Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
197 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So Greenwald weighs in...telling us to read Kennedy's concurrence, noting that Ginsburg is incorrect (Original Post) msanthrope Jun 2014 OP
He's always been an a**h***. CherokeeDem Jun 2014 #1
The thing is....I agree the NSA should be exposed, but as Cryptome has pointed out, GG's msanthrope Jun 2014 #2
I know..... CherokeeDem Jun 2014 #10
You can read GG's book for free on the Cryptome site...it's pretty apparent msanthrope Jun 2014 #11
His appearance on Bill Maher's show.... CherokeeDem Jun 2014 #13
Ask yourself why it doesn't. Personally, I think we are watching internecine msanthrope Jun 2014 #14
That could be true... CherokeeDem Jun 2014 #20
Yep. joshcryer Jun 2014 #51
Well said. I have thought that myself and agree with you. Justice Jun 2014 #22
He's using it to sell books and shit too uponit7771 Jun 2014 #36
that's what all of this is mostly for him JI7 Jun 2014 #61
We are not surprised. frazzled Jun 2014 #3
That sweet, sweet Omidayar money, coupled with being of the 'owner' class, undoubtedly msanthrope Jun 2014 #6
This ought to be good. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #4
I expect to be accused of smearing GG by quoting GG. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #7
The BEST way to smear GG is t let GG speak. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #8
"Let an asshole be an asshole." nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #9
See post #143. joshcryer Jul 2014 #170
I adore him, but don't agree with him on this issue. Fawke Em Jul 2014 #132
Good. any day is a good day for a FUCK GREENWALD thread. BootinUp Jun 2014 #5
Well - we could have just ignored his statements - would that have been preferable? nt el_bryanto Jun 2014 #17
No, not any day. pnwmom Jul 2014 #173
He probably jizzed himself just like his worship for the Citizens United decision. Fuck him. n/t Tarheel_Dem Jun 2014 #12
Glenn Greenwald has offered nothing of value to this world. Dawson Leery Jun 2014 #15
He's a weasel.....a Libertarian one. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #16
This^^^ Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jul 2014 #195
the visceral hatred on this thread is shameful... grasswire Jun 2014 #18
Yeah...I fucking hate overprivileged white Libertarians who could give two msanthrope Jun 2014 #19
Incredibly fucking paternalistic-thank you! bettyellen Jun 2014 #23
Yeah...if you read the white male opinion on your reproductive rights, bettyellen, you'll msanthrope Jun 2014 #25
Damn.....what she said. Bobbie Jo Jun 2014 #63
You seem to judge a lot of people by their gender, race and religion. hugo_from_TN Jun 2014 #78
Ya know what's even less "productive"? GG. Tarheel_Dem Jul 2014 #84
I'm no Greenwald fan hugo_from_TN Jul 2014 #87
this has a lot to do with gender, race and religion JI7 Jul 2014 #90
Well, between the liberal woman who sued the military, and the Libertarian who defended a Nazi, msanthrope Jul 2014 #97
Right on! Well said! MADem Jul 2014 #131
+1000. pnwmom Jul 2014 #194
What's shameful is GGs overt hackery and the reflexive support for it uponit7771 Jun 2014 #37
It's no more important than... Wait Wut Jun 2014 #46
I haven't seen anyone discuss Palin's, Limbaugh's or.. grasswire Jul 2014 #96
He's Not A Likable Guy otohara Jun 2014 #64
so GG is just a comedian now... VanillaRhapsody Jul 2014 #104
Isn't that the excuse the ditto heads use everytime Limbaugh jumps the shark? Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jul 2014 #196
+10000 Typical propaganda tactic. Deliberately trying to incite visceral emotion to override logic. woo me with science Jul 2014 #146
Why? It's the same outrage that is being directed at everyone who supports this pnwmom Jul 2014 #172
Exactly Andy823 Jul 2014 #193
In fairness he only is discussing whether corporations have religous rights dsc Jun 2014 #21
No...in fairness, he's pushing the idea that the religious rights of the owner class allow them to msanthrope Jun 2014 #24
I notice you didn't answer my examples dsc Jun 2014 #41
I didn't answer your examples because I didn't want to be rude and point out to you that msanthrope Jun 2014 #54
Any ruling or law that further transfers "human" rights to corporations is wrong. bluesbassman Jun 2014 #39
so the Congress could pass a law banning corporate owned newspapers from dsc Jun 2014 #40
Much as your "kosher" analogy is false these are too. bluesbassman Jun 2014 #42
If a jurisidiction passed a law banning kosher slaughtering dsc Jun 2014 #43
again your analogies are assuming the laws were passed to restrict religious freedom. bluesbassman Jun 2014 #45
there would be no court hearing under your theory that is my point dsc Jun 2014 #47
Of course there would be court hearings. bluesbassman Jun 2014 #58
I really don't know what else to say to you dsc Jun 2014 #59
You know, it's sad when a debater resorts to insults. bluesbassman Jun 2014 #60
Someone injecting imaginary facts into a debate about reality is where i try to jump off also. nolabels Jul 2014 #126
HHS already exempted non profits. joshcryer Jun 2014 #48
and how you never learned to read, I don't know dsc Jun 2014 #49
This isn't about the corporation, it's about the employees. joshcryer Jun 2014 #50
can you think of a single hypothetical case that would actually make it to court? bettyellen Jun 2014 #72
I'll help! OilemFirchen Jul 2014 #86
Paul Reikoff destroyed him on Maher's show the other day! Totally destroyed him! Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2014 #26
Greenwald loses one on one arguments all the time. BootinUp Jun 2014 #28
That's probably because he does not represent the "Liberal PoV." eom. 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #29
Yes, there is that. BootinUp Jun 2014 #30
Absolutely... CherokeeDem Jun 2014 #31
Nothing against Reikoff (he has done excellent work for veterans) Dawson Leery Jul 2014 #111
Assholes can still do a lot of good. NCTraveler Jun 2014 #27
Grayson is an abrasive liberal, Greenwald is a libertarian geek tragedy Jun 2014 #32
What is a "borderline white nationalist xenophobe" NCTraveler Jun 2014 #33
He used the same tropes about how illegal immigration geek tragedy Jun 2014 #34
No no no... that was "before I had a major blog" ... so ... that GG racism doesn't count /sarcsm uponit7771 Jun 2014 #38
It must be a Libertarian thing. Chan790 Jul 2014 #80
BUT WAAAAAAAAAAAIT... he and Snowden repeated what Obama said just louder and with stolen docs uponit7771 Jun 2014 #35
All hail corporations! joshcryer Jun 2014 #44
but he is attending a socialist event and took a pic with a member of the socialist party JI7 Jun 2014 #52
Greenwald is a right winger Cali_Democrat Jun 2014 #53
And there are those who insist otherwise. If Citizens United weren't enough, they defend even this. Tarheel_Dem Jun 2014 #57
Snowden, though!!!1! NSA!!11! LOOK AT ME I'M SUCH A LIBERAL LOOK AT ME LOOK!!!1! LadyHawkAZ Jun 2014 #55
Such a liberal, except when it comes to women and minorities. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #56
just another self loathing Republican..... VanillaRhapsody Jul 2014 #106
OMG, you got me ROFLMAO here! You crack me up. freshwest Jul 2014 #91
Thank you, msanthrope. Cha Jun 2014 #62
The mere mention of Greenwald turns some here into adolescent idiots TriplD Jun 2014 #65
Agreed! nt elias49 Jun 2014 #70
It's Greenwald who acts like an "adolescent idiot". He's such a "petulant hater". Cha Jul 2014 #79
DU would be better again... Chan790 Jul 2014 #82
It's all very serious business, the smear. woo me with science Jul 2014 #144
