Skip to main content

View Diary: Really?? Over a Meaningless Committee of Insane Truthers? (298 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Seems to me.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ....that you don't want to admit your hero is a casual antisemite.  It's ok.  I wouldn't want to either.

    Now, if you would prefer that I restated using the term 'the economy' or 'the economy and its related social issues' rather than 'economics....' tough.

    •  My hero? Ad hominem. And you didn't answer ... (0+ / 0-)

      the question. I know economics is not his field. That doesn't make him my hero. You like engaging in fallacies and distractions, right?

      Why did you say he should stick to economics? It makes no sense if you know who he is. I could see you saying Paul Krugman should stick to economics. It's his field. Maybe his comments on politics betray a lack of understanding of political dynamics. That's not my opinion, actually, but I believe a number of posters here make that charge. (Don't ask me for links; it's too trivial, and I'm too tired to dig any up.)

      You don't like being called on your nonsense, do you? So you call Greenwald my "hero" and an antisemite. Should I take the implication that if "my hero" is an antisemite, I must be an antisemite too? Or are you implying I just don't want to admit that my "hero" is an antisemite because it would hurt me too much to admit such a harsh and painful truth?

      In any case, cut the crap and tell the truth. You didn't actually know who it was you were talking about, did you?

      •  Yes, actually.... (0+ / 0-)

        ....I'm well aware of who I was (and am) talking about.  I've commented on him before.  Repeatedly.  At length, even.  Again, on economic and social issues in this country he's fine.  Once you get to international issues.... he needs to shut the fuck up.  See also:  Juan Cole.  See also also:  You.

        •  Nice guy you are. So I should "shut ... (0+ / 0-)

          the fuck up" too, according to you? Sorry to disappoint you, but I won't.

          Again, why should Greenwald stick to economics (not his field) as opposed to law (his field)? Because you don't agree with him? He's "fine" on economics? Because you say so? It's not something he's really an expert on.

          So if by chance you happen to disagree with Krugman on economics (which I'm guessing you know next to nothing about, judging from your comments), then Krugman should stick to some other area, such as chess? And he should "shut the fuck up" about economics?

          You're one hell of a liberal, if you call yourself that. Everyone Corwin Weber disagrees with should "shut the fuck up" on whatever field (even their area of expertise) if the great Corwin so decrees.

          Incidentally, I don't follow Glenn Greenwald all that closely. I read his posts often enough to know what his general point of view is and where his strengths lie. I pay more attention to him when others point out something he's written or when he's interviewed on a program such as Democracy Now!

          By the way, is Amy Goodman an antisemite, too, for interviewing him so frequently?

          Also, would you agree with the general proposition that Bush, Cheney, et al are war criminals?

          •  Yes, Greenwald...... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

   an antisemite.  He's not the same sort of antisemite that the neo-Nazis are.... he's more the same sort of antisemite that upper class Republicans (and upper class white people in general) are.  They don't actually think about it, and there's nothing deliberately vindictive about it..... it's very knee-jerk.  To him, Israel is bad for various reasons.  The fact that none of them are terribly valid doesn't seem to bother him.  They're his reasons and he's sticking to them.

            •  I didn't ask you whether Greenwald was ... (0+ / 0-)

              an antisemite. I already know your opinion on that.

              I asked whether Amy Goodman, in your opinion, is an antisemite as well, since she interviews Glenn Greenwald so frequently and seems to take him seriously. (Or maybe you don't know who Amy Goodman is?)

              Also, do you agree with the proposition that Bush, Cheney, and other top Bush administration officials are war criminals?

              •  I'm aware of who Goodman is.... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                ....although I really never read her stuff.

                The Bush administration was full of criminals.  Whether they were war criminals or not has yet to be established, but is possible, even likely.  This is irrelevant to the discussion, oddly enough.

                •  Not so irrelevant, since it was the charge of ... (0+ / 0-)

                  the now notorious tribunal of lunatics and antisemites, and I thought you were saying that Greenwald should "shut the fuck up" about international issues such as this one. Probably Greenwald didn't know that the tribunal included homophobes, as some have asserted it did (even if Greenwald actually were in agreement with their antisemitism), since Greenwald himself is gay.

                  Greenwald is usually fairly well informed on such issues, so if he didn't know that the tribunal was made up of lunatics and homophobes, maybe he didn't know that they were antisemitic either.

                  In any case, your comments seem to amount to a smear of Glenn Greenwald.

                  A propos of antisemites, Paul Krugman (to return to economists) has commented that he himself has been called an antisemite by neoconservatives for his opposition to the Iraq war.

                  Just curious: would you say Paul Krugman is an antisemite?

                  •  No, irrelevant. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fizziks, volleyboy1

                    The problem is that I wouldn't trust this bunch to tell me it was snowing in Antarctica.  Their credibility is the issue.  The fact that Greenwald lapped it up because they said what he wanted to hear is part of that issue.  It's the problem with his writings on anything outside the US.

                    •  It's the problem with PEOPLE, generally (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Corwin Weber

                      They will lap all kinds of dubious stuff up because it's what they want to hear. That's why it's so hard to talk to anyone who has especially strong feelings on any subject.

                      Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur

                      by TheOtherMaven on Thu Nov 24, 2011 at 07:13:04 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site