Glenn Greenwald is an asshat for his support of Ron Paul.

[MineralMan]

Here's what he wrote, regarding Paul:

"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."

Now, despite my thinking of Greenwald as an asshat for this and other things he has written, I will defend to the death his right to express his asshattery in any way he wants. I'd even serve a term in our country's armed forces to defend that right. In fact, I've done just that. Greenwald may say whatever he wants, and I will criticize what he says freely. He may even choose to vote for Ron Paul, instead of for President Obama, whom he seems to dislike with an intensity I'm afraid I fail to comprehend.

I may be criticized for calling Glenn Greenwald an asshat for his writings, but I do that under the same guarantee that I insist on for Greenwald. I do not wish to shut Greenwald up, nor to interfere in any way with his ability to write whatever asshattery he may wish to right. By the same token, I will insist that my opinion have the same freedom of expression.

Nobody should be silenced. Everyone should feel free to express his or her opinion. That's the essential freedom of this country. It's the one thing that must remain an unrestricted freedom.

[MFrohike]

1. You really should have picked a better quotation

That one just doesn't help prove your headline at all.

[MineralMan]

11. This post was not about my opinion of Greenwald,

really. My example is just one of the reasons for my opinion. This thread is about the fact that people may have different opinions of a particular writer or commentator without believing that opinions are equivalent to asking that that writer or commentator be silenced.

Thank you for reading.

[MFrohike]

21. Uh

Your evidence does not prove your claim. Ron Paul does consistently speak out against war, drug policy, crony capitalism, and encroachments on civil liberties. Granted, I'm sure his prescriptions would end up being far worse than the problems he's somewhat accurately diagnosed, but even with that, the problem with your quotation still lies. Telling the truth about someone is not the same as endorsing them. My suggestion is to find better evidence because what you used will not help you to prove your claim.

[Luminous Animal]

36. Proof? Mineral Man doesn't need no stinkin' proof. It's just his opinion that Greenwald supports

Paul.

[TheWraith]

105. Bullshit. Paul supports war with Iraq, Iran, abortion bans, and criminalizing homosexuality.

That's his "anti war" and "pro civil liberties" stances.

[MFrohike]

113. 2 for 4, not bad

Ugh, I feel like I'm defending Ron Paul, who I detest, but I detest not telling the truth even more. Your claim of his support of war with Iraq and Iran is demonstrably false. He voted against IWR and is busy being attacked nonstop for his opposition to current policy with Iran (as well as mocking the idea of a war with Iran). He is effectively for banning abortion since his "states' rights" approach is consistent with a wingnut view of regulating morality. I won't go so far as to say he wants to criminalize homosexuality, but he sure was keen to trumpet the endorsement of a pastor who does. The old saying about birds of a feather incline me to agree with you on that.

I really dislike Ron Paul. The guy has some accurate insights into a variety of problems in modern America. He also has some amazing fantasies about modern America, such as his entire economic and monetary platform. My problem with him is that he is incapable of combining those insights with real (and realistic) vision. His plan for regulating the financial world amounts to giving the burglar in your home the gun in your hand and asking him very politely not to steal too much stuff. It's just ludicrous. I find his faith in "free markets" to be absolutely mind boggling given the fact that even if you completely took government out of the marketplace tomorrow, Goldman Sachs would be bribing them to pass favorable laws the day after. He can't see past the end of his own nose.

Personally, I don't much care for the attacks on his views on social policies. His views on economic and monetary policy are a lot closer to the mainstream of the right than most realize. The difference is that he's open about it. I would rather see him attacked on the economic side because if that argument gets won, it gets easier to open a broad attack on the neoliberal consensus. If you walk through the fantasies and fallacies of the "free markets" approach, ground can be cleared for positive vision. I don't much expect that to happen, but it's what I would like.

[TheWraith]

115. "Personally, I don't much care for the attacks on his views on social policies."

You mean like his view that gays like getting AIDS because they enjoy the pity? From one of Paul's newsletters:

If you heard a certain behavior of yours caused a deadly disease, wouldn't you immediately cease & desist? Well, gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense. They have stopped practicing "safe sex." The rate of AIDS infection is on the increase again. From the gay point of view, the reasons seem quite sensible.