+1, they're embarrassing, I agree. Marr Jul 2014 #150
I'm sure everyone who leftynyc Jul 2014 #184
What a giant turd he is alcibiades_mystery Jun 2014 #66
Fuck the smear machine. Seriously. woo me with science Jun 2014 #67
Also, notice how they're conspicuously absent from Octafish's TISA thread? Electric Monk Jun 2014 #69
+100000 Isn't that remarkable? woo me with science Jun 2014 #71
I wish you could take the science part out of your handle LOL snooper2 Jun 2014 #73
Could probably take out the bit about "wooing" too... Number23 Jun 2014 #74
This. nt Bobbie Jo Jul 2014 #105
USA NSA USA NSA USA NSA n/t bobduca Jul 2014 #138
now on the other hand, your sig line you sport is perfect snooper2 Jul 2014 #139
yup just like your username bobduca Jul 2014 #140
Says I got paid $11.23 this last quarter to denounce your posts snooper2 Jul 2014 #148
Nah we both know i'm referring to your day job, not your hobby bobduca Jul 2014 #153
day job has been boring lately, just working on some PCI compliance issues snooper2 Jul 2014 #154
SOX compliance eh? bobduca Jul 2014 #155
We use a trusted third party and only get relatively small x number of warrants a year snooper2 Jul 2014 #156
You and me, we're network plumbers DisgustipatedinCA Jul 2014 #157
I think the NSA spends 90% of their time mining the public intertubes from all the slides- snooper2 Jul 2014 #158
They're not going to like this: the NSA review team says the NSA is doing a good job. randome Jul 2014 #160
Ah Mr Roffle Waffles, the mark of quality for any pro-nsa post! bobduca Jul 2014 #168
The OP is ardently against the spying machine. joshcryer Jun 2014 #76
War is Peace! woo me with science Jul 2014 #99
Lies are Truth! joshcryer Jul 2014 #121
I think you are correct, the OP seems rather shameless in the link you provided nolabels Jul 2014 #127
+1 woo me with science Jul 2014 #141
What's shameless about their comments there? joshcryer Jul 2014 #178
The exent of the post was to the OP's veracity nolabels Jul 2014 #182
Are we back to using "Stasi?" I've missed that! Again....I'm still waiting for.you msanthrope Jul 2014 #128
+1, wow-- hadn't seen that one. Marr Jul 2014 #152
Kindly cite a single post where I've 'defended' illegal actions by the NSA. I'll wait. nt msanthrope Jul 2014 #98
I had a host tell me I must support spying because I never post in NSA threads! bettyellen Jul 2014 #100
I bet I can guess which Host it was... SidDithers Jul 2014 #102
LOL. I think I know that host Cali_Democrat Jul 2014 #116
Yep Bobbie Jo Jul 2014 #120
Name drop, please. joshcryer Jul 2014 #125
It's against DU rules leftynyc Jul 2014 #185
Obviously, since I've never posted about my dislike of NAMBLA, I must be a member. nt msanthrope Jul 2014 #107
that is the level of paranoia and hatred here. and it's fucking up DU. bettyellen Jul 2014 #108
That's basically the idiotic sentiment. joshcryer Jul 2014 #124
tell me about it- I got a why don't "you people" meaning feminists and POC post on Snowden/ GG bettyellen Jul 2014 #164
Worse is when it's some issue not covered by the media. joshcryer Jul 2014 #175
yeah, feminists get the why do people ignore or get mad when I post about women having X happen in Y bettyellen Jul 2014 #176
You have been on record overturning these laws. joshcryer Jul 2014 #122
So Greenwald is smearing himself Cali_Democrat Jul 2014 #114
Machines don't smear people, personas do. bobduca Jul 2014 #136
+1 woo me with science Jul 2014 #142
+1, the only reason the usual crew cares about Greenwald's thoughts on this issue Marr Jul 2014 #151
+1 woo me with science Jul 2014 #163
You were not wrong... Tikki Jun 2014 #68
A question about what Greenwald ACTUALLY SAID (if we can stop flinging poo for a moment) Jim Lane Jun 2014 #75
This is an appeal to authority. joshcryer Jun 2014 #77
You set this out very clearly. Thanks. n/t pnwmom Jul 2014 #174
His observations are a mix of sophistry, lies, and presumption. OilemFirchen Jul 2014 #83
Yeah, it's obvious their dissent on RFRA is for flexibility. joshcryer Jul 2014 #92
Or... OilemFirchen Jul 2014 #94
KnR sheshe2 Jul 2014 #81
Post removed Post removed Jul 2014 #85
If it helps... OilemFirchen Jul 2014 #88
a good day for ignore reddread Jul 2014 #89
"unhinged" joshcryer Jul 2014 #93
Alert Swarming for the win! bobduca Jul 2014 #137
Well, that was ironic woo me with science Jul 2014 #143
Facts aren't smears. joshcryer Jul 2014 #169
You understate your point, but you are correct. Vattel Jul 2014 #110
+1 woo me with science Jul 2014 #147
That's expected. Libertarians are the architects of the coming Kochstitution, so they oppose Obama: freshwest Jul 2014 #95
No glen, Ginsburg is not correct. This ruling is specifically against women. In fact it says lostincalifornia Jul 2014 #101
DU rec for pissing off all the right people...nt SidDithers Jul 2014 #103
OMG, Greenwald didn't directly answer a tweeted question. He is so evil!!!!! Vattel Jul 2014 #109
Thank you for mansplaining to me why I shouldn't worry. nt msanthrope Jul 2014 #112
yw Vattel Jul 2014 #113
What does "yw" mean? msanthrope Jul 2014 #115
you're welcome Vattel Jul 2014 #117
Do I not rate full words? Capitals? Punctuation? nt msanthrope Jul 2014 #118
lol, IMHO prolly u do Vattel Jul 2014 #119
The OP's linked post doesn't link to where he linked the conservative reading. joshcryer Jul 2014 #123
The question he didn't directly answer was whether he agreed with the ruling. Vattel Jul 2014 #134
It doesn't matter whether he says he agrees. joshcryer Jul 2014 #171
The text makes no such distinction. The law applies to the free exercise of religion by persons. Vattel Jul 2014 #192
+10000 Any smear will do woo me with science Jul 2014 #145
I guess, but here is my puzzle. Vattel Jul 2014 #161
Well, woo me with science Jul 2014 #162
Some of it might be an organized attempt at disinformation and disruption, but Vattel Jul 2014 #165
Oh, I'm sure there's some of that, too. woo me with science Jul 2014 #166
You may be right. Be that as it may, the stupidity of most of the smears never ceases to amaze me. Vattel Jul 2014 #167
Bwah. Yeah, you're right. woo me with science Jul 2014 #177
Again we see his agenda isn't to do the right thing, it's to promote Libertarianism and... stevenleser Jul 2014 #129
But...but....but...! Snowden!!! MADem Jul 2014 #130
This thread has more fireworks in it than what Greenwald promised. randome Jul 2014 #133
HATE GREENWALD RAWR ARGLE BARGLE bobduca Jul 2014 #135
Okay! You're in! randome Jul 2014 #149
GREENWALD IS HIS OWN WORST FUCKING ENEMY. I can lock my caps, too. Cha Jul 2014 #181
you be nice now, as you can see I'm now a member of the kewl kids club bobduca Jul 2014 #186
Don't be paranoid.. I see no club. Cha Jul 2014 #188
Dang if it doesn't work for him flamingdem Jul 2014 #190
Ha, like the cult of GG gives a shit what he does.. he could go out and defend a misogynistic Cha Jul 2014 #191
How stupid of him to jump forums and speak! Now, WOMEN won't give a crap about Snowdon. TheNutcracker Jul 2014 #159
Uhmm...your link doesn't say what you claim. TheKentuckian Jul 2014 #179
There is much about him that bothers me. nt arthritisR_US Jul 2014 #180
Greenwald continues to be the snotty, self serving, CEO fellating little prick he has always been. phleshdef Jul 2014 #183
that that... fellator!1111 bobduca Jul 2014 #187
Ugh flamingdem Jul 2014 #189
It's The S&G Show! Now in its second exciting season! randome Jul 2014 #197
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
2. The thing is....I agree the NSA should be exposed, but as Cryptome has pointed out, GG's
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:00 PM
Jun 2014

