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!

Lest damn_registrars think I'm not calling it like it is

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 2 years ago

User Journal 29

As Erickson put it on Twitter: "Looks like the Mayan calendar was Boehner's horoscope."
http://theothermccain.com/2012/12/21/leaders-are-people-with-followers/As Erickson put it on Twitter: "Looks like the Mayan calendar was Boehner's horoscope."
http://theothermccain.com/2012/12/21/leaders-are-people-with-followers/

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

Oooh, a journal entry for me? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#42359145)

Why thank you.

Of course, this still doesn't explain your completely unsubstantiated and unsourced argument about Benghazi. It appears you have no interest in actually looking into questions about your claim. I don't know if you are hoping to assemble your lynch mob here on slashdot or what your goal is, but your argument doesn't exactly hold water and your cowardice doesn't help your cause if you are trying to recruit more people to your side.

You're free to your own opinions, but don't expect to win support when you are trying to make up your own facts (or, perhaps more fitting to your method, drive people to believe that facts are only for whiny liberals and not needed by true 'merican patriots).

OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#42360943)

completely unsubstantiated and unsourced argument about Benghazi

You really shouldn't go conceding that much ground in your denials. Double down, man! Give it the full Winston Smith! You should refute:

  • The false character set I'm attempting to smuggle in as English.
  • The existence of Libya in general, and Benghazi in particular.
  • The citizenship of Stevens, Smith, Doherty & Woods, who were probably Commie plants that had it coming.
  • The motives of Nakoula, whose attempt at a religious remake of "Manos" The Hands of Fate [agonybooth.com] has assured him notoriety, if not immortality.
  • The bitter, cling-on, raaaaacist rejection of the story proffered by Susan Rice. We should blame Bush for that, as he so famously persecuted black women named Rice, did he not?
  • The obviously Birtherist origins of the Benghazi blowback against Obama. How could Americans possibly find fault with their Lawd & Savory, Barack Obama [examiner.com] ? Well, 'Benghazi' and 'Birther' both begin with 'B'. How more obvious could it be?

Until I get a serious, point-by-point rejection like that from you, damn_registrars, I'll be left to wonder if you aren't tacitly agreeing that BHO is a cretin who merits getting drummed out of office, STAT!
Your smug toss-offs just aren't enough.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#42362333)

Until I get a serious, point-by-point rejection like that

Oh, I see. You were just making a joke this whole time, right? I'm sorry I accidentally thought you were expressing your actual thoughts and opinions. That whole sarcasm thing, it does not often pass well via plain text.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#42363007)

Think of it as a co-routine:
  1. I do think that there needs to be a full-blown impeachment trial over Benghazi, because the death toll and the erratic behavior of the administration need to be answered properly, and,
  2. I'm feeding your brand of nonsensical evasions and displacements back at you.

Hopefully your superior liberal intellect can encompass all that.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#42363153)

I do think that there needs to be a full-blown impeachment trial over Benghazi, because the death toll and the erratic behavior of the administration need to be answered properly, and,

How can you proceed with something like that when you cannot even state your goals? You claim "erratic behavior", but you are unwilling to define a situation where you would be willing to state the situation to be otherwise. Hence you are attempting to start up a full-blown lynch mob.

And if you want to talk death toll, you're not even close to the right order of magnitude. The previous administration - who was that guy, that the conservatives don't like to mention by name - repeatedly sold us outright lies to get us into a ground war that was not related to anything at all. Said ground war has cost thousands of good American lives. How can you not care about thousands of soldiers but get your underwear all knotted up over three ambassadors?

I'm feeding your brand of nonsensical evasions and displacements back at you.

Evasions? Sir, you are the one evading. I have posted many questions to you and you have essentially not answered a single one. I would ask you to show where you think I am evading something, but I see no reason to expect an answer from you.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

pudge (3605) | about 2 years ago | (#42363497)

How can you proceed with something like that when you cannot even state your goals? You claim "erratic behavior", but you are unwilling to define a situation where you would be willing to state the situation to be otherwise.

