Glenn Greenwald ain't no Libertarian, Part 1: Defending Social Security and Medicare

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:31 AM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

1. They've always got their fallback, racist!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to morningfog (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:35 AM

uponit7771 (88,638 posts)

123. Racist is what racist says and " it was my early days" (sic) != a changed mind

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to morningfog (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 5, 2014, 04:22 AM

kfreed (88 posts)

234. Glenn Greenwald's "Liberty Tour" with White Supremacists...

... yep, he's a Koch Libertarian, racism is a by-product of a Koch addiction:

Libertarian Glenn Greenwald's "Liberty Tour" sponsored by "Young Americans for Liberty": http://www.yaliberty.org/tour/fall2012

His cohorts were Hornsberger (a white supremacist) and Bruce Fein (old time GOP sleaze bag neocon) and the moderator is Jack Hunter, Rand Paul's "Southern Avenger" - they took their "liberty tour" to universities on the West Coast. Here's the video:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42436_The_Convergence_of_Glenn_Greenwald_and_Rand_Pauls_Southern_Avenger

Let's not forget that the Libertarian triumvirate of Greenwald, Snowden, and Assange are all professed Paultards (the Fraud Pauls also have a long history of white supremacism).

I don't know about anybody else, but I have a real problem with taking "civil liberties" tips from avowed white supremacists.

"Progressive" Glenn Greenwald explains his motivation (video): http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

Which reminds me of this guy: White Supremacist serial killer airs pet peeves at sentencing "Israel, drones, and torture":
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/white-supremacist-defiant-at-sentencing-for-killing-spree

P.S. What Rand Paul is trying to sell to young techies in Silicon Valley )sponsored by Koch): "Homophobia, racism and the Kochs: San Francisco’s tech-libertarian “Reboot” conference is a cesspool"
http://pando.com/2014/07/18/homophobia-racism-and-the-kochs-san-franciscos-tech-libertarian-reboot-conference-is-a-cesspool/

How can this be??? Look at who/what the Libertarian Titans of industry, that Greenwald never misses a chance to defend. are funding: "The Koch Brothers’ Fake Libertarianism: War, Forced Pregnancies, and Homophobia"
http://www.vice.com/read/the-koch-brothers-fake-libertarianism-war-forced-pregnancies-and-homophobia-729

Liberals, step away from the Libertarian sewer.

Know when you're being conned by the right: Libertarians lying to Liberals:

"something to keep in mind if you find yourself getting all dewy-eyed as you take your place on the bottom of the "strange bedfellows" at the StopWatching.us rally, topped by such rancid libertarian outfits as FreedomWorks, the Kochs’ climate denial front Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Kochs’ new anti-Obamacare Astroturf front Generation Opportunity, Students For Liberty (funded by CIA/NSA contractor Peter Thiel), Ron Paul’s Young Americans For Liberty, the Libertarian Party....
Anyway, just in case "Marketing Libertarianism" hadn't got the rulebook out widely enough, REASON ran a second article later in 1977 headlined "How To Get Converts Left & Right: Political Cross-Dressing Is The Answer."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/found-libertarians-lying-t184312/index.html?t=184312

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to morningfog (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 5, 2014, 05:18 AM

kfreed (88 posts)

235. Explain why Libertarin Greenwald consistently attacks reporters covering the Koch cartel

Greenwald attacks Lee Fang of The Nation: "Fang has written extensively about conservative billionaire businessmen Charles and David Koch, portraying them as nefarious GOP puppet masters—a charge that even “some liberals reject as an overly simplistic caricature,” according to Politico."
http://freebeacon.com/politics/high-times-at-the-nation/

RW Free Beacon jumps for joy.

Glenn Greenwald attacks Mark Ames and Yasha Levine for implicating the Koch cartel in TSA hysteria mongering (as employees were looking to unionize) - turns out Greenwald had been coaching John "Don't Touch My junk" Tyner:
http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/

Glenn Greenwald attacks Make Ames again for an article outlining the ACLU Libertarian faction/Koch contribution explaining why "proponents of campaign finance reform" would side with the Kochs on Citizens United allowing for a corporate fire sale on Congress critters (as does Libertarian Glenn Greenwald): http://www.futureofpando.com/2014/04/17/uh-huh/

Ames' original article on Koch/Libertarian ACLU doings:
http://thedailybanter.com/2012/06/the-quiet-extermination-of-labor-rights-from-human-rights/

The internet is littered with progressive bloggers, left-wing activists, and reporters that Greenwald has attacked... many of them shocked as his attacks tend to come out of the blue.

And why exactly would "progressive Glenn Greenwald" tweet a link to right-wing militia nutters, Oath Keepers, who joined Cliven Bundy for his armed and violent anti-government Christian Identity white supremacist patriot militia hoedown in Nevada?

http://thedailybanter.com/2012/06/the-quiet-extermination-of-labor-rights-from-human-rights/

And while Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Cato Institute would have us believe that Koch-funded Cato is a staunch defender of civil liberties, the reality is that Cato Institute operatives wrote the legal justification for the 'War on Terror,' warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, torture, etc.:
http://thedailybanter.com/2012/06/the-quiet-extermination-of-labor-rights-from-human-rights/

However, Libertarian Glenn Greenwald insists that Koch donated millions to the ACLU to "fight the Patriot Act" (Bwwwahahahahaha) - yeah right:
http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth

As to is actually assaulting Social Security and Medicare, the Koch cartel that Greenwald insists on defending at all costs: http://www.futureofpando.com/2014/04/17/uh-huh/

"ALEC Exposed: The Koch Connection": http://www.thenation.com/article/161973/alec-exposed-koch-connection

None of this sounds "progressive" in the least.

Liberals, pull your heads out of Greenwald's rear end and stop playing footsie with Libertarians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:35 AM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

2. So

"Glenn Greenwald is on record as opposing Obama's attempts to cut Social Security and Medicare, e.g.: "

...before the election he was defending "Social Security and Medicare" by claiming that Ron Paul was the most "anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war" candidate and hyping Rand Paul?

Seems this title at the OP link says it all:

"Obama and progressives: what will liberals do with their big election victory?"

Greenwald seems to be pushing a new angle after his election speculation FAIL.

Ron Paul wants to eliminate corporate taxes and preserve oil subsidies. Did you know he's really a RW Republican? Greenwald's favorite politicians are frauds, and the fact that he doesn't know that means he's clueless. Anyone backing these frauds or making excuses for Greenwald support of them is trying perpetrate the fraud.

Ron Paul Calls For 'Nullification' Of Obamacare: 'Pretty Soon ... We're Just Going To Ignore The Feds'
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ron-paul-calls-for-nullification-of-obamacare

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

Rand Paul backs bill that could lead to crackdown on states where voters legalized weed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024663470

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024945439#post33

Greenwald is not the left.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023321760

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

Then he got defensive.

@Wolfrum Thanks: of course Obama = better than Paul on those issues for progressives - though I do say Endless War jeopradizes entitlements

http://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/153169132471328768

Greenwald does exactly this: Hype Ron Paul based on soundbites. One can find any number of clips or writings contradicting these soundbites, as with the anti-war claim. You're opposed to the death penalty, but would let people die without health care?

Let's look at the numbers: There were less than 80 executions in the U.S. last year, the lowest in 40 years. Tens of thousand of people die each year without health care

Greenwald doesn't for a second consider that Paul's positions are propaganda.

"Endless War jeopradizes entitlements"?

What the hell does that mean? You know what jeopardizes "entitlements": getting rid of them and believing they're unconstitutional.

Is slavery an entitlement program?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100294914

Debunking the "Ron Paul Cares About Civil Liberties" Myth

Last week Glenn Greenwald won the Dumbest Tweet of the Week award with this beauty, about Ron Paul:

<...>

http://angryblacklady.com/2011/12/28/debunking-the-ron-paul-cares-about-civil-liberties-myth/

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

Disappointing those who 'stand with Rand'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022742805

It's Greenwald Day!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024931733

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:41 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

3. $10 if you produce a Greenwald endorsement of Paul

as the best candidate for any office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:48 AM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

4. "the best candidate for any office."

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.

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024931733#post164

The OP commentary is a trip. It's Greenwald moving from his election speculation FAIL to his Social Security speculation fail. IOW, he wasn't defending it, he was using it as part of his anti-Obama talking points. Greenwald:

STEP SIX: Once the deal is enacted with bipartisan support and Obama signs it in a ceremony, standing in front of his new Treasury Secretary, the supreme corporatist Erskine Bowles, where he touts the virtues of bipartisanship and making "tough choices", any progressives still complaining will be told that it is time to move on. Any who do not will be constantly reminded that there is an Extremely Important Election coming – the 2014 midterm – where it will be Absolutely Vital that Democrats hold onto the Senate and that they take over the House. Any progressive, still infuriated by cuts to social security and Medicare, who still refuses to get meekly in line behind the Party will be told that they are jeopardizing the Party's chances for winning that Vital Election and – as a result of their opposition - are helping Mitch McConnell take over control of the Senate and John Boehner retain control of the House.

FAIL LOL!

h/t Cha and Tarheel_Dem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:50 AM

Cali_Democrat (30,439 posts)

5. Greenwald was certainly concern trolling in that video

Epic fucking fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:51 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

6. Fail. No ten bucks for you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:53 AM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

7. Never wanted it, and the denial was expected.

Greenwald FAIL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:08 AM

sheshe2 (78,300 posts)

8. You got that right!

Manny doesn't want facts De Nile De Nile. And Greenwald fails once again.

thanks PS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sheshe2 (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:17 AM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

9. The comments at

the second link in the OP are hilarious.

Comment:

Why do you care, Mr. Greenwald? You did EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to discourage the left from voting for him in your articles leading up the the vote. I am sorry if you are unhappy the right wing did not score a victory. That certainly was your goal in such a tight election. Tougher to write nasty articles on someone half your readers care about, versus getting someone elected who could easily start another war, forget about ending another one. You could have has a president who opened up the western parks and forests to the control of their local state governors, who would have sent in the drilling and clear cutting crews. Then you could have double up on your high horse prose.

Greenwald's response:

That certainly was your goal in such a tight election.

You should take your mind-reading abilities on the road - you could make a lot of money performing with it a cricuses and carnivals.

Tougher to write nasty articles on someone half your readers care about, versus getting someone elected who could easily start another war, forget about ending another one.

Yeah - Obama would never start wars - he hates bombing and killing people.

If you don't like someone criticizing your Beloved Leader, you could always move to North Korea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:26 AM

sheshe2 (78,300 posts)

11. Oh noos! Greenwald haz a sad.

Now where have I heard this before?

If you don't like someone criticizing your Beloved Leader, you could always.....

Your Beloved leader....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sheshe2 (Reply #11)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:48 AM

Whisp (24,096 posts)

16. He sure isn't the genious some think he is. Nor the wordsmith.

That was as pathetic a response as an angry 9 year old with a runny nose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Whisp (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:54 AM

sheshe2 (78,300 posts)

18. The petulant child...

Oh nooos~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:14 AM

Number23 (24,544 posts)

29. "If you don't like someone criticizing your Beloved Leader, you could always move to North Korea."

Is there an echo in here???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Number23 (Reply #29)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:31 AM

sheshe2 (78,300 posts)

42. Wait What?! An echo!?

Yes, yes there is! Holy S..........................!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sheshe2 (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:09 AM

billhicks76 (5,082 posts)

26. Nope

I've watched this ganging up by the same tandems on anyone defending GG or Snowden. My opinion? It's vile, uninformed and deceptive. But keep trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to billhicks76 (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:45 AM

sheshe2 (78,300 posts)

45. So the ganging up on posts that support ...

Women/ President Obama / AA/ LGBT/ White Privilege is okay with you? Cause I've watched this ganging up by the same tandems every single time. My opinion? It's vile uninformed and deceptive. But keep trying.

Hey Bill you are crying out for the support and defense of two men. GG and ES. They are not the patriots that you seem to believe.

What's vile, where is your support of the issues I stated above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sheshe2 (Reply #45)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:53 AM

billhicks76 (5,082 posts)

48. You Are Making Up Lies Now

As any skilled disrupter does. I support all the issues you stated but please don't use them as camouflage for establishment talking points regarding surveillance. FOX News takes your position on Snowden and Greenwald...I do not. I don't know a single person for white privilege, who is against LGBT etc. But I also don't know anyone who supports NSA or the Drug War anymore and are personally offended by all those getting rich off spying on Americans, locking them up and wars abroad. Please don't ever suggest because I support Snowden that I must be against all our core issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to billhicks76 (Reply #48)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:03 AM

sheshe2 (78,300 posts)

55. Look, it's late here and I am tired...

Yet I have no clue what you just posted. Well ya I got

"You Are Making Up Lies Now As any skilled disrupter does."

The rest is ...word salad...

