Shameful: Other Journalists Now A Part Of Ridiculous Smear Campaign Against Glenn Greenwald
from the digging,-digging,-digging dept
This is just getting ridiculous. We’ve covered the various stories of politicians and journalists suggesting that Glenn Greenwald should be arrested and charged for merely doing investigative journalism and reporting on the leaks of Ed Snowden. However, Greenwald himself has now revealed that a variety of mainstream press outlets are working on stories that are clearly designed to smear him, digging into minor events from over a decade ago to somehow attack his credibility. Greenwald is (smartly) getting out in front of these by revealing the details ahead of time, though it’s ridiculous that he should need to. We won’t even mention what the “issues” are, because they’re trifling nothings from a decade or so ago that weren’t newsworthy then and are not newsworthy today. What they are, clearly, are attempts to attack Greenwald’s character for merely being one of the key reporters who has helped to expose massive government overreach in surveillance.
The actual story is about the government’s overreach. But, rather than deal with that, reporters from newspapers like the NY Times want to write Greenwald into the story? Really? We have a huge opportunity for journalists to dig into the real story: just how much spying on people various governments around the globe are doing today. And yet, instead, they want to focus on minor quibbles from a decade ago involving the reporter who actually did the work they failed to do? It’s a shameful reflection on the state of much of the media today.
Filed Under: ed snowden, glenn greenwald, journalism, nsa, nsa surveillance, smear campaign
Companies: ny times
Comments on “Shameful: Other Journalists Now A Part Of Ridiculous Smear Campaign Against Glenn Greenwald”
Well, they have to protect their bedfellows.
Re: Re:
Once again I need the “sad” button.
…reporters from newspapers like the NY Times want to Greenwald into the story?
You’re missing a verb there.
Re: Re:
Unless “Greenwald” has already become a verb…
Re: Re: Re:
“Assange” has.
Re: Re: Re:
It needs to be.
Greenwald, v. – To publicly stand up as a member of the press for the Constitutional rights of the public despite the opposition of the government and members of the established media that are trying to villify you for such actions.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There’s a special irony in the fact that Greenwald isn’t even American, yet has far more respect for our Constitutional rights (including 1A ‘freedom of the press’) than does the phony “journalists” in our MSM.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Glenn Greenwald IS American – he writes primarily for the US arm of the Guardian. It’s just obvious that since no US paper will actually report against their government of either stripe, the British media have to do their jobs…
He also lives in Brazil due to your primitive discriminations against gay rights.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The more you know. I assumed he was British, since he works for the Guardian.
I’m Catholic and therefore at odds with gay marriage. Nevertheless, as far as Constitutional rights are concerned, nobody’s rights should be violated regardless of their race, sexual orientation or whatever. I also don’t believe that the government should be intruding into our personal lives to the extent that it is.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
This is what I don’t get: why do you feel that your religion entitles you to any disposition whatever toward someone else’s marriage?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Sounds like he doesn’t – but you’re right, too many do.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I would counter: what right does the state/government have to redefine what constitutes marriage? Perhaps the will of the people no longer applies and we should all be subject to the whims of a few judges. If standard morals are all relative then the law has no grounding, it is merely a rulebook of arbitrary design.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Morality based on religious views have no place in legal arguments. Period. We have a codified separation of church and state for a very good reason. If you want to argue for or against something as a matter of law that is fine but the minute you attempt to support that argument with “God says” you immediately lose because you just undermined any credibility that it had.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I agree with seperation of Church and State, but the idea that religious people should be made to suppress their moral standards for the sake of political posturing is completely ludicrous.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
There’s nothing wrong with your moral standards. Have any standard you want.
When trying to justify LEGALLY why something should be, you just can’t use “God says so” in your argument. Laws are secular, keep them that way.
And when your “moral standards” are an assault on another group of American citizens, I’m sorry, but your standards deserve to be suppressed.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
When you’ve got justices up there redefining what constitutes marriage, that qualifies as extraordinary in my book. We’re now in the realm of special-class.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Perhaps the fact that marriage was purely an invention of the government in the first place? The connection to religion was a matter of political convenience.
Personally, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Replace marriage with a form of incorporation that confers all the same legal features that can be entered into just like any other contractual arrangement. This would give the huge benefit of easing all kinds of other problems, such as caring for an unfit parent (you and the parent incorporate so you can act completely on their behalf), etc.
