Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Batch reply to Obama apoligists 30
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.
Your game, does it have rules? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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.
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 argu
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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.
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 Gutsycallines
Easy there (Score:2)
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.
Def
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
You can't even begin to build a rational argument to back that pile of bollocks.
Re: (Score:2)
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 peopl
Re: (Score:1)
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, t
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
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 wit
Re: (Score:1)
You keep up this pretense of me having some burden of proof here.
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 em
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 g
Re: (Score:1)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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 pres
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:1)
Yes, very amusing indeed. More amusing is watching you and d_r pretend you all are having an argument.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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.
You shouldn't equivocate so much:
"concern, in your visceral, throbbing, turgid, blatant, rabid disregard for the blatantly obvious (to even the m
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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"?
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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?
Regret mislabeling. That was me posting too quic
Re: (Score:1)
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 parti