HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Greenwald: The Authoritar...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:15 PM

Greenwald: The Authoritarian Mind

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/09/the_authoritarian_mind/singleton/

The Authoritarian Mind
VIDEO
By Glenn Greenwald

Hollywood producer and director Davis Guggeinheim just produced a 17-minute “documentary” hailing the greatness of Barack Obama and his many historic and profound accomplishments, and it will be released this week by the Obama campaign. Please just watch this two-minute interview of Guggenheim by CNN’s Piers Morgan in which Guggenheim explains that nothing critical can or should be said of our President other than the fact that he is so Great that his Greatness cannot be sufficiently conveyed in a single film (via VastLeft); other than noting the obvious — how creepy his Leader worship is and how perfect of a guest-host he’d be for several MSNBC shows — all I can say is that this is the pure face of the Authoritarian Mind, but it is as common as it is repellent:

&feature=player_embedded

80 replies, 7559 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 80 replies Author Time Post
Reply Greenwald: The Authoritarian Mind (Original post)
Karmadillo Mar 2012 OP
Johnny Rico Mar 2012 #1
Luminous Animal Mar 2012 #28
Johnny Rico Mar 2012 #31
Occulus Mar 2012 #40
Luminous Animal Mar 2012 #42
FarLeftFist Mar 2012 #60
Odin2005 Mar 2012 #35
Johnny Rico Mar 2012 #47
Odin2005 Mar 2012 #53
Johnny Rico Mar 2012 #59
Odin2005 Mar 2012 #62
Johnny Rico Mar 2012 #63
Odin2005 Mar 2012 #64
Johnny Rico Mar 2012 #65
JackRiddler Mar 2012 #72
Johnny Rico Mar 2012 #76
JackRiddler Mar 2012 #77
Johnny Rico Mar 2012 #78
JackRiddler Mar 2012 #79
Johnny Rico Mar 2012 #80
JackRiddler Mar 2012 #71
Johnny Rico Mar 2012 #75
JackRiddler Mar 2012 #67
Johnny Rico Mar 2012 #70
Whisp Mar 2012 #2
ProSense Mar 2012 #5
ProSense Mar 2012 #3
LoZoccolo Mar 2012 #4
AtomicKitten Mar 2012 #9
LoZoccolo Mar 2012 #14
Luminous Animal Mar 2012 #37
girl gone mad Mar 2012 #48
joshcryer Mar 2012 #57
arely staircase Mar 2012 #26
Dokkie Mar 2012 #6
SidDithers Mar 2012 #7
Luminous Animal Mar 2012 #20
DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #29
AtomicKitten Mar 2012 #8
Better Believe It Mar 2012 #10
SidDithers Mar 2012 #12
LoZoccolo Mar 2012 #17
Luminous Animal Mar 2012 #24
SidDithers Mar 2012 #30
AtomicKitten Mar 2012 #36
Luminous Animal Mar 2012 #50
Ikonoklast Mar 2012 #68
sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #44
AtomicKitten Mar 2012 #13
Better Believe It Mar 2012 #16
Bobbie Jo Mar 2012 #18
Better Believe It Mar 2012 #19
Bobbie Jo Mar 2012 #21
Better Believe It Mar 2012 #23
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply ?
Bobbie Jo Mar 2012 #25
JackRiddler Mar 2012 #66
Bobbie Jo Mar 2012 #74
Occulus Mar 2012 #41
JoePhilly Mar 2012 #55
FSogol Mar 2012 #51
One of the 99 Mar 2012 #52
Poll_Blind Mar 2012 #11
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2012 #15
Smarmie Doofus Mar 2012 #22
frazzled Mar 2012 #27
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #32
SidDithers Mar 2012 #33
mick063 Mar 2012 #43
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #45
girl gone mad Mar 2012 #61
joshcryer Mar 2012 #56
Whisp Mar 2012 #34
Robb Mar 2012 #38
Trillo Mar 2012 #39
girl gone mad Mar 2012 #49
Trillo Mar 2012 #58
Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #46
joshcryer Mar 2012 #54
woo me with science Mar 2012 #69
gulliver Mar 2012 #73

Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:19 PM

1. Heinlein on Authority:

 

“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:27 PM

28. Nice quote from a libertarian conservative who believed in a global government run by the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #28)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:43 PM

31. Actually, the government in "Starship Troopers" *wasn't* run by the military.

 

At least not in the book. To be able to vote, you had to serve either in the military or in some other Federal (but non-military) service.

