I sure do. You're a poisonous fuckwad whose nature is identical to the Zionists you rail against. I'm surprised it took this long for people to recognize that about you.

You said earlier today

I don't hate Jews. I hate ass-holes. And if ass-holes defend their ass-ness with Judaism, then it looks like I hate Jews.

Apart from the contradiction found in that quote, you now (or, more recently, since you've written quite a bit) write:

Maybe becuase (sic) I am pointing out the core beliefs of the Jewish State, which the United States supports with money and arms, that support being detrimental to our national security?

So, in short, which is it? Is it that Israel is the recipient of billions and the purveyor of death and destruction? Or is it "I hate Jews"?

The former is obvious, like an F-16 going a million miles an hour. The latter--which I think is driving you at an unhealthy speed--well, I don't know where you'll end (except it'll be unhappy).

Hasn't it ever occured to you that there is a strategic way to have a discourse? Right wing zealots and pro-Zionists attract power worshipping people with little reasoning skills and an angry disposition. These are a small portion of the population, but often the much larger group who are capable of reason are turned off by what they see as unconvincing, emotional arguments from the other side. A Zionist doens't have to make sense--indeed, their rants have to be hateful to satisfy their energetic constituency. But someone who opposes the kind of things Israel does in the occupied territories and in places like Lebanon, has to access a different group for support. A group not vulnerable to frothing emotional appeals to inner rage, but to human appeals to their better nature that incorporate concepts of justice, fairness and equality.

Your anti-Jewish rants belong on the other side of the fence. They turn off people who would normally be your ally. Racism and ethnic hatred for its own sake are the stuff of the right wing noise machine. Besides being rationally untenable, and for the most part absurdly generalized and anecdotal, they are simply not very effective ways of getting your message across.

You miss the point. It's not that the evidence might be "tainted." It's that being forced to give evidence will reveal intelligence methods and possible personnel.

Say the government is forced to say, "We know Ahmed is a terrorist because his cousin Kamal told us." Guess what's going to happen to Kamal.

Testimony in open court will reveal to the terrorists how we know what we know, so they just change their methods and we have to start all over.

More to the point, if these guys are so innocent, why does no one want to take them back?

Arab parties disqualified from elections

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3654866,00.html

I've thought most of the people here were just mindless Greenwald sycophants. I now realize that Kitt, Arne, cocktailhag and others are all probably just Greenwald himself engaging in his notorious sockpuppetry.

That's because you're stoopid (further evidenced by your link to Patterico).

You want sock-puppets, Google "John Lott" and "Mary Rosh". They're your allies, all... -- uhhh, "two" -- of 'em.

FWIW, that's an "old story" too, and long since disposed of. Do try to keep up with the times ... and check your fax machine for the latest Freeperville/ClownHall/LittleGreenSnotballs "RW talking points" blast fax.

Cheers,

Josh Marshall (TPM) adds some elements.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/01/not_sure_what_to_say_or_think.php

Say the government is forced to say, "We know Ahmed is a terrorist because his cousin Kamal told us." Guess what's going to happen to Kamal.

Testimony in open court will reveal to the terrorists how we know what we know, so they just change their methods and we have to start all over.

I'm no lawyer, but I believe there is such a thing as in camera for purposes of secrecy (and just such the thing you're describing). This is the sort of thing that's been discussed regarding illegal wiretapping. It's not as if there's no way around it.

Or is that Glenn?

Disposed of? Care to show me the evidence?

It looks like a pretty well-documented smackdown, not matter how "old" it is.

Do you have anything more than just calling people names.

Ad Hominem Insult: The last resort for anyone with no facts to support him.

It's that being forced to give evidence will reveal intelligence methods and possible personnel.

That's a really good point. Never in U.S. legal history has there ever been a case involving classified evidence, so I'm sure there's absolutely no process in American jurisprudence for handling that.

You were doing better with the sockpuppet shit.

I find this to be a curious side-effect of the way that Israel has let its religeous right hi-jack its political process. An article in Ha aretz today indicates that the motion was initiated by two ultra right wing parties with religeous base. This is frankly embarrasing to labor political animals such as Ehud Barak, who love to brag about how fair and open their apartheid society is to 'Israeli' Arabs, despite the fact that they are at best second class citizens. However, because Labor also needs to attract such parties to maintain their fragile coalitions (they often literally buy them off by giving government funds to their constituencies), they are constantly having their well-crafted illusions torn asunder.

"The requests to ban the Arab parties were filed by two ultra right parties Yisrael Beiteinu and National Union-National Religious Party.

Senior Labor Party figures lashed out at the party's CEC representative, Eitan Cabel, who voted in favor of banning the two Arab parties.

"[MK] Shelly Yachimovich and I thought we must object to the move to ban the Arab lists for reasons of freedom of expression," said Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog. "The minority's right to be heard must be preserved," he said.

MK Ophir Pines (Labor) said from overseas that he strongly objected to Labor's stance in the vote and that it was not the position that had been agreed on.

Labor chairman Ehud Barak, however, did not comment on the vote and his aides said he would not deal with political issues these days.

Cabel tried to explain his support of the ban, despite Labor's decision to vote against it.

"It's true we said we wouldn't ban, but [Balad leader MK Jamal] Zahalka's statement that he was in touch with Bishara led me to think that we must draw the line somewhere," he said. "I'm making no apologies because I fight more than most in the Knesset for equal rights for Arabs. I know it won't stand up in the Supreme Court, and rightly so, because there is no evidentiary basis for the [committee's] decision."

Members of the the new Meretz alignment reacted angrily to the decision.

"Labor and Kadima's position is a declaration of war on Israel's Arab citizens," a party member said. "Do Barak and Livni really prefer blocking Israel's Arabs' right to parliamentary activity and driving them to street demonstrations?"

"Every time a clear statement to ensure basic civil rights of the Arab minority is required, Labor and Kadima choose to side with the radical right wing for populist motives, to deprive the Arabs of their fundamental democratic rights," party chairman Haim Oron said.

Arab lawmakers Ahmed Tibi and Zahalka, political rivals who head the two Arab blocs in the Knesset, joined together in condemning yesterday's decision.

"It was a political trial led by a group of fascists and racists who are willing to see the Knesset without Arabs and want to see the country without Arabs," said Tibi. "

I actually see a lot of this kind of thinking--especially from our pet Israeli apologists here and am always surprised at the free pass it gets. Literally, they are saying, how can you criticize us when we are so good to our Arab population. See how many rights we let them have? Its only when they act up that we oppress them.