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!

Hey, damn_registrars, don't forget to submit this

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 8 months ago

User Journal 28
cancel ×

28 comments

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

I'm honored (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45827951)

You said you don't take me seriously, yet you have dedicated how many JEs to me in the past few weeks? You try to say you don't take me seriously yet your writing suggests you are terrified by the holes I have blown into your conservative philosophy and how I have exposed your deep partisan hatred for all (of slashdot) to see.

Hahahahaha (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 8 months ago | (#45828621)

No, the laughing at your ideas is laughter at your ideas.

Re:Hahahahaha (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45829229)

Laughing? That is a new expression from you. Previously you were exhibiting fear over the demonstrated fact that your insatiable desire to overthrow the POTUS could well lead to the extralegal execution of the same. Couple that to your endorsement of phobias and various other degrees of hatred and it is hard to imagine why you would be laughing.

Re:Hahahahaha (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 8 months ago | (#45830669)

Previously you were exhibiting fear over the demonstrated fact that your insatiable desire to overthrow the POTUS could well lead to the extralegal execution of the same.

Are you sure you're not a closet Ron Paul supporter? Your style of argumentation is indistinguishable [youtube.com] . I say this in all love, with a hint of a smile, of course.

Re:Hahahahaha (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45831049)

Laughing [youtube.com]

Re:Hahahahaha (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 8 months ago | (#45831213)

I'm so glad [youtube.com]

Re:Hahahahaha (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45831805)

You exposed yourself in a very, very straightforward manner. You have shown that you want Obama out of the white house at any cost. You have a grocery list of conspiracy theories that you openly support that you claim are worthy of throwing him out. You have had numerous opportunities to say "if nothing worthy is found by an independent investigation, I'm OK with that" but you have repeatedly opted to say the opposite that you would instead move on to the next conspiracy until you get him out. Furthermore as you repeatedly made a habit of not even considering the rule of law in your first couple years of arguing for his removal, you have shown that you don't actually respect the legal mechanisms in place for removal of the POTUS.

Whether you directly wish death upon the POTUS doesn't matter. You endorse removal mechanisms that would lead to that happening.

Are you sure you're not a closet Ron Paul supporter? Your style of argumentation is indistinguishable.

Ron Paul supporters tend to base their arguments on youtube videos that they link to in discussions - you know, like you just did there. Being as Paullowers endorse a unitary fascist government that discards the will of the people while simultaneously generally refusing to see the current government as valid, you actually bare an extremely strong resemblance to their kind.

OMG!!!1!! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 8 months ago | (#45832515)

You have shown that you want Obama out of the white house at any cost.

You must know about the contract with Marvin the Martian to use the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator to obliterate the planet, rather than suffer this diabolical twerp to do Yet Another Dumb Thing (YADT)!!!
*gasp* [hyperventilation] I'm [hyperventilation] caught [hyperventilation].
Please just stay beautiful in 2014. Is that so much to ask of you?

if you're trying to show maturity... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45832723)

... you're missing the mark by a long ways.

What you have written already shows how deeply you despise any politician with a (D) after his or her name, and how desperate you are to shorten the presidential administration of anyone with that evil mark. Mocking me does not do anything to make you look more sane or rational. When people are so readily willing to discard the rule of law to get their political wishes they don't aid their own cause when they try to reduce those who respect the law into cartoons.

If you're trying to express tone deafness. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45832859)

. . .you're succeeding.

Mocking me does not do anything to make you look more sane or rational.

Yeah. I'm the one huffing about all peevish and stuff. Me. Don't EVER forget that, you beautiful man!

to reduce those who respect the law

At least we can be sure your not speaking of President Obama [washingtontimes.com] there. :-)

Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45835335)

to reduce those who respect the law

At least we can be sure your not speaking of President Obama there. :-)

That statement indicates endorsement of extralegal means for getting rid of people who you merely think broke the law. Funny, I recall a certain conservative recently tried to play the "abuse after molestation" card; and now we see a conservative who is actually endorsing such a strategy. How far are you willing to go to dish out revenge when you see yourself as having been wronged? Do any laws apply to you once you feel hurt? What is the minimum level of offense that you feel you need to be able to convince yourself to having had happened in order to justify to yourself the suspension of laws to seek revenge?

