November 14, 2012

“Petraeus agrees to testify on Libya before congressional committees”

Fox:

Former CIA Director David Petraeus has agreed to testify about the Libya terror attack before the House and Senate intelligence committees, Fox News has learned.

Petraeus had originally been scheduled to testify this Thursday on the burgeoning controversy over the deadly Sept. 11 attack. That appearance was scuttled, though, after the director abruptly resigned over an extramarital affair.

The resignation has since expanded into a sprawling scandal that now includes allegations that Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, exchanged “inappropriate” and sexually charged emails with Jill Kelley, a Florida socialite linked to the Petraeus case. The rapid developments in the case have all but obscured what until last week was an intense debate on Capitol Hill and beyond over the Benghazi terror attack.

– Gee. What a strange and astounding coincidence!  Kinda makes a dead buggered ambassador, an equally dead diplomatic worker, and two snuffed SEALs cold news, doesn’t it? Because it’s sex, and we live in Reality TV nation, where our “investigative journalists” have all become Entertainment Tonight reporters.

The logistics of Petraeus’ appearance are still being worked out. But a source close to Petraeus said the former four-star general has contacted the CIA, as well as committees in both the House and Senate, to offer his testimony as the former CIA director.

Fox News has learned he is expected to speak off-site to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday about his Libya report.
The House side is still being worked out.

[…]

While Petraeus prepares to give his side, lawmakers have begun to openly question when Petraeus first knew about the investigation that uncovered his affair — and whether it impacted his statements to Congress on Sept. 14 about the Libya terror attack.

Petraeus briefed lawmakers that day that the attack was akin to a flash mob, and some top lawmakers noted to Fox News he seemed “wedded” to the administration’s narrative that it was a demonstration spun out of control. The briefing appeared to conflict with one from the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center a day earlier in which officials said the intelligence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News he now questions whether Petraeus’ statements — which were in conflict with both the FBI briefing and available raw intelligence — were in any way impacted by the knowledge the FBI was investigating his affair with Broadwell.

King questioned whether the investigation “consciously or subconsciously” affected his statements to Congress.

That last being code for was Petraeus being blackmailed, or did he fear being blackmailed?

As with the Benghazi attacks proper, we’re being asked now — with the help of a compliant, progressive press that merely parrots the administration party line (fight the Power!) — to believe that the President or his top staff knew nothing whatever about a potentially compromised CIA head until just after the election.  That is, that the FBI, which knew about the affair many many months back, didn’t share that information with the Imperial President or anyone close to him.

This, all of it, the entirety of our political spectacle, is a mirage.  A fraud.  A fantastical and oftentimes surreal puppet show.

And as we watch it, we’re being asked to bracket reason, logic, experience, and evidence, all things that, when applied to this administration’s very existence reveal it as but a series of interconnected disasters (from our perspective; from the perspective of the far left things are going swimmingly!) that each help, in their own ways, to undermine our constitutional republic, the rule of law, the stability of our economy and currency, and the liberty of the individual — the narrative for which is clothed  in the phony populism of “fairness” and “social justice” and “tolerance”.

We have a leftist Administration and a leftist Senate. We have a bureaucracy overrun with leftist operatives posing as civil servants. We have a leftist Justice Department.  We have a leftist press running point and providing rhetorical cover for a leftist campaign to overthrow our constitutional system.  To all of these people, the ends justify the means.  That is the essence of  the “anti-foundationalism” preached by leftist academics who daily work to delegitimate the Enlightenment paradigm under which our system of governance was born and through which it is not only justified but required as a way to protect individual liberty against the persistent encroachment of tyranny.

And here, the entire apparatus has swung into cover-up and distract mode in order to protect a President who allowed Americans to die so that he won’t lose a “mandate” to finish remaking the United States into a soft socialist / liberal fascist country.

Now, I realize we’re supposed to be talking about giving Latinos amnesty to show we care about their basic human dignity (and what says “we care!” more than granting them a life of dependency financed through government plunder); and that we’re supposed to mend our message so that we aren’t the party of old white people and the rich — the best ways being to agree to tax the millionaire bastards who can afford to pay their fair share, and to court any number of different identity groups through “outreach” that includes promises that we, too, want to protect you vagina, or that we, too, really really like education and teachers.

But then, I’m not interested in what “we’re” supposed to be talking about.  Because to do so would make me a coward and a scapegoating asshole, too.  And while I may be many things, those are not two of them, and they never will be.

Instead, so long as this site stays live, I’ll be talking about reclaiming our constitutional birthrights.  About fighting tyranny, whether it comes in the jackboots of a leftist administrative state or little fuzzy bunny slippers looking out for my kids’ dietary needs.

I don’t do polls. And I don’t stick my finger in the wind in order to appease the general mood of what would otherwise be my target audience.  And frankly, what we’re seeing right now from many Republicans, a full-on retreat that I believe in their hearts many of them actually desired, is embarrassing to watch.

This country is, in my honest opinion — and said without an ounce of intended drama — done.  Gone.  But that doesn’t mean I have to stop fighting.

I take solace in the fact that many of us are left who won’t let the conclusion of this coup come easily.

outlaw.

 

 

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:04am
254 comments | Trackback

Comments (254)

  1. wolverines! I think

    I wonder if you can make a molotov cocktail beverage thingy out of refried beans

  2. After the election, I seriously had to take a day off and lay in bed. I thought to myself, I’m done with politics. I’m done voting.

    The thing that happened is that I realized I no longer have an affinity for this country. The majority of the people DO want this. There is no more mistaking it or hiding from it or thinking they just needed more time to see it. They see where we are headed and are eager.

    So yes, I agree. It is over. To paraphrase Gibbon, the freedom the citizens of America want most is the freedom from responsibility. It has often been said by men smarter than me that democracy is an untenable form of government and clearly, it has been proven so. Constitutional Republics can work only if democracy never gains the power to change the constitution.

    With every increase of the franchise, so increased the majority’s ability to remove the rights they deemed offensive and now we have just a mob that thinks that inner-city homeless should decide tax rates as surely as the captains of industry.

    So, we are doomed. Now, I spend most of my time thinking about what haven I’ll run to when it gets too bad.

  3. The Allen allegations appear to be complete bunk. The majority of the emails were between Kelley and Allen’s wife, with Allen cc’d on them. 20,000 pages includes scads of redundancy due to entire conversations being reproduced with every response. There seem to be a whole lot of nothing there but socialites socializing.

    So why is another 4 star being smeared?

  4. WOLVERINES! indeed, Happy.

    Damn well said, Jeff.

    If this be Treason, make the most of it.

  5. My two cents: the bread and circuses currently being offered won’t distract many people other than Democrats and the MSM. Which, the Venn Diagram of those two sets has one almost completely engulfing the other.

  6. Meanwhile, 2 weeks after Sandy, people are still without food and power.

    The stock market is off 500 points in the last two weeks.

    Benghazi is getting worse and worse.

    And what does Obama do? Goes golfing.

    And people think Nero fiddling while Rome burns is a myth.

  7. Blake, not a myth, merely anachronistic.

  8. This country is, in my honest opinion — and said without an ounce of intended drama — done. Gone. But that doesn’t mean I have to stop fighting.

    Yup.

  9. Ernst, you say anachronistic, I say metaphor.

    Either term being racist, homophobic, or hate speech, depending on the emotion of the day.

    Of course, the sad reality being that most people would have absolutely no clue what either word means.

  10. I believe he means anachronistic because the fiddle hadn’t been invented yet when Nero was supposedly fiddling. Perhaps it should be playing a lyre while Rome burns… or maybe Lyre-ing?

