Not everything but he could put his talents to writing about some trump dirt no one else has.
I mean maybe itâs a bad word to describe it but I didnât come up with this stuff. Hugo Black was a free speech absolutist and he certainly thought that true threats and libel were also legal concepts that existed alongside his free speech beliefs.
Wonder if he was ok with me walking around nude and telling him to fuck off when i served him his coffee.
No⌠Im lostâŚ
When making thread titles try to avoid what a fourteen year old white boy would think is edgy. K? Thx bye.
Charlie Hebdo to me is an example of what actual free speech heroism looks like.
Always attacking enemies of a tyrant and only speaking truth to one side of the entrenched power structure while pretending the other doesnât exist is not - whatever your motivation.
One truism of history is that actual heroism almost always goes barely noticed at best and massively punished at worst in its own time. And no, infinite guest spots on FoxNews does not qualify as being massively punished to me.
JFC - just think about what youâre defending. Tucker fucking Carlson. I donât care how much I could come to hate some establishment - Iâd never go whine about it on the white power hour. Thatâs not heroism. Itâs validating racism and fascism.
ALL THE ISMS
Itâs like the youâre forcing me to be a Nazi cartoon - except youâre forcing me to go vent on Nazi television instead.
6 Likes
I donât think he supports Trump, or is a Russian asset, or any of that, but I understand why people do, because itâs so hard to come to grips with why else he does things like comb through Intercept articles and phone the editor up when he finds, not just any alleged factual inaccuracy, but specifically ones that are unfair to Trump. Like itâs legit hard to grasp that someone could be such a pervert that they would spend their time looking over the editorâs shoulder like that when they donât even have a political interest, theyâre just looking to constantly assure themselves that everyone other media writer on the planet is bursting at the seams with bias and hypocrisy. Itâs seriously deviant and inexplicable behaviour and I understand why other people canât process it and assume there must be some other motive that makes more sense.
9 Likes
Yeah, Glenâs brain is broken in a weird and specific way. Anyone these days who cannot be edited, made fun of and is vindictive without any sense of humor Iâm just immediately skeptical of. When youâre driven by spite/anger/fear or other very negative emotions, you just donât end up doing good things very often.
3 Likes
I think heâs flat out a Russian asset - although maybe not a high paid one or paid at all. But you know, he knows Putin is always there and takes care of his buddies (or something like that).
He goes on RT. Thereâs the whole Snowden Russia connection. He wasnât always like this. I think heâs bought into the tankie propaganda - possibly with the help of some negative or positive stimulus. Nothing else makes sense.
I donât think he sees himself as a sellout - just as a guy who believes what he believes - which happens to align with the basic Putin world ethos right now. I mean heâs enough of a sellout to cozy up to Tucker Fucking Carlson. But heâll shun advances from Putin? Sure,Jan.gif
It feels like weâre doing backflips to make up some weird personal motivation for his behavior when Occamâs Razor is right there.
1 Like
Thatâs not Occamâs Razor. Youâre inventing a new moving part to the story for no reason.
His behaviour isnât complicated to figure out. He just likes yelling at other people for bias and hypocrisy. Heâs one of those guys who likes to elevate himself by putting others down and he imagines himself as a Christ-like figure, free of sin and above the fray. His daily project is reinforcing this by searching out the shortcomings of others. The common thread of his entire career is writing articles about how the liberal media are shit at their jobs. Since the liberal media are universally anti-Trump at the moment, he has to oppose that. Thatâs all it is.
3 Likes
Or maybe the guy has just been a big racist wolf in sheepâs clothing all along:
The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known, and it gets worse every day. In short, illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone. Few people dispute this, and yet nothing is done.
The real reason Republicans treat the need to address the illegal immigration problem like a trip to the dentist â as something they want to avoid at all costs â is because they have been convinced that adopting an aggressive stance on illegal immigration will cost them too many votes among the nationâs ethnic minorities and legal immigrants. And that is what brings us to Sanchezâs Op-Ed, which illustrates just how unconvincing and baseless that alarmist view really is.
But one of the most disturbing and destructive aspects of illegal immigration is that it is illegal . Indeed, that is the precise attribute which separates good immigration from bad immigration. Why should Republicans, or anyone, shy away from pointing out that illegal immigration, among its many evils, is âillegalâ? That is just absurd. Moreover, it is precisely the fact that illegal immigrants enter the country illegally that spawns justifiable resentment, not only among large clusters of middle-of-the-road voters, but also among the very legal immigrant population about which Sanchez is so concerned. Emphasizing the âillegalâ part of this problem is what Republicans need to do more of, not less.
