$25 to the first person who provides proof that

[MannyGoldstein]

Glenn Greenwald claimed to be a Libertarian or endorsed Rand or Ron Paul for any office.

Take my money.

[Ptah]

1. Who is Glenn Greenwald?

[MannyGoldstein]

2. The most evil and despicable human being

in all creation.

[n2doc]

70. I thought that was Snowden

Or Manning? Can't remember.

[MannyGoldstein]

73. Three aspects, like the Holy Trinity

The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost of evil.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. You're presuming...

that people are clever enough to understand the difference between small-L "civil libertarian" and capital-L "Libertarian" (as in the US political party). I think that is probably optimistic of you.

[Electric Monk]

6. Dunning-Kruger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. Hardly; I've seen people in this very forum...

snarking about "libertarians" when it was CIVIL libertarians that were the topic of discussion (specifically re NSA/Snowden). Because civil liberties are apparently a bad thing, now.

[Luminous Animal]

8. There is no such thing as a small L civil libertarian vs big L libertarian.

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. But there's one right there in your subject line!

[Luminous Animal]

10. CATO!

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. Sure there is

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

Big-L "Libertarians" are Ayn Rand cultists. Small-L civil libertarians are the ACLU (for instance).

[Luminous Animal]

15. Um no. Big L Libertarian means being a member of the Libertarian party. Small L libertarian means

not affiliated to the Libertarian party but still an adherent to Randian libertarian philosophy. I.e., the Pauls and Tea Partiers.

Civil libertarians are just that. Those who support and advocate for our civil liberties as outlined by the bill of rights.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. Nope

the word means "one who advocates liberty". Small-l "libertarian" has nothing to do with the US Libertarian Party. I am in the UK; when people talk of "libertarianism" here they don't mean Randian nutters. There are in fact leftist libertarians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism (Noam Chomsky is a good example).

Words have meanings that apply to political philosophy outside the narrowly limited context of the USA (helpful hint: America is not the world.)

[Luminous Animal]

22. Yep. I live in the US. Small L libertarians does not equal civil libertarians. In the US they are

distinct and separate. Small L libertarians are Randians not affiliated with the big L party. Civil libertarians may be affiliated with any party but are neither small L or big L libertarians . They are just that. Civil libertarians. Distinct from either size L.

FYI, Chompsky identifies as an anarcho-syndicalist

(helpful hint: the USA is not America)

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. I don't care if you live in the US; "libertarian" with a small L generally means "civil libertarian"

If you want to argue that words mean something other than what they're usually agreed-upon to mean, that's your problem; you're still wrong.

(And the USA is America, in common parlance, as it's the only country whose official name includes "America"; "American" is understood to mean "person from the USA".)

And anarcho-syndicalism? Is a variety of libertarian socialism. (Whoops, there's that pesky word "libertarian", again.)

[Luminous Animal]

27. Most enlighten citizens of the USA do not refer to ourselves as "Americans".

Doing so reinforces our hubirs. I always appreciate other DUers who reject that usage.

Again. In the US. There is the Libertarian party. Big L.

In the US there are libertarians. Small L. In the US small L libertarians are not members of the Libertarian Party.

In the US small L libertarians are reactionaries most often affiliated with Randians.

Those of us who identify as civil libertarians reject being affiliated with both the big L Libertarian Party and the small L libertarian Randians.

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. And "civil libertarian" has nothing to do with Ayn Rand or the Libertarian Party.

And the word "libertarian" has meanings separate from the Libertarian party. (In point of fact a significant number of people who vote Democratic would probably be considered "libertarians" in the strictest sense.)

[Luminous Animal]

33. No shit, Sherlock.

[Comrade Grumpy]

78. Well, I thought I was enlightened, but I guess I'm just an American.

Seriously, if not "American," what do you call yourself? Unitedstatesian? Norteamericano? A native of that place that must not be named?

[The Traveler]

35. Seriously?

Meaning no offense, I think you need to expand your reading list a might. Libertarian thought pre-dates Rand. Not all libertarians are Randian.

