Skip to main content

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD - MARCH 14:  U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) addresses the 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) March 14, 2013 in National Harbor, Maryland. A slate of important conserative leaders are slated to speak during the the American Conservative Union's annual conference.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Both Glenn Greenwald and Bill Maher decided to spread the lie that Rand Paul supports Pot legalization on Maher's show Friday night. They did so in an attempt to promote the idea that Rand Paul was uniquely positioned to attract the support/ votes of young people in the country. (even more so than Democrats)

http://www.hbo.com/...

But that claim is a provable lie.

http://www.rawstory.com/...

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has thrown his support behind legislation that Republicans could use to force President Barack Obama to crack down on legal marijuana in states like Colorado and Washington.

Speaking to Fox News on Thursday, the libertarian-leaning senator said he supported the Enforce the Law Act, which has been approved by the House. The legislation would allow Congress to sue the president for failing to faithfully execute laws.

Paul said that Obama appeared to be “writing his own laws whenever he feels like it.”

But a committee report submitted by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), one of the three congressmen who introduced the bill, suggested Republicans would also use the proposed law to try to force Obama to crack down on marijuana in states that have legalized its possession and sale.
http://www.msnbc.com/...

Rand Paul doesn't support the policy.

So I have a simple question to ask.

Why are Glenn Greenwald and Bill Maher misleading voters in to thinking that Rand Paul supports policies popular with the left & young voters?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Hmmmm, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    markthshark, Gordon20024, aliasalias

    frankly, I don't care about the three people in your diary (ok  -- 4 because it is about you, right?)

    I'll just go have a drink and come back to read the damage.

    You need to be like 2007 subtle here -- do some research.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 01:46:54 PM PDT

  •  I'm sure he's "evolving"... (6+ / 0-)
    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) continued to field questions this week about a possible entrance into the 2016 Republican presidential mix, reinforcing his views that legal penalties for marijuana offenses should be reduced and that states should be responsible for crafting their own laws regarding the plant.
    Boy you sure are worried about Bill Maher and Rand Paul.  

    I will not vote for Hillary.

    by dkmich on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 02:31:45 PM PDT

  •  Hmm, I must have missed the part where they... (6+ / 0-)

    made the claim that Paul supported marijuana. In fact, Maher mentioned that he couldn't even think about supporting Paul because of his [negative] stance on pot prohibition. (paraphrased)

    Why are Glenn Greenwald and Bill Maher misleading voters in to thinking that Rand Paul supports policies popular with the left & young voters?
    I distinctly heard Maher talking about Paul being against the surveillance state and unaccountable bankers, issues that are very popular with young people.

    Perhaps you should watch it again.

    "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - 17th-century French clergyman and statesman Cardinal Richelieu.

    by markthshark on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 02:34:52 PM PDT

    •  What are you talking about? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MKSinSA

      They both say it in this video i linked to

      starting at 3:05

      http://www.hbo.com/...=

      Please take your own advice

      Perhaps you should watch it again.
      •  First off your link doesn't work... (8+ / 0-)

        First off your link doesn't work. Second, you didn't say it was on the "Overtime Live' segment post-show. (and it's at the 4:05 minute point)

        Third, it was Greenwald who said Paul was 'pro-legalization'. Greenwald is misinformed on this issue, and Maher didn't correct him, perhaps didn't hear him all the way, I don't know. But Maher was wrong when he acquiesced with Greenwald on that point. Instead Maher went on to add that Paul is against sending everybody to jail for smoking pot... which he is -- if it's legal in a state to do so.

        He's actually co-sponsoring a bill with Cory Booker right now to leave enforcement up to the states: Senators seek to keep House-passed prohibition on DEA, DOJ enforcement.

        Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Cory Booker, D-N.J., are sponsoring an amendment to broadly ban action against state medical marijuana laws. Sen. John Walsh, D-Mont., is sponsoring an amendment that would specifically protect patients.
        Even a stopped clock is right two times a day.

