Beta
×

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!

Stein to the Drunken Lefties

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 10 months ago

User Journal 34

The free-spending Lefties here,
As the drunk on a beer
Bender for fortnight or more,
Knowing hangover in store,
Bangs his hogshead in vain,
Wishing 'twere full again.
Raging 'gainst coming of dawn,
When the light of the sun falls upon
The heart of man in full rut;
Hedonism fills his. But
He can't make beer from piss,
For carnal bureaucratic bliss,
Must give way to the maul,
Hammering the head until all
Thought of Socialism is purged
AndThe free-spending Lefties here,
As the drunk on a beer
Bender for fortnight or more,
Knowing hangover in store,
Bangs his hogshead in vain,
Wishing 'twere full again.
Raging 'gainst coming of dawn,
When the light of the sun falls upon
The heart of man in full rut;
Hedonism fills his. But
He can't make beer from piss,
For carnal bureaucratic bliss,
Must give way to the maul,
Hammering the head until all
Thought of Socialism is purged
And the name of the one who urged
The entitlement orgy's reviled,
And thoughts return to the child,
Who somehow knew right from wrong;
Good poetry from banal song.
Gratification, delayed, that built mind.
He looks up from his puke-puddle to find
A brief Herbert Stein phrase,
That pierces his drunken daze
The way that a mother's don't:
"Trends that can't continue, won't."
--CLS 21Oct2013

cancel ×

34 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about 10 months ago | (#45196635)

I thought this was by Ben.

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45196823)

Much like Ben Stein, it wasn't funny, so I suspected that Stein as well. However even someone who retired from writing speeches for Reagan should be able to write better lines than some of those (particularly looking at where a sentence was clumsily split only to make fragments rhyme, even though it results in the actual sentence sounding like crap). That said, Ben Stein wouldn't be able to get a job writing speeches in Washington anymore any ways, as Reagan was more liberal than anyone in Washington save perhaps Bernie Sanders.

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about 10 months ago | (#45196933)

Much like Ben Stein, it wasn't funny, so I suspected that Stein as well. However even someone who retired from writing speeches for Reagan should be able to write better lines than some of those (particularly looking at where a sentence was clumsily split only to make fragments rhyme, even though it results in the actual sentence sounding like crap). That said, Ben Stein wouldn't be able to get a job writing speeches in Washington anymore any ways, as Reagan was more liberal than anyone in Washington save perhaps Bernie Sanders.

Ben Stein was a speech writer for Richard Nixon, hired on about 2 weeks before he resigned IIRC, and for Gerald Ford. I've never heard of him writing for Reagan, and I cannot find a reference for that.

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45199197)

I likely misstated, though my point remains the same. Nixon, being more liberal than Regan, would be even further to the left of anyone currently serving in Washington. Being as he wrote speeches for someone that liberal in comparison to the current state he likely wouldn't be welcomed in DC presently.

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45207265)

Nixon, being more liberal than Regan[sic], would be even further to the left of anyone currently serving in Washington.

Well, that's a wild counter-factual. Sure.

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45208967)

Nixon, being more liberal than Regan[sic], would be even further to the left of anyone currently serving in Washington.

Well, that's a wild counter-factual. Sure.

In what way, then, was Nixon more conservative than Reagan? I certainly don't hear any conservatives in Washington celebrating Nixon's conservative legacy. For the sake of the argument we can even ignore Watergate, go ahead and pretend that elephant was never born. Reagan was supposed to be the "new conservative" in 1980, showing America what conservatives could do after "coming out of the woods"; he spoke of how his party was lost. Are you claiming that he was actually some sort of moderate in disguise and that you feel our country would have been better off with Nixon finishing off his term and Spiro Agnew continuing on in his fashion afterwards?

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45209953)

In what way, then, was Nixon more conservative than Reagan?