First, these men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners. These conditions do not make one's older years the happiest.

Second, because sex is the center of their lives, they want it to be as pleasurable as possible, which means unprotected sex.

Third, they enjoy the attention & pity that comes with being sick. Put it all together, and you've got another wave of AIDS infections, that you, dear taxpayer, will be asked to pay for.

Oh, and yes, he DID support the Iraq War back when it was popular, and he has at previous times supported attacking Iran before he was against it. So really, fuck Ron Paul with a red hot poker.

[MFrohike]

117. Here's what I think

You can waste all day attacking his social positions and it really won't matter because he say "freedom" a thousand times and that's all that will be heard. You could choose to attack his "economic freedom" policies and show that they will consistently and demonstrably produce the reverse of the brave new world he claims to want to create. The beauty of attacks on the economic side is that they will bolster attacks on the ridiculousness of his lolbertarian ideology. How can you actually create a free society when you empower large private groups to make far-ranging decisions to the benefit or detriment of all when those groups have no real accountability? One can babble all day about the accountability of the market, but, using history as our guide, the market has shown no tendencies to truly hold those groups accountable. Rather we've seen herd behavior and a herd mentality guided by perverse incentives all combined in a concerted effort to destroy our economy for personal gain and undermine our public institutions through the hypocrisy of whining about direct government outlays with nary a word on the subterranean world of tax expenditures.

I know Ron Paul is a wackjob. I've spent more time than I care to admit arguing with friends wrapped up in his cult of personality than I would care to admit. I don't much care about delineating his social positions because I know people obsessed with the gold standard highly correlate with unreconstructed racism and hate for "others" in general. I think it's much wiser to attack him ON HIS PERCEIVED STRENGTHS because that will open up a world of opportunity to argue economics in general.

As for his positions on Iraq and Iran, I've stated what I know. If he's out cheerleading for more wars, I've seen no evidence of it. Honestly, I don't care. I'd rather spend my time showing that his insane desire to emasculate government to the benefit of unaccountable corporations will produce a far more dystopian nightmare than the one he regularly attacks.

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. Your opinion is clouding your judgment

Greenwald does NOT support Ron Paul.

[TheWraith]

108. No, he just sings his praises as a good choice for liberals.

While conveniently ignoring the fact that Paul is a hyper-racist homophobe and a warmonger.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

2. You and I have a different definition for the word "support."

If I say "Hitler liked dogs" am I "supporting" Hitler?

[Luminous Animal]

7. Apparently, yes.

[gratuitous]

9. NAZI!

You should recognize the "rules" by now, so I can't be Godwined here. Or is it "Godwinned"? In any case, every general statement of fact about People Who Are Very Bad is an explicit endorsement. So mote it be.

[MineralMan]

12. Yes, I suppose we do.

That is not the only thing that Greenwald has said that causes me to have my particular opinion of him. That, however, is not the point of my post. My opinion of Glenn Greenwald is irrelevant to my belief that he can say whatever he pleases, as long as I am able to say what pleases me.

[Luminous Animal]

14. Election Season: where the simple-minded can't distinguish between

"I agree with Candidate X's position on Y" and "I endorse Candidate X" - Glenn Greenwald

[Hassin Bin Sober]

19. You claimed he "supports" RP.

Prove it.

[JackRiddler]

102. So the point of your post is not the point of your post? I see. Thanks.

[hfojvt]

17. What if you write

"Hitler (the vegetarian) is far and away the most pro-animal liberation candidate for chancellor."

Would that be taken as support for Hitler's candidacy? Should it?

[MineralMan]

34. I've seen stranger things taken as support.

Should it? Of course not. But my expressed opinion of Greenwald is not really the subject of my post.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

49. To anyone with a brain larger than, say, a pea?

No.

[oberliner]

99. He was not a vegetarian

I don't understand why people keep repeating that lie.

[FSogol]

3. K & R. n/t

[Ikonoklast]

4. Greenwald is an asshat for supporting Citizen's United.

He is a First Amendment absolutist, and dead wrong in his conclusions that CU was a victory for the people of this country.