rate of exposure will take over 30 years.

Also....he still has yet to expose anything illegal. I've asked numerous posters to describe a single criminal act, and no one....no one has been able to list one.

CherokeeDem

(3,709 posts)
10. I know.....
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:11 PM
Jun 2014

Personally, I think GG is using this situation for his own ego... I have doubts the release of documents were done for the good of the people.... but that's my opinion.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
11. You can read GG's book for free on the Cryptome site...it's pretty apparent
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:13 PM
Jun 2014

Greenwald is in it for the lulz.

CherokeeDem

(3,709 posts)
13. His appearance on Bill Maher's show....
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:31 PM
Jun 2014

was enough for me. I wish the entire NSA situation had credible spokespersons.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
14. Ask yourself why it doesn't. Personally, I think we are watching internecine
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:34 PM
Jun 2014

intelligence agency fighting, with GG and ES being used.

CherokeeDem

(3,709 posts)
20. That could be true...
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:38 PM
Jun 2014

with GG and ES serving as the patsies. What I don't know but need to find out is when did Snowden meet Greenwald, before or after he decided to take this step. I've never read about that timeline.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
51. Yep.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:05 PM
Jun 2014

Greenwald makes the perfect spokesman too, because he makes everything about himself, as opposed to the issues.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
3. We are not surprised.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:01 PM
Jun 2014

Neither are we amused.

I'd like to hear ONE person come to his defense on this worship at the Temple of private freedom for business. Freedom, bitches!

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
6. That sweet, sweet Omidayar money, coupled with being of the 'owner' class, undoubtedly
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:04 PM
Jun 2014

influences his writing.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
8. The BEST way to smear GG is t let GG speak.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:07 PM
Jun 2014

He makes the case against himself nearly every time he opens his mouth or types a tweet.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
132. I adore him, but don't agree with him on this issue.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:29 AM
Jul 2014

Why do I need to justify everything he does?

I'm not his keeper, not do I consider him a god.

He's wrong on this issue, but correct on others.

Anyone who has that 1 percenter corporate queen as an avatar needs to put their popcorn and their stones away.

Dawson Leery

(19,348 posts)
15. Glenn Greenwald has offered nothing of value to this world.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:38 PM
Jun 2014

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one of the greatest assets we have as a nation.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
18. the visceral hatred on this thread is shameful...
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:32 PM
Jun 2014

Greenwald's opinion (whatever it may be) on this issue has no impact. It's no more important than, say, Bill Maher's opinion (whatever it may be).

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
19. Yeah...I fucking hate overprivileged white Libertarians who could give two
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:37 PM
Jun 2014

shits about the rights of women as they serve up checkbook journalism.

I fucking hate nihilistic assholes who tell me I need to ignore a brilliant dissent by a Jewish female and read the conservative Catholic male concurrence for the "correct" viewpoint.

How fucking paternalistic is that, grasswire?

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
25. Yeah...if you read the white male opinion on your reproductive rights, bettyellen, you'll
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:47 PM
Jun 2014

understand the incredibly complex legal argument that GG and his ilk are pushing.

Namely...support of the owner class while standing on your uterus.

Don't read the opinions of women....because then you won't get it.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
97. Well, between the liberal woman who sued the military, and the Libertarian who defended a Nazi,
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:18 AM
Jul 2014

I know who I listen to.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
131. Right on! Well said!
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:24 AM
Jul 2014

I think GG got the fax with the talking points direct from the Koch boys. "Here's what you say, Glennie, and here's how you say it..."

But hey, Greenwald can do no wrong--David Koch told me so!

Wait Wut

(8,492 posts)
46. It's no more important than...
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:48 PM
Jun 2014

...Palin's, Limbaugh's, Coulter's or any FAUX News hack, yet we still discuss them.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
96. I haven't seen anyone discuss Palin's, Limbaugh's or..
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:59 AM
Jul 2014

....Coulter's analysis of the SCOTUS decision today. But even they, as pundits, would be , would be more appropriately discussed than an investigative journalist focused on the surveillance state, on this matter.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
146. +10000 Typical propaganda tactic. Deliberately trying to incite visceral emotion to override logic.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:23 AM
Jul 2014

I believe that tactic is specifically mentioned in the papers Snowden released re: the propaganda machines. Every stop is being pulled out to distract from the revelations of criminal government spying and to try to create visceral disgust re: the messengers.

I can't remember who posted that extremely long list of vile, highly emotional adjectives deployed against Snowden and Greenwald by the smear brigade.

That was a very telling thread.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
172. Why? It's the same outrage that is being directed at everyone who supports this
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:06 AM
Jul 2014

reprehensible decision.

GEG doesn't deserve an exception.

Andy823

(11,495 posts)
193. Exactly
Sat Jul 5, 2014, 03:24 PM
Jul 2014

But some here worship the ground that GG walks on, don't know why, but they do. Funny thing is that many of them are the same ones that try and paint anyone supports the president as "Obama bots who can't think for themselves. They claim that supporting the president equals blind loyalty and that these people NEVER disagree with the president of the party, even though I have never seen on poster say "Obama can do no wrong". Yet these same anti Obama posters seem to prove that for "THEM", there is NOTHING that GG can do wrong. Kind of says it all if you ask me.

dsc

(52,130 posts)
21. In fairness he only is discussing whether corporations have religous rights
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:40 PM
Jun 2014

and one wonders what would happen if a state passed a law banning kosher slaughtering on grounds of animal cruelty, would an incorporated slaughterhouse not have a right to sue? I would be uncomfortable with a blanket statement that no corporation could ever sue under the act. I think no one, other than an explicitly religious institution (ie a church or a religious order) should be exempt from this mandate but I can see a few rare instances where both corporations and people should have a right to sue for religious infringement.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
24. No...in fairness, he's pushing the idea that the religious rights of the owner class allow them to
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:44 PM
Jun 2014

deny their employees basic human rights and services, based solely on their particular mysticism.

