Two Plus Two Poker Forums - Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

Two Plus Two Poker Forums (https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/)

- Politics (https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41/politics/)

- - Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread (https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41/politics/glenn-greenwald-containment-thread-1168455/)

Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

Ok, let's start with this Greenwald article: Obama: I can’t comment on Wall Street prosecutions, Dec 2011.

It's a dishonest hackjob, which is thoroughly deconstructed here: Fraudster Glenn Greenwald's Trouble with the Truth

Quote:

This time, the poor thing has confused Wall Street and the CIA and is very mad that the President told the truth in his 60 Minutes interview about the the reason why not a slew of prosecutions took place on Wall Street. Because previous Congresses (and presidents, plural, I'm sad to say) legalized bribery, gambling, and insider trading.

Ever the disingenuous troll, Greenwald at first did not even include the President's explanation.

He cut the quote off here:

Quote:

Obama replied:

I can’t, as President of the United States, comment on the decisions about particular prosecutions. That’s the job of the Justice Department, and we keep those separate so that there’s no political influence on decisions made by professional prosecutors.

See, what he held back from his readers, at least at first, in true Fox-lover fashion, is what the president said in his interview immediately following that line. Luckily, this being the age of the Internet and what not, some of us insist on finding out the truth on our own.

Quote:

THE PRESIDENT: I can tell you, just from 40,000 feet, that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal.

That's exactly why we had to change the laws. And that's why we put in place the toughest financial reform package since F.D.R. and the Great Depression. And that law is not yet fully implemented, but already what we're doing is we've said to banks, "You know what? You can't take wild risks with other people's money. You can't expect a taxpayer bailout. We're gonna ask you to set up a living will, so that if you are going down, we've already figured how to break it up, without harming the rest of the economy."

Sub-prime, no-due-diligence mortgages? Legal. Derivatives traded in the cover of dark? Legal. Your bank chopping up good mortgages and bad mortgages and selling them in pieces? Legal. Credit card companies deceiving you by not telling you how much you'd pay in interest if you only paid the minimum interest? That was legal, too. Wall Street's worst abuses weren't outrageous simply because they were ethically and morally reprehensible, but also because they were legally permitted.

I guess Glenn got caught though. So he put up this "update":

[Read the article for the Glenn's weasel-update]

[btw, Dodd-Frank regulators finalized the bank's "living will" rule on Jan 23, 2012, which is why goofyballer's Jon Stewart/John Oliver Daily Show video was so foolish. How long do you think it takes to implement the strictest, 2000+ page, finreg law since the Great Depression? The number of rules finalized has roughly doubled since Stewart made his funny video, which you can see in the above StLouis Fed Dodd-Frank link. Sad that people rely on Stewart to understand the intricacies of financial regulatory law tho.]

Then there is Glenn's dishonest smear job of the TSA-Astroturfing: Anatomy of a journalistic smear job, which is deconstructed here: Anatomy Of A Glenn Greenwald Smear Job!

Quote:

In typical Greenwald fashion, he projects ideas and opinions onto the targets of his assault that have nothing to do with what was actually said. He is a master at that. Check out this characterization…

Quote:

…is devoted to the claim that those objecting to the new TSA procedures — such as Tyner — are not what they claim to be. Rather, they are Koch-controlled plants deliberately provoking and manufacturing a scandal — because, after all, what real American in their right mind would do anything other than meekly submit with gratitude and appreciation to these procedures?

The authors didn’t say anything even close to what Greenwald characterized, that was simply red meat to his readers. In fact, in the second paragraph, the article says the opposite of what Glenn projected onto them.

Then there is Glenn's hypocrisy and non-disclosure here: Here’s what attempted co-option of OWS looks like , which is decontructed here: Glenn Greenwald, #Occupy, Glass Houses and Stones

Quote:

You know, I have always known that Glenn Greenwald is a opportunistic, dishonest, fact-ignoring blowhard. But today we get to add ironic to that. See, Greenwald recently wrote a column accusing the SEIU, a union that has endorsed President Obama for re-election, of attempting to "co-opt" the Occupy Wall Street movement. [...]