[MineralMan]

27. That, too, but again not the point of my OP.

The point is about opinion in general and the right to express it freely.

[Ikonoklast]

39. I agree. I just expressed my opinion, too.

See how that works?

If you demand that I respond to you in a manner only you seem fit, good luck with that.

[MineralMan]

40. I demand nothing. I simply respond to your reply.

I'm in no position to demand anything.

[Ikonoklast]

46. I love reading your OP's. They end up being the most circular threads ever.

Takes a while to get there, but in the end, go nowhere in particular except right back to the starting point.

[MineralMan]

63. Thanks!

You are correct.

[Luminous Animal]

5. Is there any other candidate promoting the end of the war on drugs, the end of

barely fettered surveillance, restricting crony capitalism, and ending the wars?

Is there?

As for how Greenwald feels about your erroneous assessment of his support for Paul, please see my sig.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

13. That bears repeating:

Election Season: where the simple-minded can't distinguish between "I agree with Candidate X's position on Y" and "I endorse Candidate X" - Glenn Greenwald

[arely staircase]

18. Or who has had his very own racist newsletter? Nt

[Luminous Animal]

41. That is true. But that has nothing to do with the theme of Greenwald's article

and the fact that Greenwald does not endorse Paul.

Here is the link to the article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/vote-obama-centrist-republican

[arely staircase]

58. No it was not the theme of the article

And neither was Paul specifically. But Greenwalds positive mention of a white supremacist is noteworthy.

[JackRiddler]

103. Is the statement about the "white supremacist" that he is against the empire and the war on drugs...

untrue?

If true, then it is neither a positive nor a negative mention. It's just one of those, whaddayacallem, facts?

[arely staircase]

118. David Duke may be in favor of Medicare for all and free college tuition. Who could possibly care?

Ron Paul's (the racist) statements on empire and the drug war are generally spot on as are his positions on the surveillance state. However, the fact that he is a racist - publisher of racist propaganda - makes those things irrelevant. He is now beyond the pale and not to be given respect by decent (non-racist) people.

[JackRiddler]

119. Can you name a national Republican who will not pursue racist policies?

Can you name a Republican presidential campaign since Nixon's "Southern strategy" of 1968 that did not rely on race-baiting?

I don't vote for Republicans and I don't support racists, but explain to me how Ron Paul having racist supporters and putting out that rhetoric distinguishes him from the rest of the Republican pack. Seriously. Don't tell me there are "moderate" Republicans who don't play to the racist clientele. Are you old enough to remember the "Willie Horton" campaign?

Ending the war on drugs would greatly benefit minorities in this country, substantially roll back the police state and the prison-industrial complex that largely target black and latino people. Given that, can you name a Republican candidate who would be better for minorities than Ron Paul?

But the question you really should be asking is this: How did we get to this horrible point where the Democrats are outflanked on the two biggest questions of peace and justice - the perpetual wars for empire and the drug war - by a Republican who also wants to ban abortion and restore labor rights to their pristine 19th century state and do all those other horrible things Paul supports? How is it possible that the ostensible left is behind Paul on these issues? Why shouldn't Democrats give people the hope that they, too, might roll back the empire and end the insane drug war?

[arely staircase]

125. I can only name one who published his very own white supremacist newsletter. Ron Paul.

[JackRiddler]

127. You're right, Gingrich only published books.

And the language was so much more elegant!

This is the man who pioneered workfare and more recently (weeks ago, not twenty years ago) said Obama runs a food stamp nation. See, he knows to put code words on it. Also, telling the Palestinians they don't exist can't be racist, since, um, they're not American so who cares?

All the Mexico wall-builders and deport-everybodies and English-onlies on the Republican side, they're not racist! God no!

And they don't cater to racist voters. They haven't relied on coded racism since 1968 to secure a base among the "resentful white" demographic. There was no "Willie Horton" campaign in 1988 and Karl Rove never made use of racist tropes in his campaign plans. Their universal idol didn't launch his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, MI with a statement in defense of "states rights." The Tea Party foot-soldiers of whom the Republican candidates all speak high praises never thought to make an issue of Obama's race. Heaven forfend.

Truth is, it's a lot worse than we think.

Anyway, Huntsman seems to be a nice chap in some ways.