Actually, you mentioned something about Benghazi (not smitty), but you cannot even state what he said that you find objectionable.

And if you want to talk death toll ... The previous administration ...

Dude. Obama already got reelected. You can stop saying everything is Bush's fault.

I have posted many questions to you

Not here, you haven't.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#42364129)

Haven't seen you around in a while, Pudge - what brings you back?

How can you proceed with something like that when you cannot even state your goals? You claim "erratic behavior", but you are unwilling to define a situation where you would be willing to state the situation to be otherwise.

Actually, you mentioned something about Benghazi (not smitty), but you cannot even state what he said that you find objectionable.

This discussion is the continuation of Smitty bringing up Benghazi on Tuesday. I've been asking him to clarify his position and he keeps dodging the question. [slashdot.org]

And if you want to talk death toll ... The previous administration ...

Dude. Obama already got reelected. You can stop saying everything is Bush's fault.

I'm quite sure the soldiers who died in Iraq before the 2008 election are not the fault of Obama. If you can provide an argument to the contrary, please do.

I have posted many questions to you

Not here, you haven't.

I invite you to read earlier comments in this JE discussion, as well as comments in this JE [slashdot.org] as well as this JE [slashdot.org] and the earliest of the series that started it all [slashdot.org] . There are plenty of questions I asked across them all.

Although for that matter in the comment I wrote which you replied to I posed questions as well [slashdot.org] . So I'm not sure how you reached your conclusion that I have not posted many questions.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

pudge (3605) | about 2 years ago | (#42364423)

This discussion is the continuation ...

I figured, but you still gace no context.

I'm quite sure the soldiers who died in Iraq before the 2008 election ...

... are not relevant to the discussion. You're just trying to distract.

I invite you to read earlier comments in this JE discussion

I did. And you did not post *any* questions, except one: "You were just making a joke this whole time, right?"

... as well as comments in [other JEs]

It is your obligation to point to them (which, now, you have done).

So I'm not sure how you reached your conclusion that I have not posted many questions.

I had no such conclusion. I said HERE you have not posted questions. Not ANY, in fact, except that one (plus two more similar non sequiturs, in the comment I initially replied to).

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#42365017)

This discussion is the continuation ...

I figured, but you still gace no context.

Then you could have done yourself a favor to read the earlier parts of the conversation before putting your foot in your mouth.

I'm quite sure the soldiers who died in Iraq before the 2008 election ...

... are not relevant to the discussion. You're just trying to distract.

No. You can make that claim if you wish, but that will not give it merit. He commented on the death total in Benghazi and how he feels that is justification for the president to be violently impeached. I was pointing out that far more service people died as a result of a decision of the previous president. Just because you don't like facts does mean they are automatically "to distract".

I invite you to read earlier comments in this JE discussion

I did. And you did not post *any* questions, except one: "You were just making a joke this whole time, right?"

Then you didn't do a very good job of reading. Go back and try again. The comments are right there in front of you, and I'm pretty sure you are capable of reading them (though your comments thus far have suggested that to be debatable).

So I'm not sure how you reached your conclusion that I have not posted many questions.

I had no such conclusion

you said yourself: [slashdot.org]

I have posted many questions to you

Not here, you haven't.

Which is a puzzling conclusion as I have posted several questions to Smitty in this JE discussion.

I said HERE you have not posted questions.

Or are you redefining the word "HERE" to your convenience (this would not be the first time you have resorted to ignoring the conventions of the English language while writing a reply to something I have posted on slashdot)? If by "HERE" you mean this JE discussion, I have indeed posted questions. If you didn't see them, go back and read the comments again. You know as well as I that comments cannot be changed once posted, so the questions that are viewable now that predate your assertion were indeed there before you claimed them not to be.

Not ANY, in fact, except that one

Please do yourself a favor and read my comments. At this point I can't really justify asking you to re-read them, as I no longer see good reason to believe that you read them in their entirety (and there isn't much to them) to start with.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

pudge (3605) | about 2 years ago | (#42365231)

Then you could have done yourself a favor to read the earlier parts of the conversation before putting your foot in your mouth.

