Support NeoGAF

[excelsiorlef]

On certain issues, though, his prose was suffused with right-wing conceits and catchphrases. One example was immigration, on which Greenwald then held surprisingly hard-line views. “The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known,” Greenwald wrote in 2005. The facts, to him, were indisputable: “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.” Defending the nativist congressman Tom Tancredo from charges of racism, Greenwald wrote of “unmanageably endless hordes of people [who] pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate, and who consequently have no need, motivation or ability to assimilate.” Those hordes, Greenwald wrote, posed a threat to “middle-class suburban voters.”

.

 

[And_Gignac]

Man you managed to be more Greenwaldian than Greenwald... he just compared it to WMDs in Iraq... you went full scale calling everyone McCarthyists... Congrats.

Do you think anyone who watches Fox News was swayed to now look at Fox News differently after hearing Greenwald say what he said and seeing Carlson nodding in agreement and then seeing Fox News's official twitter account share this clip?

I sure hope not. I think most people understand that Greenwald likes to piss liberals off. Fox remains the lowest point in the history of mass media communication.

I think Greenwald gives a perspective that is necessary. You dont have to even agree with hm to realize he still stands for progressive ideas, even when his tendency to be antagonistic and SUPER ANTI IMPERIALISTIC sometimes gets the best of him.


Edit:
WaiT

Not you bringing receipts. Damn, he had disgusting views there. Was his heart stolen or what?

Then, why even respond?

This is lazy, but then again you are a hilarious caricature anymore, so I can't say i'm surprised.


The far left Russian Apologists on this forum are embarrassing.

Says the one still holding on to that H FORWARD logo a WHOLE YEAR after.

 

[cdyhybrid]

Because he's not actually progressive.

 

[pigeon]

Paul was better than Obama on a swathe of issues. He was worse than Obama on many other issues.

Right. For example, Ron Paul was worse on the "don't actively court white supremacists" issue. Which I personally think is a progressive issue, but maybe you don't.

That's how you politics works when you ignore the red team blue team game.

Those aren't the exact colors I had in mind.

 

[pigeon]

.

Man, Greenwald sure is a great progressive! Look at those progressive anti-immigration views!

Wait, actually, I think there's a different word for supporting social programs, opposing foreign engagement, and wanting to close your borders to keep "hordes" from getting in. Anybody know what word I'm looking for here?

 

[moffattron9000]

You people just learned that Greenwald is a dickhead with no integrity? This has been apparent since 2014, and the Moment of Truth bullshit that he pulled off with Kim Dotcom.

 

[Clipjoint]

.

Here's what he wrote about that passage:

That was a 6 yrs ago: 3 weeks after I began blogging, when I had zero readers. I've discussed many times before how there were many uninformed things I believed back then, before I focused on politics full-time - due to uncritically ingesting conventional wisdom, propaganda, etc. I've written many times since then about how immigrants are exploited by the Right for fear-mongering purposes. I'm 100% in favor of amnesty, think defeat of the DREAM Act was an act of evil, etc. That said, I do think illegal immigration is a serious problem: having millions of people live without legal rights; having a legal scheme that is so pervasively disregarded breeds contempt for the rule of law; virtually every country - not just the U.S. insists on border control because having a manageable immigration process is vital on multiple levels. But that post is something I wrote literally a few weeks after I began blogging when nobody was reading my blog; it was anything but thoughtful, contemplative, and informed, and - like so many things I thought were true then - has nothing to do with what I believe now.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Paul was better than Obama on a swathe of issues. He was worse than Obama on many other issues. That's how you politics works when you ignore the red team blue team game. That doesn't mean Greenwald supported Ron Paul, though. He openly and repeatedly rejected and denounced the notion that he was "endorsing" Ron Paul by pointing out there areas where his platform was more progressive than Obama's.

Being a libertarian, Ron Paul had good views on foreign policy and host of other issue, but not for the right reasons.

There is a huge difference in the reasoning of a progressive who fights for gay rights and a libertarian who just thinks that government shouldn't get involved there.
I have a hard time giving libertarians credit for a few of their opinions which happen to be good but are basically just a result of their "we need as little govt. and regulation as possible" approach.

I don't think this is an alliance progressives should agree to. Libertarianism is a dangerous and stupid ideology.

 

[CaviarMeths]

He didn't back Ron Paul in 2012. That's completely made up.

The article I quoted completely made up those direct quotes from Greenwald?

 

[Suikoguy]

Not you bringing receipts. Damn, he had disgusting views there. Was his heart stolen or what?

I take back what I said.

Says the one still holding on to that H FORWARD logo a WHOLE YEAR after.

Oh wait, no I don't.

 

[Curious Puppy]

Says the one still holding on to that H FORWARD logo a WHOLE YEAR after.

Yeah, definitely not a Trump shill. Nope. Not at all.

Please go away.

 

[Suikoguy]

Yeah, definitely not a Trump shill. Nope. Not at all.

Please go away.

I find it amusing that it's the second so-called "progressive" to attack my avatar.

 

[And_Gignac]

"I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president's performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country"

A mess!

I am unfollowing tbh.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Here's what he wrote about that passage:

Oh, ok, so it's fine that he describe economic refugees as "hordes with no desire to assimilate" in defense of a racist because nobody was looking. Glad that's cleared up then.

Like if you don't see that he was just straining to find any audience to profit from I can't really help you.

I find it amusing that it's the second so-called "progressive" to attack my avatar.

I don't know why but for some reason in my peripheral vision it always gets processed in my head as Bender from Futurama's face.

 

[BlackDoomShadow]

Like if you don't see that he was just straining to find any audience to profit from I can't really help you.

Exactly. Greenwald is one of those white dudes who has like, one pet liberal issue and then decides to cast themselves as a "progressive" while completely ignoring or actively supporting every other axis of oppression in the United States.

"Yeah bro I know that black people are being shot or whatever but the important thing is that Wikileaks is the greatest thing ever and I'd like to talk a few minutes about how Julian Assange is the reincarnation of Christ."

 

[excelsiorlef]

Here's what he wrote about that passage:

" I wasn't wrong just crude"

 

[Clipjoint]

The article I quoted completely made up those direct quotes from Greenwald?

You can hear him directly explain it himself here if you're interested:

https://youtu.be/yYm4p6zExO0?t=2m32s

 

[And_Gignac]

I find it amusing that it's the second so-called "progressive" to attack my avatar.

Plenty of times we have had some discussions where you end up personally attacking me in a very rude way. So I wanted to drag back a bit.

 

[excelsiorlef]

A mess!

I am unfollowing tbh.

Makes his invocation of WMDs in Irtaq to shit on people who believe Russia is dangerous pretty fucking hilarious.

 

[CaviarMeths]

Whether or not he's right, the motive behind Fox News giving him a signal boost is crystal clear. Stop talking about Russia. Stop investigating Russia. There's nothing to see there. Let's talk about the brown invaders and black people declaring war on our troops. Also how disorganized and off message Democrats are. We now go live to Trump's Twitter account for the new gospel.

 

[llien]

This is a perfect example of the type of hysteria Greenwald is talking about. The Russia-Pokemon Go story was blasted all over social media, and yet no one can explain how exactly Russia was supposedly using Pokemon Go to influence the election. They created a fake Black Lives Matter contest? That's it? It doesn't make any sense at all. Why aren't the journalists asking questions, instead of just fishing for clicks on such a clickbaity story?

You are reading it wrong or not seeing it, by incident or on purpose.
Existence of Kremlin-linked troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency is an established fact.
470 accounts that belong to it have been identified and taken down.
One of the accounts directing users to go find and train Pokémon near locations where alleged incidents of police brutality had taken place, is an established fact.

There is nothing wrong with the reporting, as nothing is made up, facts are presented as is. Title also perfectly reflects content of the article "Even Pokémon Go used by extensive Russian-linked meddling effort". Was it not?

"Oh, but would that have had an impact" - let me tell you, that:
1) it wasn't only about elections, in fact, Russia expected Clinton to win, as far as we know, hence there was long term strategy to worsen situation to weaken her rule
2) grooming influential accounts that can inject "news" as needed, to stir tensions OR DO WHATEVER, when needed is not something I'd refer to with "that's it?"

 

[ModBot]

Because he's a pundit no one wants to listen to.