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!

Smitty's Corollary To Godwin's Law

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

User Journal 33

As political discussion lengthens, the probability of a Boooshhh! invocation => 1
http://theothermccain.com/2013/01/12/smittys-corollary-to-godwins-law/As political discussion lengthens, the probability of a Boooshhh! invocation => 1
http://theothermccain.com/2013/01/12/smittys-corollary-to-godwins-law/

cancel ×

33 comments

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

How about the inverse? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42567129)

How long does a discussion need to get before a republican will admit that there was a president George W Bush? He seems to be peculiarly absent from GOP discussions of much of anything, as if his administration never happened at all. He wasn't invited to the party nomination convention in 2012 and I don't recall him being there in 2008 either.

Re:How about the inverse? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42570909)

Who could forget BeelzeBush the Anti-Clinton?

Re:How about the inverse? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42571167)

If you're referring to GWB (and not GHWB), it seems that plenty of people have forgotten him. My question was at what point will conservatives remember him? Just because the non-conservatives point out that the bulk of what the federal government is doing currently is either something that he started or at the very least continued, doesn't mean that he is universally remembered for such. More than a couple conservatives seem to share a case of selective presidential amnesia, where apparently in their world the US had some president other than GWB for 2001-2008.

Re:How about the inverse? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42571245)

Would it delight you if Congress went ahead an impeached Bush43 for Benghazi?
Throw in a human sacrifice Easter Egg on the next large, unread piece of legislation, and you've got a recipe for real spectacle right there, you do.

Re:How about the inverse? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42571711)

Would it delight you if Congress went ahead an impeached Bush43 for Benghazi?

First of all, let the record state that in this JE discussion, you brought up Benghazi first :)

Second, there is about as much meaningful evidence towards impeaching any of GWB, Obama, the ghost of Reagan, your mom, or the easter bunny for Benghazi. Take your pick of any from that list and see what you can accomplish using the evidence you have provided thus far. Furthermore, I will go on to say that I don't support impeaching any of them based on what is actually known about Benghazi so far.

Realistically, though, think of what you would be saying if Obama wasn't POTUS. Let's pretend that JSM3 had won instead and the same thing had happened. The reaction to that would have been "well, you can't micromanage the entire counter-insurgency". Conversely if JSM3 had won and nothing had happened congress would have criticized the Benghazi defense as a waste of money.

Now we have a tempest in a teapot because the GOP will stop at nothing to unseat Obama. In a few more weeks they will find some other non-troversy to get upset about and Benghazi will be but a distant memory.

Re:How about the inverse? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576769)

As you say. I do like "non-troversy", though. Totally fauxtrageous.

Re:How about the inverse? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576953)

I do like "non-troversy", though.

I cannot take credit for that term. First use I encountered of it was in response to the story that had slashdot's conservative base all up in arms about a kid having their lunch taken away at school by some bureaucrat. The story sounded terrible until we learned the truth that the kid's was offered some additional food from the school lunch line and never had their lunch taken away - hence it was a "non-troversy".

Re:How about the inverse? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42578789)

Anybody who has actually noticed that Obama is Bush's evil twin?

Re:How about the inverse? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580863)

You're into the Evil Twin Skippy Conspiracy, then?
As I don't truly H8 either man, I may buy off on this.

Re:How about the inverse? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42588393)

More like evil twin puppet of the usurors, but yeah.

Re:How about the inverse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42597171)

To answer your question... "yes"

"Obama is Bush with a tan" - Jeremiah Cornelius

On the other hand (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42567909)

Blaming Wilson for everything is perfectly ok. Well, like Wilson, Bush simply put in some very regrettable policies which we will suffer for a very long time. Obama's major issue is the continuation and expansion of these policies and those from his predecessors. Feel free to use him as your new Godwin as you blame him for every failure the country experiences from here on out. These policies are his policies now, not Bush's or anybody else's. Your faction (sect) still has yet to offer up anything better. As long as you continue to defend the majors, your 'defense' of 'liberty' rings quite hollow. I will take you seriously when you actually stand up for what you believe instead of just following along, quoting internet wing nuts, in order to be on the winning side.

