Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

“Until such time as the world ends, we will act as though it intends to spin on.”

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

There are some who say that there are too many strawmen arguments on this blog.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Innocent people don’t delay justice.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

Republicans don’t trust women.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. keep building.

You cannot love your country only when you win.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

One of our two political parties is a cult whose leader admires Vladimir Putin.

“Joe Biden deserved better than he got from some folks in his own party.”

You are either for trump or for democracy. Pick one.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

I like political parties that aren’t owned by foreign adversaries.

Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.

Since we are repeating ourselves, let me just say fuck that.

Stop using mental illness to avoid talking about armed white supremacy.

Balloon Juice, where there is always someone who will say you’re doing it wrong.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

The press swings at every pitch, we don’t have to.

Giving up is unforgivable. ~Joe Biden

Relentless negativity is not a sign that you are more realistic.

You are here: Home / Open Threads / Excellent Links / A Beauchamp Review

Reader Interactions

34Comments

  1. 1.

    Gold Star for Robot Boy

    For an analogy: Suppose a conservative magazine ran an article about the baneful effects of same-sex marriage on general attitudes toward matrimony. Suppose it opened with an account of a conversation overheard by the author on a college campus in Massachusetts, a few weeks after that state’s Supreme Court ruled that same-sex unions must be legalized, in which several college students favorably discussed polygamy and group marriage. Suppose some questions were raised about the accuracy of that account, and then it turned out that the conversation did take place — only it was a month before the same-sex marriage ruling and it happened not in Massachusetts but in Virginia. Would anyone consider that a trivial error?

    Well, yeah.

  2. 2.

    brock o. baum

    John Cole links to an error-filled, piece of obfuscation that re-iterates his points which have been already knocked down..and thinks it gives his arguments support..

    …all sorts of logical fallacies there…

    …John Cole..you are wrong on every level…yet you persist…let it go…move onto your next mistake..

  3. 3.

    John Cole

    John Cole links to an error-filled, piece of obfuscation that re-iterates his points which have been already knocked down..and thinks it gives his arguments support..

    …all sorts of logical fallacies there…

    …John Cole..you are wrong on every level…yet you persist…let it go…move onto your next mistake..

    Did you even read it?

    And I have no policy yet, but I might have to make up one to ban people who abuse ellipse the way you do.

  5. 5.

    John Cole

    A pretty well known troll who makes his way around a number of sites. His name is widely known at Atrios and others.

    Funny thing is, he is so dumb he thinks he is trolling a left-wing site.

  7. 7.

    ThymeZone

    John Cole..you are wrong on every level…yet you persist…let it go…move onto your next mistake

    Like letting you post here?

    BTW, not even the people who got C’s in Creative Writing used the ellipsis as much as you …. do.

    You remind me of the Bob and Ray “Slow Talkers of America” routine.

    Say it slowly. Slow ….. talkers …..of ……America.

    Classic funny fifty years ago. Watching you do it is like watching a dog lick its butt. Funny for a second, but then you really have to look away.

  8. 8.

    Hyperion

    i read the whole thing. after much “on-one-hand, on-the-other-hand”, she agrees pretty much with JC.

    i notice that more and more, MANY are explicitly acknowledging the unwillingness of some right wing crazies to face reality. rick moran has a post about the surge that mentions the downside of true believers shouting down folks with…facts. (hope those ellipses don’t offend anyone).

    so will RW Nuthouse get added to the blog roll? i mentioned it on the new blogroll thread but it does not appear now. it reminds me of B-J three years ago.

  9. 9.

    Wilfred

    Boy, thanks for the update. This Beauchamp Paradox is one tough problem. I’ve already used up two composition books with timetables and diagrams. My sentence structure is failing. Was it Kuwait or Iraq? Who ate a rock? Hickory dickory dock, did Matt Sanchez s… Who dropped a brockabomb?

  10. 10.

    Ted

    I read Cathy’s post, and it’s well-reasoned and balanced. Still, I would rather hear from someone who at least served on the ground in Beauchamp’s area in Iraq at least at some point in the Iraq war. There are many things I’m sure wouldn’t make a bit of sense to all of us who’ve never even been there, but actually go on.

    Regardless, John and Cathy have a good point: none of this is earth-shattering. By the wingnutosphere’s reaction, you’d think it was another Abu Ghraib. Playing with corpses, killing dogs for no reason, etc, are disgusting, but not something you can use to say that the Iraq war is destroying the Army. Talk about deployment time, troop armor, recruitment rates, and VA care, that’s pretty much all you need.

  11. 11.

    marc page

    Funny thing is, he is so dumb he thinks he is trolling a left-wing site.

    Unfortunately, any site that does not parrot four-square support for Mr. Bush (also known as ‘Dear Leader’) is ipso fracking facto “a left-wing site.”

