“I don’t understand the concept of incentives and disincentives.”
Seriously, the notion that any of these soldiers is going to say ANYTHING, one way or another, after watching Beauchamp get busted down to PV1, have his privileges revoked, and generally having the brass up his ass with a flashlight and a baseball bat, is absurd. These guys live on a different planet than I do.
But, according to Greater Wingnuttia, the STALEMATE is broken! The truth is out! The truth, of course, being one side of a story while the other side is beaten into submission. But here is the important part- Major John Cross is saying what they want to hear, and that is what this is all about.
This is not over until Beauchamp is out of the Army and can speak without threat of punishment. He may very well say “Yes, I made the whole damned thing up, I wanted to be a writer, I lied about all of it and my buddies lied to TNR to help me out.” I would not find that implausible at all. But pretending that anything is settled while the military has Beauchamp’s balls in a vice is ridiculous. Even worse- I have a hard time believing Owens and company are that stupid, so they know that Beauchamp can’t speak freely, and they don’t care. Then again, these are the same folks who place great faith in confessions given while being tortured.
I am so sick and tired of these idiots.
I always get a kick thinking back to pre-2004 John Cole at moments like these.
“Scandal”? Bob Owens and company, if this is what scandalous is to you more than anything else going on in politics and society, you really need to get out more.
Again, a “scandal” created and perpetuated by you. Will “getting” Beauchamp fix everything? Yawnishness.
I’ve enjoyed all of your work on this issue, John. Now, if only you could get into the smug faces of Owens, Roger L. Simon, et al., and say to them what you have written here.
That I would pay to see.
Not the Senator
No wonder we’re not getting anywhere in Iraq, the troops are having their time eaten up talking to wacko gunstore clerks like “Support of Treason” Owens.
Don’t they have more important things to do?
It is far more serious to lie to an investigating officer than to perform the acts or to refuse to report the acts that Beauchamp created in “Shock Troops.” Therefore, it is in the best interests of everyone involved and interviewed (an entire company) to tell the truth, whatever that truth is.
Between 100-200 soldiers simply would not would commit a UCMJ felony to cover up what would be minor crimes most likely punishable by administrative sanctions, even if true.
Who doesn’t understand incentives and disincentives?
Obviously, that would be you, John.
Bob Owens, whatever are you going to do with yourself once you “bring down” Beauchamp?
Good grief, son, you do realise how unimportant this really is, right? Don’t waste your 15 minutes on something no one will remember, unless you continue to remind them of course.
Though I do have to thank you and you pals. I would never have heard of Beauchamp if not for you all. TNR has gotten more press out of this than they could ever of dreamed of. I had forgotten about them for the most part. Thanks!
Actually, Confed, what’s usually far more serious in the military in real life is to say something (true or false) that discredits the officers currently running the US military and thus your own life, which is why My Lai and Abu Ghraib were covered up so well for so long. The fact that Cole understands this and Confed doesn’t may be due to the fact that the former has actual military experience and the latter doesn’t. Or it may be due to the fact that the former has an IQ with a fighting chance at three digits.
This from the same CY who said, without a trace of irony on Sept 4 when posting on the government records that showed widespread military misconduct that the ACLU released:
“Fine. Let us spin the data and the findings to support our political viewpoints.
But please, let’s do so without attacking the integrity of those who serve, which is a tactic becoming more common, and repulsive, as time goes by.”
Am I missing something here? Is Beauchamp an active duty soldier or not? Feh. Spare us the hypocrisy CY.
You run under the assumption that administrators didn’t insist from the get-go that they be lied to. If a policeman sits me down, throws a pile of bloody knives in front of me, and says, “You didn’t see a crime, did you? Otherwise, we might have to charge you with something” you’d have to be a flipping idiot to confess anything. A UCMJ felony the army has no intention of investigating (because it helps them cover their own asses) will be committed in a heartbeat if the alternative is actually getting busted for a minor crime that will be persued against the witness himself to the full extent that the rules allow.
Libby, how terribly unclever. According to your logic, since Beauchamp is “one of the troops,” he entitled to lie about the other 700 soldiers in his battalion? Somehow, I find that a bit disingenuous, but I guess that being all you have to work with, you’ll take it.