  11. I read somewhere today that Patraeus is now the most dangerous man in Washington, DC.

    He has information and nothing to lose by telling it.

    I hope he still has security.

  12. When you’re idea of an ideal country with more freedom involves a partitioned state in the mold of West/East Germany, you may in fact not be entirely clear on the whole freedom concept.

    borrowed from a different, wittier blog.

    So now it’s everyone on the right pining for other havens, like liberals after Bush. Not that any will do any such thing.

    If Bush couldn’t wreck the place entirely then have some faith that Obama will not wrecked things entirely either.

    Go find a savior, one that can be elected and actually survive primaries. You have four years. It might mean cleaning up the party, or finding a real genius. GO.

  13. Go find a savior,

    you got your “savior”. i want a person who understands the constitution not an ivy league knucklehead. the constitution 5 pages, obamacare 45,000 pages and counting(the regs you effin fat chrischristie bastard)

  14. When you’re idea of an ideal country with more freedom involves a partitioned state in the mold of West/East Germany

    you’re a effin stupid statist right off the bat

  15. So now it’s everyone on the right pining for other havens, like liberals after Bush. Not that any will do any such thing.

    There are no other havens.

  16. I see the concern troll laid another stinker in here.

    Seriously, YOU ARE NOT WANTED HERE!

  17. You’ve made many mistakes in your few comments.

    Be gone, troll.

  18. Go find a savior, one that can be elected and actually survive primaries. You have four years. It might mean cleaning up the party, or finding a real genius. GO.

    Nah.

    The Daddy Party is dead. So howzabout we just live in the world you’ve created and see who can survive it.

    Go.

  19. I see moop is part of the “math is hard” crowd.

  20. borrowed from a different, wittier blog.

    Thanks for slumming it. We’re always a little nervous when masterminds aren’t around telling us how to behave and what to think and do.

    Shit, I almost reached for a 20 oz. Coke. Then I saw your comment and remembered my place.

    Now that you’ve done your duty — teaching us, out of concern for our continued well-being — please do head back to that wittier blog, where the wonders of Utopia are extolled in delightfully droll ways, pumped through with pitch perfect irony and finished off with just the right pop-cultural and academic references.

    Oh, to be young and brilliant!

  21. When you mistake engagement for trolling, you can never move forward.

    really. What do you want here? an echo chamber? more “here here!”

    There is an air of despondent narcissism all up in here. I will keep things civil. The host is free to ban me when he likes.

    This isn’t “slumming it”. or “trolling”. Cantor was in the loop when the President was on Patreus. So, who was holding things back ? who picked their resignation time? who went public when?

    but really, “tyranny”? what kind of point of reference is that? how can you be effective when you have a fictional villain? Reference actual actions, and actual policy, and specific public statements.

  22. Incidentally, moops is one of those people who has been commenting here off and on under various names since at least the beginning of 2007.

    Another one who just can’t quit me.

  23. When you mistake engagement for trolling, you can never move forward.

    What is it when you don’t mistake nonsense for thought?

    It feels like discernment.

  24. but really, “tyranny”? what kind of point of reference is that? how can you be effective when you have a fictional villain? Reference actual actions, and actual policy, and specific public statements.

    Go through the archives and find the specific references yourself. It’s not like they haven’t been written about and pointed to over and over and over again. Hell, there’s some noted even in some of today’s posts.

    I know it feels right now like everybody is here to serve you, but that’s really not the case.

  25. How did that line about the troll go? Something like “having invariably the same object, to throw sand in the eyes of the sighted”, wasn’t it?

  26. Hi Jeff!

    actually, first time poster here. ever. Really. you can do some sort of syntax analysis if you like. Handwriting is obscured here so that won’t help prove my case. Just hang in there and trust me!

    But I have been dismissed in almost the exact same way by Digby and her legions. So, welcome to the club!

    but I’m glad you took the time to mistake me for a sockpuppet. It is confirms some theories about you that I’ve been forming after combing through your material.

    I do have some fun material about my thoughts on reading your blog, but your fans would rip me a new one if I shared.

    so, no, you don’t get the easy ad hominem rebuttals.

  27. I recognize the name, from years gone by. The rap hasn’t changed.

    4 years of high unemployment with no hope of improvement, record numbers on food stamps, crushing national debt, a crumbling infrastructure, energy production being strangled, the middle east in crisis, and the fucking rap is the same.

  28. Someone actually took the time to type that.

  29. really. What do you want here? an echo chamber? more “here here!”

    No. But we prefer not to be bored by people who think they’re being provocative when in fact all they are doing is wasting our time.

    You’re a liberal fascist, “moops”. Embrace it. Defend it as the path you chose to take. No need to be coy. We know who and what you are, and we know why it is you’re here. But this isn’t 2007 anymore, so nobody really much feels like answering the demands of a disingenuous concern troll pretending interest in conservative or classically liberal ideas.

    You’re a locust with a keyboard and a sneer.

  30. Obama the Tyrant… just isn’t going to gain much traction. I’m sorry. There are a dozen negative adjectives I could toss up that are more believable.

    It cheapens the term historically. You are not living in a time of historic tyranny. By no objective measure of tyranny can you observe your own surroundings and use that terminology, and be considered lucid.

    The President uses arbitrary rules for executing US citizens abroad. That might count, but then you are on the same page as the Guardian, and that is not acceptable here.

  31. “The President . . .” “It cheapens the term historically.”

    So true.

  32. It is a remarkable act of paranoia to think that I have posted here before. You are not favoring yourself in this delusion.

    Today was my virgin appearance. I have not found loosing my PW cherry too enlightening yet.

  33. It is confirms some theories about you that I’ve been forming after combing through your material.

    Good Lord.

    Jeff, you might find this one lurking outside your windows like Margaret Ray. I think it’s a full blown crush!

  34. sdferr: sorry, but quoting out of context to make a silly point does not impress even your compatriots. well, maybe I did like the effort it took to screen my post for what you hoped I said.

  35. Obama the Tyrant….The President uses arbitrary rules for executing US citizens abroad. That might count, but then you are on the same page as the Guardian, and that is not acceptable here.

    so baracky be a tyrant according to the guardian. if you say so.

  36. I haven’t any illusions as to what you said. You may reflect on the import of the shift however.

  37. Have heart LBascom, Your blogmaster will remain someone I never want to ever meet in person. It took a few hours to get to that conclusion. I’m just enjoying the strange efforts it is taking to not actually engage with me.

    Should I pose specific questions ?

  38. But I have been dismissed in almost the exact same way by Digby and her legions. So, welcome to the club!

    Likely that’s because you’re such a free-thinking, independent-minded heterodox whose willingness to challenge all assumptions drives hardened partisans on “both sides” to distraction.

    — Is what I bet you tell yourself.

    but I’m glad you took the time to mistake me for a sockpuppet. It is confirms some theories about you that I’ve been forming after combing through your material.

    Well, I apologize if I mistook your for the other “moops,” but you have to admit, it isn’t a particularly common name.

    As for the “theories” about me my conclusion “confirms” in your mind — theories formed by what I’m sure were a very rigorous combing through of my material — I honestly don’t care and am not the least bit curious.

    On the other hand, I’m not coy myself, so let me just note that my theory about why people like you take the time to sign up for websites in order to comment in a way that is intended to draw fire is that you’re sad and lonely creatures who think more highly of themselves than do those who have yet to recognize your subtle genius.

    — Is what I bet you tell yourself.