Trav

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. and not all Republicans are Conservatives?

[nashville_brook]

62. is this sarcasm?

or Greenwald Derangement Syndrome? it's so hard to tell the difference lately.

[WillyT]

4. I'd Like To Double That...

Make it 50.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

68. now, we are getting somewhere resembling The Real World Money

Making it close to Worth My While.

[Luminous Animal]

5. Bbbbbbbbbut Bbbbbbbbbbbut BENGHAZI!..... um er...

CATO! That's the ticket! CATO!

[msanthrope]

11. Is this your third Glenn Greenwald OP today? Why? nt

[Luminous Animal]

16. Just for that, I'm tossing in another $25.

[msanthrope]

48. Look downthread--some people have already won. BUT, as joshcryer cited below, Manny hasn't paid

geek tragedy on his last bet......so, the pay up isn't looking good here.

If Manny did pay geek, I will happily edit. You let me know if he paid up!!!!

[SidDithers]

66. He's making a habit of losing bets...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024479945#post36

Sid

[msanthrope]

84. Third bet? Wonder if he paid up. nt

[Bobbie Jo]

80. Seriously

Did anyone really think he would pay up?

[OilemFirchen]

13. Take my money. In bed.

Still nothing.

[ucrdem]

14. GG: "Ron Paul is the only major candidate from either party advocating crucial views

on vital issues that need to be heard, and so his candidacy generates important benefits."

-- Greenwald, Salon, Dec. 31, 2011

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/

But that's not an endorsement, just a statement of Platonic truth, and who would argue with it anyway?

[ucrdem]

18. Welcome to DU.

You can have the 25 dolllars.

[Luminous Animal]

19. I am not “endorsing” or expressing support for anyone’s candidacy

the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite. But since it’s always inadvisable to refrain from expressing ideas in deference to the confusion and deceit of the lowest elements, I’m going to proceed to make a couple of important points about both candidacies even knowing in advance how wildly they will be distorted.

NEXT!

[ucrdem]

21. Right. And Randy is not running for president in 2016. nt

[Luminous Animal]

23. Not even close to collecting your $75.

[ucrdem]

25. Don't worry, Glenn's secret is safe with me.

[joshcryer]

43. Desperately need to be heard!

Desperately!!

[struggle4progress]

26. I suppose not-being-a-libertarian explains GG's hope Gary Johnson would run in 2012

[Luminous Animal]

28. "who could run with a Democrat like former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold. "

No $75 for yoooooo. NEXT!

http://www.out.com/news-commentary/2011/04/18/glenn-greenwald-life-beyond-borders

[struggle4progress]

29. Oh, dear! He really does live in La-La-Land, surrounded by his fantasies of a great coalition

formed by Libertarians and Progressives who flee together into the dismal swamps of disaffected third-party voters

[Luminous Animal]

32. Indeed. How dare any human being imagine a world led by champions of economic and social justice.

And (gasp) put such a notion in print.

Advocating such might give the masses ideas that the two party system may not be the greatest thing in the world ever.

And we can't have that. Can we.

[struggle4progress]

36. Gary Johnson To Speak At Georgia Tea Party Patriots Liberty Convention (June 2013)

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/06/gary-johnson-to-speak-at-georgia-tea-party-patriots-liberty-convention-on-saturday/

[struggle4progress]

37. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson courts tea party supporters in presidential bid (August 2011)

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/former-new-mexico-gov-gary-johnson-courts-tea-party-supporters-in/1187920

[struggle4progress]

38. Gary Johnson at the Worcester Tax Day Tea Party Event (April 2012)

http://datechguyblog.com/2012/04/16/gary-johnson-at-the-worcester-tax-day-tea-party-event/

[struggle4progress]

39. Gary Johnson vows to end the IRS if elected president (Jukly 2012)

http://twitchy.com/2012/07/10/gary-johnson-vows-to-end-the-irs-if-elected-president/

[struggle4progress]

40. Five candidates sign on for Iowa tea party bus tour (Bachmann,Cain,Gingrich,Gary Johnson&Santorum)

June 2011
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/06/06/five-candidates-sign-on-for-iowa-tea-party-bus-tour/

[struggle4progress]

41. It looks like GG has really been rootin for fruitcake

[joshcryer]

44. Not a single Libertarian is a champion for economic justice.

Not a single one.

