Skip to main content

View Diary: Full On Meta (268 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Pardon me, Glenn Greenwald. (0+ / 0-)

    Try another detail to pick at to avoid the underlying message.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 10:08:13 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  what message would that be? (6+ / 0-)

      that it's the dirty hippies here at fault? Go away.

      I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

      by triv33 on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 10:10:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are really confused (6+ / 0-)

      neither Hedges or Greenwald are right wingers. But you keep telling yourself that because, OMG, they call out this administration for trampling on civil liberties and the law.


      "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013
      TheStarsHollowGazette.com

      by TheMomCat on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 10:18:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where did I say they are rightwingers? (0+ / 0-)

        They both happen to be Libertarians and have both said so publicly at times, but I put very little stock in people's self ID.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 10:21:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  wrong again. (5+ / 0-)

          but I think you know that.

          I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

          by triv33 on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 10:23:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, I know that I'm right, here: (1+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            WB Reeves
            Hidden by:
            TheMomCat

            http://www.democraticunderground.com/...

            Another well-known Libertarian, who plows these fields regularly and diligently, is Glenn Greenwald, associated with the Cato Institute. The day after the November 2010 election, Glenn Greenwald addressed Paulites in Wisconsin to discuss the possibility of splitting progressive voters away from the Democrats. Greenwald’s strategy then included Libertarian support for Citizens United, Bradley Manning, and the Tea Party, as well as attacks on Obama, in the hopes that the Democrats would lose still more seats in 2012
            Hedges self IDs as a socialist but several years ago, during BushCheney he self ID'd as libertarian. He has since taken up support for the Greens (Jill Stien) and wRongPaul at times.
            And both of them have helped depress Liberal votes, leading up to 2010, consciously, in order to "teach the Duopoly a lesson".

            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

            by CwV on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 10:39:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the owner of this blog is associated with (7+ / 0-)

              the Cato Institute. does that mean he's Libertarian?

              Glenn has actually addressed this several times btw...

              The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

              by poligirl on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 10:43:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Markos has written a paper for CATO, (0+ / 0-)

                that doesn't mean that he's Libertarian. He doesn't write and speak in favor of Libertarian positions and politicians, doesn't promote Libertarian tactics, Greenwald does.

                If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                by CwV on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 10:49:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Did you read his articles? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poligirl, triv33, SpecialKinFlag

                  There are no sacred cows.

                  by LaEscapee on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 10:51:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I've read Greenwalds articles (0+ / 0-)

                    in many venues and have read several of Markos' here, neither of their articles from CATO.

                    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                    by CwV on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 11:00:51 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I was asking about Markos's (4+ / 0-)

                      writings for Cato I can find the links for you.

                      There are no sacred cows.

                      by LaEscapee on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 11:09:43 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Here is the thing (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      TheMomCat, poligirl, SpecialKinFlag

                      you linked DU as proof that GG was libertarian freak from his writings at Cato and proclaimed that Markos wasn't even though he has written at Cato. Now you admit you have never read eithers writings there.

                      I get that when the water is deep you have to keep treading but the best approach is bring a life jacket in the first.

                      There are no sacred cows.

                      by LaEscapee on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 11:14:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Did you miss this part? (0+ / 0-)
                        The day after the November 2010 election, Glenn Greenwald addressed Paulites in Wisconsin to discuss the possibility of splitting progressive voters away from the Democrats. Greenwald’s strategy then included Libertarian support for Citizens United, Bradley Manning, and the Tea Party, as well as attacks on Obama, in the hopes that the Democrats would lose still more seats in 2012
                        That was NOT at CATO, it was at a wRongPaul gathering and it explicitly proves what I was saying that his strategy is to fu(k the Democrats. That is exactly the problem I have with him, this particular thing. And obviously, he has a following that see no harm in what he's doing. I'm trying to point out the harm that he has done.
                        Personally I don't care about political labels. They are useful for general discussion but don't necessarily hold up in detail. They are far too subjective and the meanings are fluid. I'm more interested in the outcomes and the outcome of 2010 was bad.
                        From primary cycle of 2008 onward, supposedly liberal commentators spent a huge amount of verbiage running down Obama and the Dems, leading to the disaster of 2010.
                        You can no longer access the Buzzflash comments, but you can see this in action at TruthOut, Alternet, CommonDreams, Counterpunch, The Nation, Salon, TPM, FDL and a whole bunch of other progressive sites. A steady unrelenting stream of Obamahatred and bashing of anyone who would try to defend the man (very much the same as the intimidation practices in this thread, though I haven't yet heard "Obamabot", I'm sure it's lurking).
                        Are all of these sites inconsequential? That they have no influence on their readers? If so why does anyone bother to read them? Or publish there?
                        Or do they have influence, but just not on this, the most critical issue, at the time?

