The self-declared mission of J Street, the dovish "pro-Israel, pro-Peace" lobby that just concluded its first national conference this week, includes redefining the meaning of the term "pro-Israel." For too long, the organization's founders and supporters argue, right-wing elements in the Jewish community have abused the term to hijack the debate and tarnish mainstream, sensible advocates of a two-state solution.
J Street's "pro-Israel" bona fides were questioned almost immediately after its launch, and with good reason. For starters, the organization took needlessly provocative stands, like backing the decision to stage the play, Seven Jewish Children, which compares the suffering of Jewish youth under Nazi Germany to that of Palestinians in the occupied territories. J Street initially stayed out of the controversy surrounding the appointment of Chas Freeman chairman of the National Intelligence Council. (Freeman is a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia who ran a think tank that published the infamous "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" paper by professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.) But it rushed to Freeman's defense after he backed out and issued a stinging broadside against his critics, whom Freeman alleged were working on behalf of "a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired." J Street Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami echoed Freeman's attack: "In their view, intimidating those who would otherwise speak their mind on Israel is the ultimate service to protect and defend the state of Israel."
In the weeks leading up to its conference, J Street was wracked by a series of controversies. The group had to cancel a poetry session after it was exposed that one of the participants had compared the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to Auschwitz and another likened Israel to a "whore." The organization's credibility was further challenged when Israeli ambassador Michael Oren refused an invitation to speak at the conference, and an embassy spokesman said that J Street could "impair Israel's interests." Due to these incidents and pressure from the group's skeptics in the Jewish community, 13 senators and congressmen removed their names from the event's host committee. ("Had we known more about J Street back in the summer, it would've been a different story," says a spokesman for one of these members, who affirmed that the congressman would refuse to appear on the host committee next year if invited.)
In the wake of these public defections, Ben-Ami granted an interview to the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg in which he repositioned himself much closer to the center. He criticized Walt and Mearsheimer's views and backed away from his initial calls for Israel to negotiate with Hamas. He said that the prospect of threatening to cut off military aid to Israel "should not be on the table." And, he added, "I hope that we have a very strong left flank that attacks us."
But Ben-Ami's stated goal of having J Street represent "the center" of American Jewish sentiment on Israel was undermined by a variety of events at this week's conference, most notably a bloggers panel featuring the likes of avowed anti-Zionists Philip Weiss and Max Blumenthal, as well as Helena Cobban, the newly-appointed executive director of the Council for the National Interest, one of whose founders has spoken at a conference of a Holocaust denial group. At the panel, Blumenthal attacked Ben-Ami for "capitulating" to Goldberg ("What happened really disappointed me, at least on the point of Walt and Mearsheimer," he said) and mocked Elie Wiesel for investing money with Bernie Madoff. Though information about the event did not appear on the conference agenda and Ben-Ami told Goldberg that J Street was not giving "sanction to their beliefs," the organization provided space--adorned with a giant J Street banner--for the panel, and Ben-Ami himself dropped in on the event.
While Ben-Ami has distanced himself from the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis, their theories about the Israel lobby were widely touted at the J Street conference. At a full Monday afternoon panel entitled, "The View from the Hill: Congress and the US-Israel Relationship," Democratic congressman Bob Filner cited the defeats of his erstwhile colleagues Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKinney as examples of how the Israel lobby "intimidates" politicians. In response, freshman Democrat Jared Polis repeatedly implored the audience to avoid talking about the pro-Israel lobby in such dark tones. "I encourage everyone to resist talking about this in ways that demonize the Jewish people," he said.