But this irony doesn't stop there. The very same Glenn Greenwald who is accusing the SEIU of trying to use OWS' language (heaven forbid!) for their own purposes (which, as a union, just happens to be supporting working people), penned another column earlier last week trying to sell (and promote) winter gear for the OWS protesters being disbursed by the notorious Firedoglake. But of course, Greenwald fails to mention that he stands to financially gain from donations to FDL, as the treasurer of FDL's PAC, Accountability Now, and his company, DMDM Enterprises, is used to taking money for "administrative expenses" from Accountability Now.

An examination of FEC reports shows that Greenwald's DMDM Enterprises received more than $40,000 from FDL's Accountability Now from 2008-2010, and of course, we have no idea how much more he has received as salary as Treasurer. (For those interested, yes, I have been working on a story on this with some help, and it keeps getting pushed back for different reasons - but expect a campaign finance story on Greenwald, Hamsher et al. to drop soon).

You would think the self-promoting epitome of virtue would bother to mention that he holds financial interest in the success of a campaign he is selling through his column on Salon. Something about disclosure and all.

And GG's lies about NDAA (I think you are all familiar with the article): There's No Such Thing as an “Indefinite Detention Bill” and Other Pro Left Lies

Quote:

Lie #1. There is no such thing as an “Indefinite Detention Bill”. To imply there is means you’re also implying that Obama can veto such a thing without killing the entire NDAA. He can't.

Lie #2. Obama did not announce his intention to sign the “Indefinite Detention Bill” and for Greenwald to claim it’s “embedded” in the 2012 NDAA is an obfuscation, if not an outright falsehood, because it implies a possibility for him to veto just that “bill.”

Lie #3. “Until the end of the hostilities” does not necessarily mean “indefinite detention.” It’s entirely possible, even likely, that Obama will declare an end to al Qaeda within the next year, and he has already all but declared an end to hostilities against the Taliban. In fact, if we oversee an election of Democrats in 2012, and they declare both “wars” at an end, guess what happens?

(Note; that does not mean I want this part of the bill to survive. I want to see it repealed, which will happen if *******s like Greenwald start going after the perpetrators of this nonsense, and stop attacking Obama and Democrats incessantly. I’m just saying, there are other ways around it, and to declare such a thing as essentially “true” is a lie.)

Lie #4. As you can see when you read both d) and e) in section 1021 above, the “bill” does NOT expand the scope of the AUMF, and explicitly does NOT expand it.

Lie #5. The “bill” DOES explicitly exempt US citizens from its provisions. Strangely, Greenwald cites Section 1022 as proving his point. Here’s the language:

Quote:

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Bonus lol GG reading:

Glenn Beck, I Mean Greenwald, Raises Hyperbole To A Whole New Level!

Here's another article I just saw but have not read; it's linked in the above article: GLENN GREENWALD IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR

Please post an article by Glenn Greenwald that is NOT dishonest and hyperbolic.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

1st.

Mods, plz delete the post where the OP tries to first in his own thread. And add 10 infraction pts.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

OP belongs in a museum for mediocre liberal intellect.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

I love reading critiques of GG. That first critique is a perfect example of why.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

Greenwald is like the left's Ann Coulter, except with a vagina.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Money2Burn (Post 31591092)

I love reading critiques of GG. That first critique is a perfect example of why.

Yeah, that attack is coming in right around IQ level 80.

The last criticism is totally moronic also. OBAMA DEMANDED THAT BE IN THERE!!

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by 13ball (Post 31591183)

Greenwald is like the left's Ann Coulter, except with a vagina.

lol

but not even close.

also, the critiques linked by OP are horrendously laced with AIDS, featuring symptomatic language like "fraudster," "in true Fox-lover fashion," "the poor thing," and the cringe-inducing "You know, I have always known that Glenn Greenwald is a opportunistic, dishonest, fact-ignoring blowhard"

if there are (and I'm sure there are, some of them perhaps even buried in the aforementioned dreck) intelligent and honest criticisms to be made of GG, this is pretty much the worst, least credible, most chest-thumping, holy-douche-chills-Batman way of packaging them

(and so, of course, in the tradition of our dearly departed Jiggs, and suzzer to a lesser extent, I am obligated to suspect it's a double bluff meant to generally discredit GG detractors)

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

1) You really found just the most credible set of extremely professional seeming critics of GG there, Klinker. Very good A+ work, I see many Pulitzers in the future of "Right Wing Nut House".

