And who doesn’t love puppets!
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
You know, the Puritans thought “poppets” were works of the devil…
He said he was working on a post and boy did he mean it!
Hmm.
But who is the puppet and who is the puppetmaster?
That’s an impressive detailing of the puppet show. It’ll be well worth his effort if Glenn and his fellow travelers lose credibility and slink off into oblivion where they belong. It’s been a good year so far:
-Frisch got Frisched
-Dr. Haggerty forced into hiding
-Sadly, No!’s clip show on PW nosedives
-Greenwald exposed as a fraud (hopefully expediting his entry into obscurity)
But, but, he has a #1 book on the NYT!
I love the four pillars.
TW:plant
Wilson was a plant
This is just too much. The desperation to discredit someone who is enjoying success in the marketplace of ideas by eviscerating both the Bush administration and its supporters is obvious and pathetic.
First of all, Patterico’s case that the comment posters are Greenwald himself – based on, for example, similar uses of hyphens, or calling Reynolds “insty” – is just sad. Many people read GG, many write “like” him, many are intimately familiar with his ideas, and many are eager to defend him.
Second of all, Occam’s famous razor gives us a perfectly plausible explanation for the whole thing: GG’s boyfriend hates the fact that GG is set upon by Bush supporters, and for a period made it his business to defend GG online.
Third of all, even if GG himself did “sock puppet,” it’s inadvisable and juvenile, but does not discredit the substance of his work. Those that declare it does, like Jeff and Ace, are folks with an obvious and long-declared bias against GG – not surprising, since, while GG’s opponents simply call him a douche and so on, GG is accusing the Aces and Jeff Gs of the world of being fundamentally un-American (e.g. misunderstanding the role of checks, balances, executive power, etc.). I’d be mad too.
So from where I sit, it’s pretty obvious what’s going on. Glenn takes the political philosophy of Jeff, Ace, and many others and, over a period of months, rips it a new asshole. Tens of thousands of readers agree and cheer. Jeff, Ace, Patterico and others seize on a shred of a story that they believe can be used to discredit GG. No one pays any attention to said shred because even if the worst-case accusation was true, it’s completely irrelevant.
But Jeff, Ace, Patterico and others worry their sock puppet story to pieces, while thousands of readers keep reading GG and worrying about things like the law, the Constitution, the balance of power, the proper role of the executive branch, war, death, and the responsibility of the American people to hold their elected official accountable for the actions taken in our nation’s name.
Bravo!
Your drive-by leftard, signing off.
I edited Beet’s post for accuracy:
(Btw: anyone notice that this line of Beet’s has become standard operation procedure for the nutroots in their desparate, flailing attempts to defend their, dare I say it, “cult leader” Mr. Greenwald? It’s almost as if the call went out over one of their sooper-dooper top secret email lists!)
The desperation to discredit someone who is enjoying success in the marketplace of ideas by eviscerating both the Bush administration and its supporters is obvious and pathetic.
Really?
Um, this “success” has led to what, exactly?
Him pretending he is someone else on a Web site praising himself?
First of all, Patterico’s case that the comment posters are Greenwald himself – based on, for example, similar uses of hyphens, or calling Reynolds “insty†– is just sad.
Actually, it’s called evidence.
Second of all, Occam’s famous razor gives us a perfectly plausible explanation for the whole thing: GG’s boyfriend hates the fact that GG is set upon by Bush supporters, and for a period made it his business to defend GG online.
Actually, Occam’s Razor suggests it’s Greenwald himself.
But why not change the terms as you see fit, GiGi does too!
while thousands of readers keep reading GG and worrying about things like the law, the Constitution, the balance of power, the proper role of the executive branch, war, death, and the responsibility of the American people to hold their elected official accountable for the actions taken in our nation’s name.
None of which are discussed in a factual manner as neither the author nor audience are capable of any such thing.
Bravo indeed.
Whatever, Beetroot, if that is your real name.
TW: You might consider pulling yourself off of CG’s jock long enough to get some air.
Hi Glenn! What’d ya do with beetroot?
Couple things. First, Occam’s Razor doesn’t lead you to what’s plausible, it leads you to the most probable. And the Magic Boyfriend ain’t it.
Jeff has been tearing GiGi apart on the merits for months. You should read some of it. Another nice piece is Xrlq’s Weekend Doucheblogging which focuses on what is probably GiGi’s most annoying weaselly habit. You see, GiGi likes to link to things that don’t say what he tells you they say, hoping you won’t click through and notice that. (For the record, I will admit that his haughty condemnation habit is a frontrunner for the #1 slot.)
