How dare Glen Greenwald have a contrary opinion about Obama's policies! Off with his head!

[99th_Monkey]

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Just who does Mr Greenwald think he is, anyway? A US Citizen or something?

Mr. Greenwald definitely shows signs of being deluded into believing he lives in a free
country, a beacon of democracy and freedom, where dissent is valued, and where telling
the truth is valued, no matter how the chips fall?

How dare him!!!

[joshcryer]

1. He pumped Ron Paul while bashing DUers.

Oh, and he was for the Iraq war.

[Luminous Animal]

2. Oh noes! He PUMPED him?

[joshcryer]

3. Yep!

[99th_Monkey]

6. Pssst Here's the link

to DU3's new list of emoticons. You apparently don't have it yet.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/index.html

[girl gone mad]

5. Totally.

[joshcryer]

9. More like!

[girl gone mad]

10. How about..

[JackRiddler]

12. In plain view of the children, he PUMPED him!

[99th_Monkey]

4. REALLY??? No.

Please don't tell me that Mr. Greenwald PUMPED Ron Paul.

Well then, my OP was perfect ... OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!

[and please don't notice the seated Democratic President taking away your Constitutional rights]

[MNBrewer]

17. and he eats babies

[MNBrewer]

18. Link for his support for the Iraq war?

Perhaps you're thinking of Christopher Hitchens.

[FarLeftFist]

31. No, it was definitely Greenwald.

[MNBrewer]

34. B.S.

[joshcryer]

37. It was in his book.

He admitted to putting trust in Bush with regards to Iraq and feeling duped afterward. This is inexcusable to me. Unforgivable. I will always judge his credibility based on that. It would've been better had I not been informed of it.

[Luminous Animal]

44. Yeah. I couldn't listen to a word that Democratic Senator Byrd said after

I found out he had been in the KKK.

And the next time an ex-republican shows up, we need to kick them to the curb.

Speaking of ex-republicans, we really should do something about some well-respected ex-Republican Bush voters already here on DU. In the meantime, I hope you have them on ignore.

[joshcryer]

45. Nah, I just give ex-fascists more scutiny.

It's unavoidable, particularly those who attack the rest of the left, there has to be an underlying bias there.

[Luminous Animal]

47. It has really gotten to the point where words have little meaing anymore.

Two thirds of your fellow citizens supported invading Iraq if the U.N. was on board. Most of those now regret that we invaded. Are they all ex-fascists?

Greenwald does not attack the rest of the left. There is quite a bit more to the left than you or Obama or many elected democrats. There are people like me on the left (and many others on DU) who often agree with Greenwald's criticisms. Just as we did when he was skewering Bush's anti-civil liberties excesses. What underlying bias do you imagine we have?

Rolling on the ground laughing!

[joshcryer]

48. Yes.

As I said in another thread, Iraq is a very touchy issue for me. If you say "I was duped by Bush" about Iraq, which led to hundreds of thousands dead, I will view everything you say with more scrutiny. Period. If you can't be trusted to look at the Iraq invasion, which was extremely easy to determine if it was right, then how can you be trusted to make a proper analysis on trivial things?

You'll note that I, too, have agreed with Greenwald's analysis in the past, so I don't know how "agreeing with Greenwald" automatically makes you have an "underlying bias." I'm not talking about agreeing with Greenwald one way or another. Agree with him, spend an arduous amount of time defending paid pundits for free, that's fine.

What makes you have an underlying bias is if, say, you wore a KKK outfit at some point in the past. Yes, you can reform, but I guarantee it shaped you, in some way, and it would be extremely unwise to just take you at your word, no? Likewise, you have an underlying bias if you have ever in the past taken Bush at his word, and trusted him, because to do so would be to 1) accept an illegitimate president and 2) accept an ultra-conservative ideology.

Greenwalds' self-professed trust in Bush is instructive toward what level of credibility he should be merited.

