You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #11: The article is dated January, 2010 [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
fortune Donating Member (43 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
11. The article is dated January, 2010
May I ask why you brought up a 4-month old article? Pehraps solely because it's an anti-Greenwald piece?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -What Glenn Greenwald Got Wrong about the Constitution NJmaverick  May-09-10 09:16 AM   #0 
  - This is an old article. Is this the only piece you could find to  tekisui   May-09-10 09:19 AM   #1 
  - So you support the Supreme Court ruling that companies are people, just like Greenwald  NJmaverick   May-09-10 09:20 AM   #2 
     - I didn't defend a word. I questioned your point in posting an  tekisui   May-09-10 09:22 AM   #3 
     - His dishonest and hate filled article has been posted Ad nauseam here on DU  NJmaverick   May-09-10 09:24 AM   #4 
        - Like I said, the best you can do is a 4 month old article?  tekisui   May-09-10 09:28 AM   #6 
        - Wrong as usual, here is some seriously damning dirt on this creep  NJmaverick   May-09-10 09:30 AM   #7 
           - Huh? Greenwald has slammed Goldman Sachs in the past  fortune   May-09-10 09:50 AM   #13 
              - He wasn't slamming them when he worked for them  NJmaverick   May-09-10 09:52 AM   #15 
                 - Elena Kagan also worked for Goldman Sachs.  katandmoon   May-09-10 10:04 AM   #19 
                 - link?????  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:06 AM   #20 
                    - Possible Supreme Court pick had ties with Goldman Sachs  tekisui   May-09-10 10:09 AM   #24 
                       - So she didn't work for Goldman Sachs but was on an advisory panel  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:11 AM   #26 
                          - She took money directly from Goldman Sachs.  katandmoon   May-09-10 10:13 AM   #28 
                          - But, not as much as Greenwald!11!!1  tekisui   May-09-10 10:14 AM   #29 
                          - Greenwald supports Goldman Sach's personhood, that says it all about him  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:16 AM   #31 
                          - He supports absolute freedom of speech.  tekisui   May-09-10 10:18 AM   #36 
                          - no he doesn't as the average citizen's voice will be drowned out by corporate millions  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:18 AM   #39 
                          - You want to limit unions and progressive activist organization's  tekisui   May-09-10 10:20 AM   #44 
                          - LOL. "Absolute freedom of speech" is probably the best Murdoch style spin I've seen on the CU case.  phleshdef   May-09-10 10:19 AM   #42 
                          - You falsely state that Greenwald assigns "personhood" to corporations  fortune   May-09-10 11:59 AM   #97 
                          - This is true, Greenwald obviously took so much money from Goldman that he has time to do nothing but  katandmoon   May-09-10 10:18 AM   #37 
                          - When, and in what capacity, did Greenwald work for Goldman Sachs? n/t  fortune   May-09-10 12:07 PM   #100 
                          - Kagan doesn't want to make Goldman Sachs a citizen like Greenwald does  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:16 AM   #32 
                          - Actually you don't know that she doesn't. She has no judicial record.  katandmoon   May-09-10 10:19 AM   #41 
                             - She argued against Citizens United in the Supreme Court  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:24 AM   #50 
                                - SHE HAS NO JUDICIAL RECORD  katandmoon   May-09-10 03:20 PM   #108 
                                   - Now you are just not making sense. She argued against Citizen United  NJmaverick   May-09-10 06:55 PM   #141 
                          - She didn't take money from anyone. She EARNED money while LEGALLY employed as an advisor.  phleshdef   May-09-10 10:17 AM   #35 
                             - Including Greenwald.  tekisui   May-09-10 10:19 AM   #40 
                             - The OP is just playing the same game you and others play here all the time.  phleshdef   May-09-10 10:20 AM   #45 
                                - .  tekisui   May-09-10 10:21 AM   #47 
                             - but President Obama may pick her for the Supreme Court so she must be bad  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:19 AM   #43 
                                - but President Obama may pick her for the Supreme Court so she must be good  katandmoon   May-09-10 10:23 AM   #48 
                                - Logic escapes that one.  tekisui   May-09-10 10:25 AM   #52 
