Patterico's Pontifications

2/27/2007

Glenn Greenwald, Thomas Ellers, and Rick Ellensburg: The Three Most Hypocritical Men on the Planet

Filed under: General,Scum — Patterico @ 11:12 pm

A suicide bomber apparently tried to kill Dick Cheney, and many commenters at the Huffington Post lamented his lack of success. The offending comments have been removed from the post in question, but you can read some of them here. Some examples include:

If at first you don’t succeed . . .

and:

Better luck next time!

and:

Dr. Evil escapes again . . . damn.

Glenn Greenwald is irate that conservative bloggers dared to take notice. Greenwald (also known as Thomas Ellers and Rick Ellensburg, among others) complains bitterly that conservative bloggers

went digging deep into the comment sections of various liberal blogs, found inappropriate and hateful comments, and then began insisting that these isolated comments proved something.

To the contrary, Greenwald insists, anonymous comments by hateful leftists prove nothing about the left generally. Nothing!

[T]he ideas and comments expressed by anonymous commenters at blogs prove nothing other than what those individuals think — particularly in the absence of an attempt to show that the commenters are representative of the blog itself. Is that really that difficult a concept to comprehend? To know what the views are of a particular blogger or “bloggers” generally, one can read those bloggers’ words.

But stray, anonymous comments prove nothing. And those who rely on them to make an argument — especially without bothering to make any effort to prove that they are reflective of anything — should be presumed to have no argument at all. That is why they are relying upon such transparently flimsy and misleading methods to make a point.

If your mouth is agape at the shameless hypocrisy of this, then you must be familiar with Greenwald.

These comments are staggeringly hypocritical, viewed in the light of Greenwald’s extensive history of spotlighting anonymous comments at conservative blogs to reach broad-brush conclusions about the entire conservative movement. Greenwald is a prime practitioner of this “transparently flimsy and misleading method” of tarring the other side. And, in marked contrast to Greenwald’s tender concern today for whether ugly leftist comments “are representative of the blog itself,” Greenwald is famous in conservative circles for highlighting extreme comments on conservative blogs — comments that in no way represent the views of the posts to which they are responding, or of the bloggers generally.

Here is an excellent example, in which Greenwald obsesses over comments made at Jeff Goldstein’s site, appended to a post Jeff wrote about New York Times photographer Joao Silva, who had taken a picture “showing an al-Sadr army sniper in the act of firing on US troops.” Jeff did not call for violence on the photographer. Rather, he simply responded to a claim by a Times assistant managing editor, who claimed that the photographer had shown “incredible courage” by photographing a sniper firing on our troops. Jeff’s sardonic response was not hateful — just common-sensical and (dare I say?) patriotic:

Well, far be it for me to question such self-congratulatory enthusiasm, but it seems to me that actual “incredible courage” would have entailed, say, Joao Silva getting word to US troops, or bumrushing the sniper and beating him unconscious with a heavy telephoto lens.

This is hardly an incitement to violence. It’s a funny, trenchant observation on a clueless comment made by a member of our loony-left media. Yet Greenwald felt obligated to act as though Jeff had somehow incited some angry responses from his commenters, who expressed viewpoints far more extreme than anything Jeff had written in his post. Here’s an example of Greenwald at his most dishonest:

LGF then links to Jeff Goldstein, who — in a post entitled “Sleeping with the Enemy” — declares: “Looks like the NYT has decided to go with neutrality over objectivity—essentially severing ties with their own country in the service of what they believe is a higher journalistic good: Pulitzer Prizes.” He then thanks Michelle Malkin for the tip. Goldstein’s post is then predictably followed by comments such as this:

It is clear (as it has been) that the NYT’s has chosen their side. They should suffer the consequences thereof. I just hope they do.

And this:

Talk of treason is out of fashion for some reason, but I could see some photographer hanged without losing too much sleep over it.

And this:

As i said over at LGF, pity the reporter didn’t catch any return fire.

That’s just from the first few comments I looked at following Goldstein’s Treason Accusation of The Day against the NYT. Undoubtedly, there are scores more like them as his comment thread “evolves.”

These comments are not “representative of the blog itself” — but then, that’s a concept that matters to Greenwald only when discussing ugly comments from the left. Ugly comments from the right acquire talismanic importance, regardless of whether they are “representative” of the actual views of conservative bloggers.

Here is another example of Greenwald finding Great Significance in anonymous comments left at a conservative site:

Here’s another item to discuss in the next newspaper article about the “Angry Left”: members of the Little Green Footballs community last night celebrate the death by Israeli bombing of four UN peacekeepers (UPDATE – the proprieter [sic] of LGF is apparently (and understandably) embarrassed by the comments appearing on his site and has therefore re-directed the link I had to that page to another blog. He has not, however, removed the comments from his blog).

Greenwald cites some of the comments and says:

That was just from the first 100 comments (more here). Consider the mindest [sic] required to celebrate the death of U.N. peacekeepers.

Indeed. It’s reminiscent of the mindset required to celebrate the gory and violent death of four U.S. contractors by saying “Screw them,” as Markos Moulitsas Zuniga said in April 2004.

This example belies a recurring Greenwald theme: that hate speech on the right commonly emanates from prominent figures such as well-known bloggers, whereas (he claims) hate speech on the left can be found only in obscure places, such as anonymous comments like those at the Huffington Post today. Greenwald’s post today repeats this remarkably silly claim:

Finally, it is undeniably true that there are people of every ideological stripe who express profane and reprehensible sentiments. The difference is that right-wing authors, talk radio hosts and bloggers — read and listened to by millions of people — traffic in such sentiments regularly (as several commenters noted, Dave Neiwert’s superb series on the use of eliminationist rhetoric, starting here, has documented this as well as any other resource). But to find such sentiments outside of right-wing circles, one must go where right-wing bloggers went today — digging into anonymous blog comments (or e-mails allegedly received). That difference is so obvious — and so meaningful — that it all ought to go without saying.

Does Glenn Greenwald have absolutely no shame? Markos Moulitsas Zuniga is the largest force in the leftist blogosphere. He has been described by Newsweek as among “the upper echelons of [Democrat] party strategists.” He is also the same man who conducted a virtual dance over the mutilated bodies of American contractors, stating: “I feel nothing over the death of merceneries [sic].” Yet Greenwald ignores the example of Zuniga, instead returning again and again to the subject of hateful comments by anonymous commenters at conservative sites.

Greenwald has no evidence that the LGF comments regarding the deaths of the UN peacekeepers are “representative of the blog itself.” Greenwald cites no evidence that Charles Johnson shares the repugnant views of the commenters cited by Greenwald. Again, whether anonymous comments are meaningful to Greenwald depends entirely on whether the anonymous commenters in question are purportedly conservative or liberal. If they are facially conservative, the commenters are Poster Children for the conservative movement. If you are a conservative, they represent you. They represent me. They represent every conservative thinker in the country. The significance of such commenters cannot be overstated. But if the hateful commenters are liberals — why, then, they’re just isolated crackpots who can and should be ignored.

This man actually claims to find these views consistent. That’s how twisted he is.

I don’t have space to cite (and you probably don’t have patience to slog through) every example of Greenwald screeching about anonymous comments deposited on right-wing sites. But if you’re interested, you can find a few more examples here, here, and here.

Indeed, even today, Greenwald adds an update finding great meaning in anonymous hateful comments on conservative blogs. The update is to a post in which Greenwald complains that conservatives find meaning in anonymous hateful comments on a liberal blog. You’d think Greenwald’s head would simply explode spontaneously at the evident incongruity of this position. But Glenn Greenwald is not a man to let consistency interfere with rank partisanship. All we can do is chuckle and shake our heads at the obvious irony.

Jeff Goldstein nails it:

Mmmmm. Irony so sweet and thick that, were we to sprinkle it with shaved nuts and have a Greek handle it, would make for a fine baklava.

Yes, it is the absolute height of rank hypocrisy for Glenn Greenwald to lecture conservative bloggers on the evils of reading too much into anonymous comments from the other side.

But wait. I’m not through yet. What was that Greenwald said today about whether comments are “representative of the blog itself”?

He has a point there — right? I mean, it’s not like a Huffington Post blogger ever called for Dick Cheney to die . . . right?

Oh, wait:

I give thanks O Lord for Dick Cheney’s Heart, that brave organ which has done its darn-tootin’ best on four separate occasions to do what we can only dream about.

O Lord, give Dick Cheney’s Heart, Our Sacred Secret Weapon, the strength to try one more time! For greater love hath no heart than that it lay down its life to rid the planet of its Number One Human Tumor.

In comments to that post, Huffington Post commenters conducted a spirited debate as to whether they agreed with the Huffington Post blogger’s call for Vice-President Cheney to die of a heart attack. Many denounced the post as disgusting and tasteless. But several commenters agreed that the prayer for Cheney’s death was appropriate, like this one:

The author is spot on. Cheney is a tumor upon the human race. Don’t you think that people prayed that Hitler would die? Same difference.

I patiently await the cessation of the misused organ called Dick Cheney’s “heart” — an organ pushed and prodded to pump the blood (?) of a very evil man, a man responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents, the theft of billions, and the breaking of the laws of this land. If he were not VP, he would likely be tried, convicted and executed.

When that beating organ finally succumbs, the earth will breathe a very big sigh of relief. I, personally, will throw a farewell party for this POS. And I pray the party comes soon.

By: PRevere on November 24, 2006 at 06:12am

and this one:

If Cheney were to die in the next couple months, an unnecessary, illegal and disastrously counterproductive military strike against Iran might be averted, and hundreds of lives might be saved as a result.

So if I were a religious person, I WOULD pray for Cheney’s death. In fact, if he dies in the next couple of months, I’ll reconsider my atheism.

