Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Let's call a troll a troll 125
We start here, where d_r said, emphasis mine:
Yet you don't seem to care for the Muslims much (as evidenced by, amongst other things, your repeated reminders for us of the scary middle name of the POTUS).
To which I reply:
This is a bald-faced lie, but I know you well enough now to account this as a straightforward troll. I defy you to show a single instance on the entire Internet where I personally have drawn a single derogatory conclusion based upon any portion of the President's name. A single one.
To which the response is:
In what way is it a lie? You just - again - told the Muslims that you believe they are wrong. You use the president's middle initial for what reason?
Now, I understand that the game here is for the liar to make an outrageous claim (previous examples included saying that I had called for violent removal of the President, or that I had plagiarized a website) and then continue to pick away until I lose patience with the idiocy on his end. A few rebuttals:
- FDR, LBJ, BHO, WTF?
- It's 1/26 of the alphabet. Dude, are you really into policing at that level? Can't we all pitch in and get you a life?
- Are you trying to contend that the Roman alphabet, itself, is the source of bigotry? While such would be outlandish, I am forced to admit that it's in keeping with your degenerate approach to argumentation.
I guess the only real regret I can muster is having ever read d_r in any serious light.
Indeed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When all else fails he'll just shift the goalposts.
There were no goalposts shifted. Smitty switched from using his ridiculous hashtag to describe Obama to using his oh-so-not-clever TLA instead. I will also point out that Smitty has done this midstream before as well and similarly whined when I pointed out what he was doing.
I would have been happy to stick to the original topic of discussion. I was pointing out in the context of discussing religion - and the disproportional representation of the same in our country - that Smitty has on many occasion
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there is, those are his initials. It's a fairly common way of referring to people, Presidents included. Many Presidents are more commonly referred to by initialisms than their full name. Smitty mentioned FDR and LBJ, and who could forget JFK? For some odd reason I never hear William Jefferson Clinton referred to as WJC or Ronald Wilson Reagan called RWR, but I have certainly heard people use initialism to distinguish the two Bushes - GHWB vs GWB.
All in al
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Many Presidents are more commonly referred to by initialisms than their full name. Smitty mentioned FDR and LBJ, and who could forget JFK?
What do those presidents all have in common? They were all presidents who were not the first with that name to serve in the white house - or in the case of JFK, not the first of the family name to run. You cannot say the same of Obama. Basically, "President Roosevelt" is not a unique name for a president as there have been more than one. However "President Obama" is, as there has been only one.
For some odd reason I never hear William Jefferson Clinton referred to as WJC or Ronald Wilson Reagan called RWR, but I have certainly heard people use initialism to distinguish the two Bushes - GHWB vs GWB.
It is for the reason I just gave. While some conservatives like to try to make political hay from Bill Clint
Re: (Score:1)
Your distractions are not amusing (Score:2)
FDR,
He was the second president with the last name Roosevelt
LBJ,
He was the second president with the last name Johnson
BHO,
He is the only president to date with the last name Obama
WTF?
Indeed why are you comparing them?
It's 1/26 of the alphabet.
Yes but you include the letter H to remind us that his middle name is Hussein. And we all know that name is scary enough to warrant invading a sovereign nation on its own.
Are you trying to contend that the Roman alphabet, itself, is the source of bigotry?
No. I am just pointing out that you and many of your like-minded brethren use the initials of Obama's name to incite fear. With you,
Re: (Score:1)
(b) truth is not a distraction
(c) you don't often seem to handle the truth
Re: (Score:2)
If you at least used it consistently - rather than arbitrarily switching behind the unn
Re: (Score:1)
My silly nickname for him is just his name. Pronounced with an Aussie accent. It's charming, really.
Is there a particular reason why the ancient American pastime of making up silly nicknames for the President is objectionable to you?
Re: (Score:2)
"silly nicknames that are vastly longer than his own name"
Is there a particular reason why the ancient American pastime of making up silly nicknames for the President is objectionable to you?