And while Ben Ami is trying to assert his group's Zionist bona fides, a number of speakers at the conference questioned the very idea of a Jewish state--and actually received loud applause. Cheers greeted Bassim Khoury, the former Palestinian Authority's Minister of National Economy, when he said that "if the majority of the Israeli people want to define Israel as a state with a religion like the Islamic Republic of Iran, let them." And Hussein Ibish of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee similarly received applause after delivering a lengthy denunciation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's call for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (30)
In order to encompass what it means to BE pro-Israel....to establish what being pro-Israel IS....one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] the history of Judaism
2] the history of Christianity and Islam
3] the history of Zionism
Also, one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] the nature of religion
2] the nature of ethnicity
3] the nature of religious and ethnic conflict
Also, one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] human anthropology
2] human history
3] political economy
Also, one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] human consciousness
view full comment
In order to encompass what it means to BE pro-Israel....to establish what being pro-Israel IS....one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] the history of Judaism
2] the history of Christianity and Islam
3] the history of Zionism
Also, one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] the nature of religion
2] the nature of ethnicity
3] the nature of religious and ethnic conflict
Also, one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] human anthropology
2] human history
3] political economy
Also, one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] human consciousness
2] human psychology
3] human emotions
Also, one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] human evolution
2] the evolution of life
3] the evolution of materialism
Also, one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] ontology
2] teleology
3] the nature of existence itself
So, let's start there. Who among us is best qualified to collect, then congregate, then collate these billions of complex, intertwined and ever evolving variables into a metaphysical mosaic we can call, say, Proposition Israel.
Then, after we establish this and the report has been written, I will be glad to go over it as someone who knows practically everything one needs to know about the relationship between language and meaning. You know, from the perspective of Continental Philosophy.
gw
Aside to James,
Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between an "assistant editor" and a "senior editor" at TNR?
Is a mere assistant allowed more lattitude in, say, criticizing Israel?
; o )
gw
Aside to James,
Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between an "assistant editor" and a "senior editor" at TNR?
Is a mere assistant allowed more lattitude in, say, criticizing Israel?
; o )
gw
“Helena Cobban, the newly-appointed executive director of the Council for the National Interest…”
Here is more on Cobban:
Noah Pollak - 10.29.2009 - 2:04 PM
Helena Cobban sits on the board of Human Rights Watch and was a member of the blogger panel at the J Street conference. She recently ruminated on the question of why so many Jews are disgusted with the Goldstone/HRW treatment of Israel (hat tip: Richard Landes). Her answer:
“But the Michael Goldfarbs, the Norman Podhoretz’s, the Alan Dershowitz’s, and Robert Bernsteins of this world truly don’t get this. They truly think there is something so “special” about Jewish people and their experience in the world that somehow the ... view full comment
“Helena Cobban, the newly-appointed executive director of the Council for the National Interest…”
Here is more on Cobban:
Noah Pollak - 10.29.2009 - 2:04 PM
Helena Cobban sits on the board of Human Rights Watch and was a member of the blogger panel at the J Street conference. She recently ruminated on the question of why so many Jews are disgusted with the Goldstone/HRW treatment of Israel (hat tip: Richard Landes). Her answer:
“But the Michael Goldfarbs, the Norman Podhoretz’s, the Alan Dershowitz’s, and Robert Bernsteins of this world truly don’t get this. They truly think there is something so “special” about Jewish people and their experience in the world that somehow the [sic] (and especially the allegedly “Jewish” state, Israel) deserve to be given a free pass on the application of any neutral standards of behavior, such as would be applied to anyone else.”
Ah, so the Jews think they’re superior to everyone else — where have we heard that one before? And what is the “allegedly” Jewish state? (Sorry, I’ve misquoted her. That’s the allegedly “Jewish” state.) Her writing is so sloppy that it’s impossible to discern what specific slander she has in mind.
Cobban concludes:
“So now, frustrated by their inability to dream up a “Cast lead II,” Israel’s hardliners are taking out their frustrations by railing against Goldstone and “demanding deep changes in the laws of war.””
The pop psychology here is entertaining but of a thematic piece with the rest of her thinking. The criticism of Goldstone, she intones, is not serious or rational — it is in fact the redirected frustration of a predatory and sadistic people whose desire for more war on Palestinian civilians has been thwarted. Get it?
Just to remind people again: this petulant woman sits on the board of Human Rights Watch.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/147252
That J Street allows antisemites to participate in its conference tells us that their aims are more than a little confused:
Do they mean to speak for the Jewish community, or against it?