OK, maybe I'm being too harsh, those that would support a negative income tax would be for some economic justice, but it's unclear how their deregulate everything ideology would make that viable. Those getting a negative income tax would be, for the most part, screwed over by a totally deregulated and privatized system.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. Uh-oh.

I guess Greenwald's a Libertarian, he just sucks at it?

[ProSense]

74. He's not talking about "economic justice"

He's basically talking about political corruption and blaming both parties.

However, he has no problem with Citizens United.

[MannyGoldstein]

47. I'll kick in another $10 if you can find an endorsement of Gary Johnson for any office

By GG.

Happy hunting!

[ProSense]

71. "New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (more on him in a moment), Ron Paul"

Last edited Sat May 10, 2014, 01:56 PM - Edit history (1)

<...>

But what makes the media most eager to disappear Paul is that he destroys the easy, conventional narrative — for slothful media figures and for Democratic loyalists alike. Aside from the truly disappeared former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (more on him in a moment), Ron Paul is far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party. How can the conventional narrative of extremist/nationalistic/corporatist/racist/warmongering GOP v. the progressive/peaceful/anti-corporate/poor-and-minority-defending Democratic Party be reconciled with the fact that a candidate with those positions just virtually tied for first place among GOP base voters in Iowa? Not easily, and Paul is thus disappeared from existence. That the similarly anti-war, pro-civil-liberties, anti-drug-war Gary Johnson is not even allowed in media debates — despite being a twice-elected popular governor — highlights the same dynamic.

It is true, as Booman convincingly argues, that “the bigfoot reporters move like a herd” and “put[ their] fingers on the scales in elections all the time.” But sometimes that’s done for petty reasons (such as their 2000 swooning for George Bush’s personality and contempt for Al Gore’s); in this case, it is being done (with the effect if not intent) to maintain simplistic partisan storylines and exclude important views from the discourse.

However much progressives find Paul’s anti-choice views to be disqualifying (even if the same standard is not applied to Good Democrats Harry Reid or Bob Casey), and even as much as Paul’s domestic policies are anathema to liberals (the way numerous positions of Barack Obama ostensibly are: war escalation, due-process-free assassinations, entitlement cuts, and whistleblower wars anyone?), shouldn’t progressives be eager to have included in the discourse many of the views Paul uniquely advocates? After all, these are critical, not ancillary, positions, such as: genuine opposition to imperialism and wars; warnings about the excesses of the Surveillance State, executive power encroachments, and civil liberties assaults; and attacks on the one policy that is most responsible for the unjustifiable imprisonment of huge numbers of minorities and poor and the destruction of their families and communities: Drug Prohibition and the accompanying War to enforce it. GOP primary voters are supporting a committed anti-war, anti-surveillance candidate who wants to stop imprisoning people (dispropriationately minorities) for drug usage; Democrats, by contrast, are cheering for a war-escalating, drone-attacking, surveillance-and-secrecy-obsessed drug warrior.

The steadfast ignoring of Ron Paul — and the truly bizarre un-personhood of Gary Johnson — has ensured that, yet again, those views will be excluded and the blurring of partisan lines among ordinary citizens on crucial issues will be papered over. That’s precisely the opposite effect that a healthy democratic election would produce.

- more -

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/16/elections_9/

"Ron Paul hates govt intervention, likes mandatory vaginal ultrasound probes"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002161152

Ron Paul also wants to eliminate corporate taxes, keep oil subsidies, and he isn't anti-war. He's a fraud.

Greenwald is either clueless or a Ron Paul supporter, but I repeat myself. LOL!

[MannyGoldstein]

72. Was this intended to demonstrate that GG endorsed Johnson for an office?

Or that he endorsed Ron Paul for an office?

Can you point out the specific endorsement, I'm not seeing it.

