Patterico's Pontifications

12/13/2009

Jeff Goldstein Plays the Race Card

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:07 pm

Jeff Goldstein has regularly raged against the concept of falsely accusing others of racism or prejudice against a minority group.

But, as daleyrocks noted yesterday, the rules he sets for others don’t apply to him.

And so, back in March, when I was having a bitter fight with him, I was very upset at what I considered to be a pattern of distortion of my arguments. In particular, Goldstein accused me of not caring about the intent of the author — a charge that I utterly refute in this page that I published today.

In the midst of my anger, I posted this comment on his site, theorizing as to why he was mischaracterizing my views so badly. At the time Pajamas Media had cut him off, and he was trying to start a “foundation” that would make him money to make up for the loss in revenue from Pajamas, which would end on April 1. With all this context, I posted this comment:

Goldstein needs a foil. So he can start a movement. April 1 is coming fast. Money’s running out. So you take a conservative who has been busting his local paper for six years, falsely caricature him as a wimpy turncoat, mobilize the forces against him, and start a foundation. Donation requests coming soon. Who’s in?

You can say what you like about that quote, but I don’t say a goddamned thing about his Jewish heritage.

And yet, I got this in response:

Goldstein Anti-Semitism Attack
(click to embiggen)

Here’s the text of this angry response:

Wow.

I guess Pat’s done hit rock bottom.

No matter. It’s not like a lot of the lefty blogs haven’t accused me of being a money-grubbing Jew opportunist with no real ideological core. Hearing it come from a true conservative like Mr Frey makes me aware that I best know my place.

WE WILL HAVE DECORUM!

Note who said “money-grubbing.” Note who said the word “Jew.”

It wasn’t me.

Note the tone. It’s very angry.

Goldstein here accuses me of anti-Semitism — completely out of left field. This occurred during a bitter and heated dispute — where I said something that many might disagree with, but that unquestionably had nothing to do with Jewishness, and everything to do with Goldstein personally.

Note that this is not analogous to the R.S. McCain situation at all. McCain’s quote appears racist on its face. My commenter JD, who hates false accusations of racism, conceded that McCain’s statement was racist. Most of you agreed, when I asked you. Even if you disagree, you can see that McCain is discussing race.

By contrast, my quote above does not contain the slightest hint of anti-Semitism. It doesn’t even mention Goldstein’s Jewish heritage. I am simply suggesting that a blogger is engaged in a dishonest caricature of my position to stir up a controversy. You can agree or disagree, but it’s crystal clear that I am saying nothing about his Jewish heritage.

Leviticus has aptly summarized the mindset behind this maneuver:

So this is some hypocritical bullshit on his (their) part, correct?

Indeed it is. Goldstein claims to be against phony screams of victimhood — but the second he gets mortally offended, he reaches for the victim card and slaps it down on the table triumphantly. Without blinking.

So pardon me if I find it just a bit ironic that Goldstein was willing to do that which he regularly (and recently, with McCain) has railed against.

P.S. Goldstein is now claiming he was speaking ironically. This is really getting in the weeds, but if you care, that transparent lie is demolished here.

P.P.S. Did I mention that he deleted the comment? And the subsequent post that he wrote about the exchange? That’s why I have a screenshot.

Yeah, he wanted to hide it. I’d want to hide hypocrisy like that too.

UPDATE: In comments, Goldstein boasts of his plan to parade a trumped-up charge of anti-Semitism against me on his site — and then poll his readers as to whether I’m an anti-Semite (and of course they will all vote that I am). Listen to the glee with which he greets this prospect:

When you find yourself a few days from now writing “some of my BEST FRIENDS are Jews,” think of me at home, smiling and enjoying a snack cake.

You can almost picture one of the Al Sharpton race hustlers making a similar comment. If they were going to be honest about how cynical they are.

UPDATE x2: PatHMV in comments gets it:

Patrick accused you of acting in a particular way because you needed to stir up a way to make some money, after you were dropped by Pajamas Media. You responded to that, at least initially, by saying that he had called you a “money-grubbing Jew opportunist with no real ideological core.”

To me, that does indeed sound exactly like something Al Sharpton would say. In the words of RS McCain and his fans, you were calling RAAAAAACIST on Patterico, simply because he criticized your motives. You attempt to immunize yourself against any criticism of inappropriate pecuniary motives by attacking anybody who suggests such as an anti-semite.

That’s it, in a nutshell.

UPDATE x3: Icy Texan:

It comes down to this: Patterico said “You’re full of crap, Goldstein,” and Goldstein — whose ego obviously cannot absorb such a blow — played the card in defense: “You’re an anti-Semite, Patterico; therefore, your opinion of me being ‘full of crap’ is invalid”.

I thought he was against that sort of sophistry.

103 Responses to “Jeff Goldstein Plays the Race Card”

  1. P.S. Goldstein is now claiming he was speaking ironically. This is really getting in the weeds, but if you care, that transparent lie is demolished here.

    P.P.S. Did I mention that he deleted the comment? And the subsequent post that he wrote about the exchange? That’s why I have a screenshot.

    Yeah, he wanted to hide it. I’d want to hide hypocrisy like that too.

    Yeah, but he was being hypocritical in an ironic fashion. Besides, Jeffy G, as the speaker, is the final arbiter as to what his try intent was.

    Never mind that when you’re the speaker, it is he as the listener that decides what your intent was.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  2. Obsessed much?

    John (62fb6f)

  3. Comment by John — 12/13/2009 @ 11:21 pm

    Because fuck you.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  4. Money’s running out.

    I don’t know the person’s history, political or personal, but something is amiss. Maybe not from the pressure of financial turmoil but a bit of the oddness or philosophical derangement of an Andrew Sullivan or Charles Johnson?

    Mark (411533)

  5. Obsessed much?

    Meh. Just having fun pointing out hypocrisy. E-mailing pictures to my mom for Christmas calendars. Gotta pass the time somehow.

    Everyone acts like this is such a BIG DEAL. Again: meh. Everything on the Internet passes.

    Patterico (64318f)

  6. “Because fuck you.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs ”

    Scott is officially my favorite commenter. Even if he likes Halo.

