Glenn Greenwald MUST be stopped.

[MannyGoldstein]

Glenn Greenwald is a hard-core Libertarian out to destroy Democrats, and I need your help to stop him.

Does anyone on DU know Rachel Maddow, Bill Moyers, or Michael Moore? These three are badly deluded and must be re-educated ASAP! Just look at the crazy things they've said about known-Libertarian Greenwald:

"Glenn Greenwald is not just the American Left's most fearless political commentator; his fearlessness is such that he has shifted the expectations for everyone else, too. His rock-ribbed principles and absolute disregard for partisan favor have made U.S. political discourse edgier, more confrontational, and much much better."
- Rachel Maddow

"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."
- Michael Moore

"The most important voice to have entered the political discourse in years."
- Bill Moyers

If you can reach out to these people and tell them how deluded they are, many of us would be mighty thankful.

Regards,

What-NSA-overreach? Manny

P.S. The following post is absolutely not evidence that the NSA is pooping on the Fourth Amendment. If you even click on this link, you're a Libertarian Putin defender: New Surveillance Whistleblower: The NSA Violates the Constitution - TheAtlantic

[Capt. Obvious]

1. Trumad thinks he sucks

That's all I need to know.

[KG]

2. !

[trumad]

3. I don't believe in his activism...

Sorry---I think Libertarians are douchebags.

[madokie]

9. I think so too

He can take a flying fuck at a rolling donut for all I care.

[Lefta Dissenter]

154. HA,

I'm totally stealing that line!

[zappaman]

28. Yup. n/t

[cheapdate]

34. I'm with you. Same thing for Ron Paul and his evil spawn,

even if we're on the same side of some question, they're still creepy douchebags.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

36. It's ok to defend Libertarians on this site...

Especially if they are Greendwald or (surprisingly) Ron Paul.

[MannyGoldstein]

82. Do DUers defend Ron Paul?

Or do they defend certain positions on which that nut happens to be correct?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

84. I believe there was a post hidden with the following words:

"FUCK RON PAUL"

So... You tell me...

[ljm2002]

114. er, okay, I'll tell you...

Last edited Tue Jul 22, 2014, 02:42 AM - Edit history (1)

...that post was not about Ron Paul as such; rather, it was a post implying that any DUer who holds any position that is also held by Ron Paul, is therefore a Ron Paul-lover -- which of course is utter horseshit. IOW it was a gigantic unsubstantiated callout of fellow DUers.

That's why that post was hidden, and YOU KNOW IT and I know it and anyone else who read that post knows it.

Oh well -- by trying to peddle a blatant lie just to score a cheap rhetorical point, you show your true colors for all to see. Enjoy.

ON EDIT:

OOPS, I may have been totally mistaken. That post that I remembered, it may not exist at all. Hard to tell -- since hidden posts don't come up on searches. So although I am tempted to ask you to prove that such a post exists (as I should have done in the first place), it wouldn't be fair, since you cannot do so if it is actually hidden.

So I'll do the next best thing. I'll PROVE to you that posts saying "Fuck Ron Paul" are not hidden here at DU. Not as a rule, anyway. You'll have to prove otherwise if you disagree. Here's a list of posts that say "Fuck Ron Paul" that are still up here at DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5269168

JI7 (47,214 posts)
19. fuck ron paul

MADem (102,707 posts)
9. Fuck Ron Paul....he just jumped the shark. nt

Iggo (26,695 posts)
8. Fuck Ron Paul...

...and the rest of them fourth reich sheet-wearing motherfuckers.

PeaceNikki (21,664 posts)
7. To quote EarlG, "Fuck Ron Paul"

zappaman (12,004 posts)
6. Fuck Ron Paul!

And his dickhead of a son!

maddezmom (134,848 posts)
74. Agree and Fuck Ron and Rand Paul, too!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014844310#post25

geek tragedy (39,879 posts)
25. Fuck Ron Paul. nt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5175657

JI7 (47,214 posts)
21. fuck rand paul, ron paul, and ayn rand

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5156944

geek tragedy (39,879 posts)
299. Fuck Ron Paul. nt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5155951

PeaceNikki (21,664 posts)
38. Fuck Ron Paul.

[Luminous Animal]

116. There was ABSOLUTELY NO POST hidden that said "Fuck Ron Paul". Never happened. Not on DU ever.

[ljm2002]

123. I thought I had seen one like that...

...well that's what I get for replying without searching first.

However, I've searched now, and have found plenty of "Fuck Ron Paul" posts that are still here. Don't know if hidden posts come up on searches, I think not?

Oh well -- thanks for setting the record straight.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

162. It was Geek Tragedy who said it...

The poster it was directed at was later tombstoned for being a Paul bot.

Yes, it was hidden.

Fuck Glenn Greenwald. Fuck Ron Paul.

[Luminous Animal]

115. Did a search for that and it didn't happen. So you tell me...

[Luminous Animal]

127. As I pointed out down thread. Never happened and crickets from you. Pahhhhthetic propaganda.

Send in the next clowns.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

193. Actually, it DID happen...

Geek Tragedy was the one who's post was hidden. I can't find the post anymore as it's no longer on his transparency page, but I'm sure he has a link to it... It was directed at a poster who was later tombstoned for being a Paul supporter, so...

As for crickets from me? Sorry, I was sleeping at 3am.

[L0oniX]

192. Yea ...on Discussionist ...along with "Bush is a mass murderer".

[Dr Hobbitstein]

195. Nope. Right here on DU.

This was pre-Discussionist. Geek Tragedy's post was hidden. "Fuck Ron Paul" was what was in his post. The poster it was directed as was a Paul bot, and was later tombstoned. But the jury sided with the Paulbot, not Geek Tragedy.

Aside from that, I don't really hang out at Discussionist. I joined when it opened, made a couple posts in the musician forum, and that was it.

[NorthCarolina]

161. Doesn't matter to baggers. To them, if you agree on even ONE POINT

with someone they despise, then they will use that to immediately associate you with EVERYTHING that they can dig up, take out of context, or fabricate (if they have to) regarding that person. It's a juvenile tactic of course, but it works on some by discouraging them from posting (the obvious goal), and makes them happy and content in thinking they were able to really stick it to one of those damn 'libruls' thus earning their dime.

[Marr]

324. I've noticed that, too.

IIRC, one of the hallmarks of an authoritarian personality is that they tend to believe that a person is speaking sincerely if they say anything with which they personally agree. And if they agree on one point, they tend to view the person as an "ally" and agree on just about anything else they say.

Assuming the sentiments you referred to are sincere and not just cynical attempts to shut down discussion... I wonder if it's just the inverse of that little personality trait?

[NorthCarolina]

331. Honestly, I believe it's simply "a tactic", nothing more. nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

172. Right in this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5274249

[sabrina 1]

286. They defend the right of the American people to choose their party affiliations. As I do and did

see the link you are provided with to falsely claim I am defending Paul himself. It seems that there are people here who would not allow the American people to choose their party affiliation which I pointed out.

It's a sad day when defending the American People's Constitutional Rights is a bad thing.

[sabrina 1]

86. It's 'Greenwald, not Greendwald'. And he is not a Libertarian, not that

ones political affiliations are against any laws in this country, YET.

That old talking point has been debunked so often it's laughable to see it being reused still.

I guess Greenwald doesn't know himself what his political affiliations are. You do have a habit of speaking for other people I've noticed. You shouldn't do that especially when everyone knows that Greenwald is not a Libertarian and that this is a talking point intended to turn the Left against him, which has failed so totally you'd think they would come up with something NEW and factual.

You do know that there was a contract out on Greenwald with bids from 'Security Contractors' to 'smear him' don't you??

Hilarious, Security Contractor wasn't very secure as they were easily hacked by Anonymous where we saw the 'proposals' on how to 'discredit Greenwald'.

I guess someone else got the contract. You should be careful about being used to spread false information for the purpose of smearing journalists. No one wants to be a tool I'm sure.

Just thought I'd let you know where those intended smears, now exposed, came from.

[drynberg]

150. Thanks, sabrina 1, as I agree

Glen Greenwald has helped inform many folks of what's happening. I don't recall any mention of his politics, except bringing out the Truth, at great risk to his own freedom and well being.

[sabrina 1]

288. I don't recall any mention of it either when he was slamming Bush. Nor was there

much mention of the political affiliations of all the other Whistle Blowers during the Bush years, most of them were Republicans.

This is a talking point intended to intimidate the 'left' and/or in the view of the morons who come up these things, 'discredit Greenwald' on the Left, the Right already hated him. They think that if the Left thinks he is a Libertarian, (it must have been a Right Winger who came up with this) they will not pay attention to what he writes. I can't imagine why they think that his party politics would matter to the Left. What matters to Intelligent people is, the truth.

Someone doesn't understand the 'left'.

[sabrina 1]

137. That's the second time you misspelled his name. I defend

Libertarians' right to be whatever they choose to be. Is there a law against choosing your political affiliation in this country? Many Democrats have worked with Paul in Congress on issues where they have common ground. Are they also 'Libertarians' because they collaborated with him? I even defend Republicans' right to choose their political affiliation.

You act as though we live in some kind of dictatorship where everyone must belong to the same party or they are committing a crime of some sort.

I don't care what party Whistle Blowers or Journalists belong to SO LONG AS THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH.

What lies has Greenwald told?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

160. Are you stalking me?

Yes, I misspelled his name. Was typing fast last night in between watching TV. My mistake.
Are you honestly defending Ron Paul here? This conversation is over.

[sabrina 1]

164. Are you lying about me? No, this conversation isn't over, you made two false statements

about me in that comment. I take false statements about anyone seriously enough to ask for proof.

This is a DISCUSSION forum. When someone makes a comment, others are free to respond. When someone calls a good Democrat here on a Democratic forum, a 'douchebag' they attract the attention of other Democrats.

If you want to attack Democrats here, do so, but expect a reaction from Democrats when you do it.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

167. I never called a good Democrat a douchebag...

Quit stalking me.

[sabrina 1]

169. Robert F Kennedy Jr, is 'not a good Democrat?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5273565

Quit calling responses to comments you make that you can't defend, stalking.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

170. No, he is not...

He promotes anti-vaxxer ideology. That is a very dangerous thing.

Let's see... So far you've defended RT, anti-vaxxers, and Ron Paul. And you tell ME I'm not a Democrat.

Quit stalking me.

[sabrina 1]

264. Quit stalking me. You called a good Democrat a 'douchebag' period.

As for the rest of your diatribe, good Democrats do not support censorship of any kind. I am a good Democrat and will defend everyone's right to their opinions no matter how wrong they are. In fact that is one of the hallmarks of good Democrats, because you know, it's part of our Constitution.

Now quit stalking me.

[LovingA2andMI]

269. Perfect Reply!

And Greenwald along with Snowden, told the truth. Some, as Jack Nicholson said in a movie, can't handle the truth.

[sabrina 1]

270. Thanks, false accusations are used as weapons here against those who disagree.

This poster chose that weapon, I chose to take it from him.

[arikara]

278. As far as I know

there is more than one issue involved in being a democrat or a liberal, or even a republican. Yet you say a person isn't a democrat if they don't believe in vaccinations.

