• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

I’m pretty sure there’s only one Jack Smith.

Fight them, without becoming them!

Narcissists are always shocked to discover other people have agency.

Trump makes a mockery of the legal system and cowardly judges just sit back and let him.

The arc of the moral universe doesn’t bend itself. it’s up to us.

How can republicans represent us when they don’t trust women?

…and a burning sense of injustice to juice the soul.

Not all heroes wear capes.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

There is no right way to do the wrong thing.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

The republican caucus is covering themselves with something, and it’s not glory.

If you are in line to indict donald trump, stay in line.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.

The words do not have to be perfect.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

Somebody needs to explain to DeSantis that nobody needs to do anything to make him look bad.

Shut up, hissy kitty!

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Open Threads / Hey Politico! My blog is reader, not Soros supported!

Hey Politico! My blog is reader, not Soros supported!

by Imani Gandy (ABL)|  October 18, 20111:05 pm| 181 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads

FacebookTweetEmail

This Obamabot defends POTUS from her super sweet van which she will soon occupy down by the river.

Contrary to urban legend — and by urban legend, I mean Politico and the “prominent liberals” ::coughGlennGreenwaldcough:: who believe I have no belief system or political values, I’m not a paid White House agent. I’m simply a thirty-something who decided — after ten years of practicing law — to make a career change and try to make a living as a writer/blogger.

I don’t have President Obama’s cell-phone number on speed dial, nor do I have weekly brunches with George Soros.

I’m just a girl standing in front of the Internet, asking you to love her slide me a few shekels so I can pay for this slapdash operation I’m running out of my one-bedroom apartment.

Far from being part of some coordinated subterranean organization funded by shadowy organizations, I’m the NPR of blogs: entirely reader supported.

So, if you read and support me, you should donate! If you loathe me and want nothing more for me to ceremoniously hurl myself into a very hot fire, donate so I can afford the proper amount of kindling!

And at the end of the month you’ll receive this free tote bag! ::points to tote bag::

Actually, it’ll be more like a bumper sticker or a refrigerator magnet, but you catch my drift.

Twelve more months until the reelection of the Kenyan-in-Chief. I’m ready to rock. Are you?

-ABLxx

P.S. Stay tuned for my response to today’s article in Politico, coming at you on The Grio.
P.P.S. The widget on Chip-in is temperamental.

RELATED POSTS:

  • Angry Black Fall Fundraiser
  • Angry Black Fall Fundraiser: Week 2
[cross-posted at Angry Black Lady Chronicles]
FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Another Grifting Scheme
Next Post: The Money Party Reacts »

Reader Interactions

181Comments

  1. 1.

    PhoenixRising

    October 18, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    Wish I could, just for the super-sweet van photo.

    But unless I can move in to your place down by the river, where they provide no-cost, zero-deductible health care for people what is already diagnosed with something expensive, I’ll have to leave it at this: If I weren’t already gay-married (twice!) to the love of my life, I would be pursuing you instead.

  2. 2.

    Cris (without an H)

    October 18, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    I’m the NPR of blogs: entirely reader supported.

    I would listen to All Things Considered more faithfully if they crafted foul language as skillfully as you.

  3. 3.

    Trurl

    October 18, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    Why should we pay you to be a partisan hack for a war criminal when there are plenty of people with equally low moral standards who will do it for free?

  4. 4.

    Daveboy

    October 18, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    ABL,

    I don’t hate you, but like it or not your writing style, grammar, word choice, and some of the comments you have made make you come across as someone who will carry water for the president regardless of what he does.

    Also, you did the whole “lying about Glenn Greenwald working for the Cato Institute” post that only the hardest of the hardcore Obama cultists were passing around. It doesn’t reflect well on you.

  5. 5.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    Nonsense. If you were the NPR of blogs you’d be raking in millions while churning out highly-produced safe pablum in a pleasantly modulated sonority.

  6. 6.

    piratedan

    October 18, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    kudos for the Notting Hill line ;-)

  7. 7.

    Linda Featheringill

    October 18, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Hang in there, girl. You’re okay.

  8. 8.

    Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason

    October 18, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Notting Hill reference! Nice. One of my faves.

  9. 9.

    Paul in KY

    October 18, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    ABL, I sent you an email a couple of weeks ago offering to donate. No answer on that.

    I just need to know who to make the check out to & where to send it.

    I do not do paypal.

  10. 10.

    beltane

    October 18, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    Does this mean ABL is really Cokie Roberts?

  11. 11.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    @PhoenixRising:

    If I weren’t already gay-married…

    Aside from the constant attacks, how is gay-married distinct from straight-married?

    @Daveboy:

    like it or not your writing style, grammar, word choice, and some of the comments you have made make you come across as someone who will carry water for the president regardless of what he does.

    Grammar? Just what does presidential boot-licking grammar consist of?

  12. 12.

    FlipYrWhig

    October 18, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    @different-church-lady:

    Just what does presidential boot-licking grammar consist of?

    Passive voice and imperatives?

  13. 13.

    jsfox

    October 18, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    @Trurl: So I take it you won’t be sending a financial donation, but will continue to donate your witless prose to her posts.

  14. 14.

    Uncle Clarence Thomas

    October 18, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    .
    .
    Mr. John Cole already posted “Another Grifting Scheme.”
    .
    .

  15. 15.

    Strandedvandal

    October 18, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    @Uncle Clarence Thomas:

    Mr. John Cole already posted “Another Grifting Scheme.”

    And you should go there to discuss it.

  16. 16.

    Chyron HR

    October 18, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    @Trurl:

    As a true progressive, I support Politico with both my words and my money.

    I bet you do.

  17. 17.

    Trurl

    October 18, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    continue to donate your witless prose to her posts

    Not to worry. All indications are that her “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU” filter meant to censor any criticism of her Dear Leader is functioning properly.

  18. 18.

    rikryah

    October 18, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    ABL

    you crack me up.

    I feel ya

  19. 19.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    @Strandedvandal:

    And you should go there to discuss it.

    Or not go there either. That’s a option too.

  20. 20.

    david mizner

    October 18, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    The Obama wars?

    Those are like, so, pre 10-17.

    You have a pre-10-17 mindset.

  21. 21.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    October 18, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    @different-church-lady: There needs to be a lot more s’s involved, since your tongue is out licking while you are talking. I don’t think ABL writes that way, though.

  22. 22.

    piratedan

    October 18, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    @Daveboy: and considering how well we eat our own around here despite everything our country is faced with, I can accept that. Obama is not perfect, then again, considering the forces that are aligned against him, the money, the media, the morans and his failure to be Mr. Sparkle every waking moment for those that actually support him; the simple fact that he hasn’t given us all the finger and told the collective we to do for ourselves is admirable because he’s certainly not getting paid enough to deal with all this shit.

  23. 23.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    @Trurl: One of these days they’re going to figure out just which branch of the autism tree firebaggers drop their nuts from.

  24. 24.

    piratedan

    October 18, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    @Chyron HR: if only Politico were a true progressive publication, I guess therein lies the rub eh?

  25. 25.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    @piratedan:

    the simple fact that he hasn’t given us all the finger and told the collective we to do for ourselves is admirable because he’s certainly not getting paid enough to deal with all this shit.

    Then again, he probably doesn’t read a lot of blogs, so his impulse to do so is probably considerably less than ours to do it on his behalf.

  26. 26.

    taylormattd

    October 18, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    @different-church-lady: I’m not sure it’s the autism tree. Seems to me more like the bipolar tree.

  27. 27.

    geg6

    October 18, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    I read this and GG’s vomitous description of people who, like me, may have problems with specific policies but who, all in all, support the president from lying, grifting assholes like him and laughed and laughed.

    ABL, you come off well there, much as they tried to make you sound like a nut. Greenwald comes off like the jealous nerd from high school who hates all of us who don’t bow down and respect his AUTHORITAH!

  28. 28.

    RP

    October 18, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    I feel ya

    Do you have her permission? If not, I think you should stop.

  29. 29.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    @taylormattd: Perhaps I was thinking OCD. I’m not a doctor, and I don’t play one on Prairie Home Companion.

  30. 30.

    catclub

    October 18, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    @Paul in KY: How about pressed latinum?

  31. 31.

    eemom

    October 18, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    @geg6:

    I have a friend who was in the same law school class as GG. She says he didn’t talk much — he was just kind of a sulky, vaguely menacing, presence. Tee hee.