Zinfab, I’d also note that it isn’t just military personnel that state Beauchamp’s stores are untrue: civilians in Iraq have also said the same (And I’ve quoted one of them in previous accounts), as have dozens of military veterans no longer beholden to the military, including anti-war veteran Richard Peters of Iraq Veterans Again the War (IVAW), who said the “case is closed against Beauchamp” and that “people like him really get under my skin.”
Current active-duty soldiers, veterans both right and left, and civilians with the technical knowledge and direct knowledge of this affair all agree that Beauchamp is a fabulist.
Why are you so desperate desire to cling to such obvious (and refuted) lies?
Possibly for the same reason that advocates of the Iraq War have been, Confed. The difference is that the latter don’t share Peter Pan’s philosophy when it comes to automatically believing in the sanctity of military officers (including those carrying out interrogations).
Make that “the FORMER”, not the latter. *sigh*
It IS kind of nice, through, for Confed to back down by tacitly dropping his original argument that military enquiries can be counted on to be honest without independent evidence.
Clinging to lies? I have stated REPEATEDLY, to include in this post, it would not surprise me that Beauchamp has either lied completely or taken stories partially rooted in truth and wildly embellished them or partially exaggerated them.
What I find absurd is that you seem to think that just because an officer claims that he found no evidence that the events happened (and that no soldiers will cop to these events happening after seeing their fellow soldier run through the ringer), that they definitively did not happen. Which is almost as stupid as your belief that not only did Foer and the New Republic hoped these items had happened, but that they didn’t care if they did because they just wanted to destroy the war effort.
Beauchamp can’t speak, and would be a total fool to speak until he is out of the control of the military and can be exposed to punishment by the Army. The same for his fellow soldiers. Pretending otherwise is absurd. You have helped to create a scenario in which anything he says on the issue gets him in deeper trouble. And then you celebrate that you were right because he is not refuting anything.
That is idiocy.
And still, what is the point of this?
That troops never intentionally run over dogs, mess with bones or say mean things to civilians? Boy, you don’t spend enough time with real war vets. But then you most likely don’t belong to any Veteran’s social club where liquor is served and soldiers reminisce. I do, as an Auxiliary wife, by virtue of my husband, a war veteran.
Stuff like what Beauchamp wrote about, and quite possibly made up, based on things he heard, saw or even did ARE things that happen. The folks you talk to, and I’m sure your choices were quite selective, are not telling you the whole truth. While they may feel that Beauchamp made up HIS stories, the fact that stupid crap like that happens in a war zone really should not come as a suprise.
It’s fucking war and soldieras don’t always behave like good Scottish gentlemen. I’m sorry to break that to you.
You seem to miss the point, no one here is clinging to lies. I must have missed all those posts that John and Tim put up in the past month, when my comp was down, defending Beauchamp. Unless they were to yet again make fun of the obsession you all have with this. And the perverse denial that it can’t possibly be true.
The saddest thing is that you are trying to force good young men, under stress in a war zone into a catagory that makes them some kind of criminal because they might do somethng that later they will regret. THAT is not supporting the troops.
They have been wrong about EVERYTHING else, so they need something to be “right” about. Period.
This whole incident (including the CY reaction to this story and the blogswarm) is insultingly stupid. If, in fact these horrifying dog massacres happened, guess what? The iraqi’s already know about it, regardless if it was in the TNR.
If they did not happen, and it was all a lie, guess what- the Iraqi’s can point to literally HUNDREDS of other incidents that are documented and did happen. Like, for example, A bu Ghraib. Trust me- your average Iraqi is not scouring the TNR pages loking for somethign to be outraged about. They are too busy scraping their numbers off the walls of the market after the latest bombing, trying to find work, trying to get their brother out of American custody, claiming relatives from morgues, tap-dancing through IED’s on their way to scavenge something to eat, or trying to figure out how they are going to get through the summer with the water only running for two hours a day.
This was never about the Iraqi’s, or about their relationships with our soldiers. This was about domestic politics. The authoritarians need a boogeyman, they need an out group. Divide and conquer, bitches.
For fun, check memeorandum. How many inches of text have these intrepid journalists spent actually scrutinizing the ‘data’ presented today by Petraeus? Now check to see how many posts there are about MoveOn’s ad. For that matter, how many posts has Bob Owens done about the Iraqi who allegedly had his tongue cut out?
