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!

About that 'not one smidgen of corruption'

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about a month and a half ago

User Journal 79

Yeah:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/190347/
That was quite a lawyerly slap in the face. "The dog ate two years of our email" nonsense isn't flying. I guess maybe Rachel Maddow and some of the slack-jawed sycophants on here are buying this steamer. It's all of a piece with Benghazi, ObamaCare, and Berdahl. What a river of lies.Yeah:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/190347/
That was quite a lawyerly slap in the face. "The dog ate two years of our email" nonsense isn't flying. I guess maybe Rachel Maddow and some of the slack-jawed sycophants on here are buying this steamer. It's all of a piece with Benghazi, ObamaCare, and Berdahl. What a river of lies.

cancel ×

79 comments

and that article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47254837)

granted, your list of articles that you don't want to read is lengthy and growing. however the article that you referred to recently on scott walker specifically mentions that his group claimed to have lost a large number of correspondences that were supposed to be public information. so again why is it ok for a governor from your camp to do it, but unimaginably bad when someone does it who is not from your group?

Re:and that article... (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a month and a half ago | (#47256105)

METADATA

Re:and that article... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47256383)

You met a data, but did you get the digits?

Re:and that article... (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about a month and a half ago | (#47257235)

so again why is it ok for a governor from your camp to do it

Funny, I haven't seen Smitty defending Walker...

but unimaginably bad when someone does it who is not from your group?

It's a matter of scale.

Or is stealing 1 million dollars not worse than stealing 10 dollars?

Or are you such a jackbooted brownshirt wannabe that you AGREE with the Obama administration that it's OK to use the IRS to target political rivals?

While I'm at it: Why was Ben Carson audited after his breakfast speech?

Also, do you REALLY think Lois Lerner is behind this or is she yet another meat puppet for Obama and Holder?

Are you aware that when the fascists win, it's useful idiots like yourself that they eliminate first?

Re:and that article... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47257913)

I think Walker is a fairly straight player. He's standing up to union thugs; hence the smears. The Left, as a group, is assumed liars until conclusively proven truthful by several respected sources.

Re:and that article... (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about a month and a half ago | (#47258061)

The left excels at this -- they love to say dumb shit like "Sarah Palin was investigated for ethics violations 28 times while Governor of Alaska".

... and fail to mention that she was cleared all 28 times. For the left, it's the "gravity" of the accusations that matter, not whether the accused is innocent or guilty.

With that in mind... (with apologies to our friend Ace as I'm paraphrasing him): Ace over at Ace of Spades HQ reminds people that there's not been any investigation as to whether or not Harry Reid is a pederast. We the people need to know. After all, the gravity of the accusation instantly means we MUST INVESTIGATE.

Re:and that article... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47258475)

I had fun with that Reid meme [theothermccain.com] .

Re:and that article... (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a month ago | (#47287311)

Warren Zevon was sure cute back in the day, before getting fat. And what a voice.

Re:and that article... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47287575)

Are you referring to Linda Ronstadt? She covered Zevon, not the reverse.

Re:and that article... (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a month ago | (#47287813)

Wasn't Linda's only song about a werewolf?

(I'm trying to say who could be expected to know that that was a Warren Zevon song. It's like how many people know the Eagle's "Take It Easy" was a Jackson Browne song, or that Manfred Mann's "Blinded by the Light" was a Bruce Springsteen song. I mean when all of these originals were pretty much examples of lifeless suckitude, in comparison at least.)

Re:and that article... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47287995)

Stop being such an excitable boy.

Re:and that article... (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a month ago | (#47290099)

(In all seriousness, I do recognize that as one of my flaws, and that I'd fit in better for example in the workplace if I learned better to hide that about myself. (Because I think going forward it's mostly about fitting in, and not how well you can do the job.) But don't expect me to hold back here! :)

Re:and that article... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47288229)

Well, it's a good thing she cut and run, or it all might have ended differently. Goes to show she can't keep a commitment... Or she was "eased" out by her "sponsors" desire to rid themselves of too much unwanted attention to their affairs. Either way, she has proven to be the same as the rest, crooked as a three dollar bill. Enjoy your tyranny. You brought it on yourselves.

Re:and that article... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47288719)

Either way, she has proven to be the same as the rest, crooked as a three dollar bill.

Wait: in what way has SP ever been shown crooked? I think you're recreationally smearing here.

Re:and that article... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47288795)

She abandoned her post, for money... and all positions of authority and the people that assume them are rightfully subject to recreational smears. Thing is, you need to be an equal opportunity smearer. Hint hint..

Re:and that article... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47289149)

I don't think your assertion gives a fair appraisal of the context.

Re:and that article... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47289221)

Context is superficial. You fail to give proper appraisal to the fundamentals. You use "context" to validate your bias. You want power, you gotta take the punches.

Re:and that article... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47289491)

Fair enough, "public life" and all that. Can you at least admit the possibility that the Alaska laws supported a denial of service attack, or is YOUR bias over-achieving?

Re:and that article... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47290605)

Can you at least admit the possibility that the Alaska laws supported a denial of service attack...?

No

Re:and that article... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47291855)

Ah, well, so much for your claim of being some kind of independent observer, then.

Re:and that article... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47293277)

Like you say:

Meh...

Who said that? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47258849)

I'm not familiar with the

not one smidgen of corruption

Line from the title of your JE here. A google search on it is inconclusive the way you wrote it. Is someone being paraphrased or is this a new line from someone else?

Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47259053)

Obama's precise quote was: "Not even a smidgen of corruption [dailycaller.com] "
FWIW, I don't think that the IRS scandal is any more corrupt than the rest of the administration.

Re:Excuse me (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47259561)

Obama's precise quote was: "Not even a smidgen of corruption"

Thank you for the clarification. If the accusations levied by certain conservatives of all democrats being hard-core devout Obama worshipers was true then I would expect that close variations of the line would have come from other democrats at other times, so I wanted to make sure I knew who you were talking about.

FWIW, I don't think that the IRS scandal is any more corrupt than the rest of the administration.

So then you want to spend billions of dollars worth of time and money on investigating this in hopes of ending the administration early as well?

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47259639)

Hard to tell. It seems as though our entire Constitutional order is kind of ending with a dull 'plop'. What difference, at this point, does it make?

Re:Excuse me (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47259847)

That defeatist attitude does not make sense in light of the fact that the conservatives in the federal government have gotten the vast overwhelming majority of everything they have asked for from the federal government.

It also does not make sense in light of the fact that you are determined to dedicate unfathomable volumes of time and treasure towards bringing the current administration to an early end. If the government were indeed guaranteed to fail regardless then why bother trying to bring down the current guy to install your favorite in his place? If your prophecy were correct you would only be installing the man who would have the distinction of being the last POTUS.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47260759)

. . .in light of the fact that the conservatives in the federal government have gotten the vast overwhelming majority of everything they have asked for from the federal government.

Can you please elaborate upon this famous 'fact'. I'm curious which 'conservatives' you mean, and precisely what they have 'asked for'. I think that Americans have been idiots for several generations, and may be reaping what they've sown, but's that's not quite the same thing.

. . .determined to dedicate unfathomable volumes of time and treasure towards bringing the current administration to an early end. If the government were indeed guaranteed to fail regardless then why bother trying to bring down the current guy to install your favorite in his place?

I don't think reform-minded Americans have spent even a fraction of the boodle that's been senselessly blown on General Motors, the Stimulus, or ObamaCare, to name three major Obama disasters. I actually agree with you, to a point: the reformers should spend more time winning elections, in addition to the rear-guard action of halting the rodeo clown's depravities. Sorry; a century of Progressive idiocy won't be undone faster than a couple decades, and not without the aforementioned 'plop'.

Re:Excuse me (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47262129)

. . .in light of the fact that the conservatives in the federal government have gotten the vast overwhelming majority of everything they have asked for from the federal government.

Can you please elaborate upon this famous 'fact'

Conservatives wanted lower income taxes for the wealthy, and Obama signed off on bigger tax cuts than any that Reagan ever dared propose.

Conservatives resisted health care reform, so Obama signed off on a giant corporate give-away to the lobby that owns more senators and representatives on both sides of the aisle than any others.

Conservatives resisted closing Guantanamo, so it hasn't happened.

Conservatives resisted ending the war in Afghanistan, so we are still there.

Conservatives resisted doing anything to make college more accessible to lower-income Americans, so we have the same broken system.

Conservatives wanted to see the PATRIOT act continued on, so we see it continue on.

How many more examples would you like?

I'm curious which 'conservatives' you mean

Conservative, in the sense of any elected official in the federal government who has an (R) after their name, or anyone who supports them enthusiastically.

and precisely what they have 'asked for'

See above. How many more examples would you like?

. . .determined to dedicate unfathomable volumes of time and treasure towards bringing the current administration to an early end. If the government were indeed guaranteed to fail regardless then why bother trying to bring down the current guy to install your favorite in his place?

I don't think reform-minded Americans have spent even a fraction of the boodle

Thankfully, lip-service is relatively cheap. Yeah, conservatives haven't spent much so far on impeaching Obama, but that is because they haven't started any procedures yet. The tab will skyrocket if they actually do.

More so, anyone who is genuinely "reform-minded" should focus on more effective ways to deal with the situation. Wasting billions on impeachment when we are this close to the end - arguably much closer to the natural end of the term than to any conceivable end for an impeachment trial - would not be a useful act of reform.

senselessly blown on General Motors

I understand that you see job preservation as terrible because you hate working class Americans. However, the federal government has actually been paid back by GM - and ahead of schedule at that. I don't recall the war in Iraq ever paying us back in the ways that the administration who started it promised it would.

the Stimulus

I'm not sure what you have against people who work.

ObamaCare

... and, back to your war against reading we go, apparently.

the reformers should spend more time winning elections

Then go out and help on a campaign. Stop advocating for senselessly wasting money on an impeachment that won't change anything.

in addition to the rear-guard action of halting the rodeo clown's depravities

You just negated everything you said by going back to the "rodeo clown" bullshit. Stick to one side of the story, please.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47263293)

Conservatives wanted lower income taxes for the wealthy, and Obama signed off on bigger tax cuts than any that Reagan ever dared propose.

Maybe we can agree, irrespective of the IRS scandal, that the existing tax system is a wash, and we need something shorter & clearer. The irony is that we have crusaders like Her Majesty wailing about the need to tax the rich [cbsnews.com] , while pumping the loopholes like mad. But that's the sort of prevarication one expects from our neo-aristocracy.

Conservatives resisted health care reform, so Obama signed off on a giant corporate give-away to the lobby that owns more senators and representatives on both sides of the aisle than any others.

I mean, your Orwellian claptrap is ruin. What sane person wants your ruin?

Conservatives resisted closing Guantanamo, so it hasn't happened.

I'm sorry, have elections had consequences?

Conservatives resisted ending the war in Afghanistan, so we are still there.

Hey, didn't the no-talent rodeo clown campaign on the 'Stan as the correct war?

Conservatives resisted doing anything to make college more accessible to lower-income Americans, so we have the same broken system.

The only thing that can improve college access is getting the federal government out of education, which was and remains a 10th Amendment violation.

Conservatives wanted to see the PATRIOT act continued on, so we see it continue on.

Was it a party-line vote like the Affordable Care Act, please?

How many more examples would you like?

It was silly of me to expect other than crap from you.

I'm curious which 'conservatives' you mean

Conservative, in the sense of any elected official in the federal government who has an (R) after their name, or anyone who supports them enthusiastically.

So you say 'Conservative' where I would say 'Progressive'. Fine.

. . .determined to dedicate unfathomable volumes of time and treasure towards bringing the current administration to an early end. If the government were indeed guaranteed to fail regardless then why bother trying to bring down the current guy to install your favorite in his place?

I don't think reform-minded Americans have spent even a fraction of the boodle

Thankfully, lip-service is relatively cheap. Yeah, conservatives haven't spent much so far on impeaching Obama, but that is because they haven't started any procedures yet. The tab will skyrocket if they actually do.
More so, anyone who is genuinely "reform-minded" should focus on more effective ways to deal with the situation. Wasting billions on impeachment when we are this close to the end - arguably much closer to the natural end of the term than to any conceivable end for an impeachment trial - would not be a useful act of reform.

