eom

"Could This Simply Be Journalistic Jealousy"

...I'm sure that criticism of Greenwald is "jealousy."

What was that about "FUD"?

eom

Good company you keep, Prosense.

And when you claim this is guilt by association and idiotic, I will have to turn those claims right back on you. How idiotic is it to demand that Greenwald not be paid for his work? You certainly get paid for yours.

I miss those.

And when you do, who is this person you're talking about? Some random internet flamer?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Your abusive approach and repeat of ad homina allegations just earned this thread another rec.

Merry Christmas.

I merely quoted the third post down on Youtube that Prosense linked to. Since she has a habit of smearing anyone who supports Greenwald or Snowden as a Paulite, Prosense can hardly argue about being linked to racist comments by those who agree with her.

Oh, and Happy Holidays. Not all of us are Christian.

I feel quite sorry for you.

That doesn't explain or excuse your repeating the tired old allegations about "payment," though. What's next? Will I be labeled an "agent," or a "shill," or somebody's "sockpuppet"? I've seen it all directed at people who have the temerity to pipe up in the last few months, funnily enough usually in threads about Snowden, and it's fucking boring, TBH, not to mention entirely unpersuasive.

I auto-recommend any Prosense thread I happen to read where people like you are piling on in the usual tedious fashion that makes DU suck. If I could have been bothered I'd have alerted on your comment, but it's Christmas.

It is Christmas here, whether you or I believe in it or not, Mr. Snippy. Have a lousy one, then. I should care.

And since you are obviously here to do nothing more than act as an attack dog for another poster I'm going to have to take steps to ensure you never have to feel sorry for me again.

Bye-bye

Heh, Look at your own posts above on this thread.

And if you mean I'm now on your ignore list, o brave internet warrior, I'll wear that with pride.

you might consider that others are able to read at a faster rate than you.

venturing into them at all is pretty much scouring.

And I'll match you at speedreading any day, ace.

scouring would indicate hours of research. you got your ass handed to you and now you want to save face by getting into some dick swinging or speed reading contest. go troll someone else, sport.

Sorry. I thought I was replying to an adult. My mistake.

Talk about "guilt by association!"

Where's your link with that hate-speech in it, so we can determine if the two comments are at all related, and why didn't you include it with that accusatory post?

And what's with this "paid" shit? This is a Democratic site--you're acting like it's some sort of crime for people who support Democrats to gather here.

Now, if I wanted to get all accusatory, I suppose I could certainly make something of THAT.

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017165892

Apparently this gal in the video is a regular on America's #1 conspiracy theorists radio show, Alex Jones.

"Apparently this gal in the video is a regular on America's #1 conspiracy theorists radio show, Alex Jones. "

...suggesting that she's a kook?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023309559

How can anyone doubt he's in this for the money? Snowden was played like a Monopoly game token.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

God forbid someone make... money.

"Reminds me of the right-wing criticism of Al Gore. God forbid someone make... money."

...every criticism of people for selling out for money remind you of that?

he was in it only for the money. Surely you remember that. Just like what's being done to Greenwald/Snowden. Gore was right. So are Greenwald/Snowden.

"Wingnuts attempted to disparage Gore by suggesting...he was in it only for the money."

So you're absolutely certain that there is no validity to the points made in the OP?

And while you're at it, here's a link for donations to Boiling Frogs Post:

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/support-us/

I'm not watching an hour-long anti-Snowden/Greenwald video on Christmas Day.

"How much did Greenwald pay Snowden?

I'm not watching an hour-long anti-Snowden/Greenwald video on Christmas Day. "

...of Sarah Palin.

Seriously, there would be no point to this thread if such information was out there in detail, would there?

The OP doesn't make the claim, but does make some good points and raise a number of interesting questions. You should watch it on another day.

Definitely someone I'd rather not think about on Christmas Day.

I don't have a problem with that. But Greenwald is purposely holding back documents Snowden gave him for his book deal. That does not sound like someone 'working for truth' as he wants to portray himself.

It sounds more like someone who is trying to get out from under his tax problems in the U.S.

Still, making money is not to be disdained. But Greenwald is no 'hero of the people' as he wants to portray himself. It's good to remain skeptical of anyone, especially those who portray themselves as heroes.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

tax problems or not.

I don't follow every utterance of Edward Snowden, but has he actually said he considers himself a "hero of the people"? Or is that DU projection on to him?

Skepticism is good, no argument there.

Always passive-aggressively hinting at his own nobility. But it's just my impression.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

It didn't make him a great writer.

Greenwald is holding back certain documents for his book deal. He's joining the owner of Paypal and Ebay in order to continue to write. None of this sounds honorable, imo. Especially when nothing he's published that Snowden gave him has been any sort of 'smoking gun'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

Interesting allegation. I'm curious to see the objective supporting evidence which cannot be interpreted as anything else but supporting the allegation.

Men and women like Greenwald were born to bitterly nibble at the feet of these great leaders, without any real objective other than to supplement deficiencies in genetics and biology that render them useless to make themselves feel more important than they would be outside the chaos they unleash upon the world. And nothing good ever comes from it.

