LawTalkers - Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Meet your new thread, same as the old thread. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=781)

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Some of us worship Jesus as our God. This board is not as much a free form attack as the board you typically infest. If you do come here, I hope you at least try to bring some content, but regardless of my hopes, I must insist that you not offend the religous beliefs of those who post here.

I was so disturbed by Sebastian's post that I cried out in an anguished plea to the Son of God. Looking back, perhaps it was a bit rash of me to seek answers from Him about what should be written off as a bit of Merlot-induced rambling. But I feel things strongly -- that just comes with being a man of faith. For that, I am not sorry.

Quote:

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I was so disturbed by Sebastian's post that I cried out in an anguished plea to the Son of God. Looking back, perhaps it was a bit rash of me to seek answers from Him about what should be written off as a bit of Merlot-induced rambling. But I feel things strongly -- that just comes with being a man of faith. For that, I am not sorry.

and if your blasphemy so conflicts Atticus that he leaves again, would you be sorry then?

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
and if your blasphemy so conflicts Atticus that he leaves again, would you be sorry then?

It is not blasphemy to speak publicly to my Lord. But apparently, on this board, one's faith is something to be kept behind closed doors. One must pray quiety and in the dark or risk persecution at the hands of those who believe it is wrong to not be ashamed about one's relationship with one's Saviour. I am accustomed to more tolerant envrions. Once again, I must take my leave of the Politics Board. I apologize if any of you found my honest and open spirituality to be alienating or unacceptable. Except that I am not sorry.

Quote:

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
It is not blasphemy to speak publicly to my Lord. But apparently, on this board, one's faith is something to be kept behind closed doors. One must pray quiety and in the dark or risk persecution at the hands of those who believe it is wrong to not be ashamed about one's relationship with one's Saviour. I am accustomed to more tolerant envrions. Once again, I must take my leave of the Politics Board. I apologize if any of you found my honest and open spirituality to be alienating or unacceptable. Except that I am not sorry.

Please, Brother Flower, do not hide your light beneath a bushel, for we are a big tent here.

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Please, Brother Flower, do not hide your light beneath a bushel, for we are a big tent here.

Don't play God Wonk. If it is meant for flower to leave, far be it for us to try to change that.

Quote:

Celibacy sucks, doesn't it?

Fake, But Accurate

Alas, poor TNR....

Quote:

Beauchamp Recants
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article in the New Republic's July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns--signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth," in the words of our source.

Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:

An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.

According to the military source, Beauchamp's recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military's investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, "I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name."

The magazine's editors admitted on August 2 that one of the anecdotes Beauchamp stood by in its entirety--meant to illustrate the "morally and emotionally distorting effects of war"--took place (if at all) in Kuwait, before his tour of duty in Iraq began, and not, as he had claimed, in his mess hall in Iraq. That event was the public humiliation by Beauchamp and a comrade of a woman whose face had been "melted" by an IED.

Nothing public has been heard from Beauchamp since his statement standing by his stories, which was posted on the New Republic website at 6:30 a.m. on July 26. In their August 2 statement, the New Republic's editors complained that the military investigation was "short-circuiting" TNR's own fact-checking efforts. "Beauchamp," they said, "had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you."

Now that the military investigation has concluded, the great unanswered question in the affair is this: Did Scott Thomas Beauchamp lie under oath to U.S. Army investigators, or did he lie to his editors at the New Republic? Beauchamp has recanted under oath. Does the New Republic still stand by his stories?

But none of this matters, right? We all just "know" he was telling the "truth" right? I mean, watch Full Metal Jacket, for instance.

Quote:

Fool. You cannot petition the Lord with prayer.

Fake, But Accurate

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
But none of this matters, right?

Zoomie, duus and Peter Principle have my proxy, if anyone cares.

Fake, But Accurate

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Alas, poor TNR....

But none of this matters, right? We all just "know" he was telling the "truth" right? I mean, watch Full Metal Jacket, for instance.

Damn! Now that I know that three articles I never read written by some guy I never heard of were just made up, I guess it's only fair that I Support The War, which is probably going really great.

Fake, But Accurate

Quote:

Originally posted by ironweed
Now that I know that three articles I never read written by some guy I never heard of were just made up....

If the last six years have taught us anything, surely it's that if the Weekly Standard runs a story based on an anonymous military source, it's got to be true.

Fake, But Accurate

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the last six years have taught us anything, surely it's that if the Weekly Standard runs a story based on an anonymous military source, it's got to be true.

All these lying bastards with their political agendas. I just don't know which ones to believe. If only there were a simple quiz I could take....

Fake, But Accurate

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Zoomie, duus and Peter Principle have my proxy, if anyone cares.

I had no idea that Yglesias had so many pseudonyms.

Fake, But Accurate

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
Zoomie, duus and Peter Principle have my proxy, if anyone cares.

Of course they do. "Fake!", but "Accurate!"

Fake, But Accurate

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Of course they do. "Fake!", but "Accurate!"

None of them said anything of the sort, but then you don't really care about that sort of accuracy, do you?