Why even bother to read someone so fundamentally dishonest? If he’s such a visionary, he ought to be able to get that across without trying to trick the reader. I don’t spend much time reading people when I feel I have to fact check everything they write.
Maybe someone else will come along who can elegantly explain how George Bush is a dictator without trying to construct their own cult of personality. Maybe not. We shall see.
Good DAY, sir.
We’ll see.
but does not discredit the substance of his work. Those that declare it does, like Jeff and Ace, are folks with an obvious and long-declared bias against GG
Proof?
GG is accusing the Aces and Jeff Gs of the world of being fundamentally un-American (e.g. misunderstanding the role of checks, balances, executive power, etc.). I’d be mad too.
What is comical is you’re writing “checks, blances,” etc. as if they are some sort of technical jargon that nobody but you and the gigi sycophants understand.
Oh, and you, Greenwald, and most liberals are un-American as you don’t believe in the ideas, values, or freedoms on which this country was founded.
Liars & Puppets, Oh My!
Damn the facts and the proof.
I just like saying “whatever, Glenn,” to anyone who defends him now. Even if its just to me. Not aloud, either. I’m not some muttering nutcase. I keep the voices inside my head.
Gee, beetroot, is it your contention that a speaker’s having been exposed as a liar, cheat, and egomaniac ought to have no bearing on how credible his “arguments” are? As Pablo points out, our host here has done fine work eviscerating GG’s “arguments,” but now the pathetic sock-puppetry takes over for me; as with Leopold, why on earth should I spend another precious minute giving serious consideration to anything he says? If it’s actually a good point, it’ll be no less good coming from a credible source, and I’ll listen then.
Very finally… it seems to escape Greenwald altogether that his lame “Bush cultism” concept describes the side he bats for a whole lot more accurately than the other side – it’s just a cult of rabid anti-personality, is all. Righties criticize Bush all the time (Harriet Miers, anybody? Dubai? Fiscal conservatives in despair over the deficit? All his sometimes grudging supporters have in common is a conviction that the other side can’t be trusted with foreign policy); when was the last time a Lefty praised him and got away with it?
It most certainly does. An L.A. Times business columnist had his blog terminated earlier this year for exactly the same behavior. It’s a shame that Glenn doesn’t have the confidence in his work that would preclude him from these activities.
Another thing: It’s inaaccurate to write “First of all…” and follow it with “Second of all….” and so on. “First of all” is fine, but you can’t have “Second of all…” if you’ve just eliminated #1.
You’re trying to make this appear sinister, but it’s obvious that Greenwald has a multiple personality disorder. Granted his case is unusual in the way that all of the individual personalities are united in their admiration for the “authentic” GIG but, this is a documented medical condition (kind of like being a lefty blogger), and you’re wrong to make fun of him.
Right, beet, believe what you want to about our motivations. We’re frightened of Greenwald, after all—I mean, who wouldn’t be? I mean, all those decades in practice, all those landmark cases won? I lived in DC for 10 years, still work there, and notwithstanding the fact that I have close friends at DOJ, DHS, CIA, DIA, etc., Glenn Greenwald is simply the most impressive lawyer—nay, human—with whom I have ever had the privilege of sharing this mortal plane.
/sarcasm
I mean, seriously. Probably a good source of validation for his fans, but utterly pedestrian.
I’m taking applications for an internet stalker at my blog. IP experts need not apply.
DrSteve, why would you want to slander the utterly pedestrian so?
They never stay in the crosswalks. The bastards.
Let me also say that it’s telling that beetroot pops in, vomits up his little love letter to Greenwald, and doesn’t bother to stick around to ponder the reaction. What a closed-minded little fanboy.
TW: needs. Don’t get me started.
Beet has become a cartoon.
Yes, beet. I’ve never challenged Greenwald on the “substance.” Just keep repeating it over and over until you’ve convinced yourself it’s true. Or, alternately, you could, you know, hit the search button and check “On Patriotism” or look through the NSA stuff—which, while it would put the lie to your assertion, would also mean you’d have to stop repeating the canard.
The FACTS are that Greenwald links ME constantly, and I simply stopped taking the bait once it became clear to me that he argues from bad faith. As Rick Moran has pointed out, it simply takes too long to rebut the sheer volume of bullshit he crams into every “substantive” post. Which is one of Greenwald’s most oft repeated rhetorical ploys.
Well, that, and relying on ridiculous generalizations, hysterical bombast, and rhetorical dodges meant to win over those who are just aching to join him but who wish to appear learned.
People like—well, you, beetroot.
That you are now reciting the four pillars of Greenwald for him is a testament to how effectively his half-thoughts and wordy idiocy—festooned as they are with phrases meant to mimic erudition—work on lazy minds who think themself smarter than they really are.
