The bigger shocker would be if they were crying, and morally agonizing, and saying shit like "what have we done?!?! What are we about to do?!?! Sweet Jesus!! Sweet Jesus!! History forgive us!!!". They never do, do they? It's almost like warmongers are universally sociopaths.
Who’s called The Intercept bad (categorically, not just individual articles) since the departure of Greenwald?
Every time I’ve posted an article from The Intercept at least one person here has had a problem with it.
I don’t believe you. Searching for “intercept” (which does find it in URLs) doesn’t find any non-Greenwald criticism of it within 2 pages of each post that aren’t specific to each article. Maybe I’m searching wrong or skimmed the following pages too fast, though, but at a glance I think you’ve got a bit of persecution complex.
This post didn’t exactly get a glowing reception. http://wordforge.net/index.php? posts/3386559 Then there’s this thread. http://wordforge.net/index.php? threads/glenn-greenwald-is-a-fucking-nutcase.121773/page-4#post-3355840 I wouldn’t call this a ringing endorsement http://wordforge.net/index.php? posts/3341264/ http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3337291/
Me mocking you for existing, and three Demiurge ones. Either you think Demi is the King Of Liberals, which will make his ego swell even bigger, and that we don't need. Or you think we're a hive mind like the right is, and you're projecting. EDIT- Also, where's UA with his "collective guilt!! " shtick for times like these? It'd be one thing if he was too busy, and missed a couple here and there, but for 20 fucking years, he's NEVER been consistent.
Links directly to pages don't work well due to different posts per page settings, but assuming I'm looking at the correct posts you have: 2 posts from Demourge critiquing the Intercept. 1 post critiquing Greenwald and mentioning how the Intercept didn't post something of his. 1 post disagreeing with you/the content of the piece, not the source. Nope, you had a big whine about apparent hypocrisy, saying:
Edit: removed what Bailey said better than I was about to. In conclusion, get over yourself; you are not being selectively persecuted for posting links to The Intercept. Not holding the analysis in an article sacrosanct is not the same as trashing the source. There’s a large range in between.
So, this thread so far.. OP- Bush and Cheney were every bit the sociopathic assholes we thought they were, and then some! FF- Yeah, but Demi source bashed me once, and that hurt my feelings. That's what really matters. Me! Me! Pay attention to me! Us- Die. FF- *Cries some more*
I don't know what petty bullshit you're on about this time, but you can take this referee routine and sodomize yourself with it. If you have a direct, specific question to ask, you may do so in a less douchebaggy way.
http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3355686/ http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3386413/ http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3367265/ http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3347274/ http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3329500/ http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3302819/ http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3312356/ http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3295440/ http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3295440/
What does that wall of links do to substantiate this claim? Most of those quotes are about about Greenwald, not the Intercept Most of the ones about Greenwald are from after he left the Intercept. Of the links that do mention the Intercept, they seem to be saying it had higher standards than Greenwald. Very few of them are quoting or responding to you. Rather than proving you're up on a cross being targeted, this looks more like you're clinging to a rotten branch while people say and ask for you to get down before you hurt yourself.