSA Glenn.
GoneFishin
May 2014
#95
Funny, really, you're using a carefully limited excerpt from his book titled,
scarletwoman
May 2014
#101