I didnt mean to imply that if Lauren or Jill (or Bitch PhD) censored comments it would be a violation of anyone’s first ammendment rights, I meant that it’s nice to see a place where the spirit of the first ammendment is in play, especially when the 1st seems to be under such attack today in the real world and people seem to be confusing (deliberatly or ignorantly) dissent with (gag) treason.

I’m a feminist, but…Posted by: Mary Recently, the blogosphere has been buzzing about feminism. With people on [...]

what’s the highest ranked jew in the bush administration? Wolfowitz? is he still around?

Oh, Lordy, he’s been at the World Bank for a long time. Most of the neocons in the adminsitration were at high-ranking jobs at State or Defense.

I appreciate that you let the first ammendment work the way it’s supposed to on this blog

Sorry, big pet peeve: the First Amendment only protects against governmental restrictions on speech. Lauren and Jill could censor people to their heart’s content here and it still wouldn’t be a violation of the First Amendment.

Carry on.

what’s the highest ranked jew in the bush administration? Wolfowitz? is he still around?

I hear Neocon, I think “Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy”

so maybe, MAYBE I would grant “pro-israel in stance, because it’s politically convienient for them.” Nothing like watching a bunch of goyim claim the suffering of my people as evidence of the monstrosity of “the enemy” and use the ongoing struggle as justification of their attempts to “civilize” the world. like Hitler claiming the Gunpowder Plot as proof that catholics should be exterminated.

also, Jeff? shut the fuck up. as interesting* an aside as your mad-on for Doc Bitch is, it is entirely tangental and derailing crap. if I want to read someone being verbally abusive of the good doctor, I’ll go read HER comment section. either complain about Jill and Lauren here, or jam a sock in your spit faucet.

*not even in the slightest

If not, won’t the non-dominant political parties in Israel be surprised!

The ‘neocons are being picked on because they’re Jews’ thing is bullshit, as any casual observation of the neocon’s attitude towards actual Jews would reveal.

The others are all indictments of your actions, with the exception of the last, which is a description of your action — and an accurate one at that. You did indeed cherrypick the comments to place Paul in the worst possible light.

Similarly, not every criticism is an indictment of your character. My failing to “condemn” Paul? Not an indictment of your character. Condemning Hettle’s actions? Not an indictment of your character. In fact, I made it clear over and over again that it was Hettle who’d overstepped his bounds. You simply cannot draw parallels between my condemnation of what he did and my mild criticism of what you did (which amounted to, in my opinion, trying to shut down debate on a site with an open comment policy, and then trying to airbrush it all away until you were called on it). I never blamed you for Hettle’s actions. I blamed you for helping him stick by his story that his actions were necessary given Paul’s horrific conduct in “bullying” emails you woudn’t make public.

What I’m learning here, though, is that you really are willing to cite nothing but the bits and pieces that make up your version of events in order to plead for the support of your fellow travelers. But I’ve linked to all my posts, so I’m just going to let people decide for themselves. Maybe in the safety of their own skulls they can display a bit of intellectual honesty.

And please – that rousing finish to your comment? Laughable. I’m not one of your students, so if you want to silence me, you’re going to have to come up with a better plan than trotting out that predictable mix of righteous indignation and haughty dismissiveness. I’ve debated enough leftist academics to look right past that particular ploy — though I will say that in my limited encounters with you, you seem to use it in just about any situation in which you are challenged. Sad, that.

But then, that’s likely why you prefer hanging around ideologically-consistent echo chambers.

To evil!

* (BTW they’re all ugly chickenhawks)

And Wolfowitz sucks his comb.

The amusing thing about the Bitch/Deignan thing is that all his whinging and obsessing over her comment is probably destroying any claim for damages from any initial libel. Talk about your superseding causes.

You won..