×

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!

28 comments

Nah (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year ago | (#42691735)

I don't like that cartoon. How they lied about and covered up what happened does not make a difference in whether those people died. The lies came after.

The difference is not in that they are dead. The difference is in that if we do not punish her and Rice and Carney others for lying to the American public about it, then we essentially just encourage more public officials to tell more lies in the future.

Re:Nah (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#42692291)

Finding your distinction slightly artificial here. The events leading to the tragedy and the cover-up are part of a continuous pattern.
Whether that pattern extends throughout our government, or is confined to the senior executive branch knobs is worth knowing.
You're not going to effect any punishment on Hillary, except perhaps communicating to the world her unfitness for further public service.

Re:Nah (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year ago | (#42692569)

Finding your distinction slightly artificial here.

Then you are missing the point or the facts, or both.

The events leading to the tragedy and the cover-up are part of a continuous pattern.

Yes.

Whether that pattern extends throughout our government, or is confined to the senior executive branch knobs is worth knowing.

Yes.

You're not going to effect any punishment on Hillary, except perhaps communicating to the world her unfitness for further public service.

Which is a severe punishment, especially for her.

But you didn't mention my point, which is that the cartoon makes it look like she was saying the events themselves, and what led to them, don't matter. She wasn't. She was saying that whether she and others in the White House lied about it doesn't matter.

Re:Nah (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#42693509)

"the cartoon makes it look like she was saying the events themselves, and what led to them, don't matter"

It's reasonable to reach a different interpretation. The cartoon's caption reads: "The difference between life and death."
Now, the four have met 'death'. Short of overt Divine intervention, that's an invariant.
Thus, one could argue that 'life' really only means something in the future, for some other poor blokes, who might not be on board with Holy Progress when it's their turn to go under the reaper's bus.

Re:Nah (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#42693889)

I don't like that cartoon

Wrong.

How they lied about and covered up what happened does not make a difference in whether those people died.

Wrong.

The lies came after.

No.

The difference is not in that they are dead.

Stop lying, or I won't read your messages any more.

...

...

Hey, this is a pretty fun game after all! I hope I got the rules right!

Re:Nah (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year ago | (#42694169)

Hey, this is a pretty fun game after all! I hope I got the rules right!

Not even remotely. First and foremost, you have to be honest, and you're not being honest at all.

Re:Nah (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#42694237)

Not even remotely. First and foremost, you have to be honest, and you're not being honest at all.

That's because you have a peculiar sense of "honest" that not only is clearly distinct from the part of this country that uses a dictionary, and you refuse to share what that may be. We might as well substitute the word "dingleberry" for any derivation of "honest" in your comments, as those words have just as much in common as your definition of honest and that used by anyone who agrees that dictionaries are meaningful in facilitating conversation.

Yeah, well (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#42691737)

The Huffington Post says she did great. If your far-right media is cancelled out by this far-left media then we should be able to agree that the Secretary of State was present for the hearing.

Re:Yeah, well (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#42692327)

Voting present. We may also agree that our Ruling Class Overlords excel at that, too.
Because this really isn't a Left/Right issue. It's a question of whether our RCOs retain any accountability whatsoever. And the answer seems pretty much: "No". But it's worth making explicit.

Re:Yeah, well (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year ago | (#42692591)

Because this really isn't a Left/Right issue. It's a question of whether our RCOs retain any accountability whatsoever.

Correct.

And the answer seems pretty much: "No".

Well, the left wants there to be no accountability when it's the left that screws up, and covers it up. That much is painfully clear. But that doesn't mean they will not be held accountable.

Re:Yeah, well (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#42692601)

Because this really isn't a Left/Right issue.

No, it is a left/right issue. The right sees it as an opportunity to make another attempt to impeach the president and the left sees it as an unfortunate accident that cost the lives of several Americans who were overseas at a vulnerable time.

It's a question of whether our RCOs retain any accountability whatsoever

Why are these 4 people more important than the thousands of soldiers who have died in Iraq & Afghanistan? Nobody holds anyone accountable for them.

And the answer seems pretty much: "No". But it's worth making explicit.

You only want accountability when your guy isn't on Pennsylvania Ave. If you pursued accountability evenly you would have an argument but your comment history shows otherwise and supports fully the notion that this is indeed just another attempt at a partisan lynching for the sake of partisanship.