And in any case, he only used this idea in one novel out of dozens...so to say that Heinlein "believed" in this idea is silly at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #28)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 05:48 PM

40. oooops

Nevermind

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #40)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 05:51 PM

42. No but I read his interview in which he stated that his beliefs were close to those of Ayn Rand's.

Essentially, he was a Norquist libertarian republican who believed in a very small government with law and military enforcement its primary responsibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #42)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:18 AM

60. "HOW CREEPY HIS WORSHIP IS". Glenn, HEAL THYSELF! Greenwald literally has Obama Derangement Syndrome

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:56 PM

35. Heinlin was a Libertarian dickwad.

His crappy pulp sci-fi is a perfect example of the stereotype of Libertarians being man-children with the emotional maturity of a 12yo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #35)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 06:27 PM

47. Well golly...do you think if I start reading better quality works I'll get beyond the 12yo level?

 

Then I'll understand mature, high-falutin' words like "dickwad"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #47)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 09:03 PM

53. Yeah, like Ursula LeGuin, Clark, Asimov, KS Robinson...

...I could give you a while list of sci-fi authors that are better than Heinlein, he is one of the most overrated authors, IMO. The only one of his works I thought was good was Stranger in A Strange Land, most of the rest is the kind of stuff wingnut Militia Teabagger types jerk off to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #53)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:09 AM

59. I've always considered "Stranger In A Strange Land" one of his lesser works, in spite of

 

how much publicity it's gotten.

As for your recommendations, I do rather like Clarke and Asimov (though their politics were naive). LeGuin writes well but doesn't interest me, and I can't stand KS Robinson.

I can highly recommend Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Stephen Baxter, Heinlein (naturally), Ben Bova, David Brin, Lois McMaster Bujold, Alan Dean Foster, Robert L Forward, S M Stirling, and Harry Turtledove.

Just to name a few.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #59)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:57 AM

62. I love Brin's "Uplift" books

I also love Niven, I've read his Ringworld books and will soon read his "Smoke Ring" books.

I adore Frank Herbert's "Dune" books, they are some of the best fiction ever written, period.

Marion Zimmer Bradley's "Darkover" books are excellent classics, but are hard to find, I only discovered them because they were donated to the thrift store I work at. They are her early works before she wrote Mists of Avalon.

Anne McCaffrey, who passed away recently, is similar to Bradley in having a fantastic element in her sci-fi. Many of the stories involve people using ESP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #62)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:06 AM

63. Niven's "Smoke Ring" books are very good.

 

Trivia: They're set in the same universe (not Known Space) as his earlier novel, "A World Out Of Time" (also well worth reading).

I've read "Dune" but didn't particularly like it. Haven't tried Marion Zimmer Bradley, and got bored with McCaffrey.

I'm more of a fan of medium to hard SF (with alternate history thrown in).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #63)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:32 AM

64. I like hard sci-fi with the caveat...

...that a don't mind small bits of handwavium like assuming warp drives or artificial wormholes are possible, or the different "spaces" in the Uplift books.

I like the medium stuff as well as long as it does not get too loose on the facts.

Space Opera makes me gag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #64)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 11:48 AM

65. I'm reminded of the recent "Mundane Science Fiction" Manifesto.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundane_science_fiction

Mundane science fiction is a sub-genre of science fiction, similar to hard science fiction, which is characterized by its setting on Earth or within the solar system, and a lack of interstellar travel or contact with aliens.