The owner class has more religious freedom than you....that's what he's pushing.

dsc

(52,130 posts)
41. I notice you didn't answer my examples
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:54 PM
Jun 2014

could you be doing what Greenwald did and you found so bad.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
54. I didn't answer your examples because I didn't want to be rude and point out to you that
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:45 PM
Jun 2014

the SCOTUS case you are referencing really isn't on point.

bluesbassman

(19,310 posts)
39. Any ruling or law that further transfers "human" rights to corporations is wrong.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:32 PM
Jun 2014

Corporations are not people, they are legal entitities who's purpose has been twisted to the point that we are now seeing them being granted the same "rights" as we do for our people.

This is going beyond a slippery slope and we are in the midst of an avalanche.

dsc

(52,130 posts)
40. so the Congress could pass a law banning corporate owned newspapers from
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:53 PM
Jun 2014

endorsing candidates? Or maybe a city could close any corporate owned clinic which performs abortions? If corporations have no rights under the Constitution why couldn't the government pass those laws?

bluesbassman

(19,310 posts)
42. Much as your "kosher" analogy is false these are too.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:19 PM
Jun 2014

You are conflating the ability of a corporation to work within the framework of existing (or enacted) laws and ordinances with the SC's decision today that conferred upon the corporations the ability to frame their activities around "religiously held beliefs". Now I have no problem with controlling members of a corporation praying to whatever god/s they choose too, or living their own personal lives according to the tenets of their faith, but when they project those beliefs onto other citizens and deny them equal protection through the guise of a corporation, that extends a "right" to a corporation that was never intended by the authors of the Constitition, nor should it be embraced by the SCOTUS.

dsc

(52,130 posts)
43. If a jurisidiction passed a law banning kosher slaughtering
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:22 PM
Jun 2014

it would be, by definition, an existing law. If you don't like that example, try a law banning the sale of goods designed for Muslims? I think it would be easy to see a community doing exactly that. If the shop was incorporated under your theory they couldn't sue.

bluesbassman

(19,310 posts)
45. again your analogies are assuming the laws were passed to restrict religious freedom.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:32 PM
Jun 2014

Wherein a law passed banning the kosher slaughter of animals based on the fact the it is inhumane would have to stand up to that assertion if challenged.

I can only imagine the spurious rationale that would have to be used to enact a law banning the sale of goods designed for Muslims, but I doubt those reasons would survive a legal challenge unless there were mitigating legitimate health and safety issues. Of course if it got to the current SCOTUS, they're activist enough that they might just find a way to uphold something like that.

dsc

(52,130 posts)
47. there would be no court hearing under your theory that is my point
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:49 PM
Jun 2014

If corporations have no right to religious expression at all, then they can't sue over it no matter what reason existed or didn't exist for the law being passed. That is what not having a right means.

bluesbassman

(19,310 posts)
58. Of course there would be court hearings.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:04 PM
Jun 2014

If a company (corporation) was engaged in an activity that was adversely affected by a law or ordinance restricting said activity and it could prove that the law or ordinance was put into place not as the result of improved health, safety, zoning or other related public good issues, but for any other reason, then they have every right to sue for redress regardless of the company's (corporation's) motive for engaging in the activity. That is called "restraint of trade".

But the SCOTUS ruling today went well beyond that. What it did was to say that a company (corporation) can refuse to provide goods or services (medical care) to a element of our population based solely on their "sincerely held" religious beliefs. By your logic, if Hobby Lobby refused to employ or sell products to homosexuals citing Leviticus 18:22 as their "sincerely held" religious belief, that would be fine with you?

dsc

(52,130 posts)
59. I really don't know what else to say to you
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:25 PM
Jun 2014

you clearly either can't or won't read. I will try one more time, very slowly, to say I am saying. First, to be crystal clear, I THINK THE COURT WRONGLY DECIDED IN FAVOR OF HOBBY LOBBY. That said, I do think, that it is a fair point, to say that having corporations have no rights in this arena at all, which is what Ginsburg said, has problems of its own. If corporations don't have rights under RFRA and that is what Ginsburg's dissent says, then they can not sue if a law that is generally applicable is applied to them and that application serves to harm their religious practice. So no, if you and Ginsburg, had your way, then an incorporated slaughterhouse couldn't sue under RFRA, no matter what a jurisdiction did. That is what standing, which this was all about, means. Now if you still don't understand my position, then I frankly haven't a clue how to make you understand it.

I think any religious exemption should be very narrow when it is being applied in the commercial sphere. Only churches or bonified religious orders should have them when their application runs counter to the rights of other people. Thus I felt that the exemption Obama granted was overly broad and I said so in real time. But I do think that if the application of an exemption doesn't impact the right of other people, say the slaughterhouse example, then such an exemption should be granted to both individuals and incorporated businesses.

bluesbassman

(19,310 posts)
60. You know, it's sad when a debater resorts to insults.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:56 PM
Jun 2014

Clearly I can read in that I have repeatedly addressed your points with my counter arguments. You have your opinion and I have mine, but to reduce the discussion to an insult does in fact mark the end of it.

Have a nice day.

nolabels

(13,133 posts)
126. Someone injecting imaginary facts into a debate about reality is where i try to jump off also.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:41 AM
Jul 2014

Hope you have a nice day too

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
48. HHS already exempted non profits.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:51 PM
Jun 2014

This ruling says privately held corporations get to have those rights extended to them, even though they are for profit.

Your example has no baring here. Women working for Hobby Lobby now may not be covered for contraceptives for the insurance they already pay for.

How you consider this acceptable, I dunno.

dsc

(52,130 posts)
49. and how you never learned to read, I don't know
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:56 PM
Jun 2014

I don't know what part of there should be no exemption was unclear. Was it the no, the there, the exemption? Please tell me so I can avoid confusing you in the future. As to the central point, if no corporation ever can sue over religious freedom that means that no corporation can ever sue over religious freedom. Again, that would mean that a kosher slaughter house couldn't sue if a town passed a law banning such slaughter if they were incorporated. It would mean that a law banning a muslim book store couldn't be challenged by an incorporated bookstore.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
50. This isn't about the corporation, it's about the employees.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:03 PM
Jun 2014

No corporation should have the right to express it's ideology on it's employees.

Your Muslim bookstore shouldn't be able to force employees to pray to Mecca every day.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
72. can you think of a single hypothetical case that would actually make it to court?
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:19 PM
Jun 2014

Because so far, they are non starters.

OilemFirchen

(7,143 posts)
86. I'll help!
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:34 AM
Jul 2014

I posted this earlier today on Facebook:

I believe the tort you're seeking would involve a "closely-held" Jewish-owned business disallowing insurance coverage for any illness related to ingestion of treif.