  12. 12.

    Bruce Moomaw

    I find her pretty convincing. And — as she notes — the fact that one of Beauchamp’s questionable TNR stories concerns a boy who supposedly had his tongue cut out by barbaric insurgents for talking to Americans proves by itself that, regardless of his accuracy, neither he nor TNR is engaged in a conspiracy to Traitorously Weaken Our War Morale. (But then, as she also points out, at this point the Remaining 28 Percent will grab at anything. Quoting a line from the old original “Outer Limits” series that’s stuck in my head: “When one has nothing but straws to grasp at, one grasps at straws.”)

  13. 13.

    myiq2xu

    Regarding the post by brock, ellipses marks are generally used to denote where something has been deleted.

    Usually, however, one doesn’t delete all of the cogent parts of their argument.

  14. 14.

    marc page

    There are “cogent parts” to brock’s (for lack of a better word) “argument” ?

  15. 15.

    RSA

    none of this is earth-shattering

    Tempest in a teapot is right. Beauchamp’s veracity aside, have none of the outraged commentators on the right read a war memoir? Or even looked at, say, old magazines that came out during wartime? In Thank God for the Atom Bomb, for example, Paul Fussell shows a photo, from a WW II era issue of Life magazine, of a woman looking thoughtfully at a Japanese skull sitting on her desk, a gift from her sailor boyfriend. That kind of shit was mainstream back then.

  16. 16.

    Dug Jay

    Which, of course, means it is reasonable and doesn’t have any name calling, dripping sarcasm, and bitter ad hominem attacks, and as such probably doesn’t even count as blogging.

    Well, those words certainly don’t describe any posts that Messrs. Tim or Cole put up.

  17. 17.

    The Pirate

    I do take issue with the idea that “Beauchamp and his persecutors deserve each other.” Beauchamp is guilty of, at most, a little embellishment. That hardly puts him on the same level as the barbarian hordes calling for his blood.

  20. 20.

    Bruce Moomaw

    Yeah, Dug Jay. It’s absolutely outrageous of Cole and Tim to respond to hysterical idiocy by pointing out that it’s hysterical idiocy. Couldn’t they be a little more tactful?

  22. 22.

    jake

    A random thought: When a moonbat dares to mention the clusterfuck in Iraq or the clusterfuck at Walter Reed or any other war related clusterfuck, it seems that at least one person who identifies as Right oriented will reply with some variation of “War is hell (get over it).”

    Why did STB’s writings prompt the LIES ALL LIES response rather than the WiH response?

  23. 23.

    John Redworth

    Did you even read it?

    he doesn’t have to read it since he has inside information that Beauchamp admitted to lying.

    Does anyone else get the feeling that Brock has the logical fallacy page on Wiki bookmarked and randomly pulls out a term in hopes of sounding smart?

  26. 26.

    marc page

    marc page Says:
    brock o. baum:

    here’s a “logical fallacy” to add to the list you just looked up on Wikipedia:

    You.

    August 3rd, 2007 at 6:05 pm

  27. 27.

    The Other Steve

    On a side note… you might want to see this followup on the votevets thing.

    Apparently, the guy didn’t just show up at that one event, he’d tried to get into an argument with Wes Clark at dinner the day prior. Clark told him it was illegal to be at a political event in uniform.

    So the next day at the panel, the same guy showed up. The talking him down wasn’t about his point of view. It was about the fact that he was in uniform, in violation of the law.

    I’m eagerly awaiting the Beauchamp attackers going after this guy, because the law is the law, and wrong is wrong.

    Right?

  29. 29.

    cleek

    Right?

    wrong.

    the law must be used in the service of The Cause before it’s a law. otherwise, it’s just a quaint anachronism.

  31. 31.

    John S.

    Well, those words certainly don’t describe any posts that Messrs. Tim or Cole put up.

    I get it…they are dirty Frenchies!

    Good one.

  32. 32.

    mds

    By the wingnutosphere’s reaction, you’d think it was another Abu Ghraib.

    No, because Abu Ghraib was no big deal to these people, who joined Senator Inhofe in being primarily “outraged by the outrage.” It’s the disclosing of information that hasn’t been run through the regime’s propaganda filters that remains the true offense.

  33. 33.

    buzz

    “Clark told him it was illegal to be at a political event in uniform.”

    If Clark told him that, he was wrong. It isn’t illegal.

    “So the next day at the panel, the same guy showed up. The talking him down wasn’t about his point of view. It was about the fact that he was in uniform, in violation of the law.”
    Again, wrong. What law do you think you are talking about?

    “I’m eagerly awaiting the Beauchamp attackers going after this guy, because the law is the law, and wrong is wrong.”
    If it was the law. Which is isnt.

    Do you really think any of this would have come up if he had denounced the surge and Bush instead?

Comments are closed.