[Luminous Animal]

49. I've seen people make remarkable transformations and

I find that, in many cases, their bias that formed them is the very well that they can go to for insight. I've watched women of my mother's generation who grew up in the 40s & 50s grapple with and transcend their own internalized sexism and become fierce advocates for feminist ideals transforming their husbands, fathers & mothers along the way. I've also seen some of their relatives and contemporaries reject them, and their old friendships and cling to the "feminine ideal". I've seen grandmas and grandpas struggle and overcome lifetimes of bigotry to when their grandchildren bring home a partner of a different religion, or ethnicity, or of the same gender. I've seen them go from outright slurs to teary mea culpas. I've counseled ex-white supremacists not only towards personal transformation but to become effective advocates for equality themselves.

How Would A Patriot Act is a story of one person who went from thinking that trusting ones government no matter who is in office is a citizen's patriotic duty to thinking that questioning ones government no matter who is in office is a citizen's patriotic duty. Media Matters founder David Brock is a tribute to his transformation. Wendell Potters advocacy for single-payer is a tribute to his transformation.

As for myself, I turned away (for good) from partisan politics when Bill Clinton signed Welfare Reform, DOMA, and DADT. Welfare reform was the culmination of the right's demonization and degrading treatment of poor people that reached its fever pitch during Reagan's reign and was codified as policy during Clinton's. It was the meanest piece of legislation targeted at the powerless amongst us that I have seen in my lifetime. I fought against it with every bit of fight that I had in me and get teary to this day when I think about it. DOMA and DADT also were (to me) betrayals of Democratic ideals and also served to further marginalize a community who faces violence, bigotry, and hatred on a daily basis and I fought against both, as well. The Clinton administration's betrayal of beleaguered citizens became MY how would a patriot act.

Greenwald starts his book with this:

I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday. —Abraham Lincoln

I agree.

[joshcryer]

50. I'm not against transformations, I quite admire them.

But I don't think that those who undergo transformations should just be given a pass, if anything, as I stated, I think one should scrutinize them more, simply on the basis of the poor positions held. I've learned through life experience that those who shift on things can often be pushed by ulterior motives, and that ultimately in the end those positions aren't what they seem on the surface.

I've observed overt appreciation for Ron Paul from Greenwald, and I am mocked and ridiculed for this observation. That only deepens my suspicions about those who support these kinds of positions, particularly when there's no substantive analysis involved. When you look at it that way you start to recognize that those suspicions are founded in reality. It's not just a paranoid "WTF, that guys' up to something," but more "Well, that actually fits with the positions he's held in the past, albeit indirectly." Once that happens it's very difficult to remove that past ideology from ones judgment of others' positions.

He trusts Ron Paul's surface views (though they aren't compatible with progressivism) just as he trusted Bush. It fits. It makes sense. That's why he's not actually telling people Ron Paul isn't anti-war from a progressive view. He believe Ron Paul is anti-war from a progressive view.

[Luminous Animal]

51. No. You have not observed overt appriciation of Paul from Greenwald.

What Greenwald has said, in clear language, is that he appreciates that specific issues are given a national airing. He has expressed no support for the candidate but only support for the campaign rhetoric.

He doesn't trust Paul's surface views, he simply wants those surface views to be given a wide airing in order that they become part of a national dialog . He has quite clearly stated this and is scrupulous when referring to Paul as "candidate" Paul.

[joshcryer]

52. Appreciation is not support. I did not say that he supported Ron Paul.

He does not indicate that he doesn't trust Ron Paul's surface views.

Indeed, the perceptions game is an argument made mostly by his defenders, it's not an argument he himself makes.

He really does believe that Ron Paul's views "desperately need to be heard."

He has no criticisms for those views that "desperately need to be heard" despite that most progressives view Libertarianism ideas as completely, in every way, incompatible with progressivism.

[Luminous Animal]

53. This is ridiculous.

From Greenwald:

"Can anyone deny that (a) those views desperately need to be heard and (b) they are not advocated or even supported by the Democratic Party and President Obama? There are, as I indicated, all sorts of legitimate reasons for progressives to oppose Ron Paul’s candidacy on the whole."

How can you be clearer than that?
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

[joshcryer]

55. He is *not* saying that there are legitimate reasons for progressives to oppose...

...those views of Ron Paul that desperately need to be heard.

I am saying that, and I provided those reasons.

[Luminous Animal]

56. Um... that is a quote from Greenwald...

You mean he is not articulating those reasons.

Boo fucking hoo.