                                - If only you understood the concept of logic  NJmaverick   May-09-10 11:39 AM   #89 
                                   - Look at your screen name.  tekisui   May-09-10 12:03 PM   #99 
                                - Sorry but I don't buy into your concept that there must be knee jerk opposition to President Obama  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:25 AM   #53 
                                   - Sorry but I don't buy into your concept that there must be knee jerk suport to President Obama  tekisui   May-09-10 10:29 AM   #55 
                                      - One doesn't need to have "knee jerk support" for the Presidennt  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:30 AM   #60 
                                      - lol.  tekisui   May-09-10 10:34 AM   #68 
                                      - Sadly I could see thinking being open minded as funny  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:35 AM   #70 
                                      - Keep it coming!  tekisui   May-09-10 10:36 AM   #71 
                                      - well if a poster who think laughing icons are the height of intellect  NJmaverick   May-09-10 05:24 PM   #128 
                                - Didn't Greenwald support Sotomayor before and after Obama picked her?  fortune   May-09-10 12:09 PM   #101 
                                   - nope  NJmaverick   May-09-10 05:23 PM   #127 
                                      - link?  tekisui   May-10-10 04:23 PM   #161 
                          - Greenwald's connections? Did you read the wiki link that  Jefferson23   May-10-10 07:44 PM   #164 
                 - So when will your acknowledgment  skepticscott   May-09-10 04:01 PM   #111 
        - How don't care how old the article is..  Cha   May-09-10 11:48 AM   #95 
        - he's a hero because he hates obama. meanwhile in the real word, he's some dipshit blogger no one has  dionysus   May-10-10 10:43 AM   #160 
     - Why do people like you  skepticscott   May-09-10 09:36 AM   #10 
        - because "people like me" care about Americans and want to protect them  NJmaverick   May-09-10 09:53 AM   #16 
           - LOL. Spare me your neo lib version of "care". nt  ipaint   May-09-10 10:18 AM   #38 
           - "caring" is what drives me to hold mostly liberal views  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:38 AM   #74 
              - neo-liberal. There is a differnce.  ipaint   May-09-10 12:00 PM   #98 
                 - "neo liberal"? Stupid labels don't make your case.  Cha   May-09-10 05:06 PM   #119 
           - Care all you want  skepticscott   May-09-10 10:30 AM   #59 
              - I suggest you look at the link I provided that clearly shows the flaws in the  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:39 AM   #75 
                 - I've read it, thanks  skepticscott   May-09-10 11:03 AM   #84 
                    - You seemed to have skipped all the main points and heard only what you wanted to hear  NJmaverick   May-09-10 04:48 PM   #115 
                       - Answer my question first  skepticscott   May-09-10 05:28 PM   #130 
                          - No, you were given a solid and compelling argument against yours and Greenwald's position and you  NJmaverick   May-09-10 05:30 PM   #131 
                             - Gee, what a shock  skepticscott   May-09-10 05:37 PM   #134 
                                - No I wasn't shocked by your out of hand dismissal  NJmaverick   May-09-10 05:40 PM   #135 
                                   - Duck, dodge, weave  skepticscott   May-09-10 07:07 PM   #143 
                                      - Your self declarations of victory are laughable at best  NJmaverick   May-09-10 07:11 PM   #144 
  - Man  CTLawGuy   May-09-10 09:26 AM   #5 
  - Perhaps that's why he opposes Kagan, she might want to over turn People United  NJmaverick   May-09-10 09:31 AM   #8 
  - he just dislikes anything Obama does  CTLawGuy   May-09-10 05:48 PM   #136 
  - Now that greenwald defends them.  Cha   May-09-10 05:07 PM   #120 
  - One important note, Greenwald has never gotten anything right. n/t  WeDidIt   May-09-10 09:32 AM   #9 
  - So you disagree with all his many scathing criticisms of BushCo and its MSM enablers?  katandmoon   May-09-10 10:07 AM   #22 
  - Anyone with half a brain was critical of George Bush, that doesn't buy him any credibility  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:42 AM   #79 
  - I agree. He's been way off way often.  saltpoint   May-09-10 10:39 AM   #76 
  - I came to that conclusion a while back  HughMoran   May-09-10 11:36 AM   #86 
  - The article is dated January, 2010  fortune   May-09-10 09:45 AM   #11 
  - This hate monger's latest venom filled attack article has been posted repeatedly  NJmaverick   May-09-10 09:51 AM   #14 
