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!

Reality - Who Needs It?

damn_registrars (1103043) writes | about 5 months ago

User Journal 20

Yesterday's bait for the conservative circle-jerk sure worked out well. At this point it's barely 30 hours old and approaching 900 comments. Hell, my comment pulled in 70 replies and a dizzying number of moderations.Yesterday's bait for the conservative circle-jerk sure worked out well. At this point it's barely 30 hours old and approaching 900 comments. Hell, my comment pulled in 70 replies and a dizzying number of moderations.

Included in those replies, though, was a a genuine you-win-the-internet-with-that-hyperpolic-nonsense reply. Not that this kind of conservative nonsense is new here, but the enthusiasm with which it was shared - even this late in the discussion - was impressive. The new user behind this has written only around 2 dozen comments to date, the oldest dating to last August.

I will say though, he made me laugh so hard at his nonsense that I felt compelled to reply. So I guess he trolled me fairly well.

cancel ×

20 comments

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

Don't over-credit King George III (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 months ago | (#46783981)

The whole Bill of Rights, if you read Amar's book [amazon.com] , one discovers they are directed at specific abuses suffered at the hands of the British (e.g. quartering).
That's not hyperbolic nonsense, sir: that's history.

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 months ago | (#46785171)

That's not hyperbolic nonsense, sir: that's history.

The hyperbolic nonsense lies in the amount of Konservative Kool-Aid (TM) that one has to drink in order to believe that President Lawnchair is some sort of absolute tyrant who needs to be overthrown violently. Similarly the very notion that there is an amendment in the constitution - written in code, no less - that is there specifically for the purpose of violently overthrowing the government is ridiculous. What the true meaning of the second amendment is, we may never agree on, but there is no good argument for the creators of the American Experiment being interested in inserting a way for citizens to violently discard democracy on a whim without needing to be willing to accept some responsibility for their choices and actions.

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 months ago | (#46786193)

And I have never argued for violent overthrow against Obama anymore than David did against King Saul: precedent is an insect with infinite mandibles.

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 months ago | (#46786281)

And I have never argued for violent overthrow against Obama anymore than David did against King Saul: precedent is an insect with infinite mandibles.

That all depends on one's definition of violence. You have repeatedly advocated for extralegal termination of the administration. Once you get the mob rallied you can't count on them not becoming violent.

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 months ago | (#46790673)

What. Mob.

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 months ago | (#46790871)

What. Mob.

You've shown that you don't care about legal restrictions to your desire to throw out President Lawnchair. Indeed you have shown utter disdain for the confines of the law and gone beyond fully embracing discarding it for your intents.

Now, how exactly will you overthrow the POTUS after you run out of legal options? After having thoroughly made a mockery of the law, you will have certainly stirred up enough fecal matter to have an angry mob of like-minded people similarly excited to see an end to the rest of the law in the interest of installing a "better" government.

That said in the end you wouldn't be any better than fustakrakich. You want the government out but you don't have a plan for how a new one would actually work. Once you discard the law and install a new government, why would the new one care about the laws that used to exist? It seems you are just holding on to the vaporous hopes that for some reason you will float to the top when that happens and you'll survive based on your wit and good looks.

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 months ago | (#46792349)

You've shown that you don't care about legal restrictions to your desire to throw out President Lawnchair.

I can only assume that you're trying *yawn* to be *eyerub* provocative.
I haven't done this. You know I haven't done this. I know you know I know I haven't done this. You stay beautiful.

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 months ago | (#46792589)

You've shown that you don't care about legal restrictions to your desire to throw out President Lawnchair.

I haven't done this. You know I haven't done this. I know you know I know I haven't done this

Sure, you haven't done that. Excepting the times when you very plainly have, of course.

For example, your top conspiracy theory Benghazi. The government has already ran an investigation into it, and you refuse to actually read the report from that investigation before demanding that another one be done. You demand more time and treasure go in to the investigation of something that has already been investigated, and your only justification for that is "because". You have no facts on it that were not investigated, you have only your feelings on it that you want to see fleshed out into an unending series of efforts to overthrow the POTUS. Being as you weren't willing to even read the results of the first investigation, you give no reason to believe that you would ever be happy with a second one unless it advocated for the immediate extralegal removal of Obama.

Then on to the IRS non-troversy. In case you forgot, they are tasked with the collection of taxes. They were investigating groups that were openly advocating cheating on - and straight out not paying - taxes.

And that doesn't even scratch the surface of your never ending collection of conspiracy theories, those are just the two that you yell the loudest about.

The key fact here though is that you have already shown an open acceptance of discarding legal procedures to further your goal of throwing Obama out at any cost.

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 months ago | (#46792815)

I'll take your topical tap-dance as: "I got nothin'".

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 months ago | (#46792879)

I'll take your topical tap-dance as: "I got nothin'".

You made more sense when you went for the one-word replies. I just directly pointed out how desperately you perpetuate a long list of conspiracy theories without concern for the confines of the legal requirements for removal of the POTUS or even the calling of a grand jury. This has been the most glaring weakness of essentially all of your arguments for the past 6 years - it is utterly transparent that you will stop at nothing to throw out any politician whose name is followed by a (D), regardless of whether or not there is a moonshot chance at getting enough evidence for a grand jury hearing on such a matter. You also have shown that you don't see constitutional protections as being relevant to anyone with that cursed fourth letter, and are willing to keep calling new investigations and new trials until well past the end of time.

Your bit about tap dancing is a far better description of you avoiding the failures of your own arguments.

I'm just glad that the criminal justice system in this country doesn't work the way you want it to, or our government would have gone broke on corrections costs many decades ago.