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 8 months ago | (#45836009)

That statement indicates endorsement of extralegal means for getting rid of people who you merely think broke the law.

That's what you say. You're, again, freely throwing subjective interpretation into a negative statement that any reasonable reader would agree intends to show that President Obama affords the law all the concern he does, say, a urinal cake.
You're entitled to your subjective interpretations, sure, as I am entitled to laugh at them.

How far are you willing to go to dish out revenge when you see yourself as having been wronged?

Why, I should have to grow a vengeful heart first, would I not?

Do any laws apply to you once you feel hurt?

Now, I grasp that the Left specializes in hormone farming; in sowing resentment, to reap power.

What is the minimum level of offense that you feel you need to be able to convince yourself to having had happened in order to justify to yourself the suspension of laws to seek revenge?

Have you considered laxatives?

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45837093)

That statement indicates endorsement of extralegal means for getting rid of people who you merely think broke the law.

That's what you say

Wrong. It is what you have said. You have repeatedly refused to reject the use of extralegal methods to remove President Obama. You have demonstrated over and over again that you are 100% OK with a mob forcing him out of office - and by way of your approval you are also OK with the mob doing with him what they will.

You're entitled to your subjective interpretations, sure, as I am entitled to laugh at them.

You have endorsed throwing out the POTUS by any means available. This is not merely an interpretation, it is supported by what you have actually written here.

How far are you willing to go to dish out revenge when you see yourself as having been wronged?

Why, I should have to grow a vengeful heart first, would I not?

You have demonstrated a vengeful heart against Obama many times over. You have shared your favorite conspiracy theories many times over, and indicated that you believe they should lead to his being thrown out of 1600 Pennsylvania.

Do any laws apply to you once you feel hurt?

Now, I grasp that the Left specializes in hormone farming; in sowing resentment, to reap power.

I'll take that as a solid "no, as long as the person who hurt me was a democrat".

Also, my previous comment was in reply to an AC. Did you write an AC comment in your own JE?

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 8 months ago | (#45837649)

Wrong

Ooooh, bold font! This is what you say I've said, but you've interacted, inferred, built upon, extrapolated, and repeated your piffle. It's unclear whether you:
a. actively think you're correct, as a matter of belief, or
b. are driving for troll train for some unknown, experimental reason, or
c. are recreationally beclowning yourself, as a matter of habit
d. are melting down into some kind of paranoid ravings, as 2014 promises to be another "average"* year for Mr. Obama.

But your ravings in no way accurately portray my views. In terms of doing maximal damage to this false Progressive Project, and minimizing the time required to restore a proper, limited, accountable government that protects the rule of law, private property, and vouchsafes equality of opportunity for all citizens,
we're at the point of asking: are we better off keeping the Quadriplegic Duck? The whole point of the NYT trying to airbrush Benghazi has far more to do with battlespace preps for Hillary than validating what people already know: Benghazi was all Healthcare.gov foreshadowing. Other than campaigning, Obama is as useful as ice cubes to the global warming weenies iced in down in Antarctica (heh).
Anyway, other than demonstrating your commitment to peevishness, I just don't know what to make of your utterances.
And yes, I had commented as AC on my own journal, due to some per-day commenting limit related to my karma. I could have better karma, but it's a sacrifice I make for art, and the Burma Shave troll.

* In the Soviet sense of: "worse than 2013, better than 2015, so, average".