By: WmC on November 24, 2006 at 08:30am

and this one:

Get Some Gonads,
So Much Outrage from left and right about the cheney heart prayer….So He’s Praying For Darth To Go Down Like A Holiday Turkey..
We All Know The World Will Be Better Off, Not That there aint some clown waiting in the wings to fill his bloody shoes…
It’s natural to pray death upon killers, that’s where capital punisment comes from.
Can You Imagine The Size Of The Worldwide Celebration When That Happens!!

By: redstdem on November 24, 2006 at 08:45am

and this one:

. . . .

For all those who respond and boo-hoo that this piece actually dares to call for the death of Dick Cheney I have this — fuck off. Dick Cheney is the spawn of Satan and is responsible for the deaths of more Americans than anyone since WW II.

Oh boo-hoo we can’t talk of putting him to death. Fine. This was a prayer asking for the hastening of Cheney’s demise and lifting his scourge from this earth. I have no problem with that.

. . . .

By: cynic on November 24, 2006 at 10:44am

That last commenter later added this:

. . . .

Now that there is a Democratic majority in both houses, there will be subpoenas of the White House and the entire Bush administration. The truth will out. The enormity of the deeds and policies of Bush/Cheney will become fully public. If you have any shred of humanity at that time you will join in my unbridled loathing of Cheney and Bush and will gleefully wish death to come upon them both.

. . . .

By: cynic on November 24, 2006 at 03:20pm

There was also this commenter:

A little harsh,but I agree with the sentiment . . .

By: postalernie on November 24, 2006 at 03:39pm

Yeah, I guess praying for the Vice President’s death qualifies as “a little harsh.” But who can disagree? Certainly not this commenter:

Reading the prior post to this fantastic article. I say this to those of you with your faux shock at Mr. Hendra’s prophetic and wholly accurate writings: perhaps if you had shown such shock and dismay at the evil acts of 43 and Cheney, we would not be in the debacle that we are in today. This author speaks the truth; nearly 3,000 American servicemen and women are DEAD because of the punk boy’s need for daddy’s attention AND Cheney’s unsatiable lust for profit. Period. So the next time you want to speak up, all of you who pretend to object to the wishful demise of the V.P., make your objections about 6 years earlier and many many lives will be saved. If not, shut up.

By: donnam on November 24, 2006 at 09:03pm

And a few commenters responded to the Huffington Post blogger’s prayer for the death of the Vice President with a simple: “Amen.”

These comments were directly responsive to the blog post itself. Indeed, these vile, disgusting comments did little more than to express simple agreement with the Huffington Post blogger’s fervent wish that our Vice President die.

Somehow, the hypocrite Glenn Greenwald didn’t get around to mentioning any of this today.

Neither did Rick Ellensburg or Thomas Ellers. But, you know, they tend to agree a lot with that Greenwald guy. Sometimes I think those guys are almost as flagrantly hypocritical as Greenwald himself.

Don’t even get me started on that Ellison guy.

UPDATE: Thanks to Instapundit for the link. For the background on Ellers, Ellensburg, and Ellison, click here.

UPDATE x2: Jeff Goldstein has been busting Greenwald lately . . . with style. Read more here.

UPDATE x3: Greenwald’s response to my criticism is simply to bold parts of his post — regarding the need for comments to be “reflective of the blog itself” — that I addressed at length in my post above.

In other words, he has no response at all.

In the post above, I show clearly that a Huffington Post blogger himself called for Cheney’s death. Thus, comments wishing for Cheney’s death were expressly reflecting similar sentiments previously expressed by a HuffPo blogger — sentiments which had elicited similar comments that were never deleted. Meanwhile, the comments criticized by Greenwald are in no way reflective of the sentiments of the conservative bloggers on whose sites they appeared.

For Greenwald to respond in this way, he must think his readers are really, really stupid — or that they are unaware of my actual arguments. Or both.

120 Responses to “Glenn Greenwald, Thomas Ellers, and Rick Ellensburg: The Three Most Hypocritical Men on the Planet”

  1. Nibbles // Open Post — 2007.02.28 …

    Just read ‘em. Maybe I’ll find time to do more with ‘em later. (And some things that are too short to excerpt and too good to not mention.) Please feel free to use this post for comments and trackbacks not…

    Bill's Bites (72c8fd)

  2. Traitors and hypocrites…

    Patterico highlights the hypocrisy of those on the Left who would conceal the depraved, unpatriotic support amongst their fellow travelers for the terrorists who tried to assassinate Vice Pres. Cheney. Because, you see, it reflects badly on conservativ…

    Out on a limb at Mike Lief.com (0d19bc)

  3. How dare you notice completely contradictory opinions written by such a best selling author who has been quoted on the Senate floor after his meteoric rise in the blogosphere?

    Fascist!!!

    Wilson (08e1e8)

  4. You people have far too much time on your hands.

    How about pulling yourselves out of the playpen and trying to make sense of the real world for a change?

    Tano (04010c)

  5. Mona will be here in 5..4..3..2..

    Dwilkers (4f4ebf)

  6. Was Tano’s comment supposed to be a rebuttal? Or just an insult?

    Robert Crawford (9eef80)

  7. [...] Related: Patterico: Greenwald/Thomas/Ellers on deleting comments Captain’s Quarters: The Assassination Attempt Misses Protein Wisdom: A Huffpo Tribute Ed Driscoll: Big Three Could be Big Two by Memorial Day Right Wing Nuthouse: The Unbearable Invisibility of Common Decency Ace of Spades Dick Cheney Vengeance Thread (LANGUAGE AND IMAGERY WARNING – NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART…THEY ARE PIRATES, AFTER ALL…YOU’RE WARNED) Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator tracked back with Cheney OK after explosion in Afghanistan Posted on: 3 Comments ? [...]

    The Anchoress » Had Cheney been killed, they’d still be mad - UPDATED (1b383c)

  8. Hmmmmmm…Glenn Greenwald caught supporting a completely untenable position….ummmm…isn’t that his schtick? …that is, when he isn’t sharpening his ad hominem…or attacking straw men. …or whistling past graveyards. …or wetting his panties over the possibility that he is in fact associated most closely with people who are hate-mongering, America-bashers who would rather see American soldiers die than to lose a debate…about the value of the metric system.

    Gunga (321e0c)

  9. I love how you fail to point out that Greenwald’s blog was quoted in the Security Council at the UN, how every book he’s ever written made #1 on the NYTimes bestseller list, how his blog became the most popular blog on the intertubes in 7 days, his breath is minty fresh and he doesn’t wear Uggs.

    It is obvious you are simply jealous of his rapier wit and gynormous success.

    I Say Good DAY To You, Sir!

    Ellison (4f4ebf)

  10. You know you hit the target when people like Tano can only pull something like that out.
    Too funny!! Hey tano, sorry if the truth hurts. The truth only hurts if it is supposed to. Still, one must recall that all you have to do to the fringer left to insult them is to point out what they have said, or the conflicting positions they held in the past..few things make them angrier..

    quietman (dc533d)

  11. That sort of utterly explicit hypocrisy is both rare and impressive.

    Yes – being a liberal generally requires hypocrisy. But even among the far Left, there is usually some layer of plausible deniability wrapped around their hypocrisy (see ManBearPig and his “carbon offsets” for an example).

    For most people, regardless of politics, being so explicitly hypocritical is difficult; it challenges our own self-image. For example, I loathe abortion; if I were to encourage my mate to have an abortion, that hypocrisy would inevitably cause me significant emotional damage.

    For most thinking beings, while we may be hypocritical to some degree on certain things, engaging in the absolute opposite of what we claim to believe is a difficult thing.

    Apparently, none of the above applies to Glenn.

    It is difficult to imagine being able to engage in such utterly blatant hypocrisy with a straight face. Was he laughing at himself as he wrote the post? Does he even know that he has repeatedly taken the exact opposite position? Or is he able to simply block out that reality?

    He is like a bug that should be studied under a microscope. It is a rare creature that possesses the degree of intellectual dishonesty necessary to reach this level of hypocrisy.

    Professor Blather (c65bfa)

  12. Dick Cheney is good people. He’s no terrist. No sir. He’s a Christian warrior for Gawd!

    Dubya (2ca783)

  13. tano,

    How about pulling yourselves out of the playpen and trying to make sense of the real world for a change?

    Good God, man! We’re talking about the floor of the UNITED STATES SENATE! We’re talking about the NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER LIST! We’re talking about a CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT! We’re talking about SOCKS!

    How much more real can it get?

    Pablo (cb50c5)

  14. This isn’t something we don’t already know, but liberals caught in blatant hypocrisy simply find some niggling detail that explains why their hypocrisy is not hypocrisy. Even if it doesn’t make a lick of sense, they’ll take a idiotic, illogical stand based upon a peripheral detail outside the logical thread and pretend as if it makes all the difference.

    “See, when we sodomized Congressional pages it was um,…dark out! Foley was IM’ing them in broad daylight!”

    spongeworthy (45b30e)

  15. Great post, Patterico. It’s interesting to me that he talks about rightwingers having to “dig deep” to find these comments. Obviously, he never spent any time at these blogs because I found lots of them within the first five comments on any lefty blog. I didn’t have to “dig deep” at all.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  16. “Digging into” the comments section? Did Gleen somehow miss the VERY FIRST FRIGGING COMMENT, perchance? A minor point, sure. But still.

    What a sleazy, dishonest POS the sock puppeteer is.

    Mike (c8cb4a)

  17. Wow – my usual impeccable timing strikes again. ;)

    Mike (c8cb4a)

  18. [...] A must-read rip on why Gleen Grenwald is the most wretchedly loathsome piece of shit on the planet. [...]