For pete sake, not even all republicans are anti-choice... and all democrats aren't necessarily for vaccinations. There are many issues in life not just your pet one.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

289. Anti-vaxxers cause death and suffering...

That is NOT a Democratic ideal.

[arikara]

294. So do a good many pharmaceuticals

n/t

[Dr Hobbitstein]

295. So you're siding with anti-vaxxers?

By all means, keep digging that hole...

[arikara]

309. Do you think

I really give two shakes about your "anti-vaxer" bullshit?

fyi I never read any of those threads nor comment on them because I refuse to kick them.

[sabrina 1]

305. You are correct, and Democrats do not trash good Democrats like RFK Jr

Good post, thank you.

[Hissyspit]

45. He's not a Libertarian.

[Tikki]

53. I, also, agree...douchebags one and all...

Tikki

[frylock]

54. liars are douchbags too

[chervilant]

251. What about people who use sexist terms? n/t

[AgingAmerican]

59. Democratic Authoritarians

Are even bigger douche bags than Libertarians. Why? Because they should know better!

Libertarians are authoritarians, but too stupid to realize it.

[hueymahl]

262. Umm, true liberterians are pretty much the opposite of authoritarians.

Black vs. white.

And before you attack me, I am not promoting the liberterian ideology. I am just promoting accuracy in debate.

[AgingAmerican]

274. In their fantasies, yes

But if you look at the actions/statements when a Republican is in the White House, you see a different story than the one coming out of their mouths.

[hueymahl]

292. I don't disagree! NT

[cheapdate]

308. Anarchists are the opposite of authoritarians.

Libertarians believe the power of the state is rightfully used to protect property and property rights, security, and national sovereignty. I don't know where libertarians would draw the limit for how much state power is justified in achieving these ends. Some of these guys are pretty extreme in their views on crime and punishment. I wouldn't call libertarianism the opposite of authoritarianism.

[hueymahl]

313. Point taken

I did a google search on "What is the opposite of a Libertarian. Got some interesting responses:

Statism
Socialism
Anarchism
fascism

And my favorite:

"Someone who is is sane"

Actually, my real favorite was in answer to the question "what is a libertarian" comes from Drew Carey:

"A libertarian is a conservative that still smokes pot"

[sabrina 1]

67. He's not a Libertarian, but what would HE KNOW about his own politics, Manny is

right, he needs to be stopped. But how? He has so many Democratic friends in Congress too.

[Raine1967]

72. I appreciate that you called it activism.

I really think that is where my issue with him lies.

He's blurring the lines between journalism and activism. He's very good at it and I will give him props for that.

He's and activist, in my view, and I would respect him a hell of a lot more if he would be honest about that.

Thank You for a really clear clarification.

[Luminous Animal]

92. Um, he is honest about it. He proudly proclaims that he is an advocacy journalist. Do you respect

him now?

Snowden specifically chose him because of his advocacy journalism (which, by the way, covered years of blog posts and articles with scathing critique of the Bush Admin, and 3 books critiquing the Bush Admin)..

[calimary]

80. I think pretty much the same thing about Libertarians.

The ones I've met are republic-CONS trying to sneak around in sheep's clothing. If they don't want to admit they're GOP but still share most of the basic views, they'll say they're libertarian. Just a fancy-sounding excuse and it doesn't fool me for a nanosecond.

[Luminous Animal]

85. Yet, you've offered no proof of his libertarian activism. Let's see, supported DEM CANDIDATE HOLT.

Yep, endorsed Rush Holt.

Greenwald advocates for government administered single payer health care system. When that was off the table, advocated for a public option.

Believes social security should not be privatized but expanded.

Started a PAC to promote FDR styled Dems in political races where they may have a chance against Blue Dogs or Third Way candidates.

Has been a keynote speaker at the Socialist Conference for 4 years (would have been 5 years but a family emergency stopped him from speaking this year).

[MannyGoldstein]

88. I was told the other day that specific crimes are not necessary for proof.

We need to look at the pattern of behavior, apparently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5261049

[sabrina 1]

90. Ssshhh! Why are you bringing facts in this?? You're spoiling some perfectly good 'talking points'

that were bought and paid for by the Big Banks. I know HB Gary was exposed and probably lost the contract, but someone did get it. That is obvious, don't you think?

[Luminous Animal]

94. He's a renewed target because either; his current unrelenting condemnation of the slaughter in Gaza,

or something new is coming out about the NSA.

[Mojorabbit]

136. I think you are on the mark with your statement. nt

[KoKo]

174. He was on "Democracy Now" defending the NBC Journalist

who was fired for reporting on the three little boys killed on the beach in Gaza. That set some hair on fire.....

Video was posted here in V&MM....

And, agree...he's probably got more coming out which is causing the backlash.

The NBC reporter was reinstated just after Democracy Now's interview with Glenn and outrage from Freedom of the Press activists.

[stonecutter357]

158. I'm with you.

[Progressive dog]

248. Libertarians are what you said,

and they have no redeeming value.

[JaneyVee]

297. His writing isn't good either.

His writing style is amateur.

[JVS]

143. Why the sarcasm?

[Enthusiast]

145. Me too.

[L0oniX]

191. &

[SidDithers]

4. Greenwald is a piece of shit used car salesman...nt

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

6. So are Maddow, Moyers, and Moore, for supporting him, yes? nt

[cheapdate]

37. No. Genetic fallacy.

Having something in common with something else doesn't make things the same. Nor does having a difference of opinion with someone over some particular question mean that you reject the entire person. Does this really need to be explained?

[Caretha]

41. OMG

Did you really say that in response. Think about it, you just defended Greenwald with your rationale ....you sure you want to stand by that?

[cheapdate]

44. Yes, I stand by my post.

Greenwald's creepiness deserves to be considered on it's own merits as well.

[MannyGoldstein]

79. So Maddow, Moyers and Moore are *ignorant* rather than *evil*

They just don't realize that Greenwald is a "piece of @#$% used-car salesman", so they blindly respect him?

Do I have that right?

[cheapdate]

178. What a laughable way to frame the question.

I can disagree with someone (Maddow, Moyers, and Moore). It does not follow that I must believe them to be evil or ignorant. I might be curious to learn what evidence has convinced them.

[LiberalLovinLug]

214. So why don't you apply your own reasoning to Greenwald?

I can disagree with someone (Greenwald's supposed libertarian views). It does not follow that I must believe them to be evil or ignorant. I might be curious to learn what evidence has convinced them.

[cheapdate]

234. I don't follow you.

Where is the supposed inconsistency? I've never claimed that Greenwald was ignorant, evil or a libertarian. I never even said I disagree with him. I called him a "creepy douchebag" and said that like creepy libertarian Ron Paul, even where we might agree on a particular question, his creepiness is still there, like a miasma. I know there are some other people who feel the same way. And there are many who don't.

Why do I find him creepy? It's hard to pinpoint. I detect a whining in his tone with hints of narcissism. He mixes solid, factual, claims with carelessly inflated ones.

[LiberalLovinLug]

280. That's even more disturbing

You dismiss the writing of a particular journalist, a Pulitzer Prize winning one at that, because from a long distance, and only what you read or watch on TV or the web, you think he may be creepy, and a douchebag?

There are many writers, actors, musicians that I have heard are assholes in person. Doesn't mean I can't still admire their work. Also I try and stay away from believing third party information on someones personality until I actually meet them. In fact sometimes when you actually meet the person you find out they are not the demon they were set up to be. And with the right wing actually paying expert smearers against him, I'd be extra skeptical about what I hear about him.

And please feel free to link to any "carelessly inflated" statements.

[cheapdate]

285. In hindsight, it would seem I have Greenwald mixed up

with writer Jeffrey Goldberg. Browsing some of Greenwald's work, he seems okay.

[LiberalLovinLug]

310. No worries

Sorry if I was a little snide

[Luminous Animal]

96. Hahahaha!!! You just supported Greenwald with that statement. It is to a tee an argument that

Greenwald presents when being accused of being a libertarian. The man states plainly that he is not. He lays out why he is not AND he explains why people want to "smear" him with accusations that he is; i.e., he has something in common with something else that does not make him the same thing.

[ljm2002]

117. Please remember this very important point...

...the next time someone states they are against the NSA's overreach, and another DUer accuses them of idolizing Ron Paul.

For some reason, I suspect you will not be jumping in with an explanation of how one can have something in common with another person, without being on the same page overall. Maybe you will prove me wrong, who knows.

[cui bono]

132. Yes, it really does need to be explained

to all those who keep trying to kill the messenger whenever the messenger says something they don't like about Obama. I hope I see you post this exact same response to those who call people names on here like Paulbots, Putinistas, Libertarians, etc...

I thank you in advance for standing up for those who will get attacked simply because they disagree with the current administration on something and might agree with a criticism of him that someone on the right has.

[cheapdate]

183. I have launched a number of futile and unnoticed campaigns

at DU against exactly the sorts of things you've mentioned. Those kinds of "arguments" are cheap and lazy excuses for not having the wherewithal to confront an argument directly.

[JDPriestly]

23. Have you read his book, No Place to Hide.

It's amazing. I highly recommend it. In fact, I would go so far as to venture the opinion that those who have not read it probably should not render judgment on Greenwald. That's just my opinion.

The thrust of the book is that, not only does the government spy on us and lie to us but that the press is so intimidated by, so afraid of the government that it slants the news as the government wishes and prints scoops when the government allows. The press that we read and trust is full of lies and government and corporate propaganda. Greenwald's book is not. Greenwald's book contains the evidence of deep corruption in not just our government but in our news media.

[delrem]

61. Thanks for the reminder, JD.

Greenwald's book is now up to bat on my tablet.
I just finished Michael Hasting: The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America's War in Afghanistan. I listened to that as an audiobook during my regular commute. I thought it was very telling that Hastings considered the MSM so totally embedded as to call it a MIC-MSM complex. I now do the same, and I don't let MSNBC off the hook, esp. the dear Richard Engel.

[JDPriestly]

133. Thanks for reminding me to read the Hasting book.

[bajamary]

66. "No Place to Hide" - a very good book, indeed

I just finished reading "No Place to Hide" and it is an excellent book. If you read this book, I rather doubt that you will pigeonhole Greenwald as anything except a heck of a journalist. And a brave journalist, indeed.

[6000eliot]

97. Horse shit. The media constantly prints LIES about the Obama administration.

They have been NOTHING but critical of him since the day he was inaugurated. They have also gleefully reported on ALL of this huckster's supposed "scoops." Libertarians and Paulbots are trying to divide the Democratic Party.

[JDPriestly]

135. Have you read the book? Because if you do, I bet you will regret your post.

The book is excellent.

Criticizing the NSA does not equal criticizing Obama. The NSA is virtually a secret government that controls our government no matter who sits in the White House.

If you disapprove of Snowden and Greenwald, a new whistleblower has come forward to inform us that the NSA is violating the Constitution and our privacy rights based on an executive order issued by Reagan in 1981.

This is not about criticizing Obama. It is about outing a secret government, a hidden and ominously powerful government that has been lurking within our constitutional government since at the very latest 1980. Probably much earlier.