  39. Today was my virgin appearance. I have not found loosing my PW cherry too enlightening yet.

    dumb ass loser fits your bill or dog whistle “boy”

  40. newsrouter: Did the Guardian say he was a Tyrant ? Do you dare read such a publication and call me out in a falsehood ?

    They do talk about assassinations. Seems sort of a Tyrant thing. but that publication… the other stories in there….

  41. Should I pose specific questions ?

    nah stupid peeps self identify

  42. I think the Declaration of Independence is an excellent treatment of tyranny.

    Anyone else thought how easily Obama fits the role of King George in in that noble document?

  43. Upon reading his further comments, I’m now quite sure we have a gentleman and possibly a distinguished scholar in our midst.

    And here I am wearing these dungarees with automobile juices on them.

    Shucks.

  44. I’m eating spaghetti. With my fingers, bh.

  45. newsrouter: Did the Guardian say he was a Tyrant ?

    own your words keypad loser

    but then you are on the same page as the Guardian,

  46. It’s funny, though. He doesn’t want to ever meet me in person, and he’s not terribly fond of my writing, and yet here he is.

    I understand generally why that is. But should I pose specific questions?

  47. no dear Jeff G.

    I do not see myself as a mealy mouthed centrist pointless fop. That is yet another ad hominem attack. Granted, I lead you into it. It seems you don’t have to be an actual Genius to do it.

    No, I’m a real liberal, both social and economically. What your fellow travelers label facism and statism is a ridiculous straw man.

    Do you pull the trap door lever to create harmony here ?

  48. Dang, you finally figured out how to work that can-opening mechination, Jeffroy? Reckon you’ll be putting on regular airs now, too, what with your mastery of the canned Italian foods.

  49. No, I’m a real liberal, both social and economically.

    barackycare: for it or against tenured asshole?

  50. Hell, one day I hope to achieve higher learning myself, moops. Figure you could teach me this elevated technique of capitalizing nouns in a random, artistic manner?

  51. I do not see myself as a mealy mouthed centrist pointless fop.

    No, you think quite highly of yourself for a pretentious twat.

  52. I do not see myself as a mealy mouthed centrist pointless fop. That is yet another ad hominem attack.

    I didn’t call you a centrist. I called you a wannabe heterodox and a liberal fascist. Those are two very specific labels.

    And calling out ad hominem attacks might be something useful if we were engaged in a debate of some sort. But we aren’t. I’m not interested in anything you have to say, and so I’m merely spending my time describing what you appear to me to be.

    You’re simply going to have to accept that I find you tedious. Your taunts are boring and stale, much like your ideology. I suspect you’ll find no real pleasure here.

  53. I will make this statement to Jeff

    Your commentators are of a poor caliber, and you would do well to look much further afield for validation.

    They do not cite external references. They do not create fully formed explications of their thoughts. There is no discussion, no honing of your arguments and truths. You have a poor collection of fellow travelers. I would sit and consider the fact that the avid readers of your material are perhaps not the kind of people that make changes in this world.

    No blow managed to land. This is not the forum of heroes you would imagine. I will hang around, at your leave of course. If you truly want to build a new order of thought and movement, you probably need something different here at PW.

  54. That I did, bh. Thinkin’ I’ll have a few of the neighbors over here soon to show off how I can get to the Hormel’s extra beef chili without even having to ding up the keys to my pickup.

  55. I will make this statement to moops

    I already told you I don’t care what you have to say. So I didn’t read your statement beyond the declaration that you were making one.

    And I feel perfectly contented.

  56. barackycare is a specific meaningless firebrand.

    Is it entirely the Bod Dole Mandate you despise ? or is there more than that ?

  57. What your fellow travelers label facism and statism is a ridiculous straw man.

    Labeling my “facism and statism” labels as “strawman” is really a double reverse strawman.

    This is no ordinary genius my friends, this one is scary smart.

    I’m trembling…

  58. Elocution makes one suspect. noted.

    America’s most eloquent have been farmers and dockhands. good company. I’m open to hearing the idea that clear expression is anti-American, but I won’t agree.

  59. Shoot, that’s us that’s been told now, I reckon.

    It stings, it does. Like when you accidentally eat batteries thinking they’re also for human power or when you’re asked to read a passel of book words in class and you’re so ashamed your eyes take to rainin’.

  60. [This is one of the strangest troll experiences we’ve had in awhile.]

  61. Puts me back into the early days of Barrett Brown it does. Schoolin’ is fun.

  62. [This is one of the strangest troll experiences we’ve had in awhile.]

    well, honest engagement labeled as trolling can look a bit perplexing. Sometimes you put on your reading glasses when you’re driving.

    at what point do you pull off the glasses? It depends on how committed your assumptions.

  63. I hesitate to fess up, bh, but one time in the year of Our Lord 1983 I went to see Asia in concert and was dang near broke-hearted to the point of affliction when it turned out not one of thems that were up on stage had slanty little eyes like the tiny spin-kickin’ folk in all them Saturday morning kung-fu movies.

  64. They do not cite external references.

    oh i did using your source the guardian asshole. effin “higher” education in a NUT shell

  65. Shoot, I ain’t got one of them driving wagons or them spooky ‘oculars!

    You’re a witch, ain’tcha ya?

  66. You wouldn’t know honest engagement if it walked into your kitchen and started eating your Rice Chex. While wearing a name tag that said, “Hi, my name is Honest Engagement.”

  67. I honestly think the country-bumpkin’ slang is the most derogatory of all. Class discrimination. Step up and use your language and your words and stop going for the ironic pity.

    If you have a personal attack, make it as yourself.

  68. I’m open to hearing the idea that clear expression is anti-American,

    saul effin’ alinsky obamabot

  69. yup. country-bumpkin ironic slang.

    how predictable.

  70. If you have a personal attack, make it as yourself.

    hi asshole or vaginas are hip too!

  71. Dang.

    Americans playing at being Chinamen. This world is a wonder, it is.

  72. I honestly think the country-bumpkin’ slang is the most derogatory of all

    Yeah, ya racists!

  73. how predictable.

    you just wait for the ARMADILLO!!!!!

  74. Saul Alinsky ???? really ? is that the caliber of your opposition arguments?

    THIS is what you are going all “Wolverines!” over ? some long dead agitator? dead since 1972 ?

  75. Lord-amighty, but he does do indignation like a real city swell, don’t he? All yappy like. Puttin’ on airs and such.

    Well, sir, just for that, no, I will not take you and your friends down to Aintry.

  76. Come on Jeff. You are a better advocate than your hurrah-brigade. Are you down with the Saul Alinsky seeecret agenda Obama theory ?

  77. I kinda wish I wasn’t wearing bib overalls right now. I’m feeling all oppressed by you cretins.

  78. ah, more bumpkin slang. double-down as you like.

  79. Oh, lookit. I just learned me a something. Iffin you put four question marks after a question, it makes the question lots more questiony. That’s one I’m going to have to store in my mental cupboard, ‘case I ever really really need to find me a bathroom. I ain’t too proud to say that at least once that I can remember I soaked my britches for lack of the proper number of question marks.

  80. Shoot, this is almost like a tale my grand-cousin told me about how you can build a bridge under the bridge and then you can charge your own damn toll to those above your bridge but under the normal folk bridge!

    Hellfire!

  81. I’ll give Erickson more credit than this group of contributors or the host. Jeff is at least more witty, if a bit offensive. Take it up and defend yourselves in your own voices.

  82. No, I’m a real liberal, both social and economically.

    No, you’re a progressive. There’s nothing liberal about you.

  83. You don’t see me as an equally valid American? I walked across the aisle to talk with you. Is your paradigm this fragile that one lone poster cannot be persuaded ?

