I don't seem to be getting THROUGH here.

What part of "GLEN GREENWALD HAS RECEPTIVE ANAL INTIMACY -- NIGHTLY -- WITH HIS ENORMOUSLY WELL-HUNG HUSBAND" do you not UNDERSTAND?

Why is this discussion not OVER and why has Glenn Greenwald not been completely HUMILIATED AND DISCREDITED in your eyes by this scandalous revelation ???!

What is the MATTER with you people ????!?!?!

Trollery, as I have come to understand the term, is the hurling of invective for no purpose other than that of a boy with a stick, poking a hornet's nest. The outcome, generally, is the same: much noise and activity, resulting in the poker getting hurt and wailing about the unfairness of it all.

So, I take it that you agree that the daily name calling by LWM, his "Anonymous" persona, and Paul make them trolls.

Or, are you one of those who believe that they "insiders" may say anything and the "other" should just take it?

And yesterday, in a piece on CNN, Blitzer completed a studio piece by inserting a previous, written statement from an (absent) Republican mouthpiece to counter a live on-camera interview with a Democratic spokeswoman and the representative of a media research organization. Let me emphasize, it was not in response to anything said during that conversation. It was previously issued talking-points.

Why the hell don't they just phone it in? Maybe that's why it's called "expensive rhetoric" - 'cause you have to pay Wolf Blitzer to say it for you.

The short version of his thoughts:

A troll is one who Paul R. hates; simple really.

"It's helpful to sharpen our senses to such forms of self-refuting noise."

Paul R... The real lesson, of how fear of McCarthyism was the major decisive factor leading to the Vietnam War is not about whitewashing LBJ. (There is no whitewashing Vietnam. To explain is not to justify. Anyone who watches Criminal Minds knows that.) It's about illuminating the dangers of how the Democratic Party--and especially Democratic Presidential candidates--are falling into the same trap today. I wouldn't keep brining it up if not for its vital importance as a lesson for today.

The left, Democrats, whatever - must confront these issues squarely and soberly. Hanged as well for a sheep as a lamb. It's not about timidity, per se, but the willingness of the other side to take advantage of our own innate sense of fair play.

Arne... Yep, the Stalinist "destroy your political enemies by all means possible" tactics of Rove and company should not be looked at too deeply.

Unfortunately, as long as "the left" considers politics to be something other than what it is, they ("liberals") will remain the "power woshipper without power".

I've chided people myself for using eliminationist rhetoric but there is a difference between driving a bayonet into your political opponent's guts and neutralizing his party or movement as a force in politics when that political party or movement set about to eliminate yours first. The evidence is indisputable and a pattern and practice of behavior over decades has been established and is there for all to see if they only look. You have an indisputable right to self-defense. If your reaction is self-defensive in nature you have the moral high ground. Furthermore, if that political party or movement is as pernicious as the one currently under discussion, I see no other option but to eliminate it from politics by any means necessary, short of a bayonet in the guts... for now, at least.

Sports bore me. Politics is more dangerous, (unless Tonya Harding is involved). Anyone who thinks Democrats or "the left" could ever manage to hold a totalitarian, one party hegemony together hasn't been paying attention or is just believing their own propaganda. Authoritarians are as rare as "hen's teeth" on the left.

Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence. In other words, it is war minus the shooting.

- George Orwell

Be a real libertarian, please, and get off the big-government-founded internet, stop using the words you learned in big-government-subsidized schools, and shove Ron Paul up your big-government-protected ass.

You'll feel so much better for it!

How do you know unless you've been watching and how long have you been watching? Put the lotion down and think about that.

Arne, I still think you'd make a fair unit of measurement for some aspects of the blogosphere, just not dickosity. It's probably a unitless ratio in any event.

-- Holly McLachlan

Go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/18/AR2007061801366_Comments.html and see what they have to say. There are over 90 pages so far and the opinions of the most of the writers don't look too good for Richard Cohen.

The "Ace" commenter is satirizing a post that Instapundit promoted. For those interested, Andrew Sullivan and Matt Yglesias both wrote about it here -

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=15&search=Greenwald&MODE.x=0&MODE.y=0

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/06/the_low_road_ag.html

I'm a fan of satirical comments here, but these seemed to have the potential to cause some coronary events, which I thought it best to avert.

... a real libertarian, please, and get off the big-government-founded internet, stop using the words you learned in big-government-subsidized schools, and shove Ron Paul up your big-government-protected ass.

Are you saying that you do not believe that there would be electronics unless armed thugs stole money from the poor to fund projects you like? Weird.

Just remember one thing; "libertarian" is the name used to describe real "liberals" and not collectivist thugs; and I write that with all the sincerity in the world.

* Any agency can request a special prosecutor for any reason.
* The investigation doesn't require resolution of the stated reason for requesting a special prosecutor.
* Any conflicting statements by objects of special prosecutor result in multi-year prison terms.

Does that about sum it up? Sure sounds like USSR style justice to me, but apparently Dems are down with it. I'll be encouraging Republicans to decide who among Dems "deserves" to be investigated.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Democrat Obey has decided that he is the decider of who gets portions of his own personal three trillion dollar slush fund. No voting required, step right up. Why didn't we think of that?
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/3425/50