Thanks.

[ProSense]

77. LOL! I'm not interested in your bet. Greenwald

Was this intended to demonstrate that GG endorsed Johnson for an office? Or that he endorsed Ron Paul for an office?

...is just hyping Johnson and Paul as the best candidates and implying that "progressives" who find his positions "disqualifying" are being hypocrites.

[MannyGoldstein]

81. Where did GG say that Johnson and Paul are the best candidates.

I don't see that.

[ProSense]

85. I don't know which is more hilarious

"Where did GG say that Johnson and Paul are the best candidates. I don't see that."

...your attempt to defend Greenwald by proving that he doesn't support Ron Paul or your denial that "far and away the most" is not implying best.

Forget for a second that his commentary proves his clueless, do you think Greenwald believes that the candidate who is "far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party" is the worst?

[MannyGoldstein]

86. Does that mean you won't answer my question? nt

[ProSense]

87. No, it means Greenwald believes Ron Paul was the best candidate, but you can't accept his opinion.

n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

89. And where did he state that, exactly?

Please be specific.

[ProSense]

91. Here,

"And where did he state that, exactly? Please be specific."

...specific: "far and away the most" = best

As I said, forget for a second that his commentary proves his clueless, do you think Greenwald believes that the candidate who is "far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party" is the worst?

You apparently don't agree with that point that "far and away the most" = best. What do you think it means?

Do you agree that Ron Paul was "far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party"?

[MannyGoldstein]

92. So, if I write that in the 2004 presidential election,

among the candidates, George Bush had far-and-away the most experience with running large entities, that would prove I endorsed Bush?

I don't think you really mean that.

[azurnoir]

30. Only political simplicity passes the loyalty test

if he was not for Obama then he was obviously against him, same with the Paul's if was not against them then he was for them, but then again nuance doesn't work well in sound bytes

[The Straight Story]

34. Most I have seen is: "There is no doubt that I share many views with actual libertarians"

Liberals and libertarians share the same views on many issues, particularly involving war, civil liberties, penal policies, and government abuse of power. That is why people like Alan Grayson and Dennis Kucinich worked so closely with Ron Paul to Audit the Fed and restore civil liberties.

But "libertarianism" has an actual meaning: it's not just a slur to mean: anyone who criticizes President Obama but disagrees with Rush Limbaugh. Anyone who applies this label to me in light of my actual views and work is either very ignorant or very dishonest - or, most likely, both.

I don't think he really identifies with any party, more of an independent.

[Major Nikon]

45. So does Noam Chomsky

The difference being Noam Chomsky doesn't fawn over shitstains like Ron Paul, nor is he a Ron Paul apologist.

[MannyGoldstein]

54. Well...

[Major Nikon]

56. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here

Simply because Chomsky and Greenwald appear on the same stage, doesn't mean Chomsky is a cheerleader for Ron Paul.

[MannyGoldstein]

59. Were they debating?

Or does Chomsky just hop on stage with anyone?

[Major Nikon]

60. Was Ron Paul even mentioned?

I have little interest in watching a 70 minute video to find out.

[joshcryer]

42. Did you ever pay geek tragedy their $20?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3987527

[msanthrope]

49. Oh, I remember this.....nt

[MannyGoldstein]

51. As you know from that thread, I asked for his/her address

Last edited Sat May 10, 2014, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3987637

I never got it.

But thanks for the reminder!

[joshcryer]

94. Ah, OK, you should try again.

No one wants to renig on a bet!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

69. He asked where he should send the check. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

75. Just between you and me

I think he knew that, but just wanted to take a shot at me.

[joshcryer]

93. I assumed that would be private info.

So did it ever happen?

[randome]

46. If the NSA is supposed to respond to every dumb thing Snowden says...

...you must expect Greenwald to post another one of his erudite tweets to disavow his Libertarianism. Come on, Glenn! Deny it! No answer? Huh.

Most Libertarians call themselves Republicans these days.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[ProSense]

50. Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"

Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022485711

Greenwald: Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100294827

Again: Greenwald is not the left.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024931733

[treestar]

52. How many threads are you going to start on this?

We get it; you love GG because he is so negative about everything.