[6000eliot]

139. I bet they faked the moon landing as well.

[Luminous Animal]

257. What did you say when Greenwald wrote 3 books and a daily blog criticizing the Bush admin?

[klook]

147. Thank you.

I look forward to reading this book.

The lame attempts to frame admiration of Greenwald's work as a cult of personality can be distracting -- as they're meant to be. I'm interested in the information he has discovered and the conclusions he's drawn from it.

I heard an interesting talk by Greenwald on Alternative Radio recently, "Unmasking the NSA," which was recorded in Seattle last month. Well worth a listen. He detailed many frightening abuses of the security state, and also deflated many of the standard criticisms of Snowden, all of which we've seen on DU over and over. Worth a listen.

[sabrina 1]

69. Thanks for that Sid. I always check with you to know who I should support and who I should

not.

You are my political barometer!

[Dragonfli]

73. It works really well Sabrina, you just have to turn the barometer upside down

[sabrina 1]

76. It does, lol, if it weren't for these barometers, I would have to spend a lot more time

researching and thinking and discussing these things. But then, I see a post like that, and I KNOW. I'm all for not wasting time, so it works for me!

[NanceGreggs]

99. In other words ...

... you don't bother to spend time a lot of time "researching and thinking and discussing these things." You just base your political views on who you don't like on DU, and decide that whatever they're having, you want the opposite?

That explains SO much about your posts.

[sabrina 1]

100. Sure, if you say so. Satire is lost on those who thrive on the 'gotcha' tactic.

[NanceGreggs]

102. Sorry, I forgot.

When caught in a ridiculous statement, you always use the "it was satire" defense.

Not buying. Never do.

[sabrina 1]

106. Am I really that important to you?

I'm flattered. Sid is definitely my barometer on who to support and who not to support. I've told him how much I appreciate him many times. Why is this of so much concern to you, seems odd to me

[Union Scribe]

125. You've got yourself a fan, it seems.

I never see her here except for when she pops up to grumble at you

[sabrina 1]

128. Should I be worried or flattered?

Lol, I think I'll take it as a compliment. I have gathered a few fans lately. Probably has to do with daring to have 'unapproved of' opinions, and/or admitting to and actually being proud of 'unapproved of 'reading material'.

Such 'daring' tends to attract attention where lockstep agreement is expected.

[NanceGreggs]

281. Yes, sabrina ...

... everyone who responds to you on a discussion board does so because you are important to them.

I responded because I was taken aback by an admission that you base at least part of your political views on whether a particular poster holds the opposite view.

I wasn't surprised at the revelation - just surprised that you so openly admitted it.

[sabrina 1]

284. Really? I didn't know that, it's kind of humbling to be that important to so many people. Thanks!

Why would I not compliment Sid who never fails to do as is expected of him?

I hope you're not serious, but I'm beginning to think that maybe your really didn't get it. Lol!

[NanceGreggs]

290. No, I'm not serious.

Not this time, anyway.

[Luminous Animal]

129. Prove that sabrina always uses a satire defense. Because she doesn't and you can't.

Despicable.

[sabrina 1]

134. Amazing isn't it, they just make stuff up and expect people won't notice.

Thanks Luminous,

[MannyGoldstein]

105. I suspect that if you and Sabrina had a thorough, fact-based debate

on any given political topic... you'd be on the canvas pretty quick.

Give it a shot, show us what you got.

[NanceGreggs]

109. sabrina and I ...

... have had a few skirmishes - and she invariably gets laid low by (a) my simple recitation of the facts and/or (b) being shown that she has little familiarity with the aforementioned.

I'll give her points, though, for creativity. The "it was satire" defense, I believe, is wholly her original work. Though wearing a bit thin, she still knows how to work it.

[MannyGoldstein]

110. Ok, let's see a link.

Show us your handiwork.

[NanceGreggs]

118. You seem to have mistaken me ...

... for someone who is interested in your incredibly trite on-line DU games.

Do you know how to use Google? Do you know how to do a DU site search?

Well, go to it - if it's that important to you.

[Marr]

141. lol, uh-huh.

Do you actually think anyone buys that?

[sabrina 1]

120. I give you my permission to link to the only other 'skirmish' we had. Airc you gave up

although I give you credit for staying in the skirmish longer than most.

I enjoy skirmishes, I rarely start them but am generally willing to oblige those who start them, unlike many others, which I understand, but they amuse me.

Anytime you want to have a real discussion though, a serious one, let me know.

You seem to want to fight, and you come out of nowhere when I am 'laying low' as you put it, someone else. Lol.

Sad, that this is how you view discussion on a political forum. That you think you are 'laying' people 'low' when in fact, they are just playing with you.

I don't take our 'skirmishes' seriously. I take people who genuinely care about issues even if they disagree with me, seriously. People who respect others' pov even when they differ from theirs. Not those who view a difference of opinion as an act of war, requiring 'skirmishes'. But to each their own, I'm willing to oblige everyone, most of the time.

This kind of thing, it's just a game I am willing to amuse myself with when I'm in the mood. Not to be taken seriously at all.

[KurtNYC]

185. +1 well said.

[grasswire]

239. She attempts to skirmish me, too.

A couple of times I have broken my rule to ignore such. As you say, there's no real intent to discuss. It's a waste of time.

[sabrina 1]

242. Isn't it sad though, that some people view any disagreement as

justification to personally attack other DUers? I thought only the far right were prone to that kind of behavior.

I was very naive back in those days.

I thought our side was so much better than that.

It is a waste of time when someone jumps into a thread and starts a 'skirmish' out of the blue. But I guess if you can't defend your opinions, for some 'skirmishing' is all they can think of. I generally stay quiet if I can't defend my positions, which is rare lol!

And sometimes I enjoy a skirmish if I have some time to waste.

[navarth]

241. a wonderful post

my compliments to you, sabrina 1.

[NanceGreggs]

279. If you want to post a link ...

... to our recent skirmish, please do so. I won't, because I have no desire to embarrass you.

[sabrina 1]

301. And you have a great sense of humor too!

Lol!

[NanceGreggs]

303. Right back at ya! n/t

[Luminous Animal]

130. Mad prop for your unsubstantiated claims of victory!

[Pholus]

165. Don't forget to add you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night!

[L0oniX]

196. LMFAO

[SMC22307]

255. LOL! Easy there tiger,

you're just itchin' to be laid low by The Queen of Skirmishes.

[pa28]

277. Cool story.

[SixString]

113. +1

[LiberalLovinLug]

220. Seriously Nance?

If you know sabrina 1's posts, you know she is one of the most thoughtful and prolific commentators on here. This was an obvious little satirical jab back at someone who has a history of his own baseless hit and run jobs on here.

[SidDithers]

155. Well, that explains why you defend anti-Semites, anti-vaxxers and RT...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

166. Links to my defense of anti-Semites, you mean defending someone's anti semitic views, right?

I get that you are hoping to imply that 'impression' but that tactic won't fly with me, people lying about me always gets my full attention until they PROVE IT. So far, none of those using this tactic have accomplished anything other than to create disgust in most DUers.

Also, I would like to see links to these anti-vaxxer comments you are claiming. that would not include defending RFK Jr from rightwing attacks calling him, a Democrat, a 'douchebag'. It would be specifically addressing the topic of vaccination.

As for RT, it is an excellent source of news, which I have stated multiple times so I don't know why you think your attempt to censor my reading and viewing material matters to me at all. In fact each time you try to use my choice of 'reading material' in an effort to intimidate me, RT gets more viewers. So on that score, keep up the good work.

Like I said, you are my political barometer, what to read, who to support etc.

I look forward to those links.

[SidDithers]

173. I could go with your stock 'I can't be bothered to look for links, but that's how I remember it'...

... answer here. You've played that card on any number of occasions.

But sure, here you go:

You used Gordon Duff at anti-Semitic hate site veteranstoday to defend the anti-Semitic comments made by Helen Thomas:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8594379

The SPLC considers veteranstoday to be a hate site. So do I. Your political barometer is opposite mine, so maybe you feel differently.
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/01/06/buyer-beware-veterans-today-and-its-anti-israel-agenda/

So, Helen Thomas says something anti-Semitic, and you post a link to other anti-Semites saying 'Naw, that's not anti-Semitic'.

Wow, anti-Semites don't think Helen Thomas is an anti-Semite. Shocker.

ETA: Helen Thomas' comments were "Congress, the White House, Hollywood and Wall Street are owned by Zionists. No question, in my opinion." Sure sounds like an anti-Semite to me. YMMV



You were defending the dumbass anti-vax views of RFJ Jr just the other day in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025267920



And I'm not even going to bother linking to your voluminous defenses of RT. They're everywhere.

Now, go ahead and parse words to try to deflect and obfuscate. But the posts are right there, plain as day.



Sid

[sabrina 1]

175. What garbage, you should have gone with the 'stock' response, 'not going to bother'.

Helen Thomas will be remembered and is actually, as one of this country's great and FIRST women journalists. She was far from anti Semitic, but if Ari Fleischer says so, it must be true, no? I do NOT listen to liars like Right Wing War Criminal spokespersons like Ari Fleischer.

Anyone who supports Ari Fleischer's lies on this forum has zero credibility. The man barely got away with going to jail by turning in his own buddies. HE is the one who began the vicious and false attacks on Helen Thomas, nice going, supporting a criminal like Ari 'they better watch what they say' Fleischer.

As for your anti Vaxx link, still no reference at all by me of the topic, but definitely a defense of Robert F Kennedy Jr from the same old Right Wing attacks on him. Just as I thought. I want people to click that link so they know that you made a false statement.

I will always defend good Democrats like Thomas and expose the vicious campaigns against them AND JFK Jr who has been the target of similar Right Wing vicious attacks, especially when I see them here.

And nothing will get my attention more than any attempt to CENSOR the reading material of Americans, we are very protective of our 1st Amendment rights here.

Thanks, just what I expected, you had to dig deep to try to justify your false allegations, glad I asked, now readers can see for themselves the lengths some people will go to try to smear good Democrats who refuse to march in lockstep with those trying to drag OUR PARTY to the RIGHT.

I can always depend on you to make my points for me.

[SidDithers]

176. ROFL...

deflect and obfuscate.

Helen Thomas said "Congress, the White House, Hollywood and Wall Street are owned by Zionists. No question, in my opinion."

In response the Anti-Defamation League said she "clearly, unequivocally revealed herself as a vulgar anti-Semite"
http://archive.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/5929_12.html#.U85mmvldUrU

And you linked to the opinion of an holocaust-denier to defend those comments.


Why are you bringing Ari Fleischer into this? I don't give a shit what Ari Fleischer thinks, but your political barometer is opposite mine, so you obviously feel differently.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

179. Ari Fleischer started the vicious smear campaign against Helen Thomas.

The man is a liar and a propagandist for War Criminals.

Your choice to keep spreading his lies, I will not forget his criminal past or his warning to the American people to 'watch what they say'. He meant it, as we saw with his nasty, vicious campaign against Helen Thomas.

How much time and energy do you spend digging into the years old comments of DUers btw?

Not up to your usual standards, I have to say, the attempt to smear ME, but definitely illustrative of how far those who want to silence dissent in this country are willing to go to do it. It doesn't work, haven't you figured that out yet?