    Being obsessed with defending yourself from charges of anti-semitism is simply healthy. If you don’t take deep offense to that kind of thing, you might just be Jimmy Carter.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  7. Yeah. I didn’t bring it up at the time because everyone was clutching their pearls complaining about the unpleasantness. So I pretty much let it go — complaints in comments, but no big post about it.

    But with all the railing over my McCain comments, the irony here is just too rich to forego.

    Patterico (64318f)

  8. Well thank you, Dustin.

    But I was merely in the right place at the right time. Had I gone to bed, I suspect that nk or some other regular would have beaten me to the punch.

    I’ve not been commenting regularly, because of work and such (work at a restaurant, and thus no internet access while there) and when I come back there’s just too much to read through most nights.

    But tonight, I’m glad I made the effort. :)

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  9. I assume you have other examples where I’ve done this — you know, played the “anti-semite card” — not just this one, which took place in the midst of my trying to impress upon you for several days that a “reasonable man” standard for interpretation is dangerous, given that it doesn’t account for intent?

    I mean, you are so big on defining by patterns and all.

    So. Let’s see. You call me sneaky, manipulative, and money-grubbing. I turn that into an accusation of anti-semitism.

    What might a reasonable man think? Is there not a history in western lit and journalism of using such code words as a way to signal anti-semitism without being explicit about it? I think you’ll find that there is. So might not a reasonable man, confronted only with your statement — and with what had turned into a rather frequent and unseemly concern over where my money was coming from and how I was earning it — conclude that you might potentially be harboring some deep seated, subconscious anti-semitic thoughts, animated by….uh, something other than intent?

    Good thing for you, I preach that we should be looking to the author’s intent.

    Guess irony doesn’t capture well in screen caps, douche.

    But here’s a hint: we weren’t laughing with you.

    JeffG (88bc84)

  10. By the way, my host, pixy misa, sent back this email when I earlier this evening queried about the date where I supposedly disappeared the “evidence”. He gave me permission to post it:

    That sounds like when the disk died in the old server.

    I was able to recover about 99% of the database, but unfortunately anything lost then is lost for good.

    I sent you an email at the time explaining that my site was changing servers, and that some of the comments posted to the old server and I couldn’t retrieve them.

    JeffG (88bc84)

  11. Let’s see. You call me sneaky, manipulative, and money-grubbing

    The quote is there, and that’s not what I said.

    Tougher to lie when the quote is right there for all to see.

    What might a reasonable man think? Is there not a history in western lit and journalism of using such code words as a way to signal anti-semitism without being explicit about it? I think you’ll find that there is. So might not a reasonable man, confronted only with your statement — and with what had turned into a rather frequent and unseemly concern over where my money was coming from and how I was earning it — conclude that you might potentially be harboring some deep seated, subconscious anti-semitic thoughts, animated by….uh, something other than intent?

    Since a) you’re lying about what I said, b) my comment does not reference Jewishness, c) I do not advocate a reasonable man standard for fixing intent, d) you DO advocate ignoring an author’s interpretation if you think yours is better, e) I never argued for looking to “code words” to interpret text, and f) you clearly weren’t being ironic, as the last link in the post proves conclusively . . . what are readers to think?

    It’s irony if you were being detached and ironic — in which case, you would not phrase it in a sulky manner, and later describe yourself as angry, and delete the evidence.

    It’s HYPOCRISY if you were simply lashing out in a way you generally condemn.

    Why can’t you just admit you exhibited poor judgment and leave it at that?

    I think I know why. Because, as you like to say . . .

    Because fuck you.

    Patterico (64318f)

  12. I sent you an email at the time explaining that my site was changing servers, and that some of the comments posted to the old server and I couldn’t retrieve them.

    And the post you deleted, which said the same thing, but more prominently?

    The one where you were SPITTING OUT fuck you’s in the comments?

    How about that?

    Patterico (64318f)

  13. Oh. And of course, more people will see these charges here than ever saw them at 2 or 3 in the morning for the few minutes they were up 7 months ago.

    But this is all about defending oneself from charges of anti-semitism.

    Yup.

    Truth is, Pat seems obsessed with my money and how damn sneaky I am. Is he an anti-semite? I didn’t think so at the time. But as just the other night he again used the same code words… well, let’s just say I don’t know either way.

    Tomorrow I’ll post the evidence and put up a reader poll. Under a nice big post entitled, “Is This Anti-Semitic”?

    The reveal afterwards is gonna be totally killer!

    JeffG (88bc84)

  14. And the post you deleted, which said the same thing, but more prominently?

    Didn’t you just answer your own question?

    Deleted it.

    Good thing you saved a screen cap of it, though, otherwise it might never have been read!

    JeffG (88bc84)

  15. I hope you’re beginning to see that this is not going to end well for you, Patrick.

    You should have just left well enough alone.

    JeffG (88bc84)

  16. Heh. I used one of those code words to bait you again.

    And so the circle is complete.

    Patterico (64318f)

  17. Didn’t you just answer your own question?

    Deleted it.

    Then why did you say at the time that it had been lost in a migration? That you could restore it any time?

    Patterico (64318f)

  18. I hope you’re beginning to see that this is not going to end well for you, Patrick.

    You should have just left well enough alone.

    I see that you are trying to threaten me because you’re sick inside at the realization that I am finally going to respond to all the little digs you have been jabbing at me for months.

    You’re trying to scare me, but I have come to realize that this silliness really won’t do anything. So huff and puff all you like.

    Hey, all I’m doing is presenting facts.

    It’s not character assassination if it’s borne out by the facts.

    What you do, by contrast, will be tricky innuendo based on your usual distortions of my positions. Your crowd will eat it up, my crowd will see you as an idiot, the blogosphere as a whole will see it as a pissing contest, and life will go on.

    So, you know, do whatcha gotta do. Got to e-mail some more pictures.

    Patterico (64318f)

  19. Because, fuck you.

    Patterico (64318f)

  20. Isn’t saying that I used the code words “again” a another lie?

    You’re referring to the Miss Attila thing, where I baited you by calling — wait, I’ll find it — OK, here: “The things I say about you, I can prove. You’re a whiny, overly verbose, hypocritical, thin-skinned, dishonest, nasty, money-grubbing sorry excuse for a man. The evidence is out there.”

    I hoped you’d play the anti-Semitism card again. Because one dose of hypocrisy would not be as rich as two.