Re:On the other hand (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42571037)

Wilson planted the seeds. You can even try to be an apologist and ascribe swell intent.
What you can't, after a century, is defend the bi-partisan collapse into a pathetic and sad little tyranny. I hope they go ahead and pass the debt ceiling increase in advance of any legislation being written, because Congress really has to work hard to jack up the farce factor in our government.
Maybe, as an Easter Egg in the next fat, unread piece of legislation, they can give everyone a Krugmanerrand [theothermccain.com] .

Re:On the other hand (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42571537)

a pathetic and sad little tyranny

Like Mark Levin, you don't seem to have a clear understanding of what that word means.

My wife, a patriotic naturalized American who grew up under an actual tyranny, could explain it to you if you had ears to hear.

Amazing that all it takes is black skin to turn a moderate democrat into the worstest tyrant that the world has ever seen in history.

Here, have a look for yourself. [businessinsider.com]

Why do you need a "corollary to Godwin's Law" when the original is still so meaningful?

Re:On the other hand (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576781)

Sweet, sweet: "you don't seem to have a clear understanding of what that word means".
If there is anything more boring in this day than having somebody condescendingly grab for control of definitions, I don't know what it is.

Re:On the other hand (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42578085)

Sweet, sweet: "you don't seem to have a clear understanding of what that word means".

If there is anything more boring in this day than having somebody condescendingly grab for control of definitions, I don't know what it is.

Not to mention pudge and damn registrars already did that dance earlier this week.

Re:On the other hand (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580875)

Imma not judge other men on their rhetorical circle-jerks, so long as I don't get any protein on me.

Re:On the other hand (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602433)

If there is anything more boring in this day than having somebody condescendingly grab for control of definitions, I don't know what it is.

I'm not "grabbing control of definitions", I'm offering you that of the Oxford English Dictionary:

Tyranny: cruel and oppressive government or rule: refugees fleeing tyranny and oppression
[count noun] a state under cruel and oppressive government.
cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control: the tyranny of her stepmother figurative the tyranny of the nine-to-five day
(especially in ancient Greece) rule by one who has absolute power without legal right.

Maybe you're using "tyranny" in a figurative sense, huh?

Or maybe you don't understand "cruel and oppressive". That's where I can help with personal anecdote.

Re:On the other hand (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42608279)

Are you contending that we all have to wait until we are personally given the Nakoula treatment before we can formally label "tyranny" by its appropriate name?
I listen to Levin occasionally on the commute home. Correcting for bombast, as he is indeed a radio personality, I still find him a reasonable observer of the situation. If Levin says "tyranny", I'm inclined to go with that until BHO does something other than emulate past tyrants, e.g. surrounding himself with children while setting about crushing liberty.

Re:On the other hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42615171)

Are you contending that we all have to wait until we are personally given the Nakoula treatment before we can formally label "tyranny" by its appropriate name?
  I listen to Levin occasionally on the commute home. Correcting for bombast, as he is indeed a radio personality, I still find him a reasonable observer of the situation. If Levin says "tyranny", I'm inclined to go with that until BHO does something other than emulate past tyrants, e.g. surrounding himself with children while setting about crushing liberty.

Using a nonsequetor as an argument is only impressing yourself and your ignorant, Right Wing friends. Just saying a lot of non-esense words makes you look stupid to everybody else.

Though its been said before by other people, you never seem to learn. I also find it amazing that evolution always favors the lowest common denominator: I understand why you are dishonest.

Re:On the other hand (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42616275)

OK, so you expect people to be doormats. Got it.

Re:On the other hand (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42608327)

Addendum: and if you want Bush under the bus too, because W signed the Patriot Act, albeit sans kids, I can provide you a toss with as much as a 100dB whooshing sound. The "Bush did it" chorus, too, is a bore. High time we did something peaceful and substantial about this tyrannical federal government.

Re:On the other hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42614731)

AC here, because it doesn't matter. It's all BULLSHIT talk anyways. People who argue AC vs. not AC... it doesn't matter. If I know your name and address, it doesn't mean you are more intelligent than me. Oh yes you may think so....

Yeah I have time on my side too. Because the people who bother to talk in Slashdot journal threads tend to realize, after a while, that only losers and non-significant people read other people's Slashdot journals.

So you have an ultra-right wing zealot who still gets the opportunity to argue with naive people like http://slashdot.org/~PopeRatzo [slashdot.org] ...

while MOST intelligent people (regardless of religious faith or political persuasion) have realized that it is a waste of time to even try to attempt to have a discussion based on reason or logic.

For people from the West: having a reasoned and intelligent discussion with a Christian religious fundamentalist and an ultra-Conservative is kind of stupid, isn't it?

Think about it: how many people currently respond to smitty's journal? Almost nobody. Most people who used to respond realized that their most reasoned, thoughtful and researched opinions would be side-swiped by a logical fallacy. Clearly it is important to expose Evil, but it is a WASTE OF TIME TO TRY TO REASON WITH EVIL. Many people thought it would be foolish and a waste of time to argue against Nazi-ism, because it is obviously so absurd that nobody would take it seriously! ...

Well, I am telling you, arguing WITH the Nazis will always be futile. You have to be cognizant of where you want to expend your time and energy.

As a reminder: CNN today just said that the average Congressman in the United States makes just under a million dollars a year (to be sure, that is not just their tax-payer supported Congressman salary, it also includes their wages from their corporate sponsorships and businesses). So it is not surprising that these congressman will only agree to tax hikes for people that make more than 1000000 per year: or the super-ultra rich.

pope ratzo, or whatever your name is, you are a FOOL for wasting your time here if you think you can have an intelligent conversation in this journal. As for me, I'm practicing my typing. Nothing I say really matters because ignorance and greed will always be more powerful. The gun lobby will always win. And you always have to consider the type of people who rally in favor of the Gun Culture. It certainly isn't "libertarians", despite their propaganda. It is the Evil and the ignorant who support the Gun Culture: Conservatives.

Pope Razto said:

I'm not "grabbing control of definitions", I'm offering you that of the Oxford English Dictionary

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you think Smitty and his bunch care about definitions? You sound like a fucking idiot Pope Ratzo. I will tell you that the only thing Smitty is interested in is defending his own Right Wing religious hegemony. If you try to use logic or reason or facts to dispute him you are wasting your time. You will not only lose the argument, but you will have far more people with far more resources backing him up.

Think about it: when the Arab spring happened in Egypt and the common people decided to elect a new government, who did they elect?: They elected religious Conservatives (who support Sharia law). The reason for this is that Reason and Logic are not an inherent part of human evolution: these things you need to worked for.

If you were intelligent and moral you would spend your time figuring out how to KILL these religious Conservatives (whether they be Muslim or Christian or Jewish), because that is the ONLY way that reason will triumph over Evil. Believe me, the people who say I am crazy are the people who (secretly) wish you were dead: They have no value except for the wealth that they accumulate, and while they proclaim "peace" to you in person, they will plot against you in secret. These are the tactics of the friendly religious people who offer YOU love and peace and rationality.

The funny thing is that I (seemed) to convince a Muslim extremist (on Al Jazeera) that Secular Humanism was good, sort of. He seemed to agree with the precepts (i.e. he said that Islam is based on rationality, etc... just like "Secular Humanism"). Yeah, religious zealots of ANY faith are dangerous. You cannot reason with these people: they will only accept arguments that support their cause.

Re:On the other hand (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42616365)

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you think Smitty and his bunch care about definitions? You sound like a fucking idiot Pope Ratzo. I will tell you that the only thing Smitty is interested in is defending his own Right Wing religious hegemony.

This is so false on so many levels that my only response is to forgive you and pray that the Lord have mercy, and visit you with some peace and wisdom.
Great troll, though.

