Not at all making himself the story, Greenwald to make next shocking NSA revelations, in a book -KOS

[flamingdem]

* Publication date to be March 2014

This announcement of course, raises a few key issues. First, what impact will yesterday's testimony by NSA officials have on the alleged "new" revelations to be contained in the book. Has the NSA itself already stolen Greenwald's thunder? Second, why wait for a book next year? If Greenwald was made privy to these "new" revelations through his work for the Guardian on the Snowden document theft, and the materials are so vital to the public interest, why wait another 8 months to reveal them for a price in another Greenwald book, instead of publishing them in the Guardian now? Did part of Greenwald's arrangement with Snowden include the right to withhold vital information on the NSA programs to be included only in a Greenwald book? Will Snowden reap any financial benefit from the book, too, or just Greenwald? And finally, in that vein, will the new book finally disclose what Greenwald's role was in the genesis of this story in the first place? Will he finally answer questions about whether Snowden approached him out of the blue, or whether he may have, in some fashion, assisted/facilitated/planned the document theft by Snowden in the first place? In other words, is Greenwald a mere conduit, or a criminal (now for profit)?

In one sense, there's nothing wrong with Grrenwald trying to make a buck off this story, of course, but it does open him up to criticism about his motives. The oddity is the announcement -- in the middle of the still-developing story, with so many supposedly outrageous components of the NSA's programs yet to be revealed -- that these further allegedly critical revelations regarding the scope of the NSA's programs will not be disclosed for the benefit of the public's interest in protecting their rights as soon as possible through his paper, but instead will be held for later publication to benefit Greenwald's profit margin.

So, until Greenwald offers explanations for the questions posed above, what, can we speculate, are Greenwald's true motives? Apart from a profit motive, his latest crusade seems to be in keeping with Greenwald's modus operandi -- undermining faith in all government generally and undermining the Obama administration specifically. Does that sound progressive? Far from being an actual champion of liberals, as he has been portrayed for some time now, it seems to me that the real Glenn Greenwald is something far less progressive, and far more anti-government. We've seen, just in the last few days, Greenwald attacking the few reliably liberal components of the media. Based on his recent comments, he's now seeing liberal media enemies lurking in every shadow and liberal media conspiracies forming in every whisper. All of his critics are liars, all who disagree with him are slaves to Obama's fascist state. Just this week, he's gone after Bernstein and MSNBC, accusing them of being propagandists for the government. Hmmm . . . what other political group says things like that? Wow -- how very progressive of him.

But of course, this is the guy who, according to a liberal blogger he attacked for criticizing him, once reportedly wrote 53 consecutive blog entries (during Obama's presidency) without criticizing the GOP once. Of the 53 entries, 5 were reportedly completely non-political matters. Of the remaining 48, ALL 48 reportedly blasted Obama. Every single one. According to the account, not one offered any criticism of the GOP. Not one. My, my -- how progressive.

... snip : Cato, Koch, etc.

This is also the guy who has written scathing attacks on undocumented immigrants, calling their presence evil and destructive to the country and to its economy and culture. You know, like a good progressive would. Oh, but Glenn assures us, his views on immigration have quickly evolved -- he now wants credit for no longer explicitly calling immigrants "evil," even as he happily shifts his rhetoric to "border security" and the "rule of law." You know -- just like the typical Republi -- er, I mean, just like a "progressive" would.

MORE AT LINK
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/18/1224650/-Not-at-all-making-himself-the-story-Greenwald-to-make-next-shocking-NSA-revelations-in-a-book?showAll=yes#

[last1standing]

1. Yet another baseless smear filled with factless hate.

These posts don't inform people and they don't change opinions. They only serve to divide us by stirring up hatred and resentment.

Please stop.

[flamingdem]

2. Nice try. This is valid information for understanding Glenn Greenwald's role

in an important story.

Apparently you would prefer to censor people on DU.

You can use trash or ignore, take your pick.

[last1standing]

3. I'm only trying to ask what this spreading of hatred accomplishes.

I'm not the DU censor and I don't want to argue or insult you. I do have a real interest in understanding the motivation to smear anyone who questions our current surveillance operations with personal attacks and misdirection. As I said, these posts don't change opinions but they do breed resentments. Why do this?

