So you accuse me of bad faith, and go on to produce a quote which does not say what you claimed it did ("America=Israel therefore since they hate Israel, they hate America"). How perfectly, self-incriminatingly revealing.

How do you deal with the shame of being so transparently dishonest in front of people you so clearly detest?

You forgot the part where you go, "You're a liar! A LIAR!" in some Greenwaldian echo of a lawyer banging his shoe in court.

Lets try again, PDA, and I'll type slowly so you can follow the facts.

I stated the following attributed to Glenn: "America=Israel therefore since they hate Israel, they hate America"

You claimed the "You're a liar! A LIAR!" GG defense #1.

Here is a quote from GG:

Only time will tell whether the appointment of Mitchell presages real change in U.S. behavior, but whatever else is true, the presidential appointment of a Middle East envoy with a real history of even-handedness, and who therefore prompts praise from the likes of Jimmy Carter, J Street and Noam Chomsky, and anger from the ADL and The New Republic, is a significant and encouraging departure from the suffocatingly one-sided approach that has been so destructive for both the U.S. and Israel.

I conluded that GG is arguing that since the Middle East used to see America=Israel ("one-sided approach"), it was "destructive."

Whether Glenn means destructive in the literal sense (9/11) or the figurative sense, is never explained.

But I fail to see how you can, in any coherent way, claim I misrepresented Glenn. The entire crux of his argument is that by solely aligning ourselves with Israel, we have drawn the ire of those who hate Israel and ultimately hurt our own country as a result.

This is all spelled out: "America=Israel therefore since they hate Israel, they hate America"

But I'm sure I'm a liar! A LIAR!

Give it a try. You certainly don't have much else to speak for your viewpoint.

I'm a 2nd year Ph.D. candidate at a highly respected University majoring in Cultural theory and media studies. I've taken courses in Critical Studies, American Studies, Comparative Literature, Visual Studies, New Media Studies, as well as numerous film, TV and radio theory courses. I've studied classical economics, neo-classical economics, 19th Century American studies, I've read Spinoza, Mill, Marx, Freud, Althusser, I've read dozens of books from the Frankfurt and Birmingham schools, I've studies postcolonial theory from Fanon to Bhabha, I've studied critical race theory from DuBois through Cornell West, I've studied gender theory and 2nd wave feminism from Judith Butler to Mary Ann Doane. I've studied queer theory, ethnographic studies and, recently I've been focusing on Whiteness Studies.

I know propaganda when I see it, and GG, with his lawyerly precision, is a master at sculpting his use of linguistics in a post-Chomsky understanding to embed a contrarian propaganda bias to match that which he beholds. His language systems are carefully constructed but can be just as pernicious as O'Reilly when he attempts false conflations (as he did today, or he does with "The American-Israeli Attack on Gaza!" frameworks.

I appreciate him most of the time because he sniffs out the manipulations of our broadly right wing and corrupt traditional media, and it shames us all when he uses the same techniques in service of his own anti-Israel biases.

In pointing out your mistakes above, I notice that you didn't include lying as a mistake. Very informative. I guess whatever you need to say to make a point, eh?

Because I didn't lie. "I'm a Ph.D" is how Ph.D. students refer to each other (as in "I'm undergrad"). I did not say "I have a Ph.D" because I don't yet.

When he said "you said you had a Ph.D" I was pretty sure that I hadn't, and it turns out that I didn't. However the vagaries of "I'm a Ph.D." weren't clear, I should've written "I'm a Ph.D. candidate." Regardless, it's totally irrelevant. My arguments should rise or fall on the merits, whether I have a Ph.D. or am a 5th grader.

I realize there's some sort of "gotcha" game going on on this board, where everyone's running over to Daily Kos to find out who I am or searching the archives to catch me in a lie, or finding clever ways to rewrite "WinSmith," but that just makes it look like you can't respond on the merits.

What difference does it make who any of us are? Unless you're floating the "secret Israeli shills are being paid to infiltrate Salon.com message boards" paranoia again.

Seriously. Let it go. Argue with what I write if you'd like. Stop trying to "out" me or whatnot, or find a small point like my Ph.D. status to waste time with.

I've said it before, I find all this surprising, since you come off like a complete idiot whenever the issue is Israel.

No, I just disagree with you. I'd say that if I came off like a complete "idiot," I wouldn't be in mid dissertation at this point.

But I'm sure I'm a liar! A LIAR!

And don't forget the classic reflexive "Glenn didn't say that!"

Actually, I only mentioned my education level to forewarn you that I could shovel the bullshit as expertly as you do. It was an ironic comment that meant the inverse of how you're now representing it. It was not an appeal to authority, it was a statement that I could bury you under the same nonsensical jingoism you spew on a daily basis.

I repeat it again. Should you like to get into an intellectual pissing match, I will bury you. Given you didn't understand the point in 2007 and actually resurrected it today to prove I'm a "liar" (when I'm not) you only further prove what a maroon you are.

To quote Billy Madison, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.