re: #49 BradFriedman

As AIPAC and ECI are among the largest and/or loudest of that lobby, and as my article focuses on the two of them, I think that was pretty clear. At least if one bothered to read the full article.

The American-Israel lobby is often used as a catch-all phrase, purposefully inexact. I can easily believe this is a perfectly innocent mistake on your part, but by using a phrase often used by those who believe that Teh Juice Controlz the Gubmint it can easily give the impression that you are one of those people. I’m glad that you’re not.

Sorry, no familiar with it, or the context for it. (This issue isn’t particularly a beat of mine, and I rarely write about it. But seeing those two issues in a row — the disgusting ECI ad, and the hypocritical pass given to the Kochs by AIPAC — I happened to have a free to moment to share my thoughts on them.)

Okay. Here is the article. Long story short was that Adbusters literally Jew-counted and implied that the Jewish neoconservatives may have been serving Israel’s interests, not the US’s, in pushing for war with Iraq. Given that, to me, it’s very clear that Bush needed no push whatsoever for the war, the odious nature of Jew-counting, and the ugly history of the ‘double loyalty’ charge, I find that article ridiculous and foolish.

Adbusters, as one of the ‘organizers’— or at least the people who put out a call to action— for Occupy is one of the main reasons a lot of people, myself included, are leery about antisemitism.

Again, not familiar with it. But I’m a strong believer in democracy and the First Amendment, so happy to see both folks expressing their opinions — whatever it is — and others respond in kind, as appropriate.

Really? It doesn’t matter what that opinion is, you’d be happy to see them express their opinion?

You know that the first amendment doesn’t say “The freedom of speech shall not be abridged, and by the way, saying whatever crazy shit pops into your head totally rules. Go for it, man!”

If someone expresses the opinion that, say, blacks are inferior to whites and should be re-enslaved, I’m not happy to see them express that opinion. If someone says that abortion should be disallowed in all cases, I’m not happy to see them express that.

Did I misunderstand you?

Seems to me an argument should win, or lose, on its own merits, rather than someone being condemned (and the argument ignored) for simply having made it.

Yeah. I’m talking about condemning the argument on its merits. Not for having made it.