You are a cult member, beet.
Step back and find someone to deprogram you.
Or don’t. I don’t much care, to be honest.
Those that declare it does, like Jeff and Ace, are folks with an obvious and long-declared bias against GG – not surprising, since, while GG’s opponents simply call him a douche and so on, GG is accusing the Aces and Jeff Gs of the world of being fundamentally un-American (e.g. misunderstanding the role of checks, balances, executive power, etc.). I’d be mad too. (emphasis mine)
For purposes of reply, I’ll take your word that GG questions Jeff’s and Ace’s patriotism. While I can’t presume to speak for them, I know I would most definitely not be mad about such an assertion. Amused, perhaps, but not mad. Amused that GG would presume to expound on a subject of which he has—how best to couch this—limited knowledge. Not that that is out of character or anything, ya know….
Boyfriend: Glenn have you seen my sweat socks….Glenn, I wouldn’t be putting my hand in there if I were….oops, too late. Sorry about that.
From Brazil, isn’t it? *snicker*
tw: Yes, I already know.
Beetroot is thoroughly convinced that any narrative can be repeated and massaged enough that it will eventually become established fact. His downfall started during the debate on PW about metanarratives. He could wrap his mind around the concept but could never understand its true function in the process of communication. He eventually came to dismiss any argument by covering his ears and repeating “metanarrative.â€Â
Now it seems he has gone all the way over to the cynical side of pseudo-postmodern political messagingâ€â€which precludes the possibility of truth in languageâ€â€and relies solely on repetition.
He’s an interesting case study for the kinds of things Jeff writes about.
…which, I might add, is why he no longer bothers to engage in argumentation, choosing instead to squeeze out his prepackaged message. It’s a symptom of a rigid mind that is unable to deal with being wrong. Most people (I hope) are willing to let their worldview evolveâ€â€that’s why we debateâ€â€but poor Beet cannot fathom such unsettling change.
Justice frequently is, from the perspective of those who deserve it.
Like I said, desperate and sad. I’ve read Jeff and X and Ace’s “eviscerations” and they’re lame. No one has proved “sock puppetry,” no one has debunked the boyfriend theory, and no one has departed from the script that GG himself spelled out: those who attack Bush are attacked, personally, and crudely, by his army of sycophants. You guys are as predictable as the sunrise.
And furthermore, while I don’t personally put my face in GG’s “jock,” I’m an unabashed fan, yea and verily, because the guy blogs intelligently. I’ve said it before: he has a thesis; he presents evidence that supports the thesis; he makes a compelling case for the importance of his thesis.
And for every tiny scrap of credibility lost to some “sock puppet” idiocy, reams are gained when other thinkers and institutions confirm GG’s thesis by agreeing that, yes, the Bush admninistration has a unique and radical theory of executive power, and yes, it’s a dangerous and unprecedented thing (e.g. the recent ABA report on signing statements).
One of the reasons that GG is so popular is that he articulates clearly what many were already thinking about; among his assessments is that any challenge to Bush and his policies is met with charges of treason and un-American-ness. Once again, Ace, you comply beautifully, with a perfect measure of arrogance, ignorance, and desperate machismo – – thank you very much.
The undeniable fact is that the Bush administration seeks to concentrate power at an unprecedented level. GG is reacting as a good American should: by examining, reporting, assessing, and attempting to hold his elected officials accountable. What could be more American? He’s concluded that the Bush policy is in direct contradiction to the Founding Fathers’ intent of keeping power decentralized and balanced among three branches. He’s doing what he can to stop it. He couldn’t be more American if he wrapped himself in a flag.
J. Brenner: I guess you’re a psychiatrist, huh?
Dr.Steve: You should be scared of GG; he’s telling you that you think like a fascist.
Pablo: The most probable IS the most plausible.
Jamie: You’re right about one thing: the left does hate Bush, but it has lots of evidence that Bush is incompetent, ill-suited for the job, and enamored of an un-democratic theory of executive privelege. The right hates the left, but has very little evidence to prove that the left hates America, is fundamentally treasonous, longs for a terrorist victory.
Ace:
GG is just one writer whose work has helped Americans better understand Bush’s governing philosophy, and also understand the nature of Bush’s supporters. Think of it as more of a cultural movement than anything GG specific.
Uh…Link?
Well, if he agrees with you, he must be intelligent.
GG is just one writer whose work has helped Americans better understand Bush’s governing philosophy
Um, considering he lies about it, how does he do this?
Think of it as more of a cultural movement than anything GG specific.