How many silly nicknames do you make up for one sitting president? How many of them are intentionally chosen to stir up anger against that sitting president? When people called George W Bush "W", "Dubya", "GWB", or "Bush Jr", none of those were chosen to try to get people angry and rallying for impeachment. Furthermore none of them were chosen based on faulty assumptions of association with things that make people mad.
By contrast, Smitty's silly hashtag for Obama is used to try to draw attention to a
Re: (Score:1)
"And is there a particular reason why you refuse to use the quote tag or slashdot html formatting here?"
I find it silly
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldnt mind so much if it came out funny.
Frankly I find most racism discussions mind-numbingly boring at this point.
But Dave Chapelle [liveleak.com] is still hilarious.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Dave Chapelle man, comedy genius. If you think about that sketch there are some really deep messages in it, but instead of hitting people over the head with them, he builds a sketch out of it and makes the audience laugh so hard it will stick in their head for the rest of their lives.
Trevor Noah [youtube.com] does the same sort of thing, with a very different style of course.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Surprisingly, she liked it.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the climax. The Schwarzehitler. He should pass out 'napkins' before he tells that one.
"You just don't do Adolf gags around Germans. They're never in good taste."
I know what you mean. At the same time I subscribe to the notion that the most important role of comedy is to circumv
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be 'perfectly clear' (Score:1)
To say that anyone could find anything racist in a markup language is (I hope) clearly absurd. To the extent you're playing along with the absurdity: golf clap.
Probably shouldn't have to be that pedantic about matters, but you're easily the most caustic troll I know. So, yes, I do.
Re: (Score:2)
You have been consistent in your claiming of victimization at the hands of anyone who is less conservative than yourself. You have been consistent in your quest to get me (and likely others as well) to call you a racist. You have been consistent in your desperate attempt to claim that anyone who does not vote at least as conservative as the GOP line is somehow an Obama apologist / communist / Islamist / hater of America.
Re: (Score:1)
You have been consistent in your quest to get me (and likely others as well) to call you a racist.
Maybe if your real name is. . .Charlie Crist [hotair.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
To the contrary, "shrub" and "Bush the lesser" were intentionally demeaning nicknames used for a President that many of us did indeed want to impeach.
Except that with Bush we were only allowed to call for his impeachment up through 9/10/2001; after then it was "un-American" to suggest that we consider doing such a thing to our "hero in chief".
I saw a lot of numerological expositions showing his name added up to 666 as well - I have yet to see anyone do that with Obama.
How far distant is that from smitty calling Obama a "godless commie bastard"? Seems pretty equal in terms of the magnitude of the leap of faith.
Even if you are correct as to why Smitty likes to call him 'BHO' it's hardly any worse than the treatment of GWB.
We were only allowed to call for the impeachment of GWB for about 7 months. After that it was to the suggesting it could win you a one-way ticket to southern Cuba.
Re: (Score:2)
And on what grounds could he have been impeached prior to that 11 September?
"How far distant is that from smitty calling Obama a "godless commie bastard"? Seems pretty equal in terms of the magnitude of the leap of faith."
I am afraid I lack context to make a judgement on that. I know one of my favorite Professors
Re: (Score:2)
"Except that with Bush we were only allowed to call for his impeachment up through 9/10/2001; after then it was "un-American" to suggest that we consider doing such a thing to our "hero in chief"."
And on what grounds could he have been impeached prior to that 11 September?
The grounds for impeaching GWB prior to 9/11 were at least as valid as any grounds presented to date for impeaching Obama.
"How far distant is that from smitty calling Obama a "godless commie bastard"? Seems pretty equal in terms of the magnitude of the leap of faith."
I am afraid I lack context to make a judgement on that. I know one of my favorite Professors back in the day was actually a godless commie bastard and I told him that frequently, so it doesnt sound so bad to me.
We could evaluate that term word-for-word:
In other words, at least 1 of the three is accurate, the other 2 are utter bullshit.
"We were only allowed to call for the impeachment of GWB for about 7 months. After that it was to the suggesting it could win you a one-way ticket to southern Cuba."
