Shorter Dan Riehl
Posted on May 3rd, 2007 by Gavin M.
Does Glenn Greenwald Ever Tell The Truth?
Above: Another reason the show isn’t called ‘Informed Sources’
- Regarding the recent Harvey Mansfield editorial which argues that the President should rule as a lawless dictator, the real fascist is the lying Glenn Greenwald, who dishonestly ignores points that might have been in the editorial, had I written it.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.
ok, so i can’t post images….
Try here
Damn intertubes…
Hahaha.
The third commenter opines that Iran-Contra was made up by the liberal media to smear Reagan.
Jesus H. Toad-licking Christ. What part of “rule of law” suggest “except when the Executive doesn’t think he has to” and what part of that isn’t an open embrace of tyranny?
I know still frames can produce plenty un-flattering imagery and all that, but hooooly crap, what a little turd-blossom. I bet he was hit a lot in school. In the face.
Some of those comments indicate an enviable freedom from the tyranny of the real world. No substance to the accusations/slurs/claims/whatever, apparent ignorance of both logic and reason, and a disdain for all other humans, must make their poor, sad, lives a tad more bearable: they seem to believe, I mean really believe, that they’re somehow intrinsically superior to others and need not be tainted by reality.
On the one hand, that’s kind of enviable, given that I suffer under the oppressive tripartite yoke of reality, logic, and compassion.
On the other hand, I’m just I’m not them (shudder). Pardon me while I hose out my brain.
Root! Goddammit it! Farking sods of buggery sammiches!
I’m just glad I’m not them.
OTOH, if they have a Preview button…
On a completely different topic, I’m kind of tickled by the way they seem to get their knickers in a twist over Clinton. I mean, for some of them, every topic leads to Clinton. And it doesn’t take long: any comment that doesn’t agree with their ignorant yokelism (sammichism?) draws forth a measured and complex argument along the lines of “Nerny nerny ner, Clinton stuck his dick where he shouldn’ta oughtn’ta, so there!”. As though that’s some sort of answer.
To lay this ridiculous meme to rest once and for all, I’m willing to make a supreme sacrifice. I’m willing to stand up and say that I don’t care a single fig about Clinton’s dick. I don’t. I know they’ll say I’m betraying the librul cause, but I’m taking that risk.
Of course, that doesn’t mean I’ll stop wandering past infestations of maroons quietly whispering “Clinton”, just to see them get all a-lather…
I assume that the still is taken from an industrial-safety film… something about the hideous accidents that can happen if workers in a Giant Sammich factory forget their safety helmets.
Buggrit, now I have that Magritte painting with the levitating loaves stuck in my head. So to speak.
Why does Reihl link to ‘The Little Prince’? Does he really think Greenwald is referring to ‘The Little Prince’ rather than Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’? Or is that just a lame joke?
I think post like that are why t-bogg stopped picking on reihl. Reading that crap would have to be detrimental to one’s soul in the long run.
Reading that crap would have to be detrimental to one’s soul in the long run.
Yeah, it’s pretty much an effort of will isn’t it.
“Great stuff Wednesday, you must’ve been the terror of the playground back in third grade.”
Welcome to my playground, biatch. Don’t let my hobby horse get too far up your butt.
This explains much.
We obviously need a Riehl-Greenwald debate. TBogg can moderate. The Sadly No crew will be the judges.
Buggrit, now I have that Magritte painting with the levitating loaves stuck in my head. So to speak.
Buggrit, now I have an image of Foul Ole Ron eating sammiches while levitating Magritte stuck in my head.
When you consider all Reihl’s shoes have to be slip-ons or velco, I think the answer becomes clearer.
I really think Reihl is dumb enough to get The Prince and The Little Prince confused, but I’m not positive.
can someone please fill me in, since i seemed to have missed the original joke, on what the deal is around here with sandwiches and/or celery?
Goddamnit, I HAVE to stop clicking on the links to see if the right-wing wanker’s idiocy is as bad and as accurate as the “Shorter” summary makes it out to be. ‘Cause it always is.
The attitude of the rightwing commenters in “But the CLENIS did it TOO!” just made my head hurt all the more. Seriously, they think the Monica thing was just as bad as pre-emptive war, torture, abandonment of habeas, the “unitary executive” etc. etc. worldwithoutendamen.
They really think it’s an analagous situation, and that’s why I hate them so.
can someone please fill me in, since i seemed to have missed the original joke, on what the deal is around here with sandwiches and/or celery?
Sandwich/celery controversy.
Sandwich/celery controversy
If I might add:
The original.
Righteous Bubba’s link will lead you to the first and third variations on the original. Here is the second, less culinary, and less controversial variation.
More from Mansfield, at the end:
In its best moments, America wants to be a model for the world, but no more. In its less good moments, America becomes disgusted with the rest of the world for its failure to imitate our example and follow our advice. I believe that America is more likely to err with isolationism than with imperialism, and that if America is an empire, it is the first empire that always wants an exit strategy. I believe too that the difficulties of the war in Iraq arise from having wished to leave too much to the Iraqis, thus from a sense of inhibition rather than imperial ambition.
“… America is more likely to err with isolationism than with imperialism …”
It’s always seems bizarre when conservatives portray the U.S. as a well-meaning bit player on the world scene. So in its natural state, America is just minding its own business, but occasionally gets dragged kicking and screaming into launching by far the most military campaigns on foreign soil of any country in the past 50 years … and supporting a globe-spanning armed presence that is unprecedented in history.
Because other than all that, we’re like little Hobbits who just want to eat cake and tea in our comfortable little holes, and be left alone.
In its best moments, America wants to be a model for the world, but no more.
Bwahahahahaha. Haha. Mansfield, sonny, in its best moments, America decides against pissing in the global sandpit.
In its less good moments, America becomes disgusted with the rest of the world for its failure to imitate our example and follow our advice.
Jesus wept, where does the man get this? Has he been visited by aliens, and had one anal probe too many? In its ‘less good’ moments, tosspot, America invades and occupies some country full of innocent people, killing hundreds of thousands and blaming them for it all.
I believe too that the difficulties of the war in Iraq arise from having wished to leave too much to the Iraqis, thus from a sense of inhibition rather than imperial ambition.
What a total bag of tossage this man is. I’d love to meet him in person, just so I could tell him that, in my never humble opinion, the ‘difficulties’ (and how twee is that?) of the war in Iraq arise from having invaded the bloody country without cause in the first place, having run riot throughout the country, having allowed the entire national treasure to be looted and/or destroyed, having sold off key bits and failed to fix others despite paying millions, having instituted a torture regime in Saddam’s favourite torture prison, picking people up off the streets at random, bombing Fallujah, failing to take action to stop the death squads, and so on and so forth ad infinitum.
It’s always seems bizarre when conservatives portray the U.S. as a well-meaning bit player on the world scene. So in its natural state, America is just minding its own business, but occasionally gets dragged kicking and screaming into launching by far the most military campaigns on foreign soil of any country in the past 50 years … and supporting a globe-spanning armed presence that is unprecedented in history.
I’ve often wondered how they reconcile those facts. Perhaps they think all those military bases are like embassies or something, and that all the sojer boys are busy helping little old foreign ladies across the street.
So you deleting comments now Riehl? Fascim!!!!!
Here’s Robert Paxton’s definition of fascism (from Wiki):
1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions;
2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits;
3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts;
4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint;
5. fear of foreign `contamination.
If Masfield isn’t advocating #3, I’ll eat my hat.
Holy Crap! Someone magically swapped this blog for Riehl’s !
Qetesh the Abyssinian: Well, I, for one, care deeply about the Clenis. Very, very deeply. It levitates in my mind constantly. I like to take it out at times and whack rightwingotards in the face with it.
Well. lessee if I can help mitch out here, though without actually linking to the posts in question, ‘cos I’m a lazy bastich.
*ahem*
Some months ago, there was a post here, it may have been written by Brad, it may have been Gavin-I don’t remember. In any event, it featured some fattie-fat-McFat jokes, and Gavin photoshopped a Hunormous Ginamous Sammichâ„¢ into the greasy little mitts of noted right-wing blimp, Dafydd ab Hugh (sp?), and the shit hit teh fan. Strangely, however, the shit in question was being flung by the Pee Cee Police
(OK, I’m not remembering which blog[s] was so mightily pissed-off, so if anybody wants to jump in here and remind us… and them… feel free)
Anyhoo, after a few multiple-hundred-comment threads here, and some sallying forth to the blog[s] of the offended party[ies], the same pic of Dafydd was re-posted here, only now with a Mamnormous Stalk O’ Celery®, in an attempt to be more PC to easily offended people with a chunky constitution. And since then, the Gipendous Stalk O’ Celeryâ„ has been spotted cradled in the arms of many a wingnut, as Michael Medved proves just a few posts south of this one.
