I can remember when DU loved them some Glenn Greenwald.

Interesting to see the demand to blindly follow and adore a pundit, no matter what HE says.

deal with the issues and has power to do it - pundits can criticize all day, but they don't know for sure is they are right about how the President should handle things - their suggestions aren't put to the test - all they have to do is write and say them.

I would K and R it

baseless charges get traction in the media.

He's basically lining up with those clowns over at Fox News.

Greenwald holds Obama to the same standards he held Bush to. When he held Bush to those standards, he was a hero here.

The double standard is sickening.

I don't like motherfuckers that help Republicans impeach Democrats. And I frankly don't give a rat's ass WHAT you "believe" unless you're going to start some Benghazi nonsense in here.

But Nancy Pelosi took that off the table as you might recall.

It wasn't a popular move here on DU either.

I don't give a flying fuck what Glenn may or may not have done or said about someone/something else at some other time or place. He's not my child. He's not my husband. I don't have to love him. I don't even have to like him. As a matter of fact, I can detest him, which I do, because he's an intentionally deceitful sack of horse shit.

I think I've made my opinion quite clear.

care for a truffle? I got the good ones...

White chocolate please!

It's amazing how anybody can defend this sack of horse-shit Libertarian-posing-as-a-Liberal {which he never claimed he ever was} -racist-KKK defender against a Democratic president on a Democratic Party supporting site.

I guess trolls come in all shapes and colors, as we've seen.

I agree with everything you've written in your post, DevonRex.

I'm not holding back anymore. Enough is enough.
[URL=http://www.sherv.net/emoticons.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

And just so you know...I like what I've been reading. Keep up the good fight, DevonRex!

Stop it.

EarlG? A quick check in the mirror should clear that right up.

"I don't like motherfuckers that help Republicans impeach Democrats."

Nobody is currently impeaching any Democrat, or advancing a proposal to do so.

"You love Glenn and Hate Nancy?"

Nobody said they love or hate anyone.

Cult behavior. That's twice.

I'm putting you on ignore now, because you are far too vulnerable to emotional manipulation by others to engage in rational discussion. Bye!

That's just arguing. Extremist labeling is no help whatsoever.

heart all to bits. BITS I tell you!

a homophobe below somewhere. Said nothing Obama will ever say or do could possibly change his opinion about him. It's not surprising that he still uses the cult bullshit.

Since even they don't have the will to impeach Obama, and it's their extremists likely trashing Boehner for not doing it.

I would use the word "apologists," as in one of Greenwald's favorite labels: "Obama apologist."

Here he is jumping on the Fox Noise/RW "Benghazirama," and somehow that doesn't elicit outrage, but defense. The irony is that the defense of someone spewing RW talking points is in the name of purity over party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022826668

Greenwald has always been RW. Now he can finally be himself. He doesn't have to pretend anymore. I'm sure he'll be penning an impeachment piece soon - pro, of course. And, as usual, his facts will be all wrong but The GeeGees will turn a blind eye. FDL, RT and Common Dreams will celebrate at the prospect of a glorious revolution that won't happen. When they finally give up waiting for it, Glenn will write another piece explaining that the lack of glorious revolution was ALSO Obama's fault.

You are on a roll tonight!

Pretty much anyone that reads those sites repeats the "Obama is evil" meme.

There might be something in it, as a liberal further left than Obama might not agree he should try to compromise on an issue, etc., but this Benghazi stuff? Defending Greenwald on that is as bad as the constant agreement with Obama we are supposed to display (worse because Greenwalk is only a journalist who has no political power and doesn't have to deal with the House). Because in this particular issue, Bush had several embassy attacks which went by in the news without a ton of investigations. Greenwalkd output can easily be looked at to see if he thought there should be hearings on those?

...but Benghazi? Really?

over Earth.

Apparently, the killing is just fine as long as it's "freelance" - which - it ISN'T because it comes out of the TAXES that some of us who aren't rich enough to get MONEY BACK FROM THE IRS and pay not taxes at all in some really big corporate-"persons".

Do we ever see anything from GG about any of the above?