I kind of agree with you, from the standpoint that BHO is pure concrete galoshes for the Democrats. The more of their crypto-Marxist twaddle he blows up and takes with him, the better.

senselessly blown on General Motors

I understand that you see job preservation as terrible because you hate working class Americans. However, the federal government has actually been paid back by GM - and ahead of schedule at that. I don't recall the war in Iraq ever paying us back in the ways that the administration who started it promised it would.

Look at your cheap deflections! GM is about crappy domestic policy, not crappy foreign policy. And I'm all for the workers, and dead-set against the UAW.

the Stimulus

I'm not sure what you have against people who work.

What I have is a useless President. Every time that clown 'pivots to jobs' another fistful get whacked. Stand by for him to stand up and request another Keynesian coke-hit to keep him buzzed until Her Majesty arrives.

ObamaCare

... and, back to your war against reading we go, apparently.

Should I read that liar, Dana Milbank?

the reformers should spend more time winning elections

Then go out and help on a campaign. Stop advocating for senselessly wasting money on an impeachment that won't change anything.

Now who's the illiterate one? I've been arguing the unlikelihood of impeachment for a long time, and actively against it for the last few weeks. See above in this reply.

in addition to the rear-guard action of halting the rodeo clown's depravities

You just negated everything you said by going back to the "rodeo clown" bullshit. Stick to one side of the story, please.

Rodeo clown, rodeo clown, rodeo clown. Apparently the high percentage of validity contained in that description bothers you. Rodeo clown.

Re:Excuse me (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47263755)

I've been arguing the unlikelihood of impeachment for a long time

Really? I see you bring up another conspiracy theory that you want congress to spend billions of dollars investigating at least every week. If you aren't doing it for impeachment, then what are you doing it for?

and actively against it for the last few weeks

Please, if you can, show me an example of where you have been "actively against" impeachment. I haven't seen it but I don't read every single comment you write here. I have seen a vast number of comments from you over the past 7 or so years where you have been rabidly in favor of impeaching Obama, but I do acknowledge that some people do have some ability to change.

Apparently the high percentage of hypocrisy contained in that description catches your attention in how it completely deflates smitty's arguments

Fixed that for 'ya. You're welcome.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47264071)

I see you bring up another conspiracy theory that you want congress to spend billions of dollars investigating at least every week. If you aren't doing it for impeachment, then what are you doing it for?

Um, truth?

Please, if you can, show me an example of where you have been "actively against" impeachment.

I'm really more "pro reform [slashdot.org] ". To your point, I've never explicitly said I am "actively against" impeachment. I figure, after this November's GOP wave, there is going to be some sort of circus, which the Democrats will try to turn away from the truth and into some manufactured raaaaacism screed. They need such a move to regain the tempo in advance of Her Majesty's coronation in 2016.
None of which is meant to proclaim Obama's innocence of anything.

Re:Excuse me (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47264645)

I see you bring up another conspiracy theory that you want congress to spend billions of dollars investigating at least every week. If you aren't doing it for impeachment, then what are you doing it for?

Um, truth?

Based on your writings, you seem to have a very specific idea of what "truth" means. It appears that for you, truth is only fulfilled when a conclusion is 110% damning towards a democrat. You have rejected investigations that came back 90% damning and insisted on spending more federal resources on new investigations into "truth".

But really, if all you want is truth, then what's the hurry? You are trying to get all these investigations through while Obama is still in office, which further supports the notion that you want them used as vehicles of impeachment. If you really wanted truth - and not just fuel for your fire - you would not be such a cheerleader and you would actually be looking at evidence (instead you have chosen to parrot right wing blogs on the matter).

Please, if you can, show me an example of where you have been "actively against" impeachment.

To your point, I've never explicitly said I am "actively against" impeachment.

Thank you.

I figure, after this November's GOP wave

That's a rather bold statement. I remember plenty of people who forecasted that in 2012 as well.

some manufactured raaaaacism screed

You haven't provided any meaningful evidence of this actually being a party strategy so far, or even one that is often used by elected officials. I expect that if I were to level an accusation that everything from Glenn Beck is official GOP strategy you would call bullshit, hence I am calling the same on you (again) now.

in advance of Her Majesty's coronation in 2016

If you are so certain that will happen in 2016, then why bother doing anything at all in 2014? And for that matter, why bother launching any investigations into the Obama administration if you are so certain that someone who would have the power - and the desire - to excuse him of any wrongdoing is right around the corner?

None of which is meant to proclaim Obama's innocence of anything.

A very similar phrase [wikipedia.org] comes to mind here - coincidence?

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47268465)

Truth is God, and connecting the phrase "proclaim Obama's innocence of anything" with anything other than his stated Christian faith is completely on you.

Re:Excuse me (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47288191)

I'm really more "pro reform [slashdot.org] "

Oh, what's this, the Jim Carney game? You are not "pro reform [slashdot.org] " You may now return to your regularly scheduled circle-jerk... I am no longer aroused...

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47288727)

Meh

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47264089)

One refinement: I wasn't able to find, in the last three months, a /. reply where I'd pointed out the futility of impeachment.
I've made the point on other blogs and Twitter, though. They're just outside the scope of this conversation.

Re:Excuse me (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47264723)

One refinement: I wasn't able to find, in the last three months, a /. reply where I'd pointed out the futility of impeachment.

If I may be extra verbose, then, I would like to ask a follow up question (or two).

Are you, at this time - and for the duration of the Obama administration - against starting impeachment?

In other words, if Boehner were to brief the press this afternoon stating that he intends to start an impeachment tomorrow, would you be opposed, or in favor of that?

I'm not trying to be pedantic here (even if it may look otherwise). I just want to get a read on your actual feelings on the matter. I do not read your comments elsewhere so if your opinion has changed and you haven't stated it here on slashdot I am unaware of it. Up until today every comment I have seen from you that has regarded impeachment in any way has indicated your enthusiastic support of it.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47268591)

Are you, at this time - and for the duration of the Obama administration - against starting impeachment?

I should think Obama's record the best answer for this question. Do you think there is evidence that he has deviated from his oath of office?
For my part, I'm emotionally past the question. If you yourself think that BHO was born in Kenya, then maybe you should demand his ouster. I'm not wasting my breath.

he intends to start an impeachment tomorrow, would you be opposed, or in favor of that?

For which of Obama's alleged indiscretions would you recommend this procedure? Or, could a composite series of charges be proffered? I really can't be too specific until you tell me what charge(s) you think worthy.

Up until today every comment I have seen from you that has regarded impeachment in any way has indicated your enthusiastic support of it.

I suppose I was enthusiastic until the 2012 election. However, think of that election as a quasi-referendum on the topic; the fact that Obama won re-election* pretty well indicates that not enough Americans felt strongly enough to deliver his ouster. Now I'm ambivalent.
Conversely, the jacked up pile of frack since 2012 that is Obama's third two year period does not bode well for anyone not named Soros. The question moves to whether Obama can deliver as much damage to Her Majesty in the last two years as he did in 2008. If there really IS to be an impeachment, wouldn't it be funnier if the people calling for it were Harry and Nancy, in the hopes of restoring some shred of credibility to the party of Sandra Fluke?

Re:Excuse me (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47268933)

he intends to start an impeachment tomorrow, would you be opposed, or in favor of that?

For which of Obama's alleged indiscretions would you recommend this procedure? Or, could a composite series of charges be proffered? I really can't be too specific until you tell me what charge(s) you think worthy.

What I think is not important to this question at all. I am asking what you think. I just want to know, are you truly against impeachment, or are you waffling about? You either do want to see impeachment happen, or you do not.

Up until today every comment I have seen from you that has regarded impeachment in any way has indicated your enthusiastic support of it.

I suppose I was enthusiastic until the 2012 election. However, think of that election as a quasi-referendum on the topic; the fact that Obama won re-election* pretty well indicates that not enough Americans felt strongly enough to deliver his ouster. Now I'm ambivalent.

Your own comments do not support that. You were championing impeachment well after the 2012 election. Furthermore, impeachment does not inherently reflect the wishes of the American public, as congress has the right to bring about impeachment. Whether it reflects the wishes of the American public does not matter.

Which gets back to the question that i posed directly to you, that you opted not to answer. Do you, or do you not, support impeachment of President Obama?

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47268967)

You either do want to see impeachment happen, or you do not.

I would love to see some justice, but I'm not sure it's attainable. Were Obama innocent, he should welcome an exoneration. THEN the GOP could be both raaaaacist and wrong, amIright? The simple truth is that I care as much about an impeachment proceeding as I do the question of the lat/long of his mother at his birth--What. Difference. Does/Would. It. Make?
Does it offend you if I'm kind of past caring?

Re:Excuse me (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47269047)

You either do want to see impeachment happen, or you do not.

I would love to see some justice, but I'm not sure it's attainable.

Justice for what, exactly? How would a trial of Obama in any way be capable of bringing justice? You have already shown you don't care about independent investigations anyways. If an impeachment trial on your first favorite conspiracy theory came back not guilty, would you then start by claiming that it was somehow wrong and warrants a redo (in spite of traditional interpretations of double jeopardy), or would you jump straight to your next favorite conspiracy theory ad nauseum?

Were Obama innocent, he should welcome an exoneration.

I can't imagine a situation where you would ever accept the possibility of him being "innocent", so that doesn't really matter. More so, why should we have a trial when there is no meaningful evidence to support a conviction anyways?

THEN the GOP could be both raaaaacist and wrong, amIright?

No. They would be partisan and wrong. You keep trying to get me to call you a racist. I don't know why you can't seem to learn anything from repeatedly failing at that.

Does it offend you if I'm kind of past caring?

The first 80% of your message does not support the notion of you being in any way "past caring", unless of course you mean you are past caring about the protections of this country's justice system.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47269857)

You have already shown you don't care about independent investigations anyways.

I'm not sure anything resembling an "independent" investigation has occurred for any of the myriad of scandals in the last five years.

I can't imagine a situation where you would ever accept the possibility of him being "innocent"

I don't know. Maybe. . . .BE innocent?

THEN the GOP could be both raaaaacist and wrong, amIright?

You keep trying to get me to call you a racist.

The ski jump logic got wild there. I am pretty sure I'm NOT the GOP, and this is a hypothetical future case where somebody else would be disagreeing with Obama (the definition of racism [senate.gov] , to some). How, exactly, that amounts to YOU calling anyone racist is unclear. Though, admittedly, in keeping with your style.

unless of course you mean you are past caring about the protections of this country's justice system.

The justice system, too will require rebuilding if there is to be any traditional sense of justice regained. Like traditional marriage, justice has been taking major hits for many decades. Lord have mercy.

Re:Excuse me (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47270545)

You have already shown you don't care about independent investigations anyways.

I'm not sure anything resembling an "independent" investigation has occurred for any of the myriad of scandals in the last five years.

One, it is impossible for you to credibly deny the independence of investigations that you refuse to read. Your understanding of the investigations to date is no better than your understanding of the Communist Manifesto or the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

Two, if you arbitrarily discard investigations whose results you haven't read by claiming they are not "independent" - apparently based only on the fact that the blog posts you read about them indicate that they do not agree with all of your favorite assumptions and conspiracy theories relating to the events they investigated - you give yourself a 100% illogical label that you could apply to every other investigation to the end of time. This, of course, is something that someone with your depth of hatred would happily use in an attempt to justify endless prosecution in complete disregard for the legal protections granted to all people in this country.

I can't imagine a situation where you would ever accept the possibility of him being "innocent"

I don't know. Maybe. . . .BE innocent?

Your writings support the notion that there is no situation in which you would be willing to accept him being innocent. The fact that you refuse to describe how he could be proven innocent supports further that no such situation exists and that you would happily prosecute to the end of time (or treasure, whichever runs out first).

THEN the GOP could be both raaaaacist and wrong, amIright?

You keep trying to get me to call you a racist.

How, exactly, that amounts to YOU calling anyone racist is unclear.

You have made a great number of attempts over the years to get me to call you that. I have not once done so. You have also made many attempts to claim that applying that label is a standard play for democrats, and have failed miserably in those attempts.

unless of course you mean you are past caring about the protections of this country's justice system.

The justice system, too will require rebuilding if there is to be any traditional sense of justice regained. Like traditional marriage, justice has been taking major hits for many decades. Lord have mercy.

