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!

Calling out the GOP elite

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 10 months ago

User Journal 50

. . .what Ted Cruz is doing -- is signaling to the discontented that there really is another way. They can vote Republican in 2014; and, if they do so big time, there will be a correction of course.
The leadership of the Republican Party hates this. Like Jeb Bush in early 2009, they want "to get beyond Reagan." They want to surrender on immigration; they have

. . .what Ted Cruz is doing -- is signaling to the discontented that there really is another way. They can vote Republican in 2014; and, if they do so big time, there will be a correction of course.
The leadership of the Republican Party hates this. Like Jeb Bush in early 2009, they want "to get beyond Reagan." They want to surrender on immigration; they have designed a Republican healthcare bill that is little more than Romneycare writ large; and they desperately want to make nice with the Democrats. They do not really want a change of course. They merely want to take their turn as managers of the administrative entitlements state. They want to take advantage of discontent without having to commit themselves to a reduction in the size and scope of the government.

Conservatives have really been unsure whether to try to work within the GOP, or start a second national party.
Jury is still out, but stand by for RINO scalpings in the primaries.

cancel ×

50 comments

Again with the Reagan worship (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44954757)

He was not a conservative, He grew the government and raised taxes. And some of us remember the hostage deal, Beirut (something you Benghazi people would prefer to forget), Iran/Contra, Central American death squads, Lincoln Savings and Loan (every bit as guilty as McCain), and his love for the very racist prison industry [wikimedia.org] . He was a horrible, horrible man. The worst in my lifetime. Maybe the worst since Andrew Johnson. Yeah, I know he was a puppet, just like Obama, and everybody in between. The real criminals are Rumsfeld and Kissinger, and their associates that remain hidden from view. Still, it is best to exorcise his ghost from all but the history books. His presidency (and everyone since, actually) is one we must never repeat, though most unfortunately, we are doing exactly that, thus the austerity we suffer continues unabated so the power of private wealth/property can become even more concentrated.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44955107)

I'm a veteran. I remember Beruit, and a President who didn't throw an innocent man in the cooler.
To be sure, there is significant overlap between the two incidents, but the differences are stark and cut to the truth that #OccupyResoluteDesk is a no-talent rodeo clown.
The rest of your response, with just a little more Drano, could pass for Noam Chomsky. Bravo.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44955375)

Your hate for Chomsky and Zinn are noted. Care to point out anything they have said that is historically incorrect? Or is this just another example of the cultural peephole through which you see the world?

...no-talent rodeo clown...

Your internet meme-ing does not impress. His associates are perfectly happy with his talents. If they weren't, somebody else would be president today.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44957859)

historically incorrect

As in, 100% false? Come on; destroying a culture never works if you stand up and speak in the language of Bulungi.
All of the facts are cherry picked, the context destroyed, the motives urinated upon, and the soup served sandwich style. But you know that.

His associates are perfectly happy with his talents.

Interesting question: when you reach a certain altitude of plutocracy, is happiness possible? Or are you just getting your Emperor Palpatine on all of the days of your vanity under the sun?

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44958647)

All of the facts are cherry picked, the context destroyed, the motives urinated upon, and the soup served sandwich style.

Ah, exactly like the 'official' versions of history then. Well, about Zinn himself: *he said repeatedly that his goal wasn't to be unbiased, but to offer American history with a different set of biases. He told the Times of his People’s History: "It’s not an unbiased account; so what? If you look at history from the perspective of the slaughtered and mutilated, it's a different story."*

Seems to you and other defenders of empire and "culture" that the perspective of the slaughtered and mutilated are irrelevant and have no place in our history books, except when discussing an *enemy* that has been vanquished. ie: slaves and the defeated South, or Jews (and only Jews) and the defeated Nazis. Then you all go so far as to say there is no institutional racism in today's America, that those on government assistance are nothing but moochers. Well, in some aspects you're right. Corporate welfare and *too big to fail* with no accountability whatsoever bears that out. You only illustrate your own biases. Some cultures need to be brought down a few notches. In yours, humility is noticeably absent. Lessons go unlearned and the same mistakes are often repeated.