Well I was doing it and I have not been rendered or droned yet.
There was a
Re: (Score:2)
In that case it should be very easy for you to name one.
Please try to make it one of, if not the, strongest you can come up with. Just to save time.
"Godless - Obama attends church so this makes no sense"
What on earth does attending church have to do with G_d?
"So then are you doing something more than just high-fiving conservatives on slashdot?"
I've been consciously trying to save the R
I doubt it (Score:1)
The grounds for impeaching GWB prior to 9/11 were at least as valid as any grounds presented to date for impeaching Obama.
Given the overall lust for power of anyone cruising at federal government altitude, they'd have impeached Bush if they had any solid basis for doing so.
You seriously think that St. Albert of Gore would've held back on iota, after being denied the chance to re-write election rules in Florida? Really? Al would've hanged Bush's honor from a tree in Chad, if he could. (SWIDT?)
It's easy enough to argue that Bush was another dot in our national arc of failure, along with Obama. Take the TSA. To the Mariana Tren
Re: (Score:2)
The grounds for impeaching GWB prior to 9/11 were at least as valid as any grounds presented to date for impeaching Obama.
Given the overall lust for power of anyone cruising at federal government altitude, they'd have impeached Bush if they had any solid basis for doing so.
They passed on it out of the baseless optimism that not even someone as incompetent as Bush, paired with someone as cold-hearted as Cheney, could ruin the economy that was developed in the 90s. Had they known how wrong their hopes were, they would have gone ahead with impeaching Bush in February 2001.
But don't expect me to believe that the Democrats would've hesitated an eyeblink to impeach him, as early as taking Congress in 2006
The Democrats could not impeach Bush in 2006, as they had no spine with which to do it. Every time the Democrats dared to criticize Bush, the response from congress was either "you're helping the terrorists
Re: (Score:1)
Every time the Democrats dared to criticize Bush, the response from congress was either "you're helping the terrorists!!!!!" or "sit down, you un-American scum!!!!". The Democrats were unwilling to respond to such accusations and gave up everything they aspired to any time they came up.
Did. They. Have. The. Grounds. Or. Did. They. Not. Have. The. Grounds. For. Impeachment?
It isn't about mercy, it's about cowardice.
Utter dreck. If they were cowardly, they would not have rammed through ObamaCare on a party-line vote.
Dude, I was going to recommend a career in standup for you, but now I'm thinking you're better off on Slashdot with your pathetic false-accusation gig.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time the Democrats dared to criticize Bush, the response from congress was either "you're helping the terrorists!!!!!" or "sit down, you un-American scum!!!!". The Democrats were unwilling to respond to such accusations and gave up everything they aspired to any time they came up.
Did. They. Have. The. Grounds. Or. Did. They. Not. Have. The. Grounds. For. Impeachment?
They had at least as much ground for impeachment as are found in any of the conspiracy theories that you dedicate so much time and energy to championing. They just lacked the stones to actually push any of them.
It isn't about mercy, it's about cowardice.
Utter dreck. If they were cowardly, they would not have rammed through ObamaCare on a party-line vote.
Don't be stupid on this one. Every single "alternative to obamacare" that you have excitedly posted here on slashdot has been 90% carbon copied from the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010, with a few extra bits thrown in to make the law even more insanely profitable for the industry th
Re: (Score:1)
Don't be stupid on this one. Every single "alternative to obamacare" that you have excitedly posted here on slashdot has been 90% carbon copied from the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010, with a few extra bits thrown in to make the law even more insanely profitable for the industry that own both parties. There was nothing "rammed through". Your guys were allowed to vote against it only once their owners realized that they had enough votes for it by forcing all the democrats to vote for it (even though it was based on what you already showed was written by the conservative heritage foundation).
I was at the Kill the Bill protest. It was completely rammed through. Nancy wanted to "deem" the Affordable Care Act passed, and then didn't want a proper vote for which Representatives would be personally accountable for what they did. You're completely ignorant on this one, and I recommend you cease soiling yourself here. Unless you're really into that sort of thing. George Will recently reviewed some of the parliamentary skullduggery [washingtonpost.com] surrounding this one, if you're inclined.