"I supplier tall the issues you stated but please don't use them as camouflage for establishment talking points regarding surveillance. FOX News takes your position on Snowden and Greenwald...I do not. I don't know a single person for white privilege, who is against LGBT etc. But I also don't know anyone who supports NSA or the Drug War anymore and are personally offended by all those getting rich off spying on Americans, locking them up and wars abroad.

What the hell does this mean!?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sheshe2 (Reply #55)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:12 AM

billhicks76 (5,082 posts)

57. Spelling Corrected

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to billhicks76 (Reply #48)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:49 AM

sheshe2 (78,300 posts)

63. Thank you so much for correcting your spelling.

In a way it makes it easier to understand.

However first of all I am not a Fox News Viewer. So I for one would not know what positions they take on anything. I only have seen the jokes about them.

As for your ...

"I don't know a single person for white privilege, who is against LGBT etc.

What does white privileged have to do with LGBT rights!? What are you saying here?

And this...

But I also don't know anyone who supports NSA or the Drug War anymore and are personally offended by all those getting rich off spying on Americans, locking them up and wars abroad.

Well I don't support NSA, Nor do I support GG or ES. They are not patriots. GG does it for money. Eddie he just took off and seems to have sold his soul. What that has to do with the drug wars, or are you talking about supporting legalization of pot? Or is it the pipeline to prison that AA boys are subject to. And to toss into your word salad..wars abroad? What wars, Bushes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sheshe2 (Reply #45)

Tue Aug 5, 2014, 05:53 AM

kfreed (88 posts)

237. Clue: Australian Wikileaks Party (Assange) preferences fascists, mens righters, and gun humpers...

Here's another clue as to what Libertarian Paulbots Greenwald and Assange are up to: http://ausopinion.com/2013/08/18/the-wikileaks-party-lurches-to-the-right-preferences-fascists-mens-righters-and-gun-lovers-above-the-greens/

And Glenn Greenwald's "principled" BFF, Ron Paul:

"As James Kirchick reports in The Daily Beast, the institute’s board is stocked with all manner of 9/11 truthers, supporters of authoritarian regimes, anti-Semites, neo-Confederates, and more. Among others, Paul’s associates now include:..."
http://www.nationalmemo.com/ron-pauls-nutty-think-tank-presents-a-problem-for-his-son/

Ron Paul fanster, Snowden's anti-Social Security tirade:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/would-you-feel-differently-about-snowden-greenwald-and-assange-if-you-knew-what-the

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/would-you-feel-differently-about-snowden-greenwald-and-assange-if-you-knew-what-the

As to attacking the "messenger"... we said Greenwald was full of it for a reason (he's been trying to pin the crimes of Bush on President Obama):

"Board says spying measures are 'reasonable' and within constitutional limits" http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/1.2693735

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to billhicks76 (Reply #26)

Tue Aug 5, 2014, 05:35 AM

kfreed (88 posts)

236. Hmm... actual progressives outing Libertarian Glenn Greenwald. Yeah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:45 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

46. You're owed ten bucks. JMO and I'm stickin' to it! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:43 AM

Whisp (24,096 posts)

14. You lost, Manny!

The evidence is strewn all over the internet on the fact that Greenwald is a Ron Paul freaking Libertarian.

Greenwald spews his Ron Paul garbage, retracts when caught, makes irrelevant, excuses as ignorance, rejects time and space continuums when handy, and even laughs at jokes about Obama raping nuns -- and IT'S OUT THERE ON RECORD.

He said what he said, he is what he is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Whisp (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:01 AM

sheshe2 (78,300 posts)

22. Snort~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Whisp (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:13 AM

grasswire (50,130 posts)

28. why does Rachel Maddow say he's on the left, then?

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow called Greenwald "the American Left’s most fearless political commentator". Filmmaker Michael Moore said: "The first thing I do when I turn on the computer in the morning is go to Glenn Greenwald’s blog to see what he said. He is truly one of our greatest writers right now." And Bill Moyers described him as "the most important voice to have entered the political discourse in years."

All Libertarians, I guess?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to grasswire (Reply #28)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:16 AM

Whisp (24,096 posts)

32. GG does appear to be fearless. And he's also a Ron Paul loving Libertarian.

I mean, you'd have to be fearless to say some of the vile shit he does.

As for Moore's and Moyers comments, they're entitled to their opinion. They have their reasons to say these things and I don't have to hate them because of that because most of their body of work is on the good side of the balance sheet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Whisp (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:26 AM

grasswire (50,130 posts)

39. very revealing nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Whisp (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:02 AM

eridani (51,907 posts)

53. Give me an example of a Libertarian who is against cutting Social Security

If you say "Greenwald," then that's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Whisp (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:02 AM

msanthrope (37,549 posts)

93. Let's not forget the Three Libertarians tour he took.with Bruce Fein right before

the 2012 election. Libertarian-funded and controlled.

Nor the white paper he wrote for CATO, nor thr fact that he toured on behalf of CATO, or was part of the donor benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to msanthrope (Reply #93)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:22 PM

grasswire (50,130 posts)

158. Bruce Fein was acting as counsel at that time.

He may have been hired by Snowden's father, IIRC. But he was not there as a political allly. He was there as an attorney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to grasswire (Reply #158)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:25 PM

msanthrope (37,549 posts)

159. In 2012? Who the frak was Fein representing in 2012? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to grasswire (Reply #28)

Tue Aug 5, 2014, 06:15 AM

kfreed (88 posts)

238. Because they are mistaken, having taken him at face value...

Like a whole lot of others on the so-called professional left who rarely bother to investigate the doings of Libertarians and apparently because Glenn Greenwald once wrote a book: http://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/glenn-greenwald

And because gullible. "Independent and Principled? Behind the Cato Myth:

The battle between the Cato Institute and the Koch brothers for control over the conservative think tank has further entrenched the risible notion that the group regularly defies the Republican party line"

http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth

Why real progressives keep telling you all to stop schmoozing with Libertarians:

"Found: Libertarians 'Lying to Liberals' Guide Book"
http://www.revleft.com/vb/found-libertarians-lying-t184312/index.html?t=184312

Libertarians (like Greenwald, Snowden, and Assange) are not our pals nor are they interested in preserving civil liberties:

"The Wikileaks Party Lurches To The Right: Preferences Fascists, Mens-righters and Gun-lovers above the Greens"
http://ausopinion.com/2013/08/18/the-wikileaks-party-lurches-to-the-right-preferences-fascists-mens-righters-and-gun-lovers-above-the-greens/

I would be nice if lefties stopped being tools: http://pando.com/2014/07/18/homophobia-racism-and-the-kochs-san-franciscos-tech-libertarian-reboot-conference-is-a-cesspool/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Whisp (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 07:37 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

68. I think that post is filled with lies

Let's start with "laughs at jokes about Obama raping nuns". I don't think that happened. Prove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #68)

Wed Aug 6, 2014, 05:20 PM

aimeemb24 (1 post)

241. Here's your proof:

It's quite Googable but I included a link for you from The Grio to make it easy.

http://thegrio.com/2012/01/02/glenn-greenwald-defends-obama-could-rape-a-nun-attack/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to aimeemb24 (Reply #241)

Wed Aug 6, 2014, 05:41 PM

The Magistrate (93,414 posts)

242. Damn, Ma'am: I Knew The Fella Had Problems, But What Is At that Link Is Way Over The Top

http://thegrio.com/2012/01/02/glenn-greenwald-defends-obama-could-rape-a-nun-attack/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to aimeemb24 (Reply #241)

Wed Aug 6, 2014, 09:14 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

243. I don't see anything about Greenwald laughing at a joke about Obama raping a nun

Greenwald's analogy wasn't brilliant - it was actually pretty dumb, in my opinion - but it was a much different thing than laughing at a joke about Obama raping nuns.

Given that Rachel Maddow, Michael Moore, and Bill Moyers all feel that Greenwald is one of the most important Liberal voices on the planet, I feel that I'm in good company in believing that Greenwald is, in fact, a Liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Whisp (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:16 AM

SidDithers (44,228 posts)

76. They just love Greenwald over at The Daily Paul...

They claim him as one of their own.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Whisp (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 09:46 PM

MADem (135,425 posts)

173. I found it rich that Greenwald trashed Sen. Warren during her tough campaign against Scott Brown.

Of course, once you connect the dots, it makes sense:

Greenwald got his money from the CATO Institute--he was on a stipend while he prepared that Drugs in Portugal "paper," and he was given fees to appear at lectures and fundraising parties.

Who funds the libertarian Cato Institute?

Why the Koch boys, that's who!

And who was funding Scott Brown's reelection campaign in a big, big way? The KOCH boys, that's who!

They sent out their little attack dog to "attack from the left" and he did their bidding.

Shame on GG. It didn't work, though, now, did it? But he did what his master told him:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/194950895761502208

Glenn Greenwald Verified account
‏@ggreenwald
Hopefully, Elizabeth Warren will re-consider her careless and rather extreme campaign positions on Iran: http://is.gd/M1WiOG

See Nude Boy--Warren's opponent, who eventually LOST his bid for reelection (and now he's trying his luck in NH) --begging David Koch for some scratch to battle EW:

So...yeah. Follow the money!!!!! Who's the nexus there, between Greenwald and Scott Brown? Koch ... and his billions!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #173)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:29 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

178. "Trashed" Sen. Warren?

One slightly-hyperbolic tweet that's consistent with everything else he's said in the last decade about starting wars, and that counts as trashing her?

Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #178)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:32 PM

MADem (135,425 posts)

179. Manny, GG and Scott Brown have one thing in common.

And that one thing is David Koch.

Follow the money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #173)

Tue Aug 5, 2014, 06:32 AM

kfreed (88 posts)

239. The Pattern: Greenwald also attacked "neocon" Hillary Clinton

When the neocons beating the drums for war actually reside on the right side of the aisle, but never mind your own eyes and ears, listen to Kochbot Libertarian Glenn Greenwald, he's an equal opportunity ratophile:

"Glenn Greenwald Bashes 'Neocon' Hillary Clinton, 'Americans love to mock the idea of monarchy, and yet we have our own de facto monarchy.'”
http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2014/05/glenn-greenwald-bashes-neocon-hillary-clinton-americans-love-to-mock-the-idea-of-monarchy-and-yet-we-have-our-own-de-facto-monarchy/

Meanwhile, Greenwald gets in bed with the architects of the 'War on Terror': http://www.futureofpando.com/2014/04/17/uh-huh/

Funny how some of us have a memory as to who exactly was behind the Patriot Act (Koch Cato minions) http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:33 AM

uponit7771 (88,638 posts)

121. Proof of Greenwald Produced...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:35 AM

Luminous Animal (27,310 posts)

13. Apparently, the man doesn't get to define himself when DU's clairvoyances' are on the hunt!Tally ho!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #13)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:45 AM

grasswire (50,130 posts)

15. Carnac the Magnificent

The envelope please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:58 AM

Tarheel_Dem (31,132 posts)

20. It's even worse than that.

You have to hand it to him, he don't hang out with poor folk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:00 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

21. Stay tuned... more to come! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:02 AM

Whisp (24,096 posts)

23. Pierre, Pierre, the Billionaire:

Pierre Omidyar is a Punahou school alumnus who holds a bachelor's degree in computer science. He is also the multibillionaire philanthropist behind Hawaii-based Civil Beat, a Right-Libertarian, pro-business, pay-walled media website that focuses its critique on the shortcomings of democratic governance and the public sector. Omidyar's Civil Beat offers analysis which seems to exist in a strange land without class conflict, where the ruling-class and the working-class struggle shoulder to shoulder against the forces corrupting liberal democracy. As a result, the editorial slant is marked by a distinct disconnect from the every-day lives of non-billionaire philanthropists, those who don't stand to gain from the schemes of Omidyar, the "classless angel."

--

One of Omidyar's "value creating" projects has been to invest heavily in the micro-loan industry, through groups like Kiva which allows investors to profit off of loans to the poor, especially in impoverished regions of India. The ideology behind this business venture saw free markets magically lifting all boats where government funding did not. The actual results were often financial collapse, leaving the borrowers prey to lenders demanding repayment. "It is tough to find a household in this village in an impoverished district of Andhra Pradesh that is not deeply in debt to a for-profit microfinance company."

https://libcom.org/library/pierre-omidyar-giving-until-it-hurts

Hawaii, eh? Sounds like an asshole too. A friggin parasite. What are the chances that this group of Omidyar, Snowden, GG, Poitras, Assange are all Libertarians. JUST COINCIDENCE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Whisp (Reply #23)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 08:29 AM

Tarheel_Dem (31,132 posts)

70. Damn good find Whisp. Lot of egg on quite a few faces. Anonymous, Sibel Edmonds,

and some other transparency groups have a HUGE problem with this "association".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Whisp (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 05:41 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

194. But..... but...... but......!!!

GG doesn't LIKE those Libertarians....he just takes, ya know, PAYCHECKS from them!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 04:02 AM

Jim Lane (11,175 posts)

172. The statement that Ron Paul was an anti-war candidate was, in fact, accurate.

On the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, taken up by the Congress in October of 2002, Representative Ron Paul voted Nay.

