Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Batch reply to Obama apoligists

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

User Journal 30

One views with amusement the rhetorical devices employed to tweak the record, as though it were a jobs report.
We have most recently
http://slashdot.org/messages.pl?op=display&id=47622209

you insist that he is somehow different from any of his predecessors

One views with amusement the rhetorical devices employed to tweak the record, as though it were a jobs report.
We have most recently
http://slashdot.org/messages.pl?op=display&id=47622209

you insist that he is somehow different from any of his predecessors

You attention is drawn to the CBO deficit chart. Recall that, while it's always been Progressive, it's been the Democrat flavor since 2006. If you're too daft to note the substantial difference, I may not be able to help you.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3343829&cid=42412733

So if I filed charges against you this afternoon for murdering me - even though I am very much alive - you would prefer a trial than simply overlooking it as meaningless, or asking to have the charges thrown out?

First of all, we'd have to establish that actual mental activity is occurring. Not sure I can hire a good enough shyster for that. Second, sure: I'd counter-sue for you completely wasting my time. Yet at no point would such a legal strawman mean much.

That you have yet to provide a meaningful clam[sic] to make a huge crisis out of.

Ain't up to me, bub. You just keep pluckin' that chicken.

cancel ×

30 comments

Your game, does it have rules? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42416171)

Maybe your partisan games just apply different rules to different people?

Because what you just stated was that if I were to attempt to press baseless criminal charges against you, based on nothing, that would be a terrible thing and a waste of your time. However, if you press baseless criminal charges against President Obama, based on nothing, that is somehow a heroic act of patriotism?

Furthermore you went on to say not only that, but also that to press charges against someone such as yourself, the victim would have to show that something egregious had been done. Yet you claim in nearly the same breath that when someone wants to press charges against the president, it is his duty to show himself to be innocent.

So apparently, you are now asserting that "innocent until proven guilty" applies only to conservatives with (R) after their name? All other conservatives or - not that there are any left in government - others can expect to be forced to prove their innocence?

Funny, I thought the conservatives were the ones shouting that their civil liberties and judicial rights were being stripped. Yet you are openly endorsing revocation (or perhaps more aptly put, inversion) of due process from any who are not of your philosophical stripes.

Re:Your game, does it have rules? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42416547)

You're really underachieving in the "punch back twice as hard" game here.
You need to accuse me of having a secret "conservatives with (R) after their name" cult, and engaging in idolatry with a Ronald Regan statue.

Yet you are openly endorsing revocation (or perhaps more aptly put, inversion) of due process from any who are not of your philosophical stripes.

So, let's see: I've pointed out that a Virginia Congressman has put in HR 824 [theothermccain.com] and you've achieve full-on linguini logic in your attempts to make an argument that I, frankly, cannot follow.
Meanwhile, the President still has four corpses about the neck in the albatross fashion, and you're stimming hard.
How about we both get a cup of the preferred beverage and just let Destiny do its thing. It's quite likely, given our advanced state of political decay (for all your accusations of partisanship, they're all Ruling Class Progressives to me) that BHO totally gets away with it here under the sun, despite the meddling Tea Party kids.
He'll get his time before the Almighty, as will both you and I, and these arguments will be so much flatus.

Re:Your game, does it have rules? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42416641)

Yet you are openly endorsing revocation (or perhaps more aptly put, inversion) of due process from any who are not of your philosophical stripes.

So, let's see: I've pointed out that a Virginia Congressman has put in HR 824

Which you described as "well short of an impeachment trial". You are not satisfied with it, and now you are trying to backpedal with your obvious and blatant double standard put out on display.

Meanwhile, the President still has four corpses about the neck in the albatross fashion, and you're stimming hard.

You still haven't provided a shred of reason to see those deaths as being his fault. Did he force them to go there against their will? Did he provide them with substandard arms and armor? Did he use lies to justify their mission and change the goals every 8 months along the way?

He'll get his time before the Almighty, as will both you and I, and these arguments will be so much flatus.

You have a lot of faith. I guess that may be the main take home message of a discussion with you. You believe in lots of things that you cannot prove, and when you are shown that you cannot prove them, you go back to stating your beliefs as if they somehow become irrefutable facts by mere repetition.

Re:Your game, does it have rules? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419593)

obvious and blatant double standard

The legislative process is what?
Let's step back and be rational here, two acts which you seem loath to undertake. The scope of the question is this President and his chain of command. Leaders don't point fingers.

You still haven't provided a shred of reason to see those deaths as being his fault.

Quick question. Does BHO get the credit for the bagging of Osama bin Laden on his watch? If he was "Gutsy Call" then, shouldn't he stand tall for the reprise of His Gutsycalliness?

You believe in lots of things that you cannot prove, and when you are shown that you cannot prove them, you go back to stating your beliefs as if they somehow become irrefutable facts by mere repetition.

I'm kinda confident the Universe came from somewhere. May I infer that you're one of those who denies the possibility of faith, and then quietly invests that faith in the Theory of the Week?
And your repetitive accusations directed at me are an exemplar of the form.
Are you contending BHO's innocence, or are you confessing guilt, and stridently seeking to defend Your Lawd & Savory? (I can't quote Foxx directly, I just can't.)
I contend that morals derive from faith. While those lacking faith (and does Obama not himself offer the occasional protestation of Christianity--do you believe he believes?) tend to be capable of all manner of mental gymnastics (David Gregory broke the law, you know, idiocy of the law itself notwithstanding) to make the evil masquerade as the good. Is it a sport with you?

Easy there (1)

NonSequor (230139) | about a year and a half ago | (#42416331)

I looked it up and federal revenue is about $3t, so spending should be somewhere around $4.2t for a net of $1.2t.

So for argument's sake, let's say that the graph projecting a $0.6t deficit in 2012 was based on projected revenue of $3.3t and projected spending of $3.9t. $3t is 9% lower than $3.3t and 4.2t is 8% more than $3.9t.

Just to get a feel for things, let's do the calculation again assuming the graph was based on $3t in revenue and $3.6t in spending. Then the $4.2t would be 17% higher than expected.

Deficit is a net number. It's the difference of two variables that are (reasonably) close to each other. This means that if revenue or spending changes by x% and the other piece stays flat, the deficit changes by more than x% due to leveraging. Making accurate projections of net numbers out more than a year is largely an exercise in futility since any error in either of the two pieces gets leveraged and multiplied into a larger error in the net. Worse still, revenue and entitlement spending are negatively correlated so their errors tend not to offset each other.

For the record, I don't fully disagree with you. The democrats are resisting attempts to rebalance an unmaintainable status quo (although to their credit, most of the republican proposals to rebalance things at best fix one thing and break many other things).

Re:Easy there (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42416571)

It's nonsense, and our government has ceased to be serious.

Re:Easy there (1)

NonSequor (230139) | about a year and a half ago | (#42417309)

The serious governments were the ones that resulted in the most death and oppression of any in history. The only ways to stop arguing with people who are wrong is to convince them their wrong or to kill them off. "Nonsense" is a byproduct of going with the first option.

Re:Easy there (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42417475)

The serious governments were the ones that resulted in the most death and oppression of any in history.

You can't even begin to build a rational argument to back that pile of bollocks.

Re:Easy there (1)

NonSequor (230139) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418891)

I was just giving a flippant reply since it looked like I hit a nerve with the math. I can defend my assertion though. It's something I've given a significant amount of thought to.

In the early 20th century, there was this belief that the scientific and philosophical advances which had made so much progress in the 19th century could be extended to all problems, including social problems. So you have the nazis thinking that you could get rid of crime by studying criminals and then killing off all of the people with criminal traits. You had the communists believing that they could implement a perfect society by wiping out the elements that resist those efforts.

Both of these movements were characterized by a belief that the only way to fix problems was to get serious about them and stop all of this debate "nonsense". I believe this is what Winston Churchill was referring to when he said that "no folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism."

So there's no sense in getting indignant when I've stepped on your idealist toes. Suck it up, and if you really think your original argument that a deficit of twice what was projected is an egregious and unforgiveable error on the part of the Obama administration, then the way that you can win the argument is to identify specific spending increases tied to Obama administration executive policy that caused the error. I'm too lazy to look it up myself, but then, I'm not the one who's trying to win an argument.

