Letters to the Editor
-
Sleep with dogs
You sleep with dogs (e.g. Ahmedinajad and company) and you get fleas. And John Cole's "superb analysis" is just as lucid as the writings of the unabomber.
-
@ WinSmith
Unfortunately what's really destroying America is neither covert nor hidden. It's called the republican party. It's primarily driven by a fundie Christian anti-intellectual movement of incurious sexually frustrated chickenhawk cowards.
- WinSmith
Reconcile the following for me, if you please:
a) You say this republican party is destroying the US with its policies. That can't be good for Israel, right?
b) if ADL, or Lieberman, or some jewish neocons are in bed with those republicans, they could possibly be harming Israel, right?
c) how is it anti-semetic to point this out or discuss it?
Have you considered the possibility that some jews might've become tools for a bunch who may not care for, or be capable of, securing Israel?
-
"obviously false claims"
A main thrust of his argument is that people here are denying that anti-Semitism exists -- an obviously false claim that he has presented zero proof of after being asked numerous times.
Oh right, it's "obviously false." Because, well, you keep saying that.
You keep saying charges of anti-Semitism are ruses used to stifle debate.
Then I point out you're saying charges of anti-Semitism are ruses, which clearly and unambigiously means you don't feel charges of anti-Semitism are legitimate.
You know. ruse = not legitimate.
It's like I'm arguing with a giant blind spot.
You can't have it both ways, bro. Either anti-Semitism exists on the left as part of criticisms of Israel, Lieberman and "hidden Jewish financiers controlling the republican party" stories, or it doesn't.
You say it doesn't.
Ergo, the charges of anti-Semitism are false. They are ruses meant to stifle debate and hide agenda on the parts of Neo-Con Jews.
Right?
You know this is your argument.
You are therefore making a clear and unambigious argement that the charges of anti-Semitism are not legitimate when criticising Israel, Lieberman, AIPAC, the "Jewish Neo-Cons, etc.
I keep stating both are possible. Legit criticisms AND anti-Semitic narratives that should be exposed for what they are.
Your response? "It's an obviously false claim."
Obviously.
Or not.
You forgot to call me "incoherent" or "illogical" or simply question my motives or honesty. Or just call me a shit-head.
But in the end, the notion that there are not anti-Semitic narratives at work in some of the criticisms is the central argument you're making.
I don't know how to make what you're arguing any clearer. Anti-Semitism does exist in some of the slams on Joe Lieberman. I hate the guy for his sanctimonious lies and fake democrat positioning.
But it isn't hard to see when the "Lieberman is working for Israel" stories fire up the age-old narratives.
Actually strike that. It is hard to see for people like you. As you continue to argue, criticism of Lieberman isn't anti-Semitic, and anyone who says it is is stifling debate.
Ergo, you are denying anti-Semitism is at work in some of the discourse.
-
Glenn's column and most of Salon has become a single issue newsmag
It's almost entirely about the world wide Zionist monster, the Jewspiracy, the devil Jews, Evil warmongering racist evil evil evil Israel, the bloodsucking kike motherfuckers. All in polite crumpet munching dulcet Liberal tones but that's all it is.
Go ahead ban me. Prove my point.
-
To Win Smith
First of all, the name calling that has been directed at you is indeed juvenile.
I will grant that some attacks on Lieberman are anti-semitic. It would be ridiculous to say that NO attacks on Lieberman were anti-semitic. I don't know who's saying them, because I haven't seen them, but doubtless, some are. If you can direct me to some source that documents some relatively normal person, one without a well documented anti-semitic stance, offering such criticisms, please enlighten me. Until then, shut the fuck up about that particular point because I've acknowledged it.
On a side note, most studio execs in the thirties were Jews. That's historical fact. I don't know how much that did or didn't influence film, and many of their offspring are probably still in the business. But, honestly, who cares? It's the way things are and nothing I've ever seen gives me any reason to believe in an "International Jewish Conspiracy". There is none.
That being said, I don't trust AIPAC to lobby for what I think is what's best for America. And, yes, the jewishness of neo-cons, if indeed they are 2/3 jewish (I have no idea if they are majority jewish or not) is a concern if it is true. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is true, even though the T value is undetermined (by me) at this point. You have a group, N, that advocates endless war, particularly in a certain place in the world. And in that place, X, is a country, Y, that, by empirical observation, we know tends to be close to the heart of group Z. Group Z forms a majority of Group N. When you remove the specifics, the case becomes obvious. If group N were judges or lawmakers, we would, and do, call this a conflict of interests, or a potential conflict of interests, where the uncertainty means unknowable and therfore untrustworthy. In our infinite wisdom, it is our American practice to be skeptical of those with conflicts of interests. That has nothing whatsoever to do with Jews. It has everything to do with a general principle being applied to a case that involves jews. I do not expect you to reply to the meat of this, because you have systematically failed to address any of the VALID criticisms against your position, such as the one that I was going to make, of your fallacy of affirming the consequent. (Logic has its own problems, but I can't deal with that now or here, it serves for this purpose) I certainly don't expect a reasoned, rational, even scholarly, response as I believe you may be psychologically incapable of such when it comes to this subject. Note that I don't claim that the majority of neocons are jews, because I don't know and I have no idea where to find out.
The ADL case is also merely an extension of principles arrived at by prior reasoning, i.e., that when one spots hypocrisy, one should call it out, and that to say one thing and do another (as has been pretty clearly demonstrated) is hypocrisy.