Um. What part of "you gave no context" did you not get? You gave no links, so there were no "earlier parts of the conversation" I could read.

He commented on the death total in Benghazi and how he feels that is justification for the president to be violently impeached.

So say you, but since you gave no context, it was not a part of this discussion.

I did. And you did not post *any* questions, except one: "You were just making a joke this whole time, right?"

Then you didn't do a very good job of reading.

I defy you to point them out. I know you won't, so let's not keep this charade up for much longer, as your defiance in the face of the facts is quickly getting old.

Which is a puzzling conclusion as I have posted several questions to Smitty in this JE discussion.

False. At the time you said "I have posted many questions to you and you have essentially not answered a single one", you had posted ONE question, and even that one was merely rhetorical, so it doesn't really count. You're just lying. And yes, everyone else can see you are lying. Perhaps you meant to "imply" more questions, but you didn't actually post any.

This is very, very, simple. You attacked him in this JE for not stating his own goals, while at the same time attacking him for things that you wouldn't clearly state, and demanding answers to questions you didn't ask. Yes, I understand, there was other context I was not privy to. And since then, you've posted links I won't bother to read. I am just pointing out the fact that you were being stupid. And by lying about having asked questions you didn't ask, you're only compounding your error.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#42366441)

Then you could have done yourself a favor to read the earlier parts of the conversation before putting your foot in your mouth.

Um. What part of "you gave no context" did you not get? You gave no links, so there were no "earlier parts of the conversation" I could read.

I provided you links to the previous JE discussions where this started, all the way back to the start of this week where Smitty first brought up Benghazi for no apparent reason. Did you not see those links, or did you consciously opt not to follow them?

He commented on the death total in Benghazi and how he feels that is justification for the president to be violently impeached.

So say you, but since you gave no context, it was not a part of this discussion.

I'm sorry you're late to the party. Before you go around telling people who is right and who is wrong, I would suggest you follow the links I provided you earlier to see what has already been covered in this discussion.

I defy you to point them out.

I already did.

I know you won't

I thought after you took some time away from slashdot perhaps that would bring about a change in your behavior - or at least you would take longer before resorting to outright lies, fabrication, and rejection of the reality right in front of your nose - clearly that was expecting too much.

At the time you said "I have posted many questions to you and you have essentially not answered a single one", you had posted ONE question

I'm sorry reading comprehension is such a challenge for you today. It's no wonder you can't get a job as a journalist, I wouldn't want to hire an illiterate journalist either.

there was other context I have chosen not to read, and instead have persistently denied the existence of

There, fixed that for you. You're welcome.

you've posted links I won't bother to read

Surprised, I am not. That has been your standard MO for years when dealing with anyone who is less conservative than Genghis Khan. You asked for them, though, so I errantly thought perhaps you would read them.

I will now pose a question for you - which I suspect you will not answer. What did you expect to gain from coming in to this discussion? You entered it after several comments had already been written, and apparently you read only the last one and then tried to project yourself as an expert on the discussion, apparently without bothering to even read other posts in the same discussion.

Basically, you came in ignorant and arrogant, and have subsequently dug in your heals to only reinforce that.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

pudge (3605) | about 2 years ago | (#42367669)

I already did.

You're a damned liar. Again: you has posted no questions in this discussion (except for a rhetorical one) when you said you had posted many, but had received no answer.

I don't know why you're lying about htis obvious fact. I thought you might have given up lying over the years. Guess not.

I will now pose a question for you - which I suspect you will not answer.

Until you either show what questions you had asked in this discussion, OR admit you had asked none, I won't even read your question.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#42369765)

I already did.

You're a damned liar.

You like that word. I should learn what it means in your world.

Again: you has posted no questions in this discussion (except for a rhetorical one) when you said you had posted many, but had received no answer.

I don't know why you opt to try to portray yourself as being knowledgeable on a discussion that you entered late and have intentionally decided not to read the earlier parts of.