How many innocent dead people (from drone or from billions of PRIVATELY SOLD ASSAULT WEAPONS) is being WRONG worth?

something different.

. . . over a bunch of dead bodies.

Ha.

in order to get the President. It's not that he's hold Obama to the same standard as Bush, it's that he is now holding himself to the same standards as FAUX which is no standards at all.

I'm not surprised there are some here on DU who would rather defend that racist Ron Paul KKK lovin' "Libertarian" who once defended another person on Twitter who said that "Obama could rape a nun live on NBC and you’d say we weren’t seeing what we were seeing."

This bit is interesting:

Apparently rabies has come back into style.

not everyone on DU is a Democrat or a supporter of the Democratic Party, and I judge who is what by the posts they bear, not by their status here. It's a fact that Trolls come in all shapes and sizes.

Integrity is superior to any party loyalty.

Look what putting ideology ahead of the law did to the repukes. They are traitors who lied America into war and emptied the Treasury for their cronies.

Now the best and brightest Dems are going along with the GOP theft and warmongering, right in the open.

I'm not going along with it, either. We used to call it selling out.

I'm not sure you saw the show. On that point, he was a full of baseless assertions and bull as Darrell Issa.


But swerve to your hero!

with equal fervor!

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

He isn't a complete moron

Do you still agree with him even though he couldn't name anything?

That's like saying, that if GG accused the Obama administration of lying and being corrupt (even about Benghazi), you're on board with that.

Seeing how GG has been wrong in the past about some things that he's accused Obama of doing, that's really a troubling position to take, in my opinion.

Or did he at some point morph from blogger to muckraker?

Like any human Glenn isn't perfect but I get the impression he says and writes what he actually thinks. I spent quite a bit of time on his blog back in the Cheney regency and got into a couple of back and forths with him in the comments section when I thought he was wrong about something, he always struck me as honest even if a bit prolix and bullheaded at times.

We see how that turned out.

A stopped clocked is right twice a day.

He's parroting Fox talking points on Benghazi… If he really believes that shit, that's fucking ridiculous.

But, maybe this will give him another opportunity to revert to honesty.

Who knows?

For all I know he may well still be living in Brazil, I haven't followed him closely in a while, other interests have become more important to me in the meantime.

Obama was not in favor of gay marriage until not all that long ago either, you might recall his "evolving" position on that subject.

Frankly I see Obama on at least a couple of subjects being a huge hypocrite, personally I like the man and quite a bit of what he does but he does piss me off sometimes and there are times it's obvious that he's not being entirely truthful.

Personally, I think that evolving positions about different matters is perfectly natural.

No one is ever right about everything all of the time.

The key is where one is going, not always where one has been.

And everyone has an agenda whether they know it consciously or not.

For me gay marriage has been a no brainer for as long as I can remember, I'm not remotely gay but I grew up around gay men because my mother was an antique dealer who had many gay friends and we partied a lot together at shows, they treated a kind of strange little kid better than most of the straights I knew. I honestly never could see why any reasonable person would object to gays marrying, particularly someone like Obama whose parents' marriage would have been illegal in a number of states when he was born.

Evidently you were upset with Greenwald because he was unable to read Obama's mind.

And did it in such a way that drew a lot of attention to himself. When events turned out be unlike what he depicted them to be, where was his mea culpa?

I found his campaign to be wholly self-serving

Was Greenwald supposed to assume Obama was lying about his own mind?

And he was wrong… Obama didn't turn out to run an anti-gay administration.

I wondered myself how such an apparently rational person could be so blind or callous in a situation so nearly analagous to that of his own parents.

Don't blame people because they're not 11 dimensional chess players. I read plenty of hurt feelings right here on DU about Obama's stand against gay marriage at that time.

I don't.

I think Obama, regarding GLBT issues, has done for purely political reasons what religion "informed" homophobes do when they don't want to ruin the family reunion. He's kept the peace, but he's made it very, very clear he's not at all gay-friendly, despite his actions. Actions may speak louder than words, but when they disagree and the actions are favorable to me and mine, distrust is sown. Deeply.