They are shameless. You are looking at the brain-dead dead-enders in full effect. I am just glad I came to my senses, albeit too late.
John Cole, I agree completely.
It is about domestic politics. And also trying to relive that Rather moment.
Still I do want CY to realise what I said in my last paragraph. By trying to deny or argue that decent soldiers would never do things like Beauchamp wrote about, when in fact they do in one form or another he and his ilk are in their own way making any soldier who did do something like this a bad guy. When in fact they aren’t bad guys, just dumb, desensitised men and women as war is wont to do. He IS dissn’ the troops, whether he realises it or not.
These folks need support and understnading when they come home, not crap like this to remind them that yeah, for a moment or awhile, they weren’t making their momma proud. CY is back-handing everyone of them who in their moments of reflection realise that shooting that farmer’s cow or runing over that dog wasn’t a good thing. CY is telling them they suck by yelling to the high heavens about this stupid stupid thing.
Yeah, this should bring in almost as many new subscribers as their Stephen Glass PR campaign.
Well, Jim Treacher…I didn’t read them then either. That’s the thing, TNR was not relevant, but now I’m sure at least their website is garnering a hell of alot more traffic.
I just am amazed that the righties mistook what once may have been a “liberal” rag, but when has been mentioned at all by the “left’ in all the years I’ve been online it has been with derision, particularily since their pro-war stance and other views.
Yet, rather than explain that…it is touted as a, as several righties have informed me, a “repsected” “liberal” magazine.
That’s good to know.
NOW on Friday had a very, very sad report about the large number of women serving in Iraq who have been sexually assaulted by military personnel.
And guess what? The higher ups are not very motivated to investigate these incidents.
Looks like the people who went after S.B. have found their new target(s)–if they touch the issue at all, that is.
Traitor Yankee: “Confederate Yankee Says:
“Between 100-200 soldiers simply would not would commit a UCMJ felony to cover up what would be minor crimes most likely punishable by administrative sanctions, even if true.”
Snort. Commission of X, conspiracy to commit X, conspiracy to obstruct justice/commit perjury to cover up X. And these guys aren’t Scooter – they could actually do time for that.
CY, in my unclever way, I see two things. One nobody on “the left” used those military records against the soldiers, as you predicted. We didn’t comb the hundreds of cruel and needless deaths of civilian Iraqis because we actually do support the troops. We don’t blame them for going crazy in that insane occupation. Even when they do bad things. We have no interest in ganging up on any single active duty soldier, in order to get attention. We go after the corrupt administration, not the guys at the bottom who are stuck fighting for it.
You feel like a big man for ruining one soldier’s life for probably making up a story based on what he’s heard? Who gives a flying leap? One hapless slub sees a chance to make a few extra bucks writing a story and it’s a big victory to harass him and his entire platoon for, what is it now, five or six weeks? Bejus man, what you do think you’ve accomplished, cause I don’t see it. You don’t look like a hero to me. You look like the bully who steals kid’s lunch money on the playground.
Two, I’d bet money that after being subjected to a month and half of being hauled in before the brass to testify about whether they were going to verify that some guy danced around with a skull on his head, that you’re a whole lot less popular in that platoon than Beauchamp is.
Tara the anti-social social worker
I belive you mean they have his “balls in a vise,” not a vice. Having one’s balls in a vice is more of a Republican politician thang.
Shorter CY: Poeple will tell the truth because if they get caught in a lie, they will get into trouble.
Pure comedy gold.
It’s fucking war and soldiers don’t always behave like good Scottish gentlemen. I’m sorry to break that to you.
Actually, I thought the rule was: kilt or be kilt. ;-)
Of course, you’re right. In every war: rape, torture, murder. On both sides.
I’d be surprised if the whole story was made up. Unsurprised if it was embellished some. But then, I’m dumb enough to believe John Kerry acted heroically under fire and that his Senate testimony was not an attack on US troops, but on government policy.
John is right. The truth will be available when Beauchamp is a civilian. And John, I have great respect for your admission of error in past judgments on Iraq. I can recall a poll after Nixon resigned that said about 1 of 3 Americans admitted voting for Nixon in ’72, even though he won by a landslide. Ever since, I respect those who admit their mistakes as much as those who were prescient from the outset.