  32. 32.

    some hippy

    October 18, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    @piratedan:

    considering the forces that are aligned against him, the money

    The continued existence of this line of argument amazes me. What part of Obama receiving the most Wall Street cash ever, is not penetrating your skull?

  33. 33.

    BlizzardOfOz

    October 18, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    @piratedan:

    considering the forces that are aligned against him, the money

    The continued existence of this line of argument amazes me. What part of Obama receiving the most Wall Street cash ever, is not penetrating your skull?

  34. 34.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    October 18, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    Eee. Gad. Joan Walsh, wannabe Villager and publisher of Sirota, Greenwald and Lady Lynn scolds O-bots for working against the progressive cause?

    For the record, I thought Maddow got a bad rap on the gay marriage thing. She was speaking off the cuff and inartfully, but her defense “President Obama doesn’t support gay marriage” is not exactly the same as “President Obama is against what is happening now”, which is what she said.

    Krugman: Fine economist, lousy politician and occasionally dishonest pundit, as when– after weeks of snide, passive aggressive “I told ya so”s about Obama supposed weakness– he responded (indirectly and without mentioning Chait’s name) to Chait’s review of the politics of the stimulus by saying, effectively, “Little old me? I just discuss economics, not politics”.

  35. 35.

    Warren Terra

    October 18, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    @Daveboy:

    I don’t hate you, but like it or not your writing style, grammar, word choice, and some of the comments you have made make you come across as someone who will carry water for the president regardless of what he does.

    If you can perceive knee-jerk support for Obama in someone’s grammar, you need to consider whether the fault lies not in the person you’re inspecting but in yourself.

  36. 36.

    Tonal Crow

    October 18, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    Hey Politico! My blog is reader, not Soros supported!

    Your headline is ungrammatical.

  37. 37.

    j low

    October 18, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    The only person on BJ who I like to see blogging about himself is John. The rest of the fpers are much more interesting when they write about topics other than what it looks like in the mirror.

  38. 38.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    @BlizzardOfOz:

    What part of Obama receiving the most Wall Street cash ever, is not penetrating your skull?

    19 hours ago called: they’d like to call your attention to this.

  39. 39.

    Hill Dweller

    October 18, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    @BlizzardOfOz: Are you suggesting Wall Street hasn’t largely abandoned Obama?

  40. 40.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    @Tonal Crow: But it is Obamabotty ungramatical?

  41. 41.

    Maude

    October 18, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    I couldn’t make myself read Politico.
    If I had money, I’d send. As it is, things are a bit tight here.
    Let us know how the van trip goes.

  42. 42.

    salacious crumb

    October 18, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    yup greenwald, walsh, west, and any liberal who holds their president accountable is a racist! After all dont they know Dear Leader Obama must be worshipped at all costs?!

  43. 43.

    Daveboy

    October 18, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Blah blah blah, at no point has ABL ever publicly retracted her blatant lie about Greenwald being a member of the Cato Group.

    Once you start smearing critics of the President with actual, demonstrateable lies that you fail to retract then you’ve crossed the line from supporter to loyalist. I am sorry, but that’s the way it is.

  44. 44.

    piratedan

    October 18, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    @BlizzardOfOz: what part of Wall Street backing EVERY candidate doesn’t penetrate yours? They hedge their bets like all good gamblers and they had no problem whatsoever undercutting him every step of the way post the election.

  45. 45.

    Paul in KY

    October 18, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    @catclub: I had to google that as I stopped watching Star Trek new generation very early on, due to Wesley Crusher animus.

    My money spends very nicely, I hear.

  46. 46.

    j low

    October 18, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    @Warren Terra: Grammatically speaking- I don’t think the part of his sentence that criticized ABL’s grammar was connected to the part that criticized her loyalty to the Prez.

  47. 47.

    Paul in KY

    October 18, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    @piratedan: I had a very wealthy uncle. He was in business. He routinely donated to both sides.

  48. 48.

    Dr. Squid

    October 18, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    @j low: If that’s the case, his grammar should be better. It makes you wonder why he felt the need to grammar-flame in the first place.

  49. 49.

    Warren Terra

    October 18, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    @j low:
    Grammatically, they absolutely said that ABL’s grammar marked her out as an Obot. If that wasn’t their intended meaning, they shouldn’t have said it, especially in a comment raising grammar as an issue.

  50. 50.

    eemom

    October 18, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    @salacious crumb:

    nobody said they were racists, asshole.

  51. 51.

    Dr. Squid

    October 18, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    @salacious crumb: When they actually do that, contact me. Screeching about how butthurt you are because you didn’t get everything you want isn’t holding anyone accountable – it’s waving your flippers for attention and cash.

  52. 52.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    @salacious crumb: These kinds of comments are starting to remind me of the “Answers.com” category of websites now making the internet utterly useless. You know, the things where you punch a question into google, and the top 30 hits are from sites that try to make it seem like there’s actual people who have actually answered a question like yours, except that the answer doesn’t quite line up with the question asked correctly and then you realize that it’s just a bunch of ‘bots and aggregators doing word searches and weird algorithmic bullshit that somehow inexplicably leads to an income stream, but doesn’t actually answer your fuckin’ question correctly.

    Similarly, one can now create any blog post that involves the words “Obama” “Greenwald” and “criticism” and come out with 83 variations of the same damn tired taunting that doesn’t actually address a single damn particular of the original post.

  53. 53.

    Daveboy

    October 18, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    @Warren Terra:

    *I* personally said that,yes her grammar (over-use of punctuation marks when talking about Obama) marks her as a loyalist.

    There is no “they”, you’ve literally invented a fictional group of people saying something out of whole cloth.

  54. 54.

    Amir Khalid

    October 18, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    @Tonal Crow:
    Hyphens after “reader” and “Soros” would fix it.

  55. 55.

    Daveboy

    October 18, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    @different-church-lady:

    I’ll stop posting about it when she apologizes publicly for posting a ludicrous, discredited lie. Until then, she quite literally has no moral high ground to preach to anyone about anything. And no money either, I guess.

  56. 56.

    Kola Noscopy

    October 18, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    “…to blog and twitter and grift full time…”

    hahahaha…omg, this is fucking hilariously predictable.

    All of ABL’s shrieking about GG and JH “grifting” was of course projection. She was jealous of what she thought was going on.

  57. 57.

    geg6

    October 18, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    @Daveboy:

    Also, you did the whole “lying about Glenn Greenwald working for the Cato Institute” post that only the hardest of the hardcore Obama cultists were passing around. It doesn’t reflect well on you.

    Not sure what post you’re referring to here, but are you claiming that Greenwald does not or has not worked for Cato?

    http://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/glenn-greenwald/

    That’s from 2010.

  58. 58.

    eemom

    October 18, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    meh, Krugman may have his faults but imo he absolutely does NOT deserve to be lumped in with the rest of that despicable crew.

    Among other things, he (1) is actually qualified to opine whereof he speaks, unlike any of THEM; (2) is usually dead on right on substance, unlike any of THEM; and (3) is not a pissy little nobody emmessemm wannabe, like any of THEM; and (4) is one of maybe 3 emmessemm pundits left (if that many) who DOES tell the truth and is not a right wing hack or a concern troll.

  59. 59.

    geg6

    October 18, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    @eemom:

    he was just kind of a sulky, vaguely menacing, presence.

    So, nothing has changed?

  60. 60.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    @Daveboy: Punctuation ain’t grammar. Just sayin’.

  61. 61.

    Mark S.

    October 18, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    C’mon, ABL, let me in on how to get some of that sweet O-money.

  62. 62.

    Daveboy

    October 18, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    @geg6:

    See, this is why I am so adamant about this. Cato Unbound is their external section for guest writers that also contains Markos Moulitas, the founder of Daily Kos.

    http://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/markos-moulitsas/

    Glenn Greenwald has never worked for Cato, despite ABL’s lies about it.

    Also misuse of punctuation was always marked as poor grammar on my school papers.

  63. 63.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    @Daveboy: I wasn’t necessarily including your comment in the described set. (Thus, my reply being directed to someone else, not you.) If you wish to include yourself in the set, that’s your choice.

  64. 64.

    Mr Stagger Lee

    October 18, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    I can’t until Friday when President Obama signs the free trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, the O-bots defending this. His trade education bill for displaced American Workers will be like Bill Clinton’s, courses on How to say Do You Want Fries With That?, Varnish Stain is in Aisle 6, How to park Banker’s BMWs in the valet parking lot.

  65. 65.

    amk

    October 18, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    Congrats ABL for becoming famous. I see the usual racist pigs and the lying firebagger trolls are here with their butthurts.