I believe that a Ron Paul Presidency would have been an absolute disaster for the United States. That conclusion doesn't force me to deny the objective fact that he voted against a foolish imperialistic war. Subjectively, that vote reasonably supports the description of him as anti-war.

The OP reports, accurately AFAIK, that Greenwald supports Social Security and Medicare. Your attempt at response is to say that Greenwald made a factually accurate statement about the foreign policy views of a legislator who does not support Social Security and Medicare. You have hit the Latinate Any2 with a post that's both a non sequitur and an ad hominem.

I choose not to repeat this exercise for the other statements Greenwald made about Paul, inasmuch as they are equally irrelevant to the thread topic of Greenwald's attitude toward Social Security and Medicare.

Incidentally, if you would like me to match your ad hominem with an ad feminam, I'll note that, over in the Senate, a certain former Goldwater Girl representing a populous Eastern state voted Yea on that resolution. Maybe you should be going after her numerous supporters on DU. By comparison, the chance that Glenn Greenwald will seek the Democratic nomination in 2016 may safely be regarded as minimal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:21 AM

JEB (4,748 posts)

10. Greenwald does a lot of solid reporting.

We would all be the poorer without his voice. And Rand Paul is an insipid, spoiled brat and the old man is pretty looney sometimes as well. But even a dead clock is right twice a day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:30 AM

DeSwiss (27,137 posts)

12. Manny, you sure he's not just another one of those ''fake liberals?''

Because I hear they're everywhere now. You can't trust ANYBODY!!! They say that we've been infiltrated with 'em and once they get in -- they're like cooties.

- They never go away!

K&R

Here's some more TRUTH:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:51 AM

Maedhros (10,007 posts)

17. Those who claim Greenwald is a Libertarian are clueless fools.

Clueless, because they are clearly, demonstrably ignorant of the body of Greenwald's work.

Fools, because they are obviously parroting an argument made by others who are equally as clueless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Maedhros (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:56 AM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

19. Ron Paul distortions and smears

"Those who claim Greenwald is a Libertarian are clueless fools."

Maybe that label applies to those trying to pass Greenwald off as anything but.

Ron Paul distortions and smears
http://www.salon.com/2007/11/12/paul_3/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #19)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:14 AM

grasswire (50,130 posts)

31. Rachel Maddow is a clueless fool?

Bill Moyers?

Michael Moore?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to grasswire (Reply #31)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:35 AM

Enthusiast (50,983 posts)

61. +1 a whole fucking bunch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to grasswire (Reply #31)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:36 AM

uponit7771 (88,638 posts)

124. Nope, they have their opinion and their conclusions on the racist bastard is wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Maedhros (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:25 AM

AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)

38. They are trying to change the subject

They don't want to address the issue, so they attack the messenger.

"Attacking the messenger" is a subdivision of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

A logical fallacy is an a misleading or logically unsound argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #38)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:37 PM

Bobbie Jo (14,341 posts)

151. Sorry, your "messenger" has issues

Credibility being at the top of the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #151)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:43 PM

AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)

152. You are attacking the messenger

Your argument is logically unsound and thus fallacious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #152)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:53 PM

Bobbie Jo (14,341 posts)

156. Horse shit

Pick better messengers, this one has credibility issues.

Take your wiki on down the road and win the day with someone who finds this repetitive nonsense insightful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #156)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:57 PM

AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)

157. More of the same

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Maedhros (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 08:54 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

71. Or they're being purposefully deceptive.

Hopefully not, but since contrary evidence has been presented for a year, at this point..l

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:02 AM

zeemike (18,998 posts)

24. It is amazing how quickly they pounce on you

With long cut and paste posts...do you give them a heads up or have they hacked your computer and watch you post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to zeemike (Reply #24)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:14 AM

billhicks76 (5,082 posts)

30. Stalking

Looks like Manny is being followed closely. These folks who are obsessed with libertarians or Ron Paul seem to prefer a place like Putins Russia. No thanks. To those who fight for civil rights and freedom from oppressors keep it up and don't let the propagandists keep you down. I've been around a long time and these types have always been around. Just because they've been given a keyboard doesn't mean much in the real world. Fight for what's right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to billhicks76 (Reply #30)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:19 AM

Whisp (24,096 posts)

34. good lordies!

whew!

lolz

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Whisp (Reply #34)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:35 AM

fascisthunter (29,381 posts)

43. Not really... it gets old

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to billhicks76 (Reply #30)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:56 AM

fascisthunter (29,381 posts)

49. You are being Politically Correct to Stay on DU

They are full of shit! Ron Paul is a major distraction and an attempt to get people banned. It's obvious and shouldn't be tolerated. It's obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fascisthunter (Reply #49)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:02 AM

billhicks76 (5,082 posts)

52. I Agree

I don't fall for the Ron Paul trap. These folks remind me of Joe Lieberman. We all saw what a rat he turned out to be. We should all label them Joe Lieberman supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to billhicks76 (Reply #52)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:11 AM

fascisthunter (29,381 posts)

56. It's all Bullshit! When you take time off especially

and come back to see the same tactics, you know it's coordinated somehow, and it's bullshit. And yes, it should NOT be tolerated but it is! So no, DU is not a liberal or progressive site even though the site claims to follow the party itself, which will say it is so. They are Third Way corporatist molding the party under the guise of "progressivism" or "liberalism", but they are not!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fascisthunter (Reply #56)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:14 AM

billhicks76 (5,082 posts)

58. Commondreams.org

A much more progressive site. I'm sure when they get more comments activity the troops will be sent in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to billhicks76 (Reply #58)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:19 AM

fascisthunter (29,381 posts)

59. Maybe, but it doesn't solve the Problem Here

But thanks for the link... I'm tired of the bullshit, and hope there is another competitor out there. Some site that truly stands for Progressive and liberal ideals. Hell., why not even socialist ideals! This place has become a breeding ground for corporatist right wing thinking. Good luck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fascisthunter (Reply #59)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:09 AM

reddread (6,896 posts)

73. long string of site disruptions, takeovers, shut downs when things get too liberal elsewhere

Gut feeling says to me right wing whacko sites dont get the same treatment.
Media Whores Online was too dangerous to the process.
only the beginning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fascisthunter (Reply #56)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:15 AM

bobduca (1,763 posts)

75. somehow coordinated

tolerated, nay encouraged... to move overton rightward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to billhicks76 (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:12 PM

MADem (135,425 posts)

175. The one who visits "Putin's Russia" on a regular basis is Greenwald.

He was there visiting the guy from whom he received his "for profit" NSA secrets quite recently, in fact.

I think your facts are out of order. The Libertarians are visiting/living in "Putin's Russia."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #175)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 12:46 AM

billhicks76 (5,082 posts)

190. Lol

The Great Libertarian Scare Of 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to billhicks76 (Reply #190)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 04:40 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

191. Not going for a "scare." But that's just simple fact. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to zeemike (Reply #24)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:23 AM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

36. Well,

"With long cut and paste posts...do you give them a heads up or have they hacked your computer and watch you post?"

...it's really hard work finding and reposting stuff.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100277632

I mean, would you like people with opposing views to give the thread say 30 minutes before responding? LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to zeemike (Reply #24)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 07:21 AM

Capt. Obvious (9,002 posts)

66. This thread is amazingly short to me

It's awesome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:06 AM

sheshe2 (78,300 posts)

25. Wow!

This just part 1!

OMG!

How many parts will we see, I need more popcorn! Holy Moly! I need to stock up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sheshe2 (Reply #25)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:10 AM

Whisp (24,096 posts)

27. I don't really want to see Manny parts, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Whisp (Reply #27)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:18 AM

sheshe2 (78,300 posts)

33. Whisp!

It's late here. Stop making me laugh! Stop it now!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sheshe2 (Reply #33)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:56 AM

fascisthunter (29,381 posts)

50. Durrrrrr

5th grade. Oooops. But tolerated on DU, so it's ok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sheshe2 (Reply #25)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:42 AM

Cha (284,035 posts)

62. Seems they're admitting they're ashamed of GG being a libertarian, she..

Trying to rebrand him as anything but..

Libertarians are poisoning the left and trying to undermine it.

Libertarians are posing as liberals and trying to RATFUCK the left.Their primary goal is to undermine the Democratic Party and hand elections to Republicans.Their strategy consists of...
1) ingratiating themselves with the progressive media
2) Pushing the meme that Democrats are just as bad (or worse) then Republicans
3) Dismissing Racism as "identity politics"
4) Promoting far right wing politicians as "true progressives"
5 convincing disgruntled progressives to vote 3rd party or not vote at all
6) Attack traditional Democratic Voters & their issues

snips//

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 gave a talk at the University of Wisconsin, and expressed the hope that Democrats might suffer the same fate in 2012.

...the idea that taking money from the Koch brothers for a one-year drug-decriminalization project shouldn’t be disclosed each time Greenwald attacks progressives while defending the Kochs’/libertarians’ pet projects—as when Greenwald defended Citizens United, much to progressives’ confusion, or when Greenwald attacked our article in The Nation about the Koch-funded libertarians leading the anti-TSA union campaign—is plain wrong and ridiculous. Payoffs and influence-peddling usually come in more subtle forms than payments marked “BRIBE.”

dkos

Glenn Greenwald Unethically Taped Witnesses While Working for Matt Hale, White Supremacist.

snip..

"Mr. Hale, for his role in the shootings, was sued by a number of survivors. This included a case filed by two teenage Orthodox Jewish boys. And another case filed by a Black minister. These people were selected by Benjamin Smith because they looked like the religious/ethnic minorities they are.

And Glenn Greenwald called them 'odious and repugnant' for suing his client--"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

Only it's Greenwald who is "odious and repugnant".. whatever he's posing as.. here he is now trying to keep himself relevant and suppressing the vote in 2012.. when he "expertly previewed the 2012 election"..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Cha (Reply #62)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:56 AM

sheshe2 (78,300 posts)

64. Seems to be true indeed.

The supporters have to keep evolving and yes re-branding themselves as their hero's change their language.

Amazing Cha. Great post. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Cha (Reply #62)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 08:55 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

72. I'm not ashamed that Greenwald's a Libertarian, nor that I am a Nazi

Because neither is true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #72)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:03 PM

MADem (135,425 posts)

174. I think one of them is. And I'm not throwing any Godwin at you when I say that, either.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/194950895761502208

You don't get much more libertarian than this:

http://wonkette.com/548653/youll-never-believe-which-inhuman-monster-doesnt-care-to-find-nigerian-schoolgirls-its-glenn-greenwald

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/05/quote-of-the-day-greenwald-says-supporting-the-effort-to-find-270-kidnapped-nigerian-girls-is-horrifying/

He's just not well regarded. He loses cachet with each and every passing day. He's a "for profit" journalist who works for rich guys like Koch and Omidyar.

His 'act' is getting stale:

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/12/glenn-greenwald-vs-mark-ames-on-the-privatization-of-the-edward-snowden-leaks/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #174)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:26 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

176. I guess Rachel Maddow, Bill Moyers, and Michael Moore are chumps

Like me, they think that Greenwald is a screaming Liberal and one of the most important truth-tellers of our time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #176)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:44 PM

MADem (135,425 posts)

182. Two of the three on your list (at least) aren't even Democrats.

Do you always let talking heads tell you what to think, Manny?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #182)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:02 PM

elias49 (4,259 posts)

187. When they're more informed than me, I listen.

Don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to elias49 (Reply #187)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 04:55 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

193. And when they aren't--like in this case--perhaps you shouldn't waste your time.

I'd also advise you to check that claim yourself, personally, just to make sure there's no overstatement happening.

You can do what you'd like, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #193)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 06:46 AM

elias49 (4,259 posts)

196. You are seriously full of yourself!

I'd love to hear a little about your creds/education.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to elias49 (Reply #196)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 07:08 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

197. No I'm not. You're just angry because I don't see things the way you do.

That's why you're refocusing your conversational efforts towards me (in a disparaging fashion, too, I might add) instead of sticking to the topic.

This happens on message boards. People disagree. You shouldn't take it personally and you shouldn't lower yourself to lobbing petty insults.

Why would a recitation of my degrees or life and work experience make a difference to you? Do you "like" people more as a consequence of their educational and professional credentials? Is a Harvard degree better or worse than an Oxford one? How about someone who has both? Do they get bonus points? Is working in government a plus or a minus?

I can see not wanting to take medical advice over the internet from just any old bozo, but I'm not playing a doctor, here.