Re: (Score:2)
I was at the Kill the Bill protest.
And what is that worth? Nothing. What are you going to replace it with? The same crap that's already in the bill. Killing the bill doesn't accomplish anything unless it results in replacing the bill with something better; going back is the only thing worse.
It was completely rammed through.
I know you love to reach in to the Official GOP Verbage Bin to describe processes that have outcomes that are less than 200% favorable for your party, but think about this for a minute in a logical way. Every proposal that has come from the GOP to
Re: (Score:1)
I was 13, so don't really remember that one -- but Bush ran away with the Nomination. Were you a Buchanan guy?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Killing the bill doesn't accomplish anything unless it results in replacing the bill with something better; going back is the only thing worse.
Genuinely unsure of this assertion, sir. As with Trey Gowdy's Benghazi commission, the secret to improvement is sweeping aside the no-talent rodeo clowns who've jacked things up thus far, and their debris with them.
Your party has not proposed anything different and seeks just to have their own name on the same pile.
This is true only in your rhetorical universe, sir.
You even managed to find an article at the Heritage Foundation where they admitted that this bill reflects what they wanted from "reform".
Your free-range distortions really couldn't debase your non-existent validity any further, so, soil yourself!
Re: (Score:2)
Killing the bill doesn't accomplish anything unless it results in replacing the bill with something better; going back is the only thing worse.
Genuinely unsure of this assertion, sir.
Smitty you have shared links to a variety of "obamacare alternatives". The only ones you have shared that were actually from anyone in an elected position had no significant differences from the current law.
the secret to improvement is sweeping aside the no-talent rodeo clowns who've jacked things up thus far
Your party has not proposed anything different and seeks just to have their own name on the same pile.
This is true only in your rhetorical universe, sir.
I happen to live in the universe that this planet resides in. You, sir, are in an alternate universe where taking a lousy bill, and associating it with a different name, makes it instantaneously into an excellent bill.
You even managed to find an article at the Heritage Foundation where they admitted that this bill reflects what they wanted from "reform".
...
Go back to your JE where you brought up th
Re: (Score:1)
You, sir, are in an alternate universe where taking a lousy bill, and associating it with a different name, makes it instantaneously into an excellent bill.
No amount of mental gymnastics on your part, or anyone else's, can make federal over-reach into a good idea. Which is where the GOP is likely going to destroy itself. No amount of polish can un-turd the Progressive Project.
Re: (Score:2)
You, sir, are in an alternate universe where taking a lousy bill, and associating it with a different name, makes it instantaneously into an excellent bill.
No amount of mental gymnastics on your part, or anyone else's, can make federal over-reach into a good idea.
And yet, when the Heritage Foundation proposed it first, you thought it was a Great Idea. Then the idea was associated with democrats and it became Pure Evil. You also see it as a Great Idea when it is pitched by republicans, even though it is the same. damn. thing.
Hell, you even demonstrated - repeatedly - that is is the same. damn. thing.
Which is where the GOP is likely going to destroy itself.
No, the GOP is far more likely to destroy themselves with the hypocrisy of the massive wasteful spending involved in never ending conspiracy theory investigation
Re: (Score:1)
And yet, when the Heritage Foundation proposed it first, you thought it was a Great Idea. Then the idea was associated with democrats and it became Pure Evil. You also see it as a Great Idea when it is pitched by republicans, even though it is the same. damn. thing.
What a jest! A dude at Heritage said something decades ago, and you assert that I (a) knew it at the time and (b) agreed with it.
No, Progressivism, from either the Republican or Democrat orifice, draws vacuum.
the hypocrisy of the massive wasteful spending involved in never ending conspiracy theory investigations
Coming soon: dead website!
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, when the Heritage Foundation proposed it first, you thought it was a Great Idea. Then the idea was associated with democrats and it became Pure Evil. You also see it as a Great Idea when it is pitched by republicans, even though it is the same. damn. thing.
What a jest! A dude at Heritage said something decades ago, and you assert that I (a) knew it at the time and (b) agreed with it.
When you linked to it in a JE, you praised it. That is, until I pointed out that it was indeed calling for a mandate, after which you pretended that such a thing was not said. Furthermore, it was not said "decades ago"; at most it was said not long after RomneyCare was passed. Much like so many other conservatives, you thought RomneyCare was a brilliant idea; and you end
Re: (Score:1)
And yes: if we're stupid enough to retain the 16th Amendment, then using the tax code to coerce people to do ANYTHING, e.g. buy health insurance, is an example of Progressive pencil-neck-speak.
A more CONSERVATIVE argument would be that making one single, honking-big State out of 57 has been a bad episode in our experiment in representative democracy. Woodrow Wilson laid the groundwork for Bush and Obama. If you think either tyrannical, then
Re: (Score:2)
You can always go back to the original link and actually read it.
You should really try this reading thing, you might learn something. For example, by reading it you can find that they actually did want a mandate:
My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid âoewith a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy.â
They even admit that they called for it, and then tried to justify it as "not new":
My idea was hardly new. Heritage did not invent the individual mandate.
But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s
And those are the words from the heritage foundation site that you just linked to. It's too bad you couldn't bother yourself with reading that page. Where is your JE where you linked to it before? You could have spared me this typing by going back and reading that (notice tha
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately you seem to be rather fond of a lot of the corporate hand-outs that are made possible by the tax code.
I'll tell yo what I'm really fond of: hack a bunch of brussel sprouts in half, roast until crisp in olive oil, let cool, add in bleu cheese and raisins. Mow down. Which has about as much relevance to my point as the corporate tax rate. There is nothing wrong with the tax code that can't be mended with pliers and a blow torch.
Are you trying to go Ron Paul on us here? What is it that you think is accomplished by changing that?
I don't effing know. Maybe if there wasn't money appearing from nowhere, propping up unsustainable entitlements, we'd have enough pressure on our neo-aristocracy to behave maturely? I u
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if there wasn't money appearing from nowhere, propping up unsustainable entitlements
Why do you hate the veterans so much? The largest entitlements - as demonstrated in an article discussed here not so long ago - go to large corporations and wealthy investors. We know you like those ones. The next largest ones go to benefits relating to military service - why do you want to cut those? I thought you supported the military?
If you ended federal welfare for low income earners and the unemployed today, and killed medicaid at the same time, the difference on the federal budget would be a r
Re: (Score:1)
The largest entitlements - as demonstrated in an article discussed here not so long ago - go to large corporations and wealthy investors.
No: Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid.
If you ended federal welfare for low income earners and the unemployed today, and killed medicaid at the same time, the difference on the federal budget would be a rounding error.
You could, with equal validity, quote Dr. Seuss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As I've grown to understand the evil of Progressivism, one party has been handing out candy, and the other has been refusing to tax adequately to pay for it. So there is H8 to spread around, and all the demonization of this party or that is a distraction.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll see that I pointed out our new "borrow it forward" tradition, on that link. There are any number of others supporting the point that entitlements are unsustainable.
OK, so we have determined here that you want to cut all the "entitlements", including payments to veterans, then. So why do you hate the veterans? Will you do this to all veterans, all the way back - including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc? Or only to veterans of post-Vietnam conflicts?
As I've grown to understand the evil of Progressivism, one party has been handing out candy,
If we don't "hand out candy" to encourage people to join the military, then how will you get people to come in and fight your wars? If you tell them that once they leave the military you don't give a damn what happens to th
Federalism (Score:1)
As a veteran, and Constitutional supporter, I have to admit willingness to "vote against my own interests", to the same extent that, had I come home in a body bag, my life should have been forfeit.
Except, of course, for demonizing the party that starts with a D.
Yeah. Really. [theblaze.com]
Putz.