Reagan was not picked by the elite, losing the nomination in '76, and hardly having its support in '80.
And he stood up to the federal government, firing the mutinying Air Traffic Controllers.
But he was pre-internet. He didn't do anything about the standing 10th Amendment violations like the entitlements and the Federal Reserve, didn't take the Community Reinvestment Act out back and just shoot it down in cold blood. His intellectual heir, Jack Kemp, totally lacked the gravitas to keep meaningful reform going, so we got Bush41.
Perot came along in '92 (voted for him), and we got Bubba.
I guess the Vichy GOP hopes that the horror of BHO is going to get conservatives to hold their nose in 2016 like they did in '12 and '08. Some no doubt will.
But the Vichy GOP have got to understand that running Jeb Effing Bush, or Chris Effing Christie is only useful if the GOP's purpose is to nominate someone to give a concession speech to Hillary.
Virginia is a bellwether here. We're seeing a truly quality candidate in Ken Cuccinelli get hammered with the same playbook the Democrats used nationally last year (oaf of a Democrat candidate, carpet bomb with blatantly false ads (viva the 1st Amendment)) while the incumbent Republican governor cowers, the outgoing Republican Lt. Governor is actively undermining [wordpress.com] his own party's candidate, and I couldn't be more sick at heart.
Truly, the Vichy GOP have far more in common with Nixon and the Democrats than they do with either the average schmoe Americans paying attention, or the low-information voters baa-ing over there on the Democrat plantation.

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45220165)

In what way, then, was Nixon more conservative than Reagan?

Reagan was not picked by the elite, losing the nomination in '76, and hardly having its support in '80.

I'm not sure what point you are after there. If you are claiming that Reagan wasn't picked by the elite, and that you are supplying me with points for how Nixon was more conservative than Reagan, then it would stand that you are saying a true conservative can only be picked by the elite.

And he stood up to the federal government, firing the mutinying Air Traffic Controllers.

Yes, we remember Reagan shit-canning the air traffic controllers. How does that make Nixon more conservative?

I'm not sure you actually read my question before writing your response. Please, smitty, slow down and read. I know you can when you want to. Lately it seems I have your feathers so ruffled that you can't bring yourself to read the questions you are providing talking point responses to.

So far, all you have done lately is show that no man more conservative in action than the current POTUS has ever been elected. Granted, that is entirely in support of what I have been saying for some time. The key difference though is that you feel the country is worse off for it and should have an ultra-far-hard-right POTUS appointed if necessary to "right the wrongs" we currently face while I optimistically look at the current situation and hope it means that someone will some day rise to power who cares about more than how to fatten their own pocketbook.

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45221219)

Lately it seems I have your feathers so ruffled that you can't bring yourself to read the questions you are providing talking point responses to.

I guess that's what they call a 'tell' in poker, because your tone has really slipped since the big reveal, when BHO's five-year mission to explore strange new worlds of incompetence reached its Healthcare.gov climax, and even the Codpiece Media could no longer offer an effective barrier to the suck.
Fret not: we have a blisteringly stupid electorate, and it's going to continue to pillory the Tea Party rather than demand any actual reform, balanced budgets, social safety net stabilization, non-GOP accountability, reduction in corruption, &c. Can't happen.

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45221837)

your tone has really slipped since the big reveal

Is this how the Tea Party tells you to handle the situation when you are shown to be an angry hyperpartisan? My tone has changed none, while your willingness to actually read text in front of you has changed to the point of rapidly approaching zero.

Fret not: we have a blisteringly stupid electorate

Which is exactly what the Tea Party needs in order to achieve rule on the federal level, as their policies are detrimental to >>99% of the population.

demand any actual reform

Aside from discarding the parts of the constitution they don't like and making a highly regressive taxation system even more regressive, I have seen no actual proposals for reform from the Tea Party.

balanced budgets

You can't balance a budget when you aren't taking in money. The budgets they try to champion don't cut enough spending to match their cuts in income.

ocial safety net stabilization

I guess when you take the net and throw it in the trash, it is pretty stable from its own perspective.

non-GOP accountability

Not sure what kind of drugs one has to be on to make that accusation... GOP and accountability don't really belong in the same sentence - if they did we would have seen consequences for the war.

reduction in corruption

When transparency goes away completely how do you expect corruption to go away?

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45230651)

as their policies are detrimental to >>99% of the population.