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45837791)

But your ravings in no way accurately portray my views

Ravings? Hardly. Your views are clearly willing to accept forceful removal of the POTUS (provided, of course, that said POTUS is not of your political party). You have endorsed such an action repeatedly now and rejected it not once. You have also shown that you don't even care which conspiracy theory leads to the removal of Obama, as long as he is thrown out. You are happy to jump between conspiracies A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and (at the very least) K as directed to do so by the media; you will take whichever one you think has the best traction that hour and claim it is justification for forcible removal of Obama.

minimizing the time required to restore a proper, limited, accountable government

Thank you for again proving the point that you see a proper investigation and trial as a major inconvenience to your aims.

vouchsafes equality of opportunity for all citizens,

So is it the concept of "citizens" that you want to redefine this time around then? Or will we go back to redefining "opportunity" and "equality"?

The whole point of the NYT trying to airbrush Benghazi

Has it occurred to you to ... oh, I don't know ... maybe try reading the NYT article that you are pretending to be knowledgeable on? If you actually read it, you might learn something here. I'll give you a clue - they aren't protecting any one story from any one person thus far as being completely accurate. The NYT article actually says that some planning went in to the attack, but concludes it was not the Al-Qaeda that we all knew and loved from 9/11/01. Considering how fractured the group is (and not owing solely to the death of Bin Laden) that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Benghazi was all Healthcare.gov foreshadowing

Even in comparison to what you have been saying the past few months that is a bizarre statement.

Anyway, other than demonstrating your commitment to peevishness, I just don't know what to make of your utterances.

You should read them as a realization that others understand your commitment to removing the POTUS and that you don't need to try to obfuscate it any more. Just because I disagree with forcible removal sans trial of Obama doesn't mean you need to try to dance around your wishes when writing about them. You're just making yourself look weak and wishy-washy.

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 8 months ago | (#45838069)

Get bent. I've never used other than standard term definitions, with the exception of eschewing using ethics and morality as synonyms. In that case I clearly defined what I was doing and why.
Your efforts to accuse me of redefining terms and them using them strangely is wholly erroneous and nefarious. Is it your intent to kill all discussion between us?

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45838345)

My point, which seems to have angered you deeply this time, is that tea party goals are not compatible with the notion of

equality of opportunity for all citizens,

That you just laid claim to. At least, not under the current understanding of "equality", "opportunity", and "citizens".

But in comparison to your deep and repeatedly stated goal of unseating the POTUS at any cost, your aim to deprive equality of opportunity is pretty minor in consideration of the change that it would likely bring about to the current situation in this country.

Is it your intent to kill all discussion between us?

My intent is to understand what you actually mean, when you say something other than it. Obviously it is too much to ask for you to ever again try to understand what I say here, but I can still strive to understand the words that come from you. Of course I could spend just as much time pondering why you are putting so much energy in to dancing around your intents rather than saying what you mean, but that is another matter.

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 8 months ago | (#45839991)

My intent is to understand what you actually mean, when you say something other than it.

That does not comport with your strawmen-on-acid approach to constructing an argument, if such matters to you.

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45842561)

My intent is to understand what you actually mean, when you say something other than it.

That does not comport with your strawmen-on-acid approach to constructing an argument, if such matters to you.

That is a very strange way to admit that your goals support terrible things happening to people who have not been given a chance to defend themselves in a fair trial. Your statement here has a similar relation to your strange previous contortion of the concept of opportunity - however considering some of your recent monologues about anatomical features that seem to attract your attention I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you would consider the vagina that one crawls out of to be a qualified way to determine how much "opportunity" one is entitled to.

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45854043)

My point, which seems to have angered you deeply this time, is that tea party goals are not compatible with the notion of

equality of opportunity for all citizens,

That you just laid claim to. At least, not under the current understanding of "equality", "opportunity", and "citizens".

You're a liar. (No shock or surprise, here.) The Tea Party stands explicitly for equality of opportunity for all citizens. You have zero evidence to the contrary.

your aim to deprive equality of opportunity

You're a liar. No such aim was ever expressed by him.

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45855265)

equality of opportunity for all citizens,

That you just laid claim to. At least, not under the current understanding of "equality", "opportunity", and "citizens".

You're a liar. (When we twist the concept of liar here) The Tea Party stands explicitly for equality of opportunity for all citizens. You have zero evidence to the contrary.

