Letters to the Editor
Elephantman
Published Letters: 1121 Editor's Choice: 15
-
Not the way I read it.
[Read the article: Sleepless in the Senate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anyone else notice this?
"Is this the candlelight vigil?" asked a newspaper photographer, who showed up late. "Just like the Democrats to fuck it up."
Of course the dirty, smelly, hippie party fucks everything up, precious. That's the story you and the rest of you media heather assholes loooove to tell.
Oh, before I forget, fuck you and your shot.
Piece of evidence #9,994,432,234 of the current media's built-in hostility to Democrats.
-- Ras_Nesta
That's not the way I interpret that photog's comment. They way I interpret it is that the scene was viewed as ineffective, as not adequately accomplishing the intended purpose. In other words, that a liberal-Democrat newspaper photographer was saying, "Dammit, we have to do better than this."
Now, I could be wrong. Or, Ras Nesta, you could be wrong. But the numbers, and the available statistics, such as they are, favor me. Overwhelmingly. Every investigation, every poll, every look at camapaign contributions of MSM editorial staffs, all points to the fact that MSM writers, reporters and editors are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats. Not exclusively, of course. There's always the National Review, the Weekly Standard and the WSJ editorial page. Just everybody else. Maybe 9 to 1, or 8 to 2. (My favorite indicator is Slate.com's quadrennial polling of its staff. In the last general election, their staff favored Kerry-Edwards over Bush-Cheney by almost 9 to 1. And, Slate is the "sister publication" of taxpayer-supported National Public Radio.)
-
benjamain...
[Read the article: The National Review mind]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Elephantman and Matty D
How have the both of you managed to miss the point of Glenn's post entirely? He has shown that, unlike the Oreilly's and Malkin's of the world, he is not intellectually dishonest enough to take some incendiary quotes of a few anonymous commenters and ascribe them to a larger political entity/movement. Rather, his argument is that the selected sentiments of those anyonymous patrons of the NRO cruise are in fact ALIGNED with the powers that be at the National Review. Seriously, have you read Glenn's post in its entirety?
If you want to criticize, then show how Glenn is wrong in his reasoning, but these rather obnoxious, substanceless attempts at criticism while studiously avoiding the actual point of Glenn's post are annoying.
-- benjmain
I see it as an either/or -- either you want to make a serious point about the views and policy positions of Larry Kudlow, Jonah Goldberg, et al (hardly 'high-level administration figures' in any event) OR you want to take shots at the irresponsible jabber of anonymous cruise-takers.
The intellectually dishonest approach is to conflate one with the other. That is precisely how this Glenn Greenwald story has gone down.
As someone else said, to the extent that Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin (again, hardly 'senior administration personnel') do the same thing, I condemn them equally.
I mean really, people; what would all of you say if Bill O'Reilly made a daily habit of plucking the three or four most outrageous things posted online by people like, well people like you all, and used that to argue policy differences with John Edwards, or even Katrina van den Heuvel? Stop right there; for those of you who say, "That's exactly what O'Reilly does!" (I don't know, if some of you know that to be true, you are watching O'Reilly a lot more than I do!) If you want to contend that about O'Reilly, I ask you all, how is this any different?
-
A suggestion to Iokannan in the Well
[Read the article: The National Review mind]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Show me where the Bush Administration, or Larry Kudlow, or Jonah Goldberg, or Bill Buckley or Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter or Dinesh d'Sousa or Scooter Libby or Charles Krauthamer or Bill Kristol or any other bogeyman of the right has seriously suggested, as the nameless quoted cruiser carelessly and callously suggested, that some liberals ought ot be thrown into gas chambers, or that there ought to be a suicide bombing of the UN building.
Otherwise, I am pretty happy with my reading comprehension.
On a related note, I did see that Congressman Keith Ellison, the liberal Democrat from Minneapolis who happens to be a Muslim, has now admitted that HE was wrong to have compared the events of 9/11 to the Reichstag fire in Nazi Germany. I was interested that his apology was made to the ADL, when they protested that Ellison's stupid comments degraded the horrors of the holocaust. I didn't see Ellison apologize to the administration for having made an outrageous and insulting comparison. Maybe he did that; I didn't see it reported yet if he did.
I feel certain that when and if Ellison makes a full apology to the White House, Glenn Greenwald will be there to report it.
-
See, this is what I mean...
[Read the article: The National Review mind]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Show me where the Bush Administration, or Larry Kudlow, or Jonah Goldberg, or Bill Buckley or Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter or Dinesh d'Sousa or Scooter Libby or Charles Krauthamer or Bill Kristol or any other bogeyman of the right has seriously suggested, as the nameless quoted cruiser carelessly and callously suggested, that some liberals ought ot be thrown into gas chambers, or that there ought to be a suicide bombing of the UN building."
Does John Bolton count?
-- Jebbie
Are you implying that John Bolton, who has done so much to fight terrorism, advocated "a suicide bombing of the UN building"? Because you know damn well that's a lie. A filthy lie. Shame on you for that kind of garbage.
Bolton said, in 1994. "If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." There was no reference to suicide bombing, to terrorism, or to 9/11, which wouldn't happen for another 4 years. He was making an emphatic and rehtorical point about staffing at the UN.
Does lying count, "Jebbie"?