Re:Easy there (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419643)

Your point seems far less of a toss-off upon elaboration.
Having pondered the movements of human history a bit myself, my theory is that the Bismarckian social welfare state, past the lofty assertions (e.g. FDR's Second Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org] ), amounts to a Faustian bargain.
Nor am I contending some sort of magic wand exists, whereby the net evil in the world can be restrained. I'd offer a handwave that, scaled for population, the evil in the world is mostly constant, with the occasional Nazi/Communist spike.
No, the point is to struggle against the collapse of liberty into tyranny. These vast deficits have at lest two major components that I should like to see explored:
- Bribes to buy economic sectors, e.g. green energy & the auto industry, and
- Money thrown at failing States to prop up pensions.
We're as enslaved to this collapsing scenario as we permit.
And the GOP itself has played along significantly here. So, rather than doing the postmortem to "win" arguments of the past, I'd rather put energy into reforming matters.

Re:Easy there (1)

NonSequor (230139) | about a year and a half ago | (#42428799)

Take a look at this video: http://fora.tv/2007/01/26/Why_Foxes_Are_Better_Forecasters_Than_Hedgehogs [fora.tv]

I know it's long but it's got some thought provoking material. The short summary is that hedgehogs (people who view the world in terms of one big idea) are more likely to make incorrect predictions but occasionally they pick up on a major development early, while foxes (people who keep a sort of bag of tricks of different ideas) tend to make better predictions, in part by gathering up ideas from hedgehogs.

I think that you are a classic hedgehog. You primarily view the world through a lens colored by your concern for issues of economic liberty. I will further add that I believe you are correct in your identification of the trade offs involved in social welfare functions in government and you are a faithful advocate of the importance of one end of the trade off.

I don't think you're right about the collapsing scenario, at least not yet. There are definite concerns about some functions being unnecessary or inefficient at the federal level, although in other cases, the deficits the federal government is experiencing are a symptom of macroeconomic deficits which I'm not sure that we currently have any options for addressing. We suffered a drop in our income but the cost of our needs continues to rise.

As it happens, I work as an actuarial analyst in pension consulting. Everyone has a fundamental actuarial liability for the income they will need to live should they survive to be too old or too disabled to work. You can fund this liability yourself by saving for this eventuality, although going this route you will bear all of the longevity, inflation, and investment risks and there is a significant chance that even if you practice diligent saving and safe investing that this money will not be sufficient. If you have a pension, your exposure to these risks is reduced. Pension related shortfalls reflect the adverse impact of these risks on the backer of a pension.

The unfunded pension liabilities we are seeing right now are due to recent investment losses combined with an increasing difference between average lifetime and average working lifetime. However, these factors affect every single person who does not have a pension as well. A person who does not have a pension is effectively the sole backer of their own personal pension. Or maybe you can regard their friends and family who may be called upon to support them backers of their pension as well. The underfunding of retirement is much more severe than you realize and this is one of many problems we face competing for resources.

(For the record I personally advocate for a policy that pursues funding retirement through a combination of social security, pension plans and personal saving in a manner such that someone who completely forgoes personal saving or loses their savings would need to cut back on their standard of living significantly, but not unachievably so. There are pension plans which exceed this standard which may consider cuts, although the impact of plan design on the employer's staffing requirements also needs to be considered.)

Returning to the original topic, my expectation is that both the federal problems you highlight and the broader structural problems will play out more slowly than you, hedgehog, expect and given the current lack of policy options to address the broader issues it may be necessary to concede a current priority of simply surviving in the short term while some other matters develop. There are some prospects for a revival of the growth of American GDP and if that comes to pass there will be substantially more breathing room on the broader structural problems.

There are also some problems brewing in other countries and I'm not sure if they will harm the US or if they might create opportunities for us. China's demographic crisis due to it's one-child policy has yet to play out. Japanese and Chinese nationalism is on the rise and could lead to some form of indirect conflict between the two of them. India has its corruption problem and has been passing laws to limit foreign investment. Europe still hasn't come to terms with the fact that the Euro was a bad idea. There's always the possibility of countries in Africa of reaching a turning point where economic development speeds up in the same manner as it died for China and India.