This “cultural movement” has been around longer than you or Greenwald.
among his assessments is that any challenge to Bush and his policies is met with charges of treason and un-American-ness
Actually, it has nothing to do with “any challege to Bush” but you’re not bright enough to see that.
You’re just dumb enough to create strawmen.
And rather poorly at that.
The undeniable fact is that the Bush administration seeks to concentrate power at an unprecedented level.
An “undeniable fact” you can’t prove, explain, or bother to expand upon.
Revealing.
No one has proved “sock puppetry,†no one has debunked the boyfriend theory
Too funny.
You’re not smart enough to understand what you’re typing. It is soley emotion based.
Pablo: The most probable IS the most plausible.
And the most probable is that Greenwald made the comments.
Note how you ran away from Occam’s razor…
I’m an unabashed fan, yea and verily, because the guy blogs intelligently.
By lying to his readers?
Actually, that was a key moment – that’s when I realized that guys like Reb can’t realize that they’re hostages to their own metanarrative. Everybody else, says Reb, has a metanarrative; Reb just knows the Truth.
This from a visitor to a site that, like the pro-Bush world in general, endlessly repeats tripe about treasonous journalists and evil liberals and so on. As the saying goes, heh.
Oh, I know you’ve challenged him, Jeff, but your challenges are lame and inconsequential.
GG hardly ever talks about you except to use your comments as an example of idiot logic. And it’s hilarious to hear you characterize his work as being full of:
Those are pretty good descriptions of what goes on here, aren’t they? Much more accurate describing PW than describing GG.
reams are gained when other thinkers and institutions confirm GG’s thesis by agreeing that, yes, the Bush admninistration has a unique and radical theory of executive power, and yes, it’s a dangerous and unprecedented thing (e.g. the recent ABA report on signing statements).
Um, ignorant (and yes, people like Greenwald depend on the fact that dipshits like you remain so to continue supporting them.) you might want to take that up with the Clinton DOJ:
Let me guess dumbass, GiGi didn’t tell you about that, right?
Oh, I know you’ve challenged him, Jeff, but your challenges are lame and inconsequential.
Wow, that was persuasive!
I mean, you labeled them with such descriptive terms and all!
I’m blown away.
the Bush admninistration has a unique and radical theory of executive power, and yes, it’s a dangerous and unprecedented thing
I look forward to you explaining this statement in light of the fact that the Clinton & Carter Administrations said the exact same thing on the issue.
(Hint: saying “no they did not” isn’t an answer.)
Ace, the key line in there is “clearly unconstitutional.” The problem with what Bush does is that his theory of executive power defines the president’s powers in time of war as unlimited, thereby rendering ANYTHING that curtails them, even a law of Congress, as “unconstitutional.” So, obviously, the question of what is “clearly unconstitutional” is what’s in contention.
Now, let me pretend I’m Ace for a minute: Asshole! Buttface! Douchebag! Loser! Dumbwad! Dumbass! Etc.
Those are pretty good descriptions of what goes on here, aren’t they?
You mean when you’re commenting, right?
“movement” is more apt than you think…
Ace, the key line in there is “clearly unconstitutional.†The problem with what Bush does is that his theory of executive power defines the president’s powers in time of war as unlimited, thereby rendering ANYTHING that curtails them, even a law of Congress, as “unconstitutional.†So, obviously, the question of what is “clearly unconstitutional†is what’s in contention
Um, idiot, so you are suggesting Clinton had more power by making these claims in a time of peace?
Guess who makes the determination it is “flatly unconstitutional”?
(Hint: the guy in the oval office).
Man, are you stupid…
Okay, I’m still Ace: Fuckwad! Asshole! Loser! Buttface! Doooshbag! Loser! Anus-head!
Ace, the key line in there is “clearly unconstitutional.â€Â
You better learn to read, dumbass.
Like this:
Oh, those crazy “unitary executive” (a term you do not understand by the way) theorists in the Clinton DOJ…
Okay, I’m still Ace: Fuckwad! Asshole! Loser! Buttface! Doooshbag! Loser! Anus-head!
It’s funny to see you whine about style now.
Everyone reading knows why that is.
Again, I look forward to you explaining this statement in light of the fact that the Clinton & Carter Administrations said the exact same thing on the issue.
Wow. Where to start? You’ve really jumped in deep with this GG guy, eh? He’s no good for you Beet.
You obviously got nothing from our debates, did you Beet? I see you still don’t get how metanarratives work. You still dismiss arguments in the same way: “Metanarrative!!!…huff… metanarrative!”
It isn’t that I know the Truth Beet, it’s that I think I know things that are true. But more importantly, I want to know the Truth, so I allow ideas in that challenge what I think I know to be true.