    Didn’t work. But hey, you already posted that quote, didnja? And nobody reacted.

    They will now, ’cause you tell them to. But really, this ain’t going nowhere for ya.

    Give it a go if you like.

    Patterico (64318f)

  21. Pat, your irony and sarcasm detectors are FUBARed. Fix them or get them fixed, but do so quickly.

    John (62fb6f)

  22. Note the tone. It’s very angry.

    Yes, that’s how I use all caps. To express anger.

    BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!

    JeffG (88bc84)


  23. And the post you deleted, which said the same thing, but more prominently?

    Didn’t you just answer your own question?

    Deleted it.

    Good thing you saved a screen cap of it, though, otherwise it might never have been read!

    I’m talking about a post, not a comment.

    The screencap is of the comment. Which is gone.

    Don’t have one of the post.

    This exactly parallels the death threat dealie. Had you not made a big deal out of that, nobody would have ever cared. But you beat your chest and wailed about it for months.

    We’ll see if you really want to escalate on this here particular issue.

    I kinda doubt it. But you know what? I dare ya.

    Triple dog dare ya.

    Patterico (64318f)

  24. Let’s make “Jeff Goldstein: Race-Card Player” a household phrase.

    Bring. It. On.

    Patterico (64318f)

  25. You’re referring to the Miss Attila thing, where I baited you by calling — wait, I’ll find it — OK, here: “The things I say about you, I can prove. You’re a whiny, overly verbose, hypocritical, thin-skinned, dishonest, nasty, money-grubbing sorry excuse for a man. The evidence is out there.”

    I hoped you’d play the anti-Semitism card again. Because one dose of hypocrisy would not be as rich as two.

    …yeah… Not sure I buy that.

    I’ll include the possibility in my poll question, though.

    JeffG (88bc84)

  26. Your poll question will be 100% “Patterico is an anti-Semite.”

    Maybe 3% of the readership will actually believe it. 97% will believe they are teaching me a lesson, based on your utter distortion of my views.

    And this will mean: what? That the PW regulars don’t like me?

    Knock me over with a feather!

    G’ahead. It will motivate me to keep up the posts with facts and evidence about what a nut case you are. What a hypocrite you are.

    I need that motivation.

    Go for it, baby. Do it.

    Patterico (64318f)

  27. You know nothing but ever-increasing escalation. You have now met someone who has decided he JUST DOESN’T CARE.

    I can stretch this out. You have never met anyone as stubborn as me, except when you have looked in the mirror.

    Patterico (64318f)

  28. We’ll see if you really want to escalate on this here particular issue.

    I kinda doubt it. But you know what? I dare ya.

    Triple dog dare ya.

    Me escalate? Did you forget who posted this?

    Honestly, you think this bothers me? I have 8 years worth of stuff. I didn’t even play the anti-semite card seriously with actual anti-semites.

    Bringing this out now, when people know you’re just looking for ways to smear me, was a bad idea.

    Pretending you are outraged by it, or that I meant it seriously, is merely you doubling down on the lie.

    Trumpet this all you want.

    When you find yourself a few days from now writing “some of my BEST FRIENDS are Jews,” think of me at home, smiling and enjoying a snack cake.

    JeffG (88bc84)

  29. Man. You are really maintaining the little fiction that the above victim card playing was a joke, huh?

    Impressive. See how that works out for you in the real world.

    I sent that screenshot around to a coupla folks back in the day. People were like: whoa. I didn’t realize he did that to you.

    Think I’ll go e-mail this link to a few folks.

    Patterico (64318f)

  30. “I sent that screenshot around to a coupla folks back in the day.”

    Was this before or after the de-escalation agreement?

    People forward things after all. With dates.

    bh (pendleton) (7f8d26)

  31. Facts and evidence that I’m a “nutcase”? What, you have psych files on me?

    Otherwise, I’d say that’s pretty subjective.

    But sure, do it. Make sure you use screen caps. People really respond to screen caps.

    JeffG (88bc84)

  32. bh,

    Because a screenshot from a public website is exactly the same as a private email. Kind of you to notice.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  33. It couldn’t be more clear what Goldstein is attempting: create a trumped-up charge of anti-Semitism to try to harm me on a personal and professional level.

    I think his comments here might be worth another post. I really like the snack-cake thing.

    You can almost picture one of the Al Sharpton race hustlers making a similar comment. If they were going to be honest about how cynical they are.

    Patterico (64318f)

  34. Patrick, did you ever shop out your brief after you agreed by performance to the de-escalation?

    bh (pendleton) (7f8d26)

  35. Uh oh. Pat’s going to email this link around. Network the smear.

    Because that’s what honorable people do!

    Man. You are really maintaining the little fiction that the above victim card playing was a joke, huh?

    Well, that it was pointedly constructed.

    Alternately, maybe you really are anti-semitic. I just don’t know one way or the other anymore — not since you reintroduced the whole “money grubbing” thing 7 months later, with no prompting.

    IS D DISTRICT ATTORNEY PATRICK FREY ANTI-SEMITIC?

    That makes almost as catchy a headline as the one for this post.

    And because I don’t know for sure, I think it may be worth exploring. Of course, we’ll only be dealing with whether your statements are anti-semitic. So no worries, because I hear you can say anti-semitic things and not be anti-semitic at all.

    JeffG (88bc84)

  36. It couldn’t be more clear what Goldstein is attempting: create a trumped-up charge of anti-Semitism to try to harm me on a personal and professional level.

    Yes. Because this is my post and all.

    JeffG (88bc84)

  37. The irony is rich with this one.

    JeffG (88bc84)

  38. Stashiu3, again, you don’t actually know a few things.

    Patrick, after you agreed to the de-escalation did you pretty quickly show anyone what you threatened to show had Jeff not complied?

    bh (pendleton) (7f8d26)

  39. I’m not talking about our emails.

    bh (pendleton) (7f8d26)

  40. Checking e-mails:

    Screenshot shared March 28.

    De-escalation date: March 30.

    Nope. Didn’t do it after the de-escalation.

    Patterico (64318f)

  41. bh,

    There’s a lot I don’t know. You could fill tractor-trailers with what I don’t know. I do know you’re untrustworthy. And kind.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  42. So no worries, because I hear you can say anti-semitic things and not be anti-semitic at all.

    That is a deliberate misstatement of my argument. I expect no less from you.