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 months ago | (#46786209)

"What the true meaning of the second amendment is, we may never agree on"
The true meaning of the First AND Second Amendments is that the unit of analysis in this country is the individual, and AT NO POINT are we being absorbed in YOUR Rousseauian/Orwellian/Alinskian/Huxlean Borg.
You may get stuffed at your convenience, sir.

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 months ago | (#46786383)

What the true meaning of the second amendment is, we may never agree on

The true meaning of the First AND Second Amendments is that the unit of analysis in this country is the individual

On the first amendment, I agree with you.

However the second amendment very explicitly includes the word Militia. What is unclear about it is how the concept of the Militia relates to bearing arms, or who constitutes the Militia. We should be able to, at the very least, agree that the word was included intentionally and not accidentally. Clearly we disagree on what the word means in relation to the rest of the statement.

Furthermore we should be able to agree that in no part of the text of the second amendment is the overthrow of the government mentioned.

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 months ago | (#46790693)

Clearly we disagree on what the word means in relation to the rest of the statement.

May violence never find you; may your government never come after you; may your little happy land stay fully populated with peeps, such that you never come personally to grips with what's gone on in Cuba, or Venezuela, or Afghanistan, &c: I want your little bubble of non-understanding of the crucial nature of the 2nd Amendment to remain intact.

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 months ago | (#46790919)

OK, you've taken your swipe at me. Do you feel better now?

You've also told us how you feel about other people's interpretation of the second amendment. I think it's time you tell us your interpretation. Here's the actual text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

How do you read it? What do you see as being the relation of the term "Militia" at the front of the sentence to the rest of the sentence? Who do you see them describing as "people", being as in the 18th century only white men counted as people?

Take a moment to read the text. Apply some punctuation or annotation to it, and show us how you read it.

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 months ago | (#46792391)

The two introductory clauses are interesting, but the ultimate 14 words form a perfect though, like a circle.
Now, statists get them a flag pole woody over the first 13 words. "Aha! Here is our chance to do with the Constitution what Satan did in Genesis 3*. If we can just introduce some ambiguity, we can disarm the population, like Every. Evil. Fascist. Regime. Ever.**"
By the way, I don't actually own any firearms. But I'm as reactionary as they come [youtube.com] about any pencil-neck rodeo clowns that absolutely cannot get the facts straight about guns, from that twerp Justice Stevens on down.
--
*I could've picked a non-Biblical example, but I'm trolling you here.
**And a bunch of governments that are not fascist, too.

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 months ago | (#46792613)

The two introductory clauses are interesting, but the ultimate 14 words form a perfect though, like a circle.

Do you mean a perfect thought? Regardless there is nothing perfect about the second amendment. Why did they mention the Militia if it was not important? That is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that is only one sentence; why is that?

By the way, I don't actually own any firearms.

I believe you have said that before. You probably don't remember me saying this before - and likely won't believe it when I say it again - but I actually do own guns. I don't believe that gun regulations need to be an all-or-nothing deal. I do believe, however, that we can do a much better job than we currently are. Furthermore I believe that what we are currently doing is not working and we need to try something else. I also believe that guns are a terrible choice for self-defense and we should do something about the mentality that tells so many people otherwise.

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46792835)

Sure, thought.

I believe that what we are currently doing is not working and we need to try something else. I also believe that guns are a terrible choice for self-defense and we should do something about the mentality that tells so many people otherwise.

If there was any correlation between gun sales and gun violence, then the country should have already depopulated itself due to sales since #OccupyResoluteDesk was inaugurated.

we should do something about the mentality that tells so many people otherwise.

When every mortal, perishable falsehood has failed, there is always the eternal truth of Christ.

Re:Don't over-credit King George III (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 months ago | (#46792903)

I don't know if you are smitty, writing as an AC, or just some AC copying smitty (and his silly twitter tag that nobody else finds to be the least bit connected to reality).

That said:

I believe that what we are currently doing is not working and we need to try something else. I also believe that guns are a terrible choice for self-defense and we should do something about the mentality that tells so many people otherwise.

If there was any correlation between gun sales and gun violence, then the country should have already depopulated itself

There you go, making assumptions based on your own assumptions about me. Gun control means a lot of different things, and it does not mean they all have to happen simultaneously (or ever).

The fact of the matter is though, we have a lot of guns in this country. And they most certainly don't help to reduce our per capita crime rates.

When every mortal, perishable falsehood has failed, there is always the eternal truth of Christ.

Ahh, yes. WWJC - What Would Jesus Carry? I remember the New Testament book of Uzi where he mowed down those sinners, that was a personal favorite of mine. Let no righteous man go unarmed to the mall, and all that, right?

I noticed something once again (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 5 months ago | (#46787049)

Why do so many right wing radicals (and supporting the 2nd amendment is in no way radical) insist on using, as they would put it, grocers apostrophe's? (Yes that was deliberate). There seems to be a correlation between far left and far right radicals and a lack of education.

Re:I noticed something once again (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 months ago | (#46787849)

Why do so many right wing radicals (and supporting the 2nd amendment is in no way radical) insist on using, as they would put it, grocers apostrophe's? (Yes that was deliberate). There seems to be a correlation between far left and far right radicals and a lack of education.

I believe one of the other popular - though seldom referenced - conspiracy theories is that the English Language is itself being hijacked by "the extreme left". Hence the extreme right has their own way of using (perhaps more accurately, abusing) the English language to somehow try to drive that point home. It's little difference from how they insist that various words have dramatically different meanings than those compiled in common references (ie, dictionaries), which they seem to believe to be also distorted by the actions of "the left".

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>