Letters to the Editor
-
RealName
The first amendment prohibits the GOVERNMENT from abridging/ censoring speech. Glenn, or any other blogger, can do it to their heart's content. You are still here, though. Aren't you?
-
RealName - Abridged version
Wow 11 pages of assholes talking shit to each other. How deep how thoughtful
Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You....
http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/18/neocons/permalink/a6530a0ae9164e3f695daf40a930a8a2.html
It goes on like that up to the 1000 character limit. No censorship here, I'd say.
-
Kasimira
We know that neo-Nazi and other white supremacist groups like the KKK are a sad, but fortunately reviled, reality in the U.S. By placing the phrase "violent groups targeting Muslims" in the same sentence, you are implying, disingenuously or not, that such groups actually exist here as well.
Once again, please provide the names of such groups so your readers may be wary of them. We don't need mosques burning and clerics dying here like churches, mosques and clerics of all stripes do in the Middle East.
I'm honestly interested: is this a tactic you employ frequently, whereby you invent things that people haven't said, attribute it to them by claiming that it's how you "understood" it, and then demand that they supply evidence to prove the proposition that you've invented (and continue to do so even once the person points out that they said no such thing)?
I can't imagine that works with anyone.
-
The logical train, derailed
The "logical" aspect is to explain why I am not engaged in hypocrisy by simultaneously (a) rejecting Standard X and (b) applying Standard X. I don't purport that the "should" is a logical necessity - just my opinion that people who advocate and apply standards to others should have those same standards applied towards them.
So what you initially presented to me as an easy "two-step logical train", you now admit is really just two opinions of yours. Mmmmm... Okay. I'll chalk that one up as a point for me.
By what standards do you decide that the irrefutably correct way to respond to dishonesty and corruption is to practice the exact same dishonesty and corruption against the perpetrators?
See above. I don't think my method is correct due to logical necessity.
You don't... now. But your initial response was "See if you can follow this easy, two step logical train." Now, not so much.
If someone went on television every day and railed against people who engaged in violence, and then left the studio and then started fistfights on the street regularly, would you think that would be worth pointing out?
It might be worth pointing out. But the question is whether you would also be right to then go out and start a fistfight with him... and with anyone who associates with him on friendly terms.
Because - UNLIKE THEM - I'm not arguing that they should be judged based upon their commenters. I'm arguing, instead, that if their standard is used, they are just as guilty as those they are accusing.
And you make that argument by devoting most of the middle of your article to NINE different blog comments from Malkin's site?? Your article doesn't read like a pointing out of hypocrisy. It reads like the exact same kind of attack that you accuse O'Reilly and Malkin of making. You yourself admitted that it was that when you said that you were just applying their own standards to themselves, but now you also want to have it that you're not engaging in the attack (even though you do, nine times) but merely pointing out some hypocrisy. Weak.
-
Thanks for catching my back...
@Daniel_28
Sorry. RealName is trolling. That's what he does here. He trolls, you take the bait. He's my favorite troll, though. I always through him back.
--Anonymous
I was 404 for a while.
Anyway, isn't it still proper practice to skulk for a bit to sort out who is who? I always do. Saves a lot of mistakes.
-
Wow, you are too clueless for words...
And you make that argument by devoting most of the middle of your article to NINE different blog comments from Malkin's site?? Your article doesn't read like a pointing out of hypocrisy. It reads like the exact same kind of attack that you accuse O'Reilly and Malkin of making. You yourself admitted that it was that when you said that you were just applying their own standards to themselves, but now you also want to have it that you're not engaging in the attack (even though you do, nine times) but merely pointing out some hypocrisy. Weak.
-- andyonions
I don't think you can be reached with logic or reason. Are you one of the final 25% Bush supporters? Just wondering.
-
Just an odd coincidence
Kasimira, feminine form of Casimir:
CASIMIR
Gender: Masculine
Usage: English
Pronounced: KAZ-i-meer [key]
Means "to destroy peace", derived from the Slavic element kazic "to destroy" combined with mir "peace" (or possibly the older element mer "great"). Four kings of Poland have borne this name, including Casimir III the Great, who greatly strengthened the Polish state in the 14th century. The name also belonged to Saint Casimir, a 15th-century Polish prince and a patron saint of Poland and Lithuania.
http://www.behindthename.com/php/view.php?name=casimir
-
-- andyonions
Speaking on behalf of myself only, I'd like to apologize to you for allowing this entire thread to continue without welcoming you.
As a first time poster on Solon, your comments are truly valued, especially when it comes time to count the hits a certain site receives. Thank you for having such discriminating taste and choosing this blog to initiate your commenting on Solon articles and for your contribution to the Glenn Greenwald Retirement Fund.
Again, Welcome to Solon and the Glenn Greenwald Blog comment section.
-
Why the asterisks
I find all the asterisks rather funny. If you type "fuck," or "cunt," or "whore," [somebody edited that one earlier,] nothing bad will happen. There's no such thing as profanity.
-
@ andyonions
I must have missed the step where Glenn went through his epideictic exercise to force anyone to withdraw their corporate support from a Hot Air clambake in order to punish them for who they were as opposed to how they behave, as O'Reilly did with Kos. I do find your argument that presenting evidence of hypocrisy in this instance is itself hypocritical to be quite novel if unconvincing. The left only has George Soros and we need the money.