[flamingdem]

4. No, you just want to accuse me of your idea of "hate"

And now you've done it twice.

[last1standing]

5. What is the purpose of this thread if not to spread hatred?

What real information does it impart? What insights does it bring forth? Better yet, how does this post serve to enlighten?

The answer to all of these questions is it doesn't. It smears someone because they believe differently from you. That only tears us apart.

[flamingdem]

6. I'm not going to continue to feed your Post Nanny bullshit nt

[last1standing]

29. It's like we're not even having the same conversation.

If you think my purpose is to troll you or censor you, I can promise it's not. I'd like to see a discussion on the issues this whole affair brings up but these threads only serve to keep people from thinking rationally.

But if you feel the need to sling insults at me as you did in another post here, or make claims to my intentions that aren't true, then there's not much chance of any real conversation happening, is there?

[Iggo]

37. "It's like we're not even having the same conversation."

Perfect!

[Tarheel_Dem]

129. How about this? Does this "tear us apart"?

Labor rights and true progressives
Thursday, April 21, 2011 | Posted by rootless_e

".....What is concerning the true progressives? Well it might be Gary Johnson, pro-pot, right wing ex governor of New Mexico. We learn that Johnson is considered positively by High Priest of True Progressivism Glenn Greenwald.

One of his hopes for 2012 is that candidates will emerge to take on the red and the blue teams — he is keeping an eye on Gary Johnson, a two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, who is pro-gay and antiwar, and who could run with a Democrat like former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold. He would also be happy to see a billionaire run without the help of either party, to “disrupt the two-party stranglehold.”

I thought we were supposed to be against bipartisanship. Oh it is so confusing. Johnson, by the way is one of the maverick Republicans who supports private for-profit prisons, Social security privatization, and the destruction of Medicare Medicaid -plus he's against child labor laws. A breath of fresh air!"

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/04/labor-rights-and-true-progressives.html

Not sure what you're upset about, this is DU, where we routinely talk shit about all Republicans, including GG. Oh, I forgot, he's a "civil libertarian", which only means he's a Republican who wants to smoke dope, get laid & pack heat with no government interference.

[last1standing]

130. Yes, it does.

That blog is filled with hateful rhetoric against anyone who doesn't toe the exact line the blogger feels is correct. It is filled with lies, smears and misdirection aimed at tearing people down and apart.

[Tarheel_Dem]

131. But the blogger links to actual transcripts and writings of the High Priest, in his very own words..

from on high. Try again! And if you want to talk "hateful rhetoric", you obviously don't follow Greenwald very closely.

[pnwmom]

38. I saw no hate. It is a reasonable question to look at Greenwald's motives,

and it is reasonable, based on his behavior, to suggest they are not pristine.

[last1standing]

39. The hatred lies in implying or stating that Greenwald is only doing this for the money.

Greenwald has a long career focusing on fighting this kind of thing and it doesn't help to now suggest that he's only doing it for a payoff. There are certainly easier ways to make money.

As for pristine behavior, if that is the standard by which we must all live our lives then I'm afraid I don't qualify to give my opinions, either. I'd guess that standard would exclude most, if not all, of us.

[nolabels]

77. They will say anything as long they feel it's getting the results they like.

The more the story from them changes focus the more one knows it is B.S. in what they sell you about it. To me, it seems important to know the you can learn important things from even evil incarnate as long you listen carefully. The need to filter the noise from the fact is what i get to see at DU. I enjoy these folks who are trying to drag others under the bus. They keep the story alive and you know the story is important because of them and how the corporate media is trying to ignore the story.

I remember back about ten years ago when they were trying to sell the "WMD" in Iraq and really it got to become quite comical. They have learned since then but they still can be exposed for who they really are and what they are trying to accomplish

We in the US are are heading deeper into totalitarian fascist state and still most haven't even got a clue about it or how fast it's coming. Throwing daylight on some part of if it couldn't hurt as far as i can see. Just rave on you Snowden / Greenwald bashers, your's is helping the cause

[Andy823]

8. Interesting

"These posts don't inform people and they don't change opinions. They only serve to divide us by stirring up hatred and resentment."
Unlike all the posts by the Snowden groupies who continue to say that anyone who is not on board with their train of thought are just _______________! You can fill in the blank with all kinds of hateful names that have been used.

