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!

Buuuuuuuuuushhhhhhhh...

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 4 months ago

User Journal 14

Why does the evil spirit of the former POTUS continue to drag down the innocent, hard working, urbane, mindful current occupant of the Oval O?
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=ISUpic_140320.png&docId=693892&xmpSource=&width=571&height=455&caption=Why does the evil spirit of the former POTUS continue to drag down the innocent, hard working, urbane, mindful current occupant of the Oval O?
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=ISUpic_140320.png&docId=693892&xmpSource=&width=571&height=455&caption=

cancel ×

14 comments

Fun with numbers and partial reporting! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 months ago | (#46556839)

Nice drive-by there, smitty. I think your total as of late is probably higher than the same time period in Detroit this year.

Re:Fun with numbers and partial reporting! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#46557677)

Intoxicated

Re:Fun with numbers and partial reporting! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46561033)

Intoxicated

that might explain why you keep posting this drivel that even the likes of glenn beck would likely shy away from

Wiiiiiiiiiilson (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46557439)

How many evil spirits did he conjure up?

Re:Wiiiiiiiiiilson (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#46557683)

The only one that mattered, Cthulhu, now busily sucking all the power into DC.

Re:Wiiiiiiiiiilson (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46557881)

Pffft... Look to the people that hired him to do it.

What I do know is that when you laugh at people who complain about Bush. (As I do also.. he's in the past), you are laughing at yourself. The Wilson thing is no different. We are quite capable of electing people who can bring back the Gilded Age whenever the desire actually comes up. In other words, there is no policy that Wilson or Bush, or anybody else has done that can't be undone.. Helplessness is a learned condition.

Re:Wiiiiiiiiiilson (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 months ago | (#46558029)

We are quite capable of electing people who can bring back the Gilded Age whenever the desire actually comes up.

That would be smitty's worst nightmare, right there. Don't suggest that people can actually vote on their own for legislative change in any but a (yet even more) conservative direction.

In other words, there is no policy that Wilson or Bush, or anybody else has done that can't be undone

They are working on preventing such an undoing from ever being possible. They have already come a long ways towards that, and their ultimate goal is finishing that off.

Re:Wiiiiiiiiiilson (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#46559095)

Indeed, I am capable of laughing at myself. Conservatives should have been far more up in arms about, e.g. the TSA.

The Wilson thing is no different.

Wilson is substantially different. There were no explicit Constitutional changes on Bush's watch. Furthermore, Bush/Obama are the climax of this Progressive cycle. To equate them is to say that the Fall harvest is the Spring planting. Sure, both are agricultural, but, as usual, I'm finding your analysis either incomplete or just a troll.

electing people who can bring back the Gilded Age

Haven't you been arguing that plutocrats are already pulling the levers of our "elected" officials? What difference, at this point, does it make to "bring back" some sort of "Gilded Age"? It seems you've said we're functionally in such, if indeed we ever left it.

Helplessness is a learned condition.

Aye, and the overarching message of Progress is that you need to punt and leave life management up to experts, authorities, and the government.
Liberty. We need to insist upon it.

Re:Wiiiiiiiiiilson (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 months ago | (#46559633)

There were no explicit Constitutional changes on Bush's watch.

You seem to have already conveniently forgotten that the Bush Administration wrote the PATRIOT ACT - which he happily signed - which rather plainly assaults our 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights.

Furthermore, Bush/Obama are the climax

Are you finally starting to realize that the two are following basically the same political courses? Just because you love one and hate the other - for no reason other than the consonant after their names - doesn't mean they are actually different in action.

of this Progressive cycle

In so much as "Progressive" means "progressively more conservative", sure.

To make the point more clear, I have never heard a reasonable person attempt to describe Bush as a liberal (or a "Progressive" as you seem to be trying to say here). When he was in office people were describing him as picking up the mantle that was last carried by St. Ronnie the Redeemer. Indeed, he picked up only the most conservative of Ronnie's actions and then amped them up, conveniently ignoring things that Reagan did that would have been assaulted by Bush's fanbase as liberal.

The difference between now and 2000 is that the GOP has come to be so utterly drunk on power that they have redefined "conservative" to the point where Ronnie himself would have been thrown out of the party. You expect to be able to continue to bully the entire country into accepting your twisted fantasy world as being the optimal path for more than a small fraction of a percent of our population. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, while the GOP has ventured further right than anyone since Hitler, Stalin, or Genghis Khan, the democrats felt driven to follow suit and venture to the right as well. You should probably be proud of yourselves for causing such destruction but instead you whine about only getting the vast majority of what you demand.

Liberty. We need to insist upon it.

Liberty? Who exactly gained liberty when the PATRIOT ACT was signed into law? Who gained liberty when the GOP pushed more regressive tax cuts into tax law? Who gained liberty when the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010, which you demonstrated to be the product of the Heritage Foundation (thank you for doing the research for the rest of us so we didn't have to wade through their indoctrination more than needed!), was passed?

Re:Wiiiiiiiiiilson (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46560403)

*Yawn*

Re:Wiiiiiiiiiilson (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46564737)

There were no explicit Constitutional changes on Bush's watch.

That's right. Changing the constitution has a specific procedure, which at least Wilson and congress (remember them?) followed. Bush, and congress (damn, for some reason they keep popping up) just said screw your "right" to a speedy trial, or to be free of cruel and unusual punishment (not that there's anything particularly unusual about torture, that's been in wide practice for a while). And Habeas Corpus?... Oh wait that one's got a nice loophole, never mind.

Nice try, but that one won't fly with me. And again you are showing that cognitive dissonance thing again. You're trying to have it both ways.

Re:Wiiiiiiiiiilson (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#46568859)

No, you do have a point: Wilson did get Constitutional Amendments for two of his three worst stunts (sweet Federal Reserve).
Furthermore, it took a century and fellow fools like Bush to build on Wilson's lousy ideas.
As with BHO, we tend to overcredit Wilson.

Re:Wiiiiiiiiiilson (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46569119)

...fellow fools like Bush...

AND Reagan. He gave us a glimpse with the Lincoln Saving and Loan of what was to come. (Say hi to McCain for me, would ya?). I really doubt that Wilson had any more to do with the corporate anarchy we suffer today than any of the subsequent actors. A whole bunch of other carpetbaggers with just as much power were on the scene.

Re:Wiiiiiiiiiilson (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#46569457)

You have dirt connecting Reagan to that debacle? As for McCain, yeah, my gut has it that he totally sold his soul for rock'n'roll there.
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...