        "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - 17th-century French clergyman and statesman Cardinal Richelieu.

        by markthshark on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 04:01:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Because Bill & Glenn are liberatarian white (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    CwV, sunbro, charliehall2
    Hidden by:
    Johnny Q

    supremacists. They pretend to be liberal, when they're not. Rand Paul is a fucking lying evil poser.

    Each belongs in the ninth circle if hell with the betrayers.

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 02:43:31 PM PDT

  •  Fail. (0+ / 0-)

    Even if you were correct about both Paul's and Maher's statements, that would only make Maher incorrect. In order to prove a "lie" you must show that a person is, um, actually lying.

    •  I disagree (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shrike, MKSinSA, ktrent, btfsilence, sunbro, aimeehs

      If you have the ability to know the truth and you continue to spread falsehoods then you are lying.

      If find it hard to believe neither men heard about Rand receiving flack from his base for his flip flops.

      This isn't the first time Greenwald & Maher have tried to give Paul credit for supporting legalization.And it likely won't be the last.

      Again I ask why are they trying to sell him to a left leaning audience by telling them he supports things that he doesn't.

      •  Don't we all have the ability to know the truth? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, Johnny Q, aliasalias

        So, you are arguing that every misstatement of fact is a lie, correct?  It seems like a silly position to me.  

        •  I'll use the birther lie as an example (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sunbro, aimeehs, WB Reeves

          There may have been a small percentage of people who didn't know President Obama was born Hawaii and that there was documentation to prove it.

          After the documentation was shown there was no reason to keep repeating the claim that he wasn't born here.

          Anyone who kept saying it was a liar.They could no longer claim they didn't know as an excuse.If they wanted to look it up they could.

          Greenwald & Maher has access to the information regarding Paul's positions, yet they keep repeating false claims.They throw it out there casually if it's a common fact.

          It's like saying Saddam - Iraq was behind 9/11.

          •  Okay (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Johnny Q

            so, in actuality, your response to AoT's distinction between lie and misstatement is:  It's a lie, not a misstatement, because I said so.  You're a very skilled rhetorician, aren't you?

            •  I know you're just being sarcastic & attacking me (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aimeehs
              You're a very skilled rhetorician, aren't you?
              but I never claimed to be. You're going through a lot of effort to defend Greenwald & Maher.

              If they said Iraq had WMD would you still be so defensive?

              They were giving a salespitch for Rand Paul as a 2016 candidate, designed for a left wing audience.

              •  Again (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DeadHead, AoT, chuckvw

                my comments to you have been about your reasoning and writing.  That you see this as a defense of Greenwald or Maher is a reflection of the very problem I have tried to address.  

                As for my sarcasm, I apologize.  I tend to get frustrated when people are unwilling to reflect upon their position when challenged.  In this string, I challenged your broad pronouncement about lies.  In return, you merely retorted with- no, this is a lie because I say it is.  That is antithetical to debate.  

              •  Nonsense (0+ / 0-)
                They were giving a salespitch for Rand Paul as a 2016 candidate, designed for a left wing audience.
                Another mischaracterization from you.

                No War but Class War

                by AoT on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 07:02:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  It isn't common knowledge that Rand (0+ / 0-)

            doesn't support legalization. Up until this diary I was under the impression that he did.

            Greenwald & Maher has access to the information regarding Paul's positions, yet they keep repeating false claims.They throw it out there casually if it's a common fact.
            It is a common fact. It's also wrong, but it's generally believed. I've seen plenty of people here not question Rand's support for legalizing marijuana. I suppose you'll call all of them liars too.

            Why do you like to get your hate on so much for Greenwald? This is three diaries in a few days where you misrepresent information to attack him.

            Based on your standard you were lying about Greenwald and his position on protesters.

            No War but Class War

            by AoT on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 06:09:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If the folks you cite here were trying to sell him (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aimeehs, stevenaxelrod

              and his "positives" to a left leaning I would indeed call them liars.