    Hateful scumwad sliced, diced, pureed | Cold Fury (6f4592)

  19. Okay, let me make it clear enough that even you dittoheads might just understand it.

    Conservatives are a herd of sheep, who mindlessly obey whoever they are told to. Therefore, any post by any commenter is representative of conservatives as a whole.

    Liberals, by contrast, are independent free thinkers, and it is the nature of free thought to occasionally stray into hateful territory, particularly among those brave souls who dare peruse the bile spewed daily on conservative blogs, to warn the rest of us what you bigots are planning. Thus, hateful liberal comments are not only NOT representative of liberals as a whole, they are not even really representative of the liberals who make them. They are only signs of war fatigue on the part of those liberals on the front lines, bravely struggling to shatter the horrific Eurocentric construct you call “democracy,” starting with the US hegemon.

    Was that so hard to comprehend? Oh, that’s right, you’re just another herd of sheeple. You may return to bleating your love of Dick Cheney now.

    Your Intellectual Superiors (9fe21a)

  20. Wait a minute. These people simply cannot comment or even support a Cheney assassination unless they are actually willing to attempt it themselves. They are just going to have to enlist in the Taliban, Mahdi Army, AQ in Iraq, Revolutionary guard, the options are many. Or they must, if I recall correctly, “send their sons and daughters” to do it.

    If they will not strap on the bombs, aim the rifle or lick the stamp on the anthrax letter, they are… Chicken Vultures, I guess..?

    Did I get that right?

    Tom Spaulding (2acccb)

  21. What? Hypocrisy, double standards, and intellectual dishonesty on the Left? Notify the media!
    Oh, wait …

    Kelly (8355da)

  22. Comrades! See how far we have succeeded! Please to read Comrade Beria’s 1936 lecture on Psychopolitics @

    http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics.html

    American students at the Lenin University, I welcome your attendance at these classes on Psychopolitics.

    Psychopolitics is an important if less known division of Geo-politics. It is less known because it must necessarily deal with highly educated personnel, the very top strata of “mental healing.”

    By psychopolitics our chief goals are effectively carried forward. To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our first most important step. Our fruits are grown in chaos, distrust, economic depression and scientific turmoil. At least a weary populace can seek peace only in our offered Communist State, at last only Communism can resolve the problems of the masses.

    A psychopolitician must work hard to produce the maximum chaos in the fields of “mental healing.” He must recruit and use all the agencies and facilities of “mental healing.” He must labor to increase the personnel and facilities of “mental healing” until at last the entire field of mental science is entirely dominated by Communist principles and desires.

    To achieve these goals the psychopolitician must crush every “home-grown” variety of mental healing in America. Actual teachings of James, Eddy and Pentecostal Bible faith healers amongst your mis-guided people must be swept aside. They must be discredited, defamed, arrested, stamped upon even by their own government until there is no credit in them and only Communist-oriented “healing” remains. You must work until every teacher of psychology unknowingly or knowingly teaches only Communist doctrine under the guise of “psychology.”. You must labor until every doctor and psychiatrist is either a psycho-politician or an unwitting assistant to our aims.

    You must labor until we have dominion over the minds and bodies of every important person in your nation. You must achieve such disrepute for the state of insanity and such authority over its pronouncement that not one statement so labeled could again be given credence by his people. you must work until suicide arising from mental imbalance is common and calls forth no general investigation or remark.

    With the institutions for the insane you have in your country prisons which can hold a million persons and can hold them without civil rights or any hope of freedom. And upon these people can be practiced shock and surgery so that never again will they draw a sane breath. You must make these treatments common and accepted. And you must sweep aside any treatment or any group of persons seeking to treat by effective means.

    You must dominate as respected men the fields of psychiatry and psychology. You must dominate the hospitals and universities. You must carry forward the myth that only a European doctor is competent in the field of insanity and thus excuse amongst you the high incidence of foreign birth and training. If and when we seize Vienna, you shall have then a common ground of meeting and can come and take your instructions as worshippers of Freud along with other psychiatrists.

    Psychopolitics is a solemn charge. With it you can erase our enemies as insects. You can cripple the efficiency of leaders by striking insanity into their families through the use of drugs. You can wipe them away with testimony as to their insanity. By our technologies, you can even bring about insanity itself when they seem to resistive.

    You can change their loyalties by psychopolitics. Given a short time with a psychopolitician you can alter forever their loyalty of a soldier in our hands or a statesman or a leader in his own country, or you can destroy his mind.

    However, you labor under certain dangers. It may happen that remedies for our “treatments” may be discovered. It may occur that a public hue and cry may arise against “mental healing.” It may thus occur that all mental healing might be placed in the hands of ministers and taken out of the hands of our psychologists and psychiatrists. But the Capitalistic thirst for control, Capitalistic in-humanity and general public terror of insanity can be brought to guard against these things. But should they occur, should independent researchers actually discover means to undo psychopolitical procedures, you must not rest, you must not eat or sleep, you must not stint one tiniest bit of available money to campaign against it, dis-credit it , strike it down and render it void. For by an effective means all our actions and researches could be undone.

    In a Capitalistic state you are aided on all sides by the corruption of the philosophy of man and the times. You will discover that everything will aid you in your campaign to seize, control and use all “mental healing” to spread our doctrine and rid us of our enemies within their own borders.

    Use the courts, use the judges, use the Constitution of the country, use its medical societies and its laws to further our ends. Do not stint in your labor in this direction. And when you have succeeded you will discover that you can now effect your own legislation at will and you can, by careful organization of healing societies, by constant campaign about the terrors of society, by pretense as to your effectiveness make you Capitalist himself, by his own appropriations, finance a large portion of the quiet Communist conquest of the nation.

    By psychopolitics create chaos. Leave a nation leaderless. Kill our enemies. And bring to Earth, through Communism, the greatest peace Man has ever known.

    Alex (34f929)

  23. Great post, Patterico. It’s interesting to me that he talks about rightwingers having to “dig deep” to find these comments. Obviously, he never spent any time at these blogs because I found lots of them within the first five comments on any lefty blog. I didn’t have to “dig deep” at all.

    sharon,

    Indeed. On a certain lefty web site that you (sadly) know, the very first comment out of the gate responded to the news that Cheney had not been killed by saying that there is no God. After some other commenters wrung their hands — not over the instrinsic evil of the statement, but over how it might be exploited by righties — they got the guy to “admit” that he was just joshin’. But, he said, them conservatives ain’t gonna dictate what I say, by gum.

    In the meantime, a couple of other commenters told one of the handwringers to fuck himself. Because, you see, they agreed with the first commenter.

    Oh, and there was much reminding the general populace that the blog in question isn’t a “policy blog.” I.e., no matter how seriously they take their self-righteous opinions, they can always raise the “it’s just a humor blog” defense.

    Too bad HuffPo couldn’t do the same.

    Patterico (04465c)

  24. This isn’t something we don’t already know, but liberals caught in blatant hypocrisy simply find some niggling detail that explains why their hypocrisy is not hypocrisy.

    In this case, one of those details is quite amusing, namely that conservative forums don’t allow comments, with Malkin and Instapundit offered as evidence. (See Greenwald’s first update and the first comment at Salon)

    So, you’re not reading this. Nor, though you think you might have, have you posted or read comments at Captain’s Quarters, Pajamas Media, (Malkin’s) Hot Air, Riehl World View, Redstate, protein wisdom, Right Wing Nut House, INDC, Q and O, LGF, Ace of Spades, Flopping Aces, Junkyard Blog, Free Republic, etc, etc, etc…

    You’ve lost your minds, wingnuts!

    Pablo (cb50c5)

  25. In light of his history of sockpuppetry and puerile “logic,” I would say that Greenwald-Tano.

    TheManTheMyth (9ff5c5)

  26. Greenwald=Tano, that is.

    TheManTheMyth (9ff5c5)

  27. You’re nutters.

    Gary Greenwill (12b938)

  28. Oh, and there was much reminding the general populace that the blog in question isn’t a “policy blog.” I.e., no matter how seriously they take their self-righteous opinions, they can always raise the “it’s just a humor blog” defense.

    Right, and the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is a study in conservative earnestness and reasoned, sober commentary. Emperor Misha? Just like Chomsky.

    Pablo (cb50c5)

  29. Also, Pablo, liberal sites allow comments—BY LIBERALS. Any comments questioning the groupthink of the Maoist hoards are immediately deleted, as you may have noticed. Doesn’t generally happen on the adult side of the blogosphere.

    TheManTheMyth (9ff5c5)

  30. The comments are working again, guys, thanks to One Fine Jay.

    Patterico (04465c)

  31. Patterico – do you have any other examples of prominent liberals saying horrible despicable things besides Kos’ infamous Fallujah comment?

    I mean, yeah, it was horrible and all, but the very next day he said he was wrong to make the comment. To my knowledge Kos hasn’t said anything comparably terrible ever again, so it’s not like he routinely says terrible things (like Coulter, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Beck, Savage, etc. do).

    If Kos is the best you’ve got as an example of a prominent liberal saying something horrible, in the same way that prominent conservatives routinely say terrible things… you might want to give up on that particular part of your argumnet.

    Justin (dc3309)

  32. #29 TMTM…

    Or they get covered with LA’s lovely “troll blather” thing…

    Which is kinda cute, actually…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  33. #31, there were many sites praying to, well, whoever it is Liberals pray to (maybe Algore?), praying for Malkin to meet… ummm… Unpleasantness when she traveled to Iraq…

    And he’s my biggest problem with this whole “darn they missed” thing from the left.

    I didn’t like Clinton. Not one bit. No one who spent more than 5 seconds around me talking politics would have ever thought I had anything but contempt and loathing for him, and Gore never rated much better…

    But not once did I ever cry out for them to come to harm. Not once did I ever so much as suggest I wished some accident would have harmed him (ok, I cried outloud that God could finish the joke and hurry up, but that’s rather different they wishing they would be blown up).