BootinUp

(46,928 posts)
28. Greenwald loses one on one arguments all the time.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:55 PM
Jun 2014

He has never impressed me as a supposed spokesperson for the liberal point of view.

CherokeeDem

(3,709 posts)
31. Absolutely...
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:08 PM
Jun 2014

It was very clear that Greenwald had no rebuttals to Reikoff's points, other than the standard ilk he spews all the time. In this case, I believe while the message is valid, the messengers are suspect.

Dawson Leery

(19,348 posts)
111. Nothing against Reikoff (he has done excellent work for veterans)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:14 PM
Jul 2014

but Greenwald is what is known as a "bombastic blowhard" who can easily be corrected.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
27. Assholes can still do a lot of good.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:52 PM
Jun 2014

Very few here would be willing to say Grayson isn't a complete asshole. Just about every one of those would also vote for him in a heartbeat.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
32. Grayson is an abrasive liberal, Greenwald is a libertarian
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:11 PM
Jun 2014

who was a a borderline white nationalist xenophobe less than a decade ago.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
33. What is a "borderline white nationalist xenophobe"
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:15 PM
Jun 2014

Does that mean that he isn't a white nationalist or a xenophobe? Strange way to phrase that. He isn't really "x", but I want to call him "x", so I will just say he is borderline and not all the way.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
34. He used the same tropes about how illegal immigration
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:20 PM
Jun 2014

was destroying our culture that the Pat Buchanan/David Duke crowd used and still use, but studiously avoided any explicit mentions of brown people or those who hablan Espanol.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
38. No no no... that was "before I had a major blog" ... so ... that GG racism doesn't count /sarcsm
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:29 PM
Jun 2014

... cause that's needed around here

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
80. It must be a Libertarian thing.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:15 AM
Jul 2014

Ron Paul used a similar argument to explain why white-nationalism articles in his newsletters didn't reflect his views or mean he was a white supremacist.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
35. BUT WAAAAAAAAAAAIT... he and Snowden repeated what Obama said just louder and with stolen docs
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:22 PM
Jun 2014

... so he's a good guy and shit / <----sarcasm ... casuse that's needed around heree

LadyHawkAZ

(6,199 posts)
55. Snowden, though!!!1! NSA!!11! LOOK AT ME I'M SUCH A LIBERAL LOOK AT ME LOOK!!!1!
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:49 PM
Jun 2014

LOOK AT ME I HEART FREEEEDUMB PRIVACY RIGHTS AND STUFF LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME!!elevens!

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
106. just another self loathing Republican.....
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:51 AM
Jul 2014

Too ashamed to admit it so they try to sugar coat it by calling themself libertarian

TriplD

(176 posts)
65. The mere mention of Greenwald turns some here into adolescent idiots
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:46 PM
Jun 2014

I try to avoid these threads because they give me middle-school flashbacks.

The petulant anti-Greenwald clique here is just sad. DU used to be a much better site without all the hate you all bring here.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
82. DU would be better again...
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:23 AM
Jul 2014

if we'd start showing Greenwald apologists the door. The guy's a misogynistic RW libertarian that pals around with Matt Hale...his ardent defenders legitimately should have no place here at DU.

Just because he happens to hold the same position on the NSA as them, they're willing to forgive him all faults and attack those who would criticize a RWer for being a RWer. Rand Paul also holds the same dim view of the NSA...but if anybody posted cult-of-adoration apologia about Rand Paul like they post about Glenn Greenwald, they'd be summarily banned by the Admins as a troll.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
144. It's all very serious business, the smear.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:13 AM
Jul 2014

The vehemence of the swarm/smear machine is directly proportional to the seriousness of the government criminality revealed by the journalist.
 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
184. I'm sure everyone who
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:29 AM
Jul 2014

has been here over a decade appreciates the lecture by someone with just over 100 posts about how great the site "used" to be. Don't like it? Door swings both ways. Greenwald is an asshole.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
67. Fuck the smear machine. Seriously.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:51 PM
Jun 2014

How low and pathetic, to use what was done today to women across the country as an excuse to spew vitriol toward the journalist who exposed massive government abuse of power against the American people. How ironic that this new, despicable step into slavery to the whims of corporations would be perverted for use as a tool in the relentless, smearing *defense* of the NSA's abuses of power against us.

As though Greenwald's opinion on this has even the slightest significance here to what the SC did *or* to the mass spying still being perpetrated on Americans despite baldfaced lies to our faces.

Here's what's important: Women across the country today lost control over their own bodies. And the NSA is STILL abusing its power and spying on all of us.

Every single day the NSA smear and apologism machine proves how much lower it can go.

bobduca

(1,763 posts)
155. SOX compliance eh?
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:53 AM
Jul 2014

Sounds like the lucrative and oh-so-very-legal and also-very-constitutional work of tapping phones has dried up! how sad for you!

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
156. We use a trusted third party and only get relatively small x number of warrants a year
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:02 PM
Jul 2014

Most companies actually follow the law. Also, PCI compliance (payment card industry) is totally separate from Sarbanes/Oxley. Just like HIPPA compliance is as well. Snowy and Greeney really need to educate their audience better. Oh wait, they can't since they don't understand technology, rules and regulations either


Also, and it's not 1973 anymore, you don't actually "tap" the phone. Luckily I'm in the know so I have the capability to laugh when Snowy says "they is being recordin' all you phone calls ma!"

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
157. You and me, we're network plumbers
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:20 PM
Jul 2014

We've compared notes before. We're both accomplished network engineers, with something like ~20 years experience each. But we're still putting together glorified Lego pieces, after all is said and done. My knowledge helps me to understand technical elements that are presented in news stories, but it in no way confers some special knowledge of how the NSA works behind closed doors. We count on Snowden and Greenwald for that information.

You're right about PCI compliance, but I'd add that if you can get your environment up to PCI levels, SOX and HIPPA would be trivial.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
158. I think the NSA spends 90% of their time mining the public intertubes from all the slides-
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:31 PM
Jul 2014

getting even on-net phone calls from every ma and pa, small, medium and large telco in the US much less the World would put a whole SHITLOAD of people "in the know"...

On the PCI stuff I'm looking at some network vs premise based call recording software solutions and it is a must for a lot of companies. Now somebody is going to read this and say LOOK! Call Recording Software!


 

randome

(34,845 posts)
160. They're not going to like this: the NSA review team says the NSA is doing a good job.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:59 PM
Jul 2014
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/nsa-internet-monitoring-found-legal-study
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
76. The OP is ardently against the spying machine.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:27 PM
Jun 2014

So what you're talking about makes absolutely no sense.

How in the fuck is the OP part of some "NSA smear and apologism machine"?

My frank takeaway from this is simply that Greenwald allowed the NSA issue, which Wyden and Udall were bringing to the forefront, to become a spectacle, and no reform has happened. This was perhaps Paul Rieckhoff's most important point, Greenwald made the issue about him, Snowden, Assange, wikileaks, rather than about the American people.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
99. War is Peace!
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 09:09 AM
Jul 2014

And the OP is "ardently" against the NSA spying machine. That's why her entire career here is devoted to discrediting and smearing anyone who challenges the Stasi and defending anything it does. That's up to and including gleeful smearfests like this OP, *and* implying deliberate falsehoods about the law, as in this thread where she really, really tried to insinuate, without directly claiming it, that NOT extending the FISA court order for data collection would be illegal or unconstitutional: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025134715 . Now that's shamelessness and dishonesty well beyond the amateur leagues from someone who claims to be a lawyer.