[joshcryer]

57. No, he's not even suggesting such reasons exist.

[Luminous Animal]

60. Ah. I see. Because that is not the point. Again, the point is that

those issues are being exposed AT ALL. In any context for any reason on a national level. It really is the simplest of concepts. He's calling for a debate and guess what? When you have that debate, solutions and motives are exposed.

[joshcryer]

62. That is not GG's argument. That is your argument to defend GG believing that...

..."Ron Paul has views that desperately need to be heard."

Ron Paul's views are not progressive, and GG never admits that, because he does think Ron Paul's ideas are progressive.

Meanwhile if we "desperately heard" Ron Paul's views, we'd have to go to extra effort to show how they are not progressive.

[Luminous Animal]

63. Yes, anti-war, anti-drug war, anti-surveillence are VIEWS

that desperately need to be heard. They are progressive issues.

The ONLY way for these progressive views to engage the progressive community on a national level is that they have an airing from a national platform...

As Greenwald says,
"There are, as I indicated, all sorts of legitimate reasons for progressives to oppose Ron Paul’s candidacy on the whole."

And there is no reason to assume that Greenwald does not expect that progressives will not challenge Paul, on the whole, on his means to reach his ends if those issues end up in the national dialog.

It's like this... these are progressive views that are supported by the majority of the U.S, population. As progressives, we have a choice. Either we let the national dialog be let by regressive policy or we grab these issues and steer them towards progressive policy.

[joshcryer]

64. Ron Paul is not anti-war, anti-drug war, anti-surveillence, he doesn't hold those views.

Only his RHETORIC sounds that way. And Greenwald never suggests that Ron Pauls "views" are only rhetoric.

[Luminous Animal]

66. And as Greenwald is scrupulous in making the distinction...

by referring to "candidate Paul". There is, indeed, value, in clear understanding of language. He and I will not take responsibility for the ignorance of most people.

[joshcryer]

67. Yes, that fits the narrative, the one that trusts Bush.

Just like Greenwald believes Ron Pauls desperately need to be heard.

Trust him.

[Luminous Animal]

68. Apparently you do not understand the difference between issues

and the candidate who expressing them.

Greenwald does not believe that Paul desperately needs to be heard. He believes that the issues that candidate Paul expresses desperately need to be heard. From any candidate from any party.

Show me any where at any time that Greenwald has advocated trusting candidate Paul.

[joshcryer]

69. I've explained it so many times it's absurd. He hasn't established that Ron Paul's...

...views are not what people normally think, particularly what progressives normally think, those views actually mean. Libertarians have mastered Orwellian double-speak.

The issue is that those views that "desperately need to be heard" are not the same issue.

This is so damn pointless.

[Luminous Animal]

72. And why should he suggest oherwise. The entire point of his

article IS the rhetoric. He assumes the intelligence of his readers to recognize that all campaign speech is propaganda. He has written several books and has written 6 years of columns illustrating that they are all self-serving lying sacks of shit.

[joshcryer]

74. He shouldn't, he's someone who trusted Bush, so he actually believes Ron Paul.

I have no evidence to believe that he actually acknowledges that Ron Paul's views are rhetoric, and ideologically incompatible with progressives. Given his past history it's probable that he in fact agrees with Libertarian views on these issues, and is ideologically in line with them.

But as a progressive I am vehemently against Libertarian "civil rights."

They are not civil rights, as such, unless you consider a boot stomping on your face, forever, "civil rights."

[Luminous Animal]

75. Ah, no, He trusted the American system of Democracy.

And he believed that it was patriotic to believe in that system.

Greenwald on Paul:
"It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize Paul harshly and point out the horrible aspects of his belief system and past actions. But that’s worthwhile only if it’s accompanied by a similarly candid assessment of all the candidates, including the sitting President."

And he doesn't agree with Libertarian views on these issues. He agrees with civil libertarians on these issues.

[joshcryer]

76. That's not been established.

And I won't be responding again unless it is.

[Saving Hawaii]

92. Libertarian rhetoric =/ progressive rhetoric.

The words are the same but what they're talking about is very different. Not just what they want, but what they're even talking about.