So if protection against double jeopardy no longer matters, what else no longer matters to you in "rebuilding" the justice system? Do protections against cruel and unusual punishment go out the window as well? How about 5th amendment protections? Miranda rights? Right to a trial by jury?

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47270597)

I don't know. Maybe. . . .BE innocent?

Your writings support the notion that there is no situation in which you would be willing to accept him being innocent. The fact that you refuse to describe how he could be proven innocent

Help me understand how a man who is actually innocent could ever be guilty. Sure, there will always be liars who hurl accusations (see, for example, statements on this website by people you know) but innocence is an absolute state. It's almost as though you kind of suspect the President may be guilty, and you're more interested in gaming the system, as with unreliable investigations, than you are in proving innocence and providing justice for the slain.

You have made a great number of attempts over the years to get me to call you that. I have not once done so.

I have not once done so. Let me double down. I have never once sought to manipulate your speech. In fact, I have never attempted to coerce directly anyone to say anything. Which is not the same as saying I've never encouraged honesty, nor attempted to get you to speak truthfully, nor failed to admit where I (in this JE thread, for example) have veered into inaccuracy. Integrity, dude: it's what's for breakfast. Not force feeding you, but do eat up. Please.

So if protection against double jeopardy no longer matters, what else no longer matters to you in "rebuilding" the justice system? Do protections against cruel and unusual punishment go out the window as well? How about 5th amendment protections? Miranda rights? Right to a trial by jury?

Are you in creative writing mode again? I assure you: I'm not (though it sounds as though you may be) talking about the Full Clinton [hotair.com] .

Re:Excuse me (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47272433)

innocence is an absolute state

So then how do you determine that state? How many trials would you go through to establish innocence? You don't seem to be the least bit concerned about double jeopardy anymore, amongst other things. Furthermore our justice system has never required the charged to prove innocence. Why do you feel that your conspiracy theories justify discarding this pillar of our system?

It's almost as though you kind of suspect the President may be guilty

I have not yet seen any evidence to support a notion of him being guilty of any of your favorite conspiracy theories. If you had any evidence I would be interested in seeing it, although the fact that you have never bothered to show any suggests to me that indeed you don't have any.

with unreliable investigations

How can you possibly call an investigation unreliable when you haven't bothered to read the results?

proving innocence

Again, why must innocence suddenly be proven? Such a criteria has never been part of our justice system before.

providing justice for the slain.

That is a completely disconnected idea. If you were to actually read the published results of the investigations that have already happened, you would know that there is plenty of blame to go around. None of the blame will ever bring back the dead, though; what kind of "justice" are you trying to find? In other words, how do the dead benefit from discarding the justice system and throwing the POTUS out of Washington?

You have made a great number of attempts over the years to get me to call you that. I have not once done so.

I have not once done so. Let me double down. I have never once sought to manipulate your speech. In fact, I have never attempted to coerce directly anyone to say anything. Which is not the same as saying I've never encouraged honesty, nor attempted to get you to speak truthfully, nor failed to admit where I (in this JE thread, for example) have veered into inaccuracy

Really? Considering how often you try to claim that the race card is played dogmatically, and you try to group everyone who is not as conservative as you as a "democrat", it is hard to see how you are not trying to force that label on me. If you aren't trying to come up with a way to justify your 100% fact-free belief in my desire to use that label, then why do you bring it up so often?

Integrity, dude: it's what's for breakfast. Not force feeding you, but do eat up. Please.

I suggest you try some yourself. You are not getting anywhere with your obsession over the use of the term racism.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47275029)

So then how do you determine that state? How many trials would you go through to establish innocence?

How would the absolute nature of innocence be affected in any way by a trial, if one were innocent?

I have not yet seen any evidence to support a notion of him being guilty of any of your favorite conspiracy theories.

Which is not the same thing as saying you know the President to be innocent.

How can you possibly call an investigation unreliable when you haven't bothered to read the results?

One obvious way is to note that, were any of the previous whitewashings, in fact, adequate, there would not be further investigations.

Again, why must innocence suddenly be proven? Such a criteria has never been part of our justice system before.

Our political system has never seen the likes of the IRS suppression of dissent, and the Benghazi suppression of truth that have, unfortunately, clouded the outcome of the 2012 election. Precedent must be set, sir.

providing justice for the slain.

That is a completely disconnected idea.

How shall I judge them disconnected? All I have is the river of prevarication that you represent, and I have to tell you that your every weasel word does nothing to support your cause.

try to claim that the race card is played dogmatically, and you try to group everyone who is not as conservative as you as a "democrat", it is hard to see how you are not trying to force that label on me. If you aren't trying to come up with a way to justify your 100% fact-free belief in my desire to use that label, then why do you bring it up so often

I guess you'd have to confine yourself to simple, historically factual, dispassionate, balanced, collegial arguments. The Left spent the last decade carpet bombing Bush in particular, and conservatives in general, so badly with rhetoric. You won. You got the rodeo clown into office and re-elected. And now your rhetorical chickens are coming home to roost. It should indeed bother you that the Left's (politicians and media) countless false accusations of are called out and attacked. This IS racism, and it's done to divide Americans and amass power. Be honest about it; let's purge the country of falsehood, and build a meritocracy.

Re:Excuse me (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47278793)

So then how do you determine that state? How many trials would you go through to establish innocence?

How would the absolute nature of innocence be affected in any way by a trial, if one were innocent?

Considering the fairy tale circumstances that are included in your allegations against him - and the impossibility of disproving them - there is no way for the POTUS to prove innocence. Your allegations are 100% faith based, and proving them to be false is no easier than proving there to be no deity.

I have not yet seen any evidence to support a notion of him being guilty of any of your favorite conspiracy theories.

Which is not the same thing as saying you know the President to be innocent.

Our justice system is based on the presumption of innocence when charged with a crime. You are advocating for up-ending that for this case. You certainly do not know the president to be guilty of anything, yet you want him treated as such. You also refuse to define a condition in which you would be willing to accept him as anything other than guilty, which indicates that you would never be satisfied with any other outcome at a trial.

In other words, how could Obama possibly prove that he does not have the Oval Office Time Machine that your conspiracy theory requires him to have in order to pull off the heinous crime that you want us to believe he did on September 11 2012? You could just say that he made his final trip to the day the machine was created and stopped its construction in order to interfere with the investigation, and then further down the rabbit hole we go.

How can you possibly call an investigation unreliable when you haven't bothered to read the results?

One obvious way is to note that, were any of the previous whitewashings, in fact, adequate, there would not be further investigations.

Under what criteria can you call them inadequate when you have not read any of the findings from the previous investigations? Just because they did not lead to the immediate extralegal removal of the POTUS does not mean they were inadequate.

Again, why must innocence suddenly be proven? Such a criteria has never been part of our justice system before.

Precedent must be set, sir.

So then are you saying that from now on, you want every trial in this country to be based on the presumption of guilt - the polar opposite of the foundation of our justice system - or is this a special case that only applies when the person on trial has a (D) after their name?

providing justice for the slain.

That is a completely disconnected idea.

How shall I judge them disconnected?

It is disconnected because the POTUS did not kill the Americans in Benghazi himself. It is disconnected because nothing that anyone could ever do to the POTUS after September 12 2012 would have any difference to what happened. It is disconnected because mismanagement of military resources is not an impeachable offense.

try to claim that the race card is played dogmatically, and you try to group everyone who is not as conservative as you as a "democrat", it is hard to see how you are not trying to force that label on me. If you aren't trying to come up with a way to justify your 100% fact-free belief in my desire to use that label, then why do you bring it up so often

I guess you'd have to confine yourself to simple, historically factual, dispassionate, balanced, collegial arguments.

That statement has no connection whatsoever to the statement it is supposedly in reply to. A weather report would have been just as meaningful.

The Left spent the last decade carpet bombing Bush in particular, and conservatives in general, so badly with rhetoric.

Decade? Certainly not. Essentially the entire time Bush was in office the right controlled the media and dictated the use of the English language. The right was able to dominate the discussion by being louder and more assertive; when the right were in power they convinced us that it was acceptable to label anyone with an idea counter to your own as "un-American" or "terrorist-loving".

You got the rodeo clown into office and re-elected.

Come on, don't waste your time with that bullshit line. You are too smart to actually believe in that complete contradiction.

It should indeed bother you that the Left's (politicians and media) countless false accusations of are called out and attacked.

It certainly doesn't bother you when I call out your bullshit accusations. What bothers me is your belief in the apparent ability of repetition to make facts out of thin air.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47279847)

Your allegations are 100% faith based, and proving them to be false is no easier than proving there to be no deity.

Can you relate your assertion to the timeline, please? The claims of demonstrations, the video, the jailing of Nakula Nakula, all belie everything you're saying. It is simply the case that the public amnesia upon which a fourth-rate banana republic regime like that of Obama relies to retain power is not working in this case. The overwhelming suspicion that good men were callously left to die in combat is going to require a thorough, detailed, non-Duranty-Award-Winning [pjmedia.com] investigation.
Interestingly, the one making faith-based claims here seems to be you: that Obama may be innocent, that the NYT and Senate investigations were more than so many soiled diapers, that the Left can, with some combination of shrill cries and running out the clock, manage to outrun getting "The Stevens". Are you really some kind of Lovecraft reference, trying to hold sanity together while Cthulhu gnaws?

Our justice system is based on the presumption of innocence when charged with a crime. You are advocating for up-ending that for this case.

In what way, precisely? Why do you fear facts? Do you work as a SysAdmin at the IRS, where you think that people are going to buy off that you "lost" two years of email for, what is it now, SEVEN key employees?
It's demonstrably true that the American people are kinda stupid, having re-elect #OccupyResoluteDesk. I guess you are given little choice but to continue having faith in that stupidity.

how could Obama possibly prove that he does not have the Oval Office Time Machine that your conspiracy theory requires him to have in order to pull off the heinous crime that you want us to believe he did on September 11 2012? You could just say that he made his final trip to the day the machine was created and stopped its construction in order to interfere with the investigation, and then further down the rabbit hole we go.

See, here's the crazy part: we want to know the 5 Ws of what led up to the Benghazi disaster, and the actual play-by-play of what our Commander-at-Golf was doing that night, in lieu of his job.
Given that Socialists seem to be kinda gutless, spineless gelatin, the hope is that the facts can be a sufficient monument to our past stupidity that we Never. Elect. Such. A. Tool. AGAIN. We could set about reform, prosperity, and avoid a third world fate for all races, creeds, orientations, &c. We've just got to get Oedipus to lift the curse on Thebes.

you want every trial in this country to be based on the presumption of guilt - the polar opposite of the foundation of our justice system - or is this a special case that only applies when the person on trial has a (D) after their name?

No, that's all you.

It is disconnected because the POTUS did not kill the Americans in Benghazi himself.

Only you are claiming this. Reasonable men know that there are men capable of personal action, and those placing the medals on [whitehouse.gov] men capable of personal action. Ever seen Saving Private Ryan? Obama is the guy who stands there, paralyzed, holding the bandoliers of .50cal, while men die.

I guess you'd have to confine yourself to simple, historically factual, dispassionate, balanced, collegial arguments.

That statement has no connection whatsoever to the statement it is supposedly in reply to. A weather report would have been just as meaningful.

You know precisely what I mean, my sweet propaganda monger.

Essentially the entire time Bush was in office the right controlled the media

Wait. What planet were you on, again?

You are too smart to actually believe in that complete contradiction.

I also did not believe anyone was stupid enough to believe a godforsaken word of Obama's. Lesson: never, never underestimate the power of sycophants.

What bothers me is your belief in the apparent ability of repetition to make facts out of thin air.

Why should we make up anything, when we can have a proper trial, put the appropriate people under oath, and get the facts out? Your only achievement in any of this is to underscore the Streisand Effect.
And I would like to announce boredom with this talking past each other. Not sure how much more time I can devote to re-iterating the truth to you.

Re:Excuse me (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47292533)

The word count of your reply suggests that you put some thought in to it, so I wanted to wait to have time to reply to it. Then I looked at it a few times and realized the word count is just creating an illusion of thoughtfulness; you are a pretty good illusionist that way.