But you know what is the saddest thing of all about this? The chocolate ration crap, and the 2+2=5, and the constant, ugly smear jobs, and the utterly ludicrous denials like you just attempted?

There are more reputable occupations. The TISA hasn't destroyed them all yet (although check again in a few years...). There are ways to earn a living that don't require the gutting of conscience and human decency.

There really, really are.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
121. Lies are Truth!
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:31 AM
Jul 2014

Lying about other DUers is OK!

Of course, leave it to the apolitical left to advocate for illegal practices by the executive, such as ignoring laws, which at that link you provided, the OP was for upholding the law but advocated overturning the law.

Funny how that works. In the link I provided you, I showed you how the ignorant apolitical left cheered on a "defunding of the NSA" which quite literally did absolutely nothing.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
178. What's shameless about their comments there?
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:37 AM
Jul 2014

People think EO's are way more powerful than they are. They aren't. You can direct an agency how to do a certain activity but you cannot direct them not to do a certain activity. In fact, if you were to do that, the agency's head would ignore that directive. If you put in an agency head that did the illegal directive they would be removed from power.

The separation of powers are a fickle thing.

nolabels

(13,133 posts)
182. The exent of the post was to the OP's veracity
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:16 AM
Jul 2014

Not to what is or isn't worth being parsed in a debate

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
128. Are we back to using "Stasi?" I've missed that! Again....I'm still waiting for.you
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:13 AM
Jul 2014

to cite an illegal.action of the NSA I've defended.

So far, you've failed.

At the link yo provided, I advocated the executive doing their job by upholding the law.... well at the same time advocating that the 2015 fight for section 215 is coming and it needs to be overturned.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
100. I had a host tell me I must support spying because I never post in NSA threads!
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:21 AM
Jul 2014

If it's not the #1 issue you post about, some here imagine you the enemy. And they are keeping lists. It is bizarre.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
116. LOL. I think I know that host
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:20 PM
Jul 2014

He once demanded that I show up in a thread about the TPP. My failure to post in that thread was apparently an indication that I'm a third way DLC dem who wants to crush the 99%.

These people are....

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
124. That's basically the idiotic sentiment.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:38 AM
Jul 2014

Because you don't wind up in some threads hanging on to every word of some personality, you must clearly and obviously be against what they believe to be true.

I can be against NSA spying and Greenwald's profiteering and failure to truly drop any bombshells about it. NSA spying is one isssue. Greenwald's checkbook clickbait journalism is an entirely different issue.

What we do know for a fact is that Greenwald has led to absolutely zero reforms. By design.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
164. tell me about it- I got a why don't "you people" meaning feminists and POC post on Snowden/ GG
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:31 PM
Jul 2014

threads? Gee, I dunno- maybe because their a shit show of people insulting each other, and it doesn;t interest me as much as other issues? But according to some hosts, you are then the enemy. I think calling out Manny for making fun of AA's bothered by watermelon jokes raised a few paranoid eyebrows. I actually got some weird PMs begging me to give him a chance because he's so great. Kind of cultish behaviour , I thought.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
175. Worse is when it's some issue not covered by the media.
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:11 AM
Jul 2014

Suddenly they start accusing you of bandwagoning. For example, Syria, when people were talking down about the gassings there then others pulled up stuff about other atrocities in Africa and then said stuff like "why weren't you concerned about X conflict!" Erm, maybe because the news wasn't covering it and we're on a discussion board and we discuss generally what the news covers? Then you go and find maybe one or two threads about X conflict and ask them why they didn't post about it, it's a silly circle of irrationality.

You only have so much time to post, and things you're interested in, such as in this case I am interested in debunking clickbait journalism that at its core is anti-activist and anti-reform as it acts to subdue people (see Chomsky's Manufacturing Dissent).

Yet I have made many posts against the NSA, in one post woo me with science thanked me for my contribution. It's really just two faced-ness. Why can't we damn have different opinions on different things? Geez.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
176. yeah, feminists get the why do people ignore or get mad when I post about women having X happen in Y
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:20 AM
Jul 2014

country, huh? And I'm like, it's probably because it was OT- and you were derailing the conversation? Pls send me a link if I am wrong. They never have that link. Trolling and disrupting with phony concerns. As if DU isn't on to that shit.

Never seen so much of it here.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
122. You have been on record overturning these laws.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:33 AM
Jul 2014

I think it is fucking preposterous that you are somehow an NSA apologist. Advocating justice, the law, the legal system (as opposed to outright anarchy and cronyism) is somehow a bad thing.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
114. So Greenwald is smearing himself
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:18 PM
Jul 2014

Greenwald admits to supporting the Citizens United decision which gave huge amounts of power to the 1%.

Pointing our this support is not smearing.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
151. +1, the only reason the usual crew cares about Greenwald's thoughts on this issue
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:38 AM
Jul 2014

is because he made the government look bad.

It's so transparent.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
163. +1
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:25 PM
Jul 2014

The vehemence and persistence of the smear machine is directly proportional to the level of seriousness of the government abuse of power being revealed.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
75. A question about what Greenwald ACTUALLY SAID (if we can stop flinging poo for a moment)
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:19 PM
Jun 2014

The linked tweets include these statements from Greenwald about the decision:

* "None of the justices - even the liberal ones in the Citizens United dissent - disagree that corps have constitutional rights"

* "both Kagan & Breyer accept corporate personhood yet still dissented"

* "Kagan & Breyer refused to join the part of Ginsburg's dissent that argued that RFRA does not apply to for-profit corporations"

I haven't read the decision. Perhaps someone who has can answer a simple question: Is Greenwald correct in his characterization of the opinions?

Call me naive, but I still think truth matters. Greenwald could be a libertarian xenophobe whose analysis of this decision is correct. He could be a brave exposer of NSA abuses whose analysis of this decision is incorrect. To me, the points in the above quotations are more interesting than deciding whether Glenn Greenwald is going to Heaven (especially since I don't even believe in the place).

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
77. This is an appeal to authority.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:47 PM
Jun 2014

The court did not decide whether the RFRA applied to all claims, merely the contraceptive claim. Therefore the appeal to authority falls flat on its face, because it is irrelevant that Kagan and Breyer did not join part of Ginsburg's dissent.

Ginsburg's dissent explicitly refers to the potential for the RFRA to apply in a more broad and damaging sense, and in that case Kagan and Breyer would almost assuredly agree. It's clear that they did not join that part of the dissent because they want to leave themselves open to future interpretations of the RFRA and how it is implemented. ie, say a corporation requires people to wear veils or something or only agree to a given religion, Kagan and Breyer could then go and be against it while maintaining the RFRA, but Ginsburg's dissent requires her to be against such an action, as she makes a blanket case against all for-profit corporations having that power.