  84. Pablo: Now THAT is an interesting distinction. expand please

  85. Is that ALL-CAPS up there with the ???? marks ?

    Too smart for us chickens, Jeff.

  86. Are you down with the Saul Alinsky seeecret agenda Obama theory ?

    the guy in black face pointing at “power structures” is a loser

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/04/obama-alinsky-love-song

  87. THIS is what you are going all “Wolverines!” over ? some long dead agitator? dead since 1972 ?

    I’m thinking of one dead since 1883. Perhaps you’re unaware that ideas can live on past those who proffered them.

  88. please drop the classist faux rhetorical style. You are not mocking me with it.

  89. You don’t see me as an equally valid American? I walked across the aisle to talk with you

    no you don’t

  90. Shush, Pablo. No hints. Ixnay, okay?

  91. You are not mocking me with it

    idiot right off the bat

  92. Pablo: indeed philosophy can live past its originator, but you need to cite contemporary rhetoric to make a claim that it is current news.

    Do you have something to cite ?

  93. Pablo: Now THAT is an interesting distinction. expand please

    The root ideal of liberal is liberty. You’re a submissive, progressive hivebot, and I’m tempted to go all Samuel Adams on you.

  94. hey moops

    We shall go on to the end, we shall mock them fight in France, we shall mock them fight on the seas and oceans, we shall mock them fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall mock them fight on the beaches, we shall mock them fight on the landing grounds, we shall mock them fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall mock them fight in the hills; we shall never surrender

  95. newsrouter: state is out loud. Now. You can pretend you have a super wonderful gotcha, but until then….

  96. Do you have something to cite ?

    Yes.

  97. Pablo: So a liberal does not believe in liberty? that is your thesis?

  98. but you need to cite contemporary rhetoric to make a claim that it is current news.

    nah i just be reading the protein wisdom

  99. Jeez, the bumpkin slang is out, the classist faux rhetorical style is also ruled unacceptable, it’s like there’s no pleasing some people.

  100. Pablo: So a liberal does not believe in liberty?

    oh shut up proggtard. you’re too demented to care.

  101. Pablo: a Google *wink* bomb is not a reference. Do you see why I have mentioned to Jeff that his commentators are not a very useful validation ?

    A *useful* commentator group would have put me in my place with a real argument, or a real citation.

    Jeff doesn’t have that. He has you. Do you want to help things get better here?

  102. A bridge under a bridge? Weren’t you askeered of the goblins?

    Or wait, I’m getting all fuzzy. It ain’t goblins what live under bridges. But for the life of me I can’t think of the creatures what do…

  103. Pablo: So a liberal does not believe in liberty? that is your thesis?

    Ahhh, it’s a reading comprehension problem…

  104. A *useful* commentator group would have put me in my place with a real argument, or a real citation.

    i hear there are rabid armadillos loose in the land

  105. Pablo: So a liberal does not believe in liberty? that is your thesis?

    As “liberal” is currently understood? Absolutely. But they and you are not liberal. You’re fascists.

  106. This moops is one bossy troll.

    Tell us why you are a ‘liberal’. Use your own words.

  107. yes, shut up progtard. So. Jeff. This is who you want under your banner ? No disagreement, no citations, no scholarship, no discussion, just…what ?

    Do you want to make a difference?

  108. Pablo: a Google *wink* bomb is not a reference. Do you see why I have mentioned to Jeff that his commentators are not a very useful validation ?

    Have I ever told you to eat shit and die? Consider it done.

  109. This Moops fella sure does seem to be gittin’ all familiar-like with my name, ain’t he?

  110. Pablo, I don’t think this one is a fascist. He barely qualifies as a useful idiot.

  111. I think he has a crush. Prolly saw you in a muscle shirt.

  112. No disagreement, no citations, no scholarship, no discussion, just…what ?

    AhhhhhhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

    What? Whack-a-troll. Wear a helmet and take a couple aspirin, tool.

  113. So, how far down the rabbit hole are the commentators on PW willing to go? when Pablo puts “liberal” in quotes it certainly seems there is some frisson here. Is Jeff up to it ?

  114. His whole schtick here seems to be that we owe him some kind of engagement, that our time belongs to him, and that we’re not giving him our fair share of it.

    That’s what I might call an ironic performative, given the interlocutor.

  115. no citations,

    oh noes

    Saul Alinsky

  116. So, how far down the rabbit hole are the commentators on PW willing to go

    you tell us asshole

  117. ah, eat shit and die. yeah. that is all Jeff needs from his frothy followers. rip the outsider from limb to limb. Sort of like a cult. Does anyone here actually disagree with the headliner ?

  118. If only my balls hadn’t gotten itchy, he’d have had my full attention. Bummer how shit happens, ain’t it?

  119. Please don’t even try to answer that one. Nobody really tries to disagree here

  120. Answer the question, moops: Why are you a liberal? (I even removed the scary quotation marks.)

    In your own words, son.

  121. I swear, my head is spinning like one of them Jew tops.

    This one has me all twisted up like Daddy in the combine on that horrible day.

  122. Nobody really tries to disagree here

    tomorrow is 11/6/10

  123. I really do think that this is better though. MM and LGF had all sorts of filtering in place to make things so homogeneous. and Digby and BalloonJuice treat me pretty much the same when I spend a week there.

  124. ah, eat shit and die. yeah. that is all Jeff needs from his frothy followers. rip the outsider from limb to limb. Sort of like a cult. Does anyone here actually disagree with the headliner ?

    Certainly. But everyone disagrees with the intentional agitator. So, you engender more agreement here than the host does! You should be proud, aside from the fact that you’re a proggbot.

  125. Moops has declared, in his virginal visit, that nobody disagrees here. He bases that conclusion on the separate fact that no one seems to care much about what he says.

    Science!

    Anyway, wife left on a business trip tonight, and I had a three-hour wrestling practice I coached this evening. So now’s the time, both boys having been cleaned and tucked in their beds, for me to relax and watch my stories.

  126. Moops wrote off everyone here as crazy long ago. All he is doing, from his viewpoint, is poking the inmates with a stick to watch them jerk around and scream.

    Communication is not the goal, amusement for a boring evening is.

  127. ‘Night, Jeff.

  128. I really do think that this is better though

    take 2 aspirins and speil in the morning

  129. Dreidel? is that the cultural reference you are reaching for?

    they are fun, all those cultural references, spinning past. we could make a PW Dreidel right ? with oft-repeated phrases that are soothing.

    what would the sides have printed on them?

  130. Well then that thar’s just mean, geoffb. Is that true moops? You just been funnin’ on us?

  131. This is my first time POSTING. I have stopped by often to see the convergence of emotion and interpretation.

    I’m sorry Jeff. It plays out every day. Your archives are pretty clear. argument doesn’t happen. Even legitimate contrary research. You are the only active person here. The rest just reflect back to you your own prejudices, by self-selection.

    Is that the point of your blog?

  132. I really don’t think anyone here is actually crazy. The group has self-selected down to a homogenous collective. None of which is crazy. That does not mean you are witnessing true consensus;

  133. Our system is most frequently characterized as a dictatorship or, more precisely, as the dictatorship of a political bureaucracy over a society which has undergone economic and social leveling. I am afraid that the term “dictatorship,” regardless of how intelligible it may otherwise be, tends to obscure rather than clarify the real nature of power in this system. We usually associate the term with the notion of a small group of people who take over the government of a given country by force; their power is wielded openly, using the direct instruments of power at their disposal, and they are easily distinguished socially from the majority over whom they rule. One of the essential aspects of this traditional or classical notion of dictatorship is the assumption that it is temporary, ephemeral, lacking historical roots. Its existence seems to be bound up with the lives of those who established it. It is usually local in extent and significance, and regardless of the ideology it utilizes to grant itself legitimacy, its power derives ultimately from the numbers and the armed might of its soldiers and police. The principal threat to its existence is felt to be the possibility that someone better equipped in this sense might appear and overthrow it.