...when you reach a certain altitude of plutocracy, is happiness possible? Or are you just getting your Emperor Palpatine on all of the days of your vanity under the sun?

Whoops! You did it again. This must be intentional, or you are so imbued that you remain totally unaware, despite being reminded several times now. In fact, I'll bet that you don't even know what I'm talking about.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

Arker (91948) | about 10 months ago | (#44955383)

Reagan was not a perfectly consistent conservative, and his term in office the government was not very conservative at all actually, but it's hard to think of any better word to describe Reagan himself. Beirut was one of the best points to show this, in fact - although he at first fell for war party line and setup a foothold in the middle east, it didnt take him long to wise up and reverse course.

The rest of the things you mention are blameworthy but I honestly believe he was mostly a patsy on those, he trusted and believed the wrong people, he didnt ask all the right questions, he was loyal to his subordinates to a fault, and a lot of bad stuff went down on his watch. What you dont mention is that the size of government grew in all areas even faster than under his predecessor, but then again that's blame Congress has to take the majority share in.

Overall I would characterise Reagan as a conservative who had difficulty governing, as a conservative.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44955723)

You spelled it out perfectly. He was a patsy, whose acting talents worked to everybody's advantage. It's hard to say if he was aware of anything during his second term. When he said countless times, "I do not recall", he could have meant it. It is just as plausible to believe he never knew. As far as I'm concerned, the presidency is a ceremonial position, not much different than British Royalty.

What Reagan 'lost' in Beirut, he more than compensated in other Middle East and Central American operations. He was very pro war throughout. Lebanon was a mere stumble. The petrodollar remained strong during his term. His hands are very bloody. His loyalty was to his off screen superiors, not his subordinates that shared the stage.

Blame congress for government growth all you want. He had veto power.

  Reagan/Thatcher were neoliberals, put in place by big business to serve big business, 'conservative' only for psychological effect over the voters, the real patsies.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44957891)

Reagan/Thatcher were neoliberals, put in place by big business to serve big business, 'conservative' only for psychological effect over the voters, the real patsies.

You are so demonstrably false, but a great troll. Reagan and Thatcher both had read and understood Austrian Economics. They grasped that capitalism is the only thing in human history that has ever lifted people out of misery.
I realize that you have to deny historical truth, and offer fact-free smears of Reagan's second term to bolster your nonsense. Keep going. You funny.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44958899)

"Capitalism" is all there is and ever was. Reagan and Thatcher simply handed the power back to their elites and utterly destroyed much of the prosperity and many of the advances made after the war (the Big One, WWII). Fairness and justice went right out the window. And the resulting degradation over the last 30 years is more than demonstrably and graphically obvious. The few that did actually benefit will of course deny that. *Greed is good* They are carpetbaggers, of the most despicable kind. You are indeed blinded by your continued idolization of them. Funny indeed, if not for your scorched earth method of returning us to the post civil war era.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44959913)

What, did you read "The Road to Serfdom" backwards?

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44960957)

Heh, now that you mention it, that's exactly the road Reagan/Thatcher put us on. And their successors add a new lane every election cycle.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44961817)

I'll take that to mean that you didn't read "The Road to Serfdom" in either direction.
It's central premise is that you never have enough information to make the nanny-state collapse-proof. Never. Ever. This side of full-on divine omniscience.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44963379)

Regardless of what's inside the book. The title is a good description of Reagan/Thatcher philosophy. If the state is the nanny, the corporation is the parent which hired the nanny to watch over the plantation.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44965607)

