Glenn Greenwald: What the Supreme Court got right (Flashback)

[ProSense]

48. You

Equating money with speech is where he goes totally, 100% wrong.

I can read what Greenwald's opinion and evaluate what he has to say and then decide to what degree I agree with him. See how that works?

I get it, ProSense, you don't like Greenwald. He is more critical of our President than you care for. Message received. Beyond that, give me some credit for critical thinking skills. If you take issue with what he says, that's fine and I want to know why you disagree with him. The attack on the messenger, though, isn't wearing well.

...just demonstrated the problem, focusing on me. Here is an OP with an opinion by Greenwald. Regardless of why it was posted (and I knew not everyone was going to agree with his views, but that's almost a given with nearly everything posted here), the focus should be on his opinion. Take a look at the other comments. The discussion is interesting.

You decide to turn the focus on me, implying that somehow you, unlike me, you have the ability to evaluate his opinion and render approval or disapproval.

Why did you feel the need to point out that I "don't like" Greenwald in response to this OP? Why do you believe that it's impossible for me (and it's clear you have no idea who I am beyond your limited perception) to disagree with Greenwald in a reasonable way?

What does your "critical thinking skills" have to do with me, and why do you feel it necessary to make that point in response to this OP? Are you unsure of your skills? Do you feel that by disagreeing with Greenwald I'm somehow challenging your intellect?

Leave aside that this OP doesn't include a criticism.

Why do you consider criticism an "attack on the messenger"?

I criticized Cenk in another thread, but he wasn't the "messenger." He wasn't delivering a message for anyone, it's his opinion.

Disagreeing with Cenk and calling him a moron was criticism appropriate to the idiocy of his premise and the absurdity of the statements he made.

Still, why is that a problem for you?

If Christ Christie or Joe Scarborough says something absurd, and some refers to either of them as a blowhard, is that an "attack on the messenger"?

You seem unable to separate your admiration for Greenwald from my opinion of him. You seem to feel the need to level a personal criticism of me in response to my criticism of Greenwald. Maybe you should focus on rebutting the points of my criticism and resist engaging in a personal assessment of me or questioning my motives.

When warranted, I criticize, and on point and on style if appropriate.

Greenwald: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100277632

Taibbi: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=84138

Stoller: http://upload.democraticunderground.com/100287685

Those are not attacks, they're criticisms, and it's highly likely they have no clue that I criticized them.