[MineralMan]

20. I saw that sig line. It's interesting that you missed the point of my post

almost completely. Indeed, your comment is exemplary of the quote you provide from Greenwald.

[Luminous Animal]

28. Your title clearly states that Greenwald supports Paul. Greenwald says otherwise.

I also believe that drugs should be decriminalized. Does that mean I support Ron Paul? I also know that it is a fact that Paul is the only candidate advocating ending the drug war. Does stating that fact mean I support Ron Paul?

[arely staircase]

60. No but if that was the thing you chose to

focus on when discussing him one could conclude you support him.

[Luminous Animal]

64. Another person who did not read the article. That quote isn't even close to the focus.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/vote-obama-centrist-republican

There is a specific reason why Greenwald wrote what he did.

[arely staircase]

66. I know his focus was the surveillance state

and stupid wars. I read the article. I was saying that you sharing Pauls views on drug policy does NOT mean you support him. I was saying that if when speaking of Paul you chose to focus on areas on which you agree you could easily be mistaken for a supporter.

[Luminous Animal]

72. I posted the wrong link. Below is the correct one.

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

It's a 20 paragraph article about the GOP primary and its candidates. Paul gets one paragraph.

Greenwald brought up those points to illustrate why Paul is being marginalized by the GOP. He didn't bring them up to tout Paul's credentials.

Essentially he is saying:

Here are the candidates (and he writes about all of them).

And here are candidate Paul's positions and why he can't get any traction with the GOP powers that be.

[arely staircase]

75. Greenwald makes a valid point.

Yet my point still stands. He says not one negative word about Ron Paul-the racist. And that fact is relevant, ney essential, to any discussion of the man.

[dionysus]

6. well put. but hey, his shtick has an audience, and it's how he makes his living. i think a lot of

the pundits who make their living off of outrage do much better when republicans are in charge.

[Luminous Animal]

8. Except for the fact that it is untrue.

[MineralMan]

24. I admire his ability to earn a living with his words.

As a fellow professional writer, I know how difficult that can be. Sometimes, one has to write for the audience that is paying you. That's why I don't write about politics for money. It's far easier to write about HVAC and swimming pools without compromising one's principles.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

84. I hope you don't start your HVAC articles with ...

"Air conditioners operate by little green men running around on squirrel cages"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Does that mean that you are pro-war, pro surveillance state, pro crony capitalism, and pro drug-war?

In would be nice if you provided a link to Greenwald's statement so we could see it in context. Somehow, I think that agreeing with some of Paul's stances do not translate into "support of Ron Paul".

[MineralMan]

15. No, it does not mean that at all. It means that I have quoted an

example of one thing that makes me consider Glenn Greenwald to be an asshat. That opinion is not the subject of this thread. Opinion is the subject of this thread, along with the freedom and ability to express that opinion.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

26. Are you trying to out-Zocoloco Zocoloco?

[MineralMan]

29. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Can you expand on it a bit?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

31. I would but it makes my head swim.

[Cameron27]

126. lol

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. +1

[Luminous Animal]

16. Greenwald has repeatedly said that he does not endorse Paul.

Repeatedly.

[Luminous Animal]

23. Link to the article... (edited to add the correct link- it's the 1st one)

Last edited Fri Dec 30, 2011, 05:24 PM - Edit history (1)

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/vote-obama-centrist-republican

Please note that Greenwald disavows the headlne (which he did not write) because the article isn't about Obama. He was commissioned to write about the candidates running in the Republican primary.

[MineralMan]

30. Yes, I know that. He was writing for someone. Writers often do that.

It's how they make their living. I celebrate his ability to do that. I think you're missing the point of my post pretty widely, though.

[Luminous Animal]

33. Tierra_y_Libertad asked for a link. I provided it.

My response to that person has nothing to do with what you know or don't know.

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. I was born in MO. You're going to have to show me how that is support.

[MineralMan]

32. Someone else wrote a post about freedom of expression

using Greenwald as an example. Darn. I thought I was writing something on my own here. The point is neither my opinion of Greenwald nor his opinion of Ron Paul. There are more words that follow the title and first paragraph of my post.

