Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Glenn Greenwald: Sleeze merchant first class
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, October 05, 2006

First came the sock puppets.

Then this:
If the term "moral degenerate" has any validity and can be fairly applied to anyone, there are few people who merit that term more than Rush Limbaugh. He is the living and breathing embodiment of moral degeneracy, with his countless overlapping sexual affairs, his series of shattered, dissolved marriages, his hedonistic and illegal drug abuse, his jaunts, with fistfulls of Viagra (but no wife), to an impoverished Latin American island renowned for its easy access to underage female prostitutes.
While I was willing to give him a pass on the sock puppet thing (to a point ... we all do stupid things and that was stupid, but not enough to put me off the occasional pearl he'd throw out there), this is over the line. Not so much as to who it attacks. Hey, he's a valid target ... based on some of the things he says. Heck, based on most of the things he says. All hyper-partisans are.

But when you have to stoop to sexual innuendo to smear someone, well, you're not worth reading anymore in my book. Greenwald has no right calling anyone sleezy or a "moral degenerate" after that attack.

Rush Limbaugh doesn't need me to defend him. And I'm not. I wouldn't care who it was Greenwald was defaming by innuendo and sleeze, this would be my reaction.

I await the arrival of his defenders to tell me where I'm wrong as I'm sure they'll attempt to do.

Not that it will matter. Yes, my mind is made up and I'll no longer give that sleeze merchant any of my valuable time.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
First came the sock puppets
Don’t you mean "alledged" sockpuppets?
If the term "moral degenerate" has any validity and can be fairly applied to anyone, there are few people who merit that term more than Rush Limbaugh. He is the living and breathing embodiment of moral degeneracy, with his countless overlapping sexual affairs, his series of shattered, dissolved marriages, his hedonistic and illegal drug abuse, his jaunts, with fistfulls of Viagra (but no wife), to an impoverished Latin American island renowned for its easy access to underage female prostitutes.
Please point to the inaccuracy or factual untrtuth within this statement.

You mystify me, McQ.

Glenn Greenwald trashes the hyperpartisan right, and the hyperpartisan right’s modus operandi is character assassination. That’s is, ironically, both the product you’ve bought from people like Ace of Spades, the meme you’re pushing, aaaand the product you’re denouncing.
Yes, my mind is made up and I’ll no longer give that sleeze merchant any of my valuable time.
Have a blast, buddy. You’ll still be seeing his ideas, arguments, and ferreted-out quotes and facts imported from him in your comment section.




 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Your post presumes any of your time _is_ valuable.
 
Written By: SavageView
URL: http://
SavageView, please see glasnost’s post above for how to disagree and still not be a troll.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Don’t you mean "alledged" sockpuppets?
No glasnost, he means "sock puppets". The charges have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Please point to the inaccuracy or factual untrtuth within this statement.
He didn’t say factually inaccurate. He said "But when you have to stoop to sexual innuendo to smear someone, well, you’re not worth reading anymore in my book. Greenwald has no right calling anyone sleezy or a "moral degenerate" after that attack."

And we’re talking about a guy who moved to Brazil, a place known for underaged prostitutes, with the intention of sucking Brazilian c*ck and bashing his country. Factually accurate, right? We can do this all day.
Glenn Greenwald trashes the hyperpartisan right, and the hyperpartisan right’s modus operandi is character assassination.
It isn’t character assasination. that would be like murdering a dead horse. Greenwald is full of crap, and always has been. He’s a shrieking, lying, self-aggrandizing partisan hack, and why anyone even reads his hysterical drivel is beyond me. He’s like Sully without the charm.
You’ll still be seeing his ideas, arguments, and ferreted-out quotes and facts imported from him in your comment section.
You bring them over, I’ll shred them. Deal?


 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
I believe that Rush Limbaugh and the life that he has lived perfectly embody the values of the Republican Party.
 
Written By: william
URL: http://
Just remember in November that the progressive party is the party of understanding and openness and free speach and Blah blah blah drool drool. Oh sorry I drifted off for a minute. Did I forget to say acceptance oh and did I mention free speach.
 