I'll take a good idea from someone with a fourth grade education, over someone like W with a Harvard Business School sheepskin...but that's just me. It's the quality of the argument that compels me, not where the debater went to college or graduate school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #197)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 07:27 AM

elias49 (4,259 posts)

200. 'nuf said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #182)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:36 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

189. Um... One of us has a reading comprehension issue.

I'm having trouble finding the part where I said that I believe anything because of those three - I just said we all believe the same thing.

So do you think those three just hate Obama? Or they're not Liberals? Or they're fooled by Greenwald? Or do they claim Greenwald's a screaming Liberal for some other reason?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #189)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 04:53 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

192. Then why did you even bring them up? Hmmmm?

You threw out the names of three niche media personalities like I'm supposed to be impressed that they're on "your" libertarian team.

I'm not.

I don't care what they think. Your trying to suggest that you have to be right, because these people I don't particularly care about or follow share your view. You're making an argument based on cheesy cable media "fame." Tsk, tsk!

I'd say you have a "cogent argument" issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #192)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 07:13 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

198. Well, I think we agree on one thing:

Your logic is as impeccable as your reading comprehension.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #198)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 07:22 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

199. Ah, Manny gets personal. Surprise, surprise!

I notice that you do that when you don't have a respectable argument.

That kind of behavior says more about you than perhaps you intend to reveal.

Not your finest hour, yet again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #199)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 07:34 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

201. So you don't agree with that statement?

Sheesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #201)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 07:42 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

203. Manny, you can toss not-so-clever insults all day if you'd like.

At the end of it, they say way more about you than you realize, and what they say doesn't acquit you well at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:20 AM

AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)

35. you'd think the OP was about them

...the way they are reacting to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #35)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:26 AM

villager (26,001 posts)

40. They think everything's about them. Seems to be part of the cult/fusion thing

...that has them vociferously defending the shredding of their own rights...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to villager (Reply #40)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:26 PM

grasswire (50,130 posts)

160. heh nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:24 AM

billhicks76 (5,082 posts)

37. Just Had A Great Idea!

I'm going to sign up at Politico and FOX, create a Jeb Bush avatar and attack people who don't support weakening environmental laws. I'll be against Obamacare, I'll act like I'm against gay marriage, I'll defend the .01%, I'll support the NSA and I'll oppose food stamps so they all know I'm one of them. BUT I'll comment prolifically at every turn attacking environmental laws. Even when there are catastrophes and everyone seems to want to protect their air and water even on conservative sites I will sow the seeds of doubt and make my mission going after this one issue so I can have an effect. No one will ever see what I'm doing. Maybe I can get a friend to help too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:27 AM

fascisthunter (29,381 posts)

41. Funny how the bullshit defense here against what you are saying....

...is allowed(free speech my ass). This is a controlled web site. Even if it is serial. It's why I don't come here anymore... you are one poster I hope to meet one day, just so I can shake your hand(we live close by), but this site, has become a haven for paid propagandists by both democrats and republicans(ooops, shouldn't have stated the truth). The kind that wants to mold the democratic Party itself to become more corporate, more right wing in fact. It's obvious and pathetic because it will hurt the democratic party as a whole in the end. Good on those of you who fight the true fight for real democracy, truth and liberty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fascisthunter (Reply #41)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:42 AM

billhicks76 (5,082 posts)

44. Weapons Of Mass Distraction

Come back. I don't get paid lol. I'm on your side for sure as are most people I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to billhicks76 (Reply #44)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:45 AM

fascisthunter (29,381 posts)

47. Well, I'll try

I'm just sick of the bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fascisthunter (Reply #47)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:59 AM

billhicks76 (5,082 posts)

51. Today a guess What These Frauds Suggested?

They suggested that people like me and me personally must not support gay rights and are racist for defending Snowden. If that doesn't sound like someone who doesn't know what these issues are then I don't know what is. They sound like Republicans trying to sound liberal to get in with liberals to have credibility bashing Whistleblowers. I've been on the front lines defending equality...in the streets and in the halls and I've never been this disgusted with a topic before. I can guarantee you I never had anyone like these tricksters fighting beside me. Maybe a couple narcs that's got outed later but never real activists. They just don't talk or think like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to billhicks76 (Reply #51)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:03 AM

fascisthunter (29,381 posts)

54. No, It sounds like a good Defense to get that Fucker Banned

You want this site to be liberal or progressive or even honest?! Then put them through the same scrutiny they do you! PM me if you feel like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fascisthunter (Reply #54)

Tue Aug 5, 2014, 07:02 AM

kfreed (88 posts)

240. Let's scrutinize: "THE RIGHT HAND OF OCCUPY WALL STREET: FROM LIBERTARIANS TO NAZIS..."

Political Research Associates:

"THE RIGHT HAND OF OCCUPY WALL STREET: FROM LIBERTARIANS TO NAZIS, THE FACT AND FICTION OF RIGHT-WING INVOLVEMENT"
http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/02/23/the-right-hand-of-occupy-wall-street-from-libertarians-to-nazis-the-fact-and-fiction-of-right-wing-involvement/#

Will the left ever learn?

P.S. "The Wikileaks Party Lurches To The Right: Preferences Fascists, Mens-righters and Gun-lovers above the Greens"
http://ausopinion.com/2013/08/18/the-wikileaks-party-lurches-to-the-right-preferences-fascists-mens-righters-and-gun-lovers-above-the-greens/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:32 AM

Enthusiast (50,983 posts)

60. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 05:21 AM

JoeyT (6,785 posts)

65. The sure fire sign of a libertarian

is support for privatizing a bunch of shit that was previously public like education, and support for free trade. If Greenwald supports those, chances are pretty good he's a libertarian.

I wonder where we could find other people that support those kind of things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to JoeyT (Reply #65)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:14 AM

bobduca (1,763 posts)

74. http://www.ed.gov/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to JoeyT (Reply #65)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:58 PM

Maedhros (10,007 posts)

142. I have been reading Greenwald since the Bush years.

He's never written in favor of privatizing schools or free trade agreements such as NAFTA, GATT or the TPP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to JoeyT (Reply #65)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 07:08 PM

Mnpaul (3,655 posts)

165. They don't want to talk about those libertarian policies

for some reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 07:21 AM

Capt. Obvious (9,002 posts)

67. This rec's for you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 07:41 AM

woo me with science (32,139 posts)

69. Smear and distract, smear and distract.

Last edited Thu Jun 5, 2014, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

It really is all they have.

Thank you for exposing the lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:28 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

77. Yes, "entitlement" sounds EXACTLY like a Cato Libertarian.

And yes, Greenwald uses the word in his rant:

That's the language of the "grand bargain": very modest tax increases on the rich in exchange for cuts to entitlement programs.

Doesn't matter that Wapo uses it too. Social Security is not an "entitlement;" it's a self-funded retirement insurance program administered by the USG. Trust a CATO man to call it that. Greenwald is basically reaching for any stick he can find to beat the President with on the night of his reelection in a typical display of nasty, mean-spirited and inaccurate ODS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #77)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:36 AM

nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)

79. That word you keep using

Does not mean what you think it does.

This is what entitlement program means. It has meant that since social security was created by the way.

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-an-entitlement-program.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #79)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:40 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

80. Read your link. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #80)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:51 AM

nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)

82. I have my dear

It was a bad choice 70 years ago

We should ask Emmett till to help

But until then...the term was used for that long. Time you recapture the language. Because it was designed as an entitlement program it was also created as an insurance program

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n1/v66n1p1.html

I am sure you will tell me the horse also got it wrong. And it was originally in conception a program that originated outside the Democratic Party as well, but was cooped by the party

As I said, you keep using that word...and it is purposeful. Next you will accuse me of being a Cato institute lib...funny shit, it is them who have been at the change of word meaning business for years. Why are you doing their bidding?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #77)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:45 AM

DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)

81. Really? The word Entitlement sounds Libertarian to you?

Thanks for the demonstration about how much clue you possess.

Social Security is an entitlement program, period you don't get to throw a little his say fit because you had the deep thought that the word entitlement was somehow a libertarian term. It's not, you're wrong, astoundingly wrong. Correct yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #81)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:52 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

83. Yes. SS is an earned benefit.

You are not "entitled" to it if you don't pay into it. In that respect it's different from Medicare and lumping them together under that heading makes SS sound like a welfare program which it is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #83)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:54 AM

nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)

84. Funny how you keep using Cato institute language

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #84)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:54 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

85. Funny how your message doesn't have a message. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #85)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:17 AM

nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)

103. Because I addressed the issue above

And it is you who is using the definitions from Cato. I must admit, sleek.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #83)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:56 AM

DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)

88. It's an entitlement program. It's not up for negotiation.

It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. Social Security is an entitlement program, and is referred to as such by the everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #88)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:58 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

90. No it really isn't, except in virtual Pulitzer land. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #90)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:10 AM

DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)

97. OK, Ace. Let's make it fun. $200 donation to DU from the loser.

Let's find out how many times each President has used the word Entitlement in relation to Social Security. Let's check other Democratic officials' utterances about entitlements. Let's look up the term entitlement program and see how it's applied. Let's look at how the mainstream press uses the word entitlement. Then let's take all that information and ask an impartial judge to weigh in. I would respectfully request a few minutes of Skinner's or Earl G's, or Elad's time to impartially judge the question. Let's see what they say about whether or not entitlement is a libertarian word. The loser donates $200 to DU, and everyone's a winner.

You seem very certain of your convictions, and I'm sure you'll put your money where your mouth is. Let's do this thing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #97)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:13 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

99. Be my guest but ask your parents for the allowance. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #99)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:14 AM

DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)

102. I can cover the cash. Are you in, or aren't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #102)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:19 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

106. Do what you like. You don't need my permission. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #106)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:22 AM

DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)

110. No, I definitely need your permission to get $200 from you for DU.

You can choose to accept the wager, signifying that you stand behind your repeated claim.

You can choose not to accept, indicating something else entirely.

Or you can ignore this or post more snark, indicating the same thing indicated in 2, above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #110)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:23 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

111. Your donation is between you and PayPal. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #111)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:27 AM

DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)

113. Option 3 holds sway. Now, do you have what it takes to withdraw your claims?

No, no you don't, but I'll leave this space open if you want to surprise me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #113)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:28 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

116. Sorry, I lost interest about 5 replies ago. Have a great day. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #116)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:31 AM

DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)

119. Perfect.

Thank you for the entire display. I'm glad the subthread is right here for all to peruse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #116)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:48 AM

ieoeja (9,748 posts)

126. Entitlement has a legal definition.

A long time ago Rightists started saying, "they think Welfare is an entitlement." The point of that statement was that Welfare was *not* an entitlement, but that "those people" acted like it was.

Somewhere along the line Hate Radio dropped "they think" from that statement. So now people unaware of the true, legal definition of the word believe a false definition of the word. This actually works out great for the Right. They can campaign on "cutting entitlements", and people will vote for them never realizing the person they just voted for promised to cut Social Security.

Words have a legal meaning. And knowing that meaning is important. If they passed a law tomorrow which simply read:

"All entitlement spending will be cut 5% in fiscal year 2015 from their equivalent spending levels for fiscal year 2014."

Social Security would be cut 5%. Medicare would be cut 5%. Welfare would not be cut a single penny.

Because the legal definition of entitlement includes Social Security and Medicare. It excludes Welfare. It doesn't matter what Hate Radio says. It doesn't matter what some idiot journalist writes. It doesn't matter what some politician says, particularly since I imagine 99% of the elected teabaggers don't know the actual meaning of the word! They can say blue cheese from the moon is an entitlement, and it does not change the real, legal definition of the word.

It is important that you understand the real, legal definition of these words. Otherwise, you will end up enabling your enemies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ieoeja (Reply #126)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:53 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

127. It does but Greenwald isn't using its legal definition.

He's using a popular definition which is intended to obscure the actual nature of the Social Security program. That's the short answer, but I appreciate the thought you put into your response!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #127)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:12 PM

muriel_volestrangler (99,241 posts)

138. He used it as a compliment: "the crown legislative jewels of American liberalism"

Consider the very first controversial issue Obama is likely to manage, even before the glow of his victory dims, literally within the next couple of weeks. It is widely expected - including by liberals - that Obama intends (again) to pursue a so-called "Grand Bargain" with the GOP: a deficit- and debt-cutting agreement whereby the GOP agrees to some very modest tax increases on the rich in exchange for substantial cuts to entitlement programs such as social security and Medicare, the crown legislative jewels of American liberalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #138)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:14 PM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

139. Points for poetry but it's a hack CATO gotcha, period.

Maybe it's a U.S. thing but he's as transparent as glass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #139)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:28 PM

muriel_volestrangler (99,241 posts)

140. You're in a deep hole. Stop digging.

You think that using the word 'entitlement' to describe Social Security is somehow a Bad Thing. Plenty of people have shown you it's not. But you're covering your ears and shouting the old "la-la, I'm not listening". I think the problem is you assume that Republicans get to define words as Good or Bad. They don't. Just because they try to sound as if they're spitting when they say it, it doesn't mean we have to as well.