It must be tough for the Kool-Aid drinkers as they have to be humming Dusty Springfield a lot these days. ‘Wishing and Hoping’ that somebody doesn’t provide evidence of something else that got screwed up badly in this mess is ultimately a choice of faith above reason. And putting one’s faith in a corrupt administration remains the mark of a willing fool.
No, that’d be your average wingnut
bloggernew media journalist doing that.
And yet, they only pity you…
Incidentally, isn’t it a disincentive to publish the kind of things he published while in the military in the first place?
Or have you simply granted him whistleblower status, in your rush toward sensible conservativism?
Don’t answer. Rhetorical question.
You mean when he’s out of the Army where there’s no one around to contradict him…the highest form of discourse for a progressive, for as we all know, answering back = oppression.
Scott Beauchamp Option for Hollywood
Jeff G, salient as ever. Was it a disincentive to these guys to post this video (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6445f9fdd7)
Hint: It’s US soldiers taunting a crippled dog.
By the way, what level of rank does one have to obtain before questioning them equals calling them a liar. You disparage Beauchamp and he’s a private (based on the testimony of others, you would say). I question General Patraeus and he’s a general (based on the testimony of others, including the Washington Post and the GAO). Questioning one is verboten “Period. End of discussion”. Questioning the other? Bona fides to be a war supporter.
So, at what rank does one attain that deification? [pauses here for a moment so Jeff can look up ranks] Sergeant? Captain? Light bird? Or, is it only 4 Star General?
Or….say it ain’t true! Is it the teller’s story fits your little world?!?
No, No, No, that can’t be,you’re an honest purveyor of truth.
Go back to the echo chamber, Jeff, where all your pals can tell you how smart you are. Here, all you will receive is a heap of derision and contempt from the commenters. There is no Pablo here.
We didn’t comb the hundreds of cruel and needless deaths of civilian Iraqis because we actually do support the troops. We don’t blame them for going crazy in that insane occupation.
I’m sure the freaking lunatics of the USMC and the Army appreciate your support. When they’re not biting the heads off rats and replying to the voices in their heads.
We support our blood-crazed troops!
Because you don’t like the conclusions, you disparage the investigator? That’s a cute trick. Would you be so picky had the investigation gone the other way, or are you a conscious hypocrite?
Reality: Confounder of the Reality-based.
Ah, the echo chamber sticks it head out Jeff’s bum and rushes over to mis-construe and disappoint.
Mojo, so perfectly helpless out here in the light.
Go ask Jeff what he thinks of John Warner, Chuck Hagel, Colin Powel, Richard Lugar, et. al. Watch the spittle fly over the “traitors” and their “conclusions.” You think Goldstein is a conscious hypocrite or is a true believing delusional kook? Which is scarier, Mojo?
While you’re at, find a way I criticized the investigator? Was it when I wondered why elected Representatives of the People aren’t allowed to ask him questions? Or was it the cartoon you have of lefties, all dressed like Code Pink and chanting General Betray-us.?
Face it, kid, you’re out of your league without 30 people helping the parsing. Go home and criticize Glen Greenwald and Keith Olberman some more.
Dude, that was some crazy shit. Did you see how the dog managed to walk on only its two front legs? Impressive.
Aww, face it Timmah, you’re just mad you got laughed out of PW because of the weak-ass arguments you always peddle. Talk about hiding amongst the choir, you are the epitomy of an intellectual hack.
And John Cole leads the charge! What a complete tool of the left you’ve become John. I used to look up to your writing as a voice of sanity in the early days, but you took your principles and buried them beneath the accolades the left gave you for supposedly speaking “truth to power”. Gimme a friggin break.
My opinion may mean nothing to you, as it probably should, but I’m telling you man, you’ve completely lost it.
“I’m glad I finally saw the light, albeit too late”?
Ugh. Makes me wanna throw up.
I guess, all things considered, Jeff just linking me so the trolls can come over and express their pity about how I have “lost it” is preferable to a 32,000 word post on the narrative at play regarding the MoveOn ads.
I’ll take my victories where I can.
