Comments Posted By Rick Ellensburg
Displaying 1 To 3 Of 3 Comments

A SLAVISH DEVOTION TO SUPERFICIALITY

Even funnier - looks like Andrew Sullivan agrees with Greenwald, since he took the paragraphs you quoted and called it the "Quote of the Day," saying Greenwald "diagnosed the situation accurately":

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/quote_for_the_d_20.html

This is pretty good evidence that more than just Brent Bozell has called Sullivan a "liberal" for failing to lick George Bush's ass enough.

Comment Posted By Rick Ellensburg On 12.02.2006 @ 19:12

And one other thing - in his update, he provides an example of conservatives who HATED FISA under Clinton and thought that eavesdropping on Americans, even with judicial oversight, was a dangerous threat to freedom.

Now, under Bush, conservatives not only love eavesdropping, but think that it's fine that Bush is eavesdropping with no judicial oversight.

To recap:

Conservatives under Clinton - "eavesdropping with judicial oversight = fascism"

Conservatives under Bush - "eavesdropping with no judicial oversight = OK"

if you're going to argue Greenwald's point, you should argue the points, instead if pretending he had none.

Comment Posted By Rick Ellensburg On 12.02.2006 @ 19:03

I love how you criticize the post for being too long and then criticize it for not including enough examples.

I also love how you criticize it for not having enough examples and then ignore most of the examples Greenwald gives.

The article about Barr makes clear that the whole room hated Barr for criticizing Bush, not just one imbecile.

And if you're not familiar with the way in which even life-long conservative Senators are no longer conservative when they jump out of line, it's only because you don't read the papers. Should he have included every instance of that in his single post?

And Michelle Malkin already advocates internment camps. It's hardly "baseless" to think she would advocate new ones.

And you need to learn to read. Greenwald said that Goldstein and Goldberg would likely support far more extreme measures than the ones already revealed, but that they would likely NOT be without limits at all as to the powers they'd be willing to give Bush (unlike Malkina and Hinderaker). You mock that statement as some sort of contradiction. Do you really not understand the difference between advocating further powers but not advocating absolute powers? Apparently not.

And they just had a conservative event and the whole place erupted in cheers when Ann Coulter urged violence on ragheads and called for the deaths of liberal supreme court justices and bill clinton. Is that conservative to you or a cult?

And he said it's not just the excess spending but the total lack of distrust in the federal government, as shown by the huge powers they want to put in Bush - FISA, torture, renderings, Guantanomo, etc. Where is the distrust of Government?

And Bush wants gov't in every aspect of our lives - Schiavo, gay marriage. Everything is federalized, nothing left to the states. This is all in his post; you ignored it.

Ultimately, you're just oversensitive. He didn't say all people who support Bush are slaves and cult members. Many are. You acknowledge that yourself in your own post.

Comment Posted By Rick Ellensburg On 12.02.2006 @ 18:52


 


 


Pages (1) : [1]


«« Back To Stats Page