Marriage can then be a social and ceremonial thing, to be entered into (or not) according to the customs of the people involved.
The law is a rulebook of arbitrary design. The law and morality are largely independent of each other. This is by design: if you’re going to legislate morality, then you enter the nightmare of deciding whose morality you’re going to favor.
Re: Re: Re:
It needs to be.
Greenwald, v. – To publicly stand up as a member of the press for the Constitutional rights of the public despite the opposition of the government and members of the established media that are trying to villify you for such actions.
This is the normal approach for intelligence agencies. This has been going on since the Pentagon Papers. They do it because it works.
Any outlet that publishes one of these is an outlet you know is in bed with the secret police.
Re: Re:
Fascinating. Secret police with their secret lists and their secret authorization. What was that for again? Main line media could prove lethal at this rate. The irony in that is a little thick.
Re: Re:
Suddenly the massive expansion of copyright that keeps the media a strong, centralized entity makes more sense to everyone who has ever wondered why a relatively small industry money wise is able to have so much pull on Capital Hill.
Note that they did the same thing with Wikileaks; they got the general public focused on Assange, instead of the cables, and then trumped up a ridiculous case in Sweden to try to get their hands on him.
This is what happens when the spy agencies decide they don’t like someone. And that’s much of why this massive surveillance is so scary. If the government becomes at all annoyed with you, they can dissect your entire electronic life, going back forever, and use it to discredit or destroy you. Voila, no more threat, secret surveillance state preserved.
Just how much of what these papers are publishing is coming from the NSA?
Re: [Succinct version, respun slightly]
Facts can’t be discredited; the messenger can (even if just for spite).
Re: Re:
No doubt the NSA is used to go after certain individuals, but it’s also being used to profile, to lump people into groups. It’s difficult for them to make a convincing case that they’re acting in our best interests while simultaneously stepping on our rights. If they were really that effective then how come they didn’t stop the Boston bombers despite repeated warnings by Russian intelligence?
Another way of putting that: the surveillance becomes the justification for the surveillance; the abuse makes more abuse possible.
Re: Re:
Kind of like getting arrested only for resisting arrest. ?!?!
Re: Re: Re:
no one is arrested for resisting arrest, they might be charged with ‘fleeing from police, avoiding police, assault or some other charge that leads to you being arrested, which if you resist you will also be charged for that.
Re: Re: Re: Anonymouse [Redacted]
If you’re enough of a [Redacted] to believe the official story, you [Redacted] of a [Redacted]
Re: Re:
The justification for the surveillance is for national security and because it’s in compliance with the Constitution, there has been no challenged regarding it that indicates anyone (who matters) feels it is not constitutional, and reading the laws, rulings and the constitution I feel that opinion is correct.
You might agree with the justifications or you might not, does not matter what you agree with or not, or if you think there is some other justification.
Unless you are willing to challenge it in a court, or you are a part of the Supreme Court, NO ONE CARES about your specific opinion. (well some might, but they don’t matter either).
The rule of law, the constitution, and the legal system is NOT based on a popular vote, they are based in law.
IF it were based on a popular vote, it is clear you would lose that vote that it is not required and it is not constitutional. So basically your screwed !
Re: Re: Re:
Unless you are willing to challenge it in a court, or you are a part of the Supreme Court, NO ONE CARES about your specific opinion. (well some might, but they don’t matter either).
You’re right that they don’t care much about my opinion individually. But laws can be changed with enough popular support, and these programs are explicitly designed to disrupt and destroy the networks needed to form that popular support. They’re also tailor-made for destroying charismatic individuals.
Think about Martin Luther King a little. Do you seriously think the civil rights movement would have succeeded if the government had had these powers at the time? He and his entire network would be in prison or in forgotten graves, and blacks would still be second-class citizens.
This is the real reason they’re going after these powers. It’s not to protect you from terrorists. It’s to protect them from you.
Re: Re: Re:
Willing to challenge what in court, exactly? Exactly.
The justification for national surveillance is national security because the law?
I care about my opinion. I do not care for yours. An apologist that can not think past the letter of the law would just as soon bludgeon the spirit of the law, which, ironically, is what has already been achieved. Fait accompli
The spirit of the Constitution has been bludgeoned, if not the letter.
Read up sidearm, there’s a lot of history to absorb.