I’ll just ignore you TMAN, and let you get back to the things that really interest you- BBQ, Ward Churchhill, and Beauchamp. Fascinating reading. Kinda surprised though- aren’t all dead-enders required at least once a week to write blog-posts about how we are really winning in Iraq, but the media won’t tell you that story?
malaclypse the tertiary
Stunning riposte! Rapier wit!
To think, I actually held, without compunction nor idiocy, that the war in Iraq has noble aims and is being executed in good faith by mostly competent people. I thought perhaps only some substantive argument could persuade me otherwise, but then timb stepped in and now I realize that I’m “out of [my] league.”
malaclypse the tertiary
True. Who wants to read all those words? That’s like hard and stuff. Take that Jeff, you prolix-happy hausfrau! With that unpleasantness out of the way, John, can you call someone else an idiot because I’m almost there.
Actually John, I found Jeff via Balloon Juice and yourself years ago, and I thank you for it. You were one of the first blogs I used to read daily along with Allah and Michelle @ “a small victory”. Those were the days, eh?
Now I find myself disillusioned with someone I used to look up to for valuable insight in regards to the war against those who have sworn to kill us. When the choice was made to go to Iraq I listened to your reasoning and it jibed with my own. And that was thus: we’re going to have to change our policy towards the middle east, and Iraq is the beachfront to do it. We can’t allow a madman like Saddam to ignore the demands of the international community while he supports, aids and houses those trying to kill us. This seemed obvious to me, and at the time apparently did to you.
Now you are awash in moral self righteousness, and have completely buried anything that you supported on this war in terms of principles. You have been co-opted by the left and are actively supporting those whose only desire is to reap scorn on Bush, regardless of the price we as a country pay. You claim to be acting on behalf of the troops when you call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but you know as well as I do that this means they all died in vain.
I know you probably don’t care, seeing as all I talk about is “BBQ, Ward Churchhill, and Beauchamp” (I love the way you ignore everything else I write about btw!), but this absolutely sickens me.
But hey, enjoy your party over here. Looks like you’ve made some great new pals.
Good God, John Cole…give it up.
Silly doesn’t even come close to how you appear, you petulant little adolescent, you.
That pretty much is it in a nutshell. The dead-ender credo.
First, let me point out it is not difficult to have the moral high ground when I survey the landscape littered with the idiotic and inane droppings from the patriots you continue to worship. I have not been co-opted by the left- I still reject all of the things about the left I rejected 3 years, 5 years, and ten years ago.
But it has become clear that the bigger problem right now is the bumbling policies of a hopelessly corrupt, cruelly incompetent, and lethally dishonest administration and Republican Party. You, Goldstein, Malkin- you can continue to run cover for them. If I hit one of you while gunning for them, we’ll just call it collateral damage.
And finally, let’s quote this one more time:
The last bastion of the scoundrel- hiding behind braver men.
That really is the argument you have left for staying in Iraq- so those who have died in this fucked-up, mismanaged, clusterfuck of a bad war won’t have died in vain? I am glad you all hate me. You people are rotten to the core, and stupid to boot.
Last week’s shipment of accolades was returned to us. Please forward me your correct address so we may send it along with this week’s package.
Thanks in advance,
” I am glad you all hate me. You people are rotten to the core, and stupid to boot.”
We don’t hate you John, we laugh at you.
Those would be the idiots that took out an ad implying a four star General was a traitor. Your new bestest buddies. Enjoy your bed, you made it pal.
You all are about the simplest sons of bitches that ever did live. Since I don’t drink the NRO kool-aid anymore, I clearly am a fan of Move On. And I clearly did not denounce the Betrayus ad.
And just so I can be brought up to speed- when is it not ok to question military folks? Clearly it is ok when they write about running over dogs. But it isn’t when they are misrepresenting the data being used to continue a war. And it is when they are the Democratic candidate for president. But it isn’t when it is the Republican candidate discussing his National guard service.
You guys change the rules so fucking much, it is almost like you are partisan hacks.
Much like the Tman I am an old(ish) school blog reader and, Like Tman, used to love BalJuice. Now I come here only when smart people derogatorily link to the pathetic J Cole. So sad, so weak.