[Luminous Animal]

35. Some people say that Obama was born in Kenya. But heh! They are simply

expressing themselves! Truthiness is gooooood.

[MineralMan]

38. Yes, some do say that. You know it is not true.

I know that it is not true. I can explain why it is not true. But, some people will say that, despite my explanation and despite the fact that it is untrue. They have a perfect right to say that, and everyone else has a perfect right to explain why people who say that are asshats.

Opinion is the subject of this post, not Greenwald. Greenwald says whatever he wishes to say. So do I. In our ability to do that, we are equal, or should be. It's most interesting that few in this thread read beyond my statement about Greenwald. He was not the subject of the original post. Just as I used a small portion of a Greenwald article to draw a conclusion, people have used a small portion of my post to form their judgment of what I wrote.

It's interesting how that works, isn't it?

[Luminous Animal]

53. Funny. He wrote his own headline and used the 1st paragraph to

support his opinion and then he claims that really, honestly, that Greenwald's opinion of Paul is NOT the subject of his post.

It is his god-given right to muddy the waters of political discourse with out right fabrications! Damnit! Just as long as a tedious lecture on freedom of expression follows!

Its the Limbaugh excuse.

[JackRiddler]

104. Yes, but think of the poor people trying to get their pool clean.

See, if you write about politics and it makes no sense, beyond evincing some vague reactionary ideology that you'll claim isn't there when called on it, why then, you're just like most of the other pundits on the pile, signifying nothing. Whereas if you cause the pool to be dirty, it can lead to serious problems of sanitation and hygiene. Better that the shit you fling be metaphorical.

[frylock]

37. looks like more of an opinion than an endorsement or support..

it's almost what's colloquially referred to as a statement of fact.

[Luminous Animal]

45. Shhhh. Don't let facts get in the way of truthiness.*

*Truthiness is a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or that it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

[Romulox]

43. I suspect a semi-coordinated attempt to link being anti-War, anti-Drug War, anti-Bankster bailout

to Ron Paul. As if most of us didn't have these values before Paul began espousing them.

I notice the OP doesn't even attempt to address the substance of the assertion. He goes straight not name-calling.

[WilliamPitt]

44. I don't get

when anyone with a functioning brain who isn't to the right of Ghengis Khan supports Ron Paul.

The man is a snake-oil salesman, but somehow he has the mojo to snow even smart people like Greenwald.

Everyone's desperate for a hero, I guess.

Sad.

For the record, I'm a huge Greenwald fan. Robert Scheer also barfed up a "Ron Paul is for reals" piece yesterday. So that's two writers I deeply respect who somehow don't see this failure of a human for what he is.

[WilliamPitt]

56. No, I hear you.

Still, though...giving that prick good ink of any kind is not in me.

[bvar22]

109. How about giving "good Ink" to:

*anti-war,

*anti-Surveillance-State,

*anti-crony-capitalism,

*and anti-drug-war

....positions on these issues,
and helping project these into the National Debate?

Is that "in you"?

[Robb]

67. Greenwald fucked up, his perceived support of Paul was unpopular. He backpedaled

...which is easy to do if you've grown accustomed to using weasel words.

"I never said I endorsed him!!11!" Well, no shit, Glenn. You just gave him massive props. Like complimenting Mussolini on train schedules. It was idiotic, but instead of owning it you're calling people who noticed "idiotic."

Identical to when he was caught sockpuppeting support for his own articles. He threw his partner under the bus -- "it could've been anyone who uses a computer in my house!!" etc. etc. -- and never admitted succumbing to the biggest temptation on the internet.

[Luminous Animal]

77. Nope. He wrote two paragraphs on Paul in a 20 paragraph article

that was about the GOP primary silly season.

And those paragraphs (from which Mineral Man mined his quote) include a list the reasons why Paul can't get any traction with the media.

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

The Misery of the Protracted Presidential Campaign Season

"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."

[Robb]

81. I realize he was merely using it as a foil to get a mention of Gary Johnson in.

It was still a foolish move, as evidenced by the fact Greenwald had to wander out and tell people what mindless dolts they were for not understanding him. The whole episode is typically charming.