What are you going to do when he shits on Liz? If she is ever President, he will.

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. BET on

quite the conundrum!

[MannyGoldstein]

58. I'll keep posting as long as a small, loud, and tiny band of DUers keeps dissembling

I'm tired of the BS attacks and smears by a tiny group of posters who are banking on nobody doing an Internet search to check their half truths.

The funny thing is that I wasn't a big Greenwald fan until I started fact-checking said spew a couple of days ago. As I research, I'm becoming a bigger fan.

[OilemFirchen]

61. Send him money.

That'll confirm you fully understand his political ethos.

[nashville_brook]

63. the thing about Greenwald is that the more you read, the more there is to like

he's not a short-form writer. his best medium is long essays and books where he takes his time to lay out a story.

that's going to go right over the heads of those whose attention spans can only handle a subject line and a rec.

[Oilwellian]

79. Pictures are helpful as well

[struggle4progress]

64. Glenn Greenwald’s third party dreamin’

Posted on April 22, 2011 by jreid

At a talk given the day after the 2010 election — one that was a disaster for Democrats — “progressive” writer and civil liberties lawyer Glenn Greenwald .. expressed the hope that Democrats might suffer the same fate in 2012.

Greenwald’s ... approach to politics .. got members of the Young Americans for Liberty — a Paulite Libertarian group that co-sponsored the event — excited:

... Greenwald specifically addresses a possible alliance between progressives and Ron Paul libertarians. He also mentions Gary Johnson as a unique candidate with possibly the best chance of bringing this coalition together in a 2012 run for president ...

http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/


Glenn Greenwald: Life Beyond Borders
4.18.2011
By Fred Bernstein

... One of his hopes for 2012 is that candidates will emerge to take on the red and the blue teams -- he is keeping an eye on Gary Johnson, a two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, who is pro-gay and antiwar, and who could run with a Democrat like former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold. He would also be happy to see a billionaire run without the help of either party, to disrupt the two-party stranglehold ...

http://www.out.com/news-commentary/2011/04/18/glenn-greenwald-life-beyond-borders?page=0,0


The poor guy lives in some Crazyland of his very own

[struggle4progress]

65. Here's what GG thinks of the Federal Government:

... the Federal Government, which has its interfering, power-hungry hands in virtually everything else, has abdicated its duty in one of the very few areas where it was actually meant to be: border security ...
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html

The fellow's a chock-full-of-nuts Libertarian

[MoonRiver]

76. Do you accept PayPal?

Have no clue as to what you're asking, but just in case somebody wins the jackpot, I had to ask.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

82. I want my money

It's inconceivable that he didn't silently endorse Rand Paul for President in the years 2001-2004, before either Greenwald or Rand Paul were public figures. I know this because, as other DUers have pointed out to me, he wasn't NOT endorsing the run at the time. And he was exceptionally sneaky about this endorsement because he didn't even mention it in the forward to his 2006 anti-war book. He's been hiding his silent endorsement all this time. And as I've lately learned on the new DU, this constitutes ironclad proof.

But I'm a magnanimous guy, and I'd like for you to send my $25 to Jamie Dimon so that he can begin to put the pieces of his shattered life back together.

[MannyGoldstein]

83. Good point.

I think that making your post an OP would be a public service - people need to know how unbelievably devious Greenwald is, like a silent and invisible black helicopter filled with FEMA thugs.

(Well done! )

[DisgustipatedinCA]

90. I'd make an OP of this, but it would be pointless.

Some of these FatRuckers get on their high horse and start demanding so-called "documentary proof", as if it's not plain for all to see. I think my time is better spent coming up with new names for GG and EdSputin.

Thanks for letting me briefly Assume the Voice of a TWM-type. You're the undisputed master of unveiling some of this idiocy, but it was fun to play the role for a couple of posts. Thanks for doing what you do here--sincerely.

[Ap1977]

88. Pay me

Here's the link -->

[arely staircase]

95. so now it is about greenwald?