Keep digging, wish I had the energy to dig into your years' old comments, but I don't need to, these right here should be enough. Lol!

Like I said, you are my political barometer.

[SidDithers]

186. Too funny...

You're the one that linked to the anti-Semite holocaust-denier, yet you're accusing me of spreading Ari Fleischer's lies, even though I've never linked to him or supported his views. It's the ADL that thinks Thomas is a "vulgar anti-Semite". I don't give a fuck what Ari Fleischer thinks.

Tell me, sabrina, when you were cheering Gordon Duff and veteranstoday, was it because you were lazy and didn't check to see what kind of despicable asshole you were supporting, or do you actually share his views?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8594379

You posted "Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, grunt and 100% disabled vet." so you must know something about him. Right?

Sid

[sabrina 1]

190. You made a vile and false allegation about me, then failed to back it up because there is no

backup.

Just to explain to those reading what you then tried to do when you were challenged.

Equally despicable as the false allegation itself, clearly you keep a dossier on DUers as has been noted by many others, so you went to search for something ANYTHING that you thought you could manipulate into creating the impression at least that your vile allegation had some basis in fact.

You played into my hands, as I knew what you would do because that's all you have, which I knew.

Now either prove your allegation which was 'you are anti-semitic, or retract it which would be the right thing to do. All your squirming around with links, all your attempts to spin only confirms the despicable nature of what you tried to do.

Post an anti-semitic comment from me. That was your allegation. Post or or admit you cannot.

For readers, this is what anyone who dares to disagree with a few on this forum will be subjected to. It is disgusting, it is despicable, but it is extremely important to witness so people know the tactics.

It is also creepy to know there are people here searching through comments, even Stalking DUers around the Internet I learned the other day.

So as Ari Fleischer, who started the smear campaign against Helen Thomas 'watch what you say' AND you also better watch what you read.

Is this really DU, a Democratic/Liberal Forum? Even the far right forums I was masochistic enough to invade to defend Democrats, NEVER stooped this low.

Thanks Sid, you always help me explain things that are hard to explain without actual proof. And there it is, despicable yes, but real for all to see.

Now post those anti-semitic comments you alleged or retract your false allegations.

I will continue to demand this, until you either post them or retract your vile and false allegations.

[SidDithers]

194. You've made a disgusting and false accusation about me...

post where I accused you of posting "an anti-Semitic comment".

Link or slink, sabrina. And make sure you quote me, where I allege you posted "anti-Semitic comments".




I'm pretty damn sure that my allegation was that you "you defend anti-Semites, anti-vaxxers and RT". Those were my exact words, sabrina.

When you (falsely) denied it, I provided proof that you defended Helen Thomas, who the ADL described as a "vulgar anti-Semite", and that you linked to a hate site run by an holocaust-denier as part of your defense.

You don't get to move the goalposts on this one sabrina. You don't get to accuse me of saying something that I didn't say.

link or slink.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

208. Your tactics are familiar, first, imply something nasty, hoping an impression will be created

that those casually reading will believe the 'target' IS anti semitic. That is the intent.

This way IF you are challenged you can squirm and try to worm your way out of what you are trying to do by using the old 'plausible deniability' defense. Which you just did.

You are not talking to a fool. So stop with the attempt to deny what you tried, but failed to do because it is right here for people to see.

Now you are denying I am what you tried to imply, anti semitic?


Good, my mission is accomplished, it is a vile and despicable tactic, but no longer unfamiliar here.

I will try to remember this demonstration of the lengths some here will go to to try to discredit those who disagree with them. But I can't guarantee I will remember where to find it.

I don't stalk DUers, even those who so vilely attack me,to try to 'get them'.

I don't need to, they do it to themselves. As demonstrated here.

[SidDithers]

221. So you're slinking. Can't say I'm surprised...

I didn't imply anything. When you snarked that I'm your political anti-barometer, I replied with things I knew to be true - that you have defended an anti-Semite (Thomas), an anti-vaxxer (RFK Jr.) and RT.

When you denied it, I provided you with links.

Then, in your normal, rambling fashion, you've obfuscated, and dodged, and ducked, and dipped, and dived and dodged, brought strawmen into the discussion, mischaracterized what I posted (despite the fact that my words are right there), and now accused me of posting something that just isn't there.

I ain't retracting shit, because everything that I've actually posted is supported by evidence. You're the one who has made false accusations, and won't provide quotes or links to support your vile allegations.

Two can play the righteous indignation game, sabrina, but only one of us supported our claims with evidence.

slink away.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

223. So long as you want to draw attention to your despicable tactics, I am more than

willing to oblige. You attempted to imply that I was anti-semitic, period, you failed with your collection of links from your dossier, then you tried to claim 'no, I didn't, but you supported an anti semite'. A LIE. Helen Thomas was not anti Semitic, she was the victim of a vicious smear campaign, with tactics much like this, started by Ari Fleischer.

Then you struggled to imply that a link from years ago, 'proved your point', WRONG agaiin, it proved one thing though, that you creepily stalk DUers to gather 'information' on them that might be useful when trying to discredit them. THAT is clearly demonstrated here. And it is creepy beyond words.

You never address the topic under discussion. You conduct smear campaigns against DUers, as evidenced here and I am glad to have this opportunity to expose these tactics.

You have no right to 'righteous indignation'. So stop acting, you were caught trying to smear another DUer for no other reason other than differences of opinion.

I would never stoop so low as to do what you just did. I can stand up for the issues I support, Liberal issues, without keeping a dossier on other DUers, to refer to, rather than address the issues, in order to try to smear them. That is so low a tactic it's hard to find words to describe it.

You supported nothing, you made an allegation and failed to prove it. Why, because it was FALSE.

[SidDithers]

224. More slinking...

You can't defend yourself so you have to make up shit about me.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so pitiable.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

228. Did you just say 'defend'? Defend WHAT? I exposed some despicable tactics which you are now

trying to wiggle out of, unsuccessfully since it is all right here for everyone to see.

Your silly and creepy collection of what you obviously thought were 'slamdunk' proof of what you are now denying, that you tried to paint me as anti-semite, is proof that you collect information on DUers with the intention of trying to smear them. Which is exactly what you tried to do no matter how many times you try to deny it.

It is pitiable that anyone would go to such lengths to avoid discussing issues but try instead to distract from them because they cannot support their positions, by hurling false allegations, then whining when they are called on them.

[SidDithers]

230. slink away, sabrina...

I'm your political barometer. That's what you claimed, remember?

I always check with you to know who I should support and who I should not.

You are my political barometer!

When you take a cheap shot like that, you can absolutely expect to be reminded that I've opposed anti-Semites, and you've defended them. That I've opposed anti-vaxxers, and you've defended them. That I think RT is full of shit, and you've defended them as pretty much the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I guess I really am your political anti-barometer.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

233. From the champion of 'cheap shots', that is funny. I respond to people the way they

address me.

I have never even entered into the Vaccination Wars here except to defend great Democrats like RFK Jr who was being attacked by your friend the OP and by you. Why do you attack Democrats btw? This IS a Democratic forum.

I don't care what you think of RT, haven't you realized that yet? You think RFK Jr is a 'douchebag', so much for your opinion.

I oppose censorship and I don't need any net nannies telling me what to read, nor am I ever intimidated by those trying to do so.

As for 'slinking away', lol, you are talking about the wrong person, I am not known for slinking away, on the contrary.

I am still here, at your service, so long as you want to continue to draw attention to what you tried but failed to do.

[SidDithers]

237. "I respond to people the way they address me."

And where did I address you in this thread, sabrina? If I recall, I replied to Manny, not you. And the topic was Greenwald, not you.

So I find it hard to imagine how you responded to me the way I addressed you, since I didn't address you at all.



Sid

[sabrina 1]

238. If I kept a dossier on other DUers, I would now produce links to the many attempts at personal

attacks, weak to be sure, but definitely hostile, you have hurled in my direction over the years. I choose to laugh at them, because they are laughable, but if you are wondering why people respond to you the way they do, look in the mirror.

Is there a rule that forbids people from responding to comments in a thread if they are not directed at them?

Yes, you called Greenwald a 'douchebag'. And you called Robert Kennedy Jr a 'douchebag'. Drive by ad homs, if that is all others did here, this forum would have lasted a week. Democrats are far too informed to bother with any forum where that is all they see.

Where DO you stand on issues, I have never seen you discuss issues here so I have no idea of your political positions whatsoever. All I ever see you do is attack, post snide ad homs, and then whine when anyone responds in kind.

[SidDithers]

249. link or slink again, sabrina...

"you called Greenwald a 'douchebag'. And you called Robert Kennedy Jr a 'douchebag'"

You're making a concrete claim. Prove it.

I fully expect more slinking, though.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

268. If you want to quibble over the exact epithets,

in this thead you called Greenwald a 'piece of shit used car salesman'. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5272944


Is that better or worse than 'douchebag' I don't know, never use that kind of childish language?

You supported every insulting comment about RFK Jr in THIS thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025267920#post7

"he's a loon"

Sid: He still has his fans though ....

So he's a loon, he's crazy etc. Better or worse than 'douchebag'?

An epithet is an epithet, an attack on a good Democrat is an attack on a good Democrat. The thread which you supported, was nothing but an attack on a good Democrat.

As I said.

[SidDithers]

276. Thank you for admitting you were wrong...

perhaps if you were more careful with your claims, and confirmed your facts before you posted them, you wouldn't have to make such corrections. It might also keep you from linking to anti-Semitic holocaust deniers like veteranstoday.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

282. I was not wrong, you supported every nasty attack on RFK in that thread.

And contributed nothing to this thread other than the usual ad homs and false allegations which thankfully have have more or less, retracted.

Perhaps if you took your own advice you wouldn't have so many problems with so many members here.

[SidDithers]

283. You were wrong...

You posted a falsehood. Whether what I actually posted was, in your opinion, just as bad is immaterial.

You claimed something specific, then walked back from your claim because you got it wrong.

Next time, check before posting.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

293. I was correct, you slammed a good democrat and a respected journalist.

As I said, I don't keep dossiers on DUers. Not interested in searching through people's comments to get the 'right' epithets, or the epithets right. Epithets are epithets, don't expect me to keep track of all of yours, people get the picture.

[sabrina 1]

273. Oh and you're beginning to repeat yourself.

for Manny's excellent thread!

[sabrina 1]

182. Oh, I forgot, thanks for kicking Manny's thread. Keep up the good work.

[whatchamacallit]

188. I'd say this cheap smear is beneath you, Sid

but it would be a lie.

[SidDithers]

189. The truth is a smear?...

Links were provided.



Sid

[whatchamacallit]

218. Sometimes people link to articles and sites

without a full awareness of the author's history. It happens all the time. The smear is the inference that having linked to a questionable source, one is them-self an Anti Semite or Anti Vaxxer. In a nuanced world you can respect Helen Thomas' journalistic career without owning every word she ever said.

[SidDithers]

222. When a formerly respected journalist finishes her career by stating...

"Congress, the White House, Hollywood and Wall Street are owned by Zionists. No question, in my opinion."

It makes me wonder how much of her body of work was influenced by those sentiments over the course of her long career.

