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

[LiberalAndProud]

52. You do criticize on point, very often.

And much of what you have said about the perspective and bias of the columnists has been illuminating. I don't mean to assign motive, but it seems to me that rehashing a controversial, eleven-month-old article is an attempt to discredit, not by pointing out the fallacy in his thinking in regard to Bradley Manning, but by insinuating that his thinking must be inherently flawed.

I do have regard for Greenwald's opinion, as I do for yours. I hesitate to characterize that regard as admiration, but I won't belabor the point.

Cenk has a history that illustrates he has probably not been a Republican, neo-con shill in disguise. I disagree vehemently with him on the caucus ploy. I have said so and stated why. I hope we are able to persuade others that to do as he suggests would truly be cutting off our nose to spite our face. I think Cenk is terribly mistaken -- again (it isn't the first time.) I don't think that discredits him out of hand. I do take everything he has to say with a huge grain of salt. He earns his livelihood by talking about politics. I don't think people can do that without becoming a bit (maybe a lot) bellicose.

I haven't been following the Stoller conversation, so I won't attempt to comment on that.

As for Joe Scarborough and Chris Christie, they discredit themselves. I don't think either of them has ever said anything worthy of consideration. If by some accident they do one day, I will be appropriately astonished.

I'm sure you know that you are engaging in ad hominem attacks. I will leave it to you to decide if they are an effective form of persuasion.