2) WHAT THE **** IS YOUR POINT?

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf (Post 31591899)

2) WHAT THE **** IS YOUR POINT?

He does not like Glenn Greenwald. Seems obvious.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

Man, that is one impressive wall of text. Pretty hard to write that much and not address any of his arguments, but somehow you did it!

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

I sense an opportunity for butthurt itt. Proceed.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

lol GG gets the haters so mad. I love how he coaxes the most vociferously partisan mouthbreathers of the left to reveal their petty "us vs them", party politics at its worst mentality that rivals that of the biggest Glenn Beck acolyte. What an embarrassment.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

Yeah you can almost sense the switch when he's, for example, posting a exhaustively well researched and insightful takedown of a Romney fundraiser:
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/bill...lence_critics/

but it's NOT FAIR when he turns that same spotlight on "our" side. COME ON BRO BE A TEAM PLAYER

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagdonk (Post 31591426)

Oh, yeah, this "takedown" is terrible. My favorite part:

Quote:

Lie #3. “Until the end of the hostilities” does not necessarily mean “indefinite detention.” It’s entirely possible, even likely, that Obama will declare an end to al Qaeda within the next year,

It's totally not "indefinite detention" because it might end in the future at some indefinite time.

But the first GG piece wasn't very good. He takes an Obama quote about not commenting on "particular" cases and then proceeds to claim that means that Obama said he wouldn't influence the DOJ at all. Does anybody really think that a president doesn't influence the DOJ?

But Glenn should keep writing things about how Obama deceived us into thinking he was a moderate by saying he would do moderate things. Those are always interezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

Glenn Greenwald is

Quote:

the Right wing libertarian nut who pretends to be a Lefty

That's just stupid. He eviscerates the Republicans all the time. And his work is striking for how fact-based it is.

It takes a great mass of convoluted, twisted TL;DR to suggest Obama hasn't given Wall Street a pass, and that's all the quoted blog is.

The banksters represented mortgage backed securities as solid investments, even as they ridiculed them in private. That is fraud, and people like Greenspan agree. The fraud isn't changed by the fact that many other toxic practices were legalized by the Bush/Clinton deregulators.

People should read a sample of Greenwald's columns, and they'll find he is the most factually supported polemicist on the scene today.

Obama is a moderate conservative, no matter what the tea baggers think, and he earned all of Greenwald's exposures.

Here's a nice piece where Greenwald shows the seemingly liberal Diane Sawyer to be a shill for war mongering against Iran.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/15/dian...eum/singleton/

What Greenwald's work shows is that liberals are conservatives with kind smiles.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

GG is in my feed and many of his articles are valuable. He has biases, and he makes mistake, but he is a net positive to the national discussion ainec

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

If there was a Republican president GG would be Klinker's favorite blogger.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by 13ball (Post 31592661)

I remember another thread where some people were equating 'indefinite' with 'infinite.' It amused me.

"It's not INDEFINITE! It's going to end at some point, we just don't know when!"

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourFins (Post 31594082)

If there was a Republican president GG would be Klinker's favorite blogger.

Pretty much this. Also Iron's.

The Notorious Firedoglake (middle of the third block quote) sounds like a rapper I might enjoy.

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricLindros (Post 31594536)

Pretty much this. Also Iron's.

and suzzer

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricLindros (Post 31594536)

Pretty much this. Also Iron's.

The Notorious Firedoglake (middle of the third block quote) sounds like a rapper I might enjoy.

**** like that is one of the laziest crutches for ****ty polemicists. When GG does it he'll like provide a link to what FDL is "notorious" for, but this guy it goes unstated. GG has some financial connection to FDL... so something about SEIU? And #OWS? What the whoosit?

Re: Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread

The infamous, hysterically partisan FlyWf is correct for once, probably by accident, but let's acknowledge the rare event and be fair to the poor guy—he's gotten everything else wrong and everyone knows it, especially now that I've concluded the devastating exposé that is this sentence.