  66. 66.

    lacp

    October 18, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    ABL,now that you’ve hit the big time at Politico, can you tell me if it’s true….that, y’know, both sides do it?

  67. 67.

    The Moar You Know

    October 18, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    I personally said that,yes her grammar (over-use of punctuation marks when talking about Obama) marks her as a loyalist.

    We’re through the looking glass, people.

  68. 68.

    fasteddie9318

    October 18, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    @different-church-lady: Yeah, OK, fine, Wall Street is giving twice as much money to Romney as to Obama, but what about Wall Street, and all the money they’re giving Obama? Duh, doesn’t that re-penetrate your minds, or whatever?

    Somebody needs to do a TV series about zombie lies, instead of physical zombies.

  69. 69.

    geg6

    October 18, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    @Daveboy:

    Well, I’m not a big fan of Markos, either.

    I find it absolutely fucking hilarious that GG can consort with the enemy all he wants and the Glennbots are all oh-no-you-don’t-criticize-my-awesome-hero but if Obama took one penny from a Wall Streeter that he’s an enemy of the people.

    Just like Glenn, you Glennbots are. Hypocrites.

  70. 70.

    Strandedvandal

    October 18, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    @Daveboy: Tell me again why it matters to you so much? Seriously. Why do you even fucking CARE? You seem to have your panties in a giant wad over nothing. You constantly post about this perceived grave injustice. Do you do this over every single thing you deem as wrong on the internet? You must be a blast at parties.

  71. 71.

    fasteddie9318

    October 18, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    How! Many! Exclamation! Points! Am! I! Allowed! To! Use! Without! Forfeiting! My! Intellectual! Integrity?

  72. 72.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    @fasteddie9318: Can’t! Divide! By! Zero! Spanky!

  73. 73.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    @fasteddie9318: Groovy! Pivot! Dude!

  74. 74.

    Amir Khalid

    October 18, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    @fasteddie9318:
    Two after every word, and one after a question mark.

  75. 75.

    Paul in KY

    October 18, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    @fasteddie9318: 10

  76. 76.

    FlipYrWhig

    October 18, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    @The Moar You Know: I don’t even want to contemplate what Greenwald’s own ponderous writing style signifies cognitively-ideologically.

  77. 77.

    Amir Khalid

    October 18, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    @Daveboy:

    misuse of punctuation was always marked as poor grammar on my school papers.

    Tsk, tsk. Your teachers should have known better.

  78. 78.

    Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen

    October 18, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    ABL vs. Politico?

    I know where I’m putting my money.

  79. 79.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    @The Moar You Know:

    We’re through the looking glass, people.

    Dude, at this point we’re through an infinitely recursive set of looking glasses into a Droste-effect Wonderland(!!!!).

    By the way, did you know that when you end your sentence with multiple exclaimation points, WordPress simply hacks all of them off?

    Like this!!!! Way to go WordPress, make a monkey out of me…

  80. 80.

    Keith G

    October 18, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    Is it Ground Hog Day?

  81. 81.

    piratedan

    October 18, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    @The Moar You Know: I’ll notify Brandy, I hear she’s a fine girl….

  82. 82.

    The Moar You Know

    October 18, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    Dance, puppets, dance!

  83. 83.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    @Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen:

    I know where I’m putting my money.

    In a Credit Union?

  84. 84.

    Jason Kuznicki

    October 18, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    Cato Unbound hosts people of many different ideas and backgrounds. They are paid for their participation, but it’s strictly a one-time deal.

    We’ve published Markos Moulitsas, as noted, as well as Matthew Yglesias, Joseph Romm, Amanda Hess, and plenty of other unlikely folks.

    Also worth noting is Glenn Greenwald’s 2009 report on drug decriminalization in Portugal. And he’s spoken I think a few times at Cato, but he holds no permanent position or title. He’s not even an adjunct.

    Now for the touch of death: I frankly admire the heck out of the guy, but I can’t call him a colleague.

    Jason Kuznicki
    Editor, Cato Unbound
    The (horrors!) Cato Institute

  85. 85.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    @piratedan: I’ve heard it said she’d make a good wife.

  86. 86.

    Daveboy

    October 18, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    @Strandedvandal:

    And by “constantly post about it”, you mean “once every couple of weeks when ABL brings up how unfairly persecuted she is by all of these people calling her an ‘O-Bot'”.

    Also, someone writing an independent article that they retain full editorial control over is now “consorting with the enemy?”

    By turning everyone upset with the president into an enemy you do yourself a disservice. There’s a continuum of people out there that range from the principled, to the misinformed, to the misguided, and finally to the genuinely evil. Tarring them all with the same brush does you no favors.

    Edit: I want to make something personally clear: I started thinking of ABL as an Obama loyalist the day that I saw her article with that Cato accusation, which was something that only the HARDEST of the hard core cultists started shrieking. Before then I thought she was a typical party-line Democrat who used too many exclamation points (now I know that’s not a grammar problem – I learned something today). But posting a gigantic, demonstrateable lie to discredit criticism of the President is not defensible, sorry.

  87. 87.

    Ben Cisco

    October 18, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    That van is KILLER.
    __
    I have to admit, every time I think Politiblow has hit bottom, they manage to up their game. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

  88. 88.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    @Jason Kuznicki: Freak dude, that was fast. You must have one of them smart phones or something…

  89. 89.

    fasteddie9318

    October 18, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    @Jason Kuznicki:

    Also worth noting is Glenn Greenwald’s 2009 report on drug decriminalization in Portugal. And he’s spoken I think a few times at Cato, but he holds no permanent position or title. He’s not even an adjunct.

    Holy shit, it’s like Greenwald is the fucking CEO of that place! He’s clearly the wind beneath their wings, or whatever.

    Nice pot-stirring move, Kuznicki. You’re +1 on this round.

  90. 90.

    Jason Kuznicki

    October 18, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    @different-church-lady: I just happened to be checking the site stats for Cato Unbound. Saw some traffic from here.

  91. 91.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    @Jason Kuznicki: Are you seriously trying to tell me that 17 cranky, bored, snarky internet addicts in one dusty corner of one dusty room are lighting up hot spots on your odometer?

  92. 92.

    FlipYrWhig

    October 18, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    It makes sense that a guy affiliated with an organization named after a figure who’d rather commit suicide than find a way to cope with a government he doesn’t like would find much to admire about Glenn Greenwald.

  93. 93.

    boss bitch

    October 18, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    @Jason Kuznicki:

    Really? You had to run over here on this tiny little blog to defend Greenwald?

  94. 94.

    The Moar You Know

    October 18, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    @Jason Kuznicki: I admire anyone who knows precisely when and how to kick a beehive. Kudos.

  95. 95.

    Strandedvandal

    October 18, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    @Daveboy: You are unhinged. Get over it sunshine. Move on, go outside, See the sun. This is obviously too much for you to handle as you are wrapped up in it way too tight. You post a hundred words, and yet, never answer the question. I didn’t ask for a defense of your behaviour, I asked for the reason for it.

  96. 96.

    boss bitch

    October 18, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    @ABL:

    I don’t know about this donation stuff. With you being an Obot and all, how do we know that you’re not just going to go on a shopping spree at the Obama web store?

  97. 97.

    Strandedvandal

    October 18, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    @Jason Kuznicki:

    I just happened to be checking the site stats for Cato Unbound. Saw some traffic from here.

    Bullshit.

  98. 98.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    @The Moar You Know: This is gonna be epic! This is gonna be one of those ones that spans 7 threads over 4 days. Cole will be bringing this one up three years from now. We’re talking multiple entries into the lexicon. Many many Oba-mation marks! ! ! !

  99. 99.

    eemom

    October 18, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    @FlipYrWhig:

    teh internets. U winz em.

  100. 100.

    Corner Stone

    October 18, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    This was not completely predictable.

  101. 101.

    Warren Terra

    October 18, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    @Daveboy:

    I personally said that,yes her grammar (over-use of punctuation marks when talking about Obama) marks her as a loyalist.

    Good to know, good to know.

    There is no “they”, you’ve literally invented a fictional group of people saying something out of whole cloth.

    The “singular” they is the use of this pronoun as a gender-neutral singular rather than as a plural pronoun. Just to be clear: I am not the one concoting conspiratorial groups out of thin air. It’s charming that you, who have unmasked an entire wildly punctuating cabal, would accuse me of such.