    You’re not a dumb man. You know that I argue that a racist statement must be animated by racist thoughts at the moment of the utterance. You know that I don’t consider that the same thing as being “a racist.”

    But you don’t care about the arguments. You care about WINNING. That’s why you never concede a point without trying to inject a little dig in response. Why you never admit error without some counterattack.

    This is a game to you. Luckily, it’s playing out in public where everyone can see it.

    The more people who see this exchange, the better. You BET I’m trying to get the word out.

    Patterico (64318f)

  43. Stashiu3, yes, I’m a bad, bad man. The sort of bad man who spends months keeping the peace.

    Patrick, I understand if you’d try to mix up those dates to see if I was bluffing. Or maybe, you don’t count it unless it started before the date given. Conversations continue though. Past those dates.

    bh (pendleton) (7f8d26)

  44. Patrick, have you broken the “no shit talk” agreement behind the scenes?

    [note: released from moderation filter. --Stashiu]

    bh (pendleton) (7f8d26)

  45. “And because I don’t know for sure, I think it may be worth exploring.”

    Pat, seriously now, do you really not see the irony in the above statement?

    John (62fb6f)

  46. No idea what you’re talking about. My records indicate: screenshot shared March 28. De-escalation reached March 30.

    Period.

    You’re not one to balk at sharing private e-mails to make a little point. I’m not one to cave at idiot threats. We’re done talking. You have proof to debunk me, let’s hear it.

    Patterico (64318f)

  47. Pat, seriously now, do you really not see the irony in the above statement?

    Nope.

    1) My statement says nothing about Jewishness on its face. McCain’s talked about race on its face.

    2) My statement was not anti-Semitic on its face. McCain’s was racist on its face. You have to turn somersaults to argue otherwise.

    3) I have not weaseled about any statement that I made. McCain did.

    4) This is an obviously trumped-up charge brought by someone who has engaged in a systematic distortion of my views.

    Patterico (64318f)

  48. Stashiu3, yes, I’m a bad, bad man. The sort of bad man who spends months keeping the peace.
    Comment by bh (pendleton) — 12/14/2009 @ 1:22 am

    Oh, you’re a hero who sends private emails behind someone’s back for publication? My mistake then… how kind of me. Time for me to turn in. I can sleep soundly knowing you’re on the job though, which is sort of ironic if you think about it.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  49. Jeff, I come late to this party, and I know very little about you. But from where I sit, here’s how it looks. Patrick accused you of acting in a particular way because you needed to stir up a way to make some money, after you were dropped by Pajamas Media. You responded to that, at least initially, by saying that he had called you a “money-grubbing Jew opportunist with no real ideological core.”

    To me, that does indeed sound exactly like something Al Sharpton would say. In the words of RS McCain and his fans, you were calling RAAAAAACIST on Patterico, simply because he criticized your motives. You attempt to immunize yourself against any criticism of inappropriate pecuniary motives by attacking anybody who suggests such as an anti-semite.

    Somebody in an earlier thread tonight asked this very relevant question, and I wonder if Jeff would deign to answer it. If one things that some good, decent person has said something racist, how is one supposed to discuss: (1) whether they said that thing and (2) whether the statement at issue is in fact racist? Based on Jeff’s argument, it seems like it would be impossible to do so without actually calling the alleged speaker a racist. Are we to ignore evidence of possible racism from somebody simply because they’re also politically conservative? That seems a very bad idea. But Jeff says that by saying that something that somebody may have one said is racist is the exact same as calling that person a racist. How, Jeff, can we discuss whether some given statement, or the mental attitude it reflects, is racist, without in the process calling the speaker a racist?

    PatHMV (003aa1)

  50. “No idea what you’re talking about. My records indicate: screenshot shared March 28. De-escalation reached March 30.

    Period.”

    Yeah, I get that, you’ve said the very same thing yet again.

    Would it be that hard to then say you haven’t talked serious shit behind the scenes since then?

    Just tell me that you haven’t talked serious shit behind the scenes after that date, I’ll let it go.

    [note: released from moderation filter. --Stashiu]

    bh (pendleton) (7f8d26)

  51. I should add, Jeff, that your defense to your accusation of RAAAACISM against Patterico has thus far been two-fold. First, you claim it doesn’t matter, this was many months ago, and you didn’t leave it up for very long. Second, you claim that it’s no different from what Patterico did to RS McCain.

    Except that, as Patterico has pointed out, McCain’s statement (which he did FINALLY admit to having made) clearly was a statement about race and racism. McCain said that it was “NOT RACISM” for someone to have a “natural revulsion” to viewing images of interracial kissing and such. The most charitable explanation for that is that he was referring not to a revulsion at seeing blacks and whites being intimate with one another, but only at having such images shoved down their throats by a media cabal. Alternatively, he may have been trying to show a distinction between harboring some un-acted-upon racist views, and acting on such views by discriminating against other cases through legal or economic methods.

    In either event, he was discussing race and what he did and did not think constitutes “racism” (his word, in that instance). Should we not be allowed to discuss, then, whether he is right, or even what he meant by that? Standing alone, the statement seemed “racist” to most of Patterico’s commenters. The ACTUAL statement, not paraphrases of the statement made by Patterico.

    PatHMV (003aa1)

  52. Ah yes; it’s “code words”. Patterico didn’t ‘say’ money grubbing, but he meant it. Just as the extreme Tea Party protestors didn’t call the president the N-word, but they were thinkin’ it; right?

    It comes down to this: Patterico said “You’re full of crap, Goldstein,” and Goldstein — whose ego obviously cannot absorb such a blow — played the card in defense: “You’re an anti-Semite, Patterico; therefore, your opinion of me being ‘full of crap’ is invalid”.

    Icy Texan (a14421)

  53. More teapots!

    John Lynch (40a3b1)

  54. Thanks for making me part of an update, Patterico! And I believe that Goldstein IS against that sort of sophistry.

    Except when it applies to him.

    Refer back to your Paul Anka link. He — J.G. — is the only one on-stage that counts. It matters not if he’s wrong on a particular issue; he’s right by default, because in his world (his blog) he’s numero uno. The anti-Semitism tag is merely a convenient arrow to shoot at the opposition.

    “You might be right; but, because your opinion opposes my own, I have no choice but to knock you down in order to make my views seem more plausible.”

