....although in a much more snarky, politically incorrect way. Heh.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/27/washington_justice/view/index4.html?show=all

The NY Review of Books comments about Glenn

....include this:

But his posts have a downside. Absorbing the full force of his arguments and dutifully following his corroborating links, I felt myself drawn into an ideological wind tunnel, with the relentless gusts of opinion and analysis gradually wearing me down. After reading his harsh denunciations of Obama's decision not to release the latest batch of torture photos, I began to lose sight of the persuasive arguments that other commentators have made in support of the President's position. As well-argued and provocative as I found many of Greenwald's postings, they often seem oblivious to the practical considerations policymakers must contend with.

Allow me to translate this for you:

But his posts are full of facts and links and studies and such, which require effort to research them and get to the truth. And dagnabit, that makes me tired. After reading his common sense blasting of Obama for not releasing the latest torture photos, I began to make sense of his arguments and forget about the idiotic, superficial, and feel-better lies being spouted by the nutbag right. As well-argued and blatantly full of common sense as I found many of GG's postings, they often seem stuck at the "30,000 foot level" and oblivious to our current state of political elitism and maintenance that reinforces the status quo and exempts our politically powerful from accountability.

I didn't even bother to get the author's name, but whoever he is, he gets an "A" in the journalism course "Douchebaggery 404: Concepts in Advanced Douchiness While Employed at a Prestigious Literary Outlet."

You know why almost no one here respects what you post? Because you come here not to seek, discuss, or propose solutions to the problems we face on the topics Glenn writes about. You come here simply to further the false dichotomy of left vs right. You come here only to divide. You bring no suggestions, solutions, or worthwhile discussion to make things better. You come here purely to point fault. You come here to heckle.

You are void of anything contributive to say or discuss, so you point, heckle, blame, and nothing more. Nothing more.

The fact that it gives you so much satisfaction is at the heart of why no one here respects you. The fact you will continue doing it and have no ability to recognize (much less acknowledge) what I'm talking about is why no one here will respect you in the future. The fact you have no desire whatsoever to make things better is why you will continue to be looked at with derision and disrespect.

What a sorry excuse for a way to spend your time.

But hey, different strokes for different folks!

Well Ron Paul certainly is not moderate on the abortion issue as he is anti choice, which does make his view on abortion extreme.

The sad thing is you don't even realize how utterly senseless this sounds. A) Abortion is, almost by its very definition, NOT an issue that one CAN be moderate about: You're pretty much either in favor of it, or you're not. Some may say that they're in favor of it with certain pre-qualifications, but that is still being in favor of it. B) Who says being anti-choice means you are not moderate? Even though I'm pro-choice, why is someone automatically radical just because they hold strong beliefs about the sanctity of life? What if I say anyone who is PRO-choice is not moderate? How is my statement any more objectively right or wrong than yours? C) Just because he's anti-choice does not, by definition, make his view on abortion extreme, any more than your view of pro-choice makes you a nazi baby-killing murderer sympathizer.

I also view him as a lunatic but not a fringe radical.

You don't have a single solitary inkling what Ron Paul stands for. You just say stupid stuff like this because you think it makes you sound smart (which it most definitely does not). I'm not even going to go into what he DOES stand for because I'm not here (and neither is anyone else) to teach remedial politics to the less cerebrally able. And no, Bernbart, before you start your agonizing whine-fest, this has nothing to do with someone jumping on you just because they think different politically than you. It's all about the stupid.

He's the worst, a combination of radical fringe on social issuse and the fiscal conservatives republicans... he's a libertarian. I have no use for Libertarians, as I think they a very selfish bunch.

You just said above he's NOT a fringe radical, and now you're saying he is! Which is it, Bernbart? Is he a fringe radical or isn't he? Can't you even follow your own thinking from one sentence to the next?

Once again, your lack of even the most basic understanding of Libertarianism is simply breathtaking on its face. So, we should all think of Ron Paul as a lunatic because he believes in small government with limited power, local control of virtually all issues and laws, sound money policy based on things of real value instead of just printing money with nothing to back it up, and a foreign policy of peace and non-intervention, all of which were basic cornerstones of our founding fathers' philosophy in creating this country in the first place.

Your blissful ignorance is truly off the chart.