Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: I must credit the president for being consistent 54

Journal by smittyoneeach

Was the man ever, at any point, anything other than a campaigner? I have two words for anyone who hasn't been seeing through BHO the entire time, the second of which is "you".

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I must credit the president for being consistent More

I must credit the president for being consistent

Comments Filter:

  • Was the man ever, at any point, anything other than a campaigner? I have two words for anyone who hasn't been seeing through BHO the entire time, the second of which is "you".

    If that is the case, then wouldn't your argument be going back towards President Lawnchair having done nothing? If he really isn't

    anything other than a campaigner

    ... then it would be difficult to imagine him being able to find any time to do any POTUS stuff. Even more so, it would be quite nearly impossible for him to gather this party to gather momentum for legislation.

    In other words if you want to take that angle you can't really support your bit about him prepping to bring about a new world order.

    • What you say is certainly true in an active sense. Your analysis, typically, fails to understand that it's all just passive aggression writ large:

      First, cause the crisis, then offer the solution. Nothing goes to waste. [pjmedia.com]
      Democrats thrilled at the long-awaited rise of such a charismatic standard-bearer, but their ardor has cooled as even top Democrats find the man aloof, disengaged, and focused on his own leisure rather than on their perceived common cause. Their voter database and field force are now his. Organizing for Action (nee Obama for America) can declare: "All your base are belong to us."
      President Obama does not make policy mistakes.

      No, but he does know how to spew him some entropy where he was purported to deliver order.

      • That is an interesting case of you trying to support two countering arguments in one JE, there. Your JE claimed that he was a do-nothing, and now you quickly turned to the other side of your mouth to claim that he is the anti-Christ, poised to launch his new world order at any coming moment.

        I would love for you to explain how those two views are not diametrically opposed, but being as you haven't been bothered by them so far in the least I don't expect that you ever will be in the future. When January

        • quickly turned to the other side of your mouth to claim that he is the anti-Christ

          I'm confident that you know fully well that I've never made this claim; indeed, I recognize BHO's occasional Christian affectations. I forgive you this deliberate, false troll, but want you to understand that I reject it utterly and call you out as a base liar for saying such. I wouldn't go in that heavy that quickly with just anyone; take it as a sign of affection that I know you and serve the response straight up and early.

          • quickly turned to the other side of your mouth to claim that he is the anti-Christ

            I'm confident that you know fully well that I've never made this claim; indeed, I recognize BHO's occasional Christian affectations. I forgive you this deliberate, false troll, but want you to understand that I reject it utterly and call you out as a base liar for saying such.

            I apologize if you took my use of the term anti-Christ as being more than euphemistic. In many other circles the term "anti-Christ" is analogous to "anyone who is the embodiment of evil, regardless of religious affiliation (or absence thereof)". From what you have written so far, particularly in light of the conspiracy theories you love to share regarding him, that analogy certainly reflects your view of Obama.

            • that analogy certainly reflects your view of Obama

              No, it does not. You really may wish to consider walking back that "certainly".

              • that analogy certainly reflects your view of Obama

                No, it does not. You really may wish to consider walking back that "certainly".

                Was that all the more of my comment that you read? While your replies - both to JEs and to comments of mine - have supported for some time that you don't read my writings from start to finish, here what you have quoted is such a small snippet as to have lost both its context and meaning. If we go back to what I wrote [slashdot.org] :

                I apologize if you took my use of the term anti-Christ as being more than euphemistic. In many other circles the term "anti-Christ" is analogous to "anyone who is the embodiment of evil, regardless of religious affiliation (or absence thereof)". From what you have written so far, particularly in light of the conspiracy theories you love to share regarding him, that analogy certainly reflects your view of Obama.

                There is plenty of evidence in your own conspiracy-backed comments to support my claim. In fact the only way that my claim would not be supported by your own comments would be if you eit

                • You have falsely asserted certainty concerning my views in this thread, and now it looks like you're trying to justify this bogus assertion. I'm telling you that I have never considered BHO as an "anti-Christ", and I consider joking about such to be of an equivalent crassness to Nazi jokes in a synagogue.

                  There is plenty of evidence in your own conspiracy-backed comments to support my claim. In fact the only way that my claim would not be supported by your own comments would be if you either don't actually believe in the conspiracy theories you relentlessly post here, or if you would welcome the nation that would result if they came to fruition.

                  I guess the encouraging news is that the bulk of readers who spend any time perusing these JEs don't really have much respect for either your opinions or your argumentation.

                  • I'm telling you that I have never considered BHO as an "anti-Christ", and I consider joking about such

                    There is no joke there. The use of "anti-Christ" is simply a reflection of how some use the term. The fact that you use it in a more literal sense than others only shows that there is more than one way to apply that term. If you opt to get your undies all up in a bunch over that, well that is your problem and not mine. I have already explained how I am using the term in this context.