Based. Upon. What. Analysis?
We're committing slow economic suicide, as any reasonable assessment of the current course reveals; unemployment, debt &c. The President's signature accomplishment is nothing short of a pitiful cock-up. And you call lucid thinking 'detrimental'.

Aside from discarding the parts of the constitution they don't like and making a highly regressive taxation system even more regressive, I have seen no actual proposals for reform from the Tea Party.

Set up an Amazon gift account, and I will buy you a copy of Levin's The Liberty Amendments [amazon.com] . It's a fine going-in position for the reforms we need to redistribute power, not wealth. I wouldn't accuse it of being perfect, but if there is any interest in honest debate, it's a fine first breadcrumb.

You can't balance a budget when you aren't taking in money. The budgets they try to champion don't cut enough spending to match their cuts in income.

Oh, so just keep inflating the currency like we are?

I guess when you take the net and throw it in the trash, it is pretty stable from its own perspective.

Do you mean the way #ObamaCare is destroying the private health insurance market? Or do you have some other form of trashing in mind.

GOP and accountability don't really belong in the same sentence - if they did we would have seen consequences for the war.

Rumsfeld's head rolled, but I think that really just underscores the broader problem of the lack of accountability for our Progressive neo-Aristocracy. Balls, man: if we could make a rule that no one can run for the seat they currently occupy in 2014, I'd be there cheering the load-shed of these louts. Even the handful for whom I've any regard is a worthwhile loss for a clean slate from which to begin anew.
And you're going to see the Tea Party hold some people accountable [rollcall.com] , come springtime. If the Vichy GOP think the fatwah pronounced against the Tea Party went unnoticed, they've got another thing coming. Not all those RINO heads will get mounted, of course; you just need one or two examples.
Who knows? The GOP's actions might start to resemble the party platform.

When transparency goes away completely how do you expect corruption to go away?

"When transparency goes away completely" you get the Obama Administration.
One is forced to acknowledge: he lied about transparency with particular gusto and panache. Probably his greatest achievement.

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45230875)

as their policies are detrimental to >>99% of the population.

Based. Upon. What. Analysis?

Based upon the simple fact that trickle-down economics and regressive taxation don't work, have never worked, and never can work. We are still running in trickle-down mode and they want to amp it up to 35.

And you call lucid thinking 'detrimental'.

There is nothing lucid about giving money to the wealthy and expecting that it will make things better for anyone else. It didn't work in the past, and doesn't work in the present. Why on earth would it work in the future?

Set up an Amazon gift account, and I will buy you a copy of Levin's The Liberty Amendments. It's a fine going-in position for the reforms we need to redistribute power, not wealth.

You can't be bothered to read the Communist Manifesto - which is freely available and a short read - before making the utterly baseless assertion that people who are not of your political alignment are communists or socialists (based on the way you use the terms it is hard to imagine you are even aware of the difference between them). Why should I read a profit-driven book for your cause? For that matter why should I expect that you have even read more than the dust jacket of it?

In other words, why are you moving the goalposts again? You are asking far more of me than you ask of yourself.

You can't balance a budget when you aren't taking in money. The budgets they try to champion don't cut enough spending to match their cuts in income.

Oh, so just keep inflating the currency like we are?

That is - at best - a non-sequitur. I pointed out the simple math problem and you did not offer a solution. You instead blamed the problem on me and brushed it off as if assigning blame would be good enough to make it go away.

Do you mean the way #ObamaCare is destroying the private health insurance market?

I wish it could do that. Instead it is a green light for insurance companies to do WTF they want as they know have a guaranteed customer base. It gave more power to the already enormously powerful. If all these cost increases are actually caused by obamacare, then explain to me why companies that paid some of the highest annual bonuses of any companies, anywhere on earth in 2012 would need all this additional money when they are supposed to meet percent quotas for spending related to health care payments.

The bill is nothing but an enormous handout for the insurance industry, plain and simple. Your Tea Party leaders are just jealous that they couldn't get their own names on it.

GOP and accountability don't really belong in the same sentence - if they did we would have seen consequences for the war.