    Icy Texan (a14421)

  55. The one thing this three-way exchange illustrates is how such pathetic sorts as the current administration gain power. Because he people who should be getting out the word are instead consumed in a pissing match over minutiae.

    Pat, you really need to get over this purity test business. A person can be put off by inter-racial imagery without being racist. The goal is not to make everybody love everybody else. That goes against the essential nature of humanity and only the Marxists believe in human perfectibility. The goal is tolerance. A functioning society in which nobody regards another as inferior just because of the weather where their ancestors lived.

    The fools who thought busing kids to schools in distant neighborhoods would fix anything did far more damage than those who just wanted to be left alone and leave others alone.

    epobirs (613ba7)

  56. That made-up quote in #52 clearly reflects the influence that the Dilbert comic strip has had on my life during the past 10 years.

    Icy Texan (a14421)

  57. Me, I look at the context. If a guy had a history of singling out Jews for criticism, particularly on stereotypical grounds, this could easily be part of a picture of carefully-displayed antisemitism, even though the comment isn’t antisemitic in isolation.

    But I don’t know of a: any such history, or b: anybody, including Goldstein, who has claimed that there is such a history.

    It fails.

    Joel Rosenberg (677e59)

  58. 22.Comment by Jeff G. on 12/14 @ 2:25 am #

    Oh. In case you guys hadn’t yet seen the depths of my perfidy.

    I’m going to have a beer, finish watching The Third Man, get a good night’s sleep, then decide in the morning whether or not I wish to destroy a man completely and utterly.

    Does anybody know the code words for “paranoid delusions of grandeur seldom found outside chronic abuse of methamphetamines or tertiary syphilis”?

    nk (df76d4)

  59. Always be wary of conservatives who claim to be friends of jews from some sort of ideological angle. Darleen over there has jews divided into real and fake based on their religious and political beliefs.

    imdw (05d41e)

  60. Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.–
    Samuel Johnson

    I think these days one could easily substitute racism for patriotism in the above quote, which is why I find the race baiters like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson so loathsome. When you are losing an argument like Goldstein did, sometimes you look for any rhetorical device that is handy. In this case Goldstein’s play on his Jewish heritage which speaks volumes about Goldstein.

    I disagreed with Patterico’s take on RSM which I won’t recount here; however, there is nothing explicitly or implicitly racist in the comment about Goldstein by Patterico. Goldstein found himself in a battle that wasn’t going well and he tried a devise that has worked wonders against guilt ridden white people all over this country for the last 50 years– you said something that I don’t like, I am a minority; therefore you said it because you dislike my group and I am going to shame you so that you never do it again and thereby gain the upper hand. It didn’t work on Patterico. Good for him. He is right to call out Goldstein.

    BT (74cbec)

  61. This is all well and good, but shouldn’t we be discussing the fact that Glenn Beck has still not denied the rape and murder of a young girl in 1990?

    imdw (7dd54a)

  62. imdw,

    You really need to just retract that and stay out of this. Darleen is not a racist and the last one to say that here won’t be back. You certainly don’t have the credibility to make the accusation. Seriously, just retract and step away.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  63. And stop trying to threadjack. You want to talk about Beck? Start a blog and indulge your inner-psychotic there.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  64. Code words, dog whistles and rich chewy irony. It sounds like Jeff G. is arguing from the left, except he’s not. Words mean something.

    Let’s take a poll! Does anybody see anything wrong with this picture?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  65. I used to really feel bad for Jeff when he got stalked by that moonbat, Deb Frisch. Maybe that whole experience sent him off the deep end?

    Crush Liberalism (2b09b0)

  66. Stash, I’m out of line, but why not delete that threadjack?

    And I want to note that Beck won. He owns the website that made up that lie. It was this sick joke that ‘Beck makes accusations… so this is our accusation that we think will put Beck in his place… yes we know it’s untrue’.

    Jeff G said something Patterico did was wrong: suggest someone is racist by pointing out a totally racist comment and calling that racist. Jeff G had also called someone racist, but went further by doing so over nothing but paranoia or dishonesty (rather than an example of racism). I see a parallel. Some people want both sides of every argument. IMDW and Jeff G are peas in a pod.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  67. “And I want to note that Beck won. He owns the website that made up that lie.”

    He went to a foreign court to shut down the site. He lost in that foreign court. Then the owner of the website — one of many — gave it to him.

    Just to be clear, I think you all should stop spreading rumors that glenn beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

    imdw (ee9fce)

  68. There is a campaign to prevent anyone from criticizing Obama. They have come out and admitted that if you do, they will repeatedly make up the most heinous lies.

    The origin of the ‘rapes and murders children’ smear was Scientology. This was their ‘fair game’ tactic. If anyone criticized L Ron hubbard, they would go to your neighborhood and put fake notices that a child molester/killer was living in the neighborhood, with the critics picture.

    IMDW, as a human being, how do you live with yourself? You are so opposed to criticizing the democrats in government that you will pass along things you are know are invented fabrications? The court got this website owner to admit the story was invented in his head, with no evidence. You say Beck lost… he didn’t lose! The site owner’s main battle was to stay anonymous. As soon as Beck knew his name,, he had all the leverage he needed to get EVERY SINGLE thing he sued for. No, the court didn’t give the website to Beck… Beck owns it anyway because you can’t make that kind of accusation anonymously. Even in Europe, such a behavior… your behavior… is well accepted as totally dishonorable.

    The parallel to Jeff G is obvious, though I don’t want to pile on jeff because he’s got some kind of mental situation I an genuinely sorry to see. You are mad at Beck for making accusations you don’t believe… even though Beck provides evidence and puts his reputation behind his claims. So you respond by doing something that has every element you claim was wrong, and adding in many much more wrong elements. that’s your idea of justice?

    Beck’s just an opinion journalist. Telling people he rapes and kills kids is not reasonable.

    Stash, if you delete his comments, I want you to delete my responses too.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  69. Ah, you already did. Please delete my comments. I apologize for feeding a troll and causing trouble.. I’m easily provoked, I’m afraid.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  70. I’m not deleting his comments or yours Dustin. Comments are rarely deleted here.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  71. Dustin

    > If anyone criticized L Ron hubbard, they would go to your neighborhood and put fake notices that a child molester/killer was living in the neighborhood, with the critics picture.