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

225. You're free to wonder

While I don't accept some of her opinions, I respect much of her work.

[LiberalLovinLug]

272. What is so annoying about you

Is your penchant for smearing good people doing good things by finding one human moment of weakness where the wrong thing is blurted out or done. Its despicable.

For all the years Helen Thomas performed admirably..always on the side of truth. The only one journalist that dared question Bush Jr. to his face....you pick out one moment, spoken in anger. Did you ever consider giving her the benefit of the doubt? That what she really meant was that Washington most always had sided with Israel. And mostly because the size of any Palestinian Lobby pales in comparison to the Jewish/Israeli Lobby. They basically have no voice at all.

Her best friend in life, Fran Lewine, is Jewish. She was not a racist. She was exasperated by the seeming blind eye that Washington had for continuing settlements in disputed areas. To a people she was culturally attached to. So she snapped an exaggerated response to a needling reporter.

But that was enough to conveniently justify giddily adding yet another notch on your relentless campaign of smearing and devaluing the life work of good people.

[SidDithers]

315. It wasn't just one moment of human weakness...

Here comments in June 2010, about 'Tell Israel to get the hell out of Palestine' could maybe be considered "an exaggerated response to a needling reporter", but she doubled down on those comments with her speech to the "Images and Perceptions of Arab Americans" in December 2010, when she said:

"Congress, the White House, Hollywood and Wall Street are owned by Zionists. No question, in my opinion."


That sounds like every bit of "The JOOOS control everything!!" anti-Semitism that we've heard from asshat bigots over the years.

I don't think there's any way that her statement there can be defended, though you can try.

Sid

[LiberalLovinLug]

316. No

It doesn't sound the same.
Obviously she was lamenting the influence and power the right wing Jewish elite in the US hold sway. There is no way the small poor group of dispossessed people of Palestinians can compete with that. It was an exasperated expression of frustration due to her own lifetime experience. Sorry, I have to give her some slack in regards to her anger and exagerations as I am not a part of a culture of people that has been systematically abused and repressed for decades and watched the aggressors gain more and more influence in my adopted home country.

[Logical]

211. LOL, can never tell if you are serious. nt

[joshcryer]

300. This whole subthread is hilarious.

Amazing one one statement can do.

Thanks for also showing the true colors of some in our midst.

[KoKo]

5. I know...all the "Silly People" who don't have time to read.......

It's amazing that the huge body of links and discussion here on DU just pass them by.

They "Is" what they "Is"......what else can one say....

My Grandfather said: "See those closed books here on my shelves....? Read the Titles and when you are READY.....OPEN!"

Some never open what's closed. The magazines on the coffee table are much more tempting and within easy reach with the glossy cover and the tempting photos.

[Enrique]

7. that makes them all Rand Paul supporters

by the transitive property of Libertarianism.

[Maedhros]

8. Honestly - anyone who claims Greenwald is some kind of Ron Paul style Libertarian

is deeply, deeply deluded and wholly unqualified to comment on politics of any kind.

[sabrina 1]

124. I give them more credit than that, they are not deluded, they know what they

are TRYING but FAILING to do. They are attempting to smear him. And I have a feeling they are being used unwittingly by whoever got the contract to do just that, to 'smear and discredit Greenwald' I believe it was. The Security Contractor, HB Gary who was bidding on that contract was exposed when their emails were hacked by Anonymous and we got to see with our own eyes, how a smear campaign against bloggers (he was only a blogger at the time) is prepared.

HB Gary had to shut down, at least publicly, but it's clear someone got that contract. You can tell by the half dozen or so 'talking points'. The Libertarian one, which has been debunked so often you wonder why they keep reintroducing it, was supposed to discredit him with the 'Left', the Right already hated him.

So imo, most of them know they are smearing Greenwald, that is the objective. He threatened the Big Banks, (the contract being bid on by HB Gary was for BOA eg, so they went after him. Now he has threatened the criminals who are dismantling our Constitution, so I imagine more contracts were up for bid. But they must have cheaped out, these are old talking points. Lol.

[Maedhros]

240. I, too, find it hard to believe that anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills

could trot out these stale talking points again and again, so it's reasonable to think that these people are paid shills of the banking or national security industries.

That said, I still think it's fair to consider their posts to be deeply deluded and to consider them wholly unqualified to comment on politics.

[sabrina 1]

243. It's probably a mixture. We know for sure that there are paid shills probably on every

prominent forum. But there are also those who unwittingly latch on to the talking points, for their own reasons, something the Contractors count on, free labor as it were.

I definitely agree with your last paragraph.

[RufusTFirefly]

261. Greenwald spoke at the Socialism 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 conferences.

And, as everyone knows, Socialism is just French for "Libertarian."

[pscot]

10. Thank god someone has found the courage to speak out.

This is where the cult of personality leads.

[2pooped2pop]

11. Really? Someone alerted on this thread? n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Just in case it survives, can you post the results? nt

[2pooped2pop]

13. here u go

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message



On Mon Jul 21, 2014, 07:58 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Glenn Greenwald must be stopped.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025272922

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

If we don't finally take a stand against this obvious shit-stirring, this community will continue to devolve. Enough is enough. Hide this, please.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jul 21, 2014, 08:06 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: what the hell people? You alert on posts you don't agree with now? I've done almost 100 juries now, and probably not more than two should have been alerted on. DU is not suppose to be grade school kids. Toughen up.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I wish we could take a stand against frivolous alerts.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think this poster is deluded and irrational. That being said, I don't think this post violates any of the DU rules.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Thank Goddess for that loophole!

If being deluded and irrational was against the rules, I'd be pretty @#$%ed.

[RobertEarl]

21. Juror #6 probably loves you

A secret crush.

[2pooped2pop]

22. If being deluded and irrational was against the rules

there would be no one left to post.

[DRoseDARs]

266. ^THIS^

"If being deluded and irrational was against the rules there would be no one left to post."

[madfloridian]

131. ......

[DeSwiss]

52. ''...obvious shit-stirring = things I don't like!''

When I thought that: ''obvious shit-stirring = freedom of speech''

- I recommend that DU consider installing Fainting Couches in strategic locations.

[center]
The DU Fainter - ''For those with a weak Constitution......''[/center]

[MannyGoldstein]

75. "For the sake of all that is decent and holy!"

"Stop facts NOW! Facts KILL! If only they could comprehend the DANGER!"

[sabrina 1]

81. Manny! Did you know there is a Putin Fan Club on DU?? No one told me

there was an actual CLUB or I would have joined. I've searched and searched but couldn't find it, it must be 'secret'.

Maybe if we ask the admins if we can have our own protected Putin Group where we can banish anyone who dares to say a bad word about him.

Putin Appreciation Group or PAG. Paggers, that has a great ring to it.

What do you think?

[MannyGoldstein]

93. Damned fine idea.

Although it would basically be the same membership as the Elizabeth Warren group.

EW *does* hail from the People's Republic of Cambridge, as we call it around here, so I guess that makes sense.

Maybe we should just rename the EW group to the EW/Greenwald/Putin group?

But PAG does have a great ring to it.

So many decisions...

[sabrina 1]

112. I think Putin should have his own group.

Hell, this entire site was supposedly filled with Saddam Fans, well according to FR for over eight years. I never found that club then either, maybe I'm not part of the 'in' crowd or something?

So here we are again, with a fan club for our latest and bestest enemy, and I can't find it! Lol!

[sabrina 1]

77. DUers are really smart, excellent jury decision. A virtual wipeout of a frivolous alert.

[sabrina 1]

209. Lol, now you got me thinking about almond mocha cappuccinos AND of course

'asshole alerters'. So many of them, I wonder how many have failed in this thread alone? Lol!

[riderinthestorm]

14. I'm sorry. I have nothing else to offer but a wry laugh. K&R nt

[wyldwolf]

15. Glenn Greenwald reminds me of the organic food enthusiast...

... who lectures a starving kid about the additives in the crust of bread she's about to eat.

Someone that perfect simply can't be taken seriously.

[KoKo]

16. Oh here we go... Love Monsanto...because if you are starving and GMO

"Bread Crust" is all you can feed your kid with.....BE HAPPY you have the BREAD!

[wyldwolf]

18. only somone like you could make that stretch

But I'd expect nothing else from you.

[JDPriestly]

32. I'll ask you too. Have you read Greenwald's book, No Place to Hide.

Because if you haven't . . . . you are really missing something that could be important to your life.

[BrotherIvan]

24. Winner!

That is the authoritarian message.

[sabrina 1]

126. Sad, isn't it, defense of Big Criminal Corps like Monsanto on DU. Not the first time

either unfortunately.

[L0oniX]

200. +100,000,000

[Caretha]

26. Bread crusts?

That is all you can come up with is bread crusts?

Mother Mary of God, save me.

[MannyGoldstein]

95. Times are tough. We all need to make sacrifices, I'm told.

The poor need to sacrifice adequate nutrition, and the rich need to sacrifice having a fifteenth home, or at least one of the gold-plated bidets in one of the bathrooms of their fifteenth home, unless Fox News says something about it then they can have the bidet, OK?

[AgingAmerican]

43. Your 'analogy' makes zero sense

nt

[uponit7771]

259. This is false, perfect sense... GG is someone who can't see forest for trees

[sabrina 1]

98. Looks like a whole lot of people around the world ARE taking

Greenwald seriously. Let's see, The Chilean Government is working on developing their own internet to protect themselves and their citizens from NSA spying. Sounds like a damn good idea considering the facts revealed by Greenwald. And Germans, except for Merkel who seems to terrified of upsetting the US for some reason, are considering RETURNING TO TYPEWRITERS to stop the US from spying on them.

The whole of Latin America is outraged at the intrusions into the lives of their citizens and are seeking ways to block the NSA from any access to their citizens personal lives.

I could go on, but Greenwald seems to be taken seriously by Presidents around the world and their citizens. I mean if you want to insult someone feel free, but use something that is factual to do so, otherwise it just sounds silly considering the amount of serious attention that has been generated towards Greenwald.

And in case you didn't know, the BOA took him seriously enough to put out a contract on him, BEFORE all of this, to 'smear and discredit' him because of his blog posts about their criminal practices. And he was just a blogger then.

So 'no one takes him seriously' is not a very good personal attack since it could not be further from the truth.

[beerandjesus]

184. Well, all that THAT proves is that the Germans and Chileans LOVE RAND PAUL!!!

Don't forget, we need a club for his admirers here too... it'll probably have to be the Warren/RT/Putin/RAND PAUL Group.


(Note how "Rand Paul" is consistently put in all caps, which sends the message that much more strongly that we pesky FDR Democrats need to shut the hell up and get behind Hillary.)

[JoeyT]

121. And the people that attack him frequently remind me

of the people that would look at that starving kid and say "What the fuck are you whining about? *I'm* not hungry.".

[uponit7771]

260. Exposing how much of a jerk GG is isn't "attacking"

[JoeyT]

265. Except no one ever exposes anything.

There's just endless whining about how people don't like him, usually with no reason given, and when reasons are given, they're almost always stupid ones. (He never loved Him anyway!)

[uponit7771]

271. Unnnn, reiterating how MUCH he's not a leftist and has an agenda and is an oppurtnist

... and is a libertarian isn't whining if the goal is to expose someone's motives on an issue.