Re:Yeah, well (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#42693637)

The right sees it as an opportunity to make another attempt to impeach the president

Oh, come on. You know quite well that there is nothing conceivable that #OccupyResoluteDesk could do that would trigger Senator Harry Reid to do his Constitutional duty and conduct an impeachment trial. Absolutely nothing. Cuba could take Florida, and that miserable piece of work wouldn't say a godforsaken thing.

left sees it as an unfortunate accident

In much the same vein as Steubenville and smearing of George Zimmerman.

Why are these 4 people more important than the thousands of soldiers who have died in Iraq & Afghanistan? Nobody holds anyone accountable for them.

Look! Over there! Shiny! As with George Zimmerman, we saw a concerted effort on the part of the media to avert its gaze [pjmedia.com].

You only want accountability when your guy isn't on Pennsylvania Ave.

You assert this in error. We truly have a problem with executives run amok in this country, and your Left/Right diversions are unhelpful in getting toward the needed reform.

Re:Yeah, well (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#42694369)

The right sees it as an opportunity to make another attempt to impeach the president

Oh, come on. You know quite well that there is nothing conceivable that #OccupyResoluteDesk could do that would trigger Senator Harry Reid to do his Constitutional duty and conduct an impeachment trial.

Impeachment is supposed to be a serious process. When you devote all your free time to trying to find any justification you can dream up to invoke impeachment - even in the complete absence of factual information - you are stomping all over the seriousness of the measure for nothing beyond personal gain.

Look at it this way - how many times have right-wingers tried to drum up a call to impeach Obama? This is at least the third event I have seen you try to call up impeachment, and there were plenty of others from other people of mindsets similar to your own. I think the more challenging question really might be how many weeks since January 2009 have you not been calling for impeachment?

By comparison, how many times did people try to get impeachment going against his predecessor? How much time from January 2001 to December 2008 was dedicated to such efforts?

You only want accountability when your guy isn't on Pennsylvania Ave.

You assert this in error. We truly have a problem with executives run amok in this country, and your Left/Right diversions are unhelpful in getting toward the needed reform.

Can you show an example where you were critical of a sitting POTUS with an (R) after his name?

Re:Yeah, well (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#42694835)

Impeachment is supposed to be a serious process. When you devote all your free time to trying to find any justification you can dream up to invoke impeachment. . .

So is budgeting. But let's not kid ourselves here: our government is not serious, and I do not devote all my time to figuring up ways to make our government behave seriously.

I think the more challenging question really might be how many weeks since January 2009 have you not been calling for impeachment?

All of them. I've never spent an entire week advocating impeachment of the President.
(a) No amount of evidence would be sufficient. You could have Jerry Sandusky and it Simply. Would. Not. Matter. so let's get past that, as we did Hillary's Birtherism, and the false charges of racism that have been so frequently leveled against conservatives.
(b) #OccupyResoluteDesk, himself, is irrelevant. The same power structures that make it possible for one who's such a great campaigner, but otherwise crushingly mediocre, have to be diminished if you don't want another Bush or Obama furthering the collapse into autocracy. (c)

Can you show an example where you were critical of a sitting POTUS with an (R) after his name?

One laughs at the hint of a non-falsifiable "you were insufficiently critical of POTUS with (R)" proposition. Can you show me a rule that says: "Because you were ignorant of WrongX, you have to swallow WrongY"? Imma owe you about as much penance as the Pope.

Re:Yeah, well (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#42695305)

But let's not kid ourselves here: our government is not serious, and I do not devote all my time to figuring up ways to make our government behave seriously.

Well sure, you need to eat and defecate at some point of the day, and you occasionally write Burma Shave lines as well. However I very highly doubt there has been a single week since January 2009 where you were not trying to push an impeachment effort somewhere (even if not here). I will also state that there was likely not a single time between January 2001 and December 2008 where you were attempting that.

I think the more challenging question really might be how many weeks since January 2009 have you not been calling for impeachment?

All of them. I've never spent an entire week advocating impeachment of the President.

That depends on how you define "an entire week". The definition of an entire week is not relevant, though, as I said how many weeks have you not been calling for impeachment, which would require a full 24x7 where you called for it not once. I very highly doubt any such week has existed since the inauguration of Obama in 2009.

Can you show an example where you were critical of a sitting POTUS with an (R) after his name?

One laughs at the hint of a non-falsifiable "you were insufficiently critical of POTUS with (R)" proposition

I ask you just to show me one time where you were critical of a sitting president who had an (R) after his name. This appears to be your admission that indeed, you cannot meet that challenge. This is not a moving target here (and you should be good at identifying moving targets).