As for the NSA thing goes, I have said before we need an investigation and let the cards fall where they may. I also think that this whole issue was not about being a "hero", but simply political theatre orchestrated by "others" using Snowden. Greenwald's desire to make money off of this issue while Snowden is stuck in limbo is very revealing, and not in a good way. Everyday this whole thing gets crazier and crazier, and yet those who have fallen for this "libertarian" spy, and his libertarian backing don't seem to be able to grasp at reality.

If all the Snowden groupies here had read the crap Snowden was posting on line a year ago, you know the stuff about dumping SS, whistleblowers should be kicked in the balls, and all the other Ron Paul BS, what would they have though of the guy? What would you have thought?

You call this OP factless hate, yet when the facts are brought to your attention they get ignore, just like with all the followers of Snowden and Greenwald. It really is amazing.

[flamingdem]

9. Thanks, the Snowden groupies attack by name calling, very troll-like behavior

but they feel immune to criticism. Their heroes are immune to criticism as well. It's good to recall now and then Greenwald's ODS and Snowden's Libertarian leanings. There's more than meets the eye here.

[last1standing]

40. Have I called names? If so, please point them out so I can apologize.

The only comment I know of where I personally call you out is when I stated in another thread that I generally respect your opinions.

[flamingdem]

42. Your game is harrassment nt

[last1standing]

45. Please don't make this personal. I have never harrassed you.

I have pointed out that you are posting opinion columns that have hateful commentary filled with lies and misdirection. That is not an attack on you, but an attack on the commentary you are linking to. Just as you have a right to post these smears, I have a right to call them out.

[flamingdem]

46. Your arrogance is showing nt

[HangOnKids]

47. Pot Calling Kettle Black

What a fucking joke. Just not really clever or funny.

[flamingdem]

50. Oh, a twin

with the same MO, how interesting

[HangOnKids]

55. I have a twin?

How fucking cool!

[last1standing]

57. Apparently it's me.

I'd be happy for the admins to check our IPs to see if that's the case and post the results. But the reality is that the OP just seems to want to smear me with innuendo.

[last1standing]

48. Best sign of a losing argument is hurling abuse.

You accused me of name calling in another post whereas I've only stated that I've respected your opinions, generally. Now you fling abuse.

But somehow I'm the arrogant party here. I will only say it's a shame you've been brought to this. Spending so much time spreading hatred and ignorance can't be enjoyable.

[flamingdem]

52. Nice try, but you fail, and have no arguments except to propose to censor

Fail

[last1standing]

56. My answer is to create safeguards which allow for limited surveillance.

This surveillance would include the ability to spy on US citizens with proper oversight by a FISA court that wasn't chosen completely by one person without any confirmation process. It would also include the mandatory declassification of any materials gathered that did not result in a conviction within a certain amount of time.

So what did your OP do other than smear someone who is working to bring this debate to the forefront?

[last1standing]

35. You've made several assumptions about me without any backup.

I've posted threads trying to discuss this issue with both "pro" and "anti" Snowden posters but those don't go very far because threads like this keep riling up resentments and anger. As for making the same posts on the "pro" Snowden threads, there haven't been many that work to stir up hatred like this one does. And before you jump in accusing me, again, of being "pro" Snowden, please consider that it may be because there isn't an easy target to hit on the other side of things.

The "pro" Snowden posters are attacking a system, not a person as there isn't one person to attack. I'm sure if there was, they'd be doing so, but that just isn't the case here. Everyone knows, or should know, that this isn't all Obama's fault so he's not a good target. It's not all Clapper's doing so he can't be singled out effectively, either. The cause of this problem is rapidly increasing technological capabilities coupled with heads of agencies who don't completely understand the implications of their decisions. As we all begin to realize the potential for abuse inherent in our surveillance we need to find ways to safeguard against malicious or unconstitutional acts.

I hope that at least tells you where I'm coming from even if you don't agree.

[flamingdem]

41. Nonsense. You've badgered me on other threads

You're are partisan.

[last1standing]

44. I've never suggested I'm not partisan. I definitely support implementing safeguards.

I've also repeatedly stated that I believe your posts attacking Greenwald, Snowden, and anyone who agrees with them do little but drive us apart. The reason I do this is because I would like us to be discussing which safeguards to put in place and how to convince our representatives to do that.