Re: (Score:2)
the issue is that FDR's Second Bill of Rights
That argument is actually an insult to a strawman. The "Second Bill of Rights" is completely and utterly irrelevant as (amongst other reasons) it never made it further than a radio address. Your claiming that it somehow drives the direction of the current government makes as much sense as claiming that the "Axis of Evil" speech set up a series of concentration camps for the US government to indefinitely hold Iranian, Iraqi, and North Korean people without trial.
ObamaCare
Which you demonstrated clearly was a produ
Re: (Score:1)
Your claiming that it somehow drives the direction of the current government makes as much sense as claiming that the "Axis of Evil" speech set up a series of concentration camps for the US government to indefinitely hold Iranian, Iraqi, and North Korean people without trial.
Oh, I don't know: it only summarizes the entire Progressive Project, culminating in ObamaCare. Then again, the truth of a political statement can be gauged by the vehemence of your denial, so I think we've struck nerve here.
This is you asking the government to break the promises that were made to members of the military.
Did I tell you that my dad is a retired vet? The already broken promises to vets (or have you paid attention to the calls for Shinseki's [cbsnews.com] head on a charger) are such that we can dispose of your pious calls for taking care of veterans with a mere "Heh". <troll>Heck, it's almost as th
Re: (Score:2)
Your claiming that it somehow drives the direction of the current government makes as much sense as claiming that the "Axis of Evil" speech set up a series of concentration camps for the US government to indefinitely hold Iranian, Iraqi, and North Korean people without trial.
Oh, I don't know: it only summarizes the entire Progressive Project
If only such a "Project" actually was alive and well. While the Second Bill of Rights was a nice description of liberal ideals of the time, it is of no real relevance today as there are no liberals in federal government today, excepting perhaps Bernie Sanders (who is aware of how conservative in action of the democratic party has become [by intent or complacency] and calls himself an independent instead).
culminating in ObamaCare
So a handout to big business, written by a conservative special interest group, based on the celebrat
Re: (Score:1)
So a handout to big business, written by a conservative special interest group
As long as you're making stuff up, you should say that it was spoken via Ronald Reagan into a magic Telefunken U47 that etched his words via an Autonifty transcriber onto gold plates, which were buried in a field in Massachusetts by voodoo gnomes, to be dug up later and transcribed by Willard Mitt, wearing mystic Ray-Bans, into RomneyCare.
I'm just finding your crap so lacking in creativity these days.
Re: (Score:2)
So a handout to big business, written by a conservative special interest group
As long as you're making stuff up
The only one making stuff up on this matter is you. My descriptions come from actual text from your own writings.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yeah? I was using your alphabet the whole time! So there!
Were you using them in some sort of alternate language that looks like English but has opposing meanings to those agreed upon by those of us who speak English? Because English speakers will recognize that indeed the text you linked to was the Heritage Foundation admitting to wanting not only a mandate, but a mandate that is quite nearly identical to what is in the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. Furthermore they will recognize that every "alternative" plan you have linked to to date that h
Re: (Score:2)
Now, analyze the article in its fullness.
I did analyze the article in its fullness. I read it from one end to the other. You, on the other hand, apparently took only the headline and assumed that it was all the information you needed. It is really, really, easy for politicians and political groups to lie to you when all they need to do is tell you what you want to hear in the first soundbite. No wonder the Tea Party loves you so dearly, you don't stick around to hear the full message.
Re: (Score:2)
You, on the other hand, apparently took only the headline and assumed that it was all the information you needed.
Untrue
You certainly gave convincing evidence of having not read the full text. Had you actually read the full text, you would have realized that your assumptions of it - which you expressed repeatedly - were, as you said,
Untrue
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, you don't even need to admit to having posted it without reading it, just acknowledge that indeed what I quoted - directly from their
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone seen that Smitty? The Smitty I see now seems to share the same slashdot UID and nickname but none of the characteristics that drew me to include the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
...making up silly nicknames...