                    I guess the encouraging news is that the bulk of readers who spend any time perusing these JEs don't really have much respect for either your opinions or your argumentation.

                    It appears you have opted to channel your inner Pudge, there, with your random assertion about other "readers". How tha

                    • Emphasis mine in both quotes:

                      There is no joke there. The use of "anti-Christ" is simply a reflection of how some use the term.

                      No, dude, look up the page, where you say:

                      ...you quickly turned to the other side of your mouth to claim that he is the anti-Christ

                      You've (at best carelessly) attempted to alter the scope of the statement from me personally making an assertion about BHO to "how some" use the term. I'm calling you out. This is a familiar behavior pattern with you, placing words in other's mouths and then trying to worm your way out of owning your actions. Stop it. Grow up. I grasp that you are no

                    • This is a familiar behavior pattern with you, placing words in other's mouths

                      No, and no.

                      I was not placing words in your mouth. You can pretend otherwise if you like, but that will not make it so.

                      When I said you claim him to be the anti-Christ, that was a combination of how I see people use the term, and how you describe him (which is consistent with how I often see people use the term). I understand that you have chosen to feign insult here, and you have the right to do that if you wish. I have acknowledged that you see the term anti-Christ to have a very specific meanin

                    • I was not placing words in your mouth. You can pretend otherwise if you like, but that will not make it so.

                      Let me shorten your quotation for you:

                      ...you...claim that he is the anti-Christ

                      I did not make such a claim.
                      Your rationalizations, mental gymnastics and diversions are as pathetic as usual. Man up. Own the fact that you said what you said. This is a crucial piece of adulthood. And I don't have trouble forgiving you for the statement as such. But your lack of intellectual honesty on this issue is depressing. When you're in a hole, quit digging, as Will Rogers noted.

                    • Own the fact that you said what you said.

                      I already did. I'm sorry that you can't be bothered to put forth enough effort towards reading my comments to see that. Your silly childish insults directed towards other parts of my comments, combined with your bragging about what you have not read, do not help your cause.

                    • I just re-read the whole thread, and you come across as sort of peevish. You were clearly in the wrong, and here you are blaming me for calling you on it. Note that we're past the proximal offense of you putting words in my mouth; that's in the past.
                      What I'm trying to communicate to you is simple truth about life and human interaction; your behavior is kind of like that of an absolute jerk. I have nowhere near the difficulty interacting with anyone else on the whole Internet that I have with you. Something
                    • You are entitled to your opinion. However when you make up "facts" to support it, you can expect that I will point them out.

                      Furthermore you are entitled to have whatever opinion of me that you want to hold. It matters not at all to me what you think of me. I do find it interesting that you have such awful things to say about me and yet you keep coming back to reply to my comments and JEs. I cannot force you to reply to what I write, nor would I ever want to. I do wish I could succeed in encouraging

        • What you fail to see is that the NWO has already come to pass, in a way that guarantees the next guy will be worse.

          • Only to the extent that good people permit it.

            • Good people not only permit it, good people vote for it. They want this to come to pass.

              • Voting for evil is an unwholesome strategy.

                • Which is why I despair of America. Last Presidential election, between Hudge and Grudge, 98% of the voting public voted for the lesser evil. And thus still voted for evil.

                  • Perfection being unattainable until He comes, what other real option is there?

                    • Oh, I see.. So let's not even try... Is "He" telling you to stick with the devil you know?

                      And besides, "He" is here. "He" never left. And if "He" is not crying, "He" is having a hearty laugh at watching you stumble around with your blindfold on.

                      Nobody's gonna "save" ya, bub. Your god is going to watch you drown. You have to save yourself.

                    • Oh, so you know Him?

                    • 1) Yes. And you do too. You just don't know it yet.
                      2) Yes. I am "Him". And you are too, just like everything else. It must be your cultural, social blinders that keep you from knowing what you should. God and nature are one, inseparable. Of course all this is too "simplistic" for you to comprehend. You need to create "abstractions", what I would call distractions, this to create a world in your image and dismiss out of hand all else.

                    • Somebody who read Stranger in a Strange Land while stoned?

                    • I really don't know. Would it make a difference?

                    • No, I am not Christ. You can easily show in the Word that all Christians are vessels of the Holy Spirit, but, per 1 John, that's a ratio at best. However, that line of inquiry is at loggerheads with your usual bit about how we're all just dumb animals executing a biological program. But I think you're just 'fannying about' in any case, and not necessarily pursuing a consistent argument.

                    • ...dumb animals executing a biological program...

                      That is also "god". Everything is...

                      ...all Christians are vessels of the Holy Spirit...

                      See? there you go... It's not just Christians and not just vessels. Maybe you don't know what the definition of is is... You cannot separate yourself, and you sure can't separate me. The creator is the the creation.

                      Your same problem that you relate to us every time is that you filter out anything that conflicts with what you were conditioned to believe as a child. "He is c

                    • Hmm. I admit I hadn't heard of anyone trying to merge Universalism and Materialism in quite this way. Is this some kind of Zen teaching, then?

                    • Is this some kind of Zen teaching, then?

                      If I ever study Zen teachings, I will let you know.

                    • Seriously, it brought this Dilbert panel to mind: http://theothermccain.com/2014/08/23/heh-2/ [theothermccain.com]
                      For my cursory study of Eastern thought, it seems to be about the negation of the self as a means of arrival at Nirvana.
                      I'm sure that I'm oversimplifying, and that a genuine practitioner could offer a more nuanced explanation, but the ultimate societal result would seem to be a bipedal ant colony, if humans carried out these Eastern ideas fully.

                    • In being able to tell fantasy from reality, quite possibly.

                    • And can you tell one from the other?

                    • Better than somebody who continually uses illicit substances to specifically blur the line.

                    • I don't think so... A lot of your "reality" is wishful thinking, speculation, and just plain hogwash. You can't really say that the druggies are any more harmful to the species. I mean, you can, but you'd be wrong. They're not trying to force their "reality" down everybody's throats. When a group of people who witness an event give entirely different accounts, when the brain has to filter out and literally invert most of what enters through its senses, your "reality" becomes mighty suspect, merely a matter

                    • I said that druggies were harmful to themselves. The entire intent of getting high is to escape reality, so why are you even arguing the fact that I acknowledge that those who get high are escaping reality?

                      The Objective universe does exist, even when your brain is too addled to notice. Plenty of people have met their ends while high because of that.

                    • The vast majority of your deities, including today's most popular ones were conjured up by winos and opium addicts. Mind altering substances are a very major part of religion, and most other facets of life.

                      Plenty of people have met their ends while high because of that.

                      Not nearly as many as are killed by fanatics, and falling off a cliff is probably better than spending years in the inquisitor's torture chamber. Like they say, *when you're dead, all your problems are solved*.

                      You say drugs distort reality,

                    • "The vast majority of your deities, including today's most popular ones were conjured up by winos and opium addicts."

                      Yes, they were. You can tell them from the real thing by not being universal and lacking the ability to say, choose the gravitational constant for the entire universe.

                    • Hey, yours is included in the deal, the same as all the rest. Don't try to convince me your religion is any different. General consensus does not make a deity any more real, it's just easier to sell when one can say, "9 out of 10 pharisees choose our god". All of this stuff has biological roots serving primordial instinct, not the other way around.

                    • " Don't try to convince me your religion is any different."

                      How could I? Drugs destroy the ability to reason. And you need the ability to reason to understand anthropocentric cosmology.

                    • Biocentric works for me. I know you all like to think you're special, but you're not. You're just dominant. Which, of course, works perfectly in the might makes right universe. But since you seem to believe that all difference of opinion is due to drugs, when the very thing you advocate is due to the same, maybe we should just call it off. You needn't waste your time.

                    • I know the difference of opinion is entirely due to drug abuse, and a view of reality tainted by an inability to understand higher abstract philosophy.

                    • Wow, I'm talking with Tom Cruise...

                      ...higher abstract philosophy...

                      uh huh... Yeah, "abstract" is a real good word there. Some of us just call it plain old mysticism/occult, from people who want to exploit those who will believe anything.

          • What you fail to see is that the NWO has already come to pass, in a way that guarantees the next guy will be worse.

            Is it really fair to call it a NWO when it wasn't his NWO? The conspiracy theories attached to President Lawnchair generally swear that he is going to launch his own NWO, not be another member of a crappy extant one. As I have pointed out many times before, Obama is following the same playbook - for the same masters - as the guys who came before him. It isn't much of a NWO when there is nothing new.

    • What he has achieved, has all gone towards creating more political capital for the Democrats. He's failed on everything else.

      • I'm not sure you're looking at the effects.

        • I'm looking at the effects for his base. Oh, not the fake base like the poor people in Ferguson who expected him to stop white cops from shooting their children- but his true base, in New York and Chicago, who expect him to relieve them of certain costs of doing business.

          That is to say, the base that will provide campaign funding for decades to come. Getting elected is a side job to the eternal campaign.

      • What he has achieved, has all gone towards creating more political capital for the Democrats. He's failed on everything else.

        Being as pretty much everything he has "achieved" is counter to his campaign promises - and has done little to nothing to help create a distinct image for his party - it seems he has done a really awful job of that.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close