I really wish you'd read it. It's far more important than Ayn F. Rand. Also, shorter.
You have an Austrian who happened to be in London at the outbreak of WWII, writing at the end of that conflict.
He's telling the Allies: "Woo hoo, have another victory lap. And do note that the seeds of everything you thought was wrong with fascism are alive and well within your systems."
Hayek is quotable on a per-paragraph basis, and all the more tragic for the way the Progressives have ignored him, to their detriment.
I'll just overlook the uninformed attempt at linking Hayek in any derogatory sense to the brief pause in Western decline resulting from Reagan & Thatcher . Makes your butt look big.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44965649)

Again you have it wrong. Reagan/Thatcher is where our present ongoing decline greatly accelerated, not paused. By '83 it was in full swing. It really began with Nixon.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44966069)

See my other recent comment. Woodrow Effing Wlison.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44955393)

"He was not a conservative"

And the Soviet Union did not actually practice Communism. And Obama is not actually a socialist. Yeah yeah yeah, I get your drift. I think it's sophomoric, but I get your drift.

So who, in your estimation, actually IS a "conservative"?

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44955743)

I think it's sophomoric..

Well great! Since you seem to have all the answers, why don't you spell it out then, Einstein?

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44955919)

Evidently you missed my point. My point was, you and other idealist tend to deny the legitimacy of a thing based on scholarly, textbook definitions, rather than the way things actually are in the real world.

I'll try again. Who, in your estimation, is a "real conservative"?

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44956083)

Nobody. It's phony bullshit. There are only degrees of authority, whether it is evenly distributed or highly concentrated. "Conservatives" and "liberals" only differ on where it is concentrated. I advocate the the evenly distributed variety, something that comes from respect, based on consent. Naturally the wealth follows. Actually they are in sync, because they are one and the same, contrary to what the idealists will tell you. I'm no idealist. I recognize the biological instincts that motivate all of us, that with us, as in all of nature, might makes right.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44957895)

I advocate the the evenly distributed variety, something that comes from respect, based on consent.

Do you really? I see you as a totally false flag operation. You claim to support something good and ideal, yet, quite strangely, all of your prescriptions seem to be those that collapse power into the ruling elite. Strange.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44959407)

Strange? No. I only seek to remove privilege. But I can understand how those who swim in it would take it as persecution. You know.. the trying to explain water to a fish routine. (plainly illustrated by your inability, or more correctly, refusal to accept that wealth is power, and vice versa). They see the abolition of slavery, and anti-discrimination efforts, and the the universal right of access to uncontaminated natural resources as an affront against their *property rights*.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44959935)

Again with your superiority routine. *Sigh*
Could you at least rent a pony with a second trick on occasion?

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44960203)

Again with your superiority routine...

:-) Do tell!

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44960397)

I really wish I could convince you to be part of the improvement, not the acceptance of the status quo.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44963407)

:-) There you go again...

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44965617)

Refusing to accept life on your plantation? Durn skippy, mister.

Re:Again with the Reagan worship (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44965629)

No sooner hit 'Submit' than I realized you're quoting the Gipper there. Nicely played.

The republicans would have produced the same ... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#44955369)

The link you gave before shows us that the republicans would produce the same "health care" bill. Of course, this makes sense as they wrote this disaster themselves and then walked away from it hoping it would sink Obama.

The real question is why would you expect a republican to do anything else? The Bailout Act aligns well with the "free market" mantra and other related bullshit in that it reiterates the value of the invidual not as a key player in the economy but rather as a commodity that should be bought as sold en route to better profits. And really, the best way to ensure that the market can run at 11 is to ensure that all the goods are being traded on it, which is what mandatory health coverage does. According to the republican party, this is The True American Way(TM).

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44957919)

Of course, this makes sense as they wrote this disaster themselves and then walked away from it hoping it would sink Obama.

That's a fairly hefty accusation. Could you be more specific as to who "they" are, and maybe offer a link to "their" plan, sir?

the best way to ensure that the market can run at 11 is to ensure that all the goods are being traded on it, which is what mandatory health coverage does.

Again, you seem unclear about the real effects of letting the government manage scarcity. I point you to the Soviet Union, and beg you to have a look at Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics". Or at least print out this thread for review while you're standing in line waiting to buy aspirin, as this is the kind of problem that sodomizing the market surely begets.