Richard Landes has more on this deluded bigot:
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/10/27/hullo-can-you-see-florida-fro...
Looks like loony tunes George waited all night to be the first to post an irrelevant comment here.
And why not the putz has nothing else to do than stalk New Republic forums.
He should be banned or else an ignore feature should be instituted.
Looks like loony tunes George waited all night to be the first to post an irrelevant comment here.
And why not the putz has nothing else to do than stalk New Republic forums.
He should be banned or else an ignore feature should be instituted.
When I saw that kirchick had penned this article, I groaned. Oh no, yet another bucket of half truths, smears, and misrepresentations.
Well, I was wrong. Sure, there are the usual kirchickian over-statements (Yglesias was "shocked") but overall, considering kirchick's sordid past on the issues of honesty and misrepresentation, this piece does a pretty good job of laying out the issues, avoiding his usual incendiary hyperbole, and based upon my impressions of J Street, lands at an appropriate and appropriately phrased conclusion: Does J Street want to be the trumpet for the marginal, some would even say crackpot, anti-Israel voices.
What encouraged me - and still does - about J Street was that ... view full comment
When I saw that kirchick had penned this article, I groaned. Oh no, yet another bucket of half truths, smears, and misrepresentations.
Well, I was wrong. Sure, there are the usual kirchickian over-statements (Yglesias was "shocked") but overall, considering kirchick's sordid past on the issues of honesty and misrepresentation, this piece does a pretty good job of laying out the issues, avoiding his usual incendiary hyperbole, and based upon my impressions of J Street, lands at an appropriate and appropriately phrased conclusion: Does J Street want to be the trumpet for the marginal, some would even say crackpot, anti-Israel voices.
What encouraged me - and still does - about J Street was that they could provide an alternative to very static, conservative, and in many ways bullying perspective found in AIPAC and among the bellicose, intolerant voices in the US who often align with the Likud perspective, with the implication that this right wing perspective within in Israeli politics, which they support, is the only option for American Jews and US policy. Marty P. comes to mind
However, if J Street is going to be the vessel for anti Israel crackpots, then as Sam Goldwyn used to so eloquently say, Include Me Out.
Good job on this piece. In my opinion, a sign of a maturing perspective and style on your part.
"....based upon my impressions of J Street, [he] lands at an appropriate and appropriately phrased conclusion: Does J Street want to be the trumpet for the marginal, some would even say crackpot, anti-Israel voices..."
gw:
But that's my point, of course.
Cookie goes from the hugely problematic, "based on my own impressions of J-Street" to the much more emphatic conclusion that J-Street reflects marginal, crackpot, anti-Israel voices. As though this were perfectly reasonable.
What he/she does not explore, of course, is the manner in which his/her assumptions about Israel today are not also just embedded in a particular existential assemblage of personal experiences and relationships.
Instead, the ... view full comment
"....based upon my impressions of J Street, [he] lands at an appropriate and appropriately phrased conclusion: Does J Street want to be the trumpet for the marginal, some would even say crackpot, anti-Israel voices..."
gw:
But that's my point, of course.
Cookie goes from the hugely problematic, "based on my own impressions of J-Street" to the much more emphatic conclusion that J-Street reflects marginal, crackpot, anti-Israel voices. As though this were perfectly reasonable.
What he/she does not explore, of course, is the manner in which his/her assumptions about Israel today are not also just embedded in a particular existential assemblage of personal experiences and relationships.
Instead, the leap is made: Based on all I have come to know about Israel thus far, J-Street is "Anti-Israel".
But what if he/she had come to accummulate an entirely different set of impressions, assumptions, predispositions---having had different parents, being raised in a different community, meeting different people, encountering different experiences, reading different books, learning different things. etc.
This is what Jackson grasps, of course. He knows what the hell I am getting at here about "identity".
Well, based on what I know about him, of course. And I did, admittedly, stop accummulating data months ago.