  102. 102.

    geg6

    October 18, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    @Jason Kuznicki:

    Well, GG and Yglesius are people I would completely expect to contribute to Cato’s propaganda. Useful idiots, i.e.: libertarian, as they are and all. And yeah, I know they don’t call themselves that, but I’m not illiterate. And my reading comprehension is off the charts. Apparently, better than theirs when it comes to their own writing.

  103. 103.

    catperson

    October 18, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    OK, you made me laugh with the kindling line. And congratulations on being loud enough to merit a hit piece from Politico. But I’m still not donating.

  104. 104.

    Unsympathetic

    October 18, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    ABL:

    But of course you don’t have a belief system or political values! After all, you don’t agree with Obama. Anyone who disagrees with Obama is value-less and belief-challenged. Therefore, by definition (and using those super-secret powers of logic) you don’t have anything!

    WINNING.

  105. 105.

    j low

    October 18, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    @Warren Terra: My bad. I read that he didn’t hate her, but didn’t care for her grammar. I guess I should stop assuming that people make sense.

  106. 106.

    different-church-lady

    October 18, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    @j low:

    I guess I should stop assuming that people make sense.

    You should absolutely stop doing that, but probably not for the reasons you’re implying here.

  107. 107.

    Cacti

    October 18, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    My favorite “progressive” Greenwald declaration:

    Snidely spitting out the “racist” insult as part of the illegal immigration debate is nothing more than a cheap and lazy way to irrationally smear people who espouse a certain view for the purpose of shutting down debate.

    Written in defense of poor, little ol’ Tom Tancredo.

  108. 108.

    j low

    October 18, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    @different-church-lady: Enlighten me. I was implying that my reason was…?

  109. 109.

    andrewsomething

    October 18, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    @Strandedvandal:

    Why do you think it’s bull? What better explanation is there? That CATO has a staff of intern monitoring the internet at all time to defend Glen Greenwald’s honor?

    I guess you’ve never run a web site. Most people find where their links come from very interesting. I can’t imagine that I was the only person to click the CATO link above thinking “Dear God. What are these people fighting over this time?”

  110. 110.

    ruemara

    October 18, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    @Cacti:
    He’s progressive, but he’s not necessarily anti-Tancredo. Big Tent! Well, for people who are True Progressives™.

  111. 111.

    geg6

    October 18, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    @Cacti:

    My own favorite is when he pines away for the Loughner era interpretation of the Constitution here:

    There already is a “closed sign on the border” when it comes to illegal immigration. It’s called the law. The problem is that the “closed sign” isn’t being enforced because the Federal Government, which has its interfering, power-hungry hands in virtually everything else, has abdicated its duty in one of the very few areas where it was actually meant to be: border security.

    If that bolded bit isn’t right out of a Federalist Society pamphlet, I don’t know what would be.

    Or when he says he loves him some Gary Johnson:

    One of his hopes for 2012 is that candidates will emerge to take on the red and the blue teams — he is keeping an eye on Gary Johnson, a two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, who is pro-gay and antiwar, and who could run with a Democrat like former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold. He would also be happy to see a billionaire run without the help of either party, to “disrupt the two-party stranglehold.”

    Gary Johnson, who cuts taxes on the rich while cutting services to the poor. Who wanted to take money from the public schools and replace it with vouchers for private schools. Who signed a late-term abortion ban. Who doesn’t really admit to global warming but thinks even it does exist isn’t important enough to waste time or money on. Who vetoed a bill supporting collective bargaining rights for public employees. And who is no more a supporter of gay marriage than Obama but who has done exactly nothing to expand the right of GLBTs in contrast to Obama, who has done more for gay rights than any other president in history.

    Fuck Glenn Greenwald. With a rusty pitchfork.

  112. 112.

    Lysana

    October 18, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    I’m way too broke to contribute, ABL, but you keep on keepin’ on. The trolling you get is part of my daily dose of laughter nowadays, if nothing else.

  113. 113.

    David Koch

    October 18, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    Eee. Gad. Joan Walsh, wannabe Villager and publisher of Sirota, Greenwald and Lady Lynn

    Joan/Salon works with PUMA extraordinary Lady Lynn Forester de Rothchild? I didn’t know that. That speaks volumes. Joan might as well give me column space.

  114. 114.

    FlipYrWhig

    October 18, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    @geg6: Hey, he’s principled. In that he cares passionately about a minuscule number of issues that have exceedingly little overlap with the standard liberal agenda. That way when he criticizes Obama it counts as “from the left” because, uh, something something corporatists Dear Leader.

  115. 115.

    geg6

    October 18, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Principled? Only if you think ratfucking is principled.

  116. 116.

    Daveboy

    October 18, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    Yes, all that illegal immigration stuff was from a 2005 post 2 weeks after he started blogging. He has walked back from it numerous times. The fact that you have to go back 6 years and thousands of posts to find something dumb really says it all I think.

    Here’s what you will always hear about Glenn Greenwald, the person:

    1) His ideas are not politically savvy!
    2) He has principles that he applies equally to everyone. Doesn’t he realize that we are fighting against the worst right-wing menace in history? We don’t have time for principles!
    3) He once posted an independent article for Cato Unbound, but I’ll pretend that means he’s actually a Cato employee.
    4) He once made a dumb, terrible post in 2005…2 weeks after he started blogging! Which he has admitted was dumb!
    5) He’s a Liberterian! (that believes in universal healthcare and preserving social security so oops, I guess not.)
    6) His posts are long! And they are updated a lot! And he’s a nerd!

    Here is what you will hear about the actual arguments he makes and not the man making them:

    1) His Citizens United post was really dumb when it said, “Well corporate money is already damaging the electorial process about as much as it can so I don’t see how this is making it worse.” (this one’s a freebie from me, because it really was a very bad, clueless post)
    2) …
    “Well I don’t like that he’s criticizing ‘my side’! Stop it!”

    And that about sums it up.

  117. 117.

    Strandedvandal

    October 18, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    @andrewsomething: What better answer is there? I dunno, how about he read this blog, or more likely GG read it and bitched to this little douche @ Cato that we were talking smack. Now you jump in from no where. I obviously have never run a website? Really, tell me Kreskin, how is that obvious? Because everyone runs websites the same way, right? How about I have run a website or to, and therefore I KNOW that Cato douche’s lame ass excuse is pure Grade A bullshit. Unless that site has so few clicks that 9 is going to raise some flags, there is no way that Cato douche was “just checking”. Someone told him to come here. Someone who was butthurt. Who could that be?

  118. 118.

    The Spy Who Loved Me

    October 18, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    If ABL is having to shill for rent money here, perhaps she should rethink her career change decision. Unless, of course, it wasn’t her decision.

  119. 119.

    Daveboy

    October 18, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    Hey StrandedVandal,

    Before you go around calling people “unhinged” you might want to look at your little conspiracy theory. Greenwald is on a major book tour right now for his new book and wouldn’t have time to call Cato. Not to mention that it just doesn’t make sense that Greenwald, who gets twitter-bombed by hate on a daily basis (as Greenwald does, I ought to know…I follow his Twitter, big surprise there I’m sure) is going to pop his top over a comment thread on Balloon Juice.

    Now look I was posting on lunch at my job but it’s been long over and I am going to get in trouble if I keep doing this, so I got to go. I can’t reply until tomorrow (gonna go home and play Batman: Arkham City after work, a man has to have priorities).

  120. 120.

    geg6

    October 18, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    @Daveboy:

    Well, you leave out one rather large one that was staring you right in the face. The one I put right in my post @111, right there with the crap about his yearning for the Loughner era, complete with his Federalist Society-approved language, that you seem to think is about the illegal immigration stuff and not about wanting the Supreme Court to go back to how it made decisions in the good old days of 1905 (which would conveniently wipe out all the Roosevelt era court decisions, Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, etc.) and lines right up with the kind of Court that Alito, Thomas, and, I believe, Scalia have said they want. You know, the one where he sings out his love of Gary Johnson. And was from April 2011:

    http://www.out.com/detail.asp?page=1&id=30073

  121. 121.

    ABL

    October 18, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    @Daveboy: I’m actually rereading old posts I’ve written about Greenwald for the piece I’m working on. I’ve done a search for my name and balloon juice and cato and have not uncovered any post in which I claim that Greenwald “works for CATO.” I know that I’ve noted that Greenwald is “affiliated with” CATO, and I don’t see how that simple fact is not true. And if I recall, I made the observation not because it says anything about Greenwald’s political leanings in and of itself, but because I think it demonstrates some hypocrisy on the part of Greenwald and his readers when it comes to demanding purity from Obama but not demanding the same from Greenwald.