The real irony here is that the problem of illegal immigration is actually one of the very few of the ever-dwindling number of issues that has the opportunity to forge common ground among factions of voters which are, these days, engaged in a ceaseless war with each other. Being worried, and outraged, about illegal immigration is not confined to the extreme precincts of conservatism. Middle-class suburban voters whose primary concerns are local and pragmatic, rather than ideological, know the danger which illegal immigration poses to their communities and to their states, and they want something done about it.
The dude was straight up lobbying Republicans to be more like Trump is now - in 2005.
GG now says his views have evolved. My views have never had to evolve 1/10th that far in my life.
GG in a few years of nothing but Tucker Carlson may come full circle.
When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. Etc.
3 Likes
Fine - Iâll accept racist Trumpist in disguise who in no way is connected to Russia.
Or heâs just really always been kinda racist at heart - like my molotov-cocktail, anarchy-loving at one time super-lefty buddy whoâs now a huge Trump fan.
You can be racist and still hate GWB. But to me itâs pretty instructive that his first foray into political blogging was to rant about illegal immigrants and how he thought Republicans were coddling them. I donât know how that really evolves over time. I bet itâs always there.
Somehow Iâve lived 51 years and never once had a conniption about unwashed hordes streaming over the border. And I have plenty of other flaws and stupid immature moments.
If he didnât go on Tucker Iâd be a lot more willing to give him a pass. That alone makes him a huge sellout whoâs at least cool with abject racism.
1 Like
Iâll accept a lot of stuff. Iâm mostly just throwing shit at the wall here. But I wonât accept that GG doesnât like Trump on some level - if not just for the pure joy of burning it all down, with a little racism thrown in - exactly like my molotov-cocktail buddy from our formative years.
Goodnight.
The most disturbing aspect is we cause most of the illegal immigration with our drug use and laws and our foreign policies which have devastated our southern neighbors.
Dammit donât make it look like I said that argh.
And yes - the US drug habit causes untold misery in the rest of the Americas south of us.
I put quotes on it. Sorry i still need to figure out how to make this site work.
wat.
the people doing the investigative journalism into corruption at the intercept, nyt, wapo etc into these kinds of stories are never right wing.
The ones concern trolling about this kind of stuff are right wing.
You should be able to spot the difference better.
I think a lot of people are upset and pointing out both sides often only care about corruption as a bludgeon to politically harm the other. Thatâs true! But, it shouldnât be true for someone like GG, where it clearly is.
Greenwald also spent roughly five years defending the First Amendment rights of neo-Nazis, including Matthew Hale, the âPontifex Maximusâ of the Illinois church formerly known as the World Church of the Creator, one of whose disciples went on a murderous spree in 1999.
âI almost always did it pro bono,â Greenwald said. âI was interested in defending political principles that I believed in. I didnât even care about making money anymore.â
Taken by itself - sure this could easily mean nothing. But itâs just weird how the guy who really hates illegal immigration winds also up defending neo-nazis for free, and now is apparently Ed McMahon on the white power hour.
It was in Greenwaldâs professional frustration that he found Townhall, then a conservative politics forum on CompuServe sponsored by National Review and the Heritage Foundation, via his roommateâs boyfriendâs Republican mother.
âAt the office, heâd have his door shut and be smoking at his computer, and Iâd say, âGlenn, what are you doing in there?ââ Golin recalled. âHeâd say, âIâm arguing with someone in Florida!â Back then, it was like, âWhat? How do you argue with someone in Florida?ââ
It was fun for Greenwald, who didnât (and doesnât) consider himself a Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian, though the latter is a label often ascribed to him. But it also taught him something about political debate. It was the first time heâd fight with people on the internet â and then, eventually, at an event organized for forum members in Indiana, feel the awkward peace of meeting a virtual enemy IRL.
âWeâd go in there to torment the conservatives,â he recalled. âBut the more I started doing it, the more I got drawn into the conversations. I stayed there for two years and made friends with all these people ⌠I argued with them, debated with them. I was totally openly gay, and they were very accepting. It was an eye-opening experience, and it taught me not to make assumptions about who people are.â
Hmmm - so as long as they accept you for being gay - you actually have a lot more in common with the posters on Townhall than you thought?
Iâm not trying to imply any of this is a smoking gun. But it just feels like one more data point that gives me a pretty good guess as to who this guy really is.