claims that anyone who does not agree is in the thrall of investment in apologism.

-- ondelette

Don't forget that he has now inferred that failure to take his lead and impute a meaning to the nonresponses which is most convenient to his argument is not being "objective" and implies that it makes one unintelligent. See, since we're all so invested in apologism, we can't divorce ourselves enough to turn nonresponses into responses based on nothing but Golden Boy's desires.

Objective is not reading something into to those responses one way or the other - which is what we're doing.

If anyone's lacking objectivity (or intelligence) it's the guy who is making stuff up out of whole cloth in order to further his agenda of prejudice.

I hate it when they put on their tweed jackets with leather elbow patches before coming here to smash crockery, don't you? I know that they think that educated liberals have a dress code, but I've seen FBI agents at peace rallies who were less conspicuous.

-- William Timberman

I do find it disconcerting that they believe our dress code to be patronizing smugness offset by an inability to comprehend the simplest of arguments. Or maybe their skills in impersonation are just lacking?

Given your history here, which would you consider more likely?

-- William Timberman

Even if he's telling the truth, who was talking about African Ex Pat French Communists? Has Glenn identified himself as such? Can I get a show of hands from any posters who fit that narrow group? RealName's trying, as always, to point out some hypocrisy in Glenn's argument, but where's the hypocrisy? Is it based on the dittohead classification of all Democrats and liberals (including Hillary Clinton - ha!) as communists? Thus, he can assume, without asking, that Glenn and the rest of us support his French Communist relatives' belief system? That's a pretty far reach, even for a troll.

Even if I'm misstating his point, the argument is still wholly irrelevant. So, French Communists are violent? What does that have to do with Michelle Malkin's intellectual dishonesty or the problems inherent in polls?

"Dems in this country are to the right of the rightists (Tories, Christian Dems, etc.) in other industrialized countries."

-- sysprog

Touché.

You are quite right.

...Same as the old boss.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070521/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

For me, this raises the question - will all this lawlessness continue under a Democrat in the White House?

I've often said that the Dems and Repubs are two factions of the same party (the Dems in this country are pretty right wing compared to the leftists in other industrialized countries). I, personally, have suspected for a long time that the Dems (at least some of them) are part of the corporatist, warmongering class who want the Iraq debacle to continue. I don't trust most of them, especially the front runners for Democratic nomination.

Will things change if a Dem wins? Will we be done with warrantless wiretapping? Torture? Massive military spending to the detriment of everything else?

Or will we have another Bill Clinton giving us gems such as NAFTA?

...and I am constantly in the position of defending the MSM. Maybe the MSM isn't so liberal after all."

-- GlennGreenwald

I am more and more convinced that the pundit class does not believe the media to be liberal.

It's simply a Get Out of Jail Free card. If facts are inconvenient to their cause, they can put it off to the fact that the person reporting the facts is biased against them. They never have to accept anything which does not fit into their agenda.

For the True Believing members of the public, it's a similar knee jerk reaction to anything they do not like, but I think they actually believe it. They do not seem to do much in the way of independent investigation of the claims of Rush Limbaugh and the like.

Odd, isn't it?

-- L.W.M.

If a perceived Democrat/liberal doesn't like something, then a True Believer, by default, does.

I'm just picking the ones worthy of complete and total ridicule. I'm really ignoring him most of the time from now on in hopes he'll just go away. Come back, Shooter. We all miss having you to kick around.

-- L.W.M.

Thanks.

I'm mostly a lurker, and it's not usually my style to try to direct the behavior of others. But, this comment section has become invaluable to me as a source of information and excellent debate. I'd hate to have someone who sources movies as evidence to affect that.

But, I definitely understand the desire to ridicule. He's hanging them out there right over the plate - it's hard to just watch them go by without hitting them out of th epark.

Yes, I understand that you think that Bush’s “clear plan” is like dumping gas on a fire until it's out –- but did you know that nitrogylcerin (sp?) is used to put out oil fires –- and I didn’t get that from beltway lifers either, but rather from watching John Wayne movies. Sorry if you think WINNING IN IRAQ is not “clear” enough for you.

-- Jake007

Not to be a school marm, but it's comments like this which have Glenn urging us to follow Arne's advice.

I know I'm responding to it, but it's to urge everyone else to let it be. This guy is going to respond to every single comment made to him, and it's going to end up being the Jake007 comment section. That would be fine if the guy were halfway serious, but, based on the above, he's clearly not. He's here to hijack, and that's exactly what he's doing.