    Would that include people who hated Battlefield Earth? That would explain a lot.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  72. “The origin of the ‘rapes and murders children’ smear was Scientology. ”

    Actually it is Gilbert Godfried’s roast of Bob Saget.

    “As soon as Beck knew his name,, he had all the leverage he needed to get EVERY SINGLE thing he sued for. ”

    He didn’t get it. He lost his attempt to get the domain name transferred to him. But then the owner of the domain name transferred it to Beck anyway. After Beck lost his attempt to go to a foreign court and chill speech

    imdw (c3c479)

  73. imdw,

    I am easily provoked, but I already made my case, and everyone is shaking their heads at the sorry example of a person you turned out to be. I am satisfied with my prior comments about you.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  74. Don’t feed him Dustin. He thrives on it. You’ve let him bait you into jacking the thread which is all he wanted. He doesn’t care about being right or winning an argument. Now that you know that, ignore him. Thanks in advance. ;)

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  75. “I am satisfied with my prior comments about you.”

    Here’s a link that quotes from and further links to the international court’s ruling against Beck:

    http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/glenn-becks-udrp-complaint-gets-smack-down

    imdw (c3c479)

  76. You know, it really did suck when Pajamas Media canceled their advertising network.

    A LOT of conservative bloggers were burned by it quite directly. Since PJM has a lot of the moderates on the blogosphere (hell, Charles Johnson was a co-founder, and he’s straight up liberal), I think this is part of the fundamental crack in the right’s blogosphere.

    It was a bad idea from the start. Too much ‘you’re not in the club’ mentality. Also, the inflated ad revenue gave me the impression that someone was helping fund the right blogosphere in a Soros-esque way. I’m glad that’s over with, but the bad blood is still with us. If you try to earn your money blogging, you are going to repeatedly have instability and problems with people who aren’t linking you. You are going to be compromised.

    There’s a reason the only bloggers willing to call out RSM’s awful quote or his recent argument defending it have dayjobs. I think the best model for a conservative blog is a few colleagues sharing a space. Volokh, Hot Air, Powerline. I’ve never heard any of these bloggers (like 15-20 people) tell me they need help paying for their basic needs. They can happily challenge my day to day views, which over time probably makes more revenue because the product is more interesting, but in the short term, probably costs a bit.

    Patterico didn’t find this situation to be desperate enough to call for personal attacks or fabrication. The cost for that independence is that he can’t blog all day long and we have to ‘suffer’ through different professionals talking about different things.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  77. On the other hand, the right is quick to criticize other right bloggers. It’s usually not as ugly as this, but a conservative blogger spitting out lies will be ostracized very quickly. That’s really good. If you can’t back up a birther theory, you are lampooned.

    If you go to KOS or Democrat underground, and don’t think 9/11 was an inside job, you’re lampooned. If you doubt some crazy conspiracy against Palin, you’re ‘the enemy’. There’s so much more rigor when you are constantly being sniped.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  78. Let’s make “Jeff Goldstein: Race-Card Player” a household phrase.

    Bring. It. On.

    Comment by Patterico — 12/14/2009 @ 12:42 am

    This could be the new “manshake” :)

    Suggested insults for JeffG that mostly avoid ‘code words’ that he could misinterpret and call you an antisemite:

    - douche
    - douchebag
    - Elif air ab dinikh
    - jerkwad
    - pussy

    Anyway, shouldn’t we be discussing how imdw hasn’t denied eating babies?

    carlitos (57cfe1)

  79. [...] Hebrew National hot dog: “Maybe I’m just imagining things, but is that sauerkraut looking at me kinda funny…?”* [...]

    If instead of a race-baiting, pseudo-intellectual fraud, Jeff Goldstein were an all-beef Hebrew National footlong hot dog (38c333)

  80. Patrick: In my comments section, you did indeed call Jeff “money-grubbing.” Along with “fraud” (many times) and “liar” (many times).

    In fact, I had to suspend my rules against ad hominem arguments on that comments thread.

    Here’s the card that Jeff did not play during the “RSM” debate: although the original quotation was one that discussed a “natural revulsion” that many might feel toward interracial marriage, Jeff never (to my knowledge, and I read hundreds upon hundreds of comments about this issue/”issue”) brought up the fact that his own marriage is an interracial marriage.

    And I must say that there is something a bit distasteful about an attorney begrudging a stay-at-home-dad an effort to make a few bucks on the side from his writing.

    Little Miss Attila / Joy McCann (3aa071)

  81. As distasteful as a stay-at-home-dad challenging a dad who is an attorney to a wrestling match, Little Miss Attila? http://krites.blogspot.com/2009/12/unemployable-with-nothing-better-to-do.html

    nk (df76d4)

  82. Patrick: In my comments section, you did indeed call Jeff “money-grubbing.” Along with “fraud” (many times) and “liar” (many times).

    In fact, I had to suspend my rules against ad hominem arguments on that comments thread.

    Here’s the card that Jeff did not play during the “RSM” debate: although the original quotation was one that discussed a “natural revulsion” that many might feel toward interracial marriage, Jeff never (to my knowledge, and I read hundreds upon hundreds of comments about this issue/”issue”) brought up the fact that his own marriage is an interracial marriage.

    And I must say that there is something a bit distasteful about an attorney begrudging a stay-at-home-dad an effort to make a few bucks on the side from his writing.

    Comment by Little Miss Attila / Joy McCann

    What’s it matter that Jeff has an interracial marriage? He didn’t care about the racism charge, he cared about defending a friend, just as you do. You admitted from the start how you prefer to drink beers with one side of this debate.

    It’s a clique. We know that. Jeff’s the one calling people racist, not Patterico. Jeff’s the one threatening violence, not Patterico.

    If you have some rule against ad hominem attacks, you let it be broken on both sides.

    Something distasteful about an attorney having a problem with a money bleg? Class warfare? Are you simply another LGF? Seems likely to me. It’s about who you’re pals with, not what’s right and what’s wrong. but you completely miss the point Patterico never denied that he said that. He isn’t the liar here. Whether he did or not, what Jeff did, in lying about antisemitism, was actually wrong and eclipses the rest of their debate about money or honesty.