"President Lawnchair", and it's a horrible misnomer. d_r is very much pro Obama, he voted for him, and that's all it takes, and he still won't believe the man lied during the campaign, very much pro Obama and very much a democrat.. And Mr. Smith is still very much a partisan republican, of the more radical tea party type that would rather see the concentration of power moved to Wall Street, where it already is, actually. DC is merely a funnel.
OK I will bite. (Score:2)
It's, roughly speaking, the Muslim equivalent of Peter. Peter is historically a Christian name but no one thinks you have to be Christian to be named Peter. It's become a cultural name. You could be a Dutch Atheist or a Russian Muslim or vice versa and still be named Peter (or maybe Piotr.) And similarly Hussein (or Husayn) has become a cultural name more or less common from West Africa to Malaysia, you could be a Kenyan Muslim or a Lebanese Christian or v
Re: (Score:2)
The first person that comes to mind when I hear the name was a Palestinian Christian engineer.
The Hussein that the conspiracy theorists want you to think of first is Saddam. Yes, it is a very common name in that part of the world but the people who are desperate to find a way to throw out Obama any way possible are not concerned about that. Furthermore, the name is connected in American minds to that part of the world and to Islam; which are both things that are effective at getting people irritated here.
And being as the "saving keystrokes" argument doesn't hold water (4 keystrokes instead of
Re: (Score:1)
Then they will be disappointed with me huh?
After doing a couple google searches it looks to me likely to backfire even if you are right.
"the TLA is clearly used intentionally for the purpose of getting anti-Obama types excited."
As opposed to getting pro-Obama types excited? Because if that were the goal it would obviously be quite a success from your response.
Re: (Score:2)
"the TLA is clearly used intentionally for the purpose of getting anti-Obama types excited."
As opposed to getting pro-Obama types excited? Because if that were the goal it would obviously be quite a success from your response.
If you read the comments that I have actually written - rather than going by smitty's responses that are often written without reading my comments - you will realize what an enormous mistake it is to try to categorize me as a "pro-Obama" type. I have disagreed with more of the laws that Obama has signed (including the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010) than not. Smitty is just desperate to try to shove me in to the "leftist" mold that he believes anyone who is more liberal than (the conservat
Re: (Score:2)
How are you defining conservative?
"The only reason I have voted for Obama is because the people who have ran against him were actively trying to force me out of my job and onto unemployment for the rest of my life. "
How so?
Re: (Score:2)
"I look at the actual data of what Obama has done - ie, signed - as president, and I see him for what he is - the most conservative president our country has ever had. He is demonstrably more conservative than Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Reagan, or Nixon."
How are you defining conservative?
I am defining conservative as someone who seeks to conserve the fiscal and power structure of this country (ie, conserving as much power and wealth in the hands of those who have the most already). I am defining a conservative as someone who favors corporations over individuals.
"The only reason I have voted for Obama is because the people who have ran against him were actively trying to force me out of my job and onto unemployment for the rest of my life. "
How so?
The science research budget would have been decimated even more so under McCain or Romney than it already has been under Obama and Bush. I would have had no hope for a career in this country even though I have lived here my entir
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, by that definition we have had an unbroken string of conservative governments for the last century.
But that definition is rather wildly different from the definition you would find someone that actually identifies as conservative would give.
"The science research budget would have been decimated even more so under McCain or Romney than it already has been under Obama and Bush. "
Not that I disagree that McCain or Romney w
Re: (Score:2)
But that definition is rather wildly different from the definition you would find someone that actually identifies as conservative would give.
People who call themsevles conservative talk about what Ayn Rand says their ideal conservative universe would accomplish. I am a person rooted in reality, and I define a conservative based on what conservatives actually do as politicians. We have been subjected to conservative economic and social plans in this country for decades (if not longer). I will say that fustakrakich has a good point in that there is nobody of note who is running to significantly alter the course of this ship, everyone just wants
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason I have voted for Obama is because the people who have ran against him were actively trying to force me out of my job and onto unemployment for the rest of my life.
Bullshit. Republicans are all about creating jobs.