I would call you a liar, but you might take that as a complement as clearly your idea of liar is not the same as what is used in the world I live in.

I will now pose a question for you - which I suspect you will not answer.

Until you either show what questions you had asked in this discussion

I already did, but you did not read them. I provided you earlier with links to comments and JEs where I posed questions. For some reason you decided not to read those.

OR admit you had asked none

Confessing to a lie makes no sense.

I won't even read your question.

You have a long history of not answering questions I ask. I believe there was a previous discussion where I asked you a question that brought you to perma-hate me here on slashdot.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

pudge (3605) | about 2 years ago | (#42369819)

I already did

Why do you keep saying that which is self-evidently false?

I provided you earlier with links to comments and JEs where I posed questions.

So what? I have repeatedly said that I am asking you to show where you asked questions in this discussion. That you are implying my question was about other discussions is a lie. You said you provided questions in this discussion. Where are they?

You have a long history of not answering questions I ask.

You ask a lot of stupid questions. I try my best to not answer stupid questions. I have no idea if this one was among those. Admit you were wrong -- that, despite your claim as written, you had asked NO questions in this discussion when you said you did -- and maybe we'll find out together.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#42369931)

I already did

Why do you keep saying that which is self-evidently false?

Do you really expect that your outright lie will somehow become true if you just keep repeating it?

I provided you earlier with links to comments and JEs where I posed questions.

So what? I have repeatedly said that I am asking you to show where you asked questions in this discussion.

And it is not my problem that you intentionally do not read my comments or follow the links I provide. I could show you the questions yet again but you would just continue to deny their existence.

That you are implying my question was about other discussions is a lie.

This discussion is a continuation of one that started earlier this week. Even if you want to redefine "discussion" - which would not deviate from your standard M.O. of redefining every word you can think of - to mean only the comments after this particular journal entry from Smitty, you are still wrong with your assertion about my questions.

You said you provided questions in this discussion. Where are they?

Read back to the other comments in whatever you see to be "this discussion". If you actually read the comments you will find question that I have asked.

You have a long history of not answering questions I ask.

You ask a lot of stupid questions. I try my best to not answer stupid questions.

That is, to be kind, a very childish tactic. Discarding questions you are not willing to answer as "stupid" does not demonstrate you to have any knowledge of the matter or willingness to actually participate in a discussion.

Admit you were wrong -- that, despite your claim as written, you had asked NO questions in this discussion when you said you did

I will make no admission, as such an admission would be a lie. Perhaps, since your understanding of the word lie seems to be much much different from how the rest of the world understands it, you might see it as something else - but I will not admit to something that is not true.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

pudge (3605) | about 2 years ago | (#42370209)

I provided you earlier with links to comments and JEs where I posed questions.

So what? I have repeatedly said that I am asking you to show where you asked questions in this discussion.

And it is not my problem that you intentionally do not read my comments or follow the links I provide.

OK. So what you are saying here is that when I asked you to show the questions you asked in this discussion, it is somehow reasonable for you to provide evidence of questions asked in a different discussion, and then claim that you did as I asked.

In other words, you're admitting to being dishonest and irrational.

Not that I needed you to admit it ... but that you admitted it so unapologetically means I won't read the rest of your comment.

If you would like to admit you were wrong, feel free. Otherwise, we're done. I will not participate in a discussion with someone acting so blatantly in such bad faith.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#42370847)

OK. So what you are saying here is that when I asked you to show the questions you asked in this discussion, it is somehow reasonable for you to provide evidence of questions asked in a different discussion, and then claim that you did as I asked.

No, that is not what I did at all. Just because you claim that to be the case does not refute the facts.

In other words, you're admitting to being dishonest and irrational.

You can keep asking me to admit to things that are not true if you like, but that doesn't make them magically become true.

I won't read the rest of your comment.

You have not functionally read any of what I have written in this discussion so far, so it doesn't surprise me that you opt to continue doing the same.

If you would like to admit you were wrong

The only thing I was wrong about was my hope that you had learned how to read since losing your job at slashdot.