Written By: coaster
URL: http://
I believe that Rush Limbaugh and the life that he has lived perfectly embody the values of the Republican Party.
He has pulled himself up by his bootstraps, hasn’t he?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Glenn Greenwald trashes the hyperpartisan right, and the hyperpartisan right’s modus operandi is character assassination. That’s is, ironically, both the product you’ve bought from people like Ace of Spades, the meme you’re pushing, aaaand the product you’re denouncing
BUT MOMMY, THEY DO IT TOOOOOOOOOOO!
Please point to the inaccuracy or factual untrtuth within this statement.
Glasnost, I can probably come up with a statement that paints you as an anarcho-communist child molestor that would not have any factual innacuracies or untruths that could be pointed to. And you know it.

If that’s the standard you want to dabble in, good luck. I see you’re diving headfirst into the toxic side of the moonbat swamp. You’re officially more pathetic than MK.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Don’t you mean "alledged" sockpuppets?
Sure, Glasnost. Long as Uncle Glen tells you it ain’t so, it ain’t so. If bare, noncredible denials of the obvious are good enough to convert proof of sock puppetry to a mere allegation, why not apply the same principle to all other allegations? Might as well take McQ to task for calling Mr. Douchewald a sleaze merchant rather than an alleged sleaze merchant. I don’t recall the guy ever admitting to sleaze-mercantilism; do you?
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Yes, Pablo, this son of a lawyer has pulled himself up by the bootstraps into a life of wanton luxury involving numerous wives, alcohol, opiates, gluttony, and promotion of tobacco while never letting facts or rules of logic get in the way. A true example for us all.
 
Written By: william
URL: http://
Yes, Pablo, this son of a lawyer has pulled himself up by the bootstraps into a life of wanton luxury involving numerous wives, alcohol, opiates, gluttony, and promotion of tobacco while never letting facts or rules of logic get in the way. A true example for us all.
Substitute rum-runner for lawyer, and you’re describing Ted Kennedy. :)
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
As opposed to the Massachusetts son of a bootlegger who stumbled into a life of wanton luxury involving alcohol, gluttony and the elimination of inconvenient campaign workers while never letting facts, rules of logic or simple coherence get in the way.

Sure, William - lecture us some more on "true examples," will you?
 
Written By: Christopher
URL: http://
D’oh! Beat me to it, Steverino :-)
 
Written By: Christopher
URL: http://
Glasnost, William - Innuendo okay with you is it?, as opposed to sticking to the facts? You clearly indicate there are enough documentable problems with Rush, why not stick with that and let it be done instead of wallowing in the sh*t that you can’t prove to demonstrate your moral superiority.
Don’t you understand that’s McQ’s issue?
Is he entitled to express his opinion if it disagrees with yours?
Have a blast, buddy. You’ll still be seeing his ideas, arguments, and ferreted-out quotes and facts imported from him in your comment section

Sure, you will provide them, and others will duly shred them in a manner commensurate with their factual content.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
So, Limbaugh goes to Dominica for girls, eh? Pays for play, eh?

Meanwhile Greenwald keeps dangling a greencard and the good life in America in front of his impoverished Brazilian sex partner to keep the favors coming.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I never defended Teddy Kennedy.
 
Written By: william
URL: http://
I never defended Teddy Kennedy
Your true example, their true example - both true examples, no?

Glass houses & stones dude.

Course one difference is that Rush can’t pass laws can he.
And we can ignore Rush because of that.

Fat boy, on the other hand, we have to endure as a United States Senator until he goes to meet his maker, because, being a Kennedy, the good people of Massachusetts will continue to inflict him on the rest of us until that day comes.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Is Mona Brazilian?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Yes, Pablo, this son of a lawyer has pulled himself up by the bootstraps into a life of wanton luxury involving numerous wives, alcohol, opiates, gluttony, and promotion of tobacco while never letting facts or rules of logic get in the way. A true example for us all.
Isn’t the left all about legal drugs, prostitution, divorce, and "choice"? We know you are a buch of fascists with respect to economics, but I thought you agreed with libertarians on something?