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44960161)

Maybe you weren't paying attention when JC brought up the point that the individual mandate idea came from the "conservative" Heritage Foundation. And politicians (notably your oh so faithful to his wife, Newt Gingrich) from both factions took it and promoted it themselves. "Obamacare" is very much a "conservative" plan, one which props up a very corrupt system of entitlements for the industry. Quid pro quo. That's just how the game is played.

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44960385)

The Left continues to peddle that. There is some basis for it [usatoday.com] .
The chief reason I find it a pile of malarky is that your accusation asserts that people cannot learn.
That is, I find your ideas, overall, akin to a sort of Calvinism, saying that people are doomed to hold the ideas they hold.
In my personal case, I'll admit to having wandered from sort of a neo-Con acceptance of American hegemony and big business more toward the libertarian conservative position, which figures the likeliest way out of our current penalty box is by eliding the GOP elite deadwood, and insisting (over the decades it will require) upon returning to limited government within enumerated powers.
I laugh at your Josephus-style acceptance of the neo-aristocratic status quo.

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44963557)

Please, enlighten me, when did this 'limited government' within enumerated powers ever exist? It sounds entirely like a figment of your (or Rush Limbaugh's) imagination.

I laugh at your Josephus-style acceptance of the neo-aristocratic status quo.

LOL.. You really are a funny guy! Though it was funnier when Pee Wee Herman said it on stage.

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44965495)

You're denying that (a) the federal government didn't undergo a transformation ~100 years ago, and (b) with the Information Age, we have enough information diffusion to do something about it?
Throne sniffer.

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44965685)

Are you really trying to tell me that things were better before Wilson? How you figure that, pray tell?? This I gotta hear...

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44966051)

I'm saying that,
- holding the size of the little Senate constant since 1910
- giving DC eminent domain over your wallet in 1913 (Amend. 16)
- removing the voice of the States as such in 1913 (Amend. 17)
- and setting up an inflationary printing press in 1913 (Federal Reserve Act)
Combined with an invasion of Godless Commies in the 1930s [youtube.com] , we now have the mess in which you seem so pleased to wallow.
The task for the clueful is to unwind the last century of idiocy in this country, and redistribute power, not wealth.

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44966969)

...we now have the mess in which you seem so pleased to wallow.... redistribute power, not wealth.

:-) I give up. You win the internet. I'll have to be content watching you spin your wheels. Go ahead and have your fun with that other windbag.

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44976369)

And, after we've got the country back on a non-perilous course, we'll cheerfully forgive you and let you enjoy the country.

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44976515)

Believe me , I already am, more than you'll ever know... Thanks for the offer though...

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44976563)

It's very much in keeping with my policy of not taking /. too too seriously.

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#44963837)

Again, you seem unclear about the real effects of letting the government manage scarcity.

First of all, the conservatives clearly were not concerned iwth any such problem when they proposed it both years before Obama was ever a candidate, as well as during 2009-2010 when they were insisting that no other option was viable.

That said, the government is not managing anything here when they say "go buy a product". You are free to purchase from any of a list of lousy products that were already available. Furthermore once you purchase one you are not forced to use it; hence if the scarcity you are eluding to is health care itself - rather than health care insurance - then the scarcity is not likely effected by those who will continue to not use it.

Or at least print out this thread for review while you're standing in line waiting to buy aspirin, as this is the kind of problem that sodomizing the market surely begets.

I'm curious as to how you made this massive leap of faith. Why would more people purchasing insurance have an impact on the production of over the counter drugs? No part of the Bailout Act of 2010 had any dictation over production quotas for such staples. Considering how cheaply that drug in particular can be made already, it is hard to imagine an argument that could be made to support your notion of it being rationed. Is there a reason why you expect its price to suddenly spike? It's been available for sale for many decades now, I don't see how you could justify an hypothesis of that suddenly changing either.