Was that a mistake?!
george
I briefly attended the unsponsored bloggers' forum--because I wanted to meet one of the bloggers whose blog I often read, comment on, and sometimes write for. I saw Jeremy Ben-Ami enter the room and leave after about a minute. Perhaps Mr. Kirchick wants a slightly more liberal version of AIPAC--where everyone is told what to think and a conference is basically a hasbara training session and a chance for politicians to perform like parrots. The conference featured many figures from the left half of the Israeli spectrum from Meretz to Kadima on its breakout panels. It also featured Eric Yoffie in a debate with Jeremy Ben-Ami, something you won't see at an AIPAC conference. I attended the 1995 ... view full comment
I briefly attended the unsponsored bloggers' forum--because I wanted to meet one of the bloggers whose blog I often read, comment on, and sometimes write for. I saw Jeremy Ben-Ami enter the room and leave after about a minute. Perhaps Mr. Kirchick wants a slightly more liberal version of AIPAC--where everyone is told what to think and a conference is basically a hasbara training session and a chance for politicians to perform like parrots. The conference featured many figures from the left half of the Israeli spectrum from Meretz to Kadima on its breakout panels. It also featured Eric Yoffie in a debate with Jeremy Ben-Ami, something you won't see at an AIPAC conference. I attended the 1995 AIPAC conference as an intern staffer and I don't really remember very many panels on or discussions of the peace process. Instead it was just devoted to hasbara training, the 1996 presidential election, and both parties kissing AIPAC's broad ass.
The deluded George posts as if anyone cared what he says.
NO ONE DOES!
The deluded George posts as if anyone cared what he says.
NO ONE DOES!
"Perhaps Mr. Kirchick wants a slightly more liberal version of AIPAC--where everyone is told what to think and a conference is basically a hasbara training session and a chance for politicians to perform like parrots."
Mitch, you are deluded if you think any Jewish group cab be told what to say.
You obviously don't know Jews very well.
Your description fits the far left better.
"Perhaps Mr. Kirchick wants a slightly more liberal version of AIPAC--where everyone is told what to think and a conference is basically a hasbara training session and a chance for politicians to perform like parrots."
Mitch, you are deluded if you think any Jewish group cab be told what to say.
You obviously don't know Jews very well.
Your description fits the far left better.
Excuse me Jackson but I want to give it one more shot with george. By your leave or no.
George. Do you believe Truth to be malleable? If so, is that the Truth? Do you accept the dual proposition of eternity and forward movement of time?
Umm. Don't trifle with me because I'm fairly intimate with those things which you presume to have championed.
Excuse me Jackson but I want to give it one more shot with george. By your leave or no.
George. Do you believe Truth to be malleable? If so, is that the Truth? Do you accept the dual proposition of eternity and forward movement of time?
Umm. Don't trifle with me because I'm fairly intimate with those things which you presume to have championed.
I couldn't care less about Walty's replie, Jacko, but did you mean to say: "Do you accept the dual proposition of eternity and forward movement of time?"
or "the dual proposition of infinity and forward movement of time?"
Just curious.
I couldn't care less about Walty's replie, Jacko, but did you mean to say: "Do you accept the dual proposition of eternity and forward movement of time?"
or "the dual proposition of infinity and forward movement of time?"
Just curious.
Interesting distinction. I suppose in my book infinity would imply all dimensions yet subservient to eternal.
Interesting distinction. I suppose in my book infinity would imply all dimensions yet subservient to eternal.
Jamie Kirchik deciding who's "pro-Israel" enough is like Glenn Beck's teabaggers deciding who's Republican enough.
Jamie Kirchik deciding who's "pro-Israel" enough is like Glenn Beck's teabaggers deciding who's Republican enough.
jacko
"Interesting distinction. I suppose in my book infinity would imply all dimensions yet subservient to eternal."
Ontologically speaking the "eternal" is the unchanging; hence devoid of temporality.
The infinite is always temporal.
In other words, the eternal is like a tit from which all milk has been squeezed out, the infinite is like a tit with a never ending supply of milk.
jacko
"Interesting distinction. I suppose in my book infinity would imply all dimensions yet subservient to eternal."