The RFRA is not supposed to be discriminatory, ie, compelling people to act a certain way (in this case, you may not use your company provided insurance to pay for contraceptives). It was meant to allow for free exercise of religion so long as it did not harm other employees (so you couldn't invent a religion that allows you to scream at the top of your lungs for an hour a day in the library or something).

What Ginsburg is saying is that the RFRA is being applied in a broader corporate personhood sense, and of course, since Greenwald supports corporate personhood, he disagrees with her and wants us to read the conservative analysis.

OilemFirchen

(7,143 posts)
83. His observations are a mix of sophistry, lies, and presumption.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:30 AM
Jul 2014

Do the liberal justices "agree" that corporations have constitutional rights? Of course they do:

The courts have long treated corporations as persons in limited ways for some legal purposes. They may own property and have limited rights to free speech. They can sue and be sued. They have the right to enter into contracts and advertise their products. But corporations cannot and should not be allowed to vote, run for office or bear arms.

Do Kagan and Breyer "accept corporate personhood"? Of course they don't:

In an exchange this month with Chief Justice Roberts, the solicitor general, Elena Kagan, argued against expanding that narrowly defined personhood. “Few of us are only our economic interests,” she said. “We have beliefs. We have convictions.” Corporations, “engage the political process in an entirely different way, and this is what makes them so much more damaging,” she said.

(Both quotes from The Rights of Corporations)

Breyer, to the best of my knowledge, has avoided opining on this court's twisted concept of corporate "personhood". Nonetheless, his dissenting opinions on all Roberts' Court cases relative to the subject would strongly suggest that he disagrees with the notion. It would be incumbent on Greenwald to cite statements or opinions to the contrary. Has he?

As to Kagan and Breyer's "refusal" to join Ginsburg's strident proclamation about the RFRA vis a vis for-profit corporations, joshcryer's response above eloquently explains its irrelevance.


Ever wonder why Greenwald's legal resume' is so thin?

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
92. Yeah, it's obvious their dissent on RFRA is for flexibility.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:14 AM
Jul 2014

If they agreed completely then they would not be able to opine differently on similar but different cases. Say, for example, a Morman business owner required their employees to wear special underwear.

OilemFirchen

(7,143 posts)
94. Or...
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:28 AM
Jul 2014

An Opus Dei coffee shop chain (Fat Tony and The Parrot) demanding self-flagellation during lunch?

Response to msanthrope (Original post)

 

reddread

(6,896 posts)
89. a good day for ignore
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:43 AM
Jul 2014

put these wankers in the closet.
this place is going to look so much different tomorrow.
for me.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
169. Facts aren't smears.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:29 PM
Jul 2014

Calling other users stasi, third way, authoritarian, NSA apologists, which aren't facts, which are lies, are smears.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
95. That's expected. Libertarians are the architects of the coming Kochstitution, so they oppose Obama:
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:57 AM
Jul 2014


The First Feminist President, Barack Obama

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110212801

The quote also applies to churches, corporations, theocrats and Supreme Court injustices. Their new uniforms arrived earlier this year:



to ashling:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024770080#op

Please note just whose agenda they follow:

BERNIE SANDERS Uncovers 1980 Koch Agenda- "What Do the Koch Brothers Want?"


“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”

Just one item on their list to dissolve the elected government of the USA:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a7980koch

to kpete:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024806298

Top GOP gangsters will follow the Koch agenda:

Justices Scalia And Thomas's Attendance At Koch Event Sparks Judicial Ethics Debate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9357129

Scalia, Thomas have attended Koch bros. 'very private', 'secretive' meetings

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x482956

What Role Have Scalia And Thomas Played In The Koch Money Machine?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x483212

Note Scalia and Thomas went to Koch's political meetings, while on the Supreme Court

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x354438

Justices Scalia and Thomas promoted and attended a Koch brother event

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4753880

Scalia, Thomas & the Kochtopus

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9381109

Lookee, the gang's all there together:




Just-us: Flushbo, Slappy Thomas and a Heritage Foundation fellah.

Ju$tice, a Division of the Kochtopus. Like Demo¢racy.


to Octafish.

Welcome to your life under the Kochstitution!

lostincalifornia

(3,639 posts)
101. No glen, Ginsburg is not correct. This ruling is specifically against women. In fact it says
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:27 AM
Jul 2014

everything else such as vaccines and blood transfusions cannot be used on religious grounds, but only applies to contraception. Besides the discrimination, it also allows companies to make medical decisions for their employees.

Yes, GG is an asshole

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
109. OMG, Greenwald didn't directly answer a tweeted question. He is so evil!!!!!
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:43 AM
Jul 2014

And he disagreed with Ginsberg on something!!! OMG my hair is on fire!!!!

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
123. The OP's linked post doesn't link to where he linked the conservative reading.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:35 AM
Jul 2014

If you go on his twitter you can find it. GG did in fact say that Ginsburg wasn't correct and that the conservative justice was.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
134. The question he didn't directly answer was whether he agreed with the ruling.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:37 AM
Jul 2014

Did he address that elsewhere?

(Btw, I agree with him on the specific part of Ginsberg's opinion that he objected to.)

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
171. It doesn't matter whether he says he agrees.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:34 PM
Jul 2014

He said Justice Kennedy's concurrence was a good overview and irrelevantly appealed to authority to shut down Ginsburg's more staunch view on RFRA not applying to corporations because frankly it absolutely does not. RFRA is about religious non-profit organizations. There is nothing in the RFRA committee notes or the legislation history that indicates it applies to for-profit corporations.

Anyone who rebuffs Ginsburg's objective view of the RFRA legislative history has an agenda.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
192. The text makes no such distinction. The law applies to the free exercise of religion by persons.
Sat Jul 5, 2014, 07:37 AM
Jul 2014

Trying to carve a distinction between religious non-profits and for-profits is bogus. The question is whether the law infringed on the free exercise of religion by the owners of Hobby Lobby. I don't think it did, but not because Hobby Lobby is a for profit corporation.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
145. +10000 Any smear will do
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:16 AM
Jul 2014

when the journalist is revealing mass government abuse of power, the targeting of our own government spy agencies against ordinary Americans.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
161. I guess, but here is my puzzle.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:02 PM
Jul 2014

So many of these smears are so ham-handed and transparent and ridiculous that it seems that they would be counterproductive. So why do people bother posting them?

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
162. Well,
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:16 PM
Jul 2014

is there a maxim that, if you are going to do something as deeply ugly and unethical as deploy a lying propaganda and disinformation machine against the very people you claim to represent, that it's better to go all the way and be as insulting and outrageous and dishonest as possible?

Obviously part of the goal is to disrupt and make liberal discussion gathering places as unpleasant as possible, so that people will give up and stop trying to have these discussions. Basic psy-ops says to disorient and anger, so that people feel as angry and helpless as possible and don't know how to respond. What do you say when a whole group of aggressive personas surround you, bellowing that the sky is green?

The psy-op tactics make sense, because their arguments aren't logical. They don't make sense, and if they tried to present them rationally and as though they did, they would be out-argued easily, and shamed for their attempts to deceive. Instead, they go all out and bombard with this Orwellian garbage, attacking incessantly, proclaiming lies as truth, mocking and belittling even when they are clearly in the wrong, and, most importantly, deploying swarms of personas who all agree on the insanity so that actual posters feel overwhelmed and either leave in disgust or start to doubt their own senses. Bombarding is a big part of it, I think. Orwell knew that.