Re:Easy there (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42429367)

The unfunded pension liabilities we are seeing right now are due to recent investment losses combined with an increasing difference between average lifetime and average working lifetime.

I submit that maybe, just maybe, some sort of nefarious activity may have occurred on the way to the party.
Lest we get too finger-pointy, it's but one brick in a much bigger wall that sure is looking kinda creaky.

Another thing you got wrong... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42416365)

I make no apologies for Obama (as you imply by referring to my comment). The fact of that matter is, you have no valid claim against him on Benghazi - or if you do, you have yet to state it here on slashdot.

In fact, there are plenty of things he has done that have upset me. One example I have mentioned many many time here is the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act (or as people like you call it, "Obamacare"). That bill is a massive pile of failure that conservative hacks boxed him into a corner with. It has quite nearly nothing that liberals wanted and a whole bunch of giveaways for big business that were supposed to attract conservative votes but the conservatives who insisted on it voted against it to try to prevent him from accomplishing anything resembling being of value.

Second is Guantanamo. We'll likely never close that place. Of course that is in part because the conservatives are so paranoid of terrorists escaping from a supermax, or - even worse in their world-view - actually going to trial.

Third is the continuation of the most disgustingly regressive taxation system in the world. It doesn't help the rest of the country, and never will.

Should I continue? Or should I just expect that you haven't read this far anyways?

Re:Another thing you got wrong... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42416607)

The fact of that matter is, you have no valid claim against him on Benghazi - or if you do, you have yet to state it here on slashdot.

You keep up this pretense of me having some burden of proof here.

Third is the continuation of the most disgustingly regressive taxation system in the world. It doesn't help the rest of the country, and never will.

Crikey, something upon which we can agree!
I'll venture that, if the Goonish Obama Progressives (GOP) want to do anything relevant, they need to shift gears and embrace emancipation for current taxpayer slaves like they did emancipation of Southern slaves a couple centuries back.
But that would involve redistributing power, not wealth, and there isn't hair #1 likely to make a move against Holy Progress.

Re:Another thing you got wrong... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42416793)

The fact of that matter is, you have no valid claim against him on Benghazi - or if you do, you have yet to state it here on slashdot.

You keep up this pretense of me having some burden of proof here.

If you know that you cannot prove it, then why do you insist on stating it repeatedly as if it should be taken for fact? And knowing that you cannot prove it, why do you want to see impeachment (or, as would probably be closer to your aims, outright lynching) for it?

If I told you that the flying spaghetti monster told me this afternoon that Grover Norquist should be launched on a one-way trip to the sun tomorrow evening, you wouldn't expect anyone to do anything about it, would you? Yet you are making a statement repeatedly based on nothing but blind faith and expecting our entire country and it's democracy to bend to your will.

I'll venture that, if the Goonish Obama Progressives (GOP) want to do anything relevant, they need to shift gears and embrace emancipation for current taxpayer slaves like they did emancipation of Southern slaves a couple centuries back.

If you are suggesting setting it to where nobody pays income taxes at all, that doesn't work any more so than the radically regressive taxation system we already have. The only thing it changes is that roads deteriorate faster and cops are laid off sooner.

Re:Another thing you got wrong... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42417573)

If you know that you cannot prove it

What is this 'it'? You assert that I 'know' something beyond the four corpses that are so much less interesting than, say, 500 dead this year in Chicago.
Are you unaware of how investigations work, and the non-standard nature of the case in question? We have to pass HR-824 to find out what's in 'it', to paraphrase Princess Pelosi.

Yet you are making a statement repeatedly based on nothing but blind faith and expecting our entire country and it's democracy to bend to your will.

You're really keen on personalizing this, aren't you? Ain't about me. It's really about a craven sack who refused to lift a finger while good men died in combat. Or not. Does BHO retain enough absolute control over the damning evidence? If word got out what a little worm the POTUS is, could even Harry Reid stem the demand for a proper clearing of the air? Who can say? Your unhinged unwillingness to let sunlight be the best disinfectant is most telling. As though either of us matter. I know I really don't.

If you are suggesting setting it to where nobody pays income taxes at all, that doesn't work any more so than the radically regressive taxation system we already have. The only thing it changes is that roads deteriorate faster and cops are laid off sooner.

