Not liking, loving or even openly hating Jesus does not make one a "bigot" nor is it reasonable to call such a statement "anti-Catholic"

Griffin expresses hatred of a man, a man named Jesus of Nazereth. Perhaps her reasons are wise or perhaps foolish, but this cannot be assumed to mean she hates everyone who might follow that one person.

After all, am I "bigoted" against the ancient greeks if I say I hate Zeus? He was their biggest god after all, and if I criticize Zeus, does that not, by the same token imply I hate all ancient greeks?

I can't see how it does.

Word of advice: When backpedalling away from a bad position, don't back into a worse one. You went from supporting Mukasey because Kristol told you to, to supporting him because it will piss off some person you don't like.

And refuting your authoritarian follower status by emphasizing how Mukasey will continue the policies of a hyper-executive supra-branch of the government has me reeling. "I'm not an authoritarian! Now let's make sure the President is a King."

That photoshop is really bad work. Embarrassing. Did he do that in MSPaint for fuck's sake?

I would never post such shoddy work on any blog I ran.

On a deeper level, it's juvenile and lacks any depth, comedy or insight. Oooh, Glenn sitting with Ahmedinejad. How profound!

I point this out to elaborate on a point I have made before: Conservatives aren't funny. Ever. I don't know precisely what it is, but the extent one is conservative is inversely proportional to how funny you are.

This is just another data point towards that thesis.

Dear Saloniks

Ahamadinejad is your monkey. You housebreak him. When he hates the people you hate he's a golden god. But when he goes after YOU all of sudden your an oppressed underclass. Well fuck you in boiling liquid uranium hell.

--Anonymous

I retract what I just said. Conservatives are hilarious. Unintentionally funny, but still, very funny.

I like that. I will start referring to the Broder class with that term.

It fits, along with calling them "Versailles on the Ptomic"

At the same time he feels that any one who defends the constitutional rights of Jews in America or speaks at all favorably about Israel is a fifth columnist.

Oh, and I suppose you've had a heart to heart with Glenn over some chai tea where he revealled this to you? Because I guarantee he has said no such thing.

I suggest people read his entire bio on wikipedia to get a better feel for his thinking were you will find this

".....One of Greenwald's more notable clients was neo-Nazi Matthew Hale. Hale was eventually jailed and tried for solicitation of murder against Joan Lefkow, who had been the federal judge in the trademark case. ...."

You're a marvel. Here's the rest of that passage, because I don't think Glenn will lower himself to answer your specious tripe:

"Although Greenwald was not involved in his criminal defense, between Hale's conviction and sentencing, Hale attempted to use Greenwald to convey a coded message, but Greenwald refused."

So Glenn, grand wizard of the KKK that he clearly is, refused to help a fellow neo-nazi pass a message along while in jail pending a trial for attempted murder of a (I gather) Jewish judge.

Seems reasonable.

Funny it seems that he doesn't mind some people using the term "Nazi" just the ones he feels shouldn't use it as an insult with out his permission.

Funny, because it doesn't "seem" that way at all to anyone who can read english with better comprehension than a house cat.

You are as despicable as whomever it is you believe you're fighting against. You use the same tactics you accuse them of, conspiracy theories, hanging insinuations, selective quoting and overt misrepresentation. Maybe you justify it all by the "higher purpose" you work for, but it's still despicable from where I sit. The ends don't justify the means, the means are the ends.

The Bush administration is aggressively using surveillance of foreign telephone calls. Most of the salonistas assume evil intent. I suspect that the surveillance is a valuable tool to prevent terrorism. I acknowledge that I cannot prove this.

So I try to take the opposite view, and I asked for someone to provide an opposing explanation. To explain what is motivating the Bush administration.

Excuse my cynicism for finding it difficult to believe that you have trouble imagining nefarious motives for a government to want to spy on its own citizens with impunity.

Would the answer "because they desire power" be unsatisfactory along those lines? If not, I would ask you to demonstrate where the Bush Administration has shown self-restraint in Executive branch authority, or has willingly ceded powers to other branches, or has voluntarily shared vital information with them.

It certainly hasn't been their habit, which has been quite the reverse: one of extreme secrecy on all fronts, denial of routine congressional oversight as practiced by previous congresses and a constant strive to increase their authority through legal and extra-legal grounds.

As to what exactly one would do with spying power: is it so incredulous that they might spy on democrats or other opponents of theirs? After all, that's what Nixon was doing in the Watergate Hotel. Spying on Democrats. It's not hard to draw a straight line from Nixon to Bush.

Oh and if you continue to call us "salonistas" non-ironically, I will not respond to your future missives.

This isn't rush limbaugh's show. Show some basic civility if you want serious responses.