    Not only that, but assuming the nation hear, as one unit, that someone had attacked Bill or Al, I’d have been among the first 10 people calling out for that person’s head on a pike.

    I hated the man (still do, and his wife is potentially worse), but he was my President. You don’t mess with the Prez or VP. You just don’t.

    It would be nice if, at some point, Liberals would show the same consideration…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  34. Aren’t you making a huge assumption that the comments on liberal blogs were actually made by liberals?

    Mark (a7ec21)

  35. A good and fair point Mark. It is indeed unknown the political views of the posters…

    It is, however, far more likely that they were (or at least the majority of them were) liberals…

    I know it’s fun to THINK that there is a huge conspiricy among conservatives to make liberals look like… well… Look like they do…

    But there isn’t. Trust me. I’m at the meetings, and they never mention this.

    Again, while it’s possible that at least some of the posters weren’t liberals speaking from what passes as a heart for them (longing for the VP’s death doesn’t make them decent people in my book, and that goes now as it did back during the Clinton years), it is more than possible that most were liberals…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  36. [...] There is more, Oh so much, more here at Patterico’s. [...]

    The Baltimore Reporter (27f858)

  37. Comment by Your Intellectual Superiors:

    “Thus, hateful liberal comments are not only NOT representative of liberals as a whole, they are not even really representative of the liberals who make them. They are only signs of war fatigue on the part of those liberals on the front lines, bravely”…..blah blah blah

    Presto! Just like that they (our dear friends on the left) have a “bonafied” defense for their actions—–these mean ‘ol war-mongers drove us to “fatigue ala hypocrisy” and therefore they are not culpable.

    Intellect?….or solipsism.

    Rovin (7f64b8)

  38. The real story here, which the LameStream media missed, is the incredible weakness of our Islamofascist enemies. Or more precisely the disparity between our hard (ie military) power and that of OBL (may the peace of Allah be upon his cave).
    Learning about Cheney being in Afganistan a day in advance, they throw all their resouces into a suicide attack–and and have to detonate at the first of four checkpoints. Losers.

    Daniel M (a90377)

  39. I was kicked off Huffington Post twice for not drinking the liberal anti-Bush kool-aid and posting coherent thoughts. At least that’s what I think I was kicked off for…they won’t give me any explanation as to why I am no longer welcome in Arianna’s soviet. Might be my IQ larger than 35 or perhaps my multiple university degrees. I am a threat. Threats are silenced. The revolution must go forward. Huffingtons of the world unite!

    Cosmo (f6e5f4)

  40. Rovin, I think ‘Your Intellectual Superiors’ was being ironic…

    Or sardonic…

    Or whatever… I think it was a mocking joke, mocking liberals…

    I could be wrong… I think liberals are kidding all the time when they start talking, so i’m hardly a good judge…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  41. I know it’s fun to THINK that there is a huge conspiricy among conservatives to make liberals look like… well… Look like they do…

    It wouldn’t take that much effort on either side to troll the top 20 opposition sites and add a few extreme comments to every post.

    Mark (a7ec21)

  42. You mean besides AL GORE and the liberals and the wackos at GREENPEACE?

    krazy kagu (05214f)

  43. Mark, I freely admit that at least some of them most likely were Trolls… but ALL of them? at BEST i’ll give you 50%…

    Thats still a lot of REAL hate, you know?

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  44. I would never use slanderous terms to describe my enemy, at first look, we are not enemies at all. Every legal American wants what is best for ALL Americans. Some choose to act to better this country, some choose to blog, others choose to defend, still others choose to attack. It is who you ally yourself with that is most telling. I would fight anyone that wants socialism, communism, social insecurity (read: social security, tax on the poor, but that is a whole blog of it’s own), or terrorism as a means of effecting change. When the goals are common, or exact, it is hard to distance yourself from those you agree with. Myself, I believe the whole government is too complex and corrupt at this point to really effectively change, the wrong people support the worst reasons with the least effort. Brilliant discussion is tainted with offhand insults and down right lies, or worse, threats. The weak and timid are held in high esteem, the fighting few are ostracized. I can not change this, nor can anyone, there is but one goal, to win an election. America be damned, we need a new leader. I tire of the jaundice, the sheer and utter hate of one party or the other, the enormous waste of time so many great thinkers could apply to a decent, compelling, and uniting thought. I believe the fair tax is a step in that direction, debate it, make your case. It makes sense to me, while every other subject seems to have no clear reason. I support the troops, therefore I support what the troops are attempting, and I believe if all legal Americans showed that support, the “insurgents” would never have had a chance. Perhaps it is time to support them, agree with the war or not. One last point, since I am sure someone will call me an “ist”, I support the right of every American soldier to be a citizen, the moment they join. After they die is kinda nice, but the families would appreciate the respect before so.

    rik (d8da01)

  45. Scott:

    … but ALL of them?

    Not only that, but in my experience, when the online “hate” for a liberal politician or public figure has gotten to the point of death threats or worse, there have always – ALWAYS – been the vast preponderance of fellow conservative commenters telling that person to STFU and take a time out in the corner.

    Liberals? Usually egging on the hate.

    I realize I’m arguing from my personal experience, and so it may not be the best indicator of universal behavior, but that’s why this experiment seems so worthwhile and interesting.

    In any event, Glenn Wilson Ellersburg mananged to beclpw3n himself pretty thoroughly.

    Abraxas (f7061b)

  46. Very well put rik…

    However, I’d say this about “the right of every American soldier to be a citizen, the moment they join”…

    If you serve this country I agree that you certainly should become a citizen (‘Service guarentees citizenship!’) but I think it shouldn’t be automatic. Serve with honor for one term of enlistment. Follow orders. Don’t refuse to go where ordered (no crying ‘but war is icky!!’). Do that for one term of enlistment, and upon discharge you are a citizen. It shouldn’t be automatic. You still should have to work for it, if you want it to mean anything.

    But I do agree that the current system is, if not completely, than mostly broken beyond repair. I honestly thing (and not happily) that within my lifetime there will occur a mass popular uprising, and then from the ashes will crawl something new. Maybe better, maybe worse. But from the fall of Rome came an Empire that was in some ways better, some ways worse…

    No, I don’t want to see it happen, but when I look around at my country, and how it’s begun to stagnate and homogenize by force every man woman and child, at how truly vile our leaders (on both sides) become over the most basic of things, how down right MEAN we ALL get at election time. Even in the last decade or two.

    I worry about what my country will become, and I’m afraid that no one in power even sees the problem, and if they do they are powerless to stop it…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  47. Abraxas…

    You’re too old for l337-sp34k…

    At least I hope you are…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  48. (’Service guarentees citizenship!’)

    I completely agree, thanks for clarifying that for me scott. I thought my post was running a bit rabid, and long, so I truncated that part. It takes more than one person to explain fully what many can understand, if well stated. I always appreciate the help, I have limited time.

    Thanks again…

    rik (d8da01)

  49. [...] For those sock puppet fisking afficianados amongst us, this is well done from Patterico. Go and savor as Thomas Ellers, Rick Ellensburg, Wilson and friends commit hypocrisy in the same paragraph, in fact the same sentence, over and over again. The puppet repeatedly updates and doesn’t see himself being a hypocrite as he does exactly what he is complaining about. It is surreal. [...]

    A Second Hand Conjecture » A herd of puppets are offended. (f55714)

  50. A few details:
    1) LGF comment section is not open for registration, thus Johnson, in a way, is responsible for what goes on there.
    2) Marcos apologized for his “screw them” comment, so it’s not fair to continue to bring it up. That comment mostly sprang from his own military experience.
    3) Do you, Pat ever reread your own blog of say, four years ago? Back in the days when you called LAT “Dog Trainer”? And called everybody that questioned the wisdom of going into Iraq (which you now agree was a mistake) names. There seem to be countless treasures of pathetic arrogance there.

    NN (f82c0b)

  51. “The author is spot on. Cheney is a tumor upon the human race. Don’t you think that people prayed that Hitler would die? Same difference.”

    Only one problem with this analogy, the left would actually be calling for the death of Henry Wallace, not Hitler.

    Spiritualized (ed7847)

  52. the left would actually be calling for the death of Henry Wallace, not Hitler.

    You mean, the left were on pro-Hitler side in WWII? That’s quite a revelation.

    NN (9c16c2)

  53. the left would actually be calling for the death of Henry Wallace

    This is really funny, given the fact that Progressive Party ran Wallace for president in 1948, and he was endorsed by Communists.

    NN (d035f8)

  54. “You mean, the left were on pro-Hitler side in WWII? That’s quite a revelation.”

    Today’s left certainly would be, seeing as how they support the modern-day Nazis in the Middle East.

    ———
    Henry A Wallace:

    “The idea of freedom — the freedom that we in the United States know and love so well — is derived from the Bible with its extraordinary emphasis on the dignity of the individual. Democracy is the only true political expression of Christianity.”

    “I think the church should be afire today with the keenness of its desire to bring about social justice”
    ———-

    Looks like a big scary Neo-Con to me, yep, today’s left would want that Vice President dead too.

    Spiritualized (ed7847)

  55. Mark,

    It wouldn’t take that much effort on either side to troll the top 20 opposition sites and add a few extreme comments to every post.

    HuffPo comments are moderated, and nothing gets posted without getting past the censor. Also, the fact that the hate came fast and furious as soon as the post went up tells you that it was the regulars and not an invasion.

    NN,

    1) LGF comment section is not open for registration, thus Johnson, in a way, is responsible for what goes on there.

    It’s open pretty regularly, once a week or so. But whether it is or not, how does that make one person responsibe for what another person says? Ask Barak Obama about that.