I would suggest striking the 16th Amendment and adhering to a chain of command where the 57 States obscure the actual citizens from Federal view. 57 States get a bill for their slice of the budget, which is pegged to the previous years Treasury receipts. Deficit spending only in case of properly, formally, declared war.
Shortfalls would trigger Actual. Spending. Reductions.
Such a system is so common sense, reasonable, and mature as to be completely unworkable. I only bring it up as a thought experiment, as we will cling bitterly to the Byzantine train wreck known as the IRS rather than put on the Big Boy Pants.

Re:Another thing you got wrong... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42417717)

If you know that you cannot prove it

What is this 'it'?

Well, for some reason you opted to quote only part of what I had said earlier. If you had used the full statement you would see that the 'it' I was referring to was your claim to Benghazi being some sort of epic game changing event with Obama guilt all over it.

You assert that I 'know' something

That may be your conclusion on it. However you behavior no longer suggests you know anything, indeed it suggests you don't know anything at all. It seems most likely that you are playing this game because you want people to think there is some grand conspiracy going on, even though as badly as you want that to be the case you cannot provide any reason to believe such a thing to be true. That, or you can't remember when you are at slashdot versus when you are at another conservative chat site, and you post the same stuff in both places now.

Are you unaware of how investigations work

You said you wanted impeachment. Impeachment and investigation are two different animals. You have not demonstrated to this point any concern about truth, facts, or anything else that might inconvenience your hatred for Obama and your desire to run him off the edge of the earth.

We have to pass HR-824 to find out what's in 'it',

When did you suddenly become concerned about that? A few posts ago you were certain that we had everything needed to go ahead and string 'em up.

You're really keen on personalizing this, aren't you?

No, I say what I say because I am replying to you. I don't know of anyone else who has your opinion combined with a complete inability to support such an opinion with anything resembling factual evidence. Hence it is your statement.

Ain't about me

No, it most certainly is. You are the one who keeps demanding that we throw Obama out in spite of not having any evidence whatsoever to support such a drastic move. I think there was a rumor on the tiwtterverse that he recently sneezed without covering his nose and mouth, can we impeach him for that when this Benghazi stuff doesn't work out?

It's really about a craven sack

Wow, so very kind you are.

who refused to lift a finger while good men died in combat

The entire event went down in four hours [wikipedia.org] . Even if he had been notified at the first gunshot and had the ability to know it was going to be terrible, four hours is not much time when you're six times zones away. What did you want him to do? Hop in the magic Obamaplane that travels dramatically faster than sound and go stand in front of the consulate himself to stop the attackers?

Does BHO retain enough absolute control over the damning evidence?

And what if there is no "damning evidence"? You are so convinced it exists even though you cannot provide any reason to expect that it does other than that you keep insisting it to be so.

And I will also remind you - again - that you only make yourself look like an idiot when you call the president BHO. Yeah, we all know his middle name is Hussein. Get the fuck over it, the name is very common. Just call him Obama like a grown-up would do. We used the middle initial for the last POTUS because someone else was POTUS with the same last name. We go last-name-only when the last name hasn't been in the white house before.

I know I really don't.

You won't convince anyone to treat you like you matter when you carry on the way you choose to.

Re:Another thing you got wrong... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419679)

And what if there is no "damning evidence"? You are so convinced it exists even though you cannot provide any reason to expect that it does other than that you keep insisting it to be so.

Four corpses kinda demand an answer. The Nakoula/Rice business demands an answer. Secretary of State Headbump's behavior demands an answer. These are not nice folks to whom one of those glitches happened.
I mean, if BHO had driven them into a watery ditch in an Olds Delmont 88, then we understand his willingness to retain the keys. But Paul Harvey has conditioned us to want the Rest of the Story.
Oh, and: FDR, LBJ, BHO: WTF? I sense that your attempt to control 1/26th of the alphabet may be a sign of needing a new distraction. But if I call him BO, then I'm saying he smells bad. Always after rigging an argument, aren't you?

Re:Another thing you got wrong... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419797)

And what if there is no "damning evidence"? You are so convinced it exists even though you cannot provide any reason to expect that it does other than that you keep insisting it to be so.