Basically everything boils down to your fantasy about

good men were callously left to die in combat

The word "callously", in particular, is a huge problem in your argument that you have absolutely no way to address. You are trying to dream up some way to put emotions on trial. There have undoubtedly been cases when our military has been sent in to combat without proper provisions, and we have not charged the POTUS criminally for doing so. Now, because the POTUS happens to be a democrat, you want it to be a capital case. Even more so, you are insisting that you know the emotions that he felt and you want them to be the key to the prosecution. Perhaps worst of all, you want his feelings to be somehow disproven in this constitutionally-discarding "prove your innocence" case.

You should realize that if you manage to stuff this through, it will come back to haunt you in the future, guaranteed.

the NYT and Senate investigations were more than so many soiled diapers

Again, you are making claims on documents that you have not read. I would wager that had the New York Times investigation been done instead by the Washington Times it would have arrived at the same conclusions and you would have already read and celebrated it.

Your celebration of illiteracy makes you look foolish.

In what way, precisely? Why do you fear facts?

I do not fear facts. However you have shown that you do not care about facts. Your case against the POTUS is not based on facts but rather on faith, conjecture, and emotion. None of those can be disproven; as I said before you might as well be trying to put his faith on trial.

we want to know the 5 Ws of what led up to the Benghazi disaster

You wouldn't be trying to justify this massive waste of resources if you didn't already believe yourself to know the answer to those. And as I already stated much of that is purely faith-based, which you would disregard out of your own faith. What you are missing here in your willful ignorance is that your faith is as difficult to disprove as it is to prove.

It is disconnected because the POTUS did not kill the Americans in Benghazi himself.

Only you are claiming this

And back to the time machine we go! How, exactly, does one prove that there is no time machine in the white house?

You know precisely what I mean, my sweet propaganda monger.

I didn't know that that supporting the constitution was propaganda. We've seen for some time that there are some amendments you like a lot more than others but this is the first time you have accused those who like the amendments you dislike of being "propaganda monger[s]".

I also did not believe anyone was stupid enough to believe a godforsaken word of Obama's

If you honestly believe that every single word he has ever said is a lie then the presidential oath itself is invalid and he is not POTUS at all.

What bothers me is your belief in the apparent ability of repetition to make facts out of thin air.

Why should we make up anything

Your motives for making stuff up are clear; you don't want a democrat in the white house. You don't even care what policies he actually signs off, you just want him out.

when we can have a proper trial

You have shown yourself to have staunch opposition to anything that has to this date in this country been considered to be a proper trial.

put the appropriate people under oath

Do we take an oath in a lynch court? I thought that part was optional.

get the facts out

There are no facts in your argument, and you have no interest in actual facts anyways. Your motives are abundantly clear.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47294703)

Starting from the top:

Basically everything boils down to your fantasy about

good men were callously left to die in combat

The word "callously", in particular, is a huge problem in your argument that you have absolutely no way to address. You are trying to dream up some way to put emotions on trial

I guess you might benefit from some reading assistance, as it might alleviate the "huge problem" that I have "absolutely no way to address".
The line you hacked without even hint of ellipsis was:

The overwhelming suspicion that good men were callously left to die in combat is going to require a thorough, detailed, non-Duranty-Award-Winning investigation.

Thus, "callously" is tightly bound to "overwhelming suspicion". I did not use the f-word at all; it is by no means a "fact" that Obama approached a butchered Ambassador and three Americans in less that a heroic fashion, as long as you ignore, well a reasonable take on the record & stuff. But perhaps he was stressed out about Healthcare.gov.

Now, because the POTUS happens to be a democrat, you want it to be a capital case.

I like the fact that, in Trey Gowdy, we have a special prosecutor on the case in the capitol, if that's what you mean.
Should BHO be shown to have not even a smidgen of corruption about him, then this will bolster the narrative that the GOP is on a witch hunt, crater the Republican Party, and ease Her Majesty's transition back into power. I fail to grasp why you're not dancing a jig of joy at this point.

Even more so, you are insisting that you know the emotions that he felt and you want them to be the key to the prosecution.

Sorry, I said "overwhelming suspicion". You're the one who seems in possession of all the knowledge here. Once again, you overplay your hand.

Perhaps worst of all, you want his feelings to be somehow disproven in this constitutionally-discarding "prove your innocence" case.

Oh, the sweet, lofty tones of a Lefty getting all Constitutional and stuff! You care shag-all about it when the President just freebases the Affordable Care Act on a poll-driven whim, and then weep wide rivers of alligator tears at the threat of the Chicago Savior being faced with truth!
(I guess I'm unimpressed)
Maybe it would help if you could show in what way the Constitution is not being followed in full. I rather expect Gowdy will be punctilious in the letter of the law, given the import of the case, and the depth of emotions surrouding it. The more you want to jump to conclusions, the more imperative to keep things calm and dispassionate.

Again, you are making claims on documents that you have not read. I would wager that had the New York Times investigation been done instead by the Washington Times it would have arrived at the same conclusions and you would have already read and celebrated it.

I read the Duranty Award [pjmedia.com] synopsis; maybe if The Onion did an expose, I could take it more seriously than Pravda on the Hudson.

One of the most impressive things about "A Deadly Mix in Benghazi" is its detail. The long piece is divided into six chapters, from "Warning Signs" through "Bedlam" and "Aftermath." It is accompanied by dramatic photographs, maps, and schematic drawings. The internet version boasts various animated graphics. The essay practically screams: "Please consider me for a Pultizer!"
I doubt that will happen, partly because the ink was not yet dry on the fish-wrap before its central contentions were authoritatively disputed, and partly because the abundance of detail is little more than an insubstantial smokescreen.

You can read the rest.

Your case against the POTUS is not based on facts but rather on faith, conjecture, and emotion. None of those can be disproven; as I said before you might as well be trying to put his faith on trial.

Really? And when a large government bureaucracy like the IRS suddenly can't find two years worth of email from half a dozen key employees on Yet Another Scandal, you don't wouldn't think there's a pattern afoot? Especially not given the Benghazi pattern of deceit over the video and jailing of Nakoula? And the coordination with the debate moderator?
I sort of hope you don't become clinically depressed when your prodidious efforts at stonewalling reasonable people fail to keep the facts from coming out. Facts that, if you're correct, should exonerate BHO. Your frenzied efforts at yelling "Squirrel" seem to indicate your angst about other possibilities, however. Why not just let the story tell itself and be done with it? Emphasis yours:

What you are missing here in your willful ignorance is that your faith is as difficult to disprove as it is to prove.

Look, the only thing in which I have "faith" is Jesus Christ, and the Meaning of Life is beside the point here. The goal is facts, and your effort to move the discussion into the super-rational realm of faith is kind of bizarre. Why do that? Why not stick with facts? What are your fears here? Why does the cold, hard truth render you incontinent?

We've seen for some time that there are some amendments you like a lot more than others but this is the first time you have accused those who like the amendments you dislike of being "propaganda monger[s]".

This is puzzling. I'm chuckling at your propaganda efforts at distracting from a legitimate Benghazi inquiry, and you've jumped to Constitutional Amendments, but haven't stated which ones, or how they relate. Are your meds wearing off?

If you honestly believe that every single word he has ever said is a lie then the presidential oath itself is invalid and he is not POTUS at all.

Oh, he's our duly elected President, all right. As to whether you think his actions invalidate his oath (a case could be built) that is an exercise for the reader. Or a proper investigation. Which is all I've ever seriously called for. Despite your efforts to "build a narrative" to the contrary.

you don't want a democrat in the white house. You don't even care what policies he actually signs off, you just want him out.

I wish you'd lay off the partisan talk. What I want is the kind of proper, limited, power-separated government we haven't had in too long. Which is why I support http://conventionofstates.com/ [conventionofstates.com]

You have shown yourself to have staunch opposition to anything that has to this date in this country been considered to be a proper trial.

No, I have not; you fabricate that of whole cloth. I forgive you.

Do we take an oath in a lynch court? I thought that part was optional.

You tell me. I oppose such.

There are no facts in your argument, and you have no interest in actual facts anyways. Your motives are abundantly clear.

So shall we cease hurling words at each other, then? I really don't care to waste half an hour like this, supporting truth, rule of law, and justice, if you're just going to pee in the pool, small-child-style.

Re:Excuse me (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47295793)

I was wondering when you would feign insult in this discussion, you answered my question. I have noticed that you have adopted that as one of your favorite ways to distract attention from the fallacies of your arguments.

I guess you might benefit from some reading assistance, as it might alleviate the "huge problem" that I have "absolutely no way to address".

It is noted that you still did not address your huge problem. You instead opted for another of your favorite tactics in trying to create facts out of nothing but repetition.

Thus, "callously" is tightly bound to "overwhelming suspicion".

A sparing dose of CYA, there? You have in previous calls for extralegal removal not bothered to bring up suspicion. Have you come to realize - perhaps if only on a subconscious level - that your argument actually is fact-free and does not have the merit that it needs in order to lead towards even something that could potentially warrant a committee to discuss having a meeting about considering calling witnesses for a hearing towards a discussion for grand jury subpoenas?

Should BHO be shown to have not even a smidgen of corruption about him,

Corruption != malice. You need to demonstrate malice in order to bring your case about. An impeachment needs to show that the president didn't just make a mistake but willingly and knowingly broke the law. As we all know, you are not even remotely close to clearing that hurdle.

then this will bolster the narrative that the GOP is on a witch hunt,

I wish you would make up your mind as to whether or not you see yourself to be part of the GOP. Not long ago you were calling them "progressives" and other such terrible insults. You are indisputably, however, in love with the witch hunt.

I fail to grasp why you're not dancing a jig of joy at this point.

No, the party will be in 2016 when you have wasted billions of dollars and absurd amounts of time on your silly witch hunt and have nothing to show for it, and the voting public get back at you for it.

Perhaps worst of all, you want his feelings to be somehow disproven in this constitutionally-discarding "prove your innocence" case.

Maybe it would help if you could show in what way the Constitution is not being followed in full

I have outlined before how your plan disregards the constitutional rights that are afforded to every man, woman, and child in this country. In particular your plan calls for disregarding of the rights to a fair trial, rights to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, rights against testifying against oneself, and rights against double jeopardy; but that is only getting started. You happily propose shitting all over those and other rights that we as American citizens are supposed to be guaranteed, and you give no reason beyond the (D) after his name to justify it.

Again, you are making claims on documents that you have not read. I would wager that had the New York Times investigation been done instead by the Washington Times it would have arrived at the same conclusions and you would have already read and celebrated it.

I read the Duranty Award synopsis

I don't know if you still read any articles here on slashdot anymore or not. If you have even read one article here in the past several years you might recall the classic slashdot acronym RTFA. It is particularly used when someone either pretends to have expertise on the matter when they clearly have no clue what they are talking about, or when they ask a question that is answered in the linked article.

You, dear friend, are not even at the level of needing to RTFA. You are openly bragging about opting against choosing to RTFA. You are more on the level of someone who attended a Billy Graham rally and then claimed themselves to be an expert on scripture. The real mystery here is why you keep bringing up text that you refuse to read, particularly when you have no good reason not to read it. The text is freely available, and written in English. You could have read it in less time than you have spent making yourself look silly bragging about not reading it.

Quoting a partisan summary of it doesn't help you in any way, shape, or form, either.

Your frenzied efforts at yelling "Squirrel" seem to indicate your angst about other possibilities, however.

What are you attempting to make up at this point? I am only asking you to read the article that you keep bragging about not reading, while pointing out the dangerous precedent that you are driving all of us to by shredding the constitution and the legal system in order to fuel your witch hunt.

Look, the only thing in which I have "faith" is Jesus Christ, and the Meaning of Life is beside the point here

Your own writing plainly illustrates your infinite faith in the conspiracy theories that you help to propagate regarding the POTUS. To make the point more clear, let us compare these two critical items of your faith - Jesus and your faith in bringing down the POTUS with a conspiracy theory:

  • Which one do you put more time into on a daily basis?
  • Which one do you write about more often?
  • Which one do you write about in larger volume?
  • Which one do you put more of your money towards?

I suspect the latter option to be the correct answer for you on all four counts.

The goal is facts

I wish that statement was true. If the facts were truly your goal then you would read all the reports that have information that relate to your conspiracy theories, without disqualifying them based on your preconceived notions of who wrote them. You have basically at this point read an article from pajamas advising you to shove a hot poker in your eye, then opted to outdo their suggestion by shoving it into both eyes, and finally proceeded to run around blaming your blindness on Obama. The first was a poor idea, the second an atrociously bad one, and the third one that is thoroughly illogical in the eyes of the rest of the world.

propaganda efforts at distracting from a legitimate Benghazi inquiry

You don't want a legitimate inquiry. You want an inquiry that throws Obama out of the White House and into prison. Don't pretend otherwise.

and you've jumped to Constitutional Amendments, but haven't stated which ones

I forget that you only like some parts of the constitution, or that you only feel the criminal justice system applies to some people.

Or a proper investigation. Which is all I've ever seriously called for.

I wish you actually had a genuine interest in a truly proper investigation. Your blatant and intentional disregard for the results of independent investigations shows that you have no interest in anything that any reasonable person would ever consider to be a proper investigation.

You have shown yourself to have staunch opposition to anything that has to this date in this country been considered to be a proper trial.

No, I have not; you fabricate that of whole cloth. I forgive you.

I'm sorry that your own words drive you to lie.

So shall we cease hurling words at each other, then? I really don't care to waste half an hour like this

I figured it was taking you 5 minutes, 10 at most, to write your replies. You basically just keep pasting in the same nonsense each time you reply; I really thought you had a script written to rearrange your text by now. If you are wasting 30 minutes that isn't my fault.

supporting truth, rule of law, and justice

Wait, which part of your argument does any of that? Oh, right. None of it. None at all.

pee in the pool, small-child-style.

Oooh, closing with an insult (after opening by claiming to have been insulted!), what a classy move you opted for there.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47296765)

I was wondering when you would feign insult in this discussion, you answered my question. I have noticed that you have adopted that as one of your favorite ways to distract attention from the fallacies of your arguments.

I do find your penchant for falsehood insulting, and can't think of any fallacy you've ever legitimately pointed out in any of my points.

I guess you might benefit from some reading assistance, as it might alleviate the "huge problem" that I have "absolutely no way to address".

It is noted that you still did not address your huge problem. You instead opted for another of your favorite tactics in trying to create facts out of nothing but repetition.

Thus, "callously" is tightly bound to "overwhelming suspicion".

A sparing dose of CYA, there? You have in previous calls for extralegal removal not bothered to bring up suspicion. Have you come to realize - perhaps if only on a subcons cious level - that your argument actually is fact-free and does not have the merit that it needs in order to lead towards even something that could potentially warrant a committee to discuss having a meeting about considering calling witnesses for a hearing towards a discussion for grand jury subpoenas?

We might be helped here by freeing ourselves from your spaghetti logic. I'm baffled by what seems to be an attempted Jedi mind trick where you want to make the question of the President's actions on the night of 11Sep2011 about me, instead of him and his administration. My suggestion is that Grand Jury run its course. You seem superficially convinced that BHO will be exhonerated. If so, will not all Americans rejoice that our Commander-in-Chief is proven a worthy choice?

It's as though,
as a character from Poe,
there is something you know,
that gnaws at your toe,
like a starving dingo.

Should BHO be shown to have not even a smidgen of corruption about him,

Corruption != malice. You need to demonstrate malice in order to bring your case about. An impeachment needs to show that the president didn't just make a mistake but willingly and knowingly broke the law. As we all know, you are not even remotely close to clearing that hurdle.

Back to the Jedi mind trick--why is this MY hurdle again, exactly? Gowdy is legally appointed for an investigation; can we relax and let the man do the job?

then this will bolster the narrative that the GOP is on a witch hunt,

I wish you would make up your mind as to whether or not you see yourself to be part of the GOP. Not long ago you were calling them "progressives" and other such terrible insults. You are indisputably, however, in love with the witch hunt.

I could have scare quoted "witch hunt" I suppose. News flash: I really don't care about political parties, and think we should systematically weaken them all. Nothing about politics is about "my team" verses "yours".

I fail to grasp why you're not dancing a jig of joy at this point.

No, the party will be in 2016 when you have wasted billions of dollars and absurd amounts of time on your silly witch hunt and have nothing to show for it, and the voting public get back at you for it.

Are you accusing me of being a billionaire? Let me know when the Benghazi commission has wasted a tenth of what went down the urethra on ObamaCare--we might have gotten past the governmental pocket lint point by then!

Perhaps worst of all, you want his feelings to be somehow disproven in this constitutionally-discarding "prove your innocence" case.

Maybe it would help if you could show in what way the Constitution is not being followed in full

I have outlined before how your plan disregards the constitutional rights that are afforded to every man, woman, and child in this country. In particular your plan calls for disregarding of the rights to a fair trial, rights to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, rights against testifying against oneself, and rights against double jeopardy; but that is only getting started. You happily propose shitting all over those and other rights that we as American citizens are supposed to be guaranteed, and you give no reason beyond the (D) after his name to justify it.

I'm not sure how Trey Gowdy is doing anything illegal, or why the Democrats would permit illegality within the House to occur. Should Gowdy get caught coloring outside the lines, I'm confident the Democrats will match your shrill, supercilious tones note for note. Unless they are tacitly interested in under-bussing your Chicago Savior, I suppose.

Again, you are making claims on documents that you have not read. I would wager that had the New York Times investigation been done instead by the Washington Times it would have arrived at the same conclusions and you would have already read and celebrated it.

I read the Duranty Award synopsis

I don't know if you still read any articles here on slashdot anymore or not. If you have even read one article here in the past several years you might recall the classic slashdot acronym RTFA. It is particularly used when someone either pretends to have expertise on the matter when they clearly have no clue what they are talking about, or when they ask a question that is answered in the linked article.
You, dear friend, are not even at the level of needing to RTFA. You are openly bragging about opting against choosing to RTFA. You are more on the level of someone who attended a Billy Graham rally and then claimed themselves to be an expert on scripture. The real mystery here is why you keep bringing up text that you refuse to read, particularly when you have no good reason not to read it. The text is freely available, and written in English. You could have read it in less time than you have spent making yourself look silly bragging about not reading it.
Quoting a partisan summary of it doesn't help you in any way, shape, or form, either.

So we have a symmetry centered around not wasting time reading sources we deem unreliable, misinformative, or useless. Whoopdy do.

Your frenzied efforts at yelling "Squirrel" seem to indicate your angst about other possibilities, however.

What are you attempting to make up at this point? I am only asking you to read the article that you keep bragging about not reading, while pointing out the dangerous precedent that you are driving all of us to by shredding the constitution and the legal system in order to fuel your witch hunt.

You don't appear to have read the PJMedia article, AFAICT, and you are claiming that a properly appointed special prosecutor is MY witch hunt. If it really were MY witch hunt, and I could just run amok, I'd certainly have some fun with it. I might start making a venti-sized Starbucks beverage appear within your physical sight every morning. Not that I personally care about blowing up your anonymity as such; I'm merely to underscoring that such an event will NOT occur, because this is not MY investigation, and I totally lack that level of interest or power. Capisce?
Was my mockery there of your assertion of my ownership of Trey Gowdy's commision too complex?

Look, the only thing in which I have "faith" is Jesus Christ, and the Meaning of Life is beside the point here

Your own writing plainly illustrates your infinite faith in the conspiracy theories that you help to propagate regarding the POTUS. To make the point more clear, let us compare these two critical items of your faith - Jesus and your faith in bringing down the POTUS with a conspiracy theory:

  • Which one do you put more time into on a daily basis?
  • Which one do you write about more often?
  • Which one do you write about in larger volume?
  • Which one do you put more of your money towards?

I suspect the latter option to be the correct answer for you on all four counts.

Follow me on Twitter. Lately, it's been all about Her Majesty, and the 2016 Coronation. Other than spinning you like a power turbine, Benghazi is mostly old news until Gowdy reports out.

The goal is facts

I wish that statement was true. If the facts were truly your goal then you would read all the reports that have information that relate to your conspiracy theories, without disqualifying them based on your preconceived notions of who wrote them. You have basically at this point read an article from pajamas advising you to shove a hot poker in your eye, then opted to outdo their suggestion by shoving it into both eyes, and finally proceeded to run around blaming your blindness on Obama. The first was a poor idea, the second an atrociously bad one, and the third one that is thoroughly illogical in the eyes of the rest of the world.

When you audit your books, do you bring in an outside source? If you're legitimate, you do. There is too much evidence of faffing about with this administration to trust them with, well, anything. Surely Gowdy will do a job that can be seen as reliable, no? If his sanity check exonerates the Administration, the NYT, and the Senate investigation, then I'll buy you a cup of coffee, OK?

propaganda efforts at distracting from a legitimate Benghazi inquiry

You don't want a legitimate inquiry. You want an inquiry that throws Obama out of the White House and into prison. Don't pretend otherwise.

I've told you: the best thing Obama can do to help recover this country is continue to be its political nadir. Nothing can hurt Her Majesty's campaign worse than the rodeo clown's continued cluttering of the Oval Office. Should #OccupyResoluteDesk succeed in getting cashiered, it will be because Democrats grasp he's doing them more harm than good.

and you've jumped to Constitutional Amendments, but haven't stated which ones

I forget that you only like some parts of the constitution, or that you only feel the criminal justice system applies to some people.

And how is your boy Jon Corzine doing, anyway?

Or a proper investigation. Which is all I've ever seriously called for.

I wish you actually had a genuine interest in a truly proper investigation. Your blatant and intentional disregard for the results of independent investigations shows that you have no interest in anything that any reasonable person would ever consider to be a proper investigation.

Pravda on the Hudson? Could we get The Onion to investigate next time, instead of the NYT, for a little hint of legitimacy?

You have shown yourself to have staunch opposition to anything that has to this date in this country been considered to be a proper trial.

No, I have not; you fabricate that of whole cloth. I forgive you.

I'm sorry that your own words drive you to lie.

I continue to forgive you, in all sincerity, despite your baseless accusations. If I blow off further reply, it shall be due to boredom.

So shall we cease hurling words at each other, then? I really don't care to waste half an hour like this

I figured it was taking you 5 minutes, 10 at most, to write your replies. You basically just keep pasting in the same nonsense each time you reply; I really thought you had a script written to rearrange your text by now. If you are wasting 30 minutes that isn't my fault.

At this length, I'm in an emacs buffer, marvelling at your love of nonsense. It can stop whenever you like; I don't mind declaring you the winner.

supporting truth, rule of law, and justice

Wait, which part of your argument does any of that? Oh, right. None of it. None at all.

Well, don't I stand refuted! Except for the part you didn't refute. Which was all of my argument. Thanks!

pee in the pool, small-child-style.

Oooh, closing with an insult (after opening by claiming to have been insulted!), what a classy move you opted for there.

Was characterizing your arguments as qualitatively akin to a kidney load somehow inaccurate?

Re:Excuse me (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47302957)

and can't think of any fallacy you've ever legitimately pointed out in any of my points.

That statement makes sense only if

  • You haven't been reading what I write (an easy argument to support based on what you have written)
    • or
  • You realize you haven't made any points as your arguments are faith-based rather than fact-based

you want to make the question of the President's actions on the night of 11Sep2011 about me, instead of him and his administration

Wrong. I don't know why you feel the need to try to level accusations at me out of thin air - perhaps this is you acknowledging that your accusations against the POTUS are to date entirely without merit?

My suggestion is that Grand Jury run its course.

And if the investigator does not find enough evidence to call a grand jury? I presume you will just find another investigator at that time? You certainly have not given any reason to believe that you are aware of any evidence of an impeachable offense having occurred.

You seem superficially convinced that BHO will be exhonerated.

You are the one who wants to commit billions of dollars and ghastly amounts of time to this witch hunt. You are the one who is certain that the POTUS is a criminal simply because of the consonant after his name.

Corruption != malice. You need to demonstrate malice in order to bring your case about. An impeachment needs to show that the president didn't just make a mistake but willingly and knowingly broke the law. As we all know, you are not even remotely close to clearing that hurdle.

Back to the Jedi mind trick--why is this MY hurdle again, exactly?

I'm sorry that you have such epic disdain for the legal system that you have resorted to calling it a "Jedi mind-trick". The problem here is that you are calling for someone to be thrown out of office based on your feelings about them. Even more so, you are calling for the legal system to be completely ignored because of your feelings.