Graham4 is that you?

Or one of his minions.

Yes, because those who happen to be in support of anything or anyone are... sucking cock.

Get a grip. Two-handed, preferably.

If it were that big, I'd be doing something other than posting on message boards.

Messiah complex?

I would consider the desire to silence whistle blowers and journalist a fascist meme.

That is the most laughable pile of shit I have heard in quite some time!

Yeah men and women like Barack Obama were born to lead. So was Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher, George Bush, Tony Blair, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, John McCain, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, I could fucking do this all day.

"Nibble bitterly at their feet"... You mean, be a journalist and actually report what you see before they fuck us all into oblivion? Yeah bad thing that...

"Nothing Good ever comes of it"... You know what you are 100% right. Journalism never helped anyone. We should just let these born leaders do whatever the fuck they want whenever they want with no oversight and no one to tell them NO. Complete and utter secrecy to do whatever they want behind closed doors.

After all they were born to lead who am I to question their Omnipotent powers!

*Clears throat 1*
REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

These whack jobs are making DU suck. Enough of the dumb shit already. Seriously.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 26, 2013, 12:19 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think the whack job is the poster this person is responding to. Let it stand and let the post that is responded to be alerted on.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Nothing here to hide, no rule broken, Stop using
alerts to get posts hidden unnecessarily.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I see nothing wrong with this post beyond that the sentiments in it were expressed somewhat clumsily. Indeed, nobody, including President Obama, is "born to lead".
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Not hideworthy IMO
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Still think the poster should get an award.

I don't say that lightly and usually I'd be far and away the last person to bring up such a comparison. But, seriously, "deficiencies in genetics and biology?" Are you joking?

will go to the mat to defend the Clintons and their six-figure speaking engagements. I also wonder if these same people provide their goods and services for free.

used to eschew. $$$$$$$$$$$.

Or at least it's supposed to be. Look, this says more about you than me. Mostly that you seem to live in this black and white world of hero worship.

Let's examine the goals of this thread to illustrate that point.

In YOUR world, the goal is to make party A (let's use the Cryptographer placeholder name Alice) flawless and above reproach. Of course, Alice is actually human and therefore fallible. But we mustn't think this because in fanboi all heroes are above reproach. Kinda what Christianity does when you think about it. But I guess that's how politics has to be.

If Party B (Bob) points out something Alice did that makes Alice not flawless and above reproach an immediate kneejerk response is to make sure Bob's reputation is tarnished so that becomes the story instead of Alice's flaws.

The first way to try to do this is to try to find fault directly. You know, boxes in the garage, the pole-dancing girlfriend, mean to neighbors, school dropout. Whatever. Fling poo and hope some sticks.

But six months of that didn't work, so on to page 2 in the playbook.

Find party C (Carl) who has done something noteworthy and laudable as well. Carl can criticize Bob, possibly for very valid reasons. In black-and-white fairy tale land, this means that we're supposed to pick Carl's opinion over Bob's, therefore keeping us from realizing that oh-mah-god Alice might not be perfect!

If we don't then obviously the comeback is that we repudiated poor Carl after all. Why do we hate Carl?

Seriously, try living in the real world.

Alice has done a lot of good things but as a human being is going to have a few flaws, the massive flip-flop on NSA surveillance being a major (and rather cowardly) one IMHO. Reforms are promised, indicating that there WERE and ARE problems in the system. We'll see if they are made in good faith.

Bob wouldn't be my choice for a best friend, but brought vital information about things being done in our collective names into the public debate. Personality is irrelevant when it comes to action.

Carl's opinion has validity, but it is fairly balanced by other NSA whistleblowers as well as two very respected members of the intelligence committee who were warning us about this for years. Not accepting that opinion is not a general repudiation of Carl.

That is called nuance. I know that political types often times feel they can't afford it to stay on message, but I find it helps out in my life immeasurably.

"Let's examine the goals of this thread to illustrate that point. "

..."let's examine the goals" of your comments: Leave Greenwald alone!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024228191#post56
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024231709#post41

Tis' amusing to see the amount of energy you spend on trying to prevent an avalanche that is already tumbling down the mountain.

Nope, I'm about the issue. Certainly, I feel that Greenwald and Snowden did an important service but I am hardly worried about needing someone completely flawless to front my cause.

That's your department...

"Actually, at this point it's just gloating on my part.

Tis' amusing to see the amount of energy you spend on trying to prevent an avalanche that is already tumbling down the mountain. "

...our children learning?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024223859#post10


"Nope, I'm about the issue. Certainly, I feel that Greenwald and Snowden did an important service but I am hardly worried about needing someone completely flawless to front my cause. "

"Gloating": "I'm about the issue," but Greenwald and Snowden are heroes!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024202440#post20

Speaking of "flawless," that was some escape, huh?

the way you treat him as if you were a spurned Heather.

Nothing..

No, seriously.

LOL!

K & R