Exit question: J Cole: Was/is it worth it? You get some strokes, and prolly some traffic/ad $ for selling out so totally, but was it worth it? Maybe you never were of the IQ needed to be conservo but sweet Jesus in the fairy clouds….Yikes! You are a subject of ridicule by those vastly superior to you both in intellect and dialect. What is it like to own nothing inside your soul?
All Hail The Morally Self Righteousness John Cole! You should be thanking me for confirming your self righteousness then, yes?
Yeah, sure you do. I used to believe you too. Not anymore.
Run cover? I love this military jargon, SO MANLY!!
You don’t get it John. We are not running cover for the republicans, we’re trying to stop idiots like you from undermining the whole reason for fighting this war in the first place. I could care less if it was the green party running this war, I want us to WIN, and I want to see Iraq and Afghanistan stand as examples of what happens when you attack the US on our own soil, much the way South Korea, Japan, and Germany stand now.
Unlike you, I’m aware of the differences between these countries and the dynamics at play. I don’t expect Iraq to look like Vermont by the years end. But I do expect that the administration follows through in helping Iraq and Afghanistan stand on their own two feet. We broke it, we fix it. And I believe we are making progress despite the setbacks, as the military people that I speak to who are going back for their fourth tours believe we can get this done.
No, that’s my response to your childish surrender-talk.
We need to stay until Iraq can stand on its own, under a reasonable semblence of a representative government. And even then we’ll probably still have troops either there or in Kuwait for many years to come, much the way that we do in other countries we liberated.
You remember that part, yes? About how we liberated over 25 million Iraqi’s from Saddam? They certainly haven’t forgotten.
Yes. I know how important “WINNING” is to you all.
Describe a win, please. Petraeus can’t.
No John, SADDAM HUSSEIN.
We’re halfway there. Saddam is dead and gone and his Baath party is no more. The Sunnis have now realized that they are better off behind us than Al-qaeda. All that’s left is continued pressure on the various jihadis running around breaking peoples fingers for smoking cigarettes. A “win” would be when we have an Iraqi government that can enforce laws and legislate without foreign jihadis constantly trying to undermine them, a’la Iran and Syria. And we’re on this path too.
Sorry if this is so confusing for you, but I think all the cranks that have infected this place have left you a little clouded on your previously clear judgement on these matters.
Tman, the genius who pimps Fred Thompson, comes to describe the wonderful victory in Iraq, complete with ponies! And pie! And glittery pictures of all the Iraqis.
Tman, I know you don’t like facts (I remember how Fred was the Second Coming…not for any policy beliefs, but just ’cause he’s a regular guy), but note the Sunnis who
support US troops, according to the latest BBC poll, support our occupation at the ONE PERCENT level. Hell, 25% more Americans support your position than Sunnis “support” us.
Let me spell two things out for you, you dolt: the Sunnis like us until we tell them what to do and then they will start shooting at us again. That will happen when we try to make them reconcile with the Maliki government.
Secondly, like many dissenters on PW, I was threatened with physical altercation and/or the release of personal information about me (like he did with Michelle). If you want, I can link to post where he “laughs” me off by using the word “fuck” a lot and explodes in petulant rage. The fact that you characterize that as laughing proves you’re 0 for evening in assertions and judgment.
malaclypse the tertiary
Jeff threatened you physically? Or no, you’re just conflating that with the suggestion that Jeff got “petulant” so that it’s just ambiguous enough for the connection to be made. I see what you did there. Well played, brain-stem.
Given rhetorical genius such as this, I can’t imagine why anyone would find you tedious.
The War in Iraq is over and the globe is cooling. Say it with a big smile.
Let’s do a goldstein: “malaclypse the tertiary, you wouldn’t say that to my face, because you’re a big pussy. I dare you to say that to my face. Seriously, let’s meet for lunch. But, you won’t, ’cause you’re a pussy.
Oh, maly, if you post in response then I’m warning you bad things will happen. You’ll know longer be malaclypse the tertiary, you’ll be [fill in the name of the oh-so-clever PW fan].”
That was fun. But I wrong to feel like he threatened me. Good point and nice myspace page. The humor there was second to none.
You remember that part, yes? About how we liberated over 25 million Iraqi’s from Saddam? They certainly haven’t forgotten.
Yeah. They loves us, they does.
malaclypse the tertiary
timb, that ain’t the same malaclypse. We apparently share some appreciation for a certain author, but beyond that I don’t know the guy. But hey, another well played hand by you. You wanna offer up some more rejoinders about unfounded assertions?