    2) Marcos apologized for his “screw them” comment, so it’s not fair to continue to bring it up.

    No he didn’t. Find me a quote where he says “I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have said that” He tried to explain it away. He did not apologize.

    That comment mostly sprang from his own military experience.

    Bullshit. It sprang from his hateful little heart. Military service does not make one indifferent to slaughtered, maimed, burned and desecrated Americans. Quite the opposite. That line of crap was part of his justifying non-apology.

    Wilson (08e1e8)

  56. Whoops, that was me. Forgot to take the sock off. :-)

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  57. I understand that you’re a prosecuting attorney, which I assume makes you not only smarters than your average wingnut, but also more capable of nuance. So, normally I’d read something like this and dismiss the person who wrote it as a highly silly person who thinks the intertubes are things worth getting upset over.

    On the other hand, I can’t believe that you wouldn’t understand the difference between a blog where extremist comments are encouraged and welcomed, and a blog where extremist comments just happen due to chance. The comments at Little Green Footballs, where anti-Muslim sentiment is often included in the actual blog post, reflect the community that hangs out there. There is no popular equivalent on the left, except maybe Democratic Underground, which itself is nothing more than the Left’s equivalent of Free Republic.

    I’m also surprised (unless your goal here is making a point, and not striking at the truth — always a danger when attornies step into the journalism game) that you’d expect Glenn Greenwald to condemn any singular post found anywhere on the Internet. I myself spend two to three hours a day reading blogs, and although that usually includes several visits to The Huffington Post, your link was the first time I’d heard of Tony Hendra suggesting — through the use of satire — that we’d be better off if Dick Cheney’s heart gave out.

    Just an aside … you overdid the sock puppets. But, I don’t expect prosecuting attornies to have much skill when it comes to humor.

    Eric B. (d272ad)

  58. HuffPo comments are moderated, and nothing gets posted without getting past the censor.

    So you think they should do more censoring, is that it? Just because they allow a comment, does not mean that the editors approve of its content. Free speech and all that….

    Also, the fact that the hate came fast and furious as soon as the post went up tells you that it was the regulars and not an invasion.

    You are making another big assumption. It could also mean exactly the opposite: that a loosely coordinated group of trolls that are monitoring a site would be better able to post comments quickly than the ‘regulars’ that are busy at work.

    Remember that “the plural of anecdote is not data”. Your analysis might be correct, but it is just your guess based on very shaky information.

    Mark (a7ec21)

  59. Eric B,

    and a blog where extremist comments just happen due to chance.

    This is by chance? On a site that moderates every comment? How do you draw that conclusion?

    There is no popular equivalent on the left, except maybe Democratic Underground, which itself is nothing more than the Left’s equivalent of Free Republic.

    Nonsense. Daily Kos, firedoglake, Sadly, No!, Eschaton, etc… They’re all cesspools brimming with hate.

    I’m also surprised (unless your goal here is making a point, and not striking at the truth — always a danger when attornies step into the journalism game) that you’d expect Glenn Greenwald to condemn any singular post found anywhere on the Internet. I myself spend two to three hours a day reading blogs, and although that usually includes several visits to The Huffington Post, your link was the first time I’d heard of Tony Hendra suggesting — through the use of satire — that we’d be better off if Dick Cheney’s heart gave out.

    Ahem. the man is an unabashed hypcrite. And an attorney. You might recall Matt Hale, the murderous white supremecist he famously defended and who is currently doing 40 years in ADMAX Florence.

    Liberalism is standing on your head and telling the world that it’s upside down.

    Pablo (cb50c5)

  60. Glenn Greenwald Watch: The Three Most Hypocritical Men on the Planet…

    Patterico is up to his Greenwald slaying again………..

    FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog (6ed3f8)

  61. It could also mean exactly the opposite: that a loosely coordinated group of trolls that are monitoring a site would be better able to post comments quickly than the ‘regulars’ that are busy at work.

    How do you figure? You think that this “loosely coordinated group of trolls” was on standby, monitoring the site and waitng for the post to go up? Are these psychic trolls? Is there a magic boyfriend involved?

    You realize that you have to have an account to post at HuffPo, don’t you? And how do all these “trolls” get past the moderators? And if not to review the content, why do they moderate comments at all? If it’s “free speech and all” why were they later deleted?

    Pablo (cb50c5)

  62. NN wrote:

    You mean, the left were on pro-Hitler side in WWII? That’s quite a revelation.

    NN, you should examine the history of the Left in the period August 1939-June 1941. Once the Soviet Union signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler, the Left in many countries, including France, Britain, and the US, agitated against the war effort against Hitler and Germany.

    This included acts of sabotage in military factories, and in the French army, widespread resistance to conscription (French army reserves were drawn from regions, and it’s interesting to examine which units had the worst response rates and correlate them with which political regions refused to cooperate), and there was an organized peace movement, all promoted by the COMINTERN.

    Now, I’m sure that that Communist isn’t the same as the Left or somesuch, but the reality is that the Left was quite willing to be pro-Hitler, if that’s what the democratic centralism leadership demanded.

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  63. Mark’s right! It’s not outside the realm of possiblility that a loosely coordinated group of trolls could have been waiting to pounce, and somehow were able to post sixteen pages of Cheney-assassination porn before the heroic Arianna saved the day. Yay, Arianna!

    Jim Treacher (15574e)

  64. And Dan Rather’s TANG docs? LtCol Killian could have traveled forward in time to type them in Word and then brought them back to early 70′s texas…for his files.

    Totally possible! ;-)

    Pablo (cb50c5)

  65. Al Gore is running the world’s biggest Ionic Breeze out of his Nashville mansion! Etc.

    Jim Treacher (15574e)

  66. So. A post in a blog about posts in blogs. Worthy of Encyclopedia Dramatica were it not. so. damn. boring.

    Dear man, anyone that’s been on the internet a year or more knows how to deal with trolls. They’re energy creatures, do not feed them and they die. Both of your ‘sides’ have them, and they’re all idiots. A response or explanation like this just stirs the pot.

    The sad thing is that in the comments I see post after post from people claiming to be free-thinkers, the other side doing the same, and each considering the other sheep. More sad is that I fail to see any new ideas from either side. Sheep begat sheep. Trolling begat trolls. Just a load of people trying to prove someone else’s point.

    At the very least, I can say that your post had some interesting points in that yes, no one post from anyone, on any blog, comment or body can nor should be made indicative of an entire party/movement. Blogs are made for us to put out our opinions, our views. They are nobody’s but our own.

    Just, don’t be so long-winded about it. Say what you want to say, back it up a couple of times, and defend any holes you made. I feel like I just took four benedryl.

    [Sorry, what did you say again? Your comment was so long, dull, and derivative, I drifted off there. -- P]

    Sato (b867e8)

  67. The VRWC meme that a legion of hateful rich white men ninja trolls were hovering around HuffPo waiting for some innocent news aggregator to link to an article that would give them an opportunity to sully the sweet reputation of Ariana’s readership is an idea richly laden in… something. Even Kos has a more permissive policy and a higher degree of rationality than HuffPo. Basides, look at the PDF Malkin links to, compare names to other posts they have made and draw your own conclusions. Or, better yet, do like I’m doing and cast your lot in with Occam.

    Immolate (4a2eae)

  68. You all criticize Greenwaldcuz you’re just jealous of allthe praise he gets from various commenters!              |

    Korla Pundit (684500)

  69. > Today’s left certainly would be, seeing as how they support the modern-day Nazis in the Middle East.

    It’s true. If you can stomach it, go to modern nazi websites like stormfront, and you’ll see their commentary is IDENTICAL to the likes of Jimmy Carter, Kos, DU and Cindy Sheehan. Carter is by far their favorite President because he hates “the Zionists.”

    There’s really nothing “liberal” about them, since liberal democracies are only worth destroying in their book. Many “liberals” today are secretly royalists, and wax poetic at the concept of having a monarchy (aka a dictator). And the rest are flat-out deadender commie scumbags.

    Thanks.

    Korla Pundit (684500)

  70. [...] Instapunk experiment on blogospheric language showing interesting results Via Instapundit, I followed this link to a post over on Instapunk regarding the outpouring of sadness over at the well-known leftie site Huffington Post over the fact that VP Dick Cheney wasn’t killed in Afghanistan the other day. (If you missed it, check out Dean Barnett’s posts on the subject. You should also see Patterico’s devastating response to Glenn Greenwald on the matter.) Instapunk notes a trend in this and other leftie-vs-rightie verbal salvos: Which, come to think of it, is the real distinguishing characteristic between the firebrands of the left and the firebrands of the right. There are plenty of verbal attacks launched by both right and left in the war of words that constitutes political discourse. You couldn’t have a free political system without them. What matters is the quality and tenor of those attacks. Political passion is fueled by emotion, and emotion in an adversary situation results quite often in extreme analogies, ridicule, unfairness, and even cruelty. Yet there is a vast difference between employing verbal wit as a weapon of ridicule and employing the foulest lowest-common-denominator cusswords available to describe one’s political foes and to wish for their physical destruction. The latter is not wit, which it resembles only insofar as word choices have the power to shock. When endless repetition makes them a thudding refrain used again an again and again without any attempt at irony or illuminating juxtapositions, it’s merely gutter-mouthed drivel. Its only intent is to injure, not to educate, persuade, or delineate.… [...]

    Instapunk experiment on blogospheric language showing interesting results « HoodaThunk? (6175c2)

  71. “Okay, let me make it clear enough that even you dittoheads might just understand it.

    Conservatives are a herd of sheep, who mindlessly obey whoever they are told to. Therefore, any post by any commenter is representative of conservatives as a whole.”

    -YourIntellectualSuperiors

    Whoo… thanks for clearing that one up!