What's clear from the article is that Greenwald likes the Social Security program, and Medicare, and thought that Obama would negotiate cuts in them. You can argue about how much Obama was bluffing about it, but he did propose using the chained CPI, in 2013. Greenwald's fear had some justification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #140)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:29 PM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

141. Sorry, all the king's horses etc can't change the obvious. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #140)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 07:39 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

202. He's right. It's one of those dog whistle words.

"What, you think you're 'entitled' to free government money?" is the sense they are trying to convey. The "Shrink the Government " crowd want to get RID of ""entitlements,"" and make those "entitled assholes" have to work until they die. They have successfully equated ANYONE getting a government check, be it welfare, or social security, or any other "safety net" assistance, with being a "moocher," a 47 percenter (to reference rMoney) who is a "taker" and not a "maker." Of course this isn't true, but why let accuracy get in their way while they're disparaging a goodly portion of the population?

And that "crown jewels" remark was not laudatory. That was snark of the first order.

Separated by a common language, I fear, in this instance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #202)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 08:17 AM

muriel_volestrangler (99,241 posts)

204. You're wrong, if you think Greenwald, or Manny, are in that 'they' you've conjured up

The 'crown jewels' remark is laudatory. We can tell, because Greenwald calls the negotiating away of liberal programs a "depressing ritual". The whole article is about wanting to keep social security and Medicare at decent levels, but expecting them to be negotiated down. He doesn't trust Democratic politicians (by and large - he does like Elizabeth Warren).

Like ucrdem, you are allowing the Republicans to define political language. Just like 'liberal' got demonised, 'entitlement' has been turned into an evil word, and you just let it happen with a shrug.

As far as the 'common language' - he's writing in a British publication, and there's no indication it's snark at all. I think you are letting your prejudices about Greenwald colour your perception. You assume he's a Libertarian (because that has been said endlessly on DU by the anti-Greenwald group), and proceed from there. Try re-reading the article pretending you've never seen the author before. How would you end up categorising them?

Can you point to any time Greenwald has said he wants lower social security or Medicare payments? That he takes any sort of Libertarian line on them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #204)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 08:31 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

205. What? I'm not "allowing" anything. I have ears and I can hear.

Over the last three decades and then some, I've heard the sneer when GOP jerkwads use the "entitlements" word like an expletive. This isn't even a topic for debate.

It's like the way they play the game with the word "Democrat." Then, when you call 'em on it, they play the innocent.

Not buying it.

My comments toward you were about the use of the 'entitlement' word, principally.

As for Greenwald, he has NEVER been a fan of Obama, and the tone of his writing reflects that. And the Guardian? It has a US edition--it's not "just" a UK publication. Look at their menu, there's US right up there in massive letters...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #205)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 08:58 AM

muriel_volestrangler (99,241 posts)

206. We have audio from Democracy Now from a week later, so you can literally hear

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/11/14/glenn_greenwald_starting_with_fiscal_cliff

The section in the transcript starts about 36:30 in the audio. He's not using it like an expletive:

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, of course, I mean, Social Security is something that people have paid into their entire lives, not just people who are on the verge of receiving those benefits, but even workers who have been in the workforce for some time.

And what is truly extraordinary about this moment, to me, is that what really defined President Obama’s first term, from a domestic and economic perspective, is that the recovery from the financial crisis was one that was a recovery for the wealthiest in America. Corporate profits boomed. Wall Street and the stock market increased, at the time when the foreclosure crisis continued to worsen. Very little attention was paid to that. Very little has been done about unemployment. And so, the income gap, the rich-poor gap, in the United States is the highest that it’s been in four decades, since 1967. People are still suffering, as President Obama, when he was campaigning and had an interest in saying so, continuously emphasized. And so, now, to approach this crisis by targeting the very few programs left that provide a civilized safety net to the people who need it the most is obscene.

And so, I think that if you see the Democratic Party, whether in the name of principle, as I think President Obama will pursue it, that it’s the right thing to do, or simply even necessity of compromise, which some partisans ultimately will invoke in order to defend it, target those programs, even in minimal ways and symbolic ways—but I think it will be much more than that—I think that would really be an assault on everything that progressives not only claim to believe in, but claim was the primary reason they were for voting for President Obama, which was to protect entitlement programs.

No, he doesn't support Obama. He's on the left of Obama - he doesn't trust him with civil liberties, and he doesn't trust him to keep these programs ("a civilized safety net" that it's "obscene" to target). The point is that he is not 'Libertarian'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #206)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:00 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

214. He takes paychecks from Koch and Omidyar, and specializes in "from the left" attacks.

How many times has Obama cut social security? How many times do you think he'll cut it before he leaves office?

It's like a Seinfeld episode. A great to-do about nothing. And way too many people eat it up with a spoon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #214)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:38 AM

muriel_volestrangler (99,241 posts)

225. We've had the Koch stuff dealt with already

In this thread? Another of the "We Must All Hate Greenwald" threads? Who knows. Here it is:

I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed by the Cato Institute. Nor have I ever been affiliated with the Cato Institute in any way. The McCarthyite tone of the denials is appropriate given the McCarthyite nature of the lie.

In seven-plus years of political writing, I have written a grand total of twice for Cato: the first was a 2009 report on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, and the second was a 2010 online debate in which I argued against former Bush officials about the evils of the surveillance state.

I not only disclosed those writings but wrote about them and featured them multiple times on my blog as it happened: see here and here as but two examples. In 2008, I spoke at a Cato event on the radicalism and destructiveness of Bush/Cheney executive power theories.That's the grand total of all the work I ever did for or with Cato in my life. The fees for those two papers and that one speech were my standard writing and speaking fees. Those payments are a miniscule, microscopic fraction of my writing and speaking income over the last 7 years. I have done no paying work of any kind with them since that online surveillance debate in 2010 (I spoke three times at Cato for free: once to debate the theme of my 2007 book on the failure of the Bush administration, and twice when I presented my paper advocating drug decriminalization).

I have done far more work for, and received far greater payments from, the ACLU, with which I consulted for two years (see here). I spoke at the Socialism Conference twice - once in 2011 and once in 2012 - and will almost certainly do so again in 2013. I'll speak or write basically anywhere where I can have my ideas heard without any constraints. Moreover, I'll work with almost anyone - the ACLU, Cato or anyone else - to end the evils of the Drug War and the Surveillance State. And I'll criticize anyone I think merits it, as I did quite harshly with the Koch Brothers in 2011: here.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more

So, no, he doesn't "take paychecks from Koch". He has had 2 articles, both on civil liberties, published by Cato. Yes, he is now employed by Omidyar; explain how that makes him a Libertarian, when his political views are clearly not Libertarian. Yes, he makes attacks from the left; that's my whole fucking point - he's not Libertarian.

Obama offered the chained CPI social security; the Republicans were too right wing (and/or dumb, from their point of view) to take it. A huge number of DUers were really worried about it. Are you saying they were all secret Libertarians, 'specializing in attacks from the left'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #202)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 09:03 AM

bobduca (1,763 posts)

207. A Dog Whistle specially designed to enrage Willfully Ignorant Curs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bobduca (Reply #207)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:18 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

217. It causes the GOP pack to bark with glee, when used with the right "tone." nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #217)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:21 AM

bobduca (1,763 posts)

218. To deny that there are two meanings of the term is par for the course

Feign ignorance about a term's original meaning, validate republican frames, ignore context, outrage, rinse repeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bobduca (Reply #218)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:26 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

220. I don't think that's the problem, really. We all know the original meaning of the term.

We even know the narrow, limited meaning of the term (the "accountant's definition" if you will).

But anyone who hasn't been in a coma for the last forty years also knows about the Ronald Reagan-Newt Gingrich-Ron Paul-Frank Luntz-Mitt rMoney meaning of the term, as well. The term that is said with a sneer, that implies that that social security you paid into for your whole damn life is somehow "undeserved." That it's on a par with "welfare" or a handout, something that the "hard working people" are giving to the slackers, the 47 percent, the "takers"....and all of the "makers" who do the work are bearing the brunt of the burden.

That's the GOP subtext when they use the word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #220)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:36 AM

bobduca (1,763 posts)

224. So you agree there are two meanings of the term

By claiming there is only one pejorative meaning now, you have validated the Republican frame.
your post title: "the original meaning of the term"

Due to your mind reading ability you know that Greenwald intends to impugn all entitlement programs and actively advocate for their abolishment, right? Despite being shown ample evidence that that is a lie you all carry on. Repetition is the key.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #220)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:46 AM

muriel_volestrangler (99,241 posts)

228. But Greenwald is not a GOP supporter, and you've heard him say the word

You know he doesn't say it with a sneer, an implication, or a subtext. You know that he thinks the programs are good and necessary. So why are you continuing to pretend that he doesn't like them? Why are you wasting everyone's time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #139)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:13 PM

AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)

149. Unless Obama himself uses the term

...in which case it's Democratic, not Libertarian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #81)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 06:02 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

195. Libertarian and Reagan Welfare Queen Republican--it's one of Frank Luntz's favorite digs.

It is a word that is used by people who want to shrink the federal government down to the size of a bathtub.

It has been used as a pejorative for over THIRTY years, for heaven's sake. You need to correct YOUR self, frankly.

You're seriously saying you're not aware of this? Never heard of Frank Luntz? Never saw any of Rove's machinations with regard to phrasing? Never heard Ronald Reagan smirk about "entitlements" as though it were a synonym for "government handout to the lazy?"

http://www.lettingthedataspeak.com/entitlement-the-word-2/

http://www.politicususa.com/2012/08/14/fight-epic-gop-lie-social-security-medicare-entitlements.html

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/02/the-war-over-entitlements/

By referring to programs like Social Security and Medicare as “entitlements,” conservatives were able to evoke notions (and suspicions) of people unworthy of support, guzzling at in the public trough. Just as important, if one could be “entitled” to something, one could arguably be “unentitled.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #195)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 09:20 AM

DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)

209. I said exactly what I meant to say and I was correct.

Go learn what an entitlement program is. I have neither the time nor the inclination to conduct another remedial training session for someone who wants to play games.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #209)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 09:31 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

210. And I said exactly what I meant. No games whatsoever.

I'm not inclined to conduct a "remedial training program" on what most of us have seen on the nightly news for the past three or four decades, either. The Republicans deliberately, with mendacious intent, appropriated that term and have changed its meaning. That does happen with the lexicon on occasion, even if you refuse to acknowledge it and pretend it didn't happen.

If you insist upon being willfully obtuse, as well as stunningly and childishly rude, when presented with clear evidence to the contrary, do be my guest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #210)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 09:34 AM

DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)

211. Do you have the courage of your convictions?

You get the deal offered in post 97. That scared one noisemaker off--let's see what you've got. I'm tired of the games. Get your $200 ready and get back to me. Or go play games with someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #211)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 09:55 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

212. Ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!! I provided you with three links. I proved what I was saying.

What the hell are you talking about with the two hundred bucks? Do you realize how stupid and childish you sound? What makes you think that "CASH" makes you "right?"

I don't HAVE a spare two hundred bucks to throw around. If I did, I sure as heck wouldn't waste it gambling, even on a sure bet.

I drive a 1986 subcompact and I am very frugal. I support a LOT of people. So why in hell would I, to satisfy your sorry little macho fantasy, take money that could buy groceries for this one, or gasoline for that one, or even pay a cable bill, a vet bill, or a property tax obligation, and use it to place a DUMBASS bet just to make you feel like an internet tough guy with a big fat...wallet?

Are you completely out of touch with reality, that you think you can solve disputes by boasting about how much money you have to waste? Courage of convictions? What HOOEY! What does spending money like a moron have to do with courage?

Talk about "playing games." Look at MEEEEEEE!!! I'm TOUGH!!! I toss THROWDOWN BOASTS!!! I bet you TWO HUNDRED BUCKS!!!!! Two HUNDRED!!!! Do you hear me?? Put up or shut up!!! MONEY!!! TWO HUNDRED!! WAAAAH!!!! MONEY MAKES MEEEEE BETTER!!!!!!

What else can I say, but....

I mean ... really.

You need to do a little growing up--this entire exchange has NOT been your finest hour. I'm not intimidated by your posturing, and I think you are making an ass of yourself. So no--you don't get to try to BUY your way out of an argument. YOU either put up some facts, or shut up--how do you like them apples, Tough Guy?

Money isn't a substitute for discussing issues. Spending money foolishly doesn't impress anyone but a foolish person. But hey, knock yourself out--you win the Internet Tough Guy of the Month Award!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #212)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 09:57 AM

DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)

213. I NEVER offer a wager unless I'm dead certain.

Let me know if you change your mind and want to be taken seriously. I'll be around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #213)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:03 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

215. Oh yeah, I'm sure you don't!!!

Thank you for my Laugh of the Day! You are unintentionally hilarious!