  - its not the age of the article that is relevent its the degree that it shows Greenwald  grantcart   May-09-10 01:44 PM   #106 
  - Greenwald shouldn't pick a battle with Stevens  BootinUp   May-09-10 09:48 AM   #12 
  - Greenwald agrees with Stevens almost always  fortune   May-09-10 12:13 PM   #102 
     - That was not my meaning nt  BootinUp   May-09-10 12:48 PM   #105 
  - It's obvious that Glenn Greenwald is an intellectually shallow professional shit-stirrer...  ClarkUSA   May-09-10 09:58 AM   #17 
  - Funny that someone so clueless about the Constitution has the arrogance to comment on the Supreme  NJmaverick   May-09-10 09:59 AM   #18 
     - What's even funnier: his loyal followers don't care how clueless he is re: the Constitution...  ClarkUSA   May-09-10 10:13 AM   #27 
        - Greenwald is critical of Obama for the same thiings he was critical of Bush for  katandmoon   May-09-10 10:17 AM   #33 
        - Um, no. He is siding w/BushCo forces on the Citizens-United decision, as detailed in the OP.  ClarkUSA   May-09-10 10:31 AM   #61 
        - greenwald the human pretzel who used to work for goldman-sachs.  Cha   May-09-10 11:57 AM   #96 
           - If GS is so horrible then why did Obama accept GS campaign contributions?  katandmoon   May-09-10 03:26 PM   #109 
           - Can you cite when he was an employee of Goldman Sachs,  skepticscott   May-09-10 04:11 PM   #112 
              - greenwald is the head baaaa baaaaa  Cha   May-09-10 05:03 PM   #118 
                 - Nice job of tearing down the goalposts  skepticscott   May-09-10 05:18 PM   #125 
                    - Why? They have been proven RIGHT  NJmaverick   May-09-10 05:25 PM   #129 
                    - Proven right? Where and how?  skepticscott   May-09-10 05:33 PM   #133 
                    - And of course, crickets  skepticscott   May-10-10 07:22 PM   #163 
                    - greenwald doesn't give a shit when he spreads lies.  Cha   May-09-10 06:12 PM   #138 
                       - Deleted message  Name removed   May-09-10 07:05 PM   #142 
  - Desperation in motion.  cornermouse   May-09-10 10:07 AM   #21 
  - Yes, greenwald is a fucking desperate  Cha   May-09-10 05:08 PM   #121 
  - Greenwald strikes me as a very bright mind who is crippled by his bias  saltpoint   May-09-10 10:08 AM   #23 
  - That's a pretty good take on things  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:09 AM   #25 
  - He's as "biased" against Obama as he was againt Bush, for the EXACT SAME THINGS  katandmoon   May-09-10 10:15 AM   #30 
  - Nope your assessment is flawed  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:17 AM   #34 
  - So it's different when BuchCo eavesdrops without warrants than when ObamaCo does it?  katandmoon   May-09-10 10:21 AM   #46 
  - ANd, Obama's indefinite detentions are better than bush's too!  tekisui   May-09-10 10:25 AM   #51 
  - Yep President Obama supported green energy, stem cell research, the poor, students  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:29 AM   #58 
     - Has Greenwald criticized Obama for any of those things?  katandmoon   May-09-10 10:32 AM   #63 
     - He has criticized President Obama for opposing the Citizens United ruling  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:40 AM   #77 
        - And yet you are unable to understand the concept that there some things OBAMA says/does that are  katandmoon   May-09-10 10:55 AM   #83 
           - Oh I have no doubt you don't forgive the President for some perceived slight  NJmaverick   May-09-10 11:44 AM   #92 
              - Obama will make do just fine with the almost million bucks his last campaign got from Goldman Sachs  katandmoon   May-09-10 03:30 PM   #110 
                 - See that's not exactly true. President Obama made his money with small donations  NJmaverick   May-09-10 04:47 PM   #114 
     - I applaud most of his domestic efforts.  tekisui   May-09-10 10:33 AM   #66 
        - Yet there are no posts of you applauding, why is that?  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:41 AM   #78 
           - Sure there are. You can find some if you search.  tekisui   May-09-10 10:43 AM   #80 
  - Yep President Obama supported green energy, stem cell research, the poor, students  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:29 AM   #57 
  - It is different to some people as you can see  spiritual_gunfighter   May-09-10 05:12 PM   #123 
  - Yep.  cornermouse   May-09-10 10:24 AM   #49 
     - Yep President Obama supported green energy, stem cell research, the poor, students  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:29 AM   #56 
        - More desperation in motion.  cornermouse   May-09-10 10:33 AM   #65 
        - You failed to address a single point I raised  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:37 AM   #73 