But really, can you provide the quote where I said: “Everybody else, says Reb, has a metanarrative; Reb just knows the Truth.”?
You can’t because I never said such a stupid thing, which leads me to believe you are projecting again.
Can you also provide a quote for your second accusation? I’d like to see that one too.
NO! NO NO NO NO NO NO!
Ace, you just made Greenwald’s point. You know who makes the determination that something is Constitutional or not? The courts. That’s their function. To grant that power to the executive is to grant the executive unlimited power.
If you give the executive the right to determine, on his own, what is or is not Constitutional, then there is no separation of power anymore. The Prez can do whatever he wants and call it “constitutional,” and void whatever he wants and call it “unconstitutional.”
Is that what you want, Ace? You want a king? You want the guy who makes policy to also be the guy to determine whether that policy is legal or not?
Wow, me personally? The Great Man deigns to ponder me?
beet, you’re going to have to help me out. Please find something I’ve written on this site, combined with a relevant Greenwald argument, that suggests I think like a fascist. Right now your statement is a Godwin ex machina. I’d suggest you don’t have too firm a grip on my history here, and you’re serving your master poorly by making those logical jumps.
Ace, you just made Greenwald’s point. You know who makes the determination that something is Constitutional or not? The courts. That’s their function. To grant that power to the executive is to grant the executive unlimited power.
Ok, I see now that you’re too ignorant to understand the topic and plain sentences.
However dipshit, read this again (I’ll bold it for you, liberal law professor Walter Dellinger said this)
Hoo-boy. Beety, you do seem to have been educated well in excess of your intelligence.
The Supreme Court claimed the authority to determine constitutionality, but this was contrary to the Founders’ purpose. Their intention was that each branch would judge constitutionality, and they would argue it out among them.
SCOTUS in 1803 decided there needed to be a sole authority on the matter and claimed that power unto themselves. We’ve been living with it for 203 years, and it’s become settled practice—yet the separation of powers remains an issue.
How can the courts dictate to the executive what the executive shall deem constitutional—without establishing the United States as a de facto judicial dictatorship?
Is that what you want, Ace? You want a king? You want the guy who makes policy to also be the guy to determine whether that policy is legal or not?
Good job at creating a strawman.
However, your comments are revealing.
Thank you however for confirming my post above.
Greenwald, and the dumbass Democrats you vote for depend on the fact you are and will remain ignorant. You’ve demonstrated that ably on the topic of Presidential signing statements.
Further, as I stated, you do not believe in the ideas or values on which this country was founded, as evidenced by your silly commentary.
Isn’t it funny the ABA wasn’t issuing “reports” on the topic when the Clinton DOJ was saying these things?
Whatever the President says, it is still the courts’ role to determine if something is constitutional or not. The Pres can render his opinion, and declare that he won’t enforce something, but the final arbiter is the court system.
Dumbass.
This is something that has chapped my ass for awhile, now, is “Constitutional Experts” who get this one all wrong. So tell me beetroot, does G. G. advocate doing away with the direct election of Senators?
Wow. That is scary.
That Beety thinks having some nitwit tell you you’re thinking like a fascist is somehow supposed to make one’s blood run cold.
It only makes me think the nitwit is a … well, a nitwit.
You know who makes the determination that something is Constitutional or not? The courts. That’s their function. To grant that power to the executive is to grant the executive unlimited power.
Um, well I guess you better tell that to all those stupid courts that have both relied on Presidential signing statements to make decisions and have expressly said the President has this power.
Where the President’s authority concerning national security or foreign relations is in tension with a statutory rather than a constitutional rule, the statute cannot displace the President’s constitutional authority and should be read to be “subject to an implied exception in deference to such presidential powers.†Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, 783 F.2d 1072, 1078 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (Scalia, J.).
Again, ignorance.
You ought to cure it.
Oh, I believe in all those things, Ace my buddy. And you can’t prove otherwise, but you can say it – in a signing statement, maybe. The reason nobody bitches about Clinton and Carter’s signing statements is that they made so few. Bush has made more than all previous presidents combined. He’s too chicken to veto stuff that he thinks is wrong, so he sneaks around it with his signing statements.
And really, I don’t care if you call me names, but recognize that making accusations like the above really makes you look like a dork to anyone (pardon me, Reb) who doesn’t share your metanarrative in which treasonouts turncoats and America haters are moving forces behind every piece of bad news that reveals the President’s incompetence and hunger for executive power.
Whatever the President says, it is still the courts’ role to determine if something is constitutional or not. The Pres can render his opinion, and declare that he won’t enforce something, but the final arbiter is the court system.
Um, idiot, you’re arguing with yourself.
