Wow. I don't even know how to respond to this nonsense.

And beyond that, he keeps saying that if my Jewishness were central to my identity, that would somehow have some impact on whether my arguments were anti-semitic. That's absurd. My arguments are not anti-semitic because they're not anti-semitic, not because I'm Jewish.

Uhm, no and no.

I said exactly once, in response to another poster claiming your Jewishness should impact my opinion of your arguments, that I didn't see how.

Somehow you've twisted that not only into the already disproved allegation that I "brought up your religion" (which I did not) and now that I'm accusing you of anti-Semitism, which I did not.

This is tiresome, and, I will be wrapping it up, as I can't swat down the mischaracterizations of my argument at so basic a comprehension breakdown.

Just like with the claims that I'm saying no one can criticize AIPAC, how does one respond to so basic a warp?

The people in this thread making the same arguments I'm making who are not Jewish are no more anti-semitic than I am. The arguments are the arguments.

Which is EXACTLY what I said when someone else brought up your Jewishness as somehow a "defense" of your position.

Megods, talk about arguing with yourself. For Adonai's sake man, criticize me for what I actually said. Not another poster.

I don't care what religion Glenn or anyone else is. I didn't bring it up as a factor in criticizing Glenn's argument. So why make up this crap to attack me?

As it is Glenn, I'm still waiting you to justify how every post you make every day attempts to confront the real and unstated motivations of politicians, of republicans, but when I do it, I get a "nobody explicitly said" response from you.

Geez man, is that how lawyers run the two minute offense?

I hear that defense from every wingnut in the world, they never "explicitly said Iraq was behind 9/11."

Come ON, Glenn.

Every day you correctly suss out the real unspoken motivations of the republican cult movement.

But when it's turned around on you, how dare anyone attempt to suss out what you didn't explicitly state? So what's good for the goose isn't good for the Greenwald?

Either critical thinking and intellectual deconstruction can expose a person's biases and hidden motivations, or we can only deal with the explicit spoken words.

Which is it, Glenn?

I can't believe you'd run such a fundamental paradox as the cruz of your defense.

Every day you deconstruct the fraudulent media, and the biases and hidden structural agenda at work beneath their words.

Then I post that there is hidden structural bias and agenda hidden with some of the AIPAC and ADL criticisms, and I get the whole, "Where is it explicitly stated?"

Total incoherence.

You're welcome to criticize me on anything I've argued. But don't turn around and tell me the very core of your blog, the very essence of your daily M.O., the very thing you're accusing the ADL of, can't be used and I should confine myself strictly to quotes and literal textual analysis.

It's an insult to all of us.

So in addition to tacitly admitting that you freely use bad logic, and don't know the difference between structuralism, post-structuralism and the Frankfurt School, you're going to try to defend yourself using the work product of anti-Semites like Heidegger, De Mann and their disciples and fellow travellers?

It just gets better and better!

Indeed it does, Paul. And yes, I will match you smarty pants. Yes I'm a Ph.D. and no, you're not as smart as you think you are. I used structuralism to point out your outdated "logical fallacy" 19th century grade school level taunts, and you neither got the joke but actually went so far as to point out they were different. Duh. Thus, the joke.

I don't use "bad logic," any more than Bohr's atom still describes how electrons function. It is antiquated thought. 7th grade level reductionism, and so I mocked you using structuralism. Which you then pointed out wasn't the same.

Nice to get it, Laocoon.

Wagner was an anti-Semite, but he made great music. If Greenwald can agree with David Duke, I'll partake of a little Heidegger now and then.

The reason we keep saying that "no one here" is doing it is because, in fact, no one here is actually doing that.

And Joe Lieberman's condemnation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard doesn'y explicitly state that Bush has the right to bomb Iran.

Give me a break, people.

We suss out right wing unstated meaning every day.

Don't turn around and play the "where did I state this" Dick Cheney level nonsense?

Many people in this thread today alone made allegations that Israel is behind our invasion of Iraq, our attempt to bomb Iran, and that some American born Jews are secretly working behind the scenes against American interests as a form of duplicitous cabal.

It doesn't get more anti-Jewish conspiracy bullshit than that.

But oh right, nobody "said it."

And Bush never said Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

Please. The hypocrisy is choke worthy.

Scroll back into the thread. The general response was that even if Hitler makes a good argument, it's okay to agree. Which can be true. Except when you realize Duke's grand Zionist conspiracy, how dangerous it is, and how it relies on AIPAC as the crux of its "Israeli Jews run America" B.S.