The Mundane SF movement, inspired by an idea of Julian Todd, was founded in 2002 during the Clarion workshop by novelist Geoff Ryman among others. It focuses on stories set on or near the Earth, with a believable use of technology and science as it exists at the time the story is written.

The central ideas are:

That interstellar travel remains unlikely; that warp drives, worm holes, and other forms of faster-than-light travel are wish fulfillment fantasies rather than serious speculation about a possible future.
That unfounded speculation about interstellar travel can lead to an illusion of a universe abundant with worlds as hospitable to life as this Earth. This is also viewed as unlikely.
That this dream of abundance can encourage a wasteful attitude to the abundance that is here on Earth.
That there is no evidence whatsoever of intelligences elsewhere in the universe. That absence of evidence is not evidence of absence -- however, it is considered unlikely that alien intelligences will overcome the physical constraints on interstellar travel any better than we can.
That interstellar trade (and colonization, war, federations, etc.) is therefore highly unlikely.
That communication with alien intelligences over such vast distances will be vexed by: the enormous time lag in exchange of messages and the likelihood of enormous and probably currently unimaginable differences between us and aliens.
That there is no present evidence whatsoever that quantum uncertainty has any effect at the macro level and that therefore it is highly unlikely that there are whole alternative universes to be visited.
That therefore our most likely future is on this planet and within this solar system, and that it is highly unlikely that intelligent life survives elsewhere in this solar system. Any contact with aliens is likely to be tenuous, and unprofitable.
That the most likely future is one in which we only have ourselves and this planet.


The only problem I have with mundane SF is that (on average, anyway) it simply isn't as fun to read as more "conventional" SF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #65)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:45 PM

72. Basically I agree with the idea of "Mundane Science Fiction"

Last edited Sun Mar 11, 2012, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)

although in some ways it's like the death of a god to accept it. A kind of planetary sobering up. Also, it means Mad Max is a lot likelier than Star Trek (by a factor in the quadrillions).

I think the time will come when large round arks are built, or whole asteroids are turned into expeditionary craft and sent on their way with a few hundred colonists (and rafts full of DNA for clones) to take trips over several thousand years to likely candidate planets, like Kepler, and establish colonies there. Given many millennia, thousands of such projects can be launched. Given a few million years (peanuts in space-time), the human bubble can spread out over a larger swath of this galaxy.

Ah, scratch that.

Because you know it ain't going to be humans. It's going to be our fucking machine successors. They can potentially take such conditions for thousands of years and arrive ready to build more of themselves and colonize (god help any species that might be on the target planet). We can't.

If only it was as easy as the Jaunte in Stars My Destination, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #72)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 03:31 PM

76. One rather depressing scenario:

 

Let's suppose the civilization completely collapses, but humanity hangs on. Doesn't particularly matter why; nuclear war, peak oil, an asteroid strike, superplague...whatever. It's now 25,000 years later, and we're rebuilding technology.

But there's a problem.

All the easily accessible oil fields and deposits of minerals have already been, well...accessed. Sure, we can extract oil from shale in commercially useful amounts today, but that's with 21st Century technology. The same goes for other resources as well. There's millennia worth of resources in the asteroid belt, but if we can't climb from an 18th Century technology base to the 21st technology necessary to exploit them we might be stuck at a 1700s level of technology indefinitely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #76)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 03:48 PM

77. Such a complete wipeout is unlikely.

They'll have access to a lot of know-how, and it will be decipherable. They'd gradually implement renewables; at a much slower pace than we can manage today, of course (where the conversion could happen in a mere 30 or 40 years). And that's assuming no breakthroughs that put us well past the need for hydrocarbons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #77)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 04:10 PM

78. Unlikely, yes...but not impossible.

 

I can think of all sorts of scenarios in which humanity is reduced to the stone age. In such cases, there would be virtually no access to the the knowledge of "the Ancients".

And we're not just speaking of hydrocarbons, but mineral resources as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #78)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 08:23 PM

79. Nope, not impossible.

It would take a really big disaster: asteroids, nuclear war, that kind of thing.