    If you google “Balloon Juice CATO” you’ll see pages of references to Greenwald and CATO from BJ regulars that raise the same concerns that I raised. I don’t know how you get “ABL lies” from that.

    The only reference I have found thus far is here, in which I attach a picture of Greenwald’s CATO contributor page to make a specific point about what I see as Greenwald’s hypocrisy with respect to ideological purity.

    I do find it interesting that Greenwald so easily casts me and Shoq and whomever else as having no belief system and no political values when Greenwald’s belief system seems to have been formulated during the last decade (or later, if his blog post about the evils of immigration is any indication).

    You keep saying that I lied. I take such charges seriously. Where did I lie? I don’t see it. Is there some other post of mine that you’re talking about?

    And I don’t get this “exclamation mark” crack, unless you’re referencing the times that i mock internet speak by adding “!!!11one” to certain things as a stylistic choice.

    ::shrug::

    I am interested to know, honestly, what you think I lied about and on what basis you make that assessment.

    ABL

  122. 122.

    geg6

    October 18, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    @Daveboy:

    Not to mention that it just doesn’t make sense that Greenwald, who gets twitter-bombed by hate on a daily basis (as Greenwald does, I ought to know…I follow his Twitter, big surprise there I’m sure) is going to pop his top over a comment thread on Balloon Juice.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Oh, no he’d never have the time for that. Nor would it make sense. Balloon Juice is too low rent for his beautiful mind. And he’s so brave that he never gets butthurt by blog comments.

    I was right. A Glennbot, through and through. Who has, obviously, not spent much time at BJ in the comments section. Unlike his hero, GG.

    The only semi-famous person who has whined as much as GG here in the comments is Jake Tapper, who is actually better at defending himself from the commentariat than the World’s Bestest Lawyer Evah! Glenn Greenwald.

    Ooooo, I used an exclamation point. Feel free to criticize me.

  123. 123.

    Strandedvandal

    October 18, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    @Daveboy: Because no one can possibly access the internet while on a book tour right? No way that GG could do that sort of thing right? His twitter feed is all done by carrier pigeon right? Don’t let reality get in the way of your vendetta. Carry on.

  124. 124.

    ABL

    October 18, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    @The Spy Who Loved Me: It was my decision to quit the law because I was no longer happy and because the stress levels were bad for my health situation. And, Considering in the six months that i left the law to try to make a living as a writer, i got a freelance gig at the Grio, I’m pretty happy with my choice. Freelancing doesn’t pay much or with any consistency, and to the extent people want to donate (and many have, and for that I thank them) then I’ve asked them to do so.

    I understand you may be one of the people apoplectic at the hypocrisy of it all due to a lack of understanding about my fundraising as compared to the “obama is going to cut entitlements, send me 3 dollars and i’ll tell obama to say no to the catfood commission” style of fundraising, but I assure you it doesn’t bother me.

    In a year, I may very well go back to private practice and a big firm salary.

    I thank you for your “concern.”

  125. 125.

    ABL

    October 18, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    @Daveboy: That’s the thing about it: His purported walk-back was defensive and steeped in disdain for obama supporters:

    That was a 6 yrs ago: 3 weeks after I began blogging, when I had zero readers. I’ve discussed many times before how there were many uninformed things I believed back then, before I focused on politics full-time – due to uncritically ingesting conventional wisdom, propaganda, etc. I’ve written many times since then about how immigrants are exploited by the Right for fear-mongering purposes. I’m 100% in favor of amnesty, think defeat of the DREAM Act was an act of evil, etc. That said, I do think illegal immigration is a serious problem: having millions of people live without legal rights; having a legal scheme that is so pervasively disregarded breeds contempt for the rule of law; virtually every country – not just the U.S. insists on border control because having a manageable immigration process is vital on multiple levels. But that post is something I wrote literally a few weeks after I began blogging when nobody was reading my blog; it was anything but thoughtful, contemplative, and informed, and – like so many things I thought were true then – has nothing to do with what I believe now.
    That’s why Obama cultists have to dig back 6 years into my archives to try to find things to discredit me.

    He didn’t really walk it back. I’m 37. At the age of 31 I never would stated much less held such odious opinions. Is a person capable of changing such opinions? Of course. Do I consider a person who does so in the manner that Greenwald did to be genuine? Not really.

  126. 126.

    ABL

    October 18, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    Yes, all that illegal immigration stuff was from a 2005 post 2 weeks after he started blogging.

    This defense astounds me. “Yeah, he thought those awful things, but no one was paying attention then!”

  127. 127.

    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)

    October 18, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    @The Moar You Know: FTW.

  128. 128.

    FlipYrWhig

    October 18, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    @Daveboy:

    Not to mention that it just doesn’t make sense that Greenwald, who gets twitter-bombed by hate on a daily basis (as Greenwald does, I ought to know…I follow his Twitter, big surprise there I’m sure) is going to pop his top over a comment thread on Balloon Juice.

    Uh, he has done exactly that, here in these very threads, repeatedly… although not terribly recently. He tends to favor the “Y’all jus’ jealous” move common among Maury Povich’s guests, that is, “You can’t handle all the brave truth I bravely tell about your Dear Leader.”

    @ABL: Especially when his calling card is precisely how much he cares about civil liberties.

  129. 129.

    Scott

    October 18, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    @The Moar You Know: @Strandedvandal: Are you the scout drone for Greenwald’s Asperger Army? Tell him his cultist leave a lot to be desired, k?

  130. 130.

    geg6

    October 18, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Uh, he has done exactly that, here in these very threads, repeatedly… although not terribly recently.

    That’s because he usually gets his ass handed to him when he does. I’m pretty sure he’s determined not to get his hands dirty dealing with the proles here in comments and just emails Cole and bitches about us.

  131. 131.

    Scott

    October 18, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    @Daveboy: Ah so you’re either one of his sockpuppet accounts or the scout drone for the Greenwald Asperger Army. Lovely. Property values plummeting as we speak.

  132. 132.

    TG Chicago

    October 18, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    @ABL: He didn’t really walk it back? He said “it was anything but thoughtful, contemplative, and informed, and – like so many things I thought were true then – has nothing to do with what I believe now.” He’s openly admitting that he was ignorant of the subject matter. He has since learned more and his opinions have changed as a result. How is that not walking it back?

    Also, if Cato offered you money to write a column on a subject that you believe in, would you accept? If not, why not? You get money and you get to expose your viewpoint to an audience that doesn’t normally see it. I’m not seeing a downside.

  133. 133.

    David Koch

    October 18, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    @geg6: But Glenster has a long history of posting comments under different names (AKA sockpuppets), as detailed in this hilarious post.

  134. 134.

    MiniVanVader

    October 18, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    The Greenwald/ABL feud is pretty silly. Greenwald fell off around the time of the health care debate, when he started biting off more than he could chew and chiming in on issues outside of his level of expertise. His quality went from the Lithwick side of the scale to the Hamsher side, which is to say, he fell off dramatically. His stuff from a couple of years and more ago on civil liberties is excellent, and you’d be hard-pressed to find the snide comments and jeers that he puts in his posts these days. To keep on name-dropping, his Matt Taibbi-lite stuff he throws around now is pretty embarrassing.

    But ABL has been a predictable Obama shill from day one. She sometimes does a good job of calling out racism from the left, but TPM and Wonkette both do a better job of calling out Republican redneck antics. And the Gimme-An-O! act is awfully trite.

    In conclusion, I read way too many fucking blogs, and am totally procrastinating by commenting on comments about two bloggers no one should really be paying much attention to.

  135. 135.

    ABL

    October 18, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    @TG Chicago: as i pointed out above:

    I made the observation not because it says anything about Greenwald’s political leanings in and of itself, but because I think it demonstrates some hypocrisy on the part of Greenwald and his readers when it comes to demanding purity from Obama but not demanding the same from Greenwald.

    as for your question about whether i would write a column for CATO, i might, but that’s not the point. the point is, as geg6 stated:

    I find it absolutely fucking hilarious that GG can consort with the enemy all he wants and the Glennbots are all oh-no-you-don’t-criticize-my-awesome-hero but if Obama took one penny from a Wall Streeter that he’s an enemy of the people.

  136. 136.

    geg6

    October 18, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    @David Koch:

    Well, if that’s true, he’s even more of a wimp than I thought he was. I’m nobody, but I’ve never even used a screen name that didn’t reference my actual name.

  137. 137.

    ABL

    October 18, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    @TG Chicago: as for the walk-back, it seemed less a genuine expression of changed views and more a “look at these cultists and how pathetic they are and besides i’ve changed.”

    YMMV.

  138. 138.

    The Spy Who Loved Me

    October 18, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    @ABL:

    I would think that the lack of a regular paycheck would also lead to stress levels that are bad for your health situation. Also, the lack of employer provided health insurance might lead to even more stress, further aggravating your precarious health situation. But maybe that’s just me.

  139. 139.

    Daveboy

    October 18, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    @ABL:

    You said:

    “The only reference I have found thus far is here, in which I attach a picture of Greenwald’s CATO contributor page to make a specific point about what I see as Greenwald’s hypocrisy with respect to ideological purity.”

    ABL, you are a smart person. So let’s not play games with each other here. A picture of Greenwald with a arrow pointing from his head to Cato’s masthead is meant to conflate Greenwald with the right-wing libertarian beliefs of the Cato Institute and discredit his ideas without actually addressing them. Your article with the picture doesn’t even mention ideological purity. In fact, that very article laments that Greenwald posts cherry-picked research without context, and then you post that picture which is of course…cherry picked and designed to discredit him without context. Let’s not go back and retroactively make that picture into something it is not.

    You said:

    “That’s the thing about it: His purported walk-back was defensive and steeped in disdain for obama supporters”

    He says that what he posted was, and I quote: ‘anything but thoughtful, contemplative, and informed, and – like so many things I thought were true then – has nothing to do with what I believe now.’

    So to paraphrase: Greenwald says he believed something stupid and changed his beliefs. That’s about as much of a walk-back as you can do. And your problem is with his tone to Obama supporters and the fact that his original beliefs were odious? It’s not enough that he has said, “I was wrong, I don’t believe that, and that statement is ignorant,” he also has to kiss your feet and grovel for some terrible post he made 6 years ago?

    Also, real quick: please tell me the process you use to determine what opinions someone can change without being “genuine”? If my most odious, right-wing asshole co-worker suddenly came to me and said, “You know, I was wrong – it’s not minorities and illegal immigrants who are responsible for the bad economy”, I would consider that progress. Just like I don’t doubt that John Cole’s change was genuine. He used to say shitty stuff, now he’s had a change of heart. By your logic, are John Cole’s reversals genuine?

    I think comparing opinions with Greenwald at particular ages is pretty silly. You both have such radically different life experiences. You’re a straight black female in the States, and he’s a gay white dude in Brazil. Seriously, that’s a sitcom plot right there. Do you think that maybe comparing your opinions at points in your life isn’t very productive?

    To get back on track, my biggest problem with that article is that you basically posted a demonstrable lie about someone; a lie that only the most hardcore Obama loyalists were passing around, and then acted all shocked that you were classified as one of them. And it makes me kind of sad that you are now hemming and hawing and “oh I just posted that to demonstrate ideological purity” when it’s plainly obvious that it was a character attack. You know it was. Own up to that shit.

    And thanks for taking the time to respond to me ABL, I appreciate that you engage with me even if you and I don’t see eye to eye about this. And I don’t wish failure or anything like that on you; I hope that your van plan works out and you get to do what you want to do. Dead serious about that. Lastly, sorry I posted again, I got back and I saw that you responded directly and felt compelled to answer you directly. If it was anybody but ABL herself I wouldn’t have responded.

  140. 140.

    David Koch

    October 18, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    @MiniVanVader:

    his Matt Taibbi-lite stuff he throws around now is pretty embarrassing.

    Matt Taibbi himself is an embarrassment as his act is Hunter S. Thompson-lite.

  141. 141.

    Cacti

    October 18, 2011 at 5:22 pm

    @ABL:

    That’s why Obama cultists have to dig back 6 years into my archives to try to find things to discredit me

    An interesting defense.

    “How dare you hold things I actually said against me! It was SIX whole years ago.”

  142. 142.

    TG Chicago

    October 18, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    @ABL: Can you point to an example of Greenwald “demanding purity” of Obama? I’m not aware of it.

    He points out when Obama does things that he doesn’t like — for instance, killing Awlaki. He also points out when Obama goes against his previously stated beliefs, like the way to enter into armed conflict (Obama’s actions vis a vis Libya vs. his words regarding Iraq). I guess you can call that “demanding purity”, but why shouldn’t he want a president to share his own beliefs? Why wouldn’t he criticize a president when he sees acts he considers illegal? Why should Greenwald remain silent if he believes that Obama is breaking the law in killing an American citizen?

    Also, do you have an example of Greenwald saying that “if Obama took one penny from a Wall Streeter [then] he’s an enemy of the people”? I don’t see Greenwald complaining nearly as much about sources of funding (heck, he’s a Citizens United supporter) as he does about policies enacted. I believe he has mentioned Wall Street funding at times, but my recollection is that it’s usually tied into the idea that Obama is pursuing policy goals that align with Wall Street interests (or avoiding policy goals that conflict with Wall Street interests). That’s much bigger than merely taking their money.

    If you could show that Greenwald was influenced to write differently about subjects because he didn’t want to lose Cato funding, then you’d be onto something. But I think you’d have a difficult time making that connection.

  143. 143.

    Uncle Clarence Thomas

    October 18, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    .
    .
    @Strandedvandal:

    And you should go there to discuss it.

    Since ABL is a grifter, I will discuss it here, with or without your permission.
    .
    .

  144. 144.

    TG Chicago

    October 18, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    @ABL: I can agree that there’s some “look at the pathetic cultists” in there. But it surprises me that you can’t acknowledge that there’s some “I now know more about this issue and my views have changed” in there as well.

  145. 145.

    Uncle Clarence Thomas

    October 18, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    .
    .
    @different-church-lady:

    Or not go there either. That’s a option too.

    I choose to stay here and witness ABL’s grifting and its defense by her depraved supporters, with or without your permission also too.
    .
    .

  146. 146.

    FlipYrWhig

    October 18, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    @TG Chicago:

    I guess you can call that “demanding purity”, but why shouldn’t he want a president to share his own beliefs?

    My overriding issue with Greenwald is how easily he drifts from “What Politician X should do is [what I want]” do “The only logical reason why Politician X doesn’t do [what I want] is that he doesn’t really believe in it and/or has been bought off.”

    I mean, I think Obama should regulate guns much more closely, and would like for him to do it. But I’m not terribly surprised that he doesn’t, because there are all kinds of political factors that would immediately come into play. I don’t think the reason why he doesn’t do it is that he secretly wants people to commit crimes with guns, or that the firearms lobby has him under its thumb. Greenwald arguments routinely get to that point, and very quickly.

  147. 147.

    Uncle Clarence Thomas

    October 18, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    .
    .

    Contrary to urban legend—and by urban legend, I mean Politico and the “prominent liberals” ::coughGlennGreenwaldcough:: who believe I have no belief system or political values

    Shorter ABL: Dronedeathing teenagers is usually bad, except when President Obama orders it.
    .
    .

  148. 148.

    ABL

    October 18, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    @Daveboy: i’m still not sure what i am to have lied about when i pointed out that greenwald is in fact associated with cato (to the extent that his contributor page is still active) and then used that point to bolster the point i was making about eric holder.

    i’m not shying away from the notion that i have lobbed character attacks at greenwald. i unquestionably have. i’m questioning your repeated claim that i lied about greenwald’s cato affiliation which i don’t believe that i did. again, you claimed i was lying about “greenwald worked for the cato institute” and now you seem to be claiming that i was using it to discredit his arguments.

    i wasn’t. i think the referenced post as well as this comment of mine on that post are clear about that.

    i don’t think he argues in good faith, i think he too easily ignores constitutional principles that don’t fit his world view and i think he’s a smart enough guy to know that he’s doing that. i also find it odd that so many were quick to vociferously deem me a liar about greenwald’s affiliation with cato. i think that reaction on the part of his readers says a lot.

    Also, real quick: please tell me the process you use to determine what opinions someone can change without being “genuine”? If my most odious, right-wing asshole co-worker suddenly came to me and said, “You know, I was wrong – it’s not minorities and illegal immigrants who are responsible for the bad economy”, I would consider that progress. Just like I don’t doubt that John Cole’s change was genuine. He used to say shitty stuff, now he’s had a change of heart. By your logic, are John Cole’s reversals genuine?

    i can’t tell you my process, it’s a gut feeling. that particular tweet is the only reference to his change of heart that i’ve seen, and it did not come organically, but rather in response to criticism. and in the very same “tweet” he resorts to the same “cultist” nonsense in order to discredit dissent. my point is not that i think greenwald is some immigrant hater, it’s that i think that he’s less than forthright about his political views and swhat i see as his disdain for obama and obama supporters.

    as for cole, he had his “come to jesus” moment rather publicly. glenn’s came after his anti-immigrant statements were discovered. it just feels different to me.

