Please provide links & citations. Full quotes, please. Don't take anything out of context or try to twist his intended meaning.

Pumping: verb /pəmp/ 
pumped, past participle; pumped, past tense; pumping, present participle; pumps, 3rd person singular present

Force (liquid, gas, etc.) to move in a specified direction by or as if by means of a pump
- the blood is pumped around the body
- if we pump long enough, we should bring the level up

Move in spurts as though driven by a pump
- blood was pumping from a wound in his shoulder

Fill with something
- my veins had been pumped full of glucose

Shoot (bullets) into a target

Invest a large amount of money in (something)
- he pumped all his savings into building the boat

Try to elicit information from (someone) by persistent questioning
- she began to pump her friend for details

Move (something) vigorously up and down
- we had to pump the handle like mad

Move vigorously up and down or back and forth
- that's superb running—look at his legs pumping

Apply and release (a brake pedal or lever) several times in quick succession, typically to prevent skidding

Move one's arm as if throwing a ball held in the hand, but without releasing the ball
- behind the plate Howard double-pumped then threw to second

Sorry, my verdict stands. No "pumping" has transpired.

...whether or not we can deny that Ron Pauls views desperately need to be heard. Eliciting a response of yes or no. To answer the question you must view almost 20 minutes of Ron Paul videos. How else are you going to answer the question? He's pumping you to watch 20 Ron Paul videos.

Sorry, but I don't buy that "that makes no sense" argument.

Words have meanings.

...is akin to persistent questioning? The question he asked explicitly references almost 20 minutes of Ron Paul videos. Logically, you cannot answer his question without viewing them, and he's asking you to view them.

I've gone in good faith to extreme efforts to explain myself, and your one liner responses without substance don't give me any hope this will be resolved. I'm not convinced that you have established I am wrong here.

and nor did I leave out that definition.

the part that needs to be heard is the part that is - correctly - telling us that the War on Drugs and the War on Terror are both insane.

"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."

This is what Greenwald means IN CONTEXT.

Please.

Why isn't he posting dozens of videos about the President? 20 minutes worth, if we're going to have a "similarly candidate assessment of all the candidates."

"or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

I remember when this only applied to criticism of Bush. Now that it's 2012 you should make sure your made-in-China US flag pin is polished & ready to go.

Whenever Obama is correctly criticized for caving & appeasing the GOP, the messenger is figuratively put to death.

If my sharing my opinion offends your sensibilities, so, please by all means put me on ignore. Liars like GG will not go uncontested.

...of Ron Paul videos.

Please.

nice try though.

Everyone pretending I am stupid is just an ambush against me. I am not stupid.

'pumping Ron Paul'? Let me answer for you, yes they have.

is right here on the board. People do that a lot. Ask someone what they are saying even though what they said is right there in front of them. I always wondered about that. Are you saying you can't read?

Never mind, too much champagne ~

And you didn't object to it.

So there's only one real deduction that can be made there.

Thanks for clarifying, my assumption is correct.

There are lots of deductions to be made from a smiley face.

The smiley just underscores it.

Many call themselves "moderates" others say they are "centrist". There maybe some that consider themselves conservative Democrats.

Hell, I don't self describe as progrssive but as a liberal, a Social-Democrat, a Civil Libertarian, and maybe a budding anti-capitalist, maybe even a Socialist.

No, everyone on DU is not a progressive.

Just simple minded.

Greenwald's Twitter feed, you are correct.

You know, the part about some people (GASP!) daring to criticize Greenwald, and his staunch defenders (or admirers?) freaking right out about THIS criticism being tantamount to silencing the poor dude.

Yeah...you left out a little bit of detail there.

Some of us are annoyed that Ron Paul has got undue attention from a "progressive," others went and dug and found a lot of really interesting stuff in GG's past history. Then the GG defense force came out and it's been back and forth since.

If you were unaware of any of these failed 'gotcha' discoveries, you are in the minority among Democrats. So please speak for yourself.

To try to claim that someone who wrote a book outlining their position on the Iraq War was 'hiding it' has to have been the funniest thing I've seen on a political board in a long time.

Way to hide something, write a best-selling book and tell the world about it

No wonder they call it 'silly season'.

I certainly didn't, and I think it's extremely relevant.

I certainly didn't know that he was for the Iraq war and actually believed right wing lies. That alone is enough for me to forever judge his credibility, if he couldn't scrutinize Bush when the country was having a progressive crisis how could be be trusted to do it when we have a remote bit of power? Progressives were thrown under the bus over "patriotism," remember "freedom fries" and the swiftboating? It was harsh. At least now we're making a comeback with OWS, but then we were shit on every which way but loose. All the more reason to scrutinize right wing lies.

I don't read pundits books, I actually don't take much stock in pundits because they like to drive the narrative to get hits on their corporate owned websites. Pundits are the last people I look to for information.