Rumsfeld's head rolled

Really? In what way? Rumsfeld resigned, even though GWB promised to support him throughout [wikipedia.org] . He resigned not because anyone in the party wanted him out, but because there was a coalition of military generals who wanted him out. And that was more than 4 years after the invasion of Iraq. That is far from a head rolling.

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45232995)

I wish it could do that. Instead it is a green light for insurance companies to do WTF they want as they know have a guaranteed customer base. It gave more power to the already enormously powerful. If all these cost increases are actually caused by obamacare, then explain to me why companies that paid some of the highest annual bonuses of any companies, anywhere on earth in 2012 would need all this additional money when they are supposed to meet percent quotas for spending related to health care payments.
The bill is nothing but an enormous handout for the insurance industry, plain and simple. Your Tea Party leaders are just jealous that they couldn't get their own names on it.

I'm seeing headlines about policies being cancelled across the country [dailycaller.com] and you're telling me this is the insurance companies doing WTF they want to, and I'm left to wonder if you're simply unhinged.
Trying to find some manner in which you could possibly be making sense, there is the issue of regulatory capture. Maybe you're saying that the bigger fish are crushing the smaller ones here, I guess?
Or maybe the cartel-like behavior you seem to imply was the original intent, and the "unexpected" carnage that's unfolding is all just Benghazi-style unintended consequence. The diabolical result, as this wrecking ball continues wreaking economic havoc, is that we're going to get another Progressive making the "we had to destroy the village to save it" argument, and offer everyone something stupider still, say, Single Prayer.
The story is so obvious that my two year has already written it. In his diaper. Multiple times.
Your dodge on Levin's book does have a shred of validity, though. I should read The Communist Manifesto [gutenberg.org] , and probably Das Crap, et. al., just to appreciate fully how preaching "The kingdom of God, hold the God" is truly a recipe for hell on Earth [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45235205)

I'm seeing headlines about policies being cancelled across the country and you're telling me this is the insurance companies doing WTF they want to

The companies are canceling policies because they know the customers have to come back. This isn't difficult. They can cancel the policies and then replace them with more profitable ones and nobody will second guess them. The insurance industry was given more power, not less.

and I'm left to wonder if you're simply unhinged.

Your conclusions as of late have been puzzling.

Your dodge on Levin's book

I'm not dodging it, I'm simply stating that you are asking more from me than you ask from yourself. Why don't the same rules and expectations apply to both of us?

just to appreciate fully how preaching "The kingdom of God, hold the God" is truly a recipe for hell on Earth.

If you read it, looking for that conclusion, you will likely come to it regardless of the fact that it isn't in there. With that kind of bias ahead of looking at the first word you would likely also read the Quaran and conclude it is all about Jihad.

More so, if you are supposed to be all about freedom of choices, liberties, and related bullshit, why do you crusade so greatly to prevent people from being able to associate themselves with anything other than Tea Party values? You want to force your preferences down the throat of everyone regardless of what they actually want for themselves. Frankly the more I read your twisted hyperpartisan hyperbole the more I believe that our country needs to split into (at least) two separate countries so people can just have what they want without forcing their ideals on others. The Tea Party has shown repeatedly that it has no interest whatsoever in compromise anyways.

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45240183)

With that kind of bias ahead of looking at the first word you would likely also read the Quaran and conclude it is all about Jihad.

I've read about half of the Qu'ran. What actually has struck me thus far is the lack of forgiveness. Rather a binary view of reality going on there. My understanding is that you have to go through the Hadith as well to have a full grasp of the development of Islamic thought.

More so, if you are supposed to be all about freedom of choices, liberties, and related bullshit, why do you crusade so greatly to prevent people from being able to associate themselves with anything other than Tea Party values?

I guess I don't understand what you mean by 'crusade' and 'prevent' here. I've argued positively for balanced budgeting, limited government, and something resembling leadership from our elected officials.

You want to force your preferences down the throat of everyone regardless of what they actually want for themselves.

I'd be pleased to see some Libertarian influence affect our politics. I guess I just don't understand what you're talking about here.