I will not participate in a discussion with someone acting so blatantly in such bad faith

Says the person who came late to the discussion, ignored the vast majority of what was written, and paraded himself about as a self-proclaimed expert on the discussion at hand.

I'm more interested in this point at seeing how you handle your terminal case of last-post-itis. You used to handle that by putting people on your perma-hate list so that you could forever ban them from your journal entries and have that last word. But this is not your journal, so you can't stop me from replying to it. I doubt you can resist the urge to come back and lie about me again, even when you know you can't guarantee yourself the last post.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

iamtheantipudge (1091487) | about a year ago | (#42376675)

You're a damned liar.

Ahhhhh, so begins the 14th b'ak'tun

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 2 years ago | (#42372383)

Haven't seen you around in a while, Pudge - what brings you back?

It's a Festivus miracle!

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#42373187)

It's a Festivus miracle!

Funny you should mention it that way... [slashdot.org]

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#42374497)

Are you guys trying to build the suspicion that this is an army of sock puppets run by Ezra Klein?

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#42408291)

Are you guys trying to build the suspicion that this is an army of sock puppets run by Ezra Klein?

I have previously - and inaccurately - accused of having sock puppets, but this is to the best of my knowledge the first time I have been accused of being a sock puppet.

However you neglected to give any reason why someone would bother to have sock puppets on a site like this which is so poorly traversed any ways. It would be more useful to write graffiti in the subway in multiple languages.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#42410563)

I mean, you're trying to imply there is some rational reason for being on Slashdot.
I'm mainly here for old time's sake, sentimental chap that I am.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#42379325)

Outrage at Caligula for opening the front. No word on Nero dialing off to "11".

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#42366423)

How can you proceed with something like that when you cannot even state your goals?[1] You claim "erratic behavior", but you are unwilling to define a situation where you would be willing to state the situation to be otherwise.[2] Hence you are attempting to start up a full-blown lynch mob.[3] And if you want to talk death toll, you're not even close to the right order of magnitude. The previous administration[4] - who was that guy, that the conservatives don't like to mention by name - repeatedly sold us outright lies to get us into a ground war that was not related to anything at all. Said ground war has cost thousands of good American lives. How can you not care about thousands of soldiers[5] but get your underwear all knotted up over three ambassadors?

  1. A full impeachment trial is, noted in GP, not a stated goal?
  2. I cannot parse this sentence. On a limb, some of the promised clarity from this administration would help. Had BHO not just jetted off to Vegas to raise him some boodle while heroes died. . . [youtube.com]
  3. A Constitutional procedure, i.e. an impeachment trial, is a lynch mob? Do you mean like the one that killed Americans in Benghazi?
  4. Buuuuuuuuuuuuushhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!1!!!
  5. As a result of President Obama's policy, I got to spend a year in Afghanistan. Consequently, your sad attempts at blame-shifting mean shag-all to me on several levels.

What I'd like for you is at least the recognition that, if it was an (R) in office, the cries for an impeachment would be drowning out all thought. And justifiably so.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#42366601)

A full impeachment trial is, noted in GP, not a stated goal?

This is the first time you mentioned impeachment trial. You have previously called for "removal" without being specific, and also made comparisons to Nixon (whose impeachment trial never happened).

I cannot parse this sentence. On a limb, some of the promised clarity from this administration would help. Had BHO not just jetted off to Vegas to raise him some boodle while heroes died. . .

Then I ask you again, what would be your criteria for clarity? Is there anything they could possibly do that would satisfy you? I suspect the answer to the second question is no. You repeatedly demonstrate great hatred towards anyone with a (D) after their name, which makes it hard to imagine that you would not be going on about something else had Benghazi not happened. It seems this is just your favorite cause at the moment.

A Constitutional procedure, i.e. an impeachment trial, is a lynch mob?

You have not before this comment mentioned impeachment. No, impeachment is clearly not a lynch mob. You have made various levels of veiled calls for people to remove him by force, and you have also tried to draw parallels to watergate.

