Okay, people, you can all just stop trying today. In fact, we might just as well take the rest of the week off until Kaili gets back from "vacation," because today, the internet has already been won in the comments on our Colorado IUD Success Story Must Die
How does a "progressive" promote neo-confederate Ron Paul as a "principled" civil libertarian and continue to tour college campuses with white supremacists who regularly rub shoulders with fascists, promote fascist literature, and regularly meet with self-proclaimed neo-fascists who espouse the views of Hans-Hermann Hoppe and those like him? For example, just this past April: Glenn Greenwald, Ron Paul, Libertarian Cato Fellow Radley Balko event sponsored by Libertarian Jacob Hornberger's Koch-funded Future of Freedom Foundation: http://fff.org/2015/04/13/a...
Ahem: "Hornberger believes that 19th century antebellum slave-era America was “the freest society in history”. . . and after the LA riots, he offered this solution:
“the repeal of: (1) every law that takes money from some people and gives it to others; (2) all regulations that interfere with peaceful exchanges between consenting adults; (3) all drug laws; and (4)all compulsory-attendance laws and school taxes."https://pando.com/2015/05/0...
Greenwald: "George Bush is here in Latin America this week, visiting Brazil and Argentina, and the standard reports of the American media are trying to depict a handful of isolated, juvenile socialist-organized "demonstrations" as some sort of sweeping, popular mass protest against Bush’s visit, thereby suggesting, yet again, that the Administration’s policies are flawed because people in other countries dislike Bush. As usual, the truth is vastly different than what the U.S. media is reporting (see UPDATE below) .It is true that in this region (as is true for the U.S.), there remains a small, fervent band of left-wing fanatics with crazed enthusiasm for the worn-out, socialist/collectivist policies which have condemned millions upon millions of people throughout Latin America to poverty unimaginable to even the poorest Americans. These putative "mass demonstrations" in Argentina and Brazil are, in reality, nothing more than a few isolated spray-painting incidents of trite pacifist slogans in Brasilia, and a Cindy Sheehan-like "rally" of hard-core Socialists in Argentina led by an obese, Castro-idolozing, retired soccer player who found time away from his decade-old cocaine addiction to show up wearing an oh-so-clever t-shirt showing Bush's name spelled with a swastika."http://glenngreenwald.blogs...
I'm betting the 700 students in the UT Austin auditorium weren't tipped off to any of that (tip of the iceberg).
I hope you don't think I'm defending that. I'm not quite sure how we got on Greenwald, but I want to make it clear I don't agree with what you've posted above even coming close to what I'd define as a progressive position. Of course, I think of politics and belief as a circle, not a line, and it's possible to go so far around the circle you come around on the other side
How we got onto the topic of Greenwald: I'm asking how it is that "progressive" mouthpieces of all stripes can lie to us about the true nature of their Libertarian cohorts and present Libertarian Glenn Greenwald (who is too often found in the company of white nationalists, Ron Paul, in particular) to us as a progressive, ensuring the uncritical acceptance of his factually suspect claims intended to 1) promote Ron Paul's Koch-sponsored neo-fascist, Christian Reconstructionist ideology to unwitting audiences 2) foment anti-government sentiment under Obama after having led the cheer circle for George W. Bush and in the process bashed anti-war protesters as "socialist-collectivist pacifists" 3) undermine liberalism 4) effect elections resulting in a takeover by deranged religious fundamentalist 'Tea Party' politicians: http://blog.reidreport.com/...
... and not one single progressive questions any of this (mostly they go to extreme lengths to ensure nobody else gets a word in edgewise.)
These are not difficult questions and NOW we've come full circle.
I'd like to know what sort of justification people will be using in the not distant future. This is a test:)
So when I say that "progressives" bear responsibility for the Tea Party white supremacist, religious fundamentalist wrecking crew in government, I'm not blowing smoke. Now that grassroots activists like myself are required to deal with the mess the so-called "progressive" wing created, I'd like to know what they intend to do to rectify the situation (besides blog about it)... because there is no longer anything we can do to prevent the whackjobs from fucking shit up at the state level: see the original topic of Wonkette's post.