Yes, I believe the NSA and the rest of the spy agencies are out of control... even the peripheral admission here lately have been gob smacking.

Yes, I believe that everything that comes out related to the spy agencies that GG releases has to be vetted to the nth degree for truth or truthniness.

Both can be believed at same time imho

yours?

tia

[uponit7771]

258. +1

[Zorra]

17. The Church of the Third Way believes he is the Beast. nt

[L0oniX]

202. The Third Way is the poison in the Democratic party.

[RobertEarl]

20. Heh. That is a fine piece, Manny

Tell them how deluded they are for supporting good journalism.

They need to know. If good journalism happens, our side will get too crowded.

[Caretha]

25. I'm sorry Manny

I'm busy finding a bus with wheels big enough to throw every single one of the above (Maddow - Moyers - Moore under it.) I have no time to open books. I will begin eating the covers as that seems to be the new recipe for avoiding past mistakes.

You see Manny....they have asked me to look long and hard at reality and it conflicts greatly with my DU friends that have an authoritarian RW Third way view of politics and life. I might get shamed & poked fun at if I disagree with them

P.S. Please forgive me if I use a bus with snow tire chains and crunch up a long line of intellectuals, humans with a moral compass & truth sayers as a particular German party in the 30's & 40's in the last century did.

You see I learned on DU 2 days ago from a DUer who is a regular Fox News Guest that looking back past 20 years for historical lessons was a waste of time & stupid.

[MisterP]

27. February '17 Obama will be the first under the bus--I'd put $1,000 on that

[HornBuckler]

29. Your post is delicious.

Thank you and good folks like Manny. There is still a faint glitter of the DU of old.

[Caretha]

31. I'm certainly old

[Dragonfli]

42. Someone that wants that sweet bread from FOX has to appeal to them

Even if they play the token liberal, they must not go more to the left than the bankers that fund the third way, the Kochs that funded the DLC, or the Military espionage complex, so such declarations are to be expected.

Have pity on one that finds himself in the oldest profession, at least he only has to sell his soul rather than his body. By the way, I know exactly who you mean as do all regular DUers.

[Caretha]

50. Yes Dagofli

It is a very old profession, and selling ones body in my book actually has more merit than those who sell their soul for a "crust"....especially when Fox News is the buyer & Satan personified.

I use these religious metaphors such as "Satan" only to describe how abhorrent I find these kind of folks.

[Dragonfli]

57. It pays well, especially regarding future jobs

Harold Ford Jr. went from token tv liberal to a very lucrative job at Morgan Stanley.
They are high priced (at least the successful ones) in that profession. Of course Harold heading the DLC had something to do with that as well.

[Caretha]

70. The success rate

seems rather slight compared to the cost of one's integrity. What are the odds....1% of 1%?

Journalism never paid well in the past. I do realize that today if you are blonde and cute & get a following it does have some wage perks, but seriously I do wonder how often it pays off.

[Dragonfli]

71. It's about courting the jobs after I think, and I doubt our resident "Harold"

will win the lottery he is striving for. He is just not that good at it.

[Caretha]

74. Not good at it is an

understatement. You are very kind. Less than mediocre comes to mind.

[zeemike]

55. The solution to our problem is more busses.

There is just not enough room under one.

[ybbor]

148. OMG Yes!

It could be part of a jobs bill!

Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes!

[sabrina 1]

140. I learned something from that same Fox regular guest also. I think it was about the

4th Amendment. I learned that I and every Constitutional expert over the past two hundred years or so, have completely 'misinterpreted' it. That was a stunning revelation to me.

Lol, the things you learn on DU. I'm still shaking my head, 'no individual rights to protection from government intrusions into people's personal lives'.

[L0oniX]

205. History as junk science to some.

Keep up the fight!

[joshcryer]

30. What NSA reforms has Greenwald accomplished?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

35. Oh wait, I know how this one goes!

But he can't just do anything by himself, He's not a king or a tyrant!

Oh sorry, I mixed up the excuses, that's the one for why President Obama can't do any NSA reforms. I'll have to go dig around in the box for the Greenwald ones.

[Caretha]

40. Bawhaaaaaaaaaaa

Good one!

[joshcryer]

49. All I see is whitewashing legislation.

I don't see anything attributable to the leaks that has actually reigned in the NSA. If anything, it seems like no one is caring anymore.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

151. Well, let me be more straightforward in how I say that.

Our system of government requires that those actually in office be the ones who make the changes.

No reporter, no journalist, no blogger can actually make any changes. Their job is simply to make known things that are hidden to the rest of us, whether by distance, time, or deliberate actions to hide such. Greenwald has done his part of things, as has Snowden. Sure, there's probably more to be revealed, but apparently there's an enormous amount of material to sift through, and the people working on it don't have the manpower or budget of the NSA, so it takes them a lot longer.

Now the President is within the set structure of power that would allow changes to be made, and has various powers he could choose to use right now to make such changes, even if some of them were only guaranteed to stay done while he is in office. And he has the power to work with Congress to make further, more permanent changes.

But as you said, all we seem to be getting is some 'whitewashing legislation'.

Why? Because the folks who hold the levers of power - the President, the majority leaders of each house, the intelligence committees, all like things as they are. It's one of the inherent dangers of holding power. Those who have a lot of it feel they can be trusted with even more, and work to collect more power, in their minds 'to do their job better'. The President feels he has to 'protect America', and therefore is not willing to relinquish powers he has that he feels can potentially be helpful in doing so, even if they violate the privacy rights of hundreds of millions, probably because he feels people staying alive is more important than having their nude photos shared around by a bunch of young tech guys.

And that's the same trap too many of those in power fall into. They feel that 'keeping us safe' is actually more important than what they actually swore to do - upholding the Constitution, protecting and defending it. But protecting it IS protecting us.

[joshcryer]

267. I think it's because of minimal blowback.

Because of how the data was presented, on a single source, with a post every week or two, with each new revelation being hyped but turning out to not be a big deal, with everything surrounding personas, personalities, as opposed to issues. Russia's hypocritical involvement, Pierre Omidyar's billionare rain of cash, the fallout with Wikileaks, making book deals, making movie deals.

It's become a specticle, and as Chomsky notes, in Manufacturing Consent, the mass media "carry out a system-supportive propaganda function by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion."

Self-censorship? That's what Greenwald did when he refused to release that Afghanistan was being mass monitored by the NSA. Every phone call recorded. All assumptions about the NSA become internalized because we don't know about what data Snowden actually collected. And it's all done without anyone realizing it because Greenwald is making bank by collectively managing the data.

If the masses weren't placated by this media paradigm, they would be protesting every day out in front of the White House. There would be a Million Man March every damn month. Occupy was a start, but it would be a lot bigger if the mass media didn't propagandize the masses as it so easily does. Instead no one cares. Because they ought not to, because it's not an issue that has been clearly defined and clearly accepted as something people care about.

It's checkbook journalism.

[AgingAmerican]

48. These ones:

Transcript of President Obama’s Jan. 17 speech on NSA reforms

Which were prompted as a reaction to the Greenwald/Snowden NSA revelations.

[joshcryer]

51. Oh yeah, giving corporations control over 215 metadata.

[AgingAmerican]

56. Greenwald prompted that!

Sure!

[joshcryer]

58. Thanks Greenwald!

You sure showed the NSA!

[AgingAmerican]

60. VIA Obama!

nt

[joshcryer]

62. He voted for telecom immunity.

Wouldn't expect any less of him.

Oh man go read that speech you linked, btw, his justification for 215 metadata is precious.

[AgingAmerican]

64. I did read it

Yes, it is precious! Third parties and all that rot.

[Autumn]

65. If we can elect him president I bet he will do NSA reforms, or at least do away with it.

Greenwald 20016!!!!!!

[Autumn]

317. If we elect Glean for President in 2016 I bet NSA reform would be the first thing on his agenda.

And he would actually do it

Greenwald 2016!!!!!!

[joshcryer]

318. He should run.

He'd have to pay his taxes which he's been evading first.

[Autumn]

319. It didn't hurt romney did it?

[joshcryer]

320. I believe, in fact, it did.

He's not President, is he?

[Autumn]

321. It wasn't his not paying taxes that did him in. I think Obama and the 47% tape did him in,

plus the fact that he has the personality of a dead fish.

[joshcryer]

322. His tax dodging didn't help.

[Autumn]

323. The only person I ever saw say anything about that was Harry, 30 second and it was done and the meda

was on about how smart he was. I don't think it made a blip on the radar, except here at DU.

[joshcryer]

325. Erm, his 14% tax rate was noted until election day.

You don't have $250 million in holdings at a 14% tax rate without tax dodging. That was hit home hard on him.

At least the Clintons pay the 35% tax rate on holdings they don't donate to their charity (admittedly their own charity, but that's not a loophole; the charity has to account for its expenditures, which the right wing scrutinize regularly).

[Autumn]

326. Was or was not? He still sucked and had the personality of a dead fish.

Republicans I knew couldn't stand him.

[joshcryer]

328. You said it didn't hurt him.

You did not establish that at all. It was part of the overall package. It did not help him. It was not neutral. It applied to his negative image.

[Autumn]

329. I gave my opinion. I saw nothing about it on the news. I don't feel I need to establish my opinion.

[JI7]

333. it was one of the biggest attacks against him, even before the 47 percent tape came out

[JI7]

332. the reason the 47 percent tape hurt so much was because of things like Taxes

[Roy Serohz]

33. Is this a joke?

Greenwald rocks!

[sabrina 1]

156. Yes, it's satire. Greenwald is the target of those who have a whole lot to hide.

And those with a whole lot to hide, have a few defenders here. Welcome to DU.

[tclambert]

204. I'm not sure everything Manny says is sarcasm, but I always start out assuming that.

Not sure Manny has a straight bone in his body.

[WillyT]

38. LOL !!! - Perfect !!! - K & R !!!

[stupidicus]

39. well, you know how the turdwayers think

the validity of any particular truth is wholly dependent upon who utters or writes it.

Small minds like that have a tendency to make a real small world for themselves and those they rely upon for sufficient positive reinforcement to keep their bubble intact and inpenetrable to ugly truths they can't refute.

[NanceGreggs]

101. On the money.

"The validity of any particular truth is wholly dependent upon who utters or writes it."

This is especially true of those who believe everything Snowden utters, and everything Greenwald writes.

They have to "make a real small world for themselves and those they rely upon for sufficient positive reinforcement to keep their bubble intact and inpenetrable to ugly truths they can't refute."

So true of the ES/GG crowd - they've created a small world for themselves right here on DU, and rely on each others "positive reinforcement" recs to keep their bubble intact.

Very astute observation - inadvertent as it may be.

[MannyGoldstein]

107. In your opinion, what are the three biggest provable lies that Snowden

and Greenwald have told?

By contrast, the NSA and the rest of the Obama Administration lies like crazy - let me know if you need examples, I'll supply them in the morning.

[KittyWampus]

111. Top of the list- he LIED about his partner getting taken in for carrying stolen govt property.

First he lied and said his partner was held for simply being his partner.

Then he lied and said his partner was held without access to a lawyer.