And now you know the rest of the story.
I love that Greenwald seems to be really getting under their skin. Glenn is tireless, meticulous, well-spoken and most importantly, RIGHT about just about everything. There is no shame in his game. To me, he’s kind of the top dog in the blogosphere.
Damn. Beaten to teh punch, and with links!
Thanks for the effort, anyway, Marq!
All is clear now…
Well, now that I’ve wasted half a day in ye olde archyves….
I agree that we are in such a dangerous time that it will require a leader above the law.
President Hillary Clinton must be empowered to wipe out every last vestige of treasonous antidemocratic Bush Jr. Republicanism. The domination of the right wing over all major news media will be forcibly ended. Of course, the enforced abortions and UN One World Gov’t lesbianism will be just side benefits.
Then, once the crisis of de-Bushification is complete, we may return to a lawful Republic.
I believe too that the difficulties of the war in Iraq arise from having wished to leave too much to the Iraqis, thus from a sense of inhibition rather than imperial ambition.
amazing.
Greenwald rocks. I, too love how irritating he is to the wingnuts.
theman1086–
Um…yeah, but the image on the right isn’t a kettle. It’s a tea pot. Not even. It’s more a carafe. So it’s a depiction of “the pot calling the carafe black.”
A kettle sits on the stove, boils water, etc., with the steam coming out the top and the whistling and so on. And nobody washes it, because you don’t cook anything inside it. That’s how it gets black.
I’m not blaming you. I’ve seen that image before.
Let’s just move on.
“Another reason the show isn’t called ‘Informed Sources’”
hee.
I almost never click on the link. It is always, always worse. The wingnuts are so jealous of Greenwald. It’s so delicious.
Curses! You have slain me.
And that’s bad because… ???
I have to know, and I expect the Sadly Photoshop Crew…uh, Crack Investigative Crew…to find out for me–what the hell is Riehl sitting on to come up with that expression? And, in the next frames, is he twirling?
It amazes me that Riehl continues to blog; it seems even the majority of his commenters have turned on him.
Dan Riehl, hard right, and templar knight will keep that blog going until they’ve lost internet privileges in the mental ward. I’m not even sure they’re all different people, except the others seem to be able to write longer bits than Dan.
what the hell is Riehl sitting on to come up with that expression?
Just ask the man himself: “Welcome to my playground, biatch. Don’t let my hobby horse get too far up your butt.”
I’m with JK47. Greenwald is king.
Dennis Perrin is up there, but for entirely different reasons.
“The rule of law.” These words seem familiar. Where have I heard them? Oh yes! Now I remember! Back in the 90s. Some chicken shit harrasment suit and a deposition. A parade of concerned Republicans on cable TV, many of whom subsequently indicted.
It’s always seems bizarre when conservatives portray the U.S. as a well-meaning bit player on the world scene.
Apologies for not remembering the source –it was a London-based paper’s website is all I can remember– but a British columnist asked the poignant question last week “Why so much Anti-Americanism”? Amidst the catalogue of reasons, some wingnut from Texas chipped in with “they hate us for our freedoms, not because of anything we’ve done”. I had to read it three times to make sure I wasn’t missing context or that it was a joke. Nope. Amazing. I used to have a list of all the governments that the CIA had a hand in toppling, but I lost it in a computer crash. Might need to re-do that…..
Greenwald neglects to mention that the obvious impetus for Mansfield’s piece is the war in Iraq.
So Greendwald is a “liar” for not mentioning that the piece, in Riehl’s opinion, is about the war in Iraq, even though piece neither said that nor implied it?
In addition, Mansfield has been making similar arguments since long before the Iraq war started, and the idea of the “unitary executive” has already extended FAR past the Iraq war funding issue into areas that have nothing to do with Iraq or the “War on Terror.”
The bottom line is, the President can simply choose to not follow the law whenever he feels like it. That is what these clowns are arguing.
In other circumstances I could see myself defending the rule of law. Americans are fortunate to have a Constitution that accommodates different circumstances.
Translation: We’ll follow the laws when we want to. It’s in the Constitution!