In fact, isn’t it the Mona-Greenwald-Kos alliance pushing the left-and-libertarian-together thing? Kinda letting something slip here?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
And we’re talking about a guy who moved to Brazil, a place known for underaged prostitutes, with the intention of sucking Brazilian c*ck and bashing his country. Factually accurate, right? We can do this all day

And we do, in fact, do it all day. Your statement could be lifted verbatim and used as the header of a post by Malkin, PowerLine, or Ace. To Q and O’s credit, you wouldn’t find it here.

You visit those sites, buddy, even though their propietors are nasty sleaze merchants, because you agree with them. Well, some of us think that character assassination of Limbaugh is like beating a dead horse. Forgive me if I fail to convict Greenwald for pointing out what seems to be obvious conclusions - such as: Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite of legendary proportions.


If bare, noncredible denials of the obvious are good enough to convert proof of sock puppetry to a mere allegation,

Proof, huh, xlrq? I seem to remember several posts on Q and O coming to the grudging conclusion that there was no proof. So, like any unproven allegation, we choose what we believe until then.

Much like Rush Limbaugh, I think. Hey, what is Rush Limbaugh doing on his multiple trips to the Dominican Republic with suitcases full of Viagra? What non-sexual use is there of Viagra? Who is Rush Limbaugh having sex with on the Dominican Republic? Now, it could be completely above board, but these are not allegations invented ex nihilio. Like McQ said, Rush Limbaugh denounces people as immoral all the time, and when you do so, you open yourself to having your own morality questioned.

So, the only remaining question is, why is Greenwald specifically barred from asking the questions that anyone forming an opinion on Rush should be asking?

Until proven otherwise, I’d say the difference between Limbaugh and O’Reilly is that O’Reilly has been caught admitting his foreign prostiutution trips.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Your statement could be lifted verbatim and used as the header of a post by Malkin, PowerLine,
Links please. Certainly you’ve got one.

Ace, I wouldn’t doubt.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
And we do, in fact, do it all day. Your statement could be lifted verbatim and used as the header of a post by Malkin, PowerLine, or Ace. To Q and O’s credit, you wouldn’t find it here.
Thank you for your admission, and for another exapmple of the crime in practice. I defy you to find a substantially similar headline at Powerline or Malkin’s blog. Ace runs a self-proclaimed moron blog, and he’s proud of it, so you could no doubt find very colorful language about all manner of things.
You visit those sites, buddy, even though their propietors are nasty sleaze merchants, because you agree with them.
You’re wrong, of course. And you’ll remain wrong while you fail to answer the challenge for quotes to back up your smear. I visit many sites because the information, and sometimes the discussion, interests me. I even look forward to reading the crap you write, despite the fact that you are almost always spinning, smearing and wrong. You want to see a vicious sleazeball, glasnost? Get a mirror.

Perhaps when Thomas Ellers stops by again, we can ask him what he thinks...
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Suitcases full now -
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
looker, you’re not suggesting that glasnost is perpetrating a smear job, are you?

Shocka!
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
And we do, in fact, do it all day. Your statement could be lifted verbatim and used as the header of a post by Malkin, PowerLine, or Ace. To Q and O’s credit, you wouldn’t find it here.
Thank you for your admission, and for another exapmple of the crime in practice. I defy you to find a substantially similar headline at Powerline or Malkin’s blog. Ace runs a self-proclaimed moron blog, and he’s proud of it, so you could no doubt find very colorful language about all manner of things.
And yet, you can easily find worse at any leftward blog. In fact, you would often find that they just make sh*t up altogether. Who needs arguments when you have photoshop and racist smears.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Heh,
If I could figure out what dang word the posting censor didn’t like, I’d answer his question about what non-sexual use it has too.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
What non-sexual use is there of Viagra?
Well - the internet is an amazing tool
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050820/bob9.asp
During the test, the 14 children walked, on average, 278 meters, about half of what a healthy young person would walk at a comfortable pace. But 6 months later, after treatment with an experimental drug, the same kids averaged 443 meters during the time. "That’s a huge increase for a patient with that disorder," says Humpl, of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

What’s more, the treatment seemed to extend the children’s lives.