I actually wish I never knew he was for the Iraq war because that is a very emotional issue for me. I do not trust those who say that they were for the Iraq war. There was no rational reason to be for it. It was purely irrational warmongering by the American public, and a shameful point in our history.

Iraq is an emotional issue for all of us, especially those who had friends and relatives who were sent there. And since most of the country supported that war, there was nothing we could do about it. But when thoughtful people began to question their support causing cracks to occur in the Bush Administration's lockstep grip on the 'facts', most of us were thrilled and more than appreciative of their willingness to admit they had been wrong.

In fact, it was the initial supporters who had the most credibility when, like Greenwald, they spoke publicly out against it. We, who always opposed it, were never taken seriously.

As I said before, if you have lost respect for those who initially 'trusted Bush', you should no longer belong to the Democratic Party because all but a few of them, 'trusted Bush' and helped him get that war started. Which was a crushing blow to those of us who were depending on them to stop him.

I respect anyone who can admit they were wrong. It is isn't often easy to do. As evidenced by your attitude towards GG. He always admits when he is wrong. People are human, they make mistakes, but since he realized he was wrong he has done everything he can to try to prevent that mistake from happening again. And became a target of some pretty powerful people for his efforts.

And I saw that they were all political opportunists. A blogger or writer has nothing to gain from holding a given position on something. A politician does. Every single one of those people who read the IWR report knew that it was bullshit. Any person watching Powell's speech knew it was bullshit.

But the American people, people like Greenwald, wanted blood. And the politicians voted the way the American people wanted. I wasn't one of those people.

"The Obama apologists are in Purge mode."

...they're not fans of personal attacks on random posters on the Internet and rape jokes. Oh, add Ron Paul.

War on Drugs?

NDAA?

Greenwald supported those things.

Am I supposed to hate him because of this?

Greenwald and the ACLU made a convincing case for CU, though I ultimately disagree.

Most Democrats supported the Wars, including Obama, who still supports War in Afghanistan and near-war in Iraq.

See how that works? Or is "Fuck Greenwald" your ultimate level of comprehension?

"Greenwald and the ACLU made a convincing case for CU, though I ultimately disagree."

Why are you attacking Greenwald and trying to silence him?

I haven't implied that his sexual orientation negatively influences his work, as at least one poster today here did.

I definitely haven't posted dozens of comments using out of context statements to smear and belittle his character, accusing him of racism, sexism, unethical conduct, being a right winger, etc. That would constitute an attack. Coming from a source connected to the Democratic Party machine, it would also constitute an attempt to silence a noted Obama critic.

As my post demonstrates, it is possible to disagree with someone's opinion without resorting to the aforementioned tactics. My question is why do so many feel it's necessary to resort to these divisive, incendiary tactics?

"I haven't implied that his sexual orientation negatively influences his work, as at least one poster today here did."

...you have some issue with his "sexual orientation"? You keep bringing it up out of the blue.

Clearly I haven't brought it up "out of the blue". The reasons for mentioning it are right in my post. You must have read them since you specifically responded to it.

Is your intellect so weak that you can only attack and insult and try to distract with pointless diversions? You're like a wounded, frightened animal, throwing up every defense mechanism in a futile attempt to appear less pathetic.

And I'm not talking about this latest episode. An effort that hopefully will be investigated by Congress, thanks to Democrat Hank Johnson.

would appear to answer your question concerning the "ultimate level of comprehension".

The Greenwald Cheerleading Squad hates when St. Greenwald is being called on his logical inconsistencies, and must rush to defend The Anointed One at all costs.

Even when he is dead wrong, or just being an asshat.

Is no one allowed to criticise St. Greenwald for any of his positions?

Or is "Fuck Obama" your ONLY level of comprehension?

But when those in positions of power instigate an attack and smear job on a critical left-wing journalist.. that's something altogether different.

Greenwald is a Libertarian, he pretends to come from a leftist perspective, when in reality his writings are actually anti-whoever is in power at the moment, anti-government overall.

It used to be Bush.

Now it's Obama.

After Obama, Greenwald will find fault with whoever is in office, as there is no way that an elected official in this government can ever live up to the irrationality that is Libertarianism.

I would wager that Greenwald would excoriate a person that even he endorsed for president once elected to office, because that person will inevitably fail to live up to Greenwald's personal libertarian political standards for politicians...whatever they happened to be at that point in time.

That does not make one a full fledged Libertarian.

By the same token, Obama's many Libertarian economic positions do not make him a full-fledged Libertarian President.

The rest is extrapolation. There is much fault to find with this President, wouldn't you agree? Or do you honestly believe that he has been faultless?

This again, is the failure of the partisan viewpoint. The entire thesis that Greenwald and other critics from the left are simply out to torpedo the President is ludicrous. Bad news IS the news.

It's lovely when something goes right and someone does what they say. But it's not a story. There's not much to write. No car wrecks today. No crimes were committed.

Like or not, the Greenwalds of the world strengthen progressive politics. Nonstop, unconditional positive rhetoric is what the right does, and it's why we're not them.