[MannyGoldstein]

157. Do you have links for those "lies"?

Thanks

[KittyWampus]

206. all you have to do is look up his exact quotes and match them to empirical reality.

[L0oniX]

207. The pin drops are making me go deaf.

[Luminous Animal]

287. Miranda was indeed targeted because he is Greenwald's partner.

Here let, Widney Brown, Amnesty International's senior director of international law and policy explain it to you.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

"It is utterly improbable that David Michael Miranda, a Brazilian national transiting through London, was detained at random, given the role his partner has played in revealing the truth about the unlawful nature of NSA surveillance.

"David's detention was unlawful and inexcusable. He was detained under a law that violates any principle of fairness and his detention shows how the law can be abused for petty, vindictive reasons.

"There is simply no basis for believing that David Michael Miranda presents any threat whatsoever to the UK government. The only possible intent behind this detention was to harass him and his partner, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, for his role in analysing the data released by Edward Snowden."

Nor was he detained "for carrying stolen govt property. He was detained as a terrorist suspect. Do you think that Miranda was/is a terrorist?

Labour MP Tom Watson said he was shocked at the news and called for it to be made clear if any ministers were involved in authorising the detention.

He said: "It's almost impossible, even without full knowledge of the case, to conclude that Glenn Greenwald's partner was a terrorist suspect.

....

"The clause in this act is not meant to be used as a catch-all that can be used in this way."

And finally, Greenwald was reporting what he had been told by a British security official. When he wrote his report, he hadn't yet talked to his partner. Even so, when, as later reported, Miranda was offered legal services, it was from an approved security forces list. Guardian lawyers were barred from seeing him and he was barred from retaining his own council.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa

At the time the "security official" called me, David had been detained for 3 hours. The security official told me that they had the right to detain him for up to 9 hours in order to question him, at which point they could either arrest and charge him or ask a court to extend the question time. The official - who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 - said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him.

Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act has been widely criticised for giving police broad powers under the guise of anti-terror legislation to stop and search individuals without prior authorisation or reasonable suspicion – setting it apart from other police powers.

Those stopped have no automatic right to legal advice and it is a criminal offence to refuse to co-operate with questioning under schedule 7, which critics say is a curtailment of the right to silence.

[Pholus]

307. The cleansing flames of the public record stops another character assassination...

I know Greenwald-bashing is meant as a distractor from discussing the massive body of NSA misdeeds, I do admit it is fun watching them trip and fail.

[questionseverything]

232. maybe ya like this guy better

Tye is but the latest surveillance whistleblower, though he took pains to distinguish himself from Snowden and his approach to dissent. "Before I left the State Department, I filed a complaint with the department’s inspector general, arguing that the current system of collection and storage of communications by U.S. persons under Executive Order 12333 violates the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures," Tye explained. "I have also brought my complaint to the House and Senate intelligence committees and to the inspector general of the NSA."

These steps—which many say Snowden should've taken—produced no changes to the objectionable NSA spying and wouldn't be garnering attention at all if not for Snowden's leaks. It is nevertheless telling that another civil servant with deep establishment loyalties and every incentive to keep quiet felt compelled to speak out.

[stupidicus]

235. is this the old "Nance Greggs" of yesteryear

if so, it is a pleasure to finally meet you as a long time admirer of your prior work here.

I don't don't take what anyone says as gospel because of who's uttering or writing it either, and you'll find nothing in my posting record of either the explicit or implicit kind that suggests their claims must be true because of who they are. Furthermore, you appear to be promoting a bit of a false equivalence here, given that there's a large and substantive difference between giving those two the benefit of a doubt, and summarily dismissing anything and everything they allege because of who they are. Those are two diametrically opposed things, no?

And in credibility terms around which all these type thngs revolve, what does a tally of their claims versus that of their opponents and denouncers reveal in terms of who wins the discreditation blue ribbon? Am I supposed to be clapping for their adversaries winning top honors for lying before congress for example?

This BS about "sources" being used as the determining factor in what the truth and whole truth actually is has been a source of strife between me and righties and lefties alike for as long as I've engaged both on the "internets". It's a cop out no matter who does it in the course of determining what the truth is in any particular case, and an apparent fixture in adversarial debate in this court of public opinion. If you wanna impeach a witness in the manner and way seen in a fact finding forum like a court of law, fine, but let's not pretend that those ES/GG are battling would survive such an impeachment.

[LondonReign2]

244. Well said

[stupidicus]

299. thanks

eom

[NanceGreggs]

275. Yes, I am the 'old' NanceGreggs ...

... 'old' both literally and figuratively. And thank you for your kind words.

A problem I have had from the outset of the Snowden/Greenwald show is the manner in which Snowden's 'revelations' have been meted out. He and GG started with Snowden's claims that he could have read anyone's email including the president's, that he could trace anyone's on-line activities, that the NSA could "read people's thoughts as they typed them", etc.

Those were just the kinds of explosive headline-grabbers that are crafted to attract attention, and persuade the gullible that their emails are being read, their phone conversations are being listened to, their internet activities are being monitored. Of course, none of those assertions have been proven, and were carefully couched in terms of what "could be done", with no evidence that any of those things ARE being done - and presumably, both ES and GG knew that many readers/listeners would skip the "could do" and go immediately to "does do", thus establishing an audience struck with fear and willing to be further misled.

Let's remember that Snowden's claimed motive was to inform his fellow citizens of the "domestic spying" that is ongoing within the NSA. And yet he seems to be more intent on revealing the NSA's perfectly legal spying activities with respect to foreign entities. What our machinations are with respect to spying on the Chinese does not serve as any proof that illegal domestic spying is taking place. So one is left to wonder what Snowden thought to accomplish.

From the get-go, GG has treated what should be a matter of serious discussion as his personal cash cow. He wrote a book on the topic, is discussing movie rights, and landed a job with The Intercept - which I'm sure paid handsomely for someone they believe to be in possession of "explosive revelations" - which now, it seems apparent, are nothing of any substance.

GG has described such revelations as "fireworks displays" - and yet his last display ("naming names" that turned out to be five people targeted pre-2008 when FISA was amended) garnered little notice from even his most ardent fans. The man keeps promising - but fails to deliver.

The fact that Snowden is now down to "NSA workers routinely pass around nude photos" speaks for itself. Again, he makes a statement that he has no evidence to support - which has become his MO. After declaring for almost a year that he had not raised his concerns with his superiors because he thought it would be pointless to do so, he now claims that he did. One would think he would at least have secured his own CYA emails if they existed; he has no explanation for why he didn't do so.

For these reasons - just to name a very few - I find both ES and GG to be less than credible.

The meme that seems to have taken hold here on DU is that the NSA has been known to lie, therefore Snowden is telling the truth. It is not an either/or situation. I've been a court reporter for 30 years, and it is commonplace that witnesses on BOTH sides of a lawsuit are caught exaggerating, stretching the truth, obfuscating, or outright lying. No sane judge would ever determine that if the Plaintiff is caught in a lie, the Defendant, by default, is to be taken as consistently telling the truth.

What has amazed me in watching this entire story play out on DU is that people who have held themselves out as possessing a healthy skepticism about everything demonstrate absolutely NO skepticism where ES and GG are concerned. Whatever either man says is accepted as gospel. No questions are raised, no evidence is asked for.

" ...a large and substantive difference between giving those two the benefit of a doubt, and summarily dismissing anything and everything they allege because of who they are."

It is not a matter of "who they are". It is a matter of assertions being made without evidence. It is a matter of their behaviour throughout the piece, which smacks more of "let's put on a show" than it does of "let's get the truth out there". In Greenwald's case, "let's see how much money I can make off this" seems to be the overwhelming motivator.

In addition, both have been completely irresponsible in their handling of highly sensitive documents, the disclosure of which could have very real and very harmful consequences - but, as they say, that's a whole 'nother topic, too lengthy to get into here.

[stupidicus]

298. lol

well, just to clarify, my use of "old" in this case wasn't in reference to your actual chronological years, but rather those you've logged here on DU. I don't know about you, but I plan on being 59 for at least another decade.

I don't think it would be productive for the sake of the initial arguments posed here, to either question or attempt to undermine in any way the many things in terms of conduct of those two men you've taken exception to. As you noted in your parting/concluding remark, it will only serve to broaden the discussion/debate into areas neither of us likely has the time or interest in.

As you rightly noted as well, once caught in a lie, then there's nothing unreasonable about the assumption that others preceded it and will follow it, which is why in the fact-finding forum a perjurer is silenced. It doesn't work that way in this court of public opinion, which is why we're all always stuck with Raygun's "trust, but verify" standard that I always use when I select the more credible party, and my opinions/conclusions are always based on the totality of the known, incontrovertible facts available at the point in time I share/argue it.

In the case of ES and GG, while I can see why they may want to "sex up" this and that for the motivational purposes you find atrocious, it's hard for me to put a finger on what motive they'd have for deliberately lying when the truths they've shared are more than damning enough as seen in the result we've all seen in the form of the public debate since revelation number one. On the other hand, the many lies told by the NSA defenders http://boingboing.net/2013/12/10/tally-of-obamas-lies-about-t.html http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/nsa-claims#collection https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/top-5-claims-defenders-nsa-have-stop-making-remain-credible all of which could be dated and in need of an updating by now, suggests a much darker motive -- like preservation of what those of us find objectionable about it all. https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/nsa

The "meme" that evolved and crystallized around here from the beginning in my recollection nance, is that the two of them are BHO-hating libertarians with assorted questionable personal behavioral characteristics like having boxes in their garage, or political povs that have absolutely no bearing on nor provide any foundation for undermining the facts they alleged about NSA policy and practices. That's what prompted my response to the top post here.

It's unclear to me what specific "lies" you're referring to of any substantive consequence even remotely comparable to http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/government-lies-nsa-justice-department-supreme-court those his revelations have revealed on the part of big brother. I'd suggest in the interest of knowing and understanding the big picture here, which is the more than likely negative ramifications maintaining the status quo has on regaining and maintaining our civil liberties, that we all refrain from injecting personalities into it. They are little more than diversions that the status quo wants and have thusfar exploited quite energetically and successfully as evidenced by the "debate" having devolved into it in the measure that it has.

Again, it's been nice to finally meet your pixel self, regardless of the circumstance underwhich it occurred. I'll remain an admirer regardless.

[Luminous Animal]

306. I don't have time to address all of your points so, I'll start with one now

and revisit the other's later. You state, "He and GG started with Snowden's claims that he could have read anyone's email including the president's"

What Snowden actually said is this; "I, sitting at my desk," said Snowden, could "wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data

Every single NSA apologist leaves off the phrase that I bolded.

Then you state, "Of course, none of those assertions have been proven...". If you believe this then you haven't been paying attention because XKeyscore does allows NSA analysts to do precisely what Snowden asserted.

From the same article linked above...

A top secret National Security Agency program allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals, according to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

.....

XKeyscore, the documents boast, is the NSA's "widest reaching" system developing intelligence from computer networks – what the agency calls Digital Network Intelligence (DNI). One presentation claims the program covers "nearly everything a typical user does on the internet", including the content of emails, websites visited and searches, as well as their metadata.