The drug that Humpl credits with making the difference is just now making its debut in children, but it’s already been used by some 20 million adult men. Named sildenafil citrate, it’s better known as Viagra.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
And you’ll remain wrong while you fail to answer the challenge for quotes to back up your smear.

Hmmmm. Since I didn’t claim that you were quoting any of them, what would I be trying to prove? That a statement "like" that "could" be found? You think I couldn’t put something up here that I’d say was like that and you’d say isn’t like it?

It’s not worth the thirty minutes on the internet to go demonstrate it. Maybe if I had my own blog. Call me any names you like for my disinterest.

But Pablo, congradulations. I’ve had backhanded compliments before, but that’s pushing new limits of backhandedness. :-)
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
So, Glassy
I’m willing to concede that’s probably not why Rush had it, but can you prove otherwise?
No?
and Greenwald, can he prove otherwise?
No?

Well then, stick with the facts about his moral failings, and don’t make crap up to convict by inuendo.

Is that the standard you want to be measured by?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Looker, while I’m not sure how relevant it is to the discussion of Limbaugh and Viagra, that is a nifty link.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
You visit those sites, buddy, even though their propietors are nasty sleaze merchants, because you agree with them. Well, some of us think that character assassination of Limbaugh is like beating a dead horse. Forgive me if I fail to convict Greenwald for pointing out what seems to be obvious conclusions - such as: Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite of legendary proportions.
WAHHHHHHHH! BUT MOMMY, THEY DO IT TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Heh heh, do you read what you post?
Much like Rush Limbaugh, I think. Hey, what is Rush Limbaugh doing on his multiple trips to the Dominican Republic with suitcases full of Viagra? What non-sexual use is there of Viagra? Who is Rush Limbaugh having sex with on the Dominican Republic?
You wanted to know, was there a non-sexual use for the drug Viagra.
There is.

I even threw in your expansion on the quantity he had with him.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Hey, what is Rush Limbaugh doing on his multiple trips to the Dominican Republic with suitcases full of Viagra? What non-sexual use is there of Viagra? Who is Rush Limbaugh having sex with on the Dominican Republic?
If he was President and doing it in the White House, I might care. Otherwise I don’t.
So, the only remaining question is, why is Greenwald specifically barred from asking the questions that anyone forming an opinion on Rush should be asking?
I formed my opinion of Rush a long time ago. Now I’m forming my opinion of the scummy lawyer Greenwald, and it ain’t pretty.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Hmmmm. Since I didn’t claim that you were quoting any of them, what would I be trying to prove?
That one could find a similar statement in a headline at Powerline or Malkin’s blog. You’d be proving what you alleged, but you refuse to do it, as I predicted you would. Thanks for being so predictably dishonest, ’nost! You make me look like Nostradamus.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
So glasnost, you don’t see anything wrong with accusing somebody of being a pedophile without any evidence? Well then, I think you should stop beating your wife and raping livestock.

Sorry, just thought I’d have a go at the unhinged lefty style of debate.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
Proof, huh, xlrq? I seem to remember several posts on Q and O coming to the grudging conclusion that there was no proof.
You don’t seem to remember very well, then. The discussion on Greenwald’s "alleged" sock puppetry was hardly confined to Q&O. In fact, it was almost nonexistent here, due in part to the fact that one of the three proprietors actually respected the guy, and the other two didn’t give a rip about sock puppetry. But just because a persusive case wasn’t made on Q&O, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t made elsewhere.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Until proven otherwise, I’d say the difference between Limbaugh and O’Reilly is that O’Reilly has been caught admitting his foreign prostiutution trips.
Your comments are much more an aspersion on to your morals and judgment than they are against those men you mention. To infer pedophilia, with no evidence at all is the height of asinine sleaze. Limbaugh’s many other faults are not germane.

As for similarities of Limbaugh and O’Reilly the only one I can see is that they both do a good job of pissing off small minded lefties like you.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
The Dems said that Bill Clinton’s trysts with an intern were much ado about nothing. That same measure is not applied by Greenwald against Rush Limbaugh, nor are the Dems applying it against Mark Foley.