           - You failed to address what Greenwald had to say about them re Obama.  katandmoon   May-09-10 10:53 AM   #82 
           - Gleenwald thinks the President was wrong to defend us against corporate domination  NJmaverick   May-09-10 11:45 AM   #94 
           - They addressed three of your points.  tekisui   May-09-10 12:38 PM   #103 
              - Yet you couldn't list a single one  NJmaverick   May-09-10 04:49 PM   #117 
                 - Deleted message  Name removed   May-09-10 05:14 PM   #124 
                 - .  tekisui   May-09-10 05:51 PM   #137 
        - Please point out where Greenwald has criticized Obama for that?  katandmoon   May-09-10 10:33 AM   #67 
           - President Obama criticized quite vehemently Citizens United  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:36 AM   #72 
              - I'm not talking about Citizens United. I'm talking about the other things you mentioned.  katandmoon   May-09-10 10:52 AM   #81 
                 - We are talking a Supreme Court justice so nothing is more important than the worst ruling  NJmaverick   May-09-10 11:40 AM   #90 
                    - It was not the worse ruling in history.  tekisui   May-09-10 12:42 PM   #104 
                       - This one has the potential to END OUR DEMOCRACY  NJmaverick   May-09-10 04:49 PM   #116 
                          - Are you familiar with those cases?  tekisui   May-10-10 06:28 PM   #162 
  - Greenwald has been consistent in his rabid bias.  saltpoint   May-09-10 10:34 AM   #69 
  - Critical thinking = "bias"  brentspeak   May-09-10 10:28 AM   #54 
  - Glenn Greenwald has not shown any 'thinking" much less any of a critical nature  NJmaverick   May-09-10 10:31 AM   #62 
  - Relax, brentspeak. The next thing I say is as unpredictable as a  saltpoint   May-09-10 10:32 AM   #64 
  - As I've said above, I unsubscribed to his crap  HughMoran   May-09-10 11:38 AM   #88 
     - Hi, HughMoran. Good for you. And I have no qualms about the guy's  saltpoint   May-09-10 11:44 AM   #93 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   May-09-10 11:26 AM   #85 
  - I think Glenn Greenwald is more consistant than most  Phoebe Loosinhouse   May-09-10 11:38 AM   #87 
  - Greenwald's support for the Citizen United ruling shows he is  NJmaverick   May-09-10 11:43 AM   #91 
  - The smear machine appears to be running on all cylinders.  freddie mertz   May-09-10 01:46 PM   #107 
  - You are of course referring to Greenwald, who clearly is a master at smearing  NJmaverick   May-09-10 04:45 PM   #113 
  - But, he's a coward..he can smear his ass off..  Cha   May-09-10 05:09 PM   #122 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   May-09-10 05:23 PM   #126 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   May-09-10 05:30 PM   #132 
  - No, I wasn't. nt.  freddie mertz   May-10-10 07:42 AM   #148 
  - Kagan is a witch? Thanks to Glenn for letting me know! The  CBR   May-09-10 06:38 PM   #139 
     - She turned me into a newt  NJmaverick   May-09-10 06:53 PM   #140 
     - That explains it, then.  freddie mertz   May-10-10 07:44 AM   #150 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   May-09-10 09:44 PM   #147 
     - Silly.  freddie mertz   May-10-10 07:42 AM   #149 
        - What is silly is decrying the "smear machine" while engaging in it. nt  CBR   May-10-10 08:51 AM   #154 
  - Greenwald's wrong on this one- but he's right about Holder and Kagan's abandonment of principles  depakid   May-09-10 07:37 PM   #145 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   May-09-10 07:56 PM   #146 
  - Greenwald is this week's Emmanuel Goldstein.  freddie mertz   May-10-10 07:58 AM   #151 
  - Greenwald is getting what he deserved, he was dishonest in his attacks on the President's supporters  NJmaverick   May-10-10 08:47 AM   #153 
     - Forgive me if I am unmoved.  freddie mertz   May-10-10 09:39 AM   #155 
     - Principled and Greenwald should not be used in the same sentence  NJmaverick   May-10-10 09:41 AM   #156 
        - I expected too much I guess.  freddie mertz   May-10-10 09:47 AM   #157 
           - What hurts OUR cause is your efforts to undermine our DEMOCRATIC President  NJmaverick   May-10-10 09:50 AM   #158 
              - Nonsense.  freddie mertz   May-10-10 10:23 AM   #159 
     - You showed him a thing or two,  Moochy   May-10-10 08:49 PM   #166 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   May-10-10 08:38 AM   #152 
  - He's clueless about Kagan's legal briefs, too. SCOTUSBlog has refuted his bullshit attacks on her.  ClarkUSA   May-10-10 08:03 PM   #165 
  - Slimy hack tactics by the OP. This is really embarrassing.  Flaneur   May-11-10 01:59 AM   #167 
     - "slimey hack tactics"? look at yourself.  Cha   May-11-10 02:34 PM   #168 
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC