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!

TINFOIL HAT: Sec State Injured, SEAL Killed During Iran Incident?

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

User Journal 22

This really seems more like a Jeremiah Cornelius entry, but what the heck?
http://theothermccain.com/2012/12/30/tinfoil-hat-sec-state-injured-seal-killed-during-iran-incident/This really seems more like a Jeremiah Cornelius entry, but what the heck?
http://theothermccain.com/2012/12/30/tinfoil-hat-sec-state-injured-seal-killed-during-iran-incident/

cancel ×

22 comments

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

Would that it were so (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42431713)

Instead, She's prolly face-down, in Madeline Allbright...

Re:Would that it were so (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42431883)

Dude, that imagery is so RONNGG, so icepick-to-the-forehead, that I'm impressed that you held fire until the last day of the year do drop that imagery.
You are a bad, bad man.

Re:Would that it were so (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432045)

They were sexting it to Richard Holbrooke. It was less obscene than their war crimes.

Re:Would that it were so (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42435071)

You left Huma out of the mix. Are you mellowing in your dotage? :-)

Re:Would that it were so (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42435575)

Hands off Huma. She's mine!

Re:Would that it were so (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42437215)

Does that imply you're Anthony Weiner? #HeadSplodes

Wait a minute... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432641)

In your previous JE you said

Despite the mostly amusing back-n-forth on Benghazi with the fellas, I'd like to hold fire on further exchanges until there is some no-kidding news on the topic.

And here you are introducing more speculative drama that you relate to your favorite current non-troversy. Or does any speculation you post automatically count as "no-kidding news"? Your post that you link to here does, after all, bring up Benghazi again.

Re:Wait a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42434919)

Are you available for parties?

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42435049)

If you followed the link, I was laughing at the story, while wishing the Secretary of State receive good care.
You DO want the lady to receive good care, don't you?

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42435293)

wishing the Secretary of State receive good care.

That sounds like what you would call OMG SOCIALISM. Or do you just want her to receive good care so that you can throw her into the stocks and question her until she breaks and gives you whatever answers you want?

You DO want the lady to receive good care, don't you?

Orange. There is no right answer to this question when you are asking it, so I will say orange. If I said yes, you would call me a collectivist socialist pig. If I said no you would say I was trying to protect her from being questioned about Benghazi.

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42436797)

You say "Orange"
I say "Apple"
You say "Tomato"
I say "Toma... aw fuck... that doesn't work without Unicode... Give it a rest Frances

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY!!

Should be exciting..

South California Purples DAA DAA DA DA DAAAAAH....DAA DAA DA DA DAAAAAH

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42437357)

HAPPY New Year EVERYBODY!!

Hear, hear.

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42437303)

Why would I want anyone to receive less than good care? As though I were some sort of judge? Is your question whether, as per the President's advice on voting, I act from a spirit of revenge?

There is no right answer to this question when you are asking it

How in the world is there not a correct answer? She's in the hospital. How do you ethically deliver sub-par care?
I'm not the lady's biggest fan, but what I always strive to pray for when it comes to any of these people in office is that they pass old, full of years, and keenly aware of how they have sabotaged American liberty. Goes for Bush, Cheney, Obama, the Clintons, et al.
The crucial point here, if I can reach you, is that we deal rationally, analyze the systemic reasons for our century of collapse into authoritarianism, and take courageous, sacrificial steps to reclaim liberty from the uber-states.
You may not be capable of accepting that I refuse to fall into personal hatred of these officials. I get that. But there it is.
Is the GOP wing of the Progressive Party capable of turning things around? Dunno. It's the horse most of the Tea Party types are riding, for the nonce.
The over-arching point here is that our government hast to be reigned in. So, let Hillary recover fully, let her do what she will. Let her run in 2016. Bring it.

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42444907)

Why would I want anyone to receive less than good care?

Good care is a purely subjective term. If you wanted everyone in the country to receive what I consider to be good care, then you would have to support a single-payer healthcare system as there is no other way to do it.

As though I were some sort of judge?

You have been passing plenty of judgement - most of which coming without anything resembling factual information - so describing you as a self-appointed judge is accurate.

Is your question whether, as per the President's advice on voting, I act from a spirit of revenge?

What the hell are you referring to by "President's advice on voting"? Since you didn't say "BHO" this time, I suspect you mean someone other than Obama.

There is no right answer to this question when you are asking it

How in the world is there not a correct answer? She's in the hospital. How do you ethically deliver sub-par care?

The care delivered is dependent first on the facilities available and second on the matter of reimbursement for services. Or, to paraphrase Rumsfeld, "you get the care you can access, not the care you want".

how they have sabotaged American liberty. Goes for Bush, Cheney, Obama, the Clintons, et al.

You are likely giving only lip-service to the notion of how much Bush damaged this country. I never once saw you calling for his impeachment in spite of the avalanche of demonstrable evidence. Now that the guy in office has a (D) after his name - in spite of being the most conservative POTUS in at least 4 decades - you are trying to rally pitchforks and torches over what is at best extremely speculative rumors of a conspiracy.

You may not be capable of accepting that I refuse to fall into personal hatred of these officials. I get that. But there it is.

You have demonstrated personal hatred many times in just the past few weeks. Now you claim that it does not exist? You must not have read your own writings.

So, let Hillary recover fully, let her do what she will. Let her run in 2016. Bring it.

That is a contradiction of aims. You want her in jail, and we do not allow convicted felons to seek the top office.

That said, she might actually be semi-liberal, which could make for an interesting race in 2016. 2012 was a conservative against another conservative, with the challenger unable to provide the American public with a good reason to change horses mid-stream. What we learned from the 2012 presidential election is how many people in this country are so unbelievably partisan that they will vote for a candidate who represents no change whatsoever, just to have their preferred party in the white house.

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42446601)

Why would I want anyone to receive less than good care?

Good care is a purely subjective term. If you wanted everyone in the country to receive what I consider to be good care, then you would have to support a single-payer healthcare system as there is no other way to do it.

You move beautifully from the subjective to the objective. I'm so glad you've got all that sorted. Though, beyond the positive assertion of non-zero care, I'll leave that single-payer to you. The empirical evidence of, e.g. the UK is sufficient to scare off rational people. See Daniel Hannan [amazon.co.uk] .

As though I were some sort of judge?

You have been passing plenty of judgement - most of which coming without anything resembling factual information - so describing you as a self-appointed judge is accurate.

'Most'? Why not just toss me completely under the bus and accuse me of having no factual information whatsoever, in your omniscience?

Is your question whether, as per the President's advice on voting, I act from a spirit of revenge?

What the hell are you referring to by "President's advice on voting"? Since you didn't say "BHO" this time, I suspect you mean someone other than Obama.

http://theothermccain.com/2012/11/07/vengeance/ [theothermccain.com] related to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/02/obama_voting_is_the_best_revenge.html [realclearpolitics.com]

How in the world is there not a correct answer? She's in the hospital. How do you ethically deliver sub-par care?

The care delivered is dependent first on the facilities available and second on the matter of reimbursement for services. Or, to paraphrase Rumsfeld, "you get the care you can access, not the care you want".

In particular, if it's delivered under some Procrustean "single-payer" system.

how they have sabotaged American liberty. Goes for Bush, Cheney, Obama, the Clintons, et al.

You are likely giving only lip-service to the notion of how much Bush damaged this country. I never once saw you calling for his impeachment in spite of the avalanche of demonstrable evidence. Now that the guy in office has a (D) after his name - in spite of being the most conservative POTUS in at least 4 decades - you are trying to rally pitchforks and torches over what is at best extremely speculative rumors of a conspiracy.

The thesis here seems to be that learning doesn't matter, and once the a sexual assualt has occurred, further abuse is OK. Well, get stuffed. Having been a student of the problem, since http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841/ [amazon.com] especially, I'm content:
a. To focus on the macro-level problem of collapse into a unitary executive.
b. Extend an olive branch to others who are rationally, dispassionately willing to drive for reform and liberty.
c. To run the ball right over the top of foppish GOP elitist twits (mostly on Twitter there), and throne sniffing Lefties on Slashdot.

You may not be capable of accepting that I refuse to fall into personal hatred of these officials. I get that. But there it is.

You have demonstrated personal hatred many times in just the past few weeks. Now you claim that it does not exist? You must not have read your own writings.

If you started off this reply with a nod to subjectivity, please allow that there may have been some transmission loss.
It's one thing to hold Obama's record in contempt (I do) and quite another to bear animus against a married father of two who is offering a symposium on the fragility of American Exceptionalism. This is the political version of hating the sin (an intellectual exercise) while deliberately stopping short of hating the person (which is a rejection of the mercy extended to us through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ). Now, if you think the previous sentence pure hokum, then may that mercy find you. But, regardless, accept that I accept Christ. Pointer indirection, if you will.

So, let Hillary recover fully, let her do what she will. Let her run in 2016. Bring it.

That is a contradiction of aims. You want her in jail, and we do not allow convicted felons to seek the top office.
That said, she might actually be semi-liberal, which could make for an interesting race in 2016. 2012 was a conservative against another conservative, with the challenger unable to provide the American public with a good reason to change horses mid-stream. What we learned from the 2012 presidential election is how many people in this country are so unbelievably partisan that they will vote for a candidate who represents no change whatsoever, just to have their preferred party in the white house.

Uh, what felony is Hillary alleged to have committed? Also, impeachment didn't stop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings [wikipedia.org] , should a proper investigation veer in the direction of holding anyone accountable for anything.
As for Hillary's politics, I think she's ideologically indistinguishable from BHO.
What we learned from 2012 is that an alliance of the Ruling Class and the Moochers demonstrates the fragility of American Exceptionalism. It's actually a useful data point.
At any rate, if you want to come on over to the side that cares about liberty, there is plenty of room.

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42446775)

I'll leave that single-payer to you. The empirical evidence of, e.g. the UK is sufficient to scare off rational people. See Daniel Hannan.

Calling that book empirical or evidence is an insult to both terms. When people who are not conservative hacks evaluate health care systems they universally find that the American system is the most wasteful on the face of the earth with regards to money spent versus outcomes. The UK system is dramatically more effective than the American on virtually every measurable aspect with the sole exception of executive monetary compensation.

'Most'? Why not just toss me completely under the bus and accuse me of having no factual information whatsoever, in your omniscience?

Because everyone is capable of finding factual data on occasion. You just exhibit a strong preference towards arguing without any.

Having been a student of the problem, since http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841/ [amazon.com]

You just cited a (terrible excuse for a) book that is less than 10 years old as some sort of measure of your scholarly endeavors? Really? I would be more impressed if you told me you started reading Mallard Fillmore in the early 90s - that atrociously partisan "comic" had more factual data behind it than the book you just mentioned.

Extend an olive branch to others who are rationally, dispassionately willing to drive for reform and liberty.

Except that you only would do so for those who share your particular definition of both "reform" and "liberty". Hence your statement is not fully genuine.

Uh, what felony is Hillary alleged to have committed?

I'm sure you have one in mind... You have so far had no problem with asserting the existence of grave offenses in spite of any factual evidence to support such an assertion.

As for Hillary's politics, I think she's ideologically indistinguishable from BHO.

Since you're back to your silly TLA I presume you are referring to the Obama that was supposed to be a liberal, rather than the actual POTUS who is inarguably the most conservative president in at least 4 decades. Of course, referring someone to a hypothetical politician is silly as it makes it impossible to actually tell if the comparison holds true as it is strictly a matter of opinion and never one of fact.

At any rate, if you want to come on over to the side that cares about liberty, there is plenty of room.

I do care about liberty. You just have a different idea of what liberty is. You see your witchhunt as being a critical part of liberty. I see the welfare and opportunity of the individual as being critical. You see liberty as being solely the property of people with an (R) after their name. I see liberty as being something that anyone can champion for.

Just because you claim to be able to declare whether or not someone else cares about liberty does not mean that your declaration is in some way factual.

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42447497)

Imma have to declare you the winner, as BHO on the Fiscal Cliff.
Your arguments are so superior; your negation of every event, motive, and argument I offer is so comprehensive; the innate superiority of your thought so blatantly obvious, that my only regret is that I was not plumbed a female, so that I could track you down and bear your children.

I see the welfare and opportunity of the individual as being critical. You see liberty as being solely the property of people with an (R) after their name.

You appear to be arguing an equality of condition, whereas I'm after equality of opportunity. You repeat these partisan accusations. Meanwhile, I'd argue the GOP stands revealed a branch of the Progressives, along with the Democrats.
Or at least I would, thought I there was a chance of getting information through your overpowering stream of righteousness, you beautiful man.
Regret I let some sarcasm creep in here. Happy New Year, and God bless you.

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42447829)

Wow, so I point out that you are mistaking garbage editorialization for legitimate news and you respond by turning the sarcasm up to 11? Interesting move there, smitty.

You appear to be arguing an equality of condition, whereas I'm after equality of opportunity

No. How you came to such a bizarre conclusion is a mystery.

Meanwhile, I'd argue the GOP stands revealed a branch of the Progressives, along with the Democrats.

First, I'm not sure what progressive means to you, but I can tell you there are none in Washington currently by the understanding that I share with most of the world.

Second, I did not say that you place all people with the (R) after their name as having the right to dictate what liberty means, but rather that it is abundantly clear you would never consider the opinion on liberty from anyone who lacks that sacred letter.

It's rather parallel to saying that many religious Christians have preferred denominations; they would welcome anyone who calls themselves a Christian but they would listen more intently to someone of the same denomination while generally changing the channel if a religious sermon were presented on TV from a Jew, Muslim, or Hindu. You might dislike some people who bear the (R) after their name, viewing them as being not sufficiently conservative, but you wouldn't give the time of day to anyone who did not.

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42455001)

Wow, so I point out that you are mistaking garbage editorialization for legitimate news

It's all artillery, all the time, isn't it? How liberal, in the classic sense of examining all viewpoints.

I'm not sure what progressive means to you

Statist.

First. . .

Nebulous

Second. . .sacred letter.

You sure fetish you some alphabet, e.g. the letter 'H'. :-)
At any rate, the sarcasm is due to being rather done with spending time in discussion when it's not an actual dialogue. "damn_registrars" hints at a possible academic position. To a degree, your arguments invoke the image of a petty academic who, for all the university purports to exchange ideas, sets about thrashing all who dissent from the ideology of the class.
Which is your prerogative. I'm not whining. I've freely invested time trying to exchange with you my disdain for our Progressive collapse into aristocracy. You may think the Utopian ideas of the Left are either attainable or desirable. I submit that history belies both notions.
I'm also completely unimpressed with the GOP. My gut is that they have been nothing more than a shock absorber for the resurgent notion if individual liberty, in the face of Holy Progress. It doesn't take much reading of the body language of the GOP elite to grasp that they'll leverage Tea Partiers for election staff, but really view Tea Partiers with an Occupy Wall Street disdain. Under the bus with the GOP.
At any rate, my willingness to invest time in composing responses is mostly spent, if the replies are pure invective.

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42455257)

Wow, so I point out that you are mistaking garbage editorialization for legitimate news

It's all artillery, all the time, isn't it? How liberal, in the classic sense of examining all viewpoints.

The book that you were referring to was a giant editorial piece that some publisher decided to bound up and sell. Just because people purchased said book does not mean that it actually has a factual point to make. You are trying to sell it as being a worthwhile reference for reality, which it is not. Jonah is a conservative hack who couldn't come up with anything factual to write about, so he made shit up and then found a publisher who was willing to put it out in book form for a nominal fee.

If you want to talk about it as a viewpoint, then say so. You referred to it in a factual context, which is a disservice as that book is not factual. We might as well refer to the Lord of the Rings trilogy as a manifesto for environmentalism.

I'm not sure what progressive means to you

Statist.

Thank you for sharing that. I'm not sure if I should be surprised by that one or not, as that level of inaccuracy appears to be your new signature.

"damn_registrars" hints at a possible academic position

Are you trying to read into my slashdot username? Try reading my earliest comments and JEs. I use this name because I feel that most internet registrars are terrible at their jobs, and many of them are in on the take from spammers.

To a degree, your arguments invoke the image of a petty academic who, for all the university purports to exchange ideas, sets about thrashing all who dissent from the ideology of the class.

You have not shown much interest in actual conversation. I ask you questions and you ignore them. You refer to conspiracy theories and editorials as if they are somehow equivalent to actual journalism. You seem to be looking for someone to just parrot back to you your favorite conservative word bites. There are plenty of people here on slashdot who will do that for you, and you seem confused that I am not one of them.

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42455927)

No, actually I've read and studied a fair amount. Your office seems about midway between Abuse and Arguments, and you've essentially turned into a royal bore. You can reply to this, and I guarantee you the last word.

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42456235)

No, actually I've read and studied a fair amount

Quite nearly every source you have provided recently has been an editorial. Why would you consider reading editorials to be equivalent to having "read and studied"? If someone watched Bowling for Columbine and claimed to be an expert on the NRA as a result, you would not accept that. Yet you have read a bunch of editorials and claim to be an expert on their topics.

you've essentially turned into a royal bore

I'm sorry that facts do not have the entertainment value of your favorite editorials and conspiracy theories.

You can reply to this, and I guarantee you the last word.

You say that as if you believe it to mean something. Of course you do seem to value your beliefs far more than you value actual facts.

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>