    Even this very superficial overview should make it clear that the system in which we live has very little in common with a classical dictatorship…….

    link

  134. For the record, I’m bored now. Anyone care to talk Todd Akin or Nakoula Bassely Nakoula? Otherwise, I’m going to bed.

  135. I might just be a simple man with an education based on counting stumps in the backyard but I think we’ve misjudged this fella.

    He’s here to help, like one of those revenue agents.

  136. quoting a long Alinsky diatribe (I’m guessing, only conservatives obsess over Alinsky quotes) means nothing.

    I know nobody that could produce that quote.

    So, is that your terror? a quote that only right-wing bloggers can cut-n-paste from memory?

  137. That does not mean you are witnessing true consensus;

    just say no to gbot

  138. I’m sorry Jeff. It plays out every day. Your archives are pretty clear. argument doesn’t happen.

    Asked and answered. The prosecution rests.

    (By the way, I selected that one because the argument plays out over 500 comments or so. Which is what I used to get around here before a few trolls writing under multiple names, calling me kike, taking shots at my family, that sort of thing, convinced me the time for discussion was pretty much over and I instituted a registration policy. So if you find this place a bit too homogeneous for your liking, you can blame your fellow progressives. Incidentally, my archives being “pretty clear” and whatnot, you might want to go back and search out the guest posts from people like Jeralyn Merritt or nishi or the lying crapweasel, Scott Erik Kaufman. Whom I allowed to post here. Back when I actually cared what they had to say.)

  139. If anyone could decipher ^^^that comment^^^, I’ll appreciate it in the morning, when I read it.

  140. quoting a long Alinsky diatribe (I’m guessing, only conservatives obsess over Alinsky quotes) means nothing.

    ax hillarity and baracky.

  141. “moops says November 14, 2012 at 10:13 pm
    I’ll give Erickson more credit than this group of contributors or the host. Jeff is at least more witty, if a bit offensive. Take it up and defend yourselves in your own voices.”

    Ooh! Credit giving! What else do you have in your ACME can o’ tiresome rabble pokin’ sophomore techniques ? Any more a’them straw men ? I just love seein’ a circus geek puttin’ on his straw man knockin’ down show.

  142. I know nobody that could produce that quote.

    good allan you are a real idiot with credentials

  143. crapweasel was not very coherent. is that the caliber of diatribe you have enjoyed here ?

    I can see that giving you an inflated sense of righteousness.

    you have toppled midgets and thought yourself a king. well,I give that credit. your commentators could not topple them, from the material in your archives.

  144. I once seen a fancy circus man knock down twenty straw men with his big toe like a bunch of big…strawish….man-like….dominos! My dog barked at him and everything. Then I had to go back inside muh liquor shack, ’cause it started a’rainin’

  145. [I wonder how many times he’ll use “caliber” in this thread. We’re at three.]

  146. palaeomerus : If you just can’t help yourself in your affected simpleton prose, then just stop. I’ve asked several times now to speak in your own voice. I’m drawing close to a conclusion.

  147. I’ll catch up tomorrow. I have a new book to read.

    Nite everybody.

  148. ” from the material in your archives.”

    Okay. Quote some of it and then tear it apart with citations where appropriate.

    After that, type something witty and pithy that only an educated dandy with an agile mind could manage, so we’ll know that you are just pretending to be a fuzzy thinking rambling bore here.

  149. I’ve asked several times now to speak in your own voice. I’m drawing close to a conclusion.

    What a coincidence. I’ve asked you the same question twice and urged you to use your own words, as well.

    I have drawn a conclusion: you’re a fraud.

  150. ” palaeomerus : If you just can’t help yourself in your affected simpleton prose, then just stop. I’ve asked several times now to speak in your own voice. I’m drawing close to a conclusion.”

    Sorry stranger, I don’t find your askin’ to be particularly authoritative, nor do I see the value in yer lame little regimen o’ canned fark taunts a’ yesteryear. In fact I’m startin’ to see you as a dim and thin skinned little feller who can’t read, reason, argue, well enough to provoke more than mockery and a bit o’ bored scorn.

  151. you have toppled midgets and thought yourself a king.

    yes do THAT baracky

  152. Seems to me moops puts himself in his proper place without needing any help at all. He should be proud (not of being a dullard of course, but of finding his own level). Ah, but we can all see he’s already taken that simple lesson on board.

    Strange though: he does have an odd habit of confusing his despotism as characteristic of Americans, at least insofar as he makes the claim to being an American — which we can take at face value, there having grown so many of his sort round about of late. Yet there’s hardly anything distinctive about that.

  153. crapweasel was not very coherent. is that the caliber of diatribe you have enjoyed here ?

    If anyone happens to know the referent to this — or to whom it’s even addressed — please let me know.

    Thanks.

    OT: Elisabeth Shue? Divine.

  154. I has watched me a midget come along and topple his-self and drunk me half a royal crown in the process. Nope. I tell a lie. My libation t’was a Pepsi. The royal crown is still in the fridge right next to the Red Diamond brand iced tea.

  155. “crapweasel was not very coherent. is that the caliber of diatribe you have enjoyed here ?”

    I think that would inspire me choose “I am speaking to a machine” if this was a Touring test.

  156. Quotes for the ages:

    “This is my first time POSTING. ”

    -moops- 2012

  157. well, that wasn’t informative. no information, no substantive rebuttals. crapweasel is your standard? I’m sorry I had a previous commentator as moops that created confusion.

    this is my first posting HERE. does that help paleomerus? Everyone gets to start with some grace, right?

  158. Nobody here would pass a Turing test. lets just put that moronic argument to bed shall we?

  159. I would put that a decent simulacra from MIT would dance circles in this forum. Grant yourselves a dose of humility in that regard.

  160. B-b-but, I’ve read Cryptonomicon!

  161. And let me ask again, who is this crapweasel and to what does it refer? It’s like you’re speaking in tongues, only all of them appear to be English.

  162. “I would put that a decent simulacra from MIT would dance circles in this forum. Grant yourselves a dose of humility in that regard.”

    ‘I would put’ that you type out badly constructed crap the way that a text generating script loaded with awkward phrases would. You portray this crap as if it were the work of Oscar Wilde at his very best and award yourself undeserved rhetorical points for it. Then, having badly said virtually nothing, you attempt a cheap pose of intellectual dominance which quickly collapses under the weight of its utter incompetence.

  163. “no substantive rebuttals”

    No substantive thesis or support for one was offered.

  164. You dragged crapweasel up as an example. I found the arguments to be lame and trolling. what would the followers here consider honest discourse?

    I will refer back to the label “Tyrant.” What justifies such an extreme designation?

    I’d like something specific. Not heresy. Not association. Legitimate tyranny. Your own personal experiences with a tyrannical government that is attributable to Barack Obama.

  165. “this is my first posting HERE. does that help paleomerus? Everyone gets to start with some grace, right?”

    No. It’s still bizarrely EMPHASIZED in the hopes that potential readers might confuse flailing with wit.

  166. You throw out terms like “Tyrant” and “coup”

    those are severe designations. To be a patriot and use such terms requires a very high standard of proof. So far all I’ve seen is paranoia.