    “Liberals, by contrast, are independent free thinkers”

    -YourIntellectualSuperiors [IRONY?]

    Here’s a hint, genius: if you want to tout your ideological independence, DON’T USE A COLLECTIVE HANDLE!

    Moron(s). You’re making liberals look bad.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  72. Wilson,

    HuffPo comments are moderated, and nothing gets posted without getting past the censor.

    Wrong. Read the comment policy: “We pre-moderate comments on our blog posts and post-moderate comments on news stories”. This was a news story.

    Also, the fact that the hate came fast and furious as soon as the post went up tells you that it was the regulars and not an invasion.

    Huffington Post (its news-part) is actually not a real blog, but a Drudge Report-clone, only with comments section added. Trolls make up 90% of commentators there, with all the kinds of vile shit springing up all the time. There’s a huge insane “anti-Zionist” populace there, etc. This doesn’t have much to do with “leftist” thinking, it’s just the fact that comment section’s structure there is completely unsuitably for the normal discussion. All the sensible people (including “leftists”) talk at other places, HuffPo’s regulars are trolls. That’s just the way it is.

    It’s open pretty regularly, once a week or so. But whether it is or not, how does that make one person responsibe for what another person says? Ask Barak Obama about that.

    Or maybe John Edwards? Or Tom Tancredo?
    Anyway, say, Allahpundit is very proud of his sensible policy: as soon as somebody starts calling for nuking Mecca, he’s kicked out. He feels somewhat responsible for what goes on at his place, doesn’t he? I didn’t say that Johnson should answer for those comments, only that he’s somewhat responsible for them.

    No he didn’t. Find me a quote where he says “I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have said that” He tried to explain it away. He did not apologize.

    Sorry, my bad, indeed he didn’t, I misremembered. But at least he didn’t give them Idiotarian of the year award. That was quite insensibly of him, although I don’t know much about military contractors.

    NN (f82c0b)

  73. These comments are staggeringly hypocritical, viewed in the light of Greenwald’s extensive history of spotlighting anonymous comments at conservative blogs to reach broad-brush conclusions about the entire conservative movement.

    Game, set, match: Patterico!

    Sister Toldjah (d81da5)

  74. That comment mostly sprang from his own military experience

    b.s. those of us in the Military who were in Iraq at the time were disgusted. Kos is a big groupthinkfest. and his Kerryesque ‘nonapology apology’ shows he was more sorry about the political/credibility ‘fallout’ than he was sorry about the actual comment.

    brad (3d5f4b)

  75. NN,

    Trolls make up 90% of commentators there, with all the kinds of vile shit springing up all the time. There’s a huge insane “anti-Zionist” populace there, etc.

    Those aren’t trolls, my friend. That’s THE BASE over there, kinda like at Dkos.

    This doesn’t have much to do with “leftist” thinking, it’s just the fact that comment section’s structure there is completely unsuitably for the normal discussion.

    Oh, yes it does. Poke around here for a while, and get back to us.

    All the sensible people (including “leftists”) talk at other places, HuffPo’s regulars are trolls.

    Then they’re not trolls, are they? And they’re certainly not conservatives.

    He feels somewhat responsible for what goes on at his place, doesn’t he?

    One of many rules in Hot Air’s closed comments section. They’re trying to foster a certain demeanor through tight control. Charles is not, he’s much more hands off. That doesn’t make Allah responsible for anything anyone says there. And the point is not the moderation, that’s ancilliary. The point is the posting…lots of it. Posting about the VPOTUS, not those who have sworn to kill infidels for their God.

    I didn’t say that Johnson should answer for those comments, only that he’s somewhat responsible for them.

    I have no idea what that means. He’s responsible, but need not answer for them?

    But at least he didn’t give them Idiotarian of the year award. That was quite insensibly of him, although I don’t know much about military contractors.

    OK, that’s barely even English. I’m completely lost trying to suss any meaning out of that.

    Pablo (cb50c5)

  76. Those aren’t trolls, my friend. That’s THE BASE over there, kinda like at Dkos.

    OK, they are the base there, but they have troll mentality (say something offensive and stupid and start a flame war). It’s the specifics of the place. I don’t see the same general tendency at DKos (of course, DKos being open to everyone, there are a lot of weird things published there as well).

    Oh, yes it does. Poke around here for a while, and get back to us.

    Not much to see there. Of course, if you define “leftist” as a communist, there’s a lot of nutty leftists for you to find. It’s no different from saying that “right” means “creationist white supremacist”.

    Then they’re not trolls, are they? And they’re certainly not conservatives.

    There are some conservative nuts there as well. But yes, you’re right, strictly speaking they are not trolls, they just behave as if they are trolling some imaginary opponents.

    Posting about the VPOTUS, not those who have sworn to kill infidels for their God.

    ??? It’s not OK to post Drudge-style headline about attempt on Cheney’s life, because there are fanatics out there? (like UN peacekeepers?)

    OK, that’s barely even English. I’m completely lost trying to suss any meaning out of that.

    Well, sorry if I wasn’t clear. My point: Marcos’s rant was offensive, but not as offensive as LGF giving “Idiotarian of the Year” award to a dead girl (regardless of what you think about her politics).

    NN (d035f8)

  77. I would like to see someone assasinate Obama and Hillary. We will all die if either of those two become president. The time may come when patriots are force to take action.

    [Now this is an interesting case. It seems to me like a fairly transparent attempt by a lefty to plant hate speech on my site, under the guise of being a righty. If it's not, then it borders on a threat of assassination. The Secret Service may be interested.

    So the commenter is either a) being deceitful or b) a possibly dangerous person. Either way, I see no privacy interest in the IP address.

    The IP is from UCLA. Interestingly, it has been used on this blog three times before, always to make lefty points. But that doesn't necessarily mean anything, as I obviously don't know if this is a fixed IP address that is unique to one computer, or one that is shared by many people.

    There is one way to find out for sure.

    After all, perhaps this is a real threat of assassination. In that case, UCLA would certainly want to investigate. If not them, the Secret Service might be interested. Surely one of those entities could find out whether this threat came from an identifiable person.

    What do you folks think I should do? -- P]

    Republican Patriot (0ce116)

  78. Personally, I would like to see morons need licenses in order to post comments, never mind start up blogs.

    But, hey, Republican Patriot (or should I say, Moby), fortunately most such impulses get curbed. Usually by age 15 or so.

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  79. Patriot,

    Are you a troll or an idiot?

    DRJ (605076)

  80. I would like to see bad things happend to Clinton but anyone who advocates the assasination of an American politician is not a patriot. Assassination is an afront to democracy. (once she is a non-politician then she is fair game)

    You are not a patriot but a fascist.

    [This is posted from the same UCLA IP address as the comment from Republican Patriot. See the note I appended to Republican Patriot's comment.

    Should I ask UCLA to investigate? My sense is that we have caught a lefty troll and that it's not a genuine threat that demands investigation . . . but I'm willing to hear input. I'll decide later this evening. In the meantime, I can't monitor comments once my lunch hour is over (I'm doing this at lunch from a Treo), so be warned: a Trojan Horse may be on the loose. Take any comments with a larger helping of salt than usual. -- P]

    westlox (0ce116)

  81. I thinks one of them would be AL GORE who,s own estate uses more electrcity in one month then the avrage american dose in one year

    krazy kagu (8d6a8f)

  82. Newsflash: Dick Cheney lives. He didna get blowed up. Really, Patterico, I can hear you huffing via http. Ridiculous. (And yes, for the record, I made my own hateful, malicious, anti-Cheney post, with which I am quite content, thankyouverymuch.)

    teh l4m3 (7f9929)

  83. Patterico:

    ANY threat to a politician should be viewed as a grave matter. I say this, whether the threat is aimed at Bill Clinton as POTUS, Dick Cheney as VPOTUS, or Hilary Clinton as a sitting Senator (or even a sitting First Lady).

    For that matter, former Presidents are accorded Secret Service protection, and that’s done for a reason.

    If it’s a troll (righty OR lefty), they need to learn that there are some things that are beyond the pale. (See the case of Deb Frisch, for that matter.)

    If it’s not a troll, then it REALLY needs to be assessed by folks who are familiar with security threats.

    Either way, I think that you should forward this to the proper authorities. (And, if it’s coming from a UCLA computer, I wouldn’t be so sure that they couldn’t figure out who had sent it, or at least narrow it down.)

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  84. NN,

    Not much to see there. Of course, if you define “leftist” as a communist, there’s a lot of nutty leftists for you to find. It’s no different from saying that “right” means “creationist white supremacist”.

    No, I mean rabid anti-semite, and there’s plenety of it to see there, in full Berkeley bloom.

    It’s not OK to post Drudge-style headline about attempt on Cheney’s life, because there are fanatics out there?

    No, we’re talking about the comments, remember?

    My point: Marcos’s rant was offensive, but not as offensive as LGF giving “Idiotarian of the Year” award to a dead girl

    I suppose that’s a matter of opinion, but I couldn’t disagree more. The IOTY is a vote for, as the title sugets, the dumbest person of the year in the political realm. If you don’t think playing chicken with an armored bulldozer is really, really dumb, I don’t know what to tell you. But how do you feel about the Darwin Awards and the similar abuse that the left heaped on Pat Tillman?

    Patterico, I think the abuse folks at UCLA would be interested in knowing about that sort of thing.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  85. It seemed to me that one of Glenn’s and others’ main points was not that both sides have (anonymous) commenters who spew hateful material. That is a given. I think the main point regarding hypocrisy is that the right, via Hannity and Limbaugh (on this particular huffpo news story regarding Cheney) pick out the anonymous comments and then generalize how the “left” as a whole is so hate filled and anti-american as to wish death on a sitting vice president.