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45242371)

I've read about half of the Qu'ran. What actually has struck me thus far is the lack of forgiveness.

Have you read the Torah? There isn't exactly a lot of forgiveness there either. The God of the Bible's Old Testament is a prick but he is a spite-monster in the Torah. He was marginally worse to the Egyptians than he was to his own "chosen people", and that's only if you take it from a view of (spitefulness)/(time); if you look at how much pain and suffering he imposed upon the Jews total versus how much upon the Egyptians total one might well form an argument that their god never liked anyone.

Being as the two were written more closely in time relative to each other than either was to some of the accepted writings in the New Testament there is likely a strong historical reason for the similar voice.

More so, if you are supposed to be all about freedom of choices, liberties, and related bullshit, why do you crusade so greatly to prevent people from being able to associate themselves with anything other than Tea Party values?

I guess I don't understand what you mean by 'crusade' and 'prevent' here

I use crusade because you are on a religious mission to suppress everyone who does not share your values. You can't actually provide any logic or facts to support your goals, and you attack those who oppose you in a way not dissimilar to how the popes during the crusades described the Muslims in the holy lands.

I've argued positively for balanced budgeting, limited government, and something resembling leadership from our elected officials.

And there again you are insulting the people who don't share your values.

You want to force your preferences down the throat of everyone regardless of what they actually want for themselves.

I'd be pleased to see some Libertarian influence affect our politics. I guess I just don't understand what you're talking about here.

Because the system you describe does not allow for people to actually choose their own governing system (unless, of course, it is Tea Party Approved(TM)). The constraints you yearn to apply top to bottom make it impossible for any government to experiment with anything other than ultra-far-right politics, regardless of the will of the people. On top of that you also support restructuring the federal elections to ensure that the voting public will have less influence on federal politics and the selection of those who are tasked with their representation.

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45243829)

Have you read the Torah? There isn't exactly a lot of forgiveness there either. The God of the Bible's Old Testament is a prick but he is a spite-monster in the Torah. He was marginally worse to the Egyptians than he was to his own "chosen people", and that's only if you take it from a view of (spitefulness)/(time); if you look at how much pain and suffering he imposed upon the Jews total versus how much upon the Egyptians total one might well form an argument that their god never liked anyone.

I have read the entire Bible through (in the textus receptus sense) multiple times in different translations. As for your characterization of the Torah, its hard to see where God's ever been actively harsh to those who followed Him sincerely. I suppose you can argue in the case of Job that there was permission given for harshness to occur.

Being as the two were written more closely in time relative to each other than either was to some of the accepted writings in the New Testament there is likely a strong historical reason for the similar voice.

If you're trying to say that the chronological sequence goes: { Torah => Quran => New Testament }, then I'm going to request you verify that assertion.

I use crusade because you are on a religious mission to suppress everyone who does not share your values. You can't actually provide any logic or facts to support your goals, and you attack those who oppose you in a way not dissimilar to how the popes during the crusades described the Muslims in the holy lands.

I'm wondering if you've confused me with someone else, e.g. Pudge or so. My general goals are to walk humbly before God, and help others mature into full human bloom. In a positive way. Sure, I get frustrated by the rivers of deceit with which everyone seems 'strangely comfortable' these days. ". . .in a way not dissimilar to how the popes during the crusades described the Muslims in the holy lands." When laying down something as heavy as this, it would be helpful to throw in a URL. To find validity in your point, I would have to confess that I have, indeed, been guilty of using nouns, verbs, adjectives, and punctuation.

I've argued positively for balanced budgeting, limited government, and something resembling leadership from our elected officials.

And there again you are insulting the people who don't share your values.

Can you please help me out here by elaborating on my villainy? I suppose the phrase "something resembling leadership from our elected officials" is mildly pejorative, but with Congressional approval In. The. Single. Digits, it's tantamount to a blandishment. Or is this just one of those Alinsky Rule 4 "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules" plays?

