General Discussion

OilemFirchen

(7,288 posts)

125. And in 2002. And in 2003. Including unwavering support for the Patriot Act.

Fri May 9, 2014, 11:19 PM

May 2014

It was only when he became the butt of the joke that he had a "revelation". Which revelation, BTW, was likely "Hey, I can make money AND establish some street cred by penning a screed similar to the vast numbers of books which preceded this. It's all the rage!".

Long before his awakening, and long before his Bush-adoration had finally waned, the majority of the public had turned. It took him a mere five years to utter a peep, while the rest of the world had been screaming at the top of their lungs.

Your perverted permutation of "he evolved" is no less laughable than the first time it was introduced in its simplest form. His politics were shit, he was shit, and his history is his legacy. One which, unsurprisingly, continues to this day.

Now then... I don't need to "exercise" shit. I have no "responsibility" on this board, other than to abide by the rules. And for you, of all people, to suggest that I "could inadvertently make people believe things that are clearly untrue" is the height of hypocrisy. In this case, I'd suggest you mind your own fucking business.

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:

Only AFTER the Iraq War became an unpopular clusterfuck did Greenwald begin to back away from Bush [View all] Cali_Democrat May 2014 OP

How DARE you discuss his actual history. jeff47 May 2014 #1

The question is why the obsession? Arent there better things to discuss? Like the TPP or rhett o rick May 2014 #35

why permit lies to perpetrated? Sheepshank May 2014 #68

So you are saving humanity from the lies of Greenwald? I doubt that you really believe that. nm rhett o rick May 2014 #94

humanity? condescending much? Sheepshank May 2014 #144

That's what I thought, you are saving us from ourselves. Talk about condescending. rhett o rick May 2014 #145

Ha ha ha...it's only "obsession" when the other guy does it, I guess. MADem May 2014 #100

Ha...Ha...Ha..to You, My Friend....GG isn't the "Man Behind the Curtain" KoKo May 2014 #108

Funny how that works, huh? One minute you're trashing others for a "cult of personality", Tarheel_Dem May 2014 #106

There is no stronger cult of personality here than the Emoprog Empire, OilemFirchen May 2014 #126

They are a goldmine, rich with delicious irony. Tarheel_Dem May 2014 #130

apparently he couldn't write before 2006 Whisp May 2014 #54

So, sort of like Sen's Kerry and Clinton? Scootaloo May 2014 #2

Where in my post did I say the Democratic party had its hands clean? Cali_Democrat May 2014 #4

Well, you're going after Greenwald for "jumping ship" when Iraq became a clusterfuck Scootaloo May 2014 #6

By that logic, from this moment on you are forbidden to post anything ... 11 Bravo May 2014 #15

First, look up what "logic" means. You're misusing hte word Scootaloo May 2014 #22

Another semantic bullshit artist. When their foolishness is pointed out ... 11 Bravo May 2014 #42

No, I ask for consistency Scootaloo May 2014 #47

I'll give this one more shot. You are free to ask all the questions you wish. 11 Bravo May 2014 #63

your principles are like the leaves on a tree, ronnie624 May 2014 #133

Ahh, another internet shrink. You know me so well for having never met me. 11 Bravo May 2014 #140

You have posted more than 17,000 comments here, lol. ronnie624 May 2014 #142

Well, you've got me there. You claim to have read many of my posts, but ... 11 Bravo May 2014 #143

It's cool because those others aren't saying bad things about daddy ...er .. I mean Barack Obama. GoneFishin May 2014 #90

You're misstating Kerry's position. blm May 2014 #111

No, ProSense May 2014 #5

The Greenwald faction will do and say anything alcibiades_mystery May 2014 #7

Isn't it clear ProSense May 2014 #9

Well said.. very "tedious". Cha May 2014 #36

Exactly! Andy823 May 2014 #46

This ^ ^ ^ Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2014 #57

well stated Thinkingabout May 2014 #58

Well said! Spazito May 2014 #79

Thank You!!!! Stellar May 2014 #86

!!! Tarheel_Dem May 2014 #118

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

Yet he voted for the Iraq War Resolution Scootaloo May 2014 #8

Yet you're using him to excuse Greenwald. n/t ProSense May 2014 #10

No, I'm saying "don't pretend Democrats are paragons on Iraq" Scootaloo May 2014 #13