Re:On the other hand (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42575513)

Wilson cultivated the garden that was panted a very long time ago. You're grasping at straws, looking for anything at all to single out a specific individual.

You can even try to be an apologist... What you can't, after a century, is defend the bi-partisan collapse into a pathetic and sad little tyranny...

*groan* Still clinging to those old assumptions. I'm afraid the the "defender the bi-partisan collapse into a pathetic and sad little tyranny" would be you, as you continue to vote for party regulars. While you vote for a republican/democrat, your complaints sound very silly. Circular discussion indeed.

Re:On the other hand (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576793)

You may be correct. The well-considered choice of trying to get the GOP to put the reform where the rhetoric comes out may have been a waste.
Nevertheless, that was the first iteration.

Re:On the other hand (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42584773)

"Well considered"? Please... Not a great believer in precedence, are you? The standard Wall Street investment firm disclaimer, "Past history is not necessarily indicative of future outcomes", does not apply here. There is no incentive to change their behavior. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but nothing significant has happened. The course remains true and steady

So, what's your next step? Gonna stick with your GOP/democrats (I'm sure you're aware that there's a new Bush in town, a shade darker than the other two, which might be the media ticket for a horse race against Hillary in the next cycle), whine about wasted votes and "spoiler" candidates, and continue the cycle of destruction? Or are you going to push for something real and different?

Re:On the other hand (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42588167)

Gonna stick with your GOP/democrats (I'm sure you're aware that there's a new Bush in town, a shade darker than the other two, which might be the media ticket for a horse race against Hillary in the next cycle), whine about wasted votes and "spoiler" candidates, and continue the cycle of destruction? Or are you going to push for something real and different?

Hey, thanks for the binary choice!
We know it boils down to $, don't we?
Thus, among the first things that has to happen is reform of the Federal Reserve.
In a perfect world, the GOP head would exit a nether location with a popping sound, and there would be some vast, statesmanlike proclamation that would get a chorus of "Yeahs", and we'd do something smart. The Ryan Budget was perhaps the least-worst way to get there.
What did the Preshizzle do in his presser today? The guy who has more than doubled our debt [usatoday.com] , held a press conference today [cfr.org] . Seems he didn't mention that he's already planning to blow off the legal deadline for actually submitting a budget [thehill.com] .
I blame the Congressional GOP voodoo dolls that are both precluding our dear leader from getting the job done, and really making him shank his golf drive. Bad GOP: bad. Oh well, it's not like anyone of any party actually votes for BHO's budget, anyway.

Re:On the other hand (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42588297)

Heh, funny as hell... you're still at it...

"BHO" is a facade, a servant to those who finance (under the table) the position. So's your Paul Ryan (sure cracks me up that you still take his crap seriously... eh, just another sign you're still clouded by this what you call 'lesser evil' nonsense.)... And as in all cases, they either follows orders, or gets put out on the street corner. This will only change after you vote out the bling.

Re:On the other hand (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42590839)

I've no strong counter-argument, I fear.

J'abandonne! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42591241)

What's needed is action, not arguments.

Re:J'abandonne! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42591881)

Well. . .
Action, in and of itself, is just as likely to harm as hurt.
Having a plan, circulating it & gaining some consensus takes time, but mitigates a lot of risk.
There are sufficient guns and ammo in circulation that getting jumpy is a Bad Idea.
The good news is that the plan of What To Do is over 220 years old.
The bad news is that thieves have despoiled it.
How do you re-grow the notion of liberty, through the pain of weaning people off of the Federal Nipple?

I still prefer the Cardinal Law (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42578809)

In any peaceful discussion about Catholicism in which people are actually trying to figure out what the religion teaches and the relation to reason and science, the probability approaches one that some atheist troll will jump in with "All Catholic priests rape altar boys", in complete ignorance of the John Jay report. And will follow up with some inane comment about priestly celibacy, despite the fact that every single priest who ever caused a sexual scandal either did not take, or lied about their vow of celibacy.

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>