As a result of President Obama's policy, I got to spend a year in Afghanistan. Consequently, your sad attempts at blame-shifting mean shag-all to me on several levels.

I'm not blame shifting, no matter how much you and pudge might try to claim the contrary. You mention fallen heroes and I point out that the number dead in Benghazi is a minute fraction of a percent of the number that have died in Iraq. Benghazi is not Bush's fault, I said it just to be extra clear.

What I'd like for you is at least the recognition that, if it was an (R) in office, the cries for an impeachment would be drowning out all thought. And justifiably so.

No, they would not. The media fears the republicans. If the media wasn't afraid of the republicans they would have gone after GWB for selling us a giant pack of lies to "justify" his war in Iraq. The loudest and best-funded media outlets currently are all conservative.

The funny thing, though, is that the conservative media is, like you, too entrenched in their hatred for all things (D) to acknowledge that the sitting POTUS is the most conservative in many decades. Hence they run with anything they can find to try to make him look bad even though they don't have anyone more conservative than him to run for POTUS who could ever win the race.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#42366855)

First explicit mention of impeachment was here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3332733&cid=42363007 [slashdot.org] though, really, what other remedy is going to leave the Benghazi 4 in a better condition than Mary Jo Kopechne?

Is there anything they could possibly do that would satisfy you?

Within the realm of the possible, Obama could fulfill his billing as a transformative, cosmopolitan, erudite leader and guide the country along paths of political, economic, and moral righteousness.
However, let's not kid ourselves. BHO is a mediocre guy who is to campaigning what the Rolling Stones are to rock'n'roll. After that, it's a wash. I not only don't believe a godforsaken thing BHO says (typical for a politician), my default estimate is that the opposite of anything BHO is saying is closer to truth. If BHO did not exist, the collapse of our system would have probably squeezed out something similar--nothing personal about BHO.

You mention fallen heroes and I point out that the number dead in Benghazi is a minute fraction of a percent of the number that have died in Iraq.

You offer a typical monkeying about with the timing, scale, and location of the point so as to deflect the blame. For your argument to have merit, something akin to trapped Marines in Fallujah would have had to radio for available support in 2004, and W would have had to say: "Yeah, shag 'em. I gotta go to Vegas and fundraise."
Oh, that's not a "fair" comparison? Of course not! It's hypothetical! Because W, warts and all, was not a cretinous piece of work. And Obama really ought to come clean on the details of Benghazi, to minimize the suspicion that BHO may be cretinous. Really, I'd prefer to be proven wrong on the assertion that BHO is cretinous, but nothing he, his subordinates, or his supporters do mitigates it. Your typical, scattershot attempts at deflection underscore the assertion.

No, they would not. The media fears the republicans. If the media wasn't afraid of the republicans they would have gone after GWB for selling us a giant pack of lies to "justify" his war in Iraq.

See, if you really wanted to make an interesting point, you'd argue the War Powers Resolution is jacked up, and hammer every Presidential bomber since 1973. But it's not really about self-government and the Constitution with you, is it? [wikipedia.org]

the sitting POTUS is the most conservative in many decades

Only if you and the Ministry of Truth are doing another grand label switch. 100 years into Progressivism, you want to say that clinging to failed ideas is "conservative"?

Hence they run with anything they can find to try to make him look bad

No need to get creative! All you have to do is point out the record which BHO ran from. In BHO's defense, 51% of the population has been taught to cower well enough, so blaming the victim for next year's disasters will be justified.

Re:OK, so, accuse the other side (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#42366435)

I used the OL tag, but can't tell if the notes in the blockquote are just missing due to a browser setting.

Re:Oooh, a journal entry for me? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 years ago | (#42366207)

All I know is Obama, like all pro-choicers, is a racist and culturalist bigot. Everything else he has done flows from that bigotry, from the death of the Libyan Ambassador, to the HHS Amendment, to trying to tell the Lutherans what their churches should look like, to random drone attacks on random people, he's very much as full of hate as the Connecticut gunman was (and far more successful at murder. 26 is nothing).

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?