Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Let's label this argument Alinksy 3:23 47

Journal by smittyoneeach
I stand accused, apparently, of being an irredeemable partistan hack.
All other arguments having failed, that old variation on Romans, "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of Reagan" appears to be the concluding stance.
1. Having failed in times past to say "enough"* critical things about the GOP, and,
2. Being completely incapable of:
a. learning, and
b. repentence, and
3. Furthermore being robotically bound to hardwired, personal dislike of other beings based upon:
a. party, and
b. pigment,
4. I must therefore accept my assignment to a 'GOP hack' plantation where I uncritically parrot certain talking points for eternity, or at least until Al Gore sells the internet to some Middle Eastern cable channel.

All I can say, damn_registrars, is that I hope somebody else finds your arguments as monomaniacally amusing as I do.
--
*And let's not kid ourselves, It's Never Enough.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Let's label this argument Alinksy 3:23 More

Let's label this argument Alinksy 3:23

Comments Filter:
  • Exactly what you think you have to gain by mocking your being demonstrated to be a devout partisan is unclear. However when you go so far as to claim that you are being accused of being a racist, when that is not the case, you really don't help your own cause. Not once have I claimed this to be about race, as you have plainly indicated that in your case it is all about party. Frankly, if you actually took the time to read and comprehend what I have written you would see that I am not fond of much of what
    • Gain? The value of absorbing your drivel is what you see in the post: a general description of the anti-rational attack you seem to fancy. This is an effort similar to The Doritos Argument [theothermccain.com].
      The only way to inoculate people against an Alinsky 3:23 attack or a Doritos Argument is to spend enough time talking to their purveyors and documenting them.
      I guess you seem to have forgotten coming after me for referring to the POTUS as "BHO". The attempt to conquer 1/25 of the alphabet was as absurd as your accusatio

      • The Doritos Argument.

        I am not impressed by your linking to your own blog as somehow being a source of information.

        I guess you seem to have forgotten coming after me for referring to the POTUS as "BHO".

        What does that have to do with anything? Indeed very very few people aside from you ever call him BHO. Most people who chose that acronym do so to remind us of his middle name. Nobody who uses it saves themselves any meaningful amount of typing, it takes scarcely more effort to type Obama instead. Hence when dealing with someone as deeply partisan as yourself it is reasonable to expect that you are using the T

        • Again, I don't know why you're pulling your punches. For purely context-free analysis, you need to point out there was no debt at all before George Washington took office, and thus GW caused a far higher percentage increase in the national debt than Obama.

          No conservative president has ever done any of those things. Nevermind the fact that "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness" are terms that are purely subjective; just because we differ in their meaning does not mean that either of us are wrong.

          Oh,

          • Again, I don't know why you're pulling your punches. For purely context-free analysis

            Context-free? Hardly. You give plenty of context that plainly demonstrates you to be an extremely partisan individual. Show me one time where you criticized a sitting republican president on slashdot? You can't, because it hasn't happened. I am no fan of republicans in general, but I am at least willing to criticize people who also have the (D) or other non - (R) letters after their names. You cannot say the inverse.

            And being as at least once a week you are calling for president Obama to be impeach

            • OK, my 100% wrong, partisan hack self has experienced sufficient dishonest hectoring. You win the Internet, with a bonus *yawn*.
              I'll be back whenever.
              • I didn't say you are 100% wrong. I just said you are a highly devout and entrenched partisan. That on its own is not a bad thing, but denying it does not help your cause. You are very devoted to your cause, but when you claim your cause is something other than what it is, solely to try to make your cause look more reasonable, you just make the cause look silly.

                • I am a highly devout and entrenched partisan. I don't see ANY American politicians as truly being devoted to their cause. Enough bribery will change their minds on anything.

                  • Enough bribery will change their minds on anything.

                    That is, by definition, the nature of power and authority. It is inviolable, physical law. Don't expect anything less.

    • After reading that Salon article on the real causes of abortion (primarily human sacrifice and racism) I am inclined to agree. Obama is so conservative that he is an Aztec, as are any Democrats stupid enough to follow him.

      • Obama is so conservative that he is an Aztec

        I just don't know that these symbols map meaningfully.

        • Read this and tremble [salon.com]- human sacrifice is making a big comeback. And the Obama Administration is at the head of it.

          All the same reasoning that the Aztecs used in their rituals, exists in the modern Democratic Party.

          • It's attitudes like that by that writer (and my sister holds the same view), and the govt. using drones to kill people including Americans, and the Obamacare "death panels" (govt. deciding if you're not worth it to society to receive potentially life-saving healthcare), and the mandate that your doctor must talk to you when you're old and sickly about throwing in the towel, that have made this Right-winger and long-time death penalty proponent abandon that, as too dangerous a precedent.

            On top of this around

            • The only good spot in all this is that the answer to the question of What To Do stares us in the face: The Constitution.
              Our task is to help people through breaking the addiction to the Progressive cocaine.

              • The Constitution is a huge part of what is wrong. We tried the experiment of unenlightened self-rule, it is ending in chaos.

                • Chaos? The bankers crept in a century past. This is a lawful evil, not a chaotic one, to borrow from D&D.

                  • The bankers were there at the beginning; Article I Sections 8 and 10. But when you separate law from morality, things get bad. And usury is not a good industry to promote.

                    • There was no existent Federal bank in 1913, the dollar was not the world's reserve currency until 1944, and the currency wasn't decoupled from gold until 1971. A nice, gradual descent into ruin there, with blame spread across idiots and generations.

                    • Yes, but Hamilton Killed Burr- and that was NOT the first Federal Bank, but actually the third. The seeds existed as soon as Congress stole the right to print money from the States.