Re: Re: Re:
The government has routinely shut-down challenges in the courts before they even arrive at the constitutionality issue…
It’s almost as if some powerful entity had a gigantic database of information on everyone, used it to look up all possible dirt on Greenwald, and then pressured the media into publicizing it.
Re: Re:
okay, now we need another button: sad but horrifying…
Re: Re:
No need to pressure them; they now live for this stuff.
When the media outlets are owned by the government, they have to do whatever it takes to shift the focus of the people away from what they’re trying to do. That subterfuge 101…
Limited hangout moves toward its purpose.
Just consider that this “leak” was all planned and is actually to be used to increase the police state, not lessen it. Then “mainstream journalists”, whom I suppose no one here has any fondness for, whom history shows are always apologists for gov’t and help promote tyranny, a privileged elite class who are dangerous to liberty because pretend to guard it, calling for a crackdown on dissent is simply one of the intended results.
The story is losing focus. Initial rage is being diffused. The NSA as such is out of reach, the corporate co-conspirators are no longer even mentioned, politicians are justifying past abuses and calling for worse. People are left confused, frustrated, feeling powerless, and now aware how extensive the spying is so will self-censor and further stifle dissent. Textbook psyop.
In short, this isn’t surprising.
Re: Limited hangout moves toward its purpose.
This can’t possibly the same out_of_the_blue that repeatedly suggests we should massively expand the size of government by dramatically increasing taxes for ‘teh rich.’ If it is the same out_of_the_blue I have one question for you: how do you live with such a deafening level of cognitive dissonance?
Re: Limited hangout moves toward its purpose.
I cannot believe I did this but I actually gave OOTb’s comment here an insightful!!!
Who are you and what have you done with the real OOTB.
[Also why was this flagged? If it was flagged because of the comment this whole article should be flagged.. If on the other hand as i suspect it was flagged because of the commentators name then that’s just plain wrongful and highly unethical. Yes I barely agree with how he carries on etc but that is no excuse to flag willfully all comments of his no matter what the content/context, that’s just vindictive sighs ]
Re: Re: Limited hangout moves toward its purpose.
I agree with you. There’s no Masnick bashing, no name calling, nothing but opinion. Why the hell is this comment flagged?
Re: Re: Re: Limited hangout moves toward its purpose.
Habitual reaction, probably. It shouldn’t happen, but he’s got no-one else to blame but himself. Maybe it’s one of the fake OotBs though?
Re: Re: Limited hangout moves toward its purpose.
I always thought insightful flags over rode report flags but apparently not. Tragic.
NoTW redux?
One has to wonder just home many of these so-called “journalists” work for publications now owned (wholely or partly) by Rupert Murdock, or his buddies the Koch brothers? I think it would be quite revealing…
Re: NoTW redux?
Over 90% of the US Media is owned by just 5 giant corporations.
A decade ago it was 10 giant corporations that owned 90% of the media.
Half a century ago it was 50 different corporations/businesses that owned 90% of the US media.
US media is mostly all the same these days as a result. If you want real journalism or news from a different perspective read foreign news websites.
I read Al Jazeera English almost every day for that reason. Despite the US media’s demonizing of them as radical US and freedom hating Muslims, they’re actually VERY Liberal, and strong supporters of Women’s Rights, Abortion, and even Gay Rights, despite many of them being devout Muslims. Not coincidentally, the very same big 5 US news corporations have fought tooth and nail to keep Al Jazeera English’s cable news channel off the air in the United States.
Re: Re: NoTW redux?
Oh, they’re liberal terrorist supporters, so it’s all ok? Really? I guess if they stop most of their hate mongering, they’re not that bad?
There’s other Muslim media which are not supporting terrorism, why do you support one that does? Just because it doesn’t do it all the time?
Glenn Greenwald has never been a pro west journalist.
So unlike the Post he did not filter Snowdens data dump.
With the MSM now lining up with the Obama administration as usual, of course they are going to castigate Glenn Greenwald.
Re: Re:
Glenn Greenwald has never been a pro west journalist.
[citation needed]. I’ve read him for years, and he’s always struck me as someone who believed very strongly in the US and civil liberties and the Constitution in the US.
So unlike the Post he did not filter Snowdens data dump.
That’s 100% false. I mean, not even close to true. He released 5 out of 41 slides from a presentation. And he has released 3 other documents out of “thousands” that he claims to have.
he wants to smeer, expect it in return
If he cant take it don’t dish it out !!!, Port baron, IRS cheat, and STILL paying of this student loans at age 46.
what a loser !!!, and after all it’s only fair, and what is wrong with reporters actually REPORTING, after all here on TD you say that is what they are supposed to do, so other reports are allowed to do that as well ??
or is it ok to ‘be the news’ and be spared from it yourself ?
The hypocrisy here is unbelievable.. not that I believe much from here anyway..
Re: he wants to smeer, expect it in return
PORN BARON.. sorry typo.
Re: Re: he wants to smeer, expect it in return
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
In other words: where’s your citations?
Re: Re: Re: he wants to smeer, expect it in return
Backed in his solar panel computer run by his solar panel wife, living in his solar panel toilet which is where darryl plunges his head in when he needs to think.
The circular motions from the action of flushing are the only way to stimulate the massive pile of shit he uses for a cerebral cortex.
Re: Re: Re:2 he wants to smeer, expect it in return
I guess I need some solar panels in your undies, to catch all that sunlight coming out of your ass !
Re: Re: Re:3 he wants to smeer, expect it in return
Go ahead. Extend your solar panels over the Pacific Ocean.
Hell, out of your front door would be an achievement.
Re: he wants to smeer, expect it in return
Of course, reporting the truth is ‘smearing’. Whilst going irrelevant muckracking on the guy reporting the truth isn’t?
Hollywood has been sleeping with the government for decades.
Why is it so surprising to people when Hollywood, who owns damn near every news agency out there, returns the favor by reporting misinformation to the public?
Goodness, isn’t it time people starting seeing the big problem that’s right in front of their face?
I don’t come to Techdirt to get news. I come to Techdirt to escape from it.
Re: what "reporting misinformation"
this guy admitted to these things, sure he tried to downplay it and justify his IRS cheating, Porn Baron, money grabbing, and oh, not forgetting student loan defaulter who is still paying it back at 46 !
Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
And somehow that is worse than violating the Constitution?
Re: Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
darryl has no idea what he’s talking about. According to him you’re a thief if you don’t pay for the public domain.
Re: Re: Re:2 what "reporting misinformation"
You probably don’t know many things, what I know you don’t know, is what is “according to him”..
According to me, you are a fuckwit. but that’s just my opinion.
Re: Re: Re:3 what "reporting misinformation"
And according to me, you should STFU, GTFO, and never come back.
Re: Re: Re:3 what "reporting misinformation"
Oh, had I know the pathetic pussy was prowling again I would’ve brought more food. Plumb out, you’ll have to eat shit.
Re: Re: Re:3 what "reporting misinformation"
I don’t need to go into specifics about someone who insists that George Orwell’s 1984 was not a part of the public domain in Australia, then ran away like a pansy when he was proved incorrect.
Funny how everything to make copyright reasonable makes you mad enough to go on a badly punctuated rant on Techdirt, every time. How this applies to solar panel engineering, I have no idea, but then again, there’s no explanation to the inner workings of a completely and thoroughly unimaginative turd-twat. Do solar panel engineers have such a horrible command of the English language, or is it just you?
Re: Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
show me where anyone has violated the constitution ??
Re: Re: Re:2 what "reporting misinformation"
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Idiot.
Re: Re: Re:3 what "reporting misinformation"
persons, houses, papers, and effects
does not include meta (billing) data stored and OWNED by phone service providers regarding your phone usage.
That IS NOT your property, it IS the property of your phone company, you can gain access to your own phone records (with your phone bill), but it is NOT YOUR’S.
It is certainly not part of the group that comprises your “persons, houses, paper or effects”.
It MIGHT be considered your ‘papers’ once you receive your printed bill, but you are just given a copy of the actual record, a record that belongs to the phone company. Along with many other details about you, that you probably do not have access too.
(like the amount of times you have contacted the phone company, the dates you payed bills, the method of paying that bill, the location where you paid that bill and so on).
There is a great deal of information about you, that YOU DO NOT OWN, and do not have access too, it’s not yours.
So in this case clearly the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights DOES NOT APPLY.
Show me the case and file number where this has been challenged in the Supreme Court and where the SC has made a ruling ON THIS SPECIFIC CASE.
Discuss: how you feel “green fields” does not also apply in this situation ?
Anyone can cut and paste the results of a Google search, (just like Masnick does for a living), but it takes some work to understand at least the basics of what you are pasting.