When guys like GG go off and say Ron Paul needs to be heard because it sounds like he's saying progressive things, they're wrong because Paul ain't saying progressive things. You let the Paulians take over the country and do everything they say the want to. Ten years from now marijuana is still illegal, American kids are still getting their heads blown off overseas, and now cops are explicitly arresting black people just because they're black. It's just done differently. States rights to ban marijuana. States rights to use the police to beat up black people. Self defense for corporations to go full East India Company on foreign countries.

If you want to talk about issues like ending the war on drugs, ending the war on terror, etc... get an actual friggin progressive who actually wants those things ended on the national stage to talk about it. Don't use a guy like Paul who uses your rhetoric but means something completely different.

And no, it doesn't help the case for marijuana legalization that its primarily associated with the rest of Paul's crankery.

[sabrina 1]

59. He initially and reluctantly supported and explained it all clearly in his book, until he

realized he had been lied to. Then he went after the Bush administration on those lies with a fury.

But the DU3 version of those facts is that he 'tries to hide his support for the Iraq War'. Because THEY do not know much about Greenwald. It was a riot watching them this past weekend, and how he wiped the floor with all of them.

A guy writes a best selling book outlining his political journey, hiding nothing, but by doing so he 'was hiding all of it'.

Hint, do not come to DU3 looking for facts. This is not the DU you remember. It has been taken over by strange forces where facts are the enemy of the 'good'. Or something like that.

[QC]

26. And he once frightened my Inner Child!

[Ikonoklast]

7. How dare DUer's have an opinion about St. Greenwald!

Just who do Duer's think they are, anyway? US Citizens or something?



No, just posters on an Internet political site, none of whom used to work for the Libertarian Cato Institute (as far as I know) and pretend to be Progressives instead of Libertarians.

I didn't see any DUer's who were FOR the wars in both Irag and Afghanistan, as St. Greenwald was...and then criticises Obama for them.

But, as long as St. Greenwald has his Daily Hate for all things Obama, he resonates with those who are like-minded here.

My opinion of St. Greenwald is allowed here.

That, too, is part of living in this country, you get to read opinions of people that disagree with you.

Unless shutting down all dissent is more to your liking.

[99th_Monkey]

11. When otherwise "reasonable" people start acting like compolete idiots, I take notice, as a witness.

I think there needs to be a place in this nation and on the world stage, for grass-roots, bottom-up, full-tilt-boogie DEMOCRACY IN ACTION

to happen.. and to happen BIG.

OWS was just a dress rehearsal,

for the American Spring, 2012.

[vaberella]

15. What are you talking about? n/t

[99th_Monkey]

30. I'm talking about how suddenly Mr. Greenwald and Cenk of TYT are Evil Incarnate

They are now all of a sudden getting thrown under the Obama Re-election Bus,
because they had the audacity to express an adverse opinion of Prez Obama's performance.

These two have been DU "heros" along side MMoore, Chompsky, et. al. for about a
decade I think, and now Obama's core supporters have ZERO tolerance for any
voice that is not in lock-step with Obama's ... rather sad actually..when I think about it.

[FarLeftFist]

32. So you have ZERO tolerance for people who you believe have ZERO tolerance? Hypocritical?

[99th_Monkey]

33. I do believe you are trying to put words in my mouth. Plz stop..

as I have never said I had "Zero Tolerance" for anyone, or any point of view.

I actually believe all points of view are needed to make a whole new Universe.

Some points of view happen to align with mine, more or less.

It's that simple. Who knew?

[FarLeftFist]

39. Except YOU'RE accusing other people of having ZERO tolerance. So you're putting words in their mouth

There's a lot of gray area, not everything is just black and white. Obama supporters can disagree with a journalist without being so "ZERO tolerance". Now is the hypocrisy making sense?

[99th_Monkey]

40. I just think it's comical really.

How over-reactive Obama's core supporters are becoming, of ANYone who dares to utter a whiff of dissent, but
a little scary too.

[LanternWaste]

82. Certainly smarts when we observe sacred cows getting punctured.

Certainly smarts when we observe sacred cows getting punctured.

I wonder if this is the first time in history that it's ever happened?

[JoePhilly]

14. LOL!!!

I find it funny that Glenn's every utterance gets posted here (usually with multiple dupe threads) as if it came down from on high.