I see in Obama the exact same attitude and behavior I've seen in my own mother.

That does not inspire trust. In fact, it inspires very deep misgivings and very deep mistrust in me, and I know I am not the only one who feels that way.

Let me put it this way: I would much rather Obama were honest in words and actions, and consistent with those, than to see him say one thing, do another, "change", "evolve", and whatever else. I don't know if, regarding gay rights, he is a friend, an enemy, a friend who says he's an enemy, an enemy who says he's a friend, simply a politician who takes the most expedient route, or something in between. I will not ever really trust anything he does for us GLBTs as being the act of a genuine supporter of the cause and principle of equal rights for all sexual orientations. The sum of all his actions on that score, as well as everything he has ever said, lead me to that, and it is unalterable as far as I'm concerned.

There is, in the most literal sense possible, nothing supportive he can do to change my mind. No legislative, judicial, or executive act of support led by him will ever be able to change my mind about that, no matter how grand and generous. That ship sailed in the first five minutes of his inauguration to his first term, because I listened to him when he told me the first time, as Maya Angelou advised... and that day was it.

defending doma in court with a brief that could have been written by the frc. Refusing to do anything about DADT. Having an aid who called being gay a lifestyle choice. Not speaking to any reporter for a publication that caters to the gay community for almost 2 years. Oh, and let's not forget that Obama, while Senator, supported a bill forbidding gays from sponsoring spouses for citizenship. I can't imagine why he wondered if that administration was anti gay.

Yes, things turned out well but the fact is until the middle of 2010, it was a very fair question to ask if this administration cared one whit about what gays thought or did. It took a rather famous bout of both vocal and monetary protests from gays to finally get this administration to pay attention to gays and gay issues. Now, if he were saying this stuff now, and not in early 2010 and late 2009, you would have a point in asking your question. But it was a fair question to ask when Greenwald asked it.

That the Administration wouldn't eventually pursue the role that it did.

The problem, apparently, was that the Administration wasn't moving at the pace that GG desired. Dropping everything and going whole hog right off the bat to kill DADT and fight DOMA.

The collapsing economy and getting our troops out of Iraq be damned… Hurry up and do it all by his lonesome, they wanted, in spite of the fact that if any subsequent administration that comes around which would be hostile to gay rights, they could easily undo his actions and could turn back the clock. In spite of the fact that, had he done what they had desired when they wanted him to do when they wanted him to do it, it would undermine any permanent removal of DADT and DOMA.

No, instead Obama had to use stop-gap administrative measures to fix things that Congress put in place, in their narrative. Or else he wasn't serious about these issues. Cut that Gordian Knot with administrative action, or else you hate gay people.

Again, we see where we are now, versus where we were then.

Now, I'm not saying that there was anything wrong with being impatient with fighting injustice, but both he and John Aravosis did quite a bit of misrepresenting the Administration's desired outcome during that debate and much of it was discussed here.

Yes, I had faith that Obama would eventually do right on DADT and DOMA and perhaps that was because of the advantage of 22 years that I spent in uniform and being stationed in DC during much of that time as a witness to how the Government really operates, that I recognized that Greenwald's and Avarosis' narratives were both unfair and dishonest…

However, now that we see that things didn't turn out the way that they said that they were. They turned out much differently.

When Greenwald, just last night, parroted FOX/GOP talking points that Obama needs to be investigated because he "lied" or whatever about Benghazi, that really doesn't put my faith in him that he's being an honest broker today.

differently' because not only is DOMA the law, but LGBT people can still be legally discriminated against in 29 States in employment and housing. Not just in marriage, which is not equal anywhere in the US.
I'm sick of straights who declare that things 'turned out' well when nothing has turned yet at all.
It's turned out much differently? In what way? Obama muttered a few words and stopped hiring openly bigoted surrogates! Wow!
Hubris on the half shell.

It's not happening at the pace that any us desire it to happen, but there is no doubt that progress has happened, both in the states and with the President's leadership.

You know, as I do, that the President does NOT have the power to set aside laws passed by Congress.