In other words, "progressives" in their infinite wisdom have been duped by the far right (Greenwald being their Trojan Horse).
Ok, better. For one, I'm not about to defend Greenwald on this (or most things). It's deplorable. He's operating under "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and willfully ignoring terrible stuff. I'll be terribly disappointed in any progressive leader (but, really, does the progressive movement truly have any real, identifiable leadership?) who tries to sugarcoat or wash over this history.
Pretty much all of them. I can name one or two who have a vague understanding of what Greenwald is up to, but that's about it... most of them parrot Greenwald's every utterance uncritically and practically verbatim. Most people still have no clue what Ron Paul is or what the Libertarian Party leadership is. Does the progressive movement (if one can call it that) understand that destroying the liberal establishment and replacing it with far right white supremacist, Christian Reconstructionist Tea Party lunatics preaching anti-democracy tripe is not a coherent progressive strategy? If any of them do, I don't see any evidence of it (an example, representative of the many ): http://www.socialistalterna...
It goes beyond domestic politics. Libertarians (Greenwald, Paul, and the Tea Party are having a disastrous effect on foreign events as well): http://www.dialoginternatio...
I don't think "progressives" realize what they've been manipulated into accomplishing for the far right: http://anton-shekhovtsov.bl...
Yet:) Which is why sticking their fingers in their ears is a strategy that's about to blow up in their faces. Again, that's a whole other discussion and way off topic here.
But who are "all of them?" I guess I'm not reading those sites, because places like Wonkette are most definitely not picking up what dicksacks like Ron Paul are laying down.
Go to any socialist website and wallow - it's Glenn Greenwald verbatim. The Greens following Nader's lead, basically #StandWithRand. Then make the rounds of the so-called "progressive" blogs: Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Raw Story, Alternet, Salon, Bill Moyers, Daily Kos, Huffington Post (questionably), Young Turks, Truth Dig, Truth-Out, Charlie Pierce, Balloon Juice, etc. ad infinitum or do you want me to name them all? Meanwhile, Lee Fang, formerly of The Nation and Think Progress, is humping Greenwald's leg over at the Intercept. The center for American Progress now schmoozing with the Kochs. Do you note anyone at all of the Netroots variety who understands 1) that Glenn Greenwald is a Libertarian, not a progressive, not on the left, but nonetheless has had free reign to undermine the Democratic party from within 2) that the Libertarian Party is in no way "civil libertarian" but John Birch Society/Religious Right (i.e., "New Right" 3) that Greenwald has been, for years now, promoting white supremacists/neo-fascists under the banner of "civil liberties"? 4) That Ron Paul's "anti-war" lip service is not about opposition to war, but about his white nationalist anti-Jew "New World Order" conspiracy theories and Libertarian "privatize everything" fantasies.
Any of them explaining any of this to the general public? Any of them have a clue as to what Ron Paul's connections to the neo-fascist Pegida uprising in Europe is and what role Greenwald's NSA hysteria plays in the far right's aim to destabilize Western democracies? Nope, they're all busy bashing Democrats with questionable Glenn Greenwald rehash or otherwise engaged in circular firing squads with each other.
I'm beginning to suspect that you're not actually reading the links I posted. As usual, the questions are basically avoidance tactics:) Understandable, but foolish. Glenn Greenwald isn't doing the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" tango... he is on the Libertarian far right - was I not clear in that? I'm leaving off now before we end up going off the margins. Do yourself a favor and go back and read those links. Or don't. It's been an illuminating exchange and provides me with a bit of insight on the way forward. Thanks for your time. Sincerely.