Because the system you describe does not allow for people to actually choose their own governing system (unless, of course, it is Tea Party Approved(TM)). The constraints you yearn to apply top to bottom make it impossible for any government to experiment with anything other than ultra-far-right politics, regardless of the will of the people. On top of that you also support restructuring the federal elections to ensure that the voting public will have less influence on federal politics and the selection of those who are tasked with their representation.

So you're making the argument about the Tea Party itself, rather than the theory/history to which the TP points?
"make it impossible for any government to experiment with anything other than ultra-far-right politics, regardless of the will of the people"
I'm contending that Wilson DID experiment/tamper with the Constitutional balance at the heart of the country, and, in essence, removed some crucial interlocks. A century on, all of the power has collapsed into DC. We have a one-party quasi-aristocracy putting on biennial elections for show, and crushing the people who are attempting to ask 'hahrd' questions like "Whatever happened to representative democracy?"
And then these reformers are subject to bizarre, slanderous accusations. And inversions such as the accusation that I "support restructuring the federal elections to ensure that the voting public will have less influence on federal politics." I support the repeal of the 17th Amendment, because then the States would have more standing as political entities, and counterbalance the federal leviathan. This is one of the wise interlocks that Woodrow Effing Wilson removed. If the States nominated the Senators, then changing the party of the State Governor would ensure some actual turnover in the U.S. Senate. As it is, you have an elite 100-dork club there with vast war chests protecting incumbents. U.S. Senators are more loyal to their party (and I mean the Ruling Class, not the façade of two political parties in opposition) than their State. Or maybe you don't think the situation is hunky-dory.
At any rate, my assessment is that:
(a) You haven't thought your way through the various systemic drivers currently destroying our country, or
(b) You have, and you're kinda cozy with them.

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45247115)

As for your characterization of the Torah, its hard to see where God's ever been actively harsh to those who followed Him sincerely. I suppose you can argue in the case of Job that there was permission given for harshness to occur.

There are plenty of times where the god of the Jews was not kind to them. How long did he leave them enslaved to the Egyptians? How long did he let them wander aimlessly in the desert? How many times did the temple of Israel fall? Those are just a few examples that come to mind easily.

If you're trying to say that the chronological sequence goes: { Torah => Quran => New Testament }, then I'm going to request you verify that assertion.

My statement is that they reached final versions in that order. The Quaran quickly went from Mohammed's draft to a final version. The New Testament was edited by an unknown number of people for many hundreds of years before the Catholic Church bound it up as a single volume. The bible was on many occasions "modernized" by various editors, either or purpose or otherwise.

I'm wondering if you've confused me with someone else, e.g. Pudge or so

Not too long ago there was a noticeable difference in philosophy and demeanor between you and Pudge. More recently that gap has shrunk dramatically.

". . .in a way not dissimilar to how the popes during the crusades described the Muslims in the holy lands." When laying down something as heavy as this, it would be helpful to throw in a URL. To find validity in your point, I would have to confess that I have, indeed, been guilty of using nouns, verbs, adjectives, and punctuation.

You have shown no hesitation as of late to insult and attempt to dehumanize those who differ from your philosophy while you attempt to steamroll over the world with your ultra-far-right vision of how the world ought to be. It may be that in your eagerness to right all of the worlds' "wrongs" you haven't noticed what you have said, and you honestly believe that your insults are instead accurate adjectives. Anyone else reading your writing though could easily find the increased magnitude of hate in it as of late.

And furthermore, as popes tend to write in Latin, their statements need more precision than only the components you name.

the phrase "something resembling leadership from our elected officials" is mildly pejorative

It is beyond that, as you are specifically stating that you believe nobody outside your party is capable of Leadership.

I support the repeal of the 17th Amendment, because then the States would have more standing as political entities, and counterbalance the federal leviathan. This is one of the wise interlocks that Woodrow Effing Wilson removed. If the States nominated the Senators, then changing the party of the State Governor would ensure some actual turnover in the U.S. Senate.

So then you are saying that a governor, regardless of how much support he has from the people in his or her state, is infinitely more qualified to select senators for that state than the population of that state at large. A better word for that is cronyism. Just because you don't like the fact that the democrats have a slim majority in the upper chamber doesn't mean that we should rewrite the constitution to prevent it from happening again. Right now the senate better reflects the political alignments of the country, and that seems to bother you.