Because people who don't bet with the Internet Tough Guy of the Month "aren't taken seriously."

And make no mistake....he'll BE AROUND!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #215)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:06 AM

DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)

216. Your "point" has been thoroughly discredited.

You were smart not to take the bet, but your hubris got you to a bad place. You may wish to think on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #216)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:21 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

219. No it hasn't. I provide links and cites---you wave virtual money around.

And you actually think that makes you "right."

Here, some travelling music for you:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #219)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:27 AM

DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)

221. No. Being right makes me right.

Of course, I'm talking about one thing and you're trying to twist that into something else. Republicans do attempt to make the word "entitlement" a bad thing, but the word itself is used to describe Social Security and other programs. It always has been used, and it always will be. That was the original argument that got the other poster shamed and running. If you want to argue that point, I'd dearly love to take your money and give it to DU. Take the deal or scurry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #221)

Post removed

Response to MADem (Reply #219)

Post removed

Response to ucrdem (Reply #77)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:55 AM

Autumn (42,601 posts)

86. Guess what, Obama uses the word "entitlement" so is the president beating

himself with a stick? Obama has used that word a lot when talking about SS so is it your opinion that Obama sounds EXACTLY like a Cato Libertarian?

Your post is without a doubt the most awesome post I have ever seen.

this just happened to be the first one that popped up.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/entitlement_is_a_republican_word_20110714#

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #77)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:55 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

87. Bad news: are you sitting down?

President Obama must be a "CATO man", too:

"Now, I am willing to work with anybody who wants to have a serious conversation about our fiscal future. I’ve demonstrated that by putting forward serious reforms to tax and entitlement programs that would bring down our long-term deficits. I have said in the past, and I will continue to say, that I’m willing to make a whole bunch of tough decisions, ones that may not be entirely welcome by my own party."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #87)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:57 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

89. Who says he's talking about Social Security there?

Medicare is an entitlement; SS is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #89)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:00 AM

Autumn (42,601 posts)

91. How about this link ? Please do tell Obama SS is not an entitlement.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/12/928273/-Obama-calls-SS-an-entitlement-and-links-to-deficit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Autumn (Reply #91)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:02 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

92. Doesn't change the meaning of the word. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #92)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:03 AM

Autumn (42,601 posts)

94. Good grief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Autumn (Reply #94)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:05 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

95. I feel your smiley. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #95)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:13 AM

Autumn (42,601 posts)

101. You dug yourself into a hole with that. Obama uses that word about SS

and he is not a Cato Libertarian. That's why so many people here were encouraging we use the word entitlement, because Obama uses it when he talks about SS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Autumn (Reply #101)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:17 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

104. Yes, entitlement is a CATO meme and Greenwald is a CATO man.

At least we've got that straight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #104)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:20 AM

Autumn (42,601 posts)

107. By your logic that makes Obama a CATO man.

So yeah that's straight, Obama and Greenwald are CATO men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Autumn (Reply #107)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:21 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

109. The thread is about Greenwald, who is a CATO man, yes. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #109)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:28 AM

Autumn (42,601 posts)

115. The thread is about Greenwald, who is a CATO man, yes. Your post

Yes, "entitlement" sounds EXACTLY like a Cato Libertarian.

And yes, Greenwald uses the word in his rant:

That's the language of the "grand bargain": very modest tax increases on the rich in exchange for cuts to entitlement programs.

Doesn't matter that Wapo uses it too. Social Security is not an "entitlement;" it's a self-funded retirement insurance program administered by the USG. Trust a CATO man to call it that. Greenwald is basically reaching for any stick he can find to beat the President with on the night of his reelection in a typical display of nasty, mean-spirited and inaccurate ODS.

Obama is beating himself with a stick and sounds EXACTLY like a Cato Libertarian since Obama uses that word.

SS is an entitlement, we are entitled to it, so I have been told

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Autumn (Reply #101)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:25 AM

nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)

112. Every President since FDR has referred to SS

As both insurance and entitlement. Great Scott! FDR was a Cato libertarian before Cato was founded. Quick, call Dr. Emmett Till, we really must warn FDR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #112)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:27 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

114. We're talking about Greenwald and I provided a quotation. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #114)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:30 AM

nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)

118. No my friend

We are talking about a definition. I will be nice...you were not aware of the linguistic games CATO has been playing. But you are still pushing their crap.

Option number two this is quite on purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #112)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:30 AM

Autumn (42,601 posts)

117. Now it has been settled. Obama IS a CATO libertarian

"Trust a CATO man to call it that.: see post 77

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Autumn (Reply #117)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:31 AM

nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)

120. And FDR, which is quite Impressive,

He was a Cato man before Cato was founded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #120)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:33 AM

Autumn (42,601 posts)

122. Very impressive then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Autumn (Reply #91)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:13 AM

DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)

100. Ucrdem and I are going to settle this question to the benefit of DU

I've issued a $200 challenge to him above so that he can demonstrate the courage of his stated convictions. The money is going to DU. My hope is that Skinner will use it to fund an online dictionary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #100)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:18 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

105. You go right ahead. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #100)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:20 AM

Autumn (42,601 posts)

108. Try to collect

I don't think you will get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #87)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:38 AM

uponit7771 (88,638 posts)

125. Sophistry, no mention of social security... Most GG support is packed with sophistry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #125)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:20 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

128. What else is an "entitlement" and when did Obama offer to cut any of them?

Nah, don't even bother:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5042781

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #128)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:31 PM

uponit7771 (88,638 posts)

150. no mention of social security in that statement no matter what pretzel logic is used...

... it disingenuous to pose that statement as such

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #125)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:26 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

129. Very much so and incidentally the KOS link is silly.

Using the term in a radio interview is utterly undeterminitve. Obama didn't change the definition but he has to make his meaning clear in as few words as possible to listeners who at this point don't understand the difference. Writing a column is something else altogether.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:31 AM

bobduca (1,763 posts)

78. Kick for the same 5 fucking NSA circle-knee-jerk apologists

aka the morning shift.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bobduca (Reply #78)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:10 AM

Generic Other (28,972 posts)

96. And some of the rest of us have day jobs

in real places besides the internets, so must return later to see what damage has been done while we were gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bobduca (Reply #78)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:31 AM

MineralMan (145,031 posts)

130. Who would those be, Mr. duca?

Do tell...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MineralMan (Reply #130)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:50 AM

bobduca (1,763 posts)

134. Figure out it, Genius

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bobduca (Reply #134)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:52 AM

MineralMan (145,031 posts)

135. No, thanks.

It's easy to call out people if you don't use names, isn't it? Your nameless call-out was easy, but ineffective. Your choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bobduca (Reply #134)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:00 PM

Whisp (24,096 posts)

145. o my...

we have tempers rising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Whisp (Reply #145)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:45 PM

bobduca (1,763 posts)

153. Project much?

cool as a cucumber here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MineralMan (Reply #130)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:46 PM

Bobbie Jo (14,341 posts)

154. Internet tough guys

Don't hafta tell you nothin, pal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #154)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:47 PM

MineralMan (145,031 posts)

155. Damn! I was hoping for a list I could

use as a reference in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:12 AM

carolinayellowdog (3,247 posts)

98. the false equivalency of "Libertarian" and "libertarian" turns the ACLU into Ayn Rand groupies

which is extremely useful to authoritarians trying to throw dust in our eyes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025042494

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to carolinayellowdog (Reply #98)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:35 AM

MineralMan (145,031 posts)

131. Very true. IMO, any post using the word libertarian,

capitalized or not, should include the poster's definition of the term. It has as many definitions as it has people using it. "Libertarian" has become meaningless, through misuse and varying definitions over time and place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MineralMan (Reply #131)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:38 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

133. I think the meaning is clear. The upper case-lower case distinction though

to me seems spurious and basically a distinction without a difference. It's the same toxic principle whether it's expressed in Thames English or with an Appalachian accent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MineralMan (Reply #131)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:59 PM

Maedhros (10,007 posts)

143. It's become an empty pejorative here on DU. [n/t]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Maedhros (Reply #143)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:00 PM

MineralMan (145,031 posts)

144. Yes, like many others.

Oh, well...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MineralMan (Reply #131)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:02 PM

Whisp (24,096 posts)

146. When I use Libertarian, I mean the Fuck Ron Paul kind. Let it be on record. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Whisp (Reply #146)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:07 PM

MineralMan (145,031 posts)

148. Yes, me too, along with those who praise him and his son.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:38 AM

Teamster Jeff (1,598 posts)

132. K&R

What I'd like to know is why everyone hates Librarians.

😚

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:02 PM

NCTraveler (30,481 posts)

136. No matter how many times I am told that it isn't about GG....

It is always brought right back to GG. The obsession about this one individual is amazing. How many parts is this series going to be? If it is as obvious as you say, shouldn't one part be enough. Or is it simply about obsession. Or is someone just wrong on the internet and they need to be scolded and educated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #136)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:43 PM

grasswire (50,130 posts)

161. the fuss validates his importance, I guess

And since I learned last night that Bill Moyers checks Greenwald's twitter feed FIRST every morning, I do so too, now.

Because I trust Bill Moyers more than any other person in the whole world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to grasswire (Reply #161)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:27 PM

840high (17,196 posts)

177. I will, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #136)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:32 PM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

180. The first one didn't go so well.

And if anyone bothers to slap down any of tonight's hollow hoo-haw, you can expect this long-dead horse to make a fresh appearance in Part III.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #180)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:47 PM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

183. oops this IS the first one

Hard to tell them apart. . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:11 PM

Babel_17 (5,400 posts)

137. The truth

"My father once told me that respect for the truth comes close to being the basis for all morality. "Something cannot emerge from nothing," he said. This is profound thinking if you understand how unstable "the truth" can be."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:03 PM

treestar (81,210 posts)

147. Obama did not attempt to "cut" anything

Glenn has ODS. Normally he would not be in favor of the existence of any government program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 06:14 PM

bvar22 (39,909 posts)

162. Aww, Manny. There you go again!

Trying to ruin the Conservative Talking Points
and spoil today's Two Minutes of HATE for the uninformed.

How can they get a good Hate On with you blowing up their BS Talking Points?

*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.

*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.

You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 06:19 PM

DCBob (24,689 posts)

163. Why is it that Greenwald does his defending by criticising Obama and Democrats but not Republicans??

Makes you wonder.. doesn't it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DCBob (Reply #163)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 06:24 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

164. What makes me really wonder

is why you believe that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DCBob (Reply #163)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:21 PM

rhett o rick (55,981 posts)

167. Not in the least. I criticize Democrats more than Republicans because I hold Democrats

to a higher standard. I was not happy when Georgie the Dim-Son Bush took us to war, but it was expected. What really pissed me off was when Democrats, that were supposed to know better, Democrats that were to offset the insanity of the Republicans, when they betrayed me and kissed the Emperor's ass and voted to give him authority to kill 1.5 million innocent Iraqis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:09 PM

RufusTFirefly (8,812 posts)

166. OMG! Greenwald must be some sort of double agent!

Why else would he have spoken at the annual Socialism conference several times? He's scheduled to speak there again, later this month.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #166)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:29 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

168. No doubt to mask his TRUE intentions.

Greenwald sux!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #168)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:56 PM

RufusTFirefly (8,812 posts)

171. Whoa! I'd love to see Greenwald in a 3-D chess match with the Master!

(And I don't mean Mr. Spock.)

It would be, like, awesome!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:22 PM

davekriss (4,310 posts)

169. Standard tactic against opponents of power

When any of the rascal multitude threaten power the next step is tear them down. Trap them in sexual escapades; accuse them of rape; accuse them of being financially self-interested Libertarians. When that fails, have them commit suicide by shooting two bullets into their head, like Steve Kangas (an early radical pioneer of the internet). Steve's words:

CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins." Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.

The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an "American Holocaust."

It's standard operating procedure. The only difference today is the U.S. has dropped the pretense of proxy.

Available here: www.korpios.org/resurgent/CIAtimeline.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to davekriss (Reply #169)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:32 PM

scarletwoman (31,893 posts)

170. Excellent post. Thank you.

Love the term, "rascal multitude"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:35 PM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

181. Opposing cuts that didn't happen. Yeah he's a real true blue.

Why bother to point out Greenwald's hypocrisy for the 1,000th time you ask? Well, to borrow a phrase, "I care because the truth is important."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #181)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:51 PM

neverforget (9,421 posts)

184. Yeah why be against cuts when they're floated/proposed? I mean, why fight to stop the cuts?

Then, if you oppose the cuts, you're a no good libertarian!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to neverforget (Reply #184)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:54 PM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

185. Hack CATO gotcha.

That's about the the best I way I can describe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ucrdem (Reply #185)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:59 PM

neverforget (9,421 posts)

186. Thank you for the deep analysis!

Oppose cuts to Social Security? Libertarian!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:05 PM

struggle4progress (114,736 posts)

188. And let's not forget to thank Greenwald for singlehandedly turning back the invaders from Mars!

Of course, the hero-worshipping authoritarian apologists here always try to pretend there never was any coming Martian invasion, because a Martian invasion threatened to make Obama look bad ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to struggle4progress (Reply #188)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:27 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

223. My bad, good catch.

Messrs. Simpson and Bowles were from Mars.