                    • Harmonizing the dollar across the 57 states was not, itself, evil. And note that I said 'existent' Federal bank. ;-)
                      Ron Paul's ideas about opening up to other currencies beside the dollar is worth considering.

                    • The power to coin money, is the power to make wealth out of nothing.

                      The whole idea of money itself is rather dangerous. It is rather like discounting the eucharist and putting the focus on the bread instead of the body of Christ.

                    • A nice, gradual descent into ruin there...

                      What, you'd prefer the preexisting bumpy old mule trail to ruin?

                    • Money is merely a piece of information.
                    • It's not the choice of many, smaller quakes vs. the One Big Mother that is infuriating.
                      Rather, the way that a pack of self-appointed pencil necks has taken it upon themselves to make it for me that kinda hacks me off.

                    • Eh, some people like to put an extra abstraction layer between themselves and the carpetbaggers. I mean, really, what difference does it make?

                    • One of liberty.

            • All of what you wrote save one thing- as Pope Leo XIII pointed out, it must be the FAMILY that is sacred, not the individual, for the race to continue past a single generation. Rerum Novarum.

              • A quibble: We are not saved in groups [americanthinker.com]/as a family. You cannot buy salvation for your spouse and offspring. We each have to accept Christ individually. The individual is made in the image of God, but obviously the family has a very sacred place in God's ordering of things. Holding each and every individual human life as sacred does not preclude brotherly love and charity, to family members and beyond.

                Not sure why we should be for (or against, for that matter) the race continuing, tho. Better to pray for His

                • More that you are *responsible* for the salvation of your wife and kids- that it is your duty as a father to nurture them in the faith, just as you are materially responsible to provide them with food, clothing, and shelter.

                  It is indeed American Protestantism to duck that responsibility, but that doesn't mean that God will give you a pass on it at the last judgement.

                  Now here's the sad part- even in American Protestantism, heck, even among the atheists; this country is falling apart precisely because the GI

                  • Now here's the sad part- even in American Protestantism, heck, even among the atheists; this country is falling apart precisely because the GI and Baby Boomer Generations have failed in that responsibility; they have failed to teach anything resembling traditional morality.

                    I wouldn't limit the criticism to Protestantism, for all I don't even consider myself such.

                    • Oh, I'm well aware that among most Catholics, they learn the traditions so badly that 85% no longer go to Church within 5 years of confirmation, if they ever get confirmed at all.

              • That sounds assumptive/putting words in your mouth, and it wasn't meant. I wish to rephrase that as "I wonder what you mean by the family being sacred and the individual not (or the family being more sacred than the individual, if that's what you meant)".

                • In keeping with your other comment- you cannot be saved yourself if you allow your wife and kids to fall into sin and hell. Or worse yet, push them there.

                  Likewise, the real problem with socialism and capitalism isn't the lack of fairness and equality- it is that these systems work to destroy the family, the basic unit of both the economy of salvation and the economy of materialism.

                  • (a) If my son is a truly free moral agent, how am I culpable for his potential rejection of the Gospel, assuming I've done my paternal duty? Salvation is a purely individual thing.
                    (b) Economic systems are what they are. Evil lives in the flesh of men, and materialism is a violation of at least two of the 10 Commandments, which predate modern economics anyway. Not even Jesus advocated pure barter.

                    • a) If you've done your paternal duty, rejection is not going to be a part of it.
                      b) What Jesus advocated seems to be pure giving- with no keeping of accounts at all.

                    • a) You can't get to 'is not' without crushing the liberty of the child to reject the Gospel.
                      b) Fair enough, but Jesus never rejected money as such, for all, say, "The Widow's Mite" indicates significantly different Heavenly accounting.

                    • a) Telling the kid a lie isn't liberty. Failing to teach him the difference between truth and fiction isn't liberty.
                      There are many reasons to go to hell, but if you did your job as a parent in teaching the difference between truth and not-truth, rejection of the gospel isn't going to be one of them. NOBODY should have the "liberty" to deny truth when faced with the fullness of truth.
                      b) Did the widow ask for anything in return for her mite? I'd say the widow's mite is a part and parcel of learning to be a

                    • (a)

                      NOBODY should have the "liberty" to deny truth when faced with the fullness of truth.

                      If there is no capacity to sin, then you may not be fully human.
                      Information may be more or less truthful in content. This is a separate question from what you do with the information. Consider carefully Mark 7:5-15 [blueletterbible.org], and let me know on which side of the argument you fall.
                      (b) Fair enough, but beside my point: money AS SUCH is not the issue at hand.

                    • Sin isn't the denial of truth. Sin is knowing the truth and actively disobeying.

                      Those who *deny the truth* do not sin- they're acting completely within their little relativistic bubble of ethical behavior as they know it.

                      My point is that barter, capitalism, and communism do not fit Christ's economics, which is based on giving and forgiveness. As such, the libertarian bubble of moral relativity is rather far from Christ.

                    • Sin isn't the denial of truth. Sin is knowing the truth and actively disobeying.
                      Those who *deny the truth* do not sin- they're acting completely within their little relativistic bubble of ethical behavior as they know it.

                      If God is truth, how do you deny God in any righteous way? Are we putting to fine a point on matters perhaps, sir?

                    • By having a completely false idea of what the world is like, of course. The ignorant are the most righteous of all, always, for their conscience is uninformed.

                      The same way the happiest people, are those who are completely insane and don't realize it.

                    • My worldview is as filtered by the Gospel as possible. To the extent that it's not, such is sin, and needs to be tidied by the Holy Spirit.

  • Too bad about being a mindslave to the GOP. If only you were more libertarian than that.

    And in the it's Never Enough dept., I'll see your men-wearing-makeup band and raise you one unit of metal [youtube.com].

Slashdot Top Deals

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Close