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44965559)

That said, the government is not managing anything here when they say "go buy a product". You are free to purchase from any of a list of lousy products that were already available. Furthermore once you purchase one you are not forced to use it; hence if the scarcity you are eluding to is health care itself - rather than health care insurance - then the scarcity is not likely effected by those who will continue to not use it.

What you're, oddly enough, NOT free to do is refuse to participate in this fiasco. And you seem blithely unaware of the damage already caused [conservativehideout.com] . And, unable to avoid it, I'm sure you'll blame conservatives for failing to play along/sabotaging it, rather than having the courage to admit that universal healthcare is the most expensive fools errand, short of war, imaginable.

I'm curious as to how you made this massive leap of faith.

Mainly it involved a bit of Google [examiner.com] . But I grasp that we're dancing about a matter of faith here; I'm just going to have to wait until reality kicks you in the groin. I get that.

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#44967027)

What you're, oddly enough, NOT free to do is refuse to participate in this fiasco

An argument could be made that we weren't previously either. Even more so, there are plenty of conservative groups running various advertising campaigns encouraging people to willfully not participate.

universal healthcare is the most expensive fools errand, short of war, imaginable.

Being as every country with universal health care spends less per patient than we do, and gets better results than we do, I don't know how you come to that conclusion. Even as cheap as death is, our system still makes that expensive as well.

I'm curious as to how you made this massive leap of faith.

Mainly it involved a bit of Google.

Smitty, you can do better than that. It actually requires a leap of faith to believe that article that you just linked to, for several reasons:

  • It is exclusively self-referencing, not once providing a source for any of its claims beyond the link to the book that the same author is hoping to sell
  • It is hosted on a biased site that supports the same political agenda
  • It is written in a third grade level grammar

You can do better than that. If you want to believe that the Bailout Act is going to cause an apocolypse, I know you can at least approach it analytically enough to seek out a source that does better than "I told you this, now believe it".

But I grasp that we're dancing about a matter of faith here

The faith is on your part for that article. It provides no facts whatsoever and you elect to believe it anyways.

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#44970109)

I neglected to enquire about another leap of faith, though. The article specifically makes up shit about chemotherapy and other expensive prescription drugs somehow having their supply manipulated by the Bailout Act of 2010 (prior to it actually being in effect for anything of significance, no less). You then jumped from that to making claims about Aspirin. Aspirin, as I'm sure you know, is made by a large number of companies for OTC sale throughout the country and beyond. This is dramatically different from the vast majority of chemotherapy drugs which are often still under patent and hence made exclusively by one company.

How did you take a fact-free article and jump from it to the conclusion that you were stating?

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44976463)

You don't have to agree with me.
For reasons of confidentiality & propriety, I can't introduce you to my wife. (Who, BTW, holds a Master's in Public Health, in addition to 15+ years in pharma both here & in Europe.)
So you're buying an opinion second-hand, sight unseen.
And it may be that rational, free-market capitalists lose the struggle for liberty on ObamaCare.
(a) I won't stop struggling for liberty while I've motion remaining in my flesh.
(b) In case of failure, and our society goes the Full Orwell, which is its current course, you'll be unable to say you were unwarned.
But I'm sure that, when some asthmatic relative is gasping for lack of an inhaler because some pencil-neck bureaucrat sodomized the market in his infinite Commie idiocy, then you'll find some unrelated target to blame. George W. Bush, for example. Or, the man is hiding the stash [chicagoboyz.net] fallacy is also popular. I have supreme confidence in the human mind's capacity ignore reality at all costs.
Stay beautiful.

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#44977353)

You don't have to agree with me.

Nor you with me. However I know you are capable of actually processing facts and making decisions based on them. This is why I am puzzled that you took a 100% fact-free and self-referencing article and parrotted it as if it were researched and referenced. Beyond that you went off the deep end by taking their hypoerbole and extending it further with no logic to support such a notion.