Four corpses kinda demand an answer.

They were killed by terrorists who broke into the complex. What more do you want for an answer? You want the names and home addresses of the terrorists?

The Nakoula/Rice business demands an answer.

The first violated his parole. The second was driven out of contention for a position that she had not even been nominated for by conservative hacks like yourself.

Secretary of State Headbump's behavior demands an answer.

That vacuous statement is an insult to vacuous statements. If you can't say what you want, then how would it ever be possible to know when your demands have been met?

Oh, and: FDR, LBJ, BHO:

The first two were presidents who were the second of that last name in the oval office. The third is the first of his last name. Nobody ever refers to Saint Ronald as RWR or Nixon as RMN.

WTF

Yes, why are you obsessed with not typing "Obama"?

I sense that your attempt to control 1/26th of the alphabet may be a sign of needing a new distraction.

You are not nearly as funny as you see yourself to be.

But if I call him BO, then I'm saying he smells bad.

Why not just call him "Obama" like the civilized world? Why do you insist on shortening his name to an acronym when there is no precedent for doing so? His last name is not long, you are saving yourself at most two keystrokes by cutting him down to an acronym.

Re:Another thing you got wrong... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419877)

This entire conversation seems to be about your need for control. Shall we veer Freudian on you? What does the character string between the quotes look like to you? => "(~).(~)"

Re:Another thing you got wrong... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42420747)

This entire conversation seems to be about your need for control

I would love to know what it is that you think I seek to control. I have consistently sought answers from you, and you have consistently refused to answer even very straightforward questions. You seem to have a problem with honesty, facts, and reality.

Obama apoligist (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42416911)

Yes, very amusing indeed. More amusing is watching you and d_r pretend you all are having an argument.

Re:Obama apoligist (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42417591)

I still haven't figured out the point of d_r. I guess it's mostly an 800lb troll he's playing there.
Obama is as guilty as Cain. But the facts are beside the political point, which will unfold at its pace, if at all. Ho hum.

Re:Obama apoligist (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419179)

I still haven't figured out the point of d_r.

My point is that you have none. Your primary motivation in politics appears to be your hatred of anyone who does not have an (R) after their name. Hence you are just repeating whatever conspiracy theories you find on other right-wing chat sites or conservative talk radio, without concern for the obvious fact that they have no basis in reality.

But the facts are beside the political point

Is that your admission that you have no factual evidence to support your argument whatsoever, and that your search for political points is orders of magnitude more important to you than any concern for factual reality?

Re:Obama apoligist (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419761)

Your primary motivation in politics appears to be your hatred of anyone who does not have an (R) after their name.

Liberty, buddy, do you speak it? This is not about D vs. R. You've either paid little attention to what I've said, or running interference for the Ruling Class Overlords [spectator.org] is more important.

concern for the obvious fact that they have no basis in reality

You shouldn't equivocate so much:
"concern, in your visceral, throbbing, turgid, blatant, rabid disregard for the blatantly obvious (to even the most casual observer) invariant fact that they have no absolutely no basis in the reality which all sober, rational, stable, non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic, non-Zionist human beings experience."
There, fixed that for you.

Is that your admission that you have no factual evidence to support your argument whatsoever

Why no. The words you quoted "the facts are beside the political point" is and nod to toe the realpolitik that justice is a rare thing under the sun, and the 'guilty' (were a proper investigation to move in the direction of attaching such a label to BHO) frequently don't get theirs until they meet the Ultimate Judge.

Re:Obama apoligist (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419875)

This is not about D vs. R.

Bull. Shit. It is undoubtedly a partisan witch-hunt you are advocating for. You keep reaching for anything you can to try to claim Obama to be illegitimate or the son of satan, and by the time you are ready to give up on one silly claim you have already found a new one to latch on to. Maybe you can find a job working for Orly Taitz?

You've either paid little attention to what I've said, or running interference for the Ruling Class Overlords is more important.