The OP mentioned Obama, ProSense May 2014 #16

The OP calls out greenwald for doing the same thing most Democrats did Scootaloo May 2014 #19

No, it doesn't. There is no collective mention of "Democrats" in the OP. n/t ProSense May 2014 #20

Yes, it does. Greenwald's very naughty for being against the war after he was for it. Scootaloo May 2014 #26

No, it doesn't. Your point is a red herring. n/t ProSense May 2014 #29

You seem desperate to avoid a topic of ethical standards and internal consistency Scootaloo May 2014 #33

The only ProSense May 2014 #34

And good for Obama Scootaloo May 2014 #37

What? ProSense May 2014 #40

You keep thinkin i'm defending Greenwald Scootaloo May 2014 #43

So ProSense May 2014 #49

"why do you have a problem with that?" Scootaloo May 2014 #62

So you agree with the point, but are ProSense May 2014 #65

Post removed Post removed May 2014 #76

Stop trying to deflect from the OP. This is all about an inability to stomach criticism of Greenwald ProSense May 2014 #78

Post removed Post removed May 2014 #82

Exactly. Poor Greenwald can't take it and neither can his fans. But, they're right there Cha May 2014 #121

Barack Obama did not vote for the Iraq War Resolution. ucrdem May 2014 #98

Neither of those two said anything REMOTELY like this: OilemFirchen May 2014 #51

But they did vote for the war in question Scootaloo May 2014 #66

Four years earlier. OilemFirchen May 2014 #75

That's Greenwald in 2006 talking about how he felt in 2001. DisgustipatedinCA May 2014 #120

And in 2002. And in 2003. Including unwavering support for the Patriot Act. OilemFirchen May 2014 #125

You're factually incorrect. DisgustipatedinCA May 2014 #127

Rage? OilemFirchen May 2014 #128

Safe to assume. There it is. DisgustipatedinCA May 2014 #136

that's pretty much the case alrighty stupidicus May 2014 #71

I can be more trusting of a person who has the wisdom to change an opinion KoKo May 2014 #3

His troubling unethical behavior as an attorney is shocking as well. MohRokTah May 2014 #11

His bigotry towards immigrants indicates geek tragedy May 2014 #17

Same clanging gong jollyreaper2112 May 2014 #12

Its as tiresome as the Repugs screaming "Bengazi" bahrbearian May 2014 #28

He was also a Tom Tancredo- style xenophobe. geek tragedy May 2014 #14

Greenwald was a nobody when he supported the Iraq War cpwm17 May 2014 #18

The obsessive trashing of Greenwald is impressive, though not in a good way. Comrade Grumpy May 2014 #21

Not as "impressive" as the "obsessive" defense of Greenwald. ProSense May 2014 #25

It depends on the meaning of 'horrifying'. randome May 2014 #31

Well, no, you're factually wrong DisgustipatedinCA May 2014 #23

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #24

Not sure what you mean by debunked. maddezmom May 2014 #32

Greenwald is just another Beck or Limbaugh Progressive dog May 2014 #27

"He is selling his brand of hatred without regard to truth." Agreed. Cha May 2014 #38

You are attacking Greenwald for standing WITH the Democratic Party Leadership bvar22 May 2014 #30

Are you trying to interject sense in this hate swarm? Seems like at least two per day. rhett o rick May 2014 #39

Some things come and go...and some things remain consistent...BUT... KoKo May 2014 #44

They will continue to disparage Greenwald and Snowden until the next victim comes along. rhett o rick May 2014 #129

Is that ProSense May 2014 #45

That rationalization is as twisted as the post you are attempting to defend. bvar22 May 2014 #53