Actually...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 09:05 AM

bobduca (1,763 posts)

208. Smear Merchants are a protected species here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bobduca (Reply #208)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:27 AM

Capt. Obvious (9,002 posts)

222. I think you misspelled

compensated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #222)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:45 AM

Whisp (24,096 posts)

227. He should change his name to Glenn Greenbacks. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Whisp (Reply #227)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:12 PM

bobduca (1,763 posts)

231. Herp Derp

Derpety derp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 11:50 AM

ozone_man (4,825 posts)

230. He's a left libertarian

not a right libertarian as typified by Ron Paul, who has been associated with the Libertarian party. Both left libertarians and right libertarians have similarities and differences. In general they are both anti-war, against government spying on it's citizens, against corporate fraud, e.g., the too big to fail banks, and other issues. They differ on social programs, healthcare, environmental regulation, corporate welfare, etc.

The first part of this thread seems like an attempt to confuse what is a left libertarian (Glenn Greenwald in this case) with being a Libertarian like Ron Paul, who by the way is one of the few to speak out our military industrial complex, and criminal banking system.

Like Michael Moore, there are many left libertarians who would identify Greenwald as one politically close to their own ideals.

A few left libertarian writers. They may refer to themselves simply as liberals, or socialists.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/libLeftBooks

A few right libertarian writers, not necessarily who would call themselves "big L" Libertarians, as in Libertarian Party, but that judgement can be made from their writings:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/libRightBooks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Aug 5, 2014, 04:00 AM

kfreed (88 posts)

232. Glenn Greenwald's "Liberty Tour" with white supremacists

... yep, he's a Koch Libertarian, racism is a by-product of a Koch addiction:

Libertarian Glenn Greenwald's "Liberty Tour" sponsored by "Young Americans for Liberty": http://www.yaliberty.org/tour/fall2012

His cohorts are Hornsberger (a white supremacist) and Bruce Fein (old time GOP sleazebag neocon) and the moderator is Jack Hunter, Rand Paul's "Southern Avenger" - they took their "liberty tour" to universities on the West Coast. Here's the video:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42436_The_Convergence_of_Glenn_Greenwald_and_Rand_Pauls_Southern_Avenger

Let's not forget that the Libertarian triumvirate of Greenwald, Snowden, and Assange - all professed Paultards (the Fraud Pauls also have a long history of white supremacism).

I don't know about anybody else, but I have a real problem with taking "civil liberties" tips from avowed white supremacists.

"Progressive" Glenn Greenwald explains his motivation (video): http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

Which reminds me of this guy: White Supremacist serial killer airs pet peeves at sentencing "Israel, drones, and torture":
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/white-supremacist-defiant-at-sentencing-for-killing-spree

P.S. What Rand Paul is trying to pass off as to young techies: "Homophobia, racism and the Kochs: San Francisco’s tech-libertarian “Reboot” conference is a cesspool"
http://pando.com/2014/07/18/homophobia-racism-and-the-kochs-san-franciscos-tech-libertarian-reboot-conference-is-a-cesspool/

Liberals, step away from the Libertarian sewer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Aug 5, 2014, 04:18 AM

kfreed (88 posts)

233. Glenn Greenwald's "Liberty Tour" with White Supremacists...

... yep, he's a Koch Libertarian, racism is a by-product of a Koch addiction:

Libertarian Glenn Greenwald's "Liberty Tour" sponsored by "Young Americans for Liberty": http://www.yaliberty.org/tour/fall2012

His cohorts were Hornsberger (a white supremacist) and Bruce Fein (old time GOP sleaze bag neocon) and the moderator is Jack Hunter, Rand Paul's "Southern Avenger" - they took their "liberty tour" to universities on the West Coast. Here's the video:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42436_The_Convergence_of_Glenn_Greenwald_and_Rand_Pauls_Southern_Avenger

Let's not forget that the Libertarian triumvirate of Greenwald, Snowden, and Assange are all professed Paultards (the Fraud Pauls also have a long history of white supremacism).

I don't know about anybody else, but I have a real problem with taking "civil liberties" tips from avowed white supremacists.

"Progressive" Glenn Greenwald explains his motivation (video): http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

Which reminds me of this guy: White Supremacist serial killer airs pet peeves at sentencing "Israel, drones, and torture":
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/white-supremacist-defiant-at-sentencing-for-killing-spree

P.S. What Rand Paul is trying to sell to young techies in Silicon Valley )sponsored by Koch): "Homophobia, racism and the Kochs: San Francisco’s tech-libertarian “Reboot” conference is a cesspool"
http://pando.com/2014/07/18/homophobia-racism-and-the-kochs-san-franciscos-tech-libertarian-reboot-conference-is-a-cesspool/

How can this be??? Look at who/what the Libertarian Titans of industry, that Greenwald never misses a chance to defend. are funding: "The Koch Brothers’ Fake Libertarianism: War, Forced Pregnancies, and Homophobia"
http://www.vice.com/read/the-koch-brothers-fake-libertarianism-war-forced-pregnancies-and-homophobia-729

Liberals, step away from the Libertarian sewer.

Know when you're being conned by the right: Libertarians lying to Liberals:

"something to keep in mind if you find yourself getting all dewy-eyed as you take your place on the bottom of the "strange bedfellows" at the StopWatching.us rally, topped by such rancid libertarian outfits as FreedomWorks, the Kochs’ climate denial front Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Kochs’ new anti-Obamacare Astroturf front Generation Opportunity, Students For Liberty (funded by CIA/NSA contractor Peter Thiel), Ron Paul’s Young Americans For Liberty, the Libertarian Party....
Anyway, just in case "Marketing Libertarianism" hadn't got the rulebook out widely enough, REASON ran a second article later in 1977 headlined "How To Get Converts Left & Right: Political Cross-Dressing Is The Answer."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/found-libertarians-lying-t184312/index.html?t=184312