Greenwald lives in a nation known for loose morals with a man to whom he is not betrothed, yet he questions Limbaugh visiting a nation known for loose morals to, he guesses, engage in relations with females to whom he is not betrothed. Oh, and he questions Limbaugh’s marital record. How many relationships has Greenwald had which ended? Should we judge him by the same standard as he judges Limbaugh, because if so, and he’s had failed relationships, he’s morally bankrupt.

Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite. I didn’t need someone else to make that plain to me. Especially not someone else of equally loose morals who has engaged in duplicity. Glenn Greenwald calling Rush Limbaugh immoral is like Rosie O’Donnel accusing someone of being a pushy lesbian.
 
Written By: Joab
URL: http://joabsblog.blogspot.com
Xrlq, you might as well talk to his dog for all the penetration your comments will get.

But nothing like showing true colors when the left wants to make a fact-free argument.

For the record, I dislike Limbaugh but I really dislike hypocrites like Greenwald.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
...and the other two didn’t give a rip about sock puppetry.
Not exactly true. We thought the point had been made and simply weren’t interested in the continuing feeding frenzy.

Kind of like trying to "deFoleyate" at the moment.

Might get into it again if it warrants a look, but at the moment the feeding frenzy is the story and I’m just not interested.

But that doesn’t mean we don’t condemn sock puppetry.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
When Limbaugh went to the DR, who went with him?
 
Written By: h0mi
URL: http://
Xrlq,

Thanks for the link on Greenwald’s sock puppetry. That’s funny. What a goofball.

I tried to make a sock puppet post on Q&O: as "Dear Leader" thanking Carter and the Clinton administration for nukes, but the post came out with my name. Dang! Foiled again.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Greenwald’s blog cites this gossip columnist’s almost 2 year old article in the NY Daily news as an example of "countless overlapping sexual affairs"

"ARE RUSH Limbaugh and CNN’s Daryn Kagan talking marriage? According to U.S. News & World Report, friends of the couple say Kagan could become the fourth Mrs. Limbaugh as soon as the divorce from his third wife, Marta, comes through. Word is the right-wing flight commander has asked Kagan’s family for clearance for take-off..."

 
Written By: h0mi
URL: http://
Shorter new-and-improved Miss Manners-phase McQ: ’Pointing out hypocrisy is over the line!’
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
’Pointing out hypocrisy is over the line!’
Nope ... we’re talking innuendo and sleeze, which, one assumes is fine with you.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Whether the Dems like it or not, the whole reason that sleaze is a big deal from the Republicans is that we expect better from them. When sililar sleaze comes from the left - which would be in a constant torrent - nobody is suprised or shocked because it is business as usual - we expect no better from them.
 
Written By: Pete Jensen
URL: http://
Wouldn’t it have been refreshing instead of the obligitory defense of the indefenseible yesterday the usual cast of characters had just said
"for once we agree on something, the right and left, inuendo is a shabby thing"

But, alas, no.



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Wouldn’t it have been refreshing instead of the obligitory defense of the indefenseible yesterday the usual cast of characters had just said "for once we agree on something, the right and left, inuendo is a shabby thing"

But, alas, no.
Not that it came as any surprise:
I await the arrival of his defenders to tell me where I’m wrong as I’m sure they’ll attempt to do.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"ARE RUSH Limbaugh and CNN’s Daryn Kagan talking marriage? According to U.S. News & World Report, friends of the couple say Kagan could become the fourth Mrs. Limbaugh as soon as the divorce from his third wife, Marta, comes through. Word is the right-wing flight commander has asked Kagan’s family for clearance for take-off..."
This is supposed to be evidence of "countless overlapping sexual affairs"? Even assuming the piece to be true, what makes Greenwald think that Limbaugh and Kagan were doing the nasty before the divorce came through? (Has it come through yet?) What objection on earth could anyone have to a man who anticipates soon being available, looking for another marriage?
 
Written By: Milhouse
URL: http://neowarmonger.blogspot.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider