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!

a new strain

Bill Dog (726542) writes | about 2 years ago

Democrats 21

[From this afternoon, when I didn't have access to my saved link for the older JE creation interface here.]

I'm sitting here with my netbook in my recliner, in front of the tube with the volume muted. I was watching it for some news and then eventually muted it to go on the net, but to occasionally look up and see if FNC was covering anything interesting (usually not).

[From this afternoon, when I didn't have access to my saved link for the older JE creation interface here.]

I'm sitting here with my netbook in my recliner, in front of the tube with the volume muted. I was watching it for some news and then eventually muted it to go on the net, but to occasionally look up and see if FNC was covering anything interesting (usually not).

From the headline above the ticker at the bottom they were playing some of BHO's reaction to the GOP convention, quoting him as saying that Mitt only offered no new ideas and only old ideas of the past.

I watched for a minute and saw serious teleprompter reciting, but with an instance of that characteristic occasional interrupting of it by his snickering.

I have two categories of problems with the Left, in general. The first is that your ideas -- what you want for mankind -- are evil. But what is also just as evil is your tactics. You could be honest and earnest with people and not be evil in this second way, and just be evil in the "what" that you're pushing. But that hasn't worked for you guys, at least in America's history, so you adopt evil in the "how" as well (which is working, fabulously, if much too slowly for most of you).

So BHO publicly states that his opponents' are ideas of the past. This is true, of course. Both sides' ideas are from long ago. In fact, thinking about the history of man, it sure seems like the philosophy of authoritarian collectivism has been around a lot longer than that of libertarian individualism.

BHO is not a dumb man. He knows both sides' ideas are old ideas from the past, just as you and I know this. But the Left's tactics mostly boil down to "fooling the dummies", and that's what's going on here. He's of course trying to make the dummies, of which there is an asston in America, believe thru implication that it is only the Right's ideas that are from the past. (With the further implication that "from the past" is even a bad thing.)

So BHO is hugely despicable in both of the usual ways that all of the rest of you are, save the few here that are a bit clueless or a bit crazy or both. But he takes it one step further.

He's like the guy I occasionally played chess with in college, who was so much better at it than me/had tremendous advantage over me in that game, if he actually would've outwardly laughed as he enjoyed his advantage and how well the tricks he could play on me worked.

Only BHO is laughing in the face of the Right, for how well his trickery works on the dummies. Because he knows that both the Right and the (non-nomimal*) Left know it's crap, but the dummies don't, and furthermore the dummies don't even pick up on that tell (and in fact actually find it endearing!).

Most Lefties are dead serious about their religion, and I can appreciate that, independent of its evilness. For example I imagine someone like Hillary (who'll prolly resign from Sec of State shortly after BHO's re-election, and be the Dem's nominee for prez next time) would only stab you (metaphorically) with the knife multiple times because she just wants you (i.e. your political philosophy) dead.

But that's old-school, and BHO is of the newer, extra-sick variety of Leftist. He seems to want to stab and pull the knife out and then pause for a reaction of pain, and enjoy the moment before stabbing again. I see a little bit of that here, too, where most of you guys are just fighting for your side, but a few just write things to be cruel; where you know the deception won't work in that case, but you pile it on thick and savor the moment of just trying to be mean.

Unfortunately as evil grows stronger in the world and you guys find yourselves winning more and more, esp. where previously a given ploy would've never worked, your astoundment at how successful it's going and the confidence that'll bring will prolly turn more of you guys into effectively sporting the patented BHO smug grin, that can be seen between sections of serious-face and those momentary snickers when he's just laughing his ass off inside.

*My "nominal Left" is the mushy middle of the American electorate; those who haven't educated themselves about Marxism and made a conscious decision and said yep that's definitely for me, but those who've just been slid into it.

cancel ×

21 comments

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

What is your version of utopia? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41205707)

Would it be good old days of 19th century industrialism of coal dust and sludge and slave labor, where everybody knew their place, and submitted unconditionally to the authority of the company boss? You leave the impression that the feds were wrong to violate the property rights of the slave owner. Where does your "Mason-Dixon Line" reside? Does the government have no place in protecting individuals from the corrupt local authorities who will steal your property to put up a shopping mall, or refuse to allow black kids into the public schools, or dump their crap into the lakes and rivers?

Now, if you're just talking about the evils of the ruling party (both factions) and its fanatical followers, then you have a point. Many studies have already documented the phenomenon. It is very authoritarian. However, I get the impression your complaint is more related to the target of their authority, and not about authority itself, which exists without your imaginary "left/right" idealism.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 2 years ago | (#41209371)

Just know that I'm generally opposed to the legalization of any more recreational drugs. From that you will feel comfortable that you know everything you care to know about me. I certainly do likewise, from what you wrote here.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41209469)

Just looking for consistency in your viewpoint. You're all over the place on this freedom thing. I wonder why you seem more concerned about corporate liberties, while disparaging personal liberty, and community use of its resources to protect those liberties. I sense a strong conflict, and am interested in the thought process involved in resolving it. If you're not interested in sharing... eh... whatever.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 2 years ago | (#41211217)

I already had a semi-long conversation a year or two ago about this with someone else with the particular ruminations signature of your subclass of Leftist. So I already know how it ends, esp. in realizing afterward that it was going to end that way no matter what was said.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41212443)

Well, I have a slightly different attitude in insisting nobody has any right to impose their 'morality' on others, nobody has the right to restrict what kinds of contracts a particular group can be party to, nor what substances they consume, nor what kind of activities they can engage in without scientifically proving harm to uninvolved people, and those that do are living dangerously, and putting their whole society at risk. If eternal warfare is what you want for future generations, I would question the kind of legacy you want to leave behind. What you do in your church should stay in your church. Try to redirect your urge to impose your religion towards something actually constructive. Something like visiting the people you have locked up. Maybe, if you look them in the face, there could be an epiphany.

Anyway I'll take that as a "no"... Thanks for your input...

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 2 years ago | (#41215621)

I could troll you and tell you that you're inconsistent, being for telling people what they can't do with their land, but against telling people that they can't put dangerous substances in their bodies that make them lose control of themselves and would utterly break down society. But you wouldn't get the point. You'd completely miss it and start arguing how what you want to be allowed and disallowed is good and what I want is bad.

I already know everything about you, thinking-wise, from the cartoonish and cluelessly insulting pictures your writing reveals that you reason in to the codewords you use. I knew your responses were invariably going to amount to nothing more than a keyboard-lashing at me, because that's just the characteristic personality quirk of your subtype of Leftist. You likely have a slightly different attitude about something in this world, but not about anything you've said that I've seen.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41216583)

Leftist - Makes you look like a real clown every time you use that word.

Land, air, and water are common properties that respects no human boundaries, you can't own it. You have no right to block rights of way. Oh you can buy, sell, pass on to your kids, but you and they are only are only the caretaker. It will be there after you're all gone. You can own what you produce on that land, but never the land itself. That will sidestep your silly collectivist crap. You can fully enjoy the fruits of your labor, but never exclusivity of the natural resources that were here long before you. They can never be yours without the coercion of the weapon. You will be held responsible for those downhill, downwind, downstream that you put into harm's way in the meantime. Your property rights extend no further than your own body. Everything within is absolutely yours. It dies with you.

...can't put dangerous substances in their bodies that make them lose control of themselves and would utterly break down society...

That's your inner moralist talking, with no scientific proof. A sane, healthy society is robust enough to sustain and defend itself without harming the individual. You, like all authoritarians (there is no subset), demand prior restraint. This is diametrically opposed to your statements. What you preach is half-assed anarchy for the rich that still supports a strong state/church to enforce your morals on the rest.

You simple-mindedly delineate left and right by the targets of their authority, not by the presence or absence of authority itself, and if you ever bothered to finish the book, you will see that "leftists" (well, at least the commie that wrote it) seek to ultimately dissolve the state.* Look up stateless society, you will note that it's a product of the "left", not the "conservative right" You, on the other hand, wish to perpetuate state/church rule, make it stronger, in direct contradiction to what you post. So, indeed, you're no lefty, that's for sure.

* Gee! Waddya know! I guess that makes me a "lefty" after all. A stateless society will be its ultimate evolution. Proof that we are really human.. actually evolved above the mere desires of the flesh, those desires being greed, hoarding, domination (sexual and otherwise) over others...

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 2 years ago | (#41218039)

Nice; you did exactly what I predicted (I knew you couldn't resist), even after I told you you would (!) (I knew that you're incapable of feeling any shame or embarassment). I.e. I know your subgenus and genus, respectively, too well.

I've gotten to the point where my biggest problem with Slashdot, maybe thankfully, is that it's simply dwindled down to there being only a handful left who really have anything to offer me. There's few left that are capable of (or are willing to let on to me that they're capable of) independent or unconventional thought. And most of them struggle with emotional and/or mental stability issues, making it a difficult process to get to and explore these gems of non-usualness.

You seem perfectly normal, you just seem to have nothing new to say that I haven't already heard and processed and considered and filed accordingly, on politics at least. Impart some wisdom on another subject area some time. I like to hear from interesting people on all sorts of things.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41218213)

Nice; you did exactly what I predicted...

Happy to oblige You appeared to have heard a lot... Too bad you never listen..

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 years ago | (#41225343)

Scientific proof is overrated. Use History instead.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 years ago | (#41225327)

HUH?!?!?!? Are you getting Bill Dog mixed up with me?

I've NEVER seen Bill Dog disparage personal liberty at all. Hint: I too consider recreational drugs to be exactly the opposite of liberty- the slavery of addiction and the liberty of corporate masters who create and sell the drugs.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41226403)

Please, don't blame addiction on the drugs. We can go 'round and 'round about the harms caused by legal substances. If you want consistency in the law, you're going have to prohibit many more things. And the history of and the real motivation for prohibition speaks for itself very loudly. It is by prohibition that your corporate slave masters make their greatest profits, with all your biggest banks washing the money nice and clean. That goes for any product, and it is criminal in every form of the term. Notice that the law is called the controlled substances act.. for a very good reason. The corporate government wants to control the market, not destroy it. Look to the opium market right now, and you will understand why we occupy Afghanistan. The Taliban almost eradicated the crops. Something had to be done. If you want to control anything, you have to address the demand, and you'd better tread lightly. Attacking the supply affects nothing but the price. And the consumers will give you the bum's rush, they will crush you if they don't get what they want. And to tell the truth, they have my full backing. The time for asking politely is over.

And to your other post. Show some history of the harm caused by pot.

Look, drugs are illegal in order to target and control specific groups of people, and to make money, off the books. It has nothing to do with harm. Never did That is strictly a propaganda thing. So please, let's get that out of our heads, ok? The smugglers wrote the rules, and they are profiting handsomely for it. They are the government But for society, the prohibition has proven to be much more harmful than the substance. And from the 'moralistic' standpoint, prohibition is a matter of expediency, or convenience.. It's 'lock 'em up, and throw away the key'. And it's racist. The pot laws, to be specific, were written to rout out the Mexicans from California, pushed most heavily by the epitome of yellow journalism itself, Mr. Hearst. And read some of the statements by Harry Anslinger, amongst others if you don't want to believe me about their motivations.

B D is a prohibitionist. That is a fact he does not deny, and it directly conflicts with his statements on liberty. Prohibition can only bring more war and misery. It is a fascist cause. He has every right not to consume, but that's as far as his rights extend on the matter, no more. His morals are his morals. Your morals are your morals. Mine are mine. "What goes in Vegas, stays in Vegas" (I believe that's how the saying goes). And that's the way it should stay, if one wants to maintain a peaceful, civil society. The alternative is perpetual war. That will be your children's future.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 years ago | (#41229037)

"Please, don't blame addiction on the drugs."

If the chemical wasn't in the system, then the addiction would not occur.

" If you want consistency in the law, you're going have to prohibit many more things. "

And they should be. Or rather, they should be limited to controlled, safe tests.

"And to your other post. Show some history of the harm caused by pot.":

"Look, drugs are illegal in order to target and control specific groups of people, and to make money, off the books. It has nothing to do with harm."

Yep, and nobody ever died because some idiot smoking pot thought he was Captain Kirk on the freeway. Tell me another one.

"B D is a prohibitionist."

I see no real evidence of that however. He and I have gone in circles about this too. He ALWAYS errs on the side of liberty, where I support making pot not just illegal, but EXTINCT. As in roll an army across all 7 continents and ever place you find that genome, burn it out, complete scorched earth. No money left to be made, because no natural producer of THC exists.

Now THAT is prohibition. Anything less, is as you say, just control of certain populations of humans.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41230217)

If the chemical wasn't in the system, then the addiction would not occur.

It most certainly would! The addiction is already there. That too, has already been proven. The chemical is naturally produced by the brain, not the other way around. We use the drug to increase production*, temporarily satisfying the addiction. You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Blaming the drug is like blaming the apple in the Garden of Eden. It is the addictive personality you must treat. Counter the temptation, not the object of that temptation. You may as well tell me Adam should have chopped down the tree before Eve takes that fateful bite. Nobody ever said he couldn't have.

Yep, and nobody ever died because some idiot smoking pot thought he was Captain Kirk on the freeway.

Show me a single instance where that happened, just one. And you no doubt will find other drugs in the system, and/or other major mental issues. Nothing like that has ever happened due to pot. Not a single accurately documented time. Never. Ok, maybe just maybe, a 2 mph fender bender. That's about as fast as your average pot smoker drives. The worst he'll do is make the guy stuck behind him a bit late for work. But you will be hard pressed to prove pot was the cause of any accident. Or what, are you going to blame him for failing to yield to the drunk PCP junkie driving at 80 the wrong way? So yes, pull the other one indeed.

If B D is against abolishment of prohibition, as he has already stated that he is, then obviously he is a prohibitionist. You can't have both ways.

To kill the genome, which is pure fantasy, by the way, because we will shelter what we can, you will need nuclear/chemical weapons with all their resulting collateral damage. Are you really willing to commit murder to enforce your personal morals on the world? Are you going to bulldoze the houses like Israel does with your army? Are you going to spray herbicides that will wipe out vital food crops? Shame on you if you do. You would be committing a horrendous atrocity, merely to assert your authority. I would say that's your addiction.. power/domination. One of the most deadly addictions on this planet.

God forbid we could possibly coexist peacefully, eh?

Sorry man, there is no moral right to tell me what I can eat, smoke, or drink. None. This is not negotiable. Fundamental rights never should be. The bible didn't say, "Don't light that joint", and neither should you. It is none of your business. What you want is to impose your version of Sharia Law. That is just as unacceptable as the real thing. I have to ask again, is war what you want? It's already happening, and you're losing. But then we both know the prohibitionists are holding back from really fighting to win. Even they are not yet willing to "drop the bomb and exterminate them all" quite yet. Bad PR and all that. What about you? Would you push the button? Fortunately for your side the balance of power remains in your favor to keep doing what you're already doing, for now, but not forever. We will find a way to protect ourselves eventually. And waddya gonna do if we were ever to find a way of neutralizing all your fancy weaponry? Through EMP or other means, bringing us back to sticks and stones will democratize things a tiny bit. Now there's a worthy goal, if there ever was one.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 years ago | (#41234321)

"Show me a single instance where that happened, just one"

Did you bother to even READ THE LINK I GAVE YOU IN THE GP?!?!?!!?

"Are you really willing to commit murder to enforce your personal morals on the world? "

Yes. I fully agree with the purpose of Inquisitions. This too I've covered with BD in the past.

" Are you going to bulldoze the houses like Israel does with your army? "

If necessary.

"If B D is against abolishment of prohibition, as he has already stated that he is, then obviously he is a prohibitionist. You can't have both ways."

As I've stated before, what you are currently experiencing isn't prohibition.

"To kill the genome, which is pure fantasy, by the way"

Mankind has made several species extinct. Marijuana isn't special in that regard. In fact, it would be relatively easy to design an airborne enzyme inhibitor that directly attacks THC, not only making it impossible to grow marijuana, but ALSO impossible for anybody to get high at all off of THC enabled plants.

They won't do it and why? Because this isn't prohibition. This is marketing.

"Sorry man, there is no moral right to tell me what I can eat, smoke, or drink. None. This is not negotiable. Fundamental rights never should be."

There is no such thing as a fundamental right in a country that fails to respect the right to life.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41234759)

Did you bother to even READ THE LINK I GAVE YOU IN THE GP?!?!?!!?

I would love to... Where did you hide it?

Are you really willing to commit murder to enforce your personal morals on the world?

Yes. I fully agree with the purpose of Inquisitions.

Okaaay... May the best man win. Can't argue with the obstinate.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 years ago | (#41235827)

I appologise. Apparently the URL tag no longer works on slashdot [go.com] .

I even had to re-google this.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41236801)

No apology needed. I took no offense.

Driving while impaired is a problem regardless of the substance. We can print the same propaganda and substitute anything you don't approve of. It in no way makes your case for incarceration and vilification. And I still contend that legal weed will reduce alcohol and more dangerous drugs consumption. So, overall the hazards are reduced. We'll never know until we try.

But all that means nothing when you insist on imposing your faith on me, or kill me for resisting. I'm not sure how much of the population you want to kill off. So, as it stands, all that is left is self defense. So far we're doing a pretty good job. I can get what I want anytime and anywhere for a very reasonable price, and usually have delivered to my door faster than a pizza. I have to walk further to pick up a bag of munchies. And now there's a story about printing 3D guns. 3D bazookas and bombs can't be far behind. I still prefer to render the weapons inoperative as the more humane way of dealing with the authoritarians, but "whatever it takes" comes to mind. I will shed no tears for the dead dictators and their minions. You seem to feel the same way to accomplish your objectives, however you still have to convince people that doing the wrong thing is the right thing. As with all authority you will be dealing with corruption and all the other corrosive effects on the human character. In other words, where's your inquisition now? I don't believe I would have such a problem. Best of luck in your endeavor. Soon we'll be able to say, 'Do your worst'.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 years ago | (#41247277)

Ammo control works far better than gun control, and we're still about 100 years away from computer-aided manufacture of real explosives. Draino bombs on the other hand, are now becoming common.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41247909)

:-) Thanks for the tip... Less conventional, more creative defense mechanisms are always a plus.

Re:What is your version of utopia? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 years ago | (#41251833)

My favorites are kinetic systems. Police armor does not protect against flying cows, to paraphrase Monty Python for a moment.

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>