Ontologically speaking the "eternal" is the unchanging; hence devoid of temporality.
The infinite is always temporal.
In other words, the eternal is like a tit from which all milk has been squeezed out, the infinite is like a tit with a never ending supply of milk.
jfelliott
"Jamie Kirchik deciding who's "pro-Israel" enough is like Glenn Beck's teabaggers deciding who's Republican enough."
This is hardly the issue, elliott.
The issue is: why would people like Philip Weiss who would like to see Israel (and the Jewish people) disappear be considered pro Israel in the first place?
jfelliott
"Jamie Kirchik deciding who's "pro-Israel" enough is like Glenn Beck's teabaggers deciding who's Republican enough."
This is hardly the issue, elliott.
The issue is: why would people like Philip Weiss who would like to see Israel (and the Jewish people) disappear be considered pro Israel in the first place?
jacko:
George. Do you believe Truth to be malleable? If so, is that the Truth? Do you accept the dual proposition of eternity and forward movement of time?
george:
Read much Wittgenstein lately?
That's like a man insisting, "All men are liars, and that's the truth." So, is it?
Same with words like "eternity". It is a word-sound we invented to describe...what, exactly? What IS "eternity"? Do you know? No, of course not. It's just a word you use like the rest of to encompass something we can only speculate about such that the word itself breaks down when we try to attach to, say, the universe?
Philosophy [epistemology] is filled with antinomies like this. "Free will", "determinism", "God", "no G ... view full comment
jacko:
George. Do you believe Truth to be malleable? If so, is that the Truth? Do you accept the dual proposition of eternity and forward movement of time?
george:
Read much Wittgenstein lately?
That's like a man insisting, "All men are liars, and that's the truth." So, is it?
Same with words like "eternity". It is a word-sound we invented to describe...what, exactly? What IS "eternity"? Do you know? No, of course not. It's just a word you use like the rest of to encompass something we can only speculate about such that the word itself breaks down when we try to attach to, say, the universe?
Philosophy [epistemology] is filled with antinomies like this. "Free will", "determinism", "God", "no God", "time", "space", "solipsism". "realism", "idealism".
As for "malleable" truth, I make that crucial distinction between the laws of nature and moral and political values. Abortion as a medical procedure is far more easily pinned down objectively than assessing whether or not it is moral or immoral. J-Street as an organization [membership, website, physical presense] is far more easily pinned down than establishing whether it is right or wrong about Israel.
Right?
Jacko:
Umm. Don't trifle with me because I'm fairly intimate with those things which you presume to have championed.
george:
Oh, we'll see about that. Or are you going to abandon yet another exchange with me? If not, I say this: Welcome to Hell.
george walton
d/a
there you have it, jacko. And you were hoping for a real answer from this self taught ignorant jerk?
there are junior school students more knowing about philosophy than he is.
there you have it, jacko. And you were hoping for a real answer from this self taught ignorant jerk?
there are junior school students more knowing about philosophy than he is.
George. I wonder why you even bother making any distinctions at all. Natural or otherwise. Why would you choose to acknowledge the validity of a scientific inquiry when it presumes that something must be knowable? Even if mitigated by lack of absolute clarity and the doing which has consequence.
No. I think you are indeed a relativist at the convenience of your own bias. But don't despair. You have lots of company.
I've been to Hell, george. Nothing you could say along these lines would even come close. Yeah. We don't have anything to discuss because you can't be inconvenienced with meaning and .... really anything except at the service of your own bias. You're a scammer, georgie. I got your ... view full comment
George. I wonder why you even bother making any distinctions at all. Natural or otherwise. Why would you choose to acknowledge the validity of a scientific inquiry when it presumes that something must be knowable? Even if mitigated by lack of absolute clarity and the doing which has consequence.
No. I think you are indeed a relativist at the convenience of your own bias. But don't despair. You have lots of company.