However, I still would like you to explain:
the Bush admninistration has a unique and radical theory of executive power, and yes, it’s a dangerous and unprecedented thing (e.g. the recent ABA report on signing statements).
In light of the fact that the Clinton & Carter DOJ said the same thing.
Or are you now running from that point?
The reason nobody bitches about Clinton and Carter’s signing statements is that they made so few. Bush has made more than all previous presidents combined.
Hilarious.
Um, I bet you can prove that, right?
It is funny to watch you sprint away from your previous assertion.
See, dipshit, if the principle Bush is using to make these statements is so “dangerous” then Clinton invoking it would also be “dangerous” no matter how many times he did so, right?
Your “logic” is falling apart rather quickly here.
Funny, huh?
Oh, I believe in all those things, Ace my buddy
Considering you’d fail a basics civics course, this doesn’t have any merit what so ever.
Again, ignorance.
You don’t have the slightest clue about the principles on which this country was founded.
None.
Your comments demonstrate that clearly.
I’d love to stay and argue in circles with you Beet, but I have a plane to catch in a couple of hours and I still haven’t shaved my balls.
All I can say is that you still don’t get it, but I am happy you finally found a home where you no longer care about getting it.
The reason nobody bitches about Clinton and Carter’s signing statements is that they made so few. Bush has made more than all previous presidents combined.
Hey, did GiGi tell you that?
Fact:
Clinton made Constitutional SS’s on 80 laws.
Bush: 104 as of January 2006.
Funny how the facts don’t fit your narrative, huh?
It’s only unconstitutional if you like, get all crazy doing it and shit. If you just do it once and a while the constitution is all chill with that shit.
And you still haven’t answered my question about checks and balances.
Ignore these ungrateful wretches, Beetroot. Dismiss their bleatings. Whenever you use that old English tone I, for one, believe every word you speaketh.
Ace:
“”In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said that Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined. . . .”
That’s the Washington Post. The ABA and Charlie Savage report that Bush used signing statements to challenge about 750 laws. Maybe 106 is a more accurate number, but I’m inclined to trust the Post (being an america-hater and all). And I think you’ll find that “unprecedented” is a fair description of Bush’s use of this tool. That, at least, is the ABA’s judgement, and their legal opinions carry a little more weight with me than yours (forgive me).
And if you read the criticism, Ace, people’s general fear is that the President is misusing and overusing signing statements. The argument is not that they’re fundamentally illegal – it’s that he’s using them in a manner for which they’re not intended.
Now, some fascinating commentary from the old gang – so good to hear from everyone again!
Reb, I hope your balls get nice and smooth. I shave mine in the shower – – that helps soften the stubble.
6Gun, I’m delighted that my use of gramatically correct English provides you with an opportunity to make sport. I hadn’t realized it would stand out.
B Moe, old friend, I’m not sure what your question was, forgive me.
And everyone, before we got sidetracked on this question of executive authority, all I wanted to do was point out that the obsession with GG’s alleged sock puppetry was absurd, both because the proof that the offender was GG himself is so flimsy, and because the offense in question, even if true, is fairly inconsequential.
And the turn that this thread has taken suggests that what people here really want to attack is the substance of GG’s ideas. Which, as I said to Dr Steve, is understandable, since GG’s basic thesis is that many of the people who hang around sites like this are basically junior brownshirts, enamored of their fearless leader, unwilling to countenance challenges to his power, and convinced that the nation is crawling with fifth-column enemies and traitors.
It’s been a pleasure!
See you in the funny papers.
Newsflash: Beetroot is engaging in what psychologists term “projection.” Note the repetition of “desperate and sad …”
He is clearly describing his own emotions, as his posts make rather clear.
So WHY is he so “desperate and sad” as he flails about defending the indefensible?
Ah – the answer is simple. I absolutely GUARANTEE that Beetroot does not believe a word he’s saying.
He knows – KNOWS – that Greenwald has indeed been sock-puppeting his merry way across the blogosphere. He KNOWS that such abject intellectual dishonest is indeed both “desperate and sad.” Whatever else Beetroot may be, he doesn’t strike me as stupid … and it requires impressive stupidity to swallow the idea that identical posts with identical language and identical thoughts from the same IP address … are from different people.
So Beetroot finds himself in a quandary. He admits to his star-eyed hero worship of this demonstrably intellectaully inferior Greenwald. Thus, to support his own skewed worldview, Beetroot MUST leap to Greenwald’s defense.
He has no choice. Though some part of him knows Greenwald is lying – and that it destroys his credibility – he cannot accept what he knows because it will invalidate all that he clings to.
Yup. Desperate. And Sad. That is Beetroot. In a nutshell.