    Patterico clearly doesn’t have a problem with Jeff making money… he has a problem with Jeff making money by being a dishonest clown. And has a problem with being called an antisemite.

    Little Miss Attila, you are being a complete hypocrite. You put words in Patterico’s mouth, saying he f”ailed” in his crusade the label RSM as a racist. And now you defending a violent person calling Patterico a racist.

    Why do you act like this? Can’t you apologize for your own misrepresentations?

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  83. My cell phone makes it hard to read what I’m typing, so that came out a bit messy.

    but here’s my point: Little Miss Attila was part of the race baiting problem. She’s not some moderator… she’s one of the thugs lying about what Patterico said. She seems reasonable enough, and I think she simply is too caught up in who her friends are. She’s friends with Jeff G? That dude should be institutionalized before he hurts anyone. He’s got absolutely no moral high ground. This class warfare attack of hers makes me sick, too.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  84. What is it with people who, when called out for an inappropriate comment, then say it was a joke, or it was ironic, or some equally stupid thing?

    If they have to explain themselves, maybe it’s time to go back to school for a refreseher course in writing.

    Rochf (ae9c58)

  85. Well Jeff’s got the post up asking if Patterico is an anti-semite, riffing off the format of the RSM posts. The problem with Jeff’s post is that the chain of events it portrays is not what happened, so the whole post is based on a lie, typical for Jeff.

    “6.Comment by Jeff G. on 12/14 @ 11:49 am #

    However, it’s quite possible he’s made anti-semitic statements, animated by anti-semitic thoughts that are deeply seated in his “subconscious.” Where evidently they don’t count as his thoughts.

    On the other hand, I do find myself concerned that he reintroduced the idea of “money-grubbing” without any provocation. Me, when I hear “language can only be language when it is tied to intent,” I don’t immediately jump to manipulative “money grubber.” But then, I might not have the same deeply seated thoughts animating me as he does.”

    Incorrect, he reintroduced your allegations of calling him an antisemite and got you to back down on your allegations that he introduced any jewish concepts into his original comment, leaving your allegation baseless projection, whereupon you lamely tried to claim it was a gag or something, for teh IRONY.

    It was just another Goldstein lie exposed.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  86. I was accused of anti semitism once. It was due to a budget issue. I wanted to spend more than my colleague, and said so in completely normal business speak. Absolutely no reference to Jewish ancestry because I didn’t even know this person was Jewish.

    Lo and behold, a mutual friend told me this person was saying I was ‘clearly’ being antisemitic.

    I was enraged at the time. I thought my professional career was in jeopardy. It wasn’t and no one took this person seriously for the short few months she was still with us. But later I heard her repeat many stereotypes about Jews. Jewish mothers, Jewish money stuff, bla bla bla. That’s where this came from with Jeff, too. He actually buys into all this racism crap.

    When he hears ‘money grubber’ he does not even consider that he was in fact grubbing money. He hears money grubber and recalls his deeply held hatred of Jews. Yeah, i know, he’s apparently Jewish. Doesn’t matter, sadly. Some people just don’t get it.

    the only person for whom I see evidence of hatred of Jews is the one who immediately thinks of them when money is mentioned.

    Same dude who wants to hurt people. Swell guy. Must be a real charming father.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  87. Dustin – Your comments seem to becoming more and more irrational. It is possible to disagree with someone without becoming what you are railing against.

    JD (b537f4)

  88. JD – I mentioned timb and Joe on another thread.

    Dustin – I’m sort of with JD, perhaps take a little breath. JD still comments at PW. I did for a number of years until the uncontrolled trollage and ugliness earlier this year.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  89. Dustin

    LMA is not a “thug”.
    Please. Granted, she started to take sides about 2/3 of the way into the cage match, but “thug”?

    What’s your deal?
    You’ve been spritzing voluminous snippets of well written “oh my gosh” kerosene on this; ahem *dust-up* from the get go.

    This whole thing is a mess.

    I don’t know who or what drew Patrick into this RSM thing, and I don’t know how JeffG got involved… but friends of either or both should be trying to limit the spread of bullshit.
    I got caught up into it myself and fuck if I know how to turn it off.
    It’s been ugly now for a while.

    I actually teared up a little when I reread some of Patricks stuff… he was talking about seeing a Disney movie… and I just pictured kids sitting next to a dad who was still popping out retorts on the IPhone.
    I saw the time stamps for posts… how much sleep and family time was lost over bullshit and I got sad.

    Let’s not add any more fuel to either sides fire
    OK?

    It isn’t healthy for either of these guys to keep going. If we all back off and stop stirring the shit it’ll be better for Patrick and yes, JeffG.

    Steve

    SteveG (909b57)

  90. What SteveG said is quite true.

    JD (560084)

  91. nope, JD. I’m not wrong at all. If you care to make an argument, I’m happy to discuss it with you.

    Jeff G ain’t coming back. He threatens violence when he has disagreements. He’s a criminal. His reaction to the money comment as ‘obviously’ antisemitic reminds me of someone else I knew who had a problem with Jewish stereotypes. Say that’s irrational all you like. Indeed I’m making a major leap, though I doubt you have a better guess than I do.

    Little Miss Attila has a lot of fans, I am sure, and I am sure her supporters really like her style of argument. But she’s is a thug. She put words in Patterico’s mouth. Read her blog. She was simply dishonest. She pointed out who was in her beer clique.

    JD, I think you’re the one who is being irrational.

    Steve G wants to judge me… that’s his business. but there’s simply no equivilance between Patterico, even if you completely disagree with his arguments, and Jeff G, a race baiting thug who, with LMA, lied instead of presenting a fair argument because she took sides instantly.

    Steve’s wrong on the facts, JD, and I think you are too. While I do want Jeff to get help, I do not want him restored to any kind of blogospheric prominence.

    He’s just like, or worse than Deb Frisch (worse because he is knows what it’s like to be the target of violent threats). Deb lost her career over this.

    Steve, you say you dont know what drew Patterico into this. He explains this a couple of times. Why are you telling me how to characterize a discussion you don’t even bother to read?

    I know you think Jeff’s really cool. That’s because you either don’t understand the situation or you tolerate scummy things.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  92. Sometimes points just make themselves, and need no further help.