"What are you in favor of?"

...I'm still trying to find the rule book that states that progressives must agree with Greenwald and believe that referencing the lunatic Rand Paul propaganda is cool!

Why is that?

GG was provided, sadly, with just what he needed to make the point he was making. That is called very bad tactics on the part of the random poster. Sad however how badly it reflected on DU because GG's point was correct about the state of political discourse. I just wish he had found his example on FR or somewhere that does not represent Democrats.

I see his post got over one thousand recs.

Name the names of the 'Obama apologists'.

...just leaves it so he can relax a bit.

thanks for playing

are in hissy-fit mode.

It's a terrible thing when one's own words and deeds come back to bite them in the ass.

Said his real name is Glen Cadillac El Dorado Presley, and that he's tired of denying his roots.

Because in certain ways they criticize Obama from the left and that is not to be endured, criticism from the right is welcomed however that from the left is anathema.

and people on the left who level that criticism against Obama will be attacked as though they are more dangerous than the Republicans themselves.

The goal is to force folks on the left to fall in line.

You vastly overestimate the power of DU, methinks.

Some people seem to have an obsession about those two.. And their evil minions here on DU..

Ron Greenwald is all over the first page of DU..

I don't have to watch news to know if someone has said or done something. I can tell by the gazillion threads posted about the topic on DU for a couple of days.

I imagine those two will fade into the background soon enough.

While her pit bull is locked in the car outside in the heat along with her gun?

Some subjects just take on a life of their own on DU, I suspect Glenn Paul is going to be one of those subjects.

Which is why I said "in some ways"..

While he rejects the rights of women, miniorities, and homosexuals. Fuckin' hell. He's not equal to any progressive or liberal I know and not even worth defending and yet I see you speak up for the man. Oy.

Where it comes from is a screaming, insane shit-house.

Or the anti war portion either.

Not that political thought is limited to two dimensions anyway..

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

Not a single one.

Libertarian, yes, left, no.

Neither of whom are nearly as far to the right as Obama..

Okay I can see progressives defending the libertarian, Greenwald, but you're also defending the racist homophobic sexist bastard Paul and making them victims? I'm sickened.

In other words, a big meta food fight, like always.

Personally, I haven't paid his name much mind, since it's re-hashed and getting rather crispy now.

Lie big. Lie often.

while dishonestly pretending not to.

though I would totally disagree with that characterization of what Greenwald wrote on Paul.

Most of the anti-Greenwald posts relate to his personal life, his sexuality, decade old war opinions and legal work, an off-color joke that he commented on, etc.

In other words, a group of posters is trying to dig up any and every piece of "dirt" they can find on him.

praise on Paul and dismisses Paul's insanity as imperfections.

He also labels any liberal who prefers Obama to Paul as an accessory to evil.

He is not a progressive--he is an unreconstructed libertarian who is more aligned with Paul than Obama.

Greenwald clearly admires Paul, just as he clearly personally hates Obama with a passion.

Though, not as much as he hated the people trying to sue his Nazi buddy.

The separation of the 2 sides of uh.....DU......was better for getting along I think. Just my opinion.

If you think trash-talking on one forum, then lurking it and reporting back like middle-schoolers is 'better for getting along', then maybe that was better.

Personally, I say lance the boil. Things could get a little interesting when GE mode kicks in.

It won't be interesting, it will be even more boring than it's become.

Which is a good thing for me, helps me get over my DU addiction.

...but I know better than that.



NGU.

You post hateful Ron Paul pumping screeds, it's going to bite you in the ass.

And people will go on to defend GG for replying a rape joke highly inappropriately.

threatening to violate them.

it`s interesting that one person`s opinion has captured this board for several days now.

i would have thought this board could put this issue to rest by now.

I probably shouldn't have kicked those threads from last night when I woke up.

as if he's some sort of progressive icon, when he is really not that at all. It's important for people to fight back and reveal the huge deficits of this mostly libertarian (yes, his original blog was a Libertarian hotbed, he's worked for the Cato Institute, and praises Gary Johnson and Ron Paul). To show how he fully supported the Citizen's United ruling, how he published virulent anti-immigrant writings, how he defended a neo-Nazi beyond the point at which this scum (currently serving a decades-long prison sentence for soliciting the murder of the judge in the case Greenwald was defending him in).

My, my people: you can't take honest criticism of your flawed heroes? It's okay to bash your "enemies" in the name of "principled criticism," but god forbid anyone should tell the truth about your demigods.

People pretending he is a progressive are just being dishonest, imo.

But yes, they get a bit of blowback they go right into victim mode. It's hilarious. I'm so glad they joined GD and GDP.

Where all of the really smart and politically pure posters (progressives only - no Republicans allowed!) are suggesting we waste our vote and throw the election in order to teach ourselves (Democrats) a lesson.

Except now they are supporting a goofball Republican candidate because a 'progressive' independent talking head has given him the proper stamp of approval. We're making progress!

That's it. Full stop.