[Luminous Animal]

86. Its not his fault that there are plenty of mindless dolts.

His intent and words are perfectly clear to me. Perhaps because I read the entire article instead of mining it for gotcha out of context quotes.

Here is an article you might be interested in:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/23/mitt-romney-obama-ad_n_1110884.html

Mitt Romney Defends Ad Quoting Obama Out Of Context

[Robb]

88. That's not even close.

To extend my metaphor past the breaking point, it would be like if Glenn was the editor of Trains Monthly magazine in the 1920's, and was well-known to spend most of his editorials railing (!) against trains being unpunctual. "Oh, dear," the reader would say, "Glenn certainly does like his trains to run on time."

Then he writes, "That Benito really keeps the trains to a good schedule!" at the bottom of a 20-paragraph article about trains.

[Luminous Animal]

90. Its nuanced, I know.

I wouldn't worry your pretty little head about.

[Robb]

91. Careful, you might hurt my internet feelings.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

82. and never admitted succumbing to the biggest temptation on the internet.

Oh now you're an anti-porn, eh?

[Robb]

89. *snort*

I find the biggest temptation on the internet is that which compels me to spend far too much time watching one adorable animal after another doing something cute and unexpected on YouTube. Next thing I know it's the afternoon and I've gotten nothing done.

[hlthe2b]

71. Like the broken clock--accurate twice a day I just don't equate analysis of positions with support

Would I like to have seen him discuss all the very negative aspects to Paul--who I agree with you, is little more than a snake-oil salesman, a racist, misogynist, and selfish narcissist? Absolutely. Nonetheless, I guess those who are concluding Greenwald "supports" Paul, must have seen more comments than this to draw that conclusion. Ditto Robert Scheer.

[BootinUp]

48. On the scale of "assholes like Greenwald can say what they want"

the US is still a pretty good country. But there have been efforts to control or mute that freedom of expression or dissent in recent years and therefore your post is certainly worth a rec in my opinion. I agree with you whole heartedly.

[Poll_Blind]

50. If you're using just that quote to interpret support for Paul your argument is not convincing.

"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."

I agree with those assertions and I sure as shit don't support Ron Paul. This is another example of selective reading on your part, MineralMan. Taken on its face, those four points speak for themselves...but what they don't do is expound further. That's what you're doing: Filling a void with conjecture.

For instance, take the hypothetical sentence "The dictator was very effective." Selectively read, one could jump to the conclusion that it implies support even more than that rather dry quote you provided. But it doesn't. It's merely asserting that an observation, just like the quote you posted.

Another example, a real-example from 9/11 news coverage- though the quote I use is slightly paraphrased. An article proclaimed "Hijackers ram airplanes into World Trade Centers in spectacular attack!". Again, selectively reading and jumping to conclusions based on the use of the word "spectacular" one could wrongly infer that the attack was positively viewed by whomever wrote the story- which clearly wasn't the case.

Greenwald is merely stating what he believes to be fact. Again, I completely agree with the sentence's assertion as would a large percentage of Americans across the political spectrum.

What the quote doesn't do- and what you fabricate is the nonexistent "And that's why you should vote Ron Paul."

That's your inferrence, not Greenwald's statement. If you view information with that kind of filter, you're going to be doing a hell of a lot of shadowboxing both here and in real life.

PB

[BootinUp]

55. Not Me!

"Again, I completely agree with the sentence's assertion as would a large percentage of Americans across the political spectrum. "


Not Me!

[Poll_Blind]

57. Well then, who is?

"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."

You don't agree. Ok, so who does that accurately describe the most among either party? Remember, we're talking about an assertion of fact, not of support.

I'd really like to know and please provide some sort of explanation for your answer.

PB

[BootinUp]

61. Any number of politicans that don't blatantly lie about their political positions/views.

It is completely unnecessary to make a list.

Stop buying Pauls Bullshit already.

[Poll_Blind]

65. That's not an answer and trying to turn me into a Paul supporter so you can scuttle off is weak.

"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."

No need for you to make a list, just name one who you feel fits that description (in either Republican or Democratic parties) and explain why. We can't even be said to disagree if you won't even put up an alternative viewpoint. You're all heat and no light at this point.