Google search is not a replacement for thinking.
Re: Re: Re:4 what "reporting misinformation"
You can write shit in all caps until your finger bleed from all the shift typing but that doesn’t change the fact that there’s room for debate in the claim that phone metadata doesn’t fall into the groups “persons, houses, paper, or effects.” Even beyond the debatable semantic argument which isn’t nearly as strong as you seem to think it is there’s still the law’s intent to be considered. Furthermore you’re completely ignoring the rest of the text namely “The right of the people to be secure” and “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” which is where the really obviously unconstitutional part of the dragnet data collection is anyway.
Re: Re: Re:5 what "reporting misinformation"
Right. The fact that they’re circumventing obtaining a warrant in order to access an individual’s PRIVATE data is a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment. It is private because people aren’t paying these services to make all of their information open-access.
Re: Re: Re:3 what "reporting misinformation"
Do you think you own the records that Google keep on your search history ? If so, do you think if you asked Google for it they would give it to you ?
Are those records part of your “persons, houses, papers or effects” ?
Those records are not created by you, owned by you, stored by you, or accessible to you, you don’t have any right to them, nor do you have any right as to how they are used.
They are the property of Google.
Also, “Unreasonable” is NOT a strict definition, it is up to interpretation, specifically by the Constitutionally appointed and created Supreme Court, who have the Constitutional authority to define ‘unreasonable’ and in the light of the terrorists fears (justified or not), they have interpreted this to be ‘reasonable’.
Not everyone agrees with that, but not everyone agrees with ANYTHING. If you don’t agree you just have to accept that fact of life.
If you want to stand up for the Constitution, you have to stand up for IT ALL, not just the bits you agree with.
Re: Re: Re:4 what "reporting misinformation"
“they have interpreted this to be ‘reasonable’.”
Please cite the case where the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, rules on the constitutional reasonableness of these searches. (Hint: you can’t because it doesn’t exist)
These were not warrants issues based on probable cause and they did not explicitly state the places to be searched and the things to be seized. They’re general warrants that support dragnet surveillance and that’s a flagrant violation of the 4th. The 4th was explicitly intended to prevent these kinds of general warrants where the government can just search everything for things they might be interested in.
Re: Re: Re:5 what "reporting misinformation"
Even had the SCOTUS set a legal precedence for unwarranted snooping, it would still be in violation of the 4th Amendment.
So much about the messengers, so very little about THE MESSAGE, Thankyou TD for your focus away from the Leaks and making the leakers the hero’s/villains.
I thought you were going to make a big issue about the leaks, now I see you are just like everyone else, you cant make money on the contents of the leaks, so spend all your time talking about the ‘reporters’ and law breakers (alleged) but NOT THE STORY, fight for the storyteller..
Are the leaks that insignificant ??
clearly they are, or you would write about them more (or even SOME).
Re: Re:
Have you been in a friggen cave for the last 2 weeks or been reading some alternate universe TD?? I mean really WTF are you on about…
Being a non American I have actually refrained from commenting in the last 2 weeks on anything to do with the NSA fiasco that TD has fully covered ad infinitum that has 90% been about the message of the wrongful abuses amd nonfeasance that the NSA has perpetrated and how the USG has willfully allowed it.
Your an idiot and a fool… though I repeat myself
Re: Re: Re:
If you could, Thompson, rein in your fellow Australian – sorry as I am to bequeath you with that task. He thinks that because George Orwell’s 1984 is in the public domain in Australia, you’re a thief if you don’t pay for it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Challenge Accepted!!!!!
Though I might need a lot of resources, an NSA computer, a few liters of honey, some Ducktape, an anthill in the middle of the Simpson Desert and a couple of wooden stakes to hold him down.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Hell, if reining him in means putting the stakes through that cavernous cavity he calls a heart, by all means do it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
This method would only fill the aforementioned cavity with sticky ants. While this would undoubtedly be an improvement, it may not achieve your long-term goals.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
At least we name our Deserts after cartoon characters, what do you have ?
bad lands ?? Scab lands ?? ohhh Death Valley, “New York”
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Except that Thompson is actually from Australia and you’re mocking him why? Fuck, you can’t even be bothered to direct your idiocy right. What else could we expect from a jackass who insists George Orwell’s 1984 isn’t in the public domain?