Can you show me a rule that says: "Because you were ignorant of WrongX, you have to swallow WrongY"? Imma owe you about as much penance as the Pope.

You are trying to claim that this latest impeachment dream of yours is somehow not just another partisan act on your behalf. I ask you to show that you are not partisan by showing us an example of a time where you were critical of a sitting president from your own party; it appears you cannot meet that challenge because you have never done any such thing. This only further supports what we already know - that you are on a partisan attack to remove the guy whose party you don't like.

Re:Yeah, well (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#42695737)

You are trying to claim that this latest impeachment dream of yours is somehow not just another partisan act on your behalf. I ask you to show that you are not partisan by showing us an example of a time where you were critical of a sitting president from your own party; it appears you cannot meet that challenge because you have never done any such thing. This only further supports what we already know - that you are on a partisan attack to remove the guy whose party you don't like.

Are you, in essence, accusing me of deceit? You seem to have decided that I'm partisan, and every single exchange between us has to be bent to fit that template. Is that the case?
I've stated the dispassionate truth of my views here, as elsewhere. I don't have a hidden secular agenda. I do have a spiritual agenda that I don't parade about, as I don't anticipate you're seeking someone to preach at you, but that's not really hidden, either.
Becoming tedious with specifications like "showing us an example of a time where you were critical of a sitting president from your own party" is silly. Did I realize initially that the Patriot Act was a substantially crappy idea, in particular, the way it was rammed through over a long weekend with arguably insufficient review? No. Is it the case that you're arguing that my insufficient blowback toward Bush for signing the PA into law then renders it off limits as a topic of criticism when #OccupyResoluteDesk renews it [huffingtonpost.com]?
Only in your Orwellian dreams, bucko.
You need better rhetorical equipment than that, because, essentially, I don't extend you the benefit of the doubt. One expects that you are arguing in bad faith for all non-trivial cases. One does not feel any exchange with you is a genuine attempt to circulate knowledge to the betterment of both parties. Indeed, one actively expects that you're out to waste time with cheesy little distractions, presumably for your own amusement. Seriously: I'd not accuse you of rationality, objectivity or truth-seeking. Nor, after the amount of time expended, do I feel the slightest twinge of remorse for laying it all out like this.
Go ahead and accuse me of everything under the sun: what difference does it make?

Re:Yeah, well (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#42697923)

Go ahead and accuse me of everything under the sun

Accuse? No, I demonstrate that you are a hard core partisan. You deeply hate the president because he is not from your party. You have proposed a variety of flimsy reasons for impeachment, which you seem to be for some reason surprised to find that actual thinking men do not agree with. In another month or so Benghazi will be forgotten and you will have picked up some other reason for trying to impeach him that is even less meaningful than this one. I'm guessing you'll soon say that he illegally fast-tracked the immigration papers for his Portuguese water dog and that he should be marched straight to the chair for it.

I like how you earlier claimed that your unending partisan witch hunt is somehow in the interest of bringing "seriousness" to the federal government; do you not realize how costly it is in terms of getting work done for congress to begin impeachment? You want a budget, but you want congress to start a new impeachment proceeding every other week as you keep dreaming up new reasons to have the president thrown out. Those goals are 100% mutually exclusive. Being as your calls for impeachment are not even remotely close to valid (at least based on what you have presented as evidence for crimes) such actions would be atrocious wastes of time and energy.

Of course, if preventing work from being done in Washington is your goal, then you are on the right path. But don't bitch about a budget not passing if you have congress tied up in a constant cycle of trying to impeach someone for having a (D) after their name.

Re:Yeah, well (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#42698157)

You don't demonstrate much beyond a willingness to pile accusation upon accusation, Torquemada [wikipedia.org].

Of course, if preventing work from being done in Washington is your goal

Indeed, you have mastered the art of turning a reasonable, Constitutional desire for a limited government, in proper arrangement with the people, as the cart with the horse, into it's inverse. Your falsehoods mirror the pattern of the despicable liars who would attempt to frame murder as 'reproductive' rights [theothermccain.com].
May God grant you a soul and then shower it with mercy.

Re:Yeah, well (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#42698351)

You don't demonstrate much beyond a willingness to pile accusation upon accusation, Torquemada.

No, I demonstrate repeatedly one thing - that you are a deeply rooted partisan hack. I have given you chances to prove me wrong but you have never so much as made an attempt to do so, which only supports my argument.