I promise, this isn't a personal attack on you and I hope you don't feel it is.

[HangOnKids]

53. You are are partisan?

And you are not not partisan?

[Andy823]

60. I understand the problem

I mentioned that I am all for an investigation, and if abuse is found to run rampant, the let the chips fall where they fall.

Now as for the other side not attacking a person, I beg to differ. From day one they have tried to lay the whole blame on president Obama. You can go back an look if you doubt me. It's been pretty much the same bunch, along with a ton of new trolls, that are always posting negative things about the president, saying he is a failure, just like Bush, Just like Nixon, etc. So yes they do attack a person, the president. Now you may see that it's not all his fault, but way to many here are more than willing to lay all the blame on him instead of on congress, the people who voted for these things, and the only ones that can change them.

As I said, if people who support Snowden now had read all the things he posted on line in the past before all this came about they would have labeled him nothing more than a Paulbot, and they would have been right, but now he has become their hero. Just doesn't make any sense.

[last1standing]

64. That's why I said they "should know" it's not all Obama's fault.

I agree with pretty much everything you said other than I think there haven't been very many anti-Obama threads on this subject. Yes, some will immediately blame him for everything that goes wrong or is uncovered without facts, and he isn't exactly blameless in this matter, either, but neither were Carter, Reagan, Clinton, or either bush. Those who use this as a springboard to attack Obama are just as wrong as this OP.

But the problem isn't whether Obama's NSA is acting unconstitutionally, it's what can be done about it. Obama could stop these abuses while he's in office but that's only for another three years or so. What happens after that?

[CakeGrrl]

72. I think there's an outbreak of

Snowden Derangement Syndrome.

If you do not hold the opinion that he should be pardoned / lauded as a hero / showered with awards and praise, YOU as a poster on this message board are attacked with increasingly spittle-flecked, angry namecalling.

It's one thing to render opinions about the major players in this very public issue. After all, people are quick to remind others REPEATEDLY that the President and other public figures are fair game.

It's another to rail about or at the people here who voice their opinions.

I wonder how all this invective helps the fight against the increase of surveillance?

[DCBob]

63. Hate?? Did you read the following part.,..

"there's nothing wrong with Grrenwald trying to make a buck off this story, of course, but it does open him up to criticism about his motives."

[last1standing]

66. Yes, I did. That line is the classic opener for abuse.

"I'm not racist, but..."

"There's nothing wrong with that, but..."

"I don't wants kids to starve, but..."

Sure, taking profits from writing a book opens him up for criticism, so does wearing black socks with brown shoes or drinking pepsi instead of coke. If the author wants to find a reason to smear Greenwald, he/she will certainly find one.

[DCBob]

67. Yet, I dont see any hate/abuse in any part of it.

FYI.. criticism is not hate.

[last1standing]

68. Stating that Greenwald believes anyone who doesn't agree with him...

is "a slave to the fascist state" seems pretty hateful. There's plenty more there as well.

I understand we disagree on this subject but we should be able to discuss the issues without invective and smear campaigns such as the author of this hit piece provides. There are real, very important issues to discuss but they are being shouted down by hate comments.

[DCBob]

93. I believe Greenwald has made comments similar to that...

and even if he didnt say it outright he has implied it. Yes, the issue is important but this guy is a phony huckster and the totally wrong person to be leading the charge for reforms.

[Enthusiast]

82. PLUS ONE!

You are right.

[KoKo]

7. Diary Writer criticized for not giving link...Most comments disagreed with it.

This comment was a bit harsh...but, it seemed to sum up much of the harsher criticism of the Diary:

-----------------------------------

If you can't post a story without contorting... (0+ / 0-)

...the sh*t out of it, whaddaya' got? A big cup of nuthin' but turds.

"I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

by bobswern on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:42:25 AM PDT

------------------------------------

[UTUSN]

10. R#8 & K n/t

[Whisp]

11. He should name it: My Pet Goad. n/t

[flamingdem]

17. !!!!

Okay now you've got me in pun mode, can't outdo that. Did you see the Vanity Fair article on GG's book? You can add a sentence

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/07/guessing-the-sentences-in-glenn-greenwald-s-new-edward-snowden-book

[Whisp]

23. whaaaat?

... Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden, justice-exposing besties. The former, a lefty journalist with The Guardian...

GG a lefty? Are Libertarians considered Lefties? wow.

Anyway another possible title could be (the movie version):

A Funny Thing Happened to Me on the Way to Ron Paul's.

[flamingdem]

28. love it!

Greenwald was directly asked if he is a Libertarian and he answered saying: I'm not a Right Libertarian. Meaning he knows he fits the mold for Left Libertarian and figured he could get rid of the label with that little trick.

They need to know GG is no leftie.

[Mojorabbit]

103. Ron Paul mention for the thread fail.

The fear you all have of this nobody politician is amazing.
None of this is about Ron Paul.

[Whisp]

104. It's very much about Paul and his ideals

that Snowden shares with him.

very very much.
gobmint all bad, liberty to screw everyone over all good.
if you think Repugs were bad at 'you're on your own', try a Paul pill.

[Mojorabbit]

105. Fail. nt

[Whisp]

108. Pass.

If you don't recall what despicable garbage came out of Pauls anus that he calls his mouth, then I can't help you with remembering.

[Mojorabbit]

109. It is totally irrelevant to the topic of govt spying.

When you all get the latest talking points you should consider dropping the Ron Paul bit. It is just ridiculous. Ron Paul is a nobody. No one cares about him. He couldn't muster enough votes to even play in the big leagues.

[Bluenorthwest]

120. Ron Paul is a 77 year old House Republican crank who has never been able to win

even one Republican Primary. A racist, right winger who is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Why anyone would give him more attention than a sneer is amazing to me. Some crazed district in Texas elects him, no one else takes him seriously but them and folks who need something to wave about in the air frantically hoping to obscure the actual subject of discussion.

[Whisp]

126. his son isn't 77.

and the shit that is going down now, what with women's rights, the SYG laws, the assault on the poor, that is all big L Libertarian shit. You keep telling yourself they have been irrelevant and ineffectual.

Snowden is a big L, his morals and outlook suck just as bad as the Paul's. I do not trust him, nor who he is playing for.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

12. The cover was Wikileaked.

[flamingdem]

15. LOL - DYI Brazilian Wax Job

This is hilarious

Green Snow ..

[flamingdem]

20. Where on the green earth did you find this?

I googled hoping to find the author, maybe it's you!?

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

22. It's my creation.

[flamingdem]

30. Really!?!?!?

I'm so impressed, that's very good photoshoppe and amazing concept. We must make this go viral!



Wonder where to send it..

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

58. In case there's a movie deal as well...

[flamingdem]

61. Oh my word

and we know there will be a movie deal!

I'll call my agent

[SunSeeker]

78. OMG, dude, quit your day job! Brilliant!

[Whisp]

110. bwahahaha!

[Bluenorthwest]

122. Amazing how some can't get through any thread without homophobic overtones

taking center stage. Do you call all gay men by girl's names and do you have similar 'name games' for other minorities?
I assume that if you had an actual point, you might want to make it without the stark raving atavistic bigotry.

[Whisp]

26. LOL! perfect. How about The Gripes of Wrath?

[flamingdem]

32. Whisp we have a creative photoshoppin' genius here

AllIneediscoffee made that book cover!

[flamingdem]

34. Here's a book cover that could use some updating

[Whisp]

49. I'll see what I can do with this. :)

[flamingdem]

54. .

looking forward

[Whisp]

70. Here it is.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

74. That one takes the cake.

[flamingdem]

75. LOLLLL

Perfect cover, will have to send it to the publisher!

Meanwhile I'll put it in the multimedia section

[Scurrilous]

114. ROFL

[Tarheel_Dem]

132. Genius!!!!!

[Major Hogwash]

102. Bwah-ha-ha!!

That's brilliant!

And gets right to the heart of the matter -- spam!!!!

We luvs our spam here at the DU.

[Luminous Animal]

13. Bart Gellman of WAPO who also reported on PRISM signed an NSA book deal too.

Gasp!

[Cooley Hurd]

14. Writers write books.

[Enrique]

16. yes, Greenwald's writing a book about civil liberties is highly questionable

there must be some ulterior motive for this behavior, which for Greenwald is unprecedented.