Just because things are not right now doesn't mean that they ever will be right.

Instead of heaping ALL of the responsibility on the back of Obama, there are folks who are taking the matters in hand.

Two more states have just passed marriage equality recently… It's not like nothing has happened after all of this time.

was worth it. You say things have 'turned out' differently. You say the right thing has been done about DOMA, just like you always knew it would be. But it still the law. You should just admit that.
The condescending crap about the President's powers, as if you need to teach the stupid gay guy, when you can not even speak honestly for one moment about the history of the issue at hand makes me ill.
You don't even respond to what I write.Because you already know all and are here only to impart,not to learn.

and avarois than yours. I base that on several things. One, the administration said repeatedly that they were planning on waiting until 2011 to repeal DADT. Now let's be blunt here, anyone with a political pulse knew we would lose the House in the 2010 elections making that an impossibility. Two, the administration only started really working gay issues when both vocal protests and monetary protests made the administration start to act. Three, even then, DADT only got repealed after it was clear that no budget deal could be made. Now, after the gay revolt and the polls started going well on gay marriage, Obama did stand up. But, frankly what I see was an administration dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing.

Now as to the other point. Greenwald never used the word lied. He did say, accurately, that some of what was said, turned out not to be accurate. Where I disagree with Greenwald is on the need for an investigation since I think the reason for there being some accuracy issues is the cia compound.

So your notion that criticism of bigotry was unwarranted is specious. I stopped reading Greenwald when he supported the Iraq war. Still I can understand why he'd go after Obama who voted against the Uniting American Families Act in the Senate and spent the vast majority of his public career so far opposing our basic rights in absurd, magical bullshit language. To claim that a man who says gay people are not 'sanctified' and don't have the 'spiritual element' straights do deserves logic and reason when he is criticized seems to be a flat out double standard. Obama had Donnie McClurkin as surrogate, man. 'We are at war' he said on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson. Told people to take off the gloves and attack us because he said we were 'trying to kill our children'. That is the level of discourse Mr Obama instigated, that was the tone of his first campaign. He had Rick Warren at the Inaugural just days after Warren said gay people are like pedophiles or incest.
You can forget that horrific crap because you are Sanctified by Goddy God and other highly logical and respectful arguments for the superiority of some. How nice for you. Your community not only prevents others from having equal rights but you also hound those who dare suggest your superior role might be made of pretentious superstition and wicked cultural baggage.
Here is Rick Warren, Obama said he was America's Minister and lauded him days after this crap. Own this along with your judgements:
" RICK WARREN: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

STEVEN WALDMAN: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

RICK WARREN: Oh I do. …
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/12/18/rick-warren-compares-gay-marriage-to-incest-pedophila/

By fighting DOMA and killing DADT eventually.

It's just that that guilt by association thingie never really represented the Administration's actual outcomes.

He hired McClurkin as surrogate. Do you know what that word means? I assume you do but you are being obtuse. And Warren, he selected and named for honors demanded that he was America's Minister. After Warren had said all of that hate speech.
Good lord. DOMA is still the law. 29 States your people can discriminate against mine legally openly and they do so. In housing. In employment. Yet you are typing that things 'turned out' well. Just disgusting.
I don't like Greenwald, but I care far less for bigots who hate my people, and for those who hire them, defend them and allow hate laws to continue.
Outcomes. Wow.

Could have served as a way to taint them against their own positions of bigotry and bigoted bases.

Now, I'm will concede that Obama may have viewed what influence those two would have in faith circles and popular media as less relevant as their positions on gay rights. Seeing how he's just as willing as every other politician in this country to triangulate with religious types, obviously that's problematic as Obama is willing to dally in that arena.

Warren's a popular author and McClurkin a popular singer outside of their positions on gay rights. Perhaps that was his way in to an advantage against what they stand for.

But much in the way that only anti-Commie Nixon could go to China, we now have a President Obama who can tell these two that they're absolutely wrong on their positions about Gay Rights…

Anti-gay Warren and McClurkin now have worked with a President who supports gay rights… Where is THEIR credibility now?