I don't need to pile on accusations, when I have proof to support my statement.

You might want to consider trying it something - facts can be your friend, too!

Of course, if preventing work from being done in Washington is your goal

Indeed, you have mastered the art of turning a reasonable, Constitutional desire for a limited government, in proper arrangement with the people, as the cart with the horse, into it's inverse.

I have not seen you present that argument in any of your attempts to impeach President Obama. If you want to reduce government, that is your prerogative. Impeaching the POTUS won't help you in that aim, though.

Your falsehoods mirror the pattern of the despicable liars who would attempt to frame murder as 'reproductive' rights.

So you are now so irritated to be demonstrated to be a partisan hack that you are bringing abortion into this discussion? That doesn't help your cause in any way, shape, or form.

Re:Yeah, well (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#42698485)

I have given you chances to prove me wrong but you have never so much as made an attempt to do so, which only supports my argument.

And I have offered plenty of GOP criticism, and will continue to do so, and you will ignore it, because nothing supports your argument except your rhetorical circle-jerk of an argument.

in any of your attempts to impeach President Obama

How in the world could I possibly have attempted to impeach BHO [wikipedia.org]? I'm not in Congress, or I'd not likely have time to exchange anecdotes with your increasingly unhinged-sounding self. You're sounding kind of The Tell-Tale Heart [wikipedia.org] here. Lighten up, Francis.

So you are now so irritated to be demonstrated to be a partisan hack that you are bringing abortion into this discussion?

You still haven't shown anything partisan except your capacity to re-use the word 'partisan'. Do you really think life is a partisan issue? I suppose it is, given the general taste for death on the Left, but one would hope that rationality and the desire to see the human race go forward would transcend any sort of petty finger pointing. Alas, one may be disappointed.

Re:Yeah, well (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#42699897)

I have given you chances to prove me wrong but you have never so much as made an attempt to do so, which only supports my argument.

And I have offered plenty of GOP criticism

But you have not criticized a sitting GOP president, which is my point. You are far too partisan to be willing to criticize a president of your own party while he is in power. You are attacking Obama not because he is politically distant from you - as he obviously is not - but rather because he has a different letter after his name.

in any of your attempts to impeach President Obama

How in the world could I possibly have attempted to impeach BHO? I'm not in Congress

That is a ridiculous argument and you know that. Obviously you cannot impeach him yourself but every week you are calling for congress to do so.

So you are now so irritated to be demonstrated to be a partisan hack that you are bringing abortion into this discussion?

You still haven't shown anything partisan except your capacity to re-use the word 'partisan'.

You have shown yourself to be disgustingly partisan.

Do you really think life is a partisan issue?

The way you discuss it, it is.

the general taste for death on the Left

... and then you prove my point. Thank you.

but

Abortion does not belong in this discussion. You injected it because you are ashamed to have your deep partisan root exposed yet again for all to see. You somehow see yourself as having a moral upper hand on an issue that you have disgustingly oversimplified. I fully expect that like so many others if we were to actually discuss abortion you would again represent your side with no actual data whatsoever and a hail of links to your own blog or other conservative blogs.

In other words, you are just trying to distract.

Re:Yeah, well (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#42700019)

But you have not criticized a sitting GOP president, which is my point. You are far too partisan to be willing to criticize a president of your own party while he is in power.

You ascribe to yourself vast powers of prophecy, which are also incorrect. In general, what you know is the little cast of strawmen between your ears.

Re:Yeah, well (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#42700249)

But you have not criticized a sitting GOP president, which is my point. You are far too partisan to be willing to criticize a president of your own party while he is in power.

You ascribe to yourself vast powers of prophecy

Why would we expect you to suddenly do something in the future which you have never done before, especially when it is so obviously counter to your standard M.O.?

Hell, Obama and Biden have had more disagreements than you and the sum total of all presidents to have had an (R) after their names. The next GOP president could start a Catholic-only draft to burn the Vatican to the ground and you would call it a great idea.

What difference does it make? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#42698895)

None. Whether it's spontaneous or pre-planned, it doesn't matter. Every baby is a gift from god.

Re:What difference does it make? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#42699865)

You're so right. Once we can trick people into living in the moment, to treating each card in the deck of life a discrete moment, instead of considering the deck & game as a whole, we can burn this culture down. We'll get a lot of political power from it. Let's do it.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...