[HappyMe]

19. Well, that's because he's Jeebus!

Or St. Greenwald of the Glenn, or something.

[JoePhilly]

21. Leave Glenn ALONE!!!!!

You're lucky he even performs for you bastard people!!!

[Bobbie Jo]

16. You win the thread.

The double standards are on full display here.

[quinnox]

8. Plus he lives in a FOREIGN country

And since he doesn't live in the USA, that proves he can't be a good American, so who cares what he says anyway. And to top it off, he is GAY too, so that must mean he is just being unreasonable about Obama's policies and he actually is conducting a vendetta of sorts against our beloved president.

SARCASM

Sorry, had to do some of the more absurd and dumb "analysis" that I have seen lately posted against Greenwald.

[treestar]

29. I don't care where he lives

I don't care if he's gay.

Do either of those things cancel our right to disagree with him?

[vaberella]

13. How dare some of us have contrary opinion about Greenwald and his reasonings...

Look this is a site with people with different views. I think if some of us want to focus on pundits, political bloggers, congressional leaders, Presidents and any person in the political sphere it's fuckin' free game. Anyone's foot can be held to the fire and they have to deal with it. They're all speaking to be heard so some of us don't like what we hear.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. I respect actual arguments with ideas, I do not respect name calling and personal

destruction. It is interesting to note how often the target of the wrath is a gay person, and when one adds the 'war on gays' that McClurkin declared, and then the Warren slanders, and then all the defenses of those slanders, and that war on gays, one is left with the question, how much of this is 'coincidence' and how much of it is just the same policy of attack and destroy that was personified in those hate mongering preachers and their defenders?
For minority groups, the only safe assumption to make is that this is more of the targeting of our people, same as the other, pony, poutrage, a gay thing, one prayer, one song, and then the name calling of specific gays gets underway, and that is a thing McClurkin is famous for, calling out specific people and slandering them in front of crowds.
So at a certain point, the tactics used and the targets chosen come to define the people who use those tactic and select those targets. Who 'just happen' to often include gay people. Just happens that way...of course it does....McClurkin just happened, Warren was a spontaneous appearance at the Inaugural, not thought went into it, all 'coincidence'. That's the ticket. All of our targets are coincidentally gay people. And to suggest that past history informs current actions is just wrong, memory is wrong, one needs to forget the facts, it is not fair to recall what slanders were spoken, just not fair!
Coincidence. Uh-huh. If you all say so. I'll take it with a grain of McClurkin and a Warren chaser, thanks.

[JNelson6563]

20. He's alright, as Republicans go.

But he's a golden calf here so all that matters is he spew his nonsense without challenge.

Julie

[vaberella]

22. It seems that way. n/t

[99th_Monkey]

43. Interesting how now that ANY one with a whiff of dissent,

THEY become the issue, rather than the actual ISSUE at hand,
like Indefinite Detention of US Citizens with NO trial, NO attorney.

Small wonder Obamatons want to shut people up who point this
travesty out.

[sabrina 1]

61. And this is the kind of baseless comment that pushes people to defend those who

are constantly smeared, lied about, slammed, called names. This place has sunk so low it is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party.

We all 'loved Saddam' too when we opposed the war and refused to let lies stand. This is how low the 'left' in its fear of any hint of criticism has sunk, right down into the gutter with the far right.

Greenwald is no golden calf to anyone, but he is a human being, and if I hated everything he wrote I would still be sickened by the sheer nastiness I am seeing here every, single day.

What was the purpose of your comment? What does it mean? What does it accomplish? Is this representative of the Dem Party now?

Will everyone who opposes any of our current wars be accused of 'loving dictators'?

The current atmosphere of this site has become despicable.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. I don't follow Greenwald so all I know is what is said here of him

Many of the criticisms of him are just that, personal name calling, calling him out for his status as an expat due to the discriminatory immigration laws of the United States, and other tactics that are always wrong and misplaced. I know the centrists already hated him, in part for his sexuality, that is clear as anything when they do after his residency. Some on DU who are not American and do not reside here criticize him for residing with his partner.
Fact is, I do not need to agree with a person to oppose the personal trashing of that person, particularly when much of that trash talk carries the anti gay feel and particularly when those doing the trashing are known to trash gay people with a casual sort of 'pony wanting poutrage'. The 'just one song' crowd, they do not get any leeway with their nasty. Sorry, I do not need to do that for them.
Name calling and personal destruction are tactics that define the user as right wing, no matter what the rhetoric they push is. Those who take issue with an idea and counter that idea are just fine. Those who plunge into simplistic and petty trash talk do more harm to our discourse than any pundit could do.
Much of the personal criticism of this man reeks of prejudice and resonates with past trashings of other gay men and women who dared criticize the President's policies that harm us.
Simplistic thinking, slurs and insults are not discourse, no matter who the target, no matter how wrong they are, no matter who the fuck they sleep with. Just wrong, and the use of those tactics I will always reject. Sick of the name calling crowd.
Make an intellectually strong case, do not call names, do not trade in simplistic characterizations of anyone, at any time. Ideas, not people. Argue ideas, do not trash people.
Those who will hurl anti gay shit at their 'enemy' will also do it to anyone else. It is moments of extreme disagreement when the mask comes off and the Truth is seen.
Many of the 'anti Greenwald' posts send messages of extreme intolerance rather than of disagreement with what the man said. It does seem to repeat the OFA tradition of holding teh gay up for mockery, this is like meat for the McClurkinites and the others who defended that open hate speech against gay people. Can not run an election without trashing some gay folk. Not their opinions, the actual people.
Those who come after persons for their ideas are not on the side of that which is good and right, they are the opponents of democracy and justice.

[sufrommich]

24. Lol,what? Has he been arrested? nt

[99th_Monkey]

42. Not yet, but he's just asking for it, wouldn't you say?

Now that ANY one who is suspected of being some kind of terrahist can
be "detained" (it's not called jailed or imprisoned anymore) indefinitely with
no trial, no attorney, no nothing, except a whole lot of Fascism.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

25. Hey! Not only didn't I say anything about Greenwald,

I don't even know who he is, nor do I care.

[treestar]

28. Same here.

So it's stunning that I have no right to argue with him when I do hear of something he says right here on DU!

[treestar]

27. How dare anyone argue with Glen?

How dare anyone take the President's side! What do people think they are? Do they not realize that Glen is better and smarter than they are? They have no right to support the President or defend him from Glen's attacks! And no right to attack Glen either!

How dare President Obama do things Glen doesn't like! Who does he think he is? President of the United States? Where does he get this idea he should be able to do things Glen does not want done, or say things the way he thinks he should say them? Doesn't he know he has to consult Glen first and get scripts from Glen?

[Bluenorthwest]

35. Well, on the issue of equal rights, the President is extremely wrong and his reasons for

his policy are just ignorant and meaningless in the context of secular society. It is interesting to me how often the target of these attacks is a gay person. Coincidence? Or just continuation of the McClurkin/Warren tactics?

[leftynyc]

36. So? Like assholes, everyone has an opinion

and that analogy is particularly apt here. Not a fan of greenwald as I consider him merely an attention whore who has figured out that the more he bashes the president, the more attention he gets. Yawn.

[99th_Monkey]

41. And if Greenwald continues to "bash the President"

I assume you'll eventually want him "detained indefinitely" with no trial or attorney?

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. Oy vey with the martyr act

Greenwald says shit people disagree with. That's not fascism, bud. It's simple disagreement, and precisely the type of shit we should be promoting. Stop pretending that when people disagree with one of your heroes, they're trying to "silence" him (or her). Politicvs is rough and tumble, for good reason. The stakes are high. Grow up or grow a thicker skin, but for Gawd sake enough with the faux martyrdom and histrionics. It's embarrassing.

[99th_Monkey]

54. Except that the SUBJECT of this discussion IS Fascism in the USA. Calling it out. ~nt

Can u say NDAA?

[iverglas]

79. which is why I was the dissenting voice on the jury

for post 77. I'll have to edit the reasons I gave because otherwise my post would surely get reported ...

Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: ... It may be an advantage or disadvantage that as a foreigner I don't know who Glan Greenwald is ... Ordinarily I would have had to say that calling someone "stupid" directly calls for sanction, but the post replied to here contained such an absolutely outrageous and unfounded <edit> ('I assume you'll eventually want him "detained indefinitely" with no trial or attorney?') that I'm going to vote for right of appropriate reply.<edit>, but sometimes I think reply is the best course. - iverglas

Rather than histrionics, I would say demagoguery. There is simply no basis for an allegation that someone who finds another person's words less than valuable would support suppressing those words.

Is misrepresenting one's interlocutor not something best left to other websites one might name?

[CakeGrrl]

65. Save poooooor Glenn Greenwald!

...from dissenting opinions, apparently.

[99th_Monkey]

70. Mr. Greenwald is probably more capable of "saving" himself than I,

because he's consistently brilliant, on-point and clearly no dummy, which is a mite more
than I can say.

If I'm attempting to "save" anything, it is the country I grew up in, which is crumbling and
disolving from benieth me, due to rampant corruption, bribery and monopoly money games,
where the poor never ever win.

PS - please lose the rofl emoticon.

You may wish to avail yourself of this new DU3 listing of a VERY wide variety of choices.
While we're at it, you may also wish to note, what they say about variety, being the spice
of life and all. Live and let live comes to mind.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/index.html

[joshcryer]

71. He's certainly capable of conjuring unpaid defenders to spend copious amounts of time...

...posting everywhere about him, anyhow. I think it should be called neo-punditry.

Get people to think you're extremely great, post controversial stuff bashing a contingent of people whose side you were on previously, when they defend themselves, minions come out in force to make sure everyone works in lockstep to agree that the pundit in question is A-OK. No dissension.

It's like any other high profile consumer product with a large following.

And it works wonders.

[99th_Monkey]

78. What I don't get, and why it bothers me

I don't get why we rarely if ever get around to discussing THE ISSUE that is raised by Greenwald, or Cenk or whoever.

And this bothers me because -- without even remembering what the ISSUE -- all is left to do is belittle and insult and accuse,
either Greenwald or Cenk or people who are just trying to point out something on DU.

[joshcryer]

83. I've spend dozens of hours debating the issue!

[99th_Monkey]

84. Are you laughing or crying?

or both?

[joshcryer]

85. That's my sig.

And I'm sticking to it.

[99th_Monkey]

89. Well, it's a free country ...

wait, no. Actually I'm not sure that's really true anymore.

[joshcryer]

90. I know it's obnoxious, but I really despise Libertarianism. I'll remove it...

...soon enough. I really did chose it purposefully because it's one of the more annoying smilies that people use against other DUers, and I intend it fully against Ron Paul's "anti-crony-capitalism" sentiment. It's not an indictment of GG, it's an indictment of the idea that a Libertarian, laissez-faire, capitalist could ever be perceived that way by anyone. You'll note my sig post does not mention GG anywhere, not even in the comment thread, but yes it is talking about something he said. If I wanted to I could've posted a 100 word rant about GG and garnered 300+ posts laughing my way to the bank, but I prefer discussing ideas over people, even when people force me to discuss people (in this case, pointless pundits who don't deserve defending, they get paid to do what they do, we shouldn't defend them for free!).

[Rex]

73. How dare anyone have a different POV

from MYONIST!!!! I can always tell when someone is wrong, 100% accurate over here. Always.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

80. "Glan"? Is that a jibe or an unfortunate typo?

honest question

[99th_Monkey]

86. Precisely where is this "Glan", of which you speak? ^^ I searched in vain for it. ~nt

[99th_Monkey]

87. My sincere apology.

I searched again, and found it. thanx for pointing it out.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

91. It's all good. No apology sought or required.

[LanternWaste]

81. Certainly a lot of passions regarding one persons opinions.

Certainly a lot of passions regarding one persons opinions.

Regardless of whether the passion aligns with the authors intent or runs contrary to it, the combination of petulance, impatience, grouchiness and ill-humor certainly advertises a peevish sensibility I thought was reserved only for Democratic primary Season.

How dare him, indeed....

[99th_Monkey]

88. I quite agree with your wonderment

about the peculiarly heated nature of all this.. one day Cenk and Greenwald are pillars of the alternative
media ... all over the front page of DU, and the next day they are being pilloried and lambasted in a sort
of over-the-top kind of way.