    /not proofread

  149. 149.

    ABL

    October 18, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    @TG Chicago: i do believe his views have changed. that’s not really my point here.

  150. 150.

    ABL

    October 18, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    I would think that the lack of a regular paycheck would also lead to stress levels that are bad for your health situation. Also, the lack of employer provided health insurance might lead to even more stress, further aggravating your precarious health situation. But maybe that’s just me.

    can we agree that you don’t know enough about my health, financial, or work situation (other than that i am asking for people to donate to a fundraiser for the time and energy i spend blogging, something which i’m informed many bloggers do) and leave it at that?

    thanks.

  151. 151.

    A Humble Lurker

    October 18, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    @some hippy:

    @BlizzardOfOz:

    Wow, that’s spooky. Two different posters writing the exact same thing. Oh wait…

  152. 152.

    Yutsano

    October 18, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    @A Humble Lurker: Excuse me, sir, your sockpuppet is showing.

  153. 153.

    ABL

    October 18, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    He points out when Obama does things that he doesn’t like—for instance, killing Awlaki.

    it’s not just that Obama does things that Greenwald doesn’t like. it’s that when explaining why it is, in Greenwald’s view, a certain action taken is illegal or immoral or unconstitutional, he entirely ignores relevant case law and principles that directly contradict his conclusion.

    for example, he has repeatedly expressed outrage about “targetting killings of american citizens,” arguing that al-alwaki is a citizen and how barbaric it is that obama is murdering american citizens.

    he ignores the following facts that call his conclusion into question:

    1) the due process clause in the 14th amendment applies to “persons,” not citizens, thus making his focus on al-alwaki’s citizenship entirely irrelevant; and
    2) that the 14th amendment applies to “persons” within the U.S.’s jurisdiction (which yemen clearly is not)

    these are two pretty important facts that should prompt any lawyer with half-decent skills in legal analysis to adjust his or her argument. not only does greenwald refuse to adjust his argument, he pretends as if the above two principles are not even worth discussing.

    am i saying greenwald’s ultimate assessment is wrong? nope. i’m saying that these issues are complicated and often require the application of balancing tests as set forth in constitutional law, statutes, and theories of interpretation.

    the fact that he never addresses these issues and that his readers spout his version of “the truth” as if it’s gospel, and as if anyone who disagrees is in favor of drone strikes, targeting killings, murdering brown people, etc is intellectually dishonest and wrong.

    and then for him to pontificate about what it is obama “really” wants or how he “really” thinks or how the outcome of a given administration policy is what obama was really pushing for without noting that the decisions made by the white house are far from cut and dry is indefensible.

    (edited to change 5th Amendment to 14th. Substantive v. procedural due process always trips me up.)

  154. 154.

    FlipYrWhig

    October 18, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    @ABL:

    not only does greenwald refuse to adjust his argument, he pretends as if the above two principles are not even worth discussing.

    IMHO it’s worse than that — he also proceeds to act as though any attempt to raise contrary principles must be being done in bad faith. In other words, he believes in his principles, but you only fake-believe in your non-principles because you have an agenda. He’s not picking and choosing to suit _his_purposes; no, perish the thought, he’s just straightforward and factual. That’s the way he habitually argues, and it snows way too many people.

  155. 155.

    ABL

    October 18, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    @FlipYrWhig: yeah, definitely. and that’s when the “you’ll say anything to protect Dear Leader” crap comes into play. he demands ideological purity to his version of The Truth. it couldn’t possibly be that the person expressing a contrary opinion or raising questions about greenwald’s logic wants to actually get to the bottom of the debate.

    i would love to have a serious discussion about war powers and the UN and all that jazz (as I said in my tl;dr libya article) but his and his readers’ response is inevitably Y U NO WANNA STOP BOMBING THE BROWNS.

    it’s irritating.

  156. 156.

    TG Chicago

    October 18, 2011 at 7:09 pm

    @ABL: I’m curious: when Bush was president, were you as willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in legal matters of warmaking as you are Obama? My impression of your writing is that you generally have no problem going to full hyperbole mode when it comes to slamming Republicans. That you are far more measured when it comes to Democrats is the reason that some view you as a partisan loyalist.

    Greenwald was just as tough on Bush regarding these issues. Heck, he still is. Were you complaining about Greenwald demanding purity during the Bush years? If you only complain about Greenwald’s consistent views on civil liberties when it’s a Democrat who’s taking the heat, that suggests you’re a partisan loyalist.

  157. 157.

    ABL

    October 18, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    @TG Chicago: so you’re going to ignore the points i made about greenwald and move straight to “you’re a partisan loyalist”?

    nothing else i had to say above registers with you?

    ok.

    if you give me specific examples of “legal matters of warmaking” with respect to bush and obama, i may be able to answer your question. as it stands, your question is unanswerable.

    what does “partisan loyalist” mean? are you asking me if i’m an obamacrat? yeah, i guess you could call me an obamacrat.

    but remember, being an obamacrat, or obot, or obamabot does not mean “blind allegiance to dear leader” no matter how much greenwald says or you wish to believe it is.

    and considering my criticism of greenwald’s argument go drectly to the heart of his world view and the world view he shares with readers who seemingly swallow it wholesale, i think it might be more productive if you explain why greenwald’s potentially erroneous (or at least incomplete) interpretation of everything from targeted killings to libya doesn’t seem to bother you.

  158. 158.

    DS

    October 18, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    Glenn Greenwald is one step of way from moving to Idaho with a lifetime supply of spam and an axe for building a shelter. A bunch of bloggers supporting Obama is a conspiracy or some kind of political operation from the White House? Um, yeah. The man just hates the government, plain and simple. I doubt he would support anyone but himself for President. His writing about civil liberties just gives him an excuse to constantly rail against the Federal Government regardless of who is in power. I take nothing he and his freakishly cultish readers (he is ironically accusing Obama of having a cultish following?) say seriously.

  159. 159.

    Wee Bey

    October 18, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    If you can’t see Greenwald’s a hack by now, cats and kittens, there’s no helping you.

  160. 160.

    FlipYrWhig

    October 18, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    @DS: I get a strong whiff of “paranoid libertarian” from him. That’s fine, as it goes, but I don’t get why people are so willing to file him in the drawer marked “left.” My impression is that he only qualifies as “left” by coincidence, at sites where libertarian and “left” converge. How does he feel about gun control? Not liberal. I’m not sure where he comes down on other social-welfare issues — affirmative action? the environment? — but considering his fundamental suspicion of the power of the government and his tendency to find it intrusive, I’m not holding my breath.

  161. 161.

    TG Chicago

    October 18, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    @ABL: I thought I explained what partisan loyalist means, but I’ll expand: It means someone who bases their criticism on the target rather than on principle. Someone who puts their focus on political figures or parties rather than political policies or ideas.

    I just find it very, very hard to believe that if it was Bush who was attacking a third country or killing US citizens at will, you would be defending Bush’s actions.

    If you can provide me with examples of your writing in which you have:

    *forcefully criticized Obama in regards to civil liberties

    or

    *forcefully defended Bush in regards to civil liberties

    then I will be more inclined to believe that you are more than a partisan loyalist.

  162. 162.

    Steven Rockford

    October 18, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    @ABL

    Great post.

    Glenn Greenwald is not really a progressive. As one commenter noted above, he is a useful idiot for the right. But, unfortunately, since we progressives welcome all points of view in our debate, we listen to the guy. And, also unfortunately, we spend an inordinate amount of time fighting amongst ourselves trying to defend our views from his attacks against “real” progressives (like you).

    Greenwald is a smart guy. But he’s created a cult-like following over the last six years with people who may also be smart, but they have never had an original political thought in their mind. Hence, they have buried their head so far up Glenn’s ass over the years that they’ve become “Disciples of Greenwald,” not really caring about true progressive principles but rather becoming missionaries for his cause. Which is why that whenever you write a post like this the Glennbots appear like ghosts out of the night (as you expected – I’m sure).

    It would be nice if the entire progressive community could ignore Glenn Greenwald and his Neanderthal robots.