You can brush it off however you want, if that makes you feel better about yourself. The fact is you are just another conservative partisan hack. Your latest game is just to keep moving the goalposts until they reach a point where nobody knows anymore what they even look like, and then declare yourself a winner. You have already admitted that there is no situation under which you will be satisfied for your latest favorite conspiracy, which does nothing to encourage people of any other stripes to try to respond to your requests as they know you'll never accept such responses.

the 'guilty' (were a proper investigation to move in the direction of attaching such a label to BHO)

Don't try to backpedal now. You convinced yourself - using no evidence whatsoever, no less - long ago of Obama's "guilt" and you would never accept any other possible conclusion. You don't want an investigation, you want a lynching.

Re:Obama apoligist (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42420017)

Bull. Shit. It is undoubtedly a partisan witch-hunt you are advocating for.

I can see why it would be useful to categorize it as such, but you're simply incorrect. Now who's pursuing "repetition as a 'truth' generator"?

The fact is you are just another conservative partisan hack.

No, the GOP wing of the Progressive Party owns a vast chunk of the fault. Look at the irregularities by which, for example Allen West was thrown under the bus in Florida. You can accuse me of being a liberty-loving Tea Partier all you like. I'll roger up for that.

Don't try to backpedal now. You convinced yourself - using no evidence whatsoever, no less - long ago of Obama's "guilt" and you would never accept any other possible conclusion. You don't want an investigation, you want a lynching.

You're wildly over-extended with that accusation. Serve up a proper investigation, and it'll get saluted. But what's really peeking out here is your gut-level certainty that BHO is 57 kinds of wrong, and that a proper play-by-play of the timeline would be just a little too much honesty for political comfort. People who toss around "the fact that" a lot in conversation have this odd queasiness about, you know, FACT fact.

Re:Obama apoligist (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419703)

Obama is as guilty as Cain.

So what? They all are, and none of that is going to change while all of you continue to vote for party regulars. And d_r, in his weird way, is making a perfectly valid point that your problem is with the man and not the act. It couldn't be more obvious. And saying "Obama apologist" when in fact I don't approve of him in any fashion only makes you sound like the troll. Can't take either of you seriously. That's for sure.

And don't think you can impress me with some phony CBO report which is nothing but a shell game. The entire 'debt' is sitting comfortably tax free, offshore in the Cayman Islands. Simple repatriation of the funds will solve the problem. If we didn't elect corporate thieves into government, this wouldn't be an issue.

Re:Obama apoligist (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419939)

making a perfectly valid point that your problem is with the man and not the act. It couldn't be more obvious.

Really? The facts don't matter? This has to be a Reverse Alinsky, then? There is no way under the sun that, were it George W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan who'd had guys liquidated on his watch in this fashion, that I'd be as interested in seeing Congress investigate? You're that confident?

"Obama apologist" when in fact I don't approve of him in any fashion

Regret mislabeling. That was me posting too quickly, responding briefly to two notes with a new JE. I apologize.

And don't think you can impress me with some phony CBO report which is nothing but a shell game.

Perhaps we can agree that, if the Congressional Budget Office is unreliable, then the entire system is unserious, and we need to fire everybody and use actual accounting methods.

Re:Obama apoligist (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42420521)

You're that confident?

Absolutely. Your history proves it. Where's the congressional investigation for Bush's false pretenses for starting the wars? Or his spying? Or any other of his countless lies during his power grab? Did congress sufficiently investigate Iran/Contra? Beirut? Or BCCI and Lincoln Savings and Loan? Or CIA drug smuggling(conveniently covered up by the Lewinsky thing, another distraction you like to bring up, why? because... democrat!)? It has been a whitewash all along, and until this particular man entered office, you remained quiet as a mouse peeing on a ball of cotton. If your 'concerns' about Obama were legitimate, you would be all over his continuation of the Bush Doctrine and his allowing the banks to continue to illegally foreclose on peoples' homes and to steal our pensions and move them offshore. No, on this matter, you're as phony as a three dollar bill. Not only am I "that confident", I am absolutely positive of your partisanship. All your spewing has shown to be nothing but a repetition of wacko internet and mass media punditry and propaganda, word for word. BTW, Alinsky is a goof. I don't understand the link.

Perhaps we can agree that... we need to fire everybody and use actual accounting methods.

We most certainly can... Just try to find people who will keep to their pledge of allegiance instead of the snake oil salesmen currently presiding over the country.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...