Smitty, you're better than that. You're smarter than that. I don't know why you are allowing your partisan blinders to dumb you down that far.

There are plenty of things very, very, wrong with the Bailout Act of 2010; I have said so many many times. There is no need to make shit up out of thin air, or to try to drum up support for shit that is made up out of thin air.

For reasons of confidentiality & propriety, I can't introduce you to my wife

That's fine, I rather value the semi-anonymous nature of slashdot communication. I don't know the real names of any people who I converse with regularly here, and I like to presume that none of them have followed me about far enough to know anything personal of me.

(Who, BTW, holds a Master's in Public Health, in addition to 15+ years in pharma both here & in Europe.)

She sounds like a nice lady. I have an advanced degree myself though I won't get more specific at this time.

So you're buying an opinion second-hand, sight unseen.

i'm more concerned with you choosing to pass on utterly baseless opinions such as the article you linked to that you claimed to somehow support your notion of the gub'mint about to steal all the drugs from you to distribute exclusively to the top abortion providers while launching the rest straight at the sun on platinum-coated rockets.

But I'm sure that, when some asthmatic relative is gasping for lack of an inhaler because some pencil-neck bureaucrat sodomized the market in his infinite Commie idiocy

I would really love to see you provide some reason to believe that there is some reason why this could happen under the Bailout Act of 2010. So far you have not done that. This only supports further the notion that your argument is purely partisan and not rooted in any way in reality.

Stay beautiful.

I'm just trying to challenge you to start thinking again. I know you can do it.

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44978219)

I'm just trying to challenge you to start thinking again. I know you can do it.

The interesting angle on your appeal here is that you cheerfully toss 100% of the burden for producing facts on me.
And then you can just sit there and decide that you dislike a particular link, and remove it from consideration.
Am I not supposed to notice your rhetorical game here?

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#44978675)

I'm just trying to challenge you to start thinking again. I know you can do it.

The interesting angle on your appeal here is that you cheerfully toss 100% of the burden for producing facts on me.

When you are declaring that something is factual, you should be able to support that declaration. You are throwing around a declaration that the Bailout Act of 2010 has apocalyptic intentions - or at the very least is has already put in place apocalyptic changes - but you provided one link to support that declaration and it is 100% incapable of doing so.

It doesn't appear that I could convince you of anything else even if I wanted to. However if you are trying to sell me - or anyone else - on your notion it would help if you had an actual source for it. You might as well have posted a link to a random drunken celebrity tweet, it would have been just as well rooted in reality.

And then you can just sit there and decide that you dislike a particular link, and remove it from consideration.

You have provided only one link so far, and I described very plainly why it is crap. Said link was essentially a self-referencing blog post that had no factual backup of any sort. Author was trying to sell their own book rather than trying to build an actual argument. Granted perhaps the book they were trying to sell could have sourced something, but being as they couldn't be bothered to point to even a single source for any of their claims in their post I don't see a good reason to expect that they would do that in their book either since it was clearly written for an audience that had already made up their mind on the issue.

Am I not supposed to notice your rhetorical game here?

There is no game here. I just want to you put some thought into your statements. I understand that you strongly dislike all politicians with the dreaded (D) after their names, even when they pass laws that those with (R) after their names would have happily passed given the chance. However your partisan leanings get tiring when you allow them to cloud your judgement and thought processes this severely.

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44978993)

However your partisan leanings get tiring...

Well, I'll be... Sometimes the messenger is the message!

Re:The republicans would have produced the same .. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44978619)

I have supreme confidence in the human mind's capacity ignore reality at all costs.

Well, you should :-) You are a living/breathing confirmation of the study I linked. You fit right in with all the rest, especially in your denial that it happens to you. And note that many of those with all the fancy diplomas on their walls are more vulnerable. When confronted with facts they fortify their preconceptions, instead of necessarily reassessing them, which to me, implies no small amount of arrogance. They use the sheepskin as a blunt instrument, like a rolled up newspaper.

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...