    I have seen second amendment advocates make a thunderous noise, but have nothing to point to. I have seen economic libertarians cry havoc, yet nothing has happened in DC to indicate we have changed anything.

  167. ” I’d like something specific. Not heresy. Not association. Legitimate tyranny.”

    Make with the relevant definitions and thresholds of your silly loaded term ” legitimate tyranny ” and we’ll see if there is any common ground.

  168. “I have seen second amendment advocates make a thunderous noise, but have nothing to point to. I have seen economic libertarians cry havoc, yet nothing has happened in DC to indicate we have changed anything.”

    I have seen nothing resembling an actual argument or a criticism of anything yet.

  169. I still await anything meaningful for the designation “Tyrant”

    The world has seen many tyrants. Liberal does not make anyone a tyrant. The bar is much higher.

  170. I still await any meaningful definition of tyranny on your part that would mean anything to anyone but you by which we can validly judge Obama as tyrannical or not.

    We could start with recess appointments of cabinet posts while the Senate is still in session.

  171. Tyrants run over the mandate of the populace for the privilege of the wealthy power brokers and their own personal fortunes.

    so. which wealthy benefactor has cashed in on Obama? something better than campaign leeches, which both parties fed to overflowing this cycle.

    Obama’s publishing? his few friends in good places? over the whole USA that counts as Tyrant ?

  172. Recess appointments? that is now “Tyranny?”

    try harder.

  173. “Tyrants run over the mandate of the populace for the privilege of the wealthy power brokers and their own personal fortunes.”

    Nope. Bullshit definition.

    ty·rant (trnt)
    n.
    1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
    2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
    3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

  174. Sorry, this is ridiculous. Attack Obama for what he actually does, not your paranoia-fed fears of what a liberal might really do. The first black President spends most of his time threading the needle between the centrist Clinton and the right-wing Reagan. The attacks on him from the left are more substantive than anything I’ve heard here.

    The fringe loco Greenwald has better material that Jeff has.

    If you want to take this guy down, you have to attack the real man, not this made up Tyrant. He is lazy about civil liberties and due process. For a civil right lawyer that is far more damaging than the stuff from his fantasy socialist dreams.

  175. You dragged crapweasel up as an example

    I did? Who is crapweasel? What are you talking about? As an example of what?

    I linked to a post the comments to which were filled with disagreement. This directly rebutted your suggestion that disagreement doesn’t occur here. The post had to do with a Letterman monologue joke. I still don’t know what you’re referring to with “crapweasel.” Perhaps you could do some citing to make it clear.

    As for specific examples of tyranny, you can start with extra-constitutional imperial edicts, move on to things like “We can’t wait” to circumvent separation of powers, slide over to an overt and intentional refusal to follow the appointments clause, and then saunter into “little” things, like using executive power to overrule bankruptcy law, screwing over share holders in order to reward union cronies, to driving into law nationalization of health care against the wishes of the electorate, effectively redefining the relationship of the citizen to the state and creating a rationing system — all while stealing money out of Medicare. Frankly, the list is so long you’d have to go back through four years worth of posts to find all the examples cited here.

    But beyond that, I deal a lot with the structural and linguistic mechanisms that reinforce and drive tyranny. There are entire sections of my “greatest hits” dedicated to such discussions, but most recently, and off the top of my head, we have an example of an attempt to redefine the First Amendment to exclude “hate speech,” which requires as a matter of necessary fact someone to determine what exactly comes to constitute such speech. And that would be the progressives in power, conveniently enough — in a move that would turn fundamental natural right, according to the BOR in the Constitution, into one that is granted by government.

    The fact is, the evidence of tyranny is so obvious that it is ridiculous to answer disingenuous queries about the specific instances of such an ideological leaning. Look around. The only reason you don’t see it is because you are part of it.

  176. “moops says November 15, 2012 at 12:15 am
    Recess appointments? that is now “Tyranny?”
    try harder.”

    No, you left out the important part. “while the senate is in session”.

    You try harder, by explaining how making a recess appointment when conditions for a recess appointment authority for the president have not been met is not an example of a form of tyranny. How does it fail the test? Is there now to a ‘tyrrany but not ‘tyranny tyranny’ category? Is there a magnitude test where little tyranny is okay since it is not big tyranny?

    You seem to think that the only test is whether or not you are nervous. You want to introduce gibberish about ‘wealthy privilege’.

    Bullshit.

    Obama did a recess appointment for a cabinet post while the senate was still in session instead of waiting until they were not in session. He is not allowed to do that, but he exceeded his authority and did it anyway.

  177. sorry palaeomerus, dictionary is not going to cut it.

    own the designation tyrant if you want it. No Restrictions? how does he do that? what group wins when he spends his political capital pushing through Dole’s health care act?

  178. so that is now the definition of Tyrant? doing what 10 Presidents have done before?

    in the face of a legislature that had declared they would approve “NOBODY?”

    keep lowering that bar.

  179. sorry palaeomerus, dictionary is not going to cut it.

    Yes. How dare a dictionary try to lay out a definition? Tyranny is what moops says it is, only he won’t say. He’ll just say that you haven’t provided evidence that meets his definition. Which remains unstated.

    Sophistsayswhat?

    I’m done with this tool.

  180. “Sorry, this is ridiculous. Attack Obama for what he actually does, not your paranoia-fed fears of what a liberal might really do.”

    It’s ridiculous because you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. You don’t understand tyranny. You don’t understand what the limits on the office of the presidency are and how they have been exceeded. You just move the tyranny goal posts to where ever you are comfortable with them and smugly insist that there is no tyranny because you don’t want to call it that. You like your tyranny to have something to do with ‘wealthy privilege’ which you just made up. But the secret to the conversation is that no one gives a damn about ‘moops tyranny meter’. Nobody is going to let moops just unilaterally tilt all the terms his way and make them stick that way.

  181. Yeah, the legislature declared. Having been given that right under the Constitution.

    Pro tip: “I did it because they were blocking me” — when they have every right to block you — is tyrannical behavior. You’ve just made the case for us.

    Which is kind of you, because that’s really the first time you’ve been helpful all night.

    By the way: tu quoque? Doesn’t really fly around here. We aren’t “team” players. And I spend more time criticizing the GOP than I do the Dems.

  182. ” sorry palaeomerus, dictionary is not going to cut it.”

    moops prattling on about ‘wealthy privilege’ being a vital component for tyranny and ignoring examples of actual tyranny carries no weight. The dictionary does cut it. moops cannot support his arguments and criticisms merely by have an incompetent understanding of the words he wishes to quibble over.

  183. The terminology of Tyrant is getting awfully abstract here.

    how many secessionist petitions did our host sign up for? every one he could find and sign. Regardless of citizenship.

    If Tyrant now floats down to “hate speech” when do we start discussing “Traitor”?

    I think those kinds of terms are not helping. You have an elected President, in all senses.

  184. “You don’t understand what the limits on the office of the presidency are and how they have been exceeded”

    so I want an example. Nothing abstract. No “what might that guy do”

    Fours years already in. Where is the mad Tyrant?

    It seems like a vivid nightmare in a blog world. Here in the real world I have few examples to point to.

  185. edit: merely by have -> having.

    —–
    Well, moops has failed his audition spectacularly and is just basically gurgling at us.

    I’m going to bed, and he can spend the rest of the night ranting ineffectually to the oblong space demons of eastern hubastank about the proper price of an ur-pound of chunky style sugar free frenetic somnambulance in for all I care.

  186. I was told about a LOT of fascist activities that would occur under Obama…none of which happened. ACA doesn’t measure up. GOP health care bill from 6 years ago. whoop te dooo.

    so, FEMA camps? what did I miss ?

  187. so I want an example. Nothing abstract. No “what might that guy do”

    , he said, ignoring the examples already proffered.

  188. Moops has essentially now formed his argument thus: “there has been no tyranny, because I refuse to agree to a definition of tyranny under which tyrannical behavior comes to count as such. So. QED!”

    Sophist. Liberal fascist. Intellectual lightweight. Concern troll.

    Congrats. Those labels are the progressive equivalent to Cub Scout badges. Without the homophobia!

    I’m with palaeomerus: rant all you want. The fact remains, I’m just not into you.

  189. Intentionally obtuse. Nice touch.

    Have fun.

  190. you didn’t offer any actual examples.

    If you want to have an impact beyond your simpleton commentators, you are going to have to improve your methods and your scholarship. I’m sorry Jeff, this group that validates you is the lowest internet denizen. I think you are clever, and eager, and might really want to discover good governance, but you have taken up with a crowd that reinforces your worst instincts.

    A blog is not useful if all it does is feed a swarm of validation of prejudices. Alex as an avatar is symptomatic of a failure to grasp the power of this medium. This was all before Kubrick’s time , but Alex is a victim in these narratives. I’m not sure why you don’t understand this. Perhaps the books would make things clearer. I don’t know why you identify with the character.

  191. and no, none of your commentators has landed a meaningful blow on my character or arguments. You cited nothing meaningful to justify the groaning plea to fear the Tyrant. No. You are alone with your colleagues in this delusion. Where do you go with that? probably walking it back. You never Go Galt on us plebes, despite our fondest wish that you would try it.

    So, blogging is where it’s at. what do you want to achieve from blogging? more validation from the few that can’t match you?

  192. you didn’t offer any actual examples.

    Except for those I did, you mean.

    Listen: you don’t impress me. Not with lectures about the purpose of a blog that isn’t yours to decide the purpose of, nor with your persistent concern trolling.

    Most of my commentators are extremely well-read and quite bright. What is confusing you is that you haven’t yet grasped that to them — and me — you are nothing more than a type, an iteration, a familiar object rendered in pixels we’ve all of us here dealt with time and again over the years. The arguments are the same; the tone is the same; the faux bemusement is the same; the insistence that we refuse to answer questions we’ve already answered: same. You receive little in the way of substance back from us because everyone here knows from your presentation that you’re punching well above your weight. You are worth our time solely as a plaything, to be mocked, ridiculed, belittled. We don’t care what you think, because we know what you think is wrong.

    As for why Alex is my avatar, well, that should be perfectly clear from my archives. Which you claim to have combed when you were forming your judgment of me. Your flailing attempts to suggest some sort of hybrid Lacanian/Bakhtinian takeaway from my avatar is, frankly, embarrassing. In fact, all I got out of it was this: “You may have seen the movie, but I read the Burgess novel!”

    You are nothing more than a constructed set of intellectual markers hoping that the contours you suggestively create will intimate a depth to the interior that just isn’t there. I see through you. And I’m bored by what you have to offer.

    Guess in your haste to pigeonhole me you missed some stuff about who I really am and what I really believe. Pity, that.

  193. Yes. How dare a dictionary try to lay out a definition? Tyranny is what moops says it is, only he won’t say. He’ll just say that you haven’t provided evidence that meets his definition. Which remains unstated.

    Ah, like Goldilocks. Though something tells me no definition will be “juuuuuuust riiiiiiiight” to moops.

  194. This is not the activities of the “bored”. The hipster detachment that you would prefer.

    I didn’t pigeonhole you. In fact, I granted a wide dominion of you capabilities. What I disparaged was your company and your validation.

    I don’t need to imagine the contours. You are not subtle, or sublime. Do you think you are? that would be a shock. You are not a complex creature to be revealed in several acts. You make a point of not being that sort of character. If you are a twisted Freudian act then you owe your commentators an apology. I can take you as you boast and leave your analysis to your followers. They have to justify their devotion.

    What you truly believe is the darkest material. It comes out in the moments of your passion. That is also exposed for a wide audience.

    the issue is, are you eager to have more meaningful disagreement and discussion, or can you only settle for obsequious fellow travelers ?

  195. you haven’t actually made the case for “concern trolling.” I don’t pretend to hold your prejudices and assault you from the flank. I refute you from the front, without the shield of your comaraderie. I don’t claim any assumed protections or privilege.

  196. Speaking for myself, I am not interested in bringing Obama down.

    I am interested in restoring the liberties lost along the way and reintroducing fiscal sanity to the federal govts rightful role.

    Dismantling Homeland Security would be high on my list.

  197. Ah, he still pretends his prattle is “meaningful disagreement” and therefore his treatment has been horribly unfair ever since he showed up.

    Heartbreaking. Just… heartbreaking.

    Is there a taxonomy of trolls? Mildly articulate, but there’s still that smug sense of superiority before all the benighted peasants attitude that is amusing.

  198. Actually, it is the activity of the bored — of someone waiting around for his wife to arrive in Portland and call him from her hotel. That’s now been done.

    As for contours, I was speaking of yours, not mine. By your misunderstanding, you did me the service of describing yourself as I see you, however, even as you resolved to project all of your character tells onto me.

    I don’t think of myself in terms of the subtle or the sublime. And I don’t write what I write for validation, as anyone who pays attention to the right side of the blogosphere would surely tell you. The fact that you think in such terms is rather bizarre.

    As for my “followers,” they need not justify anything to me or to you. Which has been the point all along. We engage in plenty of meaningful discussion and disagreement here. We just don’t care what fascists think. Those days have passed.

    Meaning, we don’t engage you because there’s nothing of interest to engage with. Sorry. But it is what it is, because you are what you are.

  199. you haven’t actually made the case for “concern trolling.”

    I needn’t. You have. Every time you expressed your concern that I may be doing the whole blogging thing wrong, or for the wrong reasons.

    Which, thank you, Obi Wan!

  200. Yes, Patrick: he enters with a smug sense of superiority and leaves validated that he was right to consider us loathsome monsters incapable of deep thought because we refused to acknowledge that he’d presented any.

    As I wrote before, he’s a dime a dozen. Or, to use his parlance, he’s neither subtle nor sublime.

    ‘night all. Be here bright and early tomorrow, though, so I can get some of that sweet sweet validation.

  201. As for my “followers,” they need not justify anything to me or to you. Which has been the point all along. We engage in plenty of meaningful discussion and disagreement here. We just don’t care what fascists think. Those days have passed.

    …it’s when they start trying the “followers” line that has me fighting an urge to make quotes from either ‘Life of Brian’ or ‘The Omen’ though I’ve only seen a few clips from the latter so it probably won’t work as well.

    Ah well. Home.

  202. true, neither subtle nor sublime. The belligerence is intentional and neurotic here.

    re-read what has been written.

    You do not deserve the consideration, but it will probably end up feeding new feats of delusion. Fly higher Icarus.

  203. Yadda, yadda… oh, and: Yadda.

  204. and please understand that Alex is a tragic character far more than the sophomore undergraduate interpretation. You can sup on eggywegs but he remains of puppet.

  205. I sup on frisson, as we speak.

    God, I love French food.

    And trap-door harmony grits, too.

  206. We all agree that re-electing Obama was pretty fucked and that progressivism is a dead end.

    If you had been here during the primaries and general campaigns you would have found something quite different from an echo chamber.

  207. Everyone gets to start with some grace, right?

    Not when you come out of the gate and step on a rake, no.

  208. When you’re idea of an ideal country with more freedom involves a partitioned state in the mold of West/East Germany, you may in fact not be entirely clear on the whole freedom concept.

    Sorry, I am allergic to being lectured by people who don’t have the first notion how to form a possessive. It stops up my ears.

  209. more “here here!”

    Where?

  210. They do not cite external references.

    Says the guy who to date had not offered a single reference.

  211. “You can sup on eggywegs but he remains of puppet.”

    Uh… Shaka when the walls fell? The River Temok in winter?

    A single plum floating in perfume served in a Man’s hat ?

  212. A single plum floating in perfume served in a Man’s hat ?

    A nun writing her name in marmalade on a soldier’s leg.

  213. What? You got yer Robyn Hitchcock in mah Yoko Ono!

  214. 8]

  215. Here is music to implode by.

  216. Is it me or does moops make the common proggy mistake of assuming we all think the problems facing the US started with King Barack I?

  217. He probably thinks we’re all cheerleaders for Bush the Younger, too. Because of the many hours he took combing through the archives and all.

  218. You know what else marks Moops as a super-clever logician? The fact that he believes the commenters who are active late on a weekday evening are representative of the commenting community as a whole.

    I mean, no offense to newrouter, but any newbie squaring off with him is going to come away with the impression that we’re a few farthings short of a shilling.

  219. If I had to guess, moops teaches social studies to bored middle schoolers.
    poorly

  220. My observation was that his ability to properly punctuate, spell and otherwise write clearly was somewhat at odds with his insistence that we up our game.

    But maybe he was just being folksy.

  221. OT: I think I am going with a scope-mounted .223/5.56 bolt-action Savage. It runs around $350, and is decently accurate, so it should be a good starter piece for me. It’s got 6-10x the energy that a .22LR has, so I could hunt with it in a pinch, as far as I can see.

    We’ll probably do pistols next. I am seriously thinking .357 for her, loaded with .38 special most of the time. That’s a pretty flexible piece. We may go with two of those, if I develop a sudden allergy to automatics.

    We’re not thinking volume of fire, at this point. More like: having some useful weapons at hand.

  222. What did I miss? Not much, it appears.

    Screwtape’s toast has taken on a bittersweet relevance WRT the trolls these days.

  223. Slart, has she fired a weapon with magnum loads? They kick like a bitch. I know you had mentioned that she was okay with a 9mm.

    I’d go with the .357 that also fires .38s. I have one of them and I like it.

  224. I just bought an older Ruger Mark II 22lr.

    Now I just need to find someplace to shoot it, lol.

  225. Isn’t it turkey shoot time there, BMoe?

  226. Slart, you’re aware of the

    .223 rem is good to go in a 5.56 NATO chamber

    5.56 NATO is no go in a .223 rem chamber

    distinction right?

  227. Yes. Paying the extra $50 to get the 5.56 chamber.

  228. That’s about what it cost to move from .223 in that model to 5.56.

  229. Good shooting Slart.

  230. No flame war over manufacturers or calibers? Good Lord, what an echo chamber!

  231. Thanks! I am looking forward to it.

  232. Hey, I resisted the Rugerites as long as I could.

    *ducks*

  233. I’m holding fire until I find out the rifling’s twist rate, and whether it’s a short or a long bolt.

  234. Slart,

    I have a gun review for the Savage 93 FV posted TTAG. Might want to consider 22 WMR. Cost about $130 for 500 rounds of ammunition, doesn’t really kick and is very accurate. (I can drive a nail with mine at 100 yards)

    See review here: http://tinyurl.com/b8ka7d8

  235. It’s this one.

    I’m going to talk to them before I order, because Savage doesn’t claim to make a 5.56-chambered gun. So I don’t know if it’s one of them being sloppy; if so I’d like to know which one.

  236. I think I’d prefer .223 because of the higher velocity. It’s got about 4x the energy of the .22 WMR

  237. Slart, 5.56 doesn’t show up on the Savage web site. More than likely, Woodbury is using 5.56 and .223 interchangeably. Just as likely, Savage will tell you they do not recommend firing 5.56 out of a .223.

  238. I was afraid of that. If that’s the case, I can essentially get that same rifle with scope for $303. Doesn’t shoot 5.56, but that is a minor setback.

  239. Apparently I’m on FEMA response time, because I completely missed this disaster. Ah well. Maybe next time.

  240. Slart, I understand completely.

    I picked up the WMR mainly for my wife. I wanted something she could easily handle that packs more punch than .22 LR. My wife doesn’t handle recoil well at all.

  241. William, actually, your response time is fine. You need to show up for a photo op, go away for two weeks, play a round of golf, then come back.

  242. Blake, my wife shot a 9mm Sig without blinking. So I think the recoil will be fine.

  243. Slart is dissing me. I asked that question way up thread. *miffed*

  244. Slart, just realized I’m coming across as proselytizing for the .22 WMR. Not my intention at all. My apologies.

    Anyway, you’ll have to let me know how you like the .223.

  245. My guess would be Woodbury isn’t charging you $50 extra for just the camo finish.

    Ruger uses the same .223/5.56 designation in it’s literature for its Mini-14 line-up.

    Except for the the Target model, which is “.223 Rem only.”

    Or so I’ve read.

  246. This was just more performance art, sprinkled with predictable buzzwords, and an epic flounce.

  247. leigh, sorry. I had thought I had answered.

    She hasn’t fired a magnum, but I was thinking she’d be shooting .38 special out of it, while I might tend to shoot .357 magnum out of the same gun.

    And I just had a discussion with a guy at the gun range who has semi-convinced me to go to .22LR after all. He asked me what I am hunting and for right now, the answer is nothing. But it might not always be.

    Son of a bitch. I need to just buy something.

  248. Guns are 10% off at the Base Exchange right now, Slart. Retail therapy is good for you.

    I figured you missed my question. I was just busting your chops. ; )

  249. What do you want a rifle for? Shooting paper? plinking cans, bottles etc? meat humting? trophy hunting? Pest control? Predator control? Defending Casa Slartibartfast from home invaders? Zombie Control? Joining the local Wolverine militia to fight the black helicopter brigades?

  250. For now: target practice. But I’d like something I can also hunt with, so I am torn between getting a .22LR now and getting some practice in, followed by a larger caliber later, and just splitting the difference now.

    Likely I’ll be going .22LR now sans scope, adding a scope later (because I think I might suck at shooting through open sights at ranges further than e.g. 20 yards), and add another gun later, in a larger caliber like .30-06, .30-30 or .308.

    I don’t have a want or need to go bigger than that.

    Home defense will be pistols and scattergun.

  251. Just to more thoroughly answer: I can see a .22LR being used for: target practice, idle plinking, small-game hunting, pest/predator control, and as a useful but not very scary-looking home defense. I wouldn’t want to HAVE to rely on it, but if you can shoot an invader in the right place with it they’re going down. Eventually.

    For immediate use, it’d be target-shooting practice. Not sure how useful it’d be come the zombie apocalypse. What if you scored a headshot and not enough of the brain was damaged?

  252. Well, looks like moops was a one sally wonder.

  253. Slart, as long as you’re not thinking that someday you might like to own an AK/AR/M4-gery type rifle, it probably doesn’t matter if you get a .22lr or something chambered for a larger caliber now and something else at a later time.

    On the other hand, if you want something that might fall subject to a renewed “assault” weapons ban, either because you want it just to have it, or you want to have it just in case you ever need it, I would get that first, even if it’s a larger initial investment for something that you’re not even sure you want.

    The thing about AR clones and Garand-type semi-autos, and even former commie-block imports? They won’t lose value.

  254. Pingback: American Agonistes « The Camp Of The Saints

Leave a Reply