A lot of these tactics are in the slides that Snowden released, that describe the propaganda/smear/cognitive infiltration programs the government is targeting at us. It's ugly, ugly stuff and reveals just how corrupt, manipulative, and aligned against us these political entities that claim to represent us have really become.


 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
165. Some of it might be an organized attempt at disinformation and disruption, but
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:26 PM
Jul 2014

I find it hard to believe that most of the "swarm" is a part of any such project. Many of them seem to me to have some sort of cultish attachment to Obama and so they lash out at anyone who opposes their leader.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
166. Oh, I'm sure there's some of that, too.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:25 PM
Jul 2014

I read your question as specifically about organized efforts, and I wasn't even specifically implying broad involvement by the particular project that Snowden's slides revealed, although I don't doubt that one of the largest and most popular political boards on the internet would be a target. Other groups, DLC or Third Way-type groups or political campaigns or representatives of particular corporate politicians already in office, also would have plenty of motivation to use DU and control the messaging here. But the tactics, and the inherent corrupt ugliness and dishonesty of them, would be the same.

IMO there's a definite organization happening on DU, though. There is a constant influx of new corporate personas (or reanimation of previously dormant accounts), and their numbers have risen steadily at a rate that is entirely unnatural compared to the influx of other posters. Recs for posts blatantly endorsing the corporate line have increased weirdly and gradually; whereas such posts used to get only a handful of recs at DU, the average number of recs grew steadily to the 20's, then the 30's, then the 40's and now reliably top 50 or even more. This on a liberal board, during a time when polling reliably shows the mood of the country going in the opposite direction. The personas themselves are remarkably consistent in their tactics, and they work together, following a consistent set of rules for engagement. They swarm when threads become particularly damaging to the corporate line. They post threads far out of proportion to their presence in the community, they maintain a 24/7 presence, and they never let certain types of threads go by without a response. They reliably target the most eloquent and persuasive liberal posters here with personal smears and alerts. And they almost always continue to respond until the other person tires and goes away.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
167. You may be right. Be that as it may, the stupidity of most of the smears never ceases to amaze me.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:38 PM
Jul 2014

Just for fun, here are just two of many, many examples:

Example 1: “Edward Snowden sure seems to have a problem with the truth. Summer 2013: ‘I’m not a spy.’ May 2014: ‘I was trained as a spy’ . . .”

Notice that the first quote is from the Summer of 2013. That was when some were accusing Snowden of spying for China. He said “I’m not a spy for China,” abbreviated in the post as “I’m not a spy.” In May of 2014 Snowden told Brian Williams that he was trained as a spy (in the sense of working undercover) for the CIA. Could anyone really think that there was an inconsistency here between his remarks in 2013 and his remarks in 2014? Of course not, but nevertheless the two remarks were offered as evidence that Snowden is dishonest.

Example 2: “Did Snowden offer proof that he could see every purchase crossing his computer screen? This is a pretty explosive accusation in my opinion. Everybody makes purchases: ‘When you make a purchase, when you buy a book. All of that is collected,’ Snowden said. ‘I could see it at my desk, crossing my screen.’ . . . Could somebody please provide me a link to the evidence that every purchase crossed his screen? And remember folks, it's not about Snowden. It's about the information he is disclosing. That's why it's important to understand exactly how he was able to see every purchase cross his screen as he sat at his desk.”

No one could really be moronic enough to think Snowden was claiming that he saw every purchase made by every person cross his screen. Or could they?

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
129. Again we see his agenda isn't to do the right thing, it's to promote Libertarianism and...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:29 AM
Jul 2014

...hurt Democrats/Liberals/Progressives.

Everything he does has to be viewed in that context.

It's like if something Ted Cruz said seemed to be a good thing. Knowing what he is about you have to question it.

What's the real motive?

Is what he said true or an exaggeration or an outright lie?

MADem

(135,425 posts)
130. But...but....but...! Snowden!!!
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:18 AM
Jul 2014

Never mind that he has monetized "the news" by selling national security secrets in book form, in the hopes of profiting personally...!

He's carrying water for the CATO Institute--they probably told him what to say, and when and how to say it.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
133. This thread has more fireworks in it than what Greenwald promised.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:35 AM
Jul 2014


First it was August then it was end of June. And now? We're waiting, Mr. Greenwald.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

bobduca

(1,763 posts)
135. HATE GREENWALD RAWR ARGLE BARGLE
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:42 AM
Jul 2014

Can I be in the kewl kids club now? I just know I can muster the required scornful attitude!

I bet Putin and Greenwald are pen pals!

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
149. Okay! You're in!
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:32 AM
Jul 2014

What's your ring size?


[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

bobduca

(1,763 posts)
186. you be nice now, as you can see I'm now a member of the kewl kids club
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:46 AM
Jul 2014

Secret decoder ring and everything.

RAWR! GREENWALD, SNOWDEN AND PUTIN AND COMMIES ARE TRYING TO STEAL MY VITAL PRAGMATIC FLUIDS!!111

Cha

(295,929 posts)
191. Ha, like the cult of GG gives a shit what he does.. he could go out and defend a misogynistic
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 08:21 PM
Jul 2014

pornographer against torture charges and they'd still support him.. oh wait they did.

TheKentuckian

(24,949 posts)
179. Uhmm...your link doesn't say what you claim.
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 01:19 AM
Jul 2014

Direct copy and paste - None of the justices - even the liberal ones in the Citizens United dissent - disagree that corps have constitutional rights

How is this not true? All you have to do is show just one of them saying companies never have constitutional rights.

How isn't it logically necessary for such legal constructs to function at all? I think there is an argument to be had about having them at all because of perverse incentives to commit actions toxic to the communities and broader societies such constructs were originally designed to SERVE while to ones doing the dirt take the money and run but if they are going to be then yes they need at least limited and circumstantial rights.

DU needs 1st and 4th amendment rights. Unions need speech and assembly rights. Companies have to be able to make contracts as well. The press needs freedom of the press.

What we need to do is get some damn sense and really at least seriously look at charter history and law and define and limit which rights corporations have under what circumstances according to their primary mission.

Some rights like the 2nd and 5th perhaps should be completely banned for such constructs but I don't get the idea that corporations can never have any rights for any reason, it is silly and fewer are less friendly to such entities than myself but you can't skip out on logic.

Hell, to be honest I don't think Citizens United is some crazy interpretation of the Constitution, I totally see where the ACLU is coming from on the portion they support BUT it is absurdly poor judgment which is why put supposed to be thinking minds in such positions because in the current real life environment such law is dangerously toxic to our Republic and drowns out and negates the rights of people by the hundreds of millions. Law devoid of justice.

The ACLU is a watchdog, it is not their role to make a balance. They acted according to their function, the court did not because they must consider that balance and concern themselves with all of our rights.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
197. It's The S&G Show! Now in its second exciting season!
Sat Jul 5, 2014, 04:27 PM
Jul 2014

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So Greenwald weighs in......