The only thing "twisted" is trying to defend your leave-Greenwald-alone "rationalization" ProSense May 2014 #59

I'll stick with "twisted", bvar22 May 2014 #67

More ProSense May 2014 #70

Yep. bvar22 May 2014 #72

Someone is projecting. ProSense May 2014 #73

Prosense, you are responding to someone using a Manny Goldstein push poll as "proof" of... Number23 May 2014 #56

LOL! n/t ProSense May 2014 #74

The only "argument" more bizarre is the insistence that somehow, the Pulitzer win is troubling Number23 May 2014 #88

C'mon. That's the bestest poll on the internets! OilemFirchen May 2014 #77

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

Oh hell. My cat just threw up a hairball. OilemFirchen May 2014 #83

LOL, when I saw that poll in the post, I laughed so hard, I swear I almost broke a rib! Spazito May 2014 #91

I know. Even though sometimes I feel bad laughing, I can't help it Number23 May 2014 #97

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

Which way is the wind blowing today? Hahahaha!!! Major Hogwash May 2014 #41

So when did Hillary Clinton withdraw her support for that illegal war? n/t malaise May 2014 #48

So what? Logic demands tht everyone consider this: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque truedelphi May 2014 #50

removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan??? WHEN the EFF did Bush to that? benld74 May 2014 #55

Greenwald's superior intellect seems to think so Whisp May 2014 #60

Um, he means removal as the government of Afghanistan. Hissyspit May 2014 #85

I'm sure he is grateful for your interpretative skills Whisp May 2014 #116

Tell me something. Hissyspit May 2014 #123

No it doesn't make sense. But he has a history of doing that. Whisp May 2014 #124

It's only "stupid" Hissyspit May 2014 #138

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

If your posts are ignored whatchamacallit May 2014 #96

And this is relevant, how? davekriss May 2014 #64

It's a strange and unhealthy obsession you have. morningfog May 2014 #69

Christopher Hitchens? Andrew Sullivan? come to mind. YOHABLO May 2014 #80

What a pile of shit OP this is. Hissyspit May 2014 #84

Well it is much better than the OP you rec'd which was a response to mine Cali_Democrat May 2014 #89

The OP was accurate, more so than yours. Hissyspit May 2014 #93

The admins did a great thing.... Cali_Democrat May 2014 #99

So what was wrong in the OP that got deleted? Hissyspit May 2014 #102

Good for you!!! Cali_Democrat May 2014 #107

What was inaccurate in that OP? Hissyspit May 2014 #109

Look at the second sentence in that OP.... Cali_Democrat May 2014 #110

So, nothing? Hissyspit May 2014 #113

Yup. The post you rec'd and referred to as "accurate" is now non-existent... Cali_Democrat May 2014 #117

Did you even read it? Hissyspit May 2014 #119

"It was an accurate debunking of your post" Cali_Democrat May 2014 #122

Prove yours was the better OP. Hissyspit May 2014 #137

I already did. nt Cali_Democrat May 2014 #139

So if what Glenn Greenwald thinks about a subject is critical to which side you fall on, GoneFishin May 2014 #87

Could you point me to any available links Crunchy Frog May 2014 #92

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

Does he still "report" on the NSA? OilemFirchen May 2014 #103

Funny, really, you're using a carefully limited excerpt from his book titled, scarletwoman May 2014 #101

Indeed! KoKo May 2014 #115

Thanks for the post. ronnie624 May 2014 #134

I keep telling you guys, "asshole" doesn't even begin to describe it. Tarheel_Dem May 2014 #105

tells you all you need to know greenman3610 May 2014 #112

About Greenwald, or the original poster? Hissyspit May 2014 #114

It's a remarkable thing, it is. OilemFirchen May 2014 #131

Assholes ... slipslidingaway May 2014 #132

So NSA Overreach Riftaxe May 2014 #135

DU rec... SidDithers May 2014 #141