Gowdy is legally appointed for an investigation; can we relax and let the man do the job?

You won't be happy with his findings. You have already shown a hatred for the legal system; will you therefore call Gowdy's findings "tainted" and call for another investigator? Or will you just go ahead and start calling for people to raise pitchforks?

News flash: I really don't care about political parties, and think we should systematically weaken them all. Nothing about politics is about "my team" verses "yours".

On this one, I must call bullshit. You have been consistently trying to make a claim that the guys from your party are somehow philosophically superior to the current POTUS, even though the POTUS has signed every bill that your party has brought him, and outdone your party on the ambitions that they had - same direction but greater magnitude - only a couple years ago.

No, the party will be in 2016 when you have wasted billions of dollars and absurd amounts of time on your silly witch hunt and have nothing to show for it, and the voting public get back at you for it.

Are you accusing me of being a billionaire? Let me know when the Benghazi commission has wasted a tenth of what went down the urethra on ObamaCare--we might have gotten past the governmental pocket lint point by then!

Your response doesn't make sense in the context of my comment that you quoted. You and I both know that it won't end with the current investigation or whatever mystical "commission" you have in mind. The investigation will fail to turn up sufficient evidence for any further action and you will be furious. You will then demand more work be done to find "the truth", which will cost even more money. The process will only snowball from there. By 2016 you will have nothing to show for it and a tab that will make the War on Drugs look like solid fiscal policy.

I'm not sure how Trey Gowdy is doing anything illegal

I never suggested he is doing anything illegal. You are, once again, trying to insert words that were not used. I'm sorry that your argument is so lacking that you feel yourself left to do such a thing.

What I have said is that it is a waste of money, and more so, it is only the beginning of the money that you are determined to waste.

So we have a symmetry centered around not wasting time reading sources we deem unreliable, misinformative, or useless. Whoopdy do.

No, this is in no way symmetric. You linked to a partisan review of original work, which I correctly labeled as such. There is no original work in the pajamas article, it is not even close to being in the same league of relevance as the NYTimes or Senate investigation reports.

Furthermore, as you have shown that you will take pride in illiteracy when you don't like the source, will you do the same when the investigator doesn't find adequate justification for calling a grand jury? How many investigators do you want to call in order to try to get the results you want? Will you hold an impeachment of Obama in 2017? 2018? 2019? 2020? You certainly won't get it done before election day of 2016.

this is not MY investigation, and I totally lack that level of interest or power

Your claim of disinterest in this witch hunt is thoroughly discredited by the volume of text you have produced showing your enthusiasm for the same.

Your own writing plainly illustrates your infinite faith in the conspiracy theories that you help to propagate regarding the POTUS. To make the point more clear, let us compare these two critical items of your faith - Jesus and your faith in bringing down the POTUS with a conspiracy theory:

  • Which one do you put more time into on a daily basis?
  • Which one do you write about more often?
  • Which one do you write about in larger volume?
  • Which one do you put more of your money towards?

I suspect the latter option to be the correct answer for you on all four counts.

Follow me on Twitter.

I have no interest in following you on twitter, or anywhere else. You can write whatever you like anywhere on the internet. I don't find you interesting enough to read your writings anywhere else.

It is also noted that you made no attempt to answer the question.

The goal is facts

I wish that statement was true. If the facts were truly your goal then you would read all the reports that have information that relate to your conspiracy theories, without disqualifying them based on your preconceived notions of who wrote them. You have basically at this point read an article from pajamas advising you to shove a hot poker in your eye, then opted to outdo their suggestion by shoving it into both eyes, and finally proceeded to run around blaming your blindness on Obama. The first was a poor idea, the second an atrociously bad one, and the third one that is thoroughly illogical in the eyes of the rest of the world.

When you audit your books, do you bring in an outside source? If you're legitimate, you do.

Are you now using a random sentence generator (or perhaps taking bits from "psychoanalyze zippy") for your responses? Those sentences do not connect to what they were (supposedly) in response to.

Surely Gowdy will do a job that can be seen as reliable, no? If his sanity check exonerates the Administration, the NYT, and the Senate investigation, then I'll buy you a cup of coffee, OK?

I expect you would want to have me thrown in jail if we met in person. That said, buying a cup of coffee doesn't say anything about what your next call will be when Gowdy does not call a grand jury. Everything you have written to date supports the notion that you will just demand more investigations, until you get one that gives you the answers you want.

Or a proper investigation. Which is all I've ever seriously called for.

I wish you actually had a genuine interest in a truly proper investigation. Your blatant and intentional disregard for the results of independent investigations shows that you have no interest in anything that any reasonable person would ever consider to be a proper investigation.

the NYT

... the rest of your line was too ridiculous to merit repeating. Yes, we know you refused - and continue to refuse - to read the article. Yes, we know you will never have a good reason for doing so.

I don't mind declaring you the winner.

This isn't about "winning". This is about honesty, which you have happily discarded in this matter. You used to be an honest man, I remember that from your past writings. Now you are driven only by partisan hatred, and you have no qualms about spending billions of dollars on a completely futile effort to destroy someone purely because of the party that selected him to run for office.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47305081)

and can't think of any fallacy you've ever legitimately pointed out in any of my points.

That statement makes sense only if

  • You haven't been reading what I write (an easy argument to support based on what you have written)
  • or
  • You realize you haven't made any points as your arguments are faith-based rather than fact-based

OR, you're full of crap.

you want to make the question of the President's actions on the night of 11Sep2011 about me, instead of him and his administration

Wrong. I don't know why you feel the need to try to level accusations at me out of thin air - perhaps this is you acknowledging that your accusations against the POTUS are to date entirely without merit?

There you go, begging the question. AGAIN. How can you possibly know "your accusations against the POTUS are to date entirely without merit?"
I suppose you're going to tell me that, for example, Santa Clause stole the two years worth of IRS email. Not to shift the topic from the legitimate concerns about the President and Benghazi, but after a five year pattern of systemic malfeasance, I'm like Paul Ryan to your IRS Chief: "No on believes you."

My suggestion is that Grand Jury run its course.

And if the investigator does not find enough evidence to call a grand jury? I presume you will just find another investigator at that time? You certainly have not given any reason to believe that you are aware of any evidence of an impeachable offense having occurred.

Let Gowdy do his job, say I.

You seem superficially convinced that BHO will be exhonerated.

You are the one who wants to commit billions of dollars and ghastly amounts of time to this witch hunt. You are the one who is certain that the POTUS is a criminal simply because of the consonant after his name.

Yeah, after HealthCare.gov, ya got nothin'. The sudden, shrill cries for austerity are laughable. Hahahahahaha.

Corruption != malice. You need to demonstrate malice in order to bring your case about. An impeachment needs to show that the president didn't just make a mistake but willingly and knowingly broke the law. As we all know, you are not even remotely close to clearing that hurdle.

Back to the Jedi mind trick--why is this MY hurdle again, exactly?

I'm sorry that you have such epic disdain for the legal system that you have resorted to calling it a "Jedi mind-trick". The problem here is that you are calling for someone to be thrown out of office based on your feelings about them. Even more so, you are calling for the legal system to be completely ignored because of your feelings.

The point I'm making is that your use of the second person is silly. None of this is on me. I can expect you to continue to assert that I, personally, have some burdern of proof in either direction on this case. You'll also (likely) try to say that my pointing out my disconnection from any burden is a rejection of the legal system, as you are here. Could you go ahead and throw in another attack on my literacy for the idiot trifecta, please?

Gowdy is legally appointed for an investigation; can we relax and let the man do the job?

You won't be happy with his findings. You have already shown a hatred for the legal system; will you therefore call Gowdy's findings "tainted" and call for another investigator? Or will you just go ahead and start calling for people to raise pitchforks?

You speak of speculation as though it were fact.

News flash: I really don't care about political parties, and think we should systematically weaken them all. Nothing about politics is about "my team" verses "yours".

On this one, I must call bullshit. You have been consistently trying to make a claim that the guys from your party are somehow philosophically superior to the current POTUS, even though the POTUS has signed every bill that your party has brought him, and outdone your party on the ambitions that they had - same direction but greater magnitude - only a couple years ago.

Look at you insisting that the GOP is my party. The GOP is the outfit busily trying to get Thad Cochrane over the primary hump today in Mississippi--and calling in Democrats to do it! What difference, at this point, remains between the left and right testicle in this country's sack of political bollocks?

No, the party will be in 2016 when you have wasted billions of dollars and absurd amounts of time on your silly witch hunt and have nothing to show for it, and the voting public get back at you for it.

Are you accusing me of being a billionaire? Let me know when the Benghazi commission has wasted a tenth of what went down the urethra on ObamaCare--we might have gotten past the governmental pocket lint point by then!

Your response doesn't make sense in the context of my comment that you quoted. You and I both know that it won't end with the current investigation or whatever mystical "commission" you have in mind. The investigation will fail to turn up sufficient evidence for any further action and you will be furious. You will then demand more work be done to find "the truth", which will cost even more money. The process will only snowball from there. By 2016 you will have nothing to show for it and a tab that will make the War on Drugs look like solid fiscal policy.

I'm no prophet, so I can't say "you are wrong". On the other hand, I'm not sure you're correct. I think that there are probable a fistful of military officers who've had gag orders thrown at them who, under oath before Congress, might emit that which the Left fears most--the truth.

I'm not sure how Trey Gowdy is doing anything illegal

I never suggested he is doing anything illegal. You are, once again, trying to insert words that were not used. I'm sorry that your argument is so lacking that you feel yourself left to do such a thing.
What I have said is that it is a waste of money, and more so, it is only the beginning of the money that you are determined to waste.

So, if Gowdy is behaving legally, and wasting money is the chief end of government, what was the issue, again?

So we have a symmetry centered around not wasting time reading sources we deem unreliable, misinformative, or useless. Whoopdy do.

No, this is in no way symmetric. You linked to a partisan review of original work, which I correctly labeled as such. There is no original work in the pajamas article, it is not even close to being in the same league of relevance as the NYTimes or Senate investigation reports.
Furthermore, as you have shown that you will take pride in illiteracy when you don't like the source, will you do the same when the investigator doesn't find adequate justification for calling a grand jury? How many investigators do you want to call in order to try to get the results you want? Will you hold an impeachment of Obama in 2017? 2018? 2019? 2020? You certainly won't get it done before election day of 2016.

Are you trying to make the laughable claim that Pravda on the Hudson is not a propaganda organ of the Democrat Party?
Or that the Senate report is to be believed?
I. Don't. Believe. Harry. Reid.
I've got more confidence in the integrity of Bashar Assad than I do Harry Reid.
It may be the case that I am incorrect, but Harry Reid's public record has rendered anything he, or people working for him do, to be unreliable.

this is not MY investigation, and I totally lack that level of interest or power

Your claim of disinterest in this witch hunt is thoroughly discredited by the volume of text you have produced showing your enthusiasm for the same.

I'm not interested in conducting the investigation. From the standpoint of our military, which has to know absolutely that our elected leadership is backing it fully to the hilt when the tungsten flies, we really need to get the full play-by-play out there.
Obama, of course, should take full pride in all of his decision making at every momement. The investigation, if Obama is the superior leader that his advertising department has built him up to be, should be a monument to his legacy as power as that of bagging Osama bin Laden, no?

Your own writing plainly illustrates your infinite faith in the conspiracy theories that you help to propagate regarding the POTUS. To make the point more clear, let us compare these two critical items of your faith - Jesus and your faith in bringing down the POTUS with a conspiracy theory:

  • Which one do you put more time into on a daily basis?
  • Which one do you write about more often?
  • Which one do you write about in larger volume?
  • Which one do you put more of your money towards?

I suspect the latter option to be the correct answer for you on all four counts.

Sorry, the Benghazi thing is mostly about trolling you. This exchange, itself, is 95% of the time I spend on the topic. I do this because you seem kinda needy, as though your personality would implode without infusions of Benghazi riffs. But really: who is spending money on this?

The goal is facts

I wish that statement was true. If the facts were truly your goal then you would read all the reports that have information that relate to your conspiracy theories, without disqualifying them based on your preconceived notions of who wrote them. You have basically at this point read an article from pajamas advising you to shove a hot poker in your eye, then opted to outdo their suggestion by shoving it into both eyes, and finally proceeded to run around blaming your blindness on Obama. The first was a poor idea, the second an atrociously bad one, and the third one that is thoroughly illogical in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Sorry, I can't make any sense of this passage.

Surely Gowdy will do a job that can be seen as reliable, no? If his sanity check exonerates the Administration, the NYT, and the Senate investigation, then I'll buy you a cup of coffee, OK?

I expect you would want to have me thrown in jail if we met in person. That said, buying a cup of coffee doesn't say anything about what your next call will be when Gowdy does not call a grand jury. Everything you have written to date supports the notion that you will just demand more investigations, until you get one that gives you the answers you want.

Jail is an ugly place. Are you saying that jailing you is needful? Why not turn yourself in? I should think the fact that I continue to have any dialogue with you at all indicates that I'm quite a tolerant, forgiving person.

Or a proper investigation. Which is all I've ever seriously called for.

I wish you actually had a genuine interest in a truly proper investigation. Your blatant and intentional disregard for the results of independent investigations shows that you have no interest in anything that any reasonable person would ever consider to be a proper investigation.

the NYT

... the rest of your line was too ridiculous to merit repeating. Yes, we know you refused - and continue to refuse - to read the article. Yes, we know you will never have a good reason for doing so.

Give me The Onion, or at least National Enquirer.

I don't mind declaring you the winner.

This isn't about "winning". This is about honesty, which you have happily discarded in this matter. You used to be an honest man, I remember that from your past writings. Now you are driven only by partisan hatred, and you have no qualms about spending billions of dollars on a completely futile effort to destroy someone purely because of the party that selected him to run for office.

Keep in mind that I don't really believe you either, at any point. I laugh at your cheap "You used to be an honest man" ploy. If that's your way of expressing a desire to end the thread, I'm completely comfortable. It doesn't seem that we've traded any new ideas or information in recent memory. Is it time to let this go?

Re:Excuse me (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47305855)

and can't think of any fallacy you've ever legitimately pointed out in any of my points.

That statement makes sense only if

  • You haven't been reading what I write (an easy argument to support based on what you have written)
  • or
  • You realize you haven't made any points as your arguments are faith-based rather than fact-based

OR, you're full of crap.

If that is your belief then why do you continue in this discussion at all? I don't believe you to be full of crap; I believe you to be stating your opinion without concern for the fact that you have no facts to support said opinion.

you want to make the question of the President's actions on the night of 11Sep2011 about me, instead of him and his administration

Wrong. I don't know why you feel the need to try to level accusations at me out of thin air - perhaps this is you acknowledging that your accusations against the POTUS are to date entirely without merit?

There you go, begging the question. AGAIN. How can you possibly know "your accusations against the POTUS are to date entirely without merit?"

Because you have never given ANY facts to support your undying screams for impeachment. You have been given a great number of chances to do so, and not once have actually made any attempt to meet that request. If you had any merit to your aspirations at all, you certainly would have provided some factual material by this point.

My suggestion is that Grand Jury run its course.

And if the investigator does not find enough evidence to call a grand jury? I presume you will just find another investigator at that time? You certainly have not given any reason to believe that you are aware of any evidence of an impeachable offense having occurred.

Let Gowdy do his job, say I.

You called him in because you didn't like the people who investigated your conspiracy theory before. When pajamas tells you that his results are somehow wrong - based on the fact that he won't find reason to call a grand jury for impeachment - what will you do then?

The problem here is that you are calling for someone to be thrown out of office based on your feelings about them. Even more so, you are calling for the legal system to be completely ignored because of your feelings.

The point I'm making is that your use of the second person is silly. None of this is on me. I can expect you to continue to assert that I, personally, have some burdern of proof in either direction on this case. You'll also (likely) try to say that my pointing out my disconnection from any burden is a rejection of the legal system, as you are here

My use of the term "you" is based on what you have shouted for in your own comments here on slashdot. You have repeatedly called for the removal of the POTUS simply for being a democrat. You have repeatedly called for the legal system to be jettisoned like last week's garbage simply to further your aspirations towards ending the presidency of a democrat early. You have repeatedly called for the consumption of vast amounts of time and money to further your favorite witch hunt of the week.

Just because you did not personally select the investigator for this does not mean this is not what you have been screaming for for the past 8 years. You came almost completely unhinged as soon as you realized the white house was going back to blue and haven't looked back since.

You won't be happy with his findings. You have already shown a hatred for the legal system; will you therefore call Gowdy's findings "tainted" and call for another investigator? Or will you just go ahead and start calling for people to raise pitchforks?

You speak of speculation as though it were fact.

You have already tried inserting your dreams of a grand jury. I am instead inserting reality. Try it some time; you likely won't like it but it will help you prepare for what is to come.

News flash: I really don't care about political parties, and think we should systematically weaken them all. Nothing about politics is about "my team" verses "yours".

On this one, I must call bullshit. You have been consistently trying to make a claim that the guys from your party are somehow philosophically superior to the current POTUS, even though the POTUS has signed every bill that your party has brought him, and outdone your party on the ambitions that they had - same direction but greater magnitude - only a couple years ago.

Look at you insisting that the GOP is my party.

Smitty, I really, really, wish you would go back to actually reading text before vomiting out responses to them. I did not say anything in that block of text about the GOP. I know that you on occasion claim to not support the GOP. I also know that on occasion you emphatically endorse people from the GOP. I don't really care which party you claim to be part of at this moment today. The point is that you have representation in congress, you have members in both the house and senate who you cheer for and agree with. Those members have authored, voted in favor of, and delivered bills. Those bills have been signed by the POTUS at an acceptance rate higher than nearly any other in history.

In other words, don't pretend that you don't control the white house as well.

I'm not sure how Trey Gowdy is doing anything illegal

I never suggested he is doing anything illegal. You are, once again, trying to insert words that were not used. I'm sorry that your argument is so lacking that you feel yourself left to do such a thing. What I have said is that it is a waste of money, and more so, it is only the beginning of the money that you are determined to waste.

So, if Gowdy is behaving legally, and wasting money is the chief end of government, what was the issue, again?

Your dodge of your own lie is noted. As for the second part of your response, just because you see all of government spending as being inherently wasteful does not mean that other people agree with you. In spite of your beliefs, there is government spending that benefits people - even spending that benefits you.

So we have a symmetry centered around not wasting time reading sources we deem unreliable, misinformative, or useless. Whoopdy do.

No, this is in no way symmetric. You linked to a partisan review of original work, which I correctly labeled as such. There is no original work in the pajamas article, it is not even close to being in the same league of relevance as the NYTimes or Senate investigation reports. Furthermore, as you have shown that you will take pride in illiteracy when you don't like the source, will you do the same when the investigator doesn't find adequate justification for calling a grand jury? How many investigators do you want to call in order to try to get the results you want? Will you hold an impeachment of Obama in 2017? 2018? 2019? 2020? You certainly won't get it done before election day of 2016.

I've got more confidence in the integrity of Bashar Assad than I do Harry Reid.

That was the most substantive part of your "response", there. Why did you even bother quoting it when you didn't bother addressing it?

Your claim of disinterest in this witch hunt is thoroughly discredited by the volume of text you have produced showing your enthusiasm for the same.

I'm not interested in conducting the investigation.

Is that you distancing yourself from it because you know it won't lead to impeachment?

From the standpoint of our military, which has to know absolutely that our elected leadership is backing it fully to the hilt when the tungsten flies, we really need to get the full play-by-play out there.

I don't recall "incapable of ever making a mistake, ever" being a job requirement of the presidency. Why was this never a requirement before? We certainly have had other people on Pennsylvania Ave make military mistakes, which cost far more than 4 lives.

Your own writing plainly illustrates your infinite faith in the conspiracy theories that you help to propagate regarding the POTUS. To make the point more clear, let us compare these two critical items of your faith - Jesus and your faith in bringing down the POTUS with a conspiracy theory:

  • Which one do you put more time into on a daily basis?
  • Which one do you write about more often?
  • Which one do you write about in larger volume?
  • Which one do you put more of your money towards?

I suspect the latter option to be the correct answer for you on all four counts.

Sorry, the Benghazi thing is mostly about trolling you. This exchange, itself, is 95% of the time I spend on the topic. I do this because you seem kinda needy, as though your personality would implode without infusions of Benghazi riffs. But really: who is spending money on this?

We see that you refuse to answer the questions. Duly noted. Interesting that you feel free to do the discussion equivalent of "plead the fifth" here, when you want to ensure that no such option is extended to the person you want to throw out of Washington.

The goal is facts

I wish that statement was true. If the facts were truly your goal then you would read all the reports that have information that relate to your conspiracy theories, without disqualifying them based on your preconceived notions of who wrote them. You have basically at this point read an article from pajamas advising you to shove a hot poker in your eye, then opted to outdo their suggestion by shoving it into both eyes, and finally proceeded to run around blaming your blindness on Obama. The first was a poor idea, the second an atrociously bad one, and the third one that is thoroughly illogical in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Sorry, I can't make any sense of this passage.

The point is that your statement of "the goal is facts" is utter bullshit. You are clearly interested in punishment and blame. Facts haven't mattered to you on this regard for a long, long time.

I expect you would want to have me thrown in jail if we met in person. That said, buying a cup of coffee doesn't say anything about what your next call will be when Gowdy does not call a grand jury. Everything you have written to date supports the notion that you will just demand more investigations, until you get one that gives you the answers you want.

Jail is an ugly place. Are you saying that jailing you is needful?

I am saying that you are aiming to make a crime out of "being alive while not being exceptionally conservative". I don't agree that such a thing should be considered criminal any more so than the inverse of it.

I should think the fact that I continue to have any dialogue with you at all indicates that I'm quite a tolerant, forgiving person.

The way you opt not to read does not support your claim of tolerance. Your claim of being forgiving does not make any sense either, considering the things you try to offer forgiveness for.

the NYT

... the rest of your line was too ridiculous to merit repeating. Yes, we know you refused - and continue to refuse - to read the article. Yes, we know you will never have a good reason for doing so.

Give me The Onion, or at least National Enquirer.

You are, again, leveling a faith-based claim to knowledge and superiority there. You could have read the article many times over in the amount of time you have spent bragging about not having read it. I can't make you not hate the Times, nor can I make you stop your illiteracy campaign. I can, however, continue to point out how silly you make yourself look while on it.

This isn't about "winning". This is about honesty, which you have happily discarded in this matter. You used to be an honest man, I remember that from your past writings. Now you are driven only by partisan hatred, and you have no qualms about spending billions of dollars on a completely futile effort to destroy someone purely because of the party that selected him to run for office.

Keep in mind that I don't really believe you either, at any point. I laugh at your cheap "You used to be an honest man" ploy.

I believe you to be honestly representing your personal faith. I agree with pretty much none of it, but it is your own faith and you are free to hold on to it as you wish. There is nothing cheap or "ploy" driven about stating that you used to be an honest man. As time as marched forward your replies have become more about attacking me, making up things that I did not say, and trying to trick me into saying silly things.

And honestly, your replies have been so repetitive that I'm surprised you haven't tripped the slashdot lameness filter for using the same bit over and over again.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47306095)

It sounds as though we've run our course.

why do you continue in this discussion at all?"

I happen to have enough time to support this Argument Clinic. When it's gone, it's gone.

Because you have never given ANY facts to support your undying screams for impeachment.

We have the events of September-November 2011 as probably cause for suspicion. Or does your calendar just have a gaping hole there?

When pajamas tells you that his results are somehow wrong - based on the fact that he won't find reason to call a grand jury for impeachment - what will you do then?

How do you know this will happen? Were you not just hammering ME about a supposed lack of facts?

You have repeatedly called for the removal of the POTUS simply for being a democrat.

That's a lie, but I'll call it hyperbole because I'm such a swell guy of the sort who would never call for the removal of a figure simply for membership in a certain party. #Duh

We see that you refuse to answer the questions. Duly noted.

I did too answer you questions. You quoted the answers yourself. You may not LIKE the answers, as though they were members of an odious party, but I wish you would not call for their removal from the dialogue on that basis alone, you big meanie.

your statement of "the goal is facts" is utter bullshit. You are clearly interested in punishment and blame.

My goal is the facts, displayed such that no President, EVER, repeats the alleged pattern of rodeo clownery afoot at Benghazi.

I am saying that you are aiming to make a crime out of "being alive while not being exceptionally conservative".

Wait, aren't you on record, saying that Obama is a conservative? Does this new silliness mean you are walking back your old silliness, or aiming for some new hybrid silliness synthesis?

And honestly, your replies have been so repetitive that I'm surprised you haven't tripped the slashdot lameness filter for using the same bit over and over again.

Well as long as it's ME that is the boring, repetitive one. I'm happy to give you the Last Word. Just use that as the title in a reply, or go A/C, and I'll know that we're concluding.

Re:Excuse me (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47310993)

Because you have never given ANY facts to support your undying screams for impeachment.

We have the events of September-November 2011 as probably cause for suspicion. Or does your calendar just have a gaping hole there?

The Benghazi attacks that are a key part of your favorite (by comment volume) conspiracy theory occurred on September 11, 2012. If there is something critical to them that happened the year prior, please share that in more specific terms.

When pajamas tells you that his results are somehow wrong - based on the fact that he won't find reason to call a grand jury for impeachment - what will you do then?

How do you know this will happen?

I can confidently state that this will happen because the attacks have already been investigated independently. Your blatant and proud refusal to read the reports that came from those investigations only makes your argument look that much sillier.

You have repeatedly called for the removal of the POTUS simply for being a democrat.

That's a lie

None of your conspiracies have had factual support beyond your hatred of all things democrat.

We see that you refuse to answer the questions. Duly noted.

I did too answer you questions.

No, you did not. You quoted the questions and then went on about something else entirely.

I will give you a little leeway on this matter, however. You have given plenty of reason previously to expect that you are someone who holds their faith to be very important. My questions indeed challenged the depth of your faith, and you may well have felt insulted by them. If you felt insulted, I do apologize for hurting your feelings. We can just agree that you chose not to answer the questions, and move on.

your statement of "the goal is facts" is utter bullshit. You are clearly interested in punishment and blame.

My goal is the facts, displayed such that no President, EVER, repeats the alleged pattern of being a democrat afoot at Benghazi.

Employing extralegal mechanisms to remove the POTUS won't help that any more than capital punishment has reduced the per capita murder rate.

I am saying that you are aiming to make a crime out of "being alive while not being exceptionally conservative".

Wait, aren't you on record, saying that Obama is a conservative? Does this new silliness

There is nothing silly about this. Obama is demonstrably the most conservative president our country has ever had. You want a president who is even more conservative, and you want Obama out at any cost. You also don't seem the least bit concerned with the fact that you are actively pushing for the election of a president who would push our country even further in the direction we have been going for decades, which so far has not worked well for >>99% of the country.

Are we ready for the punchline, then? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47311747)

W: America’s Longest-Serving President [pjmedia.com]
George W. Bush really should step down after six terms in office.

I'm afraid you've been out-hooeyed.

Re:Are we ready for the punchline, then? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47311889)

That's just silly. You are again painting me with the same broad strokes that you love to apply to anyone who is less conservative than yourself. I don't blame GWB for the new problems that have come to our country since the inauguration of Obama. When you go for your labeling initiatives you make yourself look just as sill as you do when you run around trying to get people to call you a racist for not supporting Obama.

But if you don't want to actually discuss issues - or, at least, not with people who have opinions that don't match your own - then why do you post on them here? Doesn't pajamas have a discussion forum where you can post to only people who agree with you? Just because slashdot has an overwhelming (by front page article and discussion post volume) conservative majority doesn't mean that everyone will agree with your extreme conservative views; you will on occasion find your comments attracting replies from people who are actually aware of what is going on.

Re:Are we ready for the punchline, then? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47312421)

But if you don't want to actually discuss issues - or, at least, not with people who have opinions that don't match your own - then why do you post on them here?

Because. . .I feel like it?
I actually enjoy discussing issues; the tendency for discussions with you devolve into an Argument Clinic is not representative.

Re:Are we ready for the punchline, then? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47313705)

But if you don't want to actually discuss issues - or, at least, not with people who have opinions that don't match your own - then why do you post on them here?

Because. . .I feel like it?

That is a perfectly valid reason to post. What it doesn't explain though is why you don't just post them "comments disabled", as you don't want to discuss issues with people who disagree with you anymore.

I actually enjoy discussing issues

It's true that you can have a discussion with only people who agree with you. It's also true that your argument likely won't improve from it, and you likely won't learn anything from the experience either.

I'm sorry that you find yourself personally insulted when I challenge you to think.

the tendency for discussions with you devolve into an Argument Clinic is not representative.

When one of us enters the discussion without any real intention to answer real questions, the discussion doesn't have much hope of being lasting or valuable.

Re:Are we ready for the punchline, then? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47314405)

What it doesn't explain though is why you don't just post them "comments disabled", as you don't want to discuss issues with people who disagree with you anymore.

Are you confusing your brow-beatings with actual discussion?

It's true that you can have a discussion with only people who agree with you.

That's actually not the case. Don't we belie that Right. In. This. Very. Thread. for heaven's sake? Or does "discussion" mean "succumbing to your worldview" in d_r speak?

the discussion doesn't have much hope of being lasting or valuable.

Discussion with you is always valuable as a research endeavor into Intermediate Commie Browbeating Techniques.

Re:Are we ready for the punchline, then? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a month ago | (#47319729)

What it doesn't explain though is why you don't just post them "comments disabled", as you don't want to discuss issues with people who disagree with you anymore.

Are you confusing your brow-beatings with actual discussion?

I'm sorry that my questions leave you feeling such a victim. This still leaves one to wonder why you bother posting your JEs with comments enabled for all however, when it seems you don't actually want comments from anyone who doesn't share your opinion. Or at the very least, you don't seem to welcome topical questions from anyone who does not agree with you.

It's true that you can have a discussion with only people who agree with you.

That's actually not the case. Don't we belie that Right. In. This. Very. Thread.

I haven't seen you actually discuss anything in this thread with anyone who held a different opinion from your own. Granted I am not interested in reading every comment you wrote in this thread to people who are of your same political stripes, but I can't find any you have written to anyone of unmatched stripes where you actually discussed anything with them.

Discussion with you is always valuable as a research endeavor into Intermediate Commie Browbeating Techniques.

That is a strange way to indicate that you don't want to have a discussion. Granted, you gave plenty of other comments in this discussion that also conveyed that idea clearly, but if this is the cherry on your "don't-talk-to-me" sundae it is rather unusual.

Re:Are we ready for the punchline, then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47320461)

Last word to you.

Re:Excuse me (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a month ago | (#47287357)

The irony is that we have crusaders like Her Majesty wailing about the need to tax the rich [cbsnews.com], while pumping the loopholes like mad.

Just an FYI, even though it seems hypocritical to us, it's not really, because to collectivists, it doesn't do squat unless (almost) everyone is in it. For the same reason why Warren Buffet won't just send in a bunch more of his money to the government, but would gladly do it if officially demanded by the government of all rich pukes. I.e. it's not personal integrity that's important to Lefties, it's the gloriousness of large, far-reaching schemes forcing what they want for the system. It's about what they would feel good about and what wouldn't make them feel any better about the country or world. Merely living up, for oneself, to one's own standards is not enough for them to derive satisfaction and be content.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47287577)

Our tax code is pretty much a joke perpetrated against honest people.
Make it fit on one side of one page in a legible font.
Cap the people administering it at five years or so before forcing them out.

Re:Excuse me (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a month ago | (#47287855)

But no one ever agrees on a simpler tax code. A good portion of the Right are bastards who want that "fair tax" thing. I'm for a single tax rate for everyone, no deductions, but most people would scream bloody murder at no mortgage or charity deductions. (It's illegal (and immoral) for the govt. to financially incentivize certain life choices, and thereby penalize those who choose otherwise.)

But your idea of term limits for federal employees beyond just politicians is brilliant. In a way the unelected and unaccountable in govt. are more dangerous than our representatives (and oftentimes more powerful), so term limits is needed even moreso for them. We could start by getting rid of pensions, for anyone in govt. who's not a LEO on the streets, a firefighter, or active duty military. A fucking desk jockey's body isn't used up after 20 years of pencil pushing (or watching porn, or whatever govt. bureaucrats do nowadays when they're not thinking up ways for their agency to usurp more power, or build its own army). Removal of that jackpot would probably provide for some natural turnover.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47287985)

The important question to me is the feedback loop that stabilizes the system.
My tax system would treat the 50 states as subscribers. The knife fight would be about how the budget is apportioned to the 50 states; population, economic activity, so forth.
The budget is capped at the receipts from the previous year at the Treasury.
States that fail to meet their number have a makeup sales tax assessed against them. This incentivizes the states to keep the budget minimal.
Strike the 16th Amendment. The Federal government can only address the military, its employees, and federal criminals as individuals. The rest of the private citizens are private.

Re:Excuse me (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a month ago | (#47289937)

More concentrated brilliance from yourself. I've thought the tax system should be a strict chain up the hierarchy, with higher-up levels of government with no power to directly address in taxation anything but its next lower level. No doubt influenced by MH42's thinking and posting on concentric levels of governance and less power over the individual as you get less local.

So I would pay taxes only to my city, for what it needs to operate plus whatever its share is to the county, which would be determined by what the county needed to operate plus its share to the state, etc. Then while dumping the 16th Amendment, get rid of the 17th as well and set the Senate back to a body of juggling states' interests, and determining what the federal apparatus needs to operate.

And yes, we are a republic of states of governance that are also united into a whole, and not supposed to be a monolithic, 2-level nation, of the rulers and the ruled. Barring your exceptions, the federal level should not even legally be able to contact individuals, as not federal citizens but as the city citizens that we should be. Each level of government should only be able to legislate in units of the level of government below it.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47290217)

Looks great on screen; getting it implemented's another issue.

Re:Excuse me (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a month ago | (#47290319)

Part of the problem is that our Founding Fathers were onto something, but didn't take it far enough. A lot more decentralization is required to stave off tyranny. And that's not what the American system has been, so change is probably limited to only restoring the limited amount of checks and balances that were originally designed in.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47290541)

They took it as far as they could in the time they had. Now, in the Information Age, we have to try and pick up the torch again and even advance it.

Re:Excuse me (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a month ago | (#47290633)

You have the optimism necessary in a politician. I wish people who had their good sense intact would run for public office. Except for the clergy, what could be a more important job in times like these where America is in shambles and Americanism is crumpling fast.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47291857)

I have an optimism born of faith, but the same faith breeds a disdain for wielding power over others.

Re:Excuse me (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a month ago | (#47292061)

How odd. I suspect a lot of my pessimism comes from my faith, from knowing why things are the way they are, and that they could only be that way, and that they're supposed to be that way.

And you would have a problem casting Right-wing votes if you ran on that and won a majority in your area of representation? That's not tyranny, that's representative democracy. Very odd.

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47292157)

If I ran on the social conservative platform representing what I actually believe, the only vote I should win is for crucifixion. But I'm not a martyr.
The challenge we have, and I think we'll see this borne out after November, is that even if victorious, the Republican Party is going to fight a tremendous amount of inertia trying to put teeth in the "elections have consequences" meme.
My gut is with the Convention of States [conventionofstates.com] for delivering any real improvement; while our individual change comes by faith through the Holy Spirit, the governmental reform we need must be external and delivered via blunt force trauma.

Re:Excuse me (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a month ago | (#47292361)

If I ran on the social conservative platform representing what I actually believe, the only vote I should win is for crucifixion.

MH42 said something similar recently, that with his social positions he couldn't get elected to a water board. So anyone who's socially Conservative shouldn't bother running for office/we should only have the morally misfiring to choose from?

(And you disdain wielding power over people, but you'd do it to enforce your social views? That's not much disdain then.)

Re:Excuse me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47292575)

Oh, I'm pretty sure we'll all get water-boarded soon enough. :-)
Two points about elective office:
(1) It would take some clear direction from God, and a mood shift on my wife's part, to make it tenable.
(2) One of my quirks is that I do not equate morality and ethics [theothermccain.com] . Public office is an ethical matter. You enforce the law of the land as-is, not as-personally-desired.

Re:Excuse me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47260613)

Yes, before the present regime, the IRS was an outstanding organization. Your continued bias rears its ugly head once again. Thank you for confirming.

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...