C’mon, Beetroot. Admit it. I promise you’ll feel loads better. Get it off your chest. You’re just like the little kid whispering to Shoeless Joe Jackson: “Say it ain’t so, Greenwald …”
Admit it. You’re hurt. Your disappointed in your hero. And you don’t know who to turn to. If your ideological hero can stoop to such intellectual cowardice … and then lie to YOU about it, Beetroot, right to your face … then maybe everything else you hold true is in doubt, too?
Don’t be so hard on yourself, Beetroot. Just because Greenwald is a fraud doesn’t mean you have to suddenly start voting Republican. It’ll be okay, kid. I promise.
But you do know the truth. And we know you know the truth. Your efforts to hide that are sad and desperate in the extreme …
… but funny. I’ll give you that.
Now, c’mon, kid. Admit it. You’re just pissed at Greenwald for leading his sheep off a cliff, and you think lashing out here will make you feel better.
The truth shall set you free, kid. Go head. It won’t hurt. We won’t even make fun of you. In fact, if one of you neo-lib moonbats actually had the integrity to admit the VERY OBVIOUS truth … I’d personally be impressed.
So how about it, Beetroot? Want to confess why you’re REALLY feeling so sad and desperate?
We won’t tell.
The same’s been said about Greenwald’s shock troops, and by a real lawyer, no less!
Just kidding. I assume by “leader” you’re talking about Bush? Man, please. I can hardly think of 5 issues on which I agree with this Administration. Try actually looking at what people are saying instead of taking the various Glenns’ words for it, ok?
But you run along now, before the cracks in your psyche show!
Finally, beet, how do you think GG would react if this post had been Jeff’s? My guess is apoplexy, followed by a sockswarm.
That’s the Washington Post. The ABA and Charlie Savage report that Bush used signing statements to challenge about 750 laws.
This is a dishonest lie that you accept uncritically.
Gee, I wonder why?
And if you read the criticism, Ace, people’s general fear is that the President is misusing and overusing signing statements. The argument is not that they’re fundamentally illegal – it’s that he’s using them in a manner for which they’re not intended.
So legal principles can be “overused” huh?
I love how you explain all of this.
By the way, how can a signing statement be “misused”?
That, at least, is the ABA’s judgement, and their legal opinions carry a little more weight with me than yours (forgive me).
Translation:
Fact that don’t fit the world view will be ignored and when liberal groups make statements, true or untrue that confirm my biases, I believe them.
Too funny.
If I do so endlessly, you certainly shouldn’t have any problem coming up with the examples, right?
Here, I’ll even lend you a hand. Here’s the url for a site search of “treason.”
I realize this is what Greenwald alleges about me, but generally he links to a commenter, knowing people won’t bother to click through.
And please, let’s not confuse a certain advocate-class of progressives with liberals. Because I certainly don’t. In fact, I self-identify as a classical liberal.
So while I think dishonest progressivism is a danger to this country—a thesis I’ve gone out of my way to explore in some detail, even going so far as to look at it’s linguistic roots—I have not argued the same for liberalism.
Now go to it. Substantiate your charges. Otherwise, give it a rest. And go fellate Greenwald on his own site.
Oh, and you may want to point out how my substantive addresses of Greenwald’s arguments, back when I did them, were “lame” or pathetic.
Rather than, you know, simply asserting such. Because I very much doubt that to be the case.
That’s the Washington Post. The ABA and Charlie Savage report that Bush used signing statements to challenge about 750 laws
Name them.
No, name 120 of them.
I dare.
Ok, I scored that a 36 to 0I TKO for Ace with 3 knock downs. The fight was stopped due Beet running from the ring.
Now we’ll hand the coverage back to the studio for these follow up comment from our sponsors.
Jesus! You guys know an awful lot about our constitution.
This is just too much. The desperation to discredit someone who is enjoying success in the marketplace of ideas by eviscerating both the Bush administration and its supporters is obvious and pathetic.
Deperation? Hardly.
Marketplace of ideas? Let me know when he comes up with something original. Until then he’s just populasr in the marketplace, like Harry Potter.
Most people can spot the difference between “substantive issues” and “dishonest namecalling hysterics”.
If Greenwald’s “basic thesis” is now You’re all delusional fascists! Discuss., it’s hardly surprising that most rational people don’t waste their time engaging him anymore.
Out of idle curiousity … do these people know that George Bush won’t be President after Jan. 20, 2009?
If they were smart, they’d quit wasting time obsessing over the guy and attack his potential replacements. Or – here’s a crazy idea – come up with a positive vision of their own.
Oh. Wait. I said “if they were smart,” didn’t I?