At any rate, my assessment is that:
(a) You haven't thought your way through the various systemic drivers currently destroying our country, or
(b) You have, and you're kinda cozy with them.

The answer is (D), none of the above. You and I differ markedly in what we see as "destroying our country". You distinctly want to feed the beast that I see as destroying our country while the beast that you see does not in reality exist in this country. There is a beast that has a very distant relationship to the beast you believe in, which is the one I would like to see installed, but it has no chance to survive in the current political climate and is essentially dead regardless of my actions.

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45247329)

There are plenty of times where the god of the Jews was not kind to them. How long did he leave them enslaved to the Egyptians?

You'll have to take it up with the Almighty, in prayer, as to the sequencing. You'll note that at least some Jews had become downright happy [blueletterbible.org] with the Egyptian entitlement programs. Said entitlement programs are also why Moses had to march off two generations worth in Sinai to mature them out of the slave mindset and prepare them for the next step.

My statement is that they reached final versions in that order.

How about we just let this point go?

Not too long ago there was a noticeable difference in philosophy and demeanor between you and Pudge. More recently that gap has shrunk dramatically.

Indeed, you seem to've swerved toward the peevish around 01Oct. Can't figure out what disastrous occurrence around then might be bothering you.

insult and attempt to dehumanize those who differ from your philosophy while you attempt to steamroll over the world with your ultra-far-right vision of how the world ought to be

I've been laughing at you, but 'dehumanize'? Really? Can you help with a specific example of dehumanization? Seriously, I don't see how encouraging growth and maturity is dehumanizing, and if I ever did dehumanize, I should owe you an apology. I'd like to see evidence of such, please.

you believe nobody outside your party is capable of Leadership.

Far from the case. I think Nigel Farage (UKIP) and Daniel Hannan (Conservative) are both great leaders.

Just because you don't like the fact that the democrats have a slim majority in the upper chamber doesn't mean that we should rewrite the constitution to prevent it from happening again.

Actually, I'm more offended by Harry Reid's record than by the Democrat majority as such. I think that history is going to judge Harry Reid's record with a brutal harshness. But, if the 17th Amendment was a re-write to the Constitution, and we might agree that the last century of operating under this has really put the 'C' in crony, why are you, a scientist, so unwilling to consider scrapping a failed experiment?

The answer is (D), none of the above. You and I differ markedly in what we see as "destroying our country". You distinctly want to feed the beast that I see as destroying our country while the beast that you see does not in reality exist in this country. There is a beast that has a very distant relationship to the beast you believe in, which is the one I would like to see installed, but it has no chance to survive in the current political climate and is essentially dead regardless of my actions.

Nice Revelation-in-a-nutshell, boss. But if you read over in Corinthians about speaking in a tongue, you'd encounter the part where you're supposed to have an interpreter to help the poor audience with it.
I've been speaking of systemic drivers in terms of public debt and political incumbency that I think are detrimental to everyone's prosperity. You're offering strange handwaving.

Re:Well, Don't I Feel Silly (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45207251)

Conservatives laugh at Colbert. Why? Because taking oneself too seriously is a major human downfall.
Taking the principles of liberty, private property, freedom of speech &c seriously, however, is crucial.

That's pretty good (1)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 10 months ago | (#45196681)

I like it.

Re:That's pretty good (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45207275)

Thanks. Possibly you can help damn_registrars resurrect his sense of humor.

Re:That's pretty good (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 10 months ago | (#45208569)

Thanks. Possibly you can help damn_registrars resurrect his sense of humor.

His sense of humor isn't dead; it's resting.

Pining for the fjords, even.

Re:That's pretty good (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45209957)

I'm not sure that even a shot of Harry Reid's embalming fluid could get damn_registrars' sense of humor past the Francisco Franco stage.

Re:That's pretty good (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#45211849)

Well, mine is alive and well. I think your caricature is hilarious, but it is getting repetitive, being all stuck in a box the way you are.