No, your unfounded assertions will have to stand on their own. I did enjoy, however, the concept that PW’er might read books. That was funny.
malaclypse the tertiary
This is tedious. Readers can judge for themselves whether you were threatened if you merely offer up that link. And if you really felt physically threatened, why haven’t you sought legal remediation?
Oh touche, Oscar Wilde. Your perspicacity is a blinding hot light.
Well, pal, to qualify for the tort of assault, one of the required elements is “imminence.” Since Mr. Goldstein lives in Colorado and I do not, unless he threatens me in Colorado or in my city, there is no imminence to the threat. Besides, like many of the ways I differ from Jeff, I don’t run to a lawyer every time someone threatens me (or is perceived to).
He differs from me also in his preening vanity, his wordy defenses of his inherent homophobia, his disgusting claim to be a classical liberal (despite Voltaire’s rejection of the primacy of government power), his righteous anger, his fawning chorus of clowns, his obsessive ability to mis-state arguments, and his massive cock which he uses to slap others.
Mine, sadly, cannot be used as a weapon
malaclypse the tertiary
Seriously. Go to the pub. Get a pint. For my part, I’m possessed of neither the stupidity nor the spare time to take up this ridiculous gauntlet. Anyhow sophomore, what know you of Voltaire? He, at least, knew the difference between debate and invective, you tendentious, peripatetic troll.
That should just about do it folks. Anyone who knows the exigencies of Jeff’s protracted encounter with Deb Frisch, will recognize the above quotation as something somewhere well south of simply vitriolic. Whereas I formerly considered you a mere knave, I can now see that you’re an infant.
Already inferred from your rhetoric.
Oh, my friend, you are the troll here. Go back to the circle jerk-a-torium and tell B Moe how cool you are. In fact, could you go ahead and take your faux vocabulary with you?
exigencies? peripatetic? Inferred? Knave? Legal remediation?
Dear Lord, could you try to impress someone else with the contents of your seventh grade vocab test. Writing like high school senior trying to impress the scholar from Towson will not impress me (and I’m your only witness here).
The one thing about your use of the thesaurus is how to words are sort of spit out without any context. A knave to an infant? That doesn’t make sense.
How can a I be peripatetic? You are the outsider here. I would submit you are the troll. A wandering troll makes no sense, since the colloquial use of “troll” is a person who comes to a site to intentionally cause trouble and “threadjack.” This thread wasn’t about Jeff and Dan; thus, you, my dear friend, are the troll. QED
In the words of a genius
Opportunity knocked, but apparently you didn’t open the door.
You sure do like the word “ilk”. That makes you impressive.
Latin phrases, legalisms, and the word “risible”, it’s a smörgåsbord of faux-intellectual crap.
You know, when I review your work and wonder where I can fill my printing needs, the mind is agog at the internal inconsistencies, the silly word use, and the whole geeky D&D feel to your writings…I mean, you chastise me for Deb Frisch, while forgetting “There are no rules anywhere. The Goddess Prevails.”
Oh, silly man. What is it with the poor writing exhibited by businessmen and economists? You seem to think the more words you place in a sentence, the more impressive you sound. Read those quotes in context, and realize why I have yet to take you seriously. Must strike you as familiar.
I mean, Jesus, the plodding nature of your prose is Goldsteinian. The Goddess of chaos must be proud.
malaclypse the tertiary
One more time, for the record: the putative discordian high-priest who goes under the moniker “malaclypse the tertiary” is not me. But no matter; that you’ve taken to googling my pseudonym, posting what you believe to be my comments and acting as though you’ve done something profound demonstrates to me that this exchange has gone rather ‘round the bend as it were. In this little battle-of-who-is-the-biggest-asshole, I concede. I suppose I deserve this kind of nonsensical dispute given that I’ve read your inane polemic before and yet I still engaged you. Which, not a mistake I’ll make again.
FU too, Tman.
No WMD, panty. The cure is worse then the disease.
You also want a pony, and you’re not getting one no matter how much you bitch and moan.
P.S. Korea didn’t attack US soil during the Korean War.
Shorter Tman: Eternal War Bitches!