I definitely don't read most of those sites. There's an element of "progressivism" that's exactly as you describe: they're the anti-vaxxers to the right's climate hangs deniers. The thing I can't tell from your tone is that you seem to be directing at me some level of "it's my problem" as if I'm backing them up! I responded to you, but I think I made it pretty clear I find most of those beliefs whackadoodle and problematic for exactly the reason you said. Pointing it out and fighting against it? I guess that's all we can really do, yes?
For all I can tell, Greenwald got a lot of traction for...something, the NSA stuff, I guess? And now navel-gazing "content providers" who lack critical thinking skills parrot it. I'm still trying to figure out exactly why you're mad at me? Because I didn't say he's libertarian?
You're taking it personally:) I'm not directing this at you. I aim to direct it elsewhere. It's good to know how to go about it, though. Meanwhile, it's here in the event that Wonkette should like to demonstrate some curiosity.
Yes, pointing it out and fighting it would be the least we could collectively do, but difficult when the people who claim to speak for us prefer to sweep quit a bit of it it under the rug rather than address it openly - something that needs changing, pronto. I'll see what can be done about that. Have a good one and please don't take this as an assault on your person. It's not:)
Ok, good. I didn't think I gave you reason to think I was supportive of any of it. And, for the record, I read Daily Kos but I can't say I recall seeing a lot of Grenwald love. Then again, I skip a LOT of articles there. Unless you are referring to their user diaries, which I avoid like the plague
Not at all... wasn't thinking you were about to defend any of it. Was wondering if anyone would even acknowledge it. That's always the first step to a cure:) Normally: no. Moreover, a discussion like this usually gets me banned:)
Depends on who you read at Kos. It's infested with Libertarians - leading them off a cliff. The stuff they should be paying attention to, they don't - which is why they keep getting their arses handed to them every election cycle. Yet, they're under the impression that they're #winning. I think of it as Charlie Sheen syndrome:)
How does a "progressive" promote neo-confederate Ron Paul as a "principled" civil libertarian and continue to tour college campuses with white supremacists who regularly rub shoulders with fascists, promote fascist literature, and regularly meet with self-proclaimed neo-fascists who espouse the views of Hans-Hermann Hoppe and those like him? For example, just this past April: Glenn Greenwald, Ron Paul, Libertarian Cato Fellow Radley Balko event sponsored by Libertarian Jacob Hornberger's Koch-funded Future of Freedom Foundation: http://fff.org/2015/04/13/a...
Ahem: "Hornberger believes that 19th century antebellum slave-era America was “the freest society in history”. . . and after the LA riots, he offered this solution:
“the repeal of: (1) every law that takes money from some people and gives it to others; (2) all regulations that interfere with peaceful exchanges between consenting adults; (3) all drug laws; and (4)all compulsory-attendance laws and school taxes."https://pando.com/2015/05/0...
Radley Balko for those who aren't aware: http://shameproject.com/pro...
Does this sound like a progressive?
Greenwald: "George Bush is here in Latin America this week, visiting Brazil and Argentina, and the standard reports of the American media are trying to depict a handful of isolated, juvenile socialist-organized "demonstrations" as some sort of sweeping, popular mass protest against Bush’s visit, thereby suggesting, yet again, that the Administration’s policies are flawed because people in other countries dislike Bush. As usual, the truth is vastly different than what the U.S. media is reporting (see UPDATE below) .It is true that in this region (as is true for the U.S.), there remains a small, fervent band of left-wing fanatics with crazed enthusiasm for the worn-out, socialist/collectivist policies which have condemned millions upon millions of people throughout Latin America to poverty unimaginable to even the poorest Americans. These putative "mass demonstrations" in Argentina and Brazil are, in reality, nothing more than a few isolated spray-painting incidents of trite pacifist slogans in Brasilia, and a Cindy Sheehan-like "rally" of hard-core Socialists in Argentina led by an obese, Castro-idolozing, retired soccer player who found time away from his decade-old cocaine addiction to show up wearing an oh-so-clever t-shirt showing Bush's name spelled with a swastika."http://glenngreenwald.blogs...
