All I did was point out some uncontested facts about his expenses claims which exposed exactly the sort of person he is, and the sort of people you are to take his opinions seriously.

As for my opinions, I take it as a badge of pride that scum like you have no time for them – it would worry me terribly if you did.

I am merely pointing out the content of his character.

But that is the point, resistor. It is an entirely illegitimate line of argument. You are attacking the person and not his argument. This is called an ad hominem fallacy. No-one will take your position remotely seriously if you persist in this.

What is more, MacShane’s position on other issues may not be to your liking, but unless you can show some connection between these positions and the arguments he presents in his letter, it looks very much like you are simply engaging in smearing yourself.

I take it you want people to take your position seriously? At the moment all it looks like is that you have absolutely no defence for your line and, instead, you are engaging in whataboutery and desperate innuendo to make up for the fact that you have no argument whatsoever.

I am merely pointing out the content of his character. Perhaps you’d like to defend his warmongering, smearing of anti-Islamists and his ludicrous expenses claims.

I am merely pointing out the content of his character. Perhaps you’d like to defend his warmongering, smearing of anti-Zionists and his ludicrous expenses claims.

Exactly what has Joan Smith’s piece to the Guardian on the integrity of MPs to do with the issues raised in this thread?

Again, perhaps you might tell us what you think of the content of MacShane’s letter?

Somehow the idea of a millenarian Islamist quoting Alice in Wonderland is both weird and completely appropriate at the same time.

I’m sure she has completely principled reasons for writing her ludicrous piece in the Guardian in defence of ‘honest’ MPs.

Like the White Queen in Alice in Wonderland I can also believe six impossible things before breakfast.

It was the last paragraph of your penultimate post to which I was alluding. It is defamatory and entirely irrelevant to the content of MacShane’s letter to Amnesty International.

So, you are either incapable or unwilling to refute MacShane’s points – or perhaps both.

No problem, we did.

As for Joan Smith, read the comments below her piece in the Guardian. In comparison, I have been very restrained.

You might regard this gruesome twosome as worthy of respect and take their opinions seriously. Include me out.

It would be useful if you might comment on the contents of MacShane’s letter.

If not, then can we take it you find absolutely nothing contestable in the letter’s contents?

Might I also suggest that you tone down the possibly actionable defamatory statements you are making about people in no way connected to MacShane’s letter to Amnesty International.

I’m surprised his girlfriend is still around to write this…

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-smith/joan-smith-amnesty-shouldnt-support-men-like-moazzam-begg-1895848.html

I thought after this…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/25/mps-expenses-democracy
‘I am sick of my country and this hysteria over MPs
People have been led to believe that we are governed by a corrupt political class. This is sanctimonious nonsense’
Joan Smith guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 May 2009

…she was going to leave the country.

I suppose she couldn’t live without her boyfriend’s expenses, laptops etc.

Can I take it, then, you have no objections whatsoever to the content of MacShane’s letter to Amnesty International?

After all, you have refused to condemn it – even after been repeatedly asked to express your opinions on the substance of MacShane’s letter.

2) We can have a laugh by poking fun at ourselves and at Islamists. If you find that problematic go elsewhere.

Funny how “resistor” (like so many of his Islamist chums) does not so much attack the content of MacShane’s letter as the character of its author.

I, perhaps vainly, wonder if resistor would like to rebut what MacShane has written rather than playing the man?

Hilarious since
1 Calling him an “Islamist” is attacking him rather than the content of his post-exactly what you accuse him of doing
2 Spitoon spends its time attacking the character of Muslims via its Caption compettion or attacking things in their personal lives

And to repeat Abu Faris, do you have any comment on the substance of MacShane’s letter to Amnesty?

And finally, is Gita Sahgal going against Amnesty because she is a Zionist too?

I, perhaps vainly, wonder if resistor would like to rebut what MacShane has written rather than playing the man?’
So ‘playing the man’ is out of order? Try telling your mates at Harry’s Place. I just wanted to expose MacShane for the greedy scumbag he really is. I suppose you support his use of the expenses system to feather his (and his brother’s) nest.

MacShameless is just joining part in a Zionist witch-hunt against AI – the usual suspects are involved

Nick Cohen
Martin Bright
David Aaronovitch
David Toube
etc

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2010/02/10/a-letter-from-denis-macshane-mp-to-kate-allen-of-amnesty/

How tiresome.