Analysts can also use XKeyscore and other NSA systems to obtain ongoing "real-time" interception of an individual's internet activity.

Under US law, the NSA is required to obtain an individualized Fisa warrant only if the target of their surveillance is a 'US person', though no such warrant is required for intercepting the communications of Americans with foreign targets. But XKeyscore provides the technological capability, if not the legal authority, to target even US persons for extensive electronic surveillance without a warrant provided that some identifying information, such as their email or IP address, is known to the analyst.

[NanceGreggs]

311. Don't bother. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

312. I understand.

[OnyxCollie]

46. Maddow, Moyers, and Moore - RACISTS.

[LondonReign2]

245. Worse

PAUL LOVIN' LIBERTARIANS!

I would never have known-- thanks to TWM for pulling the veil from my eyes.

[Scuba]

47. Thank you Manny. Another great thread. You are a tremendous asset to DU.

[stonecutter357]

159. Libertarian Glenn Greenwald has a long history of attacking Democrats and Progressives.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/19/1315043/-Greenwald-tries-to-attack-Elizabeth-Warren-on-twitter-Uses-right-wing-source#

Libertarian Glenn Greenwald has a long history of attacking Democrats and Progressives.

Now that Elizabeth Warren is gaining support as a Democratic Candidate for 2016 he has decided to begin taking aim at her.

[frylock]

227. Libertarian Glenn Greenwald is a figment of your imagination..

he has repeatedly stated that he is NOT a Libertarian. Why lie about it? Who do you think you're fooling?

[LondonReign2]

246. Not a figment of his/her imagination

Rather, a bulleted talking point on the list provided

[frylock]

253. correct

[DeSwiss]

63. Commie, Pinkos the whole lot of them!

- And still far too far to the right of me!

But its a start.

[Caretha]

78. LOL

Drunk is good sometimes. You never know when you will have an epitome.

[klook]

142. Eureka!

I've just had an epiphany based on your post.



Just had to post that, because when I read yours I thought, "I know that's not the right word, but what is the right word?!? I fell right down the elevator shaft with you!

I kept thinking, "'Epistrophy'?? Is that it???" But that's the title of a great Thelonious Monk composition. Arggh.

I finally found a reference to epiphany by searching a thesaurus for "flash of insight." Back in the daylight now...that elevator shaft was dank and scary!

[Caretha]

177. Ugh

Working too many hours - I'm so tired I didn't even question my use of the word epitome. It sounded exactly right at the time. It's good to know even after exhaustion - I can still out think most with only 2 brain cells operating

[klook]

216. Damn straight!

Proud member of the 2-brain-cell club here!

[beerandjesus]

187. 10 points for mentioning Thelonious Monk....

...and another 10 for a great user name!

[klook]

213. Thank you!

10 points for spelling "Thelonious" correctly.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

83. What's funny is...

All the
"Warren 2016" sigs in nearly ALL the GG supporters responses. Why that is funny is because this thread is a RESPONSE to GG throwing none other than Elizabeth Warren under the bus.

IRONY.

[MannyGoldstein]

87. And tell us: how did GG throw her under the bus?

What awful thing did he accuse her of?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

89. You're the one meta-responding to said thread...

You tell me.

[MannyGoldstein]

91. I can't figure it out.

But it must be pretty awful.

[Hissyspit]

103. Let me get this straight....

You said Greenwald threw Warren under the bus, and when someone asked you how he did that, you said you don't know?

Really?

Seriously?

[MannyGoldstein]

108. The question that dare not be answered:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5272812

[stonecutter357]

203. this^^^

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

104. The traitor is exposing the American people to information about what the American Government does.

Whereas, we can trust our American government to inform us of all that it does...like in a democracy....except when it has to be redacted...by those swell and trustworthy people at the NSA and CIA....or, if it embarrasses some politicians....or..if it threatens our Vital National Intere$t$...or whenever our government doesn't trust the people...

Never mind.

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

 Thomas Jefferson

[bobduca]

119. Amen!

putin defenders better recognize!

shameless narcissists are shameless.

[anti partisan]

122. Keep posting, please. K&R

Just wanted to say I appreciate the effort you are putting into keeping these "trolls" where they belong (under the bridge)!

[BlueMTexpat]

138. LOL, Manny, I'm learning.

I actually recognized this one as satire.

[Enthusiast]

144. Kicked and recommended!

Way to go, Manny, you attention seeking whore!

[IronLionZion]

146. Third Way Manny strikes again!

Go on with your bad self!

[ybbor]

149. Love the way Thirdway thinks!

Keep posting Manny, I always love to read your musings, and more importantly the responses they elicit.

[woo me with science]

152. What a great thread with morning coffee.

Thanks to all you defenders of our privacy and our Constitution for that highly satisfying bludgeoning of the propaganda machine.

[WillyT]

163. I Was Thinking The Same Thing... Makes The Coffee Even Sweeter...

[tridim]

153. Glenn exists for one reason, himself.

Last edited Tue Jul 22, 2014, 08:43 AM - Edit history (1)

He doesn't give a crap about you or me or anyone else who isn't him, which is also why he is not and will never be a Democrat.

We have already discussed this, and we know exactly why you don't understand this simple concept, MannyGoldstein.

[MannyGoldstein]

201. We? nt

[tridim]

212. Sorry, I know that word is difficult for you.

And Glenn.

[whatchamacallit]

314. And for what reason do you exist?

Must be something really noble eh? Jeez this place can be lame...

[Skidmore]

168. Trashcanning.

Hyperbolic claptrap.

[sabrina 1]

180. You could have done that without clicking the link.

[randome]

171. All this sturm and drang and what do you have to show for it?

"Ditto."
"Yep."
"Yup."

Way to influence the community.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

181. Exposure of the smear campaigns against anyone who dares

to tell the truth. Now it's Robert Parry, I expect to see Dahr Jamail smeared next. We've already seen Sy Hersch attacked. Nearly every good journalist, who USED to be 'credible' has now been attacked right here on this forum.

I'm wondering who THEIR 'credible' journalists are, they never say.

[randome]

197. Oh! I feel so...exposed by you.

It's called differences of opinion. To ascribe a 'smear campaign' to that is to, in effect, give up on the debate.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

219. Sorry to disappoint you, I wasn't talking ABOUT you, I was answering your question.

Perhaps you are not aware of the contract that was being bid on to smear Greenwald, to 'discredit him especially on the Left. The Right always hated him.

It was exposed by Anonymous where we got to see how it is done.

Many of the talking points aimed at Greenwald seem to indicate that while HB Gary may have lost the bid after their exposure, someone did get it.

[questionseverything]

229. brad was targeted too...link for u

'Fake Personas'

As first reported by ThinkProgress when they originally broke the news of the Chamber Plot last week, key elements of the Team Themis plan included the use of both planting a "fake document", as well as creating "fake insider personas" at both VelvetRevolution.us' StopTheChamber.com campaign and the separate US Chamber Watch campaign run by Change to Win (CtW), a union-backed coalition also fighting against the Chamber's positions and tactics.

Here's a key portion from Team Themis' 11/29/10 "Information Operations Recommendation" [PDF], created for the U.S. Chamber and H&W, explaining how they hoped to "discredit" and "embarrass" US Chamber Watch "and those associated with it" with "information operations" [emphasis added]:

3. Create a false document, perhaps highlighting periodical financial information, and monitor to see if US Chamber Watch acquires it. Afterward, present explicit evidence proving that such transactions never occurred. Also, create a fake insider persona and generate communications with CtW. Afterward, release the actual documents at a specified time and explain the activity as a CtW contrived operation. Both instances will prove that US Chamber Watch cannot be trusted with information and/or tell the truth.
4. Connect US Chamber Watch's radical tactics to Velvet Revolution, explaining that both entities are loosely operating together. Depending on the level of connection established, such an approach may need to be spotlighted as more of a conspiracy rather than a separate, vocal persona.

5. If needed, create two fake insider personas, using one as leverage to discredit the other while confirming the legitimacy of the second. Such work is complicated, but a well-thought out approach will give way to a variety of strategies that can sufficiently aid the formation of vetting questions US Chamber Watch will likely ask.

//////////////

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8363

[TheKentuckian]

215. In the end there can be only one source of credible information, www.whitehouse.gov

But even that isn't ironclad.

[Oilwellian]

198. Manny, you do a great job at exposing Third Way hypocrisy

Their responses to your threads remind me of this:

Or this:

Or even this:

I love entertaining threads in the morning.

[Logical]

210. I love seeing the NSA defenders exposed! Keep up the great work Manny! n-t

[LiberalLovinLug]

217. LOL Brilliant Manny

But I'm afraid journalists viewpoints are NEVER going to be as respected as Washington politicians to some folks.

[hrmjustin]

226. Stopped? I am not a fan or a detractor of his but I see no reason for him to be stopped.

[LondonReign2]

247. Your satire radar may need adjusting

[RufusTFirefly]

231. Hyperbole is literally destroying America!

Reporting for duty, Manny. You are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.

[ellenrr]

236. HAHA R. Maddow, Bill Moyers, and M. Moore are deluded?!!

thank goodness you are not. lol
this is the funniest post I've yet seen on DU. thanks for the belly laugh.

[lark]

250. Truth tellers - disband!

Some ostriches right to stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality could be compromised!

[chervilant]

252. Oh, but, Manny!

It's just so much funner to slam Greenwald than to look closely at the NSA!

[Babel_17]

254. Thanks for the link, I missed out on seeing that thread (nt)

[uponit7771]

256. ...and all that makes Greenwalk more acceptable politically how? I agree with RayGun on a couple of

... issues doesn't mean I would defend him to a T

[Pholus]

304. But, based on tried-and-true apologist thinking, it does mean you're a republican.

It's okay, we all have weaknesses, but you'll have to accept that you will be a downer at parties.

[Rex]

263. Where are all the blue links when ya need them?

You are lucky a certain poster with a talent for posting lots of blue links, is on hiatus.

[DirkGently]

291. He is tricky, with all that "award-winning journalism" as cover.

Those "verified facts" regarding the NSA, generating all of that "long overdue" discussion of the "overreaching domestic surveillance complex." It's all cover for his outrageous plot to mildly inconvenience President Obama, As We All Know.

Amen.

And I heard his girlfriend has a pole-dancing garage box, or something.

Also Putin and Rand Paul are bad and he has not killed either of them yet.

[davidthegnome]

296. Hmm.

I've never really understood all the controversy regarding Greenwald. So... he's uhm, doing bad things? Like telling (true) stories about bad things governments are doing? He's a treacherous bastard because he reveals NSA over-reaching and stuff like that? I basically feel the same regarding Snowden.

If it weren't for people like Greenwald, we wouldn't have a damn clue, not even the little bit of a clue that we actually have. He's got my support for his journalism and for his advocacy. Not sure why anyone would frown on what he's doing. We are so damnably ignorant in regards to what our government and it's various agencies do, personally, I think Greenwald is about as good of a person and journalist as you can find.

[Zen Democrat]

302. I have but one comment about Libertarians. The Koch Brothers.

[ReverendDeuce]

327. Is this some kind of joke? Parody? Satire? n/t

n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

330. It's parody

Written by a joke of a satirist.