I'm betting the 700 students in the UT Austin auditorium weren't tipped off to any of that (tip of the iceberg).
I hope you don't think I'm defending that. I'm not quite sure how we got on Greenwald, but I want to make it clear I don't agree with what you've posted above even coming close to what I'd define as a progressive position. Of course, I think of politics and belief as a circle, not a line, and it's possible to go so far around the circle you come around on the other side
How we got onto the topic of Greenwald: I'm asking how it is that "progressive" mouthpieces of all stripes can lie to us about the true nature of their Libertarian cohorts and present Libertarian Glenn Greenwald (who is too often found in the company of white nationalists, Ron Paul, in particular) to us as a progressive, ensuring the uncritical acceptance of his factually suspect claims intended to 1) promote Ron Paul's Koch-sponsored neo-fascist, Christian Reconstructionist ideology to unwitting audiences 2) foment anti-government sentiment under Obama after having led the cheer circle for George W. Bush and in the process bashed anti-war protesters as "socialist-collectivist pacifists" 3) undermine liberalism 4) effect elections resulting in a takeover by deranged religious fundamentalist 'Tea Party' politicians: http://blog.reidreport.com/...
... and not one single progressive questions any of this (mostly they go to extreme lengths to ensure nobody else gets a word in edgewise.)
These are not difficult questions and NOW we've come full circle.
I'd like to know what sort of justification people will be using in the not distant future. This is a test:)
So when I say that "progressives" bear responsibility for the Tea Party white supremacist, religious fundamentalist wrecking crew in government, I'm not blowing smoke. Now that grassroots activists like myself are required to deal with the mess the so-called "progressive" wing created, I'd like to know what they intend to do to rectify the situation (besides blog about it)... because there is no longer anything we can do to prevent the whackjobs from fucking shit up at the state level: see the original topic of Wonkette's post.
In other words, "progressives" in their infinite wisdom have been duped by the far right (Greenwald being their Trojan Horse).
Ok, better. For one, I'm not about to defend Greenwald on this (or most things). It's deplorable. He's operating under "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and willfully ignoring terrible stuff. I'll be terribly disappointed in any progressive leader (but, really, does the progressive movement truly have any real, identifiable leadership?) who tries to sugarcoat or wash over this history.
Pretty much all of them. I can name one or two who have a vague understanding of what Greenwald is up to, but that's about it... most of them parrot Greenwald's every utterance uncritically and practically verbatim. Most people still have no clue what Ron Paul is or what the Libertarian Party leadership is. Does the progressive movement (if one can call it that) understand that destroying the liberal establishment and replacing it with far right white supremacist, Christian Reconstructionist Tea Party lunatics preaching anti-democracy tripe is not a coherent progressive strategy? If any of them do, I don't see any evidence of it (an example, representative of the many ): http://www.socialistalterna...
It goes beyond domestic politics. Libertarians (Greenwald, Paul, and the Tea Party are having a disastrous effect on foreign events as well): http://www.dialoginternatio...
This is a whole other discussion, intimately related: http://anton-shekhovtsov.bl...
I don't think "progressives" realize what they've been manipulated into accomplishing for the far right: http://anton-shekhovtsov.bl...
Yet:) Which is why sticking their fingers in their ears is a strategy that's about to blow up in their faces. Again, that's a whole other discussion and way off topic here.
But who are "all of them?" I guess I'm not reading those sites, because places like Wonkette are most definitely not picking up what dicksacks like Ron Paul are laying down.
it's called recycling.
Do you only read Wonkette?
