There’s Shinola, Then There’s …
Lefty self-enthusiast Greenwald, citing Russian “coerced interrogation techniques” and a wiretap law in Zimbabwe, apparently can’t tell the difference between the United States and the abovementioned, between a state of war and states of oppression. This is not a big surprise, however, as he has been known to have trouble distinguishing himself (and his boyfriend) from his sockpuppet, also, ass from elbow.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:06 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2007
4 Responses to “There’s Shinola, Then There’s …”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 11th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Zimbabwe is communist dictatorship. Mugabe has always done as he pleased. Take people’s houses, fill mass graves…destroy an otherwise functioning country.
If Mugabe is doing it, its not to hunt for terrorists, that’s for sure.
August 11th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
His stance is as surprising as the sun coming up–I’m sure most of this blog’s readers’ would agree. If Even Sayet is correct in his belief that the standard of excellence for the reality based community is a refusal to “discriminate,” in any way, then Greenwald’s is applying that standard uniformly. (For those few who may not have watched Sayet at heritage, link…)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
I wonder though, how an Objectivist would respond to a position which refuses to “discriminate.” Is discrimination approximately equal to “reason?” If so Liberal are committing the worst form of moral atrocity…the refusal to think. And we know that a card carrying Objectivist would rather be associated with a degenerate pedophile than with an individual who refuses to think. In that regard Mr. Greenwald could be worse than a pedophile. How would that work as a post title?
August 12th, 2007 at 2:11 am
I don’t know how a card-carrying Objectivist would find any difference between a degenerate pedophile and an individual who refuses to think. Do degenerate pedophiles think?
Nor do I know how an Objectivist would respond to a position which refuses to discriminate, but I do wonder how reason is supposed to operate without discrimination, which is necessary before any reasoning could be accomplished.
I would suggest that Mr. Greenwald follow one admonition of Rand’s and check his premises.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Greenwald is just anorther liberal ass. One moment they’ll be telling you what a great president Roosevelt was (monitored ALL overseas communications in WWII…no warrants required), then they’ll be whining about the nefarious Republican wiretapping of terrorists the next moment.
The difference between a not so liberal president (like Bush) and a very liberal president (like FDR) is is that the not so liberal guys don’t usually toss innocent people into concentration camps (ask the Nisei about that one), so they obviously can be trusted to exercise power more than liberals can.
Liberals turn my stomach. I can’t stand their sickening hypocrisy.