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

243 replies	Author	Time	Post
Glenn Greenwald ain't no Libertarian, Part 1: Defending Social Security and Medicare (Original post)	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	OP
They've always got their fallback, racist!	morningfog	Jun 2014	#1
Racist is what racist says and " it was my early days" (sic) != a changed mind	uponit7771	Jun 2014	#123
Glenn Greenwald's "Liberty Tour" with White Supremacists...	kfreed	Aug 2014	#234
Explain why Libertarin Greenwald consistently attacks reporters covering the Koch cartel	kfreed	Aug 2014	#235
So	ProSense	Jun 2014	#2
$10 if you produce a Greenwald endorsement of Paul	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#3
"the best candidate for any office."	ProSense	Jun 2014	#4
Greenwald was certainly concern trolling in that video	Cali_Democrat	Jun 2014	#5
Fail. No ten bucks for you. nt	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#6
Never wanted it, and the denial was expected.	ProSense	Jun 2014	#7
You got that right!	sheshe2	Jun 2014	#8
The comments at	ProSense	Jun 2014	#9
Oh noos! Greenwald haz a sad.	sheshe2	Jun 2014	#11
He sure isn't the genious some think he is. Nor the wordsmith.	Whisp	Jun 2014	#16
The petulant child...	sheshe2	Jun 2014	#18
"If you don't like someone criticizing your Beloved Leader, you could always move to North Korea."	Number23	Jun 2014	#29
Wait What?! An echo!?	sheshe2	Jun 2014	#42
Nope	billhicks76	Jun 2014	#26
So the ganging up on posts that support ...	sheshe2	Jun 2014	#45
You Are Making Up Lies Now	billhicks76	Jun 2014	#48
Look, it's late here and I am tired...	sheshe2	Jun 2014	#55
Spelling Corrected	billhicks76	Jun 2014	#57
Thank you so much for correcting your spelling.	sheshe2	Jun 2014	#63
Clue: Australian Wikileaks Party (Assange) preferences fascists, mens righters, and gun humpers...	kfreed	Aug 2014	#237
Hmm... actual progressives outing Libertarian Glenn Greenwald. Yeah.	kfreed	Aug 2014	#236
You're owed ten bucks. JMO and I'm stickin' to it! nt	MADem	Jun 2014	#46
You lost, Manny!	Whisp	Jun 2014	#14
Snort~	sheshe2	Jun 2014	#22
why does Rachel Maddow say he's on the left, then?	grasswire	Jun 2014	#28
GG does appear to be fearless. And he's also a Ron Paul loving Libertarian.	Whisp	Jun 2014	#32
very revealing nt	grasswire	Jun 2014	#39
Give me an example of a Libertarian who is against cutting Social Security	eridani	Jun 2014	#53
Let's not forget the Three Libertarians tour he took.with Bruce Fein right before	msanthrope	Jun 2014	#93
Bruce Fein was acting as counsel at that time.	grasswire	Jun 2014	#158
In 2012? Who the frak was Fein representing in 2012? nt	msanthrope	Jun 2014	#159
Because they are mistaken, having taken him at face value...	kfreed	Aug 2014	#238
I think that post is filled with lies	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#68
Here's your proof:	aimeemb24	Aug 2014	#241
Damn, Ma'am: I Knew The Fella Had Problems, But What Is At that Link Is Way Over The Top	The Magistrate	Aug 2014	#242
I don't see anything about Greenwald laughing at a joke about Obama raping a nun	MannyGoldstein	Aug 2014	#243
They just love Greenwald over at The Daily Paul...	SidDithers	Jun 2014	#76
I found it rich that Greenwald trashed Sen. Warren during her tough campaign against Scott Brown.	MADem	Jun 2014	#173
"Trashed" Sen. Warren?	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#178
Manny, GG and Scott Brown have one thing in common.	MADem	Jun 2014	#179
The Pattern: Greenwald also attacked "neocon" Hillary Clinton	kfreed	Aug 2014	#239
Proof of Greenwald Produced...	uponit7771	Jun 2014	#121
Apparently, the man doesn't get to define himself when DU's clairvoyances' are on the hunt!Tally ho!	Luminous Animal	Jun 2014	#13
Carnac the Magnificent	grasswire	Jun 2014	#15
It's even worse than that.	Tarheel_Dem	Jun 2014	#20
Stay tuned... more to come! nt	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#21
Pierre, Pierre, the Billionaire:	Whisp	Jun 2014	#23
Damn good find Whisp. Lot of egg on quite a few faces. Anonymous, Sibel Edmonds,	Tarheel_Dem	Jun 2014	#70
But..... but...... but......!!!	MADem	Jun 2014	#194
The statement that Ron Paul was an anti-war candidate was, in fact, accurate.	Jim Lane	Jun 2014	#172
Greenwald does a lot of solid reporting.	JEB	Jun 2014	#10
Manny, you sure he's not just another one of those ''fake liberals?''	DeSwiss	Jun 2014	#12
Those who claim Greenwald is a Libertarian are clueless fools.	Maedhros	Jun 2014	#17
Ron Paul distortions and smears	ProSense	Jun 2014	#19
Rachel Maddow is a clueless fool?	grasswire	Jun 2014	#31
+1 a whole fucking bunch.	Enthusiast	Jun 2014	#61
Nope, they have their opinion and their conclusions on the racist bastard is wrong	uponit7771	Jun 2014	#124
They are trying to change the subject	AgingAmerican	Jun 2014	#38
Sorry, your "messenger" has issues	Bobbie Jo	Jun 2014	#151
You are attacking the messenger	AgingAmerican	Jun 2014	#152
Horse shit	Bobbie Jo	Jun 2014	#156
More of the same	AgingAmerican	Jun 2014	#157
Or they're being purposefully deceptive.	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#71
It is amazing how quickly they pounce on you	zeemike	Jun 2014	#24
Stalking	billhicks76	Jun 2014	#30
good lordies!	Whisp	Jun 2014	#34
Not really... it gets old	fascisthunter	Jun 2014	#43
You are being Politically Correct to Stay on DU	fascisthunter	Jun 2014	#49
I Agree	billhicks76	Jun 2014	#52
It's all Bullshit! When you take time off especially	fascisthunter	Jun 2014	#56
Commondreams.org	billhicks76	Jun 2014	#58
Maybe, but it doesn't solve the Problem Here	fascisthunter	Jun 2014	#59
long string of site disruptions, takeovers, shut downs when things get too liberal elsewhere	reddread	Jun 2014	#73
somehow coordinated	bobduca	Jun 2014	#75
The one who visits "Putin's Russia" on a regular basis is Greenwald.	MADem	Jun 2014	#175
Lol	billhicks76	Jun 2014	#190
Not going for a "scare." But that's just simple fact. nt	MADem	Jun 2014	#191
Well,	ProSense	Jun 2014	#36
This thread is amazingly short to me	Capt. Obvious	Jun 2014	#66
Wow!	sheshe2	Jun 2014	#25
I don't really want to see Manny parts, do you?	Whisp	Jun 2014	#27
Whisp!	sheshe2	Jun 2014	#33
Durrrrrr	fascisthunter	Jun 2014	#50
Seems they're admitting they're ashamed of GG being a libertarian, she..	Cha	Jun 2014	#62
Seems to be true indeed.	sheshe2	Jun 2014	#64
I'm not ashamed that Greenwald's a Libertarian, nor that I am a Nazi	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#72
I think one of them is. And I'm not throwing any Godwin at you when I say that, either.	MADem	Jun 2014	#174
I guess Rachel Maddow, Bill Moyers, and Michael Moore are chumps	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#176
Two of the three on your list (at least) aren't even Democrats.	MADem	Jun 2014	#182
When they're more informed than me, I listen.	elias49	Jun 2014	#187
And when they aren't--like in this case--perhaps you shouldn't waste your time.	MADem	Jun 2014	#193
You are seriously full of yourself!	elias49	Jun 2014	#196
No I'm not. You're just angry because I don't see things the way you do.	MADem	Jun 2014	#197
'nuf said.	elias49	Jun 2014	#200
Um... One of us has a reading comprehension issue.	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#189
Then why did you even bring them up? Hmmmm?	MADem	Jun 2014	#192
Well, I think we agree on one thing:	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#198
Ah, Manny gets personal. Surprise, surprise!	MADem	Jun 2014	#199
So you don't agree with that statement?	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#201
Manny, you can toss not-so-clever insults all day if you'd like.	MADem	Jun 2014	#203
you'd think the OP was about them	AgingAmerican	Jun 2014	#35
They think everything's about them. Seems to be part of the cult/fusion thing	villager	Jun 2014	#40
heh nt	grasswire	Jun 2014	#160
Just Had A Great Idea!	billhicks76	Jun 2014	#37
Funny how the bullshit defense here against what you are saying....	fascisthunter	Jun 2014	#41
Weapons Of Mass Distraction	billhicks76	Jun 2014	#44
Well, I'll try	fascisthunter	Jun 2014	#47
Today a guess What These Frauds Suggested?	billhicks76	Jun 2014	#51
No, It sounds like a good Defense to get that Fucker Banned	fascisthunter	Jun 2014	#54
Let's scrutinize: "THE RIGHT HAND OF OCCUPY WALL STREET: FROM LIBERTARIANS TO NAZIS..."	kfreed	Aug 2014	#240
Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!	Enthusiast	Jun 2014	#60
The sure fire sign of a libertarian	JoeyT	Jun 2014	#65
http://www.ed.gov/	bobduca	Jun 2014	#74
I have been reading Greenwald since the Bush years.	Maedhros	Jun 2014	#142
They don't want to talk about those libertarian policies	Mnpaul	Jun 2014	#165
This rec's for you	Capt. Obvious	Jun 2014	#67
Smear and distract, smear and distract.	woo me with science	Jun 2014	#69
Yes, "entitlement" sounds EXACTLY like a Cato Libertarian.	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#77
That word you keep using	nadinbrzezinski	Jun 2014	#79
Read your link. nt	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#80
I have my dear	nadinbrzezinski	Jun 2014	#82
Really? The word Entitlement sounds Libertarian to you?	DisgustipatedinCA	Jun 2014	#81
Yes. SS is an earned benefit.	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#83
Funny how you keep using Cato institute language	nadinbrzezinski	Jun 2014	#84
Funny how your message doesn't have a message. nt	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#85
Because I addressed the issue above	nadinbrzezinski	Jun 2014	#103
It's an entitlement program. It's not up for negotiation.	DisgustipatedinCA	Jun 2014	#88
No it really isn't, except in virtual Pulitzer land. nt	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#90
OK, Ace. Let's make it fun. $200 donation to DU from the loser.	DisgustipatedinCA	Jun 2014	#97
Be my guest but ask your parents for the allowance. nt	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#99
I can cover the cash. Are you in, or aren't you?	DisgustipatedinCA	Jun 2014	#102
Do what you like. You don't need my permission. nt	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#106
No, I definitely need your permission to get $200 from you for DU.	DisgustipatedinCA	Jun 2014	#110
Your donation is between you and PayPal. nt	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#111
Option 3 holds sway. Now, do you have what it takes to withdraw your claims?	DisgustipatedinCA	Jun 2014	#113
Sorry, I lost interest about 5 replies ago. Have a great day. nt	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#116
Perfect.	DisgustipatedinCA	Jun 2014	#119
Entitlement has a legal definition.	ieoeja	Jun 2014	#126
It does but Greenwald isn't using its legal definition.	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#127
He used it as a compliment: "the crown legislative jewels of American liberalism"	muriel_volestrangler	Jun 2014	#138
Points for poetry but it's a hack CATO gotcha, period.	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#139
You're in a deep hole. Stop digging.	muriel_volestrangler	Jun 2014	#140
Sorry, all the king's horses etc can't change the obvious. nt	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#141
He's right. It's one of those dog whistle words.	MADem	Jun 2014	#202
You're wrong, if you think Greenwald, or Manny, are in that 'they' you've conjured up	muriel_volestrangler	Jun 2014	#204
What? I'm not "allowing" anything. I have ears and I can hear.	MADem	Jun 2014	#205
We have audio from Democracy Now from a week later, so you can literally hear	muriel_volestrangler	Jun 2014	#206
He takes paychecks from Koch and Omidyar, and specializes in "from the left" attacks.	MADem	Jun 2014	#214
We've had the Koch stuff dealt with already	muriel_volestrangler	Jun 2014	#225
A Dog Whistle specially designed to enrage Willfully Ignorant Curs	bobduca	Jun 2014	#207
It causes the GOP pack to bark with glee, when used with the right "tone." nt	MADem	Jun 2014	#217
To deny that there are two meanings of the term is par for the course	bobduca	Jun 2014	#218
I don't think that's the problem, really. We all know the original meaning of the term.	MADem	Jun 2014	#220
So you agree there are two meanings of the term	bobduca	Jun 2014	#224
But Greenwald is not a GOP supporter, and you've heard him say the word	muriel_volestrangler	Jun 2014	#228
Unless Obama himself uses the term	AgingAmerican	Jun 2014	#149
Libertarian and Reagan Welfare Queen Republican--it's one of Frank Luntz's favorite digs.	MADem	Jun 2014	#195
I said exactly what I meant to say and I was correct.	DisgustipatedinCA	Jun 2014	#209
And I said exactly what I meant. No games whatsoever.	MADem	Jun 2014	#210
Do you have the courage of your convictions?	DisgustipatedinCA	Jun 2014	#211
Ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!! I provided you with three links. I proved what I was saying.	MADem	Jun 2014	#212
I NEVER offer a wager unless I'm dead certain.	DisgustipatedinCA	Jun 2014	#213
Oh yeah, I'm sure you don't!!!	MADem	Jun 2014	#215
Your "point" has been thoroughly discredited.	DisgustipatedinCA	Jun 2014	#216
No it hasn't. I provide links and cites---you wave virtual money around.	MADem	Jun 2014	#219
No. Being right makes me right.	DisgustipatedinCA	Jun 2014	#221
Post removed	Post removed	Jun 2014	#226
Post removed	Post removed	Jun 2014	#229
Guess what, Obama uses the word "entitlement" so is the president beating	Autumn	Jun 2014	#86
Bad news: are you sitting down?	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#87
Who says he's talking about Social Security there?	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#89
How about this link ? Please do tell Obama SS is not an entitlement.	Autumn	Jun 2014	#91
Doesn't change the meaning of the word. nt	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#92
Good grief.	Autumn	Jun 2014	#94
I feel your smiley. nt	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#95
You dug yourself into a hole with that. Obama uses that word about SS	Autumn	Jun 2014	#101
Yes, entitlement is a CATO meme and Greenwald is a CATO man.	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#104
By your logic that makes Obama a CATO man.	Autumn	Jun 2014	#107
The thread is about Greenwald, who is a CATO man, yes. nt	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#109
The thread is about Greenwald, who is a CATO man, yes. Your post	Autumn	Jun 2014	#115
Every President since FDR has referred to SS	nadinbrzezinski	Jun 2014	#112
We're talking about Greenwald and I provided a quotation. nt	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#114
No my friend	nadinbrzezinski	Jun 2014	#118
Now it has been settled. Obama IS a CATO libertarian	Autumn	Jun 2014	#117
And FDR, which is quite Impressive,	nadinbrzezinski	Jun 2014	#120
Very impressive then.	Autumn	Jun 2014	#122
Ucrdem and I are going to settle this question to the benefit of DU	DisgustipatedinCA	Jun 2014	#100
You go right ahead. nt	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#105
Try to collect	Autumn	Jun 2014	#108
Sophistry, no mention of social security... Most GG support is packed with sophistry	uponit7771	Jun 2014	#125
What else is an "entitlement" and when did Obama offer to cut any of them?	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#128
no mention of social security in that statement no matter what pretzel logic is used...	uponit7771	Jun 2014	#150
Very much so and incidentally the KOS link is silly.	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#129
Kick for the same 5 fucking NSA circle-knee-jerk apologists	bobduca	Jun 2014	#78
And some of the rest of us have day jobs	Generic Other	Jun 2014	#96
Who would those be, Mr. duca?	MineralMan	Jun 2014	#130
Figure out it, Genius	bobduca	Jun 2014	#134
No, thanks.	MineralMan	Jun 2014	#135
o my...	Whisp	Jun 2014	#145
Project much?	bobduca	Jun 2014	#153
Internet tough guys	Bobbie Jo	Jun 2014	#154
Damn! I was hoping for a list I could	MineralMan	Jun 2014	#155
the false equivalency of "Libertarian" and "libertarian" turns the ACLU into Ayn Rand groupies	carolinayellowdog	Jun 2014	#98
Very true. IMO, any post using the word libertarian,	MineralMan	Jun 2014	#131
I think the meaning is clear. The upper case-lower case distinction though	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#133
It's become an empty pejorative here on DU. [n/t]	Maedhros	Jun 2014	#143
Yes, like many others.	MineralMan	Jun 2014	#144
When I use Libertarian, I mean the Fuck Ron Paul kind. Let it be on record. n/t	Whisp	Jun 2014	#146
Yes, me too, along with those who praise him and his son.	MineralMan	Jun 2014	#148
K&R	Teamster Jeff	Jun 2014	#132
No matter how many times I am told that it isn't about GG....	NCTraveler	Jun 2014	#136
the fuss validates his importance, I guess	grasswire	Jun 2014	#161
I will, too.	840high	Jun 2014	#177
The first one didn't go so well.	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#180
oops this IS the first one	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#183
The truth	Babel_17	Jun 2014	#137
Obama did not attempt to "cut" anything	treestar	Jun 2014	#147
Aww, Manny. There you go again!	bvar22	Jun 2014	#162
Why is it that Greenwald does his defending by criticising Obama and Democrats but not Republicans??	DCBob	Jun 2014	#163
What makes me really wonder	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#164
Not in the least. I criticize Democrats more than Republicans because I hold Democrats	rhett o rick	Jun 2014	#167
OMG! Greenwald must be some sort of double agent!	RufusTFirefly	Jun 2014	#166
No doubt to mask his TRUE intentions.	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#168
Whoa! I'd love to see Greenwald in a 3-D chess match with the Master!	RufusTFirefly	Jun 2014	#171
Standard tactic against opponents of power	davekriss	Jun 2014	#169
Excellent post. Thank you.	scarletwoman	Jun 2014	#170
Opposing cuts that didn't happen. Yeah he's a real true blue.	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#181
Yeah why be against cuts when they're floated/proposed? I mean, why fight to stop the cuts?	neverforget	Jun 2014	#184
Hack CATO gotcha.	ucrdem	Jun 2014	#185
Thank you for the deep analysis!	neverforget	Jun 2014	#186
And let's not forget to thank Greenwald for singlehandedly turning back the invaders from Mars!	struggle4progress	Jun 2014	#188
My bad, good catch.	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#223
Smear Merchants are a protected species here	bobduca	Jun 2014	#208
I think you misspelled	Capt. Obvious	Jun 2014	#222
He should change his name to Glenn Greenbacks. n/t	Whisp	Jun 2014	#227
Herp Derp	bobduca	Jun 2014	#231
He's a left libertarian	ozone_man	Jun 2014	#230
Glenn Greenwald's "Liberty Tour" with white supremacists	kfreed	Aug 2014	#232
Glenn Greenwald's "Liberty Tour" with White Supremacists...	kfreed	Aug 2014	#233