Go to any socialist website and wallow - it's Glenn Greenwald verbatim. The Greens following Nader's lead, basically #StandWithRand. Then make the rounds of the so-called "progressive" blogs: Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Raw Story, Alternet, Salon, Bill Moyers, Daily Kos, Huffington Post (questionably), Young Turks, Truth Dig, Truth-Out, Charlie Pierce, Balloon Juice, etc. ad infinitum or do you want me to name them all? Meanwhile, Lee Fang, formerly of The Nation and Think Progress, is humping Greenwald's leg over at the Intercept. The center for American Progress now schmoozing with the Kochs. Do you note anyone at all of the Netroots variety who understands 1) that Glenn Greenwald is a Libertarian, not a progressive, not on the left, but nonetheless has had free reign to undermine the Democratic party from within 2) that the Libertarian Party is in no way "civil libertarian" but John Birch Society/Religious Right (i.e., "New Right" 3) that Greenwald has been, for years now, promoting white supremacists/neo-fascists under the banner of "civil liberties"? 4) That Ron Paul's "anti-war" lip service is not about opposition to war, but about his white nationalist anti-Jew "New World Order" conspiracy theories and Libertarian "privatize everything" fantasies.
Any of them explaining any of this to the general public? Any of them have a clue as to what Ron Paul's connections to the neo-fascist Pegida uprising in Europe is and what role Greenwald's NSA hysteria plays in the far right's aim to destabilize Western democracies? Nope, they're all busy bashing Democrats with questionable Glenn Greenwald rehash or otherwise engaged in circular firing squads with each other.
I'm beginning to suspect that you're not actually reading the links I posted. As usual, the questions are basically avoidance tactics:) Understandable, but foolish. Glenn Greenwald isn't doing the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" tango... he is on the Libertarian far right - was I not clear in that? I'm leaving off now before we end up going off the margins. Do yourself a favor and go back and read those links. Or don't. It's been an illuminating exchange and provides me with a bit of insight on the way forward. Thanks for your time. Sincerely.
Yep, a lot of that going on these days.
I definitely don't read most of those sites. There's an element of "progressivism" that's exactly as you describe: they're the anti-vaxxers to the right's climate hangs deniers. The thing I can't tell from your tone is that you seem to be directing at me some level of "it's my problem" as if I'm backing them up! I responded to you, but I think I made it pretty clear I find most of those beliefs whackadoodle and problematic for exactly the reason you said. Pointing it out and fighting against it? I guess that's all we can really do, yes?
For all I can tell, Greenwald got a lot of traction for...something, the NSA stuff, I guess? And now navel-gazing "content providers" who lack critical thinking skills parrot it. I'm still trying to figure out exactly why you're mad at me? Because I didn't say he's libertarian?
You're taking it personally:) I'm not directing this at you. I aim to direct it elsewhere. It's good to know how to go about it, though. Meanwhile, it's here in the event that Wonkette should like to demonstrate some curiosity.
Yes, pointing it out and fighting it would be the least we could collectively do, but difficult when the people who claim to speak for us prefer to sweep quit a bit of it it under the rug rather than address it openly - something that needs changing, pronto. I'll see what can be done about that. Have a good one and please don't take this as an assault on your person. It's not:)
Ok, good. I didn't think I gave you reason to think I was supportive of any of it. And, for the record, I read Daily Kos but I can't say I recall seeing a lot of Grenwald love. Then again, I skip a LOT of articles there. Unless you are referring to their user diaries, which I avoid like the plague
Not at all... wasn't thinking you were about to defend any of it. Was wondering if anyone would even acknowledge it. That's always the first step to a cure:) Normally: no. Moreover, a discussion like this usually gets me banned:)
Depends on who you read at Kos. It's infested with Libertarians - leading them off a cliff. The stuff they should be paying attention to, they don't - which is why they keep getting their arses handed to them every election cycle. Yet, they're under the impression that they're #winning. I think of it as Charlie Sheen syndrome:)
Object control doesn't stop murders though.
Just ask Boston.
No law prevents murder, but that does not mean we should make murder legal.