Re:That's pretty good (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45218887)

Your box; your plantation: what we need is liberty, man!

Re:That's pretty good (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#45219791)

Yes, for all, or it doesn't count..

Re:That's pretty good (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45221231)

Well, hey: if YOU'RE happy with Congress hoisting a giant middle finger at the people, and blowing off the Vitter Amendment [newyorker.com] , just keep throwing the reformers under the bus.
We've got to start somewhere in the reform quest. You should think about joining it.

Re:That's pretty good (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#45222375)

They aren't reformers. You're falling for false prophets. And though there's little point in reminding you again and again, you continue to make false assumptions about my posts. To a reasonable person they don't even imply any such approval of the current, corrupt by design, systems of today. This is simply an ongoing method of distraction on your part.

Re:That's pretty good (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45230723)

Why would I be distracting from reform, and with what would I substitute?
If you think that I'm less than 100% honest with you, then let's just quit wasting each other's time.
Your point about "false prophets" is not without merit. There has been some benefit of the doubt extended to the GOP, which seemed the cleaner end of the Progressive turd. McCain, in retrospect, seems like he threw the race in '08. Romney seems to have been thrown by his campaign staff in '12. And the question of who would give Hillary the best concession speech in '16 looms large for the Vichy GOP.
All of this to say: the Tea Party has no illusions about these DC rodeo clowns.
The overall reform plan to restore something like economic opportunity to the country seems to be to incrementally replace the excrement with sane leadership. The Libertarians would be a force, if starting from the outside was a good strategy. Reclaiming the GOP from within seems to be having far more immediate effect.
The GOP saved the country from chattel slavery, and may yet be reformed enough to save the country from debt slavery. Heaven willing.

Re:That's pretty good (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#45234991)

Tea Party... Just rename them the Koch Party, who want to return the country back to the 1850s. And do try to understand that the GOP and democrats are not in any opposition, most notably since the 1960s civil rights laws passed and the racist democrats switched over. Your continued bias in this regard does not go unnoticed. Pointing it out is definitely an exercise in futility, but what the hell... McCain and Romney were the real rodeo clowns, red noses and all, designed to scare people away from real alternative parties or individuals. They did a bang up job in keeping 98% of the voters in lockstep. This is what they were hired to do by your favorite industrialists and bankers that finance both factions. You are truly fogged over if you believe that politicians and their parties, funded by billionaires, can possibly bring about any reform to a system designed by their puppet masters. This includes the Greens and Libertarian Party. The wealth/power and the desire for it corrupts all.

Re:That's pretty good (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45240047)

The Progressives are returning to the country to the 1850s via debt slavery, vice the chattel slavery of that day.

And do try to understand that the GOP and democrats are not in any opposition, most notably since the 1960s civil rights laws passed and the racist democrats switched over.

You know, Rumsfeld himself worked to get that legislation passed, and Robert Byrd stayed a Democrat. I find your mythology unimpressive.

McCain and Romney were the real rodeo clowns, red noses and all, designed to scare people away from real alternative parties or individuals.

I'm moving toward agreement with you here, though I think McCain was totally witting, and I'm not sure about to what degree Romney was a dupe, for all that's a difference making little difference.

You are truly fogged over if you believe that politicians and their parties, funded by billionaires, can possibly bring about any reform to a system designed by their puppet masters. This includes the Greens and Libertarian Party. The wealth/power and the desire for it corrupts all.

Past your Buddhist fatalism, why do you bother, then? What if you're on the cusp of breaking that grip on power? It your thesis is true, how did the Revolution itself ever occur? Luck? I don't believe in that.

Re:That's pretty good (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#45241291)

The "Revolution" did nothing to break the grip of power. It merely changed hands to another set of aristocrats, whose only real difference was a minor reduction in bureaucratic overhead. It was business as usual as soon as the contracts were signed. Allegiance to the motherland has not been severed.

Re:That's pretty good (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45243853)

Accepting your statement as true for argument's sake: What then, to do?
Roll over & cut your deal?
Strive to bring the potential for self-government to fruition?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>