              And I would be right.

              I would probably give them a chance to correct their claims first.

              But Greenwald has been trying to sell both Ron & Rand Paul to the left for years now.

              He doesn't get a pass.

              •  No one was trying to sell him here (0+ / 0-)

                People have been pointing out that he could cause problems based on some of his positions. Although I've never thought he had a chance in hell of beating anyone that the Dems might nominate. Less of a chance now that it perfectly clear that he doesn't support legalization.

                No War but Class War

                by AoT on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 06:55:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I didn't lie about Greenwald and the protestors (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WB Reeves

              He called them exactly what I said he did.I quoted him directly.

              What happened was a bunch of people here started making excuses for him and claiming that the protestors were generic "anti-bush" protestors, as if that made his attacks on them better.

              Greenwald acknowledged that they were Iraq war protestors.He was trying to delegitimize them and question their "true" motives.

              •  You sound more and more like (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                just another vet, AoT, chuckvw

                "He who shall not be named" with every comment. You sure have a hard-on for Greenwald ...

                Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

                by kbman on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 12:59:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  He was talking specifically about communists (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                chuckvw, VClib

                Not anti-war protesters in general. He didn't call anyone a communist or a socialist, he said that they were those things because they were. You chose to be misleading and act as if he applied those labels to the entire anti-war movement, which he did not. You are seriously obsessed with portraying Greenwald in the worst possible light no matter what he might do. I'm not even a big fan of Greenwald's and it's obvious to me. You're purposely misrepresenting things he's said.

                No War but Class War

                by AoT on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 06:53:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Do you have a link to a transcipt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gooderservice, corvo

    The video doesn't play for me.

    No War but Class War

    by AoT on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 02:53:31 PM PDT

    •  I don't know how to do that (0+ / 0-)
      •  How you do that is you listen to the video (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, AoT, Killer, VClib

        and you type out the words as you hear them.  And if you can't type fast enough, you rewind, rewind, rewind until you get all the words, and when you think you're done, you run through it again and proofread what you have typed.

        Many people do that here at DKos.  

        Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

        by gooderservice on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 04:05:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  On what planet would I do any of that? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aimeehs

          I appreciate that some folks here do that but I'm not gonna do all that.

          If you can't or won't watch the video then just move on.

          Seems like some folks just want me to jump through hoops just so they can dismiss everything in the end anyway.

          It's a long form birth certificate tactic.

          •  You don't want to present evidence that (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, gooderservice, orestes1963

            is available for everyone to see because people who disagree with you will dismiss it. Sure, it's just like the birthers.

            No War but Class War

            by AoT on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 06:15:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  "On what planet would I do any of that? " (0+ / 0-)

            On Planet Compassion.

            Seems like some folks just want me to jump through hoops just so they can dismiss everything in the end anyway.
            Or maybe they're interested in what you posted and can't link to it, or maybe they're even blind and their computer software can read it for them.

            Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

            by gooderservice on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 02:10:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Here's an example: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, VClib

        Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

        by gooderservice on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 04:13:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Legalization is not popular with Rs over 65. (0+ / 0-)

    With Rs in general, I don't think it's a winning issue. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the primaries. I would guess Paul's true position will have to be articulated during their debates.

  •  I distinctly remember Rand Paul telling some (5+ / 0-)

    Holy Roller group earlier this year that he opposed all drug/pot legalization.  He libertarian cred really took a hit then.

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 03:06:36 PM PDT

  •  Edit your diary so that people know it was the (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, corvo, sunbro, AoT, Killer, WB Reeves, VClib

    overtime segment.  That way, we can discuss this like adults... ;=}

    My two cents.  Rand Paul is an opportunist who will say anything to remain relevant.  Now that two other states have legalized it, before KY, he has to throw a fit.