Or maybe some psychological explanation, because it is so bizarre for Greenwald to do such a thing. I mean why would a writer that writes prolific, long, blog entries on the subject of civil liberties, write a book on civil liberties?

Did I make my sarcasm evident enough, or should I pound it home some more?

[Luminous Animal]

18. Where are the breathless posts about Bart Gellman's NSA book deal?

[KittyWampus]

33. Context is everything. Context is your friend.

[whatchamacallit]

19. Of course, you're the one making the story about Greenwald

for obvious reasons. The more you blather on about Greenwald and Snowden, the less we deal with the revelations at the heart of the story. You do this board, and the country, a disservice with your daily subterfuge.

[polichick]

21. Prediction: world-wide presales will be brisk.

[flamingdem]

25. That's a lot of fauxoutrage he'll have to spew until then

to keep the media's attention. We shall see.

[polichick]

27. You WISH it was faux.

[last1standing]

36. I wish it was faux as well.

Unfortunately, it's not.

[polichick]

43. Know what ya mean!

[rhett o rick]

24. Why dont you participate in threads that discuss the real problem, Booz-Allen illegal spying?

Instead you seem obsessed with ad hominem attacks on the messengers. Do you fear what we might find if we pull the curtain back?

Here are some threads I recommend:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262702

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023281378

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023282003

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023220667

[Rex]

62. Agenda.

And that is NOT on it imo.

[Iggo]

31. You're right. He's not. You are.

[liberal N proud]

51. Not at all

[Rex]

59. Well at least Greenwald is keeping a low profile and not making this about himself.

[DCBob]

65. If this information is so gawd awful critical why hide it from us until a book is published?

$$$$$$

[SunSeeker]

79. Exactly. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

69. $$$$. More $$$$ from the Citizens United lovin' GG. I'm shocked! Shocked I say!

[flamingdem]

73. Talk about efficient, snag NSA docs, repackage in book!

Lots of free media time to push said masterpiece

[Tarheel_Dem]

76. I'll give it to him, he's a masterful manipulative bastard, and like Ann Coulter he knows how to....

get your attention, and separate fools from their $$$$.

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. You just hate him because you're a bigot

and he lives in Latin America:

Tarheel_DeM: Latin America is but a cyst on the anus of the world

[Tarheel_Dem]

106. Wrong! GG is not Latin American, but he does love him some Citizens United. Thanks for playin'!

Oh, btw, I still stand by that assessment.

[Bluenorthwest]

123. Muriel did not say he IS Latin American, she said he lives there. Thanks for playing!

Your vile comment about Latin America is shameful. Xenophobic and horrid.

[Tarheel_Dem]

127. The day I need you for clarification, I'll check myself into the nearest rehab.

I find it odd that any country in the world can blame the US for any/everything under the sun, including theorizing that our government infected Hugo Chavez with cancer, and you guys can't wait to cheer 'em on, but you find my comments particularly "Xenophobic & horrid". Considering the source, I'll wear your rebuke as a badge of honor. And just so you never have to wonder, I could care less what you or muriel think of me, or what I post here. If you find it that offensive, put me on Ignore or alert, and best of luck to ya.

[msanthrope]

119. Ahem--Greenwald is not Latin American and is known for his racist blog post about "illegals."

And yet few problems are more pressing. Over the past several years, illegal immigrants have poured into the United States by the millions. The wave of illegals entering the country is steadily increasing. The people living in the border states of California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico know this flow has to be drastically slowed and then halted. The situation is so dire in that region that the Democratic Governors of Arizona and New Mexico were forced to declare States of Emergency as a result of the flow of illegals into their states and the resulting, massive problems which it brings.

The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known, and it gets worse every day. In short, illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone. Few people dispute this, and yet nothing is done.

A substantial part of the GOP base urgently wants Republicans, who now control the entire Federal Government, to take the lead in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. And yet the GOP, despite its unchallenged control, does virtually nothing, infuriating this sector of its party. The White House does worse than nothing; to the extent it acts on this issue at all, it is to introduce legislation designed to sanction and approve of illegal immigration through its “guest worker” program, a first cousin of all-out amnesty for illegal immigrants.