                        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                        by CwV on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:46:45 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  actually, what Glenn is saying is that the... (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          LaEscapee, Kombema, triv33

                          system is broken and he hopes that we the people will have the courage to do what it's going to take to change it, which is actually use our votes as a bargaining chip as opposed to what the GOPers and Dems bank on - which is the lesser evils argument. the lesser of 2 evils method of voting only serves the elites in this country. and people in both main parties do just that.

                          i have to say, i agree with Glenn on that. things in this country will not really start to right themselves for the whole of us unless we do. the politicians in this country have absolutely no impetus to look out for the little guy as long as the media are in love with the pols power and the pols are in love with money.

                          and what Glenn is saying is find common cause, cuz it's there. i can even see this in discussions on my facebook wall, where i have plenty of GOP, Dem, Green, and Libertarian friends...

                          basically what you are promoting is the short game, the instant gratification, the short term gains; what Glenn is promoting is the long game for the health of the country as a whole down the road.

                          The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                          by poligirl on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 04:06:02 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  The Info on Greenwald is useful (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          CwV

                          But he himself has publicly denied being a Libertarian. So you are in the position of arguing that he is a secret Libertarian who is lying about it. That isn't a very strong argument.

                          Still, it parallels arguing that the President is actually in the bag for GOP style austerity while publicly claiming otherwise. If one is legitimate it follows that the other must be as well.

                          Hence, uprated to counter the H/R.

                          Nothing human is alien to me.

                          by WB Reeves on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 04:53:01 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  Hedges is a socialist and as for (7+ / 0-)

              Greenwald, I'll let him speak for himself...

              "Ever since I began writing about politics back in 2005, people have tried to apply pretty much every political label to me. It's almost always a shorthand method to discredit someone without having to engage the substance of their arguments. It's the classic ad hominem fallacy: you don't need to listen to or deal with his arguments because he's an X.

              Back then - when I was writing every day to criticize the Bush administration - Bush followers tried to apply the label "far leftist" to me. Now that I spend most of my energy writing critically about the Obama administration, Obama followers try to claim I'm a "right-wing libertarian".

              These labels are hard to refute primarily because they've become impoverished of any meaning. They're just mindless slurs used to try to discredit one's political adversaries. Most of the people who hurl the "libertarian" label at me have no idea what the term even means. Ask anyone who makes this claim to identify the views I've expressed - with links and quotes - that constitute libertarianism.

              I don't really care what labels get applied to me. But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the "libertarian" label applies:

              * opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);
              * repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);
              * advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);
              * condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);
              * attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);
              * arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);
              * criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here);
              * repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);
              * using my blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks;
              * co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardim [sic], JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here);
              * co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);
              To apply a "right-wing libertarian" label to someone with those views and that activism is patently idiotic. Just ask any actual libertarian whether those views are compatible with being a libertarian. Or just read this October, 2012 post - written on Volokh, a libertarian blog - entitled "Glenn Greenwald, Man of the Left", which claims I harbor "left-wing views on economic policy" and am "a run-of-the-mill left-winger of the sort who can be heard 24/7 on the likes of Pacifica radio" because of my opposition to cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
              There is no doubt that I share many views with actual libertarians, including: opposition to a massive surveillance state, support for marriage equality for LGBT citizens, restraints on government power to imprison or kill people without due process, opposition to the death penalty and the generally oppressive US penal state, contempt for the sadistic and racist drug war, disgust toward corporatism and crony capitalism, and opposition to aggressive wars and the ability of presidents to wage them without Congressional authority. It's also true that I supported the Citizens United decision on free speech grounds: along with people like the ACLU and Eliot Spitzer (the only politician to put real fear in the heart of Wall Street executives in the last decade and probably the politician most hated by actual libertarians).