I've been to Hell, george. Nothing you could say along these lines would even come close. Yeah. We don't have anything to discuss because you can't be inconvenienced with meaning and .... really anything except at the service of your own bias. You're a scammer, georgie. I got your number. It is 0.....)
jacko:
George. I wonder why you even bother making any distinctions at all. Natural or otherwise. Why would you choose to acknowledge the validity of a scientific inquiry when it presumes that something must be knowable? Even if mitigated by lack of absolute clarity and the doing which has consequence.
george:
Aside to others:
First, you'll notice that Jacko makes absolutely no attempt whatsoever to respond to any of the points I raised above. Stuff he professes to be "fairly intimate" regarding. Perhaps he should define "fairly" for us.
jacko,
What about it? Are you going to discuss these points intelligently or [as per usual] wiggle out of it?
Another Irony, perchance?
As for "scientific inquiri ... view full comment
jacko:
George. I wonder why you even bother making any distinctions at all. Natural or otherwise. Why would you choose to acknowledge the validity of a scientific inquiry when it presumes that something must be knowable? Even if mitigated by lack of absolute clarity and the doing which has consequence.
george:
Aside to others:
First, you'll notice that Jacko makes absolutely no attempt whatsoever to respond to any of the points I raised above. Stuff he professes to be "fairly intimate" regarding. Perhaps he should define "fairly" for us.
jacko,
What about it? Are you going to discuss these points intelligently or [as per usual] wiggle out of it?
Another Irony, perchance?
As for "scientific inquiries", no scientist has come up with a way in which to obviate David Hume's hard skepticism, right? There is still that ontological gap between "correlation" and "cause and effect". Instead, we all have to acknolwedge this and live our lives acting as though it is irrelevent instead. And, for all practical purposes, it is....right?
jacko:
No. I think you are indeed a relativist at the convenience of your own bias. But don't despair. You have lots of company.
george:
Again, choose a moral issue and denote knowledge that is universal with respect to it and knowledge that can be used only to connote value judgments that are subjective in nature. Do you even grasp the crucial is/ought distinction here at all?
jacko:
I've been to Hell, george. Nothing you could say along these lines would even come close. Yeah. We don't have anything to discuss because you can't be inconvenienced with meaning and .... really anything except at the service of your own bias. You're a scammer, georgie. I got your number. It is 0.....)
george:
Aside to others:
See the wiggle room he is insinuating yet again into the discussion: apparently, I "can't be inconvenienced with meaning"!!! What the fuck does that mean?
Cluck, cluck, cluck, said the chicken! Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, said the worm!
Jacko,
Yes, you are woefully inadequate to the task. But surely you must know someone who can give it a go. Or maybe Jackson can tell you what to say.
; o )
george walton
d/a
Another comment by Walty which reads like a cry for recognition.
Everyone of his posts show what a whackjob he is; a self taught whackjob.
Another comment by Walty which reads like a cry for recognition.
Everyone of his posts show what a whackjob he is; a self taught whackjob.
George.... it's clear you're just a ' fuck with '. I'll not bother to point out all of the the bait and switch bullshit you just ran down. Piss off.
George.... it's clear you're just a ' fuck with '. I'll not bother to point out all of the the bait and switch bullshit you just ran down. Piss off.
Jackson. Self taught is okay with me. Truth be known that is the place of unmediated opportunity. All things considered though I see a glimmer of unwitting ownership per curious george. The fact is that there are some places of agreement that we have touched upon. A twinkle of useful communication. I still stand by my assessment however the mysteries are becoming less so. I'm all for light.
Yeah. Love is the bottom line george. That is where justice and truth reside. One might even speculate that such a place might be holy. Though we of good will struggle to define, one does indeed know what it is..... and what it isn't when run through the thresher. The reason the West has an affinity with ... view full comment
Jackson. Self taught is okay with me. Truth be known that is the place of unmediated opportunity. All things considered though I see a glimmer of unwitting ownership per curious george. The fact is that there are some places of agreement that we have touched upon. A twinkle of useful communication. I still stand by my assessment however the mysteries are becoming less so. I'm all for light.
