So this morning he puts up a post to defend his post defending his original post. His defense is worse than lame. He uses the same tactics as his fellow conservative bloggers, which had already been described here.
First he links to others who think that this is actually insightful. They must think insightful and offensive are the same thing. He pulls out the lame "They're really out to get me because I'm a conservative" links, as well as the "They're the anti-Semitic ones, not me!" links. Our own sage, Brawler, single-handedly, and with the aid of Seth Zlotacha's groundwork, lays to rest these foolish claims. You can find his posts here and here. As a Thanksgiving bonus, he also writes about the kind of people that actually support Sykes, and to whom Sykes is proud to link.
This pretty much wipes out 90% of his defense. Jim Rowen, who wrote this masterpiece, gets smeared by Sykes. Rowen showing more grace than most of Sykes supporters combines, gives his response to Sykes' mud-flinging. Being as generous as the Brawler, Mr. Rowen also gives us some insight into the Interfaith Alliance, further dispelling Sykes' fabrications.
At the end of Sykes' festival of falsehoods, he writes:
It all makes you wonder: is the left capable of making an argument that does not involve (1) calling conservatives Nazis, (2) playing the victim card, or (3) using the word "hypocrisy"?
To respond: (1) No one ever called Sykes a Nazi, at least not regarding this issue (not to mention that the right uses that term so much as in feminazis, econazis, etc., (2) no one has played the victim card but Sykes, and he did it by conflating a polite request into "a demand" and "censorship" of his free speech, which is ironic since Pundit Nation wants Sykes to leave the posts up to show the world what kind of person he really is and (3) well, he doesn't like us calling his behavior for what it is, perhaps he would prefer the terms bigotry, crocodile tears, deceit, deception, dishonesty, duplicity, falsity, fraud, hooey, peitism, phoniness, mockery, insincerity, sanctimoniousness, sham, speciousness, two-facedness and/or unctuousness.
And, Charlie, it is usually a bad sign for your argument, when you are reduced to name-calling and lying.