Never mind.
since GG’s basic thesis is that many of the people who hang around sites like this are basically junior brownshirts, enamored of their fearless leader, unwilling to countenance challenges to his power, and convinced that the nation is crawling with fifth-column enemies and traitors.
Wow!
And he’s a NYT best selling author to boot!
The depth!
Interesting to see “beets” fractured arguments being countered. When he(I think) could no longer support the lies and distortions, ran off. You guys ought to know better than to muddy the “progessive” libs pet peeves with facts. Shame.
Ummm…Refresh my memory…which administration coined the phrase, “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Cool!”?
For the constitutionally impaired, if the Executive gets too far out of line Congress can always defund and impeach. Checks? Balances? Well, duh.
OMG!!! He has already delayed the election for a YEAR?!?!
WHEN WILL THE NIGHTMARE END?!?!?
WE ARE DOOMED!!!!!!!!!
To recap:
An ill-informed, fawning suck-up of a Brazilian sock-puppet questioned Jeff’s patriotism.
Said suck-up also claims no one has refuted the “magic boyfriend theory.” Putting aside the question of the burden of persuasion and the burden of proof, I would note that it is a theory because neither GiGi nor the hypothesized (perhaps imaginary) bf have the honesty or courage to address the issue directly.
Said suck-up might ask himself why GiGi is engaging in lawyerly, hypothetical evasions in response to something which is at most an embarasssment. Indeed, GiGi could have had the response of said suck-up that it is an issue secondary to the substance of his writing (such as it is). Said suck-up might ask himself why he is tying himself even further to someone who is compounding dishonesty with evasion. Of course, if said suck-up cared about honesty, he would have noticed long ago that GiGi’s links often don’t say what he claims they do.
tw: I’m waiting for GiGi’s boyfriend, Godot.
Professor Blather did that. And since blog commenters have that power now, I will add yet another year to Bush’s presidency. It now ends Jan 20, 2010. Wanna go fer 2011?
It’s like a cease fire. Just stop the fightin and fussin and keep the status quo.
tw: almost
OK, almost like a cease fire.
An L.A. Times business columnist had his blog terminated earlier this year for exactly the same behavior.
If GG worked for an established, reputable company he would be terminated. Because he is an entrepreneur he can continue on his merry way, but he will have lost some of his credibility with at least some of his readers, and certainly all of his credibility with some more.
How can you possibly be in the business of convincing people of your nuanced positions–and god knows he is nuanced–if you are a puppetmaster?
I agree that this is a small story, like a lot of commentators, but for different reasons: His discrediting is huge, for him. He’s toast. But he just wasn’t very significant to begin with.
To my knowledge, he hasn’t left a single comment since the story broke. Not one. And yet we know how obsessive he was about following the court of blogger opinion. He has to be visiting these sites regularly to see how his reputation plays out, and he can’t like what he sees.
He’s soldiering on. I think the best thing he could have done was to come clean, in as dignified a manner as possible. (“Yes I did it, it was a weak moment, I would like to move on.”) Given that he chose not to do that, the second best thing he could do is ignore the situation entirely. Which he did.
And so the game goes on, plus ca change, right Glenn? The left continues to support him, and from time to time the right will find it necessary to respond to some of his bolder, balder lies. But he’ll never be able to live this down, he’ll never be able to run away from this now.
Sorry, I broke the longevity rule.
How vicious we are for attacking ideas.
What you, Greenwald, and the tired old shitcan of a horse you rode in on fail to address is that Bush’s reading of executive power is in no way radically different from his predecessors. If it were, I’d be willign to bet that a certain recent Supreme Court decision would have been ignored. It wasn’t.
And, like others, I’d like to ask what your designated topic of bleating will be around noon, January 20, 2009.
P.S.: Don’t those facts get in the way.
A little late, but beet is a complete dumbcluck.
Look what Clinton authorized during peacetime.
And Jimmy Carter. Dictators. Unitary executive threories. Wiretapping. Emergency executive powers. Hitler.
Its called history, beet. Try it.
tw: Neither Executive Order made during wartime…
“J. Brenner: I guess you’re a psychiatrist, huh?”
No beetroot, I’m not a psychiatrist. But, if I were, I would conclude that your poor reasoning skills, inarticulate ranting and slavish devotion to GG are directly attributable to your sexual attaction to your own mother, your compulsive masturbation and to your understandable bitterness over having a freakishly small penis (yes beetroot, you are correct in your fear that your hero GG, would be reject you for this defectl). I hope that these observations help you on the road to self improvement….that will be $500.
One more thought, beetroot:
Just because we call you a traitor does not negate you being one.
Now, tell us again how signing statements are a bigger threat to the U.S. than Al Qaeda.