PB

[BootinUp]

68. It was an answer and an explanation. You wish to establish

that Greenwald's statement is generally accepted as true and continue to suggest it is beyond reproach. My position is that he is a racist bigot, which he denies, and that he would use any power he is given in crony capitalistic ways despite what comes out of his mouth during campaign season. Anyone who favors reducing the power of our government to regulate capitalism after the last 30 years is not to be trusted period.

[Poll_Blind]

73. LOL, what you're missing is I already agree that Paul's a shit. As I've said, I agree...

...with Greenwald's assertion. I think you're fabulously missing the point that not only can I agree with that quote Greenwald made, but that I and Greenwald (and a hell of a lot of other people) can absolutely agree with that quote and still deeply despise Paul.

PB

[BootinUp]

83. The only reason you (and others) agree with it

is you think when Ron Paul says something its true.

[joeybee12]

54. God, we need the unrec button...

Actually, Ron Paul probably is...and then you go and imply that he may even vote for Ron Paul...project much?

That said, Ron Paul is probably the most racist, homophobic, xenophobic of all the candidates, too.

[Poll_Blind]

59. Exactly. So projecting that Greenwald somehow supports Paul is...

...pretty damned nonsensical.

PB

[hlthe2b]

62. Sorry, MM... but Greenwald providing analysis of Paul's positions does not equate to support of Paul

Please show me where he has endorsed Ron Paul. I have areas of disagreement with Glenn Greenwald, but I don't believe you have accurately nor fairly characterized his position in this case.

[Rex]

69. I didn't know Glenn was endorsing Ron Paul!

Link?

[SomethingFishy]

70. LMAO.. there is none...

The OP put that in his title then further down the thread explains how he didn't really say that...

[Rex]

74. I know...

just thought I would help 'make a point' along with almost everyone else in this thread.

[SomethingFishy]

79. LOL.. I knew you knew...

I was just helping

Not only that but that quote... I looked it up, it's actually Andrew Sullivan's quote, Greenwald was quoting him.

Not that the quote isn't accurate, it is, but just keeping up with the spirit of things...

[Rex]

80. All this Ron Paul talk is forcing me to

post this bad dub on you tube

[Tarheel_Dem]

76. Despite who he does or doesn't support "Glenn Greenwald is an asshat", period. The end.

[Major Hogwash]

78. Geez, and he wasn't even on American Idol!

Oh, well, maybe him and Kelly will throw their support to Romney after Paul drops out.

[Puregonzo1188]

85. Why don't you post a link to the entire article that quote came from? So maybe people can see the

next sentences about Paul's position on abortion and the welfare state? Or see that the article is about the media's coverage of Presidential elections and how the media fails to cover unconventional candidates very well, and cites both Barry Goldwater and George McGovern as examples of this.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. I'm anti-war, anti-crony capitalism, anti-Surveillance State and anti-drug war. AND I'm pro-choice

and most importantly, not a Republican and not against things like universal health coverage, public education and the FDA.



Really, Glenn Greenwald should endorse me or someone like me, instead of clomping around after a kook like Ron Paul.


(That said, though, our party is LONG overdue for some sanity on shit like the war on drugs)

[Agony]

93. _I_ avoid supermarket ground beef.

nuf sed

[Hassin Bin Sober]

96. That makes more sense than the OP.

[sandyd921]

94. Some points about Greenwald, Paul, Obama, and my own take

1. As others have pointed out Greenwald hasn't said in this quote (or anywhere else) he is a Paul supporter.

2. Glenn Greenwald is a civil libertarian. Besides Ron Paul what other major candidates are out there advocating for civil liberties issues?

3. Like Glenn Greenwald I am very unhappy with Barack Obama regarding his track record on civil liberties (he campaigned as a constitutionalist/civil libertarian for crying out loud!) as well as other issues where he played footsies with Wall Street, corporations, and repigs and undercut progressives at every turn. Doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Paul or any other damn repig and yes, I'll very likely end up holding my nose and unhappily voting for Obama.

4. This post also does not mean I agree with Greenwald on everything. When it comes to Citizens United he and I greatly part company! For me the lunacy of corporate personhood is the seminal issue of our time!