How were you able to stop laughing long enough to be able to write that sentence?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, actually, it goes well with it. This bill makes a bunch of short-term jobs, and billions of dollars in short-term profits for people who are already rolling in
Re: (Score:1)
You came up with one example of an action widely supported by conservatives that will create a bunch of 2-3 year jobs and then lay off the bulk of them.
Seriously? You fail to grasp that putting in a pipeline and lowering energy costs across the whole economy will have salubrious effect? I mean, I realize you're an ideologue, but I didn't think you completely stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
could
maybe
somehow
connect
capital
to new
refinery
construction
the way
oxygen
doesn't
seem to
connect
with your
brain cells.
Although being as it is another giant corporate handout, I'm really quite surprised that Obama hasn't gotten on board.
I think Overlord Buffet told BHO 'no'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
See, the way this works is that you don't let the refinery owners behave as a cartel, and let the fact that there is a fat pile of profit to be made for building more refining capacity drive construction.
Heck, you can probably bring up safety standards and help the environment, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, there is this magic thing out there called a "market".
You call it magic if you like. I call it a bullshit excuse to abuse consumers and employees to maximize profit. The actual record of its actions support my view more than yours.
See, the way this works is that you don't let the refinery owners behave as a cartel,
Can you name a presidential administration who has ever prevented that? Ever? No, I cannot either. And don't try to tell me that we've ever had - or ever will have - a candidate from the GOP that would prevent the oil industry from behaving as a cartel.
and let the fact that there is a fat pile of profit to be made for building more refining capacity drive construction
Why bother building a refinery when you cannot access the crude?
Re: (Score:1)
There was your mistake in this exchange. d_r is indeed completely stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
Stupid is as stupid does
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
How about a beer?
I'll drink to that, mah brutha!
Re: (Score:1)
You call it magic if you like. I call it a bullshit excuse to abuse consumers and employees to maximize profit.
Which, in a properly functioning market, should kill your business. Especially in the age of social media.
Can you name a presidential administration who has ever prevented that? Ever?
Can you point to the chain of reasoning showing that this is the President's explicit job?
Re: (Score:2)
You call it magic if you like. I call it a bullshit excuse to abuse consumers and employees to maximize profit.
Which, in a properly functioning market, should kill your business. Especially in the age of social media.
What does social media have to do with it? All the companies in social media are out to make a buck as well. The results of their work beyond profit is not within their concern.
Can you name a presidential administration who has ever prevented that? Ever?
Can you point to the chain of reasoning showing that this is the President's explicit job?
I may have misread you, but earlier you said [slashdot.org]:
the way this works is that you don't let the refinery owners behave as a cartel
Perhaps by "you", you were referring to someone other than the federal government? Being as you are asking the federal government to once again cater to the private businesses, I thought that we were still talking about the federal government (being as it is not in the interest of big
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll go ahead and rephrase the question anyways, even though I don't expect you to answer.
Being as the Keystone XL that you are trying to claim as the cure for everything that ills us will be private property - property of the oil companies in particular - who is it that you want to exert power over them to force them to allow others to use it to move oil from Canada to the gulf? And as a bonus que
Re: (Score:1)
A better troll would be to ask why Congress doesn't just attach permission as an amendment to some must-sign legislation. The answer is that Boehner is a loser. Hope we have a different speaker in the next Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Exactly what property is up for seizure?
Any land owner whose property stands in the way of your keystone XL pipeline, that is who is up for seeing their property up for seizure. If this goes through there will be no choice for those property owners, because of course profit is far more important than freedom, right?
I say: none.
Naturally by not reading any "news" that doesn't come pre-bundled in your worldview you will come to that conclusion. You probably got that from the same person who convinced you that Obama is a closet Commie Jihadist.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You haven't explained how the Project Which Has Not Yet Been Approved is offering a threat to any specific property.
Once again you conveniently evade the issue [washingtonpost.com]... and you claim to defend private property, that's funny.
Re: (Score:1)
Enjoy your popcorn.