Glenn Greenwald: Progressives and Ron Paul

[BoberFett]

Huh. Glenn Greenwald, hero to many a poster here, *cough*Craig*cough* comes right out and tells progressives they're being partisan assholes and hypocrites, just like the Republicans they hate so much.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/

Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.

The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.

The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested.

 

[Steeplerot]

Progressives support Obama? Huh, that is a new one to me. This is directed to your garden variety Democrat and partisan, progressives were highly annoyed from the get-go almost. (or never trusted him in the first place)

 

[BoberFett]

Right, which is why they didn't vote for Obama, they voted for Nader or some socialist candidate...

Right...

Bu... bu... bu... Ron Paul is racist! He's worse than Obama!

Face it. You are the problem. You're guilty of exactly what Greenwald is talking about.

 

[Anarchist420]

BoberFett brought up a good point--Due to the fact that Craig doesn't support Dr. Paul, the former is a progressive corporatist and he apparently wants people to have something for nothing more than he's an anti-militarist.

The hypocrisy of liberals is indeed as bad as that of the moderates, the neocons.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm pretty sure that lots of people on here have condemned Obama for his horrible record on civil liberties. Ron Paul's positions on those issues are indeed far superior. The only problem with Ron Paul is that he has insanely horrible policies on most other things, which is of course why he is totally unelectable.

As an interesting aside, were the search feature not broken for me right now I would love to see if Boberfett had any ideas on the quality of Glenn Greenwald's writing in the past.

 

[momeNt]

Ideology is the enemy.

Can't remember where I heard that, but if its quoted somewhere it's generally true.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm pretty sure that lots of people on here have condemned Obama for his horrible record on civil liberties. Ron Paul's positions on those issues are indeed far superior. The only problem with Ron Paul is that he has insanely horrible policies on most other things, which is of course why he is totally unelectable.

As an interesting aside, were the search feature not broken for me right now I would love to see if Boberfett had any ideas on the quality of Glenn Greenwald's writing in the past.

Here you go, asshole. Of course you could take this article at face value instead of trying to smear me and in the process protect your beloved profiteer-in-chief.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=site:forums.anandtech.com+boberfett+greenwald+-craig234+-phokus

Unfortunately because of forum sigs, my name as well as Greenwald's is plastered all over many threads. But feel free to play with the search. I don't recall ever having commented on Greenwald's article either for or against his ideas. Seems like he's a fairly reasoned person, though. Certainly too reasoned and intelligent for the likes of this forum...

 

[Steeplerot]

Here you go, asshole. Of course you could take this article at face value instead of trying to smear me and in the process protect your beloved profiteer-in-chief.

Wow, you have perfected the art of douche over the years. Nevermind, you still are not worth having a discussion with.

Grow up, or get a job or something, maybe start smoking weed? What a uptight jerk.

 

[fskimospy]

Here you go, asshole. Of course you could take this article at face value instead of trying to smear me and in the process protect your beloved profiteer-in-chief.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=site:forums.anandtech.com+boberfett+greenwald+-craig234+-phokus

Unfortunately because of forum sigs, my name as well as Greenwald's is plastered all over many threads. But feel free to play with the search. I don't recall ever having commented on Greenwald's article either for or against his ideas. Seems like he's a fairly reasoned person, though. Certainly too reasoned and intelligent for the likes of this forum...

lol nice rage flameout. Did you even read what I posted?

 

[Anarchist420]

I'm pretty sure that lots of people on here have condemned Obama for his horrible record on civil liberties. Ron Paul's positions on those issues are indeed far superior. The only problem with Ron Paul is that he has insanely horrible policies on most other things, which is of course why he is totally unelectable.

As an interesting aside, were the search feature not broken for me right now I would love to see if Boberfett had any ideas on the quality of Glenn Greenwald's writing in the past.

The thing is though, is that Craig (and people like him) doesn't support the candidate who proposes ending corporate welfare and that basically proves that his primary wish is for the government to massively redistribute wealth.

So, by supporting Obama over Dr. Paul, Craig would rather corporations get welfare as long as individuals receive some also (even if it's just the crumbs) and that the wealthy are taxed more and more disproportionately. It's really that simple. The thing that's sad, is that Craig doesn't realize it's only possible to "tax the rich" but so much, that the income tax isn't a wealth tax, and that taxing higher earners more doesn't mean more equality.

I'm not attacking Craig and maybe he'll support Dr. Paul now that Glenn Greenwald does and what I just typed could be in vain. Hopefully that's the case because Obama's agenda is far more favored by the wealthy than Dr. Paul's is.

 

[SilthDraeth]

I like this add that was in the OP article. Note I am still reading the OP linked article, and most of it seems reasonable so far.
http://youtu.be/XKfuS6gfxPY

 

[fskimospy]

The thing is though, is that Craig (and people like him) doesn't support the candidate who proposes ending corporate welfare and that basically proves that his primary wish is for the government to massively redistribute wealth.

So, by supporting Obama over Dr. Paul, Craig would rather corporations get welfare as long as individuals receive some also (even if it's just the crumbs) and that the wealthy are taxed more and more disproportionately. It's really that simple. The thing that's sad, is that Craig doesn't realize it's only possible to "tax the rich" but so much, that the income tax isn't a wealth tax, and that taxing higher earners more doesn't mean more equality.

I'm not attacking Craig and maybe he'll support Dr. Paul now that Glenn Greenwald does and what I just typed could be in vain. Hopefully that's the case because Obama's agenda is far more favored by the wealthy than Dr. Paul's is.