Yeah. Love is the bottom line george. That is where justice and truth reside. One might even speculate that such a place might be holy. Though we of good will struggle to define, one does indeed know what it is..... and what it isn't when run through the thresher. The reason the West has an affinity with Israel is quite simply the claimed origin and hence sense of justice are more closely related than not. Justice is a horseshoe approximation ..... but when you are in Hell that's the best one might hope for. At least when dealing with the vagaries of Collectives. And then there was God...... huh, George.
jacko:
George.... it's clear you're just a ' fuck with '. I'll not bother to point out all of the the bait and switch bullshit you just ran down. Piss off.
george:
Again, all of you, please join me in a rousing chorus of,
Cluck, cluck, cluck went the chicken!! Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle went the worm!!
Jacko,
Your humiliating retreat is duly noted. But, of course, it goes without saying, the invitation to crawl up out of the intellectual sandbox still stands. ; o )
george
jacko:
George.... it's clear you're just a ' fuck with '. I'll not bother to point out all of the the bait and switch bullshit you just ran down. Piss off.
george:
Again, all of you, please join me in a rousing chorus of,
Cluck, cluck, cluck went the chicken!! Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle went the worm!!
Jacko,
Your humiliating retreat is duly noted. But, of course, it goes without saying, the invitation to crawl up out of the intellectual sandbox still stands. ; o )
george
No george. I get the last word.
No george. I get the last word.
jacko
"Jackson. Self taught is okay with me."
Yes, if you have actually learned something. This is not the case with loony tunes George.
jacko
"Jackson. Self taught is okay with me."
Yes, if you have actually learned something. This is not the case with loony tunes George.
Loony tunes George says to jocko:
"Your humiliating retreat is duly noted."
This from an ignorant narcissistic autodidact who doesn't know his own limitations and can't stand still for three seconds to answer a question.
Every post of George's shows that the runt is beyond humiliation; one needs a sense of reality to feel humiliated and this is what the psychotic George lacks.
He is just full of hackneyed phrases and self love.
Loony tunes George says to jocko:
"Your humiliating retreat is duly noted."
This from an ignorant narcissistic autodidact who doesn't know his own limitations and can't stand still for three seconds to answer a question.
Every post of George's shows that the runt is beyond humiliation; one needs a sense of reality to feel humiliated and this is what the psychotic George lacks.
He is just full of hackneyed phrases and self love.
jacko "No george. I get the last word."
Good for you!
jacko "No george. I get the last word."
Good for you!
'No george. I get the last word."
gw:
Is that what you call it?
Here's what I call it: Cluck cluck cluck...wiggle wiggle wiggle.
Thank god for my maturity, right?
Not to worry though. Aside from JD, no on else is here to see you squirming.
; o )
gw
'No george. I get the last word."
gw:
Is that what you call it?
Here's what I call it: Cluck cluck cluck...wiggle wiggle wiggle.
Thank god for my maturity, right?
Not to worry though. Aside from JD, no on else is here to see you squirming.
; o )
gw
I guess you get the last word, george. Kind of an issue with you. Isn't it?
cluck, cluck
I guess you get the last word, george. Kind of an issue with you. Isn't it?
cluck, cluck
On the contrary, the "issues" with me have hardly varied at all:
Identity. Value judgments. Political economy. The limitations of language. Existentialial philosophy.
And how they fit into an evaluation of "the news".
Go back to my very first posts and you will confirm this.
It would be nice of course to bump into a few minds here who can discuss these things intelligently. But no biggie if not. It is the manner in which I am able to convey the thinking of the True Believers to friends of mine that primarily motivate my efforts here.
Thanks for your own contributions.
; o )
gw
On the contrary, the "issues" with me have hardly varied at all:
Identity. Value judgments. Political economy. The limitations of language. Existentialial philosophy.
And how they fit into an evaluation of "the news".
Go back to my very first posts and you will confirm this.
It would be nice of course to bump into a few minds here who can discuss these things intelligently. But no biggie if not. It is the manner in which I am able to convey the thinking of the True Believers to friends of mine that primarily motivate my efforts here.
Thanks for your own contributions.
; o )
gw