Please don't take the following statement as normative, or prescriptive: a "mere" wipeout of most of the population and a set-back of the civilization for a while would, in fact, leave plenty of hydrocarbons for a reduced population to later rebuild - assuming they were more intelligent about it on the second go-around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #79)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 08:36 PM

80. Well, I don't see any reason to think that humans would act any differently in Civilization 2.0.

 

As I consider it, I suppose there are still untapped hydrocarbons that are relatively easy to extract...but what if our hypothetical mega-disaster takes place in 2100 or even later? Surely all the easy-to-get deposits will have been extracted by then.

Or maybe not...fun speculation in any case. I've always had a soft spot for post-apocalypse stories. Offhand, I can't think of any SF I've read that's dealt with this specific theme other than some short stories by Stephen Baxter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #64)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:38 PM

71. I don't mind warp drive.

It's the Newtonian universe assumed when the post-Einsteinian FTL travelers return to where they started and it's still the same year there. Or when they communicate in simultaneity with all other points in the universe, as though there is a single "now" frame for the whole thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #71)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 03:13 PM

75. Stephen Baxter gets deeply into this in a number of his "Xeelee" books

 

In which any FTL ship is by definition a time machine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #59)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:47 PM

67. Delaney is King of the Heap

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #67)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:57 PM

70. Delaney? Well...to each their own!

 

Not my cup of tea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:30 PM

2. morgan has always been an asshole

 

and defines that in this interview.

I'm sure he would be much kinder to a Ron Paul supporter, right Glenn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:38 PM

5. Greenwald

is directing his supporters favorably to a GOP created clip, and they will rec it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:35 PM

3. Interesting title:

"Barackward: CNN's Piers Morgan Mocks Obama 'Documentary'"

Given the creator, it's understandable.

http://www.youtube.com/user/GOPICYMI

Also, there goes Greenwald again with the claim "creepy" and "Leader worship."

He should understand such mentality since he once held Bush in the same light.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:36 PM

4. You mean campaign materials don't contain anything negative about the candidate?!

 



And people commissioned by a campaign won't criticize their boss?!



These authoritarian tactics must stop!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoZoccolo (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:01 PM

9. Absolutely right. This is campaign material, not a documentary.

Piers keep referring to it as a "documentary" and it is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:10 PM

14. I have a feeling that we'd see that mentioned by Greenwald if Guggenheim said something bad.

 

It would go something like "even the director of his campaign material thinks Obama is weak at _____".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 03:13 PM

37. Funny the campaign tags it as a documentary on YouTube

&feature=player_embedded

* the
* road
* we've
* traveled
* obama
* trailer
* barack
* movie
* documentary
* 2012
* obama 2012
* video
* barack obama
* michelle
* bill
* clinton
* elizabeth
* warren
* austan
* goolsbee
* 2012 campaign
* president obama
* obama2012
* 2012 video
* obama for america 2012
* election
* news
* president barack obama
* barack obama for president
* barack obama president
* obama speech
* obama approval rating
* obamaforamerica
* change
* 2012 election
* change2012
* re-election video
* re-election campaign
* interview
* joe
* biden
* michelle obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 06:38 PM

48. The campaign has been calling it a documentary.

Guggenheim hails himself to be a documentary filmmaker.

He absolutely embarrassed himself on this show. He does nothing to dispel the notion that Obama's hardcore supporters are delusional cultists who blindly worship authority, much as Bush's hardcore supporters were. This guy has clearly been mainlining the kool-aid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #48)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 09:18 PM

57. Campaign materials and documentaries are not mutually exclusive.

You can have campaign material that is a documentary. Documentaries do not have to capture all sides of a matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoZoccolo (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:23 PM

26. no shit

What kind of idiot.....oh nevermind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:42 PM

6. Weird question to ask and even

 

weird answer to give. Why put any negatives in campaign informercial and why couldnt he just answer that the movie was a pro Obama one. Not even Jesus was perfect so its safe to assume that he has no disagreements wth Obama's administration but this wasn't the medium to express it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:46 PM

7. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #7)


Response to SidDithers (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:39 PM

29. That doesn't work anymore, Sid

I swear, between you and Frum, we sure seem to have some wacky Canadians wanting a piece of US policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:53 PM

8. Not everyone constantly undermines, marginalizes, and diminishes O's accomplishments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:01 PM

10. President Obama has never, ever done anything wrong and don't anyone say otherwise!

 


Obama has especially been tough in his defense of our civil liberties, the Constitution. A real "warrior for the working class" as he himself put it and hardcore fighter against Wall Street and big business.

And he's smart and has a nice family.

What more can anyone ask for unless you want a pony?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:03 PM

12. Can't wait for Election Season to officially begin...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:13 PM

17. I was disappointed the other evening.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:19 PM

24. Indeed. If you can't succeed in the realm of ideas, shut them up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #24)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:40 PM

30. Adhering to site rules is "shut them up"?...

You have a problem with site rules, and you're a Host?

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #30)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 03:02 PM

36. !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #30)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 06:54 PM

50. Ummm... I did say you. Meaning you, Sid Dithers...

But, if it makes you feel any better, I have been warned by several kind DUers that by election season I will be driven off the board and that the grave dancing thread celebrating my ouster will be epic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #50)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:53 PM

68. Self-inflicted cuts are usually the deepest kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 06:04 PM

44. Me neither, that is the time when issues become more important to the American people

in general, than partisanship. As always, those who will determine the outcome will be Independents mostly.

The election season is when the American people have something the candidates want. Corporate lobbyists are always in DC bargaining for what they want, but the one thing they cannot bargain away are the people's votes. During election season is when they begin to get some competition from the people.



What the people have learned from Corporations over the past decade is that you never start the bargaining process by saying 'hey, no matter what, I'm going to give you what you want'.

Election season is when the people have a chance to extract from politicians what THEY want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:05 PM

13. That's a reactionary post, dishonest at its core.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:12 PM

16. Reactionary"????!!!!

 


Weakening and undermining our Bill of Rights could be called "reactionary" but surely not defending those rights.

Don't you agree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:18 PM

18. Not to mention

Full of hyperbole and straw man nonsense.

SSDD


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #18)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:22 PM

19. I disagree. There was no hyperbole or straw man nonsense. Just ....

 

sarcasm!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #19)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:15 PM

21. Why do you hate America??!!11

Like that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #21)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:17 PM

23. "Like that?" No I don't like that.

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #23)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:23 PM

25. ?

As in, for example.

Perhaps sarcasm isn't your thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #21)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:45 PM

66. Bobbie Jo, that's exactly what you're doing.

"Straw man" is not a magic spell. BBI tells it like it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #66)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 02:46 PM

74. LOL

Okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 05:50 PM

41. pot, meet kettle. Kettle, this is pot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 09:08 PM

55. You'll only have about 4.5 more years of Obama to put up with.

Don't worry, as you get older, time passes faster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 06:56 PM

51. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 08:12 PM

52. Thanks AC!

Hope you are well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:02 PM

11. LOL- Guggeinheim doesn't come off as very authentic. nt

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:11 PM

15. It sounds like it's about as much a "documentary" as an ad for Budweiser.

"The only negative is that there too many positives.."?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:15 PM

22. He was Waiting for Superman.

Evidently he's found him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:24 PM

27. Talk about the "authoritarian mind"

Pot meet kettle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:44 PM

32. This leader worship started under Reagan

It s party independent, and it is not healthy in a democracy. Oh and it's been there under damn surface, it was formalized under Reagan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #32)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:46 PM

33. Wait...

This leader worship started under Reagan

It s party independent, and it is not healthy in a democracy. Oh and it's been there under damn surface, it was formalized under Reagan.



Was it started under Reagan?

or

Was it there under the surface, and was formalized under Reagan?