Presumably he doesn't support Ron Paul because no one in their right mind supports clown college economics.

 

[SilthDraeth]

I'm not attacking Craig and maybe he'll support Dr. Paul now that Glenn Greenwald does and what I just typed could be in vain. Hopefully that's the case because Obama's agenda is far more favored by the wealthy than Dr. Paul's is.

Wrong. If you read the article, he states quite clearly that he is going to get accused of supporting Ron Paul by the statements he is about to make, but stating that isn't really the case.

He is just stating the positions of Ron Paul that he supports. You can support a candidates certain positions, and praise them for bring situations to light, without actually supporting said person.

 

[Craig234]

I've long supported Glenn Greenwald. I support this article as well. I've said the same things - the good and bad about Ron Paul - I come out strongly against him on balance, but praise specific things - and acknowledge the many very bad policies of Obama while supporting him on balance - especially for Suprem Court picks, something Greenwald again explicitly mentions as well and has discussed many times.

I watched the first clip in the OP with Cenk Unguyr - nice piece, by the way he has a show good to watch (I record it daily) on Al Gore's channel Current TV; the ad at the end of the clip by Ron Paul is outstanding, making the same point I've made here, and I agree with Cenk it's 'better than anything any viable Democrat will run on the war'.

Cenk did a piece I think is better recently as well, where he had two pro-progressive commentators on, one who supports Ron Paul and one who opposes him, to air 'both sides'.

Ron Paul would probably do something about the most important issue we face, the corruption of our politics by money - but he'd give the corporate class what they want for free instead of having to pay for it. He has disastrous views on democracy, regulation, the 'freedoms' he wants for the powerful over the rights of the people.

 

[Craig234]

Wrong. If you read the article, he states quite clearly that he is going to get accused of supporting Ron Paul by the statements he is about to make, but stating that isn't really the case.

He is just stating the positions of Ron Paul that he supports. You can support a candidates certain positions, and praise them for bring situations to light, without actually supporting said person.

Anarchist has a very bad habit of misrepresenting other people's views.

As Greenwald said:

"I’m about to discuss the candidacies of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and no matter how many times I say that I am not “endorsing” or expressing supporting for anyone’s candidacy, the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite."

Then again, anarcho-capitalists want to end all voting, dissolve the Congress and Supreme Court, and make Ron Paul president for life. (In my running series of returning the favor).

 

[RabidMongoose]

I don't really know who Glenn Greenwald is, but I do know that Ron Paul is a crazy old racist troll of a man who actually despises civil rights more than any other candidate in quite some time.

 

[Craig234]

I don't really know who Glenn Greenwald is, but I do know that Ron Paul is a crazy old racist troll of a man who actually despises civil rights more than any other candidate in quite some time.

He's good, so you're likely to hate him, but he's a Salon.com writer and one of the leading civil rights commentators in the country, who I've mentioned here for years (note my sig).

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

He's long criticized civil rights violations from warrantless wiretapping to torture to the aggressive expansion of the power to kill by the government under Bush and Obama.

He's a good daily read, along with commondreams.org (who re-publishes him).

 

[momeNt]

Presumably he doesn't support Ron Paul because no one in their right mind supports clown college economics.

There is massive support for Austrian economics, to just outright disregard anybody who supports the views of Austrian economics as "no one in their right mind" is silly.

 

[fskimospy]

There is massive support for Austrian economics, to just outright disregard anybody who supports the views of Austrian economics as "no one in their right mind" is silly.

If by 'massive support' you mean that it is rejected outright by most economists not simply as being wrong, but as not even being real economics due to its unscientific nature, then sure. It is absolutely not silly to outright reject someone for the office of the president who believes in fake economics, allowing someone so ignorant to have so much power would be incredibly dangerous.

Austrian economics are simply economics for people who don't want to think too hard about it. It is a joke.

 

[momeNt]

If by 'massive support' you mean that it is rejected outright by most economists not simply as being wrong, but as not even being real economics due to its unscientific nature, then sure. It is absolutely not silly to outright reject someone for the office of the president who believes in fake economics, allowing someone so ignorant to have so much power would be incredibly dangerous.

Austrian economics are simply economics for people who don't want to think too hard about it. It is a joke.

It's funny, it's only when I started to think harder about economics that I began my support for the Austrian point of view.

 

[JSt0rm]

boberfett is gonna rage out the new year I see. His family must be off having fun without him hahaha.

 

[momeNt]

boberfett is gonna rage out the new year I see. His family must be off having fun without him hahaha.

His last post was like 4 hours ago.

I myself will be leaving here shortly, probably last post of 2011.

See this thread and you all next year.

 

[Steeplerot]

There is massive support for Austrian economics, to just outright disregard anybody who supports the views of Austrian economics as "no one in their right mind" is silly.

Although I for a moment wished P&N had a laugh track he is kinda right, most right wing libertarian types do claim Austrian economics, it is the rights Che shirts, except they are not usually annoying Hipster kids, more like crazy old racist uncle. Though neither group knows much about the subject in reality imo.

 

[fskimospy]

It's funny, it's only when I started to think harder about economics that I began my support for the Austrian point of view.

If thinking harder about a subject made you reject empirical evidence and embrace an unscientific approach to it, you're doing it wrong.

 

[RabidMongoose]

There is massive support for Austrian economics, to just outright disregard anybody who supports the views of Austrian economics as "no one in their right mind" is silly.

Is this a joke? Most people reject Ron Paul's fairy tale economics. That's why it's limited to a few third rate universities.

Austrian economics is a joke and its adherents know that it's a joke, that's why they refuse to associate it with reality.