GOP inaction when it comes to illegal immigration is at once mystifying and easily explainable. There is a wing of the party – the Wall St. Journal/multinational corporation wing – which loves illegal immigration because of its use as a source of cheap labor. And while that wing of the party is important because of the financial support it provides, it is a distinct minority when it comes to electoral power.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html

[Bluenorthwest]

124. Ahem, no one said he is Latin American the poster said 'and he lives in Latin America'

Do you agree with the hateful post by Tarheel_Dem:' Latin America is but a cyst on the anus of the world." ?
I can't believe even centrists would be comfortable with that level of hate speech. What's amazing is that folks get huffy about what is said of the South, yet they post 'Latin America is a cyst on the anus of the world' with glee.
I will assume you agree with Tarheel.

[msanthrope]

125. Did you alert on the post you found offensive? The admin of this site have given you a wonderful

power, Bluenorthwest--the ability to alert on posts you think violate the TOS.

And certainly, if you think that post is 'hate speech' it is arguably your duty to alert.

But here's the power you do not have--you don't get to hold other posters accountable for speech that is not theirs. If you have an issue with Tarheel, take it up with her. Or alert.

[CakeGrrl]

71. K/R

[stupidicus]

80. good for him

who cares about his motives other than the GGDS sufferers?

[SunSeeker]

81. So he's got explosive info, but wants everyone to wait 8 mos. so he can make some filthy lucre.

Yeah, real hero.

[flamingdem]

83. Then it will be another 8 mos. when Greenie does a world wide book tour &

lecture circuit.

First stop: Moscow!

To share the fruits, um probably not.

[msanthrope]

84. Glenn was a headliner for a CATO donor's dinner, besides doing a media tour for them. I'd love

to see how much money he makes from them.


In fact, I think the reason he left Salon is because he was required to do financial disclosures that he did not want to do.

[Puzzledtraveller]

85. Do you all coordinate these posts?

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

86. Yes, but we're thinking about removing the white coats.

They're frightening the patients.

[HangOnKids]

87. You've been here 10 days

But keep thinking you are all that!

[morningfog]

90. They have only been here 10 days with *that* DUer name.

[HangOnKids]

92. Thank You For Saying It!

[SidDithers]

113. Might not want to bring up the topic of zombies with HangOnKids...

she's got 2 previously banned incarnations herself.

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

128. !!!

It's alive!!!!

[flamingdem]

88. Some of us struggle on with our task

and others just hang it up.

Be assured we care.

[morningfog]

91. Why were you PPR'd before?

[frylock]

89. this must be your tenth greenwald post today..

go seek help. really. no, really.

[Comrade Grumpy]

94. I admit I was mistaken.

I didn't think these posters could get any more pathetic. But the OP proves me wrong.

[Cha]

96. that's a BIG Shocker! Asshole Greenfinger's writing a

Book!!!!!

[flamingdem]

97. Green Snow, did you see the book cover/s?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017132692

Some creativity by DUers AllIwantiscoffee and Whisp!

[Cha]

98. Mahalo, flamingdem..

I have to dash now but will check it out later.

Where's that pic of Greenfinger?

[flamingdem]

99. Here ya go

A classic!

[Cha]

111. there's our nasty villain, greenfinger..

so depictive what's going on right now!

Twitter Critics Slam ‘Bond Villain’ Greenwald For Boasting Snowden Should Have U.S. ‘On Its Knees Begging’

http://www.mediaite.com/online/twitter-critics-slam-bond-villain-greenwald-for-boasting-snowden-should-have-u-s-on-its-knees-begging/

Mahalo, flamingdem A Classic for real.. Greeeen.... Finger!

roflmao

[Major Hogwash]

101. Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

OMG! Not a book, anything but that!!!

Greenwald is such a media whore.

[VanillaRhapsody]

107. I thought this was all about "saving us" from the big scary Govt?

[SidDithers]

112. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Scurrilous]

115. "Publication date to be March 2014"

Midterms, yo!

[flamingdem]

116. Arg, so he'll be essentially campaigning on his book tour

Let's hope it sells as much as Sarah Palin's book!


buy my book buy my book buy my book buy my book

[99Forever]

117. Ahhh...

... is someone all butthurt that NO ONE is buying the lying authoritarian propaganda they are paddling?

Better luck next.

[flamingdem]

118. Exactly what lie do you refer to compadre?

?

[99Forever]

121. All of them.

And I sure as fuck am not your "compadre."