    The hypocrisy lies in the fact that conservative BIG LEAGUERS (Coulter, Falwell, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, etc…) ROUTINELY make similar comments that could be considered hate-filled, unpatriotic, whatever and yet the right generally remains silent. Calling for the death of the elected leader of Venezuala, Hugo Chavez: Bravo. Wishing a supreme court justice would drink posion so Bush can appoint a more conservativ judge: Way to go. Suggesting the 9-11 firefighers’ victims’ wives are happy their husbands are dead and were now using their tragedy to promote themselves: good one! Declaring the NYT editors traitors who should be hung – double bravo.

    I dont expect conservative bloggers to criticize random comments from hannity, coulter, malkin or whomever on a daily basis. But it would be the height of folly to IGNORE the pandering to the more extreme elements of the conservative base that Limbaugh, Hannity, and especially Coulter have made a living doing.

    Dissent is not treason. If i think Cheney’s policies have led to hundreds of thousands of needless deaths, cost billions of taxpayer money, ruined America’s standing in the world, have led to the outing of brewster jennings and associates as a CIA front group, which may have compromised ongoing intelligence on WMD’s…what is wrong with wishing that he be removed from office? If falwell can wish for the assasination of hugo chavez, because of who he is and what he stands for, why can’t a person in an anonymous fashion do the same to Cheney? Granted, i personally would have called for his impeachment rather than death, however, if i were convinced that the dems were to weak or too scared to attempt such a manuever, and i felt cheney was as evil as some people really think he is, the only other way for him to go short of his term expiring is for him to exit this life. Thats simply a fact.

    If Glenn Greenwald or Arianna Huffington herself made the comments about wishing Cheney had been hit by the attack- – then things would be a tad bit more equal. I do agree that Glenn in particular has quoted commenters from various sites and hence is argument is bit weaker, but to my knowledge Arianna has not. But thats not the point. The point is the generalization of the whole “left” as a bunch of anti-american commie pinko’s because of some random comments on a blog is not a rational argument, which is exactly what Hannity and Limbaugh have done in this instance (of course they dont use the language i used, but the idea is the same) – its all the “rabid left” mindset hyperbole. Just my $.02

    windy_city_atty (3855fa)

  86. Forgot to add, the same applies to the lefty blogosphere. Citing a few random comments on a conservative blog to prove “HOW ALL CONSERVATIVES” think is equally as fallacious an argument. It works both ways, and unfortunately, the right/left dichotomy is soooo bad in this country (in part fueled by partisan bickering on all sides) that illogical arguments and ad hominem’s are par for the course. C’est la vie.

    windy_city_atty (3855fa)

  87. What do you folks think I should do? — P

    1) Report its IP to the authorities.

    2) Ban it from commenting.

    There are sites “out there” in the Webbytubes where advocates of killing political opposition can wallow in their hatred.

    We all know this is not such a site.

    Abraxas (2f586f)

  88. What about this little gem about Clarence Thomas?

    “”The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that’s how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person.” — USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary”

    I certainly think it is a bit disingenuous to decry the comments on the blogs. I certainly think that politicians and justices are imperfect and the Supreme Court and the justices who sit on the bench deserve only as much respect as they earn through fealty to the Constitution. Ditto politicians. I don’t quite see the parallel between abstract attempts at dark humor regarding the Supremes and a sitting Vice President ACTUALLY being targeted by a bomber minion of Satan.

    Jefferson (45e281)

  89. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that conservative BIG LEAGUERS (Coulter, Falwell, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, etc…) ROUTINELY make similar comments that could be considered hate-filled, unpatriotic, whatever and yet the right generally remains silent.

    That’s not true, as much as you might like it to be. If you think that stuff gets a free pass on the right…especially Coulter, and almost as much with Fallwell/Robertson, you’re not paying attention.

    Try searching THIS site for Coulter, and let us know what you find, k?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  90. Links and Minifeatures 03 01 Thursday…

    One more reason why I think this year may surprise a lot of people: this site’s visits skyrocketed in February, setting a new monthly record of 138,905 visits. In a 28 day month when real estate is usually dead. Given the nature of my traffic – a la…

    Searchlight Crusade (fa8fba)

  91. Look, it appears to me that within any given group as large as “conservatives” or “liberals” there will be sub-groups, conservatives who dont like Coulter, conservatives who dont like McCain, conservatives who dont like those who arent conservative enough, or religous enough, or pro-life enough, etc..etc… same goes with the lefty side.

    However, Gleen Greenwald isnt appearing on Good Morning America to spill his vitriol and sell his book. Arianna huffington is not a synidcated radio columnist who has access to millions (if not hundreds of millions) of viewers. Arianna is big for the left, she does appear on MSNBC and other alphabet networks, but she does not have the access to the masses that O’reilly and Limbaugh have.

    I really think it is a matter of comparing apples and oranges. If the Right really thought Coulter, for example, or Malkin was doing a disservice to the conservartive cause, then why are they still around, why are they still selling millions of copies of their books; why are they constantly sqawking on hannity and colmes or o reilly or wherever? Who exactly is the audience that eats this shit up and supports them?

    Better yet, why do O Reilly and Hannity ask these people to be on their shows? Are they not lending some form of credence to their views by giving them a platform to air them? What am i missing here?

    windy_city_atty (3855fa)

  92. Well, for starters, Falwell is pretty much the perfect picture of “Right-wing Fringe”. He’s so far away from actual conservative values it’s almost sickening. He’s just an angry little man who lies about talking to God.

    What was that? Oh, come on… Anyone who claims that God spoke to him and said that the TellaTubbies are tools of Satan and Homosexuals (to him it’s pretty much the same thing, the deluded fool)is just bug-nuts. I’ll go so far as to say he’s fucking insane. He needs to go sit in a chair and just go away.

    Limbaugh has never, to my recolection, called for the violent, painful death of any political figure. I don’t count OBL and people like that, people who literally want to kill us all, nor do I count such “gems” as child molesters and the like (you hear about the guy from MO who had those two boys? Like 40 counts of forced sodomy based on child porn… Sorry, THAT guy does need to die, prefferably after a few years being Prisoner Bubba’s new bride).

    I’m not aware of Hannity calling for anyone’s death either… He never called for Gore to get blown up or shot.

    I am also not aware of Michelle Malkin calling for Marcotte to be raped and killed.

    Please, if I’m mistaken and you have credible sources to back up your claim that some of the most visable Conservatives have called for the violent, painful death of a prominant Liberal, I would love to see it.

    I’ll admit I don’t like O’Reilly all the time, but in the case of Rush, he’s WORKED HARD to create his outlet to the public. He created it through hard work and sacrifice. NO ONE gave it to him. The EIB is not Air America, which was a gift to the Liberal Left (the most wacked out fringe of it, too, I mean come on, FRANKIN??? Was Micheal Moore busy or something??) that has utterly failed due to a lack of interest on the part of their intended audiance. Rush has a following. Rush BUILT it, if only because he was the only vocal Conservative on the radio, and people wanted that. No one, apparently, wanted Frankin and his troupe.

    To say that one or two liberals known for text-based interaction don’t have access to the masses is to ignore people like Obberman, Donahue (god his show couldn’t have tanked faster) and pretty much all of MSNBC, and most all talking heads.

    Yes yes, we have FOX News… Liberals have countless print and broadcast media from which to address the public. That they have fallen by the wayside, and that Fox News is the highest rated of them all is merely an excercise in concentration. We have one option, you have 3-6 (i’m not bothering to do the count frankly).

    As for Coulter, I can think of the one example of her suggesting harm to a Liberal institution, and while I’ll admit that there are likely others, it’s sardonic wit. If Liberals are allowed to claim “it was a joke!!” when they do truly IGNORANT things and say things that should cause a mass uprising with torche-bearing protesters, we’re allowed ONE conservative who’s maybe less than tactful with her jokes.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  93. And very, very few conservatives actually like McCain… He’s the Ralph Nader of the republican party…

    He might be in the race for President, but only in his head…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  94. What the moonbats don’t understand is that a Jihadi attack on any American is an attack on all Americans, including their own sorry asses.

    songdongnigh (10ed38)

  95. Pablo,

    No, I mean rabid anti-semite, and there’s plenety of it to see there, in full Berkeley bloom.

    Of course you know that Jews are the most left-leaning demographic group in the US. An effort to paint the leftist (i.e. majority of) Jews as “self-hating” for, say, not fully supporting Israel is racist itself — as if their ethnicity gave them special obligations towards a foreign country they are not citizens of.
    And Golda Meir was a socialist herself.
    Of course, there are some troubling anti-semitic tendencies at some places on the left, but they are not serious enough to freak out the Jews themselves.

    No, we’re talking about the comments, remember?

    Well, honestly, I don’t quite understand what are you talking about. Anyway, your idea that these comments were pre-moderated is just not true. They were post-moderated, i.e. deleted.
    The idea that Taliban wanted to kill Cheney because he is “infidel” is laughable. They don’t care about his religion, they don’t like his politics.
    I don’t see why is it wrong to wish that Cheney would die. Is it wrong for me to wish that Putin and his gang that screws up _my_ country (yeah, that’s where I live) would just die away? Of course, I wouldn’t want Putin to be killed by Chechens. I find jokes about Cheney’s heart condition offensive (they are probably the only thing on the Daily Show that I really hate). And even though there’s nothing wrong with wishing that Cheney died, it’s very stupid to talk about this.

    But how do you feel about the Darwin Awards and the similar abuse that the left heaped on Pat Tillman?

    I think that Darwin Awards are in very bad taste and would be totally unsuitable in the political context. If “she got what she asked for” logic is OK with you, than what’s wrong with “screw them, it part of their job, getting killed, and they get well paid for this”? LGF celebrated someone’s death and that’s _sick_ regardless of Rachel Corrie being or not being stupid.
    The left’s (you meant a couple of lunatics, didn’t you?) abuse of Pat Tillman was certainly disgusting. And very stupid, given the fact that he was a leftist himself. The right’s abuse of him, by turning him into a political symbol for something he resented and covering up the cause of death, was also disgusting.