              Liberals and libertarians share the same views on many issues, particularly involving war, civil liberties, penal policies, and government abuse of power. That is why people like Alan Grayson and Dennis Kucinich worked so closely with Ron Paul to Audit the Fed and restore civil liberties.

              But "libertarianism" has an actual meaning: it's not just a slur to mean: anyone who criticizes President Obama but disagrees with Rush Limbaugh. Anyone who applies this label to me in light of my actual views and work is either very ignorant or very dishonest - or, most likely, both."

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              You're so informed!

              I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

              by triv33 on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 11:01:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  One more time (4+ / 0-)
              And both of them have helped depress Liberal votes, leading up to 2010, consciously, in order to "teach the Duopoly a lesson".


              "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013
              TheStarsHollowGazette.com

              by TheMomCat on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 11:13:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Implied because (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          triv33, LaEscapee, poligirl, gooderservice

          OMG, they challenge the POV that Obama can do no wrong that you seem to be spewing here, Including the repeated lie about liberals not voting.


          "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013
          TheStarsHollowGazette.com

          by TheMomCat on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 10:27:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "POV that Obama can do no wrong"? (0+ / 0-)

            Is that what I'm doing? Where?
            There are several places that I differ with the President and the Administration, on foreign policy, on drug policy et cetera. That's not what I'm talking about here. You jump to a conclusion that has no basis, you might want to look a little more carefully before you leap again.
            And that "lie" is proven fact, Look it up. I already did and posted it. Many fewer voters than 2 years before, much higher percentage of conservatives, so, what's the difference? Many less liberal voters turned out. It's simple arithmetic, even the math challenged should be able to handle it.

            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

            by CwV on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 10:46:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  YOU need to stop repeating the lie (5+ / 0-)

              about liberals not voting with Meteor Blades. Stop repeating it.

              I strongly suggest you read his comment and look at the links very carefully

              We have the statistics. The falsehood...


              "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013
              TheStarsHollowGazette.com

              by TheMomCat on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 11:18:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This must be the fifth time in this string that (0+ / 0-)

                Meteor Blades has been used as a threat. An implicit STFU or we'll sic the authorities on you.
                I read that comment, and yes, some liberals did vote, me among them, but, less people voted in 2010 than in 2008.  And in the group that did vote in 2010, the percentage of voters was heavily skewed toward the Conservatives.
                THAT MEANS that less liberal voters turned out. Call them Young voters or Black voters or whatever, the bottom line is that Conservative voters turned out and Liberal ones didn't so we ended up with a conservative domination of Congress.
                Blades argument is based on comparing 2006 to 2010 (because they are both off year elections) and still, Liberals and Moderates were 10% down and Conservatives were 10% up.
                2006 was before OFA lit up a lot of young voters. That created a bunch of new, liberal voters. A more accurate read would be to compare 2008 to 2010. Those young voters came out to put Obama in office. Many of those voters did not turn out in the midterm.
                My point still stands, Liberal voters, Obama supporters did not turn out in as high numbers in 2010 as they did just 2 years earlier, if they had, we'd have been spared the Boner disaster.
                I have much respect for Mr Blades, but far from debunking this fact, his own numbers prove my point.

                If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                by CwV on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 11:40:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Oh you're a fan? (5+ / 0-)

      Check this one out he hits it out of the park

      Three Democratic myths used to demean the Paul filibuster

      There are no sacred cows.

      by LaEscapee on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 10:24:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site