smittyoneeach's Journal: Senator McCain really should follow damn_registrars

Won't somebody explain to that tired old warhorse that nothing whatsoever happened in Benghazi?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mccain-massive-cover-benghazi-193426972--politics.html
Harry Reid is probably going to have to think about Senate discipline, and have McCain hauled out in an I-love-me jacket.
If McCain would just read damn_registrars, he could come to grips with his inner partisan hack, and just Let It Go.
Because #TheChildren

It's just McCain gettin' all maverick-y

[damn_registrars]

JSM III is showing that mavericks don't need facts to make an argument.

An important bit missing, too

[damn_registrars]

There is an important difference between JSM3's maverick-y comments and your regurgitation of townhall.com Benghazi paranoia. Namely, JSM3 has not yet to the best of my knowledge claimed that Benghazi is somehow worthy of impeachment. Hence if you are trying to claim that you and he are on the same wavelength, you cannot support such a claim. However you haven't let the absence of fact or reason slow down your witchhunt prior to now, so I wouldn't expect that to change.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Is that a difference that makes any difference? What would be the point of JSM3 bleating in public if the "I" word wasn't in the back of his mind?
I mean, you can squeeze a couple more news cycles of budget crisis avoidance out of Benghazi, but that's about the only benefit I can see.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Is that a difference that makes any difference?

Yes, it does make a difference. Not everyone is so exceptionally partisan that they will search for an excuse to start impeachment at every opportunity they come across. Not everyone is so exceptionally partisan to see Benghazi as having anywhere remotely enough significance to merit consideration of an impeachment hearing.

What would be the point of JSM3 bleating in public if the "I" word wasn't in the back of his mind?

Just because he doesn't feel all the information is out does not mean that he feels it could warrant impeachment. To point out only one example from the previous administration plent

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Not everyone is so exceptionally partisan that they will search for an excuse to start impeachment at every opportunity they come across.

I don't think even the hardest-core anti-Bush guys were calling for his impeachment at every opportunity during the Bush regime.

though pretty well nobody dared to suggest that his crappy explanation was hiding an impeachable offense.

The 9/11 truthers do exist, and 9/11 did have a thorough investigation [wikipedia.org]. Whether or not Benghazi merits similar treatment is your call.

Weren't

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Not everyone is so exceptionally partisan that they will search for an excuse to start impeachment at every opportunity they come across.

I don't think even the hardest-core anti-Bush guys were calling for his impeachment at every opportunity during the Bush regime.

Which makes you more hard-core anti-democrat than the hardest of hard-core anti-bushes were.

though pretty well nobody dared to suggest that his crappy explanation was hiding an impeachable offense.

The 9/11 truthers do exist, and 9/11 did have a thorough investigation.

I'm glad you mentioned the 9/11 committee. Do you recall that it took over a year for the committee to be formed, and more than another year and a half before their report was released? Do you recall anyone calling for Bush to be impeached during that interim period?

Benghazi happened less than 6 months ago, and people were screaming impeachment over it barely a month in.

Whether or not Benghazi merits similar treatment is your call.

Calling for an investigation into it is

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Which makes you more hard-core anti-democrat than the hardest of hard-core anti-bushes were.

I'm not in favor of political parties. Kind of like government, they're a necessary evil. I'm not sure how you're measuring degrees of "anti" here. Certainly, I've been slow to grasp just what a sad pack of Progressive sycophants the GOP elite are.
But what's psychologically fascinating is the mania you display about the "I" word. It's almost as though you're privy to something, and "punching back twice as hard" in f

Re:

[damn_registrars]

I'm not in favor of political parties.

Unless this devleoped in the past 24 hours, your history of hatred towards all things (D) clearly refutes your claim.

I'm not sure how you're measuring degrees of "anti" here

You are anti-democrat by virtue of your dedication to tearing down anyone with a (D) at pretty well any opportunity.

But what's psychologically fascinating is the mania you display about the "I" word.