Just trying to inject the idea here that intelligent people can take nuanced positions on things. Not accusing you of anything. I myself often go off on something before I think it completely through.

[Karmadillo]

95. The kind of respectful post that has made DU what it is today. Go MM! Go MM!

If you disagree with Greenwald, you could, with only a little effort, come up with something better and more conducive to an enlightening discussion than asshat.

Basic reading comprehension reveals Greenwald is not supporting Ron Paul. As many of us learned the last time this article was cherrypicked, Greenwald is talking about how media coverage of our protracted presidential campaigns leads to "bolstering orthodoxies and narrowing the range of permitted views." Is he off base? Probably not. Single payer, anyone?

Does the media cover Ron Paul's antiwar position to the degree it covers the up and down horserace drama of Newt Gingrich? Probably not. Would the American people better benefit from a thorough discussion of Paul's antiwar stance or Newt Gingrich's electoral fortunes? Pretty easy to see which and also pretty easy to see the media could cover both, but they very clearly don't. Is Greenwald an asshat for pointing this out? Hard to see it from anything you've posted.

[girl gone mad]

97. "Greenwald is an asshat!" "Taibbi is an uneducated idiot!"

Are these baseless personal attacks on progressive writers a passing fad or does this sort of tripe represent what the new DU strives to be?

[JackRiddler]

106. Actually, both of those statements, unbacked by anything approaching credible argument...

are little more than unwitting declarations of intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

[mzmolly]

98. He's also anti-civil rights

and, anti organized, effective federal government.

[valerief]

100. Where's the "support" part of your claim? You know, aside from whether Paul is the most anti." nt

[Robb]

101. Greenwald responds: MineralMan is "simple-minded."

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

[Cali_Democrat]

107. LOL

[got root]

116. to say the least

[DevonRex]

110. Just had to kick this back up. And ITA. nt

[Odin2005]

111. Saying that a broken clock is right twice a day is not "support".

Jeez, Greenwald can be a bit of a dick at times, but this incessant bashing of him is just stupid.

[Major Hogwash]

121. No, it's not stupid at all.

Go to salon dot com and read all of the articles that Greenwald has written about President Obama since January of 2009.
All of them bash President Obama in one way or another.

Most of them are just hate-filled screeds that use very little logic, hardly any facts, and a whole lot of hot air opinion from Greenwald.
No matter what the story of the day was about, Greenwald managed to twist the facts to try and make Obama look like a crazy, out of control, dictator who foamed at the mouth at the very thought of taking over the rest of the world.

[Fuddnik]

112. Look what Greenwald wrote under "simple minded"!

Da shoe fits, wear it!


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

[TheKentuckian]

114. That isn't "support". It has to be granted that two out of four are easily arguable.

To say he is anti-crony capitalism is functionally false, his ideology insists on no check on it at all other than market forces and "The Invisible Hand"or in other words jack shit.

The anti-war thing is probably on the weak side too since one gets the impression that if private money was paying mercs his concerns would evaporate but that contention remains quite arguable in context regardless of his sprained logic.

Making these observations is not support, it should shame the rest of the field in these areas that the points are generally between arguable and obvious.

The accusation is a leap in logic, if the TeaPubliKlans were to say that Barack Obama is the most pro-regulation candidate in the field it would not be an endorsement even if the quote was lifted from The Nation or something.

[JackRiddler]

120. Excellent summation, Kentuck:

"Making these observations is not support, it should shame the rest of the field in these areas..."

Instead of attacking Greenwald for stating facts about Paul, Democrats should be asking how it is possible that their own politicians are being outflanked by a right-wing yahoo on the most important questions of peace and justice -- ending the perpetual war for empire and ending the drug war (which also means reducing the police state and the prison-industrial complex)? Who can justify either of these insanities?

That's why Paul sends those Democrats who are in denial about their own party into a rage. He's a monster on pretty much everything else, but when it comes to war and drug war, he's far to the left of Obama.

[joshcryer]

123. I don't think it's support, I think GG truly believes Paul believes those things.

I think it's at best inadequate, or naive.

[MichaelMcGuire]

124. I'd rather like to see you and Glenn battle on DU3.

BTW No offence but my money is on Glenn