    JD (d71a7a)

  93. Oh, and I’m not becoming what I’m railing against.

    I don’t have any problem with someone guessing that RSM is a racist (I guess otherwise). I’m not nearly as close to Patterico’s position as you might think in virtue alone of my supposed anger at those who lie during a sensitive debate.

    I have no problem relating a story about my experience with the kind of person who would leap to a ‘you’re racist’ charge. I think those people have strange views on race, generally. Could be wrong, but I have no problem making that guess.

    What you think I’m becoming, I already am! Someone who is willing to make arguments, see them shot down, admit when I’m wrong, and carry on. I am not a statue trying to prove how brilliant I am.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  94. Dustin

    I don’t think Jeff is really cool.
    Not in this anyway.
    I like some of his writing, I’ve met him (briefly), but I’m not a sycophant…

    Sentences directed at me that start with: “I know you think….” aren’t going anywhere.
    Because you don’t know what I think… so please don’t speak for me.

    That said, Patrick has pointed out to me…. several times at least that I am misunderstanding him and his argument(s).
    Hard to believe I got that “A” in reading comprehension back in 2nd grade huh?

    I can disagree with Patrick (maybe even strongly *gasp*) and still be willing to learn.
    I do the same with JeffG.

    Hopefully Patrick will come home cool and JeffG will find his cool and it’ll all settle down.

    SteveG (909b57)

  95. Really now. What gives with this endless vendetta? This is using up valuable cycles on something that nobody outside the skull of the instigator gives a flying drizzly lump of excrement about.

    It’s making this whole blog enstupideded and dumbth.

    Wise up and move it along.

    vanderleun (444f85)

  96. Congratulations – you’ve discovered that Jeff Goldstein is a stone moron who knows just enough scholarly gibberish to surround his ridiculous ideas about life and human nature in a cloud pseudo-intellectual justifications. He wishes he could beat people up, but he can’t. Same as it ever was!

    beetroot (f99191)

  97. You falsely accused him of making a death threat. Give it up, already. Your hands are unclean.

    Dave (8353d4)

  98. SteveG, thanks for your reasonable reply. I agree that Jeff G is a brilliant and funny writer. A hilarious man. Likely, LMA is right that he’s a good man to have a beer with. But he’s threatening my friends with violence. I can’t tell you what rules to live by, but he has broken one of my basic rules. If he repents (sorry for that language, but I’m trying to be honest) what he has done here, then I will forgive him. Otherwise, he’s the kind of monster who takes my charity when I and everyone else was outraged someone would threaten him, and then threatens a bunch of people. A lot of people are refusing to tolerate my point of view on this, and I think that’s because they are morally confused by their personal like of Jeff G.

    Dave, you didn’t read Patterico admitting he could have been wrong about that, but indeed, I criticized him for that and he owned the mistake honorably.

    There’s nothing to “give up,” though. Patterico banned someone who indeed was threatening to break people like toothpicks and being a prick. He had every right. Patterico is not going to come here and threaten to hurt you. He might ban you if you act like Jeff did (not that there is any indication you are that kind of scumbag).

    Jeff G is dishonorable. He deserves ridicule. He threatened Scott, Nk, and many others. He lied repeatedly. He made up al sharpton style race charges.

    Patterico isn’t perfect or anything, but compared to that, his hands are clean. He wanted to have a talk about race, and because he wanted to do this with examples on both sides, no caveat was enough for the fans of RSM. I thought earlier this was because RSM had been unfairly smeared by LGF. I’m sure there’s some of that (this is why I initially criticized Patterico for bringing up a hard to verify quote(yeah, I know, that’s hard to believe now)).

    Jeff G’s supporters are simply being unreasonable. Patterico, right or wrong, is being HONORABLE. He’s not lying or threatening to hurt people or making up smears. He’s not taking someone’s candor and spinning it in reverse. he’s not saying ‘I like this person, so stop attacking him’ or the converse.

    Jeff G and Patterico are simply not of similar moral standing.

    Another unreasonable attack is that people keep saying those criticizing Jeff G are ‘freaking out’, ‘hysterical’, ‘irrational’. Look at JD’s remarks. I make structured arguments, and he ignores that basic rational approach by calling me irrational. He doesn’t take even a single premise or reasoning of mine apart… he calls me a name and ignores the argument. That’s unreasonable. You don’t see me treating him the way he’s treating me. I see JD in other threads using this type of attack on liberals. Just insult them and ignore their point, rinse and repeat, thread after thread. He can be very funny about it, too, and I certainly am unbothered by it, but it’s a lot like Jeff’s blog… useless laughing anger. He’s never going to get one of the liberals to concede or learn anything… something that happens on Patterico’s blog occasionally.

    I’m not mad at you supporters of JEff G. I think he’s disgusting trash and there’s no excusing his actions, but I know people like that always have some fans who see hate from the left and want to respond in kind. Go for it. Have fun.

    I had a very productive day yesterday. Having good coffee and chiming in from time to time about Jeff’s latest ugliness really kept me charged up and working. It was pretty awesome. That’s not obsession, though.

    I wanted to thank Steve for not being a douchebag about disagreeing with me. Let’s just keep this crap out of the substantive threads, so I can enjoy life not thinking about Jeff G’s IRL felonies. Thank goodness I am completely anonymous, right? He’s probably not the only dweeb who would love to hurt me and my family for simply making my arguments.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  99. “Having good coffee and chiming in from time to time about Jeff’s latest ugliness really kept me charged up and working. It was pretty awesome.”

    Small minds seem to be endlessly amused by small things.

    vanderleun (444f85)

  100. [...] the idea of “money-grubbing” for a second time, without any provocation, seven months after his first stab at tethering the adjective to a Jew with who he was having a heated disagreement. (Not that any [...]

    Is Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey anti-semitic? (38c333)

  101. Jeff G is a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    jeffgsucks (90bd00)

  102. [...] needs to press on, despite Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey’s rather transparent attempts to blame the victim of his (potentially) anti-semitic statements for airing them in the first [...]

    Is Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey anti-semitic? Part 2 (38c333)

  103. [...] Even my two parodic posts — written in response to Frey’s prominent expose about how “Jeff Goldstein Plays The Race Card” (itself based on deleted comments from 7 months ago) — used Frey’s own tactics, and his [...]

    Now I hear I’m being accused of altering a Patrick Frey comment (38c333)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4614 secs.