Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Let's label this argument Alinksy 3:23

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

User Journal 47

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, andI 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.

cancel ×

47 comments

Wow, another JE for me! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42702487)

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 Obama has done as POTUS, either.

My point is that we currently have in power the most conservative president we have had in at least three decades, and possibly in all of this nation's history. Yet because he does not carry the mark of your reverence you hate him with the heat of a thousand suns, and at least once a week you make another call for his impeachment (or more). You should be celebrating the fact that the president in power is granting you many of the conservative actions that even your dear St. Ronnie could not accomplish. Instead you dig in and insist that the POTUS is some sort of demon spawn because you did not vote for him.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42702795)

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 accusations of partisanship.

you would see that I am not fond of much of what Obama has done as POTUS, either

Great! Can we get past this personalization fetish, then, and talk about what you'd do to restore a semblance of fiscal sanity and limited government?

the most conservative president we have had in at least three decades

I'm deeply curious as to how you define 'conservative'. You don't seem to mean anyone concerned with Constitutional, limited, representative government trying to deliver life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness with as little additional overhead as required.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703105)

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 TLA as a weapon of spite rather than as a way to spare yourself energy or time consumption.

absurd as your accusations of partisanship

Calling my demonstration of you being a severely partisan individual "absurd" does not in any way make you less partisan. You could have shown a situation where you criticized a sitting republican president to suggest that you are not a severely partisan person, but no such case exists. Meanwhile every week you call for the non-republican president to be impeached on something that no evidence of substantial merit for such an action exists.

You hat the president because he is not of your party. Romney would have done the same things, Bush did the same things, and Reagan could even do things that are this conservative. Yet you hate Obama because he didn't run as a member of your party.

talk about what you'd do to restore a semblance of fiscal sanity

Not that you care what I would do for this. I would tell you but you would brush it off and go back to something else.

and limited government?

You and I do not agree in what that means in particular.

the most conservative president we have had in at least three decades

I'm deeply curious as to how you define 'conservative'.

Conservatives frequently refer to Ronald Reagan as a highly conservative president, and they often strive to emulate his actions (or more particularly the parts thereof that they remember most fondly). In particular:

  • Regressive taxation
  • Pro-big-business policies
  • Reduction in federal non-military spending
  • Increase in military spending and military efforts
  • Reduction in federal government accountability

And on all of those, Obama has eclipsed all of his predecessors of the past 3+ decades.

You don't seem to mean anyone concerned with Constitutional, limited, representative government trying to deliver life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness with as little additional overhead as required.

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703601)

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, but of course! And by this brilliance, we should provide health insurance for all! Wait: the government is taking half my paycheck, and only paying 10% at the doctors office! "Shut up, hobbit! You're 'insured'."
As noted previously, I don't think you're playing a straight game at any point here, and, I confess, I'm in danger of growing bored.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704453)

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 impeached, you are not only partisan but more extreme in your views than any liberal I have ever seen on slashdot.

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.

I don't recall discussing the national debt in this thread previously.

No conservative president has ever done any of those things.

Why did you leave that part of my quote in, and then not respond to it?

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, but of course! And by this brilliance, we should provide health insurance for all!

There are plenty of people who would see a single-payer healthcare system as being a critical part of the "L,L, & PoH" goals.

Wait: the government is taking half my paycheck

There are plenty of people who pay more than half their paycheck in taxes & insurance costs as it is.

and only paying 10% at the doctors office!

Those are two completely disconnected numbers. Yes, insurance companies tend to get a 90% discount at the office in comparison to what Joe six-pack would pay for the same procedure if he walked in with no insurance. However that by no means indicates that only 10% of revenue is being spent on that.

As noted previously, I don't think you're playing a straight game at any point here

You are entitled to your opinion, and as usual I expect you will do nothing to explain it beyond providing links to your own blog or other conservative web sites.

and, I confess, I'm in danger of growing bored.

I don't believe anyone is forcing you to come here and share your opinion. You could chose to be partisan on a different conservative web site instead.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704523)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42707133)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42707337)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42708001)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42710017)

I do expect something less, but it requires worshiping Truth instead of the unholy trinity of Mammon, Moloch, and Marduk.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42707381)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42708443)

Obama is so conservative that he is an Aztec

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

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42709987)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711537)

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 here the police just shoot you if you look at them wrong, and they shoot to kill. And the news media dutifully announces in each incident that they had no choice and were forced to do it and justified, and then that news report ends with no facts or reasoning for the justification. I.e. we're not supposed to question, and eerily no one does.

Combine that with all the violence and death that the Leftie Hollywood has churned out for decades (betcha the Dems won't ban guns in movies!) and we have a culture of death, where all kinds of killings and more kinds of them over time are considered "justified".

Unfortunately it's prolly only going to get worse, as an economy with a Leftie boot on its neck can't support people with jobs, and govt.'s going broke can't support people with welfare, so our collectivist overlords will feel the need to do something [famous Leftie credo (and example of typical logic): "Anything's better than nothing!"] to protect the system/the society (since the collective and not individuals is what is sacred).

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711701)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42715129)

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

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42715193)

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

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42715413)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42715995)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42717117)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42717307)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42718149)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42718557)

Money is merely a piece of information.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42718495)

A nice, gradual descent into ruin there...

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

Pencil necks (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42718599)

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.

Re:Pencil necks (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720675)

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

Re:Pencil necks (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720857)

One of liberty.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42715151)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a year and a half ago | (#42723273)

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 return, and the end of this wandering in exile as punishment for breaking the only rule we had in the Garden. I.e. this world is not how God wanted us to exist, and wanting to ensure that future generations are subjected to it seems perverse.

Maybe that's just my American Protestantism talking; I wonder if Catholicism teaches that you can be saved as a family/that you can secure salvation for your spouse and kids.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42727617)

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 and Baby Boomer Generations have failed in that responsibility; they have failed to teach anything resembling traditional morality.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42729441)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42730449)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a year and a half ago | (#42723287)

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)".

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42727681)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42729495)

(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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42730467)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42731345)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42734279)

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 *generous* giver- for she gave not just out of her surplus, but out of what she needed to survive. I'd have a ton more respect for both capitalists and communists if they were about what they could GIVE rather than what they GET.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42736295)

(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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750927)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754281)

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?

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757981)

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.

Re:Wow, another JE for me! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758007)

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.

condolences (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a year and a half ago | (#42706127)

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] .

Re:condolences (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42708457)

I'm nobody's mindslave save Jesus Christ; but this is a secular discussion, not a sacred one.

Re:condolences (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711351)

Try reading that again with sarcasm tags wrapped around the subject and first lines and a smiley at the end of the second.

Re:condolences (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711757)

Significantly funnier.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...