Mania? Hardly. I'm just trying to get you to recognize your own obsession with impeaching anyone who is not of your party. We have the likely most conservative president our country has ever had, and you are stopping at no ends to throw him out because he came from the par

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You're not capable of such a thing

I'll confess that you historically could raise my blood pressure slightly, but your swan dive into fanatic self-parody has moved you to the boring side of funny. Has your digestion gone shoddy? Has the girlfriend dumped you? Cat ran away? I'm here for you, man.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

I stand behind my statement. You are too deep in your hatred of Obama - purely for his not beingof your political party - to ever be able to stop having negative feelings towards him. If he spent the next four weeks in the white house without proposing any legislation, giving any speeches, hosting any foreign citizens, ordering any drone strikes, or doing anything other than signing bills that come from both houses, you would still come up with another wacky reason to throw him out before him term ends (t

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

No, really, I'm weary of this always being about me, my hatreds, my (in truth, miniscule) partisan identification.
I'm inferring from our interaction here that you are not grasped by Jesus Christ, and thus have roughly zero (0) insight into my soul, and how I truly just don't hate anybody in the manner you describe.
Nor, truth be told, do I think you're the kind of one-dimensional, bloody-minded, H8-filled bulldozer of a fellow you portray here on /. with me.
Rather, I suspect you're in some uber-troll mode

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Ahhh.. sweet Tuesday. You are the last flower in the desert...

Re:

[damn_registrars]

No, really, I'm weary of this always being about me, my hatreds

If you wrote less about your hatreds there would be less discussion of it.

my (in truth, miniscule) partisan identification

You are easily one of the most partisan people on slashdot. Just because you claim to not love the republicans does not make you non-partisan. Your hatred of the democrats permeates every political message you post here.

I'm inferring from our interaction here that you are not grasped by Jesus Christ

What does mythology have to do with this?

and thus have roughly zero (0) insight into my soul, and how I truly just don't hate anybody in the manner you describe

Your own message history clearly shows your hatred for all democratic politicians.

Tell me how I can help you attain some measure of calm, reasoned discourse, D.R. I'm here for you.

If you want a reasoned discussion you need to present a reasoned argument. When you cla

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

If you want a reasoned discussion you need to present a reasoned argument.

Apparently, 'reasoned' means blindly agreeing with you on all points.

I would very much like to have a reasoned discussion with you, but your responses indicate that you do not wish the same from me or from anyone else who does not agree with you.

I'm not making any exception to my normal, positive, cheerful, reasoned style of argument for you.
On the other hand, what I receive is a continuous, insulting (Christianity is mythology?), f

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Apparently, 'reasoned' means blindly agreeing with you on all points.

There you go making unsupported assumptions, again.

Reasoned, in terms of a presented argument, is when you can support your conclusions. When you say "Obama is from Mars because townhall.com says so" that is not a reasoned argument. Conversely when you say "Obama was born in Hawaii because his birth certificate says so", that is a reasoned argument.

Similarly, your statement about 'reasoned' is not a reasoned argument.

I'm not making any exception to my normal, positive, cheerful, reasoned style of argument for you.

There is nothing reasoned in the arguments you have presented as of late.

On the other hand, what I receive is a continuous, insulting (Christianity is mythology?)

Yes,

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Yes, religion is mythology. Religion centers its beliefs in legends and other unprovables. That is not necessarily a bad thing on its own right but it is mythology.

This is humorous in light of your repetitive onslaught of unprovable accusations. Do you view yourself a mythology routine?
Oh, and, by the way, please offer a complete, bulletproof explanation as to the meaning of life. As you're way too cool for mythology, I'm supposing this wont pose any challenge for you.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

This is humorous in light of your repetitive onslaught of unprovable accusations

I am curious to know which of my accusations you see as "unprovable" and "repetitive".

Oh, and, by the way, please offer a complete, bulletproof explanation as to the meaning of life

The meaning of life? Does there really need to be one? If there is one, should it not apply to all life, from single-celled organisms like E coli all the way up to humans?

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Well, damned if d_r didn't steal the words right from my fingertips, and you and I skimmed over this. You insist that life has meaning. Why? What purpose does purpose serve? Other than to serve man? This is the brain making shit up. Nature has no purpose. It is totally on autopilot, and so is everybody's deity.