Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: niwdoG 24
Playing the Godwin card when the topic is really the meaning, ownership, and usage of the symbol "Socialist" (by, for example, the U.S.S.R) is really kinda l4m3.
Yet, strangely, in character.
Yet, strangely, in character.
You explicitly brought up the Nazis (Score:2)
I'm actually more surprised that you forgot to place the racist card this time. Usually you go for that one by now.
There is a definition (Score:1)
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.
I think calling someone a Nazi lands somewhere between lame and tasteless. .
Help me out: how does pointing out that a symbol is an acronym comprised of other symbols, e.g. . .
Trumped by your desperate attempts to differentiate them by, like, an order of magnitude. National Socialist German Workers Party. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Own it. [slashdot.org]
. . .constitute labeling comparing you to anything? The only thing you were encouraged to own (that is, acknowledge) was the literal presence of the symbol "Socialism" in the acronyms of both a political party and a country. Milady, thou dost protest too much, methinks. But that, at least, is i
Re: (Score:3)
I think calling someone a Nazi lands somewhere between lame and tasteless.
You - incorrectly, I will again point out - offered the Nazis as examples of socialists. That certainly meets the criteria of
compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism
Particularly when you were trying to group all socialists together, does it not?
Trumped by your desperate attempts to differentiate them by, like, an order of magnitude. National Socialist German Workers Party. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Own it.
. . .constitute labeling comparing you to anything?
I did not state that you were calling me a Nazi. I stated that you, in desperation, explicitly brought up the Nazis in your comments.
The only thing you were encouraged to own (that is, acknowledge) was the literal presence of the symbol "Socialism" in the acronyms of both a political party and a country.
If you were only trying to say that they were using the word, then you would have been factual. You were, however, plainly trying to call them actual socialists - whi
Re: (Score:1)
If you were only trying to say that they were using the word, then you would have been factual. You were, however, plainly trying to call them actual socialists - which is completely inaccurate. As I have stated multiple times now over the past several days, politicians can place whatever words they want in their (or their party's) description, but that doesn't mean they are accurate.
Oh, so, like your bogus attempts to call Obama "conservative", then?
Re: (Score:2)
If you were only trying to say that they were using the word, then you would have been factual. You were, however, plainly trying to call them actual socialists - which is completely inaccurate. As I have stated multiple times now over the past several days, politicians can place whatever words they want in their (or their party's) description, but that doesn't mean they are accurate.
Oh, so, like your bogus attempts to call Obama "conservative", then?
You have that backwards. Obama is a conservative by his actions, while the Nazis are socialist only by name. Just because Obama doesn't call himself conservative doesn't mean he isn't, and when the books are written we will recognize him as the most conservative president to date in our country. Now granted in 2016 we could elect someone like Rick Perry who is more conservative yet - and watch the world burn - but to date no president has been more conservative.
Nice distraction, there. The main poi
Re: (Score:1)
when the books are written we will recognize him as the most conservative president to date in our country
Let us be non-partisan and agree that the books will show him to have been the most systematically deceptive President in history, and a discredit to the ideals (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) that inform our Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
when the books are written we will recognize him as the most conservative president to date in our country
Let us be non-partisan and agree that the books will show him to have been the most systematically deceptive President in history
It appears that you are comparing Obama's actions to the idea of Obama [artvoice.com]. I will even say that he is not living up to the ideals that I had for him, in that I thought he would be marginally liberal (or at least approaching the right edge of center) and he turned out instead to be more conservative than any other president we have ever elected.
and a discredit to the ideals (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) that inform our Constitution.
I would ask you to elaborate on this, but pretty much every comment you have written to me in the past 2-3 years (or more) have supported the notion that you will not
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You, sir, are more Gruber than Jonathan Gruber.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be one thing if you were coming here to learn about a topic that you have no working knowledge of. However your comments show that you not only are completely lacking in knowledge but you are also complete
"Are you doing this just to waste. . ." (Score:1)
Are you doing this just to waste other peoples' time?
I suppose, this far along, you can level a "wasting time" allegation. This is as laughable as the rest of your arguments. This is a mutual entertainment venue, and we're all consenting adults. If you're getting cramps in personal locations over anything on Slashdot, it's totally your own fault. There is no "victim" here.
But do stay beautiful, you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hahahahahahahaha, you're such a throne sniffer. Stay beautiful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I never once claimed to have any such superiority over you
Even your punctuation is condescending.
Truth and morality are orthogonal dimensions, just as socialism and fascism are orthogonal political ideas.
Oh, maybe in the abstract. Dare you involve actual people, and everything goes pear-shaped. This is why the genius of the U.S. Constitution is to assert outright that people are evil, and set up checks and balances to minimize the effects. Which #OccupyResoluteDesk is systematically ignoring, while Congress and the Courts, as a whole, are abetting.
Your assertion of the orthogonality of socialism and fascism is akin to saying that your C++ source code is crash-free--of
Re: (Score:2)
This is why the genius of the U.S. Constitution is to assert outright that people are evil
Excepting that whole "innocent until proven guilty" bit, of course. But you don't like that statement so you can ignore it, right?
and set up checks and balances to minimize the effects.
Impeachment is supposed to include an actual trial with actual presentations of actual fact, not a show trial heard by an angry mob.
Your assertion of the orthogonality of socialism and fascism is akin to saying that your C++ source code is crash-free--of course it is: until you compile it, execute it, and blame the ensuing stack trace on conservatives.
The rest of the world - including those who have actually experienced (or at least read meaningful documents on) socialism and/or communism - acknowledges the validity of the two-dimensional political spectrum. Your insistence on a one-dimension
Re: (Score:1)
This is why the genius of the U.S. Constitution is to assert outright that people are evil
Excepting that whole "innocent until proven guilty" bit, of course.
Did you really just say that?
I mean, as the Enlightened Being here, I should think it hardly necessary to explain that the theological understanding that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" is orthogonal to the legal notion of innocence until guilt is proven.
I hasten to add that the notion that people are imperfect, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Acton) is BY NO MEANS an argument that the U.S. Constitution is in a divinely "inspired" document. The document is sim
Re: (Score:2)
This is why the genius of the U.S. Constitution is to assert outright that people are evil
Excepting that whole "innocent until proven guilty" bit, of course.
Did you really just say that?
I did, because you want to discard the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty - as well as protection from double jeopardy and other basic rights extended to the accused in the criminal justice system in this country - when the accused is someone who has the dreaded letter D after their name. I figured your bit about "people are evil" was rooted in the mythology that you like to arbitrarily substitute in place of the law here in the US.
I should think it hardly necessary to explain that the theological understanding that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" is orthogonal to the legal notion of innocence until guilt is proven.
Just stop it (Score:1)
you want to discard the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty - as well as protection from double jeopardy and other basic rights extended to the accused in the criminal justice system in this country - when the accused is someone who has the dreaded letter D after their name.
This is false, you know it's false, and you're just trolling to say that I would:
(a) disregard the Constitution I've sworn to support and defend, even in the case of the rank idiocy to which you seem to tend,
(b) set a precedent that would surely be used as a club against me
You can let that go right there.
Your political spectrum actually is better represented as a monopole, really. You only have people who you see as "good" (republicans) and those who you see as evil (everyone else). You don't even bother looking at what they actually believe in, only who they associate with. The obsolete one-dimensional political spectrum at least sorts on some sort of continuum, yours is binary.
Oh yeah! Well, your system is like kryptonite mixed with anti-matter! [Trying to come up with a formulation as silly as yours.]
So, is your new strategy to accuse your way to "victory", whatever that is?