The Three Most Hypocritical Men in the World Are Back
The three most hypocritical men in the world — Glenn Greenwald, Rick Ellensburg, and Thomas Ellers — are now back to believing anonymous hateful comments are meaningful. Why do you suppose that is? Because he’s found some anonymous hateful comments to criticize on right-wing blogs.
Naturally, he tries to distinguish this case from the recent case of anonymous hateful comments on the Huffington Post, which called for Dick Cheney’s death. Naturally, his attempts fail miserably. Virtually every point he makes about the LGF comments applies equally to the recent Huffington Post comments about Dick Cheney’s death.
- Greenwald says LGF comments are meaningful because you have to register to comment. Which you have to do at HuffPo — something Greenwald neglects to mention.
- Greenwald says LGF comments are meaningful because similar comments appeared in previous posts. Which happened at HuffPo — something Greenwald neglects to mention.
- Greenwald says LGF comments are meaningful because Charles Johnson has deleted some comments and left others standing. Which happened at HuffPo — something Greenwald neglects to mention.
Other than that, he’s got a great argument.
What a buffoon.
Just one relevant distinction. Only the LGF comments made the cabana boys cry.
Comment by rhodeymark — 3/16/2007 @ 6:03 am
For the record, I issue my blanket condemnation. It is wrong to lament that the Afghani terror attack did not kill Vice President Cheney, and it is wrong to lament that al Qaeda didn’t kill former President Carter.
It isn’t wrong, however, to wish that our 39th president would just go away, go sit in happy retirement in Plains, Georgia, and not bother the world with his presence again.
Comment by Dana — 3/16/2007 @ 6:25 am
My compliments to our honered host: anyone who is willing to read through the trinity’s articles to find such stuff is truly performing a public service. I could never stand to do such.
[Are you kidding? I read his site only when someone e-mails me a link. — P]
Comment by Dana — 3/16/2007 @ 6:30 am
Dude. We get it. Greenwald sucks.
So does your obsession with Greenwald.
Sure - he’s a pathological liar. If he said the sky was blue I’d go outside and look up, just to make sure. His hypocrisy is boundless.
Which is why people with brains don’t read his drivel.
So why does it keep showing up here?
You. Are. Obsessed.
Why not just rename your blog “Greenwald Watch?” Or has that been done already? (I’d guess yes - but since I don’t give a rat’s ass about Greenwald, I’ll never know).
Obsessions are boring, man.
[You seem obsessed with telling me that I’m obsessed with Greenwald. You just do it under different names to hide your obsession. Sound familiar, “Bob Dole”? — P]
Comment by Jeebus — 3/16/2007 @ 6:33 am
I thought Greenwald was making the argument that if it’s important for MSM pundits and supposed media analysts to point out the vitriolic comments in left and left-leaning blog threads then it should be equally important to point them out on right and right-leaning blog threads.
[But he didn’t think that the Huffington Post comments should be pointed out by the media, and he has repeatedly indicated that he finds Deep Meaning in the LGF comments. The guy is a partisan hack, pure and simple. — P]
Comment by carsick — 3/16/2007 @ 6:42 am
“In fact, one of the Al Qaeda-supporting LGF commenters here was an active participant in the thread where Charles Johnson was expressing such righteous outrage over the HuffPost comments.”
This whle thing is silly. The basic point is that conservatives behave like schoolyard bullies and liberals have a history of whining about it. So the press listens to the bullies more then the whiners: nobody respects a whiner.
Coulter et al. got away with spewing their garbage loudly and in public and no one in the press called them for it. The faggot comment is not worse then wishing the NYTimes building had been hit. But now the rules have changed. The democrats aren’t whining so much as saying fuck you.
Greenwald’s still a bit of a whiner but then he’s got a sharp legal mind, which there isn’t much evidence on the right these days.
And I’m just loving the comments about wetbacks here Pat. As with LGF a class act all around.
Comment by AF — 3/16/2007 @ 7:03 am
Greenwald wouldn’t know logical consistency if it walked up to him and kicked him in the nuts. The ability to apply obfuscation, misdirection, prevarication and circular reasoning in 3000 word doses does not a sharp legal mind make.
Comment by Pablo — 3/16/2007 @ 7:50 am
Just…wow. Nope, no one said a word about it, huh? Is there air on your planet?
Comment by Pablo — 3/16/2007 @ 7:53 am
Re: Pablo
It does in the Ninth Federal Circuit.
Comment by great unknown — 3/16/2007 @ 7:56 am
P -
Can you please explain why you (and many others) spend so much time responding to Glenn Greenwald?
Who is he? Why are his opinions so valuable that they merit this much effort? Is he renowned in some legal or academic circle that give his missives such weight?
Certainly there are scores of bloggers like him - what makes this one so special?
Comment by TakeFive — 3/16/2007 @ 8:05 am
“Just…wow. Nope, no one said a word about it, huh? Is there air on your planet?”
Imagine a liberal flack with the history of offensive comments being invited to big public republican functions. Imagine the howls of indignation.
From The New Republic’s blog The Plank
So The American Prospect is obliged by this stupidity to make the absolutely fucking obvious response:
“CONTROVERSY OF THE FUCKING DAY!!?” The level of political debate in this country has dropped to such a level of stupidity that it boggles the mind. Is it a controversy if I as an atheist go into a Catholic church without spitting on the ground and cursing the priest?
Tell me son, how am I supposed to take you seriously, except as an obstacle to serious discussion of the issues important to our country?
Comment by AF — 3/16/2007 @ 8:21 am
LOL. One moment… wiping away a tear.
Tell me, what did Coulter say again? I can’t quite recall since I didn’t see it on the front page of every news website, at the top of every blog, and as a banner on every news show.
Perhaps you should consider seeing a doctor. I’m not sure what it’s called when you are struck blind and deaf upon hearing or reading about this one incident, but it sounds like a serious disorder.
Comment by Lehosh — 3/16/2007 @ 8:30 am
I. AM. OUTRAGED!
Good DAY, Sir!
/Been done to death
//But it never stops being funny!
Comment by pock suppet — 3/16/2007 @ 9:51 am
What an ass.
Comment by David N. Scott — 3/16/2007 @ 9:54 am
That there’s 5 of him.
Comment by Pablo — 3/16/2007 @ 9:57 am
“conservatives behave like schoolyard bullies ”
WHAT? Let’s ignore the make believe world of Blogs for a moment and while we’re at it the nearly make believe world that Ann Coulter’s of the left and right inhabit. These are just noise factories.
Let’s look at the real world. Who holds the most violent demonstrations and counter demonstrations? 90% are by the left. Heck the left holds violent peace demonstrsation. Who cuts off the free flow of ideas on college campi? 90% its the left. Who censors speach with political correctness? 90% its the left. Who shouts down and throws pies at speakers with whom they disagree? Its the left 90% of the time. At the last Republican convention, the police told the delegates to not wear their ties or jackets while out side the venue … it was dangerous to look Republican. How many liberals had their tires slashed during the last election?
Conservatives aren’t the bullies here.
Comment by quasimodo — 3/16/2007 @ 10:01 am
You have to read lefty blogs to see why Greenwald, et al, are important. That is not for the weak of stomach but there are attacks, typically on LGF, orchestrated by these people and I guess we have to respond. The MSM does read some of these lefty blogs and some of these themes end up on the pages of newspapers with lazy reporters. The latest is a hysterical rant that the Daily Kos diaries sympathetic to Khalid Sheik Mohammed are really false flag operations from LGF. The Huff Po nonsense about Cheney was another example where there were accusations that it wasn’t really a lefty doing it.
I would sooner watch Henry Waxman conduct hearings, staring up his angry nostrils, than read most of those blogs.
Comment by Mike K — 3/16/2007 @ 10:27 am
Dose that include the green hypotcrit AL GORE who thinks he is our king already?
Comment by krazy kagu — 3/16/2007 @ 11:07 am
Good comments but I do think that if Republicans want to do well in the next election cycle it could only help if there was a little adult supervision at many of the blogs (not a code word for censorship). When someone waxes sentimental about nuking Mecca or taking up arms,there is nothing wrong with pointing out why that type of rhetoric is not going to win over the numbers needed to win elections.
Chalk much of it up to youthful exuberance by many of the posters on both sides of the equation but the party that begins to mentor/educate these posters about effective communication is the party that looks more palatable to the middle/moderate/independent voters.
I don’t disagree at all that the left has much more to answer for in regards to calls for violence against our own leaders.
The hosts of the blogs shouldn’t be the comment police — other posters should be willing to make the effort to encourage civil dialog.
Comment by Moderate Hick — 3/16/2007 @ 11:33 am
Comment by TakeFive — 3/16/2007 @ 8:05 am
Well, there aren’t ’scores’ of bloggers who have had their work read on the House floor, nor had New York Times bestsellers, nor built a best-read blog from the ground up in only 30 days.
All of this accomplished whilst sipping caipirinhas on the beaches of Brasil and writing in the first-person as 5 different people. Special, indeed. If you can’t see the specialness, you don’t deserve to read Ellers, er, Greenwald.
Comment by nofanofcablecos — 3/16/2007 @ 11:37 am
nofanofcablecos (Hiltzik, is that you?) - I’ll assume your being serious here:
Well, there aren’t ’scores’ of bloggers who have had their work read on the House floor, nor had New York Times bestsellers, nor built a best-read blog from the ground up in only 30 days.
Ok, so it looks like he wrote a polemic on the Bush administration, and a congressman read some words on the floor, but I still don’t see why he merits such detailed attention.
Is he the designated hitter for the left, so it makes sense to strike him out?
Comment by TakeFive — 3/16/2007 @ 12:54 pm
I read through the Carter/Clinton assassination thread, 2-3 people made inappropriate comments. One person apologized. Another claimed to be kidding. The fact they try to compare 2-3 comments to the daily geyser of hate that erupts from the left tells me how desperate they are to convince themselves they are the good guys.
Comment by Hard Right — 3/16/2007 @ 1:09 pm
Did you know he’d written a book? I love that Charles redirected people to the Wuzzadem sockpuppets.
Comment by htom — 3/16/2007 @ 1:34 pm
This is a race to the bottom. Quit now & go on to something more worthy.
Comment by ColoComment — 3/16/2007 @ 1:36 pm
The honorable Mr Greenwald is hardly the only blogger who gets such attention; I’m sure y’all will remember the focus on Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan a couple of months ago.
And it must’ve worked, ’cause I’ve been checking their sites recently, but at least part of that is due to Sharon’s influence.
And it’s hardly just on the left: Glenn Reynolds and Jeff Goldstein regularly attract liberal scrutint, and our friends on the left just love to examine, in minute detail, the writings of the lovely Michelle Malkin.
Of course, our good friend The Liberal Avenger makes it a point to check out our own gracious host!
I guess that you know when you’ve arrived when the other side makes it a point to check you out.
Comment by Dana — 3/16/2007 @ 4:46 pm
i don’t believe any one side is higher in the tone of its rhetoric than any other, and people who assert the contrary sound like fools.
i think patterico should challenge greenwald to a charity bout, maybe 3 3-minute rounds, marquis of queensbury rules, gold’s gym or similar facility, the entire gate going to patterico’s choice of charity. enough of this trash talk, let’s see who has the bigger cojones. could you possibly stream the video over the internet?
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 3/17/2007 @ 6:15 am
I admit the criticism of the left of the likes of Ann Coulter has been too severe. I mean saying that Kerry and Murtha should have been killed by their own men in Vietnam is not all that bad. Saying that the wives of the 9/11 victims were just “harpies” and should be looking for a job with Playboy is really funny especially the part about them glad they lost their husbands so the could get the publicity!!! ha ha A really belly roller! .The remarks of this viscious bitch and the fact that so many morons think she is funny or in any way enlightening and the fact that she has made 30 million dollars shoveling her S….show that the right wing of this country would be perfectly happy living in Germany 1939.
Comment by Charlie — 3/19/2007 @ 3:10 pm
Hey Hard Right.. have you found any of those WMDs your beloved President said were there? Have you decided to pay higher taxes to pay for this war? Are you going yourself or joining the Bush family in being AWOL for the fight? Does the word Chicken Hawk ring a bell?
Comment by Charlie — 3/19/2007 @ 3:22 pm
I’m kind of insulted by Charlie. Clinton was NEVER my BELOVED President. Just President. I’m confused why Charlie seems to think Clinton is beloved on this blog. When did I become absent with out leave? Did I miss a memo? How could Charlie possibly know all this. You have to be ex military in this country to have an opinion? Sounds like Charlie would love to live in Germany in 1939.
Comment by buzz — 3/19/2007 @ 5:59 pm
[…] ideology with the rantings of one madwoman. Despite copious evidence that “some” are embarrassingly wrong in their assertions, the meme spreads like a … well, you get the […]
Pingback by A Second Hand Conjecture » The Cancer Within — 3/28/2007 @ 10:23 am