When you de-regulate and privatize education, you remove equality of access to it, and opportunity is lost. The Tea Party (and many other conservatives including yourself) endorse whole-heartedly doing exactly that.

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45861541)

Maybe you should look up William Daniel Johnson...

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45861799)

Don't be stupid. PLEASE try. Harder.

I can name all sorts of racists and communists and worse associated with the Democrats. Hell, that last school shooter was a hardcore progressive who spouted Nancy Pelosi talking points, and he actually shot, and tried to murder, people. Did he represent Democrats? Of course not. So, again, please stop being ridiculously stupid.

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45861945)

I can name all sorts of racists and communists and worse associated with the Democrats.

Did I say there isn't? Your tea party is nothing but a dixiecrat revival. And unlike the reference I gave you, I doubt the school shooter was invited anywhere by Nancy Pelosi. You sure got your panties in a bunch, that's for sure. Quite the money shot...

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45862231)

Did I say there isn't?

Yes, essentially.

Your tea party is nothing but a dixiecrat revival.

You're a liar. What's weird is you know you're lying and you know everyone knows you're lying. So why do you persist?

I doubt the school shooter was invited anywhere by Nancy Pelosi.

So? Let's talk about the Democrat who was in Congress, invited by the Democrats to participate in Democratic presidential debates, who was a good friend and supporter of Nigeria's terrible dictator, Abacha. Carol Moseley Braun was invited by Pelosi and the Democrats to all kinds of events.

Or what about disgraced corrupt federal judge, Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings? Dude took bribes, his own fellow Democrats impeached and convicted and removed him from the bench, but hey, what's a little corruption in Congress?

You don't believe the existence of these people at high levels of the party mean that the Democrats are nothing but dictator-supporters who can be bribed. Yet you think this one guy at one local Tea Party event means something for the entire Tea Party.

Well, but you don't, of course. You're a liar.

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45862327)

Did I say there isn't?

Yes, essentially.

Really?? Fascinating how easy you put words into other peoples' mouths. For me it is so obvious that it goes without mentioning. I am amused that you think that your idols are any different. Anyways, thanks for the material. It will serve me well...

Yet you think this one guy at one local Tea Party event means something for the entire Tea Party.

And he is one of many. Your facade is crumbling. Face it, my friend, you really don't have to hide behind it anymore. Let your freak flag fly. Learn to be honest with yourself, and then others.

You're a liar.

Ah, ever so reliable you are :-) As always, thanks for the laughs.

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45862723)

Fascinating how easy you put words into other peoples' mouths.

I'm not. You're singling out the Tea Party for your stupid guilt-by-association game. If you did this equally to all groups, then you would not find this to be exceptional. The very fact that you're singling out this group means you don't do it equally to all groups.

There's at least as many racists in the Democratic Party and on the left, like Lynne Stewart, the terrorist just released from prison, who is virulently anti-Semitic.

I am amused that you think that your idols are any different.

As I have none, I wouldn't know.

And he is one of many.

You're a liar. It is extremely hard to find racists at most Tea Party events. The left tries, and fails. Usually the best they can do is find those Obama pictures with a Hitler mustache ... but those are (nominal) Democrats holding up those signs (the LaRouchies).

You're a liar.

Ah, ever so reliable you are

You say that as though it makes me look bad, instead of you. It's like if you're shooting a basketball at a hoop and I reject you, and you say, "ever so reliable you are." Yeah, if you lie repeatedly, I am going to call you a liar. So?

Re:Is this your idea of quid pro quo? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45862947)

As usual you infer things that don't exist (and ignore the things that do), deceive, lie, whatever you want to call it, I'm not impressed. I only contradicted your claim that your people are different from the rest. I singled nobody out. That would be your department, as you are showing here throughout. Indeed the liar is you. And the only one you are fooling with your lies is yourself. I'm not falling for it. But don't let that stop you. Maybe, some day, you might be able to parlay your schtick into something of value, for somebody. For me, it's nothing more than a bit of comedy relief. Tragicomedy, but, eh...

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>