HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Glenn Greenwald is an ass...

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:04 PM

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

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.

127 replies, 27553 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 127 replies Author Time Post
Reply Glenn Greenwald is an asshat for his support of Ron Paul. (Original post)
MineralMan Dec 2011 OP
MFrohike Dec 2011 #1
MineralMan Dec 2011 #11
MFrohike Dec 2011 #21
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #36
TheWraith Dec 2011 #105
MFrohike Dec 2011 #113
TheWraith Dec 2011 #115
MFrohike Dec 2011 #117
Spokker Dec 2011 #122
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2011 #51
TheWraith Dec 2011 #108
Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2011 #2
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #7
gratuitous Dec 2011 #9
MineralMan Dec 2011 #12
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #14
Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2011 #19
JackRiddler Dec 2011 #102
hfojvt Dec 2011 #17
MineralMan Dec 2011 #34
Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2011 #49
oberliner Dec 2011 #99
FSogol Dec 2011 #3
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #4
MineralMan Dec 2011 #27
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #39
MineralMan Dec 2011 #40
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #46
MineralMan Dec 2011 #63
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #5
Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2011 #13
arely staircase Dec 2011 #18
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #41
arely staircase Dec 2011 #58
JackRiddler Dec 2011 #103
arely staircase Dec 2011 #118
JackRiddler Dec 2011 #119
arely staircase Jan 2012 #125
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #127
MineralMan Dec 2011 #20
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #28
arely staircase Dec 2011 #60
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #64
arely staircase Dec 2011 #66
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #72
arely staircase Dec 2011 #75
dionysus Dec 2011 #6
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #8
MineralMan Dec 2011 #24
Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2011 #84
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #10
MineralMan Dec 2011 #15
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #26
MineralMan Dec 2011 #29
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #31
Cameron27 Jan 2012 #126
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2011 #52
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #16
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #23
MineralMan Dec 2011 #30
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #33
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2011 #22
seaglass Dec 2011 #25
MineralMan Dec 2011 #32
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #35
MineralMan Dec 2011 #38
seaglass Dec 2011 #42
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #53
JackRiddler Dec 2011 #104
frylock Dec 2011 #37
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #45
Romulox Dec 2011 #43
WilliamPitt Dec 2011 #44
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #47
WilliamPitt Dec 2011 #56
bvar22 Dec 2011 #109
Robb Dec 2011 #67
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #77
Robb Dec 2011 #81
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #86
Robb Dec 2011 #88
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #90
Robb Dec 2011 #91
Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2011 #82
Robb Dec 2011 #89
hlthe2b Dec 2011 #71
BootinUp Dec 2011 #48
Poll_Blind Dec 2011 #50
BootinUp Dec 2011 #55
Poll_Blind Dec 2011 #57
BootinUp Dec 2011 #61
Poll_Blind Dec 2011 #65
BootinUp Dec 2011 #68
Poll_Blind Dec 2011 #73
BootinUp Dec 2011 #83
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #87
joeybee12 Dec 2011 #54
Poll_Blind Dec 2011 #59
hlthe2b Dec 2011 #62
Rex Dec 2011 #69
SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #70
Rex Dec 2011 #74
SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #79
Rex Dec 2011 #80
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2011 #76
Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #78
Puregonzo1188 Dec 2011 #85
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #92
Agony Dec 2011 #93
Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2011 #96
sandyd921 Dec 2011 #94
Karmadillo Dec 2011 #95
girl gone mad Dec 2011 #97
JackRiddler Dec 2011 #106
mzmolly Dec 2011 #98
valerief Dec 2011 #100
Robb Dec 2011 #101
Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #107
got root Dec 2011 #116
DevonRex Dec 2011 #110
Odin2005 Dec 2011 #111
Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #121
Fuddnik Dec 2011 #112
TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #114
JackRiddler Dec 2011 #120
joshcryer Dec 2011 #123
MichaelMcGuire Jan 2012 #124

Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:06 PM

1. You really should have picked a better quotation

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:13 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:21 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:36 PM

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

Paul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:50 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #105)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 03:06 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #113)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 03:52 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #115)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 04:57 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #115)


Response to MineralMan (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:51 PM

51. Your opinion is clouding your judgment

Greenwald does NOT support Ron Paul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #51)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:51 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:07 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:12 PM

7. Apparently, yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:13 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:15 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:17 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:20 PM

19. You claimed he "supports" RP.

Prove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:29 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:19 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:32 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:47 PM

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

No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 08:28 PM

99. He was not a vegetarian

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:08 PM

3. K & R. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:09 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:26 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #27)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:39 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #39)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:40 PM

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

I'm in no position to demand anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #40)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:44 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #46)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 04:07 PM

63. Thanks!

You are correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:10 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:16 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:19 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:40 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 04:00 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #58)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:31 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #103)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 05:49 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #118)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 09:15 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #119)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:40 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #125)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:56 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:20 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink