Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Labeling Obama "conservative" is a "no true Scotsman" play

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about a month and a half ago

User Journal 72

One of my favorite /. rivers of effluent enjoys contending that Pres'ent Obama, in spite of every straight-line Progressive/Democrat/Socialist play in the feckless rodeo clown's book, is a "conservative".
This /.er seems to contend that, as the owner of the definition of Socialism, (s)he can refute the empirical truth that Obama's collapse into authoritarianism is the inevitable end-state of sucking all power into the State.
An example of the kind of dOne of my favorite /. rivers of effluent enjoys contending that Pres'ent Obama, in spite of every straight-line Progressive/Democrat/Socialist play in the feckless rodeo clown's book, is a "conservative".
This /.er seems to contend that, as the owner of the definition of Socialism, (s)he can refute the empirical truth that Obama's collapse into authoritarianism is the inevitable end-state of sucking all power into the State.
An example of the kind of derangement of which I speak (to paraphrase) is: "Obama must be a conservative, because if John McCain had won in 2008, McCain would have signed the Affordable Care Act with gusto."
Conversely, the empirical reality that Obama's magical thinking (e.g. that the mere repetition of the word "jobs" would beget employment) which would work if Obama were actually a Socialist, has failed, so Obama must no be a Socialist.
I guess my /. buddy, by demonstrating such intellectual clutter, underscores h(er|is) personal Socialist purity.

cancel ×

72 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47629005)

You are butchering the No True Scotsman fallacy with reckless abandon.

The original example of No True Scotsman is along the lines of "No true Scotsman would ever commit (heinous act)". The important thing to keep in mind is that being a Scotsman is not defined by (lack of) willingness to commit such an act, but rather it is a cultural / ethnic identifier that one is born with.

However a political affiliation is something that one chooses for oneself, and is based on your own beliefs (essentially the same as how one chooses a religion). Now in most cases the choice of political affiliation does not prevent one from doing any of a number of non-political acts, but it does indicate one's intent to pursue specified political acts that go with that affiliation. Hence if one is a Socialist, one is expected to pursue political acts that go with Socialism. Equally as much so, if one is a Socialist, one is expected to make effort to prevent the progress of political acts that are counter to Socialism.

Being as Obama has neither furthered Socialist political acts or prevented political acts that counter Socialism, he cannot be defined as a Socialist. Indeed if we compare his political acts to presidents who are generally viewed as Conservative (especially Reagan) we see that by actions Obama is indisputably in that league. Obama has signed multiple bills into law that have favored the highest income brackets and the largest businesses in this country. Those are aims that are directly counter to the interests of Socialism.

So again, this is absolutely 100% not a No True Scotsman fallacy. Similarly nobody who understands the No True Scotsman fallacy would try to claim otherwise.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a month and a half ago | (#47629661)

Reagan was a free market liberal.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47630295)

Reagan was a free market liberal.

In comparison to Obama, perhaps.

However if you want to champion that idea, then it leaves another question. If Reagan was not conservative, then we have never had a conservative president - why is that? Why is it that in 200+ years of our country we have never had a conservative president, and why would that be a good idea now?

We have certainly never had a socialist president in this country, and we cannot convince enough people that it would be a good idea to try it. Why would a conservative president be a good idea if none of the presidents who have met previously standing meanings of conservative were adequately conservative to meet the new meaning?

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a month and a half ago | (#47631693)

"In comparison to Obama, perhaps."

I was thinking more in comparison to Pope Leo XIII.

"However if you want to champion that idea, then it leaves another question. If Reagan was not conservative, then we have never had a conservative president - why is that?"

Because the basic idea of America, individual liberty, is an idea that is more progressively liberal than anything anybody else in the world has ever tried.

"Why is it that in 200+ years of our country we have never had a conservative president, and why would that be a good idea now? "

I'm not sure, after 200+ years of liberalism, if civilization is still even possible. A conservative president would be a step back towards civilization, but I don't see any God first, country second royalists running, do you?

"We have certainly never had a socialist president in this country, and we cannot convince enough people that it would be a good idea to try it."

True as far as it goes, but I personally see little to no difference between a centralized capitalistic economy and socialism. Both are liberal ideas, not conservative ones.

"Why would a conservative president be a good idea if none of the presidents who have met previously standing meanings of conservative were adequately conservative to meet the new meaning?"

Because when the experiment is a failure, you need to replace it with something else.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47634763)

Your attempt at a rebuttal, itself, reinforces my point. Thanks for staying beautiful. The fallacy has nothing to do with the Scot; it has everything to do with a speaker moving the line of inclusion in order to keep a tautology "intact".
Pres'ent Obama is Socialism with the mask off: an aristocrat using bureaucracy to herd people.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47635917)

Your attempt at a rebuttal, itself, reinforces my point.

Not if you actually read my response. I know that is not part of your standard M.O. any more.

The fallacy has nothing to do with the Scot; it has everything to do with a speaker moving the line of inclusion in order to keep a tautology "intact".

You're half right. The No True Scotsman fallacy indeed does not require a Scot. It does, however, require classifying someone based on something that does not relate to their actions. You are attempting to classify someone into a category that requires an understanding of their actions. The fact that you keep trying to shove that square peg into that round hole indicates you don't understand the actions of the said person, the category you are trying to place them into, or both.

Frankly, my money is on both.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47636481)

You are attempting to classify someone into a category that requires an understanding of their actions.

You're attempting to manage "understanding of their actions" to move the line: this is the heart of No True Scotsman. Again, you climb out of the pit and do a swan dive back therein; pardon me while I enjoy a hearty guffaw.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47637009)

You are attempting to classify someone into a category that requires an understanding of their actions.

You're attempting to manage "understanding of their actions" to move the line

No. If you wanted to classify Obama as, say, a Kenyan, you would not need to evaluate his actions (but rather his heritage). However in order to classify him as a member of a political group you do. You are trying to associate with him a political movement that you have both a demonstrated animosity and ignorance towards.

Hence No True Scotsman does not apply. You can keep pretending otherwise but the fact of the matter is that it does not.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47637561)

He was elected to be a Socialist Savior. His mask has slipped, and he stands revealed a rank thug. You've repeatedly, desperately, fanatically tried to label him "conservative".
I'll quit laughing at your dismay that the veneer has come off of Socialism, in its existential realization, if you agree to drop the farce that Obama exhibits even the tiniest shred of commitment to the conservative values of individualism, fiscal sanity, public modesty, and minimalist government.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638175)

Oh, now you throw in "public modesty" into your primordial soup. Does this mean no more private jets and helicopters, backless dresses, diamonds, and gold trinkets for the obscenely rich?

individualism, that's funny as hell. Please, your "conservative values" are simple, natural *might makes right*, just like every other wealth/power craving alpha type. You just want it your image.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638629)

your "conservative values" are simple, natural *might makes right*, just like every other wealth/power craving alpha type.

Well, you're about half right. Conservativism recognizes the fallen nature of man (in the Acton sense of all power corrupting, not necessarily the theological sense of The Fall), and sets about putting checks and balances in place to minimize the side effects, i.e. the 1787 Constitution.
A century ago, Progressives rejected the idea of those proper checks on power, and thus they
(a) froze the size of the House,
(b) neutered the States as political objects (Amend. 17),
(c) set the stage for Lois Lerner (Amend. 16) and,
(d) pissed on the idea that anyone wielding vast power should stand for election (Federal Reserve Act).

And is the GOP going to do anything other than play along? Oh, probably not, at least not without a napalm enema.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639549)

You've fallen! And you can't get up!

Stay in your hamster wheel there, buddy. We need the power.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47640739)

If the alternative is the sort of complacency you seem to espouse, then I'll keep doing what I do.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47641709)

*sigh* Still at it... You'll always be a rookie, kid

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47643223)

I just love the way you're NOT at it with the whole burned out sensei schtick.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47644305)

You're taking this way too personally, and you keep on reasserting incorrect assumptions over and over. It has nothing to do with the price of rice, and if you actually believe them, well, more's the pity. This is strictly business. You know, your nice natural capitalism at work. The "Fallen Man", trading bananas for for tick and flea removal. Don't look for anything that's not there. Just enjoy the bananas.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47644623)

Oh, believe me, I do. We did 2Thess1 for Sunday School today. You focus on what's ultimately true, and let all these crapflooders here under the sun stand and deliver before the Judge, which they will.

"public modesty" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638879)

Sorry, one had been considering Pres'ent Obama's near Tourettes level usage of the personal pronoun when writing that.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638389)

He was elected to be a Socialist Savior.

No. He was elected to be president, as a liberal democrat. He is arguably the latter but inarguably a failure at the former.

His mask has slipped

So you admit then that he is not a socialist? If the "mask has slipped" that indicates you see that he is not fulfilling his promises (a statement I would agree with).

You've repeatedly, desperately, fanatically tried to label him "conservative".

There is nothing desperate or fanatical about evaluating events that have actually happened for what they actually are.

I'll quit laughing at your dismay that the veneer has come off of Socialism, in its existential realization

The Lawnchair Administration has not proven anything - in any direction - about socialism. Nor has any other politician elected to federal office in this country in its history.

if you agree to drop the farce that Obama exhibits even the tiniest shred of commitment to the conservative values

Obama has extended the conservative values of regressive taxation, build-up of the military and military-industrial complex, support of the largest and most profitable of industries, suppression of individual economic mobility, and suppression of workers' rights even more so than the previous conservative highwater marks that were left by Reagan, Bush, Bush, Nixon, and others. There has never been a president who was more conservative in those actions, and those are the actions he will be remembered for when the history books are written.

Your attempt to reach for an eleventh-inning redefining of "conservatism" in spite of many decades of tradition is not logical.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638667)

So you admit then that he is not a socialist? If the "mask has slipped" that indicates you see that he is not fulfilling his promises (a statement I would agree with).

I'm modeling Socialism as an aristocratic con job, with a fine plantation for the slaves to work their part-time jobs, and a layer of bureaucratic hooey (entitlements) on top. Hypocrisy implies (at least) two layers.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639595)

So you admit then that he is not a socialist? If the "mask has slipped" that indicates you see that he is not fulfilling his promises (a statement I would agree with).

I'm modeling Socialism as an aristocratic con job

What would it take to get you to stop moving the goal posts? You've now moved them so much that you are contradicting your own earlier statements. For some reason, that doesn't seem to bother you.

a fine plantation for the slaves to work their part-time jobs

You don't seem bothered in the least by how this blatantly contradicts your earlier assertions about socialism. Perhaps this is why you proudly and intentionally remain ignorant on the topic, to comfort yourself when you say such things.

Hypocrisy implies (at least) two layers.

You've shown you can be a hypocrite just fine on your own... Here I will remind you that one of your favorite memes on President Lawnchair (which notably contradicts your favorite sill hashtag) actually contradicts this part of your conspiracy theory.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47640755)

You accuse me of contradiction, without explicitly stating where you find me contradictory.
Your only real strategy seems to be "all accusation, all the time".

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47641397)

You accuse me of contradiction, without explicitly stating where you find me contradictory.

The particular contradiction here is that you have unleashed a new de novo model of socialism where you are claiming it to be all about oppression. Last time you claimed it was all about giving away money for nothing. Those two are incompatible.

Of course as you prefer to be maximally ignorant on the topic I would expect no less.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47643207)

claiming it to be all about oppression. Last time you claimed it was all about giving away money for nothing. Those two are incompatible.

A perfect example of the cognitive dissonance at work is "ObamaCare bending the cost curve down. [politifact.com] "
In general, every one of these socialized policies (again, you can point to abstract Socialist theory All. Flipping. Day. Long.--I'm discussing empirical results here, boss.) produces the opposite of its stated intent. You can claim that raising the minimum wage [creators.com] is going to help low-wage workers? PROVE IT, Mike Foxtrot. You can't, because it doesn't.

Re:You really should read up on that fallacy (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47644495)

A perfect example of the cognitive dissonance at work is "ObamaCare bending the cost curve down."

Like any other conservative, President Lawnchair was saying what his owners were telling him to say. You aren't doing even a marginal job of discrediting my statement of Obama being the most conservative president to date in our country.

In general, every one of these socialized policies (again, you can point to abstract Socialist theory All. Flipping. Day. Long.--I'm discussing empirical results here, boss.)

What you are applying here is circular reasoning. You are claiming that policies signed by Obama are socialist because you falsely believe Obama to be a Socialist. You are not discussing empirical results, rather you are discussing your own distorted view of reality.

As I have already stated, you cannot show me a conservative president who has ever served who would not have signed the HIIBA 2010 act into law. If you want to pretend that we haven't had a conservative president, then I give you the same question - why - that I gave to MH42.

You can claim that raising the minimum wage is going to help low-wage workers? PROVE IT, Mike Foxtrot. You can't, because it doesn't.

So you're saying that low wage workers are somehow punished by getting raises? Interesting argument. I would be interested in knowing how you fantasize about supporting such an argument, but I don't expect that you will fill us in on that. Being as low wage workers' salaries are often a very trivial part of the cost of the goods and services they provide, the "raising their wages will horrifically raise the cost of all goods" argument doesn't hold water.

It is further noted that nothing you wrote was in any meaningful way connected to what you quoted me as saying

claiming it to be all about oppression. Last time you claimed it was all about giving away money for nothing. Those two are incompatible.

You can just bite me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47644613)

...President Lawnchair was saying what his owners were telling him to say.

No, dude: that's not how it works. You can't criticize me for calling Pres'ent #OccupyResoluteDesk a no-talent rodeo clown, and then sit there and agree with the point with this line of drivel.
He's either the godforsaken President, or, as I think you're saying, he's just a useless placeholder, and I'm giving him every bit of the respect he's earned, and you can just lay by your dish and quit defending the loser.

What you are applying here is circular reasoning.

Let me proffer a clarifying question: how is Socialism not statism?

As I have already stated, you cannot show me a conservative president who has ever served who would not have signed the HIIBA 2010 act into law.

As history and facts will show you, NO conservative President signed the ACA into law--which one of us is engaging in circle-jerk reasoning here? (Hint: I kinda don't think it's me, boss.)

I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47644761)

...President Lawnchair was saying what his owners were telling him to say.

You can't criticize me for calling Pres'ent #OccupyResoluteDesk a no-talent rodeo clown

I can when you call him that from one side of your mouth, while the other side is simultaneously claiming that he is in the process of launching us immediately and irreversibly into a totalitarian socialist nightmare state. A clown is thoroughly incapable of doing such a thing, period. I'm not criticizing your silly "rodeo clown" bit but rather pointing out that it flatly contradicts your bit about him being a fascist mastermind.

He's either the godforsaken President, or, as I think you're saying, he's just a useless placeholder

So why can't you pick just one? Hell, why can't you even stick to just one for five minutes at a time?

But indeed, he is just a servant to his corporate masters. Just as every other president has been for a very very long time.

and you can just lay by your dish and quit defending the loser.

There you go again with your fantasy about me "defending" President Lawnchair.

Chew on this for a moment, if you will. You know I don't care for conservatives. Why would I defend him if I see him as one?

What you are applying here is circular reasoning.

Let me proffer a clarifying question: how is Socialism not statism?

First of all, that doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand here. Second, I would have to know what you think "statism" means in order to answer that question. I could refer to Merriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com] for it:

concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

for it but I suspect you aspire to something more sinister.

As I have already stated, you cannot show me a conservative president who has ever served who would not have signed the HIIBA 2010 act into law.

As history and facts will show you, NO conservative President signed the ACA into law

Except for President Lawnchair, who history will remember as the most conservative president to serve up to this point in time. Do i even need to bother asking you to try to come up with a reason for why a Socialist president would ever authorize lobbing more missiles into Iraq, to clean up the mess created by a previous Conservative president?

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47645645)

After the dust is settled, I hope you have occasion to read over some of your drivel from this time period, and, in that day, laugh with the rest of us at your shrill, impotent attempts at disowning Pres'ent Obama.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47645907)

Wait, which side of the argument are you trying to take here? Two messages ago you again reached for your tired and baseless accusation of me "defending" President Lawnchair. Now you claim I am "disowning" him instead.

It is noted that you again abandoned your entire argument and responded to not a single question. I'm sorry that i have angered you so.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47648875)

You defended him by voting for him, you dummy. Twice, was it? Sheesh!

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47648991)

You defended him by voting for him, you dummy.

I voted for him because it was better than voting for someone who wanted me unemployed.

That said, I would not consider it the same as "defending" him, and it does not appear to be what smitty was referring to, either. After all, if that was it then all I would have to say is "I will never vote for President Lawnchair for POTUS again" and he should be happy. Instead he is going for some sense of "defending" that is vastly more obtuse.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47649195)

So, you voted for him for money. But you still voted for him. A better defense could not be offered. And you're just playing a victim card. Your dependency is noted. All your blabbering is just a lot of bs, very similar to your, um, counterpart here.

And do try to leave your "wasted vote" routine at the door.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47649341)

So, you voted for him for money

I voted for him because with him I had at least a meager chance of keeping my job. He does not pay my job himself, but others want people like me permanently unemployed. I do not expect him or anyone else to give me something for nothing.

A better defense could not be offered.

That makes no sense, whatsoever. I openly and repeatedly disagree with basically every piece of legislation that President Lawnchair has signed. I repeatedly point out that he has been the most conservative president to date in our country's history.

And you're just playing a victim card.

Victim of what, exactly?

And do try to leave your "wasted vote" routine at the door.

Can you show an example that would be better? I have asked you many times and you conveniently cower away when I do.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47650795)

You have to understand that fustakrakich's game could be summarized as: "T'was ever thus. I am become the Olympian Pot Stirrer: behold my stream of Yoda-isms."
Whereas you opt for the Rosseauian hooey, f (usually) affects a more hyper-materialist flavor of nonsense.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47656557)

We live in a material world, babe. What goes in Vegas stays in Vegas...

I am become...?

Oh, and what's that brand of demons and wizards nonsense that you've been pimping all this time? I mean really, using your lord's name to prop up your empire of the "lesser evil". That's not very nice.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47659701)

Wut?

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47656415)

Your rationalizations are bullshit, and you're just playing stupid games here. I'll leave that circle jerk to you and Smith. Your "disagreement" with the president's policies mean nothing when he has your vote. It couldn't be simpler. You are just so full of it.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47657161)

you're just playing stupid games here.

Stupid games like not wanting to be unemployed? Stupid games like wanting to be able to take care of my family financially?

Your "disagreement" with the president's policies mean nothing when he has your vote.

One, you only vote for a president every four years. Voting once does not indicate that you endorse everything that person does after you vote for them - especially when they do essentially none of what they campaigned to do.

Second, had I voted for anyone else I would have been aiding the aspirations of someone who wants me unemployed.

It couldn't be simpler.

And you could hardly be more wrong or less logical.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47657265)

Voting once does not indicate that you endorse everything that person does after you vote for them - especially when they do essentially none of what they campaigned to do.

And so you voted for him again! Apparently you will never see the stupidity in that...

Second, had I voted for anyone else I would have been aiding the aspirations of someone who wants me unemployed.

Such moronic bullshit the crap you make up...

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47659913)

I have told you this before, and I am telling you this again. I vote for the candidate based on what they say they will do. I had to choose between a candidate who plainly stated he would torpedo my career and one who did not. There was no other choice as a vote for any other would only end up working against me.

Now, I will concur that the results have been different from the promises. One could say that Lewis Black had it right in Stark Raving Black [goodreads.com] :

"I don't know if you've noticed, but our two-party system is a bowl of shit looking at itself in the mirror."

Now, if you want to try to make an argument that the democrats have always been conservatives and the republicans were always just slightly more insane, that is slightly more difficult to construct. Certainly our democrats from recent memory have been conservative, but whether that was by intent or simply by cowardice is unclear at this point. I am not aware of anything prior to 2008 that could have clued us in to the fact that we were choosing between two conservatives in the booth.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47659987)

I vote for the candidate based on what they say they will do.

There is always that whole "track record" thing, which is why I think guys like Scott Walker suck a bit less than other candidates.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47661687)

Scott Walker

Ahh, yes. If the Teflon Candidate (TM) set your heart aflutter back in 08 and 12, then the Kevlar Kandidate should really get you going. Cast much in the same mold, the Kevlar Kandidate manages to turn many of the Teflon Candidate's most memorable traits up to 11:

  • Proven and repeat animosity towards the working class
  • Repeat and blatant disregard for the state's largest city (you know, where all those non-wealthy people live)
  • Contempt towards public transportation
  • Hatred towards DC
    • With some added bonuses as well!
  • Previous track record of ballot-stuffing and other electoral shenanigans
  • Campaign videos that demonize a business that was started in his home state, by a family from his home state

Can it get any better than that?

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47666757)

Can it get any better than that?

I'm sure you could come up with some equally valid assertion that Walker drop-kicked someone's pet, as well.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47668339)

Can it get any better than that?

I'm sure you could come up with some equally valid assertion that Walker drop-kicked someone's pet, as well.

I'm not sure how to parse that statement. Are you saying that you are against something that Walker has been openly favoring, or are you taking a new stance in favor of kicking small animals?

Being as you already replied to my JE on the Kevlar Kandidate [slashdot.org] I don't see a reason to re-post the sources (not that you likely read them from there either).

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47669273)

You're right; my time limit on this frippery is ~10 minutes. But if you're in Wisconsin, you really should peruse http://althouse.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47675171)

You're right; my time limit on this frippery is ~10 minutes.

Is that your standard response to any sourced material? I will say that the Communist Manifesto is short but does take more than 10 minutes to read through. That might also explain how you manage to occasionally post links to material that actually refute your preferred conclusions, if you give up on them after only 10 minutes of reading.

But if you're in Wisconsin, you really should peruse http://althouse.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Most of what I see there is the same kind of nonsense that reaffirms for me that it is a good idea to not use facebook. I didn't see anything on there in the first page's worth of listings that actually relates to Wisconsin.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47676397)

Indeed, I really should read the Communist Manifesto. [Lights off Kindle on 'Droid phone. . .] Wow, free as the Bible. We'll see if it's as useful. I'll try to get in a page or two before I go into the office every day.
"history of class struggles" Really? I'll suspend my disbelief, but I think "class" has precious little to do with mankind's existential woes. Clearly, though, this has been an effective sales pitch, in the "credit where due" department.

it is a good idea to not use facebook

Yeah, better stick to MySpace.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47677199)

Indeed, I really should read the Communist Manifesto.

Wow, did I finally manage to persuade you to actually read and learn? I'm not quite on par with these guys [imgur.com] but with the great wall of resistance you have constructed to keep learning away, I feel like I (may) have made a great breakthrough here.

That said, I'll have to wait and see if you show any understanding of the text or if you give up on it.

Wow, free as the Bible.

I'm quite sure I mentioned a few times that you can read it for free.

We'll see if it's as useful.

Would you consider someone who has not read the Bible in any way, shape, or form to be a qualified expert on Christianity? You keep trying to claim yourself to be an expert on Communism without reading the most important text on the subject.

"history of class struggles" Really? I'll suspend my disbelief, but I think "class" has precious little to do with mankind's existential woes. Clearly, though, this has been an effective sales pitch, in the "credit where due" department.

I figured it would be too much to expect you to try to go in to it with an open mind.

it is a good idea to not use facebook

Yeah, better stick to MySpace.

... and back to snarkiness we go. If slashdot supported the blink tag I expect you would have used it there.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47682203)

Oh, I thought you were making a joke about a Blogger blog being FaceBook, and so I was playing along with the MySpace gag.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47660101)

Your political sect is absolutely no better than Mr. Smith's. You are every bit as tribal about your affiliations and are gonna stand your ground...

I vote for the candidate based on what they say they will do.

Obviously.. a fatal flaw of your very narrow vision.

You complain, and then ask for more of the same. Is this some S&M kind of thing you have?

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47661481)

In away, your superiority pose is as much as sham as Obama's blame pose: you both offer shag-all in the way of viable alternatives. Personally, I think that the Convention of States, in about 10 years, is going to be the horse to ride. Don't let my .000 batting average dissuade you on this. :-)

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47662119)

Don't let my .000 batting average dissuade you on this. :-)

So you're saying... don't look at track records [slashdot.org] , just listen to what people say they will do?

Is smitty and d_r actually the same person talking to himself?

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47664025)

Is smitty and d_r actually the same person talking to himself?

Yes [youtube.com]

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47664175)

What "superiority" are you talking about?? The truth is absolute. You yourself are saying that the time. The simple fact is that you guys are just fanbois. You're taking this professional wrestling soap opera seriously. You want to identify with the actors..

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47666777)

Stay beautiful, man.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47668869)

Eh, your standard CO these days... I can dig

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669755)

Eh, your standard CO these days... I can dig

You totally should. "Stay beautiful" is a sign that he is embracing materialism and the real world, none of that religious spiritual stuff.

The sooner the US returns to the secular country it once was, the sooner it will recover.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47671027)

This US was never secular, and what the hell is it going to "recover" from? Everything it does now goes back to the earliest days....

I'll tell you what it can recover from. The damn government can start doing its own paperwork, instead of making us do it. The IRS should do my taxes, and just send me my refund. I shouldn't have to declare a damn thing, and the only thing I should sign is the check, and good day, sir! Same goes for my other earned benefits...

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47672081)

This US was never secular

Oh, the US was secular once, back when separation of church and state meant something. That's when a man could freely start a business that doesn't necessarily follow everything Jesus tells him to do (like say, owning slaves and not treating them like you would like yourself be treated) without the church or the government that the church influenced getting on his back

and what the hell is it going to "recover" from? Everything it does now goes back to the earliest days....

You answered your own question. Going back to the earliest days is the recovery.

When a man could discriminate who he hires or how he treats his workers (again, see slavery), that's when you get the greatest economic benefit.

That still happens today in some places. Just look at the tech sector. It's often cited as one of the freer markets left, and lo and behold it's also got a reputation of not hiring a lot of women (or as they say, not many women want to study and apply for jobs), while having a taste for H1Bs.

I'll tell you what it can recover from. The damn government can start doing its own paperwork, instead of making us do it. The IRS should do my taxes, and just send me my refund. I shouldn't have to declare a damn thing, and the only thing I should sign is the check, and good day, sir! Same goes for my other earned benefits...

No disagreement from me there. I was just saying it's a good thing smitty is slowly but surly turning more secular. He might just one day become a libertarian!

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47679573)

When a man could discriminate who he hires or how he treats his workers (again, see slavery), that's when you get the greatest economic benefit.

Ah, okay, you want to regress back to classical antiquity. Here's a little secret for ya, we never left.

Re:I dare you, just once, to try thinking instead (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47660151)

Oops! Forgot to close a tag...

I am not aware of anything prior to 2008...

A good indication that was the year of your birth.

You obviously were not paying attention to where his money came from and the powerful alliances he kept that were grooming him for the job. You still believe in the fairy tales that a politician represents the voters and not the backdoor money that puts them in your face.

'grooming' (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47661477)

This verb would imply far more competence than the phoned-in piece of work currently cluttering the Oval Office.

Re:'grooming' (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47664087)

You are still in your little box. Everything is working perfectly smoothly. Everybody's performance has been top notch.

Re:'grooming' (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47666717)

"No' so fast," said Ambassador Stevens.

Re:'grooming' (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47668861)

"Who's he?", says Mr. Moneybags..

Re:'grooming' (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47669277)

"What difference, at this point, does it make?" inquired Her Majesty.

Re:'grooming' (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47670903)

She works for Mr. Moneybags. Tell me why she should care. As always you're blaming the puppets for a bad show. Your cult of personality and mass media kool-aid will forever dominate the conversation.

Re:'grooming' (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47674655)

Actually, I agitate for escaping the cult of personality, for all I think Living Colour is a great act.

Re:'grooming' (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47675181)

Bleh... just another brick in the wall.

Re:'grooming' (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47676323)

. . .of Voodoo.

Re:'grooming' (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47678387)

...that you do

Re:'grooming' (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47682271)

...on a Mexican radio.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>