    "We know too much to go back and pretend" - Helen Reddy (humble cosmos shaker)

    by ditsylilg on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 03:41:15 PM PDT

  •  Am I missing something here? (10+ / 0-)

    Shouldn't the diarist be able to provide a clear statement from Paul regarding his view on pot legalization?  The tortured reasoning presented in the diary is unconvincing.  The bill cited in the diary does not directly address pot legalization.  Basing a claim that Paul opposes legalization on his support for this bill is lazy and illogical.  Surely, there is actual evidence of Paul's position that the diarist could have provided.  I give this diary an F.

    •  I highly doubt you would be twisting in knots (0+ / 0-)

      if a Democrat supported the same bill.

      People on the left had been calling for Obama & the justice Dept. to stop enforcing these laws for YEARS.

      Why are you defending Rand Paul?

      •  I think your fondness for illogical leaps (7+ / 0-)

        hampers your reading comprehension.  My comment does not defend Rand Paul in any manner.  It addresses your shoddy reasoning and writing only.  If Paul opposes pot legalization, you should be able to provide direct evidence of that.  Instead, you argue that support for this bill equals support for keeping marijuana illegal.  This does not follow logically.  Paul may support this bill while at the same time supporting a bill to decriminalize marijuana.  

        As for the bill itself, I am of two minds.  I have lived under enough republican presidencies in which selective prosecution of the laws was standard operating procedure (see, eg, the regulatory agencies).  So, this bill has some appeal.  However, the bill merely codifies what the constitution requires (to faithfully execute the laws) and likely would be used to create further gridlock in the functioning of the government.  I do not support it, which is not to say that congress should not have some power to compel the executive to do what it says.  For this reason, I find signing statements, for example, to be problematic.  

        Although it is irrelevant to this discussion, I have no problem going on the record as being opposed to Rand Paul.  

    •  Of course. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo

      Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

      by gooderservice on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 04:08:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Those fellers just got caught up in (0+ / 0-)

    the Paul shuffle.  It is kind of a combination between rap and old fashioned bullshit with a driving beat of synthic noise.  They should have stayed on topic and stuck with Snowden.

  •  Greenwald and Maher are Judas goats. (4+ / 0-)

    No real Democrat should listen to either of these entertainers, which is really all they are.

    The bottom line for both of them is their bank accounts.

    •  I'm far from a Greenwald supporter... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, DiesIrae

      But I don't think its fair to call him an entertainer or someone who only cares about his bank account.

      He is more of an idealist and a true believer.  However, some of what he has supported is atrocious, and he is a major hypocrite when it comes to many issues.

    •  Absolutely. Disregard all the jouranlism awards (7+ / 0-)

      Greenwald has won.

      Greenwald has received awards including the first Izzy Award for independent journalism, in 2009,[18] and the 2010 Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary.[19] In June 2013 Greenwald became widely known after The Guardian published the first of a series of reports detailing United States and British global surveillance programmes, based on classified documents disclosed by Edward Snowden.[20][21] The series on which Greenwald worked, along with others, won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.[22][23] His NSA reporting has won numerous other awards around the world, including top investigative journalism prizes from the George Polk Award for National Security Reporting,[24] the 2013 Online Journalism Awards,[25] the Esso Award for Excellence in Reporting in Brazil for his articles in O Globo on NSA mass surveillance of Brazilians (becoming the first foreigner to win the award),[26] the 2013 Libertad de Expresion Internacional award from Argentinian magazine Perfil,[27] and the 2013 Pioneer Award from the Electronic Frontier
      Look >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over there. A shiny object.

      And I would love to hear your definition of a "real Democrat."

      No real Democrat should listen to either of these entertainers, which is really all they are.

      Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

      by gooderservice on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 04:47:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight, aimeehs, ktrent
      The bottom line for both of them is their bank accounts.
  •  Anyone who supports anybody (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, aimeehs, charliehall2

    on the weed issue alone is an idiot.