    NN (d035f8)

  96. Eric B #57 -

    I’m also surprised (unless your goal here is making a point, and not striking at the truth — always a danger when attornies step into the journalism game) that you’d expect Glenn Greenwald to condemn any singular post found anywhere on the Internet.”

    Welly gosh I certainly do!

    Don’t you think Greenyboy should live up to the same standard he sets for everyone else? Or do you think its just extra fine and okie dokie for him to everyone else to a standard that he personally craps all over regularly?

    Quoth the Greentard:

    “But what’s so very confounding is that of all the countless right-wing bloggers who spent the weekend so very horrified about the comments of that influential political leader of liberalism, Deb Frisch, or who lamented that she wasn’t condemned aggressively enough for her idiotic comments to Jeff Goldstein, none of them has condemned these calls by their fellow prominent right-wing blogger for American journalists and Supreme Court justices to be hung by trees until their neck snaps (indeed, one of the right-wing bloggers joining in the weekend sermons against this mean Deb Frisch rhetoric was that Beacon of Right-wing propriety, Misha himself).”

    It seems to me that if Greeny is going to hold others to that standard then he ought to live up to it himself, but hey, I’m not as smart as Greeny’s minions, so there’s probably some nuance I’m missing here. So…right leaning bloggers are responsible for every single thing written by and other right leaning blogger (as defined by Glenny) but nobody on the left leaning side of the blogosphere is similarly accountable. Gotcha.

    EllisonEllenbergGreeny (4f4ebf)

  97. If “she got what she asked for” logic is OK with you, than what’s wrong with “screw them, it part of their job, getting killed, and they get well paid for this”?

    What happened to thos men was not part of their jobs and the utter inhumanity of what was done to them, and what children were encouraged to do to them should shock and disgust and thinking person…which obviously leaves Markos Zuniga out. That particular bit of moral equivalence is quite vile of you, IMHO. But defend it all you like. Sunlight is a great disinfectant.

    As for “self hating Jews” you put that on the table, so don’t try putting it in my mouth. The truth is what it is, and despite your denials, Zombie has a ton of it on display. Defend that as you like and refer to my last paragraph.

    Pablo (cb50c5)

  98. That particular bit of moral equivalence is quite vile of you, IMHO. But defend it all you like. Sunlight is a great disinfectant.

    Well, it was you that said that it’s OK for a political blog to celebrate someone’s death “because it’s just like Darwin Awards”, so I don’t understand you lecturing me about moral equivalence.

    NN (d035f8)

  99. The idea that Taliban wanted to kill Cheney because he is “infidel” is laughable. They don’t care about his religion, they don’t like his politics

    That’s what lefties like you can’t seem to understand… To them Religion and Politics are one and the same. If they hate you for your politics then they also hate you for your religion, because to them the two are inseperable.

    Gianni (a7ca0d)

  100. If they hate you for your politics then they also hate you for your religion, because to them the two are inseperable.

    In case you didn’t notice, Islamic terrorists kill a lot of their co-religionists.

    NN (9c16c2)

  101. If you haven’t noticed the stated purpose of the islamofascists is to bring Sharia law to the world. Sharia is both political and religious. They are not seperate.

    Gianni (a7ca0d)

  102. Well, it was you that said that it’s OK for a political blog to celebrate someone’s death “because it’s just like Darwin Awards”, so I don’t understand you lecturing me about moral equivalence.

    No, I asked you how you felt about it. If you’re going to use quotation marks, you should put them around something I actually said, don’t you think? And Rachael Corrie is Darwin Award candidate. She was playing games with her life and she lost it. Those 4 Americans who were murdered, burned and desecrated were not playing chicken with an armored bulldozer.

    Your moral equivalence, and your defense of Zuniga, which has exactly nothing to do with Corrie, reeks.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  103. In case you didn’t notice, Islamic terrorists kill a lot of their co-religionists.

    Not really. You’re aware of the sectarian split, aren’t you? And the violence that has surrounded it since the schism? Those doing the killing don’t consider the other their co-religionists. That’s why they don’t have a problem attacking the other’s mosques.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  104. Everthing is not that black and white. Often what is labeled “hypocrisy” is simply two opposing ideas, i.e., if a Catholic is seen entering a Luthern Church, is he being hypocritical to his Catholic faith? No one person is perfect and lives up to his ideals 100% of the time! Al Gore wasn’t using a lear jet to attend a party; it is part of his work. I suppose he should just take the train and visit one site once in a while. Then people would be complaining that he is ineffective. If you don’t believe in global warming, just say so. Stop attacking the messenger.

    Lily Maskew (a2f432)

  105. NM – in case you didn’t notice, the islamic extreme do not consider many of their co-religionist victims truly to be their co-religionists. So what is your point?

    Oh, that’s right … you don’t have one.

    Tryptich (678ad0)

  106. Wow, what you lack in facts you more than make up for in manufactured outrage. Greenwald has himself said you can find hateful comments by commmenters of all stripes. The fact that you did proves…..nothing.
    Greenwald’s larger point is that prominent right-wingers regularly and prominently make outrageous comments such as calls for: assassination of foreign leaders, violence against “liberal” journalists and newspapers, assassination of judges and other outrages on a regular basis. And they are regularly and prominently cheered by the crowds that follow them. In addition, they toss around schoolyard insults against liberals (like Coulter’s calling Edwards a faggot today) on a regular basis. These are not semi-anonymous bloggers. These are Coulter, O’Reilly, Buchanan, Limbaugh and other household names.
    Please, please ask a dozen people on the street who Markos Moulitsas is and watch them all draw a blank. Pretending that one comment from one sort-of famous blogger balances out the constant hate spewing from the right would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that it’s a meme that’s repeated so often on the right that the uninformed don’t question it.

    doggril (2aa1c2)

  107. Al Gore wasn’t using a lear jet to attend a party; it is part of his work.

    The Oscars is work? He wasn’t even nominated!

    No, he’s pimpimg himself. But then again, maybe he sees that as his job these days. What’s a few thousand tons of carbon when there’s adulation to grab?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  108. [...] Glenn Greenwald, Thomas Ellers, and Rick Ellensburg: The Three Most Hypocritical Men on the Planet [...]

    A Second Hand Conjecture » Ann Coulter and Little Greenwald’s Footballs: Revised as a Carnival of Fisking (f55714)

  109. [...] Time and time again whenever a media figure of the left has relased a vile salvo you didn’t see what you saw today – swift condemnation, but instead you witnessed excuses, blaming (as Glenn Greenwald’s psychotic ramblings would have us believe about the lambasting of the Huffington Post Cheney comments). [...]

    Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » Stark Contrast Between Right and Left when it comes to controversy (f36675)

  110. “Greenwald’s larger point is that prominent right-wingers regularly and prominently make outrageous comments such as calls for: assassination of foreign leaders, violence against “liberal” journalists and newspapers, assassination of judges and other outrages on a regular basis.”

    Other than Ann Coulter (and I haven’t read much of her stuff), what prominent conservative commentators have called for violence against liberal journalists and newspapers? I’ve never heard nor read anything by Limbaugh, Hannity, Buchanan, or O’Reilly calling for such a thing. In fact I’ve never even heard Ann Coulter calling for any such thing, given that many of her remarks are intemperate. Greenwald’s larger point is entirely in his imagination.

    Joe Lammers (2104d0)

  111. [...] Having just devoured Glenn Greenwald and other lesser luminaries (if that’s possible) last night, I can’t help but thinking that Patterico will look forward to feasting on this from Media Bistro: LA Times Praises Baghdad Bureau [...]

    BizzyBlog » Paging Patterico: Media Bistro Has Your Next Meal Ready (34f45e)

  112. Poor clueless, embattled, worthy-of-our-sympathy Cheney (or “Chee-nee”, as his family supposedly pronounces it. Evidently people shouldn’t maek nasty comments about one of the vilest arhictects (no offense to practicing architects, by the way) of the devastation of America and other countries as well.

    Well, to paraphrase Bill Maher, many indiviiduals would be alive today and tomorrow if Cheney weren’t around. How can you defend this opportunistic creature, anyway? Or do you receive a handsome monthly stipend to smooch his posterior in public?

    Your weblog name pretty much sums it up: pontifications. Let’s see…I looked up “pontificate” in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and here’s the definition:

    to speak or express opinions in a pompous or dogmatic way

    In my considered opinion, you have demonstrated both qualities splendidly in this posting. At least you’re aware of your tendencies…

    Richard Tibbitts (9c3a3e)

  113. It’s a tongue in cheek name for a blog that is frequently tongue in cheek. I find that people with a sense of humor generally understand this.

    Patterico (5b0b7f)

  114. Is this all you’ve got? Pretty weak. I thought you’d have something more substantive.

    Glenn Greenwald is a great American.

    Jedster (5b26cb)

  115. If you want to be taken seriously, you should use the proper name of the Democratic Party. It is never called the Democrat Party.

    Fred (b8e1a4)

  116. Until the democrat party demonstrates a reason to be taken seriously, I don’t think anyone would confuse it with something that can be called democrat[ic].

    Jane (5a66ce)

  117. baa. baaa! baaaaaaaa!

    cute li’l sheep.

    no credentials, no depth, no critical thinking skills, no sophistication in ability to read arguments, no ability to understand arguments in context.

    baa.

    panoptic nerve (9ea7b6)

  118. Thanks boyse8ab0e6504344695ac0195262df8c088

    Limewire Music Downloads (e1b9b1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8161 secs.