    We have much more important issues to be concerned about.

  163. 163.

    Corner Stone

    October 18, 2011 at 9:36 pm

    “What could he do to lose my support? Nothing. Nothing. Not even if you caught him balls-deep in a goat. Satisfied?”

  164. 164.

    Uncle Clarence Thomas

    October 18, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    .
    .
    Urgent Balloonbagger Commenting Alert  
    Many of you are forgetting to click your heels three times as you offer your unsupported and unargued opinions as factual certainties, as if merely pronouncing the words in your conclusion makes that conclusion true. ABL hopes to earn her entire income from these clicks, so bring those heels together as often as possible, boys and girls. One steadfast woman’s grifting depends on you!
    .
    .

  165. 165.

    ABL

    October 18, 2011 at 10:01 pm

    I just find it very, very hard to believe that if it was Bush who was attacking a third country or killing US citizens at will, you would be defending Bush’s actions.

    “killing US citizens at will”? “attacking a third country”? nice hypotheticals, there.

    you’re still side-stepping my question while asking an absurdly leading question that can lead to only one answer.

    and you already believe i’m a partisan loyalist and i’ve already said that i’m an obamacrat, so we can stop playing that game. i’m not sure how you think labeling me a partisan loyalist ameliorates the problems i’ve stated with greenwald’s arguments.

    bottom line: my point is that your beliefs are based on the writings of a person who i don’t believe has been forthright with you about the legal and constitutional underpinnings of his position.

  166. 166.

    Corner Stone

    October 18, 2011 at 10:22 pm

    @The Spy Who Loved Me:

    If ABL is having to shill for rent money here, perhaps she should rethink her career change decision. Unless, of course, it wasn’t her decision.

    Most tiered law firms have an “up or out” policy. If an associate isn’t going to make partner after a set timeframe they are asked to find opportunities elsewhere.

  167. 167.

    Corner Stone

    October 18, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    Who, I mean who, could have ever guessed the victimization mobile would have pulled up front and center here at the BJ HQ?

  168. 168.

    eemom

    October 18, 2011 at 10:29 pm

    @Corner Stone:

    That was true 25 years ago. Not anymore. Your ignorance is showing. Again.

  169. 169.

    Corner Stone

    October 18, 2011 at 10:33 pm

    @eemom: I know more about the profitably and business model of the modern law firm than you will ever dream of.
    Unless you’re an equity partner you have no clue how your firm’s formula plays to you. I do.
    And even if you are an equity partner, unless you’re on the EC then I will bet every penny I have I know more about how your firm’s business model operates than you do.

  170. 170.

    eemom

    October 18, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    @Corner Stone:

    Wow. Turns out you’re delusional, on top of all your other “charms”. Who’d’a thunk.

  171. 171.

    Corner Stone

    October 18, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    @eemom: Huh. It’s ok to admit you’re just a schmoe mushing it out each year looking desperately for your 1850, or your 2050 cliff bonus.
    What are you, a service partner with no clients and no external business? Looking for your equity partner to feed you?
    Probably struggling like hell against the lower cost jurisdictions of the associates coming up, watching them first and second chair cases you thought you should have rode herd on.
    You’re a commodity. An old, depreciating sack of taters.

  172. 172.

    Corner Stone

    October 18, 2011 at 11:31 pm

    Commodity. Lexis-Nexis and cut and paste have made any general LIT lawyer in a multidisciplinary firm a joke.
    All the pleadings are in the public domain. All the top tiered firms have bubbled up their best work product into the knowledge management system.
    No one’s paying a schlumpie service partner $350 per hour to do the same trial prep a third year can do for $225.

  173. 173.

    andrewsomething

    October 18, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    @Strandedvandal:

    You’re probably never going to read this, but… Notice I didn’t “come out of no where” to defend Greenwald or to attack ABL. I commented mostly to express exasperation at how these threads always go.

    I found it annoying that you’d bother to go after the CATO dude for what seems like a reasonable explanation as to why he showed up. It just seems so god damn pointless. So what if he reads the site? There are plenty of great reasons to go after CATO.

    Anyways… Can’t believe Politico wrote such a crap article. Can’t believe there was another nearly two hundred comment thread about Greenwald. Can’t believe I bothered posting this. Back to lurking, but you never know when I might “come out of no where.”

  174. 174.

    Corner Stone

    October 19, 2011 at 12:06 am

    “Another Grifting Scheme”

    Sometimes John Cole does actually come through with the funny.

  175. 175.

    eemom

    October 19, 2011 at 1:19 am

    @Corner Stone:

    Nope. None of the above.

    You are just full of shit.

    Under other circumstances, I might bother to ask upon what basis a nobody troll like you purports to know “more about the profitably [sic] and business model of the modern law firm than [I] will ever dream of,” much less “more about how [my] firm’s business model operates than [I] do.” Rather grandiose claims, those — considering you know fuck all about who I am or who I work for, just for starters, and not even touching the in-your-face ludicrosity of any claimed all-knowingness about something called “the modern law firm.”

    But I won’t bother, because the pitiful fantasy that is you is already so very, sadly, plain to see.

  176. 176.

    kay

    October 19, 2011 at 8:59 am

    Congrats, ABL! Does this mean I now have to read Politico? Ewww.

    This is gross, by the way:

    “I’m actually fascinated to learn who these people are and what makes them so die-hard,” one prominent liberal media figure said.

    Ugh. Just dripping with condescension. Who are these people? I don’t know. He/she has never met an Obama supporter? Really?

    They need to get out more. Talk about a “village” :)

  177. 177.

    TG Chicago

    October 19, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    @ABL:

    “killing US citizens at will”? “attacking a third country”? nice hypotheticals, there.

    No, those are things that Obama has done. I know you are aware of them, so I’m not sure why you’re pretending you’ve never heard of Awlaki or Libya.

    Anyway, given that you apparently haven’t either

    *forcefully criticized Obama in regards to civil liberties

    or

    *forcefully defended Bush in regards to civil liberties

    I think I’m quite justified in believing that you are indeed a partisan loyalist.

    Is it possible that some of the issues you raised at #153 are valid? Yes. However, I’m asking if you ever went into the constitutional weeds to defend similar things Bush did. I don’t see evidence that you did. Thus, you appear to be a partisan loyalist.

  178. 178.

    Corner Stone

    October 19, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    @TG Chicago:

    I think I’m quite justified in believing that you are indeed a partisan loyalist.

    She’s not a “partisan” anything. She’s an Obama loyalist.
    See my #163. That’s a direct quote from ABL.

  179. 179.

    Corner Stone

    October 19, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    @eemom: Well, why didn’t you just tell us you handle DUIs for drunks?
    Would’ve saved us all a lot of blah blah.

  180. 180.

    ABL

    October 19, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    No, those are things that Obama has done. I know you are aware of them, so I’m not sure why you’re pretending you’ve never heard of Awlaki or Libya.

    again, you are sidestepping the points i made above.

    i don’t believe that obama is ‘killing citizens at will” nor do i believe his actions in libya constitute “attacking a third country.” (at least not in the perjorative sense you seem to be using the terms)

    moreover, civil liberties is not my primary focus. i blog primarily about gender and racial inequality and economic justice, just as greenwald blogs primarily about civl liberties and security state issues.

    would it be fair for me to draw a negative conclusion about greenwald’s position on abortion rights or racism based on the fact that he doesn’t blog about those issues? of course not.

    accordingly, your argument doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

    as for “partisan loyalist” you can think what you will about me. but if you do so while continuing to sidestep my points, that says more about you than it does about me, especially considering i stated above that i’m more than happy to be considered an obamacrat.

    (edited for clarity)

  181. 181.

    ABL

    October 19, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    @kay: thanks kay, and no. for your own sanity, i advise that you don’t read politico. :)

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Uncle Cosmo on Wednesday News Roundup, A Little Late (Apr 18, 2024 @ 8:41am)
  • Jeffro on Thursday Morning Open Thread — Nancy Pelosi: Every Day Is A Matter of Life and Death (Apr 18, 2024 @ 8:38am)
  • NotMax on Thursday Morning Open Thread — Nancy Pelosi: Every Day Is A Matter of Life and Death (Apr 18, 2024 @ 8:33am)
  • Betty on On The Road – ema – 2024 AKC Meet the Breeds (Apr 18, 2024 @ 8:33am)
  • SFAW on On The Road – ema – 2024 AKC Meet the Breeds (Apr 18, 2024 @ 8:33am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!