  •  Second diary on the same topic within two hours? (9+ / 0-)

    Really?  Give it a rest. Your outrage generation is off the mark.

    A FEW SECONDS - around 10-12 - were spent saying some BS on  some comedy talkshow which is not that widely seen. This was not some big preplanned endorsement or campaign. It was an off the cuff remark of a few seconds. Whether Ron was confused with Rand or whether the policy position is correct or whatever, this is not "OMG" worthy.

    P.S. Bill Maher can have any position he likes without our permission. Actually, so can anyone. Bill Maher isn't running for office is he? Is Greenwald?  And, inconveniently, Rand Paul is co-sponsoring a bill with Cory Booker to stop the expenditure of federal funds for marijuana enforcement in states where marijuana is legal. So... Ummm...

    "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

    by YucatanMan on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 04:55:07 PM PDT

  •  Asdf (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT

    Sorry. Your argument is fundamentally flawed. You conflate two separate things and attempt to claim they represent a position, which they do not.

    1. Paul supports federal legislation which would permit the suing of the president for failure to enforce federal laws.

    2. An EXAMPLE of this would be those states that permit legal marajuana in defiance of federal law.

    3. You thereby claim this shows that Rand Paul must oppose recreational marijuana.

    Sorry. Does not compute.

    He may support the overall theory while simultaneously backing some exceptions (such as small appoints of marijuana).

    The overall laws would embrace far more than siple medical or recreational marijuana.

    The best way to tell a Democrat from a Republican is to present someone requiring food and shelter. The Democrat will want them housed and fed, even if they be faking need. The Republican will gladly see them starve until all doubt is removed.

    by GayIthacan on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 07:53:57 PM PDT

    •  Where do you get that? (0+ / 0-)

      A simple internet search says otherwise.

      •  Asdf (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT

        I get that from reading the actual law, whis is not specific regarding which laws are covered, but states the principle in general and would apply to any federal law not prosecuted by the Justice Department.

        It in no way targets recreational drug laws alone.

        The best way to tell a Democrat from a Republican is to present someone requiring food and shelter. The Democrat will want them housed and fed, even if they be faking need. The Republican will gladly see them starve until all doubt is removed.

        by GayIthacan on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 08:51:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What he opposes is the federal government. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite

      'The government is our enemy' according to libertarians or the rabid Sux faction on this site. How Reagan.  Love the Constitution but, hate our government. Libertarians want to to rid us of our union and our federal government. It is the federal government that protects minority rights and has created voter protection and the safety net.  Suing the president for failure to enforce libertarian interpretation of law is absurd and attempt to weaken the executive.

  •  I suspect that his libertarianism (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WB Reeves, tardis10

    is strictly of the "Don't tax me!" variety.

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 08:23:33 PM PDT

  •  Lol...maher showing how old he is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WB Reeves, AoT

    Again.  I can't imagine young people lining up behind Rand Paul because he may sort of kind of support legalization, even if it were true.  Clearly, a huge issue for Maher but I suspect when young voters saw his stark anti-government stances, they wouldn't vote for him, no matter his stance on pot.  You should include actual quotes though, to support your claim rather than simply a link to the show.

    The liberty of democracy is not safe if people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself.---FDR

    by masslib on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 08:50:12 PM PDT

  •  Because Greenwald and Maher (0+ / 0-)

    are promoting Rand Paul's anti-American values.

    This is no surprise. The surprise is that fake progressives like GG and Maher.

    •  Neither of them ever claimed to be (0+ / 0-)

      progressive. Certainly not Greenwald. Maher has called himself a libertarian, although when you look at his politic positions he doesn't really have anything close to a real political ideology, just grabs whatever may sound good at the time. I can't stand the dude, he's sexist as hell.

      No War but Class War

      by AoT on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 07:08:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Given the topic (0+ / 0-)

    you might find this of interest. I'd certainly be interested in your opinion.

    Nothing human is alien to me.

    by WB Reeves on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 12:17:10 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site