Retarded puppies would take pity on you, then poop in your ear so at least you’d still have some brainpower.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I’ll take a wild guess and say your either really really slow, or from Canberra.. oops.. there I go again repeating myself
Issues
Author, if you won’t talk about the “issues,” then you’re not a real journalist either.
Re: Issues
Err, ah. .. I think that this particular post and this particular issue is, ah, you know, taking issue with the media mogul sideshow issues. Fuck man, I can barely read and comprehend myself but.. damn. If you want specifics then dig but – not needing to dig and be distracted with hokums and pokums was sort of the point.. I think. You dig?
censorship
Another day, and more Techdirt censorship.
Have you considered that Greenwald is just someone trying hard to get his 15 minutes to fame, so he can convert it into a career giving presentations and appearing on Fox News awearing the “liberal commentator” that they will pin on him?
When you measure this sort of thing against Watergate (which required actual effort, not just waiting for a data file to be transferred) you can see the difference. Clearly, this guy is no Woodward.
PS: Yes, another day of Techdirt censorship of my posts. It’s nice to know that Mike Masnick considers censorship as a solution. A salute to you comrade, you have outdone the communists this time!
Re: censorship
Oh, look, it’s Mr. I-want-to-see-more-milk-in-the-comments. How convincing!
Media smear artists
Greenwald specifically mentions the New York Times and the New York Daily News. The Times, of course, is a favoured recipient of administration leaks, and has never really recovered from the Judith Miller lies. The NYDN is owned by Mort Zuckerman, who is also close to members of the Obama administration.
So in both cases, Murdoch is innocent, but there is reason for us to suspect administration meddling. I expect they’ve leaked Greenwald’s student loan and IRS records. Pretty tame stuff, really — he must not have any real dirt in his past.
Re: Media smear artists
Well, it shows one thing for sure:
Greenwald has more stones than 90% of the US media and 99.5% of the current US Government.
This is part of the reason why traditional media is failing. They’ve been bought out by the corporations and you are no longer hearing decent investigative reports on the wrong doings of public officials. This smear campaign is a sign of going after someone that is no longer part of the machine.
Because this has been going on so long, the public no longer trusts the MSM to give it the facts and ever large portions of citizens are seeking their news elsewhere. This will increase the rate at which MSM goes under.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/15778-as-trust-in-u-s-press-plummets-journalist-seeks-truth-in-media
Well that's handy
A nice way to tell who exactly is an actual reporter/news agency, and who is just a government/business mouth-piece.
For the non-alienated this is rather telling about the whole scheme much like the Wikileaks case was a while back. And the abundance of trolls in articles/threads that are dealing with this idiotic smear campaign against Greenwald just adds the cherry toppings. The trolls are completely absent when the article isn’t related to their agenda.
It must be hard to be in his position right now. We must help as much as we can by exposing this absurd and educating people who are buying the story.
The MSM must take us for morons to think that we really care about some ancient debt owed to the IRS. Meanwhile… the US government’s debt stands at over 17 TRILLION dollars. Yeah. Can you figure out who’s more financially irresponsible?
Re: Re:
America is paying it back as required, this guy is not, big difference. One is theft, the other a financial contract. I bet his taxes will be correct next time though !
Re: Re: Re:
If what you’re saying were really true then please explain why our debt continues to increase rather than decrease.
Re: Re: Re:
America is paying back?
Darryl, this country hasn’t had a balanced budget since the Clinton administration.
Therefore, we are taking out MORE than we are paying back. In effect, we are really not paying back, but owing more year after year.
“The actual story is about the government’s overreach. But, rather than deal with that, reporters from newspapers like the NY Times want to write Greenwald into the story?”
That’s how it always goes with these revelations – the big news outlets gradually spins the story to be about the persons involved with the story, rather than the story itself. And once the news is all about the people involved, then the smear campaign begins. Subtle at first but gradually the people who broke the story are portrayed as criminals, sexual deviants or whatever bullshit the media can sell to the public. It’s a remarkably well oiled propaganda machinery.
The actual story is about the government’s overreach. But, rather than deal with that, reporters from newspapers like the NY Times want to write Greenwald into the story? Really?
Yes, because it highlights how the purpose of the news organizations these people work for are really geared towards promoting divisiveness along “party” ideologies. Something increasingly difficult to do in this situation because of how clear it is that both parties of in support of this behavior.