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #32)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 05:53 PM

43. FDR

 

The country really loved FDR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mick063 (Reply #43)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 06:05 PM

45. It was not a god like status

It was somehow...different from historical accounts. That said, yes, he was loved.

This is outright cult of personality and is common at empire end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mick063 (Reply #43)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:31 AM

61. But they had a lot of good reasons to love him.

Under his leadership we won a major war, the government put millions upon millions of people to work, he reined in the crooked banks (with REAL reform) and he fought back when the fascists on the right tried to undermine him rather than laying down and begging for compromise.

Most Americans' lives got markedly better under FDR's leadership, as a direct result of his leadership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #32)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 09:12 PM

56. This leader worship started under Ceaser, probably earlier, with Pharaohs.

It's a condition of states for all intents. The same people bashing Obama would go out of their way to champion, say, Chavez or Castro, or, laughably, Trotsky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:52 PM

34. GOBAMA!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 03:19 PM

38. Sheeple! You're not REALLY happy with Democrats!

Wake up and smell teh fascism!11elevens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 05:18 PM

39. GOPICYMI ?

That's the name of the YouTube poster associated with the video. Could it be:
Go-Picy-Mi (Go picky me), or
GOP-icy-Mi (GOP icy me)?

Maybe both of them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trillo (Reply #39)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 06:43 PM

49. Are you saying the clip is inauthentic?

Was it doctored? Selectively edited? Did Guggenheim appear on the CNN show and answer the questions posed as shown or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #49)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 11:55 PM

58. Ha ha! How would I know?

It's more like associate the messenger! I looked at all the other videos of the same messenger on the one youtube page, GOPICYMI, a good portion of them have to do with Obama's speech reversed. Kinda hard to listen to, but a disclaimer at the end of one of them claims "unedited" or something like that! What I saw and heard were clips of Obama speaking, then seamlessly the video and audio moves into reverse, often with unintelligible audio. Now, I don't know how that can possibly be done without editing. Additionally, text appears onscreen at times that claims the unintelligible words are interpreted as whoever placed that text on the screen. I definitely wouldn't agree with all the text interpretations of the reversed speech. One or two of them assert the word, "nairf" in a phrase. Search out for what that word means!

So, back to Guggenheim, I haven't a clue whether Guggenheim actually did that interview, or whether it was edited or not. However, it is one of the few pure expressions of approval of Obama in GOPICYMI's selections that I reviewed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 06:23 PM

46. OK -- Look -- here's the thing, people --

There's nothing we can do about this. The Millenial (post Generation X) generation is NOTORIOUSLY AUTHORITARIAN in its outlook -- the ethos of the Millennial Generation as first described in the late 90s is libertarian on social issues, authoritarian and conformist on economic and cultural issues -- doctrinaire and politically correct, neo-50s conformists.

And this is the generation that is now getting out of College and will soon dominate the electorate. They have never known anything BUT the anti-libertarian, anti-left values of the Bush, Clinton, and now Obama era.

They have never known anything BUT homeowners associations, "makeover" shows that deride people for not dressing fashionably, authorities saying people who behave differently should be locked up, Presidents saying people who purchase the wrong health insurance products should be fined for the benefit of the Majority, which they define as the technocratic Upper Middle Class that the average Millennial aspires to.

Those of us who are on blogs like DU -- some of us anyway -- have rejected this ethos and I can only hope that with the New Sincerity we are prepared to demolish it altogether and sweep away the last vestiges of the postmodern, relativist, politically correct, authoritarian, conformist ethos of the late 90s and 2000s whose ultimate ideal was TYRANNY OF THE (SUPPOSEDLY AFFLUENT) MAJORITY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 09:07 PM

54. So, Greenwald doesn't think Obama's views desparately need to be heard?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:54 PM

69. Thank you for posting this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Original post)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:45 PM

73. Greenwald reminds me of pink slime

I don't know why. I don't think idiots like pink slime, so I'm not sure where the association comes from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread